Jim DeMint Spells It Out: Fundamentalist Christianity Required to Be a Conservative

In this Fox News interview, Sen. Jim DeMint makes the agenda of the modern GOP crystal clear: “You can’t be a fiscal conservative and not be a social conservative.”

“Social conservative” in right wing parlance means one thing: fundamental Christianity. And you don’t get to pick and choose from that ideology. Once you get on board, you’re supporting creationism, climate change denial, misogyny and denial of women’s rights, etc. — the whole laundry list of social conservative “values,” as spelled out in detail by groups like the Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, the American Family Association, and a thousand other religious/political organizations with “Family” in their names.

Jump to bottom

276 comments
1 iossarian  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 10:19:04am

Is anyone on LGF still in bed with this guy?

Single entendre fully intended BTW.

2 Kragar  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 10:20:59am

After thinking long and hard about DeMint's statement, I have come to the only logical conclusion.

Fuck you and the horse you rode in on, DeMint.

3 King of the Douche, now you may bow  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 10:21:12am

I'm thinking a sex scandal in his future.

4 Lidane  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 10:22:40am

Two of the most conservative people I know also consider themselves pagan. I'm sure it will be unwelcome news to them that they can't be conservatives anymore because they don't follow DeMint's twisted ideology.

5 Shiplord Kirel  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 10:22:41am

Is it a cheap shot to refer to him as Senator Demented?
Normally, it would be, but since he really is demented, we can make an exception this time.

6 Jeff In Ohio  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 10:22:48am

Liberals just need to hate the rich.

7 Stanghazi  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 10:25:10am

Posted in the last thread

We must continue to build on our Judeo-Christian heritage, and it's nothing to apologize for.

-- Sarah Palin, speaking at a fundraiser for the Plumstead Christian School, Plumsteadville, Pa., Nov. 9. 2010.

[Link: www.philly.com...]

8 Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 10:25:32am

well, if they were truly fiscally conservative they wouldn't spend the money required to enforce their so-con ideas.

9 Tigger2005  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 10:25:41am

So, if I think gays should be able to get married, I can't also think it's a bad idea to spend money I don't have.

Oookkkaaaaayyyyyyyy.

10 lawhawk  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 10:25:47am

DeMint doesn't understand the implications of his statement since if that's what it takes to be a conservative these days, he's setting the GOP up for minority status long into the future and even then it wont make it as anything other than a marginal regional party.

After all, you don't have to be socially conservative to be fiscally conservative.

11 DaddyG  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 10:25:50am

Since Conservative™ has been coopted by the socons and villified by the liberals who now call themselves progressive because liberal was coopted by the moonbats and villified by the conservatives (are you still with me?) I need a new word that describes a desire for limited yet effective government and social liberty.

Contrasting progressive with regressive really doesn't do it for me.

Any suggestions? (Other than modern whig.)

12 lawhawk  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 10:26:41am

re: #11 DaddyG

Pragmatism?

13 Obdicut  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 10:26:48am

re: #5 Shiplord Kirel

I know many lovely demented people, and the word itself is great.

I'd like to refer to him as Dangerous Extremeist with the brains of a Mint.


Can the GOP please, please, please drop the "Judeo"? You're not fooling anyone.

14 Sol Berdinowitz  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 10:26:59am

There are plenty of religious folks who believe in preserving God's Creation, and who see the notion of the "stewardship" that God gave to man as something other than the blanket right to exploit nature for profit without any concern for it.

15 Obdicut  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 10:27:47am

re: #11 DaddyG

Hell, that describes me, and I'm apparently a 'liberal'.

16 Gus  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 10:28:35am

re: #7 Stanley Sea

Posted in the last thread

[Link: www.philly.com...]

Of course she really means Christian heritage not Judeo-Christian as we can see with Jim DeMint. The Judeo-Christian meme is just a failed and feeble attempt at co-opting the Jewish community who overwhelmingly never support the GOP anyway.

17 Sol Berdinowitz  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 10:28:57am

re: #13 Obdicut

Can the GOP please, please, please drop the "Judeo"? You're not fooling anyone.

No way, these folks like the Old Testament with its patriarchs and God raining fire and brimstone a lot more than that pansy New Testament with all that stuff about turning the other cheek...

18 Kragar  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 10:29:08am

re: #15 Obdicut

Hell, that describes me, and I'm apparently a 'liberal'.

Welcome to the club. Apparently I've been a liberal for years and never knew it.

19 Charleston Chew  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 10:29:29am

re: #7 Stanley Sea

When people like Palin use the term "Judeo-Christian", I suspect they really mean just plain Christian, and the "Judeo" part is just tacked on there to make them sound like they're not bigoted.

It's like they're using Jews as a verbal human-shield.

20 DaddyG  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 10:29:51am

re: #15 Obdicut

Hell, that describes me, and I'm apparently a 'liberal'.

Stop washing red socks with your whites. //

21 Obdicut  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 10:30:36am

re: #17 ralphieboy

But if you're going to say Judeo, you've got to get on board with the Talmud as well as the Torah. And you know what the Talmud basically is?

Long lists of regulations.

If we operated capitalism according to the Talmud-- well, I'd much prefer it if we did. But there'd be a lot more CEOs going to jail.

22 Gus  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 10:30:58am

re: #19 Charleston Chew

When people like Palin use the term "Judeo-Christian", I suspect they really mean just plain Christian, and the "Judeo" part is just tacked on there to make them sound like they're not bigoted.

It's like they're using Jews as a verbal human-shield.

It's like when the EDL members wrap themselves around the flag of Israel. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what's going on here.

23 Jeff In Ohio  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 10:31:05am

re: #7 Stanley Sea

Posted in the last thread

[Link: www.philly.com...]

Yes, I'd like to build a 13 story penis on our Judeo-Christian heritage.

24 DaddyG  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 10:31:20am

re: #21 Obdicut
I could use a Jubilee year about now.

25 Kragar  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 10:32:18am

re: #21 Obdicut

there'd be a lot more CEOs going to jail.

And yet, I'm oddly comfortable with that.

26 Stanghazi  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 10:33:30am

re: #16 Gus 802

Of course she really means Christian heritage not Judeo-Christian as we can see with Jim DeMint. The Judeo-Christian meme is just a failed and feeble attempt at co-opting the Jewish community who overwhelmingly never support the GOP anyway.

re: #19 Charleston Chew

When people like Palin use the term "Judeo-Christian", I suspect they really mean just plain Christian, and the "Judeo" part is just tacked on there to make them sound like they're not bigoted.

It's like they're using Jews as a verbal human-shield.

So agree.

27 harrylook  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 10:34:35am

I've started telling my conservative friends that social conservatives aren't conservative at all, since they seek to enlarge gov't reach into our bedrooms, churches and minds. Sadly, almost none of them get it.

28 Lidane  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 10:34:46am

re: #11 DaddyG

I need a new word that describes a desire for limited yet effective government and social liberty.

I just call myself a liberal and distinguish between me and the far left racing moonbats. It's much easier that way.

29 Lidane  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 10:35:17am

Er..."raving" moonbats. PIMF.

30 Kragar  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 10:35:22am

Isn't there a belief among Dominionists that there has to be an Israel so God can destroy it, according to Revelations or some other such nonsense?

31 RadicalModerate  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 10:35:58am

This is what happens when Dominionists - and specifically Christian Reconstructionists are allowed to take over your political party's leadership.

This is just the tip of the iceberg for these folks.

32 DaddyG  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 10:36:49am

Most of them are from a strict Christopagan heritage. You know- celebrating the birth of Christ during the pagan winter solstace celbration, all of the Hellenistic traditions and symbolism merged into modern religion...

33 Lidane  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 10:38:05am

re: #30 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Isn't there a belief among Dominionists that there has to be an Israel so God can destroy it, according to Revelations or some other such nonsense?

Yes. It's the entire basis for Christian Zionism.

34 Kragar  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 10:38:23am

re: #32 DaddyG

Most of them are from a strict Christopagan heritage. You know- celebrating the birth of Christ during the pagan winter solstace celbration, all of the Hellenistic traditions and symbolism merged into modern religion...

The chocolate on Easter symbolizes the dark wood of the cross and the Easter Bunny represents the little rabbits who kept Baby Jesus company during his crucifiction.

35 Obdicut  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 10:38:57am

re: #34 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Oh my god I just realized how much more awesome Easter would be if we bit the heads off of little roman soldiers instead.

36 Daniel Ballard  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 10:38:59am

Well this is annoying. It's not everyday an important person declares you non existent. I think he just made my day. I, am not here. I am merely a figment of my own imagination.
LOL

37 Feline Emperor of the Conservative Tears  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 10:39:15am

re: #34 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

The chocolate on Easter symbolizes the dark wood of the cross and the Easter Bunny represents the little rabbits who kept Baby Jesus company during his crucifiction.

Entertained by doing what little bunnies do?

38 insanity police  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 10:39:54am
39 Gus  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 10:40:10am

re: #30 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

re: #31 RadicalModerate

re: #33 Lidane

Rapture ready.

40 Darth Vader Gargoyle  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 10:40:33am

re: #34 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

The chocolate on Easter symbolizes the dark wood of the cross and the Easter Bunny represents the little rabbits who kept Baby Jesus company during his crucifiction.

You forgot the Peeps!
//

41 Sol Berdinowitz  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 10:40:41am

These folks are going to be terribly disappointed when they finally figure out that although many "middle Americans" oppose abortion on principle, they would like to know there is an alternative in the event that their daughters don't live up to the standards of their "abortion only" sex education.

But DeMint really sums it up. Not only can I not stand this sort of social conservativism, I cannot stand thier view of "fiscal conservvatism".

I am in favor of the principle of smaller government and lower taxes, but not disbanding environmrntal & safety regulations or financial oversight, and the latter seem to be these folks' main point of emphasis.

42 Kragar  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 10:41:17am

re: #39 Gus 802

re: #31 RadicalModerate

re: #33 Lidane

Rapture ready.

I am so ready to mock all the bastards who think they'd be taken but got left here.

43 Kragar  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 10:41:42am

re: #40 rwdflynavy

You forgot the Peeps!
//

HERETIC! FLOG HIM!

44 Darth Vader Gargoyle  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 10:42:54am

re: #43 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

HERETIC! FLOG HIM!

No, no, no. Rum, something, THEN the lash!//

45 darthstar  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 10:44:23am

Hey, maybe Bush isn't as dumb as I thought he was.

Trying to be even-handed and polite, the Brits said something diplomatic about McCain’s campaign, expecting Bush to express some warm words of support for the Republican candidate.

Not a chance. “I probably won’t even vote for the guy,” Bush told the group, according to two people present.“I had to endorse him. But I’d have endorsed Obama if they’d asked me.”

46 Lidane  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 10:44:32am

re: #40 rwdflynavy

You forgot the Peeps!
//

Peeps are evil. Like Sno Balls. Some things should be forgotten. ;)

47 DaddyG  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 10:45:07am

re: #39 Gus 802

re: #31 RadicalModerate

re: #33 Lidane

Rapture ready.

Ugh!!! The Rapture is an almost entirely made up doctrine stitched together from two unrelated verses in the Bible and literally dreamed up by a little girl and a fundamentalist preacher.

The medieval church kept the word of God from the people by refusing to translate it and make it available in common vernacular. The modern church seems to be able to keep the word of God from the people by burying it under layers of apocalyptic fan fantasy scripts.

(Sorry if my rant rubs your particular belief system wrong - I just cant stand what I consider the important heart of the Gospel message being diminished by fire and brimstone porn.)

48 Gus  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 10:45:11am

re: #36 Rightwingconspirator

Well this is annoying. It's not everyday an important person declares you non existent. I think he just made my day. I, am not here. I am merely a figment of my own imagination.
LOL

Yep. You can't support fiscal restraint (i.e. fiscal conservatism) unless you're a social conservative. Dumber words have never been spoken but we sort of expected this given the dominance of the litmus test.

Coming up next! You can't be a conservative if you support the scientific consensus on AGW.

49 Obdicut  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 10:45:26am

re: #41 ralphieboy

I am immediately incredibly suspicious towards people like DeMint and other conservatives who say "low taxes". "Low" is a comparative. It's meaningless on its own. At it's worse, it's a constant refrain that taxes should always go lower and lower.

I want taxes to be at a level that's sustainable, that damages neither our economy or our society, and sufficient to fund the necessary operation of our government.

