Huckabee Wow's Crowd of 10000 With Sermon and TV Commercial

It took me a while to get my wits about me after LAUGHING MY A@# OFF. Woo! Okay... So, as far as I'm concerned Ino pretty much handled that tangent of the debate... At this point I'm more interested in getting back to the basic issue. Should a person in such high public office, with so much power over the lives of a diverse people, make NATIONAL decisions based on his religious faith? Should Americans elect a president who has a high potential of projecting his beliefs on the melting pot that is The United States of America? If it were a Buddhist Monk, would you feel differently L_C? Really, would you? Would you elect any outwardly religious candidate who WASN'T Christian? This is not rhetorical, I'd love to read your answer, assuming it starts with an actual, "yes" or "no" answer, and not a weird, unreadable, twist of a critique. On that note, I'd like to thank you for recognizing my writing style, and suggest that you do take some notes. While this could be seen as a catty jab, and it certainly is that, it's also a sincere recommendation, as I find your voluminous rebuttals to be disorganized and difficult to read. You seem to be grading each of our "framing" skills, yet you don't appear to have any of your own. You'll notice that I didn't reply to your post, though I did get a good laugh...A REALLY good laugh. I still stand by my original assertion in that you are in fact the victim of religious exploitation at the hand of cunning politicians and creative "news" stations. I will not debate religion with you. I do not want to disprove your religion. I will not compare any two religions, or ask you to prove that yours is the best. You see, I...simply...don't...care. And that's exactly what I would expect from my President.

I am happy to answer questions when you do.

In response to your most recent post, L_C, "MY kool-aid? ? The very metaphor happened at a "Christian" sect's headquarters. I'll give you the fact that Jim Jones' ministry was a cult but it was a cult that drew from a Christian population and used the trappings of the Christian religion.

It there that "drinking the Kool-Aid" was "invented".

It was a tragedy and I'm not using it for comic relief but it did happen and the guy's roots were in Christianity no matter how demented he may have been.

My main point was mentioning the willingness of the abortion clinic bombers to kill, maim and destroy property. In subscribing to that level of conduct, they made themselves terrorists long before WTC I or 9/11.

I really don't think you believe the abortion clinic bombers and assassins would have murdered others without influence from the confrontational and radical religious zealots and leaders who enlisted their support. It is those forces which are to blame for leading those individuals down that road toward ?defending? the unborn and then doing whatever it took to stop the abortionists.

Suggesting that those individuals who were stirred into a homicidal frenzy by fundamentalist leaders and by more and more coverage of abortion clinic violence would have murdered, bombed, thrown acid on or set fire to other people and places if they hadn?t been influenced by other radical Christians is simply foolish?

If you investigate some of the links I?ve put into the body of this post, you will see that violence against abortion practitioners and clinics has actually lessened since it peak. My belief is that the decline is because Fundies now have new things to hate. Instead of focusing on abortion clinics, they have Muslims to hate and let us not forget those awful Secular Progressives who must be responsible for the War on Christmas.

People like the Rev. Phillip ?Flip? Benham or Neal Horsely or even Pat Robertson are loose cannons who are manipulative enough to precipitate someone else?s meltdown.

When you look at the violence against just the abortion clinics, patients and personnel, you cannot possibly make a case that they would have killed and maimed people outside the genre of the abortion clinics because they were already psychotic. No, they were goaded into action by extremist views and people who exploited their need to have approval and validation.

Just like fundamentalist Islamists, many were ?indoctrinated? and made to follow steps that finally progressed into terrorist behavior.

And what about Neal Horsely?s flock? Take a look at his ?predictions? on actions by ?the Army of God? that he says are inevitable.

http://www.christiangallery.com/SEA.htm

Abortion clinic violence:
http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/violence/butyric_acid.asp
http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/violence/murders.asp
http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/violence/arsons.asp
http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/violence/anthrax.html

Here is a list of all the combined violent acts against abortion workers and clinics not grouped into any one category:

http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/violence/history_extreme.asp

I?m sure the hundreds of separate victims of anti-abortionist radicals would dearly love to have been waken up by a Jehovah?s Witness knocking at the door at 6:00 A.M. rather than losing their clinic to an arsonist or having to clean up acid attacks or read alleged anthrax letters and receiving death threats ? ALL at the hands of large groups of misguided fundamentalist Christians.

