Wednesday, July 22, 2009

The Episcopal Church Looks Forward



I'm not offended by those who opine the Episcopal church's recent decision to allow homosexuals to serve in any level of ministry. Willful ignorance isn't offensive. It's sad, and it should be embarassing (and maybe painful), but it's not offensive. I also have no problem with churches discrediting themselves in the eyes of history, which is what those who would complain about the Episcopal decision are doing.

What I am offended by are people who set themselves up as community leaders and counselors contributing to the stigmatization of a benign orientation by insisting that it is ‘sinful’, and somehow deserving of sanction. This is what church leaders are doing when they decry the Episcopal decision. This is also what so-called moderates are saying when they say ‘We support equal rights for homosexuals, but they are not allowed to serve as leaders in our church unless they do not practice homosexuality’.

There is nothing wrong with homosexuality. There is no credible study that indicates there is anything corrosive about it. This fact has been proven again and again. The only proven negatives to having a homosexual orientation are those associated with living in a society that views the orientation as somehow 'less than', or impure. Homosexuality isn’t a temptation that needs to be overcome, and to suggest otherwise is to betray basic ‘do no harm’ tenets of counseling. Homosexuals in our culture have higher rates of depression and suicide than other minority groups. It's the kind of thinking demonstrated by dissident religious leaders that contribute to those statistics. Those who support the myth that there is something dysfunctional about homosexuality are not acting in good faith towards those who would seek their counsel; They are more concerned with selling a product than they are facilitating healing and growth, and it's shameful.

Thankfully, there are still believers daring enough to honor the spirit of Christ's message over the dubious iron age legalisms that were written about him.

Not only has the Episcopal Church decided to remain relevant, they've decided to do what is right.

45 comments:

Willie Y said...

There is a lot of hate and division spewed from the so called religious people. I wonder what Jesus would have thought of that.

Spencer Troxell said...

The problem boils down to the acceptance of truth passed down by authority and revelation. There are many logical and moral rules in the bible (calls to care for others, calls to work hard and to be honest), but prohibitions against homosexuality aren't among them. The sooner more people realize this, the better off we'll all be.

Sic Semper Tyrannis said...

Willie, I've always been taught to hate the sin not the sinner and most of the religious that I know try to practice it.

My personal belief is that practicing a gay life style is morally wrong. I do not condemn it, I do not practice hate against those who live it, I do not discriminate against some one for being gay and I do not condone it. If you do not make it an issue between us then it is not an issue. I think most people are this way. Do not shove something in their face and demand acceptance and there won't be a problem. Most people believe what happens in a adult couples bedroom is their business and should not be discussed unless you want to make it an issue. Then its your problem when you bring it to light. I do not think that these beliefs qualify as hate.

Acceptance of truth passed down by authority and revelation is interesting. Authority does not equal truth and people jump to the wrong revelation alot. The Bible does have a lot of rules that are moral and logical, and some are now outdated because of technology. I don't base my opinion that homosexual behavior is wrong from a biblical stand point, so religion has nothing to do with it.

This country allows freedom of assembly and association, and if you believe that being gay is morally wrong, why would you want to go to someone gay for intruction on morality and spirituality? Behavior often determinds who we want to associate with and what positions are appropriate. Child molesters tend not to get hired at daycare centers and as boys scout leaders, body modifiers don't generally sit as CEO of large corporations, car thieves do not usually become cops. There is nothing wrong with that church allowing gays to be ministers. There is nothing wrong with other churches not allowing it. There is nothing hateful in people leaving the church because they disagree. It would be hypocritical and dishonest if they believed gay behavior is wrong and stayed. Just as when a minister is caught having an affair, two consenting adults share an act of passion, the minister's wife may have approved or even been involved, no one was hurt. The congregation has the choice, fire him or not, and what they choose will make some happy and upset others. Those that are upset are free to leave that church without the assumption of hate. If you are basing your choice of religion solely on any civil rights issue then you are not going to church for the right reasons. You go to church because the preacher, the doctrine of the church, and the people agree on how to reflect glory to God.

How about doing something human and give those who disaprove of a behavior the benefit of doubt and don't assume they hate. They may not like the behavior, they may love the individual, but you do not have to accept that person in a position that you feel contradicts the behavior.

Spencer Troxell said...

Nice to hear from you again SST. thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Lodo Grdzak said...

From what I've seen in life, homosexuals are often the first to move into poor areas and gentrify them. A "gay" neighborhood's gonna have more good restaurants; more and better performance art; and less crime as the gang-bangers and thugs who don't want to be labeled as pussies stay away. My own opinion is that Jesus was probably gay. He certainly spent a lot of time with other men--and who did he marry again? How many kids did he have again? What's the Catholic religion if not goddess worship? A very feminine religion in which the priests can't marry 'cause hey're already married. And to who?

Sic Semper Tyrannis said...

