[DELETED BY AUTHOR]
21 Jan
Lib Christian Haters Silent on Obama/Clinton Pulpit Politicking
This entry was posted in Barack Obama, The Clintons. Bookmark the permalink.
Monday, January 21st, 2008 at 9:31 pm | 3 views
At least they are not demanding to amend the US Constitution to bring it in line with their vision of God’s Word.
No, but Dems are demanding we follow the lead of the UN and adopt the religion of worldwide socialism and our Supreme Court should be governed by legal precedent from other countries.
Seems the GOP has a better idea.
Can we say “Double Standard”?
If they do it it’s fine and dandy, but if we do it we are bible thumping christian seeing mary in a grill cheese sandwich looking, anti-everything christians!
But we can always count on people like gullible Steve to fall for it….
“At least they are not demanding to amend the US Constitution to bring it in line with their vision of God’s Word.”
Nice effort at distracting and deflecting rather than answering or addressing the topic:
“I have no problem with politicians campaigning in churches. But I wonder why the lefties who hate “right wing Christians” and explode into sanctimonious fits every time a Republican even mentions the word “God” are so silent when Democrats campaign under the cross?”
ANSWER: because those who rant about Republicans mentioning the word “GOD” don’t care about the use of the word “GOD” as much as they care about ranting and railing against anything Republicans do. If Republicans breathe, there are faux-liberals out there who will complain about the CO2 levels. Moreover, it is DRAMATICALLY easier for a Republican-hater to attack, than to dare examine one’s own party let alone critique it. This obedient and deliberately blind political partisanship does nothing but divide the nation rather than demonstrate the courage necessary for self-examination, and there can be no clearer example of this than Steve’s classic and consistent knee-jerk response to any and all criticism of anything to do with the Democratic Party which is: deflect, distract, deny, and accuse rather than stepping up for what is right regardless of party. In a word: obedience.
Re: “No, but Dems are demanding we follow the lead of the UN and adopt the religion of worldwide socialism and our Supreme Court should be governed by legal precedent from other countries.”
Can you produce a documented quote or position paper from one of the Democratic candidates laying out that position?
As you know, I can document my comment.
re: ““right wing Christians”
As someone who hasbeen excoriated for stereotyping Conservatives.
Of course Conservatives NEVER do that, do they?
Except on this very thread.
Can you document where I, or others, have declared that we “hate Christians”?
I knw that Bill O’Rielly and the rest of FoxNews tells you that on a daily basis, but can you point to a verifiable position on the part of the Democratic leadership declaring their hatred of Christians?
And you wonder why I check FoxNews to know what you will be saying here?
“but can you point to a verifiable position on the part of the Democratic leadership declaring their hatred of Christians?”
Who said anything about the Democratic Leadership? He said lefties.
Oh and by the way,
“At least they are not demanding to amend the US Constitution to bring it in line with their vision of God’s Word.”
Coservatives aren’t doing either. That’s crap pushed by an Arksas governor who is the equivalent of John Edwards with a bible.
Oooo, NICE distraction! In a discussion about Democrats’ embracing of Christians, Philly Steve falsely charges that anyone who disagrees with him must watch Fox News to be told their position (false since no one cites Fox News or other partisan sources except leftists). No, Democrats haven’t said they “hate” “right wing Christians”, but their deep disdain has been very well articulated and demonstrated so sans a specific quote and playing games with this quote or that, Steve has chosen to ignore the idea of the question and attack the phrasing. Quick! Call the PC police! Someone used the word “hate” instead of “articulated and demonstrated deep dissatisfaction, disappointment, and disdain”.
Better check Salon, Truthout, Bartcop, Buzzflash, Daily Kos, and HuffPo to find a distracting response Steve.
Philly Steve asked for proof that “Dems are demanding we follow the lead of the UN and adopt the religion of worldwide socialism and our Supreme Court should be governed by legal precedent from other countries.”
How blind is he? What does he think the UN’s demand for worldwide worship at the altar of Global Warming is all about?
And if he hasn’t seen any of the debates between Supreme Court Justices Scalia on the subject of foreign law as precedent then he really is willfully uninformed.
See also ravings about “going it alone” or “not enough international support” regarding the invasion and occupation of Iraq (despite dozens of nations being involved as well as UN resolutions authorizing the invasion and UN resolutions mandating/requiring the occupation).
Or perhaps my favorite is Pres Clinton’s description of how the US’ time as a nation state is passing.
Re: “How blind is he? What does he think the UN’s demand for worldwide worship at the altar of Global Warming is all about?”
Then you should have no problem posting sources where Democratic Party Leaders and office holders have demanded exactly that, in those words.
Re: “Or perhaps my favorite is Pres Clinton’s description of how the US’ time as a nation state is passing.”
