Conservatives often like to point out areas where the media favors the liberal candidate over the conservative one. Often the picture selection tells a story of bias. This time a Democrat is on the receiving end.
Ace makes the introductions, "The Biased Liberal Media, Meet Hillary Clinton; Hillary Clinton, Meet the Biased Liberal Media"
Yes, yes, kill the messenger.
What messenger? And who am I killing?
Does the dichotomy of the images not strike you? One is angelic and the other devilish. As a photographer and someone who has studied photojournalism, those shots are not accidental. You have to set those up in your camera to get the desired effect. You can photograph (and choose photographs) with bias just as easily as you can write with one.
So, Aaron do you think Hillary has a point when she complains about the media making Obama their darling?
Have you seen this SNL sketch?
Haven't seen the skit, but I have heard about it.
Do I think she has a point? Yes. I do think the media has been soft on Obama for a host of reasons.
Do I think she should be using SNL as a debate point? No. It makes her look silly and whiny.
Did you watch the SNL clip?
"It makes her look silly and whiny."
Agreed!
I've seen photos of all candidates (including King George) which make them look both good and bad. So what? All this whining about the media merely sidesteps what is going on: Obama is winning and Hillary is losing, based on a number of reasons. I started out as a Hillary supporter and switched to Obama because I think he has a better chance of beating McCain. I also think Obama is truly a breath of fresh air who can bury the tiring and absurd fighting that's been going on in this country for decades. The Clintons are just more of the same old problem, as is McCain. Old people fighting old battles forever and ever. Its stupid and mindless and I'm sick to death of it.
btw: I used to like McCain until this, among other things. He also believes in indefinite war. What I ask people is, if they were happy with the past 7 years, they should vote for McCain.
Another reason I oppose McCain
A reason to vote for Obama. He has the guts to stand up for what is right, while Hillary has remained largely silent.
Obama is winning and Hillary is losing, based on a number of reasons.
Agreed. Unfortunately, we are conflating two issues – one is the ongoing problem of media bias, while the other is the fact that Hillary is losing. She is losing all on her own, if you ask me.
I also think Obama is truly a breath of fresh air who can bury the tiring and absurd fighting that's been going on in this country for decades.
While I agree that he avoids partisan bickering, and is fresh and invigorating, his voting record shows that he is the MOST liberal of all Senators, and I don't want that kind of 'peace' in the oval office. I'd rather have someone a little cantankerous who will do the country some real good with good policies.
Louis, ask yourself why that ad buy for the letter is "targeted?" He's a politician who's trying to appeal to a broad group of people. He won't make that same ad buy in a major daily newspaper because he doesn't want to upset the Christians (whites and minorities) that he is attracting. He wants to tell the gay community one thing and wants others to believe something else.
Don't you remember the dust up when Obama had his Gospel concert tour with Donnie McClurkin who says he used to be gay until God delivered him from that? After he received a lot of flak for it, Obama added a gay minister to try to "balance" the campaign events.
But on the whole you are right on that issue, a Democrat is going to be much more likely to support a gay rights agenda. That's not really a big surprise. I'm just trying to remind you to not put too much faith in any politician. Human beings, especially politicians, will always disappoint.
A reason to vote for Obama. He has the guts to stand up for what is right
Sure, but what good will it do when he has +5000 promises he made in the election to do what is right and when he gets in office he will either be divisive and split the Democratic party by being too liberal even for the core democratic constituency (he is more liberal than Teddy Kennedy and Hillary combined) or facing the reality that governing is about making tough choices. Something I might add the he really has never had to do in his life while holding public office.
Actually, there is a reason why the United States has not elected a Senator since 1963 to be POTUS regardless of tenure. Senators do not govern a constituency or are hard pressed to make pivotal decisions. Governors do.
Now, I believe strongly in experience, character, and also decisiveness no matter what level a person has in government, but Obama has done nothing at all. Cut through the hype and he has not done one thing productive at the national level in terms of making the lives of the people of Illinois or that of Americans on a national level better. Aside from opposing the war and just voting "Present" while being a state legislator he has done crap.
I find it tragic that we as Americans are now buying into the idea (similar to Supreme Court Judges) that we have to find someone that has no record and has done nothing of consequence to pass muster and get elected. We elect Happy Meals in this country not full course meals. Study after study have backed up that when the US elects a candidate to POTUS with very little experience on a wave of change, that in fact the country slides backwards. This has been backed up by work done at RAND
I started out as a Hillary supporter and switched to Obama because I think he has a better chance of beating McCain. I also think Obama is truly a breath of fresh air who can bury the tiring and absurd fighting that's been going on in this country for decades.
Louis, a person should stick to their guns in terms of who they support. I supported Richardson to the bitter end and then went to the next person that I knew had the most experience (both Domestic and International)
I respect your decision to support whomever you want, but you know what? Come November all this posturing an popularity wave to get the Democratic nomination will be meaningless. A national election is a totally different animal. Obama's negatives have nowhere to go but up, and he has no record. Period.
Faced with this reality and the complexities of the problems we face in this country, I find myself in the unique position of going completely against my registered party should Obama get the nomination and will support McCain.
Sorry, a legislative record and experience matters. The stakes are too high. Unfortunately, Obama is all flash and no substance and I as a person that looks beyond the flash cannot take that kind of chance.
-silver
Record? Who cares about record? What about McCain's being part of the Keating Five? What about his years kowtowing to special interests and monied lobbiests? That's exactly what I don't want! Can't you guys understand that? I don't think an extensive record of so-called legislative accomplishments means sh*t. If I did, I'd vote for Hillary. I had some respect for McCain when he ran against Bush, but he's backtracked and kissed the butts of the religious right (a disqualifier if I ever heard of one). Hillary and McCain are too old and too much a part of the well-oiled Washington machine to really break with the dysfunctional past and break new ground. And this unsubstantiated charge that Obama is "all flash and no substance" is just stupid. They said the same thing about the "sainted" Reagan, if you will recall, and he did fine. Experience can only go so far in making a fine president. Lincoln didn't have much experience either (a few terms in the state house, one term in congress, two losses for the senate): was he all flash as well? He could sure talk pretty – what a sin! It's character and the ability to lead, as well as stated positions, that is important.
As to the "targeted" issue: read the open letter he released. That's for all to see. He's out there, in public, for fairness and equal treatment of all citizens, unlike Hillary and the Republicans (who just hate us). He spoke before Christian audiences, like the conservative black pastors, and defended gay people. Unlike McCain, who flip-flopped and kissed the evil Falwell's butt, or Hillary, who says little if anything, he has the courage and integrity to stand up for what is good and true and right. That's what I want in a candidate, and not someone with a long resume and a dubious record like McCain and Hillary.
