WE Blog

Dobson fits in well with the other McCain preachers Hagee and Parsley.

Welcome to the Wichita Eagle Obama Campaign Headquarters.

Pleef,
“What am I, he’s probably shared a cup of coffee with The Almighty himself…”

Shared linearly, not in parallel.

Isnt Dobson the fruitcake? speaking of fruitcake interpretations of the Constitution, isn’t he the one who wants to use the power of the government to force people to watch and listen to programs that his group finds acceptable.

Glad all of you ‘tolerant thinkers’ with the open minds are here to keep the rest of us in line.

(chortles)

“Ksagnostic says Dobson is nasty and exactly the sort of individual that people voted against in 2006. Agnos I have actually visited focus on the family and met the good pastor. He seemed real nice to me. Just shows you how some people can be taken in.”

Of course, what has been obvious to anyone who has read through this blog is that you are in substantial agreement with Dobson’s positions most of the time. Certainly, your visiting Focus on the Family and seeing Dobson are both consistent and predictive of your own outlook. Which is fine, just don’t expect to not encounter opposition.

As for me, I stand by what I said. My conclusions about Dobson do not come from what liberal or “mainstream” media writes about him, it comes from his own words and actions. Dobson has consistently expressed very little tolerance for those he disagrees with, and this is not only with regards to “liberals” or “secularists”, this is also with regards to orthodox evangelical christians who do not appear to share his obsessions. His own mouth and poison pen reveal volumes about him. The fact is, a number of “evangelicals” are now pursuing and expressing broader interests politically than authoritarians like Dobson, and he has been whining and bitching about it the whole way.

disgustedbob I fear you might draw the wrath of the ‘open minded’ thinkers on this blog. Afterall you do appear not to believe that Obama is a saint and the only hope for our great nation.

Ksagnos and Tom just because I know you are open minded unlike some others on this blog I have a question.

We are always quick to say someone who disagrees with us is narrowminded and opinionated. I do the same ocassionally. But I’m going to throw something out there that might just rattle your cages.

Why do we have to be understanding and tolerant of others if what they do is against our deepest convictions? Do you do that? Are you tolerant of Dr Dobson even though he is against most of what you are for? Should he express only those opinions that are acceptable to ‘open minded thinkers’?

Why does the left feel they can set all of the rules? Why doesn’t each person have the right to have and express their own opinions without censure from more ‘open minded thinkers’?

Just something to think about.

ksagnos one point you made I do disagree with. Many evangelicals have been straddling the fence either saying they will vote for Obama or not vote at all. McCain is not a popular choice for many.

What this and some other Obama outbursts over the last few days are drawing that clear line for many to see. If indeed you feel this is a Christian nation and you do place value on family then you are looking at McCain and thinking – not my first choice but so much better that what Obama is saying.

Just my personal opinion on the question of where evangelicals will go.

“Politics is not about saving souls,
Politics is about gettign souls (Who Agree with you) to the polls!”

Having said that, Dobson, at times, seems to forget that politics is ALWAYS a choice between the lessor of evils.

“We have all fallen short of the Glory of God” — and, therefore, it is a HUGE mistake to turn elections into a contest of “picking the best Christian” —

Conservative Christians should, instead, decide which legislative policy choices best reflect their beliefs.

Conservative Christians should then try to elect people to office that will support those policy preferences.

Conservative Christians should realize that it is a very, very rare occurance to find any politician that agrees, 100%, with anyone.

Conservative Christians should also realize that Saints do NOT run for elective office. Ever!

Having said all of that, OBAMA has repeatedly brought up faith and religion, in Obama’s own campaign.

Obama opened this door.

Obama has NO real experience.

Voters deserve to know how Obama thinks, and how his mind works.

Obama HAS corrupted scripture.

Therefore, Obama will, most likely, corrupt the Constitution, and ignore laws of economics, and have a poor understanding of human nature, related to economics, crime and national security, as well.

Again, OBAMA brings up faith all the time. Obama deliberately brought up his religion, to appeal to voters and to combat the idea that he might have had some Moslem training, in his youth.

Obama’s understanding of Christianity is flawed.

You need look no further than Obama’s friendship with his former Pastor, Jeremiah Wright, to see that Obama’s values are warped.

I might trust Obama with my kids.

I might trust Obama to represent me, in court.

I do not trust Obama to lead the country.

Obama is not well grounded in faith.

