Yes, that's the Christianity I believe in. I'm Christian, a Democrat, and agree with everything Sister Simone Campbell believes.

Sister Simone made this lifelong non-Christian say "not bad" and CINCHOME, a lapsed Catholic, said if it was all like that, she wouldn't have lapsed.

A friend of mine has predicted that R/R don't have a chance. In his opinion, "you just don't eff with the nuns".

Hmmmm...A NEGATIVE Convention Bounce:

http://election.princeton.edu/2012/09/07/the-gop-convention-negative-bounce-a-final-look/

Lying Cheating and deception do NOT PAY.... Gram was correct!

Did you see Bill Maher last night? He summed it up perfectly .

They intend to win this election by

1. Lying (about everything)

2. Cheating (through voter suppression)

3. Money (burying Obama in negative ads - see # 1)

Katrina vanden Heuvel called it a post truth election.

That would the same Bill Maher that called a woman a "c_nt"? Does that mean the war on women is over? Hey, how about Clinton hitting on Fluke? Or the paean to a guy that casually left a dead girl in the back of his car?

Yep, for once she's right. This is the post-truth election

You have called people dicks before Shooter. I debunked this on a previous thread. Apparently instead of admitting you're wrong you just came to a new thread to repeat the same debunked statement. How quaint. Again Robby sincere apology- you don't do this obnoxious thing either.

Clinton didn't hit on Fluke he talked to Fluke. Apparently you don't get the difference. Romney hit a dude with a car, but you don't seem outraged about that. See this is why accusations shouldn't be presented as if they are fact. You have a huge problem with confusing fantasy and reality. They're two different things.

And you have called people a dick before so now you're suddenly acting outraged that Maher called someone a @!$%#? I mean if your complaint here was that you want to use non-gender specific terms like jerk or @!$%# to refer to people OK then. But otherwise you're adhering to gender names while getting upset that gender names exist. Sigh.

What was Flukes response? A protest. Yes Clinton hit on her. You can deny it all you like but Ms Fluke's reaction says all one needs to hear.

As for Maher, I'm not the one decrying a fantasy "war on women" from the right, whilst demeaning women from the left. That cartoon, is hypocrisy. Tsk.

Keep in mind, folks, that the thing that calls itself Shooter242 is just a bratty troll that doesn't actually believe the bull@!$%# it shovels. Best not to respond to it at all.

You aren't demeaning women by calling a woman a name that is gender biased. Again if your argument was that it's demeaning to call anyone a name on the basis of gender OK. But you aren't making that argument. You are saying that it's OK to call men dicks, but that it's not OK to call women @!$%#s. This is beyond hypocritical. What Bill Maher was doing was holding Sarah Palin to the same standard that he holds everyone else to. You're labeling this hypocrisy because you want women to be held to a different standard. Do you not realize that this is the entire problem? It's about equality Shooter- try to wrap your brain around that.

Nope she did not Shooter. No statement was issued, no public outcry, nothing. You are assuming this on the basis of your own misinterpretations of facial gestures and then are now attempting to assert that this is a fact (what is it with you and not being able to distinguish fantasy from reality? you do realize this is a mental illness, yes????) and the fact is that Clinton hit on her. Of course he did not- the two of them just spoke. But you want to believe that it was X and then re-assert that it was X and accuse everyone else of being a hypocrite of a liar for not seeing the reality that you see. Has it ever occurred to you that if everyone around you is saying they don't see what you see that perhaps you're the one who is seeing things?

Together, we understand that an immoral budget that hurts already struggling families does not reflect our nation's values. We are better than that....

I vary from being skeptical to intensely suspicious of religion, and hostile to wrath of god religious claimants, but these Nuns-On-The-Bus are folks I admire. If these nuns are Christians (and what else can they be?), what does this say about the Teavangelical TeaHaddists who dominate the Republican Party?

This is my first chuckle of the morning. When you live by political correctness, you die by political correctness.

You aren't demeaning women by calling a woman a name that is gender biased.

Really? (heh). Are you even noticing we'll print "dick" but not "c*nt".
We have a real life demonstration of the difference. You may recall Mark Halperin called Obama "a kinda of a dick" on TV. He was banished for a month but then returned. What do you think would have happened if he had said Michelle is "kind of a c*nt"? Permanent exile? Physical threats? At least one IRS audit?
But here you are saying it's OK to call Palin that. Stupendous hypocrisy.

Yes Bubba was hitting on Fluke. One does not respond to an opening conversational gambit by America's favorite President - in the emotionally riotous amosphere of political theater, by saying 'Sir. Please.' for no good reason. I have to assume Fluke knows when she's getting hit on, to assume other wise is "demeaning" to her gender.

Look, I understand it's SOP for the right to try desperately to make their case using lies and out of context quotes and you don't want to feel left out of that phenomenon, but let's look at what actually happened. From The Washington Post:

The former president did ask to meet Fluke backstage after her address, she said Thursday.

He told her she did a great job, asked if she had been nervous, then volunteered:

“I’m nervous. I’m nervous about going out there and getting it right for the president,” Fluke said. To which she responded, “Sir. Please.”

She was responding to Bill Clinton saying he was nervous about his speech. You know, that thing he does better than most? She used the words "Sir. Please." because it's probably not protocol to say "Pfft" to a former President of the United States.

Shooter doesn't understand the concept of "privilege." That a person of privilege, in this case Men, cannot demand something that they already have. Women don't have the privilege of being spared sexism in language. When women are called "easy" or "c*nts", calling men "easy" and "dicks" does not amount to the same degree of sexism. So PLEASE, spare me the cry of hypocrisy in a situation of "@!$%#s" and "dicks." Men don't have to worry about being sexually demeaned for being called a dick, especially because being a dick means being a dick, while being a called a c*nt means you're calling a women nothing more than a breeding vessel, or a whore, or someone who makes you a sandwich.

Second chuckle of the day. Yes, it could have been a case of 'Sir, please. Thou dost protest too much', rather than 'Sir,please. Get your hand off my knee!

On the other hand HuffPo reported Fluke as spunky rather than demure. Hmmmm.

Third chuckle of the morning. The left is endlessly entertaining.

Women don't have the privilege of being spared sexism in language.

Yes you do. Unless you want to make a point like self-describing as "sluts". Let a Republican say that, and Armageddon is upon us. As always, IOKIYAD.

Permanent exile? Physical threats? At least one IRS audit?

Once again Shooter postulates a hypothetical that is beyond ludicrous and then asserts that the hypothetical is truth. No in all likelihood he would've been held to the same standard. And that is the point here.

If your argument was that we shouldn't call people names on the basis of gender then I would be in agreement that it is wrong to call Palin a @!$%#. But you are advocating that women be treated differently than men which encourages the idea of inequality between the genders. It is not a form of sexism to hold both genders to the same standard. It is, however, a form of sexism to hold both genders to different standards. What you are attempting to say here is that Palin somehow cannot be called names by the left, but that people on the left can be called names by people on the right. It is absolutely hypocritical. Secondly you are calling me hypocritical NOT on the basis of things I am saying, but on the basis of things someone else did. As I've told you before: hypocrisy- it doesn't mean what you think it means.

Yes Bubba was hitting on Fluke. One does not respond to an opening conversational gambit by America's favorite President - in the emotionally riotous amosphere of political theater, by saying 'Sir. Please.' for no good reason. I have to assume Fluke knows when she's getting hit on, to assume other wise is "demeaning" to her gender.

