• ACLU attorney Alex Abdo responds to President Obama’s decision to block the release of detainee abuse photos.
• Rev. Scotty McLennan, Dean for Religious Life at Stanford University, discusses the controversial thesis of his book Jesus was a Liberal.
• New York Assemblyman Daniel O’Donnell, the brother of Rosie O’Donnell, explains why he’s leading the fight to legalize gay marriage in his state.
flap said,
Even if I accept your premise, being more enlightened at the time would certainly help us now if we were under Shariah law? Thank God that the Christians were willing to fight for Christendom!
……………………………………….
Just saw this and felt compelled to respond.
It was the standing up to the institutions of Christiandom via the Reformation and the Enlightenment that brought us to where we are today, and what is badly needed in the Muslim world.
There are many Hindus and Buddists in the world who are thankful that THEY stood up to Christians AND Muslims.
Even if I accept your premise, being more enlightened at the time would certainly help us now if we were under Shariah law? Thank God that the Christians were willing to fight for Christendom!
Oldlefty, I’m certain that:
1. God exists.
2. Mid-to-late-term abortion is morally wrong.
That’s about all I am “certain” of on this planet. Everything else I take guesses on.
it’s important to talk about Hitler, so that we recognize the next Hitler when he comes around, and hopefully stop him before he does anything too heinous.
TDRO…so you know what I’m saying…it’s a Bentley. Maybe if I was driving my Hummer I’d just let it roll over. I probably wouldn’t even feel it.
LibPat said: Just to be clear, Kregg, my above remark that “As far as I know, Chavez was democratically elected…” does NOT mean that I’m a big fan of Chavez’s! So, don’t misunderstand me. Please!
K: I wouldn’t accuse you otherwise. :-) I just don’t follow Chavez much and wondered if he didn’t win by the same 100% margin. I think he’s not only socialist – he’s not that bright. Thats a dangerous combination because he will begin to believe his own press and begin to think he can do no wrong. Kind of like our guy.
Only registered user allowed |
Jesus was a Liberal. Now that’s Funny!
OldLefty Reply:
May 13th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
Back in 04, Mad Magazine did this great piece about if George Bush ran against Jesus, but it works as well for Republicans.
Republican campaign ad against Jesus:
Jesus of Nazareth says,
“Give to him who begs from you, and do not refuse him who would borrow from you”
JESUS FAVORS MORE GOVERNMENT HANDOUTS FOR WELFARE CHEATS
Jesus of Nazareth says,
“Judge not, lest ye be not judged.”
JESUS IS SOFT ON CRIME
Jesus of Nazareth says,
‘Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God, that which is God’s.’”
JESUS WILL RAISE YOUR TAXES
Jesus of Nazareth says,
“But I tell you not to resist an evildoer. On the contrary, whoever slaps you on the right cheek, turn the other to him as well.”
CAN WE TRUST JESUS TO FIGHT THE WAR ON TERROR?
JESUS…
WRONG ON SOCIAL ISSUES,
WRONG ON CRIME,
WRONG ON DEFENSE,
WRONG FOR AMERICA!
flap Reply:
May 13th, 2009 at 8:18 pm
A lot of those things Christ was saying was vis-a-vis personal relationships and responsibility, not government.
OldLefty Reply:
May 13th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
Yeah, but the GOP is opposed to Jesus on EVERYONE of those points.
Daddio Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 7:52 am
The GOP would not oppose Jesus on any of the above Lefty. The GOP believes or should I say conservatives believe that the individual should have the responsibility to help the poor without government fiat.
The conservative believes in small government and low taxes.
And your Jesus quote on crime had nothing to do with crime.
In fact Jesus was sent down from Heaven to save mankind. He died and took the sin of the world and hand delivered it to Satan in Hell. He died for us Lefty. I believe he wouldn’t side with either party. He was not about politics. He was all about love and redemption.
OldLefty Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 8:09 am
Daddio,
The conservative believe in small government and low taxes for the rich and for corporations. Actually conservatives LOVE big government when it makes trade policies, and tax policies, and gives subsidies or uses military force to open markets or overthrow governments, not friendly to donors.
“conservatives believe that the individual should have the responsibility to help the poor without government fiat.”
EVERYBODY believes that,(in an ideal world), liberals believe the government should provide a safety net for those who fall through the cracks, and should not loose everything due to a catastrophic or plant closing.
As for the religious belief, it’s very good, not everyone shares it, but it deserves the same repect as every other deep belief.
Daddio Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 8:33 am
Lefty, I wish you wouldn’t get caught up in the old class warfare tactic. If you want to go there though, just look at ALL THE RICH who the liberals are in bed with. Now on Obama’s health care scheme he has the big insurance in bed with him because with Obama’s help they can squeeze out the smaller competition. Almost all the Hollywood wealthy are in bed with the Democrats.
