|
|
 |
|
|
|
#1
11-03-2006, 01:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Ted Haggard
I'm not judging this guy and only post this for informative purposes.
I'd be receptive of others' opinions as I haven't yet formed my own. What do you think of this? http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/us...rtner=homepage 
|
|
#2
11-03-2006, 01:33 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
As is my usual mo in cases like this (or any case where there are accusations of wrongdoing)...I will wait for the evidence and presume nothing until then! Speaking in generalities...I feel that many so-called leaders of the religious right preach an impossible standard that they themselves fall far short of meeting...and that is hypocrisy! The Bakers, Swaggert, Oral Roberts...even Billy Graham have been found wanting when held to the standards they preach! I think that is understandable and when I am perfect, I'll start casting stones BUT...you can't spend your life looking down on the sins of others unless you are without sin yourself!
__________________
"Always be yourself...unless you suck!"
|
|
#3
11-03-2006, 01:43 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I think homosexuality is completely, utterly, normal and I think it's a crying shame that some people buy so completely into what their religious leaders think that they spiral into incredible self-hatred and wind up perpetuating the hate they themselves fear.
But it's tough-- Moses and Paul are both pretty clear about homosexuality, unless one is really loose with the translations of those verses, but then, Jesus himself never said anything about it (I don't know the Koran well enough to know how it is addressed in Islam, though fundamentalist Moslems and Christians seem to hold the exact same position on homosexuality-- who says there's no common ground?). If you're religious and also gay-- not an easy place to be. But hey, I think it's normal. And if this latest scandal exhausts the gay-bashing wing of the fundamentalists for a while, then good. We can all do with a little less hatred.
|
|
#4
11-03-2006, 02:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Somer Frost and Genuine Risk,
Thanks for your input. I know that Jesus didn't condemn the woman that was brought before Him. He said, "Let he that is without sin cast the first stone." So, nor will I cast a stone at Ted Haggard. In my view, government should have no involvement with determining who one choses to love. The irony of this situation amazes. It is written, "All things will be revealed." And so they continue to be.... DTS
|
|
#5
11-03-2006, 03:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
well, after reading the article....i'd hate to have such charges levelled at me, and unless and until there is absolute PROOF, than no way should anyone level any accusations, or condemn this man.
put yourself in his shoes--what if this guy Jones (and his credibility would absolutely be questionable) said this about you? what if it was false, that he is indeed attacking this guy due to his stance about same sex marriage? of course anyone who puts themself out there as an absolutely moral person, almost a 'saint', they have a very difficult row to hoe, as any mis-step can lead to just this type of situation. very often you find the truth lies somewhere between one mans accusal, and the other mans rebuttal. my take personally--any behavior between consenting ADULTS is no one else's business but their's!!!
|
|
#6
11-03-2006, 03:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#7
11-03-2006, 05:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
If there is a bad story about a Christian or a republican, DTS thinks it is newsworthy. But if it's a bad story about a democrat, then DTS attacks the messenger. It's comical. By the way, I do think this story is newsworthy and I think that Haggard's behavior is an embarassment.
|
|
#8
11-03-2006, 06:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I asked for an explanation. You are very confused. I don't think Haggard is a Muslim. Post a link if you can substantiate. Is he a democrat? Post another link. Is it on Drudge report? Do I create the news? Do you really think so? Well, if you pm me and mail me a check to the address I'll provide, I'll certainly move any mountain you ask me to, cure all of your diseases, and have food fall out of the sky to feed you. Just keep believing. Money orders only, please. Give as big as you ask for. I'll provide the address. NOW! Everyone raise your hands before you fall to your knees and then start digging for your wallet. PRAISE to the Pharisees!
|
|
#9
11-03-2006, 06:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
No, I don't think you create the news and I don't think any of us do. That was my point. I think a news story is a news story. Whereas you and Genuine Risk seem to think that any story that you don't like was created by some right-wing conspiracy.
|
|
#10
11-03-2006, 06:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
He did. You did. Jesus said, "You will know the tree by its fruits". Correct me if I'm wrong, did Haggart have weekly access to the White House and speak with George W Bush on a frequent basis? That's newsworthy. Nice try. Last edited by Downthestretch55 : 11-03-2006 at 07:34 PM.
