Tony Perkins: "liberals," like (military volunteer) Kerry, "don't have an understanding" of why Americans "would volunteer"
On the November 2 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins declared that a recent "botched joke" by Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) "shows that many of the liberals just don't have an understanding of how there are people that have such commitment to this country that they would volunteer to defend the ways and the ideas of this nation." As Media Matters for America has noted, Kerry himself volunteered for military service and, in February 1968, requested Swift boat duty in Vietnam.
From the November 2 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
CHRIS MATTHEWS (host): I don't. I don't think that's what he meant, but that's my opinion. Based upon the context of what he was saying, he was trashing Bush, trashing his -- what he called -- his denial of facts, his honesty, and in the midst of all that, he took this crack at the president's lack of book learning. I don't think he was taking a crack at the soldiers. If he did, he's an imbecile, and I don't think John Kerry is an imbecile.
PERKINS: Well, I mean, in the -- in the -- if he said it in a vacuum of never doing anything else to be dismissive toward our troops and our military, then I would say you're probably right. But I would disagree with you. I think that it shows that many of the liberals just don't have an understanding of how there are people that have such commitment to this country that they would volunteer to defend the ways and the ideas of this nation.
You're the unofficial mouthpiece of the Christian right. How about that Ted Haggard?
Not all homosexuals are evangelical reactionary Christofascists.
Not all evangelical reactionary Christofascists are homosexuals... mostly hypocrites, however.
because i dont want to be in the same voting block with the christian haters.
I'm not crazy about hypocritical purveyors of the Lord's word who are really more interested in money, power and sex.
CHRISTIANS ARE PLENTY SMART AND PLENTY BRAVE
It's your own chief evangelical that decided he wanted to be a hyprocrite. Deal with it. Those that judge will ultimately be judged themselves.
he tricked all of us christians. he campaigned on being a Godly man who would put conservative values first but in reality he is a shill for big business and big oil and has put $$$ ahead of everything else. Americans should've realized that his nonChristian past was a huge indicator to where his priorities lie. Oh well, live and learn eh.
I think the fact that so many conservatives are suddenly being exposed as closet homosexuals shows that people shouldn't be judging others on that basis in the first place. Of course, social conservatives won't learn the lesson. Instead, they will try and cut out the folks that have "sinned" against the church and do nothing about the system that foces them to deny their true nature in the first place.
Two men ran. One a lifelong Christian (Gore) who went to divinity school, and Bush who rarely goes to Church, spent the first 40 years of his life as an obnoxious drunk and cocaine snorting party boy, who found religion just in time to run for Governor. Now I have no reason to question his faith however what in the world would make you choose HIM as the good Christian man and deny Gore the same consideration just because for his whole life he has actually BEEN what Bush claims? I am sorry but you were only fooled because you wanted to be fooled because as the conservative you just WANTED him to be the "good christian man". I mean wasnt his almost constant lying a hint?
Gore/Kerry were explicitly pro-choice and Bush was explicitly pro-life and he did pass the partial birth abortion ban, which is something I care deeply about. So at the time I had to make a choice between a possible hypocrite/hopefully reformed drunk, or an honest liberal who was going to appoint liberal judges and not do anything to stop abortions.
Don't think I was very enthusiastic about voting for Bush and I was jumping up and down when he ran either. With the exception of getting supreme court judges I would've rather stuck with clinton for another 10 yrs.
Fortunately for us, Gore is a man of the law. Meaning, abortion is legal, and there is no reason (other than some alleged "moral" reasons) as to why it shouldn't be.
I would bet you good hard dollars though, that if asked, if Gore was personally pro-choice, or pro-life, he would choose life. He wouldn't choose to have an abortion, or to allow anyone he loves to get an abortion, but here in lies the rub. When you're pro-choice, you actually get to make a choice, whereas if you're pro-life (allegedly) you don't have a choice. All pro-lifers are pro-choicers, they just don't know it. What's right for you, might not be right for someone else, that's why we all have a choice.
Aside from that, making abortion illegal wouldn't slow down the rate of abortions at all. They didn't largly increase when it was made legal, it's just that women could now get them safe, and easier than sneaking around back alleyways. You make it illegal, you put the health of people at risk, and let's face it, aborting a fetus is not ending an innocent "life", as that fetus when aborted could not sustain life on its own outside of the womb. Partial birth abortions (a misnomer for late term abortion) is not practiced hardly at all, and only in extreme circumstances when it is possible that the mother's life is in danger of being lost.
In all honesty I never thought about that arguement for abortion. It is a well thought out one and makes perfect sense. Oh and Art, do you honestly think that making abortions illegal will actually change the number of abortions that take place? Come on, prostitution is illegal and yet you see prostitutes everywhere. Marijuana and Cocaine are illegal and yet everyone has it(not literally). In Russia abortions happen all the time without medical assistence and the women usually die from them. Is an unborn fetus more important to you than a woman or girl who is already alive? Pro-Life people in my opinion just do not have the facts on thier side...
I generally hate abortion threads, but I had to comment that your post contained more disinformation on abortion than I have read in a long, long time.
Virtually everything you printed is a leftwing lie. The numbers cited pre-Roe are just baloney just like the made up 600k civilian deaths lie in Iraq. Just pro-choicer making up numbers to try to pump up their cause.
How do you know Al Gore would never let any loved ones have an abortion? Al Gore has been all over the map on this through his life. He was pro-life, then pro-choice, against government funding, for government funding. You don't have a clue how he would react in a personal situation.
