Beneath picture of Iranian election aftermath, "non-biased" Fox Nation asks if "Obama's 'Apology Foreign Policy'" is "failing"
SUMMARY: The Fox Nation suggested that Iran's presidential election and its aftermath indicate that "[President] Obama's 'Apology Foreign Policy' " is "failing."
In a June 15 headline, FoxNation.com -- Fox News' allegedly non-biased website -- wondered whether Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's controversial re-election and the ensuing protests in Iran indicated that "[President] Obama's 'Apology Foreign Policy' " is "failing." On its homepage, Fox Nation ran the headline, "Is Obama's 'Apology Foreign Policy' Failing?" next to pictures of missiles, Obama, and an Associated Press photo of Iranian riot police chasing opponents of Ahmadinejad in front of Tehran University. Fox Nation's headline linked to a blog post by ABC's This Week host George Stephanopoulos about his interview with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.
Fox News has frequently referred to Obama's trips to foreign countries as an "apology tour."
From Fox Nation:
Fox Nation has frequently mocked and made falsehoods about progressives and Democrats.
Did Obama set a foreign policy goal of fraud-free elections in Iran?
I would agree that the "laughing at..." is a talking point, but the rest, IIRC, did happen.
Obama knows that empty platitudes about so-called "freedom" don't do anything. Actions speak much louder than words. We encourage human rights around the world by respecting them at home. Obama has taken steps to restore America's moral standing. That alone will do more for our foreign policy then all of Bush's militarism.
Human right and moral standing are not restored by stealing money from those who earn it and giving it to those who don't. That's Obama's policy and it will get him votes from the deadbeats.
If Bush was truly militaristic, he would have blown up all enemies. The US has the weapons and he didn't use them.
Obama's policy don't "steal money from those who earn it" and you know it. This kind of rhetoric will guarantee that you will never make headway in discussions here or anywhere else there are effective liberal commentators.
If you want to talk about the pubic/private balance in this country and debate the merits of the ratio, then we're all ears. However, you don't earn any points by parroting debunked talking points instead of substantive argument.
Bush was militaristic. He invaded a country unprovoked and killed countless innocent people in the process. If you don't consider that militaristic, then you need a new dictionary.
Bush invaded a country that was provocative. Clinton almost invaded Iraq because they kept violating the no fly zone, shooting at our pilots, and claiming they had WMDs. In fact, Bush used much of the invasion plan devised during the Clinton years. Bush didn't kill innocent people. Al Quaeda and the Iraqis did. They used them as shields. They still do.
Having said that, I believe Bush ran the war terribly. Do you believe that Iraq and the world would be better off with Saddam still in power?
I
Straw man question, but I'll still answer - YES, when compared to the Bush regime's alternative. And I bet the families of the 4,000+ dead soliders also answer YES. And that the families of the 100,000+ dead Iraqis answer YES.
Oh, and about Iran. The protests are for FREEDOM! How 'bout that? Obama makes one speech in Cairo and next thing you know the mullahs rig the election because they are scared of their own populace following America's lead.
Another Bush foreign policy expert.
With the Bush invasion of Iraq, Shiites, having a majority government and have formed a close relationship with Iran. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and other government officials visited Iran, expressing hope for closer relations. Iran has offered to train the Iraq army and Iranian spies travel across the border to Iraq, delivering weapons and money to Shiites militants. The influential and powerful Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani and Moqtada al-Sadr meet with Iranian leaders.
Bush though the invasion of Iraq would make Israel safer, but he destroyed the counterbalance to post-revolutionary Iran resulting in Iran and Iraq being closer than ever before. And THAT is not good for the US or Israel.
Nope. Patently false. He never intended to invade Iraq.
Another lie.
Yes, he did. This is indisputable.
Nope. The Iraqis didn't kill themselves.
Yes, plus it begs the question. The world and America would certainly have been better off had Bush not come to power in a coup.
I don't have to prove it. You have to prove your point. You haven't. That's because it's a lie, and you probably know it.
We killed many more innocent people in Iraq in a shorter period of time, than Saddam. We took over Abu Ghraib and gave the old torturer a run for his money.
The larger issue is one of stability. America cannot go around invading countries that are run by people we dislike. The world is less stable because of the actions of Bush.
Nice strawman. We can't invade every autocratic (a term which I'm now sure you don't understand) nation out of a need to "liberate" folks. Otherwise, we will be invading a lot of countries.
We fought for our own independence from a foreign power. Another country didn't invade us out of the blue.
Or is that just collateral damage in your warped world view of bringing "freedom"?
Sanctions, an effective alliance with neighboring countries, there are numerous scenarios whereby Saddam is removed without an invasion.
But you just keep on with the nightmares and the fallacies. Such as: taxes are not stealing from an earner and giving to those who don't. You might recall, if you actually paid taxes, that there;s a program called the Earned Income Tax Credit which has the government transfer funds (horrors!) to people who earn less than a fixed amount. They not only get back the taxes they paid but more in some cases. Medicare is for seniors, a government transfer from people who earn to those who don't, do you think that program should be stopped? How about Social Security?
Please, grow up and learn and turn off that radio where instead of being uninformed, you end up misinformed.
"Bush invaded a country that was provocative."
Provocative? What, like telling naughty jokes?
Good grief.
Wrong. When Barack Obama said we couldn;t impose our values on other countries, he wasn't referring to "freedom" - he was referring to illegal invasion, forced regieme change, and torture. All values imposed on other countries by that notorious war criminal, George W. Bush.
President Obama is right. We can't (and NEVER SHOULD) impose America's values (freedom) on any country. Bush also said that America should "NOT" become the world police. What has happen to these policies from the Republicans? Oh, right now they are in a state of confusion and still being bitter for loosing '06 & '08 Elections. LOL.
Oops, looks like you spoke too soon, wingnut! Quick, call rush and get your next spin, this one was just proven wrong...
If all you believe is how other people view you, if you are a narcissist, then you need time to load your teleprompter with words written by others to get the right poll results.
One can always tell when a righty is losing an argument - the teleprompter line comes out.
ROFL! That's the funniest thing I've read all day!
Spoken like a true wingnut . . .
"If you believe in freedom, you don't need introspection." Wow. Do you need intelligence? Wisdom? Knowledge?
You guys...
When the socialist policies of Obama fail, some other candidate will take over. Nixon gave us Carter (Ford was irrelevant), Carter gave us Nixon. Bush gave us Obama. Whom will Obama give us?
Neither was, in the Goldwater sense. Reagan's voodoo economics resulted in the greatest expansion in the deficit in history. That record stood until Bush II came alont.
Ha! Clinton wasn't weak. I can't think of a single Republican that could have beat Clinton. You're a bigger fool than I thought.
You lose right off the bat. Obama isn't socialist. The mix of public/private interest has been debated for centuries and will continue to be so. Because liberals believe in government oversite and a balanced economy, it doesn't amount to socialism. You folks should abandon that tact as it's not working.
About what? You've gone from willfully ignorant to purposefully obtuse.
The worst thing Obama could do right now would be to attack Ahmadinejad and/or Khamenei. If Western leaders, especially Obama, were to do that, it would allow Ahmadinejad and others to claim that the grass-roots movement for democracy, which is apparently gaining strength as we speak, is nothing but a Western plot to take over Iran.
In the tweets, blog posts, and interviews with Iranian protesters and opposition spokespeople, nobody is asking Obama to jump out in front of this issue.
