Some folks just don't see their own toes.
youth_pastor on Flickr wrote:
So I responded:
To which youth_pastor responded:
Okay. A guy who might subscribe, under the right conditions, to a "Just War" (which, by the way, kids, ain't free) cannot accept a similar expenditure to help bring about an end to global poverty.
The bit about post-partum "abortion" is a fake. Even right wingers acknowledge it to be so. And only a preacher would argue that the human body should not be explained, in all its guts and glory, to the minds that inhabit those bodies. "You are filthy in all that you do!"
Talking about Farrakhan should just be embarrassing to you, youth_pastor. Whether you're Catholic or not, do you insist that members of the Catholic church endorse pedophilia because some Catholic dioceses went to great effort to cover up and diminish the bad acts of some of its clergy? It's the same thing as holding Obama responsible for something a member of his church believed.
youth_pastor still doesn't address how he thinks Obama actually supports Farrakhan, nor does he make any affirmative claims about Obama's relationship with William Ayers. This guilt-by-association accusatory crap should have died with McCarthy. Sadly, it has not.
No reputable source will back up what youth_pastor writes about European and Canadian health care. As such, he cites none. Worried about talking points? The answer is, obviously, to spout some more!
Misspelling aside, I don't know of any citation for youth_pastor's claims that Obama intends to negotiate with Ahmadinejad or Castro. I believe he stated at one point that he would be willing to speak with leaders of nations like Iran or Syria. But of course it is common knowledge that to engage in any policy other than The Silent Treatment is immature and dangerous.
That last paragraph is a gem. "I'm not a registered Republican" is such a tell. It means "this way, I can appear to be nonpartisan, while with the other side of my mouth I barf up every tired claim and aspersion the Right has incubated for decades."
Smaller federal government is a hoot; I'd like one cogent opinion from youth_pastor on No Child Left Behind.
Not legislating from the bench is equally humorous, or would be if there weren't so much riding on the issue. As of the 2005 iteration of the Supreme Court, the most "activist" judges (meaning most likely to overturn standing law passed by Congress) went like so:
Thomas 65.63 %
Kennedy 64.06 %
Scalia 56.25 %
Rehnquist 46.88 %
O’Connor 46.77 %
Souter 42.19 %
Stevens 39.34 %
Ginsburg 39.06 %
Breyer 28.13 %
The bottom four are considered "liberal." The top five (most debatable is Kennedy, who is often viewed as a swing vote by today's standards, but was at the time a clear conservative) are all "conservative." No legislating from the bench, indeed.
youth_pastor, you've brought some weak sauce to this argument.
youth_pastor on Flickr wrote:
When I judge what [Barack Obama] will do in the future by his past, I see a man who favors a socialist government (to everyone according to his need; from everyone according to his ability to pay), higher taxes, universal health care, abortion on demand (even after birth in some cases), negotiations with terrorist regimes without preconditions, support for the likes of Louis Farrakhan and others, and the list goes on. This to me is quite disturbing.
So I responded:
Can you describe Obama's alleged intent for "socialist government" in new terms, or only in soundbite rehashings?
Can you provide a citation for any time when Obama has advocated for killing children post-birth (realizing, of course, that after a child has been born, the process cannot be called "abortion")?
Can you, for that matter, provide a citation for any time at which Obama has stated a position in favor of abortion? Has he ever stated or written a position to the effect of "I support abortion"?
Can you specifically cite what kind of "support" Obama offers or will offer to Louis Farrakhan?
Can you specify the individuals to whom you refer by "others"?
Can you say what, exactly, is negative about a system of health care where no one has to go without?
Can you tell us, specifically, which terrorist regimes with which Obama would "negotiate," and the demands about which these "negotations" would revolve?
To which youth_pastor responded:
Kyle: Thanks for the questions. I will do my best to address each as I don't want to be accused of spouting unfounded "talking points."
Re: Socialism:
www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-global-tax-proposal-up-for-...
www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2007-11-11-ob...
Re: Abortion:
"What difference does two or three minutes inside or outside the womb really make? One's 'late-term' and the other's 'postpartum.' Who's to say if the postpartum fetus is truly viable? Postpartum fetuses die all the time for all manner of reasons..." -Barak Obama
on July 17, 2007 Barack Obama told Planned Parenthood that sex education for kindergarteners, as long as it is "age-appropriate," is "the right thing to do."
Re: Louis Farrahan:
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/14/...
Re: "others":
William Ayers for starters (remember the Weather Underground group that declared war on the US?)
Re: Health Care
I don't believe our health care system is everything it could be. I do, however, believe it is the best in the world. In Britian, Canada, Frace, et al, government controlled healthcare has crippled the system. Wait times increase while services decrease. Let the markets work. I'm not a fan of letting the same government that promised its citizens retirement to provide its citizens health care coverage.
Re: Negotiating w/ terrorists:
Achmadinejad and Castro for starters
I hope this answers your questions. I want to clear up (for the record) that I am NOT a registered Republican. Conservatives should not be forced into that mold. I do not support Bush's spending policies. I did not see the war w/ Iraq as fitting into the "Just War Theory." I believe in smaller government (especially at the Fed level), lower taxes, no legislating from the bench, etc.
Okay. A guy who might subscribe, under the right conditions, to a "Just War" (which, by the way, kids, ain't free) cannot accept a similar expenditure to help bring about an end to global poverty.
The bit about post-partum "abortion" is a fake. Even right wingers acknowledge it to be so. And only a preacher would argue that the human body should not be explained, in all its guts and glory, to the minds that inhabit those bodies. "You are filthy in all that you do!"
Talking about Farrakhan should just be embarrassing to you, youth_pastor. Whether you're Catholic or not, do you insist that members of the Catholic church endorse pedophilia because some Catholic dioceses went to great effort to cover up and diminish the bad acts of some of its clergy? It's the same thing as holding Obama responsible for something a member of his church believed.
youth_pastor still doesn't address how he thinks Obama actually supports Farrakhan, nor does he make any affirmative claims about Obama's relationship with William Ayers. This guilt-by-association accusatory crap should have died with McCarthy. Sadly, it has not.
No reputable source will back up what youth_pastor writes about European and Canadian health care. As such, he cites none. Worried about talking points? The answer is, obviously, to spout some more!
Misspelling aside, I don't know of any citation for youth_pastor's claims that Obama intends to negotiate with Ahmadinejad or Castro. I believe he stated at one point that he would be willing to speak with leaders of nations like Iran or Syria. But of course it is common knowledge that to engage in any policy other than The Silent Treatment is immature and dangerous.
That last paragraph is a gem. "I'm not a registered Republican" is such a tell. It means "this way, I can appear to be nonpartisan, while with the other side of my mouth I barf up every tired claim and aspersion the Right has incubated for decades."
Smaller federal government is a hoot; I'd like one cogent opinion from youth_pastor on No Child Left Behind.
Not legislating from the bench is equally humorous, or would be if there weren't so much riding on the issue. As of the 2005 iteration of the Supreme Court, the most "activist" judges (meaning most likely to overturn standing law passed by Congress) went like so:
Thomas 65.63 %
Kennedy 64.06 %
Scalia 56.25 %
Rehnquist 46.88 %
O’Connor 46.77 %
Souter 42.19 %
Stevens 39.34 %
Ginsburg 39.06 %
Breyer 28.13 %
The bottom four are considered "liberal." The top five (most debatable is Kennedy, who is often viewed as a swing vote by today's standards, but was at the time a clear conservative) are all "conservative." No legislating from the bench, indeed.
youth_pastor, you've brought some weak sauce to this argument.
Comments (0)
Post a Comment