Strawman! Strawman! Get your Strawman here!

Spout 2 Strawman arguments, get 1 free!

Geesh! This is what our political discourse has been reduced to. Obama picks a guy who, although wrong on gay rights and abortion, seems to have done quite a bit of good on a multitude of complex and difficult issues in this country, and it’s proof…proof I tell you, that Obama is a “hate-mongering homophobe” ready to turn the social development of this country over to a bunch of “flat-earthers”.

As a bonus, we get to see a few DUer’s using “strawman arguments” made all the rage by the likes of Hannity and Limbaugh.

We’ve got the

- “When does Obama reach out to Nazi’s” Strawman
- “When does the KKK speak at the inauguration” Strawman
- “When does Obama reach out to Jeffrey Dahmer” Strawman
- “Why not invite Osama Bin Laden” Strawman

And many, many more…all designed to do what Strawmen do…divide this country by what we disagree on, instead of uniting us by what we agree on

Rush and his ilk have made a fortune by fostering the “Us against Them” rhetoric that is tearing this country apart at the seams. I would argue that this "Black and White", "the friend of my enemy is my enemy" crap has contributed greatly to the mess we are in.

In reality, the only way you affect change is through persuasion, not by ignoring or shutting out. Condemning Obama for reaching out to people that don’t agree with him, (our you), is like trying to “win the hearts and minds” of Iraqi’s by blowing their children to bloody bits!

Look, we are all American’s, and we are facing some serious problems. We need to roll up our sleeves and work together as Americans to solve them.

We will fail if we remain so rigid.

Maybe Rick Warren will never accept Gay Marriage, but maybe, common ground can be found to support civil unions, or at least ensure gay couples share the same basic civil rights married couples enjoy. Then again...maybe he will see by example that he was wrong all along.

Maybe Rick Warren will never support “abortion on demand”, but maybe common ground can be found to drastically reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, and increase support to those that are struggling to get by in tough economic times.

Bottom line is this. If you’re looking for a president or a country that agrees with you 100% of the time…GOOD LUCK!

I’m not sure I’d like to live there, because it sure wouldn’t be America.

sorry it will be lost in GDP.

because they do not agree with the guest list in the first place... it is best to leave them wanting.

.

that hates you and is committed to making your life miserable.

Changing society isn't easy. And for those who are more politically aware and intellectually evolved, it's VERY painful.

THis is not some boyfriend you are going to fix.

Just like you do not let a virus on your computer in hopes that the legit files will change him. Bigots are bigots, and we have seen over and over and over that it is a waste of time to time and energy (and we are in an energy crisis) to try to change them.

This is such a "shiny happy people" thought... that we can change those full of hate with hugs, or whatnot...

Near as I can tell, he may actually have strong religious beliefs that I don't agree with. Has he denied you a job because you are gay?

Did he go out the other night "gay bashing"?

I'll bet the answer to those question is not only "No", but knowing what little I do know about Warren, he'd probably be one of the first to denounce such actions.

We need to be careful throwing around words like "Bigot".

Look, hate radio has got about 15-20% of this country believing that "liberals couldn't possibly love their families the way conservatives do", because they've invested countless hours and money to "demonize" and "dehumanize" those that don't agree with them.

I'd like to think I'm bigger than that.

Yes the hate he preaches has in fact denied me a job because I was gay... thanks for your concern..

And yes, he has gone out and gay bashed... people have taken the hate he has preached and used it to spread more hate... words have meaning and they can and do cause violence.

I mean, using your argument I guess a lot of people can rest easy with there hate... they can say whatever they want, as long as they do not put their hands on someone? Is that what bigot means to you? I guess them Strom Thurman was an okay guy, because while he is famous for his rants on the evils of "the negro race", he never lynched one... so he is good.

So stop being a bigot apologist... I use the word because it is the correct word to use... BIGOT

Rick Warren is a BIGOT

(sorry for the crassness, I am mad as hell, and this logic is dumb as shit and needs to be called out)

Is that proof enough for you?

Right. And we should pay attention to you because. . . ?

Does that mean he is in agreement with liberal ideology?


Hardly....

Look at all the DUers that constantly bash and attack us Atheists. Yet I see many of those same DUers attacking Obama.

Why don't we let the person who is without sin toss the first stone?

Nice "Strawman". Since I happen to think we need to reach out to people, even those that disagree with me, I must be "unconcerned" with bigotry.

That's quite a statement to make to a guy you've never met, and know absolutely nothing about.

Seemingly every chance he gets.

