The VP Debate

I do not have much time to comment as I’ve got a novel, a novella, a short story, and a novella worth of RPG material that need to be done by the end of the year, but I’ve got to comment on the VP Debate.

Overall, the polls are interesting and match what I’ve heard from people. If you were watching on TV, you thought Biden looked like a rude, weird, jackass. If you were listening on the radio you thought it was about even. If you just read the transcripts then you think Ryan lost.

Which is interesting, and it is sort of like what happened to Kennedy/Nixon.

If you didn’t watch it, Biden’s mannerisms were just plain odd. I could see what his strategy was, just laugh, and grin, and act like every single thing Ryan said was the craziest thing you’ve ever heard. That was probably how Axelrod coached him. (typical liberal tactic there, if you can’t respond with facts, just dismiss your opponent because they are stupid/racist/lying/ugly/a bad novelist/defense contractor, but you get the idea).

Problem was, in typical Biden fashion, Joe went way overboard into creepy, drunk uncle you avoid at family gatherings territory. Biden interupted Ryan 82 times in 90 minutes, so keeping in mind that Ryan is only talking about half of that, Biden was interupting Ryan a couple times a minute. That has never actually happened before in any American presidential level debate since they’ve been televised. Strategically I can see this appealing to the democrat base after Obama’s dismal wuss performance last week, but he just looked like a bully to everybody in the middle, and for the folks on my side, well, Joe is Joe, so nothing really surprises us with him.

Now, as to the actual topics of debate. Ryan managed to stay on message and looked coherent and sober. Biden laughed during parts that even if that was Axelrod’s strategy, he really shouldn’t have laughed through. “We’ve got four dead Americans–” BWA HA HA HA! “Nuclear war is a real possib–” HAR HAR snicker SNORT!

I live Tweeted during the debate, so let me pull those up and expound on my thoughts at the time:

Joe Biden just said that Iran is far from getting a nuke and they aren’t really a threat… Wow.

So Joe Biden, you are saying Iran is totally incapable of 1940s level machining to make a nuke?

To elaborate, getting the materials is the hard, time consuming part. Building the actual device to detonate them is the easy part. So Joe admitted that Iran has the fissile materials to make five bombs, yet we’re not worried, because they haven’t built the actual bomb…

Okay, remember the Manhattan Project? The hard part was making the stuff that could go boom. Making it actually go boom was still a challenge, but it was an engineering challenge, and the only reason it was so hard for us at the time was because nobody had ever done it before.

I’ve got some friends who work in the Really Big Freaking Bomb business. Basically, to build the most simple type of nuke, if provided with the materials, and working off of the designs that have been out there since the 40s, a modern machine shop could easily do it. Machining technology has gotten so much better since then that it is ridiculous. But don’t worry, because I’m sure nobody in Iran has a CNC machine.  According to these guys, the actual construction could be done rather easily, and extremely quickly.

But keep in mind, this was the same section where Biden says that the Whitehouse totally didn’t know the facts about Libya, and reported that it was all the fault of a stupid Youtube video, including saying that before the UN general assembly, (even though Matt Drudge and everybody with an internet connection knew what had happened within 24 hours). So the same Whitehouse that wasn’t informed on what actually happened in Libya, wasn’t informed that the ambassador had asked for more security 200 times, and never heard from their DoJ about Fast & Furious, will like totally know the second somebody in Iran turns on a CNC machine… Gotcha.

Biden keeps on grinning and looking smug. Ryan looks serious. Biden is still doing better than Obama.

Pretty much.

So the democrats came out as wimps in the first one, and then overcompensated and went full bully in the second. If Obama could find a happy middle, he might do fine in the next one.

Holy crap, Chuckles, chill out on the sex offender grin. I wouldn’t buy a used car from Joe Biden.

By this point Joe had gone full on into crazy, leering, weirding out mode. Because yes America, should anything happen to Barack Obama, this is the man that will be representing us… Sleep well.

I’m an accountant. Everything Joe Biden just said about taxes and business just made blood shoot from my eyes.

If you couldn’t hear any of Biden’s answers during the tax/budget portion, that was because every single CPA in America was standing up and screaming at their televisions.  It was frankly nuts. Social Security is fine. Medicare is fine. Everything is fine. The jobs numbers aren’t rigged! Look how awesome we are doing! The stock market is doing great, unless you want to allow younger people to put their personal SS in the stock market, then the stock market is stupid and lame! We inherited the worst mess EVAR! Democrat congress? I do not know what these words mean! We’re doing awesome, so awesome in fact that we don’t need to pass budgets for four years! Budgets are for chumps.