|
|
#11
11-03-2006, 07:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#12
11-05-2006, 03:54 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
 No, you didn't directly in that post say I would have ignored the story were it about a Muslim, but since you were so quick to lump me in with DTS (which I don't mind one bit, DTS.  ) I wanted to hop into the discussion.Regarding Bill O'Reilly-- From Salon.com: <<Bill O'Reilly: Not a good obstetric-health authority Thanks to Media Matters and several eagle-eyed and eagle-eared Broadsheet readers for passing this gem along. Last week on his syndicated radio show, "The Radio Factor With Bill O'Reilly," Fox anchor and loofah-wielder Bill O'Reilly decided to address the issue of abortion in his "Culture War" segment. He briefly touched on Ms. magazine's "We Had Abortions" campaign, before explaining that pretty soon, abortion may not be legal thanks to cases being argued in South Dakota and other states. Legal abortion "may not be the law of the land, unfettered, much longer because the Supreme Court's hearing a whole bunch of stuff," said O'Reilly. "South Dakota, as you know, has voted to outlaw abortions unless the mother's life is in danger, which is never the case, because you can always have a C-section and do those kinds of things." The host then went on to assert that after 26 weeks "there's life, whether you cede it or not, it's true -- scientifically speaking, of course." Of course. Science could only be behind his follow-up claim that 45 percent of Americans favor outlawing abortion "unless the mother's going to die, or catastrophic health consequences, which again, is never the case. Never." Well, actually, Bill O'Reilly, you irresponsible moron, that's news to me. And try telling it to all the women who have experienced, or died from, life-threatening conditions like ectopic pregnancy, which is when a fertilized egg attaches itself outside of the uterus and can rupture fallopian tubes, causing fatal bleeding. That's the No. 1 cause of pregnancy-related death in the first trimester. But don't forget preeclampsia, a high-blood-pressure syndrome that is extremely common and treatable but that in rare, severe circumstances can lead to life-threatening conditions. The Mayo Clinic reports that preeclampsia "and other high blood pressure disorders during pregnancy are a leading cause of maternal and infant illness and death." None of these conditions "can always" be solved by a C-section. So another moral for the day: Don't trust obstetric information -- or let's be honest here, any information -- when it comes from Bill O'Reilly. >> That kind of talk is A) inaccurate and B) irresponsible, seeing as how violent the anti-abortion faction in this country can be. By saying things like this- that a woman's life is never in danger during pregnancy, the man is encouraging terrorists (because that's what people who shoot abortion doctors and threaten women going into clinics are-- terrorists). That's all they need to hear-- that there is never a situation where abortion is medically necessary to save a woman's life. Dangerous, irresponsible commentary. And very, very emotionally damaging to women who did have to terminate a pregnancy due to health reasons.
|
|
#13
11-05-2006, 04:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I don't know how you can make the accusation that O'Reilly is encoraging terrorists by criticizing abortion. You have always scoffed at that argument when conservatives make that argument about opponents of Presidnet Bush and the war.
|
|
#14
11-03-2006, 08:49 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Last night he said he didn't know Mr. Jones.
Lie 1 Today he says the hotel referred him to Mr. Jones for a massage. Lie 2
|
|
#15
11-03-2006, 08:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#16
11-03-2006, 09:13 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
In the words of the Chisox announcer .........."HE GONE." It's the hypocrisy that makes these things interesting.Some guy buying drugs and sex is not all that interesting (unless he has preached against those activities himself.)That's what makes it a story. 30 million people thought he was totally against such activities.
|
|
#17
11-03-2006, 09:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#18
11-03-2006, 09:16 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Damn it.Why can't they spell it hypocracy? Doesn't that seem like the way that should be spelled?
|
|
#19
11-04-2006, 09:27 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Look at all the fun stuff I miss when I spend an evening napping and watching "Battlestar Galactica...."
