Hillary gets $8 Million for remembering all the details for her memoirs. Bill gets about $12 Million
for remembering all of the details for his memoirs. All of this from two people who spent 8 years being unable
to
recall anything about past events while under oath!
It should not be considered normal around here to include a tribute such as this to a reader, but today a good friend was lost to an untimely passing.
I met PeanutButterPoet (a name that I gave her for her addiction to peanut butter and her wonderful ability to express herself through poetry) in an Internet game room eleven weeks ago this very day. Getting to know her was a wonderful experience, though the story of her life seemed very sad, having lost her husband three years ago in military operations in Iraq, and raising her two sons on her own with the help of family members. There was much about this person to love, from her loyalty and dedication to her family and the rabidly conservative ideals she espoused to her soothing voice and wonderful sense of humor, not to mention an outward beauty that I would only be privileged to know through pictures. When she learned of the RWRepublic, she immediately became a loyal reader, and even left a comment or two.
This spring, she was blessed to have survived a nearly fatal head-on collision with a drunk driver. However, complications from the accident claimed her life during the wee hours last night. She is survived by two sons, ages 14 and 5, as she joins her late husband, our hero, at the Lord's side.
So, tearfully, I bid farewell to one of the best friends the RWRepublic has ever had. I consider myself supremely blessed to have had the opportunity to know this wonderful lady who was taken from us in such an untimely fashion. Our friendship, however brief, will always be among my most cherished experiences. My love and prayers go out to all others whose lives she touched, especially those dependent upon her love for their survival and well-being.
I responded to this quote from Mark at Ol' BC's blog recently.
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the plan to simply give people who normally can't afford insurance an option? I don't think we are really talking about government interference on a scale that you seem to suggest.
It was my understanding that we aren't really talking about socialized medicine. We are simply talking about changing a few things so that the poor and sick have an option besides bankruptcy.
I will admit to being rather clueless about it all. The engines driving health care are far more complex than I can fathom. Likewise, I doubt you fathom them either. Once again, I will keep an open mind and try to make an informed decision when I see the actual proposals.
So far, what I have heard is this: If you have health care, you can keep it. If you don't, here is an option. Somehow this doesn't seem so bad. Of course, there are many other things to consider... but like I said, I am far from being an expert.
OK. I will correct you, and if you're going to admit to being clueless, it's usually wise not to enter into debate. The current plan being batted about Washington, DC is merely a stepping stone on the slippery slope that I was telling you about before. Thanks to Libertarian Leanings, we now have proof:
Well, Mark finally got to asking a reasonable question, and I must say he did a fine job. Of course, I was up to the task of answering. I'm not going to include my answer in the block quote here, because this is good enough to stand here as its own post.
Very well. Rather than argue about fifteen points at the same time, which wearies me, let's talk about nationalized health care.
Why do you feel it is wrong? May we start from a simple dialogical position? Tell me why you think it is wrong.
Here are five reasons:
1. Government is evil.
Governments are good at two things. Killing people and breaking things. That's why we put them in charge of the military, and with civilian leadership and a robust Second Amendment to make sure that American civilians aren't the target of such.
Governments are, by their very nature, evil. Thomas Paine was absolutely correct when he said, "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." Just look at history for your proof. Consistently, the more government there has been in a situation, the worse things have been. That's why the American philosophy seeks to minimize government's presence and influence. To quote a comment that was left on another blog, "Only an idiot would place [his] health care into Congress's hands." Truer words were ne'er spake.
2. Lower standards in quality of care
Liberals have told us how wonderful the Cuban hospitals are, but only show us pictures from the hospitals that the government folks use. The ones the average guy has to go to are infested with cockroaches, have live wires exposed throughout, and are in a condition that no American would consider "healthy".
They tell us Canada's hospitals are wonderful, but there are more MRI machines in the state of New York than there are in the whole of Canada, and when Canadian doctors need treatment (along with some of the wealthier Canadians), they come to the US. No long wait periods, even with the inappropriate government intrusion we already have.
Frankly, as "broken" as our healthcare system happens to be, it's still better than the models Barack and his minions are looking to emulate. In England, if you're too old (by their standard), you don't get help, and even if you are young enough, you still wind up waiting for months when you need a specialist, even if your condition is critical.
On the American side, there were a few issues brought on by the government-created HMO I was insured with, but when my ankle needed attention, I went from initial doctor's visit to the specialist to the surgeon to the operating table and finished recovery in less time than the aforementioned Brit takes to get to the first visit with the specialist. This could have been quicker had the aforementioned HMO not contributed to higher prices for these services and added unneccessary procedures into the mix.
3. Higher cost
There is absolutely no way injecting even more layers of bureaucracy into the health system can be done without driving up the cost. Whether a medical bill is paid by the patient or the insurer, the bill still must be paid, and the bureaucrats' fee is no small matter, either.
There are only three ways the government could try to get the money to do anything in this area:
a. Cut taxes - A Republican would cut taxes, which would increase receipts, but with all the debt this country already has from this same sort of intrusion into poverty, old age welfare, and the like, it's highly unlikely enough money could be raised even it it were a good idea.
b. Raise taxes - A Democrat would raise taxes, which would cause receipts to fall, and the debt to increase even further - and not a new dime available to pay for this venture. Transferring the cost from the doctor's office to the IRS doesn't to a thing to save anyone money. It only changes whom it gets paid to, and how many people need their cut.
c. Charging fees - This would simply be another form of tax increase.
4. Yet another liberal failure in the making
Liberals told us that we could, with a small income tax, provide supplemental income to the elderly and care for the poor. Today, that very taxation is out of control, and even with a skyrocketing national debt and proof that cutting taxes would bring in more money, more tax increases are on the table.
In addition, the programs that were set up to take care of the poor and elderly are dismal failures, along with programs for education, school lunches, disaster relief, farmers, foreign aid, housing, and more. There is no evidence that this new federal government program will be any more successful. I'm sure you don't mean to tell me that any of the above were huge successes, or that somehow putting a government with such a dismal track record on all of the above things that it never should have gotten into in the first place is going to somehow succeed in this venture AND pay off the financial obligations is got itself into by engaging in the above.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. - Einstein
5. Outside the legitimate and legal function of the federal government
The legitimate role of government in America is to secure for Americans the unalienable rights with which they are endowed by their Creator. In the philosophy that we are SUPPOSED to be working under here, this is held to be a self-evident truth. The Constitution sets forth who gets to do what in each branch of government, and the Tenth Amendment guarantees that the States and the People are secured all powers not specifically set forth for the fed in the Constitution, thereby guaranteeing that the People and the States are always more powerful than the federal government.
Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government, in any branch, authorized to do this. Since the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and does not make allowances for this kind of intrusion into the powers of the States and People, then the whole idea is unconstitutional, therefore making it illegal for the federal government to embark on such a measure. Having engaged in such activity in the past doesn't make it legal either.
Here are five very solid reasons I think nationalized healthcare is wrong. Government should not be trusted with such things, standards of care would be lowered as has happened everywhere else this has been tried, costs would increase, it would fail from the beginning, and there's nothing authorizing the federal government to to this in the first place.
RWR
Update: Mark responds, and in civil tones as well...
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the plan to simply give people who normally can't afford insurance an option? I don't think we are really talking about government interference on a scale that you seem to suggest.
It was my understanding that we aren't really talking about socialized medicine. We are simply talking about changing a few things so that the poor and sick have an option besides bankruptcy.
I will admit to being rather clueless about it all. The engines driving health care are far more complex than I can fathom. Likewise, I doubt you fathom them either. Once again, I will keep an open mind and try to make an informed decision when I see the actual proposals.
So far, what I have heard is this: If you have health care, you can keep it. If you don't, here is an option. Somehow this doesn't seem so bad. Of course, there are many other things to consider... but like I said, I am far from being an expert.
My response:
Mark, it would be far better to move in the other direction for various reasons:
1. Getting the government out of the way opens the door for more Americans to become wealthy through their creativity with regard to providing this stuff, and puts the power back in the hands of the people where it belongs.
2. When the people do things independent of the government, the quality increases. There would be better quality of service, and with market forces playing their proper role, costs would drop even as doctors and other healthcare professionals would prosper.
3. With costs coming down, fewer people would need insurance to pay for their medical expenses, forcing insurance rates down as well.
4. The government does not provide "options". What they are telling you is that if you don't have insurance, you will be required to go on the government plan. Furthermore, the chances that this would not grow out of control are slim to none, and slim left town years ago when they told us something similar about Socialist Security. There's no evidence that the "slippery slope" concept will not apply here.
On top of that, you have Obama saying that his plan will simply "compete" with private insurers. What is to stop him from using it to put the private insurers out of business? Would the government plan be subject to the same regulations?
Even if it is, you can bet the government will write the regulations to favor their plan over private insurers, and use that to move more people to their plan, eventually bringing everyone over until the only health insurance in the country is theirs.
This is why only a fool would trust something as important as his health to something as evil as a government.
5. Getting the federal government out of the healthcare business moves that aspect of its existence to within its Constitutional limits. That can only be a good thing. Imagine a government that actually obeys the laws it is required to function under!
The engines driving health care are far more complex than I can fathom. Likewise, I doubt you fathom them either.
The engines driving healthcare wouldn't be so complex if market forces would simply be allowed to to their job. Instead, we have doctors being told how much to charge for their services by HMOs and patients being told that they can only go to the specialist their own doctor recommends. If I can choose my own specialist, and I decide to let price be a factor, that alone will force costs down. It's simple economics, which you don't have to be an expert to understand.
Most things in life are quite easy to fathom. All you have to do is be willing to learn.
One of my absolutely most loyal readers, Ol' BC, posted this recently, correctly stating that the steps Barack Obama has been taking are steps in the "wrong direction", and that "in the long run this will probably be looked upon as the dark days of the United States".
Of course, his troll Mark (whom we have known by another pseudonym) chastised BC for doing the right thing (calling a fascist/communist/socialist a fascist/communist/socialist), saying it's "not productive". Yeah, ok. And calling water water isn't productive and calling a dog a dog isn't productive. Doesn't make it false.
Then he says this:
Obama is not Hitler or Mussolini, nor are his actions even comparable, except on the most incidental levels. You are going to have to do better than this, I think.
So Obama is not at all like Hitler or Mussolini, no way.
Well anyone who's been around this blog a while may remember my post from way back about the Nazis and what they represented or claimed to represent. I did this defending myself and fellow conservatives from accusations that we were like the Nazis, seeking to prove that not only were we not, but that liberals were throwing stones in a glass house. I came to BC's defense:
Dunno about that Mark.
Barack's actions since taking office are largely aligned with the Nazi Party Platform.
He may not be using the same rhetoric, but it would be hard to deny that he has a similar socialist/fascist agenda.
RWR www.rightwingrocker.com
So Mark tried to paint me into a corner with this:
Please show, with actual examples or facts or statistics just how Obama's actions are "largely aligned with the Nazi Party Platform". Keep in mind also that most governments tend to be similar in many ways. Try not to use only examples that can be claimed by Monarchies, Socialists and Communists. Okay? I await your reply.
Honestly, it's irrelevant that governments are similar in many ways. Other governments engaging in evil actions doesn't make it right. Colonel Hogan, who also comes around here a bit, defended BC as well, saying that labels are important, and we should use them. Still we got the same stuff from Mark:
Your labels have become meaningless due to the fact that you have no understanding of their historical meaning or significance. We use labels to identify things, yes. However, it behooves us to use the RIGHT labels.
So the fascist label is meaningless with regard to Obama. And I suppose it was meaningful when it was used with regard to me? When I was called a Nazi, I stood up and demonstrated what a Nazi really was, and that not only was I not one, but that those calling me such were more in line with what they were calling me. So now that a socialist liberal is in office, words now have to mean things? Come on. Truth be told, they've meant things all along, and now that the shoe is on the other foot and a real socialist with Nazi tendencies is in office, we're getting protestations from the Left. Well boo fucking hoo. I didn't see Mark defending me against such allegations three and a half years ago, and with a real SoCoFascist in office, I'm calling the libs on it when they cry foul.
So Mark then says (to Herr Colonel):
How is Obama like Hitler and Mussolini? And please don't answer in a way that could not describe any political leader. Use specific examples instead of tired rhetorical garbage.
