Neither A Dove, Nor A Hawk

I realize I am casting myself unto outcast island with my support of the Afghan Surge, but this was exactly the policy I was advocating the president take in the first place. A increase in troops only under the predication of a withdrawal time line and clear goals set that are attainable. In essence the nation building that they do, that they don’t want to call nation building, needs to be either stabilized or abandoned. That is the hard truth of the matter, like any other war that we start as a nation we must come to bring it to an end-point.

It sounds rather strange, but I reject the rejection of the proposed draw-down in 2011 as being nothing but a smoke-screen or a political ruse on the left. Even in the announcement of this policy it sparked immediate reaction from President Karzai in terms of a statement about not being ready to handle security for “fifteen years.” That, of course, is absurd but it proves that much needed pressure is being applied for Karzai to take up a stronger level of national security in Afghanistan. There is also the larger foreign policy issue in terms of the surrounding regions being aware that the US is there to fight, but not there to stay on into infinity. Senator John McCain, who aspired to the highest office and did not take the seat that would have made this very decision, disagreed on this point of the Obama war policy utterly and advised against it in his “wisdom.” Then finally we have the matter of simple follow-through in terms of the campaigning in 2008 over Afghanistan being the “right war” from the Obama camp.

Many view it as Obama has placed himself in a box of being trapped to deliver on campaign promises, but I believe his acceptance speech of the Nobel Peace Prize was by far the most important and the most revealing speech of his entire political career. He placed himself on one side of an old argument started long ago by Saint Augustine as to if there is such a thing as a “just war” and I happen to be of the view that there is no such thing as this. However, if you remove that element of theological disagreement between President Obama and myself then I believe this speech answers almost every point of contention coming from the left toward the Afghanistan war policy.

This not the policy of a dove, any more than this is a policy of a hawk.

What we must avoid is creating the power vacuum of our sudden absence but at the same balance that fact that you and me everyone else is sick of war and just done with it for no real reason beyond just that. Which is good! But let’s do it right. Let’s bring about an actual “end-game” to this war and if deadlines are extended and we are left with “half a war” as we have in Iraq then I say that it still better than the McCain / Bush policy of “muddling through” in Afghanistan.

I am far from beating the war drums over here and as I have stated before my heart just cries out to “bring them home now!” but there is element of rationality that needs to be applied here to anything that is within the realms of war policy discussions. I am yet another of these “not a dove, nor a hawk” individuals who seek balance out an ugly reality against desires for peace. My support of “troop surges” and “soft power solutions” dissolves quickly as deadlines become discarded like the public option or when the troop increases become “like a drink of water” but as this policy stands I believe that we have to give these strategies a chance to work in order to ensure a future that might finally see an end to the war.

I’m certainly willing to admit to a possibly overly optimistic view on the matter, but I think this was the right policy for Afghanistan as the situation stands now.

Obama Nobel Prize Acceptance Speech pt.1pt.2pt.3

Advertisements

Afghanistan; Operation Enduring Freedom Continues

President Barack Obama West Point Speech

During the 2008 Presidential Campaign then-candidate Barack Obama promised the mother a fallen American soldier to not only end the war in Iraq, but the war in Afghanistan as well. I am of the mind that now-president Barack Obama has not forgotten that promise. Many of my fellow Democrats are feeling disenfranchised by the recent official announcement of the decision to increase planned combat-troop levels to 30,000+ in Afghanistan I believe many in the party are taking a dangerously narrow view of militaristic policy.

I’ll simply cut the chase: you break a nation, you bought a nation.

The consequences of immediate withdrawal, in my view, far outweighs the alternative. Should we abandon this nation at this critical stage, after invading and attempting to remove the native opium crops, would be a tragic mistake that would incur even greater wrath upon the U.S. than this “end-game” measure of increased combat-troop involvement. We must not be blinded by political partisanship nor by strong personal feelings against war, that I personally share in this decision to prolong the war. This troop “surge” is accompanied with a clear strategy for withdrawal as well as some long since needed pressure upon the Karzai government in the form of this planned 2011 draw-down / transition of security responsibilities.

