The Republican Party Will Never Represent Christianity

greedI’ve been pretty clear on my stance that Republicans don’t follow Christianity, they follow what I call “Republicanity.”  It’s a mixture of a political party and a handful of excerpts from the Bible — specifically the Old Testament.

The problem is, real Christianity is about giving, loving, hoping, accepting and forgiving.  And these aren’t traits the GOP holds in high regard.

Even as Pope Francis, probably the most recognized Christian leader on the planet, basically calls out their entire political ideology, it doesn’t seem to have any kind of impact on their thinking.  In fact, his words have actually started a conservative backlash against the Pope himself.

Isn’t it getting a little ridiculous when a political party is telling the Pope that he doesn’t get Christianity?  But that’s more or less what you’re seeing more and more of them start to do.

But the real problem is, their party is built on greed, judgement and fear.  As long as they embrace these three traits, they can never be representatives of Christianity.  Sure, they can go to church and tell themselves that they’re “good Christian conservatives,” but I can call myself a lion — it doesn’t make me a lion.

And as it says in the Bible about greed being perpetual and never ending, so too is the continued stance by conservatives who are embracing values that are contradictions of the teachings of Jesus Christ.  Trickle-down economics is an entire economic ideology built on the notion that the more you give the rich, the better off we’ll all be.  Talk about a great scam, huh?  Make the rich even richer and they promise we’ll benefit.

There’s just one problem — money is not infinite.  The more we give to them, the less we get back.  And what you’re seeing is what the Bible warns about greed — it’s perpetual and it will never end.  The more we give the rich, the more they’re going to want.

Because when it comes down to it, the entire “American dream” Republicans lie to their voters about is perpetuated on the American desire for gaining wealth.  Something statistics show is basically impossible for about 98% of us.

“Trust our economy ideology, look at how many wealthy people unregulated capitalism has created!”

And they’re right, it has made some people very rich.  But what about the other 98% of us?  That’s the part they seem to leave out.

But real Christianity isn’t found in the desire for wealth, it’s found in basic humanity.  It’s found in helping your fellow man, not judging them.  It’s found in feeding the needy, not taking from them.  It’s found in embracing those who are different from you, not casting them out.

Unfortunately for Republicans, they simply don’t get any of that, and probably never will.

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • Jason Hartwick

    Finally! A reasonable discussion on WHY the repubs are wrong instead of just a name-calling fest of judgement and hate against judgement and hate (?). Thank-you.

    Christians were given a whole new set of instructions that superceded the old testament rules & regulations, but the people of whom you speak missed that. They don’t seem to understand that, whether they invoke the name of Jesus or not, Liberals are more often than not fighting for the things he told christians to do. If more christians would see that, and more liberals would get over their use of the name of Jesus to do those things, the world could move forward instead of stagnating in place while those two groups argue about the existence of a man telling us to be less argumentative (?).

    • strayaway

      I found this on Democratic Underground of all places.

      “Based on a study of the 2008 data from the Internal Revenue Service of taxpayers, The Chronicle of Philanthropy reported, “The eight states where residents gave the highest share of income to charity went for John McCain in 2008. The seven-lowest ranking states supported Barack Obama.”

      The Chronicle looked at those who made $50,000 or more a year and itemized deductions.

      The study found that middle-class Americans (households with earned income between $50,000 and $75,000) were more generous than households that earned $100,000 or more.

      A key factor in charitable giving was religion.

      “Religion has a big influence on giving patterns,” said the Chronicle. “Regions of the country that are deeply religious are more generous than those that are not.””

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        lest see if the religious give so charitably when its NOT a tax deduction

      • Jason Hartwick

        see? this is what I mean. you instantly jump to the conclusion that they only give to get back, and make a snide remark about it. tax breaks are given to EVERYONE, so why is the giving higher in more religious areas? because the people there are more religious. not because they get more tax breaks or anything, but because they are religious. why can you not just be glad charities are getting help and leave it at that instead of trying to force YOUR hatred into others?

      • MiMg

        Actually YOU are the one HATING people who are NOT religious. Churches should NOT be TAX FREE institutions UNLESS they HELP EVERYONE, regardless of if they are PRACTICING ANY “religion”

      • Jason Hartwick

        Nope. I have no religion, and hate nobody of any religion. Most of the churches I have ever encountered help anyone regardless of their religion. This did not mention churches giving, but the individuals of religion giving, so your “point” is moot.

      • MiMg

        you’rethe one who we all wish was moot. My point makes PERFECT sense, and by the way, YOUR point is NOT true. I’ve know MANY People who’ve reached out to their local churches and gotten ZERO assistance! In some cases they were even told it was because they were NOT active attenders of their church! Churches bring in BILLIONS of dollars worldwide, WHAT do they do with all that money? t

      • 1EdMeadows83

        Christianity has become the biggest racket in America.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        hey santa———-I do NOt hate “others”———— I hare RELIGION. WHYwhyWHY do people need to “be religious” to help the needy? Bill Gates is atheist and he has his OWN charity ( which enables him to oversee the money NOT being siphoned off by phonies such as pastors or politicians) and : LETS SEE if the RELIGIOUS give as frequently when its NOT a tax deduction! Lets see CHURCHES ET AL do as much so-called “GOOD” when they are made as all BUSINESSES: pay goddamn taxes

      • Jason Hartwick

        I did not say people need to be religious to help the needy. I said (like the numbers in this article show) that religious people give more. “because the people there are more religious” does not translate into “people need to ‘be religious’ to help the needy”, but that the statistics are about areas where the needy are helped, not where there are MORE tax breaks, as you were obliquely suggesting. Those breaks were given to churches because they do good deeds. If more businesses did more charity work, maybe they would be offered the same tax breaks, but since they won’t, it is left to the government, and so they must tax them to use that money for gov’t social programs. That’s the trade-off. If you don’t like it, perhaps you should be lobbying businesses to more charity work so the government doesn’t have to rather than blame the churches for using that advantage for the good of people who need it.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        make churches pay tax just as U and I and REAL businesses============== and if they TRULY were helping they wouldn’t have the ones they financially help ( food/ clothing also) be stuck listening to their preaching

      • Jason Hartwick

        OH! I get it now! You’re a republican! Only concerned with getting money from something, and only concerned with YOUR way, and convinced that nothing else could possibly work. I’m sorry I missed that, the whole anti-church thing threw me…..

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        I am concerned ( “concerned”??) with continuing my fine lifestyle by my SELF EMPLOYED business keeping my income at a certain level– IM A REPUBLICAN???? Hmmmmmm,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,funny: I am a registered independent who voted for the Obama ticket in 2012. Weird ass republican strategy!—and I luv how U FOX “news” avoided my rant upon scumbag houses of voodoo/superstition ( SEE: churches) paying TAX. … Care to double down on another uneducated effort?