No he was not. For the last damn time Shooter either provide evidence or admit that you are making this up and then pretending that because it came out of your mouth that it therefore is factual. You're lying about an event that you have no evidence of, that you were not there as witness to, and you are assuming you are correct on the basis of nothing.

Yes you do. Unless you want to make a point like self-describing as "sluts". Let a Republican say that, and Armageddon is upon us. As always, IOKIYAD.

No, Shooter, the problem here is that the Republican called her as a slut and meant it as a specifically demeaning term that was biased towards women. A woman calling herself a slut is attempting to take that term back to take power away from people who use it. This is the stupidest comment I've ever heard- you're the person who whines about why is it OK when gays call each other fags, but you can't say fag. Because when you are saying it you're saying it to demean people. And here you are crying that you are upset about the use of the word @!$%# simply because you want to demean women by keeping it in circulation. The only person who has displayed hypocrisy here- and that's actual hypocrisy as in his ACTUAL actions- is you. Remember Shooter hypocrisy is not a fantasy that you pretend is reality.

Seriously dude there is something wrong with you. I am begging you to seek help from a mental health counselor. Normal people do not confuse their fantasies with reality. Again when everyone else around you is saying you're wrong and that they don't see what you see it's time to look into the mirror and consider that you MIGHT be wrong.

Watch out, Blanks is getting his ro cks off talking about s ex, when the discussion is about the morality of kicking the poor to the dirt. Chuckle, chuckle.

Shooter:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/06/sandra-fluke-bill-clinton_n_1862960.html

Girl's got some spunk. Newly minted Democratic star Sandra Fluke shared a moment with former President Bill Clinton backstage at the Democratic National Convention on Wednesday night.

According to the Washington Post, Clinton requested to meet Fluke after she finished her prime-time speech.

He reportedly praised her for doing a great job and then confided that he was nervous about his own speech. Fluke's response? "Sir. Please."

Clinton went on to give a 48-minute speech, in which he offered a full-throated defense of President Barack Obama's record.

Good Grief Shooter!!!

Once again Shooter postulates a hypothetical that is beyond ludicrous and then asserts that the hypothetical is truth.

Kinda like climate change or equality?

No in all likelihood he would've been held to the same standard.

You're telling me that Halperin would still be a TV talking head if he called Michelle Obama a "c*nt"? Ladies and Gentlemen of the commentariat, does anyone else actually believe this?

What you are attempting to say here is that Palin somehow cannot be called names by the left, but that people on the left can be called names by people on the right.

What I'm actually saying is that the left believes it's OK to call Palin a "c*nt", while apoplectic when Limbaugh called Fluke a "slut". That is the hypocrisy you are participating in.

Seriously dude there is something wrong with you.

So Lorr, you're going with the Fluke being "demure" meme also? Really?

How long did Mayer spent calling Palin names? I don't believe he should have called her that, I believe many people on the left came out and said he shouldn't have either.

Limbaugh however devoted HOURS to filthy language about the private life and morals of a woman who was barred from testifying about the benefits of contraceptive medications to women who don't need them for contraception. To a male panel of politicians who didn't hear evidence from a single woman.

One left wing hack calling Palin a bad name is not the same as legislative platforms being enacted at a state and national level which roll back women's rights.

There is a right wing war-on-women because of their POLICIES, not because of Limbaugh. Limbaugh is just a revolting broadcaster. I couldn't care less what he says. What I do care about is restricting access to health care screening for women, restricting access to contraception, allowing employers to stop a woman using her health insurance for contraception if she deems it satisfies her conscience, and saying they will repeal equal pay laws. There have been more bills proposed across the states restricting abortion access in the last year than any before. They tried to redefine rape.

How does any of that compare to Mayer calling Palin a rude name?

Kinda like climate change or equality?

Climate change isn't a hypothetical Shooter. First and foremost the term climate change refers to any change of climate which happens both seasonally and over periods of time. If you mean global warming then that is not a hypothetical either since we have been able to prove it happening. Equality is not a hypothetical unless you are someone who doesn't want to see equality actually put into place. In which case you are complaining about the fact that Palin wasn't treated special by Bill Maher (again how horrifically sexist of you) and then turning around and saying well of course she wouldn't have been treated special because women are inferior to men (a. sexist and b. hypocritical). Good job.

You're telling me that Halperin would still be a TV talking head if he called Michelle Obama a "c*nt"? Ladies and Gentlemen of the commentariat, does anyone else actually believe this?

Considering that Michelle Obama has been called everything in the book, yes. But this is a straw man. What I said was that the standard would've been applied equally. You said he was suspended for a month and I guarantee that's what would've happened. But, again, (sigh), this is a hypothetical that you postulate as fact without evidence, cause, or reason.

What I'm actually saying is that the left believes it's OK to call Palin a "c*nt", while apoplectic when Limbaugh called Fluke a "slut". That is the hypocrisy you are participating in.

Nope. You aren't against the idea of calling Sandra Fluke a slut and that is the point here. You are OK with Fluke being called a slut because you believe that women need to be treated differently than men. But your problem is that only women whom you deem inferior to you should be called gender biased names like slut or @!$%#. Palin you see as equal and therefore it's egregious. As I said if your argument here had been from the start that you don't want either to happen then OK. But that is not your argument. Your argument is that when Republican women are held to the same standard as Democratic women that's some egregious affront. Like I said you are so eager to win an argument that you don't even realize the layers upon layers of hypocrisy.

Fluke being called a slut was meant specifically to demean the idea that if women are sexual it is somehow egregious to the gender roles. You support this thesis. You then get angry that Sarah Palin is called a @!$%# because that violates your chivalrous attitude towards women who are Republicans. This, again, supports the idea that women are the lesser gender. In the case of Fluke it was OK because, well, in your mind she was a slut and Democrats were absurd for getting upset that Rush Limbaugh would call her something that in your mind is so obviously factual. But in the case of Palin she is a good ol' Republican and that means it's horrible if she's attacked.

Nevermind the fact that all of this is your attempt to obfuscate that you are labeled as having a war on women because of your policies and actions and not because of your statements. All of this has been a red herring in your attempt to deflect blame from the Republican Party. This is how I know that you don't care about women being called names and that has been my point all along. If you were upset you'd be railing against Republicans for the same thing. But you are not. Instead you think what happened to Fluke was justified and are attempting to defend your position by throwing some non-comparable situation out and say see see so it's ok when I do the vile thing that I'm supposedly outraged about! Nope, sorry. Bull@!$%# is bull@!$%#, and you peddle a lot of it.

And lastly, I'm not the one confusing my fantasies with reality. That's your problem and yes I think you need to get some treatment for that since that is a criteria for mental illness. Not being able to distinguish the difference between what you fantasize is reality and what is reality is a problem that no one else has but you.

How long did Mayer spent calling Palin names? I don't believe he should have called her that, I believe many people on the left came out and said he shouldn't have either. Limbaugh however devoted HOURS to filthy language

One the other hand we have to hide the word "c*nt" while freely spelling "slut". Obviously the left assigns different values to each word. Perhaps the offensiveness evens out?

More later.

People, people, really? Are we still doing this?

as helpfully posted on a number of occasions by Rollo-5302374 (and re-posted later by grateful others such as myself):

shooter242 made the following comment - see for yourself at the link:
June 11, 2012 at 6:54 am

I'd like to encourage more trollery on left wing sites. Specifically pushback on common memes such as identified by Jonah Goldberg as unchallenged cliches. It can actually work, and it can actually change the course of debate.

