Saturday, November 22, 2008
47 comments:
Your First Amendment right to free speech is a privilege and comes with a measure of responsibility. You have the right to exercise that responsibility here but we reserve the right to inform you when you've used that right irresponsibly.
We are benevolent dictators in this regard. Enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Sorry, MA, for stepping on your post...I just couldn't pass this one up.
ReplyDeleteThat's why I put my comment on my own blog, Dad. I started to post it here, but saw that Art had already posted one today so I just put it on my blog.
ReplyDeleteDid you, did anyone expect he would really change anything? I didn't.
Expand your thought a little. Are you saying that the political office inside the White House was a bad thing? Should it be closed?
ReplyDeleteI take a more pragmatic view that the White House is an intersection of policy and politics. It's idiotic to say that politics don't influence policy and should have no position in the White House. My criticism was that in the Bush administration political considerations were overbearing policy decisions.
"Expand your thought a little. Are you saying that the political office inside the White House was a bad thing? Should it be closed?"
ReplyDeleteNo, BenT. I'm saying it's what YOU people were saying all along.
Hope. Change. Not.
So now the socialist marxist is just a Bush third term.
ReplyDeleteYou know, when you play with a unravelled mind it's awfully hard to connect the dots.
Ed Rollins, he of the original political office first established by Ronald Reagan along with Lynn Nofziger, had an editorial in the NYT encouraging Obama to keep the office.
You guys are joke within your own herd.
You can have fun thinking that if you like, Feodor. But simply because we question the motives and wonder about the direction of the new president doesn't mean we've flip-flopped on our positions. If he acts in accordance with his campaign rhetoric and past performance, we'll see a far left movement in our political system and the laws it brings about. If, however, we see more Clintonistas being selected to fill positions in his cabinet, then to wonder where the change will come is a reasonable question as it appears to contradict his campaign. Does this clear it up for you a bit, or do you just prefer nit-picking every word and assuming some fantasy as a result?
ReplyDeleteAl,
ReplyDeleteApology rejected for lack of need. You feel strongly about something, post away. We're all trying to figure this guy out, unlike our opponents who believe fantasies about him.
Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, chiefs of staff, Andrew Card and Josh Bolton. All came from Nixon, Reagan, and GHW Bush administrations.
ReplyDeleteAnd yet they carried out things under GW Bush that none of those Presidents would or did approve of.
To change things in Washington, you have to have some people who know how it works. Obama sets the agenda, the other serve at his pleasure.
Nut-tucking MA needs to think a bit deeper.
Now news comes that Obama is not going to put Bush/Cheney torture doctrines through an investigation by the Department of Justice but perhaps, more kindly, establish a commission to make public all that can be made public about what atrocities have been done in our name and recommend where we should balance Geneva conventions as a country fighting 21st century terrorism. This is how a democratic nation that rests on freedom and government by the people should behave. No retribution. Open examination and moving forward.
Ideas unknown to you hicks.
This is great! For four years, we get to hear the leftists justifying the contradictory moves of their messiah!
ReplyDeleteWonderful.
Predictable.
The most recent democratic administration was Bill Clinton. If you're putting together a team of presidential staff and you want people with experience and who can hit the ground a full speed, you have to look to the Clinton administration.
ReplyDeleteWhat's fun is to see Izard use a sixteen word sentence for the first time. Usually it's three and out. Then another three word sentence. Then two. Then one. One. And, finally, (sigh).
ReplyDeleteWell that's all well and good, but even lefty sites are concerned regarding Obama's appointments.
ReplyDeleteRegarding not using the DoJ, as the nut-sucking Feodor suggested, it could also mean he realizes that torture accusations are merely lefty rhetoric void of substance. Or, it's a complete diversion in order to put it on the back burner and out of the public's mind to preserve for future use by his own people if needed. A president with any brains would likely not want any restrictions on defending his people, even if he chooses against certain practices. No one wants to nuke, but would you really not want the option if the option was likely the best?
"...make public all that can be made public about what atrocities have been done in our name..." -Feodora
ReplyDeleteShouldn't that be "...what atrocities may or may NOT have been done..."?
Under the circumstances, waterboarding doesn't qualify.
It's hard to make public atrocities that have not been done.
ReplyDeleteYou're just a master at common sense.
Dude, that doesn't EVEN make sense.
ReplyDeleteIzard,
ReplyDeleteA list of atrocities NOT committed (by GITMO or by anyone anywhere) would be a list of all conceivable atrocities possible but never done. So... give me a week and I can think of thousands (say, buried naked in snow).
Why would anyone make public imagined atrocities.
