Quantcast

Introducing Republicanity, the Real Religion Conservatives Worship

jesusphilosophyIt’s no secret that I don’t believe many conservatives are actually Christians.  And I damn sure don’t believe the GOP represents real Christianity at all.

So I coined the term “Republicanity” as the religion I believe these people actually worship.  It’s a term I really hope gets more mainstream attention because I’m absolutely fed up with Republicans slandering the Christian faith.

Republicanity is a blend of cult-like religious beliefs mixed with political ideologies.  It’s neither a true political party, nor a real religion—it’s both.  It’s why so many conservatives cling to being a Republican as tightly as they do being a “Christian.”  To many of these individuals, they treat their devotion to their political beliefs with the same conviction as they do their faith.

For them to dare question Republican talking points is tantamount to questioning their belief in God.

See, real Christianity is predicated on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.  You know, that whole helping the poor; giving to the needy; accepting one another; loving thy neighbor; forgiveness; hope and not judging others.  Basically, principles that aren’t beholden to one specific faith or religion — instead, they’re what I think are representative of good human beings.

You don’t have to be a Christian to believe in the values for which Christianity stands.  Which is one of the reasons why I call myself a Christian.  Yes, I believe in Jesus Christ, but I also think the values I believe in transcend religion to the very heart of human kindness and decency.  I believe that even when I meet people from other religions — or of no religious affiliation whatsoever — we can share these common values as good people.

Yet, when it comes to many conservatives, they don’t represent any of these values.  Their entire political movement is based on fear, hatred, judgment, anger, paranoia and disdain for those who are different.

Hell, the only “Biblical” values I ever see followed by many of these people is their opposition to homosexuality, abortion and church attendance.  (By the way, all three of those are issues which Jesus Christ never spoke about.)

See, you can say the Bible is your book, without actually being a Christian.  Jews aren’t considered Christians, but they believe in God and follow the Bible.

What conservatives have is a “religion,” if you will, built by two completely contradicting systems of belief.  First, their political ideology comes from Ayn Rand — someone who thought religion was stupid and those who followed it were idiots.  Then their social ideology is taken from a few handpicked excerpts from the Bible.

The reason why I view these people more like cult followers than anything else stems from the fact that their economic and social ideologies are complete contradictions of one another.  How does it make any sense to claim religious “moral” principles socially while at the same time supporting economic policies created by someone who opposed all forms of religion?

It makes absolutely no sense.  In fact, the only way anyone could believe such idiocy is if they were a part of some brainwashed cult following.

Think about it.  These people really believe they follow Jesus Christ by hating most anyone who isn’t just like them.  They really think that Jesus Christ — someone who spent his life helping the poor and the needy — would support massive cuts to programs that help the poor and the needy while protecting tax breaks for the rich.

These are people who complain constantly about their quality of life, then vote for Republican politicians who support policies which make their quality of life worse.

Many of these people base their entire spirituality off church attendance and how much they hate gay people.  Because, you know, same-sex marriage will ruin the sanctity of marriage — according to millions of conservative heterosexuals who’ve been divorced (often multiple times).

When I think of all the idiocy and contradiction within the conservative movement, “cult” is about the only term that properly describes what I see day in and day out with conservatives, because they’re damn sure not Christians.

They belong to a cult I call Republicanity.

The following two tabs change content below.
Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on both Twitter and Facebook. Have feedback, inquiries, criticism or hate mail? You can email him as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • Matthew Reece

    “They really think that Jesus Christ — someone who spent his life helping
    the poor and the needy — would support massive cuts to programs that
    help the poor and the needy while protecting tax breaks for the rich.”

    Government programs tend to harm the very people they are supposed to help. This is no surprise, of course, as statists tend not to care about the poor as anything other than hostages to shame and capture the guilt of the innocent and force them to hand over additional money, rights, and children to the state.

    Jesus spent his life helping the poor and the needy, but he never stole anything from anyone in order to do it. All statists steal to finance their endeavors.

    • Ravenfall

      So you really don’t believe in any kind of government at all? We would all somehow live where we live, but pay no taxes? No government services would be provided at all, at any level? No roads, no schools, no snow plowing, no fire department, nothing?

      • Beverly Gjerdahl Lowry

        you are missing the point and going back to talking to your blah blah blah crap

      • Rick

        Gee, what a well-crafted, reasonable response that was! Bra-vo!

      • Kelly S

        lol well you’ve sure contributed to the discussion. what, praytell, is the point?

      • regressive rightwing trash

        hey bev…………pleeeeeeeez tell us U are NOt one of these white trash regressive religious scum who exclusively watches ( and osculates with) FOX “news”???

      • 2Smart2bGOP

        Typical rightie response to something that they have no answer for.

      • Matthew Reece

        The burden of proof is on the statist to show that such services must be provided through compulsory taxation rather than through free enterprise.

      • Shain Neumeier

        Under a system with no government/state or its equivalent, compulsion, coercion and hierarchy would still exist, just in different forms and possibly along different axes. Worse still, under such a system, they might be better disguised as benign or nonexistent – leading people to think they’re “free” in some abstract sense, without many if not the majority being meaningfully free in a way that allows them to live and thrive. The government we have isn’t doing a good job (to say the least) of standing for the people with the least power against those who, in other ways, have the most. However, getting rid of all existing structures that help or have the potential to help people who need it, or at least the means of keeping such structures intact (namely taxation), would pretty much be throwing them to the wolves.

      • Matthew Reece

        Read Stefan Molyneux’s writings about dispute resolution organizations to see how ending the state does not have to throw people to the wolves.

        What will help the people who need it is to get the state out of their way so that no government regulations keep them from finding or creating work.

      • William Carr

        Watch Mad Max to see how Anarchy always turns out.

        Street Gangs know this simple logic. You get together enough thugs, and seize all you can hold.

        It’s the SAME math that created Political Parties.

        A gang will always be stronger than an individual; if necessary, they’ll take him while he sleeps, and then rule by terror.

        The Representative Government we have is the best way of ensuring that the Law is maintained and the Rights of the People protected against criminals.

        Government Regulations don’t keep people from finding work or starting new businesses.

        DEMAND is what drives the Market.

        We’ve seen over and over, with Alcohol and Drugs, that Demand always WINS.

        So, you have enough Demand for aircraft brakes, but the Government bans Asbestos because it causes Cancer and everyone exposed to it dies.

        The Market searches for another way to fulfill the Demand; that means MORE employment; and quickly an alternative to Asbestos is found.

        Smokestack laws protect the people downwind from the consequences of unwise pollution upwind.

        That doesn’t eliminate jobs, because then the company has to hire someone to come install scrubbers on that smokestack.

        The regulation CREATED jobs that wouldn’t otherwise exist !

        The only impact is a short-term dip in Profit, and the Government bends over backwards to let companies write off capital improvements on their taxes.

        What perplexed Randians such as yourself fail to recognize, is that Government’s primary purpose is to keep as many Citizens alive and voting as possible.

        Anarchy has no such benison to grant.

      • Matthew Reece

        The hypotheticals you posit for anarchy are certainties under government.

        Mad Max is chaos, not anarchy. Anarchy is spontaneous order.

        Demand does not drive a market; production does. Anyone can demand anything, but it will do nothing for the economy if production is not possible.

        Regulation created jobs that wouldn’t otherwise exist? Broken window fallacy as well as ipse dixit.

        I do not follow Ayn Rand, or anyone else. I am influenced by Murray Rothbard, Samuel Konkin III, Stefan Molyneux, and many others.

      • taymie

        Anyone can make something, but if no one wants it, it does nothing for the economy. You must have both supply and demand. Any kid with a dollar and a choice between broccoli and a cookie could tell you that one.

      • taymie

        ouhhh I can do that! Take a look at every society in which infrastructure is NOT provided through compulsory taxation, where either there is little or no taxation or taxes are spent on something else, and see what the result is.

        lets see, that would be every single 3rd world country in the world. High poverty, high death rate, lack of access to technology, complete stagnation of technological advances, and low literacy rates, low access to medical care, low ability to move from one social rung to another, and in general something to avoid at all costs.

        Now, show me a time or place in history where that WASN’T the case when the society did not utilize public fund to provide for the infrastructure of the social needs. Even the nomadic Native American tribes used public resources to provide for the needs of the tribe.

      • Matthew Reece

        To claim that something which has not yet happened cannot possibly happen is a logical fallacy.

    • Jim

      What a crock! Government is a device, not a bad or good one, just a device. Government “steals” from me to fund tax credits for oil companies and pipelines, it steals from me so that the elites can finance wars on who ever opposes their stealing. Since money is printed by government and government authorized entities, you could say there would be nothing to steal if it weren’t for government. The government that I oppose is exactly the one that these cultists love. Matthew you just proved the authors point.

      • Matthew Reece

        Government is inherently evil, as nothing that people do in its name is done without violating someone’s logical rights.

      • Nicholas A Kocal

        If you are an US citizen and eligible to vote, then YOU are the government. So my your statement, you are saying that you are evil.

      • April

        Yep

      • Matthew Reece

        A government is a group of individuals who exercise a monopoly on the supposedly legitimate initiation of force within a certain geographical area. I am not part of such a group.

        By your logic, if you are in a dark alley and allowed to vote, then YOU are the rapist/mugger/etc.

      • Nicholas A Kocal

        So I guess you have never read the US Constitution and deny that you are an American. And the rest of your statement makes no sense and just proves that you are also an idiot.

      • Matthew Reece

        The Constitution is a contract signed by 40 men, all of whom are long dead. They had no legitimacy to impose that contract on anyone who did not consent to its terms, or to bind all future generations under its yoke, as this would violate the natural right of freedom of association. Thus the Constitution is an invalid document, and has been at least since June 28, 1836 (when James Madison, the last surviving signatory, died). Practically, the Constitution has been invalid since December 17, 1828 (when William Jackson, the penultimate surviving signatory, died), as it is rather pointless to have a contract of government with oneself.

        Ad hominem and ad lapidem are admissions of defeat and ignorance.

      • regressive rightwing trash

        again crafty (???) and jejune matthew is spouting psycho babble. By your insertion of that insanity above 95% of all ‘contracts’ are INvalid for a plethora of reasons

      • William Carr

        Does Insanity run in your family?

        Just curious.

        EVERY time someone votes, that Contract we call The Constitution is renewed.

        EVERY time we have an Election, and the loser shakes the winner’s hand and steps aside, that Contract is renewed.

        For people that don’t vote? They’ve decided not to be part of the Ruling Class.

        The only way the Constitution could expire, would be if everybody stopped voting, the Government shut down, and all the people who HAD ever voted died off.

        Then the Constitution would only be a piece of paper.

        You belong to a Cult, and you’re spouting their weird dogma as if it actually makes sense.

        Next we’ll have a Scientologist on here telling us about Warlord Zenu and Bad Thetans.

        When a Cultist is truly programmed, it’s safe to let him roam about alone; nothing will make him use common sense, or stray from the tenets of the Cult.

        He’ll insist that up is down, black is white, cutting taxes on the Rich results in more jobs, helping hungry families feed their kids is racist; anything he’s been programmed with.

        Try to reason with him, and IF you catch him in a bind he’s not programmed for, he’ll self-generate Dogma in defense of his programming.

        Like this dreck you came up with to claim the Constitution doesn’t apply to people not alive in 1789.

        You want so desperately to overthrow our Government that you’ll make up crap as justification for nullification.

      • lance1949

        The contract is only renewed if voters are given, through the ballot box, a chance to renege and remove support for the constitution. It can only be upheld if on a regular basis we are given the opportunity to repeal it – that doesn’t happen so it’s not, strange as it may sound, a consitutional document.

      • Arizona Willie

        People like Mr. Reece should be stripped of the citizenship and DEPORTED to Somalia.
        They hate government and taxes so they would be very happy there.

      • wawoo

        Well sweetheart, name one instance in history where your fantasy libetarian society has ever existed?
        Oh, there are none.
        I suppose currently Somalia and the worst areas of Afghanistan and the Nortwest Territory of pakistan come the closest to Ayn Rand perfection.

      • Matthew Reece

        Well “sweetheart,” name one instance in history before 1787 where a “fantasy” constitutional republican society had ever existed?
        Oh, there were none.
        To claim that because something has never happened in history means it can never happen in the future is a logical fallacy.
        Also, Ayn Rand was not an anarchist.

      • wawoo

        Sweet heart,I am dealing with historical fact and the reality of human behavior in my remarks. You are locked in a fantasy whose closest approximation in history was the Nazi regime in Germany. Read the Nazi social and economic plan. Pretty much a one to one correspondence with Randian theology just some minor differences over who are the makers and who are the takers. Any Randian system would inevitably be anarchy. You fancy yourself as quite the intellect just like your goddess Ayn Rand who was not tethered to reality in her intellectual life which consiste of a perpetual pique because her mother gave her best toys away when she was 10 or so.. Paul Krugman’s remark about comparing Lord of the Rings afficianados with Ayn Rand devotees certainly rings true in your case.Note , Lord of the Rings wins that contest.

      • Matthew Reece

        I am not a fan of Ayn Rand. I have never even read her works. I only know a few random quotes of hers. My influences are Murray Rothbard, Samuel Konkin III, Hans Hoppe, Stefan Molyneux, and many other anarcho-capitalist thinkers.

        Nazism is almost a polar opposite to free market anarchism. If you cannot understand this (and even worse, lump the two together) then I see no point in trying to reason with you, as your reasoning violates the law of identity.

        As for the Lord of the Rings, Tolkien was also an anarchist, and the One Ring is an excellent metaphor for the state (with throwing it into Mount Doom to unmake it being a fitting end for it).

      • wawoo

        Quite the cast of self important generally not so big, certainly not anywhere as big as they think they are, thinkers you got there. Stefan Molyneux kinda caps it as there being little hope for your imagined reality comporting with actual reality.

      • Jim

        For sure-she believed the only legitimate function of government is to protect her money. When the Bolsheviks took Daddy’s drug store, she totally got turned off by the whole idea of government( except when she needed Social Security when she was old and Alan Greenspan wouldn’t support her).

      • Ignatz

        “To claim that because something has never happened in history means it can never happen in the future is a logical fallacy.”

        But maybe you should test your loonie ideas on a small group of perhaps a hundred people.

        Show me this kind of libertarianism working with a group of a hundred. Then maybe people will lend you an ounce of creedence.

        As it is, you resemble modern Communists: A completely unworkable philosophy that fails because it ignores human nature. Oh, but you have a BOOK that makes it SOUND plausible.

      • James Garman

        I know a person very like the “libertarian” above. First of all, I don’t think it will work. Secondly I hope to heck it never gets tried. in the real world. Because, in the United States what would happen is the rich would get even richer, the middle class would cease to exist, and we would be beholder to the rich for even roads to travel on. The whole idea is the creation of what ul.timately would be a dog eat dog world. Think Anarchy except for those who have the means to have power over everybody else.

      • Matthew Reece

        Libertarianism is the only political philosophy that does not ignore human nature.

      • dsadlowski

        Libertarian nightmare is what it would be check this out exactly what the Koch brothers want and believe.

        Honduras is such a case.

        http://www.salon.com/2015/03/02/my_libertarian_vacation_nightmare_how_ayn_rand_ron_paul_their_groupies_were_all_debunked/

        The Koch brothers wet dream much like Kansas the failed state they have dismantled with their greed.

        http://www.sanders.senate.gov/koch-brothers

      • lance1949

        This is, in fact, true. Why do we allow a document as old as the Constitution, control the way we think today? It is a powerful document but it is, after all, just a document that today, more than ever, needs to be seriously amended.

      • Jim

        Look up the definition of sophistry, or if you don’t have time, look at the above statement.

      • Matthew Reece

        That is not an argument.

      • Jim

        Sorry you don’t approve.

      • William Carr

        You have the brains of a Gerbil.

        Our Founding Fathers fought and died to create a Country where you were represented; where your vote made you PART of the governing class.

        You ignore this act as if we’re back in the days of Kings and Emperors that rule by conquest.

