The Atheists Are Beginning to Advertise
I haven't seen one of these ads, yet, have you? The American Humanist Association doesn't believe in God, and they're putting signs on Metro buses promoting atheism. Here's how WTOP put it on November 11th:
I will be curious to see how people handle this. Of course it doesn't hurt anything, really. It wouldn't make sense to have a belief system that would be invalidated by doubt. Imagine if I said, "That house is white," and you said, "It doesn't look white to me," and I said, "If you keep saying that, the house won't be white any more!" That's absurd, the idea that doubting an idea would make it cease to be true, but that logic is expected to hold when it comes to religion, as if faith can't stand up under questioning.
The ordinary person certainly sees enough pro-religious messages in the course of a day, I don't see why WTOP expects controversy if somebody puts up an anti-religious sign. Because, come on, those atheists are outnumbered.
They've started doing this in England, too. The BBC last month:
When I was in London I attended a talk by Professor Dawkins and several others. He was talking about evolution, it was noncontroversial, it was about the details of the process.
I want to point out something weird that Newt Gingrich said this week on TV:
First of all, how he lumps gay and secular people together, and labels them a kind of "fascism." It leaves you speechless. Many American Christian churches have abandoned gay people, but that has not diminished the faith of those gay Christians, it has not made them "secular" -- it breaks their hearts, but they do not turn away from God. And I think the secular people Newt's talking about are probably what we'd call educated people, people who get their explanations for things from facts and logic rather than just-so stories.
And ... how much do people who believe in the historic version of Islam or Judaism go to Sunday school? I'm just asking.
I'll agree with Gingrich up to a point. Secularists do pose a threat to some religionists. If your belief system withers in the presence of doubt, then yes, skepticism is at the center of secular thinking, and the skeptic when given a counterintuitive explanation without any evidence to back it up is ... doubtful. Clear independent skeptical thinking may be dangerous for those particular forms of religion that are based on authoritarianism and myth.
WASHINGTON - It wouldn't be the holiday season without a little controversy concerning God.
Starting next week, Metro will roll out a set of advertisements on its buses sponsored by the American Humanist Association (AHA), a non-theist group. The ads will show a picture of a fake Santa Claus and read: "Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness' sake."
"The idea being 'why believe in a god?' It is just not necessary," says Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the AHA. "And 'just be good for goodness' sake' meaning, why not truly do what we can to be good for the sake of goodness."
The ads will be displayed on the sides and taillights of more than 200 Metro buses starting on Nov. 18. The interior posters will go up Dec. 1. The campaign is costing the AHA about $40,000.
"For the most part, we are reaching out to non-theists, to atheists who thought they were alone and now realize there is a way to connect with like minded folks," Spekhardt says. "But this will also give those people on the fence something to think about." New Metro ads likely to stir up controversy
I will be curious to see how people handle this. Of course it doesn't hurt anything, really. It wouldn't make sense to have a belief system that would be invalidated by doubt. Imagine if I said, "That house is white," and you said, "It doesn't look white to me," and I said, "If you keep saying that, the house won't be white any more!" That's absurd, the idea that doubting an idea would make it cease to be true, but that logic is expected to hold when it comes to religion, as if faith can't stand up under questioning.
The ordinary person certainly sees enough pro-religious messages in the course of a day, I don't see why WTOP expects controversy if somebody puts up an anti-religious sign. Because, come on, those atheists are outnumbered.
They've started doing this in England, too. The BBC last month:
Bendy-buses with the slogan "There's probably no God" could soon be running on the streets of London.
The atheist posters are the idea of the British Humanist Association (BHA) and have been supported by prominent atheist Professor Richard Dawkins.
The BHA planned only to raise £5,500, which was to be matched by Professor Dawkins, but it has now raised more than £36,000 of its own accord.
It aims to have two sets of 30 buses carrying the signs for four weeks.
The complete slogan reads: "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."
As the campaign has raised more than anticipated, it will also have posters on the inside of buses as well. 'No God' slogans for city's buses
When I was in London I attended a talk by Professor Dawkins and several others. He was talking about evolution, it was noncontroversial, it was about the details of the process.
I want to point out something weird that Newt Gingrich said this week on TV:
GINGRICH: Look, I think there is a gay and secular fascism in this country that wants to impose its will on the rest of us, is prepared to use violence, to use harassment. I think it is prepared to use the government if it can get control of it. I think that it is a very dangerous threat to anybody who believes in traditional religion. And I think if you believe in historic Christianity, you have to confront the fact. And, frank -- for that matter, if you believe in the historic version of Islam or the historic version of Judaism, you have to confront the reality that these secular extremists are determined to impose on you acceptance of a series of values that are antithetical, they're the opposite, of what you're taught in Sunday school. MediaMatters
First of all, how he lumps gay and secular people together, and labels them a kind of "fascism." It leaves you speechless. Many American Christian churches have abandoned gay people, but that has not diminished the faith of those gay Christians, it has not made them "secular" -- it breaks their hearts, but they do not turn away from God. And I think the secular people Newt's talking about are probably what we'd call educated people, people who get their explanations for things from facts and logic rather than just-so stories.
And ... how much do people who believe in the historic version of Islam or Judaism go to Sunday school? I'm just asking.
I'll agree with Gingrich up to a point. Secularists do pose a threat to some religionists. If your belief system withers in the presence of doubt, then yes, skepticism is at the center of secular thinking, and the skeptic when given a counterintuitive explanation without any evidence to back it up is ... doubtful. Clear independent skeptical thinking may be dangerous for those particular forms of religion that are based on authoritarianism and myth.
posted by JimK at 9:00 PM
70 Comments:
Some atheist friend of mine recently told me he saw these in London. I guess he thought I'd be outraged but the kind of questions it brings up are just the kind of questions Christians love to talk about.
"Why believe in God?" the bus sign says. I'm sure it will spark thousands of great conversations a day.
Glad you brought it up.
Newt Gingrich is right. There is "a gay and secular fascism in this country that wants to impose its will on the rest of us," but these signs are not part of that.
These signs are put up by a frustrated minority whose beliefs don't resonate very well in our society and who are trying a last ditch effort to get attention.
Jim Quoted:
“The ads will show a picture of a fake Santa Claus and read: "Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness' sake.”
What?! They couldn’t contact the North Pole and get some stock photos of the REAL Santa Claus?! What were they thinking?!
Anon concluded:
“Newt Gingrich is right. There is "a gay and secular fascism in this country that wants to impose its will on the rest of us," but these signs are not part of that.
These signs are put up by a frustrated minority whose beliefs don't resonate very well in our society and who are trying a last ditch effort to get attention.”
What makes you think the effort is “last ditch?”
Do you have inside information on how the religionists are going to finally quash everyone who has doubts about or doesn’t believe in God? When will they start rounding them up? When do you think they’ll start building camps to keep all the atheists and gays? Or is it that you know the date of the Second Coming? Have you prepared yourself for the Rapture? Should I start repenting now, or can I wait a few months? Where can I order the Jack Van Impe DVDs and learn about all this stuff?