For instance, I always challenge "the rich take too much of the pie" meme. There is no pie, no one decides who gets what, and the "pie" is a measure of contributions to a total. Ergo the rich don't take they contribute. It's been gratifyingly effective.

Try it you'll like it. Don't curse and keep the personal insults to a bare minimum, don't allow moving goal posts or distractions. Ignore trollish responders, and be four times more civil. They hate that.

http://moelane.com/2012/06/09/troll-hunting-101/

D N F T T. (The "Ignore Author" function works great - try it, you'll like it!)

Thank you.

it just seems a shame to have their statements go unanswered

As The Blank and others like him consistently demonstrate, the right is endlessly mendacious and malicious. It is a fatal mistake to stick your head in the sand (figuratively speaking) and pretend that they aren't doing what they are doing.

So, Pretzel... which part of my comment do you find offensive? The pushback, or being nice about it? And by all means everyone offended by my comments please hit the ignore button. It works very well.

Cartoon, equality is an abstract of law. Not reality. Vive la difference!!!

Thank you for admitting you don't understand what the terms "abstract" "law" "fantasy" and "reality" mean.

Seriously, get help.

Shooter, go away........

If I could get *.atheism I might be motivated to blog!

He won't go away of his own accord. He enjoys doing what he is doing very much. That is the sort of person he is.

thanks for bringing this up..

links to full cleveland plain dealer coverage here

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2012/09/holmes_county_jail_recordings.html

ps

another possibly more important aspect to this case: back in may, the judge ruled against a pretrial defense argument that the entire mathew byrd james shepard hate crimes prevention act was unconstitutional.

i'm wondering, if the final decision goes to appeal, if this might issue get heard again...

What an ironic name for a hair-cutting vigilante freak - Mullet!

There but for the grace of god and an accident of his birth goes Mitt Romney.

You and I concur on our beliefs. Thank you for sharing.

What I have a hard time grappling with is tolerance. It's not always helpful to be cynical. It's better to be humble and admit that I don't know and that I may be wrong. I feel passionate about certain issues but, to try and get others to see what you see can also be the wrong thing to do especially when there's a chance that you may be wrong. I have to beleive that God will tell us what and when we need to speak up. What has driven me to comment is the great injustice that is occuring not only here in the U.S. but everywhere. If your religion makes you hurt someone else in anyway, then some re-evaluating needs to occur. Some great discussions need to take place in order to re-instate sanity. When people are destroying the very thing that sustains us all, it's time to step back and work together, not ignore it. Rediscover what conservation and being conservative really means.

It is sickening how the GOP is using the bible to manipulate this country into NOT being christian.

Sunshine1437: Nice and thank you for sharing.

I heard that passage you quoted a little differently, "it would be easier to thread a camel through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the gates of heaven."

Meaning, all things are possible with God. And the poor are often on their knees praying for a better day and are thus keeping an open communication. Where as the rich, not all, have no need to fall to their knees and pray. They have all they need.

It is sickening how the GOP is using the bible to manipulate this country into NOT being christian

terriels - I think I take your meaning, and to that extent I even agree. However, I find that phrasing to be awkward. While I'm pretty sure that you're suggesting that the Rape-Public-CONs are trying to manipulate our people into behaving in "non-Christian" ways, those same CONs tend to use the phrase "Christian country" to imply that our government is, has somehow always been, or should ever be a theocracy.

In fact, of course, our government is, has always been, and should forever more continue to be a secular democratic republic.

Exactly, religion does not factor in except when the CONS wear their Christianity on sleeves and spout their righteous words while simultaniously defunding programs that help the disadvantaged.

Rom/Ry are both trying to ride two horses with one A$$. No can do, even if Romney's horse dances (-:

I have two issues with what you said, RobDon.

1) Having government social programs does not and is not intended to replace your belief in "being your brother's keeper". Unfortunately, not enough of us are "our brother's keepers" - I think we found that out during the Great Depression. WAY TOO many people didn't have anyone that wanted to be their "keepers" at a time when they couldn't find jobs and couldn't feed themselves.

It is interesting that you pin "being your brother's keeper" to your faith. Should we all become hypocrites and join your faith so that we have "brother's keepers" if we need them? Do I really have to depend on you or some church for whatever you decide I need?? Do I turn into a child because I've had something unfortunate happen in my life?

And since I pay into the government for social programs, I expect they will be there when I need them - this isn't charity!!! This is our form of insurance so that if something should happen, we have it there for us - that way I don't have to depend on your "charity"!!

2) The belief in "being your brother's keeper" is in NO WAY associated with abortion. None of us want you give up your desires NOT to have an abortion. I promise - none of us will force it on you. However, your religion does not give you the right to force your beliefs on the rest of us and deny us something that we believe in. What cog is missing in "Pro-Lifer's" brains that they can't see that???

it does not replace or relieve me of the obligation to look after those who are less fortunate

Why would you assume this? This is so presumptuous

It is interesting that there are some oppose to me voting from my faith to outlaw abortion saying "you shouldn't force your faith on others" and yet want me to live up to the tenet of being my brother's keeper by voting more and more for social programs

"For more and more social programs." What new social programs are being proposed? Very sneaky, Robby.

Either my faith should influence my politics or it should not, it seems odd for it to be selective.

Yes, except you're being selective in making your argument.

Other people have not been forcing their faith on Republicans in order to justify the need for social programs at the government level. People only point out that government getting involved to help others is Christian in response to Republican policies and practices. In particular, in response to the fact that the Republican Party pretends that it is the party of god and everything it does represents god. People point out no Republicans don't do everything that represents god; Republicans advocate cutting social programs and cutting things that keep people safe, take care of other people, and help make it possible for people to succeed. You're now attempting to flip the argument and state well no no no it's hypocrisy! See you're advocating your faith be enforced on other people! No. The point is that you- as a Republican- do not own the monopoly on god. You don't get to say that you are the party of god and then act in ways that are disproportionate to your own holy book when it comes to public law. Republicans want to force a woman to give up her individual rights to personhood and become a thing versus a person and then turn around and cut social programs. Pointing out that hey that violated the religion you supposedly follow is not the same as saying your faith should be in the public realm.

Before you ask Sister Simone stated in an interview afterwards on Thom Hartman's program that she does indeed want abortion to be outlawed, but that she doesn't think it's an either/or. So for her she would be advocating religious intervention in the public sector universally- both when it comes to social issues and economic issues.

Lastly you are assuming the counter argument is that your faith shouldn't influence your politics. I don't ever recall people saying your faith can't influence your politics. What I do remember people saying is that your faith can't be put into the public sector as law. What that means is that if your religion believes that, let's say, you should only wear blue shirts you are not allowed to pass laws forcing other people to only wear blue shirts. That's what people mean when they say keep your religion out of politics. They don't mean that you somehow magically suspend your sense of right or wrong or your background beliefs. They mean that you do not pass policies for the singular purpose of enforcing your religious beliefs. You don't believe in gay marriage? OK that's your deal. But your belief that gay marriage is wrong isn't grounds to pass a law to ban gay marriage. Are you seeing the difference here?

RobDon

There's a big difference between an individual's faith influencing their own political beliefs and a specific faith influencing government policies.

The role of government is to provide for society what we can not provide for ourselves: infrastructure, common defense, education, etc. And yes, if we as a collective society so choose, social programs for those less fortunate than ourselves.

