Democrats & Liberals Archives

Gingrich Leads Going Into South Carolina But There's Room For a Romney Upset

The latest RCP polling averages in South Carolina show Gingrich with 32.8%, Romney with 30.2%, Paul with 13.2% and Santorum with 11.4%. That totals to 87.6% leaving 12.4% of voters potentially up for grabs. With Gingrich leading by as much as 9% in the latest polls, I figure that gap is going to play a key roll in today’s vote.

The trouble with that 12.4% is that Perry, Huntsman, Bachmann and Cain are all still on the ballot. Will somebody cast a useless vote for them? Maybe. There's also Gary Johnson in the mix but don't expect him to get many votes overall.

Part of me wants Gingrich to win South Carolina just so that there are three 1st place winners in the first three contests. It doesn't look like Ron Paul can win Florida or that would be really funny.

Another part of me thinks that last minute voters are going to break for Romney and at least shrink Gingrich's lead if not even doom him to defeat in the state. South Carolina voters have to be able to remember that Gingrich's campaign has no substance at this point other than to fling poo at the other candidates, at President Obama, and at the news media for daring to report on issues relevant to values voters.

My wife mentioned last night how someone's ethics at their workplace tend to mirror their ethics in their personal life. I think she had a great point, and Newt would have made that same case against Clinton for sure. But the relevance of such things now against Gingrich are apparently quite despicable. Go figure.

Either way I think you'll see the end of easy going Mitt Romney with today's vote. He can't stay above the fray anymore and he'll need to get tough if he's going to stop another outbreak of Gingrich in the race. I think Mitt felt the illness had passed so he stopped taking his antibiotics early. He knows now that he has to keep taking them until the whole bottle is empty.

Posted by Adam Ducker at January 21, 2012 8:15 AM
Comments
Comment #334865

“My wife mentioned last night how someone’s ethics at their workplace tend to mirror their ethics in their personal life. I think she had a great point, and Newt would have made that same case against Clinton for sure. But the relevance of such things now against Gingrich are apparently quite despicable. Go figure.”

Why would it? Democrats have shown that ethics, especially those of a sexual nature mean nothing, and if Conservatives are not concerned about Newt’s past; then pray tell, what’s the problem.

Since you brought up Clinton, let’s review the left’s argument concerning Clinton and his many escapades, “it’s only sex and everyone does it”, the same can be said about the left’s concerns over Barney Frank boogering little boys, or Weiner’s showing his weiner on in cyber space. It appears sexual ethics only matter when it is done by a Republican. Get off your ethical high horse.

Posted by: TomT at January 21, 2012 9:40 AM
Comment #334866

TomT: “Get off your ethical high horse.”

This isn’t about me though, is it? I’m not voting for Gingrich in the primary. You know who is? The same voters who make family values their concern. Those who think cheating on your spouse is a bad thing. I understand that you will attack Democrats in order to avoid having to deal with the fact that a man who skewered Clinton for his affairs was having an affair at the same time and is now running for President of the United States. That’s exactly how Newt’s playing it. He’s outraged, OUTRAGED that he’d be asked questions relevant to the social conservative base of the Republican party.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at January 21, 2012 10:16 AM
Comment #334869

Let me just say again that it’s incredibly sad how Newt thinks his personal ethics aren’t to be questioned when it comes to qualification for the White House. But Newt is polling well because he feeds red meat to those on the right with the a victim mentality.

You can’t be around the right for long without one of them complaining about how the media is against them, or how you can’t celebrate Christmas correctly anymore, or you can’t get a straight marriage anymore because of the gay agenda, or you can’t teach pseudo-scientific ideas in a school science class, or you can’t make money without your historically low tax rates taking it all away. The list is endless.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at January 21, 2012 10:34 AM
Comment #334874

Perhaps the right has been changed by the left’ continual dismissal of democrat ethics charges? If the left don’t care, why should the right. Since 2 out of 3 American marriages end in divorce (66%) why should we be shocked at another politician committing adultery? I personally don’t care anymore; If you put a philandering Republican next to a socialist democrat whose sole purpose is to ruin the country; I’l take the philanderer.

It appears the only one concerned about Newt Gingrich is the left, and since they aren’t going to vote for him anyway….. Your outrage is noted. Quit trying to decide who we should nominate. Leave it up to the Republicans to choose their candidate.

Posted by: TomT at January 21, 2012 3:23 PM
Comment #334880

TomT,

“It appears the only one concerned about Newt Gingrich is the left,..”

Well, so much for the right’s bedrock Christian values. I guess we will be spared all the preaching and holier than thou attitudes from conservatives in this election.

Just to correct the record, it case you missed it, Weiner was forced to resign by his own party in the face of an ethics investigation. In regard to your charges of Barney Frank “boogering little boys”, that charge has been repeatedly found to be false and without any merit.

Posted by: Rich at January 21, 2012 6:18 PM
Comment #334885

Well, I’m watching the SC primary results on Fox; 16% of the vote in 41% Gingrich, 28% Romney, 17% Santorum, 13% Paul.

Posted by: Frank at January 21, 2012 8:10 PM
Comment #334886

Rich; whyb should we (conservatives) be concerned about what the athiestic left has to say concerning Christian ethics?

What is it with you guys on the left; why are you so concerned about what we believe or who we support?

I believe there is great fear on the left of a Gingrich run against Obama.

Posted by: TomT at January 21, 2012 8:14 PM
Comment #334888

Fear of newt please as the last idiotic republican president said BRING IT ON. And why should you care about your so called christian ethics because republicans have been running on those so called “christian ethics” for 30 plus years. We really don’t care about peoples personal lives.

Posted by: Jeff at January 21, 2012 8:29 PM
Comment #334892

And Jeff, what have the democrats been running on for the past 30 years? And yes, there is great fear in the Obama camp; the conservatives are beginning to coalesce around a single conservative candidate.

Jeff, Rich, and any other lefty, you are not getting the big picture; do we have moral standards? Yes, but we consider Obama such a danger to our existence as a nation, that we will put aside our personal standards to nominate someone who will bring this country back to sanity. I like Newt, but it wouldn’t matter if it were Romney, Santorum, or Paul; I would support any of them over Obama. Obama has gone beyond the lack of ability to lead, bring about an atmosphere to create jobs, or to turn around the economy. He, his administration, and his junking of the Constitution has literally become a threat to America. I believe his goal is to destroy America.

So you question our Christian ethics because we support a divorced man and yet just a few years ago the left was defending a man (Clinton) who not only violated every precept of marriage; but sent his thugs out to destroy the lives of any woman who exposed him for what he was. This is the absolute height of hypocrisy.

Romney would be the weakest of any of the candidates against Obama and we will choose who we want. In my opinion, Hillary would have been a much better candidate for the left, but the left chooses another 4 years of Obama. That’s your business and I’m glad you did.

Posted by: TomT at January 21, 2012 8:55 PM
Comment #334894
Yes, but we consider Obama such a danger to our existence as a nation, that we will put aside our personal standards to nominate someone who will bring this country back to sanity.

Really Tom T. Back to the Sanity of GWB and the fiscally conservative 108th and 109th Congress? Really if you weren’t serious this could be the best one liner of the week. Instead it is a epic fail because it is just so laughable. The repubs doubled the debt in a very short amount of time while charging the war effort on a credit card and cutting taxes. They “reformed” Medicare by paying for prescription drugs on the same credit card. Yet you say back to sanity, what a joker.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 21, 2012 9:41 PM
Comment #334898

Tom T,

“…do we have moral standards? Yes…”

Where do those “moral standards” fit in with this lie?

