In Tucker discussion, Weekly Standard's Ferguson on Clinton and liberal Protestants: "[T]hey believe in everything but God"
On the June 14 edition of MSNBC's Tucker, host Tucker Carlson asked Weekly Standard senior editor Andrew Ferguson if Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) "could, in the end, be a Jimmy Carter in the sense that she gets a significant percentage ... of evangelical votes," later asking: "Can you imagine a scenario, though, where the Democrat gets religious voters? Or is abortion is still the stumbling block?" Ferguson answered: "Only in -- religious in the way that Hillary Clinton is religious, which is to say of a very liberal Protestant sort of view, in which they believe in everything but God." Carlson said later, "I have never met anybody less sincere than the religious left."
As Media Matters for America has noted, during the "Obameter" segment on the February 7 edition of Tucker, Carlson criticized Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) for being a member of a church that Carlson claimed "sounds separatist to me" and "contradicts the basic tenets of Christianity," a subject Carlson said he was "actually qualified to discuss."
Also, as Media Matters pointed out, Ferguson is the author of a June 10 Washington Post op-ed about former Vice President Al Gore's book, The Assault on Reason (Penguin Press, May 2007), for which the Post had to run a correction undermining a key point in Ferguson's lead paragraph. Ferguson claimed in the lead that the book does not have footnotes. The Post's correction noted that "[t]he book contains 20 pages of endnotes." At no point during his appearance on the June 14 edition of Tucker did Carlson ask Ferguson about the Post op-ed or its essential falsehood. Post ombudsman Deborah Howell wrote in her June 17 column that "Ferguson didn't check the back of the book," and quoted Ferguson saying, "I'm mortified about this. It was incredibly stupid. How I missed [the endnotes] is inexplicable."
Ferguson also remarked that "the ghost of Mother Teresa is not going to help" Clinton, a reference to the Clinton campaign's use of an image of the late Mother Teresa alongside Clinton in an online video narrated by former President Bill Clinton. Politico senior writer Ben Smith wrote that according to the Clinton campaign, it removed the image from the video "at the behest of [Mother Teresa's] missionary order." Carlson, who did note that the campaign removed the image, said its use in the video left him with the "distinct impression" that Mother Teresa supported Clinton and suggested that the Clinton campaign had presented the image as "basically an endorsement from Mother Teresa."
From the June 14 edition of MSNBC's Tucker, which also included former Rep. Tom Andrews (D-ME), national director of the group Win Without War :
CARLSON: I don't know if you know this, but Mother Teresa is for Hillary Clinton. That was the distinct impression I was getting --
ANDREWS: Distinct, huh? Distinct?
CARLSON: -- distinct impression I was getting from taking a look at the Hillary Clinton website. I don't know if we have a picture of this. But on her website, we -- we learn from Bill Clinton that Hillary, in effect -- this is a verbatim quote -- "was the face of America in Africa, in India." There you go; that's basically an endorsement from Mother Teresa.
So this comes out, a Catholic group notices it, Mother Teresa's own order back in India demands that that get pulled off the website. And it is. Here is a quote from Joseph Cella, who's the head of the Catholic group [Fidelis]. He says, quote, "We pointed out that use of Blessed Teresa's image was particularly inappropriate and disturbing, given Senator Clinton's staunch support of abortion here in the U.S. and abroad. Mother Teresa tirelessly fought to protect unborn children, while Hillary Clinton staunchly supports abortion on demand in all nine months of pregnancy, including partial-birth abortion, and taxpayer funding of abortion." It takes a lot of brass for her to put Mother Teresa up on a website, given that everything in that quote is indisputably true.
ANDREWS: On the issue of abortion, clearly. I mean, there's no doubt about it. There couldn't be a clearer difference between Mother Teresa and Senator Clinton. But --
CARLSON: It was not a small thing for Mother Teresa. It wasn't just, like, kind of --
ANDREWS: No, that's right, that's right, that's right. But, you know, there were a lot of other things on her plate, and that is dealing with poverty and the -- the hopelessness and the desperation of the people who she worked with and served. And, of course, that was something that Hillary Clinton cared a great deal about. That's what a significant amount of her time as the first lady -- she invested in traveling around the world, drawing attention to these horrendous situations, and building international support, and -- and calling on the American public and the government to do something about it. So, that is true.
CARLSON: I -- I missed that.
ANDREWS: That is true. That is true, also.
CARLSON: You know, I was here when she was first lady --
ANDREWS: That is true, also.
CARLSON: It was like she spent a lot of time looking for her billing records, couldn't find them, held a couple séances. I don't remember her curing world poverty. Maybe I -- I don't know -- maybe I was otherwise --
[crosstalk]
ANDREWS: That's not myopia. No, no, no. That's not myopia --
CARLSON: -- I was otherwise occupied. Will the -- the only reason I'm putting this up there is not just to be mean to Hillary Clinton. But this is part of a broader effort on the part of Democrats to appeal to religious voters. And I think they have a shot at winning them, possibly, because they're dissatisfied with Bush and the Republicans, and they ought to be. Do you think that Hillary Clinton could, in the end, be a Jimmy Carter, in the sense that she gets a significant percentage, Andy, of evangelical voters?
FERGUSON: Well, if she does, the ghost of Mother Teresa is not going to help her. You know, Mother Teresa was actually sort of a -- not a cynical person, but she was a very pragmatic person, and she used Hillary Clinton, too, to help raise money. So I think now maybe Hillary's using her in a slightly different way, but it's still the same pragmatism or realism.
CARLSON: Can you imagine a scenario, though, where the Democrat gets religious voters? Or is abortion still the stumbling block?
FERGUSON: Only in -- religious in the way that Hillary Clinton is religious, which is to say a very liberal Protestant sort of view, in which they believe in everything but God.
ANDREWS: You know, there were a number of evangelicals -- and Jim Wallis, Sojourners is his movement, evangelical movement -- that says look, you take care of God's creatures. You take care of the environment. You have a just foreign policy. You don't invade countries, as we have with Iraq, illegally. And they're speaking out. And I think that if -- people are looking for some sincerity. They're looking for people that have a foundation, a moral base.
And this -- and you may not find this easy to fathom, Tucker, but there's a firm moral base from progressives across this country that are calling on their government to take some moral and principled stands that may not -- maybe different on the question of abortion, but on the question of poverty, on the question of environment, on the question of inequality, there's a real moral calling --
CARLSON: I have never met anybody less sincere than the religious left. I mean, you think that Jerry Falwell was cloying and phony, honestly, you haven't met the religious left. They are just -- I do think -- don't you think voters, one of the messages they sent in the last election was -- and they often send this message -- the people who run Washington are just too far from us. They're kind of -- they're isolated. They live by different rules. You know the clichés.
The right is doing a HELL of a job cause god is on their side. Yea, right!!! The word Charlatan comes to mind. Tucker has had his bowtie too tight for years.
" '...Hillary Clinton staunchly supports abortion on demand in all nine months of pregnancy, including partial-birth abortion, and taxpayer funding of abortion.' It takes a lot of brass for her to put Mother Teresa up on a website, given that everything in that quote is indisputably true." --Tucker Carlson
The statement he agrees with is indisputably false. It takes a lot of brass for an immature bowtied little bazterd to make false claims such as this on the air.
Which part of the statement is false?
- Carlson is a commentator, he doesn't deliver the news.
- Carlson sat in the "from the right" chair on Crossfire for years. Now that he's on the network that tries to appeal to the far-left more than any other, MSNBC, he can't call himself a conservative. He has discovered his libertarian roots and has said so. But he's still to the right of center, so why is it bias when an admitted righty says anything negative about an admitted lefty?
- MMFA still has no idea what media bias is. Amateurs.
And again...
Nothing relevant to address the post.
It's not that he spoke out against Hillary, the problem is what he said is untrue. Even you should understand that . . .maybe.
You prove that YOU are the one that knows nothing about media bias. Of course that has already been shown.
Of course, on top of all that, Media Matters doesn't try to show media bias anyway.
The Media Research Center, which pretends to be the right's version of Media Matters, alleges liberal media bias all the time, without foundation.
The Media Research Center, which pretends to be the right's version of Media Matters, alleges liberal media bias all the time, without foundation.
So you've never actually been to MRC?
That or you're lying...or both.
Since no one at this site cares what real media bias is, I'll just give you one example of thousands from the website you claim is "without foundation".
“If we could be one-hundredth as great as you and Hillary Rodham Clinton have been in the White House, we’d take it right now and walk away winners....Tell Mrs. Clinton we respect her and we’re pulling for her.” -- Dan Rather to President Clinton, via satellite, at a CBS affiliates meeting, referencing new co-anchor Connie Chung to the Evening News, May 27, 1993.
(how sweet, Dan was rooting for her:)
If your point is there IS real media bias I agree. It goes both ways, which is why either of us can post incidents that make our point. A) the media is not monolithic and B) it doesnt break down simply into a left/right bias. However we HEAR about the liberal bias all the time and unless you go to liberal sites you dont hear the other side of the coin. It has always gone both ways, but we only HEAR the conservative complaints for the most part which is why sites like this serve a purpose
ALL of it. That liberal protestants, really liberals dont believe in God. I do. That we are insincere. Who is HE to look into our hearts? Its about like me saying I have never met people any more dishonest and ignorant than they religious conservatives.
For one, the argument that Clinton is a champion of abortion up to the point of birth is ludicrous. I can't think of ONE candidate for office that supports abortion through all nine months of a pregnancy, and third term abortion is legally dubious anyhow, considering the Supreme Court's stance on viability.
Perhaps the Order member who issued that quote has been reading too much of the Weekly Standard.
There is no such thing as "abortion on demand."
So, according to Andrew Fergusen, liberal Protestants DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD.
The arrogance, hatred, and pure evil of this blanket statement cannot be exaggerated. How dare this political hack challenge the faith of an entire group of Americans? What give HIM the right to make such a claim?
Ah, yes. He's a Rightwinger. They are restrained by NOTHING, not truth, dignity, common decency, respect, or shame. They can say ANYTHING, because, well, they've got a microphone handed them by a corporation.
[Every rightwing Republican crook, liar, theif, murderer, pervert, cheater, and conman has claimed both a belief in GOD, and also Christianity. Wonder why Brother Andrew doesn't make THAT claim?]
Sincere?!? Did Carlson really say that? What is the standard for religious sincerity then? Would that be the pro-war, pro-death penalty, anti-helping the poor 'christians' he seems to so admire? Did any of those people sincerely read the Sermon on the Mount? This right-wing stuff just gets weirder and dumber all the time.
Has Tucker Carlson demonstrated that he is qualified in any sense to talk about religion? Is he religious? And I wonder how many of these guys feel that breaking the commandment of lying (bearing false witness) is still a religous tenet.
