Did you know that liberalism causes pederasty? I didn’t. Thank goodness that we have Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., to alert us to this political health hazard! From The Boston Globe:
WASHINGTON — Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, the third-ranking Republican in the Senate, refused yesterday to back off on his earlier statements connecting Boston’s “liberalism” with the Roman Catholic Church pedophile scandal, saying that the city’s “sexual license” and “sexual freedom” nurtured an environment where sexual abuse would occur.
“The basic liberal attitude in that area . . . has an impact on people’s behavior,” Santorum said in an interview yesterday at the Capitol.
“If you have a world view that I’m describing [about Boston] . . . that affirms alternative views of sexuality, that can lead to a lot of people taking it the wrong way,” Santorum said.
Santorum, a leader among Christian conservatives, was responding to questions about remarks he made three years ago on a website called Catholic Online. In those comments, Santorum said, “It is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political, and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm” of the clergy sexual abuse scandal.
Say what?
“I was just saying that there’s an attitude that is very open to sexual freedom that is more predominant” in Boston, Santorum said yesterday. Reminded that the sexual abuse occurred across the country, Santorum said that “at the time [in 2002], there was an indication that there was more of a problem there” in Boston.
For those who haven’t heard Santorum, recall that he also linked homosexuality to bestiality and isn’t afraid to invoke Hitler analogies. From the same Globe article:
Santorum has startled Washington in the past. In a 2003 interview with the Associated Press, he linked “man on child” and “man on dog” sex with homosexuality, describing them as deviant behaviors that threatened traditional marriage. Earlier this year, he apologized for comparing the Democrats blocking President Bush’s judicial nominees to the Nazi leader, Adolf Hitler.
At least he apologized for the Hitler reference. But liberalism = raping kids and homosexuality = bestiality? A-OK!
What wing of the Republican Party does this man represent?
]]>< 
JmaR, I usually ignore it when an idiot makes demands, like you keep doing when you tell me to address the issue of our founding fathers, but since I’m in a good mood I will. The fact that our founding fathers political parties evolved into both parties in power today and that took place about 225 years ago what’s your point? How does that apply to today but somehow Byrd’s words and actions of the last 75 years and as recently as 4 years ago don’t? How does that apply to democrats filibustering the Civil Rights Ammendment and it only passing because of republicans? My whole point is that politicians on both sides misspeak and have beliefs that not all their constituents agree with but that’s hardly a sign of universal support of them or their beliefs. If it was the the left pretends it is republicans could just as honestly claim that all democrats eagerly support sexual harrassment in the whitehouse and are ardent supporters of driving off of bridges and drowning women.
Wow! I think my head just exploded.
It’s amazing how easily and self-righteously some people can thump a bible. Let’s call it… ummm….selective enforcement. (Hypocrisy is such an ugly word.)
If you would put down your shrimp and read all of Leviticus you might find that you’re in the same boat as the *gasp* homosexuals. And the near-sighted. And the butcher. Quite a full boat. As I recall there’s a line in the Bible that goes something like: “judge not….” Damn, I forget the rest! Obviously, so have you.
And would someone explain again what these “privileges” are that I get for being married? If you guys are so against gays, why not let them get married….and suffer like the rest of us.
Peace and love, fellow Christians.
Penny, Penny, Penny….now see what you’ve gone and started? =]
likwidshoe,
I’d imaging he was referring to this I don’t think this is a particularly strong link to refute you, but I thought I’d provide it for reference in JmaR’s absence.
Do you really mean liberalism when you say, “‘Liberalism is dishonesty?’ – most certainly. Liberalism always produces the exact opposite of it’s stated intent.” or do you mean the Democratic Party of the US? Liberalism is defined as, “political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority. ” That would certainly make our founding fathers pretty liberal.
bullwinkle said: “JmaR, I usually ignore it when an idiot makes demands”
….if you’re a Republican you’re entire political existence revolves around idiotic demands so this should be familiar territory for you. Wingnuts are so silly.
“So, you’re clearly in the “Bible is a flawed book of man’s creation” instead of “infallible text”. That puts you one up on lots of actual Christians. Sorry I judged you as a literalist. We agress that’s just stupid.”
Your ability to incorrectly interpret the literal word is indeed amazing. For the record, the Bible is infallible. Man’s interpretation is not. Now that I’ve made this semantic distinction, am I, or am I not an ‘actual Christian’. LOL.
I do not presume to judge whether alternative interpretations are the result of “stupidity.” Certainly my interpretation will be flawed, though I strive to emulate my savior.
