Howard Baker passes

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Anyone could write a very similar article to that alternet.org article about any other group that has at times falsely claimed persecution. So what? If I wrote an article like that with examples of false claims of discrimination by muslims or blacks, you would probably say that the article was bigoted. But since the article was about Christians, you think the article is full of "fun stories". It's a good thing you don't have an anti-christian bias.

Did you know that if a person has negative attitudes toward muslims that the person is bigoted. But if you have negative attitudes towards christians that is fine. That is just being "progressive".

I have an anti-majority-claiming-to-be-a-victimized-minority bias, that's for sure. The ones in the article I linked to happen to be part of the Christian majority because you're the one who brought up false examples of discrimination against Christians. I was keeping this particular thread tangent on topic.

You're making a lot of accusations about my character there, Rupert, and I don't think I've made any personal accusations about your character in this thread. Not cool, dude. Not cool. If you're going to accuse me of claiming inaccurate things are bigoted, you need to cite some examples in my own words, in context. Otherwise, you're just making things up about me. There's a word for saying things about someone that aren't true, but I can't remember it. Anyone remember it?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

I have an anti-majority-claiming-to-be-a-victimized-minority bias, that's for sure. The ones in the article I linked to happen to be part of the Christian majority because you're the one who brought up false examples of discrimination against Christians. I was keeping this particular thread tangent on topic.

You're making a lot of accusations about my character there, Rupert, and I don't think I've made any personal accusations about your character in this thread. Not cool, dude. Not cool. If you're going to accuse me of claiming inaccurate things are bigoted, you need to cite some examples in my own words, in context. Otherwise, you're just making things up about me. There's a word for saying things about someone that aren't true, but I can't remember it. Anyone remember it?

There are two sides to every story. Here is another take on the song whose nomination was withdrawn for the Oscar:

http://www.worldmag.com/2014/01/chri...r_an_oscar_nod

I never claimed that you hate christians. I said that it sure seems like you have at least some sort of anti-christian bias. If you don't, then I misconstrued you views and I apologize. If you say you don't have a negative opinion of christians, I will take you at your word. Do you admit that many in the "progressive movement" have an anti-Christian bias?

With regard to the "progressive movement", saying that many in the movement have an "anti-christian bias" is a kind way of putting it. A more accurate way of putting it is that many of them despise christians. They believe it is justified because they falsely believe that christians "hate" all kinds of groups. So they are just hating back. But all their "hate nonsense" is exactly that, nonsense. Accusing people of "hate" is their propaganda. According to them, if you are against gay marriage, that means you "hate" gay people. If you are against affirmative action, then you must "hate" minorities. They tried to accuse the guy from Duck Dynasty of "hate" but it didn't work because any unbiased person who heard the interview will tell you that there was nothing "hateful" in the interview.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

There are two sides to every story. Here is another take on the song whose nomination was withdrawn for the Oscar:

http://www.worldmag.com/2014/01/chri...r_an_oscar_nod

I never claimed that you hate christians. I said that it sure seems like you have at least some sort of anti-christian bias. If you don't, then I misconstrued you views and I apologize. If you say you don't have a negative opinion of christians, I will take you at your word. Do you admit that many in the "progressive movement" have an anti-Christian bias?

With regard to the "progressive movement", saying that many in the movement have an "anti-christian bias" is a kind way of putting it. A more accurate way of putting it is that many of them despise christians. They believe it is justified because they falsely believe that christians "hate" all kinds of groups. So they are just hating back. But all their "hate nonsense" is exactly that, nonsense. Accusing people of "hate" is their propaganda. According to them, if you are against gay marriage, that means you "hate" gay people. If you are against affirmative action, then you must "hate" minorities. They tried to accuse the guy from Duck Dynasty of "hate" but it didn't work because any unbiased person who heard the interview will tell you that there was nothing "hateful" in the interview.

Nope. Only bias is against those trying to shove their religion down their throats or bring their religion into public places such as public schools. Religion is personal and should not be pushed on others especially in a country founded on seperation of church and state.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by jms62

Nope. Only bias is against those trying to shove their religion down their throats or bring their religion into public places such as public schools. Religion is personal and should not be pushed on others especially in a country founded on seperation of church and state.

What is your definition of "shoving it down people's throats? For example, sometimes we will see an athlete win a competition, and in the post-competition interview he says he "wants to thank his lord and savior, Jesus Christ". Do you have a problem with that?

[Danzig]

Shoving down throats....let's see...