Have a nice day,
Cynthia
Andrea- not anon
I'm looking forward to the Rapture- fewer of them- more of us.
What does Santa Claus have to do with God? Is it because I am not Christian that my request to the Wheaton PLaza Santa- 3 YEARS IN A ROW- for one day with Johnny Depp has not been granted???
Gingrich's unregenerate bigotry towards gay people is breathtaking. Anonymotes' endorsement of it is simply predictable.
rrjr
"Do you have inside information on how the religionists are going to finally quash everyone who has doubts about or doesn’t believe in God?"
I only meant on a level of belief. Most people reject the ideas of atheism and secular humanism.
There will always be atheism in this world. No Christian would be favor outlawing it. Part of the Christian system of theology is that coerced belief is no belief at all. That's why ideas like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, human dignity, equality of all men arose in lands with a Judeo-Christian heritage.
Sounds interesting. Like always, I am tolerant of others, even though I may not agree with them.
Thanks for the post, Jim.
"I'm looking forward to the Rapture- fewer of them- more of us."
You guys occasionally bring this up and, just for informational purposes, the scenario depicted in the Left Behind books is not an accepted interpretation of prophecy by traditional Christians. Most traditional Christains believe Christ will return once and that will be the end. The idea that he will return twice, once to gather believers and then again seven years later is a speculative interpretation of some unclear verses of scripture and seems to contradict other verses.
"Gingrich's unregenerate bigotry towards gay people is breathtaking."
You don't think gay agenda lunatics are trying to impose themselves on the rest of us?
Good example yesterday, gays won a settlement against eHarmony forcing them to matchmake for gays. So now, companies are forced to assist to facilitate the formation of gay relationships.
That's an imposition.
Our society has granted gays broad latitude to simply the live their lives as they see fit. Stop trying to tell everyone they have to associate with you.
unclear verses of scripture and seems to contradict other verses.
Couldn't have said that any better myself.
That's word-twisting. Anon said the speculation seemed to contradict other verses not that verses contradicted each other.
Don't word-twist in public!
You don't think gay agenda lunatics are trying to impose themselves on the rest of us?
When a gay person forces himself or herself sexually on you, call me. Until then, the answer to your question is "no."
Duh.
Making discrimination illegal is not forcing anyone to associate with anyone else. Anti-discrimination laws and settlements like eHarmony's simply tell bigots they must end their bigotry. Ending bigotry is a good thing for all of us.
Telling someone what bias they're permitted to have is an imposition. People can choose to lead a homsexual life and people can choose not to be their friends. Keep trying to push and a backlash will be the result.
People don't have to affirm or have anything to do with homosexuality.
Get over it.
Highly ignorant, anonymous and a perfect example of the straw man argument.
Gay people like myself DON'T CARE whether folks like you like us or not.
But this is OUR country too and we have every right to live our lives not based on YOUR defintions of family or of who we are. We have a say in that definition. And we have every right to the SAME access to things as you.
“Most people reject the ideas of atheism and secular humanism.”
From the American Humanist Association FAQ page under “What is Humanism?”:
“As Kurt Vonnegut succinctly described: being a Humanist means trying to behave decently without expectation of rewards or punishment after you are dead.
Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without theism and other supernatural beliefs, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.”
Sounds like the Golden Rule to me. Most people reject that?
--
“There will always be atheism in this world. No Christian would be favor outlawing it.”
Rubbish. Many Christians on the religious right would gladly outlaw not only any expression of atheism, but any religious expression other than Christianity, including liberal Christianity.
The undermining of the science of evolution through the promotion of Intelligent Design was designed precisely to test those waters.
Furthermore, part of the "pro-family" tact in doing so is the promotion of the lie that any belief in evolution is inherently atheistic.
So if they're willing to generate unnecessary hatred for atheists and atheism, especially where none may exist, then clearly they have no personal respect for atheists and their beliefs.
And to that extent, it goes without saying that they would also have no legal respect for atheists.
--
“Our society has granted gays broad latitude to simply the live their lives as they see fit. Stop trying to tell everyone they have to associate with you.”
That attitude exemplifies the problem. “Our society” is the United States of America. To claim that certain Americans are in a position to “grant” freedoms to other Americans is inherently unAmerican. Hence the need for the dictatorial-right to circumvent the authority of the courts via constitutional amendments.
Also, your “Stop trying to tell everyone they have to associate with you” argument could easily be used against atheists and religious minorities, or anyone else.
People don't have to affirm or have anything to do with homosexuality
Who's asking you to? Good lord, does everything with people like you come down to gay panic?
I'm a straight guy, but I just don't understand this bizarre notion that you conservative goofballs have. Nobody cares what you THINK. It's what you DO -- when you refuse to hire a gay person, or beat the crap out of one, or subject him or her to other forms of discrimination. That should be illegal, and that's all gays and lesbians are asking for -- to be treated as human beings. Otherwise, they really don't care about you, what you think or what you do. Sorry to burst your bizarro sexual fantasy, but there it is.
And by the way, your line of thinking was precisely that used by racists in the 1950s and 1960s. Great company you're keeping there. One way or the other, your twisted thinking is headed for the dustbin of history -- the only question is whether another generation of gays and lesbians will have to suffer more discrimination until dinosaurs like you die out.
Giving Up on God
By Kathleen Parker
Wednesday, November 19, 2008; 12:00 AM
As Republicans sort out the reasons for their defeat, they likely will overlook or dismiss the gorilla in the pulpit.
Three little letters, great big problem: G-O-D.
I'm bathing in holy water as I type.
To be more specific, the evangelical, right-wing, oogedy-boogedy branch of the GOP is what ails the erstwhile conservative party and will continue to afflict and marginalize its constituents if reckoning doesn't soon cometh.
Simply put: Armband religion is killing the Republican Party. And, the truth -- as long as we're setting ourselves free -- is that if one were to eavesdrop on private conversations among the party intelligentsia, one would hear precisely that.
The choir has become absurdly off-key, and many Republicans know it.
But they need those votes!
So it has been for the Grand Old Party since the 1980s or so, as it has become increasingly beholden to an element that used to be relegated to wooden crates on street corners.
Short break as writer ties blindfold and smokes her last cigarette.
Which is to say, the GOP has surrendered its high ground to its lowest brows. In the process, the party has alienated its non-base constituents, including other people of faith (those who prefer a more private approach to worship), as well as secularists and conservative-leaning Democrats who otherwise might be tempted to cross the aisle.
Here's the deal, 'pubbies: Howard Dean was right.
It isn't that culture doesn't matter. It does. But preaching to the choir produces no converts. And shifting demographics suggest that the Republican Party -- and conservatism with it -- eventually will die out unless religion is returned to the privacy of one's heart where it belongs.
Religious conservatives become defensive at any suggestion that they've had something to do with the GOP's erosion. And, though the recent Democratic sweep can be attributed in large part to a referendum on Bush and the failing economy, three long-term trends identified by Emory University's Alan Abramowitz have been devastating to the Republican Party: increasing racial diversity, declining marriage rates and changes in religious beliefs.