The best thing for Obama to do, at this point, is to say quiet, bland, subtle words in general support of democracy, respect for human rights, and the rule of law. Which is what he did yesterday. As usual, his statement was pitch-perfect.
Moreover, didnt both nuclear programs continue and thrive despite Bush's tough rhetoric for 8 years? didnt the Chinese army capture a US pilot?
Sharks smell blood in the water. Bullies go into overdrive when they sense weakness. Obama might change course if the PR gets bad enough. The press can cover his ass for only so long. And, like any good politician, he wants to get reelected.
How is that happening, exactly? In a voluntary plan? Our current health care plan has ripped off YOU and ME. Been in an emergency room lately?
Moreover, it may come as a shock to you but I somehow doubt that the North Korean and Iranian leadership primarily make their decisions on whether they believe or not that the US is being 'weak'. Like most leaders, they surely pay more attention to domestic considerations.
And Hitler was, actually, very angry at Chamberlain, because he believed that appeasement in 1938 had denied him the war he so badly wanted.
Let me answer that for you: NOTHING.
Has Obama given anything to Iran? No.
Has Obama given any land to North Korea? No.
How is he supposed to be like Chamberlain again? And please, be specific, because last time I checked, Iran, North Korea, or any other country wasn't looking to expand and invade other countries, and how opening diplomatic relations with those countries is the same as "appeasing" them. Doesn't make sense. I'm not even sure you know what appeasement is.
Bingo! I doubt he does.
Obama has said that he would speak with Iran without conditions. He gave them that legitimacy.
Land to North Korea... Where is that from?
He is like Chamberlain, as I said, in that he emboldens Iran's and North Korea's leaders. And he legitimizes them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMMklhX74_w
How does declaring an intent to speak with another country confer it legitimacy??? The legitimacy (or lack thereof in the case of Iran) of a regime stems ultimately from whether or not a majority of voters supports it. It has very little to do with the actions of foreign powers. Did you believe Reagan conferred legitimacy to Gorbachev when they had a dialogue????
I know. A more ignorant statement was never put to blog.
Gave whom legitimacy? Iran's extremist continue to hold power by successfully portraying America as the enemy. Show the world we aren't, and you diminish their power. Pretty simple, eh?
We've got it. You're stupid. You know nothing of history. You've established that quite qell.
In all seriousness, though, would it be too much to ask the POTUS to comment on the violent crackdown by the mullahs?
Then you are even more stupid than your posts show you to be.
If you were led to believe what you say, then you listen to Rush and don't get the real news from other sources to balance out what Rush says.
So I feel sorry for you that you are so ignorant and under-educated.
For only being in office 100 days, I'd say he's off to a good start, vs. bush who spent half his 1st hundred days vacationing in crawford clearing brush on a phony ranch.
Who was the US President when North Korea, a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty WITHDREW in 2003?
Ding, ding, ding!
BUSH
Who was the US President in 2006, when North Korea conducted it's FIRST successful nuclear weapons test?
Ding, ding, ding!!!
BUSH
From 2000 through 2008, North Korea ramped up their threats AND acquired and tested it's FIRST nuclear weapon. Meanwhile, the Bush administration invaded a country that not only didn't have WMD's, they didn't have a freaking nuclear weapon either.
The small, but important progress the Obama administration has made cannot be denied.
Iran has seen it's first real unrest in decades, which is a good sign that the religious dictatorship may be unstable. The Iranian people are out in the streets protesting and demanding CHANGE!
Lebanon CHOOSE a Democratic government over Hezbollah.
Israel has agreed to a Palestine state, with some conditions, but there is dialogue.
The cowboy is gone, and Americans are happy. Deal with it!
June 8, 2009
Americans currently approve of the way President Barack Obama is handling foreign affairs (59%), the economy (55%), terrorism (55%), and the situation in the Middle East (55%). http://www.gallup.com/video/120767/Americans-Pleased-Obama-Foreign-Affairs.aspx
Ding, ding, ding!!!
George W. Bush.
Are you serious???
The election was held on Friday, with civil unrest Saturday and Sunday and YOU think the US President should have spoken BEFORE now?
YOU ARE A MORON!!!
What actually happened in the voting? Good chance it was fraudulent. But maybe not. Or somewhere in between, like Bush's election in 2000. When the conservative mullahs of the Supreme Court made him King. Obama will have to deal with the government of Iran no matter who it is.
Is this the Iranian Velvet Revolution? Who knows. We're in historic days.
"Because he hasn't spoken out about it." - eddiebear2
Aren't these the same wingnuts who claim Obama can't do anything except make pretty speeches?
I find the protests after their elections good, because the people are starting to rise up, ever so slightly and take umbrage to what they believe is a farce of an election. How is this a bad thing? This is what we've wanted to happen for years, for the Iranian people to take their leaders to task, so we don't have to.
North Korea is not gaining nuclear weapons faster, they are doing it at the same pace as they were before. Bear in mind, they didn't re-start their nuclear program until Bush took office, broke off talks with them, and re-negged on Clinton's promises. Let's just remember why we now have a North Korea with nuclear weapons, and it isn't Obama's fault.
What is China doing to our Navy? Nothing. I seem to remember, as someone else said, them shooting down one of our E-3 Hawkeyes while Bush was in office, and, well, he didn't really do anything about it either. After the Chinese had stripped down the plane from stem to stern, and went through all of its systems, that's when they released the crew of the plane. Where was the big tough guy then? Face it, we're in cahoots with China. We're not going to do anything provocative to them, and they aren't going to do anything to us, because we both depend on each other for financial support. China for our markets, and us for China's money.
Obama's projection of weakness, you mean, as in, sending MORE troops to Afghanistan to kill and weed out terrorists? Yeah, super weak right there.
The Uighers who were released were found not guilty, and not complicit as being terrorists, or enemy combatants. Why not release them? I read a story quoting them this morning that they're not mad at the United States in the least, and that they understand why what happened, happened. How is releasing people who were innocent of any wrong doing a bad thing again? Doesn't this show that our system of justice actually works (albeit slowly)? And if these were wrongly imprisoned Americans, you can be sure there would be a multi million dollar lawsuit, but they're not. So we're putting them up in a place until they get jobs.
What a joke your talking points are.
North Korea is gaining a delivery system and making louder threats. Has Obama said anything about the U.S. journalists being held? Maybe he has. I blame North Korea on Harry Truman, not Bush or Obama.
There was an incident between the Chinese and US navies this weekend. If you are saying that the Chinese will simply buy the US, so there is no reason for military action against the US, well, you may be right.
I don't believe you win a war by prosecuting the enemy in court. Neither did FDR. It's never happened before.
Obama has made statements about the journalists being held in North Korea, and has stated that they are doing all that they can to get them released. It's pretty crazy of you to think that he's not doing all that he can through whatever channels are available to get them released from jail in North Korea. It seemed to work out pretty well for the journo in Iran.
North Korea has not developed a delivery system that works yet. They are always making louder threats, mostly because that is what Kim Jong Il has left to use. Except lately, there has been a change, if you haven't noticed, as in Russia, and China have both come down on our side against N. Korea this time around, whereas before, they did not. And the big threat of North Korea obtaining nuclear weapons is not that they'll use them, but it's that they'll sell them on the black market to folks we don't want to have them, which is why we'll be taking a look at items leaving their country, which has been endorsed by everyone.
Why did you think Truman should have done with N. Korea? He could not have taken the entire country, not without going to war completely with China. If that had happaned, we'd probably still be fighting that one.
