Matthews again claimed "Republicans are known as the party of national security and of moral values"
SUMMARY: Moderator Chris Matthews asserted during the October 9 Republican presidential
debate, "Polls show that Republicans are known as the party of national security
and of moral values." But recent polling shows Democrats either tied or at a
slight advantage against Republicans on the issue of national security, as well
as holding an advantage in sharing voters' moral values.
During the October 9 Republican presidential debate on CNBC, moderator Chris Matthews, host of MSNBC's Hardball, asserted, "Polls show that Republicans are known as the party of national security and of moral values." Recent polling, however, shows Democrats either tied or at a slight advantage against Republicans on the issue of national security, as well as holding an advantage in sharing voters' moral values. Matthews has previously acknowledged that the Republicans no longer have an advantage on "moral values."
Recent polls have shown mixed results on which political party the American public trusts more on terrorism and national security:
- A poll taken September 12-13 and September 17-20 by Rasmussen Reports found a statistical tie between the parties: 44 percent trusted the Democrats more on national security and the fight against terrorism, while 43 percent preferred the Republicans.
- As Media Matters for America has noted, a September 14-16 Gallup poll asked: "Looking ahead for the next few years, which political party do you think will do a better job of protecting the country from international terrorism and military threats?" Forty-seven percent answered Democrats, while 42 percent said Republicans.
- As Media Matters has also noted, a July 27-30 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found that the Democrats and Republicans were tied at 29 percent on the question of which party would do a "better job" "[d]ealing with the war on terrorism." Thirty-eight percent of respondents said both or neither would do a "better job." The same poll gave the Republican Party a 12-point advantage on who would do a "better job" "[d]ealing with homeland security," slightly up from a 10-point advantage in March 2006, but significantly less than the 29-point advantage it held in January 2004.
Recent polls also undermine Matthews' assertion that Republicans are "known as the party of... moral values." As Media Matters has noted, a March 7-11 poll by The New York Times and CBS News found that 46 percent of Americans think the Democratic Party "comes closer [of the two parties] to sharing your moral values," with 41 percent favoring the Republicans.
Matthews has persisted in asserting a Republican advantage on national security and moral values, even though he has previously acknowledged that this is no longer an advantage for the GOP. A year to the day before Tuesday's debate, on the October 9, 2006, edition of Hardball, referring to a then-current Newsweek poll, Matthews said that it was "stunning" that Democrats, according to the poll, were "perceived to be more priestly, more honorable on moral questions -- I guess that includes social questions and sexual questions -- than the Republicans." The poll found Democrats were "more trusted to fight the war on terror" by 44 percent to 37 percent and "more trusted" on "moral values" by 42 percent to 36 percent.
Furthermore, Matthews has consistently misrepresented or disregarded polling that undermined his claims about Republican advantage -- a pattern that has been documented by Media Matters. In 2006, he repeatedly asserted that Americans trust the Republican Party more than the Democratic Party on taxes, even though contemporaneous polling contradicted him:
- On the March 13, 2006, edition of Hardball, Matthews claimed that "people trust Republicans more than Democrats" to handle taxes, but as Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) noted: "[I]f you look at even your own data and your own polling, they don't."
- On the March 28, 2006, edition of Hardball, Matthews acknowledged that "the latest polling shows that people trust Democrats more" on taxes, but he still stated that the polls referred to "tax cutting" and suggested that the results were surprising because "nobody has ever accused the Democrats of tax cutting."
- During coverage of an October 11, 2006, press conference by President Bush, Matthews asserted that the "Democrats cannot match" Bush on taxes. Two days later on Hardball, Matthews again asserted that "terror and taxes are the Republican strong points."
- On the October 19, 2006, edition of Hardball, Matthews claimed that "Republicans know from the polls they got two strengths right now" -- "terrorism" and "taxes" because "Republicans are good at cutting taxes" -- and then added: "whether the current polls back that up or not."
On the April 19 edition of Hardball, discussing then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' April 19 appearance at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing into the firing of eight U.S. attorneys, Matthews baselessly asserted that "[t]wo-thirds of the American people say -- I mean, they don't like it, but they don't think he's [Gonzales] telling the truth -- but they say leave him alone." In fact, polling at the time indicated that a plurality of respondents believed Gonzales should resign, while other polls showed the public divided on the subject, as Media Matters noted.
On the April 3 edition of Hardball, Matthews claimed Midwestern voters "may not like people like" Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), a claim that was at odds with polling available at the time.
From the October 9 Republican presidential debate:
MATTHEWS: Polls show that Republicans are known as the party of national security and of moral values. But polls also show that voters look now, at least, to the Democrats to handle the economy. How are you going to win back their confidence -- in order -- Congressman [Ron] Paul [R-TX]?
There goes that "ultra-liberal" Chris Matthews again.
Well, Chris is right... that's how the Republicans are widely known. Regardless of how ridiculous the notion is.
I never knew perversion and greed were morals. Good to know...
They're basically magicians... it's all an illusion ;)
Republicans are known as the party of national security and of moral values?
Oh YEAH??!!?
Well, some people call me the space cowboy. Some call me the gangster of love. Some people call me Maurice, ‘cause I speak of the pompatus of love.
Am I ANY of these things? Hell, no. It's a little thing called "poetic license" ... or that other little thing called "being flat-assed WRONG."
sure, the party of george w. bush, who said he was "not on point" about bin ladin prior to 9-11, in spite of the fact that the 9-11 commission found that: "there were more than 40 intelligence articles in the presidential briefings from january 20 to september 10, 2001 that related to bin ladin" page 254.
Prior to 9/11/01, Pretzelboy was more concerned with getting tax cuts for his fat-cat friends and political supporters than continuing Bill Clinton's anti-terrorism efforts.
The bush (lowercase intentional) administration leaked the early SITE video of Bin Laden in order to PROVE just how they are the party of national security. Never mind that they totally blew an intelligence asset just so they could engage in some more fear-mongering. Oh well, after outing a CIA agent for political payback, this is just a little faux pax.
National ecurity and moral values. GOP. This too will change, Chris. It's already starting. The country is becoming more and more enamoured with progressive values from Main St. to Wall St.
[link to online.wsj.com]
R - the story you link do does not reflect the country becomming more enamoured with progressive values - but that the Repubs are loosing their base because they can not control spending. With Repubs no longer the fiscal conservatives people have no where else to turn but to Dems.
Irregardless of what MMFA tries to tell you here - this is still basically a conservative country with desires to help those truly in need. The shift in opinion polls always seems to go against the party in long-term power because once a party gets into power, they can not control spending. The Dems couldn't do it from 1954-1994, the Repubs failed from 1994-2006. That's why the polls shift- that's why congress changes out every gerneation or so. And so we go on.
but clinton did have balanced budgets
At least you read the article, and you came away with a pretty decent interpretation of it.
To me what the article shows is that big business is ripe for the picking if liberal/progressives just make the case that our values of responsible business practices, i.e. healthcare, living wages and environmental responsibility, is the stuff of profitable, healthy and sustainable business practices. Good government, of the sort that liberals and progressives hold dear, can reward ethical corporate behavior while implementing regulation that benefits the common good and secures long-term profits.
This is NOT basically a conservative nation and it NEVER has been. While not ONE THING. PIPA has polled Americans for three decades on social and economic policy issues. While we tend to be a bit more socially conservative than the rest of the industrial world economically we poll about like Norway and Finnland. You may WISH that were true but never HAS been.
Matthews had a little slip of the tongue which, as we have learned in the past month, is something we expect all people who talk endlessly for a living to do. What he really meant to say was, "We make our living telling people that Republicans are known as... etc."
What is the story here? I'm not sure I understand MMFA's gripe. Matthews is referring to polls, and Conservatives ARE the party of moral values. The left just happens to disagree with them. Liberals are for the promotion of homosexual behavior, suppression of religion, for the rights of criminals and terrorists; for the free speech of offensive artists and terrorists while supporting the suppression of conservative thought, and in general are against anything that Christians do or say in pubic. Removing the word God, promoting the word gay. For open borders, against sound security and military procedures.
So what the heck is the problem with Matthews question?
What's the strory here? Well for one thing you phrased your question inappropriately to the article. You substituted political philosophies for party affiliations. And just what is a conservative and what is a liberal anymore? Was that a mistake on your part or intentional?
you can do and say anything you want about god in public. many schools have prayer meetings at the flag pole in front of school. schools allow bible clubs. what you really meant to say is that you're not allowed to shove your religion in someone else's face.
you're not allowed to shove your religion in someone else's face.
Yeah we can only have liberal B.S. shoved in our faces.
oh, how is that? you're just mad because you know i'm right and you're trying to change the subject. you religionists act like there's not a church on every corner.
Oh, i forgot....that's right, in winger-land if you are deprived of the ability to impose your beliefs uniformly and compulsorily for EVERYONE, you regard it as a form of persecution.
"waaah, they're not letting me convert them, exploit them or beat on them...wahhhh it's not fair!...can't you see that i'm the victim if i can't make them mine"
It's funny how the same people who would use that argument sound almost exactly like those other people who "hate us for our freedom"
IT'S BAD ENOUGH that Republicans want to impose Religion on all citizens .... prayer in school and at football games, nativity scenes in the public square, ten commandments posted in every government building ... but the REAL shame is what these Republicans want to do TO religion.
See, these GOPers think religion is so weak, and God so helpless, that without the full force of the GOVERNMENT promoting religious practices, that religion might not survive.