Examples instead of tired rhetorical garbage. Fine. I think the best way to demonstrate that Obama has actual Nazi tendencies is to show him what Nazi tendencies we're talking about, and what Obama and the libs are doing that would indicate such a tendency. I can think of nothing that would be more fair. I took some time to be thorough:
Barack's actions since taking office are largely aligned with the Nazi Party Platform. - RWR
Please show, with actual examples or facts or statistics just how Obama's actions are "largely aligned with the Nazi Party Platform". - Mark
Interesting, Ol' BC, how people forget what I have already demonstrated.
Anyway, here we go again, repeating what I've already shown.
Only a member of the race can be a citizen. A member of the race can only be one who is of German blood, without consideration of creed. Consequently no Jew can be a member of the race. - Pt. 4, Nazi Party Platform
Obama and his people are treating white men, particularly those with money, like Hitler treated Jews. This has been a pattern with liberals for a long time in this country. The only thing missing is the death camps. Listening to liberals, you'd think wealthy people and white men were the root of every problem in America, when it's the Left that is to blame.
We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens. - Pt. 7, Nazi Party Platform
This is a classic description of what in this country is called the Welfare State.
The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all. - Pt. 10, Nazi Party Platform
To each according to his need ... from each according to his ability. Classic Marxism and American Leftism.
bolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery. - Pt. 11, Nazi Party Platform
Attempting to equalize outcomes is advocated by Obama and liberals all over America. It's what Affirmative Action and Socialist Security are all about.
personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits. - Pt. 12, Nazi Party Platform
Obama and his minions were accusing Bush of this through the whole campaign, in case you forgot.
We demand the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries (trusts). - Pt. 13, Nazi Party Platform
Ever heard of General Motors?
We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries. - Pt. 14, Nazi Party Platform
GM, AIG, and every other redistributive ponzi scheme the Democrats will come up with with Obama's blessing.
We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare. - Pt. 15, Nazi Party Platform
More Socialist Security ...
We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality. - Pt. 16, Nazi Party Platform
Controlling who does and does not have money, government taking over businesses (GM again ...) and pretending to be interested in a "healthy middle class".
We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land. - Pt. 17, Nazi Party Platform
Kelo v. New London was a liberal land-grab, in case you forgot, and Obama's people have their fingerprints all over it.
The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program - Pt. 20, Nazi Party Platform
Liberals love to indoctrinate kids through the public schools - yet another reason they shouls be abolished, yet Obama keeps kissing up to the NEA.
The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young. - Pt. 21, Nazi Party Platform
Obamacare and the government telling people what they can and cannot do with regard their health.
We demand freedom of religion for all religious denominations within the state so long as they do not endanger its existence or oppose the moral senses of the Germanic race - Pt. 24, Nazi Party Platform
It is undeniable that the recent DHS memo targeted at conservatives stinks terribly of this.
For the execution of all of this we demand the formation of a strong central power in the Reich. Unlimited authority of the central parliament over the whole Reich and its organizations in general. - Pt. 25, Nazi Party Platform
Set up a big all-powerful government to force everyone to do as The One says.
All of this is taken DIRECTLY from the Nazi Party Platform and the actions of Barack Obama and other liberals in recent history.
RWR www.rightwingrocker.com
Mark's response to this says it all:
Good grief. I can find similarities between a beaver and a giraffe, too, but that does not make a beaver a giraffe.
I am through arguing with you. For one, your "facts" are nothing more than slanted interpretations of actions.
You are a good example of someone who finds just what they are looking for. You may interpret my leaving as a defeat, but in truth it is just my realization that talking with any of you is utterly pointless.
I knew it would come to this, but I tried anyway! Silly me.
In other words, game, set, match. Somehow showing the actual relevant points of the Nazi Party platform is "nothing more than slanted interpretations of actions." What would anyone interpret his leaving the debate as at this point other than defeat? Not one of my points were refuted by Mark. Why not? Because each and every one of them was true ... And I used the ACTUAL NAZI PLATFORM and ACTUAL ACTIONS BY OBAMA AND LIBERALS to prove my point. I definitely found what I was looking for, and properly supported my position. In a real debate, it would now be his turn to demonstrate why what I said was false, using the same facts and others to support his position. No dice. Just the signature liberal hard-headedness we have seen for the last hundred years. It's really getting old, I think. I did respond, however:
I am through arguing with you. For one, your "facts" are nothing more than slanted interpretations of actions.
Fact: Obama supports, as did the Nazis:
1. Government takeover of land 2. Enslaving the poor through welfare 3. Redistribution of wealth 4. Attempts to equalize economic outcomes 5. Government takeover of industries and businesses 6. Enslaving the elderly through Socialist Security 7. Empty promises to the middle class 8. Indoctrination of children through government control of schools 9. Government control of doctors and patients through government "healthcare" 10. Using the power of government to silence those who disagree and 11. A big out-of-control government to enforce all of the above.
Obama has advocated all of these things. I didn't tell him to. I didn't "slant" anything. Are you trying to say Obama wants to dismantle welfare, socialist security, government schools, government healthcare, government involvement in industry and business, punitive taxation, and big government? Or are you trying to say the Nazis didn't advocate these things?
After all, I merely quoted their platform.
Mark, I've already had this argument and won several times over. You aren't leaving because we are being unreasonable, you are leaving because you can't win arguments with people who have the facts and the intelligence to use them. You aren't the first liberal I've buried with this. Liberals match the Nazis on 17 out of the 25 points of the Nazi Party Platform. Conservatives only 3. That's very damning for your side, especially given that at the time I wrote my infamous post (September, 2005), I was actually defending conservatives against those who would call us Nazis, which was the liberals' big thing at the time.
Now that the shoe is on the other foot, though, the facts are the same. Libs haven't turned around and started advocating the dismantling of the socialist/fascist empire the US has become, and real conservatives haven't turned around and started advocating building it up.
The way I see it, you guys made your bed, and now that you have one of these jerks in office by your vote, you can now lie in it.
RWR www.rightwingrocker.com
I further reminded him of what his original question was:
How is Obama like Hitler and Mussolini? And please don't answer in a way that could not describe any political leader. Use specific examples instead of tired rhetorical garbage.
How do you like that? I give the guy what he wants and he struts out with his panties in a wad.
So much for spirited debate - MUAHAHAHA.
