Shep Smith Embarrassed by O’Reilly’s ‘War on Easter’?
By on Apr 16th, 2006 at 2:09 pm
Shep Smith Embarrassed by O’Reilly’s ‘War on Easter’?
Apparently not everyone at Fox News buys into talk of a ‘War on Easter.’
On Thursday, Fox daytime anchor Shephard Smith seemed barely able to mask his scepticism over the idea that Easter is “under attack.” (He was introducing a segment about a German man who wants to ban chocolate Easter bunnies due to their health risks.) Smith even threw in a subtle dig at Fox culture warrior Bill O’Reilly. Watch it:
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
57 Responses to “Shep Smith Embarrassed by O’Reilly’s ‘War on Easter’?”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
Reports
In depth studies on select topics
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bailout
Beck
Big Oil
Bolton
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Earmarks
Economy
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
GI Bill
Global Warming
Guantanamo
Health Care
Immigration
Iran
Iraq
Justice
Kristol
LGBT
Lieberman
McCain
McClellan
Media
Military
O'Hanlon
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Politics
Race
Radical Right
RNC Convention
Rove
Terrorism
Third Bush Term
Torture
Veterans
Wiretapping
Women's Rights
ArchivesBlog Roll
Ideally, Smith would be more concerned about some of O’Reilly’s more serious journalistic offenses.
April 16th, 2006 at 2:20 pmO’Reilly is a nut and even FOX News anchors notice now > lol. He should be fired > PERIOD.
April 16th, 2006 at 2:25 pmShep Smith was there at the beginning when FOX was still reporting some news. Though a bit of a used car salesman in demeanor himself, I’m actually surprised Smith is still with the network as their motto becomes less news and more ‘Inquiring Minds Want To Know’ gossip.
April 16th, 2006 at 2:30 pmI used to like Smith when I watched Fox a long time ago. I too am surprised he has sold his soul for so long. Maybe he’s finally getting sick of kissing up and needs to get out of there.
April 16th, 2006 at 2:37 pmAmazing what passes for news on that network. Come to think of it, it’s amazing what passes for news on a lot of networks nowadays.
April 16th, 2006 at 2:42 pmPerhaps Shep is sick of O’Reilly’s gay-bashing.
April 16th, 2006 at 2:58 pmGot to start somewhere, I guess. Props to Shepard Smith.
April 16th, 2006 at 3:06 pmColbert got to the War on Easter before O’Rielly did. Take that!
April 16th, 2006 at 3:47 pmWar on Easter? No, the Easter bunny is safe just as Santa Claus is safe, its the Christian faith and America herself that is under attack by the Filthy Left in this country. One of my favorite writers and I believe soon to be a famous writer is simply brilliant. Read it and weep people, I did.
Saint Judas
Have you ever betrayed your promise?
Did you ever break a vow?
Have you traded love for money?
And are you happy now?
Did you kiss him in the garden,
And then abandon him to fate?
Is your final sin forgiven now,
Or is it far too late?
WHEN IT COMES TO DISCOVERING new ways to cheapen the human soul, the “intellectuals” of our society have cornered the market. So it was last week when, timed carefully to cash in on the Easter holiday, the “serious” editors of National Geographic chose to release the gleanings from a sheaf of rags and call them “The Gospel of Judas.”
Having risen through the echo chamber of “higher” education and survived the ruthless but quiet vetting process of their “profession,” these editors knew full well that what they were putting out into the world was not a “gospel.” They also knew that calling it a “gospel” would ensure greater attention and greater sales. Beyond that, the editors, secular cultists all, also got a quiet little tingle by having, in their minds, “stuck it” to the Christian church once again. As usual, such secularists love to stick it to Christianity. Addicts of auto-erotic asphyxiation, their onanistic pleasure in these deeds is only enhanced if it can be done at the most holy moments of the year.
This dark thrill of denigration has the immediate benefit of pleasingly confirming them in their own Church of Zero, and the secondary benefit of being much, much safer than sticking it to Islam, a faith that enforces its demands for respect with bombs and beheadings, and whose central message to all cowards is “Don’t mess with Mohammed.” The sad fact of our modern era is that, if you denigrate Islam, you often have to bag up body parts and hose down the sidewalk, but when you denigrate Christianity the most you need to clean up after yourself is a warm washcloth.