That may be higher than what we have now. Climate change is going to cost a shitload to fix. However, I have faith that by effective spending and by effective administration of taxes, we can cause minimal suffering while achieving great results.

Or we could, if the GOP weren't currently engaged in a race to see who can be the stupidest on science and economy at the same time, and if the Democrats didn't run away from all their accomplishments and have so few people willing to stand up for common sense.

50 Kragar  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 10:46:08am

Santa Claus was originally supposed to be the fourth wise man, who was going to bring Baby Jesus a toy camel, but he followed the North Star instead of the Star of Bethlehem. As punishment for his sin, God has cursed him to dwell eternally at the North Pole, only to be set free one night a year, on the eve of his great transgression. As a penance, and hoping for absolution, Santa leaves presents for all children, hoping that one day, he will live a gift for the second coming of Jesus and finally be granted the peace denied him for so long.

I love being an infidel sometimes.

51 Shiplord Kirel  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 10:46:21am

re: #15 Obdicut

Hell, that describes me, and I'm apparently a 'liberal'.

"Can you imagine? We're the liberals of the Republican Party now."
-Barry Goldwater to Bob Dole, 1996

52 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 10:46:29am

For the GOP to come out openly with such statements at such a high level, tells you how far down the road we came in a very short time. We are going to have a real fight on our hands with a portion of the nation that gets all of its information from a closed media bubble of self reinforcing lies.

Those in the bubble want to believe all of those lies because it satisfies the most base desires and urges.

They are told who to hate and openly hating is not only intoxicating but rewarded. They are made afraid all the time and given the false impression that their rage serves themselves.

They are told that they will take back America - and make a shiny America that never existed, in a white Christian image they believe will serve them. They will be fed all of the usual targets and all ancient fears, stereotypes and hatreds will be exploited - and worse - released.

But worst of all. It will be done by "real Americans" in the name of G-d.

Fear and hatred will become piety, anger an act of faith, intolerance and ignorance signs of purity. It will be mixed with a heady brew of jingoism and flag waving.

To any who really think this is much different than the rise of the Nazis, you are fooling yourselves. The corporate power structure at the top is the same. The need to brand any thinking class as communist and betrayers of the nation is the same. The drive to force everynoe and everything into a cookie cutter meme of what is "pure" is the same. If the essence of totalitarianism is fear hatred and insecurity, then insecure people can not brook variation. It bring reasoned criticism. Instead of Wagnerian images of Teutonic supremacy, we have the word of Jesus and his "true believers." Past the superficial differences in cultural memes, the message is the same and the motivations of dominance, control, fear and hatred are the same.

Islam makes a great punching bag and bogey man. White fear of Blacks and Hispanics is easy to stoke and enrage.

Of course, the Jews are next. If you can only be a true conservative by being a Christian - then where does it leave them? Particularly when so many Jews are the intellectuals that are anathema to such movements?

Will it play out in America in exactly the same way as Germany? I certainly hope not. We have yet to see the charismatic evil genius who becomes the vice of the movement. When he arrives, we will see.

For the love of all that is good - see this for what it is.

53 Nick Schroeder  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 10:46:44am

First I find out Keith Olbermann is a liberal who supports Democratic candidates, now THIS?!

My brain can only handle so many shocking mind-rapings in one week.

54 reine.de.tout  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 10:47:01am

re: #10 lawhawk

DeMint doesn't understand the implications of his statement since if that's what it takes to be a conservative these days, he's setting the GOP up for minority status long into the future and even then it wont make it as anything other than a marginal regional party.

After all, you don't have to be socially conservative to be fiscally conservative.

Nor does one have to be a Christian fundamentalist, in order to be a Christian.

55 Gus  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 10:48:06am

re: #47 DaddyG

Ugh!!! The Rapture is an almost entirely made up doctrine stitched together from two unrelated verses in the Bible and literally dreamed up by a little girl and a fundamentalist preacher.

The medieval church kept the word of God from the people by refusing to translate it and make it available in common vernacular. The modern church seems to be able to keep the word of God from the people by burying it under layers of apocalyptic fan fantasy scripts.

(Sorry if my rant rubs your particular belief system wrong - I just cant stand what I consider the important heart of the Gospel message being diminished by fire and brimstone porn.)

No problem. It's just something I (we) keep hearing over and over again from the televangelist types. As to it's origins or validity in Christianity I would have to say I'm ignorant on that subject.

56 Sol Berdinowitz  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 10:48:17am

re: #49 Obdicut

Don't forget Grover Norquist's quip about how "I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub"

For that, we have the example of Afghanistan. Thier government is so small and ineffective that it would drown in a teacup if we were not propping it up...

57 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 10:50:00am

re: #54 reine.de.tout

Nor does one have to be a Christian fundamentalist, in order to be a Christian.

As always for the record actual Christians like you, are good people. I think it will be important for you to remember how much people like DeMint desecrate Christianity.

I am saying, you are Christian. He isn't - not by any definition of the teachings of Christ at least.

58 Lidane  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 10:50:17am

re: #56 ralphieboy

For that, we have the example of Afghanistan. Thier government is so small and ineffective that it would drown in a teacup if we were not propping it up...

There's also the example of Somalia. They're damn near an anarcho-capitalist paradise, since there's no active, functional government, everything is privatized, and the "little people" have to cast their lots with the rich warlords to get through the day.

59 wrenchwench  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 10:50:36am

re: #50 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

60 Sol Berdinowitz  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 10:51:30am

re: #58 Lidane

There's also the example of Somalia. They're damn near an anarcho-capitalist paradise, since there's no active, functional government, everything is privatized, and the "little people" have to cast their lots with the rich warlords to get through the day.


And don't they also behead homosexuals there? Sounds like socon paradise!!!

61 DaddyG  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 10:52:13am

re: #55 Gus 802

No problem. It's just something I (we) keep hearing over and over again from the televangelist types. As to it's origins or validity in Christianity I would have to say I'm ignorant on that subject.

I shouldn't be intolerent. My own religion (LDS/Mormon) is based on Latter-day Revelations. I just think the overemphasis on the scary and somewhat speculative stuff (Hellfire- being left behind with sinners - planes falling from the sky- rejection from God...) detracts from the simpler but profound message of redemption, love, charity and hope.

But horror films and hellfire sell tickets and books.

62 Kragar  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 10:54:18am
63 Vicious Babushka  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 10:54:33am

re: #21 Obdicut

But if you're going to say Judeo, you've got to get on board with the Talmud as well as the Torah. And you know what the Talmud basically is?

Long lists of regulations.

If we operated capitalism according to the Talmud-- well, I'd much prefer it if we did. But there'd be a lot more CEOs going to jail.

Actually the Talmud is a bunch of debates and discussions about the long lists of regulations.

64 albusteve  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 10:54:39am

the sort of pious posturing this guy is selling gags me...it transcends politics of the traditional conservative, which he is not....a name robber and corrupter of a reasonable ideology...the man is dangerous (sounding like Ludwig here), but I believe it

65 nines09  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 10:55:16am

When does he hand out the armbands?

66 lawhawk  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 10:56:27am

re: #45 darthstar

That's not all that surprising given the animosity between the two going back to the 2000 primary campaign. I don't think either McCain or Bush has gotten over all that. It is telling that Bush would have crossed party lines rather than go with McCain.

67 Obdicut  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 10:57:09am

re: #63 Alouette

Actually the Talmud is a bunch of debates and discussions about the long lists of regulations.

Very true. With lots of gray areas, and very little black and white, simplistic reasoning.

68 RadicalModerate  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 10:58:29am

Regarding the Christian Reconstructionsts takeover of the Republican Party - the founder of the movement, RJ Rushdoony (until his death) and currently his kids run a group called the Chalcedon Foundation.

The SPLC has them listed as a hate site - a designation they don't give out lightly.

[Link: www.splcenter.org...]


Chalcedon Foundation
VALLECITO, Calif.
www.chalcedon.edu

The late Rousas John Rushdoony, known as the "father of Christian Reconstructionism," established the Chalcedon Foundation in 1965. The think tank's name refers to the Council of Chalcedon, which in 451 A.D. proclaimed the state's subservience to God.

Rushdoony's message, articulated in his massive 1973 opus, The Institutes of Biblical Law, is similar: fundamentalist Christians must take control of governments and impose strict biblical law on America and the world. That would mean the death penalty for "practicing homosexuals," among many other "abominators."

Rushdoony, whose book is revered by Reconstructionists as their foundational document, was also a racist. He opposed "unequal yoking" — interracial marriage or even "enforced integration" — insisting in the book that "[a]ll men are NOT created equal before God... . Moreover, an employer has a property right to prefer whom he will in terms of 'color,' creed, race or national origin."

The Bible, Rushdoony wrote, "recognizes that some people are by nature slaves." In fact, American slavery was "generally benevolent" despite misguided attempts to make whites feel guilty about it.

Rushdoony was also a Holocaust denier, attacking the "false witness" that some 6 million Jews were murdered in World War II.

In the early 1990s, Rushdoony was reportedly a member of the board of governors of the secretive Council of National Policy Board, an exclusive group of arch-conservative leaders, where he was feted on his 80th birthday by Howard Phillips (Phillips ran for president twice on the extremist Constitution Party ticket).

Although most fundamentalist leaders now deny holding Reconstructionist beliefs, several — including Beverly and Tim LaHaye (see Concerned Women for America), Donald Wildmon (see American Family Association) and D. James Kennedy (see Coral Ridge Ministries) — did serve alongside Rushdoony and other Chalcedon associates on the Coalition for Revival, a group formed in 1981 to "reclaim America."

When reading this description, do certain passages sound very familiar to you?

69 jdog29  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 11:00:14am

re: #11 DaddyG

I need a new word that describes a desire for limited yet effective government and social liberty.

hmmm, when I read that it made me think of Jim Carrey in the movie "Bruce Almighty" when he asked God, played by Morgan Freeman, "How do you get someone to love you without forcing them?"

God's response was, "Now THAT'S a good question."

btw, I want to join that party too. :-D

70 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 11:01:15am

re: #63 Alouette

Actually the Talmud is a bunch of debates and discussions about the long lists of regulations.

And with few exceptions, majority decisions at the end of the Gemarra in question.

71 JeffFX  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 11:01:58am

Sane small-government Conservative politicians need to vocally split with clowns like this. That is if any sane small-government Conservative politicians actually exist.

72 engineer cat  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 11:02:14am

most christian theologies don't conform to what's in the bible, and many christians tend to pick and choose which parts of the old testament they consider compulsory - for example, proscriptions against homosexuality - and what parts they consider obsolete - for example, keeping kosher, and treating your slaves with human compassion - i have tried to find out who and under what authority the decisions as to what to ignore and what to consider absolutely binding were made, but nobody can tell me

73 calochortus  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 11:03:07am

I'd suggest that every time someone tells us we need to return to biblical principles in government, we ask when they will introduce legislation to restore slavery-a firmly biblical institution.

74 Kragar  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 11:04:53am

re: #73 calochortus

I'd suggest that every time someone tells us we need to return to biblical principles in government, we ask when they will introduce legislation to restore slavery-a firmly biblical institution.

So like, if a chick grabs your nads, you can like, beat her, because its like in the Bible, right?
/

75 CuriousLurker  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 11:05:19am
Once you get on board, you’re supporting creationism, climate change denial, misogyny and denial of women’s rights, etc.

Yet our big concerns are supposed to be creeping Sharia and the fifth column of stealth jihadis that are trying to destroy America (in alliance with POTUS & Soros, of course).

Y'know, every day I listen to their Chicken Little sqawking, and every day I look out my window and everything seems... perfectly, boringly normal. Just like always.

Weird, huh? I must be one of those poor unfortunate souls who was hypnotized by Obama during his campaign.

76 calochortus  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 11:05:42am

re: #74 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

So like, if a chick grabs your nads, you can like, beat her, because its like in the Bible, right?
/

Absolutely. After all, its biblical.

77 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 11:06:34am

re: #63 Alouette

Actually the Talmud is a bunch of debates and discussions about the long lists of regulations.

My point is when I wrote:

And with few exceptions, majority decisions at the end of the Gemarra in question.

Yes of course there is great intricacy to the debate - as you would expect in any treatise on law, philosophy and theology, but - the vast majority of the debates come to an end and the vast majority of things they debate on are in the details of well understood precepts to begin with.

There is no pilpul about not lying to folks maliciously or attempting to convince them to do harmful things to themselves or others.

