Savage praises comments by controversial McCain supporter Rev. Parsley advocating destruction of "false religion" Islam
SUMMARY: Michael Savage stated that Rev. Rod Parsley, whom Sen. John McCain has reportedly referred to as "a spiritual guide," has made "some inflammatory statements of which I agree with 100 percent." Savage then played clips in which Parsley stated that "America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion [Islam] destroyed" and that supporters of same-sex marriage "are seeking to redefine marriage. In other words, they are intending to pervert God's original intention."
On the May 12 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, while discussing the controversial religious leaders associated with presidential candidates Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. John McCain, Michael Savage stated that Rev. Rod Parsley, a McCain supporter and senior pastor of the World Harvest Church in Columbus, Ohio, has made "some inflammatory statements of which I agree with 100 percent." Savage then played a clip of Parsley, who has reportedly called McCain a "strong, true, consistent conservative," and who McCain has reportedly referred to as "a spiritual guide," in which Parsley stated: "I do not believe our nation can truly fulfill its divine purpose until we understand our historical conflict with Islam. I know that this statement sounds extreme, but I'm not shrinking back from its implications. The fact is that America was founded -- I'm gonna stagger you right now -- America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed. And I believe September 11, 2001, was a generational call to arms that we can no longer ignore."
Later, Savage played another clip in which Parsley said: "Why is marriage under attack? Why is the family coming under such brutal attack of the forces of darkness? In essence, the Supreme Court of the United States on June 26, 2003, legalized the perverted act of sodomy. And we said nothing. This is not about homosexual rights or lesbian rights; this is about the destruction of the very covenant. They are seeking to redefine marriage. In other words, they are intending to pervert God's original intention."
Savage also asserted that "the libs are gonna run with this" and later stated: "This could backfire on the libs. They're, you know, they're desperate to use any dirt they can get, but this is not dirt. This is gold. I think they should play Parsley even more -- it'll bring more people around to McCain."
In a March 12 article, Mother Jones Washington editor David Corn noted that Parsley endorsed McCain on February 26 at a campaign rally at which they both appeared. Corn reported that Parsley called McCain a "strong, true, consistent conservative," and that McCain referred to Parsley as "a spiritual guide."
As Media Matters for America has noted, the media have largely ignored McCain's association with Parsley.
From the May 12 edition of Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation:
SAVAGE: Now, we have something that I think you're gonna really appreciate, and that is John McCain's spiritual adviser, Rod Parsley. And he makes some inflammatory statements of which I agree with 100 percent. Now, the libs are gonna scream that McCain's reverend problem is equal to that of Obama's Reverend Wright problem -- and, of course, they're lying. That's what liberals do for a living. And the difference is that John McCain's spiritual adviser, as you'll soon hear, what he says, 80 percent of Americans will agree with, while the reverse was true with Revered Wright. Number two, this reverend for McCain loves America, unlike Obama's reverend, who hates America. So listen to clip seven.
PARSLEY [audio clip]: I do not believe our nation can truly fulfill its divine purpose until we understand our historical conflict with Islam. I know that this statement sounds extreme, but I'm not shrinking back from its implications. The fact is that America was founded -- I'm gonna stagger you right now -- America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed. And I believe September 11, 2001, was a generational call to arms that we can no longer ignore.
SAVAGE: Now, of course, the libs are gonna jump in and say that they believe in Islam, because most of them would believe in anything except Christianity, as you well know. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. So, today they're friends now. Parsley, the spiritual adviser to John McCain, also in clip nine says again things that 80 percent if not more of Americans would agree with. Listen to 09.
PARSLEY [audio clip]: Why is marriage under attack? Why is the family coming under such brutal attack of the forces of darkness? In essence, the Supreme Court of the United States on June 26, 2003, legalized the perverted act of sodomy. And we said nothing. This is not about homosexual rights or lesbian rights; this is about the destruction of the very covenant. They are seeking to redefine marriage. In other words, they are intending to pervert God's original intention.
SAVAGE: Now, the libs are gonna run with this. The problem they're gonna have is that most Americans agree with Reverend Parsley, while most Americans disagreed with Obama's reverend. And the reason I know that to be true is because in the 16 states where same-sex or homosexual marriage was put up as a ballot initiative, in every state the people said no. When the people are asked their opinion, they agree with Reverend Parsley. They certainly don't agree that this is the U.S. of KKK -- that's something only the Obama worshippers would love. The phone number here is 1-800-449-8255. The website is michaelsavage.com, where we have great stories.
[...]