President Obama rebuked me in my comparison of Afghanistan and Vietnam. I agree with his statements that it is a “false reading of history,” upon review. But I disagree that what we are fighting in Afghanistan as being “not a popular insurgency.” The radical Taliban and their al-Qaeda allies are indeed a “popular insurgency” in some regions, while not in others. Afghanistan is a highly complex power structure and in every way different from the recent conflict in Iraq or the situation during the Vietnam War, but this is all the more reason to set attainable goals and prepare an exit strategy. We cannot allow ourselves to fall into the trap of counter-insurgency fighting endlessly in the Southern Provinces. We must shift to a counter-terrorism methods in Afghanistan and in order to this it is indeed true that “space” is required, bought with combat-troops of course. The ultimate goal being to seek a similar situation to what exists of involvement in Iraq as of today; a complete withdrawal of all combat-troops.

The sooner it is seen that no nation can “win,” or “lose,” in Afghanistan the sooner we can conduct sound policies in regards to our involvement therein. This is not the no-man’s-land that some make it out to be, much can be achieved with hard work, but we also should not delude ourselves into thinking we can remain troop committed indefinitely to a nation with practically no central government and huge population that is 80% illiterate.

Our humanitarian and intelligence-gathering operations must be secured for the time being and the politically unpopular troop surge is a means to this end. This is a changing in the “face” of this war and I personally hope that we can meet this 2011 time line for beginning combat-troop withdrawal and more importantly that is not simply an arbitrary line in the sand.

I urge people on the left against rush to judgments all is for naught in Afghanistan by value of the nation’s long history of failed attempts at conquering it. This new strategy is not “conquest” but rather supporting existing efforts and expanding upon the model of political solutions with regional leaders. An opportunity will be created in the next two years for Afghanistan to stabilize, but in the end the stand against terrorist tactics must come of the people. That much is out of our hands, it is true.

From GlobalSecurity.org:

Along with protecting local Afghans and reducing violence, new efforts are focused on cutting off the funding of the Taliban and other Afghan insurgents. US Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke spoke of a new thinking on the issue during a June 2009 visit to Pakistan. Holbrooke said the long-held notion that Afghanistan’s illicit opium trade is the main source of funding for the insurgency is simply not true. And, he says US policy is going to reflect that reality. “If the drugs ended tomorrow, it would not have a major effect on the Taliban source of funding,” said Holbrooke. “And, that’s one of the reasons the United States is going to downgrade crop eradication as part of its policies in Afghanistan. We’re going to upgrade interdiction. We’re going to upgrade our efforts to go after the main drug traffickers. But we want to focus on where the money really comes from.”

According to PBS & independent news media this is indeed true, but mainly because the Taliban has moved toward kidnapping, extortion and money-laundering as opposed to opium-running.

I do not support actions that only needlessly escalate war, but this change in strategy is likely the only course of action that will bring our major operations inside Afghanistan to a timely close. The president spoke of “muddling through” in reference to the former policy and I would say the same of those promoting this policy of rapid withdrawal. It appears to me that many in my party and that I agree with on a host of other issues propose “muddling through” the careful process of timely and permanent withdrawal from these costly foreign incursions brought about under the George W. Bush Presidency.

Regardless of progress on the ground the generals will always ask for more troops and the person we charged with the responsibility over such matters has decided that the 30,000 troops in Afghanistan for the elections is going to stay and more will be deployed in months to come. Provided agencies like the UN are included more directly in solution-seeking and the model of focusing on political solutions as opposed to only military solutions to bring an end to the conflict there is no reason to scoff at the 2011 deadline for strategy review.

This was a mishandled war left by the previous president and one does not clean up a rotten pile of eggs by screaming at it; you get a shovel.

My heart still cries out: “Come home, America!”

