Looks like the evangelical christian fun"DUH"MENTALists are telling McCain that he had better.....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23137096

I guarantee that if the Religious Right doesn't side 110 percent with McCain, that they will be handing the election to the Democratic candidate, whether it's Obama and Hillary.

Are they truly this short-sighted?

YES!



They are.....

The religious right's time is up once Bush is gone. And I say good riddance!

The neocons are going to help elect Obama president.

The way things are going, it looks like Hillary is getting some interesting allies.

In any event the history books will change.

First black president
or
First woman president
or
Oldest president

It certainly makes this an amazing and important time to be an American.

One thing I am sure of, no matter who gets elected, I am damn proud to be an American!!!!

Amen!

We are the best damn dysfunctional nation on the best damn dysfunctional planet in the universe!

Maybe so, but try getting a latte on Mars.

No kidding. Once you get there, the lines are short, but they haven't had a good barista in centuries.

At least the drink will be hot.

Due to forced budget cuts, your flight to mars only has enough oxygen to get you 1/2 of the way there, alive and breathing anyway.

Hey, just give me Shrub, Cheney and the Cabinet, and I'll have enough hot air to make it to Pluto.

But then it would never get off of the ground, you know, being so full of CRAP!

Damn, I knew there was a catch

The religious right will vote for the Republican candidate to keep a Democrat out of office. I think the Mccain concerns will be a thing of the past now that he's clearly going to be the nominee.

I guarantee that if the Religious Right doesn't side 110 percent with McCain, that they will be handing the election to the Democratic candidate, whether it's Obama and Hillary.

Are they truly this short-sighted?

I fear for the Democrats if Hillary is elected.

I have stated my feelings here before.

/Help us Obama your our only hope!

Dey does what prechah man tells dem to do.

It was this same mentality that caused Dave Frohnemayer to lose to Barbara Roberts in 1990.

No, not a lot of brain power here. It's unfortunate, not all evangelicals are this frigging stupid and easy to lead.

Whilst agreeing with Dr. Dobson's support of Mr. Huckabee, I agree that people like him are out of touch in bad-mouthing Mr. McCain.

Mr. McCain is strong on terror and a solid conservative in his support of conservative judges.

Unless people like James Dobson are fine with Roe v. Wade as it stands, they better support Mr. McCain. Otherwise, by throwing in the towel and not supporting such a judicial conservative, the democrats will put in leftist radicals who care not a whit for unborn kids.

Herb

"the democrats will put in leftist radicals who care not a whit for unborn kids."

Just how do you reach out a hand to those on the other side of the political spectrum with divisive language like that. At least Obama is making the attempt to give respect and dignity to those he disagrees with.

Herb you're still learning.

I'd rather be unabashedly pro-life than lukewarm and PC, in case you haven't noticed.

If you disagree with me on the life issue, or try to wiggle on it, that's sad.

Herb

This is where your black and white outlook is dangerous to me.

Thankfully many of today's younger conservative evangelical's are not so narrowly scoped.

'Tis a narrow way we are to follow.

"Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat."

Matthew 7:13

Herb

Yeah, yeah...

I too am very pleased with the up and coming evangelicals. Absolutely nothing wrong with showing others the love.

Sorry, but "you are gonna burn" isn't showing the love Herb. Without that, it's something that only appeals to those wanting to get spanked mentally on a regular basis.

So, you would take the petri dish then?

Come on buddy, step up and admit it here and now. Are you a real pro-lifer or not?

10 lives in the dish, one little baby girl in the corner, burning building, only time to act on one or the other.

If you wouldn't take the dish, then the issue has some grey to it for you. Viable lives are worth more than non-viable ones. From there, we have a discussion!

Would you really take the dish Herb?

I need an answer to that, if I'm to accept your staunch statement above as solid; otherwise, it's just crap.

A simple, "yes", or "no" to the dish please?

I'll pony up for a real nice, "Save the Blastocysts!" bumper sticker, and jacket button, if you are there for the dish! Just let me know.

Tis a narrow road but not narrow minds.

It's a false choice to say we can't save the unborn because there are needy children.
That's like saying we won't work on eradicating Whooping Cough because Rubella exists.

If my political partisanship were so extreme as to cause me to defend pushing scissors into the head of little kids, I'd bob, weave and turn into a pretzel, whilst conjuring up straw man arguments all day long, too.

What a crooked, blood-stained web pro-abortionists weave.

Herb

Hey Herb, would you take the dish?

