FLASHBACK: Huckabee Compared ‘Homosexuality’ To ‘Necrophilia’ And Fought For Banning Sodomy
FLASHBACK: Huckabee Compared ‘Homosexuality’ To ‘Necrophilia’ And Fought For Banning Sodomy
On CNN’s Larry King Live last night, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee said that he would “absolutely” allow a gay man or woman to serve in his administration. “I have people who are homosexual that work for me in the governor’s office,” noted Huckabee:
KING: Could a gay be in your administration?
HUCKABEE: Absolutely.
Why not?
People are competent because — not with anything to do with their sexual orientation. I have people who are homosexual that work for me in the governor’s office. And it was not a qualification. I think you should never (INAUDIBLE)…
In the interview, Huckabee also indicated that he would not change the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. Watch it:
Huckabee’s openess towards LGBT employees may indicate that he is personally tolerant towards gay men and women. But, as his reticence to change Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell shows, he is still in favor of using the power of government to discriminate against gay Americans.
Huckabee is against gay marriage, arguing that “civilization” may not survive if “what marriage and family means” is “rewritten.” As Governor of Arkansas, he “avidly” supported the state amendment banning gay marriage. That wasn’t the only anti-gay public policy Huckabee pushed in Arkansas:
– In 1997, Huckabee requested an amendment to a state Senate bill stating “that it is Arkansas public policy to prohibit sodomy to protect the traditional family structure.” [Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 1/23/1997]
– In 1998, Huckabee supported banning gay men and women from acting as foster parents because “it is not in the best interest of children.” [Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 7/29/1998]
– In 2003, Huckabee said “If you ask for survivor benefits to be paid to a same-sex survivor, I think we have a right to say no to that.” [Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 7/3/2003]
Additionally, in the past, Huckabee has spoken of homosexuality using some of the most divisive and hyperbolic rhetoric possible:
– In a 1992 questionnaire for the Associated Press, Huckabee claimed that “homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle, and we now know it can pose a dangerous public health risk.”
– In his 1998 book, Kids Who Kill, Huckabee compared homosexuality to necrophilia, decrying “publicly endorsed and institutionally supported aberrations–from homosexuality and pedophilia to sadomasochism and necrophilia.”
While Huckabee now wants to claim that he has no personal animus against gay Americans, his record suggests he has no problem using the powers of government to discriminate against them.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
How very Christian of him
December 18th, 2007 at 3:29 pmhe doesn’t have a problem with killing dogs, unless you’re going to have sex with the corpse later.
December 18th, 2007 at 3:30 pmIn keeping with the season, Schmuckabee is as ‘nutty as a fruitcake.’
December 18th, 2007 at 3:32 pmso when the good book says to turn the other cheek, Ol’ Huck takes it as turn both cheeks and turn them away.
December 18th, 2007 at 3:34 pmNone of this suprises me comming from a conservative evangelical christian (a real evangelical christian, unlike most politicians who just play one on TV).
December 18th, 2007 at 3:35 pmIf elected, he damn well better get used to working with closeted bizarro Republican politicans, eh?
Hyuckabee, ‘I’m not a flat-earther. Nothing goes flat in just 6,000 years.’
December 18th, 2007 at 3:39 pmDoes this imbecil deserves a comment??
December 18th, 2007 at 3:41 pmI really hope he does get the nomination.
December 18th, 2007 at 3:47 pmHe’ll be grilled to repudiate those statements repeatedly.
If he does, he loses his base, if not, the rest of the nation will see how dangerous this religious fanatic is.
Whoa! TMI on Huckabee! And I believe that we are just scratching the surface of a very rigid mind here. He’s on his best behavior and this is what he’s all about?? I can’t imagine in my wildest of nightmares what else this poor sick soul believes.
Obviously, he had a totally repressed childhood and is suffering from an under-developed world view as well as a very limited concept of what a life of non-judgment and unity can be all about.
I think that Gomer Pyle would make a better president because at least he plays at “being ignorant”; when it comes to incredible stupidity and ignorance, I’m afraid that Huckabee’s the “real deal”.
This man is downright scary!
December 18th, 2007 at 3:50 pmI love watching each and every one of the RePugniScum candidates sucking wind as soon as the blogs (with a piece of history in their hands) show up and point out the truth.
Trudy Julie Annie is out!!
Huckleberry is out!!
Mitt Witt Roomy is out!!
McLame is out!!
Fred Thompson is out!! Was he ever in??
What a bunch of crooooked up, hoooked up looooosers!!!
And Fux nOoze can’t do a damn thing to help any of them!!
Uh oh!! Time for another terrierist threat from GW Botch and Dick(head) Vader!
December 18th, 2007 at 3:50 pmHi RU: Indeed! He will have these moronic philosophies come back to haunt him – just when he’s done the “christmas snapshot ad” painting himself all warm and fuzzy. He’s a pretty sick dude.
December 18th, 2007 at 3:51 pmLIAR is written all over Hucks face. No one changes their views from anti abortion, anti gay, anti women of the severity Huck has shown to this passive go the flow BS. Do we need another LIAR in the WH?
December 18th, 2007 at 3:51 pmMaybe we need to start calling Huckabee Dinkleberry instead?
December 18th, 2007 at 3:52 pmI don’t even think the reichwing christofascist can stomach the likes of this guy. They know now that they were used like toilet paper by Bush in the last election. They’d have to be a bit gun-shy right now. I think this: If it walks like a hypocrite, talks like a hypocrite, acts like a hypocrite, it’s probably Huckabee!
December 18th, 2007 at 3:53 pmYou sure you want to go through with this Chucklebee? It’s about to get ugly. For such a family values kind of guy we haven’t seen you showing off that wife of your’s yet. Come on bring her and the young ones up front where we can all have a look at them and ask a few questions. Got rope?
December 18th, 2007 at 3:56 pmRUCerious,
I guarantee he will get the nomination. The Republican Party and its hopes lie with the Evangelicals now. They have found their guy and will take him to the nomination. And then he will get exposed as the zealot he is.
As I said, the Republican nominating process, is as good as over.
December 18th, 2007 at 3:57 pmOK then CHL since you know everything, who will be the nominee then?
December 18th, 2007 at 3:58 pmI’m glad that Huck at least is willing to work alongside a gay person — apparently he doesn’t think it’s a contagious condition, as some people do.
He’s got a long way to go on some of his other beliefs, though:
“Huckabee is against gay marriage, arguing that ‘civilization’ may not survive if “what marriage and family means†is ‘rewritten.’ ”
– This is what people said about allowing interracial marriage. A frequent argument was that “if you allow whites to marry blacks, next you’ll be allowing people to marry animals.” As we have seen, interracial marriage has hardly damaged the institution.
“…it is Arkansas public policy to prohibit sodomy to protect the traditional family structure.â€
– And how did Huckabee plan on enforcing this law? Maybe I don’t want to know. I suspect that he felt the “traditional family structure” would best be served by forcing the Larry Craigs of the world into public restroom stalls.
“If you ask for survivor benefits to be paid to a same-sex survivor, I think we have a right to say no to that.â€
– Even if that survivor was a partner for years, and even financially dependent upon the deceased. Gays make lifetime commitments just as straight people do, yet their commitment still isn’t supported by society.
So I guess Huckabee can work with a gay person. But can he look that co-worker in the face and say, “I can make a lifetime commitment to my partner that is recognized by society. You can’t. I can have sex with my lifetime partner. You can’t. And if I die, my dependent partner will get survivor benefits. If you die, your partner won’t.”?
December 18th, 2007 at 3:59 pmThis man is downright scary!
Comment by Veritas — December 18, 2007 @ 3:50 pm
And he thinks he was created in the “image of God!” Huckleberry is a supertitious(sp?) fool. Religion does that!! Weakens the mind and finds all kinds of hatred it all the wrong places!!!
The hatred of homosexuals is found only in the book of Leviticus. That book also says that I can sell my daughters into slavery!! The Book of Leviticus is the most hateful chapter found in either the Torah or the Bible!!!
December 18th, 2007 at 4:01 pmOh Huckabee, Oh Huckabee,
December 18th, 2007 at 4:03 pmHow archaic are thy decrials.
You spout such creed, and make it thine,
You deplore deeds, and then you whine,
deny it all, deny it all, how hypocritical thy denials
“…and we now know it can pose a dangerous public health risk.†— Huckabee, 1992
—————————————————
I hope he realizes by now — 15 years later — that homosexuality is not, nor ever has been a public health risk.
Promiscuity, however, is. And always has been. For gays and straights alike. Not just for AIDS, but for all STDs.
December 18th, 2007 at 4:03 pmComment by cold_hard_left — December 18, 2007 @ 3:57 pm
Seems conservatives aren’t fond of any of the lot but then again neither am I.
December 18th, 2007 at 4:05 pmMike Huckabible’s illegal drug plan: It’s either a typo or pretty damn interesting:
http://www.slate.com/id/2179595/entry/2179598/
December 18th, 2007 at 4:05 pm“publicly endorsed and institutionally supported aberrations–from homosexuality and pedophilia to sadomasochism and necrophilia.â€
——————————
Um…since when have pedophilia and necrophilia been publicly endorsed and institutionally supported? By pedophiles and necrophiles, maybe. But I know of no place where they are legal, let alone acceptable by anyone else. What planet is Huckabee living on?
December 18th, 2007 at 4:06 pmCHL:
December 18th, 2007 at 4:11 pmWhy would any respectable conservative vote for Giuliani?
Doesn’t Huckabee know that the GOP fell off moral mountain some time ago?
December 18th, 2007 at 4:11 pmIt’s too soon to tell for sure Shayne, but at the present time, I’d say its likely to be Rudy Giuliani -CHL
Naw, Bill Kristol signaled to the base that Rudy wasn’t it.
December 18th, 2007 at 4:12 pmHuckabee had his little bump in the polls, but now that people are learning about him, he’ll fade away. Conservatives, as a whole, aren’t exactly thrilled with him as a Presidential candidate either, although VP remains a possibility.
Comment by cold_hard_left — December 18, 2007 @ 3:57 pm
It’s too soon to tell for sure Shayne, but at the present time, I’d say its likely to be Rudy Giuliani. Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney each have a shot, although far less likely. Alan Keyes, Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter will likely all be out of it within the next 6 or 7 weeks.
Comment by cold_hard_left — December 18, 2007 @ 4:06 pm
It’s too soon to tell for sure Shayne, but at the present time, I’d say its likely to be Rudy Giuliani. Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney each have a shot, although far less likely. Alan Keyes, Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter will likely all be out of it within the next 6 or 7 weeks.
Comment by cold_hard_left — December 18, 2007 @ 4:06 pm
First yousay he’ll fade away and then you say he has a shot. You’re as good with the future as you are with history I see. Forget I asked.
December 18th, 2007 at 4:13 pmhuck talks about what he knows. homosexuality, necrophilia, sodomy, sadomasochism, pedophilia, unnatural, aberrant and sinful.
December 18th, 2007 at 4:15 pmthese are his strengths, he is telling the faithful what they want to hear more about.
Comment by Frank M — December 18, 2007 @ 4:14 pm
Yeah it would be cool to have a leader in the European sense. One who isn’t afraid to use their civil servants to run their mistresses errands and not pretend to be just another family values clown. You go Rudy!
December 18th, 2007 at 4:17 pm“While Huckabee now wants to claim that he has no personal animus against gay Americans, his record suggests he has no problem using the powers of government to discriminate against them.”
“Animus” above, s/b “animice”. Huck has plenty of it for a lot of people, but enough pr sense to come up with ways to run and hide from it now that he’s a “top-tier” candidate.
December 18th, 2007 at 4:21 pmI’ll be voting for Rudy Giuliani, although I also like Fred Thompson.
The only Republicans that I would not vote for are Alan Keyes, Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo….all three strike me as a bit nutty, each in their own way, especially Ron Paul and Alan Keyes.
As for the Democratic field, well, I would never vote for any of them…I get a sick feeling in the pit of my gut at the thought of any of those clowns in the White House.
December 18th, 2007 at 4:21 pmFrank – don’t you think we’d be a LOT safer if we’d just exterminate everyone who does/might pose a threat? What would you propose for a “final solution”?
December 18th, 2007 at 4:22 pmThe religious right are hanging onto Huck’s old views.. the anti gay, anti abortion and anti women which is why they support him. It is all about the appointment of SC judges.
December 18th, 2007 at 4:23 pmThat is an issue open to fair and honest debate, and one on which I may someday change my mind.
Comment by cold_hard_left — December 18, 2007 @ 4:13 pm
It’s not open to fair and honest debate, because the right comes at it out of ignorance, fear and lies. it’s discrimination of the most unAmerican kind, and should be struck down, as other unreasonable, ignorant, fear-based forms of rightwing, conservative discrimination have been struck down by this liberal democracy over the years. Gays in the workplace, military or legal marriage pose no threat of any kind to our democracy, strength or moral standing. Your bullshit term of “special rights” is just another in the long line of ignorant lies that republiscum hatred thrives on.