      • Matthew Reece

        Ad hominem and ad lapidem are admissions of defeat and ignorance.

        “Representation” does not invalidate logically proven natural rights, which all governments violate by their very operation.

      • Cathryn Sykes

        Tell us of those “natural” rights. The right to take whatever you can? The right to kill whomever you want? The right to total selfishness? Please, describe these “natural rights” and tell us how they work in an actual human society.

      • Matthew Reece

        None of what you listed are natural rights because they violate natural rights, such as ownership of one’s body, private property ownership, and freedom from aggression. None of these rights can be opposed without logical contradiction, so they must be valid. They are the basis for prohibitions against murder, rape, theft, slavery, and so on.

      • Arjie46

        Matthew, you never once resorted to name calling or personally assaulting anyone. Your restraint in returning jabs and insults thrown at you was admirable.
        It was a pleasure to read your thoughts, opinions and conclusions. Your character is intact. Much to be said for that!

      • Matthew Reece

        Thank you.

      • James Garman

        I have to admit, that Matthew is really a lot calmer and well-behaved than the other liberatarian I know. It does speak well for him. I still believe his theory of governmnet is wrong….and if put in practice would inevitably lead to anarchy, but at least he has remained polite.

      • Ignatz

        “Ad hominem and ad lapidem are admissions of defeat and ignorance.”

        No, they aren’t. They are fallacies, not admissions.

        In fact, your statement is a non sequitur. That’s a fallacy, too.

      • Matthew Reece

        Wrong. Resorting to informal fallacies is an implicit admission that one has run out of actual arguments and must therefore stoop to such low methods in order to keep arguing.

      • regressive rightwing trash

        my pet TEGU eats gerbils,,,,,,,,,,,,and he wouldn’t touch matthew

      • Cathryn Sykes

        You would prefer chaos? Everyone for themselves? Might makes right? Of course, someone like you always sees themselves as both “right” and among the “mighty.” However, I’d love to see you pitched into the kind of “freedom” you so love….including meeting others with more guns that you have, and a love for THEIR “rights” even greater than yours….including the right to take whatever they want, including everything you have. Government is not the problem: bad government is the problem. But anarchy is almost always worse.

      • Matthew Reece

        It would help if you would actually study some anarcho-capitalist theory. Robert Murphy and Stefan Molyneux have excellent writings that shoot your above comment full of holes.

      • Chuck Thom

        Read the book of Romans. It says all governments are good and ordained by god. To go against the government is to go against God.

      • Matthew Reece

        That was Paul speaking, not Jesus.

      • Chuck Thom

        And???

      • Dunbar

        Matthew, the deotological conception of rights is not a sound position. The notion of “self ownership”, is built on circular reasoning: it assumes ownership precedes ownership, it’s “begging the question” fallacy.

        The concept of “ownership” isn’t universal, it’s culturally contingent and, where it does exist, has many different forms.

      • Matthew Reece

        It is not circular reasoning. The deontological conception of rights asserts bodily ownership (I don’t use the term self-ownership because there is no such thing as a self) and shows that by attempting to argue against it, one must implicitly assume it, resulting in a performative contradiction.

      • Dunbar

        Hence the argument is circular; it assumes the prior existence of “ownership” derived from “nature”. It’s a self referencing position. It’s not logically consistent, nothing can follow from it.

      • Matthew Reece

        The concept of ownership does not come from anywhere. It is valid because it must be; its invalidity leads to contradictions, which equal falsehood.

      • Dunbar

        That is a self referencing belief; it’s inherently circular, the same as saying: “it is because it is”, it’s Dr Suess reasoning.

        Ownership is not a symptom of Being. Ownership is a social phenomenon, it is culturally contingent.

      • Matthew Reece

        No, it is because it not being creates contradictions. Contradictions equal falsehood. It may help you to review the three laws of thought.

      • Dunbar

        “Ownership” is not axiomatic, it is an arbitrary concept. Your position is recursive; nothing can follow from it, logically.

        Ownership is a social relationship. it is defined by society, and is culturally contingent. In societies where there is no ownership the concept itself has no meaning; indeed, it is untranslatable.

      • Matthew Reece

        Ownership is not an arbitrary concept. Ownership means having an exclusive right to control something which has an independent form in physical reality; in other words, a material object.

        Society cannot define anything because society does not exist. Each individual person exists.

      • Dunbar

        Rights are a social phenomena, achieved by consensus. They constitute a belief system, that does not exist outside of language.

        So, we agree individuals exist, but you deny the existence of groups of individuals? Groups with shared cultural norms and language?

      • Matthew Reece

        A group is a concept, not an entity that exists independently of its component parts.

      • Dunbar

        So, a group (a collection of individuals gathered together) is not really a group, it is a “concept”? I’m having difficulty following your “logic”.

      • Matthew Reece

        If you want to understand this better, look up nominalism.

        A group must be a group, by the law of identity. It is a concept in the brain of someone who chooses to recognize it, not an entity that has an independent form in the external reality outside a person’s brain.

      • Dunbar

        The “law of identity” is impure; it contains logical aporias, it is incoherent without externalities; without reflexivity, or “the mirror of language”. I suggest you read Derrida’s critique of identity.

        Anyway, a group of individuals can be measured, physically, and linguistically, as can their relationships, in concrete terms.

      • Matthew Reece

        The law of identity simply says that for any A,
        1. A is equal to A, and
        2. A is unequal to “not A.”
        Without this law, rational discourse is impossible, as anything may at any time become anything else.

      • Dunbar

        The law of identity is valid, but unsustainable in its own terms.

        Derrida exposes the contradictions in the proposition A=A through the process of deconstruction but stresses it isn’t possible to step outside of identity to analyse identity, just as language itself cannot be considered without language. The law of identity relies on an “origin” to which the law refers, an origin free from contradiction. Derrida demonstrates this is only possible through a process of exclusion (complexity, mediation and difference); a process that takes place at a general metaphysical level that underpins the entire system of Western thought.

        Groups do indeed “exist”; to dismiss groups as a fiction of the brain is a drift into solipsism.

      • normbreyfogle

        But the self doesn’t exist, according to your own words. lol

        The embarrassing pretzel shapes you’re forcing yourself into due to your unrealistic and irrational ideology would be quite amusing if not for the fact that it’s entirely unoriginal, outmoded, and routine.

      • Matthew Reece

        The self does not exist. The body does exist. No pretzel necessary.

      • normbreyfogle

        Same difference; what you call the individual does indeed exist. The pretzel to which I refer is your semantic game.

        Claiming “society doesn’t not exist” is more of the same meaningless semantic game. Your awkward word-play is a transparent, impotent fail based on adolescent ideology.

      • Matthew Reece

        Ad lapidem fallacy.

      • James Garman

        You see, Matthew, that is where I start disagreeing with your statements. I don’t believe a person is truly a person without relationship to other persons….which is the definition of society. To test it out, we would have to have a child totally excluded from relating to others and see what the result would be. In essense I think it would be death. So by logic, I would be tempted to say that society is the key factor….with personhood experiencing itself as part of the social network. I know you are going to see that as not fitting with your system of logic, but it is what I, and to some extent others believe.
        I certainly would never try to test it out in the real world.

        I am reassured in my own mind that, as fun as a debate might be, your theory of “government” or lack thereof will likely never actually be tested in the real world.
        Why? Because knowing how the rich and corporations try to run roughshod over the pool and less powerful now, in a truly “free market” they would be even worse. Government may be “bad” but it is a value to make some sort of fairness….even only limited.

        I know you say you are an anarchy, and that anarchy would be free and so forth, but I don’t think so….I think the rich would just totally take over….and enslave everybody else.
        BTW, what is the definition of anarchy if not “no control” and “everybody does what they want”…translated into “whatever they have the power to get away with.

      • Matthew Reece

        The rich use the state to “totally take over and enslave everybody else.” I propose to deprive powerful evildoers of their best weapon: a monopoly on violence with legal immunity.

        The definition of anarchy is “without rulers.” This does not mean “everybody does what they want”…translated into “whatever they have the power to get away with.” You are thinking of how political power works, not anarchy.

      • James Garman

        And you don’t think that the people with most of the money now…(the 1 percent) wont just use their money to further enslave those without of us who don’t have it now, when the government with its restrictions on their use of power are removed?
        Well, I don’t have that much faith in human nature, and the removal of regulations has always led to more abuse by the corporations and rich….those self-same 1 percent.
        Sorry, if anarchy/liberatarianism ever gets in charge, it will be without my vote or help.

      • Matthew Reece

        The government is the means of their power. Take that away and they lose the advantages that make them so powerful. Market restrictions are far more powerful, as is a well-armed citizenry that is unrestrained by a state.

        If you have no faith in human nature, then you should be an anarchist. Remember that governments are composed of humans, and allow some humans to do evil with impunity.

      • Michael Rowe

        God, you’re such an idiot, Matt. LOL—you poor sap. You need to turn off FOX and put down the remote and get some fresh air.

      • Matthew Reece

        Insults are an admission of stupidity.

        I don’t watch Fox News (or CNN or MSNBC, for that matter) for anything other than entertainment. I know that it is all propaganda.

      • Ignatz

        I think you should move somewhere where there isn’t one then, and leave the rest of us alone.

      • Matthew Reece

        Why should I have to? I am not the aggressor here; statists are.

      • lance1949

        So many people get this wrong – the Government doesn’t print money. It’s he Fed Reserve and it’s not controlled by the Govt just like the Supreme Court isn’t controlled by the Government either.

    • Anita Morren Jagodzinski

      Matthew, government funded things like war and corporate welfare tend to harm people. But feeding the hungry? Clothing the naked? Please. This quote may help you understand: “It’s okay if you don’t want to feed the hungry, or heal the sick, or house the homeless. Just don’t say you’re doing it for their own good. Don’t say you’d like to help people, but your hands are tied, because if you did it would cause a culture of dependency, or ‘go against the Bible’ or worst of all, ‘rob them of their freedom’ to be sick and hungry. Just admit you’re selfish and based on how little your beliefs mirror the actual teachings of Jesus you might as well be worshiping Despicable Me.”

      • Matthew Reece

        In a moral context, it does not matter what is done with stolen goods. What matters is that they are stolen. The morality of an action cannot be determined by its consequences; it must be derived from first principles.

      • Anon

        So when you read Robin Hood you saw him as the villain and the sheriff as the hero?

      • Matthew Reece

        Wrong. The sheriff was stealing the property of the people. Robin Hood was taking back their stolen property for them.

      • regressive rightwing trash

        just as glenn beck and his white trash tea party is taking back America”????

      • regressive rightwing trash

        and history PROVE conclusively the the end justifies the means. your psycho babble is “PI”

      • Matthew Reece

        Might helps to make outcomes, but cannot make right. You cannot get an ought from an is.

        Ad lapidem admits defeat and ignorance.

      • regressive rightwing trash

        read below chrome dome matthew— if a starving women steals to feed her 9 and 8 yr olds U call it stealing. I call it survival

      • William Carr

        Except your statements ARE absurd. They don’t even bear argument.

        It’s as if you insisted that God was dead and therefore all Laws were void.

        The rest of us would simply look at you with curiosity and start making bets on whether you’ll be killed crossing the street against the light.

        You must really LOVE Sarah Palin; she makes up stuff and pretends it’s all factual as much as you do.

      • Matthew Reece

        Ad lapidem admits defeat and ignorance.

        Sarah Palin is a statist. I am not.

      • regressive rightwing trash

        might makes right,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, history proves it a million times. U are living in a cartoon sketch world. AD LAPIDEM???? OK schmuck– hows about stalin? mao? they were WRONGING all2many; yet their MIGHT made it RIGHT as RIGHT is defined by who WINS. mao and stalin died in their sleep as all-powerful rulers. case closed

      • Scaramongus

        depends on your moral philosophy. Deontology vs teleology . You are definitely in the deontologist camp and dismissing teleology. If my family is starving and i have absolutely no other choice then to steal, then it is moral to do so, the end does justify the means.

      • Matthew Reece

        You do not have a right to steal. But if you do under those circumstances, anyone who severely punishes you in the same manner as a hardened criminal is probably going to be ostracized for doing so.

      • regressive rightwing trash

        stealing is defined by the plaintiff,,,,,,, and the powers that be who make money off of legislating and punishment. If I steal something that U stole,,,who is the thief?

      • Matthew Reece

        If you steal from others, you should be estopped from being able to complain about others stealing from you.

      • regressive rightwing trash

        tell that to big businesses

      • William Carr

        Taxes are not theft. At any rate, you have a solution.

        LEAVE. Go to Antarctica. Go to an abandoned island somewhere. You won’t have to pay taxes.

        But as long as you’re here, you’re subject to the Law.

        Either you pay taxes or you’re freeloading, and we don’t need more freeloaders; we already have the House of Representatives.

      • Matthew Reece

        I suppose you also think that an abused wife should be forced to marry another abusive husband or be kept inside the house if she wants a divorce. That is what your reasoning looks like when applied to an equivalent situation.

      • taymie

        no the reasoning is that an abused wife who wishes not to be abused must LEAVE her husband and not STAY in the situation she does not like.

        Your interpretation of the sugestion “love it or leave it” would be more in line of being told that if you don’t like American Laws you can go to England, whereas the suggestion given was Antarctica….a place where no civilization exists.

        Justify this: you don’t think we should have law and socially funded police and fire and infrastructure maintenance etc. And you feel justified in forcing that ideology on those of us who think that having an actual society is worth preserving.

        We have our society, if you don’t want to be part of it, then you can leave it, you don’t get to steal it away from us.

      • Matthew Reece

        False dilemma. There are more alternatives than coercive monopolies in charge of services versus no services at all. The third option is voluntary competition to provide services.

        I am advocating non-aggression; the non-initiation of force. As a supporter of the state, you are the one who is advocating for the use of violence, as everything the state does is rooted in violence.

        As for the spousal abuse analogy, my point is that “divorcing” a government is not the same as divorcing an abusive husband, and it ought to be.

      • regressive rightwing trash

        why have him pollute antartica????? have him go to Mississippi,,,,,,,,,,

      • John

        Anita. I’m on your side but you just ranted a Jon Stewart diatribe almost verbatim.

      • taymie

        she did not say who the quote was from, but she did say it was a quote, and she did put it in quotation marks.

      • Anita Morren Jagodzinski

        And that’s why I called it a quote and put it in quotation marks.

    • MamaMetz

      You obviously do not know anything about the Bible because there are over 300 scriptures admonishing everyone to see over the less fortunate in their surroundings. Funny conservatives like to use scriptures regarding gays and abortions as voting points but ignore the hundreds of verses regarding the poor. Jesus said in Matthew 25:31-46 that this is the key for entering heaven and hell.

      • Matthew Reece

        I am a free market anarchist, not a conservative.

      • regressive rightwing trash

        vague and illogical

      • Matthew Reece

        Ipse dixit combined with argumentum ad lapidem.

      • regressive rightwing trash

        been drinking again EH matt?

      • Matthew Reece

        Ad hominem is an admission of defeat and ignorance.

      • taymie

        You keep saying these things, but here is the thing, you fail to address the issue of sometimes it is not ad hominem, sometimes it is simply admitting that the person you are “debating” is not providing accurate, logical, or proven information to back their claims. Sometimes it is about trying to figure out where ideas that make no sense at all are coming from.

        From your assertion that every time someone questions your sanity, sobriety, and ability to reason is proof of their defeat and ignorance and not a legitimate question you are intimating that you have actually provided some logical or easily identifiable answers to basic questions as the legitimacy of the social structure you are advocating.

        nothing you said holds up under rudimentary examination of logic and reason. Therefore questions into sanity, sobriety, ability to reason, and even moral character, are completely within the bounds of a logical argument.

      • Matthew Reece

        Ipse dixit fallacy. You cannot simply assert that my arguments are nonsensical without providing a logical argument as to why.

      • normbreyfogle

        Such has been provided you many times.

      • regressive rightwing trash

        l’ ennui

      • Sally Strange

        In other words, a conservative embarrassed about being a conservative.