A single mom with one child already finds herself once again pregnant. It is discovered early on that there are major complications in the pregnancy. If allowed to continue there is a 95% chance the mother will not survive. What would you have this mother do Herb?

I'd err on the side of life.

And given the left's demand that we spend millions whilst exhausting every possibility before heinous convicted criminals are executed, the least liberals should do is give an innocent child the same benefit of any doubt.

But democrats aren't about defending the weak, unless they can buy their votes.

Herb

Whose? The unborn baby or the mother?

Come on Herb. If you are gonna hammer this absolute home, you gotta take a stand on it.

You said nothing else matters about this. You also said you would much rather take a positive stand on pro-life, rather than some grey one.

So the dish, or the baby?

"And given the left's demand that we spend millions whilst exhausting every possibility before heinous convicted criminals are executed...

I didn't know the Constitution protections of due process belonged only to the left. But maybe they do now...the right seems to have disavowed all connections with the document.

Quit listening to the cricket's and answer the damn question's for once would you! I keep trying to give you the bennefit of the doubt but anymore doubt there is any bennefit in doing that!

The Dish or the baby?

and

The unborn or the mother?

Duck, weave, bob, misdirect.....yep it's Herb alright.

Herb, abortion is not a Democrat vs Republican issue or liberal vs conservative one.

There are liberal Democrats opposed to abortion, just as there are conservative Republicans who support it.

So take the politics out of your argument.

Say abortion supporters and abortion foes, or I will even accept Right to Life vs Baby Killers.

And while you're spouting scripture Herb let's look at Luke 4:18.

"The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed"

So here's Jesus making his first public statement in a house of worship with the religious leaders from his home town. They all know him and his family. Jesus right out of the gate makes it very clear who he is here for...the poor.

Not the leftist radicals, not the religious right, not the democrats, not the republicans, not the pro-lifers or pro-choicers....the poor.

But you come up with this Herb.

"It's a false choice to say we can't save the unborn because there are needy children. That's like saying we won't work on eradicating Whooping Cough because Rubella exists."

Just pointing out your unique ability to be very selective with your morality.

Quit listening to the cricket's and answer the damn question's for once would you! I keep trying to give you the bennefit of the doubt but anymore doubt there is any bennefit in doing that!

The Dish or the baby?

and

The unborn or the mother?

I don't know of anyone that says in the case of physical danger to the mother she shouldn't have the option of an abortion.

And in the case of the petri dish, life won't exist beyond the early stages, I have a problem with a scientist being allowed to start a life that can't possibly ive.

Nwokie, a life cannot live outside the body of a mother before the first trimester without medical support, so what is the difference with starting in a petri dish?

Because the child is in a condition where it can live.

Ok, lets try this

After only one month in the mother, no doctor could save it, so with your logic, you would support abortion in the first month.

No, because the child has everything it needs to survive. You are talking about removing it from an environment it can survive in.

A one month child, can't survice on its own, we punish people that don't give their children what they need to survice.

I wasn't asking you HerbiOkie. I want to hear Herb's answers to those questions.

So then what it wrong with starting in the petri dish and then growing inside the mom?

"Come on Herb. If you are gonna hammer this absolute home, you gotta take a stand on it."

Glad to. When you stop giving out false choices.

Herb

"Herb, abortion is not a Democrat vs Republican issue or liberal vs conservative one. There are liberal Democrats opposed to abortion, just as there are conservative Republicans who support it. So take the politics out of your argument. Say abortion supporters and abortion foes, or I will even accept Right to Life vs Baby Killers."

Radioblogman, I earnestly wish to find agreement with you, especially on your first statement. But the democrat party is as beholden to the 'pro-choice' element as the republicans are to 'big business' and tobacco.

You raise a good issue and were there more left of center groups who are pro-life, I would be glad to concede the point.

For example, here's one liberal group I can appreciate..but imagine how marginalized they are by their leftist sisters:

http://www.feministsforlife.org/

Herb

The Unborn or the Mother Herb?

That is a choice occasionally faced in the real world.

Answer it.

The law is already there to save the Mother.

Since that's the case, one has to wonder why the continued straw man argument?

The true reason for the obfuscation is because for most radical leftists and their ilk, it's never been about saving innocent life. It's more about blood money, along with other ill motives.

Herb

"No, because the child has everything it needs to survive. You are talking about removing it from an environment it can survive in.

A one month child, can't survice on its own, we punish people that don't give their children what they need to survice."

Nwokie, THANK YOU for this. Seriously. Though you still need to practice using your spellchecker, this statement is a new-to-me argument from the pro-life camp that has good grounding in logic, science and law.