Obama is not very gifted, were simple logic is concerned.

Obama is a Chicago political hack.

Nothing more.

Ksjeff it is good that you voiced your opinion. We all have that right under our great constitution. This country we live in is great. We can agree, disagree or just not even form an opinion and we are ok.

I have seen Obama go from a very articulate charismatic candidate to a whining person with no talents or attributes which would serve him well as president. That is my opinion but I am hearing it more and more as I talk to others.

This really isn’t about Dobson. He simply voiced his opinion. It is about Obama who is developing more and more cracks in his veneer. He is the candidate afterall.

Any voter that listens to Dobson had already made up their mind and his words may give them validation of their opinions and decisions on voting but I don’t see him changing anything.

You either do or do not respect him and his opinions.

Changes nothing.

GW got an MBA from Harvard.

gster
Posted June 24, 2008 at 2:50 pm | Permalink

“Obama is not very gifted, were simple logic is concerned.’ If this is true, did he use a gun to graduate from Harvard Law School?
————————————–
Ivy league schools like Harvard are institutionally sound, but no longer carry the academic prestige like they did in the past.

A Harvard or Yale degree doesn’t mean as much to employers or on a resume in today’s world, unless you are out of the loop with reality.

People look for innovators and those who have proven track records.

The only track record Obama has is his avoidance in building one.

That, in my opinion, is quite telling.

He’s a lot of sparkle, but like the firework equivalent the sparkler – bright, pretty and fancy, but not very useful.

“If Dobson can get his followers to VOTE, rather than stay home, that is a huge advantage to McCain.”

Oh?

“John McCain – whom Dobson condemned and vowed not to vote for.”

Maybe they will vote for Barr.

Maybe they will vote for Barr.

Hope they do.

gster, you make my day so many days! thanks for being around.

lindainks = parroted Lib talking points = not gifted

Don’t think she can speak for herself, ben?
You manpig.

I wouldn’t vote for ANYONE that had the endorsement of James Dobson.

And I don’t think that I am the only one that feels that way.

To simplify

fleettwood = driveby snark/no substance

To go back to where the Harvard nonsense started, let’s keep in mind where the discussion started. It started when Franklin, whose posts consist of paragraphs of single sentence talking points saying Obama wasn’t logical. It was an empty assertion, and it would be very difficult indeed for anyone who was logically impaired to make it through Harvard Law School, much less become editor of their Law Review, and that is a fact.

linda – like I said – Harvard is pretty good … but still not qiote in OUR league! ;)

I doubt any Libertarian would get Dobson or his organization’s vote, maybe the Constitution party

Here is a good link on this topic:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080624/D91G8E200.html

That Big shot preacher that liked the male masseuses, has returned to lead a different flock. Forget his name.

“WS
You would, obviously, vote for someone who had the endorsement of Louis Farrakhan!
The radical, hateful, jew hating, Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan has endorsed Obama.”

I find it hilarious that someone who would claim that a person is illogical would post such pathetically bad logic himself.

Being endorsed by Louis Farrakhan does not equal agreement with Farrakhan’s viewpoints. This is elementary logic.

The argument that if Farrakhan endorses someone, they must be bad is specious. That’s like saying that voting for a Democrat is bad because Fred Phelps is a registered Democrat, or that voting for a Republican is bad because David Duke is a registered Republican. Would an endorsement by David Duke automatically make John McCain a bad candidate?

Dobson’s support for McCain wouldn’t bother me, and neither would Farrakhan’s support for Obama.

The only time I would be bothered by strong religious wack-o support would be if I thought the candidate was subject to arm-twisting by said wack-o. I don’t see that in either of these men, frankly.

Especially McCain.

In fact, my guess is that when all the fires are put out for the day and McCain and Charlie Black settle down and knock back a few, nobody is the butt of more jokes than James Dobson. And that includes I’m a Dinner Jacket of Iran. McCain is so obviously pandering over and patently cynical about religious fundamentalism that he’d pick the first 2 wack-o’s he finds and solicit their report if he thought he could benefit politically.

And he did: Hagee and the other wack-o. :D

In my opinion both candidates have a healthy disrespect for religious fundamentalism and its leaders. All is good, I am not worried.

Being endorsed by Louis Farrakhan does not equal agreement with Farrakhan’s viewpoints. This is elementary logic.

Then it would be fair to say, being endorsed by Dobson does not equal agreement with Dobson’s viewpoints.