"Ladies and Gentlemen, I am here today to report the finding of our investigation and the first thing I want to make public are the atrocities never committed. For instance, GITMO never made prisoners eat English blood cake. I just want to be clear about that."
Your addition of "NOT" is therefore senseless.
"So... give me a week and I can think of thousands..."
ReplyDeleteI don't need a week...or a second to start the list.
Just list abortion statistics on line one.Murdering the innocent vs making life inconvenient for terrorists.
We know which side you'll come down on, Feodora, don't we?
What's goona suck for you, is that the gratest events that the left deems to be atrocities will fall on the watches of Democrat POTUSes.
Nukes, Japanese internment...you get the drift.
I have no doubt that you would have been comfortably home in the Arkansas Democratic Party of 1945.
ReplyDeleteOr among those stirred up by Pope Urban II.
The assumption of your statement, though, is an agreement that the Democratic Party of today is a morally concerned one.
"...Democratic Party of today is a morally concerned one..."
ReplyDeleteYet, we know that the actions of the modern Democrat Party betrays it as an amoral one.
It would have been IMMORAL to have continued a ground-war in Japan as we would have HAD to do minus Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
It is IMMORAL to allow known murderous thugs who have threatened each and every one of our citizens and proven their threats are real to remain silent about their groups' activities and future terroristic plans.
Don't EVER speak of the modern Democrat party as being moral...only morally bankrupt.
I have a feeling, however, that Obama-Messiah...after his intelligence briefings of late, has had reality smack him square in the face.
And humility more often than not results in moral behavior.
It doesn't occur to your cheaply moral mind that a number of possibilities exist between what Truman did and a ground war only. Where there on other targets with higher military targets and lower civilian targets?
ReplyDeleteYou're incapacity to critically think outside the sandbox and reflect on possibilities unrealized handicaps what you can possibly know of higher moral behavior.
The Democratic Party is responsible for:
Head Start
Federal funding for public schools for the first time
Medicare
Medicaid
The 1968 Heart, Cancer and Stroke legislation has provided funds to create meical in every major American city
The 1965 Health Professions Educational Assistance Act provided resources to double the number of doctors graduating from medical schools, from 8,000 to 16,000excellence in just about every major city
The 1964 food stamp program helped feed more than 20 million men, women, and children in more than 8 million households
1967 School breakfast program has provided food for 100 million hungry American kids
Taken together, these programs have played a pivotal role in recasting America's demographic profile. In 1964, life expectancy was 66.6 years for men and 73.1 years for women (69.7 years overall). In a single generation, by 1997, life expectancy jumped 10 percent: for men, to 73.6 years; for women, to 79.2 years (76.5 years overall). The jump was highest among the less advantaged, suggesting that better nutrition and access to health care have played an even larger role than medical miracles. Infant mortality stood at 26 deaths for each 1,000 live births when LBJ took office; today it stands at only 7.3 deaths per 1,000 live births, a reduction of almost 75 percent.
During Johnson's administration, the number of Americans living below the poverty line dropped from 22.2 percent to 12.6 percent, the most dramatic decline over such a brief period in this century. Since then, the poverty rate has hovered at about the 13 percent level and sits at 13.3 percent today, still a disgraceful level in the context of the greatest economic boom in our history. But if the Great Society had not achieved that dramatic reduction in poverty, and the nation had not maintained it, 24 million more Americans would today be living below the poverty level.
This would be just one of the modern Democratic Presidencies.
But not one Republican administration comes close to 30% of those numbers.
The Democratic Party is the morally concerned party.
Look around you, Feodora. Look at how many innocent citizens are murdered in the womb because of Democrat primnciples. Look at the intolerance towards good religious citizens displayed by Democrats and Democrat policies. Look at the sexual moral bankruptcy that has created so much poverty and harmed so many children in our society.
ReplyDeleteThe Democrat party is the party of irresponsiblilty.
Irresponsibility is IMMORAL!
And to suggest that Republicans...conservatives...have not been instrumental in the struggle for justice in this nation is completely absurd.
It was the Democrat Party that fought to keep slavery. It is Modern Democrat Party that keeps American citizens enslaved to this day.
For you to continually ignore the evil your party perpetuates in this country is both entertaining and disgusting.
Churches worship freely. If not for American democracy and its defense by the ACLU and others, I don't know if the same situation would exist for synagogues, mosques, Buddhist temples, etc.
ReplyDeleteFreedom of speech and capitalism, which you think are under attack, are also the foundations for protections of pornography, lewd advertisements, violence and lust on television, etc.