Suffice it to say, the Republican Party is largely comprised of white, married Christians. Anyone watching the two conventions last summer can't have missed the stark differences: One party was brimming with energy, youth and diversity; the other felt like an annual Depends sales meeting.
With the exception of Miss Alaska, of course.
Even Sarah Palin has blamed Bush policies for the GOP loss. She's not entirely wrong, but she's also part of the problem. Her recent conjecture about whether to run for president in 2012 (does anyone really doubt she will?) speaks for itself:
"I'm like, okay, God, if there is an open door for me somewhere, this is what I always pray, I'm like, don't let me miss the open door. Show me where the open door is.... And if there is an open door in (20)12 or four years later, and if it's something that is going to be good for my family, for my state, for my nation, an opportunity for me, then I'll plow through that door."
Let's do pray that God shows Alaska's governor the door.
Meanwhile, it isn't necessary to evict the Creator from the public square, surrender Judeo-Christian values or diminish the value of faith in America. Belief in something greater than oneself has much to recommend it, including most of the world's architectural treasures, our universities and even our founding documents.
But, like it or not, we are a diverse nation, no longer predominantly white and Christian. The change Barack Obama promised has already occurred, which is why he won.
Among Jewish voters, 78 percent went for Obama. Sixty-six percent of under-30 voters did likewise. Forty-five percent of voters ages 18-29 are Democrats compared to just 26 percent Republican; in 2000, party affiliation was split almost evenly.
The young will get older, of course. Most eventually will marry, and some will become their parents. But nonwhites won't get whiter. And the nonreligious won't get religion through external conversion. It doesn't work that way.
Given those facts, the future of the GOP looks dim and dimmer if it stays the present course. Either the Republican Party needs a new base -- or the nation may need a new party.
From the Wikipedia article on Kathleen Parker; Kathleen Parker is an American syndicated columnist. Her columns generally support American conservative ideology ...
This isn't some lefty saying this.
JimK
Well, she seems to be trying to find a new pose to make herself relevant in a perceived new era.
Still, she's entitled to her opinion. I just wish I knew what she's talking about. What horrible thing are Republicans doing because 56% of evengelical Christians voted for them this year?
Could we get some specifics?
And I know TTF has their own list. I'm asking what Kathleen Parker is talking about here.
Because, I don't think she knows what she's talking about but maybe you guys do.
You don't know what she's talking about?
Open your eyes, dude. This loss for the Republicans took the party to the edge of irrelevance. Religious conservatives want to jump off that cliff.
The know-nothingism of the religious right, the inability or unwillingness to engage in scientific and intellectual discussion of issues, the belief that the "gut" is the seat of political decision-making, the glorification of ignorance and stupidity as somehow representing the "real" America, has marginalized the Republican Party.
Outside the South and portions of the Mountain West, the GOP is looking at a bleak future.
New England? Completely shut out -- no representatives in Congress.
New York? 26 of 29 members of the House are Democrats. Less than a decade ago, 13 Republicans represented New York in Congress.
The Mid-Atlantic? Fuggedaboutit. Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Virginia -- all blue states now.
The Rust Belt? Ohio, Michigan, even Indiana -- not just on the presidential level, but in Congress as well.
Upper Midwest? Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois. No chance there.
Pacific West? Ugh -- GOP didn't even compete in traditional battlegrounds like Washington and Oregon.
Mountain West states with decent Hispanic populations and a growing intellectual class? Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona (only went for McCain because it was his home state).
We'll give you the old Confederacy,
Appalachia, the Plains states, and Alaska (for now).
Stare at the map for a good while, pal. It's ugly and likely to get uglier. I don't see a Republican breaking 200 electoral votes for the foreseeable future, particularly if you see Sarah Palin as the future of your party. Good luck with that.
"The know-nothingism of the religious right, the inability or unwillingness to engage in scientific and intellectual discussion of issues, the belief that the "gut" is the seat of political decision-making, the glorification of ignorance and stupidity as somehow representing the "real" America, has marginalized the Republican Party."
Thanks for all those "specifics". Most people call those propaganda points. You could find justification for applying any of those accusations to Democrats or any other group for that matter. Kind of like a horoscope reading: so broad, it could mean anything.
Interesting that you decry an "unwillingness to engage in ...intellectual discussion of issues" and then put up this crap.
As for the fortunes of the Republicans, I'm not real worried. Less than five years ago, I spoke to a guy who was once a campaign chairman for a Democratic presidential nominee and he told me that America needed a new party because the Democrats' chances were hopeless. These extreme predictions fade quickly. Americans are committed to a two-party system.
As far as your religious comments, No one believes religious people don't have a right to participation in the political process. Historically speaking, that's about as ignorant as opinions come.
Despite anonymous' sarcasm and ugly comments, he touches on what I think may be a valid point. I remember not long ago when we were hearing about a new era of conservatism, how liberalism was marginalized, and the demise of the democratic party.
The Republicans may wish themselves out of existence if they continue to fail to address current issues. The Whigs tried to ignore slavery, and were replaced by the Republicans (once the party of liberalism and civil rights). Could happen again, but given large institutions' ability to remake themselves, not necessarily.
rrjr
"Thanks for all those "specifics". Most people call those propaganda points. You could find justification for applying any of those accusations to Democrats or any other group for that matter. Kind of like a horoscope reading: so broad, it could mean anything."
Except, that it doesn’t.
One of the “propaganda points” of the Religious-Right Republican party is to promote the notion that all politicians are equally corrupt.
They are not.
If the past 8 years has taught us anything, it has taught us that the main goal of the republican party, and its followers, is not only the concentration of wealth, but the concentration of wealth at the expense of those who are truly in need.
To be sure, there is corruption on both sides, but Democrats, are NOT on par with the level of corruption that Republicans are.
Nice try though.
No one believes religious people don't have a right to participation in the political process. Historically speaking, that's about as ignorant as opinions come.
Excellent straw man. Set him up, knock him down. Right back where you started.
Except for this: I never said that religious people don't have a right to participate in politics.
What I DID say was that the GOP is in thrall to a socially conservative religious viewpoint that has virtually zero support outside the confines of the evangelical movement. Social conservatives have every right to make their points and push their views, but the problem for the Republican Party, as an institution, is that as that SoCon view has been pushed further and harder, fewer and fewer people are buying it. That's Kathleen Parker's point, and you have yet to even make an intellectually serious attempt to engage it, much less refute it.
You want specifics? Look at the election results -- those are facts, not opinion. You are refusing to engage with reality, a defining characteristic of the problem facing Republicans these days.
But hey, keep setting up and knocking down those straw men, though. I'm sure it feels good and it will do nothing to stop the bleeding on the right.
Thanks for all those "specifics". Most people call those propaganda points.
No they don't. Most call them examples of Bush's lousy lying leadership. The Bush Administration has “manipulated the scientific process and distorted or suppressed scientific findings,” lied us into preemptive war in Iraq, and been a huge violator of human rights. Just yesterday Bush-appointed US District Judge Richard J. Leon ordered the release of five Algerians held at the US Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, saying "SEVEN YEARS . . . is enough." The electorate obviously agrees with that sentiment.