RWR www.rightwingrocker.com
Couldn't help myself. Painting a liberal into a corner is just too much fun. HAHAHA.
Mark responded with something rather strange.
I am happy that you think you won the debate. However, as I have asked you to do: Please do not use examples that could not refer to dozens of other governments and leaders. This you have not done.
Quite the contrary, I would think that pointing to specific aspects of Nazi philosophy and their accompanying actions by Obama and the American Left would be more than sufficient to prove such a point. Apparently I was supposed to look past these things just because some other asshole government official in another country had done it? Fuck that. The idea that Obama may just be copying some other evil government's patterns isn't and shouldn't be any kind of comfort for anyone.
Of course leaders of countries will share traits of Mussolini and Hitler. Just as a beaver shares traits with a giraffe. However, this does not make Obama any more a Fascist than it makes a beaver a giraffe.
No it doesn't, but it is important to call attention to the things that are similar, and have a discussion about it, especially those things that Mark may advocate, such as Socialist Security, welfare, and socialist healthcare. These things are not the new ideas that the libs sell them as. They are tired garbage that has gone from rhetoric to action repeatedly throughout history, and ruined the people they were supposed to help in every case. Mark never bothered to argue the merits of these things. Instead he just pretended that I had somehow skirted the issue.
Your argument is not an argument. This is how you won. By your reasoning, 90% of the leaders of the free world are Fascists.
Again, the aspects of each leader's tendencies must be analyzed in this way in order to make a fair determination. I will also remind everyone that nobody called Obama a fascist. Attention was simply called to the things he has done that are reminiscent of Mussolini and Hitler. That's all Ol' BC did, and that's all I did.
I am leaving this site, not with my panties in a wad, but with a sense of utter disdain for you and your idiocy. I leave because it is completely pointless to attempt to talk reasonably to a chimpanzee. I leave because you deny even the evidence of global warming, which is utterly asinine, whatever the causes. I leave because, frankly, I would rather discuss issues with people whose minds are not made up before they open their mouths.
I appreciate BC's willingness to show evidence of his argument of late. You, however, don't even approach this sort of reasoning. I appreciate that BC can probably at least entertain the notion that he doesn't know everything, like me, and like you.
However, you are not BC. You are not a thinker. You are incapable of reasonable and rational debate. I know you think you are, but therein lies the problem. You are not. You rely to heavily on "self evidence", as if because you know it to be true, everyone else must see it too or they are stupid.
I have tried hard not to debate in this style. I have given evidence and asked for evidence. I have admitted uncertainty about many things. Let's face it, truly the more a man knows and the wiser he becomes, the more he must admit that he doesn't really know. However, you are all too certain about things that are far beyond your domain and jurisdiction. This is not wisdom. It is folly. And it is men like you who, ironically, ultimately become the pawns of political movements.
Good day.
HAHA. Rocker is a political pawn. Rocker's refusal to buy into the global warming hoax is asinine. Rocker is not a thinker, and incapable of reasonable and rational debate.
Mark has tried not to present what he perceives as self-evident truths in his debate, or call people stupid (or asinine) for not seeing what he sees. Yeah ok.
Mark has given evidence (that Obama is a responsible non-fascist politician?), and asked for evidence, and Rocker is spouting on about things beyond his understanding.
Yeah, ok. Believe all that, and I have some nice oceanfront property to sell you in Colorado. Talk about folly. It's just too funny being told that people like me become pawns of political movements by a political pawn. It would be even funnier if it weren't so sad.
However, as I have asked you to do: Please do not use examples that could not refer to dozens of other governments and leaders. This you have not done.
This didn't have anything to do with "dozens of other governments and leaders". It had to do with Barack Obama and the Nazi Party Platform. Other governments and leaders are irrelevant. If Obama is doing it, and it's part of the Nazi Platform, it's FAIR GAME.
Of course leaders of countries will share traits of Mussolini and Hitler.
What you are saying here is that there are things that the Nazis advocated that were good. In fact there were, such as their somewhat pro-life stance, but a typical American liberal stands by the bad things in the Nazi platform like Socialist Security and government healthcare. Liberals in America match on seventeen of the twenty-five points of the Nazi platform, where conservatives match on three.
Your argument is not an argument. This is how you won. By your reasoning, 90% of the leaders of the free world are Fascists.
So in pointing out specifically which points of the Nazi platform your guy matches up with (which happened to be my argument), my argument is not an argument. With the free world becoming less free every day, these leaders have to be called something. This stuff has to be stopped. When the Russians get to lecturing Americans about the dangers of socialism, you know it's way out of control. If 90% of the leaders of the free world subscribe to some kind of big government fascism/socialism/communism, does it then make sense that we follow, when we've seen the damage it's done to THEM?
I am leaving this site, not with my panties in a wad, but with a sense of utter disdain for you and your idiocy.
In other words, you are leaving with your panties in a wad. I provide you with wisdom, and you brush it off as being foolish or, as in the case of your global warming hoax, "asinine".
I leave because it is completely pointless to attempt to talk reasonably to a chimpanzee.
Thanks for finally getting that message and leaving us to talk to actual adult humans.
I leave because you deny even the evidence of global warming, which is utterly asinine, whatever the causes.
Changes in climate are caused by the sun, regardless of which direction. Even if your side is right, one degree over a hundred years is NOT going to hurt anyone (and it would arguably help in many ways), and since there's nothing you or I or anyone else could do about it even if it were happening, I suggest that YOUR position is asinine. After all, I HAVE looked at both sides, and made up my mind - before opening my mouth to talk to you indeed.
I appreciate BC's willingness to show evidence of his argument of late. You, however, don't even approach this sort of reasoning.
Again, I have made this point repeatedly, with evidence. Liberals love to dismiss it because it doesn't come from their beloved big-government funded sources, but the sources are far more credible than anything you have shown. Heck, the people on my side of the issue use actual weather instruments to record their data instead of computer models rigged to support their position. Can't have that now, can we?
However, you are not BC. You are not a thinker. You are incapable of reasonable and rational debate. I know you think you are, but therein lies the problem. You are not. You rely to heavily on "self evidence", as if because you know it to be true, everyone else must see it too or they are stupid.
I think our esteemed host would disagree with you, and I would posit that creaming you in debate, as I just did, proves me capable, and more so than you.