December 18th, 2007 at 4:23 pmComment by Charles James Napier — December 18, 2007 @ 4:21 pm
Dude Thompson is about as alive as Bob Dole
December 18th, 2007 at 4:23 pmSettling for the ‘least dangerous’ candidate does not sound like a plan I can support.
Campaign reform is what’s needed. An American shouldn’t need $100M to enter a political race.
Let’s reform the process while initiating term limits and no private ’soft’ money from corporations.
If we did that, you know who would still be running? Kucinich & Paul.
December 18th, 2007 at 4:24 pmThis idiot should just go away so that we can concentrate our money and effort on a real-world candidate like Giuliani or McCain.
Comment by Frank M — December 18, 2007 @ 4:14 pm
Please let it be Guiliani! That’d be so fun to watch. That guy’s record is atrocious, he’s dispised by liberals and yet stands against almost every domstic policy conservatives care about. He’s the right’s Joe Lieberman.
December 18th, 2007 at 4:24 pmHEY Go Easy on Huckabee! As a Dem we want him as the 2008 Repug Nominee in the worst way.
December 18th, 2007 at 4:25 pmWe LUV Mike!
In a 1998 book decrying American culture, Huckabee was no seeker of common ground. He drew stark lines, equating environmentalists with pornographers and homosexuality with pedophilia and necrophilia. He also declared that people who do not believe in God tend to be immoral and to engage in “destructive behavior.” He drew a rather harsh picture of an American society starkly split between people of faith and those of a secular bent, with the latter being a direct and immediate threat to the nation.
Two of the 14 points of Fascism brought to you by Mike Huckabee:
3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause
The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people’s attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice—relentless propaganda and disinformation—were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite “spontaneous†acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and “terrorists.†Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.
8. Religion and ruling elite tied together
Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite’s behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the “godless.†A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.
For those of you who want to know, FACT – According to the October 5, 2006 issue of Pediatrics, the Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, 98% of molested boys and 99.6% of molested girls are victims of HETROSEXUALS.
December 18th, 2007 at 4:25 pm(sorry for the typos – too excited).
December 18th, 2007 at 4:25 pmAs long as the candidate is strong on security and will not hesitate to use all means available in the war on terror, he’s got my vote.
Comment by Frank M
Sieg Heil!
December 18th, 2007 at 4:25 pm“publicly endorsed and institutionally supported aberrations–from homosexuality and pedophilia to sadomasochism and necrophilia“
where are pedophilia, sadomasochism and necrophilia publicly endorsed and institutionally supported???
“People are competent because — not with anything to do with their sexual orientation.â€
yeah! Why not extend that thinking to the military?
December 18th, 2007 at 4:25 pm“As long as the candidate is strong on security and will not hesitate to use all means available in the war on terror, he’s got my vote.
Comment by Frank M”
Yup, kill ‘em all and let God sort ‘em out.
December 18th, 2007 at 4:27 pms for the Democratic field, well, I would never vote for any of them…I get a sick feeling in the pit of my gut at the thought of any of those clowns in the White House.
Comment by Charles James Napier — December 18, 2007 @ 4:21 pm
well, that post shows your ignorance and hatred for American freedom and ideals. Giuliani, a cross-dressing serial adulterer who hires thugs and cronies like kerick, excellent ckoice, if you like Idi Amin. Thompson, the laziest Senator to ever sleep through a term, a bad actor, and an ignorant ass with a trophy wife, another country-club bozo. There isn’t a single Dem running who doesn’t stand head-and-shoulders above those two losers, morally, intellectually, and spiritually.
December 18th, 2007 at 4:27 pmFrank, the “war on terror” is a myth — just a device used by Bush-Cheney and Company you keep you shaking in your boots while they trample your rights under the Constitution and reduce all of us to a state of total subservience.
December 18th, 2007 at 4:28 pmComment by Billy Hill — December 18, 2007 @ 4:26 pm
You talk silly!
December 18th, 2007 at 4:29 pmI don’t see any need to change this policy formulated by our current President.
Comment by Frank M — December 18, 2007 @ 4:24 pm
of course you don’t, you’re a loser. Losers like to lose.
December 18th, 2007 at 4:29 pmI had hoped that Duncan Hunter would get the nomination and choose Fred Thompson as his VP…so that I could put a Hunter/Thompson ‘08 sticker on my car, but I just don’t see it happening.
December 18th, 2007 at 4:30 pmFrank, the “war on terror†is a myth — just a device used by Bush-Cheney and Company you keep you shaking in your boots while they trample your rights under the Constitution and reduce all of us to a state of total subservience.
Comment by Don in Texas
———————————————-
Sounds like you’re the one shaking in your boots.
December 18th, 2007 at 4:30 pmefty. Should Republicans or Conservatives have the right to sue the Center for American Progress if it refuses to hire them because of their political beliefs?
Comment by cold_hard_left — December 18, 2007 @ 4:28 pm
they do have that right, they’ll just lose.
December 18th, 2007 at 4:31 pmGiuliani is a political cadaver.
Castro has more life in him than Rudy Gee.
He’s cutting and running from NH, just like Frederick of Hollyweird.
-GSD
December 18th, 2007 at 4:31 pm#62: Really? And how many terror attacks have there been on US soil since 9/11? Not a single one.
Comment by Frank M — December 18, 2007 @ 4:30 pm
wrong, frank, you’re ignoring the anthrax attacks (5 dead) and katrina, which was handled like 9/11, resulting in another huge loss for the USA. You’re so pathetically a tool, and you are really uninformed. Bush and bin laden count on you.
December 18th, 2007 at 4:32 pmSounds like you’re the one shaking in your boots.
Comment by Charles James Napier — December 18, 2007 @ 4:30 pm
pretty funny from a coward who isn’t posting from Iraq.
December 18th, 2007 at 4:33 pm62: Really? And how many terror attacks have there been on US soil since 9/11? Not a single one.
Comment by Frank M — December 18, 2007 @ 4:30 pm
Hasn’t been any attacks of killer tomatoes either. You point is pointless. If they were any would you blame the president or would you make excuses?
December 18th, 2007 at 4:34 pmpretty funny from a coward who isn’t posting from Iraq.
Comment by Lefty Patriot
—————————————————-
Lame.
December 18th, 2007 at 4:34 pmface it, rightards, there isn’t a single eligible candidate for the GOP nimination. losers, perverts, lazy-ass actors, religious nuts, cult followers, and failures. Thanks for ‘06, it was a good start. Now we will finish you off, and bury that stinking carcass of the treason party, the GOP, Gross Old Perverts.
December 18th, 2007 at 4:35 pmThe only area on which we may differ with regard to sexual preference is whether or not it should be a protected classification under state and federal workplace discrimination laws.
Comment by cold_hard_left — December 18, 2007 @ 4:13 pm
Even though I’m sure we differ on this point, I suspect we probably aren’t too far apart.
I support protected classifications under discrimination laws ONLY when that classification can produce evidence of ongoing widespread discrimination (one or two isolated cases of discrimination by nutcases don’t count). For example, I don’t support people with blue eyes being a protected classification, because there hasn’t been widespread discrimination against people with blue eyes.
There has been widespread discrimination practiced based on race, sex, religion, sexual orientation, physical disability (when that disability is irrelevant to the situation), and even weight. Therefore, I support anti-discrimination laws based on these characteristics. Common sense must prevail, however. No one should be required to hire a paraplegic to scale telephone poles, a dark-skinned model to appear in a Coppertone ad, or an obese man to model junior miss fashions.
You make an interesting point about increased litigation. Yes — one of the nasty little byproducts of making laws is lawsuits. It’s frustrating when somebody sues you with the claim “you fired me because I’m ____________ (fill in your favorite protected classification here)”. And it’s entirely possible that had nothing to do with the firing — you fired him because he’s a jerk. No matter what system you set up, somebody will abuse it.
However, litigation today will usually favor the alleged discriminator — UNLESS the alleged discriminator has established a pattern of discrimination (for instance, never promoting black employees despite their having the same qualifications as white employees, or always firing somebody after they admit they’re gay), or if the alleged discriminator has blatantly and publicly made admissions that the discrimination was race, religion, gender or whatever based.
I would love to be able to do away with protected classifications altogether. I truly hope that someday we will all judge people on what they do instead of who they are.
December 18th, 2007 at 4:39 pmIf Republicans and Conservatives don’t have the right to sue the Center for American Progress should it refuse to hire them because of their political beliefs, why should people be able to sue private employers for refusing to hire them because of their sexual preference?
Comment by cold_hard_left — December 18, 2007 @ 4:35 pm
Because one is not like the other?
jesus, are you all taking stupid pills? Since when does sexual preference equal treason? Republicans are traitors, and discrimination against them is in the best interests of national security, that’s plain enough. Gays, not so much.
December 18th, 2007 at 4:39 pmWhy does ever thread have to be turned into a wacko 9/11 conspiracy thread?
Comment by cold_hard_left — December 18, 2007 @ 4:38 pm
are you addressing frank?
December 18th, 2007 at 4:40 pm76 – If what you say is true, then the President has done a shockingly BAD job of tracking down the perpetrators. A really, really, bad job.
and back @ 51 – from a “conservative” standpoint, how are you going to “pay for” the so-called Bush policy???
December 18th, 2007 at 4:40 pmComment by cold_hard_left — December 18, 2007 @ 4:35 pm
jas, “huck” huckabee’s going to be the republican party’s candidate for president. relax get use to it.
December 18th, 2007 at 4:41 pmWhy does ever thread have to be turned into a wacko 9/11 conspiracy thread?
Comment by cold_hard_left
———————————————–
It probably has something to do with the fact that most of the people who post comment here are nuts.
December 18th, 2007 at 4:41 pmWhen you’ve got a Congress that openly hinders your war effort, it can only result in less security.
Comment by Frank M — December 18, 2007 @ 4:39 pm
well, the longer Bush is in office, the better the chances of another successful attack, considering the massive failure of 9/11, so you may have a point. Impeachment is the only protection we have, at this point.
December 18th, 2007 at 4:41 pmstop being so sensitive about those things Frank – it erodes your “get tough” credibility enormously. if we “spineless pinko moonbats” can take the insults hurled at us, what can be said of your durability?
December 18th, 2007 at 4:42 pm#73: Looks like we may be having another attack soon, because we have had to scale back the methods that worked so well before. Why? Because of the threat of partisan witch-hunts after the 2006 elections. When you’ve got a Congress that openly hinders your war effort, it can only result in less security.
Comment by Frank M — December 18, 2007 @ 4:39 pm
So if it happens on Bush’s watch it will be Congress’ fault but if it doesn’t it will be Bush’s fault. That’s moronic thinking. By the way what else do your tea leaves have to say?
December 18th, 2007 at 4:42 pmI wouldn’t be worried about old Huck as he is just the turd that has floated to the top at this point in time.
December 18th, 2007 at 4:43 pmWhy the large troll turnout for a story about someone they claim they don’t support? If this isn’t proof they are simple vandals, driven by a warped need to attack all they can’t understand, I don’t know what is.
December 18th, 2007 at 4:45 pmI wouldn’t be worried about old Huck as he is just the turd that has floated to the top at this point in time.
Comment by BillFromDover — December 18, 2007 @ 4:43 pm
yes, come november that whole load will be flushed, along with the treason party GOP.
December 18th, 2007 at 4:46 pmWhen you’ve got a Congress that openly hinders your war effort, it can only result in less security.
Comment by Frank M
————————————————————–
Right you are Frank, right you are.
December 18th, 2007 at 4:47 pmI don’t care how much the Repukes tout that Gay Marriage will destroy traditional marriage, it has not and will not affect my 30 YEARS OF MARRIAGE, which is longer than most Repukes stay married, uh, Newt, Rudy, and all the rest.
I know that the right just has a warped sense of reality, a very warped one.
And how come Atheists stay married so long, maybe it’s the lack of religion and just good personal values.
Buck Fush
December 18th, 2007 at 4:47 pmI don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone (sane/adult, that is) be so utterly and shamelessly dishonest with a straight face as Frank and Chuck are. Only the Cheerleader Prince could hope to outdo them in that regard.
Next they’ll be telling us the sky is green, and the grass is a vivid orange, and pretending to be insulted when we disagree.
December 18th, 2007 at 4:47 pmI would love to be able to do away with protected classifications altogether. I truly hope that someday we will all judge people on what they do instead of who they are.
Comment by missmolly — December 18, 2007 @ 4:39 pm
That would be great. We’d never have another coke-snorting, draft-dodging fratboy failure run for president again. In fact, that would end the republican party once and for all.
