Howard Fineman, 2012
More to the point, politically, two of Obama’s leading strengths are foreign policy in general and his performance as commander-in-chief, according to the polls.
A quick perusal is enough to make the point. In the most recent national CBS/New York Times poll, Obama has a positive rating of 46-36 for his handling of “foreign policy,” his highest rating on any major issue or duty. A CNN recent poll gives the president a 52-36 lead over Romney on the question of who would be a better commander-in-chief. The CBS poll gives Obama a 30-13 lead over Romney on the question of which candidate voters have “very” strong confidence in to be commander-in-chief.
Obama’s lead on these topics reverse, at least for now, a generation’s worth of Democratic Party political weakness on defense and foreign policy — a crushing burden on the Democrats ever since George McGovern ran on an anti-war platform in 1972 and lost 49 states to Richard Nixon.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39_MDzf7zPM[/youtube]
“Al Qaeda has been decimated, Osama bin Laden is dead.”
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQjztrnJzCM[/youtube]
Obama, 2011
‘We’re Leaving Behind A Stable And Self-Reliant Iraq’
President Barack Obama has described al Qaeda as having been “decimated,” “on the path to defeat” or some other variation at least 32 times since the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, according to White House transcripts.
This comes despite Libyan President Mohamed Yousef El-Magarief, members of Congress, an administration spokesperson, and several press reports suggesting that al Qaeda played a role in the attack.
Joe Biden, 2010
“I am very optimistic about — about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You’re going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You’re going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government,” said Biden.
“I spent — I’ve been there 17 times now. I go about every two months — three months. I know every one of the major players in all of the segments of that society. It’s impressed me. I’ve been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences.
How inept is the Obama team?
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Za7IIAMC08g[/youtube]
Today
Mosul has fallen to Al Qaeda
Tikrit has fallen to Al Qaeda
Baghdad is falling to Al Qaeda.
Liberals constantly repeat the phrase “It happened on Bush’s watch.” Well, guess what. This is happening on Obama’s watch. It’s his. He owns it. He is making the sacrifice of more than 4,000 US soldiers meaningless. That’s more lives lost than on 9-11, and it’s solely because of ego, because of hubris, the consequences of trying to forge a legacy instead of respond appropriately to world events.
Two years ago I wrote that Obama tended to leave destruction in his wake.
Three years I warned of Obama building an Islamic Caliphate and the he was demanding that US taxpayers contribute.
Al Qaeda is not dead. Al Qaeda is not decimated. They control more territory than ever. Al Qaeda in Mali is armed with the best weapons thanks to Obama and controls much of Africa. Obama has sought to depose all the leaders, bad as they are, who kept a lid on Al Qaeda- Gaddafi, Mubarak and Assad.
As Glenn Reynolds might say, it’s all proceeding as I have foreseen.
Barack Obama suffers from terminal narcissism and commemorates every single notable event on the calendar by including himself in a tweet and this is no exception.
The top image is courtesy of John Hinderaker. The bottom one is mine.
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
@retire05 #198:
It was in Racial Hypersensitivity, #136.
I did not quote your exact words in my comment to Redteam, I paraphrased them. Quotation marks were not employed, so my form was correct. As you have argued that abortion is the same as killing babies, my paraphrasing did not alter the meaning of your original comment.
@retire05 #200:
Maybe you should not have asked me to look at your old posts?
@retire05:
“Thank you, George, for providing the link I requested. You were correct in reporting what I had said.”
No problem. Happy to oblige.
XOXO
@Redteam:
So You see, Redteam?
Sometimes when we make mistakes we admit it, and sometimes we don’t.
NO POSSIBLE BABY CAN BE ORIGINATED FROM GAY,
UNLESS FABRICATED ZYGOTES,
THEY CANNOT BE KILLED IF THEY CANNOT BE ORIGINATED,
retire05
HE IS NOT ONLY A LIAR, HE IS A DANGEROUS TROUBLE MAKER,
he try to incriminate everyone who exchange with him,
and plant a warning that he has the power to destroy all and even this FLOPPING ACES BLOG,
@bees #205 and 206:
Bees, the quote I posted was not about gay people making babies. It was about the abortion of a hypothetical unborn fetus in which a gene causing homosexuality had been detected. At this time, no such gene has been discovered, and so no abortions of this type have yet been performed. Retire05’s comment was that IF such a homosexual-causing gene WAS discovered, she might end her opposition to abortion, or at least make the discovery of the gay gene a reason to make an exception to the rule. She implies that under certain circumstances, killing innocent gay people might be a good idea. I think that implication is dangerous.
I am not threatening to destroy anyone, or to destroy Flopping Aces. I am threatening to tell the truth about what someone said. We are all responsible for what we say.
You choose to jump to Retire05’s defense, calling me a “liar” as she so frequently does. In the same style that Retire uses so often, I challenge you to quote a “lie” that I have published. Provide the link. I DO make mistakes, and I have apologized here on Flopping Aces when my mistakes have been pointed out to me, but I have not knowingly lied. God is my witness.
Bush went into Afghanistan first (not Iraq) to punish the Taliban for harboring Osama Bin Laden. A decade-long skirmish between American (and “coalition”) forces and various insurgent groups ensued. That effort survived both of Bush’s terms and lasted well into his successor’s presidency.
Encouraged by the weak opposition he encountered there, eager to make use of a considerable military force already positioned in the neighborhood, and well enough informed by his father’s Gulf War experience that Saddam Hussein would be unable to present more than token resistance, in the middle of everything else (including the enactment of historic tax cuts) Bush went at the Iraqi Republican Guard. What he seemed oblivious to was the fact that Hussein had been keeping a disparate collection of ill-tempered, self-serving, mutually antagonistic factions under his oppressive thumb, and once we took him out of the picture, there was nothing and nobody in the country up to the task of taking his place.
But for G.W., it was “mission accomplished” – so famously announced even before Hussein had been captured. The mission was NOT accomplished. The “war” was NOT “won.” The effort to topple Hussein morphed seamlessly into a battle to suppress insurgency groups, of which there was an endless supply.
