Typical Christian Wingnut

[chance1]

Let's be clear about this.

President Obama was not opining on Michael Vick. The president was not sharing his opinions.

This was a private conversation with Philadelphia Eagles owner Jeff Lurie about the fact that Lincoln Financial Field uses alternative energy sources, something the president supports. The subject of Vick happened to come up. The president happens to believe that felons who have served their time deserve the opportunity to become productive members of society. He expressed that sentiment to Jeff Lurie. Jeff Lurie was so pleased with himself that he chose to make a private conversation public.

We don't care if you don't "give a shit what pres. obama thinks." The president was not expressing his opinions to you. If you are uncomfortable knowing what the president says to Jeff Lurie, then you should complain about Jeff Lurie, not President Obama.

The president did not "insist on sharing this kind of info."

If you guys are so uncomfortable hearing what other people say the president says, turn off your TVs, radios, and internet. And don't read any magazines or newspapers or books. Presidents are always in the news. You are going to hear things about them, occasionally. President Obama is not trying to cram his opinions down your throat, as you imply. He isn't forcing you to listen to his private thoughts.

I can find all sort of serious problems with this president about which I can complain, and I do. But you guys seem to struggle valiantly in a bizarre effort to find the most inappropriately inconsequential objections you can come up with.

OMG! THE PRESIDENT TOLD SOMEBODY MICHAEL VICK DESERVES A CHANCE TO REHABILITATE HIMSELF, AND THE PRESIDENT FORCED ME TO HEAR IT!!!!!

For eight years, I was pretty fed up hearing GWB telling the nation how despicable I am. How I deserve no rights. How I should not be allowed to serve in the military. How God hates me. How I should never be allowed to marry. How straight people needed to be protected from me. I heard nothing but a torrent of hate speech from that president which was directed at me! I complained vehemently about his bigotry, which remains among the most despicable campaigns of intolerance and hatred ever fomented by any president, ever! But I never complained that I was forced to listen to him hating on me.

And you guys complain that you are "forced" to learn (even secondhand!) that this president has compassionate private opinions about life.

^ In other words, a president should never express opinions about anything, to anyone.

That would be a very weird presidency, indeed!

When the President of the U.S. states his opinion on an issue - in a statement to the public or in private ........ it is still his opinion - and it is likely that even if in private - and im not sure a convo with jeffrey lurie is actually a "private" convo ...... he has to be ready for the idea that it WILL BECOME PUBLIC

He's the Pres - he wanted to be the Pres - this is part of being the Pres

So he's a dumb shit for saying it

DUMB

you think it's smart? or private? or ?????

DUMB

I don't think he's cramming anything down my throat - my point was ....... while I don't care what he thinks about M Vick ....... he was stupid to say it

But in fairness he never shuts up - he's always yakking - moreso that any president i can remember frankly - he likes to hear his voice let's just say

now a "private" convo with j lurie may not qualify as a prime example of this but you will forgive me if his "MO" isn't so obvious for all

"Just say no" .......... should be "just say nothing" for the Pres.

I gave him a C+ btw

 

[T-Rexx]

^ Another Republican who thinks President Obama should not express opinions about anything, to anyone.

Would it even be possible for a president to do that? Would you want a president who shared no opinions on anything? A presidency of silence?

I did not enjoy hearing the sewage that spewed forth from the bigoted mouth of GWB. But, I would rather know where the president stood on issues than pretend that ignorance meant all was bliss.

 

[chance1]

^ Another Republican who thinks President Obama should not express opinions about anything, to anyone.

Would it even be possible for a president to do that? Would you want a president who shared no opinions on anything? A presidency of silence?

I did not enjoy hearing the sewage that spewed forth from the bigoted mouth of GWB. But, I would rather know where the president stood on issues than pretend that ignorance meant all was bliss.

he should do what he likes - it's obvious he does

this "opinion" was pretty lame shit - and better kept to himself

old saying ......... better to be assumed a fool then to open your mouth and confirm it

he confirmed it

personally i don't think michael vick is what america is about

he tortured dogs for profit - that's fucking sick

2nd chances for guys who hurt themselves with drugs, etc. is a little diff

as for "second chances" why not call up the owners of the texas rangers and give them props for giving an opp to josh hamilton who abused drugs and alcohol and came back and was AL MVP

Josh is white btw

I guess the Pres. views himself as some kind of "moral guider"

Not that it did Vick or the Eagles much good

he/they played poorly in Tuesday's loss to the underwhelming Vikings who played with a neophyte QB

hmmmm

and another thing ........ pres. obama's "opinion"

i betcha just about everyone who works for him thinks the same thing as me

that he shoulda kept it to himself

guess they're republicans?