Schools still having prayers, still have icons up? Yep. Then when someone points out its against the rules, panties get in a wad.
Laws being introduced to allow discrimination due to religion? Yep.
Christian groups who insist that the first amendment only applies to christians? Check.
Christians fighting to have non science taught in science class, while fighting to ban science?. Indeed.
Business owners trying to dictate health coverage? Sure enough
Christian icons continuously placed in public areas, but said christians don't want other groups to have the same ability? Of course.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

Shoving down throats....let's see...

Schools still having prayers, still have icons up? Yep. Then when someone points out its against the rules, panties get in a wad.
Laws being introduced to allow discrimination due to religion? Yep.
Christian groups who insist that the first amendment only applies to christians? Check.
Christians fighting to have non science taught in science class, while fighting to ban science?. Indeed.
Business owners trying to dictate health coverage? Sure enough
Christian icons continuously placed in public areas, but said christians don't want other groups to have the same ability? Of course.

I'll just respond to your first one. Having a moment of silence where students can do anything from reflecting on the day, to praying (any religion they want), to daydreaming is hardly shoving anyone's religion down anyone's throats. You have it upside down. When states have ruled that a moment of silence is totally legal, it is the atheists whose panties get in a wad and take it to court and sue. God forbid some students exercise their right to think about whatever they want during the moment of silence. Some of them may actually pray silently. We can't have that.

The only ones in this case who want to control people's thoughts are the atheists. Maybe we should take it a step further. Would you be in favor of giving students a lie-detector test to make sure that they never thought about God during the school day? To think silently about God while you are on school grounds is a violation of the Constitution. LOL.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/...constitutional

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I'll just respond to your first one. Having a moment of silence where students can do anything from reflecting on the day, to praying (any religion they want), to daydreaming is hardly shoving anyone's religion down anyone's throats. You have it upside down. When states have ruled that a moment of silence is totally legal, it is the atheists whose panties get in a wad and take it to court and sue. God forbid some students exercise their right to think about whatever they want during the moment of silence. Some of them may actually pray silently. We can't have that.

The only ones in this case who want to control people's thoughts are the atheists. Maybe we should take it a step further. Would you be in favor of giving students a lie-detector test to make sure that they never thought about God during the school day? To think silently about God while you are on school grounds is a violation of the Constitution. LOL.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/...constitutional

Well played Robert. You say respond to the first but addressed an issue she didnt bring up. Then you ignored every other point she brought up. Then you dip into the absurd. She flat out crushed you. You may as well just typed two random characters on the page and pressed enter.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I'll just respond to your first one. Having a moment of silence where students can do anything from reflecting on the day, to praying (any religion they want), to daydreaming is hardly shoving anyone's religion down anyone's throats. You have it upside down. When states have ruled that a moment of silence is totally legal, it is the atheists whose panties get in a wad and take it to court and sue. God forbid some students exercise their right to think about whatever they want during the moment of silence. Some of them may actually pray silently. We can't have that.

The only ones in this case who want to control people's thoughts are the atheists. Maybe we should take it a step further. Would you be in favor of giving students a lie-detector test to make sure that they never thought about God during the school day? To think silently about God while you are on school grounds is a violation of the Constitution. LOL.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/...constitutional

yeah, except i wasn't talking about moments of silence, which are fine as long as they are 'neutral'. i'm talking about prayer being lead (such as at my kids school, so glad they're all out) because people in these areas are far from dc, and thinks 'everyone' is the same. they're counting on people not complaining, not pointing it out.

the aclu successfully fought for a student to pray before eating her lunch. it's not an issue at all, except where people ignore the laws and rulings that is.

many christians think that because they are the majority, they have the right to dictate continuing to have religious icons on display in schools (see the recent case in the northeast), in contradiction to long standing rules regarding things like that. they also think majority rules (not true) and that 'natural law' is the first rule we all must follow. all that's incorrect, the constitution rules, and is there to protect even the most hated minority group-in this case, atheists.
if some amongst us didn't believe in rocking the boat, we'd still have english accents and sing god save the queen.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

What is your definition of "shoving it down people's throats? For example, sometimes we will see an athlete win a competition, and in the post-competition interview he says he "wants to thank his lord and savior, Jesus Christ". Do you have a problem with that?

"Shoving it down peoples throats"
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hobby...ry?id=24364311

[OldDog]

So, me not being forced to buy other folks' morning after pill is "shoving it down people's throats."

O brave new world.

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by OldDog

So, me not being forced to buy other folks' rubbers is "shoving it down people's throats."

O brave new world.

