Lib Christian Haters Silent on Obama/Clinton Pulpit Politicking

But we can always count on people like gullible Steve to fall for it….

Re: “No, but Dems are demanding we follow the lead of the UN and adopt the religion of worldwide socialism and our Supreme Court should be governed by legal precedent from other countries.”

Can you produce a documented quote or position paper from one of the Democratic candidates laying out that position?

As you know, I can document my comment.

“but can you point to a verifiable position on the part of the Democratic leadership declaring their hatred of Christians?”

Who said anything about the Democratic Leadership? He said lefties.

Oh and by the way,

“At least they are not demanding to amend the US Constitution to bring it in line with their vision of God’s Word.”

Coservatives aren’t doing either. That’s crap pushed by an Arksas governor who is the equivalent of John Edwards with a bible.

Re: “How blind is he? What does he think the UN’s demand for worldwide worship at the altar of Global Warming is all about?”

Then you should have no problem posting sources where Democratic Party Leaders and office holders have demanded exactly that, in those words.

Re: “No, Democrats haven’t said they “hate” “right wing Christians”, but their deep disdain has been very well articulated and demonstrated so sans a specific quote and playing games with this quote or that, Steve has chosen to ignore the idea of the question and attack the phrasing.”

No. Just document your claims. You still haven’t.

Re: “Who said anything about the Democratic Leadership? He said lefties.”

And their names are….?

Re: “Conservatives aren’t doing either. That’s crap pushed by an Arkansas governor who is the equivalent of John Edwards with a bible.”

A lot of Conservative Republicans appear to like what they hear.

If I am to be “accountable” for the unattributed statements of “lefties”, why can I not hold Conservatives here to the same level of accountability for documented republican Primary results for their candidates.

I can 100% guarantee that, should Mike Huckabee be the presidential nominee of the Republican party every single Conservative here would fall in line and not only vote for him, but deny that he ever made (or meant) his statement about amending the US Constitution to be in line with “God’s Law” to justify their vote.

I, on the other hand, will acknowledge that one or the other Democratic nominees will have serious flaws. But, on balance, I still prefer either of the two Democratic leaders to Mike Huckabee or Rudi Giuliani.

On the other hand, I will face a dilemma should Republican John McCain be the nominee. I certainly disagree with on many issues, and I would not like the fact that, as a Republican he would keep most of the “Loyal Bushies” in their political posts. But he is the one Republican candidate I would trust to make decisions that he at least believed benefited the United States and not just his cronies or extremist political base.

Religion has historically been used by the ruling elites of society to control the national agenda. This goes for any and all elites both sides of the political spectrum throughout all of history. The reason most “lefties” don’t attack its ‘leadership’ for the exact same hollow religious babble that the right does indeed engage in, is because most “lefties” as most “righties” are playing partisan politics and/or are offering a knee-jerk reaction to the political opposition’s offense. Currently, however the conservative elite (as opposed the liberal elite) has enjoyed many political advances due to its success in pandering to the Christian Evangelical voting block. This is a fact that they themselves acknowledge. The problem is although religion is typically used by politicians, individual spirituality and state politics aren’t really compatible. So, you end up with all sorts of contradictions in the specific political worldview of candidate x . This goes for both sides. Remember Romans 3:23? Of course you do. “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.” Lets not point fingers one way without pointing them at ourselves.

Right now, the irony is that the Christian Evangelicals are starting to take an active interest in actually changing things in their country and they are starting to wake up to the fact that they’ve been used for political ends that aren’t necessarily in line with their own spiritual views. That means bad news for the group that has depended on them and used them for their votes. Huckabee might be strange and weird, thumping a bible, but no more so than the evangelicals he represents. Romney is just full of BS. He uses the word “God” for vain purposes, Huckabee doesn’t. He really believes the crap he says, even if it is simply ignorant. We know this because of their rhetorical vs. conceptual philosophical framework. Huckabee is a social conservative. I don’t agree with them, but at the end of the day you can work with them because they are genuine. Romney is a corporate conservative. You can’t work with them. They’ll say anything to push forward his agenda. Obviously we are never talking absolutes but degrees. We are all men capable of honesty and dishonesty. This goes for the left candidates as well, except that they’re all limousine liberals as far as I can see.

The true irony is the huge secular population that exists on both sides of the political divide that don’t say a word about their own politicians and pundits using the name of God to further their non-Christian and often times anti-Christian political agendas. At the end of the day, monetary profits and Christ likeness cannot simultaneously be achieved. Remember Matthew 6:24? Of course you do. “No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.”