December 18th, 2007 at 4:49 pmafter all the garbage, do you expect anything but an insult from anyone, Chilly?
December 18th, 2007 at 4:49 pmLooks like we may be having another attack soon, because we have had to scale back the methods that worked so well before. Why? Because of the threat of partisan witch-hunts after the 2006 elections.
Comment by Frank M Stein — December 18, 2007 @ 4:39 pm
Wha’ the Hell are you talking about, Jake? Are you cutting and pasting again? Don’t you have other Vet’s biographies to steal as your own? Or am I on the Ignore List?
December 18th, 2007 at 4:51 pm104 – 1 divorce, and how many domestic homicides?
We didn’t miss the story about the Baptist Minister’s Wife killing him this past summer, and we didn’t miss the story of the homeschooled Fundy teens killing that girl’s parents, and we didn’t miss the story of the….really, the list is kinda long.
December 18th, 2007 at 4:55 pmHere’s Huckabee’s hyper-religious Christmas ad. Notice the passive-aggressive cross shape directly behind him.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=BjtGgfhKIvo
December 18th, 2007 at 4:55 pmCHL, coke snorting offends you? Why so silent during the reign of GW?
December 18th, 2007 at 4:55 pmMost conservatives will fall in line when it comes to a choice between family values and national security. The latter will always win. When we’re secure, then we can squabble over the rest of the values. Survival is the ultimate idology.
Comment by Frank M — December 18, 2007 @ 4:26 pm
Then I guess you guys felt the most secure under Bill Clinton because you found plenty of time and money to squabble over bullshit that meant nothing back then didn’t you.
December 18th, 2007 at 4:57 pmIn the interest of being on topic can someone mention sodomy?
December 18th, 2007 at 4:57 pmWe’ve all heard who you do not like Lefty. Who do you support?
Comment by cold_hard_left — December 18, 2007 @ 4:47 pm
At this point, I’m against conservatives and republicans, since they have proven over the years their inneffectiveness, weakness, incompetence and lack of compassion. The only thing they’ve been good at is winning questionable elections. Their foreign policy has weakened America and our military, their domestic policy has divided the electorate against itself. They are without scruples and ethics, and have admitted their desire for a One World Government that would be used to enable the rich to get richer, on the backs of the 98%. The next election will only be a tiny little step in taking back our country from traitors and opportunists; if it can be done, it will take many years. there are very few candidates that are worth the effort, and the republican slate is an international embarrassment. corporate bribery has all but ruined our country, so whoever can stand up against the big money will get my support.
December 18th, 2007 at 4:57 pmWha’ the Hell are you talking about, Jake?
Comment by DRxJ — December 18, 2007 @ 4:51 pm
Survival is the ultimate idology.
Comment by Frank M — December 18, 2007 @ 4:26 pm
When I read that I instantly thought of Jake. They just can’t keep away! They love it here so much.
December 18th, 2007 at 5:00 pmWhy are the religious right-wing fanatics so obsessed with sexual deviance?
December 18th, 2007 at 5:01 pmAnd, before anyone gets mad at me, by deviance I mean deviance from the “norm”. Perhaps the religious fanatics are just so bored with their own sex lives?
December 18th, 2007 at 5:02 pm#50: Most conservatives will fall in line when it comes to a choice between family values and national security. The latter will always win. When we’re secure, then we can squabble over the rest of the values. Survival is the ultimate idology.
Comment by Frank M — December 18, 2007 @ 4:26 pm
Who exactly is threatening you? Do the hordes of Islamic radicals have carriers off the coast and no one told me? To live your life like a scared little girl is a life not worth living. It’s just sad, if I were 1/100th of the coward you were, I wouldn’t be able to live with myself. Frank, however, brags about how much of a wimp he is.
December 18th, 2007 at 5:02 pmBecause as far as I know, Bush being an alleged coke snorter was a fictional creation of the media and left wing bloggers. Obama, on the other hand wears his past drug use as a badge of honor and tends to give teens the impression that they can abuse coke and still grow up to be POTUS.
Comment by cold_hard_left — December 18, 2007 @ 4:58 pm
even though all the evidence and all the testimony disproves your thesis. very good, little tool. and Bush proves that one can abuse alcohol and drugs, get a free ride all of your life, learn nothing from your affirmative action college admissions, and grow up to be POTUS, despite losing the elections. This is the legacy you’ve left.
And 9/11.
December 18th, 2007 at 5:02 pmI don’t vouch for these statistics, but Dr. Tom Ellis, chairman of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Council on the Family said that for “…born-again Christian couples who marry…in the church after having received premarital counseling…and attend church regularly and pray daily together…†experience only 1 divorce out of nearly 39,000 marriages — or 0.00256 percent.
Comment by cold_hard_left — December 18, 2007 @ 4:51 pm
Well I only know on Christian fundamentalist couple but they got divorced because he hooked on internet porn so bad he couldn’t bother to keep it from his 3 daughters. As a loyal participating church member it came as quite a surprise to his fellow church goers.
December 18th, 2007 at 5:03 pmFor more background on Mike Huckabee the dangerous extremist and radical reactionary, see:
December 18th, 2007 at 5:03 pm- “Top 10 Moments in Mike Huckabee’s Extremism.”
- “10 More Moments in Mike Huckabee’s Extremism.”
Survival is the ultimate idology.
Comment by Frank M — December 18, 2007 @ 4:26 pm
What does survival have to do with idols?
December 18th, 2007 at 5:04 pmCHL, a man admits his past was less than spot free and you want to cut him down. But you stand behind a man that has a dark and covered past. One who has never proven that he attended the Air National Guard on the dates he was supposed to. No evidence has ever come up that Bush was there. That’s AWOL. As for Bush’s coke history, it’s not a fantasy. It’s Bush’s past, along with pissed soaked beds.
You attack a man for coming clean but defend a man that cowers in the dark.
That says a lot about you.
December 18th, 2007 at 5:04 pmROFL!!!!!! CHL is debunked again!! LOL!!!!!
Comment by Dr. Matt — December 18, 2007 @ 5:02 pm
it is funny.
but let’s let jas speak for himself.
jas?
December 18th, 2007 at 5:04 pm116. Lefty, you have avoided the question. What is the name of the candidate you support? It’s easy as hell to be against someone. Who are you for?
Comment by cold_hard_left — December 18, 2007 @ 5:00 pm
I answered the question honestly and completely. there is no name yet. why are you so purposefully stupid and dense? By the way, it’s also none of your damn business.
December 18th, 2007 at 5:05 pmHellina – it’s only when Democrats do it that it becomes so offensive.
Ol’ Dubya’s coke use was just innocent youthful experimentation.
December 18th, 2007 at 5:06 pmNewt was Southern Baptist, but I don’t think he met the rest of Mr. Ellis’ criteria for his statistics.
Comment by cold_hard_left — December 18, 2007 @ 4:56 pm
But you don’t know do you. Something else you’re just pulling out of your ass to make your argument.
December 18th, 2007 at 5:06 pmComment by cold_hard_left — December 18, 2007 @ 5:04 pm
See the thing is some of us actually lived in that little town in maine. I’ll go with the large ears of a small town long before I bother with your articles
December 18th, 2007 at 5:08 pmYes, Dr. Matt, CHL is a total propaganda tool for the reichwing fascists. Ignores the fact the liberals have a very low divorce rate. Atheists also have a very low rate. But CHL is probably not married and never will be, who would want a scum wad like that anyway?
Kiss off CHL, you lose, or should I say, you loser.
Buck Fush
December 18th, 2007 at 5:08 pm#62: Really? And how many terror attacks have there been on US soil since 9/11? Not a single one.
Comment by Frank M — December 18, 2007 @ 4:30 pm
That’s true if you leave out the terrorists threats made by GW Botch and Dick(head) Cheney!
Remember all the hollow threats and red, orange alerts by our own completely worthless PresiDunce!!! That’s terrorism a$$hole!!
December 18th, 2007 at 5:10 pmDon’t let the troll’s “logic” deceive, or distract, you. The fact of the matter is the Huckster’s individual beliefs are irrelevant.
What is relevant is that he has proven, by word and deed, that he will enact policy based on what his Faith dictates. This includes decisions on scientific issues which surpass his understanding or conflict with his preconceptions. He has publicly expressed his belief in Biblical inerrency. Can he be trusted to make sound decisions based on the latest data?
Perhaps most disturbing? He has stated, unequivocally, that he refuses to separate his Faith from his professional life. This fact, alone, causes me to think he should be exempt from any public office.
December 18th, 2007 at 5:11 pmI am not yet convinced that he quit as long ago as he claims, or even that he has quit at all.
Comment by cold_hard_left — December 18, 2007 @ 5:08 pm
Even though there is no evidence, nor even any claims, of current useage. You’ll believe it because of your racist ignorance, your fear of the minority. No wonder we can’t win a war with your kind in charge.
December 18th, 2007 at 5:11 pmI believe that Obama used coke as a teen. I am not yet convinced that he quit as long ago as he claims, or even that he has quit at all.
Comment by cold_hard_left — December 18, 2007 @ 5:08 pm
And you base this on what? So if I were to say I an not conviinced that Bush isn’t a dull witted spoiled brat with a coke and alcohol problem I would be on equal footing I assume
December 18th, 2007 at 5:12 pmComment by Frank M — December 18, 2007 @ 4:26 pm
Who exactly is threatening you? Do the hordes of Islamic radicals have carriers off the coast and no one told me? To live your life like a scared little girl is a life not worth living. It’s just sad, if I were 1/100th of the coward you were, I wouldn’t be able to live with myself. Frank, however, brags about how much of a wimp he is.
Comment by Blue Stater — December 18, 2007 @ 5:02 pm
That Iraqi navy is getting ready to paddle their canoes up the Mississippi where they can toss their WMDs out on the shoreline, don’t you know. That’s why Frank/Jake types huddled under his bed pissing himself.
December 18th, 2007 at 5:13 pmI believe that Obama used coke as a teen. I am not yet convinced that he quit as long ago as he claims, or even that he has quit at all.
Comment by cold_hard_left — December 18, 2007 @ 5:08 pm
All this stuff you pulled out of your ass today you should be able to easily stick your head back up there where it’s comfortable.
December 18th, 2007 at 5:14 pmBuckie, not that it is any of your business, but within the next few months, I will have been married for 20 years, and have never been divorced.
Comment by cold_hard_left — December 18, 2007 @ 5:14 pm
my sympathies to your poor wife. is she out of the ER yet?
December 18th, 2007 at 5:15 pmAnd you base this on what? So if I were to say I an not conviinced that Bush isn’t a dull witted spoiled brat with a coke and alcohol problem I would be on equal footing I assume
Comment by dbadass — December 18, 2007 @ 5:12 pm
The difference is CHL doesn’t care one bit how stupid his argument is or how often he contradicts himself. We would be ashamed of ourselves if we spouted this inane drivel.
December 18th, 2007 at 5:16 pmI’m not wrong. I’m just considering the anthrax attacks to be a part of the 9/11. It was pulled off by the same group of militant muslims and was clearly synchronized with the twin towers attack.
Comment by Frank M — December 18, 2007 @ 4:35 pm
Bullsh|t!!! Got proof a$$hole?
“[...] considering?” hAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHA!!! Evidence sucks for assh0les like you, right???
December 18th, 2007 at 5:17 pmComment by Lefty Patriot — December 18, 2007 @ 5:13 pm
Just speculating but I think this may be an attempt to sound tough. Sort of a Stone Cold Steve Austin type of thing. Wanna clue us in cold_hard_left?
December 18th, 2007 at 5:17 pmcold hard left,
“Do you believe an admitted coke fiend that he has quit when he says he has quit?”
And the President? Admitted alcoholic, and drug user.
Do you believe him?
December 18th, 2007 at 5:17 pmWhen was the word “Fiend” ever employed as a descripter of Obama’s experience with recreational drugs? Well other than by a few here?
December 18th, 2007 at 5:19 pmComment by cold_hard_left — December 18, 2007 @ 5:14 pm
I call bullsh!t. If you are as old, or informed, as you claim; you would know the source of, and joke behind, Ret. Col. Jack Ripper.
Another ignorant troll discredits itself and will, probably, never even realize it.
December 18th, 2007 at 5:20 pmShe’s out shopping and supporting our economy Lefty. Managed to score a Wii this week and need to buy all of the accessories.
Comment by cold_hard_left — December 18, 2007 @ 5:18 pm
Jesus is so proud of you and your WIIfe!!! Just the time of year for unadulterated greed!!!
December 18th, 2007 at 5:21 pm148. It has nothing to do with his race. You are the only one who has played the “race card†in this discussion. Obama is an admitted coke fiend. Do you believe an admitted coke fiend that he has quit when he says he has quit?