No sir, some groups of fundies can be just as dangerous as any of the murderers anywhere. Looking through Horsely's rifle scope on his website and seeing Tiger Woods is about as hateful and pathetic as it gets.

May God bless you, too, L_C and may he help you always spot the difference between the dangerous charlatans and the pure of spirit. Sometimes, it is very difficult, by George W.

I like when you said "Most of my ire is directed toward those who are in the evangelical, fundamentalist movement but who lack tolerance and who have rigid beliefs that place others either "in the fold" or "outside" the grace of Christian salvation." Me too! But that's their religious and constitutional entitlement... God bless America, right?

About quoting you: "Maybe if you post enough of them trying to "Prove" whatever you think you are pointing out about [my own religion] or lack thereof, someone will take you seriously." Well, I have to ask then, not that you've shown the courtesy of answering any of my questions before, but just what would you call your religion? Sorry, I'm just perplexed into meandering the thought of just what it could possibly be. Only so people will take me seriously, of course.

Also, I see that you have asked me a few questions. Well, I asked you some questions, too, yet I don't read anywhere that you have shown the courtesy of answered them. Why the heck should I answer any of yours?

BTW, I can't wait to read the intro to your next filibuster act - the "infallible" words of Inofuilwell!

"[Selectively editing] my text is a great way to "prove" YOUR "points"."

Thanks!

Firstly, just let me explain that I understand that you are under a tremendous amount of pressure, sprung from the auspices of your S-P cohorts. You make that so clear in your build-up openings each time, diverting and framing away from what you call "my points." Well, here's one, and I'm sure that even you would agree without spilling your kool-aid.

You see "fundamentalist Christians," even at the most extreme fringe, at worst, just knock on your door at 6:00 in the morning, wondering if you've found Jesus, and yes, I find that extreme. Personally, when that happens to me, I like doing what Robin Williams said and just answer the door naked. They go away quickly. I also completely agree that waving signs that say "God hates fags" is quite bit on the retarded side, too.

Fundamental psychopaths who kill, you see, are another story, yet they don't get their killing instructions and weapons from their pastors or any church like the masses of radical, extremist Muslims do from their radical clerics, radical mosques, rhetoric from radical tyrant heads of state, Al-qaeda and it's supporters, ...etc, all in the name of Islam. (note I didn't have to put the word "radical" in front of Al-qeada.) And no, I would never "speak as if" every Islamic person is evil. I happen to believe that Islam has done many wonderful, beautiful things for people who are, themselves, wonder and beautiful as any religion would provide for any person as such; Islamo-fascism, which is wide spread and ignored more than "Fundies" are by S-P folks like you, obviously doesn't apply to them.

When it comes to your so-called "Fundies," it's psychologically provable sick people, not "fundies"(remember your definition of "fundies?") are the only ones who say that God told or wanted them to do something horrific, and when that happens, it's a sure stain that S-Ps will put on those crazy "Fundies." You can't pin the acts of a clinically sick, homicidal person on any Christian faith, period. Even when considering "Pro-life Christians," which all Christians should be(given that rape, incest or medically proven, serious health concerns of the mother are no factor), that are in the "Pro-life movement" - You just can't. There are no real Christians that condone violence in the Pro-life movement. We may rant over the whole deal, but sane people know that violence is never an acceptable measure of action, and since you're definitely not anti-Christian, "Fundies," or "Televangelists, the Creationists, the Gay haters and those who pick one of the 200 translations of the Bible(Damn the freedom of choice!), though some are irritating and flawed to no ends, can't be placed in a category with individuals who are maniacally homicidal. Psychology, not theology, speaks better for them.

(intermission)

Selectively editing my text is a great way to "prove" YOUR "points". Here is one:

"...the same rigid interpretations we hear fueling radical Muslim hate for other religions."

My point was made by using all the words. Here again were my comments:

"Such authoritarianism arrogantly assumes the fairly significant differences evident in the 200 plus different translations are somehow "infallible".

It is that type inflexibility that smacks of the same rigid interpretations we hear fueling radical Muslim hate for other religions."