I can't wait until he takes office and the Republicans are consigned to other darkness where they belong.
Now, I believe strongly in experience, character, and also decisiveness no matter what level a person has in government, but Obama has done nothing at all.”
I disagree, Silver. Here is a list, and a really good article to boot, that digs into Obama’s legislative record.
I Refuse to Buy into the Obama Hype
Record? Who cares about record? What about McCain’s being part of the Keating Five? What about his years kowtowing to special interests and monied lobbiests? That’s exactly what I don’t want!
Louis, I know what I am getting. No record…total mystery. You might as well buy a lottery ticket and pray for the best.
It is clear that you are very passionate about your position. The thing is passion only get you so far. I look at this intellectually and also strategically based upon how important it is to get it right. Look, we elected GW with very little record at all and see what we got?
I seem to remember bemoaning his lack of experience and the trouble he got the country in. And yet you support the charisma of a candidate that has no record at all at the national level. How convenient.
Bottom line blind faith in a political party and your leaders will get you and/or your country killed. Records matter. It indicates a trend of what a person is likely to do in the future. For something as important as POTUS, that means national legislative record as well as gubernatorial record.
Voting with your mind, looking at details, and also records makes for a more informed choice than voting based upon looks and charisma.
Come November, we can talk. And then at the mid-term Congressional elections, we can talk again and evaluate how much an Obama POTUS gets done.
-s
Cin,
What I find particularly humorous is that for a candidate who is running against politics as usual, he sure plays politics as usual based upon his voting record:
“I realize, of course that several of these amendments are exactly the same. They were added to spending bills. My only reason for including them is for completeness. They are not here to pad out Obama’s record.”
So what it says to me is that there is a level of hypocrisy when you look at how he got things passed versus how he claims he will run the country.
Show me one piece of significant legislation in the 3 years that he has been Senator that he has gotten passed? The answer: he hasn’t.
A 3 year voting record is meaningless…particularly when you exclude all the riders that he attached to spending bills to get things passed.
-s
For Silver,
“Show me one piece of significant legislation in the 3 years that he has been Senator that he has gotten passed?”
How about the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act? “His first law was passed with Republican Tom Coburn, a measure to rebuild trust in government by allowing every American to go online and see how and where every dime of their tax dollars is spent.”
Now, I’d like to pose the same question to you regarding Senator McCain, but over the last 25 years. “After more than 25 years in Washington, McCain mentions just one landmark bill — which he now no longer wants to talk about, because the Republican base hates the legislation.” – A record long on narrative, short on accomplishments
Bottom line blind faith in a political party and your leaders will get you and/or your country killed.
Yep, there it is: the conservative fear-mongering tactics – Vote for the Democrats and the terrorists will kill us all!!!
This is beneath contempt, as is your accusation that I support Obama blindly. This conversation is pointless, insulting, and over.
“Sorry, a legislative record and experience matters. The stakes are too high. Unfortunately, Obama is all flash and no substance and I as a person that looks beyond the flash cannot take that kind of chance.
-silver” ——-
All flash? Nonsense. We know that free will is for suckers and a “liberal” sprinkling of rainbows and unicorns will cure all our national ills. There’s a lot of there there. And he is well spoken.
And clean looking.
“All flash? Nonsense. We know that free will is for suckers and a “liberal” sprinkling of rainbows and unicorns will cure all our national ills. There’s a lot of there there. And he is well spoken.
And clean looking.”
This mockery coming from someone who probably voted for W. …twice. Well, except for the “well spoken” part.
Yep, there it is: the conservative fear-mongering tactics – Vote for the Democrats and the terrorists will kill us all!!!
This is beneath contempt, as is your accusation that I support Obama blindly.
Louis:
a) The statement about blind faith in leaders or political parties applies to Democrats and Republicans. Period.
b) Beneath Contempt? Sorry, your emotions are getting the better of you once again. Just like the +5000 other times you have done sone on other issues.
Actually, I hold those that do not think through things critically in contempt. Americans have become lazy, self-centered, fools that more often than not think with their hearts and not with their brains based upon 30 second sound bites and rhetoric. Maybe you are not in that group, but based upon your overblown reaction here it sure looks like you are.
As I said before, we will talk again come November, and again during mid-term elections for Congress and see just how many of these ideals and empty promises are actually kept by any of these candidates…including your poster boy Obama.
– S
Silver, in addition, here are some more bills Barak Obama authored or co-authored that became law…
– Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act
– 2007 Government Ethics Bill
– Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill
I spend more time studying politics than anyone I know. I am highly educated and extremely well-read. Your insinuations that I am part of the cud-chewing herd, and that my responses are overblown and hyper-emotional are nothing but stupid and lazy generalizations. You can’t even begin to understand how my mind works. You don’t even deign to notice the stated reasons I will vote for Obama. Your cynical contempt for me and the millions who voted for Obama is sickening, but typical of your ilk. Why shouldn’t I express my frustration at talking to a brick wall for so long?
I’m sick of talking to christianists and right-wingers. I’m sick of this blog. We will not be talking in November or anytime ever. Go f yourself.
“This mockery coming from someone who probably voted for W. …twice. Well, except for the “well spoken” part.” ——-
there were no other options.
the Obamessiah collective mind present at his revivals, err, conventions, seem to be the very young mis-guided sheep(ex.Che flag) and adults unable to put together a real reason to vote for him, other than “he speaks well”, “he’s black”, or “he was a community activist”. wow.
his radical attachments seem to be coming to the surface … from his pastor’s comments in the near past and other things which have been looked at in the real media. i know, the Obamazombies will dismiss these things without a real look, but because of W and their own political leanings, they may be supporting a person who could do more harm than good. real harm to national defense, the economy, sovereignty. others, i hope, will actually, deeply look at this man and his past. W is not running, all of this hatred focused there is not a reason to elect a potential fascist president.
rainbows and unicorns.
I spend more time studying politics than anyone I know. I am highly educated and extremely well-read. – This just show’s you’re very self conceded.
I’m sick of talking to christianists and right-wingers. I’m sick of this blog. We will not be talking in November or anytime ever. Go f yourself.
Posted by: Louis
My question is, if this is the case… why are you still posting on this site. No one is forcing you to type.
Your insinuations that I am part of the cud-chewing herd, and that my responses are overblown and hyper-emotional are nothing but stupid and lazy generalizations. You can’t even begin to understand how my mind works. – The fact that no one claimed to know how your mind works proves that you make inaccurate accusations and unjust claims.
and finally..
