It’s been quite a decade. Look how far we’ve come in the last ten years. The Right Wing rose to power by crushing democracy in 2000. The Bush Administration went on to expand our debt to unheard of levels. They undermined our Bill of Rights with warrantless surveillance, torture, and utter disregard of Habeas Corpus. They started two wars they couldn’t finish, one of which was based entirely on falsehoods.
That all went well, didn’t it?
Now we sit at the end of 2010 and see the resurgence of the Right. Somehow they took control of Congress by convincing the voters to give the party of debt, war, and greed another shot at power. I’m sure things are going to get rosy now.
What happened? In 2008 enough Americans turned out to vote for a different party to govern. Do you think somewhere in the American brain there’s a sense that if you can’t fix eight years of damage in two years, then give it all back to the same irresponsible bunch to finish their demolition? No, something else has been at work here.
We live in dark times. The Radical Right is out to destroy presidencies voted in by democratic majorities. The Right hates democracy. When voters chose Clinton, they went to work at undermining him any way possible. Policy differences were not an issue. Their preferred tactic was the politics of personal destruction.
Then voters chose Obama. Now it is Obama’s turn. Never mind if Obama advocates the same thing favored by the Right, they will oppose him. For the Right it is all about gaining their dictatorial lock on power. We’ve heard from them that they will not compromise. Fascism and compromise never did mix well, did they?
Why is it that a shameless party with nothing good to offer the people has climbed back into power? In a word, FOX.
Yes, the Right has their own propaganda ministry working 24/7 to convince Americans to vote for Republicans. I use the word propaganda for good reason. FOX(R) is not a real news channel. FOX(R) has no journalistic standards and no intentions to report truth. They are a Right Wing political operation that relies on the American public to falsely believe they are a “fair and balanced” news network.
In August of 2009 when health care reform was the issue of the day, Frank Luntz, the GOP newspeak spinner, was coaching Sean Hannity on how to discuss the public option. Luntz argued that "if you call it a 'public option,' the American people are split, if you call it the 'government option,' the public is overwhelmingly against it." Luntz said that the program would be "sponsored by the government" and falsely claimed that it would also be "paid for by the government."
Hannity liked it and replied, "You know what, it's a great point, and from now on, I'm going to call it the government option."
Not only did they never use the term public option again, it soon morphed into “government takeover of health care”. No doctor for you until the socialist government says so. They’re gonna put a gubmint bureaucrat between you and health care. Yup, and then they’re gonna make Grandma go beg for mercy in front of a death panel.
The term public option was targeted for removal from conversation by FOX (R). In October 2009 Bill Simmons wrote an email titled “friendly reminder: let's not slip back into calling it the ‘public option’”. Of course the FOX crew complied.
And they also dutifully injected the idea that climate change was not real. Whenever climate change or global warming was mentioned they would falsely insist there was no scientific consensus on it. Tell that to the shrinking glaciers and Arctic ice, the thawing tundra, and drowning polar bears. FOX and Rush know more than dumb old scientists anyway, but this is a topic for later.
I wonder if anyone thinks the 2010 election would have different if the voters who believe Obama is a Marxist Muslim didn’t show up at the polls. I bet Congress would still have a Democratic majority if not for ignorance and the deliberate misinformation provided by FOX(R).
But don’t take my word for it. A survey was done by World Public Opinion.org through the University of Maryland, the Center on Policy Attitudes and the Center for International and Security Studies. They wanted to measure the degree of misinformation in American voters. Guess who were the most misinformed? FOX(R) viewers, of course.
We learn that FOX(R) viewers were "significantly more likely" to believe that:
--Most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses (12 points more likely)
--Most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit (31 points)
--The economy is getting worse (26 points)
--Most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring (30 points)
--The stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (14 points)
--Their own income taxes have gone up (14 points)
--The auto bailout only occurred under Obama (13 points)
--When TARP came up for a vote most Republicans opposed it (12 points)
--And that it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States (31 points)
This is why democracy is doomed in America. Mission Accomplished FOX(R). In the world of Right Wing power Ignorance is strength.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
72 comments:
“The Bush Administration went on to expand our debt to unheard of levels. They undermined our Bill of Rights with warrantless surveillance…”. That is the only part of your posting that is based in reality and with which I agree, Dave. The rest is really more fever swamp dreams from the left, sir.
You call the Republicans the “Party of debt, war, and greed” and perhaps aptly so in many cases. What you once again fail to acknowledge is the orders of magnitude our debt has increased under the 111th congress and President Obama which dwarves the GOP’s previous malfeasance. War? Well I’d say the Afghanistan war was necessary in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan thereby removing the safe haven that existed for the perpetrators of al Quaeda that were responsible for the deaths of 3000 Americans. Greed? I’d submit it is the left that is the greedy ones. They constantly beat the drum about fixing our problems by taking others’ money to do it.
“The Right hates democracy.” While I imagine there are indeed those fringe knuckleheads that do hate it from the right, they are so infintessimally small in number as to be irrelevant. Let’s look at the lack of democracy instituted under your beloved president however. He has instituted unprecedented executive orders to enact policies that he was incapable of getting passed in congress. He has appointed more czars with more power that are unelected and unaccountable to anyone but him to oversee every facet of our government and then some, to a far greater degree than any previous president. http://savingcommonsense.blogspot.com/2009/10/march-of-czars.html Further, he along with the progressive 111th congress, have expanded the power of the executive branch of the federal government to historically unprecedented levels.