Comment by cold_hard_left — December 18, 2007 @ 5:16 pm
Trying coke makes him a coke fiend? But congratulations are in order. You and the other idiot trolls managed to utterly derail a thread about huckabee and gay people. Now you’ve turned it into another thread about you and your stupid ideas and deranged opinions.
Nice work.
December 18th, 2007 at 5:22 pmSure deadbeatass. I used to post under a different name until it was “discontinued†by the censors at ThinkProgress. Then I decided to post a summary of what Progressives believe (things I had actuall read at ThinkProgress), and used the name “cold_hard_left†to post it. I have been using it exclusively since then.
Comment by cold_hard_left — December 18, 2007 @ 5:21 pm
“Censors”? I love it. What you really mean is that the administrators did their job for once and attempted to ban you for pointless and irrelevant comments. Since you can’t stand the lack of attention, you had to worm your way back on to TP under yet another sock puppet name.
December 18th, 2007 at 5:24 pmComment by cold_hard_left — December 18, 2007 @ 5:16 pm
I’ll take coked up over stupid!! You lose!!!
December 18th, 2007 at 5:24 pmComment by cold_hard_left — December 18, 2007 @ 5:21 pm
It is pronounced dbadass, just like it is spelled. Notice how I even got yhe underscores right and the lack of capitalization when addressing you
December 18th, 2007 at 5:25 pmT’was the night before Christmas, and all through the house, not a conservative was stirring, except for Charles Napier Mouse;
The stockings were hung on Chimpy with care, in hopes St. Huckie would soon be there;
The children were nestled all snug in their beds, while visions of trust funds danced in their heads;
Then back in Iraq there arose such a clatter, I turned on the news to see their children’s blood splatter.
And then, in a twinkling, I heard on the roof, the prancing and pawing of Larry Craig’s hoof.
As I drew in my hand, and was turning around, down the chimney St. Huckie came with a bound.
He was scary and hump, a right wing old elf, and I laughed when I saw him, in spite of myself.
A wink of his eye and a twist of his head, soon gave me to know I had a lot to dread;
And laying his finger aside of his nose, he took a big snort and up the chimney he rose;
He sprang to his sleigh, to his team gave a whistle, all he wanted was the keys to the missiles.
But I heard him exclaim, ere he drove out of sight, “Happy Christmas to all, vote for me and good-night
December 18th, 2007 at 5:27 pmI am in my early 40’s but admittedly do not know, or do not recall “the source of, and joke behind†someone pretending to be a Retired Colonel.
Comment by cold_hard_left — December 18, 2007 @ 5:23 pm
I believe it’s a reference to a character in Dr. Strangelove. I could be wrong, but that’s what I always assumed Ret. Col. Jack Ripper to be referring to.
December 18th, 2007 at 5:28 pmI will have been married for 20 years, and have never been divorced.
Comment by cold_hard_left
My sympathies to her, I am sure you are the perfect husband….hahahaha, can’t believe I even typed that, nah, you are scum.
Buck Fush
December 18th, 2007 at 5:30 pmNotice how conservatives are ready to blame Dems in congress if another attack happens. This refusal to take responsibility for anything is part of what and who they are. The first WTC attack happened 30 days into Clinton’s first term and there is absolutely no record of Clinton or anyone associated with his administration blaming papa Bush for that attack. And we weren’t attacked again by radical Muslims until 9 months into W’s administration. Do they give Clinton ANY credit for “keeping us safe” for the rest of his 8 years? Of course not. Fair play is just not in their nature.
And, they’re simply unable to grasp the facts – Frank is sure the anthrax attacks were part of the Muslim attack even though it has been documented that the anthrax in question originated in a U.S. military facility. Can’t these idiots even remember that an employee at a U.S. facility tried to sue the government for implicating him in the attack?
December 18th, 2007 at 5:32 pmCitizen_of_Earth,
Thank you for proving my point.
December 18th, 2007 at 5:32 pmI will have been married for 20 years[...]
Comment by cold_hard_left
When? In 19 years? If she doesn’t fight back or get a restraining order!!
I hope she has health insurance…even if it’s Universal!!!
December 18th, 2007 at 5:35 pmCitizen_of_Earth,
Thank you for proving my point.
Comment by Charles James Napier — December 18, 2007 @ 5:32 pm
I thought you left in a huff because people weren’t properly respectful to you. At least, that’s what you said in another thread.
December 18th, 2007 at 5:36 pmMissMolly, of course you’re right. And, yes, the character was a Colonel. I’m not “pretending” to be anything any more than he’s pretending to be cold, hard and left.
The main General in the story is played by George C. Scott – General Buck Turdjeson.
December 18th, 2007 at 5:37 pmI thought you left in a huff because people weren’t properly respectful to you. At least, that’s what you said in another thread.
Comment by gummitch
——————————————–
I guess I came back.
December 18th, 2007 at 5:39 pmComment by cold_hard_left — December 18, 2007 @ 5:16 pm
I’ll take coked up over stupid!! You lose!!!
Comment by dixie blood — December 18, 2007 @ 5:24 pm
Why Choose? With BUSH, we GOT BOTH!! ROTFL!!
Comment by republicans hate facts — December 18, 2007 @ 5:25 pm
I don’t like both together. Either coke up or drool like a moron!!
With both you’ve got a motivated moron!! That’s the prob. with GW Botch!!
December 18th, 2007 at 5:39 pmRender unto Caesar (civil marriage for all)and unto the LORD (religious, sacramental marriage).
December 18th, 2007 at 5:40 pmDo you believe an admitted coke fiend that he has quit when he says he has quit?
Comment by cold_hard_left — December 18, 2007 @ 5:16 pm
Coke “fiend”? You are an ignoramus aren’t you?
December 18th, 2007 at 5:41 pmCHL, congrats on your successful marriage. That is something to be proud of. I’ve been married for 28 years myself. But, you really can’t deny the fact that the lowest divorce rates are in “blue” states. I believe Mass. has the lowest divorce rate of all states.
December 18th, 2007 at 5:43 pmApparantly unlike you dixie, I have never and would never hit a woman.
Comment by cold_hard_left — December 18, 2007 @ 5:38 pm
Got proof that I’ve hit a woman? NO!! STFU MALE ASSH0LE!!!!
December 18th, 2007 at 5:44 pmComment by cold_hard_left — December 18, 2007 @ 5:18 pm
You mean by buying imported products at walmart, and underpaying workers? ROTFL!!! Sorry, you sad, fat old ‘tard, but the only thing you support is YOUR OWN CONTINUED IGNORANCE!!!
Comment by republicans hate facts — December 18, 2007 @ 5:20 pm
CHL thinks buying Christmas presents for the kids makes him some kind of super patriot. I got a Wii for my kid too but I didn’t know we deserved some kind of medal for it. Of course progressives believe we should actually do something before we pat ourselves on the back and shopping for imported goods isn’t exactly a sacrifice.
December 18th, 2007 at 5:46 pmSo, CHL, evidently your feeling is that Americans will be put off by a guy who did some drugs as a teenager, but embrace a guy who has been married four times, brought his mistress into his house while his wife and children were sleeping there and is now married to a woman who used to kill puppies in the process of demonstrating medical equipment. Do I have that right?
December 18th, 2007 at 5:46 pmOh crap, CHL hi-jacked the thread, I forgot not to respond to idiots, my bad.
Done with responding to CHL, you can’t fix stupid.
December 18th, 2007 at 5:48 pmOld-Lard-Left-Behind,
Do you stupid often? It seems so!!
December 18th, 2007 at 5:49 pmThat’s why it’s not worth it to treat trolls like normal human beings. They’re not worthy.
December 18th, 2007 at 5:50 pmCHL,
Do you believe the President has quit his demons?
December 18th, 2007 at 5:50 pmApparently CHL was inspired by the Swift Boat Smearers and is now dedicated to smearing Obama. Nice thing to be known for – smearing other people. Must be a very bitter person.
December 18th, 2007 at 5:51 pmCongrats on your long and successful marriage Jack. I hope you have many more.
Comment by cold_hard_left — December 18, 2007 @ 5:46 pm
I thought you were a fan of the adulterer mayor, this sounds disturbingly Mormon
December 18th, 2007 at 5:51 pmBut I heard him exclaim, ere he drove out of sight, “Happy Christmas to all, vote for me and good-night
Comment by Citizen_of_Earth — December 18, 2007 @ 5:27 pm
Is it ok if I post this on another site giving you credit? It’s really good.
December 18th, 2007 at 5:52 pmDone with responding to CHL, you can’t fix stupid.
Comment by Buckie Boy — December 18, 2007 @ 5:48 pm
And only a therapist would probably be able to get at the root of all that bitterness. Must be eating him up from the inside.
December 18th, 2007 at 5:52 pmSado-Machichist?
Obsessive-compulsive?
Social anxiety disorder?
Just wondering why people who obviously cannot or will not think progressively hang out at a web site dedicated to free thinking progressive spirit?
It amazes me how these folks come here to seemingly harass and intimidate.
Happy holidays everyone!
December 18th, 2007 at 5:52 pmCHL,
Do you believe the President has quit his demons? Or do you hold those you disagree with to higher standard?
December 18th, 2007 at 5:54 pmOne day Huckleberry, a bass player, showed up at band practice and almost came to blows with the drummer. The lead singer stepped in and asked, “What’s going on?”
Huckleberry said, “Your stupid drummer knocked one of my strings out of tune on purpose and will not tell me which one!!”
December 18th, 2007 at 5:54 pmI always buy American also, Corvette, Jeep, Dodge. But wait I’m an atheist, liberal…how could that happen in the small minds of the Reichwingers.
Buck Fush
December 18th, 2007 at 5:54 pmIs it ok if I post this on another site giving you credit? It’s really good.
Comment by Shayne — December 18, 2007 @ 5:52 pm
of course, thanks for asking, honestly, I was attempting to bring a little levity to another thread that had descended into the abyss of divisiveness, but then again, so has the country….
December 18th, 2007 at 5:55 pmComment by Citizen_of_Earth — December 18, 2007 @ 5:52 pm
That’s just the thing. Most of it isn’t even politically motivated. It’s simple vandalism. They get a kick out of derailing discourse and, like a five year old with a fart joke, they never get tired of it.
December 18th, 2007 at 5:55 pmBut it must be quitting time soon so perhaps this thread can revert back to talking about Mike the Zealot who is apparently so threatened by alternative sexual lifestyles that he feels the need to try and have them completely marginalized.
December 18th, 2007 at 5:55 pmHuckleberry reminds me that life is like a box of Christians!!
December 18th, 2007 at 5:59 pmBut it must be quitting time soon so perhaps this thread can revert back to talking about Mike the Zealot who is apparently so threatened by alternative sexual lifestyles that he feels the need to try and have them completely marginalized.
Comment by mary — December 18, 2007 @ 5:55 pm
You make the error of thinking that the threads are to discuss a specific subject. In reality, they are here to provide therapy for trolls who were completely ignored as children, and require constant attention as “adults.”
I don’t think Huckabee can say or write anything nutso enough to alienate the Religious Right. They’re certainly not going to be upset to read that he once referred to homosexuals as deviants that will burn in Hell, because that’s exactly what they already believe.
December 18th, 2007 at 6:00 pmComment by mary — December 18, 2007 @ 5:55 pm
“Mike the Zealot”. I might have to steal that, though, I’m still fond of “The Huckster”.
Back on topic: I’m amazed that he is still getting a pass on his record of mixing Church and State. I’m convinced that he would do anything to increase the power of American Evangelicals.
December 18th, 2007 at 6:00 pmApparantly unlike you dixie, I have never and would never hit a woman. Perhaps that helps explain our 19 + years of marriage, and total of 23 years together.
Comment by cold_hard_left — December 18, 2007 @ 5:38 pm
I’ve been with my husband 24 years and married 22 but again don’t feel I deserve some kind of medal for acting like a human being. What is wrong with you people.
December 18th, 2007 at 6:03 pmI don’t think Huckabee can say or write anything nutso enough to alienate the Religious Right. They’re certainly not going to be upset to read that he once referred to homosexuals as deviants that will burn in Hell, because that’s exactly what they already believe.
Comment by gummitch — December 18, 2007 @ 6:00 pm
That’s right on point. His past positions and statements whip up the RePugniScum reichwingers and also engages the left!!
December 18th, 2007 at 6:04 pmcold_hard_left has been reported for admitting he was banned for violating the ToS. Since he’s repeating the violation, I’m reporting him again. Even if you spar with him, do us all a favor and flag him as well. If we flag these people enough and consistantly, either they’ll eventually get tired of their sport and leave or they’ll come here to honestly debate. Either way, we win.
December 18th, 2007 at 6:05 pmRHF. Well, I did buy a new car assembled in America too Shayne if that makes you feel better. And my Wii was manufactured in North Bend, Washington, BTW.
