The Always Predictable ACLU
Proving that they’re always predictable…
I was listening to Glenn Beck this morning on XM RIGHT (in the car, I don’t have a home kit right now for my XM radio), and he was telling of a mother who had a C section and her baby was immediately taken away from her. She’s had 3 babies taken away from her. Why? Well, she’s a drug addict…a recovering drug addict, now…we hope. And the father? Well the father is a sex offender who spent 10 years in prison for raping and sodomizing two 13 year old girls. He also molested his own daughter.
Of course, this is not a guy you want kids around, and the law has to protect children, considering they are completely helpless when it comes to very large and very much older adults.
Glenn asks…guess who is defending the mother and the father in court?
I’m driving down the road, and of course, I say out loud, “the ACLU.” Which is soon followed by Glenn’s voice proclaiming, “the ACLU.”
At least this organization is so sickening in its practices that we can guess every move they make before they even make it. The ACLU attorney in the case said that people shouldn’t be punished for making mistakes…child rape and sodomy is considered a mistake by the ACLU. How quaint.
The ACLU- suing schools nationwide to get rid of Christmas and any mention of God, going after the Boy Scouts everyday, and defending the ‘civil rights’ of sex offenders to have and molest more children! Thank God for the ACLU. Oops, I said God…don’t sue me!
UPDATE: (For people like ‘John’):
The following google search has links to many news sites with this story:
(http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=aclu%2C+mother%2C+baby%2C+sex+offender)
Also, some direct links:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/10/22/sexoffender.custody.ap/
http://www.bloggingbaby.com/entry/1234000917064602
| Print article | This entry was posted by Joshua Taj Bozeman on October 24, 2005 at 7:25 am, and is filed under Current Events, Issues, Politics. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site. |
No trackbacks yet.
Comments are closed.
about 6 years ago
This is what I like about your blog. We don’t need any links, or quotes, or even names! We’ll just take your word for it. The always predictable Josh Bozeman…proving that he’s always predictable.
Also, you’ll be pleased to know that I’ve filed suit against you for using the G word. I’ll be represented by the ACLU, of course. Always predictable!
about 6 years ago
yeah. because internet users who read this are incapable of using google.
ill go thru this slowly for you.
go to google.com
type in these search terms the way ive typed it out:
“aclu, mother, baby, sex offender”
what do you know- the entire first page has dozens of links showing this very story.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=aclu%2C+mother%2C+baby%2C+sex+offender
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/10/22/sexoffender.custody.ap/
http://www.bloggingbaby.com/entry/1234000917064602
http://politicalwire.com/cloakroom/comments.php?DiscussionID=359&page=1
http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/1005/270880.html
crazy how that works huh
about 6 years ago
Well, now that we have the actual article to read, we see that the ACLU is only representing the MOTHER, not the child-molesting father. So the ACLU is not “defending the ‘civil rights’ of sex offenders to have and molest more children,” as Josh would have us believe. Also, I wonder if Josh believes that all Americans deserve legal representation in one form or another. That’s sort of the way America’s legal system works. Maybe Josh would prefer our system to run more like Iran’s, where people are summarily executed and often do not stand trial.
And if it was so easy to pop in a link, why didn’t you just do that in the first place? Maybe reading about this, and not trusting some right-wing radio guy, would have stopped you from claiming the ACLU was “defending the ‘civil rights’ of sex offenders to have and molest more children.” Because frankly, I don’t believe the ACLU sees “molesting children” as a civil right. But if you want to make shit up and believe it, go ahead.
about 6 years ago
Ha good call John. This reminds me of Josh’s airtight argument when I brought up the importance of the legal process in setting precedent. He said “well it’s just common sense to not wear a swear word on your shirt!” Well, Josh, for most of us it’s common sense not to murder or steal from people and there are still laws for that. Heck, I have those values and I ain’t even a good Christian.
about 6 years ago
lol. good try.
