Idiotic Republicans still getting air time!

1. 85

   lovemychrisposted 14 years ago

   Dumb-a$$ Newty-Boy, who said "oral sex is not adultery", now says that judges are not being "American" by taking God out of schools.....
   
   Isn't he a "professor" or something? Like Beck?
   He is teaching false history.
   
   The Separation of Church and State is what makes America great.
   
   Another Idiot Republican in your face......daily.
   
   Get a job Newt.....on the space station preferably!
   
   *****
   Brought to you by Liberals sick of Dumb-A$$es.
   In response to Right-Wing Astro-Turfers who post daily with intent of malice.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      BillyDRitchieposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Perhaps you can show us where in the Constitution you find the words "separation of church and state".
      
      Then again.....

      replyreport
      1. 75

         stclairjackposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         agreed

         replyreport
      2. 62

         bgamallposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         First Amendment. If the state establishes no religion it cannot practice religion.
         
         Besides, Christ said his kingdom was not of this world, or his servants would fight.
         
         State religion is a religion from hell. Do you believe in hell Billy? If you believe in state religion you will make that place your home.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            kateperezposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Quote from the Constitution:
            
            "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
            
            Congress is not allowed to establish a religion, and is not allowed to prohibit others from practicing a religion.  There is nothing in that statement that says that schools need to remove religion from their curriculum.
            
            This is a misconception by many well-meaning Americans, but the Constitution does not separate church and state, it says "state" cannot dictate a specific religion.
            
            (sigh).
            
            I'm curious why the insult to Republicans?  We're Americans, too.

            replyreport
   2. 60

      lady_love158posted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Lol! I love you LMC!! God is on our money in our pledge and has long been in our congress. For many years the capitol had mass on Sundays! Freedom of religion is indeed why people came to America... however freedom of religion is not the same as freedom FROM religion. Schools are supposed to reflect the values and beliefs of the communities in which they reside not the dictate of some central authority... I don't think we need to fear the mention of God in our schools certainly there is the freedom of speech which is guaranteed by the constitution and schools of all places would do well to observe and protect that right which I would argue is much more important to our democracy than the implied separation of church and state!

      replyreport
      1. 70

         Cagsilposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Delusion versus Rationality? I'll take rationality. Keep your religion away from those who don't require or need it.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Jim Hunterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Is lovemyyhris your definition of rational?

            replyreport
      2. 59

         John Holdenposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Unless of course you happen to be Muslim.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            lady_love158posted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Yeah...uh ... in Mohammad we don't trust! Lol! But seriously if a muslim community has a public school then they should serve the community.

            replyreport
            1. 59

               John Holdenposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               It had to happen one day!
               
               Agreed.

               replyreport
      3. 62

         bgamallposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Lady, do you believe in state religion? You know Christ hated state religion? He blasted the state religion, the Pharisees. He also forbade his servants from defending him, and said his kingdom was not of this world.
         
         State religion is no religion. If you believe in state religion you are doomed, Lady.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            lady_love158posted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Where did you get that idea? I'm definitely opposed to state religion which also means that I'm opposed to state atheism... the gov't can't tell me I can't pray in shook draw a pic of Christ on the cross or Mohhamad for that matter nor can it prevent me from saying God.

            replyreport
            1. 62

               bgamallposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               You aren't opposed to state religion. You just said this above:
               
               "I don't think we need to fear the mention of God in our schools certainly there is the freedom of speech which is guaranteed by the constitution and schools of all places would do well to observe and protect that right which I would argue is much more important to our democracy than the implied separation of church and state!"
               
               So Lady, as long as you have public schools, prayer is state religion if all the class must do it. It is wrong and it is opposed to the concept of divine election. Few are chosen.
               
               And besides, you are loose with the concept of separation of church and state and state religion by your very statement.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  lady_love158posted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  You're seeing things that aren't there! Muslims must pray 5 times a day in some colleges that get public money special accomodation has been made for them. Is that state sponsorship of religion? I think allowing a moment of silence to pray or not is not an endorsement of religion.

                  replyreport
                  1. 62

                     bgamallposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     Kids can pray on the playground, or when they read books. You are assuming that people are saved by free will.
                     
                     You assume too much.

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        lady_love158posted 14 years agoin reply to this

                        Free will, personal responsibility... if you can't rely on that then what?

