Writerbuckeye
Posts: 4,745
Apr 14, 2010 8:53pm
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.
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.
F
FairwoodKing
Posts: 2,504
Apr 14, 2010 9:12pm
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.
G
goldengonzo
Posts: 140
Apr 14, 2010 9:12pm
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.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 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.
M
matdad
Posts: 146
Apr 14, 2010 11:12pm
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.goldengonzo wrote: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.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 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.
G
Ghmothwdwhso
Posts: 534
Apr 14, 2010 11:15pm
Maybe he's right.!!!
F
FairwoodKing
Posts: 2,504
Apr 14, 2010 11:28pm
What was erroneous? Even the author of the article called it "Huckabee likens gay marriage to incest, polygamy." That says it all.matdad wrote: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.goldengonzo wrote: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.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 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.
M
matdad
Posts: 146
Apr 15, 2010 8:15am
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.
[/quote]
It is erroneous because he did not compare gay marriage to incest and polygamy.
J
jmog
Posts: 6,567
Apr 15, 2010 8:23am
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.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.
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).
S
Swamp Fox
Posts: 2,218
Apr 15, 2010 8:43am
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.
Devils Advocate
Posts: 4,539
Apr 15, 2010 9:07am
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.
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.
fish82
Posts: 4,111
Apr 15, 2010 9:13am
^^^^This.jmog wrote: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.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.
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'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.
B
buckeyefalls
Posts: 184
Apr 15, 2010 9:35am
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.
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.
J
jmog
Posts: 6,567
Apr 15, 2010 10:13am
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.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.
2. Who said sex was only for procreation? Last I checked that hasn't been said once on this thread.
Devils Advocate
Posts: 4,539
Apr 15, 2010 10:39am
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"jmog wrote: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.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.
2. Who said sex was only for procreation? Last I checked that hasn't been said once on this thread.
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?
S
superman
Posts: 3,582
Apr 15, 2010 10:42am
The RCC says a lot of things that aren't in the Bible.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?
fish82
Posts: 4,111
Apr 15, 2010 11:00am
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"jmog wrote: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.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.
2. Who said sex was only for procreation? Last I checked that hasn't been said once on this thread.
J
jmog
Posts: 6,567
Apr 15, 2010 11:39am
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.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?
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.
Devils Advocate
Posts: 4,539
Apr 15, 2010 12:50pm
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?
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?
J
jmog
Posts: 6,567
Apr 15, 2010 1:48pm
DA, no, if I'm a Christian I DON'T have to believe the Catholic Church is correct, especially if I'm not Catholic.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?
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.
Devils Advocate
Posts: 4,539
Apr 15, 2010 1:58pm
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.
LJ
Posts: 16,351
Apr 15, 2010 2:15pm
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.
J
jmog
Posts: 6,567
Apr 15, 2010 2:20pm
LOL, the Catholic Church wrote the New Testament?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.
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.
B
BCSbunk
Posts: 972
Apr 15, 2010 2:39pm
Stick a fork in that hate filled moron, his chances of being President have just been crushed.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.
fish82
Posts: 4,111
Apr 15, 2010 3:28pm
Like he ever had a chance to start with. I mean come on....President Huckabee??? I think not.BCSbunk wrote:Stick a fork in that hate filled moron, his chances of being President have just been crushed.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.
Devils Advocate
Posts: 4,539
Apr 15, 2010 4:25pm
Yes but some of the Dead Sea scrolls were omitted.LJ wrote: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.