A proud day for the American left. If there's still some doubt in your mind that this stuff is NOT pacifism but rather simple Anti-Americanism, read this. http://www.whittierdailynews.com/Stories/0,1413,207~12026~1234836,00.html Read an interesting quote the other day; a writer commented that it takes absolutely no guts to go demonstrate in Washington DC. He suggested that, if these assholes wanted to show everybody how serious they are they should go demonstarte in front of their local VFW hall.
They are idiots and about as typical of the left as these guys are of the right. There are idiots on both sides, its pretty simple
Excuse me. There is a HUGE difference between holding a sign that SAYS "Smash Left Wing Scum" (Freedom of expression) and actually SMASHING things. That is the problem with the left. They see a sign they do not like and that to them is equal with actually carrying out what the sign says. "They are idiots and about as typical of the left as these guys are of the right. There are idiots on both sides, its pretty simple" How are the guys holding signs idiots EQUAl with the guys who are idiots for destroying private property? Unbelievable! I thought you had more sense than this.
No I agree, that was much worse what the other bozo's did. But what I was trying to say is its such a small part of the left that would actually do or condone that stuff. sorta like it was such a small part of the right involved in violence around abortion clinics a few years back. I never condoned what he other bozos did though.
Now wait just a minute here. "The right" does not commit violence around abortion clinics. (I'd make a comment about the violence being performed INSIDE abortion clinics, but that wouldn't be germane) However, with all due respect, I think you'll find one whole hell of a lot of Liberals who would condone, even applaud, this disgusting anti-Americanism that's described in the article. Pro-life activists are an entity unto themselves. They may vote for Republican candidates who, by and large, oppose stuff like sticking a tube into the scull of a viable 39 week baby un utero and sucking her brains out and then delivering the corpse, but that's really as far as their connection to the political process goes.
See, and this is where I have to ask a question to Hang. In a previous post you said you were rather Christian in your leaning. Then, however, you state that you voted for Nader. Now, do not take me as a one issue kind of guy. That is not the point. Honestly, and I am not baiting you, how can a Christian vote for ANYONE who could condone sucking babies out of their mother's wombs. Seriously, I am not trying to start a flame or get real personal. I really have wondered how the two can coexist. I for one do not see ANYWAY possible you can vote for a person who would do that. It goes beyond ANY moral code that I can even try and fathom. I know this is off topic, and probably should go to the other thread, but you did bring up the anti abortion stuff. NOT THAT I CONDONE what was done with Slepian, etc., but think about this. In 1943 had you, as a German citizen, stood in front of Amon Goeth (Commandant of Treblinka I believe) and had the chance to shoot him, what would you have done. Mind you, had you not shot him, he would have gone forward with the command to kill thousands of Jews and others that day. YOU have the chance to at least stop it for that day. (The arguement is not that you can stop it forever. Slepian was stopped permanently, and yet another doctor took his place.) Now, in retrospect, you would say you would pull the trigger. However, (1) You would have broken German law, and (2) Your actions would have been seen as traitorous. So, let's compare that to abortion. In the US it is against the law to pull the trigger on a man who is about to kill a baby. My point is this. I think that the whole reason we still have abortion is because good Christians do not have enough balls to stand up against tyranny. I assume you would have stood up for a 30 year old Jew in Krakow; how about a 30 week old fetus in Kentucky? Now before I am reported to the local FBI, let me be clear. I am not advocating the deaths of abortion doctors. I like to think, challenge, and debate. I simply put this question up as a way of seeing where you stand. I have asked it many times to many different people. The answer is usually the same; the excuse for inaction is as well.
I live in Indiana so it was a foregone conclusion that Bush was gonna win my state. I only voted for Nader in hope that the green party got a nationwide 5% to get federal funds. I am very against abortion, my girlfriend and I have had a few discussions about it. I also am strongly opposed to capital punishment, and its tough because for reasons I have yet to understand candidates who are against abortion are usually for capital punishment. The two are morally equivalent to me and its difficult to find a candidate that shares my views.