      • Matthew Reece

        Conservatives are statists. Anarchists are not.

      • Cathryn Sykes

        So describe for us what anarchists are.

      • Matthew Reece

        Anarchists believe the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful.

      • regressive rightwing trash

        donn be dissin my negga ( matthew) dogg :))

      • William Carr

        No, he’s a Randian Cultist. The confusion you experienced is because the modern TeaBaggers hold out Ayn Rand as a Saint and Philosopher.

      • Matthew Reece

        Ayn Rand was a statist. I am not.

      • Cathryn Sykes

        You have no concept at all of what anarchy is like. None. There are few things in life more horrible than actual anarchy. You, of course, see yourself as one of the powerful people who will benefit from having no check on your desires. You would be shocked to find that there will be people even more amoral than you, even stronger than you, who would take everything you have and have no hesitancy in killing you for kicks…while you begged for someone to help you. What a silly, foolish, ignorant being you are!

      • Matthew Reece

        It is you who does not understand anarchy. You are reciting the same spoon-fed propaganda about anarchy that everyone is indoctrinated with through public schools and the media. Statism is organized chaos. Anarchy is spontaneous order.

      • normbreyfogle

        You aren’t taking thousands of years of human nature, very clearly on display throughout our histories, into account.

        The only way that the anarchy you envision could possibly work in any way better than brutal feudalism is if the entire human race were first enlightened. And, we’re a looooong way from that occurring.

    • regressive rightwing trash

      so,,,,,,,,,,,,,, statism by the true definition means that scumbag crybaby regressives who CRY for smaller GOVT yet want BIG money spent on defense and outlawing abortion and govt making it tougher for minorities to vote and govt legislating no oral sex or no sex marriages between gays is OK,,,,,,, small dicked religious trash who want the BIBLE ( especially the white trash in our country wanting a Baptist version) to be implemented in our GOVT as the TRUE alpha/omega mandate determining all social structuring. that would make regressive shitbag republican white scum the bigger statists of all as they want their local GOVT much bigger

      • Matthew Reece

        A statist is anyone who supports the operation of a state. This means that anyone who is not an anarchist is a statist of some type.

      • regressive rightwing trash

        that is total OVER simplification of the definition

      • William Carr

        Statism: a political system in which the state has substantial centralized control over social and economic affairs.

        Your definition is like saying “meat is murder”. Black or White; steal a penny, get the death penalty for theft.

      • Matthew Reece

        More like steal a penny, lose one’s right to protest against violations of one’s own property rights through estoppel.

      • Barbara Leary

        Going back to the cave man people have banded together in groups for the common good. In doing so they had to give up some individual freedom, but considered it worthwhile for the benefits. Strength in numbers is accepted by just about everyone, but you might be able to find a wilderness area you could move to where there was no government. There is a reason why there are few such places, however. I think all you people who don’t believe in government should buy an island, move there, and let everyone just do whatever they want there. Let us know when you find out that doesn’t work and form a government.

      • regressive rightwing trash

        hey stoooopid: Im a centrist liberal who hates FOX “news” and all the scumbag white trash regressives who cry for JEEEESUS in THEIR “idea” of government. Ya wanna try again??

    • Sally Strange

      Blah blah blah. Taxation is not theft. Taxation without representation can be; and if you’re experiencing the latter, then you fix it by getting better representation, not abolishing taxes. That libertarians and other righties who are rightfully embarassed by the antics of social conservatives can’t recognize this basic fact is why they continue to be the laughingstock of politics.

      • Matthew Reece

        Taxation is the forceful taking of property by non-owners of that property. That is the definition of theft.

        By your logic, sex without consent is not rape. Sex without consent or representation can be; and if you’re experiencing the latter, then you fix it by getting better representation, not by abolishing sex without consent.

        Free market anarchism is not left or right, in the same sense that an atheist is not a Christian or a Muslim.

    • Karkadann

      “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”
      -Jesus

      • Matthew Reece

        The most misunderstood verse in the whole Bible. Read “God is an Anarchist: Render Unto Caesar” by Darrell Anderson to learn the correct meaning of the verse.

      • Karkadann

        Meh, I thought you were a bible thumper, but appearently you’re not, so whatever, wasted quote.
        And Anderson is basically bending the bible to fit his political philosophy, something that most versions of christianity do.

        How can you even call Yahwe an anarchist? If Yahwe were an anarchist it wouldn’t be such a tyrant. It represents basically anything you should loathe, like stupid laws and stealing stuff from people by demanding sacrifices.

      • Matthew Reece

        According to the Bible, Yahweh has no ruler over him; he rules himself. He also does not force his rule onto others, although sometimes his followers do, and negative consequences tend to come to those who reject his commandments. However, in many cases, natural disaster were attributed to supernatural entities with what we now call post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies. Anarchy comes from the Greek “anarkhos,” meaning “without rulers.”

      • taymie

        according to the Bible, Yahweh does not “force” people to worship him, he just tosses them into an eternal lake of fire if they don’t.

    • Derek Miyahara

      Well, if you don’t like government, you can just take yourself over to Somalia and see how you do. Good luck. Quit your complaining and leave the rest of us alone.

      • Matthew Reece

        Bringing up Somalia is a red herring fallacy, as it is not an example of free market anarchism.

        As for your “love it or leave it” sentiment, where are people who do not wish to be governed free to go? All habitable land large enough to support a functional stateless society is controlled by agents of governments. To say “go somewhere else” or “love it or leave it” under current world circumstances would be like saying that if a woman wishes to divorce an abusive husband, then she must immediately marry another abusive husband rather than be allowed to be single.

      • Derek Miyahara

        Whatever. You don’t explain WHY it isn’t example of free market
        anarchism. I’d be interested in your explanation (really). But you if
        you expect a society without a functioning government to operate in any
        fashion OTHER than what has happened in Somalia, you have more faith in
        human nature than I do.

      • Matthew Reece

        A free market anarchy does not have institutions which can initiate force with impunity. In Somalia, any warlord can use his mercenaries to initiate force and get away with it if his forces are strong enough. Somalia is basically an example of a civil war with many sides, or a competition of coercive institutions. Every free market anarchist theory I have encountered has means to prevent this, starting with how the existing government should fall. Agorism and its peaceful replacements of state institutions solve problems that a violent overthrow of the established order (as happened in Somalia in 1991) cannot.

        I am an anarchist partly because I have no faith in human nature. I believe that there is evil (or at least a capacity for evil) in all of us, and that a monopoly on force is therefore far too dangerous to be allowed to exist.

      • Derek Miyahara

        Well, it looks like you’re stuck between a rock and a hard place. you don’t trust government, but without it, you are dependent upon the better part of human nature, which you also don’t trust.

        Surely there’s an island that you and like-minded folks could buy. Of course, if they’re as cynical as you, I don’t know if I could trust them (or maybe I’d trust them MORE, who knows?) Good luck with that, too. You’re not getting any closer to that by commenting on these boards, though.

      • taymie

        in your free market anarchism, who enforces these standards of behavior? why? who pays the enforcers?

      • Matthew Reece

        Dispute resolution organizations, contract rating agencies, and private military companies enforce the standards of non-aggression and respect for property rights. Everyone purchases representation with one among several competing institutions. Standards are enforced for profit, and violators are economically ostracized.

      • James Garman

        And here is where you prove our point for us….it seems to me. “private military companies”….in other words, once again we are talking “privately owned resources” and if that isn’t “dog eat dog” I don’t know what is. This is precisely why I a statist….because that way we can all hope to impact that group of services. I do not want thnose that are already super-rich to also now take over everything including the military. And that is exactly what I KNOW would happen if anarchy won the day……not because there are certainly any real examples but because I understand human nature…..I do not want a society in which the kock brothers has unimpeded control of everything. You can not present a clear proof that suddently along with a change in type of society human nature will grow to accept rights of all. Unless yuou do, you wont’ ever convince me to support such a change, and I will remain a proud statist. :)

      • Matthew Reece

        We cannot hope to impact monopoly services through the state. They do not answer to us; we are forced to support and use them regardless of whether we want them, and anyone who tries to compete with them is violently suppressed.

        If you truly understand human nature, then you should be an anarchist.
        Remember that governments are composed of humans, and allow some humans to do evil with impunity.

        The super-rich got that way through unfair advantages granted by the state. End the state and they lose those advantages, leading to a correction where everyone else gains power and they lose power.

      • James Garman

        Well, this is where I would say that you are the naïve one….if you think the super-rich who own so much of everything…for example the Walton family is more likely to give everybody equal rights more than the state (where we at least do have a voice via our vote) then I would say you are simply wrong.
        You haven’t said anything about ripping the current devision of property apart for this conversion to anarchy so those people will still have unfettered power to enforce their will…and now they will be hiring their own soldiers (private military) and can enforce precisely what they wish.
        No thank you, I will continue to support the idea, however poorly it often works it seems, where we have laws and a government that tells folks what is right and just. otherwise the powerful will always lord it over the least powerful.
        Of course, if you should ever be able to point out where a true anarchy has done anything but degenerate into either mob violence or a dictatorship, I would love to change my mind. But it will take more than academic words and theories to convince me.

    • William Carr

      You’re an idiot, Matthew. Government programs keep people ALIVE.

      Republicans believe in the Desperation Fairy. If only you’re desperate enough to take that job working in the Asbestos Factory, you’ll be visited by the Desperation Fairy and find a golden opportunity.

      Then you’ll get out of Poverty, and be Rich.

      Republicans LOVE the Horatio Alger stories. A poor orphan sells pencils on the street and sleeps in a drafty attic.

      Eventually, he moves up to shoe-shine boy, and makes friends with a bunch of Rich guys.

      He ends up selling Apples, making ten times what he started as, and then, suddenly; a rich Uncle he never knew dies and he’s a millionaire.

      All because he kept plugging along.

      Republicans hoard stories like this.

      When you ask them about all the poor orphans who starved to death… they scoff; they don’t want to hear about that.

      I call this flaw in their Philosophy the “Dead Orphan Problem”.

      For every orphan that succeeds and becomes rich, 10,000 will starve or fall into prostitution.

      But, Liberal programs that keep people from starving… that give them the chance to keep plugging along in a low end job and reaching for that better day; Conservatives HATE those.

      Because they hate TAXES. Any Tax, unless it’s for funding the War Machine.

      Because the War Machine makes them feel all safe and snuggly.

      So, they need a pretext to convince the gullible why Government programs are BAD, without mentioning Taxes TOO often or bringing up the Dead Orphan Problem.

      So they manufactured this myth that a Government program that keeps people from starving to death actually discriminates against the poor.

      Well, we spend twice as much on Corporate Welfare as we do on actually FEEDING hungry people, so doesn’t that mean we’re discriminating against the Corporations?

      After all, if they were desperate enough to compete harder, cut Executive Pay, and take on jobs they’d otherwise think too risky or had too little profit margin, wouldn’t THEY be visited by the Desperation Fairy ?

      And then they’d be RICH !

      Oh, wait. They’re already Rich.

      “statists tend not to care about the poor as anything other than hostages to shame and capture the guilt of the innocent”

      No, you imbecile.

      Liberals ACTUALLY care about the poor. We ACTUALLY think it’s Society’s Duty to help them.

      Only Randian Sociopaths believe crap like this; they NEED to demonize even Charity and Altruism because they know most sane people approve of these things.

      After all, it was your Patron Saint, Ayn Rand, that said “Altruism is Evil”.

      And as far as Christ and Taxes go… the Pharisees sent a man to test him on this. The man asked Christ, “should we pay taxes to Rome?”

      If Christ said “Yes”, the anti-tax brigade would be against him.

      If Christ had said “No”, then they would report him to the Romans as Seditious.

      Christ asked the man whose visage was on his coins.

      The man said “Why, Caesar’s”.

      Christ said “Render unto Caesar what is Caesars’”.

      Thus foiling the plot against him.

      Then as now, Taxes pay for roads, bridges, the Military, and public utilities.

      Those are things we all need to thrive and do business.

      Living without Government is simply impossible, and Governments require tax revenue to function.

      I despair, sometimes, of getting Objectivists to see Reason; you’re as much of a Cult as the Republicans are.

      LEAVE.

      Go to Somalia.

      Start your adventure of living without Government, and PROVE to all of us that you can create a Libertarian Country without taxes.

      Because it’s NEVER BEEN DONE.

      The first flu epidemic that comes along will wipe you out entirely.

      • Matthew Reece

        A field full of strawmen. I am not a Republican, conservative, an Ayn Randite, a supporter of corporations, or a supporter of the military-industrial complex.

        Statists do not care about the poor. They ship the poor off to die in wars, force them into indoctrination centers where they graduate unable to read, and trap them in an underclass with entitlement programs. Libertarians care about the poor, and that is why we want the state out of their way.

        You have the burden to prove that roads, bridges, the military, and public utilities cannot be provided through free enterprise because claiming that the state is necessary for these is a positive claim.

        People once said that ending slavery could not be done. People once said that a constitutional republic could not be formed. They were on the wrong side of history, and so are you.

    • Laila

      You’re right, Jesus didn’t steal anything from anyone. Those who had were willing to give to help their fellow man. Funny how a couple thousand years change things.

    • Michael Rowe

      Jesus said “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and render unto God what is God’s.” He was talking about paying your taxes and shutting up about it.

    • Arizona Willie

      When Conservatives rant about ” other people’s money ” they MEAN ” MY GODDAMN MONEY”.

      • Matthew Reece

        I am an anarchist, not a conservative.

    • Ignatz

      The irony of the Libertarian is that the vast majority of people don’t WANT to live in such a society. So the Libertarian society can only be created by forcing it on people.

      • Matthew Reece

        Libertarianism is antithetical to democracy. There is nothing wrong with forcing libertarianism on people because doing so consists only of forcing people not to murder, enslave, rape, kidnap, assault, steal, etc.

    • Lisa Havner

      Your precious church cannot help all the needy and they get to cherry pick who is deemed worthy. Quit crying. You don’t see me crying about my liberal tax dollars helping poor republicans. Or did you think only democrats receive government assistance. Lmao

      • Matthew Reece

        Do you really think that the state has no power to cherry pick who is deemed worthy?

        I am an anarchist, not a Republican.

  • Mrs_oatmeal

    Every man an island? We know how that works, Matthew. Many of those government programs help people. Just ask Mitt Romney, whose family received Welfare when they moved from
    Mexico back to the USA. ( fact). Or Paul Ryan , who received Social Security and grants for College after his father died. ( fact). I guess they are the exception. They got theirs, so screw everyone else. Right?

    • Matthew Reece

      False dilemma fallacy. There are more options than statism and Crusoe economics.

      • William Carr

        There are only TWO philosophies though.

        Liberalism, that acknowledges that change happens and we need to adapt and grow, and Conservatism, that treats social progress as a threat to their social status.

        That’s the clash that’s been happening for Centuries.

        The best compromise Economically was The New Deal; prosperity for the Middle Class, with partnerships between business and Government.

        Reagan destroyed that. We know what works, we only have to go back to it.

      • regressive rightwing trash

        matthew need to take a big shit,,,,,,he is obviously stuffed up

      • Michael Rowe

        Oh Matthew, I’m sure you think that makes you sound very intelligent, but you’re wrong, alas. And you can babble about ‘statism” and “Crusoe economics” till the cows come home, but the meme is 100% right: the GOP philosophies have zip to do with what Christ taught, so they’ve got not business using Him as a campaign shill.

    • Mike Minyen

      Yes but theirs was a special situation, their not like “those” other people

      • Marty Cox

        haahhahahahahahahha only in THEIR minds!

    • Cathryn Sykes

      That’s it in a nutshell, Mrs. Oatmeal. They have theirs, so screw everyone else. Except they take it even further. They have theirs, and they will always NEED MORE….so they take it from everyone else. And claim that they got theirs because they are morally, intellectually or philosophically superior (often ignoring the parents who were rich, the help they got along the way from others, the governmental help they got) and they deserve more for the same reason. Petty, mean, greedy people. And they do it all in the name of freedom. Their freedom. No one else deserves it.

