News

Trump’s alleged ‘s***hole’ remark seems to discomfit some of his eva …

President Donald Trump speaks in the Roosevelt Room of the White House in Washington, Thursday, Jan. 11, 2018. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster; caption amended by RNS)

WASHINGTON (RNS) — At least three members of the White House’s informal  board of evangelical advisers have distanced themselves from President Trump’s alleged reference to “shithole countries” during talks about immigration reform.

In the past, when Trump’s critics have pressed board members to repudiate language of the president that was widely deemed offensive, the advisers have demurred, arguing that it’s not their role to publicly chastise the president.

But this particular comment, allegedly made Thursday (Jan. 11) in response to lawmakers who asked about protections for immigrants from Haiti, El Salvador and Africa, has seemingly left at least some of these advisers uncomfortable enough to counter with their own words on the topic.

And other board members, usually quick to jump to the president’s defense, have declined to answer questions about the remark, which caused a firestorm overnight — with many commentators describing it as racist.

The Rev. Samuel Rodriguez in 2013.

That was not the take of the Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, a member of the unofficial evangelical advisory board and the president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference. But he noted that “every single person is created in the image of God” and spoke of welcoming people equally from Nigeria and Norway, albeit after “a rigorous vetting process.”

Later in the day, he said more: “In addition, and with great due deference, I believe that the comments attributed to our president can best be described as wrong, inappropriate, and hurtful. Why? Because when God looks at these nations, He sees His children.”

Ronnie Floyd, former president of the Southern Baptist Convention and another adviser, was also critical of the president’s remarks. He told The Washington Post: “I would not agree with those comments at all. We need to see that every person is made in the image of God.”

Johnnie Moore, a former vice president of Liberty University and the de facto spokesman for the unofficial advisory board, responded to RNS in an email about Trump’s alleged remark: “Obviously, those words aren’t words we would use, and everyone who knows us knows this.”

Trump published a series of tweets denying that he used the term “shithole” after The Washington Post reported on the meeting. He also said that he “never said anything derogatory about Haitians.”

“The language used by me at the DACA meeting was tough, but this was not the language used. What was really tough was the outlandish proposal made — a big setback for DACA!” read one of his tweets.

But Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., who was at the meeting, corroborated the Washington Post report to The Associated Press Friday. “He said these hate-filled things and he said them repeatedly.”

More than 80 percent of white evangelicals cast their ballots for Trump in the 2016 election, making them his most loyal group of religious voters.

Johnnie Moore. Photo courtesy of The Kairos Company

In the midst of the uproar over the president’s alleged derogatory language, Moore and others on Trump’s unofficial evangelical advisory board have focused on efforts to reach a bipartisan deal on immigration. That was the issue on the table when Trump, a Republican whose language in reference to immigrants has often been harsh — and in the opinion of many of his critics, discriminatory and racist — made his comments on people from El Salvador, Haiti and Africa.

Moore said Democrats need to compromise with Trump, who wants to build a wall to keep people from illegally crossing from Mexico into the U.S.

“(I)f the Democrats support an inanimate object (the wall) — a policy supported by most Democrat leaders also for many, many years for the same security reasons for which Republicans support it today — then the Republicans will easily line up in mass to get Dreamers permanently cared for,” Moore said, referring to recipients of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced in September the administration’s intention to end DACA, which was created through executive order under President Obama to offer work permits to undocumented immigrants brought to the country as children. But Trump offered a six-month window for Congress to pass legislation before the program expires, a move his evangelical advisers have claimed was partly the result of their lobbying efforts.

Tony Suarez, a vice president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference and a member of the unofficial board, declined on Friday to offer a direct response to Trump’s inflammatory remarks. He, too, focused on the issue of immigration.

“We are experiencing deja vu,” he told RNS. “Every time we get close to reaching a deal on immigration we get derailed right before the finish line.”


READ: All the president’s clergymen: A close look at Trump’s ‘unprecedented’ ties with evangelicals


The blowback over the president’s allegedly insulting language echoes the response when Trump said “both sides” were responsible for the tragic violence in Charlottesville, Va., last summer, when he seemed to equate white supremacists with counterprotesters.

One evangelical board member subsequently left the group in protest, but Liberty University President Jerry Falwell Jr. told Fox News at the time that Trump “doesn’t have a racist bone in his body.”

When asked for a response Friday to Trump’s alleged remarks in Thursday’s Oval Office meeting, Falwell said through a Liberty official that he had “no comment on this issue.”

President Trump, left, is greeted by Pastor Robert Jeffress of Dallas at the Celebrate Freedom Rally on July 1, 2017, in Washington, D.C. Photo by Yuri Gripas/Reuters

At least one member of Trump’s unofficial evangelical advisory board, which includes more than 20 clergy and prominent lay people from several denominations, publicly backed Trump. According to David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network, Texas pastor Robert Jeffress — whose book the president promoted on Twitter in October — issued a defense of Trump on Friday.

