If you can stand all the interruptions, this is both pretty funny, and sobering:
I won't say I agree. But I think she has a point. That backstabbing, unstable, spineless egomaniac John McCain is even still in the race is scary and sad.
You want to make the case that he'd be better than Hillary or Obama? Honestly, I think virtually any sane person would be better than Hillary or Obama.
But what a pathetic place to be in, as a country.
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
28 comments:
Dan,
Ann Coulter has gone off the deep end. She isn't any different from evangelicals voting for Obama.
The fact of the matter is McCain wouldn't be that much more disastrous than President Reagan was on some issues. President Reagan signed an amnesty bill into law (just like President Bush would have had Congress passed an amnesty bill). President Reagan while lowering taxes significantly, he also raised taxes. President Reagan also appointed two disastrous centrist jurists like O'Connor and Kennedy. I think the Bork nomination really stifled Reagan. He redeemed himself from his appointment of Scalia (but I think that was before Kennedy) and Kennedy and O'Connor were better appointments than what a liberal would have done. Of course, President Reagan help defeat communism. I don't understand why the same people who criticize McCain won't criticize Reagan and Bush for the same things. I mean, President Bush signed McCain-Feingold into law...why in the world didn't he just veto the bill?
Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh are not Christians so I'm not too terribly concerned on what they have to say on everything. This is about the appointment of federal judges, and McCain may be are only chance to defeat Bush derangement syndrome and win the general election and appoint federal judges that may have an impact for another 50 years.
backstabbing, unstable, spineless egomaniac ... yes, that is Ann Coulter.
What a position to be in as a party...you've got a good pro-life candidate in Mike Huckabee who gets torn to shreds by "conservatives" in the GOP because he supported some tax increases in Arkansas? Give me a break! Have you been to Arkansas? They need a lot more tax increases to fix what's wrong there...and none of that is Huckabee's fault.
Bottom line is the GOP has no one to blame but itself for the sorry state the party is in right now, no one but GWB, that is. I thought four years ago that Bush would undo everything Reagan had done for the GOP. Sadly, it appears I was correct. We'll now spend the next decade as the minority party whining about all the things the Democrats are doing with the power we handed them.
Gosh, what a foolish remark, dac. Coulter may challenge you in some areas, but spineless and backstabbing she isn't, nor inconsistent.
But it certainly is McCain.
The issue is: what is more important, conservativism or republicanism.
Well Dan, if you want to join the Coulter/Buchanon/Hilary axis of evil, feel free.
For me, no thanks
A thought I had last night - if any poster her used language like hers, they would be banned for life. So just why the AC crush?
Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh are not Christians so I'm not too terribly concerned on what they have to say on everything.
Doesn't Ann Coulter quite openly profess her faith?
Yes, David, that's how we know she's not a Christian, she professes a different gospel, a different faith. (As we can't read hearts, had she only called herself a Christian and left it at that it would not be for us to judge despite suspicions due to fruit or lack thereof.)
My mistake David, she has openly professed she is a Christian.
I don't know about a Coulter/Buchanan/Hillary axis of evil. For all the provocative things that Coulter says, she has been pretty much dead on how McCain has voted on certain issues - positions he has taken that give me great pause.
I don't pretend to know the providence of God. When Attorney General Janet Reno's FBI agents waved a gun in front of Elian Gonzales' face scaring him half to death and shipped him back to communist Cuba, little did I know that would produce an outrage in Floridian Cubans that turned their 60/40 support of Clinton/Gore in 96 to a 75% Bush/Cheney support in 2000 securing enough votes in Florida for Bush to win the Presidency.
It looks like McCain is going to get the nomination for the Republican. Maybe John McCain is a way of combating Bush derangement syndrome and putting another Republican in office. Hopefully, we can hold McCain accountable and ensure that he'll appoint Alitos, Roberts and Janice Rogers to the federal courts, that will be good. I know that Clinton and Obama won't appoint such judges or justices.