      • Jason Hartwick

        uh … I avoided nothing. I made a statement, you turned it upside down and said the same thing only backwards, so I was not going to continue the same vein, obviously you have no points, just rants and third-grade “I know you are but what am I” comebacks. I am no republican, hell, I don’t even vote conservative here at home (which isn’t in the us, in case you didn’t bother to actually read what I said) … My original statement about churches still has not been actually rebutted, just screamed about. My statement about how maybe businesses should consider doing the charity work and seeing if that earns them some tax breaks again was not rebutted, merely turned about and thrown back backwards. You hate churches, I get it. I don’t care, your personal opinion about religions has not one single thing to do with what is actually being discussed. See, you are doing the same thing I mentioned earlier – saying “churches are wrong because they believe differently than I do, and they should be the ones who have to change to be more like me just because my opinion matters most”. Sounds Republican to me. You are saying “they aren’t paying their fair share”. Sounds Republican to me. You are saying “I shouldn’t have to listen to their words, they should have to listen to mine!”. Notice a pattern developing here? I’m not really defending anyone, or attacking anyone. You, however, ARE, and I do believe this will be my last response to you until you can stop acting so infantile.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        my reply? reading many OTHERS comments admonishing what U write—- I guess we all are infantile as U remain zeus

      • 1EdMeadows83

        ” You are saying “they aren’t paying their fair share”. Sounds Republican to me” Well Jason, I believe it is the Republicans, especially the Tea Party Republicans, who want to pay NO taxes. We Liberals realize a nation relies entirely upon taxes. So, yes, we think churches should pay their fair share, which they have never done. Fair is fair and fair is a Liberal concept.

      • Sherri G

        I am a poor disabled divorced mom of 5 kids. I don’t give money but I give my time. Just put more than 60 HOURS in helping Toys for Tots over the last 7 weeks. I’m not part of your statistic and yet I still GIVE to those in need and I am NOT a CHRISTIAN or RELIGIOUS.
        My kids are not religious and yet they each donate 100+hours a year helping those less fortunate than them. Its called HUMANITY and has nothing to do with being RELIGIOUS.

      • 1EdMeadows83

        Bravo Sherri. We need more people like you. Not poor, necessarily, but charitable.

      • 1EdMeadows83

        Oh! Tegu! You’re going to christian Hell ! You didn’t capitalize god in goddamn! Oh oh, I guess I’ll join you!

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        yeah babeeeee!!!

      • 1EdMeadows83

        I would trade my “tax breaks” for Mitt Romney’s any day.

      • 1EdMeadows83

        “why is the giving higher in more religious areas?” I think you are correct and I’m sure Romney and the other 1% are grateful for the Republicans charity.

      • strayaway

        Why do conservatives also donate more blood than liberals? Since liberal families earn an average of 6% more than conservative families, liberals would have more to gain from giving using your explanation.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        why O why O why would I “donate” something of such critical value to me when the recipient of my “donation” sells that DONATION????? that’s as ‘logical’ as our brave troops donating their life to a war based upon LIES ( SEE: wmd) in IRAQ

      • strayaway

        I have no idea what donations being sold you are referring to but fortunately you don’t have to donate anything unless the government make you. The war in Iraq was based on Bush’s lies and continued as long as possible by Obama anyway.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        schmuck————– “donated” BLOOD is SOLD by the clowns who COLLECT donated BLOOD————- having a tough time with reading????

      • strayaway

        Tegu, I’m not sure you have a sense of what I was responding to. I pointed out that, according to a study, Republican families, although they have lower income than Democratic families, donate more to charity and even donate more blood than Democrats. My wife, a former Democrat and now independent voter, for instance, often gives blood to the Red Cross. Are you telling us that the Red Cross “clowns” sell it?

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        what I am saying is the VAST majority of “donated” blood is SOLD. Those big DONATE BLOOD trcks U see parked at busy social locations with creeps asking ” would U like 2 donate blood” are SELLING the product. When I ask them about the SELLING of the acquired blood they pull the ” oh- we will have those who DONATE at the ‘top of the list’ should they ever need a transfusion or blood.” as for what the red cross dos I do not know as the red cross has been ( in the past) a noble organization. I don’t donate blood. I do not donate anything. I occasionally buy a homeless man/ woman FOOD but NO CASH. I will GIVE clothing I no longer use to charity. I tried to DONATE a very nice living room couch–for free- to the salvation army. My couch–pristine except for a 1/4 ( one f*cking quarter) inch non noticable tear– was NOT accepted as they COULDNT SELL IT!!!!!!!!!!!
        >>>>> F*CK all these charlatans<<<

      • strayaway

        It sounds like we are talking about two different situations. Where I live in a rural and small town area, the Red Cross shows up every two or three months in many villages. The Red Cross sends out voice mails or postcards to previous blood donors, puts a blurb into local papers ,and then puts a big sign up the day of the blood letting. My wife usually donates in a church basement . A crew from the Red Cross is there. Cookies and beverages are served to those donating blood. I am unaware of other payments. Maybe things are run differently in some urban locations. We might just be reflecting what we see where we are.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        agreed,,,,,,,,,,,,,im in a haven for parasites: south florida–broward county. But we do have 78 degree weather now…..im donating my time in the atlantic ocean as my cowboys are getting ready to suck again tonight

      • 1EdMeadows83

        “Why do conservatives also donate more blood than liberals?” Well, why do conservatives lie more often than Liberals? You have no basis for your “facts”. Maybe because you live in a world of conservatives you see more of your conservative friends giving blood than your Liberal friends. You need to get out more, strayaway.

      • strayaway

        I can’t find my post. Maybe it got lost. Sometimes my posts are moved to the bottom here. Do a Google search for “Conservatives more liberal givers”that has a mention of blood donations. Again, you couldn’t respond with facts and lapsed into presumptions; and gain, a false presumption.

      • 1EdMeadows83

        WHAT? What are you trying to say? I think you are beginning to realize that you cannot win a logical argument with me. You are out gunned.

      • strayaway

        I left a link in response to your belief that conservatives don’t donate more blood. You responded by ignoring it. Unable to debate, you declare yourself logical.

      • MiMg

        First of all Republicans NEED to be MORE generous because they PREACH hatred of The Poor, Women, Blacks, Gays, Hispanics. Secondly, “middle class” is NOT 75k/yr. The AVERAGE per person per job income in this country is ONLY 26k/yr! Republicans ABOLISH EVERY Safety Net there is so they REALLY NEED to be GIVING BILLIONS to make up for the DESTRUCTION of Welfare, as well as Food Stamps!

      • Jason Hartwick

        boy, you sure get worked up about these people. You sound a lot like Bill O’Reilly only reversed.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        a reversed billo the clown? that would be a guy who tells ALL the facts; not just what he is PAID to say

      • Jason Hartwick

        LOL … I meant in the way he just spouts off his own opinion with no thought behind it, only from a liberal standpoint rather than a conservative one

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        I would pay to see that from his stuffy arrogant ass

      • Jason Hartwick

        Read more of MiMg’s comments – there ya go … now can the money go to a charity of my choice, or who do you want to pay it to? lol

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        I only purchase stuff for me and those very close to me– Im a greedy selfish bastard

      • 1EdMeadows83

        Oh My God! You’re a closet Republican? ;-D

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        only if it gets me naked in my bed with sarah palin for a night of debauchery

      • 1EdMeadows83

        Yuk. The word flaccid comes to mind.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        actually she has a nice body— her mind and political stance has me shriveling: that’s why shes getting an apple in her mouth when im doing her

      • 1EdMeadows83

        Yeah, I guess so. Michelle Bachman ain’t bad neither if you get below that brain.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        not my type…… I like breasts. the dark haired lawyer who appears on the FIVE with the Sophia loren face is my type

      • tommyair

        That’s because a conservative standpoint is no standpoint.

      • 1EdMeadows83

        And Republicans don’t spout their own opinions? How often do they agree with Democrats?

      • tommyair

        Yep, has good reason to be too.

