Pro-life and Pro-Obama? Hardly.

Many Catholics and Evangelicals have been making the case of late that supporting Barack Obama for President represents another way of being pro-life. The argument goes something like this. (1) The constitutional battles are over, pro-lifers have lost, and Roe vs. Wade is settled law. (2) There are other evils that Christians are bound to oppose besides abortion that Republicans tend to ignore—like the war in Iraq, torture, etc. (3) Liberalized social-welfare policies will lessen the need for abortions among poor women. Since Obama is a liberal on such matters, the abortion rate will therefore go down under an Obama administration. On this reasoning, Roman Catholics like Doug Kmiec and “evangelicals” like Donald Miller are supporting Obama’s candidacy.

I have already referred readers to Robert George’s compelling essay arguing that Obama is the most pro-abortion candidate for president in history. But I would also like to bring to your attention George Weigel‘s piece in a recent Newsweek column that decisively overturns each of the three points above.

‘Barack Obama has an unalloyed record of support for abortion on demand. Moreover, he seems to understand Roe vs. Wade and subsequent Supreme Court decisions as having defined abortion as a fundamental liberty right essential for women’s equality, meaning that government must guarantee access to abortion in law and by financial assistance—a moral judgment and a policy prescription the pro-life Catholic Obama boosters say they reject.

‘According to his own Web site, Obama supports the federal Freedom of Choice Act [FOCA], which would eliminate all state and federal regulation of abortion (such as informed consent and parental notification in the case of minors seeking an abortion); these regulations have demonstrably reduced the absolute number of abortions in the jurisdictions in which they are in effect. FOCA would also eliminate, by federal statute, state laws providing “conscience clause” protection for pro-life doctors who decline to provide abortions. Obama (along with the Democratic Party platform) supports federal funding for abortion, opposes the Hyde amendment (which restricts the use of taxpayer monies for abortion) and has pledged to repeal the “Mexico City policy” (initiated by Ronald Reagan and reinstated by George W. Bush, which bans federal foreign-aid funding for organizations that perform and promote abortion as a means of family planning). According to the pro-choice Web site RHRealityCheck.org, Obama also opposes continued federal funding for crisis pregnancy centers.

‘As Roe vs. Wade does indeed deny the protection of the laws to the unborn, no one can, with any moral or logical consistence, claim to support both Roe vs. Wade and the common good. It’s one or the other.’

There is much more to Weigel’s argument, and I would encourage you to read it in full (as well as the subsequent, spirited interactions with detractors here and here).

My point in highlighting this essay is this. In light of Obama’s public record on abortion and his conspicuous support of Roe vs. Wade, it is becoming increasingly difficult to take seriously the argument that one can be pro-life and pro-Obama. It’s just intellectually and factually dishonest.

71 Responses to Pro-life and Pro-Obama? Hardly.

  1. Truth Unites... and Divides October 27, 2008 at 12:17 am #

    “…it is becoming increasingly difficult to take seriously the argument that one can be pro-life and pro-Obama. It’s just intellectually and factually dishonest.”

    Denny, thanks for being persistent on this morally transcendent issue.

  2. Don October 27, 2008 at 9:27 am #

    I agree that this is a strange election this year, with a woman VP candidate and a black prez candidate. The woman is very conservative and the black very liberal.

    I think it is a mistake to think that one political party represents the Christians and the other does not; this is simply not the way political parties work; the reason they exist is to get power, which is different than why Christians exist.

    As they say, politics makes strange bedfellows and political parties represent that.

    So the question for a believer is which choice, if any, seems to advance the Kingdom, as best one can tell.

  3. Paul October 27, 2008 at 10:40 am #

    “My point in highlighting this essay is this. In light of Obama’s public record on abortion and his conspicuous support of Roe vs. Wade, it is becoming increasingly difficult to take seriously the argument that one can be pro-life and pro-Obama. It’s just intellectually and factually dishonest.”

    No, Denny, it’s not, for reasons that I’ve listed many times before.

    All politics is local, and politics in Kentucky, as the grand poobah of a Christian College is one thing, but politics in NYC, SF, LA, Boston or Chicago is completely another.

    To tell me that I’m only an “evangelical” because I support liberal candidates is ridiculous. If anything, you’re only “smart” because you refuse to think about the Roe v. Wade issue in any sort of pragmatic way whatsoever.

  4. Darius October 27, 2008 at 10:49 am #

    Paul, I noticed that you conveniently ignored my response to you in the last thread. Could you please answer?

  5. Nathan October 27, 2008 at 11:22 am #

    Paul,

    You seem to be arguing against yourself or I am losing an understanding of your perspective. In the post “J. Budziszewski on Prioritizing the Abortion Issue,” you and I were discussing the Federal Court created Right To Privacy that does not explicitly exist in the US Constitution.

