Perhaps you've caught wind of the latest brouhaha regarding the words of Pastor Ken Hutcherson.
A column in the Seattle P-I may have been first to break the story, followed by predictable outrage from Horse's Ass and the Slog.
After listening to Hutcherson talk to Goldy on Dave Ross's radio show this morning it seems clear that yes indeed, the left is utterly mystified by Hutcherson's broader context. A regular attender to his church, or many other Evangelical churches in the area, would likely grasp his point. Suffice it to say the protesters linked above aren't counted in that number.
First, a caveat: critics have been quick to focus on the "God hates..." statements employed by Hutcherson, presuming he's referring to gay men because of some of the language involved. It is fair to say that in the era of Fred Phelps and his repulsive Westboro Baptist "Church" that pastors should be cautious when employing any "God hates..." phraseology. This particularly applies to pastors of large, prominent congregations in a given community. Fairly or not, they face higher scrutiny and news about them in many cases serves as a window into the world of the faithful to those not otherwise engaged in a church. Hutcherson should be more cognizant of that modern reality.
That said, Hutcherson's broader message about the importance of strong men is being wildly misunderstood. Anthony Robinson didn't get it. Erica Barnett didn't either. And David Goldstein certainly didn't grasp it, though he admirably gave Hutcherson a serious, fair hearing on KIRO today.
The quotes that have captured attention are in the context of a message familiar in many Evangelical churches - including this author's: the importance of men living up to the purpose God has for them in life.**
Contrary to the fears of misogyny Barnett articulates, the full specter of the message here is that men shouldn't be passive. They should be proactive; as fathers, as husbands, as friends, and as employees. In a modern world where it's all too easy and comfortable not to engage, God calls men to be serious about their responsibilities in life.
That doesn't mean domineering. The theology of Hutcherson's broader point centers in many cases on the concept of "servant leadership," where while the man may be in a leadership role in a given situation, he is concurrently sacrificial - just as Christ himself was entirely sacrificial in his leadership role establishing the church.
Such teaching is utterly contrary to the fears that are invoked in the minds of Goldstein, Barnett, and other liberal critics. They fear Hutcherson's reference to "soft men" refers to those not achieving a certain macho stereotype, ranging somewhere between the beer-drinking, bigoted, redneck and a 1950's Ward Cleaver.
Example: Goldy lamented to Hutcherson today that his own personal enjoyment of musicals and his time spent as a stay-at-home dad make him the "soft man" Hutcherson was railing against. Not true - though there might be other reasons Hutcherson would label him accordingly. Personal tastes in leisure and entertainment are largely immaterial, and there are certainly instances where the stay-at-home dad can actually be an excellent example of the very "servant leadership" this teaching envisions.
It should further be stipulated that Hutcherson's style of preaching, which he himself attests is designed to have some entertainment and almost shock value (in a good way), is often not conducive to full and fair analysis based on selective quotes. Yes, some of his preaching and particularly some of his activism is controversial. But misunderstanding what a person is saying and taking words out of context is still a poor way to have a serious debate. Hutcherson's latest critics are guilty of both.
**Note: this discussion is intended in large part to be a generalization of the general Evangelical message in question, not necessarily an exact reflection of Hutcherson's teaching or his views.
UPDATE: I should also note that the context of this teaching and theology described above has been oft-butchered in the Christian world. Errant and inarticulate discussion of the leadership role of men in society has led to many an unfortunate misconception. Witness the caller to Goldy on KIRO today, who proclaimed the need for male leadership above all else and proclaimed that he couldn't vote for Hillary Clinton because it wasn't "Biblical."
Not only is that simply incorrect, it is a tragic reminder that over time some of the worst representatives of Christianity have been actual Christians, showing the fallibility of their own humanity all to clearly.
Another point worth repeating, which Hutcherson himself made on the radio and for which Goldy gave him credit, is that God doesn't "hate" anybody. He "hates" all sin equally. From mass murder to petty theft. That was one component of Hutcherson's overall message that was utterly missing from the original coverage.
Posted by Eric Earling at February 26, 2008 07:18 PM | Email ThisWhat a dope.
Ken picks at the scab of the Seattle liberal "man"... they aren't.
Liberalism has capitulated to gender role reversal of aggressive feminism. They've gone from bully to bullied; leader to led.
In the microcosm that is our little family with 3 sons, I can tell you that those 3 sons want absolutely nothing to do with angry Seattle gals. One has fled to a state where women like to be women that actually enjoy men.
One Harvard professor argues that if you said Hanks, that's just because you have been brainwashed by feminism.
~~~~
Women want the "man" back in "manly," and the Seattle metrosexual faints in denial.
Women want the "man" back in "manly,"
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 26, 2008 08:01 PMIf I was in a drugstore and some guy opened the door for me, I’d rip his arm off and beat him with the wet end.
In what kind of context does that quote mean that the poor armless fellow is not "serious about [his] responsibilities in life"? I'm all ears.
Posted by: bma on February 26, 2008 08:04 PMThat being said, let me know when Goldstein reaches puberty and gets Ross' pipes (that high pitched voice is irritating)....if one we're to see their pictures side by side and have to match them up with their voices, everyone would get them wrong.
Posted by: Rick D. on February 26, 2008 08:13 PMI'd say a poorly thought out joke taken totally out of context is an exceptionally bad way to assess the validity of any theological point. Other than that you're really on to something.
Posted by: Eric Earling on February 26, 2008 08:19 PMFrankly, it's all too well-known that the Left has tried to wimpify men by telling them the big lie that they're not necessary in the home; by telling them that manliness isn't desirable, but getting in touch with their "feminine" side is. So tragic.
Posted by: Michele on February 26, 2008 08:56 PMBottomline---
What do you trust more?
God's Word
or KLOWNSTEIN'S Feelings?
Unsoft Men are solid...like the tree the leaf blew off of.
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on February 26, 2008 09:11 PMBut what's interesting is that live and in person, Goldy is pushover. He waits until he can get back to his blog and scream and rant with profanity. That's where he's the tough cyberbully.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 26, 2008 09:26 PMNot really, no.
What it sounds like are the kinds of words that have paved the way for atrocities in such places as Serbia, Kosovo and Rwanda.
Not really, no.
Posted by: pudge on February 26, 2008 09:35 PMPerhaps that's his point... people are talking about the Rev...and about God.
Seems pretty darn smart to me.
Touchdown Rev!
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 26, 2008 09:42 PMYou still using Windows XP Ragnar?
Yes, it really does sound very different. Perhaps you have not had much exposure to Hutcherson, Phelps, or both.
Let's be clear here: I think homosexuality is sinful. See my letter in The Herald last fall. But many things are sinful, including vain and idle words, which most of us -- including Hutcherson and Pope and Goldy and me (but especially Goldy) -- are guilty of.
Much ado about not much.
Posted by: pudge on February 26, 2008 09:45 PMIf we were to suppose that God both hates homosexuality and loves homosexuals, the Christian is left with a choice. How does one show both?
If Hutcherson spent a tenth as much time saying he loves homosexuals as he does saying he hates homosexuality, we wouldn't have these arguments. But he exclusively talks about the portion of Christian doctrine that happens to align with his politics, ignoring the parts that might make him feel uncomfortable.
And this is the fundamental question facing the modern Christian church - should our message be judgment or grace? Evangelicals too often vote for judgment. I don't see how anyone can read the New Testament and come to the same conclusion.
Posted by: AD on February 26, 2008 09:50 PMYou damned betcha we use Windows XP... and we have just about 1700 share of stock... with dividends coming again in about 2 weeks Figure it out, dude. Didn't Bill Gates hang the moon?
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 26, 2008 09:59 PM1. Reverend Hutcherson played football in both college and the NFL. I think some of this is based on the culture of football. I like football and would have watched the Superbowl if one of the teams I like was playing. There have been a couple of former NFL players who have "come out" recently and they told of playing "straight" for many years just to fit in with the football culture. So, I think that part of this joke comes out of this culture.
2. The real issue is those religious denominations who literally read the Scripture like Christian Evangelicals, Roman Catholics, Southern Baptists, Mormans, and Orthodox Jews and those that have a more interpretive view like Anglicans, United Church of Christ, and certain Methodist and Luthern denominations. How differnt views of society are translated into the political and societal view becomes the issue. Those denominations interpreting Scripture literally will probably not be in favor of gay marriage, Anglicans probably will not have a problem.
3. Then there is how a spiritual leader addresses what they perceive are societal sins. Do they take the Old Testament approach which Reverend Hutcherson and others seem to do which is to clearly name the behavior(s) they disagree with and use fairly aggressive strategies or do they take a lower key approach. I believe that what Pope Benedict has said on many issues of theology mirrors Reverand Hutcherson and similarly so have Southern Baptist leaders, most notably Dr. Charles Stanley. The latter seem to have taken the approach of speak softly, but carry a big stick.
The battle in this society on the culture wars is really for those in the middle. There are some religious reasons for the traditional family and support of the traditional family. There are some secular reasons as well such as generally healthier children and a stronger society.
I am not a theologian, so I don't know if there is a defense to making fun of anyone because of a "characterisitic." I don't think it is correct for a spiritual leader to do this even though I listen to him when he appears on Focus on the Family programs. I think that a lot of the good Reverend Hutcherson is trying to accomplish is lost in the bruhaha that results from incidents like this. I would analyze it is as this, you can take the man out of jock culture, but you can't take the jock culture out of the man.
Posted by: WVH on February 26, 2008 10:18 PMBut that same “perfect” Bible that once helped him to grow now keeps him from growing further. It binds him to the same level of moral consciousness as our spiritual ancestors who wrote it. This includes notions that God himself sanctions tribalism, sexism, homophobia and violence in the service of all three.
Mr. Hutcherson is developmentally arrested in part because he got recruited by the kind of Christianity that is absolutely devoted to the Bible instead of being absolutely devoted to the God of Love and Truth. If you worship the Ground of Love and Truth, then you have to measure everything you say and do against a standard of love and truth. By definition this is a humbling quest.
If, on the other hand, you worship the Book, there’s a huge fudge factor. You can justify almost any residual attitude that you carried out of childhood, because at one point or another our spiritual ancestors who wrote the texts in the Bible displayed each of them.
Also, you can claim to know and speak the mind of God with certitude, just like many of those writers. Text worship creates a standing presumption that a man can speak authoritatively for God. Now add to this a congregation hungry for guidance, a flock ready to defer their own moral and spiritual instincts to those of a shepherd.
What this produces is someone who mistakes his own voice for the voice of God and ultimately comes to perceive that they are one and the same. It’s an occupational hazard . . .
You are entitled to have an non-interpretive view of the Scripture. I suppose you will accept the propostion that God will separate the wheat from the chaff? Religion in this country has always been voluntary. Do you think you might have a tad bit of the intolerance against those who read Scripture literaly that you accuse Reverend Hutcherson of? What you are going to find is that even if you don't like Reverend Hutcherson's approach, do you think the theology of Pope Benedict is different? He is scheduled to visit the White House. By your reasoning should Pope Benedict's invitation be recinded?
Posted by: WVH on February 26, 2008 10:53 PMWell who would hire the guy. A basic background check would lead to his blog, which he'd probably wear as a badge of honor up front anyway. And that's the end of that opportunity. The guy is radioactive except as some kind of progressive agitator, or as the recipient of a nepotistic position from a Progressive candidate. I think that's the reason why he's such a Darcy Burner advocate. There's a good chance he'd get a position with her if she got elected.
But somebody should break it to the guy that he's not cut out for the radio.
No one has a poorer understanding of it than Hutcherson because there's no bigger weakness a man can have than to actually be afraid of the naturally occurring phenomenon of homosexuality.
Posted by: thehim on February 26, 2008 11:40 PMThis is not true. There is nothing homophobic in the Bible at all. (You're a psychologist, and therefore should know what a phobia is.)
And "tribalism," "sexism," and "violence" as "sanctioned" in the Bible are not bad things. I am a member of many tribes. This is good. I see men and women as different, neither superior to the other. This is good. I am ready, willing, and able to use violence when necessary. This is good.
There is nothing in those notions that prevents anyone from "growing."
Mr. Hutcherson is developmentally arrested in part because he got recruited by the kind of Christianity that is absolutely devoted to the Bible instead of being absolutely devoted to the God of Love and Truth.
This is also not true. The Bible is only an object of devotion because the Bible is taken to be God's word. This is a truism in ALL kinds of what some people call "credal" Christianity. It is not worship of the Bible, it is worship of God, and the Bible is the word of God.
If, on the other hand, you worship the Book, there's a huge fudge factor. You can justify almost any residual attitude that you carried out of childhood, because at one point or another our spiritual ancestors who wrote the texts in the Bible displayed each of them.
This is also not true. The human frailties of the writers of the Bible are not viewed by Christians as acceptable just because they wrote the Bible. David's many sins, including murder and adultery, are not justified because he wrote the Psalms. Moses and Peter and Paul each had many failings. Peter -- the first Pope, an apostle of the inner circle, and author of portions of the Bible -- was bigoted against Gentiles!
Christians, including Hutcherson, do not think the way you think that they think.
Also, you can claim to know and speak the mind of God with certitude, just like many of those writers.
Only to the extent that God has revealed himself to them. There is nothing in the belief system we are discussing that would cause anyone to presuppose that God is revealing himself to us in the same way as he did to the authors of the Bible.
Text worship creates a standing presumption that a man can speak authoritatively for God.
This is also not true. God chooses to speak THROUGH man, which is necessarily authoritative, because God is the one speaking. No man is speaking authoritatively FOR God.
You should seek much more understanding and knowledge before you judge Hutcherson's beliefs, because you really don't know what you're talking about.
1. There is no serious evidence Hutcherson is afraid of homosexuality. Saying it is wrong and damaging is not the same as being afraid of it.
2. There is no serious evidence that homosexuality is "naturally occurring." People keep trying, and failing, to show it.
But that you bring this up at all is odd; whether something is "naturally occurring" is totally irrelevant to the discussion. You appear to have the odd, and obviously false, belief that if it is "naturally occurring" then it is not wrong or damaging. But all sorts of human failings are "naturally occurring," from psychopathy to ill-temperedness (an affliction many people here, and especially on Goldy's site, suffer from).