Sen. Rand Paul, R. KY.:
“”What’s going on now, I don’t blame on President Obama,” Paul said. “But I do blame the Iraq War on the chaos that is in the Middle East. I also blame those who are for the Iraq War for emboldening Iran. These are the same people now who are petrified of what Iran may become.”
Whether or not there were WMD’s, the IRAQ War was an unmitigated failure. We installed a corrupt puppet (Al Malaki) in the place of a tyrant (Hussein), and never gaining anything more than a temporary postponement of the inevitable civil war. That civil war has continued from the point that Saddam began to lose control of his country to this day, the intensity of it at any given time being in direct proportion to the assets America poured into that sink-hole. Instead of building a diverse governing coalition of his own countrymen, Al Malaki built a corrupt house of cards that is now all but collapsed. After pushing us to leave, he is now begging for our fire-power. We lost our bid to bring Western Civilization to Iraq, and should have learned along the costly way that Iraq isn’t any way near being ready for democracy.
Afghanistan didn’t fair quite so badly. Hamid Karzai took over Afghan leadership after we removed the Taliban from power, and while subjected to continuing insurgent pressures, Karzai’s government has survived. Opium is still the country’s principle cash crop, and terrorism is its industry. To characterize the Afghan War as “won” would be a gross misrepresentation of the truth, but it certainly isn’t the failure that the Iraq war has been.
I regret that the presidential decisions over the past decade have cost us trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives, but there is no recovering those losses. We cannot achieve in Iraq what we had naively hoped for. It isn’t Obama’s fault that Iraq didn’t play like we expected. If he is to be faulted, it would be for taking so long to abandon that losing cause.
Note the CONCLUSIONS on pages 6 through 12 of the REPORT ON PREWAR INTELLIGENCE ASSESSMENTS ABOUT POSTWAR IRAQ, May 25, 2007, prepared by the Senate’s Select Committee on Intelligence.
This is essentially a summary of what the U.S. intelligence community told the Bush administration while the invasion of Iraq was still in its planning stages. Had the American people and Congress been made aware of these assessments, the Bush administration never would have convinced them that launching a war with Iraq made any sense whatsoever. They’ve all turned out to have been correct.
@George Wells:
Bush never “so famously announced” “mission accomplished”.
Please revisit the speech and listen to what he actually did say. For the crew of the USS Lincoln, their mission was accomplished. For Bush? He warned of hard work ahead.
FA as a whole has long disagreed with Ron Paul and Rand Paul in the area of U.S. muscular foreign policy being flexed.
The war itself wasn’t a failure. Securing the peace after has been problematic- one which involves many players, not just Bush, who left office at a time when many opposed his troop surge decision. That and the Awakening led to Iraq stabilizing. But a more permanent stability would be one that needed nurturing over generations of supervision and watchfulness. Bush has been out of office these last few years. Al-Maliki and Obama share a good chunk of the responsibility now.
It’s his abandonment of the cause in the first place that squandered any gains we made in 2007-8. This isn’t an analysis and criticism that is coming from just neocons and warhawks from the right. Despite Greg’s insistence in multiple comments and a couple of threads I’ve seen, Obama’s disinterest in actually staying engaged in the political process and renegotiating SoFA (as intended) has contributed to what we are witnessing today. ISIS’ gains were not inevitable. I’d trace this back to Obama’s handling of the Syria crisis, as well.
If not now- or in 2003- then when? If not in our generation’s time, then when? The process had to start sometime- and will take generations to catch up to the rest of us in the 21st century. But if it never even begins because it’s just too damn hard and too much sacrifice of blood and treasure, then the Middle East will always be where it is. A quagmire of dysfunction.
Greg,
I don’t think you were around when Scott blogged here. But he was a library when it came to Iraq War/al-Qaeda analyses. He read the entire 2007 Senate Select Intell Committee’s PreWar report; and did a blogpost covering the final phase II report, here. Check it out.
What is it exactly about pg 6-12 that you find so damning in the 2007 report? Much of this was deliberated upon. And yes, we still went to war to conclude the first Gulf War, which never ended.
@Wordsmith #210:
Bush and/or his handlers allowed him to speak in front of that banner, and the convenient explanation for it cannot retract the implication, right or wrong, that the mission was to topple Saddam (ostensibly because of his WMDs) and that it had been accomplished. Did Bush have any idea that decades if not centuries (as McCain suggested) would be needed to actually bring Iraq fully up to speed in a modern, Western Civilization sense? I seriously doubt it. If he DID, then did he really think that the American public would tolerate such an incredibly long and costly investment for what, Iraqis? If he thought that they WOULD tolerate it, more the fool he. If not, what did he think, that the eventual failure would fall on the shoulders of the then-current president (as FA posters evidently hope) and that HE (G.W.) would escape the wrath of historians? Seems like a very long-odds gamble, but then G.W. wasn’t the brightest bulb.
“If not now- or in 2003- then when? If not in our generation’s time, then when? The process had to start sometime…”
Says who? Why does it fall to us to make Iraq into something it clearly isn’t ready for, and may never be? If Iraq was worth FIXING, why aren’t Rwanda, Somalia, Syria and the dozen or so other countries that at any given time are engaging in wholesale slaughter of their own citizens? Was the difference Iraqi oil, as has been cynically suggested? Or was G.W. simply trying to finish what his father lost heart doing – snuffing Hussein – when he got his proverbial hands, and ours, stuck in the tar baby.
“It’s (Obama’s) abandonment of the cause in the first place that squandered any gains we made in 2007-8.”
You already pointed out that this nation-building effort was going to last a VERY LONG TIME. The 07-08 gains you mention weren’t any way near consolidated, much less permanent, and Obama knew that. At the same time, he was faced with a collapsing economy IN SPITE OF Bush’s record tax breaks and the consequent shortfall of treasury receipts from these TWO factors, and faced with a ballooning federal deficit, I am positively THRILLED that he had the courage to pull the plug on the War. I just wish that he hadn’t waivered with all of the “surge” stuff and other delaying maneuvers that he tried to protect his political hide with.