China will not do anything to the US, and we won't do anything to China. There might have been an incident, but these happen sometimes, and we're going to get into a military entanglement with China in the near future, or anytime soon. There is no reason for China to get into it with us, because they would lose the largest market for their goods that they produce, that being the US, and their economy would be in shambles if we didn't buy anything from them. Also, if we were to get involved with China militarily, you can bet on our allies stopping getting goods from China as well (like UK, and others).
What war are you talking about? I was talking about the Uighers that you talked about. They were not guilty, they were let go. It's really not hard to understand.
Terrorism is a different kind of war. One where you can't battle an entire nation, because things are so segmented, which is why SF and SOF is a big part of what we currently do to fight terrorism. There are really no hard targets to take out. Also, prosecuting people is an effective means of stopping some of what is going on.
There are nutty folks out there that think we should have followed MacArthur's lead and invaded mainland China. These folks are certifiably insane and show an ignorance of the nuances of the situation in Korea at the time.
My dad fought in Korea and thought MacArthur was crazy. He often cites Truman's firing of MacArthur as the singular act that made my existence possible as the outcome for grunts like him, were an invasion be attempted, was not rosy.
For a stark example of where war mongers tend to opt for war even when war would amount to lunacy, do some research on the Cuban Missle Crisis. Had the generals had their way, the lower half of the Eastern United States would be a parking lot.
I recently finished the excellent David Halberstam book the Coldest Winter about Korea. My Dad was there also. Firing MacArthur was the single best thing Truman did in Korea. Pushing the North Koreans back to China, and then invading the mainland would have resulted in catastrophic loss of US soldiers. You can't fight a land war in China. Too much land. Too many people.
Not only that, it might have provoked WWIII with the Soviets. Have you read Matthew Ridgway's book? Ridgway took over for MacArthur and explains in the book how the onset of the cold war requires limited war tactics.
And I agree. Imagine, now, if we had bombed China, all the way from Shanghai to Beijing, the way he wanted. Instead of an ally for Nixon, and a peaceful trade partner for us, we'd have had the guilt of centuries to weigh us down, and the largest country on Earth has a bitter enemy.
Really? Google "Ramzi Yousef" and get back to us on that . . .
Proof?
President Bush/ VP Cheney had 8 years to destroy our relationships with just about every country in the world, but President Obama is supposed to be able to fix EVERYTHING in 6 months.
Please, stop the nonsense.
If that's your definition of success then...
If that's your definition of success then..." - T-boned
My definition of success was the rescue of the American ship captain from Somali pirates {one of whom is on trial in a US court.}
I consider that more successful than "we will not rest until we find him [Osama bin Laden]" . . .
2. The DPRK has had nuclear technology for some time. The last detonation was not their first nuclear testing.
3. The Uighers are not in Bermuda, they are in Palau, and they were wrongly imprisoned by the US gov't. They are getting these benefits because of this mistake on our part.
I'm not sure where the humiliation of the US Navy has occurred at the hands of the PLAN (Peoples Liberation Army-Navy). If I were you, I would not make comments about submarine warfare if you know nothing about it or have no practical experience with it; and I am quite sure you have neither experience nor sufficient tactical and technological knowledge to make a strong argument.
As for the PLAN harassing the USNS ships off the coast of China--I'm not sure how that could be construed as a humiliation: they were unarmed ships getting harassed by armed combatants which are more maneuverable and faster than their own ship.
Correct, august; unfortunately wingnuts still believe the US has the "right" to influence what goes on in every other country in the world, militarily or otherwise . . . and, they get shocked when the rest of the world expresses their disagreement with that assumption, militarily or otherwise . . .
Not preemptively invading a country -- any country.
http://fox-nation-watch.blogspot.com
I have to take a shower after every visit to FN, but somebody's gotta do it.
By the way, Truman did the right thing in Korea under the circumstances. So did Bill Cinton. It was Bush's sabre-rattling that gave Kim-Jong the boogie man he needed to continue to starve his people to pay for expensive weapons systems. Obama has yet had the time to turn the situation around. I suspect he will.
Of Course Letterman should be fired! He said something about a politicians child (and it wasn;t about the one she was holding up for a photo op) which is totally off limits (unless it is to explain why Chelsea Clinton is so ugly...)
Of course Obama's Foreign Policy is failing... he's not wearing a cowboy hat!
Bill Clinton, that President you hate only slightly less than the guy in there now, says you are in control of this country anymore...
The 'Tea Parties' aka 'Media Stunts That We Created' have caused a democrat distress... how do we know? Well we say so...
And finally, check out this link, your arbiter of truth, Bill-O is gonna give a good shouting down to one of those liberal hatemongers over at Salon.com!
PHEW! Busy day in la-la land!
The right knows this.
Not that it was a good joke at all, because it wasn't really funny.
Is this your fake outrage for this week? A bad joke?
Not that it was a good joke at all, because it wasn't really funny.
Is this your fake outrage for this week? A bad joke?
Who recommended poor people be denied the vote? Who wants to deport millions of people? Who wants to segregate airport lines for safety? Who wants to cut off all immigration from certain countries? Who can claim to identify illegal aliens with a glance? Who believes our legal system does not apply to Muslims, so that even citizens can be sent to Gitmo indefinitely without trial? Who invented a NEW CATEGORY OF PERSON simply because they wanted Muslim prisoners to be Neither criminal suspects nor prisoners of war. Apparently raping children entitles one to a fair trial, and fighting for the Nazis entitles one to POW treatment, but Muslims!!??!! New category, quick!!!
The answer is clear. Every tribal, primitive, hateful suggestion comes from the right. But what makes republicans shudder? Regulating tobacco.
The only people calling for medieval relocations/executions/segregation of minority groups and foreigners are
Poor people should not be denied the vote. People who receive more than they put in should not be allowed to vote (i.e., welfare). They just vote themselves more money. Deporting people who are here illegally is good. Immigration from certain countries should be cut off. No one has ever suggested citizens be sent to Guantanamo.
You are insane and self destructive. The world is not a kindergarten class. Go see what's going on in Africa.
Just because he was a vegetarian, means nothing.
Hitler was nowhere near a progressive.
Want to see a real progressive? Do a study on our founding fathers. Are you equating Hitler with them? Seems that you are.
You guys and your revisionist histories of the world make me laugh.
Hitler believed in big government, government intervention. That's socialism. That's progressivism. Now he did couple it with lunatic racism and militarism. But it's not an one issue definition.
The Founders believed in freedom and freedom from the government. That's what the Constitution is. A list of things the government can't do.
You are an ignoramus.
Anybody who claims Hitler is a progressive has immediately lost the argument. You might as well claim Stalin was a Keynsian. It would make about the same amount of sense.
Actually, Stalin and Keynes shared the notion that the government through central control could do a better job than the free market. Yes, that's from the Cliff Notes, but it is still there.
1. Government by a single person having unlimited power; despotism.
2. A country or state that is governed by a single person with unlimited power.
That's not progressive or liberal.
You are addressing the type of management system. I am addressing the ideology of those running the system.
Yep. But your scenario doesn't apply to Hitler. He didn't believe in liberal ideas and values
Liberals believe in a balanced economy, with the private sector doing its thing and oversight from the government who are accountable to the people through elections. The economy, like most things, work best when there is a balance.
Wow. More stupidity, just when I thought your well was running dry.
