"But he evinces contempt for political opponents—from labeling President Obama an 'incompetent and treasonous' enemy of the nation to comparing 'enviro-Nazis' to Osama bin Laden, likening ex-Labor Secretary Robert Reich and Service Employees International Union members to Nazi 'brownshirts' on multiple occasions, and referring to an Indianapolis teen as 'a black teenage thug who was (deservedly) beaten up' by local police. A 'sensible policy for handling Afghanistan,' he offered, could be summed up as: 'KILL! KILL! ANNIHILATE!'"
This guy has the same first amendment rights as anyone else, but what is troubling is the nature of his rhetoric. This goes hand in hand with our previous post, and Monk's comment about the Tea Party's "Christianity." How do evangelical Christians stand with a party where this kind of sentiment is considered part of the "market place of ideas?"
16 comments:
How do Christians stand with a Democratic Party that advocates for the perversion of sex and marriage, and the murdering of unborn children?
I heard this on the news this morning and I have to say that it seems reasonable to fire this guy. If your job places you in the public eye, then you should expect some scrutiny. My employer has policies on blogs and social networking, so I fully expect to get into trouble if I make comments that can be connected to my company.
This guy tried to say he was being satirical. I just don't see the satire. With the exception of the SEIU (they have engaged in some very thuggish tactics), his past comments have been pretty stupid.
The first amendment recognizes that we have a great deal of freedom to say what we want. That doesn't mean we should or that we are somehow insulated from consequences.
I think reasonable Christians can find faults with some of the positions of both parties. IMO, the best you can do is to decide what issues are the most important to you and pick the candidate that most closely matches that.
Hmm, Jane. By your own logic you seem to be suggesting that it is perfectly ok to exploit and abandon the poor, as long as you don't support abortion.
I do love the Christian right's response on abortion. That child is sacred until it is born, and even before if the mother needs assistance or pre-natal care. She is on her own. But once that kid is born, he/she is on their own, and should not be helped with nutrition, healthcare, etc.
Nice.
Streak,
It is NOT your responsibility to provide for me or my children; that responsibility belongs to me and my husband. One of the things that characterizes liberals like you is your confusion as to who bears the responsibility for things.
If you want to help people who you consider "poor", take up a collection, contribute some of your own money, and give it to the person, or persons of your choice.
Uh, Jane, you don't know the first thing about me. Not one thing. And you demonstrate that every time you write here.
I am absolutely thrilled that you and your husband can take care of your children. I assume, btw, that you will teach your children that violence against others is not something you joke about, and when they become Republicans in the future, they won't suggest that we use "live ammunition" against people with whom we disagree with. Is that true? Honestly, with the ignorance and lack of compassion from your comments, I am not even sure of that. I am absolutely sure you will teach your kids that gays are evil and that they should never have an abortion. Beyond that, who knows?
Perhaps you will teach them to have contempt for anyone who doesn't quite make it in life. Say they suffer from an addiction, or have a very expensive disability. Perhaps you will tell your kids that "that is that person's tough luck."
But I don't know you. All I know is that you come in here with derision and hatred towards liberals. I know that you have contempt for the poor. I know that you claim to be more righteous than me, because you "stand for life" and "marriage." So maybe all I know is that you have no compassion for anyone other than you, and won't pass that poison on to your kids.
Tell you what, Jane, I will give you another shot. Tell me how I am so evil as a liberal to want elderly retired people to be able to pay their heat. Tell me I am evil because I am concerned about nutrition for poor kids--maybe poor kids who have the bad luck of not having good parents. Tell me I am evil because I think that making sure that even poor women get cancer screening is a good thing.
Other than that, perhaps you should go frequent a blog where laughing at the poor is considered sport. I am finding you tiresome.
contribute some of your own money, and give it to the person, or persons of your choice.
Or...or...maybe...I could give money to, for example, my local food bank, which also receives gobs of fresh food from farms across the state who have been incentivized by The Government to do so (without which, by proof, they would otherwise not give). My donation stretches further that way, my tax money is used for a program to help The Poor provide fresh food for their family, and farmers, because of that tax dollar, actually get to employ some of their workers for weeks longer past the growing season to package and ship food that they would otherwise simply have tilled under.
Taxes and personal donations at work! w00t!
It is NOT your responsibility to provide for me or my children; that responsibility belongs to me and my husband.
No argument there. Most people don't argue. Nobody really wants to care for every single damn family out there. But it has been understood for more than a hundred years here, longer even, that small contributions of taxes dollars from which the poor, old and sick are cared for, is one of the many functions of a government besides for making sure that other people don't kill us or we don't kill each other.
Now, in all fairness, a little of my tax money goes to help businesses too. I'm OK with that, but just like I want a family off the dole who's taking advantage, so too do I want a business off the dole.