It was over the moment Saddam fell. Pandora’s box was opened. We would have had to kill just about everyone in Iraq to bring the place peace. And you know that wasn’t going to happen either. I don’t care what the war-mongers at FA want, America would be better off if we stopped doing ANY business with Muslim countries. I don’t want to isolate America, I want America to isolate Muslims. It’s what THEY want. So no planes in, no planes out. Same with ships, trucks, cars, you name it. Let them jihad each other back to the stone age. Every hundred years, reconsider based on what we know they’ve been up to. The isolation will come at a cost, but in the long run it’s the cheapest option.
George Wells
if OBAMA HAD TAKEN TIME TO GET THE PLAN ACCEPTED, ABOUT THE IMMUNITY OF THE MILITARY,
there would have been a force at hand ready to kill the egg before it hatch and return home,
while still keeping and eye on IRAK,
THERE WOULD HAVE NOT ANY BEHEADING DONE, NOR ANY ADVANCE TERRORIST TRAINED MILITARY
CROSSING THE IRAK SOVEREIGN NATION,
IT’S AS SIMPLE AS THAT,
ANOTHER FALURE IN THE LEGACY OF OBAMA,
THE IMMUNITY DEAL WAS NOT THAT CLOSE, THERE WAS OPENING THAT WOULD WITH A TIME
TO DISCUSS IT, BE FIX, BUT THE INTENT WAS TO GET OUT OF THERE AS FAST AS HE COULD,
BUSH SHOULD HAVE CONTINUE FOR ANOTHER TERM,
OF 8 YEARS MORE, MAYBE THE AMERICA TOO WOULD HAVE BENEFIT FROM HIM MORE, IT TOOK 6 YEARS TO OBAMA TO GET
HERE, DOWN WHERE AMERICA IS, AND HAVE THE MANY YOUTHS SPOILED
AND CONFUSE, BY THE INDOCTRINATION FORCE ON THEM FROM CRADLE TO GRAVES,
@Wordsmith:
This isn’t specifically about you, but it’s strange hearing so many conservatives – including many of the key players involved in promoting the Iraqi War – speaking out about where we stand today as if it’s clear what Obama should be doing. I’m still waiting for a logical answer on that. It’s not like skeptics didn’t predict ten years ago that eliminating Saddam would lead to civil war, chaos in the region, an inevitable partition and the rise of Iran’s influence; many did (for the record, I don’t count myself among them. I was initially, and reluctantly, for the war based on Colin Powell’s testimony). This was a county that was held together by a despot and we removed him and then disbanded the army, removing the last vestige of order. Either we stay indefinitely, or the country comes apart, or we install another murderous despot. Those are choices. Instead we (the Bush administration) promoted someone who immediately turned to Iran and asked us to leave, and who refused to provide American soldiers in Iraq with immunity. But the Right feels we should have just stayed anyway.
Years and thousands of American lives and trillions of dollars later, of course Obama is looked to get out and minimize any further damage: this is what the American people wanted in the face of no winning solution. Let me point out the obvious: if there was an easy winning solution, it wouldn’t have waited for Obama to implement it. Bush et al thought the Iraqis would do what we wanted them to do: they were wrong. Unfortunately, many of them still think that. Many who were wrong to begin with feel we should have stayed and held together a sectarian cauldron indefinitely, for perhaps, what, a hundred years? Is this what Dick Cheney, critic of American foreign policy, still thinks when he’s tossing bombs in the WSJ editorial page? Was Dick Cheney right about anything?
A select few of his greatest hits:
“I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators.”
“We haven’t really had the time yet to pore through all those records in Baghdad. We’ll find ample evidence confirming the link, that is the connection if you will between al Qaeda and the Iraqi intelligence services. They have worked together on a number of occasions.”
“I think they’re in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency.”
“I don’t think that [the war in Iraq] damaged our reputation around the world.”
@George Wells:
George, I’m not basing this statement on anyone’s previous quotes and who’s right or wrong, BUT:
Most liberals do not consider abortion as ‘killing babies’. From your statement, are you saying that you ‘consider abortions’ as ‘killing babies’.
I think Retire is simply saying she might be ok with an abortion if it is aborting a ‘fetus’ with a ‘gay gene’.
I don’t consider early (first 6 weeks) as murder, just an abortion. After that, murder.
WE must remember that those MIDDLEEAST COUNTIES HAVE A TIMING OF LIFE ACTIONS ,
SLOWER THAN US HERE,
that lead me to think that in a one to one deliberation, ON AN IMPORTANT SUBJECT,
THE ONE WHO COME FROM AN AMERICA WHERE EVERYTHING IS SPEEDING, FOLLOWING THE TECHNOLOGIE OF OUR TIME, WHILE YOU DEBATE WITH A FAST PACE TO AN OPONANT ON A SLOW BOAT TO CHINA AS THOUGHT PROCESS IS CONCERN, NOT THAT HE IS RETARDED BUT NOT IN NEED TO THINK FAST ALL HIS LIFE,
THAT ALONE WAS A GREAT OBSTACLE FOR AN OBAMA ON THE SPEED TIME,,
THE TWO OF THEM HAD NO CHANCES TO REACH THE MIDDLE GROUND,
THAT WAS FALURE NUMBER ONE FROM THE START GO, THE STORY OF THE TURTLE AND THE HARE,
WAS THERE TO OBSERVE, THE HARE GAVE UP BEFORE REACHING THE TARGET, HE HAD WAITED TOO LONG,
@Redteam #214:
First of all, it wasn’t my statement, it was Retire05’s. I recognize that there are a lot of Republicans who believe that life begins at conception, and that any abortion at any stage of gestation is murder. Personally, I have repeatedly drawn the distinction between babies and fetuses, and I stand by that distinction as what I believe to be crucial to the abortion issue: that “babies” are humans who have passed through the birth canal (or have been delivered by Caesarian section) and have entered the world external to the mother’s womb, while “fetuses” are their unborn counterparts. I know that Retire05 opposes late-term abortions at the vary least, but I don’t really know if her opposition extends all the way back to conception. And to be entirely fair, I don’t know if she subscribes to the cry that “abortions kill babies.” But, “baby” or “fetus”, it is a life.