Your cynical contempt for me and the millions who voted for Obama is sickening, but typical of your ilk. Why shouldn’t I express my frustration at talking to a brick wall for so long?
from your silly name calling to your hypicritical assumption of hatred from Benjamin9 and others shows the typical Left leaning BS this country needs to get away from and back on the path our forefathers paved for us. It is incorrect to call yourself a Democrat or Repuplican, with out first calling yourself American.
also, Mccain does not belive in a forever war, but he does realize that iraq will take a commitment that will take longer than people want to realize. we have troops in Japan and Germany and Korea .. those first enemies were defeated decades ago, but troops still operate there. the Korean war, being a UN op of course and carried out half assed, still has not been totally settled. troops are, of course, still there. we have troops in other well known regions and troops in places not so well known and well may never know of.
to think American troops will be pulled out of Iraq by any president, other than probably Ron Paul, is pie in the sky. Obama has already stumbled on this issue publicly and has shown his inexperience on foreign policy, which a huge part of will be war for some time to come. Iraq is just a stepping stone into the region.
the dem presidents of my lifetime have failed miserably in matters of war and defense. Carter and Iran fiasco, Billy Jeff and Somalia, although he did kill some bad guys in the Balkans(by the way, more US troops were killed during the 8 Clintonian years than during W’s), Obama and ? …
Whoa gotten serious since I left. I just posted an angelic picture of Obama and a satanic picture of Hillary and it does all nuclear in here…between Silver and Louis?!? Me, seeker or even Ben9 weren’t involved? This is strange. The level of rancor on the Democratic side of the aisle in this election really is shocking to me. There’s not much real difference between Obama and Hillary, except Hillary has more experience (only marginally so) and has higher negatives and Obama has better charisma but less accomplishments.
i agree. but i must say listening to all of obamas speeches, he doesn’t sound sincere. i need my president to be strong and keep his/her promises not just say what different sociodemographic groups want to hear. it all looks good on paper but in the end his lack of experience and his past record is what is going to bring this country to ruin. much worse than W.
Obamessiah is a figment of the far lefts imagination that has caught traction with the “ilk” mentioned by Angelkiss.
This is going to be a very very serious topic for many months.
From the looks of the BO crowds, the results from the proliferation of Ritalin in the 80’s and 90’s has come back to us to roost.
I don’t think we can (or should) completely dismiss Obama as nothing more than hype. He is a very smart politician to allow the hype to build and continue (it takes away from any real examination of his record). He will govern as a liberal, probably much more than Hillary. The Clintons are pragmatists and will do whatever it takes to get and keep power, principles are thrown out the window. Obama is a much more principled liberal, but he understands that his liberalism would not be attractive to a great number of his supporters so he doesn’t bring it up and instead focuses on “hope” and “change.”
Louis, you never did answer the comments I raised about Obama trying to have it both ways with the gay community. I brought that up not to disillusion you, but to simply reinforce the notion (the Christian notion) that men will fail us. Human beings are fallible and we should not place all of our trust in them – be they Democrat or Republican, Liberal or Conservative, Christian or not.
correct, Aaron. yes he is a good politician, but let us not lose the fact that HRC is a lousy poli, and therefore he will look like a genius in comparison. she flattened out about 2 months ago in my humble opinion.
i do not dsmiss him at all, in fact he makes my danger meter jump off the scale. more so than HRC.
i am very interested in all of the vagueries surrounding BO. much of the shadowy stuff associated with principles that were the principles of the enemies of the US historically. the tip of the ice berg has been exposed. i wonder if the whole berg will be exposed. we shall see.
fauxBama …when i mentally fill in the things he does not say — its as if he’s reading my mind …
Aaron,
I think the issue with Louis and I going “nuclear” is that I don’t toe the party line blindly. I support the candidate that has the most experience based upon my values. Frankly, I don’t believe in political parties. I believe in qualified candidates.
To me, in modern society, a president must have both domestic and foreign policy experience (including trade) to succeed. Also, a proven track record. I can compromise on certain issues (e.g., social policies) if it achieves the greater good for the country. I look at the long-term not the short term. So, I will support a candidate from either side of the aisle.
Additionally, I am also the rare bread of person that went to school and was educated in public policy and international relations (have degrees on both counts), and have actually used those degrees in my career. So, I look beyond the normal average American.
I personally do not discount Obama as a skilled politician. I do discount Obama as an experienced candidate that can bring to the table the right mix of international trade/foreign policy experience and a solid understanding of Domestic Policy to govern effectively. We need that desperately now.
Perhaps if he waited, did more in public office at the national level and got that experience, I could support him. To be clear, Hillary is not that great of a choice either on the Democratic side, but arguably has more experience and a greater legislative record. Frankly, the most experienced Democratic candidates are no longer in the race.
Politics can be a very emotional issue for people. It is unfortunate that Louis took it personally and turned to labeling me as “conservative ilk” even though I am hardly conservative on all issues—just ask Seeker. I don’t take this stuffit personally at all.
This is just a matter of looking closely and deciding what is best for the country. At the end of the day, those that vote for a candidate do so as it is their right. However, that does not necessarily mean they vote with their heads and actually do any detailed readings of the candidate’s positions and actual plans.
The proof is in the pudding when POTUS gets in office and tries to get stuff done.
-S
Benjamin9’s comments provide a good lesson in conservative politics. Just call your opponent names and fear monger. Quoting…
Obamessiah, mis-guided sheep, adults unable to put together a real reason to vote for him, radical attachments, Obamazombies, (harm to national defense, the economy, sovereignty), potential fascist president.
Typical. Don’t you guys have anything more substantiative?
Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me. Nah, Nah, Nah. :)
What significant legislation has John McCain passed in the last 25 years? McCain–Feingold. Anything else?
I was sad last time Loius ‘left for good,’ and was glad when he returned. Even though he is a gay lefty, he sometimes posts really thoughtful and candid comments. He is truly a complex and deep guy. I hope he lurks and rejoins us, but I understand why he would not want to ‘waste time’ here.
Silver may have pissed him off for good, even though Silver is what I consider to be a thinking moderate/liberal, not a rabid conservative. However, he can be dogmatic, esp. with the use of such annoying conversation enders as “period” and “full stop” such as “that’s just the way it is, period.”
Ah well, hopefully, other lurkers can comment more and fill the void left by Louis.
Regarding bills that he has sponsored, I am still trying to find resources, but I did find this:
What significant legislation has John McCain passed in the last 25 years? McCain–Feingold. Anything else? I’ve named 4 of Obama’s bills that became law in his 3 years as senator.