Wow… Just wow.

You know what? Here is a list of 670 economists from universites all over the country that agree with me and think Obama’s fiscal polices are lame, including 5 Nobel Prize winners, for economics, not the lame ass Peace Prize which has been given to Yassir Arafat (for not killing anyone lately), Al Gore (for making a fortune scamming people about the weather), Barack Obama (for getting elected and stuff), and now Europe (for being a continent).

http://economistsforromney.com/  (and two of my former professors are on the list. Go Aggies!)

Oh, and by the way, the fact checkers, even the liberal ones all had to admit that the numbers Ryan threw out actually did come from the Obama admin’s own actuaries.

There was a bit here where I think Ryan could have answered better (if he hadn’t gotten interupted literally seven times in one minute). Yes. Ryan, as a representative of Wisconsin, asked for federal funds from a federal program. People in Wisconsin send money to Washington. Washington then screws with it, makes up crap, and sends some of the money back. It is a congressman’s JOB to get that money back for his people. That is their tax dollars. You can fight a program and think a program is stupid, but once the program is in place, and they are funding it with YOUR money, you are an idiot to not try and get some of it back.

How about this? Instead of taking money from people against their will, running it through the hyper efficient federal government, then forcing them to scramble and fight to get some of it back, we just let people keep more of their money in the first place? CRAZY TALK, I know.

Did Joe Biden just slip up and say that we have “training” in Syria? Did he just admit to SF boots on the ground?

Not that this administration doesn’t leak like a sieve or anything anyway, but I thought that blunder was particularly interesting. For those of you not familiar with how it works, if there is a country with a war going on, and there are Americans there “training” that means Special Forces A Teams. I’ve got a lot of friends from this community. I’m sure they appreciate getting sold out like that.

On a related note, it turns out that I know some of the men that have been stationed in Libya. The guy testifying before Congress this week, Lt. Colonel Wood is a good man. He replaced a friend of mine as battalion commander of our local SF unit, (Edit, I just realized I skipped a commander in between) and I know a lot of the guys that worked for him, and went to war under his command. I never met any of his men that didn’t respect Lt. Colonel Wood, and if you want to know how good an officer is, just listen to what the guys that work for him have to say about his character. So if Wood is saying that they asked for help, they knew they were in danger, they knew there were imminent threats, there’d been other attacks againt diplomats, and they could even name them, but State told them to pound sand, you can take that to the bank.

But that’s okay, because the President totally didn’t know… It was all the fault of this YouTube video…

This moderator has surprised me with her badassitude.

To clarify, I do think she was biased toward the democrats, and she let Biden run wild. (but to be fair, who can possibly restrain the majesty of a wild Biden in its natural habitat?) However, she did ask very difficult questions, and did not let anyone off the hook. So overall, all things considered, much better than I expected.

Biden: “Let me make this absolutely clear… I am a shitty Catholic”.

This was from the abortion portion. Basically, Biden said he’s a staunch Catholic and believes Catholic doctrine, and life begins at conception, but he’s pro abortion because he doesn’t want to force his beliefs on anyone…

Let’s think about this for a moment. You’re saying that you personally believe that a fetus is a person, but killing them is okay, because you don’t want to be pushy… No. That would be condoning murder for political expediency.

Let me clarify further. Let’s take religion out of the question entirely for a moment. You don’t need to be religious to have a moral code. Quite the contrary. I know many atheists that have strong moral codes, and across the board they can agree that murdering human beings is usually a bad thing. The question for these people then becomes one of, when does a person become a person?

So, Biden said that he believes a fetus is a person but it is fine to kill them…

How is that possibly okay?

The modern abortion debate is simply early 1900s eugenics tied up with a pretty bow labeled “woman’s rights.” Eugencis are all about rating humanity on an arbitrary scale of usefullness, and then manipulating it accordingly.

The fetus is a person because if you leave it alone and let it do its thing it is going to be born and assume legal personhood by every possible definiton. But then you get the whole liberal argument of babies are a parasite! (actually, no, they do not meet the scientific definition of parastie, but let’s run with this anyway for a minute). Basically this is a eugenics based argument, that since a fetus is not self sustaining, then it is okay to kill it. (I even had one person say that a fetus was only “scientifically alive” the same way fire was alive! Uh… sure, except for that whole cell division and ability to pass on DNA parts, but whatever lets you sleep at night)

By the logical extension of the parasite argument, then we should be able to kill babies up until the age of about two or three because they aren’t self sustaining either, and without someone to care for them they will die. This same argument has been used by every totalitarian that has ever committed mass murder, just the sliding scale of what defines acceptable humanity changes.

