Egypt Speech Transcript

Well aren’t you passive-agressive this morning? Btw Yahweh was the war god back when the Hebrews were polytheists.

Well aren’t you passive-agressive this morning? Btw Yahweh was the war god back when the Hebrews were polytheists.

Fuck you, Lee Stranahan, for trying to interpret my (and others’) personal opinions of superstition as foreign policy. You’re being disingenuous, and you know you are.I think there is abundant evidence that Vladimir Putin is a douchebag. Does that mean I think the President should go on TV and declare him as such? Of course not.

Fuck you, Lee Stranahan, for trying to interpret my (and others’) personal opinions of superstition as foreign policy. You’re being disingenuous, and you know you are.I think there is abundant evidence that Vladimir Putin is a douchebag. Does that mean I think the President should go on TV and declare him as such? Of course not.

I’m not being disingenuous at all – the Obama approach applies to both domestic policy and foreign policy.If you want to abandon the rules of politeness when you’re attacked, look no further then 9/11.I’m saying – and have said consistently – that the ‘meet extremism with extremism’ approach is wrong. Obama’s speech is a great example of this.

I’m not being disingenuous at all – the Obama approach applies to both domestic policy and foreign policy.If you want to abandon the rules of politeness when you’re attacked, look no further then 9/11.I’m saying – and have said consistently – that the ‘meet extremism with extremism’ approach is wrong. Obama’s speech is a great example of this.

Hey, can anyone verify the remarks that Savannah Guthrie reported that Hillary Clinton made after Obama’s speech?It was something like, “Obama hs issued marching orders to the world, and I will enforce them.”It was hideously moronic, especially given the fact that Obama emphasized autonomy and “no nation is above another.” It was the epitomy of the ugly, stupid American.I asked about this on Eschaton. They basically said, “yeah, it’s true. Now fuck off. Unimportant.” It IS important. She isn’t the ambassador to Trinidad and Tobago or something.

Hey, can anyone verify the remarks that Savannah Guthrie reported that Hillary Clinton made after Obama’s speech?It was something like, “Obama hs issued marching orders to the world, and I will enforce them.”It was hideously moronic, especially given the fact that Obama emphasized autonomy and “no nation is above another.” It was the epitomy of the ugly, stupid American.I asked about this on Eschaton. They basically said, “yeah, it’s true. Now fuck off. Unimportant.” It IS important. She isn’t the ambassador to Trinidad and Tobago or something.

Lee,I so agree with what you said. Obama consistently disarms people with quiet and powerful rhetoric, which in my opinion can be the best and most efficient weapon of them all…..and I don’t think that you are being neither, disingenuous or passive-agressive. Just honest…

Lee,I so agree with what you said. Obama consistently disarms people with quiet and powerful rhetoric, which in my opinion can be the best and most efficient weapon of them all…..and I don’t think that you are being neither, disingenuous or passive-agressive. Just honest…

Was anyone actually complaining that the president didn’t make fun of them for believing in sky wizards?

Was anyone actually complaining that the president didn’t make fun of them for believing in sky wizards?

I asked the question, didn’t claim anyone had said it. It’s a logical question to ask given some of the religious discussions.

I asked the question, didn’t claim anyone had said it. It’s a logical question to ask given some of the religious discussions.

No that I know of. It would be pissing on his half of his electorate.

No that I know of. It would be pissing on his half of his electorate.

Lee:Are you suggesting that atheists/liberals/rationalists also must, according to be in line with your idea of consistency, lack even the basic diplomatic skills of a guy at a dinner table?The fact that you think you scored some sort of point here makes you seem silly.

Lee:Are you suggesting that atheists/liberals/rationalists also must, according to be in line with your idea of consistency, lack even the basic diplomatic skills of a guy at a dinner table?The fact that you think you scored some sort of point here makes you seem silly.

Would you, Lee, advise Obama to tell them that their version of god is medieval and a distortion of the spiritual-therapist version of god that our more modern, liberal theologians believe in?

It amazes me how you can simultaneously assault this ‘straw man’ version of ‘god’ while also insisting that we shouldn’t insult other people’s ideas of what a god may or not be. Do you think that people of a more dogmatic, fundamentalist breed might not be offended by your arrogance?