If abortions were illegal, the number would drastically go down. Think about it. No federal funding, no doctors performing them, no clinic performing them. This is absolutely no way there would be the same number of abortions in this country. Especially if the country wanted to enforce the law.
Partial birth abortion is NOT a misnomer. They drag the babies feet out first, then kill it halfway out the womb. How in the hell is that a misnomer?
I can see good points on both sides of this issue. It is killing babies, period. However, I don't like the idea of the government taking away a person personal decision on the issue. What I really don't like however, is the leftwing NOW and Feminist Majority lies. And your post is full of nothing but lies.
Again. No evidence in your 'critique'. Just "that's a lie"! That won't pass muster here.
Post some links otherwise I will take what you said as a smear. Furthermore you did not even bother to answer my questions. My anecdote was merely used to reinforce my opinion. Lastly stating someone lied without providing any evidence to support your claim is just plain slander so you can expect me to never respond to your posts again.
YOU HAVE BEEN BANISHED FROM THE O'GOLDWATER FACTOR!!!!!!
LH, The Government didn't do anything about "taking away someone's choice." The Roe v. Wade decision said that there is nothing in the Consititution that could stop a woman from seeking one and states that passed anti abortion laws were impinging upon a woman's control over her body. If anything the cons should be singing praises to the decision...as Barry Goldwater did when his granddaughter CeCe went for an abortion. And the common myth is that Roe V. Wade LEGALIZED abortion. Northing is further from the truth. The Supremes cannot legalize anything because they are not responsible for making law. They can only interpret law and that is based on the Constitution. Smearing Gore's stance on abortion is absurd. The bottom line is "freedom of choice." Wingnuts like Perkins, whose creative background includes membership in the Conservative Citizens Council the upscale version of the KKK, don't help their arguments. If these idiots aren't out buying amps and getting massages from gay prostitutes they sit in the studio attacking people like Kerry, who has served his country with distinction in any one of a number of capacities.
The BEST reason to vote for someone. However you put in the equation first he was a Godly man. Exactly what did BUSH do to deserve that appellation more than Gore other than being closer to your political values? See thats the thing that drives me crazy that the conservative is somehow the GODLY candidate no matter how religious the liberal is and no matter how little the conservative has shown he deeserves the honor.
it's a shame and it drives me crazy too. we are polarized so much that the right is seen as the authority on christianity (some lady called into billo's radio show yesterday and was yapping about how the republican party is supposed to be the "Christian" party and i just said "HAH! i wish there WAS a christian party"). the left is seen as an authority on anti-bigotry, equality for blacks/women, and to a lesser extent is seen as the party who will legalize mexicans. it is sad because the democrats now tend to ignore christians and focus on nonchristians. im hoping the dem party will move more to the center again so there are more options, i really dont like having to vote republican or writing in mickey mouse.
thats why i liked clinton. he said he was christian and was pretty centrist, which i can live with. he was too dangerous to the repubs though so they tried to polarize him against christians and it worked once he committed adultery.
Art. I'd like to commend you. You started out on here as a troll and now you are posting heartfelt, well-reasoned opinions. I wish every conservative would do the same and then we can have a real, respectful debate about what values are most important to us.
I used to be pro-life, even as I was liberal and areligious in all my other beliefs. I'd argue vigorously with my parents about it. My mother was/is a yellow-dog southern Democrat who leans liberal. My father was a Goldwater style midwest conservative. Both were pro-choice. When I was a teen, I'd argue and argue about how abortion was unfair to the unborn child . Then something clicked when I was in my early twenties. I realized that abortion bans are inately unfair to women and those that were most heated abortion oppontents had a desire to control women at the heart of their beliefs. I experienced a sea change. I am still personally against abortion. I've never participated in, nor would I suggest an abortion in situations I'm involved in. But I don't have the right to tell others, especially women, who have to bear the burden of pregnancy and child rearing that they have to make the same choice. Ironically, I still believe and could make the same arguments I used as a teen to try and explain my pro-choice stance. But now I take a more pragmatic approach.
I think the majority of liberals who are pro-choice share with me the desire that abortions would not even be required. But at the same time, we recognize the reality that one size does not indeed fit all on the issue.
Both on your take on Art and on your take on abortion. Its a poor choice but I am a man, I will never make it. I cannot in all good concience no matter what I thought about when a life starts make it for a woman. In fact my biggest gripe about the abortion issue is that whenever I see a panel show on Television about it its like six guys and one woman piously droning what amounts to their opinions and why all women should be bound by them.
So, basically you're proposing that politicians spend time on the only group you care about: Christians. Who cares about Americans, right?
I love Christians. Almost everybody I know and love is a Christian.
What I hate are the crazed right-wingers who exploit Christianity for f'ed-up political reasons.
Me, too... had one for lunch.
Mustard.
Who hate Christians, Art? It's the hypocritical ordained purveyors of the Lord's word who are really more interested in money, power and sex that I'm not crazy about.
i dont like tv evangelicals like pat robertson, who pretend to be holier than thou while flashing a 1900# on the screen while they do so. those guys are the sleaziest of the sleaze and worse than devil worshippers in my opinion because at least the devil worshippers are honest about it and their agenda is clear.
but a certain angst towards christianity in general, not just those tv sleazoids, seems pervasive on the far left because of issues like gay rights and abortions. it seems only liberal minded christians are accepted and that turns me off.
"it seems only liberal minded christians are accepted and that turns me off."