But this is very similar to my views on the aftermath of the U.S.-Iraq Invasion: rapid withdrawal has serious consequences not to be ignored but it is equally important to note that keeping the pressure on our representatives to set clear goals and bring the U.S. involvement to an eventual close as quickly as humanly possible is the responsibility of citizens that fund these conflicts.

To leave now is folly.

This was a predictable “middle-option” and under the current circumstances I believe it was the best possible choice available to the president and the true value of this decision is yet to be seen.

Post 9/11

In October 2001, in response to the Taliban regime’s protection of al Qaeda terrorists who attacked the United States, coalition forces forcibly removed the regime from Afghanistan.

Since the Taliban’s ouster in late 2001, remnants of the regime have sheltered in remote reaches of Afghanistan’s mountains, mainly in the south. While they stood little chance of retaking power while the US-led coalition remains in Afghanistan, rogue Taliban members appeared to be regrouping.

Evidence mounted by early 2003 in the southern regions of Afghanistan that the Taliban was reorganizing and has found an ally in rebel commander Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, labeled a terrorist and hunted by US troops,” the Associated Press reported in early April. The evidence included the discovery by coalition forces of around 60 Taliban fighters holed up near the village of Sikai Lashki, 25 miles north of the southeastern village of Spinboldak. Further indication came from the killings in southern Afghanistan of a Red Cross worker and, separately, of two U.S. troops in an ambush, as well as allegations that Taliban leaders had found safe havens in private homes in neighboring Pakistan’s Quetta province.

While no reliable estimates existed of the number of Taliban fighters in southern Afghanistan, the Associated Press said in late March that it is believed that “many” Taliban are holed up in the southern mountains.

While a multinational force helped keep the peace in Kabul and surrounding areas, contributing countries have declined to extend the force’s mandate to other parts of the country. Remnants of the Taliban and rogue warlords sometimes threatened, robbed, attacked, and occasionally killed local villagers, political opponents, and prisoners.

This is what I spoke of before on this blog.

Our target was al-Qaeda and we should have handled the matter as a militaristic police force instead of “forcibly removing” this Taliban regime in 2001. This is the very nature of the trap of nation-building and these recent changes in war policy are a reflection of the situation as it is now and how to combat the elements are indeed a threat to national security while avoiding the pitfalls of unilateral nation-building. This is a policy that will hopefully provide enough security to focus on counter-terrorism efforts along with regional stabilization so that our exit from the region does not serve to only further destabilize a volatile situation.

Come Home, America


Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. knew well of what he spoke when he addressed a meeting of Clergy and Laity Concerned at Riverside Church in New York City on April 4  (1967) in regards to the Vietnam Conflict:

“Come home, America.”

In Harper’s Magazine, Andrew J. Bacevich made the connection between Dr. King’s words and the current war in Afghanistan. I wholeheartedly agree, and would press further this point by taking a look at the heading-titles from the speech itself:

1. “The Importance of Vietnam [Afghanistan]

I believe it well past the point in terms of the expenditure of American Treasure to the nation of Afghanistan to set a clear withdrawal strategy, and then hold to it.

2. “Strange Liberators

We are not the nation to spread liberty and justice for all across the Mid-East. Whatever preconceptions one may have, the fact remains that stabilization efforts that operate outside U.S. Military influence remain intact while U.S. facilities are destroyed and rebuilt in a constant cycle within Afghanistan.

3. “This Madness Must Cease

We cannot afford to throw lives and money into a nation with no clear estimation on how long it will take to achieve this lofty goal of a “terrorist safe-bed” being prevented from being formed. The bottom line is we are pointlessly infrastructure-building and policing Afghanistan, and this madness must cease. Sooner rather than later.

4. “Protesting The War

At this stage, in November of 2009, I do not believe there is a valid anti-war protest platform to take. President Obama is weighing the decisions carefully. However, should his decision-to-come be something to nature of huge troop increases with no time line for withdrawal I believe the voice of the people should be known in the streets.

