Good morning, and Happy Sunday! Here were my top five seven favorite political cartoons this week. Be sure to vote for your fav in the poll at the bottom of this post!
a twofer by Steve Kelley at Townhall.com…
by Gary Varvel at Townhall.com…
by Nate Beeler at Townhall.com…
by Dana Summers at GoComics.com…
by Ken Catalino at Townhall.com…
by Michael Ramirez at Townhall.com…
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I vote this one
http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/2308024-155/bagley-cartoon-gop-budget-magic
Number 7 this week.
I love Number 1. Typical liberal feel good claptrap. You can bet Starbucks will be hearing from those carnival barkers Al Charletan and Jesse Jackson.
I don’t want to be kept waiting for my order while a barista engages in a conversation on race with another customer. Also, I don’t care to have a wait person of any sort initiate a conversation on race, politics, or religion with me when all I want is my order and to eat and/or drink in peace. Initiating such conversations may not be very safe for the Starbucks baristas either.
Also you folks should realize that it isn’t our differences that divide us, but rather people like you making an issue of them.
Definitely voting for #1 this week. The utter stupidity of this idea really deserves some serous mocking.
I like #1 but #7 got my vote.
It makes BO’s incompetence so plain.
Ex-GOP says:
I vote this one
http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/2308024-155/bagley-cartoon-gop-budget-magic
A political cartoon can reveal something about political reality — or it can push the agenda of the cartoonist.
Your cartoon is of the second sort.
===========================
I voted for #7 — Snow Barry White and the Wicked Witch.
JDC, why so racist?
Hi truthseeker,
Where did JDC use the word “thug”?
Del –
Ha.
I’m sure everything posted on this site exposes political reality, and everything posted by a lefty is just pushing an agenda.
Sure…
Finally! I thought he’d never get it! ;>)
Wow. Hard to pick this week.
And the Starbucks lecturers…Hmmm We already get “schooled” on the latest thought fashions by college students…who so quickly (and uncritically) pick up the latest thought fad and hold it up like it came from a secular Mount Sinai…and thus is eternal truth…
“JDC, why so racist?”
Strictly speaking, my comment was only racist if stupidity is now considered a race.
“Where did JDC use the word “thug”?”
Where did truthseeker accuse me of using the word “thug”?
Hi JDC,
That’s a private joke between ts and myself. It doesn’t involve anything you said.
Worse every week. The clutching at straws, the drawing a long bow etc. etc. They’re almost sliding into irrelevance.
Now, any Voris video guarantees a good laugh.
Reality – Sanity has arrived.
I think the funniest thing of the week is Cruz jumping into the ring. My hope is we get Walker, Bush, Rubio, Carson, Trump, Perry, Trump, that CEO lady, Trump, Palin, and Trump as well.
Oh, and a few more Walkers. Will be interesting to see his position of the week – that guy flip flops as much as Kerry and Romney combined.
Every time I see that list of names I wonder if the GOP as an entity isn’t insane.
Bush might be the only one who hasn’t repeatedly demonstrated absolute lunacy. Big on the crazy.
But what is Bush’s true position on anything? No one can tell.
Cruz doesn’t seem to flip flop. But then again we are talking about a man who thinks that burning your house down to save on utility bills is a rational economic policy.
“Hi JDC,
That’s a private joke between ts and myself. It doesn’t involve anything you said.”
I see.
JDC,
On a different thread Mary called Michael Brown a thug for the way he robbed and brutalized that convenient store clerk and one of the progressives on this blog accused her of being racist for calling him a thug.
“Cruz doesn’t seem to flip flop”
He may be the first politician ever to never get accused of flip-flopping.
Mary,
JDC didn’t call anyone a thug like you did but he might as well have cause his comment about Starbucks shows that same type of racial insensitivity. Ex-RINO was the one who called you racist for using the word thug so maybe we could ask him which comment was more racist.
Hi ts,
I hope to find out if “gangster”, “goon”, “mobster”, “hood” and “gorillas” have any racial or ethnic connotations as well.
Far be it from me to be anything but sensitive to our friends in the criminal community. They have feelings too.
truth
You have remembered it wrong.
I said that I don’t use that work to describe people because some now see it as racist – I was very careful to point out that I didn’t believe Mary was using it in a racist way. She can confirm if you question that.