      • buricco

        The world is not enough…

      • James Garman

        I love this description….exactly what they mean. And then brag about giving to those they deem worthy.

    • langranny

      Isn’t that what Jesus said? “I’ve got mine, screw the rest of you”…

      • lance1949

        Yup. I think I read that in the Republican Manifesto so it must be true.

  • Katie jay

    I called them cafeteria Christians … Pick what fits your agenda and move on. However, they may get a surprise at check out time!

    • lance1949

      Assuming you really believe that anything happens at checkout time.

  • April

    One of my favorite conservative answers is that when Jesus said “feed my sheep” it was a metaphor. Really? And why is that a metaphor but the creation story is not? Because based on example (manna in the desert, the loaves and fishes), he meant “FEED my people”

    • Diggingdeeper

      It is definitely a metaphor, but people take a metaphor to mean “it means nothing”. It didn’t mean, literally, to go out and find the baaing wolly creatures that belonged to Jesus over 2000 years ago. It was a metaphor which means to feed, to nourish the people of the world. If anything it is a metaphor that calls for people to go deeper. A commanding metaphor of the time had more than one meaning, the most basic is the most literal translation, that is, taking it as you said, to feed the people. That was supposed to be taken as GRANTED. That was the minimum required action based upon the command. But you must go beyond that /because/ it is a metaphor. You must provide nourishment to them in every way, not just in the physical hunger, but beyond.
      That is what it means for a passage to be a metaphor. It doesn’t mean “It’s a metaphor, ignore it.” That trend of dismissing metaphors is what anti-intellectualism in Conservative Christianity is all about.

    • Kenneth James Abbott

      What Jesus DIDN’T mean is “Steal someone else’s money and use it to feed My sheep.”

      • Arizona Willie

        Yep, cons always scream about ” someone else’s money ” when they truly mean ” MY MONEY ” but they don’t have the balls to admit they wouldn’t give their own grandmother five bucks.

      • Kenneth James Abbott

        Here in the real world, Arizona, conservatives are more generous with our time, our money, and even our blood.

        Liberals simply lie and call us greedy, as they steal money to redistribute according to their whims.

      • Lisa Havner

        Your church cannot take care of all the needy and gets to cherry pick who they deem as deserving. By not whining about my tax dollars h e lping the poor, I would argue that I’m helping more people. Real Christians wouldn’t argue about a few of their tax dollars helping the poor. Where is your outrage over corporate welfare? BTW, I’m atheist and have more compassion in my little finger than the GOP.

      • Kenneth James Abbott

        -Your church cannot take care of all the needy and gets to cherry pick who they deem as deserving.-
        Last time I worked with a charity–the Chattahoochee Baptist Association–they helped everyone, regardless of belief.

        More important, conservatives are more generous to more than just churches.

        -By not whining about my tax dollars h e lping the poor, I would argue that I’m helping more people.-
        No doubt you would, but it would be a silly argument.

        -Real Christians wouldn’t argue about a few of their tax dollars helping the poor.-

        Because being a real Christian means you have no problem with being stolen from, and you understand that real generosity means spending someone else’s money, not actua…

        No, wait… no it doesn’t.

        -Where is your outrage over corporate welfare?-
        In discussions about corporate welfare.

        -BTW, I’m atheist and have more compassion in my little finger than the GOP.-

        Tell me that when you’re not advocating theft.

      • James Garman

        A typical reaction from many conservatives. BTW, charity is one of the most insulting words in the English lauguate to me….esp as used by conservatives. What it actually comes out sounding like. is “I am so great, I will give you a bit to prove it….” Liberals believe in a society where there is more equity, and we “pull together” to improve everybodies experience. You know the old “common welfare” thing. And btw, I would prefer you never “give me charity”.

      • Kenneth James Abbott

        -A typical reaction from many conservatives.-

        True enough. When someone blatantly lies about us, it’s typical for someone to point out the truth.

        -What it actually comes out sounding like. is “I am so great, I will give you a bit to prove it….” Liberals believe in a society where there is more equity, and we “pull together” to improve everybodies experience.-

        So if I give my own money, it proves I’m a bad person… but when you steal someone else’s money and give it away, it proves you’re a good person?

        -And btw, I would prefer you never “give me charity”.-

        Then don’t ask any charitable organization for help–because chances are the majority of their donations came from conservatives. Freely given, of course–I suppose the stuff taken by force doesn’t bother you so much.

      • James Garman

        You see, that illustrates why I am not a conservative. I don’t see Taxes as being “stealing”. They are paying for the benefits that we receive as part of a society. Those that have been in a position to get more benefits as the 1 percent have, should pay for that fact into the general coffers of the country.
        My taxes have never been begrudged….the only time I resisted them was a state thinking I owed for a year in which I didn’t even live in the state, other than that I never claimed as so many conservatives do, that taxes was “stealing my money”.
        I am retired now, and still don’t begrudge the taxes that I pay on my retirement….and soon to be Socal security. I have been blessed to be middle class and believe that I owe it to those that need it not to lie and cheat to keep from paying it out via taxes.
        I believe that nobody should have to go, hand out, and begging for help to someone that is going to lord it over them, and make states about how much “charity” they give.
        You bringing it up, is the very reason, I see it as self-serving and arrogant on conversatives part…..and tend to resent the word.

      • Kenneth James Abbott

        -You see, that illustrates why I am not a conservative. I don’t see Taxes as being “stealing”.-

        You pay it, or big dudes show up to your house and take it. how is that not “stealing”?

        -They are paying for the benefits that we receive as part of a society.-

        Inefficiently, and often given out to the people who didn’t actually make the money.

        Not to mention that among those “benefits’ is an army of agents whose entire purpose of employment is to infringe on your rights.

        -My taxes have never been begrudged.-

        If you’re fine with someone else controlling your finances, then more power to you. But I hope you can understand that some of us perfer freedom.

        – believe that nobody should have to go, hand out, and begging for help to someone that is going to lord it over them, and make states about how much “charity” they give.-

        So when someone calls us greedy, and we point out we actually give more, we’re lording it over them?

        Moreover, just how do you think these people get money from the government? They go, hand out, and begging for help to someone who is going to lord it over them and make statements about how much “charity” they give. The only difference is that a) it will actually be happening, as opposed to your claims about conservatives, and b) the money they’re giving away isn’t theirs.

        -You bringing it up, is the very reason, I see it as self-serving and arrogant on conversatives part…..and tend to resent the word.-

        I brought it up because people claimed the opposite. If I told people you spent all your time at the brothel and you point out you’ve actually never cheated on your wife, are you being boastful and arrogant and self-serving about your chastity, or are you simply defending yourself against a vicious lie?

      • James Garman

        Obviously, you are one of those that thinks because you have more words y ou are more correct. I repudiated conservative thought when I realized tht they are the ones that are the top 1 percent…also the ones shipping jobs to other countries and then bragging about being “job creators”.
        You are obviously entitled to your opinion, but I will give my vote to the party and philosophy that I think gives more human dignity to the widest number of folks. And furthermore PRAY that we keep the White house.
        If you assume I am an unrepentent liberal, you would not be wrong. And I still say, don’t give me “charity’ give me an opportunity to have a piece of the pie rather than surrendering it all to those that already have everything.

        But as to this war battle, I have said all I need to say….thanks for staying civil.

      • Kenneth James Abbott

        -Obviously, you are one of those that thinks because you have more words y ou are more correct.-

        Actually, I’m one of those that thinks because I have more facts I am more correct.

        -I repudiated conservative thought when I realized tht they are the ones that are the top 1 percent.-

        Also because I have more coherence.

        -You are obviously entitled to your opinion, but I will give my vote to the party and philosophy that I think gives more human dignity to the widest number of folks.-

        By stealing money from one group and giving it to another? I don’t remember “human dignity” and “living on stolen money” going together.

        -And furthermore PRAY that we keep the White house.-

        Heh. Better not do it out loud.

        -And I still say, don’t give me “charity’ –

        If you would rather have money taken from someone else against your will, than money freely given, then I’m not sure what I can add.

        -give me an opportunity to have a piece of the pie rather than surrendering it all to those that already have everything.-

        This is not remotely how capitalism works. If you used to be a Republican, and you didn’t understand this, then I have to wonder just why.

      • James Garman

        The most insulting thing in your whole response is your statement that I might have once been a member of the “party of the elite”…I have always, ALWAYS been a democat, and will never be a republican. Especially with people like trump, carly and theocrats like hucklebee being the main voices of the party of big business at the excuse of the poor and working people of the united States.
        It is the elite that uses the poor to “take money”…it is called redistribution to other few at the top…rather than sharing acorss the spectrum.
        The democratic party isn’t perfect but it is better at its worst than the republican party is at its best.

      • Kenneth James Abbott

        -btw, this is my last response to your right wing diatribe. –

        Really? Because I can see another post from you, right below this one.

        -After all, here I have pretty of support..-

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

        -bout just such a marriage as right wing Christianity with the party of “lets take all the money from the workers and give it to the ethic”….otherwise known as the Republicans. –

        Coherence would help.

        I presume you mean the “rich,” not the “ethic”–the Left isn’t really good on ethics, after all–in which case you’re talking about a marriage with a fictional entity… but nice try with the class warfare!

        Thefunny thing is that for all the Left claims the Republicans are the party of the rich… under Obama, the most liberal president in American history, employment has shrunk, real wages have stagnated–but corporate profit and the stock market has climbed.

        -The most insulting thing in your whole response is your statement that I might have once been a member of the “party of the elite”…I have always, ALWAYS been a democat, and will never be a republican.-

        Try to pay somebody a compliment…..

        -being the main voices of the party of big business at the excuse of the poor and working people of the united States.-

        You keep bringing up that class-warfare line as if there was any truth to it. You should know better by now.

      • James Garman

        If you don’t know that the elite…ie the 1 percent are doing wealth distribution upward into their pockets…..I don’t know what else to say. Such things as citizens united means that even the political process has been bought by the elite. Obviously, however, you are living in the right wing bubble that says that if those darn poor people would just disappear along with Mexicans and Muslims, all would be well in the USA,.

      • Kenneth James Abbott

        -If you don’t know that the elite…ie the 1 percent are doing wealth distribution upward into their pockets…..I don’t know what else to say.-
        You could actually present some facts, but that’s not likely to happen anytime soon.

        -Obviously, however, you are living in the right wing bubble that says that if those darn poor people would just disappear along with Mexicans and Muslims, all would be well in the USA,.-

        And obviously, you have no recourse but to lie about your opponents.

        Nothing new here.

      • James Garman

        btw, this is my last response to your right wing diatribe. After all, here I have pretty of support….it is after all a site put out by Forward Progressives, about just such a marriage as right wing Christianity with the party of “lets take all the money from the workers and give it to the ethic”….otherwise known as the Republicans. (therefore the title of this post which was all about REPUBLICITY.

      • http://www.amazon.com/Sorcerers-Vendetta-Secret-Zanalon-ebook/dp/B00C7VZZIM/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1367688288&sr=8-1&keywords=Sorcerer%27s+Vendetta Sarah Ray

        You can’t steal from someone who is willing to give. What’s wrong with a government that applies the Christian principles of generosity and compassion? Try opening your heart.

      • Kenneth James Abbott

        -You can’t steal from someone who is willing to give.-

        Do you think taxpayers are “willing to give”? If so, all those armed agents in the IRS are being paid for no reason.

        -What’s wrong with a government that applies the Christian principles of generosity and compassion?-

        What does stealing money and distributing it as y ou see fit have to do with Christian principles of generosity and compassion? If I mug you, and drop off a few bucks at the local orphanage, does that make me compassionate and generous?

        Freely giving away someone else’s money is not generous.

    • Arizona Willie

      Conservatives claim a Bible passage is a ” metaphor ” when they want to claim ‘ He didn’t really mean THAT — he meant this — he must have because I don’t want to do what I would have to do if he really meant that ‘.
      Just as they wipe their ass with the Constitution when it doesn’t fit with their ideology, they do the same with the Bible.

    • James Garman

      This even happens in church bodies sadly. This may be slightly off topic but not too far. In a debate in a major denomination about homosexuality and the Bible, I suggested that Peter’s vision could logically be used to mean that people seen as unclean were no longer to be seen that way.
      A conservative lady there present said no…..it was the passage that allowed Christians to eat shellfish and such…non-kosher, in other words.
      She had absolutely no idea how to respond when I pointed out that Peter’s reaction had nothing to do with food, but did have with who he accepted as being part of the church…it is reported that the church basically opened up to non-Jewish folk at that point.
      She was, of course, still determined to not accept the argrument, but had no way to understand how to refute it because it apparently had never dawned on her that the reaction to that recorded vision was not in line with what she was assuming it meant.

  • Mike Minyen

    Jesus was the ultimate flaming liberal, Obama could be the leader of the Tea Party compared to him. If you call yourself a Christian and hold conservative Republican values, that house on a hilltop in a gated community you fantasize is being prepared for you…Yea your name is not on the mail box.

    • Michael Rowe

      Amen.

    • James Garman

      And the guy on here that is spewing that conservatives give more “charity” really is saying, in my opinion….”I am holding on to mine….and giving you a tiny bit and calling it charity, while looking down my nose at you”. That is what my mind always goes to, when people start talking about “charity”. We liberals are trying to create a society/culture where everybody has equal value as a human being….and is not required to “go begging” to the “haves”.

      • Kenneth James Abbott

        -And the guy on here-
        It’s a little cute the way you had to talk crap about me by going to a completely different thread.

        -That is what my mind always goes to,-

        I think that says more about your mind than it does about generous people.
        Here in the real world, I pointed out fact that conservatives give more charity (real charity, so there’s no need for sarcastic quote-marks. If you want to see fake charity, look at the people who get generous with someone ELSE’s money) to note that the common liberal rhetoric about conservative greed is just like any other liberal rhetoric–it’s a crock.

        -We liberals are trying to create a society/culture where everybody has equal value as a human being–
        Unless they go to a church.

        –and is not required to “go begging” to the “haves”.-

        Unless those “haves” are in the government.

      • James Garman

        The government is We The People–you know us real human beings, not corporations like you rightists have sold the country to, and you sir are a troll….on a liberal site running your right wing propangda. We don’t worry about what church a person goes to….heck I go to church just about every sunday….but I don’t use my religion to deny equality to others….or to stir up hatred of minorities like you right wingers do. You can blah blah blah all day long and never convince me of the rightness of your position any more that I expect you to agree with mine.
        So, basically we are both wasting our time, but I don’t intend to waste any more of mine arguring with you….I will just work to do everything I can to make sure people who believe as I do, get control and keep it for the next 4 years….

      • Kenneth James Abbott

        -The government is We The People–you know us real human beings,-

        Which is why Congress and the president don’t ahve a horribly low approval ratings….

        – not corporations like you rightists have sold the country to, and you sir are a troll….on a liberal site running your right wing propangda.-

        I’d ask you again to quit using silly false accusations, but I’ve asked in the past and you didn’t quit yet.

        Maybe when you have a real argument to fall back on, you’ll be able to actually present a point and won’t have to resort to childish insults.

    • Kenneth James Abbott

      -Jesus was the ultimate flaming liberal,-

      Because who can forget when Jesus tried to disarm the populace?

      …oh yeah, He didn’t. In fact, He advised His followers to arm ourselves.

      Well, who can forget when Jesus stole someone else’s food and distributed it to….

      …no, wait–He didn’t do that either.

      Well, at least there’s all the forms of sexual perversion He embraced and promo…

      … naw, dang, there wasn’t any of that either.

      Jesus didn’t advocate being defenseless, He didn’t advocate theft, and he didn’t advocate illicit sexual activity. What else IS there to being liberal?

      • Ernest Crunkleton

        “Because who can forget when Jesus tried to disarm the populace?”

        turn the other cheek

        “Well, who can forget when Jesus stole someone else’s food and distributed it to….”

