AmericanPapist Comments
As James T. Kirk just said in "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan," "I don't believe in the no-win scenario" ... and "I laugh at the superior intellect."
Howzabout that?
Weak start for McCain. 1) He didn't answer the question. 2) He didn't show emotion.
Obama has a lot of nerve complaining about McCain's rallies when he has people going to his wearing t-shirts with Sarah Palin's face, with the word "c***" on them.
Obama's claim that someone said "Kill him" at the rally is categorically untrue. It's the media falsely reporting this in an attempt to portray McCain's supporters as evil.
McCain is doing a poor job in my opinion. Besides, did you know about this scandal? VERIZON AND ATT PROVIDED CELL TOWERS FOR MCCAIN RANCH... here: http://
voices.washingtonpost.com...ve_cell_to.html
the apologists for the terrorists in arthur strike again
"ROE VS. WADE PROBABLY HANGS IN THE BALANCE."
So speaks Barack Obama.
Pro-life pro-Obama-ites, are you listening?
Third-party quixotic voters, are you listening?
Thanks God McCain is embarrassing himself in the debate.
SDG, are you joking? Maybe u should join the Nazi party.
Your candidate just said that abortion should rest with the states, because he's a federalist.
That's your "pro-life" candidate?
Thom, the dumb ass nazi, i didn't say vote for mccain. stupid people
Roman, I wasn't reasponding to you. I was reacting to 1.) the debate, and 2.) the overall tone of this blog and its commenters. :-)
okay, but it sure came off as sounding that way.
Sorry.
thom, be specific next time ok?
Roman: WTH?
Thom: Abortion should rest with the states, at least as a first step. The first priority is blowing away the bogus juridical precedent(s) masquerading as law that establish a fictional "right to choose" on the national level. Then the countless state laws restricting abortion that have been struck down by the courts could go back into effect. Then at least we can begin to fight, instead of being hamstrung by unaccountable, unelected de facto legislators in black.
Sure, I would love to see national pro-life legislation, but first things first.
McCain was very clear - he stated - "I am prolife" and it does belong to the states.
=== comments after this point have been posted AFTER the debate concluded ===
He SAYS he's "pro-life," but he supports embryonic stem cell research. He voted for pro-choice Supreme Court justices. How's that pro-life, again?
If you believe it, I think you're being played!
Thom, would you a) say Obama is pro-life and b) say Obama is more pro-life than McCain?
Our choices are:
A) Radically pro-choice.
B) Meh pro-life.
C) Radically, unelectably pro-life.
Seems to me that, as Catholics, we have two morally valid options. And our duty, as I understand it, is not to sin. Beyond that, the consequences kind of belong to the author of all things. So if a Catholic votes for a *gasp!* pro-life candidate, but a pro-choice one wins, it doesn't mean that the Catholic has done anything wrong. It certainly doesn't mean that the Catholic somehow voted pro-choice by voting pro-life. If nothing else, the Catholic told the Meh party to stop meh-ssing around and get on the pro-life ball in 2012. Which is perfectly legitimate: taking the long view is what Christians are famous for, after all.
All of which is merely to say that McCain lost his own election, and my 3rd-party vote won't be electing Obama. McCain's inability to come out strong on this issue tonight (Of course there shouldn't be a litmus test--why should my principles matter in appointing judges?) will lose him the election. I'll be voting pro-life and letting God take care of the rest. It is, after all, what happens with all of my actions.
Thom, I think most people who are pro embrionic stem cell research simply do not see it as a human being; most people who are pro-abortion see it is as a human being, but say so what. Thus, their disorder is deeper.
"Economies ebb and flow, but the moral and cultural fabric is what sustains a nation throughout good times and bad."
economies=responsibility of government
moral fabric=responsibility of churches
cultural fabric=responsibility of artists
ann,
Moral, cultural, and economic issues are interrelated and should not be divided among Church, artists, and the government. That sort of thinking allows someone to say one thing while committing an heinous crime and washing your hands after the deed is done.