Ex-GOP says:
Del –
Ha.
I’m sure everything posted on this site exposes political reality, and everything posted by a lefty is just pushing an agenda.
Sure…
My friend, I am sure there are plenty of insightful things that one can criticize about the proposed budget.
To blindly assert that it enriches the rich and penalizes the poor is purely leftist blather.
Is there a particular program that genuinely helps the poor, and are the Republicans cruelly cutting it? (And no — cuts to Planned Parenthood do not apply.)
“On a different thread Mary called Michael Brown a thug for the way he robbed and brutalized that convenient store clerk and one of the progressives on this blog accused her of being racist for calling him a thug.”
Thanks, truthseeker. I hadn’t seen that post so I was wondering what was going on. Now that I get it,I do find it rather funny.
Ex-GOP says:
Oh, and a few more Walkers. Will be interesting to see his position of the week – that guy flip flops as much as Kerry and Romney combined.
He’s “evolving,” like Obama.
What you are seeing in Walker is a process of forming policies with honest transparency.
Whether you like it or not is personal matter…. but the transparency is a refreshing change from the steady line of messiahs running for high office. At this point Walker reminds me of Harry Truman, more than any other president in history.
Del –
You claim it is leftist blather to say it penalizes the poor and helps the rich – so I’ll lay out how it hurts the poor, and I look forward to your assessment of cuts that hurt the rich:
– Medicaid would be massively impacted – with the repeal of health care reform and turning over grants to the states (more cuts) – we’d see millions upon millions – maybe over 10 million losing health care. That is cruel.
– Massive cuts to food stamps. Take note that food stamp folks aren’t living lavishly – do some research if need be – to slash the budget and literally take food off the table of people who are in hard times in life – that is cruel.
– The house targets pell grants, which goes to the neediest students in the country. This will directly impact the ability for poor students to go to college – this is cruel.
– The house turns medicare into a voucher system in which the growth of the voucher is less than the rate of expected cost – meaning that some seniors will be forced to skip medicare care. This is cruel
Your move Del
Del
I’ve been in the home of Harry S Truman a half dozen times in my life, and at his presidential library another dozen times.
I can’t figure out if what you say is laughable or insulting.
Walker is a joke – he changes his position based on his audience – based on what will be popular at the moment. He has very little conviction, isn’t a leader (is there a more divisive governor in this country?), and has created a train wreck of an economy in Wisconsin – while everyone else is growing, we lag behind.
Walker is a poor man’s version of Jimmy Carter at best.
Del,
Anybody who works hard and succeeds did not earn that and the poor are more deserving. Future generations can’t vote so they mortgage the next generations future by creating unsustainable welfare and ponzi schemes to get the votes of a dependent class. Ex-RINO will look you in the eye and Gruber all over you by claiming that Obamacare is free health care. It is just how they roll.
truth
I think you’re both misrepresenting my position, and being mean about an entire group of people.
Those who work hard are deserving – but there are plenty of people who have worked hard and fallen on tough times. What you seem to suggest is these people aren’t deserving of help – of food, healthcare, heat – other things that help people. That’s sad to me – it not only flies in the face of darn near every religion out there – it’s just generally mean.
In the great state of Wisconsin, we’re giving hundreds of millions in favorable tax treatment to build a new stadium for the Bucks. Are these owners part of the dependent class and tricked into a ponzi scheme, or is that only for poor people? Are those on tricare military healthcare deserving, or are they in this dependent class? Parents who have chosen to raise a severely disabled child instead of aborting – and are now celebrating the removal lifetime caps and can actually have insurance – are these folks part of the dependent class?
I miss when ‘compassionate’ was typically found in front of conservative. Now it seems like the right wing just tries to out a***ole each other to see how badly they can beat people down.
“I said that I don’t use that work to describe people because some now see it as racist ”
Who?
“you seem to suggest is these people aren’t deserving of help ”
Ex-RINO, I grow weary of your incessant bloviating of strawmen and Gruberisms.
Let’s cut to the chase. I will make a statement below and end with a question for you…you can show everybody how long you can post without actually responding to this question at the end of my statement.
You might think that once people understood that Barack Obama, as an Illinois Democratic Senator, raised objection to the passage of the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act. The Act sought to stop Christ hospital in Chicago from putting babies of botched abortions in soiled linen closets to die. Obama fought to stop a law written to stop the heinous practice. You, ExRINO know all this about Obama and you still support him. Why would anybody put credence into any judgement you pass about loving or caring or anything holy or charitable?
