AJC.com > Opinion > Woman to Woman > Archives > 2008 > January > 19 > Entry
Will an “emotional moment”
be a weakness in the White House?
Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Andrea Cornell Sarvady, a left-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
In the movie A League of Their Own, Tom Hanks plays a 1940’s manager reluctantly overseeing the first women’s professional baseball team. And his classic line, “There’s no crying in baseball!” perfectly captures how so many men view tears on the job: This is not the place for them!
I believe Hillary Clinton’s much-discussed “emotional moment” in New Hampshire was powerfully genuine. I also believe it would be a weakness in the White House. Not because genuine emotion is a sign of weakness - very much the opposite. But because of the widespread perception that crying is a weakness, especially in women. And perceptions, as we all know, can create a weakness where there really isn’t one.
For example, George W. Bush is widely perceived as a buffoon, which is crazy: The man got a Harvard MBA on his own merits and built a thriving business empire. But the perception alone has impacted his ability to lead: If he makes an inexplicable decision, people don’t assume that he has information we don’t, or that the decision was labored over and fine-tuned for months. No, it’s “there goes that idiot again,” or “Cheney’s pulling his strings again.”
So the moment Hillary misted up, the talk-show circuit immediately asked, “Is she going to cry in front of Kim Jong-il?” That’s just as crazy as the idea of Bush as a buffoon; after all, she’s also accused of being an ice queen. The woman can’t win!
In a 2007 study, research firm Catalyst found that “when women act in ways that are consistent with gender stereotypes, they are viewed as less competent leaders.” Tellingly, when Ellen Degeneres bawled on her talk show in October, comedian Bill Maher commented, “At this moment when the entire nation is saying ‘Hmm, can we have a woman president? Maybe they’re too emotional,’ I don’t think this is helping.”
Americans don’t mind a President’s tears of compassion for a dead solider. But I’m guessing most Americans don’t want their President crying because he or she is exhausted and the job is “not easy.”
Emotion isn’t a weakness. But in the White House, it would be all too easy for it to be perceived as such. Especially, unfortunately, in a female president.
Rebuttal
“Can a Mormon be president?” we are asked these days, with far more gravity than that question deserves. “Can an African-American? Can a woman?” While Barak Obama rose above the ridiculous debate about whether he is black enough, misty-eyed Hillary Clinton is under fire by some for being too much of a woman.
Clearly voters are smart enough to realize that Clinton’s “emotional moment” might happen again if she gets elected. Knowing this, the people of New Hampshire didn’t just give her a consoling hug. Many, in fact, marched down to the voting booth and pushed her further towards the White House.
Clinton may yet give us other reasons to challenge her candidacy. Yet how can anyone imagine that a moment of vulnerability is enough to hurt the standing of a president? Serious concerns are developed through a body of evidence, with years in which to judge the actions and character of the commander-in-chief.
“Perception can create a weakness where there really isn’t one” my colleague Shaunti writes. How true. During a campaign, glimpses of personality may annoy us—-say, a highly-educated person who can’t pronounce simple words—but it should take far more than that for us to collectively decide our leader has been proven unfit. In examining the Bush record, it’s easy to see that something has “impacted his ability to lead.” No kidding. Lost in all the straw man concerns about looking weak in front of tyrants like Kim Jong-il is the fact that Bush’s actions abroad have already earned us the enmity of our own allies.
Like most fresh starts, the prospect of this one brings equal parts exhilaration and confusion. How exactly do we wade through all the hype brought on during this endless sales pitch? How do we know exactly what we’re buying?
The answer is simple: we don’t. For all we know, our next president may suddenly go French on us and pull a Sarkozy: get the job, get divorced and take up with an Italian model. But you know what? We’ve had worse. As long as he or she makes wise decisions, in between romantic and other emotional moments, we should survive nicely.
Services »
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By Dog
January 20, 2008 11:23 AM | Link to this
If I had any clue that Ms. Clinton’s tears were anything but a political ploy, decided by focus groups and polling, I would be concerned about her lack of ability to lead because of her emotions.
She is one of the world’s greatest politicians. Not a good leader and certainly not a good person, but a world class politician.
I am much more concerned with her connections with big insurance and big oil. Her energy plan will triple the already obscene oil company profits and her health plan is just a requirement that most Americans buy health insurance.
Her energy bill dictates that we cut back on energy by allowing the oil companies to double and triple the price of gas. This will cripple our economy and will put a huge strain on middle class families. It will drive inflation up beyond anything we have ever seen. Everything we buy has to be transported and tripling that price of transportation will drive the cost of everything through the roof, but her huge contributers will make a killing. Too bad we will be all be the victims of that killing.
Her health bill will require that all people buy health insurance, except the people that she denotes as being poor. Here’s a clue, Ms. Clinton, if they could afford health insurance, they would already have it.
If she and her relationships with big oil and big insurance gets into the white house, you will see a lot of real crying. We will all be crying.
But don’t worry, if her focus groups and polling see that crying might help her poll numbers, she will stage another boo-hoo and somehow figure out how to blame the out of control inflation on the last president that had a solid economy until the democrats regained congress and screwed everything up … . again.
By Apolitical Blues
January 20, 2008 1:55 PM | Link to this
Bush’s actions abroad have already earned us the enmity of our own allies
No one really likes war—I hope. I guess it will be the job of historians one day to decide if the invasion of Iraq was a worthwhile mission or not. In the meantime, Andrea’s statement remains true.
Personally, I’m not sure what to believe anymore. I’d like to believe that Hillary truly represented the ideals she espouses—a fair shake for the “little guy”, peaceful foreign policy, etc. If I knew for sure we could return to the “good times” of the 90s, I’d hold my nose and vote for her. I may even do that if the Republicans are dumb enough to nominate Mitt Romney.
By JokesOn
January 20, 2008 2:54 PM | Link to this
Dog,
I agree. Those are many of the reasons I like that obama. I like that he is new and has not had enough time in to owe that many people/companies.
Hope all is well.
By Dog
January 20, 2008 3:29 PM | Link to this
Obama is twisting in the wind. The brilliant Clinton war machine has cornered him and the only thing he can do is come out swinging which makes him play much closer to the race card than he intended.
Obama is also a novice in National politics. He has declared war on FOX News, a really stupid move. Even if he claimed the democratic nomination, his personal war with FOX has probably cost him many, many of the centrist votes that he will need to win.
Obama has courted the far left, not quite as much as Edwards, but enough to alienate the centrist that might lean slightly right.
By USinUK
January 21, 2008 8:29 AM | Link to this
Shaunti, I want whatever it is you’re taking: “For example, George W. Bush is widely perceived as a buffoon, which is crazy: The man got a Harvard MBA on his own merits and built a thriving business empire.”
BAAAAAAAAAhahahahahahahahahahaha
WHAT thriving business empire? Every company he ran failed and had to be bailed out by daddy and/or his friends. See Arbusto (lost money), Spectrum 7 (lost money), Harken Energy, to name a few.
As far as “having an emotional moment” - let’s be honest here - WHOEVER the first woman in the WH is, she’s going to have to put up with questions about her emotions, her cycle, her PMS/menopause, her clothing, her hair, her shoes, and, let’s not forget, her cleavage.
The only thing more pathetic than the US media covering politics is the Bush (ahem) “thriving business empire.”
By Copyleft
January 21, 2008 9:07 AM | Link to this
Leave it to Shaunti to come out against women “on principle,” as is a conservative’s duty.
I wonder if Phyllis Schlafly’s old group is still recruiting—“Ladies Against Women”?
By Dog
January 21, 2008 9:11 AM | Link to this
USinUK
Oh boo hoo. A woman will be so persecuted for being a woman. Are we going to need to listen to this garbage her entire presidency if she manages to steal this election? Is this going to be her excuse?
Let’s see, Bill’s excuse was “Character doesn’t matter”. Yes you remember that one. What a noble stance the democratic party sank to in order to justify his lack of backbone. Now Hillary turns on the political inspired faucets and women are ready to attack the media for pointing out that she is, in fact a politician that has proven in the past that she is willing to do anything to gain her goals.
But here’s a hint: no one cares about Hillary’s cleavage or any other female body parts. And obviously neither did Bill.
We do care about the fact that she was caught by the FBI in her attempt to discredit the White house Travel office because she simply needed more openings in order to hire all her cronies.
We do care about her connections with the Oil and Insurance companies.
And we do care that if we have to listen to that cackle for the next four years we will all go nuts.
But as far as Bush’s business connections, at least all his part partners are still alive.
By Copyleft
January 21, 2008 9:22 AM | Link to this
*”We do care about the fact that she was caught by the FBI in her attempt to discredit the White house Travel office because she simply needed more openings in order to hire all her cronies.
We do care about her connections with the Oil and Insurance companies.
And we do care that if we have to listen to that cackle for the next four years we will all go nuts.”*
Funny, none of that was a problem when BUSH did it….
By USinUK
January 21, 2008 9:29 AM | Link to this
Dog -
take a deep breath. I don’t give two tosses about Hillary - I think she’s a horrible candidate for any number of reasons (although, “travelgate” was SUCH a non-story, I’m laughing that you even brought it up)
The point is that it doesn’t matter who the woman is, she’s still going to have to put up with the pathetic “what’s she wearing/what’s she done with her hair/how much cleavage is she showing/is she going to cry in her meeting with the Saudis/is she going to bomb someone cuz she’s PMSing/is it global warming or just her hot flashes”
By VidCollector
January 21, 2008 9:31 AM | Link to this
Hillary taking up with a hot Italian model? Do you have a video?
By Copyleft
January 21, 2008 9:32 AM | Link to this
Conservatives still don’t realize how they’ve screwed themselves for another entire generation with Bush’s shameful record. He’s our new Nixon, our 21st Century Joe McCarthy: a far-right failure to hold up as an example of how “Republicans are worse” on every conceivable issue!
The right-wingers have forfeited their right to complain about ANYTHING Hillary or Obama or Edwards does. Because nothing those three could do will hold a candle to to what Bush has already done. Hillary’s ruthless and ambitious… so what? Bush condones torture and called the Constitution a “g- d——ed piece of paper.” Edwards has insurance industry ties? Big deal; Bush sold out our environment and our economy for the sake of his Big Oil buddies. Obama lacks foreign policy experience? Hah! What’s the worst that could happen—he gets us entangled in a stupid, unwinnable war in the Middle East, like Bush did?
The next Democratic president has carte blanche and a get-out-of-jail-free card, folks—-all thanks to your idiotic blind loyalty to another embarrassing loser, George W. Bush. The Democrats just can’t thank you enough for this gift you’ve given us.
By VidCollector
January 21, 2008 9:35 AM | Link to this
I heard that the question “How do you do it? that prompted the emotional tears in New Hampshire was really a question about her hairdoo. But she misunderstood the question.
And by hot Italian model I don’t mean Fabio, I was thinking along the lines of Sarkozy’s girlfriend.
By Matt
January 21, 2008 9:39 AM | Link to this
Good thing FDR was a Democrat. If the President was a Republican during the Great Depression, we would still be in one.
By Dog
January 21, 2008 9:45 AM | Link to this
Coptleft
Funny, none of that was a problem when BUSH did it….
Have you been on this planet for the past 7 years? Bush couldn’t go to the bathroom without democrats whining about every move he made.
By Dog
January 21, 2008 10:00 AM | Link to this
Copyleft
Conservatives still don’t realize how they’ve screwed themselves for another entire generation with Bush’s shameful record. He’s our new Nixon, our 21st Century Joe McCarthy: a far-right failure to hold up as an example of how “Republicans are worse” on every conceivable issue!
Your problem is that you actually believe what the looney left believes. Nixon is no different than Reagan or Bush I. Liberals need to put that devil like persona on anyone they hate. It’s OK that you don’t like Bush I, II Reagan or Nixon. We know who you will always vote for. We don’t care about what you think or believe.
The right-wingers have forfeited their right to complain about ANYTHING Hillary or Obama or Edwards does. Because nothing those three could do will hold a candle to to what Bush has already done.
Sounds like the reason that MoveOn.org got their name. And do you really believe that the made up garbage the mainstream media has attempted to hang on Bush is going to stick? Comedians are still making jokes about Clinton’s incompetence.
Hillary’s ruthless and ambitious… so what?
That’s what we need. Another ruthless Clinton in the White House. But this time, she won’t have the Republican Congress to bail her out.
The next Democratic president has carte blanche and a get-out-of-jail-free card, folks—-all thanks to your idiotic blind loyalty to another embarrassing loser, George W. Bush. The Democrats just can’t thank you enough for this gift you’ve given us.
Your kind excused Bill Clinton for everything from overt treason to sex in the oval office with an underling. So are you saying that this president will be able to get away with even more? Now that’s certainly something to look forward to.
By USinUK
January 21, 2008 10:07 AM | Link to this
ohfercryingoutloud … don’t be dense, Dog … Copyleft is talking about how everything Bush does is just okeydokey with your side of the aisle … spending like a drunken sailor? OKEYDOKEY … rushing to war with dubious (at best) intel? OKEYDOKEY … ignoring the law when he feels like it (FISA, for example)? OKEYDOKEY … the VP shoots someone on holiday, then waits 24 hours before meeting with the polics? OKEYDOKEY.
Whereas, if BC or anyone with a D after their name tried ANY of that, Rush would have gotten you guys out on the WH lawn with torches and pitchforks.
By Dog
January 21, 2008 10:12 AM | Link to this
USinUK
If you don’t think Travelgate was a story, you weren’t paying attention. She embezzled money out of the White House Travel Office account and then blamed the missing money on the head of the Travel office in order to have him fired. Did you honestly know that. So few people do.
It was all about finding jobs for her cronies. Earlier that year, she had fired the entire Mail Office which was made up of little old ladies that had been working there since they were hired during the 1940s. Close to 20 little old ladies were put out onto the street without any compensation so she could put her friends in those positions.
The reason why it was a non-story was because there was so much overt corruption, that no individual scandal stood out.
By Copyleft
January 21, 2008 10:16 AM | Link to this
No, I don’t think anyone will get away with more than what Bush has done. But nothing the next Democratic president will do is going to come anywhere CLOSE to the crimes Bush has committed.
So you should be happy about the coming Democratic takeover, Dog; the next White House can’t possibly be as corrupt and criminally incompetent as this last one! And that’s good news for all Americans—both patriots and conservatives alike.
By Copyleft
January 21, 2008 10:18 AM | Link to this
Gosh, firing people who were doing a good job just to find places for cronies…. now, where have I heard that story before? (cough—USAttorneys—cough)
Oh, yes—in EVERY POSITION BUSH HIRED. Don’t think Bush’s cronyism was more damaging? Go ask the residents of New Orleans.
By Dog
January 21, 2008 10:25 AM | Link to this
USinUK
Whereas, if BC or anyone with a D after their name tried ANY of that, Rush would have gotten you guys out on the WH lawn with torches and pitchforks.
He overspent and continued the policies of the Clinton Administration toward Iraq with the approval of the majority of the democrats.
Somebody get a rope!!
The FISA laws were constantly broken by the Clintons but nobody cared. Billy-Bob also had Guantanamo Bay with the exact same “torture” policies that are now in place, but nobody cared. He also had a neat little habit of sending his prisoners to countries that would laugh at waterboarding, but nobody cared.
Republicans don’t gather with torches. The charter for the KKK says that they are there to protect White people from Negros and Republicans.
By USinUK
January 21, 2008 10:25 AM | Link to this
Dog -
Anyone who works in politics knows that with a new administration comes housecleaning. No one’s job is safe, not even little old ladies in the mailroom. It happens at the state level as well as the federal -
As far as Travelgate goes, an independent council looked into it an found that Hillary did nothing to warrant prosecution.
By Dog
January 21, 2008 10:29 AM | Link to this
Copyleft
No, I don’t think anyone will get away with more than what Bush has done. But nothing the next Democratic president will do is going to come anywhere CLOSE to the crimes Bush has committed.
What crimes are those? Sending troops to war with the approval of the US Congress? Overspending?
By Dog
January 21, 2008 10:37 AM | Link to this
copyleft
New Orleans?
Are you talking about the city that had the largest public disaster shelter in the world, but in that disaster shelter there was not a single bottle of water, not a single meal, and had a total of two basic first aid kits? Is that the New Orleans you are talking about?
Are you talking about the city that had a parking lot full of school buses that they never used to evacuate a single resident at the pleading of the Federal Government?
Are you talking about the State government that did not ask the Federal Government for help until two full days after the storm? I wouldn’t expect you to understand that for the Fed to send in aid or troops without that request for help is against the US constitution. Why do you think governors are so quick to declare every storm a disaster area?
I know it is way too much to ask you to consider the incompetence of the city government of New Orleans. They were Democrats. They were supposed to be incompetent.
By Wussyboywhinybutt
January 21, 2008 10:44 AM | Link to this
I dont like the idea of a women in charge! Specially a smart capuble one. Just thinking about it make my dingaling shrivel. Thats just wrong!!! I am going to throw a tantrum all day until every body agrees with me and says mean thing about her to.
By Jack
January 21, 2008 10:46 AM | Link to this
Think Jimmy Carter. Remember the robust economy under him? Do you want that again?
Hey Dog.
By Dog
January 21, 2008 10:50 AM | Link to this
USinUK
I’ve worked in politics for years and I do know what the laws and rules are concerning temporary and permanent White House employees. These were permanent employees that she fired. Why do you think thay had been there since the 1940s?
Janet Reno blocked the access to the travel gate files from Ken Starr as she did most of his investigation.
Read Unlimited Access by Gary Alridge. The Clintons filed frivolous lawsuit after lawsuit to try and block that book’s release. It was finally the Southeastern Legal foundation that financed a counter suit against the Clinton attack machine that stopped the lawsuits. Aldrige was one of the two FBI agents that were assigned to the white House during the Clinton years.
I know you would never read it, but if you did, you would never make excuses for the Clintons again. And it barely mentions Ms. Lewinski.
By USinUK
January 21, 2008 10:52 AM | Link to this
Dog - Clinton’s Iraq policy was containment - one that was working just fine.
Clinton held people for 5+ years in Guantanamo without charges? Really? when did he do that and who to? Clinton tortured his “detainees” - do cite.
When was FISA broken by Clinton? do cite. If you’re thinking Aldrich Ames, FISA doesn’t apply to PHYSICAL searches for foreign intel purposes.
By Dog
January 21, 2008 10:53 AM | Link to this
Wussyboywhinybutt
Something tells me that your dingaling has been shriveled since you became a “progressive”. It’s a common ailment.
By JokesOn
January 21, 2008 10:55 AM | Link to this
Too much crap for a monday.
Dog,
Go ahead and defend the republican party, but for gods sake do not defend the idiot Bush.
Would you hire him as a CEO of your business?
You are sounding pretty edgy this week. All ok?
By Copyleft
January 21, 2008 11:02 AM | Link to this
Keep on spinning, Dog… and keep pretending that the “spin” only comes from one side, like a good little partisan tool.
By BarkBark
January 21, 2008 11:05 AM | Link to this
There are wussyboywhinnybutts on this blog?
By Dog
January 21, 2008 11:34 AM | Link to this
JokesOn
I’ve just had my fill of politics over the weekend and the thought of another Clinton in the White House swells up my prostate. To be honest, so would another Bush in the White House. Let’s give another family the chance to be despised by most of the world.
I could have also used anybody beating New England.
I am slammed this week so I need to run but wanted to dip the stick in the pot and give it a good swirl before I got to work. The phone is ringing and I need to run. Good to hear from you, JokesOn.
By Dog
January 21, 2008 11:42 AM | Link to this
USinUK
Actually Clinton’s Policy was regime change … well at least talking about regime change. He did little other than talk.
Guantanamo was built specifically for the reason that US Prisoners could be kept at length without the interference of US laws. It certainly isn’t a pleasant thing to consider, but every president since Johnson has used that base for the same thing Bush has used it for. Bush has been the target of a very liberal media that has actually given out state secrets in attempts at bashing Bush. So it is no surprise that there was little talk about Guantanamo before 9=11.
I need to run, but have fun today.
Dog
By Troglodyke
January 21, 2008 11:46 AM | Link to this
The bottom line with the upcoming election is that neither side has a viable front-runner, but the Repubs are in far worse shape.
The Religious Reich is wringing their hands and freaking out right about now (and I LOVE it). A vote for Mitt—probably the most competent and “Presidential” of the GOP brood—is a vote for gasp! a CULT! (That cracks me UP! Xtians not wanting to vote for Romney because they think Mormonism is a cult…classic “pot, meet kettle” rhetoric. ALL religions are CULTS.)
The RR like Huck, ‘cuz he’s a good ol’ boy sworn to uphold the Bible of the United States, but he hasn’t been a very good guv. In fact, some of his politics are actually progressive. We certainly can’t have that.
McCain is too liberal for them, and face it, no one else has a shot. Rudy’s dead in the water. Sorry, Gules, but you wore out your only card: Sept. 11th. Yawn.
So the conservatives in America are scared. They know a Dem is going to win, and it will either be a woman, or a black man. Lordy! The end-times, they are a-comin!
By JokesOn
January 21, 2008 11:50 AM | Link to this
Let’s give another family the chance to be despised by most of the world.
I agree. Plus, they are totally different types of idiots. Like arguing which is worse, dying by a slow fire or chopped-up from toes on up.
By The Real Dog
January 21, 2008 11:57 AM | Link to this
Hey guys—Just want you to know that there apparently is a “New Dog” on the blog. Hopefully my frothing at the mouth days are over. I think it must be “The Other Jack” in disguise.
Howdy Jack, JokesOn, and Wuwssyboywhinybutt.
By The Real Dog
January 21, 2008 12:03 PM | Link to this
I dont like the idea of a women in charge! Specially a smart capuble one. Just thinking about it make my dingaling shrivel. Thats just wrong!!! I am going to throw a tantrum all day until every body agrees with me and says mean thing about her to.
So…Basically you’re telling me I need to step up my game and be a man? Challenge accepted.
BTW, you’re one helluva woman. Any man who tries to change you is a fool.
By Dog
January 21, 2008 12:16 PM | Link to this
Troglodyke
Apparently you are not Republican, but you claim to know everything about us.
Let me guess: you also never listen to the Rush Limbaugh Show but you know all about him.
And of course, you never watch FOX news but you know all about that network.
Republicans are the people that fought against the racist Democrats to promote integration. Right now, the most powerful Black Person in the world is a Black woman appointed by a Republican President. She replaced a Black man that was appointed by the same Republican President. but you “know” that Republicans are dreading a woman or a Black man in power. You seem VERY confused.
That Republican President replaced a Democratic President that had only one Black person serving in his cabinet, but sadly, that man died in a plane crash and he was replaced by(say it ain’t so) a white guy.
Conservatives in America are laughing their butts off watching the Clinton’s racist attack machine turning on their own. We look forward to the race especially when I rear how little dims actually understand about conservatives.
This will be the second year the democratic congress will be in power and in that year, we have seen record gas prices and a strong downturn in the economy. We have seen the democrats launch 100 investigations in 100 days without a single conviction. We have seen them break every single campaign promise except passing the highest increase in minimum wage in history.
You talk about religion like it is a plague on mankind. That’s good. I think all democrats should do everything they can to alienate as many mainstream Americans as you can.
Clinton is … well a Clinton and Obama has already alienated the most powerful cable network in the world and is being pushed into a corner that is leaving him wounded and defensive. But you believe it is a slam dunk for the dims. LOL!!
I’m looking forward to the election.
By GhostBusta
January 21, 2008 12:16 PM | Link to this
so many different personalities, so few actual bodies.
By Big Corporate Dog
January 21, 2008 12:21 PM | Link to this
The Real Dog
Sorry, Pal. I didn’t realize the name was already taken. It’s all yours.
By DebbieDoRight
January 21, 2008 12:28 PM | Link to this
Obama is also a novice in National politics. He has declared war on FOX News, a really stupid move. Even if he claimed the democratic nomination, his personal war with FOX has probably cost him many, many of the centrist votes that he will need to win.