      • 1EdMeadows83

        O’Reilly has no reverse in his transmission.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        hes the opposite of nascar— nascar is GO FAST AND TURN LEFT,,,,,,,,,,,, o’reilly and his cohorts are don’t move and go right

      • strayaway

        Then maybe that is why Republicans are more personally generous. Which is more important, rhetoric or actions?

        You do bring up an interesting idea getting back on thread. Was Jesus’ message to be more personally generous or was he more concerned about getting the central government of his day to redistribute wealth?

        Republicans are partly responsible for economic problems but do you have any figures to prove that less money is being spent on welfare and food stamps today than under Bush. However, Obama has made some of those problems worse. Economically, blacks have fared worse than whites under Obama and the 1% has done better under Obama than under Bush while the fortune of the 99% have declined under Obama.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        partly responsible???? PLEASE edify me! Im gonna give U some latitude here and ask you to place a percentage of the economic malaise in America ( include ALL problems systemic to our country) which –in YOUR opinion— was / is caused by REPUBLICAN policies over the past 30-35 years. This should be priceless

      • strayaway

        You are getting a bit off topic. I did not vote for either Bush, Reagan, or Obama and consider them guilty of the same policies promoting war and the elite at the expense of the US middle class and US workers so I don’t want to invest myself anymore in defending Reagan’s debts than Obama’s. I don’t want to defend Bush’s bending over for bankers more than Obama doing the same. I don’t want to defend Clinton’s betrayal of US workers more than that of Bush or Obama. However, we have endured five years under Obama and while Reagan or Bush can still be negatively critiqued, it doesn’t do much more good than critiquing Grover Cleveland. “The buck stops her” Truman said so we have to deal with where we are after five years of President Obama. Blaming all of his shortcomings on Bush after five years including two years with both a Democratic House and Senate doesn’t do the trick anymore. President Obama’s great achievement is to release a universal health care plan which has so far meant that about 4.7M fewer Americans now have health care coverage. Perhaps this will change for the better and your hopes and dreams will be vindicated. Good luck, I don’t like the Country going down the tubes either whether under Bush or Obama.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        I cannot argue your valid points: I can say– until the repubs figure out their TRUE platform and find a way to GOVERN Im gonna stick with dems. I abhor the tea party trash dragging “AMERICAS religion” ( tea party stultified Christianity) into anything…. its a historically proven recipe for disaster in any/all countries

      • tommyair

        Again another clueless person as to the benefits of the ACA. Most of those that had their coverage canceled didn’t have health care coverage. They were paying for crap, but thought they were buying health insurance. Guess what they are doing about health care in Vermont. Hint… Single payer….

      • strayaway

        Now that 5M Americans have lost health care coverage due to this inept legislation, you have the audacity to kick people when they are down. Your arrogance illustrates another reason Americans are turning against the (un)ACA.

        Vermont tried to have a single payer plan which is that state’s 10th Amendment right. The (un)ACA bureaucratic thugs stepped in and removed the “affordable” part of Vermont’s single payer plan ruling that Vermont could only have a single player plan if it kept all the trial lawyers and bureaucrats at its health care feed trough.If you want a single payer plan with Canadian like savings, the trial lawyers, insurance companies,must be removed.

      • 1EdMeadows83

        Have you compared the US economy now to where it was after Bush’s 5 years or are you content just to bloviate?

      • strayaway

        The Treasury and the Fed have borrowed and printed money to cover over the economic cancer with a band-aid. If I borrowed and printed enough money, I could borrow enough money to park a Cadillac in my drive and I suppose i could fool a few neighbors too. You incorrectly assume I support Bush. I don’t. He spent the US $5T into debt. It’s just that Obama’s been a bigger spender and doesn’t have much to show for making debt slaves out of our children either.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        check obamas spending,,,,,,,,slowing dramatically: deficit shrinking

      • strayaway

        “Slowing DRAMATICALLY”. Funny! The deficit is shrinking, not nearly enough, while the debt continued to grow for our kids. Obama will probably add $10T to the total US debt of $20T by the time he leaves office. He presently has the debt up to $17.3T.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        so that means Obama is CUTTING spending— which the crybaby regressive rightwingers LIE about and say he is INCREASING. DEBT was escalated by Reagan –and the bush boys– selling DEBT to asia,,,,,, deficit is income VS outlays— totally NON related. DEBT accrues as we simply make interest payments on our debt; not nipping principle

      • strayaway

        No. Debt was dramatically escalated by Roosevelt if you want to go back further but lets just start with the W. Bush’s last budget submission was for $3.1T in 2009. We will set aside the fact that Obama added costs to the 2009 budget. Since then Obama’s 2010 budget submission was for $3.6T, 2011 $3.8T, 2112 $3.7T, and 2013 $3.8T. Notice that Bush’s final budget was for a smaller amount than any of Obama’s so you are incorrect in asserting that ” Obama is CUTTING spending.” More important, Obama will increase the federal debt more than any other President. That is the real number most important to our children who have to pay it down. To me, it’s a case of child abuse.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        schmuck,,,,,im talking about DEFICIT: which is the GOVT spending VS government income. the DEFICIT is shrinking. Noticeably. don’t ask me!!! go to the US treasury and the CBO and critique THEIR numbers

      • strayaway

        and I was talking about the debt which is the accumulation of deficits and, I think, more important because it is the bill our children are being handed. They won’t care about historical rates. They will care about the amount. Even the deficit is still unacceptably high. We just keep piling it on the kids. I have solutions though. End these stupid wars, bring the troops home from most everywhere, and otherwise limit federal spending to spending on powers delegated to the federal government by the Constitution.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        ok,,and where O where were YOu during the financial destruction purloined upon us by the bush boys and Reagan? NO WHERE— I guess THAT deficit and DEBT was palatable to you then. Now a black democrat is president so U clamor loudly as if its a brand new topic. the DEBT is the money LENT to individuals and entities; the deficit is irrelevant to the DEBT, when Clinton balanced the deficit and gave us a surplus our DEBT still existed and was going higher.
        the biggest upward swing of debt VS GDP occurred in Reagans administration. check the chart b4 U get back; im tired of knowing this and expostulating with you. As for ‘piling it on our kids’ I ( again) ask: where O where were u and others of your ILK when it was crushing us under republican -led administrations???

      • strayaway

        I admire your obfuscation. Dragging Reagan, two Bushes, and black into a couple of sentences is no easy task. The DEBT is what our children owe for the sins of the Bushes, Reagan, and Obama and, of course, their congresses. Where was I? Opposing the spending and voting third party for the most part. My point is that Obama is the President and blaming Reagan, the Bushes, or Millard Fillmore is a distraction. (“The Buck stops Here”) President Obama will probably double the national debt anyway, thus adding a $10T ball and chain to our children and establishing himself as having created as much debt as the other 42 presidents handed to him. $10T = about $31,847 of debt per American or about $83,333 per average US taxpayer. Well done Mr. President!

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        debt/ deficit different…………………. as explained above. as for U crying: I again ask— who( which candidate 2016 potential) do U favor/ will U vote for??? which policies are BETTER for USA?? wanna try again here? also- obfuscate is ” clouding facts” which I have NOT done

      • Kareem Of-Wheaties

        GFY
        Do it today

      • 1EdMeadows83

        Read the last comment I made in response to your statement. Libertarians are the second best things to Democrats because they never win and almost always vote!

      • strayaway

        Libertarian is not only the name of a party, it is the opposite of authoritarian. The Republican Party is very slowly becoming more libertarian but I can’t detect any such trend in the Democratic party.

