So, Robertson would never get invited to Columbia except for insults, but then consider Ahmadinejad and how he was invited to Columbia and treated like an intellectual curiosity they needed to know better, to have dinner with him, remember? The plans for dinner were cancelled abruptly, but they tried! I'm wondering about the difference here. One American voices his own opinion and is roundly censored and demonized. An Iranian punk dictator is a muslim who orders gays hanged, beheaded, stoned, etc., and he's someone leftwingers wanted to dine with? And, let's face it, it wasn't the Young Republican Club at Columbia who invited Ahmadinejad to speak or dine with them, right?
What's WITH leftwingers? Why the hypocrisy? Let's not reinvent the wheel on what Robertson said; we all know what he said and we can agree or disagree, but let's discuss the difference in how these two are treated.
What do you think's the reason? Or, better said: how can the left live with their own hypocrisy?
Z
99 comments:
The difference? The biggest underlying one would be which one wants to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. THAT's the one who gets an academic invitation to speak.
Rita pointed out a primary difference, but what is the root cause of this animus against Israel among liberals?
Many will entertain the notion of dark spiritual forces in entertainment as a metaphor (i.e. Lord of the Rings), but if you suggest the reality of these forces in our lives, you threaten the world view of those who would prefer to think they are a "rational, intellectual" person.
Not a Bible thumping redneck fundamentalist.
Those who would want to ignore (and attack) a constraint against behavior they cannot see the wrong of, and those who bow to a wisdom they have seen and acknowledge.
Like Kaiser Soze is attributed to have said: "The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist."
There is a spiritual struggle for the fate of Israel.
America had best choose the correct side in this struggle.
The fact that a nation of Israel once again exists, after two thousand years of not, should be enough to give pause to skeptics.
A perfect example of The new America!
Tempest in a Teapot.
Robertson has the right to speak his mind and be an ass. This I fully support.
A private enterprise, A&E, had the right to act as it felt neccessary.
The government, the entity the 1'st amendment prevents infringing the right to free political and religous speech was not a player.
In other words, this is a tempest in a teapot.
The right has learned to live with it's own hypocrisy on civil liberties and limited government.......I think the left has the same ease of conscience.
First of all, like it or not (and few did) Ahmadinejad was head of state of a country critical to the future of the Middle East.
Second, Phil was part of a stunt to jack up ratings for the new season. Notice that he's back on?
Fans of this iconic nadir of American culture were all played like a bad duck call.
Whatever happened to Martin Bashir?
Which event was a tempest in a teapot? Inviting a known murderer of homosexuals to speak at Colombia, or a backwoods hack running off at the mouth? Rational Nation prefers that we keep quiet, and I can understand this. It is the only way for evil to win. Amazingly, it only took a few weeks for MSNBC to muster up the courage to fire Martin Bashir. Meanwhile, we don’t know what happened to the executive producer who approved Bashir’s filth in advance of the broadcast. But you know, it is good to see that Ducky is still a hypocrite; I was worried that somehow he’d become relevant and far less entertaining.
Aww, Z... you beat me to my next posting.
But, I work on the assumption of 'better late than never.'
JUST HEARD ON CNN 10 MINUTES AGO:
"And GLAAD is angry that he compared homosexuals to terrorists.........(my ears perked up because he had NOT)...OR AT LEAST USED THEM IN THE SAME SENTENCE." :-)
Here's the exact quote:
"We just love 'em, give 'em the good news about Jesus — whether they're homosexuals, drunks, terrorists."
You see, he didn't compare them, as the lib on CNN wanted to tell the public, to terrorists...
Is it now offensive to use them in the same sentence? :-)
TURN OFF YOUR TV..what liberal watches that show, anyway?
I've never seen it, but I know bright people who've found it very funny and aren't bigots.
But, no...the left has to try to STOP IT, get it off the air..'we are offended'! Who cares?
I'm a little offended when kids are in the room and the news is covering a gay marriage bill and we see 15 same sex couples kissing on the mouth. Me? I just turn it off. I don't deny their bliss :-) I just don't want to see it...okay? I'm a big girl, I just watch something else!
That's my point.
Rational Nation...of COURSE it's a tempest in a teapot; that's MY POINT. Why can't people just LET IT GO?
CI; I don't.
Sam: was there NEAR the conservative outrage at Bashir as there has been the D Dynasty outrage? Of course not; you are so right. We just know we can turn TVs off and/or that Robertson isn't a professor or preacher or anything else. But he SURE is entitled to HIS OPINION.
Marine4..do it, I'll want to read your angle.!
Ducky.....what part of that do you think we don't know? Or haven't said here??
And, truly, what university would invite a man with Ahmadinejad's threats to Israel, building nukes and lying about them, saying the things he did about Bush...the DEVIL, was it? OH, THAT'S WHY THEY LIKE HIM...I FOUND THE ANSWER!! :-)
Actually, the loudest criticism the
circus clown Iranian President got is when he claimed there are no gays in Iran.
@ Beakerkin ...
Well, there aren't ... any more.
@z --- You see, he didn't compare them ...
----
Wrong.
Homosexuals were included for purposes of comparison with drunks and terrorists.
Even better were Phil's comments on how good the darkies had it in the 50's. Yes sir, they had their own toilets and water fountains. Went to their own schools.
Boy, they sure were sitting in high cotton according to Phil.
People can't let it go? Seems the right can't let it go. Phil comes out with some cheap controversy to pump up ratings and give L'il Ricky Santorum some talking point.
Not like it was Martin Bashir saying something nasty about Baked Alaska or some ginned up Breitbart video about NPR, both of which actually got people fired for speech rather than inflating the market for duck calls.
What part don't you know, z?
The part where you get played.
