Politcs Plus
I will be writing the 2008 presidential election and anything political in between. Although I am a Democrat ,come on in and tell me where I am wrong. lol
About Mike


Member Since:
October 01, 2007
Last Signed In:
September 06, 2008
Profile Views:
782
Blog Views:
5141
View Profile
Send a Message
Send To A Friend
Sign Guestbook
Add as a Friend

Previous Posts
Why I think Barack Obama will win in November
No longer McCain's party
That was yesterday's qualifications
Grand Slam
"No way,no how,no John McCain"
The Hillary Factor and why
Excellent Choice
Nuance v Steadfast
Start the real campaign
Glad to be back
Archives
October 07
November 07
December 07
January 08
February 08
March 08
April 08
May 08
June 08
July 08
August 08
September 08
John Edwards & Barack Obama went straight for the jugular in going
after Hillary. They attacked the vote on calling the Iranian Revolutionary Council a terrorist organization. Saying it will give this president the excuse he needs to
go to war with Iran.

Hillary’s inconsistent answers were exposed on social security and at the end
of the debate she agreed with New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer's controversial plan to give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants but then a minute later started backtracking.
Now Bill Clinton was a master at being evasive but her facial expressions and
demeanor showed she is no Bill Clinton. Will this debate change the numbers?
I don’t know.

I think what was really exposed last night was status quo positions of the front runner.
How can my party complain about the secrecy in the Bush Administration
if Hillary does not turn over all her documents? I understand it gives the other
candidates an unfair advantage, because she will be the only candidate required to
do this. But if this lack of transparency is going to stop, someone has to take
the lead. The other is lobbyist money; Hillary has out raised all the candidates of
both parties in lobbyist money from Wall Street, defense department, and insurance
and drug companies. Some might see it as success but really it business as usual.
Somehow we must have a leader to take us to public financing because these lobbyist
have too much influence.

I am getting suspicious as to why the Bush Administration is getting their way on the
latest NSA spying bill. Did the telecommunication lobbyist have something to do
with it? I don’t know.

This may sound like a slam on Hillary but it really isn’t, it just exposes some of her
weakness in a primary. Great leaders learn form mistakes and they don’t
usually repeat them. Constructive criticism will only make a person stronger.
Subscribe!
RSS 2.0 feed RSS 2.0
Add to My Yahoo
Add to My Google
Add to Bloglines
Add to My AOL
Mike - > Politcs Plus -> Blaming the far left for America's ills
Blaming the far left for America's ills

If we don’t have a problem invent one and blame it on the far left, it’s like living in a world full of Bill O’Reillys or Billo wannabes.

I chuckle every time some one comes up with a story about an incident in let’s say Walla Walla, Washington and immediately place the blame on the far left. What were the abortion clinic bombings? Were they from the far right or a sick individual? I will go with the latter.Strange people on both sides of the spectrum and kudos for the MSM for not giving them airtime. I learned this in my early childhood "It's the exception rather than the rule".

I pick on Billo because these past two weeks he has been blasting movies such as Rendition,Redacted, and Lions for Lambs calling them anti-war and saying these movies embolden the enemy. Yet he is for torture, wonder how well that plays. Billo blames the far-left crowd. Now I have seen plenty of Vietnam movies and westerns that did not portray our military as knights in shining armor. Didn’t cloud my thinking. I would like to think that we are not that vulnerable to brainwashing?

The far-left Code Pinks, actors and others do say some out outlandish things but so did Pat Robertson and Jerry Farwell, a chuckle or two and we go on with our lives.

Now that it is pre- War on Christmas season on Bill O’Reilly, that show is getting pretty racy, with Bill having to show the smut to prove his point…lol.

My advice lets keep an eye on the bigger things that will affect our lives and use the things I wrote about for entertainment value. Speaking of that, I wish the writers would come back because Jon Stewart would put all this in its proper place.

 

Tags:
posted by Mike on Tuesday, November 13, 2007 at 09:51 AM
Report a Violation
Viewed 78 times
5 comments from 2 users

1

posted by maryann on Nov 14, 2007 at 04:27 PM

Hello Mike,

Let me see it I understand your point of view here. 

Your reasoning is that the government could intervene to MAKE a woman have a child, as in passing a law saying that killing a child in the womb is a crime, thus making pregnant women have the child.

I see a few ways at least to answer this. What's more draconian, having  law which mandates the legality of killing children in the womb, or having a law which says that once a pregnancy has begun, that the life of the child should be respected? Sure, not all children are mandated to be killed, but then not all pregnancies would be "forced" either.   I imagine some might amend the law to allow for the LIFE of the mother, but I can't see a justification for much else.

I think that much of the "choice" in the 50 million abortions came before the women got pregnant.

Secondly, I don't see how giving birth is "forced." Abortion is the artificial, forcible, premature termination of a pregnancy with the intent of killing the child.  Birth, on the other hand, is the natural, unforced, mature termination of a pregancy with the natural intent of giving life.  Source: all.org

To me, abortion is  the force which goes against nature. 