Either way, I am not particularly “pro-life.” There is already plenty enough life. I support a woman’s right to abort a pregnancy right up to the point of delivery. I support the death penalty. I support a society’s right to take the life of whom ever they choose, so long as the taking of life is undertaken in a fair and unbiased manner.
But these points are moot. I didn’t bring up the issue to argue abortion rights or legality. I brought it up to demonstrate a statement of Retire05’s that I believe is particularly offensive. Hateful. I provided the source when she challenged me to do so. She seems to have drifted off now, just as she did when I demonstrated Texas’ alignment on gay issues with countries like Uganda, Iran and North Korea. Funny how she can dish it out, calling people bitches and all, but when the favor is politely returned…
@Redteam #214:
Here’s another angle.
Let’s ASSUME that Retire05 equates abortion with murder. That is a fair assumption, since most people who oppose abortion take that tact. Whether she thinks abortion murders “fetuses” or “babies” really doesn’t matter. It is the “murder” part that is being objected to.
Let’s go one step further.
Once you obtain genetic information (as posited in Retire05’s original remark) and then decide to abort or not, that’s “genetic engineering.” In this case it is genetic engineering of the most insidious sort. You are making the same “ethnic cleansing” type of decision that was being made in Nazi Germany in the name of purifying the gene pool of the “master-race.” The Nazis weeded out Jews, Homosexuals and other “imperfections”. Retire suggested that she might approve of weeding out homosexuals by murdering INNOCENT babies who MIGHT otherwise grow up into adult homosexuals.
I take it by your last sentence that you are A-OK with this sort of “playing God” so long as the lives being snuffed out are no more than six weeks old. Is that the point at which God imposes his “sanctity of life” restrictions on us? Is that the date on which the Commandment forbidding “murder” goes into effect? If it is, then what is the problem with harvesting fetal stem cells from fetuses that are less than six weeks old?
Just wondering…
REDTEAM
DON’T FALL IN THE TRAP,
@bees #218:
There is no “trap.”
I asked Redteam honest questions.
While I EXPECT that he is comfortable with the implications of his position, I am not CERTAIN that he is.
In any event, he should be willing to defend his position, unless the issue doesn’t really matter to him one way or the other.
My positions on abortion, the death penalty, and the sanctity of life are all intentionally mutually consistent.
I think that anyone who is comfortable with abortions at 5 weeks but not at 7 weeks has made a compromise that is both honorable and expedient, but which is not particularly logical. It is more logical to either support abortion entirely, or support none at all.
Abortion in the case of rape/incest or to save the life of the mother is another difficult question if you consider abortion to be murder. But Redteam didn’t raise that issue. Just as well – we have enough to discuss already.
But there is no trap. I am just curious about how other people with positions different from mine have arrived at those positions, and the answers I get help me understand. Sometimes.
I really don’t want to debate anything at all relating to abortion, but I don’t like people demonizing other people, simply because the other people don’t share one’s own personal definition of human life, whether derived from religious faith or from biology. The catechism of the Catholic Church clearly states that human life/ensoulment begins at the instant of conception. If this is someone’s religion; this view should be respected. At the other extreme, there are those who feel that human life doesn’t begin until the baby is delivered and enters the world and takes the first breath. There is language to this effect in the Bible; so it’s even defensible religiously.
The issue is civil law. The belief of ensoulment at conception is a purely religious definition; mandating this definition on people who do not share the religion is akin to sharia law, in my opinion. Someone who believes that human life begins at conception should never have an abortion or participate in an abortion; but imposing this religious belief on the rest of one’s fellow citizens is troubling to me. Therefore, I do understand the position of Catholic politicians, such as Pelosi and Biden, that they, themselves, are forbidden to be a party to abortion, but that they feel it’s wrong to impose their personal religion on others.
I will point out that the universally accepted definition of the end of human life is when the brain is dead. Thousands of plugs are pulled, all over the country, on brain dead people each year, and no one has a moral problem with this. Therefore, it’s entirely reasonable to go backwards and ask when the fetus is first capable of mental consciousness and pain and thirst perception. This is when the frontal cortex begins to form, which doesn’t happen until well beyond 20 weeks. Prior to twenty weeks, there is absolutely no possibility of conscious perception or pain perception or thirst perception. So it is a huge stretch, non-theologically speaking, to refer to a brainless fetus as a “baby.”
My own personal position is that I personally respect the teaching that human life begins at conception, and I would hope that I would never be party to abortion. But I can’t inflict this point of view on others. On the other hand, there is a very strong medical/biological case to be made that a fetus with a frontal cortex is, in fact, an unborn human baby. Therefore, I don’t think that abortion restrictions are akin to sharia law when they are imposed at periods beyond 20 weeks. I’d be in favor of hard limits beyond 20 weeks, with exceptions only for things like actually saving the life of the mother (e.g. pulmonary hypertension) and severe fetal malformations. There is no reason why a rape victim should not be able to obtain an abortion before 20 weeks, and most do so within days of the diagnosis of pregnancy.
I have a real problem with draconian laws which restrict access to abortion, such as the Texas law, which leaves women (especially teenagers) with no abortion facilities for hundreds of miles. I also have a problem with operation rescue type activities. The problem with the former is that the absence of facilities within a reasonable distance doubtless delays abortion more often than preventing it. The longer the delay, the more developed the fetus. Likewise, operation rescue type activities may temporarily change the woman’s mind, only for the woman, after the emotion of the moment has passed, to change her mind again, with the result that the abortion happens anyway, only it is again delayed, allowing for longer fetal development.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim (Larry Weisenthal) #220:
I agree, Larry.