They always seem to want to increase their power by increasing government control over things, like banks and industries.
Taking over banks has been going on for years. Guess you missed that one. Look up FDIC.
The industries didn't have to take the money.
But in your never-ending quest for chaos, you'd rather have a failed banking system and industries dying and throwing workers into unemployment, which, paradoxically, would cost more tax dollars in benefits/welfare.
The Democrats are driving the bus now. If they fail, then you might have an argument. In the mean time, get out of the way and let the adults run the country.
"If you take a way the nationalism and the militarism, he was a progressive"
Yeah those were really big parts of his reign that can't exactly be taken away. Being an environmentalist and vegetarian has nothing to do with political ideology.
Besides, he hated homosexuals and gassed them too. Not very left-wing to me. He also didn't like Jews and supported ethnic cleansing.
I don't see any reason for Obama trying to take away any personal freedoms. You do know that his public option plan is a an option, right?
You don't think that the con revisionist history efforts will stand do you? I'm certainly not going to let them and I know I'm not alone. Face it, the cons had their day. Thanks to the overreaction of the hippies, they were able to eek out a little power by branding liberals as anti-American. That era is over. The age of the pansy-liberal is gone. Obama is the new face of liberalism. You guys better come up with a new tactic, because the old ones certainly aren't going to be effective anymore.
Of course, disregarding that they believed in racial superiority, gassed millions of Jewish people, and others, were a fascist regime, didn't allow anyone else to hold any sort of power or sway, except for the Fuhrer...
I can't believe that along with the making of Joe McCarthy as a great American, the thing the right is trying to do is to make Hitler into a progressive/liberal.
What a joke, and way to be intellectually dishonest, and totally disregarding, you know, what actually happened.
There is nothing that Hilter did that was remotely liberal or progressive. Anybody who suggests such a thing has branded themselves a fool the moment they opened their mouth.
It pains me to think that some folks take such a simple look at the 3rd Reich, and say, well, he said socialist, so he must be a liberal. He was a vegetarian (ignoring again that there are many conservatives that I personally know who are vegetarians), must be a liberal.
The stoopid is strong in those people.
You infer things I never stated. You are an ignoramus.
Benito Mussolini--The Docrine of Fascism (1932)
But then what would Mussolini know about Fascism anyway? Clearly all graduates of the Right Wingnut Trolling Institute of All Knowledge know more about everything.
Sooo -- when Dumbya bailed out the auto companies and Wall St. to the tune of $700 Billion last year, he was being a fascist/socialist, right?
Thanks for reminding us.
You haven't mentioned one progressive policy of Hitlers. Not one. Not only do you try to revise history of the world, you try to revise the history of your own posting.
You don't know what you are talking about whatsoever. Don't worry, you won't be the first or last con to come on here and talk out of his rectum.
You just made my point. Halliburton, General Electric... somebody has a brother in law, somebody has a lobbyist, somebody is getting paid off. And I have mentioned repeatedly progressive issues that Hitler supported.
No, you didn't mention any progressive issues that Hilter was for.
Hitler was not progressive on a single issue. You are ignorant.
That's government control. I've listed other issues regarding environmental issues, animal rights, gun control, etc. Hitler was big on all these things. And he was anti-religion. His next target after the Jews was the Catholics. He had a similar enemies list to that of the ACLU.
Only a socialist/communist government can be fascist because only that type of government holds the power to exercise fascism. A limited, conservative, federalist government that is not too centralized cannot be fascist because they cannot hold that kind of power.
You clearly are ignorant.
Hitler was a right-wing fascist. No amount of revisionist history will change that, my friend.
Off the top of my head, fascism is a totalitarian government marked by extreme nationalism and often militarism. Fascists oppose free market capitalism and embrace a corporatism whereby the government and industry work VERY closely together. Fascists oppose all dissent and like to control media and push pro state propaganda.
Obama is an anti-nationalist and an anti-militarist (although Afghanistan seems to be an exception). He opposes the free market and his government is taking over industry much like Mussolini did. He doesn't have to control the media because, other than Fox and talk radio, the media genuflects at his knees. Matthews gets a tingle up his leg, Newsweek says Obama is a God, and MSNBC attacks all his opponents. Considering GE owns NBC and GE has negotiated some big "green energy" contracts, it's probably just payback.
If Bush was a true fascist (I think Bush was a socialist), Michael Moore would be in an orange jumpsuit and this web site would have been closed down.
Pretty good. You just debunked yourself. Liberals don't want the government and corporations to "work VERY closely together". We want a government that has oversight over corporations to represent the people's interests, in the instances when capitalism fails to do so. Liberals don't oppose all dissent, even that which we disagree. The ACLU fights for everyone's right to dissent, even the KKK (next you'll say the KKK is liberal too). Liberals are for open & transparent government, not the secrecy and subterfuge we've experienced over the last eight years. So, basically, liberals are the opposite of your fascism definition, confirming our point and the opinions of the vast majority of rational thinking human beings.
That's so Hitler-like!</sarcasm> Fascism is a form of extreme nationalism and believes that "might makes right". You are doing a great job shooting down your own argument.
No. He doesn't. That's simple slander. He believes in a balance, which is the rational approach.
No they aren't. They reluctantly made the deal with GM. GM didn't have to accept. The alternative would have been unthinkable.
Wrong again. There is no mainstream liberal media bias. It's a myth.
Nope. More slander on your part.
Nope. Tell Scarborough, Pat Buchanan, and Chris Matthews your opinion of them.
No. GE makes more money when war mongers like Bush are in office due to their military contracts.
He would have, if we would have let him. You see, Hitler took over the government but he did it with the consent of his people. Without the people, Hitler just would have been another guy raving on the street corner. Bush had no such mandate. His attempts to stifle people like Moore would have brought him down faster than you can say "impeachment".
How old are you? And if over 18, did you graduate from high school?
Go here.. to read a nice take down of the book's premises.
But after hearing your anti-constitutional rants, I have to say I was quite extatic today to re-apply for unemployment benefits. I'm extremely happy to know that you are paying for my unemployment for the next 12 months. And I love the fact that you are also paying for my cobra insurance.
P.S. the only americans who should be denied the right to vote are those who would deny other americans the right to vote. i.e. you...
P.S.S. denying legal citizens the right to vote based on political or social position is a fascist germany tactic used by adolf hitler. You are espousing a fascist tactic. Hmmm, hello fascist...
Now feel free to express similar outrage now that we have an example of a commedian who regularly gives to republicans doing the exact same thing as letterman...
Randy
Bad Joke. Bad Comedian. Bad on anyone who defends the statutory rape of ANY child...no matter how much you hate her mother.
Who's defending statutory rape?
May. May not have known? I'm calling BS. It was on the news there in NY and also in the coverage of the game. Dave is a Yankee fan so let's assume he was probably watching. Bristol wasn't at the game. Willow was. If anything Dave didn't know WHICH daughter was at the game. He just knew it it's all right to slag Palin and also knows he'll pay no real penalty in the short term.
Now that he got caught with his britches down I heard he issued a full apology to the Palin's.
Will he suffer the wrath that Imus did. He deserves the same ridicule. I can guarantee it won't come from this forum. He's been held up aa a martyr here.
Well, if he thought it was Bristol, then it's not a comment about statutory rape. I'm not saying it wasn't careless, but making the comment knowingly about a 14 year-old girl seems out of character. He doesn't have the same history as Imus does.