Hey, based on that alone, I guess I’ll have to vote for him, open and shut case. How could I argue with that? ;)
I’m just saying that it’s not like Obama hasn’t done anything at all in the U.S. Senate. For comparison, I’d like to see McCain’s legislation. I know about McCain-Feingold already but what else has he done? Have you found anything regarding McCain’s legislation that became law. It’s kind of a big thing because the democrats will certainly turn this around on McCain if he accuses Obama of inexperience.
cin,
you sound like louis.
BO has many questions to answer about his past. i am just commenting on what we have all seen. my comments are no different than any other who doubts the Chicago far left lib known as Barry. i guess i just phrase it differently. i am not implying those who like BHO are zombies. but those who would worship him without compunction are. those who will blindly follow someone who is very left wing culturally act zombie-like. the type of folks he may have a relationship with is worth a look. those who choose to ignore this or fail to examine closely, act zombie like.
Well, I like Obama’s policies. I’d also note that you probably will vote for McCain even though he’s not a true conservative. Basically, many conservatives will be voting for McCain not because they like him but because he’s all they have left. There’s no other choice. Democrats will be voting for Obama, if he gets the nomination, because they like him and for what he stands for. Change from the past 8 years. So, conservatives are more like “zombies” IMO because they are voting against their conservative values. I keep asking this and I haven’t gotten an answer from anyone yet…
What significant legislation has John McCain passed in the last 25 years? McCain–Feingold. Anything else? More to the point, what conservative legislation has McCain passed into law?
Do you know of any or will you vote for him anyway “Zombielike” to use your own terminology.
Cin,
Before this conversation went totally nuclear between with Louism I started to look at the legislative examples you pointed me to re: Obama. Just because this conversation got radioactive does not mean, I won’t continue to look. In fact, I would be happy to post back based upon my own analysis of Obama’s participation in getting those bills passed.
I am a thinking voter. Not a zombie and am happy to look deeper.
Seeker,
I too am sad to see Louis leave in a huff. Believe me I did not intend to drive him away. I do value his comments here. On several occasions, I have been known to agree with him and even back him up.
It is just in this case where I have a deep rooted philosophical difference with him. I have always been respectful of his right to support whomever he wants, but that does not mean I will not question it.
That being said, just because I have a different standard of looking at candidates than he does, does not mean I took things personally and deliberately drove him off. No, if he was driven off, he did it all on his own by getting too emotional and taking it personally.
This is after all just a blog.
-s
However, he can be dogmatic, esp. with the use of such annoying conversation enders as “period” and “full stop” such as “that’s just the way it is, period.”
Seeker, we all have our idiosyncrasies and annoyances.
Lately my show stoppers have cropped out as people make rabid generalizations and false assumptions (see above in the thread)
There are a number of things that you and others do when posting here that annoy me too. However, if I let them all make my blood boil what good would it serve aside the need for blood pressure pills?
Why don’t we all endeavor to work on these shortcomings? I will if you will. ;)
Oh, and Louis, if you are lurking, you should come back. :P
“I am a thinking voter. Not a zombie and am happy to look deeper.”
You have Benjamin9 to thank for the “zombie” rhetoric, not me. If you ask, me I’ve always liked your posts. If you do some digging, I’m sure you will find some comments of mine where I’ve complemented you on your stances.
If you do some digging, I’m sure you will find some comments of mine where I’ve complemented you on your stances.
Cin, I remember several examples. Thanks.
Sorry for flailing the “zombie” label your way…my memory got a little foggy there.
I keep asking this and I haven’t gotten an answer from anyone yet…
well, I’m more moderate, so i don’t have to hold my nose as much when voting for mccain. He’s pro life, he’s not against ESC research, he’s moderate on immigration, he’s trying to reform how political money is handled, he’s strong on defense. Suits me fine, though he could be more conservative on the gay issue, as well as some other stuff that neocons complain about.
from your silly name calling to your hypicritical assumption of hatred from Benjamin9 and others shows the typical Left leaning BS this country needs to get away from and back on the path our forefathers paved for us.
Dark Crusader (new to me), actually I think the accurate statement here is that there is a level of intolerance in this country on all sides of the political spectrum that is very unhealthy. We have had that with 8 years of divisive leadership under Bush, and there are other examples within the Democratic party too.
Fundamentally, we need to move away from social and political intolerance and divisiveness to work to achieve common goals. That is what the Founding Fathers intended.
-s
“I would be happy to post back based upon my own analysis of Obama’s participation in getting those bills passed.”
Well, let’s start with the facts before we give our opinions. You challenged me with, “Show me one piece of significant legislation in the 3 years that he (Obama) has been Senator that he has gotten passed? The answer: he hasn’t. A 3 year voting record is meaningless… particularly when you exclude all the riders that he attached to spending bills to get things passed.”
I did show you and you were mistaken about Obama having no legislation. “Significant” is in the eye of the beholder if you want to make that an issue.
Now I present the same challenge to you regarding McCain. You have 25 years of record to work with instead of 3. I concede McCain-Feingold, but I can’t find any other significant legislation from the man. Silver, are you being fair minded about Obama? Because, I seem to detect an undertone of dislike for Obama from you. Not necessarily a personal dislike, but a dislike for the attention and success he’s been getting. You believe it’s undeserved and unwarranted?
Anyway, I see you’ve made some comments but you haven’t answered directly regarding McCain. As you said to Louis, it’s important to answer because…
“Bottom line blind faith in a political party and your leaders will get you and/or your country killed. Records matter. It indicates a trend of what a person is likely to do in the future. For something as important as POTUS, that means national legislative record as well as gubernatorial record.
Voting with your mind, looking at details, and also records makes for a more informed choice than voting based upon looks and charisma.”
One thing is for certain, it seems easier to find Obama’s legislative record than it is McCain’s. That’s probably what is taking time to do.
Is sponsored legislation really the measure of the senator? I mean, it’s one, but aren’t there others? Like their voting record, like the committees they sat on or LED? Just asking. Sometimes I think committees are more important than legislation sponsored, since they often decide the fate of legislation.
“Sorry for flailing the “zombie” label your way…my memory got a little foggy there.” ——-
thank you for truing up that fact. flail the nazi pharisee, i accept……mea culpa mea culpa mea culpa.
unlike seeker, i am not a moderate(i don’t even get what that means)and lean a little right. well ok, a lot right. i think BigMc has been a detriment to the conservative movement, with way too much lovin touchin and squeezin across the aisle. but, for 4 years i could live with him … BO is out of the question for me. fascism always sucks.
and i would say a liberal who would vote for Barry is a bit more left than liberal. in fact, it would seem more natural to me for libs to pull the lever for BigMc. four years of W is no reason to flush the country down the hole by wanting BO. and actually … HRC and BigMc are similar enough to me to make me think about it. but, again, BO makes Hil look like JFK.
