Our Next President

[Rich_Olszewski]

*I know Obama supports Planned Parenthood! Islamic jihadists?? Fundamentalist churches may not be as bad.

*

My opinion, your opinion.

 

[Cinette]

My opinion, your opinion.

Is supporting Obama an opinion or sheer ignorance or just plain unconcern!?

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Is supporting Obama an opinion or sheer ignorance or just plain unconcern!?

It’s always opinion to start with. Honest Obama supporters can give reasons for their support. Not what we would accept, perhaps, but their honest opinions.

 

[anp1215]

I hope not!!!

Why can’t we all just get behind Mitt!!!

---

HE is risen, ICXC NIKA!!!

I will if he gets the nomination. That doesn’t mean he’s my first choice. But whoever the GOP nominee is would be better than Obama.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

I will if he gets the nomination. That doesn’t mean he’s my first choice. But whoever the GOP nominee is would be better than Obama.

With the possible exception of Ron Paul, whom I believe to be less evil, but also less sane than Barack Obama, I agree.

People who are sick of voting for the lesser of evils, oh, well. Get used to it for the time being. Sometimes the lesser of evils, is not very evil at all.

 

[anp1215]

With the possible exception of Ron Paul, whom I believe to be less evil, but also less sane than Barack Obama, I agree.

People who are sick of voting for the lesser of evils, oh, well. Get used to it for the time being. Sometimes the lesser of evils, is not very evil at all.

Ron Paul is my first choice. But I will vote for whoever gets the Republican nomination.

 

[qui_est_ce]

I don’t believe that “he’s not Obama” is going to be enough to win it for the GOP.

I disagree. Obama needs to go.

Also, I remember a lot of liberals saying “ABB” when Obama was running, even though Bush wasn’t even on the ballot.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

I disagree. Obama needs to go.

Also, I remember a lot of liberals saying “ABB” when Obama was running, even though Bush wasn’t even on the ballot.

Some liberals just will never let go.

 

[GEddie]

Some liberals just will never let go.

Conservatives can be just as bad, viz… The Obama as a Muslim/Obama as a noncitizen bit.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Conservatives can be just as bad, viz… The Obama as a Muslim/Obama as a noncitizen bit.

Yes, indeed!!

 

[ishii]

I read the article–I’ve always liked Mark Steyn. I believe, though, that we were already at this point in the U.S. even before Obamacare, namely, being in a left-of-center culture and having left-of-center bureacracies even though we have a right-of-center party (GOP) that will win elections. Perhaps we haven’t gotten as far as Europe–for example, it is rare to hear in Europe the right-of-center parties talk about reducing and limiting the size of government. However, even though the GOP pays lip service to it here, reducing the size of government is never really attempted and Mr. Steyn even addresses that in his article. For example, you don’t see any serious proposals to roll back the Departments of Energy or Education.

As to Roe v Wade, I agree with you and that was part of the point I was making. Supreme Court justices are unpredictable and even when we had 7/9 justices on the bench appointed by Republicans, Roe v Wade was never touched.

On the other hand, one other thing I noticed is that the justices appointed by Democratic presidents are much more in lockstep to the left-wing agenda than those appointed by Republican presidents. On the GOP side, you had John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O’Connor, and David Souter. You also currently have Kennedy, who is a toss-up. However, all the current justices appointed by Democrat presidents can be counted on to follow the liberal agenda.

Thanks for your comments. I agree with your analysis. The only point that I would make is that ultimately, the European governments that don’t scale back their spending will be forced to when they run out of money. At some point the party financed with others’ money will have to end. In America, I think social security and medicare are threatened by a refusal of politicians to make tough choices. No matter how much some Republicans try to reform our entitlements and curb spending, the Democrats will cry “not fair!” and demagogue the issue. I remember the successful “mediscare” tactics the Democrats used against the GOP in the 90’s. And the demagoging of Bush’s plan to privatize part of social security on a voluntary basis. It seems the Democrats would rather milk these programs for political gain until there is no money left to fund them. The Democrats, for their part, will accuse the GOP of never wanting to raise taxes to balance the budget.

Ishii

 

[Jerry_Miah]

Can you provide a credible source that cites these “hundreds of thousand of dead Iraqis” claim of yours or is this just more rethoric from the left?

I can tell you that the party of death to which you claim allegiance is responsible for the death of MILLIONS of babies here and abroad.

The minimum official count is 162,000 men, women and children dead thanks to that USA’s immoral, murderous war in Iraq, and most studies say the number is easily in the hundreds of thousands.

Christian Science Monitor, citing a conservative estimate:

A report released today by Iraq Body Count – an anti-war group that compiles statistics on confirmed deaths from violence in Iraq – estimated that the death toll from the start of the Iraq war to the end of 2011 was approximately 162,000 people.