That would apply to McCain or Obama.

Here is a good take on Obama, currently:

http://www.newsmax.com/morris/barack_obama/2008/06/24/107141.html

Hey Cuzzin Maggot,

Barbecued any fetuses today?

“I also tried to illustrate how crazy WS is, by saying he, WS, would not vote for ANYONE who had the endorsement of Dobson.”

Phuck you, Rossell.

“You would, obviously, vote for someone who had the endorsement of Louis Farrakhan!”

You are an idiot, Rossell or do you prefer Paul the Con.

The difference between Farrakhan and his influence and Dobson and his influence is immense.

Virtually no one pay attention to Farrakhan, since there are so few Nation of Islam devotees, yet there are still millions of evangelical Christian that bow at the knee of Dobson.

Therein lies the difference.

Oops wrong thread.

Maggotpunk
Posted June 24, 2008 at 4:57 pm | Permalink
Isn’t Dobson the guy who advocates child beating?
*****

Yes he is. I have a neighbor who is a psychologist who advocates not hitting children. This neighbor was on the the Phil Donahue show twice and each time, they put Dobson opposite him due to Dobson’s pro-hitting children position.

And what makes Dobson an expert in Constitutional law? He’s nothing but a fundamentalist who believes that anyone who doesn’t think the same way he does is going to hell.

“He’s nothing but a fundamentalist who believes that anyone who doesn’t think the same way he does is going to hell.”

Jesus said that, not Dobson.

“He’s nothing but a fundamentalist who believes that anyone who doesn’t think the same way he does is going to hell.”

Well, Fleet, quote chapter and verse for us……….

Why don’t we call guys like Dobson, Mullahs? Seems they are doing the same thing as their Islamic counterparts.

John 3:16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[a] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

The main problem I have with the religious right is they call themselves Christians, and indeed are, but the interpretation they have of the bible varies from religion to religion. For example: are snake handlers Christians? How about seventh day Adventists? Shakers? Fundies? Where does one religion stop, and another start?

If the bible is Gods word, and I believe it is, and that word is sacrosanct, how can there be so many religions, and all calling themselves Christian?

“I think he’s deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology,” Dobson said.

“… He is dragging biblical understanding through the gutter.”

So it is okay to change the bible, when it suits some obtuse purpose, such as denouncing a political candidate? In other words, “Dobson and Minnery accused Obama of wrongly equating Old Testament texts and dietary codes that no longer apply to Jesus’ teachings in the New Testament.”

So the old testament doesn’t apply to today’s teachings or standards? Says Dobson? Does that not imply, then, that the book of Genesis might just be “outdated?” It truly makes one wonder just what Dobson is really trying to say, if indeed he even knows what he’s trying to say.

My guess is it has absolutely nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with politics. Which makes, in my opinion, Dobson a true hypocrite. Which is the reason our forefathers wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights with the purpose of keeping religion out of politics and visa-versa.

But politics, being what it is, and the media, will never let that happen: it sells too many newspapers, and breaks down too many who really could lead this country in the right direction, that being, Of the People, By the People, and For the People. And not of the religious, by the religious, and for the religious.

Religion has its place, but not on the bully pulpit of politics.

Obama was dead on with his comment.

And to all of you slamming each other over who is and isn’t a Christian: Please don’t have any children:-)

Who died and made James O’Dobson the Pope?

Dobson’s a Bible-thumper, not a credible theologian.

The Pope is a theologian.

Oye, all Catholics: Pope Benedict XVI and Pope John Paul before him have stated that Bush’s Misbegotten War utterly fails the criteria for a just war. Ergo, Bush’s War is immoral and unjust.

What’s O’Dobson’s infallible take on the War?

I’d like to see him defend it? Maybe O’Hannity, O’Reilly, O’Limbaugh or O’Rove will invite him to exound on their shows.

Oye, Catholics: The good Irish Catholics O’Reilly and O’Hannity need to listen to their Pope.

My favorite Dobsonism was his advice to fathers afraid their sons might be homosexual.

Teach them to throw a ball.
Roughhouse with them in ways you wouldn’t do with a girl.
Encourage your son to shower with grown-up men!

Yeah, that’ll work.

Dobson is the perfect example of an archconservative Comstock disciple posing as a preacher. As one Wichita conservative Christian recently noted (with regret), “when you mix religion and politics, you end up with politics.”

And by the way, that’s true no matter what the political agenda is.