Well, my last sentence didn't quite make the grade but I think you can gather my meaning. Maybe they think bearing false witness IS a tenet of Christianity? One wonders since it seems to be a ubiquitous feature in righty talk circles.
Hey KIDO, I guess when you have "God" on your side anything goes, don't you think? Isn't that crap somewhere in the "bush doctrine"?
Who needs
god on your side when you own the media. I'm more then tired of talking heads deciding for me who is and who isn't a Christian.
Tucker, go back to the bow tie. It was the only thing that distinguished you.
Media Matters (now apparently even posting on weekends for the Clinton Campaign) makes a weak attempt to suggest that evangelical voters are going to vote for her because of her new-found religious faith, brought out just in time for the campaign and, hey, it got her through her husband's infidelity. There's a bonus political score: Bolster up the religious credentials and address the philandering husband issue at the same time. I'm sure her people spent a lot of time coming up with that one. It is insincere on its face and everyone knows it (particularly since Monica Lewinsky is far from the first or, I would imagine, last infidelity of her husband. I strongly doubt that she cares about his fooling around except for the embarrassment it causes to her campaign). No one can seriously think that evangelicals are going to vote for her. She and her husband are like their anti-Christ and anti-Christess. This is another attempt to avoid the issue of "electablilty", which Media Matters wants to pass off as a non-existent issue. Evangelicals will never vote for Clinton. The other Democrats might siphon off a few of their votes, or at least not raise their political passion and thus keep them from going to the polls.
Gee, you can't even get the first sentence off before demeaning Hillary. Why don't you start your own site on Hillary hate. I'm sure you and redking could find as many people to support you to equal your sucess in attracting people to the green party. I know I'm totally turned off by you guys. No wonder the green party suffers. You guys do your cause no good.
That said, you have no ideas what's in Hillary's heart and you also don't allow for the possibility that she does actually love her husband. BTW divorce is talked about a great deal in the bible and the fact that the Clintons are still married says a lot to those who are not as cynical as you.
And yet you feel yourself qualified to parse the intentions of Media Matters by their simple description and quotation of Tucker and his zoo crew.
Media Matters exposes smears and inaccuracies against Obama and Edwards with consistent regularity. But that doesn't stop you from attributing a pro-Clinton agenda.
Get it straight, Media Matters does not make statements that aren't verifiable fact. Media Matters does not take positions on issues--but YOU know their minds.
They don't have to attack the right's positions. It's sufficiently damaging to quote them.
Are you addicted to dishonest argument? Or are you so stupid that you don't recognize your dishonesty?
Media Matters puts out about 3 Hillary Clinton posts to one for another candidate. Generally 2 of the top 3 posts are related to Hillary Clinton. Moreover, they often seem to be spinning for her rather than "exposing". If they called this a spin for Hillary Clinton website, no one would bother checking it out.
Steve Expat, your post is so bereft of logic it's stunning. The mission of Media Matters is to expose right-wing misinformation (and in many cases, disinformation). Senator Clinton is the boogeyman of the right-wing authoritarians. They attack her any chance they get. Senator Clinton is the front-runner, so it makes sense that the media focuses more on her than some of the other candidates. Right-wingers are scared s&&tless that Senator Clinton could win the White House. They smear her night and day. There are more articles on Senator Clinton than the others; therefore, there is a disproportionate number of responsive articles by Media Matters. Media Matters is not pushing a pro-Hillary position; they are reporting on the slimy tactics used by Conservatives to make her look as bad as they can. It's not the same thing. And for you, Steve Expat, to conflate the two is disingenuous. I'm not surprised, since it's coming from a right-winger. Being disingenuous is hallmark of the Right.
Keep trying, morons. Senator Clinton could very well be our next President - a progression this country needs and deserves after the eight years of total BS from the current administration. Those who are against progress are unnatural. Those who want to cling to the status quo, or revert back to the "Leave It To Beaver" mentality of the 50's are unnatural. Nothing could be worse for our country. And you twits on the Right call yourselves patriots?
Media Matters is not into exposing conservative misinformation. They are into spinning for Hillary Clinton. Carl Bernstein is not a conservative, for example. If they were really into exposing conservative misinformation, why wouldn't they defend Rudy Giulianni when his record is distorted by the far right? His position on issues does not seem substantively different than Hillary Clinton's at times when we can figure out what those postions are for the two of them. Hillary Clinton is not a liberal. She is little better than Lieberman. why isn't Lieberman being defended on this website?
Moreover it is not conservative misinformation to say that Hillary Clinton voted for the war. She did. It is not conservative misinformation for someone to say that her new found discussion of "faith" is political posturing. That is an opinion (and a pretty obvious one, at that). It is not conservative misinformation to say that she failed the Bar exam just because it is "old news." That is spin from Media Matters to soften the effect of a true fact. It is not conservative misinformation to say that there is a question as to whether Hillary Clinton could win a national election ("electability" being the buzz word) because there are so many people who dislike her, particularly in the Southern states and among evangelicals, but also among many on the left, who see her triangulating political positions as political opportunism and cowardice. That is quite obvious. And to call her a "progressive" is beyone absurd. I challenge you to list her "progressive" credentials.
Its shilling for Hillary to call out Tucker for saying liberals christians dont believe in God? Get over yourself and your obsession with Clinton of COURSE she isnt a progressive, never was, never will be. The conservative misinformation and bias is coming at HER so that is what they are showing and to say that THIS, that is Tucker attacking all religious liberals like this is just spinning for Hillary like they ought to ignore it is pure spitefullness. I am personally insulted by Carlsons blatantly ignorant statement and if you are a liberal you should be too. A large part of the liberal community are religious like I am. YOU dont CARE how badly us lefties are portrayed as long as it is aimed in the general direction of Hillary. Your blind hatred of the woman is making you a useful idiot for the rightwing
JuliaJayne,
Do you mean that I have no idea what's in Hillary's heart today or in 2,004? Were you out there protesting the war while people were calling you a traitor only to see Hillary Clinton vote for the war for her own political gain. Thousands of people died. It doesn't appear to me that anything was in Hillary Clinton's heart. So are you saying that she really believed George W. Bush's comic book crap about weapons of mass destruction? So she is stupid and not heartless? Or she didn't believe him and voted for the death of thousands of people anyway? She is either heartless or stupid, take your pick. I'd go with heartless, because I don't think she is stupid, but I'm just some dumb Green Party guy, so maybe I'm not recongnizing her stupidity.
I am a Green too. The Democratic party went way too far to the right for me. However this is about Tucker telling religious liberals like me we dont belive in God. It is dispicable and you dont care because it happens to be pointed in the general direction of Hillary. I dont disagree with a thing you said in the above post but I am sure glad MMFA is calling Tucker on this egregious insult to religious lefties like me.
Don't include me in with "those guys" Hillary will KICK ASS. She could be in a coma and do a better job than baby bushskank!!
And all of her successes as first lady and as a senator clearly support your assertion. Or do they?
she will probably win so whatayagonado. I am an optimist. If she can get enough conressional support, she can do a lot of positive things. Even doing nothing would be a refreshing change from bush and his machinations.
You couldn't address my statement though could you? Because there ain't nothing there.
She might get elected. She might not. She won't get my vote.
And there's nothing in her past that would suggets that she'll be the least bit successful.
Time will tell. I personally like Edwards. Are you a huckabee fan or what? I would like to she Hillary elected so retribution for past transgressions by the right can be addressed. For that reason alone, I am for her. Past behavior is NOT a good predictor of future behavior. Actions in different enviornments promulgate different outcomes. During the Gore and bush debates, who could even imagine almost 4,000 young Americans would have died in a desert for revenge and oil? As a man, I know what can happen when you piss off a hard headed woman. Think about it.
Time will tell. I personally like Edwards. Are you a huckabee fan or what? I would like to she Hillary elected so retribution for past transgressions by the right can be addressed. For that reason alone, I am for her. Past behavior is NOT a good predictor of future behavior. Actions in different enviornments promulgate different outcomes. During the Gore and bush debates, who could even imagine almost 4,000 young Americans would have died in a desert for revenge and oil? As a man, I know what can happen when you piss off a hard headed woman. Think about it.
Edwards? He's less accomplished then Hillary in the political arena. His recent appearance with Danny Glover ruined what was left of his chances, which was a Welk's chance in a supernova anyway.
I don't know much about Huckabee and honestly, I'm not crazy about any of the Republican.
"past behavior is NOT..."
You're kidding right? past behavior is an excellent way to judge future behavior. You think people's behaviors occur in a specil situational vaccuum?
By that reasoning, even though my alcolholic friend John has been drinking for the last 15 years I shouldn't expect him to do any drinking this week.
That statment is incredibly naive. If you're a youngster don't worry. Life will soon teach you the absurdity of that statement. If you're older, then you're wildly optomistic and or naive. There's not enough space in the virtual world for all the examples I could give you.
And I disagree that this war had anything to do with revenge and oil and there's no evidence to support your claim to the contrary.
W said he was going after Saddam because "he tried to kill my daddy."
Can't get much more revengeful than that.
and another big no halicheneyburton contract. wouldn't want relative peace get in the way of free enterprise
...no bid halicheneyburton contract.
Your alcohlic friend can sober up. About 5-10% eventually do. Not without education and a spiritual awakening though. If I hit my hand with a hammer I will be less likely to do it again under the same circumstances. People learn. Learned behavior can be unklearned. Mistakes made through non ingrained behavior in most cases result in a learning experience which precludes a repeat performance. I am 58. Any body would do better than bush so whatever happens it can only improve and you calling me names is not going to change the political atmosphere in any way. Donald Trump would be a good president also. A comb over on a postage stamp would be awesome. Is there anything else I can say to foment your antagonism toward me?
5-10% eeventually do.
You just proved my point for me. Isn't it reasonable to assume then, that we can expect 90-95% to keep drinking? there are always exceptions but policy shouldn't be made on the exceptions.
Are you a poker player? If I move "all-in" with pocket aces before the flop I'll win 80% of the time.
I don't make future decisions based on the 20%(the exceptions) to this rule because I want to WIN in the long term.
People can change. Paris Hilton just found Jesus in the LA jail. But for every person you can show me that's changed their life in a meaningful way I can show you the other 90-95% that haven't and probably won't.
Again, I don't think I called you any names. I went back and double checked my post but if I missed it let me apologize for any misunderstanding that may have occurred.
Past failures are not a predictor of anything that will happen in the future. Ingrained (habits) behavior can be modified with a new pattern of behavior until they become habits. There is no evidence that would suggest that Hillary's habits have any thing to do with her political successes or failures. If she were president with a line item veto and with a majority in the house and senate she could accomplish some things. Drug addiction is classified as a disease as it has to do with brain chemistry: serotonin, dopamine and epenepherine. Addiction is a neurotransmitter malfunction caused by the substance. Having the criminal justice system solve a brain chemistry anomaly is like going to a muffler shop to have my teeth cleaned. Nobody is ever going to stop meth, huffing, and some of the other home cooked drugs. Only education will prevent first time use when there is the drug and potential user in close proximity. The real world, not ideals will solve problems and if you try to make everybody happy you are going to piss some people off. The strong will survive and I am talking about your imune system.