The well-known and respected British medical journal, the Lancet estimated 655,000 deaths just from between April 2003 and June 2006. washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442.html

So, yes, easily hundreds of thousands of dead thanks to the US war in Iraq based on lies about WMD.

My point: Republicans did nothing substantial about abortion laws during the years they had both the presidency and both houses of Congress. I think they use the issue only for politics but have no plans that effect Roe v. Wade. So we can’t claim morality on that issue when voting for the GOP.

But the Republicans have been the main instigator of going into wars and conflicts in the post-Vietnam era. So it is immoral to vote for the GOP in this post-Iraq moment. We can’t even think about letting them into the White House any time soon.

 

[iamrefreshed]

The minimum official count is 162,000 men, women and children dead thanks to that USA’s immoral, murderous war in Iraq, and most studies say the number is easily in the hundreds of thousands.

Christian Science Monitor, citing a conservative estimate:

The well-known and respected British medical journal, the Lancet estimated 655,000 deaths just from between April 2003 and June 2006. washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442.html

So, yes, easily hundreds of thousands of dead thanks to the US war in Iraq based on lies about WMD.

My point: Republicans did nothing substantial about abortion laws during the years they had both the presidency and both houses of Congress. I think they use the issue only for politics but have no plans that effect Roe v. Wade. So we can’t claim morality on that issue when voting for the GOP.

But the Republicans have been the main instigator of going into wars and conflicts in the post-Vietnam era. So it is immoral to vote for the GOP in this post-Iraq moment. We can’t even think about letting them into the White House any time soon.

So the answer was no, you don’t have a credible source.

You could have just said that.

 

[gilliam]

The Lancet figures are bogus and have been shown to be bogus over and over again, so we can discount them.

The better of the 2 references you site is the Iraq Body Count website. However in both instances they count estimated deaths caused by suicide bombers, an activity not engaged in by US forces. In fact, by a very large factor, many more civilians were killed by suicide bombers and civil war than by US action.

The internal civil war, caused by the toppling of Saddam, is still ongoing. over 4,000 civilians were killed last year.

 

[Jerry_Miah]

The Democrats are historically the party of war. I know you only want to look at the past decade, but that is so narrow as to be useless, unless you are making a speech to like-minded people. Pretty much everyone here is smart enough, and old enough, not to accept that silly, inaccurate label.

I am talking about the thirty yeas of post-Vietnam era, 1980 to now, the era where the parties came to their current definition.

In this time period, from Reagan’s illegal support for the terrorist contras in El Salvador that killed thousands including Archbishop Romero, to pointless invasions and up to Bush1 entering the Gulf War and the moral tragedy of the Iraq War, the GOP has been the War Party. I summarized this in more detail earlier in you want to check that post.

With McCain-Palin in the White House we would probably still be in Iraq and we would be bombing Iran by now. Unless the Republicans change soon, to vote the GOP is to vote for unnecessary, immoral wars. And that is not a moral act for a Catholic voter.

 

[Jerry_Miah]

So the answer was no, you don’t have a credible source.

You could have just said that.

Are you joking? The Lancet, the Christian Science Monitor are not credible sources? I guess you want me to cite Glenn Beck, or what?

 

[iamrefreshed]

Are you joking? The Lancet, the Christian Science Monitor are not credible sources? I guess you want me to cite Glenn Beck, or what?

Neither of those organizations performed the “studies” they only reported what others claimed.

Unfortunately your ‘citations’ are self-defined anti-war organizations. You think there is a bias there?

 

[ishii]

My point: Republicans did nothing substantial about abortion laws during the years they had both the presidency and both houses of Congress. I think they use the issue only for politics but have no plans that effect Roe v. Wade. So we can’t claim morality on that issue when voting for the GOP.

This is nonsense, Jerry Miah. How can you overturn Roe V Wade when you don’t have a strict constructionist majority on the bench? How can you get a strict constructionist bench when the pro-abortion Democrat party thwarts every attempt by the GOP to nominate solid justices? The GOP never had a filibuster proof majority. You display an ignorance of the politics of the last twenty years.

But the Republicans have been the main instigator of going into wars and conflicts in the post-Vietnam era. So it is immoral to vote for the GOP in this post-Iraq moment. We can’t even think about letting them into the White House any time soon.

You said that the GOP starts all the wars. Yet, it was Saddham Hussein who started the first Gulf war by invading Kuwait. So will you retract or revise your statement that the GOP starts all the wars?

Ishii

 

[zab]

I think what it comes down to is that voters need to have the courage to vote for the candiate that best represents their views.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

This is nonsense, Jerry Miah. How can you overturn Roe V Wade when you don’t have a strict constructionist majority on the bench? How can you get a strict constructionist bench when the pro-abortion Democrat party thwarts every attempt by the GOP to nominate solid justices?

Maybe, more correctly, “conservative” justices, and I can agree with that. “Strict constructionist” and “solid” justice are terms of opinion.