However, the government has NO place in regulating the contents of an individual woman's uterus. Especially if that regulation is based on a faith that may not be the one that the woman in question subscribes to.

I wonder what Republicans' opinions would be about women getting tubiligations and then having them reversed when they wanted to have children?

Lots of points...I'll try to be brief:

Having government social programs does not and is not intended to replace your belief in "being your brother's keeper". Unfortunately, not enough of us are "our brother's keepers"

Completely agree. But, just because I think there should be a limit on government social programs (dollars) that is less than what you believe does not mean I am not being my brother's keeper. This seems to be the implication that is being made, but I could be wrong. If I don't support more social dollars then I must be uncaring or not living the "brother's keeper" tenet of my faith.

Once, the rest of your point 1 I certainly see. I don't think you have to rely on the church or become a member of a certain faith so you have a "brother's keeper." But I think it is fair political debate on how much you, I and others want the government to provide assistance to others. It doesn't mean one of us is uncaring.

...Why would you assume this? This is so presumptuous...

I assume it because it the point seems to be being made that if I don't support more social dollars then I am not living the faith principle of being my brother's keeper. I am saying there's more ways to be one's brother's keeper than just via the government.

I don't ever recall people saying your faith can't influence your politics.

Can you give me an example of an appropriate way my faith can influence my politics?

There's a big difference between an individual's faith influencing their own political beliefs and a specific faith influencing government policies.

Again, this seems vague, as if my faith can influence my political "beliefs" but not my political actions (policies). Is my faith only welcome in the political processes in specific areas or in all areas?

(Lastly, I do think this is a valid discussion. I am not trying to be provocative or confrontational. I am attempting to share my point and at the same time see if there is something I can learn from a different view...thanks all.)

RobDon, I agree with oncearepublican on this. We get to choose which church we donate to and we get to write it off on income taxes. So, no. It in no way is replacement of "being your brother's keeper".

We have so many selfish people that continually demonize welfare. There may be some cheating occurring, but that is not the rule (like so many people claim it is-knee jerk)

I think it is not the preferred way of life. If you ask people if they'd rather have a job than continually apply and submit, they will say I'd like a job and have enough to reasonably and safely house, feed and clothe family.

There is inadequacy in the basics and as a country WE ALL have to try harder to get people out of poverty. That includes those that are in poverty, but they need guidance and training, education and the community needs to get together.

People make fun of community organizing, which is commendable, not a joke.

The ideal is not having people think this is all there is for me. Hope was also ridiculed. Change was met with obstacles.

WE voted for this hope and change, but the RW can only refuse it. Sad. This country is not in decline, we allowed the banks and Wall St. to squander our future. We can turn that around, but it sure looks like Republicans demonize U.S. workers, both union and non union. The Republican desire for total authority and power demonizes and blames workers (their customers) so they make more profit. We allowed business to devour and offshore our wealth, leaving more workers needing jobs that went to other countries.

This should NOT be business against worker. It should not be pro choice means pro abortion. Pro life cannot be let poor people die because they can't pay for insurance. It doesn't have to that way.

I can't see how your faith must be made our law. There is no consensus on when life begins and to me, this has overtaken the basics of government. It is not consistent to say we are free people but women are required by law to give birth any time they are pregnant.

This only epitomizes why we have freedom of religion and no establishment in the very first Amendment, called the Bill of Rights. You may have your faith, but we all should not have to follow your faith because we have variances of faith and no faith.

That is why it says "there shall be no religious test" for holding office. Article VI #3 of U.S. Constitution. Our Representatives are all bound to preserve and protect the Constitution, nothing regarding any religious faith. http://constitutionus.com/

People can use faith to guide them personally, but I think they are mistaken to think freedom of religion and laws respecting establishment of religion is consistent with Constitution.

But I think it is fair political debate on how much you, I and others want the government to provide assistance to others. It doesn't mean one of us is uncaring.

But that is not the debate that is going on. That would be one thing if we were discussing how much would accomplish the mission of caring for others while attempting to reduce spending. The debate we are having, however, is whether or not these programs should exist in the first place. The Ryan budget plan, for instance, cuts or privatizes a majority of social benefit programs including the big one of Medicare. If the private sector were already able to care for the workload that existed we would not need these programs in the first place. Social programs exist to compensate between the gaps of the needs of the populace and what the private sector can provide. The conversation isn't about whether or not we've met this need adequately (which would be a far more justifiable debate), but rather the conversation gets spun that oh no really by the government providing assistance that somehow makes people dependent and prevents them from entering the private force therefore get rid of the government program and it will all magically get better. Also unicorns!

I assume it because it the point seems to be being made that if I don't support more social dollars then I am not living the faith principle of being my brother's keeper. I am saying there's more ways to be one's brother's keeper than just via the government.

You misunderstood, but that is my fault for not clarifying better. What I meant was why would you assume that the existence of a public program automatically negates the assistance of you as a private citizen. The fact that you framed your statement this way (referring to your initial posting, not the particular rebuttal I just highlighted) suggests the same either/or framing as in the political debate. The existence of assistance from government doesn't suddenly make people more or less charitable. Those that are going to be charitable do so regardless of government help. Those that are not going to be charitable do so regardless of government help. The point of the government program existing in the first place is to try to compensate the difference between those who do help and those who do not.

The entire premise for why people do not like social assistance programs boils down to the fact that they only want to give money to individuals whom they decide are worthy of assistance. Individuals want to feel at liberty to deny other people access to things like food stamps if those other people don't meet whatever arbitrary criteria has been established in the mind of said individuals. For example people say if you're on drugs you shouldn't get my tax money! If you're gay you shouldn't get my tax money! If you're a Muslim you shouldn't get my tax money! The argument goes that if these people want help then they need to change to fit whatever criteria the person demanding the change has established. And if they die as a result of not making said change well then they die. The idea that a person won't change regardless of your actions and the idea that people will die as a direct result of denying them assistance doesn't enter the debate. What you are proposing is that we consider these factors, but that is not the discussion we are having nationally.

Can you give me an example of an appropriate way my faith can influence my politics?

The operative term here, Robby, is influence. The time you wake up in the morning influences your decisions. The clothes you are wearing influences them. Everything around you influences your decisions. The fact that it's a Republican proposal versus a Democratic proposal (or vice versa) will influence your decisions. Influence simply means you consider something while evaluating the subject. The wording of legislation itself will influence you. The list goes on. Your faith will undoubtedly play some role in your decision making, just as non-faith will play some role.

The difference is do you have objective justification for your decision to vote for something or to vote against something. So, in other words, with the abortion argument we start off with a false premise. The way the abortion argument is framed is as such: should abortion be legal. The problem with this framing is that it presumes that the legality of abortion is in question. The legality of abortion is not in question. Access to an abortion is a constitutionally guaranteed right. Your faith will influence you to believe that this is wrong which is why in your own personal life you will never choose to abort a child. But objectively there is no contest as to the existence of the law and therefore no logical reason for it's adjustment or repeal. See the difference?

(Lastly, I do think this is a valid discussion. I am not trying to be provocative or confrontational. I am attempting to share my point and at the same time see if there is something I can learn from a different view...thanks all.)

At this point in time you aren't being confrontational (at least not as is my interpretation).

If you noticed when I made my statement there was an operative term that you missed. Go back and re-read.