If you need more "specifics" click here.
The "straw men" are all set up by you. You've yet to provide an example of what issues the "religious right" favors that makes Republicans unelectable. You just have a poorly defined religious straw man that you set up and knock down.
Truth is, Barack Obama became President not by speaking against conservative values but by blurring them and trying to convince people on all sides he was on their side. Sure, he's pro-choice but he wants to work with pro-lifers to make abortion very rare. Yes, he's for "gay rights" but he doesn't favor gay "marriage". Truth is, Americans, whether religious or not, consider traditional values to be our foundation. The way Obama campaigned conforms that. He didn't get here by misreading the public mood.
A candidate won because of economic uncertainty. Liberal ideology wasn't mandated. And with the White House and formidable majorities in Congress leaving Democrats unrestrained, a backlash is assured.
"Most call them examples of Bush's lousy lying leadership. The Bush Administration has “manipulated the scientific process and distorted or suppressed scientific findings,” lied us into preemptive war in Iraq, and been a huge violator of human rights."
The topic, CTBS, was the religious right.
The war was not preemptive. It was an enforcement of truce agreements made after Iraq invaded Kuwait. Had nothing to do with religion. Most religious people would prefer we not be involved defending a place where Christianity and Judaism is outlawed. For all his crimes, Saddam at least allowed freedom of religion. Not so in Kuwait- or Saudi Arabia.
Any violation of human rights is also abhorrent. Christians were appalled by Abu Gharib and any torture that occurred.
The "scientific" stuff is vague too. Usually refers to global warming which has nothing to do with religious voters specifically. Indeed, there is strong environmentalist strains in evangelical circles.
Please be specific. What issues do religious people favor that would make a Republican unelectable if he favored them?
If you're stumped, maybe you can call Kathleen Parker and ask her.
"For all his crimes, Saddam at least allowed freedom of religion."
OMG, you can't be serious.
Andrea- not anon
As someone who has followed politics for many years, I should be concerned at the obvious disintegration of the Republican party. Of course, some of their "spokespeople" don't seem to have figured out they lost - in Congress and the Presidency- or what that means. However, I am enjoying the continuing struggle from people like Parker, Brooks, Frum, Will, Sullivan against Rove, Hannity, Kristol . Not to mention the candidates already coming forward for 2012- Princess Sarah, Hucky, Bobby J, Steele, the Newt. Personally, I like Zach Wamp- some congressman from Tennessee- just cause he has a goofy name.
The anonymoid does not intend 'intellectual engagement', but simply, as he has stated clearly, to demonstrate that he is smarter than the rest of us. Such attitudes are the essence of the religious right ('God agrees with me, ergo I am better than you'), so it makes sense that he set himself up as an apologist for that segment of our electorate.
I, for myself, am concerned that the Republican party is set on a path to self-immolation. In Virginia, their methods of choosing candidates are making them increasingly unelectable.
Divided government has worked fairly well for our country: two parties, and some voices outside of those parties, with fairly lax party discipline, leads to compromise without chaos. I would like to see the GOP restore itself to a more centrist position.
The problem is, Robert, that McCain is a centrist. The Republicans nominated him to broaden their appeal and the Democrats, who once tried to talk him into being their VP nominee, portrayed him as far right.
So your friends will not let "the GOP restore itself to a more centrist position". No matter the position, if it isn't radical left, the lunatics will argue that it is right wing.
You ever talk to anyone from Western Europe? They all think the Washington Post is a right-wing paper. It's all a matter of perspective.
The dishonesty of liberals is a continuing disservice to our country.
Anonymous, do you realize your snide namecalling makes discussion impossible? Oh, that's right, discussion is not your purpose; irritating people is. Getting old, my friend, getting old.
I think the Washington Post is a fairly conservative newspaper myself. As you say, it's a matter of perspective. They certainly have been apologists for the Iraq war since the start.
I also think the Post does a really spotty job reporting on Virginia, which is really what I'm interested in. I could care less about the intricacies of politics in the District (which, BTW, is only 1/10th of the population in our area.
I have even more comoplaints about the Blade. They had headlines like "Many Gays Support Hilary Clinton", or "Is Condi Gay?", pretending that was news.
I get most of my news from the Onion.
The topic, CTBS, was the religious right.
No it wasn't. The topic was:
What horrible thing are Republicans doing because 56% of evengelical Christians voted for them this year?
The Republicans under Bush's lousy leadership have done all the things I mentioned. A majority of evengelicals voted for Bush twice and this year a majority of evangelicals supported the McSame GOP ticket that supported the war in Iraq and Guantanamo.
Where were those strong environmentalist strains in evangelical circles when Gore ran in 2000? Oh yeah, they were voting for Bush and his Hummer deduction.
The Bush stands on global warming, the Iraq war and human rights have nothing to do with religion and were not developed to cater to religious voters.
The topic, to remind CBTS again, is that Kathleen Parker has said she thinks Republicans can't win unless they free themselves from the "religious right".
Despite the huzzahs from the TTF chorus, Parker gives no example of a position taken by the Bush administration to accomodate religious voters that, if reversed, would cause voters to support Republicans.
This is simply bigotry against religious people. A prejudice without any basis in fact, latched on to by certain atheists desperate for the validation they have never been able to attain.
It's really sad.
In the coming week, we can be thankful that they've managed to delude so few.
Joel Connelly wrote an interesting piece about the religious right and its wedge issues. He reviewed a book written by John Danforth, an Episcopal priest and three-term GOP Senator from Missouri.
Connelly said the book, "Faith and Politics,"... has powerful lessons and local applications.
"Followers of the Rev. Jerry Falwell have distributed a bumper sticker bearing the slogan 'Vote Christian,' thereby conveying the clear message that there is a Christian way to vote, as opposed to a non-Christian or anti-Christian way to vote," Danforth writes.
Nor, he argues, does the religious right do the Lord's work.
"The Christian Right has championed a set of divisive issues that test the fealty of politicians," he adds. "Often called wedge issues, their purpose is to split the country apart."
Claiming a major role in President Bush's 2004 re-election, the religious right has lately been working to save the Republicans in this year's battle for Congress. At a recent "Values Voter" conference, Falwell made news with comments about Hillary Clinton at a closed-door breakfast.
"I hope she's the (2008 presidential) candidate," said the Moral Majority founder, "because nothing will energize my (constituency) like Hillary Clinton. If Lucifer ran, he wouldn't."
Christian right groups, in our state and elsewhere, sent out propaganda and recruited foot soldiers for the campaign of personal denigration directed at state Supreme Court Chief Justice Gerry Alexander in this year's primary election.
Danforth does not see such tactics as compatible with what he reads in the Gospels as well as the letters of St. Paul.
"When politics evolves into character assassination, all Christians should speak out against personal destruction," he writes. "We may never agree on the issues, but we should all agree that in America, the pursuit of a political cause does not warrant the intentional destruction of a fellow human."
Danforth sounds a note familiar from this year's U.S. Senate campaign here. He blames wedge issues for Americans' inability to unite and solve their country's urgent problems.
