Americans Prefer Gay President to Atheist President
GALLUP POLL: Between now and the 2008 political conventions, there will be discussion about the qualifications of presidential candidates — their education, age, religion, race, and so on. If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be [ITEM A-H READ IN ORDER], would you vote for that person?
Catholic? 93 percent yes, 4 percent no.
Black? 93 percent yes, 5 percent no.
Jewish? 91 percent yes, 6 percent no.
A woman? 86 percent yes, 12 percent no.
Hispanic? 86 percent yes, 12 percent no.
Mormon? 80 percent yes, 17 percent no.
A homosexual? 56 percent yes,41 percent no.
An atheist? 46 percent yes, 48 percent no.
Hey, 56 percent would vote for a gay President! That’s way more of a majority than President Clinton or un-President Gore received in their three popular vote wins. (Reminder: Clinton never received over 50% of the vote either time).
By the way, I thought Hillary was an atheist. Isn’t being a Socialist the same thing?
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
131 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Not really; after all, Iran is a theocracy, yet definitely qualifies as a socialist country.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 11, 2007 @ 1:34 pm - December 11, 2007
Hillary Clinton is a Methodist. She always was. She is not an atheist. Nor, for that matter, does anyone consider her a socialist. In fact most of the left find her rather conservative. She was a Goldwater Girl, after all.
Comment by Houndentenor — December 11, 2007 @ 2:18 pm - December 11, 2007
Based on many of her recent campaign statements on “distributing wealth” and her theory behind her book, “It Takes A Village”…. I most definitely consider her a Socialist.
Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — December 11, 2007 @ 2:20 pm - December 11, 2007
Methodists are pretty much communists. That’s a big part of the reason I quit the Methodist church.
Comment by V the K — December 11, 2007 @ 2:29 pm - December 11, 2007
Gee Bruce, Hillary ought to run as an atheist or a closeted lesbian… because as one of those, she’d generically out poll her OWN current favorable/unfavorable stats. She couild do if it was “from the heart” and yet another convincing make-over pulled from the Clinton bag of tricks.
For her, tho’ it’s bad news because Obama, as a generic black, still out polls her nearly 2:1… so I think the Democrat team ought to cancel the coronation and get ready to embrace Obama… anyone for Oprah as Secy of State? Kucinich as Sec of Defense?
I hear they plan to balance the budget by renting out the Lincoln Bedroom once again to high rollers from Hollywood. And selling presidential pardons over the garden gates.
But that’s only IF THEY GET THE CHANCE because the top four GOP candidates are out-polling all of the Democrats at this point.
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/016112.php
Comment by Michigan-Matt — December 11, 2007 @ 2:34 pm - December 11, 2007
Sorry, meant to write that the GOP field is outpolling Hillary, not all Democrats. Obama and Edwards get a tad advantage.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — December 11, 2007 @ 2:38 pm - December 11, 2007
I think of her more like a Stalinist
Comment by Vince P — December 11, 2007 @ 3:35 pm - December 11, 2007
BTW, there are a lot of atheist conservatives. That makes since since so much of the conservative philosphy I hear (including right here on this board) is based on the writings of Ayn Rand who was herself an atheist.
Comment by Houndentenor — December 11, 2007 @ 3:44 pm - December 11, 2007
#8 – HT – True. Although, “conservative” isn’t a label I claim for myself.
I won’t claim “atheist” either. I think it’s all in the person’s definition of the term “God”. If your God is something that obviously exists, like the Creative Process of the Universe, then obviously that God exists. If your “God” is something that obviously doesn’t exist – like a bearded old (hu)man on a cloud – then obviously that God doesn’t exist. Simple. Anyway, I have nothing against religion or religious people.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 11, 2007 @ 4:07 pm - December 11, 2007
As for “socialist” – Again it depends on definitions. I define “socialist” as anyone who believes in social – that is, governmental – *control* of the economy. It can take many forms.
In classical socialism (or “socialism” construed narrowly), the government owns the means of production and its planners issue 5-year plans or whatever. Obviously, Hillary does not want that. That system kills the goose that lays the golden eggs – the society’s producers. That’s well-proven.
So, socialists like Hillary seek less crude / more ‘modern’ ways to control economic actors. For example, the fantasy of single-payer health care. What the government pays for, and/or *compels* citizens to pay for (via taxation and/or mandatory participation / Romneycare), it controls. We already have that today with Medicare. Through Medicare, the government basically dictates to doctors – it controls them. Hillary wants to add new government payments, controls and compulsions on top of that. That makes her a socialist, in the broad sense.
Personally, I prefer the term “statist” for anyone, Republican or Democrat, who wants to extend the reach and activity of the State. But, the term doesn’t seem to be widely used.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 11, 2007 @ 4:22 pm - December 11, 2007
sort of off topic. Speaking of religion and politics, I’m wondering when y’all are gonna opine about Rev. Huckabee’s comments on Fox News “I don’t recant” about cutting off funding for HIV/AIDS (let those Hollywood types pay for it) and isolating HIV positive persons. I remember once that NDT said something to the effect that ‘outside of concentration camps’ there would be nothing that the GOP could stoop to that would cause me to vote for Hillary. Are we there yet? Any Gaypatriots disturbed by Reverand Huckabee’s comments and refusal to recant them?
Comment by Tom in Houston — December 11, 2007 @ 7:20 pm - December 11, 2007
What’s there to comment about.. his comments are manifestly absurd.
Comment by Vince P — December 11, 2007 @ 7:29 pm - December 11, 2007
No, Tom.
And there’s a very good reason why.
Two new U.S. studies of gay and bisexual men who know they are infected with HIV show that more than one-third have recently had unprotected intercourse.
In many cases, these men are engaging in unprotected sex with other HIV-infected men — a practice called “serosorting,” where partners with a similar, HIV-positive blood test status decide to forego condoms.
However, “we also found that almost a third of the men — 31.4 percent — said that they had had unprotected anal intercourse with at least one partner of unknown serostatus, and almost a quarter had unprotected intercourse with a partner who they knew was HIV uninfected,” said the lead author of one of the studies, Dr. Kenneth Mayer, medical research director at Fenway Community Health, in Boston.
Furthermore, here’s a good example of with whom they’re doing it:
The numbers suggesting steady condom use among gay youth don’t harmonize with 23-year-old Kelvin Barlow’s experiences in Atlanta. “A lot of my partners are not thinking about condoms,” said Barlow, who was diagnosed with HIV at age 17. “I think I’m usually the first one to bring [condom use] up [in sexual situations]. Sometimes my partners know my status and sometimes they don’t — they just want to jump in the bed.”
Barlow believes a combination of ignorance and emptiness led to his seroconversion. “At that time I was the dumbest thing walking — I thought I was invincible and could do whatever and not get ill,” said Barlow, who was 15 and dating a 35-year-old man. “I thought I was in this relationship with this man who loved me, why do we need to wear condoms?”
In short, what we have are an enormous number of people who KNOW they are infected willingly engaging in unprotected sex with people who they know are NOT infected — even with teenagers who are under the age of consent. We won’t even go into the explosion in syphilis cases that are resulting from unprotected sex even between poz guys.
This goes beyond personal choice and well into creating a public health crisis — and in public health crises, you isolate and control the vectors, especially when they’ve shown themselves to be incapable of doing it themselves. Furthermore, the government should NOT have to pay for people who knowingly engaged in risky behavior and do not want to accept the consequences.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 11, 2007 @ 7:52 pm - December 11, 2007
Has it been long enough that we can begin to be objective about AIDS? On the one hand, way back, those of us inclined not to be alarmist were told that AIDS was an imminent threat to everyone and anyone could get it and then, when parents all went batsh*t over a kid with AIDS at their kid’s school, we were told that we were bigoted haters and AIDS was near impossible to catch.
Putting infectious people in quarantine is what is done for dangerously contagious diseases. It’s not hateful, it’s prudent.
For something difficult to spread from person to person and which can be avoided through something as ordinary as monogamy throwing money at research *feels* rightly or wrongly like being asked to pay so someone else can be promiscuous without risk.
Why NOT let those pushing for promiscuity pay for it?
Why is that a horrible hateful thing to suggest? It might be wrong, but then a counter argument ought to be made. (And preferably one that doesn’t amount to trying to claim that NO ONE is immune and everyone is at risk and you should be afraid of catching AIDS because it’s… catchy.)
Comment by Synova — December 11, 2007 @ 7:53 pm - December 11, 2007
Ms. Rodham Clinton’s religious convictions resemble her politics – they point like a weather vane. As a teen she was enthused for civil rights by a Christian minister who took her to see MLK speak. In college she got her start grafting what we now call “social justice” concerns onto political programmatics. Don’t forget her consulting a shaman, seeking to “channel” Eleanor Roosevelt, and faux-rabbi Michael Lerner’s “politics of meaning” – all during her tenure as First Lady. Her shifting spiritual answers are blowin’ in the wind.
Based on the results of that poll, I say we draft Clarence Thomas.
