Obama versus Fightin' Irish in a Catholic Smackdown.
While Republican Eric Cantor was out at the Britney Spears concert and the rest of the world is apparently bored to tears by Obama's address filled with numbers and stats, I've been looking for more news IN CASE YOU MISSED IT. While others are looking for reasons to chide the new President on his late night jokes, being too serious, being an idiot who's useless without his teleprompter... I've become intrigued with the biggest issue to come out of recent attempts to slam Obama. His invitation to Notre Dame. Say whaaaa?
That's right, Thousands of people have signed a petition to prevent President Obama from speaking at a commencement this summer. Why? Well Notre Dame is a Catholic college and as such President Obama is in direct violation of the Catholic church's position on pro-life issues. Forget that Obama holds the highest office in the land, forget that he has personally helped the great state of Indiana and won the state this past election and even forget that Notre Dame invited President Bush to a commencement when Bush was in direct opposition of the Pope who deemed the Iraq war a war of slaughtering innocents.
You may remember the Iraq war, it's had as many as 100,000 civilian deaths and it could be upwards of more. You may also remember that when President Bush did his commencement at Notre Dame, no one batted an eyelash. The Vatican strongly opposed the US-led invasion of Iraq, but it was okay for Bush to speak at Notre Dame. So what's different now?
Well for starters the Notre Dame student body is more liberal. What?! In fact a majority of the student body is enthusiastic about President Obama coming to speak. So where are all these names coming from? Well most aren't coming from the campus. Despite all the rumors of protest and outrage, only a couple dozen students even seem to have an opinion on the matter. There are no protests planned, at least not at the moment. Largely because there is no one to protest.
Obama won the campus' mock election earlier this year by a huge margin and has often visited nearby areas drawing huge crowds of supporting Catholics. You also might note that Obama won the majority of Catholics for the entire United States this past election. So why all the stink? Apparently it's alumni of the school that's causing the "outrage". Many of these people haven't been a part of Notre Dame for decades, but now feel the need to speak out. Who cares if the school wants him there? Apparently not the alumni. Republican alumni. Coincidence?
Father John Jenkins, president of the university and highest ranking official there apparently has taken Obama's plans to heart and welcomes Obama there because he believes that people with differing opinions should be able to cooperate and speak to one another. Jenkins and everyone involved with the school has said Obama is certainly still invited because he's an inspirational leader. Imagine that? Listening to the ideals of someone with a differing opinion. I can see why the Catholic church would appall such a notion.
The idea that everyone who speaks at the school must agree entirely with the Catholic church's ideals is a bit far fetched. Many of the student body don't even agree with the ideas. College is supposed to be a learning experience, one where you see the world at a larger view. Certainly since it is a Catholic school, Catholic ideas should be taught... And I can guarantee they are. But there should be voices from the other side. Especially if they're the President. Besides it's not like Obama is there to have a "kill babies" rally, he's there to talk about achievement and discipline. Something the first ever African American President surely knows something about.
In the end this is largely a case of much adieu about nothing. A story trumped up by a bored new media looking for something to talk about. What happened to the days when we were supposed to respect the office of President even if we didn't like the man? Well according to Indiana Republicans that's only a rule that works when it involves a Republican in office, not a Democrat. It's a shame that a small minority of stubborn zealots would attempt to ruin what should be a great honor for the majority of Notre Dame's graduating students. Then again, that's become the mantra of the red party as of late.
Well said your country is ridiculous and terrible, I agree.
Posted By: Kent Baker (Guest) on March 26, 2009 at 11:20 PM
Er... President Bush spoke at the 2001 Notre Dame commencement. Amazingly, no one at Notre Dame looked into the future and correctly predicted that the Iraq War would begin two years later. You're probably confusing Notre Dame with Nostradamus.
Also, you say "But there should be voices from the other side. Especially if they're the President. Besides it's not like Obama is there to have a 'kill babies' rally, he's there to talk about achievement and discipline."
Well, if he's going to be there to talk about "achievement and discipline", how is his address going to give a "voice" to the "other side"? What's the "other side" of the debate over achievement and discipline?
Posted By: Guest (Guest) on March 27, 2009 at 12:37 AM
Jake G., you really have a distorted view of the beliefs of the Catholic faith and the foundation of a college built upon the repect of our Our Holy Mother, Mary, and her influence upon the Catholic faith. Notre Dame is not just a college, an institution of education, but a foundation of religious belief. To deny or disrespect such beliefs is contradictory to the Roman Catholic faith unto which this institution was built. You are obviously of the age and psyche where commitment and sacrifice to God are a less meaningful device in life. I pity that your "commentary" is a reflection upon your political views rather than one more meaningful and of the spiritual realm. You could join the likes of radical Nancy Pelosi and eventually join her in burning in hell.