I find your screed against Fox News to be amusing, particularly in light of the long standing leftwing bent of ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and particularly MS-NBC. The latter news sources have hemorrhaged viewers for decades because of their unfair and unbalanced reporting either overtly or implied. This is the reason why Americans now view Fox News for their information more than all of those sources combined this last year. I think it is ironic that you call Fox “R” and yet they at least have the fairness to bring on what passes for articulate leftists on their shows to debate the current issues. I cannot seem to recall the last time I saw Keith Olbermann have someone on his show that wasn’t pre-screened to ensure that the guest agreed with Lord Olbermann’s enlightened views on the given subject of the day.
(cont.)
Next, government has indeed taken over many aspects of my health care and until recently that included the mandate that I must purchase it whether I wanted to do so or not. Further, you scoff at death panels and yet part of the law passed encompassed “end of life counseling” for the elderly. Never mind the fact that defacto death panels will be created as we add millions more patients to the health care rolls and then provide government disincentives so that doctors leave the field of medicine in droves. Simple supply and demand economics would tell one that when you have greater demand and less supply, prices go up with the scarcity. The most vulnerable (the elderly) will be the ones most deeply affected by this as they become a “drain” on the leftist utopia and are unable to contribute with their taxes to the greater good of society.
Next, there is a large contingent of exceptional scientists that have provided very convincing data that man-caused global warming is indeed a hoax. In fact a cooling trend for the earth is much more likely in the coming decades. And while the Arctic ice shrank, it is now increasing once again, while the Antarctic ice has grown all along. See the brilliant astrophysicist and meteorologist Piers Corbyn on the subject: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/blogger-dismantles-fox-viewers-are-misinformed-study/
As for your George Soros, Tides-Foundation-funded World public opinion study, I would give you this link in rebuttal: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/blogger-dismantles-fox-viewers-are-misinformed-study/
There are indeed plenty of things wrong on the right, but there are even greater wrongs on the left. The reason why voters have returned power the GOP is not because of Fox News, but rather because We The People have put congress on notice that we won’t tolerate the GOP operating as it did in previous congresses. The solution to our problems are only being exacerbated by the Democrats, so no wonder the people did not turn there for solutions, sir.
T. Paine, that 4096 character limit is annoying, isn't it? It has ensnared me a few times. I want to debate you, but I am far too lazy right now, and you are lucky, as my ill-conceived stupidity could drive Gandhi to internet road rage. If I just say you are wrong about a bunch of things is that good enough?
Dave, I just read this same report on Michael Scott's site.
Hey, T, I just realized something. I do agree with you on several points also. We won the Afghanistan war a long time ago. We are now trying to win permanent influence over the country. The war Obama railed against has been transported a few feet under his guidance.
The neat thing that has me grinning everytime O'Reilly goes on about Fox "dominating" the cable news ratings is that like my crazy in-laws most Fox views are old farts with one foot in the grave.
The generations coming online behind the Fox Noise crowd are far more liberal than the ancient fucks about to die off.
T. Paine said, "You call the Republicans the “Party of debt, war, and greed” and perhaps aptly so in many cases. What you once again fail to acknowledge is the orders of magnitude our debt has increased under the 111th congress and President Obama which dwarves the GOP’s previous malfeasance. War?"
Actually he keeps making that point, but your reading comprehension is poor.
I know I keep harping on Republican crimes these days because you folks want to pretend that Obama is to blame for everything. When I write about how Bush started the banker bailouts and Obama continued and expanded them, a right winger will inevitably tell me that I need to quit harping on Bush and focus on Obama. "Why don't I ever say anything bad about Obama?"
Why can't Right Wingers read for content?
John Myste said... "Hey, T, I just realized something. I do agree with you on several points also. We won the Afghanistan war a long time ago."
What did we win?
T. Pain said, "Well I’d say the Afghanistan war was necessary in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan thereby removing the safe haven that existed for the perpetrators of al Quaeda that were responsible for the deaths of 3000 Americans. Greed?"
If the FBI reports about the kidnappers was correct, then...
9/11 was bankrolled by Saudi and UAE Royals. It was perpetrated by Saudis and Egyptians.
According to Bush era reports from the Pentagon, Al Queda was small in number in 2001 and had swelled in numbers dramatically in the intervening years.
The FBI further reported in the days after 9/11 that the hijackers used faked passports and we may never actually know who the hijackers were, where they came from or what their purpose was. All they could glen from their evidence is that Saudi Royals paid all of their expenses. That didn't fit the White House narrative, so those reports were quietly forgotten. As was the fact that while all flights were grounded, the Government rounded up all of the relatives of the people who financed 9/11, and flew them out of the country without being questioned.
Why was it necessary to remove the Taliban from power?
Oh, and the Taliban hasn't been taken out of power. They are on the payroll now...
The entire problem with them to begin with was the fact that Ken Lay couldn't come to an agreement with them on land rights for a pipeline.
The Taliban government did protect Al Quaeda and we removed them, just as we would have done. That mission was accomplished. I agree that we did not catch a very important crook, though.
Weasledog, you are forcing me to side with T. Paine, and that is a position I never want to be in. Stop it. The Taliban is not in power and regardless of the Saudi involvement, they were the target in the way after 9.11. Obama would have gone after the same target, were he in charge.
Do not argue your case as an attorney. Argue as a scientist, and more people will agree with you, as you do seem to have a lot of data to back you up (not supported with references, but then who does that anymore anyway).
John Myste, you injure me, sir! :)
Sorry T. Paine! No disrespect. You are the pretty one!