    In that discussion you seemed to think that Prop 8 in California had no merit. As you stated, “No matter what, we live in a secular country, and you cannot make a single secular argument that makes any sense against gay marriage.”

    But my point was that, if the people of a state want to make something illegal, it is well within their secular right. All laws are moral, even in a secular society, and if a secular society wants to ban gay marriage and votes in favor of the ban, then they are making a secular statement.

    However in this post you seem to insinuate that all politics are local. “All politics is local, and politics in Kentucky, as the grand poobah of a Christian College is one thing, but politics in NYC, SF, LA, Boston or Chicago is completely another.”

    Denny is bringing to light that Obama wants to effect Federal statutes that will override State and Local statutues. So, your argument, at least to me, seems to hold little substance.

    Maybe I am missing your pont? Do you think laws should be enacted at the Local level only; state level only; or the Federal level only?

    My preference would be that the Feds leave things to the state except when explicitly stated in the Constitution. If that were the case then your statement about Obama not being able to affect local politics would be accurate.

    But you don’t always seem to ride that road? Or maybe I am just missing your point

  6. Brian (Another) October 27, 2008 at 3:15 pm #

    I was amused at “Obamapologetics”.

    I think Weigel codifies the disucssion:

    Questions of war and peace, social-welfare policy, environmental policy and economic policy, on the other hand, are matters of prudential judgment on which people who affirm the same principles of Catholic social doctrine can reasonably differ. The pro-life, pro-Obama Catholics are thus putting the full weigh of their moral argument on contingent prudential judgments that, by definition, cannot bear that weight.

  7. CH October 27, 2008 at 4:13 pm #

    This is a simple question of liberty, as spelled out in the Declaration and Constitution.

    Is an unborn baby a human? If so, and the science is undeniable on this, then they have a right to live. Furthermore, if someone claims to be a Christian then he or she doesn’t even need to consider the Constitution, for this right to live is given by God.

    Why all the talk about pragmatics? This isn’t an issue that requires “pragmatics.” To talk of pragmatics is to minimize fundamental liberty. Fundamental liberties are not the place to discuss pragmatics, as if they should be given in degree. These liberties are either granted outright or they are denied.

    Obama is a radically pro-abortion candidate. He is not for granting liberty to the unborn. He doesn’t believe they have rights! Those who try to be apologists for his stance on abortion are merely trying to appease their consciences. But the more they try to cover for Obama the more ridiculous they look.

  8. CH October 27, 2008 at 4:17 pm #

    Lets turn abortion law over to the states.

    How about we let the states that do want to participate in infanticide sucede from the union.

    Or were the Founding Fathers too radical for us today?

    Just a thought…

  9. jeff miller October 27, 2008 at 4:47 pm #

    Hello Don,
    I enjoyed reading your comment. It is the only one that seems willing to consider the possibility that neither party is going to “advance the Kingdom”.

    Do not confuse the nations with the Kingdom of God.

    Men do not have legislative authority in the kingdom of God.

    Jeff

  10. Darius October 27, 2008 at 4:50 pm #

    Jeff,

    Since when is it the responsibility of the government to advance the Kingdom of God? The best that we can hope for is a government that doesn’t impede His kingdom or His justice, which is something that Obama’s administration would do much more than McCain’s.

  11. podman October 27, 2008 at 5:01 pm #

    CH – I believe the reason for talking of “pragmatics” is that many prolife people don’t actually believe that the republican party is going to actually do anything about the abortion issue. Lately, I find myself in agreement with this group.

    I might be more compelled by McCain’s prolife designation if i actually believed he was going to act on this in some meaningful way (i.e. put abortion into the hands of the states).

    I think Donald Miller does a nice job of further explaining this point of view in the link at the beginning of Denny’s post. I’m sure there are many folks that look ridiculous trying to “cover for Obama” but Miller’s response seems to be fairly reasonable in my opinion.

  12. Brian (Another) October 27, 2008 at 5:30 pm #

    podman (or anyone else, don’t mean to exclude ;-):

    I think if we’re going to say that:
    I might be more compelled by McCain’s prolife designation if i actually believed he was going to act on this in some meaningful way…

    Shouldn’t we also comment on the fact that Obama isn’t merely a “do nothing”, but is going to actively seek justices to uphold RvW (he and McCain don’t say “litmus test”, but point to it), he will actively seek to enact a bill that will eradicate any pro-life bills on the books, that he will actively seek to reduce/eliminate funding for crisis pregnancy centers (federal funding of pro life crisis pregnancy centers)?

    I understand if we don’t agree that McCain will appoint appropriate SC nominations for an overturn of RvW, but I cannot see logic in saying that federal medical funding of abortions (part of FOCA), elimination of funding of pro-life clinics in addition to SC nominations being based, not solely, but in a large part on RvW and the Illinois bill* is somehow a support of pro-life. Is an aggressive social welfare policy really supposed to combat the lack of recognition of a fetus being a human?

