Odds & Ends

Rock for Life’s YouTube page has new video of numerous pro-life Congressmen taking Planned Parenthood to task. Glad to see some Republicans still have spines…especially after this moment of GOP brilliance.

Your brain on drugs: Frederick Douglass
belongs to the Left?

Ever wonder how Jesse Jackson feels now that Barack Obama’s stolen the spotlight?
Well, now we know. Surprised? Me neither.

In case you missed it, “the father of Quebec Medicare” has
second thoughts about his creation.

Iran is
faking photographs of missile tests. Yep, reaaaal stable regime there…(hat tip: Jihad Watch)

Bobby Jindal, conservative champion? Sadly, his “new politics”
seem awfully familiar, too. Conservatives need to be careful not to build up fairytale heroes (*cough*Fred!*cough*), but I still think we should keep an eye out on Mitt, as well as Sarah Palin.
Advertisements

8 thoughts on “Odds & Ends

  1. Douglass was a prominent abolitionist. It is in that sense that I refer to him as a liberal. As the quote from Joe Conason indicates, the abolition of slavery was a liberal endeavor. What defined conservatives was that they were against it.

    Like

  2. The only connection between classical liberals is that today’s Left has adopted the label “liberal.” What passes for “liberal” today is simply a hodgepodge of collectivist ideas, with a dash of narcissim thrown in for good measure.On what grounds can it be said that those who supported slavery have any relation to the conservatives of today?

    Like

  3. Abolition is an artifact of social and political liberalism, (if not economic liberalism). That is to say, it was about equality under the law and about expanding enfranchisement to a greater number of people than before. Liberals still stand for this principle today. And conservatives still often stand against it. Take the issue of gay marriage/civil unions.

    Like

  4. Abolition was an artifact of classical liberalism, the set of values American conservatism seeks to conserve. Modern liberalism is related to classical in name, nothing more. And it is preposterous to equate gay marriage with any of the civil rights battles of the past.

    Like

  5. I just wish McCain would officially pick Palin already so we can start having fun watching the main stream media and the Democrats squirm!

    Like

  6. Bravo for staying :on message,” Calvin. But I think I pretty clearly indicated what abolition and abolitionists have in common with today’s American liberalism. It is liberals who have advocated for expanding enfranchisement and equality under the law for all–not conservatives. (Of course, it’s a strange artifact of history that the liberals were not always the Democrats–especially not when dealing with the pre-civil rights act South. But that doesn’t change the liberal/conservative principle I’m discussing.)I don’t think it’s at all preposterous to draw a parallel between gay marriage and the civil rights act. Both are cases of American citizens reaching out for the same rights that other Americans have–and being told by conservatives that they can’t have them.Do you seriously believe that 100 years from now our great grand children will look back on this time and take <>your<> side on gay marriage? More likely they’ll be ashamed of you, as increasing numbers of your contemporaries already are.

    Like

  7. Please. Until the Left stop opposing unborn rights, stop redistributing the rightfully-earned income of some Americans to others, and take notice of eminent domain abuse (just off the top of my head), they have no claim to labels such as equality, liberty, individual rights, or humanitarianism.Is this your best example? Gay individuals already have the exact same right to get married as I do, and they have the right to live with or how whoever they wish. Where issues arise such as hospital visitation rights or inability to leave property to gay partners, even social conservatives as far to the right as James Dobson have supported revising laws to rectify things. However, they are not entitled to have the government pretend a non-marriage is a marriage. “Do you seriously believe that 100 years from now our great grand children will look back on this time and take your side on gay marriage? More likely they’ll be ashamed of you, as increasing numbers of your contemporaries already are.”*yawn* More worthless hyperbole and self-righteous preening; I’m not impressed. Then again, it’s what you’re best at, so you might as well stick with it.

    Like

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )

Connecting to %s