Posting Towards Gomorrah

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I was waiting for your liberal Catholic ass to show up and chime in on the Benedict topic. I even said as much to Less over free Sapphire martinis.

Where were you the last 10 days, confession?

do you think he spends so much time in the confessional trying to rekindle what he and father had back in the altar boy days?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
You post this cat poop and yet you support oppressors who bbq children and sentence child to lives of political oppression in Gulags?

I suppose that is consistent with supporting a party which conspires with bitter hateful individuals to murder invalids without due process.

I couldn't give a rat's arse about TO, but that kind of hate for your fellow citisens is sad. Incredibly sad.

You've got it all wrong. I am not a Republican.

[SlaveNoMore]

Will these douchebags from CAIR ever shut up???

LATHRUP VILLAGE, Mich., Sept. 26 (UPI) — The U.S. Council on American-Islamic Relations has accused a Michigan congressman of using ‘polarizing’ language.

CAIR’s Michigan chapter said Tuesday its representatives wanted to meet with Rep. Thaddeus McCotter, R-MI, over what it called his use of “polarizing language” on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives.

CAIR said that McCotter had used the term “jihadist-fascist” while discussing U.S. policy in Iraq in a House debate. CAIR quoted the congressman as saying, “The crushing weight of putting Iraq back into the terrorist and the jihadist-fascist camp will have enormous ramifications. . .”

“Representative McCotter should use his time on the House floor to foster dialogue and mutual understanding, not to introduce hot-button terms that will further damage our nation’s image in the Islamic world,” said CAIR’s Michigan Executive Director Dawud Walid.

Walid said President George W. Bush had stopped using the term “Islamic fascist” after Muslims in America and around the world had protested that it was ill-defined and counterproductive in persuading people in the global conflict against terror.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Spanky
I thought these articles were interesting. I didn't realize that Hitchen's had it in for the Catholic Church. If you have a problem with something he said, why don't you explain it to us. Point out where the flaw in his logic is. General criticisms might be appropriate for the FB but not here.

Either pick a line of reasoning and dispute it or just shut the hell up.

I don't know much about his facts, but I do know the California clinic referred to was Scripps Hospital in San Diego circa 1993, and she went there because she happened to be in TJ when she got ill.

Whether someone made a decision for her, or whether she said, "Get me the hell out of this sticking cesspit and across the border!" or words to that effect, I do not know.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Spanky
Here is my opinion of the Catholic Church. From a practical point of view the Catholic Church is a force for good all over the world. It was very helpful in fighting communism and has played an extremely important role in defending human rights in Latin America. In fact, withithout the Catholic Church human rights abuses would have been and would be much worse everywhere in the world. The Catholic Church has also done much to pick up the slack created by our screwed up public schools across the nation.

The major negative influcence of the Catholic Church is its position on contraception. And unfortunately many people in Latin America follow the church teachings on this. Even worse has been the church's position effecting the spread of AIDS in Africa. That is a big negative but the positive definitely outweights the negative.

Many people I know, including lifelong Catholics in my own family, also oppose the Church's position on the role of women. That is probably a bigger net negative than you realize.

Oh, also there's the position on divorce. Many people don't like that.

Oh, then there was the whole "defend the child molester priests at any and all cost" thing, which cost them quite a few parishioners.

I'd redo the positive/negative balancing in light of these issues.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Paul Pillar - one of the signatories to this letter- appears to be the primary suspect in numerous leaks of classified information out of Langley, included the bogus NIE leak that just embarrassed the NYT the other day.

How was it bogus? Did the article say anything that was subsequently shown to be false, or just not what you like to hear?

[SlaveNoMore]

Sexual Harassment Panda
Many people I know, including lifelong Catholics in my own family, also oppose the Church's position on the role of women. That is probably a bigger net negative than you realize.

Oh, also there's the position on divorce. Many people don't like that.

Oh, then there was the whole "defend the child molester priests at any and all cost" thing, which cost them quite a few parishioners.

I'd redo the positive/negative balancing in light of these issues.

Actually, no.

Compare Islam

[SlaveNoMore]

Sexual Harassment Panda
How was it bogus? Did the article say anything that was subsequently shown to be false, or just not what you like to hear?

Which Article?

The NIE report? Which basically said nothing at all (proving the joke about CIA intelligence), but if it said anything, it sure as hell did not say what the NYTimes reported it said on Sunday.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Which Article?