Posted By: guest (Guest) on March 27, 2009 at 01:49 AM
Guest is right Jake,Bush did his commencement speech in May of 2001.The U.S. became involved in the war in Iraq in March of 2003.Look, do not get your info from think progress or the Daily Kos and maybe you will not look like such a idiot next time.
Truly the most stupid post in the history of 411 mania.
Posted By: John (Guest) on March 27, 2009 at 02:17 AM
One google search Jake, thats all it took for me to get Bushes commencement speech from 2001.
Do you want to know what he talked about?Lets see unity,compassion,charitible giving, and a little welfare reform.(signed into law by Clinton)
I mean really, your whole article is to point out non existent hypocracy.9-11 had not happend yet,Bush hadn't even gone to war with Afganistan or Iraq.
This is horrible writing.One of the most intellectually empty posts in the history of political discussions.
Look........if you do not believe me.Google Bush commmencment speech Norte Dame.It will give you the date and transcript of the speech.
I am embarrased for you.
Posted By: John (Guest) on March 27, 2009 at 02:50 AM
I never said he was going to give a voice to the other side. I said there should be voices FROM the other side. He's obviously on the opposite side of their position about abortion.
However he's not there to debate it, thus there really shouldn't be any objections to him speaking there.
As for Bush's commencement, I never said he had it after the war in Iraq. I said that he was in direct opposition with the Pope on issues, but no one cared. If it's a no-go for Obama to do a commencement there, these same people should be outraged that Bush was there. They're not.
Try to keep up.
Posted By: Jake G (Registered) on March 27, 2009 at 03:51 AM
Its people throwing poo...and hoping something sticks.
Posted By: MydniteSon (Guest) on March 27, 2009 at 08:20 AM
Jake, aren't you embarrassed at your inaccuracies? And your misspellings? And the fact that you are minimizing the significance of a situation that is akin to Hitler being invited to give the commencement at at Hebrew University. Yes, I meant that. Obama is on record (repeatedly) supporting not only abortion, but infanticide, which not only Catholics, but the VAST majority of Americans oppose. There is a line in the sand that has been drawn at Notre Dame, not by "a small minority of stubborn zealots" (oh THAT'S mature - and inaccurate) but by righteousness itself. Wrong is wrong, my friend. Saying evil is good does not make it so.
Posted By: Guest#7961 (Guest) on March 27, 2009 at 09:00 AM
You really are a fool.. Bush went there in 2001 you idiot!
Also, watch this video and see the truth behind your "messiah" Obama:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw
Posted By: Spyke (Guest) on March 27, 2009 at 09:07 AM
I agree with Guest. Do some research Jake G.!
Posted By: Jason (Guest) on March 27, 2009 at 09:26 AM
Wait, so is your point that people aren't allowed to have opposing views and protest??
You liberals amaze me. It's quite alright to have huge rallies against Bush and push those 1st amendment rights...but as soon as someone starts saying bad things about your savior, Barack, it's wah-wah-wah, stop it.
I don't agree with the Catholics in this instant, and I'm Catholic myself, but they certainly have every right to let their opinion know. To spew hate, distort facts and belittle them is sad.
Posted By: ODog (Guest) on March 27, 2009 at 09:58 AM
People complaining about Obama? I certainly plan to stay glued to my seat and await further developments...
Also, sorry, but "much adieu"?
Posted By: KanyonKreist (Registered) on March 27, 2009 at 10:19 AM
"The vatican strongly opposed the US led invasion of Iraq but it was OK for Bush to speak at Norte Dame"
It was ok to speak becuase Bush had not invaded Iraq yet Jake.You argument makes no sense.One has nothing to do with another.Do some research next time.
I am just trying to help you becuase frankly it looks like you might need it.
Posted By: John (Guest) on March 27, 2009 at 11:34 AM
ok, so Bush spoke before the Iraq War, that being said what about his death penalty record as the governor of Texas???? That was known before and that is most definitely against Jesus' teachings
Posted By: Guest#6705 (Guest) on March 27, 2009 at 11:44 AM
"Something the first ever African American President surely knows something about."
That should read, "Something the first ever somewhat African American President surely knows something about."