That's something that's overlooked when talking about the Imus controversy. It wasn't like it was the first time he had made offensive comments. There was a "straw that broke the camel's back" factor there that doesn't seem to apply here.
I still think he should be slapped on the wrist for this. I stand by my assertion that he wouldn't have pulled this with anyone other than Palin. He knew he'd get political cover.
As far as Imus, he was an equal opportunity offender. It's a fine line and he crossed it.
I don't know what punishment you expect besides the controversy. Having to admit that he screwed up and apologizing seems to cover all the bases here.
If I ran CBS and a firestorm erupted over this I would think a suspension would be in order? I'm trying to think of an example but can only come up with Radio DJ's and nothing from Tee Vee.
Had this not been Palin I don't think you'd have seen the outrage this has generated. She has opened herself up for criticism but the hateful way the left has gone after her is what makes the right have the hairtrigger reaction they have.
I personally think she is damaged goods as far as the national scene goes, but time will tell.
Leno said the EXACT same thing, or are you convoluting his words?
If, and that's a big if, Leno said the statutory rape, or even beat around the bush about the relations of a grown man and a minor then yes, Leno should be condemned.
I don't remember defending Leno on here...
Letterman apologizes to Palin
Have you finished erecting your strawman?
Unlike America, where the egalitarian populist party is secular, and the rich-man's conservative party is religious, it's the opposite in Iran.
The opposition leader in Iran represents upper-class urban college students, and his support base is simply in the minority. He's a slow lumbering speaker with a laissez faire economic plan. In comparison, Ahmedinejad is an emotional "everyman" with humble roots, and he's tremendously popular.
Considering the demographics, and their plans, it would make NO sense for Mousavi to have won, and experts were predicting a landslide victory for Ahmedinejad for weeks in advance.
The ONLY reason we are questioning this election is because America and Israel don't like the results. Otherwise we wouldn't give a crap what the failed opposition leader said.
Iran is a majority nation of very young people. It stands to reason that in this nation of young people, that the young candidate, the opposition leader, might have won the election.
There are far less older more conservative people in Iran than there are younger, more progressive people.
that's why...
It's highly doubtful. If we're concerned about Islamic nations who like terrorists having nuclear weapons, we ought to go and invade Pakistan post haste. Why? Because, their population is highly radicalized, and believe in supporting terrorist activities. Pakistan is one military coup away from being a radical islamic nation already having nuclear weapons. You guys never seem to worried about them (not to mention how they helped the Taliban to come to existence, and covered for them and their terrorist supporting activities and all).
He's a late night comic. They make hay out of this stuff all of the time. Was it a good joke? Not even remotely. It wasn't even funny.
Palin just wanted a chance to play the victim. She should have just ignored it, but she can't help herself.
When there was unrest in the Soviet Union, was that considered a bad reflection on Ronnie Reagan?
That's what I thought.
It's not just Fox though. Most of our television news media is at a sorry state of disgusting propaganda.
Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow have their own agendas as well. Those agendas don't just stop at the Bush administration but they cover many topics such as how they side with Planned Parenthood.
Yeah, such a bad organization to be on the side of...
To this day an overwhelming majority of Planned Parenthood facilities are located in ethnic poverty stricken neighborhoods.
Hitler was in favor of eugenics as is planned parenthood. So yes in my opinion Planned Parenthood has much "bad" that could also be talked about by Keith and Rachel.
Have you ever heard Keith and Rachel expose the truth of how ruthless the Planned Parenthood lobbyists are in Washington? Keith and Rachel are no different than the destructive sheep at FOX. Otherwise, they would tell the entire story and allow the viewer to form their opinion based on ALL of the facts. Why the need to manipulate the stories?
Is Planned Parenthood the only place where a women can receive healthcare? I think not.
That's funny, your post looks like Sean Hannity's lingo.
So, are you saying that Margaret Sanger didn't start Planned Parenthood? Are you saying that Planned Parenthood doesn't lobby Washington? Are you saying that More white fetuses have been killed than Black? And are you saying that Keith and Rachel don't have their own personal agenda?
No you aren't posting anything aside from a tired cliche. That's because you have no logical facts to offer.
So what? Planned Parenthood does good work. Don't like it? Don't donate.
That's a tough debate in which you offer. So controlling the black race and poverty stricken Americans is good work?
This topic had nothing to do with donating money. You should try to stay focused on the discussion.
"We've heard these debunked talking points before. Got anything new?"--OnceYouGoBarack
And who is this "We" that you speak of? Aren't you just posting your own opinions or are you a spokesperson for Planned Parenthood?
By ignoring the hypocrisy of our news media as a whole, you adopt the same mentality as Cheney and his supporters did by believing that we can justify torture but we won't put up with anybody else engaging in the same acts.
It's all the same gang mentality.
That's an interigent debate in which you offer. So controlling the black race and poverty stricken Americans is good work?
This topic had nothing to do with donating money. You should try to stay focused on the discussion.
"We've heard these debunked talking points before. Got anything new?"--OnceYouGoBarack
And who is this "We" that you speak of? Aren't you just posting your own opinions or are you a spokesperson for Planned Parenthood?
By ignoring the hypocrisy of our news media as a whole, you adopt the same mentality as Cheney and his supporters did by believing that we can justify torture but we won't put up with anybody else engaging in the same acts.
It's all the same gang mentality.
A portion of my earned tax dollars are contributed to Planned Parenthood without my consent.
Wake up and smell the sheepdoodoo...It isn't that simple.
Are you saying that people who don't agree with and purposely contribute to Planned Parenthood should not exercise their freedom of speech and expression?
Isn't the purpose of an online forum to express different opinions?
With your mentality Martin Luther King JR should not have been outspoken, he should've just expressed his opinions by not donating to the KKK.
That's an interigent debate in which you offer. So controlling the black race and poverty stricken Americans is good work?" - 3rd Party
Riverboat Bill Bennett thought so:
"You could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down." - 9/29/05
Do you have as big a jones against him as you apparently do against PP?
My screenname and posts clearly display that i don't sheepishly belong to either gang.
"Do you have as big a jones against him as you apparently do against PP?"---by mjh
Can you articulate what exactly you mean by "as big a jones against him"?
I'll take a shot at it though...Yes I think Bill Bennett is a piece of garbage for that comment. Not nearly as filthy as Margeret Sanger though since I don't know of thousands of killings that Bill has been involved with.
I'm not only against Planned Parenthood because of the racial aspect. It's also the robbing of the voiceless fetus' freedom of choice. Remember, that fetus didn't ask that mom and dad to practice sex when they weren't fully prepared for all possible reprocutions.
I'll also point out that just because I despise PP for targeting blacks doesn't mean that I'm black either. Just like because I am against abortions doesn't mean I am a republican.
That's fine.
If you've got PROOF rather than suppositions that PP is actively performing abortions or targeting a SPECIFIC group, show it . . . if you don't like PP, don't support 'em -- it's that simple.
Now go change your diaper.
Nice mentality you have there...
So, I'm crying because I'm directly responding to comments about my posts, with logic and facts.
That's funny
I suggest that you Read the Media Matters Terms of Use. I would be violating those terms If I hijack this thread with a Racial Planned Parenthood debate.
You can direct me to a Planned Parenthood Thread on this site and I'll be more than happy to exchange opinions and facts in that appropriate location.
In regard to the hijacking of this thread and In response to another user's post, I attempted to add more links as "proof" to many filthy practices of Planned Parenthood including racism. I attempted to add the links multiple times but no luck showing up on this thread yet. Hopefully soon.