It's not enough to let citizens have FREEDOM of Religion; they need directives from the STATE into which religion is the OFFICIAL one in the USA, which teachings to follow, which religion to impose on their own children.
It's not GOVERNMENT co-opting religion that poses the biggest problem, although that is what led our wise founders to craft the first amendment. It's RELIGION that will be destroyed by being co-opted by POLITICIANS for their own partisan goals.
Religion can do just fine without the impositions of POLITICIANS telling us what practices are acceptable, picking favorites to make into PUBLIC POLICY. Although, politicians often find religion as a great tool of divisiveness, judgment, and the delivery of SCORN in order to align voter followings through guilt and social blackmail.
Government needs to stay the hell out of the religion business.
"IT'S BAD ENOUGH that Republicans want to impose Religion on all citizens .... prayer in school and at football games, nativity scenes in the public square, ten commandments posted in every government building"
These are all things that are supported by 80+% of the American people, so you're in the extreme minority on that. And nobody wants the government to force religion on anybody. The Constitution grants freedom of religion; not freedom from religion.
so you want the ten commandments posted in court houses? yes or no?
Yes. I don't see how it hurts anything. Refraining from murdering and stealing are good rules for anybody to live by.
and you know what? there are already these things called "laws" that address those issues. every country in the world has them. no need to bring religion into it.
and are you going to make it a crime to worship other gods, covet your neighbor's goods, not honor your mother and father?
No. Those are just good rules to follow on your own in your every day life. But the government obviously can't enforce laws like that.
ok, you say that those are just "good rules" to follow on your own. but who decides which rules are which? should a store owner be prohibited from opening on sunday? and if you say no, then the next guy can say yes, keep holy the sabbath, no shopping today.
and if i take the lord's name in vain, could you make that against the law? who decides?
You can't force people to follow something that you believe in personally. This isn't a theocracy. And believe it or not, most conservatives don't want that. We want freedom for everybody. But you can't have freedom if the government doesn't protect life, and that is why most conservatives are against abortion. Legalized abortion is simply bad public policy because it encourages people to destroy innocent human life and not accept responsibility for their actions. Having 45 million dead babies since 1972 is not a good result to have from a policy. And laws against murder and stealing are necessary, because obviously killing someone or stealing from them infringes on their rights. Any time someone infringes on someone elses rights the government has to step in.
I'm sorry, Rino Hunter, do you really think that if abortion were illegal, then people would stop having them? According to the World Health Organization's 2004 report, there are 26 million legal abortions and 20 million illegal ones worldwide (even though only 39% of women live where abortion is illegal or severely restricted, illegal abortions make up 43.47% of total abortions worldwide). So, making abortion illegal does nothing to stop them. It just happens to make the risk of death to the women 50-250 times more likely (depending on where in the world she lives).
So, I know you have good intentions in trying to make abortion illegal, but your policy is absolutely at odds with the actual facts in the world, and your policy will simply result in more unnecessary deaths and severe health complications for millions of people.
What's more, many of the children whom you would insist be born are likely to be born into conditions of extreme poverty, hunger, abuse, danger, illness, and are much more likely to stay in such desperate conditions than wanted children. I wouldn't wish that life on my worst enemy.
Raising children is a huge investment of time, money, and love. Countless studies have shown that the care and investment of parenting makes a huge difference in a child's happiness, mental health, educational success, freedom from drug problems, and economic condition. If someone doesn't want to have children, they are much less likely to give their children the parenting that they need to have a long and happy life.
I should clarify that the abortion stats in my above post were per year.
Apologies for any confusion.
Excellent points and fact based analysis.
Isn't amusing how rino conflates abortion with murder yet stops just short of advocating the death penalty for women who have abortions?
"Countless studies have shown that the care and investment of parenting makes a huge difference in a child's happiness, mental health, educational success, freedom from drug problems, and economic condition."
This is exactly why the pro-life argument of "well what if YOUR mother had an abortion?" is so nonsensical. My mother was married, was in a secure financial and emotional situation when she had children. There was no possible reason she would want one. Now, the nineteen year-old who just got impregnated by my new stepson, and who is now living in my house, that's a different matter. They're not married, they have very little money, and who knows if they're emotionally mature enough to do this.
Do I want her to have an abortion? No. Would I understand completely if she felt that she wasn't capable of raising a child at this point in her life? You bet.
"This is exactly why the pro-life argument of "well what if YOUR mother had an abortion?" is so nonsensical."
I like to take that argument one step further. "Well what if YOUR mother had a headache and never went to that dinner party where she met your father?"
In either case, you wouldn't have lost out on anything because your consciousness had not yet existed. There is some ur-child who has missed out on a great chance at life because your mother married your father instead of some other guy. Why mourn so much over a lost zygote but not over two lost gametes?
For those who believe, for religious or personal reasons, that as soon as a zygote is created "personhood" or even "consciousness" begins, I respect your belief, and you are quite free to live YOUR life according to YOUR belief. But, as that is belief, not documented fact, you have no right to force it on others.
"According to the World Health Organization's 2004 report, there are 26 million legal abortions and 20 million illegal ones worldwide"
There's no possible way that they could know that when the abortions are actually ILLEGAL! Illegal abortions are not documented. Nobody knows how many illegal abortions there are. If organization claims to know how many illegal abortions there are they are full of B.S. There's no possible way that they could have any idea of how many undocumented, illegal abortions there are.
This is the WOLRD HEALTH ORGANIZATION. They do very careful research on their subjects, and they are extremely methodical. If you think that the only way to study something is by looking at documented sources, how exactly would the WHO know how many children in sub-Saharan Africa have died of AIDS? How many polio vaccines have been administered and which pockets of the world have the highest incidences of the disease? Finding every single last undocumented case of smallpox and ERADICATING the disease?
This organization EXISTS and does extremely vital work for humankind, by really working hard to do difficult research and try to assuage some of humanity's most enduring problems.
What's more, a reputable organization like WHO will consistently UNDERestimate figures that it cannot verify with certainty, so it's entirely possible that the number of illegal abortions is much higher.
So, please, before you make such a claim, take a social sciences course, take a statistics course, LEARN something before you make ignorant statements.
Please provide an actual source with the methodology behind it. Your baseless claims simply fall flat.
I beg your pardon? I CITED the 2004 report by the World Health Organization.
Does anyone get the sneaky suspicion that Rino has never heard of the World Health Organization?? Read and learn: www.who.int
Here is the full citation if you wish:
WHO. (Geneva, 2004a). Unsafe Abortion: Global and Regional Estimates of the Incidence of Unsafe Abortion and Associated Mortality in 2000, 4th Edition. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.
That text is unfortunately not available online, but here is another related article from WHO:
[link to www.who.int]
"Whether legal or illegal, induced abortion is usually stigmatised and frequently censured by political, religious, or other leaders. Hence, under-reporting is routine even in countries where abortion is legally available."
"Community studies around the world indicate a higher magnitude of unsafe abortion than do health statistics.3,11,12 In Zambia, the extent of maternal mortality from unsafe abortion is not generally known from health statistics; one study in which women were interviewed revealed that 69% of the respondents knew one or more women who had died from an unsafe illegal abortion.12 Focus-group discussions and community-based studies in India11 revealed self-reported abortions in 28% of women, which is higher than figures derived from national service-delivery data.
Estimates show that women in South America, eastern Africa, and western Africa are more likely to have an unsafe abortion than are women in other regions. Unsafe abortion rates per 1000 women aged 15–44 years (figure 1) provide a more comparable measure of unsafe abortion by region. In Asia, south-central and southeastern regions have similar unsafe abortion rates (22 and 21 per 1000 women, respectively), whereas the rate is about half (12 per 1000) in western Asia and negligible in eastern Asia (where abortion is legal on request and easily available)."
Rino, the next time you want to call my claims baseless, why don't you look at the sources I have provided!
Oh, by the way, bold emphasis mine. Sorry I forgot to make that clear.
Where are the statistics for the U.S?
Did you even LOOK for them? Why don't you do some research this time. (btw, the whole point of my post was on abortion worldwide and trends therein).
I'm sure RINO will be along any moment now telling us that it wouldn't be a problem if those shameless hussies would just keep their legs closed.
Personally, I could care less what those shameless hussies do with their legs as long as they can fully support themselves and any kids they have......knock your lights out.
I said RINO and I get Tommy. How does that work?
Consider yourself lucky, I guess.
RINO:
The Ten Commandments begins by stating there is "one true God", and that worship of any but the True God (the Christian God) is forbidden.
If endorsed by THE STATE, then the State makes it official that there is NO freedom of religion in America, that Americans are specifically designated to have the "one true God", and no other.
The very posting of the Ten Commandments, then, becomes UnConstitutional, because there is no wiggle room in the commandments, the specifics of belief are concrete, and allows no other alternative. Our Constitution forbids the state from endorsing such claims.
The concept of FREEDOM is quite simple on this point: Let the people ALONE to decide on their OWN, and keep the Government OUT of any religious trappings. It's simple, government, just say "NO" to proselytizing.
"If endorsed by THE STATE, then the State makes it official that there is NO freedom of religion in America"
Um, no, people still have the option of whether they believe it or not. The state isn't forcing the people to do anything. In this country you have choices. You can choose what you want to believe in. Simply having the ten commandments displayed in court houses wouldn't actually force people to believe in the ten commandments.
So then, why do the Ten Commandments NEED to be in courthouses?
I cannot see how it's even relevant, much less constitutional.