No, Kyle – I think Obama’s speech did it exactly right….but it’s not at all the approach you advocate, is it? Especially in regards to domestic issues…

This is why it is a good thing that Obama is president and not me.

This is why it is a good thing that Obama is president and not me.

If you don’t think that calling Muslims superstitious idiots is an effective foreign policy tactic….why do you think that would work on domestic policy issues like abortion or gay marriage

Lee:Much of the arab world exists in various states of theocracy. Are you suggesting that we bargain for a compromise with would-be-theocrats in our country to replace our secular government for a theocratic hybrid, out of a sense of politeness and a desire to seem agreeable?

If you don’t think that calling Muslims superstitious idiots is an effective foreign policy tactic….why do you think that would work on domestic policy issues like abortion or gay marriage

Lee:Much of the arab world exists in various states of theocracy. Are you suggesting that we bargain for a compromise with would-be-theocrats in our country to replace our secular government for a theocratic hybrid, out of a sense of politeness and a desire to seem agreeable?

Please, tell me where I have advocated that the leader of the free world tell his own country that they are insane. I’m already worried enough about some racist (and, coincidentally, certainly religious) nut trying to take shots at our dear Prez.Read the second half of my last comment again, too. I think your condescending attitude towards the beliefs of others, when their version of god is more in line with the historical approach to deities, is a bigger problem than my outright rejection of everyone’s religion.

Please, tell me where I have advocated that the leader of the free world tell his own country that they are insane. I’m already worried enough about some racist (and, coincidentally, certainly religious) nut trying to take shots at our dear Prez.Read the second half of my last comment again, too. I think your condescending attitude towards the beliefs of others, when their version of god is more in line with the historical approach to deities, is a bigger problem than my outright rejection of everyone’s religion.

Lee, if it’s a logical question to ask, then perhaps that’s yet another reason why religious discussions just should not be central to our political discourse.On this matter, your sensitivity seems to be turned up to way past eleven. Perhaps you might consider dialing it back a bit and maybe try to not take every blog posting or comment about sky wizards and faeries so personally. On the flip side, I would hope that we agnostics and atheists could better recognize when we’re among friends, and therefore do not need to be so vigilant in defense of our non-religious principles.Your update comment was a fine example of the straw man argument, and a little insulting. Why not just come out and use the classic, “some say” set up?

Lee, if it’s a logical question to ask, then perhaps that’s yet another reason why religious discussions just should not be central to our political discourse.On this matter, your sensitivity seems to be turned up to way past eleven. Perhaps you might consider dialing it back a bit and maybe try to not take every blog posting or comment about sky wizards and faeries so personally. On the flip side, I would hope that we agnostics and atheists could better recognize when we’re among friends, and therefore do not need to be so vigilant in defense of our non-religious principles.Your update comment was a fine example of the straw man argument, and a little insulting. Why not just come out and use the classic, “some say” set up?

I guess I’m thinking that the question doesn’t really make sense when even a majority of “progressives” do not believe Obama should be walking around shitting on religion. Atheists and their ilk are in the minority of the party and I think even that slice of the liberal pie would not advocate the president using “sky wizard” language. Certainly, some atheists are open and abrasive about their lack of belief, but there’s still a greater number that probably just don’t give a shit one way or another. If you asked them, they might be honest, but is that the same as being rude?

I guess I’m thinking that the question doesn’t really make sense when even a majority of “progressives” do not believe Obama should be walking around shitting on religion. Atheists and their ilk are in the minority of the party and I think even that slice of the liberal pie would not advocate the president using “sky wizard” language. Certainly, some atheists are open and abrasive about their lack of belief, but there’s still a greater number that probably just don’t give a shit one way or another. If you asked them, they might be honest, but is that the same as being rude?

I have no problem pointing out stupid thing my brother believes in. I’ll even do it in public.My crazy neighbor that hates me because I shot his dog? Not so much.

I have no problem pointing out stupid thing my brother believes in. I’ll even do it in public.My crazy neighbor that hates me because I shot his dog? Not so much.

