-
The Grey Lady’s Grudging Abortion Admission
June 14, 2013 | 63 comments
-
The Casual Tyrant
June 12, 2013 | 157 comments
-
Washington Gets a Wetumpkan
June 5, 2013 | 182 comments
-
Slow Lerners
May 29, 2013 | 77 comments
-
Eugenic Abortion 2.0
May 23, 2013 | 68 comments
Special Report
Equating Christians With Racists
That is the Washington Post’s official policy.
Last Sunday, the Washington Post’s ombudsman casually revealed that the official policy of reporters at the paper is to treat opponents of gay marriage as the moral equivalent of racists.
Addressing the complaint that the paper is a propaganda sheet for gay activists, ombudsman Patrick Pexton disclosed an e-mail exchange between a reader and a Post reporter. The reader had asked the reporter why the paper covers the gay marriage debate so one-sidedly.
“The reason that legitimate media outlets routinely cover gays is because it is the civil rights issue of our time. Journalism, at its core, is about justice and fairness, and that’s the ‘view of the world’ that we espouse; therefore, journalists are going to cover the segment of society that is still not treated equally under the law,” responded the reporter.
In other words, reporters don’t cover debates but decide them. On the basis of their notions of “justice and fairness,” they tailor all coverage and determine in advance the winners of debates. This admission—that there is no difference between the paper’s front page and editorial page—would have been bad enough on its own. But then the reporter dug the hole deeper by telling the reader that opponents of gay marriage are no more legitimate than segregationists: “As for accuracy, should the media make room for racists, i.e. those people who believe that black people shouldn’t marry white people? Any story on African-Americans wouldn’t be wholly accurate without the opinion of a racist, right?”
“Of course I have a bias. I have a bias toward fairness,” he added.
Pexton seemed only mildly concerned by this reporter’s bald advocacy. He tried to explain it sympathetically (while hoping for more “detachment and objectivity”), but ended up just reiterating that reporters see traditional Christians as modern-day racists: “They see people opposed to gay rights today as cousins, perhaps distant cousins, of people in the 1950s and 1960s who, citing God and the Bible, opposed black people sitting in the bus seat, or dining at the lunch counter, of their choosing.”
That a major American newspaper likens Christians to racists would once have generated outrage. Now it inspires little more than a shrug. The paper’s outnumbered ombudsman blandly notes it, wishes for a little more “objectivity,” and then moves on.
The bias has never been more open and unapologetic, and yet a supposedly serious figure like NBC’s Chuck Todd can say with a straight face, as he did last week, that its existence is “mythology.”
Operating under its typical bias, the Post got excited this week at the news that Keith O’Brien, a Scottish cardinal accused of misconduct, had resigned his office and bowed out of the upcoming conclave. The story received above-the-fold treatment and was shoehorned into familiar liberal categories.
“O’Brien, one of the church’s most strident voices against homosexuality, abruptly stepped down amid allegations of ‘intimate’ acts with priests,” said the story. That line conforms to the paper’s preconceptions nicely. The only problem is that it is not true. Had the reporter done even a minimal amount of research, he would have known that O’Brien is not one of the “church’s most strident voices against homosexuality” but a supporter of gay teachers in Catholic schools. “If there happens to be a gay teacher and he does happen to be living with a partner, that’s their personal, private life. I don’t see it as a problem,” said O’Brien in 2005. Does that sound like a strident voice against homosexuality? It sounds like the voice of a permissive post-Vatican II bishop.
To report the story in those terms would have undercut the “hypocrisy” angle. So the reporter, if he did know about those remarks, made sure not to let them complicate his story. Only late in the piece does the reporter acknowledge that “his positions were not always easy to define,” breezily noting his comment last week in favor of relaxing clerical celibacy. In paragraph two, he was presented as a bastion of conservatism. By the end of the piece, we find out that he doesn’t even support priestly celibacy.
The real story is not conservative hypocrisy but liberal decay in the Church. It could have just as easily been titled “Opponent of Clerical Celibacy Quits in Homosexual Scandal.” But reporters at the Post know not to pursue such an ideologically inconvenient angle. That doesn’t comport with their “view of the world.”
About the Author
George Neumayr, a contributing editor to The American Spectator, is co-author, with Phyllis Schlafly, of the new book, No Higher Power: Obama’s War on Religious Freedom.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (270) | Leave a comment
More Articles by George Neumayr
More Articles From Special Report
http://spectator.org/archives/2013/02/27/equating-christians-with-racis
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Appleby| 2.27.13 @ 6:36AM
Fortunately nobody reads newspapers anymore; they get all their news from their binkies, where the Kewl Kids instruct them on what to think and teach them their talking points, just as was forecast in Brave New World.
TLP| 2.27.13 @ 8:39AM
Gay Marriage is NOT the Civil Rights Issue of our time. It's the No Smoking Issue of our time.
I remember as a boy, in the early 60's, that there was an ASHTRAY everywhere you looked. I remember when my Mom would go to the Beauty Parlour at the Department Store, the Chairs where people say and waited, had Ashtrays built right into them. I think the Barbershop Chairs had them, as well. Every table at the Restaurant had at least 4 of them. And every Movie Star smoked. Mr. Coffee smoked. Smoking was Cool.
It took time but one by one, they chipped away at our RIGHT to smoke.
Marriage has been the same, forever. A Man and a Woman. A Woman and a Man. X+Y=Baby. X+X=Aids. And Y+Y gets you a Talk Show on NBC at 4pm.
Traditional Marriage is to them, what No Smoking is, to smokers. It's restrictive, and it discriminates .
Gay Marriage is Smoking, and they aim to Light Up whenever, and wherever they feel like it. And anyone who doesn't like it is a Racist.
They have been Chipping away at the Normalcy of Marriage for Decades, just as they did with Smoking. Smoking is no longer just a Choice. It's an Aberration. Gay Marriage is no longer an Aberration. It's a Choice. Being Gay is not an Aberration OR a Choice. Understand?
TLP| 2.27.13 @ 9:05AM
One need only look at the T.V. Guide, to see how far they've chipped away at Normalcy in our lifetime. We've gone from Billy Crystal in SOAP, to every other Show on Television being about a Buncha Queers.
We've gone from Clark Gable, John Wayne, and The Marine Corps Band, at the Oscars. To the guy who does Adult Cartoons (featuring a Fat Drunk, his Sex Maniac Next Door Neighbor who keeps Half naked Asian Women in the trunk of his Car and in his Garage, his Baby, who hopes that he grows up to be a Homosexual, and an old Pedophile who lives down the Street) and songs performed by the The Gay Men's Deep Throat Choir, or some such thing.
And, this is just the beginning.
Now that the Genie's outta the Bottle, there's nothing to prevent ANY Two Consenting Adults from getting Married. Mother and Son. Father and Daughter. Two Brothers. Two Sisters. And, why stop at two? If Gay Marriage is fine? What's to say that you can't marry five people at the same time?
Liberalism is not a Mental Disorder. It may have started that way, but it's gone way past that. It's Evil, and it has its sites set on everything that's Good and Nurturing, in Society.
Only SODDOM and GAMORRAH will quench their Bloodlust.
And, the followers of The Son of Man must be dealt with, by any means neccessary.
Revelation.
SUBVET| 2.27.13 @ 10:38AM
Tim...history repeats it self....BABYLON
Job| 2.27.13 @ 10:57AM
perfect anology TLP. who's gay is not the issue with christians, the issue is we call it sin and don't want it blown, like smoke, in our face 24/7. before it became synonomous with incest smokers used to have the decency to ask if its ok before they lit up; gay folks have no such compunction. i'm not for watchin anyone xy, yy, xx all over each other in public; get a room. why should these cocksuckers be any different.
soon these sunzabitches'll wanna get under the covers with me and my wife and tell me i'm doing it wrong.
yup the left uses this to advance an anti christian agenda; if it wasn't an issue they'd make somethin else up or blow somethin else out of proportion that was anti christian.
Al Adab| 2.27.13 @ 11:29AM
No society, not even those who institutionalized homosexual behavior, ever sanctioned such action as legitimate marriage. This issue is not about civil rights, it is about that married filing jointly line on the 1040 and about those health care benefits for spouses. Follow the money. The entire debate is a cynical ploy by some to get in the pockets of the rest of us.
C. S. P. Schofield| 2.27.13 @ 11:51AM
I see no reason why Gays should not, like everybody else, do their level best to minimize the amount of their earned money the Government steals at gunpoint. I am, generally, in favor of measures that choke off the ravening beast that is The State. And I don't really care much about the morals of people who want the Beast to leave them the heck along, or at least leave their wallets the heck alone.
Job| 2.27.13 @ 12:55PM
i dont think society CAN sanction marraige unless they invent a new religion. how can you force sodom down my throat if im Judeo-Christian without saying God was wrong about it?
Job| 2.27.13 @ 12:56PM
hmm, sodom down my throat, not a very good choice of words. let the games begin...:)
TLP| 2.27.13 @ 1:07PM
I think you meant to say: Gamorrah up my @ss.
It's a common mistake.
Hardcard makes it all the time. (Just kidding HC)
Kingofthenet| 2.27.13 @ 1:37PM
TLP et al, you are confusing some things. There is HOLY MATRIMONY that you get from the Fantasy provider of your choice, and there is LEGAL State Sponsored Marriage. The former has NO legal basis and can be whatever you and your fellow cultists want it to mean, the latter is a legally binding 'contract' not unlike other contract law.It defines certain basic legal benefits, such as property ownership, and Medical Choice Decisions, it can and SHOULD be non-discriminatory, after all Gay people own property,pay taxes and get sick so they need the SAME protections as anyone else.
TLP| 2.27.13 @ 3:05PM
I trust that you and your Man Wife are doing all right.
Yes?
Job| 2.27.13 @ 3:10PM
Hmm so I'm promoted to al, we got plenny of Als here there's Real deAl, Al Constantine, Al Adab, and FiscAl wonder do they all look alike too. hmm
you got a point.
" Let me be clear"...I don't have a problem with civil unions except what I said above and I fear they are a launching pad for NAMBA and other things on the agender in the gayborhood.
Al Adab| 2.27.13 @ 3:27PM
I doubt the others look like me.
Kenny| 2.27.13 @ 3:04PM
Read the bible and you will see that God was wrong about a lot of things. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
TLP| 2.27.13 @ 3:09PM
Obviously, your LGBT Bible is different than my Holy Bible.