I just hate it when those who wallow in race are so casual with their definition of it.
Posted By: AdmChesterMynutz (Guest) on March 27, 2009 at 11:53 AM
"...you really have a distorted view of the beliefs of the Catholic faith and the foundation of a college built upon the repect of our Our Holy Mother, Mary, and her influence upon the Catholic faith..."
Y'know...This is what I don't understand about Catholics. Why Mary? Whay does she matter. She IS NOT THE SON OF GOD. SHE IS ONLY A WOMAN.
Sure, she may have given birth to Him, but SHE is *not* HE, so what gives?
I mean, if I was Jesus (and some say I am) and my mother gave birth to me, I would be pretty pissed that a select sect of people would rather pray to her than - well, I dunno, the one who DIED FOR THEIR SINS.
Posted By: Anarchist (Guest) on March 27, 2009 at 12:06 PM
"Despite all the rumors of protest and outrage, only a couple dozen students even seem to have an opinion on the matter. There are no protests planned, at least not at the moment. Largely because there is no one to protest."
"In the end this is largely a case of much adieu about nothing. A story trumped up by a bored new media looking for something to talk about."
Jake: Pot, kettle, black.
Posted By: Shockmaster (Guest) on March 27, 2009 at 12:17 PM
will he talk about how his new healthcare plan will help charlie weiss lose weight?
Posted By: Bryan Jones (Guest) on March 27, 2009 at 12:31 PM
These comments appear to be from the 27% of people who do not support our president. I have never seen or heard such treasonous, malicious, defamatory, and ignorant rants from the "party of no". And our media thinks it's ok to sanction and promote it. Truly PATHETIC!! I say if you can't disagree without being disagreeable then just sit back, shut up, and wait to go vote in 2012.
Posted By: RUKiddingMe (Guest) on March 27, 2009 at 12:31 PM
did'nt Reagan play football for Notre Dame?
Posted By: Bryan Jones (Guest) on March 27, 2009 at 01:20 PM
RUKiddingMe,
RURetarded?
So now people can't voice an opposition opinion against Obama?
They can't hold public protests?
They can't speak their voices?
Even if it's just 27% of the population- which is still millions of people...they can't speak out?
Why should they remain silent? Why should the media not report it?
What is the media's role for the people?
Who should they be loyal to- the President or the People?
Who does the President work for? Regardless of who they voted for- is it not the people? All of them?
Treason? Becareful what you ask for- you may end up living in a dictatorship.
And the people who are serving in the military are by far and large conservative...so you can feel safe that at least they will protect your rights, even if you want to have them taken from so many people.
You’re the traitor- not the people who exercise their freedoms, protected by Americans better than you.
Posted By: The Spook (Guest) on March 27, 2009 at 01:44 PM
Conservatism is idiotic.
Posted By: The Spook. (Guest) on March 27, 2009 at 01:58 PM
"... what about his death penalty record as the governor of Texas???? That was known before and that is most definitely against Jesus' teachings..."
I love these comments.
Why do liberals worry about the rights of convicted murders, or terrorists- but not those of an innocent kid?
What is it that drives a liberal to defend the rights of person to kill a baby...but save the life of a convicted killer?
I'm just amazed by the priorities that you dipshits have.
It's even better when you use the "teachings of Jesus" to justify the protection of murders...
But defend abortion for medical profit by denouncing the idea of faith- the possibility of a soul.
It's complete double talk nonsense- you don't have any real standards or values...not in a real sense or even imaginary.
Anarchist, what do you know about anything...you stand for nothing. You have no values. You have no reason to act- because you are an "anarchist".
You stand for nothing, and nobody will stand next to you- because you show no morals. You have no morals. You're ethically bankrupt and morally depleted.
You attack religion, you attack society, and you attack civility- so what do you want?
Chaos? I hope you get it one day- because you won't last a minute without Hotpockets or Videogames. You will be nothing more than a panic stricken boy, screaming for help if all the things you stand for come to pass.
You're a buffoon...a statistic...and manipulated by your own bullshit.
Most of all you stand alone...not a minority voice, not a majority voice- a single voice, crying for attention and justification.
Keep crying...I enjoy it. It makes me laugh that you will be the victim of your own wishes and self destructive behavior.
You're probably poor- and lonely- because most Anarchists are...and you're gay.
Posted By: The Spook (Registered) on March 27, 2009 at 02:11 PM
'Conservatism is idiotic.'
And Neo-liberals are know-nothing bandwagon-jumpers.