LOL!!! OMG that’s so funny!!! FAUX NEWS has “centrist” voters?!!! Faux News panders to the most rabid and maniacal groups in America!!! They don’t even report the news anymore!! They just make it up!!!! LOL Too funny!!!
By DebbieDoRight
January 21, 2008 12:29 PM | Link to this
Obama is also a novice in National politics. He has declared war on FOX News, a really stupid move. Even if he claimed the democratic nomination, his personal war with FOX has probably cost him many, many of the centrist votes that he will need to win.
LOL!!! OMG that’s so funny!!! FAUX NEWS has “centrist” voters?!!! Faux News panders to the most rabid and maniacal groups in America!!! They don’t even report the news anymore!! They just make it up!!!! LOL Too funny!!!
By USinUK
January 21, 2008 12:42 PM | Link to this
Conservatives in America are laughing their butts off watching the Clinton’s racist attack machine turning on their own. We look forward to the race especially when I rear how little dims actually understand about conservatives.
honey, not NEARLY as hard as the Dems are laughing at how the GOP and evangelicals are playing in the sandbox (Mormon Mitt? not Christian enough. Huckabee? a little TOO Christian wants to change the constitution to align it with the Bible - OH, and he wants to feed the hungry and help the poor. Rudy “3 wives and counting” Giuliani? bahahahaha. no, seriously. McCain? too liberal.)
By Oh 'ell ya!
January 21, 2008 1:03 PM | Link to this
Ron Paul placed second in Nevada, but you wouldn’t know it from the MSM reporting. He’s beaten Hizzoner Guiliani in three out of four states, yet you’d never know it from the coverage, would you? He raised more money from small, private donations than any other conservative candidate, but you wouldn’t know it from the MSM.
Fox News has been caught editing AP reports to remove and mention of Dr. Paul. CNN and Pew Research have consistantly left his name off the polls. Why are the media and the party bigwigs (from BOTH parties) trying to suppress his message? If you’re not satisfied with the choices offered by the Democrats OR the Republicans, check out Dr. Ron Paul at:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/
Go Doctor Ron!
By Oh 'ell yeah!
January 21, 2008 1:04 PM | Link to this
Ron Paul placed second in Nevada, but you wouldn’t know it from the MSM reporting. He’s beaten Hizzoner Guiliani in three out of four states, yet you’d never know it from the coverage, would you? He raised more money from small, private donations than any other conservative candidate, but you wouldn’t know it from the MSM.
Fox News has been caught editing AP reports to remove and mention of Dr. Paul. CNN and Pew Research have consistantly left his name off the polls. Why are the media and the party bigwigs (from BOTH parties) trying to suppress his message? If you’re not satisfied with the choices offered by the Democrats OR the Republicans, check out Dr. Ron Paul at:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/
Go Doctor Ron!
By Oksana-yk
January 21, 2008 1:31 PM | Link to this
http://index1.lopste.com >chambersburg hospital
By The Real Dog
January 21, 2008 1:54 PM | Link to this
Big Corporate Dog—Thanks for the respect. You probably wouldn’t want the “Dog” moniker anyway if you knew the baggage attached to it.
Can’t answer for the rest of you, but none of the current candidates for Prez, Republican or Democrat, are really jumping out at me. I will say that I am considering voting Democrat for the first time in many, many years. I’m not happy with the Republicans anymore.
By Big Corporate Dog
January 21, 2008 1:55 PM | Link to this
DebbieDoRight
LOL!!! OMG that’s so funny!!! FAUX NEWS has “centrist” voters?!!!
If they don’t your party is in deep dodo. Their ratings are astronomical. They surpassed CNN within the first two years they were on the air. This may toss a big rock into what you hear about FOX from its competitors, but if every viewer of FOX is “the most rabid and maniacal groups in America”, then you don’t have a prayer. Game over, you lose.
So Debbie how often do you watch FOX? Who is the most right leaning newscaster in your opinion?
Please tell me that you aren’t basing your opinion of FOX on what you are being told. If that is the case, I’m afraid you are just like the people who believe Walmart is the only superstore that treats it’s new employees badly and buys Chinese goods.
As far right as FOX is, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN and PBS are much further left.
BTW, did you know that during the 04 and 06 elections that FOX pulled higher ratings than CBS? Did you also know that in spite of the fact that FOX is live 24 hour news that it’s ability to report accurately rivals the “once a day” newscast of ABC, NBC and CBS?
That’s not exactly what you read about on salon.com, is it?
By The Real Dog
January 21, 2008 2:08 PM | Link to this
If Hillary does get elected, I just pray that she doesn’t mess with the healthcare system too much. I’m doing just fine without health insurance, thank you, and don’t want to be forced into a system I don’t want to be part of.
By Big Corporate Dog
January 21, 2008 2:10 PM | Link to this
USinUK
honey, not NEARLY as hard as the Dems are laughing at how the GOP and evangelicals are playing in the sandbox (Mormon Mitt? not Christian enough.
Always with the religious attacks. I dare say I know a lot more conservatives than you and I don’t think I have ever heard a single comment from any of those conservatives about religion. I understand that this is all you have: attacking a political party that feels that morality has a place in government, but it is only true in the daily propaganda that the DNC dictates.
Huckabee? a little TOO Christian wants to change the constitution to align it with the Bible
That’s not what he said, but it is certainly close enough to stage a fact twisting attack of the guy. Do you have anything against the Republicans other than your bias against people worshiping how they choose?
OH, and he wants to feed the hungry and help the poor.
If he is a pastor of a church, chances are he has been feeding the poor since he started preaching. That’s what churches do. What do democrats do to feed the poor?
Rudy “3 wives and counting” Giuliani? bahahahaha.
I enjoy the standard of expecting more from Republicans. It’s perfectly OK for a setting “D” president to have sex with an underling in the oval office while he allows his wife to go on national TV and support him, but a Republican can’t get a divorce. I’m glad you readily accept those standards.
By hipnoj
January 21, 2008 2:12 PM | Link to this
http://index1.frostbe.com >suicide cocktail
By Jack
January 21, 2008 2:12 PM | Link to this
Paul is probably the only real conservative running.
By The Real Dog
January 21, 2008 2:13 PM | Link to this
I’m still not back to work`yet, but I’ve definitely decided to stay on my own and not become a part of corporate America. I want them to play the song “My Way” at my funeral. The Syd Vicious version, of course. ; > }
Hope all my blog buddies are doing well. I’ll check back in a few months. Love to all.
By Big Corporate Dog
January 21, 2008 2:30 PM | Link to this
The Real Dog
No problem man. I am also afraid of the forced insurance Ms. Clinton has in mind. She is a scary person.
My friend just had surgery at Northside and she said it was like a third world hospital. Her bill, just for her room and the surgical suite was $76,000. That’s before the surgeon or the staff was paid. She was charged $63 for a small bottle of aspirin.
I am currently working on a project for a company that arranges medical tourism. Open heart surgery costs about 150 to 175 thousand in the states. The same surgery costs around $15,000, including the airfare in a specific foreign country.
I have seen the hospitals and they are like 5 star hotels. Recovery in hospital time here is around a week. Over there it is a month and if the doctors feel that you aren’t ready to go, you stay until you are ready. The doctors are western trained and each person has their own caretaker.
Many people go over there just to avoid the US insurance companies finding out about an ailment that would give them a reason to raise or cancel their policy.
Funny thing that no one is wanting to change our system, just the fact that most people will need to step up and pay these crazy prices.
And of course I am not seeing anything from the Republicans either. They are all useless.
By Jack
January 21, 2008 2:39 PM | Link to this
It is cheaper because the doctors over there cannot be sued.
Turn that wreck into a check.
By Jack
January 21, 2008 2:47 PM | Link to this
“And of course I am not seeing anything from the Republicans either. They are all useless.”
Amen.
By Big Corporate Dog
January 21, 2008 2:50 PM | Link to this
Jack
Yes, they can be sued, but not in American courts. These people represent several countries and the laws in each country are different. One country can enact a death penalty if it is found that the doctor killed the patient.
I didn’t learn enough about the actual laws, but as I learn more, I’ll let you know.
If I were to face surgery, I would probably consider this option. But I would need to understand more about the liability issue.
By Jen
January 21, 2008 2:56 PM | Link to this
I am a 28 year old, college-educated woman, who is a Barack Obama supporter. I have moved into the Obama camp after looking at the candidates actual records and experience - Obama has 4 years more state/federal level experience as a legislator than Clinton.
Obama has been a leader for all Americans at every turn in his life, starting out as a community organizer to register voters on Chicago’s south side. You can see for yourself by the awards he has received and by his record and ratings (a great bi-partisan resource is www.vote-smart.org)
Also after crunching some other numbers, I can not in good conscience vote for Clinton. If she were to be elected for two terms, there will have been the same two families in the White House for 28 years. George Bush Sr. was elected when I was 10 and Bill Clinton when I was 14. I am now approaching 30.
Are we in America going to vote for the person who, as the New Statesman says, is one of the 10 people most likely to change the world or are we going to vote to continue a dynasty? This isn’t 11th century England. This is America.
By Jen
January 21, 2008 2:58 PM | Link to this
I am a 28 year old, college-educated woman, who is a Barack Obama supporter. I have moved into the Obama camp after looking at the candidates actual records and experience - Obama has 4 years more state/federal level experience as a legislator than Clinton.
Obama has been a leader for all Americans at every turn in his life, starting out as a community organizer to register voters on Chicago’s south side. You can see for yourself by the awards he has received and by his record and ratings (a great bi-partisan resource is www.vote-smart.org)
Also after crunching some other numbers, I can not in good conscience vote for Clinton. If she were to be elected for two terms, there will have been the same two families in the White House for 28 years. George Bush Sr. was elected when I was 10 and Bill Clinton when I was 14. I am now approaching 30.
Are we in America going to vote for the person who, as the New Statesman says, is one of the 10 people most likely to change the world or are we going to vote to continue a dynasty? This isn’t 11th century England. This is America.
By Snidely Buttright
January 21, 2008 3:02 PM | Link to this
Funny thing that no one is wanting to change our system, just the fact that most people will need to step up and pay these crazy prices.
nobody wants to change our system? then why’re the republicans always running about hysterically screaming “Be afraid! Socialized medicine!!! Socialized medicine!!! The democrats will socialize medicine!!! Hillary! Obama!! Dear GOD! EDWARDS!!!! Oh, GOD! The humanity - !!!!”?
well? It would be a change
By Jack
January 21, 2008 3:07 PM | Link to this
BCD. I was thinking about India when I posted before. We do need that punishment for lawyers who bring forth frivolous lawsuits.
By Han-baugh-t
January 21, 2008 3:10 PM | Link to this
OBAMA!? But isn’t he a (gasp!) MUSLIM? Or at least have MUSLIM ties? Or sympathy for the MUSLIM terrorists? Or something? And his middle name is “Hussein”. How can you vote for a MUSLIM sympathizer named “Hussein”? Why do you hate America?
(ROTFLMAO!!)
By Jack
January 21, 2008 3:10 PM | Link to this
Jen. Though we don’t agree on who should win, we need more voters like you who do their homework. :)
By Jen
January 21, 2008 3:12 PM | Link to this
Just because something is popular (aka, high ratings) don’t mean it’s centrist….you’re getting your statistics mixed up. Centrist means middle of the political spectrum, a sort of median in political values.
A median is, by definition, is the middle value of observations arranged in order of magnitude. So, for politics, you rank values from most liberal all the way most conservative and the value in the middle is centrist/median. It has 50% of political values below it and 50% above.
However, Neilsen Ratings are a measurement system based on a sruvey, meaning you either poll or set those meters out to selected households. You run the risk of sampling bias but I have no idea if that’s a problem with Neilsen ratings. A Nielsen Rating of 10 means about 10% of households measured were watching a certain show in a typical minute. I’m having trouble actually finding the ratings in point/share format for FNC and CNN but I HAVE found that FNC has ~1.38M viewers (a number converted from the raw point/share format) and CNN has ~700K. Now, correct me if I’m wrong but 1.38 million is 1.38% of the voting population of 100M. So, I am going to venture forth that FNC’s ratings don’t have much of a connection to whether or not it’s viewership is centrist.
And here’s an interesting couple of articles talking about how Fox News had higher ratings but CNN had more viewers.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2005
http://zonaeuropa.com/20040331_1.htm
So, your argument is specious on many levels… Actually, I’m not even sure what your point is…to show that FNC is more centrist than CNN as measured by ratings, which is an absurd conclusion. Or just the “FNC is more popular than CNN and who cares about centrist because I like FNC and it’s better, so there!”. Please be more clear.
By Jen33
January 21, 2008 3:18 PM | Link to this
O, btw, I am not the 28 year old Jen who is an Obama supporter, though I am thinking about supporting him…I’m the 33 year old Jen who rambled on about statistics. From now on I will post as Jen33.
By Jack
January 21, 2008 4:17 PM | Link to this
Ever see that movie Jennifer8. Good flick.
By Big Corporate Dog
January 21, 2008 4:26 PM | Link to this
Snidely Buttright
nobody wants to change our system? then why’re the republicans always running about hysterically screaming “Be afraid! Socialized medicine!!! Socialized medicine!!! The democrats will socialize medicine!!! Hillary! Obama!! Dear GOD! EDWARDS!!!! Oh, GOD! The humanity - !!!!”?
Where are you seeing Republicans running about hysterically screaming anything? Considering how you conveniently always make Republicans out to be completely insane, I started not to answer your post. I understand that you are far too indoctrinated to understand the truth if it bit you in the arse. But maybe someone who doesn’t need to demonize the competition will read this.
Socialized medicine has not been a concern since Hillary Care I never made it off the drafting table. America will never give free medical care to everyone. Our economy is just not set up to do that.
However, considering the unbelievable power the Clintons gave HMOs (power over doctors) it is obvious the Clintons have made a very strong bond with the US Health Insurance companies. The latest version of Hillary care will simply force everyone who the dims designate as capable of paying for Health insurance to be forced to buy that insurance and will have the power of the Fed to make sure everyone does.
That doesn’t change the system. It just feeds the very worst parts of the system and continues to hurt the middle class.
By Big Corporate Dog
January 21, 2008 4:29 PM | Link to this
Jack
I didn’t want to say which country but India is one of the countries. Like I said, you can sue, I just don’t know what is involved.
Before I would go, I would want to know exactly what my rights would be.
By USinUK
January 22, 2008 8:30 AM | Link to this
For someone who calls himself “Big Corporate Dog”, your reading comprehension skills are lacking. I wasn’t saying that Mitt isn’t Christian enough, etc - I’m saying that your fellow denizens of the right side of the aisle are saying that.
As far as Huckabee’s desire to change the Constitution to align it with the Bible, your assertion “that’s not what he said” … hate to break it to you, bub, but it’s EXACTLY what he said:
“I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that’s what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than try to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family.”
Pretty black and white - and in all its glorious context.
As far as his plans to feed the hungry/care for the poor - the WSJ attacked him for his plans to care for the poor, saying he was just like FDR and Carter with his plans to extend government benefits. And, let’s be blunt - it doesn’t get much more Republican than the Wall Street Journal.
What do democrats do to feed the poor??? you’re kidding, right - WIC, school breakfast/lunch programs, food stamps - just to name a few gov’t programs. While church soup kitchens are great, they will be the first to tell you they can’t reach all the people who need it.
As far as Giuliani goes - again, I don’t really give two tosses if he has 18 ex-wives and is estranged from his kids and is pro-choice and pro-gay-rights … but, I can tell you that the evangelicals DO care about those things - which is why he he has a whopping 1 delegate - heck, even Ron Paul has 6.
Remember, Big Corporate Dog, reading is fundamental. Work on those comprehension skills and you’ll go far.
By Big Corporate Dog
January 22, 2008 8:40 AM | Link to this
Why not
Some stacked-deck industry-insider arbitration board, what else?
That’s what I would have thought, but that is simply not the case. These hospitals are built for Westerners. A large part of their cliental are people that do not want the substandard care of many socialized medicine countries. They get many more people from Canada and Europe than they get from the states.
One bad story from the BBC or even 60 Minutes and they lose a very profitable, thriving industry. This is not the US where political infighting and endless building of bureaucracies cripple everything.
I’m not going to defend something that I have only seen part of, but what I have seen is far better than most US hospitals, But more than that, there is no HMO bean counter standing over the doctors shoulders demanding they release patients days and weeks before they should be released. For that reason alone, I would tend to look very hard at medical tourism.
By Big Corporate Dog
January 22, 2008 8:59 AM | Link to this
USinUK
For someone who calls himself “Big Corporate Dog”, your reading comprehension skills are lacking.
Please. If you want to drag this into the gutter, be my guest. But I’m not going there. Keep it civil or you will be ignored.
By Big Corporate Dog
January 22, 2008 9:03 AM | Link to this
Oh ‘ell ya!
Every news outlet in the country edits AP reports. How do I know this? This year will be the 29th year I have worked in broadcasting.
I like Ron Paul, but he never had a prayer.
By USinUK
January 22, 2008 9:10 AM | Link to this
BCD -
Save the “high road” speech - by saying “Always with the religious attacks … I understand that this is all you have: attacking a political party that feels that morality has a place in government, but it is only true in the daily propaganda that the DNC dictates.”
If you reread my message, “not NEARLY as hard as the Dems are laughing at how the GOP and evangelicals are playing in the sandbox” - it’s so clear that I wasn’t attacking anyone’s religion or marital fidelity, that one can only take away that you either 1) need to work on your comprehension or 2) you were deliberately misrepresenting what I said.
I gave you the benefit of the doubt.
By Big Corporate Dog
January 22, 2008 9:22 AM | Link to this
Jen
The point I was making was to counter someone’s assertion that FOX News only caters to the far Right. That’s nonsense. They couldn’t have the ratings they have if that were the case.
My brother-in-law is a county commissioner in his county up north. He is a Democrat. He and my sister watch FOX and Friends every morning. Hardly a Right winger, wouldn’t you say? They both just got tired of the Today Show once it became a woman’s show. How many mornings can a person talk about decorating? There’s nothing wrong with women’s shows, but NBC lost a lot of viewer-ship when they started leaning toward the Oprah crowd.
Before FOX, conservatives had to listen to extremely left leaning news and we were able to wade through the BS to find the news. Many liberals are willing to do the same thing when they watch FOX if the entertainment value is good.
Also, if you are going to present articles, have enough respect for the industry to post trade reports from reputable sources. You listed two extremely liberal media watchdog groups that are known for distorting facts. Would you accept some I had posted from the Limbaugh Letter or the national Review?
But all of these “watch dog” groups have staged a constant attack against FOX since it’s creation. At the RNC in New York in 06, the most heard chant from left wing demonstrators was “FOX News sucks”. Not get out of Iraq, or give us health care. I’m glad liberals are finally feeling the heat of an alternative to the propaganda.
By Big Corporate Dog
January 22, 2008 9:30 AM | Link to this
USinUK
you have an advantage over me on this blog. You can call me any name you want. You can throw out adolescent insults. You can do whatever you want and you will be praised for putting that damned conservative in his place.
But if I answer in kind, people start leaving the forum saying that I have ruined it.
So if you can’t control your emotions. If you can’t hold back your penchat for direct insults. If you don’t have the ability to take the high road, then leave me the hell alone.
Do you get it?
By USinUK
January 22, 2008 9:47 AM | Link to this
BCD -
What name did I call you, hmm?? I merely pointed out that you completely missed the point of my post - point being that the GOP and evangelicals are the ones who are not playing nice in the sandbox - THEY are the ones saying one candidate is too Christian (Huckabee), one isn’t Christian enough (Mitt), etc.
YOU were the one who then accused me of making an assault on the GOP candidates religions and their marital fidelity (or lack thereof).
As I said, there 2 options here - either you need to work on your reading comprehension or you deliberately chose to misrepresent what I said.
That is neither “drag(ging) this into the gutter” nor is it calling you names.
I do find it interesting that you still haven’t addressed the Huckabee quote which negates your assertion that he never said anything about aligning the Constitution with the Bible … funny, that.
By Big Corporate Dog
January 22, 2008 10:42 AM | Link to this
USinUK
As I said, there 2 options here - either you need to work on your reading comprehension or you deliberately chose to misrepresent what I said.
Still can’t control it, can you?
What name did I call you, hmm??
PLEASE read the damned post. I did not say that you called me a name. I said that you could. It is a constant battle to correct what you THINK I wrote and that is why I take such offense at you, of all people, lecturing me about my reading comprehension.
Did you write this: honey, not NEARLY as hard as the Dems are laughing at how the GOP and evangelicals are playing in the sandbox (Mormon Mitt? not Christian enough. Huckabee? a little TOO Christian wants to change the constitution to align it with the Bible - OH,
What about that is not talking about religion? And it is a constant with you. Almost every post attacking the Republicans is all about their choice of religion.
Get this: This is a free country. That means that anyone can worship how they please. If a group of people that worship the same want to support a political candidate, then that is their right as American citizens. If the party you support has such a huge problem with that Constitutional freedom, then I would suggest that you take a long look at the party that you support.
90% of the posts on this forum is attacking Republicans based on some sort of religious context. Why is that?
You might want to try this. Leave religion out of your attacks for a day and see if you enjoy posting as much. If you don’t, then you have a problem.
Huckabee is pro-life. That’s what he was talking about. He was not talking about rewriting the Constitution.
Is there anything about Huckabee that you don’t like that doesn’t pertain to religion?
By JokesOn
January 22, 2008 11:17 AM | Link to this
90% of the posts on this forum is attacking Republicans based on some sort of religious context. Why is that?
I will explain it one more time: It is called hypocrisy. Repubs are the ones blaming the progressives for letting “family values” go to pot. But if you look at the “moral majority’s” track record, they are leading the race it that area.
Glass houses is the point and it is a valid one even if you do not like it.
Just like you explaining This is a free country. That means that anyone can worship how they please. Yet you will find that the repubs are the only ones that focus so heavily on what ones religion is and how they practice it and if it is appropriate for a prez.
You really do need to chill. I can feel the whiiirrr of anger in you rise from 2 states away.
Huckabee is pro-life. That’s what he was talking about. He was not talking about rewriting the Constitution.
I do not see that anywhere in the statement he made. Such a point cannot (in a democratic/rep society) be made from a religious perspective. It needs to be made from a legal/rights perspective.
By JokesOn
January 22, 2008 11:23 AM | Link to this
But if I answer in kind, people start leaving the forum saying that I have ruined it.
You might just be too sensitive for blogging. Maybe you should spend time elsewhere?
Many debates get heated on here, but you seem to be the only one that calls out everyone else for what you do as well: Disingenuous and snide remarks when you do not like another’s post. Resorting to that and spelling/grammar are known as last ditch efforts in a discussion.
By Snidely Buttright
January 22, 2008 11:29 AM | Link to this
Big Corporate Dog wrote “Where are you seeing Republicans running about hysterically screaming anything? Considering how you conveniently always make Republicans out to be completely insane —-“
Conservatives don’t get hysterical and wave the “socialized medicine” banner at anything and everything that can even be remotely connected to the government paying for any type of health care?! You’re kidding, right? Every “searched” Socialized Medicine on the Free Republic website? Brought up “universal healthcare” at RedState or Instapundit? One can almost see the exploding heads :-O
Here’s an example - A lot of Democrats praise socialized medicine as the answer to all the problems with health care, simply have the government treat everyone equally. Sounds great, on paper, but so did communism. —- One thing to keep in mind is this, a government that provides you with health care has the ability and incentive (think cost) to deny you whatever treatment they want. —- So to save money, they will let people die and take their organs to prolong the lives of people they deem worthy.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1953064/posts
and that’s one of the least crazy
By USinUK
January 22, 2008 11:35 AM | Link to this
BCD-
It’s a constant with ME?? Usually, my issue is health care - rarely religion, so I think you may have me confused with someone else. You will not find anyone more in favor of allowing people to worship as they please - or not worship at all - than I am. I really couldn’t care less what religion the candidates are - and, frankly, wish it wasn’t the Big Deal that it is.