SAVAGE: I see. So it's even 50 -- it's not even the same thing as Obama with Reverend Wright, who married Obama and baptized his children. So it's not like McCain has sat there for 20 years. By the way, I agree with Rod Parsley, incidentally.
CALLER: I do too.
SAVAGE: And 80 percent of America would agree with Rod Parsley, and 95 percent of America would disagree with Reverend Wright and Obama's pastor. So, that's a given. This could backfire on the libs. They're, you know, they're desperate to use any dirt they can get, but this is not dirt. This is gold. I think they should play Parsley even more -- it'll bring more people around to McCain.
CALLER I agree.
SAVAGE: Thanks. That's all.
Insane? Really? Like Kevin James insane? (not the actor/comedian, the right wing radio host. Go to 4:00 and let the hilarity ensue.)
Kevin James...
That was hilarious. Kudos to Chris Matthews for exposing this buffoon.
I've always liked a little Parsley with my Weiner.
Marriage should be strictly defined as between a man and a woman. Anyone with a brain knows it, and I'm not even married, not even close.
It's stupid to violate that fundamental rule.
was it "god's original intention" for men to have multiple wives? because some in the old testament did, and they didn't seem to be punished for it.
Can a decision striking down anti-polygamy laws be far behind? It would probably only require the Texas group (or one of many others in the US) to file suit.
Well, the door opened up when the state started sanctioning marriage between a men and a women.
What?? The marriage of a man and woman was happening long before the state sanctioned anything...even long before the state existed. I really do not understand what point you are trying to make with that comment. Marriage of a man and woman is the backbone of any society, it creates a foundational structure and allows for reproduction. Perversions of male/female marital unions add nothing to a society.
I should have predicted your typical liberal response though: "Let someone else do the work, while I go make myself feel all good and happy."
No, I don't think. Look at birthrates through Europe, and the trend of a declining birthrate in the US. So, no, I do not think encouraging gays to "marry" is the correct thing to do when we have declining birthrates.
Allowing gays to marry will change nothing. As women become empowered, birthrates go down. If you want birthrates to go up, we must go back to the days when women were basically treated as slaves to their husbands.
I was not aware the women from the period of...lets say 1940-1960...were treated as slaves.
Probably the term slave is a bit extreme for that period you posted, but women now have far greater opportunities in America than they had during that time.
One of the most beautiful and noble things a woman can do is give live birth...and your calling that slavery.
It is a beautiful thing... if that's what she wants and it's not something forced upon her because she lives in a patriarchy.
maybe because you're not a woman?
Did you ever stop to think maybe some women don't want to give birth?
Yes. Darn all those people pursuing happiness. B*stards!
Do you think infertile people should be allowed to marry fertile people? If yes, then what is the difference between your example and if the couple are gay? Are childless married couples being unAmerican?
Umm, maybe the fact that we are talking about a heterosexual relationship vs. homosexual? Please, sit yourself down, and ask yourself why every major religion in the world condemns homosexual behavior. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Bhuddists, etc...there must be a reason all of these religions condemn it. I think the reason probably ties in with ultimate happiness cannot be found in the homosexual lifestyle.
...and ask yourself why every major religion in the world condemns homosexual behavior.
Religion is irrelevant except to the religious. It is based on superstitions, myths and legends. Historically, religion has served as a means of controlling the masses. Modern day religion has become so corrupted that the mere fact that God has not smitten religion from the face of the earth unfortunately tends to lend doubt as to the existence of God.
I did not say God does not exist. I am not as arrogant and presumptuous as you who professes with certainty to not only know of God's existence, but to know the nature of God and his intent.
Your arrogance abounds...but it's like that of a small child who learns to speak and then presumes that his every word is profound.
I do not know if God exists...and, even assuming God does exist, I'm not sure if we are equipped, as human being, to even comprehend the existence and nature of God. You, in particular, and religion, in general, professes to know these things with absolute certainty, which, IMO, is patently absurd. It is in the arrogance of religion and its adherents, like you, in its religious beliefs and the intolerant imposition of those beliefs on others that lies the corruption of which I speak. IMO, religion is corrupted in its very nature.
If, in your mind, God imposes his justice throughout the corporeal world then the fact that God has not imposed due justice on the arrogant who presume to speak on His behalf tends to lends credence to those who argue God does not exist...His silence suggesting his non-existence.
But I don't know...and I don't possess your arrogance to presume to know the unknowable and to attempt to arrogantly impose those beliefs on others as you do.
Your notion that God does not exist just because a few corrupt men exist is childish, and laughable.