"Naturally occurring" does not imply something is good or bad, nor is it an indicator of whether fear is a reasonable response: most people would be justifiably afraid of a "naturally occurring" psychopath. So even if someday we find out that homosexuality is "naturally occurring," that will not rationally have any significant effect on our views of whether homosexual acts are morally wrong or not.
Could you please make the case that there is an absolute limit to the number of things each of us can worry about? And if so, what is that number?
Posted by: Ross MacLochness on February 27, 2008 06:25 AMSince when did it happen that because the 'majority' of people, and I'm not convinced it is the majority, beleive something, makes it right. I point you to NAZI germany.
Posted by: REBEL on February 27, 2008 08:26 AMPrejudice, intolerance, and hatred are not strong core values to this liberal. That's what Hutcherson is preaching toward gay people, most of whom -- whether you lot believe it or not -- were born that way and cannot change.
Only fools believe that God speaks through a pious, money-grubbing, self-aggrandizing hypocrite like Ken Hutcherson. He is preaching hatred and fear, while he has his hand out for your check.
It's bad religion and bad politics, and thinking people will reject both.
Posted by: ivan on February 27, 2008 09:30 AMTo say his OPINION of what is appropriate and responsible dialogue, yes, he is competent to do that. As are many of us here. If you mean to imply he has more competence than us ... nope.
I tend to side with Robinson on this issue, but his degrees and experience have nothing to do with it. My own judgment is sufficient.
ivan @ 35: WOW. You REALLY want us to believe that you do not promote prejudice, intolerance, and hatred? That's about all you demonstrate on this site: you are prejudiced and intolerant and hateful of anyone who doesn't agree with you.
Try that hypocritical self-righteousness on people who don't see you post on a regular basis.
Posted by: pudge on February 27, 2008 09:53 AMAlthough I must qualify that by saying that I don't agree that gays deserve any special treatment from government other than to simply be treated equally. I don't agree with religious gay marriage, but I do agree that there ought to be some sort of civil union that infers legal equality on gay unions and straight unions. The government should have no involvement with religion and vice versa. Gays, like all current PC victim classes, love to trump up all sorts of "discrimination" for the purposes of special privilege. But the reality is that any actual discrimination is individual and should be dealt with using existing laws and on a case by case basis. We're not going to fix racism using more racism. Gays have a few legitimate legal beefs regarding civil unions and legal rights inferred therein, and that's about it.
But another important point is that just as the right has the Ken Hutchersons who preach hatred against gays, the left has Al Gores that preach intolerance of scientists who "don't follow lockstep on climate consensus."
Both the left and right are wrong. There are a lot of hot button issues which many people allow themselves to be camped in with mutual exclusivity. Real thinking individuals disagree with both Ken Hutcherson, and Al Gore.
Then there are those who sit comfortably in an Oval Office while they deny dignity to others who sit in cells on an island a mere 200 miles off the coast of a great nation. There individuals are beaten, tortured, and denied basic civil rights at the order of the man sitting behind the desk in that Oval Office.
The man behind the desk fears no consequences of his actions, he denies accountability at every turn. This order given by this man seems to break the core values that the nation he presides over holds dear. Whether the higher power decided to hold the man in the oval office responsible for these disgraceful actions will never be known.
It is not the education, it is the interpretation of the Scripture and the theology. Now Pope Benedict who has the following education and background:
"....Benedict XVI is a well-known Roman Catholic theologian and a prolific author, a defender of traditional Catholic doctrine and values. He served as a professor at various German universities and was a theological consultant at the Second Vatican Council before becoming Archbishop of Munich and Freising and Cardinal. At the time of his election as Pope, Benedict had been Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (curial heads lose their positions upon the death of a pope[2]) and was Dean of the College of Cardinals.
During his papacy, Benedict XVI has emphasized what he sees as a need for Europe to return to fundamental Christian values in response to increasing de-Christianisation and secularisation in many developed countries. For this reason, he claims relativism's denial of objective truth--and more particularly, the denial of moral truths--as the central problem of the 21st century...."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI
Dr. Charles Stanley who is President of In Touch Ministries and was twice elected head of the Southern Baptists has the following bio:
"....At the age of fourteen, Dr. Stanley received a clear call to the ministry, which later led him to earn a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Richmond in Richmond, Virginia, and a Bachelor of Divinity degree at Southwestern Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas. He then earned the degrees of Master of Theology and Doctor of Theology from Luther Rice Seminary in Atlanta. Always practical, Dr. Stanley often says, "I feel I cannot honestly tell you how to believe Bible truths, and put these truths to work in your life, until I have first let God work them into my own life."
http://www.intouch.org/site/c.dhKHIXPKIuE/b.2286643/k.3CCA/Dr_Charles_Stanleys_Biography.htm
I double dog dare you to call either Pope Benedict or Dr. Charles Stanley ignorant bigots. You can't. They preach the same theology as Rev Hutcherson which is a strict interpretation of Scripture. Other sects preaching a strict interpretation are listed as examples in my post above.
I am always amused when those, who in all likelihood, hate Christians and Christianity now presume to tell Christians who their leaders should be. You don't at this point go after Pope Benedict or Dr. Stanley because there are a huge number of Catholics and Southern Baptists.
The problem is that you do not like those who interpret the Bible literally, you have to argue on those terms, not using the smoke screen that you care a damn about Christianity, because you don't.
Posted by: WVH on February 27, 2008 10:17 AMWhen you say you "don't agree with religious gay marriage", do you mean that your church shouldn't not perform same sex marriages, or that no church should be allowed to perform same sex marriages?
I think each religious group should have the ability to do whatever they want in regards to their beliefs, including whether or not to marry couples of the same sex in their church. Most churches are against performing same sex marriages as part of their faith. But very few pastors and church leaders will actively preach against same gender relations, and only a small minority will do so with the hateful, violent venom of Fred Phelps and Ken Hutcherson.
Pudge @ 36
How can you possibly compare Ivan to Fred Phelps and Ken Hutcherson? I have seen Ivan disagree strongly with people he disagrees with, but nothing even remotely approaching the vehement hatred that some of your political and religious "heroes" practice.
Posted by: Richard Pope on February 27, 2008 10:23 AMIf Pope Benedict and Rev. Stanley were to use the same thuggish, intimidating tactics that Hutcherson uses, with the same ratonalization, then yes, I would consider them guilty of hate speech. Have I made myself perfectly clear?
People can interpret the Bible literally if they choose to, and I defend their right to do so. But when they use those beliefs to justify the use of coercion in the political arena, and to force their beliefs into law, to apply even to other citizens who do not share those beliefs, you can expect me to stand against that every time.
Why does decrying homosexuality equal "fear"? That ourtageous comment says far more about YOU than it does anyone who believe the acts of homosexuality are destructive and immoral.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 27, 2008 11:34 AM
Very, very easily.
I have seen Ivan disagree strongly with people he disagrees with, but nothing even remotely approaching the vehement hatred that some of your political and religious "heroes" practice.
You are a liar, Richard. No one I would call a "hero" enagages in such things. Not that I would call anyone a hero of mine -- I am no respecter of persons, and I have no heroes -- but if I would, then it would certainly not be someone who engages in such things.
As to others who do engage in such things ... shrug. ivan constantly, consistently, has nothing but hate and vitriol on this site for people who disagree with him. ivan is FAR more hateful than Hutcherson, in my experience. Heck, I met Hutcherson once, at a luncheon, sat next to him. I told him I disagreed with some of his views. He was perfectly polite and nice to me. Unlike ivan: when I explain my views, he does nothing but viciously attack me.
ivan: People can interpret the Bible literally if they choose to, and I defend their right to do so. But when they use those beliefs to justify the use of coercion in the political arena, and to force their beliefs into law, to apply even to other citizens who do not share those beliefs, you can expect me to stand against that every time.
So you therefore oppose Tony Campolo and Jim Wallis, who are evangelical Christians and liberal Democrats who believe that the Bible calls us to use government force to provide charity to people in need.
So you therefore oppose the abolitionists of the 19th century, liberal Christians who tried to force government to abolish slavery in accordance with their religious views.
So you therefore oppose the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., who believed his view of liberty from the Bible should be made the law of the land.
Oh. I see. You only "stand against it every time" when you disagree with it.
Posted by: pudge on February 27, 2008 11:43 AMAnd Pope, I mean that marriage as I see it from a religious context, applies to men and women. And I think most churches agree. But again, that's really semantic within sects. If a new church wants to spring up, and marry homosexuals, they can do so, religion is based on faith, so really anything goes. No one can say absolutely what God does or doesn't want, that's the whole point of faith. It's not rational. But certainly, there should be no force of government, or otherwise barring churches from performing same sex marriages. Churches are private organizations. Free to do as they please. If people don't like the ideas of that church, they don't have to attend. (And before anyone mentions it, no this doesn't mean Islamic mosques have a right to incite violence. The highest law of the land is the Constitution.)
And there should be an absolute separation of church and state. I think many on the religious right are going to have to come to terms with the fact that the people may well confer some legal right to civil unions, and that any religious difficulty with that concept has no bearing on the decision. Only the Constitution can intervene.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 27, 2008 11:50 AMHutcherson is correct about the "softening" of men in general and in the Seattle area as a rule, but that has more to do with the blurring of gender roles in this Politically correct climate that exists today. This would also account for the very passive-aggressive nature of people in this part of the country. A nation of wimps is too lenient of language to describe this particular phenomenom and it's not likely to change for the better anytime soon. Within 5 years, I see a motion being passed by the Seattle City council banning the use of urinals within the city limits........laugh now, while you can.
Posted by: Rick D. on February 27, 2008 12:12 PMAs for you, Pudge, you're just an idiot. The abolitionists were fighting a political battle, not a fundamentalist religious crusade, like Hutcherson is doing. Many of them were religious, but abolition was far more than that. What are you doing, taking the part of those poor slaveholders or something?
Go back to your Perl scripts and quit embarrassing yourself. You are over your head in most discussions of politics. But at least you allow feeback in the comments section, I'll give you that.
Says the Union Goon.
Snort.
Posted by: jimg on February 27, 2008 12:29 PMI can't get over how you expect your comments about what Christians should or should take seriously are valid. Do you speak for all Christians? Are either of you Christian? I don't speak for all Black people or all Christians. Here are some cites on the Catholic Church and gay marriage:
1 - 10 of 3,030,000 for catholic bishop gay marriage (About) - 0.20 s
WEB RESULTSCatholic bishops slam gay marriage ruling -- Queer Lesbian Gay News ...
Gay.com > News > Catholic bishops slam gay marriage ruling ... Bishop Thomas Dupre, Worcester Bishop Daniel P. Reilly and Bishop George ...
www.gay.com/news/article.html?2003/12/01/3 - 23k - Cached
The Catholic Church, Homosexuality and Gay Marriage
News Background: Bishops Urge Amendment to Protect Marriage. • Catholic Bishop Calls Gay Decisions in Episcopal Church a Problem ...
www.americancatholic.org/News/Homosexuality/default.asp - 30k - Cached
Catholic bishops urging vote on gay marriage - Boston.com
... put a proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage on the 2008 ballot. ... Catholic bishops urging vote on gay marriage. October 31, 2006 ...
boston.com/news/local/.../catholic_bishops_urging_vote_on_gay_marriage - 29k
Catholic bishops OK gay "disordered" guidelines -- Queer Lesbian Gay ...
... for the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) communities. ... Catholic bishops OK "disordered" policy. S.F. appeals anti-marriage ruling ...
www.gay.com/news/article.html?2006/11/14/3 - 24k - Cached
Catholic bishops push for gay marriage vote - Local News Updates - The ...
The state's four Roman Catholic bishops mailed a joint statement today to each ... urging them to allow a vote on a ballot initiative that would ban gay marriage. ...
boston.com/news/globe/city_region/.../2006/12/catholic_bishop.html - 31k - Cached
The Sun Chronicle Online - Reports
... four Catholic bishops to publicly oppose same-sex marriage, and to ... of gay marriage far outnumbered the few that came in after the bishop's letter. ...
www.thesunchronicle.com/articles/2003/12/01/reports/special099.txt - 53k - Cached
Catholic Bishops Endorse Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriages ...
Catholic Bishops Endorse Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriages ... the bishops stressed that their opposition to gay marriage -- including civil, ...
www.beliefnet.com/story/132/story_13234_1.html - 39k - Cached
I can assure you that they have the full support of the Pope.
Now this is what the Southern Baptists say:
"The 35 million Baptists form the largest division within Protestant Christianity in the United States. About 16 million are associated with the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). The SBC broke away from its parent organization at the time of the civil war. Schisms occurred in many national denominations over the slavery issue.
Traditionally, this denomination had varying levels of tolerance for homosexuality and had expressed concern over gay-bashing. However, with the shift of some Baptist associations towards Fundamentalism during the last 15 years, attitudes have significantly hardened into an extreme opposition to equal rights for gays, bisexuals and lesbians.
SBC Position on Sexual Orientation
The SBC's Christian Life Commission publishes a pamphlet called Critical Issues: Homosexuality. It states that:
The many Bible passages that are commonly quoted as condemning homosexuality are valid.
People can change their sexual orientation.
Homosexual orientation is not "caused" by hormonal imbalance or genetic factors, but by an unhealthy relationship with one's parents.
People cannot be pigeonholed into two classifications: homosexual or heterosexual. A continuum exists which includes various degrees of bisexuality.
Although homosexual activity is a sin, it is not the unpardonable sin, or the most terrible of sins.
Homosexuals can only lead moral lives by remaining celibate.
Discrimination against gays and lesbians is proper, in the areas of: employment.
to protect the (presumably heterosexual) "family."
to protect other social institutions."
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_sbc.htm
Are you going to jump all over them? I doubt it. The fact of the matter is that Rev. Hutcherson has the same views as many literal readers of the Scripture.
Ivan is an atheist. Jeff B or Richard Pope care to disclose your religion?
My theory is that all of you are clueless about the different views in Christianity and want to define the religion out of existence, but if you can't do that you are happy to water it down to secular progressive mush.
There was an interview with some really nasty mass-murderer rapist guy that I caught the other night (sorry, I don't remember who it was), and they used this same logic. He said "God hates all sin, and sins are all equally bad", at which point this total monster went on to say that what he did to an entire family "is no worse than a child stealing a cookie" in God's eye.