There is no pilpul about murder being wrong.

If anything, on such matters, the Talmud will take great lengths to discuss exactly how wrong in different circumstances.

There is no pilpul about all manner of openly evil things the modern GOP stands for and does.

The fact that Hillel and Shammai didn't agree on the order of lighting Hanukkah candles does not enter into the picture.

78 Kragar  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 11:06:52am

re: #76 calochortus

Absolutely. After all, its biblical.

Rocking!

Oh wait, I don't believe in that shit. Damn.

79 JeffFX  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 11:07:38am

re: #74 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

So like, if a chick grabs your nads, you can like, beat her, because its like in the Bible, right?
/


As long as it's between consenting adults. Always have a safe-word.

80 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 11:08:08am

re: #76 calochortus

Absolutely. After all, its biblical.

Well the law is that if she crushes them - or as explained in Talmud - tears them off.

And yes, I would beat a woman who did that too - mercilessly.

81 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 11:08:41am

re: #72 engineer dog

most christian theologies don't conform to what's in the bible, and many christians tend to pick and choose which parts of the old testament they consider compulsory - for example, proscriptions against homosexuality - and what parts they consider obsolete - for example, keeping kosher, and treating your slaves with human compassion - i have tried to find out who and under what authority the decisions as to what to ignore and what to consider absolutely binding were made, but nobody can tell me

You use the New Testament. For example, Christ pretty much negated the rock-throwing thing when He set the bar for rock throwers at people who had never sinned. That was...Him. And He chose not to do it, and we no longer have a right to. I, personally, choose to interpret this as literal and figurative rocks, which is why I oppose bullying.

As for the food issues, it is discussed in the portions of the New Testament after the four gospels. You might want to look at Peter's vision, for example.

82 engineer cat  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 11:09:14am

re: #35 Obdicut

Oh my god I just realized how much more awesome Easter would be if we bit the heads off of little roman soldiers instead.

hamentaschen are 'haman-hats' - we bite the hats of the evil advisor haman, and also croissants were invented when the turks were attacking vienna - one bites the crescent of islam

or, as the addams family motto has it

"We gladly feast on those who would subdue us"

83 lostlakehiker  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 11:09:25am

re: #49 Obdicut

I am immediately incredibly suspicious towards people like DeMint and other conservatives who say "low taxes". "Low" is a comparative. It's meaningless on its own. At it's worse, it's a constant refrain that taxes should always go lower and lower.

I want taxes to be at a level that's sustainable, that damages neither our economy or our society, and sufficient to fund the necessary operation of our government.

That may be higher than what we have now. Climate change is going to cost a shitload to fix. However, I have faith that by effective spending and by effective administration of taxes, we can cause minimal suffering while achieving great results.

Or we could, if the GOP weren't currently engaged in a race to see who can be the stupidest on science and economy at the same time, and if the Democrats didn't run away from all their accomplishments and have so few people willing to stand up for common sense.

I'm reminded of the tale in which three brothers are in the running to succeed the dead King. The King provided in his will that the brothers should ride to the capital city, with the one whose horse was last through the gate succeeding.

This led to a bad case of the slows, until a wit suggested a remedy. Swap horses around, and the brothers would each have an incentive to ride through the gates quickly. This was done, and the dilemma in which the incentive structure of the rules led to stasis was resolved.

Here, what we need is not necessarily that government shall levy taxes and build wind farms, solar farms, and nuclear power plants. It might be better to just switch around the rules to where there's money to be made in building those things, and then stand back and watch the hooves pound and the turf fly as everybody gets down to business building them.

A simple tax on CO2 emissions might be one place to start. A subsidy for electricity from non-fossil sources would be another. Blanket authority to build power transmission lines, right through national monuments, state parks, and national parks if necessary, or to take private property for that public use if that was the best path, would be another. Blanket authorization to build nuclear power plants according to a pre-approved design, and government immunity from frivolous lawsuits, would be another.

The threat that current law will be deployed against any new energy technology is a real one. Current law is a swamp. Nobody knows what can be punished, and lawsuits can go forward on any grounds or really none at all. Witness the NIMBY nonsense at Nantuckett. All this has to be swept aside. Endangered species act included; ALL species are endangered if this effort fails, after all. So, for purposes of green energy, the endangered species act ought to be amended to include a waiver.

Greed has its downside, but hope of gain energizes most of humanity and human zeal and energy will be needed in quantities compulsion and penalties cannot mobilize.

Tinker with the rules so that green energy is a winning strategy, fund R&D so that green energy gets more efficient over the years, and you'll get green energy on the scale needed to run an industrial civilization. You won't, en passant, get a purely liberal society. There will still be private corporations, and big ones making lots of money, and stocks, and rich people and others who are not anywhere near rich.

But it's a mistake to insist that green energy must be the vehicle for social reform, and shun any path to a green future that is merely green, rather than socially green. Get us to merely green, and we can worry about the rest later.

84 Kragar  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 11:09:46am

re: #79 JeffFX

As long as it's between consenting adults. Always have a safe-word.

I did, but the fucking ball gag didn't let...

Nevermind.

85 engineer cat  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 11:10:37am

re: #81 EmmmieG

You use the New Testament. For example, Christ pretty much negated the rock-throwing thing when He set the bar for rock throwers at people who had never sinned. That was...Him. And He chose not to do it, and we no longer have a right to. I, personally, choose to interpret this as literal and figurative rocks, which is why I oppose bullying.

As for the food issues, it is discussed in the portions of the New Testament after the four gospels. You might want to look at Peter's vision, for example.

i've corresponded with some preachers who gave me that answer, which seems correct to me, but so many preachers bring up old testament texts to support their points of view

86 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 11:11:08am

re: #73 calochortus

I'd suggest that every time someone tells us we need to return to biblical principles in government, we ask when they will introduce legislation to restore slavery-a firmly biblical institution.

As defined by Christians. Slave is a terrible translation of ehved - which means servant.

The bible does not have an institution of chattel slavery despite what certain Europeans claim by selective translation in the absence of the entire system of commentary or spirit of the laws in question.

87 calochortus  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 11:11:49am

re: #78 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

re: #79 JeffFX

re: #80 LudwigVanQuixote

I'm not a biblical scholar, but I believe there are also some restrictions about she has to be taking the side of your opponent in a fight, in which case you are to show no mercy. Somehow, I suspect a specific, unpleasant incident was behind this...

88 Obdicut  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 11:14:11am

re: #83 lostlakehiker

Greed has its downside, but hope of gain energizes most of humanity and human zeal and energy will be needed in quantities compulsion and penalties cannot mobilize.

I really don't think that's true. Achievement motivates me more than greed. It motivates most of the people I know more than greed.

Scientists don't work at scientist in order to make the big bucks. They do so in order to work out the difficult problems of science.

Fighter jocks don't fly their planes because of big paychecks.

Hope of gain motivates some of humanity. Others-- and in general, the more accomplished ones-- spend a little time figuring out how to channel their passion in an area that will allow them to do well enough in a capitalist economy-- and pursue their dreams and aspirations.

89 lostlakehiker  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 11:14:43am

re: #76 calochortus

Absolutely. After all, its biblical.

Hmm. Generally speaking, women aren't participants in the combats of men. A man who's in a fight can more or less safely ignore an unarmed woman, and just shrug her off. And he should.

But if she goes to fighting dirty, she becomes a real factor in the fight and thus a combatant. As such, she must share the perils of combat, and cannot then cry poor me don't hit.

That's how I read that provision.

90 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 11:15:11am

re: #87 calochortus

re: #79 JeffFX

re: #80 LudwigVanQuixote

I'm not a biblical scholar, but I believe there are also some restrictions about she has to be taking the side of your opponent in a fight, in which case you are to show no mercy. Somehow, I suspect a specific, unpleasant incident was behind this...

The distinction you are referring to has to do with self defense. If a woman disables an attempted rapist or murderer by destroying his testicles - actually explicitly, crushing them, tearing them off with her hands or biting them off, she was acting in self defense.

91 JeffFX  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 11:15:20am

re: #62 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

5 Things You Won't Believe Aren't In the Bible

Thanks! Never learned so much at Cracked before.

Those thrones are terrifying!

92 Kragar  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 11:15:39am

re: #87 calochortus

re: #79 JeffFX

re: #80 LudwigVanQuixote

I'm not a biblical scholar, but I believe there are also some restrictions about she has to be taking the side of your opponent in a fight, in which case you are to show no mercy. Somehow, I suspect a specific, unpleasant incident was behind this...

I imagine if it were an episodes of Cops, it would involve a trailer park, a domestic violence call to a repeat customer, and a Chevy.

93 calochortus  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 11:15:50am

re: #86 LudwigVanQuixote

As defined by Christians. Slave is a terrible translation of ehved - which means servant.

The bible does not have an institution of chattel slavery despite what certain Europeans claim by selective translation in the absence of the entire system of commentary or spirit of the laws in question.

As I said, not a bible scholar, but since the Christians are the ones who want to run the Repub. party, and the government, I think the Christian translation should win in this case.

94 DaddyG  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 11:15:53am

re: #87 calochortus

re: #79 JeffFX

re: #80 LudwigVanQuixote

I'm not a biblical scholar, but I believe there are also some restrictions about she has to be taking the side of your opponent in a fight, in which case you are to show no mercy. Somehow, I suspect a specific, unpleasant incident was behind this...


I'm almost sure of it. Even today when an announcement goes around the church about a new rule or policy I think to myself "What idiot tried that and made it necessary to publish a rule against it?"

95 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 11:16:00am

re: #85 engineer dog

i've corresponded with some preachers who gave me that answer, which seems correct to me, but so many preachers bring up old testament texts to support their points of view

If the New Testament negated the entire Old Testament, we wouldn't study it.

Christ just changed parts of the law, like making stoning impossible, philosophically.

I went and looked up Peter's vision. It's in Acts 11.

96 calochortus  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 11:16:21am

re: #90 LudwigVanQuixote

Good to know.

97 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 11:18:02am

re: #93 calochortus

As I said, not a bible scholar, but since the Christians are the ones who want to run the Repub. party, and the government, I think the Christian translation should win in this case.

Which is sort of why I get so upset about this topic. They are using my book to justify their evil.

98 calochortus  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 11:22:53am

re: #97 LudwigVanQuixote

They're using their book too. Paul admonishes slaves to be obedient to their masters-especially if their master is a Christian. Sounds like an endorsement to me.

99 tradewind  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 11:24:10am
Fundamentalist Christianity Required to Be a Conservative


That's going to surprise to Eric Cantor and Joe Lieberman, among others.....

100 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 11:24:18am

re: #98 calochortus

They're using their book too. Paul admonishes slaves to be obedient to their masters-especially if their master is a Christian. Sounds like an endorsement to me.

Yeah well - that's not my Book. I am not going to comment on that part of it - other than to say throughout history there have been very many very pious Christians who fought against slavery tooth and nail.

101 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 11:25:57am

re: #100 LudwigVanQuixote

Yeah well - that's not my Book. I am not going to comment on that part of it - other than to say throughout history there have been very many very pious Christians who fought against slavery tooth and nail.

William Wilberforce.

102 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 11:26:25am

re: #99 tradewind

That's going to surprise to Eric Cantor and Joe Lieberman, among others...

NO it won't. They both made their decision to sell out some time ago. They will lie to themselves and convince themselves of a rationalization for it.

103 calochortus  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 11:26:52am

re: #100 LudwigVanQuixote

Yeah well - that's not my Book. I am not going to comment on that part of it - other than to say throughout history there have been very many very pious Christians who fought against slavery tooth and nail.

That's true. There have also been many, many equally pious Christians who fought for slavery tooth and nail. I'd say the pious Christian part is irrelevant to the abolition fight.
I don't see anything in the Bible that outlaws or even discourages slavery.

104 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 11:26:52am

Odd how we all want to claim Wilberforce, but not the Christians who fought to keep slavery.

Perhaps we ought to look around and see who the modern Wilberforce is?

105 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 11:29:10am

re: #103 calochortus

That's true. There have also been many, many equally pious Christians who fought for slavery tooth and nail. I'd say the pious Christian part is irrelevant to the abolition fight.
I don't see anything in the Bible that outlaws or even discourages slavery.

ON the contrary. Anyone who actually read the bible ad feared God would fight slavery very strongly.

It the whether or not they believe the words or simply use them for their own ends that makes the difference.