Comment by cold_hard_left — December 18, 2007 @ 5:51 pm
Wow aren’t you just the most perfect little thing out there. This constant need for stroking you require makes it hard to believe you’ve been married for that long. It all seems quite juvenile.
December 18th, 2007 at 6:08 pmThanks for the explanation, and your right, simple vandalism, derailing discourse. Guess it is a sign of the times.
December 18th, 2007 at 6:08 pmof course, thanks for asking, honestly, I was attempting to bring a little levity to another thread that had descended into the abyss of divisiveness, but then again, so has the country….
Comment by Citizen_of_Earth — December 18, 2007 @ 5:55 pm
Just click on my name and you’ll find it. Thanks so much.
December 18th, 2007 at 6:10 pmFortunately, I was educated by a man who helped write speaches for Ronald Reagan and later for Jack Kemp. He helped me see Right from wrong.
Comment by cold_hard_left — December 18, 2007 @ 6:04 pm
So, you have no education. that figures. Your story also explains your propensity for lies and fantasy. A speechwriter for kemp? Jesus, how lame.
December 18th, 2007 at 6:18 pmI wasn’t banned for violating any ToS, Jeremy. I was banned because they didn’t like what I had to say. Some people can’t handle dissent, and only want to hear from people who say “me too.†Can you handle dissent, Jeremy, or are you only comfortable with the “me too†crowd.
Comment by cold_hard_left — December 18, 2007 @ 6:08 pm
And you base this belief on what?
December 18th, 2007 at 6:18 pmHmmm. So, cold_hard_left doesn’t like Huckabee.
AH-HA!! PROVES he’s ANTI-CHRISTIAN!!!
Why do you hate Christians, CHL????
Oh, the humanity!!
December 18th, 2007 at 6:20 pmOn the other hand, I am not convinced that Obama has quit his Demons. He’s so freakin’ thin. Could be the coke.
Comment by cold_hard_left — December 18, 2007 @ 5:55 pm
And your such an idiot it could be fetal alcohol syndrome, or mercury poisoning or inbreeding but my guess is all of the above.
December 18th, 2007 at 6:20 pmAs for the Democratic field, well, I would never vote for any of them…I get a sick feeling in the pit of my gut at the thought of any of those clowns in the White House.
Comment by Charles James Napier
That must be the sick feeling we have had in the pit of our guts for the last seven years.
You are going down along with the rest of the Republiscum. I hope all your heads explode at once. It won’t be a pretty sight but it will be nice to be rid of you vermin once and for all.
December 18th, 2007 at 6:23 pmCompletely off topic, but
Daryll’s first day in Rio!
I’ll check the news tonight to see if he’s been knifed yet.
December 18th, 2007 at 6:24 pmI hope all your heads explode at once.
I’m hoping for a scene right out of Mars Attacks!
December 18th, 2007 at 6:25 pmThere’s no telling if this is credible. We’ll have to wait and see.
Comment by cold_hard_left — December 18, 2007 @ 6:19 pm
no, but in typical Rovot fashion, you’ll toss it out there anyway. What an amoral pig you are.
December 18th, 2007 at 6:27 pmComment by cold_hard_left — December 18, 2007 @ 6:26 pm
I think you’ve already fished this lure. I suggest a better supplied tackle box
December 18th, 2007 at 6:28 pm“A scandal is brewing for John Edwards. Some are reporting that he has a love child on the way. If this is true, Edwards is toast.â€
http://www.gather.com/ viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977207374
Comment by cold_hard_left — December 18, 2007 @ 6:26 pm
Looks like Edwards has the republiscum pigs runing scared. can’t beat him on facts, so let’s get a little scandal made up. Shameless pigs, the whole bunch. the destruction and burial of the GOP can’t come soon enough; they’re destroying the USA more every day. And they’re running Rudy Giuliani, who can’t keep his dick in his dress for 5 minutes. What losers.
December 18th, 2007 at 6:29 pmComment by RUCerious — December 18, 2007 @ 6:24 pm
How will anyone know? He is already covered in Jesus’s blood
December 18th, 2007 at 6:30 pmMother of Edwards’ love child pregnant and in hiding. See http://www.drudgereport.com/
Comment by cold_hard_left — December 18, 2007 @ 6:28 pm
yeah, the drudge report. has as much veracity as your bullshit lies.
Repigs are scared to death, they can feel that they’re just about done, ruined and fu(ked.
December 18th, 2007 at 6:30 pmcold_hard_left, you have derailed the topic of this thread expertly. Your posts are not designed to foster conversation, but instead, to knock others down while building yourself up. If I’m given a choice between an echo chamber and dealing with the likes of you, Frank M, Daryll, et al, I’ll take the echo chamber.
Of course you say you were banned for disagreeing with the board. To you, anything goes, you should be allowed to say whatever you want, because any restriction is ’stifling dissent’, according to you.
Feel free to dissent, but leave off with the Ad Hominems and the off-topic posts, and you won’t have to deal with being flagged.
December 18th, 2007 at 6:31 pmCHL, the supposed “scandal” appeared in the Enquirer on 10/10/07 and then disappeared. I’m sure it’s real credible because Drudge has brought it up again, joke.
December 18th, 2007 at 6:33 pmMitt Romney and John McCain caught in bathroom tryst!
national enquirer got this directly from the fudge report!
December 18th, 2007 at 6:34 pmTwo instances of off-topic posts. Both flagged.
December 18th, 2007 at 6:34 pmMitt Romney and John McCain caught in bathroom tryst!
national enquirer got this directly from the fudge report!
Comment by RUCerious — December 18, 2007 @ 6:34 pm
I’m sure McCain was just interested in that secret Mormon underwear. Still, why was he tapping his feet?
December 18th, 2007 at 6:35 pmWhen the baby is born check the hair.
Comment by Billy Hill — December 18, 2007 @ 6:36 pm
Where you’re from babies have hair on their backs don’t they hillbilly?
December 18th, 2007 at 6:37 pmTwo instances of off-topic posts. Both flagged.
Comment by Jeremy in Denver — December 18, 2007 @ 6:34 pm
Only two? More like 50.
December 18th, 2007 at 6:37 pmAnd my Wii was manufactured in North Bend, Washington, BTW.
Comment by cold_hard_left — December 18, 2007 @ 5:51 pm
I work ten miles from North Bend, used to live there.
That facility is a distribution facility only. I’ve toured it several times.
quit making this shit up.
December 18th, 2007 at 6:38 pmComment by RUCerious — December 18, 2007 @ 6:38 pm
How can anyone take a fortysomething gamer seriously
December 18th, 2007 at 6:40 pmTo the tune of Peter Gabriel’s “Games Without Frontiers”:
Jeremy gets a red flag,
December 18th, 2007 at 6:42 pmRUC gets green…
They have ISP’s to fly them off,
Except for Jake and Pee.
Making up their screen names,
playing silly games…
Pounding on their keyboards,
shouting out rude names….
I wonder if cold_hard_left is posting this drivel (National Enqurer? Wow, they’re really picking the high-hanging fruits with this one) thinking that somehow, some woman claiming she had sex with Edwards and is pregnant by him makes up for Huckabee’s antics this article is about. Maybe that makes it ‘on topic’ to him.
Cold_hard_left, one of the reasons I’m trying to flag you off the board is that I’m frankly tired of the bs you and yours bring here. You are not here to foster discussion or try to convince us through reasoned thought that one or more of our positions are wrong. You’re here just to stir up $#!+. Guess what? That’s not why I come to Think Progress. I come here to get news and discuss it with the other regular posters. Posting an article from the National Enquirer? We both know that was not designed to foster rational thought on Edwards. You’re just sewing $#!+ hoping beyond hope that some of it sticks.
I’ve had enough. I am appealing to everyone who has had enough to deal with you. You and yours are getting bolder, thinking you’ve found an exploit, like a script kiddie who just wrote a bug that searches users computers for passwords and credit card numbers and mails them all off. I saw the blog descend into almost anarchy before Registration came. Registration is like the patch to windows that closes the Script Kiddie’s hole, and the virus signature that finds his little tool and removes it. However, dealing with you is much like dealing with the script kiddie. Both require constant effort. Keep your AV updated for the script kiddie, and flag you and yours when you get out of line.
If we can’t keep our blogs clear of you, then how can we deal with your politicians in Congress, I say.
So I’ll keep flagging. The rest of you? Unless you LIKE chl and his ilk, you should join me in flagging them, otherwise, if we get infected again, I’ll have to tell you the same thing I tell the person with antivirus software that is 12 months out of date: “YOu should have been more conscientious about looking after your machine.”
December 18th, 2007 at 6:49 pmSome are reporting [...]
Comment by cold_hard_left — December 18, 2007 @ 6:26 pm
Any moron who buys into “Some are reporting…” is just unable to be a rational animal much less a human being!!!
December 18th, 2007 at 6:50 pmShane, you know the MO for republicans. Get it out there. I guarantee you my Dad will see this from his friend or hear about it on Limbaugh’s program, and some time next year I’ll hear that “Edwards cheated on his wife and had a kid from it!” I’ve already heard this many times.
The Republican mantra: Get the lie out, spread it as far as possible. Even if it’s debunked, the debunking will appear only in select places. By the time it’s debunked, it’s already taken hold in gullible and harried minds everywhere.
*sigh*
And my father accepts everything Rash Limburger says, without question. :/
December 18th, 2007 at 6:55 pmHow can anyone take a fortysomething gamer seriously
Comment by dbadass — December 18, 2007 @ 6:40 pm
Nobody takes this moron seriously.
December 18th, 2007 at 7:04 pmEdwards scares the righties. They want Hillary to be the candidate, they can fight her. Edwards on the other hand, if he was the candidate, has a good chance of winning. And will be much harder to fight and derail.
December 18th, 2007 at 7:09 pmCHL: “A scandal is brewing for John Edwards…”
For 20 years now, it’s been the same song. Conservatives simply cannot win on the issues which are most important to our society. They stand against what most Americans want – universal healthcare, protection of the environment, a more equitable tax policy, economic fairness and justice, a sane foreign policy based on diplomacy as opposed to military might.
Every election cycle it happens again – they simply must come up with phony emotional issues and phony faux “scandals” or they have literally no chance of winning. As usual, this election will be a slime-fest. Conservatives, like pigs, will thrash around in the mud and try to dirty up as many issues as possible to obscure their own philosophical bankrupcy.
December 18th, 2007 at 7:11 pmAny moron who buys into “Some are reporting…†is just unable to be a rational animal much less a human being!!!
Comment by dixie blood
But, I have it on the authority of a friend of a friend’s mother-in-law’s second cousin that it’s the truth!
December 18th, 2007 at 7:45 pmKrazny: “Edwards scares the righties.”
You know who else he scares – the big corporations. He’s been sticking it to them for a long time and he’s the only frontrunner discussing their political power. Unlike Obama, he understands that they will never sit down at a big table and legitimately discuss, not to mention relinquish their own power. Big corporations hate Edwards. That’s the main reason I’ll vote for him in our primary.
December 18th, 2007 at 7:48 pmCold hard left thinks his Wii was manufactured in the United States???!!!! God, how stupid can these corporate tools get?
December 18th, 2007 at 7:50 pmCold hard left thinks his Wii was manufactured in the United States???!!!! God, how stupid can these corporate tools get?
Comment by Ret. Col. Jack Ripper — December 18, 2007 @ 7:50 pm
chl never bothers to think. he lets rush, drudge and bushco think for him. this way, he can live in fear and ignore the mass-murder and rape and theft done in his name. and he can play with his chinese Wii and fantasize about American superiority and power.
December 18th, 2007 at 8:06 pmI guess you’d probably have more fun that way, right, Huckybaby? The sheer thrill of forbidden sodomy?
December 18th, 2007 at 8:36 pmSomebodies been watching too many DieHard movies again. Sodomy is great. I like sodomy. In fact I know a lot of both hetero and homosexual couples who enjoy sodomy. Human sexuality is a beautiful thing.
December 18th, 2007 at 9:02 pmBert, you pitch or catch?
December 18th, 2007 at 9:13 pmBert flagged for off-topic post.
Here, Bert, let me help you. The topic is how Huckabee changes his position to suit his ambitions. I believe your term for it is ‘Flip-Flopping’.
December 18th, 2007 at 9:17 pmRight, Bert.
Larry Craig is a Republican.
December 18th, 2007 at 9:22 pmMark Foley is a Republican.
December 18th, 2007 at 9:23 pmJames McGreevey is a Republican.
December 18th, 2007 at 9:23 pmKen Mehlman is a Republican.
December 18th, 2007 at 9:27 pmWow…”Brokebackacrats” That’s good, but I like “Homopublicans” better, or”Closetervatives”. Either way, the more these ‘tards wail on about the sexuality of others, the “deeper” they turn out to be in it. And ‘ol Bertie seems to have worked himself into quite a lather…
December 18th, 2007 at 9:28 pmI doubt you get point, do you Bert?