The CEO of GE is actually on the Obama payroll now. Not exactly a small company.
The conservative is NOT for big taxes Lefty. The conservative is for a strong military and national defense and national security.
The conservative is NOT for the “overthrow” of governments “not friendly to donors.” (whatever that means) You thinking about Hsu who raised money for Hillary and former Pres. Clinton who is now in prison for a ponzi scheme.
A conservative is NOT for any big government.
Liberals believe is handouts for welfare cheats, illegal aliens, those who come here legally and don’t work because they know they can receive benefits from the government.
Unemployment compensation is good to help those who lose their job due to layoff. I agree with that. Welfare is good for those who truly need it till they get back on their feet. SS should not go to any person that is not a US citizen.
Safety nets are ok but they have become a way of life for way to many in this country.
deeznuts Reply:
May 13th, 2009 at 8:15 pm
Jesus was a Liberal. Now that’s Funny!
And 100% true.
flap Reply:
May 13th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
Jesus was a lib in many ways…the salvation message is liberal in that it is free and open to all but the way is through Christ via John 3:16. I’d hardly call that liberal.
EricG Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
Jesus doesn’t quite fit into our definition of ‘liberal’ in 2009 but there is no doubt that he was a social progressive.
And absolutely no question that he would stand AGAINST the conservative movement of today.
flap Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
EricG, I can’t speak for all conservative issues, but if you think Christ would have approved or approves of ANY type of abortion then you’re out of your mind.
May 13th, 2009 at 8:04 pm
From Amazon’s review: “…he advocates a sense of religion based not on doctrinal readings of scripture but on the humanity behind Christ’s teachings.”
So, pretty much water everything down? Why not just be a unitarian universalist? Then you can STILL use the Bible for poetry readings and can embrace all that liberal humanism stuff and you can think good thoughts and hope for the best!
RDM Reply:
May 13th, 2009 at 8:24 pm
Omamas most religious statement as President that I remember;” We are not a nation of Christians”
EricG Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
Your hate knows no bounds.
“Why not just be a unitarian universalist?”
Why don’t you just be a Crusader? Go back to ‘purging the world’ with your ‘just’ wars.
You are further from the message of Jesus than you claim to be if you hate those who have a slightly different view of scripture than yourself.
What did Jesus say about bigotry? Hmmm…..
RDM Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
What Obama said is fact. Like it or not.
I personally don’t care if he worships
one eyed purple spotted aliens!
flap Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
EricG, if it weren’t for those Crusaders that you speak so harshly of, you’d very likely be a Muslim under Shariah law. Try being a liberal then!
flap Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
By the way, cram it, EricG! Now that’s hatred!
OldLefty Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
Actually, at the time of Crusaders the Muslims were the more enlightened.
Meanwhile it is the Christian right who seems to share more with the Muslim right and Shariah law.
Y’all seem the same to me…gays, guns and God. AND…..certainty.
flap Reply:
May 17th, 2009 at 5:30 am
Even if I accept your premise, being more enlightened at the time would certainly help us now if we were under Shariah law? Thank God that the Christians were willing to fight for Christendom!
Oldlefty, I’m certain that:
1. God exists.
2. Mid-to-late-term abortion is morally wrong.
That’s about all I am “certain” of on this planet. Everything else I take guesses on.
OldLefty Reply:
May 18th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
flap said,
Even if I accept your premise, being more enlightened at the time would certainly help us now if we were under Shariah law? Thank God that the Christians were willing to fight for Christendom!
……………………………………….
Just saw this and felt compelled to respond.
It was the standing up to the institutions of Christiandom via the Reformation and the Enlightenment that brought us to where we are today, and what is badly needed in the Muslim world.
There are many Hindus and Buddists in the world who are thankful that THEY stood up to Christians AND Muslims.
May 13th, 2009 at 8:13 pm
Who’s Omamas?
RDM Reply:
May 13th, 2009 at 8:33 pm
I made an Obooboo, it’s Obama. Buy you already knew that,
Daddio Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 7:54 am
“Obooboo” I like that RDM. Ok if I use that when the need arises? If I don’t forget it.
Obooboo. Funny.
RDM Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 9:56 am
See ya on the air waves later today.
EricG Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Just call him a monkey and get over with it. Your all dripping at the fangs for it.
Let fly your partisan flag!
May 13th, 2009 at 8:29 pm
I don’t know, between Obooboo, Omamas, people talk about a “Democrat “party…how am I supposed to know?
RDM Reply:
May 13th, 2009 at 8:42 pm
Because OLD Lefty… you are the all seeing eye.
OldLefty Reply:
May 13th, 2009 at 9:01 pm
I wish.
May 13th, 2009 at 8:35 pm
Yeah, but the GOP is opposed to Jesus on EVERYONE of those points.