And your moronic clinging to a religion based on the scribblings of a handful of men who thought God was dictating to them is even more childish andf laughable. Religions were designed by men in order to exert control over others. There are no "truths" in religion - only what people BELIEVE to be true. That's why they're called "religious beliefs".
"I speak for many religious people when I say that personal faith has nothing to do with the "institution" it may be associated with. Your notion that God does not exist just because a few corrupt men exist is childish, and laughable."
What is laughable is that you try to separate personal faith and the "institution" of religion. Your very foundation is grounded in that institution, whatever religion that may be. You would have no working knowledge of your own faith without the rigorous structures of organized religion, so saying your personal faith can be separated from those institutions is laughable at best.
My feeling is, there's one verse in the Bible condemning homosexuality. There's one COMMANDMENT condemning murder. Yet we as a nation send men and women to kill every day. Why are you so up in arms about two men who love each other?
My feeling is, there's one verse in the Bible condemning homosexuality. There's one COMMANDMENT condemning murder. Yet we as a nation send men and women to kill every day. Why are you so up in arms about two men who love each other?
EXCELLENT point. There are far too many contradictions in the Bible for anyone to reasonable use it as a basis for telling other people what to do. If someone chooses to live their life according to how they interpret the Bible, fine - that's their right. But they have NO RIGHT to impose their interpretation on others without their consent.
So the answer lies in mere bigotry? Sorry, but you can't just quote the Bible or any other religious text as a legal basis. Unfortunately for you, our laws are based on reason.
Can you come up with a compelling secular reasoning why the state should treat homosexuals differently than heterosexuals?
"I think the reason probably ties in with ultimate happiness cannot be found in the homosexual lifestyle."--john
So you don't mind arrogantly telling homosexuals that their reality needs to comply with your own bigoted opinion?
I know this may seem radical to you, but why don't you leave it up to other people to decide for themselves what works best for them?
...why don't you leave it up to other people to decide for themselves what works best for them?
R-E-L-I-G-I-O-N
That's not a radical notion at all. Matter of fact, Americans have decided over and over what works for them, and that is marriage being defined as between a man and woman. Americans vote for that definition over and over. This isnt about whether being gay is right or wrong, it is about a group of vicious people attempting to hijack a traditional practice that does not belong to them and has nothing to do with them. Marriage has nothing to do with gays, and has no openings for them to jump in. Come up with your own life-unions and leave mine alone, thank you.
Why must the gays attempt to steal what belongs to a man and woman, redefine it, and claim it now includes them? Create your own union. Make it secular. Make it the polar opposite of marriage.
Open Mind and Irony...
Do I understand that, since it takes nothing away from your marriages (or if you are not in a marriage, if it does not directly harm YOU or your relationships), that plural marriage, or other marriage scenarios that are currently illegal, should all be legal?
If it takes nothing away from YOUR marriage, or does not directly impact you, shouldn't anything be OK?
"If gays get "married" it is a slap in the face to the one of the fundamental beliefs of all major religions. "
And here's what goes right over the heads of you "traditional" marriagests: you are, always and forever, confusing religious marriage with LEGAL marriage. If you get married in a church that is a religious marriage. When the presiding religious leader signs the marriage license that is a LEGAL marriage. If that license is not signed you ARE NOT LEGALLY MARRIED and have no legal rights as a married couple.
NO ONE wants to force ANY religious group to sanction gay marriages. All they want, all they EVER want, is a LEGAL marriage so that their union has the LEGAL rights of ANY married couple. A civil ceremony...a LEGAL marriage is all that is needed.
Keep your bigoted view of gays and of their goal of EQUAL RIGHTS and keep it in whatever travesty of a church you attend. Leave your religious outrage OUT OF the goal of EQUAL RIGHTS for EVERYONE.
And it might help if you studied the history of LEGAL MARRIAGES and the impact of their LACK in a society. Start with the plagues of the Middle Ages. You might actually learn something about why LEGAL marriages exist and why religious marriages weren't good enough.
This is going to go over your head, as it has in the past, and as it typically does with secular liberals.
Well, if being a secular liberal means not being an arrogant little prick inflicted with an intolerance of others that is derived from rigid and irrational religious beliefs, then I'm proud to be a secular liberal. I'm sure God must be proud of your humility...
The limit of your "Liberalness" could easily be found. Likewise for the rest of the choir.
See my post above, asking you just what your limits are. You DO have them, and no amount of naming yourself Open and Liberal will obscure that fact.
What a cop-out your names are.
If gays get "married" it is a slap in the face to the one of the fundamental beliefs of all major religions. It is offensive, and degrades the holy union of a man and woman. I'm sorry if you don't understand, but that is what it would do to my marriage, and many others like me.