106 cliffster  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 11:30:20am

The biggest advocates of social conservatives are liberals.

107 Obdicut  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 11:30:54am

re: #106 cliffster

And by that you mean..?

108 calochortus  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 11:31:31am

re: #105 LudwigVanQuixote

Can you provide a reference on that? I'll understand if its too time consuming at the moment.

109 Sol Berdinowitz  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 11:32:14am

This is a basic lack in basic, basic educaation and civic thinking.

The Bible is and will probably remain the basis of our code of morals.

But a code of morals is not a code of law. Morals are an abstract, subjective and personal thing, law is supposed to be concrete, neutral and objective.

We can base our laws on a moral code, but it remains a human construct, subject to change and adaptation over time. This makes it very different from a moral code as given by Divine Revelation in an unchanging and unchangeable Holy Scripture.

110 sillyallah  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 11:33:21am

“You can’t be a fiscal conservative and not be a social conservative.”
And this is my fundamental problem with the conservative movement right now.

111 HappyWarrior  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 11:33:33am

Thanks Jim for showing me again why I think so little of the modern conservative movement. You claim to be for individual liberty yet you want to force your version of Christianity on the rest of us who may not see it that way. Seriously, this guy's so full of shit in so many ways. I really hope the Dems run a good candidate against him in 2016. He's a wackjob of the highest order and along with Palin responsible for many of the crazy candidates we got to know so well in the elections.

112 DaddyG  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 11:34:45am

re: #108 calochortus

Can you provide a reference on that? I'll understand if its too time consuming at the moment.

Exodus 21:16 “Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death.

1 Timothy 1:8–10 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that lawa is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine.

113 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 11:35:23am

re: #108 calochortus

Can you provide a reference on that? I'll understand if its too time consuming at the moment.

Well... Do not steal.

You are not allowed to steal another mans property or labor.

Do not steal explicitly forbids chattel slavery.

Further though,

We believe that all men (read mankind, the bible says man and woman both) were created in the image of G-d. To defile another man is to defile God. To claim that you own a man is to claim you own God.

From that view, slavery is an abomination.

114 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 11:35:33am

It appears I need to do a little research on the jubilee year. I thought it was all indentured servants went free, but apparently only the Israelite ones.

Still, in terms of helping societies not become too rigidly layered, it could work well.

It's in Leviticus.

115 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 11:36:18am

re: #112 DaddyG

Exodus 21:16 “Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death.

1 Timothy 1:8–10 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that lawa is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine.

That's a great post.

116 DaddyG  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 11:39:21am

re: #115 LudwigVanQuixote

That's a great post.

I borrowed it from a "good book" ;-)

Seriusly, the Biblical literalists sort of ask for trouble from sceptics when they act like the Bible (a compendium of laws, codes and sermons from multiple sources) is infallable and complete. I can understand the sceptics who see us (Christians) picking and choosing what we want to believe and then condemning others for their weaknesses.

117 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 11:39:54am

re: #113 LudwigVanQuixote

Well... Do not steal.

You are not allowed to steal another mans property or labor.

Do not steal explicitly forbids chattel slavery.

Further though,

We believe that all men (read mankind, the bible says man and woman both) were created in the image of G-d. To defile another man is to defile God. To claim that you own a man is to claim you own God.

From that view, slavery is an abomination.

The vast majority of slaves, especially African slaves, but including European slaves and North and South American slaves were war captives. (Some were from a slave caste.)

One could argue, reasonably, that they were stolen, because their captives had no right to take their freedom. It had not been sold by the owner.

Israelite indentured servants, and European indentured servants* had usually agreed to the situation and sold and signed themselves into it.

*This would include apprentices, who were under obligation. When Benjamin Franklin left Boston for Philadelphia, he had no right to be there, because he had not yet fulfilled his apprenticeship to his brother, who did not pursue BF, although he could have.

118 DaddyG  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 11:40:02am

Seriusly = Seriously... I must be more careful when writing heresay.

119 cliffster  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 11:41:10am

re: #107 Obdicut

And by that you mean..?

Exactly what I said. Liberals love social conservatives. The more socially conservative the better. And they will try and tie fiscally conservative ideas to the social conservatives. DeMint is like a gold mine for them. He will probably make Liberal of the Year.

120 lostlakehiker  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 11:41:14am
You can't be a fiscal conservative without being a social conservative.


There's a lot of room for interpretation in that statement.

One way to put it: You have to be a "SOCON" to be a fiscal conservative. Otherwise, we "conservatives" won't recognize and respect your fiscal conservatism.

Another way: fiscally conservative policies are more feasible to the extent that the society involved mostly hews to socially conservative ways. If people are mostly thrifty and prudent, there will be less need for welfare, less need for ER visits, less need for bailouts and stimulus programs.

If most children are raised in nuclear families, one wife, one husband, same two biological parents cooperating to raise the kids, there's a better chance the family can take care of feeding, clothing, and sheltering the rug rats, as well as teaching them some manners and some good habits, and maybe even teaching them how to count to 100, say the alphabet, and the sounds the letters make, before they hit the formal school system. Such parents can be helpful in teaching the kids to read, too.

All this can in principle be done by a harried single mom, if she's supermom. Mostly she isn't. All this can in principle be done by a polygamous family, assuming internal strife doesn't tear it apart. All this can in principle be done in other childrearing arrangements. Like when A and B are partners and A is the biological parent of X and B is the parent of Y and then X and Y fight over you like Y better because you're Y's parent no I don't yes you do etc. Social conservatives, small font not what Jim DeMint means by the term, are pessimists about how well things will go with the kids being raised by A and B. Not that it can't be done. Millions of A's and B's valiantly overcome the inherent difficulties of the project and raise fine X's and Y's. But it's kind of swimming upstream.

Adults do all sorts of adult things including affairs, divorces, love children, what have you. A socon world that enforced socon behavior norms would be suffocating. But the other pole is dangerous. Too many on the Left think of nuclear family America as the enemy, a fit object only for scorn and taxation.

121 calochortus  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 11:41:31am

re: #112 DaddyG

Exodus 21:16 “Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death.

1 Timothy 1:8–10 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that lawa is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine.

That seems to me regulate slavery rather than prohibit it. What about things like

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

or

If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)

Regulating an activity indicates to me that it would be an accepted part of life.

I realize that the modern thinker views this all differently. I do not believe Jim DeMint and his friends are modern thinkers.

122 DaddyG  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 11:43:44am

re: #117 EmmmieG
Unfortunately race based slavery in the US was an ecomonic short cut justified with poor readings of "Christian" scripture and additions from social tradition. I believe Lincoln was inspired when he spoke of the blood spilled in the civil war as the price for the bondsmans lash.

Ludwigs comment above was profound. We often choose to see what we want in our "holy writ" and how we choose to interpret it says much about our own maturity and godliness.

123 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 11:45:14am

I would like to challenge DeMint to prove how one, just one, socon hot button issue, should it not go completely the socon's way, in turn will pick my pocket or break my leg.

124 RadicalModerate  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 11:45:15am

re: #106 cliffster

The biggest advocates of social conservatives are liberals.

Yeah, just like liberals are admirers of Marx, Lenin, Hitler, and Osama bin Laden.

Exactly what color is the sky in your world?

125 sffilk  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 11:46:32am

While I hate to sound alarmist, maybe it's time for people like me (Jews) to pack up and move to Canada?

126 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 11:46:46am

re: #117 EmmmieG

Excellent post. There is a lot more to it than tht in the JEwish law. Writing a full treatise on it would take a lot of time.

However some key points:

Israel did not have a prison system. If one incurred a penalty for breaking the law that he could not pay - he could be ordered into servitude by the court to pay off his restitution. The master would pay off the fines and debts, and the servant would work them off.

There were very strict rules for the treatment of someone in such a case - they had to be well fed, cared for, clothed, given prompt medical attention etc... They had rights even in that condition and could seek redress if abused.

And most importantly, the period of service was limited to no more than seven years.

As to selling daughters... Because of the harsh and literal translation of King James, many get a terrible impression. A daughter from a poor family could be indentured as a maidservant to a wealthy one - with the understanding that she would be fed, cared for educated and married off to a son of that family - should she agree to the union and when she was old enough.

127 JeffFX  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 11:47:42am

re: #119 cliffster

Exactly what I said. Liberals love social conservatives. The more socially conservative the better. And they will try and tie fiscally conservative ideas to the social conservatives. DeMint is like a gold mine for them. He will probably make Liberal of the Year.

Many people are Liberals because they want freedom from the Socons, yes, but they certainly don't love the people who hold back social progress and discriminate against minorities.

128 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 11:48:14am

re: #122 DaddyG

Unfortunately race based slavery in the US was an ecomonic short cut justified with poor readings of "Christian" scripture and additions from social tradition. I believe Lincoln was inspired when he spoke of the blood spilled in the civil war as the price for the bondsmans lash.

Ludwigs comment above was profound. We often choose to see what we want in our "holy writ" and how we choose to interpret it says much about our own maturity and godliness.

**Everyone else can skip this**

We're the only two that will care about this, but did you know the church declared a jubilee year in 1880? It was just the church, I think. I think the only effect was that they cancelled all the debts still owed to the Perpetual Immigrantion Fund.

There might have been more, I'll see if I can find it.

129 sizzleRI  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 11:48:15am

re: #120 lostlakehiker

Except, that today, in the year 2010 the boogie man of so-cons is not single mothers or blended families as much as it is gay marriage and gay parenting. I just cannot see how a committed gay relationship that embarks on raising a family together is going to result in less fiscal responsibility. I really cannot see that, what am I blind to that the Demints of this country are not?

130 Obdicut  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 11:48:20am

re: #119 cliffster

I'm sorry, but it's the GOP that's tying social conservatives to fiscal conservatives. That is exactly what DeMint is doing in this piece.

I have no idea why you need to try to blame that on the liberals.

131 DaddyG  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 11:48:57am

re: #121 calochortus

Putting those who kidnap into slavery to death didn't seem merely regulatory to me?!

Don't forget the context of the Bible as a text for an ancient nomadic and agrarian society that already practiced indentured servitude and slavery.

Others have already explained the difference between the Bible's definition and more modern race based slavery.

If you are going to argue someone's beliefs at least represent them correctly. I have yet to meet in real life one Christian who defends race based slavery using the Bible and even on the web those kooks are few and far between. Using slavery to condemn the Bible is approaching argument from extremes or even a straw man.

132 DaddyG  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 11:49:58am

re: #125 sffilk

While I hate to sound alarmist, maybe it's time for people like me (Jews) to pack up and move to Canada?


Please don't - I just can't see the Mormons getting Kosher Pastrami right. (Well that and a lot of other things).

133 Sol Berdinowitz  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 11:50:30am

re: #120 lostlakehiker

Interesting post.

But like you said, the socons hold up their ideal image of the nuclear family as the standard which all must live by or be punished.l

I also find it better for kids to be raised by at least two parents (be they of the same or opposite sex). But face it, it is only a fairly recent notion in human history that individual families raise their kids. Until the rise of the industrial state, children were raised by the tribe or the village.

Parents, especially single parents, were not expected to run themselves ragged keeping up with the brood.

134 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 11:50:59am

re: #125 sffilk

While I hate to sound alarmist, maybe it's time for people like me (Jews) to pack up and move to Canada?

If you move to Canada, who will be in charge of everything?

////

135 HappyWarrior  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 11:51:47am

re: #130 Obdicut

I'm sorry, but it's the GOP that's tying social conservatives to fiscal conservatives. That is exactly what DeMint is doing in this piece.

I have no idea why you need to try to blame that on the liberals.

And furthermore it's the GOP that keeps on nominating these candidates not liberals. Speaking for myself, I have and will support socially reasonsible Republicans but all I hear from most Republicans especially as we get to national level politics is about how secularists and liberals are attacking the American family because we don't feel homosexuality is evil or that being a non Christian makes you less American.

136 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 11:51:51am

re: #129 sizzleRI

All gay money goes straight to hell in remittances, with none of it being circulated within and benefiting the economy.
///

137 cliffster  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 11:52:28am

re: #127 JeffFX

Many people are Liberals because they want freedom from the Socons, yes, but they certainly don't love the people who hold back social progress and discriminate against minorities.

Yes, they do. They love them inasmuch as they can try and dishonestly use them in their narrative that all republicans are creepy christian conservatives. I don't know why you would even debate this.