@z --- You see, he didn't compare them ...
----
Wrong.
Homosexuals were included for purposes of comparison with drunks and terrorists.
IT'S A VERY FINE POINT AND YOU'LL FIND WHAT YOU WANT THERE. THIS GUY WAS A DRUNK AND CLEANED UP, HE'S AGAINST IT NOW, HE DOESN'T LIKE TERRORISTS AND HE DOESN'T LIKE SAME GENDER SEX; HE DID NOT SAY 'HOMOSEXUALITY IS LIKE A TERRORIST'...
Even better were Phil's comments on how good the darkies had it in the 50's. Yes sir, they had their own toilets and water fountains. Went to their own schools.
Boy, they sure were sitting in high cotton according to Phil.
AND DID HE SAY THOSE TIMES WERE GOOD? NO. HE SAID HE NEVER HAD BLACK FRIENDS LIKE SHARPTON AND JACKSON; HE HAD FRIENDS WHO LIVED THEIR LIVES, TOOK CARE OF THEIR FAMILIES AND PICKED COTTON WITH HIM. HE DIDN'T ADVOCATE SLAVERY OR JIM CROW!
People can't let it go? Seems the right can't let it go. Phil comes out with some cheap controversy to pump up ratings and give L'il Ricky Santorum some talking point.
Not like it was Martin Bashir saying something nasty about Baked Alaska or some ginned up Breitbart video about NPR, both of which actually got people fired for speech rather than inflating the market for duck calls.
OOOOH, SO ANGRY YOU ARE! NO, I DON'T THINK THE RIGHT WOULD HAVE SAID MUCH ABOUT ROBERTSON'S RAVINGS, FRANKLY. WE'RE A KIND OF TOLERANT BUNCH WHO RECOGNIZES THAT IF WE DON'T LIKE WHAT HE SAID IN AN INTERVIEW, WE CAN JUST TURN TO THE NEXT ARTICLE, AND SAY 'THAT'S HIS OPINION...'.
BY THE WAY, BREITBART WAS CORRECT IN EVERYTHING HE EXPOSED AND WHAT YOU DON'T KNOW IS THAT ALL HE WAS WORKING TOWARD WAS HONESTY AND FAIRNESS IN THE MEDIA. I LAUGH WHEN I HEAR PEOPLE CALL HIM A RABID CONSERVATIVE AND LIB-HATER. EVERY LIB I EVER HEARD WHO HAD THE PRIVILEGE TO MEET HIM SAID THEY COULDN'T RESIST LOVING THE GUY, AND THAT'S A FACT. IT'S THOSE OF YOU WHO FELT THREATENED BY SUDDENLY GETTING A MEDIA WHICH WAS FORCED TO ACTUALLY GIVE BOTH SIDES OF ALL ISSUES WHO HATED HIM AND WRONGLY CONDEMNED HIM WITH DISHONEST ACCUSATIONS.
What part don't you know, z?
The part where you get played.
I'M GETTING PLAYED? AS IF I DON'T KNOW WE ALL ARE, DUCKY? OF COURSE WE ARE.
BUT NEVER EVEN SUGGEST IT'S WE WHO GOT PLAYED BY OR EXAGGERATED ROBERTSON'S COMMENTS... THAT'S THE BIGGEST STUPID MISCHARACTERIZATION YOU MIGHT HAVE EVER COME UP WITH.
Duck keeps saying it's a publicity stunt.
How deep would that require a conspiracy among Phil, A&E, and Esquire?
Even GLAAD.
Robertson said nothing new.
It was the liberal reaction that caused the tempest.
And Duck, to compare Robertson, who was relating the Gospel as written, to Bashir who was advocating an assault on Palin, shows a poor grasp of the severity.
Robertson, unlike Bashir, Akmanutjob, and any number of "liberal" commenters in numerous places, was not advocating violence, but love, forgiveness and reconciliation with God.
And as Z said, he was not equating terrorism, bestiality and homosex.
He was calling them sin.
As Mustang pointed out at his site (on Proverbs), the Lord hates a haughty voice and lists it with murder, among other sin.
That doesn't make haughtiness murder.
Speech is speech, Ed.
And Phil was quoting the OT not the Gospels. Big, big difference.
Yes, Ed, the OT doesn't count to some "believers" because there's a righteous God there who is angered by those who don't do His will, dontchaknow. Not as nice as Jesus, right? :-)
Ducky "Speech is speech," and that's all it is "SPEECH".
I'll just ask the question again; why can't people get over being offended? Turn off your TV (I do if I feel offended, or change the channel), turn the page if you don't like what Robertson or anybody else says.
We're raising kids to be even MORE offended; Funny, we were able to take the bullying we got and get over it, learn, grow, be stronger because of being taught how to handle it. Since bullying got to be a big deal among our 'educators', we're having kids commit suicide over it; Big help, huh?
No...we conservatives believe people need strong character, not weak, fearful kids who can't keep score because the other team will feel badly, can't go to awards ceremonies unless they won one lest they feel slighted (can't feel good for their friend, and learn that they could have done better, too, right? God forbid) and can't even shoot with fingers shaped like guns without getting suspended, or can't kiss a little 6 yr old girl because she's sensitive......
And now we have bathrooms in elementary schools in California where kids can choose which one to go into depending on if they're feeling more like a girl that day or a boy...at 7 years old.
Thanks, leftwingers; what a freaking nightmare world you're creating..our world that was America, such a great place.
(and, I know, the next lefty comment will be "great place? did you like Jim Crow?" wait for it...sometimes they don't read my whole comment and fall right in the trap). How stupid. Sorry, there's just no other word for it.
GROW UP, LEFTIES: Kids need backbones, not sensitivity training.