No one is questioning some gays contribution to communities or condemning them. Instead of being happy about the freedom to associate with who you want and choose the qualifications for the person who will be the voice of your church, you are choosing to insult and label. You choosing to say "Jesus was probably gay" is inflammatory and meant just to cause dissent. It's the easy, and not intellectual to throw critism and insults because you do not understand. Again, I have no problem with that church having gays do what ever, I've been to a church where a propeller hung over the pulpit, I've read and seen news stories of churches where the leader of the church was considered Christ and allowed to sleep with underaged girls, you've heard of churches committing mass suicides, certain sects of muslims ask for you to strap bombs on your children to kill the unholy, and you're concern is a gay guy isn't allowed to be a preacher in a southern Baptist church. How about leave them alone, let them worship God without your politically correct bullstuff. We could go into any church and find stuff that you or I think is outdated or biased. Standing up and saying you like having intercourse with the same gender as yourself doesn't make you qualified or appropriate to be minister of some churches. I doubt those churches would hire someone who came out and said I sleep with everyone of the opposite sex I can, I'm banging half the women in this church, I've been married 3 times. Each church can make their qualifications what ever they want, and if they miss some great message the gay guy has, it's their loss. The rationale is sound, it's their rules, let them live by them, IT DOESN'T AFFECT YOU, LEAVE THEM ALONE.

Spencer Troxell said...

I agree that people should have a right to associate with whomever they choose. My argument here is that it's unethical to claim the mantle of counselor (which every religious leader does), and then perpetuate a stigma that harms the mental well-being of people in his community.

Sic Semper Tyrannis said...

Not all religious leaders claim to be counselors, and I do not believe that all religious leaders want to cousel beyond the scriptures. I have no idea what stigma every religious leader is perpetuating that harms the mental well being of anyone. In most cases, it's a building with a guy at the front that reads from the bible, relates it to today, they sing a few songs and people go home. I haven't been to a church where you weren't free to go or even dispute what is being said. It's pretty simple, if you are sitting in the front row of a church and they say something that makes you feel uncomfortable about the gender of the person you are having sex with, and you believe you are doing the right thing, stand up and walk out, go to a different church. If you believe you should sit there and listen to stuff you think is wrong, you need more help than the Pastor is qualified to give anyway. Churches are like clubs, you join one that most reflects your beliefs. There are going to be make or break issues and you have to find the best fit. I have never or known anyone that left any Baptist Church with the intent on converting, inhibiting, talking down to, healing, or whatever negative you want to insert, the gay guy. I've read about a church that protests outside soldiers funerals and other places, these people are the exception and don't reflect most church goers. If you've based all of opinions on that church or The Anti-Gay Church of God Bar and Grill, expand your sphere of influence. The responsibility goes to the attendee, if the preacher spends 20 minutes talking about an evil lifestyle and it was your typical Friday night and thats without you waking up with your butt hurting and smelling like peanut butter, that may not be the right church for you to go to. There are many places where is disagree with the Baptist Church I claim, dancing, drinking, listening to rock music, shooting squirrels, but when they got on the word of God and God's Love, I'm home and my feel good. I wouldn't have a problem with the Pastor coming over having a beer, taking turns throwing squirrels in the air to shoot and dancing a jig when we hit one. We have different ideas on what is right there. Every church I've been to would welcome a new attendee, gay or not. It's been a while since I've gone, but I can't remember a single negative uttered at the church towards gays or gay behavior, never have found a closet full of pitch forks and torches and think the mind washer has been broken for years. What I'm trying to say is "Most Churches are Not Trying to Hurt Gays". You may want to check out the Islamic temples and see if you get the same tollerance, I'm not going.

Lodo Grdzak said...

Sic Semper:

I can't pretend I didn't try to ignite a spark with my Jesus being gay comment. But your response to my remark is telling. You call it "an insult" and a "criticism." What do you care if Jesus was straight or gay? What difference does it make towards his message and the meaning of his life?

Willie Y said...

I guess you only here about the anti gay rhetoric from the religious spokes people that have access to the national media, like Fox news. But it seems to me that it is out there because the right wing of the Republican party welcomes the religious right who seems to feel that they are the only ones that should have inalienable rights. Let's all judge each other by what kind of sex we are having, I would think that a whole bunch of hetero sexual, with different sexual proclivities, would be looked at in a different light. Let us judge a man by the content of his character and not what he does in the bedroom.

Lodo Grdzak said...

Willie Y:

Your comment is interesting. Fact is, while Sic Semper talks about my trying to create "dissent," it was Ronald Reagan who discovered the way to split the Democratic party. Before Reagan, Catholics in this country used to vote predominantly Democrat since only democrats (at least some) care about social programs for the poor and about blue-collar issues. But Reagan discovered the power of the abortion issue to split the Dems and woo Catholics abd Baptists. But of course, its all bullshit. Republicans care about (1) thing--themselves. Thats the definition of a Republican and you can see it in their platform and their "ideas," (or lack thereof). But we know Repubs are as gay as the rest. Just meaner, shallower and bigger bullies.

Sic Semper Tyrannis said...

No Lodo, I said "You choosing to say "Jesus was probably gay" is inflammatory and meant just to cause dissent." The next sentence was meant to describe the pattern I had seen from you, example; tea baggers, meaner, shallower and bigger bullies, Repubs are as gay. Since you used it as such and admit it, it was you using gay as an insult, I responded to your intent. I have not said that gay is an insult or did not imply such. In my previous posts I have said that what two adults do in their bedroom is their business and it is not an issue with me unless you shove it in my face and say that I have to accept it. I do not want to hear about ANYONE's Bedroom exploits, straight, gay, solo, swinger, etc. I will worry about mine, you worry about yours. If you do not want to be judged by any private behavior, do not tell anyone.