        Loaves and fishes story

        “Well, at least there’s all the forms of sexual perversion He embraced and promo…”

        since political opinions have nothing to do with sexuality ill have to assume that this is projection on your part.

        “Jesus didn’t advocate being defenseless, He didn’t advocate theft, and he didn’t advocate illicit sexual activity. What else IS there to being liberal?”

        Belief in freedom and equality, unlike conservativism which seeks to maintain the power of the global elite.

      • Kenneth James Abbott

        -“Because who can forget when Jesus tried to disarm the populace?”
        turn the other cheek-
        Which is not even remotely an example of attempting to disarm the populace.

        -“Well, who can forget when Jesus stole someone else’s food and distributed it to….”
        Loaves and fishes story-
        Jesus didn’t steal someone else’s food in the loaves-and-fishes story.

        -“Well, at least there’s all the forms of sexual perversion He embraced and promo…”
        since political opinions have nothing to do with sexuality ill have to assume that this is projection on your part.-
        Since you don’t have an actual argument, you’ll have find a way to slip in an ad hominem.

        Political opinions obviously have something to do with sexuality, when they’re opinions regarding sexuality.

        -Belief in freedom and equality, unlike conservativism which seeks to maintain the power of the global elite.-
        Jesus was also against bearing false witness. You ought to try it sometime, instead of slandering your opponents.

  • Sally Strange

    You don’t have to be a Christian to believe in the values for which Christianity stands. Which is one of the reasons why I call myself a Christian.

    I don’t understand why this is not an argument against calling yourself a Christian.

    • Arizona Willie

      You should call yourself a Secular Humanist. We have the same rules to live by … but because it is the right way to live … not because we live in FEAR of committing some sin or another. There is no Sky Daddy and His Fifty Billion Angels up there keeping track of every thought and emotion and action we have and keeping a tally.

  • Tommy Towne Piercing

    I was expecting a better article. Most right wing christsins I know would tear this article apart. Ayn Rand is on the Libertarian Party book shelf not the GOP head quarters. The GOP reads the bible and autobiographies about Reagan.

    • Matthew Reece

      “Ayn Rand is on the Libertarian Party book shelf”
      Sadly, yes. She ought to be edged out in favor of Murray Rothbard, Samuel Konkin III, Hans Hoppe, etc.

  • Lois Heckman

    how about CHRINO – Christian in name only!

  • Steve Yu

    Even Ayd Rand said that her philosophy is in direct contradiction to that of Christ!

    • Ignatz

      Ayn Rand’s philosophy is actually the basis of Satanism. it’s what Anton LaVey used when creating it.

      • James Garman

        and yet, many republicans….the same ones that talk so much about the Bible and God, worship the ground Ayn Rand walked on, when it comes to politics. Interesting, huh?!!

  • Liberal idiots piss me off

    You sure do seem to hold quite a bit of hatred for republicans, or half our country roughly, for someone ranting about how much hatred others have

    • Arizona Willie

      We don’t hate Republicans … we hate what they do and what they want to do — force us to live by their ideas.
      The Republican ideology is driven by FEAR and I feel sorry for people who live their lives thinking everyone is out to screw them all the time.
      Which is plank #2 of every Republican platform. Plank #1 is ” more tax cuts ” … don’t take MY money.

    • Lisa Havner

      Says the guy calling liberals idiots…

  • William Carr

    When we strip off the lies, we see the Truth.

    Republicans are Cultists.

    Like any Cult, they want more power, they want more followers, and they even stockpile weapons like a Cult.

  • jobeob987

    The
    point of this article is trying to make is good in that our social
    system should help those in need and Jesus taught that but it doesn’t
    tell the whole story. Jesus said if you love me keep my commandments.
    Jesus commanded a great many things through out the gospels and he
    defined marriage as between one man and one woman. He also said that
    sex outside of marriage is sin. The apostle Paul received his message
    from Jesus and what he taught the Corinthians caused many of them to
    repent of their sinful ways. One of those sins was homosexuality. This
    is the problem I have with the article. Most conservative know the
    things that I just said. What they don’t seem to get is that the rest
    of Jesus’ teaching are just as crucial; like sell your possessions and
    give the poor Luke 12: 33, love you enemies and turn the other cheek and
    those that make peace will be called the sons of God; not the best
    recipe for consumer drive society. The word of God is a two edged sword
    that cuts both ways. The saying of Christ sound like they would be
    hard to do in fact they are impossible but when you are yoked to him the
    burden is light.

    • taymie

      provide me with the passages in which Jesus defined marriage as between one man and one woman.

      • jobeob987

        4-6 He
        answered, “Haven’t you read in your Bible that the Creator originally
        made man and woman for each other, male and female? And because of this,
        a man leaves father and mother and is firmly bonded to his wife,
        becoming one flesh—no longer two bodies but one. Because God created
        this organic union of the two sexes, no one should desecrate his art by
        cutting them apart.” Matthew 19 The Message

      • jobeob987

        4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” Matthew 19
        New International Version

      • dsadlowski

        Many of those same anti Gay people have been married a few times and then want to claim they are some how better than gay people.

        When he also said this in that quote.

        Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

      • Ignatz

        Yes, but he was talking about divorce, not same-sex marriage. I always find it amusing when divorced Christians quote that to condemn gay people.

    • dsadlowski

      The apostle Paul received his message from Jesus and what he taught the Corinthians caused many of them to repent of their sinful ways.

      So Jesus spoke to Paul from the Grave? Man when is he coming to speak directly to me I have asked him a number of times NOTHING.

      Paul never met Jesus he was killing the movement leaders prior to having his Jesus moment. “Struck by Lightening most likely is what science has said.”

  • Cathryn Sykes

    How much plainer could Christ have made it? Note: He doesn’t mention going to church. He doesn’t mention prayer. He doesn’t mention singing hymns or smiting the unbeliever or building giant temples or churches. Matthew 25: 34-46:

    34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

    37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

    40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

    41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

    44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

    45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

    46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

    • Arizona Willie

      Actually He does mention going to church and prayer.
      He chased the money changers out of the Temple.
      He talked religion with the rabbis.
      He talked about the poor widow giving of her meager pence too.
      He said people should pray in secret and those who pray in public have received their reward here on Earth.
      I’m sure some of the Bible scholars on here can produce the Biblical passages and many more along these lines.
      That being said, all RELIGIONS are SCAMS.
      We get the same rules to live by from Secular Humanism without being in fear of passing off some invisible dude or his wingman — the angels — who report on our every thought and deed and feeling.
      Get a boner thinking about Mary Ellen in the 6th grade? You sinned!!! You’re going to hell!!

      • Kenneth James Abbott

        If secular humanism is so much better, then why did it make you so hateful and dishonest?

    • Kenneth James Abbott

      -Note: He doesn’t mention going to church. He doesn’t mention prayer. He doesn’t mention singing hymns or smiting the unbeliever or building giant temples or churches.-
      Note: He also doesn’t mention stealing money from one group of people and giving it away to another.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/01033370072650216855 ItStartedWithAWindmill

    Many people that are devoted church-going Christians absolutely need the very minimal guidance that their interpretation of Christianity brings. Think for a moment how dangerous some of these people could be without this minimal “Christian” guidance in their lives? It isn’t difficult to see how easily groups of people can become become Nazis when the guidance of their religion collapses or allows for genocide, all while ignoring the tenets of their religion.

  • John Lynch

    What’s the point of debating an anarchist? Do you think you’ll change his mind?

    Take comfort in knowing he’s just wasting his self-indulgent time – and don’t waste any more of yours. I sure won’t.

  • Guest

    awww,,,,,,,,,the FAKE small dicked user of my name is crying!!! best part??? “HE” has supremely complimented me—and show how I have INDEED nestled under his white trash regressive crybaby skin– by being forced to imitate my name in HOPES of making me(??) look foolish with “HIS” infantile posts. He is now going to practice his quotidian onanistic tendencies after ingesting visually some porn

  • speakoutforscience

    Hallelujah!!!!

  • Nick Papageorgio

    Matthew 23-25:

    23And Jesus said to His disciples, “Truly I say to you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.

    24″Again
    I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a
    needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”

    25When the disciples heard this, they were very astonished and said, “Then who can be saved?”

    • nextstep99

      The lead up verses to the “camel and the eye of a needle” are more explicit.

      “Sell everything you have and give to the poor.”

      The Rich Young Ruler – (Matthew 19:16-30)
      22 When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
      23 When he heard this, he became very sad, because he was very wealthy.
      24 Jesus looked at him and said, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!
      25 Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

      • Arizona Willie

        And from what I heard, ” the eye of the needle ” is a passageway in the streets that required removing all the packs from a camel and back and forth maneuvering that took about a half hour to get a camel past this spot that was like a right angle corner but so small and tight that it was almost impossible to get the camel through it. Camels didn’t react well to being in tight spaces either so they resisted being pulled through.

      • Ignatz

        That’s not true, though. The idea comes from the middle ages, but there was no such gate. It’s hyperbole, though, not literal, in my opinion.

  • Amee

    Wow! I feel like you took a peak into my brain and pulled this out! This explains exactly how I feel! I am so sock of hypocrites spewing hate!!

  • lance1949

    It seems to me that Republicans link ‘Liberalism’ with ‘Unchristian’. I have no real idea where this attitude came from but it is totally right. I have a suspicion that ‘Liberals’ are actually more Christian that most Republicans because liberals act in more Christian ways that do Republicans independent of Church attendance levels. Going to Church is no guarantee that you live as good Christian life.

    • Kenneth James Abbott

      -t seems to me that Republicans link ‘Liberalism’ with ‘Unchristian’. I have no real idea where this attitude came-
      Probably because liberalism is actively opposed to Christianity. It’s not the Republicans who are throwing Christians in jail for refusing to spit on their faith.

      -I have a suspicion that ‘Liberals’ are actually more Christian that most Republicans because liberals act in more Christian ways that do Republicans-

      Your suspicion would only be correct if you define stealing money from one group to give another as charitable… in which case you got issues, son.

  • xbj

    It’s called militant christianism, the PURELY political perversion of True Christianity as Jesus Christ taught, lived, and died, solely based on achieving great wealth for power’s sake, to force a one-party conservative theocracy based on Judaic Law upon the planet, starting with the US. And too often terrorist in nature when it comes to denying women’s reproductive rights. christianism is to True Christianity what Zionism, a purely political movement of imperialism, is to True Judaism, a religion.

  • Dennis

    I’ve thought a lot about this. NO ONE, who understands the difference between Old Testament religions and New Testament religions should be shocked. Old Testament religions advocate xenophobia, hate, intolerance, mysogeny, and bigotry. New Testament religions advocate peace, acceptance, equality, and tolerance. He has a right to practice and preach his religious beliefs – shining the light of day on their outmoded and intolerant beliefs will teach everyone the true nature of OT Christianity….

  • Getaclueyouliberal

    A BUNCH OF LIBERAL DRIBBLE! If liberal/progressives want to pretend to know republicans that’s fine…OR they can be truthful! But we all know that isn’t going to happen, because liberalism is a disease that corrupts the brain and turns it to mush!!

    • dsadlowski

      Projection

      • miketothad

        Ha! Somebody found out what Projection means!

    • Lisa Havner

      Most of my family are republican. So I do know them. These are the same people who cry about welfare but didn’t hesitate taking my grandmother to get fuel assistance. It’s ok if you or your family are the needy ones right?

  • Kien Tran

    Ayn Rand would roll in her grave.

  • lindylou

    I have been referring to them as “Christopublicans”.

  • JAMES PAINTER

    Amazing, Atheists embracing Christ to show their hate.

    • lisa palmer

      Helping feed the poor, educating the poor, providing support for child care while they work and go to school, making healthcare affordable and available to the poor, providing public transportation and housing support for the poor, advocating for a living wage for the poor, this is not a religious position. This is a moral position. It happens tocoincide with the overwhelming majority of teachings and behavior of Jesus. So, tell me, James, just what is the hateful part of that? Or is this all about you; you feel hated an persecuted, am I right? (Tiny violins playing).

  • Sunny Ray

    One thing Jesus says clearly and more than once, hypocrites will burn in hell…

  • Peter Pullar

    I recommend reading the book “When helping hurts” – alleviating poverty without hurting the poor. It helped me understand many of the individual strengths and weaknesses of each side.

    • miketothad

      Sounds like more right wing bullshit.

      • Kenneth James Abbott

        Which is why throwing money at them like you have means there aren’t any poor people anymore…

        …surely, far less than there was when the “great society” started….

      • miketothad

        Get back to your Klan rally.

      • Kenneth James Abbott

        Quit playing the race-card and come up with a real argument…..

        …if you can.

      • miketothad

        Bagger, please. Your “conservative” base is 90% white. If anybody’s playing any card, it’s YOU. Always afraid of something.

      • Kenneth James Abbott

        I said come up with a real argument.

        You aren’t ready yet.

      • miketothad

        I just did, bagger. You’re clearly one of those baggers who try to side-step reality as some kind of debate tactic.

      • Kenneth James Abbott

        Sidestep reality? Before telling me how I’ll react, try actually using some.

        Otherwise, all you have is silly, childish slander and ad hominems. Not that I expected any better, really.

      • miketothad

        That’s what I said. Sidestepping reality.
        You trash really are dumb, if you think you’re fooling anybody.

      • Kenneth James Abbott

        -That’s what I said. Sidestepping reality.-
        I saw what you said. That’s why i suggest you actually try some reality–y’know, instead of playing the race card in a sad attempt to hide the fact that you have no facts.

        -You trash really are dumb, if you think you’re fooling anybody.-

        If I’m dumb trash, why are you the one resorting to silly lies, schoolyard insults, and general ad hominems?

      • miketothad

        Race is reality, idiot. You are 90% white. If you think white people have cornered the market on political intelligence, you are an idiot who hides behind the “race card” more than anyone. You’ve scared off every ethnic minority group in existence, and you think everyone else is supposed to willfully ignore that, like you. Your party treats you like idiots, blocking policy that would help you, in favor of tax breaks for an economic group you will never belong to, because they know you’ll support anything they want, as long as they feed you anti-(fill in the blank) hate speech.

      • Kenneth James Abbott

        -Race is reality, idiot. –

        Thank you for pointing that out (and thank you for the extra ad hominem, just to prove you don’t have an actual point), but can we return to the argument at hand?

        -You are 90% white.-

        You don’t know what percentage of any ancestry I am, and it wouldn’t matter if I twas 90%, 99%, or 2% white.

        -f you think white people have cornered the market on political intelligence,-

        I don’t, and at no point have I ever claimed that.

        -You’ve scared off every ethnic minority group in existence-

        Here in the real world, on the other hand…

        -and you think everyone else is supposed to willfully ignore that, like you.-

        Well, ignore it or bring up some evidence to back up your claim–but if you had an evidence you wouldn’t be resorting to the race-card anyway.

        -Your party treats you like idiots, blocking policy that would help you,-

        Because what can be more helpful than socialism? Oh, that’s right, ANYTHING.

        -in favor of tax breaks for an economic group you will never belong to,-

        Who already pay far more than I ever will in taxes.

        -because they know you’ll support anything they want, as long as they feed you anti-(fill in the blank) hate speech.-

        Bullshit. You are a liar.

        So I challenge you again (knowing you’ll fail the challenge again): Put down the race-card and pick up a real argument….

        …if you can.

      • miketothad

        LOL

        I already know you dumb white trash are oblivious to the effects of your own policy, you don’t read, you’ll deny your track record of economic collapse, graft and fraud and handouts to the extremely wealthy..You’ll deny that the real GOP country club has you wrapped around your fingers… But I’ll just contain my argument to simply looking at crowds of you, and laughing. Your ship is sinking and people around the world HATE you. Have a nice life, pretending, white trash nobody. You’re all white and not very bright.

      • Kenneth James Abbott

        -you’ll deny your track record of economic collapse, graft and fraud and handouts to the extremely wealthy-
        Yeah, I tend to deny blatant, childish falsehoods.

        -You’ll deny that the real GOP country club has you wrapped around your fingers-
        See above.