I'm sure he would have felt right at home with Hutch. In all my years going to school with self-proclaimed "christians", I know the Hutcherson type very well, and in my opinion they are not Christians at all. They worship the Bible, but have little to do with how Christ taught us to live and how to treat one another.
Posted by: Splinter on February 27, 2008 12:48 PMThe fact is that the abolitionist movement started out, essentially, as a "fundamentalist" religious movement (the term "fundamentalism" was not in use back then, but Finney and Beecher were clearly on the "religious right" of their time, and shared most ideology with the fundamentalists that arrived a half century later; Finney in particular was one of fundamentalism's biggest contemporary influences). Harriet Beecher Stowe, for example, wrote: "I wrote what I did ... because as a Christian I felt the dishonor to Christianity because as a lover of my country I trembled at the coming day of wrath."
Remember YOU SAID: "People can interpret the Bible literally if they choose to, and I defend their right to do so. But when they use those beliefs to justify the use of coercion in the political arena, and to force their beliefs into law, to apply even to other citizens who do not share those beliefs, you can expect me to stand against that every time."
This PERFECTLY describes Harriet Beecher Stowe.
You have two choices: stand against Harriet Beecher Stowe's attempts to abolish slavery ... or admit that you are full of crap.
What are you doing, taking the part of those poor slaveholders or something?
No, in fact, that is what YOU said YOU are doing: standing against people who try to use coercion in the political arena, and to force their beliefs into law, to apply even to "those poor slaverholders" who do not share those beliefs. You stand against that every time, remember?
You are over your head in most discussions of politics.
And yet, you are incapable of winning an argument against me ... on the merits, or otherwise.
Tell me again how the Democrats are not going to use the lists from the primary. That lie were SO CUTE!
I may be an "idiot," ivan, but I am far better at this than you are.
Posted by: pudge on February 27, 2008 12:57 PMAnd I want to make one other clarification. It may be that a church springs up which promotes and performs same sex marriages. However, there also may still be a legal, secular definition of marriage as confined to a man and a women. The Constitution and law trump religion. Just because a church might confer a religious marriage, does not mean it will be a legally recognized one until such time as there is a law. That's the rule of law. And it's how we do business.
And I think that for the sake of all concerned, and for tradition, we ought to keep legal marriage as defined between a man and a woman, and use the term civil unions for same sex unions. This is mostly out of respect for the fact that marriage is an age old tradition, and the complexity and religious philosophical basis for the founding of the country, and times when philosophy in general was less understood, should grandfather the terminology. Religionists may seize upon this as a means to eliminating same sex unions, but it's simply a matter of definitions. And we have many such traditions and definitions for different cases. No big deal.
But rather than react to this with an even greater fervor, which then legitimizes the religionists to a degree. The homosexual community should simply understand that in this modern era where a new understanding of equality is at hand, that a legal civil union / religious marriage will carry the legal weight they desire, along with whatever religious intonation they also desire.
It simply a question of separation of church and state. There's never going to be an acceptance of homosexuality within certain faiths, and equally, civil unions (where legal) and other contracts in law, are fully legitimate matters of state, that exist within the rule of law.
And as for the law, a marriage amendment is highly unlikely. And we all should hope this should never come to pass because it's inappropriate as a violation of the concept of federalism. Legal marriage should remain a power invested in the states, because that will guarantee the maximum freedom and coexistence of constituencies that both oppose or approve of same sex marriage.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 27, 2008 12:58 PMI'm neither confused or smoking peyote (which is eaten or placed in tea).
Wouldn't it be interesting to insert the names Louis Farrakan, Jesse Jackson or Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. with the same venom that some use the names Ken Hutcherson and Pope Benedict?
I agree, but since no one is really oppressing Jewish people anymore the anti-semitic views of these supposed leaders border on irrelevant. None of the individuals you mentioned have called for beating up a Jewish person and beating them with their bloody stump like the Rev. Hutchison has for Homosexuals. Nor have these individuals you mention actively used their position to influence major corporations to bend to their twisted views like Rev. Hutchison has.
Rev. Hutchison actively calling for violence or trying to shove Christian law down upon the masses through his involvement with Microsoft seems more like the actions of some of our terrorist enemies who wish us to bend to their own interpretation of the holy scripture.
So since the manner victimology and/or the victims are not currently relevant it's no big deal, eh?
One imagines the knots that are cato via his relativism are mighty uncomfortable.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 27, 2008 02:43 PMI would assert that advocating violence and preaching to the masses are two different things, the victims will change depending on the orientation of the particular church.
Since the Rev. Hutchison has decided to become an of advocate violence to enforce his twisted views he elevates himself to a different level of lunacy than the names that you listed.
I suspect Ragnar you would agree with a law that protects Jewish people from having crosses burned on their lawns but would be against a law that protects Gay people from the same thing. What would you argue differentiates the two groups?
The key word there cato, in case you missed it (or, more likely, chose to ignore it) is SAME.
You might want to send a reminder to Farrakan and BAAAAHrack oBAAAAAAHms minister about preaching violence and hatred.
OOPS! There's that pesky moral certaintly again.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 27, 2008 03:08 PMSo you're for Gay Marriage now? What made you come around?
You might want to send a reminder to Farrakan and BAAAAHrack oBAAAAAAHms minister about preaching violence and hatred.
I have not seen Obama's minister advocate violence, care to show me? It seems more like Rev. Wright preaches about black people investing in the black community. How is this different from say Bill Cosby?
I said SAME... they have the very SAME right you and I have to marry... the opposite sex.
What I find absolutely delicious is the reality slap in the face that "married" homosexuals are getting when their utopia falls apart and they find the states that married them make them accountable to the DIVORCE laws of that same state... AND, my favorite so far, is the "married" couple who are trying to divorce in a state that never recognized their "marriage" to begin with.
Oh what a tangled web... all fo a few headlines.
No, that is not what he said. You appear to be under the mistaken impression that equal protection necessarily means gay people should be allowed to marry each other.
There are two arguments to be made here. The first is so obvious it hurts to have to bother saying it: gay people today have as much right as everyone else to marry. They just can't marry another gay person. I can't marry a man either. The law applies equally to us both.
However, even though this is true, some people don't think it is "fair." Fine, but that still doesn't mean equal protection forces us to have gay marriage: the problem is that marriage is, absolutely, not a right. For anyone. Government could get rid of all civil marriage tomorrow and no one's rights would be taken away. Therefore, it is necessarily true that solutions other than "gay marriage should be legally recognized" exist to solve the equal protection problem.
One solution is civil unions for gays (whining about "separate but equal" sounds nice, but the reason "separate but equal" was ruled unconstitutional is because it wasn't actually equal, but there is no reason why civil unions couldn't be equal to marriages).
Another is getting rid of all civil marriage altogether. Civil marriages for none; civil unions for all. This is the policy I advocate. I will continue to be against gay marriage; but I will also advocate getting rid of all civil marriages, and converting them to civil unions, which would be open to everyone, including friends, blood relatives, and so on. Many people -- both homosexual, and anti-homosexual -- agree with this position, because a. every union is precisely equivalent in the eyes of the law; b. government does not change the definition of marriage, c. it gets government out of something it shouldn't be in, in the first place, and so on.
I can't speak for Ragnar; I can only say that you were wrong to claim that he said he was for gay marriage, as I gave three ways to fully recognize equal protection AND still be against gay marriage.
(Ah, I see Ragnar now has posted that he follows the first argument I provided.)
Posted by: pudge on February 27, 2008 03:28 PM
BAAAAHrack oBAAAAAAHmas minister seems to be telling them the only thing that matters is "black".
Cosby advocates pride via self-reliance and accomplishment.
BAAAAHrack oBAAAAAAHmas minister demands pride because of a particular color.
How obtuse must you be not see the difference; how willingly blind must you be not to see the value of one and the harm of the other? ... no need to answer, cato, you already have with every previous post.
So if they're the same whats the problem? Is one persons love for another somehow lessened by their attraction to a member of the same sex?
If homosexuals are allowed to marry, they should be equally allowed to divorce. I see no problem with the same laws being applied regardless of sexual orientation.
Now quit dodging the question Rangar, can you show me where Obama's minister is advocating violence in the same way Rev. Hutchison is?
Those who care less about God are upset when the Pastor says: "God hates............"
Can you say two faced? I knew you could.
Posted by: Sam Adams on February 27, 2008 03:30 PMNope, let em love all they want... privately and quietly, preferably.
I love my dog... and she loves me.... are you advocating I get to marry her?
I love my Mercedes... and it loves me for the the high test gasoline and fancy car wax with which I show my love.... oooohhh will you give us a B Service Package for a wedding present?
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 27, 2008 03:35 PMBAAAAHrack oBAAAAAAHmas minister demands pride because of a particular color.
He advocates the black community coming together to do the same think Mr. Cosby is advocating. What's wrong with one person helping another of the same race get on their feet? Love they neighbor and all that good stuff.
Rev. Wright is not advocating assaulting white/jewish/catholic/homosexual/etc. people for opening the door for blacks.
Hey if you want to talk that way about your wife be my guest.
I love my Mercedes... and it loves me for the the high test gasoline and fancy car wax with which I show my love.
You're suggesting love of between you and an inanimate object is the same as one between two people? Wow, you've really gone off the deep end.
Now quit dodging the question Rangar, can you show me where Obama's minister is advocating violence in the same way Rev. Hutchison is?
I'd explain it, but I don't "do" affirmative action... and you'll learn more when take it upon yourself.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 27, 2008 03:55 PMNo, he's saying that black people should help each other out. Since they live in a predominantly black neighborhood he's saying they should focus on the issues that surround them and work on them TOGETHER as a community. He is not advocating a race war or undying allegiance to a race/culture/creed.
Ahh so what applies to the Rev. Hutchison does not apply to the Rev. Wright because he is a liberal?
Posted by: Cato on February 27, 2008 04:06 PMI do hate the sin.
But, I am not willing to ignore the behaviour of the sinner either.
We all have impulses and desires that may be/are considered out of the norm of "right". In my opinion, how or whether we act upon them, how or whether we let them define our lives is what matters in judging. And yes, cato, I firmly believe judging is valid and necessary.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 27, 2008 04:08 PMHYPERBOLE.
That's fine, but I don't consider Homosexuality a sin.
Didn't God also tell people that eating pork, shellfish, with cloven hoofs was a sin too? Cause I sure enjoy BBQ Pork I'd hate for that to be a sin.
Oh wait, he's a liberal so he must be a "racist". =P
Come back when you have a real argument Ragnar.
Straw man argument at best. I could use the same argument about religion.
"If we don't judge Christianity we'll have people going off and locking themselves into well armed compounds in Texas and claiming to be a separate nation under God."
If you take anything to extremes people are going to object.
A distinction without a difference, IMHO
Posted by: Rick D. on February 27, 2008 04:38 PMI do however consider acting upon ones homosexuality one.
I often feel murderous and vengeful. I have neighbors that I loathe... I loathe their yappy little dog, I loathe their midnight hot tub confessions, I loathe the mother-in-law wo spoils open window summers with her hyena laugh and I loathe the outhouse with which they blocked my view.
I certainly do entertain some nasty fantasies. However, as much as I loathe them, I do not act upon that loathing... and they have no clue how very much I despise them.
Many people suffer from greed.. but they are not committing robbery to satisfy it.
Many lonely people are lustful... but they aren't grabbing people for random sex.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 27, 2008 04:40 PM
Ummm, yeah they are and have been for thousands of years. In fact here is a reality TV show dedicated to doing it well.
"I do however consider acting upon ones homosexuality one."
Judge not, that ye be not judged.
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
You are entitled to that belief. Since we're now comparing dead people how do you feel about the Rev. Brigham Young? Many people including the a past Presidential Candidate and the current Senate Majority Leader would consider him a revered leader and possibly a saint.
I JUDGE murder a sin, I JUDGE abortion a sin, I JUDGE not living up to your capabilites a sin, I JUDGE theft a sin.... including theft by government fiat and theft by illegals....
and I have absolutely no fear of others judging me.
Hmmm... let's try to stick to some kind of contemporaries shall we Cato? Richard Butler died in late 2004, therefore a Jeremiah Wright Comtemporary.Brigham Young died in 1877, but nice attempt at a dodge.
The fact remains that Butler and Wright are the same entity, no matter how people choose to do the verbal semantics.
Posted by: Rick D. on February 27, 2008 06:09 PMGiven their own fear of other belief systems, liberals who call anyone who disagrees with them "phobic" is an anthropological irony.
Reading this polite, intelligent, but entertaining conversation on such a sensitive subject should make us proud to be thinking conservatives.
Posted by: Chad Minnick on February 27, 2008 09:23 PMSHAME!
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 27, 2008 09:37 PMI see, so in your opinion it's perfectly OK to name major university's after historically racist figures. It's also OK to carry on his legacy of established racism until 1979 and absolve the followers of any wrong doing or inaction to adapt to modern times?
Works for me, I mean if Mitt Romney can get a pass for his beliefs I'm fine with Obama getting a pass as well.
The evidence that Rev. Wright is a racist seems pretty flimsy when compared to historical racists like Brigham Young or contemporary racists like David Duke.
Still, Rev. Hutcherson's theology is no different than that of Pope Benedict, Dr. Charles Stanley of the Southern Baptists and most Orthodox Jewish Rabbis. The issue in a political context is how to make the different strands work.
Posted by: WVH on February 27, 2008 09:41 PMI honestly just want a guy with enough guts to just hang his pride and his fear of rejection for once and pursue me!
Posted by: Cydney on February 27, 2008 10:37 PMOur eldest, a 28 yr old attorney says 'Who needs that sh*t? ... sometimes I just want to come home and BE alone and when I do they just get b*tchy... or they call constantly'
Evidently todays women prefer to harangue than be pursued.
It's been that way since girls were old enough to notice them as boys rather than pests. I remember when one was 6th grade age and girls were suddenly, constantly calling... I gave him the available options: HE could tell them he couldn't receive call from girls... or I could.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 27, 2008 11:05 PMApparently so Cato, Afterall, it's the Democrats who have coddled Klansman Robert Byrd (D) W.V. who still proudly serves on the U.S. Senate. Byrd led the filibuster in 1964 against the Civil rights act -
(Curious to hear Cato's excuse on this one)
among other ignorant and racist statements and actions too numerous to list here, but are freely available online to those willing to uncover their eyes and ears and let a little reality seep in.