What's wrong with Patrick? I like Patrick.
DJP- you opened the comments at Pyro just for that?! Just to harumph. I did answer, in a way, and I think some others did too, though the opposition wouldn't dare. Mark could have used Polos or Murias (murias also being a great army)? But, simply, why does the name have to be anything but a name? Beside, the daemon splained its meaning. My name is Thomas, and I have no twin, so what! It still means that. Legion, a third declension noun form of legere simply means a select multitude (sent envoy, an army, and interestingly might be stretched to mean a collection of cremated bones). It need mean nothing more than many, and does not have to mean even that, except that is what the daemon said. The idea that legere could mean to send an envoy melds well with the fact that angels are envoys, trustees of a message or duty. Interesting...
Dobson doesn't know what to do? How can it be? I thought he was the Owl of the All.
I know what I'll do, I will vote for the Republican, even if it is McCain, simply for the fact that Demo is a contraction of the word Daemon and crat, which is an adulteration of the word crazy. And I don't want no crazy demon woman, or a man who vaguely looks like a male version of the woman who played Tia (Calipso) Dalma, which sort of sounds like Barak Hussein Obama, do you see the conspiracy here?
Seriously though, a Prez has certain powers that I do not want in the hands of dem two Dems. If I have to choose between a bleach blond fascio/socialist, the first Afro/Euro prez whose pastor is a black racist/fascio/separtist, and a PTSD sufferer, I think I will take the dissociative states (DJP-"I think virtually any sane person")of McCain over the first two. I would rather have a prez who thinks he is at war and knows how to fight one, than the other two who know we are in a war but think were on the wrong side.
As for the skinny-legged blond pundit, well, her wardrobe speaks volumes about the poor view she has of herself. She was better dressed in this segment than I have seen her in others, maybe a tanning accident or her rosacea is out of control, who knows? Or, she has become a environmentalist. A vote for someone is support for them. Hers was a very poorly thought out statement. She should know how much influence she has, and she may have just swung alot of votes Hillbilly's way. Dobson too, who today endorsed not voting, saying that he would probably not vote. As they say in politcal cirles, a non vote, is vote for the opposition.
The point is, McCain might be able to be coopted by Democrats, but he will still have to deal as a Republican with Republicans in Congress. Congressional races have been out of view, but they will be equally as important latter on. But, do not count the Huck out. The divide and conquer engineered by he and McCain worked and in the event that Huck out-gains McCain, do not be surprised if the McCain camp goes over to the Huckster. Give it some time, the fat lady hasn't sung yet. If it comes down to a shoving match between McCain and Romney, Romney will take the conservatives MC has in his corner, so I think that if it is close towards Convention time, McCain will cede his supporters to Huck again. Then watch the sparks fly.
Did you notice all the blonds on stage with McCain, wow. Hillary clones or Mormon plants? And, what about that guy who enters from the right at the end. He looked alot like Algore. Somethens hapnun here, what it is ain't z-zackly clear...
Doulogos, what mean thee, republicanism versus coservativism?
Me thinks this is a category error. No?
Strange that you would describe McCain as "spineless," he who was almost killed in action (twice), tortured, had his teeth and bones broken, declined an offer from the North Vietnamese to release him on the grounds that it was unfair for him to go free while other POWs remained captive -- all to protect your right to describe him as "spineless."
John McCain has many faults, but he does not lack courage.
I would suggest you issue a retraction, but you don't exactly strike me as the type of person who would find such a gesture very agreeable.
Oh, and just for the record, I'm voting for Huckabee.
Wyatt,
I definitely respect Senator McCain and his service for our country and his POW years.
Senator McCain needs to work on a few things. Him telling conservatives we need to "calm down" is a tone problem he has. He has to display some humility. He does have trouble with the base and it's not necessarily his disagreements with the base.