Doctor says Obama is a psychopath:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/phctqjm
On thug (for those living under a rock)
http://time.com/2369/richard-sherman-thug-n-word/
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/don-lemon-asks-is-thug-a-racist-term/
http://politicalblindspot.com/the-racist-origins-of-the-term-thug-and-how-it-relates-to-the-trayvon-martin-shooting/
truth
To answer your question at the end of your post – because I’m a human being with thoughts, feelings, and ideas that are presented in logical, well-thought out ways. You can skip them – you are welcome to that – you can dismiss them – but I think it is dangerous for people to simply not listen to thoughts from people because they’ve simply refused to listen to anything they say.
For instance, there are plenty of people on this board that aren’t fully pro-life – they believe in the death penalty – but I think their opinions are worthy of discussion.
Oh Ben Carson! He used to be talked about as a possible presidential candidate…that was the quickest crash and burn I’ve ever seen!
EGV, 7:57PM
You’re not serious, right? Its best to let some sleeping dogs lie.
http://misterroosevelt.blogspot.com/2008/06/suprising-origins-of-word-thug.html
Now can we put this absurd discussion to rest once and for all. Maybe its you who stereotypes black people as “thugs”, so stop projecting onto the rest of us.
Mary
Can I say for the 15th time – please right it down if it will help you remember.
I’m not saying ‘thug’ is a racist word. I said that some people view it as racist. People asked “who?” – I posted links.
Do you understand? I don’t want to keep going through this loop.
I’m not saying it is racist – I am saying some people think it is, so it is something to be aware of.
EGV,
You point to a few people whining about a word. Fine, whatever.
Ex-RINO, you trust and support a man who fought to keep it legal to deliver babies to the neck and stab them in the head with scissors. A man who voted against protecting babies born alive in botched abortions. “A human being with thoughts, feelings, and ideas that are presented in logical, well-thought out ways” could not do that. And that is why nobody should trust your judgement.
Mary –
You’re welcome for the info
truth
I think you’re exaggerating more than a little bit on “fought for” and the actual need for the law with other laws in place. It appears, with no prosecution to date, that it was another rhetoric over results legislation.
My statements from 10:30 yesterday stand – attacking and trying to change the subject is your mode of operation – I still stand by what I said.
“I think you’re exaggerating more than a little bit on “fought for””
Ex-RINO, Barack and Michelle Obama held fundraisers to try and keep it legal. Do you consider that ‘fighting for’?
Let me know if you were unaware or if you need a link.
You show my point exactly when you say that you see that you see need for the law?
http://liveactionnews.org/mother-helplessly-watches-her-baby-die-as-hospital-staff-refuses-to-help-him/
EGV,
Where did I thank you? I’ve thought this whole discussion has been nothing but a lot of nonsense from day one.
truth
I understand the history:
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/obama-and-infanticide/
Mary –
You asked for info – I gave you info. I figured that deserved a thank you from you, so while you didn’t say it, I figured it was implied.
EGV,
Where did I ask?
Ex-RINO, Jill got arrested today fighting to save these babies. You call the fight rhetoric. You like to spend your days bloviating on this pro-life blog. And it is apparent to me that anybody as callous as you about the Born Alive Infant Protection Act is without compassion for the most defenseless among us. Which also shows you as a phony whose judgement is untrustworthy.
You assuage any guilt with ‘fact-check.org” and call the fight rhetoric while real babies are killed. Some day may you be treated as well these babies.
Mary – you posted you wanted to find out about some of the histories of words.
Again – you’re welcome
truth
*yawn*
Do you have anything new to share? This is like a campaign debate – when you get put into information you don’t know, you just pivot to some place where you feel like you’ll score points.
We talk about GOP policies and Scott Walker, and then all of the sudden your back in the last decade talking about a bill that nobody has ever prosecuted.
These conversations with you just get so weird – I literally am getting a seat belt for when I’m at my chair – because I pop open a message, and I have no idea where in the world you’re going to go to next – all the while accusing me of going off-topic.
EGV,
What are you talking about? I posted the history of the word “thug” for you twice.