“Apart from the vocabulary attributed to him, President Trump is right on target in his sentiment,” Jeffress, who has repeatedly defended the president from accusations of racism, said in a statement. “As individual Christians, we have a biblical responsibility to place the needs of others above our own, but as Commander-in-Chief, President Trump has the constitutional responsibility to place the interests of our nation above the needs of other countries. I’m grateful to have a President like Donald Trump who clearly understands the distinction and has the courage to protect the well-being of our nation.”

And Pastor Mark Burns, another adviser, also aligned himself with the president in a tweet, saying his remarks were about “lazy governments” and not racism.


READ: Paula White: ‘Our president is not a racist’


Meanwhile, more progressive faith leaders — as well as some conservative evangelicals — condemned the alleged remarks.

The National Council of Churches issued a statement in which it “unequivocally” condemned the remarks, describing them as “deeply disturbing.” It also decried another alleged statement by the president suggesting the United States bring in more people from countries such as Norway, saying such rhetoric “reveals a deep-seated racism that is unacceptable.”

The Progressive National Baptist Convention also issued a statement: “It is not enough that Trump says these hurtful words and suffers no consequences. It is that he is developing policies on the basis of race that will hurt people of color for years to come.”

Jemar Tisby, president of The Witness: A Black Christian Collective, posted a tweet framing the president’s comments as racist: “Don’t quote King on Monday if you choose to be silent about the president’s racism today. #MLKDay”

Russell Moore, head of the Southern Baptist Convention’s public policy arm and longtime critic of Trump, tweeted out a message of solidarity with nations in Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean: “The church of Jesus Christ is led by, among others, our brothers and sisters from Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean. They are us.”

The Rev. Yolanda Pierce, the dean of Howard Divinity School, said Trump’s theology is white supremacy. “#45’s white supremacy is his theology. He worships at the altar of greed, xenophobia, and racism. And so do the people who continue to support him.”

Author and Jesuit priest James Martin published a Twitter thread arguing that “Jesus was from a ‘shithole’ place. Nazareth, in the first century, was a minuscule town of only 200 to 400 people, where people lived in small stone houses, and, say archaeologists, garbage was dumped in the alleyways.”

The Council on American-Islamic Relations issued a statement saying the “American Muslim community strongly condemn(s) the racist and white supremacist beliefs reflected in President Trump’s remarks.”

Rabbi Jonah Pesner, director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, tweeted that the comments are “deeply offensive” and show a “lack of compassion.”

Ed Stetzer, a professor at Wheaton College and another evangelical critic of Trump’s, also encouraged his fellow faithful to condemn the remarks Friday in an op-ed for The Washington Post.

“So, the commander in chief used a filthy or ‘tough’ word to the point that it stunned those who heard it,” he wrote. “But beyond the profanity, the most startling part of his remark is his suggestion that certain people’s living conditions should disqualify them from immigrating to the United States.”

About the author

Jack Jenkins

Jack Jenkins is a national reporter for RNS based in Washington, covering U.S. Catholics and the intersection of religion and politics.

214 Comments

Click here to post a comment

  • Stetzer’s comment was right on. I am sure that history will have something to say about these religious advisors and the Trump presidency.
    .

  • And don’t forget the 0.8 in 10 black church folks who simply understood that Hillary wasn’t — and still isn’t — a presidential option. Alas, there are fates worse than Trump, and we actually dodged one of them in 2016.

    Meanwhile, I think GOP Sen. Graham said the right corrective, and he said it at the right time — immediately & directly to Trump’s face, and in front of everybody.

    From here, Evangelicals should continue to directly remind everyone of what the Bible says. God created all of us humans in His image, and that makes us all equal. No room for racism. (But also keep in mind that NO political party has any solutions for America’s immigration problems.)

  • Of course silence and/or excuses is always the usual response of the political preachers like the beneficiaries of nepotism in the Falwell and Wildmon dynasties of religious right hucksters and grifters.

  • Just as bad as the racism that was a part of Trump’s comment is the denial of the intrinsic value of each person. Those who responded to Trump’s words by reminding us that each person is made in the image of God are trying to jog our memory that each person has a fixed value that lies outside the value assigned to them by the free market. And led to Trump’s comments was not just his racism, it was his reducing the world to the world of commerce and the ethic of maximizing profits which currently rules that world. Trump’s comments are the result of his racism and his kind of business centered America First mindset and policies.

    The tepid responses to Trump’s comment by my fellow religiously conservative Christians indicates that other loyalties are advancing against their loyalty to Christ.

  • There is no question that our President can be crude at times. But many of us cannot forget his opponent’s remarks about “deplorables”, and she said it about American citizens. It is a known fact that Hilary’s language can be just as crude as Trump’s, but of course the liberal media has a way of covering that fact up.

    Yes, I voted for Trump, not because I thought he was the best possible choice (my first choice was eliminated in the primaries), but because the alternative was unthinkable-a supporter of baby-killing, a criminal, a liar, the list can go on and on.

    While evangelicals like myself deplore some of Trump’s excesses, in many ways he has been good for the country. Our obligation is to pray that God will work in his heart

  • I’m curious: do you think all media have a “liberal bias”, or do you think there are any conservative media?