“Barney Frank boogering little boys”

So much for the bullshit moral standards.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at January 21, 2012 10:34 PM
Comment #334899

Obama must be one of the luckiest politicians in American history.

This time, an apparently formidable front runner, Willard Romnye, launches a huge negative attack upon Newt Gingrich just prior to the caucus. It works. IA Republicans turn away from Gingrich and choose another candidate in a kind of protest vote, Rick Santorum. Romney nearly wins despite investing little time or money in the campaign- well, little money, at least in terms of what Romney considers real money.

Romney wins easily in NH.

Gingrich counters with a devastating negative attack that goes to the heart of Romney’s candidacy, his qualification as a successful business who can create jobs. Newt destroys Romney using Bain Capital, because the private equity investment company produces precisely nothing. It turns out Romney has a glass jaw, and down he goes in SC.

What must it be like to be Willard Romney, and wake up in the morning knowing Newt Gingrich beat him? Newt Gingrich! Worse, what must it be like to be Rick Santorum, the GOP Values candidate in a socially conservative state, and lose to Newt Gingrich, of all people, and lose badly at that?

By the way, the social conservatives and religious fundamentalists suffered a huge defeat tonight, and they know it.

Well, Romney remains the prohibitive favorite, just on the basis of organization and money alone, but his weakness has been exposed. But why on earth any Republican would believe Newt Gingrich is electable defies the imagination.

Still, thank you, South Carolinan Republicans! Thank you from the bottom of my heart. Newt Gingrich? Ah, a progressive can dare to dream…

Posted by: phx8 at January 21, 2012 10:36 PM
Comment #334900

TomT: “…why should we (conservatives) be concerned about what the athiestic left has to say concerning Christian ethics?”

You do realize that the vast majority of Americans are not atheists, right? And that includes the vast majority of Democrats?

“I believe there is great fear on the left of a Gingrich run against Obama.”

Ha. You know what should scare you folks on the right? This. It’s not scaring you though because all you can see is your hatred of President Obama. Your party is headed over a cliff, but go Newt Gingrich. Keep on winning. He’s a loathsome toad of a man but he’s plump and white and rich just like the Republicans prefer.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at January 21, 2012 10:40 PM
Comment #334903

Adam,
You’re right. All the conservatives can see is their hatred of Obama, and it is destroying them. There is no positive offering being made by the GOP candidates. There are no viable alternative policies, nothing even close; everything is defined by hatred of Obama, and as a result, everything because a negative or a denial.

The GOP will abolish Obamacare! They say this again and again, yet seem to have no idea what they will offer in its place. They can’t mention the previous Republican administration and its results; indeed, the previous president remains He Whose Name Must Not Be Spoken Aloud… (moment of shamed silence). Yet they continue advocating the same policies as Bush-

Whoops! Did a dark shadow just pass in front of the moon?

Anyway, It’s hard to believe this is happening. It’s too good to be true. Newt Gingrich! Yet my head tells me not to get excited. Romney will re-assert himself, and as the attacks by Romney on Newt demonstrated, Romney is more than capable of tying a lit firecracker to the frog that is Gringrich.

Posted by: phx8 at January 21, 2012 10:52 PM
Comment #334905

Phx8: “Anyway, It’s hard to believe this is happening. It’s too good to be true. Newt Gingrich! Yet my head tells me not to get excited.”

Exactly. A few weeks back I thought Newt could sustain his lead but he couldn’t. It will take a lot for me to be convinced South Carolina isn’t to Newt simply what Iowa was to Rick Santorum. I generally don’t like political name calling but Newt really is a snake of man.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at January 21, 2012 11:06 PM
Comment #334907

I don’t like name-calling either. I never liked it when oppenents of Bush-

Whoa! I think there was an earthquake in Mordor-

Anyway, I disliked it when people routinely called Bush ‘chimpie’ and various other names. Political sarcasm is fine, of course, and using an extended circus and clown satirical analogy is fun for me. But a person like Romney, although I’m sure he’s very different from me in his thinking, nevertheless strikes me as basically decent human beings. At any rate, there is a limit to his hypocrisy. For example, Romney has stayed married to his wife during her battle with MS. He doesn’t talk about that. He could arrange a trophy wife anytime he wanted. Yet he stays true, and he doesn’t try to score points by mentioning it. His moral blind spots involve an inability to understand what his business activities mean for ordinary people, and his willingness to say whatever he thinks people want to hear, because it is not a lie, but ‘just politics’. Maybe that’s just the nature of being a politician and being open to compromise…

Newt is another matter altogether. In my book, he’s not a good human being. I detest hypocrisy. I detest people who advocate hatred and violence, engage in corruption, blame the poor and the least advantaged in society, and treat the people they should love the most so very badly. And I’ll just leave it at that for now.

Posted by: phx8 at January 21, 2012 11:29 PM
Comment #334908

The swinger beats the Mormon who beats the social conservative in socially conservative South Carolina! Which leaves the top 3 front runners tied at 1 win 2 losses each. It must be Ron Paul’s turn in FLA.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 21, 2012 11:36 PM
Comment #334909


Tom T. could be right, if the American people don’t have reason to be hopeful about the economy by this fall, they won’t have a problem electing the old pervert. They elected Bush twice. Newt, the last “Great White Hope.” You conservatives have finally reached the bottom of the barrel, do you think?

Unlike Romney, Newt will be more like Obama in campaign mode, populist is going to be in style this year. Obama will be talking inequity and Newt will be to. Plus Newt won’t hesitate to remind blue collar workers of just how friendly Obama and the Democrats have been with the 1%. Something Romney couldn’t pull off.

An unconfirmed rumor has it that Romney has offered the vice president spot to Rick Santorum, Secretary of State to Jon Huntsman, and Secretary of Defence to Ron Paul if they will drop out and endorse him. So far, only Huntsman has accepted, but the other two are still considering the offer. Both are beginning to feel abandoned by conservatives. For what? A gluttonous adulterous newt?

Posted by: jlw at January 22, 2012 12:22 AM
Comment #334910

Gingrich —hahahahahaha! Snort! Aaaah…!
The hilarity never ends.
Definitely getting the sense that this clown car primary is going to keep circling crazily for a while! What has become totally obvious is that the GOP is just in such complete disarray. From the very beginning they were dealt a deck full of Jokers — and I suspect that most of them already know this, yet they still just keep on shuffling those cards!

This is too funny —
take a gander at the income level of those who voted Romney in SC!

Posted by: Adrienne at January 22, 2012 1:28 AM
Comment #334913
Perhaps the right has been changed by the left’ continual dismissal of democrat ethics charges? If the left don’t care, why should the right. Since 2 out of 3 American marriages end in divorce (66%) why should we be shocked at another politician committing adultery? I personally don’t care anymore; If you put a philandering Republican next to a socialist democrat whose sole purpose is to ruin the country; I’l take the philanderer.

It appears the only one concerned about Newt Gingrich is the left, and since they aren’t going to vote for him anyway….. Your outrage is noted. Quit trying to decide who we should nominate. Leave it up to the Republicans to choose their candidate.