    * – I only mention this since I’ve seen so much about McCain’s stance on Ginsburg, etc.

  13. podman October 27, 2008 at 5:42 pm #

    Brian (Another) – you make some excellent points.

    I’m definitely not in love with Obama’s politics on abortion either. I would characterize myself as a skeptic with regard to both candidates positions.

    This “cloudiness”, however, has tempered my enthusiasm for the republicans and brought other issues to the forefront of my mind.

    Regardless of which candidate wins, we as Christians have much to do in winning over hearts and minds on the issue of abortion. There is a fundamental problem that still needs to be addressed even if something like Roe v Wade were overturned – that is the lack of value that is placed on human life.

    BTW, i’m still undecided…i flipflop between McCain and Obama every few days.

  14. Brian (Another) October 28, 2008 at 8:40 am #

    podman:

    Amen about the much to do. And, like you, I’m sure, regardless of the presidency, I’ll pray just as fervently during an Obama presidency as a McCain presidency.

  15. Paul October 28, 2008 at 10:31 am #

    Darius in #4:

    “Paul, I noticed that you conveniently ignored my response to you in the last thread. Could you please answer?”

    You didn’t ask a question. Even if you did, I might not have gotten to it. The trio was in the studio this past week recording our oft requested versions of Folsom Prison Blues, Crossroads and 50 Ways to Leave Your Lover.

    Nathan in #5: re: Prop 8: if it’s seen as a civil rights issue (which many WILL or DO see it as; I see it as a contractual law issue), then no, popular opinion won’t matter, and short of a constitutional amendment in California (which won’t happen), this will keep coming up over and over again.

    re: states rights vs. federal control…the part of me that was a rabid libertarian still pops up from time to time, and states rights is one of those times. However, when it comes to constitutional reach, I think my evolution to liberalism (wow! two evil buzzwords in one sentence!) also holds a little sway. But that’s a way different conversation.

    Put it this way: I am basically a pro-life civil libertarian.

    CH: “How about we let the states that do want to participate in infanticide sucede from the union.”

    secede is the word you’re looking for.

    Realistically, if you do that, you’ll have a 10 state union. And all of those states will be largely rural and contain none of our banking or business epicenters. In other words, good luck with that.

  16. CH October 28, 2008 at 12:15 pm #

    Paul,

    Thanks for the spelling correction. 🙂

    So what you’re saying is that this 10 state union wouldn’t fall victim to the global financial crisis?

  17. jeff miller October 28, 2008 at 1:22 pm #

    Hello Darius,
    Just to let you know: I am not sure how a Christian who reads Denny’s [abortion] blog could vote for Obama over and against McCain. But I have to say we should re-think the idea of Obama being a greater impediment to God’s Kingdom or His justice!

    Our right to vote may be a distraction from doing the will of God like Jesus did it. Especially if we confuse taking part in the coercive power of the state, with the Kingdom tools that Jesus gives us. In the Kingdom, both the motive and the methods are different.
    Thanks for your interaction,
    Jeff

  18. Darius October 28, 2008 at 1:55 pm #

    Okay, fair enough, let’s rethink it. In what ways do you believe Obama will greater help the Gospel or a Godly sense of justice spread in our society and culture? Obama says he cares about limiting abortions and taking care of women with unwanted pregnancies so that they don’t feel trapped into an abortion, yet he also plans to cut funding to crisis pregnancy clinics if they don’t support abortion. Is that really being pro-life or for the Kingdom of God? That will limit the effectiveness of those clinics whereas McCain would at the very least leave the funding where it currently is.

    Or let’s go to economics… Obama plans to significantly tax small business owners and spread their wealth to those who aren’t willing to work for it. How is this just by God’s standards? Robin Hood was a fun story, but it’s a horrible and unjust economic standard. It creates classes rather than eliminates them, making the underclass believe that they are entitled to wealth without work and reward without responsibility. Just ask Britain how this has worked for them. The English are encased in a class-based society precisely because they demand nothing from the masses and get nothing in return but infantilized brats.

  19. jeff miller October 28, 2008 at 3:05 pm #

    Darius
    I appreciate the strength of your points but I only meant to say that neither our electing Obama, nor our electing McCain, is a furthering of God’s Kingdom.

  20. Darius October 28, 2008 at 3:09 pm #

    I agree. But electing one (Obama) may hinder the spread of His Kingdom… maybe not, but it’s definitely possible.

  21. Don October 28, 2008 at 4:33 pm #

    I am a firm believer in the historic Baptist position of separation of church and state being the best thing for both.