5. “The People Are Important

The people of Afghanistan are who are important in this issue. The constant fighting takes more and more innocent lives every day. Without a time line and an attainable mission statement, the continued occupation of Afghanistan is nothing but a quagmire. A quagmire that not only costs American lives, but the lives of those caught in the crossfire.

If truly we seek to build up nations that have systemic problems that may effect our national security agenda then as Bacevich reminded us the nation of Mexico would be of primary interest to those in Washington D.C.

The U.S. could take part in other “humanitarian invasions” under these same circumstances.

The entire concept that we can “fix” another nation with increased troops and increased involvement is absurd.

Andrew J. Bacevich:

Fixing Afghanistan is both unnecessary and impossible. Rather, we should be erecting and maintaining a robust defense.

I find it rare to find people willing to make the pro-defensive military argument. I applaud Bacevich for this recent article in Harper’s. Worthy of your attention, to be sure.

Fox “Not-a-news-agency” News is Banned From White House Porch

Obama on FOX-thumb-340x229(Chicago Tribune: Swamp Politics)

Is it a good idea to single out just one outlet in the manner that The Obama White House recently has in the case of removing Fox Broadcasting from the press pool?


At first, I was in favor of the move to ignore the Fox Broadcasting Company by Barack Obama.

His efforts to clear his name on the website “Fight The Smears” stem almost entirely from Fox. He has every right to defend himself from these smear-merchants and radical right-wing propagandist supporters.

The right-wing lobby called “Fox News” (as in the cable pseudo-news) and “Fox News Talk” (as in the radio pseudo-news) is still “not a news organization” in my opinion. But I think this label should include everyone from COMEDY CENTRAL to HLN to CNN to MSNBC, everyone except PBS and C-SPAN.

It’s been televised tabloidism in place of televised journalism for far too long. In my view.

Any White House that would send a clear signal that The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, Countdown, The O’Reilly Factor, and The Glenn Beck Show are all the same thing would be nothing but a benefit in this age of media-hate & mass misinformation.

These programs are not news, they are purely entertainment-television.

Each of these programs has an agenda, as does the network behind each.

There is nothing wrong with doing agenized-news. But it is dishonest and unethical to claim objectivity if you are playing toward a specific political wing, or any specific agenda. This is the greatest offense of the so-called “Fair & Balanced” Fox Broadcasting. As a network they cater to right-wing political agendas and refuse to declare themselves as a format that promotes conservative ideology. In that case I see it as a function of false advertising on behalf of the network.

All these programs, it‘s important to point out, are television-propaganda toward that agenda. Which might be only the agenda to make you laugh.

The broadcasting produced by this political lobby / news agency / entertainment format in only the viewing of it is not dangerous. It is taking these kinds of broadcasts as serious news formats that is problematic in a democratic society.

The informed viewing of propaganda is merely educational. However, to those who refuse to see the difference between opinions and facts the viewing of the propaganda of reckless liars, there is a dangerous situation produced.

Mine is a somewhat complex argument in regards to The News Wars between The Obama White House and Fox Broadcasting Company:

It is a good move that Obama is standing up to bad journalism mixed with bad business practices, but a bad move that he singled out FOX alone when all the news agencies screw something up.

FOX is just the biggest offender of the smears.

I believe radio and satellite should remain untouched by sweeping regulations, but televised broadcasting of race baiting and McCarthyism is just too much tabloidism for me to handle.

This sensationalist-reporting on politics that has been going almost entirely due to FOX NEWS is not exclusive to them, so I think it would be wise to pick out a few other agencies, perhaps CLEARCHANNEL and COMEDY CENTRAL, to also declare as non-news formats.

It is clear to me when a news group is run by an agenda, thus becoming more like a political lobby than a news group, but it is not clear to everyone.

A President who stands for educating the public should seek to educate people on what exactly “bias” is, and hopefully shed some light on the issue.