LMAO!!! Social conservatism has just been dealt a knock-out blow with this Gingrich win in one of the most churchy-evangelical states in the entire nation. Oh they like to talk about religion and morality, but in reality we’ve always know they don’t give a rats ass about all that “family values” stuff they parrot. That talk is all just for show — it’s actually only about trying to control other people and deny things to people they don’t like.

Thus, a totally unethical, nasty and meanspirited, uncaring, cheating whore of a man like Newt Gingrich who knows how to blow the racist dog whistle louder than any of them can actually win the Southern “Christian” vote. And they’ll applaud like crazy as he publicly dismisses the two wives he left as soon as they became gravely ill, and then tried to totally deny these sick women and his own children any alimony to live on at all.
They’ll give all these candidates standing O’s as they mouth off about forcing women to have babies whether they want to have them or not, and without any healthcare at all, or jobs, and no means of support for those children once they’re born. They love it when their candidates state that they think it’s better for gay people to live a lie (for Jesus!) rather than to simply allow these folks their full and equal civil rights and liberties, and to be able to marry the people they love.
Christian? Morality? No Way. Serial Adultery like Newt’s is disgusting. Blowing racist dog whistles is disgusting. Denying gay people equality and rights, and to marry those they love is disgusting. Denying women rights over their own bodies is disgusting. Denying children basic sustenance is disgusting. It is crystal clear that promoting such things has to do with prejudice and HATRED and nothing more.

do we have moral standards? Yes…

I disagree. Much like Newt Gingrich, it appears that a huge number of you folks don’t have any moral standards whatsoever.

why should we (conservatives) be concerned about what the athiestic left has to say concerning Christian ethics?

Maybe you should listen because so many of you don’t seem to have any discernible ethics at all and you should really try to get some. If you could for one moment quit play-acting the false-pious BS, you might actually learn something from a few non-theists on the subject ethics and morality.
Because for non-theists, our sense of ethics and morality grows out of rational thought, sincere human empathy, and an ability to discern what is positive and good, from what is negative and cruel and hateful. And, they can’t be reduced to lists of harsh, discriminatory rules and narrow-minded, strict behaviors mandated to us by archaic scriptures, or angry men ranting upon altars, or the fairytale imaginary godheads who these religious figures claim to get their marching orders from.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 22, 2012 1:46 AM
Comment #334914

Keep messing up my links lately — wish we could correct them here ourselves. Anyway, sorry about that and here’s that link again.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 22, 2012 1:50 AM
Comment #334920

Adrienne

“Maybe you should listen because so many of you don’t seem to have any discernible ethics at all and you should really try to get some. If you could for one moment quit play-acting the false-pious BS, you might actually learn something from a few non-theists on the subject ethics and morality.”

Proof that you don’t have to be theist to be bigoted, but you just don’t get this, do you?

I travel among the red-neck religious people you hate. I understand that in many of these places, a stranger can leave the keys in his car and expect to find it when he comes back. When I got stuck a muddy road, a couple of strangers spent an hour pulling me out. I can make a contract worth thousands of dollar w/o writing anything down and expect that the guys I am working with will do what they promise. We settle up later w/o acrimony. When we had an ice storm, a couple of these guys went and cleared the paths. They ask nothing in return except that we treat them as they treat us.

I have to admit that a Yankee like me was really surprised at how nice and helpful these guys are to outsiders (like me). They might cling to their God and guns, but they sure are helpful.

As for them being ignorant - I highly educated person like me finds a lot to learn from these guys. I have spent hours learning from them about the subtle differences in landforms and vegetation types.

I remember speaking to bunch of guys in Amarillo Texas. I mentioned some trade issues and they started to explain it to me. I learned a lot from them. They understood the intricacies of the subject in ways I had not seen when I was listening to lectures at the Kennedy School in Harvard. They know that their business depends on trade, so they learn about it.

I have been to San Francisco. In fact, we will be making a sweep through California next month to meet with academic leaders. I have great respect for the intellect and abilities of people I have met in “your world”. I suggest you visit some of the other people. I have found that practical intelligence is fairly evenly distributed around the country, but ethics and morality tends to concentrate a bit in places with strong communities.

Posted by: C&J at January 22, 2012 8:33 AM
Comment #334922

Where are you from, again, C&J? I’m from a place in the South where you used to be able to leave your keys in your car. Then came meth.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at January 22, 2012 11:05 AM
Comment #334923

Adam,
Funny you should make that comment. I was thinking the same thing as I read C&J’s comment about good people in rural areas. Meth has changed things…

Posted by: phx8 at January 22, 2012 11:14 AM
Comment #334924

Jack:

Proof that you don’t have to be theist to be bigoted

I’m not bigoted against all Christians, just the hypocritical, authoritarian types. Those who constantly talk about morality but don’t actually have any morals. Who preach religion, but who really just use that as an excuse to punish and control other people who they personally don’t like.

I travel among the red-neck religious people you hate.

I’ve traveled and lived in the south — in fact, I’ve got family there. What you’re saying here is absurd. I don’t hate all southerners or all religious people. Just the kind who I’ve described above.

I understand that in many of these places, a stranger can leave the keys in his car and expect to find it when he comes back.

Personally, I wouldn’t make that a habit. There are good and bad people wherever you go all over this country (world).

I have to admit that a Yankee like me was really surprised at how nice and helpful these guys are to outsiders (like me). They might cling to their God and guns, but they sure are helpful.

Sure — nice, helpful people can be found most anywhere. But if you’re in the south and you need help it’s probably for the best not to tell them if you happen to be non-theist. Gay folks should be careful too, along with immigrants, and people of color.

As for them being ignorant - I highly educated person like me finds a lot to learn from these guys.

Now who is being bigoted? I never said anything about ignorance. I was addressing hypocrisy, morality, and intolerance.

I suggest you visit some of the other people.

I suggest you not make a lot of false assumptions about me.

I have found that practical intelligence is fairly evenly distributed around the country, but ethics and morality tends to concentrate a bit in places with strong communities.

One can find intelligence, ethical, moral people, and community everywhere. People who romanticize rural places as bastions of spotless behavior only need to live there for a while to understand they’re actually like everywhere else.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 22, 2012 11:58 AM
Comment #334927

“You know what should scare you folks on the right? This. It’s not scaring you though because all you can see is your hatred of President Obama. Your party is headed over a cliff, but go Newt Gingrich. Keep on winning. He’s a loathsome toad of a man but he’s plump and white and rich just like the Republicans prefer.”

Posted by: Adam Ducker at January 21, 2012 10:40 PM

Thanks for the link AD; but on the same page it showed Obama with a 46% job approval. Re/Newt’s approval, not surprising, since he is just 1 of 4 candidates. I’m sure the other republican candidates would show low approval too. When we have one candidate, then we can get an accurate poll on the approval rating.

It’s not so much a hatred of Obama; it’s a hatred for the direction he is taking the Counry and for his policies.

C&J is correct about the ethics of southern “red necks” of the Bible belt. Adrienne and other liberals have no comprehension of what makes a conservative tick. If, as you say we are “handing the election to Obama by supporting Newt”, then why all the protest and name calling? It would appear you would just accecpt it as a blessing and keep quiet; but your loud protest and name calling shows a fear of Gingrich. Whatever liberals talk about the most is the thing they fear the most.

If Romney had won, your vitrol would have been against his corporate background. If Santorum, some other attack. So, it’s a good thing conservatives don’t have to please liberals, because it can’t be done. You are the most negative people ever.

