Speaking of issues, Martin's so afraid of them that he's resorted to flooding his blog with snippets so as to remove the threatening questions from the front page.Just so we don't lose sight of the prize(s):Given all that we know today, does Palin think the war in Iraq was necessary?Are there more or fewer ice-free days along the north shore of your home state today than 50 years ago?Over that past two-three months, gasoline prices have declined by some 30-40 cents per gallon. Was this decline more due to a decline in demand, or an opening of the North Slope oil faucet?Would you tell a rape victim that her circumstance is a "mistake we make as a society"?How do you plan on paying for the prisons we will need to house the thousands of women your draconian anti-abortion policies will imprison?Republicans since Reagan have governed on the credit plan - pay for today's questionable policies with the money of the next generation. Are you going to continue with the policy of financing your policies with the income of future generations (that last word is plural because Bush et al. have pretty much sopped up all of my kids' inheritance)?
Well, art, this isn't Martin talking, but I'm happy to give you something to shoot at:1. A war with an Islamic country that supports terrorists is necessary. Iraq, with a president who defied the stipulations of the terms of peace (after the First Gulf War), who committed atrocious acts even against his own people, seemed like a good place to start at the time. And if we can't win there, we probably can't win anywhere.2. The whole global warming movement is a crock, a simple excuse for ceding more money and power to the federal government. Even global warming itself is looking less likely, leading its proponents to re-christen the problem "climate change." I guess now they have their bases covered, since it's always changing.3. I would tell a rape victim to reconsider killing the baby inside her. After all, she wasn't raped by the baby. The rapist may deserve to be killed, but that baby is still innocent.4. How exactly is calling Roe v. Wade the poorly reasoned baloney it surely is going to result in thousands of women?5. I hate to ruin a perfectly good rant with a fact or two, but deficit spending did not start with Reagan. In any event, the problem is not deficit spending; the problem is *over*-spending. If you think the government is spending too much, please specify where. I'm happy to specify: HUD, HHS, the department amusingly referred to as "Homeland Security", and practically every part of government not involved with diplomacy, defense, or infrastructure. Your move.
Sorry, amend 4 above: how is it going to result in thousands of women going to jail?
Post a Comment