Your gedankenexperiment for today is to ask yourself, regardless of your religious beliefs, if the editors of National Geographic, being given an ancient manuscript that “proved” the Koran was nothing more than the blatherings of some ergot-besotted Bedouin who had eaten one too many hallucinogenic plants, would have published the same as loudly and as broadly? Would they have done so, or would they have issued a Press Release citing concerns for the “provenance” of the manuscript and their personal safety? Regardless of your religious beliefs, you know the shameful answer.
But beyond these considerations, the publication of the “Gospel” of Judas has another, deeper and more lasting benefit to our neophytes of nihilism. It puts one of the final elements of their anti-morality play at center stage. It seeks to sanctify treason.
It was never a question of “if,” but only a question of “when” our contemporary society would discover an avatar who would make treason acceptable. It only codifies the realities of their secular belief system. Treason against others or one’s country has long been as common as adultery in this country. Like adultery the rate of treason is on the rise because, like adultery and similar forms of personal betrayal, it no longer has any consequences at all. It is true that the federal crime of treason is not easily established and is rarely if ever charged. But the formal crime of treason is not what I am discussing here. Rather the more common, garden variety of treason as understood by plain people, the rabid and unremitting hatred, expressed in word or deed, of the country that gives you the freedom to do so. It is the treason of the ingrate and the bitter; the treason of the clerks.
http://americandigest.org/
April 16th, 2006 at 3:58 pmIt’s Easter Sunday I-RIGHT-I, so if you are a Christian, then today you should be nice!
April 16th, 2006 at 4:12 pmI-RIGHT-I… still refusing to face reality. Doesn’t matter how big your posts are there guy, you’re not fooling anyone. Kind of reminds me of those men who grow their hair really long in back even though they are clearly balding up top. The gimick isn’t working, and the whole look is just stupid.
April 16th, 2006 at 4:14 pm“The Treason of the Clerks!” Am I the only one who wants to see that movie? Maybe even more than “Snakes on a Plane!”
“Secular cultists” = “Addicts of auto-erotic asphyxiation”? That’s just great comedy. Keep up the good work, IRI.
April 16th, 2006 at 4:22 pm@I-RIGHT-I: another example of the neo-clown Christian motto of “obey without question nor individual thought”.
April 16th, 2006 at 4:30 pmIt’s Easter Sunday I-RIGHT-I, so if you are a Christian, then today you should be nice!
Comment by Jay Randal
I am being nice. I haven’t called you a ratbastardcommie fucktard all day!
April 16th, 2006 at 4:35 pm“The Treason of the Clerks!†Am I the only one who wants to see that movie? Maybe even more than “Snakes on a Plane!â€
“Secular cultists†= “Addicts of auto-erotic asphyxiation� That’s just great comedy. Keep up the good work, IRI.
Comment by SuperEdo
You probably don’t have the patience to read they guy and you probably don’t have the background to understand what he’s saying but at least you can appreciate some of the quaint turns of phrase. That’s a start.
April 16th, 2006 at 4:38 pmYou probably don’t have the patience to read they guy and you probably don’t have the background to understand what he’s saying but at least you can appreciate some of the quaint turns of phrase. That’s a start.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — April 16, 2006 @ 4:38 pm
Actually, we don’t have the STOMACH to read it
April 16th, 2006 at 4:52 pm.
Actually, there is a REAL war on Easter: WarOnEaster.org
April 16th, 2006 at 5:20 pmDon’t the dolts at Fox news communicate with each other? There is a real war on Easter right now! It’s been featured on three seperate Fox afilliate radio shows this week. And will be featured again on Monday at 7am pt on KVI Seattle (Fox affiliate).
THE REAL WAR ON EASTER IS HERE: http://www.waroneaster.org
April 16th, 2006 at 5:21 pmActually, there is a REAL war on Easter: WarOnEaster.org
Comment by doubledoh — April 16, 2006 @ 5:20 pm
You know, if you people would take the free time that you waste on such nonsense and go volunteer to feed the needy, babysit for a single mother, drive seniors to doctors appointments, then really, you might find it’s moreimportant to wage a real war on poverty, homelessness and hunger. Sheesh. Don’t you people learn anything positive from church?