December 18th, 2007 at 9:28 pmooh, bert’s all excited, we’re finally on a subject near and dear to his butt…
December 18th, 2007 at 9:42 pmAnd your list is just a start, Zooey. Grease up and throw down, Bertie.
December 18th, 2007 at 10:30 pmHuckabee is against gay marriage, arguing that “civilization†may not survive if “what marriage and family means†is “rewritten.â€
What family and marriage means is being rewritten on a daily basis, and not by gay couples. Just look at Britney Spears, who has been married and divorced twice and she’s barely 26, with 2 kids and 1 more reportedly on the way. And today we get news that her 16 year old sister is pregnant.
Now let’s see…marriage and family being rewritten. Yes, I see it now. If we let two men or two women legally live the same kind of life that some heterosexual couples yearn to live, then all hell is going to break loose. I still can’t figure out how that gay couple living at the end of my street has such a profound impact on my marriage and relationship to my wife, but if ol’ Huck says it will, then it must be true. It’s not enough that my wife and I got married in front of God and his children by a real live preacher (who has his 4 year college degree that permits him to preach in a church…which, by the way, I don’t see being a requirement in the Bible)…I had to pay the State of TN $25 for a license to get married. Yes, I had to pay the state government for permission to get married. Let’s see ol’ Huck talk about that.
December 18th, 2007 at 10:36 pmFunny how the people who profess to follow the will of God the most are the least willing to let it’s amazing creation simply function. Funny how the people who espouse the tremendous power of God’s will and wisdom seem the most likely to try to act in the name of it, as if it actually needed their help.
December 18th, 2007 at 10:44 pmNo coincidence that sacred and scared are almost the same…
December 18th, 2007 at 10:48 pmpresidential wanna bee Huck-a-yuck-yuck-abee
December 18th, 2007 at 10:57 pmbelongs to the particularly weird religion which has as it’s most prominent icon an ancient symbol of torture and execution, with it’s supposed leader hanging dead upon it.
And you want us to have faith in THAT?
The hatred of homosexuals is found only in the book of Leviticus.
Comment by dixie blood — December 18, 2007 @ 4:01 pm
No it isn’t. ;)
December 18th, 2007 at 11:25 pmIt’s a bit of a stretch to say Huckabee compared homosexuality with necrophilia. He simply put them both in a list of aberrant behavior. It’s not at all necessary to make misleading statements about Huck or any other conservative to get posters stirred up around here. Truthfully reporting what he said would have done the same thing. ;)
December 18th, 2007 at 11:37 pmDoes anyone else find it amazing, as opposed to surprising, that a Republican “front runner” is proud of his inability to separate his Faith from his professional life? That he “favors Faith when science is unsure”? That he’s a, would-be, fricken Theocrat?
December 18th, 2007 at 11:42 pmGuess Bertie went away. We hardly knew ye, Bert. From the inside, at least.
December 18th, 2007 at 11:42 pmOh, and downright stupid, you might want to go read the greek of the new testament before you bother to delve into your scriptural mastery, of the bible! While the bible is full of all sorts of hate, evil, ignorance and stupidity – it specifically condemns gay prostitution and pedophile (two favorites of the GOP), but not gay people or gay relationships.
Comment by republicans hate facts — December 18, 2007
Aw, c’mon, hate’s facts. I know your fellow libs will let ya get away with posting your little improvised attempts at knowledge, but you can’t expect the same from me, bud. Remember, I’ve seen ya at your worst. When you have a theology degree to signify that you’ve mastered scripture, I’ll give your ramblings some credance. Until then, bud, I know you’ll forgive me if I put more stock in the opinions of those whose education is in that area. And they don’t support ya. ;)
December 18th, 2007 at 11:50 pmGuess Bertie went away. We hardly knew ye, Bert. From the inside, at least.
Comment by marlow — December 18, 2007 @ 11:42 pm
that’s ok, ul has taken his place to keep the sewage flowing and the lies fresh. Ignorance is a common bond amongst our trollies.
December 18th, 2007 at 11:51 pmAnd they don’t support ya. ;)
Comment by upright left — December 18, 2007 @ 11:50 pm
but you have no proof or links of your opinion, do you? how convenient that you can claim superiority just because. you will be, what, 10 on your next birthday?
December 18th, 2007 at 11:53 pmt’s a bit of a stretch to say Huckabee compared homosexuality with necrophilia. He simply put them both in a list of aberrant behavior.
December 19th, 2007 at 12:04 amComment by upright left — December 18, 2007 @ 11:37 pm
You win it, UL. This evenings mealy-mouth award goes to you. At what point do we discover that homosexual necrophilia is rampant in the ranks of the self-righteous?
Yeah, putting a behavior in the SAME LIST as other BEHAVIORS isn’t COMPARING Them to those behaviors!!! What do you mean by ‘aberrant’ anyway? That word implies that somehow homosexuality isn’t ‘normal’ or ‘natural’, yet everything we know about the animal kingdom shows that it is BOTH within the greater population of nature.
He doesn’t need you to SPIN his bigotry, we ALL KNOW EXACTLY how bigoted and SELF LOATHING that HE and YOU BOTH ARE – ‘tard ;)
Comment by republicans hate facts — December 18, 2007 @
I knew I coud count on ya, bud. What Huck said is a comparison in the same way “Oranges and apples are fruits,” is a comparison. See, bud? Not so much a comparison as classification.
December 19th, 2007 at 12:04 amWhat do I mean by aberrant? I think you can figure that one out all by yourself, bud. Deviating from the norm is the common definition.
Well, dang, I got the ‘tard label. Are you old enough to be up this late, bud? I mean really, “‘tard”? I really thought you were all grown up in spite of the hysterical ravings that you usually resort to when challenged. ;)
Does this, from his own website, make one think he will make crucial decisions based on the most up to date info? Or, will he turn to ancient writings for counsel on current events?
My faith is my life – it defines me. My faith doesn’t influence my decisions, it drives them. For example, when it comes to the environment, I believe in being a good steward of the earth. I don’t separate my faith from my personal and professional lives.
http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=9
December 19th, 2007 at 12:05 ambut you have no proof or links of your opinion, do you? how convenient that you can claim superiority just because. you will be, what, 10 on your next birthday?
Comment by Lefty Patriot — December 18, 2007 @ 11:53 pm
I’ve taken the time to find the information for myself, bud. As usual, lefties expect others to do the work for them. You have access to the same internet that I do. And you can find a listing of local ministers in your phone book. ;)
December 19th, 2007 at 12:08 amDoes this, from his own website, make one think he will make crucial decisions based on the most up to date info? Or, will he turn to ancient writings for counsel on current events?
My faith is my life – it defines me. My faith doesn’t influence my decisions, it drives them. For example, when it comes to the environment, I believe in being a good steward of the earth. I don’t separate my faith from my personal and professional lives.
http://www.mikehuckabee.com/ ?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=9
Comment by pete — December 19, 2007 @ 12:05 am
It means he believes we should take reasonable measures to take care of the earth, but he opposes spiking trees and killing loggers, etc. ;)
December 19th, 2007 at 12:11 amComment by upright left — December 19, 2007 @ 12:08 am
So what’s your opinion, based on widely available information, about Mr. Huckabee’s record of separating Church and State in his own political career? What qualities do you think he brings to a job where diplomacy, with foreign nations and domestic minorities alike, will be crucial? Do you think he’s capable of accepting scientific data that conflicts with his Beliefs?
December 19th, 2007 at 12:16 amAnd you can find a listing of local ministers in your phone book. ;)
Comment by upright left — December 19, 2007 @ 12:08 am
well, I’d sooner talk to experts than brainwashed parties paid to regurgitate the lies you like to spout, but I accept your inability to back your words as the usual rightard lying. Not too surprised, really.
December 19th, 2007 at 12:20 amIt means he believes we should take reasonable measures to take care of the earth, but he opposes spiking trees and killing loggers, etc. ;)
Comment by upright left — December 19, 2007 @ 12:11 am
what are you reading? certainly not what you’re pasting. you are seriously deluded.
December 19th, 2007 at 12:21 amEver notice how “upright left” goes all folksy when he/she/it is most insufferable?
And what’s with the winky face on every post? Dumb.
December 19th, 2007 at 12:22 amIt means he believes we should take reasonable measures to take care of the earth, but he opposes spiking trees and killing loggers, etc. ;)
Comment by upright left — December 19, 2007 @ 12:11 am
Doesn’t, “I don’t separate my faith from my personal and professional lives”, fill you with foreboding?
And, as for my environmental concerns “spiking trees”, or acts of vandalism, don’t even enter my mind. Although, as someone who delights in disruption, I’m sure you would know more about a vandal’s psyche than I.
December 19th, 2007 at 12:23 amSo what’s your opinion, based on widely available information, about Mr. Huckabee’s record of separating Church and State in his own political career? What qualities do you think he brings to a job where diplomacy, with foreign nations and domestic minorities alike, will be crucial? Do you think he’s capable of accepting scientific data that conflicts with his Beliefs?
Comment by pete — December 19, 2007 @ 12:16 am
I would prefer that a Christian be the president of our country, but I don’t happen to think Huck is the right Christian for the job. I think he would separate his duties as a public servant from those as a Christian as much as he should. Enough to satisfy you? No. I think he is perfectly capable of accepting scientific data and assigning it the place it deserves. Do I think he will share your view of what the facts support? Never. ;)
December 19th, 2007 at 12:27 amwell, I’d sooner talk to experts than brainwashed parties paid to regurgitate the lies you like to spout, but I accept your inability to back your words as the usual rightard lying. Not too surprised, really.
Comment by Lefty Patriot — December 19, 2007 @ 12:20 am
I realize that you can only listen to “experts” who support what you choose to believe. Also not surprising. Isn’t it interesting that one can find “experts” to support most any position? ;)
December 19th, 2007 at 12:30 amIsn’t it interesting that one can find “experts†to support most any position? ;)
Comment by upright left — December 19, 2007 @ 12:30 am
except for you, you lazy liar. of course, your positions are ridiculous, so I guess we won’t hold our breaths.
December 19th, 2007 at 12:33 amDoesn’t, “I don’t separate my faith from my personal and professional livesâ€, fill you with foreboding?
And, as for my environmental concerns “spiking treesâ€, or acts of vandalism, don’t even enter my mind. Although, as someone who delights in disruption, I’m sure you would know more about a vandal’s psyche than I.
Comment by pete — December 19, 2007 @ 12:23 am
Of course spiking trees doesn’t enter your mind, since it’s done by those who share most of the same views as you do. It’s hard to accept that there are nuts on your side. You know how libs liken all prolifers to abortion clinic bombers? Same thing. Sucks when the shoe is on the other foot, eh, bud? ;)
December 19th, 2007 at 12:35 amsay, bud, you realize how unAmerican it is to wish for a christian president, don’t you? after all, the founders were anti-christian as far as government went, for good reason. you’re on the same plane as the taliban. Why am I not surprised? ;)
December 19th, 2007 at 12:36 amLet’s see some evidence of spiked trees, dingleberry.
Recent spiked trees.
December 19th, 2007 at 12:37 amhow many loggers have dies, bud?;)
ya can’t find one, can ya?
You’re such a transparent and obvious fool.
December 19th, 2007 at 12:37 amIsn’t it interesting that one can find “experts†to support most any position? ;)
Comment by upright left — December 19, 2007 @ 12:30 am
except for you, you lazy liar. of course, your positions are ridiculous, so I guess we won’t hold our breaths.
Comment by Lefty Patriot — December 19, 2007 @ 12:33 am
Lazy? Dang, bud, you really get testy when folks refuse to do your research for ya. You do whatever ya like with your breaths. I’m sure you’ll be fine. ;)
December 19th, 2007 at 12:38 amthat folksy horseshit is so republican, like the fake Connecticut cowboy (never elected, by the way). ;(
December 19th, 2007 at 12:39 amLazy? Dang, bud, you really get testy when folks refuse to do your research for ya. You do whatever ya like with your breaths. I’m sure you’ll be fine. ;)
Comment by upright left — December 19, 2007 @ 12:38 am
In other words, ya got nothin’. I figured as much. ;)
December 19th, 2007 at 12:40 amso where are all the dead loggers?
Like I said, a lazy liar. Bud. ;)
December 19th, 2007 at 12:41 amLet’s see some evidence of spiked trees, dingleberry.
Recent spiked trees.
Comment by Zooey — December 19, 2007 @ 12:37 am
First I get ‘tard and now dingleberry. It’s like Romper Room around here. And you people are responsible for leading your own lives?
December 19th, 2007 at 12:46 amSpiking was just an example of how one can’t just accept environmentalism at face value. Sounds great. How can anyone be against environmentalism? Unfortunately, environmentalism doesn’t always mean taking measured, prudent, proven actions to protect the earth while not doing undue harm to our economy or our people. ;)
I never use the word “‘tard.” And you are a dingleberry.