The specific near-criminal acts of failure to disclose vital information of a story committed by FOX NEWS should be spoken of plainly and openly if not handled more severely. This tactic of isolation is my only qualm with Obama’s approach to dealing with fake news.

If it is the desire of this White House to tackle the specific crimes against society that Fox has committed, then I would hope the case was made in specifics.

It is my personal view that a news group, of any sort, can lose it’s status as “press” if they fail to uphold the journalistic truth as a matter of course.

I believe Obama did not go far enough to fight unethical journalism and false reporting.

But I certainly agree with the point that FOX has become something other than a news agency when they promote bad journalism that is not related to their opinion-makers.

Obama Health Care Reform

(Entire speech @ Open Salon)

This was an excellent Address on Health Care by President Obama. All significant issues were cogently addressed, but I found the president should have expounded further upon the specifics of the budget and the concept of “deficit neutrality.”

Perhaps it is my own failure in understanding but I do not fully understand this notion as it pertains to health care.

I also think this clear explanation was needed much closer to the onset of the national debate instead of at this point in time and also hopefully prior to the town hall debate setting, but I see the issue of Health Care Reform as being underlined and placed in the foreground.

Those who chose not to listen and refute every word Obama speaks will most likely continue to do so.

The issue of a ‘failure to sell‘ Health Care Reform and explain the proposal is put to rest, in my view.

The O’Reilly Half-Apology for Tiller Murder

O’Reilly: “I would say we have covered this story passionately.”
O’Reilly: “Now if something happens to this Oklahoma rapist guy, they are going to try to blame us for it.”

Geraldo: “You mean like the Tiller thing.”

Geraldo: “If this guy [child rapist] was found on the side of the road I wouldn’t shed one tear.”

O’Reilly: “When someone does something like the person who killed Tiller and engages in vigilante violence they commit just as immoral an act as this rapist in Oklahoma.”

I finally agree with Bill O’Reilly on something and have lost a good deal of respect for Geraldo Rivera.

Bill O’Reilly brought this up as a chance to defend himself and I think he made his case well. I still think he engaged in irresponsible broadcasting in the past but not tonight.

Tonight the mantle of Irresponsible Broadcaster of FOX Cable News is: Geraldo Rivera.

I think he is pretty deluded to think that denouncing vigilantism and eluding to it in the same statement is anything but ironic and sad.

Passionate reporting is one thing, and making vague statements about people being killed or otherwise harmed is very possibly why someone like me might declare The O’Reilly Factor as inciting domestic terrorism.

I wouldn’t shed one tear if Mark Sanford is found on the side of the road.

Freedom of speech.

As if I care to defend rapists. I only seek to point out that vigilantes exactly as immoral as the ones they wish to kill.

And we only hear this little bit of sanity from Bill O’Reilly well after the fact he crusades against all liberals and against Dr. Tiller.

I still thank him for it. Let his minions absorb this deep into their minds.

That they are no more than child molesters when they go and ’save some babies’ with a gun.

 

 

Pizzaman versus EricG

I have managed to make a profound impact upon a man with the screen name Pizzaman and before I ever got a chance to project my blather in this posting from Alan Colmes’ Liberaland, he was already name-dropping me. I don’t mind, a name-drop is a name drop and if someone reads my homepage I’m happy, but I would rather people at least comment directly on my blog if they are so invested in me specifically to use me as a reoccurring example. The way I see it if you have something to say to a man you say it to his face or in case of the internet you send him a notification of your comments. I send emails to all the conservative radio jocks and spinsters that I negatively comment on via blog. I also send emails to those that I might praise in one of my blogs. I would call such things being a ‘real person.’ Standing up for what you have to say rather than shouting out items and then fleeing the scene before any person involved in your comments might defend themselves.

I don’t believe in passing solely my opinion in this blog. If someone reads it and decides for themselves a conclusion other than my own, then so be it. I think this “Pizzaman” is so biased that his commentary that the commentary is useless in regards to liberals and ultimately to all politics. These fundamentalist ideologies are destructive. And most importantly they are anti-society.