April 16th, 2006 at 5:31 pmUnbelievable- In reference to #19 and to IRIGHTI, I don’t think he has learned anything. All that he does is expouse so-called American values when his ignorance of the problems of poverty, sexism, racism, war, silencing youth voices, etc makes him seem to be more contradictory.
It would be nice to live in a world where kindness reigns supreme over bullying, but as long as we have an administration that borders in rudeness, we’ll have to fight to maintain a sense of clarity.
April 16th, 2006 at 5:55 pmAMEN to your post, Unbelievable!
April 16th, 2006 at 6:48 pmYou probably don’t have the patience to read they guy and you probably don’t have the background to understand what he’s saying but at least you can appreciate some of the quaint turns of phrase. That’s a start.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I
It’s a real Catch-22, isn’t it? (Do you get the literary reference, IRI?) Your man uses the word “intellectual” as if it is a derogatory term, and then you accuse those who understand of not being educated enough to get it. Or perhaps you mean that we are simply not mindless enough to accept it unthinkingly.
April 16th, 2006 at 6:56 pmWow, aside from what he said. this guy just sounds completely ridiculous, yet another reason why I don’t watch Fox.
April 16th, 2006 at 7:05 pmHe’s really starting to look like Dr Sphincter:
http://www.drsphincter.com/
April 16th, 2006 at 7:25 pmHey I-R-I,
Now you know how the American Indians and the Pagans of the world felt when “good Christians” came and raped, pillaged tortured and murdered them.
America is under attack by the fascist, dictatorship of the Baby Bush regime and the Republicorruption warmongers who are cashing in every minute. While you and all the other no-brainers whole heartedly believe and regurgitate their propaganda b.s. they sit and laugh at you all the way to the bank.
You have as much blood on your hands, for supporting these criminals, as they have on their hands. Look in the mirror, because YOU and your ignorant kind are the problem with America.
April 16th, 2006 at 8:14 pmI-Right-I:
I was stopped in my tracks in reading the piece by one phrase: “The Christian church.”
What’s he talking about?
As far as I know, no such entity exists.
April 16th, 2006 at 8:30 pmFox Security will be paying Smith a visit. He’s off the reservation and Fox Security will have to get his mind right. He’ll fall into line. This independent streak in Smith is most unappealing
April 16th, 2006 at 8:48 pmIt’s been awhile,but I see you still can’t help yourself there righty. You are but a clanging cymbal with your vile and misguided attempts at typing other ugly and shallow thoughts. Perhaps Corinthians I, 13 might be helpful. Might wish to read a couple of times. You are only pleasing yourself with your sad attempt here to explain the world to us. This is the epicenter of Christ’s love for all of us and the parameters we are given to live by to the glory of the Father(your father). Don’t the eloquent words jump off the page. I and many others hope some day your heart will change, as will your words. As the scripture states, the only things that last forever are faith, hope and love. We will wait for you….
April 16th, 2006 at 9:01 pmEaster has Nothing to do with chocolate bunnies, baskets or eggs. That is the ESTRE celebration symbols of spring, not Christain, so why get upset over something Christains would believe was pagan.
April 16th, 2006 at 9:15 pmEye-Right-Eye messed up and actually meant to post a link to
April 16th, 2006 at 10:00 pmamericanindigestion.org. Eye-Right-Eye regrets the error.
Goodbye troll, it’s time to have your wool shaved off…baaaaaaaaaaaaa
April 16th, 2006 at 10:19 pmI hate pagans, nationalists, and people that say strategery.
April 16th, 2006 at 10:57 pmHappy Easter, everyone. You know, I’ve used the Sopranos to illustrate the criminal crime family that is the Bush administration more than once. So, it may surprise you that in my first sunday night Sopranos blogging I don’t resort to snark at all and would make a sober assessment of tonight’s very important and touching show about the outing of Vito. Please go there and tell me what you think.
April 16th, 2006 at 11:15 pmInquiring Minds Want To Know’ gossip.
