I understand that the secularist pro-abortion left is diametrically opposed to pretty much everything I stand for. I get it. But you know what drives me crazy, is that they insult my intelligence while doing so.
They constantly try to pull the wool over the eyes of Americans.
When pro-lifers ask why the March for Life doesn’t get coverage, the media and the left (redundancy intended) will say abortion is a settled issue. But when attacking pro-lifers (often) they say anti-abortionists are engaging in a “war on women” that’s having a terrible effect on women. They say that state laws are getting passed all over the country that’s limiting access to abortion and the pro-life push to defund Planned Parenthood is sooooo dangerous for women. So is it a settled issue or is the war on women having a terrible effect on women?
When it comes to a bunch of college dropouts, professional rioters, and a few random homeless people camping out in a park they’re called the 99 percent. But when millions in the Muslim world cry “Death to America” and cheer the death of an American soldier, they’re called isolated extremists.
When it comes to oil, the left says that even if we started drilling today it would take five years to have any effect on gas prices so it’s not worth doing (a lie but it’s what they say). But the left throw millions and billions at green energy because someday it might pay off. So when it comes to oil, only short term thinking is allowed but with green energy only long term thinking is allowed.
February 25, 2012 at 4:23 pm
It may be disconnected logic in the lower levels of the left, but the higher ups, IMHO, know they're lying through their teeth. I've read a lot of polictical histories in my life, and when it comes to the left, their leaders are always willing to lie about anything if it advances their cause.
February 25, 2012 at 5:35 pm
Liberalism is a mental disorder, and leftism is an evil ideology. That really explains everything you need to know about the American Left.
February 25, 2012 at 6:21 pm
At least where abortion is concerned, I think the logic is that abortion is a settled issue insofar as the Supreme Court has ruled that it is unconstitutional to place an undue burden on the right to abortion, but that pro-lifers are nevertheless attempting to–and in many cases succeeding in–passing laws that do place such a burden on the right to abortion.
February 25, 2012 at 6:32 pm
I agree wholeheartedly. The "left" truly have lost the ability to think rationally on life issues.
February 25, 2012 at 7:52 pm
Mr. Archbold, the only quibble i have with your post is your statement
on the left and green energy. I believe that the left throws millions and
billions of our taxpayer dollars at these green energy boondoggles only
because it is to their own financial benefit.
The recent Solyndra scandal is but one instance of a 'green' business
that received hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars in subsidies just
before it collapsed. Government accountants warned that the company
was a bad investment. It never produced a single worthwhile product.
Yet its executives made tens of millions in bonuses for jobs well done,
some of which was subsequently donated to the campaign coffers of
the Democrats that had directed about $500 million taxpayer dollars
their way. And Solyndra is just one of many such companies that have
acted as shells in a game to loot the treasury.
It's got nothing to do with investing in a future of green energy. It's
about this administration taking public funds and sliding them to its
friends and receiving a cut. It's money laundering and theft.
February 25, 2012 at 9:56 pm
Abortion is not a right wrong reason/science issue any longer. You have to be able to appeal to their emotions. Then you can start talking about science and what is truly right and wrong. It is the same with gay rights, so called "same sex" marriage, etc… Can someone help me out on this?
February 25, 2012 at 11:05 pm
Anonymous @ 1:21, the issue of slavery was "settled" by the Supreme Court in 1857. We all know how well that turned out.
February 26, 2012 at 1:25 am
You are accurate, some of us secular pro-choice progressives disagree with almost everything you write here. That is why it is so entertaining for me at least.
How quick do you believe a drilling station in your back yard would get a gallon of gas in your car? Ok, now in an oil platform 10 miles off the coast of florida. 1 month? 1 year?
Thanks in advance.
February 27, 2012 at 1:44 am
February 27, 2012 at 12:45 pm
Clinton: How well said. Obamacare is another vehicle for slush funding, taking taxpayer money for supposedly helping somebody. Does anybody really believe that Obama is altruistic, or practices charity. The contempt that Obama has for citizens and our constitution would fill the Grand Canyon more than once.
February 27, 2012 at 7:19 pm
The question of how long it takes for a platform to put gas in your car is not the right question- rather it is: how long does it take for an adminsitration's action to impact fuel prices? The answer is almost immediately. The price of gas doesn't just reflect what is going on today, but it also accounts for future projections of availability and demand. See what real analysts (energy reporters, not the mainstream goofballs) are saying- lots of today's price run-up due to buyers bidding up the price so they can secure supplies to address the risk of problems in Syria, Iran, etc. In much the same way, approval for the KXL pipeline or opening new access would apply downward pressure on market prices as soon as the information is absorbed.
Now to be fair on green-handouts; much of that was touted by and signed off by Bush (EPACT 2005 & EISA 2007 – remember the "switchgrass" and "fuel cell" speeches?)
February 28, 2012 at 2:17 pm
Wow, anonymous on the 25th, you're right—randomly drilling in random places, like Archbold's backyard, really wouldn't have any effect on gas prices.
On the other hand, drilling in places where we know there's oil, like the ANWR, would have a near-immediate effect. And it would be to lower gas prices.
See, if one increases supply, while demand remains constant—as our demand for fossil fuels is constant—prices always lower. It is one of the few unalterable laws of economics, as reliable as the statement in physics that increasing velocity, while mass remains constant, will increase the kinetic energy.
But no, tell me again how "reality based" your views are, when you have to attack strawman arguments and deny basic principles of economics.