Ronald Reagan actually was NOT a strict right to lifer, he had exceptions, but believed that the issue according to the Constitution is a state issue and not federal and that is why Roe V Wade is bad law. Conservatives actually care more about the poor and blue collar issues than the dems. The difference is in the way each party wants to deal with the problem. Dems want to take via taxes money from those that have and create government jobs and throw money into social programs, even if they do not work. Conservatives want to eliminate the need of social programs by making the poor have good jobs in the private sector. Deal with blue collar issues by creating an abundance of jobs where there is high pay and good benefits. They do this by not penalizing businesses for expanding. Dems take from the wealthy to give to the poor, Conservatives want to make everyone wealthy. There is a minority of each party that wants to legislate many social and private activities, dems try to do it with taxes (cigarette tax is an example and so is hate speach legislation). Most republicans do not care if you are gay, the color of your skin or anything else. Look at history and see which party voted for and against most of the important civil rights legislation in the 60's and note who was the obstructionists. Ronald Reagan was efffective against the democrats taxing and spending, he was against a large government stealing the hard earned money of the people. Most of all he wanted the government out of the way except to maintain equal opportunity. Ronald Reagan made America proud and strong after the carter debacle, that is why he split the dems.

Lodo Grdzak said...

Sic Semper:

What Reagan did for the Repubs was win in the short-term, but in the long-term (along with George W. Bush) probably helped destroy the Repubs as a party. The fact that Reagan (in private) was not a strict right-to-lifer is no surprise to me. Thats called a hypocrite (a/k/a a Republican). We also know how Nixon felt about such issues--and about blacks, and about women candidates. But hey, if a position works for your party--stick with it! But now Repubs are paying a price for all that religious influence in their party. The strictly pro-business, low taxes, stay-out-my life Repubs like Rudy Giuliani, Christine Whitman, Arlen Spector can't feel to comfortable around A-hole morons like Sara Palin. And that's a problem for Repubs 'cause they'll never keep both groups under the same tent. Oh!--and one final comment about Reagan. When our embassy in Lebanon got bombed and over 200 of our Marines got killed, what did Reagan do? Run away like a pussy! Boy that made me proud as an American.

Sic Semper Tyrannis said...

Reagan was very consistant in his abortion stance, he also did not let his personal feelings get in the way of what was Constitutional and legal. Constitution came first, personal feelings second. Stating that you are against Roe V Wade because it is bad law, is not saying you are pro-life. His journal writings are clear and consistant with his actions. Rule of law, the Constitution being the center and definition of what is legal for the federal government to do, overrides personal belief. If more politicians were like this the country would be a better place. I don't know where you got your info on Nixon or it's accuracy, in fact, I really don't know what your point is there so I'll leave it alone. I would prefer a moral religious influence in a party, rather than the influence of someone who leaves a woman to die in a car at the bottom of a river, to sober up, or someone who lets a gay prostitution ring run out of their house. Giuliani, Whitman, Spectre may be pro-business compared to most eastern politicians but are not pro-free market and growth. You seem to have a lot of anger and I'm unsure as to why you feel the need to insult rather than discuss ideas. Your anger seems to foster a biggotry that may cloud your ability to see a good idea because it is put forth by someone with an "R" after their name. I may be totally wrong here and you may be very open minded and reasoned person, but what you have written does not lead me to believe it. So I'll continue to hope for the best for you and from you. After the Beirut suicide attack, Reagan did pull out the Marines because he saw that it was not a defendable position and was not doing any good. It was not an Embassy, but a Marine base, placed there becuase of the UN by the US and the French to help reduce violence in the Lebanon Civil War. It does not make sense to keep several thousand soldiers in harms way without a defineable, reasonable objective to risk those lives. Reagan's response to the attack was to put the USS New Jersey off the coast and drop shells from her 16 inch guns in to known hostile areas killing an estimated 7300 anti-US forces. Also a combined US/French airstrike attacked Hezbollah bases where they believed the training and materials for the attack came from. Pulling troops out of danger and attacking those responsible is not running away. After the New jersey shelling those responsible for the attack did not do a direct offense again. YEs, I was proud of Reagan's response and the United States during the Reagan years. I'm still proud, always have been proud, of my country. For someone that was reqarded and feared as a war monger during his Presidency, you calling Reagan a P***Y is pretty humorous. The embassy attaacked in the middle east was in Iran, and that happeded during Carter administration, the hostages were released during Reagan's innaugaration because they feared his response.

Molon Labe.

Lodo Grdzak said...

I wont argue your point about the marine base/embassy issue (for what that distinction's worth).

And in fairness, that war we waged on Grenada was a bold move. Lot of us fell asleep feeling safer after that menace to society was abated. Reagan didn't take no guff! And how many American casualties? Somewhere around 40+ if memory serves correctly. Man what a tough guy.

Do some research on Nixon--there's been a lot interesting stuff discovered as of late.

I'll work on that anger issue of mine. Why be angry at Iraq War? Worked out great for the right people. Why be angry that 75% of Republicans polled would still vote for Palin? Sound judgement by my fellow countrymen! Why be angry that Clinton gets labeled as a pussy when he doesn't retaliate for U.S.S. Cole but Reagan's some kind of tough-guy cowboy even after Lebanon? Please. I'm not angry, just trying to make sure that 2 + 2 doesn't = 5 yet.

Sic Semper Tyrannis said...

Embassy vs Military base is a huge difference, but let's not worry about it. One being a military installation on occupied soil, and one considered untouchable under international law.

Grenada was a mission to save US students studying in that country from the invading Cuban military. I don't recall anyone comparing it to d-day or saying that it was a difficult operation. If you are angry at the Iraq War please spread the anger at the congress who authorized it as well and remember that they were using much of the Clintion era intelligence. Also, regardless of your agreement with the invasion, we are there, we need to fix it and THEN leave.

Your disagreement with a candidate and those who support them is not a sign of intelligence on either side. Believe it or not, you are not the ultimate authority on sound judgement, people or candidates. The US has been very fortunate that most times the President has been up to the task at hand. I suggest you evaluate each policy she brings to the table and not the person, no matter how diagreeable you find them. If you wish to discuss any of her platforms, I'm open to it. Your unique perspective is interesting and sometimes enlightening.

Clinton was labeled because after the Cole he put on his serious face and said we'll get those involved and did nothing, just like two World trade Center Attacks, bombing embassies in Africa and others. He did attack Iraq when his monica indiscretion came to light, could have been coincidence. He sent our troops to no win situations in Somalia and Bosnia, and tied their hands. Reagan's reputation came from standing up to the Soviet Union, attacking Libya, Grenada, Lebanon and other policies. Clinton had a good idea here or there, Reagan had a lot of them, both Bushs are better than the media painted them and I'm still hoping Obama comes up with something I can support, his dog choice wasn't horrible, but he did lie about it, he supported his friend in Caimbridge even though the police were justified and correct.

Sic Semper Tyrannis said...

Sorry, nearly forgot about Nixon. He is an interesting character, did a few good things, and a few bad things. I admit some ignorance about him. Whatever new has not been important enough to filter in yet. I'm not found of poking at peoples personal demons.

Lodo Grdzak said...

My God you're still not even prepared to dismiss Palin! The woman can't even outsmart her 18 year old hockey-player son-in-law! (Oh wait, he never married the daughter did he?!). Talk about a sell-out. The woman quit Alaska with over a year left in her term for a book deal and a TV show. Its amazing how people can talk about drinking the Obama Kool-Aid yet still support Palin even at this late, embarrassing juncture.

Sic Semper Tyrannis said...

I'm not prepared to dismiss anyone, especially someone who as resilient in the face of the media vetting she received. Dismissing someone can be dangerous and possibly give opportunity to someone who you believe can cause damage. We will never know everything that went on with father of her grandchild and her daughter's relationship. I'm hoping that it's the best for them and the baby. I've not heard or read exactly why she left office, if it was for a book deal, tv show or this mornings speculation that she is running for President. I have not expressed support for Palin or went against her, yet. As with any candidate or politician, I want to here what they want to do. Yes, there are Palin supporters, I've not run into any that were as die-hard, can do no wrong, mesiah complex, you're a racist if you disagree, are you stupid for not supporting, like the Obama supporters. The flip side is the former Obama supporters feeling buyers remorse. Palin can probably pitch better. Since Palin is not running for anything, there is no reason to be for or against her. I'm not embarrassed that I would give her the opportunity to tell me her ideas before I would make the decision on her qualifications, Then vote accordingly.

Lodo Grdzak said...

Think its fair to say fair we're not gonna agree on much Sic Semper. Especially if Palin can leave office with well over a year left in her term and pay no consequence in your mind or judgment. Jesus, what would constitute failure in your opinion? Usually a Republican at least waits until they leave office before raping it for all its worth. This chick sold out so fast she's like, "If that $8 million check clears, we're outta here!"

Hope you enjoyed the show Spence (ha! ha!)

Willie Y said...

I hope the Republicans run Palin. I also think the Dems would love it as well.The media loves her and why wouldn't they she says the most outlandish things. She is the queen of the 20 percent wingnut portion of the Republican party.

Sic Semper Tyrannis said...

We may not on agree on this but maybe you'll come around to my way of thinking on other things (haha). Follow me and I lead you from the dark side.

Seriously, I try to keep an open mind on some things(some things I don't want to), this is one. Once I find out why she left (the real reason), I'll know instantly if she is a success or failure. If it was for a TV show only, then that would be bad and she would be a failure. If she left to run for President because she couldn't be an effective govenor while running, then she did something that is good for her state, I'll give her a pass. I think that politicians should give up the seat they are holding to run for President, once they are the party's nominee. They cannot do the job they are elected to and run for President. If she left to get her kids out of the spotlight and to stop the media from picking on them, I support her 100%. There are other reasons, pro and con, but those are the three main that I've heard. Failure is determind by goals and expectations, the expectation is that she would complete her term, in that sense she is a failure. She's done some good things for her state and since the VP thing, she has been the focus of a witch hunt. She's handling that pretty well. There have been lot's of politicians that have recieved far less media bashing that have run and hid. Again, if she's trying to protect her kids, I support her, and that says there is something very wrong with the left and the media, that she would feel this is necessary. I'm sure that the general public only hears a small portion of everything that is said about her and her family. I don't care which daughter Letterman was joking about, you don't say stuff like that about ANY young girl (young girls to me are under 30). Just to keep things clear, no one should say anything about BHO's kids and thought the SNL skit involving Chelsea was wrong as well. I'm sure they have a marketing system that monitors every mention of her world wide. Now she has had some time to see what her new child needs and it may be a factor in her decision. She may come out with a book, and have a deal in the works, but you can write a book while in office, so I don't think that is it and won't hold that against her.