So I still have to ask: What would you have done in 1943? You are against capital punishment, but would you have taken out one to have saved many? Secondly, as to voting for Nader. While I might agree with the logic that says, "Hey, Bush will win Indiana anyway", I still could not have voted for Nader. You also should have had a choice of Buchanan. Not that I agree with his anti Israel stuff, but I for one could NEVER vote for anyone who would vote for abortion. When I stand before God, I will have a lot of "splainin" to do. One thing that I will have clear on my conscious is that I have opposed abortion to the fullest extent of the law. I hate it when my local Sheriff or county commisioner runs as a Democrat or Republican. I could give two hoots if they are my party or not. But, beyond that level, ANYONE who could possibly have ANY say on abortion and who could even FATHOM voting to allow babies to be murdered is an AUTOMATIC no vote for me. You, in essence, gave Mr. Nader the idea that one more person in America agrees with his infanticide! Part Two: I will now "tag" Bill and allow him to answer the anti cap pun stuff. Personally, if we could bring you around on this war would be enough for me. Cap pun should be a STATES RIGHTS kind of thing. If you want it in Indiana and we don't in Oklahoma, then so be it. (That is why I had to actually agree with the Gov. of Illionois when he commuted the death row sentences. He, as the head of his individual state had the right to do that.)
Oh come on. Talk about a subject that isn't worth the time, that's it. I know I will sound obnoxious saying this, but I just don't know how else to put it except: If somebody does not instinctively see the essential difference between the destruction of innocent life in it's purest state and the ultimate punishment of a slobbering, murdering rapist animal who has earned whatever he gets, then honestly I can think of nothing whatever to add. For the record, however, I have recently begun softening my position on capital punishment. Not because I am morally opposed to it, but because, frankly, the background noise we get from the rest of the world, mostly from people who feel they can morally equate the execution by lethal injection of some subhuman who kidnaps, rapes and dismembers a 9 year old girl and China executing people they don't like so they can sell their organs to rich Euros just isn't worth it. There are bigger fights to fight. In regards to abortion, I have always felt there was an easy, simple way to deal with the problem. Both political parties are hamstrung somewhat by small, very vocal and very aware groups: the Democrats have the Pro Abortion wackos who feel that babies ought to be ripped out of wombs as a political act, and the Republicans have the people who can read the Constitution well enough to know that it DOES indeed guarantee their right to keep and bear arms. (Unlike abortion, which, try as I might, I just cannot find reference to anywhere in there) What I have often proposed is this: everybody agree to offend their own hard core to about the same extent: The Republicans say to the Second Amendment types: "Look, we know what the Constitution says, and you're right, but frankly, nobody really NEEDS an RPG launcher or a Mac 10 to hunt Quail or target shoot. So we're going to ban a whole bunch of really scary weapons. In return, we're going to guarantee that nobody ever even THINKS about taking away legitimate sporting arms and personal protection weapons. The Democrats, at the same time, say to the Feminazis "OK girls, here's the deal. We're willing to guarantee you some abortion rights. Say, first trimester, hands off, exceptions for rape and incest into the end of the second. Whether you like it or not, most normal humans find murdering viable babies to be disgusting and offensive, and from now on if you want to abort, you gotta do it before the kid is ready for second grade. Let both groups howl up a storm. They'll cancel each other out at the polls, more or less, they'll have no other political party to appeal to, and the rest of us can move on to serious, solvable problems without having to kowtow to the fringes.