'As for Bush's commencement, I never said he had it after the war in Iraq.'
Idiot. So why on earth would you use it as a selling point?
'You may also remember that when President Bush did his commencement at Notre Dame, no one batted an eyelash.'
Pretty sure that if it had happened post-9/11 things would have been different. But, seeing as it was before, they wouldn't have a reason to bat an eyelash you imbecile. Nice job being a complete toolbag. Wah, I hate Bush and that's activism. Wah, people hate Obama and that's unpatriotic. Just shut up and save yourself the embarrassment.
I can't wait til Obama's 'New New Deal' completely flounders due to the lack of WWII repeating itself. Good thing I've got my finances in order.
Posted By: Brad (Guest) on March 27, 2009 at 04:16 PM
Your comment:
"As for Bush's commencement, I never said he had it after the war in Iraq. I said that he was in direct opposition with the Pope on issues, but no one cared. If it's a no-go for Obama to do a commencement there, these same people should be outraged that Bush was there. They're not.
Try to keep up."
Posted By: Jake G (Registered) on March 27, 2009 at 03:51 AM
Your original post:
" ...and even forget that Notre Dame invited President Bush to a commencement when Bush was in direct opposition of the Pope who deemed the Iraq war a war of slaughtering innocents."
It seems really unfair to ask your readers to keep up with a sentence that seems to very obviously indicate that the Pope had some how disapproved of a war years before it had occurred. If you meant anything other than what the majority of these commenter's have pointed out, I would suggest an edit, rather than a derogatory comment such as "try to keep up."
Furthermore, sentences such as this: "The Vatican strongly opposed the US-led invasion of Iraq, but it was okay for Bush to speak at Notre Dame." Further indicate such a point.
Also, you are arguing that when the Pope came out against the war, that there should have been a backlash against Bush for an appearance he made two years prior? What exactly are you expecting happen? A retroactive protest? Are you suggesting that they retroactively take offense to Bush appearing there despite him not having formed a policy preference at the time? I think they could damn him for his preference after he formulated it, but to damn his appearance (when he did not have the war to run) is a bit of a ridiculous request.
Furthermore, with Bush's appearance in 2001, and Obama's appearance in 2009, how did you distinguish between the protesters from then, and the current protesters? There have been quite a few new students there and quite a few new alums added to your data pool between now and then.
Now, if you actually did any real research before writing your post, and have the answers to these questions, ill be greatly delighted/surprised, but if your original work was any indication, I imagine you will be scrambling through Google to find some hail marry justifications to the concerns I raised above. Either way, i'll be sure to be entertained (or i'll have a good chuckle when you just choose not to address this wall of text.)
Posted By: Shadowhendrix (Guest) on March 27, 2009 at 05:05 PM
is notre dame upset about the fact conservative icon Ronald Reagan played at the school, i know he did, i saw it on dvd.
Posted By: Bryan Jones (Guest) on March 27, 2009 at 05:41 PM
I'll try to explain again, for those too slow to understand.
I have no problem with outrage. The problem is it's FALSE outrage. The majority of the student body isn't upset. This is a story that's been trumped up in the media.
Yes, I'm responding to it, so in effect drawing more attention to it. However it's not a pot-kettle situation because I'm pointing out that the story is largely bunk. That makes it a different story.
And as I've said before, Obama is FROM the other side, not FOR the other side. Big difference.
These same people have no outrage that Bush spoke there. YES BEFORE THE WAR, but the point I was making is that they had NO ISSUE with it. They're going on record now and saying that they approved of Bush speaking, but not Obama. I'm surprised this needed clarification, but that's twice I've posted it now.
As for the guy comparing Obama to Hitler? Well... Actually I think I've realized there's no point in responding to people when these are the ones who are reponding.
Posted By: Jake G (Registered) on March 27, 2009 at 06:23 PM
Obama should show up anyway, wearing a University of Michigan jersey. Hail to the Victors, bitches.
Posted By: Steve307 (Guest) on March 27, 2009 at 06:44 PM
Shadowhendrix, maybe you're just too daft to understand? I read the article and completely understood what Jake was saying.
Furthermore, I love that you people went out and tried to research what this columnist wrote in an attempt to slam him, but didn't bother to see that the same people who are protesting Obama now, have no problem with Bush's appearance, which is pretty clearly what Jake was talking about.
Even Greta Van Sustren brought up Bush's appearance at Notre Dame to these people in her FoxNews cast. As you suggesting she didn't do her research as well?