        -But I’ll just contain my argument to simply looking at crowds of you, and laughing-
        Because you don’t have any facts.

        -Have a nice life, pretending, white trash nobody.-
        Look up “ad hominem” someday.

        -You’re all white and not very bright.-
        Then how did I manage to run rings around you?

        So I challenge you again (knowing you’ll fail the challenge again): Put down the race-card and pick up a real argument….

        …if you can.

      • miketothad

        Rings?
        Good lord, don’t flatter yourself. You wallow in ignorance and denial.
        Enjoy your bubble of ignorance while the world laughs at your nomination clown car, Jethro.

      • Kenneth James Abbott

        Do you have anything other than silly lies and childish ad hominems to bring to the table?

        I think now I understand why you support the Left.

        Note, just to remind you–you utterly failed the challenge.

      • miketothad

        Silly lies? I support the left because the “left” is at least in touch with reality.
        Good luck with your clown car, pretending 9-11 didn’t happen under W., ignorant trash.

      • Kenneth James Abbott

        If the Left is in touch with reality, how come your posts contain nothing but blatant falsehoods and childish ad hominems? One would think that if you had the facts on your side, you wouldn’t need that stuff….

      • miketothad

        Bagger, please… You idiots wouldn’t know a fact if it took a dump on your foreheads. The cary liberal media is calling out your clown car candidates for outright lies from just about every candidate, and I’m glad…. They’re showing America just stupid and gullible the GOP klan base is. It’s clear you don’t CARE about fact. YOU drooling dolts care more about entertainment than actual information.

      • Kenneth James Abbott

        You still have yet to provide anything but silly, childish lies.

        So I challenge you again (knowing you’ll utterly fail the challenge)–put down the race-card and pick up a real argument…

        …if you can (and we all know you can’t).

      • miketothad

        Look at you… I just laid facts out for your stupid ass, and you disregard them. Get back to you Klan rally, dumb trash.

      • Kenneth James Abbott

        You have yet to lay out one single fact. All you’ve done so far is throw out the race-card and other childish, dishonest ad hominems.

        I’ve been in the Army, Mike. I spent months getting insulted by professional insulters–people who actually had some skill at it. All you’re doing is proving that you know the facts don’t support your positions.

      • miketothad

        “Race-Card”…LOL… Someone points out that your GOP base is 90% white means I’m playing the race card, and everyone should disregard that you’re nothing but a bunch of ignorant white hicks.
        You’ve been in the army, yet you support a party that opposes increased benefits, jobs, and healthcare improvements for vets. And now you want to yap a about positions. You’re willfully ignorant and proud.

      • Kenneth James Abbott

        -Someone points out that your GOP base is 90% white means I’m playing the race card-
        The only time “ninety” or “90” show up on this entire page is when you said it. Nobody pointed out that the GoP base is 90% white, and nobody except you would do so, for one important reason–it’s blatantly not true.

        Now can you actually drop the silly lies, ad hominems, and schoolyard insults, and actually come up with a point?

        Yeah, yeah, I know you can’t. I just felt like rubbing your face in that fact.

      • Ernest Crunkleton

        You wouldn’t know a fact if it bit you in the arse. Hell I gave you the titles of books filled with stats and facts, which you denounced as “socialism”. Facts equate to socialism to fascists such as yourself.

      • Kenneth James Abbott

        -You wouldn’t know a fact if it bit you in the arse.-
        Before telling me how I’d react, why don’t you actually provide a fact or two and see?

        -Hell I gave you the titles of books filled with stats and facts, which you denounced as “socialism”.-

        No you didn’t. You gave me the title of a work of socialist propaganda, written by a socialist.

        -Facts equate to socialism to fascists such as yourself.-

        Which is why I’m over here using silly ad hominems and….

        No, wait, that’s you. Yet again.

      • Ernest Crunkleton

        Actually your racist, sexist views are those of a fascist. Just like your hero Hitler.

      • Kenneth James Abbott

        Wow. You’ve managed to play the ad hominem, the more refined ad hominem of the race-card, AND the reductio ad Hitlerum in one sentence.

        That’s a “don’t have an argument and you know it” trifecta, there.

        And, of course, you lied through your teeth at every step of the way–I am neither racist nor sexist, I am not a fascist, and a socialist like Hitler is certainly not one of my heroes–but I think at this point nobody expected honesty from you anyway. If they did, I don’t know why.

      • Ernest Crunkleton

        I can link you to your comments if you like. You have made repeated racist and sexist statements

        “a socialist like Hitler”

        More fallacy, Hitler was a Christian fascist, he rose to power by turning the German people against foreigners by using religion.

      • Kenneth James Abbott

        -I can link you to your comments if you like. You have made repeated racist and sexist statements-

        Challenge accepted. Find one single racist or sexist statement in my comments, or admit you’re simply a liar throwing out ad hominems.

        -More fallacy, Hitler was a Christian fascist,

        Yes, that is indeed more fallacy.

        Hitler is well-documented as an anti-Christian, who threw preachers and priests into concentration camps for being Christian.

        He’s also well known to be a socialist. You can deny the obvious if you wish–that’s kind of necessary for your positions, after all–but don’t expect the rest of us to join you.

        http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100260720/whenever-you-mention-fascisms-socialist-roots-left-wingers-become-incandescent-why/

        http://www.nationalreview.com/article/372197/nazis-still-socialists-jonah-goldberg

      • Ernest Crunkleton

        ” While islam doesn’t exactly equal terrorism, the 27,000 muslim terrorist attacks since 9-11 indicate there’s some kind of link in there.”

        Here is a lie you are spreading about Muslims, quite racist.

        “Apparently the South turned racist in 1968, then turned not racist in 76, then turned racist again in 80, then turned not-racist in 92, then turned racist again in 2000…..”

        Here is one where you are using rhetoric to confuse the issue of race. It reinforces the idea that systemic racism is somehow ok.

        “Perhaps you could put down the race-card”

        Terms like the “race card” and “color blindness” are fabricated terms that promote institutional racism

        “. Most of the racist wing of the Democratic party (aka Dixiecrats) were welcomed into the Republican Party by the time Reagan began to run. FACT, not opinion.-Except it’s not fact at all. It’s not even remotely fact.”

        Actually the Southern textile conservatives did align themselves with the republic party . Your direct deception about history is possibly racially motivated.

      • Kenneth James Abbott

        Perhaps there was some confusion here. When I said to “find” a racist or sexist statement, I meant to find something I said that was actually racist–not to quote something I said that wasn’t even remotely racist and then falsely claim it to be racist.

        -Here is a lie you are spreading about Muslims, quite racist.-
        Except that it’s not a lie, and muslim is not a race.

        -Here is one where you are using rhetoric to confuse the issue of race. It reinforces the idea that systemic racism is somehow ok.-
        I didn’t use rhetoric to confuse anything. I used facts–the fact in particular that after the “Southern strategy” Southern voters frequently voted majority-democrat–to disprove a false claim. Nor did I reinforce systemic racism.

        -Terms like the “race card” and “color blindness” are fabricated terms-
        EVERY term is fabricated. That’s how we get new words.

        -that promote institutional racism-
        Bullshit. Pointing out false claims of racism does not promote racism.

        -Actually the Southern textile conservatives did align themselves with the republic party . –
        Actually the vast majority of segregationists remained part of the Republican party. Using the Caps-lock key does not change that fact.

        -Your direct deception about history is possibly racially motivated.-
        Except it’s not a direct–or even an indirect–deception, and you are not a psychoanalyst

        When you have something other than the race-card, try me again. Until then, all you have a dishonest accusations of racism.

        So I’ll offer you the challenge I’ve offered others–and considering you have nothing but direct lies, whackass conspiracy theories, the race-card, and reductio ad hitlerum, I already know you’ll utterly fail it: Quit playing the race-card and come up with a real argument….

        …if you can.

      • Ernest Crunkleton

        Read up on the language of modern racism and how its propagated by the neoliberal rhetoric you use.

        http://havenscenter.wisc.edu/files/Maclean-SouternDominance.pdf

      • Kenneth James Abbott

        The “language of modern racism,”–in which, by not saying racist things at all, anyone who disagrees with socialism is therefore a racist.

        Yeah, I think I’ll stick with reality–but thanks for the offer!

      • Ernest Crunkleton

        Yes, if you participate in system that is inherently racist/classest and you don’t attempt to correct (or in your case call for the continuation of that system) It’s racism.

      • Kenneth James Abbott

        And this is why nobody takes you seriously.

      • Ernest Crunkleton

        I suppose you’ve talked to everyone about this?

      • Kenneth James Abbott

        Wow, you actually made a decent point.

        So let me clarify: Nobody SHOULD take you seriously. People still do stupid things, though, so no doubt someone out there will.

      • Ernest Crunkleton

        Wow you actually admitted you were wrong for once.

      • Kenneth James Abbott

        I did that for one simple reason–I was wrong.

        Now if you could admit you were wrong instead of simply lying, over and over and over again, we’d really be getting somewhere.

      • Ernest Crunkleton

        Show me in a lie and I will.

      • Kenneth James Abbott

        I’ve already done that, twice. You lied about it…

        And since I know you’re going to lie about that too, here’s the first time I did so:

        https://disqus.com/home/discussion/liberalamerica/why_do_poor_uneducated_white_people_vote_republican/#comment-2380062734

        And here’s the second:

        https://disqus.com/home/discussion/liberalamerica/why_do_poor_uneducated_white_people_vote_republican/#comment-2380058693

        And that’s just skimming the surface, since these are simply a few of the more childish and vicious lies you’ve told directly about me.

      • Ernest Crunkleton

        Calling people liars again, once again for the peanut gallery, pointing out racist, misogynistic or other behavior is not “lying” you have made statements like

        “feminists want men to hate them”

        “” While islam doesn’t exactly equal terrorism, the 27,000 muslim terrorist attacks since 9-11 indicate there’s some kind of link in there.”

        Here is a lie you are spreading about Muslims, quite racist.

        “Apparently the South turned racist in 1968, then turned not racist in 76, then turned racist again in 80, then turned not-racist in 92, then turned racist again in 2000…..””

        In the first example you paint a strawman of what feminism is. It is the struggle for the equality of the sexes, nothing more. Women gained the right to vote less than 100 years ago, they make less money, are less represented in congress and in the business world.

        In the second you provide a false number which grossly exaggerates the number of terrorist attacks. Some simple math shows your deception. There are 365 days a year, in the 14 years since 9-11 there have been 6,110 days. If we accept your numbers then there have been 4 and a half attacks every day………I would like to see the source of those numbers, I don’t see that many myself.

        In the third you misconstrue the article in a deceptive-dismissive way. The structure of white privilege that resulted from the end of slavery created the institutional racism we see today. Its impact ebbs and flows with political power and public opinion. You present it as flip flopping when in reality it’s the dynamics of power at work as one group fights for independence while another fights for domination.

        I think we can all see who’s “lying” here.

      • Kenneth James Abbott

        -pointing out racist, misogynistic or other behavior is not “lying” –

        Unless, as is the case here, the behavior doesn’t exist.

        -Here is a lie you are spreading about Muslims, quite racist.-

        First, it’s not a lie. Second, islam isn’t a race.

        -In the first example you paint a strawman of what feminism is. It is the struggle for the equality of the sexes, nothing more.-

        So I paint a strawman of what feminism is…. while you tell me it’s something completely different than it actually is. See, this is why I keep checking your posts. It’s like a trainwreck; I shouldn’t look, but it’s so hard to look away.

        -Women gained the right to vote less than 100 years ago,-

        Which was really important, 100 years ago.

        -they make less money-

        Less than a percent, when jobs, time worked, and experience are accounted for.

        -are less represented in congress and in the business world.-

        Because women often have different interests than men.

        -In the second you provide a false number which grossly exaggerates the number of terrorist attacks. Some simple math shows your deception.-

        Some simple math shows that there are a lot. They don’t show a trace of deception–mostly because no deception is there, but that’s a fact, and it’s pretty clear by now you don’t like those things.

        -I would like to see the source of those numbers,-

        No you wouldn’t, and when I show them to you, you’re going to ignore them.

        But I have far more integrity than you, so I’m going to show them to you anyway. Fortunately, somebody was willing to go through the list and count ’em up:

        http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#PriorYears

        -There are 365 days a year, in the 14 years since 9-11 there have been 6,110 days. If we accept your numbers then there have been 4 and a half attacks every day.-

        Just this October, there were more than 600 terrorist attacks:

        http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4724366,00.html

        That’s more than nineteen and a half attacks every day.

        -In the third you misconstrue the article in a deceptive-dismissive way.-

        Of course, it’s not misconstrued in the slightest, but I didn’t expect you to be honest about it anyway.

        -Its impact ebbs and flows with political power and public opinion.-

        So racism causes things… but only when it’s convenient for you. It’s a mystical force, like the tides….

        -You present it as flip flopping when in reality it’s the dynamics of power at work as one group fights for independence while another fights for domination.-

        I didn’t present it as flip-flopping; they didn’t switch from racist to non-racist and back as your theory would command (with racism apparently ebbing and flowing). Racism eventually faded out as it became publican unacceptable–during that time, Democrats won sometimes and Republicans won sometimes. This happened everywhere–I don’t remember the New York and Boston race-riots taking place in the South, and luminaries from Alexis de Tocqueville to Martin Luther King Jr. (who the Left would now consider a vicious racist and purveyor of White Privilege) to Jesse Jackson have noted that racism is a more prelavent issue in the North–but the Left has New England and Chicago on its side, and that’s what their accusations of racism are actually about. Whether racism is actually present is for them–like it is for you–an absolute non-issue.

        -I think we can all see who’s “lying” here.-

        And you’re not very good at it either.

      • Ernest Crunkleton

        “Which was really important, 100 years ago.”

        It’s important to study history so we can better understand how these systemic problems are perpetuated. You don’t care about women rights, fine, but at least admit it.

        “Less than a percent, when jobs, time worked, and experience are accounted for.”

        Source please.

        “Because women often have different interests than men.”

        Source please.

        “No you wouldn’t, and when I show them to you, you’re going to ignore them.

        You listed websites, not scholarly reviewed articles, anyone can post something on a blog, I reviewed your the site and did some research and came up with this.

        “Even a cursory glance at TROP’s list of so-called “Islamic terrorist attacks” reveals it to be nothing more than a deeply biased, propagandistic spin-job that conflates: real terrorist attacks, (semi)religious/culturally motivated crimes, attacks on military personnel and attacks by secular groups with no ideological basis in Islam — all in theaters of occupation, civil war and separatist conflict.”

        you can find an excelent critique here:

        http://www.loonwatch.com/2012/07/thereligionofpeace-com-working-to-streamline-the-american-empires-war-on-terror/

        Loon watch, apt name.

        “. It’s a mystical force, like the tides….”

        HAHAHAHAHA

        The tides aren’t mystical at all.

        “I didn’t present it as flip-flopping; they didn’t switch from racist to non-racist and back as your theory would command ”

        not my theory yours :

        “Apparently the South turned racist in 1968, then turned not racist in 76, then turned racist again in 80, then turned not-racist in 92, then turned racist again in 2000…..”

      • Kenneth James Abbott

        -It’s important to study history so we can better understand how these systemic problems are perpetuated.-
        Hate to break this to you, but they’re voting now–it’s not being perpetuated.

        -You don’t care about women rights, fine, but at least admit it.-
        One of these days you’ll learn that childish slander is not a substitute for facts or argument.