They mean that you do not pass policies for the singular purpose of enforcing your religious beliefs

Your background will always influence you as to what you believe is right or wrong. I think it would be absurd to argue differently. The point here is that you cannot take that background and force it into law when the only singular purpose (the only justification) is that of your background.

Go back and read the posting under Links for TRMS 9/7 and read the posting by A Father of Nine. See how he framed his argument? His entire justification for abortion being wrong resides in his belief that his god commands that abortion be wrong therefore everyone must conform to his god's values/beliefs/orders/what have you. That's a perfect example of what I'm talking about here (in case I haven't made it clear enough). He is stating that X is wrong because my god says that it's wrong! He isn't giving any justification other than my god says it's wrong.

Compare this then to the argument that we help people via something like food stamps. We know people will die if food stamps are ended. We know that it will exasperate the recession if food stamps are ended. We know that disease and poverty go up when people cannot have access to things like food (people cannot work if they are sick and starving). We even know that populations are prone to rebellion if they aren't able to find food. We have established as a society that we won't allow people to die when we reasonably can help protect them. Can we in this case? Yes. Does doing so compromise the individual who we're helping in terms of their own personal faith/beliefs and their own personal rights? No. Are people forced into this? No.

late edit -

People can use faith to guide them personally, but I think they are mistaken to think freedom of religion and laws respecting establishment of religion is consistent with Constitution.

to think freedom of religion means making laws respecting the establishment of religion is consistent wit Constitution.

The problem is atheism is on the rise and there aren't enough churches to supply all the need. I just ordered this book on amazon today to research this topic further: Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger: Moving from Affluence to Generosity, by Ronald J. Sidor. One review said it was cited as one of the most important works in the 20th century (cited by whom I have no idea).

The problem is atheism is on the rise and there aren't enough churches to supply all the need.

Don't know if this was meant tongue-in-cheek or not but wow...talk about presumptions or assumptions or whatever the correct word is. Christians (or those of any faith) by no means have a market on helping the needy.

This discussion has taken lots of different turns and probably too many to address in comments back and forth.

I was simply trying to say that it's odd that many accuse Christians of pushing their beliefs on others in some area of politics but then say in other areas "you aren't being a very good Christian if you aren't for social programs that take care of the needy." Seems like a contradiction to me.

RobDon: Romney and Ryan are critizided because they wear their Christianity on their sleeves and act righteous, while simultaneously proposing to cut vital government programs that help the poor.

Try as he might, Gov. Romney can not ride two horses with one ass, even if it's one that dances!

The truth is our social programs are a mere drop in the hat, especially when you see how much money is being wasted on deceiving ads bought and paid for by your friendly Corporate billionaires. When you realize what actual good that money could have gone towards, it makes you sick.

I don't think Atheism is a problem, whether it's on the rise or not. Again, there is a misconception that atheists are immoral by nature. All atheists I know (though by no means do I mean that this therefore means all atheists are like this) live by the same basic good values as anyone else. The only difference is that by their moral standards, they're not answering to a faceless, all-knowing entity, they're answering to themselves, and their effect on society around them. Just because they're atheists, it doesn't mean they think stealing and murdering is alright. I've never met an atheist who thinks it's perfectly okay to let a kid be molested, or a bank be robbed, or a 7/11 be held up. There's some kind of belief here that everyone needs a religion to make morally correct decisions, but that's not true at all. Good people make morally correct decisions, regardless of religion or the lack thereof, and good people teach their kids to be good people. Religion isn't about "teaching good." It's about mostly institutionalizing a God, Gods, or belief system.

I, personally, reject the term "atheism" because regardless of its origins way back when, these days it is used far too often by Christians as a pejorative term, at least in the US. Yes, there are non-religious people who apply the term to themselves, but as far as I'm concerned, they are making a mistake.

I would also add Powell and Wolfowitz to the list.

Too often we focus on what sets us apart, instead of what brings us together.

Agreed.

Imagine the tax rate hike every town,county and state would have if federal funds dried up. State's rights, State's rifghts--huh?What do you mean no more federal aid. No more FEMA? No more interstates? No more money for the congresspersons brother-in-law?

Rest assured the good sister would have still spoken her mind without this BS being passed--she ,like most nuns, serves a higher purpose than self promotion or religious piety.

I would not have seen the farce of the vote...

The process was what seemed so odd in our democracy. It wasn't that Jerusalem and God were not in the platform or that they were trying to correct just an error, it was the way the process played out in front of everybody. I am definitely not naive enough to think this doesn't take place behind the scenes in the Republican party as well, I think it serves to make the point I harp on all the time, both sides do the same thing and there is very little different between the way either operates.

Still stupid I see. The process was allowing a voice vote , the problem was that the idiot calling for that vote had no idea how to ignore the pre-written outcome. I doubt that the republicans would have ever allowed any dissent to be shown by calling for a voice vote in such a public way! That way is way too Democratic for the GOP! They want to kiss butt on the zealots you know. Some of their delegates however might not be so willing to stray from separation of church and state.

It was stupid and stupidly done.

The process was allowing a voice vote , the problem was that the idiot calling for that vote had no idea how to ignore the pre-written outcome.

Paul, I was using the word "process" to mean "the way it was handled." I should have chosen a different word or said the "execution of the process."

The worst part about the way that "vote" was handled by the Chair is that Democrats in Michigan have been fighting exactly this kind of phony vote on the part of Republicans in the state legislature, especially by jase Bolger in the Michigan House.

This gives the Republican's a big opportunity to blow off Democrats who are actually right when they call "foul" on this abuse of power.

People please,

The Repubs pulled the exact same stunt at their convention. Had a voice vote to change the rules to lock out Ron Paul's methods next time and called it the wrong way by my ear.

It was even mentioned here on this blog.

The Mormontologists have been "Lyin" for the Lord" on this issue since the 1970s, when the old fool they had for their "Prophet" then suddenly got a message from God that all that part of their holy book was "inoperative from here on."

And the skins of the Lamanites were laminated..

thank you for the quote. i'll be using this in the future...

From the Texas GOP 2012 Platform:

"We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority."

It is not often that I am left with a loss for words.

Ninz ... I assumed you were kidding ... speechless here as well.

Scary isn't it. We have let this go way to far.

There are books being used in schools across the south that are scientifically inaccurate, more that are historically inaccurate. There is a whole industry focused on getting religious driven texts into our public schools. They aren't overt in every case, but little twists here and there.

The battles over evolution, global warming, scientific reasoning are growing, not lessoning. There are students not being taught to think for themselves, but to learn circular reasoning and other techniques to refute science. When it is one person's religion, fine. When it is in our schools, when they try to promote it as above- No, it is not fine.

Believe what you choose and leave me to believe what I choose. In schools, government, law there should be no religion, no ideology and certainly no efforts to teach our children to not think critically.

"fixed beliefs" - Yes, that is the religious right wing, now the face of Republican politics.

Well, intelligent people who can think critically are a real danger to the future of the Republican Party. Especially given the positions in their platform.

"Keep 'em stupid and sheeplike" seems to be the motto of the Republican Party. Otherwise, they'll figure out that blowhards like Rush and Hannity have nothing worthwhile to say.

This sort of thing happened to a friend of mine in Virginia just yesterday. She has a few pro-Obama bumper stickers on her car and an older gentleman pulled up beside her, honked his horn to get her attention. When she looked over, he literally stuck out his tongue and gave her a "thumbs down" gesture (at least he didn't flip her the bird). Being the quick-thinker that she is, she laughed out loud and flashed him the peace sign before driving off. She considered flipping him the bird but recognized quickly, that would make his day as they want to drag everyone down to their level.

