Wednesday, March 14, 2007

Joining "Team Rudy" and other Notes

Well, I got a brochure in the mail that pretty much assumed I was joining "Team Rudy" for President. The thing was strong on spending and the war on terror. No mention of social issues, but at least when "Rudy" was pictured on the brochure, he wasn't in drag.

As to the "War on Terror", terror is a tactic. You can't really have a "War on Terror" any more than you can have a "War on Concentration of Force". You can have a war on countries that USE a given tactic against you, but a "War" on a tactic is a war that cannot be won and will never end- which seems to be the way some people like it. There are less complaints when civil liberties are trashed that way. Now if a "War on Terror" means military action to cause a "regeime change" in countries that use the tactic of terror against us- like in Afganistan- I am all for it. I don't get why it means we are supposed to hang around for years trying to impose our preferred institutions on their society though. As long as they understand any use of terror against us would get them just as dead as the last bunch should be motivation enough for the leaders who never seem to strap bombs to themselves.

Now this country and this state are spending themselves into oblivion so the fiscal part does strike a chord. It seems like every week now the state legislature is voting to put us in more and more debt. Last week they gave the Soil and Water Commission the thumbs up for $300 million in bonds. This week it is forwarding a re-vote on the failed $575 million highway bond issue. They stripped it of its onerous provision which would enable them to renew the debt to enternity, but it still has us in the business of using debt, and the same amount of debt, for routine highway maintenence. The surplus is long gone, and the arms that gave us the miniscule tax cuts are all broken from self-back patting. It is back to buying votes with your children's money.

At least the ledge is voting right on social issues. Like the vote to protect children from homosexuals getting access to them via foster parenting or adoption. I appreciate such courage in a world where the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace, felt he had to apologize for saying what everybody knew a generation ago, that homosexuality is immoral. IN fact the papers just printed the roll call of the vote. An unusual move that some would take as an effort to embarrass those who voted "the wrong way." What they consider the "wrong way" is likely the opposite of the way most of us see it. Here it is (the vote). Those who voted YES voted with courage to protect children from PC madness. That makes up for a lot of overspending, because in the end, it's only money.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

How can you say that a bill that would separate children from blood relatives is good? A grandmother who is raising her grandchildren cannot adopt them if she admits she is gay, even if she is living a celibate lifestyle.

6:36 AM, March 14, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Where did this 'grandma' steal a grandkid, or a kid for that matter?!

9:10 AM, March 14, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you haven't noticed, there are many gay people who have had biological children.

10:18 AM, March 14, 2007  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

We all have to make choices to be who we are. Just as there is more to fatherhood than being a "sperm donor", there is more to being a grandmother than contributing DNA.

To choose some things is to give up others. If we choose to be criminals, we risk our freedom. I know a mother of three who lost her children because she did not pass a drug test. She knew what was coming and did not stay clean. She had a choice and she made it. There are lot's of people that we don't let ruin kids.

"Grandma" in your scenario needs to make a choice as to who and what she wants to be, instead of expecting the rest of us and her grandchildren to conform to her conflicting choices. She can either be a lesbian, or the primary caregiver for her grandchildren, not both.

4:37 PM, March 14, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What if she is living a celibate lifestyle but is a lesbian? How does that work. Does she lie and say she is not a lesbian?

4:46 PM, March 14, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So I was wondering if the second paragraph was you saying to do not support the War on Terror or whether you just did not like the name War on Terror?

5:28 PM, March 14, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The name is itself proof that it's either upon a phony pretext we're fighting or it's an ill-conceived, poorly executed war. Either way, I'm glad I'm not taking orders from Chief Bush.

6:24 PM, March 14, 2007  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...


The hypothetical you mention does not address the merit of the bill. "Hard Cases Make Bad Law". Besides, it is not a sin to be tempted. If one does not act out on one's destructive impulses, that is virtue. I don't see how she is a "lesbian" just because of what is going on inside her head. The point of the law is to protect children from the destructive consequences of the lifestyle. If she is not living the lifestyle, how would one know?


I support throwing out and killing the rulers of nations who sponsor acts of terrorism against our citizens. I don't support a "War on Terror" because it is a war against a phantom. It can never be won because it is waged against a tactic, not an enemy. It allows the government to infringe on our civil liberties in the name of an eternal war.

