First up from the God Machine this week is a look at some remarkable comments from a religious right activist named Gary Cass, a former Republican Party official in San Diego who now heads a group called the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission.
In this clip, Cass shares his vision at a Texas conference called "Deliver Us From Evil" where he was a featured speaker.
My friend Kyle Mantyla summarized:
Cass, who normally spends most of his time attacking President Obama, Muslims,gays, and Mormons, spent an hour and a half blasting America for having a "broken moral compass" for electing politicians who support things like reproductive choice and marriage equality. Cass went on to declare that the nation's colleges and universities have "now become perverted factories of unfaithfulness," especially Harvard which is now "animated by the spirit of Antichrist," before attacking "progressive Christians" as ones who "have murdered their own souls, destroyed their own churches, and have undermined our nation."
Finally, Cass explained to the audience that "you can't be a Christian if you don't own a gun."
For the record, that last part wasn't a joke. Cass' read on the New Testament leads him to believe Christianity and firearm ownership are inextricably linked.
Also from the God Machine this week:
* As if Florida voters didn't have enough important races to consider, there will also be an initiative on the ballot on whether to change the state constitution to allow public funding of religious ministries. The right considers this critically important to the larger goal of privatizing public education.
* Evangelical author Rachel Held Evans' new book, A Year of Biblical Womanhood, is due to reach shelves this week, detailing her year-long experience trying to closely follow the Bible's rules for women. She's having trouble with some Christian bookstores, however, who refuse to sell a book that includes the word "vagina" (thanks to reader R.P. for the tip).
* The Public Religion Research Institute published an interesting report this week on the religious coalitions supporting President Obama and Mitt Romney.
* Following up on an item we recently discussed, Mormon blogger David Twede has resigned his membership in his faith, rather than wait for possible excommunication. Twede was accused of apostasy for writing critical online essays about LDS traditions.
* And the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami was hit this week with a new round of sexual-abuse allegations including Father Rolando Garcia, who was the target of related charges from other alleged victims in 2009.
Leave a Comment:
Where do we all line up to get money for OUR religeon??? We should take away all religious tax exemptions, as it seems all have a political agenda in the name of God!!!
God forbid this ever happens in America!!!
I know there are people doing stupid things in the name of God. It hurts my soul and I'm sure it makes God cry. So how about this week in God highlighting those of us doing positive things in the name of God. Volunteer Advocates for Colorado Interfaith Voices for Justice advocating for those in poverty in places where they have no voice or the church in Centennial operating a pumpkin patch with 100% of the proceeds going to hungry and homeless ministries.
When you feed the extremists with publicity, you do no favors to anyone. When you promote the positive in the world, you multiply it. Just an idea...
If you feel your church or religion is being hijacked by these people then DO something about it. Go out and say LOUDLY and PUBLICLY that these people do not represent you or your faith and beliefs. It is not my or anyone else's place to defend your faith no one can, because it is by definition Yours.
People have to speak about these religious hypocrites or the other scenario will be much worse. I certainly am not going to sit here and pretend these religious hypocrites don't exist when they do. I agree with Dragoon21b that religious people of better understanding do need to speak up condemning these falsehoods. We do have freedom of religion and the separation of church and state for a good reason. People can have whatever religious faith they want, but have no right to forcing or inflicting their theology on others or dictating policies and laws on others that will cause abuse, misery, despair, or death. I have my religious faith and will speak up about, because of my right to freedom of speech, but I do realize at the same time all people are entitled to their own beliefs and freedom of speech. I may not like sometimes what I hear or read, but it is still the persons own freewill to do so as long as it doesn't oppress people. So DKSampson please do speak up than.
DKSampson, it is imperative that the behavior of extremists be exposed. Not exposing their warped theology and preaching to public scrutiny enables and empowers them to continue their missions and grow in influence, power, and credibility.
Does God cry???
With this rowdy world of people, he must be in tears all the time.
I'm sure jebus is spinning in his grave over how many people have been murdered in his name...
What a wonderful post, DK. I'm all for positive stories. Thanks for the thought.
Romans 13:8-10
Love Your Neighbor
Where
is the reference to God purchasing a gun and ammunition.
You seem to be crazy with the whip, driving the Sin Wagon.
Think
we know where that jaw of an ass came from.
Whoa
Dammit
You
keep this up and we are going to give your spot next to the bouncy castle back
to Jimmy Swaggart
SwaggerWagon
Point is not political- point is that America has lost its moral compass- why do you think the Arabs hate us so much- have you ever thought about this- the terrorists and also the moderates and conservatives in the middle east who dislike us and our culture, or should I say lack of culture, feel that we are a profane race with no basis in morality- all you have to do is watch our TV and movie content to understand their viewpoint. The dialogue in the USA has gotten so ugly and nasty most of us cant watch the media anymore and I really dont really care if we go down the road of socialism or capitalism- we will fail on either path I am afraid since really there is no faith in humankind anymore as a foundation. I have no religious faith and dont go to church but as I get older I am starting to believe that prayer to someone or something may be our only salvation.
What a load of bull@!$%# America never had a moral compass that wasn't forced on it by law. Morals like god's will differ from person to person and the funny thing is both are exactly what that person wants, here is a clue gods will is not doing as you want it is getting out of the way and accepting what happens. When whites enslaved blacks or lynched them they thought they were morally correct. When whites brought Chinese in to work on building the railroads and thousands died that too was seen as morally correct, as was the starvation of native Americans. So don't get on the moral high horse when you support a party that sells its morals to the highest bidder. Oh and btw when has lying become a moral compass.
Boulder, You obviously have no understanding of the middle east, or the west for that matter.
What you have done is to make an assessment of the complex relationships of widely different nation states, that have unique and specific views regarding culture, religion and modern geopolitics, and based it on whether or not they watched Dancing with the stars! Further having done that you reached a conclusion which is so abjectly intellectually dishonest and mentally lazy that it almost defies description.
If you genuinely fear for the modern world it is not because modern culture has failed it is because you have.
So the way we prove them wrong is to capitulate and do exactly what they want?
I'm not going to allow someone tell me, especially at the point of a gun, what to do. I would rather die being who I am than I ever would live to become a shadow of my former self. I don't think you're being fair saying Arabs hate Americans, but yeah terrorists do. And they have their own reasons for hating us that don't just deal with religion, but even if religion is the main motivator that's THEIR problem. I'm not going to change my moral compass to satisfy men who think the way to win the argument is by shooting little girls who had the audacity to go to school. People like that are nothing and deserve to be ignored, not coddled and worshipped.
I seriously hope you can learn to enjoy life, or is it too late? Just because someone does not agree with you is no reason to suggest they are on Meds!