There's a lot of guys named Jesus in LA jails.
And let me also add that Bush has sucked and the sucking continues. I never felt Bush had the necesary experience to be Pres in the first place and I think unfortunately, he proved me right.
You're kidding right? past behavior is an excellent way to judge future behavior. You think people's behaviors occur in a specil situational vaccuum? - Lolo
----------------------------------------------------
If that's your take on it, then please explain to me why the hell we have GWB? Everything this man has touched has gone to s&*t. He has ruined countless businesses under his leadership - yet the country elects him president? ARE YOU KIDDING ME? By your logic, we should never have elected GWB, not even once. Come up with a different argument.
GWB's plethora of failures in the past did fortell his current failures as President. Past behavior predicted future behavior, the statement stands firm.
The idiocy of the American voting public has nothing to do with past behavior / future behavior, with the possible exception of predicting that they could elect that man twice.
the vast majority of successful business people have failed in the past many times. Abe Lincoln's record is a good example.
You do have a point there, Lolo. Nothing in GWB's past would show that he would amount to a hill of beans. I guess it's true - at least for GWB - he didn't do anything meaningful in the past - and he sure hasn't done anything meaningful since being president.
/sarcasm
It wouldn't be sarcasm if it were not true.
Sorry, my sarcasm was more pointed to Lolo having a viable point. My bad for not making that clear.
I know even though I am misinformed. LOLO, reality is for people that can't handle drugs so I am sending you a new bong and some bud and a little note inside written on ZIGZAG rolling papers. All I ask is that you read the note first. Just kidding around LOLO. Will you marry me so we can squabble at home?
"And there's nothing in her past that would suggets that she'll be the least bit successful."
One of the most important challenges to the next democratic president will be the ability to govern while being attacked and vilified by the right. No namby, pamby inexperienced softee will do.
Like all of Bush's successes making himself rich while bankrupting every business he ever ran? Getting stripped of his flying status from the TANG? In fact the only thing he was ever successful at was getting a tax increase passed in Arlington Texas which gave him the bulk of his fortune and oh yeah he was successful at being an obnoxious drunk and cocaine snorting party boy. Sure that qualified him to be president. That said, Hillary wont get my vote in the primary unless a plane Crash leaves only her and Gravel
We Greens don't have to work very hard at taking Dem voters....the DLC is doing that for us. Nominating Hillary will see our vote swell by millions. Let's make it a three or four party system. Let's have democracy for a change.
Tell leader Nader to build a party base. Then we can talk.
JuliaJayne, didn't you mean "Dear Leader Nader"?
:)
Redking, you edge into an intolerant attitude from time to time. Who's the greenest, who greener the green? Who's going to define who's good and who's bad? Do not dehumanize from the issues you're comfortably correct on.
Ethics committee now in session. Definition of bad per Redking7. Dropping bombs on children for profit. Very bad. Reference? Golden Rule. Apply Law of Opposites. If killing babies for money very bad, not killing babies but nurturing and protecting them very good. But why, may Socrates ask. Because it offends the senses, replies the ape. Because it offends the soul, replies the man.
The USA is now operating torture chambers. Torture is evil, thought we all knew that. It's what the bad countries do. Both Repubs and Dems are funding this, none of them are fighting against it in the big money. And people ask me where my definition of good versus evil comes from politically? It's highly logical and it's very simple. Our politicians are torturing people as we speak. Makes me ask where you set the bar for atrocity done on your tax dollar or vote.
My apologies for my tone. I just want to illustrate why I get so mad at those who support the right-wingers. I detest torture and get a bit carried away.
Greens have too much chlorophil and without sunshine they would die as photosynthesis could not take place. You will need libertarians to keep the sun shining 24 hours a day and if you elect me president I will make this happen. I promise. You have to promise me you won't pray on it though.
A Libertarian is nothing more than a Republican who wants to smoke dope.
thats funny
Nothing wrong with stoned conservatives. They get mellow enough to understand that Peace really is the answer.
I have to agree with this. Traditionally Democratic voters, like myself, have been unwilling and unable to stomach much of the wastewater that the DNC has been pushing forward in the form of top tier candidates. This was most prevalent in 2000, but the feeling is still hanging about today.
The DNC is controlled by the DLC, who is controlled by Wall Street and AIPAC. So it's not a liberal party, it's corporatist and right wing. They just let the liberals like Kucinich hang around for window dressing, they don't let any of their bills make it, they don't support any of their causes.
I've bounced from party to party since I turned 18. First Repub, then Dem, then Libertarian, then independent for a while, voted Perot once. I finally settled on the Greens because they are real liberals, not phonies like most Democrats. And the revolutionary in me will not allow compromise with the corporatists. I will not help them back into power. My misguided votes of youth are already regretted when I look at the death toll from the two I helped put into office.
If you look at the parties today, you got Democrats screaming "two parties only!" at everyone and not being democratic, while Republicans are trying to turn the presidency into an autocratic dictatorship, which is the anthesis of a true republic. Both parties don't live up to their names at all.
At least some the minor parties are honest about what they are. A Green likes nature and green things and a Libertarian just wants to live in peace and make a bit of money. Both hate war, both hate empire, both want a moral and intelligent and competent government. These are some good people in a political sea of crooks, liars, and killers. People who would actually change the world for the better if they could. People worth voting for.
We will beat the fascists one day. Their defenses are already beginning to crumble as the internet makes us more aware of their plans and their deficiencies. The People are beginning to turn upon them, this cursed war will be their doom. Their end will come. Long live liberalism.
Hahahaha, that's funny - Denigrating the values of the Clintons when your vaunted conservatives who play to the evangelicals are no better. The lot of them are hypocrites. Everything from lying to adultery and fraud, almost the entire lot of them.
"Values voters" (Meaning those who exploit that block only value the dollars they contribute).
So get back to us when the "Con" jobs are as pure as the driven snow
Spin, this steveexpat claims to be a "green party" guy. I've been trying to say for the last little while that these "green" guys sounds just like conservatives in their authoritarian, my way or the highway attitude. But then dictators are either way right or way left. These guys seem to hate everybody but their vaunted Ralph Nader. I'm beginning to understand very well why they have not been able to build a party base.
Libertarians or the highway. If an imigration bill passes resembling the last one, there will be 3 viable parties: Dems, Green and Libertarians. For starters, we can finally tax churches, legalize drugs and spend the money on drug education and treatment (that was spent on the futile attempt ?.... to fight them. Bongs, roach clips, and rolling papers will come standard equiptment with Humvees and B2 bombers and Ralph Nader will be the head of the EPA and his company car will be a Corvair cheafered by tucker carlson. b.o.'s job is to empty the ash trays and........
Tax churches? Legalize drugs? Figures you'd put the two back to back as equally sensible good ideas
Explain your statement please. Are you saying those concepts are wrong? If so why.
Uhh, yeah. I'm saying they're wrong. Decriminalizing small amounts of non-toxic drugs like weed might be okay. But crack? Heroin? Meth? Show me a society where this has been done and I'll show you a society you wouldn't want your kids to grow up in. San francisco's recent experiment with heroin addicts is a good example of what happens.
Churches are responsible for an enormous amount of charity and community help projects. Start taxing them and that goes away. I wouldn't give money at my church if it was going to go to the government. They waste enough of my money as it is.
I can go buy spray paint and huff myself into a stupor. What prevents me from doing this? I learned about what this does to ones brain. Education is the answer."just say no" didn't work. I really think you should read the book "smoke and mirrors". The phoney war on drugs breads more drugs and creates a black market with no control on availability. the war on alcohol didn't work and actually increased consumption do to the thrill of doing an illicit substance. The only way you can control anything is to take it out of the black market which you do by not making it profitable. You can't protect people from themselves. It will take 50% of the people watching the other 50%. You want children to be protected against the scourage of drugs? the way to get rid of a "pusher" is to take away the profit motive. It is the ONLY way. A "sales" tax on churches is only fair. Religion is the "narcotic of the masses". Charitable acts would not be diminished and the sales tax would apply to the weekly tithe. Considering the political enfluence the religious right is trying to interject into the political process they deserve to be taxed.
Nothing prevents anyone from being an idiot if that's what they choose. It doesn't mean thje government should endorse or condone it. Again, show me one state, city or country where the legalization of drugs has been a benefit. You cannot.
So we should only tax those pesky "right wing" churches. I just told you if my money given to churches was taxed i wouldn't give. I guess you think I'm alone in this sentiment? Let's ask the other conservative posters here what their thought are. I'm willing to bet that your assertion is wrong about charity work and community help projects being unaffected.
Lolo, one of the most common of the "grey areas" that conservatives have trouble seeing is the vast region between "endorsing/condoning" and "outlawing/criminalizing".
Maybe, nut you could address my larger point. Show me a successful country, state, city, whatever that has, as it's policy, legalized narcotics. You cannot do so.
And the gray areas you speak of don't exist here. IMHO. Legal status denotes legitimacy and acceptance in this case.
One need only look at Californias experiments with legalizing "medical marijuana" and San Frans heroin debacle to see the dramtic downside.
Wish I had some weed though.
typos in the first sentence Lefty. Wasn't calling you a nut. :)
You just called me a NUT and I resemble that remark. Seriously now, If you continue calling me names I will tax churches. Seriously, relax, PLEASE. Are you sure your not really ann coulter? Kidding. Curches should stay out of politics PERIOD. No mention of political matters from the pulpit. Besides christians need to understand Jesus studdied Budism for 13 years. So christians are really budists, right? Or are they christians as King James had envisioned? Hard questions with simple answers. Remember, right before an epiphany there is the most emotional disonance. In a few minutes the calm and the warmth of truth will comfort you. Let go and let God. The creator of man that created religion
I can. I DID.
Switzerland and the Netherlands have legalized all drugs pretty much, or have very very lax decriminalization. They haven't collapsed into total anarchy, they're doing quite well. There's a coca farmer running Bolivia right now, down there it's made into teas and sodas, with about as much affect as a strong cup of coffee. So it looks like a few countries aren't doing too bad with it.
The fact is that the Drug War is a war on freedom. Under the definition of liberty, noone has any right to tell you what to do to your own body. If someone does have that power, then you are but a slave. To be the land of the free, the government should not be going around treating the citizens as government property, to be punished if we abuse THEIR possessions, our bodies. That is slavery, that is tyranny.