Then I truly feel sorry for you and your narrow-minded, ignorant bretheren.
The heterosexual divorce rate is somewhere between 50% and 60%. Don't you find that to be a slap in the face of your fine institution? I find it insulting that you straight folks don't truly revere your "holy institution", but claim that allowing gays to marry, is some sort of insult. Methinks you're not so secure in your sexuality.
How is it, that if I want to marry my partner (and yes, for me, it became legal yesterday [+30 days]) it's a slap in the face to your marriage? You cannot claim some specious insult where there is none.
And finally, when this country becomes a Christofascist Theocracy, you can force your beliefs down my throat. Until then, shove your fairy-tale book where the sun doesn't shine.
You are a riot. According to that logic, freeing the slaves was wrong because abolitionists were pushing their new definition of equal rights for black people on the poor Southerners - who were just minding their own business. Why didn't the abolitionists just leave those poor Southerners alone? Gays just want the same freedom you have. Why is that too much to ask?
The difference is pretty obvious. One group is simply using its political power to suppress the freedom of another - whether it be southerners 150 years ago or phony religious bigots today. You apparently believe that your cherished irrational nitpicking over a definition is more important than someone else's freedom and pursuit of happiness.
Americans vote for that definition over and over - John
And that's why we have the courts - to protect the minority from the tyranny of people like you.
You views on marriage are quite un-patriotic. Why do you hate the constitution so much?
You "liberals" are always a riot. That's why I like to drop in here. Listen to yourselves:
Why can't you just let people decide for themselves what's best for them?
Yet, on most topics of self-determination, such as people opting out of the Social Security chain letter, you will in unison shout them down. You're pitiful.
Vote LIBERTARIAN if you're really a Liberal. But you're not. You're the opposite.
How many logical fallacies can you squeeze into such a small space? First of all, you assume arguments that weren't submitted - mindreading. Second, you argue in vast generalities that may or may not be attributable to the writer. Thirdly, you engage in your apparently favorite fallacy - the strawman. Lastly, we have the name-calling and ridicule. Nice work. You would do well to get a job working as a fact-checker for Ann Coulter.
Naw, you here are all pretty much obsessed with checking her facts; wouldn't want to spoil your fun.
Meantime, VOTE LIBERTARIAN. First order of business (legislatively): pay the Gang of 535 a million bucks apiece to stay outa town. Cheaper in the long run. Less stupid, useless laws. More personal freedom.
I think the reason probably ties in with ultimate happiness cannot be found in the homosexual lifestyle.
- john174541842 / Thursday May 15, 2008 10:58:18 PM EDT
How would you know this?
"Ultimate happiness" is of no concern of the state anyway. Nobody has a right to ultimate happiness. It is the right to the pursuit of happiness. The Founders were wise enough to know that everyone pursues happiness in their own way.
If we all had a right to ultimate happiness, we would all just be sucking down the soma eventually.
Please, sit yourself down, and ask yourself why every major religion in the world condemns homosexual behavior.
Ignorance?
hmmm, maybe happiness was not the point after all......
Are childless married couples being unAmerican?
My wife and I have been married for 15 years now, and are childless. I didn't relaize we were letting our country down..... (sarcasm off)
No, I don't think.
Well, that's obvious.
Let me ask you this: in the countries in Europe where gay marriage is legal, did they also end up legalizing polygamy?
lol...sorry, but that was just funny
What?? The marriage of a man and woman was happening long before the state sanctioned anything...even long before the state existed.
Once the state got involved in marriage, same-sex marriage was bound to happen.
Now, I have one more point about this. What if the state gave back marriage to the religious community? Marriage between a man and woman would be preserved this way. The state could then create it's own method of joining homosexuals. Both groups would then have to lose tax breaks and other benefits, so neither group would be supporting the others lifestyle in any way, which is key to all of this. The state could then lower sales taxes, income taxes, etc. because it would not be handing out the benefits to married couples.
Until some kind of rational agreement like this is made between the pro-gay and anti-gay crowds, we are going to be calling each other "bigots" and "gay mafia" for a really long time...
You presented NOTHING to which you will ever modify or agree. So your contention that we can debate this topic and eventually come to an agreement is a bald face lie.
You want us to accept your belief that your religious views are right and unbending and that our beliefs should bend to agree with you.
I tend to disagree. What John proposed I have heard said before. Many people of faith don't want the union of a man and a woman to equate to the union of the same sex. They don't want to be classified as married, because they believe it devalues the sanctioning of a man and a woman joining as one.
