Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditArizona Senator John McCain tried to resuscitate his ailing campaign for the Republican presidential nomination by attacking Texas Congressman Ron Paul's anti-war stance during Wednesday night's CNN/YouTube debate.
But, as in previous Republican debates where leading contenders have stumbled in their attempts to attack the renegade congressman, it was Paul who ended up drawing the cheers of the crowd.
Playing his Thanksgiving visit to Iraq for political points, McCain tore into Paul for arguing -- as part of a discussion about spending -- that bringing the troops home from Iraq would save "a trillion dollars."
Just as former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani tried in an earlier debate to buff his national-security credentials by attacking Paul's suggestion that misguided U.S. foreign policies increased the likelihood of terrorist attacks, McCain attempted to burnish his image as a champion of the troops by attacking Paul -- and, by extension, all critics of the war.
Invoking memories of the American First movement's opposition in the late-1930s and early-1940s to preparation for the fight with Hitler and Mussolini, McCain declared, "it's that kind of isolationism that caused World War II."
That rhetorical flourish drew hisses from the Republican crowd that listened to the debate in St. Petersburg, Florida
But Paul did not need the audience to protect him.
The congressman, whose fund-raising in recent months has dwarfed that of McCain and several of the other top candidates, trumped the senator by responding: "The real question you have to ask is why do I get the most money from active duty officers and military personnel?"
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
Curious if LVLIB (or PONTI or RIO) would stay at home and not vote if the choice were:
A. Hillary (weak on ending the occupation of Iraq)
B. Ron Paul (who's vowed to "cut & run...as they like to say...as much as Kucinich has)
Posted by Mask at 11/28/2007 @ 10:06pm
And don't think I let "The Nation" folks off the hook either...
Who do YOU guys endorse (in that highly unlikely scenario)?
A. the "centrist/DLC" Her Nibs?
B. the guy who'll end the occupation...but run a libertarian domestic policy?
Posted by Mask at 11/28/2007 @ 10:07pm
ron paul...
sensible non-fascist pub 4 pres...
a tad less economic libertarianism and i'd be tempted to vote for him...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/28/2007 @ 10:22pm
The eight Republican presidential hopefuls are squaring off in a challenge unlike anything they've faced as they step onto the stage for their party's first CNN/YouTube debate Wednesday in St. Petersburg, Florida. GOP hopefuls traded sharp jabs over immigration, taxes, and other to differentiate themselves.
Who won the CNN Youtube Republican Debate in Florida?
http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1119
.
Posted by PollM at 11/28/2007 @ 10:35pm
Invoking memories of the American First movement's opposition in the late-1930s and early-1940s to preparation for the fight with Hitler and Mussolini, McCain declared, "it's that kind of isolationism that caused World War II."
That rhetorical drew hisses from the Republican crowd that listened to the debate in St. Petersburg, Florida
But Paul did not need the audience to protect him.
The congressman, whose fund-raising in recent months has dwarfed that of McCain and several of the other top candidates, trumped the senator by responding: "The real question you have to ask is why do I get the most money from active duty officers and military personnel?"
Yeah, that was a cool moment in the debate. Otherwise, the GOP candidates really seemed to me to be stumbling over themselves. And I can already tell the HRC followers are going to be touting the fact that a couple of the GOP candidate videos were directly aimed at their ability to "beat Hillary". As if she already won the Dem primaries.
Overall, I found the candidates to be scary. Really. The whole Roe v. Wade thing just made my stomach churn. Especially when they were talking about putting members on the SCOTUS who would overturn Roe v. Wade.
Posted by FritztheCat at 11/28/2007 @ 10:36pm
The eight Republican presidential hopefuls are squaring off in a challenge unlike anything they've faced as they step onto the stage for their party's first CNN/YouTube debate Wednesday in St. Petersburg, Florida. GOP hopefuls traded sharp jabs over immigration, taxes, and other to differentiate themselves.
Who won the CNN Youtube Republican Debate in Florida?
------------> Linked text [youpolls.com]
.
Posted by PollM at 11/28/2007 @ 10:36pm
How about a more realistic scenario:
A. Hillary
B. Ron (running as third party)
C. Rudy
Not hard to guess the outcome there. The Clintons love that far right leaning third party help that makes them look like moderates in comparison and splits the far right from the moderate right and leaves them with everyone to the left of Mask.
It's like giving a diabetic a choice between Coke, Pepsi and RC Cola.
Posted by srjenkins at 11/28/2007 @ 10:57pm
Posted by JOMAMMA 11/28/2007 @ 10:52pm
Hard to outlaw something that you can drink, eat, smoke or inject - as we learned from Prohibition, the War on Drugs, etc. Now that it is a pill, life begins at conception folks can only walk down that same path.
Posted by srjenkins at 11/28/2007 @ 11:01pm
It's like giving a diabetic a choice between Coke, Pepsi and RC Cola.
Posted by SRJENKINS 11/28/2007 @ 10:57pm
that's a very insular attitude.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/28/2007 @ 11:30pm
It's like giving a diabetic a choice between Coke, Pepsi and RC Cola.