Obviously, I support a right to abortion that differs from yours, but your rational approach leaves room for differing opinions, and that is more and more widely absent in the political arena today. There is an extreme wing of the Republican Party that opposes virtually ALL compromise, and in this regard they are no different from ISIS. Every issue need not be reduced to the all-or-nothing option.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim (Larry Weisenthal): Larry, I agree with a lot of what you say, and disagree with some. I don’t have a problem with abortion if it is done before the fetus has become a human baby. I’m not gonna guess when that is, but generally agree with the ‘approximately twenty weeks’ that you mention. If God believes in abortions, it can’t be all bad. I see miscarriages generally as God’s abortions of unviable fetus’s. If medical tests show that the fetus has problems that are severe, the person carrying the fetus should be allowed if they want to deal with those problems, such as Down’s syndrome (just an example). If a gene were detected that indicates that the fetus were going to develop into a serial killer, with no possibility of medical manipulation that would prevent it, should it be aborted? I see the ‘gay gene’ the same way, should a mother be required to carry the fetus if she knew it were going to be born gay? Suppose she could have the fetus administered an injection that would correct the wiring connection problem and it would be born straight, should she be required, or allowed, to have the injection administered? While I am for a mother having the right to abort a fetus for whatever reason they choose, I think that right ends once the fetus becomes a ‘baby’ as we discussed above. I have no problem with ‘genetic’ engineering within certain limts (and I have no clue what those limits should be), but clearly if a developing baby has no brain, it should be aborted. In most cases, God takes care of that himself. Any ‘uncorrectable brain miswiring’ should be dealt with as the mother desires. I have no personal desire to play God.
@George Wells: George, I understand you are trying to catch me for an ah-ha moment with your question, but I’ll attemt to answer it as neutrally as I can.
I have no problem with ‘true genetic engineering’ if it is done for reasonable reasons. Just to eliminate red hair would not be a reasonable reason. I would define that as something that would eliminate problems that can’t be solved after a baby is born, an example would be, a fetus with no brain. There are many traits within humans and animals that are clearly undesirable. If a test were performed on a fetus that showed that the child would be a serial killer if born, should he be born? Suppose you could give him an injection, before birth, that would eliminate that deficiency. Should he be given that injection? Should the mother be required to have it given? Apply that to any deficiency you can think of. No legs, for example. Should the mother be required to abort it if an injection were not available to prevent it? Any condition you can think of could be included, homosexuality for example. Should a mother be required to abort a homosexual fetus? Should she be ‘allowed’ to abort one? Should she be required to give birth to a homosexual? I’m using homosexual as my standard for obvious reasons here, but it could apply to many other ‘brain mis-wired conditions’, such as serial killer, pedophile, etc.
I don’t agree with that statement at all. How did Germans weed out ‘Jews” through genetic cleansing? Is there a “Jew gene”, how did they ethnically weed out homosexuals through ‘genetic cleansig’? Did they find a homo gene that we don’t know about?
Clearly Nazi gene manipulation had nothing to do with Jews, homos, etc. It had to do with eliminating persons without white skin and blonde hair. Since you define it as ‘ethnic cleansing’, would you elaborate on which ‘ethnics’ are categorical that can be identified via ‘genes’? I’m not sure I’ve heard of any.
Redteam
smart as usual,
i like what you said, it”s strange that after so many useless scientific research,. paid by the government,
right from the pockets of the hard working people, they all never find even the source of the GAY FACTOR,
AND BY MENTIONNING THE IMPORTANCE OF THE STUDY, AND HOW THE CORRECTION WOULD BENEFIT
SO MANY PEOPLE TORMENTED ALL THEIR LIVES BY THAT GAY FACT,
and finding that would also benefit the perverts twisted mind who end up killing their human prey,
because they are driven mentaly by evil urges they cannot control,
imagine all theses centurys and they have not advance in that field enough to produce result not pills,
bye
@Redteam:
Have you ever served on jury duty?
@retire05: Yes and I have been known to change some minds on them.
@Redteam:
Then this quote of yours ” I have no personal desire to play God.” is in fact, wrong for when you sit on a jury, and determine the fate, and future, of another human being, you are in fact, “playing God” by removing from them their free will to do as they please.
We all play God at one time or another. When we allow for laws that allow police to arrest a person for theft, no matter the reason they committed theft, and allow the courts to punish them for that theft, we are de facto playing God. We make decisions on how we want our society to conduct itself, and what goes beyond the realm of what is acceptable behavior, and what ever is considered unacceptable behavior, we punish. That can be argued is “playing God” by limiting the actions of others of free will.
Just wanted to point that out to you. It doesn’t matter if you convinced others on the jury to acquit, or convict, you had the life of another in your hands, so to speak, and that is “playing God” as your decision determined that person’s future because you sat in judgment of their actions.
@retire05:
Not true Retire. I don’t sit on a jury because I have a personal desire to play God. I sit on a jury to fulfill a civic duty. I have never sat on a jury that determined if a person would or would not be deprived of his freedom. I’m not sure if I would sit on one if it were a murder case. But if I did, it would not be from a ‘desire to play God”.
The main point is that I said I ‘had no desire to play God’, I clearly did not say that I would not fulfil a position to pass judgment, just that I might not have a ‘desire’ to do so.
If I were given a vote as to whether or not, to give an injection to a fetus with a gay gene, I would require the injection be given if it would definitely make the baby not be homosexual. But that would only be a vote, I would not require that the fetus be terminated for having a gay gene.
George Wells
you have the bad habit to demonize the republicans , to give weight to your comment,
or demonize retire05, or any other member affiliate not to your DEMOCRAT PARTY OF ONE VOICE FOR ALL, LIKE THE MERRY MUSKATEERS,
that is the inverse of the REPUBLICAN PARTY, which is made of many voices and opinions giver,
with strong solid beliefs for the good of the CITIZENS FREEDOM of living their lives by their own will not the GOVERNMENT’S WILL,
CAN YOU SEE THE DIFFERENCE? and the idiocy of targetting the REPUBLICANS?
those are really and truly the people of all walk of life, and by doing what you do is offending everyone,
who is a CITIZEN born with roots on the grown or naturalize according to the LAWS OF THE FRAMERS,
NOT THE LAWS OF OBAMA,
so do us a favor, here to a SMART CONSERVATIVE BLOG, REFRAIN FROM INSULTS, TO A PARTY WHERE ALL HAVE A VOICE, AND ARE BEING LISTEN, AND THEIR OPINION RESPECTED,
@Redteam:
Then perhaps you should clarify what “playing God” means to you, because if you take another’s fate into your hands, by passing judgment on them, that, in my book, equates to “playing God”. If you don’t want to play God, then you have no recourse but to never pass judgment on anyone, not even in a jury setting.