Pretty sure this never compared Televangelists to suicide bombers but I would, in fact, compare Fundamentalist Christians in the extremist fringe of the Pro-life movement to suicide bombers because these radical "Pro-life" Christians have killed in the name of religion.

They shot doctors and bombed numerous abortion clinics BEFORE al Qaeda ever made its first attempt to destroy the WTC with explosives.

As far a the last paragraph, please point out why the expression "rape and pillage" when used as a statement depicting the inhumane way the U.S. (supposedly led by a Christian leader) completely destroyed the infrastructure in Iraq and killed scores of thousands of innocent Iraqis. Figures of speech seem to evade your radar.

I know you like to over-simplify the complexity of our President's ill-advised policy of greed, corruption and an immoral war waged against a country that did not attack us nor did they even have a means to do so.

I laugh when I see you speak of totalitarian thought as being the exclusive domain of the religion you call Islamo-fascism.

We can either discuss the anomalies and minority portions of each faith that subscribe to these fringe tendencies in that direction but do not forget that those same fringe believers in Christianity are also subverting their own scriptures to perform similar acts of violence.

You have again represented RADICAL Islam as if it were all of Islam OR you have forgotten to include Christian terrorists in the faulty equation you are trying to sell.

Your condescending nature and penchant for name-calling reveals your own intolerance and allows others to see the lack of depth you've used for viewing your own religion's inability to rid itself of the Christian "fascists" that also populate its ranks.

I have not defended Islam except for saying that it is the right of any person to choose his own religion AND to say that all the world's major religions have examples of person' within each of those faiths that have distinguished themselves in their service to mankind.

In no place did your overuse of LOL or a "my favorites" list ever prove the points you seemed to want to make.

BTW, do you approve of Bush's decision to attack Iraq?

Looking forward to a whole post full of more of these: LOL, my favorite is, but this is even better, etc. Maybe if you post enough of them trying to "Prove" whatever you think you are pointing out about my own religion or lack thereof, someone will take you seriously.

I'm also looking forward to hearing how Biblical translations that actually have significant differences in that translation can be the "infallible word of God" when they say something different.

I'm also wondering why is this "infallible word of God" called THE Holy Bible different in both text and content between the Catholic version and the Protestant version. Why are there more books attributed to divine inspiration in the Catholic Bible that the number of books in the Protestant disciplines.

And yes, lastly I'm still waiting for the science behind creationism to convince me why these same, inflexible ideologues seem to be at odds with science and fairly well-tested principles such as carbon dating and other long-used geological formulas.

Well, that was a very thorough response; I have to admire your framing as well. I'm serious; I'm going to print that out for personal reference.

Help me out with something here, will ya.

Your response to my response of your "misrepresented intentions" in no way attempts to deny that you are indeed a secular progressive, but you do deny that you are anti-Christian. Hold up! Want some advice? Don't let the rest of the S-Ps hear that you're actually NOT anti-Christian. You may be disowned; however, you can argue and plead with them that when you tried explaining to me that... "As a matter of fact, I mentioned Bush's playing the part of an emporer ruling by virtue of what he thought was 'divine right' so it was Bush's pseudo-Christian disguise I was mocking - not Christianity itself." ...was really just a back-pedaling way of not covering up so well a favorable rhetoric amongst you and your fellow S-Ps. No pressure.

This is my favorite:
"If you are still unclear about just why I believe our government should be free of those who would use religion to justify war and intolerance..." Whoa, Is this to say that since you aren't anti-Christian, you wouldn't mind a devout, spiritually influential, Christian president that WOULDN'T "use religion to justify war and intolerance?" Be careful.

NO, I take that back, this has to be my favorite:
"... the same rigid interpretations we hear fueling radical Muslim hate for other religions."

The same?! What on earth, in [todays society], can you by the farthest reaches of your imagination compare anything Christian(ANYTHING) to radical Muslims?! ARE YOU SERIOUS?! >>>S-P ALERT!!

L_C,

While short, your first two posts were sarcastic mockeries of what I said. I don't suppose you'd care to deny that intolerance or that attempt to offend me would you? At the very least those flippant responses were meant to trivialize what I said by simply laughing as if the points I made had no value.

When that didn't work and I pursued it further, you came back and were pretty well thrown to the mat by AngelinaH.