Moreover, if the Bible says homosexuality is a sin, why would a homosexual couple expect the church to sanction such a union? Do you expect the church to approve of robbing and stealing? Shouldn't there be another term or way to basically have the same rights without stepping on the traditionalist who want the union of a man and a woman to be left alone?
I see your point and I can respect it to a degree. The problem is marriage has a dual nature. It is a government contract and a religious rite. The two issues are so often conflated that I don't think it can be solved by trying to distinguish one with a different word than the other.
Personally, I can understand religious objection and should point out that no one is making religionistas to participate in any way in gay marriage, nor would anyone want to force them to. Gay marriage as far as I know only really applies to the government side of the equation. In that respect, gay marriage is already different than a church sanctioned marriage.
I suppose it isn't enough to just point that out to religious people. I am afraid that renaming gay marriage something different will only be enabling bigotry by forcing homosexuals to accept a label denoting some sort of second class citizenship.
A lot of comments have floated around since I posted this, yet no response. Why? Is it because I presented an idea that both sides could debate and modify and agree to? I guess it's either the left's way or no way.
No - it's because we've decided you're not worth arguing with. Your mind is made up and nothing will change it.
So you think the Founders were thugs who prefered mindless violence to reasoned debate? Are you sure that isn't just projection on your part?
Why do you hate America?
"Why do you hate America?" - You're confusing me with Hussein's pastor, rev. wrong. I love America, but I am extremely offended and disgusted with certain portions of it. Take Massachusetts for example. What a VILE state. From being the first state to legalize the slave trade, to the first state to legalize the mockery of marriage....They are really good at offending decent Americans up there.
I wouldn't have said "up there" if I lived there. Also, when people did try to bring the issue to a fair, democratic vote, and gay mafia along with the bought and paid for powers that be told the people to go to hell, and that no such democratic process would be honored.
Do you think one group can just vote away the equal rights of the minority? That is the crux of the biscuit that you seem unwilling to address.
"Rights" have no place in this argument. What is really at stake is the definition of marriage. The argument for "rights" is a clever notion for the gay movement to toss out there and have weak-minded people bite on.
"Marriage is currently defined as between a man and woman."--john
Where does the state define marriage that way? Even supposing this is true, there needs to be a rational basis to exclude gay couples. Laws don't just exist to reinforce bigotry.
Rights do not apply to a chosen lifestyle - John
Who died and made you the arbiter of who gets rights and who doesn't?
Marriage of a man and woman is the backbone of any society, it creates a foundational structure and allows for reproduction.
This argument is outdated. A lot of gays have children through surrogates or they adopt.
Exactly! So, when I want to utilize the American public school system, I would like the homosexual movement to mind their own business instead of teaching my kid that having 2 mommies or 2 daddies is OK or normal. Beliefs on that subject are personal and should be taught within the home, not public schools. This is what gets me fired up about all this gay stuff...stay out of my kid's business, and i'll stay out of theirs.
Exactly! So, when I want to utilize the American public school system, I would like the homosexual movement to mind their own business instead of teaching my kid that having 2 mommies or 2 daddies is OK or normal.
It goes both ways then. The school system should not say having a mom and dad is OK or "normal".
"However, I do not consider bringing up the possibility of some greater power having a hand in creation to be teaching religion in schools. Allowing for the existence of some higher being along with presenting the scientific facts we know to be true is the way I would go about teaching creation. This allows for both sides of the argument to make their own choice."--john
Teaching that science has limits is okay as science is based on reason and logic, and of course, reason and logic have limits, but science doesn't deal with questions of "who". Getting into discussions of the hand of God in science class is opening a huge can of worms and is not an academic pursuit IMO. It sounds nice to present ones-self as being pro-academic, but the practice is much more tricky and complicated.
Overall, I agree with the idea that teaching should be academic and that teachers should not advocate either side of the marriage debate.
I'm outta here for the night, take care.
Ben Stein's new movie "expelled" explores this problem, and I think its very interesting.
Anything associated with Ben Stein is worthless garbage - just like ben Stein himself.
The marriage of a man and woman was happening long before the state sanctioned anything...even long before the state existed.
Hey, John... and just how long do you think people of the same sex have been hooking up? Homosexuality is not a liberal invention, pal... ;>)
"Rights" have no place in this argument. What is really at stake is the definition of marriage. The argument for "rights" is a clever notion for the gay movement to toss out there and have weak-minded people bite on.