More importantly, by placing the Ten Commandments in courthouses (in public property), the government would be endorsing the statements contained therein (or else, why would they be there?). It sends a very powerful (and discriminatory!) message that the courthouse exists to further the goals of the Ten Commandments, instead of furthering the goals of the Constitution and laws of the United States.
RINO:
Don't you see that by trivializing the Ten Commandments as "just rules" ... which have no force or particular importance ... then you've torn down a foundation of faith that is vitally important to the believers of that listing of Commandments from GOD?
Why enter this religious document into the political forum, to be debated, trivialized, compromised, and shown to have no particular force? Why not leave it in the context of RELIGION where it can be held as sacred and an uncompromising directive from GOD, if the individual citizen chooses to make that their belief?
To call the Ten Commandment "just good rules" is sacreligious and blasphemous to those who believe they are, well, Commands from God Himself.
Bingo! Tex.
But what does it hurt to display them in court houses? Judaism and Christianity account for about 95% of our population, so I don't see what the big deal is.
So, if there were major tenets of the Koran that could be posted, you would be ok with that right?
Just because 95% of the people (as you say are something), should we not look out for the 5%?
I wouldn't really have a problem with that as long as it didn't contain a damaging message. As I said, I don't really see anything wrong with posting something saying that you shouldn't murder or steal and that you should honor your father and your mother. These are just good rules to live by. And my view is that it's constitutional to put up the ten commandments as long as it doesn't endorse a particular denomination. That's what our founding fathers had in mind in regards to the establishment clause. They simply didn't want to promote a particular demonination and force people to attend that certain church.
"I am the Lord thy God and thou shalt not have any strange gods before me."
Oh, there's nothing denominational about that!! What if you're Buddhist, Hindu, Zoroastrian, Wiccan, Daoist, or any others? (There's more to the world than denominations of Christianity and Judiasm).
Have you stopped to think about how that would make someone feel who doesn't share your founding beliefs, if they seek the help of the United States court system? They would be greeted upon entry with a sign that says that their God is not the one that is promoted by the Government.
How about a sign that says, "Welcome to Our House of Blind Justice. If you don't agree with the beliefs of the majority of us, we'll make you feel like second-class citizens when you seek legal redress."
Not sure you can oversimplify that way, RH. By placing a Judeo-Christian document in a public courthouse, the government is allowing and promoting these ideals. The Establishment Clause did not say that the government could endorse Christian principles, but not specific denominations. The Establishment Clause prohibited any governmental endorsement of any religion.
Do you think that followers of religions other than Christianity/Judaism would be offended by the "I am the Lord your God. You shall have no other God" but me commandment?
I'm not sure why they would be offended. If I lived in a country where the vast majority of the people were Muslim I wouldn't be offended by teachings of the Koran in public places. I would just realize that it's a part of their culture.
It's not about being "offended." It's about people feeling free to practice whatever religion (or no religion) they want without any interference or suggestion from the government as to how to go about that.
Putting the Ten Commandments on state property (particularly in places like courthouses where laws are enforced) is an endorsement of one religion over another. That's specifically unconstitutional.
You're conflating "public," meaning open to all people to come and go as they please, and "public," meaning maintained by the wealth of the people through some means of direct or indirect taxation.
There's nothing wrong with individuals expressing religious in public (a church can have a big sign outside!). You can sell Christmas trees at any store that has a financial interest. Even that wierd unwashed guy on the street corner with the "Repent Sinners! The End is Near!" picket sign has a constitutional right to be there.
BUT, that doesn't mean public funds, property, or institutions may be used on such expression, nor does the right for individuals to express themselves mean they can force others to listen.
You are telling me, RH, that you would not be offended if in a Federal building in the United States there was a posting that said you shall have no other God but me and it was not your religion?
No, the 95% figure is wrong.
Believe it or not there are many other religions in America and 17% of the American population is either atheist or agnostic.
Aside from the separation of church and state issue the display of religious commandments in a courthouse portrays the impression (sometimes very valid) that a non believer or a believer in a different religion cannot get a fair and unbiased trial. A fair and unbiased trial is the main tenet in American jurisprudence.
"
Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814
here's another quote by jefferson. this link is filled with like quotes from the leaders of early america. "i contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the american people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof', thus building a wall of separation between church and state."
the founding fathers looked at all the bloodshed in europe brought about by religion and did not want that repeated here. the problem with rino's "good rules" is that can ultimately lead to situations like some muslim countries where the religious police beat women for showing their ankles or men not wearing beards.
http://www.humanismbyjoe.com/church_&_state.htm
What a great link!
Our founding fathers wanted there to be a seperation of church and state, because in England they were all forced to attend a certain church. That's the purpose that they had in mind with all these letters. They didn't want the government to force people to attend a certain church. But they never meant for secularists to take all mentions of God out of the public square. Atheists and liberals have distorted what our founding fathers said in order to get all religion out of the public square.
But they never meant for secularists to take all mentions of God out of the public square.
And your proof of this is...
Rino, did you actually READ the quotations on that site?
THEN what do you have to say about religious intentions about the founding of the country?
While you're at it, read:
[link to www.nytimes.com]
No they didnt you are flat out wrong as you usually ARE. IF all they wanted was to stop there being a state religion then the first amendment would say there can be no establisment of *A* religon but it doesnt say that it says no establisment of religion PERIOD. This has been pointed out to you before. At this point you are spewing propaganda you MUST KNOW IS FLAT OUT WRONG. They saw the religious wars wash the shores of Europe with blood and didnt want religion within a mile of government. They made that CLEAR. There are none so blind as those who will not see.
"Believe it or not there are many other religions in America and 17% of the American population is either atheist or agnostic"
That's not true. It's 10% at the very most. The rest are almost all Christian or Jewish.
"Contrast this with a more recent and more nuanced Financial Times/Harris poll of Europeans and Americans that allowed respondents to declare agnosticism as well as atheism: 18 percent of the more than 2,000 American respondents chose one or the other, while 73 percent affirmed belief in God or a supreme being."
"Contrast this with a more recent and more nuanced Financial Times/Harris poll of Europeans and Americans"
We weren't talking about Europeans. We were talking about Americans. I'm not sure why you brought up Europeans.
"18 percent of the more than 2,000 American respondents chose one or the other"
Criminy, I put the relevant portion of the quote in hypertext for a reason. What did you do, hit "reply" as soon as you saw the word "European"?
Sorry. My fault. I didn't read the whole post.
That's alright, mostly I'm just amused that one of the rare short posts I've written was only partially read. I would think someone would read the entire thing five or six times just because they were so accustomed to the usual amount of time it took to read one of my posts.
"Sorry. My fault. I didn't read the whole post."
Rino, I find this very telling. You will shoot back with the first "refutation" (and I use that term very charitably) that pops into your head, without carefully considering what the other person is saying, or matching the intellectual rigor of their argument.
From the CIA world fact book on the united states:
Religions:Protestant 52%, Roman Catholic 24%, Mormon 2%, Jewish 1%, Muslim 1%, other 10%, none 10% (2002 est.)
Time for you to stop pulling #'s out of yer @ss and stick to facts, RINO.So RINO, you need to stop pulling yer "facts" out of yer @ss, because time and again the real facts keep blowing your argument right out of the water.
And what the hell does it matter that someone may not make a graven image of God as to whether or not they committed insider trading?
By all means, not stealing and not killing are good goals--but does that mean that if they were not in the 10 Commandments, they'd suddenly be ok?
These are inherent in our Social Compact and they don't need any religious grounding to validate them, and whether or not someone shares our religious beliefs, we expect for our own safety and that of others, that the government has an obligation to protect us from these actions.
Not killing and stealing were tenets of societal laws way before the Ten Commandments appeared, and many of the commandments are repugnant to believers of other religions and non-believers (atheists and agnostics make up 17% of our population)
Thou shalt have no other gods before me
Thou shalt not make for thyself an idol
Thou shalt not make wrongful use of the name of thy God
Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house.
The above serve no purpose except to establish religious belief - something the government is prohibited from doing.
By the way, that is the Christian version of the Ten Commandments.
Jewish belief:
The Torah includes hundreds of commandments. traditionally 613, including the ten from the Decalogue. Therefore, when compared to the whole canon of Jewish law, the Ten Commandments are not given any greater significance in observance or special status. When undue emphasis was being placed on them, their daily communal recitation was discontinued.
Traditional Rabbinical Jewish belief is that these commandments, among the 613, apply solely to the Jewish people, and that the laws incumbent on the rest of humanity are outlined in the seven Noahide Laws (several of which overlap with the Ten Commandments).
[link to en.wikipedia.org] you want to post "don't murder" and "don't steal" on a sign in the courthouses, do so, but not in connection to any religious beliefs.
RH,
For someone who claims to be a Constitutional expert and loves the Constitution, this a very anti-Constitution stance.
7 of the 10 Commandments are UNconstitutional and infringe upon our rights as US citizens. And you want these hanging in our courts of law? That's illegal.
And, in the 1800s, well over 80% of the population were for the continued disenfranchisement of women. Did that make it ok?
In order to have freedom OF your religion, you need to have freedom FROM everyone else's religion.
Wow. So now you're comparing religion to discrimination against women. It's no wonder that the Dems don't get very many religious people to vote for them.
What's the difference between my moral values being denigrated because they don't come from the same faith as yours, and my judgement questioned because of my sex?
I'm not equating RELIGION with discrimination, I'm equating RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION with discrimination (because that's what it is). Having to conform to societal proscriptions enforcing religion in the political life IS discrimination against those who do not share that religion.