I mean, President Bush signed McCain-Feingold which many of us conservatives disagreed with. President Bush was for the amnesty immigration reform but even though we have some disagreements, we in the conservative base still like President Bush.
McCain is ostentatious (heck, I don’t know, maybe I would be too if I was a POW for 5 years) and I think what he has to in part to do is sincerely say that he respects some of the differences with the conservative base and go immediately into contrasts with Clinton and Obama but he needs to stop with telling conservative base to "calm down" and put away "our" differences. He needs to bridge the gap, not conservative base.
Wyatt, I'd be willing to retract if I'd said something untrue.
To your mind, even assuming the most glowing version of McCain's service, does that give one a "get-out-of-criticism" card for life? Can one be a jerk and a sellout and a posturing opportunist, forever, and no one can say "Boo"?
I was (as you well know) referring to McCain's behavior as a senator. McCain, who couldn't even get 50% of his own Republican constituents to support his candidacy. McCain, who can't find it in himself to criticize his America-hating opponents, but who never misses an opportunity to slash and slime the base of the Republican party, who loves to sell out his constituents so he can garner the NYT's praise by forming common cause with such execrable wretches as Ted Kennedy. McCain, the grandstanding gasbag who's sold out free speech, secure borders, judicial nominees, so his preferred fans (the MSM — who he'll find quite fickle if he gets the nod) will sigh and swoon some more.
If he served with honor, I honor him for that.
But it doesn't forfeit my right to say that he is unfit for the position he holds, and even less so for that to which he aspires.
Find me a factual error in what I've said, and I'll listen. Tell me I haven't the right to say it, because what McCain did decades ago and NOT as a senator bought him lifetime immunity from criticism, and you'll not get far.
Please understand, I am not a "fan" of McCain. I'm disappointed in some of the statements he has made about conservative Christians. Most troubling to me, I think, are the circumstances surrounding his first marriage, subsequent divorce and remarriage. In lieu of a laundry list, let it suffice to say I have big problems with McCain. As I said, I will be voting for Huckabee.
The point I was trying to make was very specific. It has to do with your characterization of John McCain as "spineless."
As to the question of whether his service in the military innoculates him against criticism: no, it doesn't. Not in the least.
No, you don't "forfeit [your] right to say that he is unfit for the position he holds," nor did I suggest you did. Hey, it's a free country. So fire away. I wouldn't question someone's right to describe George W. Bush (whom I consder to be a fine man) as a right-wing, Bible-thumping, war-mongering despot. But I would strongly argue that such ad hominem attacks are not constructive. Frankly, Dan, your tone reminds me a lot of Christopher Hitchens, who, upon hearing of the death of Jerry Falwell wrote this:
"The discovery of the carcass of Jerry Falwell ... has almost zero significance, except perhaps for two categories of the species labeled 'credulous idiot.'"
Where, as you put it, is the "factual error" in that?
Your attempt to shoehorn the issue of free speech into this discussion is off-base.
DJP,
McCain, who couldn't even get 50% of his own Republican constituents to support his candidacy.
The same can be said for each and every one of the GOP candidates this year.
McCain, who can't find it in himself to criticize his America-hating opponents
Wow, and here I thought you were actually going to stick to the facts rather than engage in senseless, tired old lines parrotted by the liars on Fox and the EIB network.
who loves to sell out his constituents so he can garner the NYT's praise by forming common cause with such execrable wretches as Ted Kennedy.
You must be confused...it seems to me that you are describing George W Bush here and his NCLB and Immigration proposals.
the grandstanding gasbag who's sold out free speech, secure borders, judicial nominees
Free speech was sold out? How? By restricting the ability of multimillionaires to spread lies and deception about candidates for political office in the days before an election? I don't see where your freedom of speech has been affected one bit since you're busy smearing the good senator on your blog!
Judicial nominees? The way I see it, McCain's deal ensured that some of GWB's nominees got lifetime appointments so they could legislate from the bench. Without his deal it is unlikely any of them, including Alito and Roberts would have been approved.