His punishment by Democrats?He gets ever increasing leadership roles within the party.
-secretary of the Senate Democrat Caucus in 1967
- Senate Democrat Whip in 1971.
- elected Senate Majority Leader from 1977-1980 and again in 1987-1988
- elected Senate Minority Leader from 1981-1986.
- Given chairmanship of the Appropriations Committee and President Pro Tempore of the Senate from 1989 until 1994.
I'd say if the Democrats in 2008 can't clean their own house of racists and bigots, you can't really expect to draw a corellation between a 19th century Mormon leader to a 21st century Senate leader.
To do so, is laughable and disingenous, and you know it.
You are correct, but again Robert Byrd is not running for President. I could say the same for Trent Lott who held a position of Senate Majority Leader up until his "OMG, the world would be so better off had a racist like Strom Thurmond had been President" moment. The people of West Virgina must like him because the GOP has been unable (or unwilling?) to find a viable to unseat him. One could say the same about the Democrats and Strom Thurmond or Jesse Helms.
I'd say if the Democrats in 2008 can't clean their own house of racists and bigots
The people of West Virginia are accountable for Sen. Byrd's re-election, not myself as I am a resident of Washington State. Again, Sen. Byrd is NOT running for President.
you can't really expect to draw a corellation between a 19th century Mormon
True, but I can draw a correlation to Presidential Candidates who (ie Mitt Romeny, whom many here favored) follow a religion who's spiritual leaders preached racism up until the late 1970's. Mitt Romney got a pass on his religion, should those same standards apply equally to candidates across the board? I think so, especially since you have no quotes proving that the Rev. Wright is a racist.
....and neither is the Political figure you brought up as a comparison, Brigham Young, who died in 1877.
"I could say the same for Trent Lott who held a position of Senate Majority Leader up until his "OMG, the world would be so better off had a racist like Strom Thurmond had been President" moment."
...now you're equating one incident of Lott's with a lifetime of Racist actions and language by Democratic Senator/Klansman Byrd? The desperation must be setting in.
"Mitt Romney got a pass on his religion, should those same standards apply equally to candidates across the board?"
...perhaps that is a question to ask of your Democratic U.S. Senate Majority leader Democrat Harry Reid (shhh..he's Mormon as well), that is, if you want to accept responsibility for the DNC party leaders.
You've proven that debating with you is akin to playing handball with the drapes.......no return. Your use of spin to further your agenda is beyond reproach though.
Cheers!
Me: True, but I can draw a correlation to Presidential Candidates
I was comparing the religious parallels between two Presidential Candidates, Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. It's fair to say Mr. Romney was let off the hook about his membership in a religion that actively excluded black people until 1979, and Sen. Obama who belongs to a church that preaches against perceived racism in the world by blaming white people for all the worlds problems.
I think it's only fair to treat the candidates religious affiliations with equal footing. If Mr. Romney gets a pass for being a member of a "racist church", then Sen. Obama should as well.
now you're equating one incident of Lott's with a lifetime of Racist actions and language by Democratic Senator/Klansman Byrd?
I also compared Sen. Byrd to Sen. Thurmond (who has the record for the longest filibuster on record against the Civil Rights bill of 1957) and Sen. Helms (who voted Nay on every piece of Civil Rights legislation). I think those would be more apt comparisons, but the GOP had a man in leadership who made a racist remark. Besides, I think you would find yourself in agreement with Sen. Bryd since he is against Affirmative Action and Gay Marriage much like yourself.
Don't pawn your racist Democrat leader on me Cato, that baggage belongs firmly on your (and the Democratic party) carousel, not mine.
As far as being anti-Affirmative action or more aptly described as "Racial Preferences", I guess you'd have to harken back to a quote from Martin Luther King Jr. in his 'I have a Dream speech' when he said "I have a dream that someday my children will not be judged by the color of their skin but, by the content of their character".
An endorsement of affirmative action, is a denial of Dr. Kings dream.On this subject, we are the Progressives, attempting to institute equal footing for all.
As for Gay Marriage, I don't spend alot of time thinking about the subject; and I'm not sure how you can come to a conclusion about my stance on it when I haven't addressed it anywhere, in any manner, on any thread.
I'm not sure how you can come to a conclusion about my stance on it when I haven't addressed it anywhere
I assumed your stance on it based on your comments at #77. It's sort of like you seeming to know which party I am affiliated with and believe that I have endorsed Affirmative Action when I have not commented on it in any manner.
You brought up Brigham Young, correct?
...as for a reply on the subject, it is about Rev. Ken Hutcherson, not presidential candidates, strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, or George Bush, or Guantanomo bay Detainees as you've brought up on this thread in numerous posts. So don't admonish me about not staying on topic sir, you've done that quite nicely yourself.
Cato @ 102- "I assumed your stance on it(gay marriage) based on your comments at #77."
...Post #77 did not mention or refer in any manner to gays. I guess your assumption skills aren't up to par.
"It's sort of like you seeming to know which party I am affiliated with"
....Since you're defending the Democratic front runner Barack Obama (D) Ill., I guess I was using an educated guess.....sounds pretty logical no?
"and believe that I have endorsed Affirmative Action when I have not commented on it in any manner."- Cato @ post 102
Cato @ 100- "I think you would find yourself in agreement with Sen. Bryd since he is against Affirmative Action and Gay Marriage much like yourself."
.......does 100 come before 102??
I think your pretzel logic is coming full circle Cato......you just contradicted yourself yet again. Just keep tying yourself up in knots, I have to admit it's entertaining. Otherwise, let's get back to the topic at hand which is Ken Hutcherson.
Yes, I did.
...as for a reply on the subject, it is about Rev. Ken Hutcherson, not presidential candidates, strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, or George Bush, or Guantanomo bay Detainees as you've brought up on this thread in numerous posts.
I followed the flow of the discussion as Ragnar changed the subject. I did not bring up Rev. Wright, Ragnar did (at 58) and thus changing the subject to racism (perceived or otherwise).
Since you're defending the Democratic front runner Barack Obama (D) Ill.
I believe that I am free to defend any candidate I want, I've defended McCain in the past. That does not make me a member of the Democratic/Republican/Communist/Birthday Party.
does 100 come before 102??
No it does not, but pointing out that Sen. Byrd disagrees with Affirmative Action does not mean that I endorse it. I made an assumption about your political beliefs in much the same way you did mine. It sounds like we are both in error about each others beliefs and party affiliations. I'm happy to leave it at that.
On this subject, we are the Progressives, attempting to institute equal footing for all.
That must be why Ron Paul (R-Tex) gets money from the known racists. It must be his progressive stance on minority issues that draws their hard-earned money to him.
That information kind of smarts when you put it context with say this:
"I'd say if the Democrats in 2008 can't clean their own house of racists and bigots, you can't really expect to draw a correlation between a 19th century Mormon leader to a 21st century Senate leader."
Since the GOP has not bothered to clean their own house I guess my point is valid after all.
...valid only with the willing suspension of disbelief.The GOP cleans it's house with even the sniff of perceived racism (Trent Lott) and the Democrat's promote their racists like Robert Byrd (D) W.V.- See Post @ 96 for examples
That being said, perhaps we should get back to the topic at hand, which is Ken Hutcherson and his comments. You have a very sly way of drifing far off course when the fact's don't support your argument. re-read your post @ 38 and tell me that wasn't a rambling, incoherent, off-topic post.
That's a complete re-write of history if I ever saw one. Lott stepped down so as not to distract from the GOP agenda.
the Democrat's promote their racists like Robert Byrd
Oh look, Trent Lott gets elected back to minority leader a mere 3 years after his racist remarks. The truth sucks doesn't it.
...and now, Back to normal Ken Hutcherson programming.
Oh I see, now that I've proven you wrong you want to change the subject to their histories?
How about we compare the two Senators voting records on Civil Rights instead. I think that would give you a much clearer picture of where each Senator stands.
@ 109 "Oh, I see, now that I've proven you wrong you want to change the subject to their histories?"
Has Sen. Byrd ever stepped down for his extensive racist remarks?? Nope. Did Lott voluntarily do so for 4 years at his perceived insensitive remarks?
Yup, he did.
How come you're afraid to compare the histories? isn't that a snapshot of the individual?...Hmmm
Why not post those atocious remarks by Lott Cato...If you're going to imply he's a racist, how about some proof? I think we can absorb the horrible language you'll be posting on SP, right? Then I can counter with some of the real blue language that Byrd has used. Up for it?
I await that extensive laundry list.
Posted by: Rick D. on February 28, 2008 03:28 PMEven you must concede to the point that 2003 is not the same as 1954. I would like you to show me the racists quotes uttered by Sen. Byrd since 1973 when Sen. Lott was first elected to office.
People change over time, didn't Mitt Romney adjust his opinions over the course of the time he ran for Governor of Massachusetts (2002) till the time he ran for President (2007)? That was a pretty significant change in opinion in the course of 5 years. What's to say the same has not happened in the course of 30+ years.
Did Lott voluntarily do so for 4 years at his perceived insensitive remarks?
Mr. Lott stepped down because he was a distraction to the party and the agenda, had no one called him on it he would have continued serving as the Majority Leader. Mr. Lott was later elected 4 years later to a leadership position. Which makes your charge "the Democrat's promote their racists like Robert Byrd" moot.
How come you're afraid to compare the histories?
You sure you want to go there, someone might find some naughty info on Sen Lott.
To quote Sen. Lott's spokesman "Those were different times in a different era".
Seems to me Rick D. is a little misinformed about the GOP and certain members of their leadership. He can only rewrite history so many times before the truth comes out.
Of course I'm wrong too but Rick D. has yet to find or post that evidence. When he does I will be happy to concede the point.
I'll continue to wait on that List of Lott's racist statements Cato...you've had over 2 hours to ponder and pontificate and research and I get nada in your two posts above. I expected more. I now understand why you're an Obama supporter.
Posted by: Rick D. on February 28, 2008 05:27 PMFollowing are some quotes from prominent Democrats largely drawn from the book, "Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party's Buried Past."
Blacks "are inferior to the whites in the endowments of both of body and mind." --Thomas Jefferson, 1787, Co-founder of the Democratic Party (along with Andrew Jackson) President, 1801-09
"I hold that the present state of civilization, where two races of different origin, and distinguished by color, and other physical differences, as well as intellectual, are brought together, the relation now existing in the slaveholding states between the two, is, instead of an evil, a good--a positive good." --Sen. John C. Calhoun (D., S.C.), 1837 Vice President, 1825-32 His statue stands in the U.S. Capitol.
"If blacks were given the right to vote, that would "place every splay-footed, bandy-shanked, hump-backed, thick-lipped, flat-nosed, woolly-headed, ebon-colored Negro in the country upon an equality with the poor white man." --Rep. Andrew Johnson, (D., Tenn.), 1844 President, 1865-69
"Resolved, That the Democratic Party will resist all attempts at renewing, in Congress or out of it, the agitation of the slavery question, under whatever shape or color the attempt may be made." --Platform of the Democratic Party, 1852
Blacks are "a subordinate and inferior class of beings who had been subjugated by the dominant race." --Chief Justice Roger Taney, Dred Scott v. Sandford, 1856, Appointed Attorney General by Andrew Jackson in 1831, Appointed Secretary of the Treasury by Andrew Jackson in 1833, Appointed to the Supreme Court by Andrew Jackson in 1836
"Resolved, That claiming fellowship with, and desiring the co-operation of all who regard the preservation of the Union under the Constitution as the paramount issue--and repudiating all sectional parties and platforms concerning domestic slavery, which seek to embroil the States and incite to treason and armed resistance to law in the Territories; and whose avowed purposes, if consummated, must end in civil war and disunion, the American Democracy recognize and adopt the principles contained in the organic laws establishing the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska as embodying the only sound and safe solution of the 'slavery question' upon which the great national idea of the people of this whole country can repose in its determined conservatism of the Union--NON-INTERFERENCE BY CONGRESS WITH SLAVERY IN STATE AND TERRITORY, OR IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA" (emphasis in original). --Platform of the Democratic Party, 1856
"I hold that a Negro is not and never ought to be a citizen of the United States. I hold that this government was made on the white basis; made by the white men, for the benefit of white men and their posterity forever, and should be administered by white men and none others." --Sen. Stephen A. Douglas (D., Ill.), 1858, Presidential nominee of the Democratic Party, 1860
"Resolved, That the enactments of the State Legislatures to defeat the faithful execution of the Fugitive Slave Law, are hostile in character, subversive of the Constitution, and revolutionary in their effect." --Platform of the Democratic Party, 1860
"The Almighty has fixed the distinction of the races; the Almighty has made the black man inferior, and, sir, by no legislation, by no military power, can you wipe out this distinction."--Rep. Fernando Wood (D., N.Y.), 1865, Mayor of New York City, 1855-58, 1860-62
"My fellow citizens, I have said that the contest before us was one for the restoration of our government; it is also one for the restoration of our race. It is to prevent the people of our race from being exiled from their homes--exiled from the government which they formed and created for themselves and for their children, and to prevent them from being driven out of the country or trodden under foot by an inferior and barbarous race." --Francis P. Blair Jr., accepting the Democratic nomination for Vice President, 1868, Democratic Senator from Missouri, 1869-72, His statue stands in the U.S. Capitol.