Prove the tree spiking. That’s all. You made the claim. Prove it.
This is not about whether or not environmentalists are always good people — this is about YOU making a claim that YOU can’t prove.
That makes you a dingleberry.
December 19th, 2007 at 12:49 amthat folksy horseshit is so republican
Comment by Lefty Patriot — December 19, 2007 @ 12:39 am
And danged if it doesn’t tick off you and zooette. ;)
December 19th, 2007 at 12:51 amStill haven’t seen that proof, dingleberry.
Funny that you knew I was talking to you, huh?
Zooette? Oh lordy, now I’m going to take to my bed in despair.
December 19th, 2007 at 12:53 amI never use the word “‘tard.†And you are a dingleberry.
Prove the tree spiking. That’s all. You made the claim. Prove it.
This is not about whether or not environmentalists are always good people — this is about YOU making a claim that YOU can’t prove.
That makes you a dingleberry.
Comment by Zooey — December 19, 2007 @ 12:49 am
Ok, I’ll slow down, zooette. ‘tard came from your buddy, hate’s facts. Click on over to google and educate yourself on the history of tree spiking. I know you think you’ll rant long enough to get me to do it for you so you can say “That has nothing to do with the topic.” Check my post to see if it says anything about when spiking occurred. It proves that one has a reason to be skeptical about environmentalists. Everything has to be qualified due to those at the extremes. ;)
December 19th, 2007 at 12:57 amZooette? Oh lordy, now I’m going to take to my bed in despair.
Comment by Zooey — December 19, 2007 @ 12:53 am
Very impressive! You’re improving on your ability to maintain control even better than hate’s facts and stupid. Now, back to the topic. ;)
December 19th, 2007 at 1:00 amNow the dingleberry is deciding who my “buddies” are, and what I’m going to say or do at any given moment.
I guess, being a dingleberry and all, you couldn’t possibly know that I have lived in the northwest, in a logging community, for a very long time. Tree spikes? Nada.
You’re doing exactly what you’re accusing LP of doing, moronic dingleberry.
Just provide the proof of YOUR allegation. Is that so hard?
December 19th, 2007 at 1:07 amNow, back to the topic. ;)
Comment by upright left — December 19, 2007 @ 1:00 am
Nah, you’re boring me.
I just got a better offer. Toooooodles.
December 19th, 2007 at 1:09 am“Now the dingleberry is deciding who my “buddies†are, and what I’m going to say or do at any given moment.”
Sorry, zooette, but ya gotta expect that when you are so predictable.
——
Just provide the proof of YOUR allegation. Is that so hard?
Comment by Zooey — December 19, 2007 @ 1:07 am
No more difficult than it would be for you to google it yourself. Remember how your teachers wouldn’t give you the answer because you’re more likely to remember it if you look it up yourself? ;)
December 19th, 2007 at 1:14 amNo more difficult than it would be for you to google it yourself. Remember how your teachers wouldn’t give you the answer because you’re more likely to remember it if you look it up yourself? ;)
hey bud, no dead loggers, no spiking. I guess you’re just a liar, besides being lazy; usual rightwing bullshit. Put your head back up your ass and kiss your tonsils goodnight, y’all. ;(
December 19th, 2007 at 1:17 amNo more difficult than it would be for you to google it yourself. Remember how your teachers wouldn’t give you the answer because you’re more likely to remember it if you look it up yourself? ;)
hey bud, no dead loggers, no spiking. I guess you’re just a liar, besides being lazy; usual rightwing bullshit. Put your head back up your ass and kiss your tonsils goodnight, y’all. ;(
Comment by Lefty Patriot — December 19, 2007 @ 1:17 am
Ah, hoping that getting nastier will make me do your research to prove ya wrong? Nice try, bud. But you forget that I’m accustomed to nastiness from your fellow libs. Sorry, no effect. ;)
December 19th, 2007 at 1:26 amAnother day, another ‘TARD teatsucker whining about his rhetorical treatment at the hands of citizens who used to be threatened with exile, imprisonment and even execution, slandered as traitors, communists and deviants (now ain’t that ironic) for daring to dissent from the Bushite theology. We sob for you, UL. The ‘tard shoe fits, pissant…wear it. A christo-taliban zealot seeking to lead a party that defended and covered for a homosexual pedophile, suffered multiple exposures of their twisted sexual hypocrisy, hoisted themselves on their petards so many times it actually got BORING to watch, has gone on record comparing homosexuality to necrophilia. Since your party seems to have committed just about everything BUT necrophilia up to this point, while condemning it all in public, how long will it be before we find out you scumbags have been “dabbling” in that harmless little pastime as well? Has my nastiness offended your widdle sensibiwities? Sorry ’bout that, ‘tard boy.
December 19th, 2007 at 1:56 amAh, hoping that getting nastier will make me do your research to prove ya wrong? Nice try, bud. But you forget that I’m accustomed to nastiness from your fellow libs. Sorry, no effect. ;)
Comment by upright left — December 19, 2007 @ 1:26 am
still afraid that you won’t be able to prove your points? not surprising, you chickenhawks never follow through. is it laziness or cowardice/ yes, it is.
December 19th, 2007 at 1:59 amWhat is truly amazing, in a sick way, is that anyone, when reading that statement would jump to “spiking trees and killing loggers” from a statement where a man mentions the environment while espousing his professed lack of ability to separate his religion from his governance.
Thankfully, I don’t jump to such horrible images when I see the word environment. Once again the UL troll proves it’s one sick fu(k.
December 19th, 2007 at 2:06 amInteresting that the so-called party of “smaller government” wants to use Big Government tactics to force their opinions on everyone else.
I guess the Republican party cannot turn away from their old platform planks fast enough!
GOP: Used to be against big-government –> Now for biggest government in over 50 years.
GOP: Used to be for states-rights –> Now for Federal Government over states rights.
GOP: Used to be for civil rights –> Now hates the idea of civil rights.
Too many observable trends, not enough space on this web site to name them all. ;-)
December 19th, 2007 at 7:26 amI realize that you can only listen to “experts†who support what you choose to believe. Also not surprising. Isn’t it interesting that one can find “experts†to support most any position? ;)
Comment by upright left — December 19, 2007 @ 12:30 am
A perfect description of our Dear Leader.
December 19th, 2007 at 8:20 amAnd he thinks he was created in the “image of God!†Huckleberry is a supertitious(sp?) fool. Religion does that!! Weakens the mind and finds all kinds of hatred it all the wrong places!!!
The hatred of homosexuals is found only in the book of Leviticus. That book also says that I can sell my daughters into slavery!! The Book of Leviticus is the most hateful chapter found in either the Torah or the Bible!!!
Comment by dixie blood — December 18, 2007 @ 4:01 pm
Homosexuality and other heterosexual sins are mentioned in other parts of the Bible.
Leviticus is a book of law. It is not a book about hatred. I suppose books of law are hateful to lawbreakers.
(Remember Christ says in the New Testament that all the laws hang on the greatest two commands.)
The specific law to which you refer in Leviticus 18.21 “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable,†does remark on the behavior, but since a specific lawbreaker is not mentioned, you apparently are conjecturing about the attitude toward the lawbreaker.
This verse is nestled between these verses: ” Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD†and “Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.â€
This, at the very least, puts it into some very bad company.
Further, I don’t find the “…sell my daughters into slavery,†in the list of
http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm.
Nonetheless, believe it’s safe to say that you can only sell your daughter if you’re living under the Law of Moses.
All, of which, is irrelevant since you probably don’t live under the Law of Moses. Neither do Christians.
December 19th, 2007 at 9:46 am“…has gone on record comparing homosexuality to necrophilia. Since your party seems to have committed just about everything BUT necrophilia up to this point, while condemning it all in public, how long will it be before we find out you scumbags have been “dabbling†in that harmless little pastime as well? Has my nastiness offended your widdle sensibiwities? Sorry ’bout that, ‘tard boy.”
Comment by marlow — December 19, 2007 @ 1:56 am
Of course, Huck didn’t “compare” homosexuality and necrophilia. He simply included both in a list of aberrant behavior. Aberrant behavior doesn’t follow party lines, bud, sorry. It’s too bad you feel somehow responsible for the aberrant behavior of people who vote the way you do. Personally, I only take responsibility for my own behavior. If someone who votes the way I do practices aberrant behavior, that’s not my problem.
December 19th, 2007 at 10:07 amOffended by your nastiness? C’mon, bud. I just noted that nastiness is to be expected from your kind. It’s only effective when it’s unexpected. One only has to consider the source. ;)
still afraid that you won’t be able to prove your points? not surprising, you chickenhawks never follow through. is it laziness or cowardice/ yes, it is.
Comment by Lefty Patriot — December 19, 2007 @ 1:59 am
Ohh, pat, bringing out the big guns! Cowardice, yet. Keep trying, bud. I’m sure you eventually hit on something that will cause be to take the bait. ;)
December 19th, 2007 at 10:10 am#303 – “All, of which, is irrelevant since you probably don’t live under the Law of Moses. Neither do Christians.” Comment by bitblt — December 19, 2007 @ 9:46 am
“c”hristians in the US don’t live under the law of the Bible, either.
They practice a “pick & choose” approach to the Bible in which only certain verses are important while others are to be completely ignored. For some reason, this is considered “ok” by them.
On of the “ignored” rules was stated by Jesus: “do to others what you would have them do to you,”
For some reason, American “c”hristians apparantly want to have laws passed against their right to marry and their right not to be denied employment based on their sexual orientation.
December 19th, 2007 at 10:12 amThe POOR ‘TARD thinks HIM BEING STUPID ticks people off!! ROTLF!!!
Wow, how PATHETIC are these little anti-social nerds? HYSTERICAL ;)
Comment by republicans hate facts — December 19, 2007 @ 2:02
Dang, bud, I thought ya were getting a little self control and even complimented ya on it. Then ya go off on one of your signature hysterical rants and blow it. Oh well, keep trying, bud. You’ll get there. ;)
December 19th, 2007 at 10:16 am#304 – “Aberrant behavior doesn’t follow party lines, bud, sorry.”
I have to agree with you on that one. No single party has a lock on righteousness, nor on aberrant behavior. I just think it’s rather amusing that the so-called party of “take responsibility for your actions” has refused to take responsibility for their actions as of late.
“Personally, I only take responsibility for my own behavior.” Comment by upright left — December 19, 2007 @ 10:07 am
You also seem to lump all liberals/progressives into one oh-so convenient group and then lambast any/all of them when you don’t agree with the actions of an extreme few. How very. . . . “responsible” of you. ;-)
December 19th, 2007 at 10:17 amAs to the accusation of picking and choosing scripture …
You may have noticed that Christians don’t require animal sacrifices and that Christians don’t have to be circumcised. Do you know why that is?
The Apostle Paul, yeah that rascally religion hijacker, that self described Pharisee of Pharisee, that commentator on sexual behavior – both heterosexual and homosexual, who wrote such beautiful words about Christ and taught us much of what we know about Spirit and God’s Grace, has something to say about the relationship of Christians to the law.
Romans 7:4,5,6,
December 19th, 2007 at 10:30 am
You also seem to lump all liberals/progressives into one oh-so convenient group and then lambast any/all of them when you don’t agree with the actions of an extreme few. How very. . . . “responsible†of you. ;-)
Comment by Democrat Soldier — December 19, 2007 @ 10:17 am
Nope, I only make generalizations about viewpoints for the sake of discussion with the understanding that there are variations in every group. ;)
December 19th, 2007 at 10:35 am“you also died to the law through the body of Christ,”
Hey bitbit, what about when Jesus said, I come not to destroy, but to fufill…??? All the laws were not washed away with the coming of jesus. And Christians today DO pick and choose what laws they want to follow and which they don’t. You can’t argue otherwise.
Who knows how much of a new order Jesus wanted to bring, because we know little about him. We have some of his words, but then we also have the preferences of the guys who ran around and tried to spread the new religion and remake it to what they wanted.
It’s a shame that most christians today aren’t really even “christians,” per se. They instead are people who follow many of the old jewish laws, they accept the old testament completely, and merely add to the top of that, like a spurt of whip cream, the ponderings of a jewish messiah called jesus. (Along with that, was introduced the century old idea of the virgin birth, which had appeared in many previous myths and legends.) It’s a shame that the see nothing new in the practices of Jesus. They still war, still judge others, still cling to old laws, still worship wealth and still enjoy destroying the lives of other people.
Maybe we need Jesus to come back around and clarify things for you new christians.
December 19th, 2007 at 10:48 am#309 – Comment by bitblt — December 19, 2007 @ 10:30 am
Bitbit, if you don’t understand the words of the right-whining “c”hristians about how the Bible is the WHOLE word of God, and that everything IN the Bible is supposed to be followed, I wish you would stop commenting on it.