The hate has consumed them.

My Opinion, watch some clips of Limbaugh screaming about whatever he is upset about that day. Listen to Beck. Watch Fox. There are more. There are websites I occasional get directed to that are shocking and disturbing.

I don't know why we have allowed our airwaves to be taken over the way they have. Difference of opinion is one thing, breeding and encouraging hate is quite another. I have been shocked at the level of hate in comment threads as well.

It is as if living in their bubble for so long has somehow built up pressure and they can do nothing else but release it now. Even the Akins and his kind popping up relate. They are not hate filled as far as I know they are good me, but they stay in their information bubble and after a while that ignorance pops out.

The republican party appears to me like a boil about to burst. And it is scary. People have been encouraged to hate our President, hate democrats, really hate liberals and the anger is building. The man running for sheriff who said there was a "difference between legal and lawful." Which in his mind would justify him shooting a doctor performing an abortion.

Where ever it is all coming from those in power need to do something about it.

I'm another 69 year old who lives in the red *read rural* portion of a blue state - i don't do bumper stickers or yard signs because of the energy around - i'm single and don't feel safe standing up - i do a lot of internet stuff - comments like this, some twitter stuff, but in person - i am very quiet and yes, the hatred is palpable and radical like i have not seen it since my childhood.

BTW, the pledge of allegiance only added 'under God' in the '50's in response to 'godless communism' so i still stumble at that because i learned it without that phrase...

crone 728

BTW, the pledge of allegiance only added 'under God' in the '50's in response to 'godless communism' so i still stumble at that because i learned it without that phrase...

i got many strange looks as a cub scout leader when i led the pledge and didn't say that phrase... i've not said it since i learned when it was added and why.

I think J. Edgar Hoover and McCarthy had quite a bit to do with that type of thing. They saw communist threats under every rock they turned.

I am not anti God and we are not godless because some folks do not believe in God or agnostic.

I don't think it's worth arguing to delete God. But we acknowledge there are variances and the Constitution DOES provide for that to be the case.

Article 6 there shall be no religious test. Amendment 1 no laws respecting the establishment of religion and freedom of religion.

I just want to add how appalled I am to find the AM Stephanopolis and Gregory giving long commercials for Ryan and Rmoney. I hope they do the same for Obama and Biden. I had to turn it off.

Racism is alive and well! Big surprise.. Rmoney voters are like the Klan, too stupid to see the trees from the forest but smart enough be racists. I doesn't take a lot of thought but then again, neither does voting against your own financial viability or hating on people based on complexion. Kids today are smarter, at least some of them and with any luck, this form of vanity and hostility will return to dust where it belongs.

Gawd Bless *Amercia.

Seen this? North Carolina Secular Association

CocoleTete - thank you for your thoughtful and and thought-provoking post. Welcome to the blog and the Vine! I hope you'll feel welcome to post more of your thoughts going forward.

And yes, I think many of us have detected a rise in the level of hostility. In '08, I proudly displayed pro-Obama posters and such in my South Philly window (no car to put a sticker on). This year, I haven't felt as comfortable about making such public displays at my residence (I'm not always there to protect it, after all). I choose to interpret it as frustration on their part in what they are increasingly viewing (I hope correctly) as a failed effort to turn President Obama out of office.

The campaign to add the words "under God" to the PoA was begun by the Knights of Columbus, the Roman Catholic men's group. When the addition became law, President Eisenhower said "From this day forward, the millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty."

http://www.religioustolerance.org/nat_pled1.htm

I never recite the PoA.

You yet again prove you know nothing of Christ or Christianity, for all you call yourself a follower. You are apostate, a heretic, a defender of pedophiles and their enablers. Your opinion is worth worse than nothing.

IrishPat7, thou presumeth too much and taketh too much upon thyself.

Unentangle your sentences. Do not confuse pedophiles--heterosexual or homosexual--with consenting adults seeking to enter into a long-term, or permanent, relationship.

There is no confusion, sorry to disapoint you. There is substantial scientically produced evidence and historical data to support my contentions. The "facts" of which have been previously produced on this blog but deleted by the bigoted phony blog author because it cut too close to the truth he didn't want to get out here. Same subject line, same "this week in we hate god" blog subject line. There have been several studies done within and without the catholic church and a dark history of writings and recordings produced which affirm that there has been a rampant active move against the teachings of the church (within the church) by religious, priests, bishops and cardinals who have interjected a persuation to introduce homosexual men into the priesthood for over 40 years. They have succeeded and now you have the residuals of that movement. A movement heralded by people such as Sr Simone Campbell I direct your attentions to several books authored by the late Fr Vincent Micelli. "Women Priest and Other Fantasies", "The Antichrist" and "The gods of Atheism" as three substantial examples of what I am speaking of. Fr Groeschel has also spoken of the movement for decades. As did Fr John A. Hardon, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (The Ratzinger Report) and numerous others. EWTN presently is a perfect deposit of true information about the "authentic teachings" of the catholic faith as are Catholic Online and anything you can read or listen to by Professor Peter Kreeft.

As for you grumpy, I invite you to come to MY hometown to meet me in person and find out for yourself what a complete a$$ you make of yourself in this unreal blogosphere. It isn't real life grumpy, its just an internet space! I will make you know what a fool you are in the way you present yourself againist me. For you will be the laughing stock of this town. And you will walk away saying to yourself, that IrishPat7 is the nicest, kindest, most gentle, loviing person I have ever had the pleasure of meeting. What a fool I was to think contentions onlinie could give me any perspective of who a person really is. But I doubt you'd accept the offer, instead you would wallow in the pig poop you suffer in listening to the bigot liar Maddow every night and reading this garbage produced by a hateful distastefull, unqualified (former Barry Lynn People for the Segregation/seperation of Church & State) tool blog author who has an OBVIOUS distain for the catholic and or any christian faith that doesn't agree with his/or Maddows shallow ungodly form of religion or practice of faith. So instead you and CartoonMan criticize and rant abuses and hurl ravenous insults my way or shooters or Robdons or any others who disagree with Maddow or this niin come poop authors. All in the name of YOUR god, the marxist democrat party with it's insulting, ignorant party hacks on msnbc. You people actually like Debbie Wassaman Schultz? That's intelect compared to Sarah Palin? Seriously?? Or Nancy Pelosi? Or Harry Reid? Oh you ALL hate Mormons until someone points out tha Harry Reid is a lifelong Mormon.

As for Sr Simone. Let me make it simple for all of you. If suddenly Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck appeared at the RNC and stated that they were the perfect example of what it means to be a TRUE progressive or liberal democrat what would you say? They are liars, phony's they do not believe ANYTHING you know to be true about being a devout progressive/liberal. Well there ya' go. That is a perfect analogy of what I am saying about Sr Simone the fake catholic, She is NOT catholic. She is an unbeliever in what should be religious garb. But you will NEVER see her in a nuns habit. She is conventional, even after Pope John II required them to return to their founding fathers and sisters original garb/dress. Why do you thikn Fr Groeshel and all in his community wear the long gray gowns? As do most faithful nuns and priests. Ever see the Pope in blue jeans? That being a tad of subject, Sr Simone Cambell is a giant phony. Her Nuts oh I mean Nuns on the Bus were sponsored by billionare atheist George Soros. Or do you actually think nuns can afford a million dollar bus ride across the country? That and Soros appointed a "spokeswoman" (his employee) to travel with them. Sr Simone has been an activist for the liberal agenda both in the church and the democratic party for decades. She is a SOCIAL agenda catholic. And her faith is of a CONDEMNED by Cardinal Ratzinger and Pope JP II theology, Liberation Theology. They just renamed it, "social justice". Again, PHONY.