As for your description of the pharisees’ transgressions, I fault your analysis on the basis of additional study which I’ve done. The pharisees were similar to lawyers today. A particularly intriguing example is the pharisees’ interpretation of the Sabbath YEAR laws. Every seventh year a man’s debts were to be forgiven. The pharisees developed a system whereby they would transfer the debt of a man from one to another, such that the debtor would never reach a 7th year of indebtedness towards any one person, but could remain in debt indefinitely.
In this matter, as was typical of the pharisees, they complied with the letter of law, but ignored the spirit. Perhaps now you understand that you can be a hypocrite, while following the letter of the law? If it is still unclear to you, ask a lawyer about ‘loopholes’.
“So why is it that I’m always the one quoting scripture while the Christians just give their views with nothing to back them up from the Bible?”
Perhaps you could tell me why you’re always quoting from scripture, for which you clearly show disdain towards its adherents, if not the text itself? The pharisees were also excellent at quoting scripture, though the interpretation and practical implementation of same was lacking.
While I do have an excellent understanding of what I believe, and don’t need your instruction (in fact, why would I want instruction from someone who is clearly cynical towards Christianity?), I do appreciate the discussion as it focuses the intellect and forces me to be precise and clear in my arguments.
I don’t know that there is anything in this thread which requires further discussion (we’re already well off-topic), but if so – you’ve got my email.
NED
JmaR makes excuses, Help me out now ditto boy.
“Ditto boy”? You really have no argument.
Yup, ABC and Disney are real communist juggernauts. No way they’re benefitting from the media consolidation that capitalism so richly rewards us all with. Pure unbridled totalitarinaism there buddy.
OMFG!
I didn’t say that ABC and Disney were communist. If you had decent English comprehension skills, you would have seen that I was referring to ABC’s communist minders that followed them around and directed them to the story in Vietnam. They had to get permission and then the Vietnamese government set it up and personally handpicked the people that ABC was allowed to talk to. This happens in every communist country. Get a clue and stop trying to defeat a straw man argument that nobody had brought up except yourself.
….if you’re a Republican you’re entire political existence revolves around idiotic demands so this should be familiar territory for you. Wingnuts are so silly.
Wow. An insult JmaR. How surprising. No wonder you guys keep on losing elections. You have no substance.
Oh and JmaR? I guess someone “waaaayyy over on the right” in your world is someone who uses logic and understands the language he is speaking. Learn the language and then come back to argue with the big boys. Good luck there buddy. You’ll need it.
jYt said, I’d imaging he was referring to this I don’t think this is a particularly strong link to refute you, but I thought I’d provide it for reference in JmaR’s absence.
Yeah I saw that as well and didn’t think that it was too good of a link myself. That’s why I asked JmaR just what the hell he meant. It has since become clear that JmaR just likes to talk nonsense and throw out insults.
Liberalism is defined as, “political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority. ” That would certainly make our founding fathers pretty liberal.
Totally agreed. I should be clear in that I meant “liberal” or “liberalism” as the current contemporary American definitions of the word. Truth be told, conservatives today are the real liberals and what’s known as “liberals” are the conservatives. The more accurate term for modern day “liberals” are cultural Marxists.
Cultural Marxists? What is that exactly?
mantis asked, Cultural Marxists? What is that exactly?
I usually sum it up by saying – The redistribution of (__fill in the blank__) by whatever means necessary in order to make life “fair”. Marxism moved from economic into cultural terms; class warfare into gender, ethnicity, and race warfare amoung others; manifesting itself into speech codes, victim groups, “affirmative” action, deconstruction of cultural and biblio norms and definitions (see ready examples from the left in this thread alone), and “hate crimes”.
But instead of going all into it here, check out this link, as it explains it pretty well and covers some of the major bases.
likwidshoe, you wrote:
“Sure. Just a little bit older though. And no..we have to cut back on benefits. Make it a little bit older. Oh wait,..you aren’t supposed to get Social “Security”. Oh..give us 11% of your lifetime income. This is for the “Security” you might not collect when you get older.”
…once you spouted that gibberish you lost me. Try making some sense when you post, clarify the conversation that the little voices in your head are having and I’ll try to keep up. In the meantime I appreciate your clarifying that it was ABC’s “minders” that tainted their news story with a communist slant. Now it’s all been cleared up. You’re the best. You have such a solid grasp of the language that you probably teach right? You must be a professor….yup, clearly a professor. Hahaha
…once you spouted that gibberish you lost me. Try making some sense when you post, clarify the conversation that the little voices in your head are having and I’ll try to keep up.
Did it ever occur to you that I was speaking down to your level there JmaR? In any regard, you have a lot of balls saying that considering you were lost throughout this thread. But keep it up…I like winning elections.