If that's how someone behaves he or she better not fool themselves into thinking God won't pick up on it when they are judged.
Catholics are expected to live their faith (and morals) in all aspects of their lives- art, economics, and government included.
actually the last two are also the responsibilities of government, inasmuch as they promote or impede the activity of churches and artists, respectively. artists are often state-sponsored and churches are often state-opposed.
So many of the commentators on television are saying, in essence, that McCain doesn't have the "flash" of Obama. WHO CARES???? So John McCain is not perfect?? What presidential candidate ever has been?? I prefer substance over "flash" any day. John McCain has proven that he is pro-life enough for me and he has my vote.
If McCain were leading by a ton of points, I'd probably vote 3rd party as a protest, but as it stands now, Obama is the most pro-abortion candidate in the history of the US, and I'll hold my nose and vote McCain to try to keep Captain Skewed Moral Compass from the highest office in the land.
Question on the abortion belonging to the states. Maybe I'm naive, but I don't think this at all - except for a temporary step after the repeal of Roe. Abortion is a human rights issue - it needs to be settled by a constitutional ammendment that recognizes all living biologically human organisms as persons with according rights. Having some states allow abortion and some some prohibit it may be an important and necessary first step after Roe is thrown into the garbage bin of history where it belongs, but it's no more acceptable a solution than having some states allow slavery and others prohibit it.
Unfortunately, I didn't hear most of the debate, being tied up with things of life, like dinner with my family.
Look, I want McCain to win. I really do. But he doesn't act as if he wants to win. Or if he does, he's exercising exceedingly poor judgment as to how to go about doing it.
What I did hear was McCain saying, "Golly folks, you might as well vote for Obama." He could have really hammered Obama's dishonesty on BAIPA but he didn't. He could have colored Obama's other policies as being tainted as to where they come from and why he holds them, as being from the same extreme mind that is in denial of the scientific facts of human life for crass political gain.
"He is in denial of the scientific facts of when life begins! Do you trust him to know the scientific facts about the economy, global warming, and so on? Or is he picking and choosing his 'truth' for base political gain on these issues, too?"
My God, McCain had soooooo many opportunities.
He had nothing to lose.
Now, my concern here is strategic. My lamentation is how effective he was at giving people a reason to change their minds to him. He did NOTHING, at least nothing really effective, ordered to that end. I'm exceedingly disappointed.
He didn't dislodge Obama from his talking points and didn't drive home the important issues. Therefore, he failed utterly. The differences between him and Obama on the war, the economy, education, and everything else, are matters of differences of prudential judgment, and anyone can easily side one way or the other.
If you live in a swing state, it seems prudent like one commenter said to "hold your nose and vote for McCain." I certainly would. Otherwise, I don't blame you for voting for anyone else on the planet earth except for Obama and his ilk.
Doc Angelicus:
Hmm. You didn't watch/hear most of the debate but you sure have a lot of opinion on that which you know little.
Telling.
Let me ask you something. You say that you don't blame anyone (yourself?) for not voting for McCain so long as they don't vote for Obama.
Does it bother you in the least that:
1. The MSM is so biased and in the tank for Obama that they propagate lies and distortion to help Obama win?
2. Obama's supporters resort to vandalism, voter registration fraud, and intimidation to help Obama win?
3. Obama himself has employed a "Truth Squad" which threatens the First Amendment rights of those who criticize him in order to help Obama win?
4. Obama's supporters resort to vicious lies, smears, and attacks on Sarah Palin's FAMILY and Downs Syndrome baby Trig to discredit her and help Obama win?
5. Obama's supporters call any criticism of their candidate "racist" to help Obama win?
6. Obama's associations with felon Tony Rezko, unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers, and Muslim activist al Mansour is glossed over in order to help Obama win?
I can go on and on and on. However, it appalls me that you are so morally blind that you see nothing wrong with assisting Obama win by cavalierly encouraging others to vote for candidates who have a snowball's chance in hell of winning while there is only one candidate who can stop this man from winning the White House.