Comment by Jeremayakovka — December 11, 2007 @ 7:55 pm - December 11, 2007
#14 There are a whole range of public heath issues related to HIV that deserve to be put on the table assiduous discussion, like testing anonymity and contact tracing.
Comment by Jeremayakovka — December 11, 2007 @ 8:00 pm - December 11, 2007
I’m pretty sure by 1992 it was known that you had to try pretty hard to get HIV by accident. And it was also known that people could live for years and years.
I dont thikn quarentine is an effective tactic when the disease isnt easy to spread, and those with it live for decades.
Now I can sympathize with people who may have supported Quarentine in the 1980s when the disease was new.. but by 1992? cmon.
Now I did support mandatory HIV testing and a tatooing near the pubic region.
Comment by Vince P — December 11, 2007 @ 8:01 pm - December 11, 2007
#17 Agreed. Quarantine, though always a legitimate option, does not necessarily impose itself as a measure in this case.
Comment by Jeremayakovka — December 11, 2007 @ 8:06 pm - December 11, 2007
Synova and NDT,
Here is my interpretation of the GOP/Baptist response to HIV/AIDS. Feel free to disagree.
1) Make Gay monogamy illegal and then criticize Gay people when some aren’t monogamous.
2) Revel in what some believe to be God’s judgement of homosexuals, then advocate policies and celebrate those that do nothing to try to stop or cure the disease.
3) Enshrine discrimination and stigmitism of HIV/AIDS sufferers so that people refuse to get tested.
4) Fight needle exchanges, even thought they are critical in stopping the spread of HIV/AIDS in the straight community, because they think that a 15 cent needle is endorsing drug use. Never mind the HIV infected babies that result from needle induced HIV. Its just abortion about 9 years after birth.
5) Fight effective communication about the disease targeted at the communities that need it, because they’d rather people die than a message be spread that they disagree with.
6) Suck off funds from groups that need it to enrich their churches and force people to go where they believe they are demeaned and insulted (and yes, calling someone a sinner or disgusting or comparing them to a pedophile or a crook is insulting) and are treated with force-fed anti-Gay religion to receive taxpayer supported benefits.
7) Advocate policies designed to deny the sufferers loved ones the right to visit and make decisions for them. Even if they don’t have a million legal documents on them at all times.
8 As an afterthought, use some silly statement like ‘love the sinner, hate the sin’ which can be translated to, ‘I’m going to prevent care if you don’t follow the teachings of my church’.
9) Never apologize to the Gay community by name for past transgressions regarding AIDS/HIV callousness.
10) Excuse all of the above, by implying that the above is how God would want it to be.
Feel free to disagree with the above. Hell you might surprise me.
Comment by Tom in Houston — December 11, 2007 @ 8:18 pm - December 11, 2007
19: yawn
Comment by Vince P — December 11, 2007 @ 8:20 pm - December 11, 2007
20. I guess it would have been better had I just agreed with the talking points in here (the ones that look like they were lifted off the FRC/AFA websites) strongly implying that people who get AIDS deserve it and as good Christians, we should just let people die because we don’t like how they contracted it. And besides I’d rather have a tax cut.
Comment by Tom in Houston — December 11, 2007 @ 8:31 pm - December 11, 2007
What – are they proposing to change the Constitution so that sodomy laws can come back?
Note that sodomy laws make gay monogamy illegal… a mere lack of gay marriage / civil union laws does not. In all 50 States of today’s America, nothing legally stops you from being monogamous. Nothing.
You don’t get out much, do you Tom? (I mean, if that’s what you honestly believe Christians are about. Get out more. Talk to some.)
Tom is 0-for-2 on his first 2 points, so I won’t even bother with the rest.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 11, 2007 @ 8:38 pm - December 11, 2007
Puh-lease.. just because you have issues eminating from your youth, it doesn’t mean everyone else has to indulge your religious bigotry.
Comment by Vince P — December 11, 2007 @ 8:42 pm - December 11, 2007
Hmmm….
How does this post become another comment section devoting to smear Clinton?
Oh yeah…CDS is rampent here!
Comment by gil — December 11, 2007 @ 8:44 pm - December 11, 2007
Vera recalls in the very early days of AIDS (originally dubbed GRID for ‘gay related immune deficiency’) some of the earliest responders and caregivers were Catholic nuns and the Sisters of Charity from St Vincent’s Medical Center in the Village.
They were a bunch of tough old nuns who weren’t afraid of anything and showed true compassion to the sick and dying – who had been, at that point, abandoned by almost everyone else.
Some people have short memories – not Vera.
Comment by Vera Charles — December 11, 2007 @ 8:50 pm - December 11, 2007
HRC is lesbian and a commie?!?!?
Lets do what the Nazis did those people!
Sleep deprivation, Induced Hypothermia and an occasional Waterboarding.
Or was that at the Gulag….
Comment by gil — December 11, 2007 @ 9:05 pm - December 11, 2007
1) In the struggle for gay freedom, sodomy not monogamy is the practice whose legality has to be assured. In fact the gay subculture, which flaunts promiscuity, is directly responsible for the vast, catastrophic spread of HIV.
2) Consider then choose … anything. No reveling here.
3) Discrimination is essential – the basis for the discrimination is what’s at stake.
4) I hope you bleach your needles thoroughly.
5) The communication is as effective as a condom (“used properly, it may reduce the risk of transmitting sexual diseases…”)
6) “Just like a prayer, I will take you there.” -Madonna
7) Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
If you prefer to be hated for both your person and your sin, I’m sure you can find some who will accommodate you.
9) If you’ve got it, flaunt it.
10) “wants”
Comment by Jeremayakovka — December 11, 2007 @ 9:20 pm - December 11, 2007
That poll is encouraging…. I am so happy to see that 46% would vote for an atheist. I think that proves that we, finally, are on the right track as a nation.
Comment by Please — December 11, 2007 @ 9:49 pm - December 11, 2007
Gay monogamy is illegal? Oh, wait, I forgot. Some people attach no value to their relationships unless they can get a form letter stamped by a government bureaucracy to legitimize them.
Comment by V the K — December 11, 2007 @ 10:21 pm - December 11, 2007
Nancy Pelosi makes me want to vomit.
I have two items here.. the first is her interview with Chris Wallace of FOX from a few months ago. He flat out asks her if she was ever briefed by the CIA on techniques such as waterboarding… watch how she refuses to directly answer….Then next is a story from a few days ago about how she was informed of what the CIA was doing and that she didnt even object to it. Notice how the litte liar denied it on FOX. This phoney outrage about the CIA tapes is yet another example of how th eDemocrats stop at nothing to harm our national defense
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/nancy-pelosi-on-waterboarding-in-october
Transcript: Speaker Nancy Pelosi on ‘FNS’
Monday, October 08, 2007
WASHINGTON — This is a rush transcript from “FOX News Sunday with Chris Wallace,” October 7, 2007. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
CHRIS WALLACE, HOST: It’s been nine months since Nancy Pelosi became the first woman speaker of the House and opened a new combative relationship between Congress and the president. On Friday in the Capitol, we had a chance to talk with the speaker about that and why public approval of Congress is now at historic lows. Our interview took place in the speaker’s ceremonial office.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WALLACE: Speaker Pelosi, welcome back to Fox News Sunday.
REP. NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIF., HOUSE SPEAKER: My pleasure…
WALLACE: It’s been disclosed this week that the Justice Department, after publicly declaring torture abhorrent in 2004, secretly, a few months later, approved the — in combination — the use of head slapping, water boarding and exposure to extreme temperatures.
The president now says that the leadership, the Congress, was fully informed, and that this is not torture.
First question: Were you ever briefed about this policy or the secret Justice Department memos?
PELOSI: Well, in order to know if I’m briefed about it, I’d have to be briefed about it now. What exactly is the president talking about? Yes, let me get my credentials right out there. I’m the longest-serving member of Congress on the intelligence committee, both on the committee and ex officio as a leader. So we have been briefed on some tactics used by the administration.
But I’d have to see what we’re talking about here, because this is — all I know is what I’ve read in the New York Times.
WALLACE: You were never briefed about these secret memos in 2005?
PELOSI: No, not about the secret memos.
But let me say also, again, as one who appreciates the value of intelligence to protect the American people, I think it’s very important that we have the best possible intelligence. And there’s international cooperation on this, and there are international standards on it. And I think that protecting the American people being our top priority, we should do so in a way that is within the law, and experts agree that you do not obtain reliable intelligence through using these tactics.
WALLACE: So let me ask you directly…
PELOSI: … and you diminish our reputation in the world, which hurts the cooperation we need to collect the intelligence we need to protect the American people.
WALLACE: So let me ask you directly. Do you think that the interrogation techniques that have been reported — let’s not talk about what’s in the memo, but what’s been reported — in combination, head slapping, water boarding, exposure to extreme temperatures. Torture?
PELOSI: There is a legal definition of torture that I believe this would fit. The president says it is not. Again, we have to see the degree and what he is talking about, because again, to answer on the basis of something that’s been reported in the press that the president has deemed is not torture, it’s just not — I just can’t give you an informative answer on that.