  22. Don October 29, 2008 at 1:11 pm #

    http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Zjg2YTM4Y2FlZTE5NTg3YzdjNDc5ODU5YWVkNTBjMzk=

    Obama accepts fraudulent donations

  23. Paul October 29, 2008 at 1:54 pm #

    1) all donations under $200 don’t have to be traced.

    2) Debit transactions don’t have to (and largely aren’t) traced.

    3) The National Review is about as reliable a source for news about liberals as my kitty litter box.

    Mark Steyn providing a fact based report without bias?

    That’ll be the day…

  24. Darius October 29, 2008 at 4:00 pm #

    Mark Steyn is a straight arrow, as is the National Review… this is going to be a huge scandal at some point, though of course the media will ignore it. Obama has run a corrupt campaign from the start… he promised to use public funding until he realized that he could use unreliable, corrupt fundraising to raise 10 times as much, at which point he broke his promise.

  25. Darius October 29, 2008 at 4:01 pm #

    Also, Paul, your response is what we in the bizness call an “ad hominem” attack.

  26. Paul October 29, 2008 at 4:31 pm #

    Darius:

    There is a big difference between you and I.

    You swear that your side plays it straight every time, and that conservatives have all the answers and are never wrong. (i.e., saying that the National Review and/or Mark Steyn is straight as an arrow)

    When you say that, your integrity in political discussions is immediately questionable.

    I, on the other hand, will gladly admit that when I want partisan punditry, that I know where to turn. I will make no bones about the fact that Mother Jones, The Nation and Countdown are all bent, and bent in my direction.

    If I want “straight as an arrow” news reporting, I’ll read the WSJ.

  27. Darius October 29, 2008 at 4:40 pm #

    Paul:

    There is INDEED a big difference between us. You think bias matters, whereas I think truth matters. I don’t care if it’s Mike Savage, if he’s saying something that’s true, I won’t deny it just because he’s a disgusting example of a conservative. Of course, bias can taint a person’s view, but to claim bias is to imply that there isn’t bias elsewhere, which is to deny reality. Everyone (including the WSJ) has bias. Some cover it up more than others, but it’s always there. It’s truth that matters. Yelling “bias, bias, bias” is no way to argue against what Steyn said.

  28. Paul October 29, 2008 at 4:57 pm #

    Darius,

    And here’s where your integrity gets called into question…

    Yeah, I scream bias, bias, bias, when it exists.

    But you didn’t engage me on what I said: small donations don’t have to be reported and can be done anonymously. That’s the law. There’s no skirting there. I can donate $10 to any campaign I want right now, and I can do it anonymously. I can do that 201 times, which would break campaign laws. But it’s still 201 anonymous donations. It’s called a loophole. Overly greedy CEO’s and accountants use them all the time.

    So, where’s the beef?

    There is none. It’s Steyn jumping up and down making smoke where none needs to be.

    Calling that straight as an arrow reporting is ridiculous.

    So, if I use my pre-paid debit card to make a donation to McCain, is it still attempting to make a fraudulent donation, or am I a REAL American supporting a PRO American candidate?

    When you stammer and hum and haw, that’s bias.

  29. Darius October 29, 2008 at 4:59 pm #

    “I can donate $10 to any campaign I want right now, and I can do it anonymously. I can do that 201 times, which would break campaign laws. But it’s still 201 anonymous donations. It’s called a loophole. Overly greedy CEO’s and accountants use them all the time.”

    Yes, but McCain’s campaign doesn’t allow it. His campaign has integrity, Obama’s does not. End of story.

  30. Darius October 29, 2008 at 5:00 pm #

    Here’s more about it that I read a few days ago… keep trying to deny it…

    http://www.nypost.com/seven/10272008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/dubious_donations_135428.htm?page=0

  31. Paul October 29, 2008 at 5:25 pm #

    New York Post?

    The same paper that put out a cover calling Jim Jeffords a benedict arnold on their COVER for leaving the Republican party?

    Seriously, Darius, a real news source would be nice. WSJ, NYT, LA Trib, Chicago Trib, something with some credibility.

    Next you’re going to show me the article where Fox News claimed that we found WMD in Iraq…

    Seriously…

  32. Darius October 29, 2008 at 7:15 pm #

    Again Paul, for the last time, why not respond to the evidence rather than resort to ad hominem attacks? You just can’t help yourself, it would seem.

  33. Paul October 30, 2008 at 1:16 am #

    Darius,

    use a reasonable source for news, and there wouldn’t be an issue. But if you’re going to keep pointing to the New York Post or the National Review for proof of liberal wrongdoing, I’m going to call you out for using less than credible sources. It’s not my fault that conservatives like to read really badly researched newspapers.

  34. Darius October 30, 2008 at 3:28 am #

    You call the National Review uncredible? Wow, your bias is amazing.