Decide for yourself:

Kregg Reply:

Alan quotes: Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote that the white firefighters “understandably attract this court’s sympathy. But they had no vested right to promotion. Nor have other persons received promotions in preference to them.”

K: No one was asking for a ‘vested right to promotion’ but simply a fair chance at one. To throw out the test results because the ‘right’ races didn’t score well denied those who DID score well the opportunity to advance.

 

Pizzaman Reply:
June 29th, 2009 at 3:43 pm

Further to Kregg’s comments against Ginsberg:

Since when is required that an applicant for a job have a “vested” right to that job in order to have a valid discrimination claim? If a black and a white are competing for a job, NEITHER has a “VESTED” right to the job, but EACH has a valid discrimination claim IF the job is denied on grounds of race. What’s so hard abouit THAT? Why does it it take a genius to figure this out. Why can the conservative majority of the Supreme Court see this, but Ginsberg and her liberal colleagues not? Hmmmmm? Answer: Blinding, pathetic white guilt. EricG — care to respond? Did YOU ever violate God’s law against racial discrimination? I didn’t. And if not, why hold us BOTH accountable?

pizzaman

 

Do I violate God’ Law about … racial discrimination?

I know no such specific part of God’s Law. It’s against hate, not specifically ethnic hate but all hate.

Like right now I hate you. I hate you because you keep bringing me up in the course of making your points and I have never done such a thing to another internet user in all my life.

Maybe I should start. Using people on the internet as examples of racism and bigotry and hate for liberals. Why not?

We all violate the law against hate. We are human after all. But we must fight this within ourselves.

Just as a person who feels ’superior’ to others due to race should fight this urge within themselves to view themselves as superior.

Kind of like … the way how you view yourself as superior to liberals. Is that racism? Think about it. It’s not racism but do you think of liberals as your equal? Intellectually or as a person at least?

I doubt it. That’s why I have no respect for you as a man, your opinions aside.

You’re just one more vile dog out there causing harm to nation with partisanship taken to new heights.

Waste of time all true patriots. Seriously.

Grow up and be an American.

NEWSFLASH LIBERALAND!

Pizzaman is God!!!!

He knows all the transgressions under God’s Eyes because he is God and knows all the secrets of the universe and where exactly he is accountable for everything he ever did.

“And if not, why hold us BOTH accountable?”

We are all accountable. You are accountable before God for how much you hate your fellow Americans called ‘liberals’ and in the same I am held accountable for my hate against Americans called ‘conservatives.’

Next time you want to pick a internet fight with someone you might want to pick someone who is timid and will back off. You’ll be much happier ramming your nonsense and BS down their throat than you ever will dealing with me.

This is the web. You’re going to be more a coward than you would be to my face and I’m going to be more edgy here than I would be in person.

But in the end it’s best we don’t met. I don’t enjoy people who can’t be civil and respectful. I don’t think much of people like yourself, or rather people who present themselves as you have.

It’s a bunch of hollow ‘look me and my hatred and superior intellect’ while when you look around you don’t find people like myself who are outspoken, surely, but not involved with declaring myself ‘above’ others.

I’m right and you’re wrong. About ____. That’s true.

But I’m no better than you and vice versa.

This is America. Try to act like it. The burden falls to you as well as I. If you won’t do anything but be a partisan against liberals then you are a piece of carp American, same for me and cons.

It’s not a game. So don’t screw around.

 

———-

That exactly right, Alan. She not NOT being nominated to vote with the conservative majority. She SUPPOSED to be nominated for her intellectual ability to bring the CONSTITUTION — with the 14th Amendment, a color-blind, non-racist document, halelluliah! — to bear on hard legal issues. But IN FACT, Obama has nominated her precisely because of her penchant for giving preference to black or brown skin tone. Yes, appoint her . . . because she has the intellectual and legal qualifications, and under law, the President has that raw power. But be aware, and beware, of what Obama has appointed: Raw judicial power. And to hell with the Constitution. See Ricci v. New Haven. Funny, true conservatives who act in good faith usually lose out on the raw power decisions. And you EricG, are thinking, “Yeah, yeah.”