Roe v. Wade is the law of the land upheld for 40 years now, under more Republican presidential terms than Democratic ones, 7 to 3, by a Supreme Court of appointees from both parties. Both Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy, who had the power of the swing vote, were appointed by Republicans.
The party of Lincoln has been taken over by hate and hate mongers. It did not nominate the first minority presidential candidate.
You've lost, on all counts.
The Democratic Party is the morally concerned party.
America has lost, Feodora.
ReplyDeleteThe Democrat party is the champion of immorality.
As I said...look around.
I especially enjoy the charge of "hate". Please list an example or two of conservative "hate" that seems so apparent to you, Feodor.
ReplyDeleteHey al, fetuses in the womb are not citizens.
ReplyDeleteIn the words of Antonin Scalia:
"I think when the Constitution says that “persons are entitled to equal protection of the laws” I think it clearly means walking-around persons. You don’t count pregnant women twice."
Jim,
ReplyDeleteScalia's a brilliant legal mind. But he's entitled to be wrong. I have no doubt that the framers naturally were thinking of born people when they crafted the Constitution. But babies don't walk around, either. Were they not considered human beings entitled to full protection? I fully doubt that the thought of abortion becoming "the law of the land" would ever have crossed the minds of even the most forward thinking founder. I think it's a fair wager that they'd likely be aghast at the thought of it, that they would never suppose they'd need to address the issue.
So to say that a strict look at intent behind the Constitution precludes any consideration of the unborn might be accurate, that does not mean, particularly with our scientific advances, that Roe v Wade would ever have been a possibility for the founders.
Feodor,
ReplyDeleteYou've nothing upon which to base the accusation that conservatism or the Republican Party would ever have interfered with synagogues, mosques, Buddhist temples, or any other non-Christian house of worship. This is just lame lefty fear mongering and propaganda.
Freedom of speech was meant for political speech, the freedom to criticize the government without fear of arrest or persecution. It had nothing to do with porn until the ACLU and other leftists forced those issues. Honorable men understand this.
Decisions like Roe are often given a level of respect as precedent by honorable justices of any persuasion, and likely more so by conservative justices as their respect for what's gone before is often stronger. Presidents can't change law, only press for legislation. Obviously there are enough misinformed about abortion as well as those, even on the right, who see other things as being more of a priority. But true respect and compassion for those, the most innocent and vulnerable of our species definitely comes from the right. Only immoral people would ever consider that life as having no worth.
The Democrat Party is the party of enablers, who allow for the worst of human nature to be protected by law rather than encourage the weak and lazy to rise to better themselves, and by doing so, our culture and society.
Libraries weren't even safe under Bush.
ReplyDelete"Freedom of speech was meant for political speech." This may be true if you are talking about Milton. As far as human rights, it means a lot more, including the right to seek information and ideas, to receive information and ideas and to disseminate information and ideas. This is can be done orally, in print, art, web, etc. Porn has been around for millennia. Hardly a result of the ACLU, which also protects you, idiot.
No Republican president pressed to repeal Roe v. Wade.
Between you and Scalia, I'm with Scalia. And Democrats will reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and the number of abortions by not putting kids in a no win situation by withholding education, information, and condoms as a measure of last resort.
The Democratic Party is the morally concerned party.
Continuing to repeat something, Feodork, doesn't make it so.
ReplyDeleteApparently, we can read Izard's fantasy life:
ReplyDelete"The days of jackboots and black patent-leather are fast approaching." "What do you want to bet there will be studs on the leather and open crotches in the trousers?"
You're not hiding your curiosity very well, Grand Izard.
Pretty dorky, bigot-boy.
ReplyDeleteWhich illustrates why I have settled on the name "Feodork" for you, Feodork.
Izard,
ReplyDeleteOut here in civilization, we passed on "dork" about 30 years ago. Right after the finale of "Happy Days."
""Freedom of speech was meant for political speech." This may be true if you are talking about Milton."
ReplyDeleteIt's true because that was the point of it. It was dangerous to speak out against the king and his government. The free speech clause was a restriction on the government to prevent persecuting those who criticized it, not to protect tittie-mags and videos. It does not restrict the state, particularly each individual state or communities within them, from restricting the sale and manufacture and presentation of pornography or anything that offend the prurient interests of the people. It is the left who believes there is something of value in titilation; evidence of their immorality. Honorable people see and know it for what it is, and the negative affect it has on society.
