Huffington Post and just about everyone else is piling on Hillary for lying about her travels.
She misspoke. About this event.
But as Cheney would say, "So?"
She wasn't under oath.
Oh yes. The voters. So?
She may not win another primary.
17 comments:
Anonymous
said...
LATEST Gallup Only 59% of Democratic voters who support Clinton say they would vote for Obama against McCain, while 28% say they would vote for the Republican McCain. This suggests that some Clinton supporters are so strongly opposed to Obama (or so loyal to Clinton) that they would go so far as to vote for the "other" party's candidate next November if Obama is the Democratic nominee.
Rabbi, I have to ask you this: what's with this negativity and tearing down? Aren't you above this? Isn't this why you support Obama-rama-ding-ding-dong? I'm just asking; I not a Clinton supporter. I'm a Republican.
As a R you should be an expert in the gotcha game. I don't like to play it except when politicians or rabbis or popes radiate it, I just hold up the mirror and reflect it back.
First, I am an expert as such. It should be "an 'R'" not "a R." GOTCHA. Second, your post seems to say "I'm rubber, you're glue. What ever you say bounces off me and sticks to you." Rather juvenile, don't you agree? GOTCHA. Third, your blog entry displays the exact negative campaign rhetoric you so vehemently decry. Why the double standard, Rabbi? GOTCHA.
On a serious note, I'm a registered Republican mostly because I cannot tolerate the liberal politics of abortion. The liberal press and the DNC made a great deal out of the death of the 4,000th American soldier this past week. I agree that too many Americans - and Iraqis - have died in this conflict, and I wish the war had been avoided. Even one death is too many.
Not one mention was made, however, that during the same five year time frame, 6.6 million American babies died from abortion.
You must see the difference between soldiers' war deaths and aborted fetuses. Why do you mix them together?
I'm enraged over 4,000 needless deaths in Iraq. Totally apart from that I am horrified by 2,000,000 deaths from cigarette poisoning in the US over the past 5 years. Aren't you?
I'm also waiting for Hillary to disclose her tax returns. More important - I'm waiting for her to disclose all of the sermons of her pastor over the past 7 years. I'm sure will find plenty to object to in those.
Words cannot convey my astonishment over your last comment. Do you mean to suggest that the wanton destruction of 6.6 million human beings is less intrinsically evil than wartime deaths? Although there are some obvious differences between the evils, none of them reduce the immorality of the politics of abortion. In some ways, the differences point to the conclusion that abortion is a greater evil: the babies who are killed are utterly innocent and defenseless.
Here's the DNC position: we'll give babies free college tuition and healthcare provided that they haven't been killed first. Before birth, they're fair game. Don't you see the problems with that approach?
Obama's position is actually WORSE than the party's position. Legislation was introduced in Congress and in several state assemblies entitled the Born Alive Infants Protection Act providing that all live-born babies were guaranteed the constitutional right to equal protection of law. BAIPA was passed by the Senate by unanimous vote, and even Sens. Clinton, Kennedy and Kerry agreed that a mother's right to "choose" stopped at her baby's delivery.
Likewise,the bill passed overwhelmingly in the House. NARAL declared itself neutral on the bill, and most abortion enthusiasts publicly agreed that fighting BAIPA would appear extreme. President Bush thereafter signed BAIPA into law in 2002.
The Illinois version of BAIPA repeatedly failed, however, in large part to then State Sen. Barack Obama, and it was only enacted in 2005 after Obama left.
(Isn't it ironic that Barack is Swahili for "One who is blessed by God." He certainly is blessed since he wasn't aborted by his mother.)
John your rhetoric is way over the top. Nobody would even want to engage you in a discussion of the issue of abortion rights because of the way you formulate your accusatory opinions.
I am astonished that you just ignore my reference to cigarette poisoning. Are you a smoker? Do you know the suffering that is caused by cigarettes to 400,000 Americans who die from smoking each year. Each one of those deaths is an act of torture. Are you not outraged by that? Or perhaps you live in North Carolina where you can be anti-abortion and pro-smoking at the same time, not to mention pro-gun.
Don't assume anything, Rabbi. I'm not from North Carolina. I don't smoke. Just so you know, I vigorously OPPOSE guns in almost all cases, and I OPPOSE the death penalty.
Smoking, however, is a far cry from the evil of abortion. Nobody ever forced a person to smoke his or her first cigarette, so the moral equivalence between aborted babies and smokers' deaths is tenuous at best.