138 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 11:52:30am

re: #121 calochortus

See my 117.

YOu are taking a lot out of context. YOu simply can not read the simple translation of the words without the context and understand the system.

Let me give you a great example.

The commandment is NOT do not kill.

It is: Do not murder.

For one thing if it were do not kill, how could the Bible later have people raising armies and such?

This is a point about translation. But there is a deeper point about context, commentary and the oral tradition..

OK we all agree to no murder (I hope) being a good principle.

So what is murder?

Murder is unlawful killing.

OK - what sort of killing is lawful and what is unlawful?

Now to answer that you need the oral tradition, the Mishnayot, Midrash, Talmud and commentaries - just like in any legal system. Ask an attorney what is unlawful killing some time even in American law. It is not a short discussion. But unless you know something about those details, what you say is likely to lead you astray.

139 calochortus  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 11:53:51am

re: #131 DaddyG

Putting those who kidnap into slavery to death didn't seem merely regulatory to me?!

Don't forget the context of the Bible as a text for an ancient nomadic and agrarian society that already practiced indentured servitude and slavery.

Others have already explained the difference between the Bible's definition and more modern race based slavery.

If you are going to argue someone's beliefs at least represent them correctly. I have yet to meet in real life one Christian who defends race based slavery using the Bible and even on the web those kooks are few and far between. Using slavery to condemn the Bible is approaching argument from extremes or even a straw man.

The fact is that in the 19th century, religious leaders did argue that the bible supported slavery. Many people believed it to be so. The fact that not too many people today believe that slavery is moral is precisely why I think the folks who want to govern from the bible should be asked about this.

Even is someone is willing to sell himself into slavery today, we do not allow it, so whether it is indentured servitude, which the two quotes I gave earlier clearly show could be permanent, or outright slavery, I don't think this is a viable position for conservatives to hold.

140 Amory Blaine  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 11:53:54am

re: #125 sffilk

While I hate to sound alarmist, maybe it's time for people like me (Jews) to pack up and move to Canada?

I've been kicking this idea around with my wife. Although I'm just a lurker at this website now, it has lots of info about the subject.

Expat Forum

141 sizzleRI  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 11:53:57am

re: #136 Slumbering Behemoth

I didn't know breeders knew that! I thought the newsletter distribution was more restricted...

142 DaddyG  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 11:54:16am

re: #138 LudwigVanQuixote
I really appreciate what the Jews have to teach me about the foundations and assumptions of my own faith. Thanks!

143 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 11:55:29am

Another post for Daddy G

From the church website:

10. “On 6April 1880, Church members celebrated the fiftieth anniversary of the organization of the Church. They called it a Jubilee Year, as the ancient Israelites had named every fiftieth year. President Taylor forgave many of the debts owed to the Church by its needy members. The Church also contributed 300 cows and 2,000 sheep to be distributed among its ‘deserving poor.’ [See Roberts, Comprehensive History of the Church, 5:592.] The Church’s Relief Society sisters donated almost 35,000 bushels of wheat to those in need. President Taylor also urged Church members to forgive individual debt, especially among the distressed. ‘It is the time of Jubilee!’ he declared [Roberts, Comprehensive History of the Church, 5:593]. A spirit of forgiveness and joy was strongly felt among the Latter-day Saints.


I don't think anything was done in 1930 or 1980.

144 Sol Berdinowitz  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 11:55:42am

re: #138 LudwigVanQuixote

This is a point about translation. But there is a deeper point about context, commentary and the oral tradition

There was a famous incident when the last Bush came out in favor of posting the Ten Commandments in public buildings.

Some smart-assed reporter, who had obviously studied some comarative religion and/or liguistics, asked him "Which translation shouod we use?"

"The standard one," was Bush's answer.

I assume he means the King James version, as that is the one that God officially approves of, isn't it?

145 Sol Berdinowitz  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 11:56:50am

re: #143 EmmmieG

Another post for Daddy G

From the church website:

10. “On 6April 1880, Church members celebrated the fiftieth anniversary of the organization of the Church. They called it a Jubilee Year, as the ancient Israelites had named every fiftieth year. President Taylor forgave many of the debts owed to the Church by its needy members. The Church also contributed 300 cows and 2,000 sheep to be distributed among its ‘deserving poor.’ [See Roberts, Comprehensive History of the Church, 5:592.] The Church’s Relief Society sisters donated almost 35,000 bushels of wheat to those in need. President Taylor also urged Church members to forgive individual debt, especially among the distressed. ‘It is the time of Jubilee!’ he declared [Roberts, Comprehensive History of the Church, 5:593]. A spirit of forgiveness and joy was strongly felt among the Latter-day Saints.


I don't think anything was done in 1930 or 1980.


In 1980 we elected Ronald Reagan...

146 Obdicut  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 11:57:35am

re: #137 cliffster

So when Jim DeMint, GOP congressman, makes a speech that ties together social and fiscal conservatism-- that prompts you to talk about how dishonest liberals are in tying together fiscal and social conservatism?

What number of GOP congresspeople or governors can you name who aren't social conservatives?

I can think of-- (barely) Arnold Schwarzenegger.

147 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 11:57:41am

re: #141 sizzleRI

Iz in ur seckual preffrence cirkuls, staelin' ur noosleturs.

148 Our Precious Bodily Fluids  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 11:58:54am

re: #21 Obdicut

But if you're going to say Judeo, you've got to get on board with the Talmud as well as the Torah.

As far as I can tell, it's a meaningless phrase anyway. The defining, core belief of Christianity is that Jesus was the Messiah. That's inherently incompatible with Jewish eschatology, and vice versa.

149 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 11:58:54am

re: #142 DaddyG

I really appreciate what the Jews have to teach me about the foundations and assumptions of my own faith. Thanks!

You are so welcome. I respect good Christians. Anyone who cares for others and believes that God is about love and doing acts of kindness, growth and justice - is someone who shares the same values I strive for in my own walk (however far I may personally fall short of the mark). We may have a different flavor - or theology to debate about philosophically in the details - but the values and the hope for goodness are what I never loose sight of.

150 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 11:59:39am

re: #146 Obdicut

Haven't you heard, Obdi? Jim DeMint is a librul plant.
/

151 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 11:59:46am

re: #145 ralphieboy

In 1980 we elected Ronald Reagan...

Well, yes, and we probably sent a few rockets up, and I think a few horrid movies were produced.

152 Romantic Heretic  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:00:53pm

re: #28 Lidane

I just call myself a liberal and distinguish between me and the far left racing moonbats. It's much easier that way.

The only differences between moonbats and wingnuts are aesthetic. Rather like the differences between a water moccasin and a copperhead.

The important point is if you're bitten by either of them, you're fucked.

153 DaddyG  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:00:59pm

re: #139 calochortus

The fact is that in the 19th century, religious leaders did argue that the bible supported slavery. Many people believed it to be so.

They were wrong and support from the Bible was flimsy and inaccurate. Most Christians today, a vast plurality of sects, overtly reject that race based slavery is in any way moral.

Even the LDS Church which was abolitionist yet practiced separation of races and denied full access to all of their offices to blacks rejected the arguments a generation ago and now consider reacial prejudice not worthy of its members.

If you look at the 19th century preachers teachings and exhortations on slavery it is almost always based on social tradition and not scripture. The scriptural justifications are flimsy.

Again you cannot accurately judge a religion based on a misinterpretation or even outdated interpretation of its doctrines and beliefs. Conversely religions have done much to improve our culture and society but they are not immune to contemporary biases of those societies.

154 cliffster  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:01:42pm

re: #146 Obdicut

So when Jim DeMint, GOP congressman, makes a speech that ties together social and fiscal conservatism-- that prompts you to talk about how dishonest liberals are in tying together fiscal and social conservatism?

DeMint got himself a lot of airtime. My statement was that liberals love social conservatives because it helps their narrative. Are you suggesting that there are no liberal pundits, politicians, etc, who try and market social and fiscal conservatism as one and the same? None? That seems like an odd thing to believe.

155 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:01:45pm

re: #148 negativ

As far as I can tell, it's a meaningless phrase anyway. The defining, core belief of Christianity is that Jesus was the Messiah. That's inherently incompatible with Jewish eschatology, and vice versa.

It's a meaningless term used to add apparent gravitas to their view of christian supremacy in America.

156 Sol Berdinowitz  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:01:51pm

re: #151 EmmmieG

Well, yes, and we probably sent a few rockets up, and I think a few horrid movies were produced.


And I went through my body weight in bong hits...

157 calochortus  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:02:02pm

re: #138 LudwigVanQuixote

I do know context is important, and about the "do not murder" commandment. But I don't see how context could possibly turn the two quotes I gave into anything but an endorsement of permanent servitude with the consent at some point of the individual involved. As I noted above, we are not, in modern societies permitted to sell ourselves, or our family members into servitude.

I know that society was different back then and these may have been very practical solutions at the time. I know that not everyone in the Christian or (particularly) Jewish faiths takes the bible as the inerrant word of God, but for those who do, the slavery/servitude argument seems as good as any to point out that there could be some problems with a return to the social system of a couple millennia ago. And that was my point-not that people today support slavery or that any particular faith is evil.

158 Amory Blaine  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:02:53pm

re: #151 EmmmieG

Well, yes, and we probably sent a few rockets up, and I think a few horrid movies were produced.

Blue Lagoon :p

159 JeffFX  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:02:57pm

re: #137 cliffster

Yes, they do. They love them inasmuch as they can try and dishonestly use them in their narrative that all republicans are creepy christian conservatives. I don't know why you would even debate this.

Maybe because since the 1980's, creepy christian conservatives have taken over the party. Are you slow?

160 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:04:17pm

re: #158 Amory Blaine

Blue Lagoon :p

I was ten, and I think that was the year I saw Xanadu, and my best friend and I agreed to it was FANTASTIC and that the critics were totally WRONG that it was bad.

I wonder if I could travel back in time and shake some sense into me.

161 engineer cat  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:04:55pm

completely o.t.:

i seem to remember bush talking about how ya have a war, see, and the war brings about real good popularity that allows you to pass your social program

can't find the quote, tho - does anybody know where to find it?

162 Obdicut  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:05:36pm

re: #154 cliffster

DeMint got himself a lot of airtime. My statement was that liberals love social conservatives because it helps their narrative. Are you suggesting that there are no liberal pundits, politicians, etc, who try and market social and fiscal conservatism as one and the same? None? That seems like an odd thing to believe.

Heh. No, I'm not saying that, though I don't actually see many attacks on real fiscal conservatism. I see attacks on things like lowering taxes no matter what, which is not an actual fiscal conservative position, or cutting spending no matter what, which is not a fiscally conservative opinion.

That said, there are some people who go after fiscal conservatism of the principled type-- as in, those who honestly believe that welfare and other entitlements are harmful in the long run to minority groups because they cause a culture of entitlement-- as though they are social conservatives, when that may not be the case.

However, I don't see many politicians, GOP or Democrat, espousing actual fiscal conservatism.

Now, can you please name me some GOP congresspeople who are not social conservatives?

163 Romantic Heretic  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:05:43pm

re: #47 DaddyG

Ugh!!! The Rapture is an almost entirely made up doctrine stitched together from two unrelated verses in the Bible and literally dreamed up by a little girl and a fundamentalist preacher.

The medieval church kept the word of God from the people by refusing to translate it and make it available in common vernacular. The modern church seems to be able to keep the word of God from the people by burying it under layers of apocalyptic fan fantasy scripts.

(Sorry if my rant rubs your particular belief system wrong - I just cant stand what I consider the important heart of the Gospel message being diminished by fire and brimstone porn.)

And even a hertic like me knows and understads the heart of the Gospels.

This I say unto you, that you love one another as I have loved you.

Why do so many people have trouble with this simple concept?

164 Sol Berdinowitz  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:06:08pm

re: #161 engineer dog

completely o.t.:

i seem to remember bush talking about how ya have a war, see, and the war brings about real good popularity that allows you to pass your social program

can't find the quote, tho - does anybody know where to find it?


LBJ had the same approach, he pursued the Vietnam War to gain conservatives' support for the Great Society

165 calochortus  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:06:24pm

re: #153 DaddyG


Again you cannot accurately judge a religion based on a misinterpretation or even outdated interpretation of its doctrines and beliefs. Conversely religions have done much to improve our culture and society but they are not immune to contemporary biases of those societies.

