DISQUS

mishal · 2 years ago

all things "democrat"
I think the proper term is Democractic.
I think thats why Republicans lost 30 house seats in 2006. While the Republican National Committee was spending valuable donations on defending people involved in the New Hampshire Phone jamming scandal, the rest of the money went toward focus groups concentrating on how they could make the term "Democractic" sound worse. I guess in the course of butchering the english language they came up with "the DEMOCRAT" party, and well judging from the 2006 elections they wasted a lot of money.
I never though i would see conservatives defend perjury, subornation of perjury, or champion a New Hampshire phone jammer who was trying to thwart democracy. I don't think Jesus would be too pleased with a party who claimed a monopoly on Him promoting these values.

burke · 2 years ago

Hi Randy! I recently discovered Google Reader and so its RSS feeds (or whatever it is) keeps me in the loops with tons of blogs. So i have been alot better about reading up and staying in the loop! All the blogs I read on one page and I know when they update. Its great. I'm sure you already knew about it though! So i'm keeping an eye on you from out here in Cali :)

kevin · 2 years ago

Whoops. Sorry Randy, I should have made clear what I meant by the lack of leadership of Edwards and the bloggers. I thought he should have had the backbone to stand up for the two women he hired. The Catholic League made a big deal about the history of these women and Edwards should have had the guts to say that free speech is for everyone, including those two women. Edwards never even gave them a chance to do their job. Instead, he gave into a group who would have not voted for him regardless of what happened. Edwards should be more concerned about potential voters rather than people who would never vote for him.
Now I am not saying I agree with what they said. But I believe in free speech. People can have personal beliefs and still do a good job on something unrelated to what they do in their non-work time.
I also want a politician who has vision, excellence and integrity, but I haven't seen too many politicians who fit that bill (one either side of the aisle!).

Burke · 2 years ago

Hmm. I'm gonna have to disagree with the spirit with which TB wrote this article. It seems from the tone that shes sounding like a liberal herself. "Jesus isn't mad at us, He loves us. We can do whatever we want!" And then to pull a lame-o comment like "ho actually would vote for a guy to be president who has such a low opinion of the country he is campaigning to lead"

I mean really... sounds like she would rather have someone lie to us then tell us the truth. This country IS jacked up. And as "religious" as it may or may not be, I think Jesus is disapointed in this country on so many levels. We are a bunch of greedy, selfish, arrogant people! (myself included!) Atleast this country as a whole is.

I didnt catch Edwards speech. I try to avoid all things democrat because I usually just end up sick. So I cant comment on what he said. And I dont know TB. But this article seriously seems like liberal logic (which is an oxymoron)!

mishal · 2 years ago

all things "democrat"

I think the proper term is Democractic.

I think thats why Republicans lost 30 house seats in 2006. While the Republican National Committee was spending valuable donations on defending people involved in the New Hampshire Phone jamming scandal, the rest of the money went toward focus groups concentrating on how they could make the term "Democractic" sound worse. I guess in the course of butchering the english language they came up with "the DEMOCRAT" party, and well judging from the 2006 elections they wasted a lot of money.

I never though i would see conservatives defend perjury, subornation of perjury, or champion a New Hampshire phone jammer who was trying to thwart democracy. I don't think Jesus would be too pleased with a party who claimed a monopoly on Him promoting these values.

Randy · 2 years ago

Hi Burke! Great to see you. Thank you for your thoughts.

I don't even know if Tammy is a Christian or not but I think she is trying to point out that someone wanting to lead a country has to provide vision and draw on strengths and giftings to better the country instead of constant demeaning criticism. I also think that the main point of her article is to expose how seemingly hypocritical it is for Edwards to be so critical when he himself lives a very luxurious life.

I would agree that she is "over the top" mean to him and I would agree with you about the state of our country's morality as a whole. At the same time it is a leader with vision that compels a nation.

again, so good to see you :)

Randy · 2 years ago

Mishal where does the Republican party claim to have a Monopoly on God?

kevin · 2 years ago

She asks: "Who actually would vote for a guy to be president who has such a low opinion of the country he is campaigning to lead?"
Well, I would, for one. I thought the whole point of having people run for office is that they are unhappy with the way things are and want to change them? Who wants to vote for someone who wants to keep everything the same.

Regardless, I am not voting for Edwards anyway because of his handling (or lack thereof) of the two bloggers earlier last month.

Randy · 2 years ago

Kevin, I am glad to hear you mention Edwards lack of leadership with the two bloggers last month which makes his Jesus statements all the stranger to me.

The two bloggers situation for those who don't know; Edwards hired two bloggers who have HORRIBLE track records when blogging about Christians (very hateful.)

BUT

Kevin, I am tired of people only running because they don't like something. I want to vote someone who has vision, excellence and integrity. Of course I want to be a person who makes corrections or isn't satisfied with the status quo. At the same time, you can be that person and not act as petty and whiny as most of the candidates come across.

kevin · 2 years ago

Whoops. Sorry Randy, I should have made clear what I meant by the lack of leadership of Edwards and the bloggers. I thought he should have had the backbone to stand up for the two women he hired. The Catholic League made a big deal about the history of these women and Edwards should have had the guts to say that free speech is for everyone, including those two women. Edwards never even gave them a chance to do their job. Instead, he gave into a group who would have not voted for him regardless of what happened. Edwards should be more concerned about potential voters rather than people who would never vote for him.
Now I am not saying I agree with what they said. But I believe in free speech. People can have personal beliefs and still do a good job on something unrelated to what they do in their non-work time.
I also want a politician who has vision, excellence and integrity, but I haven't seen too many politicians who fit that bill (one either side of the aisle!).

