I will once again show the liberals who come here how to be intellectually honest, unlike many of them who bashed Bush at every turn, every day, every time no matter what...
You have to be happy with this choice...
Actually I read it and just had a puzzled look on my face.
I'm still banking on the fact he will end up making Bill Clinton seem like Mother Teresa, but so far he is doing a fair job with the people he has picked to be around him.
Now, is he following his campaign promised to the tin-foil hat wearing moonbat liberals?
Nope
And that is a good thing for the entire country...
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Obama defends choice of evangelical pastor
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
14 comments:
Dude, you should re-read some of your hash before posting it. Why aren't public school teachers required to pass an annual "fitness" test? Not just the grammar, but the flimsy logic it gives rise to...
"Now, is he following (what) his campaign promised to the tin-foil hat wearing moonbat liberals? Nope."
One can only assume you're referencing the choice of Rick Warren to deliver the invocation. I don't recall any specific promises about which preacher-man would give the blessing...but since wingnuts are coalescing around Warren and moving away from those goofball southern evangelicals, I'd think they'd welcome the news. But again, your logic is difficult to follow.
Just a distraction. Who cares?
I'm more interested in knowing what he will do with Illegal Immigration, healthcare, outsourcing, economy, Iraq etc.
oh, snap!
details, pesky details!
what the hell did anon even say?
"I don't recall any specific promises about which preacher-man would give the blessing...but since wingnuts are coalescing around Warren and moving away from those goofball southern evangelicals, I'd think they'd welcome the news..."
anon, you need to suppress your man-love for your lawn jockey and ask yourself one simple question...
why would any politician bother to support changing the very redefinition of marriage itself, unprecedented in history, to pander to two percent of the population's whims, particularly when a substantial amount of that meager number will most likely be dead in the next decade anyway?
what planet do you think you are living in, where life works like that?
Your partner is your business, I could care less who it is. If you're screwing queer, that don't impact my marriage. I happen to think those folks got it backwards, but again it has zero impact on me. It sounded like game was trying to say lefties would scream about Warren. Just cause of the gay thing? Most people admire him for all the non political teaching he does, so I can't see why Americans would make an issue of a Warren invocation.
The whole gay thing - doesn't it seem weird to fixate on it? And rant and rave about gays getting married? Sounds like a little too much curiosity on the part of supposed heterosexuals to keep coming back to this argument.
"I happen to think those folks got it backwards, but again it has zero impact on me."
That's true, but only up to a point. Once the state institutionalizes free love, it is only a matter of time before your kids in Kindergarten learn about the two daddy penguins.
Of course, I'm thankful the issue is just gay marriage at this point. Fifty years from now when I'm advanced in age, I will certainly be called a bigot for opposing state recognition of incestuous and polygamous marriages.
"anon, you need to suppress your man-love for your lawn jockey"
game, you're going to allow this on your blog?
jason, you again use the fallacious polygamy and incest "argument". Polygamy is illegal for EVERYBODY. incest is illegal for EVERYBODY. marriage is only illegal for some people. that's what makes it a civil rights issue.
pretty simple concept, actually.
"marriage is only illegal for some people."
True. If you're under a certain age, you can't get married. If you're already married, you're not allowed to have two or more wives at once. You're only stating the obvious. You want marriage equality, but doublethink your mind away from the logical implications of that absurd idea.
Or, to use other words, marriage itself is discriminatory. The traditional conception is given a privileged status by the state because the purpose of marriage is stable families. The state is obligated to do this because if society breaks down, there cannot be a state. Sure, there will be some people who cannot or choose not to have children. But if it didn't take two humans to spawn another, we wouldn't even have the institution-- it is more than looking fabulous at a party with friends and family for a night.
My position is liberal in the original sense. Locke put it best in the Second Treatise:
"Conjugal society is made by a voluntary compact between man and woman; and tho' it consist chiefly in such a communion and right in one another's bodies as is necessary to its chief end, procreation; yet it draws with it mutual support and assistance, and a communion of interests too, as necessary not only to unite their care and affection, but also necessary to their common off-spring, who have a right to be nourished, and maintained by them, till they are able to provide for themselves."
And if we change the definition of marriage to satisfy one group of people, what value is marriage anymore? Other groups will undoubtedly want to join in the festivities so to speak.
Some people really love their pets...
Actually Obama has still not really done anything as President yet. Maybe cuz he's not the President. I'm making no judgements one way or the other yet. I'm glad to see you are so confident in your prognostications.
Anon, it's not the first time that lawn jockey has been used by Hash to describe our President elect. His racism and other bigoted attitudes sneak in on a regular basis. In the world of reality there are better arguments that Bush/Cheney are part of the frickin Illuminati than there is that Obama is a lawn jockey. Details. Geez
Rick Warren is a non issue to me. I'm a supporter of an individual relationship with God so Christianity(or Muslim or you name it) group think leaves me cold. His selection, or the selection of anyone can not solve any problems. It's more fun to play drama and soap opera though, huh?
ron, maybe you and elizabeth alexander can go tell it on the mountain, lol!
I don't know Elizabeth Alexander or who she is other than her name as an inauguration speaker. Silly you, team me up right after I say that I believe spirituality is a highly individual effort. Again you forget about the point to spin it into...nonsense.
Post a Comment