SUBVET| 2.27.13 @ 7:11PM
Kenny.........maybe you might want to read the last chapter in the history book of life.
John II| 2.27.13 @ 11:00PM
You misspelled Sodom and Gomorrah both, Tim. Where's the Contest going to be this week?
Bob K| 2.27.13 @ 9:39AM
The Press has equated White Males with Racism and Sexism for years and this is where it all began.
It is the reason Affirmative Action programs exist and why these tiny groups like homosexuals look for a part of the largesse that is distributed by the people who have the power to do it.
If skin color, surnames and gender are to be of primary consideration and thereby be rewarded why shouldn't sexual orientation also be considered and rewarded?
It happens in all the corridors of power in the USA. Jobs and promotions are allotted under this rule; entrance to Institutions of learning are controlled by it. In our pursuit of "Equality" we have turned to "Diversity" to even things out and as a result all individual success has now become suspect.
The Republican party has become intimidated by it and the Democratic party revels in it because when the controls on solipsistic democracy are loosened they get more votes by promising to be all things to everybody!
Kingofthenet| 2.27.13 @ 1:39PM
Why should the fact you like to stick your penis in women be rewarded?
JD| 2.27.13 @ 1:43PM
Straw man.
Real Deal| 2.27.13 @ 1:56PM
Because this results in begetting more tax payers. Duh!
Bob K| 2.27.13 @ 10:47PM
Why should the fact that because you are committing genetic suicide it should be rewarded?
Joellen| 2.27.13 @ 6:52AM
Mr. Neumayr, your article is THE reason why I refuse to buy any "news" paper, magazine, watch any news on tv other than FOX, and I certainly dont go to any Hollyweird movies.
There has been a war against Christians for as long as I can remember, and I am not that old but old enough!
The hypocricy on the left is now so pronounced, I believe that is why you get people "shrugging", they have become numb to it.
Ironically, we have Christians in other parts of the world being tortured and murdered for their faith, yet over here, for the most part silence.
I keep thinking of Simon of Cyrene who was forced to carry the cross for JESUS at Calvary, perhaps all of us we'll be forced at some point to defend our faith in the very near future.
I pray I stay strong.
op top| 2.27.13 @ 11:06AM
“They see people opposed to gay rights today as cousins, perhaps distant cousins, of people in the 1950s and 1960s who, citing God and the Bible, opposed black people sitting in the bus seat, or dining at the lunch counter . . . ”
Exactly. This is precisely what is going on with the right-wing bible-thumping bigots. But you can do little to stop gays' progress. Gays will triumph. They will never, never accept second-class citizenship again, so get over it.
Ten or twenty years from now, civilized people will look back at you old bigots and shudder at your brazen bigotry.
Like the Jewish people, Gay people have made enormous contributions to world knowledge and culture.
And as they assume leadership positions in all areas of society, they will continue to do so.
Job| 2.27.13 @ 1:03PM
Like the Jewish people, Gay people have made enormous contributions to world knowledge and culture.
what kind of BS is this? Left handed donkeys have made enormous contributions to culture too, where is that a factor in this discussion or in that illogical comparison?
Al Adab| 2.27.13 @ 1:09PM
The contribution does not excuse the sin nor does the sin negate the contribution. There is no relationship between the two. We might as well say blue eyed, or red skinned or bald headed. Totally unrelated.
TLP| 2.27.13 @ 1:10PM
He does have a point.
Where would the Theatre, Women's Tennis, and Women's Golf be without'em?
Dr. Kawatsky| 2.27.13 @ 2:31PM
Question:
Which one of Santa's reindeer will pay TLP a visit before Christmas 2013?
A. Prancer
B. Dancer
C. Cancer
Dr. Kawatsky| 2.27.13 @ 2:34PM
Answer:
If you chose C. Cancer, you are correct.
The toxicity of TLP's anger will eventually trigger those cancer cells to matastasize.
TLP is a foulmouthed warthog who has advocated the assassination of our president.
Old Curiosity Shop| 2.27.13 @ 2:36PM
Yes, but the obscene TLP is a "christian," and the other "christians" on here applaud his every filthy word.
Kenny| 2.27.13 @ 2:41PM
Ha!
TLP is the at the bottom of the putrid Tea Party Losers' barrel. Losers . . . all of you.
Losers, now and forever more, condemned to whining and complaining about "librals" for eternity.
TLP| 2.27.13 @ 3:12PM
Hi Anna Cuntttt from Flucke Youniversity.
How's that Free Vibrator working out for ya?
Kenny| 2.27.13 @ 5:03PM
HEY, take a look at TLP!
When he gets angry it's cunt this and vibrator that.
Such limited intelligence. And the anger! But you keep those cancer cells vibrating, TLP, old man. You just keep on hating! The sooner those cancer cells spread, the better.
And if you're a Christian, then members of the NAZI party were also. Well, on second thought many of the Nazis were professed christians.
TLP| 2.27.13 @ 3:13PM
And, you spent liberals wrong.
Idiot.
John II| 2.27.13 @ 11:04PM
You misspelled metastasize. Do YOU know where the Contest is going to be?
Job| 2.27.13 @ 3:15PM
the answer is D. you're a wanker, and E. with a canker. and F. a schitzo too see other personas below.
Job| 2.27.13 @ 3:17PM
above
anna k from emory u| 2.27.13 @ 3:37PM
Dr. Kawatsky, I think your own deteriorating dementia now requires that your medical credentials be revoked.
You mongers of HATE need to stop wishing cancer of those with whom you disagree.
It is quite unGodly.
John II| 2.27.13 @ 11:06PM
You misspelled "on." Do YOU know where the Contest is going to be?
anna k from emory u| 2.27.13 @ 3:42PM
Op top, your phony patronizing message shows how you mongers of HATE rely on stereotypes to propagate your awful message.
How dare you make comparisons or conclusions about people from any religion, creed, lifestyle, behavior or orientation.
It is phony progressives like you that have discredited the efforts of me and my students to help restore civility to this, or any debate.
RCV| 2.27.13 @ 5:34PM
"War against Christians"! You guys crack me up sometimes. God forbid you should ever encounter actual persecution, instead of living in a country where you are wholly free to practice, espouse and evangelize your Christian faith. What a bunch of constant whiners this site attracts.
TLP| 2.27.13 @ 5:45PM
Yeah.
With You being the biggest one.
RCV| 2.27.13 @ 10:02PM
I'm not the one whining about how our country is on its last legs, white males are sooo discriminated against, Obama has destroyed our freedoms, and Christians are persecuted daily. You guys just love to pretend what beleaguered martyrs you all are. What a laugh!
mike 3/505| 2.27.13 @ 7:05AM
New York Times accidentally publishes an accurate story with cogent analysis! Managing Director fired! Senior VP vows to "get to the bottom of this and ensure that never again does the NYT commit an act of proper journalism."
Imagine that.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 2.27.13 @ 7:37AM
“Journalism, at its core, is about justice and fairness, and that’s the ‘view of the world’ that we espouse”
Education, at its core, is about justice and fairness, and that’s the ‘view of the world’ that we espouse.
Taxation, at its core, is about justice and fairness, and that’s the ‘view of the world’ that we espouse.
Socialism, at its core, is about justice and fairness, and that’s the ‘view of the world’ that we espouse.
Once you have decided that you own “justice and fairness”, all of those who don’t agree with you can be demonized, discriminated against, imprisoned, or even killed. After all, they are unjust and unfair, and have no rights that a just and fair man should be forced to recognize [if I might borrow a few words from the champion of antebellum justice and fairness (so much so that it was reflected in his title) Chief Justice Roger Taney].
Von Mises Jr| 2.27.13 @ 8:13AM
Liberal "Justice and Fairness" is very simple. It is replacing the Word of God and defying the wisdom of "Age of Reason" philosophers with liberals whom appoint them as the new gods to decide "Justice and Fairness."
The Holy Bible and the Koran condemn homosexuality. God sent fire and brimstone on Sodom(y) and Gomorrah for their sin of anal sex, gang rape and finally the attempt to do the same to God's Angels bringing the warnings of wrath. I do not see the gay guys taunting the Muslims at the Ground Zero Mosque demanding they engage in sodomy with the liberals since they know that their religion would teach them to kill the infidels.
Many of the great philosophers sought the meaning of life and the existence of God. Kant whom liberals like since he questioned everything (and could not prove the existence of God) believed that morality and law focused on the greater good. The general rule was that each freedom must be scalable to society as a whole and produce common good. So if gay sex cannot produce children, according to this definition it is morally wrong since society itself would collapse.
So the liberals can claim what they like, but the two largest religions and the great minds of the Enlightenment think that they are sinners and immoral.
And if these liberals and GLBT’s understood that Christians hate the sin but love the sinner, they would not be so damned confused and ignorant.
Russel| 2.27.13 @ 10:03AM
Your posts are above the others here Von because I actually learn something . I don't recall where it came from , but one should learn something each day . Opinions are fine , but we only have a limited amount of time on this Earthly plane .
Von Mises Jr| 2.27.13 @ 3:29PM
Thanks Russel. You con't know how much I appreciate your kind words. If I did not love my God, family and country more than fishing, I would be chasing a steelhead down the river about now.
DRed| 2.27.13 @ 4:03PM
Don't do it, Von! I've been looking forward to your posts ever since I heard you were reading about Kant, and your first attempt at explaining the categorical imperative did not disappoint. Wasn't quite as good as your magnificently ignorant explanation of the French Revolution, but such artistry is hard to surpass.
CJW| 2.27.13 @ 7:49PM
Commie Dred
You are still not sure that Alger Hiss was a commie spy, murky evidence right?
DRed| 2.27.13 @ 8:35PM
I haven't looked into it, but I will take your word for it that he was.
SUBVET| 2.27.13 @ 10:44AM
JR..........it's part of HIS plan, if you are in good standing you should have no fear.
Sandra in Greenville| 2.27.13 @ 11:52AM
Mr. Von Mises Jr.
Here's some good advice from the "good" book. I do hope you and your heterosexual brethren are following it:
"If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her, And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate: And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her; And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him; And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel:
Sandra in Greenville| 2.27.13 @ 11:54AM
Continued:
and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days. But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you." - Deuteronomy 22:12-21
Seems a little barbarian (just a little) to me. How about you, Mr. Von Mises?
Sam I Am| 2.27.13 @ 11:58AM
Sandra, here's some excellent advice from the "good" book for how to treat slaves.