And AdmChesterMynutz, you've got to be the most racist person on these boards. You constantly decry any time someone mentions any race at all... But then you say stupid things like he's "HALF BLACK"... Wake up Klansman, when you fill out a driver's license you don't get to put half black. If your skin is dark, you're AFRICAN AMERICAN.
Maybe we should differentiate, but it's pretty much impossible. A large majority of the blacks in our country have some white ancestory in them. People are broken down into white and black, so yes Obama IS black. Stop being an idiot.
Posted By: Moon (Guest) on March 27, 2009 at 06:56 PM
Jake, you still have to answer this question: Since the war in Iraq had not started yet, why would anyone bat an eyelash? Most colleges would be honored to have a sitting President speak at their commemcement.
Spook, you have finally gone too far my friend! Leave the Hot Pockets alone! They're breathtaking!
Posted By: tremere47 (Registered) on March 27, 2009 at 09:19 PM
God your stupid.......you can not even admit your argument is flawed.
NO ONE HAD A PROBLEM WITH BUSHES COMMENCMENT BECUASE THE WAR HAD NOT STARTED YET.
The fact that you have been called out by several commenters for your idiotic post but still have the gall to insult us shows how much of a dumbass you really are.
Admit it.........you read left wing propaganda, posted your nonsense,found out you were wrong, and know are trying to desperatly find a way out of this.PATHETIC.
Oh and moon, Greta is a idiot too.See, I am consistent, much unlike yourself and your cuddle buddy Jake.
Lastly...........this post is the most stupid thing I have ever read on any website.EVER.Congrats Jake.....your famous.....for being the biggest ASS ever on 411.Thats quite a accomplishment really.
Grow up and try acting like a man and admit you fucked up....badly.
Have a nice day.
Posted By: John (Guest) on March 27, 2009 at 09:45 PM
Jake,The whole tone of your article was to point out that Bush was welcomed at Notre Dame even though he took us into war in Iraq,something the pope din't approve of.
The pope,Notre Dame, Catholics,etc would not have a problem becuase the military invasion had not occured yet.
I am surprised your having a hard time understanding everyones point.Its really pretty simple.
Posted By: Keith (Guest) on March 27, 2009 at 09:51 PM
I wouldn't worry too much about the critics, these people respond to anything that is Pro-Obama and spew off their nonsense.
Obviously you presented the case well, which is why they're upset. I find it pretty hypocritical that the Catholic Church can be upset that Obama is set to speak there, but have no issues to the fact that Bush appeared.
But kudos to Father John Jenkins and the Notre Dame student body for supporting Obama coming. At least all of the Catholic church isn't based on hypocrisy.
Keep up the good work.
Posted By: ThePoe (Guest) on March 27, 2009 at 10:03 PM
I have no problem with the column, but many of the comments posted here are stupid.
John's was incredibly stupid.
The 411 politics section used to be decent to read, but then it just become a place from Republicans idiots to blame Obama for everything and attack anyone who isn't saying he sucks.
Posted By: lol (Guest) on March 27, 2009 at 10:06 PM
the Poe, well said and consistent.I never made the argument that Obama should not speak at ND.He is a sitting president that may have differing opinions from my own but I respect his right to advocate for what he belives in.
The bush speech nonsense is garbage and any sane person would see Jakes argument is flawed,That and his flippant attitude when proven wrong is astounding.
Posted By: John (Guest) on March 27, 2009 at 10:43 PM
'I wouldn't worry too much about the critics, these people respond to anything that is Pro-Obama and spew off their nonsense.'
Funny, I was about to say the same thing about liberals defending anything that makes Obama out to be a good guy. Oh well, I guess irony makes the world go round.
Oh, and Jake. If you're upset about the fact that 'thousands of people signed a petition' in protest of Obama's visit, know this: thousands of people signed a petition before The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers came out because they found the name of a 60 year old book to be insensitive to the victims of 9/11. Let that soak in. Now how about the thousands of petitioners who have voiced concern about Disney and Harry Potter filling their children's heads with paganism and devil-worship. If you got aggravated about the trumped-up petition, you should probably watch your blood pressure, because you'll be able to find petitions all across this country that will make you sick.
I could start a facebook petition tonight that would advocate making it illegal for Kiera Knightley to wear clothes and I guarantee you I'd have a million signatures by the end of the week.
And I find it HILARIOUS that none of you toolbag writers have spouted the praise/fired hate-filled criticism at the house of representatives for HR 1388/The GIVE Act. Want to talk about news? There's your news. This site needs new writers...