The hateful expression on your avatar (as well as the content of your posts) tell me that you do not enjoy your life.
Kahn is a character from the television series King of the Hill. He's a generally insecure Asian man who nobody likes and can barely tolerate. He doesn't have friends, is always desperate to fit in, and is unnecessarily rude to his neighbors (who, ironically enough, are all conservative Republicans with the exception of Dale who is a libertarian Republican).
You clearly did not understand what this person was saying. Morality cannot be dictated to a person except by law. What Whom was saying is that the only morality this nation has to capitulate to is the morality that is legislated. People can choose to do differently in their personal lives, but that isn't the same.
The person posting- Boulder- made the statement that we've lost our moral compass, which is entirely silly since we haven't lost our government. Since that is the only defining moral principle that can be enforced, and since we've never lived in a theocracy, it's an entirely BS statement to assert.
Nope this was never suggested, stated, or implied. This was your misinterpretation and over-reaction to what was being argued. I honestly don't know how you disparaged this in the first place.
Who is the lunatic here?
Considering the tens of thousands of years that humans and society have been evolving together, that's a pretty silly thing to say. There are many things that used to be considered moral that are no longer. The difference? Society evolving and enacting laws for the better functioning of that society.
What is "morality" anyway? It's nothing more than a personal set of internal guidelines for how one sees oneself inside a functioning society. We all abide by the overarching "morals" of our society as part of the bargain for being allowed to reside within the society. Hence the prison system as punishment for those who fail to abide by the morals of the society at large.
There are many regular, average, the family-next-door type people who would do very immoral things if there weren't laws to dissuade them from those actions.
There are also many people who had one set of "morals" while they resided within a particular subset of the larger society (the Amish for example) but then develop a different set of "morals" when they leave that subculture and join the larger one. Or, vice-versa and move from the larger society with perhaps looser moral structures and join a smaller, more restrictive moral set.
So, which of their "moral" sets were the "true" ones, which were dictated to them by law?
That's a lot of logic-chopping from someone who stated that "Killing is killing. Either you're for it or against it." And by the way, your "killing is killing" is simply false.
When the law says "it is illegal to commit murder" it is dictating that the act of murder is immoral for the society.
Seriously I am getting sick of projection. I was never playing semantics. You intentionally misrepresented Whom's statement and then responded to my statement by intentionally misrepresenting it as well. You did so by playing semantics with the term dictation and morality, the exact same thing you accused me of doing. Arghhh
Boulder made the argument that our society has fallen into moral decay. Whom's response was that societies establish their morality via legal policies. Therefore asserting that we've fallen into "moral decay" as a society would mean that our society has ceased to pass laws. This hasn't happened and so the argument is silly. Personal morality, which is the conflation you're making, is an individual issue that cannot be dictated and therefore cannot be applied to a society. THAT was whom's argument. Rather than address this argument on it's merit you strawmanned the argument. The irony, of course, was that this:
was the crux of whom's argument. Personal morality cannot be established by a society, therefore a society can never be in moral decay. Seriously this isn't rocket science folks. If you don't like the argument OK, but then address it on it's merit and not a gross misrepresentation thereof.
You're either so reactionary that you don't realize you made the same argument as whom or you've completely done a 360 and are now arguing the opposite point you started with. I cannot figure out which is going on here
The very basic mistake that you are making Kahn is confusing "morality" with "personality". There are indeed law-abiding citizens who would become heroin addicts if it was legal. This is not because of their morality, it is because of their personality. I know a massive number of people who live where marijuana is legal and they do not partake. Their personality is such that it isn't appealing to them. I also know those who WOULD partake if it was legal for them to do so. Not partaking isn't about morality, it's about a fear of getting caught. Your point about those who partake even when it's illegal is again, you confusing personality with morality.
Also, I said there were "many who would" and you turned it into an "all" situation. This is a problem people on the right seem to have. Everything is black & white, on or off. THAT is not how it works.
We do govern morality and we do it in every society and we do it every day. We can't govern personality and that is what you're actually arguing. You use the word "morality" but the argument you're making is one of being able to legislate what people think or feel or believe ... that's personality.
Besides which, you didn't answer the question: if a person moves from one society to another and that move requires a change in morality, then by your standard, which is their real morality?
Morality is absolutely extrinsic. Our personality is what defines which moral "law" our society proscribes we will or won't make a part of our personal code.
Your decision to no longer smoke marijuana is again, your personality, not your morality.
If morals were intrinsic then all societies would have the same moral codes as we are all made from the same genetic and biological blueprints. The reason different societies have different moral codes is because they are ascribed by the society, they are extrinsic. The reason moral codes in our society have changed in my lifetime is because they are determined by society.
As for regulating drugs, I agree partially with you. I do believe marijuana should be decriminalized. Study after study have shown that its effects are not any more pronounced than alcohol. It has likewise never been shown that it's a "gateway" drug any more than overindulging in beer leads to secret stashes of vodka in your closet. In fact, a study in psychology showed that people under the influence of THC were actually less prone to violence then they had been when they were stone-cold sober.
What's perverted is going back to the dark ages and living under a heavy handed theocracy. We need to be moving in the direction of a civilized people. The whole concept he is rendering here is extremely dangerous. I think he needs to spend a few years in Afghanistan or Iraq so he can see what comes of a powerful theocracy. Where do you think the Taliban came from. Insidious self centered individuals who think they are speaking for the creator. His ilk make me sick.
Right on Ricky Kendall.
Think about this, everytime you see or hear Romney talking about how he is going to help the middle class families, remember his middle class families are those making over $200,000. With Romney making millions and millions of dollars off of hard working families, to him he can't even phantom anyone who could not make $200,000. Remember middle class he is not, I repeat not talking about the real middle class families.
Why is so much atttention paid to the Right Wing and Left Wing nutballs? Unless you agree with their point of view, ignore them.....why give them all attention? i didn't know about this guy until it was posted here.....give them up....
And the left wing nutballs are??? Besides my lonely self,, and I prefer "nutjob"....
I have always been partial to "Wackaloon" myself...
I like old hippie, commie, dirty long hair!
I thought the common term is "moonbat" for the left (sometimes enhanced as "barking moonbat"), and "wingnut" on the right.
And I believe the concern is that this wingnuttery is becoming mainstream on the right.
Where do you find these nut jobs, or do they find you? lol It sounds like to me that this man has a broken moral compass and chooses to be judge jury and executioner for anyone who doesn't believe like him. I ignore people like him and they have no bearing on my life or on my faith.
lush limbrain comes to mind.....not job on the lose.
Re: #40
We should be able to ignore people like this, but the reality is that extremists are trying to force their religious beliefs on everyone else by getting control of our government.
maphi,
I wish we could ignore people like this, but they just didn't rise up in a vacuum and appear suddenly this year!!