What YOU don’t seem to get is that the GOP has, since the Reagan Administration, treated the evangelical right with contempt - bringing them into their “big tent” for elections, then tossing them crumbs once they got into office. Basically, the GOP has been doing an evangelical “booty call” every 4 years to get them interested and voting GOP in the booth (Gay Marriage - BOOTY CALL … Partial Birth Abortion - BOOTY CALL, etc).
Now, the evangelicals have become tired of being taken for granted and are running candidates of their own, like Huckabee, and what is happening??? The Wall Street Journal and Ann Coulter call him as bad as FDR and Carter. Laura Ingraham calls him a loser. Rush says he’s no conservative. WHY? Because he cites his Christian faith and says it’s part of the gov’ts duties to help the poor and feed the hungry.
THAT is why I said what I said in response to the “Conservatives are laughing their butts off on the Clinton machine turning on its own” - DEMS are laughing at the GOP turning on ITS own.
And, whether you like it or not, Huckabee said what he said: “I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that’s what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than try to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family.”
I don’t care whether he’s talking about abortion or the pledge of allegiance, he’s talking about aligning our lovely, secular Constitution with the Bible. And THAT, my friendly, goes against everything this country stands for.
And, since you asked, as far as Huckabee goes - I don’t like his stand on immigration. If any immigrant is in the US (or, in my case, the UK) illegally, they should be sent packing. And, if an employer hires immigrants knowing full well they are illegal, the employer needs to be severely fined. Dry up the jobs, you’ll dry up the immigration problem. Happy, now?
By lozen
January 22, 2008 11:36 AM | Link to this
USinUK, I agree …This is not hard to understand. “I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that’s what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than try to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family.” Your 8:29 post was right on also.
By Snidely Buttright
January 22, 2008 11:40 AM | Link to this
Corporate Dog, I’ve only posted here a couple times so how can you make any statements about what I “always” do or how I “always” say it?
anyone else wonder why ‘The Other Jack” decided to become “The Other Dog”?
By USinUK
January 22, 2008 11:48 AM | Link to this
Lozen … like I said … reading is fundamental.
By JokesOn
January 22, 2008 11:51 AM | Link to this
anyone else wonder why ‘The Other Jack” decided to become “The Other Dog”?
I was about to post on that curiosity, but figured no truths would come of it, just denial.
By USinUK
January 22, 2008 12:17 PM | Link to this
BCD -
“Republicans aren’t nearly as good at politics as Democrats. That’s why they make so many mistakes that can be exploited by your party.”
Baaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahaha (wiping tears streaming from eyes)
Um. Let’s see … just off the top of my head: Nixon’s Southern Strategy and Dirty Tricks. Ronald Reagan. Willie Hornton. Republican Revolution of 1994. Newt Gingrich. The McCain push calls in South Carolina. Bush took office (quite literally) in 2000, making a hat trick of 2 legislative bodies + the administration. Bush kept office for another term in 2004. Any number of state legislatures have turned GOP. Same with governorships.
And, lest we bring any of that up without the Kingmakers: Lee Atwater, Mary Matalin, and Karl Rove.
and you say the Republicans aren’t as good at politics as the Dems … stop!! my sides!! hooo, boy, you’re killing me …
By Big Corporate Dog
January 22, 2008 12:33 PM | Link to this
JokesON
Well, at least you actually posted something that was not an attack based on religion. Good for you.
By Big Corporate Dog
January 22, 2008 12:39 PM | Link to this
JokesOn
Oh, BTW. I appreciate the fact that you avoided answering any of the other points in my very long post. I should have known better than to try and stage any sort of detailed discussion with you.
You have definitely reminded me that your need to express your anger and your need to try and discredit any opposition as opposed to addressing their argument is much more important to you than open and civil discussion.
By JokesOn
January 22, 2008 1:10 PM | Link to this
OH MY GOD!!! I am so extremely sorry. As much as I have tried, I seem to have said something that angered a liberal. Please forgive me.
I did not start the day today by insulting another person’s reading comprehension. I did however ask her to keep the discussion civil. Apparently I was so wrong in my daring to attempt to ask a liberal not to use personal attacks in her posts. Please, if there is anything I can do to correct my grievous error, let me know what it is.
Ok. Eliminate the childish passive aggressive behavior and simply state what you think.
Oh, BTW. I appreciate the fact that you avoided answering any of the other points in my very long post. I should have known better than to try and stage any sort of detailed discussion with you.
I had a lunch meeting to go to. Guess this points out the passive aggressiveness I stated above - chill out.
Since you have just proven you are unable to discuss or have any patience, I doubt you would be able to hear me through your anger, but will try as soon as I have a chance.
By Snidely Buttright
January 22, 2008 1:27 PM | Link to this
Civil discussion!!! When have you ever been “civil” let alone attempted to engage in open, detailed discussion?! Ha! HAHAHAHA!!!
And to accuse someone else of avoiding the point with personal attack and trying to discredit the opposition instead of their argument? And you don’t feel the least bit hypocritical on that? Balls, that’s what you got, mister. Big brass ones.
By JokesOn
January 22, 2008 1:27 PM | Link to this
So who is using that tac in 2008?
Seems the “get the constitution in line with god” would be the obvious answer.
How do you figure that?
Sorry, but you will have to do the work on this one. Look back 6mo or so or do a search on divorces/cheating/etc on the moral majority and you will find that they are neither moral or majority.
I totally agree. That is why I wonder why so many of you continue to attack him and all the other candidates based on religious or moral grounds while you are adamant that Republicans avoid all mention of moral behavior.
Once again: The repubs are the ones trying to infuse religion into schools/lives/constitution when they do not follow it themselves. To err is human but hypocrisy and denial are symptoms of mental illness.
By AGFNPR
January 22, 2008 1:42 PM | Link to this
Hello all!
I wanted to emphasize a point I have made in the past about the so-called religious test for candidates. In my opinion the religious test simply means a candidate should never be forced BY THE GOVERNMENT to state his/her religious views. But I’m not voting for them unless they do! It is my right to be able to ask those questions. It is the candidates right to refuse to answer. But if the can’t answer personal questions, then I suggest they don’t run for public office.
We can’t make informed decisions as voters without all the facts. Just because Huckabee is a former pastor and a member of the SBC, it doesn’t mean that he won’t have many liberal viewpoints. As a matter of fact, there are many SBC members (including pastors) that believe in the following:
• The bible is not the holy, inerrant word of God. • It’s OK to have female pastors and deacons. • Abortion is not a sin. • Homosexuality is not a sin. • The war in Iraq is wrong. • Public education needs to have our full support - monetary and otherwise. Pushing for charter schools is wrong.
These sound like very liberal positions to me. However, if one just ASSUMED that because a particular candidate belongs to a certain denomination, that candidate would have certain viewpoints, then said voter would make a very UNINFORMED decision.
I really don’t know much about Huckabee and what he does or does not believe. But I won’t vote for him just because he is a former pastor. I need to know what he believes now. Remember, Bill Clinton claims membership in the SBC!
By Big Corporate Dog
January 22, 2008 1:46 PM | Link to this
Try to calm down, guys.
I pointed out that you have little argument that is not completely linked to religion. I also pointed out that even though I spent quite a long time on my post, you avoided answering most of it.
Perhaps instaed of posting this:”
Baaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahaha (wiping tears streaming from eyes)
you should have waited until you return from your meeting so you could have appeared to be an intelligent, civil and fair person instead of appearing to be a 12 year old.
Too much to ask?
By JokesOn
January 22, 2008 2:01 PM | Link to this
Baaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahaha (wiping tears streaming from eyes)
you should have waited until you return from your meeting so you could have appeared to be an intelligent, civil and fair person instead of appearing to be a 12 year old.
Too much to ask?
Are you on drugs? I did not write that which is obvious by the name that appears above the post.
I am convinced more than ever that you are just mentally challenged. Explains a lot though and I regret expecting metered debate from you. Sorry man.
By f(x) = 36x^2
January 22, 2008 2:10 PM | Link to this
These sound like very liberal positions to me. However, if one just ASSUMED that because a particular candidate belongs to a certain denomination, that candidate would have certain viewpoints, then said voter would make a very UNINFORMED decision.
Except that Huckabee isn’t shy about his positions, or his desire to use the presidency to force them on the rest of his. His is virulently anti-gay to the point that he supports legalized discrimination against them, believes that evolution should not be taught in the public schools and believes that abortion should be made illegal.
What follows is a direct quote from Huckabee. Explain to me how this does not represent a desire to turn this great free nation into a theocracy.
“I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that’s what we need to do, is to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than try to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other, and how we treat their families.”
By USinUK
January 22, 2008 2:12 PM | Link to this
BCD -
excuse me, but who is not addressing whose questions? you said that huckabee didn’t say anything about changing the constitution - I gave you the exact quote 3 (count ‘em - THREE) times and yet you can’t acknowledge what he said.
you asked me to tell you one thing I don’t like about Huckabee that has nothing to do with religion and I did.
you accused me of attacking people’s religion which I did NOT - rather, I pointed out the GOP is at it with their base. In fact, I also cited who was saying what.
which - again - goes back to my earlier post today - you either didn’t GET IT (to use your expression) or you deliberately misrepresented what I said. I chose to give you the benefit of the doubt that you were NOT misrepresenting me, that you just didn’t read and comprehend what I wrote when I said that the GOP and the evangelicals aren’t playing nice in the sandbox.
as far as the baaaaaaaaaaahahahaha … honey, if you say something as funny as “Repubs don’t do politics as well as Dems,” you gotta expect a laugh - from BOTH sides of the aisle. As Will Rogers once said, “I’m not a member of any organized political party. I’m a Democrat.” We’re not known for our savvy organizational skills. We’re usually as surprised when we win as the rest of the country.
By The Other Jack
January 22, 2008 2:13 PM | Link to this
You are absolutely right.
You posted this:
anyone else wonder why ‘The Other Jack” decided to become “The Other Dog”?
I was about to post on that curiosity, but figured no truths would come of it, just denial.
After I spent all the time to show you the respect to answer your comment you posted that. I apologize for the confusion, but it is so hard to separate all the nonsense that I am exposed to every time I come here.
Are we through? Have you preached enough?
By JokesOn
January 22, 2008 2:34 PM | Link to this
I apologize for the confusion, but it is so hard to separate all the nonsense that I am exposed to every time I come here.
We all have to wade through it man, even when discussing with someone that we agree with. It is the nature of text/email/blogging.
Are we through? Have you preached enough?
Man, talk about “nonsense that I am exposed to every time I come here.” You made a mirror comment…use it yourself.
By Monica
January 22, 2008 3:19 PM | Link to this
For anyone interested, MSN has a great candidates matrix that shows how each candidate feels on each issue.
I personally feel that an emotional moment is a weakness in the White House. But that’s just me, exercising my right to express my opinion freely. I also think that emotional moments are not exclusive to women. Have a great day all (or one, or two, or however many people are actually posting this week - seems that MPD is running rampant).
By bjir xoepcyzi
January 22, 2008 3:21 PM | Link to this
gfawlk fygrlsi tpfqu vnmbc cmwz krncweqy icrgyzjk
By JokesOn
January 22, 2008 4:03 PM | Link to this
Have you all read this? I bet we can agree that it proves that this is now a nation of entitlement since we have to pay people to get an education. They are getting paid $8/hour to stay after school!
“Fulton County schools want to pay students to stay in school a little longer.”
By AGFNPR
January 22, 2008 4:17 PM | Link to this
f(x) -
My point wasn’t to try and defend Huckabee or any of his positions. I am stating that candidates should reveal their religious/moral convictions in order for us to make informed decisions. The government shouldn’t force them to do it, but the voters should.
Today is the first time I have read that quote. Based on that statement, I would agree with you that he is trying to turn certain scriptures into specific laws. I do believe it is a stretch to say he is trying to turn the nation into a theocracy!
My point is that if he had not shared that information, you would have not voted for him based on the fact that he is a Southern Baptist without truly understanding his positions. Now that he has made that statement you can discard him as a viable candidate based on what he believes. Based on that quote, many conservatives will consider voting for him and many liberals won’t. But now they can vote based on an informed decision.
As I have stated before, there are several very liberal Southern Baptist pastors that would disagree with some of Huckabee’s more conservative positions. They would agree with your stances on evolution, abortion, and homosexuality. One day one of them may run for President. It would be a shame if you dismissed them without knowing what they truly believe.
By JokesOn
January 22, 2008 4:55 PM | Link to this
AGFNPR,
I am stating that candidates should reveal their religious/moral convictions in order for us to make informed decisions. The government shouldn’t force them to do it, but the voters should.
Curious. How would you feel about a general question like “Would you apply any religious beliefs to policy or the constitution” being posed by the government?
By Big Corporate Dog
January 23, 2008 9:27 AM | Link to this
AGFNPR
Today is the first time I have read that quote. Based on that statement, I would agree with you that he is trying to turn certain scriptures into specific laws. I do believe it is a stretch to say he is trying to turn the nation into a theocracy!
Do you understand that Presidents do not make laws? Congressmen are called lawmakers for a reason.
This is nothing more than left wing nonsense being repeated over and over and over. They have so little that they can only repeat this as many times as possible.
The Iraq war is simply a continuation of the “Regime Change” policies of Clinton/Gore and was supported by most of the Democrats in Congress until, of course, it became politically advantageous for the same congressmen that voted to send our boys in harms way to turn their back on them. Considering most of the Democrats in congress, not a big surprise.
The economy was strong and steady until the Democrats took over Congress and passed the largest minimum wage increase in History. Now we are seeing it being driven straight into the ground. The economy should be a third rail to the Democrats.
The Oil Company connections of the Bush administration are now the Oil company connections of the ruling party in Congress. But now add the Union’s special interest groups and of course, Big Insurance and corporate connections with big money is now never discussed by the democratic politicians. The record price of gas and the Democrats willingness to break their campaign promise and their refusal to regulate the oil companies neuters that argument.
So the only issue they can scare people with is this nonsense.
Yesterday I pleaded with any Democrat to consider issues other than religion and you can see what happened. I was treated rudely and my questions were ignored for more adolescent nonsense.
Without fear, democrats have nothing. This is all they have. It’s an easy sell for the far left. Progressives are known for their refusal to accept that people might believe differently than them. So religious persecution is second nature to most progressives.
Unfortunately for them, the rest of the United States is much more open to our freedoms to worship how we please. This is not going to fly in the general elections. The liberal blitz of churches on Monday is just a sample of the flip flopping we will see once the primaries are over.
This forum will not change. Progressives can’t be taught that freedom of religion means freedom of religion.
But this is not going to be an issue in the general election.
By Big Corporate Dog
January 23, 2008 9:32 AM | Link to this
JokesOn
Curious. How would you feel about a general question like Would you apply any religious beliefs to policy or the constitution being posed by the government?
An educated response would be that Presidents do not have the ability or authority to change the Constitution.
By JokesOn
January 23, 2008 9:49 AM | Link to this
An educated response would be that Presidents do not have the ability or authority to change the Constitution.
I agree that it is not something that can happen overnight and that is not my point of worriment. The desire to change it is what I posted on and I included “policy” which you did not address.
I know it you are not concerned with it but Bush has expanded the powers of the executive branch more than any in history. If we keep electing people with that goal and mindset neither of us know what can happen in the long term. Example: There are constitutional facets that are supposed to preserve our right to privacy, but those got sidestepped without having to amend the constitution.
Why anyone would want to elect people with the goal of aligning the government/constitution/etc with their personal beliefs of morality, attainable or not, is beyond me.
By JokesOn
January 23, 2008 10:03 AM | Link to this
This forum will not change. Progressives can’t be taught that freedom of religion means freedom of religion.
You know you have the right to believe what you want and I support that right. But if you really feel that way about this blog, why hang out here?
To stick around any place that you are both disliked and totally ineffectual is not the brightest choice in the world. You either do not actually believe what you wrote or believe you do not deserve to have a role that impacts others and is fulfilling.
By USinUK
January 23, 2008 10:03 AM | Link to this
BCD -
So, let me get this straight. You’re blaming the economic downturn and possible recession on the minimum wage hike??
I guess the turmoil in the credit and housing markets are just some made-up story by the “liberal” MSM???
No, Presidents do not make laws. And Congress doesn’t make Constitutional changes. No one has said that Huckabee CAN change the Constitution - just saying that he wants to.
You pleaded for people to address issues other than religion - which we did (even cited specific reasons why I don’t like Huckabee NOT related to religion) - and were ignored by YOU.
Sorry, but the Iraq War did not grow out of Clinton’s no fly areas set up to protect the Kurdish settlements. The Iraq War was a vendetta and a powergrab - no more, no less. The Clinton policy was called Dual Containment for Iraq and Iran - in fact, it was a continuation of the policy from Bush the Elder - and it was in place for most of the 8 years of his administration. Only in 1999, when Saddam threw out the weapons inspectors, did Albright start to work on building relationships with Saddam’s opposition and the Clinton administration started bombing weapons facilities. However, there is a WORLD of difference between strategic strikes and an invasion force to topple a regime.
By Big Corporate Dog
January 23, 2008 10:20 AM | Link to this
By JokesOn
I agree that it is not something that can happen overnight and that is not my point of worriment. The desire to change it is what I posted on and I included “policy” which you did not address.
The president’s “policy” also has no effect on the Constitution.
I know it you are not concerned with it but Bush has expanded the powers of the executive branch more than any in history. If we keep electing people with that goal and mindset neither of us know what can happen in the long term. Example: There are constitutional facets that are supposed to preserve our right to privacy, but those got sidestepped without having to amend the constitution.
How has anything Bush has done interfered with your right to privacy that hadn’t be used for generations? Surely you don’t believe that wire tapping started in 2001. MLK was wire tapped by Bobby Kennedy. The fact that it has all been made public is just another attempt by liberal rags like the New York Times to convince the less intelligent among us that Bush started all this.
Democrats wiretapped African American civil Rights Activists. Republicans wiretap people talking to people in countries that have a policy of the destruction of America and our allies. But you think GW Bush wants to deny you the right of privacy. I see.
Why anyone would want to elect people with the goal of aligning the government/constitution/etc with their personal beliefs of morality, attainable or not, is beyond me.
You have problems with aligning civil laws with morality? Do you consider killing another person in cold blood a moral act? How about rape. Is the rapist committing a moral act? Civilized countries use morality to construct their criminal laws. Whether or not it is beyond your comprehension hardly matters. It is a fact of life.
By Big Corporate Dog
January 23, 2008 10:30 AM | Link to this
JokesOn
You know you have the right to believe what you want and I support that right. But if you really feel that way about this blog, why hang out here?
In the words of Charlemagne, I like a good crusade,
To stick around any place that you are both disliked and totally ineffectual is not the brightest choice in the world.
I am ineffectual against the people “who don’t like me”. I don’t mind that at all. Those people also don’t seem to “like” many of the freedoms that we have here in America. There are people here that don’t base the validity of others’ ideas and arguments on whether or not they like that person. They certainly aren’t as vocal. But they are here.
You either do not actually believe what you wrote or believe you do not deserve to have a role that impacts others and is fulfilling.
You and a few others need to stop trying to play Dr. Phil. If you did have the education or background to actually make the constant string of ridicules diagnosis that you spout every day, you would know that such diagnosis can’t be made about people on a political blog which you do not know nor have ever met.
By USinUK
January 23, 2008 10:48 AM | Link to this
BCD -
You may like a good crusade, but you’re rubbish at answering questions.
Do, please, tell us if you think the minimum wage hike is behind the economic downturn. And, if you, in fact, think that the credit and housing markets have anything to do with it??
As someone who works in finance, I’m really looking forward to your opinion.
By JokesOn
January 23, 2008 10:49 AM | Link to this
You have problems with aligning civil laws with morality? Do you consider killing another person in cold blood a moral act? How about rape. Is the rapist committing a moral act? Civilized countries use morality to construct their criminal laws. Whether or not it is beyond your comprehension hardly matters. It is a fact of life.
Brother. You are already getting snotty. You should chill as recommended before.
Look up whether our legal system is based on morality or not. You will find that there is one set moral principles that all laws are to uphold: “These inherent rights… freedom/pursuit etc. You get all snotty as if what I am saying regarding morality is ignorant, when you post shows you yourself do not understand what our legal system is based on. This is what has, and will continue, to get you in the heated arguments that you have become accustomed to; tyhen whine about. Example: The legal system punishes murder because it takes away another’s rights.
The only exceptions were blue laws which have just about been totally abolished. Guess why they have been abolished? Because they had no legal standing (violating others rights) and were purely based on religious ideas of morality. How do they try to justify making drugs illegal? It creates criminals which affect our rights. How about the abortion debate? The rights of the unborn child: try making a moral case in court regarding any issue and you will be laughed out of the courtroom by all repubs or democrats except for a couple loonies. I suspect you would be hanging with the loonies given your position though.
As for wire tapping, it has always required, up until Bush, the courts to allow the action before it could take place. Bush circumvented that with his “policy” which is just a little (sarcasm) different than an individual breaking the law; which I am sure has happened.
By JokesOn
January 23, 2008 11:01 AM | Link to this
You and a few others need to stop trying to play Dr. Phil. If you did have the education or background to actually make the constant string of ridicules diagnosis that you spout every day, you would know that such diagnosis can’t be made about people on a political blog which you do not know nor have ever met.
I am going on good faith that what you stated is what you believe: no inference is needed.
I am ineffectual against the people “who don’t like me”.
Which is everyone on here but Chuck, including the moderates/christians/seculars/etc on here.
In the words of Charlemagne, I like a good crusade, I could understand a crusade that has potential, but your statement is absolute. And to put yourself in the role of Charlemagne alludes to the irrational and grandiose belief you have that you have something to teach the blog.
You cannot even admit that the only reason to stated what you did is an attempt to insult. You cannot provide a single rational reason for sticking around a place that you have zero (positive) effect on and complain about.
By Big Corporate Dog
January 23, 2008 11:11 AM | Link to this
USinUK
So, let me get this straight. You’re blaming the economic downturn and possible recession on the minimum wage hike?? I guess the turmoil in the credit and housing markets are just some made-up story by the “liberal” MSM???
The stock market lives or dies by the beliefs in a strong or weak economy. After 9-11, there was a huge downturn for a short while. Did people stop buying gas? Did they stop using toothpaste? Of course not. Much of our economic system is based on the confidence in our government that they will support the needs of big business. The party that is ran by Unions, attacks huge corporations like Walmart for doing exactly what all superstores do and whose candidates preach about the evils of capitalism is not the party to inspire confidence in the stock market. The passing of the minimum wages laws is an easy example to list. But the overall anti-capitalistic mantra of the party now in charge is the reason for the downturn.
No, Presidents do not make laws. And Congress doesn’t make Constitutional changes. No one has said that Huckabee CAN change the Constitution - just saying that he wants to.
So all this is just about whether he wants to change the Constitution, even though he can’t. Do you honestly believe that no president in the history of our country hasn’t wanted to change the Constitution in one way or another? I tend to side with a more reality based opinion of candidates. I am concerned with what they can actually do, not what some people believe they want to do.
You pleaded for people to address issues other than religion - which we did (even cited specific reasons why I don’t like Huckabee NOT related to religion) - and were ignored by YOU.
Yes, after I was greeted with personal attack after personal attack, I did ignore the rest of your posts yesterday.
Sorry, but the Iraq War did not grow out of Clinton’s no fly areas set up to protect the Kurdish settlements. The Iraq War was a vendetta and a powergrab - no more, no less. The Clinton policy was called Dual Containment for Iraq and Iran - in fact, it was a continuation of the policy from Bush the Elder - and it was in place for most of the 8 years of his administration. Only in 1999, when Saddam threw out the weapons inspectors, did Albright start to work on building relationships with Saddam’s opposition and the Clinton administration started bombing weapons facilities.
Clinton didn’t bomb weapons factories. Clinton bombed a single aspirin factory in the Sudan, killing hundreds of innocent civilian women. Before that event, bin Laden had only attacked military targets. As evil as the guy is, he considers himself a moral military leader. But just as Hitler used the Dresden Bombing during WWII as a reason to start killing civilians in Great Briton, bin Laden used that killing of innocents as an excuse to declare war against civilians in the US, resulting in the attacks on the WTC.