Posted by SRJENKINS 11/28/2007 @ 10:57pm
faygo...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/29/2007 @ 12:12am
The only two Reps that I can somehow respect out of the debate are Mr. Huckabee and Mr Paul because both of them seem to be totally authentic and speak with their conscience. Because they not repeat and repeat the Rep credo about the war, an imperialist view of the US, the "no need" for social justice and change, abortion, arms, and so on. So all of them, specially the self called conservatives and Christians, put their back on humanistic (and Christian values!!) such as love, peace, understanding, etc. How come none talk about education or what to do with the 30 million poor living in the US? They can have a million years of accumulated experience but they are only parrots repeating on daddy Bush.
Posted by Frank42 at 11/29/2007 @ 02:38am
The Nation soon will endorse a candidate it will be Edwards or Obama.....
Posted by rickgriffin at 11/29/2007 @ 04:57am
Any candidate who would state that the reason he should be elected is because he gets "the most money" from anybody, is stating his willingness to participate in the further perversion of an already grossly perverted political system. Why are we fighting an stupid immoral war? Why do we have such a miserable health care apparatus? Why is our environment, and hence our future survival on this planet, found itself on the proverbial chopping block?
It's due to money, politicians who acquiesce to the idea that money is the barometer of all things, and the blithe acceptance of this by the voters. If you don't vote for money, then money will not win. Vote for the man who will do right thing, if he exists, not for the man who claims that the reason he should be elected is ... money.
Posted by joelcage at 11/29/2007 @ 07:28am
MASK,
Ron Paul vs Hillary Clinton? No contest for me! Like choosing between Strawberry pie and Lima Beans.
(This comment in no way is meant as an attack against Lima Beans, people who like them or grow them, nor is preferential treatment being given to proponents of Strawberry Pie or their relatives, deceased or otherwise.)
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/29/2007 @ 07:54am
A. the "centrist/DLC" Her Nibs?
B. the guy who'll end the occupation...but run a libertarian domestic policy?
Posted by MASK 11/28/2007 @ 10:07pm
Tough question. I like Paul's stance on getting us the hell out of Iraq, but I don't like his stance on the abortion issue.
The government really does need to be overhauled and Paul might do a better job than Hillary because it would appear that she will not rock the boat.
I'm still undecided between those two. It would be the first time I ever voted for a rethug for president if I went with Paul, but I'm not married to either party anymore. Both parties stink to high heaven with corruption.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/29/2007 @ 08:02am
The only way abortion will be out lawed is if a test is discovered that can tell you if your child is going to be gay..and if one wants to abort because of gayness or not..THEN it will banned..but not until.
Posted by JOMAMMA 11/28/2007 @ 10:54pm
Well put JM. It's a hot button issue both sides don't want to see go away. They can rant and rave on the subject, but minor changes will be made if any.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/29/2007 @ 08:05am
Posted by WOLFGANG1 11/29/2007 @ 08:02am
JOMAMMA MAASCH is right, nobody is ever going to ban abortion...despite promises to the Religious Right every 4 years.
Even in the dangerous scenario of Roe getting overturned by the USSC, the South Dakota example shows that even in the Reddest of the Red States, banning abortion fails on a state-wide level.
The only real objection to Paul from the Left would be his libertarian domestic policy....and the only objection from the Right would be the fact that he's got a "Kucinich" attitude towards Iraq.
It'd be a great debate...but it's not going to happen. Looks like Huckabee might be the "ABM" (Anybody But Mitt) candidate for the Mormon-haters like LVLIB...and that might be enough for him to swamp Giuliani.
Posted by Mask at 11/29/2007 @ 09:12am
I think the questions on the Bible were out of place, but forth by the Dems plants..
Posted by JOMAMMA 11/29/2007 @ 08:32am | ignore this person
Dem plants, maybe. I'd wager Huckabee supporters. I agree, the questions on the Bible were out of place. And JO, you make an excellent point about Roe v. Wade not going away.
On a weird-yet-not-entirely-off-topic note, I heard the other day that feminists in India were actually rallying to stop abortion there. Apparently, abortions are being performed on fetuses that are female. Male fetuses are being allowed full term and subsequent birth whereas females are being aborted. I don't have a source for this, just something my Psychology professor brought up at the last lecture.
Posted by FritztheCat at 11/29/2007 @ 09:40am
McCain pretty much proved last night that his campaign is dead. He denied that his compromise "fix" for immigration was actually amnesty. Anyone who can read and understand the english language knows perfectly well that it was amnesty. His so-called attack on Ron Paul further proves that McCain has little knowledge of or regard for historical fact. I'm sorry to see McCain go down that way, but he does seemed determined to crash and burn his own campaign. Rudy and Mitt seem to take no small amount of pleasure in trying to show each other's lack of integrity. I really don't need other people telling me how to judge the integrity of another individual; it's pretty insulting and it's not their place to do that. It's unfortunate that, as campaigns progress, the tendency is to engage in more ad hominem attacks, rather to confine remarks to what a candidate actually thinks and believes.
Posted by clonestar at 11/29/2007 @ 09:46am
and the dems are boycotting the only non cable debate since the pbs thing cuz of the writer's strike?
that kinda ticks me off...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/29/2007 @ 10:06am
Ron Paul seems the only rational, relevant, non-reactionary candidate the GOP is offering. Of course, his anti-war stance and Libertarian call for the end of the federal income tax is what makes it so.