        -“Less than a percent, when jobs, time worked, and experience are accounted for.”
        Source please.-
        http://dailysignal.com/2015/04/14/is-there-a-real-wage-gap-between-men-and-women/

        http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2013/08/gender_pay_gap_the_familiar_line_that_women_make_77_cents_to_every_man_s.html

        -“Because women often have different interests than men.”
        Source please.-
        “In our survey, women were more likely to say they had taken career interruptions to care for their family.”

        http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/04/14/on-equal-pay-day-everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-gender-pay-gap/

        While we’re at it….

        http://www.topix.com/forum/news/topix/T5FMIBDABFG5SDNHR

        -anyone can post something on a blog, I reviewed your the site and did some research and came up with this.-
        So it’s bad because it’s a blog…. but you’re going to “disprove” it with a blog…

        -Even a cursory glance at TROP’s list of so-called “Islamic terrorist attacks” reveals it to be nothing more than a deeply biased, propagandistic spin-job that conflates: real terrorist attacks, (semi)religious/culturally motivated crimes, attacks on military personnel and attacks by secular groups with no ideological basis in Islam — all in theaters of occupation, civil war and separatist conflict.”-
        So they’re not terrorist attacks… if we refuse to CALL them terrorist attacks… Nice try.

        -Loon watch, apt name.-
        If you’re more interested in ad hominems than in actual facts. Which you clearly are.

        -. It’s a mystical force, like the tides….”
        HAHAHAHAHA
        The tides aren’t mystical at all.-
        Aaaand sarcasm flies right over your head. Or else you’re lying again–with you, that’s hard to tell.

        -not my theory yours :
        “Apparently the South turned racist in 1968, then turned not racist in 76, then turned racist again in 80, then turned not-racist in 92, then turned racist again in 2000…..”-

        That’s IF the Southern Strategy is true–which it clearly isn’t. So yeah, that’s actually your theory, the one you’re pushing because you have no facts at your disposal and childish ad hominems are all you have left to try. Of course, you’ve been trying them for weeks now and they haven’t worked, but that’s a different matter.

      • Ernest Crunkleton

        “Hitler is well-documented as an anti-Christian,”

        lies:

        ” “But since we set as the central point of this perception and of this profession of belief the maintenance and hence the security for the future of a being formed by God, we thus serve the maintenance of a divine work and fulfill a divine will– not in the secret twilight of a new house of worship, but openly before the face of the Lord… Our worship is exclusively the cultivation of the natural, and for that reason, because natural, therefore God-willed. Our humility is the unconditional submission before the divine laws of existence so far as they are known to us men.” -Adolf Hitler, in Nuremberg on 6 Sept.1938.”

        ” “We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.” -Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Berlin on 24 Oct. 1933 [This statement clearly refutes modern Christians who claim Hitler as favoring atheism. The Holocaust was like a modern inquisition, killing all who did not accept Jesus. Though more Jews were killed then any other it should be noted that MANY ARYAN pagans and atheists were murdered for their non-belief in Christ.]”

        ” “Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.” –Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)”

        ” “My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison.”

        Goodness looks like he was a Christian to me. certainly talks like you.

      • Kenneth James Abbott

        -“Hitler is well-documented as an anti-Christian,”

        lies:-

        The fact that you called it a lie should be evidence enough.

        But since you refer to facts as lies, there’s always plenty of evidence.

        “National Socialism and religion cannot exist together…. The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity…. Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. (p 6 & 7)”

        “Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure. (p 43)”

        “The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.”

        “Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer…. The decisive falsification of Jesus’ doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work… for the purposes of personal exploitation…. Didn’t the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it’s in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St.Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea. (p 63-65)”

        “Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery…. …. When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let’s be the only people who are immunised against the disease. (p 118 & 119)”

        “Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don’t believe the thing’s possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself…. Pure Christianity– the Christianity of the catacombs– is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics. (p 119 & 120)”

        “There is something very unhealthy about Christianity (p 339)”

        ” shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch Uin the next 200 yearse will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity…. My regret will have been that I couldn’t… behold .” (p 278)”

        (Hitler’s Table Talk)

        Hitler certainly made public statements regarding Christianity–but so did a lot of politicians who hated Christianity. Indeed, the people who hate Christianity and Christians most are often the first to explain to just just what we as Christians should do.

        “”To whom should propaganda be addressed? … It must be addressed always and exclusively to the masses… The function of propaganda does not lie in the scientific training of the individual, but in calling the masses’ attention to certain facts, processes, necessities, etc., whose significance is thus for the first time placed within their field of vision. The whole art consists in doing this so skilfully that everyone will be convinced that the fact is real, the process necessary, the necessity correct, etc. But since propaganda is not and cannot be the necessity in itself … its effect for the most part must be aimed at the emotions and only to a very limited degree at the so-called intellect… it’s soundness is to be measured exclusively by its effective result”. (Main Kampf, Vol 1, Ch 6 and Ch 12)”

        “We follow not Christ, but Horst Wessel, Away with incense and Holy Water, The Church can go hang for all we care, The Swastika brings salvation on Earth.” (Hitler Youth marching song)

        Then, of course, there’s the fact that Hitler threw priests and pastors into the ovens–I suppose his loyalty to the church caused that?

      • Ernest Crunkleton

        Please provide sources for you quoted material (all save the Main Kampf, which is documented, and full of material that supports his Christian beliefs.)

      • Kenneth James Abbott

        The sources are already included in the posts.

        Not only did you resort to reductio ad hitlerum, but you failed.

      • Ernest Crunkleton

        No, they just show page numbers, I had to search to find the “table talk” source. Its made up entirely of second hand information. It was then purposefully mistranslated by a french Catholic priest who wanted to distance the church from hitler as much as possible. (remember the pope at the time supported hitler)

      • Kenneth James Abbott

        -No, they just show page numbers, I had to search to find the “table talk” source.-
        I just checked. The name of the book was in my post, and you are simply lying.

        -(remember the pope at the time supported hitler)-
        I tend not to “remember” blatant falsehoods. That’s why we’re ~having~ these little disagreements.

        Well, also because you have absolutely nothing to fall back on but dishonest ad hominems–but while your posts aren’t substantively different from Miketothad’s, at least you picked up better vocabulary somewhere.

      • Ernest Crunkleton

        “-No, they just show page numbers, I had to search to find the “table talk” source.-I just checked. The name of the book was in my post, and you are simply lying.”

        yeah a source, shows the author, year of publication, ect, you only provided the name (table talk) which I even mentioned that I used to find the link to the source material.

        “-(remember the pope at the time supported hitler)-
        I tend not to “remember” blatant falsehoods. That’s why we’re ~having~ these little disagreements.

        “The often-espoused view that the Pontiff was unaware of the seriousness of the situation of European Jewry during the war was definitively found to be inaccurate. Numerous documents demonstrated that the Pope was well-informed about the full extent of the Nazi’s anti-Semitic practices. A letter from Konrad von Preysing, Bishop of Berlin, that proved that the Pope was aware of the situation as early as January of 1941”

        “Cornwell argued that Pacelli’s antisemitism combined with his drive to promote papal absolutism inexorably led him to collaboration with fascist leaders, a collaboration which led to what Cornwell characterizes as “the betrayal of Catholic democratic politics in Germany”.[24]

        Cornwell describes this collaboration with fascist leaders as starting in 1929 with the concordat with Mussolini known as theLateran Treaty, and followed by the concordat with Hitler known as the Reichskonkordat.”

        Hmmmmm……..

      • Kenneth James Abbott

        -yeah a source, shows the author, year of publication, ect, you only provided the name (table talk) which I even mentioned that I used to find the link to the source material.-
        So you were able to find the book, but it’s not a source because I didn’t provide a publisher, year, DNA genome sequence, and lock of hair? Y’know, it almost sounds like you already know what the book is, and you’re just looking for an excuse to dodge the facts… some more…

        -Cornwell describes this collaboration-
        Cornwell? That almost sounds like an author or something. But I don’t see a year of publication, a title, the publisher, etc., etc., etc., so I guess I can ignore it, right?

        Of course, I’m actually going to ignore it because Cornwell’s book “Hitler’s Pope” was immediately (and quite rightly) savaged for its blatant halftruths and outright lies as soon as it hit the stands. That’s only natural, seeing as it was an obvious string of lies supposedly from secret letters he wouldn’t let anyone see, crafted to fit his exact narrative… but then again, it’s only natural that people who hate Christianity and can’t name a logical reason why would be fans of his.

      • Ernest Crunkleton

        “-yeah a source, shows the author, year of publication, ect, you only provided the name (table talk) which I even mentioned that I used to find the link to the source material.-So you were able to find the book, but it’s not a source because I didn’t provide a publisher, year, DNA genome sequence, and lock of hair? Y’know, it almost sounds like you already know what the book is, and you’re just looking for an excuse to dodge the facts… some more…””

        So you don’t know what a source looks like, and asking for one is “dodgeing the facts”. You’ve yet to provide any facts to dodge. Your source was both secondary, and mistranslated, as i showed above.

        “-Cornwell describes this collaboration-

        Cornwell? That almost sounds like an author or something. But I don’t see a year of publication, a title, the publisher, etc., etc., etc., so I guess I can ignore it, right?

        Of course, I’m actually going to ignore it because Cornwell’s book “Hitler’s Pope” was immediately (and quite rightly) savaged for its blatant halftruths and outright lies as soon as it hit the stands.”

        It was? where is link to this scholarly review that “savaged” it?

      • Kenneth James Abbott

        -So you don’t know what a source looks like,-
        Aaaaand you start right off with a lie. But at this point, who’s actually surprised?

        -and asking for one is “dodgeing the facts”. –
        When you already know where it’s from? yes.

        – Your source was both secondary, and mistranslated, as i showed above.-
        As you falsely claimed above.

        -It was? where is link to this scholarly review that “savaged” it?-
        So now links are necessary? How ironic….

        Ronald Rychlak, professor of Law, explains how the “time bomb” ltter wasn’t written by the person that Cornwell claims it was written by, and was not secret either–it had already been published and debunked back in ’92:

        http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/apr/25/20060425-090125-3941r/

        Here, he illustrates how Cornwell lied about a photograph to make it look like he had proof of an event that never happened–and when caught, altered the photograph itself:

        http://home.olemiss.edu/~rrychlak/web20061010/morphing.htm

        Interestingly, when he was called on his lie, he resorted to the same response you use when called on your lies–he called the guy who caught him an apologist for the Nazis. The fact that he uses the same slander as you (whose dishonesty is well-proven) doesn’t exactly bode well for his trustworthyness.

        Here is Rabbi David Dalin countering some of Cornwell’s lies:

        http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=7665

        And here, you can see Cornwell himself recant:

        http://www.economist.com/node/3471137

        Your claims are not just a vicious slander, they’rethe exact opposite of the truth. Under Pope Pius XII’s leadership, the Catholic Church saved more than half a million Jews. Catholic leaders were targeted in the Night of the Long Knives, Christians including Catholics were sent to prisons and eventually ovens, and the Church was issuing Encyclicals regarding the Nazi “fundamental hostility” before Pius XII even became pope.

        In 1940, Pius warned the Allies of a planned Nazi invasion, and the Nazis had a separate barracks for clergy in Dachau, where more than a third of them died. The Church hid Jews in monasteries, convents, and even in the Vatican itself–and the Rich Security Main Office referred to him as a “mouthpiece” of the Jews.

        In short, while I have disagreements with Catholicism it’s clear that Pope Pius XII was easily twice the man you’ll ever even have the decency to wish you were–and instead of hanging y our head in shame, you continue to lie about the man.

        It’s dishonest, it’s disgusting–and it’s not at all surprising.

      • Ernest Crunkleton

        You have yet to post one piece of evidence that has passed the peer review process. But barring that I will admit that in the last two decades that more information has come to light regarding the activities of the pope during WW II. More than was available when I was researching.

        Regardless Cromwell addressed these issues himself stating:

        “Pius XII had so little scope of action that it is impossible to judge the motives for his silence during the war, while Rome was under the heel of Mussolini and later occupied by Germany. … But even if his prevarications and silences were performed with the best of intentions, he had an obligation in the postwar period to explain those actions”

        “Your claims are not just a vicious slander, they’rethe exact opposite of the truth. Under Pope Pius XII’s leadership, the Catholic Church saved more than half a million Jews.””

        First of all, Its not me slandering anything, Its the accepted view of history that has been vetted and passed along as the best record we have. I certainly didn’t write the book so accusing me of slander is moot. Its easy to see the holocaust as a continuation of Christianities war against religions. Starting with the invasions of the crusades, the Inquisition, the genocide of native people all across the globe who refuse to conform through the process of colonization.

        “And here, you can see Cornwell himself recant:

        http://www.economist.com/node/…”

        The “recant” is the quote I posted above taken out of context. He did admit, as did I, that more information is available than when he wrote it. That’s how science works. As more information becomes available, you add it to the existing pool and move on.

      • Kenneth James Abbott

        -ou have yet to post one piece of evidence that has passed the peer review process. –

        Considering you’ve posted “evidence” that absolutely failed it, maybe you shouldn’t brag just yet.

        -Regardless Cromwell addressed these issues himself stating:-

        So maybe he was still lying, but the Pope is still horrible. No wonder you like the guy.

        -First of all, Its not me slandering anything, Its the acc epted view of history that has been vetted and passed along as the best record we have.-

        First of all, no it isn’t–that’s why Cronwell’s book was ripped apart the moment it hit the stands.

        -I certainly didn’t write the book so accusing me of slander is moot.-

        You promoted it and proclaimed its slander to be true. Accusing you of slander is accurate…. as usual.

        -Its easy to see the holocaust as a continuation of Christianities war against religions.-

        Easy for you, perhaps, seeing as the war you speak of is simply another of your lies.

        -Starting with the invasions of the crusades,-

        Wherein after 500 years of muslim conquest, taking over 2/3 of the Christian world and four of the five major Christian cities, we finally fought back. How eeeeeeeeevil.

        -the Inquisition,-

        Totalling some three thousand people over more than three centuries.

        -the genocide of native people all across the globe who refuse to conform through the process of colonization.-

        And completely fictional.

        -The “recant” is the quote I posted above taken out of context.-

        Of coooooooooourse it was….

        -That’s how science works. As more information becomes available, you add it to the existing pool and move on.-

        Except you didn’t move on. you continued making the same blatantly disproven claim. In other words, you lied–yet again.

      • Ernest Crunkleton

        “, it’s only natural that people who hate Christianity ”

        Nobody hates Christianity, you just don’t like to consider that your religion is the cause of most of the worlds ills: capitalism which is impoverishing the world, the holy war being waged in the middle east, the fight against human rights and equality. All these are products of Christianity.

      • Kenneth James Abbott

        -Nobody hates Christianity, you just don’t like to consider that your religion is the cause of most of the worlds ills:-
        So you don’t hate Christianity, you just viciously slander it for fun?

        -capitalism which is impoverishing the world,-
        Christianity IS the cause of capitalism–I’m surprised you told the truth about this, but that’s because so far you’ve told the truth twice out of dozens of claims, so that’s only natural.

        Of course, your statement couldn’t be completely true, because at this point it’s plain you’re not capable of it. Rather than “impoverishing the world,” as your hate-addled imagination tells us, capitalism built the modern world–a fact that continually infuriates socialists.

        -the holy war being waged in the middle east,-
        Which Christianity has nothing to do with–except the ones being made into sex-slaves specifically because they’re Christian, but I bet the guys doing that don’t hate Christianity either, right?

        -the fight against human rights and equality-
        The one that’s not actually taking place, except for the Left’s assault on basic religious freedoms.

        -All these are products of Christianity.-
        The good one is. The second one is a different group, and the third is non-existent. But one out of three (even accidentally) is sort of a record for you, so I suppose congratulations are in order anyway.

      • Ernest Crunkleton

        “So you don’t hate Christianity, you just viciously slander it for fun?”

        When did i slander your religion? Pointing out the truth isn’t slander.

        “capitalism built the modern world”

        People built the world. And no not all of them (not even a majority are capitalists)

        “-the holy war being waged in the middle east,-Which Christianity has nothing to do with”

        HAHAHAHA, Christians have been trying to take over the middle east since the Crusades. Seriously have you even read a history book?

        “-the fight against human rights and equality-The one that’s not actually taking place, except for the Left’s assault on basic religious freedoms.”

        What freedoms are those? Which ones have been taken away?

      • Kenneth James Abbott

        -When did i slander your religion?-

        When you continually said nasty things about it that aren’t true. That’s probably hard for you to pick out, since that’s the majority of your posts.