Not saying I agree with it, but it is a good argument.

So then what it wrong with starting in the petri dish and then growing inside the mom?

IMHO, nothing.

I have a friend and his wife in Denver who have 2 beautiful, healthy boys because of invitro fertilization.

It's the only way they could have children. Cost them a bloody fortune, but they gladly paid it.

Anybody that would take the petri dish over a living baby is a fucking idiot. Pardon my french.

Here's another though;

Since apparently some folks don't feel it's a baby up until a certain point in the pregnancy, is it OK for the mother-to-be to smoke, and drink alcohol up to that point?

Just a thought to help clarify.

Do you believe that pregnant women that smoke or drink should be charged with a crime?

And what about parents that smoke at home with kids it the house? Charge them too?

If not charged with a crime at least they should be whacked upside the head with a boat paddle!

I don't know. That's a tough call. They are doing harm to the unborn child. I think it would be pretty hard to charge them with a crime and make it stick. Same thing for the home.

Maybe if they just raise the cost of a pack of cigarettes to $30+ that would get more people to quit.

I do think that people that smoke in a car with kids strapped in a car seat should be given a HUGE fine. $10,000 would be a good starting point, with the fine money going to children’s organizations (NOT government ones, though).

In Florida, if you get a DWI with a child in the car they can charge you with child abuse. I don't see how they can do that. Child endangerment, yes, child abuse, not unless they have an accident and the child is injured.

Anyway, I don’t mean to turn this into a non or anti smoking thread. That’s fodder for a different one.

Well I jump on this hijacked section then let others bring it back.

With many states considering a fine for talking on your cell phone while driving, why not smoking, eating, and putting on makeup and all the other stupid things we all do while driving.

In Denmark it's illegal to talk on your cell phone while driving. Common sense law. However many Europeans are chain smokers and allow smoking in restaurants and other public places.

EVANGELICAL fun"DUH"MENTALists just need to step back and let the REST of America make choices that they want. When a SMALL MINORITY tried to swing their ax around and DICKtate what America should be that's when it's time to have them sit in the corner for a much deserved timeout.

Classic leftist bigotry: These socialists aren't happy unless they can try to make people of faith check their religious beliefs before entering the voting booth.

You're in the minority, thank goodness. Abraham Lincoln and most of our other great presidents were devout believers.

Herb

I think the problem started when the little dog laughed to see such sport and the dish ran away with the spoon. If the cow had not jumped over the moon, our country would not be debating whether the cow ought to be the last word in crafting policy and reframing our Constitution.

Silly? Sure it is, but then this whole discussion is silly.

The Constitution is clear about this whole issue, and yet, Mike Huckabee is still proposing changes to that document. Without those changes, he would not be able to create a theocracy. If you want to worship, you already have that right. If you want to worship in his way, he wants to deliver the revisions.

Why should we exchange personal freedom for all, for the dogmatic security of a few?

Let's see the revision he proposes.

Herb

Enjoy.

If you are really for freedom of religion, then no revisions are necessary.

I like Mr. Huckabee even more now.

Human life and defense of marriage amendments are precisely what we need right now.

A majority of Americans support the latter, having passed defense of marriage acts in many states. And with the overturning of the dastardly Roe v. Wade, we'll have a human life amendment, too.

Herb

I think the supporters of "defense of marriage" acts should worry more about their OWN marriages rather than those of others. But as is typical in the world of bible thumpers, they wouldn't be doing the their godly deeds if they weren't passing judgment on others while ignoring the mess in their own backyard.

How does marriage need to be defended?

The HUCKster is toast....

The most common argument I hear is that people, who are currently married and are religious consider that union a godly thing and that government sanction of that union is a statement that supports God --as in affirmation.

Should others declare marriage in some other fashion, and said unions are sanction by government, then that implied affirmation is no longer there; thus, God is somehow diminished and with that their marriage also being diminished.

IMHO, that's bunk as our government does not endorse God, but only does not get in the way of God, and that's the core of freedom of religion.

We, as citizens here, are free to worship how we see fit --and that means everybody. So, religion in general is actually encouraged as there is no restriction surrounding the practice of it, save for that it needs to be a private affair and not a public one. (If public, then there is an endorsement and with that comes the whole can of worms surrounding which religion is getting endorsed over the others, blah, blah, blah...)

An extremely high percentage of people, who are opposed to gay marriage and even gay unions not called marriage as we do here in Oregon, are also convinced this nation is branded under their particular faith, whatever that may be.