Exodus 21:20-21:
If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
Perhaps Von Mises and his ilk follow this advice to the letter.
anna k from emory u| 2.27.13 @ 12:42PM
Let’s star with the lies in your post; your name is not Sandra, and you’re not in, or from, Greenville.
After that, who should believe anything you that you write?
I really HATE phony posters who try to ignite controversy, and then come back under a separate identity to agree with their own posts.
It’s rather cool in Atlanta, today. I do so look forward to the arrival of Spring.
Kenny| 2.27.13 @ 2:43PM
Yawn.
TLP| 2.27.13 @ 3:18PM
Don't ya just love Anna? She writes Comments under Pseudonyms, and then argues with herself when the batteries run out in her Free Vibrator.
Get rechargeable batteries, and leave us alone.
Von Mises Jr| 2.27.13 @ 3:28PM
The new obamaphone batteries are interchangeable with electric dildos. At least that is what Arnie claims. He should call anna banana?
KennesawJack| 2.27.13 @ 9:06PM
Sandra, the passage from Deuteronomy you quote is from the Old Covenant. I'm sure you know that God, in his infinite mercy and wisdom, created a New Covenant and it is through this New Covenant we are Sanctified, not through the Law. The only barbaric act in the New Covenant is the one you and your ilk performed on God, Himself. Nice try, though. Typical libtard. Simplistic arguments selectively lifted with incomplete context.
Arnie| 2.27.13 @ 7:08AM
I'm not saying all Republicans are racist, but all the racists I know of are Republicans.
Von Mises Jr| 2.27.13 @ 8:14AM
I am not saying that all liberals are ignorant, but all the the ignorant I know are liberals.
Al Adab| 2.27.13 @ 8:30AM
Racists are, I believe, those who view every issue or policy through the prism of race. That defines many more of The Left than others.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 2.27.13 @ 9:19AM
A very good point, Al, and to that end, an ode to the obnoxious poster who tossed out the term like a grenade:
I’ve traveled much around the world
And lived in many places
And spoken several languages
To learn how to call folks “Racist“
A frequently used label
That’s easier than thinkin‘
We could’ve skipped the civil war
Had it been there for Lincoln
He’d call out all secessionists
And those all holding slaves
And say With Me you disagree
That makes you racist knaves
But those who study history
Know Lincoln wasn’t able
To help restore the Union
Resorting to a label
For labeling ends all debate
And drags it to the mud
So ideas didn’t triumph
Til our ground was soaked in blood
So when people shout out Racist
They haven’t learned it yet
It means the words have ended
Followed by a bayonet
So when you hear that word used
For division of each class
Whoever spoke self labeling
The speaker as an ass
TLP| 2.27.13 @ 9:50AM
You know it's only Wednesday, right?
Albert Constantine Jr.| 2.27.13 @ 11:15AM
I don't want those poetry skills atrophying now that it is every other week.
TLP| 2.27.13 @ 1:14PM
Why do I think that you're a great dancer?
Jacob McCandles| 2.27.13 @ 9:53AM
I don't give a rat's a$$ who's a racist and who is not. The private thoughts of another individual are between he and his maker. If a racist's actions infringe on my rights or someone else, there's an issue there.
ACJ-great poetry as always, appreciate those.
John II| 2.27.13 @ 11:52PM
Between HIM and his Maker. Prepositional objects have to be in the objective case. Do you know where the contest is going to be this week?
Pecos Pete| 2.27.13 @ 1:48PM
Snap! x 4
jothepro| 2.27.13 @ 8:19AM
That's funny Arnie because ALL of the racists I know of are democrats..
Stephie| 2.27.13 @ 8:28AM
With obama being the biggest racist of all.
John Navratil| 2.27.13 @ 9:46AM
jothepro,
Do you think Arnie knows any Republicans or conservatives? Or does he find a racist and think that person is a Republican?
I don't know any racists in my circle of friends. The ones I meet tend to be Hispanic or Black.
C. Vernon Crisler | 2.27.13 @ 9:44AM
Most of the main racists I'm aware of are Darwinists. Those who try to reconcile their racism with Christianity do so with absurd claims, for instance, that Jesus was really part-Arian because he supposedly had a Roman father. I read that Billy Graham -- who fits the definition of a "Bible thumper" in the liberal worldview -- helped bail Martin Luther King out of prison, and also refused to preach at churches that practised racial segregation.
TLP| 2.27.13 @ 10:04AM
This is all so stupid.
Everyone's a Racist. Everyone.
I'm White, and I think that Whites are the Best.
Blacks think that Blacks are the best. Hispanics think that Hispanics are the best. Asians think that Asians are the best. And, anyone who says they don't? Is a Liar.
The only difference that I can see, is that, out of the group I just mentioned? Only I would be labeled a Racist. The others were just emoting Racial Pride.
And, therein lies the problem.
It's why - in the words of Eric Holder - My People are on their way to Minority Status, and the Country that I grew up in is fast becoming a Third World Banana Republic Hellhole, unrecognizable to anyone over 50.
If saying that makes me a Racist?
Then I gladly Accept that Title, and will wear it as a Badge of Honour.
Kingofthenet| 2.27.13 @ 1:49PM
Really, why are you 'Proud' to be white? Are you proud about your height, length of your nose, eye and hair color or texture? I could see being proud of being say Italian, you know lots of great artists and explorers and what not? But skin pigmentation, really? I guarantee you you wouldn't be 'proud' of your light skin in Sub-Saharan Africa a 1,000 years ago, you would CURSE it, everyday of your short painful life.
TLP| 2.27.13 @ 3:50PM
I love being White.
What's wrong with that?
TLP| 2.27.13 @ 3:52PM
Can't I love my race?
What's wrong with you?
DRed| 2.27.13 @ 4:24PM
You hate your race. You married an Asian and had non-white children, thus hastening the ruin of America.
TLP| 2.27.13 @ 5:48PM
I hate my race because I married the woman I love?
And, I'm a Racist?
DRed| 2.27.13 @ 8:00PM
Well, I personally don't think so, but according to your own logic you do. Why are you helping turn America into a third world nation with your non-white kids? Why do you hate this country so much?
And yes, you are very clearly a racist.
CJW| 2.27.13 @ 10:34AM
purp-troll alert
Tom Kyba| 2.27.13 @ 11:19AM
Feeling a little tingle in certain areas Arnie, Mr. Super Bigot? By the way, nice try pretending you know any Republicans. Geez what a gutless man(sorry, person) you are.
Sam I Am| 2.27.13 @ 11:59AM
How right you are, Arnie!
Doctor_X| 2.27.13 @ 7:08AM
“The reason that legitimate media outlets routinely cover gays is because it is the civil rights issue of our time."
I wonder how blacks feel about that? I didn't know that gays had to sit in the back of the bus and that they couldn't eat in the same resturants as non-gays.
Job| 2.27.13 @ 1:12PM
thanks Doc see how the trolls ignore this because it's irrefutable logic and truth.
Kenny| 2.27.13 @ 2:45PM
Yawn.
Kingofthenet| 2.27.13 @ 1:50PM
Could Blacks get married during segregation?
Archie| 2.27.13 @ 2:59PM
Of course.
TLP| 2.27.13 @ 3:51PM
He's an Idiot.
Fiscal| 2.27.13 @ 7:09AM
Really? If you "Christians" didn't try to force your beliefs on the rest of us through governmental action on things like abortion and marriage equality, then this might be an issue. But you "believe" that you are right and the rest of us are wrong and do not respect the beliefs of others.
From a secular point of view, this restricts personal liberty and makes government larger, not smaller as you create more restrictive laws and enforcement mechanisms.
When you force your beliefs on others, you should expect some pushback. No one is preventing you from not having an abortion or marrying someone of the same sex. But you guys want to restrict me. In the bigger scheme of things, you guys are certainly more oppressive than the rest of us.
CJW| 2.27.13 @ 8:03AM
The people through their legislatures enacted laws on marriage and abortion. The Courts struck down the abortion laws, and the courts are now striking down marriage laws that have existed for hundreds of years. Anyone can lobby a legislature to enact laws to redefine marriage. If you support a change from existing law to redefine marriage are you not trying to impose your views?
Why is it an imposition of views for those who favor the existing laws to maintain the existing laws on marriage but not for those who want to change the law?
Anytime the government passes a law, by definition, it is imposing the views of people who favor that law, ranging from taxation to marriage to criminal laws.
Fiscal| 2.27.13 @ 8:26AM
What you are saying is that ruling by use of a mob is acceptable. If I do something acceptable for me and the person I'm doing it with, and I'm not doing physical harm to them, then you should not prevent me from doing it. By inference, you're saying it was fine to enslave blacks and keeping women from voting because the mob who had voting rights passed the law.
I am an unabashed supporter of personal liberty and limited government and you, obviously, are not. I am an unabashed supporter of the Constitution and our right to the pursuit of happiness, and you are not. That's the problem.
Bob K| 2.27.13 @ 9:03AM
Democrats support mob rule by supporting open borders. Mob rule is where the Democrat Party's votes are.
Ultimately democracy, without controls, is mob rule.
C. Vernon Crisler | 2.27.13 @ 9:47AM
So is it okay to engage in sexual acts with little boys? As long as it's consensual and doesn't do any physical harm? I can tell you libertarians/liberals haven't really thought about ethics very much.
BTW, the claim that you can't impose morality is itself an imposition, so it's an incoherent principle.
John Navratil| 2.27.13 @ 9:56AM
Fiscal,
Non sequitor! No on is saying rule of mob. If that were the case, gays would not be able to marry as it does not pass at the ballot box when presented.
No one is physically harmed if I don't pay taxes. No one is physically harmed if I rebuild a Camaro in my front yard, or get falling down drunk in public, or drive 95 on an empty freeway. No one is harmed if I take a pistol into a bar or a bank or a school. Should these actions be permissible under your definition of personal liberty?
If not, why not?
TLP| 2.27.13 @ 10:14AM
Because he's Fiscal, and he says so.
Who are you, bye the way, to get him all confused by throw out Facts all over the place?
Why don't you come to The Contest, anymore?
AND, WHY AM I YELLING?!
John Navratil| 2.27.13 @ 10:38AM
TLP,
I have been on a project from Hell! I'll be there this weekend, I PROMISE!
John II| 2.27.13 @ 11:58PM
You misspelled non sequitur. Probably because your chronic absence from the Contest is taking away your edge. Anyhow, do YOU know where the Contest is going to be this week, Navie?