As long as you are Pro-choice and support your local Planned Parenthood, then certainly, you have the right to say that.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by OldDog

So, me not being forced to buy other folks' morning after pill is "shoving it down people's throats."

O brave new world.

all that happened is HL will probably get an exemption, like the little sisters of the poor...the employees will still get their contraception, as they should. that way you don't have to pay for pregnancy, which is far more expensive than a pill.

and the suit only covered four methods of contraception.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by OldDog

So, me not being forced to buy other folks' morning after pill is "shoving it down people's throats."

O brave new world.

"To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."

Wonder what wise man said that?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by OldDog

So, me not being forced to buy other folks' morning after pill is "shoving it down people's throats."

O brave new world.

Yes, exactly. I don't know how not wanting to pay for someone's contraception qualifies as "shoving your religion down people's throats". Granted HL may claim that they don't want to pay on religious grounds. But does their reason really matter? Whatever their reason, they shouldn't be forced to pay IMO.

The government makes no sense. Things that they shouldn't be involved in, they want to get involved in. But things that they should do, they won't do. They won't let a person write off medical bills, unless it is over a certain amount. If you make $100,000 in a year and you have a $5,000 medical bill, you can't even write it off. It needs to be over 5%. That is absurd. If it was for a necessary medical procedure, it should come right off of your taxes. They won't even give you a tax break on a necessary medical procedure. I think you should be able to write off 100% of medical bills.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Do you admit that many in the "progressive movement" have an anti-Christian bias?

With a statement like that, the onus is actually on you to prove that "many in the progressive movement have an anti-Christian bias" not on me to prove they don't. You know, not proving a negative and all that. Or, if we flip it around: Do you admit that many in the "conservative movement" have an anti- blacks, women, Latino(a)s, Asian, immigrants, Islam, Judaism, atheist, vegan, environmentalist, Wiccan, gay/lesbian/transgender bias?

With regard to the "progressive movement", saying that many in the movement have an "anti-christian bias" is a kind way of putting it. A more accurate way of putting it is that many of them despise christians. They believe it is justified because they falsely believe that christians "hate" all kinds of groups. So they are just hating back. But all their "hate nonsense" is exactly that, nonsense. Accusing people of "hate" is their propaganda.

That's some big assuming you're doing about the "progressive movement." (whatever that is) Back it up with proof. And "I think" and "probably" don't count as proof.

According to them, if you are against gay marriage, that means you "hate" gay people.

If you oppose gay marriage, don't get gay married. Any other action you take, such as trying to block same sex couples from gaining the right to get married, is pushing your religion on people who don't believe it. That's not loving the sinner, or whatever crap excuse is used to justify denying people their rights.

If you are against affirmative action, then you must "hate" minorities. They tried to accuse the guy from Duck Dynasty of "hate" but it didn't work because any unbiased person who heard the interview will tell you that there was nothing "hateful" in the interview.

That's a very safe thing for you to say, as no one, other than Drew Magary, heard the Duck Dynasty interview; it was an article printed in Esquire about Magary's day with the family. I know, because I actually read it. And I recall people accused him of being racist and homophobic. Which, reading the interview, I certainly took him to be. In addition, I found him to be willfully ignorant of American history. Here's the link:

http://www.gq.com/entertainment/tele...phil-robertson

And an addendum piece by Drew Magary:
http://deadspin.com/the-devil-and-ph...sty-1485612609

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

With a statement like that, the onus is actually on you to prove that "many in the progressive movement have an anti-Christian bias" not on me to prove they don't. You know, not proving a negative and all that. Or, if we flip it around: Do you admit that many in the "conservative movement" have an anti- blacks, women, Latino(a)s, Asian, immigrants, Islam, Judaism, atheist, vegan, environmentalist, Wiccan, gay/lesbian/transgender bias?



That's some big assuming you're doing about the "progressive movement." (whatever that is) Back it up with proof. And "I think" and "probably" don't count as proof.



If you oppose gay marriage, don't get gay married. Any other action you take, such as trying to block same sex couples from gaining the right to get married, is pushing your religion on people who don't believe it. That's not loving the sinner, or whatever crap excuse is used to justify denying people their rights.



That's a very safe thing for you to say, as no one, other than Drew Magary, heard the Duck Dynasty interview; it was an article printed in Esquire about Magary's day with the family. I know, because I actually read it. And I recall people accused him of being racist and homophobic. Which, reading the interview, I certainly took him to be. In addition, I found him to be willfully ignorant of American history. Here's the link:

http://www.gq.com/entertainment/tele...phil-robertson

And an addendum piece by Drew Magary:
http://deadspin.com/the-devil-and-ph...sty-1485612609

Come on! Go to any one of these progressive sites and see how they bash christians. They're not tame about it. Most of them don't even attempt to hide their disdain for christians and republicans.