The previous poster is right. Education is the key. I don't do heroin because I know what it does to people. I have never experienced it, but I have been exposed to enough accurate life information to understand why not to even try it. The ones who do end up on it, they never got that or they ignored it. Sometimes it is just a roll of the dice.
To incarcerate people for voluntarily doing any drug is ethically wrong, It's violates their human rights. What we should be doing is offering them the ways to get away from nasty addictions, to inform the children better (DARE does not work) and to allow those who do drugs responsibly the right to physical liberty.
Our prisons just scoop people up for a joint or a bowl of crack and slam them away for years. That's just inhuman. A clear and blatant violation of the 8th Amendment.
It makes much more sense to criminalize diabetes, obesity, heart disease (the non congenital kind) as these are caused by people poisioning themselves with "food" (primarily non-food foods: sugar, grease, bleached white flour, high fructose corn syrup, hydrogenated vegitable oil). 98% of the people in this country are mineral defficient (Dr. Linus Pawling: 99 % of all diseases are caused by mineral defiecencies. 2 nobel prises in medical research). Ignorance IS no excuse anymore in regard to this problem. Our government declared the top soil in this country depleted of minerals back in 1936. (senate document 264, 54th congress, 2nd session) Obesity and the other symptoms previously listed are a result of the missing co-enzymes (minerals). Rock minerals in pills don't work so the masses are screwed. Ignorance is no excuse. Doing a drug is a medical problem. Nutrition does NOT fall within the pervue of medicine. Allopathic medicine has nothing to do with nutrition. it is all about treating symptoms with pharmaceuticals which has nothing to do with the problem. The AMA and FDA want to keep it that way also. Going to the typical MD to get nutritional advice is like going to your hairdresser to get your teeth cleaned. So, if drug use is going to be illegal then so should grease, sugar and bleached white flour as they have an effect on the same brain centers as addictive drugs. (epenepherine, dopamine and serotonin0 essentially they are drugs and kill more people than everything else combined (legal and illegal). It is a natural part of being an animal that makes us want to occasionally alter our moods. This phenomenon is undeniable and the sooner the control freeks understand this the sooner we can get serious about substance abuse with state of the art nutritional training. The AMA and FDA want to outlaw nutrition so Americans will be dependent on the AMA and the pharmaceutical industry which are in collusion. THIS IS A REAL CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE. This knowledge makes me as rare as a coelacanth in a public swimming pool back here in the grease, sugar and bleached white flour belt (W. ky.)
serotonin. education about deliterious effects of drugs, gease, sugar and white flour and education about nutrition. Allopathic medicine is antiquated. In 1993 the New England Journal of medicine said Prescription drugs used legally killed more than 750,00 Americans. You could probably double that.... and people are concerned if somebody someplace smokes a joint. This is nucking futs.
You took the words right out of my mouth and that is very unsanitary.
I am an idiot? Ok. Find me a perfect world. The war on drugs is a scam. There are no perfect solutions to any problem. If you think the war on drugs should continue down the road its on then you are part of the problem. Prohibition does not work and never will. About 10% of the human race has to propensity for addiction and the threat of jail and fines is not a deternt to these folks. If alcohol was illegal bootleggers would flourish and it would become more easily available to minors. Legalization of drugs is not a perfect solution. It is a more reasonable solution than the current stratagy. The police would have more time to enforce real crimes instead of self abuse. You don't want churches to be taxed then keep religion out of politics or I will make it happen. Seriously, The taxing of churches is not on any mainsteam agenda so relax, please. You don't have to call me names as I could come over to your house and take all the grease, sugar and bleached white flour out of your kitchen and you might starve. Those substances act on the same neurotransmitter receptor sites as addictive drugs and they kill more people than all illegal and legal drugs known to man combined. Alcohol is the most powerful mood altering drug known to man and the other drugs might as well be legal. Their consumption continues to increase. Tucker should be on a thorazine drip feed also. So relax and fire up a fatty and inhale deep. Now do it again. Are we calming down yet? Churches will not go out of business anytime soon I am sure.
DJASPER,
I didn't call you any names my friend. I didn't call you an idiot or anything else. I don't know you and i have no reason to belive you're stupid. Even if I did feel that way I probably wouldn't say it.
I do think you're naive. I will cede the point that the war on drugs is a poor use of finite law enforcement resources.
When marijuana was made legal in California(medical marijuana but who are we kidding) it became more readily available to everyone, including children, You're operating in the theoretical world. I've provided you two real world, in the now examples.
And comparing crack and heroin to alcohol is an invalid comparison.
As a resident of San Francisco, I take offense at your painting the city as some sort of drug haven. Yes, medical marijuana is available here. So what? It hasn't brought down our city - in fact, if anything, our city is as strong as ever. So, unless you can point to the devastation that medical marijuana has caused in the city of San Francisco, I suggest you rethink your argument.
In fact, San Francisco Police Chief Heather Fong recently stated that marijuana is the least of the concerns of the city. Police won't mess with people who are smoking marijuana in the privacy of their own homes. Sell marijuana on the streets, go to jail. Smoke it near a school, park or playground, go to jail. If it is of the least concern for this city, there must not be a problem, right?
I'd like to see what problems you're talking about - or are you pulling them out of your a$$?
If you think kids can't get as much pot as they want then you have been drinking out of bill o'reillys coolaide pitcher. I grew up in southern Calif and its easier to get pot than a cold beer. The pot can be delivered. Prohibition only encourages use and drives everything underground and out of (control) by anyone except the smugglers. Wana see the absurdity of having pot illegal (or anything else for that matter) watch reffer madness. Criminalization is responsible for the vast majority of drug crimes. If you are going to lock up people for using drugs then lock em up for obesity, heart attacks, stroke and cancer. According to the science of free radicals and nutrition and Dr. Linus Pawling (won 2 nobel prizes in medicine) the American diet kills virtually everybody prematurely. If people do it with drugs or "food", what is the difference? Are you sure your not sean hannity? Hey, I am kidding!!
DJAsper,
Now I see where you got the "idiot" from. But I wasn't referring to you. I was referring to people who would choose to "huff" or do similar activities. I'm sure you're not one of those people.
Yes I can the US until the thirties perhaps it was closer to the twenties
http://www.dpft.org/history.html
Before moving on to the 'teens, I'd like to give some flavor of the underlying assumptions at the time. Things have changed so much since 1900 that today it is difficult to comprehend what a free market used to be like. In those days a uniformed federal agent might bring heroin to your door that you had ordered from Sears Roebuck... along with the rest of your mail.
And the wording of the Food and Drugs Act of 1906 is very telling. Its intent was to "assure the customer of the identity of the product purchased, not of its usefulness." The law literally stated "not of its usefulness." In those days Congress didn't consider its place was to judge for the American people what was useful or not. It was a major step just to try and help the people make informed decisions.
So are you saying the US was not a place you would want your kids to grow up until the 1920's?
Well nearly all drugs were legal in America until the 1930's and it wasnt all that bad, that is an issue I dont really care about one way or another as for taxing churches. I am against it EXCEPT, the Churches that are blatantly political, for instance many people where I live told me their Catholic Church here in Winslow told them they HAD to vote for George Bush, even if they had said they had to vote for Kerry I would still say THAT church and any other doing that should be TAXED.
Drugs are legalized in Amsterdam, for one. Decriminalizing hard line drugs like meth, cocaine, etc., does many things:
- Generates tax revenue, which, like with tobacco companies, can be used to combat the problem
- Putting these drugs into the system allows addicts to seek help without fear of retribution from an overly-punative "justice" system
- Lowers the prison population, which both saves money and allows for more serious criminals to do their time without squeezing them out to be replaced by an unfortunate meth addict
- Allows for regulation of who gets how much of each drug, since most decriminalization advocates seem to favor the idea of making them available through a pharmacy or other regulatory agency - street dealers would still be liable to prosecution as bootleggers
As for churches, taxing the churches that are already pushing themselves into American politics and attempting to sway elections just makes sense. The increased revenue, properly used by the government (an act of faith in itself to believe THAT) could easily cover those services that would be lost by the churches.
"Everything from lying to adultery and fraud, almost the entire lot of them"
Let's not forget the death penalty... Example: great ole' Texas... you know where Bush was governor and all.... good christian morals right? Red, white and Blue - the red resents the blue part though - with apple pie on top, right? Try this one on for size....
Texas is the trendsetter when it comes to actual executions and the death penalty. And for those that want to spin this in-terms who has more people on "death row", the number that is most important is the ACTUAL executions.
Here are some interesting numbers (executions after 1976), this list is by no means exhaustive, but I think it gets the point across:
Colorado - 1 (RED)
New York - 0 (BLUE)
New Mexico - 1 (BLUE)
Illinois - 12 (BLUE)
Indiana - 19 (RED)
New Hampshire - 0 (BLUE)
Florida - 64 (RED)
Massachusetts - 0 (BLUE)
Utah - 6 (ULTRA RED)
Georgia - 39 (RED)
Alabama - 36 (RED)
South Carolina - 36 (RED)
North Carolina - 43 (RED)
Pennsylvania - 6 (BLUE)
Iowa - 0 (BLUE)
Oklahoma - 64 (RED)
Missouri - 66 (RED)
Louisianna - 27 (RED)
Wisconsin - 0 (BLUE)
Texas - 394 (RED) <- Saved the best for last!
For the so called "moral majority" in America, THIS DOESN'T LOOK TOO GOOD. And to think, these hypocrites have the audacity to call liberals and progressives PRO-DEATH and themselves PRO-LIFE. The numbers just don't add up.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/state/
If I made a mistake on a state's color (2004 election), I am sure you will let me know.
You can be pro life and for womens rights. The Prolife word is a misnomer and the procoice word has been deonized by the right. Just like the word Liberal. The right are masters at using the deragotory inflection when saying these words. faucks noos does this to the point it is obious and not even close to subliminal. Overt stigmatizing and obvious propaganda. It makes me cringe. I am a rubber necker.
I'm talkin about the death penalty/executions in relation to self-proclaimed pro-lifers, NOT a women's right to choose.... just for the record.
This is A) off topic and B) disingenuous. I'm not a big fan of the death penalty but being a supporter of the death penalty doesn't fly in the face of being pro-life. Some lives are worth saving.Some are not. Comparing a few hundred executed bad guys to a few MILLIOn executed babies just makes you look foolish.
Really??! And since the article covers how much Democrats supposedly don't believe in God (utterly false), I think its fair game - and ON TOPIC - to see the hypocrisy, double speak and double standards from a group people who proclaim to the high heavens how much they follow God's teachings and everyone else doesn't.
"Some lives are worth saving. Some are not"
Exactly who determines that? You? The state? I thought EVERY life was worth saving according to PRO-LIFERS. So LIFE begins at conception and ends at birth, got it.