Our government is not forcing anybody to attend a certain church. That is discrimination. People can worship freely in this country. There is no state sponsored church, which is what our founding fathers wanted to protect against when they created the establishment clause.
should there be prayer in classroom? if yes, aren't you forcing religion on those who don't want to participate?
I just think that there should be a moment of silence at the beginning of the day. Kids can do whatever they want in that two or three minutes. They can take a nap if they want.
By having a moment of silence, you are telling kids that they should be praying, and that the institution of the state (a required one at that) is mandating that a personal reflective/religious expression must be conducted in public, and it subjects anyone whose religious practices do not conform to a moment of silence to social judgment and isolation.
More importantly, the idea is ridiculously unnecessary--if a kid wants to pray in silence, why does the school need to give them a specific time to do it? Why not say a silent prayer at recess, during study period, at lunch, or any time you feel like it? Why do you need the whole educational structure to validate your practices?
“It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.”
Thomas Jefferson
"By having a moment of silence, you are telling kids that they should be praying"
No, not really. You're just telling kids that they need to be quiet for a few minutes. They can do whatever they want in those few minutes. They can take a nap or just daydream or whatever. It doesn't have to be a religious thing. It's simply a moment of silence.
oh come off it. that's exactly the reason.
If you're talking about a 20-minute silent reading period, then kids need to be quiet to READ. If you have an hour-long silent study hall, kids need to be quiet to STUDY. Reading and studying are important skills our schools should be teaching.
What useful purpose is served by 3 minutes of silence? Why else would anyone WANT three minutes of silence? What educational value are you promoting? Why is it a good idea for kids to shut up on cue for three minutes, unless you have some preconceptions that this is time to pray?
Then why should people be forced to see the 10 commandments when they enter government property? Why should people be forced to hear a prayer at a school football game? That is NOT allowing people to practice religion freely.
By having the government and its institutions promote & endorse religious statements & practices, you ARE forcing it in people's faces.
No it isnt and at this point you are LYING when you say that. It has been PROVEN wrong more than once
Take your religion and keep it to yourself. Now you are saying that people of faith don't vote for Dems...you are so full of S*^T. I remember the uproar over the fact that JFK was a Catholic and what a "problem" that was.
You moral values people are hypocrites, liars, thieves and the false prophets warned about in the bible. Look at the recent scandal at Oral Roberts U. The Hypocracy of Sen Craig. Teh lies and stealing of numerous other family value moral majority hypocrites.
Freedom of religion and freedom from religion are guaranteed by the constitution. I don't care about your religion and I don't want to see it any other place but in a church, synagogue, mosque, temple or wherever else one worships to their deity.
As far as comparing to the persecution of women he is right. Let's not forget about how religous zealots like you put innocent women to death because they were witches, or how they persecuted men of science for proclaiming the world was round and in fact revolved around the sun. Let's not forget about the modern day teaching of abstinence only while neglecting to teach our kids that disease can be prevented through the use of condoms, but no that is not enough for you.
Keep your religion out of my face, keep your noses out of my bedroom and out of my sex life and we will all get along fine, and when you can produce someone who is truly of God and not just molesters of young boys, then I will still tell you to keep your religous crap to yourself.
Wow! Thanks for the kind words! Have a great night!
As far as comparing to the persecution of women he is right.
By the way, I'm a "she." But thanks for saying I'm right ;-).
I would qualify your statement to make clear that religion itself isn't inherently corrupted, but I think you provide some excellent examples of the abuses that happen when politics and religion corrupt each other and deprive minorities of essential (inalienable!?) rights.
RH, tell me what's wrong here;
You: Christians and Jews account for 95% of our population
You: NO wonder Dems don't get very many religious people to vote for them
Fact:More than 1/2 of the people who voted in the last presidential election voted Dem.
Even with the math tilted entirely in your direction, that's pretty ridiculous.
Sorry, I meant people who go to church at least once a week. This accounts for probably about 30-40% of the population. People who are less regular church goers tend to vote Democrat.
And if regular churchgoing is any real TEST if one is truly religious then George Bush clearly isnt since he rarely attends church
RINO says, "It's no wonder that the Dems don't get very many religious people to vote for them."
TWO POINTS:
FIRST: If America is 95% Christian, as RINO himself claims, then Democrats would never command more than 5% in any election. Since this is obviously not the case (most voting being near 50-50), by RINO's own math, Democrats get a great many religious folks voting for them.
SECOND: This statement by RINO is proof positive that the Republicans desire RELIGION as a wedge issue, to demonize Democrats and divide the nation into simplistic "believers" and "non-believers." This is the intent of melding politics with religion ... to claim GOD takes sides, in specific God endorses Republicans, and "not very many religious folks" vote for Democrats.
Transparent, disgusting, staunchly Anti-FREEDOM ... and fundamentally dishonest.
No. The Republicans haven't divided anybody by religion. It's the Democrats who have been openly hostile to religion and have alienated religious voters.
The Republicans haven't divided anybody by religion.
Oh, yeah, nobody has every attacked Obama for attending a Madrassa, being a Muslim, or whatever. Nobody attacked Ellison for wanting to have his picture taken with a Quran after taking the oath.
Republicans, and particularly the bunch that came to power with Gingrich, are the most devisive bunch of lawmakers we've ever seen.
No they havent YOU are a liar. You should stop lying so much.
Christianity, Judaism and Islam all are patriarchal religions and women have diminished rights under these.
This is why I follow a goddess. The three major religions are a bit too gay for my tastes. Celibacy, burqas, anti-abortion...their hatred of women is so intense. Look how homophobic they are, too. Their male gods must be gay. All the Goddess commands is that I make good love to me woman. That's a religion I can live with.
Another RINO talking point debunked!
http://faithfuldemocrats.com/content/view/593/108/
It's no wonder that the Dems don't get very many religious people to vote for them.
Okay, let's do the math. I believe the number you pulled out of your ass had 95% of Americans being Christian or Jewish. Using that number just for yucks and giggles, even though it's been thoroughly debunked here already, we can say that 95% of the 50 million people that voted for Gore and the 50 million or so that voted for Kerry were... uh... Christian and Jewish! Even if you give that entire 5% of non-C-J believers to the Democrats, then you've got (am I doing this right?) 90% of the 50 million each election being Christian or Jewish.
Dems really have to reach out to religious people more.
Did you not read the post I made after that? Here it is again:
"Sorry, I meant people who go to church at least once a week. This accounts for probably about 30-40% of the population. People who are less regular church goers tend to vote Democrat"
RINO says; "These are all things that are supported by 80+% of the American people, so you're in the extreme minority on that."
RESPONSE: First your point, then the ACTUAL point I was making.
First, you may well be right, that 80% would agree with imposing specifically the Christian religion utilizing public facilities. But guess what? Our Bill of Rights protects INDIVIDUALS from the tyranny of the majority. This is perhaps ESPECIALLY true in the area of Religion, which gets special treatment in the First Amendment, which clearly states that each individual has a RIGHT to his or her own religion, and the Government is to stay clear of that topic, one way or the other.
Then there was the point I actually made, which is that having or wanting the State to sanction the various practices of a specific religion may bring a feeling of self-righteous power or control to the politicians who push to have such displays made mandatory in public settings, but such political imposition CHEAPENS religion, TRIVIALIZES faith by making it into something you have to do in public settings, or risk being ostracized.
Religion does NOT NEED political opportunists pushing particular practices of a "chosen" religion on the citizens of this nation. The various religions will fare just fine without STATE interference, endorsement, and favoritism. More to the point, Politicians should QUIT using religion as a wedge issue, to separate the "good" from the "evil", to divide US from THEM, from Republicans wishing to capitalize politically by calling Democrats "Godless".
Such crass tactics by politicians makes a mockery of ALL religions, and if adopted in this nation, would DESTROY any notion of actual religious FREEDOM.
Let people worship as they see fit. They will do just fine without government mandates like a prayer WILL be said, a document WILL be posted, in public settings open to ALL (including that 20% who do not agree with the specific practice dictated by the state).
Hear, hear!
Thank you Tex. I wish I could have put it so well.
There's that undocumented 80+% number again. You've repeated that mantra near 1000 times now, so it should become a truth real soon, huh?
That's a cute list but it fails to persuade that the Republican Party is the Party of national security and moral values.
Anyone can create a laundry list of grievances, real or imagined. Can you cite examples of Republicans actually exercising morals values or creating a safer America?
Don't disappoint me. You and your guys are supposed to be the Party of ideas, let's see some good ideas.
You're asking a lot of him, man, the only ideas that the "Party of Personal Responsibility" has had for the last 30 years is to blame everything on everyone else...Liberals, gays, teachers, feminists...and so on and so forth.
The only sincere religious belief that most of these koolaid drinking GOP faithful have is that they are worthy of casting the first stone whenever and wherever they happen to find it
That's true but you forgot the deal maker, the Holy Grail of Republican ideology: Tax cuts solve everything.
Why Roundhouse (hi), I thought the "free market" solved everything. ;-)
Cannonball's values of hate,
To liberals do not equate
A sense of morality
But a warped, sad mentality
For anyone who is not straight
LOVE this!!
Very nice, Julia.
"Tax cuts solve everything"
Our infrastructure is crumbling. Bridges are falling down due to no maintaintance (IE the bridge in Minneapolis). Why? Because the majority did not want to be fairly taxed to fund the maintenance!