@Redteam:
Nor would I. I believe life begins at conception and have been quite clear about that in the past at FA. But George chose to misrepresent my statement. (Let me add a caveat here; yes, I did say what George claimed I said, so for calling him a liar, I apologize). Here is a link to the thread where George gleaned my comment:
Please, review the back and forth between George and me. I am quite clear on my standing re: abortion.
My mistake was assuming that George has the intellect to recognize a facetious statement when one is made. Clearly, anyone who believe that life begins at conception, and that all life has value, would not support aborting a child simply because that child would grow up to be homosexual.
Now, I would point out a comment made by George:
Does that mean that George believes that a gay man, who suffers disability from AIDS, and is no longer productive, should be euthanized because he is no longer a contributor to society? Does that mean that George thinks that any senior adult, who can no longer take care of themselves, should be euthanized? It seems a bit hypocritical that George would believe society has a right to rid itself of anyone it chooses, but makes a mountain out of a molehill over my comment. Hypocrisy seems to be his forte. I suggest George, being the despicable person he is, subscribes to the philosophy of George Bernard Shaw who stated:
“You must all know half a dozen people at least who are no use in this world, who are more trouble than they are worth. Just put them there and say Sir, or Madam, now will you be kind enough to justify your existence? If you can’t justify your existence, if you’re not pulling your weight in the social boat, if you’re not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little more, then, clearly, we cannot use the organizations of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us and it can’t be of very much use to yourself.”
Shaw, a Socialist, believed that if you had no visible worth to the elite thinkers of the world, then you should be disposed of, post haste.
I did not respond to George because I am tired of his mantra. I am also tired of his deliberately misrepresenting what people have said (as you know since he has done that to you) and if he wants to count coup because I will no longer respond to him, so be it.
@retire05:
The subject is not ‘playing God’, the subject is ‘desire’. My statement was that I had no desire to play God. I will admit that passing judgement on someone could be construed as ‘playing God’, but it doesn’t equate to having a ‘desire’ to do so.
@retire05: 231 I pretty well agree with most or all of what you said here. It’s seems clear from the history of George’s statements that he has very little value for human life.
Whereas I certainly don’t think a baby should be aborted just because it is homosexual, that would be ok with George as he seems to think that no reason at all should be necessary for an abortion. George said:219
I’m not certain what that means. It seems as if George feels that there doesn’t have to be a reason for an abortion at any time and that he sees no difference in aborting a 6 week fetus with no brains (for example) and a perfectly healthy 9 month, on the way out baby. I personally see quite a difference. If you consider a miscarriage to be an abortion by God, you would see that there is normally a valid reason why the miscarriage occurred. I doubt that God just decided to kill a baby. There doesn’t seem to be a lot of logic to most of George’s positions on abortions.
@Redteam re. #231:
Since we are now continuing this conversation through surrogate intermediaries, please inform Retire05 that I graciously accept her apology for calling me a liar. The liar thing was my only gripe. I understood full well that her comment regarding the possibility of aborting gay-gene fetuses was a facetious statement. I even thought that it was clever, although the implied insult was disturbing.
I had an ulterior motive for making a big deal over her abortion comment. She had already demanded (repeatedly) the source of comments which I remembered her making and which I had referred to in my posts. She was unreasonably quick to call attention to the fact that I was unable to provide such sources, and she offered that failure as evidence of my lying.
Tired of being caught repeatedly in that trap, I set a trap of my own. I first located the abortion comment in the archives, and then attributed it to her, making a fuss over its apparent implication. She took the bait, demanded the source, and called me a liar as expected.
Anyone can play the trap game. And if you use the same trick over and over, eventually someone is going to use it on you. She shouldn’t be upset over it, she should be flattered. Her tactic worked so well that I bothered to learn from it.
Regarding the taking of life for whatever reason, Retire should inspect what I wrote again. I never specified a single instance where I thought a life SHOULD be taken. I simply granted that a SOCIETY has the right to make life and death decisions as it sees fit. In granting this right to a society, it should be apparent that I do not respect a “sanctity” of life. In other words, I do not reserve for God alone the right and privilege of taking lives. This is a fundamental cornerstone of my support for the death penalty, the bedrock underneath my support of law enforcement’s use of deadly force, the justification for killing adversaries in war, and it is the reason that a society’s collective decision to take lives otherwise does not conflict with my ethic.
I cherish every day I am alive, and I would certainly attempt to escape any attempt to take life from me. But while I do not advocate euthanasia, I cannot find in MY ethic a reason to oppose it. That doesn’t mean that I subscribe to the philosophy of George Bernard Shaw, who, according to Retire05, DOES advocate euthanasia after a cost-benefit analysis of the person has been made. Such an analysis would be an unfortunate thing to undertake, but I can’t argue that at some point in the future, population pressures won’t make such a thing necessary. In such a situation, I would EXPECT society to do something like that. What else COULD they do? So I think that such a right exists.
Finally, I apologize to Retire05 for not “providing the link” as she requested. I’m not particularly computer literate, and I simply don’t know how to do it.
@Redteam #233:
Well, you did get something fairly correct: George places little value on life, at least in the collective sense. George makes the “collective sense” distinction to differentiate it from the individual sense, as obviously both the lives of friends and one’s OWN life have great value to the individual.
You are also correct that George grants the right to abort for any reason, INCLUDING instances where a fetus is found to have a gay gene. George doesn’t have the same views on abortion that Retire05 has. However, his views are logically consistent.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim (Larry Weisenthal):
It is false to say that the only basis for believing human life begins at conception is solely a religious based argument. It is a scientific fact that at conception the unique human karyotype for a specific individual comes into existence. Arguing that life does not begin at that moment because it doesn’t look “human” ignores that the neonate at the moment of birth does not look like it will look as an adult. Arguing that the zygote/embryo/fetus is dependent upon the mother to continue living ignores that an infant is still dependent on others for feeding, diaper changes and movement from one place to another. There is not a single human being alive today that did not start out as a zygote, and no evidence that a fertilized human egg has ever developed into anything other than a delivered infant – unless outside forces terminate the human before exiting the womb.
