Your liberal media: Juan Williams NPR sound file.
Very rough translation, with liberties: ideology is bad, so it’s good Obama is working with moderates who hate ideology, because today the term “ideology” is a cudgel used without any analysis of the beliefs any particular ideology actually embraces.
The implicit assumption is that progressive are an exact and opposite force to movement conservatives and hence equally loathsome, no matter the evidence. Torture, universal health care, whatever. Ideology ideology ideology! Regular Americans hate all of them, even the ones that are for them!
And BTW, Rick Warren supporting Prop. 8 is not at all ideological. Obama is, in fact, a genius for reciprocating! Rick had Obama over and now Village decorum dictates Obama have Rick over, like it’s the PTA or something.
They’ll probably just talk about the weather and pie and stuff, maybe how the brain dead can smile.
Obama must reach out to people who will never vote for him in a million Pleistocene epochs, because it angers the left.
These are the defined, clinically insane parameters of American politics, and within such confines we must confront the greatest economic challenges (perhaps) of all time.
If making hippies and the gays mad were money, problem solved!
If I were Obama would I have reached out to Warren? Nope. But I do think the lefty blogosphere is making entirely too much of it. In the long run what matters is what gets passed into law and implemented. When we get into a tizzy about symbolic stuff it undercuts our ability to work together on the issues that will make the most difference in the substance of people’s lives.
By all means complain about Warren, but keep it short and sweet and don’t throw Obama to the wolves just because he didn’t meet your particular litmus test.
It’s not just about ideology. Reality is reality. Facts are facts.
There is no government action that benefits anyone that does not hurt someone else. It is about measuring the effect, and pointing your policies to what is the best for the most people, and our country, and the world as a whole.
We have just had 8 years of helping only the super rich, and large companies that are “too big to fail”, and look what that has brought us.
Since the risks of “larger” corporations failing hurts more Americans, I think the larger the corporation, the higher the tax rate is they should pay. This would help “my” small company BIG TIME.
Goldman Sachs paid 1% in income tax last year on 2 plus billion in profit. I pay 30 something percent. Go figure.
Americans as a whole would do better with smaller, more nimble corporations.
True capitalism is one corporation consuming all others and then puttin’ it to the consumer. Where we draw the line is what makes us who we are. The line is in the wrong place now.
#2 Great post.
While I love the idea of smaller, more nimble corporations, What would be the consequences of taxing a large corp more do?
How would that effect Boeing or Walmart?
While I like anything that hurts Walmart, would that kill Boeing?
How would that effect our ability to compete against corporations from other countries?
Should Sarah Palin be the President?
I am no fan of Warren either but Obama is trying to govern. Tell you what Jon, lets retread Sarah Palin, reveal that she is a Lesbian, and run her for President!
Imagine the opposite tack … would you like a left version of Bush? An ignorant, intolerant ideologue? Do you think Barney Frank or Kucinich could govern the USA? How about Palin’s mirror reflection, Haras Nilap, the muslim gay woman who is apssing as Palin?
As for Jon’s claim the evangelicals will never vote for BHP, that is horseturds. Go visit an evangelical church, the things are integrated! They often have rather liberal views of their God’s commitments .. esp in re opportunity for poor people. Better yet, join BRS and I for our visit to Fort Lewis Fourth of July.. filled with conservative, evangelicals who are wildly patriotic, antigay, multiethnic, lower social ec. class, etc. The focus on abortion and gay marriage are far from these folks only beliefs.
Frankly, I suspect that any left votes BHO loses because he .. gasp, crackle, pop .. is able t talk with his opponents, will be vastly outnumbered by Christians who are patriotic, proud of our multiracial culture, supportive of Israel, child and family centric.
Gays and liberal/progressives who voted for Obama, let that sink in for a minute. Obama has chosen evangelical pastor Rick Warren to deliver inauguration invocation.
HAHAHAHAHA!
Let’s see. During the campaign, Senator Obama stated that, while he believed in civil unions, and felt that they should be legally the same as marriage, he could not support gay marriage.
Apparently he saw marriage as a religious sacrament, and could not reconcile the Biblical injunctions, but felt that his religious conviction should not prevent legal equality for gays and lesbians, and that civil unions was the best answer he could find.
Many months later, when he chooses a pastor to give the invocation, he chooses one that holds the same view, and is being condemned for it.
Problems that the far right has with Pastor Warren
Now, I realize that Pastor Warren and his congregation tends to be conservative (small “c”), and to many here, that means we should condemn them to the outer reaches, where their views are never to be heard again.
