See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #201
   On January 5th, 2012 at 11:57 pm, Ota Benga said:

   The Founding Fathers treated the native aborigines as well as the native aborigines treated them, or each other.
   The Founding Fathers treated women with the deference and respect due their sex.
   The Founding Fathers treated black slaves the same way they treated white slaves.

   I think most sound-minded people would concede that the “founders”- white men, tended to treat blacks and women, as lesser, in regards to their rights and privileges in society.

2. #202
   On January 5th, 2012 at 11:59 pm, StaceyOfLiberty said:

   On January 5th, 2012 at 11:53 pm, Blackstone said:
   What makes you so nervous? Has he called for a federal ban on birth control? No, he said he wants to withdraw funding. You’re nervous about having to pay for your own birth control?

   My insurance through my job pays for my birth control, but I do believe that federally funded birth control is a good idea. Unwanted and neglected children are a terrible shame, and will be a hell of a lot more expensive than pills, besides.

3. #203
   On January 6th, 2012 at 12:02 am, Blackstone said:

   On January 5th, 2012 at 11:52 pm, Ota Benga said:

   I consider repeated references to christian faith/values as bible thumping.

   Then “Bible thumping” by that definition is something Obama as well as virtually every one of his predecessors has done.

   You falsely assume that the American electorate is as atheistic as you.

   The rest of your post is too dishonest for words

   I’m sure it seems that way to someone imbued in modern politically correct ideology, which in this as in so many other instances is at war with basic logic. Regarding a pattern of behavior as unhealthy does not mean you have anything against those who may be more tempted than others to engage in it.

4. #204
   On January 6th, 2012 at 12:08 am, Ota Benga said:

   Then “Bible thumping” by that definition is something Obama as well as virtually every one of his predecessors has done.
   You falsely assume that the American electorate is as atheistic as you.

   I’m not an atheist. And some politicians tend to focus on their Christianity more than others. You know this.

5. #205
   On January 6th, 2012 at 12:15 am, Ota Benga said:

   On January 5th, 2012 at 8:33 pm, Blackstone said:
   And what has he said that’s anti-gay?

   And I answered your ludicrous question with examples relating to his desire to reinstate DADT, and his opposition to gays being permitted to adopt children. See, that’s not hard.

   So keep making references to “unhealthy” behavior with could apply to ANY type of person, regarding MULTIPLE different types of sex acts.

   I answered your stupid question:
   

   And what has he said that’s anti-gay?

   Reinstating DADT and being against the rights of homosexuals to adopt children. Easy enough.

   We’re grown. Again, just be honest. Goodnight.

6. #206
   On January 6th, 2012 at 12:27 am, Blackstone said:

   On January 5th, 2012 at 11:59 pm, StaceyOfLiberty said:

   Unwanted and neglected children are a terrible shame, and will be a hell of a lot more expensive than pills, besides.

   I agree there, but given the track record so far, I doubt funding birth control is the most effective way to prevent that (given the track record in our society). The root of the problem is promiscuity. I think that’s what needs to be tackled. My concern is that funding birth control may promote the view that promiscuity is OK.

7. #207
   On January 6th, 2012 at 12:30 am, Blackstone said:

   On January 6th, 2012 at 12:15 am, Ota Benga said:

   Reinstating DADT and being against the rights of homosexuals to adopt children.

   And you’re saying these views are unpopular, so unpopular that it would cost him the election?

   Then why pray tell did the Democrats wait till after the election to repeal DADT, or to even bring up the subject at all?

8. #208
   On January 6th, 2012 at 12:59 am, Ota Benga said:

   Homosexuals have gained certain rights over the years. He wants to take them away. He wants to walk back Civil Rights progress. The DADT repeal passed pretty easily. He wants to take progress backwards. Florida is the latest of numerous states that allow homosexuals to adopt.

   Santorum, armed with his alleged biblical principals, wants to take away the rights that homosexuals, and those on their behalf, have worked so hard to gain. And yes, that mindset is repugnant to most fair-minded people IMO. He’s going against the evolutionary progress of our society, and wants to take us backwards. And yes, I feel that will offend moderates.

   The repeal of DADT is something Obama wanted to do after he was elected. I doubt the dems felt that it would be as easy, as it turned out to be. I was pleased to see so much Republican support. Even regarding staunch conservatives, I never even saw MM blog against the repeal of DADT. If she did last year, I didn’t see it.

   And what has he said that’s anti-gay?

   You’re welcome for answering your question, though I’m sure you already new the answers. Have a nice weekend.