  35. Paul October 30, 2008 at 8:59 am #

    Fine, Darius. Tell me that The Nation and Mother Jones are just as credible as the National Review is, and I’ll drop my claim.

    Otherwise, you’re simply being a partisan hack.

  36. Darius October 30, 2008 at 9:14 am #

    I’m not familiar with Mother Jones, but the Nation is okay, just spun radically to the Left. They don’t make things up, they just spin everything to the liberal agenda. What’s infinitely worse, they’re wrong. At least anyone who sees things through a conservative prism is seeing them correctly. The Left doesn’t have that luxury. Obviously, you would disagree with that.

  37. Paul October 30, 2008 at 9:19 am #

    “They don’t make things up, they just spin everything to the liberal agenda. What’s infinitely worse, they’re wrong. At least anyone who sees things through a conservative prism is seeing them correctly. The Left doesn’t have that luxury.”

    The left can’t say the same for the National Review?

    Partisan Hack, thy name is Darius.

    At least I’m man enough to admit it.

  38. Darius October 30, 2008 at 10:05 am #

    The Left can say it, but they’re on the side of lies and are wrong in their beliefs, so they would also be wrong that those on the Right are wrong.

  39. Darius October 30, 2008 at 10:28 am #

    For example… Denny may be partisan just like me, but we’re right, so what does partisanship have to do with it???? The New York Times editorial staff is partisan beyond belief, but what’s much more important is that the views they espouse are evil.

  40. Paul October 30, 2008 at 10:42 am #

    Wow, dude. You are off your rocker. Now liberals are wrong and evil and nothing but liars?

    Are you on Michelle Bachmann’s payroll up there in Minnesota?

    It’s either that, or you’re making a ton of money as an engineer, and being “pro-life” is simply a convenient front for you to continue being one of the “I vote with my wallet” Republicans without seeming callous and greedy.

  41. Darius October 30, 2008 at 10:56 am #

    “Now liberals are wrong and evil and nothing but liars?”

    I didn’t say liberals are evil or liars (though some are, especially in newsrooms). I said they espoused evil ideals (which in their twisted worldviews seem good) and that they are wrong. Many actually believe theirs is the right view that will actually help mankind (though some don’t particularly care if it helps humanity, it just makes them feel good).

  42. Paul October 30, 2008 at 1:53 pm #

    “I didn’t say liberals are evil or liars (though some are, especially in newsrooms).”

    No more so than Savage, Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, Beck or terrorist fist jab lady.

    “I said they espoused evil ideals (which in their twisted worldviews seem good)”

    No more so than Bill Kristol, thank you very much.

    “Many actually believe theirs is the right view that will actually help mankind”

    Like Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt? Like the modern day leaders in Japan, Thailand and Sweden? I’ll take them over Dubya any day of the week.

    “(though some don’t particularly care if it helps humanity, it just makes them feel good).”

    The amount of condescension in the tone of your ramblings about how great your side is, is simply astounding. After all, at the end of the day, your side ought to be Christianity, not something as pathetic as trying to tell your brothers and sisters in Christ how right you are because you hate helping poor people.

  43. Nathan October 30, 2008 at 2:06 pm #

    How is Darius hating to help poor people by not wanting the government to decide who to help and who to not help?

    That is a condescending attitude Paul. Why is your desire to allow government to determine who to help or who to not help any more or less profitable for the good of the poor than those who think it should be the people who decide that.

    Government helps themselves. And usually it is helping themselves to our money. And then spending it on other things than what they campaigned to spend it on.

  44. Paul October 30, 2008 at 2:22 pm #

    Nathan,

    please.

    Those of us who make enough to take care of ourselves don’t need any government money, or “stimulus packages” or “oil refunds.”

    But there are plenty of people in our rural areas for whom there is no work without proper job training. There are plenty of people in our urban areas for whom poverty is a learned condition, and without someone stepping in and helping out somehow, that will not change.

    And as for government spending money in ways that we weren’t expecting, I will remind you that it was Republicans that brought us billions of dollars in spending on a bridge to nowhere and a governmental program to teach people about marriage. And the helium reclamation plan. And the horribly bureaucratic DHS. And stupid policies which keep the DEA and the ATF swimming in cash while we spending untold billions every year busting stoners who just wanted to make the local Dominoes franchisee a little more wealthy.

    These are all things that have gotten their start from republicans, or have gotten major spending increases under republicans, and I could keep going all day.

    Remember, we had a SURPLUS under a democratic president (yammer on about a Republican congress all you want — Clinton was still willing to work with the Republicans when he didn’t have to)

    Somebody bring me a smart conservative to debate with!!! I am tired of seeing people reading from John McCain’s talking points.

  45. Darius October 30, 2008 at 2:23 pm #

    It’s okay, Nathan, let Paul dig his own grave. He knows I don’t hate helping poor people, since we’ve had this discussion many times. But he is purposefully intellectually dishonest to make himself feel good or make me look bad.