      • 1EdMeadows83

        Oh you are absolutely correct. There is no trend among Democrats to vote Libertarian. We don’t particularly like to waste our votes. And the fact that Republicans are becoming more Libertarian delights me immensely!

      • strayaway

        The opposite of libertarian is authoritarian. I guess we all have to positions ourselves where we are most comfortable. This brings us back to the thread. Republicans donate more to charities voluntarily. Authoritarians seem to think that forcing their neighbor to pay for government programs, however commendable the program, is the moral equivalent of giving of themselves.

      • 1EdMeadows83

        ” I did not vote for either Bush, Reagan, or Obama” Thank you very much. You just admitted you voted for Obama. Why? Because when you don’t vote for a candidate you’re essentially casting a vote for whomever wins. That just happened to be Obama!

      • strayaway

        I voted third party because I figured that I would have been wasting my vote on either Romney, McCain, or Obama. Actually voting for a fool is an endorsement.

      • 1EdMeadows83

        Please – read – this – carefully. When you vote for a candidate who cannot win you are voting for the candidate who does win. That shouldn’t be to difficult to understand. The comment about voting for a fool being an endorsement is a bit infantile and not an example of profundity.

      • strayaway

        I was responding to your comment, “You just admitted you voted for Obama.”. I do consider Romney, McCain, and Obama to be fools; corporate fools. I don’t buy into your notion that voting for a candidate who cannot win is the same as voting for the candidate who does win. Voting for a third party candidate is, to me, more like voting for “none of the above’. It’s better than staying home which suggests indifference. Voting for these corporatist fools who hurt Americans is something I don’t endorse with my vote.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        soooooooooooo——————who is YOUR pristine candidate?

      • strayaway

        Pristine? Justin Amash although he has shown no indication of running.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        ok,,, excuse my idiocy of asking an idiot an idiotic inquiry: “OK”– lets try again………. OF THE PURPORTED candidates prime to run in 2016,,whos the candidate U will saunter publicly towards???

      • strayaway

        I think that calling me an idiot ends this discussion. You need to learn manners.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        archetypal reply from a mental eunuch who has no answer,,,,,,,,and I included MYSELF in the conjunctive format of IDIOCY,,,so stop crying

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        “there U go again,,,,,,,,,,,hitting regressives with facts”

      • Peter Vegas

        Nice TITS picture…is any one suppose to take you seriously ???

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        U ask me if anyone will take me seriously? ON A STUPID INTERNET BLOG????,,,,,,OK! I just placed a photo of me up: as a crybaby regressive republican punk in LA ( cal) calls me fat. OH: should we take you seriously with a photo of “you” up here?

      • tommyair

        Yes they should. What’s your TITS (sic) problem? As for profile pics….what the hell is yours?

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        he downloaded my gals chest photo and is now practicing his quotidian onanistic behavior

      • 1EdMeadows83

        Nah, I take it back. You’re not a Republican. Republicans could never think of words like that!

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        I like U now!!! ,ok: look this word up ( and yes; U may use it!!) “THELYPHTHORIC”,,,,,its a great one

      • 1EdMeadows83

        Well, I looked it up. (I have to admit, I never hear that word before) It seemed difficult to define but the best definition I got was, “Said of someone who corrupts women. ”
        I doubt if I’ll ever have an occasion to use it but thanks for adding it to my vocabulary.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        here are some words to use against regressive rightwingers: oligophrenial,,,,nugatory,,,,,jejune,,,,,,,,,,,,ordure,,,,tenebrific—- I can giv man: these are superior weapons in “fighting” imbeciles. — sadly they will NOT change as they remain xylocephalous

      • Glenna Jones-Kachtik

        That is funny, that is.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        thank U!!

      • Glenna Jones-Kachtik

        He is Bumble – the snowman from Rudolph….also fictional. Not sure what that says about him but I bet some psychologist might. I would pick Pooh – not sure what that says about me either.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        mental health advisor will call his “mind” a CRUMBLE———–

      • 1EdMeadows83

        “Then maybe that is why Republicans are more personally generous” Boy! Did you pull that one out of your ass! Yeah, I’m sure the top 1% appreciate all that Republican generosity!

      • strayaway

        “Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published “Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism.”” His findings included:

        — “Although liberal families’ incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

        — Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

        — Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

        — Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

        — In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

        — People who reject the idea that “government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality” give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.”

        It is so much fun to attack delusions like the 1% equates with Republicans. I hope you caught the part about liberal families making more money than conservative families.

      • 1EdMeadows83

        I could write the same thing by Professor Hootnanny PhD of Bloviate University (using real names of real professors of real universities and instead of using the word conservative use, instead, the word Liberal). I’m not going to get into a urinating match with you but what you have written is unadulterated malarkey.

      • strayaway

        You probably could and I wouldn’t put it past you. However, anyone here can use Google to back up my offer and to disprove yours. I guess you can’t disprove me. Calling me names instead, adds nothing to your status as a poster.

      • 1EdMeadows83

        Apparently you think about my concern about my “status as a poster” I’m not. I’m not running for office and I doubt if I could have counted on your voter if I was. I just re-read my comment and nowhere did I call you a name. I could have and I may in a future response but this time? Didn’t happen. You jerk! 😉

      • 1EdMeadows83

        “Then maybe that is why Republicans are more personally generous.” Are you aware that all Democrats give 75% of their income to charity? Can republicans say this? If you’re going to lie it should be a BIG one!

      • Frank Key

        “A key factor in charitable giving was religion.”

        Further study would probably reveal that the majority of that charitable giving was to Churches and not to organizations that directly help the poor and needy. Those 10% tithes being deducted go directly into the offering plate and are being used for further expansion of the churches and to pay pastor salaries. Sure, some of that money may trickle down to church supported projects for the poor…but we all know how that trickle down concept really works. Moneys donated by religious people are intended to help their religions above all else.

      • Guest

        Yeah, whatever it takes as long a Democrats win!

      • 1EdMeadows83

        YOU NEED TO READ WHAT I FOUND IN “THE REPUBLICAN MIND”! “After an exhaustive search it has become evident that all Republicans are stupid.” Now who woulda thunk it!

      • strayaway

        Gosh, another profound post by Mr. Ed.

      • 1EdMeadows83

        It doesn’t require much to be profound in your presence.

    • MiMg

      Using the word “liberal” automatically indicates YOU are a REPUB, which means YOU are a HEARTLESS, SEXIST, HOMOPHOBIC, RACIST, ELITIST, BIGOT! While you WANT to consider that “namecalling” it’s FACT that Repubs vote AGAINST legislation that HELPS The Poor, that HELPS Womens Rights, that HELPS Black Rights, that HELPS Gay Rights, that HELP Hispanic Rights, that HELP Employ EE rights, that HELP Consumer Rights

      • Jason Hartwick

        I will be sure to pass along your hateful comments to the charity I spearhead, and my wife who works while I stay home and mind the children & house, my bisexual brother, my metis children and nieces, my entire family (including my own) which lives at or below the poverty line, and all the people I talk to & share with on a regular basis. I am sure that all of those people would agree with your ignorant-of-who-I-am assessment of who I am based on the fact that I don’t hate ONLY conservatives with big mouths, but also liberals who are unreasonably hating of those with opinions different from theirs. While you WANT to consider all those who don’t bow down in the face of your relentless hatred all those horrible things, it simply is not true, and I will not be drawn into a battle of wits with someone who is as obviously unarmed as you.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        no such thing as a BI sexual man

      • Jason Hartwick

        That must be why there’s a “b” in “LGBT”. Showing off intolerance – good work…..

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        ahem— if a MAN sucks weenie and takes it up the poop shoot he is homosexual. care to dispute that?

      • Jason Hartwick

        Yes, because homosexuality is about more than just sex. If homosexuality was ONLY about coitus, there wouldn’t be much talk about it, really. They wouldn’t care about getting married, they wouldn’t have to worry about adopting, since there would be no family unit involved. Homosexual men are attracted to men. Period. Bisexuals are attracted to both men AND women, regardless of their own gender. Perhaps you should educate yourself before trying to debate something with someone? Just a suggestion…..

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        again,,,,,,,,,,,,if YOU suck weenie and take it up the poop shoot U are a homo.
        “BISEXUAL” women are just pissed off at men who fuck them on 1st date and then dump them— if the woman had self esteem she wouldn’t spread her legs so readily: and they better lean that any man who coerces them into bed/ manipulates them into sex too early is simply telling them he is NOT INTERESTED IN RELATIONSHIP. I work in adult strip club industry for 25 years———– fucked HUNDREDS of women and I know what im saying. so-called “BI” women are really into men but scared to keep trying with men-so they delve into women,,, when women treat them the same they revert back to men AND FINALLY LEARN THE “RULES” . Men who have sex with men are homos– period. educate myself???? U think U know as much as I do????? I live in south FLA– a haven for gay men and women– don’t waste my time with your very very limited scope on this. many times drugs and alcohol and poor self esteem send men to ” bisexuality” ( SEE: homosexuality) and they eventuall settle on what they REALLY want— if trhey fix themselves internally and spiritually (NO– NOR FUCKING LOSER RELIGION!!) spiritually means emotionally on a higher plane. U wanna debate more? send me YOUR infantile qualifications.

      • Jason Hartwick

        Uh … so being a pimp makes you an automatic expert on homosexuality and it’s role in human relationships? I am relatively sure the stripping industry has nothing at all to do with relationships, just sex. Not having worked in the industry, I could not be 100% sure, but just reading your comments, and having been friends with strippers, former strippers, “managers”, bikers, et al, I am about 95% sure. Just because you were a skanky low-life who cheated women into bed and abused their fragile self-esteem does not mean that is how everyone in the world operates, nor does living in the lowest form of lifestyle when it comes to relationships make you an expert on every form of them. Incidentally, I live in Canada, where a lot of those Floridian homosexuals come from, and we only let you have a percentage of them, so I am relatively sure I have a decent base to speak from.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        hey gerbil droppings— wrong again!! Im a self employed chef who CATERS ( IE: acquires and runs autonomously) the kitchens in the clubs.– BIG money: CASH money,,,NO BOSS…. I only do BIG LAVISH clubs( PURE PLATINUM,,,,SOLID GOLD,,,,PLATINUM PLUS,,,,etc) NOT the biker/ skanky ones U “HOPE” I do. I do enjoy shitbag non sexual rightwing trash CRYBABIES such as YOU who use vernacular as PIMP because U simply do NOT know ANY truths about REAL world– the COLD facts about how men and women in a REAL world operate: not some insulated dullard place that your limited mentality–and experience– entail.
        again: if a MAN has sex with a MAN he is a homo. do your FOX “news” dance and shuffle that any way U want: if U don’t trust my choice of descriptions go ask any of your crybaby rightwing trash religious regressives. I soooooooooo enjoy when bed wetting scum such as you practice the dubious “principle” of CONTEMPT prior TO INVESTIGATION. —which is proper social behavior for regressive rightwing trash- If someone doesn’t do exactly as YOU decree- they are ,,,,,,,,,,,( fill in the blank with YOUR micropenile descriptive adjective)

      • Jim Bean

        If you read a little further down you find where he (she, it) claims to be a self employed chef making 100k under the table. There’s some sort of psychosis at work here.

      • Jason Hartwick

        Evidently. He is making a very good case for something I maintain, though: liberal or conservative, fanatics are fanatics. Unthinkingly following their party line and spouting hatred and rhetoric to anyone not bowing down to their party’s line. It is just as much fun poking the liberal fanatics into a frenzy as it is the conservative – they sound exactly the same, they just say opposite weird things lol

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        hey jimbo————– a touch of jealousy? U kneeeee-glected to also include where I live ( one block east of beach on a1a in pompano beach FL) and I am totototally psychotic!! that’s why I make great money; look great and have sexy chesty girlfriends all my adult life !! syyyyyy- koh!!!

      • 1EdMeadows83

        Jason, if it’s true that you live “at or below the poverty line” then you are stupid and unfair to your family for supporting a party that wants to make you even poorer. However, I doubt that anything you said in this comment is true

      • Jason Hartwick

        I am supporting nobody, is the problem with what you are saying. I am simply against tyranny, whether it appears in the form of bowing down before conservative corporate ass-kissing, or in the form of bowing down to whatever the newest cause is or the enforcement of an open opinion. Forcing someone into your opinion is wrong, regardless of your opinion. I don’t care if you think babies are cute, that does not give you the right to expect everyone in the world to hold that opinion, or to call names and ostracize someone who thinks differently. EVERYONE is entitled to their opinion, and to the expression of that opinion. You are entitled to disagree, but you could do so civilly instead of writing off those who disagree with you as “stupid” – that’s more of a conservative tendency, or so liberals like to tell themselves.

      • 1EdMeadows83

        Jason, I have been around for a long, long, LONG time and I have discovered when a person says to a Democrat that, “I vote for the man, not the party” or as you say, “I am supporting nobody”, then that person is the opposite of what a Democrat believes. I say, right up front, that I am a Progressive Liberal, Yellow Dog Democrat. You see, I have the courage of my convictions. I am not ashamed of what I believe or who I support. I find that to not be the case of many on this site. Apparently you think President Obama is a tyrant. You either are very young or very ignorant about tyrants. It would be impossible for any US president to be a tyrant. Congress and the Supreme Court would not allow it. I will tell you why so many Republicans hate our President. I’m sure you haven’t noticed it but our President is (shhh) black and Republicans, especially Southern Republicans, are hard-wired to hate anyone and everyone is who is not a gorgeous shade of white. I was raised in Alabama and I know of what I speak.
        So Jason, your indignation at what I’ve said doesn’t impress me. As for calling people names, that’s what’s fun about this site, don’t you agree?

      • strayaway

        ” I am not ashamed of what I believe or who I support.” That includes, keeping Bush’s wars going as long as possible, participating in an undeclared unprovoked war against Libya without the consent of Congress, in violation of the War powers Act and by executive order, trying to do the same to Syria, running up the national debt more than any other president and billing it to our children, reducing the savings, employment rates, and home ownership rates of blacks more than whites, reducing measurable racial harmony, trying to extend unemployment benefits for 1.3 unemployed Americans while trying to grant amnesty to 8M illegal aliens, fast tracking the TPP to further destroy our middle and working classes, and, of course, supporting the (un)ACA disaster still unfolding.

      • Jason Hartwick

        “what a Democrat believes” and “the courage of my convictions”. The very fact that you group yourself into a specific set, then claim to have your own convictions not only does not impress me, but amuses me.
        republicans are not hard-wired to hate anyone not white, they are just completely unaware of their own racism. While that is sad and pathetic, it isn’t all that much different from being a cynical asshole because of abuse as a child. You can’t help it, and you try to do better, but no matter what you do, people make the assumption that everything you say is you being a cynical asshole, because that is what they are used to you being. So calling them names and being so hateful doesn’t help anything. I didn’t say one word about Obama, but the people who claim to follow him. I would think that if you are that old, you would recognize that the difference between the convictions of people and their leader can be quite different. I thought WW2 taught us all that – not to mention that following a party line blindly, and being proud of belonging to that party no matter what is not a great idea. So no, I do not follow liberal thinking, nor do I follow conservative thinking. I prefer to do my own thinking and come to my own conclusions.

