When a Liberal Says “Labels Don’t Matter”…
March 24th, 2008 at 02:35am Mark Noonan
…watch out! You’re about to subjected to an attempted con job:
Also, and more immediately, if Obama wins the Democratic nomination, how will his promise of a new and less polarized type of politics fare against the Republican attacks that since the 1980s have portrayed Democrats as far out of step with the country’s values?
Obama, in an interview, said that “a lot of these old labels don’t apply anymore.”
He said he was a progressive and a pragmatist, eager to tackle the big issues like health care and convinced that the Democrats could rally independents and disaffected Republicans to their agenda.
Translation: “If I am tagged as a liberal in November, then I lose; so, MSM, if you’ll kindly call me a ‘progressive and a pragmatist’, that would be helpful.”
The way Obama’s Administration would work is that nearly all Democrats would vote with him nearly all the time; meanwhile, Sen. Bernie Sanders (a socialist who, naturally, caucuses with the Democrats) would stand in as an “independent”, and some wet-noodle GOPer would be coralled to give a semblance of “bi-partisanship” to what will be a relentlessly ultra-liberal program. You just watch - if Obama becomes President you’ll see a phalanx of Democrats with Sanders and some GOPer up front and center, and Obama will bald-faced state that he brought Democrats, Republicans and independents together. And the MSM wouldn’t challenge it.
The thing is, if Senator Obama really wanted to bridge the divide, then he would have to be willing to give up some of what he wants. Central to GOP existence these days is a desire to win the war - we’d probably even go along with socialised medicine if we could, in turn, ensure that a President Obama commits himself to victory in Iraq. See how it would work? The GOP would swallow Obama’s healthcare proposals, Obama would swallow having to win a war. That would be bridging the divide - telling us that the last 8 years have been an unmitigated disaster which must be wiped clean from the national plate…well, that just tells us that you’re a knee-jerk leftists who doesn’t understand the first thing about compromise.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Democrats
110 Comments
1. Freedom1 | March 24th, 2008 at 3:10 am
Barack Hussein Obama - the most liberal Senator in the Senate and a communist. How’s about that label?
2. Dennis | March 24th, 2008 at 3:23 am
The problem with this, Mark, is that “victory” in Iraq has already been achieved, according to conventional standards. The GOP continually redefines victory according to increasingly unrealistic criteria that no candidate, Democratic or Republican, can meet when they actually must be attained by the Iraqis themselves. It doesn’t matter who becomes president in the end, if the Iraqi people and political structure cannot make their “democracy” work according to America’s utopian ideals. Obama, McCain or anyone else would be a fool to hang his or her presidency on such a fragile thread.
The Bush admin has created a Catch-22 situation for America, and any president who doesn’t recognize this does not deserve the confidence of the electorate. It is time to turn our attention to things that can be known and dealt with rationally. Chief among these is our economy, without which we soon will not have the wherewithal to wage war at all - let alone a war bleeding taxpayers over $400 million every day.
3. Freedom1 | March 24th, 2008 at 3:27 am
From the article above:
Obama writes about the Communist “Frank and his old Black Power dashiki self” giving him advice. Sounds a little (or a lot) like Obama’s pastor of 20 years Reverend Jeremiah Wright.
Obama is dangerous. He should not be President. He should not be a Senator.
4. Freedom1 | March 24th, 2008 at 3:45 am
Compare the above with the following. There’s a disturbing pattern developing…
“Revisiting Obama’s Church” - IBD
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=289784519414202
5. Dennis | March 24th, 2008 at 4:34 am
Freedom1 - Jesus Christ called the idolatry of the free market into question when he said, “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man enter the kingdom of heaven” (see Matthew 19:24).
6. Freedom1 | March 24th, 2008 at 4:48 am
Dennis,
Oh, please. You don’t understand Christianity.
7. TiredofLibBullSh** | March 24th, 2008 at 6:35 am
If labels don’t matter, then being truthfully called a “liberal” should not bother him.
Plain and simple.
But, in typical liberal fashion, his statements are contradicting and on the fence.
Why are liberals so scared of being liberals?
8. Christian Wright | March 24th, 2008 at 7:52 am
Doesn’t Liberal mean you believe in Liberty?
Isn’t liberty supposed to be the real reason for this country’s foundation? Liberty from tyranny. Liberty from government endorsed faith. Liberty to express freedom of thought.
It is not called the Statue of Progress, is it?
9. TiredofLibBullSh** | March 24th, 2008 at 9:31 am
C Wrong,
If that is the case, then why is Obama afraid of that word?
The definition you distortly describe is that of “classic liberalism”. Classic liberalism emphasizes individual rights, equality of opportunity, freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy, and a transparent system of government.
Today’s liberals or “modern liberalism” is just the opposite. Today’s liberals want MORE power of government, restrictions on speech (hate speech regulation, which could mean anything, fairness doctrine and McCain-Feingold to name a few), equal opportunity as far as certain people get advantages solely because of race, rule of law (when it suits them), heavy regulation of the economy and a disdain for a market system.
Why are liberals afraid of “liberal”? - With modern liberals I can see why.
10. Diana Powe | March 24th, 2008 at 9:36 am
Ahh, sweet bipartisanship and compromise. Yes, we’re all very aware of the George W. Bush, Richard B. Cheney and Karl Rove school of compromise.
Step 1: Excoriate Democrats with variations of “don’t support the troops”, “siding with the terrorists”, etc. on every media outlet where, it may be noted, conservatives are always in ample supply.
Step 2: When Democrats cave utterly to White House, note that they overcame their “ultra-left” side to do so.
Step 3: Repeat Step 1.
11. Joe | March 24th, 2008 at 10:18 am
Mark,
You are a true comedian…
Hmmm… Let’s observe 2002-2006, shall we?
The Repubs in Congress voted with Bush on every single thing he wanted and asked for. Joe Lieberman (on the war) or Ben Nelson-NE (on most other issues) act as your “wet-noodle” that gave some semblance of “bi-partisanship” to what was a relentlessly ultra-conservative program.
You do give me my daily laugh on this blog on the things that you rant on.
12. Canadian Observer | March 24th, 2008 at 10:33 am
6. Freedom1 | March 24th, 2008 at 4:48 am
Dennis,
Oh, please. You don’t understand Christianity.
—————————
Not the way neocons practice it, that’s for sure, Freedom1.
Do you think Jesus, The Prince of Peace, would approve of what is done in his name today?
13. Michael | March 24th, 2008 at 10:36 am
Ever hear the phrase, “Give a kid a hammer and everything starts looking like a nail”? Well, Obama is attempting the same scam he tried with Wright, namely, “that’s so ‘in the past’ and don’t apply anymore.” In other words just get over it.
This is convenient for him. All evidence to the contrary, (97 percent party line vote and rated the most liberal senator) he says, “don’t call me a liberal, that’s so…yesterday.” Same soft shoe he tried with Wright. See Wright and his racism is so…yesterday so get over it. Well, give a kid a hammer…
“a lot of these old labels don’t apply anymore.”
14. js | March 24th, 2008 at 10:42 am
Small minds think alike.
You cant defend liberals. Its a sunken ship.
Look at abortion. 45 million abortions later, and these people have no idea whats wrong with it.
Then homosexual civil rights. Sure, nobody should be beated to death because of thier perversion, but that doesnt mean that society should observe the perversion as normal sexual behavior.
And homosexual marriage. Marriage is about families, the backbone of society, its what makes the world go round. There is no such thing as a homosexual marriage because 1+1 doesnt equal one with homosexuals, it only equals two ones. They can never have what a man and woman become in marriage, though they yearn for it with all of thier hearts, two people of the opposite sex can never become one in marriage, its not possible.
This goes on and on, but in the end, liberals are the party of social experimentation. They dont want to accept what has worked, and made society what made us what we are today. They want the ability to do anything and everything they want under the mantle of freedom short of killing, maiming or torturing society, and they expect no consequences.
What consequence? 45 million dead humans. 70% of all homosexuals carry an incurrable, deadly disease. The average age of death for homosexuals is 42 years old, decades less than people who do not participate in deviant sexual behavior.