Lee, are you saying you think Bob should tone down his comments on Repubs, Scarborough, and others?This blog encourages making fun of some of the people we disagree with when they are over the top. I enjoy it and participate.Yeah, we need to check our own thought patterns once in awhile to stop stereotypes from getting ingrained in our brain. We are capable of doing so.And we are quite capable of differentiating between snarky remarks we make on a blog and appropriate behavior when talking to or working with people who have different viewpoints and opinions.

Lee, are you saying you think Bob should tone down his comments on Repubs, Scarborough, and others?This blog encourages making fun of some of the people we disagree with when they are over the top. I enjoy it and participate.Yeah, we need to check our own thought patterns once in awhile to stop stereotypes from getting ingrained in our brain. We are capable of doing so.And we are quite capable of differentiating between snarky remarks we make on a blog and appropriate behavior when talking to or working with people who have different viewpoints and opinions.

Shorter Lee Stranahan: “I don’t know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots.”I know, that’s a very uncharitable interpretation of what you said there. His response sentence of “Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I’m just not very high on atheists.” probably fits you better. And I actually do agree with Obama here. For crying out loud though, this post is epic concern trolling.

Shorter Lee Stranahan: “I don’t know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots.”I know, that’s a very uncharitable interpretation of what you said there. His response sentence of “Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I’m just not very high on atheists.” probably fits you better. And I actually do agree with Obama here. For crying out loud though, this post is epic concern trolling.

If you don’t think that calling Muslims superstitious idiots is an effective foreign policy tactic….why do you think that would work on domestic policy issues like abortion or gay marriage

Lee:Here’s another analogy which may resonate with you, to display the difference between how we may have different approaches, tones and intentions with different sets of people, yet not be, as you hold, a priori inconsistent.I live in a nice neighborhood. Most people are pleasant here and keep to themselves. Four doors down, however, there’s a house with some really creepy, trashy types. The dude has truck balls on his SUV, and the woman sits on her back deck on the portable phone and swears loudly, with a probable 6 to 1 ratio of non-fuck words to fuck-words (fuck, fuckin’, etc.)These people are creeps. At one party they held last summer, a visitor had a skinhead bumper sticker.Yet, circumstance has seen fit to have them be neighbors ENOUGH such that I must have limited interaction with them. They are not direct next-door neighbors, as if they were, the problems could grow more pressing, but they are close enough that I cannot ignore them entirely.Now, when I have met the woman downtown shopping, or run into her as I walk my daughter to pre-school, I am pleasant to her. Charming, even.I do not like them and I wish they were not my neighbors. I am sure that we have completely different world-views (I hear her yell swears at her dogs and children all the time) and that there’s no set of circumstances that could arise where I’d count them as friends or want them to watch my children. But, since a “truce” benefits us both and our spheres, while close, are not overlapping entirely, it is not a smart strategy to knock on their door and inform them their truck-balls are classless and they are ugly.Both of these things are true.NOW, here’s the thing Lee. If my cousins started affixing truck-balls to their cars and at a family picnic, started talking neo-nazi talk, or suggested that I should start raising my kids by yelling swears at them, then I’d have to stop being charming and pleasant.That’s sort of the difference.Remember, too, that Obama is the same guy who, when he was speaking with likeminded people strategically, referred (CORRECTLY!) to the disenfranchised, poor conservatives as “clinging to their guns and religion.”I would suggest that he was speaking more honestly about his feelings and perceptions of how things ACTUALLY are, because he felt that the company and context he was in allowed for it.Or do you think he was being wrong there?