Much of that negative effect is seen in how much teen pregnancy, STDs and suicides prevail in the land than when their were stricter notions of morality and values. Another lefty legacy. The ACLU has helped to protect that, you idiot. It is the left who believes that teens, and adults as well as far as that goes, are beyond aquiring self-discipline and other honorable qualities. It is the left's abdication of expectations upon the youth that has more to do with teen sex than any other factor. You dare call yourselves more moral.
MA uses the word "honorable" an awful lot for a guy who treats others with such dishonor.
ReplyDeleteHonorable people tend to get respect from all sides of issues. This is not MA.
So tittie mags and videos lefty leniency have undermined the moral foundations of Western civilization? If that's true, the foundations weren't all that.
MA sees Western moral traditions that are built on an array of developed and developing notions of human rights extending ever further to people who were not previously valued.
He doesn't really see how these moral traditions were born and are growing because he sees them at a distance, with binoculars, from the top story of the house he's built, on sand.
The Democratic Party is the morally concerned party.
ReplyDeleteFeodor,
ReplyDeleteWhen you act honorably, and more so, when you support honorable positions, honorable people will take note and treat you accordingly.
For a society to act decently over time requires that they are bolstered by the expectation of decency. Human nature lists toward whatever urge or desire screams loudest and in the absence of virtue and propriety it leans heavily to the dark side. Few have the discipline to hold to virtue, honor, character and faithfulness to that which cannot be proven on this earth. As society relaxes it's hold on morality, more and more of our young, as well as the weaker of the elder, rationalize their acceptance of indecency and depravity. Aided and encourged by the "enlightened" to whom we now refer as "liberal progressives", with their spreading of the lie known as "separation of church and state", their demonizing of those who still value modesty, chastity and propriety, our society has devolved into a place where morality is whatever an individual decides it is rather than a set of behaviors that elevate us above our baser natures. The Democratic Party is rife with those who are perpetrators of and victims of this lack of character.
What is moral about safeguarding the "right" to destroy one's own child in utero?
What is moral about protecting porn as a "right to free speech"?
What is moral about defending 2% of the population that wishes to change the definition of marriage and all laws and customs thereby attached because of how they wish to pleasure themselves?
What is moral about forcing from the producers of the nation more tax money?
What is moral about giving that tax money to care for those who took no part in securing for themselves a chance to elevate above their station?
What is moral about disarming law abiding citizens?
What is moral about burdening our society with the needs of people who have invaded the country, ignoring our immigration laws?
I could go on. The Democratic Party is the morally concerned party? The Democratic Party doesn't understand the meaning of the word "moral".
Get ready!
ReplyDelete"Dur Dur-dur-dur-dur Dur-dur dur dur dur-dur-dur dur-dur dur-dur." -Feodork
"What is moral about safeguarding the "right" to destroy one's own child in utero?"
ReplyDeleteNothing. And there is nothing moral about taking away a women's right over her own body. Two wrongs do not make a right. Good Kindergarten rules ought to hold weight with your group.
So, reduce unwanted pregnancies by good programs, good education, and other wise things that sound like "dur, dur, dur" to a blockhead.
"What is moral about protecting porn as a 'right to free speech'?"
Nothing. But Freedom of Speech when mixed with a capitalist market economy protects some "dark things." It's the bargain we make with free enterprise and other notions that sound like "du, du, du" to a dunce.
"What is moral about defending 2% of the population that wishes to change the definition of marriage and all laws and customs thereby attached because of how they wish to pleasure themselves?"
They do not wish to change the definition of marriage so much as to be included. The laws and customs of marriage have had no singular history of understanding in Western civilization. The church did not want to manage it for a few hundred years, and then it only did when all of Europe was Christian. The state did not take much of a role until the same time.
2% of the population always matters in a moral country. If it wants to call itself the land of the free. But this all sounds like "d, d, d, d" to a dickhead.
"What is moral about forcing from the producers of the nation more tax money?"
Because they benefit more from the capacity of the nation.
"What is moral about giving that tax money to care for those who took no part in securing for themselves a chance to elevate above their station?
Because the playing field is not level and the really poor, white Appalachian, latino Californian, black Philadelphian are handicapped from the get go. Izard could see this if he had had a moral ddddddd... development.
"What is moral about disarming law abiding citizens?"
This is a legal issue not a moral issue -- not that you know the differences -- but in this country it is not categorically legal to keep guns out of citizen ownership. I hunted with my father and remember the times with joy except when my cousin was shot by her husband as he was cleaning his gun. At any rate, law abiding citizens do not need most of the kinds of guns being sold for show and ritual murder. Some guns are not for legal purposes.
"What is moral about burdening our society with the needs of people who have invaded the country, ignoring our immigration laws?"