"When they divide America between 'people of faith' and their 'enemies,' Christians become not the means of peace but the cause of conflict," he argues. "They are powerful contributors to what has gone wrong in American politics."
We've seen our very own anonymi, time and time again, raise the wedge issues as if there's only one way for people of faith to see them and we've seen them resort to character assassination with the terms they use for gay and trans people and their supporters. TTF's anonymi are precisely what John Danforth is complaining about, what he says "has gone wrong in American politics."
In New England where there are no more GOP officials elected to serve in the House of Representatives, GOP members are beginning to reassess their party and how it has failed so miserably. James A. Peyser. a former Executive Director of the Pioneer Institute recently wrote a piece call "Republicans Rebranded":
Typically, political observers say that the national Republican Party has moved too far to the right for moderate New Englanders. But I think a more telling way to frame the problem is that the national party has drifted away from the core conservative principles that used to unite Republicans from all parts of the country, in favor of policies that appeal to an increasingly narrow, albeit fervent, base.
Today's conservative agenda includes a censorious social policy that panders to the Christian right, a guns and butter fiscal policy that would make Lyndon Johnson blush, and a Wilsonian foreign policy that is increasingly untethered from the national interest. Nationally, this platform has just been repudiated; locally, it never had a chance.
...A new Republican vision should focus squarely on the future, with a sense of hope for what lies ahead. Any conservatism worthy of the name honors tradition. But there is all the difference in the world between careful stewardship of our heritage and rigid traditionalism. What has separated American conservatives from their European counterparts is their boundless optimism and bourgeois populism, embodied by Ronald Reagan, who believed in the potential of average Americans - rather than government - to create a "shining city on a hill." Unfortunately, the loudest voices of conservatism on the national stage today are more likely to bemoan America's decline than to praise its potential. They are also increasingly known for their resistance to science, technology, and change. This rejection of hope and progress runs against the grain of the American spirit and is a formula for even more electoral defeats.
The conventional wisdom in Republican politics has been that the way to win elections is to focus on issues that deepen the fissures between the two parties. Barack Obama's triumphant campaign has shown that the opposite strategy may be more promising. Instead of fighting over issues that divide the electorate, Massachusetts Republicans should start to focus on those issues that transcend the traditional partisan boundaries. Call them reverse wedge issues. For example, promoting charter schools appeals to conservatives, but it also appeals to low-income families who tend to lean left. Ending public subsidies for favored industries, like biotech, movies, and trade shows, reinforces the conservative belief in free markets, but it also responds to liberal concerns about fairness. Issues like these can broaden the base, not circumscribe it.
...the conservatism of Bush-Cheney-Rove has drifted far from the movement's roots and it has failed to capture the imagination of the rising generation of American voters - especially young people and Latinos, who both voted more than two to one in favor of Obama. The ever-expanding suburbs, once the GOP's best hope for the future, are now a tossup. As a result, former Republican strongholds like Colorado, Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia appear to be changing from red to blue.
Last week's elections provide Republicans here, and across the country, with the cold comfort that they now have virtually nowhere to go but up. As Barack Obama says: "It's time for change." Yes we can!
“This is simply bigotry against religious people. A prejudice without any basis in fact”
Of course it is. But it’s not prejudice, it’s definitively jurisprudence, because it is indeed based on fact.
It’s bigotry against people who think that their beliefs should be legally enforceable, simply because those beliefs are religious.
A wholly justified bigotry.
I don't think she's saying abandon the religious appeal, but to be more inclusive of those who don't have to wear their religion on their sleeves in order to remind themselves of what they actually do believe.
The problem seems to be that those are the people who tend to demand that everyone else participate in reminding them of what they believe, too.
So it would seem that the Republican party is in a pickle of a dilly.
Either cater to the 25% who are willing to lie, scheme and cajole votes for Jesus, or actually appeal to the needs of Americans as a whole, like we "anti-American" liberals do.
emprov, CBTS
you're still dodging the question
speaking in generalities, or pasting others who do, you still have named no policy of the Republican Party that they have favored to accomodate the religious right which will make Republicans unelectable
you misunderstand the term, bigotry- if it's "justified" it's not bigotry, be definition
let's hear an example of someone who thinks "that their beliefs should be legally enforceable"
someone who's not a gay advocate, that is
that would be too easy
You don't know what the wedge issues are?
Wedge issues are social issues like abortion and same-sex marriage that the religious-right insist be part of the GOP platform. The GOP's hard right stance on these wedge issues is driving many moderate GOP members away.
Yesterday's Washington Post had an interesting piece in Outlook written by a black member of the GOP, expressing her dissatisfaction with her party. She is upset that the GOP's religious-right social agenda of religion, guns, and abortion is crowding out the GOP message that attracted her, namely smaller government, lower taxes and less regulation. And she is not alone. Use the link and go read it or check out these excerpts below.
...as a black Republican, I was chagrined that the political party I've belonged to for 20 years had just suffered a blistering electoral defeat. And that along the way, it had lost 96 percent of the black vote and 67 percent of the Hispanic vote -- the worst showing for the Republican Party among minorities in its 150-year history.
After such a devastating loss, Republicans will have to do some retooling. We'll have to decide whether we want to be the party that believes in smaller government, lower taxes and less regulation, or whether we're going to be a litmus-test party that responds only to the demands of social conservatives.
...It didn't have to be this way. Only a few years ago, then-RNC chairman Ken Mehlman was aggressively reaching out to the black community. At the NAACP convention in 2005, he apologized for the party's past embrace of racial polarization to gain political advantage. "We were wrong," he said. But Mehlman's efforts, like those of George H.W. Bush and President Gerald R. Ford in the 1970s and, ironically, Lee Atwater in 1989, have never really been followed up on in a way that has successfully made inroads and attracted black voters to the GOP fold.
I'm a Republican because I believe in a republican form of government, in individual liberty, the rule of law and civic virtue. Though I was raised in a staunchly Democratic household in a heavily ethnic suburb in southern New Jersey, I realized in college that my personal values were closer to those of the GOP than the Democrats. I joined the Republican Party in 1988, attracted by George H.W. Bush's message of a "kinder, gentler" America and Jack Kemp's mantra of economic development and urban enterprise zones, which seemed a natural fit for the black community.
That drew in other African Americans as well. "What the GOP of the '80s and '90s stood for was growth, opportunity and prosperity," one black Republican businessman from Virginia told me. "This is what attracted me to the party." But more recently that message, he said, "has gotten swallowed up by a social conservative agenda that seems obsessed with religion, guns and abortion."
Maybe Anon can't see the problem because s/he is part it. It seems to me -- and to many others too -- that it is religious hard right people who obsessively display intolerance toward others who are different from themselves that is the problem causing the GOP to fracture into moderate and hard right religious factions.
let's hear an example of someone who thinks "that their beliefs should be legally enforceable"
To be clear, it is the religious right, people like you, who think their beliefs that abortion and gay marriage are wrong, that teaching comprehensive sex ed and evolution is wrong, that protection from discrimination on the basis of gender identity is wrong who are the examples you're asking for. Anonymi have repeatedly said their beliefs on these issues should be "legally enforceable" and the CRC/CRG/PFOX groups have spent countless hours and dollars working to try to turn some of these beliefs of theirs into law right here in Montgomery County.