Fleetie,
“By my reading, Jews go to Hell, Budhists do and right on down the line.”

Gee, one of the 21%er koolade drinker christian minority. How does it feel when the vast majority of your fellow christians leave you out in the cold?

Exterminate! Exterminate!

“1) Just where has Obama supposedly corrupted Scripture??”

In the vivid imagination of Dobson.

Because he preaches. I don’t care if he’s ordained or not, he’s a preacher.

Oh, and BTW, Marcion was condemned as a heretic… :-)

Chas; I try not to not make things more difficult or complicated than I have to. You act as though I am sayhg someting that is not scriptural. What does Paul have to say about the subject?

Romans 7

1Do you not know, brothers–for I am speaking to men who know the law–that the law has authority over a man only as long as he lives? 2For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage. 3So then, if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress, even though she marries another man.
4So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God. 5For when we were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. 6 But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code. 7What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “Do not covet.”[2] 8 But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead. 9Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. 11For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. 12So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good. 13 Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful. 14

Outlander, why do you call yourself a Christian when you already admitted you follow Paul? How many gods do you have?

Not biting on your inflammatory nonsense Maggie.

Don’t you have an abortionist to root on or something?

I would like to note that the libs, on this thread, have contradicted themselves a few times.

Some claim that Dobson is not important, that Dobson is completely irrelevent, that nobody should listen to Dobson, or that nobody does listen to Dobson.

And then, WS claims that the difference between Dobson and Farrakhan is that “millions” listen to Dobson and that noboby listens to Farrakhan?

Hey, check up thread, I already stated that I do not always agree with Dobson.

That is not the point.

The point is that you libs need to get together on your talking points.

(By the way, there are also quite a few Nation of Islam members in this country, WS. Also, the Nazi’s started with small numbers which grew. Farrakhan is evil and Obama did not have the guts to call his State Senate constituent evil. Obama only recently denounced Farrakhan, because Obama had to denounce Farrakhan. Obama lacks courage. The Nation of Islam is a hateful cult, and Obama did not have the courage to distance himself from Farrakhan. In fact, Farrakhan is a friend of Jeremiah Wright, and Farrakhan was honored by Obama’s chruch!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_of_Islam

Now, I would also point out that you liberals need to get your talking points straight on the whole “religion” issue.

How is it that Obama can make all kinds of “religious left” comments, and Obama never gets the “seperation of church and state” objections, from you Atheists?

Obama talks about faith all the time.

I think Obama’s faith is screwed up, conflicted and twisted.

If Obama wishes to make faith an issue, and he does, then we are required, as voters and as Christians, to examine what it is that Obama believes.

As stated previously, Obama does not have a resume or a track record.

All we can do is study his words.

And, Obama’s words are squishy, empty and completely wrong, when they make any sense at all.

For starters, Obama openly claimed that he could create “God’s Kingdom on Earth” —

What do you think of that, radical Atheists?

‘Glad all of you ‘tolerant thinkers’ with the open minds are here to keep the rest of us in line.

Thanks so much Phillip Brownlee for pointing this out for us.”
——————————

How refreshing to see how tolerant of people that don’t share their views the left has demonstrated itself to be.

Please tell me why the right can’t have an opinion that doesn’t agree with the left. Tell me why the men who espouse Christian values are demonized by the left?

It’s simple really. Don’t listen to them. Don’t read their books. Don’t attend their churches.

And no bth I didn’t give him any money and he never asked. I toured his facilities because it was an interesting place. A movie set where childrens movies are made with an old fashioned soda shop. A replica of a Wrights Bro. plane that kids could climb in and out of. A good place to take a family.

And Maggot
You, of course, do realize that the various books of the Bible were written by different people.
When someone refers to “Paul” of the Bible, they are speaking of a Biblical author whose work is recognized by ALL Christian denominations as divinely inspired.

Franklin,

This will be difficult for you to understand but I’ll give it a try.

We don’t share ONE brain. We each have a functioning brain and we think for ourselves. We differ. We are individuals.
—————-

Lindainks if you read back through the leftist posts on this thread you won’t find an iota of difference in what is said with the exception of the things Franklin noted.

As a group you appear to be judgemental, opinionated, condesending, and I could go on but won’t.

I really don’t care what Dobson said. It doesn’t affect my voting at all. I do resent Obama constantly throwing out religion and then saying it is off limits, playing the race card and then saying it is off limits, having his wife give speeches and then saying she is off limits.