He was just presaging the consensus of most of the worlds leading economists and analysts.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/china/story/0,,1706764,00.html
That consensus has been in place since the late 1990′s, BEFORE the Bush Administration and runaway Republican Congress started borrowing $1/4 trillion a year to replace thier tax cuts.
The overtaking of the US Ecnomy by the Chinese will likely happen much sooner now.
The Bush Administration has been patting itself on the back recetnly becuase the US is “only” borrowing $150-200 billion a year now. However, with the Republican and Democratic stimulus proposals being floated now, with the full backing of President Bush, we should be back in the $ 1/4 trillion + range again soon.
If the Chinese really wanted to collapse the US, all they would have to do is NOT show up at the next US Treasury Bill auction. The US economy would collapse in rampant inflation as the Bush Administration printed money (ala Zimbabwe) in short order.
Sorry if that hampers your chest thumping. But it is the reality Americca now faces.
Re: “No, Democrats haven’t said they “hate” “right wing Christians”, but their deep disdain has been very well articulated and demonstrated so sans a specific quote and playing games with this quote or that, Steve has chosen to ignore the idea of the question and attack the phrasing.”
No. Just document your claims. You still haven’t.
Why should I do your research for you Steve?
You’ve shown an inclination to dismiss whatever documentation has been provided and try and change the subject.
But if you REALLY don’t know what fellow Dems feel about the UN Climate Change scam, I suggest you Google it.
If I didn’t think it would be a complete waste of my time trying to educate you I would happily type the words in for you:
Re: “Who said anything about the Democratic Leadership? He said lefties.”
And their names are….?
Re: “Conservatives aren’t doing either. That’s crap pushed by an Arkansas governor who is the equivalent of John Edwards with a bible.”
A lot of Conservative Republicans appear to like what they hear.
If I am to be “accountable” for the unattributed statements of “lefties”, why can I not hold Conservatives here to the same level of accountability for documented republican Primary results for their candidates.
I can 100% guarantee that, should Mike Huckabee be the presidential nominee of the Republican party every single Conservative here would fall in line and not only vote for him, but deny that he ever made (or meant) his statement about amending the US Constitution to be in line with “God’s Law” to justify their vote.
I, on the other hand, will acknowledge that one or the other Democratic nominees will have serious flaws. But, on balance, I still prefer either of the two Democratic leaders to Mike Huckabee or Rudi Giuliani.
On the other hand, I will face a dilemma should Republican John McCain be the nominee. I certainly disagree with on many issues, and I would not like the fact that, as a Republican he would keep most of the “Loyal Bushies” in their political posts. But he is the one Republican candidate I would trust to make decisions that he at least believed benefited the United States and not just his cronies or extremist political base.
“No. Just document your claims. You still haven’t.”-Steve
(second time) :
“No, Democrats haven’t said they “hate” “right wing Christians”, but their deep disdain has been very well articulated and demonstrated so sans a specific quote and playing games with this quote or that, Steve has chosen to ignore the idea of the question and attack the phrasing.”
Are you denying the demonstrated disdain of the Christian which has been so well-articulated? I have yet to see any commentary about the Democratic Party’s obedience to the religious left which is comparable to the commentary about Republican’s alleged obedience to the religious right. If you can show me where Democrats have been as critical of their own religious influence in their own party, then the claims of hypocrisy would fall false, but since you’ve repeatedly avoided showing this, you’ve proven it by omission and demonstrated it by distraction.
Religion has historically been used by the ruling elites of society to control the national agenda. This goes for any and all elites both sides of the political spectrum throughout all of history. The reason most “lefties” don’t attack its ‘leadership’ for the exact same hollow religious babble that the right does indeed engage in, is because most “lefties” as most “righties” are playing partisan politics and/or are offering a knee-jerk reaction to the political opposition’s offense. Currently, however the conservative elite (as opposed the liberal elite) has enjoyed many political advances due to its success in pandering to the Christian Evangelical voting block. This is a fact that they themselves acknowledge. The problem is although religion is typically used by politicians, individual spirituality and state politics aren’t really compatible. So, you end up with all sorts of contradictions in the specific political worldview of candidate x . This goes for both sides. Remember Romans 3:23? Of course you do. “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.” Lets not point fingers one way without pointing them at ourselves.
Right now, the irony is that the Christian Evangelicals are starting to take an active interest in actually changing things in their country and they are starting to wake up to the fact that they’ve been used for political ends that aren’t necessarily in line with their own spiritual views. That means bad news for the group that has depended on them and used them for their votes. Huckabee might be strange and weird, thumping a bible, but no more so than the evangelicals he represents. Romney is just full of BS. He uses the word “God” for vain purposes, Huckabee doesn’t. He really believes the crap he says, even if it is simply ignorant. We know this because of their rhetorical vs. conceptual philosophical framework. Huckabee is a social conservative. I don’t agree with them, but at the end of the day you can work with them because they are genuine. Romney is a corporate conservative. You can’t work with them. They’ll say anything to push forward his agenda. Obviously we are never talking absolutes but degrees. We are all men capable of honesty and dishonesty. This goes for the left candidates as well, except that they’re all limousine liberals as far as I can see.