 

[maxpowr9]

My BF loves football and this Michael Vick nonsense came up and I said to him, "What if Michael Vick raped women with abandon instead of abused dogs? Do you think the NFL would be quick to forgive him for that?"

I am not one for hypotheticals, but with me being a dog owner, I have told him (my BF) before that if you gave me an ultimatum to choose between you and my dog, I would choose my dog without reservation.

 

[Kulindahr]

A few things to point out.

Whaling is legal in various instances, therefore you are ok with it and support it?

If those laws are there for the sake of the whales, to protect them and make sure they can survive, along with the rest of the food chain of which they're a part, no problem. I have never heard of any such law, though.

As far as "no societal purpose", do you feel the same way about boxing, ultimate fighting, kick boxing, and other similarly violent sports? Additionally, these bouts are used for gambling. Do you feel gambling serves no societal purpose, and are you opposed to gambling / gaming / casinos?

Starting to grasp the slippery slope you're skidding down?

What's "animal cruelty" in the western world seems to be in direct proportion how soft and cuddly or cute any given animal / insect / fish / etc... seems to be.

I knew "societal purpose" was a crappy phrase when I typed it. Not sure I can think of a better one just now, though.

But even so I see no slippery slope: I'm talking about a societal purpose for killing.


WRT animal cruelty: I get pissed at mistreatment of rabbits, snakes, frogs, birds, lizards, skunks, cedar trees.....
Ever since I read Genesis where it says God put us here to take care of the earth, I've not been friendly toward people who mistreat any living thing. I even rescue flies and spiders and put them outside instead of letting people swat them, mostly.

 

[Kulindahr]

...In fact...since you either have memorized the Bible or have one handy, and since we're discussing Christianity and it's relativity to politics, may I suggest reading Romans 13: 1-7. There you will find that involvement into government is not only encouraged, but accordingly suggested. Your linked quotes only substantiates that fact.

It's the first five verses that are pertinent. Paul is waxing very eloquent and theoretical there; his description bears very little resemblance to reality -- for example, I've known people who got thrown in jail because they did good.

ANyway, I don't see where Christians are encouraged to get involved in government, in there. It's pretty neutral, unless you want to argue that the disparity between Paul's theory and the everyday reality needs Christians to get involved to fix it -- which is exactly what people in the old "Moral Majority" and their fellow travelers argued... and continue to argue, in support of vile bigotry.

 

[Kulindahr]

I am not one for hypotheticals, but with me being a dog owner, I have told him (my BF) before that if you gave me an ultimatum to choose between you and my dog, I would choose my dog without reservation.

We agree:

 

[MoltenRock III]

If those laws are there for the sake of the whales, to protect them and make sure they can survive, along with the rest of the food chain of which they're a part, no problem. I have never heard of any such law, though.

A number of countries are allowed to whale, mainly under the auspices of "research", yet many of those creatures have been shown to end up on diner's dinner plates.

I knew "societal purpose" was a crappy phrase when I typed it. Not sure I can think of a better one just now, though.

But even so I see no slippery slope: I'm talking about a societal purpose for killing.

My point was broader. (I understood where you were coming from.) But can't it be said that along your statement, how can you be against "killing" for sport, and yet favor violence for sport in the examples of boxing, ultimate fighting, et al...

WRT animal cruelty: I get pissed at mistreatment of rabbits, snakes, frogs, birds, lizards, skunks, cedar trees.....
Ever since I read Genesis where it says God put us here to take care of the earth, I've not been friendly toward people who mistreat any living thing. I even rescue flies and spiders and put them outside instead of letting people swat them, mostly.

And you've reached the pinnacle of understanding that Christ was trying to impart. Being a good steward of the Earth isn't spewing toxic sludge into the environment with a "meh... who cares, God will fix it" attitude, but rather an active, everyday, support and respect for all natural things be they grass, trees, frogs, mammals, etc...

 

[MoltenRock III]

It's the first five verses that are pertinent. Paul is waxing very eloquent and theoretical there; his description bears very little resemblance to reality -- for example, I've known people who got thrown in jail because they did good.