He is deluded about the ways of politicians if he truely thinks he will be able to control the process in this way. The election process has started and he can accept it or not.

Ksgrm…how many nics do you have?

OK, Franklin. You’re right. In saying liberals are diverse, and each have the ability to think and reason, someone might think I was saying others don’t. But, in truth, I never said that! Someone might have identified with words unspoken.

However, I did say it would be difficult for you to understand the difficult concept. So that was an attack on your ability to understand. You are right. I am not sorry.

“I don’t do attacks on fellow posters.”

Heh heh HEH!

I DO!

As soon as I get caught up here I’m sure I can smack paulie around good and proper.

Better get on your bicycle paulie!

Linda
I do not expect you to be sorry.
You are a proud liberal, immune to the truth.
lol
However, you, at least admit, now, that you are throwing punches like the rest of us.

And yes, you are immune to the facts.

You basically stated that I was probably too stupid to understand what you were saying.

You then claimed that you never attacked me.

I proved you wrong on both points.

And I never asked for an apology.

BJ
You make many Democrats ashamed to be Democrats.

You recruit more Republicans, every day, than anything I could possibly do.

You repulse most people, Democrats and Republicans alike.

Have at it, dig your hole.

However, I will move on, since you always ruin every thread with your hate and your lies.

Chas
The Publication, the “trumpet” was published on Church property.
The only employees of the Trumpet were: Pastor Wright’s family members!
Pastor Wright had editorial control over the publication.

You are not even a good liar, Chas.

A little shakin’ they’re runnin’.

“Encourage your son to shower with grown-up men!”

Yikes did Dobson say that!

I think paulie told us once he would be proud to share a public restroom with some con or other.

“I’ll gladly stand with you and pee.”

Something like that…

I reserve words like stupid (and worse) for bushco! There are sooo many public figures to attack, I see little sense in wasting effort on fellow posters opinions. When you read things I haven’t said I am NOT responsible! Reading words into words I post is your right, just don’t attribute them to me. I wouldn’t say you, Franklin, are immune to truth. I know I’m not. Didn’t I say AGAIN we each have an opinion as good and as useless as the next??

“For starters, Obama openly claimed that he could create “God’s Kingdom on Earth” —”

FALSE STATEMENT >>>

Obama never came close to saying that!!

What’s worse, Franklin, you KNOW he didnt say that… You are, as usual, twisting what was said, and making it into what you WANT it to say!!

So, I call you on it… Post where Obama said he could create God’s Kingdom on Earth…

I KNOW you cant post it, because he didnt say that… :roll:

Political_mama
Posted June 24, 2008 at 8:03 pm | Permalink
Because he preaches. I don’t care if he’s ordained or not, he’s a preacher.
======================================

PMama…. Dobson’s degree is in Psychology… not theology… He makes religious pronouncements…. without theological training, or background… That’s where he gets all screwed up most of the time… He doesnt “preach” in the Pastoral sense of the word… He has no “congregation” where he serves as Pastor or Preacher… I m not even sure if he is licensed in Psychology by the State of Colorado anymore… he might be… but I am not even sure of that….

How can I tell the difference between a liberal and a conservative?

Spend time with them, ask them what they think, what their hopes and dreams and aspirations are, where they hope their country is headed and what might be a successful path to get there. Ask what they think of their fellow man and what they think their place in the community and among mankind is. Then, if you choose, attempt to put those people into a slot or label them with a word. If you put enough time into the project I think you’ll be hard pressed to label most people.

My post at 10:27 was in answer to, “How can I tell the difference between a liberal and a conservative?”

Franklin… Can you post any link from anywhere that shows where Obama says he wants to meet with Dobson?? I say thats a bunch of bogus crap… no doubt some Talk Radio talking points…

I cannot believe Obama would say publicly that he wants to meet with Dobson… I cant belive he would say it privately either!!

I’m of the same “progressive” type Christian endeavor as Obama, and I wouldnt walk across the street to meet with Dobson…

So, the challenge is in your court, Franklin… Put up, or shut up!!

“How can I tell the difference between a liberal and a conservative?”

That’s a very good question.

The lines do get a bit blurred.

Liberals are about “we”.

Conservatives are about “me!”

Let’s take Mr. Dobson and some of those who listen to him as an example. Mr. Dobson calls himself a conservative.

Now I used to BE one. So I know what they are supposed to be about.