the baby was taken away from the mother BECAUSE of the child molesting father. so, yes, the ACLU is fighting on the mothers behalf to allow her and the CHILD MOLESTING FATHER to have children and to surely molest them (hes molested one of his own daughters already and raped 2 13 yr olds…will he do it again? gosh, thats a tough one!)
the mother deserves legal representation…sure. and how do you get from that to the ACLU charging in proclaiming that the baby should stay with the mother AND THE FATHER. the issue is the father mainly, not the mother. youve tried to distort this, but anyone can read the stories (as i have) and clearly understand this (well, NEARLY anyone can read it and understand this aspect.)
the lawyers for the ACLU specifically mentioned the fathers crimes and called it a ‘mistake’ and, as mentioned, the reason for taking the baby away was the father and his crimes and the welfare of the child in such a home. so, despite what you claim, the aclu is defending the father via representing the mother and bringing the fathers crime into the fray. the issue IS the crime of the father, but youre going to claim this is all about the mother, im sure. the facts just dont lead you there. they are, indeed, defending the rights of the father THRU the mother to keep the child (since the father was the reason the child was taken away)…thus, they are defending the fathers rights here as well, using the mother as the connection to the father. thus, theyre fighting for a child molester to have children in his care (this IS, afterall, the issue at hand- the fathers crimes and the mothers decision to have children with the man, putting them in possible harms way.)
about 6 years ago
todd- we all know its not necessary to make a precedent for such a matter. if you need to make a precedent, youre a fool to begin with. you were arguing that its good that such a case went to court for the reason that it would set a precedent. thats silly. that means we should take every behavior on earth, no matter how trivial and tie up the courts with it to merely set precedents for later silly and trivial cases that will waste more precious time and money!
as for johns argument…well, my first reply to it suffices. the aclu is arguing that the mother shouldnt be punished for her own sins, but mainly for the sins of the father…that the man should have access to children, even tho he raped 2 and molested a 3rd, and the 3rd was his own. history shows us that he will surely molest and probably even rape and sodomize children again. thats the issue…because theyre defending the mother means nothing. theyre defending the mother in regards to the issue at hand which is THE FATHER. thats the connection in all of this. does the woman have a civil right to put children in harms way via the father whom she has had 3 kids with total. common sense says- no way in hell. the guy will just continue to molest. statistics show us that child molesters often ratchet up their crimes and continue them even after being releaed into the public. jessica lunsford anybody? we can name a half dozen cases in the past few yrs that made natl attention in regards to this issue…
about 6 years ago
Josh, I’m not arguing that these kids should be placed back into the care of the mother and the father. My problem with your original post is you lied, to smear the ACLU. You said the ACLU was defending the rights of sex offenders to molest children. That’s a lie. The ACLU was defending the mother, who felt her civil rights were violated, because her choice of whom to marry caused her children to be taken away. Now, think what you want about that, but why is it wrong for the ACLU to defend her?
This is a common misconception among people who aren’t versed in the law. They equate lawyers with defendants. Of course, in this case Josh takes it a step further, and equates lawyers with HUSBANDS of defendants.
See Josh, you could have written a post criticizing the mother for her marital choice, and that would have been fine. I’d even be inclined to agree! But to smear the mother’s lawyers is antithetical to America’s judicial system as a whole.
As a (hopefully) future lawyer, I can say with pride that I would defend the civil rights of anyone, left wing, right wing, whomever. That’s America. Why do you hate America, Josh?
about 6 years ago
yes john i hate america. and i lied. you pinned it totally.
the claim at hand is THE FATHER. the children were taken away BECAUSE OF THE FATHER. continue to claim that the aclu isnt defending the fathers “rights” via the mother, but its just not going to stick.
the mother has no civil rights issue here. the civil rights issue is with the father.