Dave,
I posted this to your comment elsewhere, but I have an electonic friend who posted a piece about literal interpretation as a justification for denoucning homosexuals. Regardless of your ultimate opinion, I though you would be interested. It is short, but very good:
Dave,
I know this is merely anecdotal, but I have found that many Christians believe the anger and wrath of the Old Testament when they are talking about the other fellow and they reserve the greater love and kindness of the New Testament for discussions about themselves or those who enough like them to be tolerable.
I find a literal interpretation of the Bible off-putting. I find a literal interpretation of only select passages to be absurd.
Were I more eloquent, I would summarize this argument, but instead I defer to one who is:
http://www.testimoanials.com/blog/blog1.php/2010/12/26/scriptural-condemnation-of-gays-1
T. Paine, I realize this a subject change.
For the prior one, I lay my king on its side, and on Dave's behalf, I also overturn his.
TP,
Sorry, but your wealthy Mammonites with more riches than they will ever use or spend, but want to grow the debt with their tax breaks, are greedy beyond the ability or comprehension of most of us.
"Unprecedented executive orders"? You mean like Bush's unitary executive practices, and his unconstitutional "signing statements"?
Let's see a few examples that are beyond Bush's. Of course Bush had no "czars" he only had advisors.
Sheesh...
It's amazing how Righties get so indignant at accusation of misinformation yet they always have a large percentage of their group who believe Obama is a Marxist Muslim. Go figure.
So WPO is another Soros, conspiracy eh? Of course it is. Never mind along with the Tides Foundation, the Ford Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation are also supporters among others.
But, since Soros is the Devil according to Beck, he must be the evil puppet master behind it all.
Read 1984 and look up "Goldstein" and you'll see why the Right makes such a big deal of Soros.
And there you go again with the death panels, AKA end of life counseling advocated by Republicans. Why don't you try to tell someone with cancer who was denied insurance by corporate suits what a death panel really is?
Won't tolerate the GOP doing the same old thing, eh? I bet you voted for Bush after he did the things you admit to. You will always vote for Republicans, no matter what they do, because you believe what they say.
You are a real true believer, my friend.
John,
Nice to see you. I love your blog.
We remember the Taliban said they would turn over bin-Laden if we showed proof of his guilt, like most governments would do. We didn't of course, and invaded anyway. Prior to that we gave them millions of dollars to join in our drug war and attempted to bribe them for a pipeline. It's when they refused to follow our orders they became our enemies.
Not that they're a bunch of decent guys, but most of our "friends" are not very decent.
Arguing as a scientist would not impress Righties. They hate scientists and educational institutions. They'd rather stick to their "beliefs" and trust Limbaugh, than listen to real experts.
John Myste, interesting link that you provided, sir, but it follows the same argument that is often used by others when defending homosexuality.
The Old Testament, particularly the Jewish Pentatuch which includes the books of Genesis, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy, were indeed catalogued Jewish law of the day.
When Christ came (New Testament) he created a New Covenant with man that threw out much of the old Jewish laws listed in the Pentatuch. He distilled the laws down basically to love God with all of your heart and soul and love your neighbor as yourself.
Homosexuality though, is still considered a sin, just as adultery is in the New Testament.
Now Christ intervened the stoning of an adulterous woman saying to the crowd that "He who is without sin should cast the first stone." None did.
It is my belief that we will all answer for our sins, whatever they may be, on the day of our judgement.
Death, especially by one's fellow man, for these offenses that were listed in the Old Testament seems to be something that Christ overturned, however.
It is for this reason that I can love my neighbor, even if he is gay, and still not approve of his sin of homosexuality.
John & Dave, would you still love your friend, or even a child of your own, if he were to commit the grevious sin of becoming a staunch conservative? I suspect you would still cherish the person, but disapprove of his politics.
That is how I approach things with friends and family that are homosexual.
And the left except for guys like us think they can get it back. This battle is lost. All that's left is watching the rest of it burn. You are totally correct.
I say in addition to this at OTC that I believe many key players in guvment,business,people who are a threat to the right get the "or else" card played on them.
These people can not win unless they lie cheat and steal. If that don't work the sonsofbitches will kill ya and that's a fact.
Best in the New Year DD.
T. Paine, I hope not to get into a long debate with you about this, but the notion that Jesus came down and threw out the old laws, AKA, God's laws, is quite untenable.
Not only did Jesus not throw them out with his New Covenant, the idea that he would pay for the sins of mankind, but Jesus was not even a Christian. He was a torah-loving, Jewish-feast-celebrating Jew. God’s law was always assumed to be eternal before modern Christians decided it was OK to overthrow it in favor of something else.
The point of the article you read flew past you. The point is that if you are going to say that some of God’s laws remain, you must say all of them do. Either you reject God or you do not. (I know you accept the Jesus that Paul and others built, but I am talking about the Eternal Father whom Jesus worshipped).
New covenant is not equal to new law. A covenant is an agreement. A law is something you are ordered to follow, whether you agree or not. I wonder why publishers mix the Old Testament with the Bible. That is not God’s word. That was God’s word.
You implied that you would not respect the homosexuality of your friend, as he is a sinner, but you could still remain friends with the homosexual, even love him. That is very enlightened.