                        replyreport
                        1. 62

                           bgamallposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                           You can't rely on that.
                           
                           Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God John Ch 1.
                           
                           The will of man is useless as the calling is of God alone.

                           replyreport
               2. 48

                  ShortStoryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  If the class must do what?

                  replyreport
         2. 80

            Mitch Alanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            bgamall,
            Are you seriously that ignorant of the actual source of the term "separation of Church and State", who said it and the actual meaning behind it, or are you like so many who spew it out without any historical context.
            Everyone do your due diligence and research it.

            replyreport
   3. 62

      bgamallposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Newt is a demagogue who's hero is the Puritan Oliver Cromwell, who killed the King of England so that he could establish one state religion for another. State religion is not Christian, and it is just rule by thugs.
      
      Gingrich is a thug of the highest order.

      replyreport
      1. 48

         ShortStoryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         How is he "a thug of the highest order"? What supremely thuggish things has he done to earn that title in your opionion?

         replyreport
         1. 62

            bgamallposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            He fancies himself a Puritan crusader. The blood of Iraq is on his hands as his party whole heartedly supported an oil war that real conservatives like Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul could never support.

            replyreport
            1. 48

               ShortStoryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               Where has he written that he "fancies himself a Puritan crusader"? That title doesn't even make sense.
               
               The Iraq war was not "an oil war," that's just some nonsense liberals like to repeat instead of actually thinking. We didn't get any oil from that war and US oil companies are not getting special treatment in bidding for contracts to develop Iraqi oil fields today. It's just an empty slogan like "Bush lied, people died!" It's transparently meaningless nonsense. All of which is not to mention all the democrats who voted to authorize the Iraq War. You know their names. Are they "thugs of the highest order"? What does that even mean?

               replyreport
               1. 59

                  John Holdenposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  "In the run-up to the Iraq war, Halliburton was awarded a $7 billion contract for which 'unusually' only Halliburton was allowed to bid."

                  replyreport
                  1. 48

                     ShortStoryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     List for us all the other companies that had at that time the capacity to fulfill that contract.

                     replyreport
                     1. 59

                        John Holdenposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                        Oh! they weren't there for the oil then!

                        replyreport
                        1. 48

                           ShortStoryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                           No, they were not. If they had been we would have taken it.

                           replyreport
                           1. 59

                              John Holdenposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                              But you weren't there for the oil! You said so.

                              replyreport
                              1. 48

                                 ShortStoryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                 That's right. Would you like to repeat if a few more times?

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 59

                                    John Holdenposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                    Well you did say you would have taken it (the oil)
                                    Repeat it as many times as you like, you usually do.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 48

                                       ShortStoryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                       You seem confused about something.

                                       report
                                       1. 59

                                          John Holdenposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                          No, not at all, but keep  trying you probably will succeed in confusing me.

                                          report
                                    2. 48

                                       ShortStoryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                       I honestly mean no offense by this question, but what is your first language?

                                       report
               2. 62

                  bgamallposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  Short, have you been sleeping like that guy on the Geico commercial under a rock? The Iraq war was an oil war. The presidential candidate of the Republican party, John McCain, said so while campaigning. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0GWoxbMs1k
                  
                  So did General Abizaid who said that the Iraq War was all about oil.  http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/65323/
                  
                  Sorry, Short, you have been lied to and the war crime of fighting for oil should be prosecuted at the Haig. Which is why Bush won't leave the country. Switzerland may arrest him for war crimes if he does.
                  
                  Wolfowitz, architect of the Iraq War said that WMD was a lie.

                  replyreport
                  1. 48

                     ShortStoryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     McCain did not say the Iraq War was "an oil war" in that clip, Abizaid is a disgruntled former employee, and show me where Wolfowitz (who did NOT make the decision to invade Iraq, btw) said WMD were "a lie."

                     replyreport
            2. 48

               ShortStoryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               The Iraq War was most certainly NOT "an oil war."

               replyreport
   4. 48

      ShortStoryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      The venomous hatred spit out by some rabid leftists is just disturbing at times.

      replyreport
      1. 70

         Cagsilposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         It goes both ways.

         replyreport
         1. 48

            ShortStoryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            It can, but I was inspired by the very first post of this thread.

            replyreport
      2. 62

         bgamallposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Did you read my post above proving that the Iraq War was all about oil and the links to McCain and Abizaid? I hope you read what your own people say.

         replyreport
         1. 48

            ShortStoryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            The Iraq War was obviously NOT about oil.

            replyreport
   5. 61

      Tortugaaposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Is this a movement? Or a place to vent until 2012?

      replyreport
      1. 85

         lovemychrisposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         I told you. It's a response to the daily hatred and malice spewed at Obama and Democrats on a daily basis by 3 people here.
         Surely, you believe that for every tit there is a tat?
         