you dont make a whole lot of sense. you dont necessarily agree that children should be with a mother who is married to a sex offender and who grow up with a child rapist as a father, but then you claim that the aclu is doing a good thing somehow. because the mother has some unknown, unwritten right to have children and expose them to a child rapist? must have missed the founders writing on that one! not to mention this isnt a civil rights issue- no one has the inherent right to put children in harms way…which is why children are taken away from parents all the time, because they parents put the children in harms way. this happens everyday for any number of reasons- this is just a case of much of the same. with a twist including a child rapist…which, again, IS THE ISSUE at hand. the fathers actions are at issue, so you cant continue to deny that, via the mother, the aclu is defending the fathers rights.
if the mother were to disavow the father and not put the child in harms way thru the father0 we probably wouldnt have this situation…but we do, and the only reason there is a case at all is because the father and his actions. so, the mother alone isnt the issue…so thats not why the child was taken, and thats not what is at issue, which means- thats not all the aclu is defending. the aclu atty made it obvious when he mentioned the fathers actions and called it a “mistake”. a mistake?! raping children is now a mistake…that from the aclu atty. yet, youll claim that theyre in no way defending the father or his actions or his supposed civil rights to damage more children. even the aclu doesnt agree with you on this.
about 6 years ago
Do you ever read the things you write? Unlike your ramblings, I’m going to cut my point down into very concise bullets.
1) Mom, who never molested her children, has new born child taken from her days after it’s birth.
2) I’ll let one of the links you supplied above make this point:
“This case brings up some very serious issues. It seems an odd choice to marry a convicted sex offender, who according to officials has a “history of violent sexual abuse against kids.” However, to pull a newborn from it’s mother in the first days of life? I’m unclear how that can possibly be in the best interest of a child.
Also as the ACLU, who is representing Ms. Wolfhawk in this case, says, “I don’t know when imminent danger to a child became you can’t have any friends we don’t like, or even any exes we don’t like. If you ever associate with someone who turns out to have engaged in child abuse then that’s it for you.” I have a very ‘slippery slope’ feeling about this case and the precedent it sets.”
3) At the very best, this is a delicate case. As a mother, she has some rights to a newborn child. Those are called ‘civil rights.’
4) The way we solve tricky matters like this in America is through a court of law.
5) The ACLU is a group of lawyers who represent clients in civil rights cases.
6) The ACLU represents the mother.
Josh….
Listen.
I understand that it upsets you that the father is a child molester. That is of course a disgusting thing, and I question the choice of the mother in marrying him.
But this case has to do with what rights the mother has in claiming her newborn child.
Despite everything you say, again and again, this case, this LEGAL CASE, has very little to do with the father’s rights. Actually, it has nothing to do with them.
I have no idea why you want to slime the ACLU here. You display this convulted, poorly phrased argument:
“and the only reason there is a case at all is because the father and his actions. so, the mother alone isnt the issue…so thats not why the child was taken, and thats not what is at issue, which means- thats not all the aclu is defending.”
…which completely ignores the legal issues here. Despite the father’s actions, the mother has some rights. Let me ask you this: if the father’s civil rights were being violated, why didn’t HE sue for custody? BECAUSE THERE IS NO LEGAL CASE, AND THE ACLU WOULDN’T DEFEND HIM.
I know the law frustrates you because it’s so complicated, but try to understand that not everything in life is as cut and dry as you think it is. Please, Josh. Really think about this one. In the context of the law, the Constituion, and the meaning of Civil Rights. Think!
about 6 years ago
As usual, one more:
“the claim at hand is THE FATHER. the children were taken away BECAUSE OF THE FATHER. continue to claim that the aclu isnt defending the fathers “rights” via the mother, but its just not going to stick.”
1) Does the mother give up her rights as an American, to attempt to gain custody of her newborn child, to sue in court when she feels her rights have been violated, because she married a child molester?
2) If the answer to that is “yes,” where do we draw the line? What if mothers marry convicted murderers free from prison, thieves, brawlers, gamblers, and the like? Does the mother have no right to keep her child in those cases?
3) What exactly is your argument here? Is it that this case should never have been brought to trial, is it that the mother should not have the civil right to attempt to bring it to trial, or is it that once brought to trial, whomever represents the mother is an immoral asshole (in this case, the ACLU)? Which is it?