Hell, using their own argument, since many liberals are parasites and unable to sustain themselves without aid their entire lives… But there I go again with my whole right wing hatemongery. See, sliding scale of morality. It’s awesome.

So where Biden’s defenders are saying “look how tolerant he is!” I see a man who is a coward who sold out his own moral convictions to play politics.

Also during this portion, Ryan clearly articulated a fairly standard republican position, in that abortions should be allowable in the case of rape, incest, and if the mother’s life is in danger. You will note that 2 of those 3 are the sorts of things that would normally be done right away, and the element of personal choice and accountability was stolen from the individual. Despite all of the crap about the War on Women, which is basically a media fever dream, the majority of republicans aren’t a bunch of Sharia Law fanatics.

Depending on which statistics you use, rape, incest, and danger to the mother abortions make up between 1-4% of the total of all abortions. So 96-99% of abortions are basically retroactive birth control, where you kill somebody because they are inconvenient.

When a wise man has a controversy with a foolish man, the foolish man either rages or laughs and there is no rest.” – Proverbs 29:9 

That was actually a retweet from Adam Baldwin, but pretty much nails the vibe of the whole debate.

50 Responses

  1. Don’t forget Joe Biden’s geographical flub concerning the size of Libya in relation to Syria. http://mommylife.net/archives/2012/10/12/biden%20debate%20lie.jpg

    • I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt, perhaps he was referring to size of population:
      Syria 22.5M
      Libya 5.6M
      (figures from Wikipedia)

      But even if that’s the case, that doesn’t make it a good reason.

  2. Also, if we’re going to talk about “scientifically alive” I should point out that science HAS no definition of life. Ask a scientist: she’ll tell you that there is no satisfactory group of criteria for defining what is alive and what is not, and no scientist has ever been able to prove otherwise.

    God did not give any of us the right to judge the worth of others. And I must point out that even children born of rape and incest can have a future worth living for. Who are we to say that their lives are worth less than our own present convenience? And who are we to say they are not alive at all? Every abortion requires superhuman arrogance from those who commit it.

    • I’m not going to get into that. How about we concentrate on the 96% that are crap first?

      • He’s got a point though. If you believe that a fetus is a person, why is it morally acceptable to kill the ones who are conceived via rape and incest? This is why the “rape-incest-mother’s life” argument seems disingenuous to me. Either there are situations in which concern for the mother’s physical, mental, or emotional well-being justify an abortion (in which case it’d be difficult to make the argument that those are the only three situations which qualify), or every abortion is a murder and therefore presumably unjustifiable.

        I am pro-choice, but I find the “no abortions, ever” position to be more ideologically and logically consistent than “mostly no abortions, usually.”

        Of course, the most practical way to prevent abortion is to provide free or low-cost birth control and make it widely and easily available; a long-term, broad study was recently done on this (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/12/us-birth-abortion-idUSBRE89B18Q20121012). Preventing a pregnancy in the first place means no abortion AND no unintended child.

      • I’m into that, as someone who finds abortion personally abhorrent, but also prefers to keep the government out of it. (Short position: Yes, abortion is quite probably the killing of a human, but forcing a woman who does not wish to bear one to term is no less enslavement of a person than would be sending a welfare recipient to your house and demanding at gunpoint that you personally support them, with the added caveat that pregnancy is hardly risk-free, and generally way less personally inconveniencing than the pregnancy process it. Please note, this is the “short position”, without much nuance, and Larry probably *really* doesn’t want to host yet another mostly pointless abortion debate, I’m just stating *my* position.)

        So–and I know that in general, LDS aren’t nearly as opposed to birth control as other sects of christianity are–let’s cut down on the numbers of abortions by making birth control vastly more accessable. The expensive part of birth control pills isn’t the pharmacy cost of the medication itself, it’s the required doctor’s visit beforehand. The hard part of acquiring chemical birth control for teenagers is the parental involvement requirements. Yes, it’s definitely *way* better if you can talk to your daughters about sex before they get there. But a young lady who can’t get a norplant or a ortho tri-cyclin scrip isn’t going to not have sex, she’s just going to not have chemically moderated sex.