Now lets take this same argument and "spin" it another way... It's ok for the state to have a "choice" to kill an adult human but its not ok for an individual woman to make a choice to abort a living *debatable* zygote. Hmmm, something doesn't give here.
It is inconsistent to claim to want to protect life and at the same time support the death penalty. PERIOD. And just so you know, I support the death penalty AND the right for a women to chose (except "late term" abortions which are EXTREMELY rare).
"a few MILLION executed babies"
WOW, talk about disingenuous... how about just flat out BUNK?
I guess you should do some research. How many abortions have been performed since Roe became law? Think before inserting your foot.
48,589,993Total Abortions since 1973
Like I said. Think first. Post second.
Your argument is BUNK and DISINGENIUOUS because you are using your view/opinion on the matters as fact. You said that millions of BABIES have been MURDERED. Thats a serious charge leveled against a signifcant portion of the female population and its complete and utter garbage. Whats worse is that pro-lifers like you consider life to start at conception or more specifically at the moment of fertilization. Right, so any woman taking a morning after pill is a murderer by definition. So ANY abortion at ANY stage during the pregenancy is "murder".
Really??! And since the article covers how much Democrats supposedly don't believe in God (utterly false), I think its fair game - and ON TOPIC - to see the hypocrisy, double speak and double standards from a group people who proclaim to the high heavens how much they follow God's teachings and everyone else doesn't.
"Some lives are worth saving. Some are not"
Exactly who determines that? You? The state? I thought EVERY life was worth saving according to PRO-LIFERS. So LIFE begins at conception and ends at birth, got it.
Now lets take this same argument and "spin" it another way... It's ok for the state to have a "choice" to kill an adult human but its not ok for an individual woman to make a choice to abort a living *debatable* zygote. Hmmm, something doesn't give here.
It is inconsistent to claim to want to protect life and at the same time support the death penalty. PERIOD. And just so you know, I support the death penalty AND the right for a women to chose (except "late term" abortions which are EXTREMELY rare).
A jury determines it based on evidence and about 12 years of appeals after the verdict. i said I'm not a big fan and I wouldn't pretend to speak for all Christians (though you seem to have no problem making sweeping generalizations). My opiniion is the standard of proof for death penalty cases should be much higher. But I see no value in keeping a Dahmer, Gacy or Manson in prison for life.
The number of late term abortions may be small but support on the far-left for unfettered abortion seems to be the case. First three months I'm not making any harsh judgements but after that it's evil and wrong. How many chances do the ladies need to avoid an unwanted pregnancy? They don't have to have sex. Then there's the morning after pill. Then RU-486. Then early term abortion. That's four strikes. That's plenty. Women that have abortions in the 7,8 or 9th month for any reason other than their life being threatened should be jailed. It's sick. It's disgusting. And there's absolutely no reason for it.
You feel it's inconsistent but writing period in capitals doesn't magically create a fact. It's just your opinion.
First three months I'm not making any harsh judgements but after that it's evil and wrong.
OK, so how many of the abortions you've listed were beyond the first three months?
What if one of those months is February in a non-leap year?
Seriously what is the difference between aborting a baby at 89 days versus aborting a baby at 90 or 91 days that makes one okay and the other not?
I have no idea. I simply said I wasn't making harsh judgements. I didn't say I like or condone it and I certainly don't support it.
I don't have a good anser for you American because there is no good answer. I don't see Roe getting overturned and I'm not sure it should be. I know the "line in the sand" is arbitrary but i don't think drawing the line at outlawing all abortion is practical. In a perfect world there would be no abortion.
Let's keep trying.
You are certainly making harsh judgements when you take the full count of abortions - the majority of which DO happen within the first trimester - and make a blanket statement about executed babies.
They're not babies. This isn't an execution. Speaking about "executed babies" is at the very least a red herring, and to try to take the high ground on the argument after making such a ridiculous statement has to be, at the very least, difficult on your part.
What I said was inconsistent was the fact that alot of self - proclaimed pro-lifers ALSO support the death penalty (Bush being a perfect example). Bottom line. The number of executions in "RED" states (where religious pro-lifers are MORE likely to originate) cited previously support this and dispells the myth that somehow "liberals" or "liberal states" don't care about life.
Is every christian conservative Pro-Life? NO. I never said or implied that. I referred to a specific group of people who engage in this non-sense like Tucker who asserted that Hillary Clinton is "Pro-Abortion" or that "Liberals believe in everything but God" and yourself by suggesting that democratic party supports ALL abortions. Thats outrageous, Democrats are advocating for the right too chose. The debate lies in where life itself begins. The FACT is that the late-term abortions that you refer too are rare and usually reserved for situations in which the mother's life is in danger.
LOLO, are you going to be the decider as to whos life is or is not worth saving? Seems like a right wing point of view to me. After all, the right has already decided I hate America cause I don't hang on every word this psychopathic administration says. bush is a drug addict that never got treatment. He is a white knuckler. What stopped him is lauras threat to leave. He is the poster child for not doing drugs as long as there is bush sounds (word salad) to go along with the poster.I understand bush wants to improve his diction and syntax and is taking speach therapy from snoop dog and OZZY Osborne
KUDOS DTrain, excellent post - with an education to boot.
Your point regarding the 'Pro-Life' attitude of the Right is well made.
Thanks, CSL... I appreciate the back up
You've got that one right! When conservatives rail against gluttony (one of the seven deadly sins) the way the rail against homosexuality I'll consider them as believers. Until then, they are phony as botox.
And who says the only religion Libs follows is Protestantism? I'm Catholic, and I think the reich is full of botox doo doo too.
That is a strange analogy but why stop with gluttony?
I meant it as an example, but in fact you are right, why aren't they making hay about all of the "deadly" sins? Could it be because the right has been guilty of one or more at some point and don't want to have to compare their sins to homosexuality? Hmmm...
Were you referring to the botox comment? I thought it pretty good. You use botox to make yourself look like something you naturally aren't, the same way I think the right uses Christianity to disguise their ways.
Your hate toward Senator Clinton is obvious and makes you bias and irrelevant to this topic and conversation.
Isn't that what the right-wingers chant to liberals about Bush? "You just hate Bush" to "You just hate Hillary"?
That was so green of you.
I suppose that was a "yes."
Hillary-Hating scum like Steve Expat are so pathetic it boggles the mind that they're able to live ANY kind of life. I mean, just reading his ridiculous rants gives me the impression that he spends 24 hours of every day thinking up ways to spin his idiocy and rampant hate of the Clintons...lol Where does he find the time to wipe his butt? I mean, he's so full of BS he MUST be on the can half the day too. So, between his trips to the toilet to releave the pressure that builds up from being so full of sh**, and his non-stop musings on how to smear, lie, and basically make crap up about Hillary, does he actually SLEEP OR EAT?
I WONDER...LOL
To solve this problem, Change your handle to "HOTLOAF". Excuse me while I go take a bush and where did you put the republican paper?
Gee, that would've made Tipper Gore...the vice anti-Christess.
Steve the Wonder Boy
Media Matters (now apparently even posting on weekends for the Clinton Campaign)
Or, rather, they are continuing to work on weekends (like before) exposing conservative misinformation as it comes up, which often targets Clinton. The fact that you and others keep bringing up this canard about MMFA being a "pro-Hilary" site is detracting from your credibility.
makes a weak attempt to suggest that evangelical voters are going to vote for her because of her new-found religious faith,
"New-found"? I don't remember reading that anywhere. Please feel free to correct me.
brought out just in time for the campaign and, hey, it got her through her husband's infidelity.
Um, Steve, how can a new-found faith have got her through her husband's infidelity, since the latter happened so long ago? Can I offer you some medicine for that bullet hole in your foot?
There's a bonus political score: Bolster up the religious credentials and address the philandering husband issue at the same time.
What issue? Since she's the candidate, I want to know about her character, her record, her ideas, not her husband's. And since Hilary has held a troubled marriage together, I think that does her a world of credit (as opposed to the failed marriages of Giuliani, for instance).
I'm sure her people spent a lot of time coming up with that one.
Probably not. She's very likely going to have the same "answer back fast and hard" methodology that her husband used, that which Gore and Kerry eschewed, to their regret.
It is insincere on its face and everyone knows it (particularly since Monica Lewinsky is far from the first or, I would imagine, last infidelity of her husband. I strongly doubt that she cares about his fooling around except for the embarrassment it causes to her campaign).
It's funny how much mindreading goes on here. If you think something is insincere, then please say so, but don't try to claim that everyone thinks the same way. Moreover, stop pretending to know what Hilary thinks and feels. You simply don't.
No one can seriously think that evangelicals are going to vote for her.
If she's the nominee, this particular evangelical certainly will.
She and her husband are like their anti-Christ and anti-Christess.
I'm not sure if you're becoming unhinged, or if you're really insulting evangelicals here. I know thousands of evangelicals, mostly conservative, and none of them have ever thought of either Clinton as the anti-Christ.
This is another attempt to avoid the issue of "electablilty", [sic] which Media Matters wants to pass off as a non-existent issue.
Excuse me, but it is a non-issue. Review the relevant past of each candidate, give each a fair chance to present his or her positions on issues, and their plans for the future--that's how to come to a legitimate conclusion. Instead, the mainstream media treats the issue like you apparently do, focusing on "electability," whatever that means. They've decided early on that Dennis Kucinich isn't electable (despite his holding positions closer to those of the majority of Democrats than Hilary has), and used that standard to marginalize and ignore him. And you would have MMFA act in the same superficial way?
Evangelicals will never vote for Clinton.
Ah, you're not only a mindreader, but also a prophet. How nice to meet someone so talented.
The other Democrats might siphon off a few of their votes, or at least not raise their political passion and thus keep them from going to the polls.
Consider yourself dismissed.
You are so full of it. I dont like Hillary but I remember they went to church regularly during their white house stint. She was involved in her church AS A KID. Ok you hate Hillary we all get that now you are lying about her just like the rightwing. What a useful idiot you are. Just because you hate her you want to trash a good site like this one just to spew your bile about HER. You are just pathetic. Get over yourself you dont like Hillary we get it. If you dont like this site try a few million others and we will see if we can survive the hole the loss of your hatefilled posts leave in your lives
Personally I think too much attention is put on these so-called evangelicals. They are a minority interest group that seems to hold a great deal of sway over the Republcian party. Worst part is, the Republicans make promises to them but don't seem to come through on them. Of course you know why that is - We as Americans are not religious extremists, although the media likes to make it seem that we are.
Thank goodness for that
That's exactly the point I've tried to make to my Religious Right/anti Abortion friends. The Republican's always run on overturning Roe V Wade, yet they do nothing about it. As long as it continues to bring them new voters--why would they overturn it?
You must not be paying attention my friend. Overturning Roe v Wade has to come from the Supreme Court. The GOP regularly runs on the platform of nominating judges who will interpret the Constitution as it was written and through that overturn the Roe ruling and send it back to the States.