"Instead of restoring the Union, it [the Republican Party] has, so far as in its power, dissolved it, and subjected ten states, in time of profound peace, to military despotism and Negro supremacy." --Platform of the Democratic Party, 1868
"While the tendency of the white race is upward, the tendency of the colored race is downward." --Sen. Thomas Hendricks (D., Ind.), 1869, Democratic nominee for Vice President, 1876, Vice President, 1885
"We, the delegates of the Democratic party of the United States . . . demand such modification of the treaty with the Chinese Empire, or such legislation within constitutional limitations, as shall prevent further importation or immigration of the Mongolian race." --Platform of the Democratic Party, 1876
"No more Chinese immigration, except for travel, education, and foreign commerce, and that even carefully guarded." --Platform of the Democratic Party, 1880
"American civilization demands that against the immigration or importation of Mongolians to these shores our gates be closed." --Platform of the Democratic Party, 1884
"We favor the continuance and strict enforcement of the Chinese exclusion law, and its application to the same classes of all Asiatic races." --Platform of the Democratic Party, 1900
"The repeal of the fifteenth amendment, one of the greatest blunders and therefore one of the greatest crimes in political history, is a consummation to be devoutly wished for." --Rep. John Sharpe Williams (D., Miss.), 1903, House Minority Leader, 1903-08
"Republicanism means Negro equality, while the Democratic Party means that the white man is supreme. That is why we Southerners are all Democrats." --Sen. Ben Tillman (D., S.C.), 1906, Chairman, Committee on Naval Affairs, 1913-19
"We are opposed to the admission of Asiatic immigrants who can not be amalgamated with our population, or whose presence among us would raise a race issue and involve us in diplomatic controversies with Oriental powers." --Platform of the Democratic Party, 1908
"I am opposed to the practice of having colored policemen in the District [of Columbia]. It is a source of danger by constantly engendering racial friction, and is offensive to thousands of Southern white people who make their homes here." --Sen. Hoke Smith (D., Ga.), 1912, Appointed Secretary of the Interior by Grover Cleveland in 1893
"The South is serious with regard to its attitude to the Negro in politics. The South understands this subject, and its policy is unalterable and uncompromising. We desire no concessions. We seek no sops. We grasp no shadows on this subject. We take no risks. We abhor a Northern policy of catering to the Negro in politics just as we abhor a Northern policy of social equality." --Josephus Daniels, editor, Raleigh News & Observer, 1912, Appointed Secretary of the Navy by Woodrow Wilson in 1913, Appointed Ambassador to Mexico by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933, USS Josephus Daniels named for him by the Johnson Administration in 1965
"The Negro as a race, in all the ages of the world, has never shown sustained power of self-development. He is not endowed with the creative faculty. . . . He has never created for himself any civilization. . . . He has never had any civilization except that which has been inculcated by a superior race. And it is a lamentable fact that his civilization lasts only so long as he is in the hands of the white man who inculcates it. When left to himself he has universally gone back to the barbarism of the jungle." --Sen. James Vardaman (D., Miss.), 1914, Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, 1913-19
"This is a white man's country, and will always remain a white man's country. --Rep. James F. Byrnes (D., S.C.), 1919, Appointed to the Supreme Court by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1941, Appointed Secretary of State by Harry S. Truman in 1945
"Slavery among the whites was an improvement over independence in Africa. The very progress that the blacks have made, when--and only when--brought into contact with the whites, ought to be a sufficient argument in support of white supremacy--it ought to be sufficient to convince even the blacks themselves." --William Jennings Bryan, 1923, Presidential nominee of the Democratic Party, 1896, 1900 and 1908, Appointed Secretary of State by Woodrow Wilson in 1913, His statue stands in the U.S. Capitol.
"Anyone who has traveled to the Far East knows that the mingling of Asiatic blood with European or American blood produces, in nine cases out of ten, the most unfortunate results. . . . The argument works both ways. I know a great many cultivated, highly educated and delightful Japanese. They have all told me that they would feel the same repugnance and objection to have thousands of Americans settle in Japan and intermarry with the Japanese as I would feel in having large numbers of Japanese coming over here and intermarry with the American population. In this question, then, of Japanese exclusion from the United States it is necessary only to advance the true reason--the undesirability of mixing the blood of the two peoples. . . . The Japanese people and the American people are both opposed to intermarriage of the two races--there can be no quarrel there." --Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1925, President, 1933-45
"This passport which you have given me is a symbol to me of the passport which you have given me before. I do not feel that it would be out of place to state to you here on this occasion that I know that without the support of the members of this organization I would not have been called, even by my enemies, the 'Junior Senator from Alabama.' " --Hugo Black, accepting a life membership in the Ku Klux Klan upon his election to the U.S. Senate as a Democrat from Alabama, 1926, Appointed to the Supreme Court by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1937
"Mr. President, the crime of lynching . . . is not of sufficient importance to justify this legislation." --Sen. Claude Pepper (D., Fla.), 1938, Spoken while engaged in a six-hour speech against the antilynching bill
"I am a former Kleagle [recruiter] of the Ku Klux Klan in Raleigh County. . . . The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia. It is necessary that the order be promoted immediately and in every state in the union." --Robert C. Byrd, 1946, Democratic Senator from West Virginia, 1959-present, Senate Majority Leader, 1977-80 and 1987-88, Senate President Pro Tempore, 1989-95, 2001-03, 2007-present, His portrait stands in the U.S. Capitol.
President Truman's civil rights program "is a farce and a sham--an effort to set up a police state in the guise of liberty. I am opposed to that program. I have voted against the so-called poll tax repeal bill. . .. I have voted against the so-called anti-lynching bill." --Rep. Lyndon B. Johnson (D., Texas), 1948, U.S. Senator, 1949-61, Senate Majority Leader, 1955-61, President, 1963-69
"There is no warrant for the curious notion that Christianity favors the involuntary commingling of the races in social institutions. Although He knew both Jews and Samaritans and the relations existing between them, Christ did not advocate that courts or legislative bodies should compel them to mix socially against their will." --Sen. Sam Ervin (D., N.C.), 1955, Chairman, Committee on Government Operations, 1971-75
"The decline and fall of the Roman empire came after years of intermarriage with other races. Spain was toppled as a world power as a result of the amalgamation of the races. . . . Certainly history shows that nations composed of a mongrel race lose their strength and become weak, lazy and indifferent." --Herman E. Talmadge, 1955, Democratic Senator from Georgia, 1957-81, Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, 1971-81
"These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don't move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there'll be no way of stopping them, we'll lose the filibuster and there'll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It'll be Reconstruction all over again." --Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson (D., Texas), 1957
"I have never seen very many white people who felt they were being imposed upon or being subjected to any second-class citizenship if they were directed to a waiting room or to any other public facility to wait or to eat with other white people. Only the Negroes, of all the races which are in this land, publicly proclaim they are being mistreated, imposed upon, and declared second-class citizens because they must go to public facilities with members of their own race." --Sen. Richard B. Russell Jr. (D., Ga.), 1961, The Russell Senate Office Building is named for him.
"I did not lie awake at night worrying about the problems of Negroes." --Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, 1961, Kennedy later authorized wiretapping the phones and bugging the hotel rooms of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
"I'm not going to use the federal government's authority deliberately to circumvent the natural inclination of people to live in ethnically homogeneous neighborhoods. . . . I have nothing against a community that's made up of people who are Polish or Czechoslovakian or French-Canadian or blacks who are trying to maintain the ethnic purity of their neighborhoods." --Jimmy Carter, 1976, President, 1977-81, Winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, 2002
"The Confederate Memorial has had a special place in my life for many years. . . . There were many, many times that I found myself drawn to this deeply inspiring memorial, to contemplate the sacrifices of others, several of whom were my ancestors, whose enormous suffering and collective gallantry are to this day still misunderstood by most Americans."--James Webb, 1990, Now a Democratic Senator from Virginia
"Everybody likes to go to Geneva. I used to do it for the Law of the Sea conferences and you'd find these potentates from down in Africa, you know, rather than eating each other, they'd just come up and get a good square meal in Geneva. --Sen. Ernest F. Hollings (D., S.C.) 1993, Chairman, Commerce Committee, 1987-95 and 2001-03, Candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, 1984
"I do not think it is an exaggeration at all to say to my friend from West Virginia [Sen. Robert C. Byrd, a former Ku Klux Klan recruiter] that he would have been a great senator at any moment. . . . He would have been right during the great conflict of civil war in this nation." --Sen. Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.), 2004, Chairman, Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, Candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, 2008
"You cannot go into a Dunkin' Donuts or a 7-Eleven unless you have a slight Indian accent."
"My state was a slave state. My state is a border state. My state has the eighth largest black population in the country. My state is anything [but] a Northeastern liberal state."
"I mean, you got the first mainstream African American [Barack Obama] who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice looking guy."
"There's less than 1% of the population of Iowa that is African American. There is probably less than 4% or 5% that is, are minorities. What is it in Washington? So look, it goes back to what you start off with, what you're dealing with." - Sen. Joseph Biden Jr., (D., Del.), 2006-07, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, 1987-95, Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations, Candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, 2008
~~
"We, African American citizens of the United States, declare and assert:
Whereas in the early 1600's 20 African men and women were landed in Virginia from a Dutch ship as slaves and from that tiny seed grew the poisoned fruit of plantation slavery which shaped the course of American development,
Whereas reconciliation and healing always begin with an apology and an effort to repay those who have been wronged,
Whereas the Democratic Party has never apologized for their horrific atrocities and racist practices committed against African Americans during the past two hundred years, nor for the residual impact that those atrocities and practices and current soft bigotry of low expectations are having on us today,
Whereas the Democratic Party fought to expand slavery and, after the Civil War, established Jim Crow Laws, Black Codes and other repressive legislation that were designed to disenfranchise African Americans,
Whereas the Ku Klux Klan was the terrorist arm of the Democratic Party, and their primary goal was to intimidate and terrorize African American voters, Republicans who moved South to protect African Americans and any other whites who supported them,
Whereas, according to leading historians (both black and white), the horrific atrocities committed against African Americans during slavery and Reconstruction were financed, sponsored, and promoted by the Democratic Party and their Ku Klux Klan supporters,
Whereas from 1870 to 1930, in an effort to deny African Americans their civil rights and to keep African Americans from voting Republican, thousands of African Americans were shot, beaten, lynched, mutilated, and burned to death by Ku Klux Klan terrorists from the Democratic Party,
Whereas Democratic Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry Truman rejected anti-lynching laws and efforts to establish a permanent Civil Rights Commission,
Whereas the Democratic party has used racist demagoguery to deceive African Americans about the history of the Republican Party that: (a) started as the anti-slavery party in 1854, (b) fought to free African Americans from slavery, (c) designed Reconstruction, a ten-year period of unprecedented political power for African Americans, (d) passed the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the U. S. Constitution granting African Americans freedom, citizenship, and the right to vote, (e) passed the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1875 granting African Americans protection from the Black Codes and prohibiting racial discrimination in public accommodations, (f) passed the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965 granting African Americans protection from the Jim Crow laws, (g) established Affirmative Action programs to help African Americans proper with Republican President Richard Nixon's 1969 Philadelphia Plan that set the first goals and timetables and his 1972 Equal Employment Opportunity Act that made Affirmative Action Programs the law of our nation, and (h) never sponsored or launched a program, passed laws, or engaged in practices that resulted in the death of millions of African Americans,
Whereas Brown vs. the Board of Education of Topeka (a 1954 decision by Chief Justice Earl Warren who was appointed by Republican President Dwight Eisenhower) was a landmark civil rights case that was designed to overturn the racist practices that were established by the Democratic Party,
Whereas after Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt received the vote of African Americans, he banned African American newspapers from the military shortly after taking office because he was convinced the newspapers were communists,
Whereas Democratic President John F. Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Law, opposed the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and was later criticized by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. for ignoring civil rights issues.
Whereas Democratic President John F. Kennedy authorized the FBI (supervised by his brother, Attorney General Robert Kennedy) to investigate Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. on suspicion of being a communist,
Whereas Democratic Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, made a 14-hour filibuster speech in the Senate in June 1964 in an unsuccessful effort to block passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and was heralded in April 2004 by Democratic Senator Christopher Dodd as a senator who would have been a great leader during the Civil War,
Whereas when the 1964 Civil Rights Act came up for vote, Senator Al Gore, Sr. and the rest of the Southern Democrats voted against the bill,
Whereas in the House of Representatives only 61 percent of the Democrats voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act as compared to 80 percent of Republicans, and in the Senate only 69 percent of the Democrats voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act, compared to 82 percent of the Republicans,
Whereas Democratic President Bill Clinton sent troops to Europe to protect the citizens of Bosnia and Kosovo while allowing an estimated 800,000 black Rwandans to be massacred in Africa, vetoed the welfare reform law twice before signing it, and refused to comply with a court order to have shipping companies develop an Affirmative Action Plan,
Whereas Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore created harmful racial division when he falsely claimed that the 2000 presidential election was "stolen" from him and that African Americans in Florida were disenfranchised, even though a second recount of Florida votes by the "Miami Herald" and a consortium of major news organizations confirmed that he lost the election, and a ruling by the U.S. Civil Rights Commission declared that African Americans were not denied the right to vote,
Whereas the Democratic Party's soft bigotry of low expectations and social promotions have consigned African Americans to economic bondage and created a culture of dependency on government social programs,
Whereas the Democratic Party's use of deception and fear to block welfare reform, the faith-based initiative and school choice that would help African Americans prosper is consistent with the Democratic Party's heritage of racism that included sanctioning of slavery and kukluxery, a perversion of moral sentiment among leaders of the Democratic Party whose racist legacy bode ill until this generation of African Americans,
Now, therefore, for the above and other documented atrocities and accumulated wrongs inflicted upon African Americans, we demand a formal written apology and other appropriate remuneration from the leadership of the Democratic party.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 28, 2008 07:42 PM
"You know, if we had elected this man 30 years ago, we wouldn't be in the mess we are today,"
- Trent Lott speaking about Sen Strom Thurmond's Candidacy - November 3, 1980
"I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it, and if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either." - The famous Trent Lott quote from Sen. Thurmond's b-day party
"Yes, you could say I favored segregation then. I don't now." - Trent Lott describing his college years.
I have no doubt these pale in comparison to the things that Sen. Byrd has said.
Now how do you want to spin this? Especially since you said "the Democrat's promote their racists like Robert Byrd".
Now if a Republican Senator becomes the Majority Leader after being a strong advocate of segregation in college wouldn't that be a a lot like saying the Republicans's promote their racists like Trent Lott? Same argument, different person.
BTW, Ragnar you forgot to include Nixon's comments on the Jews and Negros and this guy too.
...The Dunkin' donuts reference made above was done by '08 Democratic presidential hopeful Joseph Biden. Youtube video proof here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIT3jUrNTX0
...and let's not forget Hillary Clinton's bigoted remarks seen here on youtube referring to Gandhi as working at a gas station in St. Louis
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1Mq8kOXV_E
Further proof that only Republican's are held liable for insensitive remarks, while Democrats get a "get foot out of mouth" free card. This, despite the racist historical past of the Democratic party and many of its members.