CJW| 2.27.13 @ 10:56AM
If you believe that laws passed by the elected legislatures of the 57 states and Congress amount to mob rule, then there is not much to reason with you.
It is ridiculous to conclude that because a legislature passed a law then slavery was "fine." Logic is not your strong point. Laws passed by legislature can be challenged in court and can be challenged at the ballot by replacing the legislators, and by the legislature in amending laws. This happens every day in a representative republic which you seem unaware.
The problem is you cannot think, reason, and follow logic. This may come as a shock to you but you do not have an unlimited right to the pursuit of happiness, unless you establish your own government in some land with you as dictator.
Al Adab| 2.27.13 @ 11:34AM
There have been, and still are today, immoral laws. That a legislature or a majority enacts oen does not change the definition.
Frankly, laws that take from some by force to provide for others of some favored class are immoral in their own right.
BTW, in the name of sequestration, Janet Napolitano has order her Dept. to release illegals in custody. The Senate should begin impeachment proceedings for dereliction of duty.
CJW| 2.27.13 @ 1:05PM
Al Adab
Janet is following the orders of Obama to try to scare the public about the cuts. If you believe Obama then we cannot make any cuts, not even to the projected increases in spending, because these cuts will cause all the dire consequences.
Thus we cannot make any cuts but must continue to borrow 40% of what we spend, or raise taxes to replace the borrowing, because the economy will never recover enough to support the spending, especially with Obamacare adding 6 trillion to the deficit.
I agree the legislatures can pass immoral and stupid laws. But in a representative republic there are peaceful procedures to contest and change these laws, and there is always peaceful civil disobedience.
But what is much worse is immoral and stupid regulations that have the force of laws which are issued by Obama and his bureaucrats without any voting by our representatives. There are more regulations in the Federal Register, especially by IRS, than laws passed by Congress. We are pretty much ruled by bureaucrats and not by elected representatives.
These simpletons like fiscal that talk about some unlimited right to pursuit of happiness are oblivious to reality. I am not saying I favor this rule by bureaucrats or every law passed by our representatives, but it helps to know the reality if we want to change it.
Al Adab| 2.27.13 @ 1:12PM
!
Kingofthenet| 2.27.13 @ 2:00PM
CHOICE is NOT a position on an issue, I can be Pro-Choice and against Abortion PERSONALLY, see how that works?
JD| 2.27.13 @ 2:29PM
It works very poorly.
What can your reason for opposing abortion personally possibly be except for belief in the personhood of the unborn? Either you don't have this belief and thus don't oppose abortion, or you have this belief and recognize why it can't be a "choice" any more than me shooting you can be a choice.
Kingofthenet| 2.27.13 @ 2:45PM
Many Christians have a problem with Drinking,Gambling etc. At one time we tried to appease them with Prohibition, but that didn't work out, now we just tell them to stay out of the bars and Casinos if they don't like it.
JD| 2.27.13 @ 3:25PM
That was in an era when Democrats were "conservative" and Republicans were "liberal". Similarly, at times, there have been Christians who have been liberal and tried to get the federal government to enforce morality beyond protecting natural rights.
However, it is not liberal to want to protect natural rights, such as the right to life. Conservatives believe in that as well.
There was a time when black people were not considered persons, and America was "pro-choice" as to whether they should be allowed life, liberty, or property. However, it was finally realized that personhood is not and cannot be subjective, and objectively, black people are people. Unfortunately, in the case of the unborn, there are still fools who think we can be subjective as to their personhood.
There are far fewer who argue objectively as to the non-personhood of the unborn, but their argument is weak, which is why some knowingly persist in advocating subjectivity - to avoid losing objectively.
CJW| 2.27.13 @ 3:21PM
King
Why are you against abortion?
Kingofthenet| 2.27.13 @ 3:50PM
I am not, I am not a fan in it's use when people don't take reasonable protections against Pregnancy, but I wouldn't force ANYONE to give birth to a Rapists Child or to a Genetically Damaged child or endanger their life to do so. I don't see EARLY Human Life as deserving of 'Protection' just as we don't protect handfuls of seed although we DO National Forests.
TLP| 2.27.13 @ 3:54PM
Again: He's an Idiot.
CJW| 2.27.13 @ 4:22PM
King
Are you aware that at least 37 states have laws prohibiting homicide of unborn child? The laws exempt abortion, but it is murder to kill an unborn child. So your opinion of early life does not mean anything. You kill a pregnant woman, and you will be charged with two murders.
There is no logic in allowing a mother to kill the unborn child but making it a crime for anyone else to kill an unborn child. And the statutes call it "Homicide of an Unborn Child." Not Early Human life, not seed, not a tree.
What is a genetically damaged child? If you want to kill the unborn genetically damaged child, you must want to kill it once the child is born, right?
JD| 2.27.13 @ 5:38PM
The only one who forces anyone to give birth to a rapist's child is a rapist. In all other cases, the person has a choice to engage or not engage in actions which result in pregnancy.
Seeds are not alive, and trees are not persons. There are many mature trees that I can legally kill.
John II| 2.28.13 @ 12:03AM
You misused "it's," confusing the contraction with the possessive, proof that you're a sloppy thinker. But I will forgive you if you can tell me where the Contest is going to be this week.
TNcracker | 3.27.13 @ 11:37AM
Seeds don't have a heartbeat.
Job| 2.27.13 @ 3:21PM
okay so lemme see if i get where your coming from. this issue is the game changer that made you vote for Obama?
Job| 2.27.13 @ 3:22PM
Fiscal that is... okay so lemme see if i get where your coming from. this issue is the game changer that made you vote for Obama?
Stephie| 2.27.13 @ 8:22AM
Would you say this to a radical muslim Fiscal?
Fiscal| 2.27.13 @ 8:29AM
The exact same thing. Believing that Islam is the only right religion is fine. Forcing me to change my beliefs is wrong. Trying to convince me through debate is fine, however.
Why can't you understand the concept of freedom?
JD| 2.27.13 @ 1:19PM
There is this Leftist delusion that says that a belief is "tolerated" even if all acting on that belief is forbidden.
Leftists will never admit to subscribing to this delusion, but it is clearly at the heart of their theology. How else can they claim to "tolerate all beliefs" even as laws prevent radical Muslims from killing all infidels, as their beliefs instruct them to do? Similarly, Christians are routinely instructed not to practice the prime directive of Christianity - spreading the Gospel - under the Leftist doctrine of "keep it to yourselves".
Leftists do not understand that there is a difference between equal opportunity and equal results. They don't see this in economics, and they don't see it in the marketplace of ideas. Equal opportunity of ideas leads to good ideas winning and bad ideas losing, just as equal financial opportunity lead to winners and losers.
Forcing me to change my beliefs is wrong. Trying to convince me through debate is fine, however.
By your definition of "forcing", you are forcing us. But you don't see that, because you're also forcing us to adopt your worldview, which says differently!
jothepro| 2.27.13 @ 8:24AM
Hey "Fiscal", why do you exist?
Fiscal| 2.27.13 @ 8:30AM
Because two consenting adults had the biological means to give each other some pleasure.
Next question?
jothepro| 2.27.13 @ 8:49AM
Fiscal, Do you look at yourself in the mirror and wonder if all that you are is really just a little man who means nothing?
Fiscal| 2.27.13 @ 9:00AM
I guess that makes us equals....
Kingofthenet| 2.27.13 @ 2:21PM
When you feel THIS life is short and kind of pointless, like religious people do, they need a PAYOFF to make it all worthwhile.
John II| 2.28.13 @ 12:07AM
Your misuse of "like" in the sense of "as" is proof that you are a nihilist. But I will let it go if you will extend me the kindness of telling me where the Contest is going to be this week.
Nancy in NC| 2.27.13 @ 8:30AM
Laws are what keeps the barbarians at the gate. The secular permissive "progressives" are allowing the barbarians to control the gate. Anyone who contends society has improved since abortion became "acceptable" is living on a different planet. Murder is not "acceptable" in civilization, and when it is accepted life, becomes easily dispensible.
Marriage rules has no place in the federal government.It is a state issue, but really marriage is a sacrament of the church; civil unions are the business of the state.
Abortion and gay marriage would not be such a big issue if the left had not made it so by bringing it into the schools at early inappropriate age.
The 10 Commandments would make life so much better for ALL of us, but the left has relegated that to the back alleys.
Fiscal| 2.27.13 @ 8:42AM
I'm afraid you don't understand the concept of laws. Laws to primarily two things -- keep an orderly society and force the beliefs of lawmakers on the rest of us. Your definition of "barbarian" is different than mine.
The majority of us don't consider first trimester abortions as murder. Again, you are forcing your beliefs on me.
I agree that marriage has no place in the federal government. Therefore, you should be against things like DOMA. Right?
Abortion and gay marriage is NOT a big issue in schools. They exist, and should be discussed as civics issues since they affect our legal structure. For that matter, I am also in favor of discussing religion in public schools for the same reason. However, the problem here is that YOU want YOUR religion only to be discussed. That's why it is problematic.
Perhaps we should be guided by the bible with men having multiple wives, not eating bacon and shellfish, and stoning adulterous wives. Right?
Nancy in NC| 2.27.13 @ 8:58AM
Yes, I oppose DOMA and about 90% of the rest of the laws and executive orders coming out of government. Laws are trying to control us, and I think you misunderstand my points. The mindset that defines our culture is more importnat than the laws themselves. There is no virtue.
A republic depends on a virtuous and moral people. Our Founders believed religion was necessary for us to suceed as a Nation. They were plain in the 1st Amendment that they did not want a national religion, but they also were quite clear that we all are allowed to exercise our religious rights, in and outside the place of worship. Now religion is relegated to the church and forbidden from the public square. When religion is forced out of public life, citizens think morality and virtue are not important.
I stand by my premise that when the government forces us to pay for other's abortions, those who disagree will fight. Hasn't history proved me correct?
Fiscal| 2.27.13 @ 9:05AM
I agree that the government should not pay for abortions -- nor should they restrict first trimester abortion. However, I'm really torn on healthcare. If you've actually studied, from an econometrics viewpoint, healthcare, and really understand why insurance is not congruous with healthcare, it is the one area where I support Medicare for all. Yes, keep government out of education and limit foreign intervention, but healthcare is an exception where our economy could be benefitted greatly.
Connection Not Compromise| 2.27.13 @ 10:23AM
"... it is the one area where I support Medicare for all."
Really??? Do you not realize that the same government that gives you healthcare can also dictate the terms of your healthcare? Just ask any person who is currently on Medicare.