I sat on the sidelines until you again misrepresented my intentions and offered to explain the meaning of my content. They were neither correct nor representative the real problem - my disgust for Bush's pseudo-Christian public persona and the same disgust for others who paint themselves similarly.

As a matter of fact, I mentioned Bush's playing the part of an emporer ruling by virtue of what he thought was 'divine right' so it was Bush's pseudo-Christian disguise I was mocking - not Christianity itself.

Now that I've explained that to you, why don't you reread what I wrote and make another post with some more on-point accusations.

You've also labeled me as worse than an atheist. Dare I utter the description you reserved for the next level up the intolerance scale above atheism? You said I was anti-Christian.

You might want to also rethink that description, too.

Most of my ire is directed toward those who are in the evangelical, fundamentalist movement but who lack tolerance and who have rigid beliefs that place others either "in the fold" or "outside" the grace of Christian salvation.

I'm sorry but the generalizations you make are either ill-conceived when it comes to my beliefs or they are simply counter to those of people who don't share your exact definition of mainstream Christianity.

I make fun of those who continue to show the same intolerance radical Muslims do. Many of those are fundies as I like to call them.

So my beef with the Televangelists, the Creationists, the Gay haters and those who pick one of the 200 translations of the Bible (which are replete with different interpretations of words in key points of many scriptures) and then say they believe that the "Bible" (without naming which one) is the infallible word of God.

Such authoritarianism arrogantly assumes the fairly significant differences evident in the 200 plus different translations are somehow "infallible".

It is that type inflexibility that smacks of the same rigid interpretations we hear fueling radical Muslim hate for other religions.

If you are still unclear about just why I believe our government should be free of those who would use religion to justify war and intolerance, just read on.

Unfortunately, there have been men from the beginning of the early Christian Church who have interpreted the "Bible" in ways that help justify their ambitions.

There is one thing of which I am sure. The next President should not be someone who decides on a War for evil motives and then tries to lie to the country about the reasons for that war and in the end, fails miserably at honestly leading the country in a way that Jesus, from all accounts I've ever read of him in many Bibles, would have never would have. Bush, while he was professing Christian concern for our troops, declared a war on a country that never attacked us, was not a threat to our security, had no connection to 9/11 and was not home to even one of the 9/11 hijackers.

My disgust is not with Christianity but with those who say they are Christians and who then rape and pillage like Godless barbarians.

Is that any clearer, L_C? Because if it isn't we can surely go point by point from here on out.

Well, AngelinaH, I have to admire your framing skills. You really go for the jugular with your instincts, picking apart words and phrases, all taken out of context for your glamorous assault.

Now, let me whisper something into your ear, sweetie ...No, I take that back...let me whip out this megaphone and crank that sucker up and place it ever so gently against your ear (sorry, I really wouldn't do that. It's just for the sake of being colorful)...

...Hardcore liberal/Secular Progressives are anti-Christian, not just atheists but true ANTI-CHRISTIANS with an agenda, a living, breathing, media-powerful, moving force that aims to destroy Traditional America and America itself into 50 states that all have a San-Fransocialist/anti-Christian theme. I and other smart Christians won't vote for them, or anyone who would make way to implement their goals. Got it? Good. See, it's really quite simple. Man, talk about watching out for those darn salesmen. ;)

Turning up the megaphone a notch, please allow me to correct you on mine and ino.'s exchange...Now, please correct me if I'm wrong, and I'm sure you'll try, but I don't believe I said, as you presumptuously say I said, he(ino.) "Attacked Christianity." Did I say that? No, I'm quite sure that I didn't. You said, "[He never attacked Christianity]*, but rather, certain and specific politicians, certain and specific "news" outlets, certain and specific SOCIAL ISSUES, but never Christianity." (Nice framing)

OK, I'm setting the megaphone down now. I'll whisper now, as I suspect you prefer... So, you mean that by him(ino) referring to George Bush as a deity to whom which I pray, and placing him in a mockery of an obvious Christian-style prayer isn't insulting to Christians or Christianity itself? A bit negligent not to consider that, aren't we? He goes on with that prayer mockery in several instances, but that doesn't strike you as something that might be insulting, does it? Not even a bit on the intolerant side, huh? Sure, not "ATTACKING" but insulting, offensive and spiritually intolerant.