4) Why have you still not blogged about either Harriet Miers or Plamegate?
about 6 years ago
the point, i thought, was clear. the aclu is on the fringe of society with the cases they tend to go for…the great majority of the cases they go for that get public attention. and attention on their website. a quick stop at their website tells you its a fringe leftist group- their founding and their history back that image up very well.
about 6 years ago
Josh you scare me. You believe that people should have the right to fight for their civil rights, but only those rights that YOU define, as you define them. Do you know how dangerous what you’re suggesting really is?
You remind me of those that say: “if you don’t like the president and his policies, GET OUT! leave the country!” Well, imagine a country in which all the citizens fall in line without criticizing anything. The ACLU plays an important role. The “fringe” cases as you call them are just as important as the ones you agree with. They don’t win all their cases, but they slowly help the judical system shape the boundaries of our civil rights, whilst protecting the minority groups in this country.
about 6 years ago
“the point, i thought, was clear. the aclu is on the fringe of society with the cases they tend to go for…the great majority of the cases they go for that get public attention. and attention on their website. a quick stop at their website tells you its a fringe leftist group- their founding and their history back that image up very well.”
Yeah, the cases that get attention from people like you, because you refuse to mention when the ACLU defends Christians and the like. If you were intellectually honest, you would applaud the ACLU for those cases.
Well, I just stopped at their website. And the FIRST THING YOU SEE, the giant graphic at the top of the page, is a man with his head bowed in prayer, and the words “Freedom, Belief, and Religious Liberty.” Boy, those leftists, they sure do want to outlaw God.
about 6 years ago
now youre putting words in my mouth, todd.
you dont think the aclu is a frint lefist group? this group despises christmas, the boy scouts, and christianity. they despise moral judgements, traditional values, and conservative ideas that the majority of the nations people hold. few people would disagree with the statement that the aclu is a fringe group and worse- a dangerous group.
im sorry but demanding that a grade school remove ‘christmas’ from the school calendar and demand that high schools be banned from singing ‘christmas’ music merely because it has the word ‘christ’ in it- well, thats absurd. youre not protecting peoples rights there (freedom of expression), youre doing all you can to trample them.
of course, the group is mainly known for its anti-christian stance it takes everyday. but you also have the odd stance it takes with the kkk and the so-called civil rights involved with them. NAMBLA cases…they constantly rep. child sex offenders. this case above (where they want a drug addict married to a child rapist to be allowed to have more kids- even tho her first 2 children have been taken away for similar reasons). i could go on for many paragraphs on the fringe cases they take on- the fringe values they assert everyday. luckily, most americans realize this group is on the fringe and do everything they can to fight it.
about 6 years ago
That damn fringe group is up to it again:
“The American Civil Liberties Union today made public an analysis of new and previously released autopsy and death reports of detainees held in U.S. facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan, many of whom died while being interrogated. The documents show that detainees were hooded, gagged, strangled, beaten with blunt objects, subjected to sleep deprivation and to hot and cold environmental conditions. The documents released today are available online…”
Josh you are totally twisting the mission of the ACLU. Are you able to make the distinction between the desire to separate church and state from “despising Christmas?” Do you really, really think that this group “despises traditional values?”
If most of America believes as you do, which I doubt, it is because they get their opinions spoon-fed to them by FOX news, like you do. You are seriously demented dude.
By the way, be careful with the word “most” these days. Polls show that Bush would lose to a Democrat if Presidential elections were today (55%) and that most of Americans want to see a Democratic House in ’06. We tried it your way and finally people are seeing it just doesn’t work.
about 6 years ago
Don’t forget the banner headline on the ACLU’s website, showing a man bowing his head in prayer, with the words “Freedom, Belief, and Religious Liberty” imposed. That’s the top of the page, first thing you see.
I made this comment earlier today…I suspect it was deleted. But whatever. The point is, it’s intellectually dishonest to slam the ACLU for cases that you disapprove of, but not give them credit for ones you would strongly support. And by you I mean Josh. Let’s hear about the Christians defended by the ACLU, Josh. Do some research!
Also, when has the ACLU tried to stop school choirs from singing Christmas songs? Josh, you made that up.
Do you feel comfortable arguing completely with ad hominems and generalities? “Fringe, fringe, fringe.” “Most Americans, most Americans, most Americans.” That’s weak, yo.
Josh, just like I understand that most Americans don’t hold all of my beliefs, especially the very liberal ones, you should understand that “most Americans” don’t just blindly agree with you on a lot of things. For example, I’d say that maybe only 20 percent of the country would call the ACLU “dangerous.” Not every Republican is a member of the Christian Coalition.
I wonder if Josh believes in pre-marital sex. Sorry, I know that came out of nowhere, but I’m curious how religious you are. Is that sinful? Also, how old is the Earth?
about 6 years ago
Josh as stated that the Earth “may be” 10,000 years old, and that he just doesn’t know for sure. Just trying to help.
about 6 years ago
Thanks, Todd! About what I expected. Todd, did you know that fossils were created by Noah’s flood? It’s true, look it up…in, you know, the Bible.
about 6 years ago
On a not-so-related note, Cheney is a traitor.
See for yourself
about 6 years ago
that link almost makes sense. cheney was doing all he could to blunt wilsons criticism of the administrations effort to go to war? hello- even john kerry knew wilson was a liar, which is why he dropped him from his campaign team. both repubs and dems realized wilson was a liar (along with his wife) when documents surfaced that showed wilsons trip to niger strengthened the administrations claims (and to this day the british intel agencies stand by the niger/uranium info).
theres not a lot of real criticism from wilson to blunt…well, no real critcism at all. period. both sides have realized this for some time.
about 6 years ago
i see todd and john are anti-christian with their comments. that really helps their case! i said ive no idea how old the earth is…last time i checked i wasnt a geologist. nor a cosmologist…maybe i am and i didnt realize it. maybe john and todd are both. so they KNOW with all certainty, because theyve studied the issue. ive no idea how rubber is made either- tho im not sure what any of that has to do with anything.
as for johns comments- hello…fossils are, indeed, caused in large part by floods. bones only fossilize when buried rapidly, so a deluge of some sort is not a crazy idea as you try to imply. we know there have been many catastrophic floods over the ages. many of them have caused many fossils. oh my gosh- what a crazy idea. things buried rapidy via floods have caused fossils?! gasp! i take it back, im fairly sure youre not a geologist. this is elemantary stuff here. i would suggest john do some research on the dead sea and how it was formed and the new scientific finds there that support the idea of a flood that actually created a number of seas in this area (via other sources that flooded these areas when these ares were VALLEYS and not covered in water.) theyve also found numerous sites where there were dwellings and buildings in the sea…which supports the idea that a flood came at some point and covered it all. all of that info from (not the bible), but recent studies in the area. because religious people, as john asserts, blindly follow nonsense about a man in the sky.
john thinks that if most americans think the aclu is a fringe group- that doesnt matter and theyre just doing the good work to protect the civil rights all of us deserve. uh huh. why then have the started a campaign to go after the boy scouts because its a christian group…? what civil rights are they protecting by demanding the boy scouts be banned from making a pledge to god part of their creed? why try to remove them from public parks (which they have done in san diego, for example)?? they dont protect the rights of the boy scouts? why not…because its a christian group maybe? because the aclu is known for demanding same sex marriage and special rights for homosexuals? gosh- what could it be?
again…john makes the mistake in saying- the aclu defended a christian group before. that means they must not be anti-christian. again, we should point out that hitler loved dogs and children…so i guess hes not such a bad guy afterall. you couldnt possibly be evil and love dogs. nor could you possibly ever be anti-christian and defend a christian in a case! who was talking about a weak argument?
as for this “Also, when has the ACLU tried to stop school choirs from singing Christmas songs? Josh, you made that up.” —not quite. you can easily google to find aclu cases against schools for having christmas on their calendars and school events with christmas carols. the aclu has argued that non christian students might be offended or might feel peer pressure to take part when they dont want to. and peer pressure (According to the aclu…backed up by justice souter in various cases) and the freedom to not suffer it is a “constitutional right”.
about 6 years ago
Josh, you’re supporting the action of withholding information from the US Government that it needs to conduct an investigation? Sounds like obstruction of justice to me. As far as I’m concered your a traitor too.
about 6 years ago
as for this “Also, when has the ACLU tried to stop school choirs from singing Christmas songs? Josh, you made that up.” —not quite. you can easily google to find aclu cases against schools for having christmas on their calendars and school events with christmas carols.
So….
GOOGLE IT. SHOW IT TO ME. God, you’re such a liar.
Geez, Josh, can’t you just butt out? Todd and I are trying to have a conversation here. Though I did like you equating Christians with children and dogs.
about 6 years ago
(and to this day the british intel agencies stand by the niger/uranium info).And to this day, the Bush administration stands by the “Saddam/WMD” theory….that doesn’t make it right either.
Josh, when will you start thinking outside the box?
about 6 years ago
“again, we should point out that hitler loved dogs and children…so i guess hes not such a bad guy afterall”
Paging Mr. Godwin…
about 6 years ago
thatd be great soldier…if only it were true. i hardly think the bush admin stands by the cia intel on that! the brits do. because it was accurate maybe??? hmmm…
about 6 years ago
the brits do. because it was accurate maybe??? hmmm…Or maybe not. Better yet, PROVE IT….
about 6 years ago
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/25/iraq/main560449.shtml
There remains no evidence that Iraq actually did try to buy uranium.The recent British report by Lord Butler — while finding that the intelligence on Iraq's alleged weapons was "seriously flawed"cited various reports that Iraq had sought uranium in Africa. Thus, although Mr. Bush cited only British evidence that was determined to have been inconclusiveother intelligence files clearly contained other inconclusive evidence of the truth of the claim."Now I don't know whether it's accurate or not. That's the whole question," Roberts, a Republican, said in an interview."I don't think that the body of the report sustains the conclusion that was suggested," Wilson told CBSNews.com Monday, pointing to numerous cases in which CIA officials told administration about problems with the intelligence on the alleged uranium bid.The Africa claim came under scrutiny after the International Atomic Energy Agency determined that documents purportedly showing Iraq buying uranium from Niger were fake.Wilson said it was unlikely any uranium transaction had taken place and the administration appeared to have been manipulating the intelligence.Your move champ…
about 6 years ago
Josh deleted my above comment once already. Get it while it’s hot!
about 6 years ago
Yea…he doesn’t believe in freedom of speech. He’s a great republican..
about 6 years ago
yeah. im ALMOST going to allow links to ridiculous sites run by anti-christian bigots like the idiot who runs howstuffworks.
especially when the first section contains a glaring error. the bible in no way advocates slavery. thats a blatant falsehood. if you want to have a reasonable debate about something, you dont do it in this manner…which is why any comment containing the link will be deleted.
unreasonable debate= youre a dellusional idiot if you believe in an imaginary God. belief in God is like belief in santa claus. christianity is evil, etc.
the real question is- why do people with zero knowledge of theology and specifically theology of the bible waste their time with shoddy attacks on religion? a little lesson for the folks out there- you cant really attack something if you know nothing about it.
about 6 years ago
the real question is- why do people with zero knowledge of theology and specifically theology of the bible waste their time with shoddy attacks on religion?The same reason people with zero (or a vague) knowledge of evolution insult everything that has to do with Darwinism. The door swings both ways.
Also, I love the way you say all that, yet call those who follow Islam “delusional”…..
You rely on FOX news to get your info on Islam. This is the reason you believe it’s a religion of terror. You attack it because you don’t understand it.
You are victim of your own accusations. How ironic..
you cant really attack something if you know nothing about it.No one is attacking anything. It is simply a series of analogies…
about 6 years ago
Typical… pick out one inaccuracy and refuse to acknowledge the overall argument.
Ok, I’ll bite. Why don’t YOU tell ME what the difference is between any biblical myth and any other myth, fairy tale or story from any other religious tradition? It’s faith right?
about 6 years ago
soldier- youre the epitome of dellusion. i know what i know of islam via fox news? any other wildly inaccurate guesses as to what i know and how i know it?
i know nothing of ‘evolution’ as you claim? again…any other wild guesses as to what i know? im not sure ive ever “insult[ed] everything that has to do with Darwinism.”
as for todd. you dont make any sense. if one goes to a webpage that is anti-religious, filled with bigotry, etc. and finds major flaws on the very first page- its a sure bet that the person running the site knows nothing of the bible. if you dont even know the truth to your claims (as in the claim that the bible advocated slavery when it does no such thing…slavery is an institution that is still in practice today, and was in practice back then- the bible mentions how people should treat others…and the same goes for those who own slaves), why would anyone take you seriously? why would anyone in their right mind take seriously a site with a name such as this?! only a fool would read this, let alone take the time to pick each and every item apart.
so, your claim is that you can attack something when youre not even familiar with it? if you claim the bible says something it doesnt, then use that as one of your attacks- why would anyone with a brain listen to the whole thing? youve already proven yourself a fool.
sadly for you, your close minded and you start off with the a priori assumption that the bible is a “myth” and a “fairytale” that is not to be trusted, but rather ridiculed and attacked without even being familiar with the text itself!
then you make the classic, anti-religious comment and proclaim “it’s faith, right?” as if people who hold religious values do so with their brains turned off. you know that every US president was an idiot- because, like duh, they all were christians (thus far)…so they believed what they did on faith. and faith, of course, means- believing something that only a fool would believe merely because someone told you to believe it. faith in the religious sense is based on reason, proof, evidence, etc.
the evidence of the resurrection of christ for example. the evidence that cant be reasonably explained away by skeptics (thus far). youre anti-religious attitude gets in the way of critical thinking before you even ask the question!
about 6 years ago
PLEASE provide me with the evidence that Christ was resurrected.
And, again, I have debunked O’Reilly a few times on this site, so does that mean no one should ever listen to his opinions about politics? You have to be consistent here man.
And, it is your pro-religious attitude that prevents you from realizing that you are a grown man that believes in fairy tales.
about 6 years ago
Plus, my good man, I was a dutiful Methodist for many years when I was young. Bible school, church, all that good stuff. It took me a while to realize that, although I respect what Christ stood for, and his teachings, I cannot remotely take the Bible literally. And I tried, I really did. I read the Good News Bible, and I had the comics that came with a record so you could here the fairy tales while you looked at the pictures. But I’m sorry, I just couldn’t accept it literally.
about 6 years ago
youve debunked oreilly? funny. i must have missed all of that.
i wont be discussing this issue with you any further, because youre too full of arrogance and disrespect for any conversation to take place. you contradict yourself when you say you respect what christ stood for, yet you say the bible is a fairy tale (good to see that you respect what fairytale characters stand for!)
you keep believing its a fairytale, and many others smarter than you (and smarter than myself) will continue to seek the evidence (that you surely think you will debunk) to find the truth.
you seem to proclaim that ive accepted the bible is being true, the resurrection, etc. as being true because i have blind faith in…which is evident when you say that my pro-religious view keeps me from realizing i follow a “fairytale”. thats not true- ive looked at all the evidence, much of it in many places, and have accepted it thru reason. your lack of respect for religion and religious people (the majority of the earths population) makes it obvious that youve never looked into the evidence yourself as you claim. no one who is seeking truth in a matter continually calls it a fairytale and mocks those who follow it as you do. its human nature to mock things you havent truly looked into. its human nature to link to sites filled with bigotry when youve never truly looked into the evidence yourself.
no one seeks truth the way you claim to. its okay tho, it was clear from the start that youre surely as clueless as brain when it comes to theology in general and in the bible in particular.
about 6 years ago
Yep, debunked his statements about poverty during the Clinton years. You never responded so I assumed you couldn’t.
I respect what Christ stood for because I believe he actually existed.
I don’t believe most of what’s in the Bible however. I think it’s a work of fiction. Fiction told to convey morals, but fiction nonetheless.
And I do respect some religious people. I don’t respect religious people that try to control my government, control my wife’s body, try to prevent my friends from getting married, try to blame natural disasters on homosexuality and abortion, try to prevent stem cell research under the guise of a “culture of life.” That’s when religion becomes destructive and far, far from what Christ stood for.
This kind of stuff pisses me off. Just because some people wrote some stories down in a book and managed to convince people it’s true, shouldn’t mean that radical Christians get so much fucking say over this otherwise great country.
I respect the need that spirituality fills in people’s lives. But worship behind closed doors and keep it out of my face and out of my life. That is my right.
about 6 years ago
youve not debunked oreilly. he was correct in regard to clinton. the numbers dont lie (as some people do).
so radical christians, from what you said, are those who want to live by the bible and live according to the religion. HOW RADICAL an idea. theyre terrible people, i know…
you complain about a culture of life? thats just idiotic. heaven forbid humans want to protect human life and not destroy it for study! how could these evil bastards do such a thing? and wanting to change society to stop the killing of over 30 million unborn babies- again, i have to wonder how these sick people live with themselves!
wanting to stop homosexual marriage (actually, the majority of americans PERIOD, oppose homosexual marriage) and wanting to make marriage a special thing between a certain group of people (marriage was CREATED for a man and a woman)…how dare they even think of pushing values and especially traditonal values? youre right- theyre the worst part of this nation. damned them, but its an otherwise great nation. to hell with those religious people who actually PRACTICE their religion!!
anyhow…so you respect what christ stood for, yet the only reason you know what he stood for was the book that you call fiction and a fairytale. youre a confused, bitter, angry person i can see. id be pissed if i felt that way too!
about 6 years ago
ok, josh, I’ll do it again. But you have to read it, digest it, and respond like a mature person. No ignoring or deleting.
“Bill mentioned official stats that show that poverty halfway thru Bush’s time in office is at 12.7%, halfway thru Clinton’s time in office it was 13.7%” (quote from you)
These are horribly misleading numbers.
When Clinton came in to office, the poverty rate was 14.8 percent. Halfway through his presidency, it was 13.7. When he left, it was 11.3 percent. POVERTY WENT DOWN UNDER CLINTON.
Now Bush:
Year 2000: 11.3 percent. Halfway through: 12.7 percent. POVERTY IS GOING UP UNDER BUSH.
Now, do you see how O’Reilly used those numbers to mislead?
I won’t even respond to your other stuff so you don’t get distracted.
about 6 years ago
youre not even making sense now. youre missing bills point…he never said anything about poverty going up or down (hello 9/11!!!)…just the numbers in regards to poverty in general.
you dont understand bills point, so thats equal to you debunking him and him trying to mislead? funny logic.
about 6 years ago
ARE YOU KIDDING??? O’Reilly was making the point that Bush is doing BETTER than Clintion did with poverty! That was his POINT. Watch it again. Jesus christ dude! You HAVE TO START BEING INTELLECTUALLY RIGOROUS.
about 6 years ago
*sigh* why don’t you tell me what Bill’s point was then. (can’t believe i’m getting suckered in to arguing with the wall again)
about 6 years ago
part of his point was the claim the bush doesnt care about the poor, that he wont spend on the poor, etc. which isnt true. the stats show that spending on poverty is up.
elder discusses this issue…
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/larryelder/2005/10/13/171089.html
about 6 years ago
Josh, please tell me why O’Reilly presented the mid-term poverty numbers and why he compared Bush to Clinton. Hint: he wanted to make it seem like Bush was doing a better job than Clinton did.
Please answer.
about 6 years ago
If you duck this question you are a coward.
about 6 years ago
I cant believe he deleted my response. I guess the truth does hurt this dirtbag…