=====================
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/pelosi-briefed-on-waterboarding-in-2002
In Meetings, Spy Panels’ Chiefs Did Not Protest, Officials Say
By Joby Warrick and Dan Eggen
Sunday, December 9, 2007; A01
In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA’s overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.
Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.
“The briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough,” said a U.S. official who witnessed the exchange…
[L]ong before “waterboarding” entered the public discourse, the CIA gave key legislative overseers about 30 private briefings, some of which included descriptions of that technique and other harsh interrogation methods, according to interviews with multiple U.S. officials with firsthand knowledge.
With one known exception, no formal objections were raised by the lawmakers briefed about the harsh methods during the two years in which waterboarding was employed, from 2002 to 2003, said Democrats and Republicans with direct knowledge of the matter. The lawmakers who held oversight roles during the period included Pelosi and Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) and Sens. Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), as well as Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.) and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan).
Individual lawmakers’ recollections of the early briefings varied dramatically, but officials present during the meetings described the reaction as mostly quiet acquiescence, if not outright support. “Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing,” said Goss, who chaired the House intelligence committee from 1997 to 2004 and then served as CIA director from 2004 to 2006. “And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement.” …
U.S. officials knowledgeable about the CIA’s use of the technique say it was used on three individuals — Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks; Zayn Abidin Muhammed Hussein Abu Zubaida, a senior al-Qaeda member and Osama bin Laden associate captured in Pakistan in March 2002; and a third detainee who has not been publicly identified.
Abu Zubaida, the first of the “high-value” detainees in CIA custody, was subjected to harsh interrogation methods beginning in spring 2002 after he refused to cooperate with questioners, the officials said. CIA briefers gave the four intelligence committee members limited information about Abu Zubaida’s detention in spring 2002, but offered a more detailed account of its interrogation practices in September of that year, said officials with direct knowledge of the briefings.
The CIA provided another briefing the following month, and then about 28 additional briefings over five years, said three U.S. officials with firsthand knowledge of the meetings. During these sessions, the agency provided information about the techniques it was using as well as the information it collected.
Lawmakers have varied recollections about the topics covered in the briefings.
Graham said he has no memory of ever being told about waterboarding or other harsh tactics. Graham left the Senate intelligence committee in January 2003, and was replaced by Rockefeller. “Personally, I was unaware of it, so I couldn’t object,” Graham said in an interview. He said he now believes the techniques constituted torture and were illegal.
Pelosi declined to comment directly on her reaction to the classified briefings. But a congressional source familiar with Pelosi’s position on the matter said the California lawmaker did recall discussions about enhanced interrogation. The source said Pelosi recalls that techniques described by the CIA were still in the planning stage — they had been designed and cleared with agency lawyers but not yet put in practice — and acknowledged that Pelosi did not raise objections at the time…
Comment by Vince P — December 11, 2007 @ 11:01 pm - December 11, 2007
Tom:
1) Monogamy has nothing to do with legal status. Couples who are not married can be monogamous, and couples who are may not be, i.e. Bill and Hillary Clinton.
2) The only way to stop AIDS is to stop having unprotected sex with multiple partners. That is YOUR choice, not anyone else’s — unless you want the government to ban unprotected sex and promiscuity.
3) If your image is more important than your health, so be it.
4) Your argument is that pregnant women should be given free needles so they can continue to do injectable drugs while pregnant without getting HIV, under the insane theory that it is somehow “better” for the baby to be continually exposed to meth, heroin, and whatever else their mothers are injecting in utero — versus incarcerating their sorry butts and forcing them into rehab, where they and their babies wouldn’t get HIV from injecting OR have problems with being exposed to drugs.
5) “Effective communication”, of course, being to tell twelve-year-olds, who have notoriously bad track records in exercising judgment and acting safely, that sex is great and they can indulge in it whenever they want provided that they wear a condom — just like the fifteen-year-old I cited above.
6) Why? Does HIV only affect gay people? Or do you oppose black churches, for example, being given money for HIV testing and prevention efforts?
7) Four words: healthcare power of attorney. It’s what everyone else who is barred from marrying, i.e. parents and kids, siblings, etc. get, and it works just fine. Indeed, if you remember the Schiavo case, marriage is NOT an adequate substitute for it.
Yawn.
9) Why should THEY apologize for YOUR self-inflicted wound? Christians didn’t make you use drugs or have unprotected sex with multiple partners. YOU did.
10) Yawn.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 11, 2007 @ 11:07 pm - December 11, 2007
We could do like FDR & Truman did and hire them for sensitive government jobs.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 11, 2007 @ 11:48 pm - December 11, 2007
Well I guess her secret is safe with just you.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 11, 2007 @ 11:49 pm - December 11, 2007
Guess it depends on what the definition of “brief” is.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 11, 2007 @ 11:57 pm - December 11, 2007
Question of the day: how many people here scroll through the Vince P book length cut & pastes and see that, yes, it’s Vince again, and continue on to the next comment? And a related question: how large of an ego would one have if one expected others to read so much non-original thinking just because one’s name is attached?
Comment by KYKid — December 12, 2007 @ 6:51 am - December 12, 2007
Tom does come across as rather bitter. A lifetime of holding other people responsible for your own bad choices can have that effect.
On that note, a left-wing talk radio host is busted for kiddy prwn, and blames Bush.
Comment by V the K — December 12, 2007 @ 8:18 am - December 12, 2007
#35
Interesting how they quickly changed the subject to Bush and Iraq. Funny how we shouldn’t “saddle future generations with war debt”, but we can sure as hell saddle future generations with trillions and trillions of debt from the war on poverty, Socialist Stupidity and Medicare.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 12, 2007 @ 9:32 am - December 12, 2007
Talk about blaming others’ for your woes -personal or even economic… Davey Weigel over at Reason notes that GOPers may be chasing a rabbit down the hole on the anti-Hispanic anti-illegal immigration (Tancredoism) rants.
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/123864.html
Weigel thinks THE best story anyone will read this week is over at the NYer mag. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/12/17/071217fa_fact_lizza?printable=true
Comment by Michigan-Matt — December 12, 2007 @ 9:35 am - December 12, 2007
Sounds like more of the same old “America’s Future Is to be a Latin American country, so let’s just start pandering now,” stuff. I note even Huckabee has abandoned Open Borders and is campaigning around Iowa with Jim Gilchrist. That’s gotta hurt. But, there’s still McCain.
Comment by V the K — December 12, 2007 @ 10:23 am - December 12, 2007
If there is one thing every dem loves its repubs like V&K and NDT
Because of you, this country is likely to be a country ruled by Dems for years to come!
Thanks!
Comment by gil — December 12, 2007 @ 10:26 am - December 12, 2007
Not to mention the tiresome “Border Security = Racism” tripe. I thought only left-wingers accused their opponents of being racist when they wanted to shut down debate.
Comment by V the K — December 12, 2007 @ 10:26 am - December 12, 2007
On a lighter note, here’s a pretty funny cartoon.
Comment by V the K — December 12, 2007 @ 10:34 am - December 12, 2007
Countdown to MM going “Can’t you stay on topic?”, in denial of the fact that he (MM) always introduces immigration: 5… 4… 3…
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 12, 2007 @ 11:50 am - December 12, 2007
Could be worse. This topic came up at my favorite blog and soon became a discussion on office coffee etiquette.
Comment by V the K — December 12, 2007 @ 11:57 am - December 12, 2007
It’s a big deal at my office. You have to make the new pot, when you take the current pot gets below one very full (20oz) cup. The concept is that it’s less painful for you to make the new pot before you walk away, than it is for the next person to have to do it when they walk up.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 12, 2007 @ 12:02 pm - December 12, 2007
Obviously, coffee etiquette doesn’t affect me
Comment by V the K — December 12, 2007 @ 12:05 pm - December 12, 2007
Sooo….you’re happy with the fact that liberals cost us trillions of dollars,
*your leaders trashing the US and her soldiers on a DAILY basis,
*scaring children with some BS about dying polar bears,
*destroying families,
*infanticide,
*obtaining the LOWEST approval ratings in history,
*pandering to the unions and trial lawyers and even fcuking THAT up,
*destroying families,
*exploitation of children, seniors, blacks, Hispanics, gays etc.,
*lying about what they knew and when they knew it,
*destroying opponents then whining why nobody likes you and everybody’s so “divisive”,
*pissing and moaning about “ignoring our allies” and then turning your back on them because it’s politically inconvenient,
*leaking national security information,
*running 30+ days of Abu Ghraib photos to embolden our enemies FOUR MONTHS after it was discovered and dealt with,
*rage, hate and anger and can’t figure out why people hate your ever-living guts
Is this what you’re proud of and look forward to enjoying more of?
I could go on, but you get the picture. I’m sure others could add to it.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 12, 2007 @ 12:32 pm - December 12, 2007
Frankly, gillie, I feel sorry for you.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 12, 2007 @ 12:34 pm - December 12, 2007
My favorite statistical point for refuting the argument that being tough on illegal immigration hurts Republicans; in 2004, Proposition 200, Arizona’s measure which requires proof of citizenship to register to vote or to receive public benefits, mandates voter identification at polling places, and requires state agencies and law enforcement to report illegal immigrants to the Federal government for deportation, passed — with 47% of Latinos voting “Yes”.