Randy · 2 years ago

I see.

but :)

I am all for free speech but free speech doesn't mean a free pass. If your spokespeople bash Christians ... come on? It wasn't that they didn't like Christians or had mild disagreements, what those bloggers said was outrageously hateful. It reflects on Edwards directly in that whether the Catholics ever vote for him or not ... he wants to be the leader for all of us.

He has to show discretion to the entire public he wishes to lead.

burke · 2 years ago

Hi Randy! I recently discovered Google Reader and so its RSS feeds (or whatever it is) keeps me in the loops with tons of blogs. So i have been alot better about reading up and staying in the loop! All the blogs I read on one page and I know when they update. Its great. I'm sure you already knew about it though! So i'm keeping an eye on you from out here in Cali :)

kevin · 2 years ago

"...what those bloggers said was outrageously hateful." I think we need to look at the entire picture. Why is it that these two bloggers said what they said? There is no innate hatred of Christians. As in everything, there is an action and a reaction. Before they were hired by Edwards, the two bloggers are reacting to what these so-called Christians have said. If these people think women should be tied to the kitchen, then women will react. If these people think homosexuals are going to hell, then homosexuals will react. I'm not saying this is the correct way to move forward, but I know what it means to react to something someone has said.
For example, Bill Donahue, the pres. of the Catholic League had this to say:
"Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular." You don't need to guess what the Jewish response was to that. Would what some of what they said in response have been hateful to Catholics? Possibly, but they are reacting. This is exactly what the two bloggers were dealing with. Like I said, not the best way to move forward...

kevin · 2 years ago

"...what those bloggers said was outrageously hateful." I think we need to look at the entire picture. Why is it that these two bloggers said what they said? There is no innate hatred of Christians. As in everything, there is an action and a reaction. Before they were hired by Edwards, the two bloggers are reacting to what these so-called Christians have said. If these people think women should be tied to the kitchen, then women will react. If these people think homosexuals are going to hell, then homosexuals will react. I'm not saying this is the correct way to move forward, but I know what it means to react to something someone has said.
For example, Bill Donahue, the pres. of the Catholic League had this to say:
"Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular." You don't need to guess what the Jewish response was to that. Would what some of what they said in response have been hateful to Catholics? Possibly, but they are reacting. This is exactly what the two bloggers were dealing with. Like I said, not the best way to move forward...

Randy · 2 years ago

Kevin, I don't know if you are purposefully trying to derail this thread or not but the issue is about Tammy Bruce and Edwards.

Edwards bloggers blasphemed Jesus and the Holy Spirit. They belittled Mary (not being a Catholic I don't hold the same esteem but still find outrageous.) And refer to any Christians they disagree with as patriarchal Christofascist bigots. If what you say is true, other people have other owning up to do but you seem quite willing to defend bad behavior by some justifying it with bad behavior by others.

I am not sure about the league you mention above but there are a lot of Catholics, other legalistic denominations, cults, Jewish, Muslims, Wiccans and even gays who think I am going to hell or someplace very much like it. Yet I feel no need to get up in their face and call them and their gods names.

Real or perceived bigotry does not justify reverse bigotry and while freedom of speech is great, if you say something publicly you deserve the pressure that comes with the feedback.

... as I know all to well.

Now please, get back to the topic at hand: Tammy vs. Edwards.

kevin · 2 years ago

Jeez--talk about a smackdown.
I talked about Edwards and Tammy. You brought up hateful speech. I responded. That is not derailing the thread.
See ya.

Randy · 2 years ago

Burke Sorry I didn't respond earlier. I use Google Reader too and I am very glad you are here. I always appreciate your input.

Randy · 2 years ago

Kevin eh ... ok. But, I wasn't smacking you down, just being direct.

Maureen · 2 years ago

Didn't Hillary say basically the same thing last year? About how Jesus would be ashamed if he were here and saw what the Republicans were doing. The only reason I remember is because she looked so insincere while she was saying it and it made me laugh every time the soundbyte was aired.

Randy · 2 years ago

Gosh I can't remember but I think so.

I am stuck on your word "insincerity." I think that is what is making most people nauseous about politics lately. I will not purposefully take a "side" here but I notice that a lot of people are tired of Utopian vision casting, agendas driven by political winds and personal gain with absolutely nothing to say for it except building bitterness and anger.

Is "insincerity" at the root of all this?

Maureen · 2 years ago

My thought is that insincerity is less the root of all of that than a side effect of it. I try to remember that for every politician, there are nearly as many people who despise him or her as there are people who admire him or her. Because of this, don't you think it's difficult for any candidate to show their true colors? Their every word is so scrutinized by so many people that they can't communicate their visions like regular people can.

And, you're right, it IS what nauseates people about the process.

I didn't see Edwards "channelling" Jesus, but I imagine it much like Hillary, admonishing those of us who don't agree with her left-leaning ideas by telling us what Jesus wouldn't like...it just smacks of someone desperately trying to court both liberal Christians and people who don't like Christians.

So far, John McCain is the only candidate I've seen that at least looks like he believes the words that are actually leaving his mouth.

It really makes me sad, Randy.

Randy · 2 years ago

Me too Maureen. What a great comment and yes, I can see it as a result and not as a root. Pray for me to pull the lightning bolt out of the Thundercloud on the ideas swirling about Baby Boomer Baggage.

There is so much to consider :).