Ron Howard's Call To Action

See more Ron Howard videos at Funny or Die

Sarah Palin Remixed

The Sarah Palin Debate Flow Chart

The Sarah Palin Debate Flow Chart, originally uploaded by djmac20.

More words would be superfluous.

Another comment too long for Nero

UPDATE: Damn... I have to learn to have patience with blogspot... When I posted this (& then sent the link to the guy with whom I was conversing), the second half of the comment wasn't in the thread over at Nero's blog. I thought he'd deleted it... Half hour later, it's there... I was wrong to think he cut me off... (I might not've, had he not done so before). I'm sorry I accused him, and that I did all this unnecessary maneuvering to get my thoughts posted & before the person to whom they were directed... Oh well...
---------

The original post & comment thread are here and here. (I wish Nero would just grow up & let adults have in-depth conversations rather than counting words, but it is his blog, & his rules...)
-----------

You weren't talking about the current conflict.

I was talking about all conflicts, including Iraq...

You were coming off with one of these love, peace, and flowers lines.

Yeah, sorry about having ideals... Gosh fo'bid. Scurry on back to your regularly scheduled reality, and forget I said anything...

As far as Benedict XVI, he has never condemned the war in Iraq, nor has he called it unjust.

Um...

The War in Iraq - A Roman Catholic View - John Paul II and Benedict XVI on the War in Iraq: n the April 2003 issue of 30 Days, an Italian Catholic magazine, the future pope (then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger) made his opposition to the war known, while supporting Pope John Paul’s assessment of the justice of the war. He declared Pope John Paul’s position on the war to be “the thoughts of a man of conscience occupying the highest functions in the Catholic Church” and “the appeal of a conscience enlightened by the faith.”

Cardinal Ratzinger also argued that “reasons sufficient for unleashing a war against Iraq did not exist,” in part because:

"proportion between the possible positive consequences and the sure negative effect of the conflict was not guaranteed. On the contrary, it seems clear that the negative consequences will be greater than anything positive that might be obtained."

New Pope Benedict XVI a Strong Critic of War : After suggesting that perhaps it would be necessary to revise the Catechism section on just war (perhaps because it had been used by George Weigel and others to endorse a war the Church opposed), Ratzinger offered a deep insight that included but went beyond the issue of war Iraq:

"There were not sufficient reasons to unleash a war against Iraq. To say nothing of the fact that, given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a 'just war'."

As for the death penalty, I suggest you read Humanae Vitae.

I will do so when I have time... though I think that summary of the Church's position from my last comment was pretty clear...

I am curious, though. Being a Catholic myself, I am surrounded by smug, self-righteous latte liberal Catholics who are always whining about Iraq and the death penalty, yet have no problem with using birth control -- which the Church opposes as violently as it does abortion -- or speaking of, murdering their own children. Cafeteria Catholics have no business quoting the positions of the Church, since they feel they can ignore the Church when it suits their purposes.

Yeah, but the point of my last few comments is that that kinda hypocritical thinking goes both ways... Save the unborn, so they can die in war, or be put to death at another's hand for breaking the laws of man... Life is life. If it's sacred, it's sacred.

But thanks for the "My God can beat up your God" talk... Always nice to see that humility before the Lord... (Clue... God & faith ain't clubs with which to beat your fellow man... I'm glad your God makes you feel powerful 'n' all, but being all belligerent & holier-than-thou (literally) about it don't impress me in the slightest.) We all have our own relationships with our faith, and I can assure you that you haven't got any more of a lock on the one true path than any of the rest of us, whatever you may think...

The Political Purity Ball

Creepy old man accompanies surrogate daughter to the Principal's office to defend her bad behavior (in public, anyway... Rest assured there's a woodshed back at the AZ ranch where she will undergo rigorous "retraining" to assure that such a public slip-up never happens again.)

read more | digg story

Gotcha journalism or inquisitive voter? You decide...



Even before this weekend, others had already noticed the space between Old Man & Young Chippie:

The McCain Bailout: Privatizing success, socializing failure.

When it looked like the bailout bill was going to get the votes, who was all too happy to claim the credit?

John McCain.

When the bill didn't get the votes, who deserves the blame?

Practically everyone except that wacky Maverick.

Democrats failed.
Pelosi failed.
Obama failed.

John? Not his fault. He didn't phone it in. (Except that reports say that's exactly what he did, preferring telephone calls to face-to-face meetings during his little jaunt back to Washington last week.)

For the McCain campaign, the buck stops... ...anywhere but with them. Like the failed Wall Street firms, they're only accepting credit for good news. Blame for bad news belongs to someone (anyone, & if possible, everyone) else. Profits to me, loss to everyone else.

And after it failed, who looked more presidential?
Obama spoke to the American people and appealed for calm, assuring them that there will be a solution.
McCain boarded a plane without speaking to reporters or issuing any statement.

That's some kinda leadership there, Johnny... Heck of a job...