As I blogged yesterday, Latinos who are eligible to vote are sick and tired of being intimidated, brutalized, and killed by gangs made up largely of illegal immigrants.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 12, 2007 @ 12:41 pm - December 12, 2007
VdaK and ILC, gheez guys, you are johnney-one-notes… albeit not in key for most the song but still trying to sing from the exact same lyrics. Gotta love that noiz, bois.
I think Weigel –who is solidly conservative, libertarian and an editor over at Reason– called out why the NYer article by Lizza is critically important to those who care about the issue, want to secure progress on the related issues of immigration and think the GOP is selling itself short in order to appease a narrow, hard-core, angry niche in the Party. That’s why “chasing a rabbit down the hole” metaphor, noiz bois.
Of course, you can dismiss away all you want… but the GOP needs the Hispanic vote and moderate vote far more than they need the “stay-at-home-angry” conservative vote. And before ILC spins that as MM2007 says all conservatives are “x”… I didn’t. I wrote that the GOP needs Hispanic and moderate voters far more than the smaller, angry mob who people a small niche of the conservative movement. And who stayed home, disloyally mumbling something about “America going to Hell” in the 2006 elections.
Tancredoism is a great term for the policies that appeal to that niche… and it’s engaged at the peril of losing moderates, 40-45% of the Hispanic vote (which translates into very important voting blocks in 7 major blue-red states) and only God knows what else. Remember, this isn’t like the gay voting block that’s locked away on the Democrat plantation and won’t come out to play with the GOP… these are voters the Party loses with Tancredoism.
Of course, neither of you guys are GOP-behavioral voters… so it shouldn’t matter to you if some within the GOP say Tancredoism is chasing a rabbit down the hole. Right? I mean, you guys don’t even support political parties… to you, they’re all corruption peddling scumbags.
Weigel and Lizza make some great points about what the GOP candidates are doing to the Party. Maybe gaining core-voters in Iowa and the trailer parks of NH, but losing voters far faster in FL, AZ, CA, MI, NM, etc.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — December 12, 2007 @ 12:44 pm - December 12, 2007
NDT writes: “My favorite statistical point for refuting the argument that being tough on illegal immigration hurts Republicans (is)… with 47% of Latinos voting “Yes”.”
Yep, nearly the percentage of Democrats who supported AZ 200-04. http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/AZ/I/01/epolls.0.html
Of course, NDT, conservative icons like the WSJ editorial page have it all wrong when they argue, as noted below in John Mashek’s piece, that the GOP is hurting itself in the Hispanic community with immigration bashing. http://www.usnews.com/blogs/mashek/2007/09/17/gop-tosses-the-hispanic-vote.html?s_cid=rss:gop-tosses-the-hispanic-vote.html
Mi Familia, a group funded by PFAW and other Democrat leaners, were able to register over 72,000 Hispanic voters in solidly S FL GOP areas in the last election cycle… and they’re doing it in AZland as well. Of those 72k NEW Hispanic voters… nearly 1/2 are Indies because the folks at MiFamilia know that Indies will vote against the GOP because of Tancredoism… they’re happy to sign em up as Indies. http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0313mivota0313.html
I don’t think the GOP can find enough angry-stay-at-home conservatives to make up the difference. We give ‘em some red meat but guys like the noiz bois will never be happy til all the Mix-icans are kicked to the curb and sent packin’.
JMHO
Comment by Michigan-Matt — December 12, 2007 @ 1:00 pm - December 12, 2007
But now we’ve really gotten off topic… I want to get back to “Methodists are pretty much communists” comment at #4. LOL.
And some here can call Tom “bitter” with a str8 face??? No pun intended.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — December 12, 2007 @ 1:04 pm - December 12, 2007
Matt, it is easy for you to be sanguine in Michigan. But for those of us who actually live in border states, things are a little different.
I, for one, would like to be able to ride the bus to work without it picking up bullet holes as it crosses Norteno and Sureno territory. And the people who ride the bus with me who live in those areas would love to be able to let their kids play outside without them having to worry about drive-by shootings, or allow them to wear whatever color they want without running the risk of their kids being knifed or beaten up because they were in the “wrong” area for that color, and to be able to call the police and report people dealing drugs on their street corners with the possibility that it would actually get rid of the drug dealers, versus guaranteeing them a nice visit from the gangs’ illegal-immigrant enforcers.
The mess is entirely of your own creating. Your refusal to enforce border security, as you and your fellow “moderates” promised to do in the last amnesty bill in 1986, is why we have this problem. Because we have no idea who is in this country, or what sort of criminal records they have, or what exactly they plan to do here, we need to follow a simple rule; everyone who didn’t come in through the legal process needs to leave. Period. THEN we will talk about readmitting those who have kept their noses clean and genuinely want to settle here and contribute to the country.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 12, 2007 @ 1:13 pm - December 12, 2007
Somebody else will have to respond to MM’s long comment because I just don’t care enough to read it. But as for the short one, I was raised in the Methodist church and I watched as the church embraced and financially supported violent communist movements around the world, supplied the plane that took Elian Gonzales back to the gulag, and decided gun prohibition was a central tenet of the church’s teachings.
Bitterness isn’t quite the word. I feel badly for its adherents that the national church has turned away from it’s mission and become politicized. I thought we were supposed to be in the world, but not of the world.
Comment by V the K — December 12, 2007 @ 1:14 pm - December 12, 2007
That from a guy in New Fallujah.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 12, 2007 @ 1:14 pm - December 12, 2007
Oh, please. You’re talking to the mirror again, MM. LOL
Seeing as this thread has gone off the cliff now – with, among other things, MM bringing it back to his standard rants on immigration and “conservatives” acting “disloyally” (MM’s weird phrase)… Here is my own thought-for-the-day. It hit me as I was driving in.
It’s on the recent NIE, that said Iran stopped its nuclear programs in 2003. I think it really puts Bush’s critics between a rock and a hard place.
Why? Because, either it is true that Iran stopped its nuclear programs in 2003, or it isn’t. Let’s think it through.
- If it’s not true: Then it’s just another crappy product of our feckless, often-wrong intelligence Establishment – and their Democratic allies – who want to deny that America has enemies, deny those enemies are vicious, deny they are seeking WMDs, etc.
- If it is true: Then it vindicates the Bush Administration’s policy on Iraq. Quiz time: What *other* event happened in 2003, folks? Something right on Iran’s doorstep? Something that Iran had been trying to accomplish for decades at a cost of millions of lives, but never could – making them feel suddenly insecure, when America did it in 4 weeks?
Either way: there is some set of Bush Administration critics out there that plainly suck ass.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 12, 2007 @ 1:25 pm - December 12, 2007
Guys, did I call it up at #43?
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 12, 2007 @ 1:28 pm - December 12, 2007
Hey, I’m trying to keep my posts at least rooted in religion and presidential politics.
On that note, Mike Huckabee: Explain to me how it can be that a Baptist minister from Arkansas is more liberal than a cross-dressing Roman Catholic from New York City?
Comment by V the K — December 12, 2007 @ 1:36 pm - December 12, 2007
#56 BWAHAHAHAHA. Good one.
This thread has gone pretty far afield.
To recap my points:
1. Hilary is not an atheist. She is a methodist.
2. Atheism does not equal socialism. Ayn Rand was an atheist and about as anti-socialist as you can get. There are plenty other libertarian and conservative atheists as well as a great many religious socialists.
3. It’s sad when the right is so out of mud to fling at Hilary Clinton that they have to resort to making things up. Really isn’t there enough real dirt on her without lying?
Comment by Houndentenor — December 12, 2007 @ 1:46 pm - December 12, 2007
Houndentenor, in answer:
1. I would suspect Hillary is a MINO.
Then again, I don’t believe anything about Hillary is the least bit real, except her angry lust for power.
2. Again, I agree. (Pure side note – Ayn Rand, though the ultimate anti-socialist, vehemently rejected the label “conservative” for herself, as well as “libertarian”. She called herself a “radical for capitalism”.)
3. Agree – provided you’re talking about a specific instance that really is “made up”. (I don’t see it in this thread. Hillary is a socialist – in the broad sense – for the reasons I gave at #10.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 12, 2007 @ 1:55 pm - December 12, 2007
ILC whines: “Guys, did I call it up at #43? ”
Umm, no… but don’t let that stop you from clapping more erasers, Mother Superior. The simple truth is still the simple truth, ILC. The GOP, under compassionate conservative Geo Bush gained upwards of 40% of the Hispanic vote. After three years of angry conservatives beating up Hispanics (ala VdaK’s “I’m tired of being Mexico’s bitch” line) on immigration, the GOP is losing that vote to Democrat organizers… and the GOP is pissing on the moderates & independents who can make a difference in the next election… instead we’re catering to the niche/core of angry conservatives who will likely stay-home again in 08 because the nominee isn’t pro-life enough, anti-immigrant enough or said once that they thought there weren’t any aliens in Area 51.