Posted by lewwelge at 11/29/2007 @ 10:31am
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 11/29/2007 @ 10:06am
You really think they'd piss off BOTH Hollywood AND the unions?
Posted by Mask at 11/29/2007 @ 10:43am
And here I always thought most of you were well-educated and informed.
Ron Paul "rational"?
Hardly. He would gut the U.S. government of everything except the military, and those he would station along the borders to prevent the influx of those "scary brown people" whose lives in Mexico have been shattered by unrestrained "free trade". We'd end up with no medicare and no social security (no OSHA or Dept. of Education) along with no income tax. Anarchy would rear its ugly head high enough for all of us to clearly see the mistake if Paul ever got elected.
As for Huckabee being "authentic"?
That's not what I'd call a fundy who rejects evolution (and thereby science) and thinks women should be forced (of course by men who would strike down Roe v. Wade) to carry children they don't want.
The whole batch of GOP candidates are either Bush clones joined at the hip to PNAC principles of U.S imperialism or they are fundy extremists who would rather see the Constitution shredded and biblical law take its place.
Anyone foolish enough to vote for any of the GOP candidates will get exactly what they deserve should their candidate win. The problem is that the rest of us don't deserve that punishment.
Posted by scoff0165 at 11/29/2007 @ 11:19am
Rio-The GOP candidates aren't particularly qualified,either so I'm not sure what your point is.
Posted by i'm nobody at 11/29/2007 @ 11:19am
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/29/2007 @ 11:05am
You would?!?!?!?
But Paul has said he'd pull out the troops ASAP from Iraq, LVLIB...
and YOU said..
BLOG | Posted 09/10/2007 @ 11:01am Questioning Petraeus' Credibility by Ari Berman
"I'll say it again for those including Imnobody, it is cowardice and treasonous in my opinion to back down from this very necessary war on terror." ----Posted by LVLIBERTY1 09/10/2007 @ 12:56pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/29/2007 @ 11:12am
But you do admit FEARING Romney and his Mormonism, right? When does "fear" not lead to "hate"?
Posted by Mask at 11/29/2007 @ 11:29am
LvLiberty-Both sides use plants to ask questions.Malkin exposed herself as being partisan and dishonest.
Posted by i'm nobody at 11/29/2007 @ 12:02pm
Good point, Scoffo. If your post is anywhere near an accurate portrayal of Ron Paul's policy planks, I withdraw my then misuse of the adjective "rational."
It's crazy how rightward/fascistic the ostensibly centrist neo-liberal dems can push one.
Kucinich for Prez!!
Posted by lewwelge at 11/29/2007 @ 12:03pm
I don't fear anyone but God.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/29/2007 @ 12:04pm
why on earth would you fear god?
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/29/2007 @ 12:14pm
lvliberty-Politicians engage in the same behaviour regardless of which party they belong to.The partisan hypocrisy behind the finger pointing is just that.Partisan hypocrisy.Malkin proved nothing other than she's dishonest,but we already knew that.Partisan people need to get out of their fantasy worlds and into reality.
Posted by i'm nobody at 11/29/2007 @ 12:16pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/29/2007 @ 12:04pm
LVLIB, why, if you have faith that "President Ron Paul" would be won over to your view of the war in Iraq (by Gen. Petraeus et al)...
do you NOT have faith that Mitt Romney doesn't hate Christians?
Paul has SAID that he'll pull the troops out of Iraq....while Romney has made NO pronouncments against Christians (quite the opposite)????
Posted by Mask at 11/29/2007 @ 12:23pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 11/29/2007 @ 12:14pm
Typically, the use of the term "fear" by Christians as in "fear of God" harkens back to the older Elizabethean English (i.e. King James vers. Bible) use of the term which means "respect".
Posted by Mask at 11/29/2007 @ 12:26pm
Lvliberty-What I said was that the Republican candidates aren't anymore qualified to be president than are the Democrats.They're about even in that respect.
Posted by i'm nobody at 11/29/2007 @ 12:31pm
McCain should read more history. The historical fact of the matter is that during WWI, both sides of the conflict had drained their resources and were about to sue for peace at the time the U.S. entered the war. That single act of intervention not only changed the entire outcome of the war, but changed the entire balance of power in the world.
On top of the massive loss of lives, the U.S. intervention and subsequent "victory" imposed some of the harshest punishments and reparations on Germany under the Treaty of Versailles. The severe limitations and humiliation set upon Germany created an atmosphere within that country that eventually set the stage for failed artist named Hitler to take advantage of the humiliated people of Germany and it paved the way for him to grasp the reigns of power.
Had this country stayed out of WWI, the entire world would be far different and, I might add, far better off. Had both sides of WWI sued for peace, the makeup of the global power structure would be decidedly more maintainable. Imagine if Hitler had not had a platform on which to project his power. 6 Million Jews would have survived, Israel would probably not exist in its present form, the Middle East would have a totally different makeup in its power structure, Iraq would not exist in its present form, neither would several of the other Middle East countries. Additionally, the make-up of the former U.S.S.R. would probably be far different, as well as Eastern Europe. Speculation? Sure it is, but we never know the actual costs and consequences of our foreign policy until decades later and while hinesight is 20/20, perhaps it is time that this country tried some of the Foresight that Ron Paul is offering!