Either that, or you don’t listen to the right-whining “c”hristians and purposefully ignore them when they spout their nonsense. (One of the very few things we would agree upon, if that is what you do.)
Then again, if wishes were fishes we’d all cast nets.
December 19th, 2007 at 10:49 amBased on the words of Jesus, the right-whining “c”hristians are treaing others in the exact same way they want to be treated.
This means that the so-called “war on Christmas” was directly due to the “c”hristian tendancy to eschew any other faith and they brought it upon themselves.
This means that “c”hristians want to have laws passed that would deny them getting married.
This means that “c”hristians want to be fired for their sexual orientation with no recourse to litigation.
Yup, that is exactly how American “c”hristians want to be treated, based on their following the words of Jesus.
December 19th, 2007 at 10:54 amAs far as homosexuality, it’s the same old story. Huckabee’s comments are no surprise. Because there have been gays deeply involved in the government, military and religious power structures for centuries.
Gays are rampant in the Republican party as well, and you would ask why if they are so hated. Because powerful men acknowledge that sexuality is not really that important, and what fellow senators do is no business of theirs. Money, wealth, power, and control over the culture and populace is what’s important. Gays can actually help them, assist them in maintaining unfair systems, the same systems which supress their freedom.
Why would gays do this? Because breaking out of a dishonest life is a lot of thankless work. It’s easier and more profitable to go along with the power structure, and get all the advantages of a privilaged life, to “get theirs” essentially, and not worry about the millions of other gays who are struggling for freedom. Freedom? Who needs that when all your Republican friends respond to your closeted behavior with rewards. Respect? Who needs that when you can be feared and have power instead. Family and a legacy? Who needs gay marriage with a loved one when you can have a brokeback mountain marriage instead, with the wife doing her duty, producing sons for you, while you go on your “buddy” trips or shake your foot under a bathroom stall.
For those gays who reject all that, who have seen the light, and recongnize that living an honest life, a free life and a true life is more important and is the true calling, there is a wall of resistance.
It is not hard to be gay in a certain sense. Or hard to get a job if you’re gay. After all, Huckafruck will hire you. But you’ll have to be a part of the lies and the torment of others. What is hard is being gay and being honest. What is hard is being gay and having your life validated by the culture around you.
December 19th, 2007 at 11:07 am“This means that the so-called “war on Christmas†was directly due to the “câ€hristian tendancy to eschew any other faith and they brought it upon themselves.”
Most Chrisitans have no problem with others practing their religions. We just don’t want those of other, or no, religions trying to remove Chrisitanity from public view and saying that’s what the founders wanted.
“This means that “câ€hristians want to have laws passed that would deny them getting married.”
Yes, for any who choose to live an immoral life style.
“This means that “câ€hristians want to be fired for their sexual orientation with no recourse to litigation.”
Only in a very limited number of positions in which one’s sexuality could be construed as being pertinent to the job or those affected by the job. Otherwise people should be allowed to hold any job as long as they don’t make an issue of their choice.
“Yup, that is exactly how American “câ€hristians want to be treated, based on their following the words of Jesus.”
Comment by Democrat Soldier — December 19, 2007 @ 10:54 am
Exactly. ;)
December 19th, 2007 at 11:36 am“Gays are rampant in the Republican party as well, and you would ask why if they are so hated.”
Comment by Katie — December 19, 2007 @ 11:07 am
Because they aren’t hated. Their choice of lifestyle isn’t accepted, but they still recognize that the Republican party is needed to balance the far left.
December 19th, 2007 at 11:43 am#316 – “Their choice of lifestyle isn’t accepted”
Except for the fact it’s not a “chosen lifestyle”.
“they still recognize that the Republican party is needed to balance the far left.” Comment by upright left — December 19, 2007 @ 11:43 am
And that Republicans continue to part ways with what the Republicans used to stand for (limited government, states-rights, deficit spending, civil-rights).
The truth will set you free. . . . ;-)
December 19th, 2007 at 12:26 pm#315 – “This means that “câ€hristians want to have laws passed that would deny them getting married.â€
Yes, for any who choose to live an immoral life style. Comment by upright left — December 19, 2007 @ 11:36 am
Yes, hypocritical “c”hristians are immoral and deserve to be treated as they treat others. I’m glad we agree on some things! ;-)
December 19th, 2007 at 12:28 pmWell to be fair, ‘upright left’ is a perverted, disturbed little ‘tard ;)
Comment by republicans hate facts — December 19, 2007 @ 2:08 am
Actually, think he/she/it is related to Mighty Aphrodite — since it doesn’t know how to research and provide links to it’s moronic allegations.
December 19th, 2007 at 12:44 pmAnd that Republicans continue to part ways with what the Republicans used to stand for (limited government, states-rights, deficit spending, civil-rights).
The truth will set you free. . . . ;-)
Comment by Democrat Soldier — December 19, 2007 @ 12:26 pm
Yep, some do and that’s why they aren’t getting reelected. ;)
——
Yes, hypocritical “câ€hristians are immoral and deserve to be treated as they treat others. I’m glad we agree on some things! ;-)
Comment by Democrat Soldier — December 19, 2007 @ 12:28 pm
I’m not sure why you say homosexual Christians are hypocritical, but, yes we do agree on the immoral part. ;)
December 19th, 2007 at 5:03 pmActually, think he/she/it is related to Mighty Aphrodite — since it doesn’t know how to research and provide links to it’s moronic allegations.
Comment by Zooey — December 19, 2007 @ 12:44 pm
You needn’t worry about the fact that I won’t do your research for ya, zooette. I’m sure you were right in your earlier post. You aren’t aware of it so it must not have happened. ;)
December 19th, 2007 at 5:05 pmComment by upright left — December 19, 2007 @ 5:05 pm
You are so damned lame — and quite a liar.
How very un-Christian of you.
December 19th, 2007 at 8:27 pmComment by upright left — December 19, 2007 @ 5:05 pm
You are so damned lame — and quite a liar.
How very un-Christian of you.
Comment by Zooey — December 19, 2007 @ 8:27 pm
Which part of the comment was a lie, zooette? That you needn’t worry about doing the research or that you are unaware of an event so it must not have happened?
December 20th, 2007 at 12:00 amUn-Christian? Ah, the irony of you as the judge of what is Christian. ;)
#320 – “I’m not sure why you say homosexual Christians are hypocritical, but, yes we do agree on the immoral part. ;)” Comment by upright left — December 19, 2007 @ 5:03 pm
Wow, you really go out of your way to ignore the truth, don’t you?
The self-named heterosexual “c”hristians that refuse to follow the words of Jesus (”Treat others as you would have them treat you”) are, by far, much more hypocritical. They “claim” to follow Jesus, but refuse to actually do so.
They (self-named heterosexual “c”hristians that refuse to follow the words of Jesus) are the most immoral people in the world, and will be very surprised when they fail to be recognized by Jesus when they are judged. (”You refused me, so I refuse you.”)
Maybe, some day you will begin to address the beam in your eye before you start complaining about the splinter in others eyes, but I’m not holding my breath waiting for your enlightment.
I’ll keep praying for you, though!
December 20th, 2007 at 4:48 pmThe self-named heterosexual “câ€hristians that refuse to follow the words of Jesus (â€Treat others as you would have them treat youâ€) are, by far, much more hypocritical. They “claim†to follow Jesus, but refuse to actually do so.
They (self-named heterosexual “câ€hristians that refuse to follow the words of Jesus) are the most immoral people in the world, and will be very surprised when they fail to be recognized by Jesus when they are judged. (â€You refused me, so I refuse you.â€)
Maybe, some day you will begin to address the beam in your eye before you start complaining about the splinter in others eyes, but I’m not holding my breath waiting for your enlightment.
I’ll keep praying for you, though!
Comment by Democrat Soldier — December 20, 2007 @ 4:48 pm
Thanks for the prayers, bud! I didn’t know you had it in ya. I always appreciate prayers no matter the source.
Now, to your comment. You just really don’t get it, do ya bud? I apply the same standards to myself as to everyone else. If I’m doing something that is prohibited in the Bible, I’m committing a sin and have no complaints about being called on it. Had I been attracted to my own gender and chosen to live as a homosexual, I’d never expect others to condone it. Similarly, I don’t ask anyone to condone the sins that I do commit. (I’m not sure what you mean by “self-named Christians.” Only the individual knows if he is a Christian or not, so all Christians, hetero and homo, are “self-named.”
December 21st, 2007 at 1:04 amI don’t make a point of telling homosexuals my opinion of their lifestyle. I don’t advocate any different treatment of them except for recognizing their “unions.” I don’t think the majority is under any obligation to equate their “unions” with marriage as long as the majority thinks it’s immoral. That is not un-Christian. It allows them to live their lives, doesn’t require the majority to compromise their beliefs, and leaves the condition of their souls to them and God.
I appreciate your concern for the condition of my soul as well. While I’ll have plenty to account for, I’m not the least bit concerned that I’ll hear Jesus say “I never knew you.” See, even if I was guilty of the hypocrisy that you suggest, that’s not what determines one’s salvation. ;)
#325 – “I don’t think the majority is under any obligation to equate their “unions†with marriage as long as the majority thinks it’s immoral. That is not un-Christian. It allows them to live their lives, doesn’t require the majority to compromise their beliefs, and leaves the condition of their souls to them and God.” Comment by upright left — December 21, 2007 @ 1:04 am
I always pray for those I think need the help. Much like the lawyer-like attitude you have in your perspective.
Based on your above statement, the people who actively supported the laws against mixed-race marriages are fine and dandy. It was something that was not supported by the majority, so it was fine to keep those laws on the books.
Much like slavery is supported in the Bible, the majority of Americans that had slaves and fouhgt to keep slaves are fine and dandy as well.
I think you seem to forget that the practices of yester-year were something that the majority have always stood for. Or at least didn’t do much to stand against. It doesn’t make it right, or moral, just “majority supported”.
You have to admit that 50 years ago, openly gay men & women didn’t have much support for any discrimination. During the late 70’s, when Harvy Milk was murdered, Dan White used the famous “twinky defense” to receive a reduced sentence. It wans’t “right”, but the judge was influenced by the “majority” opinion that the murder was less important that had he killed a straight man.
The times, they are-a changing! Eveentually, gay people will be afforded the same rights as their straight counterparts, and it won’t bring about the destruction of the US anymore than did allowing inter-racial marriages. There were just as many people crying about how churches would be forced to hold inter-racial marriages as there are crying about forced same-sex marriages.
The law will never force a single church to conduct a marriage they don’t want to perform. It just does not happen. Many churches have not allowed multiple-divorced people to have services at their churches, but no discrimination changges have been filed.
People who refuse to follow the teachings of Jesus, and treat others as they would like to be treated, are guilty of hypocrisy. I have been guilty of this myself, but I try to correct my mistakes.
Well, enough of my rant. Merry Chrismas, and Happy Holiday’s, all!
December 21st, 2007 at 8:50 amI always pray for those I think need the help. Much like the lawyer-like attitude you have in your perspective.
Well, enough of my rant. Merry Chrismas, and Happy Holiday’s, all!
Comment by Democrat Soldier — December 21, 2007 @ 8:50 am
Once again, thanks for the prayers. I always need the help.
Oddly enough, I anticipated your use of racism and slavery to justify homosexuality. Interracial marriage isn’t condemned by the Bible, is it, bud? Kind of makes it irrelevant to the discussion. Sorry. As for slavery, the Bible addresses it as a reality of the time. It doesn’t condone slavery. Homosexuality is different in that it is condemned by the Bible and is believed to be morally wrong by the majority. Yes, that is changing and homosexual marriage will soon be commonplace. The morality of our society has been declining steadily and will continue to the end.
December 21st, 2007 at 10:20 amI don’t think homosexual marrigage will contribute to any sudden decline in marriage and family. The decline will continue as in the past. Acceptance of it may result in people choosing to live that lifestyle who otherwise wouldn’t have. The general effect will be reinforcement of the turn away from God and everything that goes along with that.
But, I’m not worried about how it turns out. I’m assured. Merry Christmas to you and yours!
#327 – So, you’re saying that at the time, Bible-thumpers never claimed the Bible as their reason for fighting against interracial marriage?
Based on arguments at the time: Acts 17:24-28 says that God made man “and hath determined the bounds of their habitation.” Genesis 28:1, says that the Canaanites were the “servants of servants” and Isaac called Jacob and said unto him, “Thou shalt not take a wife of the daughters of Canaan.” Sorry, but you’re wrong on that one.
Uproight left said “As for slavery, the Bible addresses it as a reality of the time. It doesn’t condone slavery.”
Wow, you really don’t read the Bible at all, do you?
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
Again, you’re wrong about your assumptions of what the Bible actually says.
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:08 am