ANyway, I don't see where Christians are encouraged to get involved in government, in there. It's pretty neutral, unless you want to argue that the disparity between Paul's theory and the everyday reality needs Christians to get involved to fix it -- which is exactly what people in the old "Moral Majority" and their fellow travelers argued... and continue to argue, in support of vile bigotry.

I'm not sure why the other poster didn't post up the verses, but here they are:

Everyone must submit to governing authorities. For all authority comes from God, and those in positions of authority have been placed there by God. 2 So anyone who rebels against authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and they will be punished. 3 For the authorities do not strike fear in people who are doing right, but in those who are doing wrong. Would you like to live without fear of the authorities? Do what is right, and they will honor you. 4 The authorities are God’s servants, sent for your good. But if you are doing wrong, of course you should be afraid, for they have the power to punish you. They are God’s servants, sent for the very purpose of punishing those who do what is wrong. 5 So you must submit to them, not only to avoid punishment, but also to keep a clear conscience.
6 Pay your taxes, too, for these same reasons. For government workers need to be paid. They are serving God in what they do. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: Pay your taxes and government fees to those who collect them, and give respect and honor to those who are in authority.

I don't know many on a certain side of the aisle that show "respect" towards the government and its employees, but rather distain and hatred, which clearly is against God's word as well.

 

[bankside]

A few points:

• Life is not divided into whatever lies on either side of an aisle. I understand that it isn't just a matter of personal political opinion. Some political opinions are just objectively wrong. Sometimes useful political opinions come welded to a pile of moralizing prejudiced bullshit that makes them unsupportable. And sometimes an entire political movement is just vacuous and hateful and dangerous. NAZIs anyone? Yep, immoral from top to bottom. Are we at the threshold of that kind of disaster? I fear it, but intellectually I don't actually see it creeping over the horizon. Which means there is time for moderate dialogue instead of partisan demagoguery. Throw in a nuance once in a while for fuck's sake.
• Why is it so hard to accept that there are, indeed, Christian Wingnuts? I appreciate that one does not want to be tarred with a broad brush, but it is demonstrably the case that there are Christian Wingnuts, and this "Tucker" person is probably one of them. Moderate Christians should not let a sense of "Christian solidarity" get in the way of calling a spade a spade. Own your wingnuts. Dan Savage nails this point when he talks about the two impediments to equal marriage for gays in the United States: 1) Shitstick moralizing Christians 2) NALTs (we're Not All Like That apologists, who provide cover for the first group.) He's right.

Bah.

 

[CowboyBob]

Yup. The Republican Cult demands that all righteous Fox Newies hate President Obama, not just disagree with him, but hate him. It's a classic cult manifestation. By getting people to hate something, they shut their brains off, and just mouth empty rhetoric.... you know, just like homophobia. It's tragic so many of our gay brothers haven't escaped the Republican Cult.

I woke up early yesterday, turned on the TV and channel checked for a while. The clicker landed on Fox and I actually stayed there for a while. I couldn't believe how biased and slanted this "News" channel is.

One commentator said "..... do you think this is wrong?..... well, let me tell you, YES!, it's wrong!" when describing the slow snow removal in NYC and they actually blamed and demonized "liberal unions" for it. They sent on to describe "the poor mayor Bloomberg" and how the unions are screwing things up. Those fuckers at Fox even politicized this! Do you think the snow removal was slow because the city was overwhelmed? Besides, removal is always slow when it's YOUR street that's last.

They went on to another story about how one teen is fed up with the Westboro Baptist Church and how they protest at soldier funerals. They had lots of videos and photos of their protests at soldier funerals and signs, but didn't say one thing about their hatred of gays and the use of the word FAG. It was all about soldier funerals and nothing about their God Hates Fags crap. If you didn't know anything about Westboro you would think it was all about soldier funerals and nothing about protesting at gay funerals. Fox didn't tell the whole story, only part of it.

Anyone who watches that "News" channel doesn't get real information. It's propaganda at it's pinnacle, exactly like the shit the North Koreans are fed.

 

[bankside]

First...aren't glad that you live in a country where that option is available to you? Where one is free to "channel check and stay there a while"?

On the contrary; it actually gives me hope for North Koreans. At least they have no choice but to watch. Americans can change the channel...but don't. That is very sad.

If we were having a conversation like "Hey, remember when FOX tried to run a news channel back in the 90's? LOL yeah, what a joke. When did that go bankrupt again? 2001? 2000?" then I'd have more confidence in the US public.