I think you mean “stealing ” elections, but whatever. Yeah the Republicans are doing a tremendous job running the country, I can’t recall better times for average Americans. Record deficits, record debt, war and shameless war-profiteering, terrorism, divisiveness, hate, bigotry, fear. Things are pissah…good job.
JmaR said, I think you mean “stealing ” elections, but whatever.
No. I mean winning. Perhaps you are projecting here. Unless you have evidence to back up your charge for once. Your past history of such kinds of charges suggests that you don’t.
Yeah the Republicans are doing a tremendous job running the country, I can’t recall better times for average Americans.
Me neither. Glad we’re on the same page.
Record deficits…
Not true unless you are going by pure dollar numbers alone. Percentage wise it is not even close. And besides, the deficit wasn’t built in four years. This has been a running number spanning decades. Look into history.
…record debt…
Not true unless you are going by pure dollar numbers alone. Percentage wise it is not even close. And besides, the debt wasn’t built in four years. This has been a running number spanning decades. Look into history.
…war and shameless war-profiteering>…
I have a feeling that selling a bullet would count as “shameless war-profiteering” in your world.
…terrorism…
Oh yes. It is fair to blame this on the Republicans. Instead of…ya know…the actual perpetrators. We wouldn’t want to lie blame where it actually belongs or anything. That would be too honest for a guy such as yourself. Better to stick to cheap insults and partisan smearings.
…divisiveness, hate, bigotry, fear.
Now you are describing your camp. Just read your comments for a clear primer.
You are new at this debating game, aren’t you? You’re a rank amateur. Keep on trying chief. You’ll get there one day.
For the record, the Bible is infallible. Man’s interpretation is not.
So, from your comments, the Bible is “infallible”, but at the same time, contains laws that are an “extrapolation by men of God’s stated will” which had “little, if any, basis in God’s original intent.” For an infallible work, that seems to be actually quite fallible. For instance, my Deuteromony quote, presented in the Bible as part of the laws that the Jews must obey to please God. Is that an infallible law of God’s or a manmade exprapolation? If the latter, whither infallibility?
As for your description of the pharisees’ transgressions, I fault your analysis on the basis of additional study which I’ve done…
Great, the Bible is now so infallible that you immediately discard all my actual New Testament quotes to fall back on your additional research. Perhaps your “additional study” is just man-made extrapolation, seeing how it was man-made and all. Still I’m simply amazed that I present exactly what Jesus had to say about the Pharisees directly from your infallible book and your response is merely, “That’s interesting, but my research shows…” In any event, today’s lawyers can be hypocritical, break their own laws, and interpret the law as it suits them. The behaviors aren’t mutually exclusive, but mine is what Jesus cited them for, so I’d think that’d end this particular point.
Perhaps you could tell me why you’re always quoting from scripture, for which you clearly show disdain towards its adherents, if not the text itself? The pharisees were also excellent at quoting scripture, though the interpretation and practical implementation of same was lacking.
I must admit I don’t quote it much in my daily life. Here, I’m doing it to show that I’m right about what I’m saying using evidence from your holy text to back me up. When you have nothing similar to back up your assertions, it makes you look a little foolish. You seem to be pretty touchy-feely for a Christian on your belief system. It seems more like you believe what you want and have faith that the Bible backs you up with no evidence. If evidence to the contrary is presented, you simply blow it off as “man’s fallible interpretation” and go on your merry way.
While I do have an excellent understanding of what I believe, and don’t need your instruction…
Well, I agree that you know what you believe. Being able to rationally back it up based on scripture seems like a bit of a stretch for you though.
You’ve got my email.
I do?
likwid,
I’ve provided much evidence (and in typical wingnut fashion the messenger is attacked, never the message) and if you want to pick a topic, a policy or an initiative that you think that this adminstration has done a good job on, have at it. I’m sure it’ll be easily debunked, because they frankly haven’t done a good job on anything.
Election fraud evidence (where to begin):
http://baltimorechronicle.com/070505Miller-Irmus.shtml
And this is a comprehensive list of facts about how America votes. It includes the truth about who owns and controls the voting machines. These are indisputable facts, that I’m sure the Communists in Vietnam had something to do with:
http://nov2truth.org/article.php?story=2004121115234497
Record deficit data, from another Communist outpost:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35029-2005Jan25.html
And according to Paul Craig Roberts, Asst. Sec. Treasury under Reagan (and closet socialist..I think) and a staunch conservative, it’s worse than you think:
http://www.prisonplanet.tv/articles/march2005/010305comingend.htm
Oh and there’s this from Republican Congressman Ron Paul from..what’s this….Texas?