If we'd ten times more for every piece of fruit and every vegetable and nut we eat, we could solve this problem. But since we will not, producers keep costs down in order to make all that money you want to protect on their behalf.
But these responses aren't really for you or Izard and family. Education can't pierce skulls dulled with ducksh*t in between.
The Democratic Party is the morally concerned party.
ReplyDelete"Nothing. And there is nothing moral about taking away a women's right over her own body." - Feodork
ReplyDeleteYes there is...when it affects another's life.
The Democrat Party is the champion of immorality.
Protecting life via state regulated "wombs" sounds newly fascist to me and very Big Brother. You would introduce jackboots but call them sandals. Too, too crazy.
ReplyDeleteAnd you would sanction the mutilation and murder of the most innocent among us and call it democracy.
ReplyDeleteThe Democrat Party is the champion of Immoral irresponsibility.
And...wasn't it fascists who murdered the innocent because they were an inconvenience?
ReplyDeleteAbortion is fascism in action.
Not because they were an inconvenience. Because they were not "pure" and were not "on the side of God."
ReplyDeleteThe right to privacy is a human right in a democracy. You damage real life and privilege potential life. The OT makes no such argument.
You are also sentimentalizing science, like phrenology, a speciality of fascists.
Push education, health care, prevention and contraception, and then you will only have to battle lust instead of what you consider murder.
ReplyDeleteYour refusal to support prevention discredits your interest in human rights and makes you, rather, a fundamentalist aggressor.
"Not because they were an inconvenience. Because they were not "pure" and were not "on the side of God." -Feodork
ReplyDeleteBullsh*t. There was a perceived Jewish "problem"...an inconvenience.
"You damage real life.." -Feodork
Don't blame me for the irresponsible behavior of a murder-minded mother, Feodork. The damage, if that's what you want to call an innocent child who had nothing to do with the decisions of his/her irresponsible mother, was already done. The consequences, raising that child responsibly and lovingly, is something from which you want to protect the murder-minded mother.
The Democrat Party is the champion of irresponsibility and immoral behavior. It prefers murder over nurture.
" And there is nothing moral about taking away a women's right over her own body."
ReplyDeleteNo woman has a right to kill her own child. The fact that the child must, by nature's design, gestate within the mother does not mean that the child is the mother or a part of her, as would be her arm or leg or any internal organ. You forget that the child was invited in the first place when the woman engaged in the very activity designed to bring into existence another person. So the mother's decision to abort deny's the child's right over the child's own body. (Obviously hypocritical if the child is female.)
"But Freedom of Speech when mixed with a capitalist market economy protects some "dark things."
What a pathetic justification! You act as if porn is an inconvenient consequence of free speech rather than the conscious decision it is, and thus unfortunately gets Constitutional protection. How patently absurd! As the free speech clause was meant to protect against retribution by the government for opposing political speech, pretending there is some connection between it and porn is a typically leftist rationalization for immoral behavior.
"They do not wish to change the definition of marriage so much as to be included."
Nonsense. Their very inclusion redefines marriage. And as far as inclusion, they are included as much as anyone desirous of pushing their own selfish aims. They have the right to seek their misguided goals, but not the guarantee, by any view of the Constitution, to have them. The general public has, in every case where they had the chance to vote, decided that marriage must remain as it is. Now, it is left to us to demonstrate for all those perverted by immoral leftist preaching, the intelligence of maintaining the tradition as it is.
"Because they benefit more from the capacity of the nation."
They benefit by the fruits of their own efforts. More often than not, the "less fortunate" benefit fromt the capacity of the nation developed by the efforts of the productive. The wealthy have no need for the "capacity" of the nation having developed their own capacities.
"Because the playing field is not level..."
Never was nor meant to be. Many successful people dealt with that non-level field in their rise to loftier heights. This nation is rife with rags-to-riches stories, with many coming from other countries (usually legally) to make their fortunes here. Fewer handouts force people to fend for themselves and force from them the ideas for doing so. Necessity is the mother of invention. But treat people like they're idiots incapable of helping themselves, and they will eventually buy into that attitude. The playing field has been leveled through free education for all. What is done with that is more the problem than anything else.
"This is a legal issue not a moral issue..."
Nonsense. Of course it's a moral issue if disarming the public puts them at risk, which it does without a doubt. "Some guns are not for legal purposes." What the hell is this supposed to mean? Is it the same as some guns are just made for killing? Well, which aren't, besides squirt guns? What a stupid statement!
I don't understand your response to the illegal immigration point, but then you likely don't either.
Morally concerned my ass.