HEH-HEH, Funny. Faux News is too High Class for the tawdry tabloid trash Enquirer, Faux News has risen to the Neo-Level of Paparazzi, Except I think AOL is already doing it. Heckuva Job Schemp!
April 17th, 2006 at 12:04 am#I hate pagans, nationalists, and people that say strategery.
Comment by Progressive Anarchist — April 16, 2006 @ 10:57 pm
Say is that Pagan kinda Like Naga? Serpents and Snake worship?
And so, as we find that Jesus and Mary were in reality based upon a much older Egyptian mythology, which itself stretches back even further in time to ancient Sumeria, we also find that the story of Abraham and Sarai are no different. In the Koran (6:75) we find that Abraham’s father was called Azar (Osiris), and so Abraham was Horus, just as Jesus was Horus. Lo and behold, we also discover (Luke 16: 22-25) that Lazarus himself rested in the bosom of Abraham, just as Osiris as the crippled god, rested in his resurrecting son’s arms.
And it was this Abraham, this Brahma or Osiris, that is said to have spawned the very Children of Israel. Let’s take a look at Abraham’s sons and see if we can reveal the hidden serpent lineage or serpent secrets that we found elsewhere in The Serpent Grail.
Abraham’s son Ishmael, by Hagar, his maidservant, also had children who lived in India, or Havilah (land of serpents), as it is in Genesis. Both famous sons of Abraham, Ishmael and Isaac have names that revert back to the worship of that serpent Hindu deity Siva. [2]
Ishmael is Ish-Maal in Hebrew, and in Sanskrit, Ish-Mahal means ‘Great Siva.’ Isaac is Ishaak in Hebrew, and Ishakhu in Sanskrit  which means ‘Friend of Siva.’ Most startling of all is the very name of Abraham himself, which could mean that Abraham was nothing other than a Naga King - Ab Ram - actually means ‘exalted snake.’
April 17th, 2006 at 12:11 am——
Confused Yet?
Apparently so is the World.
Question to # 35 Uncle T. Where would that leave the current state of Israel.Are they legitamate? Or are they ‘false prophets’?
April 17th, 2006 at 1:12 amThere’s been a Warren Easter as long as I’ve been alive.
April 17th, 2006 at 3:28 amShep had better look out! Bill will be “siccing” his ‘Fox Security’ goon squad on him. He knows where he works…
April 17th, 2006 at 5:29 amThat da lord is a comin’ or is here now is text book cult stategy. The embedded message is that its members need not worry about their economic plight since the presence of the lord makes it a whole new ballgame. Therefore, why not give what little you have to the cult leader(lord) who knows how to prepare the way. hallelua(sp?)
April 17th, 2006 at 9:29 amPerhaps if the wrong-minded “I-RIGHT-I” spent a bit more time investigating the realities of the dozens of writings by early Christians that were deemed unacceptable by a small group of self-important “leaders” of the Faith and a bit less time regurgitating the garbage spewed by ignorant lunatics who seek to impose a singular dogmatic view of Christianity, he might gain some real insight into the Gospel of Judas in terms of Church history.
For the record, “RIGHT”, the Gospel of Judas is no less valid than the other Gospels such as those of Thomas, Peter, Mary, Philip, the Ebionites, the Egyptians, the Hebrews or the Nazoreans or even the Infancy Gospels of James or Thomas (among a number of others). The only difference between all of these and the better-known Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John is that the Church “leaders” chose to make these last four part of Church canon; however, canonical status alone does not make these Gospels any more or less believable than those deemed non-canonical. The vast majority of all the non-canon works present tales that offer insight into how the various Christian communities of the 1st and 2nd centuries venerated (and even kept human) the Christ, in ways that would make His life and teachings more understandable to the local believers. By the early 4th century, though, The Church decided that It should be the sole arbiter of how Christ’s life and teachings could be presented to the world.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/
April 17th, 2006 at 10:13 amOr perhaps you mean that we are simply not mindless enough to accept it unthinkingly.
Comment by SuperEdo
No, I was suggesting you are mindless enough to dismiss it without reading and thinking first. The guy is a brilliant writer and his site is full of gems like this one. What makes him particularly interesting is the fact that in the 60s and 70s he was an insider in the flowering Filthy Left. I guess he grew up.