Adrienne commented:

“I’m not bigoted against all Christians, just the hypocritical, authoritarian types. Those who constantly talk about morality but don’t actually have any morals. Who preach religion, but who really just use that as an excuse to punish and control other people who they personally don’t like.”

“I’ve traveled and lived in the south — in fact, I’ve got family there. What you’re saying here is absurd. I don’t hate all southerners or all religious people. Just the kind who I’ve described above.”

Tell me Adrienne, “WHO” provides the litmus test for the “Christians, southerners, or religious people” that you are bigoted against? Do you make this decision? The truth is “Cristians, especially southern religious type” all preach morality and by your standard, they are all bigots. Therefore C&J’s statement stands, the left hates Christians, especially those who think for themselves and refuse to follow the crowd.

Posted by: TomT at January 22, 2012 12:51 PM
Comment #334931

TomT:

Tell me Adrienne, “WHO” provides the litmus test for the “Christians, southerners, or religious people” that you are bigoted against?

I just spelled it out very clearly above.

Do you make this decision?

Yes, and I speak for myself — despite the fact that you just love to lump everyone standing on the left into a single entity you can hate and despise and punish — such as calling everyone on the left an atheist, or a socialist.

The truth is “Cristians, especially southern religious type” all preach morality and by your standard, they are all bigots.

That’s incorrect. Not all Christians preach. Some simply live their lives according to their faiths, without hating or trying to punish others, and without trying to ram their religion down other people’s throats or impose their beliefs on everyone all the time. I have a great deal of respect for those kind of religious people.

Therefore C&J’s statement stands, the left hates Christians,

You’re so full of sh*t making such sweeping comments — and if you had even a lick of sense, you’d be ashamed to spout such garbage. But once again, what you do is lump everyone on the left into a single entity so that you can feel free to hate and despise half the people in this country.

especially those who think for themselves and refuse to follow the crowd.

What a sad joke.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 22, 2012 1:39 PM
Comment #334933

Adrienne, aside from the fact you love to impress us with your use of vulgar language; I find your comments indicating a very bitter and unhappy person. Might I suggest you take a step back, inhale deeply, and collect your thoughts.

Just out of curiosity, is there anything in your life that brings joy? Your comments cirtainly do not reflect joy in your life.

If I were to use you as the example of someone on the left; I would be forced to admit a deep rooted hatred for Christians and Conservatives.

Posted by: TomT at January 22, 2012 2:09 PM
Comment #334934

TomT: “Thanks for the link AD; but on the same page it showed Obama with a 46% job approval.”

True, but that’s not awful. Obama’s favorability is 49%.

“Re/Newt’s approval, not surprising, since he is just 1 of 4 candidates. I’m sure the other republican candidates would show low approval too. When we have one candidate, then we can get an accurate poll on the approval rating.”

These ratings stand on their own. They aren’t split because there are other candidates. Romney has a much more reasonable unfavorable rating of 44%, Santorum has 38%, and Paul has 46%. Gingrich comes in at an impressive 59%. Wow. Go Newt. Vote Newt in Florida.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at January 22, 2012 2:25 PM
Comment #334938

Adam

I don’t want to paint a picture of perfection. I am just surprised how nice the people of Brunswick and Mecklenburg Counties in Virginia have been to me. I have driven across the U.S. several times. In general, people are really nice. I know that others report trouble and I am sure it exists. But this idea that the people of the rural America are a bunch of ignorant and nasty hicks has really gotten out of hand.

Re the drug problem - it is a problem all over. Hateful things, drugs. What do we do about them?

Adrienne

“I suggest you not make a lot of false assumptions about me.” I will try not to do this and expect you to return the consideration.

We all dislike people who are bigoted and nasty. To me, your comment implied that you think the Republican voters of SC, especially rural and Christian people were more so. I am sorry if you did not mean this. I am glad that you are not bigoted in that manner.

So we agree that most southern, Christian conservatives are basically good people. Glad we cleared that up.


Posted by: C&J at January 22, 2012 2:45 PM
Comment #334940

C&J: “Re the drug problem - it is a problem all over.”

Yeah, where I’m from there was a wave of meth, then a wave of intolerable police crackdown. Now nobody trusts the meth cookers or the police. It’s a fine mess.

“So we agree that most southern, Christian conservatives are basically good people.”

I would say that myself. Most Americans are good people basically anyway, no matter the region or the religion. There’s a great deal of hyperbolic rhetoric on all sides suggesting the other side hates something or wants to destroy something. The break point for me is simply how big do you want government to be and how do you want it to function. Other than those massive disagreements we are pretty much the same all over.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at January 22, 2012 3:20 PM
Comment #334942

Adam

Yeah. I think we too often demonize.

I agree that we are often just talking about a public policy choice about the size and scope of government. It is not about generosity or greed. Advocating larger or smaller government has nothing to do with either of these things.

My own belief in smaller government is based on three practical considerations.

1. I do not believe that the implementation mechanism that government must use - a rule-based bureaucracy - is easily scalable or appropriate to many situations. It lacks the flexibility to innovate, for example.

2. I believe that in our diverse nation we probably cannot agree very much. Therefore, it is best to let people make choices as much as possible. Government must apply rules equally. Markets allow for variety.

3. As government expands into more areas of endeavor, it loses its way on its basic functions. We do basic things like infrastructure, domestic security and rule of law LESS efficiently (or at least it is more cumbersome and expensive) than we did fifty or sixty years ago. I think government grew beyond its ability to deliver.

I love government. That is why I want to restore its virtue by making it smaller and smarter.

Posted by: C&J at January 22, 2012 3:37 PM
Comment #334947


I live in evangelical country so I know many evangelicals. I have never met a mean or nasty one that displays the hatred that some here do. Exception, I know a couple of business owners who’s actions seem to conform to ideas that some on WatchBlog reflect. Most of the evangelical, friends and family, that I know don’t want S.S. or Medicare privatized, don’t want to eliminate the welfare programs. There is some disconnect going on or something. Many of them are actively involved in helping the poor in my community. Perhaps being directly involved and actually getting to know the poor makes one more able to see the need and less likely to stereotype and scapegoat.

Posted by: jlw at January 22, 2012 5:26 PM
Comment #334949

TomT:

Adrienne, aside from the fact you love to impress us with your use of vulgar language; I find your comments indicating a very bitter and unhappy person. Might I suggest you take a step back, inhale deeply, and collect your thoughts.

Truly Hilarious! When the fact is, I was responding to YOUR comments filled with YOUR blanket hatred and disdain for people on the left — which made me angry.

How does that bible quote go… Oh yeah, here it is:

Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thy eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thy own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thy own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother’s eye.

Just out of curiosity, is there anything in your life that brings joy? Your comments cirtainly do not reflect joy in your life.

Just because I’m fully capable of respond angrily toward your hatred and disrespect has no bearing upon my happiness and joy in life. As to that, I’ve been with the same wonderful, smart and talented man for 25 years (the love of my life). I also have a loving family and many friends.
So, I’ll repeat what I said to Jack: I suggest you not make a lot of false assumptions about me simply because I was calling out your oft-repeated BS blanket statements regarding people on the left.

If I were to use you as the example of someone on the left; I would be forced to admit a deep rooted hatred for Christians and Conservatives.

And you’d be wrong — yet again. But go ahead and think whatever you want. I certainly can’t stop you.

Jack:

I will try not to do this and expect you to return the consideration.

