R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
Nah. NPR is mother’s milk to me. But, there are at least two conservatives here who listen, one for the news, the other for the guilty pleasures.I knew you’d switch Rich ol buddie.
- Status
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
Does President Obama running for another term qualify him as Candidate Obama?
I never thought about whether he’s made it official. Has he?
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
I listen to NPR when I have trouble falling asleep.A lot of them do, but I know at least one conservative who actually listens to NPR.
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
Did he ever stop being Candidate Obama.
L
livnlern
Guest
Roy, conservative radio and TV are there to balance out coverage of Obama such as this:
youtube.com/watch?v=vyHDYBpE8aA&NR=1&feature=fvwp
Talk about over the top! Such adoration has to be weighted by views from the other side. Or are you saying that there’s only one viewpoint that’s worth listening to?
By the way, if you watch this video clip to the end there’s photo of Obama and a group of people obviously saying the pledge with their hands over their hearts. Guess who’s the only person without his hand over his heart?
R
Roy5
Guest
Since I’ve heard the attacks on Obama for not placing his hand over his heart etc, I have watched him carefully and never saw it. He always is standing with his hand over his heart at appropriate times.
Code:
Why do people want to deny the obvious? They are simply not interested in the truth. Don't bother them with the facts.
Besides, do you think that Obama is so stupid that he would not place his hand over his heart? That would be political suicide with people like me.
My problem is that I can't seem to find one commentator on my car radio who doesn't smash Obama. TV is somewhat better, because you have Fox and MSNBC. (I watch both as time permits, which I recommend.)
I honestly believe that those who are deliberately determined to smear Obama are dividing America, and they are the unpatriotic ones. Disagreement, fine. But when I hear Limbaugh and Hannity, for example - the two conservatives that I hear most often (except O'Reilly whom I tend to respect a bit more) - I hear nothing but wildly warped commentaries. The main problem with O'Reilly is that he has angry, biased guests like - hm! what is his name? the man who used to advise Clinton. He's the one who (with his wife) keeps writing useless books. I regard him as primarily interested in selling those books. Simply have no confidence in him or anything he says.
My favorite 24-hour news cycle channel is CNN which is relatively impartial, providing more straight news and less commentary. As for Fox being 'fair and balanced' - give me a break! Ditto for MSNBC, which at least doesn't push such a dishonest slogan. And MSNBC probably has the most balanced political program - Morning Joe (6-9 a. m.). Joe Scarborough, the principal host, is a Republican, a former member of Congress, but the guests represent all shades of opinion on a wide variety of issues. You ought to watch it.
God bless everybody, and may God also bless America. I presume we will get through this tough time. We certainly survived numerous crises over the years. But the pettiness in Washington can be discouraging. Most everyone seems to be concerned more about winning elections than serving the American people.
D
Darryl1958
Guest
I tend not to see fellow countrymen of different political persuasions as unpatriotic.
I think for America the clear exception to this would have been those Democratic strategists who actually hoped for a downturn in the war in Iraq six years ago as they saw that as helping their election chances in the next election cycle.
There are others of course, such as those who want to change school names from George Washington due to his owning of slaves, or a lot of others who vent their contempt of American history at every turn, who are for all practical purpose anti-American. Their words, and the words of an Osama bin Laden, for instance, echo each other.
Many Ron Paul supporters demonstrate that such Americans are on both sides of the political spectrum.
Not wanting Obama to succeed in his socialist agenda on the other hand is not unpatriotic. America was simply not founded on socialist principles.
I think for America the clear exception to this would have been those Democratic strategists who actually hoped for a downturn in the war in Iraq six years ago as they saw that as helping their election chances in the next election cycle.
There are others of course, such as those who want to change school names from George Washington due to his owning of slaves, or a lot of others who vent their contempt of American history at every turn, who are for all practical purpose anti-American. Their words, and the words of an Osama bin Laden, for instance, echo each other.
Many Ron Paul supporters demonstrate that such Americans are on both sides of the political spectrum.
Not wanting Obama to succeed in his socialist agenda on the other hand is not unpatriotic. America was simply not founded on socialist principles.
I
ishii
Guest
Roy5, are you familiar with the concept of ad hominem arguments? If not, I recommend looking it up. For an example, look no further than the above post made by you. Why don’t you answer someone’s points, rather than merely accuse them of being mindless viewers/listeners of Fox and Limbaugh? Do you really hope to persuade people by being so insulting?
Umm…uhh… ahh… ( Obama without his teleprompter).
What is it about Santorum that makes you deeply troubled? He is a good Catholic, pro-life candidate. Do you believe his stand on the sanctity of life to be “radical”? You admire Patrick Leahy? What do you think about his support for activist judges? Do hope that Roe V Wade remains the law of the land?