The true irony is the huge secular population that exists on both sides of the political divide that don’t say a word about their own politicians and pundits using the name of God to further their non-Christian and often times anti-Christian political agendas. At the end of the day, monetary profits and Christ likeness cannot simultaneously be achieved. Remember Matthew 6:24? Of course you do. “No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.”
In closing, in Washington you have two different elites, the liberal technocratic elite, sparring with the aristocratic elite over which side gets the right to tell you, the citizen what to do. Rather than ask which elite is desirable, wouldn’t it be much better to ask, why even bother having an elite at all?
Outstanding post Aaron.
I do disagree-however-that the religious left hasn’t been as influential or even more influential to that end of the spectrum. While the religious right gets press coverage, the religious left does not, but-as demonstrated by the Rainbow Coalition’s religious core and the daily church preaching/politicking by Democrats of late-I have to believe that the religious left’s influence is as strong or stronger and only differs in ‘angle’ not quantity or quality.
The weekend at Bernie’s staring Shrillary and Obama was quite comical. Shrillary is looking at the past (90′s) which was a joke with several sets of books to make the economy look good. Obama has the backing of the cults of the world, including Islam which will provide him with billions of dollars to gain control of the white house where Obama will find he ‘owes’ them all and they will collect. Democrats have a great choice coming up, a socialist/communist/democrat vs a radical Islamist (in hiding), but now not hiding it too well. Funny the economy recovered from a recession in 2001, roared for six years and then the democrats took over congress and one year later the economy is tanking, again.
“A lot of Conservative Republicans appear to like what they hear.”
So the state of Iowa, and basically less than a third of republicans is “a lot?” And that’s simply going on Primary results. And then you have to wonder how many conservatives who voted for him even knew he made that statement. The voting public is not that well informed.
Oh and here no one is claiming that you are one of the lefties hating Christians, although you have taken it upon yourself to try and stick up for them. See no one is lumping you into a generalized statement unlike what you do: “I can 100% guarantee that, should Mike Huckabee be the presidential nominee of the Republican party every single Conservative here would fall in line and not only vote for him, but deny that he ever made (or meant) his statement about amending the US Constitution to be in line with “God’s Law” to justify their vote.”
Which is the biggest load of B.S. you can pull. All your time here and you still can’t grasp the concept of conservatives thinking for themselves, and being able to acknowledge the flaws of some of their fellows. I hope you carry an umbrella for when it rains, otherwise you’ll drown with your nose stick up in the air like that.
Thank you for the complement.
In regards to your comment I agree and disagree. While I certainly agree that neither side enjoys a monopoly on pandering to the religious, the recent stir up in the religious right wing is not something that is happening on the left, at least as of yet. And that is my primary focus.
It would not be true to say that the left has enjoyed the support of the Evangelicals as a voting block. They have overwhelmingly supported Republican political candidates. They have been specifically targeted by the Republican ‘leadership’ as a demographic to exploit. And I believe it is the president of Evangelicals of America (or something of the sort) that meets with President Bush every Monday morning. Perhaps the left has as many religiously minded people supporting its candidates, but I am specifically interested in the right because the evangelicals are a super huge and rapidly expanding demographic that is well organized and as a result is increasingly becoming more and more of a force to reckon with for any political movement. That means, that if the Republican leadership fails to please them enough they will abandon the republican leadership even if that means not voting at all. Needless to say, Wallstreet would suffer politically. However, there is only so much corporate America can do to please them without crossing a point where they might be better off just disassociating themselves with the evangelicals all together.
The same has and will happen again to the left eventually, but right now their religious support is solidly behind them and not openly discussing the contradictions of its political candidates, regardless of why or why not. That is where this becomes an issue for the right and not for the left.
Also, lets keep in mind that that many of the left are religiously atheistic. The types that vote for their faux religious leaders only to the extent that they believe their leaders are less evil then the opposition’s. That is to differentiate with the philosophical atheists on both sides that keep their mouths shut about religion during campaign season. Once again, it begs the question, that since there is ultimately a major third unrepresented group of citizens out there why is their never any discussion about or among them?
Re: “Are you denying the demonstrated disdain of the Christian which has been so well-articulated?”
Yes. I am.
There is a difference between the abject obeisance of the Republican party to its most right-wing religious leaders (James Dobson), and the less than total (but still embarrassing) pandering that Democratic candidates do to theirs (Jesse Jackson, who is an articulate leader, but somewhat slimy and Louis Farrakhan, who should be in jail).