         Let me introduce myself.....I'm tat!

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Tortugaaposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Well count me as a TaT!

            replyreport
            1. 85

               lovemychrisposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               Yay!! Speak UP!

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  Tortugaaposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  Well in my humble opinion, After Newty giving Clinton so much grief over the sexual scandal in the white house, its sort of hard for Newty to throw rocks when he's living in a glass condo, paid for by insurance and oil tycoons. Newt says he believes in a forgiving God, well, he BETTER! How can he even dare slander the current President who has lived an honorable life as a moral person, great christian, and a wonderful family man? Obama is a better man, and has achieved more than any of us can dream of.

                  replyreport
2. 75

   Mighty Momposted 14 years ago

   How come oral sex was adultery and an impeachable offense when Clinton did it?
   How does Newt Gingrich get to be the definer of what is or is not adultery? Oh right, he knows sooooo much about the subject!!
   Newt Gingrich, who left his first wife while she was sick in bed with cancer. Who left his second wife for his third wife.
   
   And he has the gall to talk about "God" with a straight
   face?
   If Mr. Gingrich is serious about running for the office of POTUS, it would serve him well to steer clear of side issues like marital infidelity and whether we use the term "God" in schools.
   Tell us Newt -- what are YOU gonna do to fix our economy? What are YOU gonna do to get the unemployment rate back to 5%? What are YOU gonna do to stop terrorists from blowing us up?
   
   ... I could go on. For a LONG time. There are about 10 million issues more important than these.
   Smoke and mirrors, tap dancing on morals -- that's all the repubs got.

   replyreport
   1. 62

      bgamallposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, Newt was boinking his girlfriend while prosecuting Clinton.

      replyreport
   2. 48

      ShortStoryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Oral sex was NOT an impeachable offense when clinton was in office. Perjury was.

      replyreport
      1. 62

         bgamallposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Perjury to protect your wife is more noble than boinking your girlfriend while your wife has cancer. I don't think Newt ever understood that.

         replyreport
         1. 48

            ShortStoryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            To protect his wife?! LOL! Do you really believe that?
            
            
            Now that I've finally stopped laughing...
            
            
            Perjury is still illegal no matter how 'noble' Bill Clinto...hahahhaaaahaha!!!! I can't say it...

            replyreport
            1. 85

               lovemychrisposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               Hmmm, Scooter Libby was pardoned for it.Guess Ole Bill had no one higher to go to for help, like Scooter.
               
               Bush and Cheney escaped it by testifying without taking the oath. Why do you suppose that was?
               Cause they were so "noble"? "Honest".....now I"M laughing!!!!
               
               Ahahahaha. Bushco honest.....Ahahahahahaha

               replyreport
3. 75

   Mighty Momposted 14 years ago

   Yup, Newt's a slimeball of the first order.
   The subject of politicians and extramarital sex has been discussed recently here (a perennial favorite topic, actually).
   It seems most "rational" people agree politicians often cheat on their wives. And we don't care.
   When we DO care is when they are HYPOCRITES about it -- like when they publicly spout "family values" and "moral majority" crap while privately engaging in such behavior.
   Most eggregious are the anti-gay hypocrites who vote against gay rights while their extramarital partners-of-choice are other men.
   Got integrity?? NOT!!!

   replyreport
   1. 62

      bgamallposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      True, and certainly, the Republicans have made themselves public keepers of the morality, a sure path to destruction and scandal.

      replyreport
4. 60

   Evan G Rogersposted 14 years ago

   I've addressed this issue too many times on these forums.
   
   Here's the First amendment:
   "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."
   
   And here's the 10th amendment:
   "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
   
   What these mean, when taken together, is that the FEDERAL government can not bias laws towards religion, BUT STATES CAN.
   
   Whatever side the of the argument you're on: deal with it. The judges are lying to you, the lawyers are lying to you, your school teachers are lying to you.
   