I am judging religious politicians based on what they claim is their belief system-the bible as it is written today, with all the out of context quotes and whatnot. If they want it, they should own the whole thing, not just the parts they like.

166 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:06:43pm

re: #163 Romantic Heretic

And even a hertic like me knows and understads the heart of the Gospels.


Why do so many people have trouble with this simple concept?

It's an easy concept right up until your neighbor is playing loud music at 3 am and letting his weeds grow under the fence and his kid just broke your front window.

167 DaddyG  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:06:44pm

re: #143 EmmmieG
We tend to do it quietly and consistently these days. I've given fast offerings for others and I've received a share of food stores and help from the ward when I've been in trouble. I hope to be in a position to dwarf the help I need with the help I can give some day.

Imagine if we had the ability to do this on an international level!

168 Amory Blaine  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:06:54pm

re: #160 EmmmieG

I was ten, and I think that was the year I saw Xanadu, and my best friend and I agreed to it was FANTASTIC and that the critics were totally WRONG that it was bad.

I wonder if I could travel back in time and shake some sense into me.

I remember that movie. That was when I rethought my love of ELO. ELO BTW was run into the ground by Sharon Osbournes dad AKA Mr. Big.

169 American-African  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:07:06pm

re: #3 Cannadian Club Akbar

I'm thinking a sex scandal in his present...

170 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:08:53pm

re: #167 DaddyG

We tend to do it quietly and consistently these days. I've given fast offerings for others and I've received a share of food stores and help from the ward when I've been in trouble. I hope to be in a position to dwarf the help I need with the help I can give some day.

Imagine if we had the ability to do this on an international level!

Well, yes, I was thinking that possibly by 1930, and definitely by 1980, the church had the welfare system in place.

171 Vicious Babushka  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:09:22pm

re: #80 LudwigVanQuixote

Well the law is that if she crushes them - or as explained in Talmud - tears them off.

And yes, I would beat a woman who did that too - mercilessly.

Actually, you wouldn't, because you'd be on the ground writhing and screaming in indescribable pain.

172 DaddyG  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:09:48pm

re: #148 negativ

As far as I can tell, it's a meaningless phrase anyway. The defining, core belief of Christianity is that Jesus was the Messiah. That's inherently incompatible with Jewish eschatology, and vice versa.


When I use it it is as a recognition that the Jewish law predates and forms a foundation for Christianity and has a significant influence on American law. I don't think the socons are using it as an honorable nod to Judaism which is sad.

173 CuriousLurker  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:10:51pm

re: #171 Alouette

Heh, I had the same thought right after I up-dinged that comment of his.

174 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:11:30pm

re: #157 calochortus

You really are going to force me to write a treatise on this.

Rather than that because there is LONG discussion, if the case you are referring to is seen as a "good" thing, why is there that bit with the awl?

What are the specific conditions of that case?

What is trying to be balanced? - and what does "forever" mean. I'll give you a hint - forever does not mean forever - it means until the next jubilee year.

As to the word of G-d - on the contrary, Observant Jews certainly believe it is the word of G-d. We just don't have the arrogance to think that G-d's word is simple or easily understood with a casual reading.

175 Sol Berdinowitz  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:11:33pm

This discussion of religion highlights the misconception of religions, and if people raised in a Christian society have no concept of Christianity, imagine what they think of Islam.

They are fixated on Jihad and burqas.

They neglect the other pillars of the faith, which include giving alms to the poor, protecting the helpless and striving to lead a better life (the spiritual Jihad).

176 DaddyG  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:12:43pm

re: #165 calochortus

I am judging religious politicians based on what they claim is their belief system-the bible as it is written today, with all the out of context quotes and whatnot. If they want it, they should own the whole thing, not just the parts they like.


...and rightly so. Just as you should judge the whole of their belief system and not cherry pick the unpleasant or erronious parts to pass judgement on the whole.

Biblical literalism and social conserviatism is not my cup of tea and I loathe the idea of an American style Taliban. However misrepresenting a faith or cherry picking their writ as criticism is not constructive or useful in any discussion of the proper societal role of said faith.

AND YES I AM THE MAGICAL BALANCE FAIRY - GET USED TO IT! ;-)

177 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:13:09pm

re: #171 Alouette

Actually, you wouldn't, because you'd be on the ground writhing and screaming in indescribable pain.

Well said... But trust me - other men everywhere would feel inclined to beat her.

It is a sign of how advanced Torah is that she isn't ordered to be killed in some "creative" way.

178 cliffster  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:14:11pm

re: #159 JeffFX

Maybe because since the 1980's, creepy christian conservatives have taken over the party. Are you slow?

really? the GOP was in control of the house, senate, and white house for a good number of years, very recently. somehow, though - no national ban on homosexuality. weird.

179 DaddyG  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:18:01pm

Magical Balance Fairy here (Charles can I change my nic?)

The demonization of both political parties is a sad state of affairs. The libs are not going to force our kids to have abortions and live with same sex partners. Homosexuality is not going to cause the wrath of God to descend on America. ON the other hand the socons are not going to outlaw rock and roll, institute the stoning of gays and push race relations back to the 1850's.

Sheesh - lighten up!

180 Obdicut  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:18:37pm

re: #178 cliffster

Can you name the GOP congresspeople who aren't social conservatives, please?

181 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:18:59pm

re: #179 DaddyG

Magical Balance Fairy here (Charles can I change my nic?)

The demonization of both political parties is a sad state of affairs. The libs are not going to force our kids to have abortions and live with same sex partners. Homosexuality is not going to cause the wrath of God to descend on America. ON the other hand the socons are not going to outlaw rock and roll, institute the stoning of gays and push race relations back to the 1850's.

Sheesh - lighten up!

But...but...you gotta fight for your right to party!

So somebody is oppressing rock and roll.

182 Sol Berdinowitz  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:19:17pm

re: #179 DaddyG

No, but the socons have made it clear that they wish to repeal Roe vs. Wade. And that is scary enough to me.

183 Obdicut  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:19:50pm

re: #179 DaddyG

The social conservatives in Oklahoma got one of the most disgusting laws ever passed, though, mandating that women seeking abortions after having been raped be forced to have a vaginal ultrasound and the fetus described to them.

That is more than bad enough. Far more.

And the GOP denial of science is one of the most dangerous attitudes ever taken by a US political party. Ever.

184 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:19:55pm

re: #179 DaddyG

Magical Balance Fairy here (Charles can I change my nic?)

The demonization of both political parties is a sad state of affairs. The libs are not going to force our kids to have abortions and live with same sex partners. Homosexuality is not going to cause the wrath of God to descend on America. ON the other hand the socons are not going to outlaw rock and roll, institute the stoning of gays and push race relations back to the 1850's.

Sheesh - lighten up!

1870's. 1850's would require the re-institution of slavery.

185 calochortus  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:20:26pm

re: #174 LudwigVanQuixote

Nothing I like better than to make you work ;-)

What about the foreign slave? That person could be handed down from generation to generation.
What about selling a daughter into indenture servitude? You couldn't do that if you didn't own the daughter to start with.

However, as I have said, my point is that the folks who use the argument that something is biblical as all the support they need for a position, need to own the whole thing. And as they tend to have rather simplistic views, I think they need to defend a position on slavery/indentured servitude that is no longer considered moral.

186 Amory Blaine  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:20:41pm

re: #181 EmmmieG

FOOTLOOSE

187 Sol Berdinowitz  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:21:08pm

What Islam is all about?

188 RadicalModerate  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:22:43pm

re: #178 cliffster

really? the GOP was in control of the house, senate, and white house for a good number of years, very recently. somehow, though - no national ban on homosexuality. weird.

The SoCon faction of the Republican Party had much less influence back then in comparison to the crop from today. A lot of this had to do with the conga-line of financial and sex scandals that they were subject to (Bakker, Roberts, Tilton, Swaggart, et al). It wasn't until around 1990 that Pat Robertson started planting the seeds of government takeover with his "Christian Coalition" strategy of getting evangelicals involved in local and national politics.

189 DaddyG  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:24:08pm

re: #184 EmmmieG Precisely.

190 cliffster  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:25:12pm

re: #162 Obdicut

Now, can you please name me some GOP congresspeople who are not social conservatives?

I'm not going there because it's not a structured enough question, and the current political climate is to connect dots very dishonestly. I think there are very few congresspeople who match the democrat branding of "social conservative", ie, they hate gays, they want raped women to have to have their rapist's baby, etc. That's just sensationalism.

Either way, my point was, that liberals love social conservatives, and I'll add to that to mean the ones that DO match the democrat portrayal. Liberals love Jim DeMint, they do.

191 calochortus  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:25:47pm

And just to be clear-I am an atheist, but I do not have anything against religion per se. I know many people of faith and good will, and do not have any interest in trying to talk them out of their belief system.

I do get annoyed when people wave their scriptures at me and tell me I need to behave in a certain way because a deity I don't believe in told me to do it.

192 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:27:14pm

BBIAB.

193 Obdicut  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:27:44pm

re: #190 cliffster

You're not going there because you can't actually name any off the top of your head.

I don't know of any GOP congresspeople who are not social conservatives.

. I think there are very few congresspeople who match the democrat branding of "social conservative", ie, they hate gays, they want raped women to have to have their rapist's baby, etc. That's just sensationalism.

Well, that's just a really idiotic, stupid fucking strawman of what Democrats 'brand' social conservatism as.

It is interesting that you don't think that many GOP people want women to have their rapists baby, when there really, really are many GOP congresspeople who hold exactly that view.

Do you not know that?

194 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:27:55pm

re: #190 cliffster

I'm not going there because it's not a structured enough question, and the current political climate is to connect dots very dishonestly. I think there are very few congresspeople who match the democrat branding of "social conservative", ie, they hate gays, they want raped women to have to have their rapist's baby, etc. That's just sensationalism.

Either way, my point was, that liberals love social conservatives, and I'll add to that to mean the ones that DO match the democrat portrayal. Liberals love Jim DeMint, they do.

Liberals Love Cool James

195 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:28:42pm

re: #179 DaddyG

I want to agree with you, and by and large I do, but Obdicut is right. The socons are making some rather disgusting headway in some areas and some places.

196 apox  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:29:28pm

re: #174 LudwigVanQuixote

What is trying to be balanced? - and what does "forever" mean. I'll give you a hint - forever does not mean forever - it means until the next jubilee year.

Well as long as his servitude. Is only for a fixed period of time and not forever! Snarky snark

197 Sol Berdinowitz  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:30:33pm

re: #188 RadicalModerate

It wasn't until around 1990 that Pat Robertson started planting the seeds of government takeover with his "Christian Coalition" strategy of getting evangelicals involved in local and national politics.

The religious right felt very betrayed by Reagan, who used them to consolidate power but then ditched them as soon as Nancy's astrologer told her the time was right.

The new strategy is to insinuate their people into the highest levels of politics and government so they Wont Get Fooled Again

[Link: www.veoh.com...]

198 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:30:43pm

re: #193 Obdicut

Ahhh the wingnut two step.

1..Come into a discussion with a bunch of false misleading or patently stupid talking points.

2. Get called on it.

3. Demonstrate inability to comprehend the English language and logic until driving his interlocutor to the point of distraction.

4. Assume repetition of the same stupid talking points over and over constitutes debate - because when they were were wrong the first time - surely repeating them will make them true.

5. The interlocutor finally shows his humanity and gets fed up.

6. Wingnut whines like a martyr and feigns being insulted.

199 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:30:57pm

re: #190 cliffster

Liberals love Jim DeMint, they do.

Somebody must, 'cuz this conservative doesn't love him, and is disgusted by what he stands for.

200 DaddyG  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:30:58pm

re: #191 calochortus

We have apoint of agreement. Religious codes are best used as a guide for self (or a common community of believers), not imposed on others.

201 JeffFX  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:32:04pm

re: #178 cliffster

really? the GOP was in control of the house, senate, and white house for a good number of years, very recently. somehow, though - no national ban on homosexuality. weird.

They did interfere in a woman's right to die. This was instigated by Christian Conservative dirtbag Randall Terry. Saying they didn't do one impossibly extreme thing doesn't prove anything. If you can't see that, you aren't thinking at all clearly.

It was extra weird to this athiest that religious people wanted this woman's soul trapped in a lifeless body. (from a religious point of view)

202 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:32:11pm

I'm still waking up, expect nothing from me but tossed off pop culture references for a while as I look for my spiked helmet and gauntlets

203 Lidane  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:32:33pm

re: #130 Obdicut

I'm sorry, but it's the GOP that's tying social conservatives to fiscal conservatives. That is exactly what DeMint is doing in this piece.