I do not like either.
However Republicans, because of their extreme allegiance to their fundamentalist base, are required to characterize even the slightest criticism as “hatred”, since they adhere to the “you are either 100% with us or you are our enemy” philosophy that the Christian Coalition and Moral Majority have made mandatory parts of Conservative faith.
(Which is odd, since Saint Ronald Reagan never practiced that sort of behavior, but Conservatives everywhere perpetuate that attitude in his name).
Re: “Why should I do your research for you Steve?”
Because you made the assertion.
Re: “Religion has historically been used by the ruling elites of society to control the national agenda. This goes for any and all elites both sides of the political spectrum throughout all of history. The reason most “lefties” don’t attack its ‘leadership’ for the exact same hollow religious babble that the right does indeed engage in, is because most “lefties” as most “righties” are playing partisan politics and/or are offering a knee-jerk reaction to the political opposition’s offense.”
Agreed.
Re: “Are you denying the demonstrated disdain of the Christian which has been so well-articulated?”
resp:” Yes. I am”
Yet this denial is followed immediately by a half admission:
“I do not like either.”
and a demonstration of that very disdain:
“Saint Ronald Reagan”
Do you even read your own posts?
Re: “I do disagree-however-that the religious left hasn’t been as influential or even more influential to that end of the spectrum. While the religious right gets press coverage, the religious left does not, but-as demonstrated by the Rainbow Coalition’s religious core and the daily church preaching/politicking by Democrats of late-I have to believe that the religious left’s influence is as strong or stronger and only differs in ‘angle’ not quantity or quality.”
While you and I might disagree as to who is “worse”, I do want to acknowledge, fully and up front, that Liberals have been very guilty of claiming their political opinions somehow reflect Divine will. And shame on us for doing it.
Re: “Yet this denial is followed immediately by a half admission:
“I do not like either.”
and a demonstration of that very disdain:
“Saint Ronald Reagan”
Do you even read your own posts?”
Yes.
I included that “half admission” because I did not want to cast my statement as somehow declaring that those with whom I am politically allied (Liberal Democrats) are somehow pure as the driven snow. They are not. This is usually the purview of Conservatives when discussing Republican candidates.
I did include the reference to “Saint Ronald Reagan” because every Republican, everywhere, bows on bended knee to the memory of President Reagan in almost divine terms.
President Reagan was considerably less that the perfect human being we hear channeled in Republican Presidential debates.
However he was, despite my own displeasure, a very good president. Certainly a lot better than his two Republican successors.
I just tossed that adjective in to tweak Conservatives who have essentially Canonized the man.
Re: “So the state of Iowa, and basically less than a third of republicans is “a lot?” And that’s simply going on Primary results. And then you have to wonder how many conservatives who voted for him even knew he made that statement. The voting public is not that well informed.”
A very good point, and I stand castigated for my overly broad remark.
Re: “That means, that if the Republican leadership fails to please them enough they will abandon the republican leadership even if that means not voting at all.”
I disagree with this aspect of your premise.
My postulate is that the Republican leadership will never curtail their efforts to please this right-wing evangelical base. There is, IMO, no limit to what they will do to keep this voting bloc loyal Republicans.
As I pointed out in other areas, the Republicans called the Congress back into session, and President Bush flew back from vacation after the angry article and speech by one man, James Dobson, regarding the federalization of the car of Terry Schiavo (and please, let’s not revive the Schiavo family dispute here, I’m talking about James Dobson’s demonstrated power, not the target of his demands).
That is power. Lots of groups have a claim on the soul of the Democratic Party, I fully admit that. But no group has demanded, and achieved such actions within one week of making them.
That is the difference.
True, but there are certain things they won’t do or at least would equate to being so much of a compromise to their own specific plans that they would strongly resist even if just below the surface. Evangelicals don’t like corporate America. They view corporate America as the Devil. Corporate America is who they are voting for however.
That can be said of groups in relation to the left as well. But as I mentioned before I believe it is an issue that is becoming more and more of an issue on the right.
The truth is the elites on both sides are really not interested in democracy or justice or freedom for all. Thats rhetoric, even if a few of them think they really believe it. Neither side’s leadership really wants to see change. The problem as I see it is that those social groups that endorse the leaders’ positions don’t really care to see change either, at least until their own position becomes unbearable, such as has been happening slowly over the last few decades.
Republicans will suffer this election, if for no other reason than because they are in the wrong position at the wrong time.
I agree with your point that an elite group rules the American government. We have seen this group referred to as the “Incumbent Party” (meaning both sides).
Never let me fall into the trap of, while I am lambasting Republican sins, claiming some sort of innocence for their Democratic counterparts.