Secure borders? Blame your beloved president who has done NOTHING in 7+ years to secure the borders of this country.
Your hyperbole and deceitful statements about anyone other than your preferred candidate, the mormon flip-flopper, are enough to make me wish I was a democrat. At least they're civil with one another.
Well, Senator McCain is surely the nominee at this point. Mitt Romney has dropped out.
Who would have thunk it. But Romney is a business man, I wonder what his war chest amounts to? Wanna bet he made a profit?
Now it gets really interesting. For those who thought Hunnybee was too soft on his Sugarcain (seyd wif a suthurn drauh), well, it's cornmash and grits vs chipolte and tequilla, now.
Boy my endtimes stategy is all messed up. I would say that it was romkneed. Mittens will have to convince his base to change to Huggies. Some have threaten to support Paul, bad move, that will ensure dipping an Oreobama or extracting cheap Vanillary.
Sparks will still fly and my feeling is that it will be the curse on McCain because Huck is abel...um...better at maintaining his cool...offerings. Hey let's get Mikey...He'll eat it! Hey he likes it, Mikey likes it! Just think, he'll do away with the IRS and income taxes, and let us keep a tithe of our income. Beside, who better to run a social-Gospel system, an agnostic, members of the NBCC, or a works/purpose driven SBC'er?
Dan,
Please, hold your fire. All this McCain bashing would have folks; especially your female friends here, voting Hillary in office. Go easy man.
Daniel wrote: “The issue is: what is more important, conservatism or republicanism.”
My response: I think there is a more important issue than republicanism (which changes over the years, just compare the 2004 platform with the 1984) and conservatism (which I guess can be redefined also). I think the important issue is how our Christian faith informs our politics. The most important issue(s) is the issue of government defending and protecting human life and a close second (if not first) is defending property. We look at our tax system and a lot of people believe it’s okay to vote on a issue to tax those that make more money for personal gain for themselves or others. That’s government sponsored theft. But staying with the number one issue which is defending life…
I’m sure a number of Christians will be saying I cannot vote in “good conscience” for John McCain. Some people are considering to vote for a democrat or even vote third party or completely abstain. If that is the case, in my opinion, I think they need to re-examine their conscience. In the worst case, I think they have a very bad conscience, or in the best case, and probably most cases for Christians, they have a very uninformed conscience.
The partial birth abortion ban overwhelming passed by Congress and signed by President Bush was immediately blocked by the federal courts after its passage but upheld by the Supreme Court by one vote thanks to President Bush appointing Alito and Roberts and thanks to the retirement of O’Connor who would have voted to rule the partial birth abortion ban unconstitutional. Any vote that edges us closer to the federal government protecting and defending human life and not sanctioning the destruction of the unborn, is a vote I will make. And that vote includes me voting for John McCain in November even though I have some serious disagreements with him.
I like the example of William Wilberforce, the great English politician. Slavery was so connected to the economic welfare of England, Wilberforce’s call of the abolition of slavery was ignored, year after year, but he wouldn't stop. He kept calling upon Parliament to have a conscience to stop the wickedness of the slave trade. England's conscience was moved and slavery was abolished. It is because of men like William Wilberforce in England and men like Jonathon Edwards who fought and preached for the gospel of Christ and that faith permeated all aspects of life which ultimately lead to the ban of the slavery trade in England the abolition of slavery in the US. So, in the tradition of William Wilberforce, I’ll be casting my vote for McCain, not because of McCain, not because he is a Republican, not because he is conservative (which he is not on several issues), but my vote will be cast to edge us closer for the protection of the unborn which I think a McCain Presidency will do and which a Clinton or Obama Presidency will not do.
Carlo wrote:
The most important issue(s) is the issue of government defending and protecting human life and a close second (if not first) is defending property.