“Sorry for flailing the “zombie” label your way…my memory got a little foggy there.” ——-
thank you for truing up that fact. flail the nazi pharisee, i accept……mea culpa mea culpa mea culpa.
unlike seeker, i am not a moderate(i don’t even get what that means)and lean a little right. well ok, a lot right. i think BigMc has been a detriment to the conservative movement, with way too much lovin touchin and squeezin across the aisle. but, for 4 years i could live with him … BO is out of the question for me. fascism always sucks.
and i would say a liberal who would vote for Barry is a bit more left than liberal. in fact, it would seem more natural to me for libs to pull the lever for BigMc. four years of W is no reason to flush the country down the hole by wanting BO. and actually … HRC and BigMc are similar enough to me to make me think about it. but, again, BO makes Hil look like JFK.
“Is sponsored legislation really the measure of the senator?”
You should ask Silver that, Seeker. That’s one of his Obama criticisms. It’s certainly much more effective than crying out, “fascist, he will destroy the world! ARGGHH! We’re doomed! Run! Run away!” :)
“…four years of W is no reason to flush the country down the hole”
I’m just tired of having to apologize to everyone for our President whenever I travel out of the United States. Bush has made it embarrasing to be an American. Not good. This is the guy conservatives voted for. Classy!
Cin,
I am looking at McCain's record just as I am looking at Obama's record…as I have time since I am leaving the country for 3 weeks in about 4 days. Don't take my silence as a sign that I can't find data, but as a sign that I am extremely busy getting ready and am reluctant to play McDonald's style research due to to limited time.
As to seeker,
Is sponsored legislation really the measure of the senator? I mean, it's one, but aren't there others? Like their voting record, like the committees they sat on or LED? Just asking. Sometimes I think committees are more important than legislation sponsored, since they often decide the fate of legislation.
All of it comes into play in my opinion. A voting record, ability to get legislation passed, take the lead in making it get through joint conference committee, and also years of tenure heading up Senate committees are a measure of qualification and experience. All of this needs to be at the national level as a Senator if a candidate has never ran a large state. And frankly, that is not done in the course of just three years of service in Congress. It takes years to get that experience.
A Joe Biden on the Democratic side is an example of someone with decades of experience in international affairs…just one of the qualifications for POTUS in my book…that was not gained by being a community activist or surrounding himself with advisers, but through years of service in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and introduction of legislation that actually got passed.
I actually believe that a US Senator, despite the legal qualifications, is probably the worst person to run for President, unless of course they have also at one point been a governor. Governing this country is infinitely more complicated in a global economy than it was 100 years ago before global trade and the rise of terrorism. It takes training, both through running a state, and also serving the country at a national level.
Again, there is a reason no US Senator has been elected POTUS since 1963. That we find ourselves in such an eventuality on both sides of the fence is the nature of fielding pretty weak candidates in terms of really deep experience if you go by my standards.
If one has to choose based upon experience amongst Senators that are in the POTUS field now, it is arguably a McCain that has that depth of experience.
I could go on about this, but again, I am pressed for time…Costa Rica and a visit to my late father's family awaits.
so he is not fascist? how would you describe his politics? is he a leftist, moderate, or a fascist? and, what do you base your thoughts on? is he an, get ready for it …. extremist?
as far as apologizing for the US, well, we do not have to be apologized for. we guard the world, feed the world, invite the world to come here to live, and are THE example of freedom in the world. we lead from the front, without the permission of the world. as far as i am concerned the world ought to be asking our permission and our constitution ought to be the document the free world operates from.
anyone who complains about US policies should really stop for a second and thank God that the US exists, since more than likely the complainers live in a place that was defended twice last century from nazi-ism and imperialism and can live free due to the wall-a-tumblin down. listen, i know the freedom to speak out exists, but we as Americans have nothing to be ashamed of. i wish Cuba would have been a right wing operation, like central america of the 80's, but you get what you get vote for. and somalia should have had a real commander of chief, i mean C in C, but i guess the policy of rainbows and unicorns will have to do. they make us feel better. and will just scare the hell out of inflamed islam-ists. and chinese imperialists. and russian bombers. and zeta thugs.
lack of experience kills.
so he is not fascist? how would you describe his politics? is he a leftist, moderate, or a fascist? and, what do you base your thoughts on? is he an, get ready for it …. extremist?
Ben, I hardly think it wise or necessary for you to go poking a bear in what has already become a very radioactive conversation.
Sarcasm, when it is applied justly can be an effective too, but when used to evoke a knee jerk reaction it is just a weak ploy. The latter is what I am seeing here and I am not playing.
s,
my question was for cin. i see another person, who in cin, that is a BO supporter. i want to know what cin sees in him and if it is nothing more than W hating or party love. i think we can all agree that this is an important election. i do not understand the blind mindset. its dangerous.
i already know how you feel as you express it sufficiently. cin was kind of assailed and i would like to know his deeper thoughts, not the knee jerk comments that this forum usually settles on after 10 or so posts.
any way, radioactive sounds cool. i see nothing sarcastic in my comments. so, lets go cin. what do you see?
no one need comment on my full view expressed above … most call themselves mods or some such, so i well know from my past posts what they would say or how they feel. extremists like me are like that. ;)
"…but we as Americans have nothing to be ashamed of."
Are you sure? You may be proud of this, but I'm not.
cin, come on.
anyone in the public eye produces enough video images in a short period of time to either look messiah like(BO) or shrill(HRC) or a buffoon(W). i know, if its on the net its gotta be true.
if this series of posts have been all about Bush bashing, thats old and worn out. W isn't running, remember? i think Carter was a doofus too, but i don't think about him much.
in the BIG picture, in the stretch of history over the past 230, we are doing pretty damn good, compared with "enlightened" nations of appreciably greater age.
so, to my question:
what is it about the BO that has captured your vote? and where would you classify him politically?
i know, if its on the net its gotta be true.
Hmmmm… well, do you think the Bush video was true? Or, was it just a video compilation of liberal lies?
Let's face it, the right wing voted for a moron, not once, but twice. Can you admit that? What does choosing a retard say about the judgment driving their votes? And, knowing that they've set the bar for U.S. President slightly above the level of a chimp, what right do conservatives have to ask liberals about their voting rational when theirs is far more suspect?
dude, you can insult W all that you want, it makes no difference.
i usually do not retrieve my news from you tube, so like i said, anything can be compiled and manipulated as one sees fit. much like all of those whacked out conspiracy theory vids floating around that the anti FOX news wing of politics love to flout and quote.
i would not call him a moron. those close to him have a totally different view and understanding. if jesus christ himself was a republican and running/was president, the left would try to destroy him too.
also, mods, indi's and prob some dems(?) voted for W. it was not a vast right wing conspiracy.
the fact of the matter is that Arch Bishop Gore and John Heinz Kerry were not and are not any better, and with Gore … well only God knows what he would have done.
if you do not want to answer my question, then ok. it just proves my point. Obamazombie, unable to formulate any reasoning past the "I hate W" rhetoric. i just wanted to know.