Posted By: Brad (Guest) on March 27, 2009 at 11:01 PM
"Forget that Obama holds the highest office in the land, forget that he has personally helped the great state of Indiana and won the state this past election and even forget that Notre Dame invited President Bush to a commencement when Bush was in direct opposition of the Pope who deemed the Iraq war a war of slaughtering innocents. "
Man.... you're caught... just admit it. Here's my smartass response: What's the big deal if he did make the address in 2001? Tell everyone the Pope would have been against him because he stole the election.
Now... my intellectual response: Obama did go out of his way to include other views in his inauguration ceremonies. I do disagree with Notre Dame for even letting this be an issue. I am confused why our country now thinks that if an entity lets someone speak to them, or do ads for them, or even be a member of their group (this means you GOP and Dems) that you have to totally agree with every policy that person stands for. I would be honored if Obama had made a speech at either my undergrad or graduate ceremonies. To be honest, I couldn't be farther from his policy views. But, understanding why you disagree with someone can help strengthen your views and possibly make you rethink them. Honestly this isn't really even as big a deal as its being made out to be. It will blow over whenever the next hot topic of the week arises.
Posted By: Obrie007 (Guest) on March 27, 2009 at 11:14 PM
Spook: I pushed a button, huh? Morally bankrupt? Nice. I’ve been called worse.
Poor and lonely? I wish. I have too many resources and know too many people – most of them just like you. If murder was legal, I’d kill ‘em all. You too. Oh, but there I go being bankrupt.
I don’t *want* chaos. But we do deserve it. I welcome it. I pray to Jesus to get it. The funny thing – It would be the ONE prayer I know for a fact that will be answered.
Hot pockets are disgusting. I don’t play video games. You don’t know a damn thing about me, which just feeds my belief of people like you – No nothing sheep that have no fullfillment. You will be back here again to spout your same bullshit. I *hope* I die alone. I don’t need reassurance, even worse – FALSE reassurance that I will be okay. I will be happier than a pig in shit because I will leave this dump and feces like you behind.
Thing is Spook, you won’t know what to do when anarchy arrives. While you’re spouting off your BS, I’ll be shooting motherfuckers in the head and putting them out of their misery. Maybe you’ll worship me. Maybe you’ll fear me. I couldn’t care less.
Spook, you’re scared shitless. It’s okay. I understand. Your name represents what you are: A ghost, a relic, a metaphor for the dead. You probably already are. What do you do for a living? Do you enjoy it? How healthy are you? Who loves you? What do you do to fulfill happiness that doesn’t involve tearing others down?
You are right about one thing: I am a singular voice. I don’t *want* or *need* majority. I don’t even care for minority. Freedom=Singular. If you understood that, you would never make such an asinine point. I care about me. Fuck you. Fuck you again. And since you’ve labelled me as “gay” – Fuck you in the ass. Then fuck you in the ass again. Maybe as we make love, the heavens will open and fire will rain down upon our bodies. I’d cum on your face just as we’re being incinerated.
It took me a few days to say anything. That’s cause I have more important shit to do with my life. I don’t need to flock on here everyday and spout my doctrine to all who will read my words like you. I’m not as insecure. I don’t even carry your sense of false value. You are an insignificant boil on the asshole of life and it kills you to know that you have no voice to change what you want. Seriously, go start a rebellion. Protest. SOMETHING. Let me see you or or hear you do your work. But you can’t because you are P.O.W.E.R.L.E.S.S.
So, I’ll see you on here doing your frantic two-line paragraph train-wreck of a thought process on all things “conservative”, shake my head and wonder how you ever had the balls to beat all the other spurms to fertalize that egg because you are definitely the epitome of a pussy.
God bless you...Cunt.
Posted By: Anarchist (Guest) on March 30, 2009 at 12:00 PM
While the argument criticizing ND for inviting Bush to speak on the basis of a war that had not started yet was false, the argument about a Catholic institution inviting a pro-death penalty advocate is a bit more true. After all, Bush presided over more applications of the death penalty than any other governor in TX history.
I'm actually pro-death penalty, but if people are going to criticize a Catholic institution for invititing a pro-choice president, they had better criticize the same institution for inviting the pro-capital punishment Bush.
It's not about abortion or the death penalty--it's about hypocrisy, and I'm very sick of it--from all sides of the political spectrum.
Posted By: Michael L (Guest) on April 01, 2009 at 04:11 PM
STAY CURRENT