The associations get made by the talking heads that follow the stories -- and the stories themselves are used as proof that the entire conservative movement is (pick one) racist, homophobic, etc.

Look at Fairwood's reaction and you have your answer. He didn't take it only as an indictment against Huckabee, and he is sure as hell not alone.

The piece accomplished its goal...which had a target much broader than Huckabee.

Writerbuckeye wrote: The associations get made by the talking heads that follow the stories -- and the stories themselves are used as proof that the entire conservative movement is (pick one) racist, homophobic, etc.

Look at Fairwood's reaction and you have your answer. He didn't take it only as an indictment against Huckabee, and he is sure as hell not alone.

The piece accomplished its goal...which had a target much broader than Huckabee.

The target is bigger than Huckabee. People listen to their political leaders and believe what they say. And to a large degree the leaders are saying what they think their followers want to hear. If I thought that Huckabee was the only person on earth who believed this stuff, I never would have bothered to post this thread.

Writerbuckeye wrote: The associations get made by the talking heads that follow the stories -- and the stories themselves are used as proof that the entire conservative movement is (pick one) racist, homophobic, etc.

Look at Fairwood's reaction and you have your answer. He didn't take it only as an indictment against Huckabee, and he is sure as hell not alone.

The piece accomplished its goal...which had a target much broader than Huckabee.

You're right about the talking heads, but don't act like that's just a liberal thing in regards to conservatives and homophobia or racism. Rush Limbaugh has made millions of dollars doing the exact same thing to liberals.

You point out Fairwood's reaction and then act like all liberals are jumping to the same conclusion. As evidence by this thread, that's not true at all. Sounds like you're using that same giant brush stroke.

And I still fail to see how the original poster's link had any goal or bias whatsoever. It was simply built around Huckabee's quotes.

goldengonzo wrote:

Writerbuckeye wrote: The associations get made by the talking heads that follow the stories -- and the stories themselves are used as proof that the entire conservative movement is (pick one) racist, homophobic, etc.

Look at Fairwood's reaction and you have your answer. He didn't take it only as an indictment against Huckabee, and he is sure as hell not alone.

The piece accomplished its goal...which had a target much broader than Huckabee.

You're right about the talking heads, but don't act like that's just a liberal thing in regards to conservatives and homophobia or racism. Rush Limbaugh has made millions of dollars doing the exact same thing to liberals.

You point out Fairwood's reaction and then act like all liberals are jumping to the same conclusion. As evidence by this thread, that's not true at all. Sounds like you're using that same giant brush stroke.

And I still fail to see how the original poster's link had any goal or bias whatsoever. It was simply built around Huckabee's quotes.

If you would have bothered to read the article you would have seen that the original poster quoted the article but that it was erroneous. But heh, don't let facts get in the way of your argument.

Maybe he's right.!!!

matdad wrote:

goldengonzo wrote:

Writerbuckeye wrote: The associations get made by the talking heads that follow the stories -- and the stories themselves are used as proof that the entire conservative movement is (pick one) racist, homophobic, etc.

Look at Fairwood's reaction and you have your answer. He didn't take it only as an indictment against Huckabee, and he is sure as hell not alone.

The piece accomplished its goal...which had a target much broader than Huckabee.

You're right about the talking heads, but don't act like that's just a liberal thing in regards to conservatives and homophobia or racism. Rush Limbaugh has made millions of dollars doing the exact same thing to liberals.

You point out Fairwood's reaction and then act like all liberals are jumping to the same conclusion. As evidence by this thread, that's not true at all. Sounds like you're using that same giant brush stroke.

And I still fail to see how the original poster's link had any goal or bias whatsoever. It was simply built around Huckabee's quotes.

If you would have bothered to read the article you would have seen that the original poster quoted the article but that it was erroneous. But heh, don't let facts get in the way of your argument.

What was erroneous? Even the author of the article called it "Huckabee likens gay marriage to incest, polygamy." That says it all.

What was erroneous? Even the author of the article called it "Huckabee likens gay marriage to incest, polygamy." That says it all.
[/quote]


It is erroneous because he did not compare gay marriage to incest and polygamy.

FairwoodKing wrote:

Well, this guy is a right-winger. You don't hear left-wingers saying things like this about us.

The thing that really scares me is that this jerk is planning to run for president in 2012. I can only imagine what will happen if he gets in.