Ishii
C
Caldera
Guest
Obama’s policies are what is dividing America, plain and simple. And of the many reasons why this man deserves to be voted out of office, is one that is possibly the most important, yet astonishingly the most ignored.
Tarek Fatah, an Indian Muslim, tells it like it is: (must see video)
yourdaddy.net/2011/08/16/3-members-of-muslim-brotherhood-in-obama-administration-named-by-tarek-fatah/
And now we have, …
The Obama Administration takes on ‘Islamophobia’ - Nina Shea
nationalreview.com/articles/276021/administration-takes-islamophobia-nina-shea
PS - Today’s 3 hour Tea Party rally will be on C-SPAN starting at 11am CDT.
Full schedule for ‘Restoring America’ rally: music, prayer, and Sarah Palin
caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2011/09/02/full-schedule-for-restoring-america-rally-music-prayer-and-sarah-palin/
B
bluerepublican
Guest
Buchannan is staight up Pro-Catholic, from A to Z
Catholic Bishop Equates Rudy Guiliani on Abortion with Pontius Pilate. (note, cannot find the question part on the Bishop’s quote on youtube)
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5794712078425847333#
B
bluerepublican
Guest
Funny Ishi that you mention ‘look it up to Roy5’ then ‘sancity of life’ and Santorum in the same breath. Being ‘pro-life’ should be consistant, at least the more consistant the better in agreement w/ Catholic thought in my mind.
Santorum does not take very seriously the ‘sancity of life’ at least in reguards to his foreign policy and lack of apperciation of ‘just war theory’. Secondly he needs a better grounding on history would be helpful. He thinks that our conflict w/ Iran began in '79 vs '53 as he learned in the last debate if he and/or you were listening.
Lastly please point me Santurum’s position on the 'Sanctity of Life Act" .
By removing all authority from the courts to rule on cases involving abortion, the Sanctity of Life Act of 2011 [H.R. 1096] would restore the authority of popularly elected officials to pass laws to limit or ban abortion without interference from unelected, activist pro-abortion judges.
Sancitity of Life Act - 1st brought to Congress in 1996, Ron Paul sponsored this the last three sessions of Congress.
prolifealliance.com/sanctity%20of%20life%20act.html
Pro-lifers are urged to call (202) 224-3121 and insist that their Congressman cosponsor Representative Ron Paul’s Sanctity of Life Act of 2011 [H.R. 1096] today.
K
kubark
Guest
Right on, bluerepublican. Ron Paul is the most pro-life, pro-constitution republican presidential candidate and he has the voting record to prove it. And, as you alluded to, “pro-life” encompasses much more than just beginning of life and end of life issues. It also covers foreign policy. Unfortunately, the Republican party is now dominated by a clique of neoconservatives (I better be careful using that term; it seems some on this forum consider “neoconservative” to be an offensive and uncharitable term) that are more familiar with the inside of a think tank than of an Abrams tank. These “new” conservatives seem to forget that it is largely the blue-collar families of America (who tend to vote for Democrats) that are the ones that supply the human capital for our foreign misadventures. That is why Republicans lost the last election and why they risk losing the next one. Now many Catholics on this forum seem to think Ron Paul is “unelectable” and are ready to make a deal with the devil and vote for the “lesser of two evils” by “getting behind” a flip-flopping “conservative” like Perry or Romney. They think by ignoring the more conservative candidate and rallying behind the “most electable” candidate they have the best chance of beating Obama. They are mistaken. Obama was not successful because he was the “most electable” candidate but because the was the least moderate and most radical candidate on the Left. Blue-collar Democrats and Independents rallied behind Obama because they saw him as unwavering on the one issue on which they expected him to deliver: ending the neoconservative foreign policy of George W. Bush and bring their boys and girls home from Iraq. That issue outweighed all other issues in the last election, at least for Democrats and Independents. Now, certain Catholics on this forum will counter by saying that abortion must be the top issue. But here they face a problem. They are correct in saying that abortion is the top consideration for voting Catholics. But on the other hand they are willing to accept the logic that allows them to vote for the “lesser of two evils” and compromise their conservative principles for the sake of choosing an “electable” candidate. These “electable” candidates go to the general election and lose to someone like Obama. Catholics are left scratching their heads. What they failed to consider was that abortion may have been the top issue for them, but it was not the top issue for voters in general; the same logic that allows them to accept the “lesser of two evils” somehow prevents them from seeing this. Anyway, Ron Paul is the most conservative, most pro-life and most pro-constitution candidate for president. Catholics should be rallying behind him but they won’t. Unfortunately, they will rally behind the “mainstream” Republican and further dilute whatever conservatism is left in the Republican party. They may win the battle but they will lose the war. Could you just imagine how better off we would been had a real conservative like Pat Buchanan been elected in 2000?