You will excuse those of us who are actually affected by his decisions for not being so cavalier.

the hate and do the hard work.

Many on DU don't fall under that category.

He's reached out to the GLBT community far more than he has to homophobes. McClurkin and Warren. That's more than enough, but it's hardly every chance he gets. And gay folks aren't the only ones that Warren hates or condemns. But perhaps you just don't give a shit about MY civil rights as a woman.

I do not recall you being compared to a pedophile, though.

We are each entitled to be as indignant or as pleased as we want. I do not blame you if you're happy with this choice. I do not blame you if you are not. You are the only one who can make that choice.

K&R

:kick:

I realize that this thread will probably sink like a stone, unless the Grand Keyboard Outrage Brigade grabs ahold of it.

- “When does Obama reach out to the people that blamed the Katrina survivors” Strawman

But other than that, I agree with you.

thank you for the OP.

Is a strawman?

Mr. Obama himself is the one who is saying he wants to reach out to those he disagrees with. Therefore is it wrong to ask when he will reach out to those groups and give them a place at the table?

and what constitutes a seat at the table?

As he did with Mr. McClurkin and now with Mr. Warren. Both choices have been and continue to be against gay and lesbian Americans. Both choices were allowed to address before a large audience (and, yes, I'm assuming the inaguration will be a large audience) on Mr. Obama's behalf and at his behest. Why? For the sole purpose of getting votes and pandering to a large group.

So if the KKK had a large contingent of voters would he be allowing the Grand Wizard on stage?

He's already been elected, he doesn't need votes. Nor is he exactly pandering. You know, I know, and he knows that the Warren-sorts aren't ever going to listen to anything any Democrat ever says. They're a lost cause.

This is Obama's way of telling them "Well, I tried, but you folks couldn't set your shit aside for the good of the nation." You see, Rick Warren has two choices here. One, he can make a nice little invocation and get off the stage before his two minutes are up. Or, he can make a total ass of himself, and sink any chance of his "group" getting a seat at the table.

Now, you ask... Why should there be a seat for them? Plain and simple - Obama is going to be the president of the nation. Not the president of the party. For better or worse, it's his job to at least hear the concerns of people in the nation. Continuing the table metaphor, we're all expected to leave our various sorts of bullshit at the door before we're allowed to have a seat. Rick Warren and his sort do deserve a chance to be heard (though perhaps not listened to) but only, only if htey can behave like rational adults on at least some degree.

Since you and I know that they can't, well, they get left standing on the welcome mat. Obama knows they can't as well - but he's telling them that, if they can, they're welcome to come be a part of the rest of us.Since they can't do that, though... Being left out is their own damn fault.

I've been saying it's not Obama's smoothest move, and it's not. I see what he's doing, but I think there'll be much better avenues to accomplish it after taking office. It may not be his smoothest move, but to hear some posters here, it's a declaration that all gays in America are going to have to wear pink triangle armbands or something.

Look what I did, people. I took a man I don't agree with and put him on stage. That's how inclusive I am.

Yet at the same time his inclusivity comes at the expense of gays and lesbians. Again.

You can deny that you agree with the stand that people take, but as the saying goes, lie with dogs and get the fleas.

Christians of other denominations (particularly catholics), nonamericans, Mexicans, Democrats, Arabs, progressives, and probably prairie dogs.

Rich Warren is the picture next to the entry for "dickface" in the Urban Dictionary. No argument about it. I really don't think there's anyone who he hasn't demonstrated some hugely offensive attitude towards - Hell, I'm pretty sure he's talked some shit about the evangelical Christian community somewhere.

However, speaking as a brown nonchristian liberal progressive democrat... I can't say I'm feeling any impulse to burn Barack Obama in effigy over this, which seems to be the vibe I'm getting from a lot of posts around here. Could just be DU's nature as an echo chamber, I don't know.

Barack Obama's going to be working with sleazy people for the next eight years - possibly longer if he doesn't drop out of politics entirely after his second term is up. He's been working with sleazy people since he started politics. It simply comes with the territory, and if you expect a president - much less a Democratic president - to exist in an insulated bubble, well, you're living a fantasy. Yes, he's going to catch some fleas, as you put it. Thankfully he has a steady supply of pesticide and flea dip to handle the problem.

and his choices for placement in his administration is no big deal.

(On edit...not sure why I typed Two not say...)
Did not say “…this debate is not really about civil rights, but a desire for approval. The fact that 70% of blacks supported Prop 8 shows they don’t believe it is a civil rights issue. Gays in California already have their rights.”