        So get the government as far out of the way as possible from women recieving birth control, and let parents take the responsibility of educating their children in the morals they wish to inculcate.

        I will even, in a fit of vast hypocrisy for my expounded political views (Market Anarchist, for those new to the Larry Correia show) advocate that tax money be used to make chemical birth control–especially more foolproof variants, like norplant–available to teenagers and poor people. Much like PBS, compared to the cost of, say, the Department of Education and public schools, or the Department of Welfare (or whatever the fuck they’re called), the cost of such would be a drop in the bucket, especially in the quantities the fedgov could command. And given that we’re talking about trying to prevent what a good number of people see as actual murder, that seems pretty worthwhile. If Anarchotopia (or even just the Freehold) happened, and there was suddenly no regulation about provision, I would contribute my own dollars to a fund to provide such medication to basically anyone who wanted it.

        Damn, I’m longwinded.

      • Nick: It depends on a view about culpability. As I say in my post, I am opposed to government interference with abortion because I dislike enslaving a woman for 9 months to force her to support another human inside of her, the same way I am opposed to forcing people to support welfare recipients. (If they *want* to, more power to them.)

        So, if one imagines that the act of willingly having sex counts as actually *agreeing* to carry said potential consequence fetus to term, (which is not a completely unreasonable position), that willingness and agreement is not present in the case of rape, (or incest, which is often rape).

      • I understand what you’re saying. If we can take care of the 96% first, then we will be able to discuss the 4% afterwards.

        However, I am not convinced that it is that easy. These two subjects don’t separate naturally. When one is spoken of, the other one always seems to enter the conversation. Both pro-death and pro-life groups will not set aside the 4% so they can talk about the 96%, and I dare say you will never get rid of one unless you get rid of the other at the same time.

      • perlhaqr: I understand your point, but it still seems that basing it off of the mother’s choice doesn’t remove culpability for what would be considered murder under that set of morals. Either the fetus is a person, or it’s not; either killing it is murder, or it’s not. It seems rather binary to me.

        That said, I generally agree with your stance here, albeit for somewhat different ideological bases; I’m just playing devil’s advocate because I’ve always struggled with the logic behind “abortion is murder and should be illegal, unless we’re murdering the children of rape victims.”

      • Nick: I suppose it depends on whether one always considers killing to be “murder”. Since most (if not all) jurisdictions in the US have a place in the law for “justified homicide” and (I am definitely not a lawyer) “killing in self-defence”, I think it can be safely said that most people will agree that there is not a 100% congruence there.

        Now, it may be that the people who are most against abortion do always consider abortion to be murder (which is likely the position of the Catholic Church), but I’m approaching it from a way more atheistic / anarchistic individual autonomy perspective. Under which philosophy, there is definitely room to at least consider the prospect that where it might constitute murder to abort a fetus that was “given permission” to occupy the mother, it might also instead be a killing which is an exceedingly unfortunate consequence of evicting a fetus who is (radically abusing the terminology, this is just an analogy, don’t take it too literally) effectively trespassing, having been implanted during a rape. Effectively, the fetus was not given permission to be on the property.

        It’s certainly not a perfect analogy, and I’m definitely not saying I’m right, it’s a hard, shitty topic with very few good answers. But it is pretty much how I think about the situation, at this point in my life. After thinking about it more, I may change my mind later.

        All of which pretty much cycles back to “We most probably should not ban abortion, but let’s do what we can to reduce the number of them via vigorous promotion of contraception.”

      • Just a quick note for those advocating providing chemicals to muck with a woman’s reproductive cycle: look at the statistics regarding undesirable side effects from those drugs, including strokes, heart attacks and increased risk of breast cancer. Not to mention the environmental hazards of all that estrogen being pissed into the water supplies. If Big Pharma were selling such a toxic product in any other venue, the clowns screaming for government subsidization of BP would be demanding heads.

        Also, reports of effectiveness of chemical birth control typically conflate demographic and socio-economic groups in such way as to artificially enhance the effectiveness of the pills.

  3. I think you might have missed where Biden claims to have voted against 2 wars that he actually voted for…

  4. As to abortion, since we’re in a contest where our opponents will treat us in precisely the same fashion as the Khmer Rouge, or Stalin’s thugs…

    I’m totally in favor of the left killing off their own young. I’m even in favor of it being taxpayer supported. If you check up on the Freakonomics work on it, it boils down to:
    1. A woman won’t kill off her own offspring without what she considers a very good reason.
    1a. The mother might be defective
    1b. The child might be defective
    1c. The mother knows the upbringing for the child will be bad.