As you have seen the GOP has worked for years to outlaw partial birth abortions and finally succeeded. Uhm.. how many Democrats voted to outlaw it?
This is certainly a tangential argument, but I am continually confused by the strict constructionist argument. It seems to negate itself when the ninth amendment is taken into account. It states that there are inalienable rights that are not enumerated in the Constitution. So the Constitution itself states that one cannot use its specific text as a complete template of the people's rights. According to stari decisis, that includes the right to privacy and a person's right to make their own medical and family planning choices. To answer an earlier comment, I think we all know that the 2nd trimester threshold was created as the time when a fetus is viable outside the body. Before that time it is not a self-sustaining organism.
Sorry AntiAmerican, but I've been paying very close attention. Perhaps you should, since your argument concernign so-called partial birth abortion has virtually nothing to do with Roe.
Furthermore, Rapepublicans controlled everything until last November. Last time I checked, Roe was not overturned. Nor was it brought before the Republican controlled Supremes.
The anti-abortion issue is just another rally cry for cons to energize their base. When the piper pipes, the sheep follow. It's just like gay marriage, illegal aliens, WMD in Iraq, all non-issues that keep the ignorant voting for right wingers. Now, try again to prove what I said in the above post was false.
Gee. They talk about not believing in God like it's a bad thing.
i don't believe in "god" either. not in their sense. the all wrathful, vengeful guy with the white beard who demands to be worshipped or else. whether there's something beyond all this, no one can know for sure. but the version of big daddy sitting on his throne up in the clouds is nonsense. something made up by ignorant people thousands of years ago.
...And I've always wondered why gpd hates first born males enough to send the angel of death after them... Oh.., wait,... that is *president* Bush sending them to their deaths...
Believing in goddess is much more fun.
Burning in the eternal flames doesn't sound so bad when you think that you won't have any of these Christian hypocrites bothering you.
I for one can't wait.
Good luck! Write when you get there. ;-)
Are you saying that you're one of the "Christian hypocrites" I was referring to?
I've never thought of you that way.
Hey thanks. No I wasn't implying that I'm one so tagged, just having fun with your blasphemy. ;-)
blaspemy is just another word for a bush speach.
How can you be religious but not believe in God, which is essentially what is being said here? Or are only the right allowed to believe in God and any other religion doesn't count?
The current catchphrase for alot of people who arn't the right type of christian, or any kind of christian is, spiritual but not religeous. I add religeon to the list of words that the right wing media has perverted and cannot be used in casual conversation. I can't say gay without the sexual overtones overpowerring any other meaning.
Evangelicals arn't all bogy men/women. 10% of them is the quoted figure of those for whom the "gay agenda" and outlawing abortion are the major things of concern.
All religions are created by man. Religions are rooted in mind control (indoctrination) and mind control is one of the atributes of a cult. To me, all religions are essentially cults. The Nazis created this cult based on the arian man. They practiced eugenics. Guess you could call it a religion as they were really, really into it big time. Question. What kind of god did they believe in? Where they religious? Could it be, believing in a higher power and not being religious is possible? What a can of worms you opened. One can be spiritual without being religious and believe in a higher power (a god of our own individual understanding and a Live and let live phylosophy in that area), simultaneously. If the sheep of the world could all grasp that concept, suicide bombers and republicans wouldn't exist.
There are religions that don't believe in God. Secular Humanism comes to mind. Communism is another. The Arayan cult of the Nazi's is another. Some argue that many of the Green movement have a religious like belief. And still some argue that Liberalism is godless religion.
Take the God out of it but keep the devotion by the followers, the dogmatic belief systems, the unchallengeable truths, the cries of heresy and damnation for non-believers, etc., etc.
These secular 'religions' share lots of similarities with the deists. I find this type of religious fervor exhibited here all the time.
Excellent points.
No they arent. They were stupid talking points I have heard before without a SHRED of logic or sense in them
ANOTHER AMERICAN:
I suppose you can expand the definition of "religion" to exclude consideration of GOD, and to include only like-thinking and similar goals.
Yet, even at this, you are partisan one-sided. As you broaden (or restrict, depending on one's view of GOD) your definition of "religion", you leave out obvious other "religions" which are godless.
You say, "There are religions that don't believe in God. Secular Humanism comes to mind."
RESPONSE: How about NeoConism? They even have a church and an altar: The White House. Where do the Secular Humanists meet to practice their religion?
You say, "Communism is another."
RESPONSE: How about the religion of Capitalism? Just another economic system, with devout adherants who give not a thought to GOD. Why not mention THEM?
You say, "The Arayan cult of the Nazi's is another."
RESPONSE: Gee, Hitler always claimed to be a Christian. It was MARX who claimed religion to be the "opiate of the masses".
You say, "Some argue that many of the Green movement have a religious like belief."
RESPONSE: Hmm. Could there be "Greens" who are Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, or Moslems? Isn't the "Green" question an issue, which could be embraced by the deeply religions? Or does being green REPLACE your religion with a "GODLESS" alternative? This is what you are arguing, that the groups you mention have abandoned GOD ... the GREENS???? Enviornmental concern is ANTI-GOD????
You say, "And still some argue that Liberalism is godless religion."
RESPONSE: Wackos and kooks, rightwing smearmerchants and haters will make this claim, sure. Because they are what they are. Does anyone SANE make this clim?
You conclude: "Take the God out of it but keep the devotion by the followers, the dogmatic belief systems, the unchallengeable truths, the cries of heresy and damnation for non-believers, etc., etc."
RESPONSE: Ah! Then you also left out AMWAY.
You continue, "These secular 'religions' share lots of similarities with the deists. I find this type of religious fervor exhibited here all the time."
RESPONSE: I see. You can EITHER believe in GOD, OR you can be passionate about an issue. Never BOTH. If you are passionate about an issue, or promote a (leftist) political position, you must necessarily abandon GOD, because you have adopted a new GODLESS religion, by your "logic" here.
Thanks for explaining yourself. At first, I thought you were insane, After reading your elaboration, there is no doubt. I'm certain.
I never said my list was all inclusive. ;-)
Ah thank ye for thy testimony! Spoken like a true progressive believer! Everybody say Amen!
Two brillient replys to a concerted asswhooping. Tex stated no testamonial, but I will give him an Amen.
Amen--it is so.
That is just dumb. Communism is a religion? It is a form of ECONOMY only to a rightwingnut who thinks Money is GOD could a form of economy be called a religion. The only religion that really has no God I can think of would be Bhuddism. The stupidity of that post is astonishing.
You've forgotten Country Music and Southern Barbeques. After all, if you can claim that completely non-religious beliefs are "religions," I suppose any of us can.
Next up, the religion of Republicanism!
There are many people who don't accept the concept of a bearded white guy dispensing thunderbolts to non-believers.
I've met many people who reject the fear-mongering, money-changer, scribe and pharisee "churchianity" who are following the teachings of Jesus to love one's neighbor and care for the poor, whether they call themselves Christians, Buddhists, Muslims or anything else.
I personally feel like it's better to beleive in God than in religion. God is a huge concept that can't really be defined within the limitations of any religion. God is more expansive a concept ,and religion is as flawed as the human beings that invented it. That's why all of these people flock towards religions that hate the same people that they do. I grew up in the evangelical united brethern and was taught that you could tell a Christian by their love. It seems like these rightys are defined more by who they hate than who they love.
Right wing Christians tend to spout anti-christ things like God hates gays. As I said, anti-christ.
Left wingers claim they hate Bush. Is that being anti-Christian too?
Hating isn't a virtue, for anyone. Don't think it's accurate to ascribe emotions to anyone besides oneself, it just creates a circular discussion going nowhere.
Jesus demonstrated power, force and energy of love both by healing and by driving out the money changers. He didn't "hate" the Pharisees and scribes; he rebuked them.
So, get behind me, BushCo!
Maybe some lefties hate Bush some say so. Most I know hate the THINGS he does which is NOT the same thing overall saying the left hates Bush is just another in the long string of lies the right tells about the left
I agree. I am a Christian but I think of all religions, that is actual religions not Anotherpropagandaparrots delusions about religions, have flaws. To me its like the old tale about the four blind men trying to figure out what an elephant is. The one feeling his tail said an elephant is like a rope, the one that felt his trunk said an elephant is like a snake, the one feeling his side said an elephant is like a wall, and the last one feeling his leg said an elephant is like a tree. God is a huge thing, the most common adjective used for God in ancient times was ineffable basically that which cannot be expressed. I think most religions have a kernal of a correct vision of God and none have the whole answer. Then again thats how I see it, other opinions, just as valid may vary.
Per mmfa's recent study, the part of the population concerned about gay rights and abortion, is about three percent of the population. And boy are they loud.
3% are "concerned" about abortion and gay rights? Maybe 3% are hardcore about it but but if you think only 3% are "concerned" about abortion I'd say think again.
I'm really pissed by two things.
First, I'm annoyed that Hillary Clinton plays right into the right-wing religious agenda. It's the religious hypocrites in power that have done so much damage to this nation. What we DON'T need is more blurring between Church and State and it annoys the hell out of me that Democrats are, yet again, letting the religious right frame the political discourse and continue to control (that is, damage) all three branches of our government.
Second, why should ANYONE think that they have the moral right to question Hillary Clinton's religious beliefs? The statement "a very liberal Protestant sort of view, in which they believe in everything but God" is absolutely reprehensible. Tell me, Mr. Ferguson, being the self-anointed Grand Inquisitor of the Christian Faith (superseding Catholicism, Protestantism, and all other forms of Christianity), where did you get the divine powers to know a person's relationship with God? She is judged a heretic because she is a "liberal" (stretching the concept when applied to Democrats like her)? Perhaps she is a witch! Shall we test Hillary's faith by using thumb screws or dunking (what we now call "waterboarding")?
How despicable the radical evangelical neo-cons and their media facilitators have become. How slimy and stinking their politics are. The greatest disaster for this nation has been the unholy marriage of the hypocrite Religious Right and the rapacious Corporatist Elite. They represent a minority of Americans yet they set the political agenda, leading our nation from one scandal to another. What's worse is that, together, they have already turned our democracy into a fascist state. The Corporate Elites want to rule as a Plutocracy while their clients, the religious extremist want an Evangelical Theocracy. Either way, it means less freedom (think bye-bye forever, habeas corpus) and more government control with fewer regulations protecting the health and well-being of most Americans (you know, "smaller government").
I've been a Democrat all of my adult life and I've grown more and more disturbed as my party continued to move toward the right--even as the Republican Party became increasingly radical. I only have the following words for Hillary Clinton and all the Democratic presidential hopefuls: STOP pandering to the religious right and STOP caving in to corporate special interests! Quit playing up to the neo-con shills in the corporate media! Take a principled stand and restore our democracy.
