How large is the audience that believes this garbage? This Godwin-baiting meme of Hitler as a leftist is would be merely silly if it were not so sinister.
Claiming that the left is the source of political violence does not make it so. A quick review of history reveals the ignorance of this assertion. People are not motivated to violence by democratic collectivists. They are motivated to violence by authoritarian leaders who harness nationalistic and religious memes to further their own political power.
The characterization of Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot and Castro as somehow representing democratic socialism only demonstrates the ignorance of the author.
Showing posts with label bias. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bias. Show all posts
Monday, July 20, 2009
Friday, July 17, 2009
Abortion is health care! PJM Exclusive!
It’s pretty clear the author does not understand the principles he espouses.
If you really think that health care decisions should be made by the doctor and patient, covering abortion seems pretty logical. Are you sure that you believe that placing “bureaucrats in Washington in charge of your health care options” is not what you are advocating?
It also seems the author doesn’t understand that taxes are not apportioned according to taxpayer earmarks.
I am an American morally opposed to pointless foreign wars – but I continue to pay my taxes because I understand that it is the legislative process that makes changes in policy – not petulance. Abortions should not be treated differently from other medical procedures. Coverage that does not include abortion is deficient – a specific exclusion is simply bad medicine. If you don’t want to pay taxes, that’s your call. But compromising reproductive health care for political purposes is, in the author’s own words, “wrong”. Leave the health care decisions to the doctor and patient.
Government-owned health care will place bureaucrats in Washington in charge of your health care options. This is wrong. Health care decisions must be made by you and your doctor.
If you really think that health care decisions should be made by the doctor and patient, covering abortion seems pretty logical. Are you sure that you believe that placing “bureaucrats in Washington in charge of your health care options” is not what you are advocating?
It also seems the author doesn’t understand that taxes are not apportioned according to taxpayer earmarks.
Americans who are morally opposed to abortion should not have to pay for abortions with their tax dollars against their will.
I am an American morally opposed to pointless foreign wars – but I continue to pay my taxes because I understand that it is the legislative process that makes changes in policy – not petulance. Abortions should not be treated differently from other medical procedures. Coverage that does not include abortion is deficient – a specific exclusion is simply bad medicine. If you don’t want to pay taxes, that’s your call. But compromising reproductive health care for political purposes is, in the author’s own words, “wrong”. Leave the health care decisions to the doctor and patient.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Banning Burqas is Bad
So now, instead of a war on terror, we should start a war on Islamic fashion?
Is this really the current thinking in the shallow end of the pool?
This is an issue of the most fundamental freedoms guaranteed in our Constitution. Banning the garb of a specific religious sect with no rational justification is a frontal attack on civil liberties.
I believe each and every person on the planet should have the right to choose what they want to wear - or not to wear. Banning the burqa is not the answer.
Religious garb should not be subject to discriminatory laws. If you don’t like the burqa, don’t wear one. But grow up and face the fact that some do choose it, and show some respect for that choice.
Is this really the current thinking in the shallow end of the pool?
This is an issue of the most fundamental freedoms guaranteed in our Constitution. Banning the garb of a specific religious sect with no rational justification is a frontal attack on civil liberties.
I believe each and every person on the planet should have the right to choose what they want to wear - or not to wear. Banning the burqa is not the answer.
Religious garb should not be subject to discriminatory laws. If you don’t like the burqa, don’t wear one. But grow up and face the fact that some do choose it, and show some respect for that choice.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Tea Party Cancellation
This is just a simple case of a business owner defending his interests. Simon apparently has a legal right to refuse access to this property, and that right trumps the protest.
The Tea Party should be held on property that belongs to the public. The irony would only be too delicious.
The Tea Party should be held on property that belongs to the public. The irony would only be too delicious.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Media Bias? Oh, yes there is...
There is not a double standard, despite continued protests from the fringe such as this.
The murder of Doctor Tiller was political terror, committed by a known activist from the Pro-life movement. Doctor Tiller himself was, as you say “notorious” - in other words, a public figure. His killing was an assassination. That’s a far cry from the essentially random violence against non-specific military recruiters. Tiller was living under threat - the recruiters not so much.
One act was, as Obama stated, heinous - attacking a well known advocate for women’s rights, a peaceful physician, who had been attacked before, at his church, with the specific intent of stopping his medical care for patients. The other was senseless - attacking military recruiters without a clear reason or a cause.
I understand it is fun to claim media bias in this type of situation - but our soldiers are dying every day in Iraq and Afghanistan. Military deaths at home are an extension of the same conflict. Doctor Tiller’s death is significantly more newsworthy, and rightly so.
The only double standard here is the presumption that all Muslims deserve to be tarred with the broad brush of terrorism, while Christians who engage in violence are qualified as “extremist”. Some consistency on this point would be welcome. If Long’s killer is a “follower of Allah”, isn’t Roeder a “follower of Christ”? References made in this article to Roeder’s religion are qualified, but Long’s [killer's] religion is not accorded the same respect. Why the double standard?
Terrorism is no less real when it is perpetrated by the right wing at home. Make no mistake - both acts of violence are the result of fundamentalist religious extremism, perpetrated by followers of a jealous “God”. Whether they carry a cross or a crescent matters not to the victims.
The murder of Doctor Tiller was political terror, committed by a known activist from the Pro-life movement. Doctor Tiller himself was, as you say “notorious” - in other words, a public figure. His killing was an assassination. That’s a far cry from the essentially random violence against non-specific military recruiters. Tiller was living under threat - the recruiters not so much.
One act was, as Obama stated, heinous - attacking a well known advocate for women’s rights, a peaceful physician, who had been attacked before, at his church, with the specific intent of stopping his medical care for patients. The other was senseless - attacking military recruiters without a clear reason or a cause.
I understand it is fun to claim media bias in this type of situation - but our soldiers are dying every day in Iraq and Afghanistan. Military deaths at home are an extension of the same conflict. Doctor Tiller’s death is significantly more newsworthy, and rightly so.
The only double standard here is the presumption that all Muslims deserve to be tarred with the broad brush of terrorism, while Christians who engage in violence are qualified as “extremist”. Some consistency on this point would be welcome. If Long’s killer is a “follower of Allah”, isn’t Roeder a “follower of Christ”? References made in this article to Roeder’s religion are qualified, but Long’s [killer's] religion is not accorded the same respect. Why the double standard?
Terrorism is no less real when it is perpetrated by the right wing at home. Make no mistake - both acts of violence are the result of fundamentalist religious extremism, perpetrated by followers of a jealous “God”. Whether they carry a cross or a crescent matters not to the victims.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