You accuse me of not speaking to the issues? It is to laugh at your foolishness! (Or, if you prefer the original French, "C'est à rire.") You are the one who fails to answer legitimate inquiries. You criticize Clinton for slinging mud at Obama. When Obama goes negative, you're mute. How 'bout a straight answer for once: are you troubled at all by elective abortion on demand?
Just who appointed you or the church to set the moral priorities of our society?
After all of the scandals of priestly child abuse covered up by that same church... please. Now you want to run around and set a moral agenda? What are you doing to repair that awful chapter of disgrace and immorality?
And did you notice that Hillary does not have to "go negative"? She is at the core down in the sewer running a negative campaign.
Whoa, Rabbi! Down, boy, down! Neither I nor the Church (with an upper case "c") set the rules. Evil things are either malum in se, intrinsically evil, or malum prohibidum, wrong because of societal prohibitions. An example of malum in se is murder, which is the intentional killing of another human being with malice aforethought. Malum prohibidum covers such conduct as the failure to file an income tax return.
Malum in se stems from Natural Law and is something not subject to human legislation or repeal, while malum prohibidum arises from common convention.
It seems pretty clear to me that killing babies is intrinsically evil, and it contravenes the Law of G-d.
As for the your nasty little quip about the pedophilia scandal which occurred, how dare you lay the blame at my feet. I'm just as appalled by such disgusting conduct, and I don't condone the Church's actions in sweeping the problem under the rug. The people who did so, however, are imperfect humans just as you and I are imperfect. Nevertheless, all persons involved in harming innocent children, whether committing the abuse, enabling the abuser or covering up the crimes should be soundly punished.
You still haven't answered my questions. Is abortion intrinsically evil? How do you square your criticism of Clinton's negative campaign while apparently approving Obama's negativity?
Finally, stop with the ad hominum attacks. You're doing exactly the same sort of negativity which you ostensibly decry.
Is Christianity intrinsically evil? Is selling cigarettes intrinsically evil? Is pedophilia intrinsically evil? Is Islam intrinsically evil?
You are asking for my opinion about an issue that is outside the scope of this post. I understand from the way you ask what your opinion is on this subject. I respect your rights to such opinions.
The idea the evil is an entity that can be "inherent" in something is not part of Judaism. It appears to be a part of Catholic thought, probably originating in an early dualistic system.
Thank you, Rabbi, for your comment about respecting my position on abortion. I note, however, that you haven't expressed your opinion, nor have you endorsed mine. I have to reiterate my request for you to answer the simple question: Is abortion intrinsically evil?
You stated in your post that "The idea the evil is an entity that can be 'inherent' in something is not part of Judaism." Sorry, but I disagree strongly. Each of your 619 mitzvahs are Divine commandments. Are you - or anyone else for that matter - free to vary the requirements thereof? Don't think so. According to your law, I am bound by the Noahide mitzvahs. Can I justifiably defy them? Don't think so.
I agree that the concept of Natural Law is not particularly well developed in Jewish philosophy. It is not entirely foreign, however. Joseph Albo, a 15th century Jewish philosopher, presented his views in Sefer ha-Ikkarim in which he distinguished three kinds of law: natural, conventional, and divine. Natural law is the same for all persons, times, and places; conventional law is ordered by a wise man in accord with reason; divine law is given by God through a prophet.
Maimonides recognized the difference between rational mitzvot as opposed to traditional mitzvot, an obvious recognition of Natural Law and the concepts of malum in se and malum prohibidum.
As for the laundry list of questions you posed: Christianity is a general term. Some denominations may well be evil, though I have doubts. Pedophilia is definitely evil by nature. Selling cigarettes is probably not intrinsically evil, but its not particularly innocent either. The Jury's out on Islam.
Listen, are you going to answer either of the two questions I posed to you?
Somehow, I'm not at all surprised by your last post. You won't answer my questions because you cannot do so honestly without admitting things which fly in the face of your political musings. Rabbi, where I've been associated with people or organizations engaging in conduct or espousing opinions contrary to my own, I've owned up to it. I told you that I oppose the death penalty and support gun control. Neither of those opinions will endear me to other Republicans. I've condemned the Pedophile Priests and their ilk, and that, I'm quite sure, doesn't sit well with the hierarchy of the Church.
C'mon, Rabbi. Come clean on these issues. Confession does a soul good.