And dear Cartoonnews, you OBVIOUSLY know nothing about the catholic faith. There is ONE faith, ONE confession, ONE creed and one catholic and universal church. Please read the Catechism of the Catholic Church before you open your writing towards me again. Your ignorance of the faith is troubling and if catholic, a shame son.

As Fr John Hardon once said, "In this day, there is a serious problem within the catholic church." "People, the faithful do not know, they are ignorant of their faith and there is a serious lack of love for Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament" "And that is the most dangerous thing anyone could imagine" There are prime examples all around you and in this blog enviornment. Once catholic or unfaithful catholics who do NOT know their faith or have fallen away and now seek a revenge against the church for their own failings. How sad.

As for the flatulant odor bjboyeeeeeeeeeeeeeee if you are the first to smell it....well you know the playground antics line as a child. I am sure you too recall what it is. Take your playground hateful antics and direct them elsewhere. I find you immature and distasteful. How childish of you. Grow up.

I care not one iota what you think of my opinions. The opinions I find "worth nothing" are those of Ms Maddow and the blog author here. True hypocrites and bigots. Go ahead and sit down every day & night and read this crap produced here. Watch the liar and queen of falsehoods on her every show impart false statement after false statement and call it the truth, For me, I do NOT believe the 2 plus 2 equals 5. And as a Catholic I know when it comes to the faith, 2 plus 2 equals 4. It always has and it always will. If you want to believe it really equals 5 as Maddow tells you, That Sr Simone is some saintly person, well you go right ahead. But don't curse me when I stand up for the truth an say NO IT DOES NOT!

Oh so many words....so little said.

Sorry the worst leader of the Catholic Church is Pope Benedict and Cardinal Dolan. The Catholic Church should no longer be tax exempt, as it is too political.

There is nothing in your post the represents the teachings of our Lord. You and your so called Modern Day Christians, have reinvented God. If we come from a loving and forgiving God, why does Christianity attempt to give God Human characteristics, of vengeance, condemnation, demands and expectations...God is pure love and all-forgiveness.. We are all sons and daughters of God; working on our attainment for spiritual growth God does not demand it from us. His love is
Omnipotent. Some people cannot open their minds to Gods greatness, his pure love and all forgiveness. It’s as if they rather live with horror and fear of a condemning vengeful God. Why that gives them comfort is beyond my comprehension...it seems to be a mindset of those who are not spiritually advanced.. It’s as if they need to be afraid...

IrishPat7, you do need to condense your thoughts. We, blog "junkies", do have pressing matters in the real world too (like you).

Furthermore, as Rachel implied above this discussion is wide-open and about "God" and "goodness". So, as a protestant, I simply remind you (as before): "Unentangle" your subject matter; your strokes are too broad.

Lastly, what is your concern in this matter, catholicism or homosexuality?

I love the dress code comments. And the faithful will only dress in providence and never been seen in underpants nor naked, not even unto themselves

Hilarious!

IrishPat.... Oh my goodness!! You are certainly an angry one. You don't by chance live in Oregon and have a large black poster in your front seat with profanity written on it that you raise whenever you see something that stokes your anger?

I hope you have an outlet for all that pent up anger... something positive, like running or peddling a bike as fast as you can for as long as you can. If you don't have a positive outlet for all that anger I'm afraid your life will be shortened by quite a few years. Heart attacks and cancer are both directly related to stress and anxiety, and your level of anger certainly qualifies as a stress indicater.

Poor guy!! Maybe your Catholic beliefs of yesteryear will comfort you.

I stand up to you as a person, a human being, a reputable and good person any day of the week laddie boy. You don't even have a clue as to who I am in real life nin com poop. This is just a vitual life dingle berry. We all appear differnet in real life at a face to face position. You judge by means of a silly blog entry and think you actually know who I am or what I am like, You sir are the fool.

Take your hypocracy and keep it in your back pocket for a rainy day silly boy. And save your hateful rants for someone who believes "this" is the real world oh childish one. Stay tuned to the hate channel, TRMS and keep allegience to this bigoted blog author's anti catholic rhetoric garbage.

Once a Maddow dope, always a Maddow dope. Follow like a blind sheep fool.

You are not a reputable person, but I won't say that you're good or bad. People are neither good or bad- they just have good or bad actions.

You have many bad actions. You are hypocritical, you make arguments that don't make sense, you justify child molestation and rape and pedophilia, you discriminate, you spread anger and hate, you denounce anyone who doesn't agree with you, you misrepresent other people's arguments and do not apologize for it, you assume you are jesus when you are not, you denounce anyone who does not follow your particular version of Catholicism while ignoring the fact that there are over 2,000 different sects of Catholicism (as if your version is the monopoly or the majority- it's neither), you denounce anyone without supporting your positions with facts- you just assuming you're correct because it came out of your mouth, you call people names, you openly lie, and you openly act hostile towards anyone and everyone who does not automatically bow down to you. This is how you behave in a blog atmosphere.

If you don't like people judging your actions as bad then you need to take a step back and examine how your actions have lead people to think negatively of you. Stop assuming that you know everything, that you're always right, that everyone but you is stupid, that everyone but you is hypocritical, that everyone but you is morally corrupt, and that anyone who doesn't agree with your particular beliefs is automatically sinful.

I also find it hilarious that you call people hatefilled while openly mocking their intelligence.

The projection is strong in this one indeed

The best way to deal with IrishPat is to put him on ignore.

There is something seriously wrong with a person who attacks women vociferously, yet "defends" the pedophiliacs in his church. Anyone who thinks what two consenting adults do is the same as an adult forcing himself on a child has got more than one screw loose!!

IGNORE, You!

I'll put my adoration and admiration for women up against yours sir any day of the week and WIN, thank you very much. You do not have any idea what you are talking about as far as "who I am and what I believe or think". It would embarrass you to know how I respond to women as I might just make you look like a chauvanist pig for all you know. Just another occation when oncearepub is WRONG! The facts of the studies conducted are facts and well documented. If you choose to "ignore" them then go right ahead.

Read From Scandal to Hope by Fr Benedict Groeschel.

Would someone please inform the blog author, Chris Matthews Al Sharpton, Lawrence O'Donnell, Keith Olbermann, former Fr Charles Curan, George Soros, former catholic priest Gustavo Guitierrez(founder of Liberation Theolgy in Central America) Tom Brady , and includ any and all present and past Boston Red Sox who I have spoken of in less than generous terms here....that they are ALL WOMEN! Thus validating that I have screws loose.

Right. Like I said, worng again. You seem to never get it correct do you. But it is an easy lazy way out. Nice escape plan.

Alot of people are moving away from the church because it is stifling growth. The door that was once held open is now being shut on alot of people. Religion has outgrown it's neccesity and is actually turning away from the teachings of Jesus. Idealogy and fascism and the actual things they are now teaching is what is causing the demise. TV Evangelists alone have answered the prophecy that churches have now become the den of robbers. The egos of some of the leaders of these churches are swallowing up what used to be considered a sanctuary. God is not the kind you have to wind up on Sunday. May God Bless everyone and may his truth prevail.