Necessary government agencies are underfunded (like the CDC, parts of the Justice Department, border enforcement, and many more if not all)
It is "too expensive" to provide detection for nuclear materials in our ports.
People who do not want to pay for necessary parts of government (taxes) are unpatriotic. Some functions of government are necessary, and to put government spending on a "credit card" (deficit spending) for our next generation to pay as the Republicans have done to the tune of almost ten trillion dollars is immoral! Pretty soon the debt service (interest on the loans we have taken from places like Communist China, Korea and Japan will be more than our gross national product!
Do you even know what a trillion is?
It is 1,000,000,000,000 (one million million; 1012
They [the Founders] knew that to put God in the Constitution was to put man out. They knew that the recognition of a Deity would be seized upon by fanatics and zealots as a pretext for destroying the liberty of thought. . . . They intended that all should have the right to worship, or not to worship; that our laws should make no distinction on account of creed." Robert Ingersoll
Bravo. Good post Pete.
I hope you weren't taking me to task (I don't believe you were, but maybe..), that tax cuts solve everything jive was meant to be facetious.
"Anyone can create a laundry list of grievances, real or imagined. Can you cite examples of Republicans actually exercising morals values or creating a safer America"
Sure. Republicans put policies in place after 9-11 which have prevented further terrorist attacks since then. Programs like the NSA Wiretapping program, the Patriot Act, and coercive interrogation have helped thwart terrorist attacks. Democrats oppose all of these anti-terror programs and would open us up to terrorist attacks if they ever get in charge. They have no ideas to fight terrorism. They simply want to take away all of the tools that we need to fight terrorism. That is why they are rightly labeled as being weak on national security.
When it comes to moral values, Republicans support traditional marriage, the sanctity of human life, and freedom of religion. The Democrats want to change the definition of marriage, they oppose pro life policies, and they are very hostile to religion. So there you go.
Yeah, it would have been nice if they had put those policies in place BEFORE 9-11 as Clinton's team told them to do OVER and OVER and OVER again. What part of "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside US" did they not understand?
And, please provide some evidence that those measures have actually prevented a terrorist attack. From what I've followed, most plots have been averted through good, thorough, well-researched investigations. It's important to be SMART on terror, not just to tear our constitution to bits to appear tough on terror, which by the way alienates us from the rest of the world and gives America-haters more grievances to use to recruit.
How are you for the sanctity of human life when you start endless wars? Is life only sacred before someone is born?
Please remember that not everyone lives in picture-perfect Leave-It-To-Beaver. Our government needs to provide safeguards for all of the predicaments in which our people find themselves, not just for the lives of people you think are acceptable. "If men were angels, no government would be necessary."--James Madison, The Federalist, #51
"And, please provide some evidence that those measures have actually prevented a terrorist attack"
There's evidence that shows that Kalid Sheik Muhammad (Not sure how you spell it) gave up information about future terrorist attacks in the U.S. after he was waterboarded. And here's information about the successes with the Patriot Act:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4756706
"Some intelligence officers say that many of Mr. Mohammed's statements proved exaggerated or false. One problem, a former senior agency official said, was that the C.I.A.'s initial interrogators were not experts on Mr. Mohammed's background or Al Qaeda, and it took about a month to get such an expert to the secret prison. The former official said many C.I.A. professionals now believe patient, repeated questioning by well-informed experts is more effective than harsh physical pressure."
[link to query.nytimes.com]
Yeah, but people like RH subcribe to the "24" worldview where imminent nuclear terrorist attacks are routinely thwarted by putting a pistol in a captive terrorist's mouth and demanding the location of the bomb which is always defused seconds before nuclear annihilation occurs. Then come scenes from next weeks dire threat.
This gives rise to Cheny's "1% Doctrine", where if there is even a 1% chance that someone is a threat to the US, then that is justification for immediate and savage pre-emtive retaliation. The problem is that this doctrine is placed in conjunction with laws and executive orders claiming that the preznit now has the unfettered authority to to declare ANYONE (even US citizens) a threat resulting in their indefinite incarceration without Habeous Corpus (right to due process under the law). It also leads to torture, and the withholding of ANY legal representation or even outside communication. With this kind of unconstitutional power, it is only a matter of time before it is routinely used on political enemies, and average Americans with the nerve to speak out against those in power. THAT is why this assault on civil liberties is so dangerous. It DOESN"T mean that LIBRULS are weak on national security. It means that we are STRONG on CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS OF OUR CITIZENRY.
"Richard Alan Clarke[1] (born 1951) was a U.S. government employee for 30 years, 1973 - 2003. He worked for the State Department during the presidency of Ronald Reagan.[2] Following the presidency of George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton promoted Clarke to be the chief counter-terrorism adviser on the U.S. National Security Council. Under President George W. Bush Clarke no longer had cabinet-level access, but continued in the same position until his retirement in January 2003, serving as a member of the Senior Executive Service, specializing in intelligence, cyber security and counter-terrorism. He was thus a part of the executive branch at the time of the 9/11 terrorist attacks."
Clarke and his communications with the Bush administration regarding Osama bin Laden and associated terrorist plots targeting the United States were mentioned frequently in National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice's public interview by the 9/11 investigatory commission on April 8, 2004. Of particular significance was a memo [16] from January 25, 2001 that Clarke had authored and sent to Rice.
"Along with making an urgent request for a meeting of the National Security Council's Principals Committee to discuss the growing al-Qaeda threat in the greater Middle East, the memo also suggests strategies for combating al-Qaeda that might be adopted by the new Bush Administration."
The Bush administration ignored Clark and the warnings about al-Qaeda and an impending attack on the US.
By the way, Clark was appointed by Reagan, not Clinton.
[link to www.slate.com] wikipedia
YOu want the US to be a TORTURE state? Like the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany or Israel? Ever hear of the 8th Amendment? You really hate that Bill of Rights, eh? Why don't you pack up and get out of my country, you're ruining it.
We won't have a Constitution if you and your far left friends get your way. We'll have terrorist attacks unabated and we'll all be dead. Without a country the Constitution will be worthless.
Just stand up and stop being afraid of your freedom.
We already have freedom. Our lives are no different now than they were in the 1990's. We aren't even close to living in a police state. Apparently you would rather be dead than be searched at an airport or have increased surveillance.
I think you're extremely paranoid. The government has always had the right to spy on people but the only difference between now and then is that previous administrations respected the Constitution.
Way to shift the topic from not being happy with being a nation that sponsors and supports torture to being uncomfortable with being searched at an airport.
Why are you here if you aren't interested in anything other than preaching your completely misguided conceptions of what liberals are and what they belive?
So you're saying we need to destroy the village in order to save it?
Nice.
"We won't have a Constitution if you and your far left friends get your way."
We won't have a Constitution if conservatives ever rise to power again.
We'll have terrorist attacks unabated and we'll all be dead.
This is nonsense and extreme paranoia.
No, you and your right-wing buddies have turned the Bill of Rights into toilet paper. We lost the 4th, 8th and 9th Amendments in the right-wing Drug War. We just lost the 5th and 6th Amendments in the Patriot Act. The 10th has been shot to death too many times to mention, and the far-righties are stabbing the 1st Amendment with their "faith-based" bs. YOU and all who want to force a fascist Federal police state on the nation are the enemies of the Constitution. We are now a TORTURE state, and engaged in genocide in two lands. Thanks for making our nation reviled and hated around the world. But you dyssocials live for all that negative attention, don't ya?
Why are you talking about all these other "Amendments"? They don't mean anything. They don't even exist. The real U.S. Constitution has a Bill of Rights with only one amendment. The 2nd Amendment. Constitutional scholars are still trying to figure out why they called it the "Second" Amendment since there is no 1st amendment.
The predominant historical consensus is that they redrafted a "First Amendment" which said "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
They forgot to capitalize Militia and State the first time around, so they replaced that old first amendment with the now-perfect second amendment.
This is how dictators the world over, throughout history, have risen to power. They get the people really scared about a threat, and use this as an excuse to get people to give up their freedoms, and then the dictatorship turns on its own society. How Rome went from a dictatorship to an empire. How the Nazis took over Germany. And innumerable other examples.
WRONG oh delusional one. We wont have a constitution if you FASCISTS get your way. There is NO POSSIBILITY of terrorists destroying our constitution ONLY Fascist idiots like YOU can do that when in power and when supporting OTHER fascist idiots ignoring it. Your black Fascist heart is FAR more dangerous to the Constitution than terrorism can EVER be. They can only kill us. COWARDS LIKE YOU can destroy the constitution the only way it can be destroyed from within
RH,
If the terrorist threat is what you say it is, why do you refuse to fight it yourself? Earlier you said that you had friends on the left. Do you share these thoughts with them?
Every once in a while I'll debate them on politics. They're pretty reasonable, and we can have good discussions. And also, I wasn't even talking about the Iraq War. I was simply talking about domestic national security programs like coercive interrogation, The Patriot Act, etc. So how could I help in that regard? Become a CIA interrogator?
No, but you could go fight the people who actually attacked us on 9/11 if you believe that we are in danger of losing the country if liberals are going to govern. I never mentioned Iraq either, but you constantly explain how vital the war is to our national security. If you believe that we are in imminent danger if Iraq falls, why not fight? I can guarantee you this, if I felt like you did about Iraq's importance to our security, I would be there right now!
You could, when you feel the ideals of the U.S. are threatened, write a Congressperson. It seems to me that you are more threatened by MMFA holding people accountable for their words when it comes to free speech than the actual government arresting a citizen for wearing a T-shirt!