Pizzaman

(Somehow he knows my mind before I‘ve read enough about Ricci v. New Haven to feel informed enough to comment. Very strange.)

————-

Um Cara Reply:
June 29th, 2009 at 1:24 pm

I think he has nominated her because she is an anti civil libertarian, nothing to do w/ ‘preference to black or brown skin tone’.

 

Pizzaman Reply:
June 29th, 2009 at 1:42 pm

You’re naive.

BlissfulConservative Reply:
June 29th, 2009 at 1:46 pm

I’ll agree with your first sentence UM, but I think a lot of her decisions would be based on skin color/socioeconomics.

Course that is my opinion.

Pizzaman Reply:
June 29th, 2009 at 2:25 pm

blissfulconservative:

Stand up! “That is my opinion,” my deeply creviced arse. Sotomayor has made a career out of skin color and national origin. I’m an American who “happens to be” hispanic, and I’m fed up with the condescension. “La Raza” = “the race.” This is a collective admission of special need. Well, I don’t need — and I emphatically REJECT — any benefits conferred because of liberal white guilt. “This isn’t about you,” you Anglo, EricG–style liberals. And it’s not about you either, brown skinned hispanics or blacks. It’s about what WE are as a people, and about our founding, our BINDING documents. Get that? “BINDING,” in more sense than one. WE, as one, are BOUND by this document. Want to reject it? Fine, then go fight the civil war all over again.

pizzaman

(I‘m ‘Anglo-style’ now. I feel judged based on the color of my skin!)

OK. As of 4:37 p.m., on 6/29/09, the uncontested fact is that a firefighter (aka “fireman”) was denied a promotion simply because he outscored all minority competitors: black, hispanic, Asian, Venusian, Venetian, Malthusian, and Carpathian. The 14th Amendment says: “No State shall . . . . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws [on ground of race].” Why does the conservative majority have to engage in a death struggle to uphold this premise, which follows so naturally from the eralier premise that :We hold these truths to be self-evident . . .”? Is it that we no longer believe in “self-evident” truths? Or a Creator? God help us if that’s the case. What saved Jews under Hitler? Raw American power? Or adherence to the idea that, under God’s Natural Law, we are equal? EricG: Would you contend that we are ignorant regarding God’s wish concerning Jews in concentration camps? Or the tortured in Darfur? Has false pride so fogged your internal compass that drops of condensation obscure your needle? Think straight. God gave you a mind. I don’t mean to pick on EricG or be mean to him, but he has set himself up as the enemy of natural reason, which flows from God. If not from God,then from EricG and the like-minded who deny all constants, except those like “don’t racially discriminate” or “don’t screw the planet.” But even in asserting these constants, EricG (aka modern liberal man) acknowledges a source of authority and truth greater than himself. Who might this be?

pizzaman

EricG Reply:
June 29th, 2009 at 5:16 pm

I see my name in there a lot.

You care to label yourself while your labeling me?

Are you a conservative? Are you a Christian?

How about an American?

Are you now, or have you ever associated with a communist?
“don’t mean to pick on EricG or be mean to him, but he has set himself up as the enemy of natural reason, which flows from God”

Well, your ‘good Christian’ self did just that and you will need to face up for what you’ve done.

The fact remains that we have freedom of religion in this country so whatever insane fundamentalism you are fitting yourself up for … you can’t touch me.

So chew on that for awhile. I have my views on God and Christ and you have yours and in the end you can’t tell me what to think or cause me any harm or stop me from spreading the TRUTH OF JESUS CHRIST in the face of your vicious lies designed to keep people in chains of misery and hate.

“EricG: Would you contend that we are ignorant regarding God’s wish concerning Jews in concentration camps?”

We didn’t go to war over the Jews in WWII.