Let me take a step further. Since we cannot find it in the Constitution, let's do what the Constitution says to do in a case such as this: 10th Amendment, leave it to the individual states. Take a look at Oklahoma. We cannot legally possess or buy xxx porn. We can cross the border to Texas, Kansas, and Missiouri and buy it if we like. But, since the Constitution says (and the Supreme Court) agrees (1973 I believe) that the individual States have the right to regulate as long as it does not cross 1st amendment issues, then Oklahoma regulates. Yeah, you can go and get it somewhere else if you so chose. In fact, NY has already passed a law that if abortion becomes illegal nationwide, they will allow it in their own state. That would be an interesting test of states rights. For years they have held to the statement that since the Constitution allows it, it does not matter what the states think. Now, as to fringe. I know where you are coming from Bill. But, I do not think of myself as fringe. If you don't mind answering, where would you have been in 1943 with the SubCommandant standing in front of you? Would you have shot? If so, how then can you, I , or anyone else not justify what the guy did to Slepian? (Obviously, I am in the same boat as you are in(or as I think you would be). Neither of us has taken up arms against abortion. Just wondering how we can call the German resistance (what little of it there was) and they come down so hard on somebody who did the same thing. (To make my argument more cogent, make yourself German, and the Jew is German as well. Put it in 1939 pre September to make it occur during peace. That should make all things equal.
I'm certainly not opposed to guns or capital punishment. I'd take out every Nazi bastard I could put a bullet into and smile the whole damned time. What I'm saying is that the hysteria on some of these subjects is out of all proportion to the relative importance. If Timothy McVeigh (just to pick a random example) is fried like a Dorito in peanut oil or spends the next forty years getting butt raped by 300 lb. bikers is, in the overall scheme of things, just not that big a deal. I'd rather spend my time working on education and health care issues, for example. Kids aren't learning crap in our schools, or perhaps more precisely they ARE learning crap and ought to be learning something important. As for health care, there's a real, serious crash that's very very close and nobody is paying any attention, except the fatheads who think the answer to all our problems is to force the American taxpayer to pick up everybody's tab. But we all are forced to spend an inordinate amount of time debating whether having an automatic weapon with a 200 round magazine is an important symbol of our individual freedom. It's a side show, like abortion, that hogs entirely too much of the political debate. My goal would be to come to some sort of compromise that puts stuff like this behind us so we can focus our attention elsewhere.
What are our choices on Health Care? (1) Regulate and say each doctor can only make so much? (2) Take $$$ from everyone (ie, you and me especially) and give to those who have no dollars (3) Tell HMO's, etc. that they have to accept x dollars for x treatment. I would like to offer a fourth idea. I listened to Barry Farber back in NY. On the subject of welfare he had this brilliant idea. Give the left their arguement...ie, everyone deserves to eat. BUT, give em beans and rice and baby food. Basically grant the arguement, but put it our way. Set up at all fire statios were EVERYONE can get free beans, rice, water, and baby food. Then, every stinking person in this country can eat. Not steak like you and I, but they do not go hungry. So, apply this to health care. Let' guarantee each individual the right to basic life saving health care. Ask yourself, what clogs up the hospitals and costs you and I so much? Some welfare mom not having enough $$ to take the kid in (or herself) to a real doctor. So, what does she do? She takes him to the emergency room. They HAVE to treat the kid. But, many times they do not get paid. The problem is the bureacracy for getting the $$ from the feds. I do not have the ultimate solution, but what about if you said, "All americans can go to x,y,z stations and get basic life saving treatment. MRI's, cat scans, and expensive stuff is reserved for those of us who have insurance. Just an idea.
Didn't bill have a real long post on whats wrong with healthcare here last night? Or was that my drugs kicking in. I admit I know very littel about healthcare and I thought this was turning into good reading, especially since I just spent 70 dollars yesterday on a doctor visit and meds. oh well.
Yes I did, but I decided that it didn't have much to do with left-wing radical anti-Americanism. However, it's my favorite subject and if you want to start a thread, I'll be glad to regurgitate my opinions again. And you might be interested to know that I spoke today with a nice young lady (maybe 20 or 21) with a ring through her eyebrow, who said she was part of a hunger strike at Kent state last week to protest the US forcibly disarming Iraq and deposing the sadistic animal who runs the place. (Well, OK, she didn't exactly put it that way. You probably knew that) Anyway, they called a hunger strike, got a bunch of reporters and cameramen from Akron and Cleveland to come down and interview them on the campus lawn holding signs and, when they were done they all went to Wendy's for Hot & Juicies and a Frosty. The "hunger strike" officialy lasted about 4 hours. I really get the feeling that for most people that's pretty typical of the level of committment.