The other aspect of that event is the fact that to bin Laden and most of the world, the attack was simply a diversion from the Monica Lewinski affair. Whether or not it actually was a diversion makes no difference, it was perceived as a diversion by our enemies and used to their advantage. So in spite of the entire liberal world insisting that Clinton had every right to subjugate a underling and once again prove that 75% of Americans have a higher moral standard than our leader at the time, there were very dire consequences to Slick Willie’s playtime in the oval office.
However, there is a WORLD of difference between strategic strikes and an invasion force to topple a regime.
So you have no problem with a president that changes a policy from containment to regime change, but refuses to act to initiate his policies.
Democrats talk. Republicans act. The war was mishandled. But so was every war in history. The difference is that in most past wars, both parties understood the need to support the war and the President. This war involved many half a*ssed moves by this administration in order to placate the half of congress that found political favor by taking the unprecedented stance that war is bad. He was also fighting a rabid liberal media that questioned his every move. He finally ignored all that and created “the Surge”: what he should have done all along.
I’m out of here for the day. I’m not ignoring anyone. I have meetings all afternoon.
By Big Corporate Dog
January 23, 2008 11:21 AM | Link to this
JokesON
Chill, man. You seem very, very angry today. your second post to me was about how much “nobody likes me” here and now are accusing me of getting snotty?
Don’t like me? Getting Snotty?
You really need to understand that this is politics. I’m going to say things that you are not going to like, just like any intelligent progressive is going to say things that I am not going to like.
The challenge is to continue discussing issues and leave out statements about liking each other. And words like “snotty” would be much better served on teen forums.
Meetings all afternoon. See ya.
By Archie
January 23, 2008 11:28 AM | Link to this
My answer to the topic question is no. I agree with Andrea’s last statement as long as wise decisions are made America should be fine.
I would like to add this comment: “The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period” made by Bush and his people after September 11, 2001. This is the kind of behavior you have to worry about not if Hillary cries. I like Obama but I like Hillary Clinton more and yes I am a black man. The point is to vote based on your belief system not personalities and don’t believe the campaign propaganda so much. The republicans will not have mercy on Obama if he wins the nomination so he needs to get a thicker skin. If someone can lie to you 935 times and yet you still believe that person in some way you know they are extremely good with manipulation. I think the Bush machine is the best of all time at manipulating information and they have no peer.
By JokesOn
January 23, 2008 11:41 AM | Link to this
Chill, man. You seem very, very angry today.
Right man, that is it. Not your frothing and anger so out of control that you cannot realize who posted what and keep the personal comments out of it: read back and you will see I responded to your personal attack on the individuals on the blog.
You preach and poke until people get sick of it. When they do get sick of it they post a slightly left handed comment and you have a freak out session about insulting (see yesterdays posts) they were, although you have done so many times before other bloggers responded in kind. Now that everyone is convinced you have no real input besides anger, they expect your insults and therefore hit you with them first, and you cry foul.
You have risen to the top of the childish debaters on here: You want people to talk about your subject, and when they do not you freak out (look to your first postings on here about religion/morality up to the religion comment yesterday). You try to debase others and freak out when they hand it back to you. You sidestep every debate that you lose ground on (see comments yesterday) or spin it out to a new point without ever finishing the last one. You have long posts about, for example, your belief that homosexuality is a promiscuous lifestyle with biological repercussions, then state that you have no opinion on it.
All in all you have no idea how to debate or keep your emotions out of it, as well as listening to others and refraining from talking AT people while using left handed insults from some grandiose podium.
By JokesOn
January 23, 2008 11:43 AM | Link to this
Hey Archie.
All well?
By Big Corporate Dog
January 23, 2008 12:01 PM | Link to this
JokesON
I thought I would throw this in before I head out:
And to put yourself in the role of Charlemagne alludes to the irrational and grandiose belief you have that you have something to teach the blog.
Hey Dr, Phil.
Historic figures are quoted every day. What kind if idiot would think that by quoting anyone, the quoter is putting themselves in that historic figure’s role. And as far as teaching you anything, I do recognize my limitations.
Speaking of “grandiose beliefs”, I, unlike you, have never claimed to know whether everyone on this blog likes or dislikes anything or anyone. You claim to know what everyone thinks. Do you have any grasp at all on reality?
Now please launch into yet another tirade about my childish behavior or the fact that you don’t like me.
If you liked me I would be offended. I don’t want people to like me that are obsessed with criticizing other’s religous beliefs or appoints themselves spokesman for an entire group of people that he has never met.
I sincerely hope that you mature out of your life long adolescence by tomorrow. This corresponding with a child is getting rather old.
By USinUK
January 23, 2008 12:31 PM | Link to this
BCD -
Good gravy, where to begin.
I’ll just start with the easiest first and go on from there.
1) The bombing of Dresden was in 1945 at the end of the war (that’s why it was so controversial - it was unecessary carnage). The Blitz was 1940-1941. And, frankly, the Germans started it all by dropping bombs “by accident” in London. Britain retaliated by bombing Berlin. THEN Hitler started the Blitz in earnest. Look it up.
2) Bin Laden financed the WTC bomb the first time back in 1993 - long before any bombs fell in Sudan. Then he moved on to bombing 3 US embassies in 1998. THEN Clinton attacked in retaliation for the embassy bombings. Look it up.
3) As part of Operation Desert Fox, the US and UK bombed 100 Iraqi targets in 4 days in December of 1998. Look it up.
4) The stock market lives or dies on beliefs? Ah, no. The stock market lives or dies on analysis. Behind every person you see making a trade on the NASDAQ/NYSE/FTSE/DAX/Nikkei floor, there is an army of analysts looking at debt/equity ratios, profit/earnings ratios, write-downs, leadership, and products (among other things). They also look at what’s going on in the broader economy - if food prices and gas prices are up, the consumer won’t have as much to spend on extras, causing the economy to slow.
Right now, the stock market is reeling because all those sub-prime mortgages you’ve been reading about have been invested in by financial groups all over the world, hoping to get a big return in their risky investment (and all those investments have derivative instruments behind them, spreading the pain around). Now those major financial groups like Citi, ML, Lehman, Goldman, and Bear Stearns - not to mention banks like Wachovia, SunTrust, Bank of America - have had write-downs in the Billions (that’s billions with a B) of dollars - EACH.
All this has led to a tighter credit market - which makes it harder for companies to borrow to do things like buy machinery and other capital investments. And, when you read about credit spreads widening in the business section, that just means that fewer people are buying corporate debt (bonds) because the chance that the company might default is higher now. So, in addition to financial groups making lending more difficult, fixed income investors are turning away from corporates, as well, compounding the pain. It also means that investors who hold corporate bonds in their portfolios have seen major depreciation as the value of those bonds drops.
A tighter credit market also makes it harder for people to borrow money to buy homes as banks are tightening lending parameters. BTW, it’s not just the low-end causing the pain - it’s the high-end as well with the pain also being felt by the super-loans - people who are VERY creditworthy, but who have seen the cost for mortgages increase exponentially - all adding to the glut of inventory in the housing market, driving house prices down.
As far as the average homeowner goes, yes, people will always buy gas and toothpaste. But, it’s the extras that drive the economy - it’s called the Paradox of Thrift - people feeling they can afford the extras, so spending and helping the economy - look it up. If gas is at $3/gal and they’re paying $60 to fill up, that means they might not be able to afford to take the fam out to a movie. If they’re paying an average of $75 more a month on food, that means they might not be able to buy that new sofa next month - they’ll decide to hold off. All that causing a drag on the economy.
Lastly, unlike recessions in the past, Joe Average American is deeply in debt and he has very little equity in his house because he’s been using it as an ATM for the last 8 years - thus, he has a lot less cushion to rely on in hard times.
THAT is the Readers Digest version of why the economy is in a pickle. Not the minimum wage hike.
By AGFNPR
January 23, 2008 12:44 PM | Link to this
JokesOn you said: Curious. How would you feel about a general question like “Would you apply any religious beliefs to policy or the constitution” being posed by the government?
Again that is not a question that the government should ask. However, it is a question I want answered before I decide which candidate to vote for. I think that is a perfect question for a presidential debate.
BCD - if Huckabee did mean what he said, it would open him up to conservative voters who previously believed he was too liberal. Let’s face it, he wasn’t getting the liberal vote anyway, so I don’t think that it is nonsense for him, as a strategic move, to make that type of statement.
By Archie
January 23, 2008 12:48 PM | Link to this
*Hey Archie.
All well?* Hello JokesOn, yes I am doing better after having gone thru some personal things. I have not read as much discussion of the actual topic and I think it’s not a bad topic but not the greatest topic either.
By AddedHumor
January 23, 2008 12:56 PM | Link to this
Concerning the Dresden Bombing, Operation Desert Fox, and the Sudan factory bombing(which HAD at one time, even recent to the bombing, been a Bin Laden who knows what plant),
don’t confuse the poor boy with facts
By JokesOn
January 23, 2008 1:13 PM | Link to this
I, unlike you, have never claimed to know whether everyone on this blog likes or dislikes anything or anyone. You claim to know what everyone thinks.
How ironic! I posted in response to your all knowing claim: This forum will not change. Progressives can’t be taught that freedom of religion means freedom of religion.
Like I said yesterday, although you may be able to get me on spelling errors and difficult to read prose resulting from rushed typing, but you are simply and totally lost.
By JokesOn
January 23, 2008 1:17 PM | Link to this
Again that is not a question that the government should ask. However, it is a question I want answered before I decide which candidate to vote for. I think that is a perfect question for a presidential debate.
Yeah. I just tend to think that if someone was running with the intent to change our type of government it would be different. I do see that, although it might be valid in certain instances, it is too slippery of a slope.
By R.M Nixon
January 23, 2008 1:25 PM | Link to this
I cried in public. I even took my ball and went home. So? A few years later I was elected the bestest President ever! (And I would have gotten away with it too if it weren’t for those meddling kids!)
By Troglodyke
January 23, 2008 1:43 PM | Link to this
Troglodyke, Apparently you are not Republican, but you claim to know everything about us.
Never said that. I am finally catching on to you, and the fact that you like to make hash of things people DON’T say. No, I’ll never be a Republican simply because of their affiliation with the Religious Reich.
Let me guess: you also never listen to the Rush Limbaugh Show but you know all about him.
I have listened to him, and he annoys me. Not because he sometimes speaks the truth, but because he’s a blowhard. So no, I’m not a loyal listener. But where, exactly did my post mention Rush? Nice offhand attack.
And of course, you never watch FOX news but you know all about that network.
Again, same offhand BS. I do watch Fox news some, but what does that have to do with my post?
Republicans are the people that fought against the racist Democrats to promote integration. Right now, the most powerful Black Person in the world is a Black woman appointed by a Republican President. She replaced a Black man that was appointed by the same Republican President. but you “know” that Republicans are dreading a woman or a Black man in power. You seem VERY confused. That Republican President replaced a Democratic President that had only one Black person serving in his cabinet, but sadly, that man died in a plane crash and he was replaced by(say it ain’t so) a white guy. Conservatives in America are laughing their butts off watching the Clinton’s racist attack machine turning on their own. We look forward to the race especially when I rear how little dims actually understand about conservatives. This will be the second year the democratic congress will be in power and in that year, we have seen record gas prices and a strong downturn in the economy. We have seen the democrats launch 100 investigations in 100 days without a single conviction. We have seen them break every single campaign promise except passing the highest increase in minimum wage in history.
Um, nice rambling, but where, exactly, did I say anything about any of this? This isn’t a reply to me, it’s a screed.
You talk about religion like it is a plague on mankind.
Well, it certainly is a plaque on rational thought. But I understand it has its place, and I accept that it will never go away. But I talk about it like I do because I love to watch holier-than-thou family values types twist in the wind when things don’t go their way. It’s justice. If they weren’t such a******* about it, I wouldn’t take as much pleasure from it. I’m more likely to forgive a Democrat for a sexual discretion simply because Democrats don’t act like they are more moral than everyone else.
That’s good. I think all democrats should do everything they can to alienate as many mainstream Americans as you can.
Sigh. I’m not even a Democrat. But I guess you don’t understand that concept.
Clinton is … well a Clinton and Obama has already alienated the most powerful cable network in the world and is being pushed into a corner that is leaving him wounded and defensive. But you believe it is a slam dunk for the dims. LOL!!I’m looking forward to the election.
I never mentioned Clinton or Obama in my post. I never said I support either of them. I simply said neither side has a front-runner, and that the religious Reich is really conflicted.
Really, it’s impossible to debate with people who won’t even address the questions at hand. You are one of those.
By Troglodyke
January 23, 2008 1:45 PM | Link to this
Do you understand that Presidents do not make laws? Congressmen are called lawmakers for a reason.
Of course presidents don’t make laws, but they can veto them, and they absolutely put Supreme Court justices on the bench who will uphold those laws. So yes, it does matter who the President is when one is discussing laws. Are you really that dense?
I am ineffectual against the people “who don’t like me”. I don’t mind that at all. Those people also don’t seem to “like” many of the freedoms that we have here in America.
That is just laughable. I don’t like you because you don’t know how to debate, and you sound really angry and, well, silly. But I LOVE America, and I cherish our freedoms. So stop trying to act like anyone who’s not a conservative hates America.
By JokesOn
January 23, 2008 2:26 PM | Link to this
Troglodyke,
You forgot that he is not out of step. Everyone else is out of step, and he is the only one that is in step.
By NetBanker
January 23, 2008 2:45 PM | Link to this
Hey kids! Hope everyone is having a good start to 2008.
How has anything Bush has done interfered with your right to privacy that hadn’t be used for generations? Surely you don’t believe that wire tapping started in 2001. Of course it didn’t start in 2001, but prior to that wire taps didn’t occur without prior court approval…and a special court at that to turn around the requests in something like 24 hours. THAT is a change that allowed the gov’t to place a wire tap anywhere for any reason. What about all the data requested (more likely demanded) from the phone companies without a court order or subpoena? The monitoring of email traffic without probable cause?
By NetBanker
January 23, 2008 2:52 PM | Link to this
This war involved many half assed moves by this administration in order to placate the half of congress that found political favor by taking the unprecedented stance that war is bad.* And let’s not forget all the half a*******ed moves that had nothing to do with congress like disbanding the army, ignoring military leaders requests for sufficient troops to occupy the country, the failure to plan for effective rebuilding, the failure of a plan to hire Iraqis to do reconstruction, understanding the political landscape before removing the government, etc. Don’t fool yourself that the roles you described are fully accurate and also consider that while Republicans may act rather than talk, acting without thorough thought, planning, and discussion rarely turns out well.
By NetBanker
January 23, 2008 3:03 PM | Link to this
You talk about religion like it is a plague on mankind. Well can’t it be? I understand Trog’s position about religion and it is somewhat self-agrandizing to think that the current, dominant religions are THE answer and some of the justification is the length of time they’ve been around. Well, hello?…think about the Greek and Roman religions that were around for thousands of years before being replaced. Or the stories of the Norse gods before Christianity took hold. Or the Druids or Wiccans or other animist religions that are still practiced in Africa. Religions have been being replaced since they were born. Why not think that history won’t repeat itself with the eventual fall of Christianity and Islam?
By Monica
January 23, 2008 3:06 PM | Link to this
Right now, the most powerful Black Person in the world is a Black woman appointed by a Republican President.
And all this time I thought it was Oprah.
Of course it didn’t start in 2001, but prior to that wire taps didn’t occur without prior court approval…and a special court at that to turn around the requests in something like 24 hours.
Do you really believe that Net? Didn’t you see Enemy of the State? Just Kidding - that involved the CIA, which can do anything it wants. :) Oops, I shouldn’t have written that… now my email address is doomed…
By 2D
January 23, 2008 3:08 PM | Link to this
Net… I’m a bit hazy, but I didn’t believe the wire tapping you’re referring to could be done for any reason the government chose.
I thought (and I may be wrong) there were guidelines in place that the wire tapping, data requests, etc. was to be requested for instances that related squarely to “terrorist” activities?
By JokesOn
January 23, 2008 3:37 PM | Link to this
I thought (and I may be wrong) there were guidelines in place that the wire tapping, data requests, etc. was to be requested for instances that related squarely to “terrorist” activities?
One of the significant changes is that there is no oversight by a committee or court with this new policy on wire tapping. That is the sole reason the case against it was thrown out: There is no evidence of citizens being tapped. But that is because there is no oversight….round and round…catch 22, which blows my mind. The fact that new policy allows wire tapping with no oversight should be unconstitutional even if it is never used.
By NetBanker
January 23, 2008 3:40 PM | Link to this
Hey Monica! Uhhh, I mean, who are you Monica? I don’t know any Monicas. hehehe
I certainly believe that there are plenty of covert things that happen without the knowledge of the public, but when there are programs/controls in place that are purposefully circumvented we should be very worried. If they’re being that lax on the stuff they tell us about how far are they going with the other stuff?
2D…it wasn’t about ‘terrorist’ activities, but simply communicating (sending or receiving) to persons possibly suspected of terrorism or to countries where suspected terrorists may reside. So if you have/had legitimate reasons to email or call Afghanistan, for example, because you have family there who aren’t terrorists or are involved in a business venture then you could be tapped or monitored. The program removed the previous requirement for probable cause.
By 2D
January 23, 2008 3:56 PM | Link to this
JokesOn… I understand your argument, but I guess what I was trying to say was this…
Based on my understanding of the Patriot Act, wire tapping related to circumstances that fell into a very specific set of guidelines did not require a subpoenta from the special top secret court. To me, that means the government had a very narrow latitude on which to wire tap without these special subpoentas. That explanation is if my memory serves me correctly. If my memory did serve me correctly, there was oversight, just not the kind that we always think about from Law and Order.
And, if someone was convicted of a crime using wire tapping that was obtained illegally, then that person would be able to sue the government, right? Or at the very least the specific wire tapping and the evidence obtained as a result of the illegal wire tapping would be thrown out, right?
By 2D
January 23, 2008 4:07 PM | Link to this
Net… Sorry, but now your post is nitpicking. The program did have guidelines, as you described in your most recent post. That description is a far cry from your original post that said the program “allowed the gov’t to place a wire tap anywhere for any reason”.
You may wish those guidelines included “probable cause” or some other phrase or restriction. I see that is a legitimate discussion point. One which based on what you have now outlined as the program, I would disagree with. I would venture that many others, including people who may have been “tapped” during benign phone calls, would also disagree with you.
Why would I venture that opinion…? Becuase I work with many people from India, Pakistan, etc. and when I ask them about their experiences at the airport, they agree that they would rather be “profiled” at the airport or “wire tapped” if that ensures we remain safe. Why is that you ask??? Because these people have nothing to hide.
By lozen
January 23, 2008 4:33 PM | Link to this
God please protect me from your followers, Huckaby included. The story makes no sense at all. Invisible god impregnates jewish teenager and produces a son. Why? So he could have his son tortured and murdered in a horrible way - to save all gentiles from our sins. (Why was all that necessary? Why didn’t omnipotent, omniscient god just say, “I changed my mind and I will not condemn humans to horrible things anymore. I’m responsible for their sins, after all; I created them in my image just as they are, so how can I blame them?”) If Jesus fulfilled all the signs of the messiah, then why didn’t jews, the very people who wait for a messiah, believe the story? They tell us if we cannot accept this barbaric folklore as truth, if we question whether Jesus was the divine son of the only true god, we will burn forever in hell fire. Oh, and don’t bring up morality and rape in the same paragraph with religion please! There is nowhere in the “good” book where rape is called a sin. It’s treated as a mere crime against property because females were considered mere property of fathers and husbands when those early hebrew myths were written!
By 2D
January 23, 2008 4:39 PM | Link to this
Lozen… Are you trying to pick a fight? The discussion has, at least today, been focused and civilized. Putting somethig like that on the BLOG is simply an invitation to argue.
By Archie
January 23, 2008 4:41 PM | Link to this
The governor of Massachusetts is a black man named Deval Patrick and he had a significant position in the Clinton administration so I think people need to get off this argument about republicans doing so much for race because it just is not true. It’s not a good argument to pose anyway and not relevant to anything being discussed here. Someone pointed out accurately that who the president is, is important because they pick Supreme court judges and that needs to be repeated. JokesOn don’t worry about your prose man because if people like what you say they won’t complain and nothing you have written is so badly written that a person could not understand it. On every blog people always find something to pick at a person’s writing versus dealing with the point made by that person. Heck if someone doesn’t like your point they need to make a point of their own and keep it moving. With the way the current administration tells lies I would not trust them to the right thing as far as wiretapping goes.
By Archie
January 23, 2008 4:51 PM | Link to this
Lozen you know I like you but that 4:33 post was out of left field. Rape is a sin and you won’t find any christian to say that it is not. Times have evolved so give christians the allowance to change as you would anyone else. Obama could not have run this campaign 40 years ago but he can now.
By Big Corporate Dog
January 23, 2008 4:59 PM | Link to this
Netbaker
Of course it didn’t start in 2001, but prior to that wire taps didn’t occur without prior court approval…and a special court at that to turn around the requests in something like 24 hours. THAT is a change that allowed the gov’t to place a wire tap anywhere for any reason. What about all the data requested (more likely demanded) from the phone companies without a court order or subpoena? The monitoring of email traffic without probable cause?
Sorry man. that just isn’t true. There was no court approval that allowed Bobby Kennedy to wiretap MLK. Covet wiretaping had been accepted as policy for every single president since FDR. The rabid attacks by the liberal media on every single aspect of the Bush administration is the reason why all this has come to light. They have crippled this administration’s ability to protect us by convincing many that the same wiretaping that had been taking place will somehow magically mean that all Americans are in danger of losing their privacy rights.
And let’s not forget all the half a*ed moves that had nothing to do with congress like disbanding the army, ignoring military leaders requests for sufficient troops to occupy the country, the failure to plan for effective rebuilding, the failure of a plan to hire Iraqis to do reconstruction, understanding the political landscape before removing the government, etc.
Part of those events might not be accredited to the oversight of the national press and the willingness of the congressional dims to make a federal case out of every move Bush made, but things like the reluctance to send in the proper number of troops certainly was.
Remember the threats by Charlie Rangle about initiating the draft? That’s the kind of partisan nonsense that Bush was fighting. Keeping the military together would have been met with all sorts of charges that Saddam’s own army was now in charge of Iraq. There was no move he could have made that would not have been met with threats of draft reinstatements and even impeachment charges.
How can anyone stage a successful military campaign while every move he made, no matter how covert was greeted with such hate and willingness from the national media to expose any military secret that they deemed worthy of discrediting Bush.
I understand that you will never believe that the democrats were anything but patriotic and noble in their actions against the president. I just can’t bring myself to see many of their actions as anything but political partisanship, a concept that has no place in any military campaign.
By NetBanker
January 23, 2008 5:00 PM | Link to this
I disagree my second post nitpicking, but I will agree that there’s a difference between my initial broad claim and my second post. I respectfully disagree with your position and any who will willingly give up privacy with little to no oversight only because ‘they have nothing to hide.’ Our rights will be eroded slowly and quietly not blown to bits in one big shot. It’s the parable of the frog being boiled to death by slowly raising the temperature of the pot in which he is sitting.
By Chicks RULE!
January 23, 2008 5:01 PM | Link to this
Hey Lozen!!
Okay, let me break it down: All this hatin’ on Hillary Clinton began with the baloney that she’s not feminine enough to be worthy of the First Lady title, and has come around to the notion that she’s too feminine (hysterical female) to be capable of the job of President. When she works hard she’s too ambitious; when she displays human characteristics, she’s weak; when she fights back, she’s the b-word. OVER your hypocritical bullcracky!
Choose your candidate based on their qualifications and what matters to you, but leave the female stuff out of it. WHY? Because if you don’t, we’re going to run Ange-freaking-lina Jolie next time, and she’s going to whip your scared little pee pees all the way to the White House door and move her multi-colored brood right in, mmmmm-KAY? Don’t you think she can? HA! She seduced the world’s hottest men into doing what she wants — you don’t have a chance, bully boys. Not even Chuck Norris could beat her. HA!
By NetBanker
January 23, 2008 5:08 PM | Link to this
Times have evolved so give christians the allowance to change as you would anyone else. Tough call on that one, Archie. While I agree with you in general and for the general christian population, what about those christians who believe in a literal reading of The Bible? Those people who asked candidates if they believe everything in The Bible? If one believes everything in that book is literally true, how much changing can one have done? And I think Lozen may be right in that rape is never specifically called a sin in The Bible.
By The Other Jack
January 24, 2008 8:24 AM | Link to this
USinUK
Thanks for your response. I am running this morning, but I will be back this afternoon when I can spend some time to answer your post. You made some very valid points.
By The Other Jack
January 24, 2008 8:35 AM | Link to this
Chicks RULE!
WHY? Because if you don’t, we’re going to run Ange-freaking-lina Jolie next time, and she’s going to whip your scared little pee pees all the way to the White House door and move her multi-colored brood right in, mmmmm-KAY? Don’t you think she can? HA! She seduced the world’s hottest men into doing what she wants — you don’t have a chance, bully boys. Not even Chuck Norris could beat her. HA!
Ange-freaking-lina Jolie? She certainly has a lot of appeal to people who buy the supermarket tabloids.
She was able to seduce the hottest (and dumbest) men in Hollywood by having sex with them. If she is offering sex for my vote, I would certainly give that some thought. But that is if I was in the first ten or 15 men to take her up upon it. But if I was number 3,756,119, I, along with most men, would pass. And that’s just a fraction of the men she would have to have sex with in order to obtain the votes she would need.
If we are looking for a beautiful woman with a big huge trailer trash tattoo on her shoulder that looks good but we can’t touch (her, not the tattoo), there is always the Cheetah in Midtown. We don’t need to go to Hollywood.
Me thinks you are overestimating the power of a Hollywood bimbo.
By USinUK
January 24, 2008 8:36 AM | Link to this
Hey TOJ!! Long time no chat!! Have a good day.
By The Other Jack
January 24, 2008 8:47 AM | Link to this
Troglodyke
ut I talk about it like I do because I love to watch holier-than-thou family values types twist in the wind when things don’t go their way. It’s justice. If they weren’t such a* about it, I wouldn’t take as much pleasure from it.
Hey Pal. we have something in common. I like to tweak self righteous liberals who insist on trying to make others feel bad about their faith. It’s more than justice. If they weren’t such a* about it, I wouldn’t take as much pleasure from it.
By NetBanker
January 24, 2008 9:56 AM | Link to this
I understand that you will never believe that the democrats were anything but patriotic and noble in their actions against the president. I just can’t bring myself to see many of their actions as anything but political partisanship, a concept that has no place in any military campaign. You understand incorrectly. I may have criticised the administration and their actions, but I didn’t defend any democratic action.
In regard to the wiretapping, I never said that there won’t ever be covert operations and wire tapping we don’t know about, but being able to monitor or obtain records for ALL communications to a country because there is terrorist activity there crosses a line for me into invasion of privacy.
To be honest, I think we are somewhat over reacting to terrorist threats and that over reaction is due to the continued general threat message from the government. Just consider then number of code orange days we had a few years ago where it felt like every time the government was making an announcement of bad news the terror threat was also announced being raised to a higher level. To some degree we become desensitized to the message and complacent which is the opposite reaction than desired when there is a very real threat. By level of comparison to what occurs in other parts of the world there is far more danger on a daily basis and potential for encountering a bombing or attack elsewhere. Even historically we’ve had extremely few terror incidents on our own soil. Just look at the middle East or what about Ireland of the previous few decades or Indonesia?
I’m guessing I’ll get some overblown response, but you’ve got to realize that just because one speaks against a particular thought or position doesn’t automatically mean that the speaker’s position represents the most diametrically opposed position.
I like to tweak self righteous liberals who insist on trying to make others feel bad about their faith. Me thinks you confuse pointing out the hypocrisy of self-righteousness based on faith with attacking one for having faith.
By Monica
January 24, 2008 10:16 AM | Link to this
Hi lozen! Though rape is more a crime of power than sex, I think it would definitely fall under the category of fornication (if the rapist were single)or adultery (if the rapist were married). Yes, in Biblical times women were seen as property, but I don’t think that was exclusive to Christianity. Many religions still carry that mindset though Christianity does not (well, they are not supposed to anyway). Paul instructed men to love their wives as Christ loved the church - the people that make up the church, not the building itself.
Someone brought up the fact that many democrats/liberals won’t vote for Huckabee simply because he was a Baptist preacher (AGFNPR maybe?). The reverse is true, and also dangerous: many conservatives will vote for Huckabee because he was a Baptist preacher. He won’t get my vote.
To all: exercise your right to VOTE!!
By Mary-mb
January 24, 2008 10:17 AM | Link to this
http://index1.mumuli.com >network magic download
By lozen
January 24, 2008 10:25 AM | Link to this
2D, not trying to start an argument; just stating my beliefs! Christians are always stating theirs so why shouldn’t atheists have the same option? But if you’d like to debate, jump in. Don’t waste your time saying, “the bible says the bible is the word of god,” or “what have I lost if I believe and it’s not true?” I’d like to hear some good points that make sense (not that there are any!) instead of the same old silliness. Any belief system that has to scare people to death to keep them believing is bad. Christianity and Islam have that in common. We see the fallacy of Islam and their beliefs, but we cannot see the fallacy of Christianity. We refuse to admit it’s just as bad if you take the bible literally. And Archie, one reason I think christianity is so bad is because it keeps people from changing. It prevents us from finding a real moral compass because it claims to be the only valid moral compass and then doesn’t come through with anything pertinent because it’s still stuck in a time warp of thousands of years ago.
By USinUK
January 24, 2008 10:39 AM | Link to this
hrmmmmm … wonder where BCD is today??? sooooo quiet …
By Jack
January 24, 2008 10:39 AM | Link to this
One thing for sure Lozen, we’ll all find out the day we leave this world.
By Mary-ro
January 24, 2008 10:43 AM | Link to this
http://index1.mumuli.com >network magic download
By query
January 24, 2008 12:05 PM | Link to this
I love to watch holier-than-thou family values types twist in the wind when things don’t go their way. It’s justice. If they weren’t such a about it, I wouldn’t take as much pleasure from it.*
Example: Prominent evangelical leader caught doing meth and having sex with male prostitute.
I like to tweak self righteous liberals who insist on trying to make others feel bad about their faith
Equivalent example: lozen caught attending church in a pair of Groucho glasses?
By Archie
January 24, 2008 12:11 PM | Link to this
A slave should be good to his master according to the Bible but guess what, this christian brother is not bowing to no man or woman. My pastor spoke strongly against thoses verses in the Bible. The point is christians have changed with the times just like everyone else and rape does not have to be spelled out literally as a sin because as Monica said fornication is a sin and just plain common sense says forcing someone into sex against their will is a sin. You have to find some really nutty christians to say that rape is not a sin and I still think it’s way out to even use that example. Being christian doesn’t mean you can’t use common sense. Also,Netbanker, not every christian is the same and the people that believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible are not being honest. At best they believe a few things literally and the rest they don’t believe in literally. Let me say that I too can take some far left views but that’s not me all the time and it would be unfair to call me an extremist simply because I support universal healthcare. Heck, I have stated many times I support gay marriage so that makes me gay? I think not. I know what the book says about homosexuality but I also know what science, and life experience has taught me about homosexuality. Don’t lump all christians together because there’s nothing I can do about some of the nuts calling themselves christian.
By Archie
January 24, 2008 12:20 PM | Link to this
Also,Lozen, you are not the only atheist I know. The guy I am thinking about right now actually encouraged me 20 years ago. We get along well and he has never said anything to me about religion that sounds like a putdown. I really do think you’re looking for a fight and it’s unnecessary because most christian know they aren’t perfect. Christianity has changed and will continue to change and christians should not be expected to be perfect because they don’t require anyone else to be perfect.
By Exceptions
January 24, 2008 12:39 PM | Link to this
You have to find some really nutty christians to say that rape is not a sin.
…or one whose son was accused of it, in which case the little harlot was asking for it, she wanted it, she’s lying, and she’s the sinner, not the nice young man.
By Monica
January 24, 2008 12:44 PM | Link to this
I need clarification: what is a “literal” translation of the Bible? I believe that all of the events in the Bible happened on a literal level: that Jesus actually turned water into wine, that he rose from the dead, that Moses literally parted the Red Sea, etc. I don’t see how anyone can claim to be a follower of the Bible if he didn’t accept that all of these events literally happened.
If, by literal translation, you mean following all of the edicts from their society in our society today (if a man’s hand causes him to sin, cut it off, if his eye causes him to sin, pluck it out, etc.) then I don’t abide by the literal teachings. To which of these definitions do you refer?
I know what the book says about homosexuality but I also know what science, and life experience has taught me about homosexuality.
Archie, I don’t think that we can pick and choose what we believe to be wrong. If you believe in the Bible, then if the Bible says something is wrong, it’s wrong. I know what the Bible says about heterosexuality (sex is only okay in marriage). Science and life experiences have taught me that sex is a very natural urge, but that doesn’t make it morally right to engage in sex outside of marriage.
By Jack
January 24, 2008 12:44 PM | Link to this
I read where the Jonas brothers are sporting “purity rings”. I guess if women see that ring they are to assume that the man wearing it is pure. HA HA HA HA! That is a good one.
By NetBanker
January 24, 2008 1:41 PM | Link to this
Monica…for me a literal translation means that you agree to follow it ALL. Not just the accept the truth of the stories, but also the directives to do this or not do that. The reason I focus on this is because of the gay issue in which many people will point to Leviticus for the anti-gay things and claim to take the Bible literally. Then they immediately ignore all the other rules in Leviticus and other parts of the Bible that say you should stone adulterers to death, for example.
Jack…here I thought a purity ring meant that the material is was made out of was pure…like pure gold or sterling silver.
By hipnoj
January 24, 2008 1:51 PM | Link to this
http://index1.gredato.com >soaking wet xxx latino girls
By Newzwyre
January 24, 2008 1:57 PM | Link to this
it made me smile at the irony -
George Bush’s favorite painting, Slate reports, is W.H.D. Koerner’s “A Charge to Keep”, and he identifies with the lead horseman (whom he says he resembles). In his autobiography he wrote:
I thought I would share with you a recent bit of Texas history which epitomizes our mission. When you come into my office, please take a look at the beautiful painting of a horseman determinedly charging up what appears to be a steep and rough trail. This is us. What adds complete life to the painting for me is the message of Charles Wesley that we serve One greater than ourselves.
But as Jacob Weisberg writes in his new book “The Bush Tragedy”, the president is reading more into the work than is really there:
He came to believe that the picture depicted the circuit-riders who spread Methodism across the Alleghenies in the nineteenth century. In other words, the cowboy who looked like Bush was a missionary of his own denomination.
Only that is not the title, message, or meaning of the painting. The artist, W.H.D. Koerner, executed it to illustrate a Western short story entitled “The Slipper Tongue,” published in The Saturday Evening Post in 1916. The story is about a smooth-talking horse thief who is caught, and then escapes a lynch mob in the Sand Hills of Nebraska. The illustration depicts the thief fleeing his captors. In the magazine, the illustration bears the caption: “Had His Start Been Fifteen Minutes Longer He Would Not Have Been Caught.”
The painting was subsequently recycled by the Saturday Evening Post to illustrate a nonfiction story. The caption that time was, “Bandits Move About From Town to Town, Pillaging Whatever They Can Find.”
Koerner published the illustration a third and final time in a magazine called the Country Gentleman. On this go-round, it was indeed used to illustrate a short story that related to Wesley’s hymn. But the story’s moral was a little off-message. According to Weisberg, it was “about a son who receives a legacy from his father—a beautiful forest in the Northeast and a plea to protect it from rapacious timber barons.” Apparently nobody ever got around to notifying Bush’s Interior Department.
http://eyeteeth.blogspot.com/2008/01/george-w-bushs-favorite-painting.html
http://www.slate.com/id/2182222/
By Archie
January 24, 2008 2:09 PM | Link to this
Archie, I don’t think that we can pick and choose what we believe to be wrong. If you believe in the Bible, then if the Bible says something is wrong, it’s wrong. Monica those statements are garbage although you are clearly a good person!!! Christians pick and choose all the time. You think I want to go back to the way things were 200 hundred years ago. Monica, you leave Lozen an opening for extremism. There are so many different churchs with different interpretations of the Bible that it’s ridiculous. The good book says follow the laws of the land, well that means MLK was in violation because he protested against many of the laws of the land and that means that anytime you exceed the speed limit you are in violation of the laws of the land. It says women should not be in charge in men yet you have female ministers and it says women should be silent in church yet they talk at will in church. Pat Roberson backdated his marriage date because he had premarital sex with his wife and she became pregnant. There are christian people that have been married more than 2 times so didn’t they just ignore the scripture about divorce??? If Lozen had used the word fundamentalist then I would have agreed with her. Heck, you see Eddie Long marching against gay marriage but you don’t see him marching against shacking and he probably has some people working in the church that shack. Clearly christians pick and choose what’s wrong to them. If Lozen posts again about fundamentalists she won’t have a problem with me.
By Monica
January 24, 2008 2:11 PM | Link to this
I could be wrong in my interpretations, Net, but I use the Old Testament as history and directives, but the New Testament really drives the “code,” if you will. When a crowd prepared to stone the adulteress (where was her partner, BTW? YOu can’t commit adultery alone), Jesus stopped them by saying, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her” (John 8:7). Jesus did not say that it was okay to commit adultery. However, he exercised forgiveness, which is what we should model. Going by your interpretation of a literal following of the Bible, I don’t think there is a single person who follows all decrees of the Bible word for word, because it’s impossible. Does it invalidate the Bible? NO.
By lozen
January 24, 2008 2:19 PM | Link to this
Hi Monica and thanks for sharing your opinions! Archie, I am not looking for a fight my friend; I said debate is good, but not a fight. I don’t respect any authoritarian system, including authoritarian religion. I believe we should question everything, including religion. I questioned, after overcoming the terror and fear about hell, when I was a teenager and a young adult. And the idea that a jewish rabbi who lived 2000 years ago could absolve me of murder or other heinous crimes if I said I believed in him, didn’t make sense to me then and doesn’t make sense to me now. I guess I was just too literal ; - >. If I didn’t see or feel a god, then I didn’t believe a god existed just because some uneducated baptist preacher said so. And I didn’t believe it because some book said so. I still don’t. Yes, you are absolutely right; the bible says a master should be good to a slave and that was used as justification for a long time by the good southern plantation owners to buy and own and use other human beings and still consider themselves godly folks! Slavery is never called an evil in the bible just as rape is never called a crime. Think how it would have changed history if one of the commandments said “Thou shalt not make slaves of other human beings”.
By Snidely Buttright
January 24, 2008 2:29 PM | Link to this
Monica, if this is true and representative of how many others believe, why do many of those same Christians keep insisting that atheists and agnostics don’t believe because they don’t want to believe? That its just stubbornness that keeps them from knowing Jesus?
Or are you are only referring to being able to pick and choose which parts if the Bible to believe? Do you think it’s wrong to eat shellfish? Mix fibers in clothing? Use the restroom inside city limits? Is it acceptable to sell your daughters and enslave your neighbors? Do we pretend that the birth of Jesus negates the Jewish half of the Bible, i.e. the Old Testament? If we agree that there is a “New Covenant” that supplants the Old Testament, wouldn’t that negate all the “laws” and “codes of conduct” of that text?
By lozen
January 24, 2008 2:29 PM | Link to this
Newzwyre, fascinating story about Bush! If it’s true, the hand of god had to be involved in that painting coming to him ;->
By Monica
January 24, 2008 2:51 PM | Link to this
Archie, being a Christian doesn’t mean that you don’t sin. It means that you follow Christ, acknowledge that He is the Lord of your life, and when you realize that you have sinned, you ask for forgiveness. You try not to make the same mistake. If you were to take all the sinners out of church, you wouldn’t have anyone left!
I gossip. I talk about people behind their backs. I complain about co-workers to my friends. The Bible clearly states that envy and gossip are sins. Does that mean that I have selected to ignore that part of the Bible? No. Do I choose to accept that killing someone is wrong, or cheating on my husband is wrong, but talking about someone else is okay? No. It means that I am a sinner, no better than a murderer or a rapist or an adultress. In some cases, gossip is worse because it is covert. I don’t pick and choose what I think is okay and what is not okay. I acknowledge that I screw up. I try to correct what is a sin - if I didn’t try to correct it, that’s picking and choosing. Being silent in the church is not a sin; it’s a guideline for living a godly life according to Paul (and the Greek text doesn’t indicate that women should abstain from talking, but rather to be quiet long enough to listen Apparently women in biblical times were a bit chatty).
Murder is a sin. Lying is a sin. Jealousy is a sin. Sexual immorality is a sin. I stand by my first statement: if the Bible says that “X” is a sin, then it’s a sin. If that’s being a fundamentalist, then so be it. Let the name calling begin.
By The Other Jack
January 24, 2008 2:52 PM | Link to this
NetBanker
You understand incorrectly. I may have criticised the administration and their actions, but I didn’t defend any democratic action.
Good for you. That’s all I ever ask. I find myself defending this president against a constant string of attacks and few people ever admit that there is anyone else that might hold responsibility for the problems in Washington. Considering most polls say that Congress is even less popular than the president, I don’t think the general population is at all please with either party.
In regard to the wiretapping, I never said that there won’t ever be covert operations and wire tapping we don’t know about, but being able to monitor or obtain records for ALL communications to a country because there is terrorist activity there crosses a line for me into invasion of privacy.
I don’t know whether they do that or not. The articles from the NYT that tried to make it seem that Bush was the very first president to preside over an administration that used wiretaps was so distorted and was trying so hard to insinuate everything but say nothing, that I am not really absolutely sure about anything.
To be honest, I think we are somewhat over reacting to terrorist threats and that over reaction is due to the continued general threat message from the government. Just consider then number of code orange days we had a few years ago where it felt like every time the government was making an announcement of bad news the terror threat was also announced being raised to a higher level.
I think the government saw that, too. And they seemed to correct that. I had read that it was because of the fear of that complacency that they were more selective about the alerts. But I will say that the number of alerts did not increase around the 2006 or 2004 elections, yet another lie the NYT was trying to cultivate.
By level of comparison to what occurs in other parts of the world there is far more danger on a daily basis and potential for encountering a bombing or attack elsewhere. Even historically we’ve had extremely few terror incidents on our own soil. Just look at the middle East or what about Ireland of the previous few decades or Indonesia?
Hell, by what we see almost every day in East Atlanta is more violent than what we have actually seen by terrorists. But that is the nature of Terror. 9-11 killed less people than died every time most single ships were sunk during WWII. Terror is to scare, and I agree that we were subjected to more submitting to the threats than we needed to be.
I’m guessing I’ll get some overblown response, but you’ve got to realize that just because one speaks against a particular thought or position doesn’t automatically mean that the speaker’s position represents the most diametrically opposed position.
I’m sorry you feel that way. I repeat that I try to answer in kind to the attitude of what is addressed to me.
Me thinks you confuse pointing out the hypocrisy of self-righteousness based on faith with attacking one for having faith.
But you never differentiate between the two. Look back over this blog and see how many times the terms “some Christians” or even “often times Christians … “ is used. Those terms are never used. It is always Christians do this, or religious people do that. We are all guilty of it to a degree, but there never seems to be any attempt of being fair to the religious people that do not get into your face or try to preach.
I personally think that religion is a natural need in humans. We all have our Gods. Watch an Earth-day Concert and tell me that this is not the same as religion to a lot of those people? Worshiping nature is what the Druids did. I personally think there is a very close relationship between Nature and the traditional meanings of “God”.
By Monica
January 24, 2008 3:08 PM | Link to this
Snidely, the tone of your posts sounds familiar. Might we know you by another moniker? :)
I don’t “pretend” that the birth of Christ negates the Old Testamnet; I accept as fact that the birt of Christ negates the necessity of following a Jewish code consisting of thousands of laws. I think it’s perfectly acceptable to eat shellfish, wear clothes of mixed fibers, or to eat meat on Fridays. Again, there is a difference between accepting the Bible as truth and following the Old Testament practices of life. There is also a difference between a commandment and a recommendation for living. Jesus gave two commandments: love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind; and lover your neighbor as yourself. If we Christians were to follow those two commandments, our world would be a much better place.
By The Other Jack
January 24, 2008 3:18 PM | Link to this
lozen
2D, not trying to start an argument; just stating my beliefs! Christians are always stating theirs so why shouldn’t atheists have the same option?
Which Christians are always stating theirs? Do you have people approaching you on the street trying to witness to you? If so, please tell me where.
But if you’d like to debate, jump in. Don’t waste your time saying, “the bible says the bible is the word of god,” or “what have I lost if I believe and it’s not true?” I’d like to hear some good points that make sense (not that there are any!) instead of the same old silliness.
The question is, how would you feel about my open mindedness about your political beliefs or any other beliefs you might have if I offered you a debate and prefaced it by saying “I’d like to hear some good points that make sense (not that there are any!) instead of the same old silliness.”
You are basically saying that you are not interested an anything the other person has to say, but if you would like, “I would love to have the opportunity to reject anything you might say”. That not much of an offer.
Any belief system that has to scare people to death to keep them believing is bad. Christianity and Islam have that in common.
Now you are showing that you actually know very little about Christianity. What fear are you talking about? The fear of hell? Do you understand that early Christians believed that there was no hell, but the ultimate punishment for sins is to simply die, with no afterlife? Isn’t that what you believe will happen no matter what? Doesn’t that make what you believe, since it offers no alternative, a belief that puts a tremendous amount of fear of dying in almost anyone? That would make your beliefs much more fear based than Christianity or Islam.
Christianity as is most religions is about comfort, love, caring about your fellow man, doing unto others as you would have them do to you, just living a good life where you help as many other people as possible and you raise your family to respect others. That’s what I have heard taught in church. Not fear, not hate.
If you have attended a church that was as horrible as you claim Christianity to be, you went to the wrong church.
We see the fallacy of Islam and their beliefs, but we cannot see the fallacy of Christianity.
Who is “we” and do you read what is written here every day?
We refuse to admit it’s just as bad if you take the bible literally. And Archie, one reason I think christianity is so bad is because it keeps people from changing. It prevents us from finding a real moral compass because it claims to be the only valid moral compass and then doesn’t come through with anything pertinent because it’s still stuck in a time warp of thousands of years ago.
So what moral compass would you adhere to? Thousands of years ago is was wrong to kill, rape, steal, beat, cheat people and hurt the people that love you. Those are all old concepts. Do you suggest we throw them out because they are just too old?
By kimberly
January 24, 2008 3:20 PM | Link to this
Interesting article on Christian author Donald Miller, and why he doesn’t care for “conservatives.”
http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/wayoflife/01/24/best.selling.christian.ap/index.html
“I felt, once again, that there was this underlying hostility for homosexuals and Democrats and, well, hippie types. I cannot tell you how much I did not want liberal or gay people to be my enemies. I liked them,” he wrote. “The real issue in the Christian community was that (love) was conditional … You were loved in word, but there was, without question, a social commodity that was being withheld from you until you shaped up.”
By The Other Jack
January 24, 2008 3:23 PM | Link to this
Newzwyre
George Bush’s favorite painting, Slate reports, is W.H.D. Koerner’s “A Charge to Keep”, and he identifies with the lead horseman
Who cares? Do you think he has delusions of Grandeur? It’s not an illusion. He is the leader of the free world.
By Jack
January 24, 2008 3:24 PM | Link to this
“no better than a murderer or a rapist or an adultress.”
Monica, you are better. Nobody is perfect but I think God would hold you in a better light than Mr. Hilton or Nichols.
By The Other Jack
January 24, 2008 3:35 PM | Link to this
Monica
There are many contradictions to being anti-religious. Our entire legal system is designed, based on the same morality background as almost any religion. But the “anti-crowd” is convinced that anything religious is bad, even though we both know that love and honesty is taught much more than fear or anything else.
They are given the examples of cultist and snake handlers and TV evangelists and even though they can see for themselves the good that churches do, they are so desperate to discredit anything they can’t understand, that they are willing to ignore the things that are right in front of them.
It is sad, but it is what they do.
By Archie
January 24, 2008 3:42 PM | Link to this
Monica why did you respond to this statement??? “I know what the book says about homosexuality but I also know what science, and life experience has taught me about homosexuality.” Monica do you have something against me personally? I ask that because your response about picking and choosing didn’t make sense. If you think homosexuality is wrong why don’t you just say that or were you just looking for a way not to agree with me? Also you mentioned forgiveness but when I mentioned forgiveness months ago you didn’t back me up. I think JokesOn said once that there is a cheerleader mentality going on this blog and he was right because people post an opinion yet look for a way to disagree when someone posts a similar opinion. I know christians sin but my point still is that people pick and choose what they see as sin.
By The Other Jack
January 24, 2008 3:44 PM | Link to this
kimberly
You were loved in word, but there was, without question, a social commodity that was being withheld from you until you shaped up.
That’s not what the bible teaches. It may have been his specific case. The true test is whether or not you are willing to believe that every single Christian or even the majority of Christians treat others as he was treated.
Jim Jones was not only a liberal, he wanted to set up a liberal, socialist society in the jungles of Central America. We all know what happened there.
So are we all to believe that all liberals want to lure people to their armed compound and then force them to drink poisoned kool-aid?
Donald Miller may have an intresting story, but to think that his story represents the norm is nonsense.
By Gandalf, the Grey
January 24, 2008 3:47 PM | Link to this
Hillary is not emotional, unless rage is an emotion. The question is not if a woman should be president, but if a crazed lunatic should be…..
By lozen
January 24, 2008 3:57 PM | Link to this
Monica, I’ve never heard your distinction before: I believe that all of the events in the Bible happened on a literal level: that Jesus actually turned water into wine, that he rose from the dead, that Moses literally parted the Red Sea, etc. I don’t see how anyone can claim to be a follower of the Bible if he didn’t accept that all of these events literally happened. If, by literal translation, you mean following all of the edicts from their society in our society today (if a man’s hand causes him to sin, cut it off, if his eye causes him to sin, pluck it out, etc.) then I don’t abide by the literal teachings. To which of these definitions do you refer?
Just goes to show how many different ways different people approach and understand religion. Others interpret the bible stories as stories with deep, deep spiritual truths that only those blessed with the blood of the lamb can understand. Some people interpret the bible stories as allegorical tales to guide humanity, just as some ancients interpreted the stories of the gods in Greece and in Egypt.
All of you are also atheists! Monica, Archie, everyone on this blog is an atheist!
By Monica
January 24, 2008 4:03 PM | Link to this
Archie, I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to make you angry. I was just struck by what you said and commented on it. To be honest, I have no recollection of what you said months ago on forgiveness; I don’t read and post every week. It may have been a week that I missed. My point is just that we are not supposed to pick and choose what we think is a sin, even if we struggle with a certain sin. I would have responded the same way no matter what sin you posted. Pleae don’t take it personally. :)
DIGRESSING to last week’s topic: our sitter got called for jury duty. What is a parent to do in that case? Help!
By kimberly
January 24, 2008 4:10 PM | Link to this
TOJ, I’m sorry, I don’t follow your line of questioning. I was simply reading and observing, and happened upon an article pertinent to the discussion. Thought I’d share it. I made no personal commentary to the effect that this author is the be-all, end-all of the discussion, nor about Jim Jones, who’s drinkging the kook-aid, or what you should or should not consider “the norm.” Sorry I can’t help you out today by jumping into your “attack the lib” pit, so you’ll need to fling your pretend outrage elsewhere, okay? Thanks.
By Gandalf, the Grey
January 24, 2008 4:16 PM | Link to this
Monica, that’s easy! Stay at home and raise your children..duh.. that isn’t hard.
By AGFNPR
January 24, 2008 4:24 PM | Link to this
Lozen - rape is forbidden in the Bible in Deuteronomy 22:25-27. Plus there are several instances where a woman was raped and her family members took revenge by killing the rapist. They certainly took the crime seriously.
I was going to jump into this biblical debate further, but Monica appears to be doing a better job than I ever could!
By Archie
January 24, 2008 4:52 PM | Link to this
Hello, Monica thanks for the explanation. I only reacted because the people that are known to be christians on the blog never said a word when I mentioned forgiveness months ago. My point is just that we are not supposed to pick and choose what we think is a sin, even if we struggle with a certain sin. Christians consistently do just that,pick and choose, but it does not make christians bad people and it does not make them less moral than an atheist, either. I have issues with extremism and I don’t plan to follow the Bible literally because if I did I would never plan to vote for a woman for president. I agree with Jack’s 3:24 pm post too.
By AGFNPR
January 24, 2008 5:01 PM | Link to this
Kimberly -
So you found a Christian that doesn’t like conservatives. Is that shocking to you? I stated the other day there are many liberal Christians within the SBC that spout the same non-sense as Miller, especially whenever they try to explain away passages in the Bible they don’t like. And why should I believe anything some guy says who skipped church because he was “angry” and sat around in his boxers typing his manifesto about the evils of conservative Christians?
Miller and his ilk want to treat Jesus as some long-haired hippie who only spoke about peace and love. That is not the Jesus of the Bible. He spoke about peace and love AND sin and judgement. But I am most certain Miller doesn’t want to hear about that.
By NetBanker
January 24, 2008 5:28 PM | Link to this
there never seems to be any attempt of being fair to the religious people that do not get into your face or try to preach. I understand what you’re saying, but I don’t entirely agree because I have seen people of faith such as Monica and Archie treated fairly or at least not attacked simply because of their faith.
So what moral compass would you adhere to? Thousands of years ago is was wrong to kill, rape, steal, beat, cheat people and hurt the people that love you. Those are all old concepts. Do you suggest we throw them out because they are just too old? Interestingly, TOJ, you’ll find that on numerous prior W2W topics an insistence by some Christians that without religion and specifically the christian religion we would have no moral compass or laws against the very list of acts you mention. I don’t necessarily believe that religion is required to have a moral compass because there seems to be an inherent moral compass built into humans that we work to corrupt.
By Newzwyre
January 25, 2008 8:56 AM | Link to this
Peggy Noonan – WSJ
On the pundit civil wars, Rush Limbaugh declared on the radio this week, “I’m here to tell you, if either of these two guys [Mr. McCain or Mike Huckabee] get the nomination, it’s going to destroy the Republican Party. It’s going to change it forever, be the end of it!”
This is absurd. George W. Bush destroyed the Republican Party, by which I mean he sundered it, broke its constituent pieces apart and set them against each other. He did this on spending, the size of government, war, the ability to prosecute war, immigration and other issues.
Were there other causes? Yes, of course. But there was an immediate and essential cause.
And this needs saying, because if you don’t know what broke the elephant you can’t put it together again. The party cannot re-find itself if it can’t trace back the moment at which it became lost. It cannot heal an illness whose origin is kept obscure.
I believe that some of the ferocity of the pundit wars is due to a certain amount of self-censorship. It’s not in human nature to enjoy self-censorship. The truth will out, like steam from a kettle. It hurts to say something you supported didn’t work. I would know. But I would say of these men (why, in the continuing age of Bill Clinton, does the emoting come from the men?) who are fighting one another as they resist naming the cause for the fight: Sack up, get serious, define. That’s the way to help.
http://online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html
By kimberly
January 25, 2008 9:01 AM | Link to this
AGFNPR, no one said you must believe the words of author Donald Miller. The reference to the article was intended to illustrate that Christians vary in our beliefs about sin and the message of Christ.
Interesting how tossing out another viewpoint incites such defensiveness. You’re entitled to yours, the rest of us are entitled to ours. I will maintain my position, however, that all of us who call ourselves Christians do indeed pick and choose our sins. You might say mine are worse; I could say yours are worse.
At the end of the day, is another any better than me because he chooses to condemn and judge others to justify greed, selfishness, or hate, and I choose the path of love, tolerance, acceptance, and peace? Good luck with that on Judgement Day, if there is one.
By oh 'ell yeah!
January 25, 2008 9:11 AM | Link to this
Ron Paul, a 10-term Republican Congressman from Texas’s 14th District, is currently the ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee’s Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade, and Technology. He has been named “Taxpayers’ Best Friend” for 10 consecutive years by the National Taxpayers’ Union. Ron Paul is also the author of several books on monetary policy and economics.
On the economy —
“America became the greatest, most prosperous nation in human history through low taxes, constitutionally limited government, personal freedom and a belief in sound money. We need to return to these principles so our economy can thrive again.”
“When enacted, my plan will provide both short-term stimulus and lay the groundwork for long-term prosperity. Other candidates talk a lot about stimulus packages, but my record stands alone.”
“I have fought for these measures for years as a member of Congress and will make them a top priority as president.”
The Four-Point Plan
1)—- Tax Reform: Reduce the tax burden and eliminate taxes that punish investment and savings, including job-killing corporate taxes.
2)—- Spending Reform: Eliminate wasteful spending. Reduce overseas commitments. Freeze all non-defense, non-entitlement spending at current levels.
3)—- Monetary Policy Reform: Expand openness at the Federal Reserve and require the Fed to televise its meetings. Return value to our money.
4)—- Regulatory Reform: Repeal Sarbanes/Oxley regulations that push companies to seek capital outside of US markets. Stop restricting community banks from fostering local economic growth.
For more information, more details, visit http://www.ronpaul2008.com/Prosperity
Go Dr. Ron!!!
By Jack
January 25, 2008 9:12 AM | Link to this
Hi Kim. We do pick our sins knowing they are wrong. I have found that the bible speaks the truth about what you sow so shall you reap. Whenever you do something wrong it will eventually come back to bite you. If you try to live your life as a good person and follow the golden rule, the one above will take care of you.
By idgpfqo zhqbe
January 25, 2008 9:13 AM | Link to this
juql unioy abtemus sfba ngrze hfvxyi ikexqhuw
By The Other Jack
January 25, 2008 9:19 AM | Link to this
Kimberly
Oh please … You started the pof y that st with this:
Interesting article on Christian author Donald Miller, and why he doesn’t care for “conservatives.”
You started off “in the hate pit”. I was pointing out that there are plenty of wacky liberals that would give anyone a reason to “not to care for liberals”. but I was pointing out that would be unfair.
Now you are dancing, trying to justify why you chose that particular article. You are the one that is being defensive.
By kimberly
January 25, 2008 9:34 AM | Link to this
The Other Jack: I forgive you. Go in peace, light and love. Be well.
By The Other Jack
January 25, 2008 9:43 AM | Link to this
Netbaker
TOJ, you’ll find that on numerous prior W2W topics an insistence by some Christians that without religion and specifically the christian religion we would have no moral compass or laws against the very list of acts you mention.
I have been here for a while, now. I have seen many progressives try and distort what some Christians have said. I once just offered that religion has been used to scare people to justify civil laws. That statement was twisted and turned into ten different things, none of which had anything to do with what I said. I was also called a fundy for writing that.
I have never seen anyone say what you claim. I have seen progressives try and twist what Christians actually said. If they said it, I didn’t see it.
I don’t necessarily believe that religion is required to have a moral compass because there seems to be an inherent moral compass built into humans that we work to corrupt.
The point I continue to try and make is that religion is good for many people. It gives them comfort and yes, it gives them a moral compass. If you don’t require religion, that’s perfectly OK. But some people need that. Why is that such a huge problem for so many people, particularly during this election cycle?
Are there Christians and particularly Christian ministers that are corrupt and use the religion to promote their mantra? Yes there are. Barak Obama’s pastor, Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. does exactly that. So do I take for granted that Barak Obama is the racist jerk that his pastor is? Most here want to judge every single Christian, based on the actions of a few. Obama is a loyal follower of this idiot. But he’s never been mentioned in all the anti-Christian mantra that is a constant on this blog. Why do you think that is?
By The Other Jack
January 25, 2008 9:48 AM | Link to this
kimberly
If I believed you were in any position to forgive anyone, I might find comfort in that. I do believe that you presented a stupid article and now want to play games. If this is the best you can do, I certainly understand.
By NetBanker
January 25, 2008 9:51 AM | Link to this
Interesting article on Christian author Donald Miller, and why he doesn’t care for “conservatives.” Just out of curiosity, TOJ, can you point out what in Kimberly’s statement above puts it in ‘the hate pit?’ I, personally, don’t see anything hateful in the statement. She comments that the article is “interesting” (which is a non-judgemental word) and then follows it with a phrase that indicates the general thrust of the article (i.e. that Donald Miller doesn’t care for “conservative”) (which is also non-judgemental, but factual based on the article contents). I think Kimberly’s response at 9:01 is pretty clear that the intent is to show that Christians are no more homogenous in their opinions than any other group and that believing in the Christian faith doesn’t automatically make one a conservative (which is often assumed, I think, do to the highly vocal nature of the religious right).
To be blunt, too frequently I see both conservatives and liberals immediately assume that any article or statement that doesn’t support their chosen philosophy comes from a place of hate or is intended as hateful by the other side. I think the hate moniker is frequently over used just like the term racist is over used and in the majority of cases is mis-used.
By Jack
January 25, 2008 9:52 AM | Link to this
Ok. You may continue to ignore me. I won’t bother wasting my time anymore. :(
By Copyleft
January 25, 2008 9:56 AM | Link to this
OtherJack, you’re making the practicality argument: “What’s the harm in a delusion if it makes people happy?”
There are a number of psychiatrists who can explain the goal of bringing people back to reality, even if they’re perfectly happy in their psychosis.
By kimberly
January 25, 2008 9:56 AM | Link to this
The Other Jack: Jesus loves you. We are all God’s children. Your hate is unnecessary. Peace.
By kimberly
January 25, 2008 9:59 AM | Link to this
The REAL Jack: Big ol’ Smooooch! Don’t ever change!!!
By Troglodyke
January 25, 2008 9:59 AM | Link to this
Monica…for me a literal translation means that you agree to follow it ALL. Not just the accept the truth of the stories, but also the directives to do this or not do that. The reason I focus on this is because of the gay issue in which many people will point to Leviticus for the anti-gay things and claim to take the Bible literally. Then they immediately ignore all the other rules in Leviticus and other parts of the Bible that say you should stone adulterers to death, for example.
Exactly. If you think homosexuality is wrong because Leviticus says it is, then you better not be eating shellfish or wearing clothes of combined cloth. Now, you don’t have to stone adulterers, but you should technically support the practice.
I mean, if you are going to follow Leviticus, and all.
And if you are not, because JC’s coming made those laws invalid, then you need to point out exactly where and how JC spoke of homosexuality, because you should follow what he said about it. Right?
By Troglodyke
January 25, 2008 10:01 AM | Link to this
Christianity as is most religions is about comfort, love, caring about your fellow man, doing unto others as you would have them do to you, just living a good life where you help as many other people as possible and you raise your family to respect others. That’s what I have heard taught in church. Not fear, not hate.
Of course this is supposed to be what it is about.
But millions of its adherents have b******* it so heavily that it is barely recognizable, except in the hearts of true Xtians.
And whether you want to admit it or not, it is about fear (I agree that it is not about hate). Fear of hell; fear of the unknown; fear of being yourself; fear of knowing yourself too well.
Fear is a tenet in EVERY Abrahamic religion.
By JokesOn
January 25, 2008 10:02 AM | Link to this
I think the general dislike concerning religion, by many christians and secular people alike, is illustrated in the movie Dogma.
To state “I have a good idea” leaves room for change and debate, where-as to say “xxx is the way” does not. And the fact is, as people on both sides have shown, the our understanding of the world does expand and change over time.
It is when our beliefs cannot allow room for this change that nearly all troubles occur: Women being second class citizens, slavery, treating american indians as non-humans, general oppression of some group…
By Troglodyke
January 25, 2008 10:03 AM | Link to this
So what moral compass would you adhere to? Thousands of years ago is was wrong to kill, rape, steal, beat, cheat people and hurt the people that love you. Those are all old concepts. Do you suggest we throw them out because they are just too old?
Not at all. The concepts are valid, but they are NOT Xtian concepts! They have been around much longer than that. Xtianity co-opted stuff from several other places and passed it off as Xtianity’s own. Pretty disingenuous.
By The Other Jack
January 25, 2008 10:09 AM | Link to this
Copyleft
There are a number of psychiatrists who can explain the goal of bringing people back to reality, even if they’re perfectly happy in their psychosis.
So you consider religion as being psychosis. That’s your right as an American. I consider supporting most of the progressive mantra a matter of psychosis, so I can understand.
By The Other Jack
January 25, 2008 10:12 AM | Link to this
Troglodyke
Not at all. The concepts are valid, but they are NOT Xtian concepts! They have been around much longer than that. Xtianity co-opted stuff from several other places and passed it off as Xtianity’s own. Pretty disingenuous.
What is Xtain?
By Newzwyre
January 25, 2008 10:21 AM | Link to this
Lies, d@mn lies, and statistics curtesy of Pew Research. Relevant to the current discussion if not the forum topic -
“The nationwide survey of 2,002 adults, conducted Feb. 25-March 10 by the Pew Research Center and the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, also finds strong expressions of religious inclusiveness. An overwhelming majority (75%) say that many religions can lead to eternal life, compared with only 18% who regard their own religion as the “one true faith.” Those with a high level of religious commitment are more likely to see their own faith as the only path to eternal life. Still, nearly half of highly committed white evangelical Protestants (48%) say many religions can lead to eternal life.”
“Yet Americans are conflicted over the centrality of religion to personal morality. The public is split about equally over whether belief in God is necessary for one to be a moral person (50% say such belief is not needed, 47% disagree).”
“There is somewhat more agreement that children raised with religious faith are more likely to grow up to be moral adults. Six-in-ten (61%) believe this, but about a third hold that children raised without religion are just as likely to grow up to be moral. A comparable majority (58%) says the strength of American society is predicated on the religious faith of its people, while 36% think that society would be strong even if most Americans lacked religious faith.”
“Americans are open to the possibility that many religions lead to eternal life, but they are critical of people who do not believe in God or have no religious affiliation. Atheists get very low ratings (34% favorable/54% unfavorable) and “people who are not religious” are given better but still modest evaluations (51% favorable/30% unfavorable).”
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=150
By JokesOn
January 25, 2008 10:23 AM | Link to this
So you consider religion as being psychosis.
Did anyone else but TOJ get that as the message? I surely did not.
I understood it as this: TOJ asked “The point I continue to try and make is that religion is good for many people. It gives them comfort and yes, it gives them a moral compass. Why is that such a huge problem for so many people?”
And the reply was a sound one: Just because someone finds comfort in something does not mean it is not destructive to them or others.
In many cases ones personal comforts do not allow room for personal growth since what those comforts in essence usually do is ward off the non-palatable aspects of life. One of these aspects is the dissonance that is required to push us from one level of understanding to the next. Without this dissonance we would simply stay at the same level for all eternity, not really what any philosophy or religion advocates.
By The Other Jack
January 25, 2008 10:23 AM | Link to this
Troglodyke
Of course this is supposed to be what it is about.
But you absolutely know that it is not. And since you claim to be an atheist, when was the last time you visited a church?
But millions of its adherents have b* it so heavily that it is barely recognizable, except in the hearts of true Xtians.
Again, what direct experience have you recently had with millions of Christians that would make you such an authority?
And whether you want to admit it or not, it is about fear (I agree that it is not about hate). Fear of hell; fear of the unknown; fear of being yourself; fear of knowing yourself too well. Fear is a tenet in EVERY Abrahamic religion.
What is your education that makes you such an authority about a religion that you openly claim not to participate in? I understand this is what you think. I participate in that religion and I KNOW that you are wrong. Why should I even consider the opinion of a non-participate that openly admits that he just like to “tweak” people who have the capacity to believe what you can’t.
By The Other Jack
January 25, 2008 10:26 AM | Link to this
Netbaker
Whatever. I am not playing games with Kimberly and her post is nonsense. If you would like to discuss something of merit, let me know.
By js
January 25, 2008 10:27 AM | Link to this
Barack Obama has the life experiences, leadership and communication skills to get the job done, bring this country together, and put it back on the right path. A path that focuses on foreign policy ending and solving conflicts not starting them. A path that for the first time addresses the reality and threats of climate change. A path that aims to make health care and insurance more affordable.
NOBODY IN THIS CAMPAIGN has the experience of being a President!!!!!
By NetBanker
January 25, 2008 10:31 AM | Link to this
Why is that such a huge problem for so many people, particularly during this election cycle? I think because humans seem to have an inherent ‘fear’ of “other” which extends to religious belief even if it’s the same base faith, but a different demonimation. It seems as though people want their President to practice religion so that they are comfortable he/she has a moral compass, but they are uncomfortable when that religion strays too far from their own beliefs. I’d say we are a much more religiously diverse country today than we were 50 years ago.
I agree with you that for many people religion is a good, healthy, supportive part of their life and provides many positives. I see that in my own family with my parents, but that paradigm just doesn’t work for me. When one’s faith or religion no longer is positive or pushes one to attempt to enforce their religious beliefs on others who believe differently is where we encounter push back. I think this is the source of the conflict between religious conservatives and religious liberals as well as the picking and choosing of sins. To provide a concrete example, from my perspective as a gay man it is hypocritical to use a religious justification that homosexuality is a sin to penalize gays through denial of access to civil marriage laws (which honestly deal with ownership/division of property rather than love or procreation or anything religious) yet not have a legal penalty for adultry, which is also a sin, when Jesus specifically teaches that all sins are equal in the eyes of God. If they’re all equal then how do we justify enacting laws (consitution amendments banning gay marriage) for one and not the other when both sins only involve the two people engaging in the sinful behaviors?
By The Other Jack
January 25, 2008 10:34 AM | Link to this
Netbaker
Don’t take that wrong. Kimberly came here looking for a fight. The post she wrote that you referred to was to someone else. The post she wrote to me was adolescent and condescending, so don’t expect me to answer your justification of her nonsense.
You were respectful and I apologize for the previous post but don’t expect me to discuss kimberly’s post after she has acted so ignorant toward me.
By kimberly
January 25, 2008 10:41 AM | Link to this
Hey NetB! Um…. TOJ wants to discuss “something of merit.” Let’s all hold our breaths, now. I’m sure he’s going to make some actual point any minute now, though his previous ramblings give no clue as to what that might ultimately be.
In any case, Happy Friday! Doesn’t anyone have any jokes?
By The Other Jack
January 25, 2008 10:42 AM | Link to this
JokesON
This was the post:
OtherJack, you’re making the practicality argument: “What’s the harm in a delusion if it makes people happy?”
There are a number of psychiatrists who can explain the goal of bringing people back to reality, even if they’re perfectly happy in their psychosis.
I think he was not only saying that religious people are “happy in their psychosis” as is clearly written, but he is also saying that religious people are delusional.
That’s what I think. Please, by all means, tell us what you think he was saying.
By Scalia
January 25, 2008 10:42 AM | Link to this
TOJ, I am a progressive, but I will say that a certain progressive is wrong for whatever.
I also will say something that a Republican or conservative is doing that is right. I actually think that Rudy Giuliani did a really good job handling New York City after 9-11. I also think that Bush did a good job unifying the country.
Do you ever say anything positive that liberals or progressives is doing? You have to bash Obama Barack’s pastor?
I know good and d-a-m-n well if it was a conservative’s pastor or preacher that the progressives or liberals was bashing, you would go into your diatribe about liberals being aanti-religion, etc.
Additionally, the race thing has gotten h-e-l-l-a old. Every week you talk about the black people at Fulton County, why are Black people Democrats when Democrats supported segregation, etc.? So why aren’t Republicans trying to court the vote of Black voters? Most Blacks I know are actually very conservative in their beliefs. Has Bush ever met with the NAACP? Or any of the self-proclaimed Black leaders? And the whole Condi is black and has one of the highest positions in government equates to the whole “I have a black friend, and we hang out and do this that and the other.”