Posted by Republicae at 11/29/2007 @ 12:37pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/29/2007 @ 12:31pm
I see, so your "John Ankerberg" view of Mormonism renders Romney untrustworthy and "secretly" loathing of Christians....
but you KNOW that Paul would immediately dump principles, specifically his "treasonous" view of getting out of Iraq, under enlightenment by General Petraeus?
I see.....
and yet it's not about bigotry towards Mormons?
Ah-hmm.
Posted by Mask at 11/29/2007 @ 12:44pm
BTW, LL....
Given-
"It is Mormon's who have physically attacked me and others when we share the Bible with them and not the other way around.....I care deeply for Mormons and want them to be set free from the lies they have been told.---Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/29/2007 @ 11:12am
Do you "care deeply" for....Islamo-fascists? Or are your feelings for them different?...if so, why?
Posted by Mask at 11/29/2007 @ 12:51pm
Islamo-fascists
mask,
i know you're trying to make a point.
if you want to use that term,
don't forget to call hitler
a "christo-fascist" etc.,
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/29/2007 @ 1:11pm
Ron Paul had a calm and collective manner that was to the point when being attacked out of desperation by McCain. I Loved it! I also wanted to add that when it was stated that the Super Highway aka The "Transtexascorridor" must be a conspiracy by the last so called political analysist well, all one has to do is look in my backyard. It is here and it is now. It will shut off (No Exit Ramps) any potential business for our mom and pop stores here in my small rural Tx town. We will not be given access to having citizens be able to stop in and buy from our shops and stores, therefore we must either find other ways to make a living or move to suburbia. The media can say that it doesn't exist, but it does. Just ask governor Rick Perry :) He has heard from MANY of our Tx citizens. The only threat to these politicians is Ron Paul of Tx and we see it and know it. I wish all of America could before it is too late to do anything about the corruption. The man is telling Americans the truth and if nothing else, "The Truth Shall Set You Free."
Posted by Katie212 at 11/29/2007 @ 1:11pm
a. both contain a doctrinal hatred of Christianity and Christians
by lvliberty
The Cow
[2.62] Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.
[2.111] And they say: None shall enter the garden (or paradise) except he who is a Jew or a Christian. These are their vain desires. Say: Bring your proof if you are truthful.
[2.113] And the Jews say: The Christians do not follow anything (good) and the Christians say: The Jews do not follow anything (good) while they recite the (same) Book. Even thus say those who have no knowledge, like to what they say; so Allah shall judge between them on the day of resurrection in what they differ.
The Dinner Table
[5.69] Surely those who believe and those who are Jews and the Sabians and the Christians whoever believes in Allah and the last day and does good-- they shall have no fear nor shall they grieve.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/29/2007 @ 1:21pm
End of the Republicans? Paulites think so. From Daily Paulite poster:
Last night was another scene in a play...
...the play called 'The Destruction of the Republican Party'. The fault lines between the Christian/Social conservatives, the foreign policy hawks, and the libertarian/fiscal conservatives are becoming clearly visible. These guys were up there beating the living Hell out of each other, and at several points you could hear half the crowd booing while the others were cheering. I think last night was a huge anti-recruiting video for the Party. Who wants to join a club where a room full of your own members might boo you? Now, I don't see this as necessarily bad. Most of us who are joining the Party for the first time are doing so solely because of Dr. Paul. The Party is just a means to an end for us. We would have joined the other party or the American Kitten-Drowning League if that happened to be the banner under which RP was running. I think it is a mistake to be thinking about taking over the Republican Party. The neocons and the 'evangelicals' have already tried that, with some success... but look now at the result. The Party is in a bind. They have to stay open to new members, or they die... but if they let just anyone join, there is rancor, and they lose members. They are the victims of their own success. What do I mean? It's about that prize they hold. They can't let go of it, and they can't hold on to it. Either course leads to their shrinking and eventual marginalization. That prize is their 50% ownership of ballot access with their partners the Democrats. This could have just as easily happened to the Dems. That combination of duopolization of the ballot box and open membership is a structural weakness that will be simply unable to persist in this era of fast, free communication. The worst thing for the Dems, although they may not yet know it, is the destruction of the Republican Party. When the Elephant goes down, the Donkey standing there holding the prize will be next to meet The Swarm. Actually, the prize will just disappear.
Posted by BlueBrian76 at 11/29/2007 @ 1:25pm
Lvliberty is afraid of God because he knows God is going to throw him into the everlasting lake of fire for supporting Bush's destructive Authoritarian agenda.
Ron Paul, you ought to face facts. Are your for or against a dictatorship. Against? Sorry to bring you unwelcome news Ron Paul, but that makes you a leftist.
Posted by conshame at 11/29/2007 @ 1:43pm
SCOFF0165 - great post! I've been to Ron Paul's website because so many progressives seem to support him and I wanted to see for myself. His views, aside from Iraq and the "wars" on terror and drugs, are pretty extreme. You put it so well, there's no need to elaborate.
Posted by LeeAnnG at 11/29/2007 @ 1:55pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/29/2007 @ 11:07am
You think Nader will win more votes this time around than Paul if Rudy were the candidate? I'm not a betting man, but I'd take that bet.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/29/2007 @ 11:12am
They probably feel the same and can't understand how you don't convert to the real God and the real Jesus that you don't know.