This is not true. Conservatives historically are larger contributors to charity and social programs than the left. We give on our own accord because we DO love our neighbor. We do NOT advocate a State Charity. We do NOT support legislating charity.
Though, sadly, many of the far right DO want to legislate morality at times.
OldLefty Reply:
May 13th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
The study that makes that claim counts only church and tax deductions, which is OK.
Liberals do not advocate a State Charity, only government regulations to even out the playing field, and give everyone a fighting chance, with a safety net for those who fall on hard times, and EVEN for that tiny group that who have never held a job, due to poor health or lack of skills, desire or confidence.
Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
The study that makes that claim counts only church and tax deductions, which is OK.
Liberals do not advocate a State Charity, only government regulations to even out the playing field, and give everyone a fighting chance, with a safety net for those who fall on hard times, and EVEN for that tiny group that who have never held a job, due to poor health or lack of skills, desire or confidence.
“Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear. ”
William Gladstone
William Glads tone
RDM Reply:
May 13th, 2009 at 9:15 pm
OLD LEFTY…your grasping pretty deep here quoting someone from Victorian era an not even from the U. S.
OldLefty Reply:
May 13th, 2009 at 9:33 pm
It’s still true.
Rocky the Liberal Rottweiler Reply:
May 13th, 2009 at 9:32 pm
“Conservatives historically are larger contributors…”
Out of the multitudes of greedy pr**ks on the radical right there’s occasionally one billionaire who donates to charity. The rest will run you down with their Bentleys and only stop to spit on your corpse.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 2:57 am
Rocky…as much as I despise nearly everything you ever post here, I would hope that I would at least try to swerve out of the way.
EricG Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Conservatives have more money than liberals. Because liberals are teachers and blue-collar workers and conservatives are all bankers who never spoke with anyone but their stock broker since 1975.
TDro319 Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
I agree Guido. I’m sure you wouldn’t want liberal blood and body parts all over your shiny new bentley.
Kregg Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
The Eric proclaimed: Conservatives have more money than liberals. Because liberals are teachers and blue-collar workers and conservatives are all bankers who never spoke with anyone but their stock broker since 1975.
K: That is categorically wrong, TE. Who do you think gave all those jobs to liberals so they’d be off the streets? ;-)
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 3:15 am
TDRO…so you know what I’m saying…it’s a Bentley. Maybe if I was driving my Hummer I’d just let it roll over. I probably wouldn’t even feel it.
May 13th, 2009 at 8:37 pm
Who’s Omamas?
JFK I think. Probably. Not sure.
Sheesh.
May 13th, 2009 at 8:37 pm
people talk about a “Democrat “party…how am I supposed to know?
I do agree with you that The Blessed Leader is a shifty little devil.
OldLefty Reply:
May 13th, 2009 at 8:59 pm
Now, who’s The Blessed Leader ?
RDM Reply:
May 13th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
After 20 years listening to Jeremiah Wright’s sermons that appear to mix faith with radical hatred who wouldn’t be a little left and a little radical.
OldLefty Reply:
May 13th, 2009 at 9:15 pm
It’s YOUR opinion that it’s racial hatred.
Many other people think that there more hatred from right wing preachers.
Frank Schaeffer said,
“But when my late father — Religious Right leader Francis Schaeffer — denounced America and even called for the violent overthrow of the US government, he was invited to lunch with presidents Ford, Reagan and Bush, Sr.”
I think the biggest difference is, whether or not you agree with them, is that Jeremiah Wright railed about an “immoral government” controlling the people, and the right wing preachers rail an “immoral people” NOT being controlled enough by the government.
RDM Reply:
May 13th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
Lefty, Yes it is, sounded like it to me. What do you think?
OK, say you’re right. Some of the worlds greatest leaders did not have faith; Hitler, Stalin, MAO, Pol Pot, KIm Jong, Castro; yep it just aint necessary.
RDM Reply:
May 13th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
By the way I said RADICAL hatred. In your reply YOU said racial hatred, not me.
OldLefty Reply:
May 13th, 2009 at 9:32 pm
RDM,
What does any of that have to do with the hate of the right wing preachers?
And Hitler was religious:
“Thus inwardly armed with confidence in God and the unshakable stupidity of the voting citizenry, the politicians can begin the fight for the ‘remaking’ of the Reich as they call it.”
( Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Ralph Mannheim, ed., New York: Mariner Books, 1999, p. 375. )
“It may be that today gold has become the exclusive ruler of life, but the time will come when man will again bow down before a higher god.”
( Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Ralph Mannheim, ed., New York: Mariner Books, 1999, p. 436. )
“Imbued with the desire to secure for the German people the great religious, moral, and cultural values rooted in the two Christian Confessions, we have abolished the political organizations but strengthened the religious institutions.”
( Adolf Hitler, in a speech at Reichstag, Berlin, January 30, 1934. )
“I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lords work.”