As far as her saying some outlandish things, she was held to a much higher standard than the Presidential candidates. If you've ever heard of Joe Biden, you might have noticed he is credited with inventing saying stupid things. During the campaign she is asked who was the last four presidents of Uzbeckfreakingstan, BHO was asked "what's your favorite color?". Maybe that was an exageration, but it's not to far off. I do enjoy how much, she is hated and feared by some, especially since her basic beliefs seem to be more constituional and would allow more freedom than those of the current President.

Lodo Grdzak said...

Sadly Willie Y, 75% of Republicans polled after Palin announced her resignation said they'd still vote for her. 75%. (heavy sigh).

Spencer Troxell said...

But isn't the number of people who self identify as republican at a record low?

I find it hard to believe she's not running. The Drudge Report (the official news source of all of talk radio) is giving every speech she gives big headlines ('Palin Says Beware Big Gov't: Slams Obama!), complete with heroic photography.

They're ramping her up for something.

Spencer Troxell said...

Oh, and Willie, don't be so excited about a possible Palin run. Remember, people thought it was a sure thing with Gore v. Bush and Kerry v. Bush?

If the economy doesn't recover markedly, if there's some kind of serious international incident that gets flubbed, if serious gun control legislation is passed, or if republicans can make some Gatesgate style controversy to stick, the reactionaries may win.

In that scenario, I'm hoping they at least go with Romney...

Sic Semper Tyrannis said...

I know its hard to understand that know matter how the media paints a person, some are intelligent enough to see past the bashing and the smearing, the hate, and the double standards and see a decent person with good ideas. To me that says 75% of Republicans are willing to do what they think is right, even when the media and the hatred of the left is so focused on a person.

So far you said she can't outsmart her daughter's boy friend, she says outlandish things, she's a sell out, and she's a failure because she left office early. The outcome of her daughter's relationship may be exactly as she desired, she has removed him from their lives and her daughter is not living in a trailer on the tundra. You've not specified what is outlandish that she has said, please don't quote Tina Fey. I've not been able to find any place where she has "sold" herself or compromised her positions for money or any other benefit, so you'll need to be specific here. We've already discussed leaving office early and what constitutes failure.

It seems you want an America that puts on it's boots and joins you in lock step as we march to the socialist paradise Obama desires. A country where we drive what Obama wants us to drive, use only the energy he thinks is correct, where the Constitution is equal application of the law to everyone unless you are one of the minorities then the laws don't apply, where government decides Grandma is really to old for a pacemaker and we'll give her a couple of pain pills to make her comfortable til she dies because its cheaper. A society where if you defend yourself you are a bigger criminal than the thug that wanted to rob and kill you, soldiers returning from service are labled terrorist because they have training and may disagree with an Obama policy, where the Bill of Rights is a very negative force because it "limits" what government can do to you.

Sarah Palin wanting people to be self sufficient and having limited government interference is such a real threat that she deserves such hatred and slander. You try to paint people who support or like her as stupid, you throw out wild accusations that seem to have no basis in reality or supporting evidence. What's sad is your argument is based on predjudice and elitist kinship, not on facts or application of political doctrine. Simplified, you don't want her elected because she's a stupid poopyhead bitch, not that you find her policies offensive. If that's the case, that's ok, I can deal with this level of discussion. I'll send you some cookies and warm milk, you can take a nap and we can talk tomorrow. She's strong, independent, and willing to call things as she see's them. Would I vote for her for President? Depends on the other candidates policy. I would vote for her over Obama, Biden, Pelosi, Reid or any of the other Democratic leaders that want to paint me as some threat to the world because I pray, own a gun and don't trust the government with my money or my life. By the way I'm an independent.

http://www.pjtv.com/video/Afterburner_with_Bill_Whittle/___The_Media,_The_Left_and_GOP_Elitists_vs_Sarah_Palin:_A_Lesson_on_How_to_Destroy_a_Leader/2235/

Sic Semper Tyrannis said...

One more thing, you guys really need to back off the I bet he listens to that radio show and watches FOX (GASP). It's really petty. I listen to Limbaugh, Bob and Tom and local shows. In the past 6 months I think I've watched 10 minutes of Fox news and nine of that was on Jackson's death. I watch and listen to what I find entertaining and that includes a black radio station that is the most racist and biased thing I've ever heard. I listened to air America for the ten minutes it was viable and enjoyed the ridiculous hate they spewed, it just gets old longer than that. I like Limbaugh's humor and try to fact check him where ever it is important. When you act like its a disease or so out of fashion to watch or listen to these non-liberal things, it comes off as some little clique that gathers in their moms basement.

A second term is not a done deal, Obama is credited with owning more of this economy than he understands. Even some who voted for him have said he has made it worse.

Willie Y said...

When,in the last 50 years has a true Conservative been elected? Once ,Reagan, and why because this is not a perfect world. They right pretends it to be a perfect world, it just isn't. Every one is not treated equal. Let's not give aid to the down trodden because every one should be treated equal and they all have an equal chance to make it and if you believe that I got a bridge for you to buy. Let' get rid of unions, because we all know that the people that run these company's are always looking out for all their employees and always pass down at lease some of the profits that they make to the so called little people. Reagan fired the air traffic controllers and what that has done was set into motion a trend that has stagnated the salary's of the middle class. There is no prejudice towards blacks and Hispanics. We are all living in la la land were everyone is on an equal basis. Once the Republicans start to take care of every one and not just the people in high places they might just win one.