   States CAN be discriminatory. They just choose not to (in 99 out of 100 cases).

   replyreport
   1. 75

      stclairjackposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      agreed

      replyreport
   2. 62

      bgamallposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      States can show bias towards one religion over another? I think constitutional history would deny that.
      
      But no matter because whatever religion they choose will be a false one. State religion is false religion. Period.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Evan G Rogersposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         "Constitutional History" can go **** itself.
         
         The Constitution clearly states that States are allowed to discriminate based on Religion.
         
         I'm an atheist, so it's a bit of a twist to admit this.

         replyreport
5. 75

   stclairjackposted 14 years ago

   we all can agree that Gingrich is a self-serving pompus ass.
   
   i think we all can agree that if oral sex is an impeachable offence,... then impeach me baby!
   
   the term "seperation of church and state" was coied by jefferson in a prsonl letter,... its not in the constitution,... it has howeve been an spoken code that we have used as a uding standard off and on for 200+ years.
   
   the state has become its own scular theocracey over the years, it has become its own religion,...
   
   "our father, who art in washington, happy be thy name, thy programs be done, thy taxes be paid, on income as it is on savings. give us this day our crust of welfare bread, and excuse us or tresspasses, as we find emotional excuses for our fellow transgressors, and lead us not into prosperity, but deliver us ever into poverty, that might need you all the days of our life, amen"
   
   thatsthe new prayer in school my kiddies, ... learn it.

   replyreport
   1. 75

      stclairjackposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      i need a new keyboard.

      replyreport
6. 74

   mindyjgirlposted 14 years ago

   It is so funny how, when someone breaks down or goes whacko either party quickly identifies their political status, thats like saying all those molesters in prison are democrats! Its not a fair game in this world and I just need to get used to it. last year I was considering changed my party again. I used to be democrat then republican and now independent. Because tired of all the crap!!

   replyreport
7. 59

   John Holdenposted 14 years ago

   Blair as much as admitted that WMD was a lie too.
   
   If it's not about the oil and all about seeing off a tyrant, why no action in other trouble spots that have no oil?

   replyreport
8. 60

   Evan G Rogersposted 14 years ago

   "It angers me that republicans get air time..."
   
   "... stupid fox news is so biased"
   
   ... wait for it...
   
   ... wait for it....
   
   
   BOOOM - lovemychris' head just exploded.

   replyreport
9. 61

   mikelongposted 14 years ago

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDP4qrA8hvg

   replyreport
   1. 85

      lovemychrisposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Beautiful.

      replyreport
10. 85

    lovemychrisposted 14 years ago

    It's not about Fox. It's about Hub Pages.

    replyreport
    1. 60

       Evan G Rogersposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       It's about media.
       
       You said that it's annoying that Republicans are getting air time on news.
       
       But in other posts you argue that Fox is biased, and that News shouldn't be biased.
       
       You are asking the news to bias against Republicans while asking them to not be biased towards "others".
       
       It's hypocrisy.

       replyreport
       1. 85

          lovemychrisposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          "You said that it's annoying that Republicans are getting air time on news."
          
          No, I did not. I said this is in response to the astro-turfers here on Hub Pages who post with malicious intent on Democrats an Obama on a daily basis.
          
          And I never said that news shouldn't be biased. I said that Fox isn't news!
          
          This is not hypocricy, this is answering back to the liars, haters and propogandists here.

          replyreport
          1. 60

             Evan G Rogersposted 14 years agoin reply to this

             "Idiotic Republicans still getting air time!"
             -- lovemychris

             replyreport
             1. 85

                lovemychrisposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                In response to
                "Democrats hate America"
                "Obama grew up in Kenya"
                "Liberals are Communists"
                etc etc etc.
                Things that are posted here daily by 3 Right-wingers.

                replyreport
       2. 70

          Cagsilposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          Better try no bias, which is the place where media belongs in the first place. I realize LMC has something against Republicans because she is a liberal at heart, however, if media is favoritism for Republicans over Democrats, then how is it not biased to begin with, before it's reported to the public?
          
          I think LMC wants media to be of no bias, where each side is equally provided to the public. At least, it would be a refreshing change.

          replyreport
          1. 85

             lovemychrisposted 14 years agoin reply to this

             Right, and IMO, it's the height of hypocricy to tell ME that Righty's have the right to spew bias, while we are supposed to be fair.

             replyreport
             1. 70

                Cagsilposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                No bias. I agree media should be.
                