(Oh, and no, I am not insinuating we need kids who aren't sensitive.. :-) God, what a world... that I should have to even say that.
Come to think of it; back to the theme of this post (which was artfully ignored recently); does anybody think it was a GOOD idea to invite Iran's nightmare of a president to Columbia and try to have dinner with him?
Of course, he did call for beheadings and stonings of gays or those committing infidelity, but THAT'S OKAY with our lefty kids...at least he's not AMERICAN :-)
Boy, do I sound angry! Sorry, I'm really very, very concerned about the situation our children are in and how sensitive we adults have become, and it shows, I guess.
It just astounds me that people can't see the hypocrisy.
Sure, Republicans aren't perfect, not even NEAR it, but it's no argument to say "you do it, too!".
let's all stop it.
Let's find good character important again, let's raise our children and tell the schools to just educate, stay out of our childrens' sex lives, etc...
uhoh..here I go again!
Have a great day; believe it or not, I am, anger here at geeeZ or not ! Listening to Jobim just after having listened to my favorite Trout...I'm a happy girl!
Psychologists now say that the more children immerse themselves in television and other recorded media, the less likely they are to develop the kind of intelligences that will demand in a happy, successful future. Similarly, the more we are exposed to Ducky’s foolishness….
Sam, I teach a little 30 min class at a preschool on most Friday mornings. I have noticed a huge decline only in the last 2 years of the children's readiness; their attention spans, etc.
Same aged children 3-4 years ago grasped my messages and enjoyed them and learned and remembered.
The majority of my students now are just not 'there'...I spoke to the director and she agrees...the kids are coming in to preschool not in good shape. It's a horrifying proposition, even on the microcosm of my little world here. I know I'm not the only one who's noticing this.
And yes, I KNOW there are very bright kids still...but, in general, this thing I've noticed is VERY obvious and VERY telling.
Ducky's comment using the term "darkies" is much much worse than what Phil said. I find that term nearly as offensive as the N word Ducky. That you think it's cute to use in your vocabulary indicates YOU are indeed the racist in the group.
Here's my take: Phil had every right to express his beliefs as anyone else. He did NOT advocate for Jim Crow rights. Read what he said. He was talking about growing up as poor as the blacks in the south. How he and they were not concerned about being poor because it wasn't drilled into their heads that they should be "entitled" to things.
And I believe A&E had every right to suspend him. That doesn't make me a liberal, that makes me a capitalist. They thought it best for their company.
And the country had every right to howl about what constitutes free speech and A&E can suffer the consequences just like the liberals are now saying Phil had to suffer the consequences.
Guess what? Free speech was actually protected, it's just the liberals don't like the outcome when it didn't go their way.
Wah.
Maybe we should "out" Ducky for his "hate speech" term he uses for those of color.
My money's on Rita.
Remember Bill Clinton getting a free pass from lefty-feminists for being a serial sexual predator? Same answer to 'why' there applies here. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
So you hate (or a least want to prove you can live apart from the influence of) God (as understood through the frame of our Judeo-Christian heritage) and his representatives in our culture? It's only natural to associate yourself with those diss all that, who can say and threaten the most outrageous things that are really on your mind, as does the Praised Descendent of the Most Highly Praised, the Amahdi of Nejhad.
No wonder the left invites him to dinner. They ain't waitin' for Elijah for fill their guest chair.
...and Ed B, Ed D, RN USA, CI (I think...,) Sam, Z and beckerkin.
@Rita --- Ducky's comment using the term "darkies" is much much worse than what Phil said.
------
Do you understand the word "sarcasm", Rita. Apparently not.
Let me explain. It's a form of rhetorical exaggeration used to compound the stupidity of Phil's statement while getting closer to its exact meaning.
@ Duck! There's a whole flock of 'em! --
Sarcasm? Ya coulda fooled me.
Ducky, it's easy to hide behind Rita's understanding of your 'darkie' remark, and nobody needs you to explain why you used it, believe me. I hate to remind you nobody here is any less intelligent than you are.
But, again, you take that comment of hers and ignore the rest of her excellent opinion. Easy to find SOMETHING you can harp about and come out looking clean, isn't it. Again and again.
It's "exaCt meaning" is exactly what Rita described; you're just not up to accepting that all Blacks in those days weren't screeching, whining, complaining sharptons and jacksons.
He was their FRIEND; they knew HE was poor and picking cotton, too...why would they complain to him? They were GOOD PEOPLE, of FINE CHARACTER, who worked hard to support their families.
Thank GOD most of them don't have to work THAT hard anymore.
Let us stop being offended by what other people say; I seem to recall the words of a wise old man of the mountains who said, "Sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me."
Duck:
“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”
Corinthians is New Testament.
GLAAD wants us to shut up.
That was the point of the whole exercise.
They thought it had gotten that far that they could pull it off.
They were wrong.
Rita is right.
Really Ducky? I was too stupid to realize you were trying to be sarcastic by using a filthy racist term. That's totally my opinion, mind you. Apparently using that term is acceptable to your ilk as long as you couch your filth in sarcasm.
Doesn't fly with people I associate with. Funny how not one of those racist terms came to my mind, but it sure seemed to fly off your fingertips rather easily and you felt comfortable using it on your sarcasm.
I got it. It's okay to call blacks Uncle Toms and House N if they are conservatives so it's okay to use racist terms in whatever form liberals intend.
You DO realize that you are referring to one of Phil's grandsons when you use that term, don't you? Idiot.
A&E made a capitalist decision.
They just were too stupid to realize the Robertson's didn't need their money or their network. And they were not willing to go against their Biblical belief for anyone.
I encourage people to watch Robertson's video on I Am Second if you want to understand where they come from. There is also a video of Phil speaking before Rick Warren's church. He is not a man of hate. He believes we are ALL sinners. That was his point.