I also don't support invading a country whose leaders were NOT behind 911 and trying to impose our PC brand of government on folks who lack the virtue to sustain it on their own. I do not want to fritter away our blood and treasure on egotistical "nation building".

Our interests are in making foreign leaders understand that their lives will be the price for backing terror against us. Maybe we won't hang around for 10 years and try to teach their subjects how to be good Americans, but the ex-rulers will be too dead to worry about that.

6:26 PM, March 14, 2007  
Blogger GOPin08 said...

Hey 6:24, the reason you're not taking orders from "Chief Bush" as you called him is because you're too much of a coward to go fight for your country. Just like the rest of your cut and run, surrender the country to Islamo-fascists and to the UN, Demo-Commie, socialist friends. You're all a bunch of cowards who propose no solution, just tripe and sniping at the only man who is willing to face the threat we have of terrorism, President Bush!!

7:28 PM, March 14, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I suppose that every Iraq War soldier who thinks this war is ill-conceived or poorly executed is a coward too, right? Or maybe you think that such soldiers couldn't possibly exist?

Your support of Bush is not a support in the fight against "terrorism" or "Islamofascism." You're just supporting the latest attempt to establish an Islamic government in Iraq.

Like the rest of your ilk, you're hypnotized into spreading mobocracy across the globe, no matter how unsuccessful such nation building has been proven to be, and despite our inability to afford it on several levels.

8:15 PM, March 14, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I didn't think there were anyone who still supported Bush. I thought everyone had come around by now. I guess there's still some old dinosaurs out there.

7:33 AM, March 15, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I mean "was."

7:34 AM, March 15, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Do you think we should fight radical islam? I think radical islam is what they are trying to get at with the 'War on Terror' but people are too afraid of looking like they are conducting a war on islam. What are your thoughts on radical islam?

10:17 AM, March 15, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Quite against it. In fact, I'm against adhans and the building of mosques here in America. And muslim immigrants should be accepted only in numbers that can be properly assimilated. "Radical" muslims, after all, are simply those who actually believe their scriptures.

As far as fighting radical islam (which we are not doing- at least, not directly), I'm for making a point- making them pay for messing with us. When we're done making our point, I couldn't care less which thug runs their thuggish society, so long as he doesn't mess with us.

2:34 PM, March 15, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

By the way, I don't think Saddam was behind 9/11, so my above post doesn't really apply to the current Iraq War.

2:38 PM, March 15, 2007  
Blogger GOPin08 said...

Everyone on here who is opposed to keeping Islamofascists over where they are now instead of fighting them over here, the spineless liberals, are just drinking the Kool-Aid of the non-thinking Democrat party. You would rather play politics with this war instead of fight it. You wait for the latest opinion poll to tell you what you should do next. That is NOT leadership. Of course, Democrats never have been capable leaders in the first place so this really shouldn't surprise anybody. And while Sadaam didn't have a direct tie to the 9/11 attacks, he and bin Laden met on several occasions (even documented in the Bible of the left, the NY Times. That is, after all, the only Bible liberals believe). So all you America-haters out there, why don't you crawl back under the rocks you slithered out from under and let the real men fight this war.

5:02 PM, March 15, 2007  
Blogger Harvey Edwards said...

Newt Gingrich in 08 ?

7:13 PM, March 15, 2007  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

easy, easy now. I know passions can run high, but we must let our reason run the show. Emotions make a good caboose, but a bad engine.

5:22 AM, March 16, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Real men, like you gop08?

I listed a logical (and time-tested) method for dealing with terrorism. How do you reply? With Limbaugh/GOP talking points. You're the only one here showing evidence of partisan kool-aid drinking.

There are plenty of people in this world who don't like America, and there are those still in power (Bush pal Musharfaf, for example) who had far more to do with 9/11 than Saddam could ever dream. In fact, not even Bush attempts to make a Saddam-9/11 connection, but maybe you didn't get the party memo.

The truth is, instead of wisely using American might for American defense, Chief Bush squandered the trust of an already divided country so that he could wrap up a family vendetta.

6:39 AM, March 16, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

there are those still in power (Bush pal Musharfaf, for example) who had far more to do with 9/11 than Saddam could ever dream

mushy's probably helping OBL hide out there in pakistan!

7:27 AM, March 16, 2007  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home