    In all three lettered cases, the child will be ‘at risk’. It should be no surprise that letting these abortions happen has caused a marked decrease in crime, which is completely trackable through the age groups since the Roe vs Wade decision.

    In summary, liberals killing off their own young has created a better society by disporportionately killing off criminals before they are born.

    It’s inarguable that a bad childhood can and does steer people to a life of crime. These people also tend to vote democrat.

    Yes, abortion is murder of a defenseless human baby. And I’m ok with it, and support free abortions with my tax dollars, as it’s cheaper than the damage to society, and welfare payments.

    The best part is the libs are doing it to their own people.

    Yes, we’re probably allowing the abortion of a Beethoven or two. On the other hand, we’re also allowing the pre-birth murder of thousands of Obamas. So it’s totally worth it.

    For those who cling to the “you never know…” I recommend they spend that optimism on buying lottery tickets.

    It’s harsh, but I’m not killing anybody. I’m letting thugs, rapists and murderers die by their own mother’s hand.

  5. Can we just list what Biden said that was truthful? I mean, geez. Gotta be a shorter list. Ans this guy is second in line for the big red button? That’s a BFD.

    Also, Drove by DeSoto caverns on my way to Anniston, AL yesterday. All I could think of was the first battle for humanity…

  6. If you use U-235 instead of plutonium, a nuclear weapon is Victorian era technology.

    Russian tac-nukes consisted of a a small short blackpowder ( literally! ) cannon firing a wedge of U-235 into a larger sphere of the same material.

    Which is why STUXNET was targeted at centrifuge controllers in Iran, and why Mossad has been assassinating scientists and techs involved in Uranium enrichment.

  7. Larry, the abortion crap is killing the GOP. It’s legal in almost if not every civilized country, it’s a fact, and per our current scientific knowledge, a fetus is not viable until about 20 weeks in.

    In that regard, Europe is actually a bit more restrictive than the US, and a useful argument that “This is how they do it in Europe” could be hurled at the left and leave them sputtering.

    But it’s legal, it’s a fact, and SCOTUS says so. Your side lost that fight. Move on.

    Because this race is really close, and if 0 wins, there’s a very good chance it’s because a major religion attempted to impose its beliefs on others, against established legal, medical and scientific doctrine.

    You’d object if it was the Muslims doing it. Others object when the Christians do it.

    How bad is it? Well, you had a perfectly cogent argument I could toss at neolibs, right up to the point where you went off the rails. As it is, I can only go, “Right on! Well, except for that crap.”

    Yup. Being blunt. Your religion is your business. I don’t stop vegetarians from not killing animals. I don’t stop anti-choicers from not aborting fetuses. I expect the reverse respect in return.

    And I will laugh long and loud, and cry in rage, if Zer0 wins because of this crap.

    • There’s a strong heartbeat at 10 weeks. At least 10 weeks. I only know that particular time-frame from personal experience. It’s a pretty powerful thing.

    • Perhaps you would like the government to stop enforcing “Thou shalt not steal” and “Thou shalt not kill?” too. Those were religious laws long before the U.S. was founded (and yes, some religions today don’t believe in them–should we force members of those religions to adhere to these laws, then?).

      Also, some religions prohibit the use of tobacco. Would you say, then, that all the clean-air laws in every state are actually religious laws? Should such laws be repealed (or ruled unconstitutional) because they happen to coincide with a certain group’s religious beliefs? Should the government comb through all current laws, repealing all those who happen to agree with the religious beliefs of anyone? How many laws would be left after that?

      No, some things are just wrong. You would not repeal the law against murder or larceny, just because JudeoChristianIslam had that law first. And you cannot say that every law which agrees with some religious tenets forces all people to practice that religion. Abortion is not wrong because it conflicts with the view of any government, but because of its very nature.

      Still, any government would be wise to prohibit abortion, not that a government should be baptized into any religion, but because a government sees the good fruits that come from those who do keep such laws, and understands the merit that comes from it.

      • I’m not going to get into the morality of abortion, because quite frankly I’m sure I’m not going to change your mind and you’re not going to change mine, so there’s really no point getting our hackles up over the ideology. I do have a question on the practicality, though–how do you expect bans on abortion to be effective? Abortion has existed for as long as people didn’t want to be pregnant; the only real difference today is that it’s performed in hospitals instead of back-alley clinics or the back room of a vet’s office or at home with a coat hanger.