That makes sense. Christ was a liberal. He threw out the money changers. He healed the sick, the poor, the lame. Liberal Christians are continuing in the true spirit of Christ. Don't judge, lest ye be judged. Of course, we'd accept people who are true to the teachings of their faith rather than the cherry-picked precepts chosed to fit their narrow agenda.
That makes sense. Christ was a liberal. He threw out the money changers. He healed the sick, the poor, the lame. Liberal Christians are continuing in the true spirit of Christ. Don't judge, lest ye be judged. Of course, we'd accept people who are true to the teachings of their faith rather than the cherry-picked precepts chosed to fit their narrow agenda.
You make it sound as if liberalism wholly owns "caring for the poor/sick" and fighting against the greedy. I know MANY conservatives who don't like greedy businesses either and who also try and help the poor. So lets try not to be disingenuous here.
It is phrases like "narrow agenda" that turn many Christians away from the liberal arena. You may not mean it this way but it sounds as if you look down on those who make judgement calls and you feel like you have a more evolved sensibility. This is very "holier than thou" and elitist in a sense, which I'm sure is why many liberals don't like some Christians.
As for judging. What is wrong with it? We judge all the time, the food we eat, the criminals we put away (judged by a jury of inperfect peers), to the boyfriend Marie just broke up with last week because of his lazy eye. Liberals also judge us Christians are narrow minded, obtuse, and perhaps even less evolved. You can claim you simply judge the judgers but even so you are still judging.
The verse JUDGE NOT LEST YE BE JUDGED is very misinterpreted in my opinion. This verse is NOT speaking to not judging --> it is speaking to not judging hypocritically, unfairly, or in a poor manner.
Matthew 7:2-5, it reads,
2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.
Basically you can judge but you aren't allowed to be a hypocrite and people will call you on it if you try to judge someone for the same thing youre doing. If Joe is getting drunk in a bar he really shouldn't be leading AA meetings. But if he quits and sobers up and wants to speak out against drinking he should be encouraged.
Why didn't Christ spend any time lambasting homosexuality if it was so sinful? Instead, he railed on and on about greed, and the how the meek need to be protected from the powerful.
My girlfriend is a Christian. She has a masters degree in theology. I am an atheist. We have lovely debates on religion. I mentioned to her that it would be helpful had the Bible had a list of sins, from worst to most innocuous. As it is, people are free to pick and choose which behaviors to condemn from the myriad of things forbidden in the Bible. Yet, somehow there is no lobby asking for a Constitutional amenment banning touching pork, as is condemned in Leviticus. People choose their pet "sins" based on their own preconceptions and desire to punish those that they don't understand.
if Christ was lambasting the greedy and defending the meek then indeed he was judging those who were corrupted my $ and those who oppressed the poor, right?
Well I know a lot of people point to verses in the Old (First testmament if you are jewish) Testament about stoning and will say, "why dont we stone people anymore?" But as your girlfriend probably will tell you, we don't follow the rules of that testament anymore due to the fact that the New Testament came about and signified a change. Jewish people still do and so they hold closer the 10 commandments moreso than Christians and they also do not eat pork, whereas Christians see it as clean meat since it was stated so in the NT so of course we aren't going to try to ban pork. Yet most jews i know are liberal and they don't really care about homosexuality even though it's in leviticus. So yes you cannot stop people from cherry picking but usually when you go to church/synagogue they have a habit of stepping on your toes for doing so. Just because one is Christian/Jewish/whatever doesn't mean they are less capable of being a hypocrite moreso than anyone who isn't but we tend to be held to a higher standard when we mess up, since we say we are trying to follow God. It turns people off and against us when we mess up so it isn't like Christians have it easy or anything when we are always being judged under a microscope by other Christians and nonChristians alike.
Greed is a big "sin" in my book, yet our country embraces it. People are free to judge in their own hearts but that doesn't mean we get to codify it. Personal consensual adult sexuality should be a private matter and not used to judge character.
codify it, like the dems want to do with making laws and taxing big oil/big businesses unless they give breaks to their employees then things would be a little better? Just because our country currently and wrongly embraces greed doesn't mean we shouldn't fight against it and judge those who embrace it and put it before the good of the people right out of office.
Plus whether or not it is put into law is beside the point. People make up their own communities and judge others as a collective, you know that. Those who "fit the bill" are often welcomed while others are rejected. This applies to the superficial groups, the gay-friendly groups, gay-groups, anti-gay groups, black only groups, etc...so please don't say it's only "in your heart" that you judge.
I think there are certain things you simply cannot legislate. You can tax a rich fellow 90%, but you can't make him give a chunk of the rest to charity. Perhaps this is as it should be. We cannot use laws to fashion a perfect society in either direction. It simply won't work.
Those are all excellent points, well put.
Basically you can judge but you aren't allowed to be a hypocrite and people will call you on it if you try to judge someone for the same thing youre doing. If Joe is getting drunk in a bar he really shouldn't be leading AA meetings. But if he quits and sobers up and wants to speak out against drinking he should be encouraged.
I agree about Joe, if he's a drunk or a drug addict. But I disagree if he's gay. If Ted Haggard is a closeted homosexual then I don't he should "cure" himself and speak out against homosexuality with renewed vigor. I think he ought to reconsider whether he was right about homosexuality in the first place.
i agree it's a tougher subject to tackle than say adultery or boozing. and im not willing to say 100% you AREN'T born that way but I also don't think we should say the opposite with such certainty as is being said now. There are many people out there who claim to be cured through conditioning and while it isn't very scientific to use them as an example that you don't have to be gay, they also shouldn't be written off either. I hear so many people say "If there was a way for me not to be gay, I would do it, do you think I want to be this way?" but then when people say "try this" they get mad and refuse to do so. Perplexing.