I don’t see your point, at all. If we could know for certain exactly what “God’s wish” was at any given moment our lives would be infinitely easier.

If you want to accept all the words of the KJB as truth and solid then that’s your failing and not mine. You go right ahead worshiping Constantine and his apprentice.

“Think straight. God gave you a mind”

That’s not the problem. The problem is hate-monger and disgraces to humanity like yourself choose to promote idiocy and bigotry when others seek to fill the world with Christ’s love.

Glad to know you’re fighting me on this one.

Good to know I have people in my court.

“If not from God, then from EricG and the like-minded who deny all constant”

You are angering me by putting words in my mouth that I never said. Would you try not to lie so much about me? Please? It’s a simple request.

I never ‘denied all constants,’ show me where I did this.

Death is a constant. We all die. Time, gravity, etc.

I am trying not to degrade into name-calling and bitter comments but I’m not seeing a lot of Christian in anything you are saying. In fact I don’t even see any of God’s love in this very human posting of very biased views against me personally and liberals in general.

“acknowledges a source of authority and truth greater than himself. Who might this be?”

It’s God. It’s not my business to tell everyone else all the things of the world and everything I understand to be true. Supposedly we are supposed to learn things on our own without hand holding all the way through.

You all those who would attack someone for sharing a perspective on God other than fundamentalism are the ones who are ENEMIES OF REASON. The destroyers of Christ’s love in the streets and the followers of the hate-preachers who spread intolerance of gays and promote an end to religious freedom in the US.

Admit it. You hate this nation.

If it were another country you would never have to hear anything but the secularism of the state or the approved religion which sits just fine with you.

When you have to hear anything but your perfectly ARCANE and equally INSANE orthodoxy then you have to call some a ‘enemy of reason’ and ‘pick on them’ because it threatens everything you do to have people … question the idiocy of religion.

And yet pull away the greatest lessons. Thus making all the hate and BS you all drown yourselves in become nothing but a hollow shell which serves no purpose except to draw blood and feed Satan.

I will resist the swearing, and simply say:

Next time you want to pick on me come to my blog and say it to my face you coward.

Pizzaman = fascist pig

 –

Pizzaman = fascist pig

What Eric, no race card to follow.

– 

He is picking me out of the crowd and I can’t figure out why…

I retract that statement. I was pissed when typing that.

Are you going to retract some BS you posted?

Didn’t think so.

Typical conservative partisan-house unamerican bull from you guys … all day long.

 

Goliath Reply:
June 29th, 2009 at 5:48 pm

EricG

Take your meds please.. you’re really losing grasp on reality

 –

Whatever, you’re one more partisan loser who never once shown any respect to this nation or the liberals of the world.

You deserve all the anger and then some.

And all you conservatives are the ones losing your grip on reality.

I seem to remember debating if the recession even happened and if Bush was ever president or somethig like that the other day on here.

If anyone in America is living in a bubble of lies and falsehoods it would be the conservatives of America.

I shouldn’t care, that’s what my friends say.

they say you guys are fools who will never learn to be anything but fools.

I think more of you. But you don’t make it easy with the way you all treat me.

makes me think maybe I was wrong. Maybe you are all communist scum who deserve a bullet like some of my friends think…

 

wooo Eric, its not good to get that upset. Nothing personal here, but maybe you should stop listing to your friends talking about bullets.

They don’t believe in Christ or any of this side of my ‘bipartisan attempts’ so I can see where they are coming from, I guess.

But it’s insane. I’m the worst. I’ll be the first to say it. But I also see nothing to start with on the conservative side. No place I go send someone to hear a non-BS conservative perspective in politics.

People don’t believe something until they see it. If all you allow yourself to see is race and politics and religion you are missing the bigger picture.

But it’s all my opinion in the end. So I can state myself minus the name-calling and partisanship but who on the right will join me?

It’s a two-way street. When the other guy throws punches it’s hard to get anything done, it’s really that simple.

(There it is. Bickering about politics and my usual cry for sanity.)