“regarding the federalization of the car of Terry Schiavo (and please, let’s not revive the Schiavo family dispute here,”
Now that murder by Judicial degree has been approved for inconvenient wives, I can see why
those who approve of armed guards making sure that no food or water is administered for 13 days in order to kill someone wouldn’t want to have that decision revisited. That would be almost as bad as having the decision to allow mothers to kill inconvenient children reviewed.
What a sad day for America, when killing inconvenient people is condoned by one of the two political parties that control every aspect of American life.
I knew this would happen.
Re my own comment: “However he was, despite my own displeasure, a very good president. Certainly a lot better than his two Republican successors.”
Let me take back that comment. Or at least admit it was very poorly worded.
There is no reason that I should be displeased that a Republican president was “pretty good”.
I am glad he did well. I was part of the “defeated Democrats, but I’m still glad he did well.
Let me ask? Is this the Philadelphia Steve Blog. If I wanted to read Leftist propaganda, I’d log on to Kos. All you did Steve is prove your Intellectual midgetness. People like you drive me away from an otherwise enjoyable experience on Flopping aces. How many post did you post to change the subject, and otherwise bore me.
Steve: Your continuing filibuster here only underscores the points I made earlier.
YOU, YOURSELF prove my point about lefties who regularly trash “right wing Christians.”
And of course no matter how many other examples I cite to you, about other Democrats, you’ll dismiss it or try and change the subject.
But again, you’ve proven my point and I am grateful that you have done so.
Aaron said: “Religion has historically been used by the ruling elites of society to control the national agenda. This goes for any and all elites both sides of the political spectrum throughout all of history. “
I would not disagree that both sides do it. But as you see above, only one side thinks it alone should have an exclusive right to do so. And while the left constantly condemns any right winger who uses religion in a political context, you won’t find too many examples of a rightie condemngin the left for doing the same.
Of course most of us realized a long time ago that the lefties don’t really believe what they are preaching, unless it is about themselves as God, prophet and savior all in one unholy trinity of socialism.
Re: “Of course most of us realized a long time ago that the lefties don’t really believe what they are preaching, unless it is about themselves as God, prophet and savior all in one unholy trinity of socialism.”
And I’m the one who is condemned for broad brush stereotyping?
This is nothing but a blanket, unsubstantiated, accusation against an entire group, without naming a single name, or citing a single instance.
But I guess that is OK for the Conservatives here, since it is applied to a Liberal, isn’t it?
So Steve: Are you trying to say that the top Democrats running for President are NOT in favor of the UN plan to control Global Warming?
And, I gave you the direct link to the debate that Supreme Court Justices Scalia and Breyer have had about the role of foreign law in American courts.
And yet, in the vomitous filibuster of comments by you which followed, you never once addressed that specific.
Again, it was as I predicted. You simply flooded the board with your lame and transparent attempt to ignore the facts and spin.
Once again, your behavior proves my point!
“This is nothing but a blanket, unsubstantiated, accusation against an entire group, without naming a single name, or citing a single instance.”
“They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, tape wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.”
From
John Kerry’s slanderous speech against the members of the US military in front of the US Senate Subcommittee on Foreign Relations 22 Apr 1971. I repeat “This is nothing but a blanket, unsubstantiated, accusation against an entire group, without naming a single name, or citing a single instance.
And somehow John Kerry gets a pass and even as I provide documented proof of my assertions Philly Steve simply ignores it.
He’s just soooo transparently desperate to avoid the hypocrite label which hangs around his neck like a millstone!
Why do religious beliefs trouble you so much? Beliefs are beliefs, whether they are religious in nature, or secular in origin.
“A lot of Conservative Republicans appear to like what they hear.”
That’s funny — I’ve never met a conservative Republican yet who doesn’t have to hold his nose to vote for any of these nominees — including the ones from the last few elections.
The ones that smell the least liberal — Thompson and Huckabee — never had a chance, and we knew it, so we’ll just hold our nose once again and vote against the National Socialists of the Babbling Left.
As an ultraconservative atheist, I find Hillary and Obama’s pretenses to religion far more offensive and cloying than the at least honest beliefs of Huckabee, Romney, Thompson & the rest.
I see your point MSgt White (Ret) and have to disagree. I think both sides are equally guilty and guilty is guilty regardless of what agenda you’re pushing.
I would recommend being carefull of falling victim to the logic that because a bunch of “leftist” candidates are babbling National Socialists that everyone on the left is the same.
Following that logic I would have to conclude that because Romney appears to me to be a fascist religious war mongering sociopath that you also share the same exact personality traits. Of course you don’t.
