Comments Posted By mgarbowski
Displaying 1 To 5 Of 5 Comments


In my immediately preceding comment, the Mark Shea reference and links were meant to come right after the sentence about Catholic blogs.

Comment Posted By mgarbowski On 23.01.2009 @ 14:18

This is a minor point in your big picture essay, but how do you fit the Harriet Miers nomination into part of the libertarian/Social Conservative split? I don't remember either side endorsing her. I'm vaguer on the libertarians, I suppose it's possible they liked her, but it seems unlikely. I remember with certainty that the many social cons at NR opposed her, as did Michelle Malkin, and none of the many Catholic blogs I visit regularly supported her.
It might have been that certain conservative Protestants supported her as one of their own, but as a whole, the social cons were not impressed by her. See, e.g., Mark Shea:

There were columns written about Meyers by some social cons that were angry with libertarians who suspected they opposed her because of her strong anti abortion record. But you are correct, most prominent social cons opposed Miers because she was unqualified and a Bush crony - same reason as libertarians.


Comment Posted By mgarbowski On 23.01.2009 @ 14:16


I'm sorry, but I still haven't gotten past the statement, "saying that life begins at conception is a belief based on faith."
So if life doesn't begin at conception, then the fertilized egg is a static inert mass, I suppose. Then at some point it springs to life? So is it the Rick Moran position that life is based on spontaneous generation? Do your research. That was disproved a few centuries ago.

I've been reading you for 3-4 years. I've always known I disagreed with you on abortion, but I didn't realize you based your position on medieval science.

Comment Posted By mgarbowski On 14.09.2008 @ 07:38

"For instance, saying that life begins at conception is a belief based on faith. I respect that. But science doesn’t see it that way"

What!?!?!? You're not at all accurate, and you are ignorant of the science and the status of the debate. At conception, there is life. No one disputes that. At conception, there is a living entity. The entity is separate and distinct from his or her mother, and has human DNA. No one disputes any of this. It is as scientifically certain as anything we know.

Is it really your position that a fertilized egg is not alive? This is a wholly ignorant position, and it should be a cause of embarrassment to accuse others of not basing their positions on science when you have so little knowledge yourself.

The debate today is not on whether a fertilized egg is "life." Rather it centers on whether that living entity is a "person," which is at best a matter of "faith" for both sides.

Comment Posted By mgarbowski On 14.09.2008 @ 07:25


Another thing I thought was a bit ridiculous was that not only is this apparently the second time in 4 years that the country has a 25th Amendment showdown over whether to nuke a middle-eastern-country-that-must-not-be-named (aka Voldemortistan), but nobody bothers to mention that.
Wouldn't P2's people have said, "Hey, they tried this with P1, failed, and his decision was proven to be justified. Why are you doing this again, when the country needs stability?" To which the usurpers might have responded, "Yes, and the result of that weakness was yet more nukes going off in America. We need to fight back."
Of course, to have a character acknowledge that the writers are completely re-hashing one of the dumbest plotlines in 24 history ("we must nuke 3 Voledmortistans by dawn, or forever lose the chance"), would well, acknowledge that the writers are re-hashing one of the dumbest plotlines in 24 history.

Comment Posted By mgarbowski On 3.04.2007 @ 11:13



Pages (1) : [1]

«« Back To Stats Page