Ignoring them for 60 years has gotten us this election!!
Actually Maphi we did ignore them after the Scopes monkey joke, they then went underground to start a breeding program to increase their numbers so they wouldn't be the minority they were at the time of the Scopes court case. They then emerged with TV programs on early sunday mornings like the 700 Club which was taken as a joke because of the faith healing over the TV for $700 that the leader Pat Robertson was demanding for his miracles. Sadly we ignored that and 2 other events that should have sent red flags off. The first event was the Manson family cult, it was blown off as just a bunch of whacked out hippies but if you ever read the families ideas it became clear that religious beliefs were at play in Mansons control of the family. The second event was the Jim Jones cult, that too was blown off as a bunch of delusional nut cases. The 3rd and final take over happened in 1980 when a 3rd rate actor turned soap salesman turned politician saw the Robertson nut cases as a untapped block of voters. Reagan used them to get into the white house by marrying their religious beliefs with his political ideology thus was born the religious right who have since taken over the GOP. These are the lowest forms of greedy, simple minded, hateful, racist humans to ever drawl a breath of air. They believe they are the chosen people the new testament speaks of and they are entitled because god made them exceptional by birth. The corporation CEO's control them through their own greed, ever meet a righty that didn't believe he was going to need those tax cuts the 1% enjoy, never mind they are being played, they believe they are being tested by god to see if they are worthy of their reward. That is who robme is playing up to in his base, never mind facts their belief trumps fact, to them robme isn't lying robme is doing what he needs to do to get elected so they get their 1% key. You can not disprove their belief nor can reality because they see everything as a test of their faith so they will follow no matter how much it destroys their lives, that too is a test of their faith.
The country is at the very dangerous point of losing the gains we made over the last 80 years after learning they were needed the hard way because we've ignored people saying outrageous and transparently wrong-headed things.
If there's anything liberals/progressives/Democrats should have learned from the last 30+ years is that these sort of people -- in many areas of public life whether religious, economic, scientific -- can not be ignored. They need to be put in their place and they need to put there forcefully by whatever means it takes.
"First they came for the Communists
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Communist"
Turtle-With-His-Head-In-the-Sand will be so surprised when they eventually come for him...and they will come for him.
We can't afford to ignore them.
I think I need to remind you that this is America and they have a right to their nutty religion as much as we do. Some of you comments scare me. They almost sounds like McCarthyism. We need to learn to live in peace with one another not take away the rights of others. Some of these posts are as bad as what the Republicans say. Extremism is what lead to death of millions in the Great Inquisition, the Salem Witch trials, and McCarthyism. We need to find middle ground and let people live in peace worshiping whatever god they believe in.
The tragedy in this whole scenario is the Gospel message has not only been compromised it has been drowned out.
And that message is? only thru jebus will you be saved??
Who cares what the Gospel message says? The entire Bible needs to be scrapped and we go by common sense, compassion, and enlightenment! Aesop's Fables have more to offer.
We have a Constitution as our message!
You are right the Gospel of Christ has been corrupted and twisted by these so called Christians. The Bible has a lot to offer. Gene Roddenberry, an atheist believe that the Bible was one of the greatest piece of literature mankind ever created and when he create Star Trek he worked into the storyline that Starfleet Cadets had to ready and study it at the academy. So there is something to this book that has lasted longer and published more than any other book in existence. The Bible actually contain teachings of common sense, compassion and enlightenment. It's sad many people don't use them but they are there. For him" who have eyes to see and ears to hear". I really doubt you have ever read it or even know what it is. You spend so much time hating it that you really don't know what it says. Atheists do that. You claim to be enlightened but you attack what you don't understand or haven't read. That's not true enlightenment. Buddha said,
“Knowing others is wisdom; Knowing the self is enlightenment; Mastering others requires force; Mastering the self needs strength”
True enlightenment comes from stretching out your hand to your enemy and learning why they think they do and living in peace with them. Not raising up an army, rounding them all up and putting them in jail or worse. Do not see that athiests make these negative statements its just as bad as the Christians making these statments? On a spectrum of religious thought there are two extremes on one side you have the total disbelief in God and on other other you have a belief that lives in the extremist beliefs view. This kind of beliefs never get us anywhere. Your posts scare me.
The (not so) Great Unhingeo has spoken.. That'll be $5.00 each please!
$5, I thought his book was $10 in the giftshop
Actually it will be 10% of what you earn. I think we forgot to ask if it was gross or net.
Let's see...
10% of $2 a day (You start making "Good" money at the mine when you are over 12) ...
minus the "Voluntary" political campaign payroll deductions...
carry the one...
adjust for cost of living...
It would come out to $.02 which is a whole lot more than its worth
If we get a Mormon in the White House, I'm going to make sure I sell a few screenplays and start checking out living in Holland. If nothing else, I can chop down a tree and make my own shoes.
LOL
Well you will never find righties in Holland the dikes scare them away.
Whom:
That was officially the worst Dutch joke EVER!
I had more fun with all of your replies than I did with my original post. Thanks!!
Sorry, couldn't help picturing you with your penknife whittling away at a pair of shoes. Was it Thoreau who went to the woods for peace.
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=picture+of+wooden+shoes&view=detail&id=EE95279F64244E5C2258A925DE6FDF7A5B66F225&first=46
LOL!!! I like 'em. I was going to try for a pair of Beatle boots, but that would've been way over my head. Too funny! (I do relate to the Walden's Pond comment)
Something about this is so predictable. Somewhere there's a male prostitute gearing up for his first press conference.
For heaven's sake, this is the 21st century! I don't care what Jesus, Mohammad, Jehovah or the Bible, Torah, or Koran says. There needs to be complete separation of church and state. Churches need to be taxed. This is not a Christian nation. Leave women alone.
Government, kindly step gracefully into the 21st century using common sense, fairness, compassion, and a forward and progressive set of standards that are fair to all.
And for this character and all like him I say, @!$%# you!
Friend posted this on my facebook. I am a supporter of Obama, but I need some help responding to this. Can anyone help me?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8tOeICcOP4
1. Look up the word "propaganda." This is propaganda!
2. Anything Rush Limbaugh says is total b.s. Disregard him. He's rabid as are a lot of the GOP who are feeling their loss of power and control!
3. Fact check.
4. This is what racism looks like. Label the Pres. a socialist, a non-Christian, etc. etc. and it just boils down to hate mongering, fear and racism!
good luck!
Just post this on their face book.......http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQwrB1vu74c
Good advice news....
Mr. flip flop, etch-a-sketch, back-stepping, lying candidate. I have no respect for him.