Posted by MASK 11/29/2007 @ 11:29am |
Fear is not hate Mask. That's why they are different words. How about you stop making positions up for people and actually address what they say?
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/29/2007 @ 11:57am
You first mistake was believing anything Malkin says. I hope one day she gets over her concentration camp mentality.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/29/2007 @ 12:31pm
Ever consider that not all or even many Mormons take this stance? The Catholic church is against abortion, but not every member lines up behind them there - same goes for Mormons or Islam for that matter. I'd suggest you spend more time watching what people do and less time believing what they say - or escribing to everyone what the "official position" is. People are more complex than that.
Posted by REPUBLICAE 11/29/2007 @ 12:37pm
Yeah, the what-if game. Let us know when you find out how to travel to alternative realities where this might come in handy. Or maybe look for a career in comics or sci-fi.
Posted by srjenkins at 11/29/2007 @ 1:58pm
Yeah, the what-if game. Let us know when you find out how to travel to alternative realities where this might come in handy. Or maybe look for a career in comics or sci-fi.
Posted by SRJENKINS 11/29/2007 @ 1:58pm
or punditry.................
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/29/2007 @ 2:02pm
Actually FZ, I used "Islamo-fascist" to get this from LL
"2. Though you probably wouldn't know the facts making your comparison viable, there is a real parallel between Mormonism and Islam.
a. both contain a doctrinal hatred of Christianity and Christians
b. like Islamofascists/terrorists, only a small percentage of Mormons are Temple Mormons (less than 10%). And like the terrorists, only a small percentage of Mormons, both Temple and non-Temple Mormons actually act out their taught aggression towards Christians.----Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/29/2007 @ 1:08pm
First of course is that according to LVLIB's own standards....Mitt Romney is the equivalent of any member of the Al Qaeda!
Now, the backpedaling will begin...but look at what he's saying. "there is a real parallel between Mormonism and Islam." and "like Islamofascists/terrorists, only a small percentage of Mormons are Temple Mormons (less than 10%). And like the terrorists, only a small percentage of Mormons, both Temple and non-Temple Mormons actually act out their taught aggression towards Christians."
Now, given he labels (perhaps correctly) Mitt Romney as a "Temple Mormon"...and says they are "like the terrorists"...
and given LL's previous statements about "what to do about the Islamo-fascists/terrorists?...i.e. "think Dresden"--Posted by LVLIBERTY1 10/21/2007 @ 10:50am
What should the LOGICAL extrapolation of what LVLIB would, if he believes what he says, recommend be done to ...Salt Lake City? (as it would be Teheran?)
Posted by Mask at 11/29/2007 @ 2:17pm
BTW, throw this in....
If LVLIB tries to back away by saying that "Temple Mormons" haven't carried out any violence YET as Al Qaeda has....
then by that rationale, LVLIB says we should have WAITED to be attacked by those terrorists before responding, and that "up-til-now" non-violent Al Qaeda cells and members should be left alone...
uh, right, LL?
Posted by Mask at 11/29/2007 @ 2:21pm
Posted by MASK 11/29/2007 @ 2:17pm
..."both contain a doctrinal hatred of Christianity and Christians" does not mean the same as "Mitt Romney is the equivalent of any member of the Al Qaeda!"
You can't even get to the point where logic applies because you've smuggled in so many errors and preconceptions in your premises.
Now, I think there are interesting questions here. How does he know Mitt is a "Temple Mormon"? Is it possible he misinterpreted the meaning behind the beliefs of Temple Mormons? Etc.
At this point, he is making claims of authority because he has some association with a professor who is an expert. Shoot, I may have taken a class with Lessig or know him personally - doesn't make me an expert in intellectual property law. Even if it did, I could still be wrong. So, have to wonder - especially in light of his comments about trying to convert Mormons and his apparent attitude about it - what kind of authority do we really have here?
Note to LVL - if you start out with the belief that my God is better than your God, you are not likely to make many converts but are extremely likely to cause some lumps on your own head.
Posted by srjenkins at 11/29/2007 @ 3:01pm
Posted by SRJENKINS 11/29/2007 @ 3:01pm
SRJ, first LVLIB will happily quote a variety of sources from Mormon teaching to say that "Temple Mormons hate Christians", and Romney's own statement of faith that he is one.
That's not the point....look at what LVLIB said, all of it (not me, what he actually said/posted)
"there is a real parallel between Mormonism and Islam."
"both contain a doctrinal hatred of Christianity and Christians"
"like Islamofascists/terrorists, only a small percentage of Mormons are Temple Mormons (less than 10%). And like the terrorists, only a small percentage of Mormons, both Temple and non-Temple Mormons actually act out their taught aggression towards Christians."----Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/29/2007 @ 1:08pm
"It is Mormon's who have physically attacked me and others when we share the Bible with them and not the other way around."---Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/29/2007 @ 11:12am
Now, I know you've got "knee-jerk'itis" when it comes to me and anything I post (Empty, WILL were easily infected, try some echinacea)...but read what the man is saying...."aggression"..."physical attacks"... and tell me the LOGICAL EXTRAPOLATION of what it means?