Cry about 4k soldiers all you want, but when an individual right comes before the health of society, then liberal thought is trashed. We have homosexuality being taught to children as young as kindergarden/pre-school age telling them how natural deviant sexual behavior is. This can, in no way, have a long term, positive effect upon society. Teaching that lifestyle that shortens our childrens lifespan is a death sentence to many of them.
Once again, this is turning right side in, wrong side out thinking coming from the liberal application of civil rights, instead of the traditional safety that our government is bound to protect based upon the spirity of the Constitution.
“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
15. js | March 24th, 2008 at 10:45 am
45 million dead humans (meant to say) “by Abortion”
16. Joe | March 24th, 2008 at 10:50 am
wow js… when you have nothing left to say, just bring up gay marriage and abortion.
“70% of all homosexuals carry an incurrable, deadly disease. The average age of death for homosexuals is 42 years old, decades less than people who do not participate in deviant sexual behavior. “
Please oh please prove those numbers.
17. js | March 24th, 2008 at 10:52 am
Sorry Joe. The numbers are easily located on the web.
Just because your lazy but is ill informed doesnt mean I am obligated to educate you.
18. Joe | March 24th, 2008 at 10:54 am
Yep. I didn’t think you’d be able to prove them.
I at least was expecting you to present them as “facts” because you read it from some wacko conservative blog.
You couldn’t even do that.
19. kimberly4victory | March 24th, 2008 at 10:55 am
Quick, liberals, change the topic! Blame it on Bush! Psst, Diane, Bush and Cheney are NOT running!
LOL.
A liberal is a liberal, Senator Obama. You can’t change the fact you were voted the most “LIBERAL” Senator. You can’t change the way you voted in the past (liberal, liberal, present, present, present, liberal, present).
You can’t change the fact you never once crossed the isle to work with Republicans. Unite? My behind.
Like I said before, Obama is a used car salesman and I wouldn’t buy anything he is selling.
20. Diana Powe | March 24th, 2008 at 10:59 am
kimberly4victory,
What? You expected anyone to think you would vote for any Democrat?
21. js | March 24th, 2008 at 11:01 am
Look at the reality of the issue Joe.
I Googled “70% homosexuals disease” just to be sure that I was right.
It came up with 348,000 hits. If you were truely interested in the whole truth, you would have googled yourself.
Its obvious that you just dont have the mental capacity to analyze the situation, because all you do is spout BS that only proves you dont belong in a discusion of this calibre.
So go home little boy. Grow up.
22. Almiranta | March 24th, 2008 at 11:06 am
Ah, poor befuddled CW, once again showing his total ignorance.
No, CW, “Liberal” does NOT mean you “believe in Liberty”. The two have no relationship to each other. Some liberals, liberal in the political sense, do believe in liberty, while most believe in handing over as much power as possible to the government. Yes, they do have that big “L” at the beginning, but so do “Lion” and “Lunge”. Please do try to keep up.
Here is a dictionary sample of the word “liberal”….
1 a: of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts barchaic : of or befitting a man of free birth
2 a: marked by generosity : openhanded b: given or provided in a generous and openhanded way c: ample, full
3obsolete : lacking moral restraint : licentious
4: not literal or strict : loose
5: broad-minded; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms
6 a: of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism bcapitalized : of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism;
The problem Liberals have today, as well as small-L liberals who represent the moderate and majority branch of the Democrat Party, is that way too many Americans associate (rightly) the term “liberal” with left-wing and even socialist agendas.
Conservatives proudly assert their political philosophies, and are happy to debate conservatism as a philosophy. We often state that we are conservatives first, who just usually vote Republican because of the two parties it is the one most likely —though hardly guaranteed—to govern according to conservative principles.
But you’ll have a hard time finding a liberal, much less a Liberal, who is willing to openly state his or her Liberalism. No, it is couched in weasel words like “progressive”—such a lovely word, isn’t it? Who could argue with PROgress?
But progressives, in the political sense, are now the most REgressive of political animals. They don’t want to move forward into revising and modernizing old and outdated models, such as our educational system and Social Security, for example. No, they fight the voucher system that would bring competition into the school system and allow all parents to choose the best schools for their children. They refuse to modernize the failing/failed SS system, because the new model would depend too much on capitalism, and that is not acceptable to the true socialist, which is what the so-called Progressive movement really stands for.
The Liberal of today is fighting to drag us backwards into the repeatedly failed socialist systems of the Bad Old Days. No wonder he has to duck and dodge the label—the truth hurts.
“Pragmatic”? Ha! Obama is an ideologue, whose ideology is far more complex than thte simple Liberal socialist model we had been expecting of him. His ideology is now proven to be far more radical than we expected, and furthermore to be deeply affected by what is now called “Liberation Theology”—another weasel word phrase, designed to hide its dependence on nurturing hatred and resentment and fostering racism.
However, it is typical of the radical Left to first enslave people in a web of sullen resentment, refusal to forgive OR move on, and institutionalized racism guaranteed to keep them isolated from mainstream society, and then call THIS “Liberation”.
23. Joe | March 24th, 2008 at 11:16 am
Oh js…. You condescending jackass.
I just googled as you asked me to do. I got 954,000 hits. Did you happen to look at the results or did you just see that you got a lot of returns?
One hit: “Folks, with 70 percent of the people in this country living with HIV being gay or bi (sexual),”
js, that says that 70% of those with HIV are gay. That doesn’t say that 70% of gays have HIV. You dope.
Another hit: ”So it is ok to say 70% of Americans support homosexual marriage based on a poll”
js, that certainly explains why, when you google “70% homosexuals disease”, that you got that hit.
Another hit: “Up to January 1986 in the USA, 70-80 per. cent, of the known AIDS cases occurred in male. Homosexuals”
js, again, you go to prove that you are a complete fool. That doesn’t say anything to what you claim.
So again……. PROVE the accuracy of this statement that you made:
“70% of all homosexuals carry an incurrable, deadly disease. The average age of death for homosexuals is 42 years old, decades less than people who do not participate in deviant sexual behavior.”
I eagerly await this proof of yours you fool.
Here’s a hint… just because you get 900,000 hits on Google, that doesn’t mean that every hit tells you what you are expecting. Are you an internet novice or just an idiot?
24. Diana Powe | March 24th, 2008 at 11:18 am
No, Joe. Poor js is just someone who is obsessed with homosexuality and abortion to the virtual exclusion of all other thought.
25. Almiranta | March 24th, 2008 at 11:20 am
Diana, you are now the equivalent of that old joke about the prisoners who had told the same old jokes so often they just said “Number 6″ and so on.
You have now said everything you have to say, and all you can do is revert back to Bush-bashing, conservative-bashing, and general bashing. Give it a rest—at least till you have something to offer.
Yes, we know you love Obama and will follow him and support him no matter what. We know that you are knee-jerk anti-conservative, in such a passionate and irrational manner that it is more like a religion to you than a political position. We get it.
But you and your buddies are dodging the issue, which is—why won’t Obama (or Clinton, for that matter?) stand up and identify himself as a Liberal, and his policies as Liberal, and his goals as Liberal?
How often did you hear criticism of McCain based on the wording that he “lacked conservative credentials” or was “not conservative enough”? That was the whole discussion about McCain. But I don’t remember any of the Dem candidates arguing that they did, in fact, possess the Liberal qualifications to be the Dem nominee, or trying to prove their Liberalism.
Nope, Liberalism is a dirty little word, which has to be hidden behind other words which, for now anyway, are more acceptable. Like Progressive.
And the thing is, just as we are starting to see the real Obama behind the facade of the genial, likable, good-guy persona he has worked so hard to project, we are aware of the Liberal aspect he is trying to hide along with his dismal view of this country.
26. Some Assembly Required | March 24th, 2008 at 11:21 am
By that logic, homosexuals would be a dying breed. When they died at 42 they would take AIDS with them. So js, if your not a homosexual then why would this concern you?
27. js | March 24th, 2008 at 11:22 am
MEDICAL CONSEQUENCES OF WHAT HOMOSEXUALS DOMedical Consequences of Homosexual Sex. Death and disease accompany promiscuous and unsanitary sexual activity.