I admit, W does not appear to be the sharpest knife in the drawer, and he is an abysmal public speaker. I think he's over his head as president. I think he has made gaffes in both speeches and public policy.
However, I am glad that the supreme court is getting more conservative so that we can stop the killing of our own children. I'm not a one-issue person, but that is my top issue. And no liberal dem would move us forward in that direction.
"However, I am glad that the supreme court is getting more conservative so that we can stop the killing of our own children."
Seeker, I believe that were it possible to train a dog to "sniff out" ultra conservative judges and then appoint them to the supreme court, you'd vote for the dog over Clinton or Obama. Am I right? So, the competence of a candidate is really irrelevant to the conservative thought process when choosing between political parties. If right wingers would vote for a pro-life chimp over a Democrat, what does that say about the credibility of conservatives? Once someone gets the Republican nomination, all they have to say is that they are pro-life and they automatically get the right wing vote. It means that conservatives are vulnerable to being duped and that's exactly what Bush did to you all. He pulled the wool over your eyes. Values conservatives hold dear like fiscal responsibility have gone out the window. Bush is not a fiscal conservative yet, Karl Rove sold the pro-life angle and that's all it took for conservatives to swallow his BS, hook, line and sinker. Now, you have to deal with a fractured party with a crap economy and the only thing that will pull you all together is, IRONICALLY, the abortion issue. If McCain is smart, he'll pound that issue over the heads all those in his party who have doubts about him. It'll work too since that's your one unifying issue, IMO.
I don't mean to take this all out on you Seeker, but after 8 years of Bush, it was time to vent that. :)
"Obamazombie, unable to formulate any reasoning past the "I hate W" rhetoric. i just wanted to know."
The only reason you "just wanted to know" was so you could call me an "Obamazombie." No matter what I answered, there wasn't a snowballs chance in Hell you would have agreed with it. So please, drop the charade. I can see right through you.
wow. you can dodge, which you have 3 times. point proven.
that is the way it always seems to go. i ask for a logical answer, i get the inevitable. whatever man.
fauxBama …when i mentally fill in the things he does not say — its as if he's reading my mind …
Obamessiah's spiritual leader: http://hotair.com/archives/2008/03/01/audio-a-ver…
that is the way it always seems to go. i ask for a logical answer, i get the inevitable. whatever man.
Well, maybe when you grow a bit older and your comments become more nuanced, I'll be able to take them seriously. Until then, you'll have to content yourself with being ignored when you call people names.
a strait up question, man.
like i said, typical. no answer exists, other than the emotion of the rainbows and unicorns of BO's revivals and hate for the right, in the form of W.
Cin,
You have no room to talk about Ben's approach – you do the same type of baiting with me, maybe worse, since you mock me with your straw man "Cobert" approach.
…you do the same type of baiting with me, maybe worse.
Bah, my baiting is much more subtle. Did you notice that by taking a position to your right, it forces you to defend using liberal themes? It's fun forcing you to speak up for innocent Muslims and their human rights. :) It shows there's a caring person underneath your right wing rhetoric and the polemical persona you carefully cultivate in your posts. It's just too bad that you never back off your persona and you drove away Sam and Stewart with that stuff. They were good contributers here; able to give some perspective between my far left stance and your far right stance. I don't comment here as much as I used to because I've learned there's no chance to actually communicate with you and Aaron anymore, though I'd love to. I do hope Louis comes back and you stop baiting him. Anywho…
Oh, and Ben deserved what he got for being so ham fisted. He was only asking me what I thought about Barak Obama so he could call me a "Obamazombie" or something. Silver Hallid saw it a mile away too…
"Sarcasm, when it is applied justly can be an effective too, but when used to evoke a knee jerk reaction it is just a weak ploy. The latter is what I am seeing here and I am not playing."
Seeker, if you or anyone else asked me about why I'm voting for Obama, I'd be happy to answer. But why should I play games with Ben? I enjoy chess, not checkers.
it was a straight up question. if golden words are your game, silver is the one for you to joust with. he has mis-understood me from the first. i am more straightforward, yes, … blunt if you will and if that stings your senses, ok.
i explained the Obamazombie label … the rainbow and unicorn worshipers, the ones who swallow the kool-aid without any introspection. MSM included. As the above pics so correctly expose(among hundreds of other examples).
seeing the shallowness and hearing it from BO, the inexperience of record, and the propping up of him by MSM, and his far left attachments, etc., makes one not wonder why he, at the moment, looks attractive to Americans, its been a pretty good camo job/love fest. But the real question is, why a word smith and chess master, be attracted to such?
"…it was a straight up question."
Agreed, Benjamin9. It's a straight up question. But, we both know that's not the issue. The issue is, no matter what answer I give, you'll immediately dismiss it as me being suckered in by Obama's "atmospheric" rhetoric. Correct? Then you can go on about zombies, unicorns and rainbows, which you're doing regardless, even though I haven't bothered to answer you. It's easy to see where you're going with this line of questioning, so don't expect me to play your game. Yet, despite me repeatedly pointing this out, I see you're still pressing me on the issue. So, perhaps I should have said tic-tac-toe instead of checkers.
Ben, the bottom line is this, if you had asked me what I thought about Obama, and your intent was honest curiosity, I'd be happy to give you an honest answer. But, the intent of your question is not honest in that you'd actually listen to it, and consider it's merits. You intend to take any answer I give and then launch into an "obamazombie" accusation. An honest question deserves an honest question. A dishonest question doesn't deserve an answer at all. Am I making sense?
That should read, "an honest question deserves an honest answer." :) Typo.