( Adolf Hitler, in a speech delivered at Reichstag, Berlin, 1936. )
And so were those who perpetrated the Spanish Inquisition, and the witch hunts, and so are the jihadists.
RDM Reply:
May 13th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
Lefty,
I can’t follow you on your gibberish about Hitler, go ahead—Amaze Yourself.
Daddio Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 9:07 am
Lefty, being religious doesn’t make one a good person. Some of the most evil people were religious.
Accepting God’s free gift of salvation throught the blood of Jesus and living your life for Him by doing His works for you fellow man is what makes one truly good. This is what truly pleases God.
I know, this post will infuriate many liberals. But I said it. I believe it.
TDro319 Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
“Accepting God’s free gift of salvation throught the blood of Jesus and living your life for Him by doing His works for you fellow man is what makes one truly good. This is what truly pleases God.”
So Daddio, when does your preaching stop and helping your fellow human beings start?
And sorry. I don’t believe that only Christians will be “saved”. I remember asking a nun when I was in fifth grade what happens to all the good people who aren’t Christian? Don’t they deserve to be saved? That was the year I got the worst beating of my life (literally).
flap Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
TDro, your idea of “deservedness” is based on what? Liberals LOVE to lecture conservatives on absolutes and then spout stuff like deservedness, morality, what is “right” or whatever.
None of it has any meaning without God or a supernatural measuring stick. You certainly don’t have to believe it, but Christians believe that ALL do NOT deserve salvation but it is given to us through Christ. Like it, hate it, whatever, but at least we believe it comes from a Higher Power versus what we “feel” is correct or moral or deserved or whatever.
You’re presuming that Daddio doesn’t help out his fellow human beings. And preaching is a way of helping out our brethren. The Gospel is extremely important.
And I don’t know if this means anything to you, but I really, really dislike a lot of Catholic doctrine. I think it disillusions a ton of people, and you seem like you’re one of them. Probably rightfully so, and I’m sorry to hear it.
EricG Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
“After 20 years listening to Jeremiah Wright’s sermons that appear to mix faith with radical hatred who wouldn’t be a little left and a little radical.”
Did you know that Wright was referencing a speech from Malcolm X when he said ‘chickens coming home to roost’?
Did you know that Wright is an American who has every right to speak as he will?
And lastly, did you know Obama has a brain all his own and can decide for himself if he wants to absorb the viciousness or just hear the message?
RDM Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Yes EG, I know all of the above.
It was his G–D America that I just don’t like.
OldLefty Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
RDM,
“It was his G–D America that I just don’t like.”
……………………….
And it was Falwell’s that America caused 9/11, and Hagee’s statement that Hitler was sent by God, and Francis Schaffer’s call for the overthrow of the US government…Then embraced by presidents, that I don’t like.
RDM Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Lefty, Neither do I.
May 13th, 2009 at 8:46 pm
Many other people think that there more hatred from right wing preachers.
Interesting tactic.
The Right could be FILLED with racists. That doesn’t mean Wright isn’t one.
He is a racist.
TDro319 Reply:
May 13th, 2009 at 9:23 pm
Nope. Jeremiah Wright is NOT a racist.
flap Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
But you are quick to call any conservative a racist. Don Imus, racist? Any conservative who says anything that is slightly politically incorrect, racist?
For the record, I don’t believe Jeremiah Wright is a racist. I think he’s a little nutty with his sermons but that’s not racism by far.
We overuse the word, I’ll say again.
OldLefty Reply:
May 13th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
By the way I said RADICAL hatred
…………………….
Sorry, I misread, so your accusation REALLY applies to the right wing preachers.
EricG Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
If Wright is a racist then so are the callers who call Alan’s show and say stuff about ‘black man choking America with crime’ or all those other right wing talking points that CONSERVATIVES ONLY bring up on the air.
Yup, racist individuals calling themselves conservatives go unchecked. Hence you get … The Party of Hate
May 13th, 2009 at 9:17 pm
Liberals do not advocate a State Charity
Universal Health Care is not State sponsored charity?
46% of the population paying no Federal Income Taxes is not State sponsored Charity?
Stop.
Rocky the Liberal Rottweiler Reply:
May 13th, 2009 at 9:36 pm
Two-thirds of corporations paying no taxes isn’t charity? Mississippi getting back a buck and a half for every dollar it pays into the treasury isn’t charity? Billionaires paying less taxes than secretaries isn’t state-sponsored charity?
OldLefty Reply:
May 13th, 2009 at 9:39 pm
“Universal Health Care is not State sponsored charity?”
……………………..
No more than paying for your roads.
You don’t mind paying to subsidize big corporations, who then have an unfair advantage over small businesses, AND pay no Federal taxes…Corporate welfare
May 13th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
never held a job, due to poor health or lack of skills, desire or confidence.