Allow me to paraphrase:
I have faith in God, though I question His laws. I know some of God’s commandments may seem barbaric, but do not worry about those. Most of the ones that defy rational logic are found in the Old Testament, which was once God’s opinion prior to Him changing his mind. I have faith that all things God has ever said is true and infallible, with the exception of the ones that are no longer true. Since I have faith that God stands by His idea and still considers homosexuality a sin, I also have faith that homosexuals are sinning. I freely concede that some of things God said were sins, are not sins, but this one is, since I can clearly see how disgusting homos are. If any more questions about what God thinks come to you, see me. Do not, read what God said, as He recanted some of that and did not specifically say which parts.
In short, sir, you have faith that homosexuals are sinners, and as with all faith, no rational confirmation is needed.
TP,
You are right, of course I love famliy and friends whether they are true believers of FOX(R) or gay, or both, if such is possible. (Now were talking issues.)
Neither Homosexuality nor Conservatism are sins. They are orientations, albeit only one is by choice.
One Fly,
I take it you are familiar with Perkins' "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man".
Thanks, and Happy New Year to you.
The Taliban repeatedly replied to request for extradition of Osama Bin Laden with a request for evidence of his involvement in 9/11.
There isn't any evidence.
But we did need to run a pipeline through Afghanistan, and a little over a eyar earlier, when the Taliban were allies and visiting in Houston, they couldn't reach an agreement on price.
Now it's all worked out. The US Taxpayer is paying for the pipeline at a cost plus basis.
You think political and economic motivations, needs to be scientifically proven?
In response for a request to apply science to business dealings...
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a96enronbribe
I found that very easily using 'The Google'. There were a lot more articles found with this tool. you can try it yourself.
In the late 90s, through 2004, I was paying a lot of attention to politics. On the day of 9/11, I happened to be unemployed and spent the day watching the news unfold and the narrative and time line shift and change, until by Five O'Clock a different story was being told with the times of events changed from when they were broadcast live. It's amazing to see how fluid and malleable that narrative was.
One of the many ways we're funneling money to the Taliban
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Afghanistan/united-states-military-funding-taliban-afghanistan/story?id=10980527
Beach,
Shhh, that's an "inconvenient truth".
I thought I posted this yesterday, but God probably deleted it or something, so I am reposting:
T. Paine, I hope not to get into a long debate with you about this, but the notion that Jesus came down and threw out the old laws, AKA, God's laws, is quite untenable.
Not only did Jesus not throw them out with his New Covenant, the idea that he would pay for the sins of mankind, but Jesus was not even a Christian. He was a torah-loving, Jewish-feast-celebrating Jew. God’s law was always assumed to be eternal before modern Christians decided it was OK to overthrow it in favor of something else.
The point of the article you read flew past you. The point is that if you are going to say that some of God’s laws remain, you must say all of them do. Either you reject God or you do not. (I know you accept the Jesus that Paul and others built, but I am talking about the Eternal Father whom Jesus worshipped).
New covenant is not equal to new law. A covenant is an agreement. A law is something you are ordered to follow, whether you agree or not. I wonder why publishers mix the Old Testament with the Bible. That is not God’s word. That was God’s word.
You implied that you would not respect the homosexuality of your friend, as he is a sinner, but you could still remain friends with the homosexual, even love him. That is very enlightened.
Allow me to paraphrase:
I have faith in God, though I question His laws. I know some of God’s commandments may seem barbaric, but do not worry about those. Most of the ones that defy rational logic are found in the Old Testament, which was once God’s opinion prior to Him changing his mind. I have faith that all things God has ever said is true and infallible, with the exception of the ones that are no longer true. Since I have faith that God stands by His idea and still considers homosexuality a sin, I also have faith that homosexuals are sinning. I freely concede that some of things God said were sins, are not sins, but this one is, since I can clearly see how disgusting homos are. If any more questions about what God thinks come to you, see me. Do not, read what God said, as He recanted some of that and did not specifically say which parts.
In short, sir, you have faith that homosexuals are sinners, and as with all faith, no rational confirmation is needed.
WeasleDog,
I refuse to read your communist rhetoric. You know, this one:
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Afghanistan/united-states-military-funding-taliban-afghanistan/story?id=10980527
I did, however, forward it to an eclectic news site because it was very interesting.
J
Dave,
I notice the missing long comment is again missing. Have you deemed it to be inappropriate and removed it?
John Myste said... "WeasleDog,
I refuse to read your communist rhetoric. You know, this one:
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Afghanistan/united-states-military-funding-taliban-afghanistan/story?id=10980527"
John, you must hate capitalism. you don't think people working in the war industry should be allowed to make profits and cut deals?
Who are you to tell them that they can't use their money to cut costs?
You don't think corporations should be allowed to use their money as they see fit, and you call me a communist?
That's funny though, first you say, be scientific, post references. Now you say that people who post references are communists.
John, now that you've let us know that science is communism, why are you using the tools of communism to post here?
John,
I retrieved them from the spam filter. All set.
Myste, I would repectfully dispute this. First, of course Jesus was a Jew, but he also chastised the Jewish priests, scribes, and pharisees for adhering to the letter if not the spirit and intention of Jewish law.
Further, as an example, in chapter 11 of Acts in the New Testament, God did indeed change what was previously categorized in Old Testament Jewish Law about what was clean and unclean and therefore forbidden to eat. Note the following verses:
1 Now the apostles and the brothers who were in Judea heard that the Gentiles too had accepted the word of God.
2
So when Peter went up to Jerusalem the circumcised believers confronted him,
3
saying, "You entered the house of uncircumcised people and ate with them."
4
Peter began and explained it to them step by step, saying,
5
"I was at prayer in the city of Joppa when in a trance I had a vision, something resembling a large sheet coming down, lowered from the sky by its four corners, and it came to me.