In closing, in Washington you have two different elites, the liberal technocratic elite, sparring with the aristocratic elite over which side gets the right to tell you, the citizen what to do. Rather than ask which elite is desirable, wouldn’t it be much better to ask, why even bother having an elite at all?

The weekend at Bernie’s staring Shrillary and Obama was quite comical. Shrillary is looking at the past (90’s) which was a joke with several sets of books to make the economy look good. Obama has the backing of the cults of the world, including Islam which will provide him with billions of dollars to gain control of the white house where Obama will find he ‘owes’ them all and they will collect. Democrats have a great choice coming up, a socialist/communist/democrat vs a radical Islamist (in hiding), but now not hiding it too well. Funny the economy recovered from a recession in 2001, roared for six years and then the democrats took over congress and one year later the economy is tanking, again.

Thank you for the complement.

In regards to your comment I agree and disagree. While I certainly agree that neither side enjoys a monopoly on pandering to the religious, the recent stir up in the religious right wing is not something that is happening on the left, at least as of yet. And that is my primary focus.

It would not be true to say that the left has enjoyed the support of the Evangelicals as a voting block. They have overwhelmingly supported Republican political candidates. They have been specifically targeted by the Republican ‘leadership’ as a demographic to exploit. And I believe it is the president of Evangelicals of America (or something of the sort) that meets with President Bush every Monday morning. Perhaps the left has as many religiously minded people supporting its candidates, but I am specifically interested in the right because the evangelicals are a super huge and rapidly expanding demographic that is well organized and as a result is increasingly becoming more and more of a force to reckon with for any political movement. That means, that if the Republican leadership fails to please them enough they will abandon the republican leadership even if that means not voting at all. Needless to say, Wallstreet would suffer politically. However, there is only so much corporate America can do to please them without crossing a point where they might be better off just disassociating themselves with the evangelicals all together.

The same has and will happen again to the left eventually, but right now their religious support is solidly behind them and not openly discussing the contradictions of its political candidates, regardless of why or why not. That is where this becomes an issue for the right and not for the left.

Also, lets keep in mind that that many of the left are religiously atheistic. The types that vote for their faux religious leaders only to the extent that they believe their leaders are less evil then the opposition’s. That is to differentiate with the philosophical atheists on both sides that keep their mouths shut about religion during campaign season. Once again, it begs the question, that since there is ultimately a major third unrepresented group of citizens out there why is their never any discussion about or among them?

Re: “Why should I do your research for you Steve?”

Because you made the assertion.

Re: “Are you denying the demonstrated disdain of the Christian which has been so well-articulated?”

resp:” Yes. I am”

Yet this denial is followed immediately by a half admission:

“I do not like either.”

and a demonstration of that very disdain:

“Saint Ronald Reagan”

Do you even read your own posts?

Re: “Yet this denial is followed immediately by a half admission:
“I do not like either.”
and a demonstration of that very disdain:
“Saint Ronald Reagan”
Do you even read your own posts?”

Yes.
I included that “half admission” because I did not want to cast my statement as somehow declaring that those with whom I am politically allied (Liberal Democrats) are somehow pure as the driven snow. They are not. This is usually the purview of Conservatives when discussing Republican candidates.

I did include the reference to “Saint Ronald Reagan” because every Republican, everywhere, bows on bended knee to the memory of President Reagan in almost divine terms.

President Reagan was considerably less that the perfect human being we hear channeled in Republican Presidential debates.

However he was, despite my own displeasure, a very good president. Certainly a lot better than his two Republican successors.

I just tossed that adjective in to tweak Conservatives who have essentially Canonized the man.

Re: “That means, that if the Republican leadership fails to please them enough they will abandon the republican leadership even if that means not voting at all.”

I disagree with this aspect of your premise.

My postulate is that the Republican leadership will never curtail their efforts to please this right-wing evangelical base. There is, IMO, no limit to what they will do to keep this voting bloc loyal Republicans.

As I pointed out in other areas, the Republicans called the Congress back into session, and President Bush flew back from vacation after the angry article and speech by one man, James Dobson, regarding the federalization of the car of Terry Schiavo (and please, let’s not revive the Schiavo family dispute here, I’m talking about James Dobson’s demonstrated power, not the target of his demands).

That is power. Lots of groups have a claim on the soul of the Democratic Party, I fully admit that. But no group has demanded, and achieved such actions within one week of making them.

That is the difference.

I agree with your point that an elite group rules the American government. We have seen this group referred to as the “Incumbent Party” (meaning both sides).