Except? They aren’t.

Is it conservative to discriminate against people you disagree with using the force of government to do so?

Clearly not. But cons do it all the time.

Is it conservative to demand government legislate as to the very private decision of a woman to carry a pregnancy to term?

Again, no.

Blue,
I always liked Jerry Rubin’s definition;
“Conservatives are the ones who say “They are in trouble.”
Liberals will say “You are in trouble.”
Radicals are those who say “We are in trouble.”"

“This venue stopped being fun some time ago. StevenDavis launched a very personal attack the last day I posted as ksgrm and he still tells us he is as pure as the driven snow.”

Please, germ. Lying is not something you do very well – contact your friends Regular and the Price family to get better at that.

Please post here where I launched this personal attack. Can’t do it? Why am I surprised… Liar.

I am not “pure as the driven snow” – neither are you, nic-switcher and liar!!!

The multi-nic KansasNative posts:

#
KansasNative
Posted June 24, 2008 at 10:12 pm | Permalink

ksgrm is still ksgrm….a nutcase.
——————
So which nic switching Lib are you. You obviously know all the old posters and what has been said about them.

Can we call you the multi-nic KansasNative and use that term to discredit you like cosmos does?

nm, don’t need your permission, now do I? :)

Hey, bitch — Dont you ever give up? There are some on this Blog who say they have met this Chas you keep ranting about. Let’s see what they might tell you:

My name is Southar W. Park. I am not quite 63 years old. I have spent the better part of my life in or near Wichita. I am 6′ 4″ tall. I weigh somewhere near 220 lbs. My hair is totally gray. I wear silver metallic glasses. I drive a 2007 Lexus. It’s black with a leather interior.

My mother was Japanese. My father was of British descent. They met in WW II. They are both deceased.

Now, Granny bitch, why dont you ask some of those on this Blog who have said they know who Chas is, if I match his description.

Furthermore, I have seen Chas post that he drives a very small car, that makes very good gas mileage. I would think those who have met Chas could tell you what kind of car he drives. Why dont you ask them, okobserver.

But, you wont. I know you wont. Your stupid pride wont let you admit that you just might be wrong about something. Well, let me tell you this — I have had a talk with the editors. I have complained about this lunatic fetish some of you have on this Blog for trying to, as you put it, “out” somebody.

Well, in an effort to put a stop to this madness, now that we know who okobserver really is, and that she is a fake imposter, maybe this nonsense will now cease.

But I doubt it. It wouldnt matter to you, okobserver, if 20 people posted here that you are wrong, you will keep on calling them all liars. Because thats what you do best. You call people liars. You post hate filled feces about those you disagree with.

And then, you turn it all around, to make yourself look like an angel. Well, you are anything but an angel. Just a worthless griping bitch. One like I divorced years ago. And good riddance as well.

Maybe, okobserver, you should divorce this Blog, if you hate all of these poor liberals so much. I am sure not many would be sorry to see you go.

I am Southar W. Park. Good day to you. I hope to never see your crappy nic on this Blog again. But hope is only for dumb politicians who believe in fairy tales, so I wont count on it happening.

SquarePeg
Posted June 25, 2008 at 4:41 am | Permalink

Hey, bitch — Dont you ever give up? There are some on this Blog who say they have met this Chas you keep ranting about. Let’s see what they might tell you:

My name is Southar W. Park. I am not quite 63 years old. I have spent the better part of my life in or near Wichita. I am 6? 4? tall. I weigh somewhere near 220 lbs. My hair is totally gray. I wear silver metallic glasses. I drive a 2007 Lexus. It’s black with a leather interior.
=====================================
And no doubt a fecal eating Liberal.

Still abandoning your wife Chas/Das/Sugar/SquarePeg?

Or did she tell you to just get the hell out? :)

Chas/Das/Sugar/SquarePeg having a conniption?

Awwww

Have you hugged your con today Mary?

“We are always quick to say someone who disagrees with us is narrowminded and opinionated. I do the same ocassionally. But I’m going to throw something out there that might just rattle your cages.”

It didn’t. Rattle my cage that is.

“Why do we have to be understanding and tolerant of others if what they do is against our deepest convictions?”

Who is saying you can’t speak out? I am not. In fact, that is what I have been doing here. The things that Dobson says ARE against my deepest convictions.

“Do you do that? Are you tolerant of Dr Dobson even though he is against most of what you are for? Should he express only those opinions that are acceptable to ‘open minded thinkers’?”

