Quit messing around!

Sunday, November 11th, 2007 @ 9:08 pm | Barack Obama, Politics

You must vote for Obama. Watch these two videos, then ask somebody to slap some sense into you if you still don’t want to vote for him.

One absorbing interview.
[youtube XXNGg38UcxU]

One powerful damn speech.
[youtube tydfsfSQiYc]

You are helpless before the Truth. You can only run from it, but you cannot make it go away. Iowa must take a stand for principle and integrity and choose Barack Obama.

-jb

23 Responses to “Quit messing around!”

  1. Japhet Says:

    JB –
    really? BO? I’m surprised seeing some of the things you rail against here on Iowa Liberal, especially in light of his unwavering support of coal power, the future of coal-to-liquid technology and carbon capture (which we all know doesn’t really exist yet but proponents love to talk about it like it does), and tacit endorsement of nuclear power as “an option.”

    I actually came to work for John Edwards because of his stance on coal and global warming.

    Keep up the great writing though…love what I’m reading on here.

  2. jeromy Says:

    Nuclear power is an option, Japhet.

    Obama does need to wake up about coal, but that’s not a disqualifier. There’s a bigger picture at stake here, and I think John Edwards is good on red meat but overall Barack Obama simply outshines and outsmarts him. Barack can learn more about energy and react appropriately. Edwards can’t do for our country what Barack could do.

  3. mike Says:

    Japhet> coal liquefaction does exist but like you said, it doesn’t function on the level that the proponents of these methods would like to believe. The Nazi’s used both the Fischer-Tropsch and the Bergius methods when their war machine was grinding to a halt because of increasingly limited access to liquid hydrocarbons during the waning days of WWII. The results are obvious. Even then they couldn’t run an industrial economy using liquefaction so I don’t understand why people think we could do it now. Especially considering the massive scale the operation would have to be to satisy current demand. The primary limiting factor with liquefaction is the same as most of these entropy-cheating schemes the energy fantasizers promote; the energy required to make the process work makes the energy that is gained extremely expensive so suggesting coal liquefaction to bring down the price of oil is quite foolish. Liquefaction also produces far more carbon dioxide than simply pumping crude out the ground and refining it so there’s other expenses to consider.

    Confront anybody with these realities and you’re guaranteed to get the same answer; some hypothetical “they” will “come up with something” and we’ll all be saved.

  4. IowaVoter Says:

    Great post. Nuff said.

  5. cbmc Says:

    unfortunately Mr. Obama supports the death penalty – old Catholic habits die hard and I can’t support any candidate with such a stance.

  6. jeromy Says:

    That’s okay, after a Democrat takes office the Bible will be banned anyway, so we’ll get you, my pretty.

    Anyway, I think Obama is about as high-minded a supporter of the death penalty as possible, who has stepped up regulation to such an extent that the practice is generally retreated from. He’s from Illinois, where the Governor placed a moratorium on executions until the system was fixed, and Obama was a big part of that.

    Here’s his stance from this position page I unearthed from On The Issues. I feel it is intelligent and thoughtful:

    While the evidence tells me that the death penalty does little to deter crime, I believe there are some crimes–mass murder, the rape and murder of a child–so heinous that the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage by meting out the ultimate punishment. On the other hand, the way capital cases were tried in Illinois at the time was so rife with error, questionable police tactics, racial bias, and shoddy lawyering, that 13 death row inmates had been exonerated

    Just imagine, cbmc, how many Catholic ideals will be preserved by any of the Republican candidates, although I’ll grant Ron Paul some credit. Under Republican rule you get George W. Bush, who would have pulled the switch himself if he didn’t hate getting his fingers dirty so much.

  7. IowaVoter Says:

    “unfortunately Mr. Obama supports the death penalty – old Catholic habits die hard and I can’t support any candidate with such a stance.”

    Have you read about Barack Obama? He’s not Catholic. Never has been. Is this another smear campaign similar to the “He’s a radical Muslim” thing?

    I kid.

    But seriously, he’s not Catholic, cbmc.

  8. Dana Says:

    cmbc wrote:

    unfortunately Mr. Obama supports the death penalty – old Catholic habits die hard and I can’t support any candidate with such a stance.

    One would think, then, that you couldn’t support any of the Democratic candidates, since they all support abortion on demand.