The only things that I have posited as being "self-evident" are that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, etc. You know what I'm talking about, that "government even in its best state is but a necessary evil, in its worst state an intolerable one"? Stuff like that. These things being self-evident form the basis of what is SUPPOSED to be going on in this country, and sadly, that's been thrown to the dogs by liberals like Bush and Obama and just about every president this past century, and the congresses and courts that accompanied them.
I have tried hard not to debate in this style. I have given evidence and asked for evidence.
You haven't given evidence. You have simply dismissed evidence - nay, proof - of things Obama has in common with the Nazi party by saying they are true about others as well. That doesn't refute a damned thing when the problem is the governments themselves, including the ones you speak of. The more government is involved, the less free the people are. You seem to fail to see that.
However, you are all too certain about things that are far beyond your domain and jurisdiction. This is not wisdom. It is folly. And it is men like you who, ironically, ultimately become the pawns of political movements.
You have been fooled by the so-called "progressive movement", and are nothing less than a pawn in it. I doubt that anyone who knows my positions on matters and how they were derived would say that those opinions are "beyond my domain or jurisdiction". As an American, every issue on which I have commented is fully within my domain and jurisdiction, as the people are the final arbiters of all issues in this country (or are supposed to be).
Anyway, I wish you all the best for a happy life, even as Americans come to their senses and dismantle your beloved intrusive government. You can take solace in the fact that it will take a long time to tear down 100-plus years of government growth, and it won't be finished in your lifetime.
Cheers!
RWR www.rightwingrocker.com
Mark went on to accuse me of putting words into his mouth and arguing against those points. Of course, as you can see by the quotes here (the global warming thing was from another thread). He also said that since other "leaders" did the same things, that it was unfair to single out Obama. Again, I say, boo fucking hoo. I honestly couldn't give a flying fuck about other leaders in other countries. I don't have to live under their regimes. I do care about the poor slobs that do have to live under them, and I will stand firmly against people like Mark or Barack Obama who would force my children or me to face their fate. That is why bringing this subject up is important, and I thank Ol' BC for doing so.
A new reader, Christie from Connecticut, left the following in my guestbook this week:
I can't believe I haven't come across your site before, but I just had to stop in and say, "Kudos". I discovered you on the Michelle Malkin post about the infamous Playboy "hate f**k list". What particularly impressed me was your defense of RSS's comments when it was clear his argument was being misinterpreted.
As a conservative woman who lives in the blue state of Connecticut, discussions of a political or religious nature are rarely pleasant experiences. I found your arguments with people on both sides of the issue to be extremely well-written and fair-minded.
It was so refreshing! Thank you!
I have always been fair-minded, folks. If a liberal is being assaulted unfairly, I will defend him. This isn't about who says what. It's about what is said or done, and whether it is right or wrong.
What was happening here was that "RedState Skeptic" was rightly saying that "hate sex" may include rape, but also includes actions which are not rape, while our Republican friends insisted that rape and hate sex would be exclusively synonymous, even as RSS gave a clear, understandable, and most importantly, legitimate example of what he was talking about.
So, for defending him, I became a target, and was even said to be "not very in sync with how women think or feel".
Of course, last I checked, Christie was a woman ...
The Hawaiian certification of live birth Barack Obama posted on his campaign website and distributed to select news organizations as proof he was a "natural born citizen" would not be accepted as a "birth certificate" even for some Hawaiian state government eligibility issues...
OK. Now ...
Can someone please tell me how I, as a citizen of the United States of America, and allegedly Barack Obama's boss, can accept a document as proof of natural-born citizenship that isn't even accepted as such in the state in which it was issued?
This is not going to go away, Mr. Obama. You must present proof that you were born on US soil to American parents, and do it soon. It's going to catch up with you otherwise.
As the economy that you promised to fix worsens, and as America's status as a superpower weakens, Americans are going to be looking for a reason to kick you out. This issue, if you lose, nullifies EVERYTHING you have done since January 20, and invalidates your choice of a running mate. Either a new election must be held, or the highest-scoring candidate that can prove eligibility must be elevated to the office.
This post completely nukes any position in favor of gun control. Sadly, there isn't much there bringing the real issue to the fore, which is that it is illegal for governments to make these laws in the first place, or perhaps Delfts left that part out. This was, after all, an excerpt; or it was supposed to be. I found the full Bowman piece here, and it looks like Delfts pasted up the whole thing.
More needs to be made of the illegality of gun laws if freedom is to prevail, folks. Mark my words.
Here's an excellent letter to the President. I wish I had written this so I can be on Obama's s**** list. The school teacher really nailed him.
How many millions of Americans across this Country think exactly what this school teacher has put in this email. What scares me is that every single day - - something surfaces that has been signed as a "Presidential order", or suddenly just appears as law! WHO does this stuff, while we're all sleeping at night? Those printing presses in DC must run night and day.
This first (heaven help us), 100 days have been the most destructive period of time in our Nation's history - - - and we don't even know the half of it!
April 17, 2009 The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington , DC 20500
Mr. Obama:
I have had it with you and your administration, sir. Your conduct on your recent trip overseas has convinced me that you are not an adequate representative of the United States of America collectively or of me personally..
You are so obsessed with appeasing the Europeans and the Muslim world that you have abdicated the responsibilities of the President of the United States of America. You are responsible to the citizens of the United States. You are not responsible to the peoples of any other country on earth.
I personally resent that you go around the world apologizing for the United States telling Europeans that we are arrogant and do not care about their status in the world. Sir, what do you think the First World War and the Second World War were all about if not the consideration of the peoples of Europe ? Are you brain dead? What do you think the Marshall Plan was all about? Do you not understand or know the history of the 20th century?
Where do you get off telling a Muslim country that the United States does not consider itself a Christian country? Have you not read the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of the United States? This country was founded on Judeo-Christian ethics and the principles governing this country, at least until you came along, come directly from this heritage. Do you not understand this?
Your bowing to the king of Saudi Arabia is an affront to all Americans. Our President does not bow down to anyone, let alone the king of Saudi Arabia . You didn't show Great Britain , our best and one of our oldest allies, the respect they deserve yet you bow down to the king of Saudi Arabia .. How dare you, sir! How dare you!