  46. Darius October 30, 2008 at 2:29 pm #

    “Somebody bring me a smart conservative to debate with!!!”

    I have to love how you rip on everyone else as condescending, but you’re the most pompous of us all. Classic liberal projection.

  47. Nathan October 30, 2008 at 2:30 pm #

    “But there are plenty of people in our rural areas for whom there is no work without proper job training. There are plenty of people in our urban areas for whom poverty is a learned condition, and without someone stepping in and helping out somehow, that will not change.”

    Johnson’s Great Society proved that throwing money at people doesn’t work. And your boy Clinton realized that and ended many of those programs.

    Obama doesn’t want to help them either. Throwing money at something never fixes it. Obama simply wants wealth redistribution so that his new “Politburo” can rule from on high.

    So when have you heard me speak fondly of blue-blood Bush and his Yale Republican values?

    Name me one piece of legislation and council vote that Obama has made that was not in his interest of gaining power for himself.

  48. Nathan October 30, 2008 at 2:34 pm #

    Oh, by the way.. All the government money thrown at the NEA by the Department of Education hasn’t proved your theory either…

    Blow them both up and maybe the local government of your poor rural area would be able to teach reading, writing, and arithmetic instead of “David has Two Daddy’s.” Maybe the counselers could actually counsel instead of driving little Mary to the abortion clinic.

  49. Paul October 30, 2008 at 2:41 pm #

    “I have to love how you rip on everyone else as condescending, but you’re the most pompous of us all. Classic liberal projection.”

    There’s no projection. I haven’t seen a SINGLE true conservative (small government/small spending/isolationist) around these parts yet. I haven’t seen a conservative around here yet that espouses the conservatism of Goldwater, Paul or Buckley.

    Instead, I see social fascists (and this has nothing to do with the abortion issue) who want this country to spend till it’s dry while not taking in any revenue. That’s not smart. That’s John McCain’s talking points.

    That’s not projection. That’s the truth.

  50. Paul October 30, 2008 at 2:44 pm #

    “Blow them both up and maybe the local government of your poor rural area would be able to teach reading, writing, and arithmetic instead of “David has Two Daddy’s.” Maybe the counselers could actually counsel instead of driving little Mary to the abortion clinic.”

    Timothy McVeigh has a cousin?

    But seriously, Nathan the conservative terrorist here is just spewing more talking points.

    Show me an instance in any rural state where either happened! Either one would have made the news. So, please, show me proof.

  51. Nathan October 30, 2008 at 2:44 pm #

    Way to avoid the direct questions again Paul.

    Taking any revenue is not the issue. What about the Department of Education.. What about the failings of the Great Society..

    I haven’t seen a liberal yet who can defend these programs with a straight face.

  52. Nathan October 30, 2008 at 2:46 pm #

    The proof is billions of dollars spent and our children’s education contiually being dumbed down because of social brainwashing. How about lowering the standards on the ACT just to make us look better

  53. Nathan October 30, 2008 at 2:52 pm #

    Paul, did I miss something or have I actually in a past post called you a name? Other than attacking your liberal political viewpoints I don’t believe that I have actually labeled you as anything other than a leftist.

    So if your idea of debate is calling me a traitor (Timothy McVeigh) or a terrorist (which is essentially the same thing), then you sir are not worthy of debate.

    What next, are you going to speak ill of my wife and children?

  54. Paul October 30, 2008 at 3:18 pm #

    Nathan,

    For the second time on this blog, I have seen you use the words “BLOW UP” in regards to the NEA and or the Department of education. Yes, sir, that would mean that you indeed have some terrorist leanings, does it not?

    Or were just talking about the killing of thousands of innocent and well meaning teachers in jest?

  55. Nathan October 30, 2008 at 3:31 pm #

    A metaphor about desiring that a department of government would be eliminated and no longer be misusing the people’s tax revenues is a far cry from name-calling personally.

    You should know this, but it appears that you would rather continue in demeaning diatribes.

  56. Paul October 30, 2008 at 3:38 pm #

    How about using less inflammatory words and thinking before you type? Of course, suggesting that we’d be better off without a department of education instead of suggesting massive retooling of the department proves that you are completely incapable of thinking anyway.

  57. Darius October 30, 2008 at 3:39 pm #

    It’s all going over Paul’s head, Nathan. Just leave the troll to rant and rave. Once he calms down, then perhaps we can dialogue intelligently with him. He’s so blinded by his liberal hate that he can’t even read straight right now.

  58. Nathan October 30, 2008 at 3:46 pm #

    Paul, do you even read what you type? Do your words apply to yourself as well?

    And again, the personal attacks continue with, “you are completely incapable of thinking anyway.”