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2003/tst040703.htm
And all of this mess has been under your guys watch, so don’t blame Democrats and liberals for your mess. Things were good in the 90’s…damn good!
Ah, Mr. (not so) Wiser, thou art amusing…
“For an infallible work, that seems to be actually quite fallible. For instance, my Deuteromony quote, presented in the Bible as part of the laws that the Jews must obey to please God. Is that an infallible law of God’s or a manmade exprapolation? If the latter, whither infallibility?”
It is the absolutely true (infallible) telling of a story of a fallible people, who misinterpreted God’s intent. Surely, it is not that difficult to understand.
As to your cited verses – I’m laughing because every single one of them supports the exact example I provided to you, and supports my statement, that they held the law to a fault and were hypocrites!
Matt. 15:1-9, Jesus scolds the pharisees for telling others to use one holy act, the giving of alms, so that that those they are teaching can give more to God (the temple). It also had to do with the fact that the priests in the temple were squeezing the populace by selling their offerings at high prices, and requireing purchase of ‘temple-approved’ offerings. So in essence, people were in a bind because they didn’t have the money to both aid their parents and pay for their offerings to God, because the price of the offering was so high. The people complained to the Pharisees and the Pharisees told them to screw their parents and pay the temple. Get it?
PS – the reason that it is sometimes good to do additional background research is that a lot of the background isn’t always included in the text. For example, Matthew was written to the Jewish populace (whereas Luke was written to the Gentiles), so a lot of this background would have been understood by the listener.
Matt 23:1-7, 23-24: Nowhere does Jesus say that the Pharisees disobey the law – overtly. He chastises them for their love of their position, of pomp and circumstance, of self-importance – or, piety. When he scolds them regarding justice, mercy and faithfulness, he is scolding them for ignoring the intent of the law they claim to serve.
OK, now it is your turn:
Matt 9:9-13
Matt 12:1-14
Matt 12:34-37
Matt 16:1-4,12
Matt 19:3-8
Matt 22:18-21
Matt 22:34-46
These verses are about hardened hearts which do not know the spirit of the law. They seek to entrap Jesus through legal interpretation, but fail when the spirit of the law is explained to them and their evil intent is laid bare.
“Here, I’m doing it to show that I’m right about what I’m saying using evidence from your holy text to back me up.”
Whoops. You’re wrong.
“Being able to rationally back it up based on scripture seems like a bit of a stretch for you though.”
Wrong again.
As for the email – my bad. I thought the comments linked the email in.
NED
JmaR spit out, I’ve provided much evidence (and in typical wingnut fashion the messenger is attacked, never the message)…
Not a great start there chief. Highlighting your hypocrisy and all by calling me a name. To be expected from an amateur I guess.
Any ways – thanks for showing me that our voting system has problems. Big surprise there. What you didn’t show, was any proof to your claim that any election was stolen. You do remember that that was your original claim, right? Noticeably missing from your misguided sarcasm and rambling nonsense were links from the Washington governor’s race fiasco. If you want a stolen election, look no further. But that was a Democrat, so ignore it. Doesn’t fit your narrowminded template.
Record deficit data, from another Communist outpost:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35029-2005Jan25.html
Dude, are you dense? Apparently I have to repeat myself because you really don’t understand simple English. The deficit is only a “record deficit” if are going by pure dollar numbers alone. Percentage wise it is not even close. Here, buy a clue genius.
Besides, most of the spending is on programs that your side dreamt up and manages. Forget that little fact?
And all of this mess has been under your guys watch, so don’t blame Democrats and liberals for your mess.
“Your guys watch”? Grow up. It is a system that is run by many different people from all sides of the aisle.
Things were good in the 90’s…damn good!
Some things were and some things weren’t. The Republican Congress (they control spending, I’m safely betting that you had no clue) did help a lot back then. So we agree in part.
Now go ahead and ignore my points. Repeat your disproven tired talking points and play the victim. It’s all you have left.
Oh…and nice Alex Jones link by the way. Nice touch. I’m also amused by people who squawk about a terrible economy. Meanwhile we just passed the 15th consecutive month of economic growth.
likwidshoe,
Just two things from your graph:
1) the record deficit percentage-wise was under Ronald Reagan
2) the record deficit delta (percentage change from one administration to the next) was under Bush
Also, as you’re stating, the government is run by both parties so both have to take shares of the blame for the current deficit and debt. However, it’s also true that both sides have to take credit and blame for the success/failure of the Democratic/Republican initiatives and any spending for the same reason.
Your point about the Republican Congress controlling spending seems to be breaking down under the current administration.