Try the 3rd one. It so funny how DP comes to rescue lame Joe. Setting up the 3 stooges never got easier. You must be the new add on DP. LOL
Effects on the Lifespan
Smokers and drug addicts don’t live as long as non-smokers or non-addicts, so we consider smoking and narcotics abuse harmful. The typical life-span of homosexuals suggests that their activities are more destructive than smoking nd as dangerous as drugs.
Obituaries numbering 6,516 from 16 U.S. homosexual journals over the past 12 years were compared to a large sample of obituaries from regular newspapers.23 The obituaries from the regular newspapers were similar to U.S. averages for longevity; the medium age of death of married men was 75, and 80% of them died old (age 65 or older). For unmarried or divorced men the median age of death was 57, and 32% of them died old. Married women averaged age 79 at death; 85% died old. Unmarried and divorced women averaged age 71, and 60% of them died old.
The median age of death for homosexuals, however, was virtually the same nationwide–and, overall, less than 2% survived to old age. If AIDS was the cause of death, the median age was 39. For the 829 gays who died of something other than AIDS, the median age of death was 42, and 9% died old. The 163 lesbians had a median age of death of 44, and 20% died old.
Two and eight-tenths percent (2.8%) of gays died violently. They were 116 times more apt to be murdered; 24 times more apt to commit suicide; and had a traffic-accident death-rate 18 times the rate of comparably-aged white males. Heart attacks, cancer and liver failure were exceptionally common. Twenty percent of lesbians died of murder, suicide, or accident–a rate 487 times higher than that of white females aged 25-44. The age distribution of samples of homosexuals in the scientific literature from 1989 to 1992 suggests a similarly shortened life-span.
28. Kahn | March 24th, 2008 at 11:25 am
Well actually Obama is NOT a liberal. He’s a socialist. During a time of economic hardship, he plans to raise spending AND taxes 25%.
Brilliant. I HOPE it doesn’t destroy the country.
29. Almiranta | March 24th, 2008 at 11:25 am
No, Joe and Di, js is just a pragmatist who understands that homosexuality has been a dangerous lifestyle which has killed hundreds of thousands, if not millions, and which has resulted in millions more being infected with potentially lethal diseases.
But acknowledging this is upsetting to gays so it has to be reframed as a phobia or an example of bigotry.
It’s the old Liberal Two-step, define and defame, and they use it whenever they hear something they don’t like.
Keep up your name-calling, to remind us of how little you really have to bring to the discussion other than nastiness and abuse.
30. Joe | March 24th, 2008 at 11:32 am
Dude,
first of all, that article is posted on the website “www.biblebelievers.com” (http://www.biblebelievers.com/Cameron2.html)
and put out by Family Research Institute.
Second of all… what you site was put out in 1993.
“Cameron, P., Playfair, W. & Wellum, S. The lifespan of homo- sexuals. Paper presented at Eastern Psychological Association Convention, April 17, 1993″
You may not have heard, but the medical industry is constantly improving and helping ALL people live longer.
Finally…… according to what you site, every man should get married and NOT divorced!!!
the medium age of death of married men was 75, and 80% of them died old (age 65 or older). For unmarried or divorced men the median age of death was 57
Just because you want to believe it and really hate homosexuals, doesn’t make it true.
31. Joe | March 24th, 2008 at 11:35 am
Almiranta,
Nobody is claiming that the homosexual lifestyle has its dangers more so than a “conventional” lifestyle, but I am looking for some actual proof of js’s claims.
Now… about the “name calling” comment of yours.
I assume you really were aiming that at js since he started at me with this comment…
“So go home little boy. Grow up”
You’ve got to stop going thru life with blinders on.
32. js | March 24th, 2008 at 11:40 am
actually joe
alot of people, including congress, have been presented with the report that is on the family research web site because it is a recognized, scientific study and was published in a scientific journal
the conclusion that you made is your own, but truthfully, individuals who chose to enter into that lifestyle should have no excuse not to know of its lethality
only stooges would deny them that right, and probably most of the stooges are liberals anyways, so this issue is dead on target with the subject matter of this blog
now go home and grow up, take my advice, number 2 stooge, you wont regret it
33. kimberly4victory | March 24th, 2008 at 11:43 am
Oh the horror!
“So go home little boy. Grow up”
Versus:
“Oh js…. You condescending jackass.”
34. Joe | March 24th, 2008 at 11:53 am
kimberly, yet again you miss the point.
Almiranty appears to be blaming us for the name calling. I was pointing out that js started with the name calling for no reason (as he usually does and as does most everyone on this joke of a blog).
js, again, I am saying that this was a report from 1993. The early 90’s was a height of the HIV issue. That was 15 years ago. This was a report written by and accepted by institutions that are adamantly and openly against homosexuals.
This was published in religious publications. Not the NE Journal of Medicine.
I also don’t see anything about this being delivered to Congress. (Yes… I googled all I could).
35. Casper | March 24th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Joe,
The “research” js links too was done by Dr. Paul Cameron. Most of it was debunked years ago. He has since been kicked out of the Nebraska Psychological Association and the American Psychological Association.
36. js | March 24th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Joe,
You are a mental midget. You just dont have the ability to grasp the whole truth. Im sorry about being so blunt, but experience states you cannot change the spots on a tiger, hence, I do not try to educate the uneducatable, nor can I force your mind to grow.
Congress and the majority of legitimate, scientific community accept this study as fact, not because they like Paul Cameron, but because his work is based in indisputable research.
1. Karlen A. SEXUALITY And HOMOSEXUALITY. NY Norton, 1971.
2. Pines B. BACK TO BASICS. NY Morrow, 1982, p. 211.
3. Weinberg G. SOCIETY AND THE HEALTHY HOMOSEXUAL. NY St. Martin’s, 1972, preface.
4. Amici curiae brief, in Bowers v. Hardwick, 1986.
5. Corey L. & Holmes, K.K. Sexual transmission of Hepatitis A in homosexual men. “New England Journal of Medicine,” 1980302435- 38.
6. Cameron P et al Sexual orientation and sexually transmitted disease. “Nebraska Medical Journal,” 198570292-99; Effect of homosexuality upon public health and social order “Psychological Reports,” 1989, 64, 1167-79.
7. Manligit, G.W. et al Chronic immune stimulation by sperm alloan- tigens. “Journal of the American Medical Association,” 1984251 237-38.
8. Cecil Adams, “The Straight Dope,” THE READER (Chicago, 3/28/86) [Adams writes authoritatively on counter-culture material, his column is carried in many alternative newspapers across the U.S. and Canada].
9. Dritz, S. & Braff. Sexually transmitted typhoid fever. “New England Journal of Medicine,” 19772961359-60.
10. Dritz, S. Medical aspects of homosexuality. “New England Journal of Medicine,” 1980302463-4.
11. CDC Hepatitis A among homosexual men –United States, Canada, and Australia. MMWR 199241155-64.
12. Christenson B. et al. An epidemic outbreak of hepatitis A among homosexual men in Stockholm, “American Journal of Epidemiology,” 1982115599-607.
13. Jay, K. & Young, A. THE GAY REPORT. NY Summit, 1979.
14. McKusick, L. et al AIDS and sexual behaviors reported by gay men in San Francisco, “American Journal of Public Health,” 1985 75493- 96.
15. USA Today 11/21/84.
16. Gebhard, P. & Johnson, A. THE KINSEY DATA. NY Saunders, 1979.
17. Bell, A. & Weinberg, M. HOMOSEXUALITIES. NY Simon & Schuster, 1978.
18. Jaffee, H. et al. National case-control study of Kaposi’s sarcoma. “Annals Of Internal Medicine,” 198399145-51.
19. Quinn, T. C. et al. The polymicrobial origin of intestinal infection in homosexual men. “New England Journal of Medicine,” 1983309576-82.
20. Biggar, R. J. Low T-lymphocyte ratios in homosexual men. “Journal Of The American Medical Association,” 19842511441-46; “Wall Street Journal,” 7/18/91, B1.
21. CDC HIV/AIDS SURVEILLANCE, February 1993.
22. Chu, S. et al. AIDS in bisexual men in the U.S. “American Journal Of Public Health,” 199282220-24.
23. Cameron, P., Playfair, W. & Wellum, S. The lifespan of homo- sexuals. Paper presented at Eastern Psychological Association Convention, April 17, 1993.