You can't find the time to visit the graves of our greatest generation because you don't want to offend the Germans but make time to visit a mosque in Turkey .. You offended our dead and every veteran when you give the Germans more respect than the people who saved the German people from themselves. What's the matter with you?
I am convinced that you and the members of your administration have the historical and intellectual depth of a mud puddle and should be ashamed of yourselves, all of you.
You are so self-righteously offended by the big bankers and the American automobile manufacturers yet do nothing about the real thieves in this situation, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Frank, Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelic, the Fannie Mae bonuses, and the Freddie Mac bonuses. What do you intend to do about them? Anything? I seriously doubt it.
What about the U.S. House members passing out $9.1 million in bonuses to their staff members - on top of the $2.5=2 0million in automatic pay raises that lawmakers gave themselves? I understand the average House aide got a 17% bonus. I took a 5% cut in my pay to save jobs with my employer. You haven't said anything about that. Who authorized that? I surely didn't!
Executives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will be receiving $210 million in bonuses over an eighteen-month period, that's $45 million more than the AIG bonuses. In fact, Fannie and Freddie executives have already been awarded $51 million - not a bad take.. Who authorized that and why haven't you expressed your outrage at this group who are largely responsible for the economic mess we have right now.
I resent that you take me and my fellow citizens as brain-dead and not caring about what you idiots do. We are watching what you are doing and we are getting increasingly fed up with all of you.
I also want you to know that I personally find just about everything you do and say to be offensive to every one of my sensibilities. I promise you that I will work tirelessly to see that you do not get a chance to spend two terms destroying my beautiful country.
Sincerely, Every real American
Ms Kathleen Lyday Fourth Grade Teacher Grandview Elementary School 11470 Hwy . C Hillsboro , MO 63050 (636) 944-3291 Phone (636) 944-3870 Fax
P. S. I rarely ask that emails be passed around..........PLEASE SEND THIS TO YOUR EMAIL LIST.....IT'S PAST TIME FOR ALL AMERICAN TO WAKE UP!!!!
See Barack? Even your own NEA constituents are starting to worry about our country.
Update: "thefoundingfathers" links this article from, of all sources, PRAVDA (originally posted by Russian blogger Mat Rodina)!
It's quite a shame that Russians can see what Americans are doing to themselves while even Americans can't! Must have something to do with experience ...
Anyway, the Pravda/Rodina thing is a must-read. Don't pass it over.
You don't have to read very far to catch Barack in another foolish statement. I would love to see the full quote on this, because the wording would be pretty important, but if what this moron said is anything close to what is reported, he's inserted his foot again.
Barack Obama chose federal appeals judge Sonia Sotomayor to become the nation's first (hispanic) Supreme Court justice on Tuesday, praising her as "an inspiring woman" with both the intellect and compassion to interpret the Constitution wisely.
First of all, I care as much about Sonia Sotomayor being hispanic as I do Barack Obama being black. Zippo. Zero. Nada.
My question is this: Since when is "compassion" required to interpret the Constitution wisely? "Compassion" directly interferes with impartiality, and may even stand in its way if a decision requires partiality to the words of the document itself (which is every decision). There has been too much compassion in dealing with these matters over the last thirty or so years ... FAR too much.
Even the nominee herself gave conflicting statements. One which would seem quite refreshing:
I don't believe we should bend the Constitution under any circumstance. It says what it says. We should do honor to it.
This was said at her confirmation hearing in 1998 for her current position as an appeals judge. Of course, according to this article, she violated that very statement of philosophy:
In one of her most notable decisions, as an appellate judge she sided last year with the city of New Haven, Conn., in a discrimination case brought by white firefighters. The city threw out results of a promotion exam because too few minorities scored high enough.
According to this decision, it're pretty clear she's a racist, which is supported by this statement as well:
"I simply do not know exactly what the difference will be in my judging," she said in a speech in 2001. "But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage."
Another notable quoted in the article:
One conservative group did not wait for the formal announcement. Wendy Long of the Judicial Confirmation Network, issued a statement calling Sotomayor a "liberal judicial activist of the first order who thinks her own personal political agenda is more important that the law as written."
This statement wasn't backed up with anything, but the prior quote and decision make it pretty clear that this woman will not be impartial in matters involving illegal aliens or anyone else of hispanic descent.
She would be wise to recuse herself of involvement in any such cases.
In the Second Gubernatorial Debate, candidate Chris Christie said he would create a "red-tape review group" to help him "see what kind of mess Jon Corzine left us with." Then, in answer to a subsequent question, Christie commented, "I went to law school because I'm bad at math and science, so 1 to 10 is a little difficult for me."
Following is a list of 10 problems that Mayor Steve Lonegan already knows the people of New Jersey are confronting:
1) The New Jersey economy has been decimated by the Christie-supported progressive income tax.
2) New Jersey is losing high-paying jobs to neighboring states.
3) Small business owners are saddled with onerous taxes and regulations.
4) Taxpayer dollars are diverted to fund abortion providers like Planned Parenthood.
5) On the advice of a Christie advisor, the state's pension system is now nearly bankrupt.
6) A bloated state government inhibits citizens from rising to their best possible potential.
7) Suburban taxpayers are forced to fund their own school districts as well as others.
8) Law-abiding citizens in New Jersey are deprived of their Second Amendment Rights.
9) Home rule has been effectively obliterated by un-elected bureaucrats in Trenton.
10) An unaccountable State Supreme Court has become the most powerful branch of government.
I really don't need these ten reasons to vote for a non-establishment candidate. Chris Christie might as well be Arlen Specter, for all the good he's done for the state. We are long beyond the point where any kind of "red-tape review group" or "blue-ribbon commission" would be of any benefit. How much would this group get paid out of taxpayers' pockets to tell us what we already know?
New Jersey is in the tank, folks - and not because of some unknown phantom. The problem is liberal Republicans and Democrats and the people who vote for them. Yes, I did say that - the people who vote for them.
Americans, including New Jerseyans, must begin to understand that they are responsible for the behavior of those they choose to elect. Vote for the candidate who screws up royally, and YOU are to blame for his shortcomings as an official. These votes must be taken seriously. Honestly, did conservatives voting for McCain stop Obama from getting in? Was there any way at all someone that liberal in ideology was going to present much of an alternative?