"There are many people out there who claim to be cured through conditioning and while it isn't very scientific to use them as an example that you don't have to be gay, they also shouldn't be written off either."
If it's not scientific, it can be written off. There are other factors here. Local attitudes, family, peers, religion. If there's great pressure for someone to be straight, from both without and within, they're more likely to be "straight". Denial is a very powerful thing. Also, I wonder if the supposed cure for homosexuality takes bisexuality into account. Someone can be attracted to both genders, in which case it's much easier to suppress that than if someone was purely homosexual.
"I hear so many people say "If there was a way for me not to be gay, I would do it, do you think I want to be this way?" but then when people say "try this" they get mad and refuse to do so."
It's two different reasons. For the first part, the issue is society's reaction to it. Let's be honest, if absolutely nobody were homosexual, then it would be easier on everyone just because that's one less thing people could be bigoted about, right? Surely it's not easy to deal with the hatred. But at the same time, they realize that's the way they are, and there's nothing wrong with them. So not only do they know they can't change, but don't see any reason why they should...and those who disapprove of them should get over it.
I think you're talking about two different groups of people, between the two sentences I quoted. One group feels guilty and dirty and tries to deny themselves, and the other group admits what they are and accepts it.
liberals such as myself and my gay Quaker son tend to view with resentment those who are making an effort to impose this "judgment" you describe, on everyone, to the injury of other citizens, via the political process. It's one thing to harbor exclusionary and harmful attitudes (to many members of our society who grow up in self-hatred for a physical and emotional status that is beyond the control of anyone), but it is another to limit or define the civil rights of others by virtue of irrational fear mongering. It is even worse when an irrational religiously based political agenda of hatred for gay and lesbians (don't give me this "hate the sin not the sinner" nonsense) causes acceptance and support of a political party that espouses corporate control of existence, aggressive war, torture, and eradication of vital guarantees of the bill of rights created for American citizens at the whim of the executive (habeas corpus, right to counsel, "right to silence" without fear of torture and permitting tortured confessions to be used in non-jury trials). That's why Rove is beating the bushes to get the "religious right" to the polls - he can't continue his agenda against democracy without your help.
You make good points
Nerzog said the same thing in about 3 lines below.
i disagree and find it a decent not-so-great post. You seem to be coming from a place of anger and make rash generalizations. Just because YOU find something irrational or hateful does not necessarily make it so. I'd like to think things are a little more complex. No one is trying to injure you or your son and in fact many support civil unions which would give your son plenty benefits and plenty rights.
I know what Rove is trying to do, and so do many others. That is why it isn't going to work this time.
See when you back up your statements Arty, people here will start taking your arguements as being debatible. I however do not believe that someone should be forced to behave in a weigh that fully satifies the majority. If a person does not want or feel the need to be hetero than who are we to decide for them?
Will make christians reject liberals but lying hypocrisy of the right or them calling liberals terrorist sympathizers and traitors, thats ok? Hey whatever rationalizations you need to make it through the day.
i never said that was ok and i never said i was a fan of bush these days or the republican spin machine, which is why im not a republican. im just saying making such judgements on christians from those who speak out against judging polarizes christians away from seemingly fine liberal causes.
come on you can do better than that.
It wasnt that you obviously think these actions are ok. I wouldnt know or speculate on that. My point is that you say the one phrase turns people away from the left. Yet the right does the same thing, and that is being generous so why gravitate away from the ONE because of YOUR choice of characterization yet not away from the other because of their characterization. That was what I meant when I said they were ok, not because you think they are but because you say the one drives you away but the other doesnt seem to have done the same, that would seem to imply it is ok, not the action itself but in its effect on your political orientation. I mean it obviously doesnt drive you away from the right. See this is all rationalization. Just admit to yourself that you are a conservative and it isnt because of the things the left says that are intolerant, it isnt that we are hypocrites, those same arguments are at LEAST as viable against the right. Bite the bullet, you are a conservative there is nothing wrong with that you dont need excuses
when did i not admit to being a conservative or show any shame in being one? You make good points but I don't get you sometimes or where you get these ideas from? I've always been proud to be an independent conservative christian and defend those values.
My point is that you say the one phrase turns people away from the left. Yet the right does the same thing, and that is being generous so why gravitate away from the ONE because of YOUR choice of characterization yet not away from the other because of their characterization.
because calling christians narrow minded is an attack on their "self" and can be seen as belittling. It isn't just all about ONE phrase mind you, but I don't feel like delving into the others. Yes the right does the same thing but that is more the republicants fault for planting that idea into peoples' heads. it also plays off of their patriotism, something they are eager to show off. My brother is adamantly against the war and has been so from the start, he also hates bush with a passion and secretly wants things to get worse in iraq because it will mess things up for bush. but i dont call him a traitor or do any of the things you mention, we talk about it and have a good laugh about how sinister and diabolical this administration is.
"because calling christians narrow minded is an attack on their "self" and can be seen as belittling."
There's a little strawman in that. I didn't say "narrow minded". I said "narrow agenda". If there are 3000 references to poverty in the Bible and one to homosexuality, a group that focuses on the latter has a "narrow agenda" in my mind. Often these are the same people that take money from their flock and enrich themselves with it.