This is completely inconsistent with your above statement that "I am an unabashed supporter of personal liberty and limited government."
TLP| 2.27.13 @ 10:24AM
You say you don't consider a First Trimester Abortion to be Murder. So, obviously, anything after the First Trimester IS Murder, and should be prosecuted as one. Right?
Can you tell us why, one day after the first Trimester, this Creature that's been growing inside its Mother's Womb, is now a Human Life? And, what was it one day before that?
Stephie| 2.27.13 @ 10:58AM
All who are for unfettered taxpayer funded abortions where PP MAKES A PROFIT, need to sit through one and watch the body parts come out in the vacuum. THEN tell me that it wasn't a human being. I bet they are the ones who go postal over puppy mills and dolphins in the tuna nets.
Job| 2.27.13 @ 1:53PM
Stephie you know that you can be for abortions for fetuses and against abortion for murderers. Sit in a redwood hot tub and say save the redwoods. Eat arugula and say down with farmers. Eat dog but just don't take him on vacation in a car kennel. Have an armed guard in front of your house and say ban guns.
It's the "smoragasbord approach to issues i believe in" method. its how you get vegetarians that eat fish and i guess its time we learn to stop goin logical on folks.
Pecos Pete| 2.27.13 @ 1:56PM
Or, killing trees, digging up Mother Earth for minerals. They are incensed at killing trees but killing babies is OK. We truly live in a mad mad world.
Butch| 2.27.13 @ 2:25PM
It's a Federal crime to break an eagle's egg.
Real Deal| 2.27.13 @ 2:17PM
Just tell them to pretend its a tree, then they'll try and save it.
Nancy in NC| 2.27.13 @ 8:43AM
The abortion issue really hit the fan when the rest of us are expected to foot the bill. If someone wants an abortion, why should I pay for it?
God knows I don't understand homosexuality and all the other "strange" things that seem to be in vogue these days. But why the push to try to convert everyone? And why are schools and the government getting on board to make what is an aberration to seem "normal"?
I have no desire to punish anyone for their weirdness; God knows I have my own shortcomings. However, I do resent having to face it on a regular basis and feel I am being forced to accept something as normal. (Of course, I am sick of seeing straight sex as well...sex is a private concern for me.)
I think something is terribly wrong when my five year old grandson has a fairly good inkling of what gay means...and it's not merry.
Fiscal| 2.27.13 @ 9:12AM
I agree with most of what you have said and also agree on funding abortions because it is an elective procedure and government should not pay for ANY elective procedures.
Knowing what gay means is not wrong. Your grandson will be stronger for knowing it and if he makes a decision that homosexuality is wrong, he will be stronger in that decision. What's wrong with saying that other people have a right to believe as they will but you believe that what they believe is just morally wrong?
As is probably obvious, I don't believe in a supreme being. However, I raised my children to be religious because it will make their lives easier. I took them to CCD. Now they can make an informed decision -- and all of them have decided to be part of organized religion. I am happy with their decision, and would have been equally happy if they make another decision.
JD| 2.27.13 @ 12:37PM
I am happy with their decision, and would have been equally happy if they make another decision.
I don't believe you. You are saying these things out of the flawed belief that saying them claims for you some moral high ground, which is hilarious since what you are saying to claim such high ground is precisely that there is no high ground! The truth is that you are NOT happy with decisions to believe in non-Leftism. If you were, you wouldn't be posting here!
Fair treatment of ideas is simply a process by which we hope to better ascertain Right and Wrong, True and False. You are promoting the delusion that there is no True and False, and that EQUAL OPPORTUNITY for ideas implies EQUALITY of ideas. This mistake is not surprising - conflating equal opportunity and equality is a primary flaw of Leftism.
But of course you are not consistent. As readily as you say you'll support people no matter what they believe in some contexts, you're only even posting here today because you are NOT so tolerant in other contexts.
The word "tolerance" is a tool for Leftists to use to beat down opposition, but they surely don't respect it when it applies against them!
Harry the Horrible| 2.27.13 @ 8:56AM
Actually, the way we see it, homosexuals, atheists and secular humanists are trying to force others beliefs on us through government action, esp. the courts.
Fiscal| 2.27.13 @ 9:14AM
This is absolute nonsense and you cannot be intellectually honest and believe this. No one is making you have an abortion or stop going to church. You are free to live by your beliefs. I would like the same.
John Navratil| 2.27.13 @ 9:58AM
Fiscal,
I presume this permits the Boy Scouts to ban gays.
Fiscal| 2.27.13 @ 10:12AM
The Boy Scouts are one of the few organizations to have a Congressional charter. Most of you don't know that. As a result, they are not really a "private" organization. If they didn't have that charter, then they would be free to be a religious organization. So as they are currently organized, they cannot discriminate against gays. That's the issue.
TLP| 2.27.13 @ 10:30AM
That's not true, at all.
They are a Private RELIGIOUS Organization.
If what you claim was fact, we wouldn't be having this discussion now, would we.
It would've fallen under a Non-Discrimination Adjudication by Eric Holder's Blacks Only Justice Department, a long time ago.
This is all about FUNDING.
SUBVET| 2.27.13 @ 10:59AM
Here in CA in 6th grade it's part of the health class to be exposed to the gay lifestyle.....
I guess to see if you might be gay and didn't know it.
and Tim ...............the XY analogy was spot on.
DRed| 2.27.13 @ 1:00PM
The boyscouts aren't a religious organization at all, you moron. How is it possible that you are so consistently wrong about things that are so very simple to look up?
TLP| 2.27.13 @ 1:22PM
Then, pray tell.....why haven't they been FORCED to allow Gay Scout Masters?
Hmmmmmmmmm?
And, why are they allowed to have a Loyalty Oath to God?
Isn't that DISCRIMINITORY to Atheists, and thereby Violates the First Amendment?
DRed| 2.27.13 @ 2:07PM
It's a private association. They can discriminate against homosexuals, atheists, catholics, methodists, redheads-whatever they want.
TLP| 2.27.13 @ 3:56PM
Then, leave them alone.
John Navratil| 2.27.13 @ 10:45AM
Fiscal,
Perhaps you should look up what a Federal Charter is. It is largely honorific but give no control to Congress over the organization. Nothing public about it.
But it does illuminate your willingness to compel behaviour in the typical liberal fashion and give the lie to your statement "You are free to live by your beliefs."
TLP| 2.27.13 @ 1:22PM
Nicely done.
John II| 2.28.13 @ 12:15AM
Should be "gives" in parallelism with "does," Navrie, but your point is well taken. Do YOU know where the Contest is going to be this week? Tim won't say.
John Navratil| 2.28.13 @ 11:56AM
John II,
I suspect the Life of Pi movie review.
John Navratil| 2.28.13 @ 11:57AM
John II,
My mistaeks wooodn be so freekwnet if we had a edit feature.
Stephie| 2.27.13 @ 11:03AM
Only a matter of time Fiscal. Wait till that angel of death, Sebelius, tells Sandra Flucke, that she has to get rid of that baby because it isn't a part of the plan for the common good. It may not happen in our lifetime, but it will. When the out of control govt. pays, it makes the rules. Just look toward China.
Dave Williams| 2.27.13 @ 9:27AM
Leave atheists out of that mix. I personally couldn't care less what sort of ridiculous nonsense theists choose to believe (and there are THOUSANDS of examples.) But I'm forced to confront "In god we trust" on my money (not me, thanks; in REASON I trust), to say "under god" in the pledge of allegiance (not me: I go silent for those two words), and on and on and on. So who's forcing whom here....?
Woodrow| 2.27.13 @ 3:32PM
Dave, your eyes will be opened eventually and you will actually get on your knee and say that there is a god, and his name is Jesus. That's guaranteed. So will I. Here's to hoping you'll do it sooner than in the end.
Job| 2.27.13 @ 3:36PM
well the successful results of rigid Christian thinking was the USA's greatness and no one is forcing you to live here. if we iron out these differences and take God out of everything you aint gonna be happy though till your legally telling me that teaching my children what i believe is child abuse. am i wrong about this?
Brubaker| 2.27.13 @ 9:23AM
"No one is preventing you from not having an abortion or marrying someone of the same sex."
So, will you be marrying your butt buddy or having an abortion?
Fiscal| 2.27.13 @ 9:51AM
At least I'll be getting the freedom and liberty to choose.
Le Cracquere| 2.27.13 @ 10:14AM
No one's trying to restrict you from marrying someone of the same sex, any more than people want to restrict you from suing nostalgia, or speaking in the color orange. However, none of the above is conceptually possible, and laws that treat them as possible are inherently mischievous and subversive of the rule of law. No one's saying you may not marry a same-sex partner; we're simply pointing out that you CANNOT, and won't, come what may and whatever boneheaded laws do or don't get passed. Your argument is with the universe--not with conservatives for refusing to play pretend-games about its nature. So that's enough "oppression-speak."
Tom Kyba| 2.27.13 @ 11:21AM
Sorry, but everything in your childish screed was wrong. Every-thing.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 2.27.13 @ 8:01AM
Prominent Democrat Racists of the 21st Century:
Jeremiah “Reverend” Wright (spiritual mentor to the current POTUS, 1988-2008)
Robert “Sheets” Byrd (President Pro Tem of the Senate 2007-2010, 3rd in succession for POTUS)
Eric “my people” Holder (US Attorney General, 2007-present)
Joseph “Indian Accent” Biden (VPOTUS, 2007-present)
Al “Punk Faggot” Sharpton (MSNBC commentator and interloper, 2004 Democrat Presidential Candidate and Convention Speaker)
CJW| 2.27.13 @ 8:05AM
Hymietown Jackson.
Hillary "I'm no ways tired."
Harry "Obama doesn't have a Negro accent" Reid
Albert Constantine Jr.| 2.27.13 @ 8:10AM
"Harry'Obama doesn't have a Negro
accentdialect' Reid"I had to correct the record, CJW, so as not to dilute Biden's use of accent.
CJW| 2.27.13 @ 8:16AM
You are correct, but it is difficult to remember all the Dem racist statements.
Ray "chocolate city" Nagin.
Russel| 2.27.13 @ 10:48AM
" In another time , he'd be gettin' us coffee " Clinton
mike 3/505| 2.27.13 @ 10:56AM
"I'll have them ni***rs voting democratic for the next 200 years."--Lyndon Johnson
Albert Constantine Jr.| 2.27.13 @ 11:04AM
Excellent quote, Colonel, but we will have to file that in the even larger 20th Century Democrat racists file.
mike 3/505| 2.27.13 @ 11:30AM
Sorry Big Al,
I stand most FIRMLY rebuked. Besides...it ain't my fault...I'm sober.