I know it’s fashinonable for angry conservatives to demand the GOP move to the Right of Reagan… but, frankly, that’s the position that is categorically “off-the-cliff” and into the pounding surf of defeat. If you have the opportunity to watch GOP debates today, the Iowa Register editor will tell the candidates that immigration and Iraq are not going to be the focus of the debate’s questions. Ouch.
Like Weigel/Lizza said in the past, the GOP candidates’ stand(s) on illegal immigration is like chasing a rabbit down the hole… I think Weigel/Lizza would have been more accurate saying it’s a rat down a hole, tho.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — December 12, 2007 @ 2:35 pm - December 12, 2007
Laughs, MM. Not whines. ***Laughs***
And, I love the continue one-note rant.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 12, 2007 @ 2:45 pm - December 12, 2007
NDT offers: “The mess is entirely of your own creating. Your refusal to enforce border security, as you and your fellow “moderates” promised to do in the last amnesty bill in 1986, is why we have this problem.”
The fellow moderates you like to ascribe to a cabal who failed to enforce ICRA-86′s provisions is a strawman point, NDT.
RR’s Administration had 2 yrs to get the job done… or at least put the infrastructure in place to ensure it got done post-RR. Conservative Bush 41 didn’t do it adequately because of the games played by activist judges on the Federal bench as well as the split control in Congress.
Democrat conservative BillClinton didn’t do it because he knew that it would inflame the Hispanic vote and drive those voters to the GOP… as well as being hampered by a conservative Congress intent on prok-barrels and missing the need for border barrels.
Nawh, I don’t think you can lay this one on the moderates, NDT. Conservatives and liberals have a lot of responsibility for the failures in our immigration policy, border security and the 8-11m technical illegals working in the US. The moderate boogey man works for issues in the 1960s and 1970s… but not in RR era of the powerful, ascendant conservative.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — December 12, 2007 @ 2:48 pm - December 12, 2007
ILC, I stand corrected on your demeanor. We’re both laughing then… you at the pedantic self-projections and me at the silliness they encumber. It’s ok, it’s allowed… besides, you aren’t even a GOP supporter so why do you care?
Comment by Michigan-Matt — December 12, 2007 @ 2:50 pm - December 12, 2007
Care about what? To what are you referring?
And – I’m very much a (1) pro-capitalist / anti-socialist, and (2) America supporter.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 12, 2007 @ 2:54 pm - December 12, 2007
#58, virtually all politicians are opportunistically religious. It’s interesting how many of them found religion just in time for it to be politically advantageous (Bill Clinton, George W Bush, and we could go on all day). I love how McCain suddenly changed denominations, wait he did a long time ago, yes, no, yes. Whatever. I’m tired of religion in my politics and that goes for Democrats as well as Republicans.
Comment by Houndentenor — December 12, 2007 @ 3:01 pm - December 12, 2007
#63 P.S. – Oh, but I shouldn’t forget – As an America supporter, I happen to believe we should have secure our borders, and should have large amounts of legal immigration, rather than illegal. And that tags me as a “disloyal conservative” after all, plus a “nativist”, “racist”, and all the rest, in your weird jargon.
#64 Houndentenor – I don’t think Bush is opportunistically religious. I think he really believes in God. I think he really ‘converted’. And that’s one of the Left’s big criticisms of him, innit? I mean, we can’t have a religious believer in the White House imposing *THEOCRACY*, can we? But no danger of that with Hillary because, wink wink nudge nudge, she’s one of “us” (leftie closet-atheist cynics).
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 12, 2007 @ 3:03 pm - December 12, 2007
I think Bush is serious about his faith. Perhaps a bit too much. A lot of his sanctimonious “compassionate conservative” big government social policy I think is driven by his concept of what his faith compels him to do.
Huckabee’s got that same streak in him, too, I’m afraid. “Support free tuition for illegals or you’ll make Jesus cry.” “Let’s turn the other cheek and set loose all those murderers and rapists.”
Comment by V the K — December 12, 2007 @ 3:16 pm - December 12, 2007
Unfortunately, Matt, you are making the same mistake as the liberals you cite — which is to claim that all Hispanics support amnesty and immigration non-enforcement.
As I cited above, in Arizona’s 2004 vote on Proposition 200, which requires proof of citizenship to register to vote or to receive public benefits, mandates voter identification at polling places, and requires state agencies and law enforcement to report illegal immigrants to the Federal government for deportation, passed — with 47% of Latinos voting “Yes”.
Hispanic citizens and voters are not stupid. Illegal immigration and its effects affect them the same way that it does white people; the fact that illegal immigrants may share their ethnicity does not mean they are any more willing to accept gang warfare, intimidation, extortion of businesses, draining of social welfare, higher taxes, overcrowded schools, and shooting when illegal immigrants perform it.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 12, 2007 @ 3:19 pm - December 12, 2007
Mike Huckabee may be more Clintonesque than we thought.
Comment by V the K — December 12, 2007 @ 3:36 pm - December 12, 2007
What’s even funnier is that I voted a straight Republican ticket in 2006 (as well as 2004 – Second and first times in my life) which, logically, should make me one of the proverbial ‘good ones’. You know, not ‘disloyal’. LOL
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 12, 2007 @ 4:21 pm - December 12, 2007
#65 Actually I do think it’s a sham. I don’t know and neither does anyone else. But it’s all rather convenient. He claims that Bible study helped him quit drinking yet can’t quote a single passage that was useful. I don’t know if you ever met anyone who found Jesus later in life or who quit drinking/drugging thanks to a religious experience but those people will talk your ear off and quote you Bible verses until you make up an excuse to get away. I just don’t find Bush’s story very convincing. Of course his whole life story has big wholes in it (entire years completely unaccounted for, buried somewhere along with his arrest record I suppose).
But the truth is that I don’t know. And my accusation of Bush is no more or less valid that someone else’s accusation of Hillary Clinton’s. I don’t know what her actual beliefs are but atheist? That seems a bit far-fetched. Agnostic? Who knows? Talks a good game but doesn’t really believe a word of it as evidenced by behavior? Well that describes about 99% of religious people I have ever met. (Note: My father is a retired Baptist preacher. I know what I am talking about here.)
But my main point is that religion has nothing to do with socialism/libertarianism. There’s no scriptural basis for either view (at least in the Christian scriptures. I have no idea what’s in the Koran or other holy books.). Democracy and capitalism are not Biblican principles. I’m not arguing against them. I rather like both thank you very much. But they are not from Bible. Believing in God has nothing to do with believing in supply side economics or socialism or anything else. It’s just that in America in the last couple of decades that’s how the political groups have aligned. Unholy marriages all, but we seem to be stuck with them at least for now.
Comment by Houndentenor — December 12, 2007 @ 4:56 pm - December 12, 2007
Oh that’s rich!
Can you imagine if Bush was spoutin’ Bible Verses?
Talk about no-win situation… he’s damned if he were to talk specifics about religion and he’s damned if he doesn’t.
I think it’s in poor taste to even pretend you know anything about his substance abuse recovery.
Oh well, par for the course. There is nothing too incivil that a Leftist wont go there if it suits his purpose for an attack.
Comment by Vince P — December 12, 2007 @ 5:22 pm - December 12, 2007
Whatever, dude.
I mean, come on. You can’t honestly think Bush and Hillary are equally serious/sincere about their professed religions. If you did, that would wholly contradict the Left’s 8-year ‘narrative’ about the alleged danger of theocracy under Bush, blah blah blah. Because then we’re also in danger of theocracy under Hillary, right?? You *can* rationalize your claim about them legalistically, as you’ve done well, but that’s different.
Ah. So you feel your father didn’t necessarily live up to his beliefs, and, that being your experience, it colors your other views and expectations.
Fair point.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 12, 2007 @ 5:26 pm - December 12, 2007
In other news at the intersection of politics and faith, nine far left Democrat congressmen hate Christmas.
Comment by V the K — December 12, 2007 @ 6:49 pm - December 12, 2007
Barbara Lee and Lynn Woolsey, no surprise; but shame on us Californians, anyway.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 12, 2007 @ 6:57 pm - December 12, 2007
What makes it funny is that Jim McDermott just sponsored a similar resolution to recognize Ramadan.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 12, 2007 @ 7:17 pm - December 12, 2007
The fact that Bush and Co. endorses torture is proof he is not Christian.
Frankly, anyone who supports torture has no place in any Christian Church.
So good luck to the lot of you!
Comment by gil — December 12, 2007 @ 9:02 pm - December 12, 2007
How about killing, gil. Can a Christian endorse killing?
I think it’s curious how it’s usually people who’ve rejected church and religion who are the most adamant that Christianity live up to their expectations.
You already know it doesn’t, gil.
Comment by Synova — December 12, 2007 @ 10:31 pm - December 12, 2007
Also, Bush doesn’t endorse torture. But, gil lives in his own world.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 12, 2007 @ 10:37 pm - December 12, 2007
Bigotry against atheists is as offensive to me as bigotry against gays, and I’m appalled that this blog seems to celebrate that sort of bigotry.