        Making abortion illegal wouldn’t stop abortions from occurring, any more than a gun ban keeps criminals from getting them. In both abortion and gun crime, it’s necessary to look at the actual causes; in the case of abortion, it’s a lack of access to contraceptives and a lack of knowledge regarding how to use them effectively. I know many conservatives are against the distribution of or education regarding birth control, but teaching people how to use condoms and the pill seems like a much lesser evil than a) forcing them to carry to term and raise a baby they don’t want and very likely can’t afford or effectively parent, or b) putting them in a situation where, legal or not, they’ll likely get an abortion.

      • “Thou shalt not steal” and “thou shalt not commit murder” started as religious laws, yes, but are perfectly justifiable under atheistic philosophies as well. (I am using atheistic here in the sense of “does not require Divine Command to be valid”.)

        And, indeed, as I outlined above, there are such arguments both for and against abortion. And as such, the reason to not have laws against abortion stems not from the genesis of the position in a religious philosophy, but because there are strong atheistic (which might also be read as “religiously neutral”) arguments against banning abortion, but the primary arguments for banning it are religious. Which, to me, seems to violate the principle of not imposing one’s religion on others.

        And, like I said, the most effective way of preventing the most abortions is to vigorously promote contraception.

    • Abortion is going to get thrown back to the states unless the Pro-Choice side cuts loose two issues; Partial Birth (or Late Term) Abortion and Parental Notification. Being in favor of the former and opposed to the latter is a tactical mistake comparable to running as an Orange candidate in Dublin.

      If Abortion does get thrown back to the states, then it will be legal in places like Nevada (which make money on being Sin Central) and New York (which is run by the Intellectual/Political class for the betterment of their lessers). It will be illegal in places like Iowa. Grown women will be able to obtain abortions by moving to places where it is legal. Minors will be transported across state lines by Pro-Choice fanatics (there are fanatics on both sides), and there will be huge trials when this results in the death of the girl in question.

      BTW; I believe that abortion should be broadly legal, and that there is no excuse for paying for it with taxes, ever.

      • I think Alabama has a law outlawing leaving the state to do anything illegal in Alabama, to directly criminalize leaving for abortions.

        I Don’t really like the thinking behind that law.

    • Golly, Mike – they said the same thing about the GOP obsession over slavery 150 years ago. The issue here is not abortion, it is Biden’s intellectual incoherence; Larry himself did not advocate any position on abortion.

    • “But it’s legal, it’s a fact, and SCOTUS says so.”

      You realize that’s the major part of the problem, right? There was no legislation, no political compromise, no discussion — just the hallucination of “emanations from the penumbra” and a declaration by fiat.

      And you may just want to check into the laws of other countries. You’ll find more restrictions than you think.

    • Data, please, on where all the “wanna vote Republican but are just too pro-infanticide” voters are gonna come from after you’ve told 40% of the republican party to go away.
      Also, thanks for pre-announcing your desire to scapegoat a religous community you dislike if Romney fails of election. Because there couldn’t have been any other cause but those darn pro-lifers, right?

    • Mike,

      A close reading of Roe v. wade reveals that it did not create a blanket right to abortion because of the right of a mother to have an abortion.

      It created a fairly limited right (with fewer limits the earlier in the pregnancy it occurs) to have an abortion, because of uncertainty as to when the fetus qualified as a “person”. The trimester scheme, while failr arbitrary and cinvieniently divisible, weas based on fetal viability in the early 1970′s.

      • Forgive the typos – for some reason, the comment field was blocked about half-way down by the logon fields, so I was typing blind.

      • Actually, that’s exactly what it says.

  8. actualy if you have enough heu all you need is a peice of cannon barrel and cordite,a drooling idiot could make a”gun type”nuke with enough yeild to replicate the heroshima remodeling

  9. A Mitt Romney supporter accusing the opposition of political expedience? Not even Mark Twain would’ve gotten away with that level of irony if he tried to put it in a book.

    • Because “the other guy does it too” is such a great excuse, after all.

      • That’s not what I said. What I said was simply that you can’t say “I can’t stand X in that guy, but I’m okay with it in my guy” and not sound a little ridiculous. Romney’s entire political persona is based on whoever he is talking to at the time–he always does what’s politically expedient, whether that means running as a “severely conservative” guy to win the primaries or pivoting into a moderate position that abandons most of his previous policy suggestions when he’s trying to win over moderate voters in the general election.