I am not going anywhere new Ex-RINO. I asked you why you think any pro-life person should trust you when you espouse such callous disregard for the fight to save the unborn. Your answer was that you think the fight for these babies is all rhetoric. No change in the conversation. We are still there and you are still showing everybody what a phony you are.
People on this site understand that Jill Stanek actually held these dying babies. All the progressive mind-bending leftist fact-check.org links you can find will never change that truth.
Mary,
In his mind he just schooled you on the racist connotations of the word thug…
Either that or he knows what a fool he is making of himself and just likes the attention.
Or maybe he actually volunteers for move-on.org by spending his days on this blog as Ex-GOP.
Either way the bloviations of Ex-GOP are tiresome. I think I am actually getting nostalgic for the real pro-choicers who used to visit this site for actual dialogue like Laura (alias fetus-fascist).
truth –
For the millionth time, feel free to bypass all my posts.
I simply continue to contend that you have no idea, no path forward for an actual, workable, pro-life end game that would result in a great savings for life. I’ve given you a million tries – and you continue to underwhelm with actual legislation that does anything. You cling to the margins – items that will do very little.
In the mean time, you support politicians that are downright mean and oppressive to those who typically find themselves in the situation where abortion looks attractive. You seem to be searching for the demographics that statistically have abortions, and ask yourself “what else can we do to push these people over the edge”.
So bottom line – you seem to have no actual path forward to decreasing abortion through legislative means, and in the mean time, you seem almost excited about generating an economic system that will result in more people choosing abortion.
I know your response – some sort of attack – some sort of deflection. Would love to see you actually address the issue at hand. Otherwise, please move on. Skip my posts.
One post you say abortion is murder and you can’t see yourself voting for representatives who support murder and then the next you turn around and say only pro-choice politicians want to help those considering abortion and claim that you think abortion is a dead-end issue. You said it not me. Do you need me to post the quotes from you? Tell us, if you think abortion is a dead-end issue then why do you spend your days on a pro-life blog?
The Democratic party, building a pro-life culture one pro-abort representative at a time.
#1 reason why Ex-GOP is a phony. He claims to believe abortion is murder and NOBODY who thinks abortion is murder would ever support a pro-choice candidate, but Ex-GOP does.
Pro-life game plan. Vote pro-life. It will leave us in the best position for pro-life gains politically, legislatively and judicially. Every vote for a pro-choice representative weakens our possibility for political, legislative and judicial pro-life gains.
Which potential presidential candidate espouses the same anti-choice stance as you, is capable of actually being elected and will then actually go ahead and do exactly what you want done in regards to abortion truthseeker?
I can’t be sure any of them will do exactly what I want but I can be sure of is that any GOP candidate will do a whole lot more of what I want than any Democrat would do including not supporting anti-life legislation and not supporting the funding of abortion.
Obviously Ex-GOP was right about you. You know none will deliver more than a scintilla of what you wish for. Who ya gonna vote for then?
You’ll reduce abortions more by minimizing the need for them than by trying to introduce legislation which will be overturned or overcome one way or another.
Democrat policies will take the pressure off peoples need for abortions, GOP policies will increase it.
Reality, how do you go from my saying they will do a whole lot more of what I wish than any Democrat candidate to you saying that I know they will deliver no more than a scintilla of what I wish for?
You and Ex-GOP, responding to people’s posts by telling them they believe the oppposite of what they just posted. It is getting old.
Easy, when you say they will do a whole lot more of what you wish than any democrat candidate you are wrong. They’ll deliver so little it’ll hardly be worthwhile. Especially since, as I said, most of the hurdles they set up will get overturned or overcome. Now, if you focused on reducing the need for abortion, then you’d make a bigger impact on reducing their number. And for that to happen, you need democrat policies.
Did Bergdahl serve with honor and distinction like Susan Rice and Barack Obama said he did?
“Easy, when you say they will do a whole lot more of what you wish than any democrat candidate you are wrong”
You are a typical statist like Ex-GOP who supposes to know what I want better than I know what I want? I clearly stated what I wish them to do. “not supporting anti-life legislation and not supporting the funding of abortion”
Reality,
Name me one Democratic candidate for president who does not support the funding of abortion.
Did Bergdahl serve with honor and distinction like Susan Rice and Barack Obama said he did? – what on earth has that got to do with the GOP’s failure to deliver what you want? No wonder Ex-GOP gets a little exasperated with you, you’re all over the shop.