If you don’t think that calling Muslims superstitious idiots is an effective foreign policy tactic….why do you think that would work on domestic policy issues like abortion or gay marriage

Lee:Here’s another analogy which may resonate with you, to display the difference between how we may have different approaches, tones and intentions with different sets of people, yet not be, as you hold, a priori inconsistent.I live in a nice neighborhood. Most people are pleasant here and keep to themselves. Four doors down, however, there’s a house with some really creepy, trashy types. The dude has truck balls on his SUV, and the woman sits on her back deck on the portable phone and swears loudly, with a probable 6 to 1 ratio of non-fuck words to fuck-words (fuck, fuckin’, etc.)These people are creeps. At one party they held last summer, a visitor had a skinhead bumper sticker.Yet, circumstance has seen fit to have them be neighbors ENOUGH such that I must have limited interaction with them. They are not direct next-door neighbors, as if they were, the problems could grow more pressing, but they are close enough that I cannot ignore them entirely.Now, when I have met the woman downtown shopping, or run into her as I walk my daughter to pre-school, I am pleasant to her. Charming, even.I do not like them and I wish they were not my neighbors. I am sure that we have completely different world-views (I hear her yell swears at her dogs and children all the time) and that there’s no set of circumstances that could arise where I’d count them as friends or want them to watch my children. But, since a “truce” benefits us both and our spheres, while close, are not overlapping entirely, it is not a smart strategy to knock on their door and inform them their truck-balls are classless and they are ugly.Both of these things are true.NOW, here’s the thing Lee. If my cousins started affixing truck-balls to their cars and at a family picnic, started talking neo-nazi talk, or suggested that I should start raising my kids by yelling swears at them, then I’d have to stop being charming and pleasant.That’s sort of the difference.Remember, too, that Obama is the same guy who, when he was speaking with likeminded people strategically, referred (CORRECTLY!) to the disenfranchised, poor conservatives as “clinging to their guns and religion.”I would suggest that he was speaking more honestly about his feelings and perceptions of how things ACTUALLY are, because he felt that the company and context he was in allowed for it.Or do you think he was being wrong there?

The belief in magical sky wizards IS crazy. I don’t have any problem with crazy people, or with their crazy delusions.When crazy people seek to inflict their delusions on me and infect the political / legal process with their madness…NOW I have a problem. And so should every thinking person.There is a big difference between calling all religious people nutty trouble-makers, and identifying nutty troublemakers.Clearly the president has no problem with that distinction. He specifically said that America will continue its fight against extremist terror. Who is it, do you think, that is responsible for that?More of Stranahan’s Home-Cooked False Equivalency.And you accuse ME of straw men. Pfft. Take a fucking pill, Lee.

The belief in magical sky wizards IS crazy. I don’t have any problem with crazy people, or with their crazy delusions.When crazy people seek to inflict their delusions on me and infect the political / legal process with their madness…NOW I have a problem. And so should every thinking person.There is a big difference between calling all religious people nutty trouble-makers, and identifying nutty troublemakers.Clearly the president has no problem with that distinction. He specifically said that America will continue its fight against extremist terror. Who is it, do you think, that is responsible for that?More of Stranahan’s Home-Cooked False Equivalency.And you accuse ME of straw men. Pfft. Take a fucking pill, Lee.

If you don’t think that calling Muslims superstitious idiots is an effective foreign policy tactic….why do you think that would work on domestic policy issues like abortion or gay marriage?Because our Constitution provides that one group’s religious beliefs will not be imposed by the gov’t on everyone else. What that means, amazingly, is that the gov’t must look BEYOND religion’s dogma (credo, tenets, whatev) for civil, laic reasons.Since it’s our country, too, it’s fair game to tell people who are trying to inflict their religious beliefs on the greater community that they are wrong and to knock it off. Telling those who insist on adherence to the 1st Amendment in domestic policy issues that they are intolerant or filled with venom and then acting like purity raped when you’re called on it is disingenuous at best.

If you don’t think that calling Muslims superstitious idiots is an effective foreign policy tactic….why do you think that would work on domestic policy issues like abortion or gay marriage?Because our Constitution provides that one group’s religious beliefs will not be imposed by the gov’t on everyone else. What that means, amazingly, is that the gov’t must look BEYOND religion’s dogma (credo, tenets, whatev) for civil, laic reasons.Since it’s our country, too, it’s fair game to tell people who are trying to inflict their religious beliefs on the greater community that they are wrong and to knock it off. Telling those who insist on adherence to the 1st Amendment in domestic policy issues that they are intolerant or filled with venom and then acting like purity raped when you’re called on it is disingenuous at best.