And thanks for the reminder; I've been meaning to review Revelations lately. Two days till Sunday!

Uroborus, I saw that thread you posted on Huckabee. I'm so completely amazed that we would even consider allowing someone like him to run for president on such an unconstitutional platform. To intertwine religion with policy in such blatant ways is amazing, and completely the opposite of what an ideal candidate should be about. "Until Moses comes down with two stone tablets from Brokeback Mountain saying he's changed the rules, let's keep it like it is," Are you kidding me?

First off, a standing ovation for Inofuilwell; I just love a high quality verbal assault, especially when there's a good point behind it. L_C, let me whisper in your ear sweetie... Do you realize that you are an unpaid employee? Really. Here's how it goes... Let's assume that you're a good Christian and you have a deep unshakable faith. You believe in and trust not only God, but also those who bring you the Lord's message; your preacher, pastor, priest, etc. Am I correct so far? Okay, good. Now, L_C, what you are not realizing, is that there are people out there who's only job in the world, is to look for angles, and look for ways to sell something; even when that something is a person. How do I know? Well, I'm one of those people. But back to my point. Okay, so these psychological salesmen look at the country as a big group made up of smaller groups. As you would be quick to point out, "Christians" are the religious majority in this country. Tell me, L_C, if you're going sell something to every person in the nation, would you rather do it one by one, or would you rather sell in bulk, to massive groups of people all at once? Okay, so who is the biggest group of all in America? You said it: Christians! (Yay Jesus!) Okay, so, back to the point....This salesman looks at this big group, you can call it an "account", and his mouth starts to water. Now he has to decide how he is going to present his "product" to this "account" (that's YOU). What these guys have figured out is obvious but smart, in that evil scientist sort of way... What they do is connect themselves, intertwine themselves, with YOUR religious beliefs. Why? Just look at your own response to Ino. He never attacked Christianity, but rather, certain and specific politicians, certain and specific "news" outlets, certain and specific SOCIAL ISSUES, but never Christianity. You respond with "What, do you sit on his lap all day thinking up stuff that would be insulting to Christians, and to prove that you have no tolerance for the average Christian person who, in America, comprises a majority?" Now, let's stop for a moment and think... How did you get to "no tolerance for [Christians]" from his quote? Please, in the privacy of your own mind, just think about it. They have told you I AM THE CHRISTIAN CANDIDATE. And you believe them. You defend them. You work for them, against any and all opposition, and you use Christianity as your shield/get-out-of-jail-free-card, but you do it for politician, a candidate, a salesman. Does your preacher talk politics? Does your Reverend have a recommendation? I'm betting 9 times out of 10 they are politicking from the pulpit, much like our own Huckabee. Here's the thing...they are capitalizing on your beautiful faith. They are using your faith as a leash around your neck, keeping you at their heels. Do you want to be exploited like that? Do you want your savior to be exploited like that? I know I don't. I don't want wars waged in the name of Jesus, or people judged and injured in the name of Jesus. That is not Christianity. They are NOT CHRISTIANS. THEY ARE NOT CHRISTIANITY. They are men. They are men who are corrupt and who are absolutely blasphemous in their abuse of Christianity, and Christians such as yourself. Please, L_C, be more careful with you mind, as I am not the only one whispering in your ear. You can imagine me as the little angel, and guess what's on the other side? It's a little devil wearing a Jesus mask. Hey, isn't there something in Revelations like that???

Inofuilwell, I find your lack of tolerance a true progressive fit. Lakof would be proud. What, do you sit on his lap all day thinking up stuff that would be insulting to Christians, and to prove that you have no tolerance for the average Christian person who, in America, comprises a majority? Does your tolerance cease for spiritual understanding?

I find you to be very narrow minded with all your ranting and also without a sense of pluralism. Take a chill pill, man.

I take it by your silence that you are fan of those who feed at the hog trough on K Street and that you believe Noah simply hid the dinosaurs and wooly mammoths too well for us to find.

That is truly a shame since putting the giant reptiles on feedlots in the Midwest would no doubt help us solve the energy crisis. Think of the oil that could be rendered from their huge carcasses. Besides that, if lizard meat is low in cholesterol, we could solve some major health issues, too.