    While I probably disagree with you on every political viewpoint, I have not stooped to say you actually are not thinking about what you write.

  59. Paul October 30, 2008 at 3:52 pm #

    We’ve got someone who belittles anyone that doesn’t agree with them (Darius) and someone that wants to blow up federal employees (Nathan) and I’m the bad guy?

    Right.

    There’s no hate here. Only observation.

  60. Darius October 30, 2008 at 3:55 pm #

    Paul, you’re being obtuse and bizarre. “Blow up” certain departments doesn’t mean to literally blow them up McVeigh-style, and that would be obvious to you if you weren’t in troll mode.

    More troll mode: “Instead, I see social fascists (and this has nothing to do with the abortion issue) who want this country to spend till it’s dry while not taking in any revenue.”

    You know that this isn’t true, that everyone here (besides you and your liberal brethren) believes that government should be limited and spending should be cut. Nathan just got done saying how throwing money at problems is never the answer (at least, domestic problems).

  61. Darius October 30, 2008 at 3:58 pm #

    “We’ve got someone who belittles anyone that doesn’t agree with them (Darius) and someone that wants to blow up federal employees (Nathan) and I’m the bad guy?”

    Ok, Nathan and anyone else tempted to chime in, Paul has officially been given enough rope to hang himself. Let the troll be, and he may become rational again. Until then, buy his CD.

  62. Paul October 30, 2008 at 4:12 pm #

    Darius,

    1) I actually do have a new CD getting ready to be pressed. Quit being a jerk and buy one.

    2) You DO belittle anyone that doesn’t agree with you (the thread that got turned into a debate about global warming recently was a classic. You went from zero to hysterical in no time)

    3) Nathan should certainly be smart enough that to use better words than “blow up”. Had Ferg, John or I used those words, you’d have been all over it.

    4) “Nathan just got done saying how throwing money at problems is never the answer (at least, domestic problems).”

    But mortgaging our future to the Chinese for a mismanaged war in Iraq is totally the conservative policy of choice.

    5) “…that everyone here (besides you and your liberal brethren) believes that government should be limited and spending should be cut.”

    And how many of the “conservatives” here voted for Bush in 2004, after we’d already gotten 4 years’ taste of his “conservatism”?

  63. Darius October 30, 2008 at 4:29 pm #

    Okay, since you sound like you may in fact be calming down just a bit, I’ll answer your comments. PLEASE be rational in your response.

    Re: your CD… I don’t like jazz or blues. Nuf said.

    2) I was called an idiot for claiming that global warming was a scam. Having likely read more about the subject than the other two combined, I found it hypocritical that calling it a scam was derogatory of those who had fallen for it while calling me an idiot was just fine. Enough rehashing of that topic, cooler heads prevailed.

    3) “Had Ferg, John or I used those words, you’d have been all over it.”
    This is not true, and you know it (or should know it by now). It was obvious to anyone without a bone to pick that Nathan was speaking metaphorically, and I would have read it the same way if you had said it. I know you and Nathan enough to know when you’re being literal.

    4) “But mortgaging our future to the Chinese for a mismanaged war in Iraq is totally the conservative policy of choice.”
    Do you see anyone here supporting that mehod of funding? Do ya? Or are you just tilting at windmills?

    5) “And how many of the “conservatives” here voted for Bush in 2004, after we’d already gotten 4 years’ taste of his “conservatism”?”

    What options did we have? Vote for a social conservative, fiscal “conservative” or vote for a social liberal, fiscal liberal, and traitor to boot? I suppose you could say that it was an easy choice.

  64. Darius October 30, 2008 at 4:30 pm #

    Oops, mehod should be method.

  65. Paul October 30, 2008 at 4:53 pm #

    Darius in #63:

    1) Fine. But then don’t be a jerk about it either. That said, anyone that makes blanket statements like that should wear a shirt that says, “I have no idea what I am talking about.” Every genre of music, ESPECIALLY jazz and blues, is too big to make a blanket statement like that.

    2) When it comes to something like global warming, both the chicken littles on the left AND those proclaiming it a scam on the right should both be taken with a deer lick of salt.

    The logical default position should be “maybe, and we should probably act as if it might be an issue.”

    3) Darius, maybe you would have, maybe you wouldn’t. Certainly better words could have been used.

    4) Well, you support a war in Iraq that we can’t afford to pay for without mortgaging our future to the Chinese. Phrase it however you want, Bush, Cheney and everyone else knew that we’d go into debt by going there, and they went anyway. And y’all supported them.

    5) Vote libertarian or Constitutionalist party. Go ahead and lose the election, and let one of those two parties qualify for federal funding in the next cycle. Obama will not ruin the country in four years (we’re still standing after 8 years of shrub…), and how much would the Republicans HAVE to become the party of Goldwater, Paul, Buckley and even Reagan again in the face of THAT?