Posted by Mask at 11/29/2007 @ 3:18pm
Ron Paul vs Hillary Clinton? No contest for me! Like choosing between Strawberry pie and Lima Beans. CHIP THORNTON WROTE: (This comment in no way is meant as an attack against Lima Beans, people who like them or grow them, nor is preferential treatment being given to proponents of Strawberry Pie or their relatives, deceased or otherwise.)
Hey chip....why are you being so meanspirited as to equate Billary Clinton with lima beans?" I love strawberry pie too!
Ron Paul Love!!!!
Stevo
Posted by antiNWO1 at 11/29/2007 @ 3:30pm
I see a lot of people commenting on abortion here, so I'm throwing in my two cents:
I'm pro-life; really, I am. But having any sort of federal ban on abortion is completely impractical. Why? Women will STILL seek out abortions, and if they can't find a doctor to perform them, they will turn to the coat hanger once more, risking their own lives (stupidly, might I add). Ideally, abortion would remain legal but limited, requiring that it be performed very early in the pregnancy (I would say within the first two months). In exchange, sex education MUST be modernized. Kids have sex, teens have sex... and very few of them know how to protect themselves. That's the reality of it, and those that deny that fact are deluding themselves and hurting children as a result.
I think Dr. Paul has it right that the states should take care of things like gay marriage and abortion. They are not federal matters, and the government is wasting resources bickering about them. I think Congress would be better served using their time (and our money) to look at the economy and our so-called "war on terror" - both of which are things that Dr. Paul is extremely concerned and proactive about. Those are the most pressing issues right now. He understands that. He has my Republican primary vote.
Posted by HelloSarah at 11/29/2007 @ 3:46pm
All you need to know about "lvliberty" is that he believes the earth to be 6000 years old. This fact alone precludes the possibility of any rational dialogue. This man is an ignorant, hate filled anachronism clinging tenaciously to desperately outmoded ideas. Go preach to the flat earth society you dullard.
Posted by entropy at 11/29/2007 @ 4:14pm
I would really love to see his proof that Mr. Romney is on the payroll of his imiginary devil though. At least there is a modicum of entertainment value associated with the right wing zealots- more than can be said for the cut and paste conspiracy theorists.
Posted by entropy at 11/29/2007 @ 4:17pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/29/2007 @ 3:34pm
So there IS a "fine distinction" between the "Temple Mormons" and the "Islamic terrorists"? "Semi-violence" versus ...what?..."serious violence"?
BTW, keep your terms straight....I'm discussing ONLY "Temple Mormonism" and "Islamo-fascist-style Islam"...not "regular" Mormonism and "regular" Islam.
Keep to those definitions, because I want to see what the EXACT distinction you're willing to make for Romney...and say a pre-1991 Osama bin Laden?
For instance, would "President Romney" act in an oppressive way towards Christians? How would that differ from a "President bin Laden"? What influence would hold "President Mitt" in check (given his evil nature) that would not hold a "President Osama" in check?
Careful now...you've got to remain consistant to what you have said about Romney...and "Temple Mormons"....AND "Islamo-fascist Muslims".
Posted by Mask at 11/29/2007 @ 4:18pm
more than can be said for the cut and paste conspiracy theorists.----Posted by ENTROPY 11/29/2007 @ 4:17pm
I'll agree with that. LVLIB's views of the diabolical nature of Mitt Romney is much more interesting than RESE and PLUNGER's bland idiocy.
Posted by Mask at 11/29/2007 @ 4:20pm
Posted by MASK 11/29/2007 @ 3:18pm
It's true I'm a little hard on you. It's mostly because I see you moving people's positions so it is easier to argue against. You do it to me. You do it to others. So, I'm making it a point to get on you about it. Nothing else to it really.
Now, I could make a statement that Jews, Christians and Muslims have a share a doctrinal belief that they are the chosen people. While true to some extent, there is a whole world of meaning that I'm not bothering to qualify in any way. Is it all Jews? How does the conception of chosen differ in each faith and each particular sect of interest? Etc.
Instead of asking questions, you chose whatever meaning you like, and often it's not being charitable to the person's position. In this case, it seems obvious that while he may be noting a similarity, there is a difference between heated arguments that come to blows and what LVL thinks of as cultural war - so there is at least a magnitude difference in play here. So, you can't make the argument that they are the same to him.
There are other avenues I could pursue, but you get my drift.
Posted by srjenkins at 11/29/2007 @ 6:00pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/29/2007 @ 3:27pm
I know next to nothing about Mormons. I've had a couple knock on my door on mission and done some interviews, but I won't pretend to know anything about them.
But, for me, I judge people individually. When someone says they are a Christian or a particular variety of Christian (Catholic, Evangelical, Born Again, Baptist or what have you) you can't pretend that all you need to do is just take a look at the scripture and explanatory materials like a catechism and think you have the whole story.
Has Mitt made comments against Christians? Has he addressed these issues? For me it is more academic, the chances of my voting for him are nil - but am curious to know more about this issue and what makes you think that Mitt would pose a threat to you if elected into office.
As for why I question you? I make it a habit to question pretty much everything. And this doesn't do very well on the sniff test.