        But here’s the real reason this bugs me: no one needs to get into an argument about who is a “shitty Catholic” (which was Larry’s characterization of Biden) or who is being a hypocrite. Larry Correia doesn’t like abortion, he thinks it’s a moral issue that is founded on science rather than religion, so it’s not an issue of religious freedom (or women’s right, as he makes plain here). So all he needs to say is “I don’t like abortion and Ryan will restrict abortion more than Biden, therefore I’m voting for Ryan.” Coming up with arguments about how that makes Biden a shitty Catholic or a hypocrite is besides the point.

      • No. I mean what I say. Unlike Obama I don’t need anyone to come along afterwards and reinterperet my words to say what I really meant.

        Leave my personal opinions and beliefs out of this for a moment and just concentrate of Joe Biden’s own answer to judge why Joe Biden is a shitty Catholic.
        A. I am a Catholic.
        B. I strongly believe Catholic doctrine.*
        * Catholic doctrine is that life begins at conception.
        * Catholic doctrine is that killing innocents is wrong.
        C. I believe in abortion.

        Do you not see that B and C are conflicting statements? If Joe believes in B and C, then he is obviously very bad at B. Hence, he is a shitty Catholic.

        Once again, leaving out my own personal hatred of statist thugs that think it is cool to murder anybody they can define as being lesser humans, Joe just said that he believes these are people but it is okay to kill them. That either makes him a hypocrite or a coward.

      • There can be a difference between a moral and a legislative stance, though. Personally, I think smoking weed is stupid. I’ve tried it a couple times, didn’t like it, and I’ve seen too many people act like utter idiots while high to have much of a desire to ever try it again. But I believe that marijuana should be legal, because it’s none of my business to tell people what they can’t do in their own home.

        Similarly, one can hold a religiously-motivated viewpoint (whether it’s abortion or the importance of providing for the less fortunate) without wanting to mandate that those beliefs become law. Saying that Biden is a “shitty Catholic” because he doesn’t believe abortion should be outlawed, even though his personal belief is that it’s wrong, is like saying that Mitt Romney’s a “shitty Mormon” because he doesn’t believe that it should be mandatory to give money to programs for the less fortunate, despite the fact that the LDS church strongly advocates social welfare programs.

      • Actually Nick, your analogy falls apart in a couple of key areas there. We’re not talking about religious beliefs concerning social programs, or drug use, of fuzzy puppies, we are talking about killing people.

        Second, the LDS church strongly advocates church, community, and personal social welfare programs… Not government ones. Do not conflate the two, mostly because one works and is voluntary and the other is complete bullshit and is mandatory.

      • Hi Larry,
        It’s hard to tell with these nested-but-now-flat comments, but if you meant your comment about not needing someone to come along to reinterpret your words for me, I’ll just point out that I did no such thing.

        All I did was point out that you can make an argument against Biden without resort to calling him a hypocrite or a shitty Catholic.

        And I think you would want to avoid those two charges considering that the opposition to Biden is made up of (1) Mitt Romney, a huge hypocrite/flip-flopper whose own stance on abortion has been (a) hard to pin down and (b) historically out-of-line with his church’s teachings when he needs to get elected in Massachusetts or present himself as a moderate; and (2) Paul Ryan, a Catholic who may be orthodox in some ways, but is out of line with Catholic teachings and action in other ways (such as charity and good works, which he has been called out on by certain Catholic organizations).

        Because if you say it’s okay to be a shitty Mormon in Romney’s case, but it’s extra-hell for Biden because he’s a shitty Catholic, then I guess Mormons or Republicans get graded on a different scale.

        Take my advice: if you’re supporting Mitt Romney, just say “I don’t like abortion,” because if you say “I hate hypocrisy,” you’ve set yourself up.

      • Why, gee whiz. Thanks for the debating advice… You must be new around here.

        I’m not particularly worried about setting myself up, since I’m on record since 2007 disliking Romney’s vote on this issue as governor. I think he wussed out. (different thing happened there, and only coincides if you squint real hard and ignore the facts of the issues in a state that is 87% democrat) but even then I didn’t back Romney during the primaries. But head to head against Obama, Romney wins on pretty much everything. EVERYTHING. Obama sucks, and Romney’s not a communist. So I’m not too worried there.

        As for Catholic “organizations” (i.e. liberals) not liking Ryan because he doesn’t support “charity”, that is because liberals conflate personal charity with government mandated wealth redistribution schemes. I missed the part where Christ said we should let Ceaser handle all of our goodwill and charity through mandatory confiscation and redistribution.