Just like in the book 'Animal Farm', ........."all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"...exchange animals for political party and you have the status of American politics today.
Posted by: Rick D. on February 28, 2008 09:07 PMYou seem to want to pound on ONE senator, Trent Lott, while conveniently ignoring 200+ YEARS of Democrat black hatred.... which of us is in serious denial?
Whereas the Democratic Party's soft bigotry of low expectations and social promotions have consigned African Americans to economic bondage and created a culture of dependency on government social programs,
Whereas the Democratic Party's use of deception and fear to block welfare reform, the faith-based initiative and school choice that would help African Americans prosper is consistent with the Democratic Party's heritage of racism that included sanctioning of slavery and kukluxery, a perversion of moral sentiment among leaders of the Democratic Party whose racist legacy bode ill until this generation of African Americans,
Which ideology/political party defends supports encoUrages and profits from abortion?
Which race most suffers the ravages of government aid (welfare)?
Which ideology/political party defends supports and encourages more government programs?
Which race suffers the most from broken, fatherless families?
Which ideology/political party is doing everything possible to destroy traditional values and to redefine the family?
Which race suffers most from a broken education system?
Which ideology/political party refuses to entertain that 40 yrs of failure is not enough to TRY a new way of thinking?
Which ideology/political party put forth and confirmed the first and only black justice on the Supreme Court?
Which ideology/political party insulted him with the epithet "Uncle Tom"?
Which ideology/political party put forth and confirmed the first and only black Secretary of State?
Which ideology/political party disparaged her as an "Aunt Jemima"?
200+ years of indefensible liberal black hatred, discouragement and disparaging by the Democrats
Oh the Reality!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LZrVPFE9XA
So what does your average Obama supporter know about the Jr. Senator from Ill.?
Apparently, not much:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGeu_4Ekx-o
Further video evidence that Obama is an empty suit.
Posted by: Rick D. on February 29, 2008 06:43 AMIf he is, he's no less so than the current President. I asked Ragnar a couple days ago to list Pres. Bush's positive accomplishments prior to taking the Presidency that were achieved without his daddy's help. Ragnar could list 0! Maybe you can do better Rick.
Now lets get to the meat of this disccussion, at what point does a person of color or gay person for that matter get beyond the "empty suit" designation, if ever? I have listened to all types of posters call Obama an empty suit, what exactly does that mean? Does that mean he lacks education, does that mean his election to the senate should be discounted, on what basis? Now, there can be plenty of policy disagreements, question the policy. I disagree quite often with Cato on many things, but Cato is not a person who is not worthy of respect, I just think some of his ideas are lame, not him. That seems to be the way that discussion is framed nowadays, attack Rev. Hutcherson for who he is, not examine what he said. If his critics attacked what he said they would be pressuring Bush to recind Pope Benedict's invitation to the White House because if you asked the Pope what he thought, he would in no watered down terms tell you with a smile and some fairly straight elegant language. Where I fault Rev. Hutcherson is the Pope wouldn't water down or put lipstick on the issue, but he wouldn't make light of the person.
Posted by: WVH on February 29, 2008 09:49 AM
Main Entry: empty suit
Function: noun
Date: 1950
: an ineffectual executive
Whine all you want, but the fact is, he fits that description to a tee. Black, White, Purple, Green, or Beige.....an empty suit has no color requirements.
Posted by: Rick D. on February 29, 2008 10:12 AMThis is not a whine. Your defintion is:
an ineffectual executive
Specifically list what makes Obama an ineffectaul executive? Now, you may have policy disagreements, but what actions make him an ineffectual executive?
Now, Bush has been president for two terms and has the ability to use his veto power and shut down government to control the budget, Reagan did this. Has Bush by your defintion been an effective executive on the growth of government and the growth of the federal budget? By your definition is Bush an empty suit or is in your mind that defintion only reserved for those of color and gay people?
Posted by: WVH on February 29, 2008 10:20 AMAsians (see China's one child policy)
Which ideology/political party defends supports encourages and profits from abortion?
Which ideology/political says they want to to be a the anti-Big Govt. party but have no problems having Big Govt. enforce their perceived morality on individuals?
Which ideology/political party defends supports and encourages more government programs?
Maybe you should look in your own backyard. The GOP Congress from 2000-2006, Bush Administration have spent more of your money than any any time in history. Which ideology/political party was the first to introduce a US budget that is greater than 3 trillion dollars?
Which race suffers the most from broken, fatherless families?
Blacks
Which ideology/political party is doing everything possible to destroy traditional values and to redefine the family?
Depends on what you define as a "traditional family", since a "traditional family" structure varies from culture to culture and has evolved throughout history.
Which race suffers most from a broken education system?
All races do.
Which ideology/political party refuses to entertain that 40 yrs of failure is not enough to TRY a new way of thinking?
That's an easy one, BOTH!
Which ideology/political party put forth and confirmed the first and only black justice on the Supreme Court?
You saying that Clarence Thomas is not black? Last I checked Thurgood Marshall was the first black justice and he was appointed by LBJ (a Democrat). Last I checked there were two black justices appointed to the Supreme Court.
Did you make this list yourself Ragnar, or is this another of your copy & paste posts?
Maybe you can explain how either Thurgood Marshall or Clarence Thomas was the only black supreme court justice? I look forward to that one.
----------------------------------------------------
Here is one for you:
Which ideology/political party put forth and confirmed the first black Cabinet Member?
Which ideology/political party put forth and confirmed the first black Presidential candidate?
Which ideology/political party put forth and elected the first Black member to the House of Representatives?
Which ideology/political party put forth and elected the first Black member to the Senate?
Which ideology/political party has elected more minorities to Congress?
Which ideology/political party is currently has a black Presidential candidate?
Which ideology/political party in had a woman and a black man running for President in the same year?
Which ideology/political party in 2007 had a full slate of white candidates running for President?
Which ideology/political party in 2007 had a candidate who willingly accepted donations form Aryan Nation leaders?
Some of these are GOP some are Dem, I know which ones are which, do you? I do look forward to hearing your answers Ragnar.
WVH, I look forward to this one to. It's so nice to see the sheepies who tow the party line actually try and defend it using factual knowledge.
I get the feeling Rick D and Ragnar are done with posting to this thread.
(making all you guys/gals that coach your kids soccer team eligible for the POTUS it would appear. Super, Duper, Bonus points if you were a camp counselor or Den Mother)
..they prefer going back in time to G.W. Bush
Matthews neutering of that Texas Conressman Supporting Obama on National TV was both telling and indicative of the limited thought process that most Obamaniacs use as their reasoning for their support.
i.e. "he's cute coming out of the surf", "he's got nice hair", "he's got a great smile", "he talks my panties off", "good communicator", "promises the sky, and the moon if I'm lucky", "I want change", "Yes, We can" ad nauseum.
Typical Obama supporter on youtube link @ 119
How about answering the question instead of pointing to one individual on one YouTube link?
I asked Ragnar a couple days ago to list Pres. Bush's accomplishments prior to taking the Presidency that were achieved without his Daddy's help. Can you do any better Rick D?
Sometimes, in order to put some distance when discussing touchy issues it is helpful to examine the concept not in terms of this society, but another culture. Here is a report about the experience of Africans in Austria and it fully discusses the concept of marginalization:
Racism and marginalization (Summary) report 2001
AHDA-Association for human Rights and Democracy in Africa
"....The term marginalization derives from the word margin, which in turn is to be on the edge, at the limit and on the fringes and so on Margin is related, conversely, to space and freedom, in terms of scope, franchise and self-determination; in the sense of being unlimited, unconditional and so on. Therefore, to be marginalized is to be limited in scope, space, freedom of operation and the right to self-determination. In the lived experience, marginalization often involves exclusion, discrimination as well as rejection, omission and isolation.
Sexism, as used in this report, is "discrimination or oppression based on gender". On the other hand, racism refers to "any action or attitude, conscious or unconscious, which subordinates an individual or group based on skin colour or race. This subordination can be enacted individually or institutionally". Subordination, in turn, consists in "being placed in or occupying a lower class, rank or position". In this report, the paradigm, marginalization serves to express the experience of subordination in the lives of women and Africans. Thus, as entailed in the trans-Atlantic slave trade, colonialism and the apartheid policy in Africa, racism has been a subordinating experience for Africans in relation to Europe and other apart. Since these historical realities have officially ended, there is a tendency to underestimate their long lasting effects...."
http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:VO_OeECzuvoJ:cms.horus.be/files/99935/MediaArchive/pdf/ahda_report_2001.doc+marginalization+racism&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
Now, by the defintion provided by Rick D., in comparison to Reagan, Bush is an empty suit, right?
I think Rick is trying to diminish Obama's accomplishments because he's a Democrat, race has nothing to do with it.
He's just towing the party line without bothering to do his research. I mean look at Ragnar claiming that Thurgood Marshall or Clarence Thomas was the first and only black supreme court justice. Serious lack of research there.
There is no real answer when you question the logic behind the ten second sound bite. Why not? Because the logic behind it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Ragnar and Rick D. can't prove Obama is an "empty suit" any more than they can prove our current President is NOT an "empty suit".
I think you are being incredibly fair to Rick D and that is a good thing. I know that he has his supporters who claim that he is not a bigot. That is one of the great things about this country, we are free to disagree. Me, I am not so charitable and ultimately that is why Rev. Hutcherson, Dr. Charles Stanley and the Pope minister to those who sometimes, unlike you don't believe that our fellow traveler on life's highway has the best intentions.
Posted by: WVH on February 29, 2008 12:47 PMOh, I am so READY for this one... and the very BEST part about my glee is that it is written by DEMOCRATS!
Hurrah!
Sputter away cato... we look forward to cleaning up the dribble from your chin!
Let's try that link again...
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 29, 2008 12:51 PMWe are a multiracial team of Democrats dedicated
To critically THINK
About Contender for Democratic Presidential Candidate 2008,
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA
By now its clear. There's so little substance to Obama, that he may be better understood as a Product and a Brand than Politician, Citizen, and Man.
We at Stop Obama want to know how this ObamaBrand was made, and how it's being sold.
We will look at media bias, and self-promotion.
We will challenge the Obama image through scrutiny and analysis. We will ask tough questions about Obama's past, present, his associations, and identity.
We will pursue answers.
We will debate Obama, and the values his product embodies.
We will provide the information needed to Stop his nomination for Democratic Presidential Candidate.
We are not affiliated with any Democratic candidate, although our editors have clear preferences. We are dedicated Democrats who believe in the inviolability of American democracy, and the democratic process. We stand for the absolute necessity of a competent and capable president, a man or woman of integrity and content. In order for the Democratic party's nomination procedures to produce such candidates, it must be protected against the spin, marketing, pr, and media hype which undermine critical deliberation, and expose our country to the sways of manipulated sentiment. People led astray by sight and sound are capable of choosing incompetent candidates, or worse, of inaugurating incompetence into the White House.
OUCH!
So your actively plagiarizing the other party to prove your point? Is that because you don't have the intellectual capacity to think for yourself? Come on Ragnar, give us your own beliefs and stop stealing from others.
This is Democrat posing that you plagiarized? Lets look back and see, shall we:
"the horror of abortion"
- I thought Dem's were the Pro-choice party. Why would they use language like "the horror of abortion"?
"supports encourages and profits from abortion"
- Umm yeah, I really can't see the Dem's rallying around to protect those so called "profits from abortion".
"defends supports and encourages more government programs?"
- Sounds more like a GOP attack line to me. Les
"doing everything possible to destroy traditional values and to redefine the family?"
-Again, sounds a lot like a GOP line. After all they are the party of less taxes and smaller Govt. right?
"put forth and confirmed the first and only black Secretary of State?"
- Sure wasn't the Dem's. Why would Dem's actively defend something they didn't do?
Once again Ragnar's BS doesn't hold up under even the slightest scrutiny and he continues to prove the lack of ability to think for himself. Stop being a dumb sheep Ragnar...bahhh.
Obviously, the stop Obama movement is like the Swiftboat Vets. The blog entry is like an opinion piece without facts. I don't have time to do much research as I am leaving soon and going to the Symphony later, but here are the occupations of the presidents:
Order President Previous occupation(s)
1 George Washington Surveyor, Farmer/plantation owner, Soldier (General of United Army of the Colonies)
2 John Adams Lawyer
3 Thomas Jefferson Writer, Inventor, Lawyer, Architect, Farmer/Plantation owner
4 James Madison Lawyer
5 James Monroe Lawyer
6 John Quincy Adams Lawyer
7 Andrew Jackson Soldier, Lawyer
8 Martin Van Buren Lawyer
9 William Harrison Soldier
10 John Tyler Lawyer
11 James Polk Lawyer, Plantation owner
12 Zachary Taylor Soldier
13 Millard Fillmore Lawyer
14 Franklin Pierce Lawyer
15 James Buchanan Lawyer, Prizefighter, Diplomat
16 Abraham Lincoln Lawyer
17 Andrew Johnson Tailor
18 Ulysses Grant Soldier, General of the Army, Tanner
19 Rutherford Hayes Lawyer
20 James Garfield School teacher, minister, soldier
21 Chester Arthur School teacher, lawyer, collector of tariffs
22,24 Grover Cleveland Sheriff, lawyer, assistant teacher
23 Benjamin Harrison Lawyer, journalist
25 William McKinley Lawyer
26 Theodore Roosevelt Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Public Official, Rancher
27 William Taft Lawyer, judge, law reporter, dean of law school at the University of Cincinnati
28 Woodrow Wilson Lawyer, professor, president of Princeton University
29 Warren Harding Newspaper publisher/editor
30 Calvin Coolidge Lawyer, Vice President of Northampton Savings Bank
31 Herbert Hoover Engineer, Investor
32 Franklin Roosevelt Lawyer
33 Harry Truman Farmer, Men's clothing retailer
34 Dwight Eisenhower Soldier (Supreme Allied Commander, Army Chief of Staff), President of Columbia University, Ice lifter
35 John F. Kennedy Writer, Sailor (Navy Lieutenant)
36 Lyndon Johnson Teacher, Public Official
37 Richard Nixon Lawyer
38 Gerald Ford Lawyer
39 Jimmy Carter Sailor (Navy Lieutenant), peanut farmer, writer
40 Ronald Reagan Actor & broadcaster, President of the Screen Actors Guild
41 George H. W. Bush Pilot (Navy Lieutenant, Junior Grade), Businessman (Oil), Director of Central Intelligence
42 Bill Clinton Lawyer, Law lecturer
43 George W. Bush Businessman (Oil, baseball
Here are the occupations of the presidents:
List of United States Presidents by political occupation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This is a list of U.S. Presidents by political occupation; that is, a list of various other political offices held by Presidents of the United States.