Stephie| 2.27.13 @ 8:26AM
What's sad to me is that the gays along with the blacks are nothing more than pawns in the democrats game for more power and those 2 minorities don't even see it.
Fiscal| 2.27.13 @ 8:34AM
That may be true to some degree, but Christians and gun owners are nothing more than pawns in the Republicans game for more power and they don't see it either.
Politics is about power and money and bending your beliefs to win an election. It's not about governing and compromise -- what our founding fathers actually tried to achieve.
Nancy in NC| 2.27.13 @ 8:48AM
How can you be such a proponent of freedom and then mention gun owners? The 2nd Amendment is a problem for you?
Your statements are incongruent.
jothepro| 2.27.13 @ 8:53AM
Hey Nancy, Fiscal's comments are the only thing that makes him feel good about himself.
spike59| 2.27.13 @ 1:02PM
you spelled 'fecal' wrong
Fiscal| 2.27.13 @ 9:18AM
Not at all, and I'm a gun owner. But we know that Republicans bend to the NRA. Do you think you ought to be able to own a machine gun or a stinger missile? I'm much more practical on gun solutions and believe it should be a state issue except, as the Constitution allows, interstate commerce. That's why I'm in favor of background checks and the regulation of interstate gun sales. I'm much more pragmatic on other solutions -- but they should be done by the states.
mike 3/505| 2.27.13 @ 9:59AM
Do you think you ought to be able to own a machine gun or a stinger missile?
Absolutely. Moreover, there is no Constitutional basis for the government to forbid it.
Fiscal| 2.27.13 @ 10:18AM
If there is no limit, you should be able to make your own atomic bomb. Hmmmm....
The supreme court has ruled on the issue and the ban of machine guns has been found to be Constitutional.
mike 3/505| 2.27.13 @ 10:25AM
SCOTUS is not the final authority. But thanks for playing.
John Navratil| 2.27.13 @ 11:48AM
Fiscal,
Where is your personal liberty now? Why shouldn't I be able to own a machine gun or make bombs? There is a practical difficulty to building atomic bombs. I used to build bombs when I was a kid and no one was physically harmed. Why do you want to force me to accept your belief as to what is acceptable weaponry?
Le Cracquere| 2.27.13 @ 10:20AM
If the NRA has political sway over the Republicans, it's because an impressive number of the GOP rank & file are either members, or broadly sympathetic to the organization's positions. An cabal of élite stringpullers they're not.
And the NRA appears to be extremely active on state-by-state issues. But if the Left starts mouthing about national-level restrictions, they'll naturally enter the fray at a national level themselves--what exactly's unreasonable about that?
Fiscal| 2.27.13 @ 10:56AM
The same can be said of any special interest group. My only point was that these groups are on both sides. Polling has shown that even most Republicans don't agree with many of the NRA positions, and yet the majority of Republicans are disregarded in favor of the group that gives financial support. As for the NRA entering a national fray -- are you kidding? They've been active more nationally than regionally for decades.
JD| 2.27.13 @ 12:31PM
Whose polling? It has been my experience that Left wing presentation of supposed "NRA positions" and actual NRA positions are very different things.
Le Cracquere| 2.27.13 @ 12:39PM
1. Well, again that's a function of how many leftist anti-gun trial balloons get floated at the national level. If you're an advocacy group, you advocate where the action is.
2. Are you suggesting that advocacy groups popular with voters of only one political party are somehow less legitimate than other such groups? Do tell. It'd be fascinating to watch that logic get applied across the board.
3. Polling? It is to laugh. Personally, I'm conservative and against gun control, and even I laugh off the sort of cheap RNC and NRA polling shams that miraculously evince overwhelming support for conservative causes that I know damn well are highly contested. Perhaps you're an easier sell?
Nancy in NC| 2.27.13 @ 9:09AM
This generation didn't invent homosexuality. It's been around for eons. The difference is everyone, even the homos , used to know it wasn't normal. Now the left is trying to convince us that's it not only normal, but preferable. I feel empathy for homos (I'm not being mean, just concise in my wording for terseness) and wish them no harm. In fact, I want them to find happiness. But their happiness is their business, not mine. Laws should provide for their safety as much as for me. If they want to have a civil union, go for it. But don't call it marriage, because marriage is a sacrament of the church and the church originally defined marriage between a man and a woman for the purpose of producing children. When the homos can produce children, I will think God has changed His mind.
Fiscal| 2.27.13 @ 9:21AM
Your bigotry is obvious in calling them "homos". Marriage is NOT just a sacrament of the church because it is controlled by the state. So you would agree that the state should just issue civil unions and not have marriage laws?
mike 3/505| 2.27.13 @ 10:14AM
Your bigotry is obvious in calling them "homos".
No it isn't..."homos," is a shortened/descriptive term.
As to "marriage," and state involvement...states/societies write laws in order to foster/encourage behavior society deems helpful to society and to prohibit behavior that is harmful to society. In our system, we try to do that with the least impact to the rights of the individual. The legal definition of marriage, is up to the states, severally.
Fiscal| 2.27.13 @ 10:23AM
Are you kidding? I guess you don't use a dictionary. Look it up. I guess it would be appropriate to call you a knuckledragger since it is just a descriptive term.
As for society, what you mean is mob rule. Gay marriage would help society by forming a more stable environment for that segment of the population.
What we are saying, is that "marriage" should NOT be a state function. I guess you didn't understand the discussion.
mike 3/505| 2.27.13 @ 10:28AM
I understand the discussion. The discussion is about whether a very small segment of society is going to force the rest of society to sanctify their aberrant/perverse behavior. Note I said "sanctify" not "tolerate." I have no issue with two consenting adults, doing whatever they wish in the privacy of their bedrooms. I strongly object however, to forcing societal sanction of perverse behavior.
John Navratil| 2.27.13 @ 10:50AM
mike 3/505,
Indeed!
Fiscal| 2.27.13 @ 10:59AM
Your assumption is that this is "perverse" behavior. Obviously, now, a majority of our society now considers that behavior NOT to be perverse. That's your problem. You are now in the minority. If you really have no issue with consenting adults, then why would you have a problem with a society that believes the same?
mike 3/505| 2.27.13 @ 11:35AM
Most of society does indeed consider it perverse...But society, like you and with the encouragement of the liberals/statists, cannot tell the difference between "toleration" and "sanction." Liberals/Statists use the same technique when they say "medicARE/medicAID" as a single gestalt. That enables them to scare seniors when conservatives threaten to cut medicAID. Liberals/Statists also deliberately confuse "entitlement" with "entitlement mentality," and in turn with "charity."
Al Adab| 2.27.13 @ 1:18PM
What the majority thinks of a particular issue is irrelevant except when we make policy based on the majority of the day. That is a significant societal error. A minority of one may yet be correct and the majority wrong.
JD| 2.27.13 @ 2:45PM
Fiscal writes as though there is a movement to ban homosexual activity in America. There isn't, and there hasn't been for a very long time.
The only movements today are these:
1. Federal endorsement of homosexual relationships.
2. Tax and legal preferences for those in homosexual relationships vs those in no federally recognized relationships.
3. "Hate crime" protection against criticism for homosexuality.
None of these involve the government "in your bedroom". However, all involve violations of libertarian ideals and the 1st and 14th Amendments.
Marc Jeric| 2.28.13 @ 7:28AM
I do not have anything against two adults, male or female, doing it in their bedrooms. But I resent seeing pedophiles as boy scout leaders. Also - what shall we do with the 15 or 25 typical abandoned "spouses" of aging homosexuals - do we give them all Social Security checks?
TLP| 2.27.13 @ 10:40AM
Why are you badgering the Colonel? He's right: Homos is just short for Homosexual. This is just like "Queers". That was Verboten by themWord Police, even though the Queers call themselves Queers.
So, stop berating mike 3/505. If he says he knows about Homos? Then he knows about Homos. I bet he knows about Homos, Queers, Gayblades, Flamers, Pole Munchers and Dirt Road Daredevils. If he says he knows about queers, you can Goddamnguarentee that he knows all the Ups and Downs, and Ins and Outs of the whole Gay Lifestyle.
Probably more than they do.
Am I helping, Colonel?
Cause, I get the feeling that I'm not.
mike 3/505| 2.27.13 @ 10:45AM
Mugs, Pugs, Thugs, Thieves, Steers, Queers....
Governor Hedley Lamar-Blazing Saddles
Russel| 2.27.13 @ 10:54AM
The best one ever was Jack Nicholsen and his " fudge packers " and " do you get me , sweetheart ? ".
TNcracker | 3.27.13 @ 3:59PM
Yep, Fudgepacker is all time best. And, fiscal (or is it FIST CALL?) i consider fudgepacking men to be perverts, and I always will. You can cite polls all day long -- it doesn't matter to me. Go ahead & pack fudge, but don't demand that I accept your marriage. It's beyond ludicrous.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 2.27.13 @ 11:12AM
Actually, William J. Lepetomane (Mel Brooks) was the Governor. Mr Lamarr was his assistant (Harrumph, Harrumphh).
mike 3/505| 2.27.13 @ 11:36AM
Correct Sir. I once again apologize and plead severe sobriety.
Goldwater Girl| 2.27.13 @ 2:21PM
rump rangers
Kenny| 2.27.13 @ 3:10PM
Yawn
anna k from emory u| 2.27.13 @ 3:34PM
I would imagine, Kenny, that the reason that you keep yawning is because an open mouth is like a mating ritual to your fellow deviates.
But we know, in real life, while you advocate for a homosexual agenda, that you’re really just a nasty graduate student teacher at Emory, whose closest brush with anything resembling the real world is to try to antagonize others at this website.
You will definitely not be in the next batch of students I take out for a treat at Dante’s Down the Hatch, unless it is to feed you to the alligators there.
Stephie| 2.27.13 @ 11:12AM
What will you say when NAMBLA asks for their abnormal behavior to be labeled as "just another sexual orientation"? That topic is being tossed around in the once lovely city of San Francisco. Will you defend their perversion and crimes against little boys? Will you believe them when they say, "it's good for them"? They already do.