To answer your question as to whether I think there is an anti-minority bias in the conservative movement, that is a tough question. I think it depends on how you define negative bias. There are certainly some stereotypes that I'm sure some people in the conservative movement may have about certain groups. I have no idea what the percentages are. But I think some of those stereotypes are fairly common amongst non-conservatives too. For example, if you are travelling and there is a group of 5 Muslim men on your plane, would you get a little bit nervous? I think plenty of people would. That doesn't mean these people hate Muslims. But that is at least a subtle anti-Muslim bias. Are these types of biases more common amongst conservatives than liberals? I don't know for sure but I would guess that these types of biases are probably at least slightly higher amongst conservatives.

I think conservatives would at the very least be more likely to admit to the type of bias I gave in the example. Some liberals may not want to admit to such a bias because it wouldn't be politically correct.

I read much of the Duck Dynasty interview. I have a different take from you. I don't think the guy has any hate in his heart for gays or minorities. If you think he does I disagree with you.

Going back to your other question about the conservative movement, I think people often times make incorrect assumptions about a person based on that person's stance on a policy. This seem to happen more in partisan politics than other things. For example, do you remember the disabled golfer Casey Martin? Because of his disability, he couldn't walk the golf course. He needed to ride in a golf cart. But golf carts are not allowed on the PGA Tour. So there was a controversy. Casey Martin sued claiming that the no-cart policy was discriminatory against disabled people. Anyway, there were plenty of people on his side and plenty of people against him. They weren't against him because they didn't like disabled people. They were against him because they don't think anybody should be be allowed to ride in a cart because they think walking is part of the game. If this was partisan politics, these people would probably be accused of being anti-disabled people. In the case of Casey Martin, I never heard that accusation.

It's too bad that politics aren't the same way. If a person thinks we need to secure our borders, that certainly doesn't mean that the person doesn't like Latino people. But the person will be accused of this all day by some on the left. In many cases, I don't think it's just an accusation thrown out there for effect. I think they really believe it.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Come on! Go to any one of these progressive sites and see how they bash christians. They're not tame about it. Most of them don't even attempt to hide their disdain for christians and republicans.

Once again, you try to shift the onus on me of proving your own claim. Nope. It's your responsibility to find these "progressive" sites and specific articles bashing Christians for being Christian (bashing a Christian for shouting Bible verses at a captive audience or assassinating a doctor as he leaves his church don't count, as those are clearly criticisms of actions, not faith). Go ahead, I'll wait. I suggest you read the whole article though, not just the headline.

But I think some of those stereotypes are fairly common amongst non-conservatives too. For example, if you are travelling and there is a group of 5 Muslim men on your plane, would you get a little bit nervous?

No. Because I'm not prejudiced against Muslims, and don't hold an entire faith responsible for what a small minority of its members do. You know, like how a small minority of Christians terrorize women outside abortion clinics and paint swastikas on synagogues (when they aren't setting fire to them), and blow up government buildings, including day care centers filled with little kids. I don't hold all Christians responsible and suspect to suspicion because the Christian Identity movement exists.

I read much of the Duck Dynasty interview. I have a different take from you. I don't think the guy has any hate in his heart for gays or minorities. If you think he does I disagree with you.

"Much." Not all. Right.

Show me where I said the man had "hate in his heart," please.

Going back to your other question about the conservative movement, I think people often times make incorrect assumptions about a person based on that person's stance on a policy. This seem to happen more in partisan politics than other things. For example, do you remember the disabled golfer Casey Martin? Because of his disability, he couldn't walk the golf course. He needed to ride in a golf cart. But golf carts are not allowed on the PGA Tour. So there was a controversy. Casey Martin sued claiming that the no-cart policy was discriminatory against disabled people. Anyway, there were plenty of people on his side and plenty of people against him. They weren't against him because they didn't like disabled people. They were against him because they don't think anybody should be be allowed to ride in a cart because they think walking is part of the game. If this was partisan politics, these people would probably be accused of being anti-disabled people. In the case of Casey Martin, I never heard that accusation.

To quote from the Right's patron saint, "There you go again," with the "probably"s. Probably ain't fact. Back it up with proof or you're just making stuff up.

It's too bad that politics aren't the same way. If a person thinks we need to secure our borders, that certainly doesn't mean that the person doesn't like Latino people. But the person will be accused of this all day by some on the left. In many cases, I don't think it's just an accusation thrown out there for effect. I think they really believe it.