"if you don't like PP, don't support 'em -- it's that simple."---by mjh
So are you saying that people shouldn't go on internet forums and voice their opinions? or is it just opinions that you disagree with? Isn't that what Forums are for; voicing ones opinions?
And are you saying the people in Iran who feel that their votes weren't counted in this recent election should just quit whining and don't support their government and it's as simple as that?
This Planned Parenthood dialog was sparked by my initial comment that was relevant to this thread's topic.
They aren't any different than other lobbyists, such as AIPAC, Oil, Tobacco, and Guns.
Ooooh. Margaret Sanger! The boogeyman! She actually felt that abortions were a disgrace, but understood the reason for making it legal.
Margaret Sanger was an outspoken proponent of forced eugenics, segregation, abortion, birth control and sexual immorality.
Here's a famous quote from that racist piece of garbage, Margeret Sanger...""The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."
Margaret Sanger (editor). The Woman Rebel, Volume I, Number 1. Reprinted in Woman and the New Race. New York: Brentanos Publishers, 1922.
Here's another:
"Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race."
Margaret Sanger. Woman, Morality, and Birth Control. New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12.
Another:
"Eugenics is … the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.
Margaret Sanger. "The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda." Birth Control Review, October 1921, page 5.
How bout this one that shows how she kept her racist and Nazi like views consistent from the 1920s until her death:
"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
Margaret Sanger's December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255 Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts. Original source: Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College, North Hampton, Massachusetts. Also described in Linda Gordon's Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America. New York: Grossman Publishers, 1976.
I have a feeling you would've gladly joined the Hitler youth as well.
Using the Nazi card?
As for her opinion on abortion from one of her writings: In a chapter from Woman and the New Race (1920) entitled "Contraceptives or Abortion?," Sanger wrote, "While there are cases where even the law recognizes an abortion as justifiable if recommended by a physician, I assert that the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to civilization."
http://www.bartleby.com/1013/10.html
I never said Margaret Sanger didn't believe in eugenics. I was referring to Planned Parenthood. And neither do I practice eugenics as you have accused me of by saying I would have joined Hitler's youth.
As for the other lobbyists, I never said or implied in any way that you liked them, and how are they right wing exactly? None of those I listed are right-wing lobbyists.
Using the Card Cliche?.. See, the Nazis had a strong interest in Eugenics just like the founder of Planned Parenthood did. As a legal defense, the Nazis used the fact that the U.S. practiced it, was what motivated them to learn about it. The Hitler Youth was brainwashed into supporting the Nazi nonsense in the same way that Planned Parenthood has brainwashed women into thinking it is a women's right(Choice) to kill a human life.
Nice try with that little snippet of Sanger. Margeret wasn't speaking about her feeling disgraced in regard to the actual act of an abortion. She was speaking about women not acting responsible enough to take contraceptive. She felt that very act qualified that mother to not deserve a child. She was also marketing her major contraception campaign to go along with her selective abortion practices.
"I never said Margaret Sanger didn't believe in eugenics. I was referring to Planned Parenthood. And neither do I practice eugenics as you have accused me of by saying I would have joined Hitler's youth."
I'm not understanding how you seperate Sanger(The Founder of Planned Parenthood) from Planned Parenthood. Scroll a few lines up to cover that hitler youth comment.
"They aren't any different than other lobbyists, such as AIPAC, Oil, Tobacco, and Guns"
So we agree that the planned parenthood lobbyists are just as harmful to this nation as the others in which you have mentioned?.
Aside from AIPAC, I'd say that the Oil, Tobacco and Guns lobbyists lean far more to the right.
Actually OnceYouGoBarack is finally correct on this thread, I must've confused you with him/her because he/she is the one who is quick to stereotype and paint everybody with broad strokes. Which is displayed by this spokesperson like comment from her/him:
"We've heard these debunked talking points before. Got anything new?
We as in Us against You/Them
See in OnceYouGoBarack's sheepish mind, I must be republican if I'm pro-Life.
So I apologize for that mix up.
So In your warped mind, I'm pathetic because I'm against the killing of unborn babies and prisoners.
The pathetic hypocrisy is when you have liberals who are pro fetus death but at the same time they are anti death penalty for murderers. Just like when conservatives are pro-life for the fetus but at the same time pro-death penalty. That sounds like the logic in which OnceYouGoBarack has displayed thus far.
See I'm not a member of either gang, so I think clearly. Plain and simple, NO justified death for anyone.
The inverse isn't necessarily hypocritical either, because you can believe that every fetus has a soul and is a "human being" and at the same time believe that we have the right to kill people who pose a risk to society. I have issues with both of those, but the point remains that different circumstances can lead you to different conclusions while remaining entirely sincere and consistent in your views.
All BS aside; Killing is Killing and Life is Life, no exceptions. Pro-LIFE means FOR LIFE no exceptions. Your ridiculous exceptions are justifications that is essentially sugar coating poop. At the end of the day it still tastes like poop.
At the the end of the abortion day, a human has killed another human life.
At the end of the administration of the death penalty day, a human has killed another human life.
Any justification of either killing, is the act of humans playing "God". Whatever ones belief in "God" is.
And if your belief that everybody who administers abortions as well as the death penalty are atheists, then I'd disagree with that too.
As I posted earlier and to stay on the topic of this thread; I feel that Fox isn't the only propagandist by a long shot and the state of our entire news media is a sad one that reminds me of everything that I have ever learned about Nazi propaganda.
What "semantics" would you identify here? I'm stating a very simple and clear principle.
"All BS aside; Killing is Killing and Life is Life, no exceptions. Pro-LIFE means FOR LIFE no exceptions. Your ridiculous exceptions are justifications that is essentially sugar coating poop. At the end of the day it still tastes like poop."
No, "pro-life" is the self-determined designation of abortion opponents. It does not promise any specific position on capital punishment any more than "pro-choice" people are obligated to oppose a health care plan that limits the number of doctors you can see.
"At the the end of the abortion day, a human has killed another human life...At the end of the administration of the death penalty day, a human has killed another human life."
There's quite clearly a difference in those lives though. That difference can easily qualify differing opinions on what is acceptable and what is not. Your repetition does not change this reality one iota.
"Any justification of either killing, is the act of humans playing "God". Whatever ones belief in "God" is."
Stuff and nonsense. We create our society and it enforces the standards it feels are necessary. For instance, the Chinese aren't "playing God" by restricting births, it's something they feel is necessary due to the overpopulation problem. The idea that society can't regulate life because that's "playing God" is simplistic in the extreme.
"And if your belief that everybody who administers abortions as well as the death penalty are atheists, then I'd disagree with that too."
I'm not sure where you got that from. You can believe in God and not believe that you're damning a soul to hell by aborting a fetus. There's a Biblical justification for the death penalty.
To be hypocritical is to profess a virtue or standard that you don't actually have. To criticize someone for infidelity when you're cheating on your wife shows that you don't genuinely uphold the standard you claim to. But since there's no consistent principle connecting abortion and the death penalty due to the inherent differences between them, it's entirely possible to hold any combination of variable positions on those issues without any self-contradiction.
Your simplistic "life is life and death is death" nonsense does not establish hypocrisy on anyone's part. Identifying the nuance that you seem willfully blind to is not "semantics", either. You don't have a leg to stand on here.
My quote was, "You want to play a game of semantics..."
