Monday, December 06, 2004

True Patriot Returns!!!...........Part II.....

.....continued from our previous discussion here-

True Patriot, who believe it or not is actually a friend of mine here in Nashville, has continued our discussion from the previous post. I am posting them here so he can respond again in kind. I enjoy intellectual discourse, and have nothing personal against him, I just vehemently disagree with his political positions at this time. I'm glad he is responding and let's hope it stays civil...(fingers crossed)...

"Ah, yes. Using the word "liberal" as slander. You very well may not be a Republican but you'll make a swell one when you grow up."

So much for remaining civil. Oh well.

"(By the way, how is Ann Coulter's new book?)"

Don't know, I think she's an ass. If I were more like her, I wouldn't even bother with you. I'd just ban you from commenting on my site.

"Ever stop to wonder where the first two syllables of the word "libertarian" come from?"

Ever stop to wonder the profound difference between the two?

"(WARNING: PONDER AT YOUR OWN RISK If you realize the truth of this your universe may shatter around you.) Perhaps "Republitarian" would be more apt..."

Tell you what, read this article by PJ O'Rourke, it will help explain things better for you. No warnings necessary. How to Explain Conservatism to Your Squishy Liberal Friends: Individualism 'R' Us

"There is a man who has publicly announced his intentions to change of the the Constitution of United States of America. Yes. That's right. The Constitution. Why? Because this person believes that the issue of defining marriage should not be left up to the states or individuals but up to him."

You think gay marriage is more important than the struggle between democracy and religious freedom vs. fanatical ideology? Ok then...

"To use his words, "If we are to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever, our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in America". Who is this man? None other than #43. That's right. George Wanker Bush. "

George is wrong on this issue, in my opinion. I don't believe we need a constitutional amendment either for against Gay Marriage. They should be allowed the same rights as other couples, sans(without) amendments to the constitution. By the way, would you like me to list all of the DEMOCRATIC senators who AGREE with Bush? Including the former Democratic candidate? Didn't think so.

"If you feel such zeal to speak out against the muslim registered voters of Hamtramck you must-out-of-your-head-crazy-upset over this. What are we to do about the rape of one of this nations most sacred documents?"

Nothing. Because that's precisely what will happen. Nothing. You honestly think the congress will be able to enact a "Defense of Marriage" amendment to the US Constitution? You need to read more. Even George has about given up on it.

"(There is also talk that this man wishes to put a diabolical plan in motion to reverse the Roe v. Wade decision! Whatever do we do!?!) WHAT DOES THIS "WRITING ON THE WALL" SAY TO YOU?"

I don't see this happening, although I agree with you that it is troubling. I am pro-choice, and believe that the government has no business interfering with womens bodily rights. Fortunately, a majority of the country agrees with you and I. George can only appoint the Justices, he cannot make their decisions for them. I am not worried that he will pack the court with justices so that he will attempt to overturn Roe. V. Wade. A plurality of Reagan-Bush appointees, O'Connor, Kennedy, and David H. Souter, reaffirmed that the Constitution protects a right of abortion. Bush Junior did propose an amendment to the constitution that would ban third trimester abortions, but Courts are however consistently ruling that health requirements are necessary to consider the interests of the pregnant woman.

"Its nice to see you can differentiate between 'moderate' variety of muslim and the violent 'fundamentalist'. Maybe instead of using the word "muslim" interchangeably with "'kill you for making a bad movie about Islam' kind" you wouldn't sound so racist. Just a tip. This one's free of charge."

Here's a tip for you TP, Islam ISN'T A RACE. You may want to think about that before calling me a racist. And by the way, there are many people who are commited to KILLING PEOPLE WHO SPEAK ILL OF ISLAM, whether you believe it or not. Does Salman Rushdie ring a bell?

TP then commented on my post concerning the lack of outrage from Hollywood over the Murder of Theo Van Gogh, and the accompanying article from Pat Sajak.

"Let me get this straight:
A> Movie stars who speak out on political issues are bad."

No, anyone can say whatever they want about political issues. I get annoyed when movie stars use their status to lend unwarranted legitimacy to their comments. Sean Penn doesn't have a masters in International Law, so when he speaks out on the legality of the war on Iraq, I can call him an ill informed idiot. On my blog. Which all of twenty people read. Michael Moore lies blatantly in his films, and too many people swallow his bullshit hook line and sinker.

"B> Movie stars who don't speak out on political issues are bad."

No, I was annoyed when you didn't hear a peep out of hollywood about the Van Gogh murder. Can you imagine the boiled over outrage if some christian fundamentalist gunned down Michael Moore? Why isn't there the same outrage over Van Goghs death?

"C> Game show hosts who speak out in political issues are good."

I don't care if the person is a circus clown, if they write an article I think I want to post about, I will. The merit is in the article itself.

Thanks for visiting again TP! Stop by any time!

No comments: