AJC.com > Opinion > Woman to Woman > Archives > 2008 > July > 18 > Entry
Do public displays of Ten Commandments require equal displays from other religious groups?
Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Andrea Cornell Sarvady, a left-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
The latest Ten Commandments controversy is whether public grounds allowing any private religious or ideological displays must be open to all of them.
The Supreme Court will soon hear cases involving Ten Commandments displays on public grounds in Utah. The Summums, a religious group, want a similar monument of their “Seven Aphorisms.” The U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that public officials must allow it or tear down all others.
I am sympathetic to the Summums’ “it’s-only-fair” argument. Government isn’t supposed to establish or favor one religion or ideology over another. The problem is that in real, messy life the government has no choice but to exercise ideological judgments and set priorities for the use of limited public space. The American Center for Law and Justice represents the Utah officials, and as chief counsel Jay Sekulow pointed out by phone, there is such a thing as “government speech” versus “private speech.”
For example, suppose your public park has a Ten Commandments monument, then later accepts monuments with quotes from Mohammed, Confucius, Jesus and Martin Luther King. It’s getting crowded. Then the local Ku Klux Klan wants its own shrine to white supremacy. Does it have to be allowed, “to be fair?” Of course not.
As part of “government speech,” we want officials to set standards for using limited public space. As part of private free speech, the park may have to allow KKK rallies. But they don’t have to erect a monument.
The only alternative to allowing such “government speech” is to eliminate all monuments - the very positive, historical touchstones we should want to preserve! Sekulow pointed out that some government agencies have done exactly that. But, he emphasized, “Government has a role in preserving the heritage of our country.”
Agreeing on that role isn’t easy, even among conservatives. The Rutherford Institute worries that endorsing government speech will eventually lead to infringement of private speech. This is a legitimate concern. But the reality is that government has to set priorities and standards of some kind.
Ultimately, the government must be allowed to preserve our religious and ideological heritage. As Sekulow put it, “Can you imagine if beside World War II hero monuments we had to put up counter monuments for Nazis?” No, nor do I want to.
Rebuttal
I’m sure that my colleague doesn’t want images of Nazi monuments in public parks cluttering her psyche. I’m equally sure, however, that she wants you to hold such images in your mind when you think of the Summums, a religious community wishing to erect their monument alongside the Ten Commandments. It’s a great trick of the far right—create a short walk from a little known religion to the Ku Klux Klan and in no time, fear clouds our understanding of church and state issues.
What we’re looking at here isn’t protecting citizens, it’s protecting the superior status of a 1970’s era Ten Commandments monument over other religious installations. Pat Robertson’s American Center for Law and Justice defends the city’s decision, claiming that it’s discretionary “government speech”.
It’s not a bad tactic. Government speech needn’t be content-neutral under the law. For instance, a town can erect a statue honoring veterans without permitting a nearby statue honoring the enemy they fought.
Yet a permanent installation of the Ten Commandments carries its own challenges. Even followers of its timeless laws should ask ourselves: is this powerful but undeniably Judeo-Christian tablet something our government should be preaching? Tell us not to litter, invite us to an annual festival, but it’s a dark day when a public park warns visitors of all faiths that “you shall have no other gods before me.”
There are far better solutions to this issue than beleaguered fundamentalists envision; a little Church and State dust-up doesn’t lead to a bunch of heathens sandblasting the words “God Almighty” off the Jefferson Memorial. In the Utah case, I can see why the U.S. Court of Appeals offered up an “all-or-nothing” scenario. Another famous case in Texas started with a request to remove the Ten Commandments from a public spot, and there the monument stayed. This is merely a reasonable request by another group for inclusion.
Do you think Robertson’s group would be so concerned about “monument clutter” if the Summums’ gift had been accepted first, and it was the Ten Commandments waiting to be added to the mix? Would we then be just a short skip and a jump away from encroachment by the Nazis and the KKK? I didn’t think so.
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By Gale
July 18, 2008 8:34 AM | Link to this
My knee jerk reaction was: No, no religious document should be displayed in a public place. Then I thought: Maybe, if all religions were invited to display a small example of their most deeply held tenets right next to, and the same size as all the others, maybe we would gain an appreciation for how alike most of us really are in our beliefs. Naive? Yes, probably.
By Copyleft
July 18, 2008 9:08 AM | Link to this
So equal treatment is too expensive and therefore unreasonable. Tell it to the folks in wheelchairs waiting for their ramps, Shaunti.
By JokesOn
July 18, 2008 9:12 AM | Link to this
Haven’t we discussed this enough?!?
By USinUK
July 18, 2008 9:18 AM | Link to this
ladies and gentlemen, I think we can safely close the nomination process because I think we have a winner for the Most Ludicrous Straw Man of the Year award …
“Can you imagine if beside World War II hero monuments we had to put up counter monuments for Nazis?”
yes, because those Norcross Nazis are really out there in the streets, demanding to be recognized and commemorated.
By Mike K.
July 18, 2008 9:26 AM | Link to this
“Ultimately, the government must be allowed to preserve our religious and ideological heritage.”
Ironic coming from a conservative. Why does the government have to do this when we have a church on every street corner? Why isn’t it enough that families and churches can teach religious tenants?
By GOB
July 18, 2008 9:29 AM | Link to this
USinUK - Nothing new though. Both sides have been doing it for years. The idea that if you dont agree with us, you are like the Nazis is still pretty common in politics.
By BKB
July 18, 2008 9:30 AM | Link to this
I have to invoke Godwin’s Law here. Sorry, you both loose. If you cannot debate the topic without resorting to such extremely prejudicial comparisons you don’t need to debate at all.
I have to castigate Ms. Sarvady a little extra, however. At least Ms. Feldhahn didn’t attempt to read her opponents mind and place into text her perception of Ms. Sarvady prejudices. That is very poor skill. Argue the merits of the case, not what you think someone is thinking. Frankly I get a headache just thinking about it.
By kimberly
July 18, 2008 9:32 AM | Link to this
More fodder for Fundies. Don’t you just love being told exactly what your problem is? Stay tuned. Here it comes!
Meanwhile, on the channel you’re not watching, the one that’s filled with static (don’t touch that dial!), your government is dumping billions of dollars a week (now borrowed with interest from freedom haters) into NOT catching Bin Laden, NOT getting the truth about Pat Tillman, NOT developing new forms of clean, renewable energy, NOT upholding the bill of rights, NOT forcing our financial institutions to be accountable for their corrruption, NOT auditing the private companies in Iraq who’ve pocketed our entire treasury, NOT taking care of returning wounded veterans and their families, and NOT devising meaningful solutions to our crumbling infrastructure, unsecured borders and ports, unstable job markets, abysmal graduation rates, widespread pollution, or our sinking standard of living caused by stagflation. Oh, they’re still collecting our tax money to NOT do these things, however. (Where DOES it all go?)
But never you mind that! Keep watching here so the fundies can explain to you how evil you are and why everything is YOUR fault, you low-life, lefty, monument-hating libruls.
‘scuse me while I fetch some popcorn.
By Copyleft
July 18, 2008 9:32 AM | Link to this
No, they’re on the Opinion Talk blog, complaining about illegal immigrants “bringing crime and trash into our neighborhoods.”
By Mara
July 18, 2008 9:33 AM | Link to this
JokesOn - Haven’t we discussed this enough?!?
Yes, we have discussed this…AD NAUSEAM!
Gale - Maybe, if all religions were invited to display a small example of their most deeply held tenets
that’s exactly what Shaunti is arguing against.
By Mara
July 18, 2008 9:49 AM | Link to this
*Even followers of its timeless laws…”
I’d like to point out to Andrea that most of the “commandments” are not “laws” and none of them are “timeless”.
By USinUK
July 18, 2008 9:52 AM | Link to this
GOB -
The idea that if you dont agree with us, you are like the Nazis is still pretty common in politics
yep. that’s me. just like the Nazis. except for that killing the Poles / racial supremacy / killing the gays and disabled thing … and blondeness/blue-eyed-ness … and, unfortunately, I seem to have misplaced my Panzer Division … and I’m really not a huge fan of DoodleBugs (they seem to be bad sportsmanship)
other than that. yep. that’s me. :::heavy, heavy sigh:
By Curious
July 18, 2008 9:53 AM | Link to this
GOB-
Seriously, are you going to pick apart everyone’s examples everytime they have one… No where in that article did I see her saying if you don’t believe in the Commandments, you are a Nazi.
I think the point she is trying to make is that if you allow everyone to display, then you are going to have people coming out of the woodworks for EVERYTHING….including those who praise Hitler. There are people who do, so why shouldn’t they have the same “right” to display their beliefs?
YOU are the one that is attacking people…she didn’t call anyone a Nazi just because they didn’t believe.
Get over it.
By USinUK
July 18, 2008 9:55 AM | Link to this
Mara and Jokes-y …
JokesOn - Haven’t we discussed this enough?!? … Yes, we have discussed this…AD NAUSEAM!
who wants to change the subject???
Fannie/Freddie bailout?
Off-shore drilling?
Cloning?
Peanut butter - plain vs. chunky? (like that should even be open to debate … hellloooooo, Jiff Extra Chunky!)
criminey. anything is better than this week’s topic.
By Mara
July 18, 2008 9:58 AM | Link to this
Copyleft - there’s a reason it’s called illegal immigration and they’re not talking criminal aliens over at OpinionTalk, they’re discussing the proposal to build a new library downtown.
By Gale
July 18, 2008 10:00 AM | Link to this
Kimberly, ::clapping hands::
Mara, and I guess Shaunti, even Nazis had some good ideas. But the issue is religion, not political groups. I think rational (key word) people would be able to read the bullet points on each religion and recognize that they say a lot of the same stuff. Take away the dogma and stories and boil it down to ten bullet points, and what does your religion really teach? Likely we would see some odd ones. But how many religions can really sustain themselves teaching evil?
By USinUK
July 18, 2008 10:02 AM | Link to this
Curious -
No where in that article did I see her saying if you don’t believe in the Commandments, you are a Nazi.
that’s not what he said … what he said was if you don’t agree with us, you’re like the Nazi’s …
and by including this quote:
“Can you imagine if beside World War II hero monuments we had to put up counter monuments for Nazis?”
she is, in fact, comparing anyone who else who wants their religion to be recognized along side the 10 Cs to the Nazis in question.
By GOB
July 18, 2008 10:09 AM | Link to this
Curious - perhaps you havent followed politics much in the past, oh 50 years, but it is a very common tactic, on both sides, to imply that those that dont agree with them are like the Nazis. The point is to create negative associations with those that they disagree with. If we say something about our opponent, and then in the same speech/article mention the Nazis enough times, the association may just stick with some people. It isnt really a complicated strategy, and as I have now said 3 times, both political parties use this stuff all the time.
This is nothing new, although there has been less of it lately. Now the implication is more likely that you are a terrorist, not a Nazi.
There was no attack on anyone in my post. Please reread it if you are confused.
By Gale
July 18, 2008 10:10 AM | Link to this
I agree with US in UK, change the subject. I vote for chunky, but any brand but Jiff.
By Truth
July 18, 2008 10:22 AM | Link to this
i want my own religion displayed. And since it would be almost impossible to find two people that completely agree on all aspects of every religion, everyone gets a display. That’s only 300,000,000 displays.
But as we all know: this is completely unconstitutional to display anything religious on public property. It’s all right there in the Bill of Rights:
Amendment 1: “Freedom of religion shall be restricted to silence if that freedom takes place on property owned by the government. Government property constitutes a variable form of freedom of religion. The religious rights of citizens are completely dependent on where that citizen is standing.
Amendment 2: “Freedom of religion is applicable if and only if no one’s feelings are hurt by observing another citizen worshipping in a public place.” if there is a chance that a single person is offended by the wishes of 230 million other people, that single person shall have the inalienable right to restrict those religious freedoms of those 230 million. The 230 million are ignorant bigots, anyway.
Shaunti, you ignorant conservatives make me sick. READ THE CONSTITUTION.
By Example
July 18, 2008 10:26 AM | Link to this
In response to a joke that the new Georgia law allowing us to carry weapons anywhere and everywhere would enable gay people to finally defend themselves against those who seek to deny their freedoms:
By chuck
July 14, 2008 4:51 PM | Link to this
{snip} That puts you right up there with Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin. You really should be ashamed of yourself.
By USinUK
July 18, 2008 10:27 AM | Link to this
Gale …
(gasping) not Jiff ???!!! thank god I was sitting down when I read that …
okay, big-time confession: one of my favorite kid foods is the “fluffernutter plus”: Peanut Butter, Marshmellow Fluff and … Bananas (on grain bread to make it healthy, hahaha)
By Curious
July 18, 2008 10:30 AM | Link to this
GOB-
Oh please….you are just looking for an argument for the sake of arguing. Unless you read “If you don’t believe this, then you are a Nazi”…you are just finding reason to argue.
That could have easily been used for the sake of putting up fairy monuments for those that believe in the tooth fairy.
I am not saying that “past politics” haven’t done it, but it isn’t doing that here. So wipe your feet, don’t bring in the mud.
By Truth
July 18, 2008 10:31 AM | Link to this
kimberly
Do you understand that Washington has been under the control of Democrats since they were elected in 2006?
So exactly who are you saying that is dumping billions of dollars a week (now borrowed with interest from freedom haters) into NOT catching Bin Laden, NOT getting the truth about Pat Tillman, NOT developing new forms of clean, renewable energy, NOT upholding the bill of rights, NOT forcing our financial institutions to be accountable for their corrruption, NOT auditing the private companies in Iraq who’ve pocketed our entire treasury, NOT taking care of returning wounded veterans and their families, and NOT devising meaningful solutions to our crumbling infrastructure, unsecured borders and ports, unstable job markets, abysmal graduation rates, widespread pollution, or our sinking standard of living caused by stagflation. Oh, they’re still collecting our tax money to NOT do these things, however.
Maybe that’s why Congress’s approval ratings are in single digits for the first time in recorded history. Let’s stop this nonsense and send the crooks and thieves and liars back home. I’m glad you are seeing what a mistake it was to put them there in the first place. Now imagine these same people having unbridled control of our government with a Democratic President.
By Mara
July 18, 2008 10:34 AM | Link to this
Gale, the issue isn’t really religeon per se. I don’t particularly care if Chik-fil-A wants to pass out a Bible with ever waffle fry, or if Mt. Paran Baptist wants to place a 20-ton carving of Jesus next to their doors. I don’t give a hoot if the congregation at Etz Chaim wants to erect a giant Torah at their synagog. The belief systems are irrelevant.
The issue is whether the government should be in the business of giving any one group access to public resources that they withhold from others. Are all citizens equal to the government, or are some groups more equal than others?
My opinion is that if we allow one group to put up monuments, we have to let all groups put up monuments. What makes the whole 10 Cammandments kerfuffle all the more irritating is that most of these displays are nothing more, or less, than Hollywood memorabelia circa 1958’ish. They’re promotional materials for DeMille’s movie.
By USinUK
July 18, 2008 10:34 AM | Link to this
Truth -
i want my own religion displayed.
I gotta ask … does your religion involve the Doobie Brothers?
By BKB
July 18, 2008 10:39 AM | Link to this
Truth:
And here I did not think the quality of the argument could be reduced. I love it when people just make up stuff and ascribe it to the Constitution. Thank you for reaffirming my faith in my fellow (hu)Man.
I love sarcasm, btw. If your post was an attempt at sarcasm, well you missed.
By Truth
July 18, 2008 10:41 AM | Link to this
U sinner U
Just a couple of them, BUT THAT IS MY BUSINESS!!!.
I have to work. Have a good weekend.
By Mara
July 18, 2008 10:46 AM | Link to this
USinUK and Gale - have y’all heard of Project Peanut Butter? It was started by a French humanitarian company. They use peanut paste (along with vegetable oil, milk powder, vitamins and minerals) to make a safe, clean, high-nutrient, easily transported food for starving Africans. The “Plumpy’Nut” product has literally saved hundreds of thousands of malnourished children.
Yay for the peanut!! :^)
By GOB
July 18, 2008 10:47 AM | Link to this
Curious - In your post, you showed that you actually do understand. If Shaunti werent trying to make the implicit connection between those that disagree with her and the Nazis, she could have used a monument to the tooth fairy as an example instead. I dont think that any of us have any really negative associations with that, but it is no more ludicrious.
Instead, she chose to go with the Nazis, the tried and true political attack.
Perhaps it is the fact that it is not stated directly that makes it so hard for you to understand. It is about creating negative associations with one’s political opponents. Not many people have said that Barack Obama hates white people, but FOX, and some other media outlets as well have certainly implied it numerous times with their coverage of the Rev. Wright situation.
Even the fist bump he did with his wife was used to create negative associations (“A terrorist fist bump?” - FoxNews)
By USinUK
July 18, 2008 10:47 AM | Link to this
Truth -
Just a couple of them, BUT THAT IS MY BUSINESS!!!
as long as it doesn’t involve trees … that’s all we ask …
By Mike K.
July 18, 2008 10:48 AM | Link to this
USinUK
unfortunately, I seem to have misplaced my Panzer Division
Is that a Luftwaffe squadron in you pocket or are you just happy to see us?
By Gale
July 18, 2008 10:50 AM | Link to this
USinUK “Peanut Butter, Marshmellow Fluff” Right with you. The wonder is that my mother kept buying the stuff.
Mara, I really agree and because of the fright scenarios posed, I would stand by my initial reaction; No Way. I have an idealistic nature that makes me think that somehow, unreasonable people may be brought to reason.
By USinUK
July 18, 2008 10:58 AM | Link to this
Mara -
USinUK and Gale - have y’all heard of Project Peanut Butter?
in fact, I have! there’s an ad campaign going on in the UK about the low-cost solutions to helping save children’s lives - it highlights the peanut butter program and mosquito nets as 2 things that could save millions of lives and they cost practically nothing.
By kimberly
July 18, 2008 10:59 AM | Link to this
Truth, the depth and breadth of my disappointment with the current Democratic leadership is too great to expound upon here. To be fair, the lack of a veto-proof majority has indeed made it impossible to enact the changes they promised to enact. However, I cannot excuse the lack of leadership exhibited by Pelosi and Reid.
They should have been clear and vocal in their opposition to these failed policies even when the votes to overturn them did not exist. Instead they have capitulated repeatedly, so often that nausea is welling up in my throat even as I type these words. Pelosi’s current rant about Bush being a total failure is, (in my opinon since I don’t claim to read minds like so many here), a lame attempt to divert our attention from the fact that she has, in many ways, been one of his biggest allies on Capitol Hill since becoming Speaker. Her breath would have been better spent standing up against all the things she’s been rolling over for. Kucinich has the testicular fortitude to come forth day after day and stand up for what’s right, and the “leadership” snubs him. They’re a disgrace, and I’m with you in wishing they would just shut up and go home.
NEVERTHELESS, if you are complaining about Congress, you’re complaining about a lack of action and a lack of change from the path the Republicans put us on for the 12 years of total control THEY enjoyed. Pot, kettle, fireplace poker, and all that’s dark & dirty…. Yuck.
By JokesOn
July 18, 2008 11:00 AM | Link to this
The Conservitive christian arguement:
There is a well established precedent of us getting preferential treatment. To go against this history would potentially unravel the space/time fabric of the universe and we will all be doomed! ….not to ignore the fact that my beliefs are fact because I believe them to be fact.
And another thing… If your stoopid democrats cannot fix in 1.5 years what took us conservatives 8 years to totally eff up, it just shows your incompetence.
By GOB
July 18, 2008 11:00 AM | Link to this
I have an idealistic nature that makes me think that somehow, unreasonable people may be brought to reason.
Unfortunately, this blog is a glaring testament to the inaccuracy of your idealism. Maybe one day though…
By JokesOn
July 18, 2008 11:00 AM | Link to this
The Conservative christian argument:
There is a well established precedent of us getting preferential treatment. To go against this history would potentially unravel the space/time fabric of the universe and we will all be doomed! ….not to ignore the fact that my beliefs are fact because I believe them to be fact.
And another thing… If your stoopid democrats cannot fix in 1.5 years what took us conservatives 8 years to totally eff up, it just shows your incompetence.
(re-post with corrections)
By Truth
July 18, 2008 11:01 AM | Link to this
BKB
Did you recently hear a quick, whistling sound go over your head?
it’s like the New Yorker cover. Sarcasm and lampooning is only allowed by liberals toward conservatives. Sometimes I forget. Sorry about that.
Did you just hear that sound go over your head again?
By Lily Toad
July 18, 2008 11:01 AM | Link to this
Why is religion brought up every week on this supposedly political forum. I mean by the writers, not the bloggers. No government property should have any religious propaganda. Get over the past, Shaunti, the Christians aren’t running the country any more. And Andrea, it’s Abrahamic religions, not Judeo-Christian. The Muslims believe in Moses, too, you know.
By USinUK
July 18, 2008 11:02 AM | Link to this
Mike -
Is that a Luftwaffe squadron in you pocket or are you just happy to see us?
you should see my Blitz, babbee!!!
By Joke Friday
July 18, 2008 11:08 AM | Link to this
“Is that a Luftwaffe squadron in your pocket or are you just happy to see us?”
neither. i just have a really big d-ck.
By Tifanni L'airetete
July 18, 2008 11:15 AM | Link to this
Oh, like all court houses should post “You create your own reality.” That’s the only Truth and Oprah knows The Secret.
By RF
July 18, 2008 11:19 AM | Link to this
Yay for the peanut!! :^)
And everyone thought Jimmy Carter wasn’t a smart man… ;-)
By JokesOn
July 18, 2008 11:22 AM | Link to this
Why is religion brought up every week on this supposedly political forum.
Maybe because the repubs have capitalized on polarizing the nation by recruiting the evangelical vote to secure their win? Now it will take the next 20 years to undo that mess.
Rabbit hole anyone? Alice is waiting…
By RF
July 18, 2008 11:24 AM | Link to this
Gale- No Jiff!!! You heathen, you! Chunky is better though.
USinUK- peanut butter and honey! My mom used to make the stuff by the jar full for me as a kid. The premixed junk you buy in the store nowadays isn’t worth eating. You have to mix it yourself. Or better yet, peanut butter and bananas on Wonder Bread. YUM!!
As to today’s topic—YAWN!! All or none seems easy to me. Religious displays, nothing political, and the problem is solved. The easiest way to handle it is to keep them all off. Then there’s not tax dollars spent, like there isn’t enough of a deficit now.
By USinUK
July 18, 2008 11:29 AM | Link to this
RF -
And everyone thought Jimmy Carter wasn’t a smart man… ;-)
I do believe you mean George Washington Carver
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeorgeWashingtonCarver
He wanted poor farmers to grow alternative crops as both a source of their own food as well as a source of other products to improve their quality of life. His most popular bulletin contained 105 existing food recipes that used peanuts. He also created or disseminated about 100 products made from peanuts that were useful for the house and farm, including cosmetics, dyes, paints, plastics, gasoline, and nitroglycerin.
George Washington Carver, saaaaaaaa-LUTE!.
By kimberly
July 18, 2008 11:31 AM | Link to this
I like creamy.
By USinUK
July 18, 2008 11:37 AM | Link to this
RF -
USinUK- peanut butter and honey! My mom used to make the stuff by the jar full for me as a kid. The premixed junk you buy in the store nowadays isn’t worth eating. You have to mix it yourself. Or better yet, peanut butter and bananas on Wonder Bread. YUM!!
to me, the only thing Wonder Bread is good for is Mater Sammiches with tomatoes freshly pulled off the vine, still warm from the afternoon sun … loads of mayo …
now, THAT is something I miss about the South.
As to today’s topic—YAWN!! All or none seems easy to me
serious yawn.
By Copyleft
July 18, 2008 11:45 AM | Link to this
But as we all know: this is completely unconstitutional to display anything religious on public property. It’s all right there in the Bill of Rights. Facetious, but erroneous. What the Constitution requires is equal treatment. When it comes to government endorsement/promotion of religious factions, that means “all, or nonse.” Nothing in between.
Which solution each level of government arrives at is, of course, up to them. But those are the options if you want to respect the Constitution.
Shaunti, you ignorant conservatives make me sick. READ THE CONSTITUTION.
Agreed, wholeheartedly.
By Archie
July 18, 2008 11:49 AM | Link to this
My answer to the topic question is yes. The Ten Commandments do not offend me but since government buildings are paid for with EVERYONE’S tax money then everybody needs their religious leanings considered. What I have found over the last week is that some people have a strange sense of fairness and they’re only concerned with it if it does involve someone that looks like them or thinks like them.
As a christian myself I am not going to force my opinions on someone else and I have enough sense to know I am not perfect but a lot of what happens with this situation is all about the superiority complex.
By Copyleft
July 18, 2008 11:58 AM | Link to this
Typo: That should read “all or NONE,” not nonse.
By Lily Toad
July 18, 2008 11:59 AM | Link to this
Let’s all suggest the question for next week should be: Is crunchy peanut butter better than smooth, creamy peanut butter? Let’s see Shaunti quote the Family Council on that one.
By Copyleft
July 18, 2008 12:04 PM | Link to this
Maybe James Dobson has a position on whether crunchy peanut butter is sinful…. Do any of the Teletubbies eat PBJ sandwiches?
By USinUK
July 18, 2008 12:08 PM | Link to this
Lily -
Let’s see Shaunti quote the Family Council on that one
haha … I’m sure Dr. Dobson would come up with something like “Anyone who likes crunchy peanutbutter is subversive to true family values. What has happened since the introduction of Crunchy peanut butter in the 1970s? The teen pregnancy rate has risen, the divorce rate has increased and the number one family pet has changed from dogs to cats. CATS! The devil’s housepet!! We need to get back to the family values of the 1950s, when my mommy made my pbj sammies on white bread with the crusts cut off, then let me sit on her lap and bury my head in her sweet bosom that smelled of lilac talcum powder … mmmmm … sweet mommy … oh, sorry, what were we talking about???”
By Truth
July 18, 2008 12:25 PM | Link to this
U sinner U
There’s an ex-slave that developed a kind of covered bridges that at one time dominated the southern landscape. His name was Horace King. He developed a weird kind of “woven” structure out of wooden beams. Several of the bridges are left around the state. There were huge floods, the water subsided and the old Horace King bridge would be setting there drying out.
The Georgia DOT has a list of remaining bridges, but just a couple of original Horace King structures are left. There’s a lot of good bridges left in Georgia. Most are tourist attractions in parks, but Concord Bridge was built in 1870 and has more traffic than all the other covered bridges in the state, combined. There’s a great story about Effy’s Bridge which was moved to stone mountain park.
Sorry, but they are fantastic subjects for photography. But Horace King came up with a lot of really innovative techniques for doing things. If I remember correctly, he also had a really interesting relationship with his last owner. I don’t remember the details and I don’t have time to look it up. Interesting reaeding, if you want to take the time.
By USinUK
July 18, 2008 12:42 PM | Link to this
Truth -
Sorry, but they are fantastic subjects for photography. But Horace King came up with a lot of really innovative techniques for doing things.
sounds like it! the woven beams sound like they’d make an amazing b/w pic! you’re in the biz - do you know any good still photographers?? you know who would have been a great person to research and write about them? Celestine Sibley (rest her soul) - Atlanta truly lost a great writer when she passed.
By Truth
July 18, 2008 1:11 PM | Link to this
USinUK
I have found that a really wide lens will do a lot. They sort of “bend” the picture and the lines of the bridge are exaggerated. There are all kinds of stories about the old bridges. Most were shored up with steel in the early 1900’s but there is one, (I can’t remember which, but it was a Horace King) that only has the original wooden frame and I believe that most of the wood is original, AND it is open to trafffic. Not a lot of traffic, but some.
B&W is pretty cool, but experiment with color and textures. Most of the bridges are surrounded with wild flowers and I have many shots of the wild flowers in the foreground, with a slightly out of focus bridge in the background. If you put a soft blend effect on that in Photoshop, it’ gits plum artsy. I have also used them just as a background. I love the contrast of a really slick car like a Ferrari and the roughness of the bridges.
The woven wood runs along the side of the bridges like the one at Stone Mountain, but that is not a Horace King. It made a bridges more flexable.
Do you know why they were covered?
By CatLover
July 18, 2008 1:21 PM | Link to this
CATS! The devil’s housepet!!
is that why they are way smarter than dogs?
By Truth
July 18, 2008 1:32 PM | Link to this
Catlover
Not smarter. Just smart in a different way. I have both.
By USinUK
July 18, 2008 2:18 PM | Link to this
Not smarter. Just smart in a different way.
yep. they could fetch, they just choose not to.
By Truth
July 18, 2008 2:28 PM | Link to this
USinUK
My cat fetches.
By Gale
July 18, 2008 2:46 PM | Link to this
How is this for a new topic? CNN reports three women are to be ordained Catholic priests in Boston this weekend and the Vatican is upset about it.
By CatLover
July 18, 2008 2:54 PM | Link to this
One of mine fetches.
By Gandalf, the Grey
July 18, 2008 2:56 PM | Link to this
Kimberly, please quit stealing our air!
I bet you like creamy, you little $lu7!
By CatLover
July 18, 2008 2:57 PM | Link to this
The ones who do not fetch are just too smart to be caught up in some stupid human game and besides, they don’t need our approval like stupid doggies do.
By Gandalf, the Grey
July 18, 2008 3:04 PM | Link to this
Cats. good targets for target practice..if your cat comes home with a bright green spot of paint, he’s been in my yard! :-)!!!!
By Truth
July 18, 2008 3:06 PM | Link to this
Catlover
Yea. That’s what we need. More self-centered creatures on this earth. Cats would be running the oil companies, if they could speak English.
Haven’t you ever watched the movie: Cats and Dogs? That movie shows who the good guys really are.
My dog and I let the cat stick around because he leaves the “catness” at the door.
By Gary Gibbs
July 20, 2008 9:41 AM | Link to this
We are a Christian nation and have always been a Chrictian nation. John Jay the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court stated on October 12, 1816:Providence has given to our people the choice of our rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privalege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.
George Washington, the nations first President on July 9, 1776 authoriized the Continental Army to provide chaplins for the troops and then issued the following general order to his troops, stating: The General hopes and trusts that every officer and man, will endeavor so to live and act, as becomes a Christian Soldier defending the dearest Rights and Liberties of his country. I’m leaving for Church and will spend some time with my wife who is in the hospital. If time permits I will sign on again when I return.
By h ryder
July 20, 2008 11:18 AM | Link to this
There is obviously a need for both writers to employ rigorous academic logical reasoning. Should this occur, internally opposing concepts presented on various topics in individual essays would in all probability cease. Thus, each writers stance could be ascertained with the reader then able to develop an appropriate reaction.
By Bored to tears Lyrazel
July 20, 2008 11:25 AM | Link to this
I am bored with religion as a topic.
Why not discuss debt and the fact the government is telling taxpayers to bail out companies that made usury loans yet have made billions in profits? Why not discuss ecological hypocrisy committed in going green by pretending that we can keep the same consumption level? Why not comment about how businesses hire illegals and our government will never be able to control it because these businesses give so much to campaign contributions? Why not yap about how elected candidates spend 75% of their time fundraising instead of working for their constituents? Why no discussion about the lack of doctors serving family practice, the lack of nurses, the lack of vaccines produced in America? Why no discussion about the divorce rate of US troops skyrocketing because of overextended deployments? Why no discussion about their own habitual method of defining conservatives as religious and liberals as godless just like on TV?
Why not give us topics of substance instead of balderdash? Both commentators really seem to have no understanding of the world around them except what they copy from TV pundits. It seems Shaunti is perpetually defending religious causes with her Shirley Temple tap dance. Andrea is stuck rebutting ludicrous balderdash week after week ad nauseam but does not seem able to justify her views when she has the floor. Both are privileged women pretending they are intellectual yet are so cloistered by their ivory towers they seldom seem to see life as it is and not as it is on TV.
This is a religious blog—why not say it—and put it into Faith & Values section.
By LeGrande Blount
July 20, 2008 11:48 AM | Link to this
When conservatives such as Shaunti Feldhahn suggest emblazoning their favorite 10 Jewish laws in every public square (woman to woman, 20 July) they forget that the full list of Mosaic laws include executing a rape victim Deuteronomy 22:23-24 for not crying out enough, executing belligerent sons Deurteronomy 21:18-21, and executing adulterers Leviticus 20:10. Cherry picking rules to emblazon in every public place could better be selected from nearly any other document and have fewer immoral encumbrances. Or does Ms Feldhahn really promote broadening our list of crimes to better conform to ancient Jewish sentiments?