Fiscal| 2.27.13 @ 11:19AM
Boys are NOT consenting adults and thus deserve protection against rape whether it is NAMBLA or the Catholic church. That is NOT an abnormal behavior discussion -- it is a rape discussion. You are doing a disservice by stating it otherwise.
JD| 2.27.13 @ 12:44PM
We conservatives have heard statements like that before.
The Left protests vehemently whenever "slippery slope" allegations are made against them. They protest too much! The fact is that THE SOLE VEHICLE OF LEFTIST ADVANCE THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAS BEEN THE SLIPPERY SLOPE! In every case, on every issue, the Left advances itself by saying that it's not going "too far", and that when the Right suggests that its agenda will lead to something more extreme down the road, the Right is lying. But in every case, the Right turns out to have been, well, RIGHT!
Pedophilia, incest, beastiality, and polygamy will all be on the Left's agenda at some point in the future. In all cases, they will compare opponents of these things to those "right-wing cave men" who "once opposed homosexuality". I know this will happen because it has happened. Every time.
Look forward to suggestions that sex is a good, healthy expression of love, and that denying it to children is cruel and unfair, and that there's nothing sweeter than an adult expressing such love to a child. We will hear it soon enough.
TNcracker | 3.27.13 @ 4:05PM
There are already "erotic zoos" in Germany where paying customers pick an animal to their liking and have a romantic moment--anything goes as long as the animal is not injured.
TLP| 2.27.13 @ 1:27PM
But, by Law, they must be taught The Joys of Anal Sex in Elementary School.
Please explain.
Le Cracquere| 2.27.13 @ 10:23AM
Marriage is both a civil status (in general), AND a sacrament for many religious citizens. Even in the former case, though, that civil status is not the state's to define however it wishes.
mike 3/505| 2.27.13 @ 10:31AM
Even in the former case, though, that civil status is not the state's to define however it wishes.
Actually, it is. "All powers not enumerated herein....reserved to the states respectively or to the people."
Ya gotta read the owners manual folks...it's all in there...and elegantly written to boot.
Le Cracquere| 2.27.13 @ 12:44PM
This suggests that states could define "marriage" as an exact synonym of "employment" or as applying to anyone over the age of 50, rather than its ordinary English referent. On one level, you're right--they can technically do that if they like. But in a less technical sense, they "can't" because their little adventure in lexicography would be bought at a dreadful cost, most of all in the coin of public respect & regard for the rule of law.
JD| 2.27.13 @ 2:42PM
The Left has been redefining words to advance its agenda for generations, and has never considered any legal authority to do so.
Nancy in NC| 2.27.13 @ 10:36AM
Just couldn't resist, Fiscal? Knew you would use the "race" card eventually. Someone who disagrees with your view is also a bigot or racist or other such name.
I have gay friends who don't think I'm a bigot, and leave me to the right not to understand or condone their weirdness, just like I don't expect them to understand or condone my weirdness.
You just can't seem to understand the incongruency of your statements. I don't want to forbid anyone's weirdness. I just don't want to participate or have it pushed in my face 24/7. Most civilized societies resisted weirdness, or at least recognized it as weirdness. We're trying to legislate it into normalcy. Won't work. It's still weird...or queer, if you rather.
Fiscal| 2.27.13 @ 11:06AM
So, do you call your gay friends "homos" to their faces? Why didn't you say you had "homo" friends instead of "gay" friends.
You unknowingly made my point for me.
We all have some level of bigotry in our beliefs -- that's only human. Yes, I have some level of bigotry against "Christians" because when I was young, I was put in harms way because I wasn't one. The difference between us, is that I recognize that as bigotry and try to fight other bigotry when I see it.
wrongheifer| 2.27.13 @ 11:37AM
No...you do not recognize 'bigotry' because you are a bigot yourself...but that is just human nature! we are all sinners bubba..
Bill8472| 2.27.13 @ 1:05PM
Why wouldn't someone call them that to their faces? Is there some reason, such as fear of them, why not?
Bill8472| 2.27.13 @ 10:40AM
When reporters take a side in a debate and call their side the "fair" side, the other side by default becomes the "unfair" side.
This kind of value-mongering inevitably leads to demonizing someone who disagrees with one as evil, which of course is exactly what has happened to our cultural debate.
We have lived for so long with logical positivism that we somehow have forgotten the difference between problems that have one correct solution (tractable problems) and problems that have more than one correct solution (intractable problems).
That's one of the biggest reasons why our cultural conversation has become so degraded, and much of the blame can be placed on the doorstep of the news agencies.
Fiscal| 2.27.13 @ 11:16AM
There are no more "news" agencies -- they either have a strong right perspective like Fox and a strong left perspective like MSNBC. The real reason that our cultural conversation has become so degraded is that people now only watch/listen to people that agree with them. Neither Fox nor MSNBC really tells the truth although Fox lies more and MSNBC is just better at only presenting one side.
JD| 2.27.13 @ 12:27PM
Hahaha! I have always said that Left-wing media simply hides information it doesn't want people to know, in the hope that people will never know it. The Right, by contrast, reports even unflattering news, but without the Leftist spin that Left-wing media uses.
You have restated my truth in a very Leftist way. Bravo! You're strongly invested in your delusions!
Regardless of how you spin this reality, the fact is that Right-wing people end up better informed. We know what your side is talking about in addition to our own, and you know nothing about us. Indeed, the primary activity of Leftists is inventing straw man positions to attribute to the Right, since you are so profoundly ignorant of what we actually believe!
Bill8472| 2.27.13 @ 1:03PM
Do I understand you to be saying that there are no news agencies because the people who report the news are biased one way or the other?
Is that really the reason why you think there are no more news agencies? What about Fox News and MSNBC, whose existence you not only cite, but whose news-oriented programming you openly refer to?
Petronius| 2.27.13 @ 11:05AM
We don't have much longer with the Liberal version of Corporal Hitler in the President's Chair.
Fiscal| 2.27.13 @ 11:11AM
Hitler was a self stated Christian, just like you, I suppose. Perhaps you have a problem with Obama killing Muslims, although I doubt that.
Besides, Obama is simply a weak President who is afraid to take strong positions. I would think that makes him an anti-Hitler.
Stephie| 2.27.13 @ 11:17AM
I have a problem with him killing indiscriminately with his drones. He's a vile man who is ruining our once great nation.
Fiscal| 2.27.13 @ 11:22AM
Really? How is he "vile"? How is killing with drones more indiscriminate than dropping a bomb? In fact, drones do much less collateral damage than any other form of war except for snipers.
I take it you've never actually fought in a war. I have and compared with what I went through, drones are quite humane.
wrongheifer| 2.27.13 @ 11:36AM
You should think this position through too since obama won't answer on whether or not he'll use these 'drones' on Americans and on American soil...
JD| 2.27.13 @ 12:29PM
Among the great dishonesties of the Left is that it will attribute Hitler's flaws to all Christians simply because Hitler claimed to be a Christian. You people LOVE a useful lie, and will cling to it passionately.
But while we can find plenty of great evils to attribute to Leftism, you demonstrate great outrage if we try to use guilt-by-association on you, especially if the association is, as it was with Hitler, simply the claim of someone else to be associated with you.
TLP| 2.27.13 @ 1:34PM
As I recall, Hitler was Killing Catholic Priests who helped Jews.
Saying that Hitler was a Christian, is like saying that the Hitler in the White House, who was Raised in the Muslim Schools and Mosques of Indonesia, and says that "The Muslim Call to Prayer is the most Beautiful Sound in the world" and then goes on to Recite the words from memory, is a Christian.
Capisce?
Al Adab| 2.27.13 @ 3:26PM
Well, TLP:
I too can recite, in Arabic, the prayer call and the dedicatory passage of each sura. However, I can also recite, in Hebrew, the Shmah and other prayers. Neither ability effects my adherence to Christian Faith and my ability to read Paul in the Greek. That said, he in the White House is certainly a poseur. As to his Christianity, I shall leave that to the Judge of the world. but, if by their fruits you will know them, his abortion stance alone raises doubts.
TLP| 2.27.13 @ 4:00PM
Agreed.
CJW| 2.27.13 @ 5:01PM
Perfect, Al Adab.
C. Vernon Crisler | 2.27.13 @ 12:32PM
Hitler was a nominal Catholic, a believer in eugenics and Darwinism, and in a Christianity that was shorn of the Old Testament "Jewish" elements. According to Wikipedia:
"Many Nazi leaders, including Adolf Hitler, subscribed either to a mixture of pseudoscientific theories, particularly Social Darwinism, or to mysticism and occultism, which was especially strong in the SS....In a confidential message to the Gauleiter on June 9, 1941, Martin Bormann, had declared that "National Socialism and Christianity are irreconcilable." He also declared that the Churches' influence in the leadership of the people "must absolutely and finally be broken." Bormann believed Nazism was based on a "scientific" world-view, and was completely incompatible with Christianity."
JD| 2.27.13 @ 12:52PM
It's remarkable how modern followers of Darwin are more extreme than Darwin was, just as modern followers of Marx (even the many who claim not to be his followers) are more extreme than Marx was.
spike59| 2.27.13 @ 1:00PM
ObaMao is a 'self-stated Christian' as well...yet, just like the swoon creator, speechifying blowhard of the 1930's, he has no idea what it means to BE a Christian
wrongheifer| 2.27.13 @ 11:34AM
I'm so sorry to inform you of this....BUT, God says NO!...Therefore, you are the racist WAPO...You don't get to rewrite and redefine over 2000 years of history...Sorry, God says NO! If i were you, I'd rethink my position, since it involves ETERNITY!
C. S. P. Schofield| 2.27.13 @ 11:57AM
OK. I've been listening to the Right whine about "Media Bias" since I first started paying attention to politics in the 1970's. And I'm sick of it. OF COURSE THE NEWS IS BIASED! The idea that is could possible be unbiased is another Leftie-liberal delusion, and we've fallen for it. The answer isn't to complain. The answer is to get your own bias out there, and fight the "oh, THIS media source is unbiased" idiocy every time it raises its absurd head.
That's where Fox News has seriously disappointed me. They should have said "We admit our bias. Can you trust anyone who doesn't?" instead of buying into the myth.
JD| 2.27.13 @ 12:22PM
Bias is inevitable. You cannot be informed without having a position, and if you have a position, you are biased.
The problem isn't bias. The problem is dishonesty. The Leftist media claims to be unbiased (which is effectively claiming to be uninformed). More often, it claims not to have Leftist bias. Most often, it simply lies - about issues, about the beliefs of non-leftists, about... pretty much everything.