        -Pointing out the truth isn’t slander.-

        It also isn’t remotely what you did.

        -People built the world.-

        And yet somehow the people who weren’t capitalists spend their time starving instead.

        -And no not all of them (not even a majority are capitalists)-

        Here in the real world, yes–actually, we were.

        -HAHAHAHA, Christians have been trying to take over the middle east since the Crusades-

        No. This is simply another one of your lies.

        Do you have anything that’s NOT a series of childish lies?

        I know, I ask that a lot–but you still refuse to deliver.

      • Ernest Crunkleton

        “When you continually said nasty things about it that aren’t true. That’s probably hard for you to pick out, since that’s the majority of your posts.”

        You made a valid point about new information about the pope. It seems the pope did make an effort to help smuggle people out of Germany.

        “And yet somehow the people who weren’t capitalists spend their time starving instead.”

        Yep when one group (European colonists) takes other culture’s land and resources by force, and force them into slavery in many cases. Seize the most resource abundant areas then force the starving populace to purchase the resource that was just stolen from them. And here you are blaming the victims of European aggression for not having the resources that were taken by force. SMFH…..

        “-And no not all of them (not even a majority are capitalists)-

        Here in the real world, yes–actually, we were.”

        Who’s We? White descendants of Europeans? There is a word for that……

        “-HAHAHAHA, Christians have been trying to take over the middle east since the Crusades-

        No. This is simply another one of your lies.”

        Oh boy… I have studied history for years, and from everything I have read, there is a history of incursions by the Western Catholic church into the Middle east/Eurasia region since the Filoquial clause caused the schism in the christian church.

        “-Pointing out the truth isn’t slander.-

        It also isn’t remotely what you did.”

        Actuality it is, It’s from my point of view, but its still the truth. It’s the summation of all the knowledge I have acquired over my 40 years of life. That includes lots of college and a current enrollment in a masters program. I really feel like my instructors would point out any major flaws in my worldview if they had seen one.

        What I am getting at is that after being an academic and a student of history and religion where do I turn to to know the truth? How can I know what I believe is true except by trusting the history of teaching and instruction that I am a part of?

        You have a good holiday season Kenneth! I’m sorry if you feel like I have slandered you or misrepresented you in some way, and I hope you will at least try to consider some other points of view.

      • Ernest Crunkleton

        Nothing to fall back on? I’m not making any sort of claim here.
        You claim the article is without merit, I provided a number of academic sources that support it, you have yet to provide any evidence to the contrary.

        You cite “common sense” and call anyone who disagrees with you a “liar” or a “liberal”.

        It’s sad really, some of the most feeble trolling I have ever seen.

        The whole reason I engage with you is to tie up your time. You use your words to attack others and cause them harm. I am familiar with the emotionally abusive tactics you use and so I don’t mind keeping you out of the hair of some our other members.

      • Kenneth James Abbott

        -Nothing to fall back on? I’m not making any sort of claim here.-

        Throughout this thread you’ve been making a series of claims–all of them false.

        -You claim the article is without merit, I provided a number of academic sources that support it,-

        No you didn’t. You provided one book detailing a whackass conspiracy theory–but that was in a different thread.

        -You cite “common sense” and call anyone who disagrees with you a “liar” or a “liberal”.-

        While I can see why you have a problem with common sense…

        First, I don’t call anyone who disagrees with me a liar. I called you out on your lies, because you have told several blatant, vicious lies in a sad attempt at ad hominems. I’ve offered before to quit calling you out on your lies if you’d quit telling them, but you never accepted.

        Second, you keep trying to make “liberal” into an insult. Just because you want to produce an ad hominem from me to make up for the dozens you’ve spewed in lieu of actual arguments doesn’t mean you can make a specific political designation into one.

        -It’s sad really, some of the most feeble trolling I have ever seen.-

        And yet you keep trying to do it.

        -You use your words to attack others and cause them harm. I am familiar with the emotionally abusive tactics you use-

        Such as when I called them racist, called the fascist, claimed that Hitler was their hero, and call them sexist, all without a shred of evidence or truth. Damn, if only I hadn’t done that….

        …then again, I hadn’t. You, on the other hand, have done exactly that.

        Funny thing, because I believe you were the one who brought up the idea of psychological projection. Of course, at the time, you were trying to imply an accusation of sexual malfaescence (without a shred of evidence or truth of course… but, well, that’s ~you~, so that’s only to be expected)–so that makes the irony especially delicious.

        -The whole reason I engage with you is to tie up your time…. I don’t mind keeping you out of the hair of some our other members.-

        I made the first post at about 3:45 AM EST, and the last one is almost finished here at 4:40 AM EST. That’s less than an hour, including time to stop and have dinner, in the last two days. You failed–or would have, if that was your goal, but your posts aren’t any more subtle than they are honest.

        It’s pretty obvious that your claim is a sad attempt at reverse psychology, intended to make me think that I’m playing into your hands whenever I shut down your silly, childish lies.

      • Ernest Crunkleton

        You really do have your panties in a wad sweetheart, have you ever come up with any evidence regarding the article?

      • Kenneth James Abbott

        -You really do have your panties in a wad sweetheart-
        If I’m the one who’s upset, then why are you the one hurling childish slander around?

        Also, I am not your sweetheart. I have standards.

        -have you ever come up with any evidence regarding the article?-
        Yes, and you lied about it. Same ol’, same ol’.

      • Ernest Crunkleton

        Also I see you copy pasted that directly from a Christian website, until you find the real sources you can’t use that as evidence. Christians have a long history of deception to further their causes.

      • Kenneth James Abbott

        -Totoal fakes:-
        Your wishful thinking isn’t an argument any more than your childish lies are.

        -Also I see you copy pasted that directly from a Christian website,-
        And i’m sure you painstakingly pored over the book?

        -until you find the real sources you can’t use that as evidence.-
        Which I already did–so sorry, but the facts aren’t going to go away just because you don’t like them.

        -Christians have a long history of deception to further their causes.-
        Considering the only one lying here is the anti-Christian, I’ll take that about as seriously as I do the rest of your claims.

        But when you have something to contribute that ~isn’t~ a series of childish lies, then by all means let me know.

      • Ernest Crunkleton

        The entire translation is false, its well know and well documented. It took 5 minutes to uncover your deception.

      • Kenneth James Abbott

        You didn’t uncover anything–you just made a false claim.

        Which isn’t surprising, since it’s all you’ve got.

      • Ernest Crunkleton

        Totoal fakes:

        “At the time of the first publication of the table-talk translations, Trevor-Roper, Cameron and R. H. Stevens, probably did not know about Genoud’s fake quotes. However, later publications do not excuse the errors, and that makes them dishonest at the very least.

        As stated before, there are two versions the original German table-talk. One edited by Martin Bormann called the Bormann Vermerke(“Bormann Notes”) which, until 1980, existed only in the collection of Francois Genoud. The other version came from Picker who got is copy from Heim and then added his own entries. According to Richard C. Carrier, “the Bormann Vermerke also contains entries made by Bormann, and presumably Heim, during the period covered by Picker’s text, which are inexplicably not found in his copy. There is also supposed to be a third copy, which Bormann forwarded to an office in Münich, but it was lost (most likely destroyed by Allied bombs).”

        Picker’s edition has the strongest claim to authenticity because it contains the actual German, has the support of eyewitness testimony and has scholarly backing. Next in authority is the scholarly work of Werner Jochmann who published the German of the Bormann Vermerke in 1980(which Trevor-Roper, et al, used from Genoud’s French translation). The German versions of the talk do not include the anti-Christian quotes.

        The English version endorsed by Trevor-Roper (and everyone else) contains the fabrications. These lies come, verbatim, from the translation of Genoud’s French!

        In a related fakery, the alleged document of Hitler’s Last Testament (supposedly a part of the table-talk), Genoud gave David Irving, a World War II historian, a copy of the complete typescript manuscript. Every page was “heavily amended and expanded in somebody’s hand-writing.” Genoud admitted it was his own, and later admitted to Irving that the entire typescript was his own confection saying, “But it is just what Hitler would have said, isn’t it?” In other words, Hitler’s Last Testament was a fake.”

      • Ernest Crunkleton

        Please show the evidence you have about the demographics of the republican party.

        You have lied repeatedly on this and other threads so you can understand why we can’t exactly trust what you have to say.

      • Kenneth James Abbott

        -Please show the evidence you have about the demographics of the republican party.-

        So you’re making an accusation, but it’s up to someone else to disprove it?

        Of course, you have on interest in facts, so as much as it irritates me to do the work for you–it just proves where our priorities are different.

        According to Bloomberg.com, a liberal website, less than 87% of the registered members of the Republican party are white (http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2012-08-30/republicans-dream-of-a-not-so-white-party), in a nation where 72% of the electorate is white (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/09/republicans-cant-win-with-white-voters-alone/279436/ Again, a liberal source).

        -You have lied repeatedly on this and other threads so you can understand why we can’t exactly trust what you have to say.-

        Really? Find one. A single, solitary particle of evidence to back up your claims–because it looks to me like you simply make the false accusation because you can’t handle the facts.

        Which, after all, is why–like Mr. Tothad’s–your “argument” consists entirely of false accusations, ad hominems, and schoolyard insults.

      • Kenneth James Abbott

        -Please show the evidence you have about the demographics of the republican party.-

        So you’re making an accusation, but it’s up to someone else to disprove it?

        Of course, you have on interest in facts, so as much as it irritates me to do the work for you–it just proves where our priorities are different.

        According to Bloomberg.com, a liberal website, less than 87% of the registered members of the Republican party are white (http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2012-08-30/republicans-dream-of-a-not-so-white-party), in a nation where 72% of the electorate is white (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/09/republicans-cant-win-with-white-voters-alone/279436/ Again, a liberal source).

        -You have lied repeatedly on this and other threads so you can understand why we can’t exactly trust what you have to say.-

        Really? Find one. A single, solitary particle of evidence to back up your claims–because it looks to me like you simply make the false accusation because you can’t handle the facts.

        Which, after all, is why–like Mr. Tothad’s–your “argument” consists entirely of false accusations, ad hominems, and schoolyard insults.

        Heh, for you of all people to accuse someone of lying–I think now I understand why you’re so obsessed with the idea of projection.

      • miketothad

        Thanks for confirming your willfully ignorant illiteracy, dumb trash.

        http://www.gallup.com/poll/160373/democrats-racially-diverse-republicans-mostly-white.aspx

      • Kenneth James Abbott

        -http://www.gallup.com/poll/160…-

        Which, even by Gallup’s numbers, comes out to less than ninety–proving your claims to be the same lies they have been from the start.

        -Thanks for confirming your willfully ignorant illiteracy, dumb trash.-
        You still seem to have this idea that childish insults are a substitute for facts.

        You’re still wrong.

      • miketothad

        Wow… such a vast difference between 89 and 90, when you’re a Reich-wing idiot.

        LOL!!!!

      • Kenneth James Abbott

        Wow, and some reductio ad Hitlerum to go with the rest of your lies.

        As if it wasn’t already clear enough that you have absolutely nothing but lies.

      • miketothad

        Lol…. Whatever, dumb trash.

      • Kenneth James Abbott

        You really don’t take losing well, do you?

      • miketothad

        Right…LOL.
        Right… Spite reality and declare yourself the victor, like your moron Bush Jr.

      • Kenneth James Abbott

        One of these days you’ll learn that childish slander isn’t a substitute for facts.

      • miketothad

        One of these days you’ll face the reality that the real “conservative” country club wipes their asses with ignorant nobodies like you.

      • Kenneth James Abbott

        Apparently, today is not your day to learn. But there’s always hope.

      • miketothad

        If anything one should learn, it’s to not waste too much time with a misinformed Bush amnesiac.

      • Kenneth James Abbott

        I presume that’s supposed to be an insult.

        Do you realize that you’re simply proving, over and over again, that you have no facts at your disposaland you know it as well as the rest of us do?

        Granted, ad hominem and childish slander is what I expect from the Left, but do you have any urge at all to grow up, to develop a little integrity, and to actually debate the important issues facing this nation?

      • miketothad

        Hahaha… I’ll give you one more fact. Clinton and Sanders leades every “candidate” is your Kay Kay Klown Kar. Grow up? 20 years from now, your 90% white base of hateful and ignorant sheep will still be supporting the privatization of education, the VA and the Postal service, as well as handing out more tax breaks to the REAL GOP country club, as long as they have you obsessed with simply whining about minorities and immigrants. That’s all you dumb white trash stand for. And that’s a FACT.

      • Kenneth James Abbott

        -Hahaha… I’ll give you one more fact.-
        One more? How about one to start with?

        -I’ll give you one more fact. Clinton and Sanders leades every “candidate” is your Kay Kay Klown Kar.-

        That’snot a fact. That’s a lie, about people you’re slandering.

        So how about you put the childish slander aside, and come up with a real argument or two? Even a fact or two? This is your time to shine, man. It’s your chance to show that you’re not actually a waste of oxygen who will never amount to anything and will spend the rest of his life hating his betters. Take that chance! Show us what you’re really made of!

      • miketothad

        Your trickle-down con of a party left the economy in tatters.
        That’s a FACT.
        Your base is 90% white.
        That’s a FACT.
        You support a party that CONSISTENTLY votes AGAINST benefit, healthcare, and job option improvements for veterans.
        That’s a FACT.

        You’re CLEARLY willfully ignorant to deny any of these, dumb trash.

      • Kenneth James Abbott

        Do you think the caps-lock somehow produces truth?

        Each and every single one of your claims is an utter crock of shit. You clearly have no facts–or even FACTS–to support your position… which is why you need to resort to childish ad hominems instead.

        Typical of liberalism, really.

      • miketothad

        LOL… typical “conservative” illiterate. Denying FACTS.
        I’ts been fun. I’ll leave you to your world of willful ignorance, ignorant trash.
        Have fun, rooting for your cowardly “candidates”, too afraid to televised debates.

      • Kenneth James Abbott

        -LOL… typical “conservative” illiterate. Denying FACTS.-
        Yet again, truth does not come from the Caps Lock key.

        Nor, for that matter, does it come from your posts. Before telling me how I’d handle facts, try actually providing some.

        -I’ll leave you to your world of willful ignorance, ignorant trash.-
        Someday, you’ll learn that childish slander is not a substitute for facts (or even FACTS).

        “Have fun, rooting for your cowardly “candidates”, too afraid to televised debates.”

        But apparently not today.

        With that in mind, I challenge you again (knowing full well that you’ll fail the challenge, again)–quit playing the race-card and come up with a real argument….

        …if you can.

  • FiachSidhe

    “And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.”
    – Matthew 19:24

  • Pingback: Introducing My New Religion, Cliff-stianity()

  • deedee2die4

    The largest growth in MuriKan Xianism is the Abundance groups. The appeal of being a Rupblocrat is that when one hits the G-Bus lottery, one doesn’t want Big Government taking back their Devine Abundance.

  • Pingback: The Republican Party is Driven by Two of the Most Destructive Forces in Human History()

  • Pingback: Christian Chaplain Preaches Love, Acceptance and Peace - Then Gets Fired For It (Video)()

  • dsadlowski

    Just call the American Christians what they are Christo-Fascist.

    Religion and Government are Intertwined – Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. “here in the “USA Christianity” Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, “In god we trust ” “one nation under god” even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government’s policies or actions.

    So what these nice Christian’s do, is say we will have this drug test for you and if you miss this mark we have set for you………..no food for you no shelter for you and dan sure no healthcare for you Just what jesus would do.

    The GOP has all the traits.

    http://www.rense.com/general37/fascism.htm

  • Pingback: Dear Republicans: Maybe It's Time You All Realize, God Might Not be on Your Side()

  • Pingback: Dear Mike Huckabee: You're One of the Most Despicable People in the United States of America()

  • Pingback: Bill Maher Blasts GOP Propaganda: They've Gone From Lying to 'Just Making Sh*t Up' (Video)()