The NIE report? Which basically said nothing at all (proving the joke about CIA intelligence), but if it said anything, it sure as hell did not say what the NYTimes reported it said on Sunday.

Cite, please. And why are you bashing the CIA? The NIE is prepared by 16 intelligence organizations.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

[Tyrone Slothrop]

This letter to Andrew Sullivan does a good job of fleshing out something I was saying a week or two ago:

• Real patriots will break the law for the greater good and proudly face the music for their actions. Sometimes we have to do things that are wrong, but making the wrong lawful cheapens the choice.
  
  The president and his crowd come from the top of corporate America where one can run a company into the ground and still get paid tens of million. Bush has no concept about self-sacrifice for the greater good. The army and CIA have always done things against the law but did it in the shadows. If they were caught, then they accepted their punishment. Oliver North made a choice. He broke the law and paid the price (sort of). This administration wants to take away that price. It is cheapening acts of patriotism. When an interrogator looks into a suspect's eyes, he should see a jury of his peers looking back and then he needs to make his choice.
  
  When Americans think of torture they think of Dirty Harry standing over a serial killer whose next victim is running out of air at a remote location. Americans think of Harry as a hero for doing everything he can to save the victim. But what most people fail to realize is the thing that makes Harry the hero is not the act of torture. It is the choice to torture given he will face consequences for his action. If the consequences are removed then Harry becomes a meter maid.
  
  Once the torture bill passes it won't take long before many, many more terror suspects will be tortured. A time will inevitably come when a detainee is found to contain some information that could have stopped a loss of life or property. At that time interrogators will have to account for not getting the information. Torture will become a cover-your-ass technique.
  
  This is a sad time for morality and accountability.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I was waiting for your liberal Catholic ass to show up and chime in on the Benedict topic. I even said as much to Less over free Sapphire martinis.

Where were you the last 10 days, confession?

It's the busy season around here.

I thought Benedict's overall discussion was intellectually interesting and worth discussing; it was also more subtle than anyone is giving him credit for. The mistake he made was forgetting that he is now Pope and every word out of his mouth has political as well as intellectual weight. Quoting an emperor who spent much of his life prodding the Pope to call out the crusaders to save his weak and decrepit Byzantine ass from the Muslims wasn't really a wise move. Manuel II Paleologus also wasn't particularly erudite, though I'm sure this particular Pope likes him because he and his son made the last serious effort at reconcilation of Orthodoxy and Catholicism (with the basic deal, of course, being we'll recognize the Pope as long as you let us keep our service and rituals and save us from the Ottomans).

Of course, the Islamic reaction to Benedict displayed an inability to read past the headlines. Yet another way in which fundamentalists on all sides seem to behave similarly.

Are you happy?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The army and CIA have always done things against the law but did it in the shadows. If they were caught, then they accepted their punishment.

and it was left in the shadows by the media. what has changed is the NYT et al wants to smear Bush by "exposing" this shadow work. Thus, no choice but to change the game.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
This letter to Andrew Sullivan does a good job of fleshing out something I was saying a week or two ago:

• Real patriots will break the law for the greater good and proudly face the music for their actions. Sometimes we have to do things that are wrong, but making the wrong lawful cheapens the choice.
  
  The president and his crowd come from the top of corporate America where one can run a company into the ground and still get paid tens of million. Bush has no concept about self-sacrifice for the greater good. The army and CIA have always done things against the law but did it in the shadows. If they were caught, then they accepted their punishment. Oliver North made a choice. He broke the law and paid the price (sort of). This administration wants to take away that price. It is cheapening acts of patriotism. When an interrogator looks into a suspect's eyes, he should see a jury of his peers looking back and then he needs to make his choice.
  
  When Americans think of torture they think of Dirty Harry standing over a serial killer whose next victim is running out of air at a remote location. Americans think of Harry as a hero for doing everything he can to save the victim. But what most people fail to realize is the thing that makes Harry the hero is not the act of torture. It is the choice to torture given he will face consequences for his action. If the consequences are removed then Harry becomes a meter maid.
  
  Once the torture bill passes it won't take long before many, many more terror suspects will be tortured. A time will inevitably come when a detainee is found to contain some information that could have stopped a loss of life or property. At that time interrogators will have to account for not getting the information. Torture will become a cover-your-ass technique.
  
  This is a sad time for morality and accountability.

It does a much better job of stating my case than I did, too.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

the gay activists are a branch of the extreme left- Dude you really need to be more careful of where you link as you surf through your regular bloggers.