April 17th, 2006 at 10:17 amSomewhere inside of Shephard Smith is a human being who realizes that the company he works for is dishonest, evil, and unAmerican. Somwhere inside of Shephard Smith is a human being who realizes that the philosophy of RW conservatism is void of conscience, subhuman, and contrary to the values of the human spirit. Somewhere inside of Shephard Smith is a human being who realizes that FOX hosts like Bill O’Reilly are Hitler/Stalin want to bes who desire the elimination of billions of people who think differently from them. Somewhere inside of Shephard Smith is a human being who realizes that RW conservatism is simply a philosophy predicated on social Taliban values and economic corporatism designed to use govt to enrich a few and steal from the many.
That human being inside of Shephard showed up for a few days when he learned firsthand that his network was lying about its coverage of Hurricane Katrina. That human being may make cameo appearances from time to time but until Shephard can eradicate the demons and forego the money he’s taking in place of having a soul, the human being inside Shephard Smith will still only make cameo appearances.
April 17th, 2006 at 11:07 amPBG
you said: “Christian Church/ No such entity exists.”
It exists, it’s just an oxymoron.
I-Right-I
April 17th, 2006 at 11:31 amI spent ten years in the far right-wing and I can tell you because of your hate-filled writing and because of the fact that I KNOW, you are miserable. You don’t have to be. Turn off the news. Think good thoughts. It is very hard to do in the beginning. You are addicted to hate. That’s what “they” want. Stop it today. Love yourself first, then you can learn to love others. And to everyone else: you have to understand these people. They are, to the last man/woman, miserable. They don’t believe what they say, but they don’t have the courage to step out. Please be kind to them. Using their own words of hate only encourages them. It feeds them. And I mean this down to the administration and everyone that follows them. We won’t win by using hate. As hard as it is, wish them peace and love. By using any form of negativity it only feeds the monster. Love and peace is the ONLY way.
Man, the media, especially FOX and the NYT for some reason, just love to talk about themselves. Think about it. How many minutes of precious newstime and column inches in the “news of record” is spent on solipsistic analysis of the press? All the Judith Miller stuff, the endless comments about the “nefarious MSM”, the liberal media backlash and assorted other BS is just monumental. People should be getting reports out of the Congo. Out of climatologists–not this insane naval-gazing that passes for news nowadays. I don’t need to know the names of reporters, nevermind newscasters–I need information, facts, stories about people other than the guy down the hall in the pressroom. It’s a sick joke that I know more about Gannon/Guckert then I do about what the hell is happening with the Lord’s Resistence Army.
April 17th, 2006 at 11:34 amFor the record, “RIGHTâ€, the Gospel of Judas is no less valid than the other Gospels such as those of Thomas, Peter, Mary, Philip, the Ebionites, the Egyptians, the Hebrews or the Nazoreans or even the Infancy Gospels of James or Thomas (among a number of others).
Comment by JosephW
Yes no less valid is right. No more valid is even closer. What you fail to mention is that all those fakes by heretics and other assorted losers have been formally and reliably discredited by early and modern day historians and biblical scholars. Those writings are no different than the fabulously idiotic book “The Da Vinci Code” that is so popular with losers like you right now. It’s all fantasy dreamed up to entertain those of you who are looking for a cheap thrill and anything that will help you forget that YOU are ultimately responsible for your own eternal condition.
The same kind of loser that reads that crap and believes it is credible is the same kind of loser that says Bush=Hitler, No Blood for Oil and George new about 9-11. Here dumbass, watch this….
http://luckydawgnews.com/911conspiracybs.html
April 17th, 2006 at 12:00 pmThe War is against Atheists, Not Christians
http://www.blogd.com/archives/cat_religion.html
“For the past several years, there has been an especially fervent strain of protest from the American Christian community, with the rather outlandish claim that Christians are being persecuted and warred upon. Utterly untrue, of course–at least 80% of the country is Christian, Christian symbols and terminology have been seeping into the government for a long time, and the country currently is run by a party which is overwhelmingly Christian-friendly.