This just gets better. I especially LOVE the lack of desire bullet point!
conservatism, distrust of people
Not true. Conservatism speaks to Individual Liberty. Liberalism speaks to state control of liberties.
-Mr. Reagan
OldLefty Reply:
May 13th, 2009 at 9:44 pm
“The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.”
But they ACTUALLY grew the government, and the deficit.
President Eisenhower wrote a letter to his brother Edgar on November 8, 1954, and said this about Social Security;
Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history.
There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.
“We stand for a living wage. Wages are subnormal if they fail to provide a living for those who devote their time and energy to industrial occupations. The monetary equivalent of a living wage varies according to local conditions, but must include enough to secure the elements of a normal standard of living–a standard high enough to make morality possible, to provide for education and recreation, to care for immature members of the family, to maintain the family during periods of sickness, and to permit of reasonable saving for old age.”
Teddy Roosevelt
http://www.ssa.gov/history/trspeech.html
Why I say you guys would call Teddy Roosevelt and Eisenhower “far Left Socialists”
OldLefty Reply:
May 13th, 2009 at 9:46 pm
Awaiting Moderation, (because of a link)?
libpatriot Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
I must disagree with the thrust of Reagan’s quote. If we were back in the days of the Revolution, the so-called conservatives of today would be the Loyalists (Tories) wanting to stay on the good side of the king and the wealthy elite surrounding him; and the liberals of today would be the Patriots, standing up for the oppressed working class of America. George Washington himself used the word “liberal” on numerous occasions, always in a positive context.
May 13th, 2009 at 9:31 pm
Two-thirds of corporations paying no taxes isn’t charity?
How many of them are losing money?
Mississippi getting back a buck and a half
We should stop subsidizing the poor people of Mississippi.
Billionaires paying less taxes than secretaries
Jeremiah Wright is NOT a racist.
Riiiight. You are getting veeerry sleeepy.
Your gonna have to cite that one.
libpatriot Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
Jeremiah Wright a racist? WHY? Are you basing that statement from his sermon of April 13, 2003, with that out-of-context soundbite that was made so famous last year? Well, let’s take a look at it:
“Where governments lie, God does not lie. Where governments change, God does not change. And I’m through now. But let me leave you with one more thing. Governments fail. The government in this text [the Bible] comprised of Caesar, Cornelius, Pontius Pilate-the Roman government failed. The British government had a Union Jack. She colonized Kenya, Ghana, Nigeria, Jamaica, Barbados, Trinidad, and Hong Kong. Her navies ruled the seven seas all the way down to the tip of Argentina in the Falklands, but the British government failed. The Russian government failed. The Japanese government failed. The German government failed. And the United States of America government, when it came to treating her citizens of Indian descent fairly, she failed. She put them on reservations. When it came to treating her citizens of Japanese descent fairly, she failed. She put them in internment prison camps. When it came to treating citizens of African descent fairly, America failed. She put them in chains. The government put them on slave quarters, put them on auction blocks, put them in cotton fields, put them in inferior schools, put them in substandard housing, put them in scientific experiments, put them in the lowest paying jobs, put them outside the equal protection of the law, kept them out of their racist bastions of higher education and locked them into positions of hopelessness and helplessness. The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law, and then wants us to sing God bless America? No, no, no. Not God bless America; God damn America! that’s in the Bible, for killing innocent people . God damn America for treating her citizens as less than human. God damn America as long as she keeps trying to act like she is God and she is supreme!” –from pbs.org/moyers/journal/04252008/profile DOT html, approximately 24 1/2 minutes into the program.
Now, if Rev. Wright is supposedly racist, why does he show concern for Native Americans, Japanese Americans, oppressed Russians, and people of Hong Kong?
Pino, if you say that Jeremiah Wright is a racist, the burden of citing proof is on YOU to show where he made racist statements.
As for those of you conservatives that say this sermon conclusion of Wright’s is “unpatriotic”, consider that the “God damn America” soundbite can be taken as part of a WARNING that America must strive to keep rising above the injustices of its past to avert God’s wrath, rather than interpreting it to mean “I wish God would destroy America”. It seems clear to me that Wright did NOT mean that he hoped for America’s destruction.
May 13th, 2009 at 9:43 pm
No more than paying for your roads.
Huh?
paying to subsidize big corporations
This I agree with. We should not be taxing corporations at all; thus negating the ability to give advantage.
May 13th, 2009 at 9:44 pm
And Hitler was religious:
Okay, so you get to equate Conservatism to Hitler and that’s supposed to be some sort of clever strategy. But when I draw parallels between Obama and Hitler I get skewered.
Nice.
OldLefty Reply:
May 13th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
My response was only to:
………………………….
RDM Reply:
May 13th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
Lefty, Yes it is, sounded like it to me. What do you think?
OK, say you’re right. Some of the worlds greatest leaders did not have faith; Hitler, Stalin, MAO, Pol Pot, KIm Jong, Castro; yep it just aint necessary.