It never ceases to amaze me how leftists are ready with all kinds of excuses to give criminals the benefit of every possible doubt for their choice to commit even the most heinous of crimes, yet the individual human at the earliest stage of the human life cycle is dehumanized as a justification for killing humans in the womb.
@Pete: #236
Pete, well said. I consider myself spiritual, though not religious, and personal experience has convinced me that the Soul pervades the ‘physical’ right from the start not a month later, or 20 weeks later. My own views on abortion have dramatically changed through my life — ignorance can be dangerous. There is no doubt we kill, when we abort. The question is whether there is a very good and particular reason to commit that killing when there is an alternate life in the balance. Otherwise, it’s a killing of convenience.
The challenge is whether we as a whole (government), rather than individually, we allow it. Government should stay out of one’s life as much as possible — we just haven’t been able to get wholly behind a specific POINT at which we call the fetus human.
In a few generations, we will probably look back on the whole of the current abortion industry and consider it archaically barbaric.
Redteam
i don”t believe in abortion,,…..
if on extremist need for an excuse valuable to a person of sane mind and heart, then yes,
but then you would not read a number like 1,37million for one year, 2012, one every 94seconds, the leading cause of 100/to one, mortality,
like a belt on a row which the aborters must keep the speed going so to get their bonus,
like it”s going on in the last few years only on OBAMA’S WATCH, AND FINANCING BY MULTI MILLIONS,
and I DON”T BELIEVE ANYONE BE IT THEIR HIGHEST DEGREE ON BRAIN RESEARCH,
THAT ONLY WHEN THE FRONT CORTEX APPEAR IS THE SIGN OF BRAIN, ACTIVITIES, AND BEFORE 4 WEEKS IT’S A NON HUMAN GOOD FOR THRASHING IF YOU DECIDE,
THIS TO MY MIND IS THE BIGGEST BULSHIT TO SELL ABORTION, AND THE SHAMLESS ONE,
NO MATTER IF YOU STING THE TWO WEEKS OLD BABY INSIDE THE WOMB WITH A POKE, HE CANNOT FEEL PAIN, BECAUSE HE DIDN”T MAKE A MOVE, WELL WELL,
DID YOU EVER SEEN A BRAIN ACTIVITY BECOME CONCRETE TO SEE, this is the unseen world but very real, AND DID YOU SEE PAIN WITH YOUR EYES ? and the graduation of a baby to become has all kinds of unseen activities and each is of a human being process to his right to life because the two chromosomes locked in that particular day of sexual activities unseen either inside the two exchanging the lively unseen little microscopic liquid of life itself, THE GOD POTION,
many who tryed never achieve that procedure, and many who are fertile refuse the gift of a futur human being for only self center excuses, they just wanted their sexual pleasures , and no protection added,
and they are surprise of the contact has been done after a month,
those are the gift of GOD, yes GOD THE CREATOR, even the animals take it as a gift and care for their small
baby at birth, AND AS LONG AS THE TIME TO LET THAT YOUNG GO HIS WAY, THEY WILL PROTECT THE TREASURE WITH THEIR LIFE, AND WILL HELP HIM GROW WITH THE MILK PROVIDED,
NOW YOU HAVE TO ADMIRE THE JOB OF THE CREATOR, AND DOWN WITH THE NON BELIEVERS,
@ilovebeeswarzone: Bees, I agree with you. To me the only legitimate reason to abort a baby is if there is something uncorrectable wrong with it. Such as not having a brain or missing two chambers of it’s heart or being con-joined with only one heart or brain. In most cases, God will do the abortion himself and not leave it to humans, as in a miscarriage. I believe life begins at conception. Many lives are screwed up at conception, such as being gay, serial killer, pedophile, etc. I don’t have a solution for these situations. George seems to feel as if there is any problem, kill them.
@Redteam:
I am sure you have noticed that George is now changing his story. The story is no longer that he was upset about my comment, but he was upset about being called a liar. And so he set a “trap” for me, that he learned from (tah-dah) me. Got all that?
So now here we have a guy who is not smart enough to learn how to link to a comment, or thread, but is smart enough to learn how to set a trap for someone else, and from someone else. Are you still following the bouncing ball, Redteam?
If, in fact, which I doubt, that George’s goal was to set a trap for me, he attempted to do that long before I called him a liar. And the cherry on top is that he now claims he never said a life SHOULD be taken, just that society has the right to make that decision, I guess for any reason that “society” can dream up.
George is one twisted sister.
Hi Pete (#236),
You say:
You go on to say:
You are supported by James, who says:
Firstly, if all that makes a human a human is a collection of chromosomes, then there can never be any justification for pulling a plug on a brain dead patient. The fact that no one has a moral problem with pulling a plug on a brain dead patient means that virtually everyone accepts that the definition of human life includes a living human brain.
So can you at least accept that it is not illogical or immoral for people without specific religious beliefs to not consider a brainless fetus to be a human being? James has feelings of spirituality which inform him that brainless zygotes, embryos, and fetuses are human beings. I utterly respect this, and, like me, James should never be a party to abortion. But imposing the spiritual belief of James or the Catholic belief of me on the rest of secular society, who share neither James’s spiritualism nor my Catholicism is no different than imposing sharia law, which is basing law on religious beliefs and not upon secular jurisprudence, in this case informed by the medical science of embryology and fetal development.
This issue is that the end of life is identified by the death of the brain. Therefore, it is 100% understandable that people without specific forms of spirituality or religious dogma could consider the beginning of human life to be the birth of the brain.
Can everyone at least accept that this is an entirely logical point of view and that holding this point of view in no way signifies that said person holding this point of view does not value human life to the same extent as people who believe in ensoulment at the moment of conception?