↑ = indicates order of sorting. ↑* = indicates sorted by his order as President.
Contents [hide]
1 U.S. Vice Presidents
2 U.S. Cabinet
2.1 Department of State
2.2 Departments of War and Navy
2.3 Department of Commerce
3 Delegates to the Continental Congresses
4 United States Congress
4.1 Senators
4.2 Members of the House of Representatives
5 Governors
5.1 States
5.2 Territories and foreign possessions
5.3 Other statewide offices
6 Municipal offices
7 Lost races
[edit] U.S. Vice Presidents
Vice-President President served under Year(s) served ↑
John Adams George Washington 1789 - 1797
Thomas Jefferson John Adams 1797 - 1801
Martin Van Buren Andrew Jackson 1833 - 1837
John Tyler William Harrison 1841
Millard Fillmore Zachary Taylor 1849 - 1850
Andrew Johnson Abraham Lincoln 1865
Chester A. Arthur James A. Garfield 1881
Theodore Roosevelt William McKinley 1901
Calvin Coolidge Warren Harding 1921 - 1923
Harry Truman Franklin D. Roosevelt 1945
Richard Nixon Dwight Eisenhower 1953 - 1961
Lyndon Johnson John Kennedy 1961 - 1963
Gerald Ford Richard Nixon 1973 - 1974
George H.W. Bush Ronald Reagan 1981 - 1989
[edit] U.S. Cabinet
[edit] Department of State
President ↑* Position President served under Year(s) served
John Adams Minister to Britain (Continental Congress) 1785 - 1788
Thomas Jefferson Minister Plenipotentiary to France (Continental Congress) 1785 - 1789
Secretary of State George Washington 1790 - 1793
John Q. Adams Minister to Germany John Adams 1797 - 1801
Minister to Russia James Madison 1809 - 1814
Minister to Britain James Madison 1815 - 1817
Secretary of State James Monroe 1817 - 1825
James Madison Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson 1801 - 1809
James Monroe Minister Plenipotentiary to France George Washington 1794 - 1796
Minister to Britain Thomas Jefferson 1803-1807
Secretary of State James Madison 1811 - 1814, 1815 - 1817
Martin Van Buren Secretary of State Andrew Jackson 1829 - 1831
Minister to Britain Andrew Jackson 1831 - 1832
William H. Harrison Minister to Colombia John Q. Adams 1828 - 1829
James Buchanan Secretary of State James Polk 1845 - 1849
Minister to Britain Franklin Pierce 1853 - 1856
[edit] Departments of War and Navy
President ↑* Position President served under Year(s) served
James Monroe Secretary of War James Madison 1814 - 1815
Theodore Roosevelt Assistant Secretary of the Navy William McKinley 1897 - 1898
William Taft Secretary of War Theodore Roosevelt 1904 - 1908
Franklin Roosevelt Assistant Secretary of the Navy Woodrow Wilson 1913 - 1917
[edit] Department of Commerce
President ↑* Position President served under Year(s) served
Herbert Hoover Secretary of Commerce Warren Harding,
Calvin Coolidge 1921 - 1928
[edit] Delegates to the Continental Congresses
President ↑* State Year(s) served ↑
George Washington Virginia 1774-1775
John Adams Massachusetts 1774-1778
Thomas Jefferson Virginia 1775-1776, 1783-1785
James Madison Virginia 1780-1783
James Monroe Virginia 1783-1786
[edit] United States Congress
[edit] Senators
State President Year(s) served Notes
California Richard Nixon 1951 - 1953
Indiana Benjamin Harrison 1881 - 1887
Massachusetts John Q. Adams 1803 - 1808
John Kennedy 1953 - 1960
Missouri Harry Truman 1935 - 1945
New Hampshire Franklin Pierce 1837 - 1842
New York Martin Van Buren 1821 - 1828
Ohio William Harrison 1825 - 1828
Warren Harding 1915 - 1921
Pennsylvania James Buchanan 1834 - 1845
Tennessee Andrew Jackson 1797 - 1798, 1823 - 1825
Andrew Johnson 1857 - 1862, 1875 Only former President in the Senate
Texas Lyndon Johnson 1949 - 1960 Minority Leader 1953-1955, Majority Leader 1955-1960
Virginia James Monroe 1790 - 1794
John Tyler 1827 - 1836
[edit] Members of the House of Representatives
State ↑ President Year(s) served Notes
California Richard Nixon 1947 - 1950 Later elected to Senate
Illinois Abraham Lincoln 1847 - 1849 Only political occupation ever held before becoming President
Massachusetts John Q. Adams 1831 - 1848 Only former President in the House of Representatives
John F. Kennedy 1947 - 1953 Later elected to Senate
Michigan Gerald Ford 1949 - 1973 Minority Leader 1965-1973
New Hampshire Franklin Pierce 1833 - 1837 Later elected to Senate
New York Millard Fillmore 1833 - 1835, 1837 - 1843
Northwest Territory William Harrison 1799 - 1800 (delegate)
Ohio William Harrison 1816 - 1819 Later elected to Senate
Rutherford Hayes 1865 - 1867 Later elected Governor of Ohio
James Garfield 1863 - 1880 Republican Floor Leader, only President to be elected while a serving Representative
William McKinley 1877 - 1883, 1885 - 1891 Later elected Governor of Ohio
Pennsylvania James Buchanan 1821 - 1831 Later elected to Senate
Tennessee Andrew Jackson 1796 - 1797 Later elected to Senate
James Polk 1825 - 1839 Only former Speaker to become President, later elected Governor of Tennessee
Andrew Johnson 1843 - 1853 Later elected to Senate
Texas Lyndon Johnson 1937 - 1949 Later elected to Senate
George H. W. Bush 1967 - 1971
Virginia James Madison 1789 - 1797
John Tyler 1816 - 1821 Later elected to Senate
[edit] Governors
[edit] States
State ↑ President Year(s) served Notes
Arkansas Bill Clinton 1979-1981, 1983-1992
California Ronald Reagan 1967-1975
Georgia Jimmy Carter 1971-1975
Massachusetts Calvin Coolidge 1919-1921 In 1919, Coolidge gained national attention when he ordered the Massachusetts National Guard to forcefully end the Boston Police Department strike.
New Jersey Woodrow Wilson 1911-1913
New York Martin Van Buren 1829
Grover Cleveland 1883-1885
Theodore Roosevelt 1899-1901
Franklin D. Roosevelt 1929-1933 Many policies Roosevelt enacted as governor later were used in the New Deal
Ohio Rutherford Hayes 1868-1872, 1876-1877
William McKinley 1892-1896
Tennessee James Polk 1839-1841
Andrew Johnson 1853-1857
1862-1864 military governor
Texas George W. Bush 1995-2000
Virginia Thomas Jefferson 1779-1781
James Monroe 1799-1802, 1811
John Tyler 1825-1827
[edit] Territories and foreign possessions
President ↑ Location Year(s) served
Andrew Jackson Military Governor of Florida Territory 1821
William Harrison Occasional Acting Governor of the Northwest Territory 1798-1799
Governor of Indiana Territory 1801-1813
Interim authority of the District of Louisiana 1804-1805
William Taft Governor-General of the Philippines 1901-1904
[edit] Other statewide offices
President ↑* Office and Jurisdiction Year(s) served
Martin Van Buren Attorney General of New York 1815 - 1819
Warren G. Harding Lieutenant Governor of Ohio 1903 - 1905
Calvin Coolidge Lieutenant Governor of Massachusetts 1916 - 1918
Bill Clinton Attorney General of Arkansas 1977 - 1979
[edit] Municipal offices
President ↑* Office and jurisdiction Year(s) served
Andrew Johnson Alderman, Greeneville, Tennessee 1828-1830
Mayor of Greeneville, Tennessee 1830-1833
Grover Cleveland Mayor of Buffalo, New York 1881-1883
Theodore Roosevelt President of the New York Board of Police Commissioners 1895 - 1897
Calvin Coolidge Mayor of Northampton, Massachusetts 1910-1911
[edit] Lost races
Other than re-election to the Presidency
President Office and jurisdiction Year ↑ Notes
Thomas Jefferson President of the United States 1796 Won in 1800, 1804
Andrew Jackson President of the United States 1824 Won in 1828, 1832
William H. Harrison President of the United States 1836 Won in 1840
Abraham Lincoln Senator of Illinois 1858 Won United States presidential election, 1860
Theodore Roosevelt Mayor of New York City 1886 Placed in distant third behind Abram S. Hewitt.
Franklin Roosevelt Vice President of the United States 1920 Later became Governor of New York (1929-33)
Richard Nixon President of the United States 1960 Won in 1968, 1972
Governor of California 1962 Lost to Pat Brown by nearly 300,000 votes; Nixon's concession speech was his "last press conference. ... You won't have Dick Nixon to kick around any more."
Jimmy Carter Governor of Georgia 1966 Later won the office in 1970
Ronald Reagan Republican nomination for
President of the United States 1968, 1976 Later won in 1980, 1984
George H.W. Bush United States Senator 1964, 1970 Lost to Ralph Yarborough in 1964 and Lloyd Bentsen in 1970
Republican nomination for
President of the United States 1980 Won presidency in 1988 but lost re-election in 1992
Bill Clinton Congressman 1974 Lost to John Paul Hammerschmidt in 1974
Governor of Arkansas (re-election) 1980 Won in 1978, 1982, 1984, 1986, 1988, 1990
George W. Bush Congressman
Both from Wiki which is in this instance as good a source as a blog entry from where?
Presidents have had a variety of types of experience, including senator.
http://www.stop-obama.org/?p=218 If you found this page useful, consider linking to it.
Simply copy and paste the code below into your web site (Ctrl+C to copy)It will look like this: The Zero that Can't Win
"the horror of abortion"
MY WORDS
"supports encourages and profits from abortion"
democraps continumally FUND Planned Parenthood.. Planned Parenthood generates income from fees charged by its businesses, donations from corporations, foundations and individuals, and taxpayer funds obtained from the state and federal government. The annual report showed that Planned Parenthood reported receiving taxpayer funds totaling $305.3 million -- a whopping $32.6 million (12 percent) more than last year. As a result, taxpayer money now accounts for 34 percent of Planned Parenthood's income."
"defends supports and encourages more government programs?"
Democraps push reliance on and want to expand government programs... or haven't you been listening to Whorabillary and Barry Hussein?
"doing everything possible to destroy traditional values and to redefine the family?"
Which party defend the right to homosexual "marriage"?
Try again, little cato.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 29, 2008 01:27 PMSorry no sale.
Could you just learn to link instead of copy/paste? Thanks.
Here, I'll teach you: open the tag, with the 'less than' character, followed by the letter A, a space, the letters HREF, an equal sign, a quotation mark, the web address, another quotation mark, and close it with the 'greater than' character; then put in the title you want; then close it all with the 'less than' character, the forward / slash, the letter A and the 'greater than' character. Easy
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 29, 2008 01:41 PMLets see who is behind Stop-Obama.org? Oh wait we can't...it's blocked by this company. Wonder why?
Maybe because it's a site of made up personalties like Juanita Gonzales (token hispanic woman?), Jamal McCoy (token black guy?), Gregory Chang (token asian guy?), & Jeffrey Goldberg (token jewish guy?).
It's funny how they have one person who reflects every Democrat demographic yet they all have very generic names that turn up nothing when you look for them in Google. Looks like a load of BS to me, unlike SoundPolitics.com which fully discloses it's information. Props to Stefan.
You should be as disgusted with yourself and your fellow bigots and phonies as I am of you.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 29, 2008 01:50 PMOh ok then, so you said:
Which ideology/political party put forth and confirmed the first and only black justice on the Supreme Court?
Now again why don't you tell me which supreme court justice is not black, was it Thurgood Marshall or Clarence Thomas?
While your at it why don't you tell me about Dubya's accomplishments that happened without his Daddy's help? I mean if your going to bring up the "Empty Suit" argument again you can at least defend the current President from the same allegations. That should be pretty easy to do right?
While your at it why don't you tell me about Dubya's accomplishments that happened without his Daddy's help?
LMAO!
You poor, sad, hapless fool.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 29, 2008 01:58 PMWhy should I be ashamed, I don't see the Homosexual on there, I don't see any Native American's on there, I guess those are not important enough demographic groups to generate fake personalities for. Even the guys afro looks fake. This is a BS website with fake people who post cute little graphics like this one, which I fine quite amusing.
Which party defeind the rght to homosexual "marriage"?
I'm a supporter of the rights of homosexuals to marry. I see nothing wrong about it, it's not going to hurt anyone and in fact it would likely generate more tax revenue and sales of wedding items. The free market would welcome it, your for the free market and open competition right Ragnar?
How you answer these questions too:
Now again why don't you tell me which supreme court justice is not black, was it Thurgood Marshall or Clarence Thomas?
While your at it why don't you tell me about Dubya's accomplishments that happened without his Daddy's help? That should be pretty easy to do right?
I admit I'm wrong when I'm proven wrong, ask TB.
You poor, sad, hapless fool.
Not an answer. Answer the question about President George W. "Empty Suit" Bush. When you do you, you can also explain how a self-made man is somehow lesser of a leader than one who had everything in his life handed to him by his father.
bob and weave little cato, bob and weave!
So, what you are so proudly and indignantly trying to claim is that because you ONLY used slurs against Hispanics, Blacks, Jews and Asians, you couldn't possible be racist? OMG! Sound Politics' blatant... er, token racist: cato!
LMAO!
Here's a tip, little cato: when you find yourself in a hole of your own making, STOP DIGGING!
While your at it why don't you tell me about Dubya's accomplishments that happened without his Daddy's help? That should be pretty easy to do right?
This is one of those "clue comments" ... it signals poor litttle hapless cato can't think of any other arguement. It's the cato equivalent of PeeWee Herman.. "I know you are,but what am I"?