Are you so morally obtuse that you see no reason to fight a campaign so fraught with Third World corruption that you would rather see this country go to hell?
Why?
Atheling, you're a fool, you really are. You're in way over your head buddy, and you're pretty arrogant about it. There's not enough space in this combox to point out the flaws in your logic, your false accusations, and, oh yeah, your own moral obtuseness.
Not with respect to Obama, since you're right about him. But with respect to moral reasoning, you're as inept at that as McCain is at debating on abortion.
You can be proud of that if you want. McCain da man, after all.
I don't take exception to most of McCain's positions.
I take exception at his ineptitude as a candidate, he's clumsiness and strategic goofiness at convincing people to vote for him. And whether you're intellectually capable of seeing it or not, that is at least as important as his positions on issues.
The ability to rally people to your side, to inspire them of the rightness of your cause, is a key leadership skill. And one McCain clearly lacks. He can't even inspire people to the wrongness of his rival.
Really--is it McCain who inspired you against Obama, Atheling? Or is it Obama that has inspired you for McCain? You haven't yet argued FOR him, but only AGAINST Obama.
And say what you want, utter all kind of calumny against me as you wish: Neither McCain's ineptitude nor his losing votes on account of it is my fault.
So, you're saying that it's all about the package, and not the substance.
And you call me the fool?
BTW, Doc, if anyone's an arrogant ass, it's you.
You come here in all your pompous glory, and commence to bloviate about the debate which you did not even watch!
If that's not the definition of arrogance, nothing is!
Who the hell cares what you think about something for which you know nothing?
So far, your posts have been nothing but McCain bashing - nothing constructive, nothing uplifting, nothing informative. Just sheer bashing.
And it's tiresome. If that's what you want to do, then head over to the Daily Kos or HuffPo, you'll fit in quite nicely, rudeness included.
Look, I am exceedingly frustrated that the Republicans are losing this election. And I am trying to understand this phenomenon.
And I'm thinking that the candidate is somehow to blame for missing golden opportunities.
Someone's gonna ask when it's all over, "What went wrong?" And rational minds won't answer "Doc Angelicus and his kind poisoned the comboxes of the planet and heinously swayed the fragile minds of the wavering to do something evil."
And if it makes me a morally obtuse, arrogant, liberal-in-disguise, name-calling, tiresome, McCain-bashing jerk for pointing it out and upsetting the good guys, so be it.
Michael Gerson, a former speechwriter for W., had an excellent column yesterday in the Washington Post about how McCain's down in the polls through no fault of his own, but is rather the effect of events beyond his control. I wouldn't envy any Republican who's trying to win the presidency after the past four years--Katrina, a war that's costing $10B a day (not to mention the backward slide in Afghanistan), and now a financial meltdown that is blamed on the executive in power, regardless of who is truly responsible. And let's remember that McCain was virtually tied until the economic mess broke, so it would be a bit of revisionist history to say that he was struggling to attract support. As a supporter of McCain's ever since he ran for the nomination in 2000, I'm disappointed to see the writing on the wall, although a lot can happen in three weeks.
If you wish to read Gerson's column:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/
wp...8101402563.html
"Economies ebb and flow, but the moral and cultural fabric is what sustains a nation throughout good times and bad."
Poetic.
Nathan, I have to correct you on something: Irag is costing 2-3 Billion a day. :-(
Is that right? At the moment, I can't recall where I saw the figure of $10B/day. I want to say my favorite foreign policy expert said $10B/day in a column. Regardless, I appreciate the correction!
"Economies ebb and flow, but the moral and cultural fabric is what sustains a nation throughout good times and bad."
Poetic.
Very true, but Poetry does not pay the bills.
Still voting for Obama
"Very true, but Poetry does not pay the bills."
Right. Living people do. 50 million of whom abortionists have prevented from ever entering the workforce.
Still not voting for Obama.
Commenting by HaloScan