"Marriage is currently defined as between a man and woman."--john
Are you familiar with the supremacy clause of the Constitution? The Constitution is the highest form of law in the land. The US Supreme Court has ruled that there is a Constitutional Right to Marriage - as I mentioned before. Assuming you are grabbing your definition from some lesser law (that you don't even bother to cite), it would not have precedence over a Constitutional Right.
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/leg23.htm
http://uscode.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode01/usc_sec_01_00000007----000-.html
My "secular" argument is that associating homosexual with this "right to marriage" ruling, makes about as much sense as me (a man) claiming I have a right to an abortion. Get it? Only women can have abortions, so although it is a right, it does not apply to me. Since only men and women can be married, gays are not included in this "right." I dont know how more clear this can be: gays need to get the supreme court or congress to re-define marriage in order for the right to apply to them.
Well first of all, Constitutional Rights would have supremacy over legislation. So the law you cite is inferior and moot in the larger context of the debate. Even the Rightwing has largely conceded they will need to write their bigotry into a Constitutional amendment at this point.
Secondly, the law you cited was enacted in 1996, which flies in the face of your earlier claim that gays wanted to change the definition of marriage. When all of this came about, there was no federal definition. Washington enacted the legislation in reaction to the homosexuals wanting equal rights. You presented it backwards.
Marriage is currently defined as between a man and woman.
You're right... and 'marriage' is also a religious ceremony that 'the state' has decided to stick its nose into and regulate.
States need to allow civil unions to all and leave 'marriages' for those that wish to get the supplimental ceremony through their church.
Well, I would suppose that if you substitute "Allah" for God, the Muslims would agree that it was Allah's orignal intent and polygamist marriages are sanctioned by that religion as well as other places around the world.
Apparently, you know nothing about Islam and polygamy. Allah didn't say anything about the subject, Muhammad did. Muslims were in constant conflict with Pagans as the Faith was emerging and as a consequence, a lot of Muslim men died. This left a great imbalance between men and women in Muslim society and Muhammad allowed the men to take more than one wife. Most Muslim countries have abandon the practice because there is no longer a need for it.
Does that square w/the 43 virgins promise?
"and i have no problem outlawing polygamy, because many of the sects that practice it also rely on welfare from the state to support their extended families."--mefirst
I think you could also argue that if polygamy were legal, the husband's income would have to be counted - thus reducing welfare payments. Right now these women are likely getting more welfare money because they are unmarried in the state's eyes.
If that somehow isn't the case, the welfare system can also be easily adjusted to adapt to a multiple party marriage contract.
It is sort of a problem that would seem to solve itself. It would be nearly impossible to raise 20 children even with the help of welfare, IMO.
Are there many people like that? Do you think this woman might have less children if her marriage was considered in the welfare equation? I am not trying to be snarky. I really respect your information and opinions, mefirst.
Marriage should be strictly defined as between a man and a woman. Anyone with a brain knows it, and I'm not even married, not even close.
Why, cause you say so? You're a nobody.
Anyone with a brain knows it, and I'm not even married, not even close.
A fact that I'm sure delights women all across this great land of ours. Do us all a favor, Les - never get married and never have kids. We don't need people like you in the gene pool.
I'm no angel either, but I really wish you could work a little harder to control your temper. Your remarks here are beyond what is called for, IMO. I say that as a big fan of your more substantive posts.
When we argue so angrily, we deminish our argument. That is not directed only at you either. This board is becoming more and more infected with anger as a substitute for debate. I'm getting tired of it.
I think we should really try to understand the conservatives arguing here instead of shouting them down with personal attacks. Arguing intelligently and listening makes us stronger.
proper marriage between a man and a woman,
LOL
Is a proper marriage like David Vitter or Larry Craig?
Is a proper marriage like David Vitter or Larry Craig?
Or Star Jones and Al Reynolds?
Libs will try to destroy anything, like marriage, proper marriage between a man and a woman, because they're insane.
If being a narrow-minded dunce like you is the alternative, les, I'm PROUD to call myself a liberal. Go get a clue.
And you will cling to medieval superstitious dogma becuae you are ignorant, can't think for yourself, live in constant fear, and couldn't make a logical argumernt if your admission into white-christian-heaven depended on it.
Do some research: http://www.armchairsubversive.org/ The last thing Repiblican's should be talking about is family, marriage and morality. In the rare case when a Dem's cheat's on his wife, at least it's with a woman of legal age, as opposed to underaged boys.
I just told my Dem friends that if they cheat on their wives, they're rare.
They said OK.
I find it hard to believe you have friends.