I left this comment at yesterday’s religious discourse, but I guess I wasn’t curren, so I’ll just slide it in here:I don’t think religion is the issue, even though I understand that the topic we are discussing is all about the Left’s apparent vitriolic disdain for it and those who practice it. Religion is just a convenient target for the Left to throw darts at, just like “socialism” is a convenient target for the Right to throw darts at.I think it all comes down tousAGAINSTthemAs in, “if you are not one of us, you are one of them. You are an enemy, and although I am socially correct enough to rarely actually use that word, nevertheless, that is how I think of you”.It is all about division and taking sides, and here, in our own country, we have become so polarized as to have forgotten, at times, what civil discourse is supposed to look like.Both sides often use whatever ammunition their “opponent” provides to demonize, or worse, dehumanize those who disagree with them.For instance, if a fellow on the Right says he doesn’t believe a particular African -American is qualified for a particular job, immediately he is attacked from numerous places as being racist, regardless of whether the African- American is actually qualified or not.In our current political climate, which is a very dangerous climate in my estimation, FACTS are far less important than how despotic you can make your opponent look. We don’t need to look any further than the ongoing infantile disagreement between Bill O’Reilly and Keith Olbermann; I would describe those two as the day-to-day mouthpieces of either side.If I were a foreigner, I’d believe that the two sides hate each other so completely that the idea of a violent outbreak wouldn’t be considered far-fetched.It’s not religion; it’s not socialism. It’s two sides vying for power and using whatever ammunition is available. It’s two sides trying their best to make the other side look evil.If we are not careful, or at the least, more civil toward each other, we will tear our own nation to shreds.

I left this comment at yesterday’s religious discourse, but I guess I wasn’t curren, so I’ll just slide it in here:I don’t think religion is the issue, even though I understand that the topic we are discussing is all about the Left’s apparent vitriolic disdain for it and those who practice it. Religion is just a convenient target for the Left to throw darts at, just like “socialism” is a convenient target for the Right to throw darts at.I think it all comes down tousAGAINSTthemAs in, “if you are not one of us, you are one of them. You are an enemy, and although I am socially correct enough to rarely actually use that word, nevertheless, that is how I think of you”.It is all about division and taking sides, and here, in our own country, we have become so polarized as to have forgotten, at times, what civil discourse is supposed to look like.Both sides often use whatever ammunition their “opponent” provides to demonize, or worse, dehumanize those who disagree with them.For instance, if a fellow on the Right says he doesn’t believe a particular African -American is qualified for a particular job, immediately he is attacked from numerous places as being racist, regardless of whether the African- American is actually qualified or not.In our current political climate, which is a very dangerous climate in my estimation, FACTS are far less important than how despotic you can make your opponent look. We don’t need to look any further than the ongoing infantile disagreement between Bill O’Reilly and Keith Olbermann; I would describe those two as the day-to-day mouthpieces of either side.If I were a foreigner, I’d believe that the two sides hate each other so completely that the idea of a violent outbreak wouldn’t be considered far-fetched.It’s not religion; it’s not socialism. It’s two sides vying for power and using whatever ammunition is available. It’s two sides trying their best to make the other side look evil.If we are not careful, or at the least, more civil toward each other, we will tear our own nation to shreds.

Lee,if you can’t divine the difference between an online forum discussion where mockery of the faithful or faithless is an individual activity versus an internationlly-viewed speech by a US president, then I don’t know what to tell you.”I’m not being disingenuous at all – the Obama approach applies to both domestic policy and foreign policy. “Um… you’re the one conflating an online forum discussion about religion with the proper way to run a country and its foreign policy.”If you don’t think that calling Muslims superstitious idiots is an effective foreign policy tactic….why do you think that would work on domestic policy issues like abortion or gay marriage?”Cut the 5th grade “Why do you think that would work…” bullshit. You know goddamn well that no one has proposed doing so. I’m not suggesting that Obama, or the nation’s governors go on TV to mock the religious. George Carlin and Bill Maher made their points without holding elected office, instead freely contributing to the marketplace of ideas.Again, don’t confuse one’s opinion regarding religion with a foreign policy tactic.

Lee,if you can’t divine the difference between an online forum discussion where mockery of the faithful or faithless is an individual activity versus an internationlly-viewed speech by a US president, then I don’t know what to tell you.”I’m not being disingenuous at all – the Obama approach applies to both domestic policy and foreign policy. “Um… you’re the one conflating an online forum discussion about religion with the proper way to run a country and its foreign policy.”If you don’t think that calling Muslims superstitious idiots is an effective foreign policy tactic….why do you think that would work on domestic policy issues like abortion or gay marriage?”Cut the 5th grade “Why do you think that would work…” bullshit. You know goddamn well that no one has proposed doing so. I’m not suggesting that Obama, or the nation’s governors go on TV to mock the religious. George Carlin and Bill Maher made their points without holding elected office, instead freely contributing to the marketplace of ideas.Again, don’t confuse one’s opinion regarding religion with a foreign policy tactic.

The diference here is that it is possible to reason with most Muslims. Reasoning with America’s rightwing extremists, however, has proved impossible. They have drunk the Koolaid — they really ARE idiots.

The diference here is that it is possible to reason with most Muslims. Reasoning with America’s rightwing extremists, however, has proved impossible. They have drunk the Koolaid — they really ARE idiots.

BTW, it was said on MSNBC after the speech that they intended to replay it in its entirety at noon eastern

BTW, it was said on MSNBC after the speech that they intended to replay it in its entirety at noon eastern

Hello Dolly llama,I just love how you equated “most Muslims” with America’s right wing extremists.

Hello Dolly llama,I just love how you equated “most Muslims” with America’s right wing extremists.

I really don’t understand Lee at all. Only when I step back does the word “pretentious” come to the fore and then what he writes makes more sense.Lee seems to have a habit of biting off more than he can chew. I’m okay with that because I think it’s healthy as long as Lee learns and grows from it like the rest of us do.Unless the rest of us actually do have our shit together day in an out.Whatever one thinks about religion, and their own faith, I would hope they would admit that all religions are belief systems, with certain beliefs that are not good for the believer nor those in proximity to the believer.As Obama said, when you murder one, you murder all. This is the same as from the Bible’s Corinthians: as one in the body of Christ suffers, so does all of the body suffer.”That’s good with me, but I know too many fundamentalists who think that the body refers to a body of believers in their God, and not any others.Although he seemed to imply it, I wish Obama would have directly said it: Islam, Judaism and later Christianity, sprung from the same tribe; as it’s written in the least. Not that I believe it myself, per se, but that’s the history and it’s a good one because we truly are in this altogether whether we want to believe it, admit it, or practice it.

I really don’t understand Lee at all. Only when I step back does the word “pretentious” come to the fore and then what he writes makes more sense.Lee seems to have a habit of biting off more than he can chew. I’m okay with that because I think it’s healthy as long as Lee learns and grows from it like the rest of us do.Unless the rest of us actually do have our shit together day in an out.Whatever one thinks about religion, and their own faith, I would hope they would admit that all religions are belief systems, with certain beliefs that are not good for the believer nor those in proximity to the believer.As Obama said, when you murder one, you murder all. This is the same as from the Bible’s Corinthians: as one in the body of Christ suffers, so does all of the body suffer.”That’s good with me, but I know too many fundamentalists who think that the body refers to a body of believers in their God, and not any others.Although he seemed to imply it, I wish Obama would have directly said it: Islam, Judaism and later Christianity, sprung from the same tribe; as it’s written in the least. Not that I believe it myself, per se, but that’s the history and it’s a good one because we truly are in this altogether whether we want to believe it, admit it, or practice it.