You could join a campaign (not saying you don't do this already), and yes, if you feel that the U.S. is in danger of not existing anymore if liberals take hold, you could become an interrogator.
All I am asking, and forgive me if you do these things, is to take your arguments outside of a message board and actively fight for them.
Do you tell your liberal friends that we are all going to be destroyed if their ideals win out?
When it comes to moral values, Republicans support traditional marriage, the sanctity of human life, and freedom of religion. The Democrats want to change the definition of marriage, they oppose pro life policies, and they are very hostile to religion. So there you go. Rino
Rino stop with the bull crap about Republicans. Nothing about Republicans or you being Republican makes you more of anything. You screw up, lie, cheat, steal, commit adultery, engage in gay sex and a host of other things just like everyone else as the last 6 years have shown us. It makes you human not special.
Programs like the NSA Wiretapping program, the Patriot Act, and coercive interrogation have helped thwart terrorist attacks Rino
You don't have proof that any of those programs are the reason that we have not been attacked that's just a Republican 'talking point'. But we have proof that since Junior invaded the wrong country over 3,800 American soldiers have died, over 27,000 wounded and over 10,000 seriously wounded and unable to return to service.
I didn't say that Republicans are any more moral than Democrats in their personal lives. I don't think that they are. I'm just saying that their POLICIES promote traditional moral values that are good for America. This is about policy and not personal behavior.
So if Republicans are no more moral than Democrats in their personal lives, WHY bother to listen to their social mandates, if even THEY are not going to live up to them?
What's the point of having policies that assume moral behavior that not even the PROPONENTS can fulfill? Wouldn't it be better to fairly, clearly, and accurately address the many choices and lifestyles in this country so that people can be FREE to live safely in THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS? (Wasn't that one of the main reasons we fought the Revolutionary War in the first place?!)
What is best for America: a closet gay senator who solicits illicit sex in public places, becomes a national laughing stock, and makes his wife stand by him as he says "I am not gay" (Can you imagine how humiliating that must be for her?). A closet gay congressman who sends inappropriate emails to underage pages, and again becomes a national laughing stock? Hundreds of priests who are sworn to celibacy and then molest young boys, ruining countless innocent lives? Or, maybe: people in open, honest, committed relationships with whomever their heart tells them they love.
When behaviors are pushed underground, they don't go away (by your own admission), but there is a potential for them to get a LOT worse!
This is great stuff. I wish I had been on this thread last night.
Rino, do you remember your science classes? Let's say you have two beakers full of a certain chemical, and you add a different chemical to one of them, and nothing happens. The conclusion is that the added chemical is not a catalyst;it has no effect (I don't remember much, but I remember this principle).
Now, if you look at the Democrat vs. Republican morality scenario, let's apply the same principle. Let's work with the Republican experimental group. You add regular church-going, something you've said is more common among Republicans;no effect. How about praying in school? No effect. Believing in creationism or ID instead of evolution, opposing abortion, opposing gay marriage, opposing sex education, opposing stem cell research, opposing euthanasia, none of those make any difference in the degree of moral behavior. No bubbles, no explosion, no change in color, no reaction at all.
This proves one of two things;either a)none of these things have any positive effect on behavior, or b)they do have an effect, but a commitment to societal standards of behavior is just as effective in the other experimental group.
You've thereby proven that any policy initiatives towards any of these things is a tremendous waste of time. And also, you've shown that there's no point in even risking the violation of our Constitution for the sake of school prayer or putting up the ten commandments in courthouses, because there won't be any positive result from it. Therefore, the only motivation for these actions is to push your personal belief system onto other people.
Nice work, Dr. Hunter.
The ripple effect of hypocrisy
So, RINO, you admit that the Republicans are hypocrites. Thank you for that. We already knew it, of course, but it's nice to see that bit of honesty from yourself.
But this begs the question: Why do you think that the Republicans, who foist morality on others but don't live up to it themselves, are worth supporting? And, as a follow-up, if you don't think they're worth supporting, why do you do it?
Perhaps you don't realize that Jesus had stronger condemnations of hypocrisy (especially when chastising the Pharisees, the Religious Right of his day) than for virtually any other offense. Something tells me He wouldn't be voting for many Republicans.
"So, RINO, you admit that the Republicans are hypocrites"
No, not really. You've all been missing my point. I simply meant that Democrats are not immoral. Or do you somehow disagree with that? I have friends that are Democrats and friends that are Republicans, and I don't think that my Republican friends are any more moral than my Democrat friends. I'm not saying that Republicans are immoral. I'm just saying that Democrats AREN'T immoral in their personal lives. I'm simply saying that we're all equal even though we have different political philosophies. But nice job of distorting what I said.
I don't see how I missed your point. Your clarification doesn't change anything about what I wrote.
So if your Democratic friends are just as moral as your Republican friends, what good are the policies doing?
Right wing nutballs support freedom of religion? - not hardly!
They support the defeat of the First Amendment which mandates separation of church and state.
As far as the abuses of freedom wrought by the Patriot Act and all other laws which infringe on citizens civil rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, we do not need diminished civil rights to fight terrorism.
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." Benjamin Franklin
"They support the defeat of the First Amendment which mandates separation of church and state"
Sorry, but it's only the Democrats who support the defeat of the 1st Amendment. Only the Democrats are trying to silence those with whom they disagree. It's only the Democrats who cannot handle dissenting opinions and are not adamently against free speech rights. So it's pretty funny that you claim that Republicans are against free speech rights when the left is now actively trying to silence conservatives and get conservative thought completely out of the media.
How many times do we have to go over this, RH? How is boycotting or letting advertisers know that they are sponsoring offensive speech censorship? You seem to be saying that ratings trump all, am I right?
The Fairness Doctrine and equal time provisions are censorship. The Democrats want to bring those things back. You can boycott as many advertisers as you want. That's not what I'm talking about.
Yet enforcing school prayer and displaying the ten commandments on public property is nothing more than providing a moment of silence and posting some general guidelines?
Your double standard is showing.
Nobody's free speech is being taken away in those instances. A Muslim student can pray to Allah in that moment of silence if they wish. It has absolutely nothing to do with free speech.
If any student wants to pray, they can go pray on their own. It shouldn't be sanctioned by the school.
You said that we were for censorship, RH. I have never advocated for the fairness doctrine and I think that advertisers should know what they are paying for, don't you?
Media Matters has advocated for the Fairness Doctrine as have many liberals in Congress. David Brock is a huge advocate of the Fairness Doctrine. And yes, you obviously have the right to call advertisers.
But, RH, we are debating, not MMFA. I never mentioned the fairness doctrine. How am I, a democrat, against the First Amendment?
To me, your philosophy is simply ratings are enough, am I wrong?
It's not censorship, it's ETHICS. No one *has* to obey the fairness doctrine, and you can have every right to put out an overtly partisan newspaper, blog, radio program, or TV show. BUT, if you want to consider yourself reputable news, it is only decent to give equal time to the coverage of candidates so that Americans can be well INFORMED and make intelligent decisions, rather than following a biased media circus.
Being well-respected and considered "legit" is a PRIVILEGE. You don't have to express yourself in a "legit" way, but if you're not communicating with the rigorous standards of journalism, don't pretend that you are. With privilege comes responsibility.
No, the Democrat's aren't trying to silence those with whom they disagree. They're disagreeing with them. Publicly. Presenting arguments as to why those policies/opinions/theories lack merit. That's how free speech works. It means you can say what you want, but someone else might disagree with you. (And if you're not big enough to accept that you have been proven wrong when someone presents documented fact, then you can claim you are being "silenced" when you're actually being refuted. There is a very big difference).
As for journalism, we feel that someone claiming to be telling the truth (with such trappings of authority as a newscast or newspaper) should be accountable and maintain the trust of the public. It's the same way free speech does not mean an advertiser has the right to make false claims about a product. Slander and libel laws have always existed in this country.
Those are lies. If anything your republicans have made this world less safe since the party was high-jacked by the end of days, moral majority party of family values, lies, cheating and false prophets.
Your party has only instilled fear which has made idiots like you believe they are safer. I am not afraid of terrorists, nuclear weapons, fighting for my country...what I am afraid of is zealots like you who have used fear (aka terrorism) to usurp our constitution and slowly erode our civil liberties and undermine our constitution. What I fear is losing my freedoms and in that regard, none of us are safe as long as fools like you and the puddin head in charge along with Darth vader hold court over this floundering democracy.
The german people were manipulated by the Nazi party into allowing a puddin head like Hitler to become a dictatior, which is the same goal as Shrub had.
He and his cohorts have been robbing us blind and using fear to divert our attention from their thievery.
Coercive interrogations.
Just call it what it is, torture. Or is torture too immoral of a word to even type?
Torture consists of, well, actual torture. I'm talking about cutting off arms and limbs, breaking bones, etc. We only use mild forms of coercive interrogation that probably don't even go far enough.
Maybe you should actually look up the definition of that word sometime. It includes more than just physical pain.
Or perhaps rino should submit to these mild inconveniences since they aren't that harsh.
I can't remember where I read it, but a series of studies have been conducted on the information gathering effectiveness of torture vs. good old fashioned police interrogations. You guessed it, the homicide detectives fared much, much better than the torturers.
RH,
So, if you were "captured" and had to submit to these forms of interrogation, you would be ok with it?