And as far as Sara Palin is concerned, I have followed her every move and speech and what I get, is that she is not really up to the job of running anything. If you say stupid things it will end up on the news and its not just Palin, I mean anybody. It's just that she is just so gosh darn good at it.

Sic Semper Tyrannis said...

I don't know how you formed this opinion but the right acts like it is not a perfect world and the policy reflects it. The right want equal application of the law to everyone, not exceptions made for class, race, sex, or religion. The right wants equal opportunity and high wage jobs for everyone that wants one. The right wants effective safety nets for those who fall through the cracks, those who have had a misfortunate event and those who can't help themselves.

Reagan fired the Air Traffic Controlers because they BROKE THE LAW, not to break the Union. If anything he tolerated alot and not firing them when the strike vote happened instead of giving them 48 hours to abide by the law. The air industry is very important and considered part of the national defense, so it was made illegal for them to strike, as a concession, the Union was given more power in negotitaions and concessions that allowed them some dramatic payouts to them when the aggreement would have been reached. Instead of following the law and the agreement that allowed them to unionize in the first place, THEY BROKE THE LAW AND WERE FIRED FOR IT. That small segment of the population did not cause a stagnation of salaries, in fact I remember that they gave those that replaced them more money, so I think you are incorrect.

If you do not apply the law equally no matter the race or situation, you set the ground work for things like Jim Crowe laws or seperate but equal (waterfountains, schools, etc.), all Democrat inventions. To be against equal application of the law is racist, prejudice and biggoted. Is the law applied equally now, no (see the CT fire fighter case or most of Sotomyor rulings). The Right wants everyone to be treated equally by the law and government and that is their goal. The court is not a place to make policy or for a judge to practice their bias.

Most right wing proponents don't like Unions because it keeps employers from rewarding the really good employees, it makes Health Insurance more expensive (typically, not always) and does not allow for leeway when it comes to rules. Unions tend to increase the cost of doing business without increasing the benefits to the workers, because the Union leadership needs their cut. Unions have made some tremendous advances in safety for workers and are responisble for an upward trend in wages during the 30s. Much of the demise of the US auto industry can be laid at the feet of Union demands. The right knows there are no absolutes, not all unions are bad.

I would contend that the liberals are the racists in our society. Everytime you dumb a test down because this group or that group can't pass, you are stating they are to stupid to compete and we must make everyone else dumb and lower the bar, in the name of fairness. When you say that behavior is ok, because it's the "culture", you are sying that group are basically animals or mentally incapable of doing what is best for them and society.

Sic Semper Tyrannis said...

The right knows the left wants to move to LALA Land, where we can ignore the ills of society and commend people for intent but aren't allowed to criticize the damage done. The Right knows that their is prejudice towards all groups and is working towards equality. To have equality for everyone it must happen in the legal system as a check on every other behavior. The right knows you can't change the Klan member, Jesse Jackson, and other racists, but if you make difficult to practice their biggotry by treating everyone that comes in front of the court as equals, the world is better.

Republicans want everyone that can, to take care of themselves. Republicans want everyone to suceed in every part of their lives. Those who need help, Republicans want to help in every way possible, they want it to be effective and not degrading to the recipient.

Democrats belittle, hold down people, break up families, promote racism, just to maintain and acquire more power.

Again, I need an example of something stupid Palin said (NOT TINA FEY), and remember BHO's 57 states and other non teleprompter moments. She can speak from the heart to her beliefs, without a teleprompter and without a focus group.

Lodo Grdzak said...

Wasn't it Tina Fey who said (in the persona of Sara Palin) "Palin 2012--'cause there's no way I'm going back to Alaska!" Seems like (as usual) she was dead on. Oh, and in regards to that judgment question, Palin appearing on SNL was about as asinine a thing as she's ever done--and that's saying something! And finally, I truly believe you've all got Palin's intentions wrong. She's not interested in the Republican nomination. She wants to run 3rd party (maverick style) and influence the Repub nominating process. That way, she really doesn't have to accomplish anything (like govern or show results or build consensus) and can just keep spouting off her 2nd amendment B.S. for rabid fans who've drunk the Kool-Aid like Sic Semper (who somehow still thinks she's qualified). She's kind of the Mario Cuomo of Republicans.

Willie Y said...

Not all of the cases of prejudice are in the news. There are injustices every day that you never hear about. I guess you never ran into anybody that was a racist. You should spend a little time in our southern states. Not everyone in the south is prejudice, but there seems to me, a good amount of people that are to some degree. How is a person of color suppose to get ahead,wait for 4 or 5 generation to pass. If everyone had a equal chance at jobs or promotions or housing you would not need affirmative action. We are getting better through the younger generations, but there are still problems we need to be addressed.

The south use to vote Democratic till the civil rights amendment was passed. Why do you think that happened?

Here is but a few of silly Palins quotes for ya.

We believe that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hardworking, very patriotic, um, very, um, pro-America areas of this great nation.


"What does the vice president do?"

That's something that Piper would ask me! ... They're in charge of the U.S. Senate so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better for Brandon and his family and his classroom.

"I think on a national level your Department of Law there in the White House would look at some of the things that we've been charged with and automatically throw them out."