; )
P.S. More importantly is the fact that marriage became a "legal" institution administered by the state. That means you can't discriminate! Marriage has nothing to do with the church anymore but instead consists of a legal contract between two people.
The "forces of darkness" just descended upon the residents of California as same sex marriage was legalized today by their Supreme Court. Surely the destruction of heterosexual marriage, as we know it, is about to come tumbling down and lay dead in the ruins all across the state.
Oh dear......
Or suffer the wrath of you know Who.
That means you'll be heading to New Jersey. I can put you up for a few days.
"SAVAGE: And 80 percent of America would agree with Rod Parsley, and 95 percent of America would disagree with Reverend Wright and Obama's pastor. So, that's a given. This could backfire on the libs. They're, you know, they're desperate to use any dirt they can get, but this is not dirt. This is gold. I think they should play Parsley even more -- it'll bring more people around to McCain."
Quick, someone do an actual survey instead of just randomly spouting off numbers!
And how many Americans know what appeasement means?
Don't give me that tripe. He pulled those numbers out of his a**, and it was complete hyberbolic non-sense.
Are you our Savage apologist today? Where's your buddy Finarfin? Out hanging black people?
Just face the facts, Hussein's pasotor hates America, and thats fine...he has the right to do that. Members of our military and government (that he slanders) die to protect his right to hate.
I do hope you guys keep this stupid stuff up. The backlash is starting to take effect.
Please go on.
If you're going to put this in the context of treating citizens as less than human, I think anyone with a brain would be able to list a plethora of countries before hitting America. Yes, I just implied that the racist pastor has no brain.
He lives in America so he talked about America. The fact of the matter is America has treated some of its citizens like garbage.
And there's nothing racist about the pastor.
Yes, I just implied that the racist pastor has no brain.
Yet he's still smarter than you.
I think anyone with a brain would be able to list a plethora of countries before hitting America. (John###)
And anybody with some balls concentrates on fixing their own country. Those without a spine sit around pointing out other countries that are worse.That's called rationalizing your own low standards, and although it's an important part of being a Republican, some of us are trying to have a civilization here.
Yeah, and hussein's pastor is referring to the faults of the distant past, rendering his rantings as useless diarrhea of the mouth. The current agenda for fixing America does not include hunting down the 10 people that still belong to the KKK.
Many gave voice to what Rev. Wright has ben raging against for the last twenty years. Many considered non-white Americans as inferior, untrustworthy and not qualified.
They didn't wear their sheets on camera but it was clear many were unrepentant racists.
You know calling Barack Obama, Hussein, doesn't help your arguement. It only makes you look like these crazies out here who initially refused to believe he is indeed Christian. Second of all it amazes me how Rush, Andrew Coulter, Dr. Savage (sarcasm), Hannity and all these other conservative host can make racist comments about other races and nationalities but if someone speaks out against this country they're unpatriotic, even when they're right. People say GD their country when they are frustrated. People say GD their country when they've been let down. From 9-11, to Katrina, to 4,000 plus of our brothers and sisters dead in Iraq, this administration has failed you and I.
So go ahead, make Barack Hussein Obama and Reverend Wright what's wrong with America. You conservatives are living in a fantasy U.S.A. where a majority of people still believe a black person or a woman is less fit to run the country than a white male. Go ahead, try to make Obama and African-American supporters seem racist. . . Every black voter has voted for a white person before. You nor any of your racist buddies have ever voted a black person for president. How can we be racist?
Just face the facts, Hussein's pasotor hates America, and thats fine...he has the right to do that. Members of our military and government (that he slanders) die to protect his right to hate.
How much ya wanna bet that John Boy here is one of those cowardly chickenhawks who's all gung-ho for the military, but was too chicken to serve in the military himself?
So do you say GD America, or condone it?
I say "GD Les is More" for being an idiot. :-)
Dbeden, Savage's percentages were indeed spontaneously fabricated, yet they were fairly accurate. at least from a conservative prospective.
I find myself posting often on Savage threads simply because having listened to his show i am capable of making an accurate judgement on the 'misinformation' at hand.
I have not been around here in a while, certain scholarly occupations have kept me extremely busy. however, i am now glad to inform you that my presence here is once more to be habitual, i look forward to resuming interesting discussion.
"Savage's percentages were indeed spontaneously fabricated, yet they were fairly accurate. at least from a conservative prospective."
Translation: Savage makes sh!t up but because conservatives believe it to be true, it is true. Thanks for being honest.
If you had actually listened to the spoken words, instead of just spewing your automatic hate for Savage, you would have heard him cite the results of the 2006 state ballot initiatives regarding gay "marriage." You know, the ones where we the people voted down gay "marriage" wherever they tried to slip it past us?