Of course, Jack. Thanks.

We all dislike people who are bigoted and nasty.

And holier-than-thou, and hypocritical, and authoritarian.

To me, your comment implied that you think the Republican voters of SC, especially rural and Christian people were more so.

I was responding to TomT’s hateful comments. But as I said earlier, now that the people of SC have voted for Gingrich, the Social Conservatives within that state are going to have to come to terms with the fact that their “Christian family values” moralizing is something that rings utterly false and empty, thus they should also be aware that no one should be expected take the statements they make along those lines very seriously.

I am sorry if you did not mean this. I am glad that you are not bigoted in that manner.

As I said, I don’t hate southerners or Christians. I simply loathe falseness and empty moralizing — wherever I find it.

So we agree that most southern, Christian conservatives are basically good people. Glad we cleared that up.

Again, I believe there is good and bad everywhere. I have no idea what the exact ratio of good and bad people is in South Carolina. What I do know however, is that Newt Gingrich is a person with a bad, dishonest, unethical character and that a huge number of Conservative Christians in SC just voted for him. Which indicates that a great deal of the moralizing they’ve attempted to brand themselves with is in fact, empty and fake. It also shows that they aren’t interested in having a president with any sort of a steady, ethical character.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 22, 2012 5:34 PM
Comment #334954

I have never written on this site, but I began reading this discussion and felt I must respond. Could someone help me sort this exchange out? Adrienne starts out with this rant against a whole SC state of Christian conservatives and yet says it is not an attack on Christians in general:

“LMAO!!! Social conservatism has just been dealt a knock-out blow with this Gingrich win in one of the most churchy-evangelical states in the entire nation. Oh they like to talk about religion and morality, but in reality we’ve always know they don’t give a rats ass about all that “family values” stuff they parrot. That talk is all just for show — it’s actually only about trying to control other people and deny things to people they don’t like…

Thus, a totally unethical, nasty and meanspirited, uncaring, cheating whore of a man like Newt Gingrich who knows how to blow the racist dog whistle louder than any of them can actually win the Southern “Christian” vote. And they’ll applaud like crazy as he publicly dismisses the two wives he left as soon as they became gravely ill, and then tried to totally deny these sick women and his own children any alimony to live on at all.
They’ll give all these candidates standing O’s as they mouth off about forcing women to have babies whether they want to have them or not, and without any healthcare at all, or jobs, and no means of support for those children once they’re born. They love it when their candidates state that they think it’s better for gay people to live a lie (for Jesus!) rather than to simply allow these folks their full and equal civil rights and liberties, and to be able to marry the people they love.
Christian? Morality? No Way. Serial Adultery like Newt’s is disgusting. Blowing racist dog whistles is disgusting. Denying gay people equality and rights, and to marry those they love is disgusting. Denying women rights over their own bodies is disgusting. Denying children basic sustenance is disgusting. It is crystal clear that promoting such things has to do with prejudice and HATRED and nothing more…

Maybe you should listen because so many of you don’t seem to have any discernible ethics at all and you should really try to get some. If you could for one moment quit play-acting the false-pious BS, you might actually learn something from a few non-theists on the subject ethics and morality.
Because for non-theists, our sense of ethics and morality grows out of rational thought, sincere human empathy, and an ability to discern what is positive and good, from what is negative and cruel and hateful. And, they can’t be reduced to lists of harsh, discriminatory rules and narrow-minded, strict behaviors mandated to us by archaic scriptures, or angry men ranting upon altars, or the fairytale imaginary godheads who these religious figures claim to get their marching orders from.”
Posted by: Adrienne at January 22, 2012 1:46 AM

Then we have this response by C&J:

“Adrienne
Proof that you don’t have to be theist to be bigoted, but you just don’t get this, do you?”

Posted by C&J in response to Adrienne’s rant.

Adrienne’s response to C&J:

“Jack:
Proof that you don’t have to be theist to be bigoted
I’m not bigoted against all Christians, just the hypocritical, authoritarian types. Those who constantly talk about morality but don’t actually have any morals. Who preach religion, but who really just use that as an excuse to punish and control other people who they personally don’t like.”

Adrienne is now trying to prove she is not bigoted and does not hate Christians, and yet, if you read her original post (above), you will see a bigoted rant against Newt, conservatives, Christians, and even pastors of churches.

We then have a question from TomT; asking Adrienne what litmus test does she use to determine if a Christian is really a Christian, or are they a fraud:

“Tell me Adrienne, “WHO” provides the litmus test for the “Christians, southerners, or religious people” that you are bigoted against? Do you make this decision? The truth is “Christians, especially southern religious type” all preach morality and by your standard, they are all bigots. Therefore C&J’s statement stands, the left hates Christians, especially those who think for themselves and refuse to follow the crowd.”
Posted by: TomT at January 22, 2012 12:51 PM

In the mean time, Adrienne was trying to back pedal in response to C&J’s comments:

“I was responding to TomT’s hateful comments. But as I said earlier, now that the people of SC have voted for Gingrich, the Social Conservatives within that state are going to have to come to terms with the fact that their “Christian family values” moralizing is something that rings utterly false and empty, thus they should also be aware that no one should be expected take the statements they make along those lines very seriously…
As I said, I don’t hate southerners or Christians. I simply loathe falseness and empty moralizing — wherever I find it…
Again, I believe there is good and bad everywhere. I have no idea what the exact ratio of good and bad people is in South Carolina. What I do know however, is that Newt Gingrich is a person with a bad, dishonest, unethical character and that a huge number of Conservative Christians in SC just voted for him. Which indicates that a great deal of the moralizing they’ve attempted to brand themselves with is in fact, empty and fake. It also shows that they aren’t interested in having a president with any sort of a steady, ethical character.”
Posted by: Adrienne at January 22, 2012 5:34 PM

We have Adrienne saying she doesn’t hate southerners or Christians, but her first comments were a blanket statement on all southerners, Christians, and preachers. Then comes her answer to TomT’s question about the litmus test:

“TomT:
Yes, and I speak for myself…
Not all Christians preach. Some simply live their lives according to their faiths, without hating or trying to punish others, and without trying to ram their religion down other people’s throats or impose their beliefs on everyone all the time. I have a great deal of respect for those kind of religious people.”

Adrienne, it is the job of pastors to preach in their churches. Yet you made a blanket statement about preachers preaching. Let me quote your words again:

“Maybe you should listen because so many of you don’t seem to have any discernible ethics at all and you should really try to get some. If you could for one moment quit play-acting the false-pious BS, you might actually learn something from a few non-theists on the subject ethics and morality.
Because for non-theists, our sense of ethics and morality grows out of rational thought, sincere human empathy, and an ability to discern what is positive and good, from what is negative and cruel and hateful. And, they can’t be reduced to lists of harsh, discriminatory rules and narrow-minded, strict behaviors mandated to us by archaic scriptures, or angry men ranting upon altars, or the fairytale imaginary godheads who these religious figures claim to get their marching orders from.”

You made a blanket statement blaspheming the Word of God, preachers ranting upon their altars, and fairytale imaginary gods. And yet you say, you don’t hate Christians in general, just the ones you choose.

My question to all liberals on WB is this: do all liberals believe the same as Adrienne or is her anti-Christian beliefs simply hers alone? I have to agree with TomT about the deep seated anger, but I will go further and say, I have never heard such mean spirited vitriol in my entire life. Is there a liberal democrat on WB who will speak out against this or is there no hope for those on the left?