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 29, 2008 02:51 PMTA!
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 29, 2008 02:54 PMI've claimed nothing of the sort. You're the one calling me a racist for calling out the fake personalities on the fake website you linked to. Is that really the best you can come up with Ragnar? Give it up sheepie.
it signals poor litttle hapless cato can't think of any other arguement.
No, it's calling you out on the fact you have yet to answer my question. If you answered the question I would not have to keep reminding you of it. You answered the black supreme justice question, I have not asked it since.
If you are going to call Sen. Obama an "empty suit", you should be able to answer the same question in regards to President G.W. Bush. The fact that you have not answered just points out your lack of faith in our current leaders abilities and accomplishments prior to ascending to the Presidency. This should be a simple thing to do right?
I await that list WVH, unless you're too intellectually challenged to back up your unfounded assertions.
As Cato pointed out to you in his Post @ 134, I dislike all Democrats running for President whether it's Dennis Kucinich waiting for the alien spacecraft to take him away, The hillary the "empty pantsuit" to Barack "the empty Suit" Obama. Kudos to Cato by the way.
To say you have some racial identity hangups is putting it mildly. Pick the most mundane thread on this site and you will find WVH reducing it to "race" one way or another. SImply put, it's a defense mechanism for having an intellectually weak position. When feeling challenged, obfuscate and distract so that your incompetence doesn't see the light of day. Am I right WVH?
So, having vented my spleen- I await those bigoted words i've used WVH, the question is, will you take the challenge?
dude, like, you so like, need to get OVER Bush, like it's sooo yesterday, like DUH!
And ... we've have indeed noticed little cato, that you are big on wild claims accusations but never happen to bring any PROOF. Since you are making the claims little dude, the burden of proof is upon YOU!
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 29, 2008 04:42 PM1. I don't specifically remember labeling you a bigot this thread, but I could be wrong, this thread is soooooooo long. If the shoe fits wear it as they say.
2. Did you ever specifically answer my questions from post #128.
3. I suppose, I could do open heart surgery on you and examine what passes for a heart. Short of that, as they say, your words, their meaning and the nuance convict you.
Now, specifically do you have an answer to post
#128 which is:
Rick D,
This is not a whine. Your defintion is:
an ineffectual executive
Specifically list what makes Obama an ineffectaul executive? Now, you may have policy disagreements, but what actions make him an ineffectual executive?
Now, Bush has been president for two terms and has the ability to use his veto power and shut down government to control the budget, Reagan did this. Has Bush by your defintion been an effective executive on the growth of government and the growth of the federal budget? By your definition is Bush an empty suit or is in your mind that defintion only reserved for those of color and gay people?
Specifically answer the questions. Otherwise, the shoe fits, doesn't it.
Well, I'm off to hear some great music.
Posted by: WVH on February 29, 2008 05:29 PMWill you direct that admonition to cato as well?
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 29, 2008 06:02 PMWVH @ 133. Cato is correct, "Rick D" has not answered the very specific questions I asked him in post #128. The specific tactic used by "him and others like him is called marginalization. People attempt to diminish the achievements of people of color" and gay people in order to keep these groups out of the mainstream of society.
WVH @ 134 when he corrected her:
Cato,
I think you are being incredibly fair to Rick D and that is a good thing. I know that he has his supporters who claim that he is not a bigot..." disagree. Me, I am not so charitable..."Posted by WVH at February 29, 2008 12:47 PM
__________________________________________
Now that you've decided once again to make yet another thread about your favorite subject, Race Baiting, and your own racial insecurity, you've once again sidetracked another thread on SP, congratulations!!
I don't see anywhere in your post referencing my bigotry which you imply here and in other posts, so the question begs. Were you able to find any examples or were you just too lazy to go back in my very few 40 or so posts to SP??
I await the list of my bigoted statement's and then we can move on to more substantive debate since you have decided to obssess with racial issues instead of discussing a topic on its merits.
Now, get to typing the list or get to apologizing....you pick.
Posted by: Rick D. on February 29, 2008 06:38 PMOpen sharkansky thread
28. Rick D,
...Now, I am not a supporter of any candidate at present, but I am Black.
Posted by: WVH on February 17, 2008 11:58 AM
39. Rick D.
Why do I, a non-supporter, have to defend Obama, because I am Black? If that is what you think, Rick D, I can call you the bigot you are for the janitor remark in comment #18. You, dude are ignorant bigot ... Kinda rocks your limited bigoted world, doesn't it? I happen to be an independent.
You are simply a throwback to the Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms days of your party who can't imagine a world where the rules that made you the person you are no longer apply.
Yep, I am Black, I must support Obama, right? Idiot.
Posted by: WVH on February 17, 2008 02:14 PM
40. "Oh, by the way, my friends call me, WVH, it is Dr. WVH to idiots like you. You, Mr. bigot are what? "
Posted by: WVH on February 17, 2008 02:17 PM
"Rick D.Now, let get to why I call you a bigot
You said:
"I'm somehow a racist for asking what qualifications a man like Barack Obama has right?"
You are a bigot, not because you asked the question of qualifications which is legitimate, you are a bigot because you assume that I am the person to answer because I am Black...what makes me the go-to-gal on Obama, other than color?
Now, I called you a bigot which is different than a racist. I don't know you well enough to assume you are a racist, but I wouldn't be surprised..."
Posted by: WVH on February 17, 2008 04:37 PM
58. "Oh, one further thing Pirate, I have not gone on extensively about race on this thread, you need to check the archives for that..."
Posted by: WVH on February 17, 2008 08:17 PM
....And I'm not the only one being labeled a racist by WVH
70. Anyway, I am done. My boycott resumes. I have done more than enough to correct the record and prove you a liar (once again).
You will, of course, choose to violate your own religious faith and slander me as a racist, despite not having a shred of evidence to back up that claim. But that is your sin to deal with, not mine. (In rebuttal to WVH)
Posted by: pudge on February 17, 2008 11:25 PM
75. Rick D.: ha. Good luck with that. I've never said a single remotely racist thing, and WVH still accuses me of being a racist. I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for WVH to grow up.
Posted by: pudge on February 18, 2008 08:57 AM
77." Good Morning Everyone,
2. Rick D., you still are a bigot...
3. Pudge, judge not least you be judged. You and Byrd, right, neither of you has ever had a bigoted bone in your body..."
Posted by: WVH on February 18, 2008 09:28 AM
85. Rick D.
"Regarding YOUR bigotry..."
Posted by: WVH on February 18, 2008 10:20 AM
88. Rick D,
"... I defined the term bigot, you fit the term. You will never be able to fairly judge, in my opinion, people you consider different. Dude, no one other than you will call some one of any color with Obama's edcuational achievements, a janitor except a bigot..."
...Quite often, one of the roots of bigotry is envy...In fact, many bigots quite often ridicule those with education particularly if they are of a different eithnic group or gender. I guess you haven't heard, the days of Bull Connor and the White Citizens League are over except in certain pockets of libertarianism...I actually have more respect for the David Dukes of this world who flat out say I hate anyone that is not white. Weasels like you who try to wiggle around when caught are just weasels and really are not worthy of further comment...
Posted by: WVH on February 18, 2008 11:05 AM
Now, WVH, Obviously I've done some work for you and was able to isolate the thread in which I must have made some pretty racist or bigoted remarks in order to get the label right??
If you can find the time or would like to appeal your SP designation as room "Race Baiting Troll", I'm hoping you can find the insidious remarks that must have gotten you all fired up on this thread. Don't hold back any profanity or culturally insensitive language now, we are all adults and can handle it.
So fire away.
We began this little tiff with you constantly asking me about Obama. I constantly respond to you because you claim that Obama is an empty suit. Now, regarding the posts above, I said this on this THREAD:
a. at post #158,"1. I don't specifically remember labeling you a bigot this thread, but I could be wrong, this thread is soooooooo long. If the shoe fits wear it as they say."
b.Let's use the full response to Cato:
'I know that he has his supporters who claim that he is not a bigot. That is one of the great things about this country, we are free to disagree. Me, I am not so charitable and ultimately that is why Rev. Hutcherson, Dr. Charles Stanley and the Pope minister to those who sometimes, unlike you don't believe that our fellow traveler on life's highway has the best intentions."
I said I don't believe that you have the best intentions and you dispute that?
c."Really, I notice you have no comments about Bush in comparison to Reagan, do you?
Now let's take the comments you posted above. When do you think the conversation turned to race, when you compared Obama and his accomplishments to that of a janitor, remember that? Oh, there were other comments about community organizing and the fact he only organized Blacks. Remember that?
No, dude I stand by my comments that you are a bigot and every time you compare Obama to an empty suit or janitor, I will respond. I guess in your limited world that is turning the conversation to race.
Now, just to refresh your recollection, this is the defintion of a bigot:
big·ot (bgt)
n.
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bigot
Does the shoe fit?
Questions that I have asked you which you never answered, care to answer now or are these questions turning the conversation to race?
1. You compared Obama to a janitor. You did respond that you neither graduated from Columbia or Harvard Law. Did you graduate from high school, college, and/ or graduate school? Just gauging your ability to compare Obama to a janitor.
2. Now you had comments about ethnic neigborhoods in large urban areas and the politics of those urban areas. Have you lived in a large urban area like NYC, Boston, Philly, Chicago or LA within the last ten years? Do you live in an urban area now? Because you dismiss community organizing experience, what has been your opportunity to acquire the experience on which you can base an opinion about the skills gained from such experience?
3.You gave a dictionary defintion of "empty suit."
Now, using your definition, in comparison to Reagan and his use of the veto, can Bush be compared an empty suit?
I have said the following "Now, I called you a bigot which is different than a racist. I don't know you well enough to assume you are a racist, but I wouldn't be surprised..."
Please feel free to answer the questions posed, I have a feeling that the answers will prove the shoe fits.
Now, talking about the issues is fair game, marginalizing people is another issue. Seems like you feel I marginalized you and that irritates you doesn't it? Well, look at the defintion of bigot above and how your comments concerning Obama might lead someone to conclude the shoe fits.
You people need to up your $$$ to the cause, I guess you didn't get the memo which was reported in Politico:
Check out this page:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8659.html
Racism and republican campaign
Thank you,
THE POLITICO
Politico.com
Now, just answer the simply questions posed to you on several threads or I will have to conclude that unlike Obama, you really are the one who is the empty suit.
" While 58 percent of Republicans reported having excellent mental health, only 38 percent of Democrats described themselves
that way. "
... mushy in the middle "independents" fair marginally better than democraps with a whopping 43%... the chart is fascinating!
" In other words, party identification appears to have an independent effect on mental health even when each of these is controlled for. "
" This analysis showed that even when the impact of these other variables is controlled for statistically, there is an independent and highly significant impact of being a Republican on mental health. "
Get a clue, kiddies... for your own mental health!
And I hope he says it to the faces of Pelosi, Murray, Cantwell, Kennedy, Kerry, Landreau, Leahy, Dodd, Durbin, Harkin and the rest of the convenience Catholics... yes, including Susan Collins.
Better yet, I hope he refuses to even meet with them publicly and loudly.
" Epilogue)." "
" Two of the three current presidential candidates, Obama and Clinton, are fanatically pro-abortion. This is particularly galling to me as a black man regarding Obama, for over one third (36 percent) of all abortions are by black women. According to 2007 U.S. Census Data, "Half as many viable black children are killed before they can be born as get the chance to live (503 per 1000 births)." "
What's that you say?
Oh yeah, cato-the-racist shouts the author is just another token black on an evil conservative website... and zerObaaaaaahma says kill em in the womb or out!
Gee, cato-the-racist, is she a "token black too?
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on March 1, 2008 09:56 AMYes, family values are linked to economics - Star Parker
Good grief, cato-the-racist those "token black" race traitors are everywhere, eh?
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on March 1, 2008 10:00 AMLet me answer the questions I posed for you since "empty suits" can rarely respond:
1. Your education in no way matches or even comes close to Obama's undergraduate degree from Columbia or his Harvard Law degree with the editorship of the Harvard Law Review. So, you have no right to compare him to a janitor.
2. You have no recent experience in an urban area of any kind so that you have no idea what goes on in a large urban area between the various stakeholder groups.
Another question, have you ever traveled outside this state or internationally?
3. Given your definition of "empty suit" Bush qualifies as an empty suit in comparison to Reagan, but you don't want to admit that because you supplied the definition. I should add, I personally, would not call Bush an "empty suit" because even though people may not like some of his policies, he got through Harvard Business School which is more than I could say about a lot of people who call him dumb.
So, on balance your characterization of Obama as an empty suit is really projection because you are in fact the one who is the empty suit.
I guess some one read the memo mentioned in Politico to you.
Now, as for boycotting me, I can't tell you the pain that causes me. I certainly will miss out intellectual discussions. Not.
Posted by: WVH on March 1, 2008 04:03 PMGuess my answers to the questions in post #171 were right. How does it feel to be successfully marginalized?
You tell me, should we move your description from that of bigot:
big·ot (bgt)
n.
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bigot
to that of racist?
rac·ism
-noun 1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
[Origin: 1865-70; Rick D,
Guess my answers to the questions in post #171 were right. How does it feel to be successfully marginalized?
You tell me, should we move your description from that of bigot:
big·ot (bgt)
n.
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bigot
to that of racist?
rac·ism
-noun 1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
[Origin: 1865-70;
racist
1932 as a noun, 1938 as an adjective, from race (n.2); racism is first attested 1936 (from Fr. racisme, 1935), originally in the context of Nazi theories. But they replaced earlier words, racialism (1907) and racialist (1917), both often used at first in a British or South African context.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racist
Would that be an apt discription for you?
FYI- someone with a doctorate would know how to spell the simple word "discription" (sic) in your post above.
Cheers!
Posted by: Rick D. on March 2, 2008 05:30 PMThe answer to the question of whether we should move your description from that of a bigot to racist is YES, because you in no way commented on that question, but my spelling ability? You chose to remain silent when asked if you are a racist?
I guess silence speaks volumes.
So, are we to look at all your comments directed at Obama through the lens of a racist commentator?
Should we expect that you would have the same opinion as David Duke? Here is the link to Duke, notice any themes:
http://www.davidduke.com/
I guess birds of a feather.... or do you deny that?
Posted by: WVH on March 2, 2008 07:15 PM