And there you go again with "think." Back it up with proof.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Once again, you try to shift the onus on me of proving your own claim. Nope. It's your responsibility to find these "progressive" sites and specific articles bashing Christians for being Christian (bashing a Christian for shouting Bible verses at a captive audience or assassinating a doctor as he leaves his church don't count, as those are clearly criticisms of actions, not faith). Go ahead, I'll wait. I suggest you read the whole article though, not just the headline.



No. Because I'm not prejudiced against Muslims, and don't hold an entire faith responsible for what a small minority of its members do. You know, like how a small minority of Christians terrorize women outside abortion clinics and paint swastikas on synagogues (when they aren't setting fire to them), and blow up government buildings, including day care centers filled with little kids. I don't hold all Christians responsible and suspect to suspicion because the Christian Identity movement exists.




"Much." Not all. Right.

Show me where I said the man had "hate in his heart," please.



To quote from the Right's patron saint, "There you go again," with the "probably"s. Probably ain't fact. Back it up with proof or you're just making stuff up.



And there you go again with "think." Back it up with proof.

I can't believe you are asking me to provide liberal articles that claim christians and/or conservatives are racist. That would be like me asking you to provide proof that conservatives don't like Obama. Here are a couple of article that claims many christians and/ or conservatives are racist. There are thousands of these types of articles out there.

http://www.salon.com/2013/12/24/evan...stian_racists/

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/0...ves-and-Racism

Your comments comparing Christians to Muslims when it comes to terrorism are absurd. Comments like that are the reason that "political correctness" is so ridiculous. For the PC person such as yourself, we should throw out all rational thinking and all reason. Terrorism is a big problem in the world right now and one group is responsible for practically all of it. That is a fact. In addition, a large percentage of that particular religion supports it. The name Osama was one of the most popular baby names in Muslim countries after 9/11.

Our government spends a huge amount of resources all over the world fighting terrorism. What group do you think their focus is on? Since our government's anti-terrorism focus around the world is on Muslims, does that mean our government is prejudice?

With regards to the Duck Dynasty guy, you said you thought he was racist and homophobic. Racism means different things to different people. Depending what your definition is, I guess a person could be a racist without disliking the group he is accused of being racist against. I assumed you meant that he has a strong dislike of blacks and gays, but I wasn't sure. That was why I said, "If" you think he has hate in his heart, I disagree with you. I wasn't sure what your definition was.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I can't believe you are asking me to provide liberal articles that claim christians and/or conservatives are racist. That would be like me asking you to provide proof that conservatives don't like Obama. Here are a couple of article that claims many christians and/ or conservatives are racist. There are thousands of these types of articles out there.

http://www.salon.com/2013/12/24/evan...stian_racists/

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/0...ves-and-Racism

But neither of those articles are criticizing Christianity (the first one was written by an Evangelist, for chrissakes); they're criticizing racism. Are you saying you think racism is a good thing, then? (Reminder: your whole thing was that "progressive sites" were chock full of writers denigrating Christians and Christianity)

Your comments comparing Christians to Muslims when it comes to terrorism are absurd. Comments like that are the reason that "political correctness" is so ridiculous. For the PC person such as yourself, we should throw out all rational thinking and all reason. Terrorism is a big problem in the world right now and one group is responsible for practically all of it. That is a fact. In addition, a large percentage of that particular religion supports it. The name Osama was one of the most popular baby names in Muslim countries after 9/11.

No. Global climate change is a big problem in the world right now. Limited resources is a big problem. Overpopulation is a big problem. Terrorism, by comparison, is a small problem. You're more likely in this country to be killed by a football than killed in a terrorist attack.

Our government spends a huge amount of resources all over the world fighting terrorism. What group do you think their focus is on? Since our government's anti-terrorism focus around the world is on Muslims, does that mean our government is prejudice?

Our anti-terrorism spending is a huge boondoggle giveaway to people with government connections. http://waronirrationalfear.com/facts

With regards to the Duck Dynasty guy, you said you thought he was racist and homophobic. Racism means different things to different people. Depending what your definition is, I guess a person could be a racist without disliking the group he is accused of being racist against. I assumed you meant that he has a strong dislike of blacks and gays, but I wasn't sure. That was why I said, "If" you think he has hate in his heart, I disagree with you. I wasn't sure what your definition was.

He compared homosexuality to bestiality. How do you interpret that, Rupe? He thinks blacks were happier during Jim Crow. How do you interpret that?