"you can't be a Christian if you don't own a gun."
Saints Paul and Peter, along with most of the other saints, are going to be very surprised to find this out.
What? Don't have one, Don,t want one, won't use one.
I have Jesus Christ on my side, and he will be my leader, guide, and protector.....
Don't need no gun!
LOL!! Kahn are you another one of those dumb survivalists who thinks a gun will keep you alive if bad things happen to all of us???
Far as I can tell, a gun won't plant crops for you, a gun won't heal you of diseases like Cholera or Typhus, a gun can't kill all the people who you "think" are after all your "treasures". And as usual, if you think force will protect you, there are always more people with bigger guns!
And btw, these days a gun won't even feed you! You think there is enough wild game out there to keep you fed? Well, there aren't enough now and there will be even less if something really BAD happens because 1) it will happen to them too, and 2) EVERYBODY will be out shooting those animals!
So you hold onto your guns until you and your family starve to death. Me, I'm going to go find a group of people to work with to make sure ALL of us are taken care of!
If the worst happens in this country, then we will need ALL of us working together to survive - thinking you are going to make it just because you have guns is a REAL FANTASY!!!
Somehow, I think you are probably going to see Jesus before the rest of us!! And then you can explain why killing them instead of helping them was the right thing to do!
Kahn You know that phone number that your therapist told you to call if you were having a "Crisis"?
Now would be a good time
Kahn, I'll lend you my power ring. Trust me on this: In brightest day, In blackest night . . .
Starving transient people will be welcome in any group I join because they will be able to work and they will be glad to work. Everybody can be taught and killing them just because you are "afraid" of them is a pretty callous and evil thing to do!
No I don't expect the government to save us, I expect "us" to save us!
Actually I agree with Dragoon!!! You have some calling to do!!!
Lol! A logic-chopping survivalist!
Oh good lord. Better trolls please.
Seriously I'm not going to debate a person who spends his life cleaning his gun waiting for the anti-christ or zombie apocalypse to happen. There's a difference between fantasy and reality. If you can't understand the difference then you're beyond all help.
Well Kahn, who wants to make it in a world where mere survival is the only option? During the cold war my Dad used to store banana chips and survival stuff in case the bomb was dropped. I told dear old Dad that I don't want to live in a world like that. Survival is not enough and do we really want to rebuild on the foundation of warfare and violence? This species needs to grow up and learn some lessons before we rebuild.
Kahn, I won't mind the trip you wish upon me. I'm prepared. Surviaval is not my al in all. Heaven would be a far better place to be. Even if it is total nothingness. Why should I expect more. I am not greedy. I have had a very comfortable live here on earth. If romney is elected I don't see much reason to stay around and watch him destroy what I know. So if some one with a gun comes to my front door it will be up to him what he decides to do with it. I will not shoot him.
Just make the phone call, Kahn!
Kahern let me share a little somthing I learned with you...
Saying you are going to kill someone is easy, to easy but fortunately most people never mean it when they say it and even fewer will ever have to actualy do it.
Actualy Doing it however is a profound expierence that is never taken lightly and in my case one I never hope never to repeat.
I do not own any guns and have not so much as touched a firearm in over a decade
If I have learned anything at all it is to take Matthew 26:52 to heart
I try to be a fair and equatable guy, that said you are the one who keeps getting tangled up in this weird apocalyptic narrative.
No I will be the first person to admit I have my own six pack of paranoid fears in the fridge but none of them involve being overwhelmed by rampaging hordes or taking shelter in a secret undisclosed location...
Seriously check your thinking
Now it's just spewing Glenn Beck style ranting.
Currency can't collapse for the simplest of all reasons: There would be no way to stick someone with the bar tab.
Seriously for modern currency to collapse in any kind of meaningful way you would have to have not just one but multiple nations go bankrupt simultaneously and for their associated creditors to insist on trying to collect, and I am talking about a LOT more than just Greece and Italy.
There is no way that any group of nations would allow that to happen. We wouldn't even let it happen to people we didn't like (remember all the money we fronted Russia back in the 90's). The world would insist on hitting the reset button and just voiding the debt back to a manageable level long before it ever reached critical mass.
Currency isn't going to collapse and the world isn't going to end. Now have a glass of warm milk and a nap and you will feel better.
This is so laughably incorrect. So OPEC dictates the value of the US dollar now does it?
Meh enough troll debating. Provide evidence for your claims or admit you're a reactionary nut cleaning his gun waitin' for the zombies to come eat his brains.
lol..Glenn..is that you?
If the zombies ate his/her/its brains, he/she/it wouldn't miss them.
This is typical Paul-libertarian-austrian meets white-supremacist-apocalypse idiocy on the looniest wingnut fringe. It's tempting to think it's somebody just playing around but, sadly, these goons exist. What they shouldn't be allowed to do though is hijack this blog's comment section.
Just report the idiot.
Disgusted...,
Good luck reporting it. Best to flag it early and often.
Yes yes the economy is going to collapse! I know it's so because someone on a gold purchasing website told me that we're only holding on by a thread! The US dollar is going to implode and it's all Obama's fault!
Danger danger will Robinson!
Good thing we've got you with the guns to protect us all, 'eh? Geeze.
Yeah sorry, but the person making the claim has to provide the evidence, not the skeptic. Although yeah I don't mind providing evidence to back up my assertions.
What did I tell ya folks?
Hyperinflation is on its way!!!! Any day now! Ron Paul says so. He started predicting it in 1980. And. He. Hasn't. Stopped. So yeah, you know that the austrian model of how the world works is an isomorphism onto objective reality. Perfect match.
Bullshhit. Ron Paul is a fu king kook, gold standard, Fed-hating and all; just a fu king kook. His son is even worse.
Report this asswhole.
Doncha just love Looneytarians...the people who pretend that they have a right to discriminate and in the next breath deny their obvious bigotries! (eye roll)
There is nothing more intellectually immature and self-refuting than libertarianism. Anarchism is close, though. Anybody that would buy into it is stuck as a 13 year old intellectually, and as a ogre as a human.
(Note to others: many people predicted the housing bubble. Those others haven't been stupidly been predicting hyperinflation since the 1980's. Hell, I predicted the housing bubble. Just the fact someone has been predicting hyperinflation since 2009 like Paul is enough to tell you his model of the world is wrong. Paul has been predicting it since 1980.)
Disgusted...,
I think that one of the reason that Looneytarians are so, ummm, tetchy, is that they know that their Messiah will never be nominated for President by the Rethuglicans, and running on the Looneytarian ticket is a dead end. Their Messiah is basically a present-day Harold Stassen and that really galls the Looneytarians.