Did not say "The issue to me, I’m not opposed to that as much as I’m opposed to redefinition of a 5,000 year definition of marriage. I’m opposed to having a brother and sister being together and calling that marriage. I’m opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that marriage. I’m opposed to one
guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.”

Did not say "“Two years ago HIV/AIDS was not on my agenda; it was not even a blip on my radar.”

Mr. Lowery is not a voice of hate and intolerance. Mr. Lowery is a voice of inclusion, not division. (Based on what I've read.)

Giving Mr. Warren center stage is saying that you, on some level, agree with his comments. Even if you don't you're going to give legitimacy to it.

Because I question you does not mean I agree with Warren or Obama's decision to have Warren give a prayer.

Perhaps when you stop attacking people you will find that you have common goals and beliefs.

And your need to attack seems to have distracted you from actually answering my question. You brush off Lowery as if he is no big deal, that means it is you that is belittling someone that advocates same sex marriages. That seems very odd to me.

And as to the other part of my question. Are you telling me that actually making someone a member of your staff and a part of your administration means nothing to you? You are giving a two minute prayer more power than a job in the administration? Maybe you should write to Roberta Achtenberg and the other seven open LGBT folks on Obama's transition advisory crew.

So to you, A two minute prayer in the beginning trumps the prayer at the end, how you close out your show?

Tell me, who gave the invocation during Carter's inauguration? What about Clinton's, Reagan's, Nixon's and the Bush lot? LBJ and Kennedy? I am curious because I need to go back and look to see how those invocations made an impact on the policy of each presidency.

You may want to re-read what I wrote. I did not attack you. My attack was against Mr. Warren and the fact that he is being put on stage. Nothing against you whatsoever.

As for his advisory crew, I have to wonder if they cautioned him or told him they did not agree with the choice. Did he listen?

Finally, I am not saying that either prayer trumps the other. I am saying that giving a homophobe center stage, even for two minutes, will do more harm than good for the LGBT community.

I did misread your post and I do apologize. Please forgive me.

And you will have to forgive me again, but why do you think a 2 minute stint "will do more harm than good for the LGBT community"? I would think members of the administration that have impact on policy would be beneficial and have a more lasting effect than a 2 minute prayer.

And again, you downplay Lowery's impact which leads me to believe you don't realize how crucial his position is regarding same sex marriages.

Giving a person like this a national stage will draw more bigots to him because they will agree with his stances. Likewise, hopefully, Mr. Lowery will have the same impact. However giving hate a stage is wrong, in my opinion.

Do you believe that it is right to confront hate with hate?

Do you believe that you have the right to hate someone because they hate you? Is that the proper course of action?

I disagree with you about the stage provided. The man has his own stage, his own notoriety. Obama won't be giving him anything more than what he has.

A nationally televised audience. And the appearance, even if it is not true, that Mr. Obama tacitly supports him.

The man has the audience, if you recall he provided one for Obama & McCain, he is better known and accepted than Obama.

And maybe, just maybe, it will be warren that will be affected and realize he is wrong to hold such hate.

That sure won't happen if he is ignored.

And his involvement is shit compared to a place on the Obama staff and the closing, after Obama has spoken.

I wish you would stop ignoring the importance of Lowery - focusing on the negative is not health, not healthy at all.

I do not think that either of us will be able to convince the other. :-)

Obviously, Mr. Lowery supports and defends hate and intolerance, because he is going to participate in the Inauguration.

So what sort of line are you trying to draw by making a phony contrast if, by your own standard, "on some level" Lowery agrees with every one of those statements you listed?

My statement is that Mr. Obama, despite comments saying he does not agree, gives the man legitimacy he does not and should not have.

Are you sure you voted for the right guy? It's a carbon copy of McCain's statements critical of Obama's willingness to open dialogue with others.

My comment about Lowery is rhetorical.

There is going to be a Gay Band Organization marching band there too. Are they endorsing Warren by association?

Again, my comments relate directly to Mr. Obama. No one else.

On edit: Please note, I do not say that I am correct. This is simply how I feel.

Wow. You have my respect, as do your feelings.

Nobody is ever "wrong" about how they feel.

And I - may be unduly optimistic. I have been wrong many times.

:rofl:

He's throwing them a frickin' bone! Big picture, big picture liberal folks.

They're like Egyptians that were outraged that Sadat would talk to Begin.