Meaning that I saw you tip toeing down that road so my comment was to nip that in the bud.
One of those statements that you made, which prompted me to post that was:
A fetus is not a citizen, it is not protectedBlah Blah Blah...by Brabantio
This shows that you want to use some label of "citizen" to justify the killing of a human life. I'm not following that funny argument.
To quote that same paragraph:
"The death penalty is given to people who may be wrongfully convicted, and that punishment can't be remedied. These are two completely different concepts, so "hypocrisy" doesn't apply."
Huh? Do you have some hypocrisy rule book or something? Sounds like it's from the Hannity rule book.
This is a very basic concept, just like 1+1 wil always equal 2...Killing life is killing life, it doesn't matter what spin you put on it.
"No, "pro-life" is the self-determined designation of abortion opponents. It does not promise any specific position on capital punishment any more than "pro-choice" people are obligated to oppose a health care plan that limits the number of doctors you can see."--by Brabantio
Again, I'm not sure what rule book you get this garbage from. Just to let you know,being a proponent of an issue didn't start with abortion activists. Just because you continue to allow activists to hijack words doesn't mean I have the same belief...Let's break this down into 1+1=2 terms; PRO, in this context, means FOR; I think we all know what LIFE means. So if you add PRO+LIFE=FOR LIFE No exceptions. I can't see how that's so difficult to understand.
You are obviously so bound by labels; Why don't you appropriately label the proper people as Pro-Life Except for Certain Criminals
"There's quite clearly a difference in those lives though. That difference can easily qualify differing opinions on what is acceptable and what is not. Your repetition does not change this reality one iota."--by Brabantio
My repetition is the reality. Life and Death is a very basic concept. You want to muddy it up with manmade excuses, variables and justifications that distracts people from that basic reality. 1+1 will always = 2; You are trying to say that sometimes it equals chair. That makes no sense. I will keep repeating, Killing is killing because it is.
There are cases of justifiable homicide but that still doesn't mean that a human life wasn't killed.
"Stuff and nonsense. We create our society and it enforces the standards it feels are necessary. For instance, the Chinese aren't "playing God" by restricting births, it's something they feel is necessary due to the overpopulation problem. The idea that society can't regulate life because that's "playing God" is simplistic in the extreme."
Who/whatever created LIFE on Earth did not create borders. That same Life Creator also created humans so we could reproduce. Communist China DOES play God/The creator when they restrict human birth. This is very simple and you make this difficult with all of your manmade concepts. Who ever created life didn't create communism either, it's just another manmade element of society.
"And if your belief that everybody who administers abortions as well as the death penalty are atheists, then I'd disagree with that too."--Me
I'm not sure where you got that from. You can believe in God and not believe that you're damning a soul to hell by aborting a fetus. There's a Biblical justification for the death penalty.--by Brabantio
First of all, I've had this debate before and the most common response to what I previously posted is "What if those people don't believe in God". So that statement wasn't directed solely to you.
In response to the rest of your quote, not sure where "Damning a soul to hell by aborting a fetus" is relevant. Not everybody believes in the bible. However, you say that there is biblical justification for the death penalty. Fist of all I believe in a separation of church and state. Also, the bible that you speak of says, "Thou shall not kill". It doesn't say Thou shall not kill except for the government and doctors.
In regard to the debate of hypocrisy, when somebody states that they are enfatically pro-life(FOR LIFE) but then they justify a form of death; In my opinion that falls under the definitions of hypocrisy and double standard.
Your simplistic "life is life and death is death" nonsense does not establish hypocrisy on anyone's part. Identifying the nuance that you seem willfully blind to is not "semantics", either. You don't have a leg to stand on here.
So the true definition of life and death is nonsense? Or is the twisting of these definitions with personal justifications the true nonsense? See, the truth is always very simple, it's just not that simple for some people to except. Like I've previously stated; You just complicate the simplicity with your perverted version of your "Truth". Get off of your high horse...Nothing that you or I will post on this site will establish any label in society. I'm not blind to anything that you have stated otherwise I wouldn't have responded, I just think your perversion of basic reality, justifying and rule making is hilarious and sad.
"You don't have a leg to stand on here."-- by Brabantio
Oh is that what your funny little cerebral rule book says? You are right though; I have two legs to stand on.(Lameness inspires lameness)
In an effort, once again, to keep this thread from being hijacked... I think we need to hear both sides of this and all debates properly represented by our television talking puppets.
I apologize to Media Matters for my part in allowing Brabantio to turn this thread into an abortion debate in his/her attempt to sway the readers' attention off of the Planned Parenthood subject that was partially on topic and not logically refuted.
If you,Brabantio, would like to debate this more in the apropriate thread then I would be more than happy to.
A fetus is not a citizen, it is not protectedBlah Blah Blah...by Brabantio"
That's not going anywhere near the road of "semantics", it's a vital distinction. A fetus has zero legal rights, unlike any citizen. If a woman has a miscarriage, nobody follows up on that to see if the fetus's right to life was violated, because it has no such right.
"This is a very basic concept, just like 1+1 wil always equal 2...Killing life is killing life, it doesn't matter what spin you put on it."
If you want to claim that life is absolutely sacred no matter what, that's up to you, but it doesn't mean that everyone who opposes abortion is using that same rationale.
"...Just because you continue to allow activists to hijack words doesn't mean I have the same belief...Let's break this down into 1+1=2 terms; PRO, in this context, means FOR; I think we all know what LIFE means. So if you add PRO+LIFE=FOR LIFE No exceptions. I can't see how that's so difficult to understand."
I'm not sure what's difficult to understand about the concept of self-determined labels. If you want to argue that it's not a fully appropriate term, I sympathize. To argue that it means that a single-issue group must hold a certain position on another issue is plain nonsense.
"You are obviously so bound by labels; Why don't you appropriately label the proper people as Pro-Life Except for Certain Criminals"
It's their label. They get to use it and that should be respected. I don't agree with their views, but that's how it works for everyone. I don't accept people labeling me as "pro-abortion", for instance.
"...You want to muddy it up with manmade excuses, variables and justifications that distracts people from that basic reality..."
All laws, standards and norms are man-made. I don't see what alternative you want.
"There are cases of justifiable homicide but that still doesn't mean that a human life wasn't killed."
Well, isn't recognizing justifiable homicide man-made justification? Your point was that it's hypocritical to hold opposing views on abortion and the death penalty, but if you admit that circumstances can make a difference in judgment then you must recognize that people may be taking circumstances into account in formulating their views.
"Who/whatever created LIFE on Earth did not create borders. That same Life Creator also created humans so we could reproduce..."
All society is man-made, again. If we're going to have it, then we have the right to regulate life. Otherwise society has no control over a very important aspect of how it works. This is integral to the system of judgment. There isn't anything that goes without judgment, where it's brushed off as "man-made" and we can't make determinations to that effect. We make all the rules. Incidentally, how on earth do you believe in the separation of church and state while arguing that the state shouldn't regulate life because some creator created us "so we could reproduce"? You said that in the context of discounting Biblical justification for the death penalty, while in the same post you use a religious concept to argue against China's policy. What the hell?
"First of all, I've had this debate before and the most common response to what I previously posted is "What if those people don't believe in God". So that statement wasn't directed solely to you."
I'm not addressing anything as if it was directed at me. I'm pointing out how people can have a rationale for any combination of positions regarding these two issues without contradicting their principles.
