I enjoyed BOOING her remarks on another issue during a commencement addresss!

Quote from: OHCA

I enjoyed BOOING her remarks on another issue during a commencement addresss!

What was she talking about?

U.S. war with the arab countries.

I didn't know she was arab until I read your post.  I think she hit other conservative issues too, but the war is all I remember for sure.  Also, I can't remember exactly what she said.  I just remember sitting by my mother-in-law at my wife's graduation, and being aware that a liberal that I have to work with was about 3 rows behind me, and resisiting the urge as long as I could out of tact and self-preservation and then a BIG BOO!!

Unfortunately, Helen Thomas speaks out with one foot in the grave.  She's too little too late, it would seem.  Hope she gets her pension.  But she's got to be lauded for saying what she has.  The SSPX has completely wimped out on the Jєωιѕн/zionist question.

That's true Hollingsworth, but if she can say it, the priests can say it.  If they really were interested in the Kingship of Christ they would not be afraid to say it.

Quote from: hollingsworth1

Unfortunately, Helen Thomas speaks out with one foot in the grave.  She's too little too late, it would seem.  Hope she gets her pension.  But she's got to be lauded for saying what she has.  The SSPX has completely wimped out on the Jєωιѕн/zionist question.

That's true Hollingsworth, but if she can say it, the priests can say it.  If they really were interested in the Kingship of Christ they would not be afraid to say it.

Kinship ofChrist? is that part of the new "springtime"??? :roll-laugh2: :scared2:

OHCA

What good is there to say about the two wars we made on Iraq?

. . .
 

Not as much good to say about it as I thought back in the beginning.  I still think the regime that was in power was a threat to the safety of Americans and other westerners.  But, in hindsight, I am not at all pleased with how the Bush adminstration handled the war on terror, particularly on the domestic front.

Even if the policies and laws (reduced liberties) were ok under Bush (but probably not), it was short-sighted to take these steps which encroached on our liberties.  We now see it has become a big-brother gone awry NWO nightmare (groping in airports, "watch lists," I can't even get real canceled checks back as the banks say it's prohibited by the Patriot Act)!

I think you're exaggerating OHCA's position.

Not as much good to say about it as I thought back in the beginning.  I still think the regime that was in power was a threat to the safety of Americans and other westerners.  But, in hindsight, I am not at all pleased with how the Bush adminstration handled the war on terror, particularly on the domestic front.

I thought we would go in and give them a 6 month kicking around show them we could shake up there power structure and be done with it.  I know many people think at least the power structure was "stable," but many (not pretending to care much about them) were brutalized by that stability.

I didn't expect so much life, time, and resources to be expended.  Also, I never dreamed that our government would use the "effort" against "terror" as an excuse to curtail the liberties and freedom of it's own citizens!  Even if Bush, et al, had the right "intentions," they demonstrated arrogance, stupidity, and short-sightedness in putting in place measures (Patriot Act, inter alia) so ripe for abuse (if not inherently abusive) to readily fall into the hands of their political enemies!

My "in hindsight" point is not that I once believed the "reasons" proffered and now do not.  But rather the points that 1) we didn't make low-budget short work of it, and 2) our gov has suppressed US with furthering the "effort" and "security" as a ruse!

I personally believe Hussein was a threat.  That's what I think.  I'm not going to try to justify war based on what "I think." But all the same, I couldn't denounce that which I personally thought to be subduing an enemy.  I have little doubt that he encouraged and rewarded those who hurt us, and likely was even more involved.

I don't see why one can't recognize that there are serious issues with both Jєωs and moslems.

Belloc's point about "war on terror." I don't quibble with.  That's not to say that those who employ the tactic shouldn't be punished.

I'm don't doubt that we gave them wmd.  Moslems--why not give them the goods to whip up on the ones who are more our enemies at the time and then go in and whip up on the one we originally gave wmd to when called for.  Not saying that was the scenario here, nor that that is a prudent "tactic."  But I'm not sure I have a moral or philosophical problem with that "tactic."

I'm not a Hannity fan nor a tea bagger.  We need a legitimate third party.  But I feel obligated to vote and speak out for candidates who have a legitimate chance of winning.  If I go to the polls and vote for someone I'm certain will (and who ultimately does) garner 3% of the vote, then rather than "making a statement," I'm voting for one who can win.  Given the option of a tea bagger v. one who supports abortion, obama-care, etc. liberalism, then I'll vote for the tea bagger (but not like it much)!

If the FOX crew and Palin are neocon, then that's not what I am.  I wasn't excited about any GOP pres candiate who ever got off the ground last time.  I would rather have Buchanan than anyone who has ran in the last 20 yrs.  Yes, I'm ok with his foreign policy positions--I don't believe he would permit us to be attacked without some sort of appropriate reprisal.  I think his message would have resonated particularly well in 2008.

I don't take precisely the same hard-core hell-pit view of America that you apparently do.  But just curious, what corner of this world could one go to and find conditions most consistent with Catholicism?