Icthys responds:
This statement falsely summarizes the purpose of government laid out by the founding fathers of our nation. While certainly it is true that government ought to protect the lives of its citizens (whether the unborn are included in the citizenry is really a different argument altogether) it is NOT the primary purpose of government according to the framers. Rather, that distinction lay with the one issue the founders saw as most important, namely, the protection of the liberty of citizens. Patrick Henry did not say "Give me life or give me death" and the New Hampshire state motto is not "live life or die." In fact, if one were to read the arguments raised by the framers and the anti-federalists, the primary concern in the establishment of a government is the provision of liberty to each citizen. I am not surprised that Carlo would omit the provision of liberty as a primary purpose of government because he is a self proclaimed conservative and conservatives often argue for restrictions upon individual liberty, particularly when they perceive some security benefit thereof.
I think Carlo has it exactly backwards when he argues that the protection of life is the most important issue. It is the provision of freedom for without freedom life is meaningless. Soldiers are not sent into battle to protect life and private property, no they are sent in to destroy those things so that liberty may be preserved. Yes, liberty must be preserved at all costs, even when one disagrees with what another does with his or her liberty. The great and continual purpose upon which this and any genuine government stands is liberty for its citizens. If those citizens use that liberty to harm others or to take or destroy property then that government is granted the power of the sword in Romans 13.
Carlo says:
We look at our tax system and a lot of people believe it’s okay to vote on a issue to tax those that make more money for personal gain for themselves or others. That’s government sponsored theft.
Icthys replies:
Tax policy is not a moral issue and government taxation is not "government sponsored theft." When asked whether Christians ought to pay taxes or not Jesus told his disciples to "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" and thus it should be. Any financial gain God sees fit to provide is a gift from him just as any tax he sees fit to permit a government to levy is just and good. Grumbling about the taxes we pay is grumbling against God and shows our ingratitude for our Lord.
Find me a factual error in what I've said, and I'll listen.
Doesn't one have to present facts (or at least what they claim to be the facts) before one can find a factual error in what they have said? All is I see is a lot of vitriol. Childish insults are not facts in anyone's language.
Icthys,
I will not responds to anonymous posts. Don't take this wrong way, but I've learned the blog world brings out people out of the woodwork who have personal axes to grind and the blog allows people to go public and still remain anonymous and in many cases it can be a magnet to hostility.
Blogs are great but they also give opportunities for angry and disgruntled people an easy, public opportunity to air whatever complaints they may be nursing against people. So, reveal yourself and put out information about you and I'll address your points. I also believe putting a name with a face adds civility to discussion otherwise we're just a composition of subatomic particles.
Carlo,
As you wish so I have done.
Icthys
Thanks, Icthys, by the way, I was born in New Bedford and grew up there as a kid.
You wrote: "This statement falsely summarizes the purpose of government laid out by the founding fathers of our nation."
My response: This assumes that I'm the least bit concerned about the purpose of government 'as laid out by the founders of our nation.' To be honest with you, I'm not. My first citizenry is to the kingdom of God, not to the United States. Don't misunderstand me, I think our Constitution is one of the most amazing documents ever created.
Whatever the purpose of government that the founders believe is arguable, but my chief concern is not what they believed, but what God believes. I am convinced in all the years I've studied the Bible, one of the things the Lord is concerned with the lives of the unborn and so should government.
You're probably familiar with the Protestant Reformation. A reformation means the restructuring and the reforming of the institutions of the culture. And it's not just about reforming the government, it's about the press, the business community, literature, music. It's all the elements together that make up a culture. A Christian reformation cannot happen culturally until it first happens in the Christian community where Christians become awakened to their vocation as Christians to be the light to the world. I intend to fulfill that vocation in all areas of the public arena as best as I can. So many people put their country or their history of their country above and beyond our vocation as Christians. I respect our founding documents and its history, but it does not trump my vocation to the Lord.