Comment by Eva Young — December 13, 2007 @ 12:21 am - December 13, 2007
79 When have I ever rejected my church? It would surprise the folks who meet me every Sunday and I’m not talking about the boys who I watch football with.
Oh wait. You are projecting again. I see.
80 – Have you been living in cave the last few years? Or are you simply trying to assuage your guilty conscience?
Comment by gil — December 13, 2007 @ 12:33 am - December 13, 2007
Talk about Johnny One-Note (or however you said it), how many times have you used “Weigel/Lizza” and “chasing a rabbit down the hole” in this thread?
And of course the liberals are getting their votes. They’re willing to ignore our laws to shore up their stockpile of victims to exploit. They don’t want to spend any money on our soldiers, but they’re perfectly happy to flush tons of our money down the shit hole to get the votes of people who aren’t supposed to be in this country.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 13, 2007 @ 12:52 am - December 13, 2007
Hey! That qualifies you as a Baptist preacher.
And gillie:
Frankly, anyone who supports infanticide has no place in any Christian Church.
Fixed it for ya, buddy!
Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 13, 2007 @ 1:08 am - December 13, 2007
Well, folks. gil is one of those silly people who defines “torture” as any discomfort or inconvenience a terrorist complains about. There’s nothing Christian about coddling evil people and letting innocent people die as a result. Which brings us to Bush’s relationship with the Saudis…
Comment by V the K — December 13, 2007 @ 5:57 am - December 13, 2007
There’s nothing Christian about anger, rage, hate, anti-Semitism, Christian hate etc. either.
Last I checked, lying is pretty anti-Christian. That eliminates gillie.
Not only is “thou shalt not commit adultry” one of the 10 commandments, but rabid defense of, circling the wagons around and excusing adultry (with interns) and those who commit it is anti-Christian. Trying to pass it off as eh, everybody does it doesn’t make it go away.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 13, 2007 @ 6:34 am - December 13, 2007
Oh I get it now. Attacking Hilary’s claim to faith is fair. Attacking or even questioning Bush’s is despicable. Two sets of rules. Hyposcrisy. got it.
I am always skeptical of the “faith” of politicians. I thought I was being even handed when I questioned but Bill Clinton and GW Bush for the same reason. But no. St. George the Imbecile is not to be questioned.
Comment by Houndentenor — December 13, 2007 @ 9:47 am - December 13, 2007
The Bible says you can judge people by their fruits. When looking to see if Hillary is sincere about her religious convictions, you look to her behavior. Is it Christ-like to have your cronies spread personal smears about your political opponents, for example, by insinuating that one of them is a drug user, or dealer? I am thinking, not so much. Similarly, I doubt Harry Reid’s religious conviction because it is a tenet of Mormon faith that spreading discord (“contention”) is the work of Satan, and as leader of the Senate, he has done little besides spread discord and bring out contention, instead of acting as a conciliator. I think these are fair criteria to judge people against.
I know people can take this or that policy approach and debate whether it is ‘Christian’ or not, but policy is a more arguable matter. Therefore, when questioning whether or not a politician acts on his faith, I look more to how he behaves toward his fellow man.
Comment by V the K — December 13, 2007 @ 11:45 am - December 13, 2007
So was it Christian of Bush to have Karl Rove spread vicious lies about McCain in South Carolina? Democrats are the only ones who smear and lie? That’s hilarious.
If you want to play that game we can play it all day long. There is very little if anything Christ-like about any of our politicians. So if that’s your standard then you are going to lose.
Comment by Houndentenor — December 13, 2007 @ 12:52 pm - December 13, 2007
I know one thing… when partisans who attack Bush for any and all reasons start using Bush’s religion as a weapon against him, then my inclination is to defend Bush from yet another hateful partisan attack.
Like Ayn Rand says… don’t let people use your own virtues against you.
Comment by Vince P — December 13, 2007 @ 1:03 pm - December 13, 2007
I don’t think Bush did that. I think that’s a left-wing urban legend. McCain slammed evangelicals before the South Carolina primary, which was not a smart thing to do. Pointing out that McCain did that is no more a smear than pointing out that Huckabee pardoned a murderer, or that Hillary won’t release her White House records. As for other rumors, there’s no evidence Rove had anything to do with them. It’s a smear to accuse Rove of doing so, unless you have some reasonably good evidence.
I don’t see how I can ‘lose’ since I’m not trying to win anything here. I’m just explaining how I apply my belief system. And I think I’m pretty fair in judging politicians from both parties. My #68, for example, is very critical of Bush. I don’t see this as some kind of game. It’s pretty sad if you do.
Comment by V the K — December 13, 2007 @ 1:05 pm - December 13, 2007
Partial correction. Huckabee did not pardon a murderer. There is reasonably good evidence he helped secure the parole of a rapist and murderer who went on to kill and rape again. But he did not pardon him. A bad choice of words on my part.
Comment by V the K — December 13, 2007 @ 1:08 pm - December 13, 2007
Sidebar for Vince P – You made my day
I have the impression you’re religious, but clearly you appreciate some non-religious thinkers / people. Just like me, I’m not really religious, yet I appreciate many religious thinkers / people. And that specific point of AR’s has meant something to me.
Sidebar for V and others – It’s amazing how many developments that lefties don’t like, they attribute to Rove. Just amazing. I thought of this yesterday because Scott Swett’s new book is out: http://www.tosettherecordstraight.com/
There was a grassroots revolt in 2004, spearheaded by Scott (and the Swift Vets a bit later), by Vietnam Veterans who objected to John Kerry’s 35 years of slanders on them. Totally grass roots… until very very late in the game when some large conservative donors did step in *as individuals*. Yet to this day, lefties still tell themselves it was a giant Rovian plot. Man, they don’t get it.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 13, 2007 @ 1:29 pm - December 13, 2007
Lefty paranoia about Karl Rove is a never-ending source of bemusement. To me, it’s akin to those people who believe that the Earth is run by a cabal of 12 foot shapeshifting lizards.
Comment by V the K — December 13, 2007 @ 1:36 pm - December 13, 2007
Cox and Forkum had a comic panel with Rove as Darth Vader and then, presumably, Bush saying something like, “Carl, you enjoy this far too much.”
I should have printed that out.
That was almost as funny as the web-site of someone who believed in the craft (to bring it back to religion) saying that Rove had obviously hired practitioners to send out mind control rays because she found herself thinking good thoughts about Bush before the election and found it necessary to adopt a warding ritual.
Yet another regretted print-screen failure on my part.
Comment by Synova — December 13, 2007 @ 2:23 pm - December 13, 2007
Hi.. I believe in God and the Bible and stuff. but I try not to be dogmatic about it and as a computer programmer I believe in the world of sound logic. I think Ayn Rand’s philosophy , when not taken to her extreme, is very logical.
BTW: I usually agree with most of the things you write here and enjoy your comments
Comment by Vince P — December 13, 2007 @ 3:27 pm - December 13, 2007
I’m wondering if I should follow the eample of our left-wing friends and begin referring to him as “drug-addled gasbag Barack Obama.”
Comment by V the K — December 13, 2007 @ 6:27 pm - December 13, 2007
Personally, V the K, I think he’s a much better example of the Democrats’ willingness to put skin color before competence.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 13, 2007 @ 6:43 pm - December 13, 2007
Every Generation has its Jimmy Carter, I guess. Barack Obama may be ours.
Comment by V the K — December 13, 2007 @ 7:46 pm - December 13, 2007
Hat tip Powerline: Stuart Taylor at National Journal takes us on a trip down memory lane for some of Hillary’s scandals and, yes, outright lies:
http://nationaljournal.com/taylor.htm
(link will probably be good only a few days)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 13, 2007 @ 8:23 pm - December 13, 2007
Oh I get it now. Attacking Bush’s faith is fair. Not to mention setting up groups to pander to Christians and other religious folk and then upon loosing, start screaming “fcuk Christians!” along with “fcuk the South!”. That and all the other people and groups that liberals always blame for their catastrophic, embarassing failures. Then of course there’s the hysterical conspiracy theories about how the “Religious Right” runs everything.
Two sets of rules. Hypocrisy. Got it.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 13, 2007 @ 8:37 pm - December 13, 2007
And lest we forget Hillary’s Fcuking Jew Bastard! remark.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 13, 2007 @ 8:38 pm - December 13, 2007
Not at all. More like this:
Questioning Hillary’s claim to faith is rational; it’s something that lefties themselves do, when they think no one is listening; if lefties seriously believed her claim, they’d be screaming “Theocracy!” as they do with Bush.
Questioning Bush’s claim is also possible, but generally less rational or more in need of evidence; if lefties seriously doubted Bush’s claim, they would NOT be screaming “Theocracy!” all the time.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 13, 2007 @ 10:07 pm - December 13, 2007
P.S. So, if there is any hypocrisy or double standard here – you lefties are looking at it, when you look in your own mirrors.
If you honestly believe Hillary’s claim to faith, and Bush’s as well: then the fact that you *don’t* shriek “Theocracy!” at Hillary shows your double standards.