You referred earlier to National Socialists, rather than simply Socialists. Although I disagree with either label, the discussion of Socialism and who is and who isn’t a socialist is irrelevant. But you weren’t referring to traditional socialism. You were referring to National Socialists, which is also what the German Nazi’s referred to themselves as. I am certain you are aware of that historical fact, so I ask you why you engage is that sort of labeling? Secondly, I wonder if you are also aware that the National Socialists were “Socialist” in name only. That is, they despised, hated, and fought against socialism. Nietchze was hardly a socialist, and was approaching the ‘divine’ in Hitler’s mind. You know, the same Nietzsche that is praised by many ‘conservatives’ while also having the interesting characteristic of himself despising Christianity and even having written a book called the Anti Christian(Antichrist in English). All that said, to be clear, Hitler and the Nazi’s were super ‘conservative’. I hardly believe that you agree with the Nazis, and that is why I don’t use the word fascist to refer to the entire right wing. You, yourself should try to rise above the other children and define yourself as your own man, not a blind member of the pack or herd.
I’m sure you understand my frustration at trying to wade through all the name calling and “are too, are too”, “am not, am not” bloviating on both sides of the political spectrum.
And that is the crux of the problem. Our own belief systems have been poisoned by partisan politics. The way I see it is that the political line needs to be redrawn. I am solidly on the current “left”. But what does that mean? Martin Luther King Jr falls in the “leftist” category right next to Che Guevara. Those two individuals held two completely different and incompatible world views but they share the same political label. Just like Billy Graham and Hitler are on the same side, so are Gandhi and Stalin.
Is it just me or is something really screwed up here?
The truth is there are those who believe in hierarchy and those who don’t. I don’t. There are those that believe real change and those who just talk, which is the majority of both sides of the political spectrum. The suits, the investor class, include bourgeois liberals and bourgeois conservatives. They’re all a bunch of-excuse my French-pussies.
I am pro working man, but I am not a Socialist. I believe in brotherly love and environmental protection but I am no pantywaist. I am not a pacifist, but I am non violent to the death. That is why I will never run for state government, because you can’t run a state chalk full of fearful undedicated, bloviating morons as the majority of people are in any state, and not help them sleep at night by assuring them you’re armed to the teeth and ready to take even innocent lives in the name of the state. (Seems kind of socialist in theory, doesn’t it?)
The way I see it is that the conservatives of the sort that frequent sites such as this are fed up with what they feel are double standards presented by the pantywaist left. You obviously see the hypocrisy in driving and flying hundreds of miles, burning tons of oil in the process, to go protest a war you supposedly believe is over oil. I agree. I believe the war is over oil, and I also believe the real solution to corporate imperialism is to simply not buy cheap shit you don’t really need. We can discuss actual problems and solutions another time in a more appropriate thread but for now, I ask are we, the small percentage of actual thinking Americans together or are we not. Our politicians are business men, and we know all about business men. They have allegiance to the dollar and nothing else.
“solidly on the current “left”” and “pro working man”
IMO, it would be hard to find any two statements that are more incompatible.
No political position held by the left is good for the working man, IMO.
How can defeating the US by supporting whatever current anti American foreign leader currently fighting us be good for the working man? Is being the citizen of a defeated country supposed to somehow improve the life of the working man?
How can anyone think the Union card check system is good for the working man? Unions are not good for anyone, except the union bosses and the leftist political leaders.
How can anyone think that illegal immigration is good for the working man? How can no voter photo ID be good for the working man?
The list goes on and on. Every leftist policy position is good for only one group, the leftist political leaders. IMO.
Re: “So Steve: Are you trying to say that the top Democrats running for President are NOT in favor of the UN plan to control Global Warming?”
How does that constitute “subverting the US to worldwide socialism?”
Re: “And, I gave you the direct link to the debate that Supreme Court Justices Scalia and Breyer have had about the role of foreign law in American courts.”
American courts regognize, and enforce, foreign law all the time.
For example, if an American court were to hear a case regarding the custody of a child who resided int he Bahamas, but one of the parents was in the US, the court wold use Bahamian law.
And, if you read theUS Constitution, as soon as the US Senate ratifies a tereaty with a foreign nation, that treaty has the effect of law within the US, and will be recognized as such by US courts.
That is why courts enforce such things as radio frequency allocations that are set by UN organizations worldwide.
I’m sorry if that answer does not fit on a bumper sticker. I understand that this is an election year and all political thought must be so phrased.
Aaron: The moral equivalence argument summed up as “both sides do it” (not your words) has been used time and time again to justify the behavior of the left.
I agreed with you earlier that both sides, right and left, use religion. But there’s a difference and it is substantial.
You’ll notice that Democrats only use religion when they are campaigning in chruches. They certainly aren’t about to mention God, Jesus or traditional beliefs when they politic with many of their pro-choice or gay rights constituents.