By USinUK
July 20, 2008 4:42 PM | Link to this
Why not give us topics of substance instead of balderdash?
because balderdash is all Shaunti has … I have never seen her write anything of any substance - it’s all shock/horror and clutching at her pearls because of either something sexual (hotel porn,prostitution or A&F ads) or something religious (this week’s asinine topic or teaching creation - oops, sorry, “intelligent design” - in public schools) … although, to be fair, she did venture outside her comfort zone a few months ago to blame the media for the economy - she even extended so far as to quote the Heritage Foundation instead of Focus on the Family …
after such a stretch, I’m sure she needed to rest a spell on her fainting couch due to the exertion …
By Great Topic
July 21, 2008 9:35 AM | Link to this
tumbleweeds
By Archie
July 21, 2008 9:51 AM | Link to this
I am bored with religion as a topic. Me too, Lyrazel. I am interested in the divorce rate of troops deployed multiple times and that is a topic of substance. Two weeks ago Lyrazel said the customers should be arrested more when it comes to prostitution, well my question is who should be arrested more in the drug trade, the customer or the big-time dealer? I just saw “American Gangster” starring Denzel Washingon and the movie made me think about this drug war crap. I feel like Frank Lucas is a disgusting,disgusting human being but people made the choice to buy his drugs.
By USinUK
July 21, 2008 10:30 AM | Link to this
Archie -
I am interested in the divorce rate of troops deployed multiple times and that is a topic of substance.
I agree - I would love to see a discussion on how to better address the needs of our returning Iraq vets so that we would see fewer stories like this:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/nation/stories/DN-enemy_21nat.ART.State.Edition2.4d70685.html
By GOB
July 21, 2008 10:41 AM | Link to this
USinUK - The problem is that it would require the Bush administration admitting that there actually is a problem, something they have not been to keen on in the past 8 years.
By Truth
July 21, 2008 10:46 AM | Link to this
I would love to discuss the flip flopping of the national presidential candidates, particularly the one that started far left and is now wanting faith based initiatives.
I would like to discuss how all the major networks have become the Obama propaganda arm. I tried to watch CNN the other night and it was a special about all the Caribbean bands that were writing songs about Obama. One song after another touting his praise. It was basically a 30 minute infomencial. That show was one of many excuses for interviewing people who love Obama. Pardon me for laughing at anyone who thinks FOX is biased and then watches that biased crap.
Letterman and Leno are both practically campaigning for Obama every night. Their monologues are so biased that it is as bad as any propaganda i have ever seen. Comedy Central is in full propaganda mode.
I wonder if Obama would have a prayer without all of this overt support from the major networks.
I just wonder how he is even challenged by McCain, considering the obvious bias against McCain in the media. Could it be that a lot of Americans aren’t sheep and actually look past the propaganda and actually see that Obama has never taken a stand in his life? .Could it be that some people have found that the ads he is running about providing housing for poor people was when he worked for a slum lord evicting people from their homes? He provided homes by kicking people out of homes.
There’s a lot we could talk about. We are about to elect the slickest politician I have seen in my lifetime. The fact he can make great speeches is apparently the only requirement that is required.
Sticking to his principles? What principles would those be?
By USinUK
July 21, 2008 10:54 AM | Link to this
GOB -
The problem is that it would require the Bush administration admitting that there actually is a problem, something they have not been to keen on in the past 8 years.
as much as it pains me to say this - this goes beyond the Bush Administration. Now, granted, they’re the ones who have been threatning vetoes over GI bills - not to mention, they were the ones who denied that there was a problem at Walter Reed until the WaPo did an in-depth series on it. BUT … this issue is also a community issue. treating PTSD effectively goes beyond what happens at Walter Reed - community hospitals need better training, local law enforcement needs better training, local treatment facilities need to have tailored outreach, local churches need to work with army chaplains to better understand the strains of separated couples so that they can more effectvely help counsel faltering marriages …
or, we can just slap a yellow ribbon on our car and say “mission accomplished”
By GOB
July 21, 2008 10:57 AM | Link to this
Letterman and Leno are both practically campaigning for Obama every night. Their monologues are so biased that it is as bad as any propaganda i have ever seen.
Really? Jokes about McCain being old and boring are as bad as the most biased propaganda you’ve ever seen? Really?
By GOB
July 21, 2008 11:05 AM | Link to this
USinUK - I agree completely that it is a much bigger issue, but it becomes very difficult to get community involvement (which is what is going to take to make any headway) when the Bush administration tells everyone that things are going ok, and pretends we dont have the problems we do.
It’s made even worse when you consider that such a huge portion of the military comes from the south, which is still relatively strong in their support of Bush. They tend to believe the administration more than those in other regions, so the help is even slower in the areas that need it most.
It certainly isnt just a Bush administration problem, but they seem to have gone out of their way to make it more difficult for the work that needs to be done to get started.
By USinUK
July 21, 2008 11:10 AM | Link to this
Truth -
Sticking to his principles? What principles would those be?
good thing McCain never changes his position … oh, waitaminnit, yes he does:
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/06/16/mccain-on-offshore-drilling-for-it-before-he-was-against-it-before-he-was-for-it-again/
(and, yes, I picked a rightie for you so that you couldn’t assail the source)
By Truth
July 21, 2008 11:12 AM | Link to this
GOB
Every night, the same talking points. It is called driving the issue home. It is so bad, that you knew exactly what I was talking about, didn’t you? And you don’t think that is bed? I’ve never seen it so constant and overt. Yes it is as bad as I have ever seen. Can you think of a campaign where it was this bad?
USinUK
I don’t know why you have such a problem with those yellow ribbons. The Atlanta Airport has become known for giving our soldiers a standing ovation when they walk through the terminal. Do you also have a problem with that? Or will you require anyone giving the folks a standing ovation that they live up to your standards before they are allowed to visibly support our soldiers?
I know how much liberals love to repeat lies, but the aircraft carrier that displayed the Mission Accomplished banner was heading home. Their mission was accomplished. But that doesn’t stop the constant references, does it?
Propaganda works.
By USinUK
July 21, 2008 11:18 AM | Link to this
GOB -
I agree completely that it is a much bigger issue, but it becomes very difficult to get community involvement (which is what is going to take to make any headway) when the Bush administration tells everyone that things are going ok, and pretends we dont have the problems we do.
yeah, I see where you’re coming from and agree that the fingers-in-ears-lalalalala approach exacerbates the problem …
you know what I wish we had seen back in the beginning of the war (which I think may have been a way to help the current problems the vets are having) - I wish there had been more of a call to sacrifice back in the aftermath of 9/11 and the beginning of the war. I wish the WH had done a series of ads similar to those done in WWII (“if you’re riding alone, you’re riding with Hitler” to encourage car pooling) - what did we get instead? go to Target and go shopping! gah.