But lets move on. Perhaps I didnt make myself clear. Or perhaps you just keep misreading me. nowhere did I say you were ASHAMED to be conservative. That wasnt my point. You keep reading into my posts either a different thing or something I never said or mean. What I am saying is that you keep giving REASONS about being conservative that are all about what is wrong with the left, not just you disagree with the policies, no you keep saying things about liberals that are even more true about conservatives. I am not claiming YOU are doing them too, rather that you SAY it pushes YOU from the left that we say something when the right says things much worse. Even IF some lefties claimed Christians are narrow minded ( actually that is usually qualified, the term Christofascist that you take as an attack on Christians in general is actually a way to seperate the type of Christian they are talking about from the rest of us) even it that IS an attack on self, why would THAT trouble you more than the right calling us traitors and terrorist sympathizers with no more reason? Is that somehow NOT an attack on OUR self. As for appealing to patriotisim I reject that. How is it patriotic to show how much you love your country by showing how much you hate your countryMEN? The point I tried to make is that you are just conservative, you prefer those policies, thats fine, I have no problem people see things differently. There is no need to try to say you are conservative because of how bad WE are. Just embrace the REAL reason, you prefer their policies. I especially think this appropriate since Bush is not really a conservative.I would consider him a radical statist. I do see you dont give him kneejerk support.
did you just upset the liberal atheist poster, I have forgotten his moniker, but he gets really p.o.ed when you try to make out that Jesus was a liberal.
but a certain angst towards christianity in general, not just those tv sleazoids, seems pervasive on the far left because of issues like gay rights and abortions. it seems only liberal minded christians are accepted and that turns me off.
I would have to agree with you about your general point here. In my opinion that's why religion should be kept out of politics.
Also, remember that in many, many places only conservative-minded Christians are accepted, and that turns us off.
Also, remember that in many, many places only conservative-minded Christians are accepted, and that turns us off.
I was about to say that;).
is when they try to legislate their faith onto those who don't share it.
It's the knuckledragging troglodyte fascists who think my tax dollars should be used to indoctrinate their children into their superstitions that I despise. I also despise the cretins who try to legislate their own bigotry through anti-gay-marriage laws.
But I love Christians.
for putting things succinctly. I must've used four column inches (above) saying little more, probably with less impact.
I love nonChristians too...
It's the knuckledragging troglodyte fascists who think my tax dollars should be used to indoctrinate all children into their superstitions that I despise (evolution, muslim 4 a day, sex ed in 1st grade). I also despise the cretins who try to legislate their own belief-system through gay-marriage laws against the will of the people.
But I love nonChristians.
At least you own up to despising us, instead of pussyfooting around that fact like some of the other conservative posters around here. I appreciate your honesty.
i was simply copying the post above me and switching it, to show that the same could be said of the other side. i despise certain ideas but i try not to hate anyone, if i did i wouldn't waste my time posting here. Sorry to ruin my credit:)
Your flip doesn't work, because society has to accomodate everyone, not just you. Our education has to be based on something. If it's not science, it's faith. For those who don't have faith, science needs to be accepted and taught, even if it conflicts with the literal interpretation of a two-thousand year old book.
Meanwhile, you still have church and home-schooling, if you like, so our efforts do not hinder your ability to believe what you like. You can't blame people for accomodating the needs of society in general just because you think it's "superstition", but we can blame Christians for trying to push their beliefs onto everyone else.
It's a difference between whole-to-part and part-to-whole, between society and Christianity. It's like in Alice in Wonderland, "I see everything I eat" is not the same as "I eat everything I see". You can't just reverse anything and believe it makes sense.
You didn't ruin your credit. (And I didn't actually believe you despised us - you don't seem like the despising type.)
Evolution is science, not superstition. It is taught in science class, where it belongs.
Legalizing gay marriage imposes NOTHING on you. I defy you to demonstrate how it does.
marriage it has always been a holy sacrament to christians between the man, woman, and God. now you want to force change on that definition in order to fit a certain agenda even though the will of the people says otherwise. most people wont care if gays have their own institution of civil unions or something called garriage, but why cant you leave our institution alone and show a little respect?
so yes it DOES impose something on me.
How does allowing Gays to marry affect your marriage in the least? It doesn't...saying it does doesn't make it so, unless you can give us specifics on how your marriage would change if gays were allowed to marry.
Admit your bigotry...it's liberating.
im a bigot when you admit youre a fascist. it affects me personally and it affects how others will see marriage for generations. the only reason to not want civil unions for gays and to want marriage is simply to piss off christians.
How does it affect you personally? Specifics please.
Actually, liberals are, by definition, anti-fascist. We don't necessarily (and for the most part, don't) support the interests of large corporations by the government (as we see now).
Any good dictionary will give you a definition of fascism. You might look it up before you ask a liberal to admit to being a fascist.
CSL
You dont know do, in ANY way effect you? You do know your same argument was used to argue for miscegenation laws RIGHT? Since a couple of gays marry in your state is that somehow going to influence you to do something different in YOUR marriage? I have an idea if you dont LIKE gay marriage dont marry someone of your sex.
"marriage it has always been a holy sacrament to christians between the man, woman, and God."
"...but why cant you leave our institution alone and show a little respect?"