If instead, you honestly don’t believe Hillary’s claim to faith, nor Bush’s either: then the fact that you shriek “Theocracy!” at Bush anyway shows, um, your double standards.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 13, 2007 @ 10:15 pm - December 13, 2007
So the only way you lefties can get out of this without being the hypocritical ones, is if you yourselves do honestly believe Bush’s claim to faith – and not Hillary’s.
And if you do… then why shouldn’t non-lefties also?
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 13, 2007 @ 10:17 pm - December 13, 2007
Bush pardons drug dealers, carjackers, and a union activist who bombed coal mines but not Ramos and Compean.
Comment by V the K — December 14, 2007 @ 7:11 am - December 14, 2007
Just for that I’m going to become president hahahahaha. I’m atheist AND gay.
so there.
Comment by Epiphani — December 14, 2007 @ 9:19 am - December 14, 2007
Seriously, why are you so gleefully attacking atheists? Believe it or not, not only is it our constitutional right to practice religion, but it’s also our right to not practice religion as we wish. If people in this country count religious faith as a criteria for electing candidates for office, then so be it, however it doesn’t enter into my personal criteria.
I watched Romney’s speech online and frankly, I am disturbed that he pretty much limits faith to judeo-christian beliefs, does not recognize that there are faiths out there which do not have a God (or might have multiple Gods). It seems that religion is ok with him, but only as long as it’s one of which he approves. In some ways, this almost creates a de-facto, un-official establishment of religion in this country. Keeping the “remove all religious symbols” out of it for a second, you’re pretty much told you don’t have full status if you don’t believe in their beliefs.
Myself: I was raised Catholic and am now agnostic. I happen to like Christmas a lot. I think the idea of trying to to remove christmas from christmas is silly. I went to Home Depot to buy a Tree and the area was labeled “Holiday” trees. What nonsense. I also believe that celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ really doesn’t have much to do with knocking someone down and breaking their leg in pursuit of a $99 DVD player at Wal-Mart during a “door buster” sale. In the 1800s, many people of christian faith opposed turning Christmas into a Federal holiday – they were afraid that Christmas would become too commercialized and people would lose the meaning of it; seems to me that their fears came true.
Comment by Kevin — December 14, 2007 @ 4:19 pm - December 14, 2007
It’s pretty sad that you feel “disturbed” that a politician didn’t lump every fruitcake religion into his honoring of the religion that contributed to the principles that founded the country.
Comment by Vince P — December 14, 2007 @ 4:28 pm - December 14, 2007
Military Soft On Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/12/13/60minutes/main3615278.shtml
(CBS) A gay soldier says he disclosed his sexuality to his superiors, even offering graphic proof, and was neither discharged nor reprimanded, despite the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on homosexuality.
Army Sgt. Darren Manzella appears in a Lesley Stahl report on gays in the wartime U.S. military to be broadcast on 60 Minutes this Sunday, Dec. 16, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.
Manzella, a medic who served in Iraq for a year, currently serves as medical liaison for the 1st Cavalry Division stationed in Kuwait, where he says he is “out” to his entire chain of command, including a three-star general. After leaving Iraq, he started receiving anonymous emails warning him about his openness that suggested he was being watched, so he went to his commander to head off an investigation he felt was coming. “I didn’t know how else to do it,” he tells Stahl, acknowledging that he initiated an investigation of himself by violating the policy. “I felt more comfortable being the one to say, ‘This is what is real,’” Manzella says.
He then says his commander reported him, as he was obliged to do, and then “I had to go see my battalion commander, who read me my rights,” he says. He turned over pictures of him and his boyfriend, including video of a passionate kiss, to aid the investigation. But to his surprise, “I was told to go back to work. There was no evidence of homosexuality,” says Manzella. “‘You’re not gay,’” he says his superiors told him. This response confused him and, he says, the closest a superior officer came to addressing his sexuality was to say “I don’t care if you’re gay or not.”
Comment by Vince P — December 14, 2007 @ 6:29 pm - December 14, 2007
Atheist and socialist are not he same thing. I am a conservative Republican Atheist.
Comment by Andrew — December 14, 2007 @ 9:54 pm - December 14, 2007
#110
B-b-but we’re supposed to believe that the racist, sexist, bigot homophobes in the Army toss out gays by the thousands. What’s this about?
(Nevermind, of course, those who come out to their COs themselves).
Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 15, 2007 @ 1:53 am - December 15, 2007
B-b-but we’re supposed to believe that the racist, sexist, bigot homophobes in the Army toss out gays by the thousands. What’s this about?
It’s about keeping professional “activists” from having to find real jobs.
Comment by V the K — December 15, 2007 @ 7:08 am - December 15, 2007
110 – Sounds like someone trying to get discharged and the military not cooperating.
Comment by Synova — December 15, 2007 @ 12:56 pm - December 15, 2007
#110:
The CBS story also says:
“Stahl spoke with several gay former military members who say they were also out openly in their units, known to be gay by as many as a hundred other service members…These gay former service members say they did not re-enlist because they oppose the don’t ask, don’t tell policy, which they say shows the military’s leadership is out of step with American society and its allies.”
What? I have immense respect for any soldier that serves honorably in the military, but I just don’t understand what is going on here. They served openly and were known to be gay by their colleagues and superiors, but they decided not to re-enlist because of a policy that the military was refusing to enforce against them? How is this consistent with the fact that they enlisted with full knowledge of the DADT policy in the first place? Are they planning to re-enlist in the future if the policy is lifted?
What does make perfect sense is that the military establishment is consistently presented as the bad guy, no matter what it does. If the military drums out qualified gay soldiers for violating the DADT policy, then it is a bigoted, draconian dinosaur. If gay soldiers do their jobs while serving openly and are NOT discharged, then the soldiers decide not to re-enlist because of the mere existence of the unenforced policy.
Isn’t this just more proof that liberals consider the social issue to be more significant than the military/operational ones?
Comment by Sean A — December 15, 2007 @ 4:03 pm - December 15, 2007
#110 115 I am not surprised that gays are not being discharged during this war. I do not know of any gays that were discharged during my four years in WW2, Some of my GI friends told me the same. This was a war that everyone wanted to win so the gays were left to fight.
But things were different during the Korean War. No one cared if we won except the soldiers who was freezing and dieing on the barren ridges and General McArthur – and you know what happened to him. The gays were not dicharged – they were court martialed. I covered this very well in my book.
Comment by John W — December 16, 2007 @ 1:25 am - December 16, 2007
#108
A better question is why do athiests gleefully attack Christians, everything they believe in and everything this country was built on? As you pointed out, we have the right to believe and worship as we wish in this country.
However, there’s a thriving business to push the religion of atheism on everybody else. Can’t back it up, but it’s my guess that the atheists are the ones who work the hardest to push their religion onto others.
Further, IMHO, if Antony Flew says there is a God, then Dawkins and Hitchens ain’t got nuthin’.
#116
I remember hearing back in 2001 or 02 that there was a freeze on discharging soldiers, gay or otherwise, ordered by Bush. Can’t seem to find a reference to it though.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 16, 2007 @ 2:50 am - December 16, 2007
Oh that was the Stop-Loss dealy which the liberals somehow claimed is the same thing as a draft.
HUH???? I was never able to figure that one out.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 16, 2007 @ 2:52 am - December 16, 2007
Tell me that’s not an assault on Christianity.
Would we allow it if we replaced God with Mohammed?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 16, 2007 @ 6:52 am - December 16, 2007
I didn’t mind atheism when it was “I don’t believe in God,” but in the last few years, it’s become “I obnoxiously hate and ridicule people who do believe in God.” When you attack people’s deeply held beliefs, they react. There would be no evangelical movement in the USA today were it not for the last forty-five years of aggressive secularism enforced by radical leftists and the radical courts.
Furthermore, I find the theoretical basis of Atheism illogical. Partly because Descartes was right. There either is something greater than this temporal life, or there isn’t. Even if there isn’t, one still loses nothing by developing oneself spiritually. But mostly because atheism is built on the premise that the entire space-time continuum burst out of an infinitely dense, infinitely small (less than the size of an atom) area that somehow existed in the absence of time or space. And against odds comparative to those of winning the Powerball every week for a thousand years, the Big Bang resulted in a very narrow range of physical laws that permit matter to exist. And piled on those odds, there’s the odds of random chemicals created in this chaos that somehow began spontaneously replicating themselves. And out of this stew of chemicals somehow arose a vast diversity of life, a set of senses capable of processing the physical universe, and a consciousness capable of analyzing it.
Compared to the odds of all those random events resulting in human life, the idea that an angel could have shown some guy where some ancient plates were buried in a hillside isn’t that much of a stretch.
Ultimately, I think atheism requires more blind faith than religion. But the advantage with religion is that it provides hope that a human being is more than just flesh. As someone once put it, you don’t *have* a soul, you *are* a soul. And that is a far more ennobling way to look at people than the atheist perspective.
Comment by V the K — December 16, 2007 @ 9:29 am - December 16, 2007
#120: Right on, V the K. I also think that the existence of God is strongly supported by the fact that man has an instinctive yearning for spirituality or a belief in “something” beyond their own short existence. The irony is that for the obnoxious atheists you describe, it is their hostile crusade to force society to acknowledge and pay respect to their adamant belief in “nothingness” that BECOMES their religion.