Don't expect her to listen.
Prof, Prof!
Tell us again how you fought off the jackbooted thugs!
"What's worse is that, together, they have already turned our democracy into a fascist state. The Corporate Elites want to rule as a Plutocracy while their clients, the religious extremist want an Evangelical Theocracy."
I am one of the 'religious right' and I'm fairly certain you'd label me a "religioous extremist." I don't know a single plutocrat nor a single theocrat.
If this were a "facist state" you wouldn't have the freedom to write what you just wrote.
None of the well known spokespersons for the evangelical right want a theocracy.
It's posts like yours that make me wonder if this isn't a 'parody' site. Even the Onion doesn't do it as well as you.
Well, well. Let's see: an illegal (ongoing) war, the invasion and unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation, an ongoing war based on lies, the Military Commisions Act of 2006 (remember that Great Writ thingie?), torture, surveillance, rendering, and so on and so forth.
Get out much?
Well, well. Let's see: an illegal (ongoing) war, the invasion and unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation, an ongoing war based on lies, the Military Commisions Act of 2006 (remember that Great Writ thingie?), torture, surveillance, rendering, and so on and so forth.
Get out much?
The war wasn't illegal.
It wasn't unprovoked.
What were the lies exactly? I guess all the democrats lied too because they said exactly the same thing Bush said. But it's only a lie if it comes from a Republican, right?
Define torture.
Show me ONE persom affected by the Patriot Act and NSA surveilance program. You can't.
The aluminum tube deal leaked to the NY Times and quoted by dickie cheatme on the meet the press. The alquida and Iraq connection. The biological chemical trucks and on and on. Revenge and oil don't mix evidently.
Are you on drugs?
The war wasn't illegal. Yes by international law it was.
It wasn't unprovoked. And Iraq attacked us when?
The war wasn't illegal.
So, leading a country into a war based on faulty intelligence isn't illegal? Wow.
Define torture.
1 a : anguish of body or mind : AGONY b : something that causes agony or pain2 : the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure
Show me ONE persom affected by the Patriot Act and NSA surveilance program. You can't.
Brandon Mayfield. Sami al-Hussayen. David Banach. An unnamed 16 year old girl for simply discussing her visits to Muslim websites for a psychology class. I gave you four people that it took me five minutes to find with Google.
By international law this war IS illegal even Richard Perle admitted that.
http://www.startribune.com/blogs/bigquestion/?p=563
Richard Perle, chairman of the U.S. Defense Policy Board of the war, conceded in a London speech November of 2003 that the invasion of Iraq was illegal, stating: “I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing… International law … would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone”, and this would have been morally unacceptable.
The war in Iraq was unquestionably unprovoked there is no reasonable argument it was not.
Bush DID lie the difference is between the broad statements of belief like Iraq has WMDs and outright specific lies like Bush told like when he MADE UP an IAEA report and position that DIDNT EXIST or when he sent 12 reports to Congress and told the nation repeatedly that the aluminum tubes could ONLY be used for Gas Centrifuges when we HAD some of them and had them examined by our Gas Centrifuge experts at Oak Hill and they unanimously said they were unlikely to be used that way at ALL much less ONLY used that way. Those arent being wrong about broad statements of belief those are specific outright lies. And NO the Dems were NOT saying exactly the same thing. Though call them liars too if it makes you feel better I dont care anyway you look at it BUSH LIED.
Torture has already been defined but anyway you look at it if you are still telling this LIE that there was no torture at Abu Ghraib you need to take your humanity in for a che k up. Anyway you look at it the forced Sodomy (see the Taguba Report)
Actions Rumsfeld called sadistic cruel and inhuman and REPUBLICAN Senator Lindsey Graham called RAPE AND MURDER fit any decent human beings definition of torture
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/08/iraq/main616338.shtml
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told reporters, "The American public needs to understand we're talking about rape and murder here. we're not just talking about giving people a humiliating experience."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/07/iraq.abuse.main/index.html
Rumsfeld told Congress the unrevealed photos and videos contain acts "that can only be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel and inhuman."
Prof;
Here's how the American Heritage dictionary defines facism:
Perhaps you'd like to retract the charge that the U.S. is a fascist state?
In case you aren't aware of it, G W Bush is an duly elected president, not a dictator. We do not live under stringent socioeconomic controls, there is no suppression of the opposition, we do not live in fear of terror tactics, there is no censorship, there is no institutional racism.
As to the 2006 Military Commisions Act: While formally opposed to the Act, Human Rights Watch has also concluded that the new law limits the scope of trials by military commissions to non-U.S. citizens including all legal aliens. They're claiming that the right of habeas corpus for citizens, even enemy combatants, is not threatened.
The U.S. is the best example of freedom on the face of the earth.
I still think you might want to apply as a 'stringer' for the Onion.
fascism is the direction the bush administration was going until they hit a wall
centralization of authority under a dictator
stringent socioeconomic controls
suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship
a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism
Is in Nazi Germany? Hell no, not yet anyway.
But the fact that we're even moving in that direction, by any increment large or small, should outrage and p!ss the hell out of any American.
" Fascism is against individualism and for the state; it is for the individual insofar as it coincides with the state, which is the conscience and the universal will of man in his historical existence. Fascism is against classical liberalism, which arose from the need to oppose absolutism and has exhausted its historical function once the state has become the very conscience and will of the people. Fascism reaffirms the state as the true reality of the individual. And if liberty must be the attribute of the real man, and not of that abstract puppet of which individualist liberalism thought, then fascism is for freedom. It is for the only freedom which can be a serious thing, the freedom of the state and of the individual in the state. For, for the fascist, all is in the state, and nothing human or spiritual exists, and even less can have value, outside the state. In this sense, fascism is totalitarian, and the fascist state, synthesis and unity of all values, interprets, develops, and strengthens the whole life of the people. There are neither individuals nor groups (political parties, associations, trade unions, classes) outside the state. Therefore, fascism is against socialism, which compresses the flow of history within class struggle and ignores the unity of the state that fuses classes into one economic and moral entity; similarly, it is against class-based trade unionism. However, within the sphere of the state which orders human affairs, fascism recognizes the real needs from which the socialist and trade unionist movements originated, and upholds them within the corporative system in which interests are reconciled within the unity of the state."
Benito Mussolini
Enciclopedia Italiana (1932)
Professor of Philosophy
Is Christ a right winger? Didn't he say love one another?
Interesting point. I think you quoted Jesus correctly.
I think its true that none of the well known well respected spokespersons for the evangelical right wants a theocracy. I have read some who do and they are definitly fringe like Rushdooney. On the other hand I am one of those religious liberals and I object to being told I dont believe in God. I notice you didnt have anything to say on THAT subject.
Carl Tucker is the guy on the sawdust trail holding up a rubber snake trying to convince the crowd that the snake is real and that it will bite. In other words he is as phony as any of the religious right.
The reason these Conservatives and religious right are phony is because they have already demonstrated that they will run toward the Golden Calf when Bush dangled the false god before them. The Conservative and religious right are living like pigs wallowing in tax cuts that is actually borrowed money that they will dump on the future generation to pay off. This is without a doubt.
The devil has become redder than he already his because of embarassment that the Conservative and religious right take hypocracy to a level that the devil never dreamed could be taken.
Tucker still has a lot of work to do. Right now he has only earned his way to being satans sperm taster. But Tucker is trying harder and that's what counts.
Comments like this will be flagged in the future. Are you 12?
Simply a classic case of Bush Derangement Syndrome.
Trying harder....this is like a downs child trying to do calculus or bush being president. Its way over their heads and could be dangerous to try (at least one of those things could be dangerous to try). Electro shock therapy could be an answer.
While YOU are a perfect example of the Bush IDOLOTRY syndrome
Personally, I think that Tucker doesn't INTENSIONALLY spread propaganda & disinformation. Instead, it's simply a case of him not being all that bright. Oh, he's glib enough, but rarely seems to have much understanding of the issues that he's prattling on about. I think he just listens to his old college friends & other Washington yuppies hold court on any particular issue & then parrots their opinions without bothering to fact check them. As a result, he's frequently just plain wrong about basic facts, & embarrasses himself time & time again.
In other words, Tucker is just sort of a confused & long-winded yutts.
By the way, I know it's a petty point, but every time I look at Ferguson I can't help but think of Captain Kangaroo on meth.
My apologies, Pete.
Hey Mescal, how's your cactus hangin?
Tucker's comments are incredibly offensives.
Since I'm not his kind of Christian, that makes me not Christian?
I think a lot of the rituals that Catholics participate in are stupid, and have nothing to do with the life Jesus leads me to follow, but I would never say that they are not Christians. They follow a different path than the path I choose to follow. There's not one path. Life is a process, and the path one takes is not set in stone.
I have never met anyone less sincere than rightwing bigots who cannot handle the truth.
I guess you epitomize left wing Christianity by your openess and acceptance of others?
Lets see... you characterize Catholic rituals as stupid and make a general claim about right-wing bigots and truth.
My perception is that you are what you are criticizing.
(/begin sarcasm)
Oops people,
We forgot the prime rule - We're not supposed to be critical of other peoples religions etc. The only ones that are allowed to do that are the right wing extremist evangelicals - they have a mandate from God almighty that they can sit in judgment of of everyone else.
(/end sarcasm)
If people didn't get religion (Their brand) right up in our faces you would have a real point. I don't want people yapping at me about their beliefs about superstitious fairy tales and I don't want people having sex on their front lawns unless its Angelina and a couple of her girl friends like Aniston.
You could not be further from the truth, but when have you let that stop you from spouting off?
I did not say that Catholics are not Christian, though, Did I?
I said I think their rituals are stupid.
How can you not understand the difference here?
JERRY FALWELL: And, I know that I'll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say "you helped this happen."
PAT ROBERTSON: Well, I totally concur, and the problem is we have adopted that agenda at the highest levels of our government.
Tucker was afraid of the religious left but only thought Falwell was cloying and phony. Falwell and Robertson are both nuts and those that follow their teaching are nut jobs as well. There is no place in your belief of God for this hatered. These guys call themselves God's messengers?
Pearlene, Where is the hatred?
It looks to me by your quotes they simply believe the leftist agenda has taken over.
I missed the hatred too. I guess Pearlene feels god will be happy about millions of abortions.
Here's my issue with the pro-life supporters.
How many miscarriages since 1976. Do they know mis-carriages dwarf the abortion numbers? Shouldn't they know that many miscarriages are not even reported, many woman do not even know it is a miscarriage and mistake it for a heavy period? Shouldn't they know and care about this with the same fervor they care about abortion?