Huckabee is an idiot for using that analogy, no doubt, but he did NOT compare homosexuality to incest and drug use. Read what he actually said not what the "reporter" altered the context to make it look like he said.

Also, him running for President can't be any worse than Obama (and Huckabee would be one of the last repubs I'd want to see win the nomination).

I would not agree that Huckabee's opinion about this issue is one that you can apply to all Conservatives. I think it is reasonable to say that some Conservatives do believe exactly the same thing as Huckabee has spoken, but to say all, is an unfair characterization of the Conservatives as a whole.

This discussion is intriguing. every body adding thoughts and saying that they know what somebody said about something. What I am about to pose should probably have it's on thread.

What the hell does consensual sex between two sane adults have to do with religion? I mean ...... Do you think that God cares what you do with your junk?

If you are of the belief that sex is only for procreation, All of you married masturbaters are going to hell. We wont even delve into birth control even if it's within marriage.

jmog wrote:

FairwoodKing wrote:

Well, this guy is a right-winger. You don't hear left-wingers saying things like this about us.

The thing that really scares me is that this jerk is planning to run for president in 2012. I can only imagine what will happen if he gets in.

Huckabee is an idiot for using that analogy, no doubt, but he did NOT compare homosexuality to incest and drug use. Read what he actually said not what the "reporter" altered the context to make it look like he said.

Also, him running for President can't be any worse than Obama (and Huckabee would be one of the last repubs I'd want to see win the nomination).

^^^^This.

I'm starting to feel sincerely sorry for people who lack the cranial firepower to read a story like this and be incapable of seeing exactly what's going on.

Fairwood,

Here you go again blasting someone for something they didn't say. Read the article. While the analogy wasn't greatly put, he didn't say homo-sexuals were the same as those types of people.

Ignorance will get you no where.

As for Huckabee, while I dont' like a lot of his hard right-wing statements, I'd rather have him in office than our current President. I don't believe Huckabee will be out trying to pass bills to take away human rights. He may be against certain things, but he won't waste time passing a bill that takes away freedoms of the American people.

Devils Advocate wrote: This discussion is intriguing. every body adding thoughts and saying that they know what somebody said about something. What I am about to pose should probably have it's on thread.

What the hell does consensual sex between two sane adults have to do with religion? I mean ...... Do you think that God cares what you do with your junk?

If you are of the belief that sex is only for procreation, All of you married masturbaters are going to hell. We wont even delve into birth control even if it's within marriage.

1. If one believes in the God of the Bible then one believes that God most DEFINITELY cares about "what you do with your junk", just read it through once.

2. Who said sex was only for procreation? Last I checked that hasn't been said once on this thread.

jmog wrote:

Devils Advocate wrote: This discussion is intriguing. every body adding thoughts and saying that they know what somebody said about something. What I am about to pose should probably have it's on thread.

What the hell does consensual sex between two sane adults have to do with religion? I mean ...... Do you think that God cares what you do with your junk?

If you are of the belief that sex is only for procreation, All of you married masturbaters are going to hell. We wont even delve into birth control even if it's within marriage.

1. If one believes in the God of the Bible then one believes that God most DEFINITELY cares about "what you do with your junk", just read it through once.

2. Who said sex was only for procreation? Last I checked that hasn't been said once on this thread.

1. I have read through the bible at least twice in my lifetime. Please site the part that "God cares what you do with your junk"

2. If sex is not only for procreation, Then why would the RCC have a stance on birth control and only in the institution of marriage?

Devils Advocate wrote:

2. If sex is not only for procreation, Then why would the RCC have a stance on birth control and only in the institution of marriage?

The RCC says a lot of things that aren't in the Bible.

Devils Advocate wrote:

jmog wrote:

Devils Advocate wrote: This discussion is intriguing. every body adding thoughts and saying that they know what somebody said about something. What I am about to pose should probably have it's on thread.

What the hell does consensual sex between two sane adults have to do with religion? I mean ...... Do you think that God cares what you do with your junk?

If you are of the belief that sex is only for procreation, All of you married masturbaters are going to hell. We wont even delve into birth control even if it's within marriage.

1. If one believes in the God of the Bible then one believes that God most DEFINITELY cares about "what you do with your junk", just read it through once.