By JokesOn
January 25, 2008 10:50 AM | Link to this
That’s what I think.
A) I know.
Please, by all means, tell us what you think he was saying.
B) I did in the 10:23 post you are replying. And the reply was a sound one: Just because someone finds comfort in something does not mean it is not destructive to them or others…
By lozen
January 25, 2008 10:51 AM | Link to this
Hello Kimberly, I’ve missed you;I’m so glad you’re back.
Donald Miller may have an intresting story, but to think that his story represents the norm is nonsense.
Isn’t it amazing how some just have to mouth off without even knowing what they’re talking about? If this is just an interesting story, why do so many identify with his story? As you and I know, he’s sold millions of books and is in demand on the lecture circuit. He’s having an influence on church leaders who agree with him. I wonder why that is since it’s JUST an interesting story and certainly not typical!
By lozen
January 25, 2008 10:57 AM | Link to this
Netbanker, I don’t necessarily believe that religion is required to have a moral compass because there seems to be an inherent moral compass built into humans that we work to corrupt. So true, so true. It’s called survival of the species for one thing. Anything we do that harms one of our fellows, we do to ourselves. This is a basic teaching of Buddhism. “Do unto others” was not invented by the jews/christians. And it makes so much sense.
By Copyleft
January 25, 2008 11:00 AM | Link to this
Why should I even consider the opinion of a non-participate that openly admits that he just like to “tweak” people who have the capacity to believe what you can’t.
Actually, it’s the nonbelievers (ironically) who have a capacity you don’t—the capacity to consider that they, you, and all the rest of humanity, might be wrong and need to change their opinions based on new information.
OtherJack: I was pointing out the flaw of your practicality argument: Just because something ‘makes you feel good’ doesn’t mean it’s harmless. Cocaine can make you feel good. Alcohol can comfort you. Are either of these things “good for you,” or for society in general?
By The Other Jack
January 25, 2008 11:08 AM | Link to this
NetBanker
I think because humans seem to have an inherent ‘fear’ of “other” which extends to religious belief even if it’s the same base faith, but a different demonimation. It seems as though people want their President to practice religion so that they are comfortable he/she has a moral compass, but they are uncomfortable when that religion strays too far from their own beliefs. I’d say we are a much more religiously diverse country today than we were 50 years ago.
I certainly agree in part, but I am simply not seeing the conflict between denominations. I see a lot of people digging up religious conflicts of the past or anything else they can do to try and make themselves above anyone who practices religion. Troglidite admits that he loves to tweak religious people. But sadly, he appears to be the only person who admits what he does.
I agree with you that for many people religion is a good, healthy, supportive part of their life and provides many positives. I see that in my own family with my parents, but that paradigm just doesn’t work for me.
Believe it or not, I have the same problem with what my Mom believes. Since I was a kid, I have been very interested in the Old Testament from a lot of different perspectives, and none of them were religious. I hated to listen to the preacher, so I would read the Bible. It was the one thing I could do to ignore the preacher that no one cared about. When I go to my Mom’s and we go to church, I still read the Old Testament during the service. I also read it at home. I find it extremely interesting, but not in a religious way.
When one’s faith or religion no longer is positive or pushes one to attempt to enforce their religious beliefs on others who believe differently is where we encounter push back. I think this is the source of the conflict between religious conservatives and religious liberals as well as the picking and choosing of sins. To provide a concrete example, from my perspective as a gay man it is hypocritical to use a religious justification that homosexuality is a sin to penalize gays through denial of access to civil marriage laws (which honestly deal with ownership/division of property rather than love or procreation or anything religious) yet not have a legal penalty for adultry, which is also a sin, when Jesus specifically teaches that all sins are equal in the eyes of God.
I understand. I believe we have discussed the civil union issue before and found a common ground. There was always the old Biddy that was convinced that I was the spawn of the devil. There’s at least one in every church. But churches do so much good for so many people. There is actually a church that is made up of mostly gay people not far from my home.
Everyone is different and we all have different needs as to religion. I believe that we all have an inherit respect for a higher power, whether that power be an old White man setting as a judge, condemning others to hell or the power of nature which is a lot like the green movement.
If they’re all equal then how do we justify enacting laws (consitution amendments banning gay marriage) for one and not the other when both sins only involve the two people engaging in the sinful behaviors?
I can’t answer that, Pal. I wish I could. I have an African American business partner who always says “it was a different time” when we talk about the world we both grew up in. I hope you are young enough that you will see a time where homosexuality is considered a norm. I have stated my desire to take the marriage term out of the equation in order to procure humane rights for gays.
All this talk from pundits like Rush Limbaugh about McCain changing the Republican Party might be true. I vote Republican because I see it as the less of two evils. Hopefully, if McCain and Obama is nominated, both parties could go through a positive change.
By JokesOn
January 25, 2008 11:22 AM | Link to this
TOJ: Why should I even consider the opinion of a non-participate that openly admits that he just like to “tweak” people who have the capacity to believe what you can’t.
TOJs post yesterday: Hey Pal. we have something in common. I like to tweak self righteous liberals who insist on trying to make others feel bad about their faith. It’s more than justice. If they weren’t such a about it, I wouldn’t take as much pleasure from it.*
Please explain to me why it is alright for you to do both “tweak” and “debate”, and others get insulted by you for the same. I see a major double standard, but maybe there is something I am missing.
By js
January 25, 2008 11:24 AM | Link to this
Barack Obama has the life experiences, leadership and communication skills to get the job done, bring this country together, and put it back on the right path. A path that focuses on foreign policy ending and solving conflicts not starting them. A path that for the first time addresses the reality and threats of climate change. A path that aims to make health care and insurance more affordable.
NOBODY IN THIS CAMPAIGN has the experience of being a President!!!!!
It is not whether tears are allowed, but whether Hillary’s “emotional moment” was just a strategic ploy to dupe uneducated voters in NH????? IT WAS NOT REAL….wake up….
By Troglodyke
January 25, 2008 11:31 AM | Link to this
What is your education that makes you such an authority about a religion that you openly claim not to participate in?
First of all, most atheists are very knowledgeable about the bible and the tenets of Xtianity. Many, like me, are converts from religion, and most of us were immersed in it for many years. Some of us continue to study it. In fact, I imagine atheists, in general, know more about the bible than many “Xtians” do.
If I told you I am a religious scholar, with a degree in Theology, would that impress you? Higher degrees don’t usually impress people who believe in fairy tales.
I understand this is what you think. I participate in that religion and I KNOW that you are wrong.
Spoken like a true believer. I knew you’d show yourself.
Why should I even consider the opinion of a non-participate
You certainly don’t have to. Why should I consider the opinions of people who have no idea what they are talking about? Why should rational people listen to the appeals of the irrational?
…that openly admits that he just like to “tweak” people who have the capacity to believe what you can’t.
Oh, so they have a capacity that I don’t have? Is that the capacity to swallow ridiculous claims that have no evidence behind them? Maybe that’s the capacity to stomp upon their own reason to believe fairy tales? Or is it the capacity to fear those they do not know or understand?
By the way, TOJ, I’m a woman. My screenname should* have been a clue, but apparently your “capacity” doesn’t encourage you to read closely. Maybe your lack in that area stems from your tendency to reply incoherently to questions that were not asked, and ignore statements that **were made, because you have no way to properly answer them.
By The Other Jack
January 25, 2008 11:33 AM | Link to this
Scalia
TOJ, I am a progressive, but I will say that a certain progressive is wrong for whatever. I also will say something that a Republican or conservative is doing that is right. I actually think that Rudy Giuliani did a really good job handling New York City after 9-11. I also think that Bush did a good job unifying the country. Do you ever say anything positive that liberals or progressives is doing? You have to bash Obama Barack’s pastor?
That’s good that you can criticize progressives. But why is my “bashing of Obama’s Pastor” so abhorrent to you? Do you read the posts here? Do you see what progressives say about Republicans and their ties to Christianity? I have never seen you questioning their bashing. Why is that?
I know good and d-a-m-n well if it was a conservative’s pastor or preacher that the progressives or liberals was bashing, you would go into your diatribe about liberals being aanti-religion, etc.
Yes I do. But you don’t. So it is a partisan issue. Progressives say what they like and I say what I like. Is that a problem?
Additionally, the race thing has gotten h-e-l-l-a old. Every week you talk about the black people at Fulton County, why are Black people Democrats when Democrats supported segregation, etc.? So why aren’t Republicans trying to court the vote of Black voters?
Republicans fought for equality. We consider all people equal. Would you have John McCain go to Selma and fake an African American accent? Wouldn’t you consider that as condescending? I certainly would. That’s what Hillary Clinton did.
If there was a Republican President that was very promiscuous, and because of that, the GOP started saying that he was the first Black President, would you consider that insulting? That’s what the DNC has done with Bill Clinton, but no one seems to have a problem with that.
What would you suggest the Republicans do? How would you want them to “court the black vote”? I’m pretty sure if the Republicans did anything that the dims do on a regular basis, they would just make a lot more enemies of the people that they fought to free.
Please give some insight here. What could they do that would impress you?
Most Blacks I know are actually very conservative in their beliefs. Has Bush ever met with the NAACP? Or any of the self-proclaimed Black leaders? And the whole Condi is black and has one of the highest positions in government equates to the whole “I have a black friend, and we hang out and do this that and the other.
Look at what you are saying here. An organization that’s leaders have asked for the ouster of the president and you expect the president to meet with that group. He did meet with the outgoing head:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A17010-2004Dec21?language=printer
Republicans act. Democrats talk. Republicans put competent people in extremely high places. Those people represent a rainbow of races and religions, but that means nothing to you.
Please answer this question: If Bush had gone to Selma and faked an accent … If Bush had addressed the NAACP convention, would you support him? Again, what would you suggest that Republicans do?
By Monica
January 25, 2008 11:35 AM | Link to this
To provide a concrete example, from my perspective as a gay man it is hypocritical to use a religious justification that homosexuality is a sin to penalize gays through denial of access to civil marriage laws (which honestly deal with ownership/division of property rather than love or procreation or anything religious) yet not have a legal penalty for adultry, which is also a sin, when Jesus specifically teaches that all sins are equal in the eyes of God. If they’re all equal then how do we justify enacting laws (consitution amendments banning gay marriage) for one and not the other when both sins only involve the two people engaging in the sinful behaviors?
Net, I whole-heartedly agree with you. I posted something to that effect a while back. Can you imagine if the IRS denied a “married filing jointly” status to someone who was caught committing adultery?
By Snidely Buttright
January 25, 2008 11:40 AM | Link to this
“Troglidite admits that he loves to tweak religious people.”
(heh, heh, heh) Troglidite. (heh, heh) HE does, does HE? (heh, heh, heh, heh)
By j
January 25, 2008 11:40 AM | Link to this
all this mudslinging by clinton is very low….she is so power hungry she will lost the whole race for the dems…..and we all deserve it if we are STILL falling for these clinton tricks…..
McCain is a defense hawk, if GOP wins, more war, big oil wins…”regular” people lose…..rich get richer, poor get poorer…..
If dems win, the pendulum swings, we start to get some supposedly “god-given” rights under the constititution back….
hillary and obama have some minor policy differences, yet they are still much closer in their vision than GOP…it really matters who can better execute….and cross party lines…I think that person is Obama…
Edwards has a stance befitting a trial lawyer which will produce a lot of nothing in the white house….I don’t like all the special interests of hillary and I am afraid if she were to win, GOP would just stop any bill from her…she is not the “decider” bush is….bill should just go back to arkansas….her tactics are very low which makes one ashamed to be a democrat….
However, dems are going to be very sorry when their infighting and squabbling does exactly what the GOP wants and hands power to the oldest president ever mccain…..you think we are conservative now???
Just wait…..remember how perot split the vote and gave power to GOP…..it can happen if people don’t wake up pretty *&)( soon….
By LaughoftheWeek
January 25, 2008 11:43 AM | Link to this
yet another conservative whining about Hillary Clinton’s fake black accent in Selma.
By Troglodyke
January 25, 2008 11:43 AM | Link to this
Troglidite admits that he loves to tweak religious people.
Troglodyke never said that. I said I like to tweak self-righteous religious people who make a show of “family values” and then make hash of them with their own actions. That’s who I like to tweak.
Although any religious person who spouts off nonsense is fair game.
I am fully aware that religion is not going away. Some atheists claim they desire this, but I am not one of them. It is necessary for many people to have religion, unfortunately, because they are too weak-willed to keep themselves in line without it.
I know quite a few Xtians, and we enjoy each other’s company because we do not argue about beliefs. They read their bibles and see the words saying homosexuality is wrong, go to church and hear preachers say homosexuality is a sin, and then they see me (and their other gay friends) with my longtime (8 years) partner, paying bills, working hard, volunteering for causes, giving money to worthy charities, helping people who need it, being responsible citizens, being producers, not consumers, i.e. living normal lives, and they look back at their bibles and shrug.
What we see with our own eyes, and experience with our hearts, and actually live with on a daily basis, is what matters. Not what some god is supposed to have written.
By The Other Jack
January 25, 2008 11:43 AM | Link to this
By Copyleft
Actually, it’s the nonbelievers (ironically) who have a capacity you don’t—the capacity to consider that they, you, and all the rest of humanity, might be wrong and need to change their opinions based on new information.
According to the posts here, there is no “might be wrong”. There is talk about mental disorders and delusions of religious people. And please make an attempt at reading my posts without deciding every aspect of my life. I would fight anyone who wants to end religious freedom. I believe in what America stands for. But when have I ever said that I am a Christian? I, unlike most of the people that insist on condemning Christians, have been in church most of my life. I have seen the good churches do and have participated in that good. I know that churches help people.
OtherJack: I was pointing out the flaw of your practicality argument: Just because something ‘makes you feel good’ doesn’t mean it’s harmless. Cocaine can make you feel good. Alcohol can comfort you. Are either of these things “good for you,” or for society in general?
Did I ever say that religion was harmless? Automobiles are great, but they are not harmless. Please read what I write, and try to address that. Not what you would like to think that I have written.
By NetBanker
January 25, 2008 11:57 AM | Link to this
Hold up there, TOJ. At 9:19am you specifically posted to Kimberly and used ‘the hate pit’ statement. that was the source of my questions to you and I’m still very curious as to what in her statement was “hateful” in your opinion.
Hey Kimberly! No real jokes today, but I did get a photo of a bumper sticker that i think is hilarious…”Monica Lewinsky’s X-boyfriend’s Wife for President”
By The Other Jack
January 25, 2008 12:09 PM | Link to this
Troglodyke
First of all, most atheists are very knowledgeable about the bible and the tenets of Xtianity. Many, like me, are converts from religion, and most of us were immersed in it for many years. Some of us continue to study it. In fact, I imagine atheists, in general, know more about the bible than many “Xtians” do.
I understand your attempt at tweaking. But replacing names with the letter X has long been a sign of lack of education. (Please put your X here, etc.)
I get your point. You have no respect for the word Christ. Now that I get your point, it is simply difficult to read your posts. If you can’t take the time to spell out the word, then don’t expect an answer. K?
By The Other Jack
January 25, 2008 12:16 PM | Link to this
Netbaker
Not going to happen, Pal. She initiated the term “hate pit.”
You are a good person with good, valid points. I learn from you. I like that. I don’t want to fight about nonsense.
Kimberly has addressed you about my lack of ability to make a valid argument, proving that she is here to pick a fight.
I am constantly accused of doing exactly that. This time I am pointing out that I will not lower the discussion to the level of such a person. If that is what you want to do, take it to someone who wants to act like a child.
By Copyleft
January 25, 2008 12:17 PM | Link to this
OtherJack: I am addressing what you said. You said religion is good for many people because “it provides comfort and a moral compass.”
Providing comfort is meaningless in determining whether something is “good” for you, as I’ve pointed out. As for providing a moral compass… religion has also provided a lot of people with an appallingly evil set of behavioral standards and justification for all manner of atrocities. So how is that sort of moral compass “good”?
By lozen
January 25, 2008 12:18 PM | Link to this
Kimberly and Trog, It is amazing to read such condescension in all of some ppl’s posts, no? What is Xtain? Since 1436 when Gutenberg invented the printing press with moveable type, typesetting was done by hand and was very tedious and expensive. So abbreviations became common. In religious publications, the church began to use the abbreviation X for the word Christ to cut down on the cost of books and pamphlets. From there, the abbreviation moved into general use in newspapers and other publications, and Xmas, Xian and Xianity became accepted. Even Webster’s dictionary acknowledges that the abbreviations were in common use by the middle of the sixteenth century. Kimberly, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah. Don’t ya just love having someone constantly project onto you and others on the blog, accusing them of doing what they do over and over. Someone who gets so outraged because people generalize about religion but they constantly generalize about progressives and liberals. Everybody who posts here gets on the soap box once in a while and we all have our bad days when we treat others less well than we should. But those who maintain sarcasm, distain, and condescension 100 percent of the time are rare. And then of course they think they’re disliked because they’re “the voices of truth!” We can certainly see how religion has made them “loving, caring about your fellow man, doing unto others as you would have them do to you, just living a good life where you help as many other people as possible and you raise your family to respect others.” The respect, love, use of the golden rule is pretty hard to teach your family when you don’t follow it yourself!
By Scalia
January 25, 2008 12:20 PM | Link to this
TOJ, what I am saying is that the Republican presidential candidates should go to the historically black colleges, etc. and try to court the votes of the black voters. If they present a platform that appeals to black voters, and actually made the circuit i.e. Tavis Smalley, etc. and spread the word about their platform, I guarantee that they will persuade some black voters.
I would support Bush if he had that platform.
And I disagree with the bashing of Obama’s pastor because that is irrelevant. It seems petty that whoever felt the need to research who his pastor is, and what the pastor talks about.
I am more concerned with what Obama has to say in his platform than the fact that his pastor is a racist.
By Copyleft
January 25, 2008 12:24 PM | Link to this
Many people mistakenly think that the “X” substitution for “Christ” is something new or disrespectful, rather than a centuries-old, CHRISTIAN tradition. A common abbreviation, alongside “chi-rho” and others. And used by the Catholic Church, no less.
Some folks are just hunting for something to be offended by. Some folks listen to Bill O’Reilly with a straight face.
By lozen
January 25, 2008 12:32 PM | Link to this
Troglodyke, loved that 11:43 post!
By Archie
January 25, 2008 12:32 PM | Link to this
If there was a Republican President that was very promiscuous, and because of that, the GOP started saying that he was the first Black President, would you consider that insulting? That’s what the DNC has done with Bill Clinton, but no one seems to have a problem with that.
Those are some of the most ridiculous statements I have ever read and totally untrue. The DNC did not start calling Clinton the first black president, black folk did via comedic routines and it just kept going. Man you are so out of touch with reality and Hillary didn’t have to use a fake accent because the woman has worked with black folk for years in public service. Please Netbanker,Lozen, post more logical posts. Lozen, I know you support Hillary so please post and don’t let the nonsense go unchallenged. I am pleading with Netbanker,Lozen,Lyrazel to post more because this blog needs more people with sense and less nut cases. I miss the serious nature of the blog the way it was back in 2004. There used to be intelligent republican people posting like Ken,Bruce,Jack but now you have a nut case and people like Brian Curtis and JBM no longer post.
Also, I like Obama but he is a democrat and he can’t unify s… more than Hillary because republicans and democrats have different philosophies. I plead with progressive voters to stop believing the negatives about Hillary because it has been passed to you by a very good republican propaganda machine and I ask you to just look at the issues. If you like Obama fine,Edwards fine, Hillary fine but look at the issues and understand that if Obama wins the republicans will not go easy on him.
By The Other Jack
January 25, 2008 12:34 PM | Link to this
Copyleft
Providing comfort is meaningless in determining whether something is “good” for you, as I’ve pointed out. As for providing a moral compass… religion has also provided a lot of people with an appallingly evil set of behavioral standards and justification for all manner of atrocities. So how is that sort of moral compass “good”?
Religion has not always been a good thing. Socialism is the third word in the name of the party of Hitler. So are all socialist bad?
I am asking that people open their minds to the good of religion, something that seems to escape many on this blog.
By The Other Jack
January 25, 2008 12:42 PM | Link to this
Scalia
And I disagree with the bashing of Obama’s pastor because that is irrelevant. It seems petty that whoever felt the need to research who his pastor is, and what the pastor talks about.
So how is Huckabee’s religion relevant? Romney’s? Obama goes to the church of and openly supports a racist. I would have a problem doing that because I am not a racist.
I am as tired as the religious bashing as you are tired of the race bashing. But in spite of everything, they both seem to play a large part of politics, particularly this year.
I would rather it be about issues that actually touch us all, like health care, the economy, the regulation of the oil industry and the obscene amount of money that is now going to the ruling party in Congress, but those issues don’t seem to inspire anyone one here.
By whatilearnedintheologyschool
January 25, 2008 12:54 PM | Link to this
Many on this blog and all over the world have been and are being badly hurt by Xianity. xianity is a delusion and someday in the future the human race will look back and see that clearly - just as we look back and see the delusion of the greek, roman and egyptian religions. The central piece of the Xtian system is the horrible death of a jew on a cross 2,000 years ago because he/his father/god wanted to save all of us from sin? It’s masochistic. It is delusional. And they call it good! Nothing in this world is all bad. You can certainly claim churches do good works. However, to imagine you’re eating the flesh and drinking the blood of another human being is crazy. To believe that you can base your morality today on a 2000 year old book written by ppl who were ignorant next to a 5th grader in this day and age is stupid. Religion and the belief that some god is taking care of everything keeps the human race from growing up and taking responsibility for ourselves and our future.
By The Other Jack
January 25, 2008 12:57 PM | Link to this
Archie
Hillary didn’t have to use a fake accent because the woman has worked with black folk for years in public service.
What? LOL I have worked with Black people my entire professional life, but I would never condescend to adopting an African American accent. That’s insulting.
There is a great book that you might want to pick up by Herman Cain, called: “They Think You’re Stupid”. A lot of wisdom in that book. But since it was written by a Republican, I’m pretty sure you would never even consider reading it.
Every day I am subjected to comments like this: There used to be intelligent republican people posting like Ken,Bruce,Jack but now you have a nut case and people like Brian Curtis and JBM no longer post.
If you think I am a nutcase, then don’t answer my posts. I understand why you don’t like me. I also understand that no matter how openly insulting several people are to me, that is is always my fault and I am the nutcase.
I try to leave personalities out of the discussion, but when I am attacked, I attack back. Grow up. Get over it.
If you do not have the ability to converse without these adolescent attempts at insulting a stranger, then I would suggest that you move along and find a blog where everyone agrees with everything you write.
By lozen
January 25, 2008 12:58 PM | Link to this
I would rather it be about issues that actually touch us all, like health care, the economy, the regulation of the oil industry and the obscene amount of money that is now going to the ruling party in Congress, but those issues don’t seem to inspire anyone one here. What an ignorant statement. Do you ever actually read anything others post on this blog? Obviously not!
By NetBanker
January 25, 2008 12:59 PM | Link to this
Here’s what I was referring to the other day about wire tapping without obtaining a warrant. To the best of my knowledge Bush is the first president to authorize a program that provided mass access to data or wiretapping without court oversight. IMO, this is in an entirely different league than covert wiretaping of specific individuals or organizations that we all acknowledge occurs.
“In a victory for the Bush administration, the Senate on Thursday blocked legislation that would have cleared the way for lawsuits against phone companies that have cooperated with a warrantless wiretapping program authorized by the president. The vote moves the administration closer to its goal of providing retroactive immunity to telephone companies and Internet carriers facing multimillion-dollar lawsuits for giving U.S. spy agencies access to international calls and messages.”
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/printedition/2008/01/25/nation0125.html
By NetBanker
January 25, 2008 1:01 PM | Link to this
Here’s another story from that same link that I think might be discussion worthy. Based solely on the info that is in the news blurb does anyone think that a hate crime was committed? If so, what crime?