He can't be a bull in a china shop like some Democratic Presidents in the recent past. Even if some Dems only look at the surface of this concilliatory gesture, President-elect Obama's got their back. I believe that with all my heart.

Until you are, keep your mouth shut about who's got who's back.

I'll say whatever I please. Is this how you win hearts and minds? I'm on your side bonehead.

Yes, I've seen you on the sidelines before, now that I think about it. You're the guy telling me that it's too close to the election to do anything about gay equality. You're the lady telling me that it's too soon AFTER the election, and we have to build up political capital before we do something about gay equality. You're the person telling me that we have to be patient, that Rome wasn't built in a day, that these things take time, that society moves slowly. You're the person telling me to look at the BIG FUCKING PICTURE.

Please do me a favor and go to the OTHER side. Your advice will do me MUCH more good over there.

I don't come here to give advice I come here to discuss, granted sometimes heated discussions, but I'm not here to fight and insult people. I disagree with you but I don't feel the need to insult you because of it. Do me a favor and go take out your anger on someone else.

Yep, that's me posting today, but not talking to you. Why the exaggeration and drama? I see a strategy by President-elect Obama, and I believe he's got your back. We'll have to agree to disagree.

Mostly, from people who have all the rights that I do not have.

But you're right: we do not agree. I want my rights NOW, and you want me to wait until Obama gets around to giving them to me.

He has to be smart about it. I could be wrong, we'll see, but from what I've seen of him these past couple of years, I believe that he cares about Democratic principles, and human rights is a huge one. I'm not against you, I'm just trying to get another way to look at it out there.

When he does something substantial for gay people, I will apologize to you.

and got you with your own words, truth hurts huh?

:applause:

Reading DU this afternoon, you'd think we've learned nothing from the "with us or agin us" crap of the last 8 fucking years!

Some folks ought to put that in their little pipes and smoke it.

And most people on a morally indignant high-horse of sanctimonious righteousness are full of it no matter what side they are on.

:eyes:

When both ends are pissed off I know Obama is doing something right.

HELL. YES.

You're the first person I've ever given this smilie to but you SO deserve it: :yourock:

importance of using them as examples so folks begin to realize the slap in the face given to the GLBT community.

Must be lucky not to be threatened because you were born.

based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.<1> To "set up a straw man," one describes a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view, yet is easier to refute. Then, one attributes that position to the opponent. For example, someone might deliberately overstate the opponent's position.<1> While a straw man argument may work as a rhetorical technique—and succeed in persuading people—it carries little or no real evidential weight, since the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.<2>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Good job.

as what Obama is actually arguing- they're interpretations of their own.


Not strawmen. Hyperbole.

I'm afraid you might be engaging a bit in the very hyperbole you seem to assign to others. These aren't strawmen of which you speak, but more along the lines of metaphors. And in some cases it isn't a concern over "us" against "them" but more a case of "all of you against me". Considering that homosexuals just saw rights removed by a popular vote you can understand their sensitivity about all of this. The issue isn't about be agreed with 100% of the time. The issue is about the assignment of a ceremonial role of honor during a function intended to be a celebration for all, to a person who actively works to divide us and oppress some of us. He didn't get invited to work on a presidential commission to address unwanted pregnancy. For that we could consider this "inviting all sides". He asked this man to singularly speak FOR him, about US, to a deity. Yes, that bothers some of us and just as this president wants to hear opposing views from the right, he's gonna hear them from the left too.

and his building of coalitions on particular issues with groups with whom he has fundamental disagreements with holding the same views as those groups.

In other the strawman can be succinctly stated: if you let Warren speak, you agree with Warren's positions on GLBT issues. That is a classic strawman that mischaracterizes the strategy being engaged in.

Your description doesn't seem to match the accusation his was making, much less the large part of the comments being made. People were mad that he was reaching out to someone who would use this elevated position (as the ONE person making this invocation on a national stage) to press issues of oppression and denial of rights. Obama did do that, there is no strawman there. This will be a day of unification and he chose someone who would use the day to divide.

The strawman fallacy is the deliberate tactic, often subtle, of distorting the position of your opponent in debate. Saying that Obama agrees with Warren because he invited him to speak isn't a strawman- it might be an incorrect conclusion, but it doesn't distort Obama's position by saying that what is being repeated *is* what Obama *says*.

but I'll take a stab at it.

What rights were taken away? You'll say the "right to marriage". But just what the hell is "marriage"? Well, for a vast majority of the "straight" community, marriage appears to just be a word. In fact, quite a few "married" folks would tell you, "you want it...have at it".