Look in the mirror.
“Look in the mirror.”
Well said, Aunt Bea.
And to add:
Anon: “let's hear an example of someone who thinks "that their beliefs should be legally enforceable"
someone who's not a gay advocate, that is
that would be too easy”
That’s my point entirely. It isn’t accuracy that you use to discern truth, but the source of where your “information” comes from.
And the more that republicans begin to lose power, the more shrill and outlandish the claims or “truth” of the radical religious right will become, and subsequently, the more that moderate conservatives (the votes of whom republicans need to get elected) will fall away in search of politicians who’s standard for truth is based more on reasons, facts and examples, as opposed to the “ends justifies the means” policy of religious supremacism that you hold so dear.
“you still have named no policy of the Republican Party that they have favored to accomodate the religious right which will make Republicans unelectable”
That’s because an integral part of that “policy” is to hide it at all cost. And for good reason, the dominionist philosophy is so nefarious, malicious, and ugly, that to describe it accurately would cause even some members of the base to take pause.
Hence the need to couch your agenda in code-speak by redefining every aspect of it. Anti-gay becomes “pro-family,” theocracy becomes “Christian nation,” supremacist becomes “Christian,” backlash becomes “persecution,” etc.
If it were a “named” policy, this would be your spokesperson.
“Maybe Anon can't see the problem because s/he is part it. It seems to me -- and to many others too -- that it is religious hard right people who obsessively display intolerance toward others who are different from themselves that is the problem causing the GOP to fracture into moderate and hard right religious factions.”
And also, it seems to me that that hard right religious faction will just continue to fracture, as the most radical factions among them continue to demand more and more power. This is what they don’t seem to realize, and it almost mirrors what’s happening with our current economic situation in regard to the years of Republican deregulation.
Left unregulated, the ability to concentrate wealth has just fed on itself. If money is power, and power corrupts, then of course - as per human nature - it would be inevitable that those who hold the ability to make the most money would eventually corrupt the money system itself.
It almost seems that the religious-supremacist mindset is just the exploitation of the human greed mindset, except that they have the added psychological benefit of calling their behavior “God ordained.”
"That’s because an integral part of that “policy” is to hide it at all cost. And for good reason, the dominionist philosophy is so nefarious, malicious, and ugly, that to describe it accurately would cause even some members of the base to take pause."
Conspiracy theorists are dangerous and you, emslob, are one.
"what’s happening with our current economic situation in regard to the years of Republican deregulation"
Very slowly now, genius.
Explain to us what regulations the Republicans eliminated that caused the current economic crisis.
(This will either be very funny or silent, which will be funny in it's own way)
"It isn’t accuracy that you use to discern truth,"
Really. You guys are the ones that speak in broad generalities and never seem to be able to back anything up with specifics.
Oh, except for this lame attempt:
"Wedge issues are social issues like abortion and same-sex marriage that the religious-right insist be part of the GOP platform. The GOP's hard right stance on these wedge issues is driving many moderate GOP members away."
CBTS, I asked what policies the GOP have adopted to accomodate the religious right that has cause them to be unelectable.
Abortion? Most Americans believe abortion is wrong. They may split on what role government should play in restraining this evil but they aren't deserting Republicans over the issue. They are much more repelled by the fanatical supporters of late-term abortionists. Even Obama agreed abortion should be rare. Why? It is evil and unhealthy.
Gay marriage? Don't make me laugh. Every time voters in America have had a chance, they have rejected same gender marriage. Think California, Arizona, Florida and Arkansas just a couple of weeks ago. Obama also opposed gay marriage. There's just no case to make that voters are rejecting the GOP over this issue.
"To be clear, it is the religious right, people like you, who think their beliefs that abortion and gay marriage are wrong,"
No, the majority of Americans do.
"that teaching comprehensive sex ed"
No an issue in the campaign. There is little evidence that comp sex ed has any affect on teen behavior. Americans know this and are really not worked up either way over this issue.
"and evolution is wrong,"
Polls have consistently shown that Americans don't believe in evolution. There is confusion over definitions though. Evolution as a process is a fact. As the origin of life, however, it is not and America's schools are filled with books that imply that evolution explains the origin of life. Americans reject this misuse of science but it is not a hot topic and is no factor is perceptions of the GOP.
"that protection from discrimination on the basis of gender identity is wrong who are the examples you're asking for."
I don't think the voters reject Republicans on this basis and the effort of gay fanatics to keep it off the ballot in ultra-liberal MC is all the proof needed of that.
"Anonymi have repeatedly said their beliefs on these issues should be "legally enforceable" and the CRC/CRG/PFOX groups have spent countless hours and dollars working to try to turn some of these beliefs of theirs into law right here in Montgomery County."
This is the biggest lie of this whole sorry TTF mentality. TTF has supported laws, CRG and CRC rejected them. You are the ones trying to make your views legally enforceable.
TTF believes discrimination against sexual deviance is wrong and they've concocted a law to make it enforceable. CRG opposed the law and said it should be left to individual conscience.
Again, show us one instance where CRG supported the TTF tactic of trying to make their views "legally enforceable"?
“Conspiracy theorists are dangerous and you, emslob, are one.”
What about conspiracy theorists who believe in and promote conspiracies like the "gay agenda"?
“Explain to us what regulations the Republicans eliminated that caused the current economic crisis.”
Touché. Now where did I put that rundown of everything that’s happened in the past eight years?
Oh yes, here it is.
Emslob: "It isn’t accuracy that you use to discern truth,"
Stunning: “Really. You guys are the ones that speak in broad generalities and never seem to be able to back anything up with specifics.”
Could you be specific about what you mean by “broad generalities?”
“No, the majority of Americans do.”
Deceptive politics aside, just because the majority believes something doesn’t make it right.
"This is the biggest lie of this whole sorry TTF mentality. TTF has supported laws, CRG and CRC rejected them. You are the ones trying to make your views legally enforceable."
Oh you poor persecuted baby. How dare anyone make such an oversight in characterizing your views.
Gather ‘round everyone for today’s lesson in semantics:
They don’t want to make their views “legally enforceable,” they just want to make sure that any laws that go against their views, are legally UNenforceable.
Pardon me while I slink off in shame…
stupid guy says:
"What about conspiracy theorists who believe in and promote conspiracies like the "gay agenda"?"
smart guy answers:
I don't think that's a conspiracy. Gay advocates will generally acknowlege what they're up to .
smart guy says:
“Explain to us what regulations the Republicans eliminated that caused the current economic crisis.”
stupid guy says:
"Touché. Now where did I put that rundown of everything that’s happened in the past eight years?
Oh yes, here it is."
Thus, stupid guy is admitting that he can't name any regulations that the Republicans eliminated that caused the current crisis.
Ouch. That's embarassing for a TTFer.