Posted by: James65 at January 22, 2012 7:59 PM
Comment #334957

James65,
I am not a member of any of the Middle Eastern tribal religions, so perhaps I am not as sensitive as you are to anything that can be taken as criticism of religious views. This is a site for political discussions. Sometimes people are polite. Sometimes they are not. It cuts both ways. Exchanges can be heated, but there are limits.

You’re welcome to call out Adrienne just as you’ve done, and made your views and objections known. I’m sure both Adrienne and TomT can hold their own.

I am not the owner of manager of the site, just a person who occasionally writes articles and comments. Others may have a different take, and feel one or more people crossed the line. That’s just my take on it…

Posted by: phx8 at January 22, 2012 8:29 PM
Comment #334958


James65, ok.

“Barney boogering little boys, or Weiner’s showing his Weiner.”

If the left doesn’t care, why should we.”

Perhaps you should care because you are Christian and part of the moral majority that is constantly talking morality and personal responsibility.

“a philandering Republican next to a socialist Democrat whose sole purpose is to ruin the country; I’ll take the philanderer.”

No stereotyping there because conservatives don’t stereotype, they only speak truths?

“Why should we (conservatives) be concerned about what the atheistic left has to say concerning Christian ethics.”

“Bring this country back to sanity.”

James65, you don’t think Tom T. has some deep seated anger and spouts mean spirited vitriol? You don’t think it is possible for Christian conservatives to be hypocrites.

Mote and Beam James65, mote and beam.

Tom T’s comments aren’t the worse that have been produced by Christian conservatives that have spoken out on WatchBlog.

Adrienne was just letting Tom T. know that there is nothing angelic about conservative Christians.

They are human just like the rest of us and that there is good and bad in all of us. Even Jesus displayed human emotions, anger(hate)for the money changers, camaraderie (friendship) with the tax collector, compassion(love) for the poor. It seems to me that it isn’t just the atheistic left that could use a few lessons. The atheistic left did not crucify the Christ.

Posted by: jlw at January 22, 2012 8:48 PM
Comment #334959
“Adrienne starts out with this rant against a whole SC state of Christian conservatives and yet says it is not an attack on Christians in general”

Correct. I responded to the attacks on people of the left that TomT was dishing out above, and I additionally responded to the fact that South Carolina, a state full of so-called Christian conservatives, just voted for Newt Gingrich — a man without a single shred of morality.

Adrienne is now trying to prove she is not bigoted and does not hate Christians, and yet, if you read her original post (above), you will see a bigoted rant against Newt, conservatives, Christians, and even pastors of churches.

Correct. I do not hate all Christians. I’m bigoted against the hypocritical, authoritarian so-called Christian Conservatives. The kind who just voted for Newt Gingrich in South Carolina.

We have Adrienne saying she doesn’t hate southerners or Christians, but her first comments were a blanket statement on all southerners, Christians, and preachers.

No, that’s incorrect. Go back and read what I wrote again. I was talking about to TomT about his conservative Christian hypocrisy, and about the hypocrisy of all the churchy evangelicals of South Carolina who just delivered a knock-out blow to their own so-called social conservatism by voting for a blatantly immoral guy like Newt.
They completely discredited all of that “Christian family values” stuff they’ve been parroting for years on end and proved they don’t actually care about morality at all.

Indeed, if they really did care about that stuff the way they claim to do, they’d have voted for ANY of the other three candidates, but they didn’t do that. Instead, the conservatives of South Carolina who actually booed the Golden Rule (Ron Paul mentioned it), and who gave a standing ovation to Newt when he got angry about being asked about his adultery, just voted for him in the GOP Primary. This exposes the fact that “family values” is really just an empty device they’ve been using.

Adrienne, it is the job of pastors to preach in their churches. Yet you made a blanket statement about preachers preaching.

Correct. I did make a blanket statement about angry, harsh, discriminatory, narrow-minded, socially conservative preachers who are in reality political preachers, and I’m willing to stand by that statement. Because what those men preach has nothing to do with religion or morality, it has to do with trying to control people.

You made a blanket statement blaspheming the Word of God, preachers ranting upon their altars, and fairytale imaginary gods.

I’m agnostic. I don’t believe any of that is real — and I consider a huge number of the ranting preachers to be the worst sorts of charlatans imaginable.

And yet you say, you don’t hate Christians in general,

That’s right. I do not hate Christian people in the general sense at all. I can respect and accept that they believe what they wish to believe. And, I would like them to be able to respect and accept the fact that I do not.

just the ones you choose.

Yes, the type of Christians I choose to dislike are the hypocritical, authoritarian types who think they own the country. Who want complete respect to be shown for their beliefs while at the same time they display compete disrespect toward non-theists and our beliefs. The type who labels everyone on the left an atheist or socialist when that is far from the case. The type that has been trying for years to impose their religion, and their personal belief system onto the entire country.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 22, 2012 9:19 PM
Comment #334966

Adrienne, you statements are aimed at all southern Christians in general. You say they are in response to a conservative poster, but your comments are not aimed at him. They are aimed at all and you make several assumptions:

1.Why would you aim all of your comments at southern Christians, if your beef was with TomT?

2.Because the “Golden Rule” by Paul was booed, you claim that everyone in the audience was a Christian, and therefore Christians were booing the golden rule. There is no proof of this.

3.Just because TomT makes accusations against liberals it does not mean you should retaliate with the same accusations against Christians. Have you ever heard “2 wrongs don’t make a right”? Your comments give the appearance of frustration and that you are just striking back and in this case against Christians.

4.If you concur that your comments against southern Christian preachers WAS a blanket statement and that you stand by it; and as I commented, this is what southern Christian preachers do; then we must conclude that your ant-Christian comment also stands against anyone who is a member of these churches and sits in the pews and listens to the preachers. Hence, your anti-Christian vitriol applies to all southern Christians, even though you try to show a difference.

5.You claim to be agnostic and you also appear to have a real dislike and disrespect for anyone who embraces Christ. With such a deep seated anger against the preaching of the bible, how could you possibly determine anything objectively?

6.Lastly, your closing statement:

“Yes, the type of Christians I choose to dislike are the hypocritical, authoritarian types who think they own the country. Who want complete respect to be shown for their beliefs while at the same time they display compete disrespect toward non-theists and our beliefs. The type who labels everyone on the left an atheist or socialist when that is far from the case. The type that has been trying for years to impose their religion, and their personal belief system onto the entire country.”
Posted by: Adrienne at January 22, 2012 9:19 PM

The Tea Party has many Christian conservatives, in fact 40% of America is considered conservative and by your comments; anyone who disagrees with your interpretation of government’s role is placed on your hate list.

Adrienne, I will continue to believe you have some deep rooted problems against Christianity. Jesus said:

Joh 15:18 If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.
Joh 15:19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.
Joh 15:20 Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.
Joh 15:21 But all these things will they do unto you for my name’s sake, because they know not him that sent me.
Joh 15:22 If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloke for their sin.
Joh 15:23 He that hateth me hateth my Father also.

Posted by: James65 at January 23, 2012 10:23 AM
Comment #334979

James65:

Adrienne, you statements are aimed at all southern Christians in general.

No they weren’t, and I’ve already explained exactly who they were aimed at.

I will continue to believe you have some deep rooted problems against Christianity.