The pinnacle of this paranoid delusion rose to absurd heights in a congregation held last weekend titled “War on Christians and the Values Voters of 2006.” At the event, Christians went on a breast-beating rampage, claiming they were under attack from all quarters, including liberals, Hollywood, the Internet, scientists, the court system, and even the Republican Party. Let me tell you, if you’re a Christian and you believe that the Republican Party has declared “war” on you, then I’m sorry–even the most paranoid schizophrenic sufferer would edge away from you like you were giving off dangerous levels of bozo rays.
The “embattled” Christians at the congress maintained that “neo-pagans” and secularists expressed “Christophobia,” in effect “an irrational fear of anything Christ-based,” asserting that there was “a war on America, a war on God and a war on all believers.”
As I have written before, this severely warped sense of persecution can be attributed to two chief causes. First, it may be a political strategy–paint yourself as oppressed, and people will give you more of what you want. Or second, it could be an earnest though completely wrong belief, stemming from the presumption that Christianity naturally deserves to be dominant instead of equal to other belief systems, and therefore any expression of equality of belief among Americans would be interpreted as an “attack” on Christians.
Now, you might say that these are the loony fringe–after all, they did ask Tom DeLay to speak. But if they are a fringe, they are a successfully vocal one; you have heard their point of view far more often than you hear the other side. They get tons of sympathetic or at least respectful media coverage, and they make up the Republican base and as such receive far more attention and action in today’s government than is proportional to their actual constituency.”
There’s more to this article, but it’s a very interesting and truthful read.
Of course, the people that fall for the “war on christians” line will be unable to appreciate the logic and truth this article is based upon.
April 17th, 2006 at 1:08 pm#46 - Continuation: http://www.blogd.com/archives/cat_religion.html
“But the chief irony is not just that Christians think they are being persecuted when they’re not. What’s ironic is the fact that they are the ones doing the persecuting, and all too often, atheists and agnostics are the ones who are suffering. Think about it: could an atheist ever be elected President of the United States? Hell, no. In fact, it is an unspoken prerequisite that if you want to be president, you not only have to be a Christian, but a fairly mainstream one at that–Mormons need not apply, not in this day and age at least. Even if you are religious but don’t attend church, that’s still a big strike against you.
I think it would be pretty fair to say that it would be extremely difficult to claim that atheists are persecuting Christians in this society, and not the other way around. But it goes much deeper than that.
A recent study by the University of Minnesota’s department of sociology took a survey of 2000 American households and found that atheists were the most feared and distrusted. Almost half said that atheists are the least likely to “agree with your vision of American society.” Only 54% agreed that atheists shared their vision, as opposed to Muslims, who scored 64%, Recent immigrants and homosexuals scoring in the 70s, and whites and blacks scoring highest, in the 90s. (PDF file.) The study reported that atheists were considered (PDF) “most dangerous or threatening.”
This rather strong discriminatory bias permeates society, besides just the presidency. It is commonly reported that the Boy Scouts exclude gays, but less reported is that atheists are also banned from the group. If a widely popular social organization started excluding Catholics or Methodists, there’d be holy hell to pay; but apparently, excluding atheists is just fine.
Even more disturbing is a common trend, reported on by Andrew Sullivan among others, that child custody cases are being decided on the basis of the beliefs of the parents. Christian parents are being awarded custody over their atheist spouses, and atheists can even denied some visitation rights because of their beliefs.
The source of this information is a law article (PDF) written by Eugene Volokh, a Law professor at UCLA. Volokh reports on a large number of cases where a parent was denied custody–even in favor of the child’s grandparents–because the parent was not sufficiently religious for the judge’s tastes. Volokh also points out that half of Americans distrust atheists, but further notes that “half the public thinks that it’s necessary ‘to believe in God in order to be moral and have good values.’” [Emphasis Volokh’s.] If you don’t believe that, check out what this guy wrote. Apparently, a lot of people believe this, whether they’ll admit it to you directly or not.”
April 17th, 2006 at 1:13 pmI think it would be pretty fair to say that it would be extremely difficult to claim that atheists are persecuting Christians in this society, and not the other way around. But it goes much deeper than that.
Comment by Democrat Soldier — April 17, 2006 @ 1:13 pm
Logically, a minority cannot persecute a majority. That is hysterical. These eveangelicals are out of control. Nobody wants to eliminate them. Just get them to stop shoving their religion down our throats. BIG difference!