    The vast majority of executions are for violations of state law; death sentences in the federal system are pretty rare, and are actually carried out even less frequently; the President of the United States has very little say-so over capital punishment, though he could commute every federal death sentence to life in prison.

    The President of the United States does have much more power when it comes to abortion: he could appoint justices who would overturn Dred Scott v Sanford ?Roe v Wade, he could push for federal legislation which would restrict abortion, or he could even push for federal legislation which would define the unborn child as a legal person, which would end all legal abortions.

    According to the Death Penalty Information Center, a death penalty opposition site, there have been 42 executions in the United States thus far in 2007. I agree with you that that is 42 too many, but as a good Catholic like you, I’d also note that there were many, many more than 42 legal executions of unborn children performed on the morning of the first business day of the year.

    Your “old Catholic habits” ought to have you voting Republican.

  9. cbmc Says:

    Yeah the death penalty is so basic, and you know it – you’re just playing lame party politics argument as usual. As I believe you know, when I was an active Catholic, I taught the catechism. As I assume you know, opinion is divided even within the Church about abortion – one can’t get one, or facilitate one, and remain in good grace, but Catholics of conscience can discuss how best to end abortion – most progressive Catholics (whose legacy, make no mistake, is the same as the Church’s) believe that if the underlying conditions that lead to abortion – poverty; ignorance; spiritual hunger – were eliminated, abortion would decrease of its own accord. Rabid dudes want to amend the Constitution; enjoy pissing up that rope, I guess! But no person who calls himself Catholic can vote for a candidate who supports the death penalty for some super-basic doctrinal reasons: the death penalty is what they gave the Son of God. That sorta ended any possibility of Christians having any leg to stand on when arguing for the death penalty.

    I am not however a good Catholic, and didn’t claim to be – nice try. I left the Church and I won’t be coming back, because I don’t believe any more. I just said that old Catholic habits die hard, and I can’t vote for anybody who supports the death penalty.

  10. cbmc Says:

    also to Iowa Voter: I know Obama isn’t Catholic. That wasn’t what I meant. It’s that I used to be, and I carry some of the teachings with me still. One that I doubt will ever leave me is that the death penalty is wrong, always and everywhere, no matter how stomach-turning the crime. So when a candidate says he or she is in favor of it, I check out. When it comes to the general election, I’m old and practical enough to know that I can’t always have my way. But in primaries one has the luxury of voting one’s conscience instead of greater-good-lesser-evil ‘n’ all.

  11. IowaVoter Says:

    cbmc I see.

    My bad.

    I too am STRONGLY anti Catholic. Actually anti Christian. I come from a VERY strong Lutheran background, but when I graduated from high school and began to think for myself I realized how hypocritical most of it is.

    That said, Obama’s my man. The folks that would opt for your view that are on the Dem ticket are, well, less than viable. I respect your views and why you feel the way you feel, but -and no offense- you’re farting into a hurricane if you vote for one of those jokers.

  12. cbmc Says:

    oh -well! I’d better vote for the one who’s going to win, eh?

  13. Dana Says:

    One of the strange things that I see is that conservatives are (usually) in opposition to abortion, as the taking of innocent life, but supportive of capital punishment, as a just penalty for the guilty. As for me, while I think that there are, regretably, times when life must be taken (self-defense and in war), neither abortion nor capital punishment are necessary. which means that neither can be justified takings of life. After all, if you can execute a man, he is already, by definition, helpless, so the function of self-and societal defense has already been executed (pun intended).

    But stranger yet are my friends on the left, who (frequently) are opposed to capital punishment, as the taking of life, yet completely supportive of abortion, which is only necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman in the rarest of cases.

  14. jeromy Says:

    Well, there’s a bit of a difference, Dana. In one case, you have the government taking away the life of a person against their will. In the other, you have a mother choosing to end her pregnancy and, thus, the life of her fetus. In one case, the murder is prevented by the government choosing not to do execute the prisoner. In the other, the fetus is only saved by the mother declining to abort. One is passed in law. The other is personal.

    The mistake that pro-life people make is assuming that pro-choice people just think abortion is dandy. The truth is, most are opposed to abortion. I’m completely at peace with any woman who tells me, “Don’t even think of the A word.” If a baby ever comes, I’ve got to act appropriately Knocked Up-style, no arguments.