I think there have been several good points made, even from Ducky..but I'm generally nonplussed by this sort of issue. There are some factual paradigms that both drive and obfuscate these media and internet frenzies.
a. Most Americans voluntarily divide themselves into two ideological camps, the right and the left. I think it's rather absurd but it's the metric of choice for most.
b. Each camp fails to hold their camp as accountable as they hold the other camp, in like issues of criticism.
c. Each camp either fails to recognize or willfully ignores their inherent bias as the foundation for their criticism of the other camp. As such, the levying of charges of bias will always appear to be extreme and pronounced compared to their own position.....but ultimately entirely dependent on that position.
I can be interested in the specifics of an event [and Z, Ducky, Rita and Ed, etc...have brought some of those to light]; But I fail miserably to place any importance about what one camp is carping about to the other camp, on cable media or in the facetwitbookgramverse.
Anon Africa.
There is NOTHING that you posted that is relevant here. I would suggest if you want to post your own topics, start a blog of your own.
Can we get a moderator for a clean up in aisle Africas Entertainment?
Yeah. "He" must be out of work trying to infiltrate TEA party rallies with racist signs.
Rita and Ed, I can't be here all the time but I did just see that and delete it. Frankly, I'd just seen the story on TV and was thinking about how awful it is...
CI...you know, you might be nonplussed, but a lot of us think it's important to recognize the differences, the hypocrisy, in how stories are handled.
And yes, I saw your previous comment about Republican hypocrisy; that doesn't help an argument...it doesn't edify.
The point is that overblown sensitivity to some and embracing real murderers is ridiculous and even dangerous for a culture. We need to recognize it and try to stop it; Andrew Breitbart tried and things started changing...it can help.
We know Z. It's a toss up whether that idiot was a real racist or one trying to start some nonsense here so they can report it back to their actual blog.
I think we know of a couple who would pull that trick.
CI... reading what you wrote might make me believe there are generally two sides to every argument and that there can be, if we dig deep enough, valid points from both angles...
I always appreciate your thoughts...
Rita, I agree. And I hope I didn't sound snarky saying I can't always be there...
Dave, Most situations have some valid points.
And blogs, sadly, need more strident positions taken because we don't have much room to belabor or explain the thinking behind our every stance/every point.
I feel badly because I've frequently mentioned something a little more centrist than others and get creamed by the left AND the right. "I TOLD you, Z...I knew you'd come around.." to the other extreme of "So, you're a socialist now?"
I don't, however, feel that coming down the center on all issues is a badge of honor;
I sense there are people, even here at this blog, who pride themselves on centrism and even disdain those who do not; I find it's important to educate myself as much as possible, weigh issues with my values and decide where I stand. it could BE centrist, but, mostly, it's right of center.
Off topic but you might want to lead with this tomorrow, z.
I know, it's the NYT
You didn't Z. It was a post I could tell would've been deleted as soon as either you or Mustang saw it. I just wanted them to know no one here was buying into their chum they thought they were spreading.
Ducky...I've been hearing about that since FOX first reported on the NYT article today; not sure if CNn's covered it yet but they hadn't for a couple of hours.
The word is that this information is hard to swallow because the muslim group which is behind Benghazi does reportedly and assuredly have Al Qaeda ties; You see, AQ isn't the monolith it once was; it's benefiting from smaller terrorist groups who share their goals.
This isn't much...plus, when's it good to kill innocent Americans no matter what caused it?
duck, don't sit around and pretend the 'left's sins' are only martin bashir..
You're either paid to post this crap or you are stupid with a capital F.
How about major people in the media talking about how conservatives are racist and violent. Total opposite of reality.
How about the then head of DHS, a cabinet position saying returning veterans form Afghanistan and Iraq should be regarded as likely domestic terrorists.
Where is the demand for PC when all this is going on.
I assume you have a mental disease as do all lefties over the age of 30-35. So, the comment is not for you to reply to(but feel free), it's for anyone reading that thinks/thought you might ever have a valid point about this stuff.
Z, well, in order to be a confirmed liberal, you Have to go to one of the underground testing centers run by any black Reverand to have your Hypocrisy tested. For a fee of course. Then, hen it's confirmed, you get your bona-fido liberal card.
It does come with 18 assorted Victimization claims for you to use whenever. Like a prepaid phone card. When you run out, you just go back and pick up some more using your food stamp credits...
It's all taken care of.
CI, The right and left camps. Yea, you're more or less correct. And it's disturbing because it allows "others" to define who you are once you label yourself one of the two.
Most people seem to do so though because they think well the right or left are just Disgusting! I don't want to be labelled That so I'll pick the other because I need to associate with a large group because *there is strength in numbers*.
The opposite seems true. People on both sides are being played for idiots, reeling from something miley cyrus says to something alec baldwin says to something Shirley of Biloxi Miss says.
It puts people in a kindergarten playground where they then learn to deal with life like it's a kindergarten playground and the politicians, etc eat them alive.
Plus the terms people use are so so dysfunctional now as to not even have any real meaning.
The real conservatives, the founders of this country were Incredibly socially liberal. Someone show me in the Constitution or Declaration of Independence where it says anything about gays, abortion, tattoos, political correctness, or anything that limits individual liberty for a person to do what they want, outside of following common law, which at the time was all based for the most part of one person not treading on another.
Today, it seems it are the people who call themselves liberal that want to control everyone else. And many 'on the right' as well. Which of course means, many on the right are no where near being Conservative.
It's a Madhouse I tell ya :)
duck, again - like anyone with a brain cares what the New York Times has to say about anything.
Let me go find some super important criminal trial going on somewhere (like should be happening now for hilrod clinton, and many others) and ignore what the judge, prosecutor and defense have to say in favor of some newspaper people....