17 comments:
LATEST Gallup
Only 59% of Democratic voters who support Clinton say they would vote for Obama against McCain, while 28% say they would vote for the Republican McCain. This suggests that some Clinton supporters are so strongly opposed to Obama (or so loyal to Clinton) that they would go so far as to vote for the "other" party's candidate next November if Obama is the Democratic nominee.
A real team player that Hillary. If she loses the game, she burns down the ballpark.
Rabbi, I have to ask you this: what's with this negativity and tearing down? Aren't you above this? Isn't this why you support Obama-rama-ding-ding-dong? I'm just asking; I not a Clinton supporter. I'm a Republican.
Sorry, I speak better English than my last post. I just don't type it better! It should say "I'm not" instead of "I not."
As a R you should be an expert in the gotcha game. I don't like to play it except when politicians or rabbis or popes radiate it, I just hold up the mirror and reflect it back.
Tzvee's last comment made zero sense, but how can anyone be surprised, following all his other political statements?
First, I am an expert as such. It should be "an 'R'" not "a R." GOTCHA.
Second, your post seems to say "I'm rubber, you're glue. What ever you say bounces off me and sticks to you." Rather juvenile, don't you agree? GOTCHA. Third, your blog entry displays the exact negative campaign rhetoric you so vehemently decry. Why the double standard, Rabbi? GOTCHA.
On a serious note, I'm a registered Republican mostly because I cannot tolerate the liberal politics of abortion. The liberal press and the DNC made a great deal out of the death of the 4,000th American soldier this past week. I agree that too many Americans - and Iraqis - have died in this conflict, and I wish the war had been avoided. Even one death is too many.
Not one mention was made, however, that during the same five year time frame, 6.6 million American babies died from abortion.
John,
You must see the difference between soldiers' war deaths and aborted fetuses. Why do you mix them together?
I'm enraged over 4,000 needless deaths in Iraq. Totally apart from that I am horrified by 2,000,000 deaths from cigarette poisoning in the US over the past 5 years. Aren't you?
I'm also waiting for Hillary to disclose her tax returns. More important - I'm waiting for her to disclose all of the sermons of her pastor over the past 7 years. I'm sure will find plenty to object to in those.
Words cannot convey my astonishment over your last comment. Do you mean to suggest that the wanton destruction of 6.6 million human beings is less intrinsically evil than wartime deaths? Although there are some obvious differences between the evils, none of them reduce the immorality of the politics of abortion. In some ways, the differences point to the conclusion that abortion is a greater evil: the babies who are killed are utterly innocent and defenseless.
Here's the DNC position: we'll give babies free college tuition and healthcare provided that they haven't been killed first. Before birth, they're fair game. Don't you see the problems with that approach?
Obama's position is actually WORSE than the party's position. Legislation was introduced in Congress and in several state assemblies entitled the Born Alive Infants Protection Act providing that all live-born babies were guaranteed the constitutional right to equal protection of law. BAIPA was passed by the Senate by unanimous vote, and even Sens. Clinton, Kennedy and Kerry agreed that a mother's right to "choose" stopped at her baby's delivery.
Likewise,the bill passed overwhelmingly in the House. NARAL declared itself neutral on the bill, and most abortion enthusiasts publicly agreed that fighting BAIPA would appear extreme. President Bush thereafter signed BAIPA into law in 2002.
The Illinois version of BAIPA repeatedly failed, however, in large part to then State Sen. Barack Obama, and it was only enacted in 2005 after Obama left.
(Isn't it ironic that Barack is Swahili for "One who is blessed by God." He certainly is blessed since he wasn't aborted by his mother.)
Where is your sense of outrage? Don't you care?
John your rhetoric is way over the top. Nobody would even want to engage you in a discussion of the issue of abortion rights because of the way you formulate your accusatory opinions.
I am astonished that you just ignore my reference to cigarette poisoning. Are you a smoker? Do you know the suffering that is caused by cigarettes to 400,000 Americans who die from smoking each year. Each one of those deaths is an act of torture. Are you not outraged by that? Or perhaps you live in North Carolina where you can be anti-abortion and pro-smoking at the same time, not to mention pro-gun.
Don't assume anything, Rabbi. I'm not from North Carolina. I don't smoke. Just so you know, I vigorously OPPOSE guns in almost all cases, and I OPPOSE the death penalty.
Smoking, however, is a far cry from the evil of abortion. Nobody ever forced a person to smoke his or her first cigarette, so the moral equivalence between aborted babies and smokers' deaths is tenuous at best.