You are a typical statist like Ex-GOP who supposes to know what I want better than I know what I want? – you are in error. Neither Ex-GOP or myself suppose to know what you want better than you do (although it can be difficult to tell at times given what you come out with). You’re just being shown a better way to achieve it.
I clearly stated what I wish them to do. “not supporting anti-life legislation and not supporting the funding of abortion” – then you’re just in for more disappointment aren’t you.
Name me one Democratic candidate for president who does not support the funding of abortion. – none thankfully.
Neither will any GOP candidate. They can’t.
If your aim is to reduce abortions, you need to try a different tack. Waiting for the day any GOP delivers what you want will see you get none of it.
“Did Bergdahl serve with honor and distinction like Susan Rice and Barack Obama said he did?”
“– what on earth has that got to do with the GOP’s failure to deliver what you want? No wonder Ex-GOP gets a little exasperated with you, you’re all over the shop.”
OK, if you are done avoiding, how bout you answer the question now?
” you are in error. Neither Ex-GOP or myself suppose to know what you want better than you do”
Then you should stop posting that you do and then denying what you post. That gets as old as your statist gruberisms.
I posted that I want representatives who will not vote against pro-life legislation and who will not vote for funding of abortion and your responded “You know none will deliver more than a scintilla of what you wish for.” The truth is that most of the GOP presidential candidates would deliver on both of those points. You should admit it.
I don’t care. I’m not avoiding it, it’s irrelevant. Utterly. The topic is which party will best deliver a reduction in abortion numbers.
If anything it is you, again, trying to find a distraction from the topic. Now why is that?
Then you should stop posting that you do and then denying what you post. – it would seem that you are incapable of basic comprehension. Show me where I have said you want something other than what you’ve said you want.
That gets as old as your statist gruberisms. – throwing your latest little toy words around doesn’t constitute anything of substance.
“Show me where I have said you want something other than what you’ve said you want.”
Reality, When you posted “Easy, when you say they will do a whole lot more of what you wish than any democrat candidate you are wrong.”
What the….?
That does not say you want something other than what you want.
It says that you are wrong when you say the GOP will do more of what you wish.
Good grief.
gruberisms is not a latest toy word. It is the best way to describe people who deceive others about what they are doing in order to achieve their goals because they know if they were honest about it the people they are deceiving would stop it from happening.
I posted that what I want in my representatives:
1) not vote against pro-life legislation and
2) not vote for funding of abortion.
The truth is that most of the GOP presidential candidates would deliver on both of those points and the Democrats would deliver on neither of those points. But like the good progressive you are you can’t bring yourself to admit it in those terms and instead you told me “you are wrong when you say the GOP will do more of what you wish.” But just cause you won’t admit it does not change the fact is that
I was 100% right/ You look like a fool cause you can’t admit it.
I’m quite aware of what you want in your representatives.
I have not stated that you want something different from them than what you have said you do.
What I have said is that they will continue to disappoint you. I have also stated a better path to reduce abortion numbers. That does not preclude what you have said you want.
All of this I will gladly admit to.
But claiming that I have said you want something other than what you have said you want is a gross factual error and brings your comprehension abilities into question.
You were 100% wrong and you are making yourself look like a fool.
truth
I don’t believe abortion is a dead end issue.
I do believe that effort to decrease abortions through legislation seems to be an aimless cause with possibly no strategy and no real chance.
I mean, let’s be honest – you have absolutely zero clue how we get from here to zero (or very few abortions) through legislation. You can’t even spell out a solution that we can discuss and talk about the odds of. Zero clue at all – yet you want people to jump on that bus – in fact, you claim it is the only bus that makes logical sense?
I did spell out a solution, vote pro-life. That is the truth.
The problem you have there truthseeker, is that it is the democrats who are more pro-life than the GOP.
“vote pro-life” doesn’t mean anything without the bullet points of what that means that they support.
In Ohio, some pro-lifers wants a heartbeat bill – banning abortion then – but some pro-lifers in Ohio say that it would too easily be ruled unconstitutional and don’t support it.
So there isn’t even a goal of getting rid of abortion?
Ex-RINO,
Some want to ban it totally, some want incremental, some want exceptions for rape, but they all want to protect the unborn and are our best chance at progress towards getting rid of abortion.