Never let me fall into the trap of, while I am lambasting Republican sins, claiming some sort of innocence for their Democratic counterparts.

I knew this would happen.

Let me ask? Is this the Philadelphia Steve Blog. If I wanted to read Leftist propaganda, I’d log on to Kos. All you did Steve is prove your Intellectual midgetness. People like you drive me away from an otherwise enjoyable experience on Flopping aces. How many post did you post to change the subject, and otherwise bore me.

Re: “Of course most of us realized a long time ago that the lefties don’t really believe what they are preaching, unless it is about themselves as God, prophet and savior all in one unholy trinity of socialism.”

And I’m the one who is condemned for broad brush stereotyping?

This is nothing but a blanket, unsubstantiated, accusation against an entire group, without naming a single name, or citing a single instance.

But I guess that is OK for the Conservatives here, since it is applied to a Liberal, isn’t it?

“This is nothing but a blanket, unsubstantiated, accusation against an entire group, without naming a single name, or citing a single instance.”

“They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, tape wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.”
From
John Kerry’s slanderous speech against the members of the US military in front of the US Senate Subcommittee on Foreign Relations 22 Apr 1971. I repeat “This is nothing but a blanket, unsubstantiated, accusation against an entire group, without naming a single name, or citing a single instance.

At least they are not demanding to amend the US Constitution to bring it in line with their vision of God’s Word.

Why do religious beliefs trouble you so much? Beliefs are beliefs, whether they are religious in nature, or secular in origin.

I see your point MSgt White (Ret) and have to disagree. I think both sides are equally guilty and guilty is guilty regardless of what agenda you’re pushing.

I would recommend being carefull of falling victim to the logic that because a bunch of “leftist” candidates are babbling National Socialists that everyone on the left is the same.

Following that logic I would have to conclude that because Romney appears to me to be a fascist religious war mongering sociopath that you also share the same exact personality traits. Of course you don’t.

You referred earlier to National Socialists, rather than simply Socialists. Although I disagree with either label, the discussion of Socialism and who is and who isn’t a socialist is irrelevant. But you weren’t referring to traditional socialism. You were referring to National Socialists, which is also what the German Nazi’s referred to themselves as. I am certain you are aware of that historical fact, so I ask you why you engage is that sort of labeling? Secondly, I wonder if you are also aware that the National Socialists were “Socialist” in name only. That is, they despised, hated, and fought against socialism. Nietchze was hardly a socialist, and was approaching the ‘divine’ in Hitler’s mind. You know, the same Nietzsche that is praised by many ‘conservatives’ while also having the interesting characteristic of himself despising Christianity and even having written a book called the Anti Christian(Antichrist in English). All that said, to be clear, Hitler and the Nazi’s were super ‘conservative’. I hardly believe that you agree with the Nazis, and that is why I don’t use the word fascist to refer to the entire right wing. You, yourself should try to rise above the other children and define yourself as your own man, not a blind member of the pack or herd.

I’m sure you understand my frustration at trying to wade through all the name calling and “are too, are too”, “am not, am not” bloviating on both sides of the political spectrum.

And that is the crux of the problem. Our own belief systems have been poisoned by partisan politics. The way I see it is that the political line needs to be redrawn. I am solidly on the current “left”. But what does that mean? Martin Luther King Jr falls in the “leftist” category right next to Che Guevara. Those two individuals held two completely different and incompatible world views but they share the same political label. Just like Billy Graham and Hitler are on the same side, so are Gandhi and Stalin.

Is it just me or is something really screwed up here?

The truth is there are those who believe in hierarchy and those who don’t. I don’t. There are those that believe real change and those who just talk, which is the majority of both sides of the political spectrum. The suits, the investor class, include bourgeois liberals and bourgeois conservatives. They’re all a bunch of-excuse my French-pussies.

I am pro working man, but I am not a Socialist. I believe in brotherly love and environmental protection but I am no pantywaist. I am not a pacifist, but I am non violent to the death. That is why I will never run for state government, because you can’t run a state chalk full of fearful undedicated, bloviating morons as the majority of people are in any state, and not help them sleep at night by assuring them you’re armed to the teeth and ready to take even innocent lives in the name of the state. (Seems kind of socialist in theory, doesn’t it?)