I have no idea why you need to try to blame that on the liberals.

Because blaming liberals allows someone to pretend that something they don't like is a liberal plot instead of an obvious truth about conservatives.

204 DaddyG  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:32:55pm

re: #195 Slumbering Behemoth

I want to agree with you, and by and large I do, but Obdicut is right. The socons are making some rather disgusting headway in some areas and some places.

Yes they are. I have explained to several of my Mormon friends that the religious right wing of the GOP are not friends of the Mormons, even if they value family and faith. They savaged Romney for daring to believe differently and they are the ideological descendents of those who killed our early church leaders.

205 lgffan  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:33:09pm

Is there an actual transcript of the interview available?

206 JeffFX  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:33:11pm

re: #201 JeffFX athiest

Atheist D'oh. Yes, I'm athier than the rest, the athiest of all.

207 cliffster  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:33:28pm

re: #198 LudwigVanQuixote

Ahhh the wingnut two step.

1..Come into a discussion with a bunch of false misleading or patently stupid talking points.

2. Get called on it.

3. Demonstrate inability to comprehend the English language and logic until driving his interlocutor to the point of distraction.

4. Assume repetition of the same stupid talking points over and over constitutes debate - because when they were were wrong the first time - surely repeating them will make them true.

5. The interlocutor finally shows his humanity and gets fed up.

6. Wingnut whines like a martyr and feigns being insulted.

you left out that we are the epitome of evil, and that we are all racists and hate brown people. and that we are just like the nazis. you are really off your game today.

208 calochortus  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:34:02pm

re: #200 DaddyG

We have apoint of agreement. Religious codes are best used as a guide for self (or a common community of believers), not imposed on others.

And on that high note of agreement, I'm out to dig up some lunch.

209 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:34:23pm

re: #201 JeffFX

Looking at it clearly, they did not give a single shit for that woman or her family. They were nothing more than ghouls, feeding on the pain and misery of individuals for financial and political profit.

210 calochortus  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:34:38pm

re: #208 calochortus

And on that high note of agreement, I'm out to dig up some lunch.

That would be metaphorically speaking. No actual digging involved.

211 Obdicut  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:34:54pm

re: #207 cliffster


I liked you a lot better before you became Captain of the USS Victimhood.

212 apox  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:35:01pm

re: #200 DaddyG

We have apoint of agreement. Religious codes are best used as a guide for self (or a common community of believers), not imposed on others.

Well that doesn't really fit the mold of large world religions whose goal is to tell and convert the world to their religion. I really like the Buddhist iinterpretation of life as far as inner growth and human compassion goes, IMO. :)

213 cliffster  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:35:32pm

re: #193 Obdicut

Well, that's just a really idiotic, stupid fucking strawman of what Democrats 'brand' social conservatism as.

uh, nice talking with you

214 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:35:33pm

re: #205 lgffan

Is there an actual transcript of the interview available?

Having trouble getting the video clip to work?

215 DaddyG  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:35:35pm

re: #210 calochortus

That would be metaphorically speaking. No actual digging involved.

Truffles!

Have a good one. I've enjoyed the discussion.

216 JeffFX  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:36:31pm

re: #209 Slumbering Behemoth

Looking at it clearly, they did not give a single shit for that woman or her family. They were nothing more than ghouls, feeding on the pain and misery of individuals for financial and political profit.

The leaders...most likely. The crowds of crying people on my TV wanting to keep her alive appeared to be true believers.

217 calochortus  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:36:59pm

re: #215 DaddyG

Truffles!

Have a good one. I've enjoyed the discussion.

Me too.
Could we make those chocolate truffles-still, no digging required

218 DaddyG  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:37:20pm

re: #212 apox

Well that doesn't really fit the mold of large world religions whose goal is to tell and convert the world to their religion. I really like the Buddhist iinterpretation of life as far as inner growth and human compassion goes, IMO. :)


I think conversion without compelling is the goal for me. I'd be happy to welcome you to my religion but it is always best if you do that because you believe not because I require you to behave that way. That even extends to my own children.

219 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:37:39pm

re: #201 JeffFX

I always thought "SCHIAVO" should be 50 feet high in lights in the same font used for the band KISS, and that sign should be turned on with fireworks and fanfare whenever anyone tries to tell me that Republicans are totally going to stay out of your private affairs and let you make your own decisions

I believe the so-cons when they say they're ramming through their agenda, Terri Schiavo wasn't a dream, that actually happened, we had an actual GOP doctor actually betraying his ethics, we saw Bush basically screech to a halt, we saw all these guys just make a horiffic mockery out of some poor guy's end of life decision for his wife. Acquaintances of mine now WORK in that field, they're doing hospice care, you bring up Schiavo and they just vibrate with fury about what was done to that family in the name of keeping crazies in the political game

They actually did that, and I can only assume they'll do more of that, because, that's what they run on, that's what apparently gets them elected.

220 Gus  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:37:52pm

Let me see if I have this right. Jim DeMint wouldn't be an issue if liberals just kept their mouths shut?

221 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:39:09pm

re: #220 Gus 802

Let me see if I have this right. Jim DeMint wouldn't be an issue if liberals just kept their mouths shut?

The only way to stop evil mints is for good mints to do nothing


hold on that's not right

222 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:39:43pm

re: #185 calochortus

Nothing I like better than to make you work ;-)

What about the foreign slave? That person could be handed down from generation to generation.
What about selling a daughter into indenture servitude? You couldn't do that if you didn't own the daughter to start with.

However, as I have said, my point is that the folks who use the argument that something is biblical as all the support they need for a position, need to own the whole thing. And as they tend to have rather simplistic views, I think they need to defend a position on slavery/indentured servitude that is no longer considered moral.

OK except that I am owning the whole thing and every case you bring is not what you think it is. I don't debate that many low brow people read it the same way you are and then go on to abuse it.

Take a foreign slave.

Whatever the laws are on that, they are moot. Rather than going into it the details which are long - how about we point out that they are moot and don't apply, can not be applied and haven't applied for over 2000 years.

Why?

Because to be in that situation, you have to have been captured in combat, during a declared war, by the armies of the king (which we do not have anymore), of a certain set of tribes that the laws apply to (which no longer exist) and adjudicated by the Sanhedrin (which we no longer have) to be in that position.

223 Gus  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:40:03pm

re: #221 WindUpBird

The only way to stop evil mints is for good mints to do nothing

hold on that's not right

How to challenge your political opponents: say nothing about them!

/

224 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:40:15pm

re: #220 Gus 802

Let me see if I have this right. Jim DeMint wouldn't be an issue if liberals just kept their mouths shut?

If that's the goal, then they're pretty fucked. This conservative refuses to keep his mouth shut about assholes who hide their ideals of christian supremacy in socon rhetoric.

225 DaddyG  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:40:39pm

I think as LGF has shifted back to the middle left from the anti-jihadist furvor of the past there has been a tendency to villify the right as a monolithic plot against freedom, science and sense.

Some of the nasty stuff said about the left is now being paid back in full. I empathise with Cliffster and others who push back against that kind of broad brush approach.

(See I really am the magical balance fairy - I bet some posters would slap me given half a chance!)

226 Lidane  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:40:44pm

re: #220 Gus 802

Jim DeMint Social conservatives wouldn't be an issue if liberals just kept their mouths shut.

FTFY. That seems to be the argument, as far as I can tell.

227 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:40:54pm

re: #207 cliffster

you left out that we are the epitome of evil, and that we are all racists and hate brown people. and that we are just like the nazis. you are really off your game today.

Ohh you are hardly the epitome of evil. You are too much of a snarky twit to be taken seriously.

228 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:41:38pm

re: #225 DaddyG

*SLAP!*

229 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:41:43pm

re: #219 WindUpBird

also I do not believe that all Republicans must be socons, of course that's ridiculous


Problem is this:

The so-cons are united and feel very strongly about...whatever their insane bullshit is, and they're much more motivated than fiscal conservatives who stay away from this stuff, and they have the base on their side.

It ain't that all Republicans are so-cons, it's that the ones that aggressively aren't are weak and getting weaker, because it's an easy way to manipulate the GOP base

230 DaddyG  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:42:04pm

re: #228 Slumbering Behemoth

*SLAP!*


Thank you sir may I have another!

/

231 HappyWarrior  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:42:35pm

It's simple to me. If conservatives don't want to be defined by guys like DeMint than why nominate candidates like O'Donnell, Angle, Buck, and a lot of the others we saw this election cycle. Socially moderate candidates are often derided by people like Senator DeMint, former governors Palin and Huckabee as not being real Republicans and whether onew ants to admit or not, a lot of Republican primary voters go along with that message.

232 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:43:08pm

re: #225 DaddyG

I think as LGF has shifted back to the middle left from the anti-jihadist furvor of the past there has been a tendency to villify the right as a monolithic plot against freedom, science and sense.

Some of the nasty stuff said about the left is now being paid back in full. I empathise with Cliffster and others who push back against that kind of broad brush approach.

(See I really am the magical balance fairy - I bet some posters would slap me given half a chance!)

I'm just talking political strategy here!

No more "broad brush" to say that the Giants scored a touchdown, and now have 7 more points. The so-cons in the GOP are scoring touchdowns. They're being rewarded. That's basically it!

233 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:44:10pm

Re 222

Note to Calochortus

I don't debate that many low brow people read it the same way you are and then go on to abuse it.

Meaning, or meant to say, that there are low brow people who abuse it by reading the same way and using that as a justification to be rotten. In no way did I mean to imply you, Calochortus, are low brow.

Sorry for any possible confusion. No snark intended.

234 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:44:31pm

re: #232 WindUpBird

blah blah extra point blah blah frozen tundra blah blah two point conversion

235 Gus  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:44:38pm

re: #226 Lidane

FTFY. That seems to be the argument, as far as I can tell.

Yes. Because they "fit the narrative" and are an "easy target." Well gee whiz. Not a day goes by where one of those socon boobs "fits the narrative". It's almost like we're playing "No True Scotsman" with Jim DeMint, Sarah Palin, social conservatives, etc. This in light of their daily political genuflecting during the last two years. So I suppose the Value Voters summit never took place either.

236 DaddyG  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:45:05pm

re: #229 WindUpBird
There is a big part of me that suspects the real dissatisfaction in American politics is with the "elite classes" that feel they can dictate to the flyover country. The socons will be swept from power quickly if they act as though the American people want their flavor of authoritarianism to replace a more liberal flavor of authoritarianism.

237 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:45:41pm

Also, note NON so-cons like Bush (Bush was no so-con himself, happily agree with that) still went along with the Schiavo garbage

because he couldn't afford not to, politically, it was working

So yeah!

238 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:46:52pm

re: #230 DaddyG

The first one is free. If you want more, you have to pay.

239 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:47:48pm

re: #236 DaddyG

There is a big part of me that suspects the real dissatisfaction in American politics is with the "elite classes" that feel they can dictate to the flyover country. The socons will be swept from power quickly if they act as though the American people want their flavor of authoritarianism to replace a more liberal flavor of authoritarianism.

I'll just ignore the "elitist" meme, exept to say it's precisely the reverse that is true, no matter what GOP voters in Kansas thing

Flyover states have more influence per capita( nebraska gets two senators, California gets two senators) get more subsidies (FARMS WHEE!) and have a disproportionate influence overall, because their states are more often battleground states

So the fact that anyone in those states feels they're being dictated to makes me giggle

240 HappyWarrior  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:48:04pm

What bugs me about some conservatives is whenever conservative elected officials act recklessly or irresponsibliy, it's always some excuse that they were really liberals. Yet these same people pulled the levers for them again and again. Conservativism and I will add liberalism are not perfect ideologies. Conservativism I think has its flaws but so does liberalism.

241 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:49:40pm

re: #240 HappyWarrior

What bugs me about some conservatives is whenever conservative elected officials act recklessly or irresponsibliy, it's always some excuse that they were really liberals. Yet these same people pulled the levers for them again and again. Conservativism and I will add liberalism are not perfect ideologies. Conservativism I think has its flaws but so does liberalism.

