Posted on 11/14/2006 1:51:18 PM PST by DCBandita
You know what's funny about the leftists thinking Iraq isn't important to the war on terror, MadIvan?
They've never been able to answer how it is that Saddam's state controlled newspaper predicted EXACTLY what was coming to NYC and the Pentagon two months before 9/11.
Maybe Saddam and Osama were just gossiping over the backyard fence when Saddam's paper posted this:
Less than two months before 9/11/01, the state-controlled Iraqi newspaper “Al-Nasiriya” carried a column headlined, “American, an Obsession called Osama Bin Ladin.” (July 21, 2001)
In the piece, Baath Party writer Naeem Abd Muhalhal predicted that bin Laden would attack the US “with the seriousness of the Bedouin of the desert about the way he will try to bomb the Pentagon after he destroys the White House.”
The same state-approved column also insisted that bin Laden “will strike America on the arm that is already hurting,” and that the US “will curse the memory of Frank Sinatra every time he hears his songs” – an apparent reference to the Sinatra classic, “New York, New York”.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/1472699/posts?page=1
With the beliefs you have about abortion I think it will probably be hard for you to see my side of this, because you categorize abortion as a 'social issue'. It's a human rights issue and it doesn't belong in the same category as should we say the Pledge of Allegiance in schools. It's like saying slavery was a 'social issue'.
A seperate human fetus is involved here, so you can't just say it's a woman's right to her own body. Most pro-choicers believe that a human fetus has no human rights because it's located on one end of a woman's birth canal, but when it pops out the other end it's suddenly got some rights. For those that believe in partial-birth abortion those human rights don't even begin there if the child is judged to be defective.
So before you throw me into the 'religious right' trash bin, I'll also state that I believe that gay rights are not just a 'social issue'. I have people ask me how can you really be a Republican if you believe in gay rights. Well, I do have to look at my overall views and try to reconcile them all and as gays are not in danger of having their fundemental right to life taken away from them, abortion pulls me to the Republican side. Add to this, my thoughts on illegal immigration, international policy, big government and and I find myself clearly on the Republican side.
I can't support Giuliani because it doesn't matter to me that he has an R beside his name, he comes down on the other side of my beliefs on too many issues. I can make compromises because I know that I'm probably never going to find a politican that holds all my own core beliefs, but I can't sell out the majority of what I believe in unless it comes down to my only choice being between the worse of two evils. At this point there are options and I'm hoping that it doesn't come to that.
Ack. Don't throw latin at me!! ;-)
If you want to put forward economic information that supports the notion that tax cuts created jobs, you can go to any one of a number of organizations and studies that will support that. They will be by credible people with valid degrees.
When I want to put forward information that supports the notion that the tax cuts did NOT in fact create jobs, I'll go to my list of organizations and studies and find credible people with valid degrees who will support my assertion.
It's a zero-sum game in this discussion becuase you'll say yours and I'll refute; then I'll say mine and you'll refute; and we're exactly where we started after all the discussion and refutation.
Suffice it to say that I believe (and I'm an economist by education) that the case for "tax cuts created jobs" is grossly overstated. I furthermore believe the unemployment numbers are so jerrymandered as to be rendered meaningless.
Incorrect Bandita, "it" is a human being at that point on the human continuum. It is honest to acknowledge that and still advocate the killing as a choice, it is nonsense to say "it's nothing".
I could find them, and you would find the moral component. Morality is relative - what I would see as not having a moral component you may see as solely morality-based. I'm not trying to duck the question (the second one) - it's just that morality IS relative as proven by the discussion had here on abortion. I'm not a bad person because I don't believe it's murder and because I don't believe life begins at the moment of conception. You're not a bad person because you do. We just have different morals and, with that as a baseline, are unlikely to agree on issues of morality.
So you've moved from "you can't legislate morality" to "morality is relative".
Good, you're educable! :-}
Now we move on. Are there any absolutes in morality. For instance, does your theory of relativity allow for cultures to rape babies and be a moral culture?
Now don't get insulted, I don't mean to imply that you support any such thing, it is just a way to make a point. I await your answers.
You two have the most striking discussions...
If the election comes down only to who can best fight the muslim extremists the winners will be Hillary and a Dem congress.
Obviously the nedia will portray them in the campaign as the best ones for the fight.
Obviously she would not be bound by any legal or Constitutional limits in the fight. No reports of any legal violations would be in the media, if any surfaced through other means the media would defend them and attack the leakers.
Most importantly - and also obviously- the media will constantly rally public opinion in support of her efforts.
No Republican would have such freedom of action in the fight.
If the extremists allowed her to ignore them and leave the problem to fester for a later administration as her husband did of course she would. But they won't.
Webb could really be considered "pro-gun". He has a concealed carry permit, and thinks that states should honor other states carry permits. He also thinks public lands should honor carry permits.