But you're facing and battling against thousands of years of tradition. It may take time, but I'm convinced the GLBT will get there. You simply cannot, with intellectual honesty, tell me that there has not been tremendous progress made over the past 10-20 years on acceptance and "rights" for the GLBT community.

So a majority of voters in California basically said, "we are not ready to change the definition of marriage".

- Did your partner leave you?
- Did they tell you who you could love?
- Are you still able to obtain rights through civil union laws?

Look, the hate-mongers and homophobes were defeated at the most important poll of all this November. Progressives won "big" this election, but I think if we try to be like the Roman Army and "salt their fields", we are no better than those we defeated.

I can't possibly understand the hurt that you feel. My point is an old one that has served humanity well IMHO. "You attract more flies with honey than you do with vinegar".

Humanity is packed full of examples of people turning away from their hate when they are exposed to the good of those they once hated.

I'd like to give that a try, vice the scorched earth example we've seen from the Repubs.

Again, this is just my opinion.

:thumbsup:

We, of the strawman community, are deeply offended!





Otherwise, well said.

that if they ever do a re-make of The Wizard of Oz, they won't have to look far to find some Flying Monkeys to throw fireballs at the Scarecrow!

"When are these people who have core principles and beliefs going to just sit down and shut up, because we have serious problems?"

I got news for you. It is BECAUSE we have serious problems that principles are especially important. Some of us believe that certain approaches and philosophies are what is needed to solve problems.

But K&R for what it's worth.

:popcorn:

Privledged assholes who feel free to tell unprivledged victims what they should be outraged about. Or (my personal favorite) how they're going about getting their basic human rights in the wrong way.

Sign a legal document giving away all the rights you have that I don't for a year, and then you can tell me what should piss me off. Until then, fuck off.

Predicting that Obama will reach out to NAZIs then attacking him for it, even though he hasn't done it, is making a strawman.

Ditto the KKK, Jeffrey Dahmer, and Osama Bin Laden.


Attacking him for what he really did, inviting a man made rich and famous by his bigotry to take the stage at Obama's inauguration, by drawing analogies to other groups famous for their bigotry is not a strawman argument.

The right is vastly experienced at building and destroying strawmen. You can see examples of it 24/7 on your AM Radio Dial.

IMHO - A Strawman Argument is one that you build, that you then can easily take down. You will never lose a strawman argument.

In this case, folks are suggesting that, since Obama asked this man to make a 45 second prayer at the inaugeration, that is proof that Obama supports everything this man ever did, and is responsible for everything this man ever said. Kind of sounds eerily familiar to the "Bill Ayres, Bernadine Dorn, Rev Wright, Tony Rezko, Rod Blagoivich" arguments of the "right", doesn't it?

See, you don't need to have any deep thoughts, or actually do a deep dive into the issue or facts, all I need to do is construct your position out of straw, and then I can easily tear it down.

It's an effective tool, but I would argue that it's also why we ended up with Bush/Cheney for the past 8 years.

Hell, the repubs have "effing" perfected it.

- If you disagree with them, "you're against Family Values"

- If you disagree with them, "you want to kill babies"

- If you disagree with them, "you hate 'Mutika and want the terrorist to win"

I think Democrats and Progressives are smarter and better than the "Answer Yes, or No, Have you stopped beating your wife"? folks

Nice right wing talking point, you've got there.

By "abortion on demand" I presume you mean being opposed to letting government control peoples' bodies and private lives, instead of individuals themselves...


...right?

Since you seem to know what Rick Warren thinks on all these issues, maybe you can explain further about this "drastically reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies" thing... do you mean by increased access to, and education about, contraceptives-- the ONLY proven method of "reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies"?

If that's what Rick Warren wants, good. I'm glad to hear he believes that contraception -including oral contraceptives- should be available to anyone who wants them, and opposes idiocy like 'conscience clauses' that allow Jesus-drunk Pharmacists to dispense lectures instead of filling pill prescriptions. I'm thrilled Rick Warren supports comprehensive sex ed in schools, as well, and isn't one of these Fundamentalists whose idea of 'common ground' in 'reducing unwanted pregnancies' is to tell people to "Stop Fucking And Pray To Jesus".

And Rick Warren supports civil unions? Really? I'd like to see a link on that.

as an active duty US Sailor, I doubt you'll win a "cussing contest" with me, but

Believe it or not, it's been scientifically established that one of the possible side effects of "fucking" is pregnancy! Who knew?!