24. Dooley, W.W. et al. Nosocomial transmission of tuberculosis in a hospital unit for HIV-invected patients. “Journal of the American Medical Association,” 19922672632-35.
25. Schechter, M.T. et al. Changes in sexual behavior and fear of AIDS. “Lancet,” 198411293.
26. Elford, J. et al. Kaposi’s sarcoma and insertive rimming. “Lancet,” 1992339938.
27. Beral, V. et al. Risk of Kaposi’s sarcoma and sexual practices associated with faecal contact in homosexual or bisexual men with AIDS. “Lancet,” 1992339632-35.
28. Testimony before House Health & Environment Subcommittee, 2/24/92.
29. Ciesielski, C. et al. Transmission of human immunodeficiency virus in a dental practice. “Annals of Internal Medicine, 1992116 798-80; CDC Announcement Houston Post, 8/7/92.
30. Rubin, S. “Sex Education Teachers Who Sexually Abuse Students.” 24th International Congress on Psychology, Sydney, Australia, August 1988.
31. Cameron, P. & Cameron, K. Prevalence of homosexuality. “Psychology Reports,” 1993, in press; Melbye, M. & Biggar, R.J. Interactions between persons at risk for AIDS and the general population in Denmark. “American Journal of Epidemiology,” 1992135593-602.
32. Rodriguez-Pichardo, A. et al. Sexually transmitted diseases in homosexual males in Seville, Spain, “Geniourin Medicina,” 1990 66;423-427.
33. AIDS Prognosis, Washington Times, 2/13/93, C1.
37. phnx | March 24th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Joe,
Are you into S&M?? You seem to enjoy the abuse and keeping coming back for more. Get some psychological help man.
38. Diana Powe | March 24th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Almiranta,
You do want to shower me with attention, don’t you? Also, you love to attach beliefs to me that I’ve never stated, such as claiming that I attack religion and that I “love Obama and will follow him and support him no matter what.” I’m still patiently waiting for you to quote me attacking religion and now I can await a quote where I’ve stated a political preference for Senator Obama over Senator Clinton. Fortunately for my continued existence, I won’t hold my breath while I’m waiting for your efforts along that line.
39. js | March 24th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Strange.
Almiranta used your tactic DP, dont you care so much for that? Maybe you should hold your breath, just in case Al answers, she can direct it to the little blue girl in the corner….
40. Joe | March 24th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Just a few things on Paul Cameron:
While employed at various institutions including the University of Nebraska he conducted research on passive smoking and several other topics, but he is best known today for his discredited claims about homosexuality.
In 1983, the American Psychological Association decided to drop Cameron from membership for non-cooperation with an ethics investigation.
Cameron set out in 1983 to conduct what he described as “a fair sexuality poll, not one based on volunteers”.
In his capacity as FRI’s chairman, Cameron has authored a number of scientific articles on the topic of homosexuality. Many of these have been based on the 1983–1984 survey, including a 1996 paper which concluded based on participants’ answers concerning their teachers that homosexual teachers could influence their students to become homosexual.
Many of Cameron’s papers have been published in the journal Psychological Reports; unlike many journals, this charges authors a publication fee and does not necessarily reject an article on the basis of a negative peer review.
In 1986 the American Sociological Association, following a report from its Committee on the Status of Homosexuals in Sociology,[21] passed a resolution condemning Dr. Cameron for “consistent misrepresentation of sociological research”.
In 1996, the Board of Directors of the Canadian Psychological Association approved a position statement disassociating the organisation from Cameron’s work on sexuality, stating that he had “consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism”.
After Dr. Cameron submitted affidavits to the U. S. District Court of Dallas in Baker v. Wade (1985), Judge Buchmeyer wrote in his opinion that Cameron had “made misrepresentations to this Court”.
Damn. You want to take this guy’s “report” on gays as fact????? You are more gullible than I could have possibly imagined.
I still await actual research proving your bogus statements.
41. Rana Quijotesca | March 24th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Man you people are paranoid… your foil hats on too tight?
42. Canadian Observer | March 24th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
35. Casper | March 24th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Association.
————————————-
40. Joe | March 24th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
————————————-
This seems to happen quite frequently; whenever they try to justify their prejudicial phobias.
The ‘Experts’ they quote turn out to be fake and as a consequence they end up with egg on their faces.
43. Some Assembly Required | March 24th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Careful CO, js might call you one of the 3 stooges. Which consists of about 5 or 6 of us now oddly enough.
44. Joe | March 24th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
nyuck nyuck. I love being one of js’s 20 stooges. That is almost as funny as the USEFUL IDIOT moniker from TiredofLib.
I also love how phnx tries to support js in post #37.
Anyone who believe a fake report from some religous zealot who has predetermined conclusions can not be taken seriously.
45. js | March 24th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Cameron has been vilified by the Gay community. Not True?
Look at the source of your copy/paste Joe.
What you didnt include was that Cameron couldnt be ejected from the APA because he was not a member. Specifically, in the foot notes on Wikipedia, that you omitted as well, are the letters of his resignation, and the acceptance of those letters by the APA a full year before the bogus expulsion. The reason this keeps getting reported as authentic is because the head of the APA was homosexual. This was a political act, not valid. You should read the book Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth by Dr Satinover if you want to learn about the APA’s credibility in the issue.
And you also need too read up on the court case, while the court actually considered the majority of the information provided by Cameron to be legit, technical information presented, once agin, by homosexuals discredited Cameron. Later, that information was found to be irrelevant, and the court issued Cameron a formal appology.
But let that go aside. The jist of the facts, supported by the CDC, confirm the highly disproportionate representation of homosexuals in society in STD’s, deadly diseases and other disease related to the homosexual lifestyle. Forgetting the oxe that pulls the cart by discrediting Cameron does not change the truth that Cameron keeps telling us about.
Gays create myths for their political and psychological comfort. You seem to be well informed of those myths, and ignorant of many of the opposing views, including much of the truth.
46. Joe | March 24th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Gays create myths for their political and psychological comfort. You seem to be well informed of those myths, and ignorant of many of the opposing views, including much of the truth.
Funny how I can turn that around on you and your gay-haters club.
Also, if you want to talk technicality with the APA expulsion…
Face it. It was a 15 year old “study” done by someone that had pre-conceived conclusions of what the “report” was going to “prove”.
Kind of like Bush’s pre-conceived conclusions about invading Iraq and their ties to 9/11.
47. js | March 24th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Its pretty clear that whats going on here joe, is you are very susceptible to indoctrination by propoganda. Anyone can find attacks on Cameron, since time immemorible homosexual activists have been attacking him. That did not stop him from being called for expert testimony in hundreds of cases though. Figure out why, and you will be on the way to finding the truth.
more reading material for you
Liberals Push To Convert HIV/AIDS Program To Abortion Project
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=3257
48. Some Assembly Required | March 24th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
js, I’m only going to say this once because I think this debate is laughable at best. I assume in refering to STD’s and AIDS related ‘homosexual lifestyles’ you are talking about anal sex. You do know straight men can have anal sex with woman as well. Infact some enjoy it more. That being said, STD’s and AIDS are transmitted through transfers of bodily fluids. These diseases do not care if the person prefers men or woman or sheep or all of the above. Whether your a homosexual or not, the surest way to get the disease is to not use protection. Yet another reason why sex education should be taught to children at a young age. Your argument that homosexuals are responsible is ridiculous unless you can find proof that a homosexual created AIDS and Hep. C or any other STD that has been around since the dark ages.
49. Casper | March 24th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Joe,
Now you’ve done it. Since you didn’t believe js’s propaganda, you must be susceptible to indoctrination. How dare you read and decide for yourself.
50. Joe | March 24th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
LOL
traditionalvalues.org!!! HA.
I go to the site and in the ticker going accross the top is one headline that reads…
“Homesexual Urban Legends… The Series”
and ”
Planned Parenthood’s Child Molester Cover Up EXPOSED!!”
You have really got to be kidding me. How can we take you seriously when you are quoting things from a website that is just so blatantly one-sided?
51. kimberly4victory | March 24th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
So, Joe, if JS jumps off a bridge, are you going to do it too? I know you are, but what am I? LOL.