Good Grief.
@kid --- duck, again - like anyone with a brain cares what the New York Times has to say about anything.
----
Oh come on, kid. Imagine Rush popping a vessel tomorrow.
This is great theater and you just lost your main talking point against Hillary.
Z - "but a lot of us think it's important to recognize the differences, the hypocrisy, in how stories are handled."
I would agree if the stories were of a similar issue.
Kid - "And it's disturbing because it allows "others" to define who you are once you label yourself one of the two."
Agreed and well stated. Not only that, but it allows people to pervert the previously accepted definitions of political terms, and redefine them as the de jure expressions of the us v. them paradigm. It also prohibits otherwise intellectually salient citizens into believing that there are only two positions that can be accepted on any given issue.
duck, Who cares what rush has to say ?!?
And explain how I've lost a 'talking point'. Though I would never describe the hilrod's complicity with a hit on an AMerican AMbassador a talking point. I guess thats how you lefties try to brush major crime under the rug though, and to protect your vampires.
CI, Thanks and agree with you of course.
It disarms the population. It further attacks the population's ability for critical thought. As if many have the capacity for that these days anyway. Maybe I'm wrong about that but don't see the evidence.
Ducky, you're kidding about Hillary, right?
Wasn't SHE the one who said something like "what difference does it make?"
Suddenly, the left's gloating over the FACT (because the NYTimes said it, it's fact? :-)...that it was supposedly the video?
Ducky, FOUR AMERICANS WERE KILLED...
"WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE WHO DID IT?" Or will it suddenly become VERY IMPORTANT who did it, now that the NY TIMES said it isn't AQ? And how does it rule out AQ even if there's a shred of truth in what they've dug up? laughable, really.
CI: I think the point's made; Consider the intense and outspoken HATE of Ahmadinejad toward America and how Columbia found it important to invite him to speak. Then consider the lame musings of a mountain man and how he's been annihilated.
As for TWO ISSUES...sadly, that's the way it is, realistically. I'm hoping that those of you who don't think it is, can come up with some terrific compromises which most Americans would go for on any given subject. Best of luck on that..I'll be eager to hear them
Kid, Rush is, supposedly, the liberal goldstandard for Conservatives. I've listened to him for a total of an hour in my life, but Ducky clings to it as the biggest smear he can think of :-)
Actually, from the news reports I hear about Limbaugh, he's very often right, but I can't take his personality. it's like listening to Sharpton for an hour.
Z, as rush says 'he's an entertainer'. Well, if you like to listen to sound files from all the democrat politicians and other evil doers. I sure don't - better things to do.
Duck just seems to be very facial about what he thinks is important or is going on. very one or two dimensional. Of course that doesn't give someone the ability to understand what's going on.
Kid, yes, but Rush is more than an entertainer; if it wasn't for him, we'd probably not know the things the media doesn't talk about....he paved the way for conservative talk radio.
Why do you think leftwing radio doesn't go as strong? I don't know how Colmes is doing, but none of the leftwing radio's caught on as big as conservative. Do you suppose it's because leftwingers can get their news on the regular media or they're not curious, or not used to hearing the issues from all sides? Perhaps the right's been so maligned to leftwingers that they don't see the point?
The misnomer of leftwingers toward conservative talk radio is that they only cover stories from the right, when what they do is discuss the issues and what the left says about them and the pros/cons...at least that's what the great ones do; Medved, Prager, Hewitt, etc.
Prager, by the way, has made at least five of my good friends and family far more conservative than they were..FAR more. They say they've really learned a lot from him.
Z, My friend tells me about Medved. He sounds good. None of the people you mention are in my listening area tho.
You know, personally, I think the left are just very slow thinkers. Non-thinkers and/or Non-Carers. Driven purely by emotion, caring only about themselves, if they choose to engage others, like on this blog, they listen to the media a bit, think they're informed and go off with their "talking points". Not really understanding anything but as long as the dems are in charge, they really don't want to try to learn anything.
So, it's no surprise when I ask duck to back up his BS about something, he goes and hides because he has no idea how to back it up. He doesn't know the answer if he hadn't already gotten it from msnbc or the View. Does not compute, so run away, come back tomorrow armed with childish deflecting insulting talking points and give it another go.
The things that get their juices flowing are all the things that fire up the children:
- he has a bigger piece of pie Waaaaaaa! Hate 'the rich'. Though 1% of Americans are millionaires, 50% ++ of congress people are millionaires. What the? Well, as a lib I can't pay any attention that that. Screws up my whole gig.
- someone got killed by a gun - Just take the guns! Waaaaaaaa. What, there's more killing and violence in unarmed countries-cities ? Waaaaaa! just take the guns!
They're a bunch of stupid bratish children, at best.
Sure, they learn how to drive, do complex math and other things but at the core, nothing there but child.
I should mention it is the sociopath that is an expert on knowing how to react to difficult emotional/tragic situations.
For them it's like language translation. Situation 1 - Friends Mother dies = reaction 1.
Which is why the easiest way to test someone for sociapath is ask all these sorts of questions/situations. The one who finish first are the biggest ones.
Kid, you can listen online to these guys. I listen to Bennett faithfully. Prager is an apologist (in the best sense of the word) for the conservative movement.
You are right about the left mindset.
I see this black pleasant smiling woman on Fox a lot. Jemu or somesuch. I don't know what her qualification to be on air is.
She's a complete airhead, but she has the liberal mindset of "something should be done, it will work, we can do it, the government can handle it", all the time smiling pleasantly and unshakably in the face of every fact invalidating her position.
Asked why min wage should not be $100 an hour, she smiles and answers a question she made up in her head.