      • 1EdMeadows83

        Clumsy but quite correct.

    • 1EdMeadows83

      “A reasonable discussion on WHY the repubs are wrong instead of just a name-calling fest of judgement and hate against judgement and hate (?). ” Jason are you reading some of the detritus that spews from the fingers of some of these cretins? You might want to amend your comment.

      • Jason Hartwick

        Not at all. The repubs are filled with judgement and hatred. Anyone who can’t see that is blind. Responding to that judgement and hatred with MORE judgement and hatred and name-calling only feeds their anger, and fills them with more hatred, which makes them more judgemental. Is that the answer? To do nothing but act like a bunch of third-graders? Do you suppose that may be the reason the american economy appears to be RUN by a bunch of third-graders? Once you are stuck in that mentality, every decision you make tends to be coloured by it. When they are stuck in black and white, and they try to make their insanity sound reasonable, pointing out to them in a reasonable, civilized fashion is all they will understand. Childish bickering with them will solve nothing, so I maintain that a reasonable discussion about WHY they are wrong is refreshing, and FAR more helpful than just a rant about “they’re stupid, everything they believe is stupid, they’re just wrong, they have to believe what we believe.” The detritus that spews from them is worth less than the air they use to spew it, but the detritus in retort is generally just as useless.

  • Why5ks

    Many of these followers of Republicanity don’t understand the history of the book they call “The Word of God”. The Old Testament is basically folk lore, fables, parables, and cultural laws that were passed on though history before they were written down. Some were even stolen from other religions and melded into theirs. Even the books of the New Testament weren’t written by the prophets accredited, they were written more than a hundreds years after their deaths. Even then at the Council of Nicea I, in the 4th century, Pope Constantine I essentially had the entire Bible reconstructed and in many cases rewritten. The council picked and chose which books to include in the Bible and which books to exclude. Some of the rewriting was done to make pagan holidays, parables, and traditions blend in with the growing Christian religion. Then the Bible was rewritten again to give us the King James version. This was a very accurate translation seeing as none of those tasked with writing and translating ever read the original manuscripts. Their translation was merely a rewriting of the 2 previous translations into English. Now, our new found Christians, under the direction of Andrew Schlafly, son of the Phyllis Schlafly, are attempting to rewrite the Bible once again. This time they are asking for “lay persons” to offer their interpretations of biblical verse to write the modern version. All of this doesn’t account for all the other “reinterpretations” that have occurred throughout history.

    • Cemetery Girl

      One of the biggest challenges I have with the Bible, mind you I am a Christian, is the requirements the books being considered were judged on to be included in what we now consider a typical copy of the Bible. One requirement was how well did the book correspond with the beliefs of the Christians tasked with compiling the Bible. We are to use a book to base and justify beliefs and views, but the book was created based on how well it upheld certain beliefs and views. I do believe that the Bible can provide comfort and inspiration, but I am challenged to believe that it is the definitive word about Christianity when it was compiled to support majority beliefs and views hundreds of years after the events.

      • Why5ks

        Well they had a daunting task. They had to find a way to take many traditions and beliefs of Pagans and a few other minor religions and mold them with Christianity. Pope Constantine was born and raised a Pagan, some how became Pope and the leader of Christianity. The other major issue they needed to address was the role of women in the church and in society. You see in Paganism, the woman played an equal, if not superior, role to man. It was at this council that Mary, Jesus’ mother, became the Virgin Mary and that Mary Magdalene became a whore in the eyes of the church. Even though many religious people want to believe “The Da Vinci Code” was pure fiction, there is ample evidence that Jesus may have been married to Mary and she was one of his Disciples. So they had to edit, rewrite, or eliminate religious texts fro the Bible that made reference to those facts.

      • Peter Vegas

        so again Mr. Why , what is your stance ????

      • Why5ks

        What does it matter what my stance is, we are discussing how the new right wing has created a new brand of Christianity that has nothing to do with Christ. I’m pretty sure both of my post were quite clear about how I feel about that? Do you need to know my beliefs just so you can assail them? The difference is I am not trying to create a political agenda and trying to ram that down the throat of everyone whether they believe it or not. The right wing born again Christians are no better than the Taliban that they are constantly assailing. They are the worst threat to our Democratic Republic since the fall of the Soviet Union. Their constant threats to succeed and trying to relabel their Nationalism as patriotism. My God/Christ views are my, all mine and should be a personal thing. If we were friends and had the type of relationship where we discussed and respected each other than I would be more than happy to share them. But I can tell you religion has as much to do with God as candy has to do with weight loss.

      • 1EdMeadows83

        These new Republicans actually hate the whole concept of what Jesus taught. Do they hate Jesus? I don’t know. That guy has been dead and buried for over two millennia.

    • Peter Vegas

      so what do you believe Mr. Scholar ??? alot of words but not saying Cr*p …

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        Christ is not / was not GOD,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Christ teachings were pretty cool; but as all humans he was flawed– the white trash crybaby pseudo-Christians of todays southern states in America are simpletons who hate all that’s NOT inbred low IQ white trash–

      • Glenna Jones-Kachtik

        You seem quite concerned with belief & what he believes. That isn’t germane to the conversation. He has stated exactly what he believes about the Bible – where he falls on belief in God is between him & GOD. He has stated his position twice – you just aren’t listening. Sometimes, if you have asked someone something many times & you just keep asking, the problem isn’t with the responder; but the questioner. The things he has stated ARE factual. One doesn’t necessarily have to not be a Christian to realize facts, He might be an Atheist or an Agnostic; but whatever he is, it doesn’t make the facts or the history any less true.

      • 1EdMeadows83

        My goodness Petie! You certainly put that pretentious guy in his place. He can never compete with an intellect like yours!

  • Bradoplata

    The bible says we will always have the poor, too. Why do you fight against a culture of greed, but not for a culture of life?

    • suburbancuurmudgeon

      Some of us do; greed is the antithesis of life.

      • Bradoplata

        How so?

  • macabr

    “… real Christianity isn’t found in the desire for wealth, it’s found in
    basic humanity. It’s found in helping your fellow man, not judging
    them. It’s found in feeding the needy, not taking from them. It’s
    found in embracing those who are different from you, not casting them
    out.”
    Do unto others as you would have done unto you. Not a complicated message. I think it was Chesterton who wrote, “It isn’t that Christianity has been tried and found wanting. It is that it has been found difficult and not tried.”

    • suburbancuurmudgeon

      Very true.

    • Peter Vegas

      Very Well Said, unlike the guy above agreeing with the liberal displaying naked womens breasts in his profile pic…thats Class…

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        ahhh,,,my girlfriends chest– she thinks the photo online sans her face is quaint———- U cry because U don’t get any sex

    • 1EdMeadows83

      ” “… real Christianity isn’t found in the desire for wealth, it’s found in
      basic humanity. It’s found in helping your fellow man, not judging
      them. It’s found in feeding the needy, not taking from them. It’s
      found in embracing those who are different from you, not casting them
      out.” ” And it’s only Christians who feel this way? I fear you are being a bit uncharitable.

  • raggedcompany

    “The love of money is the root of all evil.” It’s written right there for them in their precious Bible, but they’re too busy cherry-picking the verses they can use to keep everyone else down.

    • Jim Bean

      But isn’t it the Lefties who are always focused on money and coveting what someone else has?

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Nope. We focus on those who have forgotten they are their brother’s keeper.

      • Jim Bean

        Jesus drove the money changers out of the temple so the fable goes. Then Liberals were born and they drove him out of the government. So the money changers returned because nothing could be done and they hoarded all treasures of the land. And there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth on the Left.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        wow!! liberals were born and immediately drove JEEESUS from “what/ who’s ” government?? not ours!!! our ‘founding fathers’ made it quite clear we are NOT a nation based upon any single religion

      • Jim Bean

        But you get the point, I bet, which is – Liberals want no influence of religion in government with the major exception of that ‘love they neighbor stuff’, (so long as they’re the ones feeling the love in terms someone else paying for what they want.)

      • nitridr

        @jim bean: You missed the entire point of christianity. My bet is your life proves you to be non christian. What your live is and how you live it proves the truth, not your mouth.

      • MiMg

        First of all, MOST Democrats go to church etc we just STRONGLY believe in the SEPARATION of CHURCH and STATE! Why should YOUR CHOICE to believe in YOUR “god” tell OTHER people who they should live THEIR lives

      • Jim Bean

        I don’t have a religion. I’m agnostic. I’m simply offering an observation on the irony of the way liberals lament the absence in society of (cherry picked) Christian moral principles while at the same time, they demand Christianity not be recognized in anyway.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        not recognized in government at all; and libs such as I say go ahead and believe in whatever superstition / voodoo U want: just don’t make it part of my/our society at the expense of others beliefs: I also am agnostic. as an American I believe the ONLY “holidays” we should observe are veterans day and independence day—— and my birthday if U insist

      • Jim Bean

        Baloney. “In God we Trust.” “So help me God” (hand on the Bible). And most importantly, “Endowed by their maker with certain inalienable rights.” Out entire governmental system has (had) religion as its cornerstone. Yes, ya’ll are doing a magnificent job of obscuring and killing it but to the detriment of us all.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        in god we trust was NOT upon the currency until 1956– ONLY because the crybaby rightwing was “afeared” of communism!! hand on bible>???? what did pres adams put his hand on when sworn in as PRESIDENT??? NOT the F*CKING book of voodoo ( bible)!! religion is the “cornerstone” of stupidity and superstition,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,if your BIBLE is so correct: do U wear fabrics? ( not allowed) do U eat shrimp(not allowed) women NOT married as VIRGINS are to be executed,,,,any of that happening??? U fucking imbecile

      • Jim Bean

        You might try breathing into a paper sack for a few minutes. Sometimes this can stop the hyperventilating.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        that’s the best U can do after I shred your infallible book of voodoo?

      • Jim Bean

        I’m agnostic. All you shredded is your dignity.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        hey kreskin— if agnostic WHY why WHY fomenting the GOD residue??? sounds like U are crying out of both sides of your crumbly mouth————- and YES: I shredded ( easily done I may add) the BIBLE as its written by MEN— drunken sheepherders and “disciples”

      • Jim Bean

        You could be talking about Obamacare just as easily.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        U mean the ACA which is now getting people to sign up? heres what will REALLY cook your noodle: I make over 100K per year as self employed chef– yet as its 100% CASH ( tarzan LIKE!!) I am now qualifying for the subsidy on the ACA by showing almost NO INCOME!!! hows your steak now? medium rare???

      • Jim Bean

        I can see why speak of the bible and exposure to those with ethical convictions brings you such discomfort and angst.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        ethical convictions? I like!!! biblical superstition as alpha/omega TRUTH???? Im not into arcane voodoo

      • cjmarley

        One can have the same morals that (some) Christians have and not be Christians. Some of the most giving people are atheists. They just don’t believe you have to be religious to be charitable. Even some churches have recognized that…and so had the Pope.

      • 1EdMeadows83

        “I’m simply offering an observation on the irony of the way liberals lament the absence in society of (cherry picked) Christian moral principles.” This is a stretch, even for you Jimmy. Leave out the words “cherry picked” & ‘Christian’ in that phrase and you’ll be accurate as to what Liberals believe. “Christianity” has been hijacked to make stupid people believe that only Christians can be charitable.

      • Jim Bean

        If you leave out the ones that derive from Christianity, what moral principles remain for liberals to lament the absence of?

      • 1EdMeadows83

        I’m not sure what you’re trying to say, you don’t express yourself very clearly, but I think you are saying that Christianity is the only source of good moral behavior. I think Buddhists and Jews might disagree. I most certainly do.,

      • Jim Bean

        See, when Phil Robertson said what he did, liberals assumed his comments were morally reprehensible all across society because they were by their own moral proclamations. But as it turned out, the liberals attempts to destroy him because of those comments were regarded by most of society as more morally unacceptable than his comments were. That made liberals indignant because they want to be the authority that hands down moral standards to everybody else. This results in lots of conflict because some people don’t think these liberals are the superior beings they grandstand as. When humans attempt to arbitrarily establish a moral principle they always put their own self-interests first and consequently, the effort is always doomed to failure.

      • Guest

        Jimmy, don’t be ridiculous. Liberals think his comments were reprehensible for the simple reason that they were reprehensible. I’ll agree that there are more ignorant people in the US than intelligent people. That’s a given because the Republican Party have made a crusade of dumbing down our once great country until now most of the citizens are dumb and Republican. But for the few intelligent people who are left (HA!.Left! That’s an appropriate word, isn’t it?) for the few of us left we know what is right and what is wrong. For instance, If 10% of the citizenry believe it is wrong to own slaves, and 90% think it’s OK, then the 90% are WRONG! and the 10% are RIGHT. The Duck Dynasty is reprehensible because they are reprehensible only for MONEY and that’s wrong. .

      • 1EdMeadows83

        Jimmy, don’t be ridiculous. Liberals think his comments were reprehensible for the simple reason that they were reprehensible. I’ll agree that there are more ignorant people in the US than intelligent people. That’s a given because the Republican Party has made a crusade of dumbing down our once great country until now most of the citizens are dumb and Republican. But for the few intelligent people who are left (HA!.Left! That’s an appropriate word, isn’t it?) for the few of us left we know what is right and what is wrong. For instance, If 10% of the citizenry believe it is wrong to own slaves, and 90% think it’s OK, then the 90% are WRONG! and the 10% are RIGHT. The Duck Dynasty is reprehensible because they are reprehensible only for MONEY and that’s wrong. .

      • Jim Bean

        Just when you think God is dead, he suddenly appears in form of 1EdMeadows83.

      • 1EdMeadows83

        Jimbo, I am proud that you are coming around. I never thought God is dead just as Zeus, Thor, Poseidon, the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus are not dead. Why? Because they never existed except in the minds of the ignorant. However, if God is alive, he is a Liberal.

      • Jim Bean

        Bigot.

      • 1EdMeadows83

        Wow Jimbo, that really stung! Bigot: >a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group.< I don't think I qualify in that respect. I don't accept members of ALL religious groups!
        Seriously I don't hate anyone. I detest what a lot of ignorant people believe but I don't hate them, "Love the sinner, hate the sin" dontcha know. I'm not sure what you're accusing me of bigotry for, not believing in Zeus or not believing in Santa Claus?

      • Jim Bean

        “Love the sinner, hate the sin” dontcha know. I think that describes Phil’s sentiments as well.