It's not your institution. It's a contract for societal purposes. Non-Christians get married too, you know, and that doesn't affect the sacrament of your own personal marriage. So if Christians don't complain about that and claim that only Christians can get married because it's a Christian sacrament between man, woman and God, then how can they complain about anyone marrying someone of their own gender? Why wouldn't atheists getting married defy the sacrament as you describe it as well? Perhaps you should clarify.
If gay marriage benefits society, and many people think it does, then society should do it, no matter what Christians think. As I said above, Christians are the subset of society, and so your interests should always be trumped.
Is that the idea of gay marriage gives him the heeby-jeebies. That's about it...that's the only reason they have for their bigotry. There is no rational, logical, or otherwise intelligent reason to keep gay marriage illegal. NONE.
Sorry, but straight folks do not have a "monopoly" on marriage. It might be considered a holy affair for religious folks, but marriage has been a non-religious institution long before Christians ever came about. A good reference for this is found in a book by a gentleman named David(?) Bosworth entitled, "Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe" written in the mid 90's. This book traces the roots of marriage long before Christianity. So please, do not pretend that Christianity, or religion in general, has the last say on what marriage is. It does not. Actually, it was Christianity that stole the whole modern idea of marriage. In the days before Christianity, marriage was wholly secular, mostly to enforce contracts, cement inheritances and support equality among society. Many, many marriages were between men, not because of the sex involved in the marriage, but because of the binding contract that marriage gave them. Sure, many men married their male lovers, even though they might have been also married to females (possibly for social stature, possibly to ensure progeny). But it wasn't until Christianity came along that the whole notion of marriage being only between a man and a woman and sexual "permission" that came with it, became an issue. So yes, I blame Christianity for all of this mess. Being gay, I am angry that I cannot have the same rights as a straight man just because of who I share my life and my bed with. It's ridiculous on its face. Read the book I referenced above, or do some research. It's quite enlightening.
The issue nowadays, as I see it, is about explaining. Straight folks who are against gay marriage don't really have a problem with the whole issue of two people of the same sex being married. I believe the issue is that they (those who are against same-sex marriage) don't want to have to explain why Adam and Steve are married and have adopted children, etc. Parents have become lazy in teaching their children about sexuality. It's a subject that they are loathe to talk about, but they sure as hell don't want their children learning about it in school, from someone whose values they might not share. However, it's sure not a problem for thousands (maybe millions?) of married men to have extra-marital affairs with other men, behind their wives' backs.
OK...enough for now.
CSL
marriage it has always been a holy sacrament to christians between the man, woman, and God
Marriage has always been a legal arrangement, and some people like to bring God into it.
you prefer the company of closeted Gay hypocrites, bigots, and people who are so indifferent to BORNED human life that they send other people's children off to die over some fabricated BS. Boy what character. BTW the way I am a Christian.
why is everyone a closeted gay hypocrite now? Everytime I see someone come out as anti-gay they are automatically labeled as a closet gay. It seems to me to be a disarming technique designed to shake the foundation of the person while at the same time casting him into the circle of denial so he can easily be dismissed.
i never said i preferred the company of anyone you mentioned. some people choose to believe in propaganda and will get angry if you tell them the reason for going into iraq perhaps wasn't a righteous one. i try not to associate or engage those people because they are very closed minded and only see what they want to see.
you said you couldn't be a Democrat becuase you couldn't associate with people that hated Christians, soooo where did that come from?
We actually follow the Golden Rule of Jesus...unlike the Repubs you keep voting for or the Dems you despise.
"Do unto others as you would have done unto them."
That means no bombing, no torture, no corruption, no bribery.
taking that verse out of context. should we have not attacked japan after pearl harbor? if an enemy is trying to kill you, you have to get them before they get you. the bible does not condemn war.
Thirty years of support and funding for Israeli war crimes, twenty five years of US military buildup in the Persian Gulf, shooting down airliners, funding dictators, 15 years of bombing and now invading Iraq.
The root cause of all this is US and Israeli racism and agression. None of this would be happening if we treated the people in that region with respect.
Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the Children of God. there is nothing comparable to warmongers. I am not a pacifist but the bar for state violence must be very high and the criteria for a just war is pretty old. Iraq in no way meets that criteria.
What branch was Tony in??
Lets see; volunteering, eh???
John Kerry after graduating an Ivy League college, with all the advantages to avoid the draft with the same bait and switch the Bush/Cheney did while endorsing the war, instead earned a commission in the United States Navy.
Let's see; when about to be rotated back to a European assignment or stateside from serving aboard a USS board to death tin can, he instead volunteered for one of the most dangerous duties in a bloody conflict, Swift Boat assignment on the Delta.
Tony volunteered to be our conscience, without having one of his own.
Happy Thoughts;
In a way Kerry inadvertantly hit the nail on the head. There's a reason the military advertisements hype the "earn money to pay for college" line and it ain't because they are looking for self supporting edumacated people...
We just don't understand why there aren't more republican's children fighting for this country.
you are speaking about republicans holding office?
that is who I am speaking of.
which was of course being spread on mm only with his words and without any explanation, my initial reaction was "What's the buzz, tell me what a happenin'" (Jesus Christ, Superstar). He was stating the obvious, which has been consistently restated. The Army has consistently lowered its enlistment standards to entice less educated kids to come on board from economic necessity.
As it turned out, it was a verbal miscue that most of the media outlets have done all they can do to hide. My wife had on a morning show, I think CNN, as a 2d LT's widow was telling of how Kerry "reopened wounds," and of course either the rest of the story was excluded: either the reporter didn't ask ... voluntarily or commanded ... or didn't report asking ... or it was edited out: "Were you aware that Kerry intended the remark as a slam against Bush's intelligence? If you had been told that, would it have made a difference to you?" Oh, no. Let's be a Rove outlet and keep the deregulators in place so we can become more ever more centralized and make more money.