Not equating Conservatism to Hitler.
pino Reply:
May 13th, 2009 at 10:04 pm
Fair enough. Apology mine.
EricG Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
Everyone tried to use Hitler because we all know about it.
Frankly, who give a rat’s behind about that psychopath?
He is just a ugly chapter in history and we breathe life into the Hitler Legacy by worshiping him with constant reference and inclusion in our dialogue.
I just call the Neo-Con Hatred Party a bunch of religious fascists. No need to invoke the genocider to destroy the decider.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 3:18 am
it’s important to talk about Hitler, so that we recognize the next Hitler when he comes around, and hopefully stop him before he does anything too heinous.
May 13th, 2009 at 9:47 pm
Awaiting Moderation, (because of a link)?
It looks like it came through. In the future, you can avoid that by this:
This is bad: dubya dubya dubya dot cnn.com
Replace it with plain old simple
cnn.com
May 13th, 2009 at 9:49 pm
But they ACTUALLY grew the government, and the deficit.
Sadly this is true in many cases. Running as a conservative is much much harder than governing as a conservative. It is always the goal of the politician to remain in office. Conservatives are not exempt from corruption.
By the way, if we were to eliminate labor laws speaking to unions alone, we would be much much better off. If we were to eliminate all Federal and State minimum wage laws, we would see the greatest hiring boom in our country’s history.
OldLefty Reply:
May 13th, 2009 at 9:57 pm
By the way, if we were to eliminate labor laws speaking to unions alone, we would be much much better off. If we were to eliminate all Federal and State minimum wage laws, we would see the greatest hiring boom in our country’s history.
Not true they would just go to China.
May 13th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
Conservatism speaks to Individual Liberty. Liberalism speaks to state control of liberties.
{Only when YOU get to define the liberties.}
Two-thirds of corporations paying no taxes isn’t charity?
How many of them are losing money?
{If they are not making enough to pay taxes, how are they any different then the people you call charity?}
Mississippi getting back a buck and a half
We should stop subsidizing the poor people of Mississippi.
{You call it government charity}
Billionaires paying less taxes than secretaries
{Warren Buffet said his secretary paid more of a PERCENTAGE than him}
Jeremiah Wright is NOT a racist.
{Strictly a matter of opinion….pointing out racism is NOT racism}
TDro319 Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
I agree with you. I don’t think Jeremiah Wright is a racist.
flap Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
I don’t believe Wright is a racist, but “US of KKK-A?” The white man gave the black man AIDS? You don’t think that’s a wee bit much?
May 13th, 2009 at 9:56 pm
Running as a conservative is much much harder than governing as a conservative.
That’s backwards. Running is easier than governing. Sorry.
EricG Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
Maybe for people who don’t do their job. When you actually care about The Public Trust then governing is harder than anything else.
May 13th, 2009 at 9:58 pm
Only when YOU get to define the liberties.
I am about as individual liberties as you will find here.
If they are not making enough to pay taxes, how are they any different then the people you call charity?
Corporations can actually LOSE money. Can individuals?
You call it government charity
It is; who do you think Mississippi is paying.
Warren Buffet said his secretary paid more of a PERCENTAGE than him
Again, Cite please. And I am going to go out on a limb here, but I bet his secretary makes more than El Presbo.
Oh, and that’s like ONE example.
May 13th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
Not true they would just go to China.
Really? You think that if we make it cheaper to hire people business will respond by going to China?
You have it backwards. When we RAISE the cost of labor business will look elsewhere.
OldLefty Reply:
May 13th, 2009 at 10:12 pm
Not true they would just go to China.
Really? You think that if we make it cheaper to hire people business will respond by going to China?
You have it backwards. When we RAISE the cost of labor business will look elsewhere.
[Reply]
May 13th, 2009 at 10:02 pm
I guess we can elimnate all unions and that way we can all be peasants..What a great country that would be!
May 13th, 2009 at 11:43 pm
I guess we can elimnate all unions and that way we can all be peasants
We would have more jobs. We would be more productive. We would have more innovation.
Further, why do you consider all non-union jobs to equate to peasant status?
May 13th, 2009 at 11:47 pm
Posted by Bob the union man
Say Bob, can you help explain to me why 9 of the top 10 States with the greatest economic outlook are right to work while the bottom 10 States on that same list are Union dominated?
Can you see that people are leaving in droves those states with the highest regulation to states that are easier to do business in?
craig7120 Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
Pino~
greatest economic outlook for who? companies or wage earners? I try not to let my union card blind me on certain issues but I will always support a negotiated wage.