Instead of guiding yourself with principles you look at every detail of every decision involved and need details of each step to ending abortion and it has you ‘stuck in the weeds’ so to speak.
Ask the Holy Spirit for guidance.
truth
It’s clear from various faith leaders that the GOP positions and budgets hurt the poor and are immoral.
A person can certainly argue that the GOP *might* one day lead to good laws that from a legislative position, help babies. But if they do this while at the same time hurting women and families making the choice, there’s no real net gain in the end.
I’m moving on – massively disappointed that when asked directly why a person should vote for pro-life candidates, you have no details, no thoughts, no strategy, no nothing – just blind rhetoric.
“A person can certainly argue that the GOP *might* one day lead to good laws that from a legislative position, help babies”
I am glad you are still able to have moments of rational thinking and clarity and can now at least bring yourself to admit that voting GOP is the only path towards creating a culture where government passes legislation to protect unborn children.
The GOP positions and budgets are about helping the poor to help themselves out of poverty. The Democrats positions and budgets create generation after generation of dependent poor. And we have twice as many people on food stamps under Obama. Government welfare is not more moral. The GOP wants to helping the poor inner city children out of their cycle of poverty by fighting for school choice. The Democrats are in bed with the teachers unions and are working against these poor inner city children by fighting against school choice legislation.
The GOP is the party that stands up for traditional family values like having a man and a woman together in union at the head of every family. The Democrats encourage tearing apart traditional family institutions by representing a homosexual equivalence.
But at least you were able to admit that the only path forwards to legislation and laws protecting the unborn is to vote GOP.
If you really want to help the poor then support governor Walker and school choice in Wisconsin. The Milwakee Public School System is refusing to sell their abandoned buildings to charter schools like St Marcus and it is the poor inner city kids that suffer. Democrats don’t want to help with a solution like school choice that has a proven track record of working at St Marcus and they are blocking St. Marcus from expanding their success.
http://www.stmarcus.org/recent-news/
truth
On your last five posts…
1) You are stretching what I said. But I will say that *if* legislative restrictions are the best way, the GOP is probably better. With that being said, that’s a huge *if* because even a ‘strong’ pro-lifer such as yourself can’t lay out what the middle goal or long goal legislative measures are.
2) The GOP is ‘helping’ people out of poverty only if you believe that their thought is making people’s life so miserable that they’ll either move out of the country, kill themselves, or do whatever it takes to make money. ‘Helping’ people would be funding education (GOP wants to cut back pell grants). ‘Helping’ people would be to pass workplace laws to people could hold a job and work, while having insurance (GOP wants to cut back on insurance, in some cases wants to eliminate min. wage, and wants to continue to dial back workplace restrictions).
The GOP ‘helping’ poor people is like a bully ‘helps’ somebody’s confidence by beating them up enough where they either give up, or lash out back. Your second post is laughable at best.
3) Ah, you bring out ‘the gays are evil’ argument. Yes – the world where Newt and all is women are better than two gay men living together. Even the GOP is letting go of this issue – but keep clinging to it…
4) Again – you are stretching what I said. So let me ask you a question – Santorum wanted to triple the per kid deduction – do you think this was pro-life legislation?
5) I’m okay with limited vouchers as long as the schools have to play by most of the same rules – and I’d up the funding for schools overall. It’s laughable to downright ignorant to say that he’s helping the poor through education when he’s cut education by so much in favor of tax giveaways to the rich.
Looks like we’ll have Walker for a while – his flip-flopping is catching up to him at the national level now. Man you guys have a lot of terrible, terrible candidates. Cruz is just dumb. Walker is a career politician that doesn’t even know what he stands for. Carson’s all but out. Jeb? You guys going with common-core Jeb? Really? You going to get on that bus?
“The GOP ‘helping’ poor people is like a bully ‘helps’ somebody’s confidence by beating them up enough where they either give up, or lash out back.”
The Dems ‘helping’ poor people is encouraging them and even requiring others to pay for them to kill family members.
I hope Planned Parenthood doesn’t make the Milwaukee Public School System an offer on their abandoned buildings.
I guess it is hard to give up or lash out back when you’re dead though.
Because you’re like, well, already dead.
Ex-RINO, why did God create woman?