J
JMJSHJ
Guest
It is true that for sincere Catholics the most important issue is abortion and I am glad to see you address that but for most Americans the most important issue is the economy. If there is an issue that is a “game changer” its the economy. Its what got Clinton elected in 1992 and Obama got in 2008 as the economy sucked then. If the economy is going good then Americans will keep the status quo despite any other issues. Proof of that is 2004. In 2004 Americans weren’t happy with Iraq but it wasn’t enough to change the tide as the economy was doing good.
The economy is what drives the elections. As long as the economy sucks, Obama is doomed.
L
Luigi_Daniele
Guest
How is Ron Paul more pro-life than Perry? or Santorum?
C
Caldera
Guest
Video of the Tea Party Rally today
c-spanvideo.org/program/301303-1#.TmI3mwdCzSU.twitter
c-spanvideo.org/program/301303-1#.TmI3mwdCzSU.twitter
K
kubark
Guest
Because Ron Paul understands that “pro-life” is a comprehensive term coverning abortion, euthanasia, stem cells, etc. AS WELL AS foreign policy and economics. Because Ron Paul has proven that he has mastered the philosophic and scientific arguments of the pro-life position AS WELL AS the Constitutional arguments. Ron Paul understands that if you cut corners as far as the Constitution is concerned, you may win a few pro-life battles but you will ultimately lose the war. Ron Paul understands the “pro-life” position better than any of the other candidates and best of all, he has consistent voting record to prove it. Forty years of pro-life activism and one glaring fact remains: it is still legal in the United States to kill innocent, unborn human beings. Ron Paul is the best chance at changing that one glaring fact.
T
Tsuwano
Guest
This is not quite accurate. President Obama’s policies are not what is dividing America. America was politically divided before Obama became President and it will remain divided after he is no longer President. The President’s policies may be underlining that division, but so then did President Bush’s policies.
I
ishii
Guest
You lost me there - I honestly can’t understand what you wrote. Perhaps you could reword it to make it coherent?
I would be careful to disparage Santorum’s committment to the sanctity of life. He has worked tirelessly for the pro-life movement even though it meant ultimately losing his senate race. Santorum is a walking example of integrity. As for his foreign policy stands, they are not the same as the abortion issue, sorry. You are wrong to equate the two. And what’s with the non-sequitor? What does whether or not the conflict with Iran began in 79 or 53 have to do with the sanctity of life issue? Again, more coherence, please.
No, you point to me his position on the act since you brought it up.
I ran by this sanctity of life act to some pro-life groups, one in DC and one in the state where I live. Both representatives denied that the passage of the act would have any effect on the legality of abortions. Sounds like wishful thinking to me. And another opportunity to be able to say “yeah, Ron Paul in 2012.” What’s needed is for Roe V Wade to be overturned. Until then, states’ restrictions on abortion will be struck down. That said, however, I believe there is value in passing such an act as it does proclaim the sanctity of life. As a serious tool to reduce abortions, I would say that it won’t make a difference.
Ishii
I
ishii
Guest
Ron Paul might be pro-life, but how effective? How many supreme court justices will he nominate in 2012? Answer: none, because he won’t be winning the election. His support is in the single digits. Also, the issue of the sanctity of life for the unborn and the elderly is not equal to foreign policy in terms of moral gravity. If you believe they are then perhaps you could explain how 1.2 million unborn killed each year could rise above a GOP senator’s vote for the authorization of force in Afghanistan or Iraq?
(my bold italics) Are you aware that the military overwhelmingly vote for the dreaded Republican party?
Your political analysis of the 2008 election is a little suspect. Obama won because he was able to masquerade as a moderate - and successfully hide from his radical past. The GOP had been in power 8 years, the economy was tanking, and the two wars were still going on. Not a recipe for GOP victory really. Also, you seem to like throwing out all sorts of blanket statements without any sources or evidence, such as the Iraq war being the biggest issue of 2008. If you’re trying to persuade people, you might consider backing up your claims. A poll right before the election showed that 57% of voters thought the economy was the main issue.
cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/
I’m scratching my head alright, trying to understand your obscure analysis. Here are some polls of different candidate going up against Obama:
realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/president_obama_vs_republican_candidates.html
Notice Ron Paul is losing to Obama in all of the polls, whereas Romney (not my favorite candidate) and Perry are either tied or beating Obama. Another poll has Ron Paul in single digits behind Romney, Perry, Bachmann and Palin. He isn’t going to get the nomination so all of this talk of him being the “most pro-life candidate” is moot isn’t it? He has a loyal following of true believers, libertarians and potheads, but not the kind of constituency or coalition that can win a nomination, much less a general election now is it? Facts are stubborn things aren’t they?
Ishii
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
Nina Shea’s article is excellent.
Happy to see that she is still around … she’s always been a superb writer.
She raises an important issue … two of them really … one is Freedom of Speech and the second is the preferential treatment given to Islam … versus bashing of Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular.
- Status