Yes!! I don't give a rats-ass who it is. Whether it's Jesus "effing" Christ, or mom and dad, or the Gym Teacher, or the ghost of Christmas Past, I'd be perfectly fine with someone telling some young guy full of piss and vinegar, or some young girl with loins moist as the morning dew to "PLEASE STOP FUCKING unless you know what you're doing, have taken precaution, or are financially, mentally, and medically ready to bring a child into this world.

Hate to sound like a "winger", but being a Democrat has never meant you lose all fucking responsibility for your actions, because it feels good to stick you "heat-seaking-yogurt-throwing-purple-headed-meat-missile" into someone's vagina.

So I don't care if it's comprehensive sex education, contraceptives, or a visit from the Virgin Mary in a drug enduced stupor that causes it...STOPPING FUCKING, or making sure you're ready for FUCKING will go a long way toward reducing unwanted pregnancies and "abortion on demand".

and my definition of "abortion on demand" is abortion performed simply because "I just don't want to have a baby right now". My definition of "abortion on demand" is using abortion as YOUR ONLY FORM OF BIRTH CONTROL.

Not everybody offended or disappointed in the decision and voices it is without reason or engages in what you list.

"Obama picks a guy who, although wrong on gay rights and abortion, seems to have done quite a bit of good on a multitude of complex and difficult issues in this country, and it’s proof…proof I tell you, that Obama is a “hate-mongering homophobe” ready to turn the social development of this country over to a bunch of “flat-earthers”."

Ok, that's 1.

"In reality, the only way you affect change is through persuasion, not by ignoring or shutting out. Condemning Obama for reaching out to people that don’t agree with him, (our you), is like trying to “win the hearts and minds” of Iraqi’s by blowing their children to bloody bits!"

Oh! That's a good one! 2.

"Look, we are all American’s, and we are facing some serious problems. We need to roll up our sleeves and work together as Americans to solve them."

Wow! Another one! That's 3!

Thanks for the primer!

A strawman is a presumably serious, legitimate argument distorting your opponent's position.

Your main complaint seems to be that the people against this are exaggerating to make a point- not that they are, in a serious manner, distorting Obama's position. Deliberate, sarcastic exaggeration is called something else- hyperbole.

have given us are not?

Ironic isn't it.

The post makes perfect sense in the context of the current outrage being foisted against the President elect.

Quote:


Geesh! This is what our political discourse has been reduced to. Obama picks a guy who, although wrong on gay rights and abortion, seems to have done quite a bit of good on a multitude of complex and difficult issues in this country, and it’s proof…proof I tell you, that Obama is a “hate-mongering homophobe” ready to turn the social development of this country over to a bunch of “flat-earthers”.


The original post does not make any argument directly to the problem but instead hoist up the straw man and argues against that.



It is classic ignorance.

I almost thought it was satire, actually. This is exactly the type of thing that is posted whenever Obama is criticized too much for someone's liking. There are just so many people who are incapable of taking criticism in any way, even when it's not even directed at them specifically.

Creating a strawman to fight a strawman (which also may have been created by the same person!) is amazing though. I'm upset I didn't think of it first!

Finally, a thread in the last 24 hours I can recommend, and post in.

"Bottom line is this. If you’re looking for a president or a country that agrees with you 100% of the time…GOOD LUCK!" - maxrandb

No one is looking for, "a president or a country that agrees with you 100% of the time..."

But you knew that. Send a farewell kiss that dog, Rick for me.

..........



May 16, 2007 10:27 AM
A Real Compassionate Conservative
Jerry Falwell was one of the giant figures who towered over the 20th-Century American church. While most people knew him as the founder of the Moral Majority, the face of the Religious Right, and by some of his more controversial statements, many saw only his opponent’s caricature of the real man.

The story was never told about his compassionate heart, his gentle spirit, his enormous sense of humor, and the millions he invested in helping the underprivileged. Jerry founded the Elim Home for alcoholics, the Center for tutoring inner city children, the Hope Aglow ministry to prisoners, Liberty Godparent Home for unwed mothers, and literally dozens of other compassion projects to help the poor, the sick, and others in desperate need.

I believe Jerry Falwell’s primary legacy will not be his political leadership, but the church he pastored for 50 years; the university he founded that has produced two generations of leaders; the millions who heard him preach the Good News; the innovations in ministry he introduced; and the thousands of young pastors, like myself, whom he constantly encouraged, even when we did it differently.

Posted by Rick Warren

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/rick_warren

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

they resort to dishonest tactics such as these.