6
Looking intently into it, I observed and saw the four-legged animals of the earth, the wild beasts, the reptiles, and the birds of the sky.
7
I also heard a voice say to me, 'Get up, Peter. Slaughter and eat.'
8
But I said, 'Certainly not, sir, because nothing profane or unclean has ever entered my mouth.'
9
But a second time a voice from heaven answered, 'What God has made clean, you are not to call profane.'
Likewise, much of what was catalogued as Jewish law in the Old Testament was done away with by Christ in the New Testament.
Nowhere though was homosexuality removed from being sinful, along with the standing of the ten commandments.
Weasle,
“That's funny though, first you say, be scientific, post references. Now you say that people who post references are communists.
John, now that you've let us know that science is communism, why are you using the tools of communism to post here?”
Weasle, clearly, I am a communist, sir. I should have thought that was obvious with your statements above.
As for science, I said for YOU to be scientific. I did not promise anything.
T. Paine,
Don't worry, my pretty. You're up next. My response to you will take a little longer, but I assure you, it will be no less devoid of wisdom.
John Myste said... "Weasle, clearly, I am a communist, sir. I should have thought that was obvious with your statements above.
As for science, I said for YOU to be scientific. I did not promise anything."
You're very sneaky with your dishonesty. You shoot! You score!
"All warfare is based on deception." - Sun Tzu
"War is a racket." - General Smedley Butler
Jeremiah 31:31-34 (King James Version)
31Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
33But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
More on the way
T. Paine,
I understand now. You took the Acts story to be a change of heart about cleanliness before God. What God hast cleansed for Peter’s dinner on one night long ago, he so cleansed for Paine for all eternity. As I understand things, you also will not run out of fish or bread, even when your supply looks really small.
I find your trust in Peter over God to suggest that the Immutable God we once worshipped, changed His mind, and is now the mutable God du jour that we now worship. As your documentation is indisputable, I cannot debate you on this. I will accept your evidence as proof that God has no fixed opinion about things and is still working it all out as He learns.
Next Contention: The Ten Commandments stand and homosexuality is still as abominable as a snowman in Tibet.
As proof of this, you pointed out that Jesus often rebuked those who followed the law over other conflicting principles.
Your argument was overwhelming and now I am going to have to side with Jesus on this one. Laws are made to handle normal situations. Thou shalt not drive 90 miles per hour in a school zone. However, if you have a bomb in your car and it happens to sit in a school zone, Jesus would say drive as fast as your car will go and he would rebuke the hypocritical Pharisee who would point to the law as he pedaled along at 15 miles per hour while everyone blew up.
Nowhere in the Bible does Jesus renounce the law of God. In fact, renouncing God’s law is a completely Christian concept. Everyone on the planet prior to the creation of Christianity either embraced God’s law entirely or denied that it was valid at all.
Only Christians say: “Well, we’ll keep all of God’s laws unless we can find somewhere Peter, Paul or Yeshua made an exception for it at any point and time for any reason, in which case we will reject that Law of God for all eternity (by the way, you still have not pointed out the exception made from the original article for cotton and polyester blends (http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/r/rsv/rsv-idx?type=citation&book=Leviticus&chapno=19&startverse=19&endverse=19), so I assume you are not disgusting God by keeping yours. Throw them out, for Christ’s sake. You know God has lightening, right? What you have taught me is this: if there is a dispute between God and someone else, the other guy always wins and God’s law is nullified (I know I am committing a straw man fallacy when I say this, but it is so much fun, I just cannot help myself).
Clearly, this is saying that the agreement between God and his liberated people has been violated by the people. He is NOT saying that he changed his mind about the arrangement. He is saying that He will forgive them and re-create the tie they severed. He makes this covenant with the Jewish people, His people, not with infidels who run off and start a new religion.
I am not criticizing Jesus Christ here. I am challenging the interpretation of the Jeremiah prophesy. Nowhere does He say he is going to change His mind about His law. He is offering His people another opportunity to embrace it. He will forgive them and “remember their sin no more.”
The whole idea that God abolished His law through Christ was born of a misinterpretation of Jeremiah. If you read it as what it is, you are left with two conclusions: Either the early Christians misread the Bible and built a religion around the misunderstanding or they intentionally misappropriated God’s word for another use. Either way, I see no reason to believe that Jesus himself was duplicitous or confused.
Sometimes I feel like it’s me and God against the world.
More on the way ...
T. Paine, here is the Part III.
OK, let me recap:
1. Question: Are shellfish abominable? Answer: We learned they are fine to eat. God allowed Peter to eat them one night, so Paine may eat them also.
2. Question: Is it an abomination to wear cotton and polyester blends? Answer: So far as we know it is. We do not know of any cases where God allowed Peter to wear them.
3. Question: Which of God’s laws should we follow? Answer: Which ever ones we decide we should not violate.
4. Question: Did God provide a New Covenant as a get out of jail free card if we decide on the wrong laws? Answer: Christians did and they are followers of God, so that is close enough for Christians. However, as with all of God’s laws, there are exceptions. Messianic Jews and Jews must follow all of God’s laws, since they have no permission to violate any of them.
5. Question: Is God immutable? Answer: Obviously not.
There is no more.
Spring time for Hitler and Germany..
Hey I just wanted to stop by and wish you and all a very Happy New Year!!!
Let's hope it's better than the last..
Tim and Melissa
Weasle,
Sun Tzu is one of my favorite thinkers. He makes me want to fight.