How do you get through to that?
Ed, Agreed. I see too many people on Fox who make statements like "this great economic recovery"
No one asks for back up. One can easily look at publicly reported numbers and easily conclude there isn't one.
Here's one, a .gov site. Change the From year to 1970. Labor Participation rate
The labor participation rate is back to pre-Reagan levels. 1978. Yea, great recovery,
Check the earnings stastics and outlook of the S&P500 companies (America Inc) - Not so good when compared to historical "good economies".
On and on.
And you don't even have to look for it. Just read a financial site that reports such things such as minyanville.com - Todd Harrison articles in particular.
It's like being surrounded by children who are yelling that you can drive on the wrong side of the road no problemo.
It's a madhouse. :)
Can't take it to heart. The object is to be good to good people, and have Fun! My take anyway.
If everyone wants to jump into the abyss, what are you going to do ?
:)
Am I the only person reading this blog that was reared in the Southern Baptist Church? I believe Phil Robertson was raised in much the same community, although his exposure and indoctrination may not have been as severe as mine.
Let's make one thing clear about Baptist theology. We were taught that sin was sin, and there was no difference in the severity of lust as opposed to actually adultery or murder vs lying. I know this doesn't make sense to some, but in this viewpoint being a terrorist is the same as being gay, which the New Testament vociferously classifies as a sin.
Why is anyone surprised, much less insulted? It has been that way for hundreds of years.
Tonight I wrote a blog, one of the things of which I tried was to show a similarity of my upbringing to Phil Robertson's upbringing. We were both a product of our times, our parents, our buddies, and our education. Black people and white people may have attended different churches and schools. but we virtually lived together.
That does not mean that black people had is easy. indeed, their log in life was miserable compared to white people in the same communities. I really don't believe it was totally because of wny hate for black people(Yes, it existed), but it was a function of survival and a man had to grab onto anything he could to feed his family. I am afraid a lot of what went on was that simple, or malicious as you might infer.
@ Bob --
No, Bob, you're not the only person reading this blog that was reared in the Southern Baptist Church. I'm sitting in the pew right next to you. All the intellectual ya-ya in the world isn't going to change what The Bible tells us and what you've reminded us of.
Our Heavenly Father ended a part of His Creation with The Old Testament. He began anew when He sent His Son to redeem us from our sins that each and every one of us were born into.
God said it, I believe it and that ends it... for me, at least.
Bob and Marine 4....there is NOTHING like the truth coming from your experiences and I can't thank you enough.
SOmehow, not having been raised in the South or in a baptist church, I really got what Robertson was saying about the black folks in his life; mainly because he was so clear and because I had a sense for what he meant. I wrote about it somewhere in a comment above and I seem to have understood him somehow..not as well as you two, but pretty close.
These were just plain good, uncomplaining folks and we need to get on our knees in gratitude that they have come so far, but heck....as you say, Phil Robertson was in the SAME POOR BOAT THEY WERE IN!!!
As for Scripture; Marine4, I agree; and Bob....you explain that so well, too. Sin is sin. He did NOT say "being gay is being a terrorist," as Ducky wrongly says above; he said, basically, that ALL SIN IS WRONG..and listed a few.
There's a distinction, though subtle to grasp, right? I think so, anyway!
God bless you both.
Kid, there's a sharp economist guy on FOX from time to time, Steve Moore...and he said how he's bullish on the economy tonight and I almost laughed! Many economists are scared to death at the growth, saying it's not able to sustain itself, etc., and how health care is scaring people and it better not go bad the way we've suspected it will or they will have every right to be economically scared.
Of course, I hope Steve's right, he is usually a terrific mind, but........is he nuts?
This article destroys the NYT argument
I believe the real issue is freedom of religion and the privitization of people of faith.
EB - "I believe the real issue is freedom of religion and the privitization of people of faith."
Curious statement. Could you clarify? By definition, faith is a private matter, a relationship between a person and their creator. Faith is not a collective action, nor a function of government.
There was no breach in the Robertsons freedom of religion.
Privatization consists chiefly in the elimination of religion’s naturally communitarian character. It makes each of us a voice crying in the wilderness, thereby removing cultural support for the Christian life. For this reason, one of our most important goals must be the restoration of community.
Many leading Christian apologists have seen this coming. Ravi Zacharias puts it this way:
“Every thinking person knows that to imprison a sacred belief within the private realm is ultimately to fracture, if not to kill, the belief. One could no more sever belief from public expression and still live spiritually fulfilled than one could remove the heart from the body and bid the blood flow. The separation kills the life in the body. Such is the impact on privatized spirituality.”
I don't believe we're to the point where our faith is being killed but episodes like this will have a chilling effect on Christians sharing their belief. No one wants to lose their job etc. It's intimidation. Now, Robertson got to speak his mind that's true but the message is clear that he should keep his mouth shut and by extension other Christians. If this happens and we have a decisive break with shared meanings of the past and we become a strictly secular culture, in other words religious ideas, institutions and interpretations lose their social significance, we become a heteronomous vs an autonomous culture.
"Privatization consists chiefly in the elimination of religion’s naturally communitarian character. It makes each of us a voice crying in the wilderness, thereby removing cultural support for the Christian life."
An interesting point of view, thank you for expanding on your original premise. I do however, fail to see the correlation between one's employer holding an employee accountable for speech and actions that may have a detrimental impact on the profit and output of the business.....and the communitarian nature of religion, when the chief practice of said nature occurs within the faith based community, i.e., churches and the association of like-minded.
When one proclaims the sanctity of denigrating speech based on a religious belief, yet would not accept the impact of similar speech against the religious, one is pursuing a system of preferential treatment and protection from the very system that they desire to be unregulated by.
