Levin Reviewed

152 Comments so far ↓

• barker13 // Jun 16, 2009 at 2:11 pm

  Re: Sinz54; 11:28 AM –Let’s pat each other on the back for having the tenacity to keep returning to “page 2.)(*WINK*)”…9-11…”We weren’t attacked by a nation state. Not directly. Oh, I applauded then and applaud now Bush’s swift retaliation against the Taliban and our invasion which drove them from power, but in most respects 9/11 has very little in common with Pearl Harbor.”Rubble doesn’t cause trouble.”Actually it does when we as a nation insist on “rebuilding” what we ourselves turned into rubble. As much as I dislike Powell, his adage “you break it, you own it” was right on target.”I am not squeamish about civilian casualties.”I am. Not to say I won’t accept “collateral damage” in my name… just saying I take the responsibility for these decisions very seriously as should those who issue the orders.”On economics, I am NOT a libertarian. I accept that the Federal Government has a legitimate role to play as the “shock absorber of last resort” to keep the U.S. economy from crashing or soaring into hyperinflation. Milton Friedman, who was no Keynesian, was nevertheless a fan of the FDIC for just this purpose.”You seem to use the term “libertarian” in the extreme meaning of the word. There’s a reason I refer to myself as “libertarian leaning.”Now what are you saying in connecting the FDIC to prevention of hyperinflation…??? (*SCRATCHING MY HEAD*)(*SIGH*) Any reason you refused to get specific, Sinz? Here… let me help you out:Were you in favor of the Bush/RINO Congress stimulus checks of his first term? (I wasn’t.) (The Dems were.)Were you in favor of the Bush/Pelosi/Reid stimulus package of Bush’s second term. (I wasn’t.) (RINOs were.)Were you in favor of the Bush/Pelosi/Reid bailouts of 2008? (I wasn’t.) (The Dems were.) (Many RINOs were.)Were you in favor of the Obama/Pelosi/Reid “stimulus” bill? (I wasn’t.) (GOP reps by and large weren’t.)Were you in favor of the Obama/Pelosi/Reid “stimulus” checks to Social Security recipients this year? (I wasn’t.) (Not sure how most GOP reps voted.)See the intellectual consistency here, Sinz? How’bout you? Where have you stood case by case?* To be continued…BILL

  Log in to Reply

• barker13 // Jun 16, 2009 at 2:12 pm

  * Continuing…”Once you put a Human Life Amendment into the Constitution…”As you may recall, I’m not in favor of a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution defining “protected” life (with “unique individual rights”) kicking in at conception. “The Constitution is no place to put “feel good” measures to appease the base…”As I’ve noted before, for all your evident self-regard and self-identification as an open minded tolerant social moderate, you’re actually quite hostile to religious faith which differs from your own ethical/moral beliefs as is shown by your unwillingness to accept that to those who truly believe that “human life” begins at conception, defending this human life is as much an ethical duty as would be defending your life from those who might one day deem your dialysis treatments incompatible with “reasonable limits” on healthcare expenditures at some point.Sinz. It’s quite clear you have a visceral dislike for the “Religious Right.”Now I have problems with the “Religious Left” (i.e. Liberation Theology), but I still acknowledge that even if I disagree with “their” side on issues (take the immigration debate for example) I’ll take their position as sincere and heartfelt. In other words, I’m able to have empathy for those I disagree with. (*SHRUG*)”Once it’s in the Constitution, a pregnant woman could be severely punished for anything that goes wrong with the fetus.”*** FOLKS. See bottom 7 lines of my 3:53 pm post of yesterday.*** Sinz. To reiterate… you’re going off the deep end. You’re argument is so silly, so off the wall… it’s like you took a break between paragraphs to smoke some crack and drop some acid. NO ONE is going to criminalize miscarriages – unless of course it’s pretty obvious the “miscarriage” was deliberately caused – i.e. it was an abortion.”I disdain Ron Paul because his economic libertarianism has not worked.”What are you TALKING about…??? (Someone remind me… exactly when was Paul President? When was he Chairman of the Fed, Secretary of the Treasury? When was he Speaker of the House or Majority Leader of the Senate? When was “Pauls economic libertarianism” tried…???)”The U.S. implemented mixed-economy measures for good reasons, not because we all went temporarily insane back then.”Back WHEN…?!?! (Are you referring to the ’30’s and ’40’s?)Sinz… it’s been a long slippery slope. We’d have to discuss SPECIFICS. Feel free… (*SHRUG*)”I also disdain [Paul] because of his foreign-policy isolationism and blame-America attitude…”Nonsense on both counts. What you refer to as “isolationism” I call the classic American ideal and beyond that… self-interest. As to his “blame-America attitude”… he calls ‘em as he sees ‘em. What… averting our eyes from reality with make the reality different…?Anyway… for what it’s worth I do appreciate your clarifying your views. Keep it up! Bottom line… while we often disagree… we often agree. (*SHRUG*) Let’s view the glass as half full, shall we?(*GRIN*)BILL

  Log in to Reply