Rupert, can your posts be any more hyperbolic? To say that I, or anyone, would defend someone purely for being a moslem is absurd. Since you don't seem to know much about radical Islam, let me enlighten you-- Radical Islam has the same position on women and gays as radical Christianity-- that the former is inferior and the latter is evil. Why in the world would I defend a radical Moslem who openly attempts to influence elections against gays? For that matter, why would I defend a fundamentalist of any religion? Do you even READ any of my posts? Of course not, I'm not on the Drudge Report... Because that is what the deal with Haggard is-- he actively campaigned to deny gays rights. That's why this little "massage" buddy came out, if you'll pardon the pun, against him. If the massage guy wanted to make money, he'd have blackmailed him, and those evangelist mega-churches have some serious coin, so I bet he would have gotten a lot of moola. But he didn't. He came forward because of Haggard's pushing for the gay marriage ban in... criminy, I can't remember which state. Which state? There are a lot of them being voted on lately... And that's why it's news. And frankly, the reason Dems are bringing this stuff up is because the Republicans seem to think they have a right to tell everyone what to do in their own bedrooms, and then again and again, prove that they also think those laws they push for don't apply to them. If the Republicans would STOP legislating morality, this wouldn't be news. If these damn mega-churches weren't lecturing about gay sex, they wouldn't be caught with, um, egg on their faces when their leaders turn out to not be as heterosexual as they claim people must be if they want to see Heaven. It's not the crime; it's the coverup. And the hypocrisy. The reason Dems don't care about what other Dems are doing in the bedroom is because the average Dem knows it's not his fracking business! But quite frankly, it's really good theater when the puffed-up moral crusader turns out to be just as human as the people he rails against. Rupert, the stuff you post is from Drudge and Fox and sources that are well-known Republican spin machines. That's why they're not being taken seriously. You can protest all you want that they are "unbiased" but that doesn't make them unbiased. You WANT them to be unbiased because they tell you what you want to hear. But they're not; they're spin machines. And reading them doesn't make you a conservative; it makes you a Republican. Small c- conservatives are livid at the way Bush has trashed the conservative legacy. You'll notice, I never post stuff from Daily Kos or Michael Moore or any of the sources I consider left-wing spin machines. Look, I enjoy Michael Moore's stuff-- it's entertaining and once in a while he makes a good point, as he did in "Bowling for Columbine" in fingering the media for encouraging a culture of fear in the US that contributes to gun violence (it's not the guns; it's the media!). But I'd never, ever use him as a source if I'm trying to prove a point. I can't count on the information to be completely factual, just as you cannot expect Fox and Drudge to be factual (Fox listed Foley as a Democrat, for God's sake, and then refused to correct it). If you really want to open your own horizons, take some time to see what's out there on the web-- I highly recommend andrewsullivan.com, http://www.balloon-juice.com/ (John Cole), slate.com and salon.com. Salon is a progressive-leaning site, but their news is usually fair (they posted articles denying Ohio was stolen, even though their readership would have preferred an article saying it was). And their Daou report will give you links to oceans of right- and left- leaning blogs. And in the end, Rupert, it's easy to slam the Republicans because quite frankly, they're doing a piss-poor job in every conceivable area of government right now-- Iraq is a mess, the deficit is ballooning, jobs are oozing overseas, and we are no more ready for a terrorist attack on our soil than we were in 2001. And they're the ones in charge-- the Dems are the minority party. Dems can yell and scream, but they can't force any changes in legislation-- and to read the Rolling Stones article I posted a while back, they're being kept out of legislation sessions entirely. Which isn't to excuse the Dems for being cowards when Bush and Rove first started the reprehensible "Democrats are soft on security" crap they began in '02. I wish the Dems had come out swinging, instead of sitting around and letting themselves get beaten up. But in the wake of 9/11, I think we were all willing to trust what our govenment told us-- I know I thought the Iraq intelligence seemed fishy, but I just couldn't believe my government would lie us into war, and I couldn't believe all of Congress would fall for it. I'm not that naive anymore, and I never will be again. I learned from trusting Bush once. Never, ever again. If the Dems were in charge right now, and this were going on, I'd be voting them out. I'm not a blind partisan; I think the Republicans are in bed with big business and that's not good for the average Joe. And I think single-party rule is bad. It was good for the country when the Dems lost in '94 and it will be good for the country if (please, God, please) the Republicans lose on Tuesday. But that's going to take people being willing to see beyond their "team" and honestly do what's good for their country. And indeed, their party. If you keep voting your party, no matter how corrupt, back into power, where is the motivation to clean up their act? All you're doing is enabling. Time for an intervention, Republicans! Take your damn party back by sticking them in the naughty corner for a few years. Dear God; I need to go handicap! Later, everyone!
|
Hybrid Mode