Again you are LYING. First you have ZERO evidence that any of those programs stopped ANYTHING. Second, Dems didnt oppose the patriot act which I showed you before. STOP LYING SO MUCH. There was a BIPARTISAN effort to change SOME OF THE SPECIFIC parts of the PA. Dems dont have any problem with wiretapping just get a darned warrant if Americans will be tapped. STOP LYING SO MUCH. Your values are not the definitive. I think values like tolerance which USED to be considered a Christian virtue, NOT LYING like you and Bush do so much, and taking care of the poor are also values and THOSE are values the GOP is sadly lacking in. You are once again spewing hivemind talking points as baseless assertions and they are LUDICROUS on the face of it. You are absolutly one of the most blatantly delusional people I have ever encountered. Rent a clue.
Well Cannonball, if you'd have read anything above you, you might have a clue. I appreciate there's a small chance you might read this, so.
Between a steady stream of bad sex stories, microscopic support for childrens health,equating questions as treasonous behavior, enthusiastically supporting the destruction of the middle class, the abandonment of all the minority populations and all the inquisitive force of a rubber stamp. I can't bring any examples of the the GOP's moral values to mind.
Liberals are for the normalization of non sociopathic lifepaths, not labelled hetrosexual. If you fear these folks, I gotta ask, why?
Even mainstream christians are becoming alarmed at the subversion of the religion of compassion and love into a religion of exclusion and hate. Narrowly defined as being about the evil homosexuals and abortion.
Civilizations are much about rights. The best ones are concerned about everyones rights. Due process protects everyone. A lack of due process threatens everyone except the ruling classes, though despite intense efforts this exception can fail. Terrorists are best fought by civil authorities and international cooperation. You do know that AlQuada is at least as strong as it was at 9-11. This is a sucessful strategy? Leaking the rescent Binlaudin missive, and damaging the group that got it to us. This is what you call smart and effective action?
Free speech is for everybody, not just people you like. You have a soapbox to tell us all about the supression of conservative thought. Hell tell Beck, He has a lot of experience as a consevative echo chamber. Always on the lookout for more of drivel like yours.
Dispite your programing The U.S.A. was not created as a Christian Nation. The Iriquis and Dieists were major contributors to the creation of this countrys government.
Tell me of any country that has tried to wall off its borders and had any sucess. A thought I picked from Terry Prachett is that the actual function of such a wall is to imprison and trap the population inside the wall.
Give some examples of current sound security, your boys have never been worked at very hard at such recomendations as have been produced by their own people.
As far as I know the military works up its own proceedures, to accomplish the governments strategy.
On the whole you see too full of fear for me to believe your post is anywhere near an expression of a rational world view.
Poor "W" just couldn't read
The PDB that would concede
Quada determined to strike
Told Clarke, "take a hike"
I won't pay your advice any heed
First off, the problem with the Matthews question is that it is misleading as to poll data, as shown above (nowhere in your response do you mention the polls, which was the point of the article).
As for your other misconceptions:
Conservatives may CLAIM to be the party of moral values, but let's look at a few names: Newt Gingrich, Tom DeLay, Jack Abramoff, Mark Foley, Ted Haggart, Rush Limbaugh, David Vitter, Larry Craig. If conservatives really delivered on moral values, I would expect this list to be a lot shorter.
Liberals are not for the promotion of homosexual behavior. They simply respect human dignity and are for FREEDOM (yes, that's right, freedom), which means that others are allowed to make choices that you may not necessarily agree with. Personal lifestyle choices made by consenting adults is no one else's business, and no one should be discriminated against, either in work, housing, safety, or in the social protections of those in long-term committed relationships.
Liberals are not for the suppression of religion. Liberals understand that people have many different religious ideas, and that religion is an inherently personal thing. It can be intimidating and hurtful to have one's beliefs denigrated in the public square or to be coerced into accepting other ones. Everyone is free (indeed, encouraged) to express their religious beliefs openly and to have them respected by the state. BUT, this does not necessarily mean that everyone you meet will agree with you, nor does it mean that you have the right to force others to behave according to your points of view. Therefore, we are against the apparatus of the state (schools, money, courthouses, etc.) being used to promote a particular religous point of view. Here is a simple test. Imagine how you would feel if a public school insisted that your child recite verses from the Koran, or had a moment of silence at a time of day traditionally associated with Muslim prayer. Imagine Mauri creation myths were taught in your child's science class. Would you be offended? I think so. So, if it's inappropriate to espouse the religious teachings of the "other" religion, it's inappropriate to teach your beliefs in such a way. Not everyone shares your beliefs, and forcing them to do so is hurtful.
As for the rights of criminals and terrorists, imagine what would happen if you were suspected of a crime you didn't commit: would you think it was ok if you were hauled off to a secret prison, not told your charges, forbidden access to a lawyer, tortured, and then after languishing for an indeterminate amount of time, brought before a military tribunal that could re-open your case as many times as it wanted until it found you guilty? Would you accept that treatment simply because as far as they know, you MIGHT be a terrorist? Even if you are guilty of something, does that mean the government should be free to punish you as much as it wants? Whatever happened to "the punishment must fit the crime"? If criminals (suspected or convicted) don't have rights, we have no way of knowing if our justice system is working fairly. And, in fact, our constitution and international law contain extensive provisions for the rights of criminals--the fourth, fifth, sixth, and eighth ammendments all deal with how to ethically treat people suspected of crimes. What's more American than the Bill of Rights?
For the free speech of offensive artists: Yes, that's what FREE speech is all about. It's not FREE speech if you're only free to make it if it agrees with social standards. Remember, 150 years ago, the idea that slaves should be freed was a very offensive idea. Think how horrible the lives of millions of people would be if no one had the courage to express that offensive idea.
For the suppression of conservative thought: Here's an interesting wrinkle in the fact of free speech: The same way you are free to make a statement, others are free to disagree with you. They're not trying to "suppress" your speech--they're disagreeing, yes, sometimes vehemently. This is called free and open debate. Also, when your speech is in favor of surpressing someone else's (like censoring that poor hypothetical artist above), yes, we're going to be especially vehement in decrying your idea, because we are trying to protect someone else's free speech. Other complications arise with things like journalism, where there is a trust of accuracy involved. MMFA, for instance, is not in favor of restricting others' rights to free speech, but is in favor of rigorous journalistic standards whereby someone who is trusted to provide facts in good faith is actually doing so. Also, free speech doesn't mean it is automatically promised to be syndicated. Speech is a right; syndication is a privilege. I have no problem with Rush Limbaugh saying whatever hateful thing he likes, and he may very well be operating out of a studio in his garage. I wouldn't try to shut him up or arrest him. However, I have great objections to the fact that he is continually sponsored and given such a wide audience.
Whatever Christians do or say in public--not true. We don't care what you do or say in public, as long as you don't force us to listen, which unfortunately many of you often do. Again, try the same Koran test--if someone were advocating the Koran in the same way, and you would be offended, then it's not acceptible for any faith.
Removing the word God: No, you are perfectly free to say the word God, and to praise it, VOLUNTARILY. You cannot force others to do so through the apparatus of the state.
Promoting the word gay: everyone, regardless of their age, race, creed, disability, sex, or sexual orientation should be free to live in peace and not be labelled hatefully. If you would rather live in a society where people who are not like you are intimidated, belittled, or endangered, move to Iran.
We're not for open borders, but we are for treating all people, including illegal immigrants, humanely and fairly. We're also against scapegoating.
Sound security and military procedures: It is NOT sound security procedures to endorse a policy that doesn't work. The vast majority of interrogation experts say consistently that torture generates false and misleading information. So, why be in favor of something that doesn't work? That's not sound. It is also not a sound military procedure to start a war on false pretenses, without an exit strategy, without safeguards against fraud and corruption, and that will diminish our standing in the world and cause more of the political upheaval that is the breeding ground for terrorists and kills and displaces millions of innocent people. That is NOT sound.
Amen Left...you hit the nail right on the cross!!
Very nicely done.
"Liberals... are against anything that Christians do or say in pubic." - cann0nba11
That's disgusting, Cannonball. Where are your morals?
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
cann0nba11 / Wednesday October 10, 2007 08:47:07 PM EST
All the points I was going to make of our military nearly broken of material & personel, our standing with allies and foes at a low we have never in our history ever contemplated, and then you get a post like yours!!
Morals?? Republicans?? Have you been comotose for the past 7 years??
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
What is the story here? I'm not sure I understand MMFA's gripe. Matthews is referring to polls, and Conservatives ARE the party of moral values. The left just happens to disagree with them.
Problem is, it is not factual. Has nothing to do with belief.
Liberals are for the promotion of homosexual behavior,
no, we are not for the "promotion" of homosexual behavior, but we do accept that people are different, have different likes/loves. Uh, live and let live? How is that promoting "homosexual behavior".
suppression of religion,
Oh please.....Liberals believe everyone has the right to worship as they please. We do believe you do not have the right to force us to worship as you do.
for the rights of criminals and terrorists;
Um, WHAT? Where the heck did that come from? Justice is what we believe.
for the free speech of offensive artists and terrorists while supporting the suppression of conservative thought, and in general are against anything that Christians do or say in pubic.
Offensive is relative, further art is meant to be invocative of thought. You may be offended, others may not be. Being offensive is not illegal......yet. As for the christian part....OMG. If christians would quit spouting intolerance and hate at every turn.......well.....
Removing the word God, promoting the word gay. For open borders, against sound security and military procedures.
Christianity is NOT the only religion...face it. Okay. Your religion may not be the "right" one. If you believe ok, but please don't try to force others to be inundated with your belief.
open border, against sound security and military??? really? Can you provide any proof of this?