I think I’ve made it more than clear that what I’m against are so-called Christians who act exactly like Fascists. But as I said to TomT earlier, think whatever you like.

Jesus said:

Save it. Instead, why don’t you go and preach to Newt Ethics Violations/ Serial Adulterer/ Open Marriage Gingrich, and all those “Family Values” hypocrites who are currently voting for him.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 23, 2012 12:46 PM
Comment #334981

Adrienne, you are an angry person and appear to have no respect for anyone who is not a socialist liberal. You are most certainly part of the 1% of radicals.

Posted by: Frank at January 23, 2012 1:11 PM
Comment #334986

Look guys, I am not here to defend Adrienne, I think she is doing a pretty good job of that herself.

Apparently you guys don’t get that this is a debate site.

If the best response to Adrienne you folks have is to tell her she’s angry, IMHO, that doesn’t seem like much of a debate.

If you are incapable of actually responding to her points, why do you bother?

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at January 23, 2012 2:28 PM
Comment #334990
Adrienne, you are an angry person and appear to have no respect for anyone who is not a socialist liberal.

Completely untrue. I am very willing and able to show respect to people who are also capable and willing of showing respect toward me. This may seem strange to you, but it’s a fact that Respect happens to be a two way street.

You are most certainly part of the 1% of radicals.

Also false. Non-theists are currently said to make up 15% of the American population, and are considered to be the fastest growing “religion” in the nation. Moreover, our marriages must be happier since non-theists have the lowest divorce rates when compared with every other religion in America.”

Posted by: Adrienne at January 23, 2012 3:49 PM
Comment #334991

You don’t really believe that entire 15% are all part of the ban and blame ‘God’ from and for everything group, do you Adrienne?

Posted by: kctim at January 23, 2012 4:05 PM
Comment #334993

kctim:

You don’t really believe that entire 15% are all part of the ban and blame ‘God’ from and for everything group, do you Adrienne?

I have no idea. I would assume that a large majority of non-theists would automatically believe in the separation of Church and State. I know I certainly do. But “ban” everything having to do with “God”? Impossible. Not to mention horrible — because that sounds just as fascistic as having all these right wing zealots attempting to ram their religion down everybody’s throat.
As for “blame”, one cannot blame an invisible entity. One can only place blame on those who believe in that invisible entity, and who somehow think they have a right to make every American pay continual homage to it.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 23, 2012 4:42 PM
Comment #334995

Adrienne
I don’t think most religious people have as big a problem with ‘separation of Church and state’ as they do with ‘freedom from religion’ that, IMO, the so-called radicals are for.

It’s funny, as an atheist I just don’t see all the mass attempts to ‘ram religion down our throats’ or forcing us to ‘pay continual homage to it,’ sorry. And the few instances of ‘outrage’ is usually just a splash-back from taking away like ‘In God We Trust’ on our money or a Ten Commandments calendar on a teachers desk or something like that.

I don’t know. It seems like some get all bent out of shape and see a coming Theocracy that really isn’t there, while most of us just roll our eyes.

Posted by: kctim at January 23, 2012 5:11 PM
Comment #335000
It’s funny, as an atheist I just don’t see all the mass attempts to ‘ram religion down our throats’ or forcing us to ‘pay continual homage to it,’ sorry.

Well, I fail to see how you can miss the fact that conservative Christians have been trying extremely hard to outlaw abortion, and deny women birth control on religious grounds? Or the way they are discriminating by denying civil rights and liberties, as well as the right to marry, to Gay Americans on religious grounds? Or the way tax-payer money is being spent on “Faith-Based Initiatives”, and that people are being allowed to be discriminating against with the hiring related to where said tax-payer funding goes?
Or tax-payer funds being used to erect Ten Commandments statues?

I think these kinds of things are legitimate reasons for Americans to be concerned that religious zealots are attempting to erase the Separation of Church and State.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 23, 2012 6:43 PM
Comment #335003

Interesting that Adrlenne would bring up “seperation of church and state” as a reason to hate Christians. Tell me Adrienne, what is your opinion of Valerie Jarrett slaming Republicans from the pulpit of MLK’s Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, Georgia? Did she violate any laws pertaining to seperation of church and state?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/valerie-jarrett-blasts-republicans-pulpit_616821.html

Posted by: Frank at January 23, 2012 9:10 PM
Comment #335007


Frank, I believe this has been accelerating in recent years and that the government should crack down.

Posted by: jlw at January 23, 2012 10:42 PM
Comment #335009


Frank, according to Fox News, she did not violate the separation clause. She isn’t a member and does not have a tax free status.

Pat Robertson is a very influential religious figure and all or most of his activities do fall under the separation clause.

Pat told his followers that God told him who would be the next president.

But, Pat isn’t supposed to reveal who it will be, only he and God know.

Pat then said that God basically hates Obama and his policies.

Pat then said all should pray very hard for Obama to lose. Why? Can what God told Pat be reversed with an all out prayer blitz?


Posted by: jlw at January 23, 2012 11:35 PM
Comment #335011

Frank:

Interesting that Adrlenne would bring up “seperation of church and state” as a reason to hate Christians.

Clearly you seem to be the one with a hatred problem, Frank. And I suspect that everybody reading this blue column thread is already pretty well aware of that.
As to the Separation of Church and State — if religious people are in possession of good sense and wise judgement, they’ll quit trying to erase that wall. Because you see, if religion is allowed to enter government, the reverse will also eventually become true as well. Government will begin to believe that it should naturally be allowed to enter religion and tell it what to do and say.

So for instance, let’s say that at some future date the American people suddenly get extremely sick of all the rampant Crony Capitalism that is running this nation, and the people become very tired of losing their homes and jobs and going hungry and they then decide to elect a seriously Progressive Congress and President. Well, if the wall of Separation between Church and State has been effectively dismantled the way you all seem to think it should be; the President and Congress may eventually decide that it would be a great idea to mandate that churches across America should now devote a portion of their sermons, and some time within children’s Sunday School lessons to talk about the history of the Union Struggle in America, and the reason we need a brand new one.
How do think that kind of mandate will grab the Rightwing Christian zealots?
But it will be too late — government will naturally feel it has the the right to begin dictating to you, since you worked so hard to inject religion into the government so you could dictate to it.

Like I said, if religious people have any sense at all, they’ll quit dissing the idea that the wall of separation isn’t a very good and vitally necessary concept.

Tell me Adrienne, what is your opinion of Valerie Jarrett slaming Republicans from the pulpit of MLK’s Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, Georgia?

“Slamming”? My how extremely sensitive we must be!
I consider Valerie Jarrett making a speech at a church to be in no way different than Santorum and Gingrich making a speech at a church.

Did she violate any laws pertaining to seperation of church and state?

Nope — and jlw just covered why she didn’t.
However, if Ms. Jarrett had started to give a campaign stump speech telling that congregation that they really needed to vote for Obama, she definitely would have been breaking the law.

But as this article points out, the two most popular Republican candidates left in the GOP Primary are extremist authoritarian Christian’s who intend to change our laws entirely and destroy the Separation between Church and State.”

Scary quote from Gingrich as he was defending his statements about how he’ll order Congress to arrest and dis-empower any federal judge who renders a decision that he feels Christian conservatives don’t agree with:

“I got in this originally for two things: the steady encroachment of secularism through the courts to redefine America as a non-religious country and the encroachment of the courts on the president’s commander-in-chief powers, which is enormously dangerous,” Gingrich said.