Other than Mike Huckabee, I don’t recall any of our current crop of GOP candidates, or those in prior years who would campaign in a church, under the cross.
Now, GOP candidates will use the language of God and traditional values and beliefs as part of their standard stump speech, but it’s usually the same standard speech delivered to all of the potential voters to whom they are appealing.
I wonder if when those Dems campaign from the pulpit they join the congregation in singing “Onward Christian Soldiers?” Well, probably not considering that these churches are more left wing. But imagine if a Republican candidate did that?
As I said in my post: The bottom line is that I don’t disapprove of Democrats campaigning in churches. It’s a shame they only go there when they are looking for black votes.
But why do libs get all frothing mad when Republicans mention God?
Philly:
Thanks…
Once again you prove my point. You have been provided with examples that prove my point and you simply dismiss them and spin, spin, spin faster than a Maytag Washer.
P.S. If you insist on filibustering in these comment threads, I reserve the right to delete your comments. Please limit your responses so that other people’s words are not lost in your vomitous spew.
NOTE: THIS COMMENT VIOLATES THE REQUEST OF THE POST AUTHOR TO AVOID SPAMMING THE COMMENT STREAM AND IT HAS BEEN REMOVED. ADDITIONAL FILIBUSTERING COMMENTS ON THIS THREAD WILL BE REMOVED WITHOUT NOTICE.
NOTE: THIS COMMENT VIOLATES THE REQUEST OF THE POST AUTHOR TO AVOID SPAMMING THE COMMENT STREAM AND IT HAS BEEN REMOVED. ADDITIONAL FILIBUSTERING COMMENTS ON THIS THREAD WILL BE REMOVED WITHOUT NOTICE.
Re: “P.S. If you insist on filibustering in these comment threads, I reserve the right to delete your comments. Please limit your responses so that other people’s words are not lost in your vomitous spew.”
Go ahead.
There are three parallel discussion threads going on here, all directed at me. I just respond to the accusations made.
Make sure you pick the ones that directly refute, with sources, comments made by Conservatives. We would not want to trouble them too much with facts.
I post here because, unlike Conservatives, I do not like having discussions in an echo chamber, where only “approved” comments are permitted. I prefer a site where I have demostrate knowledge of my topic, and encounter errudite conversation.
If you prefer the Rush Limbaugh model of discourse, go ahead and ban me altogether.
Steve: No further warning will be issued. If you wish to respond to comments and engage in the discussion, you may continue to do so.
However, I will not allow you to dominate this comment thread with multiple replies.
If you are unable to post your comments and responses as a single comment, then wait for others to respond, then I suggest you organize your thoughts offline, then post when you have fully considered what it is you want to say.
I love seeing Steve’s “conservative free pass” line. I don’t think he even realizes that
1) there is no free pass given by most people who post on this site (see also the wide range of political support for various Republican candidates)
2) the idea of a free pass for a political orientation is better illustrated by his own posts in regards to Democrats
That is absurd on its face, with all due respect. This is exactly what I am talking about. Did you even read my post. Do you disagree that Hitler and Billy Graham both fall on the right spectrum of politics just Stalin and Gandhi both fall on the left? Do you not see how those ‘pairs’ are inherienty incompatible? Why do you insist on playing the game?
You mentioned immigration. Lets talk about that. What is the solution? First, we have to identify what the problem is. That depends on what demographic you are speaking to. Sometimes its a problem of national sovereignty. Sometimes its a problem of foreign cheap labor undercutting the local working class. Sometimes its a problem of aliens using up our resources. The solution seems to be the same. Get them to go away and/or stop coming. How we do that is what is difficult. Because you’ll notice that Mr. Huckabee suggests we do something that I have not yet seen anyone else on the right suggest, and that is punish people who knowing hire illegal aliens. Why is that not a universally acceptable option? Maybe its not the best way to do things, but it is certainly respectable. What do you suggest we do? Follow free market ideology? If we did that and followed the NAFTA/CAFTA ideology then just as capital should be allowed the right to freely roam across borders then so too should labor. According to Free Market ideology the theory is that if we open borders then the Mexicans will flood America seeking better pay. Then the companies such as the US based companies that having production facilities in Mexico will be forced to raise its wage scale through natural necessity. They would not have to offer as much as what is paid in the US simply because there is a cost to coming here. People don’t just leave their country to go work in another for the hell of it. It is inconvenient except to the extent that Mexican wages are simply so low compared to American wages. That is, they don’t even approach our wages. Why? Because the elite in Mexico benefit from the corporate American factories in Mexico. And the only reason those factories are even there is for the dirt-cheap labor. The only reason Mexicans are spilling over the border is because of the extremely high wages here, by comparison to their own.