GbiZ said...

The thing is Lodo, Palin has never said anything interesting or even remotely thoughtful when it comes to policy. Shes the person people want to talk about, not listen to. So shes got to run for office. She dont got the product.

Sic Semper Tyrannis said...

You may be right, she may start some third party stuff that will hurt the republicans. I'm not going to condemn her until she does something worth condemning. Yes you're right going on SNL was not smart of her since its political leanings are so far left, but unfortunately politicians have to do the show circuit because most people are too stupid to figure out who's who with out it. Clinton was a bufoon with a sax, Obama is an Oprah kiss ass, and McCain was hopeless on letterman. If I missed anyone, my apologies, the candidates are trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator and most of them are dems and not worth appealing to.

Now since you are an angry leftist, maybe owning a weapon is not good for you. The second ammendment is one of the most clearly stated and yet most bastardized of the them. If you don't want a gun, don't own one. I am a strong proponent of the 2nd, and this might be the one area where you could say I'm rabid and be right. Owning any gun is a right and unless determined by due process in accordance with the Constitution that you are unable, if you can afford it own a fifty caliber AA weapon or artillery. Those who beat their guns in to plows will be ruled by those who have not. If you do not like it stay inside and hide. Otherwise, molon labe!

Again, my support of Palin goes only as far as she prefered over the current Dems of note. I don't like kool-aid. Republicans are not like Dems and will remove ANYONE who violates the established parameters of the office being held. The Dems surround and defend the child molesters, the cheaters and liars and say how brave they are to confront their demons, and you should be ashamed of yourself for judging their lifestyle. Those without morals are not held to account for their morals. That is why Kennedy can kill a young woman and still be a senator, reid can spout treason, pelosi can lie about what she knew and Obama can hang out in racist churches with terrorist and criminals getting questionable deals on real estate and be president.

Yes prejudice is everywhere by all races in every state. I've traveled the south, the north and places in between. This prejudice is exactly why a conservative view of the courts and legal system is crucial. You must have un-biased judges that apply the law equally to all those that come in the court. There are systems to move up the system in case the locals are corrupt. It's not easy and each generation makes improvement on attitudes, but we have to stop the racism that the dems push that foster the inequities. Employers are generally the most fair in employment of all the society elements, because people are greedy. If I can hire a black guy that I know will work hard, represent my company well and make me more money, than a candidate of another race, I'm hiring him. Most people that start businesses are intelligent enough to grasp that basic principle. I've seen it business over and over again, North and South.

I'll check on the quotes when I have time, they sound mostly like times when she lost her place in a prepared statement and mispoke, just like everytime BHO walks away from the teleprompter. You'll have to search a little harder, I again try to give her and even BHO the benefit of the doubt that maybe what they said didn't come out right. It least she never said she doesn't know the facts but a police department acted stupidly.

Sic Semper Tyrannis said...

Gbiz, thank you, my point from the start is that she has not made policy statements, she towed the line for McCain then went home. I'm not so biggoted that I will dismiss her politics before I know what they are.

Lodo Grdzak said...

Sounds like a Palin voter.

Willie Y said...

Lodo you can't argue with someone who listens to Rush, who is alway rational and never misleads his listener's.

Sic Semper Tyrannis said...

It's difficult for me to argue with the kool-aid drinking, socialist supporters of the Hitler-esque Obama.

Lodo Grdzak said...

The Rush & Sara show. That might be a ratings winner. 2 a-holes who never really have to accomplish anything or reach out past their core demographic. Just sit back and tell the world how smart they are while they rail against the government and the media; all the while making millions off the latter source. Have your cake and eat it too! Sounds like the Republican mantra to me. But Willie Y, I say let' em have their little circle jerk around their pile of guns that they pretend the government's gonna try to steal or confiscate. Here's a news flash for Sic Semper, the governments got guns! Lots of em. They arent interested in your guns. I know its hard for a white man in this country to believe, but you're not on the governments mind 24/7. What an insult I know! But maybe Sic Semper and his kind can move to Alaska and secede from this country and hunt for their food from a helicopter like real men.

Sic Semper Tyrannis said...

WOW! There so much wrong here that I don't know where to start. We don't know what Palin wants to do, so let's eliminate that possibility and I really don't care what she does at this point. Your obsession with her is interesting, I can't decide if you find her attractive and know she's way out of your league or if your afraid all the good looking guys are after her and that leaves none for you. Rush has accomplished alot in his chosen profession and has made millions doing it, I'm happy for him. He rails against the LIBERALS in Government and media. If you have cake you should eat it and share with others or it goes to waste, that would be a republican idea. Waste is the Democrat mantra. Lodo has latent homosexuality issues and paranoid delusions. I know the government has guns, and current the administration has expressed many times that their interest is that I and others don't have guns. Not being on the governments mind is exactly what Republicans and conservatives want and won't be insulted, in fact they would be happy. I never said my race, but would it surpise you to find out that that the majority of my anncestory is American Indian, Shawnee and Cherokee, to be exact, and by some government definition I'm a minority. Hunting is something I enjoy a great deal, I don't want to do it from a helicopter. I'm careful to have the correct license, in season and take the proper species and gender. Unless its squirrels, I don't trust them. Deer is healthier, the activity itself requires a certain level of health and is good for the environment. My license fees goes to maintain parks and preserves and allows for monitoring the health of animal populations. Palin has authorized coyote and wolf hunting from helicopters because they are dangerous, nuisance species when the population level is at that level.