So what the heck is the problem with Matthews question?
I like watching Matthews....lol
You are of course wrong. Republicans are the party of LYING, getting as many Americans killed as they possibly can. Forcing Theocracy on America, starting wars of aggression and prying into everyones bedroom to assure they are having only the agreed upon type of sex. At least that is as accurate as the tripe YOU posted.
Chris, name 1 GOP'er with moral values. Name 1 that seems legitmately concerned with national security. Name 1 that puts the concerns of the country and its people over their corporate masters. This includes you Chris.
Um, actually Mathews is a registered Democrat. He used to write speeches for Jimmy Carter. The fact that he doesn't toe the extreme far left time 100% of the time doesn't make him a Republican or a conservative,
Sorry, meant "line" not time.
Cannonball:
IF you mean that
Moral values= self-hating closet cases who ignore or victimize the sick and the poor and yet still manage to pay a lot of loud, obsequious but otherwise phony lip service to their God, while behaving in ways more demonstrative of avarice, greed, cruelty and vice than those about whom they complain.
AND
National Security = alienating allies, starting poorly planned wars under false pretenses, ignoring terror threats, funding, arming and training groups and nations who hate us so that we'll have to go to war with them later and exposing covert operatives for partisan purposes
then, yeah, Republicans are surely a bunch of great and glorious Heaven-bound ratf***ers
Crap,
You're full of it.
What? He was talking the results of the ideology, the political agenda and the policy not the personal.
It's all good as long as the personal attack is left out of it, isn't it?
So rat fu**ers isn't a personal attack? Whatever dude. And my comment was simply a joke about his user name. You apparently didn't get it.
Rino H:
If it was a personal attack, i would have called Cannonball a ratf***er specifically and singularly, instead, i followed Cannonball's own tactic and made a broad generalization implying that ALL Republicans are greedy ratf***ers brimming with false piety in the same way that republicans regularly imply that Democrats and other non-R's are treasonous, jesus-hating jihadi-loving socialists
What, is the shoe not so comfortable on the other foot ?
That's right, it wasn't a peersonal attack. At worst it was the exact same style of dissociated insult you use all the time.
If it offends you, perhaps you should consider how it feels next time you toss out similar attacks on liberal politics.
Matthews lives on Bizzaro world, where security is to live in total terror of everyone and morals is to kill, maim, lie, and steal.
Is that the same Bizarro world where government trying to control what you do in your bedroom is "freedom" and "promoting values"? The same one where allowing people to live their lives is called "government control"?
I think the most telling post in this thread was by the conservative who admitted that Cons are no more moral than libs, they just expect the government to take responsibility for regulating their behavior.
"that the same Bizarro world where government trying to control what you do in your bedroom is "freedom" and "promoting values"
I don't know of anybody in the government trying to do that. Is there some pending anti-sodomy legislation that I don't know about? I certainly believe that people should have privacy in their own bedroom as do most conservatives. That's simply a straw man argument.
How about government promotion of abstinence education and misinformation about contraception, which have been shown to have NO EFFECTIVENESS at reducing sexual activity, but greatly increase the incidence of unsafe practices?
How about kicking people out of the armed services for their sexual orientation, even when these people have been valiant and noble defenders of our nation?
How about restricting the civic rights and privileges available to married couples based on whom you wish to marry, and, by extension, what you do with him/her in the bedroom?
How about the Bushies' stupidity in the firing of 58 translators who were fluent in the languages used by Al Qaeda and the Iraqis because they were homosexuals?
Based on Bush's religious beliefs of homophobia!
While his main political advisor is known to be quite gay and there's rumours of his own brushes with homosexuality. Any party that homphobic must be crawling with them. Just ask Craig about it. They're all into war and missiles and guys in uniforms and putting women's rights into the Dark Ages....they're gay!!!
Studies have shown that young kids are actually less sexually active than they have been for a whild. But actually, I don't think the public schools should be teaching sex at all. They should just stick to the basic subjects and not waste our money.
In regards to the military, I think that any person regardless of sexual orientation should be able to serve as long as they behave. If two gay men get caught having sex in the military they should be kicked out. The same would go if a man had sex with a woman. The military should crack down on indecent behavior, but they shouldn't kick someone out of the military simply because of their private sexual preferences.
And gay marriage has nothing to do with the bedroom. You can have sex with somebody without being married to them. No conservatives are trying to control what people do in their own bedrooms. We simply don't want to change the definition of marriage to include special interest groups.
Studies have shown that young kids are actually less sexually active than they have been for a whild. But actually, I don't think the public schools should be teaching sex at all. They should just stick to the basic subjects and not waste our money.
Yes, but some of the highest rates of teen pregnancy are in states that promote abstinence-only education--problem??
Schools SHOULD teach how to protect yourself in sexual situations--otherwise, kids will be vastly more likely to contract potentially deadly STDs, and will get pregnant with children they can't support. These unwanted kids will have to be supported by welfare and food stamps. People will need Medicaid to pay for their medical bills from their STDs. That wastes A LOT of our money (It also ruins the lives of many children).
And don't tell me that if people live in a society that discourages abstinence, they won't have sex. In the 17th Century, over a QUARTER of the Puritans in Concord, Massachusetts, were pregnant on their wedding day. If the PURITANS can't be abstinent, who can?
RH,
What if, someday, scientists prove that homosexuality is hereditary? Will gays still be a "special interest group?"
In case you're curious, the best evidence available is that homosexuality is developmental, and has a great deal to do with the circulation of hormones in the fetus (in some cases with maternal antibodies to some of those hormones), and the fact that the brain (which creates your sense of self and identity) differentiates sexually independently of the body (which determines, obviously, your phenotypically observable gender). For some reason, testosterone in the developing fetus is converted to estrogen before it enters the male baby's brain (affecting structures like the sexually dimorphic nucleus). So, it's actually ESTROGEN at that early stage of development that makes a boy's brain masculinized. Female fetuses have enzymes that sequester the estrogen that's in the rest of their system, so it never gets into the brain, and then the brain develops as female. Any disconnect with any of the enzymatic or hormomal properties above can lead to a difference between what gender the body is born and the gender the brain is born.
There are still state laws that deny personal sexual freedom in many if not all of the "red" states. The only reason there are no longer anti-sodomy laws being enforced is that they were struck down by the Supreme Court against moronic Christian zealots' objections and if the Supreme Court vacated that decision, these types of sexually repressive laws would instantly reappear in the "red" states.
Some repressive laws still exist such as dildos and other sexual toys may not be sold in Texas and possibly other states.
The men in those states must be horrible lovers if they feel that much competition from sex toys. Ever wonder why the guys in country songs always sing about their women leaving them? Guess we know why now. They're crap in bed and she'd rather date Doc Johnson.
I wonder if there's a lucrative trade in smuggling sex toys into Alabama and Texas. Do they have border posts that stop cars to search for contraband vibrators?
Funny you mention that, llol.
There is a town that just a few years ago made it ILLEGAL for a man to have a visible hard on in his pants.
Makes ya wonder what the hell was going on in that town that had all the men walking around with hard on's.
Just thought i would throw that in, lol.
What do they do, impose a stiff fine?
Someone had to say it. I'm almost afraid to see what happens if HBL reads about that.
Matthews again claimed "Republicans are known as the party of national security and of moral values"
Well, duh. The last Democrat president was more interested in pursuing bad girls than he was in pursuing bad guys.
KOZA,
Hilarious! What were Bushes first nine months spent doing?
The GoP does not stand for values, it stands for image. This is the same as the flag lapel image. For the Goopers it isn't what you believe, what policies you enact or what you do that is important, it's the image that you project.
A good Gooper can be seen every Sunday driving his yellow ribbon festooned minivan to a megachurch, making sure that everyone sees him in his Sunday best with the flag pin on it. What does he believe? What does he try to legislate? How does he behave when nobody is looking? Doesn't matter, just as long as he can yell "I love Jeebus and the flag and the troops more than anyone else!!"
After seven years of laws that do the exact opposite of what they claim, of the K Street project selling our country to the highest corporate bidder and of scandal after scandal putting the lie to the Republican claim that they hold the high ground when it comes to morals, how can they still claim to be the ones that stand for security and values with a straight face?
MOONBAT:
Well written, good job.
Also, I wonder about this invented "insult" I see coming from the Rightwing, this "moonbat" designation. The invention of Michelle Malkin or one of her ilk? Probably, but I kind of like the imagery. A "moonbat" could be a superhero, complete with a cool logo and lots of superpowers.
The MOONBAT could fight evil, stand up for the weak, the ill, the oppressed against the powers of avarice and corporatism.
Go, MOONBATS!
I'm not sure exactly where it came from, but Malkin used it a lot. I chose the name because if being opposed to the indecent, antisocial, selfish and greedy moral code that most conservaitve pundits and politicians really follow makes me a moonbat, then hell yes I'm a moonbat.
I think we get ripped off on super powers though, our little tiny wings can barely break a fall from the kitchen table and we see rainbows for hours after being exposed to a bright light.
National Security and Moral Values?
The Bush admin recently leaked an Al-Qaeda tape much too early, screwing up a plans that had been used for years to protect this country. And Matthews still calims the Rethugs are the party of National Security? Wow.
Then I guess Mark Foley, Larry Craig, Duke Cunningham, Dick Cheney, Bob Noe, Rick Santorum, Bob Taft, and Neal Horsley are excellent examples of just how "moral" conservatives are. Jack Abramoff also.