9. #209
   On January 6th, 2012 at 1:01 am, Ota Benga said:

   Progress

10. #210
    On January 6th, 2012 at 8:21 am, StaceyOfLiberty said:

    On January 6th, 2012 at 12:27 am, Blackstone said:
    I agree there, but given the track record so far, I doubt funding birth control is the most effective way to prevent that (given the track record in our society). The root of the problem is promiscuity. I think that’s what needs to be tackled. My concern is that funding birth control may promote the view that promiscuity is OK.

    Lots of people who use birth control are married. I think it’s a lot easier to give people access to birth control than to convince them to change their sexual behavior. Unless you’re someone’s mom, they’re going to do what they want sexually. Even if you’re their mom, they might not listen.

11. #211
    On January 6th, 2012 at 9:58 am, Blackstone said:

    On January 6th, 2012 at 12:59 am, Ota Benga said:

    The DADT repeal passed pretty easily.

    Of course it did – it was a lame-duck session, most people were “tired of politics”, and the media gave positive coverage of it. The Democrats knew exactly what they were doing: don’t say anything about it while there was an election season, and then sneak it through while trusting the media to cover for them. That does not mean their actions were popular, regardless of what you “feel” their opinions are.

    And what has he said that’s anti-gay?

    You’re welcome for answering your question
    

    Yup, reinstating DADT is “anti-gay”, in the sense that the voting age is “anti-youth”.

12. #212
    On January 6th, 2012 at 10:01 am, Blackstone said:

    On January 6th, 2012 at 8:21 am, StaceyOfLiberty said:

    Unless you’re someone’s mom, they’re going to do what they want sexually.

    So you’re assuming the societal context has no effect on this? Was there any difference between promiscuity rates now and 50 years ago?

13. #213
    On January 6th, 2012 at 10:15 am, mondamay said:

    On January 6th, 2012 at 10:01 am, Blackstone said:

    Don’t worry. The promiscuity rates will drop again once we get our European-style socialist utopia.

    Once you realize your entire existence is planned and mapped, and you’ll never be able to achieve anything your parents don’t already have, then you drop into a permanent mid-life crisis starting about age 16, and lasting until the government cuts off your healthcare, and gives you “the pill”.

    Just look at population growth in Europe and Japan. That isn’t birth control, it’s mostly apathy with life in general, and procreative urges in specific.

14. #214
    On January 6th, 2012 at 12:07 pm, Ota Benga said:

    Well, Blackstone, perhaps you feel, it passed because folks were tired of politics. That doesn’t explain why republicans decided to not put much of a fight over the issue, and why conservatives in the blogosphere and talk radio hardly put up a fight over the issue. Based on your “logic”, Obama could have passed any liberal leaning legislation he wanted, because you feel folks were tired of politics, and it was a lame-duck session. Get real. Regardless of the lame-duck session, technology didn’t shutdown. And politics was still discussed and debated. Yet, yet, the DADT repeal didn’t seem to ruffle the feathers of too many people other than the likes of Santorum.

    I guess we feel, differently on the matter, but I have facts–easy passage, minimal conservative opposition–and you have your feelings on why it happen.

    Yup, reinstating DADT is “anti-gay”, in the sense that the voting age is “anti-youth”.

    I’ll try to get you to at least “apples to pears”, by explaining to you that nobody is trying to increase the voting age.
    Homosexuals have gained certain rights over the years. He wants to take them away. He wants to walk back Civil Rights progress. The DADT repeal passed pretty easily. He wants to take progress backwards.

    Homosexuals are increasingly permitted to adopt, which will logically lead to marriage. Florida is the latest of numerous states that allow homosexuals to adopt.

    Santorum, armed with his alleged biblical principals, wants to take away the rights that homosexuals, and those on their behalf, have worked so hard to gain. And yes, that mindset is repugnant to most fair-minded people IMO. He’s going against the evolutionary progress of our society, and wants to take us backwards.

    That does not mean their actions were popular, regardless of what you “feel” their opinions are.

    Sigh

15. #215
    On January 6th, 2012 at 6:12 pm, Blackstone said:

    Santorum, armed with his alleged biblical principals, wants to take away the rights that homosexuals, and those on their behalf, have worked so hard to gain. And yes, that mindset is repugnant to most fair-minded people IMO. He’s going against the evolutionary progress of our society, and wants to take us backwards.

    That’s a bunch of metaphysical nonsense. The only thing that makes an idea “backwards” or “forwards” is whether it’s a good idea or a bad idea in and of itself, not whether it continues along the same path that things have been proceeding. If conservatives can sometimes be accused of blindly adhering to decisions made 200 years ago, liberals can far more often be accused of blindly adhering to trends started 10, 20, 30 years ago.

    That does not mean their actions were popular, regardless of what you “feel” their opinions are.

    Sigh

    It’s pretty obvious Democrats know the real score (i.e., how the people would view the issue if exposed to an actual public debate on it), because that’s how they always behave on this issue: Do everything they can to keep the people as far as possible from the decisionmaking, and operate as far as they can from public scrutiny, and then once it’s a fait accompli, have the media trumpet it as the greatest thing ever.