Shouldn't they care that even though these deaths were "natural", shouldn't the tragic deaths of these babies by mis-carriage get a name , a death certificate and deserve a burial? Why aren't they pursuing this? Shouldn't all of those that believe apparently like you that abortion is murder be pursuing this. It seems a twisted morality that says death by abortion is murder since the death of a baby is involved but death by mis-carriage is not really the death of a person and can be ignored.
I understand the point you are trying to make but I think you speak mostly from ignorance my friend.
The mother's and fathers I know who have experience miscarriages have cared deeply about their children and mourn them. I have attended religious services for these late term miscarriages. In many cases it is as heartbreaking and as real a loss as losing a child after birth. I am not an expert but your point about miscarriages treated differently has some validity. Even though they are treated differently in some cases, I would say most parents do not consider their death any less than others.
However some miscarriages, (is it most?) occur before the mother knows she is pregnant. It happens spontaneously and may be regarded as a late period.
Besides, a natural death is different than a chemically induced or surgically induced death.
Some characterize abortions as murder, some characterize abortions as killing but not murder, and some do not consider it killing at all. It is hard to put the label on everyone who has an elective abortion as 'murdering' their child. I for one do not believe in calling abortion, 'murder', even though I feel that an innocent child is killed by the process.
As a side note, some Christian traditions consider the unborn baby to be taken immediately to Heaven if miscarried.
If abortion is murder, then there should be round the clock protests at the clinics that dispose of unwanted in-vitro fertilized eggs.
There aren't.
That's because abortion is not murder. It's a tool to rally troops to call it that, but they're hypocrites.
You two missed the hatred for blaming gays and the people for the American way for 9/11???? Please tell me that was a weak joke.
AA,
I think the inferred hatred is that Falwell and Robertson are blaming the groups mentioned (ACLU, gays, abortions) for God allowing 9/11 to happen.
Would you have been provoked if a national figure had said that God allowed 9/11 to happen because the U.S. didn't allow gays to marry and had too little welfare?
Fried, you may be correct but why would Pearlene leave out the crux of her argument?
I 'm trying but I don't really get your analogy. The examples you made up don't make sense to me.
Frankly, I never cared for either Robertson or Falwell.
It is a badge that Hillary wears as front runner. The Republicans think it is their duty to shred the reputation of the front runner Democrat. Only thing, I think the electorate is wising up. I Was a Republican during the Clinton Presidency and nearly every precinct meeting even in a moderately Republican area got a scoop from National Headquarters to push anti-Clinton stuff. HOWEVER, it should be of note that Clinton left office with twice the approval rate that our sitting president has now. But as a result of their constant harangue about the Clinton's they chased off many moderate Republicans and they, along with those thoroughly disgusted with the culture of corruption of the last Republican controlled Congress and Bush’s Iraq disaster, moderate Republicans are leaving their party in droves.It is totally outside the precepts of Christ to try to destroy the reputation of one of His own. But those of us who now support Democrats get a bit of jollies to see these guys try and try their same old tricks. However, too many truth tellers with HuffPost, Media Matters, TPM, Daily Kos etc. In many ways, I think Hillary should take heart and just ignore the goofs but then they will even use that. Thanks for evening the playing field. Mari
I love your "truth tellers" list.
It'd be like saying Hannity and Rush are the only unbiased news sources.
That's exactly what it would be like, Lolo! Except that the names you mentioned are noted liars and propagandists.
Let's not forget that at least one of those "Great Americans" mentioned is a hypocritical, draft dodging, serial adulterer, junkie.
What does Clinton have to do with it?
Barney, I think you're just trying to set yourself up for another apology and the resulting Special Olympics award ceremony you got on Friday . ;0)
HBL,
Good point. However I couldn't resist. It was a classic setup.
Lefty and Worrie,
That's my point. All of the above sources are biased and unabashedly so. And if you're trying to bait me on Rush you're barking up the wrong tree. I don't disagree with your description.
You're not both suggesting that MMFA and the Daily koz, etc are unbiased news purveyors? I'm sure you're both too intelligent fall into that trap. They don't even cover the hole in the ground with leaves and branches.
Daily Kos a "truthteller?" I have some beachfront property in Arizona for sale...
It has long been the tactic of liberals to attack their opponents at their own weakest point - such as Tom Harkin claiming to be the 'pro-life' candidate. Such is the charge of 'the politics of corruption' Does anybody remember Danny Rostenkowski? Or ever heard of Ted Kennedy? What was that Condit guy's name?
The Clintons are masters of that sleight of hand. Want to compare felony charges in the GWB admin to the number of same in the Clinton admin? Poor Hillary, fearing what has been swept under the rug! A good example is the firing of the 8 - how many did Clinton fire - and why - for political reasons - every one!
As to moderate Republicans 'leaving in droves.' Dream on. Whatever defection is happening to the GOP is going on the other side, with social and fiscal conservatives sitting this one out - thus Thompson's buzz.
Does anybody remember Danny Rostenkowski? Or ever heard of Ted Kennedy? What was that Condit guy's name?
I betcha wouldn't have to ask that about Tom DeLay or Duke Cunningham.
If you need Wikipedia to find Dem scandals, that might be a clue that you're stuck in the past.
But don't worry, you can always bring up Clinton. He's only been in private life for seven years, people probably still remember him a little...
Clinton did not fire prosecutors in the middle of a term like Bush did.
That's a lie that's been debunked here countless times.
Bunk. I do remember Rostenkowski, if your claim is Dems can be as corrupt as the GOP I agree but your comparison to Bush firing 8 of HIS appointees to Clinton getting the resignations of all the GOP appointees at the begining of his term its ludicrous that happens every administration change Bush got them when HE took office. Raygun got them when HE took office just like Clinton however firing them for political reasons in the MIDDLE of the second term is unprecedented its another propaganda parrot talking point with ZERO substance.
I will grant Tuckmeinnicely this- I have never heard of the term 'religous left'... It is a great unintended pun for the religous right...
So is Tucker saying the sincere people are the religious righties who care about marriage values and are anti abortion and anti gay...yet supporting....Rudy?
How sincere!
They control the MSM.
Perhaps the religious right are a forgiving lot?
The religious right supports Rudy? Maybe you should rethink that.
God© is a registered trademark of the Republican party. If anyone else tries to believe in him they will sue.
Just think, bush has us heading for the Rapture at the speed of a rifle shot and when it comes the republicans will be the only ones left behind and I'd rather be a head than a behind.
Why the right wing of the republican party should never be given any credibility when it comes to Christianity:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070617/brownback-romney/
You can always count on the Huffington Post for fair, unbiased reporting.
Maybe Adriana will run for President again. She did so well last time.
I hope you're not suggesting that the story should be dismissed because it was re-posted on the huffington post? That would not look well for you to not be objective as you make the case about why everyone else should be objective.
Adriana got whacked in Season Five. Since no dead people have won the Presidency since 1980, I think she's out.
Then she is a good reason for becoming a necropheliac
It makes more sense to say that religious liberals don't believe in anything except God.
In other words, they accept the basic premise of higher powers, but reject Biblical--and Quranic--fundamentalism, etc.
Thank you for speaking on behalf of all liberals.
;-)
A lot better than when YOU do it. At least he IS a liberal
Who the hell is this Ferguson? Captin Kagaroo's illigitimate love child? Get a hair cut you smug 60's throw back hippie-crite.
Cloying, phony, insincere... so Carlson is applying this label to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.?
A lot of people wear their religion on their sleeve to get votes. I have not noted this dynamic especially limited to either the right or the left.
got to make the sheep feel comfortable before they vote.
Some comments on several offshoots to this long thread: Hating isn't a virtue, for anyone. Don't think it's accurate to ascribe emotions to anyone besides oneself, it just creates a circular discussion going nowhere.
Jesus demonstrated power, force and energy of love both by healing and by driving out the money changers. He didn't "hate" the Pharisees and scribes; he rebuked them.
So, get behind me, BushCo!
Why is it that the Religious Right is so down right righteous? That in itself is one of the biggest sins, according to God. Remember Jobl anyone?
The guy's quote about liberal Protestants not believing in God reminds me of a quote by G.K. Chesterton to the effect that when men cease to believe in God, they don't believe in nothing, they believe in anything. Chesterton had been at a lunch with several 'enlightened' materialists, and they had all confessed to carrying a 'lucky charm' - all except the only one deemed 'superstitious' in the group - Chesterton.
Seems to me that the question is not so much if liberal Protestants (or conservative Protestants for that matter) believe in God - it's 'what God (or god) do they believe in?'
And, of course, the next question is, 'How does one define God?' Or to put it another way, 'What does one mean when he says "God?"' Historically, The Church has held that the Bible is the 'rule of faith and practice.' What is known as 'liberal' theology has mostly rejected that position. Neo-orthodoxy tried to harmonize Christianity with the enlightenment, but pretty much failed because if man is the measure of all things, then the Biblical concept of God cannot be accurate.
So, if this Ferguson fellow meant to say that 'Liberal Protestants don't believe in the God of the Bible, as God has traditionally been understood' he is probably pretty accurate.
No he isnt and nothing you posted there backs up that bigoted statement. I know an awful lot of liberals and precious few of them believe man is the measure of all things. MOST of the liberals I know are religious, at least half classically so, active in their churches. One a Southern Baptist another Assembly of God. Several Catholics. Your bigoted view of liberals blinds you. Seek the truth it will set you free. We, that is us religious liberals are not defined by your prejudices. They are YOURS and limit YOU. Whenever you start feeling contempt of people in groups you are starting down the wrong road.
Solon;
If your 'religious' liberal friends don't believe that man is the measure of all things, who do they think is? If it's God, who is God? Is He the God of the Bible- or some(thing)one else? If they don't affirm the God of the Bible, then they don't believe in God as Christians have historically understood Him.
Classical theological liberalism was an attempt to harmonize the Bible to the Enlightenment (where man is the measure of all things). It failed to do so. And theological liberalism did not jettison the enlightenment when they couldn't reconcile the Bible to it. Neo-orthodoxy was an attempt to embrace the Bible irrationally - it failed as well.
That's not bigotry, nor is it prejudice, anymore than it is bigoted to say that I have a green coat.
There is a difference between a theological liberal and a political liberal. Often they are fellow-travellers, but not neccessarily so (cp Jim Wallis).
Yes its bigotry its projecting YOUR view of liberal Christians on us and it has no similarity whatsoever to the liberal Christians I know. Why are you having some problem with me telling you that the majority of the liberal Christians I know are classically religious what part of that term cant you come to terms with? What is it you dont know about the Catholic Church, the Assembly of God Church and Southern Baptist Church? I used to go to the Nazarene Church very conservative. Saying liberal Christians dont believe in God or are insincere is plain bigotry and flat out ignorance. While I am not saying you have said that this article is about someone who DID. You seem to be agreeing with them or at least are casting about TRYING to agree with them. There are plenty of us Liberal Christains out there. Whatever you WANT to believe is irrelevant