    Give me a TRUE conservative (fiscal conservative/civil libertarian) and even I might vote for them.

  66. Darius October 30, 2008 at 5:03 pm #

    “Fine. But then don’t be a jerk about it either. That said, anyone that makes blanket statements like that should wear a shirt that says, “I have no idea what I am talking about.” Every genre of music, ESPECIALLY jazz and blues, is too big to make a blanket statement like that.”

    How was I being a jerk? I was just trying to inject humor into an otherwise volatile conversation. You used to end all your rants with “now buy my CD” so I thought I would harken back to that. As for me not liking jazz or blues… am I not allowed to have an opinion without being called an idiot? I don’t care to listen to the stuff. It’s not that the music is bad or anything (quite the opposite, I’m sure), but I just don’t find any satisfaction from popping in a jazz album. Same goes for classical music or country… I can’t stand the stuff. Personally, I like my music with lyrics (and not stupid lyrics like country). Instrumental music doesn’t float my boat (with a couple exceptions). I’m pretty picky.

  67. Paul October 30, 2008 at 5:15 pm #

    “How was I being a jerk? I was just trying to inject humor into an otherwise volatile conversation. You used to end all your rants with “now buy my CD” so I thought I would harken back to that. As for me not liking jazz or blues… am I not allowed to have an opinion without being called an idiot? I don’t care to listen to the stuff. It’s not that the music is bad or anything (quite the opposite, I’m sure), but I just don’t find any satisfaction from popping in a jazz album. Same goes for classical music or country… I can’t stand the stuff. Personally, I like my music with lyrics (and not stupid lyrics like country). Instrumental music doesn’t float my boat (with a couple exceptions). I’m pretty picky.”

    There’s no pickiness to what you said. Just intolerance and ignorance.

    1) All country music is bad or stupid? Let’s look here…

    Johnny Cash
    Willie Nelson
    Waylon Jennings
    David Allen Coe
    Emmylou Harris
    The Mavericks
    Carl Perkins
    Elvis
    Bill Haley
    Bob Wills
    Hank Williams, Sr

    The list goes on. Elvis didn’t write his own music, but everyone else on that list did, and they made or are making some of the most poignant music of theirs or any genre. So, saying COUNTRY music is bad, instead of saying, “I don’t know” is ignorant.

    2) You don’t like jazz because you don’t like instrumental music? Uhhh, errr, hmmm, no. That’s not being picky. That’s not knowing about fantastic vocalists like Ray Charles, Joe Williams, Cassandra Wilson, Les McCann, Lou Rawls, etc, etc, etc. Give ’em a listen.

    click on my name and you’ll find an awful lot of vocal music on that there web page these days.

    It’s not about not being allowed to have an opinion.

    But you know how you want everyone to know the facts about global warming before they spout off?

    Yeah, that.

  68. Darius October 30, 2008 at 5:30 pm #

    Haha, this is hilarious. Music is an issue of taste, yet you’re making it out to be some absolute truth. If anyone disagrees with you, they’re ignorant imbeciles.

    Also, did you notice how pretty much everyone you listed as country artists is from a few decades ago? I’m primarily talking about current country music. I love Cash, and some of those other guys are okay. I can’t stand the newer “She thinks my tractor is sexy” excrement.

    2) Like I already said, it’s a combination between good lyrics and certain genres of music. Personally, I’m more of a rock guy myself. Metallica (their early 90’s stuff), Smashing Pumpkins, U2, etc. with a little Linkin Park and Cake mixed in for good measure. More power to ya if you love classic or jazz or blues or whatever, just not my bag.

  69. Paul October 30, 2008 at 5:41 pm #

    Darius,

    No. Music IS an objective thing. There is such a thing as well written harmonies, melodies and rhythms.

    In other words, Duke Ellington was absolutely right:

    There’s only two kinds of music: Good and Bad.

    It’s not shocking that the person who has railed against “intellectuals” on so many occasions is such an anti-thinker when it comes to the arts.

  70. Darius October 30, 2008 at 5:56 pm #

    “No. Music IS an objective thing. There is such a thing as well written harmonies, melodies and rhythms.”

    Sure, which is why I said that it’s “not that the music is bad or anything (quite the opposite, I’m sure), but I just don’t find any satisfaction from popping in a jazz album.”

    There is such a thing as taste too, though. I fully acknowledge that classic music can be well-written, rhythmic, etc. I just don’t like it. Is that okay?

  71. Paul October 30, 2008 at 6:12 pm #

    Hey, like what you want.

    But to dismiss an entire genre of music because you lack a sense of curiosity is, in my estimation, intellectually lazy.

    Now that you have a choice between two of ’em, buy my CD(s).

Comment here. Please use FIRST and LAST name.

Powered by WordPress. Designed by Woo Themes