If this blog is what you say it is, why are you still posting? I’ve heard many like yourself commenting on how terrible this blog is, blah, blah, blah … and yet, they’re still here, they continuously post. They even get banned and come back with the same prose and different profile name. Why? If it’s so damn terrible, why continue?
Now, let’s get back to the TOPIC of this thread, shall we?
52. Diana Powe | March 24th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
So, why didn’t you offer the same advice to js, kimberly4victory?
53. kimberly4victory | March 24th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
“What? You expected anyone to think you would vote for any Democrat?”
Oh NO! There she goes again making an ass out of herself by assuming something about someone she hardly knows.
Just how do you know I would not vote for any Democrat? Because I am not, and would never, vote for Barack “I am indeed so liberal” Obama?
I don’t like any of his policies. He’s too far-left for me. I also don’t like his church, his attending his church for over 20 years, his association with an anti-American preacher for 20 years, etc.
It’s NOT because he is a Democrat. It’s because he IS a liberal and the other points I mentioned above.
So, do us all a favor, or at least me, and quit ASSUMING YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT ME.
Thank you.
54. Joe | March 24th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
k4v… it is like a train wreck. I just can’t turn away. And I find it quite interesting to see the things that you people are obsessing over and what you are doing to the Dem candidates at all levels.
Having said that, although Mark does delete some opposing posts, for the most part, he is pretty fair about things.
Why should I leave and post at kos or something if I agree with most of the other posters?
But I agree… back to the topic. Post #11 of mine was on topic. I’m done disproving js’s bogus claim and those crazy “facts” he threw out there.
55. Joe | March 24th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
umm… k4v, regarding this comment — So, do us all a favor, or at least me, and quit ASSUMING YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT ME.
Do you read what Almiranty says about people? Perhaps you should offer that advice to her as well.
Also, regarding this comment — There she goes again making an ass out of herself
Perhaps you should follow your own advice and not call people names.
56. kimberly4victory | March 24th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
So the new lefty ploy is this … when I give advise to a lefty, I also have to give the same advise to a righty?
Okay dokey.
Oh paleese! Diane consistently makes an ass out of herself by assuming … ya know, assuming makes an ass out of you, not me? I’m tired of it. And, it’s not the first time I’ve asked her NOT to assume. It’s not my fault I have to keep reminding her not to make an ass out of herself!
But … if it will make you feel better, I will refrain from calling her an ass.
57. kimberly4victory | March 24th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Hey, Joe, while we’re scolding each other about our posts, why don’t you stop posting about how bad this blog is? After all, it’s kind of hypocritical to say it’s a terrible blog and continue to post, don’t ya think?
I’m saddened (yes, saddened, Diane) to see you approve with the posts over at kos. They are disgusting little people over there. It’s too bad they don’t agree with freedom of speech like Mark and Matt … banning conservatives because of their different views.
58. Joe | March 24th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
RE: “assuming makes an ass out of you, not me”
See posts #25 and the response #38.
59. Diana Powe | March 24th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
I assume that you must be talking about Diane Tomlinson since my name is not Diane.
60. Joe | March 24th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
k4v - see my post #54 as to why I still post here.
61. Some Assembly Required | March 24th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Kim, we on the ‘left’ have the ability to take posts for their full meaning. Not just what is said but also what is implied. This seems to be something which the ‘right’ on this blog are incapable of picking up on. Everything to them is taken literally (ie. If it is not specifically said then it is not what you meant). Just an observation.
62. js | March 24th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
do you think something was missed, it just flew by and those libs didnt even catch the drift, some of them were lucky enough to smell the smoke, but they missed the fire
guilty, one and all
63. js | March 24th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
its not the lable that matters, its the acts of those who carry them that have meaning
so if the shoe fits, wear it they say, or was that the foo bird?
64. js | March 24th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
“How can we take you seriously when you are quoting things from a website that is just so blatantly one-sided?”
Which side do you prefer? The one that lies and tells us that we should teach our kids that C Wright and Joe are not just friends, but they are like mommies and daddies and have sex together but they cant have kids? And that its ok to play with another boys thing because its natural?
Thats the side in our schools, and you call Urban Legends one sided because they tell the TRUTH?
WOW
if thats what it means to be a liberal, we should flush twice because its a long long way to reality Joe Stooge.
So your inept ability to miss the obvious is pretty simple minded, eh? You have problems reading fine print, like most of the stuff you post before you insult it?
You missed the most valid point on thier front page Joe Stooge;
DO NOT ENTER UNLESS YOU WANT THE TRUTH
So issues? Pedophiles, homosexual marriage and an agenda? You dont know though, because you hit the front page, it represents everything you disagree with, so you call it “one sided” and run away.
LoL. You are a brave one, arent you…(NOT)
So what is it with lables and liberals? You guys sponsor bills outlawing hate speech, at the expense of the truth, yet you think that pushing deviant sexual behavior at school children as a “normal” human behavior is cool.
If you ask me, stooge is about the only lable you boys need.
65. Joe | March 24th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
dude… it is “label” not “lable”. I am not one to correct spelling because everyone screws up once in a while, but you keep doing it.
Anyway js…. you don’t make any sense whatsoever. In your haste to call me a stooge, you appear to be rambling on making no sense.
I want to dispute what you are claiming, but honestly… it doesn’t even make sense.
Are you laughing because I went to traditionalvalues.org and amazingly enough… found it to be a one-sided site that is spewing hatred and fear about homosexuals?
Come back with coherent thoughts and I will try to debate you.
Thanks.
66. js | March 24th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Lets see what Joe Stooge went by and called “one sided”
CALLER: The thing is, I’m going to be 14 later on this month, and my friend said that you guys would have to tell my parents I was getting an abortion. But my boyfriend’s 22. Could he just sign whatever it is, and you wouldn’t have to tell anybody?
CLINIC: No, no. There’s nothing to do ?? uh?uh, she’s wrong. Your friend is wrong, okay?
CALLER: All right. So you don’t have to tell my parents then?
CLINIC: No, no. In the state of California, the parents have no right. If you’re under age and you’re pregnant, and you want to have a termination or if you want to have the baby, it’s up to them. All right? That’s in the state of California. So your friend told you wrong that you’re suppose to tell your parents. No. Okay?
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/1/pph/index2.php
————————————-
Kids. 14 years old girl, 22 year old “boyfriend”, “parents have no rights.”
Planned Parenthood will give her an abortion, her of age boyfriend pays for the 14 year olds abortion, and you think thats “one sided”?
As a parent, the side I want to be on is fully informed. Just the truth, and liberals dont think parents have the right to know that thier 14 year old daughter was knocked up by a 22 year old guy?
No wonder so many people are leaving California for other states, this “liberal” application of a social experiment gone wrong just never ends!! This happened in 99 locations for Planned Parenthood in California.
So lables fit. Ecspecially the one that says “liberal”, because they are extremely liberal about violating a parents rights!@!
67. js | March 24th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
65. Joe
Come back with coherent thoughts and I will try to debate you.
Thanks
Coherent? Simple to understand, the truth is you are a coward to address the issues, hence your attack on cameron and not on the issues.
Same thing goes with Traditional Values. ONE sided? I thought that for most people, the only side that matters IS the truth. But not you, just like the post with the 14 year old kids….your ignorance made you the stooge, not me.
68. js | March 24th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
44. Life expectancy at age 20 for gay and bisexual men ranged from 34.0 years to 46.3 years for
the 3% and 9% scenarios respectively. These were all lower than the 54.3 year life expectancy at age 20 for all men.
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/26/3/657.pdf
Its pretty obvious that Cameron wasnt the only person that figured out something was wrong with homosexuals Joe Stooge. SO why did YOU evade the issue to ridicule me?
Any moron could do that, just as you have. But I guess when I told you to go home and grow up, it was really good advice.
69. FmrMarine | March 24th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
>>>>Its pretty obvious that Cameron wasnt the only person that figured out something was wrong with homosexuals Joe Stooge. SO why did YOU evade the issue to ridicule me?<<<
PSSSTTT JS
Joe is one of the GLBT - NAMBLA , group who tag team post here.
Look at the day, and time they arrive and post.
It is no coincidence.