The costs to workers of residing in right-to-work states is significant. In right-to-work states, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “an average worker earns about $7,131 a year less than workers in free bargaining states ($30,656 versus $37,787).” This is in line with another finding reported by the Center for Policy Alternatives: “Across the nation, union members earn $9,308 a year more than nonunion members ($41,652 versus $32,344). Also the rate of work place deaths are 41 percent higher in states that have right to work laws.
above is from Equality and Education (century foundation)
May 13th, 2009 at 11:51 pm
Class warfare is a GOP tactic, (and talking point)…Warren Buffet said, “of course there is class warfare, and MY class is winning.”
First you guys want to act liberals are poor people who don’t work, then you cite all the rich ,successful liberals.
Being rich doesn’t mean you want to pull the ladder up, nor does it mean you stop believing in a strong middle class.
Obama’s health care plan, will offer competition to the big insurance companies…
Nobody has a problem with big companies, only monopoly which crushes competition.
“The conservative is NOT for the “overthrow” of governments “not friendly to donors.”…..
Overthrow of:
Mossagegh, for the oil companies,
Allende, for ITT and the copper companies,
Jacobo Arbenz of Guatemala for United Fruit co.
Support of the Muslem Brotherhood, against Nasser, Suez Canal
The Economist reporting on Paul Bremer’s Iraq in 2003….”Let’s all go to the yard sale.”
…
It goes on and on.
You can keep saying, “A conservative is NOT for any big government.”, but the evidence is not there.
Liberals do NOT “ believe is handouts for welfare cheats, illegal aliens, those who come here legally and don’t work because they know they can receive benefits from the government.,” but many of those who want cheap labor do
Daddio Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 9:14 am
What kind of governments were in place of the places you listed above?
Obama HAS the big insurance companies in bed with him. They were all there the other day. They have opposed big government run health care in the past. Why are they they there now? What is Obama promising them? ALL I KNOW IS IT CAN’T BE GOOD. And why is there no sunshine shining on those meetings? Why are they so secret as far a content?
Remember Cheney and the heat he took for not releasing all the information when he held meetings on energy policy early in Pres. Bush’s first term?
OldLefty Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 9:30 am
‘What kind of governments were in place of the places you listed above? ‘
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Mossadegh , Allende, and Arbenz were ALL democratically elected.
The overthrow of Mossedegh was a turning in our relationship with the Muslim world, in that it solidified a belief that the US government does not believe in freedom and democracy for those who have natural resources they want to control.
The coup against Mossadegh is the reason why we have the Iran we have today.
Allende WAS a socialist, and of HIS election Kissinger said, “I will not allow Chile to go “commie” because of the irresponsibility of it’s people”….again, lack of respect for democratic elections, the same mentality that caused us to support dictators in Pakistan OVER the democracy of India.
Daddio Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 9:45 am
Thanks for the info Lefty.
Wasn’t Hugo Chavez democratically elected? Didn’t he agree to term limits? Is he going to be considered democratically elected in the future? Just asking because I really don’t know what kind of governments those democratically elected leaders run.
Heck, I remember the main stream media announcing the democratically elected Saddam Huessein when he won a declared 100 peercent of the vote.
libpatriot Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 9:56 pm
Lefty’s correct, Daddio. The U.S.-backed overthrow of Iran’s democratically-elected Mossagegh in the Fifties and installation of the brutally repressive Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlevi there was what first ignited anti-American sentiment in Iran. And it was done to satisfy greedy U.S. oil companies that felt they could negotiate a better deal with a dictator than with a democratically-elected government.
So far as I know, Chavez was democratically elected, but you can’t automatically assume that a democratically-elected leader of another country is in love with our country, can you? Did he agree to term limits? Even if he did, it appears that the people of Venezuela voted to repeal term limits for their presidency.
As for Hussein, the declaration that he “won” 100 PERCENT of the vote should’ve been a red flag that the election wasn’t democratic.
Kregg Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 10:04 pm
Libpat: said: As for Hussein, the declaration that he “won” 100 PERCENT of the vote should’ve been a red flag that the election wasn’t democratic.
K: By what margin did Chavez win?
libpatriot Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 11:01 pm
Kregg, Chavez won the Venezuelan presidency by 56.2% of the vote in 1998, was re-elected by 59.76% of the vote in 2000, and re-elected in 2006 by 62.87% of the vote. THANK YOU for calling it to my attention that I hadn’t posted those percentages; it had been my intention to post them in my blog above.
Kregg Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 11:06 pm
Thank you. Do you have any suspicions that he may have tampered with the election?
libpatriot Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 11:39 pm
Yes, I do entertain some suspicions about that. To be honest, Kregg, deep down inside I’m paranoid enough about corruption and fraud that I have suspicions about vote tampering occuring in EVERY election that comes along, domestic or foreign. But I try not to let it get in the way of enjoying life anyway, absent any obvious sign an election was decided by fraud, know what I mean? :)
Oh, a correction: the above (5-04-09 at 11:01 pm) post should read 59.76% of the vote in 2002, NOT 2000. Sorry, my bad!
libpatriot Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 12:34 am
Just to be clear, Kregg, my above remark that “As far as I know, Chavez was democratically elected…” does NOT mean that I’m a big fan of Chavez’s! So, don’t misunderstand me. Please!