The worst condemnation though, in my view, came not from Snow, or Cheney, or Bush, or Fox, but from Hillary Clinton, who saw the chance to get a party opponent of the primary slate in 2008 and dug the dagger in his back immediately. Far be it from her to be honest enough to blast Rove for twisting the context, or even just do her best political sidestep of the issue. She is rapidly sinking to McCain's level in my view.
"being spread on mainstream media..."
You might wanna ask Dick Cheney about his volunteering for military service, and then the military refusing and forcing him to get a deferrment five times.
THANK YOU. njguy93@yahoo.com
You might wanna ask Dick Cheney about his volunteering for military service, and then the military refusing and forcing him to get a deferrment five times.
Look up Bill Clinton!
Check your history
Bill Clinton isn't a war monger and war profiteer.
So true... The comparison is weak at best. Sure, Clinton did not serve...and, at the time, the righties made a HUGE deal about it.
But, alas, the majority (save Rummy) who are now in power have no idea what it is like to serve, risk your life for a stated cause, and hope to depend upon the leaders to make sound decisions. War mongers indeed!
Rummy's a draft-dodger as well. He got into the ROTC and pranced around Princeton in a uniform when he should have been in Korea. [link to www.nhgazette.com]
THANK YOU. njguy93@yahoo.com
I stand corrected!
Sorry but Clinton bomed Serbia, killed thousands of Serbians and his adminsitration killed 50,000 Iraqi children. But according to Albright, it was worth it.
[link to www.fair.org]
Wrong. Clinton prosecuted a successful action in the balkans ending a genocide that would have taken thousands of more victims. He did this without losing one American soldier's life.
As for the sactions, they were started by George Bush I, not Clinton.
I see history is not your strong suit, but you seem to be an expert in histrionics.
The bombing done in Serbia was as surgical as any in warfare history, and never had casualties the like, if you want to debunk this crap, you need only go to the UN site and clear your mind.
The Serbian Army accounted for a clear majority of the killings. Americans were hardly engaged enough to support such a claim. We were part of a NATO force under the command of a coalition of leadership.
If you can't have history serve your needs, change the history? Make facts whatever serves the agenda, welcome toe the Republican Dream, American Fascism.
If we really believed this horse crap being made of American bloodletting under Clinton, tell me why Wesley Clark, General retired was not drummed off the Presidential stage???
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
If Democrats bomb children, it's the other guy's fault. If Repubs bomb children, it's the Repub's fault...but the Repubs say it's the other guy's fault too.
Why are you justifying war crimes? Are you so loyal to a political party that you would justify the crimes they commit?
I don't vote for people who bomb children...why will you?
You should also ask Newt Gingrich, Tom DeLay, Dick Armey, Trent Lott, Dennis Hastert, Roy Blunt, Bill Frist, Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Joe Scarborough, Bill Bennett, Pat Buchanan, Brit Hume, Fred Barnes, Michael Reagan, Pat Robertson, Michael Savage, Jerry Falwell, and Bill O'Reilly.
THANK YOU. njguy93@yahoo.com
Sorry for the repeat post. :)
In Pat Robertson's defense, he "served" in Korea...not in combat, but as a liquor officer.
a " liquor officer " ? when i was in college I was a liquor officer but that was because I had a car.
"[T]he "liquor officer" [was] responsible for keeping the officers' clubs supplied with liquor." --
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Pretty hazardous duty, huh.
Dennis Hastert, Bill O'Reilly, Bill Frist, Sean Hannity, Tom Delay, Rick Santorum, Roy Blunt, Mitch McConnell, George Allen, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Trent Lott, John Ashcroft, Jeb Bush, Karl Rove, Newt Gingrich, Ken Mehlman, Dick Lugar, Mike Dewine, Tony Snow, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, etc., etc.
check the chickenhawk database.
[link to www.awolbush.com]
Like Rummy, Crash-cart Dick, dumbaya, Flush Slimeball, Bull O'lielly, Bastert and the list goes on and on. Nope, Bill did all a single student could do at that time, he protested the war to stop ANYONE being drafted to fight that dirty illegal war. That does make him a draft resistor. it is the other folks named about that are the chicken-hawks (who were for the war, as long as somebody else was put in harms way) and AWOL/deserters. Big difference there.
Clinton, etc. did not serve, but if you were to ask him today, his feelings on The War in Vietnam would be the same today as they were when he was young.
Ask the same thing of Bush, Cheney, O'Reilly & Limbaugh. Most have already professed that they were supporters of The War in Vietnam. If they were supporters, then they should have shown their support by enlisting in the full time services, not the NG or Reserves or college.
The difference is that Clinton's views of Vietnam are not hypocritical. The others views are hypocritical.
It's easy to support a war when you have nothing at stake.
about his pimple.
Might I remind Mr. Perkins that liberal John Kerry volunteered for the service at a time of war; he volunteered for combat duty; and he volunteered for dangerous missions. I think John Kerry is a poor example of a liberal who doesn't understand the concept of vounteering to serve his country.
After 9/11, I wanted Osama's head. Had I been a bit younger, I might have volunteered. Thank goodness I didn't as I never would have imagined that the commander-in-chief would lose interest in the real enemy of America, Al-Qaeda, and instead go on a unnecessary and ill-conceived jaunt through Iraq.