They are group troll disruptor’s.
70. FmrMarine | March 24th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
JOE
“Please oh please prove those numbers.”
OKAY;
http://www.theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/22SxSo/PnSx/HSx/hosx_lifspn.htm
The illusion that the homosexual lifestyle is a normal way of living has been successfully propagated by promoting a “victim” image for homosexual persons, and by the pseudo-science alleging a ‘gay” gene.
Of the reports alleging, or promising soon down the road, a “gay” gene, not a single one has survived scientific peer review. There is no “gay” gene.
On the other hand, the evidence does show that homosexual persons are indeed victims — but overwhelmingly of their own behavior, not that of others.
Typical homosexual behavior includes regular contact with fecal matter from oneself and from sexual partners, tragically reversing several centuries of learning about cleanliness, and thus several centuries of growing lifespan. Homosexual behavior makes no more sense than playing in the toilet.
All available evidence indicates that the lifespan of practicing homosexual persons is drastically shortened by their behavior. No reliable study indicates otherwise. The lifespan topic is taboo among homosexual advocates because the evidence is so damaging to their case.
The following information has been adapted from website: http://www.cprmd.org/ (Sorry, link gone.) References are cited in chronological order. This information represents a fair summary of the available evidence concerning homosexual lifespan. It indicates that on average, even apart from AIDS, homosexual persons will probably not live past their 40’s, an appalling loss of about 30 years, or nearly 40% of normal American lifespan.
The evidence shows homosexuality to be a compulsive and lethal addiction, not “mainstream America”.
E. Fox
See also this Website on lifespan and Sexuality Websites (scroll to “Health”)
Study after study reveals that homosexuality, whether male or female, can take anywhere from 10, 20 to 30 years off of someone’s lifespan. With all the attention on smoking, which the National Cancer Institute says takes from 7 to 10 years off someone’s life, why not the same human outcry on homosexuality? Here’s a behavior that’s killing people 2 to 3 times the rate of smoking, yet nobody seems to care. In fact, we are encouraging and affirming individuals into the “gay” lifestyle. If you truly love someone, you would steer them away from self-destructive behaviors, rather than towards them, shouldn’t you? Homosexuals need our tough love, not blind love, the kind of love that is going to love them no matter what they say and do. We must extend that helping hand and say ” I think your worth saving, let’s work on it together.”
71. Almiranta | March 24th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
K4V, thanks for picking up on the point of Joe whimpering about being called a “little boy” while thinking it’s fine for him to call someone a ‘jackass’. Though now that I mention it, the party of donkeys might think ‘jackass’ is a compliment. Who ever knows with these people?
Diana defends Obama on the most indefensible things, I comment on her ardor for the man, and she twists that into challenging me to cite any post where she ever favored Obama over Clinton.
I haven’t, and that wasn’t even what I said. These poor people are so determined to find something to be OUTRAGED about, they can’t even read.
They are absolutely determined to prove our points about them. And the main point on this thread is that they will argue and fuss about darned near ANYTHING rather than have to address the issue.
The point here is that Obama is a hard-core, demonstrated, radical Liberal, who is trying to hide from the term.
And the corollary point is that the trolls who infest this site are equally panicky about being identified as Liberals. So they pick fights about homosexuality, claim I said things I never said, and pretzel themselves into wild contortions just to duck the issue.
I remember Diana getting the vapors when I called her “Diana the Red”—claiming I was indulging in name-calling. Which kind of sounds like she is ashamed of her radical Leftist identity, doesn’t it?
Yet she has evidently not examined her positions, determined just why she is ashamed of having them accurately assessed, and reconsidered. Nope, she just goes on spouting the same old Lefty nonsense, with the same passionate energy, in spite of not wanting anyone to identify her as red. Or maybe even pink.
The 2006 elections were pretty much dominated by Dems out-Republicaning the Republicans. We commented on it for months here on B4B, noting that they seemed very much aware that if they were to campaign under their true colors, they wouldn’t stand a chance except maybe in Vermont and San Francisco.
And now, going into the home stretch of hte 2008 campaign, we have the most Liberal Senator in the Senate trying to dodge his Liberal credentials.
It’s like deja vu, all over again…….
72. js | March 24th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
Joe Stooge did say he found something over 3/4 of a million hits on homosexual mortality though.
Its pretty lame that he concentrates on a lot of lies told about Cameron to hid his ignorance. Even so, bias is bias, no matter how deviant it is, so be it. `
73. js | March 24th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
In reality, Obama stole the credit from real community activists and “organizers” and appropriated their efforts as his own. Obama covered the tracks to his burglary of the truth by using fictional characters to replace the “real” people in the Altgeld episode. It is no surprise that Sweet reports today Obama was “worried about a pending potentially negative…story.”
Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times, who is an unabashed Obama-lover, is also an honest journalist. She too, way back in 2004, questioned Obama’s use of fiction as fact, and stated, “It is impossible to know who is real and who is not.” (Sun-Times, 2/20/07, see http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/264478,CST-NWS-sweet20.article). Indeed, Ms. Sweet, it is not impossible at all. “Obama” is not real. Mr. Obama is a fictional creation of a very talented and very intelligent bunkum artist, Barry (Barack) Obama. From end to end, from start to finish, Barack Obama is an imaginative self-invention.
In 2004, Sweet writes today, Obama could not remember the identity of one of the key characters in his book: “I don’t remember what Smitty’s real name was. I think it was Wally.” He wrote a book about events that had taken place a few years earlier, and “forgot” the names of his key characters. So much for Obama’s respect for fact checking.
Sweet also says that Obama’s campaign staffers had to read his book over the past few days to decipher who the “real people” in his book were. They couldn’t just ask the candidate. He couldn’t tell them. And the man wants to be president? Be real
http://www.bufford.politicalgateway.com/main/columns/read.html?col=737
diggin in on obama lies;
Turns out that Barry “barak” obama is a habitual liar. Just like Billy Clinton, who is just like McCarthy, right?
74. Christian Wright | March 24th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
How open is this thread?
My child is in pre-school. We sent her to a Catholic preschool because the security was the best and the teachers were first rate.
The other day she wanted to say grace.
They had the nerve to teach her about the theory of god without my permission. My wife does not see any harm since she still believes in Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, and fairies; but I am a little upset. She does not want to pull my daughter out because it is the best preschool in the area.
People outgrow Santa Claus. People outgrow the Easter Bunny. But I have noticed their are some things people never outgrow, like: ghosts, aliens and gods. I don’t want my kid indoctrinated, but I don’t want to destroy her childhood fantasies.
Any suggestions?
75. js | March 24th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
good thing your wife runs the show, eh?
76. Casper | March 24th, 2008 at 11:48 pm
Christian Wright,
My personal belief is that children should be raised with Christian values. In the long run, she is going to make her own decisions as to what she believes. She should have as much information as possible to base her decision on. As a teacher, I can tell you that you as a parent have a lot more influence on how your child turns out than any teacher or school.
77. Casper | March 24th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
Christian Wright,
I would like to add, that I hope you can some day find it in your heart to give Christianity a try. Most of the the Christians that I know are not near as judgmental or hypocritical as some of the posters on this blog.
78. Kahn | March 25th, 2008 at 12:31 am
Yes CW, Go F*&K yourself. Obviously they will teach about God in a Catholic school. It’s the commitment to values and Christian philosophy that make her school great. Too bad she’s getting the education YOU needed.
Why not send her to the ACLU School? Or the Rainbow Gay Alliance School? They’ll teach her how bad America is and the importance of proper lube.
You d*ck.
Stop the attacks on Christianity. It’s the first thing you posted in the Easter blog post and it’s a constant stream of crap from you.
Just how many jungle hospitals and orphanges DOES the ACLU run? How many do the Catholics run?
You d*ck.
79. kimberly4victory | March 25th, 2008 at 12:46 am
CW is sending his child to a Catholic school but has problems with the Catholic school teaching her about saying grace. Hello? It’s a Catholic school.
Suggestion: Move your child to a public school where prayer is not allowed.
80. Kahn | March 25th, 2008 at 1:17 am
k4v, and nor will values, morals, philosophy be taught. And history as we understand it is on shaky ground.