What is the point? The point is not that we should open the borders but that to not do so does indeed illustrate a double standard present in free market ideology. Perhaps we legalize them all. You, know so we can collect their taxes. Oh, but then they’d enjoy the same legal rights including the right to the minimum wage which corporate America sure as hell doesn’t want. Why does no one even discuss Corporate interests in all of this on television? Edwards and Huckabee do, but they’re considered morons by both sides. The only solutions that are be presented by both sides are half-ass non-solutions. We can build a big wall the will ultimately be as successful as any wall, and then not legalize the Mexicans that are still spilling over the border, and so our own wages are undercut because–as free market ideology tells us–an employer will hire them over us, if it means they can save a small fortune of the costs of labor.
The question that needs to be asked in my opinion of our candidates is this, why is it breaking the fundamental law of nature to not allow the free flow of capital from our country to theirs, and the free flow of cheap goods from their country to ours, but not the free flow of labor in either direction?
“How can defeating the US by supporting whatever current anti American foreign leader currently fighting us be good for the working man?” You will have to clarify for me what you’re talking about.
“Is being the citizen of a defeated country supposed to somehow improve the life of the working man?” I don’t is it? Do you mean to suggest that whenever America defeats another country that the life for their working class citizens suddenly worsens?
“Unions are not good for anyone, except the union bosses and the leftist political leaders.” That is an interesting point. I would agree with you, but only with adding that is also true of corporations as well who are legally obligated to look after the monetary interests of their shareholders over everything else, including the interests of their laborers. Beyond that, it may be good to acknowledge that any and all social organizations eventually become corrupt. Unions, Countries, Corporations, Boy Scout Troops, Families, all communities and organizations. That’s why the word “reorganize” exists. Although, at the peak of Union membership in this country real wages were also at their peak I believe. Regardless, the solution to the overbearing union is to remove the overbearing corporation. Problem solved, then we could all go live on farms, which I’m in the process of working towards myself, but which I am pretty certain is by no means an option for the majority of the planet’s–not to mention America’s–citizens.
So where does that leave us?
After watching the news and Bush in the sword dance clearly links a lot of the ideals in Judgments with actions taken in this Iraq war. America has been fighting a war for the Arabs via Bush and Company. The Center for Integrity clearly shows the run up to the war was an out right lie, and media supported frenzy, all complicit in histories most horrific play to write a wrong history.
The horror is the Islamic stronghold on not only America business, education, and politics, Arabs under the radar manipulate American observation through Americas very own Mainstream Media. Here, Islam is a very powerful force in this election for President. That’s why it is important to debate and consider the cultural clock that has been controlled, and now is definitely linked by Obama blood to Islam Arabs. This can influence powerful politics of the Democrats like Obama. Which may not be good for America, here, America likely needs a long romance and honeymoon to understand more about this cultural clock inside of Obama. A longer warm up time is needed to find out about Obama for what he will do compared to what he says.
Please all understand that I personally like Obama, but America needs to recognized and realize what are the consequences of change with a man who is a half breed, the blood from middle America, in Kansas, and the from the blood of a devoted Islamic father basically of Arabic fundamentalist. Yes, Obama makes the claim he is Christian, anyone can, but one makes the complete leap and in honor and support usually takes on a new name, in Obama’s case why not a Christian name? Even basic American Plains Indians in America have done that.
So, here America has a half breed, part Kansas, and part Arab Islamic from a devoted father who left him and his mother, Obama holds his hand on the bible committing his self to Christianity, yet keeping the name Hussein which we know will have an extraordinary impact on the entire Middle East. But, in what way, Bill Clinton is right even though critics bash Bill Clinton; by saying Obama is the roll of the dice, or is a fairy tail which eludes from Obama’s link to Kansas his mother and America’s most treasured fairy tail “The wizard of OZ” which exposed the wizard who was not. Which Clinton obviously perceives as not the President we need now.
After reading the book Obama wrote called the “Audacity of Hope” clearly shows and exposes very Anti-Constitutional ideals that support deep reflection from Islamic beliefs. In one case many stupid and contradictory remarks are made by Obama in his book, yet when one understands he is a half breed, one can see the that core believe in Islam is reflected through his fathers blood. Incredible for Obama to say he offers no Unified theory in American government. A very striking and extraordinary statement for one who taught the Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago for eight to ten years. America should think with caution about this man called Obama.
No need to read further into jose’s comment then the first paragraph:
Quite wrong.
Dems agree with Flopping Aces:
Later Wednesday, Obama gave a 10-minute talk by live broadcast to a joint meeting in Atlanta of four historically black Baptist denominations, where Clinton was to appear in person later. These groups produced some of the most prominent civil rights leaders, including the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.. whom Obama quoted.
“Pastors are pushing this movement forward,” Obama said of his campaign, “and I need each and every one of you in this fight.”
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080130/D8UGERC80.html