We understand why people volunteer for wars against our real enemy, we just don't understand squandering blood and treasure for the imagined ones.
Perkins: another dishonest, faking right-winger who so, so badly wishes it were true that Kerry insulted the troops that he's willing to go on tv and pretend it's so.
As for "defend[ing] the ways and the ideas of this nation", that's not why we went to Iraq--a country that did nothing to us. And in any case, defending those ways and ideas begins at home, and Bush--with his warrantless spying and media intimidation--is doing the opposite.
"there are people that have such commitment to this country that they would volunteer to defend the ways and the ideas of this nation."
Yes there are, and we Liberals appreciate them. Please explain how you can support a man who needlessly gets thousands of these fine young Americans slaughtered, and then stubbornly refuses to admit that he f*cked up.
How does that fit into the "ways and ideas of this nation?"
Troglodyte Christofascist pimp.
Why would Perkins insult those liberal troops in Iraq? Is he only sympathetic to right wing troops? Why does Perkins hate some of our troops in Iraq? Sounds like he hates American diversity. I thought freedom is what the troops are protecting. Perkins should apologize to the troops. Perkins should apologize to America. Perkins should jump off a bridge... ;>)
Exactly. My best friend joined the Army out of high school and within a year found himself in the Saudi desert as part of Operation Desert Storm. He was a poor kid who needed money for college, and also a liberal. He sent me a letter from the front with a picture of him holding a makeshift sign with the peace symbol on it. Written at the bottom of the Polaroid instant picture was the sentence, "War is never right, just sometimes necessary."
Thankfully, he came home safely and used his GI Bill money to get a four year degree and start a successful career.
This containerizing of our troops as one thing or another is divisive and on the whole unaccurate. Does he think the large number of enlisted black soldiers are voting for Bush?
made commentary about Kerry's speech and when confronted by Mr Mathews with the question " what did Kerry say ? ", Mr Perkins couldn't answer and went off on subjects not even asked. Let it be recorded that as of yesterday, on Hardball, Tony Perkins did not know what Kerry said and offered criticism.
He's also a charlatan.
THANK YOU. njguy93@yahoo.com
They are bad...and, seriously, the things are going, who WOULD want to keep supporting a country whose ideas are fast becoming purely fascist in their actions.....
I actually deliberately put Pat Buchanan's name on the list just to see if anybody would catch it. He did support the Vietnam War and Nixon and his war crimes in Southeast Asia. I was thinking of that. I did not cut and past the list. I was just thinking of names off the top of my head. By the way, the names you put on your list don't make any sense, at least not a certain number of them. Keith Olbermann and Harold Ford, Jr. are too young to serve in Vietnam. Barbara Streisand and the other women you mentioned could not serve in Vietnam for obvious reasons. A lot of the people you mentioned were also against the Vietnam War, and therein lies the difference of epic proportions. Most of the Republicans and conservatives who advocated for the Iraq War were draft-dodgers who avoided serving in Vietnam, yet still supported the war back then and probably even today. The point is that it is hypocritical that all these people who supported the Vietnam War all avoided serving in it and then also support the Iraq War today and then imply or insinuate that anyone who opposes the Iraq War or criticizes Bush is unpatriotic or un-American, including people who actually did serve their country and put their lives on the line.
THANK YOU. njguy93@yahoo.com
Njguy 93, You keep leaving out Neal Boortz! Blowhard Boortz lied to the world,his listening audience,and friends for years that bad eyes and asthma made him 4-F in the draft. A FOIA to the Selective Service cleared up that lie. He Dropped/Flunked out,1967, but continued to use his deferment, as being in ROTC,even though he had dropped ROTC in his 2nd year,1965.He continued to use his deferment until his daughter was born in Feb '68,and remembered to notify the Sel. Ser. he had a child! He never graduated from Texas A&M,but continues to the school as his "Alma Mater" . Please remember to include this Chickenhawk in further exposes?
How could I not include one of the all-time master chickenhawks? Neal Boortz is a charlatan. He is also a fraud. I had read about him as well and his shenanigans to avoid the draft. He was one of the most outspoken voices supporting the Iraq War in 2002 and 2003. Neal, you are a draft-dodging charlatan and a fraud.
THANK YOU. njguy93@yahoo.com
Here are a few links to some information about the Chickenhawks.
[link to www.nhgazette.com]
It seems that of all the people listed, no one had the commitment or determination of Ted Nugent. A true man among men.
[link to www.nhgazette.com]
Can't verify if any of the info is true, but it sure is a fun read.
volunteer for the Navy to avoid potentially being drafted into the Army?
You're better than that.
There were many jobs in Vietnam that were just as dangerous as the jobs that Army or Marine grunts did. Running up and down the Mekong River in small boats was one of the most dangerous jobs anyone could have. Navy Seabees built bridges, roads and whatever was needed. The Marine Corps didn't have their own medics. Every Marine Medic was a Navy enlisted man.
somewhat better in the navy vs in the infantry.
McCain that little tidbit.
for saying it, even if it seems to go without saying.
The rivalries between branches of the military seem minor to the men serving, not so much to the chickenhawks.
My old man was a ship medic (Navy) in WWII, and that allowed the son of a produce-cart pusher from Limerick, Ireland to go to Columbia & NYU for an MD , & for HIS son to learn enough about the state of things to sign up for SS and never enlist.
I still have friends and family in the military, and I want that always to be a source of pride.