You are a phony Christian who no longer supports God’s plan for the family because it is no longer politically expedient. You are welcome to live in your political reality but as a Christian I will continue to seek after and to follow God’s plan.
“Even the GOP is letting go of this issue – but keep clinging to it…”
You can cling to the prevailing political winds of the day, I will cling to the Lord’s ways in all things and for all time.
truth
Genesis 2:18
On your second post, the Government will not make you marry a man. You can choose either way. I see nothing incompatible with the Bible and the state allowing same-sex marriage.
“I hope Planned Parenthood doesn’t make the Milwaukee Public School System an offer on their abandoned buildings.”
Prax,
Ugh.
“I see nothing incompatible with the Bible and the state allowing same-sex marriage.”
Ex-RINO,
Are you disputing that the Bible says homosexuality is a sin or are you saying that the Bible is compatible with the state allowing sin?
truth
I’m disputing that there’s any evidence in the Bible saying that a state Government should only recognize man and woman partnerships when it comes to legal tax status, hospital visitation, status for insurance coverage – items like that.
If you have a verse for that, that would be great. Oh yeah, there isn’t.
This country has never had, to the letter of the law, a Biblical definition of marriage – so it’s weird that in the past 10 or so years, people have started freaking out about it.
Marriage in the Bible is a union of a man and a woman and God. The state has the right to create tax law and grant tax benefits to people but they took it upon themselves to use the institution of marriage to define a special set of tax benefits that apply to those who are married. They can and they should ascribe those benefits to people without redefining the definition of marriage to include homosexual relationships.
Marriage represents God’s plan for the family. It is and always has been the union of a man and woman. The state used the special relationship as a way to grant tax benefits to parents to encourage stability in families. If they wanted to grant those same benefits to homosexuals then they should have just dropped the marriage requirement as the basis for distributing those tax breaks. It would have been much easier and would not have defiled marriage.
First off – it hasn’t always been – for quite a few Biblical years, men were married to multiple women, had babies with servants -all sorts of things.
I actually agree with what I think you mean on the last sentence. I’d be all in favor of the government dropping marriage as a legal distinction. As a legal distinction – I don’t care who is in a ‘partnership’ for items such as inheritance, hospital visitations, etc… Siblings? Fine. Same-sex? Fine.
Churches should define marriage how they want within their walls – like baptism or communion rights. The problem that Christians have is that they gave something holy (marriage) to the state, and then are whining when it gets distorted.
“The problem that Christians have is that they gave something holy (marriage) to the state, and then are whining when it gets distorted.”
What do you mean when you say Christians gave marriage over to the state? I don’t recall the state asking Christians to give marriage away. There was no ecumenical council that I know of where Christians got together and gave marriage away. I know Catholics never gave it away to the state cause it still a sacrament in our church.
Maybe the word “gave” isn’t correct – but Christians use “marriage” in a certain way – and then the state decided to use “marriage” – now, how it got that way, I don’t know – but once you put things that are Holy in the hands of government, we shouldn’t be surprised when there are drive thru wedding chapels and a sky high divorce rate.
The way I see it the state ‘used’ the institution of marriage as a qualification for certain tax benefits and then because they wanted to change who gets those benefits, rather than changing the qualifying criteria to something other than marriage, they took it upon themselves to try and redefine marriage. And the DemocRATs and the progressives are the tools used to try and make it happen.
Let me get this straight. Are you saying that you think the definition of marriage should be changed to include homosexuals or not?
At the government level – of course. Who cares? I mean, really, who the heck cares?
At the local church level, they should decide.
“At the government level – of course. Who cares? I mean, really, who the heck cares?”
I do. Just cause the government started using marriage as a criteria for handing out tax breaks doesn’t give them the right to define what marriage is based upon who should receive those tax breaks.
“Who cares? I mean, really, who the heck cares?”
You obviously don’t care but I do. Heterosexual relationships are different than homosexual relationships and we need different terms to define them. We can all agree that men and women are different so logic tells us that the union of a man and a woman would be different than the union of two men. If homosexuals want a word to describe their union they can come up with one that doesn’t defile marriage by equivocating homosexual unions with heterosexual union.
Well truth – it actually does give them the right to define what marriage is at a government level. Churches can define it for themselves, while government should define it for how they need to define it to protect the rights of citizens.