 

[Kulindahr]

A number of countries are allowed to whale, mainly under the auspices of "research", yet many of those creatures have been shown to end up on diner's dinner plates.

But those laws were crafted for political purposes, not out of concern for the whales or to protect the ocean ecosystem. If biologists were in charge, the only whales anyone would be taking would be the old and sick.

My point was broader. (I understood where you were coming from.) But can't it be said that along your statement, how can you be against "killing" for sport, and yet favor violence for sport in the examples of boxing, ultimate fighting, et al...

In boxing, etc., the participants are volunteers. If they want to mangle their bodies and turn their brains to mush, that's their business.

And you've reached the pinnacle of understanding that Christ was trying to impart. Being a good steward of the Earth isn't spewing toxic sludge into the environment with a "meh... who cares, God will fix it" attitude, but rather an active, everyday, support and respect for all natural things be they grass, trees, frogs, mammals, etc...

I got it before I reached high school. I was baffled when I got to college and found myself among Christians who had fun injuring living things.

 

[T-Rexx]

this "opinion" was pretty lame shit - and better kept to himself

The president did, "keep it to himself," as has been pointed out many times.

But I must say, I find this idea that the president should not express his opinions on anything to anyone rather bizarre. I don't think you could be president and function that way. I don't think you could be human and function that way.

old saying ......... better to be assumed a fool then to open your mouth and confirm it

he confirmed it

If this president is a fool for privately expressing compassion, then what was GWB for publicly expressing hate?

as for "second chances" why not call up the owners of the texas rangers and give them props for giving an opp to josh hamilton who abused drugs and alcohol and came back and was AL MVP

Texas Rangers' stadium does not use alternative energy sources.

Josh is white btw

It is hard for me to accept that the president is a racist just because Lincoln Financial Field uses alternative energy sources and the Texas Rangers' stadium does not. This kind of logic only makes sense to Republicans.

I guess the Pres. views himself as some kind of "moral guider"

I would certainly hope so!

and another thing ........ pres. obama's "opinion"

i betcha just about everyone who works for him thinks the same thing as me

that he shoulda kept it to himself

guess they're republicans?

I would think pretty much everyone in the administration is proud of the president on this issue. There is a lot I don't like about this president. But, when he does things like this, I tend to be reassured.

 

[Kulindahr]

I'm not sure why the other poster didn't post up the verses, but here they are:

1 Everyone must submit to governing authorities. For all authority comes from God, and those in positions of authority have been placed there by God.
. . . .
6 Pay your taxes, too, for these same reasons. For government workers need to be paid. They are serving God in what they do. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: Pay your taxes and government fees to those who collect them, and give respect and honor to those who are in authority.

I don't know many on a certain side of the aisle that show "respect" towards the government and its employees, but rather distain and hatred, which clearly is against God's word as well.

<Gag>
You couldn't have picked a version much farther from the Greek that could still claim the name "translation" -- the New Living Translation is still too much free-wheeling opinion and interpretation than it is translation.

For study purposes, the NASB is the way to go. Here are the verses I kept above:

Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.
. . . .
For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.

That "workers need to be paid" bit is an interpretation, not a translation. It's a artefact of the NLB's over-personalization of the whole passage. Even the NASB personalizes it; that "rulers" is an interpolation from the "they" built into the verb, a word which reflects back to "authorities", which as Paul is using it here is more a reference to the power structure, not the people. So I see where you're getting the angle you have, but I don't see it so much in the text.

I checked the Greek, but I'm so rusty I was looking up a word or two per verse. Even so, it's readily apparent the NLB is taking liberties.

At any rate, respect for the government doesn't preclude criticism -- Jesus didn't exactly speak nicely of Herod, after all.

 

[Kulindahr]

Reading here this morning reminded me of a cartoon I once saw. The drawing did more justice than words can; basically it showed the Bible on an operating table, being held down by some big guys with initials like "FotF", and a pastor was slicing in and pulling out verses and throwing them away.

 

[bankside]

You're saddened that people have a choice and make that choice? Wow!

Now that is sad. I can hardly fathom your reasoning behind such a statement. So, you're in favor of state run propaganda versus people being able to choose what they want to watch? Unbelievable! Are you saying that people in your country all watch the same channel? Now that's sad. I didn't know Canada was like that.

