Kirk Cameron defends Todd Akin

[R.A.F.]

I was going to make an equally ridiculous post about how liberals like eating aborted fetus's..... Are all dirty smelly hippies commies... Lover terrorists and despise their own country...

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for civility.

So you though flat out lying was the best manner in which to reply?


Good on you for not doing that.

 

[Spindrift]

I find it ironic that a Democrat can claim that Democrats don't hate groups while making hateful statements about groups.

What Democrat made that claim?

Republicans don't believe it's the government's job to engage in certain charitable and protective acts that Democrats believe are necessary for minorities and women.

Why do Republicans hate minorities and women?

But hatred? No. Hating others has always been a Democrat speciality.

Really give me a few examples of 'others' that Democrats hate?

 

[AvalonXQ]

Why do Republicans hate minorities and women?

They don't.

Why do Democrats hate American success?

 

[A'isha]

They don't.

They certainly do. That's what the whole Southern Strategy and opposition to gay rights, abortion (concurrent with an even more vile minimization of rape), and even simple birth control are all about. Not to mention the comments some prominent Republicans have made about women in the workplace and women and voting.

Why do Democrats hate success?

As you can see from the rather large number of successful people who are Democrats (and the Democrats who are successful people), they don't.

 

[AvalonXQ]

They certainly do.

They certainly don't.

As you can see from the rather large number of successful people who are Democrats (and the Democrats who are successful people), they don't.

The entire Democrat strategy for this election cycle is about class warfare -- convincing mainstream America that others are more successful and need to be punished for it. It's been in Obama's rhetoric for a year, re-emphasized when he "reminded" people that it's not even their own doing if they have a successful business in this country.

That's not the only area where the Democrats hate American success. They hate it in war, in international politics, and essentially in any other American arena.

It's not surprising, since Democrats get elected by making people afraid of each other, and afraid of America's strengths.

 

[R.A.F.]

Republicans don't believe it's the government's job to engage in certain charitable and protective acts that Democrats believe are necessary for minorities and women.

Thanks for admitting the obvious...republicans are heartless bastards, who care for no one but themselves.

But hatred? No. Hating others has always been a Democrat speciality.

Yeah...keep telling yourself that...

 

[A'isha]

They certainly don't.

Denial is easy when you snip out and refuse to address facts.

It's been in Obama's rhetoric for a year, re-emphasized when he "reminded" people that it's not even their own doing if they have a successful business in this country.

Doesn't your holy book have some pretty explicit things to say about bearing false witness? And yet here you are, repeating falsehoods about Obama's speech. You know, the speech where he said "when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together"?

That's not the only area where the Democrats hate American success. They hate it in war, in international politics, and essentially in any other American arena.

Osama bin Laden disagrees with you.

Well, he would disagree with you, had he not been killed under the orders of the current Democratic president.

 

[RelativeSpace]

I actually think what he said was fine. He didn't say he supported Akin's beliefs.... other then being prolife.

[...]

Kirk has a lot of stupid beliefs... but what he said here was fine by me.

I agree, it sounded pretty reasonable.

But, I don't have the contempt for the "gotcha" style of politics either- it's just a matter of using every weapon at their disposal (on both sides) to influence public opinion.

All's fair in love and war. Except violations of treaties- and Democrats and Republicans have none.

Though there's something to be said for the prudence of, perhaps, forming one.

Democrats hate god, money and guns.

Haha!

Sorry, I'm pretty much apolitical, but that was a witty retort.

Republicans don't believe it's the government's job to engage in certain charitable and protective acts that Democrats believe are necessary for minorities and women.

That's ah... not quite accurate. You're over simplifying a little.

But hatred? No. Hating others has always been a Democrat speciality.

But this? This is right out. There's love and hate on both sides of the aisle.

Recognizing each other's humanity would be good advice for either party- and something you might want to consider too.

Try to understand the other side better before you judge.


Like I said, I'm rather apolitical- but this kind of judgement is a moral issue too. You're better than to stoop to that level.

*looks around* All of you are.

What politics does to otherwise decent people, unnecessarily, is one of the reasons I don't like politics. And it's almost all for matters of unevidenced dogma, from either perspective.

 

[aggle-rithm]

But you can't remember this well-known journalists name? Sounds like something Rush would make up.

I'm pretty sure the magazine I read it in (Time or Newsweek, IIRC) would have attributed it to Rush Limbaugh if he were the one who said it.

The right to free speech is about the government curtailing speech. There is nothing about the general public wanting a bloviating bag of hate speech to cease.

In the poll, they were not asked if they WANTED him to be quiet, they were asked if he should be ALLOWED to speak. This implies that some authoritative body would be the one to curtail his speech. Hard to imagine they had in mind anything other than the government.

Of course, this is all to the best of my recollection. It was something that stuck with me, though.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Thanks for admitting the obvious...republicans are heartless bastards, who care for no one but themselves.

Democrats are spineless idiots, who won't be happy until we all live and die at the behest of the State.

 

[AvalonXQ]

your holy book

From now on, I think anybody who makes a dig at me based on my religion in a thread where I haven't made a religious argument is just going to get reported, and I'll leave it at that.

Democrats hate Christians.

 

[AvalonXQ]

IThat's ah... not quite accurate. You're over simplifying a little.

No, I'm oversimplifying a lot.

But this? This is right out. There's love and hate on both sides of the aisle.

Recognizing each other's humanity would be good advice for either party- and something you might want to consider too.

Try to understand the other side better before you judge.

Agreed.

Like I said, I'm rather apolitical- but this kind of judgement is a moral issue too. You're better than to stoop to that level.

*looks around* All of you are.

