Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News

Drudge Retort

User Info


Subscribe to USAF242's blog Subscribe


Special Features


--Over a solid decade of effort. We've VASTLY exceeded 'due diligence'. The locals are not interested in anything except some sort of gay killing, child raping Sharia.

--A solid decade of effort. We've VASTLY exceeded 'due diligence'. The locals insist on infighting. Plenty of imported muscle involved to 'help' with the infighting.

--Group effort by 'the west' to cut out support of government. Almost another Islamist disaster, but Egyptian military saved the day.

--Group effort by 'the west' to help take down government. Interestingly, Obama got enough push back from people who had learned about the pointless of helping Muslims, that he had to have the U.S. take a solid back seat, although still involved sadly. Results in Libya were predictable, just like in Syria.

--Group effort by 'the west' to help take down government. Interestingly, Obama got enough push back from people who had learned about the pointless of helping Muslims, that involvement has been minimal. Although actual Euro involvement is even less, even if they are even more anti-Assad than we are.
Probable results in Syria predictable.
If Assad wins, he will kill A LOT of people, than go back to business as usual.
If Islamists win (the ONLY other faction, even if not unified, and even fights itself), then even MORE people will be murdered, and the hell hole will be vastly worse than Assad.

Given that Fracking has dramatically reduced the strategic importance of that region, "National Interests" reasons for getting involved are VASTLY less than in earlier decades.
I absolutely agree that thug dictators should NOT be supported.
But Thug dictators in THAT region (and only that region) should not be opposed just for being thug dictators.

Being a Gay Priest = Non issue.

Being a Gay Priest and telling the church to adjust to you = Issue.

At best the argument can be made that any 'non-hetero-married' sexual relationship is for 'practical purposes' the same as a hetero couple shacking up (at best, assuming its monogamous and caring).

Even a priests in an active sexual relationships, gay or otherwise, keep their jobs, provided they keep things quiet. The 'hypocrite factor' is even small if they do proper 'penance' for screwing around outside marriage and while being a priest (The church has been dealing with this as long as it has been celibate. Provided the priest is not making other problems, it has usually not been a firing offense. (Sleeping with a nice widow in a caring relationship is not the same as balling hookers, which in turn is not the same as breaking up a family).

A good argument can be made that 'state sanctioned' marriage presumed to be based on 'love' is the same for any sexual orientation. But that view of marriage is an aberration (although not an automatically 'bad' aberration), even for heteros.

Marriage until a century or two ago, was about inheriting children, family property, and family alliances by blood, and NOT just for royals. Even peasant families that had land rights operated this way. This is why grandparents and parents told kids who they would wed. Personal affections WAS a priority, but it was about #3 or #4 priority on the list. Furthermore, there were some very good reasons for running things this way. Decisive and CORRECT reasons if you focus on extended family above personal liberty. This made marriage that could not produce offspring a rare exception (although not unheard of, as all those other aspects of property and extended family politics would be in play, and yes, adoption happened too, but WITHIN that framework).

This is why when you hear how 'non-family orientated' western counties are, it usually means your grandparents don't get to arrange your marriage.

But having said all that, in the eyes of history, WE are the strange aberration.

My own focus, as always, is individual free will. So for 'state sanctioned' 'partnerships', I am completely cool with new things, but it is not traditional marriage. But then, unless a family is being made, neither are hetero set ups. And telling a church that it is has ANY obligation to sanction such set ups, or even call them 'marriage', is flat out wrong.

Someone has not bothered looking past leftie drivel:

What the people who WROTE IT said (And not just one of them):


You'll find ammo for some points in there, but I especially like Ben Franklin's quote, the first one listed. Ben had a great way of making clear points:


"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"

This is interesting:


I suspect a fair number of men would take such a pill daily if need be, at least if it does not make them ill.

Article says women would not trust men to use it (good sense), but men can't really trust women on that point either.

Drudge Retort

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2015 World Readable