        So I stick with what I said. Biden, by his own words, is a shitty Catholic. He professes to believe a very fundamental tenent, in fact, probably one of the single, most basic, important, straight forward and important principles of his church’s doctrine with zero wiggle room, and chooses to disregard it.

      • Biden’sw a shitty Catholic. As someone who was raised Catholic, attended Catholic school for 9 years, has read the actual Cathecism of the Catholic Church (not the abridged Newsweek magazine sized version Sister Mary had you study before Confirmation) cover to cover several times, I can say that, from a position of assured knowledge.

        Of all the “social” issues the Church takes a position on in modern Western society these days, including the death penalty, war, gun control, welfare, divorce, birth control, pre-marital sex, homosexuality, gay marriage, charity, etc., abortion occupies a singular position.

        Participation, IN ANY ASPECT, in the procuration of an elective abortion, is an automatic excommunication offense — “automatic” as in, it doesn’t matter if the Church hierarchy even finds out — the excommunication is already in effect, and if you hide the fact from the earthly Church, the penalties still apply. Including the penalties for receiving Communion, etc., while under the interdiction of excommunication. Nor can your parish priest lift that penalty — reconciliation is restricted by canon law to the diocese bishop in these cases.

        You CANNOT be Catholic in good standing and support abortion, including supporting the government paying for them. That is simply canon law.

    • What – you believe one can only call out an opponent for a sin if one’s own escutcheon is spotless? Then no Democrat can ever call a Republican a hypocrite, and no politician can ever accuse another of prevarication. Your complaint about is classic tu quoque fallacy.

      • If my point was just “your side does it too” I would accept your rebuke. But my point is that Romney is especially known for his willingness to say anything at any time that he thinks will help him politically. Which is why you can build a website that produces any result on any topic in Romney’s own words: http://roboromney.com/

  10. I was listening to Col. Wood on a talk radio show recently. He noted that the Bengazi embassy held for 6 hours before being overrun and everyone killed. Sean Smith (the IT geek and gamer) was recorded for those six hours reporting the action to the State Department, Pentagon and White House, including camera footage of the action. Obama and Biden heard it while it was happening, AND DID NOTHING. They let the embassy be destroyed, the ambassador killed and dragged through the streets, and didn’t allow anyone to help. SIX HOURS.

    • In fairness, I doubt anyone was within 6 hours of the Bengazi that could have come to help.

      I strongly suspect that the ambassador was dragged through the streets BEFORE he was killed. Notice how the autopsies haven’t been released?

      • I’m sure there was a carrier in the Med. . .

      • I believe there was at least one drone providing aerial camera of the attack, meaning air assets should have been available to provide support.

      • Six hours is an awfully long time to do nothing. Benghazi is a coastal city about two hundred miles from the eastern border of Libya, making it about as centrally located in the Mediterranean as it is possible for a North African city to be.

        For no carrier groups to respond; fine. Operational ranges for most helicopters seem to be about 500 miles. The nearest carrier could well have been beyond the necessary range to get there in time. But five hundred miles away puts you in Greece or Italy; Turkey and France are further but reachable if you stop for gas along the way. If you’re not wedded to using helicopters exclusively (perhaps landing troops at a nearby airport), that opens up some options from even farther.

        Calling on foreign troops to rescue our embassy isn’t exactly something to brag about, but A) you use what resources you have when the chips are down, so if favors and alliances are what you have, those are what you call in; B) that sort of “see? We needed help from *swoon* Europe! Aren’t I such a wonderful diplomat and organizer?” is exactly the sort of message Mr. Obama would want to send; and C) even that was apparently not even tried. The party line blamed it on protests over that video turning ugly, which came across as putting al Qaida storming an embassy with machine guns and RPGs in the same vein as post-game hooliganism that got out of hand.

        While that does say something awesome about the sports fan community, I’m about 80% sure that wasn’t what Mr. Obama was going for.

  11. The whole debate here over abortion is a distraction from the fundamental point: Biden’s position on this is intellectually incoherent (I know! Biden!

    • (Sigh – how does WP post prematurely?) (I know! Biden! Intellectually incoherent?) and any debate over the public policy issue concerning abortion is a distraction from the main issquirrel!

  12. [...] Praise! to Monster Hunter Nation] I’m an accountant. Everything Joe Biden just said about taxes and business just made blood shoot [...]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 11,921 other followers

%d bloggers like this: