Makes one wonder what other beliefs this bible banger has... Pat

I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if he's a BIG proponent for 'stoning' as well...

Another hypocritical comment from the left...I thought the tea party was the party of hate?I guess when you are backed into a corner and are about to be defeated anything goes right? LOL

No, not a comment from the left. Just a realist. It just seems like "many" (not all) from the Tea Party are clinging to Fundamentalist Christian Conservative values. I don't mind that and am not opposed to voting for some, but..... This seems to be extreme Fundamentalist Christian Values. Too far right for "most" republicans. This is why I assumed he must be with the Tea Party.

Not a shot from the left. But a comment from the center.

MMC: No, not a comment from the left. Just a realist. It just seems like "many" (not all) from the Tea Party are clinging to Christian Conservative values.

The Tea Party is more concerned with fiscal responsibility and a smaller government. They really haven't weighed in on any of the social issues. But if you know different, please, do tell.

JoAnna,

You Betcha! I know the difference. Grew up a mid-western card carrying republican. Today, it really doesn't matter what party you are. We are spending like there is no tomorrow, but let us also not forget that Bush never vetoed a spending bill. He also signed the first of many bailouts.

Yes, we hear that the Tea Party (although running under the Republican logo) is for fiscal responsibility. But until we see it in action, it is just words on a script for a campaign speech. There have been individual candidates running as Tea Party members who have weighed in on social issues though. And, no matter how hard they try to look mainstream, their past shows their true colors.

Everything gets brought up when vetting an appointment by the Republicans and Democrats. Why not for candidates? Can someone say "masturba%^&"?

Once again MMC, please tell us what social issues the Tea Party is advocating. You seem to be blowing a lot of smoke, but not providing much light. You made the claim. You provide the proof. I did not ask if the Tea Party has endorsed candidates that have a stance on social issues. I asked what are the social issue stances of the Tea Party? HINT: There are none.

In the Fort Worth Tea Party to last April, two speakers mentioned social issues. One mentioned abortion. Another mentioned an example of how some liberals take separation of church and state to make a nursing home end all religious gatherings. People were holding up anti-abortion banners.

On Gay Marriage: "I do think it's a state's right," said Phillip Dennis, Texas state coordinator for the Tea Party Patriots. The group does not take a position on social issues, he said, but personally, "I believe that if the people in Massachusetts want gay people to get married, then they should allow it, just as people in Utah do not support abortion. They should have the right to vote against that."

~ "The Tea Party Abortion Doctrine," Opposition to abortion rights "even in cases of rape and incest" is the "new normal creeping into Republican abortion politics," Avlon writes, noting that at least six Republican candidates supported by the tea party movement "back this absolutist stand.

Feisty - Weren't you the one doing all the whining last week about getting collapsed?

I can understand, based on the 2~3 posts of yours on this thread, just why you were collapsed. You are a pretty obnoxious poster.

JoAnna,

As a party the Tea Party may not take a stand on social issues (which in my mind is no different from the answers political appointments give on the Hill), but so many of your top members are very quick to point out their stances.

And, since they represent the Public Face of the Tea Party, the Tea Party is taking many stances.

That Delaware Candidate for Senator has been pushing a lot of social issues , she is one of the most prominent tea party leaders.

Or at least one of the most visible. And, boy, does Letterman have some great footage on her. People say, "you can't take what I said 15 - 20 years ago and hold it against me."

Seems like they do when it comes to Judges and Cabinet members. Hmmm. I think I would like to hold my Elected Officials to a higher standard than the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.

JoAnna either had to go back to work or can't defend her position.

To MMC Streamsnipe,

You are incorrect about the source of the quote about submissive wives.

This line is from the New Testament. Specifically, it comes from the book of Ephesians. The idea of submissive wives has never been normative practice in Judaism. Any Jewish wife (or husband, for that matter) will tell you that.

And the next line St Paul writes is "Slaves, submit to your masters"

Oops, thats 1 Peter ch2 v 18!

²¹Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

Wives and Husbands

²²Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. ²³For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. ²⁴Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

²⁵Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her ²⁶to make her holy, cleansing^[b] her by the washing with water through the word, ²⁷and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. ²⁸In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.

This passage is from Ephesians 5 using the NIV translation. It is a thought for thought based on the original text language.

If some basic interpretation is done, it would seem that simply because it says wives submit to husbands it doesnt mean they must be treated with disrespect, and dishonor, in fact the opposite. Wives are told to submit but husbands are told to die if necessary for their wives and love them as their own bodies. That is impossible to do while being abusive.

Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. ¹⁹For it is commendable if a man bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because he is conscious of God. ²⁰But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. ²¹To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.

Does this passage have a place in today's society, no. Slavery is wrong. But the underlying message is useful; Do the right thing despite any negative consequences. If you do something wrong it your own fault accept punishment.

Feisty -- You should do some research before writing your comments -- take a look at this: http://factcheck.org/2010/09/rep-grayson-lowers-the-bar/

Here is the last line in the first paragraph: He’s using edited video to make his rival appear to be saying the opposite of what he really said.

There must be something fishy in the water down in Florida...how does a nitwit like Grayson get elected to national office in the first place ???

If this clown gets re-elected, the EPA should go down there and start taking water samples.

Sorry, james: I looked at your source, and I don't think it exonerates this candidate in the least. The most Webster says about it, (paraphrasing) is to the husbands "don't you pray over it" and indicates that the husband should pray over "his stuff" but the wife can pray over that if she wants to. You have taken a leap to suggest that this candidate does not believe in that literal translation, when he is clear that he does. What is he doing, in a secular country, talking about this anyway? Further, he is against abortion, even in the case of rape or incest, and that alone suggests that he believes that women should have limited rights. He was also a proponent of "covenant marriage" wherein the only cause for divorce would be adultery. Would that mean that an abuser, either of his wife or children would be allowed to stay with his family if his wife wanted out? Sorry, Taliban Dan fits exactly. I would suggest that you not defend the indefensible.

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL.... How bout you watch the video where that POS Grayson completely took out of context what Webster really said, and then come back here and appologize ........ http://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?p=daniel+webster+youtube

Dear Mike: Why don't YOU read the post just above yours where I debunk what you just said?

if youd listen he says "for" not over, clean out your ears

Your post is rather indeterminate, lastone, if you are referring to what I wrote, how does that change what I said? It is clear that Webster is a religious extremist. It is also clear that he will attempt to codify his limited view into law. But, there are those of you who are unable to understand why that would be a bad thing, even as you scream "GET THE GOVERNMENT OFF MY BACK!

Newsday, did you not see the part in the video where Webster says "I would not say to my wife..."? Grayson clearly and deliberately spliced the video to take Webster out of context. If that wasn't his intention, why didn't he just play the whole video?

Can't answer that, I'm not Grayson. Don't think it much matters. Webster clearly believes what is alluded. I would not vote for a candidate that is a fundamentalist "Christian" any more than I would vote for a Taliban candidate.

You don't think editing someone's words to take them out of context matters? Wow, ok. Glad the Supreme Court disagrees with you, they consider that libel. I bet Shirley Sherrod disagrees with you too.
As the full video shows, Webster clearly states that he would not and should not say "submit to me" to his wife. He does not tell his wife in the video to submit to him whatsoever. Grayson clearly tried to distort Webster by editing the video.

Re read what I wrote arodell, I know it takes some of you righties more than one run at something to get it. There is no doubt that Webster believes what was said. If you have a problem with Grayson, take it up with him. I would not vote for a Fundamentalist "Christian" and there is not much wiggle room between them and the Taliban. Webster has not denounced this particular passage, and I don't think there is much doubt that he sees the Bible as literal.

I read what you wrote. What part did I misconstrue? I'm not a righty nor a Republican. Webster clearly stated in the full video that he would NOT read the passage in the bible "submit to me" to his wife. He would focus on other passages about loving his wife. Grayson's video only plays the small excerpt "submit to me". He deliberately left out the part where Webster said "I would not read the passage..." Did he not? Please review the video, that is exactly what he says. By this omission, Grayson clearly distorts Webster's words.
So you believe that Christian fundamentalists are going around throwing acid on women, raping them, not allowing them to be educated or given any rights whatsoever, forced to cover their entire bodies and not allowed to work at a job of any kind? May I ask where exactly in the world is this "fundamentalist Christianity" being practiced?

....and then he says that wives can pray over it. He has not come out and denounced any of this, and his beliefs are so far to the right as to make him untenable to any reasonable voter. Do YOU believe that there should be no abortion for rape, incest or the health of the mom? What business is that of HIS to decide? I think most people are capable of making those decisions on their own. They don't need people like Webster inserting their religion into private homes. Besides, isn't he one of the "get the government off our back" crowd? I guess the exception would be in personal private family decisions.

Just like Grayson, you leave out the rest of his sentence. He said “She can pray that if she WANTS to.” He then says “…but don’t you pray that” (addressing the men in the audience). He didn’t endorse women submitting to men, he recognized it was in the bible but specifically pointed men NOT to quote that scripture. If he was endorsing it, shouldn’t he have told men to quote that part of scripture?
You want him to denounce what? That he doesn’t believe women should submit to men? Well, he already did in the video. I applaud Webster for not sinking to Grayson’s level and attacking him back. Most people will watch that video and compare it to the ad and see for themselves just how misguided Grayson’s claims are.

I personally believe that abortion should only be for rape, incest and if the mother’s life is in danger. No other exceptions. I don’t think abortions for birth control purposes is a personal private family decision. These abortions constitute over 98% of all abortions in the U.S. each year. Since when was killing someone a personal private family decision? The unborn baby should have the same rights as any other human being in my opinion. And if you don’t believe an unborn baby should have those rights, then why do we convict people of double homicide when they kill the mother and unborn child? Seems like a double-standard to me.

He does not denounce it arodell, he tells each partner to pray over what is listed in the Bible. There is no doubt what he believes. You can have any belief about abortion that you want for YOURSELF. You may not make that decision for anyone else. It is simply none of your business.

Praying over text does not endorse every word of it. Millions of Americans pray over the text in the bible, are you going to condemn them too? He specifically told men NOT to read those passages to their wives. You cannot deny that fact. There is no doubt he believes that men SHOULD NOT tell their wives to "submit to me". That's exactly what he says, interpreting it any other way is disingenuous. You asked me my beliefs on abortion so I told you them. I'm not forcing them on anyone but I have the right with my vote to have my representatives endorse that POV. It is everyone's business whether unborn children are dying for no reason other than convenience. It’s our job as a society to protect those most vulnerable, is it not?

Hmmmm, how do I make this simple for you? So difficult with this mindset. NO! What Webster tells each is to "pray over their own stuff" he does not disavow it, and I would NEVER vote for a religious extremist. As to abortion, you are entitled to your own beliefs. You are NOT entitled to codify your religious belief into law. Don't know of a woman who carries a "child" in her body. What is going on is cell division. Get over it.

No what? He didn't say the things I listed? Please correct me then.
So he tells each person to pray over their own stuff, that makes him believe women should submit to men??? Even though he states the opposite? Maybe you are getting dizzy from all these circles you keep making.
Because he believes in the bible, that makes him a religious extremist?
And you believe politicians should never use their moral beliefs when creating or modifying law?
Newsday, you have never heard of a pregnant woman referred to as "with child"?
If it's only cell division, how would someone who murdered the expectant mother be convicted of double homicide?

Oh and you still haven’t answered the question - Where are all these Christian fundamentalists throwing acid on women, raping them, not allowing them to be educated, forced to cover their bodies and not allowed to work at a job of any kind?

The entire ad is BS. Grayson took Webster's comments and did some HEAVY editing. Funny how leaving out a key word like "don't" can change the meaning of a statement. Grayson is a pathetic moron who should be tossed out. Webster's full comment:

CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE DANIEL WEBSTER, R-FLA.: So write a journal. Second, find a verse. I have a verse for my wife. I have verses for my wife. Don't pick the ones that say she should submit to me. That's in the Bible. But pick the ones that you're supposed to do. So instead, love your wife even as Christ loved the church and gave himself for it. As opposed to wives submit yourself to your own husband. She can pray that if she wants to, but don't you pray it.

According to Grayson:

WEBSTER: Wives submit yourself to your own husband.

WEBSTER: She should submit to me. That's in the Bible.

Yep, there is that mindset: Must be a simpler way to get to this, or you arodoll, are being willfully ignorant. Webster can say "yes I believe this, no I don't." A "Christian Fundamentalist" is an anathema to a secular government. I would never vote for one, Webster is one. You can believe anything you want to about abortion, you may not codify your neanderthal beliefs into law. The phrase "with child" was used because there were days when pregnancy was considered shameful, (made it obvious that people were having sex don't you know) and that was largely due to the same wing nuts we have today. Your question about a double homicide is apropos of nothing, since law often does not make sense. But, even you must be able to understand a decision to abort vs a decision someone else might make to end a pregnancy that a couple wants to bring to term. The rest of what you write is utter nonsense. There are "Christian" churches that women may not take leadership roles in, and some that have some pretty strict rules that women are to follow. Like that ridiculous "submit to you husband" thing. As if any female with an IQ over 70 would do any such thing, or allow her daughter to be brought up that way. I realize that you have trouble hearing this, but you are just wrong.

So when Webster said to read scripture that you are supposed to follow and specifically excluded “submit to me”, you don’t see that as a denouncement of that scripture?
You are allowed to vote for whoever you want, just like I am allowed to use my religious and moral beliefs to choose who I vote for. I guess you believe most Americans are Neanderthals because according to a CBS poll in Aug. 2010, 62% of Americans believe that abortion laws should be stricter than the current law or not permitted at all.

You said “Your question about a double homicide is apropos of nothing, since law often does not make sense” So I’m wrong in my question because laws don’t make sense? Ok….the law makes sense if you value the life of an unborn child more than mere “cell division”.

What IS utter nonsense is your claim that Christian fundamentalists are no different than the Taliban. If they are no different, you should have no problem naming an example where women are raped, forced to wear coverings, denied education, denied employment, tortured, etc.
I agree there are some churches that deny women leadership roles or preach that men are the head of households. But are you actually comparing that to the deplorable way women are treated by the Taliban?? You were the one who made the comparison. Back it up…

You know, I deliberately left that out thinking that you might re-think that and figure it out for yourself. But, I see that I gave you far more credit than you deserve. Why do YOU suppose those things don't happen here? Let me give you a hint: have you heard the word theocracy. Can you define it? Does it have any bearing on the topic at hand? Are we a theocracy? Do our laws prohibit assault, and forcing people to dress any ways they don't want to? If women chose to, can they participate here in a religion that forces them to dress in ways that I would consider to be heinous? Are the countries the Taliban operate in Theocracies? What is true is that rigid Fundamentalists, given the opportunity WOULD do exactly those things here. And to the rest of the what you said. Go back and re read what I wrote. You are selective and I did ask you a question that you ignored. Frankly, as long as the woman is involved in most of the biology of pregnancy, it is HER choice. Questions about double homicides are red herrings.

Newday, you deliberately left that out because you don't have a response. i.e. your latest post on theocracies. Yes, I know what a theocracy is. Insulting me isn’t making your argument valid. I didn't ask where in the US did these Christian fundamentalists do these things, I asked where in the world do Christian fundamentalists do these things. You still don’t have an answer.

You compared them to the Taliban, so give me some examples.

You said "What is true is that rigid Fundamentalists, given the opportunity WOULD do exactly those things here"

How do you know this to be true? You have ABSOLUTELY NO facts to back up this claim.

The only way we can judge what Christian fundamentalists would do in a theocracy is to look at current Christian theocracies. The most obvious example is Vatican City. I'm pretty sure you would agree there are some rigid fundamentalists within Vatican City. Are they throwing acid on women, not allowing them education or to work outside the home, raping them, torturing them and denying women rights to land and inheritance?

What question did I not answer before?

The Vatican? Are you kidding me? Do you REALLY want to go there, they do have this rather nasty habit of raping children, boys and girls. Of all the patriarchal groups to bring up, I may laugh about that all night. If you know what a theocracy is, and you know that we aren't one, you also know why women are not being persecuted, though really, we haven't had the vote all that long, now have we? As to what evidence exists that Fundamental "Christians" would treat women that way? Just look at the Bible verses that started all of this. Is your problem that you are a Fundamentalist and feeling insulted? I can't help that, the truth is often painful.

In Vatican City it is not a crime to rape a child or woman? Really?
I'm aware that there are individual Priests that have done horrible things to children but
a) Vatican law makes this a crime
b) they have not done this in the name of Christianity
The Taliban differ because they do not have laws protecting children or women whatsoever. Taliban men are not prosecuted for these crimes as they believe Allah has granted men this power. The Vatican theocracy expressly denounces the actions of these priests and prosecutes them. The Islamic/Taliban theocracy condones these things. Are you so blind by hatred of Christians that you do not see this difference?
Regardless, my example on a Christian theocracy still stands. Your hysterics about Christian fundamentalists ruining our country by oppressing women are just fantasy.

And once again you are dodging the question, WHERE IN THE WORLD ARE CHRISTIANS RAPING WOMEN, FORCING THEM TO WEAR COVERINGS ON THEIR BODIES, DENYING THEM PROPERTY AND INHERITANCE RIGHTS, NOT ALLOWING THEM TO WORK AND THROWING ACID ON THEM LIKE THE TALIBAN?
Do you have an answer?

Good try Arodell. No, the Vatican has done nothing to aid in the investigation of pedophiles in the church, and you ignoring that does not make it less true. "Vatican law makes this a crime?" Really? Then how come these priests were shuffled around for YEARS! Why is the "church" having to pay damages so stiff that they are selling property here in the United States. "They have not done this in the name of Christianity." Ummm, since they used their authority as Priests to get the children to comply, I beg to differ with you. Of course they did. Look at the Irish Reform School debacle, all done in the "Churches" name. One does not have to reach far back in our own history in "Catholic" orphanages to find horrible abuse suffered by the unfortunate children who were housed there. In the name of God? Yes. The nuns and priests beating those children were acting with the authority of the "church". My grandmother and Great Aunts were amongst those that suffered. Does that mean the "church" condoned it? Absolutely, and only those really able to delude themselves think differently. As to the rest of it...do you not watch the news? There are fundamentalist "Christian" sects in Wyoming, Utah, and Texas all of whom abuse girls and women and deprive them of civil rights, including how to dress. The point you are missing and rather willfully so is this...by not allowing "Christian" fundamentalists to have power in the government, we help protect both our women and children. Again: understand the difference between a Theocracy and a Secular government. Do I believe that those nutcases would do that here if given power? Absofreakinglutely. No doubt. By the way, do you know the biggest predictor of a child being abused in a home? If his parents are Fundamentalist "Christian.".

Better that we should replace them with crooks, idiots and nut-jobs like Rand Paul, Sharon Angle, Joe Miller, Christine O'Donnell and Marco Rubio?

Better that we should replace them with crooks, idiots and nut-jobs like Rand Paul, Sharon Angle, Joe Miller, Christine O'Donnell and Marco Rubio.

You forgot Carly Fiorina, Meg Whitman, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, and Nikki Haley.

Notice how the Left treats women, women they disagree with. To the Left they are nuts and sl*ts, crooks and idiots. Nice. Real nice.

And the Left calls the Tea Party haters. What a joke.

What else can the liberal side do but demonize the right. Heck, the liberals have nothing to sell anymore. america just isn't buying into the Entitlement Society beliefs. The left was the first to back the womens movement, but today it is only if you are a liberal elitist - a conservative women is villified with no support from the women in the country.

Notice how the Left treats women, women they disagree with. To the Left they are nuts and sl*ts, crooks and idiots. Nice. Real nice.

Oh, and the far right has no issues with women with whom they disagree?

Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Hillary Clinton, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Janet Napolitano, Janet Reno, Kathleen Sebelius...they are all treated with respect by the far right?

Puh-leeze!

Da Noid

You mention women who are currently policy makers in our government who many on the right and some on the left disagree with.

Most of the women that you lefties demonize have not yet been in a position to make policy that you have to live by.

There lies the difference.

Not only that but most of the women on the left that you mentioned don't deserve any respect because they also demonize the women on the right. What the hell is to respect of Hillary Clinton anyway. She is as big a liar as her husband. You remember Bill, the man accused of raping a woman. I wonder if Hillary has ever been asked her opinion of Juanita Broaddrick's claim?

JoAnna -

I'll admit I'm no math wiz, but I've read Da Noid's list of "nut jobs" three times and I still come up with 3 men and 2 women - so how, exactly, did you manage to translate that into being some kind of liberal diatribe against "women they disagree with"? Isn't that just a bit of a stretch even for you?

Thank you, JoAnne in PA. Using both hands and feet and the Arabic concept of zero, I can usually count to twenty accurately most of the time. You reassure me that I am not senile yet, even if I am some kind of liberal diatribeist.

EcoGeek - so you don't see any difference between Christians and the Taliban?
Grayson didn't compare his opponent simply to Muslims, he compared him to extremists whose goal is to eliminate "infidels" and rule by sharia law.

Well, I better watch out for all those Christians taking over our government, forcing women to cover themselves and not allowing them to be educated or protected against rape or violent crime.
GIVE ME A BREAK!

Grayson and you (by your agreement with him) sound almost silly for using such hyperbole. The matter of women's oppression should never be a joke.

Grayson however is the very definition of a joke.

There is no difference between the fundamental sects of any of these faiths. All religion fosters war so that the leaders can make more money. And they all foster one gender over the other, usually the masculine because they prefer brawn over brains.

Grayson has the balls to say what needs to be said, whether it is about the right's concept of health care or how women should be treated. More Dems should be balls out when it comes to politics right now. We should be doing a vote on the tax cuts, giving the 99ers an extension. The only way to maintain our control in Congress is to demand that people look at these just say no creeps - and that includes the blue dogs.

As far as I'm concerned: Grayson for President in 2016.

The repubs would not allow a vote for tax cuts in the senate now.

Jpat : Actually they do rape children. PBS had a documentary just this past summer how the Taliban takes young boys for sexual pleasure and it's quite a common practice. Many of the boys often ended up dead when their "sponsor" is how I think PBS put it, got tired of them. I was completely shocked by this program and never thought of something like this happening in a Muslim country. I guess I don't know very much about most country's over in that part of the world.

RaisedbyWolves – Grayson wasn’t comparing the secs of religion, he was comparing his opponent to a terrorist group, BIG DIFFERENCE. Grayson can’t even keep his congressional seat, you think he should be President? Wow. This guy is completely unhinged. Anderson Cooper featured the true video that Grayson cut and his opponent was actually making the exact opposite argument Grayson claims. How disingenuous is that? Calling almost half of your co-workers murderers is Presidential material?? I’m glad Americans are not as politically blind as you.

Alex – The Democrats have majorities in both houses and can push for a vote. They don’t have enough Democrats to push for only the middle income cuts so they are delaying the vote. Exactly how are Republicans stalling the vote?

JPat – You obviously don’t know the history of Christianity if you see no difference between Christians and the Taliban. When has the Taliban ever helped others in need? NEVER. Most of the world’s largest non-profit charities are Christian based. No other religion in the world has provided more clothing, food, water, shelter and medicine to people than Christianity.

If you believe Christians are no different than the Taliban, do you also believe all Muslims are no different than the Taliban? How about Hindus? Are they no better than the Taliban?

JPat, I agree that Christianity has had some dark moments in their history but so has every religion in the world, especially Islam. Singling out Christianity and not mentioning any other religion is biased. So let’s compare Christianity and Islam.

Christianity –
Spanish Inquisition killed 35,000-50,000
Crusades killed 1-2 million
Witchcraft persecutions killed 10,000-15,000
Total: Just over 2 million

Islam -
120 million Africans
80 million Hindus
60 million Christians
10 million Buddhists
Total: 270 million

How about comparing Christianity (over 2,000 years of history) to 20th century events?
Mao Zedong's Reign killed 40 million
Stalin killed over 20 million
Hilter killed over 5 million

Beyond this comparison, it should also be noted that over 100 million Christians have been killed because of their religion.

Back to my original point, Christianity has done far more good in the world than evil. Christians created the first Universities, Hospitals, Democracies and championed their congregations to reach out to all people, regardless of Religious affiliation.

Please name any religion or other organization that has provided more charity to the world than Christianity?

Oh and please provide examples of all the charity the Taliban have done over the years. I couldn't find any evidence to confirm your claim.

EcoGeek and all other Grayson supporters: See post # 2.36 then tell me how great Grayson is. He is the worst any political party has to offer. And before you try to blame Fox News, actual tape is actual tape, regardless who shows it. It's a shame MSNBC will ignore this, but totally expected.

Grayson is winning.

I agree that I do not know the circumstances. If he did say that though there is a very limited window where that joke would even be acceptable and many many where the comment would be inappopriate if taken seriously.

Hey now!! there's just as much context here as there is on Faux News all the time. "What's good for the Dumbos is good for the Jackasses".

Flaming Cooter - Did you make that "Faux News" crap up yourself?

Shouldn't you be doing homework and letting the dog out?

No, I think anyone who knows how to use google to find public documents knows about 'faux news.' It's not news, just the propagand front for the right wing. Don't bother trying to refute me, I've done my homework.

Cavalier,

I've been noticing quite a few of the Administration poping in on NBC, CBS,ABC, and MSNBC but hardley ever on FOX. Tonite for example on Larry O'donnell brand new show, guess who his first guest was....taa daa Vice Pres Joe Biden. Just goes to show who carries the water for liberal Democrats. The Obama gang should pull their head out of the sand, put their big boy pants on and start appearing on FOX.

Fire : Isn't Fox news spelled "Fox". Is it Faux news? or did I miss 5th grade?

>The Obama gang should pull their head out of the sand, put their big boy pants on and start appearing on FOX.

Why? Just so they can have Republican talking points parrotted to them? All your new candidates are afraid to go on anything but the Republican water carrying Fox. I loved O"Donnel saying she wasn't doing national media anymore on Fox national media. And Angle saying how much Fox helps her raise money ("Would MSNBC let me do that?")

Darryn-886129

Fire : Isn't Fox news spelled "Fox". Is it Faux news? or did I miss 5th grade?

No Darryn what you missed is a higher education, the running joke Faux (french)meaning Fake. Please dont be so one dimensional you can even catch (FOX)Faux News in 3D these days.. some of you guys are hilarious...

How about one Republican, any republican anywhere have the balls to stand up and say that the last administration caused this country more pain than any before it OR SINCE. They cost us the lives of American service people who have died to a false war all the while costing us massive resources that current Republicans which to sweep under the rug as money never spent. ITs a joke.

Quick question for you: when did the recession start? Who signed the first bailout bill? Who started our war with Iraq? And if the 7 ideas the Republicans are taking as their own from the Healthcare bill are so good why weren't they passed when the Republicans had both the houses and Bush in office? Oh I forgot. Republicans don't answer questions about their misgivings. They just point fingers.

Basedrum777 - Republicans don't answer questions about their misgivings. They just point fingers.

Kinda reminds you of Democrats, doesn't it?

Quick question for you: when did the recession start? In 2007 whgen the democrats took Congress

Who signed the first bailout bill? Bush

Who started our war with Iraq? Saddam with his 6000 UN counted violations of the cease fire

Basedrum - I’m not a Republican but I prefer facts vs. rhetoric so let me take a stab at your questions.

How do you define pain? Actual physical pain as in death and wounded or fiscal pain? Well, for argument’s sake, let’s take both:

Deaths in Iraq: 4,404
Deaths in Afghanistan:1,135
Deaths in Vietnam: 58,209
Deaths in Korea:53,000
Deaths in WWII:405,000
Deaths in WWI:116,000
Deaths in Civil War:212,000

Wounded in Iraq:31,000
Wounded in Afghanistan:6,100
Wounded in Vietnam:153,000
Wounded in Korea:92,000
Wounded in WWII:670,000
Wounded in WWI:204,000
Wounded in Civil War:625,000

Cost % in Iraq: 1.0%
Cost % in Afghanistan: 0.7%
Cost % in Vietnam: 2.3%
Cost % in Korea :4.2%
Cost % in WWII: 35.8%
Cost % in WWI: 13.6%
Cost % in Civil War: 11.3%
*This is based on war cost percentage of GDP in the peak year of war
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RS22926.pdf

So HOW exactly did Bush cause more pain than any other administration before or since? Your argument is especially weak when you consider the country is roughly twice as large today as it was during Vietnam so causalities vs. the general population were even more pronounced in the wars before Iraq. However every military life lost is irreplaceable in my mind and for the record, I have disagreed with the Iraq war from its inception. Can’t say the same for the Republican AND Democrat Congress that approved the war. You hurt your argument against the war when you spout hate against Bush outright lies that are easily refuted.

Other questions:
When did the recession start: 2007 (another poster commented that the WH was Republican, Congress was Democrat majority)
Who signed the first bailout bill? Bush, backed by a Democrat majority in Congress and most Republicans
Who started the war in Iraq? Actually it was Congress, who are the only ones who have the power to declare war. This was backed by a majority of both Democrats and Republicans in a Republican controlled Congress.
Why Healthcare wasn’t passed by Republicans if they agree with portions of the bill?
I ask this question myself. It seems disingenuous of Republicans to claim to want to reform Healthcare when they never tried to tackle the issue when they controlled Congress. I still believe though that this fact doesn’t make the monstrosity of a bill the Democrats passed any better for our country.

Arodoll, I must correct you about one matter: Yes democrats were in control of congress in 2007, but they were elected fall of 2006, the financial crises started less than a year later, that had actually been in the making since 1998, with a prior republican controlled congress eliminating certain regulations of the banking industry, although voting to allow oil companies to merge, which helped to create some of the financial strain in daily living felt in the first decade of this century did not matters too much(track the median diesel prices from 1994-2007, it use to be cheaper than gas. I say raise the price of gas, and drop diesel back down, I would rather pay extra at the pump, than pay extra for everything else), because of a relative lack of competition. Plus republicans not wanting to increase minimum wage, tax breaks to business to send jobs overseas, and no business incentives to increase wages for the few jobs they had state side. Now I will admit there was the dotcom bubble that burst as Bush entered office, but the fact that he did nothing to really offset the impacts of that does not speak well of him. Lowest job creation of any president since the Great Depression. 3 million jobs. He employed less than half of NYC. As for the bailout, it was a horrible piece of legislation that was sadly needed due to the deregulation of the banking industry by congress in 1996 and 1998.

The Iraq war was a war of choice based on lies.

Eric – the recession officially began in December of 2007, well after the new Congress took office on January 3, 2007 and already passed several legislation pieces. I don’t deny that other factors prior to 2007 lead to the recession, many of which were at the hands of a Republican controlled Congress but the Democratically controlled Congress was in power since January of that year. You mention the dot.com burst but do not mention 9/11 which had a more severe impact on our overall economy. The combination of the two as well as more global competition oversees lead to the lower job creation numbers. Bush can’t be blamed for the emergence of China’s industrial economy. However you also have to look at unemployment rates during the Bush Administration. They averaged under 6 percent, even with a year + recession at the end of his Presidency (longer than what Obama endured). Most economists agree that 5% is realistically the ideal unemployment rate for industrialized nations, because of turnover and natural employment cycles. The Bush Administration made many missteps but they should also get credit for what they did do in my opinion.

Alex – yes, Iraq was a war of choice just like every other war this country has fought. Our Congress with majorities of both parties CHOSE to go to war. I didn’t agree with it then because I was suspicious of our motivation which was proven to be based on false information. The sources for the false information come more from the UN and international agencies than from the Bush Administration. I also believe that most elected officials believed the information and felt pressured by the aftermath of 9/11 to act. I don’t blame them for their vote but I most certainly blame them for their assault on Bush’s Administration because he proceeded with a war they voted him into. There is enough blame to go around for everyone and I wish politicians would take responsibility for their votes.

Passing the most sweeping legislation to institute universal healthcare for the millions of americans who can't afford to survive if they get sick...Oh and the accomplishment of their rival party trying to steal 7 of the biggest ideas from it to run on their own platform (taking out only the ways in which to pay for it).

Basedrum777 why aren't the dems running on those, most are running away from them, I didn't vote for that, maybe Pelosi will die I'm against President Obama. There are probaly less that a handful of dems running on the record of voting for TARP, Stimulas, Health Care reform and cap and tax oops I mean trade. Drink some more koolaid and calm down. Hopefully the bowl will have two big flushes one in Nov 2010 and one in Nov 2012 that will flush all the incumbants away and put in people that will support the voters of their districts and not the party bosses.

If the legislation for universal health care was so great then why are the democrats running away from it or not even mentioning it? BTW no one has ever died in the street or on the steps of a hospital because they didn't have health care.

That's exactly the platform he ran on during the presidential election. So you're saying you'd rather people in American not have healthcare? You'd rather say "fend for yourself"?

And what happened to those people who were "saved" when they got out of the hospital. Answer: enough bills to end their fiscal lives immediately. Your ability to get good care and be able to fiscally survive necessary surgeries should NEVER be left to your status as rich or poor.

After John Kerry got "swift-boated" and had his record in Vietnam questioned in 2004...

After the South Carolina GOP slandered John McCain in 2000 by accusing his adopted daughters of being the illegitimate children of an affair with a black woman...

After Saxby Chambliss' deplorable ads to vilify Max Cleland in 2002...

...you really want to sit here and claim the moral high ground on the issue of negative ads?

PS - When is Senator Chambliss' office going to take action against the individual from his office who blogged "All F****** Must Die"?

And tell that to the people who can't afford their medicines because they've reached their lifetime caps...

basedrum777

"Because if you don’t have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare the voters. If you don’t have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from. You make a big election about small things."

Barack Obama

Damn those 'pesky' details DaNoid! lol

Two words that are NO WHERE in the Republican play book - MORAL & HIGH GROUND!

dangerfield,

Didn't the Republican party do that when OBama was running for president trying to paint him as a marxist and a muslim? Is your memory really that short?

drum-

Using fear and scare tactics is wrong...period...Whoever and whichever party is using them. Wrong in 2008, wrong in 2010, just wrong.

Two words that are NO WHERE in the Republican play book - MORAL & HIGH GROUND!

OMG...so you are saying democrats are morally superior? Too funny! One example would be Clinton in the oval office with his intern....yeah another hyprocrital post from the left...wow! Take the blinders off Feisty...there is enough corruption in Washington to go around and anyone who only points to one party is just a sheep following the herd in my book.

<Two words that are NO WHERE in the Republican play book - MORAL & HIGH GROUND!

Fiesty Red, I'd agree with you but then we both would be incorrect. With the lies from Obama to Pelosi to Reid to other members of your Entitlement Party, how can you even begin to question Moral & High Ground?

Wow...mention George Bush, and the right says, "C'mon! He's been gone for, like, twenty whole months!"

Mention moral high ground, and they bring up Clinton.

Jack

When the President of the United States is getting oral sex from a 21 year old intern in the WH it is worth mentioning..don't ya think? I am sure it will brought up for generations...

Watt75, then i'm sure the Effing the World got from GWB will last a Lifetime!

Doncha Say?

Rick,

No, that would be the current administration raping our Country!

The economy has been growing since July 2009.

watt75,

I never much cared what the presidents do in their personal lives, or with whom. To me, unwarranted domestic surveillance, unfunded trillion dollar wars of choice, deregulation of rapacious big business, the gutting of government agencies that safeguard quality of life, and the collapse of the biggest economy on earth trump blow jobs from interns any day.

I find the persistent fixation on that issue mildly disturbing.

Do you also believe 1 Corinthians: 33-35?

For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Dream on Al

good drugs out there in CA, huh Ali? You workin' for islam?

Be still Al, you Cali's have enough trouble. Just worry about Gov. Moonbeam and Octomom and leave the rest of us alone.

What has Obama done in office that wasn't in his platform while campaigning? Universal Healthcare? Check. Wallstreet Reform? Check. Stimulus package to try to help the economy? Check. Seems ok to me.

What has Obama done in office that wasn't in his platform while campaigning?

9.6% unemployment? Check! Record trillion dollar deficits for as far as the eye can see? Check! Suing states because they want to stop illegal immigration? Check! Signing stimulus package after stimulus package that does nothing to help the economy but does everything to explode the debt? Check! Paying off the unions by buying out GM at a huge loss to the taxpayers? Check!

Obama. What a guy.

Ido,

That would be the other part of Florida, nutballs like that don't run here in the Panhandle.

ldo,

Why in the World did Floridians elect this guy into office ??

A mess! A hot chitty mess! You people have pulled out the worst from the foulest place imaginable...placed them in the public area before the world in attempts to pass them off as Americans...

I can think of SEVERAL unmentionables...now you have the gall to feign indignation? Why not be fair about this thing? Grayson is simply being a politician that many respect and like him or not...or any Democrat for that matter...he hit that spot that needs to be struck...

Play the game just as the opponet is playing...

Grayson is a lunatic and a habitual liar...He'll be the first one gone in November.

Grayson is all you say, but in a sense, he's crazy like a fox. Grayson could have played it straight and lost his district like so many other Democrats will do in November. Instead he came up with this raving lunatic bit that got him national attention, and a lot of money from the deep pocket loons on the Left. Money-wise, Grayson is ahead of his GOP opponent and because of it may pull out the win. No matter, we need people like Grayson in the lime-light. We need people like him to demonstrate how out of touch the Left is with the American people and to keep doing so we don't forget. Because when we do forget, we end up with people like Obama, Pelosi, and Reid in leadership positions.

But...but...but...Bob, when Bill Clinton received academic deferments he was accused of being a draft dodger. Now we're supposed to believe when Daniel Webster gets academic deferments it's okay?

I'm confused.

Now how in heck do you pass the physical for ROTC ( the same physical taken for military service), then mysteriously can't pass it when your deferment expires?

Fire Krotch Excellent post!!!!

Bu-do-de-oh-do, boy did you figure that out on your own?

Rob in CA,

If Grayson is your hero, I would really hate to see your enemy! What poor lack of judgement you have. Many of the things Grayson has said in congress are deporable and he should be kicked out immediately.

Grayson? Honest? See #2.36.

Georgia-Jim, apparently, women never get the leadership role? I'll tell that to my female pastor next week! And, there's plenty more female church leaders out there!

!

That's good news! At least some Chruches believe in the right GOD! I can almost bet she is not Southern Baptist

I thought the bible said women shouldn't speak in church...so I guess you just champion parts of the bible YOU think should be championed. If you want to run for office and use the bible as a sounding board then all is fair game.

Go Grayson, you are a breath of fresh air in a shut up room. You may not like this ad but the man does have the ear and eye of many Americans. I think the right just fears this young Democrat.

Grayson is winning.

Dear JoAnna: I'll take Grayson ANY day over the nutcases on your side of the aisle, Sharon Angle, Joe Miller, Christine O'Donnell, Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin, Rand Paul, do I need to name more? How can ANY of you take them seriously?