Especially when it's easy to see how governmental manipulation actually lead to the crisis.
stupid guy asks:
"Could you be specific about what you mean by “broad generalities?”"
Why don't I just show you one?:
Kathleen Parker generalizes:
"the evangelical, right-wing, oogedy-boogedy branch of the GOP is what ails the erstwhile conservative party and will continue to afflict and marginalize its constituents if reckoning doesn't soon cometh"
smart guy says:
“No, the majority of Americans do.”
stupid guy says:
"Deceptive politics aside, just because the majority believes something doesn’t make it right."
Uh, stupid guy, no one ever said it does. But you guys were saying Republican policies were making them unelectable. We weren't talking about right and wrong but electability, and you guys brought it up.
smart guy says:
"This is the biggest lie of this whole sorry TTF mentality. TTF has supported laws, CRG and CRC rejected them. You are the ones trying to make your views legally enforceable."
stupid guy says:
"Oh you poor persecuted baby. How dare anyone make such an oversight in characterizing your views.
Gather ‘round everyone for today’s lesson in semantics:
They don’t want to make their views “legally enforceable,” they just want to make sure that any laws that go against their views, are legally UNenforceable."
That's more than a minor difference, my stupid amigo.
It means you are actually doing what you're accusing someone else of doing.
In English, we call that hypocrisy. I don't know what it's called in Gaydom.
"Pardon me while I slink off in shame…"
It's the slinking in that is unpardonable. You're perfectly free, as always, to slink off.
Don't you think TTF is a little embarassed to have you arguing for their side?
Has that occurred to you?
Conspiracy theorists are dangerous
Yes, they are, especially those who manufacture and then rail against the supposed "gay agenda." All gays want is equal rights. All you do is spread hate and fear of gays and then you denigrate them, calling them foul names, inciting others with your vitriol. That's dangerous.
Explain to us what regulations the Republicans eliminated that caused the current economic crisis.
Here's one:
...in November 1999, after two decades of lobbying, Congress passed the Gramm-Leach-Billey Act, [that's 3 GOP members of Congress] effectively repealing Glass-Steagall and the 1956 Bank Holding Company Act. The expected effect is the emergence of a number of financial “supermarkets,” like Travelers/Citibank/Salomon Smith Barney, offering a complete range of services. Some critics remain concerned that the risks to financial stability that Glass-Steagall was meant to prevent will reappear.
How prophetic the Peterson Institute turned out to be..
The GOP's economic guru Phil Gramm sure wasn't prophetic at all. He was dead wrong when, as McCain's economic advisor he said Americans were suffering from a "psychological recession."
Most Americans believe abortion is wrong.
No, that's just you saying what you believe and assuming everyone believes it too. The FACT is the majority of Americans want abortion to remain legal. The GOP push to make it illegal has caused people to leave or try to get the party to amend its platform. Sophia A. Nelson is one example.
Gay marriage? Don't make me laugh...Think California, Arizona, Florida and Arkansas just a couple of weeks ago.
Gay marriage lost in California by a single digit percentage. A judge in Florida just ruled that state's ban on same-sex adoptions is unconstitutional. Voters over 60 overwhelmingly reject gay marriage, but voters under 30 overwhelmingly accept it. Laugh now while the laughing is still good. It won't be much longer and I am looking forward to full civil rights for all American citizens, who should be judged by the content of their character, not the person they love.
Again, show us one instance where CRG supported the TTF tactic of trying to make their views "legally enforceable"?
1. CRC sued Montgomery County Public Schools to try to prevent the school system from mentioning homosexuality in its sex education classes. They wanted the school system to be legally forced to mention only heterosexuality.
2. CRG instigated a petition drive in an attempt to place a referendum on the November 2008 ballot to prevent Montgomery County from providing anti-discrimination protection in housing and employment on the basis of gender identity. They wanted to legally enforce continued discrimination against transgenders.
CRC/CRG tried to make their views "legally enforceable" through lawsuits and ballot initiatives, and they managed to take $36,000.00 from MCPS in the process. I wonder how many free or reduced lunches that money would have bought instead.
Bea, what's wrong with you?
I asked what regulations were eliminated that led to the current financial crisis. In answer, you give a bill that eliminated some regulation but don't make any connection to the current economic crisis.
That's not surprising since no one believes there is a connection so you couldn't cut and paste any such comment. Gramm-Leach-Bliley was voted in by 84% of Democratic Senators and 75% of Democratic Congressmen. Bill Clinton signed it.
No one's suggesting that we reverse it now. Here's what Bill Clinton said recently:
"I don't see that signing that bill had anything to do with the current crisis. Indeed, one of the things that has helped stabilize the current situation as much as it has is the purchase of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America, which was much smoother than it would have been if I hadn't signed that bill ... On the Glass-Steagall thing, like I said, if you could demonstrate to me that it was a mistake, I'd be glad to look at the evidence."
He's talking to you, Bea. What evidence do you have for your ludicrous connection?
Alas, we still await this:
"Explain to us what regulations the Republicans eliminated that caused the current economic crisis."
Surely, you have something in mind. You weren't just making this stuff up, were you?
Bea, what's wrong with you?
I asked what regulations were eliminated that led to the current financial crisis. In answer, you give a bill that eliminated some regulation but don't make any connection to the current economic crisis.
That's not surprising since no one believes there is a connection so you couldn't cut and paste any such comment. Gramm-Leach-Bliley was voted in by 84% of Democratic Senators and 75% of Democratic Congressmen. Bill Clinton signed it.
No one's suggesting that we reverse it now. Here's what Bill Clinton said recently:
"I don't see that signing that bill had anything to do with the current crisis. Indeed, one of the things that has helped stabilize the current situation as much as it has is the purchase of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America, which was much smoother than it would have been if I hadn't signed that bill ... On the Glass-Steagall thing, like I said, if you could demonstrate to me that it was a mistake, I'd be glad to look at the evidence."
He's talking to you, Bea. What evidence do you have for your ludicrous connection?
Alas, we still await this:
"Explain to us what regulations the Republicans eliminated that caused the current economic crisis."
Surely, you have something in mind. You weren't just making this stuff up, were you?
“I don't think that's a conspiracy. Gay advocates will generally acknowlege what they're up to .”
Those evil gay advocates and their general acknowledgement of what they’re up to!
“Thus, stupid guy is admitting that he can't name any regulations that the Republicans eliminated that caused the current crisis.”
Thus, “smart guy” admits his inability to operate a search engine. (And for the record, Anon, we’re not talking heavy machinery here.)
A: Really. You guys are the ones that speak in broad generalities and never seem to be able to back anything up with specifics.
E: Could you be specific about what you mean by "broad generalities?"
A: Why don't I just show you one?:
Kathleen Parker generalizes:
So are we here at TTF to take the phrase “you guys are the ones” as always being a reference to Kathleen Parker, or just in this instance?
E: They don’t want to make their views “legally enforceable,” they just want to make sure that any laws that go against their views, are legally UNenforceable."
A: “That's more than a minor difference, my stupid amigo.