Similar:
Think Progress � After Taking Credit For Bailout Bill, Is McCain Campaign Willing To Share Responsibility For Its Failure?

Marc Ambinder (September 29, 2008) - McCain's Share of The Blame?

Bail Out Fails,McCain Owns It

McCain's Love Affair with Petraeus

"Anyone who watched the presidential debate between John McCain and Barak Obama last Friday night had the opportunity to witness McCain's unabashed infatuation with Army General David Petraeus. The newly-minted head of US Central Command (CENTCOM), who was recently the commanding general of US forces in Iraq, was mentioned by name nine times in Friday's debate, eight of which were made by McCain alone. On one instance, McCain mentions Petraeus three times in answer to just one question. In defense, there were times when the general's name was tossed around rather innocuously, but that was not always the case. There were other points in the debate where McCain was clearly seeking to gain an advantage over Obama by invoking Petraeus. This should raise a few eyebrows for three main reasons."

Very good analysis discussing why General Petraeus should not be used as a prop in McCain's bid for the presidency.

read more | digg story

A Nero reply (Too long for Haloscan, therefore too long for Nero)

Reply to Americaneocon | 09.28.08 - 6:45 pm

"The war in Iraq was tied over and over again to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, when that link was nonexistent."

That is a quote from the antiwar left...

Anyone reading the sentence understands this as discussing a link between Saddam and 9/11.

Yes, discussing & dismissing an operational link between 9/11 & Saddam, just as the 9/11 Commission & Bush himself at various points since have done. How this applies to your claim that this quote about operational ties to a specific event is the same as saying absolutely no ties at all, and allows you to treat this one quote as evidence of a common argument claiming no ties at all, I'm not sure...

As I said in my last comment, at best you found one quote that's anywhere near the mark. I even said you might, at 5:16 pm yesterday, saying: "I've no doubt that there are some on the left who make the claim that Saddam Hussein had absolutely no ties to al Qaeda, but just the same, it might help if you quote someone who actually makes that claim, and debate against that person, rather than generalizing that if anyone on the left says it, everyone on the left believes it."

What I said then, is still true.

The next two links do not discuss the anti-war left or whatever claims they are or are not making at all, but buttresses the Hayes conspiracy theorists. I'm pretty sure Dan Nexon addressed that above, saying "...while his intelligence services had some contact with the group (as did many intelligence services... that's what their job is) he had no operational links."

Whether or not Hayes & his merry band of theorists are correct or not, his beliefs say nothing to prove or disprove your claim that "one of the antiwar left's most common attacks on the Iraq war is the claim that Saddam Hussein had absolutely no ties to al Qaeda." Why you keep injecting his theories is beyond me...

You are changing the goalposts. All of the government's investigations, and the work of conservative journalists and bloggers has been to rebut the left's claim that there were absolutely no operational ties... which the left has claimed for years.

Operational ties?

Since when were you speaking about operational ties? Read your claim again: "one of the antiwar left's most common attacks on the Iraq war is the claim that Saddam Hussein had absolutely no ties to al Qaeda..." Nothing about operational ties there, mate. And when various people brought that up earlier in the thread, you called it picking nits, as though there was no difference between "absolutely no ties" & "operational ties," even though that is the very difference that most rightwing bloggers hang their hat on, given the unambiguous statements about no operational ties between Saddam & AQ that anyone can read in the 9/11 report & elsewhere.

Tell me again how you're not shifting the goalposts, Donnie. (Or show me & the readers here where I had the goalposts set initially, and where I've moved them, if you really believe I have...)

In fact, Donnie, almost everyone claims no operational ties, from the antiwar left to the 9/11 commission to Bush. It's a pretty common belief here in America, and by no means only found on the left. And, while there are some rightwing bloggers & Con journalists who do try to rebut that belief, the government--your government--has said repeatedly that there were no operational ties, and no Iraqi links to 9/11.

The left has claimed Saddam/al Qaeda ties were non-existent

I think you're getting confused... That isn't a fact. That is the claim I'm asking you to prove, with evidence. At best, you've found one guy who talked about the lack of Iraqi ties to 9/11, and was clearly speaking about operational ties to that event, rather than no ties whatsoever. (Bush did the same, but I'll spot you that one, just the same.)

Kennedy was also talking about Saddam & 9/11, and thus operational ties, rather than absolutely no ties. (And just a few sentences down at the Gallup link, they quote Bush saying the government has no evidence that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. (Damned nihilist leftie). He too, is discussing the lack of operational ties.)

You can go ahead & claim victory if you like, but perhaps you ought to figure out what it was you were trying to prove... I thought it was your claim that "one of the antiwar left's most common attacks on the Iraq war is the claim that Saddam Hussein had absolutely no ties to al Qaeda... But that cannot be what you thought you were proving, since you only quoted one person on the left who even said that, and the context of his remark indicates pretty clearly that he was referring to operational links, rather than any links at all... ...just like those well known nihilist radicals, Bush & the 9/11 commission.