But we voted for Mr. Obama, who clearly told us that he was not going to do that. Apparently some of us thought he was lying.
More and more, I find myself astonished that liberals and progressives assumed that Mr. Obama was just another politician that would say anything to get elected. Some of us seem to have voted for him assuming that he was a liar and a crook, but he was our liar and crook.
Let me give everyone a clue as to what Mr. Obama believes, and how he will behave as President.
Listen to what he clearly says.
Obama’s views on gay marriage are designed to offend the least amount of people on either side of the issue.
It’s analogous to politicians who state that they believe in global warming, but they don’t think it’s man made in any way. All this means is that that politician will not try to ameliorate global warming because it’s not ‘man made’.
That politician may as well be a denier of global warming because his beliefs lead to inaction.
Same with Obama on gay marriage. It’s a slap in the face to those of us who believe in the constitution.
I want to have a Proposition 8.5 to deny the religeous rite of marriage to those who do not believe in gay marriage.
re 6:
“Apparently he saw marriage as a religious sacrament, and could not reconcile the Biblical injunctions, but felt that his religious conviction should not prevent legal equality for gays and lesbians, and that civil unions was the best answer he could find.”
You can’t make a law that denies someone a religeous sacrament. Don’t you get that?
It’s not righteous, brother.
Do we have to talk about a man putting his penis in another man’s anus while I’m eating breakfast?
What a jerk.
I’m a gay man, in a long term committed relationship, with an adopted son, I’m the worst case scenario for jerks like Warren, everything they fear.
I’m disappointed that Obama would include Warren, but it’s not a deal breaker. Obama is still infinitely better than McCain/Palin. It’s all about the economy and paychecks. All that social stuff is secondary to losing the house and eating. And I cannot imagine how McCain/Palin and the Conservative mind set could have salvaged the economy for the little guy.
#9. You are the only one who went there.
Methinks you protest too much.
Maybe he’s not all bad.
@ 12,
Oh sure, all those liars, hucksters and psychopaths say they’re against divorce. Until it comes to their own failed marriages, then they channel Henry VIII.
The key here is that they don’t do shit to try to stop divorce, but they’ll do anything, say anything, and pay anything to attack gay men and lesbians, since it doesn’t require any sacrifices on their part.
The key here is that they don’t do shit to try to stop divorce
Take that a step further, they don’t do shit to try to stop THEIR divorce. That way it applies to them, not more of telling others how to live their lives.
Jon, You used Juan Williams? How can you? HAs lesser life form ylb, claims all liberals on Fox News are has beens. Using that definition means you linked to a has been. Why is that Jon? Per that lesser life form yelling loser boy, “more is expected of you”.
That is one of the illogically defined, clinically insane parameters of yelling loser boy. Now if you disagree with HAs lesser life form please tell us.
2. All Facts Support My Positions spews:
All Facts—Look again. I doubt you paid 30% income tax. Perhaps you are in the 30% marginal tax bracket where each additional dollar of income is taxed at 30%…..but I doubt you paid 30% of your income in INCOME TAX.
You KLOWNS are sooooo into destructive “full-contact” politics that you forget that Obama promised to be the President of ALL OF US in the United States. That means reaching out. Hell, Bush even gave Babs Streisand a kiss on the cheek! BIG DEAL!!
In the end, all this handshaking and in your case Jon, HAND-WRINGING, matters little. What matters are actually POLICY DECISIONS & LAWS. That’s it.
Grow up you PINHEADS!
I think using something completely meaningless like the invocation to reach out to people on the other side of the isle is a grand idea.
Factlesspositions:
Amazing what a company run by liberals contributing to liberals will do right Factless?
Puddy tried to tell you this with many facts but you like to stay factless…
Well here’s another fact you’ll skip over. THe Illinois Donkey suggested a special erection for the Illinois senate seat being vacated by Obama. Now they are not suggesting that anymore…
10. Blue John spews:
Blue John–
You fail to listen to Warren or any true Christian. No one FEARS you BJ. You are way too self-absorbed and into your own self-importance.
You disagree often with others choices & decisions…does that mean you FEAR them??
Stop being a Drama Queen BJ….and wise up and grow up.
Blue John @ 12–
Bravo! You actually looked into what Warren believes AFTER you condemned him.
Warren’s beliefs on this subject mirror mine…100%. A lot of Christians feel precisely the same way.
Did you learn anything today BJ??
You are typical of the Far-Left PRESUMPTIVE Progressive Atheists BJ….
Assume, fire, aim….then research and say OOPS!
Hey BJ, Wise Up and Grow Up!