As far as your reference to bankruptcy....I have no idea of the relevance that has to people having a choice. I don't know anything about it, but if they came back from bankruptcy to become the most watched cable news channel, that should say something. They are giving the public another choice. No one has to watch it, but yet choose to do so, as far as I'm aware...that's the right of a free person. It sounds as if you're not so much against FOX, but rather the American public. Too suggest people should be free to watch whatever they wish to, as long as it's what you want them to watch, and they are "damned" if they don't is way too out there for me!

I guess it takes all kinds, or so I've been told.

I don't know whose reply you read but let me just answer your direct questions:

So, you're in favor of state run propaganda versus people being able to choose what they want to watch?

No.

Are you saying that people in your country all watch the same channel?

No, I'm saying in my country they're smart enough not to watch FOX News. There are better things on TV.

It sounds as if you're not so much against FOX, but rather the American public.

I'm in favour of the long-suffering people of North Korea, who, once their government is deposed, will also not watch FOX News. I am pointing out that North Koreans have enough character to only watch propaganda when a soldier points a gun at them, which is what the North Korean government has to do constantly. In contrast, a significant portion of the American population is dumb enough to watch FOX Propaganda willingly and treat it as fact without any government coercion whatsoever. That seems sad.

I know you'd need to point a gun at me to get me to nod and smile and pretend the people on FOX knew what they were talking about. I don't understand why so many of your countrymen haven't figured that out.

 

[Kulindahr]

I wonder what would happen if we required Fox to do a Korean version and beamed it into the North.....

 

[CowboyBob]

First...aren't glad that you live in a country where that option is available to you? Where one is free to "channel check and stay there a while"?

Secondly....While I don't watch "Fox" inclusively as I've been accused, I to just happened to be "channel checking" and actually saw that report. They did not say "liberal unions". But instead said...that workers were told by union bosses not to work on snow removal in opposition to something unrelated that they and the mayor disagreed on. Which was and is wrong of the union to do that. The day before I saw a news clip (on CNN) of the mayor making a public statement that they (the city) have the manpower and ability for snow removal and was working on the problem. He didn't explain what all the problems were, but apparently being overwhelmed wasn't the only problem. And I agree...it's always too slow when it's my street. I haven't heard if the union has said anything or not. I"m just glad they're getting it cleared away...they can come here when they're done.

Thirdly...I didn't "stay there for a while", as I try to take in as much "news" as I can from as many sources as I can. No one newscast can report all the news. So, I didn't see the piece on the Westboro Church today. However, I have seen earlier pieces on Fox showing the Westboro Church and it was mentioned why they were protesting, kinda obvious by their signs actually. The intent by Fox, as I took it, was for them to show the ignorance of these people and let you, the viewer make your own opinion. IMO, a lot of people don't know the differences between a newscast and an opinionated show. Both liberal leaning and conservative channels have them. Keith Olbermann, Rachael Maddow, Shawn Hannity, Neal Cavuto come to mind. I tend to stay clear of those because they are what they are...opinions and will solicit participants leaning their way to appear on their respective "shows". However, when reporting just the news, I find Fox as equally reporting as any of the others, CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC.

And finally...your comparison/reference to N. Korea doesn't even make sense...there, as well as China, Iran and other countries, don't have the choices we do. If you don't like what you hear on one channel, at least you have the right and choice to "channel check" until you find one you like or, one you don't like and rant and rave about those choices all you want. From the tone of your post, are you insinuating that FOX is agreeing with that bunch of hatemongers?

Isn't America a great place!

Your reply makes no sense at all.

Many other countries besides the USA allow viewers to channel check. Strike one for you.

Fox only giving one side to the story then "letting you decide" is their propaganda slogan that you're parroting well. Strike two for you.

North Koreans are bombarded with one sided propaganda, the same as Fox viewers. Makes sense. Strike three.

Yes America is a great place. So are many other countries. Just ask their citizens.

 

[bankside]

Never mind! After doing some research I see why you are sympathetic with the countries like N. Korea and others. You're not very far from being as media oppressed as they. I understand why they don't watch FOX. Perhaps your government doesn't think your countrymen are ready for FOX? When you government gets more liberated and allows a more broad spectrum of ideas, perhaps you will see differently. I'll be hoping for ya!

What has the government got to do with it? FOX news is on cable 142. I didn't know that before now, because I never watch it. My point is, Fox does not contribute to a broad spectrum of ideas.

Incidentally, if any media is ever restricted in Canada, it is from American companies who replace whatever video I'd like to stream with "This video has been blocked in your country by the owner on copyright grounds." That's not a requirement of the Canadian government, it is a marketing choice of an American company too stupid to take my business.