He’s sees the Catholic school as the best school but doesn’t understand why.
It’s like the Californians who move to Colorado to get away from the taxes and the crazy laws, then impose the same crap on themselves there. And don’t get it.
81. Freedom1 | March 25th, 2008 at 3:26 am
JS,
I just wanted to back you up. You rightfully warn people of the immorality and the physical danger of homosexual behavior; and then the moonbats falsely charge that you “hate” homosexuals. That’s so bogus. Moonbats never seem to grasp the difference between hating the sin (ie. homosexual behavior) and the loving the sinner (ie. the homosexual).
Moonbats, here’s another example which might be easier to understand:
Hate the sin (ie. theft), love the sinner (ie. the thief).
82. js | March 25th, 2008 at 6:38 am
What would be an expression of love?
To allow people to continue on in a spiritually bankrupt and physically deadly game by ignoring and condoning thier activities, or to yell from the highest roof top that this has got to stop?
When people learn the truth and consequences of homosexual behavior, it normally ruins the event for them. How anyone could lust after sex parters where only 3 out of 10 of them are not infected with a deadly disease is far beyond my understanding, but they do. The few that are saved by getting educated are lucky, the ones that we really need to protect though, our kids in schools, are the ones that need that education the most, but they are not getting it because of politic’s.
I dont think they have a clue there.
Thx freedom1.
83. TiredofLibBullShit | March 25th, 2008 at 6:47 am
js,
please stop calling Joe a stooge. It hurts his feelings and is INSULTING to the Stooges.
C Wrong…..
uh………well……….ah……………..
Words cannot describe what a total imbecile you are. You send your child to a Catholic school, which is far better than the government school you attended.
How do I know you attended a government school? It is obvious from your posts laden with pure stupidity, as exampled in your latest one.
You send her to a Catholic school and then wonder in amazement that they teach Catholicism?????? Aren’t you supposed to let her decide for herself what she wants to believe? Isn’t that what liberals want? They scream about indoctrination, but forcing their beliefs on others isn’t considered indoctrination? Amazing………..
The single major thing that scares me about Joe and C. Wrong is that they get to vote!!!! Well these two USEFUL IDIOTS have been indoctrinated by their liberal masters and can’t seem to think apart from the collective.
84. Diane Tomlinson | March 25th, 2008 at 7:15 am
5. Dennis | March 24th, 2008 at 4:34 am
Freedom1 - Jesus Christ called the idolatry of the free market into question when he said, “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man enter the kingdom of heaven” (see Matthew 19:24).
6. Freedom1 | March 24th, 2008 at 4:48 am
Dennis,
Oh, please. You don’t understand Christianity.
12. Canadian Observer | March 24th, 2008 at 10:33 am
6. Freedom1 | March 24th, 2008 at 4:48 am
Dennis,
Oh, please. You don’t understand Christianity.
—————————
Not the way neocons practice it, that’s for sure, Freedom1.
Do you think Jesus, The Prince of Peace, would approve of what is done in his name today?
Well of course Dennis doesn’t because he’s looking at this from the compassionate stance of being a real adherent as opposed to someone who is an authoritarian. The Faithful, like Dennis, know that the Bible is a suggestion guide for Soul maintenance not an owners manual written for slavemasters.
And CO the answer to your question is a loud and resounding “No.”
85. js | March 25th, 2008 at 7:33 am
“the Bible is a suggestion guide for Soul maintenance”
I guess you never read it. If you did, try a few more times, because you are totally clueless.
86. js | March 25th, 2008 at 7:42 am
“please stop calling Joe a stooge”
Its true. He is a stooge.
“One who allows oneself to be used for another’s profit or advantage; a puppet. “
87. Diane Tomlinson | March 25th, 2008 at 7:46 am
So you point js is that the Bible is an inerrant book that can and is used as a social control on the masses? a manual for slavemasters who do not follow what the words mean?
88. js | March 25th, 2008 at 7:50 am
No, you dont know my point. Its pretty obvious from what you posted and you probably will remain ignorant on that point by choice.
C’est la vie.
its of no consequence
89. Diane Tomlinson | March 25th, 2008 at 7:54 am
They call this passive aggressive behavior, but they make pills for it I think.
I remain ignorant of nothing by choice I merely disagree often with things I find, disagreeable. Tell me your point and I’ll tell you my opinion. It’s called civil discourse.
90. Some Assembly Required | March 25th, 2008 at 7:55 am
CW
I would never presume to tell you how to raise your own child. I personally agree with Casper here. I do not believe there is anything wrong with essential Christian Values. I do think every child should be made aware of what has been done in the name of the Christianity, just as what has been done in the name of Islam. A well educated child exposed to all perspectives of history will in my opinion see through the facade but maintain the values inherent in religion.
It always struck me as odd how modern religions preach basically the same set of values passed down by different ‘creators’ or ‘gods’ and yet their is so much violence between them.
91. Diane Tomlinson | March 25th, 2008 at 8:04 am
78. Kahn | March 25th, 2008 at 12:31 am
Just how many jungle hospitals and orphanges DOES the ACLU run? How many do the Catholics run?
I bet you’d never get anyone from the ACLU to say it but, “How many cases of child rape by priests,just in the US, have been paid off by the Catholic church? How many pedophiles have been uncovered in the ACLU?” I have no idea how many priests but I’m having that number run down by research I think the ACLU magic number is 2.
No organization is without its flaws some fatal and unforgivable to some while to toehrs just obstacles to be corrected and overcome.
92. js | March 25th, 2008 at 8:16 am
. Diane Tomlinson | March 25th, 2008 at 7:54 am
They call this passive aggressive behavior
———————–
From religious expert to psychologist.
LoL, you are a bag of tricks, arent you?
I mean, the way you abuse religion on yor web site, does that make you feel superior or something? From an unbiased standpoint, you are totally missing alot. From a religious standpoint, your abuse of religious beliefs is on the “passive agressive behavior” line you preach of (like you even had a clue). At least I can be honest and truthful about my faith, while you have to make up more and more lies to keep up this “image” you made yourself into on your web site, which is a lie.
93. Diane Tomlinson | March 25th, 2008 at 8:26 am
Now see js that’s called discourse.
I don’t see how we abuse religion at our site at all if you will point out an abuse of religion we will confront that and explain our motives and if we find that you are right and it is an abuse of religion we will remove it.
If there’s one thing about our site it is that were are opinionated and unbiased as opposed to the MSM which is bought and paid for by corporate interests with thier own agendas.
Where I work is a newspaper and like all newspapers we run factual stories that we think will get our readers to buy newspapers.
I think you may be offended by some of the words and pictures on our site and the cure for that is the mouse in your hand.
94. js | March 25th, 2008 at 8:38 am
Now see thats called condescending attitude DT.
If you missed it, you really should concede that your bias has control over you.
95. Diane Tomlinson | March 25th, 2008 at 9:49 am
Once again,
Huh?
Bias?
What bias?
We have three dyed in the wool conservatives who contribute to our site and we do that so all voices can be heard.
Here’s one for you Fred Schwartz is doing a bit on Hillary lying about being “under sniper fire” during her 1996 trip to Bosnia. Howat for fair and balanced?
96. Tractatus | March 25th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
It always struck me as odd how modern religions preach basically the same set of values passed down by different ‘creators’ or ‘gods’ and yet their is so much violence between them.
That has always struck me as being very darkly comical. People have spent centuries killing each other for worshipping the “wrong” god–or, even more ridiculously–for worshipping the same god, but doing so in the “wrong” way. And then we’re told that these same religions are the foundation of all of society, humanity, etc. Hmmmm….
97. kimberly4victory | March 25th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Three out of how many?
Wow! They’re covering the Hillary story about being shot at by snipers? I think everyone is covering that!
OBTW, this isn’t the first time Hillary lied about that trip. Back in January, she told the story about the plane doing spirals to miss sniper fire and her secret service had to move her into the bullet proof cockpit for safety. When reporters asked Sheryl Crowe and Sinbad why they weren’t moved to the cockpit, they both said, “What are you talking about?”
Hilarious!