How silly of me, I forgot that CRG and it’s supporters are wholeheartedly against all those constitutional amendments and have nothing to do with anyone associated with them.
“Don't you think TTF is a little embarassed to have you arguing for their side?”
Dearest, you do more for TTF than I could ever do damage. I’ll gladly concede that round.
I'm sure Bill Clinton appreciates your support, twice, for his expertise. Now tell us what happened to that surplus he left and why is that money not available to bail us out of this economic crisis. It wouldn't have anything to do with Bush's tax-credit, borrow, and spend policies would it?
Oh and BTW, Emproph and I are laughing our asses off at your silence about the CRC/CRG legal enforcement efforts.
Anonymous, of course, is again not engaging in discourse but simply trying to be annoying. A statement like "you guys are the ones engaging in broad generalities" just has to be a self-mocking broad generality.
Anon really displays all the characteristics of internet trolls. We keep him here like a pet that can do tricks when prompted, similar to a dog that can walk on its hind legs or a parrot that can sing "Dixie." Entertaining to a point, in his own way, but not articulate in any sense of the word. I think he sees himself as the "Advocatus Diaboli" of the Vigilance blog, opposing just for the sake of opposition, not out of any real conviction. Sometimes better than the Onion.
I myself find the evidence and research by bloggers such as Bea and Emproph informative and interesting, and Jim's blog entries as particularly relevant.
"I myself find the evidence and research by bloggers such as Bea and Emproph informative and interesting,"
Oh good. Maybe you can help them out.
I've asked them to back up three simple statements they've made with facts and they've yet to do so.
Here's a recap:
1. What policies has the Republican party suppported to accomodate the "religious right" that have made them unelectable?
2. What regulation or regulations have Republicans eliminated that have contributed to the current economic crisis?
3. When did CRC or CRG do anything to make their views "legally enforceable"? How could opposing new legislation ever do that?
Pretty simple questions but these three have Bea and Emslob stumped.
Give them some assistance.
I'm sure they'll be thankful.
And there we have it, the perfect example of why the GOP brand is so tarnished. Nobody's interested in listening to the GOP and their religious hard-right supporters repeat their lies anymore.
There's a whole lot of us who are thankful for the hope Obama's election represents. We are looking forward to working together to find common ground.
Looks like Bea and Emslob have reached the end of their ability to throw up a credible smoke screen for their lack of intelligence.
This is an example of why any liberal victory over the last half century has been so fleeting.
Their inability to support their assertions with any facts or logic makes every happy day a sad one too.
It's sad.
"There's a whole lot of us who are thankful for the hope Obama's election represents. We are looking forward to working together to find common ground."
Common ground? What you try to do is try to fan any small spark of diviseness you can.
“Common ground? What you try to do is try to fan any small spark of diviseness you can.”
Not just “any small spark,” but any spark that would fuel the awareness of the difference between someone who would be divisive for personal gain, and someone who would be divisive for the sake of the whole.
“Common ground” applies only to those who would know the difference.
The rest, those who would be divisive for political- “ends justifies the means” -personal gain, are those who would corrupt the very concept of common ground itself.
As you can see, we progressives have our work cut out for us when it comes to that little end result.
Come to think of it, what you‘re really saying is this:
“Tolerance? What you try to do is try to fan any small spark of intolerance for intolerance you can.”
Yeah, actually that’s true. One could even say that our “religion” is the defense of the Golden Rule - which is the essence of Christianity, as per Jesus.
So your complaint -- in essence -- is literally a complaint against Christianity itself.
Thanks, em, for taking us on a tour of the "higher" processes of your mind.
Did you come up with an answer to the following yet?
1. What policies has the Republican party suppported to accomodate the "religious right" that have made them unelectable?
2. What regulation or regulations have Republicans eliminated that have contributed to the current economic crisis?
3. When did CRC or CRG do anything to make their views "legally enforceable"? How could opposing new legislation ever do that?
Remember, you can use Google or, even, phone a friend.
Anon, you are such a nut! Here's the help you need.
Maybe I'm a nut. Still, I can answer the following with two word:
1. What policies has the Republican party suppported to accomodate the "religious right" that have made them unelectable?
2. What regulation or regulations have Republicans eliminated that have contributed to the current economic crisis?
3. When did CRC or CRG do anything to make their views "legally enforceable"? How could opposing new legislation ever do that?
And the answer is: never happened!
For evidence, we need nothing more than the lack of response from AUNT BEA and EMSLOB.
That's right Anon. Keep showing Vigilance readers that reality means nothing to you. You must be enjoying watching President Huckabee select his Cabinet and make the transition to the White House.
Reality:
Bea has made assertions he/she/it cannot defend.
Your daring attempt to change reality by denying it is hilarious!
oh yeah, here's the questions he/she/it can't answer:
1. What policies has the Republican party suppported to accomodate the "religious right" that have made them unelectable?
2. What regulation or regulations have Republicans eliminated that have contributed to the current economic crisis?
3. When did CRC or CRG do anything to make their views "legally enforceable"? How could opposing new legislation ever do that?
Anon, your tiresome questions have been answered thoroughly. It's time for you to find some other way to annoy everyone, or I'm going to start deleting you.
JimK
none of the three questions were answered
if you say they were, cut and paste them from somewhere above
It's amazing!
Kathleen Parker says the GOP can't win any elections unless it stops being influenced by the "religious right". TTFers hardily agree and yet can't come up with one policy that has resulted from "religious right" influence that could potentially affect any election.
TTFers say the current financial crisis happened because the Republicans deregulated the banking system yet can't come up with one regulation whose elimination can be shown to have caused any economic problem.
TTFers say CRC and CRG have tried to make their views "legally enforceable" and yet can't name any instance of CRC or CRG proposing legislation rather than trying to maintain the status quo.
I thought TTF was formed to defend facts.
We all know that CRC had GOP training back in 2005, where they were no doubt taught that old GOP standard: repeat the lie ad nauseum until people believe it. So far Anon, you are the only one who believes your own lies. Keep applauding yourself on your self-delusions and then enjoy the new reality: Obama's Inauguraton with the Democratic tidal wave all over the country, and GOP-electable Mike Huckabee emceeing his new show on FoxCable.
All three of my points are true as clearly demonstrated by your inability to refute other than to say, "lies, all lies".
Interesting argument by not very defensible.
You'd lose in any court in the land.
Oh brother, look who thinks s/he speaks for "any court in the land."
Your delusions of grandeur aside, your side lost in every court here in Montgomery County when you picked fights against non-heterosexuals, your favorite wedge issue. And your Gay Obsessed Party didn't do so well in the 2008 elections either. Enjoy the hollow victory in California, until the courts declare discrimination against gays unconstitutional, again.
In the meantime, I hope you continue to enjoy the kool-aid.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Time to change the subject, Anon.
JimK
Are you conceding your buddies misspoke?
Remember, this is "teach the facts".
I have told you already, your questions have been well enough answered, and if you keep going back to that I'm going to delete your comments. If you keep doing it I will block you altogether.
JimK
show me where they have been answered, Jim
Post a Comment
<< Home