Kregg Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 1:06 am
LibPat said: Just to be clear, Kregg, my above remark that “As far as I know, Chavez was democratically elected…” does NOT mean that I’m a big fan of Chavez’s! So, don’t misunderstand me. Please!
K: I wouldn’t accuse you otherwise. :-) I just don’t follow Chavez much and wondered if he didn’t win by the same 100% margin. I think he’s not only socialist – he’s not that bright. Thats a dangerous combination because he will begin to believe his own press and begin to think he can do no wrong. Kind of like our guy.
May 14th, 2009 at 9:03 am
Lefty,
Your comments on class warfare sounds like “the Haves, the Have-Nots, and the Have-a- Little, Want Mores. The Have-Nots are going to take power and money from the Haves.
OldLefty Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 9:20 am
Well, Bush called the have mores his base.
EricG Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
‘Class warfare’
That’s a riot that any Republican would say that.
As I recall a certain Vice Presidential candidate and a former White House Speaker both called certain parts of America the “Real America” and thereby leaving the rest of us part of “Fake America.”
That was class warfare. Pure and simple.
I think certain things are just facts and defy these ridiculous ‘conservative sensibilities’ I encounter from time to time.
The RNC has all the rich and the DNC has all the poor.
facts is facts
RDM Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
That’s a riot that any republican would say that…
A Republican didn’t say that. It’s in “Rules for Radicals”: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals. Obama is one of the Authors notable modern day disciples.
As you like to say, just fact.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 10:36 pm
little ERIC,
The RNC has all the rich and the DNC has all the poor.
HAHAHAHAHA….do you EVER try to at least make sure what you’re posting is true? EVER??!!
In 2007, the top 10% of wage earners in the US were (drum roll please) a perfect split between Repubs and Dems (32% to 31% at $135K/year…if we take this number up to $150K…the Dems are the majority of the high-wager earners).
As a matter of fact, if we use the percentages of people making less than 99K/year, it breaks down like this: R – 27%; D – 38%; I – 35% —– +/-5% margin of error.
Hardly an indicator of which party “owns” which economic class.
Do a blog on it…maybe that’ll make your statement true….HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
JaredfromTexas Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 10:36 pm
Pew Research study…by the way…
May 14th, 2009 at 9:18 am
Rev. Scotty McLennan is absolutely right.
He summed up things I try to explain to those who ask in quick and understandable ways.
The Rev. also responded well to the single caller who had the initiative to call in and challenge him.
Safe to say that if the Rev. McLennan said it … that was what I had to say on the issue of Jesus.
Liberal Christian … yea, that’s me.
May 14th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Uh oh! Hot off the presses today onenewsnow com:
The attempt to prove that homosexuality is determined biologically has been dealt a knockout punch. An American Psychological Association publication includes an admission that there’s no homosexual “gene” — meaning it’s not likely that homosexuals are born that way.
For decades, the APA has not considered homosexuality a psychological disorder, while other professionals in the field consider it to be a “gender-identity” problem. But the new statement, which appears in a brochure called “Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality,” states the following:
“There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles….”
That contrasts with the APA’s statement in 1998: “There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person’s sexuality.”
Peter LaBarbera, who heads Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, believes the more recent statement is an important admission because it undermines a popular theory.
“People need to understand that the ‘gay gene’ theory has been one of the biggest propaganda boons of the homosexual movement over the last 10 [or] 15 years,” he points out. “Studies show that if people think that people are born homosexual they’re much less likely to resist the gay agenda.”
TDro319 Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
Well that settles it. Cheney’s daughter “chose” to be gay and should be SHOT for choice to be an abomination against God!
OldLefty Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
This brochure is from 2008, and state that they can find “no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors”
As Kregg pointed out.
I don’t see that it has any significance at all. We don’t know what causes you to be gay or strait.
OldLefty Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
One last thing, they also tell you it is healthy to “come out”….SO?
flap Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
It’s a combination of nature and nurture. Even if a “gay gene” were found it doesn’t change the fact that Christians disagree with certain behaviors. There are genes that might cause one to be more likely to have sex with multiple partners or enjoy having sex with married women. It’s still wrong.
Kregg Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
Lefty said; This brochure is from 2008, and state that they can find “no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation.
K: Yeah, I know. I read that. The point is that the APA is dropping it’s gay-gene theory and, therefore, the defense of “I can’t help it I was born with a gene for it”.
L: I don’t see that it has any significance at all. We don’t know what causes you to be gay or strait.
K: Except we’ve dropped the foolish idea that it is inherited. And that is a step forward.
May 14th, 2009 at 1:53 pm