Americans need to take their own votes more seriously. You don't vote LOTE when there's a perfectly good candidate available. When Alan Keyes is available, you don't vote for John McCain. Screw the money his party is throwing at you. In the end it's the tally that decides the winner, not the money spent.
Steve Lonegan is the best candidate I have seen for any office in my memory. Should he win and deliver what he promises, he will be the best governor New Jersey has had in that same memory. A man of his strength and willingness to stand both for what is right and against what is wrong will also make a great President of the United States.
Should Steve Lonegan not be the victor in the Republican primary, folks, I WILL be writing him in come November. It is my responsibility as a voter and a New Jerseyan.
If Beltway spending plans were breakfast cereals, they'd be yanked from grocery stores in a heartbeat. Their promises and premises are as full of holes as a box of persecuted Cheerios.
Many more home runs like this one, and the New York Mets are likely to come a-knockin'.
Astonishingly, Mayor Lonegan was attacked last week by Christie for supporting a Conservative Flat Tax that would pave the way for sustainable economic growth for every New Jerseyean. The Christie Campaign even resorted to using negative, automated phone calls to try to mislead Republicans into believing that a Simple Flat Tax is not in the best interests of taxpayers.
The flat tax ALONE could save New Jersey's economy. Add to that all the reductions Steve Lonegan is planning across the board, and you have the recipe for an economic boom in New Jersey the likes of which the world hasn't seen in a long time, possibly not even in Texas.
The only sticking point is that Steve will have to actually get it passed, and you can bet the liberals in the Assembly and the Senate won't be so eager to surrender their power to the people of New Jersey as to allow Mr. Lonegan's plans to happen. Conservatives will have to run and win - and I do NOT mean Republicans, as New Jersey's Republican Party is as deeply entrenched in the boondoggle that is liberalism as the Democrats and worse.
Still, having a strong conservative at the helm can't at all be a bad thing.
The Emperor has done it again. As the blog-son he never knew he had, I am proud to link my blog-daddy on this one. Here's an excerpt:
His Majesty doesn't know what it is that makes plebeians think that sticking a crown upon your head automatically endows you with the cunning that is a necessity for holding on to said crown for very long. He always thought that the lesson of Napoleon, a peasant with quite considerable skills (for a plebe, that is) would teach wannabes something. But it never does. They're always caught up in their own press, pathetically oblivious to the harsh reality of the world we live in.
So we couldn't help but giggle when the jugeared dilettante from Chicago fired up his nutroots and encouraged them in their quest for "truth" about the "torture" of terrorists. It's a typical example of "be careful what you wish for", but the pathetic boor and his first Clydesdale were, sucked up in their own bought and paid for press, apparently unable to even contemplate that revealing the actual facts about our post-9/11 interrogations of mass-murdering swine might also reveal that his minions were lying so fast that it's a wonder their lips were staying on.
Classic Rottie style, baby. The kind that inspired me to blog in the first place. This is why I blog.
I've long been a fan of Mike Adams. Strangely, it's been a while since I've sat down and read his work. It must be the hustle and bustle of daily living that has taken my attention from the great stuff he's put out.
Yesterday, Mike put out this article, which is built around the foolishness of the statist philosophy. As I have suggested all freedom-loving conservatives should do, he has used the wise words of George Washington in support of his position:
There is a rank due to the United States among nations which will be withheld, if not absolutely lost, by the reputation of weakness. If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it; if we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known that we are at all times ready for war.
- George Washington, 1793 (as quoted by Mike Adams)
He also put forth a very persuasive quote from Ronald Reagan:
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our grandchildren what it was once like in the United States where men were free.
- Ronald Reagan (as quoted by Mike Adams)
He points out that America is a superior nation to the rest in the world, and that the rest of the world knows it well enough that we shouldn't be kowtowing to their efforts to bring us to their level. He also calls attention to a new book by Mark Levin, a great modern patriot who will be instrumental in winning the Revolution for free people.
Thomas is questioning the viability of Supreme Court precedents dating back to the 1960s, long before the explosion of media sources beyond radio airwaves.
"The text of the First Amendment makes no distinctions among print, broadcast, and cable media, but we have done so," Thomas noted.
"It is certainly true that broadcast frequencies are scarce but it is unclear why that fact justifies content regulation of broadcasting in a way that would be intolerable if applied to the editorial process of the print media."
Well duh.
Why are we now getting to this? How in the world did AMERICANS get to the place where this discussion even needed to be had? Freedom of Sppech is a GOD-GIVEN RIGHT. There's no abridging that in the name of some phoney bullshit notion of "fairness".
OK everyone. It's time for "Who Believes It?", the great new game show brought to you by the RWRepublic, where we bring forth real quotes from real politicians that even those speaking don't believe, and see if anyone else buys into the bullshit.
Posted earlier today at BarackObama.com, Mr. Obama is reported to have said this:
We can no longer afford to spend as if deficits don't matter and waste is not our problem. We can no longer afford to leave the hard choices for the next budget, the next administration -- or the next generation.
Is there ANYONE out there that buys into this crap? Does ANYONE believe that Barack Obama means this when he's proposing deficits greater than the entire national debt at the beginning of the Clinton Administration (another Donk who bitched and moaned about his predecessor's spending habits and then turned around and outspent him)?
Michelle Malkin linked up to this assessment of Barack Obama's first 100 days. Some of it is just tongue-in-cheek, but the lion's share of it is extremely disturbing. It's unbelievable that Americans could have been hoodwinked into electing this guy.
Let me comment today on just the first 10 ...
1. "Obama criticized pork barrel spending in the form of 'earmarks,' urging changes in the way that Congress adopts the spending proposals. Then he signed a spending bill that contains nearly 9,000 of them, some that members of his own staff shoved in last year when they were still members of Congress. 'Let there be no doubt, this piece of legislation must mark an end to the old way of doing business, and the beginning of a new era of responsibility and accountability,' Obama said." -- McClatchy, 3/11
This is no surprise. Obama was an "earmark" senator. Why would anyone be so foolish as to believe he wouldn't be an "earmark" executive?
2. "There is no doubt that we've been living beyond our means and we're going to have to make some adjustments." -- Obama during the campaign.
Oh he made adjustments all right. More of the same stuff that got us into this mess in the first place. Thanks a lot Barry.