Do you think one group of people can just vote away other people's supposedly equal rights? Can black slavery be voted back into existence either through initiative or repealing all of the applicable Constitutional Ammendments?
It is apparent that you simply believe your own right to marriage is more important than someone else's equal right to it. How self-serving of you.
Do you think one group of people can just vote away other people's supposedly equal rights? Can black slavery be voted back into existence either through initiative or repealing all of the applicable Constitutional Ammendments?
If "Brown vs. Board of Education" had been decided by popular vote back in 1954 instead of by the Supreme Court, our society might still be racially segregated today. Just because an idea like banning same-sex marriage is popular does not make it right.
"If "Brown vs. Board of Education" had been decided by popular vote back in 1954 instead of by the Supreme Court, our society might still be racially segregated today. Just because an idea like banning same-sex marriage is popular does not make it right."
So you're saying that the judiciary has the right to thwart the will of the people simply because they believe that it is for our own good? i believe in democracy myself, not rule by a few lawyers. If the will of the people was to maintain segregation, then so be it. Whether you consider it right or wrong is irrelavent, yours is only one vote.
because the idea of banning same-sex mairrage is "popular" means that it should be banned, for the people have spoken. If you really want rule of some sort of "far-sighted minority" [of judges] go elsewhere.
"So you're saying that the judiciary has the right to thwart the will of the people simply because they believe that it is for our own good? i believe in democracy myself, not rule by a few lawyers. If the will of the people was to maintain segregation, then so be it. Whether you consider it right or wrong is irrelavent, yours is only one vote."--finarfin
The Judiciary's job is to protect the Constitution. It is indeed unfortunate when the people are so whacked out, they don't realize they aren't abiding by our founding document.
This is what is scary about the right-wing's majoritarian argument - that a political minority's Constitutional guarantees can simply be voted away in an instant by a tyrannical majority. To the right-wing, the majority's rights are more important than the minority's rights - despite the undeniable fact they are both absolutely equal under the law. The Constitution says differently. That is what Democracy is all about. Conservatives are rightly criticized as being un-American and undemocratic for completely ignoring those Constitutional guarantees.
SAVAGE: Now, of course, the libs are gonna jump in and say that they believe in Islam, because most of them would believe in anything except Christianity, as you well know.
And that is EXACTLY why Savage is a moron. G-d forbid someone is liberal AND a Christian!? *gasp* impossible.
“The fact is that America was founded -- I'm gonna stagger you right now -- America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed.”---Reverend Rod
If he’s referring to the menace of the Barbary pirates, he’s got the order of events wrong. The British were handling that problem before America was founded. The Americans weren’t going to revolt for the pleasure of dealing with the Arabs themselves. The founding transfered the problem to the newly formed state---which would have made it a disincentive........ Unless he means it was God’s intention that America would then wage war on the pirates, which it did, and then that we would allow a new King George to come to power to do his thing hundreds of years later.
“The fact is that America was founded -- I'm gonna stagger you right now -- America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed.”---Reverend Rod
-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom:
"Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting 'Jesus Christ,' so that it would read 'A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;' the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.
So, Pastor Rod doesn't have a clue.
Why is anyone paying any attention to anything this idiot has to say. He is, after all, a believer in the therapeutic effects of homeopathy, and has written books about it.
Any person with an IQ above the level of a pet rock who believes in homeopathy has removed him- or herself from the ranks of credible commentators.
"Any person with an IQ above the level of a pet rock who believes in homeopathy has removed him- or herself from the ranks of credible commentators"
When you can convincingly persuade me that my DOGS *imagined* they were helped by homeopathic treatments...THEN I'll agree with what you say. In the meantime, I'll believe the evidence of the treatments on MYSELF and my DOGS.
I hope you can come up with better arguments against homepathy than the VETERINARIAN who tried to persuade me my dog with bursitis IMAGINED his feet didn't hurt any more after he was treated with accupuncture.
Just an example of the character of this Rod Parsley: I accidentally ran into one of his daily TV shows a few weeks ago. He was emoting, gyrating, and perspiring so profusely that I stayed tuned to see what was going to happen next. Soon I found that all of his excitement was caused by a revelation he had had for everyone to send his ministry exactly $118. Parsley claimed that God had told him that this exact amount sent to him would cause each one of them to have an immediate miracle! Making it exactly $118 rather than $100, $115 or, say, even, just a lot of money sounds like an old salesman's ploy to me. And McCain trusts this Parsley?
You don't like gay marriage? Then don't marry one.