They robotically (and angrily) claim that they are fighting for their constitutional right to be “free from religion,” but their aggressive pursuit of that right betrays what’s really going on in their hearts. No one believes they are truly oppressed in any tangible way simply because “under God” is in the Pledge and “God” is on our currency. Accordingly, their outrage and belligerence is just a product of the innate spirituality fighting to get out in some form. They just happen to respond to that human yearning by suppressing it and channeling it into a pro-active allegiance with those who do not believe in God. And consistent with their instincts, they commit themselves to proselytizing about the non-existence of God and the idiocy of those who do believe. Atheists–the type you describe–are among the most annoyingly “religious” people you’ll ever meet (or, see on the news being interviewed about the lawsuits they are filing to get rid of a cross or take down the Ten Commandments somewhere).
Comment by Sean A — December 16, 2007 @ 11:39 am - December 16, 2007
HAHAHA!!!! Hillary, atheist, socialist, communist!!! SOOOOO funny, these jokes.
(And a sad testament of ignorance.)
Comment by sean — December 16, 2007 @ 2:10 pm - December 16, 2007
This morning, atheists knocked on my door and asked me to read their literature and to talk with me about their ideas. Then, at the supermarket parking lot, more atheists approached me with literature and requests to talk about their beliefs. On city corners around the country, atheists proclaim the word of atheism loudly and proudly. Now they have television stations and radio programs where they go on and on about atheism. They have even dreamed up a war on atheism and want us to all see it. I’m telling you: these atheists must be stopped, before they corrupt one of the political parties and warp that party. Atheists everywhere!!!
Comment by sean — December 16, 2007 @ 2:14 pm - December 16, 2007
#101. Methodists respect the boundary between church and state. Born-again folks most often do not. There’s the difference. And the issue. It isn’t with the person, it is with the type of religious worldview that person espouses INASMUCH as it conflicts with the Constitution’s establishment clause. It is like the difference between Fatah and Hamas: one side subscribes to a certain kind of Islam that allows for a secular organization and the other demands that specific religious ideas shape and dictate policy, etc.
Comment by sean — December 16, 2007 @ 2:22 pm - December 16, 2007
80 and 81. Eva, this blog celebrates all kinds of things.
Comment by sean — December 16, 2007 @ 2:23 pm - December 16, 2007
19 and 31. Notice how 31 goes ad hominem as it tries to avoid dealing with the substance of the original points. Change the subject, deflect, twist, personally attack. Same (lack of) substance, different day here.
Comment by sean — December 16, 2007 @ 2:31 pm - December 16, 2007
So in this case, the Leftists are like FATAH… a jihadi group that wraps itself up in the guise of secularism while christians are HAMAS?
nice analogy.
Comment by Vince P — December 16, 2007 @ 4:25 pm - December 16, 2007
This talk of Methodism reminds me of a story that I think illustrates precisely why the Methodist church fits Hillary like a glove. When I was about 11, my family, including maternal grandparents, all relocated from Mississippi to California. Since my grandparents arrived 6 months earlier, they selected a United Methodist Church in their area (having been lifelong Methodists). Once the rest of us showed up, we started attending the same church that my grandparents selected, although my parents had previously felt more at home in the more conservative Baptist denomination. We stayed at the United Methodist church for about a year, but my parents decided to find another church because a controversy erupted that seemed silly at the time, but in hindsight has taken on greater political significance for me as the years have gone by.
At the commencement of every service, the pastor would enter the sanctuary and walk down the aisle to the front while leading the congregation in the same hymn. The hymn is the one that goes, “Glory be to the Father, and to the Son and to the Holy Ghost…” The controversy erupted when some of the members approached the pastor and complained that they were bothered by the fact that the hymn identified God as the “Father” because some of them apparently thought it was sexist, God might be female, blah blah blah–the same useless crap that liberals are always bitching about. The pastor caved, and the bulletins suddenly started listing the lyrics as “Glory be to the CREATOR…” (Yes, that specific word was in ALL CAPS.) However, most of the congregation continued to sing “Father” because they either weren’t aware of the controversy and didn’t need to look at the bulletin to know the words, or (like my parents) they refused to identify God as “Creator” just to make a bunch of idiot liberals feel better.
Well, when the congregation failed to cooperate and cave in to the liberals just as the pastor had, the pastor decided that the solution would be for him to crank his already bombastic singing voice up to 8000 decibels and bellow the word “CREATOR” like he was actually trying to summon God himself from the heavens. My parents and many others, disgusted by the controversy, responded in kind: they started singing the word “FATHER!” at the top of their lungs to compete with the pastor and his handful of liberal activists screaming “CREATOR!” This went on for MONTHS. Since every service began with this same hymn, it meant that every service began with total and complete vocal mayhem and by the time the pastor started his message, everyone in the congregation was pissed off. My parents were so disgusted by the pastor’s weakness in the face of political correctness that we left that church for a nondenominational evangelical Christian one that they still attend.
I have always remembered that story because it was so RIDICULOUS, but as I’ve gotten older, I see its relevance as the perfect illustration of why liberalism has absolutely no business mixing with religion. It is yet another example of how the Left has everything completely backwards–they want liberal values to define and reshape religion, instead of religion shaping American values. That’s why liberals are so ignorant of the core beliefs of Christianity and define it as basically some benign golden rule that Ann Coulter correctly defined as “be nice to people.” This is also why liberals love to talk about religion as being “divisive,” because true Christians refuse to abandon their beliefs or reshape them to fit the liberal agenda. Accordingly, if a Christian believes, e.g., abortion is murder and refuses to stipulate otherwise, he is labeled “divisive” by the Left. “Divisive” is just liberal code for “stubbornly refuses to summarily abandon their core beliefs shaped by their personal relationship with God in favor of a hyper-secular liberal agenda.”
So, it comes as no surprise to me that Hillary is a “lifelong Methodist.”
Comment by Sean A — December 16, 2007 @ 6:13 pm - December 16, 2007
#124: “Methodists respect the boundary between church and state. Born-again folks most often do not. There’s the difference. And the issue. It isn’t with the person, it is with the type of religious worldview that person espouses INASMUCH as it conflicts with the Constitution’s establishment clause.”
Ummmm…wrong. Your statements are based exclusively on one of the core mantras of the Left that is utterly false. The Left’s agenda depends upon perpetuating the myth that evangelical Christians are a threat to the freedom of non-Christians because they want our government to become a Christian theocracy. (In fact, Liberals routinely argue that this HAS ALREADY OCCURRED!) They conveniently base this myth on the statements of a handful of Christian “leaders” who need to stay out of politics and stick with their jobs as pastors and deans of Christian colleges (we all know the 3 or 4 people I’m referring to). The Left and its disciples (like you) use these examples to label all evangelical Christians as enemies of freedom who want to “force their views” on everyone else.
The fact is that 99% of evangelical Christians (the group that the Left calls the “Christian right wing”–usually with spittle flying out of their mouths) are VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED to anything even approaching a theocracy. They have no interest whatsoever in mixing a secular government with their church, and why would they?! Evangelical Christians know better than anyone that government CORRUPTS religion. If that wasn’t true, then all of us would be British. Poisonous governmental interference with religion is the very reason that America exists in the first place.
Of course, I realize this goes completely against the liberal mantra you have been compelled to adopt without question and I’m sure you will not take the time to re-examine it based on what I say, but that is just another one of the great things about this country: you are free to believe whatever you want, even if it has no relationship to facts or reality.
Comment by Sean A — December 16, 2007 @ 6:44 pm - December 16, 2007
That would be the Gloria Patri or “Glory be to the Father” in English.
Gloria Patri, et Filio, et Spiritui Sancto. Sicut erat in principio, et nunc, et in semper, et in sæcula sæculorum. Amen.
We sang that doxology at the end of our services when I was a kid growing up in Mississippi. Used to always wonder who Gloria Patri was and what the song had to do with her.
You’re absolutely right about the “divided” part. Everytime I see a liberal squeal like Ned Beatty “We’re so divided in this country”, I say “no we aren’t. You might be, but not us”.
It’s the same thing with “bipartisan”. That just means that everybody must bend over, grab their ankles and agree with the liberals. The liberals promissed bipartisanship at the beginning of their stinking turd of a congress and look where that went.
Libs: “Give us what we demand, you racist, sexist, bigot homophobe!”
Bush: “No.”
Libs: “Oh we’re so divided in this country and it’s all your fault! WAAAAAHHHHH!”
Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 16, 2007 @ 7:38 pm - December 16, 2007
#130: “It’s the same thing with “bipartisan”. That just means that everybody must bend over, grab their ankles and agree with the liberals. The liberals promissed bipartisanship at the beginning of their stinking turd of a congress and look where that went.”
I SAID, BROTHERS AND SISTERS, CAN I GET AN AMEN!
Comment by Sean A — December 16, 2007 @ 8:10 pm - December 16, 2007