    The question is, what do you DO about it. It turns out, you have a lot of power to stop capital punishment, and very little power to stop abortion (not to mention that the daughters of the rich and their doctors know full well they have nothing to fear).

    “Completely supportive” of abortion, Dana? Why don’t you guys ever just come out and say what you mean, instead of tossing us sugar-coated generalities? Who is somebody you describe as “completely supportive,” and how far does “completely” extend? I assume you stop somewhere short of accusing them of wanting government mandated abortions for undesirables?

    “Safe, legal, and rare,” isn’t as sexy as “Democrats support murdering babies,” but it’s smarter and more accurate, with more hope of solving the problem.

  15. Jesurgislac Says:

    cbmc: most progressive Catholics (whose legacy, make no mistake, is the same as the Church’s) believe that if the underlying conditions that lead to abortion – poverty; ignorance; spiritual hunger – were eliminated, abortion would decrease of its own accord.

    Which has in fact happened in the Netherlands, a strongly Catholic country.

    (Dana hates the Netherlands social policies, though: particularly, he prefers a high abortion rate to ending poverty and ignorance.)

  16. Dana Says:

    Jeromy wrote:

    Well, there’s a bit of a difference, Dana. In one case, you have the government taking away the life of a person against their will. In the other, you have a mother choosing to end her pregnancy and, thus, the life of her fetus. In one case, the murder is prevented by the government choosing not to do execute the prisoner. In the other, the fetus is only saved by the mother declining to abort. One is passed in law. The other is personal.

    Most murder is personal, one person deciding, for whatever reason, that another person is so much of an inconvenience to him that the other person has to be eliminated. Your argument is completely bass-ackwards, as though you were claiming that a drug dealer saved a competitor’s life by deciding not to kill him.

    The mistake that pro-life people make is assuming that pro-choice people just think abortion is dandy. The truth is, most are opposed to abortion. I’m completely at peace with any woman who tells me, “Don’t even think of the A word.” If a baby ever comes, I’ve got to act appropriately Knocked Up-style, no arguments.

    Well, Jeromy, your statement raises the obvious point: why don’t “pro-choice” people think that abortion is dandy, unless they realize full well that someone’s life is being ended? After all, if abortion is simply the removal of some unwanted tissue, it shouldn’t be any more objectionable than trimming your fingernails.

    Of course, most sensible people realize that abortion really is the killing of a living human being; deep down, even Jesurgislac realizes it, even though she’ll always stand by her women’s rights position.

  17. jeromy Says:

    Dana, you seem to be the one confusing things here. I tried to make a very clear statement about who is making the life-or-death decision here, to illustrate where responsibility lies. In the case of the executed prisoner, the state is the responsible party. In the case of the fetus, the mother is. A voter has power over whether or not the state executes, and next to none over whether or not a mother aborts.

    That voter may also decide that putting doctors in jail isn’t a way to seize that control.

    Why don’t “pro-choice” people think that abortion is dandy, unless they realize full well that someone’s life is being ended?

    So it’s either murder or it’s wonderful, right? Okay, so you’re a binary on/off black/white all or nothing kind of guy. Hopefully you don’t leap back and forth all day between complete bliss and devastating depression, but perhaps you can understand that there are degrees of truth and that other people are capable of seeing them. A person can still see there is a fetus and that it is a potential walking talking human being with a name, but recognize that nature has placed a special responsibility upon women that is somewhat of a blessing and a burden. And they often recognize that it’s not a situation in which criminalizing abortion is a viable or even wise solution.

    And a person can see men infuriated by the one situation where they aren’t the ones that get to play God, women are. Our patriarchal society definitely has some problems with that. Some also have a problem with sex going “unpunished.” Some also see that abortion has a long and complicated history, and that the current pro-life movement didn’t spring from Christianity until the 18th century. If God sees abortion as murder, He’s been remarkably ambiguous about it.

    So a person might see the “criminalize abortion” movement as not really being centered on preserving lives, and the pro-choice one as not necessarily approving the ending of life. Again, it is about what one actually does to address the problem. And I don’t see any sort of effective solution coming from pro-life people. Your inability to distinguish any degree between “Abortion is murder!” and “Abortions are great, everybody should have one!” is doubtlessly part of why you fail to find a solution.