Posted by srjenkins at 11/29/2007 @ 6:12pm
Way overrated. Paul had one decent line about getting the money from officers. Big deal. Most of the time, he fumbled his words.
Also, he wants to get rid of the Dept. of Education. What a dolt.
Posted by neaguy at 11/29/2007 @ 7:25pm
Posted by SRJENKINS 11/29/2007 @ 6:00pm
See, here's the deal. I've been around LVLIB a lot longer than you have ...no slam just a basic fact. In the sense, that I've paid attention to EVERYTHING he's posted here over the last 18 months or so.
The man claims to be a "Christian", yet endorses BOTH the wholesale bombing of Muslim cities ("think Dresden" was his "Why Bush isn't fighting the WOT the way he should" answer)....and in a discussion of the Korean War, the NUCLEAR BOMBARDMENT of China (he claims "only depots and staging grounds", but that makes no sense logistically if it was truly be an effective strategy) to grant Douglas MacArther a "victory" and to "defeat Mao" and SWEAR THIS WAS HIS REASONING...to "save the Chinese people from mass slaughter by Mao".
He's like a bizarre cross between "Matthew Harrison Brady" from "Inherit the Wind"...and "Buck Turgidson" from "Dr. Strangelove"...and if you read what he's saying about Romney ("paid agent of the Devil") and what he's comparing "Temple Mormons" to..."Islamic terrorists"...
and all the rest....the conclusion is pretty obvious that simple discussion of his "source" for Romney's religious belief, or what "Temple Mormonism" is all about...isn't going to reveal the REAL thinking behind LVLIB and his view on Romney's religion.
Posted by Mask at 11/29/2007 @ 7:57pm
Also, he wants to get rid of the Dept. of Education. What a dolt. ====Posted by NEAGUY 11/29/2007 @ 7:25pm |
How has American education gone since we created that Department?
Posted by Mask at 11/29/2007 @ 7:58pm
He's like a bizarre cross between "Matthew Harrison Brady" from "Inherit the Wind"...and "Buck Turgidson" from "Dr. Strangelove". MASK
That is without a doubt one of the funniest things I have ever read. The guy is a serious mental case, so I almost feel sorry for humiliating him, but he is the masochist who insists on posting the bizarre ramblings of his syphilitic mind in a public forum.
Posted by entropy at 11/29/2007 @ 9:21pm
Posted by ENTROPY 11/29/2007 @ 9:21pm
Well, I think that's unfair...to the mentally ill.
LVLIB isn't insane or even highly neurotic. He simply has a simplistic and RIGID world-view, primarily influenced by the right-wing punditry and Religious Right "leaders" like Pat Robertson (whom he defends at all opportunities) et al.
The man is more parody than psychotic. The "blood n' guts" "Nuke 'em back to the Stone Age" "No wars are bad unless peacenik libs and Dems lose them" mentality...combined with a fundamentalist religiosity and a bigotry towards non-Judeo-Christianity (even sub-set Christianity like Mormonism)...
and a clinging to the idea that he's still "Christian" with love in his heart for his fellow man and would turn his cheek seven times seven times to an affront.
Posted by Mask at 11/29/2007 @ 9:33pm
All joking aside mask, is not obsessive belief in the irrational a hallmark of neurosis? I really didn't even mean it as perjorative- I don't believe that the bloke is mentally sound.
Posted by entropy at 11/29/2007 @ 9:59pm
All joking aside mask, is not obsessive belief in the irrational a hallmark of neurosis? I really didn't even mean it as perjorative- I don't believe that the bloke is mentally sound.
Posted by ENTROPY 11/29/2007 @ 9:59pm
nah,
lvliberty is just old-school.
talk to him about where he lives, or about his parishioners and he comes off as much more lucid.
hasta habla español.........
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/29/2007 @ 10:06pm
Posted by MASK 11/29/2007 @ 7:57pm
I find LVL fascinating, as I find you fascinating. You both have contradictions in your positions, and these do not appear to me to be contradictions that emerge from an evolving understanding (a Republican might say flip-flopping). It's more that you have paradoxical positions.
Now, I can agree that LVL makes some provocative statements. But we have to be careful that we don't make the same mistake he often makes of others - of taking his statements too literally.
Trying to guess what would evil would could have done or that we could still do that would have saved or will save more lives, well, that's just a bit of foolishness. It's speculation. It's playing God without having God's knowledge of consequences. It's one thing to say it. It's quite another to make that choice - which no one did. It's the what-if game again, and it's not useful.
Even given what he has said about these other circumstances, it also shouldn't be a factor in assessing this Temple Mormon line of thinking. I have no idea what the real worry is here - something along the lines of a Mormon Manchurian candidate? But, I'm interested in getting the gist of it - even though at first blush it looks like it's silly.
As for the hypocrisy, it's a rare man that can live up to what he aspires to be. In that sense, he is no different from you or me.
Posted by srjenkins at 11/30/2007 @ 12:06am
Kucinich/Paul '08-
Posted by ttr at 11/30/2007 @ 01:48am
IBBLEBLIBBLE, you said: "a tad less economic libertarianism and i'd be tempted to vote for him..."