Question begging. Dobson has freely expressed his opinions on human behavior and right political thinking, and has not hesitated to condemn what he opposes. Since I am among those who he so freely condemns, I will speak out as well. I always find it amusing when someone is taken to task for being intolerant, he accuses his critics of being intolerant of him.

“Why does the left feel they can set all of the rules?”

This moves beyond question begging to poisoning the well. I susggest taking a step outside your viewpoint for just a minute and trying to look at things from the outside. Some of the very objections of the “left” to the behavior of the self described Christian Right is the behavior of trying to set the rules for everyone else. We decide who gets married. We decide what should be in your school libraries. We decide whose prayer gets said over the intercom at school and at the high school football game.

“Why doesn’t each person have the right to have and express their own opinions without censure from more ‘open minded thinkers’?”

If you express an opinion on controversial subjects, expect to be “censured” by those who disagree with you. Censure, however, is a loaded word. When a self described Christian Right activist says something that I find objectionable on this blog, I might say that I find it objectionable and why. I fully expect to be told in turn why my viewpoint is found to be objectionable by the person I replied to. But that is not censure. It’s the logical consequence of expressing opinions.

“Also, the idea that Dobson’s endorsement is the ‘kiss of death’ kind of begs the question: ‘Why is Obama seeking a meeting with Dobson, then????’”

“To answer my own question:

“Obama is a manipulator, a con artist and a corrupt politician.

“Obama knows that, by simply meeting with Dobson, Obama will probably help his chances.

“Obama knows that, simply by asking for a meeting with Dobson, Obama will help his chances.

“Why?

“Because WS is lying.

“WS would STILL vote for Obama, even if Hell froze over and Dobson endorsed Obama.”

Talk about classic Harry Frankfurt bullsh*t, this takes the cake. Franklin “answers” his own questions by posting what he believes must be true. Once again, he demonstrates an utter lack of concern with reality and a willingness to talk in bullet point assertions.

1) The Farrakhan endorsement is still the kind of classic illogic which fills Franklin’s posts, but taking him at his word as to why he posted it with regards to WS Clark the fact remains, candidates have little control over who choses to endorse them, particularly when it comes to fanatics of one stripe or another. Farrakhan’s endorsement does not imply agreement with Farrakhan, and furthermore, there are multiple predictable reasons for WHY a Louis Farrakhan (who is indeed arguably a black racist and certainly an anti-semite) might endorse a Barack Obama. For one thing, Barack Obama is recognized as a black man. For that matter, a David Duke endorsement (should such come, and I suspect it might) should not be used against a McCain or against individuals who he HAS endorsed for president, because of the likely racial reason for doing so. In other words, an endorsement by a Farrakhan or Duke is not necessarily based on a candidate’s policy, but on his ethnic identity.

2) I would be leery of a candidate endorsed by James Dobson. A simplistic person would say this is inconsistent and unfair, but it is not. It is based on my knowledge of Dobson. Dobson has repeatedly made it clear that he has very clear expectations for political candidates on their adherance to what he sees as Christian principles along a broad spectrum of issues. Endorsement of a candidate by James Dobson tends to be a clear indication of a candidate’s percieved agreement with Dobson’s agenda. This is because of the expressed nature of James Dobson as opposed, say, to a Louis Farrakhan, to be very demanding on a broad set of issues. Dobson’s skepticism of McCain is illustrative of this very point. Dobson’s endorsement would likely be predicated on his perception of what the candidate is likely to do, more than who or what he is.

3) As a result, for me, a Dobson endorsement is a greater liability than a Farrakhan, or even a Duke, endorsement would be (even though I think endorsement based on issues rather than identity is more valid). Which is moot, I don’t see Dobson endorseing either candidate, unless he decides to be more pragmatic than he has acted so far.

4) I think there are several reasons why Obama might “reach out” to someone like Dobson. Some of those reasons I think would be misguided, but consistent with things Obama has said in the past. However, I wouldn’t put it past him to do this to engender precisely this sort of reaction from Dobson. Like I said before, a Dobson endorsement for Obama would be a liability with every group that he is likely to possibly get votes from. A Dobson attack, on the other hand, is actually a political asset with moderates and liberals and perhaps even some non-christian right conservatives.