Al Adab| 2.27.13 @ 1:23PM
Bias is not always a negative. A bias in favor of justice or the accused, innocent until proven guilty, is a bias for the positive good.
C. S. P. Schofield| 2.27.13 @ 1:47PM
I would argue that, compared with theoretical perfection, bias is always bad, but compared to other likely bias, it may be the best that can be achieved. It is always a trap to reject the present good for the unattainable better.
JD| 2.27.13 @ 2:26PM
The dictionary definition of "bias" is a leaning that is not based on fact and reason. Disagreements over the truth of facts and reason render this definition useless; all bias simply equates to disagreement, with each person subjectively defining himself as "unbiased" and all who disagree with him as "biased".
We should purge the word from our lexicon.
Kingofthenet| 2.27.13 @ 1:17PM
It really is AMAZING to me how religious people justify their Bigotry and Hate, as coming from some invisible sky God via 2,000 year old fairy tales as being an EXCUSE for their belligerence. They don't expect and resent all repercussions. They are fond of asserting their 'First Amendment' protections, unaware that ONLY applies to the Govt. Everyone else is perfectly allowed to be repulsed by your narrow-mindedness.
TLP| 2.27.13 @ 1:35PM
As we are, to be repulsed by your Stupidity.
What a Country.
TNcracker | 3.27.13 @ 4:14PM
AND his arrogance. Who proclaims themselves to be "Kingofthenet"?
C. S. P. Schofield| 2.27.13 @ 1:51PM
Atheism is also a Religious belief, as it is based on an unprovable proposition; that there is no God. It is a fundamental principle of logic that it is impossible to prove a negative.
In concrete terms, too, atheism as a basis for society has a very poor record, even when compared to such Christian horror shows as the Spanish Inquisition.
Job| 2.27.13 @ 4:05PM
if matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed then there is either perpetual motion...or stuff was set in motion recently and hasn't had a chance to stop it yet.... and in this case what set it in motion....hmm houston we have a problem here... lessee if the "motion maker" has a mind we call it God if there is no mind we call it the Universe or mebbe a two cycle internal combustion engine in a really good Suzuki motorcycle like my cousin Michael has that he never has to put gas in. It has a intake/combustion contract cycle and an power/exhaust expansion cycle. The US patent office won't allow perpetual motion but astro physics does cause the big bang is just that? Wait....It's "the smorgasbord approach to issues I believe in" conundrum at play. so I wonder could we infer matter and energy can be created after all. And I know I'm a crack pot already.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 2.27.13 @ 1:52PM
...except of course, for the Divine Right of Kings, from which royal title derives, which you clearly support for yourself...
Kingofthenet| 2.27.13 @ 2:12PM
Atheism is NOT a religion in any way, it has no tenets, it has no practices, it doesn't even absolutely state there isn't a Supernatural God,(Granted different people define thing differently). There 'could' be a God, but I see no evidence of it's Supernatural behavior.
Here is a question for you Christians, this requires a bit of conjecture. IF you were there to observe the Crucifixion of Jesus (assuming you couldn't do anything about it, or better yet, SHOULDN'T do anything about it) you think it would be apparent, there was some 'Supernatural' event going on? Or just some dude dying?
Al Adab| 2.27.13 @ 2:21PM
Some dude dying. In fact it is not the crucifixion but the resurrection which carries the import.
Kingofthenet| 2.27.13 @ 2:38PM
Actually your right, it was a poor example of mine. Definitely the Ghost, or maybe Zombie? Of Jesus definitely would be supernatural IF it occurred. I do have a reason for asking thou, a lot of Catholic and other Christan Clergy, are trying to get away from the 'supernatural' in the stories of the Bible. For example they KNOW the practical problems with a World-Wide Flood situation, so they make it a local flood to stay true to reliable science.Same with ALL the other supernatural stories, Jesus didn't 'conjurer' up Fish and Wine, but his inspirational words softened the hearts of the people hording their own supplies of such. Not that it matters to me as an Atheist, but that kind of treatment REALLY neuters Jesus and God. You really NEED the Supernaturally Stuff, otherwise your left with a 2,000 year old 'Tony Robbins'
Al Adab| 2.27.13 @ 3:43PM
I don't know Tony, but my purpose was not to attempt to argue you into belief. That I believe is not possible for any man. One must come to Faith through logical examination of his own conscience or soul, or through the grace of God by direct revelation or encounter.
You are correct in one regard, that those who attempt to water down the gospel and the person of Jesus do harm to the Faith which his followers carry. Whatever the mechanism of the miracles may have been it does not belie the intervention of the divine in the human realm.
Have a great evening. I do in this conversation truly appreciate your civility.
TNcracker | 3.27.13 @ 4:19PM
What civility?
C. S. P. Schofield| 2.27.13 @ 3:30PM
Atheism is a religion in the terms that matter to me; it has followers just as intolerant and unreasonable as any Christian, who want the State to recognize no other beliefs.
JD| 2.27.13 @ 2:23PM
There is no logical definition of "religion" which does what atheists want - excludes atheists and includes all others.
In practice, atheists use the word "religion" the way Christians use "heathen" and Muslims use "infidel". It's simply a reference to nonbelievers - in this case, nonbelievers in atheism.
The more historical meaning of "religion", as referenced in the First Amendment, can only logically mean "belief set". Other definitions break down under scrutiny. This means that all who are conscious have "religion" and atheism is a religion.
JD| 2.27.13 @ 2:41PM
My position regarding homosexuality has always been simple and clear, and I have never found one person who will even attempt to argue against it. Rather, many try to assign straw man positions to me and condemn me for those.
It is not the federal government's place to be involved in people's social relationships. It is also not the government's place to assign costs to behaviors that don't violate natural rights, or to subsidize behaviors.
Given this, government should not recognize "marriage", nor endorse it, nor grant it benefits such as tax breaks, nor resist, restrict, or oppose it. Marriage is a social construct in which the federal government should have no role. Same with any other relationship.
Some argue that a federal construct is necessary to make it easier to arrange joint ownership of property, etc. These things are only difficult because of needless legal complexity introduced by Leftism. I would eliminate the problem by eliminating the Leftism.
There are a great many immoralities (including homosexuality) which are federally "legal" because the federal government's role is only to protect natural rights. I would not change this. Federal governments cannot save people from themselves.
Kingofthenet| 2.27.13 @ 2:50PM
Well getting rid of marriage entirely from Govt. Control would work, but you would need to replace it with some blanket 'contract law'
JD| 2.27.13 @ 2:55PM
As I said, the only reason it's so hard to do this without "marriage" is Leftism's unnecessary complication of legal and fiscal arrangements in this country. One should be able to draw up the needed contracts with effort similar to the present effort to get a marriage license.
JD| 2.27.13 @ 2:54PM
Based on this, I oppose not only the existence of federal recognition of social relationships, but also its expansion. I would oppose these things regardless of the morality of the relationships recognized.
But my biggest reason for hating the homosexual movement (I said the movement, not people) is that it's primary tactic is advancing a belief that is devastating to societies - the belief that behaviors should be legally protected from criticism.
The gay agenda's primary tactic, used far more than all others, is to claim that gays were "born that way", and thus criticism of homosexuality equates to racism. This is a devastating idea that needs to be killed before it takes root.
All behaviors are a product of both nature and nurture, but even if they were purely nature, society still could not function if people were not held responsible for their actions. Being genetically predisposed to violence does not entitle one to murder. Being predisposed to laziness does not entitle one to a lifetime of subsidy. Being predisposed to sexual urges does not entitle one to molest. Society cannot function if people do not own their actions.
That thoughts might be relatively involuntary changes nothing. I can want to punch you in the face. That's not a crime. Acting on it is.
I strongly oppose the gay agenda for its willingness to pervert such essential truth as self-responsibility in order to get the federal government to endorse, protect, and subsidize its behavior.
Bill8472| 2.27.13 @ 3:34PM
Sounds about right to me.
Archie| 2.27.13 @ 3:07PM
In the last 30 years or so, the gay agenda in this country has gone from...tolerance....to acceptance....to shoving it in everyone's face and demanding adoration. They don't seem to recognize and appreciate how much progress they have made.
And it has nothing to do with religion, so the left should be right on board: In the natural world, it is...unnatural. You should have stopped at acceptance.
Kenny| 2.27.13 @ 3:12PM
Unnatural? Oral sex is unnatural?
And as for heterosexual men's porno taste, they can't get enough of Lesbian Porn.
Bill8472| 2.27.13 @ 3:33PM
How did you come by that morsel of information?
TLP| 2.27.13 @ 4:02PM
I'm guessing that it's from personal experience.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 2.27.13 @ 4:17PM
Since Kenny is for the K. in Anna K., perhaps...
TLP| 2.27.13 @ 5:52PM
Exactly.
Hester & Jacobs| 2.27.13 @ 8:35PM
You all come from the sewer. I've never encountered such hatred.
And your Christian pretentions are abhorrent. You're everything the Left says you are and worse!
John Navratil| 2.27.13 @ 10:29PM
My. my. my. A lefty doesn't like strong language (as if this is an example) from the right!
Might you reread a few excoriations from Ted ("I did not drown that girl") Kennedy? How does your buddy Bill Maher fare? Barney Frank calls gay Republicans "uncle Toms". Take your tawdry offence elsewhere please.
spectatorofthespectator| 2.27.13 @ 10:26PM
Face it, guys (for you most of you are guys in here): you lost this argument about 1995 already because at that point in time reason began to prevail. No good public policy argument can be made to discriminate against allowing a group of meritorious citizens to participate in all of the rituals and obligations of citizenry. To exclude such a group on the basis of a perceived naturally-occurring characteristic (like big ears, flat noses, or the desire to love a member of one's own sex) is simply inadmissible under our political system. (Go find another if you want that.) You may want to call your anti-gay marriage stance "morality," but most of America has since come to a different conclusion on the basis of a decade-long examination of the relevant facts. Marriage, a failing institution, needs all the support it can get. Gays, who are ubiquitous in our society, want and deserve marriage. Within all your lifetimes, it will be law of the land. Fold your cards. You've lost this one and fighting this battle will only seal your political graves.
John Navratil| 2.27.13 @ 10:31PM
And you are whistlin' past it.
Marc Jeric| 2.28.13 @ 7:17AM
This former refugee from a communist hell has ever since the late 1960's renamed the NY Times as The New York Pravda, and the Wash. Post as the Prague Rude Pravo.