"In response to the rest of your quote, not sure where "Damning a soul to hell by aborting a fetus" is relevant. Not everybody believes in the bible..."
The "damning a soul" part is relevant because you mentioned atheism, obviously. I still am not sure what prompted that comment. Separation of church and state is not relevant to people's opinions, which is what we're talking about. I don't believe in the Bible, either, but I'm not talking about myself. Some people believe that abortion is wrong because of "thou shalt not kill", yet the Bible is also full of cases of capital punishment. Again, the definition of hypocrisy is to pretend you hold values or principles that you really don't. A religious viewpoint could easily lead someone to oppose abortion and support the death penalty simultaneously. Whether you or I agree with them and whether church and state should be separated or not are utterly irrelevant arguments.
"In regard to the debate of hypocrisy, when somebody states that they are enfatically pro-life(FOR LIFE) but then they justify a form of death; In my opinion that falls under the definitions of hypocrisy and double standard."
You should address the actual definition of the word "hypocrisy", which I've cited. Your unsupported opinion that it qualifies means precisely nothing. And a "double standard" suggests identical or at least similar circumstances. You would never refer to exonerating someone who shot an armed intruder and convicting someone who killed his wife in her sleep as a "double standard". Your point essentially seems to be that this feels hypocritical to you and you don't want to engage in a "cerebral" analysis.
"So the true definition of life and death is nonsense? Or is the twisting of these definitions with personal justifications the true nonsense?..."
No, the nonsense is the idea that circumstances don't count. You yourself admitted otherwise by citing justifiable homicide. The argument about whether a life is taken in both instances or not is beside the point. What's relevant is that you are arguing that someone must say taking that life is right or wrong in both cases or they're being hypocritical. Even if I say that a fetus qualifies as "life", that doesn't mean it has legal dominance over the will of the woman. Why does that mean that I must believe that we don't need to be concerned over grown adults being wrongfully put to death? It doesn't, plain and simple. These are two completely different concepts, therefore they can be evaluated separately from each other. If such a basic idea is "complicating", then I don't know how you expect society to operate. We allow people to own cats in apartments, so we should allow people to own tigers in apartments as well. An animal is an animal, right? Hell, they're all "cats", if you think about it. Doesn't it seem hypocritical to argue otherwise?
"Oh is that what your funny little cerebral rule book says? You are right though; I have two legs to stand on.(Lameness inspires lameness)"
I'm not sure how the use of such a well-known and fitting phrase is equivalent to word games. Please spare me your emotional reactions.
"...I apologize to Media Matters for my part in allowing Brabantio to turn this thread into an abortion debate..."
I didn't turn the thread into anything. I responded to the very specific concept that you can't hold differing views on different issues without being a hypocrite. It's also patently unfair to assume intent, since you have absolutely nothing to base that on. It's sort of like saying that I wasn't engaging in semantics, but you sensed that I was going to. That sort of thing, along with suggesting that nuance and analysis put one on a "high horse", make you look like you are incapable of rational discourse.
You included that meaningless point as if I support AIPAC,OIL,Tobacco, and Guns lobbyists.
Well you are wrong. You are wrong because you sheepishly stereotype me as "Right Wing".
Just one more cheerleader in the echo chamber.
In Straussian terms it would be #9, Contempt for dissenters. 3rd party seems to be with this also.
My, "That's Deep" post was dierected toward eweston8542983's
"Dream on."
How about an excerpt:The new report provides further strong evidence debunking claims by anti–abortion rights activists, who, ignoring all other contextual factors, have long argued that high abortion rates among minorities are the result of supposed aggressive marketing by abortion providers to minority communities......abortion rates among racial and ethnic minorities—especially blacks and Hispanics—are directly linked to their higher rates of unintended pregnancy, which in turn reflect pervasive health disparities more generally.
Activists tend to close their minds to logic from the opposition. I form my opinions after researching both sides.
This discussion was specifically regarding Planned Parenthood and how both sides of the "media wars" manipulate the minds of the viewers by spewing their personal agenda's instead of practicing more professionalism.
However, I do want to point out to OnceYouGoBarack that it isn't a good thing that Planned Parenthood covers up rape. That's where your women's choice energy should be spent; In helping to prevent the rape of women that gets covered up and prolonged by Planned Parenthood.
On a regular basis Planned Parenthood covers up rape on minors such as this:
Here's also proof of what your dirty donations are supporting
That Bloomington Indiana one should be enough to make you fell a little sick.
And watch the main video at the top of this page
So go ahead and keep being in denial about Planned Parenthood.
And for the sake of providing a little of the same type of proof that exposes Planned Parenthood's current racist attitude
Again, I'd like to make the point that the intent isn't to hijack this thread but to show how most of our news media is nothing but propaganda.
Some of them can be found on Lila Rose's Live Action Films website and youtube videos.
Try again, I'm having problems myself linking these days.
You can find some of the links by searching for Lila Rose and Live Action Films
Put Obama's resume next to Romneys let's see who has more experience in business. Oh that's right, President Pompous never had a job.
Yes. Even bigger than John McCain.
So much so, that he flipped all the positions that he had and allowed him to be elected in a "liberal" state, when he ran for president. For instance, abortion.
Name one.
Is there a point?
31? Bush sent kids straight out of college to Iraq to supervise the reconstruction because they were kids of his cohorts.
I don't know any such president. Is he the leader of France?
You are right. Obama has 0 experience as a corporate raider, unlike Romney.
What does that French guy have to do with anything?
You should care. Czars don't fall under the checks and balances of the congress, they answer only to the president. Traditionally they had limited power and were mainly as an advisory role. Barry O'Gump has done an end run here and given these Czars unlimited power.
Even the Grand Wizard of the Senate is very concerned as we all should be:
Grand Wizard Robert Byrd
Now ABC is going to pimp Barry's health care reform from the white house? This guy is power hungry...
Keep walking. There is nothing to see here...
Classic.
Did you even read the link? Go back and read it again. Then ask yourself what does a Czars powers entail?
As advisers to the president, what does it matter what he calls them? Any attempt to cut across bureaucratic boundaries would be welcome by many people. Or is that going outside the chain of command for you?
Poor dear, on the outside looking in with only "no" as policy. I'd be frustrated,too/ And then, well, what about the birth certificate? Or, or, or the Reverend Wright?
Performance counts, so we'll see how that comes out. But don't call the young guy advising Obama as running GM, he's not. The fact that you say it shows a wouful lack of experience in business.
I'd say he's about 75% Phony. The biggest flip-flopper known to man? Come on...You really need to research the voting records of our politicians. Just because he recently got caught doesn't make him the biggest. That's like when those cheesy magazines coincidentally vote the leading man of one of the year's biggest box office hits as "The World's Sexiest Man Alive".
I really enjoyed Ann Coulter getting all flustered when consistently being asked about Romney's flipn' though.
My vote for "Biggest Flip-Flopper Known to Man" goes to Mr. Limpet
What speaks volumes is that the USA has not been falsely accused of affecting the elections outcome. That in and of itself is progress.
1) Iranians will demand A. gets ousted and Moussawi takes office.
2) the clerics concede in a last ditch attempt to maintain power
3) They are so humiliated by the fraud they are eventually chased from power as well.
4) The first real democracy flourished in an Islamic country in the region.
5) Fox News claims it as a vindication of the Bush-Cheney policies in Iraq and Afganistan.
I know. I know. It's ridiculous but that's how the conservatives are going to play this once they realize it's the only angle.