@Once

The longer I blog here the more convinced I am that the crises we're facing nationally with regards to health care is even worse than I ever realized it was. And my father is a schizophrenic. The way Irish talks- how non-sequential his posts are, how he rails on the same point again and again, how he argues against points no one is making, how he makes conclusions that aren't based on premises he presents, the complete back and forth that he does- that is how a schizophrenic talks. The one-sided arguments, the overly emotional tone of his posts- all of it is how schizophrenics behave. The only thing I hold out for is that this is just his behavior on the Interwebs and that in real life he behaves differently. But it's just amazing how it comes across online.

So cartoon,you are hoping Irish is Bipolar rather than schizo?

I think psychologists use the diagnosis most popular at the given time. They feel they must put a name to mental illness in order to make their pseudo science appear to be valid. (but then again I myself have been "diagnosed as schizoid)

I have put some of these people on ignore, as I am not willing to engage in the advancement of their rantings.

I just don't know which is worse, leaving their statements sitting there unanswered, not getting the coherent rebuttals to answer their repeated jibber jabber.

I'm not hoping he's anything. I am hoping that if he's sick he gets help and I am hoping that we have a system well suited enough to take care of other people. I wouldn't argue that psychology is a pseduo-science though. That one you and I would have to have an entirely different discussion on. Nor am I arguing, for the record, that to be mentally ill is bad. My argument wasn't meant to degrade people with mental illnesses, but rather to lament the fact that so many people seem to be going without treatment and I honestly am beginning to think it's having an impact on our own political discourse. Perhaps that's overly hyperbolic, it just seems more and more we have people wanting to only run against a fake Obama and not talk about what's really going on (confusing fantasy for reality). We have people who cannot seem to form cogent thoughts, who jump from subject to subject, and who seem to be horrifically narcissistic to say the least (they can't do anything wrong, they are always right, etc). Since I've never actually met a healthy human being act this way I am left to conclude that it's one of 2 phenomenons: 1. the weird pundit-ocracy that has been created since the 2000's or 2. that there's a huge problem that hasn't been dealt with regarding the mental stability of this country. My impulse is to assume it's the former...but there's a part of me that can't help but wonder if it's the latter. But as I said I wasn't meaning to offend anyone.

Yes, because someone may disagree strongly with you here, or Ms Maddow's message for that matter, then of course they must be "sick" physically or mentally. What blatant ignorance and arrogance. You folks are pathetic. How about a reasonable This person really strongly disagrees with what is being said here and wishes to express that. Umm, it's quite normal after all. No matter how you interpret the expressions.

Typical progressive better than thou crap. What arrogant fools. BUT all about Maddow, you are a picture of her antics with guests or subject matters she disagrees with. There is always something "strange or weird or different" about them.

Typical gang tackling with insults by the Maddow blog fascists. Don't worr I do not take your foolish opinions seriously.

I have news for you. There are about 50% if not more of the American public who actually do disagree with Ms Maddow's opinions and yours as well. That would suggest that somewhere around 150 million folks in the country are metally unstable or unhealthy accordinig to your opinon. You all seem to wish to justify your opinions as "holier than thou's" when another disagrees with you and does so adamantly with strongly or passionately expressive language or text. Oh my, IrishPat7 is passionate about the Catholic faith and opinions about conservative values etc. That makes the person utterly insane. What poppy cock. You undeed are an arrogant bunch of elitist who sort your critique on anothers virtual state of mental health solely based on what scribed in a blog post. And that because it is deemed unreasonable where it is contrary to your strongly held beliefs. And Lorr who's persistant rants in here include customary vilifications and assaults on those whose opinions vary from his/hers is going to judge me? Sorry Lorr, the very beginning of your message let's me know how predjudiced you are and that your opinions are biased and nasty. Yes, you disagree with Pope Benedict and Cardinal Dolan, there-fore they are wicked men. What a hypocrite. I guess they too are deranged in one form or another too according to this crowd. For certain, you are all so peacefull and understanding towards those with whom you disagree. That's why you write that Romney and Ryan are liars, Romney's a wicked ugly Morman. Why all Mormons are morons and nasty dirty people. You take in the gargbage that Maddow feeds you and then regergitate the matter into the blog bowl here. Casting your swill about the room in the directions of any one who will listen to it and or castigate anyoone who differs with you. You parrot each word composed by the Blog Author here and or the highly reagarded "Doctor" Maddow and think that now that you have fully embraced the crap she feeds you that somehow you are superior to anyone who dares disagree with you.

You watch Al Sharpton and Ed Schultz and foaming at the mouth Matthews and then say that anyone in this entire world can be inferior to you mentally??? Are you at all serious?

No, there are well over 50% of the population in this country who do disagree with you. Your thinking has caused you great anguish when in fact life proves you incorrect as it did with the Wisconsin recall vote. Oh my goodness, you went crazy in here. decrying the fact that so many Wisconsin people could be so stupid. You were outraged at the "stupidity" of a population. Or your charges and vilifications and outragious language used against the so called Tea Baggers. How vulgar. Once again, you hypocrites. An entire group of people condemned by you with nasty language and vile comments only because they believe something contrary to your strongly held positions. And weren't you all so compassionate and mild mannered when Mr Cathy discribed his beliefs in regards to same sex marriage. The war cry here was of vilification and hatred and vile outrage directed towards the man and his food chain. Hypocrites.

What a bunch of brain washed drones...... blindly following your inept leader, Rachel Maddow. Then arrogantly condemning anyone who disagrees with hers or your opinions. To the point where you attack the person's intelligence and or mental stability. You are foolish bunch.

50% or more of the people who live in this country DON'T agree with you and are just as if not far more passionate about it than I.

Brainwashed elitist hypocrites.

SO, are you telling me given the way a 15 16 year old girl dresses today, and believe me I see it every day where I work, that a "teacher or priest in a teaching position or woman in a teaching business position" could not at all be seduced by a young adult. And believe me, with the impressions the world / society makes on young people today, they know the art of seduction.

So, I presume, based on your argument that priests aren't to blame for being pedophiles that you will be arguing FOR the right of a spouse to cheat?

If a grown man, who has given himself to God, cannot resist the temptations of a young adult then how does an adult, male or female, resist the temptations of another adult?

Or does the Catholic Church only blame and shame children now?

"I didn't rape her. She wanted it. I could tell. She was dressed all sexy-like. If you'd a seen the way she looked at me. I just couldn't help myself. Besides, she looked 18."

No not at all. I am defending what Fr Groeschel stated. That in fact human beings, be they male or female, preists or lay persons can indeed be seduced. And that, even young persons today are adaquately skilled at the art of seduction. They see it every day played out on TV, in ads, in magazines, throught the cultural arts etc etc.

And no, nice try but no, the priest who may fall into temptaions and give into tho these is now not, not at fault. The fault is certainly his. You are simply putting words into my mouth or text. And I am not just speaking of the male gender here, the other sex, females are just as suscptable as men to fall into temptation. Again, you are just putting words in my text.

And George Martin, I know George Martin, the former defensive end for the NY Giants and your are NO George Martin. You are NO George Martin. You're just being ridiculous. That is not what I am saying at all foolish person. You are reading far too much into what I am saying and misinterpreting the meaning. Kind of like Maddow does when she reads something from another's books or articles and then directs a quote fully and intentionally out of context and the argues with the same author of how "But that's what you wrote, it's right here" knowiing full well she is intentionally misinterpreting it. Don't be so silly.