There’s literally no harm to you and your heterosexual marriage by allowing this – which is one reason why “marriage defenders” look so stupid in this. Plus, for years people have been seemingly fine with all sorts of areas of marriage that fall outside the Biblical definition.
It’s a lost cause issue – will be legal in all 50 states pretty soon.
No it doesn’t give them the right to change the definition of marriage any more than it gives them the right to change the definition of male or the definition of female. There is harm done to the union of man and woman (institution of marriage) when it is equivocated with homosexual unions.
Would it be accurate to say that you understand that homosexual unions are outside of the Biblical definition of marriage but you personally support homosexual marriage?
“It’s a lost cause issue –will be legal in all 50 states pretty soon”
Only if people continue to devolve the way progressives do.
Before I answer the accuracy question – I must ask – what harm is done? For instance, how has my marriage been specifically harmed by homosexual unions? Or if you were presenting a court case, and first had to present standing (that you’ve been harmed and should even be there) – what would you say?
Just answer the question first and then you can ask me one.
Your question seems to be two fold
– I think it’s fair to say that homosexual unions are outside the Biblical definition of marriage – but I also don’t believe the Bible is as clear cut on homosexuality as many people believe it is.
– At a government level, I 100%, fully, and without a doubt support homosexual marriage.
K – on to you to answer.
But marriage is more than just a government thing. In fact it never was supposed to be a government thing so you still did not answer me whether or not you personally support homosexual marriage.
Would you personally support a homosexual couple who wanted to get married in your church?
I’d support the couple – what, with emotional support? Sure. I don’t think they should get married in the church though.
Then we must agree that allowing homosexual couples to marry should not be allowed because it hurts the institution of marriage and it would be an offense to God.
Or is there some other reason you would not support homosexuals getting married in your church?
truth –
No, we must not agree on that.
I wouldn’t want a pastor that has sex outside of marriage, but I don’t believe we should setup laws and prosecute that.
There are all sorts of things that I think are applicable to believers and my church that don’t apply to the rest of the world.
Okay – so I’ve answered thoroughly – I need you to explain your specific harm that is caused to your relationship by a homosexual couple being married.
allowing homosexual couples to marry should not be allowed because it hurts the institution of marriage – how is it ‘hurt’? How does two peoples marriage have any impact on anyone else’s?
and it would be an offense to God. – those who believe in god aren’t being forced into same-sex marriages. As for anyone else, only in a theocracy would one persons god dictate what others do. So there’s no problem allowing those who don’t believe it would offend any god from same-sex marriage if they so desire.
You never really answered me. You just reiterated that churches govern by different rules than the government etc. etc.. But what you still have not told me is why you are personally opposed to homosexuals marrying in your church. What I asked you is why do you personally oppose homosexuals getting married in your church?
Why should my decision making be affected by your belief that my decision may offend your god truthseeker? How do you justify that?
Reality, you need not worry about any gods.
truth – yes – for now – it is too divisive of an issue in the church – I wouldn’t want a church to divide over the issue.
Okay – you answer
I know that.
What does concern me is the concerted and ongoing attempt by those who do worry about a god to dictate the lives of others.
Are you unable to answer the question?
“truth – yes – for now – it is too divisive of an issue in the church – I wouldn’t want a church to divide over the issue.”
So you are personally for homosexual marriage in the church but you don’t support it because it is too divisive or are you personally against homosexual marriage in your church?
Reality, surely you wouldn’t expect Christians to vote against their conscience just cause you are concerned about how they vote.
You have every right to live your life according to your conscience, and you can vote against things that are against your conscience. That isn’t the problem.
But…
allowing homosexual couples to marry should not be allowed because it hurts the institution of marriage – how is it ‘hurt’? How does two peoples marriage have any impact on anyone else’s?
and it would be an offense to God. – those who believe in god aren’t being forced into same-sex marriages. As for anyone else, only in a theocracy would one persons god dictate what others do. So there’s no problem allowing those who don’t believe it would offend any god from same-sex marriage if they so desire.
Why should my decision making be affected by your belief that my decision may offend your god truthseeker? How do you justify that?
You haven’t answered the questions truthseeker.
truth
You need to answer the specific ‘harm’ question.
Should be easy for you – gay marriage came into Wisconsin not too long ago – so maybe you can even point to the day and time you were harmed.