I always said the Democrats are corrupt, they're beholden to corporate interests, they're not organized, they whine too much... and they're still the party in America that makes the most sense

242 JeffFX  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:50:06pm

re: #239 WindUpBird


So the fact that anyone in those states feels they're being dictated to makes me giggle

We really are all being dictated to by each other. It's part of living with others in a society. Some folks just don't get it, and scream socializm though.

243 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:51:26pm

re: #146 Obdicut

So when Jim DeMint, GOP congressman, makes a speech that ties together social and fiscal conservatism-- that prompts you to talk about how dishonest liberals are in tying together fiscal and social conservatism?

What number of GOP congresspeople or governors can you name who aren't social conservatives?

I can think of-- (barely) Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Chris Dudley wasn't! he lost to Kitzhaber, tho

244 Obdicut  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:52:03pm

re: #225 DaddyG

I'd sympathize a lot more if it weren't true that there were a lot of elected GOP officials who really were against abortion under all circumstances, and if it weren't true that the GOP is terribly, stupidly, awfully anti-science. And they are.

245 Gus  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:56:34pm

Plus if you're a socon congressman and take a fall in some sex scandal you can always blame "the liberal culture" like "the gay agenda" for creating the environment that led to your downfall. Mark Foley anyone? Of course that all gets laundered in the Information Disease Media like Newbusters.

246 HappyWarrior  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:59:38pm

re: #245 Gus 802

Plus if you're a socon congressman and take a fall in some sex scandal you can always blame "the liberal culture" like "the gay agenda" for creating the environment that led to your downfall. Mark Foley anyone? Of course that all gets laundered in the Information Disease Media like Newbusters.

Yep, seriously for a bunch of people who constantly pat themselves on the backs for "championing" personal responsiblity, I always see crap like this out of elected conservatives who screw up. You would think and hope that being caught in a sex scandal would humble them and maybe they'd stop acting like the rest of us are all heathens but no they act more arrogant than ever when caught.

247 Gus  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 12:59:53pm

And Sarah Palin's failure as governor is due in large part to the liberal media.

/

Amazing this portability of "personal responsibility".

248 calochortus  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 1:00:40pm

re: #233 LudwigVanQuixote

Re 222

Note to Calochortus

Meaning, or meant to say, that there are low brow people who abuse it by reading the same way and using that as a justification to be rotten. In no way did I mean to imply you, Calochortus, are low brow.

Sorry for any possible confusion. No snark intended.

Ludwig, no offense taken. I try to put the most positive construction possible on any post. Its way too easy to type something that can be read two ways-I've been guilty of it myself.

249 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 1:01:03pm
250 Slap  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 1:01:46pm

re: #228 Slumbering Behemoth

Yes?

251 HappyWarrior  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 1:03:58pm

re: #247 Gus 802

And Sarah Palin's failure as governor is due in large part to the liberal media.

/

Amazing this portability of "personal responsibility".

Of course, seriously it's crap really. The whole idea that conservatives actually value personal responsibility more than liberals is crap. The only difference is conservatives say they value it more than liberals but I see nothing that actually suggests that.

252 Lidane  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 1:04:05pm

re: #240 HappyWarrior

Conservativism and I will add liberalism are not perfect ideologies. Conservativism I think has its flaws but so does liberalism.

Every ideology is flawed. What makes the difference between an honest liberal and/or conservative and an unthinking demagogue like DeMint (or Palin, or anyone we've seen in the 2010 GOP, really) is the ability to admit those flaws and to say that in spite of them, a particular point of view fits their worldview.

The biggest problem with socons is the ideological corner they've painted themselves into. Any uncertainty, or flaw, or weakness in their argument is such a threat to them and to their intellectual house of cards that they go out of their way to deny that those flaws exist. Those flaws are clearly the fault of a liberal plant, or the "lamestream media" or Scary Brown People, or gays, or whatever. It's never a flaw in the ideology, because if they admitted to that, they'd have to admit to their other doubts and then everything they claim to believe in would collapse.

253 Gus  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 1:04:10pm

re: #249 Slumbering Behemoth

What The Fuck Has Sarah Palin Done So Far?

Funny yet depressing. 12 million dollars since quitting her governorship?

254 Ben G. Hazi  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 1:06:40pm

There's no way to put this nicely, so I'll just come out with it:

Fuck Jim DeMint, his confederates and enablers, and the horses they rode in on...

255 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 1:08:39pm

re: #253 Gus 802

Funny yet depressing. 12 million dollars since quitting her governorship?

McDonald's sells burgers by the billions everyday. Some people just love paying for garbage. Go figure?

256 Gus  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 1:08:49pm

What a society. Sarah Palin has made more money than the combined salaries of Stephen Hawking, Albert Einstein, and Carl Sagan. Now, I didn't verify this but I'm pretty confident that the numbers are correct.

257 JeffFX  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 1:09:00pm

re: #253 Gus 802

Funny yet depressing. 12 million dollars since quitting her governorship?

It's incredible how much cash people will throw at a mediocre but photogenic person who will say the misleading things they want said. Propaganda doesn't come cheap.

258 wrenchwench  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 1:09:25pm

re: #254 talon_262

There's no way to put this nicely, so I'll just come out with it:

Fuck Jim DeMint, his confederates and enablers, and the horses they rode in on...

And so we come full circle...

2 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir) Wed, Nov 10, 2010 10:20:59am

After thinking long and hard about DeMint's statement, I have come to the only logical conclusion.

Fuck you and the horse you rode in on, DeMint.

259 Gus  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 1:10:24pm

re: #255 Slumbering Behemoth

re: #257 JeffFX

A true sign of our virtuous American exceptionalism.

260 JeffFX  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 1:11:40pm

re: #256 Gus 802

What a society. Sarah Palin has made more money than the combined salaries of Stephen Hawking, Albert Einstein, and Carl Sagan. Now, I didn't verify this but I'm pretty confident that the numbers are correct.

In soviet union, we throw bimbos at cash, but in America it's the opposite. Crazy!

/Smirnoff

261 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 1:13:12pm

re: #259 Gus 802

Well, I do believe in American exceptionalism, but I don't believe that makes us perfect or infallible in any way.

262 Lidane  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 1:14:27pm

re: #261 Slumbering Behemoth

Well, I do believe in American exceptionalism, but I don't believe that makes us perfect or infallible in any way.

ZOMG! RINO! How dare you even suggest that America isn't the perfect, sanctified beacon of all that is Holy and Right in the world. What would Supply Side Jesus say?

/2010 GOP

263 Gus  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 1:17:49pm

re: #261 Slumbering Behemoth

Well, I do believe in American exceptionalism, but I don't believe that makes us perfect or infallible in any way.

Yeah. It's still depressing though. What we value as a society. How we can throw around million of dollars to people that lack talent or any clear intellect that benefits society. This utter sham of our celebrity culture will be our real downfall.

264 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 1:19:39pm

re: #256 Gus 802

What a society. Sarah Palin has made more money than the combined salaries of Stephen Hawking, Albert Einstein, and Carl Sagan. Now, I didn't verify this but I'm pretty confident that the numbers are correct.

To say the least.

265 Obdicut  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 1:20:50pm

re: #263 Gus 802

People see capitalism as defining an end, rather than as the means to an end. That's really a big part of it.

Five million dollars made from brainstorming cigarette ads aimed at teenagers buys the same stuff as five million dollars made from pioneering a new medication for lung cancers.

That in and of itself isn't a huge problem. It's somewhat of a problem.

The bigger problem is that we treat those people the same. Anyone who makes money is treated as though they are successful.

266 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 1:22:04pm

re: #263 Gus 802

I not sure it will be our downfall, but it certainly does nothing to advance our nation or our species. Absolutely nothing at all.

267 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 1:27:13pm

re: #249 Slumbering Behemoth

What The Fuck Has Sarah Palin Done So Far?

This is brilliant.

268 Stanghazi  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 1:39:04pm

re: #263 Gus 802

Yeah. It's still depressing though. What we value as a society. How we can throw around million of dollars to people that lack talent or any clear intellect that benefits society. This utter sham of our celebrity culture will be our real downfall.

The Kardashians.

269 huggy77  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 1:52:07pm

wow, what a video.... All he did was go on and on about loving jesus, the end of days. I mean how many times can a guys say that abortion is a sin... Is he a senator or a preacher...

270 Ayeless in Ghazi  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 2:01:14pm

The social conservatives I know in my part of the South are out there every day campaigning against racism, homophobia, and every kind of bigotry known to man.

Not all social conservatives blah blah blah...///

(Sound familiar to anyone?)

271 palomino  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 2:52:57pm

re: #178 cliffster

really? the GOP was in control of the house, senate, and white house for a good number of years, very recently. somehow, though - no national ban on homosexuality. weird.

Only because the Supreme Court stepped in and said that legislative bans on homosexual behavior are unconstitutional.

Yes, the left exploits the extreme social conservatism of people like Demint. But they're only able to do so because so many of the socons are lunatics. Basically you're blaming the messenger (Dems) for your party's extremist failings.

272 Wozza Matter?  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 3:54:33pm

Palin/Bachmann 2012

regulate the human entirely - deregulate the markets to the point of clusterfuck..............

273 jamesfirecat  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 9:05:05pm

re: #120 lostlakehiker

There's a lot of room for interpretation in that statement.

One way to put it: You have to be a "SOCON" to be a fiscal conservative. Otherwise, we "conservatives" won't recognize and respect your fiscal conservatism.

Another way: fiscally conservative policies are more feasible to the extent that the society involved mostly hews to socially conservative ways. If people are mostly thrifty and prudent, there will be less need for welfare, less need for ER visits, less need for bailouts and stimulus programs.

If most children are raised in nuclear families, one wife, one husband, same two biological parents cooperating to raise the kids, there's a better chance the family can take care of feeding, clothing, and sheltering the rug rats, as well as teaching them some manners and some good habits, and maybe even teaching them how to count to 100, say the alphabet, and the sounds the letters make, before they hit the formal school system. Such parents can be helpful in teaching the kids to read, too.

All this can in principle be done by a harried single mom, if she's supermom. Mostly she isn't. All this can in principle be done by a polygamous family, assuming internal strife doesn't tear it apart. All this can in principle be done in other childrearing arrangements. Like when A and B are partners and A is the biological parent of X and B is the parent of Y and then X and Y fight over you like Y better because you're Y's parent no I don't yes you do etc. Social conservatives, small font not what Jim DeMint means by the term, are pessimists about how well things will go with the kids being raised by A and B. Not that it can't be done. Millions of A's and B's valiantly overcome the inherent difficulties of the project and raise fine X's and Y's. But it's kind of swimming upstream.

Adults do all sorts of adult things including affairs, divorces, love children, what have you. A socon world that enforced socon behavior norms would be suffocating. But the other pole is dangerous. Too many on the Left think of nuclear family America as the enemy, a fit object only for scorn and taxation.

"Too many on the Left think of nuclear family America as the enemy, a fit object only for scorn and taxation."

Jebus Cripes, broad brush much?

And I thought it was suppose to be the rich that we saw as the enemy and saw fit only for scorn and taxation....

274 laZardo  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 9:05:49pm

re: #273 jamesfirecat

At least you don't need a broad brush for conservatism when Jim DeMint actually tells the truth about it for once.

275 dragonfire1981  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 9:32:33pm

You know I wonder why a lot of folks aren't too fond of "Christians" and I think folks like Demint are part of the reason.

Yes, I am Christian, my loyalty is to CHRIST. Not my church, not the GOP. I choose to live my life in as close as way as he did his as possible.

That means:

- I do not hate gays
- I do not think women are second class citizens
- I do not think skin color or religious background should affect how you treat someone
- I do not threaten anyone with violence in the name of the Lord
- I do not anything that could be considered a hate crime.

So if those are things I don't do, what are some of things I do?

- Be kind
- Be generous
- Be humble
- Be honest
- Be caring
and most of all, I don't sacrifice my personal integrity. I judge my actions what JESUS did, not what Christians do.

276 Querent  Thu, Nov 11, 2010 8:02:11pm

re: #47 DaddyG

Upding for "fire and brimstone porn"!


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2021-06-05 2:51 pm PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds Tweet

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app Shop at amazon
as an LGF Associate!
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Uncommon US Flags #2: Commissioning Pennant A Commissioning Pennant is a flag flown from the masthead of a warship from the moment the ship is placed in service until the moment it is decommissioned. The only time the pennant is not displayed on a US ...
Anymouse 🌹🏡😷
2 days, 2 hours ago
Views: 243 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 4
Tweets: 1 •