What politics does to otherwise decent people, unnecessarily, is one of the reasons I don't like politics. And it's almost all for matters of unevidenced dogma, from either perspective.

Exactly right. I'm glad somebody came out and said it.

 

[Caper]

So you though flat out lying was the best manner in which to reply?


Good on you for not doing that.

No it's all true.

Republicans hate women... democrats love aborting babies.

Republicans hate minorities... democrats loath white males.

Republicans make money cause they are greedy capitalist pigs. Democrats are lazy hippie commies, who don't have the ability to make money so constantly think of ways to take republicans money.

... it's all true.

 

[A'isha]

From now on, I think anybody who makes a dig at me based on my religion in a thread where I haven't made a religious argument is just going to get reported, and I'll leave it at that.

Is that a defense for spreading falsehoods about Obama?

Democrats hate Christians.

Just like a lot of Democrats are successful people, so are a lot of Democrats Christians. Like, again, our president.

In fact, I quite clearly recall a lot more attacks on him regarding the Christian church he attended coming from Republicans than from fellow Democrats.

 

[Caper]

Just like a lot of Democrats are successful people, so are a lot of Democrats Christians. Like, again, our president.

No... Only smelly hippies and Muslim extremist sympathizers. Democrats don't wear deodorant and smell more like their wet mangy dogs. Republicans want to kill them all, with their righteous Christian hate.

Scary choice you guys have.

 

[Locknar]

Folks, especially R.A.F. and Caper, knock off the bickering; please keep your posts civil/polite, on topic and address the argument. Those that did not meet this criteria were moved to here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8572816#post8572816

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar

 

[RelativeSpace]

Caper, you're a riot!

Either this is a joke, or you really have a "problem" with reality.

He (or she?) is playing Poe. On both sides.

Are you allowed to say that to me on here?

I think it's fair, since you were saying something foolish on purpose to make a point about the absurdity of these exaggerations (or am I wrong?)

The first page was more mean spirited, but I think most of these comments are now being deliberately exaggerated into absurdity.

But some people are still taking it seriously.

From now on, I think anybody who makes a dig at me based on my religion in a thread where I haven't made a religious argument is just going to get reported, and I'll leave it at that.

To be fair, I didn't interpret it as a dig based on your religion, but an appeal to your sense of Christian morality?

It could have been done more tastefully though, I'm sure.

Exactly right. I'm glad somebody came out and said it.

Thanks.


Politically, I identify as a scientist.

Make a hypothesis, formulate a theory (something that provides testable predictions), then -and this is important- test it before asserting that it's socioeconomic fact.

Neither side does this. If they each think they're so right about their theories, they shouldn't have no fear being proven wrong by an actual experiment that would help confirm or deny it.

But I suppose they all think that's a waste of time and/or money because they're already certain they're right.

Good grief.

Political gridlock and these insane propaganda wars are what's a waste of time and money.

 

[TheRedWorm]

Caper, you're a riot!



He (or she?) is playing Poe. On both sides.



I think it's fair, since you were saying something foolish on purpose to make a point about the absurdity of these exaggerations (or am I wrong?)

The first page was more mean spirited, but I think most of these comments are now being deliberately exaggerated into absurdity.

But some people are still taking it seriously.




To be fair, I didn't interpret it as a dig based on your religion, but an appeal to your sense of Christian morality?

It could have been done more tastefully though, I'm sure.





Thanks.


Politically, I identify as a scientist.

Make a hypothesis, formulate a theory (something that provides testable predictions), then -and this is important- test it before asserting that it's socioeconomic fact.

Neither side does this. If they each think they're so right about their theories, they shouldn't have no fear being proven wrong by an actual experiment that would help confirm or deny it.

But I suppose they all think that's a waste of time and/or money because they're already certain they're right.

Good grief.

Political gridlock and these insane propaganda wars are what's a waste of time and money.

Once, just once, I'd like a politician to respond to a question of "How can we fix (insert problem)," with "I don't know. We should try a few things out and see which works the best." If it works for evolution, it will likely work for whatever problem you are tackling.

 

[Ladewig]

I'm pretty sure the magazine I read it in (Time or Newsweek, IIRC) would have attributed it to Rush Limbaugh if he were the one who said it.



In the poll, they were not asked if they WANTED him to be quiet, they were asked if he should be ALLOWED to speak. This implies that some authoritative body would be the one to curtail his speech. Hard to imagine they had in mind anything other than the government.

Of course, this is all to the best of my recollection. It was something that stuck with me, though.

I withdraw my assertion of BS, but I still want to see a source and see the exact wording of the question.

I backed off the BS label because I recently rediscovered the TIME/ABT SRBI poll in August of 2010 that indicated that 28% of registered voters thought that "Muslims should not be allowed to serve on the Supreme Court." Thirty-two percent said that Muslims should not be allowed to serve as president."

That 28% was not broken down by political party. So there is no telling if it was more Democrats or Republicans.

If a third don't want a Muslim to be able to run for president then the number of Americans who have no fBomb-ing idea what the Constitution is is much larger than I expected. Therefore, the 40% number in your poll may not be as outlandish as I first thought. But in the end, I still want to see the poll.

 

[RelativeSpace]

Once, just once, I'd like a politician to respond to a question of "How can we fix (insert problem)," with "I don't know. We should try a few things out and see which works the best." If it works for evolution, it will likely work for whatever problem you are tackling.

Yes, but unfortunately, the voting masses of the base are largely true believers in whatever random political ideology, so anybody who expresses honest uncertainty will likely just be seen as weak.

People want certain leaders who know what's right, who know what to do, and will lead them forwards to a promise of a glorious future.

At least, that seems to be the case. But maybe it would appeal to the swing voters and moderates as a new base of sanity?