There are some things I truly disagree with Webb about, but guns doesn't seem to be one of those things. He's not perfect on guns, but he's pretty good, better than a good number of republicans.
Your philosophies are relativist and nearly repugnant, but you have my thanks for keeping it civil. Lurked this thread since you started it, and I admire you for taking the fire and seeming sincere.
Stick around, but stand up for something - there is no "center" - there is right and wrong as expressed as a society. Abortion, as a day-to-day issue, isn't on most folks' radar; however, the Rule of Law and the role of government in light of natural rights is. These things should be decided by the legislative process, not judicial decree. Why bother having a legislature otherwise?
Good Luck to you and yours. And may God bless you, if that's not offensive.
I do not believe in class warfare ie Populism. It is anti freedom and anti-liberty. I do not belive the rich getting richer (if they are) has anything to do with anyone else getting richer or poorer. I grew up dirt poor and now am middle middle class. I do not resent any rich person. Their money is not mine and I want none of theirs. I am not a socialist or candy coat it as a populist. You leave my money alone and I will leave yours alone. Do away with all welfare and I mean all social and corporate and get rid of the income tax then maybe we can speak to each other as equals until then you are just wanting to take what is not yours. Sorry I disagree totally with your economic progrome commrade.
That's why socialist Europe does so damn well in the productivity department.
/ sarc
Your "experts" are marxist educated jackasses and fools.
Of course not. and I basically have an issue with that kind of an argument, Vicomte13. Because it assumes an opinion or attitude that I have niether described nor promoted. Moreover, my point at the end of that comment was that it's a "dominion over my body" issue - an issue for which I have been TOTALLY consistent throughout the 400+ comments in this thread. So it doesn't logically follow that I would choose to IMPOSE euthanasia on a handicapped or terminally ill person.
And let's be clear, before a bunch of additional comments explode - I said PERSON. And I have also said I don't believe a fetus is a PERSON.
And I'm sorry if my tone sounds harsh - but you've been a very good debater and this last comment was unexpected.
The Germans used the word Vernichtung: literally, to make unto nothing, to annihilate.
The whole phrase was vernichtung lebensunwerten Lebens.
...which translates to "life unworthy of life", or something close(my German isn't so good).
"Pro sportsmen" was Webb's own description of his views during the campaign.
Of course he will vote as he is told or allowed. Which makes him "anti-gun" in fact.
He's already voted for anti-second amendment chairmen of the Senate committees.
How splendid - awesome.
I assume that you know that the level of the budget deficit as a percentage of GNP is now dropping like a rock, and the Feds are harvasting a boatload of unanticipated revenue despite the rich getting all those tax breaks. Odd. But hey, I am just a dirtbag lawyer, with a major in economics, with an MBA from the locus of the disorder emanating from the University of Chicago. I am part of the "problem," clearly. Sure the Laffer curve is oversold. So what? Just because the WSJ does not have it totally right, does not mean it doesn't have it partially right, and the numbers coming in are the numbers.
As one in or near that 2%, I don't mind paying more taxes frankly. I can afford it. This issue is macro with me, not micro. Bush on this one, got it about right, on a macro level.
Well, if you check the original post, it was curiosity over whether or not the "other" side of the blogosphere would support Giuliani. I like him, and I find the prospect of a Hillary Clinton candidacy odious at best. It was a genuine and honest question and I put it out there that I was a Democrat so that I wouldn't be hiding anything.
The rest of it just kind of went downhill from there. :-)
Not DU, but other progressive blogs. And honestly, sometimes I think it's valuable to step outside of that bubble, which can often be like screaming into a windtunnel, and see what others of differing viewpoints are saying.
Even if I don't agree, at least I gain perspective.
I very much appreciate your response, which was well-framed, well thought-out, and respectful.
I'll leave it at simply saying that you and I don't see these issues the same way and aren't likely to.
And as a Slav, I would have been defined as an untermenschen, a subhuman, suitable for labor and entirely disposable.
Not human.
Get out a science book sometimes and tell me what that fertalized egg is. It it a horse, cow, onion, dirt ,blood clot, blob of cells. As a physician it is a HUMAN embryo. I find not only as a physician but as a woman that women have done something even a man would not have done. Legislate the lawful destruction of a developing human in their woumb. All in the name of their liberation. Men have more morals than women. They are the oppressed one. Not only can a liberated woman destroy the human life in ther woumb but she can destroy the mans offspirng without any consideration at all. She can now have sex without any consequence a man can not. It is horrible thing women have done to humankind. They have learned to kill their unborn.
I thought you had split. Just too ripe a hanging fruit wasn't it? I hope your wife forgives you for the delay. The Olympian thunderbolts from the interlocuter come just one after another. I suspect what we have here is a graduate student. :) I remember that time fondly. I was a bit that way myself, until I became aware of my profound ignorance on so much, and was humbled by it all, and felt constrained to think and muse harder, much harder.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.