I think that, if there was the “we’re all in this together” mentality, it would pave the way for more community services for Iraq/Afghanistan vest.
By Truth
July 21, 2008 11:21 AM | Link to this
GOB
So you believe that Bush has been telling everyone that the war is going OK? You really need to read something other than Salon.com.
Be careful about regional steriotypes. The South has been the primary source for our soldiers since the Spanish-American War. Were they all listening to Bush back then?
By Truth
July 21, 2008 11:33 AM | Link to this
USinUK
There was a huge call for personal sacrifice at the beginning of the war. The problem was that we started taking casualties and the spineless ones in Washington decided that it was much more politically expedient to be against the war. So all those people who voted to go, ran like the cowards they were. The rest is history and now we have perfectly good Americans complaining about other Americans putting yellow ribbons on their cars.
By USinUK
July 21, 2008 11:33 AM | Link to this
Truth -
I don’t know why you have such a problem with those yellow ribbons. The Atlanta Airport has become known for giving our soldiers a standing ovation when they walk through the terminal. Do you also have a problem with that? Or will you require anyone giving the folks a standing ovation that they live up to your standards before they are allowed to visibly support our soldiers?
I am very familiar with what goes on at Hartsfield - my dad is a member of the VFW and helps out a few days/month.
and, as nice as it is that people give Standing O’s to the returning/departing servicemen and -women, that isn’t what I’m talking about. I’m talking about communities coming together to HELP returning service folks, not just give them a pat on the back. I’m talking about helping police better spot domestic violence and alcohol/drug abuse, helping churches and the clergy support National Guard families that have been separated by repeated extensions of their tours, helping hospitals that treat-&-street vets who are treated for issues that are obviously related to PTSD.
applause and cookies are nice, but they’re not fixing the problems that the men and women who put their lives on the line are coming home to.
I know how much liberals love to repeat lies, but the aircraft carrier that displayed the Mission Accomplished banner was heading home. Their mission was accomplished. But that doesn’t stop the constant references, does it?
ohfercryingoutloud. put the koolaid down, and no one gets hurt …
1) The WH paid for the banner, not the ship
2) Mission Accomplished referred to the end of “major combat operations”
for more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_accomplished
Subsequently, the White House released a statement saying that the sign and Bush’s visit referred to the initial invasion of Iraq. Bush’s speech noted:
“We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We are bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous.”
“Our mission continues…The War on Terror continues, yet it is not endless. We do not know the day of final victory, but we have seen the turning of the tide.”
However the speech also said that:
“In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.”
President George W. Bush on the Abraham Lincoln being saluted by the flight deck crewWhen he received an advance copy of the speech, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld took care to remove any use of the phrase “Mission Accomplished” in the speech itself. Later, when journalist Bob Woodward asked him about his changes to the speech, Rumsfeld responded:”I was in Baghdad, and I was given a draft of that thing to look at. And I just died, and I said my God, it’s too conclusive. And I fixed it and sent it back… they fixed the speech, but not the sign.”
Bush reiterated a “Mission Accomplished” message to the troops at Camp As Sayliyah on June 5, 2003 — about a month after the aircraft carrier incident: “America sent you on a mission to remove a grave threat and to liberate an oppressed people, and that mission has been accomplished.”
so, spin all you like, my friend, but Mission Accomplished referred to Iraq, not the ship.
By GOB
July 21, 2008 11:42 AM | Link to this
Truth - I would say that the whole swift boats thing in 2004 was much more of a character assasination than anything that Leno or Letterman do. At least Leno and Letterman are comedy, and good lord, watch McCain, and you’ll see that they wouldn’t be doing their jobs if they didnt make the old and boring jokes.
This is no different than any other election year.
As, there was no stereotype about soldiers. It was about the south, and the reality is, the south still supports Bush at a much higher clip than most of the rest of the country. I also dont mean that Bush hasnt finally begun to conceed that there are issues with the war, but this administration has been so slow to admit any mistakes. That does have an effect on those who believe what the WH says without question.
To your point about the “Mission Accomplished” banner, surely you understand that it was propaganda as much as anything else, right? It wasnt as if Bush showed up and by chance was speaking in front of it. They were clearly trying to send a broader message to the American public, but as seems to be the norm, they bungled it quite nicely.
By GOB
July 21, 2008 11:50 AM | Link to this
USinUK - I couldnt agree more about the call for sacrifce at the beginning of the war. Instead we were told to go about our daily lives or the terrorists have won. Go drive your SUV 50 miles one way to work, go to Target and spend spend spend.
By Truth
July 21, 2008 11:56 AM | Link to this
USinUK
So who helps the soldiers? Churches once again step in when possible.
My Dad died in a VA hospital. That was in 1972. The VA sucked then and it sucks now. But it is better than it was. Pardon me for not believing that Democrats have done anything to help vets that was not a political stunt.
The White House bought the banner? Really? Somebody get a rope!!!! That doesn’t change the fact that their mission was accomplished. Rumsfield has never underestimated the treachery of the liberal media. He prides himself on that ability.
Seems that he was dead on, wasn’t he?
Imagine a banner on on the aircraft carrier that launched Doolittle’s raid on Tokyo. Could that banner had said: Mission Accomplished? They didn’t really destroy anything and they lost all the airplanes. Imagine what Harry Ried would have said about Doolitte’s raid?
Doolittle Does Little would be the headlines of the NYT.
Wars are made up of hundreds and thousands of missions. Imagine a political movement that has so much control of the national media that they were able to take a time honored celebration of our military in honoring their accomplishment of a single mission, and turn that statement around and use it to attack a setting president in a time of war.
Now imagine Americans that are so brainwashed by this same media that they are willing to support that kind of disgusting political grandstanding.
By Truth
July 21, 2008 12:06 PM | Link to this
GOB
You just don’t get it. The swift boaters were regarded as right wing lunies by the national media from day one. If you don’t believe me, just look at how they are regarded now. Propaganda works. The lying SOB, John Kerry is still considered the victim. And that was all done by the national media.
The banner was propaganda? No. It was displayed on an aircraft carrier that was headed home, their mission had been accomplished.
The president giving a speech in front of it wasn’t bungled at all. There was nothing he could have done or said that wasn’t grabbed by the media and turned against him. And they did, didn’t they?
What was bungled is the fact that few understood how desperately the media was for an encompassing photo that would make Bush out to be the biggest fool. They found it, and you bought it. Ho hum, just another day in America.