The way I see it is that the conservatives of the sort that frequent sites such as this are fed up with what they feel are double standards presented by the pantywaist left. You obviously see the hypocrisy in driving and flying hundreds of miles, burning tons of oil in the process, to go protest a war you supposedly believe is over oil. I agree. I believe the war is over oil, and I also believe the real solution to corporate imperialism is to simply not buy cheap shit you don’t really need. We can discuss actual problems and solutions another time in a more appropriate thread but for now, I ask are we, the small percentage of actual thinking Americans together or are we not. Our politicians are business men, and we know all about business men. They have allegiance to the dollar and nothing else.

Re: “So Steve: Are you trying to say that the top Democrats running for President are NOT in favor of the UN plan to control Global Warming?”

How does that constitute “subverting the US to worldwide socialism?”

NOTE: THIS COMMENT VIOLATES THE REQUEST OF THE POST AUTHOR TO AVOID SPAMMING THE COMMENT STREAM AND IT HAS BEEN REMOVED. ADDITIONAL FILIBUSTERING COMMENTS ON THIS THREAD WILL BE REMOVED WITHOUT NOTICE.

Re: “P.S. If you insist on filibustering in these comment threads, I reserve the right to delete your comments. Please limit your responses so that other people’s words are not lost in your vomitous spew.”

Go ahead.

There are three parallel discussion threads going on here, all directed at me. I just respond to the accusations made.

Make sure you pick the ones that directly refute, with sources, comments made by Conservatives. We would not want to trouble them too much with facts.

I post here because, unlike Conservatives, I do not like having discussions in an echo chamber, where only “approved” comments are permitted. I prefer a site where I have demostrate knowledge of my topic, and encounter errudite conversation.

If you prefer the Rush Limbaugh model of discourse, go ahead and ban me altogether.

I love seeing Steve’s “conservative free pass” line. I don’t think he even realizes that
1) there is no free pass given by most people who post on this site (see also the wide range of political support for various Republican candidates)
2) the idea of a free pass for a political orientation is better illustrated by his own posts in regards to Democrats

After watching the news and Bush in the sword dance clearly links a lot of the ideals in Judgments with actions taken in this Iraq war. America has been fighting a war for the Arabs via Bush and Company. The Center for Integrity clearly shows the run up to the war was an out right lie, and media supported frenzy, all complicit in histories most horrific play to write a wrong history.

The horror is the Islamic stronghold on not only America business, education, and politics, Arabs under the radar manipulate American observation through Americas very own Mainstream Media. Here, Islam is a very powerful force in this election for President. That’s why it is important to debate and consider the cultural clock that has been controlled, and now is definitely linked by Obama blood to Islam Arabs. This can influence powerful politics of the Democrats like Obama. Which may not be good for America, here, America likely needs a long romance and honeymoon to understand more about this cultural clock inside of Obama. A longer warm up time is needed to find out about Obama for what he will do compared to what he says.

Please all understand that I personally like Obama, but America needs to recognized and realize what are the consequences of change with a man who is a half breed, the blood from middle America, in Kansas, and the from the blood of a devoted Islamic father basically of Arabic fundamentalist. Yes, Obama makes the claim he is Christian, anyone can, but one makes the complete leap and in honor and support usually takes on a new name, in Obama’s case why not a Christian name? Even basic American Plains Indians in America have done that.

So, here America has a half breed, part Kansas, and part Arab Islamic from a devoted father who left him and his mother, Obama holds his hand on the bible committing his self to Christianity, yet keeping the name Hussein which we know will have an extraordinary impact on the entire Middle East. But, in what way, Bill Clinton is right even though critics bash Bill Clinton; by saying Obama is the roll of the dice, or is a fairy tail which eludes from Obama’s link to Kansas his mother and America’s most treasured fairy tail “The wizard of OZ” which exposed the wizard who was not. Which Clinton obviously perceives as not the President we need now.

After reading the book Obama wrote called the “Audacity of Hope” clearly shows and exposes very Anti-Constitutional ideals that support deep reflection from Islamic beliefs. In one case many stupid and contradictory remarks are made by Obama in his book, yet when one understands he is a half breed, one can see the that core believe in Islam is reflected through his fathers blood. Incredible for Obama to say he offers no Unified theory in American government. A very striking and extraordinary statement for one who taught the Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago for eight to ten years. America should think with caution about this man called Obama.

Dems agree with Flopping Aces:

Later Wednesday, Obama gave a 10-minute talk by live broadcast to a joint meeting in Atlanta of four historically black Baptist denominations, where Clinton was to appear in person later. These groups produced some of the most prominent civil rights leaders, including the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.. whom Obama quoted.

“Pastors are pushing this movement forward,” Obama said of his campaign, “and I need each and every one of you in this fight.”
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080130/D8UGERC80.html