Talk about a false equivalency PPP. Bill O’Reilly and Keith Olbermann are not even close to being equal sides of the same coin. Any more than socialism and religion are equal jabs at the opposite side. Bill O’Reilly is a hate monger unconcerned with facts. Olbermann may be boisterous but he doesn’t distort reality for his own purposes (though I’m keeping an eye on this Mancow business). It’s endemic within the Republican party to twist the truth to fit your message, which is increasingly one of discrediting their opponents. Calling the Democratic party a bunch of socialists is both untrue and a distortion of socialism meant only to demonize all parties involved. Calling out a party for being slaves to the religious right has been generally accurate. You may not like either side, and I suspect you’re not alone. The world exists in shades of gray. But you know that you’re not helping any discussion. So until you’re ready to grow up and contribute to the debate like an adult and stop sniping both sides, please let the grown ups talk.And Lee, I have a very hard time taking you seriously when you begin making Fox News style distortions of other people’s opinions on these boards. We’re mostly on the same side here and we need to remain respectful of each other. That goes for both sides of the religious argument. I’d argue that agnostics (like myself) and atheists are generally the more reasoned debaters in situations like this. Given the fact that we’re among friends, I think it’s only fair that we allow ourselves a bit of room to vent and maybe take a few jabs. It’s been my experience that it’s very hard to have a rational and well-reasoned discussion of religion with most religious people. Everything becomes too personal. Politics are a belief system as well. I’d like to think that the liberal arguments tend to be more rational and well-reasoned than the Republican ones, who tend to go personal and dirty very quickly. The correlation is remarkable really, and I don’t think it’s coincidence that those who have fallen away from religion stack up on the left. We have a responsibility to call out bullshit wherever we find it. Objectivity is increasingly important in these sorts of discussions.

Talk about a false equivalency PPP. Bill O’Reilly and Keith Olbermann are not even close to being equal sides of the same coin. Any more than socialism and religion are equal jabs at the opposite side. Bill O’Reilly is a hate monger unconcerned with facts. Olbermann may be boisterous but he doesn’t distort reality for his own purposes (though I’m keeping an eye on this Mancow business). It’s endemic within the Republican party to twist the truth to fit your message, which is increasingly one of discrediting their opponents. Calling the Democratic party a bunch of socialists is both untrue and a distortion of socialism meant only to demonize all parties involved. Calling out a party for being slaves to the religious right has been generally accurate. You may not like either side, and I suspect you’re not alone. The world exists in shades of gray. But you know that you’re not helping any discussion. So until you’re ready to grow up and contribute to the debate like an adult and stop sniping both sides, please let the grown ups talk.And Lee, I have a very hard time taking you seriously when you begin making Fox News style distortions of other people’s opinions on these boards. We’re mostly on the same side here and we need to remain respectful of each other. That goes for both sides of the religious argument. I’d argue that agnostics (like myself) and atheists are generally the more reasoned debaters in situations like this. Given the fact that we’re among friends, I think it’s only fair that we allow ourselves a bit of room to vent and maybe take a few jabs. It’s been my experience that it’s very hard to have a rational and well-reasoned discussion of religion with most religious people. Everything becomes too personal. Politics are a belief system as well. I’d like to think that the liberal arguments tend to be more rational and well-reasoned than the Republican ones, who tend to go personal and dirty very quickly. The correlation is remarkable really, and I don’t think it’s coincidence that those who have fallen away from religion stack up on the left. We have a responsibility to call out bullshit wherever we find it. Objectivity is increasingly important in these sorts of discussions.

For instance, if a fellow on the Right says he doesn’t believe a particular African -American is qualified for a particular job, immediately he is attacked from numerous places as being racist, regardless of whether the African- American is actually qualified or not.

Putting the words “for instance” aside (along with the rest of your comment), will you please tell us exactly what you’re talking about.

For instance, if a fellow on the Right says he doesn’t believe a particular African -American is qualified for a particular job, immediately he is attacked from numerous places as being racist, regardless of whether the African- American is actually qualified or not.

Putting the words “for instance” aside (along with the rest of your comment), will you please tell us exactly what you’re talking about.

Wow, Lee, I never knew you were suggesting so many hair brained things, but looking at the number of comments here that start with, “Are you suggesting…” followed by what is mostly laughable, clearly you are. Your problem, Lee, is you don’t seem to understand that when you ask a question, that just pisses people off. They won’t stand for it!Honestly, isn’t it more fun to argue an issue than to constantly rail against the right in a chorus no one but the chorus will ever hear?

