- You really have to wonder what motivates people sometimes, when you see stories like this one. [1]
- But… Obama could no more disown his church, than he could disown his…. Oh.. Wait. Never mind.
- Of Hamburgers, food police, and such. [2]
- I commented on Susan Sarandon, the other night, about her threats to leave the United States attain the presidency. What I said, still does. And I should make mention of the chuckle I got out of Billy Beck’s comments. Quintessential Billy, all in one line. [3] You can’t beat that stuff. But, you know, the point has been made elsewhere that there are an awful lot of people that were still waiting for them to make good on their pledges to leave the country if a Republican made it into office. Streisand, Martin Sheen, the Baldwins, Tim Robbins, Cher Bono, and I don’t know who else. You’ll forgive me if I don’t hold my breath waiting for these morons to stop wasting our air. I’m willing to bet that there’s a number of people that would be willing to pay their airfare, provided it was a one-way ticket. They would consider it an outstanding investment in the country’s future.
- Speaking of Billy Beck, he points out Tim Starr at his Fight for Liberty group:
>2. The various “ban” campaigns are almost
> always aimed at Western-style, advanced
> weapons. The unstated effect of such
> bans is to shift the battlefield advantage
> away from the West, and towards the
>Third World guerillas. A typical anti-West
> campaign is “Ban the mines, including the
> most advanced mines with automatic disarm
>timers”, but don’t ban “improvised explosive
> devices” or “suicide explosive belts”…I’d love to see a campaign to ban suicide-bomb vests/belts under international law. I don’t think a ban on IEDs would be any better than a landmine ban, but going after equipment specifically designed for suicide-bombings would be great, if only for the entertainment value of the opposition to the ban.
and Tim’s got that one nailed pretty well. I cannot imagine that there would not be resistance to such a ban. Of course the thing is, that they would have to go through some gymnastics to come up with an excuse that even sounded plausible than them, much less to the rest of the planet, sanity being the limiting factor that is.
- Bruce [4], you cannot separate application of morals from the moral consequences of that application. As an example of what I’m talking about, you and I, I suppose, both agree that we should never have abandoned the South Vietnamese. The morals of the Democrats, however, won the day, and we did in fact abandon them. As a result of that application of Democrat anti-war morals, millions died. That was the moral consequence of their moral application. They hold them as separate, as you seem to be holding the criminalization of our soldiers on moral ground, from the moral consequences of doing so. Problem is as Pol Pot demonstrated for us, you cannot separate the two. Sorry, Bruce. You know I have great respect for you, and your concern for doing the moral thing is admirable, and is something I see all too seldom, in most folks anymore. However, in this case, I think you’re not seeing your way to the logical conclusion of this path you’d have us follow, and it’s a deep concern. I’m with Blackfive [5] on this one.
- Did you happen to note the Rasmussen poll [6] showing McCain is more trusted than Obama on the economy and Iraq, and national security? Well, so so is BooBoo Bear, but there it is…. this cannot be causing celebrations in Obama’s camp. You watch; Next we’ll have Obama’s people trying to convince us the economy is fine, we should withdraw unilaterally from Iraq win or lose, and America has no security issues.
- She’s going [7] to the convention. And apparently there’s going to be a write-in campaign for her among the feminist left. but there it is…. this cannot be causing celebrations in Obama’s camp. You watch; next we’ll be told how the feminist vote isn’t important to Obama.
- Once again, cultural change by executive edict. [8] God forbid Democrats should ever trust the people with such weighty choices. Hell, they can’t even trust the State legislature. Or is it that they know it’d never pass, in either case?
- So, let’s see, here. We have someone who’s already killed two people, injured two others with gunfire, in a bar. Drunk, pissed off, whatever. He’s showing signs of intent to continue killing folks. So, we have a mass murder on our hands, right? Wrong. [9] It’s like I said after the Virginia Tech shootings; All it takes is one good guy with a gun [10] to stop it all. There’s the difference, my friends, between the gun free zone that was VT, and areas where the second amendment still holds sway, and people are allowed their constitutional rights to a concealed firearm. One less bad guy, lots of lives saved. But I’m willing to bet until you read this, you didn’t hear about it, did you? Perhaps because it runs afoul of their anti-gun mantra, and proves without any question that they’re wrong on ‘gun free zones’, huh??
- You may have seen that uncontacted tribe they found over the weekend in the news. Well, now they’ve got more pictures posted, and apparently there’s evidence that someone’s managed to contact them already. [11]
- By now, Kitty Hawk is on her way to Razorblade City. [12] Sad, really. I think we should give her, mostly equipped, to Columbia, myself. They could use the help. Would get Crazy Uncle Hugo to shut up for a while, which alone is worth the price.
- David remarked on Olberman and Err America’s response to him the other day. Now Time has leapt into the line of fire with their own similar comment [13]. I take these little spats as a measure of just how deeply the Democrat party is split. This stuff isn’t going to heal by the time Denver rolls around… or even by November.