So I was putting words in your mouth by being intentionally hyperbolic and making a joke, but you're not putting words into everyone else's mouth by playing "I secretly know your real state of psychology"? Interesting. Ya know if you had just went the "I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not route" then I could've conceded. It can be difficult to tell through text. But instead you go with the "I'm rubber, you're glue!" route.
Just like how I was playing semantics with you even though I was trying to explain you were arguing against the same point you were making and you were the one making semantics about what morality and dictation is. Apparently projection is the normal state of things and it's everyone else who is suffering from mental enfeeblement (HYPERBOLE ALERT).
I also enjoy the fact that I must be a liberal simply because I'm disagreeing with you. Interesting. Why wouldn't your proving facts stand up against criticism unless...ya know...they weren't actually facts, but blog websites from other libertarian wackos? Very very interesting.
Predicting hyperinflation since 1980!
You know you've lost. Ron Paul's a kook.
So now you're down with asking questions and answering them yourself. And then you're on to the taker/moocher/freeloader nonsense.
But I care about you anyway. That's why I feel an obligation to, even though you probably already know this, let you know Obama has just given the order. That's right, pal. THE SHHIT IS GOING DOWN RIGHT NOW!!!They're coming. They're coming for us all.
Hahahahahahaha...
You lost. Too bad. Later, shhit-for-brains.
Disgusted...,
It occurs to me that this latest troll is a sock puppet of The Blank that he is using so he doesn't have to pretend to be "civil".
Hmmm..., could be. His personality signature seems pretty different but it could be. Doesn't matter. They/he are both full of shhit. It's pretty easy to smoke these tools out and then BOOM!
Disgusted...,
The personality signature would be different because he isn't pretending to be civil, he is being as nasty as he wants to be.
Yeah, could be. Didn't work out for him. He's done. Safe to ignore now for sure.
Entropy, I think you are on to something there......it is strange that Shooter hasn't been shooting off lately, except for one "cameo"!
WOW!! Now you SOUND just like Shooter!!!
You've never posted on this blog or at least haven't in the couple of months I've been posting so you cannot know this unless 1. you are a re-reg (in which case you just inadvertently caught yourself in a lie) or 2. you're applying other newsvine posts or even other blogs to this one. In which case you're overgeneralizing which you just complained about a few posts above. So this is either you admitting you lied or admitting you're being contradictory.
You are making assertions that aren't credible and that go against common knowledge claims about certain circumstances. Here is what would be considered a reliable source:
1- Is there a stated bias from the organization, group, or authors involved in the study/article/what have you being presented? If so what is that bias and is there clear indication that their bias influenced the outcome of their study/report/what have you? Fox News being biased towards conservatives does not necessarily mean that the information Fox News presents will be factually wrong, however it does mean you should proceed with caution. If you see the information presented by Fox at several other news sources- in particular sources that don't have bias or that have a different bias than that of Fox's- then you could consider the Fox story true. If, however, you only see the story being covered by other conservatives then the story is suspect
2- Conflict of interest. The study/article/whatever that you're presenting shouldn't have a clear conflict of interest between those involved (such as the author or organization) in the study/article/whatever and those who commissioned the article/study/whatever. If I was paid $10million by a tobacco company to do research and I find that cigarettes don't cause cancer then my research should be considered suspect because I had a financial stake in the outcome of the information I was researching
3- Conferrable results. You should be able to find multiple sources that are known to either have a non-partisan bias or otherwise known to be reliable that assert the same information as the article/study/whatever you're sourcing. If 100 newspapers are all saying it flooded in New Orleans that probably means it flooded in New Orleans, whereas if only one or two papers say it then you should probably treat those one or two as suspect
4- Primary source versus secondary source. Whenever possible go to the direct source and not a second-hand source. So, in other words, instead of linking to an article that discusses what is in the CBO report you should go directly to the CBO report. That doesn't mean that articles affirming the CBO report are bad, but you should be able to link back to the primary source to affirm that the claims being made about that source are consistent and therefore factual
5- History of correcting for mistakes. Organizations that are reputable correct for any errors found with their information including new information, grammatical or spelling errors, or misrepresentations of information. Organizations that do not consistently correct themselves for factual errors should be considered suspect.
6- Peer review of information. Whenever possible only refer to information that has been peer reviewed by experts who work in the field the study/article/whatever focused on. Sometimes this is not possible- especially for news articles- so try to do this whenever you can. This usually plays into finding the primary source. For instance the CBO always submits it's studies to at least 3 or 4 different public policy centers for evaluation (some conservative, some liberal, some non-partisan). The study is only released as long as all agree that the information published is generally correct. Peer reviewed information at the primary level is the best to turn to whenever you can
7- Honest information. If an article you read asserts that something is true you should be able to find a link through that article to the source it's using for the true information (that is unless they're making a common knowledge claim). So if the article says "why would poor people work when they could just get a pay check?" there should be a link that allows you to prove this information to be true. If there is not the information should be considered suspect as the author is not proving his/her assertions to be true. In the case of academics this is when that evil bibliography comes into place
8- Blog websites can sometimes be good sources of information, but more often than not they are nothing more than editorial rant spaces for jerkoffs like me. The same goes with the editorial page of a newspaper. Make sure to try to avoid these unless it is known that the information being presented is genuine. A good way to check that is does this information show up elsewhere or can you find the primary source of the information being presented to you to verify the person writing the blog/editorial is correct in his/her use of that information or presentation thereof
9- Distinction between fact and opinion. NO source that you use should conflate opinion for fact. Any source who does this should immediately be discredited
These are some examples of what it takes for a source to be considered reliable versus unreliable. Please note a source could fail ALL of these and still be factually correct, but that is when it becomes incumbent upon you- the person presenting the information- to provide multiple sources that verify the information is correct.
The Heritage Foundation, for instance, is not a reliable source for economic information. Why? They do not give you access to the primary studies they supposedly conduct and those primary studies are never submitted for peer review. All the authors who write at The Heritage Foundation are former lobbyists for Republican causes or work directly for Republican officials or have direct ties to other Republican sources such as CrossRoads GPS. The Heritage Foundation never provides you with the math or calculation source used, they often make wild assertions without providing any backing to those assertions (like "why would the poor work if they can just take a check" and then never following through on that claim), and they often disguise opinion articles as if they are scientific studies. Additionally The Heritage Foundation has a stated conservative bias (on their website) and they openly admit to being funded by people who have a conflict of interest in the outcomes of their studies. So, in general, liberals will tell you "the Heritage Foundation is not reliable for information." That isn't because it's a conservative source and they only want a liberal source, that's because they don't pass the basic smell test for a reliable organization in general.