Now if you want to actually discuss politcal ideas instead of your unnatural hatred for a political party and certain people with in that party, I'm all for it. Really this kind of life your leading can't be good for you. To be so obsessed with an individual can be dangerous to you and others. This kind of thinking is what brought Hinkly to Reagan and Boothe to Lincoln. Your insults make me believe you are insecure in your grasp of the political and unsure of your beliefs. Were you frightened by a Nixon ballon as a child, were you taken in to the basement of some democrat and waterboarded until you would believe everything that they say. I want to help have a good happy life and eliminate all this hate you have. Let me know what I can do.

Sic Semper Tyrannis said...

One more thing, if Alaska seceeded from the Union it would only make it more difficult because all of their oil would be considered foreign oil, they could drill wherever they want and possibly join opec. No one really wants that.

Willie Y said...

Sic, who wants to take your guns away? I just don't see it, maybe you can show me were the goverment wants to take a way your gun. I could care less if people have guns as long as they are shown not to be a half bubble off plum, why not. And in my little world, Willies world,and probably not in yours, I see no need for the general population to have any kind of weapon that could bring down a tank, but hey that's just me being paranoid.

And as far as Limbaugh goes I read everyday the crazy things he talks about. And you know what, some times he lies about things. I know you don't think so, but he does. He scars people with his lies and misinformation. If you want to check it out for yourself go to; http://mediamatters.org/limbaughwire/

They have transcripts and recording of his exact words. Give it a try if you dare. Now you can believe what you want but at lease have it based on the truth.

Sic Semper Tyrannis said...

If you like we can start with any of the Brady legislation or we can go back further to look at registration efforts or we can look at the gun legislation BHO supported in the IL senate, how about the assault weapon ban, legislation to serialize ammunition, high capacity magazines ban, BHO stating in speach in the IL Senate that we must ban all guns in Chicago, if you are not seeing it, you are not looking. I don't see a need for anyone to have a weapon to bring down a tank, but having known people that own Civil War era cannons and having fired them, I understand they are fun, interesting and pretty cool to watch with all the fire, smoke and the concussion. Owning any weapon is a responsibility not to be taken lightly.

Limbaugh is another individual that some have decided is evil and very polarizing to non-thinking liberals. If you care to review what I wrote a while back, I said I listen to Limbaugh because I like his humor and I fact check what I think is important. He is an entertainer on the political stage, like bill maher but not angry and hateful. I get to listen about 1-2 hours a day, I hear alot in context in real time. Some things are said to be funny, some are poking fun at liberals, some are informative, most is his opinion, not absolute fact. I don't need transcripts or recording, I hear most of it when it happens. If you are scarred by an enteratainer, you are too thin skinned. Point is, I listen when I can, sometimes its background noise, sometimes I'm really listening and trying to figure out meaning and facts. My radio listening goes like this, Bob and Tom until 9, local radio show til noon, Rush is on till 3, then I flip around. I like listening to this German station that plays music, don't understand a word of it but the music is fun. Limbaugh is a political enterainer and is trying to have fun. People like Alec Baldwin that are entertainers that are angry and hateful to the point that they want to stone to death a congressman and his family are the ones I try to avoid.

All I want is the truth, denying the Clintons, Obamas and Bidens anti-gun positions are naive and dangerous especially when they have such a long record and Biden brags about his. I've seen alot of the typical in accurate liberal tirades here and was only trying to correct where I thought the facts were wrong, like the reasons Reagan fired the Airtraffic controllers. This is a case where you can believe what you want, my father a diehard Union supporter disagrees with me to, I lived through it, checked out the facts and formed my opinion from there.

What amazes me is you are asking me not listen to Limbaugh because he hurts peoples feelings but how many times have I been attacked for my beliefs. When I was trying to point out inaccuracies in the statements. I finally have started to give back as I was getting. There is a huge difference in saying you are wrong and here is why and saying you are a gay hating nut job that likes to masterbate in groups because I disagree with you.

Lodo Grdzak said...

There's a sucker born every minute. And Palin and Limbaugh are laughing on Sic Semper's money all the way to the bank. If you really believe in the causes you do Sic Semper, you might want to ask yourself, "have I had success with these two pushing my agenda?" Maybe its time for some new blood.

Speaking of blood, you're a white man. I know it and I'd bet my life on it. Send us a pic--I wanna see.

And finally, "Hitler-esque Obama?" Now I know you're just goofing on us Sic. But in fairness, it's been fun. Now excuse me, but I've gotta go out and get myself a man. I've just discovered some things about myself!

Sic Semper Tyrannis said...

Since I've never sent either a nickel it's not my money they're living on. I believe very strongly in the issues that I've stated, and again Limbaugh is an entertainer and Palin isn't running, find a new dead horse to beat.

There is white, the majority of the anncestory is from the two different people I've indicated. If I sent you a picture of myself in full dress showing off every stereotype you want to see, you'd say it wasn't me and so there's no point.

I am sincere about the Hitler-esque Obama, because much of the agenda he is pushing is similar to the German socialist party of 1936 and beyond. Except of course that jewish issue (as far as we know), and Hitler would never apologized for Germany.

It has been fun, I hope you find a good man, please use protection.