La. man indicted for nooses on truck
A Colfax, La., man who allegedly drove his pickup truck with a pair of nooses hanging from the back bumper past a group of black civil rights marchers was indicted on federal hate crime and conspiracy charges, the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Louisiana said. Jeremiah Munsen, 18, was arrested in September when Alexandria police allegedly found hangman’s nooses dangling from the rear of his truck after he drove past a crowd of people who had attended a civil rights march in Jena, La..
By Scalia
January 25, 2008 1:03 PM | Link to this
People made this about religion. I distinctly remember Chuck saying that he wanted to know what religion the candidate belongs to.
And you being a racist: I’m not going to judge you, but it does come off that way with the obvious disdain for black people in your comments.
By Monica
January 25, 2008 1:17 PM | Link to this
There used to be intelligent republican people posting like Ken,Bruce,Jack…
Gee, and I thought I was smart… oh well.
By kimberly
January 25, 2008 1:17 PM | Link to this
Lozen, thanks for the good factual information, and your astute observations. I totally agree! Haha! That is why I am refusing to “fight” with TOJ.
TOJ: Please forgive me. I forgive you! The tenets of MY spritual beliefs compell me to wish you peace, love, tolerance, and harmony… today and always, brother. Let us not go to bed on our anger tonight, nor let the motes in our eyes fester and whatnot.
By Snidely Buttright
January 25, 2008 1:21 PM | Link to this
About the southern accent, wasn’t Hillary reading Rev. James Cleveland’s hymn “I don’t feel no ways tired”, which is written in a southern-vernacular style? Anyone ever tried to read something like that without lapsing into a bad version of whatever accent it’s supposed to represent? Try reading something written as if spoken by a Cockney, or a Scot.
By The Other Jack
January 25, 2008 1:22 PM | Link to this
lozen
What an ignorant statement. Do you ever actually read anything others post on this blog? Obviously not!
They are certainly not addressed to me. Folks are usually too busy trying their damnest to find something, anything I have said where they could, call what I say “ignorant”.
No justification. No reason, just looking for a reason to insult a stranger.
By Newzwyre
January 25, 2008 1:23 PM | Link to this
It’s not exactly a “joke” but it did make me smile -
Stowaway kitty reunited with her family - By Mike Celizic
You know the old cliché about letting the cat out of the bag? Take Robert Carter’s word for it when he tells you it’s not something you’d want to try at home.
The Fort Worth, Texas, man told TODAY’s Al Roker on Friday about how he learned the hard way last week when he mistakenly picked up the wrong suitcase at the airport. Inside was 10-month-old Gracie Mae, who had curled up in her owner’s suitcase in Florida and ended up going on the ride of her life.
After being tossed in the car, dumped on a baggage belt, X-rayed by the TSA, piled in a cargo hold, flown 1,300 miles from her home in Palm Beach Gardens, Fla., dumped on a conveyor belt, taken for a ride on a carousel, and tossed into another car, Gracie Mae wasn’t in the best frame of mind when Carter opened the suitcase at his home.
“She looks cute now, but she was all teeth and fangs at that point,” said Carter, who admitted, “I screamed like a little girl” when Gracie Mae erupted from the suitcase.
Read the rest at - http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/22841493/
By lozen
January 25, 2008 1:27 PM | Link to this
Archie, I may not agree with everything you say or believe but I want you to stay on this blog! I would suggest that you move along and find a blog where everyone agrees with everything you write. Back at cha TOJ. I’m sure there would be many more happy people on here if you took your own nasty advice.
By The Other Jack
January 25, 2008 1:35 PM | Link to this
Scalia
People made this about religion. I distinctly remember Chuck saying that he wanted to know what religion the candidate belongs to.
Then you need to take that up with Chuck.
And you being a racist: I’m not going to judge you, but it does come off that way with the obvious disdain for black people in your comments.
I have been condemned for things I haven’t said. It is a daily battle to correct other’s attempts at putting words in my posts that simply are not there.
I don’t mind being judged by you if that judgment is based on what I actually write. I have been in town all week and I have posted every day as either TOJ or Big Corporate Dog or even as Dog, before I learned that name was taken. If you can go through all those posts and find a single comment that you consider as disdain for Black people, please enlighten me.
I’m not saying that it is an impossibility. If you are Black, I might have said something that I meant to be benign that you took offense at. If this is the case, please find that quote and let me know what it was. There is a lot about Black culture that I do not understand. I am trying to learn.
Again, please repost any statement that I wrote that you found that I had disdain for any black person or the Black American Culture in general.
By lozen
January 25, 2008 1:53 PM | Link to this
Folks are usually too busy trying their damnest to find something, anything I have said where they could, call what I say “ignorant”. And you don’t see that your attitude has something to do with that?
By AGFNPR
January 25, 2008 1:54 PM | Link to this
Kimberly you said: At the end of the day, is another any better than me because he chooses to condemn and judge others to justify greed, selfishness, or hate, and I choose the path of love, tolerance, acceptance, and peace? Good luck with that on Judgment Day, if there is one.
If that comment was to conservative Christians in general - who gave you the right to judge them? It sure doesn’t sound like you have chosen the path of tolerance, acceptance, and peace when dealing with conservative Christians. And apparently if there is a judgment day, you have determined that their actions aren’t Christian enough for them to be saved.
If that comment was to me personally - I have no worries. Several weeks ago I listed the things I do personally to help others in my community and church. On judgment day there will be MANY things I have to answer for, but it won’t be because I have chosen the path of greed, selfishness, or hate.
IF that comment was for me - thanks for your concern for my eternal salvation. It is great to know that I can escape the judgmental Christians I have surrounded myself with and come to this blog and get such kind words from a loving, tolerant, accepting, and peaceful person like you.
By The Other Jack
January 25, 2008 2:06 PM | Link to this
lozen
My Attitude. How would you perfer that I asnwer a post like this:
What an ignorant statement. Do you ever actually read anything others post on this blog? Obviously not!
Or this one:
I’m sure there would be many more happy people on here if you took your own nasty advice.
Or here:
Don’t ya just love having someone constantly project onto you and others on the blog, accusing them of doing what they do over and over. Someone who gets so outraged because people generalize about religion but they constantly generalize about progressives and liberals.
That’s a small sampling of your vile behavior toward me. Are you this unfair and unreasonable in real life?
And it’s all about my attitude. That would be laughable, if it weren’t so sad.
By lozen
January 25, 2008 2:15 PM | Link to this
Newswyre, good funny story. She’ll probably pee on the beds for a while to pay them back for that!
By Archie
January 25, 2008 2:17 PM | Link to this
And you being a racist: I’m not going to judge you, but it does come off that way with the obvious disdain for black people in your comments. Scalia, the guy is a racist and a nutcase. It’s so easy to factually repute what he writes most of the time. Again I am pleading for Netbanker,Lozen to post more and if you can find JBM and SusieHomemaker tell them to start back posting. Lozen of course we don’t always agree but you don’t distort my posts and you have made it known that you’re an atheist but you still post intelligently. Monica you are intelligent but you have never identified yourself politically and I just mentioned those names because I liked discussing things with them. I used to disagree with a poster named Ken but all he did was post about his political philosophy and not about nonsense about someone’s pastor.
By Snidely Buttright
January 25, 2008 2:19 PM | Link to this
Okay, I stole this from a November post by Monica. But it’s still funny –
HOW TO TELL IF YOU ARE A DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN
You’re walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, an Islamic Terrorist with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, praises Allah, raises the knife, and charges at you. You are carrying a .40 caliber Glock, and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family. What do you do?
Democrat’s Answer: Well, that’s not enough information to answer the question! Does the man look poor! Or oppressed? Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack? Could we run away? What does my wife think? What about the kids? Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand? What does the law say about this situation? Does the Glock have appropriate safety built into it? Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this send to society and to my children? Is it possible he’d be happy with just killing me? Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me? If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me? Should I call 9-1-1? Why is this street so deserted? We need to raise taxes, have paint and weed day and make this a happier, healthier street that would discourage such behavior. This is all so confusing! I need to debate this with some friends for few days and try to come to a consensus.
Republican’s Answer: BANG!
Southern Republican’s Answer: BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click….. (sounds of reloading). BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click. Daughter: “Nice grouping, Daddy! Were those the Winchester Silver Tips or Hollow Points?” Son: “Git-r-Dun Pop! Can I shoot the next one!” Wife: “You ain’t taking that to the Taxidermist!”
By kimberly
January 25, 2008 2:22 PM | Link to this
AGFNPR, If that comment was to conservative Christians in general - who gave you the right to judge them?
No one. Nor they me. That was my point. We all sin, so in essence, we’re all gambling that ours aren’t as bad as someone else’s.
It sure doesn’t sound like you have chosen the path of tolerance, acceptance, and peace when dealing with conservative Christians. Like I tell the kids: How do we get good at something? Keep trying!!
it won’t be because I have chosen the path of greed, selfishness, or hate. Who said you had? Clearly some people choose that, but I’m tickled to hear you’re not one of them. Yay!
It is great to know that I can escape the judgmental Christians I have surrounded myself with and come to this blog and get such kind words from a loving, tolerant, accepting, and peaceful person like you. Isn’t it, though! I’m glad I could be here for you. May you be blessed with warm clothing and kind words on this frigid winter day.
By The Other Jack
January 25, 2008 2:29 PM | Link to this
Archie
It’s no surprise that you make unsubstantiated accusations. It would be a surprise if I didn’t respond.
I will give you the same challenge. If you can find a single racist remark I have made, please post it.
So are you going to continue to show your ignorance, or are you going to prove what you blather?
Judging from your past posts, I’m pretty sure I already know the answer.
By The Other Jack
January 25, 2008 2:35 PM | Link to this
AGFNPR
Look at it this way. Many of these people are so engaged in their ignorant name calling and accusations toward me that they are more than willing to do anything, including apologize to you to prove that they are actually fair to most people who disagree with them.
You should go for it. You are in the zone. Tell them what you think. I don’t mind taking heat from people who know nothing about me.
Let em have it.
By Objection!
January 25, 2008 2:40 PM | Link to this
Archie doesn’t blather. His posts are thoughtful, pertinent, and polite.
By lozen
January 25, 2008 2:47 PM | Link to this
And all of my comments were in response to your comments and your attitude and I believe they are true. I think you’re a condescending, generalizing, jerk with everyone on here and have been since the first time you posted as TOJ.
By The Other Jack
January 25, 2008 2:56 PM | Link to this
Iozen
Have a good weekend. I’ll talk to you on Monday.
By Monica
January 25, 2008 3:04 PM | Link to this
Actually, Archie, I have disassociated myself from the Republican party, or any party for that matter, so my remark wasn’t fair to you. I was just trying to be funny.
Newzwyre: great kitty story! I sent it to my co-workers!
Hi Kimberly!
I hope you all have a good weekend and stay warm! If you have children, and would like to see a nice clean movie, I recommend The Veggie Tales: The Pirates Who Don’t Do Anything. If you don’t have children but are a child at heart, The Veggie Tales are for you. :)
By JokesOn
January 25, 2008 3:11 PM | Link to this
Did I ever say that religion was harmless? Automobiles are great, but they are not harmless.
But you need a license to drive. You suggesting that a license also be needed to practice a religion?
You never replied to the hypocrisy of your own post on “tweaking” just like the hundreds of other valid posts people have regarding your bs.
More evidence that you are unable to think and can only react.
To all else on here: Pease post if you think TOJ adds anything positive to this blog. Lets get a real idea of what people think about him.
By Archie
January 25, 2008 3:17 PM | Link to this
To Snidely Buttright, I hope democrats read that joke and get up off their butts and go vote. It’s embarrassing when you hear some folk talk about why they might vote for a guy. They use terms like dynamic but don’t say why the guy is dynamic and they say a guy can unify the country but they can’t explain how the guy is going to unify people that have vast differences in philosophy. Bush said he was a unifier and he really sounded good saying it but there is a study that showed Bush and his people lied to the public 935 times over a two year period after 09/11/2001. Obama wants to get rid of the tax cuts for the wealthy so you think he can unify people the way people actually think he can? I want to thank the Objection poster.
As for racists remarks the statement made about the DNC was racist because it implies people are like a herd of cattle. This is not the first time TOJ has been called a racist and the first time it wasn’t Scalia or myself. I said weeks ago TOJ is a racist and nothing has changed and I would rather posters like Bruce, and Ken post from the right side of things.
By lozen
January 25, 2008 3:19 PM | Link to this
Archie you said it very well. Most of the stuff you hear about Senator Clinton is just good ole republican scam. Of course the media is happy to help out when they can. The way they blew up the whole “getting a tear in her eye” thing is amazing. The woman has a frantic schedule, probably doesn’t get any sleep or good food while campaigning, is stressed to the max I’m sure, and she got teary eyed for a moment! So what? She didn’t break down and get hysterical. Remember that debate before the last election when Bush couldn’t answer questions and seemed to be drunk? Clinton can speak, she can answer questions intelligently - far more than our present prez has ever been able to do. She has the best answers for questions. She doesn’t promise whatever people want to hear; she says “that needs to have more thought” or “how would we pay for that”? The repub party is so good at attacking people. Look at Max Cleland for example.
By The Other Jack
January 25, 2008 3:31 PM | Link to this
Archie
As for racists remarks the statement made about the DNC was racist because it implies people are like a herd of cattle.
People, huh? Not Black People. Not White people, just people. And that is racist. LOL
This is not the first time TOJ has been called a racist and the first time it wasn’t Scalia or myself. I said weeks ago TOJ is a racist and nothing has changed and I would rather posters like Bruce, and Ken post from the right side of things.
Sorry I don’t post like you want me to post. Check that. Actually I’m not sorry at all.
By The Other Jack
January 25, 2008 3:34 PM | Link to this
JokesOn
To all else on here: Pease post if you think TOJ adds anything positive to this blog. Lets get a real idea of what people think about him.
If I have accomplished anything this week, at least you are now not claiming to know what each and every poster on here thinks.
I feel fulfilled. Thanks for that.
By Archie
January 25, 2008 3:34 PM | Link to this
Finally Lozen you speak up, please keep it going. I thought the media blew it too, by focusing on the woman’s tears. Lozen don’t be timid just put your feelings out there people can either take it or leave it. Barack Obama is on the radio right now on station 102.5 in Atlanta. Obviously I don’t live in Atlanta but I am listening to him and he just said he has a similar plan to Clinton’s but Obama said his health plan will not be mandated. Real discussion is happening right now.
By Conservative
January 25, 2008 3:45 PM | Link to this
I gotta a lot of dirt on that Evil Hillary Clinton.
Why, she tried to fake some black accent in front of a black audience in Selma, Alabama, yessireee she did.
By lozen
January 25, 2008 3:50 PM | Link to this
I’m not sayin all this is true but it’s a good joke.
SCHOOL 1967 vs. 2007
Scenario: Jack goes quail hunting before school, pulls into school parking lot with shotgun in gun rack. 1967 Vice Principal comes over, looks at Jack’s shotgun, goes to his car and gets his shotgun to show Jack. 2007 School goes into lock down, FBI called, Jack hauled off to jail and never sees his truck or gun again. Counselors called in for traumatized students and teachers. Scenario: Johnny and Mark get into a fistfight after school. 1967 Crowd gathers. Mark wins. Johnny and Mark shake hands and end up buddies. 2007 Police called, SWAT team arrives, arrests Johnny and Mark. Charges them with assault, both expelled even though Johnny started it. Scenario: Jeffrey won’t be still in class, disrupts other students. 1967 Jeffrey sent to office and given a good paddling by the Principal. Returns to class, sits still and does not disrupt class again. 2007 Jeffrey given huge doses of Ritalin. Becomes a zombie. Tested for ADD. School gets extra money from state because Jeffrey has a disability. Scenario: Billy breaks a window in his neighbor’s car and his Dad gives him a whipping with his belt. 1967 Billy is more careful next time, grows up normal, goes to college, and becomes a successful businessman. 2007 Billy’s Dad is arrested for child abuse. Billy removed to foster care and joins a gang. State psychologist is told by Billy’s sister that she remembers being abused herself and their Dad goes to prison. Billy’s mom has affair with psychologist. Scenario: Mark gets a headache and takes some aspirin to school. 1967 Mark shares aspirin with Principal out on the smoking dock. 2007 Police called, Mark expelled from school for drug violations. Car searched for drugs and weapons. Scenario: Pedro fails high school English. 1967 Pedro goes to summer school, passes English, and goes to college. 2007 Pedro’s cause is taken up by state. Newspaper articles appear nationally explaining that teaching English as a requirement for graduation is racist. ACLU files class action lawsuit against state school system and Pedro’s English teacher. English banned from core curriculum. Pedro given diploma anyway but ends up mowing lawns for a living because he cannot speakEnglish. Scenario: Johnny takes apart leftover firecrackers from 4th of July, puts them in a model airplane paint bottle, and blows up a red ant bed. 1967 Ants die. 2007 BATF, Homeland Security, FBI called. Johnny charged with domestic terrorism, FBI investigates parents, siblings removed from home, computers confiscated; Johnny’s Dad goes on a terror watch list and is never allowed to fly again. Scenario: Johnny falls while running during recess and scrapes his knee. He is found crying by his teacher, Mary. Mary hugs him to comfort him. 1967 In a short time, Johnny feels better and goes on playing. 2007 Mary is accused of being a sexual predator and loses her job. She faces 3 years in State Prison. Johnny undergoes 5 years of therapy.
Things have truly changed. Amazing!!!
By The Other Jack
January 25, 2008 4:05 PM | Link to this
Iozen
I certainly would never dream of being critical, but if you would occasionally use that long key that has “enter” written on it, it would separate your post into readable segments instead of such an extremely long paragraph.
Not that I read it, but if anyone had the time to read it, it might just be easier to read.
Just a thought.
By kimberly
January 25, 2008 4:08 PM | Link to this
Lozen, good observations on the election coverage. Does it bother anyone else that the “reporters” seem to be commenting so negatively on Clinton and so positively on Obama all the time? It’s as if the employees of Murdoch, Moon, Time Warner, and GE really want Obama to be the candidate.
Nobody stands up to the slings and arrows like the Clintons when the spin cycle gets ugly. That’s the experience that will count later this year when the Republican slime machine and their corporate media enablers go into full production. Does anyone think they’ll be this “fair and balanced” to Obama if he wins the nomination?
BTW, I like ALL the Dem candidates, and haven’t decided which box I’ll poke on the touch screen.
By EnglishMajor
January 25, 2008 4:16 PM | Link to this
Charles Dickens and Jane Austen wrote in extremely long paragraphs. What on earth is this world coming to when even the I am so superior types cannot even manage a small paragraph, by Dickens and Austen standards?
By JokesOn
January 25, 2008 4:27 PM | Link to this
I feel fulfilled. Thanks for that.
I wonder if you will ever state something similar to cause me to state the same.
Are you big enough for that?
By The Other Jack
January 25, 2008 4:29 PM | Link to this
EnglishMajor
What. You mean that someone on this board cannot take constructive criticism? Say it ain’t so.
So exactly how big is that chip on your shoulder?
By Archie
January 25, 2008 4:29 PM | Link to this
Does it bother anyone else that the “reporters” seem to be commenting so negatively on Clinton and so positively on Obama all the time? It has bothered me Kimberly and Michael Baisden let him get off the radio without requiring the same promise from Obama as he did Clinton yesterday. I do like Obama though Kimberly as he’s not a bad guy.
By EnglishMajor
January 25, 2008 4:38 PM | Link to this
So exactly how big is that chip on your shoulder
Now was I whining about the length of someone’s paragraph?
I read it easily and even forwarded it to others, granted, maybe I did some readibilty formatting first, but certainly had no problem reading it as posted.
By The Other Jack
January 25, 2008 4:42 PM | Link to this
JokesOn
I don’t think there is anything that anyone could possibly do to make you feel fulfilled.
Why don’t you go to the AJC about your problems with me? I think it would be a great idea. That way I could present the posts that I have written this week and you could present the posts you and other have written to me.
I would welcome that. Would you? I’m tired of the vitriol from you. I’m tired of being called names, but when I politely ask anyone to post a single comment that I have made to substantiate these extremely serious accusations, they run away or simply ignore me, or try to say that anything I say about progressives, even though I have never mentioned any race, is racist.
It is nonsense and I am tired of it.
Again, please contact the AJC and let’s have this constant attacking by you looked at closely by a third party.
By EnglishMajor
January 25, 2008 4:46 PM | Link to this
Of course, Lozen probably rightly figured out that MOST of us would be able to COMPREHEND something of that length.
Had she known differently, she MAY have been accomodating.
Of course, she might not have, rightly, either. LMAO
By The Other Jack
January 25, 2008 4:50 PM | Link to this
By EnglishMajor
Now was I whining about the length of someone’s paragraph?
No. You were whining about the fact that I had mentioned that it might make it easier to read.
I read it easily and even forwarded it to others, granted, maybe I did some readibilty formatting first, but certainly had no problem reading it as posted.
Oh, so you changed it before you sent it. I see. So you agree with me that it could have been improved for easier reading. And even though you agree with what I said, you continue to whine.
LOL
By kimberly
January 25, 2008 4:51 PM | Link to this
Archie, I agree! I think the entire pool of entrants this year has been a terrific one. With the three frontrunners now, we’re presented with different strengths. I like Edwards’ message of opportunity and justice the best, but he seems to be falling flat on the inspirational delivery needed to garner support. Obama has energy, charisma, vision, and a message of unity and hope that people want to hear. Can’t argue with that, but he’s green, and lacks the real advantages that a few extra years in the Senate would have given him. On the other hand, Clinton has years of tactical and practical experience in both campaigning (none of it matters if the Repubs win in November) and in putting together and executing plans, but some people just flat don’t like her (though many have never actually listened to her, only to what others SAY about her.)
If you put all their good qualities together in a grab bag, shook it up, and started pulling them out, each is something America needs right now and going forward. Tough choice.
By EnglishMajor
January 25, 2008 4:54 PM | Link to this
It is nonsense and I am tired of it.
Don’t tell me we have yet another person that lacks the intelligence to find places where they like to be?
Ever heard of google? Have any hobby interests? The World Wide Web is so vast, yet some cannot figure that out.
By JokesOn
January 25, 2008 4:59 PM | Link to this
I don’t think there is anything that anyone could possibly do to make you feel fulfilled.
I agree that you do not have a capacity.
Why don’t you go to the AJC about your problems with me?
That would mean taking you seriously!
Kind of like calling the pound on a Chihuahua that is biting your ankle. Get it?
By JokesOn
January 25, 2008 5:00 PM | Link to this
I don’t think there is anything that anyone could possibly do to make you feel fulfilled.
I agree that you do not have that capacity.
Why don’t you go to the AJC about your problems with me?
That would mean taking you seriously!
Kind of like calling the pound on a Chihuahua that is biting your ankle. Get it?
By EnglishMajor
January 25, 2008 5:04 PM | Link to this
Kind of like calling the pound on a Chihuahua that is biting your ankle
I cannot laugh any more today. Gotta run.
By The Other Jack
January 25, 2008 5:06 PM | Link to this
JokesOn
I agree that you do not have a capacity.
No. I do not. Nor does any human being on the face of this earth. Only you can make yourself fulfilled and the little I know about you suggests to me that you do not have that capacity.
Why don’t you go to the AJC about your problems with me? That would mean taking you seriously! Kind of like calling the pound on a Chihuahua that is biting your ankle. Get it?
So you would rather continue to whine and cry and complain and try to get others to tell me off. I would expect no more.
I also understand why you would never want a third party to look at these posts. Have a good weekend. Try to calm down.
By JokesOn
January 25, 2008 5:14 PM | Link to this
This weeks deep thoughts by TOJ:
Something tells me that your dingaling has been shriveled since you became a “progressive”. It’s a common ailment.
Please. If you want to drag this into the gutter, be my guest. But I’m not going there. Keep it civil or you will be ignored.
Hey Pal. we have something in common. I like to tweak self righteous liberals who insist on trying to make others feel bad about their faith. It’s more than justice. If they weren’t such a about it, I wouldn’t take as much pleasure from it.*
Please read what I write, and try to address that.
So if you can’t control your emotions. If you can’t hold back your penchat for direct insults. If you don’t have the ability to take the high road, then leave me the hell alone.