Re: #48.49
Put another way - from "Blur: How to Know What's True in the Age of Information Overload" by Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel
Includes a section on "The Way of Skeptical Knowing...amounts to asking - and knowing how to answer - a series of systematic questions... including the following.
Good stuff, Cartoonthenews, maphi.
You are wrong about my knowledge of economics. And you are not worth my time.
And Ron Paul is a kook.
Here's what you need to understand. Nobody owes you any time; nobody owes you any discussion. And that is especially true when you come barging into the conversation in a belligerent manner oh so certain you're going to show everybody how right you are. You understand that? Good.
Now when I post in reply to some pig-headed libertarian like yourself it isn't to convince the pig-headed libertarian. Spending one's life responding to fools is a fool's errand.
I've dealt enough with your type plenty. Your boy Paul disqualifies himself and his models with his predictions. You lost that battle, pal. And there's nothing -- absolutely NOTHING -- that will allow a recovery. It is a complete defeat of his worldview.
I couldn't care less if someone like you questions my or anybody else's knowledge of economics. That's because I have no respect for your knowledge on the subject.
If others wish to spend their time engaging you, that's their prerogative. I consider it time that I could spend more constructively.
Later, shhit-for-brains.
......this is not what a common knowledge claim is. A common knowledge claim would be something like Barack Obama is the 44th President of the United States of America or the Declaration of Independence was signed into law in 1776.
That is irrelevant to the issue at hand; you do not need to source news sources in order to prove your assertions about things like the US dollar being in danger of collapse (at least not necessarily). If that is where you're getting your information OK, but in this particular case my assumption is you're getting it from something more concrete or at least I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you were doing as much.
You do realize that this is logical paradox, yes?
See this is an assertion of fact. You have to provide evidence for your assertion of fact. If you do not have evidence then it is a subjective opinion. Getting the point? How does Ron Paul threaten the status quo? In many ways he wants to expand power to those who are already in power and in many ways he wants to maintain the status quo. So how does he suddenly threaten these things? I additionally love that you assume it's a conspiracy. It must be that Ron is Jesus come to Earth (HYPERBOLE ALERT) so therefore it must be if people aren't automatically bowing before him that they are either stupid or they are part of the conspiracy. It can't POSSIBLY be that people have legitimate disagreements with Ron Paul or that people legitimately do not like him. No, because that might threaten your established sense of reality.
Look I won't keep harping on this. There seems to be an arrogance problem with people on the right when they communicate and it seems to be a legitimate difference between how people on the right approach things as opposed to people on the left. If you want people to believe that what Ron Paul says is true then you have to present the argument from the position that you are proving him correct and NOT the position that he already IS correct and that other people are just stupid for not believing as such. You must ALSO accept the fact that other people do not think like you, believe like you, or act like you and that YOU are not the factual or moral center of the universe. The point being that when you present information you can't be making assertions about other people's motivations like "Ron Paul threatens the establishment so therefore anyone who questions him MUST be motivated by protecting the establishment." Doing so puts people on the defensive because you're immediately starting from the position that you are superior to them and people do not respond well to being talked down to. Saying things like "this person obviously knows nothing" will only cause people to lash out to you. Instead prove the premise that you're asserting.
It doesn't necessarily have to be a website, but if you're going to make the argument then you have to provide a bibliography of some sort. That is, at least, if you're going to be presenting a different narrative than the narrative here on Maddowblog. And I don't even necessarily mean that as a right versus left thing either. If you post a story about dolphins people on Maddowblog are going to challenge you on it even though it might otherwise not be considered a partisan issue. People here want things to be proven to them and if you try to follow some semblance of academia it will go a long ways.
For the record you must also try to understand the context of the hostility. Take for instance last night: we had a person harassing Maddow on here who kept spamming the blog with pictures of penises mocking Maddow's sexuality to the point that the blog had to temporarily shut down until they could be deleted and he banned. When you have to deal with THAT kind've environment try to be understanding as to why people might be less than welcoming of a new viewpoint. Hostility breeds more hostility. If you want to diffuse it you're going to have to approach things in a different way.
For the record if you are using websites and they won't let you link OK then try deleting the http:// or putting a space between the www and the rest of the address. There should be some way that you can link to it without completing the hyperlink. Or hell if THAT'S the issue (that you're unable to because of the new person restrictions) then another option is that you can tell me the name of the news paper or website or institution or wherever you're getting your information from and what the search is I use on that website to find the information.
So like a lot of websites have where you can type something into the on-site search menu. If you know the name of the related study/article/what have you that is another possibility. I cannot fault you if it's a logistics problem by any means.
"I'm nobody's disciple, contrary to what you might believe."
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! The troll who has been proclaiming the wonderfulness of Ron Paul claims that he/she/it is not a disciple. Well, Looneytarians, in common with the rest of those on the right, are resolutely dishonest. For example, they routinely deny that they are doing even as they are doing it. I have been observing and dealing with Looneytarians for years and realized very early on that their ideological system was nothing more than a hodgepodge of some of the worst elements of right wing ideology. For one thing, they make hypocritical noises about "individual liberties", but their supposed "right to discriminate" (an invented right if ever there was one) irrevocably cancels out any noises they might make about the rights of minorities. In my experience and observation, the worst homophobes outside of militant reactionary Christians have been Looneytarians. It is obviously time to post this link again:
http://world.std.com/~mhuben/liberal.html
All Looneytarian propaganda can safely be dismissed as self-serving garbage. This invented "right to discriminate" is nothing but an intellectually dishonest attempt to enable them to practice bigotry.
Here are some treatments of this "right to discriminate" (and other issues) from a variety of sources, both "libertarian" and otherwise:
http://progressivelibertarian.org/2011/12/24/a-right-to-discriminate/
"Libertarians do not believe that the government should prohibit private racial discrimination or Holocaust denial."
http://www.volokh.com/2010/05/20/bruce-bartletts-attack-on-libertarians/
http://mediamatters.org/research/2010/05/26/john-stossels-continued-advocacy-for-a-right-to/165356
"... the Fourteenth Amendment was illegally ratified" (sic!)
"But there can be no doubt that the provisions of the law that prohibit racial and other discrimination by private businesses in employment or accommodation (such as hotels and restaurants) are manifestly unlibertarian and unjust."
http://libertarianstandard.com/2010/05/25/private-discrimination-rand-paul/
http://libertarianalliance.wordpress.com/2011/04/21/should-businesses-have-the-right-to-discriminate-against-homosexuals-by-sean-gabb/
"“The spirit of non-discrimination,” said Block “ends you right up in compulsory bisexuality.”" (sic!)