Great point, Smitty. Yeah, my tax money gets pooled in with private money, donations, state money, and tuition to provide education for thousands and thousands. I too took advantage of that.
Just as we all pitch together to provide roads and infrastructure that allow private business to prosper. We pitch in our shared money to extend loans to small businesses--especially those trying to get off the ground. No one seems to see that as socialism--nor is it--but it is just like pushing loans to college students or trying to help poor kids get a leg up in school. It is a small investment that could easily pay off big when that individual business takes off--or that individual student becomes that next great doctor or entrepreneur, or mother.
We are connected more than some seem to want to acknowledge. I am not sure why that bothers people like Jane so much. Like I said, I am glad she can and does take care of her kids. That is great. But I am baffled as to why she wants to punish poor kids for having made the mistake of being born to that addict or lazy person.
To hear you imbecilic liberals tell it, we do absolutely nothing for "the poor", or the elderly, or the disabled. Then what is happening to those multiplied billions that the government says it is spending on them? Huh? Where's it going? Well, the truth is, a large portion of it is going into the pockets of the middle-class government employees who run the "programs".
We are spending quite enough on "social safety net" programs. But not according to you idiots. Oh no! We need hundreds of billions more, you say.
Not only are you stupid, but you are thieves as well.
Hmm. You take a post on Republicans suggesting opening fire on protesters and turned it into a discussion on government spending. But we are the imbeciles. We actually agree with you that we appreciate that you take care of your kids and have that ability (and should) and you call us stupid.
Yeah, I think you have worn out your welcome.
Oh, and I forgot. You called us thieves.
Nice.
And I assume you are a Christian. That always makes me smile. A Christian who embraces their hatred like a Sith Lord. Nice.
Jane, you ignorant slut.
To hear you imbecilic liberals tell it, we do absolutely nothing for "the poor", or the elderly, or the disabled.
I read the comments in this thread. I don't see where we mention that we d absolutely nothing. In mine, in fact, I noted to we do quite a bit. So I'm a little lost on this part of your comment. It seems not to stand up to the evidence.
Well, the truth is, a large portion of it is going into the pockets of the middle-class government employees who run the "programs".
Indeed! "Programs" need people to "operate" them, and we as a people tend not to work for free. So, yes, there are some "workers" who "earn" "wages."
We can and should have a debate about the number of workers needed, how overtime is computed, and the bloated size of middle management. I bet we agree on quite a bit there.
We are spending quite enough on "social safety net" programs. Yes and no. Let's have a real debate about what comprises these programs, what ones have value, and what ones actually get in the way of personal advancement. But it is really really really hard to debate someone whose argument is summed up thusly:
Not only are you stupid, but you are thieves as well.
"Not only are you a doody-head, but you're a poopy-butt as well."
My 2 1/2 year old made a more cogent argument than that tonight about why he shouldn't have to go to bed yet.
That is a tremendously fucking stupid comment. I have stolen nothing, neither literally nor figuratively. Bring something than than a bucket of drool to your next argument.
Dont feed the Trolls. S/he didn't start off all that bad, but clearly is more interested in making insults and unsubstantiated arguments than any kind of intelligent debate. Doody head, indeed.
People like Jane try to make it sound that Government waste is what has caused our budget problems, that a majority of spending goes to over paid employees. We cannot close the local and federal budget holes with reductions in pay or waste reduction. You don't want to believe it, but eliminating our budget problems will result in sacrifice in the form of less benefits going to actual poor people, or schools, or buisnesses OR higher taxes. Deal with it.
The State of Michigan has a $1.8B deficit. If every state employee paid the state for the priveledge of working there, we would not close the deficit. Study after study has shown that even when benefits are included, public sector workers make LESS than similarly educated private sector workers.
Sometimes I think conservative Christians think people who are part or work in public service are some sort of Soviet, Alien clones or something.
"they" are "we".
When Government workers are 'overpaid' they spend more money buying stuff like cars, and new furniture and clothes. Those companies make more money and the cycle goes around.
I remember a WalMart cashier complaining about spending the first few days of a month checking out 'those' sorts of people who were on food stamps.
I pointed out that the money WalMart made on those purchases paid her salary, and she could always say home without pay on those days...
My point here isn't to berate Jane or his/her ilk, it is point out that we are all in this together.
PS. God told the nation of Israel to take care of people and specifically laid out how a King should rule... (kind of a Government worker, that King..)
Psalm 72 Deus, judicium
1Give the King your justice, O God, *
and your righteousness to the King's son;
2That he may rule your people righteously *
and the poor with justice.
3That the mountains may bring prosperity to the people, *
and the little hills bring righteousness.
4He shall defend the needy among the people; *
he shall rescue the poor and crush the oppressor
Post a Comment