Jed
Posted June 25, 2008 at 12:07 pm |

I don’t generally listen to them or read their books or attend their churches. If they were willing to leave them there, I’d be happy as a clam! Unfortunately they don’t seem to be able to respect those who believe differently than they do.
I have had dear friends called less than human abominations and tacit permission given by preachers to assault and/or kill them, or at the very least deny them their civil rights. Several were beaten to death by ever-so-righteous christian bigots. I have had good christian ex-convicts threaten to get out their shotguns and blow me away for “denying Jesus.”
____________________________________

Surely you jest man! Did this happen in the USofA? I know Christian missionaries who were killed in other countries because of their faith but this stuff you describe – where did it happen?

This is the kind of exaggeration the left likes to put out and some idiot will pick it up and use it as fact later.

I say again if you don’t want to hear them, change channels, don’t go to their churches, don’t read their books – it’s easy to avoid. As for them supporting a candidate of their choice. That is their privilege just as it is yours. Denying rights on either side is dangerous.

Jed my name isn’t now nor has it ever been granny. Thanks for not using it again.

I must have missed the news on the day this happened. Let me get this straight. You had gay friends murdered here in Wichita?

I really don’t remember that. Can you remind me of the date or something to jog my memory.

I know it is hard to believe but not all opposition to gay marriage is a slam against the gay/lesbian community. There are other valid reason that some see. These aren’t religious reasons, aren’t being floated by the religious right and really have a logical base behind them.

Granny,
No doubt you didn’t see it on the news. My friends weren’t identified as gay in the few aired reports, and very few were actually investigated and prosecuted I won’t go into specifics because I don’t out my friends.
In the early ’60’s, the police ignored gay bashing even when they witnessed it happening; sometimes they even participated in it. The gay bashers (and the cops) often went after black people when gays were scarce. It wasn’t until the late ’70’s that gay bashing began to be treated as a crime, and not until Matthew Shepard’s murder was it treated as a serious crime. Most of the bashers that were caught cited scripture as justification, said the guy “approached” them, and were let go. One group who killed a friend of mine actually had local ministers show up in court as character witnesses. The judge didn’t allow them to testify, but they were only convicted of second degree manslaughter and got probation.
Christian preachers are constantly quoting those passages and inventing a “gay agenda” and other flat-out lies and stereotypes that tacitly incite their audience to either go beat shit out of gay people or glorify those who do. Then when it happens, they issue weak and watery disclaimers to avoid legal blame, written by the church lawyer. When you have people like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell blaming gay people for Katrina, 9/11 etc., they aren’t ignorant of the ensuing violence they create. Yet there they are, still at it! Oh well, they’ll have to find someone safer for their flocks to fear/hate before long, to keep that old money rollin’ in!

C’mon Granny,
Give us a logical reason to not recognize gay marriage. I bet you can’t come up with a single one that stands up to logic!

Chas and Jed I have debated my reasons several times on the blog and if you missed it I guess you just need to debate with each other. Maybe Square Peg will help you out or call in Sugar and have a real round table.

Granny,
I’ve read most of your posts on the subject and have yet to find a logical reason for much of anything there. Please, enlighten us with your great logical reasons for denying gay people the rights you enjoy.

Jed
Posted June 26, 2008 at 7:33 pm | Permalink
Granny,
I’ve read most of your posts on the subject and have yet to find a logical reason for much of anything there. Please, enlighten us with your great logical reasons for denying gay people the rights you enjoy.
—————-
Jed when you post like this why would I respond to you. I would never condone the treatment Matthew Shepherd took. I have gay/lesbian friends and neighbors. I would never discriminate against them or allow it to happen in my presence.

I can disagree without being put down as bigote4d. We all have reason why we disagree but I am never always right or wrong and neither are you.

I admire KSfrmgrl because she is working within the system to right what she feels is a wrong. I do the same thing when I feel passionate about a csuse.

I will never argue logic with Chas because he has none and only know how to call others names and and eventually cuss them out because he can’t make his points.

Oh and ps.. the insurance companies and human resource hacks should love the idea.

Granny,
Ooh, the old slippery slope argument; if we let gay people marry, then everyone will want to marry their dogs, daughters, the whole choir etc. Well okay, why not? As long as the dog, daughter, choir etc. are all over 18 (in people years) and they freely consent…..??
Nobody is proposing forcing anyone to marry anyone they don’t want to (outside of christian cults anyway), so why is it anyone’s business who they marry?
Is that’s the only argument you can come up with? It seems a bit forced.