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/libertarians-on-pauls-civil-rights-stance-very-reasonable.php
http://www.winningprogressive.org/what-libertarians-ignore-about-property-rights-and-government
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/23/weekinreview/23tanenhaus.html?_r=0
Sections (7) and (8):
http://lilt.ilstu.edu/pefranc/3-ts%20of%20justice.htm
http://reason.com/archives/2010/06/16/racism-civil-rights-and-libert
Finally, here is one of my favorite treatments of Looneytarianism in general:
http://www.spectacle.org/897/finkel.html
It should further be noted that this kahn troll, typically for a Looneytarian, comes on this site and rants against "liberals". Looneytarians seldom, if ever, make any substantive criticisms of other conservatives, and Looneytarians certainly seem to reserve their invective for non-conservatives. I further note that kahntroll does not seem at all bothered by the militant reactionary Christians who were the subject of Mr. Benen's article. That too, is typical. I quit reading the Usenet newsgroup alt.atheism because it was infested with Looneytarians who would jump to the defense of militant reactionary Christians. The Looneytarians might make dismissive remarks about the theology, but let a self-respecting non-religious person criticize one of the MRC schools for teaching Creationism, and you would get a Looneytarian claiming "It's their university, they can teach what they want (emphasis supplied). It doesn't bother me." The Looneytarians seemed remarkably blase about the efforts of MRCs to enshrine their theology in the nation's laws.
I further note that kahntroll is still pretending that Looneytarians do not seek to practice bigotry. However, maintaining the pretence that there is a "right to discriminate" is clearly an effort to make it legal for them to practice bigotry.
Lol! Typical right-wing arrogance and self-congratulation! I notice that trolls typically do not hesitate to use invective, but get p!ssy when it is used against them. And those "criticisms" of Romney are not only pretty limp, but at least one is clearly from the right! "I also think that he passes himself off as a fiscal conservative when he is not proposing any real spending cuts." In other words, Romney isn't conservative enough for kahntroll. And kahntroll is still trying to ignore the ugly reality of Looneytarianism's invented "right to discriminate". Again, we see how resolutely dishonest those on the right are (and insufferably conceited, to boot).
Thanks for proving what DisgustedWithItAll said: "There is nothing more intellectually immature and self-refuting than libertarianism." And thanks for proving what a malicious, totally dishonest troll you are. Don't you just hate it when self-respecting non-conservatives won't play your childish games? Poor baby. You are despicable, therefore I despise you. It really is that simple. Oh, and if you ever make the mistake of appearing on this site again, I will throw your effing "right to discriminate" in your face every time. Now, go mastur bate to a photo of Ron Paul.
I knew you'd be back and I was right. Trolls love to dish it out, but can't take it. Hey, I'm just exercising my right to discriminate, ya know!
You are the one working yourself in a frenzy...just put me on "ignore".
"You interrupted my conversation with someone else and that's how this whole thing started."
Well, la de da! You do realize this is a public forum, don't you, Clayton?
Well, I do have other things to do, so I'll be signing off for the night. I don't say that I won't read such and such and then turn right around and read it.
The People of Ohio, Wisconsin, Colorado, Pennsylvania, all the other swing states, and the People of America deserve an economy where anybody who wants to work or needs to work can find a good job. Jobs that give people freedom, independence, a higher degree of feeling more secure
and a satisfactory sense of self worth. People deserve a rapidly expanding economy wherein they can display their multifaceted and too-many-to-mention-here skills of organization, multitasking, intelligence, toughness , strength and persistence to name a few. People deserve an expanding economy where they can compete with the best of them if they so choose, or to have a partner who operates in an opportunity-laden economic environment replete with good pay and good opportunity so that both individual's and partner's desires, needs and goals can be met. This is not where the people of America find themselves, People don't deserve an economy that grew slower this year than last year this year, and slower last year than the year before that. People don't deserve an economy in which growth does not even keep par with inflation. People have pay ground that needs to be made up. The trendline is going the wrong way in order for that to happen - whether you are white, black, hispanic or latino. It was just this summer when Mr. Obama wrongly and disingenuously implied that if you're not of the government - you're doing just fine. This is the classic denial in the face of reality. This is a man who seems to believe that if he says it, it must be true. But this mismatch between rhetoric and reality doesn't have to be. We can silence this endless finger-pointing and endless diversionary tactics- from dogs on roofs to someone dressed up like a bird. Enough already, of having Obama peeing on one's leg and telling one - "Don't worry - it's just raining" In early October 2012, CNN asked Economists for their take as to WHO would be better for the economy. Between a President Mitt Romney or a President Obama, a President Mitt Romney was the Economists preferred choice by a ratio of 3 to 1. Seventeen economists were asked. Five opted out. A large majority of 9 maintained that a President MITT ROMNEY would be BEST FOR THE ECONOMY, while only 3 out of 12 thought potus-for-the-moment would. Its not just a majority of Economists who say a change will do us good. It's not just capable businessman and United States Naval Academy Graduate H Ross Perot who tells us change will do us good. Its not just Chairwoman and Chief Executive Officer of Hewlett-Packard for six years Carly Fiorina who tells us a change will do us good. And in a survey of 501 executives, its not just CEO's, presidents, and managing directors that pick a President Romney as better for the growth and success of their business, while only 20 percent said Obama was any good for growth. Again, Obama presides over a quarter of 100 million Americans who are un-employed or under-employed. As he presides, he says he'll cut the deficit in half and proceeds to balloon it to 16 trillion dollars and compounding daily.The results don't match. We remember that potus-for-the-moment rightly implied that he understood that if he can't fix this thing (the economy), he, too, suggested there'd be a change at the location of the highest office in the land; he'd be removed by the voters pen. He was right to say this. His removal from office via the stroke of The Voter's pen is THE real path to hope and change that the majority of economists and others in-the-know when it comes to things economic, predict. Men and women alike deserve that kind of hope and change. America, keep these thoughts in mind as you go and cast your vote. A vote for Obama will ensure further collapse and doom of our great country. ROMNEY/RYAN 2012!
Looks like you bought hook, line and sinker into the propaganda mill! So sorry!
Romney, changes his mind every 5 minutes to garner votes. I don't trust him.
WOW!!! What a tome of garbage!!! WHAT Economists?? Those hand-chosen by the religious right? And Ross Perot - another 1%er? And Carly Fiorina - the woman who ran HP into the ground? And, oh yea, all those other CEO's whose greed destroyed our economy yet still want BIG paychecks for doing that???
Get a CLUE, David!!! A man who ran a company that bought up other companies using other people's money, ran the companies into deep debt, and then ripped off the companies for his profit IS NOT the person to run the government.
And as far as the deficit goes? What a short memory you have!!!! Have you forgotten how Bush financed his pet "wars"? Thank GOD Obama is getting us out of those two fiascos!!!
Where DID you copy this from? Because it is all tripe!!!