"Ben, the bottom line is this, if you had asked me what I thought about Obama, and your intent was honest curiosity, I'd be happy to give you an honest answer. But, the intent of your question is not honest in that you'd actually listen to it, and consider it's merits. You intend to take any answer I give and then launch into an "obamazombie" accusation. An honest question deserves an honest question. A dishonest question doesn't deserve an answer at all. Am I making sense?" ——-
yes you make sense. but, then you are incorrect about my being dishonest … i would have not asked 3 times, been mis-interpreted, and then using a bit of "nuance"(which has drawn you back)in my 4th pass, tried once more.
to me this has been the typical BO supporter's tactic, since nothing can be said by those i ask, other than "he's a good speaker", "i like his idea's"(they unable to specify one though),blah blah. its just a terribly naive and scary view. jesus man, they act like zombies!! hence the moniker. si se puede, hope, change, etc., all meaningless rhetoric, which allows him to "seem" different from the status quo when compared to the clinton machine of old, but he does not represent any thing new, except a drift further left.
how bout … keeping more of the money we make; actually defending the Constitution; finishing the war/allowing the warriors and not the politicians to decide whats best; limiting the size of gov; remove roadblocks that artificially keep medical insurance so high; instead of being forced to foot the bill for what is quite possibly a fantasy of the left over hippies(GW), lets get the real polluters on board(china,india,eastern europe)and work toward a clean environment; lets enforce our immigration laws to make it fair to those who come here legally.
i could support a person who stands for just these few points. anything less does not deserve a look, imho.
Contrast this…
"The issue is, no matter what answer I give, you'll immediately dismiss it as me being suckered in by Obama's "atmospheric" rhetoric. Correct? Then you can go on about zombies, unicorns and rainbows, which you're doing regardless, even though I haven't bothered to answer you."
…with your words…
…See? Just as I predicted. It's all just an excuse for you to rant. Drop the pretense that any answer I give actually matters to you. You're so transparent, I can see right through you.
ok man,
of course those are my words. i thought it was a conversation between you and i at that point and as such, who's words would they be?
i tried. all i was doing was laying down afresh my experience, and the way i feel about the Obamessiah. but i suspect that you realize this, and just do not have an answer. nothing to be ashamed of, but it is the average experience.
i dismiss the Obamessiah(at this point), not anyone else. what i am after is the "why" people would support this ethereal, media protected cult of personality representative. you would only be a Obamazombie if you fall into that category. no rants, just reality as i see it.
"…but i suspect that you realize this, and just do not have an answer."
Once again, if anyone else had asked me why I was voting for Obama, I'd be happy to answer. But, we both know that's not the issue. The issue is, no matter what answer I give, you'll immediately dismiss it as me being suckered in by Obama's "atmospheric" rhetoric. Correct? Then you can go on about zombies, unicorns and rainbows, which you're doing regardless, even though I haven't bothered to answer you.
Ben, the bottom line is this, if you had asked me what I thought about Obama, and your intent was honest curiosity, I'd be happy to give you an honest answer. But, the intent of your question is not honest in that you'd actually listen to it, and consider it's merits. You intend to take any answer I give and then launch into an "obamazombie" accusation. An honest question deserves an honest answer. A dishonest question doesn't deserve an answer at all. Am I making sense?
I'm done here. I'll let you have the last word. Here's a little something for you to think about as well about why China is thanking us for W.
They barnyard buffalo, we runt pig!
Once again, if anyone else had asked me why I was voting for Obama, I'd be happy to answer.
Not to be mean, but most of us conservatives are bored stiff with the democratic primaries. We think either candidate is loathsome, and are uninterested in why people would vote for Obama over Hillary.
Now, if you are going to talk about why you like Obama over McCain, that might be interesting. But i think Obama's appeal is simple – he's young, articulate, and inspiring, not to mention a black man with a Muslim name (which shows how progressive America is, and how far we've come from racism). He is also the most liberal of Senators, which negates the former qualities, in the minds of conservatives.
Anyway, can't you just pick why you like him from the list in Ten reasons why Obama will win in '08. That might save us all time :).
Seriously though, can you give a quick, perhaps numbered, prioritized list of why you like obama mama?
Anyway, can't you just pick why you like him from the list in Ten reasons why Obama will win in '08. That might save us all time :).
Many of those don't factor into my rational for voting for Obama, Seeker. For example, I disagree with his position on Iraq.
"Not to be mean, but most of us conservatives are bored stiff with the democratic primaries. We think either candidate is loathsome, and are uninterested in why people would vote for Obama over Hillary."
Then shut up about it already if you're "bored stiff." You have only yourself to blame. I mean, you choose Obama and Hillary as the subject of this post. BTW, shouldn't it say, "Who does the media favor?" not "Whom?"
my question is not about W. he is not running.
I changed it to WHOM because I thought "who" was incorrect – which is it and why? Guess I need to go check strunk and white.
"Not to be mean, but most of us conservatives are bored stiff with the democratic primaries. We think either candidate is loathsome, and are uninterested in why people would vote for Obama over Hillary."
Seeker, the drawn out primary is a creation of fast forwarding the primaries this election season and the penalization of 2 very large states for attempting to hold their primaries earlier by not counting their delegates at all. Had this been a normal election cycle, the nomination decided.
I could care less if you find it boring. Frankly, a drawn out contest on both sides is a healthy thing in that it exposes flaws and divisions in a political party that if left to fester and rot will end up in tearing the party apart and ultimately bring defeat come November.
Party Nomination Conventions in today's world are irrelevant as they have no real impact on deciding the nominee. Frankly, we had better candidates come to the fold when there was a smack down drawn out floor fight at the convention in days of old…within both Parties.
I am in agreement with Cin on one point, if this election thing is getting boring for you…perhaps you and Aaron should stop posting about either one of the party's presidential candidates until after the nomination is confirmed on both sides. That is if you are truly bored. Otherwise, I think this may be a case of you just being impatient and wanting instant gratification in being able to know who you will be opposing come November.
With that, I will you all a nice March. I am off to Costa Rica for a month. A place where Universal Healthcare works, where they have the highest literacy rate (waay higher than the US) and the most stable democratic government in the world after the United States.
If you guys care to debate those things go ahead, but I warn you that I have the stats, the economic studies, as well as Costa Rican presidential papers to back them up.
Peace.
– Silver
I could care less if you find it boring. Frankly, a drawn out contest on both sides is a healthy thing in that it exposes flaws and divisions in a political party that if left to fester and rot will end up in tearing the party apart and ultimately bring defeat come November.
Well, then, that makes two of us who care less ;). But from a conservative perspective, there is little difference between the positions of the two dems, and even they have had a hard time trying to differentiate themselves. They both appear to be far left, while Democratic moderates (are there any left?) are not even represented. More evidence that extreme lefties are running the party.
There is more 'theological' difference on the right (pun intended), as we see in the loud outcry against McCain. But that division is clear, and we don't have to spend countless weeks enduring boring speeches between mirror-image candidates who are, in most political aspects, the same person.
McCain's nomination also shows that the far right, though influential, does NOT run the republican party, which is heartening for me.