Again, should those kinds of unions stand, then the idea of that branding is significantly diminished and they've a lot invested in that!

Our other option is to continue slouching towards Gomorrah.

God is not mocked.

Herb

Well? What about the Gay Christians that want to get married?

"What about the Gay Christians that want to get married?"

What of them? What about thieving Christians who wish to get married? Or adulterous ones?

Using one bad behaviour to excuse another bad behaviour doesn't wash with the Almighty.

Elevate your game.

Anything less is a race to Davey Jones' Locker.

Herb

Hey, I'm serious.

I know gay people, some Christians, who either are married during the brief window opened earlier, or are working on a union now.

Nice people, doing nothing wrong --some being good witnesses as well!

It's a valid question, not just some artificial escalation to spark some angst!

The common argument I posted above is something I've heard repeatedly. When I don't hear that, I generally also don't hear opposition to the idea of unions. Sometimes I hear it in opposition to calling it marriage though.

Enough people are not convinced that being gay is "bad behavior" to put the question I posed on the table! It's fair.

The thieving Christians, given they are not gay, can go ahead and get married. So can the adulterous ones right?

Bad behavior is bad behavior, so where's the harm?

Herb to Missing...
Dodge, weave... Counter attack... make no sense....
Missing it's NO use... He's gone..

probably...

Major bummer too. I find it extremely difficult to go and tell my friends they shouldn't get married, or love each other, or that they are "bad".

Wonder how many of these, "it's a sin" people could do the same, right to their face, full on, and take what they get back...

Bible Thumpers are a different breed. Kind of like Jehovah's Witnesses.....
Missing.. I'm sorry to say but I don't think that Herb will ever be able to understand what the REST of us know. What he thinks isn't the HIGHWAY. He wants it to be but MOST American's don't believe in what he does. Which is a good thing.......

Thought about this a bit. IMHO, I think you are right.

I like Herb though. Don't know why, just do.

So, there is some hope, just gotta balance that with sanity overall around here.

NEVER said I didn't like Herb EVER! It's nice to read his opinions and see what is going on in his brain. That's why I listen to Rush, Hewitt and Limblah all the time. But I also listen to Rhodes, Hartman and Mike Malloy to hear the left side too. I love balance to everything but Herb's HOLIER than thou is just OVER THE TOP for me.
Still like him though....

Without Herb and Nwokie, there would be no reason to be part of this discourse.

Well, you guys are all good eggs, too.

If we all agreed on everything, there would be far less to discuss.

Herb

If we all agreed on everything, there would be far less to discuss.

And it would be kind of boring too!

Can you say Stepford Wives!!!

Kum by yah my lord.....Kum by yah.

G was a fine choice Chris.

It almost sounds like the Weavers in here. :0)

Wow! The Weavers doing Pete Seeger. A double dose of goodness! Now I'm going to have to dig out my Weavers albums!

Thanks Littlesongs!

Pete's son, Arlo is going to be doing concerts all around the area in 2008, but so far none in Portland. Bummer!

04-03-2008 Bend, OR Bend High School Auditorium
04-04-2008 Corvallis, OR, USA Corvallis High School
04-05-2008 Seattle, WA, USA The Paramount Theater
04-06-2008 Seattle, WA, USA The Paramount Theater

2 shows at high schools! Man, I wish Arlo had come to our high school back in the early 70's! We never had anything but local groups and not very good ones at that!

http://www.arlo.net/

Back in early 67 The Blues Project with Al Kooper played at our high school. It was awesome. This was just before Al formed Blood Sweat and Tears, and The Blues Project was probably at it's pinnacle of performance perfection. The late Andy Kulberg (bass) did a long flute solo ("Flute Thing") with echo and brought down the house. For me, it was an important musical milestone as it helped me finally shut the door on Top 40 and move to the emerging world of electric blues and jazz rock fusions that were beginning to emerge. I almost got to be backstage since I was on the school lighting crew, but being a sophomore and #4 in seniority, I had to buy my ticket. A couple of bucks.

McCain has cut a deal with the religious right, they get a veto on any future Supreme Court nominee, in return, they mute their criticism, and vote for Mccain, without making a pubic announcement, so the more centrist voters won't be scared off. As Limbaugh said, the worst thing he could do for McCain, would be to publicly endorse him.

I don't think McCain will have to worry about any future Supreme Court justices.

Temper Temper

McCain has cut a deal with the religious right.

100% FALSE!

But if there is ANY shread of truth to that I'm jumping ship to Obama! Anyone have proof? Sorry but I can't take Nwokie's word......