2. Who said sex was only for procreation? Last I checked that hasn't been said once on this thread.

1. I have read through the bible at least twice in my lifetime. Please site the part that "God cares what you do with your junk"

Didn't he have something to say about that in those commandment thingys somewhere? Something about not sticking your junk in someone else's wife or something?

Devils Advocate wrote:

1. I have read through the bible at least twice in my lifetime. Please site the part that "God cares what you do with your junk"

2. If sex is not only for procreation, Then why would the RCC have a stance on birth control and only in the institution of marriage?

1. If you have truly read through it you would have found the MANY scriptures that have to do with "sexual sin" from adultery, homosexuality, incest, pedophilia, etc. Its not that hard, its all over the Bible. If you truly read it, then there's no way you couldn't have seen these verses.

2. Who said the Catholic Church is correct? I know I didn't. The Bible talks about enjoying your spouse all the time, anyone who has read the Song of Solomon can easily see that.

jmog. If you are a Christian, then you believe that the RCC is correct. They have written ( or distilled)the New Testament.

And as always. The Bible can be interpreted many ways. Soloman had many wives, Why was it OK for him then and no one now?

And conversely never was it OK for a women to have many husbands?

Devils Advocate wrote: jmog. If you are a Christian, then you believe that the RCC is correct. They have written ( or distilled)the New Testament.

And as always. The Bible can be interpreted many ways. Soloman had many wives, Why was it OK for him then and no one now?

And conversely never was it OK for a women to have many husbands?

DA, no, if I'm a Christian I DON'T have to believe the Catholic Church is correct, especially if I'm not Catholic.

I don't believe the Bible ever said it was "ok" for Solomon to have many wives, it just states the historical fact that he did. Just because the Bible records his actions, doesn't mean it agreed with them.

Same with David, he slept with his neighbor and high ranking military officer's wife then had the officer killed to cover it up. Just because the Bible talks about David's actions doesn't mean it condones adultery and murder.

Even a junior high reading comprehension level could determine that difference.

Once again, just because the Catholic Church says something, does NOT make it Biblically correct.

OK..... But my reading comprehension appears to better than yours. If the Catholic Church wrote the New Testament and you believe that this part of the Bible is correct, then you believe in part the the RCC has got it right. Most sects of Christianity have evolved from the Cathloic Church.

Devils Advocate wrote: OK..... But my reading comprehension appears to better than yours. If the Catholic Church wrote the New Testament and you believe that this part of the Bible is correct, then you believe in part the the RCC has got it right. Most sects of Christianity have evolved from the Cathloic Church.

umm, canonization occured after the new testament was written.

Devils Advocate wrote: OK..... But my reading comprehension appears to better than yours. If the Catholic Church wrote the New Testament and you believe that this part of the Bible is correct, then you believe in part the the RCC has got it right. Most sects of Christianity have evolved from the Cathloic Church.

LOL, the Catholic Church wrote the New Testament?

Are you serious?

The Council of Nicea helped decide what books/epistles/letters were authentic and which were not and include the deemed authentic ones into the New Testament.

The Council of Nicea did not write any of the New Testament, it was written more than 200 years prior to the Council.

So once again, you are incorrect.

FairwoodKing wrote: Just when I thought the right-wingers couldn't be bigger assholes, Huckabee came out with this yesterday:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100413/ap_on_el_pr/us_huckabee_gay_marriage

I can't believe this turd is comparing the relationship between two loving people with drug abuse and incest.

This is why gay people like me get upset.

Stick a fork in that hate filled moron, his chances of being President have just been crushed.

BCSbunk wrote:

FairwoodKing wrote: Just when I thought the right-wingers couldn't be bigger assholes, Huckabee came out with this yesterday:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100413/ap_on_el_pr/us_huckabee_gay_marriage

I can't believe this turd is comparing the relationship between two loving people with drug abuse and incest.

This is why gay people like me get upset.

Stick a fork in that hate filled moron, his chances of being President have just been crushed.

Like he ever had a chance to start with. I mean come on....President Huckabee??? I think not.

LJ wrote:

Devils Advocate wrote: OK..... But my reading comprehension appears to better than yours. If the Catholic Church wrote the New Testament and you believe that this part of the Bible is correct, then you believe in part the the RCC has got it right. Most sects of Christianity have evolved from the Cathloic Church.

umm, canonization occured after the new testament was written.

Yes but some of the Dead Sea scrolls were omitted.