Based on the Iowa results, it certainly looks as though you'll get a chance to further the cause of gay and lesbian hate in the 2008 election with Huckabee.

I'm just hoping the Republicans can field a new slate that has half the character and integrity of Delay, Frist, Hastert, Lott, Cunningham, Foley, Craig, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Card. Libby, Gonzo, Ashcroft, Santorum, Pombo and the rest.

Too bad there are so many paid-off Dems willing to stop impeachment proceedings. Otherwise "Duke" and Abramoff could have all their cells decorated when they get there.

The best quote of the year has to be the one introducing "Hot Tub" Tom at last year's big meeting to discuss the "War on Christmas".

The speaker was so eloquent when he said in introducing the then embattled Delay, "God always does his best work right after a crucifixion."

Tom is now lobbying.

Lord, we pray that you will always find the people with a dedication to Christian ideals a higher calling after they leave office just like you did for Mr. Delay. Lobbying is indeed the Lord's work.

Amen and Amen

The Rev. Ivan Norris "Ino" Fulwell

This post was not approved by Chuck Norris.

"...a compliment...", " ...monetary reasons... " LOL!

I have to admit that was funny.

And may George Dubya bless you, too.

I consider that not only a compliment of the highest order but also as a sign that even though you may disagree for monetary reasons, at least you know the argument is soundly accurate.

Olbermann does ROCK and FAUX does LIE consistently!

May George Bush bless you and keep you. May he cause his face to shine upon you and give you peace. Amen and Amen and Shondala Hondala Fondala Rhondala.

How many Current accounts does Keith Olbermann have?

Man, such ranting intensity in this "discussion." WOW!

Anything the FAUX "News" Channel says should immediately be countered with logical thought. FAUX is the broadcast personification of Mussolini's formula for the most sustainable type of fascism - the marriage of business and government.

Huckabee's homophobia is sheer hypocrisy just as are the words that spew forth from the mouths of many of the Republican "lushes" who were in on Tom Delay's hog trough of money and perks for greedy lawmakers.

Ordinary Americans are on a fast track to lose all their rights to those monetarily overbearing institutions of corporatism. Their wealth has bought government favor. Those favored Bush contributors have paid much more for relaxed regulation and extended pollution deadlines than single citizens could afford to pay to protect their own air and water.

Those soul-less multi-national corporations have supported and conspired with Bush and his cronies to crush the political power given ordinary Americans by their constitution.

When agencies created to protect wildlife, save National Parks, fight for clear air and water have as their chief appointees, ex-lobbyists and lawyers for serial polluters, you KNOW this country's values are for sale to the highest corporate bidder.

The point of this post is to say that a certain segment of the radical right uses the politics of hate and divisiveness to justify supporting a radical homophobe like Huckabee. FAUX sees supporting ANY candidate that will defeat those who see through their adamant agenda of "Corporatism" as something that is basic to their very survival.

Are you serious?!? I'll have to look into that...Saudi Arabia much?

Huckabee is a religious fundamental freak show. While still governor of Arkansas, he withheld medicare payments after a fifteen-year old girl was raped by her stepfather all because the idea of an abortion conflicted with his religious morals. The first step to bettering this country is to eliminate the religion factor and start thinking logically.

Not at the church as a candidate huh? What a load of bull. He knows exactly what he's doing, and it's sure to get him a lot of votes from the same geniuses that gave us Bush. I really don't like Huckabee, because he's so damned contrived. I'll never forget his explanation for being against gay marriage....because we have to "work on the ones we already have". Riiiiiiiiight. If you ask me, there ought to be a test, covering the constitution, that must be passed before consideration as a candidate. There should be a critical thinking examination, exposing how these candidates view and understand the meaning of this nation's principles. Radical, I know, but practical. Remember Alberto Gonzalez discussing Habeas Corpus? "The fact that the Constitution?again, there is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution." What a disgrace. We are the constitution. We give the government it's role and it's rights, not the other way around. Gonzales does not understand the constitution, nor does he have any respect for it. Then you have Bush calling it just "...a god damned piece of paper." With the precedent being set, it's no wonder that tomorrow's potential leaders are already finding ways to circumvent the principles of the constitution. This is exactly why we MUST IMPEACH and say NO, NO, NO!