98. Some Assembly Required | March 25th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
96. Tractatus | March 25th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Tract,
To me, it almost seems like people tend to use religion as a way to avoid taking responsibility for monumental events in their lives. Say for instance they lose their job, instead of realizing it’s because they didn’t work hard enough or they weren’t qualified they see it as being part of ‘god’s’ plan and the future is set, etc. You see it all to often at funerals and in war. It is a way to get over great loss or traumatic events without personally accounting for it. I think this is also in part why people will fight over religion. Please keep in mind these are my personal opinions on the subject.
I apologize if what I have stated offends anyone it is not my intent.
99. js | March 25th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
95. Diane Tomlinson
Really, there is not much at that web site that isnt biased against Christians. Really, you call Bush a Christian Drunk, you have parial and full nudes, and you have someone with thier tongue sticking in to another persons butt.
Really, Im surprised Matt and Mark let you like to that place, its not media for people with morals, your bias is such that you have no clue how distasteful that site is. Your mind is so mired in Sh@t like that web site spews, that you cant even smell its stink. Does that make sense to you, because its true.
100. Tractatus | March 25th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
To me, it almost seems like people tend to use religion as a way to avoid taking responsibility for monumental events in their lives.
I have definitely seen that. People will chalk everything up to god’s will and pretty much leave it at that–no personal responsibility required.
On the flip side, I have also seen people take their religion as inspiration to do some wonderful things.
And on the flip side of that, I have seen people use religion as a tool of oppression or as a fallacious means of claiming moral high ground. Religion has been used to justify some pretty horrific things.
And so it goes.
In the end, I think every religion has some positive things to offer, but I don’t think any of them should be taken too seriously (nor should they be taken literally at all).
101. Some Assembly Required | March 25th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Tract, I’d have to agree with you there as well. I think Religion should be used as a tool to enhance your life. Similar to using a hammer. Great for driving home nails, but it doesn’t work so well on glass windows.
102. Diane Tomlinson | March 25th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
99. js | March 25th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
95. Diane Tomlinson
Really, there is not much at that web site that isnt biased against Christians. Really, you call Bush a Christian Drunk, you have parial and full nudes, and you have someone with thier tongue sticking in to another persons butt.
Bias–
3 a: bent, tendency b: an inclination of temperament or outlook; especially : a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment : prejudice c: an instance of such prejudice.
Well now that we all know what bias is as it relates to this matter i have not nor has anyone who works for the staff been able to find where we call the sitting President a “Christian drunk.” As a matter of fact those two words do not appear together anywhere on our site. The belladonna picture as with much of the accompanying art with our articles is meant to shock the reader into thinking critically and to arouse. It is a tease just like the tease your local news gives when it delivers as much as 90 minutes of crime and other bleeding news.
Nudity as an artistic expression isn’t prejudiced against Christians and neither are we. What has happened is your sensibilities have been offended and the best cure for that is to not go to the site. Your religion demands, and we respect, that you do not wish to see such images. What you do not have, divine or otherwise, is the right to tell other people what they should or should not see, can or cannot do. Only the power of governmental law established by the people and codified can do that.
As afar as Mark linking to the site that happens because I leave my URL which is not required and if he is offended I will refrain from doing so in the future if I choose to comment here again. I am a civil person but I will not submit to any theocratic authority that wishes to tell all of the world whom to pray to when to worship or what to do with one’s own body and how. Whether that authority resides in Rome, Mecca, or Washington is no matter. Mercifully, the current leadership in all three places are merciful and benevolent, but change toward evil can come swiftly and without warning so all must be on guard. While I respect people of Faith I am wary of anyone who thinks people must willing submit to their ideology this goes for the Constantinian Christian or the Muslim bent to violent Jihad.
103. Diane Tomlinson | March 25th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
97. kimberly4victory | March 25th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Three out of how many?
Wow! They’re covering the Hillary story about being shot at by snipers? I think everyone is covering that!
Okay k4v,
That number would be 3 out of 21 but by rights we could have had no voice that supports the American political Right wing view of things. How many liberals work for Fox News? Two maybe and I’m counting the janitor and not Colmes.
104. FmrMarine | March 25th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
CW;
>>>but I don’t want to destroy her childhood fantasies.
Any suggestions?<<<
Maybe a trip for your self to one of your most beloved….Dr Kovorkian, then he will end your problem here, and you will meet the LORD on your way to the elevator.
105. js | March 25th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
cmon dt
“Nudity as an artistic expression ”
that isnt art, its porn
grow up and shed the cliche attitude
your BS is nothing but hot air
106. js | March 25th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
“(Expletive Deleted)!” the Religious Right hierarchy swore. “This means every (expletive deleted) who’s thought all this time that having a joint or two to relax in the evening a few times a month means they could still be elected to a city council! A very stiff woman from Concerned Women for America (Exceptional vulgarity deleted).
Ya, thats a lot of respect for Christianity, eh DT? NO DISRESPECT MY ARSE YOU PORN-OGRAPHER.
And the other lie;
“Look at the “Christian” drunkard you have in the White House ”
Straight off your page, deny it, I dont care. You are no better than obama, and there are the lies to prove it.
Mark, why do you allow the link to that site that contains porn? Scroll down the page, its there, been there for months. The same explicit disgusting pic’s.
107. js | March 25th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
bi·as /ˈbaɪəs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[bahy-uhs] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, adjective, adverb, verb, bi·ased, bi·as·ing or (especially British) bi·assed, bi·as·sing.
2. a particular tendency or inclination, esp. one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice.
108. kimberly4victory | March 26th, 2008 at 12:15 am
Wow! 3 out of 21! Amazing.
I certainly don’t know how many liberals work at FOX and frankly, I don’t care. As long as they continue to have both a liberal and a conservative on to talk about the issues. One very rarely sees that at MSNBC and CNN.
JS: Good catch.
109. Almiranta | March 26th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Just a passing comment on my way to work, but the Lefty bleat about “pedophile” priests, posted by our own anti-religionist, Diane T, can’t go unaddressed.
First is the definition of “pedophile”, which is of sexual attraction to or sexual abuse of children—-that is to say, of young people who have not yet reached puberty.
Cite, if you will, such cases in the Catholic church, regarding priests.
Yeah, I thought so.
In fact, a fact much ignored by the Agenda Media, nearly all of the sexual abuse cases in the Church involve homosexual priests assaulting and abusing young men who are post-pubescent. Not that this isn’t disgusting, and wrong, and illegal, because it is. But it is NOT “pedophilia”.
And the elephant in the room is the fact that is is HOMOSEXUAL abuse. It is not just about the Church, or priests—it is about the Catholic Church being overtaken by Liberals in Vatican II, after which the seminaries became havens for predatory young gay men.
I have a friend who had a very dear friend in college who had been in a Catholic seminary and who was driven out by the radical, aggressive, political and sexual agendas of the gay men there.
We can see the results of this shift to the radical Left, as the Church became a prime hunting ground for predatory homosexual men.
Remember the hysteria when Pope Benedict was elected Pope? The moans and groans and carrying-on, because the Church was electing A CONSERVATIVE to be its head. But this was because for the last few decades the Church has been under the sway of radical Liberals, and its theology and its priesthood have suffered as the result.
So when you rabid Libs can come up with cases of true pedophilia in the Church, and/or cases of heterosexual abuse of post-pubescent girls, then you can come and whine to us about the evils of the Church. Until then, the case is clear—the Church was taken over by and inested by a particularly virulent form of Liberalism, and one consequence has been the priesthood being used as a stalking horse for gay predators.
And of course no mention of homosexual perversion is allowed in the Liberal media—so the emphasis has been shifted to the Catholic Church.
110. Tractatus | March 26th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
It is not just about the Church, or priests—it is about the Catholic Church being overtaken by Liberals in Vatican II, after which the seminaries became havens for predatory young gay men.
We can see the results of this shift to the radical Left, as the Church became a prime hunting ground for predatory homosexual men.
The case is clear—the Church was taken over by and inested by a particularly virulent form of Liberalism, and one consequence has been the priesthood being used as a stalking horse for gay predators.
“…and that’s The Word for tonight. We’ll be right back for Tip of the Hat, Wag of the Finger after these messages.”
Really, ‘Ranty, is there anything–anything at all–that you won’t cartoonishly contort yourself to blame on the Damn Dirty Liberals?