  18. Dana Says:

    Jeromy wrote:

    Dana, you seem to be the one confusing things here. I tried to make a very clear statement about who is making the life-or-death decision here, to illustrate where responsibility lies. In the case of the executed prisoner, the state is the responsible party. In the case of the fetus, the mother is. A voter has power over whether or not the state executes, and next to none over whether or not a mother aborts.

    That voter may also decide that putting doctors in jail isn’t a way to seize that control.

    In which case they’d be foolish; both the doctor and the woman who had the abortion should be imprisoned for the rest of their natural lives.

    So it’s either murder or it’s wonderful, right? Okay, so you’re a binary on/off black/white all or nothing kind of guy. Hopefully you don’t leap back and forth all day between complete bliss and devastating depression, but perhaps you can understand that there are degrees of truth and that other people are capable of seeing them. A person can still see there is a fetus and that it is a potential walking talking human being with a name, but recognize that nature has placed a special responsibility upon women that is somewhat of a blessing and a burden. And they often recognize that it’s not a situation in which criminalizing abortion is a viable or even wise solution.

    Sorry, but this really is a case of the unborn child is a living human being, or he isn’t. If he isn’t, then it’s just as I stated: abortion ought to be morally indistinguishable from trimming your fingernails. But if the unborn child is a living human being, then to kill him is murder, period, plain and simple.

    I don’t see any sort of effective solution coming from pro-life people. Your inability to distinguish any degree between “Abortion is murder!” and “Abortions are great, everybody should have one!” is doubtlessly part of why you fail to find a solution.

    That’s because pro-life people are intelligent and sophisticated enough to realize that, on some things, there is no middle ground. If an unborn child is a living human being, what sort of compromise to permit his murder ought to be acceptable?

  19. jeromy Says:

    Well, Dana, there’s little new ground to be covered, and yelling “either/or” louder won’t really uncover any more.

    But anyway, your policy recommendation of life in prison for doctors and mothers alike puts you in the margins permanently, where I really don’t have to worry about you. And if you actually mean it, which would mean you also mean it for the doctors and daughters/wives of the rich, then you belong to a very tiny club indeed. Understand, Dana, you will never, ever, in this country, see a politician’s daughter get life in prison for abortion.

    As it is, you don’t have much ground to accuse somebody else of being foolish. You’re Don Quixote, attacking without even knowing what you’re looking at.

  20. cbmc Says:

    Jeromy I think I can clarify this for you in a way that’ll save you some headache
    1) when it’s my issue, it’s black and white
    2) when it’s your issue, compromise is a sign of maturity

    Got it?

  21. jeromy Says:

    Oh, I like that. I should try to make that work for me. I’m sure I’ve been guilty of it before, but I’ve never tried becoming good at it.

  22. Jesurgislac Says:

    Dana: If an unborn child is a living human being, what sort of compromise to permit his murder ought to be acceptable?

    Well, for you, Dana, the acceptable compromise to permit “his murder” is evidently standing firm on any attempt to make you and those wealthier than you pay more taxes and change legislation in order to reduce the number of abortions in the US per year to a proportion equivalent to the number of the Netherlands.

    Half of all pregnancies in the US are unplanned: 4 out of 10 end in abortion. Yet this is more acceptable to you than ensuring all women in the US have easy access to contraception, regardless of the personal/religious views of their male partners, their parents, their doctors, their pharmacists, or the hospital they go to for emergency contraception.

    The most common reason for pregnancy in the US to end in abortion is economic reasons – the pregnant woman cannot afford to have another baby. Yet this is more acceptable to you than ensuring that every woman in the US who wants to stay pregnant can, by providing her with free medical care, guaranteeing her child free medical care, ensuring she has a minimum of a year’s leave from work with right to return, guaranteeing her good childcare facilities when she returns to work, and giving her economic support if she needs it to support herself and the baby while she can’t work.

    So, Dana, in your own terminology, you find “the murder of a living human being” more acceptable than actively trying to prevent it.

  23. Iowa Liberal » Blog Archive » Iowa keeps it real. Says:

    […] with the artifice and baggage of Hillary Clinton when you have Barack Obama to choose instead, I asked. Iowa rises to the challenge: While Clinton still leads on more personal attributes than any of her […]