You wrote: "Tax policy is not a moral issue and government taxation is not "government sponsored theft." When asked whether Christians ought to pay taxes or not Jesus told his disciples to "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" and thus it should be. Any financial gain God sees fit to provide is a gift from him just as any tax he sees fit to permit a government to levy is just and good. Grumbling about the taxes we pay is grumbling against God and shows our ingratitude for our Lord."
This is a secondary issue, not that theft is irrelevant. But God does not approve the taking of personal property for the financial gain of others. Not all tax policy is for the financial gain of others, but much of it is. You bet tax policy is a moral issue and I think it's important for Christians to remember at least in the ballot box that they shouldn't vote for policies that takes money from others to pay for the financial gain of others.
I'll give you the last word.
Carlo wrote:
My first citizenry is to the kingdom of God, not to the United States.
Icthys responds:
I think we are in agreement here. All of us who belong to Christ are citizens of the heavenly kingdom and should seek to glorify our Lord in all aspects of our lives.
Carlo wrote:
I am convinced in all the years I've studied the Bible, one of the things the Lord is concerned with the lives of the unborn and so should government.
Icthys responds:
I, too, find abortion to be an abomination before the Lord. Yet, in spite of having earned a Master of Divinity and Doctorate in theology, I am unable to find a single reference in scripture that supports your contention. Can you provide specific scripture references addressing this function of government? So far you have laid out a normative theological argument claiming evidence from scripture but have not provided any.
Carlo writes:
A Christian reformation cannot happen culturally until it first happens in the Christian community where Christians become awakened to their vocation as Christians to be the light to the world.
Icthys responds:
I am not sure God calls us to lead a cultural revolution in America. I am sure he calls us to lead a spiritual revolution and win souls for Jesus Christ. We are called to be salt and light to a world that is living in darkness. We are not told to drag that world kicking and screaming into the light. A good friend of mine has a national radio program that often addresses the issue of Christians and culture and we both agree that as Christians we must be careful not to use our zeal for God in ways that drive people away from the kingdom. We ought to have an effect on the culture in which we live through the preaching and teaching of God's word, by living our lives as an example of the grace he has bestowed upon us, by standing up for whatever is good and holy and pure and opposing that which is evil. Yet, exactly how we do that is the real question, isn't it?
Icthys wrote: "I am not sure God calls us to lead a cultural revolution in America. I am sure he calls us to lead a spiritual revolution and win souls for Jesus Christ."
My response: I'm not saying a cultural revolution, but a cultural reformation.
Icthys wrote: ", I too, find abortion to be an abomination before the Lord. Yet, in spite of having earned a Master of Divinity and Doctorate in theology, I am unable to find a single reference in scripture that supports your contention."
My response: Yes. Romans 13:1-7. Paul explains that the government is a minister of God to do good. If you doubt defending the life of the unborn is a ministry of good, I would recommend that you watch the "Silent Scream." I remember it so well. It was shown in one of my college classes by a liberal professor. I remember it so well, because a student complained to the professor about the professor inviting all these pro-choice people to speak on the subject but only showed the Silent Scream video for the pro-life side.
But the fact is, that Silent Scream video spoke volumes about the horrors of abortion than any speaker could.
The reason why it was called Silent Scream is that you could see the absolute horror and terror on the baby's face as he was being surgical ripped out in pieces from the mother's womb. Obviously that terror and horror on the baby's face was a silent terror because you couldn't hear anything, but the images on the baby's face spoke volumes.
Goverment is a minister of God to do good and it does not bear the sword for nothing. And one of its chief concern is to prevent the absolute horror and terror these 1.5 million babies are facing each year.
"....anybody who thinks John McCain would nominate Koh or anybody remotely near him on the ideological spectrum is suffering from such an extreme case of McCain derangement syndrome that they’re beyond the help of even modern pharmapsychology."
Now that does sound like a qoute applicable to AC
http://pajamasmedia.com/2008/02/mccain_and_judges.php
Post a Comment