I am in agreement with Cin on one point, if this election thing is getting boring for you…perhaps you and Aaron should stop posting about either one of the party's presidential candidates until after the nomination is confirmed on both sides. That is if you are truly bored.
That suits me fine – as you may well see, I have not posted on the candidates much lately. But this post was mostly about media bias, not the candidates.
and the bias, the camouflaging, the pampering and the outright pandering needs to be exposed … as i have said before, conservatives win nothing by "reaching out"(read surrender)to non-conservative principles and those whose desire is only to expand liberal ideals. conservatives have too many political enemies, topics like these are right on.
Ben, again, I think you need to define the difference between the compromise of core principle, and the areas in which compromise (for example, in certain means to ends) that are flexible.
For instance, right now, our family planning dollars are required to be spent w/ 1/3 on abstinence. Would you change that? Are you happy w/ that compromise, or like some unbending liberals, are you not happy with ANY compromise on this issue? Should we stop sending family planning dollars anywhere? I just don't like to hear the "see, that's why we can't work with the (liberal) enemy" kind of talk.
While many liberal positions are in opposition to humane, biblical values (like abortion or the reverse discrimination of racial quotas), interestingly, we *share* many of the same goals, even if the means that liberals propose are hairbrained.
I'm not really saying it right, but I think you need to differentiate between what is negotiable and what is not, else you sound like a fanatic.
BTW, I *think* 'whom' is correct in the title, since rephrasing the sentence using 'him' instead of 'he' makes sense, i.e. 'the media favors HIM'.
See WHO/WHOM.
"While many liberal positions are in opposition to humane, biblical values (like abortion or the reverse discrimination of racial quotas), interestingly, we *share* many of the same goals, even if the means that liberals propose are hairbrained." ——-
socialism, by its nature, is inhumane. any compromise on any issue that empowers the federal gov and/or lessens the individual or their ability to do for themselves needs to be defeated, not compromised on.
"While many liberal positions are in opposition to humane, biblical values (like abortion or the reverse discrimination of racial quotas)"——-
agreed, and should be rejected. we are either a country of judeo/christian values or not … if not, then we shall become socialized much like europe and will become the worlds greatest failure. not the great bastion of freedom and leadership that history has picked. growing the gov kills its soul, the soul being the American citizen.
now, before the lib and mod zingers are fired off, here is my example, just one, that i will use:
running for president of the United State we have –
the maverick, a compromising mod that likes to play on the left side of the aisle, that has little if any respect for conservative people and now finds himself in a position that he has to ask for that slice of the vote, where it should be natural and automatic.
HRC, fascist in a pantsuit. a continuation of the extreme proposals that Bill could not impose at the time of his presidency with fascist pet peeves thrown in.
Obamessiah, fascism light(?) with a radical background(?) and no real record to examine.
we have these 3 winners because, i believe, of the compromising nature of our citizenry not holding their leaders to conservative values.
if my views are deemed extreme, as i have said before, thats fine with me.
no compromising on core values. when have the lib politicians compromised? only when the people have stone rejected them … a forced retreat of sorts, like some of the ignorant immigration legislation that was tried to be ram rodded past Americans and was defeated by our voice.
Actually, seeker didn't choose the post Cin. I did. You've got to look at those bylines underneath the post. Seeker keeps getting blamed for my bad grammar and post choices! ;)
Cin, what do you mean when you say "actually communicate with you and Aaron?" I feel we communicate fine. We disagree on basically everything, but that doesn't mean we don't communicate. It seems like what you are saying is that we don't come around to your reasoning and because of that we are not communicating. That is an unfair and unrealistic standard to have when in conversation with actual human beings.
Coming in to all these conversations I do hope that eventually you all will agree with me. ;) I'm sure you feel the same, but that doesn't prevent conversation. I have learned a lot from the discussions here (with you, Louis, Stewart, Sam and pretty much everyone that has commented here on a regular basis). I have also learned how to communicate much better with those who disagree with me.
I don't know why Stewart, Sam and now Louis have stopped commenting. I do hope they continue to come here and "lurk." I know a few months ago, Sam left a drive-by comment over on my personal blog. (I "lurk" on his blog on occasion.) Eventually, maybe they will feel they can return. I hope they all do. But everyone chooses when and where to comment and what is of value to them. It is a personal choice to interact with people with whom you disagree. Some people can enjoy that and benefit from it. Others find it too frustrating. I would hope that each of us would "strive to be at peace with all men as much as it depends on you." Our goal should be sustained conversation in a journey toward truth, not scoring rhetorical points on our supposed "opponents."
Ben, I still don't like your 'either-or' black and white approach. Perhaps it's just a problem with your tone, such as your mockery in using such terms as 'Obamamessiah.' You may find it witty and accurate, but I think it's off-putting and a bit demeaning. We'll see as other issues come up.
And btw, I make some of the same 'mistakes' ;)
its either black or white to me when its comes to matters of what conservatism is. there is no surrender on principles, if one does, then they are not principled, or what they have compromised on was not really the principles they lived by. by compromising, we have the presidential choices we have. to me, that is sad.
i, again, write from above on principles that should not be compromised on:
how bout … keeping more of the money we make, lowering taxes; actually defending the Constitution; finishing the war/allowing the warriors and not the politicians to decide whats best; limiting the size of gov; remove roadblocks that artificially keep medical insurance so high; instead of being forced to foot the bill for what is quite possibly a fantasy of the left over hippies(GW), lets get the real polluters on board(china,india,eastern europe)and work toward a clean environment; lets enforce our immigration laws to make it fair to those who come here legally.
take abortion. is there room for compromise with you? just a little bit? or no matter what, is it wrong? what is your view on the whole picture, is there any time it is ok to abort? i do not think i have heard your full view, and you mention abortion a bit.
Obamessiah? see the haloed picture above. its not my word, its the media bulit impression. am i wrong? its not sarcastic, but a true reflection of the modern mythos being created.
take abortion. is there room for compromise with you? just a little bit? or no matter what, is it wrong? what is your view on the whole picture, is there any time it is ok to abort? i do not think i have heard your full view, and you mention abortion a bit.
Yes, there is. See my site c-ral.org. Even if you think that the zygote has rights as a person, I think it is much more reasonable, from a legislative point of view, to define life as heartbeat and brainwaves, so at about 6 weeks. I would allow abortion before that, and maybe look at moving it back to 4 weeks.
I would also limit ESC research to less than 4 weeks of gestation.
I do NOT think that we should be protecting zygotes. See:
If abortion is murder, how do we respond?
The Evangelical Argument on Stem Cells is Flawed
Does Life Start At Conception?
Placement of personhood
Personhood in Jewish Tradition