Debating you is exhausting, however, and time is limited. You exhaust me for two reasons: 1. I mostly agree with you and 2. I know by the time the debate is over I will embrace the rest.
Can you just tell me what I think is short sentences and we can call it a day? (With the exception of your left wing wacko conspiracy theories). I embrace most other left-wing wacko stuff. The Taliban was / does protect terrorists. I think you actually know that, so I really do not feel like taking the time and effort to try to prove it when I could better spend that time securing my position in eternal hellfire. On all other issues about which we have spoken, I suspect you would win summarily if I continued (not sure what they all were, so I defer to your greater wisdom for now).
Thanks,
J
... AND DAVE -- Part II of my post, the meat of the whole thing, is missing!!!! That makes me sound like an idiot in part III. I wanted my idiocy to be appearant in part II, not part III. This is a spoiler! Oh my God! Or Oh Paine's God, whichever one is better.
Myste, you are quite the character! I salute your wry sense of humor and wisdom and raise a tumbler of Wild Turkey in your honor!
T. Paine,
You know I would rather chew on rusty nails then get all contentious, but I have to object. Canadian Whiskeys are the way to go. Crown Royal tops the list, but if not that, then Candian Club ro something.
Oh, contentious it will become, my friend Myste! Dubya, do you wanna chime in here, sir? :)
John said, "The Taliban was / does protect terrorists."
I disagree with you there. At least in the days before we were at war with the Taliban. They are religious fundamentalists and are big on law and order. They didn't have the resources to kick out Al Queda. al Queda was financed by Saudi Royals and CIA and had some decent US supplied weaponry.
The US doesn't kick out the Mexican drug gangs, does this mean that the USA protects them?
Tim and Melissa,
Thanks. And the very best New Year to you. I can only promise this year will be entertaining to all of us with a healthy twisted sense of humor.
John and TP,
As the type who would gladly drink rusty nails and get contentious, I must claim a position of libational neutrality. I share both your tastes. And I'm always open to trying new fine liquors, from the vodkas of North Eastern Europe to the 100% Agaves of Mexico. I'm fond of me Irish and single malt Scotch. As a big fan of the Who, I found a taste for Cognac after reading Keith Moon's bio. (This is where I also learned how NOT to drink and drive.) I appreciate what wine I can afford and love my beer.
Hard to believe I'm sober most nights, isn't it?
To trim my vices somewhat this New Year, I hope to cut the daily consumption of coffee. Or if not that, then at least get more exercise from the caffeine.
An Isle of May Scotch can't be beat. I think I'm going to retire there.
I was clearly a denizen o the bogs in previous life. Give me Laphroaig or give me sobriety!
Dubya,
How do you pronounce your last name?
John,
The late great Molly Ivans started calling George W Bush "Dubya"(Texan for the letter W) to distinguish him from his father. I didn't want the the good letter, and association of it, to be limited to our worst president.
I submit that using the bible to condone homophobia is tantamount to using a Betty Crocker's Best Recipes book to build a space shuttle due to irrelevance. The bible is irrelevant on this issue, just as it was irrelevant when it was used to justify slavery in this country for 400 years, and just as it was irrelevant when it was used to justify denying women a voice in this society.
So, T. Paine, If you cannot come up with a rational, logical reason without resorting to an old book of myths to support your position, then you need to re-think your position.
BTW, in that covenant that Jesus brought forth in the newer portion of the book of myths, he told you to mind your own business and be careful how you judge, as well. I think you missed that part. Probably the single most important piece of advice that book of myths imparts.
Bee,
Your response is awesome! Christians did support slavery and other wrongs with the Bible. I was trying not to go there, to the idea that the Bible is a "book of myths."
Should we follow the Biblical God condemnation of homosexuals is one question. A second question is "does the biblical God exist?" I think showing that the problems we face if we assume that the Biblical God wants us to condemn homosexuality is more powerful to Mr. Paine then alleging his faith is a myth to start with." Admittedly, I have failed to convert Mr. Paine to my way of thinking, thus far, though.
That said, T. Paine, I since Bee has opened Pandara's Box. I regret to inform you that no hope was really there.
As I said before the first discussion, I don't want to get into a whole dispute about this, but there is a wee little chance that God’s words are not more relevant than the grunts of a unicorn. Just a little one, Mr. Paine. Nothing you should worry your pretty little head about today.
On a lighter note, though I am just a stupid atheist, I did very much enjoy your story about evil being the absence of God. I do not think you proved your case, but it was an organized way to view it.
Dubya, LOL, LOL. That is hilarious. I was pronouncing all these sophisticated ways!
Wait a minute. I just got that. Texan for the letter W. I must take exception to that, sir.
Bee, I fully support your right to believe in my God and Bible as being mythical. I would and have even served to that end. Once upon a time, I even thought as you did, ma'am.
I really don't care to get into a long protracted explanation of why I believe as I now do and why I know that you are wrong, dear Bee, but suffice it to say that I spent many years researching trying to throw further doubt on the existence of God.
The funny thing is that the more I researched and the more brilliant people I read from history, the more I doubted my own "faith" of non-belief, until logic, science, and history dictated that the universe itself would not exist without a Divine Creator.
If you cared, a good book to start with for an open and objective mind to discover that God is true, I would suggest The Science of God by Gerald Schroeder. It might lessen your skepticism, ma'am.
You may think me foolish and un-enlightened for my faith, as I once thought of such people that I have now become. I respect your right to such views, although I also feel sad for you, ma'am, and indeed often pray for those that do not know or believe in God to one day learn of and know that joy.