By USinUK
July 21, 2008 12:09 PM | Link to this
GOB -
I couldnt agree more about the call for sacrifce at the beginning of the war. Instead we were told to go about our daily lives or the terrorists have won. Go drive your SUV 50 miles one way to work, go to Target and spend spend spend.
while I understand that 65% of US GDP is comprised of consumer spending, and, therefore, if that spending is cut in half, then GDP is going to fall drastically - I do think that it was an opportunity wasted to not call on Americans to conserve energy to do our part to end reliance of foreign oil.
Meanwhile, Bush-Cheney cronies continue to get rich: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/washingtonpostinvestigations/2008/07/demsadministrationknew_more.html
Hunt Oil, whose chief executive Ray L. Hunt is a member of the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board and a major contributor to Bush’s campaigns, signed a petroleum production-sharing contract in September with the Kurdistan Regional Government, the first since the semi-autonomous government unanimously adopted its own petroleum legislation in August.
By USinUK
July 21, 2008 12:19 PM | Link to this
Truth -
way to completely ignore Rumsfield’s quote.
nice one.
heading home -
pasta los huevos
By GOB
July 21, 2008 12:22 PM | Link to this
Truth - For a group that was considered “right wing lunies” from the beginning, they certainly played a large part in the election. If you dont think it hurt John Kerry in a major way, you are kidding yourself.
As for the banner, in his speech, Bush declared that US had won the battle for Iraq. Do you honestly believe that the banner was in place to signify nothing more than the ship returning home? It was there to send a message to American people that the war was winding down. Now we’ve been in Iraq longer than we were in WWII. And all because we thought they might do something in the future. I seem to remember some speech mentioning a mushroom cloud over a US city. Talk about propaganda.
By Truth
July 21, 2008 12:26 PM | Link to this
USinUK
This is not a good discussion for us. I am infuriated by the way the democrats have used the Iraq War as the political hammer to dislodge the Republicans.
EVERYONE made mistakes in the way the war was conducted and we can talk for years about the reasons for such a timid effort on our part.
But it is issues like the Mission Accomplished banner that sickens me and guarantees that I will never vote for a single person that would support that party.
Abraham Lincoln sent congratulatory letters to field commanders whom had accomplished their missions. Every setting president has done that very same thing. And they all made a huge media exhibition of it.
But Bush can’t do that. Stop for a second and think about that. The party that you support, in order to have yet another mindless, pointless talking point has taken a time honored tradition of our president honoring a group of soldiers and made it a political hammer.
Rumsfield and other Republican operatives are brilliant in so many ways, but their main advantage is the fact that they never underestimate how low the democrats with the help of their media will sink.
By Wally
July 21, 2008 12:29 PM | Link to this
Posting the Ten Commandments in public is just so much bland, tepid, fair weather, psuedo Christianity.
If you’re going to abide by those old Israelite saws and laws, you can’t pick and choose among those found in the book in which they were written.
So you insist that the Ten Commandments are still as valid and in force as the day they were written, and therefore that they ought to be posted in whatever public place Christians please.
I insist that along side them you not only post some document representing every other religion of the people of this diverse country, but that you also post - and abide by - the other laws and commandments in that archaic Testament.
I can’t conceive of how any self-respecting, intelligent, moral Christian can believe in an inerrant Bible, intelligent Design, and the six thousand year old earth if they don’t believe they and their fellow Christians should be stoning people for the offenses for which it is ordered by the Creator Himself. After all, the Bible is His exclusive written communication with mankind.
How many times have I heard that you can’t pick and choose which parts of the Bible you’re going to believe and live by.
So activate those phone trees, start writing those letters to Sonny and your state and federal representatives. It’s time Christianity and America really got right with God.
By Truth
July 21, 2008 12:42 PM | Link to this
GOB
We had accomplished more in a few days than had ever been done in the history of warfare. What should he have told the American People? Think about what you are complaining about. Go back and read speeches of our various presidents from both parties after a major military victory. No a lot of “downer” speeches in that bunch.
The difference was that in the past, the media made the choice to support the president. The modern, liberal-ran media wouldn’t consider it and now we have people posting on a political blog about how wrong it was that Bush was making a positive speech about a war. It’s nuts. Stand back away from what the media is pounding into your head every day and just look at what you are saying.
your coomplaiint is that Bush was speaking positive about a war.
Your complaint is that Bush was congratulating groups of soldiers on accomplishing their missions.
And you are complaining that a banner that was hung behind the president just might be saying something positive about a war.
Just stand back and look at what you are complaining about.
By Truth
July 21, 2008 12:52 PM | Link to this
Wally
Christians gave up on the stoning thing because liberals turned out to be such cry-babies when they are hit with those rocks.
But Christians are a lot smarter than you think. Instead of a few minutes of pain and then peaceful death, they figured out a way that liberals could be miserable by feeling guilty about every bug that is squished and angry about every morning that reveals that many people do not think like them.
So Christians just keep thanking Jesus for NPR.
By Mara
July 21, 2008 1:06 PM | Link to this
I am infuriated by the way the democrats have used the Iraq War as the political hammer to dislodge the Republicans.
you’ve GOT to be F-ing kidding me!!! The DEMOCRATS using the Iraq War as a hammer?! Where was your anger while Rove and Cheney were telling the American people that Democrats HATE America and wouldn’t mind seeing Sadddam win?
Where was this wrath when the REPUBLICANS were telling America that the Democrats hate the military, even though many of us are military or related to military veterans?
Where was your fury when the REPUBLICANS were hammering the Dems with their Osama/Obama crap? Where was your outrage when the REPUBLICANS were likening Max Cleland to Osama Bin Laden?
Where is your fury at the sheer effrontery of “TheRepublicanSong.com” putting up billboards of the burning towers with the words “Please Don’t Vote For A Democrat”?
Your president used fear, intimidation, and “misinformation” to get convince the American people that Saddam was a bigger threat than Bin Laden and that the Republicans were the only ones who could protect their little Jimmy from “the terrorists”. It was all well and good when the Republicans were using the fear of terrorism to hammer loose the Democrats from congress. But now when the Democrats are pulling hammers from the Republican tool-box…NOW it’s beyond the pale?!
By Recruiter
July 21, 2008 1:18 PM | Link to this
Christians gave up on the stoning thing because liberals turned out to be such cry-babies when they are hit with those rocks.
Suggestion: Why don’t you put your money where your mouth is and run for office yourself? The continuous stream of information, logic, and razor-sharp analysis you provide is wasted here. Just think what you could accomplish by sharing your keen insights with the masses. The America people need you, buddy!
By Copyleft
July 21, 2008 1:21 PM | Link to this
I notice that Truth persists in trying to draw a line between “Christians” and “liberals,” when in fact they’re the same people.
No such conflict exists, Truth… actual Christians ARE liberal, one and all.