Do you know what economic libertarianism means? Why do you think Texas' top firms are loyal to the GOP -- except Ron Paul, who received *no* donations.: http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Texas_top_firms_stay_loyal_to_GOP_but_ not_Ron_Paul?t=10828268
Posted by frogster at 11/30/2007 @ 05:27am
The only way abortion will be out lawed is if a test is discovered that can tell you if your child is going to grow up to be a bloviating jack-off middleman..and if one wants to abort because of complete ignorance ..THEN it will banned..but not until.
Posted by bwindrip at 11/30/2007 @ 08:11am
Contradictions must be accepted, both intra- and extra-psychically, i.e. socio-familially. To believe otherwise is to be willfully blind as the absolutists, by any moniker, are.
Posted by lewwelge at 11/30/2007 @ 09:35am
Posted by ENTROPY 11/29/2007 @ 9:59pm
Well, I did say HIGHLY neurotic...heheh
Posted by Mask at 11/30/2007 @ 09:55am
of taking his statements too literally.----Posted by SRJENKINS 11/30/2007 @ 12:06am
You think he is FIGURATIVELY calling for the "Dresden'ization" of Muslim cities as a means of fighting the "War on Terror"?....
or that he meant he would have supported the METAPHORICAL nuclear bombardment of China during the Korean War?!?!?!??!?
Posted by Mask at 11/30/2007 @ 09:58am
Posted by LEWWELGE 11/30/2007 @ 09:35am
I have no problem with paradoxes and contradictions - so long as they are recognized and understood. Often, however, they are not recognized and more often than not, a sign we haven't thought out our positions well enough. The question of whether it is truly paradox or more work needs to be done on the position, is the question I find fascinating.
Posted by srjenkins at 11/30/2007 @ 10:16am
Posted by MASK 11/30/2007 @ 09:58am
I think it is one thing to say something, and it is quite another to do it. Much like our armchair warriors that support the Iraq war but don't want to fight in it, I think LVL would rethink these extreme positions if he were actually in a position and had the responsibility to do something rather than playing the what-if game after the fact.
Again, the distinction is paying attention more to what people do (or what they likely would do) rather than what they say. Besides, who can justify mass murder on the ground that it prevented a bigger one - that never happened? It's absurd.
Posted by srjenkins at 11/30/2007 @ 10:26am
"I think LVL would rethink these extreme positions if he were actually in a position and had the responsibility to do something rather than playing the what-if game after the fact."----Posted by SRJENKINS 11/30/2007 @ 10:26am |
Well not sure what you're basing that thinking on, so....ask him.
I mean ultimately, unless you take the position that NOTHING anybody says (even yourself) do they "really mean", at some point even the most outrageous (to our view) statements or positions MUST be considered the person's actual feelings or opinions.
So...let's ask LL when he comes on. "Do you REALLY mean that you would apply a 'Dresden-like' approach to the War on Terror...or are you simply saying that to elicit a reaction, and your actual approach (if you had the power) would be more tempered?"
And see what he says.
Posted by Mask at 11/30/2007 @ 11:13am
Posted by MASK 11/30/2007 @ 11:13am
Here's an analogous situation. Ask your pro-war arm chair soldier if he would join the war of terror and do some fighting in the Middle East. He'll swear up and down that he would be more than willing, if called.
The if part is where the rubber hits the road. We will never know - and perhaps the person themselves will not know either - until they get that draft card and have to make that decision, for real. Not hypothetically.
Same applies here, except even more so because it's not only would you kill for your country but would you do mass murder for it. The more extreme the position and the more fervently they hold it, the more people are trying to convince themselves and less likely they are to actually do it. Sure, there are the Hitlers, the suicide bomber jihadis and so forth. But if LVL were of that stripe, don't you think he would be gun running for Jesus, fund-raising for Christian soldiers, or whatever? If you read what he says about how he lives his life, it doesn't match up with these extreme positions.
So, I don't care much about what LVL says in response to this question. We, and even he himself, won't ever know know the real answer to it.
As far as the philosophical question, you can believe what people say if it appears of one piece and they try to do what they say - even if your knowledge of what they do is what they have told you. As soon as there is a gap between what is said and what is done, then you have to start questioning - and what most warrants questioning is this type of position.
Posted by srjenkins at 11/30/2007 @ 12:45pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/30/2007 @ 3:17pm
I find this to be a pretty powerful argument for pacifism. It is this line of reasoning that justifies everything from the Holocaust to our use of nuclear weapons - a speculated greater good that comes from a concrete and horrifying evil.
Further, you know this is against the teaching of "turn the other cheek." It's clear what Jesus meant, and you don't have to have a special red phone to God to understand how he would have viewed Dresden. Serious contradiction here, LVL.
Posted by srjenkins at 11/30/2007 @ 4:10pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/30/2007 @ 8:38pm
Someone has to drop the bombs. Someone has to fire the guns. Governments don't kill people. People do, and when they do so they go against the teachings of Christ.
Rather selective in your biblical quotes. Why not go a little further to John 5:29?
I hold more with the traditions of people like the Quakers, Leo Tolstoy, Dorothy Day, Gustavo Gutiérrez, etc. The revelation is continuing LVL. The point is to make the teachings real in our own lives, not blindly follow the authority and laws - such as the Pharisees did in Jesus's time.
Posted by srjenkins at 11/30/2007 @ 10:41pm