With that being the case, I do condemn homosexuality as a sin, just as I do rape, murder, and even lying. Obviously some of these sins are more odious than others.
It is indeed not my place to judge others, but I can discern and use my judgement based on nature and my faith that the acts of homosexuality are sinful.
That doesn't mean that I hate or revile even those friends and indeed members of my own family that are gay. I love them regardless.
Don't be so quick to think that all who share a Christian faith automatically despise and don't respect you, Bee. Not all are like that. I respect your opinions, even when we disagree.
John Myste, I applaud your determination at attempting to convert me to your ways of enlightened thought, my friend, but I think you will find such a herculean task to be tougher than wolverine jerky! :)
And Myste, please do tell me you are NOT a Dallas Cowboys fan, sir! (Some sins are indeed unforgiveable after all!) :)
Bee, I think Paine's response was eloquent and gracious enough for us to let it go (I hope that is true).
Oh but, …
Like you, I see many areas to attack if I were so inclined. I actually wrote a long article at another site, which I now realize I foolishly requested to the editor that he post it as an comment and not an article.
The thesis of that article was simple, though. It argued that the atheist can never undo Christianity, but Christians will.
Paul defined his Christianity is such a way as to make it unassailable, based on faith, impervious to the assault of reason and ether, impenetrable by the sword. Modern Christians argue that Christianity can stand on history and science. Once enough Christians are thinking along those lines, Christianity itself will be vulnerable to attack.
You cannot attack faith with reason. No among of effort gives you one iota of persuasion. However, once the Christian starts trying to support Christianity with reason, his armor is vulnerable and when a majority of Christians do this, the Christians themselves will sound their final battle cry.
We do not need to target them. Just wait for it. They are on a path of self-destruction.
T. Paine, I am happy to be the one to have the last word on this. While I have come to respect you immensely, meaning you excel above the typical Christian in intellectual prowess, this debate to continue into Armageddon if one of us is not the bigger man. I am very small, so you're silence in this matter is greatly appreciated.
Laughing hysterically,
JMyste
There are lots of typos in that last paragraphs. Damn! Dubya, fix them. I am looking stupid, here!
Bee,
As a Constitutional republic with the specific “no religious test” clause, I think it’s remarkable that the Bible is as irrelevant as it is within our legal and government framework, considering the pressure from Big Money mega churches and hypocritical politicians. We are lucky to have a foundation of justice that is largely independent of religion. Too bad our politics, judges and elections are so rife with those Bible thumpers who would claim divine endorsement and an inside knowledge of the Creator. I’m sure if Jesus were here today, those are the modern Pharisees he would call out and denounce; provided He wasn’t tossed into Gitmo for preaching peace in the American Empire. He would certainly be under surveillance by Homeland Security as a possible threat. All that socialist concern for the sick, poor, and disenfranchised, not to mention the hippie love and peace stuff, draws suspicion from authoritarians in power.
TP,
I commend your tolerance, or at least lack of open hostility to gays, and you can “love the sinner and hate the sin”. I’m sure some gays may even “love the Christian, and hate the dogma”. I am curious about your “judgment based on nature” since homosexuality is quite common in the animal world. At least they aren’t sinners, right? I guess sometimes we must “love the animal and hate the behavior”. :-)
John,
Are you a Texan? That’s OK, most Murakins probably talk that way.
What tpyos?
Previously I said that the Unabomber was apolitical.
I've been corrected on that point.
It turns out he hated liberals. He felt liberals and progressives were the cause of much of society's problems.
He also hated the higher education system.
So he was mailing bombs to people to defend the conservative cause.
Wease,
Clearly liberals do not target college professors. Right wing nuts, on the other hand, do hate those educators at the "bastions of liberalism".
Right wingers are desperate to deny all the violence perpetrated by Righties. In their minds, they are the good guys. "By their fruits shall ye know them."
Dave, I'm reminded of another man that actively pursued and slaughtered lefties and intellectuals.
And righties call him a leftist.
That would be Joseph Stalin.
It doesn't seem logical to call him a leftist when he slaughtered every liberal that could be identified in his country, but thankfully, logic is a tool used only by intellectuals.
Wease,
What? You mean to say Stalin wasn't the bleeding heart liberal mentor for American progressives? Gasp! Then that would mean Obama may NOT be a Marxist after all. Maybe next I'll hear Obama isn't a Muslim too. My world crumbles.
Sorry, Dave, am I going too fast? :)
T. Paine said... "It is interesting that the militant left in our country, such as members of the Communist Party USA supported Stalin and the Soviet Union. It sure as hell wasn't the John Birch Society that was a fan of his or the USSR."
You're really mixing up the decades there.
The John Birch Society was supportive of Stalin, as he was giving the top members contracts to build oil refineries, develop the oil fields and train his engineers. They made a lot of money working for Stalin.
The love affair of the left with the 'communist' governments was short lived. When word of what these governments represented, got back to the states, the color faded from the rose, so to speak.
If you look at the case of Pete Seeger for instance, he tells us that he never joined the party, but the ideals of the peace movement and theirs overlapped a great deal, so he supported their rallies. In the several biographical films he's done, he explains how the communist movement died when they learned what Mao Tse Tung had done.
The american socialists, similarly lost faith in any movement he may have pretended to champion in the early 30s when it became clear he wasn't really a socialist. At that time the american socialists were champions of the working man and job creation. Their ideals were strong and they leaned to the conservative side. Remember that Archie Bunker was a union man. In those days, Unions were the conservative backbone of America.