You are soooooo into being a “victim” and “feeling offended” it’s disgusting.
Good luck on your journey!
Maybe Goldman Sachs will give some of those kept tax receipts Factless is complaining about to the HollyWeird leftists who Bernie Madoff screwed.
Have to say the better man won that one!!! :)
They got what they paid for.
Butt, that’s a great purpose for the left-driven media.
Here are the divorce rates among ever-married respondents in the General Social Survey (GSS, 2000-2004)—one of the best known sources of sociological data. “Frequent” is attending church about once a week or more.
58%, non-frequent Black Protestants
54%, non-frequent Evangelicals
51%, no religion (e.g., atheists & agnostics)
48%, ALL NON-CHRISTIANS
48%, non-frequent, other religions
47%, frequent Black Protestants
42%, non-frequent, mainline Protestants
41%, ALL CHRISTIANS
41%, non-frequent Catholics
39%, Jews
38%, frequent other religions
34%, frequent Evangelicals
32%, ALL FREQUENT CHRISTIANS
32%, frequent mainline Protestants
23%, frequent Catholics
Folks believe otherwise from the work of George Barna. In well-publicized studies, he has compared divorce rates of “born again” Christians against non-Christians, and he finds little difference. However, Barna’s analysis labels as “non-Christian” many mainline Protestants, such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, and Episcopalians, and most Catholics. As such, he is comparing Christians against Christians. Ron Sider has publicized Barna’s statistics in his award winning Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience.
The point is, FREQUENTLY ATTENDING religous people, with the exception of Blacks, have a much lower divorce rate than non-frequent & Atheists.
Plus, another point to consider….there are MANY folks living together in non-marriage situations. The vast majority of those are non-believers or non-frequents. Stats show these non-marriage situations end up in a much higher rate of not lasting.
Food for thought.
Barna was looking for a way to make it appear Christians had the same divorce rate as non-Christians…so he purposely constructed data based on false premises to come up with the outcome he desired. Bad boy! Then he got a bunch of Atheists to re-print his statistics over & over again. Doesn’t make them accurate however.
Believe what you want….but base it on something that can stand scrutiny.
re 9: Sorry. Didn’t want to get you excited this early in the day.
troll@9, that’s because #25 savors that feeling…
re 25: You should learn to count.
@26 Take him for his word on this one.
Steve, you know all about it.
@27. Can you count to duotrigintillion?
Didn’t think so. Brain fried in Arizona sun.
Wait for it… One of lucy’s other personalities soonwill appear
5……….4……….3……….2………1
@19. If they didn’t fear me and my family for some reason, they wouldn’t fight gay marriage so much.
Yeah, sometimes I’m a hothead and post first and ask questions later. But unlike you conservatives or your Lame Duck President, I’ll adjust my position when I get more facts.
It’s one of the most frustrating things about having a discussion with the conservatives, it doesn’t matter what facts or arguments we provide, you don’t change your minds. Ever.
@28 Yeah, I know that you’re a hypocritical goatfucker. Oh, here’s another one of your heroes, Pudz.
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.c.....convi.html
Show us some more of that deep-seated denial, Pudz. It’s always good for a laugh. Sucks to be you, huh?
@30 BlueJohn
I have enjoyed your posts.
I am a hetero, a Jew, and an atheist, but I also oppose the appropriation of “marriage” to describe other relationships.
My argument is really pretty simple. The differences bewtweeh the genders are profound and, with no prejudice toward any other relationship, it makes simple semantic and cultural sense to recognize the phenomenon of heterosexual, monogamous pairing. If we were to change the definition, we would still need a term that recognizes male:female pairing.
However, recognizing marriage says nothing about recognizing other committed relationships. Frankly, I find the gay marriage advocates hypocritical when they diss polygamy or even, as long as there are no progeny, brother sister, parent child commitments.
If marriage is the issue, then why do we condone nunneries?
It seems to me that the simplest answer is to adopt a national commitment law that sets whatever criteria the people want that allows folks to be married, paired, of live in a nunnery.
lets see how normal being gay is. life has evolved on this planet for about 2.5 billion years. and every finger, toe, gill, eye, body hair, every single cell of every living thing has evolved for one resason only….TO INSURE THE SURVIVAL OF THE SPECIES….so if two gays cannot procreate, how in the heck could that be normal for the species? its not. and the sad part is, homosexuality is epidemic in the same way diseases today like cancer is epidemic. things like mercury and other pollutants have effected biological and even intellectual illness’. the msm however would never dare say that. so we live a lie.