      • MiMg

        And unless YOU REPUBS are MILLIONAIRES and BILLIONAIRES, you are NOT paying for ANYTHING except YOUR FAIR SHARE!

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        hey schmuck- im a liberal centrist and I want NOTHING at ALL to do with ANY/ALL RELIGIONS; especially in GOVERNMENT!! the rare times I give I do it anonymously: not where I can capitalize either with accolades or tax breaks. I will TRY again: “GOD” yes!!!! RELIGION??? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        not meeeeeeeeeee…………… I make my own; am totally self sufficient and luv watching crybaby regressives such as you flounder in life

      • Jim Bean

        THERE you are. I was beginning to worry you’d abandoned me. But you just lost you page for 14 days or so. What a relief. Good to hear from you again.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        abandon??? and lose my luster of irascibility? 🙂

      • 1EdMeadows83

        Jimmy, your desperation reeks. Give some thought to what you’re trying to say.

      • Jim Bean

        Well, what is it liberals are currently demanding that they want to pay for themselves?

      • Peter Vegas

        shut up Tits McGee !!!

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        awwwwww,,,little peter peter sad ’cause heeee donn’ GITno tit! poor peter: living in some landlocked area freezing!! Come to pompano beach a1a!!!

      • raggedcompany

        I guess you could say I’m left-leaning, but I can’t speak for everyone, I can only speak for myself.

      • 1EdMeadows83

        No Jimmy. I think you may have misread something someone wrote. You just described Conservatism.

  • Auryette Mattison

    Hell, if Jesus showed up again the Reps. would crucify him all over again! They’d call him a communist!

    • moe/larry & curly keys

      no,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,he would be a muslim: darker skinned – long haired and middle eastern

      • Bonta-kun

        Yeah, Tegu, you’re right.

        They’d probably nuke his ass instead.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        or try to convert him ala FOX “news” and MONEY to be a spokesman for THEIR American “christianity

      • Bonta-kun

        Only if he had oil.

      • 1EdMeadows83

        No, he would not have been a Muslim. Muslims didn’t exist when he was alive. But he would have been a Semite, dark, with a big nose.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        not according to FOX “news”………….. he is a surfer looking ROCK STAR matinee idol

      • 1EdMeadows83

        Fox and News. Two words that have nothing to do with each other.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        actually when FOX “news” does NEWS they are great———— following shootings/ natural disasters…..overseas events– when it has a chance of an OBAMA “dig” that’s when maggots such as Carlson and greta and Hannity and those crybabies appear

    • Peter Vegas

      I like the Guy that agrees with you has a picture of naked womens breasts for his profile pic, when will you LIBTARDS OPEN YOUR OWN EYES ..LOL

      • 1EdMeadows83

        Oh Oh, Someone turned over a rock and the vermin are coming out!

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        awww,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, dripping in jealousy? lets close our eyes to regressive white trash republican policies which crippled our nation

      • 1EdMeadows83

        OOOHHH!! LIBTARD! Now that’s a new word that I don’t believe has ever been used before by a simple mind! Congratulations Petie.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        FOX “news” provides—for FREE— the jejune dialogue and lexicon which is used by coelecanths such as peter vargas

      • Glenna Jones-Kachtik

        You cannot see all of her breasts. GEEZ. How did I know you were a troll????? Better a picture of a curvy naked woman than a bomb or a gun.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        guns make him excited,,,,,,,,,,,,, breasts make him wanna get a gun as he doesn’t know anything about women

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        it correctly would be ” womans breasts” as U white trash regressives cannot formulate proper spelling or English syntax. If we open our eyes any wider we will start shooting scum such as ted cruz and rick scott and sean ” puff belly” hannity

  • Allen Clifton

    I like to choke my wife while we are intimate in the bedroom. No not with my hands. I prefer to use a 10″ rubber hose

    • moe/larry & curly keys

      neoprene softer 🙂

  • Matthew Reece

    No political party will ever represent Christianity because Jesus was an anarchist.

    • moe/larry & curly keys

      tell that to tea party over zealous cretins such as michelle Bachmann,,,,,, sarah palin,,,,,rand paul and other voodoo lovers

  • TPW

    The Republican party isn’t built on greed, judgment, and fear any more than the Roman Catholic church is built on pedophilia. You’re confusing systemic institutional problems with foundations. I agree that the vast majority of Republicans elected to national office embrace those values, but study your history — and your dictionary — before you claim the party was “built” on them.

  • R

    Earning is not greed. Envy is a sin. It is called coveting. Read your Bible, sir. Real dialog is available if you want it.

  • Peter Vegas

    If Republicans as You Claim are so Greedy, Why are 3 out of 4 ofthe wealthiest Congressman Democrats, and that’s not including Pelosi’s Millions her family makes in Off_Shore Child-Labor Mills , when are you LIBERALS Gonna STOP Beleuiving all this CRAP MSNBC Feeds you? NBC-G.E. are Running Washington …Open your own eyes and maybe Google something instead of just taking Racheal Maddows Lying Sarcastic Liberal Mouth Stories as the Truth, along with Rev. Sharpton and Ed Harris or Whinnie Chris Mathews…

    • cjmarley

      When are all you conservatives going to stop believing all the crap that Fox feeds you?

      All politicians are greedy. But that doesn’t mean the rest of us have to give up our fight for those who aren’t. What is wrong with expecting the rich to put in the same percentage of income that the rest do? To drop the social security cap (which would fix this issue of there not being enough money to continue it in years to come). Politicians aside…the most monetary influential citizens do tend to lean republican (again…not all…but a great majority).

      Giving to charities doesn’t fix the problems of homelessness and hunger. There isn’t enough money being put into those charities to cover those issues. The worse our economy the less they get in donations which means the less they can help those who need the help. Charities are not a viable solution.

      Let’s face it…the religious zealots do tend to be republican.

  • david h

    Ha ha ha republician Christianity, its perverse vision, of if your rich your bkessed of god, if your poor its your failings and doings, nothing to do with greed or their self serving economic policies that have stripped the economic foundations of American families to inrich the rich more, they have consolidated their propaganda media their vioce to brainwash America 24-7 in their living rooms to put the alter of Jesus next to their golden alter of wall streets Babylon the greats global economic system of debt and slave labor for most, they want to excommunicate tge pope for speaking blasphemy at the gate of their akter and holy temple that rules earth and has subjugated our government as a servant under her throne, to worship money and free trade. And what are the great fruits of that tree that they planted in our land. It has stripped the private sector middle class and destroyed the economic foundations of our families, it closed 40, 000 factories and stripped 30 million middle class manufacturing jobs in one generation , to off shore their production their cash and their tax burden leaving us a people and nation that makes nothing in our lives and homes. We were left the tab, we could not off shore our responsibilities. of our people or nation. We got to pick up the costs on tens of millions of childrens healthcare that were once covered by the factory policies, we got low wage jobs for life that o ay so little the people need government assistance in food stamps, we got higher local and state public safety costs by the tens upon tens of millions of young with no economic futures engineered from economic polices, of wall street more police , prisons, jails, courts; probations, and state foster care, if that is not enough. Besides our factories we got trillions of dollars taken from our pockets and out of our land to fund the Chinese government and military how smart is that, all brought to America:s gates by wall street thru bribery infiltration of their faithful servants to serve their golden akter of Babylon, with million dollar jobs for their servants after their faithful service behind that government desk, this gate is as d ar from christ gate as you can get