                However, as a response to your statement- I can only say- two wrongs still don't make it right.
                
                Righty, as you call them- spew bias. What do you expect? Both sides do it. It's all part and parcel in dividing the nation, so the little people who are getting stepped on in the process do not have a clue of the true agenda of government and politicians.
                
                Too many people in America fail to see, because they are too inflamed by the opposition to notice.

                replyreport
11. 85

    lovemychrisposted 14 years ago

    Tell you what.....I'll stop when they do. Deal?
    
    Until then, get used to it, or pass it by.

    replyreport
    1. 70

       Cagsilposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       It is a shame that you won't hold yourself to a higher standard.
       You have no need to use this type of attitude. I'm not against you. I am dead center between YOU and Others.
       
       I have no agenda, other than to help service America citizens. Nothing more. If you don't understand, then please read my profile. I've changed it recently.
       
       So, you have no need to come at me. It will do you no good.

       replyreport
       1. 85

          lovemychrisposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          Well, it wasn't at YOU you, it was a general you....but I can see why you took it that way.
          
          And you know what? I am not taking the higher ground. I tried it once before. I said I won't call the Speaker "Boner", won't call them Tea-"Baggers"......and we still get "Shiny One","Messiah", etc etc.
          
          No---this is about equality. I really hate bullies, and I'm not going to be miss Nicey-Pants to a Big Jerk.

          replyreport
          1. 70

             Cagsilposted 14 years agoin reply to this

             Do you understand equality? It is separate, a completely different thing than equal rights.
             I'm not asking you to back down from a fight. I'm asking you take a different tact. You fighting them with their own method, is no different than arguing with an idiot, because the idiot will beat you with it's experience. Not to mention, you show yourself as being no better than what you oppose? If you're not, then admit and I'll leave you alone.
             
             So, what's it gonna be? Make a choice.
             
             I hold all people I come in contact with, to the same standard I live with. And, if you think I'm confused in any manner, then I would suggest you work on reading my political hubs, and when you're done, you'll see the path to equality. If not, then you're only in the way.

             replyreport
12. 85

    lovemychrisposted 14 years ago

    Like I said, equality. I am no better than them, and I am going to show it.
    
    Here's a thought....why don't you ask THEM to stop.
    
    Should they agree--I will be all sweetness and light.

    replyreport
    1. 70

       Cagsilposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       Equality?
       
       Please explain to me what YOU think that word means?

       replyreport
13. 85

    lovemychrisposted 14 years ago

    You told me to be better than them....
    Why should I have that burden?
    Why don't THEY have to be better than me?
    
    I reserve the right to be equally as rude, demonizing and degrading as they are. EQUAL.

    replyreport
    1. 70

       Cagsilposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       I said take a different tact in doing so.
       Because, the other path brings hatred, stress and much more that is unforeseen.
       If they stopped, and lead by example, wouldn't they be?
       Are you a taurus by chance? The fact that you even have this view is extremely sad. It has nothing to do with being equal. It does however speak selfish and a few other choice words.

       replyreport
       1. 85

          lovemychrisposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          "the other path brings hatred, stress and much more that is unforeseen"
          
          Actually--I find it much more stressful to see bullies bully unhindered.That anger goes inside and produces stress.
          
          And no, I'm not a Taurus--I'm Ophiuchus, the Healer. And I kind of think it's pretty selfish of you to tell me how to behave.
          
          How can I be nice.......If I want your advice, I'll ask for it?
          
          Thanks for the advice, but no thanks?
          
          I'll try an AA slogan: Live and Let Live.

          replyreport
          1. 70

             Cagsilposted 14 years agoin reply to this

             I'm not trying to tell you how to behave. I'm trying to point out how you are behaving. And the fact that it gets no one anywhere, which you obvious lack any understanding of. Therefore, what I said wasn't selfish.
             You know, if you could learn to see beyond yourself, you might actually be a nice person, all politics aside. Right now, you do more harm than good.
             You're a prime example of what's wrong. And as I said before, that now makes you in my way to bring change.
             
             As for the Live and Let Live? It would be good, IF it could be done, but since you cannot even see what you are fighting against, you'll never see what you want.

             replyreport