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
openid.aol.com/runnswim (Larry Weisenthal)
I don”t think you can mix the SHARIA LAW, with CATHOLICISM BELIEF, OR SPIRITUAL BELIEF,
SHARIA is offensive and violent imposition on the Citizens, and foreign to AMERICA’S FOUNDATION,
WHICH ENDURE TO A MAJORITY OF AMERICANS TODAY,
and sadly diminishing by day, if not push back, rigorously,
THIS IS IS NOT MADE FOR AMERICA, NOT FOR THE AMERICAN MUSLIMS EITHER,
because it’s where their allegiance is primary, the proof of it is they want to apply their sharia in here,
as oppose to join the majority, which they won’t, they work to conquer this AMERICA THAT IS THEIR GOAL AND WHY THEY COME MOST OF THEM,
YES I BELIEVE THE CONCEPTION IS THE BEGINING OF ENSOULMENT, THE PROOF IS THE COUPLE DESIRE TO JOIN TOGETHER AND GET THE PLEASURE ON ACCOMPLISHING THE ACT OF LOVE,AND BY THIS CREATE BOTH A HUMAN BEING.
AND THE BEGINNING OF THE BRAIN FOR THOSE TWO CHROMOSONES, EACH SEPARATELY BUT MERGE TOGETHER,
FOR THE ULTIMATE CREATION OF A HUMAN AT THEIR BOTH IMAGE,
GOD DID IT WHEN HE CREATE THE HUMANITY,
and when we really think of it, it is the essense of life itself, and for all creatures big and to the smallest in the earth,
is in it make us all equal at that moment,
now just to have you smile i say this one : don’t be surprise if
one call the other you animal,
BYE
@Redteam #239:
“George seems to feel as if there is any problem, kill them.”
I can only assume that your continued misrepresentation of what I say is a cry for my attention and response.
I have REPEATEDLY said, unambiguously, that I DO NOT ADVOCATE KILLING, not in death penalty cases, and not in abortion cases. What I have said, repeatedly, is that a society has the right to legalize such killings if it chooses to do so. The last time I checked, there wasn’t a “Thou shall not kill” commandment in the U.S. Constitution, and I suspect that this is the reason why the Supreme Court has upheld states’ death penalties and why the Supreme Court decided Roe in favor of abortion rights. My statements about society’s right to kill come from being a constitutionalist, not from any religion. My faith does not recognize a “right to life”, as some Christians do. It would be helpful for you to recognize the difference between advocating murder and discussing state rights.
@retire05 #240:
“If, in fact, which I doubt, that George’s goal was to set a trap for me, he attempted to do that long before I called him a liar.”
You have been calling me a liar for over a year. During my search for the elusive post you requested, I ran across many such exclamations. You taught me well. If you tell me how to “link”, I’ll link. And I already told you that your gay-gene line was clever. Still think I’m lying?
The more you split hairs over what I have said, the more I try to clarify what my positions are. I am sorry if this results in the appearance of a change in position, as this is not what I am attempting to convey. Read the last paragraph of #243.
“And the cherry on top is that he now claims he never said a life SHOULD be taken, just that society has the right to make that decision…”
That characterization is too general. I am definitely in favor of and DO advocate FOR the murder of child molesters and as a suitable punishment for an assortment of other sociopathic crimes. I simply don’t believe that a society can afford to keep such criminals alive indefinitely. But in general, I prefer to avoid murder. I support a woman’s right to decide, but I do not ADVOCATE abortion. Can’t you see the difference?
I am really sorry that I am failing to explain these distinctions. They make sense to me, but evidently I am failing to get my points across. Maybe twisted sisters can do not better.
@George Wells:
What you originally said:
What you are now saying, caveat added:
There is a major difference in the two.
@retire05 #245:
I agree that these two statements are not the same.
But they are not contradictory statements, if you are SUGGESTING that they are.
The first statement says that SOCIETY has the right to take lives as it chooses.
The second statement says that society may LEGALIZE killing as it sees fit.
The first statement would apply to such killings as death penalty executions and (potential) state-mandated euthanasia, while the second statement would apply to individual abortions or assisted suicides.
No, they are not the same, but neither are they mutually exclusive or contradictory.
Are they?
I apologize if the order in which these two statements appeared in Flopping Aces implied that I thought that they were the same, as I intended no such meaning.
@George Wells: 244
George you have misquoted me several times and when I’ve asked you usually can’t produce the source. But as I may sometimes misstate what I think you are saying, I never misquote you because I cut and paste when I quote someone. Using the cut and paste method for quoting, as well as quoting the comment number will greatly reduce the misquotes.
I do see your distinctions you stated above as to advocating murder vs allowing murder.
@Redteam #247:
Thank you for the acknowledgment.
Regarding misquotes, I find a great difficulty in locating specific comments among the thousands of posts on hundreds of separate threads, and I seem to have very little recollection of WHEN an item in question was posted. So I am usually unable to locate the post, and so cut-and-paste copy is rarely possible. Retire knows this, and so demands links, etc.
Evidently nobody here trusts me as far as they can throw a stick. But I have nothing to hide. I have revealed many of my personal details here in an effort to illuminate a life you all seem quite unfamiliar with, and lying would not serve that purpose. As I explained before, I bother to do this because it is mentally stimulating, and my doctor warns that I need this stimulation to postpone the onset of Alzheimer’s Syndrome, a serious risk for diabetics at my age.
I like your distinction between mis-stating and mis-quoting. I do rarely quote, but I often re-state, and considering how often I AM mis-stated in spite of everyone’s good intentions, I can appreciate that others may frequently misunderstand me and consequently mis-state what I have said and I likely make at least as many of the same mistakes. I’m trying to do this better, and your observation helps.
Thanks.
@Redteam:
But, but, but…………… he doesn’t know how to do that and it seems he doesn’t know anyone who can teach him how.
How so? First comment:
No qualifier about applying to legalization such as “death penalty executions and (potential) state-mandated euthanasia” as in the explanation:
The first statement would apply to such killings as death penalty executions and (potential) state-mandated euthanasia,
Me thinks George thought about what he said and is now trying to cover his arse by qualifying that statement.
Don’t buy it, Redteam.
@Redteam:
George obviously doesn’t know how to use the search engine on this site, either. So poor him, I am being so unreasonable requiring him to actually provide a link and prove his claims of statements by someone else.
Hey, Redteam, George managed to get one thing right.
i.e. you stupid breeders don’t have a clue what being gay is like. So George is here to explain it all to us uninformed rubes.