Please David, don't trust the Liar willard......you will be very disappointed in November.
Nice to see the "Cut and Paste" industry is doing well though...
I like to cut and paste industry......I keep those people employed. Jobs are important in America.
What is his tax plan - Pick a Number? Top Economist have said repeatedly his numbers do not add up, and he gives no details to show how they add up.
What is his economic policy - per his campaign Bush but updated. He said he will create 12 million jobs in his four years - oh wait that was after the following predictions: The Congressional Budget Office the nonpartisan agency assumes 9.6 million jobs will be created in the next four years. (This is a revision downward; CBO had estimated 11 million in January.) But Moody’s Analytics, in an August forecast, predicts 12 million jobs will be created by 2016, no matter who is president. (See page 51.) And Macroeconomic Advisors in April also predicted a gain of 12.3 million jobs. So what is Romney's detailed economic plan?
Which Foreign Policy is his - Bush/Cheney or President Obama's. Hard to tell, since he has claimed both as his.
Who will he be President for "we the people" or "we the corporations" and will we become more of a Plutocracy Government.
When I drive around at night I see about 1 in 5 cars with their high-beams on. I am guessing that the drivers just aren't bright enough to know there is a high-beam low-beam switch. Pretty sad as I think most people are "into" driving. Sadder still I think it's right to extrapolate that there is probably another 1 in 5 drivers that also don't know the switch exists but they just happen to be in low-beam. So 40% of the public is that blinking stupid?
Go to your nearby convenience store and witness a coffee counter with room for only one customer to comfortably make coffee without reaching in front of another. Then most people will stand in line 6 feet back from the person ahead of them.. In a country where we travel on the right, watch at the door people jamming each other coming in and out..
I am really behind the minister that wants christians to write in christ for president...
To bad you won't stand up for your right to vote and you let this fool lead you astray.
You can't trust all the people all the time. are you will be disappointed. We are each individuals who think for ourselves. Some think they are also right all the time, only to find out that most of the time they are wrong. Confused much?
I know where the switch is, and I make my own coffee. I don't depend on some one else to do it for me. I'm not much bothered if someone forgets and leaves on his brights. I'm too busy enjoying the drive and the music.
Yes, your avatar is indeed a reflection of your malice.
I think he's angry because he can't "shoot" people through the internet!!
Already cast my vote for Obama/Biden and all my other Democratic friends. If he shoots me now my vote will still be counted infact in our Fair State of ........they emailed me and assured me they had received it.
Pot...kettle...black
ROMNEY/RYAN 2012!!!!!!
And you think you are convincing........who?????
In his past life David was a bumper sticker.
Nope he is still here in this life.....if for some cheating reason willard wins, then he will be a bumper sticker in his past life. Such as it will be. That there bumper sticker is all he will gain by it.
But not to worry because OBAMA WILL BE BACK IN THE WHITE HOUSE AGAIN.....
and before that a lawn sign.
If Romster cheats his way in, maybe the new bumper sticker will be an upside-down flag. btw, the only bumper sticker I kinda miss read: Heaven doesn't want me, hell's afraid I'll take over . . . yikes. Romney!
With romney it will become hell's.
The symbol will be like his oversize diamond flag pin with the hole in it, (black spot)
What is that anyway?
Methinks the black spot is a micro-dot with a secret message from Joseph Smith . . . or maybe a wayward blip of Ann's eye liner.
This guy preaches that we have a DUTY to bear arms? He's a Christian? Where in the Bible does Jesus say this (if he's so damn literal in his interpretation of the Bible!)?
What a nut job! God save us from this guy and all the right-wing Christian terrorists.
Romney is leading Obama in Gallup polls, 51%- 45% and his lead continues to grow. A new CNN poll out today shows that Romney is now tied with Obama in Ohio and leading Obama in Pennsylvania. Obama has already lost Florida, trialing Romney by 8pts. Romney leads Obama on who would be better with the economy by 78% to 22%. Benghazi is erupting and now the CIA has come out and stated the Obama Administration told them to 'stand down' while innocent Americans were being killed. No matter how Rachel Mad-Cow tries to spin it, or any other liberal, Obama has the blood of these innocent American's on his hands. As Hillary once said, Obama is nothing more than an 'empty suit with no substance." November 6 will usher in a new dawning on America, as Obama and Mooshell will be cast out of the White House, sending them into exile in Chicago thug-ville where they belong, never to be heard from again. No Plan....No Clue...NOBAMA 2012!
And there are still nincompoops who insist that there is no such thing as an American Fascist.
I sure hope someone explains the Electoral College to you Republicans soon.
But if Obama wins because of the Electoral College, the right will be shrieking that the EC is a heinous liberal conspiracy. :-/
You absolutely disgusting excuse for a human being. There are numerous attempts at voter suppression by the Republicans all over the country. The Koch brothers and other billionaires are attempting to buy the election. That is not a fantasy no matter how much malicious misinformation you spew. Why don't you try your Paulbot "both sides" rantings over on one of the right-wing sites, hotshot?
Tell us about your supposed "right to discriminate", troll.
Hypocrite. You've done as bad or worse. And you still haven't explained this supposed "Right to discriminate"!
You really need to get over yourself.
Those on the right are demonstrating every day in every way that the political stuggle in the US is absolutely, unequivocally, categorically, an us or them situation.
It is not about governing any more for the right , they declared this war on dems 20 years ago , it was just so preposterous , it has been hard for us to grasp and respond to imo ..Who did not hope the bush tax cuts would work?
To go with your point , the gop not only do everything to stop obama/ dems economic agenda , they lie and claim it did not work , when it actually did , there agenda includes trashing the economy for their party , to destroy dems , it is unprecedented
Great piece by Fareed Zakaria on CNN this morning about how well Obama's interventions in the financial and auto markets helped stabilize the U. S. economy and are responsible for us having a higher sustainable GDP growth rate than other industrialized nations.
Those measures and the stimulus clearly worked.
Of course the paranoid violent pseudo-christians need to own firearms. Are they certain it is Jesus whose example they purport to follow and not Attila the Hun?
I wonder how Gary Cass got the idea that Christians should carry guns -- they weren't even invented until 13-14 centuries after the death of Christ.
See "Red Sleigh Down" a South Park episode where Jesus helps Mr. Hanky save Santa from the Iraqis.
david-275678 banned, starter-kit wall-of-text trolling everyone, including Ms. Maddow:
...
Later posted:
Cool.
While the RNC has Mitt in protective custody to prevent him from having to answer questions, perhaps we can get the 'underpants gnomes' to confiscate the 'magic underwear'. The Eric Cartman morality of the GOTP needs to be exposed, every day and in every way. I banked a vote for Barry today.