April 17th, 2006 at 2:04 pmExcuse me i-r-i,but the paralells between Bush and Hitler are frightening,blood should never be spilled for oil and Mr. Bush and his gang of criminals have an awful lot of holes to fill on the 9/11 issue and you should be over in Iraq kicking Iraqi butts instead of running your mouth on liberal blog sites since your such a Bush bootlicker.
April 17th, 2006 at 2:09 pmLay off the Bunny!
Matthew 4
1Then Jesus was led by the Bunny into the desert to be tempted by the devil. 2After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. 3The tempter came to him and said, “If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.”
4Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man does not live on bread alone, but on every Bunny that comes from the loins of God.’[a]”
April 17th, 2006 at 2:19 pm#48 - “Logically, a minority cannot persecute a majority.”
Um, the Neo-cons and Pres. Bush come to mind about a minority persecuting a majority. Also, the major bias in favor of the uber-rich over the middle class in America is another case in point.
In this case, it’s just silly to think that Christians are being persecuted because of their religion. When was the last time a Christian was denied a job in the US because of his/her religion? When was the last time you heard of a Christian being attacked/beaten/killed because of his/her religion?
The so-called “war on Christianity” is nothing but a canard to help drive up the “religious” vote this coming mid-term election. The Republicans are on the ropes, and are afraid they’ll lose majority status, and the only way to distract from the entrenched Republican corruption is for them to create a fake “war” to help their sagging polls.
April 17th, 2006 at 2:46 pmUm, the Neo-cons and Pres. Bush come to mind about a minority persecuting a majority. Also, the major bias in favor of the uber-rich over the middle class in America is another case in point.
He might have cheated in both elections, but he, along with his preferential treatment for wealth, was put into office by majorities (majority of Sureme Court votes, and majority of electoral college votes). Those don’t qualify as actual minorities as a result. I’m talking about defenseless minorities. Those without power to equalize their numbers. Guess I should have clarified.
In this case, it’s just silly to think that Christians are being persecuted because of their religion. When was the last time a Christian was denied a job in the US because of his/her religion? When was the last time you heard of a Christian being attacked/beaten/killed because of his/her religion?
Good point. I agree.
The so-called “war on Christianity†is nothing but a canard to help drive up the “religious†vote this coming mid-term election. The Republicans are on the ropes, and are afraid they’ll lose majority status, and the only way to distract from the entrenched Republican corruption is for them to create a fake “war†to help their sagging polls.
Comment by Democrat Soldier — April 17, 2006 @ 2:46 pm
You’re right - we tend to appease whiners. People who have taken advantage of the liberal intention to help those who truly were persocuted or in need.
In San Francisco, I noticed how the senior level managers were constantly complaining about ALL the work they had to do. I’m not a whiner, so as a serior designer, I was over worked, but didn’t need to cry about it. You wouldn’t believe how those who kvetched were pitied, while those who didn’t (me), would be given more and more work. I eventually had to start bitching to get them to stop giving me everyone else’s work. Pathetic. And it’s become our culture. Whine away…
April 17th, 2006 at 3:07 pmThe same kind of loser that reads that crap and believes it is credible is the same kind of loser that says Bush=Hitler, No Blood for Oil and George new about 9-11. Here dumbass, watch this….
http://luckydawgnews.com/911conspiracybs.html
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — April 17, 2006 @
that video didn’t prove anything, but http://www.911truestory.com/ do
April 17th, 2006 at 4:36 pmAh, the delicious irony of Christian mythologists like “I-Right-I” accusing the Left of living in Fantasy Land. Absolutely beautiful, “I.”
April 17th, 2006 at 6:12 pmMaybe a “tipping point” has been reached.
April 17th, 2006 at 10:49 pmSorry, but the cliche was too much to resist. Like chocolate.
[…] suggested the Easter bunny was “under attack.” After embarrassing himself and his colleagues, O’Reilly eventually acknowledged, “There is no attack on […]
March 7th, 2007 at 7:35 pmGay Incest Gay Male Sex Gay Brothers
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 5th, 2008 at 8:26 pm