We can never be a 'strictly secular culture' unless the faithful simply die out. Culture is formed by all participants of society, with certain aspects exercised by some, and not others. The edicts of Christian culture mandate the individual actions in relation to the teachings of the Bible, not the collective.
The point is that our culture was originally an autonomous one where each man is essentially a law unto himself, self driven and mutually respectful. The moment Robertson's view was not in keeping with the view that wants to be heard a bait and switch happened. The popular culture switched into a heteronomous one and Robertson (at least intitially) was dictated to about what he needs to believe.
I don't believe Christianity should have preferential treatment. What I do believe in is a truly pluralistic society, which is a good thing, a competing number of worldviews where no one worldview is dominant.
Secularization can be good is the the sacred is not evicted or the free chance of its discussion.
Theocratic, total secularization or pluralism in their extremes are not the ideal either.
"Secularization can be good is the the sacred is not evicted or the free chance of its discussion."
Agreed. Freedom of religion should be protected at all costs....but governance must by definition of liberty, remain secular.
Secular societies rule by threat not by the complete absences of religion or faith. One only has to look into recent history...USSR, Communist China etc. That is the danger we face if faith is relegated to privatization. Religious values only have to be marginalized not eradicated. Secularization in its extreme will eradicate a sense of shame. Even now I wonder to what objective moral foundation does all this outrage come from if there is no God?
Wait.....so you're opining that if we remove 'God' from society [even though the concept is already vacated from our system of jurisprudence], that our political and socio-economic structure will transform itself into a totalitarian state?
And you state this even though our politicians and levers of state power are already not beholden to a religious faith, as it should be.
Natural law among other precepts, already maintains that their can be moral standards irrespective of a designated creator.
I'm curious as to how you parse this dread prophecy while simultaneously claiming that you do not desire preferential status for religion, by the state.
CI, you posited that this was an issue between Robertson and A&E.
That would be true, if GLAAD had stayed out of it.
Like I said earlier, this really boils down to a big "Shut UP!" to Phil, and by extension other Christians in the public square.
It is as EB points out, a culture issue, and leaving God out of it, as you would prefer, I imagine, it is not appropriate for GLAAD to tell anyone to shut up.
* repost for spelling errors*
"That would be true, if GLAAD had stayed out of it."
Interesting point. In the same vein, if we [collectively] presume to tackle issues strictly on their merit, and disdain third party interlopers.....where is the outrage against the actions of groups on the right, such as "One Million Moms", and their perpetual boycott machine against perceived cultural offenses in the media?
If failing to rein in the myriad of interest groups is cause for concerning one camp, it should be of equal cause in the other camp, no?
CI; I've never even heard of "One Million Moms"...what is it?
I personally hope nobody gets reined in...why should they? As I've said 2938742938734987 times above and other places on my blog "Turn the page, turn off your TV..stop being offended"
Now, someone like Martin Bashir represents a media venue, MSNBC, and said someone should S*** down Sarah Palin's throat, and I'd say "that's just BAD TASTE"...(and yes, I KNOW he didn't use those exact words; in fact it was quite subtle, considering most people wouldn't have had a clue what that man in history had done to others). I'd have thought any decent person would step down on their own for that hideous statement.
I don't believe anything Robertson said was anything near as bad as that, but I don't believe he should be bounced, either.
Let's stop the OFFENDEDness....except we're raising idiot children who can't take ANYTHING these days, so I'm sure it'll be worse in coming years.
When many schools don't keep score in elementary school because one team's winning will make the other FEEL BAD, we have bigger problems than we think. And no, it's not about the sport; it's about something much bigger than that.
GLAAD ='s GAYSTOPO
Their way...or the verbal assaults keep a coming. And the hate is monstrous for such open and "tolerant" people.
I keep wondering why they weren't in the streets protesting Islams take on their life styles? That would make sense.
"it should be of equal cause in the other camp, no?"
No...some grievances merit more attention and perpetual angst and rage than the mainstreams. Ask "Rev. Al".
Minorities, whether they be a race or a protected group, now rule our senses.
No one else has a right to criticize them.
Z, Steve Moore is not nuts (as you quote hom which I'm sure is accurate) If anything he is watering down the problem.
Growth can't be sustained? True,. but again, what growth. Profit growth has occurred at the expense of labor - all businesses cut anyone and anything that wasn't holding their end of the log, which removes a lot of people form the workforce.
If he's talking stock market growth that's another animal entirely. The pro traders have hated this rally. I've seen valid comparisons between now and the last bubble, the technology bubble in 200, as well as the housing bubble that burst in Oct 2007. THe market is higher than that now, but adjusted for inflation, probably about right.
Speaking of which, if we used measures for inflation circa 1980, our current inflation rate would be 10 %. This is stealing a lot of money from a lot of people.
Kid...he said BULLISH! The rest of the negative economy stuff was my words; sorry, it looks confusing when I read my comment.
No, he thinks the economy's going to be great this coming year. I DO hope so!
As for Muslims and people being afraid to speak out against the evil: I think you are SO RIGHT and have said so for a few years now: Islam knows we're too politically correct to criticize and are afraid to talk against them. They're counting on us to screw ourselves.
Kid, I like your take on the money and the market... and the moslem* and islam comment is center X ring.
*It's a long story, but they take great offense at the spelling of 'moslem' instead of 'muslim.' This Infidel also take great pleasure in NOT capitalizing any of their names.
Z, well, there are a couple takes on bullish.
1-Is it good now? No.
2-Will it be better in 6 months? If the answer is yes, then that is bullish from a market perspective.
It's a good way to manage buying or selling the market.
If it Can't get any worse (most people flee the market but should be buying) then the odds are great that it will get better.
If it Can't get any better, then odds are it will get worse and you should be selling or very ready to sell.