Scary quotes from Romney:

“I know there are some people who would like to make this nation a secular nation, who want to take God out of everything that exists in this country. They try to say it’s unconstitutional,” Romney said. “I trust in God, and I know you do, and I believe it’s appropriate for us to recognize in the public square that we do indeed have a creator and that we trust in our creator, particularly at this time of year.”
“How do you take God out of America when the declaration points out it’s God that gave us those rights in the first place?”
“Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me,” Romney said. “And so it is for hundreds of millions of our countrymen: we do not insist on a single strain of religion – rather, we welcome our nation’s symphony of faith.”

The writer of that article also quoted conservative pundit David Brooks’ article where he acknowledges that Romney is creating no room at all for the non-observant in this nation, and is actually calling for “a culture war without end”.

It appears that this is the kind of Christian Fascist rhetoric that the GOP base is insisting upon from their candidates these days.
Personally, I’m hoping that non-theist libertarians such as kctim will take note of what I’m pointing out here. Because this is some incredibly scary sh*t that is being pushed by the GOP candidates in their quest to hold the reins of power in America.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 24, 2012 12:22 AM
Comment #335014


Which political identity has the highest favorable rating among American voters?

A) Conservative

B) Liberal

C) Independent

D) Progressive

Posted by: jlw at January 24, 2012 2:25 AM
Comment #335024

jlw and Adrienne; so we can conclude it’s wrong for a Republican to speak from the pulpit of a church, promoting republican ideals (a violation of church and state)? And yet it’s just fine for one of Obama’s cabinet to preach from the pulpit of a Christian church, promoting democrat ideals and campaigning for Obama. jlw, you seem to be splitting the same hairs as Clinton’s “is, is”. These comments by both of you continue to show the disingenuousness of the left and the double standards. It kind of makes anything you say as meaning nothing.

Posted by: Frank at January 24, 2012 9:34 AM
Comment #335026

Adrienne
“Well, I fail to see how you can miss the fact that conservative Christians have been trying extremely hard to outlaw abortion”

They could not do it on their own. They have support from people who fight for the life not on religious grounds, some who believe late terms are horrible, those who object to stripping parental rights and some like myself, who will vote against any pro-abortion legislation that uses any taxes to support it.
Hardly an attempt to force us to believe in a God.

“and deny women birth control on religious grounds?”

The amount of people who do this is probably just as small as OWS. Most people do it for tax reasons.

“Or the way they are discriminating by denying civil rights and liberties, as well as the right to marry, to Gay Americans on religious grounds?”

Now this is interesting. In order to support this, religious Democrats and Republicans, including The obama, have to be working together to keep gay Americans from marrying.
I guess one can look long and deep and come up with a way they are forcing their religion down our throats with this.

“Or the way tax-payer money is being spent on “Faith-Based Initiatives”, and that people are being allowed to be discriminating against with the hiring related to where said tax-payer funding goes?”

I agree, tax-payer money should not be used on these, but to believe it is some religous plot is silly.

“Or tax-payer funds being used to erect Ten Commandments statues?”

I agree, tax-payer funds should not be used on this. But then again, as there is no difference between taxes being used to pay for this or a statue of a founder or a civil rights leader like MLK, how do we stop wasting money like this without pissing somebody off?
This still is not proof of a religous takeover on the horizon.

Tell me, why didn’t the evil “Christians” take over the country during the first 200 years of its existence while they had the upper hand on ALL of these issues?

I find it very amusing that the very people who fear religion dictating what they do in the name of God and object to religion so vehemently, are the same ones who have no problem dictating what people do in the name of government.

Posted by: kctim at January 24, 2012 10:04 AM
Comment #335027

Frank,

“jlw and Adrienne; so we can conclude it’s wrong for a Republican to speak from the pulpit of a church, promoting republican ideals (a violation of church and state)? And yet it’s just fine for one of Obama’s cabinet to preach from the pulpit of a Christian church, promoting democrat ideals and campaigning for Obama.”

That’s not what Adrienne wrote. For you to continue to your rant to the contrary merely accentuates the cluelessness of your point.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at January 24, 2012 10:51 AM
Comment #335031


Frank, I did not condone what she said. What I said is that it happens on both sides of the fence. But, your depiction of what she did, preaching politics from the pulpit, is not true. And, while Fox News first approached the event by announcing that is what she was doing, they backed off and said it was not a violation of the separation clause.

Fox would have had to condemn nearly all the conservative Republican candidates for doing the exact same thing, addressing church sponsored events to talk opposition politics.

Just as you are complaining about what Obama’s cabinet member did, many on the left complain about Republican candidates doing it. That is just tuff for both sides.

The Republican candidates are not guilty of violation the separation clause, but Pat Robertson certainly is, IMO.

Posted by: jlw at January 24, 2012 12:07 PM
Comment #335033


All Democrats who support Obama and the Democratic Party as well as all Republicans who support the Republican Party should Google:

Bush, Cheney and Pat Robertson Endorse Obama.

The best political add of 2012? There cheers for duplicity.

Posted by: jlw at January 24, 2012 12:20 PM
Comment #335047

Daily Show nails the overflowing hypocrisy of Newt and the “family values” crowd hilariously!:
Indecision 2012 - The Gingrich Who Stole South Carolina

Posted by: Adrienne at January 24, 2012 3:38 PM
Comment #335105


Kctim, I do not want to drive God from the country or be free of God.

What I want is for conservative Christians to come to their senses before it is to late for them.

I want James 65 to understand that each of the quotes he provided were aimed directly at him and other conservative Christians who would rather preach the consequences of not accepting Jesus and his teachings rather than truly accepting them; who would rather conform to the teachings of the Jews than Jesus.

I want them to understand that rather than following Jesus, they are not only supporting the Sadducee’s, but the Pharisees as well.

I want them to understand that the Sadducee’s of today are little different than those of the past and that they will do what it takes to prevent the teachings of Jesus to become manifest in the people, just as they demanded his crucifiction in the past.

I want them to understand that the Pharisees of today are little different than those of the past who eventually sided with the Sadducee’s for fear of Roman retribution.

I want them to understand who the Sadducee’s and Pharisees are, then and now, and why they had Jesus crucified and why they would do it again.

I what them to understand that while the times change, the people remain the same.

I want them to understand that the terms Sadducee and Pharisees were Jewish titles for two specific classes of people who could stir people into a mob that would trade Jesus for Barabbas.

Posted by: jlw at January 25, 2012 6:21 PM
Comment #335124

JLW
“conservative Christians who would rather preach the consequences of not accepting Jesus and his teachings rather than truly accepting them”

What do you base “not accepting Jesus and his teachings” and “truly accepting them,” on? Your interpretation of what you have read? Is that not the same thing they use?

Posted by: kctim at January 26, 2012 10:44 AM
Comment #335143


Kctim, absolutely, contrary to conservative Christian believes their are options to interpretation. Are all Christian conservatives in agreement on all interpretations? Even the theologians have disagreements on interpretation.

I am not saying that I know that my interpretations are right and they are wrong or that I am more right and they are more wrong. I am saying that I think I am more right on some interpretations of some of the message and intent of Jesus.

Thinking that one knows for sure is not knowing for sure, that is not within our realm, nor is knowing the right interpretation of all things written in the Bible necessary for the afterlife. But, disagreements on interpretation have real world consequences.

Posted by: jlw at January 26, 2012 4:25 PM
Post a comment