3. This year's budget deficit: $1.5 trillion.
Thanks a lot, indeed. Especially given this guy's campaign complaints about the prior administration's deficit spending.
4. Asks his Cabinet to cut costs in their departments by $100 million -- a whopping .0027%!
Yeah - that's gonna help ...
5. "The White House says the president is unaware of the tea parties." -- ABC News, 4/15
Try "in denial".
6. "Mr. Obama is an accomplished orator but is becoming known in America as the 'teleprompt president' over his reliance on the machine when he gives a speech." -- Sky News, 3/18
Yeah right. An ... ummmmm ... well yeah ... an ... umm accomplished ... ummm .. orator umm ... yeah ... indeed.
BULLSHIT!
7. In early February, the 2010 census was moved out of the Department of Commerce and into the White House, politicizing how federal aid is distributed and electoral districts are drawn.
He can't guarantee his re-election by any semblance of decent governance, so he does it by controlling the census, thus controlling the structuring of the electoral districts. Sounds a lot like something Hitler would do.
8. Obama taps Nancy Killefer for a new administration job, First Chief Performance Officer -- to police government spending. But it surfaces that Killefer had performance issues of her own -- a tax lien was slapped on her DC home in 2005 for failure to pay unemployment compensation tax on household help. She withdrew.
Americans will hold Obama's feet to the fire on this one. If we are expected to pay taxes, so shall those he wishes to have serve (with) him. Shame he didn't learn this the first time it happened.
9. Turkey tried to block the appointment of Anders Fogh Rasmussen as new NATO secretary general because he didn't properly punish the Danish cartoonist who caricatured Mohammed. France's Nicolas Sarkozy and Germany's Angela Merkel were outraged; Obama said he supported Turkey's induction into the European Union.
No free speech rights for a Danish cartoonist? This is a bad way to start building a record on human rights.
10. . . . and he never mentioned the Armenian genocide.
Why should he? The only thing Barack Obama cares about is amassing power. The examples of Washington and Jefferson have been thrown completely to the wind, as if they never existed.
Can anyone provide a single shred of honest evidence that this man is good for America, beyond the fact that he's waking the people up to the foolishness that's been going on for the last hundred years? Actually, that fact is going to loom large in any effort to save the Constitution and the country from these thugs. Without the people, this Revolution will fail, and America will run the way of the Soviets.
Some weeks ago, I came across this comment over at MichelleMalkin.com.
On April 8th, 2009 at 1:04 pm, Regulus said: Perhaps the greatest sin in modern liberalism is to be guilty of hypocrisy. Most of the time when libs play “gotcha” games on conservatives, they’re trying to portray their target as a hypocrite.
Lost on all of them, however, is that a self-serving and blatant double standard is the ultimate expression of hypocrisy. By getting selectively indignant about others’ hypocrisy while being selectively indulgent of their own, they end up in the ridiculous position of being hypocritical about their hypocrisy.
You name it, and libs have a double standard for it:
- Filibusters by Republicans = an abuse of power; filibusters by donkeys = an exercise in a cherished Senatorial tradition.
- Deficits under Republicans = fiscal irresponsibility; triple-deficits under donkeys = an investment in our future.
- Warning of the dangers of terrorism = playing on our fears; terrorizing the public with horror scenarios of supposed economic catastrophe unless we pass a “stimulus” bill without even reading it = being proactive.
- Comparing Republicans to Nazis and Fascists = “speaking truth to power”; Questioning the Dear Leader’s policies = racism.
- George Bush visiting the troops = a cynical ploy to divert attention from his failures as a president; Hope-a-Dope visiting the troops = a master-stroke of politics and public relations.
It wouldn’t be so tiresome to deal with today’s liberals if they were consistent in their principles: a thing is good or bad in itself no matter who does it. But liberal hypocrisy makes that impossible, and ultimately produces people with no principles at all — only present-moment tactical positions that can and do reverse themselves on a dime.
I believe Rgulus is mistaken to equate Republicans with conservatives here, but it's amazing how Domecrats treat Republicans as if they were anywhere near conservative. It's an ingenious strategy that keeps both parties in power:
1. Portray people only slightly less liberal than yourselves as "conservatives" or even "extremists" so that people will be discouraged from voicing a truly conservative opinion.
and
2. In doing so, give them enough name recognition and financial opportunity that real conservatives believe the only way to secure power is through the Republicans.
There's much more to it, but that covers the lion's share.
There is a serious flaw in the strategy, though, and that's this: You can't call anyone anything much worse than what the Democrats already call their Republican accomplices now. Conservatives that make the push for power aren't going to be called anything worse than what the Republicans are now being called, nor will they be faced with anything worse than the Donks and Phants unifying to keep them down. That's nothing new, either.
It's been just over three years since I posted anything serious regarding religion, and even then it was a little "heretic". This morning, however, I found something special in the Gospel of John that I hadn't thought of before, and considered posting it here.
Every sermon I've ever heard regarding the reaction of the disciple Thomas to the news of Christ's resurrection seems to focus on us as believers who have not seen. One rather funny one involved the Pastor asking a few kids in the congregation if they would believe him if he told them he had a bunny under his vestments, then going into a whole "seeing is believing" discussion which ended with him pulling a bunny from under his vestments. You don't forget something like that in very short order, as it creates a memory that forever remains part of you and your life experience.
Today's sermon was no exception. It focused yet again on the concept of us as believers who have not seen. But I found a different perspective in the story today. I thought of all the evangelicals who set about bringing everyone they know to their faith, or to Christianity in general, and how many doubt because they haven't seen. Some come along eventually, while others do not. Still, isn't the real lesson of this gospel in the way Jesus actually deals with Thomas? Isn't the right way to confront those who disbelieve, for whatever reason, the real benefit of this story?
Think about it. We conservative bloggers show liberals the truth every day. If it's not me posting the truth, it's Misha or Ol' BC or Michelle Malkin or Moonbat Monitor or Delfts. The list goes on, and day in and day out, the liberals refuse to believe the truth, largely because they cannot conceptualize freedom and its importance in the success of the human spirit. There will be those who come around, and those who do not. Thomas came around, but scores of others did not. What is important is that we showed them, and that is the real lesson in the story of the Doubting Thomas.