People usually do the opposite, which is why Wall Street people get multi-million dollar bonuses.
Anyway, in this context, I don't think it will be better in 6 months, mainly because of oblammycare.
M4E, I hear ya. I usually say muslim because I want readers to make no mistake who I'm talking about. But damn right I wouldn't capitalize them if they were on fire.
Z - "I've never even heard of "One Million Moms"...what is it?"
OMM is one of the perpetual outrage machines on the right. This one specializes in calling for boycotts of television and advertising that shows gay people/characters.
http://www.onemillionmoms.com/
CI, here's where you lose me.
How big a deal is it if I hadn't heard of this group?
And, really, perhaps they have every right to be perpetually outraged? Ever think of that?
By the way, why do you have such a problem with the Right being upset just because you don't agree with their points? They have the same right to their sensitivities as you do. Ever think of that?
Kid, just saying what I heard...he's "Bullish on the coming year's economy because of positive indicators"...that's what he said, not me.
Considering the huge deficit, growing by the second, etc., I can't agree with him and was surprised to hear him say that.
Z - "How big a deal is it if I hadn't heard of this group?"
That depends on how much importance you place only on those things you are aware of v. those things you are not aware of.
"And, really, perhaps they have every right to be perpetually outraged? Ever think of that?"
They have every right to be perpetually outraged, just as left wings groups do. Who's arguing against that?
"By the way, why do you have such a problem with the Right being upset just because you don't agree with their points?"
I have a problem with hypocrisy and ideological diatribes, irrespecive of whether or not I agree with the salient points or not.
CI, maybe "perpetual outrage machine of the right" isn't pejorative. OKAY! :-)
Even the Constitution Is subject to the whims of whoever is serving on the Supreme Court.
I'm suggesting that if God is removed from our culture that we will experience a cultural revolution. One in which we turn from an autonomous culture into a heternomous culture. Simply look at recent history.Nietzsche Understood the ramifications after he declared God dead. He prophesied That the 20th century would be the bloodi.est century in history
"I'm suggesting that if God is removed from our culture that we will experience a cultural revolution."
Yet God cannot be removed from our culture as long as there are believers. Maintaining that belief is the mandate of the faithful, not the State.
When religion [as interpreted by man] bucks squarely against civil liberties, the selling points are going to take a hit.
Yet God cannot be removed from our culture as long as there are believers. Maintaining that belief is the mandate of the faithful, not the State
It's the depravity of man that concerns me.
“The depravity of man is at once the most empirically verifiable reality but at the same time the most intellectually resisted fact.”
― Malcolm Muggeridge
and the State shall not infringe
I'll repeat Zacharias' quote:
“Every thinking person knows that to imprison a sacred belief within the private realm is ultimately to fracture, if not to kill, the belief. One could no more sever belief from public expression and still live spiritually fulfilled than one could remove the heart from the body and bid the blood flow. The separation kills the life in the body. Such is the impact on privatized spirituality.”
What happened to Robertson is an example,they even bleeped words to give the appearance that the Robertson's use swear words and cut out part of their prayers..
A and E absolutely had every right to fire him, while at the same time popular culture switched into a heteronomous one and Robertson (at least intitially) was dictated to about what he needs to believe. GLAAD even suggesting Robertson's reeducation.
Perhaps you saw where the VA would not deliver Christmas cards to veterans if they said "Merry Christmas" or "God Bless You"
Also I would say that faith is personal not necessarily private
Yet God cannot be removed from our culture as long as there are believers. Maintaining that belief is the mandate of the faithful, not the State.
Oh yes the Russian Orthodox Church survived.
I'll hit you back tomorrow. My Ducks are playing the Holiday Bowl right now.
What did Robertson say that deprived anyone of a civil liberty? In fact some believe based on the Civil Rights Act that Robertson based on his religious views was unlawfully discriminated against.
Considering the objections, does Natural Law Theory even play a role in contemporary secular moral discourse?
I'm curious as to how you parse this dread prophecy while simultaneously claiming that you do not desire preferential status for religion, by the state.
I realize that religious pluralism is difficult. Truth by it's very nature is exclusive.
Religious pluralism is a belief system that sounds good, but does disservice to all religions. All religions are exclusive. Even naturalism, which poses as irreligion, is exclusive. Every religion has its starting points and its deductions, and those starting points exclude. For example, Hinduism has two non-negotiable beliefs: karma and reincarnation. No Hindu will trade these away.
Perhaps you think I'm overreacting. To that I would say I'm more concerned about the Church's impact on the culture than the Government's impact on the Church. I've heard it said, "as the church goes so goes the culture."
I'm glad I took a peek to see if anybody was still commenting.
Am looking forward to your further discussion, CI and Elbro.
CI...good luck to your team!
Z, economy - Agreed. I was just throwing something out
EB - "Also I would say that faith is personal not necessarily private."
Not exclusively private, but private at it's core. For all the benefits communitarianism brings to the community of faithful, belief is no less valid if I were on a deserted island than if I were in the Vatican.
"What did Robertson say that deprived anyone of a civil liberty?"
He didn't. I don't think anyone has argued that he had. But he would certainly appear to support legislation that would deprive our fellow Americans of civil liberty.
"In fact some believe based on the Civil Rights Act that Robertson based on his religious views was unlawfully discriminated against."
Sure, some people believe lots of things, but the 1st Amendment protects the citizen against actions of the government.
"Considering the objections, does Natural Law Theory even play a role in contemporary secular moral discourse?"
I think so. Society can come together and agree on basic norms irrespective of a belief in a creator, especially when in practice, religious belief comes from the mouths of man. The word theoretically comes from God, but we are beholden to take mans word for it.
Post a Comment