    Conservatives could try to fight it afterwards, but since it’s already a done deal, and there are so many more pressing issues given the way Obama’s destroying the country right now, why waste the energy?

16. #216
    On January 6th, 2012 at 6:53 pm, Ota Benga said:

    It’s pretty obvious Democrats know the real score (i.e., how the people would view the issue if exposed to an actual public debate on it), because that’s how they always behave on this issue: Do everything they can to keep the people as far as possible from the decisionmaking, and operate as far as they can from public scrutiny, and then once it’s a fait accompli, have the media trumpet it as the greatest thing ever.

    Hilarious. Like the process took place in some secret fashion, in some far away mystical place–controlled by the mainstream media, via mind control over American citizens–where rightwing radio, and the internet fail to work.

    This place exists only in the mind of Blackstone.

    Despite all the flimflam you just wrote, the republicans who voted for it, could have refused to vote for the measure. They didn’t.

    The conservative blogosphere and talk radio pundits could have raised a fuss over the issue. They largely did not.

    There was a public debate on the issue, and John McCain was one of the loudest voices against it. Yet, I don’t recall many conservative voices making such a fuss. Maybe you slept throught it.

    Funny, people have free will and can form opinions on issues. Gays in the military, serving openly, bothers very few people. The “mystical” powers of the media didn’t cause the repeal to pass with ease. The republicans in congress have free will. I hear they’re pretty smart, and can research and read…the whole nine yards. I also understand that they wouldn’t cast a vote, they felt would cause them severe backlash from their constitutients.

    By the way, outside of Santorum, where is that backlash? Riiiiiggghhht.

    Anymore mental gymnastics up your sleeve? I tend to cut through the BS.

    Let me help you out:

    “Gays in the military? Small potatoes. Conservatives have better things to worry about. Plus, with the war on Islamic Terror, we need America’s best and brightest, regardless who they’re sexually attracted to.”

    You and Santorum can try to rebut that, but you wind up looking foolish and out of step…

17. #217
    On January 6th, 2012 at 7:06 pm, Ota Benga said:

    This could go on for a few more days, but it won’t- not with my participation. Blackstone, there comes a point in posting comments on political blogs, when you realize that your “opponent” refuses to concede logical points, and has no desire other than to get the last word; regardless of how asinine and stubborn they look. Your nonsensical post #215 shows that you have reached that point.

    As an adult, with s**t to do, I must drop the addictive feelings of threads like this, and realize that you have no desire other than to get the last word…logic be damned. Sir/Madam, you can have that last word, if that makes you feel better-for whatever reason. Clearly, I’ve made my point. Take good care.

18. #218
    On January 6th, 2012 at 8:34 pm, Blackstone said:

    There was a public debate on the issue

    There was a debate right after the election, when Democrats sprung the idea on Congress. By that time the public wasn’t paying attention, which was exactly the idea.

    Just show me one case where Democrats have allowed a change in the law to benefit homosexual preferences where the public might have had an opportunity to prevent it beforehand (such as not right after an election where the issue had not been discussed). The MO is always the same: keep it as far from public scrutiny for a reason. They know exactly why they need to.

19. #219
    On January 6th, 2012 at 9:23 pm, Blackstone said:

    OB’s thesis: Santorum’s position on DADT would cost him the election.

    What a shame the Democrats couldn’t have benefitted from your amazing political acumen, otherwise they would have been able to keep control of Congress in 2010. All they had to do was actively campaign for the repeal of DADT (instead of being quiet as mice about it until after the election), and Republican opposition would have exposed GOP candidates as a bunch of “intolerant bigots” for all the voters to see.

    Glad to know I’m the one refusing to concede logical points.

20. #220
    On January 7th, 2012 at 11:14 am, StaceyOfLiberty said:

    On January 6th, 2012 at 10:01 am, Blackstone said:
    So you’re assuming the societal context has no effect on this? Was there any difference between promiscuity rates now and 50 years ago?

    But that’s exactly it. These things change slowly, over time. If it took 50 years for promiscuity rates to change as they did, you can’t change them back in a year or two, and I am not in favor of a generation or two of unwanted and neglected children.

21. #221
    On January 7th, 2012 at 5:53 pm, Blackstone said:

    I am not in favor of a generation or two of unwanted and neglected children.

    And that would happen as a result of withdrawing public funds for birth control? Or would groups like Planned Parenthood still be able to raise money for it? If they devoted their operations to contraception instead of abortion, they’d probably be able to make up for the loss of government support (they already get considerable support from private donations as it is).

    In the meantime, society would begin the process of starting to send the right message again. That’s probably the best way to reduce the number of unwanted children.