During Stalin's time, American businesses continued working with the USSR even through the McCarthy witch hunts. He knew better than to actually go after the folks doing business deals with these people.
In business, idealism is a liability. The top industrialists to this day don't care how dirty world leaders are. What they are about is if their money is good. If you look at how the oil industry is financing the genocide in Darfur, do you think that men who write the checks to fund human slaughter really care about your Tea Party Ideals? Sure they fund your Candidates. But that's so they can own them. They care about you.
They care *don't* about you.
Heh, still didn't get it right...
They *don't* care about you.
Wease,
It's definitely a one way street. Americans are indoctrinated by corporate media to revere wealth and the wealthy. Conservatives just embrace that reverence more than the rest of us.
Is Paine, among other things, also a homophobe? Also,a small point..mandates are not unusual as we are also mandated to give part of our paychecks to Social Security. You gonna bitch about that Paine?
Dearest John, I refuse to address Paine personally as I have a tendency to come unglued at his haughty responses.
Plus, our host Dave likes to keep it nice and civil here and I am not a nice person when dealing with a-holes who believe the rightwing nutters are spot-on about most things and parrot their talking points. Not calling Paine an a-hole..but if the shoe fits..
Dusty,
His responses are haunty because he believes he has right on his side. He is not excessively disrespectful (so far). I learned a long time ago that some intelligent people think in a way that seems inconceivable to me.
I am a far left liberal atheist/agnostic. I cannot imagine agreeing with T. Paine on any fundamental issue. I am sure he feels the same way about me. It is good to hear what the other side thinks, and why, even if it does not make sense to you.
T. Paine and you probably have completely different axioms. No reason to get too emotional about it.
I cannot speak to his ass-hole level. I can say that the more conservative one is, the more predisposed they appear to be to the phenomenon. That is a susceptibility, though. I do not blame them.
Mr. Paine, I mean that in the nicest of ways. I am not implying that you are anything other than an upstanding fellow. I am just bonding with Dusty.
That is my hypocritical thought for the day, as I often get mad at the absurdity or undue aggression that I perceive in the opinions of others. It is a very human emotion.
M'dear John, I am quite certain that Paine is an intelligent person, so I agree with you whole-heartedly.
And I bet he looks cute in his boxers too, but that is for another post and another comment stream.
Obama has added less to the national debt than Bush43. He has also offered up the HCR bill that not only pays for itself, but brings down the debt in the long run.
The govt has actually made money off some of it's Wall Street and Automobile Makers loans. Why is it no one mentions those two facts?
Almost every president adds to the national debt and gets criticized for it unjustly.
Don't bring up Clinton. I don't want to hear it.
Anyway, the cost of taking over the country is largely dependent on how well managed it was by the previous administration (and a thousand other things).
I don't want to say anything bad about Bush, because he was a Texan, but for some reason I can't explain, I want to pretend I live somewhere else. Anywhere, actually.
Dusty and John,
Thanks for your acceptance of TP's, and Fred's, commentary, if not the content. I too appreciate hearing their thoughts and find it useful in clarifying ours by contrast. I've found the Right tends to embrace beliefs more than actual axioms. They fall in line behind their authoritarian leaders and rarely, if ever, question what they are told by FOX(R) and Limbaugh. As they are convinced in the righteousness of their side from the onset, they construct defense mechanisms against any conflicting information or perspectives. We've seen countless examples of denial, projection, repression, etc. coming from the propagandists. They have learned to effectively exploit these defense mechanisms into manipulation of emotions like fear and anger in their audience. It's the old tactic of creating something for people to be afraid of and then offering your politics as the solution. As we know fear and anger are tools the Right will never give up because it always works on a certain percentage of the population.
They are more than happy to question everything we say, though. And that is still a good thing for us.
So thanks TP and Fred, for sharing your beliefs with us. And I'm not saying we have no beliefs, or don't resort to defense mechanisms, either. But, as with fear and anger based violence, the preponderance is clearly to the Right.
Would it be inappropriate for me to sincerely and prayerfully wish for God to bless you Dubya, Myste, and Dusty, even if you think that He is mythical?
My good intentions are indeed sincere and not meant to offend. (Why is it, by the way, that so many folks... and particularly on the left of the politcal spectrum seem always to be cocked, locked, and looking for someone to "offend" them?)
I admit that my purpose in perusing such lefty websites as Dubya's is because I am trying to understand the other side of the argument to most current events etc. Sometimes, albeit not often, I even agree with you all. I have even been known to change my mind over the years when someone can actually produce evidence that I am wrong with something other than Daily Kos quotations or DNC talking points.
As for Dave and Myste, I appreciate your strong defense of your often-flawed ideals and philosophies! :) Also I greatly appreciate the fact that you all are typically good natured in doing so.
Indeed, I typically do not peruse sites where the extent of the debate devolves to name-calling towards the idiot lone conservative in the comment section. I am not that much of a masochist. Trying to converse with enlightened individuals such as those is about as useful as a football-bat.
Dusty, I understand your strong feelings towards me and those of my ilk, but I really do not mean you any disrespect. We simply do not often agree is all.
Lastly, Dubya, I must admit annoyance that you assume I wait around for "Fox (R)" and Limbaugh to tell me what to think. As I have said in the past, I thought as I did long before I ever heard of Limbaugh's name. He simply came along after the fact and articulated what I already knew to be fact. :)
Cheers!
Post a Comment