Anyway, if this country would ever become so draconian in reverse to REQUIRE women to give birth, it would still be less draconian than killing innocent children in the womb, IMO. I go for protecting the weak over the strong.

BTW, like your other topic on religion and politics. It's really food for thought. Do you think the early Christians, or even John the Baptist cared much about Caesar's laws when they went against the law of God?  I gotta go, but I'll comment on the other topic soon.

Thanks for the interesting points you're bringing up.

 

posted by Mike on Nov 14, 2007 at 04:25 PM

Hello maryann

Roe v Wade decision, said  most laws against abortion in the United States violated a constitutional right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. So to me that privacy clause keeps the government from interfering in a women’s right to choose. Now if we had a population crisis like China this clause would prevent our government from taking the steps China did. I know that situation is not likely to happen but I hope this helps you understand what I wrote.

As for prayer in school it could go the other way around, Christian after Muslim.

Remember all the ruckus when a congressman wanted to be sworn in using the Koran.

Look at all the hoopla just because Joel Osteen came to town.

Why can’t the president of the US be a Muslim, Jew, Mormon, or Atheist?
posted by maryann on Nov 13, 2007 at 07:05 PM

Hello Mike,

YOU might be lukewarm on the death penalty, and I'm pretty cold on it, but if we all we followers of Christ got our duckies in order, we as a body could and do make difference.

About the prayer in school, yes, I think it could make a huge difference. I heard of a Moslem who defended a Catholic college's right to have crucifixes in every classroom. The college took them down so they would not offend those not of the Catholic faith. He, as a Muslim, said that if you really believe in Christ's saving power from the cross and resurrection, you should not be ashamed. He pointed out to the Catholics in the classroom that he was a better Catholic than they, even though he was a MOSLEM!

I think it's probably even with your nieces and nephews because they are taught equally at home. My kids go to public school and CCD, but I can't leave their religious education up to one hour a week OR even up to the 5 hours a week in a Catholic school. I look on it as my job, as the first educator of my children.

As far as abortion, if you don't mind, I will revisit that topic tomorrow. I don't have much time now. I myself would like to explore what you mean on controling the population on abortion with forced abortions. I just don't get it. I do know that I think throwing abortion back to the states would make me extremely happy. Not all pro-lifers would settle for that, but some children would be saved, and we could work on changing the hearts and minds of people in the other states.

Mike, if you were that child, wouldn't you want some person who value life speaking up for you? It happens everyday that lives are saved because people help out. It's about the dignity of the human life which is worth SO much.

Anyway, I like this blog as  it seems we can talk without being distracted.

Ta ta and have a good evening.

posted by Mike on Nov 13, 2007 at 02:56 PM

Hello maryann

I was surprised and a little embarrassed (not knowing that)when I found out the Vatican was completely lit up every time we executed someone. I am luke warm on the subject but I know it does not deter criminals. No one can say that the church waffles on it’s position when it comes to life.

Prayer in school, will it make a difference? My children, nieces, nephews and grandchildren are split about evenly between Catholic and private school and I cannot see the difference. A little bias, you think? We are a more diverse country and that issue might be a distraction.

I can remember when you convinced me to abolish Roe v Wade and leave it to the states. Then along came Joe Patrick Bean reminding me that the government could intervene to control population without Roe v Wade. So my position did not last long so I am again for Roe v Wade. That does not mean I am for abortion, it simply means I do not want the government to intervene when it comes to a mother/child/doctor decision.

Thanks for the compliment and remember caring for poor/disable, being good stewards of the earth, supporting laws against torture are also moral issues, Christians should adhere to.

Have a good day

posted by maryann on Nov 13, 2007 at 01:36 PM

Hello Mike,

What's happening? We're argreeing at least partially, TWO days in a row!  haha

When it comes down to it, I cannot blame the far left for the ills of America.  I'd like to, but that would mean that the rest of us are a bunch of wimps who can't make things happen. 

I think the lion's share of responsibility for the ills of America lies with the everyday Joe and Joanna, or.... people like myself.  Because I am a Catholic, I am particularly hard on the Catholics, myself included, because we're called to the lights of the world (along with other Christians) but there are far too few lights and too many dim or blown out bulbs. In other words, the country is in the shape it's in socially and politically because we Catholics haven't been holy enough. We're called to holiness, everyone of us.

If Catholics make up 24% of the population of the U.S. then we should make more of a difference. I think my parents' generation was asleep at the wheel with a lot of things, including the legalization of abortion, and taking God out of the schools. I realize this is my opinion.  It's different now with DNA and science progressing, we can't pretend to not know when life begins any more like the Supremes did in 1972.  Science has taken care of that for us. Now ethics needs to catch up to science.

Anyway, God is still in control. But I don't think he's too happy with the progress we're making as far as promoting His kingdom.

Love your blog, Mike.

Take care,

MA

1

Leave a Comment
Ground Rules for posting comments:
  • No profanity or personal attacks.
  • Please comment on the subject of the blog post itself.
If you do not follow these rules we will remove your comment. Please keep it civil.

To protect users from spam, we need you to prove that you're a human being.
Please enter the text from the image at left.