Wow, Lee, I never knew you were suggesting so many hair brained things, but looking at the number of comments here that start with, “Are you suggesting…” followed by what is mostly laughable, clearly you are. Your problem, Lee, is you don’t seem to understand that when you ask a question, that just pisses people off. They won’t stand for it!Honestly, isn’t it more fun to argue an issue than to constantly rail against the right in a chorus no one but the chorus will ever hear?

MaxPower,Can I stay up later than my bedtime tonight?

I’d argue that agnostics (like myself) and atheists are generally the more reasoned debaters in situations like this.

Then I’d argue that you are wrong. And yes, I am “religious”, according to your definition, but am probably of the more liberal variety, in that I am a universalist. I promise you, you can say what you want about my religion and god, and I won’t take it personally. That’s simply because I believe that neither you nor I are any threat to god.I also believe that when it comes to politics, very few people are able to argue rationally, yourself included. You are blind if you believe the Right does not view you EXACTLY the same way you view them. You call them wingnuts; they call you moonbats. A glowing description of your opponent, don’t you think? Both sides believe the other is wacky, and neither side is willing to even approach the idea that maybe the other has a point. You call that rational?I’m not sniping at both sides, max. I’m telling it the way I see it, from an outsider’s perspective. You really don’t have any idea of how all of this looks, do you? That’s not surprising.So, I’ll tell you what I see. I fear for the freedoms in my nation…from BOTH sides. I hear the rhetoric, I read the hateful words, and I see the division in our nation. I see the two parties as being to blame for that, and I see that division; this almost complete unwillingness to honestly engage in solving the problems of our time, as the main reason why our nation faces problems that have been left unsolved for decades. Problems, I add, that WILL destroy us if we don’t swallow our pride and our ideology to fix.I’ll grow up, Max, when you can realize that when someone calls bullshit on you, it’s not because hey don’t want to let the grownups argue. Rather, it’s because they see no grownups in sight.

MaxPower,Can I stay up later than my bedtime tonight?

I’d argue that agnostics (like myself) and atheists are generally the more reasoned debaters in situations like this.

Then I’d argue that you are wrong. And yes, I am “religious”, according to your definition, but am probably of the more liberal variety, in that I am a universalist. I promise you, you can say what you want about my religion and god, and I won’t take it personally. That’s simply because I believe that neither you nor I are any threat to god.I also believe that when it comes to politics, very few people are able to argue rationally, yourself included. You are blind if you believe the Right does not view you EXACTLY the same way you view them. You call them wingnuts; they call you moonbats. A glowing description of your opponent, don’t you think? Both sides believe the other is wacky, and neither side is willing to even approach the idea that maybe the other has a point. You call that rational?I’m not sniping at both sides, max. I’m telling it the way I see it, from an outsider’s perspective. You really don’t have any idea of how all of this looks, do you? That’s not surprising.So, I’ll tell you what I see. I fear for the freedoms in my nation…from BOTH sides. I hear the rhetoric, I read the hateful words, and I see the division in our nation. I see the two parties as being to blame for that, and I see that division; this almost complete unwillingness to honestly engage in solving the problems of our time, as the main reason why our nation faces problems that have been left unsolved for decades. Problems, I add, that WILL destroy us if we don’t swallow our pride and our ideology to fix.I’ll grow up, Max, when you can realize that when someone calls bullshit on you, it’s not because hey don’t want to let the grownups argue. Rather, it’s because they see no grownups in sight.

Two things:One, Obama has clearly never read the fucking Koran. Atheists and other nonbelievers are rhetorically put to death several times on the first three pages alone. I get that it’s not the wisest move to point this out, but nor is it wise to just patently lie and say that the teachings of Islam are not part of the problem. They are.Two, and sorry to be rude, but I wish Lee Stranahan would get his own blog. I come here for Bob Cesca.

Two things:One, Obama has clearly never read the fucking Koran. Atheists and other nonbelievers are rhetorically put to death several times on the first three pages alone. I get that it’s not the wisest move to point this out, but nor is it wise to just patently lie and say that the teachings of Islam are not part of the problem. They are.Two, and sorry to be rude, but I wish Lee Stranahan would get his own blog. I come here for Bob Cesca.

Dood, go back and read my post again, slowly.

Dood, go back and read my post again, slowly.