You accuse me of not speaking to the issues? It is to laugh at your foolishness! (Or, if you prefer the original French, "C'est à rire.") You are the one who fails to answer legitimate inquiries. You criticize Clinton for slinging mud at Obama. When Obama goes negative, you're mute. How 'bout a straight answer for once: are you troubled at all by elective abortion on demand?
Just who appointed you or the church to set the moral priorities of our society?
After all of the scandals of priestly child abuse covered up by that same church... please. Now you want to run around and set a moral agenda? What are you doing to repair that awful chapter of disgrace and immorality?
And did you notice that Hillary does not have to "go negative"? She is at the core down in the sewer running a negative campaign.
Whoa, Rabbi! Down, boy, down! Neither I nor the Church (with an upper case "c") set the rules. Evil things are either malum in se, intrinsically evil, or malum prohibidum, wrong because of societal prohibitions. An example of malum in se is murder, which is the intentional killing of another human being with malice aforethought. Malum prohibidum covers such conduct as the failure to file an income tax return.
Malum in se stems from Natural Law and is something not subject to human legislation or repeal, while malum prohibidum arises from common convention.
It seems pretty clear to me that killing babies is intrinsically evil, and it contravenes the Law of G-d.
As for the your nasty little quip about the pedophilia scandal which occurred, how dare you lay the blame at my feet. I'm just as appalled by such disgusting conduct, and I don't condone the Church's actions in sweeping the problem under the rug. The people who did so, however, are imperfect humans just as you and I are imperfect. Nevertheless, all persons involved in harming innocent children, whether committing the abuse, enabling the abuser or covering up the crimes should be soundly punished.
You still haven't answered my questions. Is abortion intrinsically evil? How do you square your criticism of Clinton's negative campaign while apparently approving Obama's negativity?
Finally, stop with the ad hominum attacks. You're doing exactly the same sort of negativity which you ostensibly decry.
I'm impressed. "Is abortion intrinsically evil?"
Is Christianity intrinsically evil? Is selling cigarettes intrinsically evil? Is pedophilia intrinsically evil? Is Islam intrinsically evil?
You are asking for my opinion about an issue that is outside the scope of this post. I understand from the way you ask what your opinion is on this subject. I respect your rights to such opinions.
The idea the evil is an entity that can be "inherent" in something is not part of Judaism. It appears to be a part of Catholic thought, probably originating in an early dualistic system.
Thank you, Rabbi, for your comment about respecting my position on abortion. I note, however, that you haven't expressed your opinion, nor have you endorsed mine. I have to reiterate my request for you to answer the simple question: Is abortion intrinsically evil?
You stated in your post that "The idea the evil is an entity that can be 'inherent' in something is not part of Judaism." Sorry, but I disagree strongly. Each of your 619 mitzvahs are Divine commandments. Are you - or anyone else for that matter - free to vary the requirements thereof? Don't think so. According to your law, I am bound by the Noahide mitzvahs. Can I justifiably defy them? Don't think so.
I agree that the concept of Natural Law is not particularly well developed in Jewish philosophy. It is not entirely foreign, however. Joseph Albo, a 15th century Jewish philosopher, presented his views in Sefer ha-Ikkarim in which he distinguished three kinds of law: natural, conventional, and divine. Natural law is the same for all persons, times, and places; conventional law is ordered by a wise man in accord with reason; divine law is given by God through a prophet.
Maimonides recognized the difference between rational mitzvot as opposed to traditional mitzvot, an obvious recognition of Natural Law and the concepts of malum in se and malum prohibidum.
As for the laundry list of questions you posed: Christianity is a general term. Some denominations may well be evil, though I have doubts. Pedophilia is definitely evil by nature. Selling cigarettes is probably not intrinsically evil, but its not particularly innocent either. The Jury's out on Islam.
Listen, are you going to answer either of the two questions I posed to you?
I have said all that I will on the subject for now.
Somehow, I'm not at all surprised by your last post. You won't answer my questions because you cannot do so honestly without admitting things which fly in the face of your political musings. Rabbi, where I've been associated with people or organizations engaging in conduct or espousing opinions contrary to my own, I've owned up to it. I told you that I oppose the death penalty and support gun control. Neither of those opinions will endear me to other Republicans. I've condemned the Pedophile Priests and their ilk, and that, I'm quite sure, doesn't sit well with the hierarchy of the Church.
C'mon, Rabbi. Come clean on these issues. Confession does a soul good.
Post a Comment