  • Hillary Clinton’s words — “You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables.”
    There is a source online which suggest Hillary actually said some days later that she regretted saying “half”. Meaning……..ALL.
    I wonder William…….do you also denounce this comment?
    I did not vote for Trump. I don’t vote. The whole system is corrupt. However…..in my social circle (300 people give or take a few), I do not know ONE person who voted for Trump because they liked Trump. Their vote was SOLELY for Trump as to NOT vote for Clinton.
    Take it or leave it.

  • And look at the political hypocrites, who are big supporters of abortion, taking the “high moral” ground on human dignity.

  • WAIT. So what’s wrong again with this Christian Right spin on Trump’s S-word-with-a-hole snark about Haiti, El Salvador and Africa? His are “wrong, inappropriate, and hurtful … words [that] aren’t words we would use, and everyone … knows this.”

    Oh you’re right, I see that now. These fellow born-again Christian brothers of mine didn’t have the gods I mean guts to say the R-word and the I-word that should go with that: that Trump is … wait for it …

    “Russian!”

    “Impeachable!”

  • Now that Trump highlighted the fact of some countries are in the toilet, maybe it”s time to ask why, & how to really help them.

  • Whataboutism to deflect from clearly bigoted, embarrasing and rather anti-american sentiments expressed.

    You voted for an immoral piece of garbage because you wanted someone to attack the rights of others for you. Deplorable was too mild a term.

    ” in many ways he has been good for the country”

    I can’t name a single one. You support Trump’s excesses because you believe you can get something out of it. Your view is craven and spineless.

  • No hypocrisy at all. There is nothing moral about the anti-abortion position. Its all about attacking women and imposing one’s will. Not about concern for life. Certainly not human dignity.

    The support of the anti-abortion crowd for the immoral, dishonest, thieving, adulterous bigot in the White House shows what kind of craven attitudes they have. The crap you guys will do and support for the chance to attack the personhood of women is beyond belief.

  • “Trump’s alleged ‘s***hole’ remark seems to discomfit some of his evangelical advisers”

    But only the ones who pretended not to be bigots.

  • J_Bob,
    Don’t if you realize this but America’s children fare worse than the children from all the wealthy industrial nations. I believe we have the highest rate of childhood poverty of those nations. And the UN found that Alabama has some of the worse poverty areas of the developed nations.

    A lot of this is due to the growing wealth disparity caused by our economic system So before insulting other nations, we should look in the mirror.

  • Spuddie,
    All-or-nothing statements require a herculean size losk for proof. The abortion issue is about the collision of rights. What makes the pro-life position look bad is that many conservative pro-life advocates have reduced the scope of what is pro-life to the abortion issue. But the abortion issue is important and, again, it is about the rights of two people.

  • There is no morality in the anti-abortion position. What makes it look bad is the assumption the advocate has the power and right to interject themselves into the personal and intimate decisions of others. That personhood is conditional on their opinions.

    These same people show disregard for the lives of others in other ways as well. As if pro-life = pro gestating life and nothing else.

    ” it is about the rights of two people”

    No, its about the rights of one person and a presumption of privilege of another.

  • Spuddie,
    Unless one assumes that the unborn child is not a human life but merely a part of the woman, then the woman’s decision to get an abortion is exactly what you are complaining pro-life advocates are doing.

    That is why I wrote that abortion is about the collision of the rights of two people.

  • So it is okay for Trump to say to be racist because Hillary called you a deplorable. Is it okay that Trump is a Pusey glaber and paid hush money to the women he was unfaithful to? Is it okay that he constantly lies? You are a great Christian.

  • Correct. Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and some others are shitholes also. America leads all industrial nations in mortality of women in childbirth. There is less healthcare, less education, etc in the American South than in many foreign countries.

  • Not at all.

    Its knowing that whatever a woman’s decision is, its hers and hers alone. That having an opinion as to what she must do is not the same as having a say in the matter. One can dislike or oppose abortion as a concept without attacking the right to have one. Essentially saying, I disapprove of the action but I respect your life and personhood on the matter.

    For all intents and purposes it IS part of the woman until birth. It can’t be physically separated from its mother. Its existence is entirely dependent on her will. Unless one can take possession of a fetus from its mother, it is hers and hers alone. A fetus is a life but its not a person. People have autonomous existence. People have rights which can be exercised independent from any other people.

    I didn’t use the word “pro-life” because it is not even remotely an accurate description of the view.

  • Frankly, this is where the conversation should be going and not exclusively focusing on the outrage of it all (though it was outrageous). So instead of people getting all self righteous and condemning, let’s take this to the next level and start discussing America’s so called “s-hole” places as well as how the US can put the squeeze on countries that get million/billions in aid that the destitute never see.

  • Spuddiie,
    The woman is not the only person involved here. So when she decides to get an abortion, the unborn child has its fate sealed. The woman’s decision forces the unborn child to di9e.

    It isn’t a mere matter of dislike, it is a matter of taking a human life.

    And instead declaring that the unborn child is only a part of a woman until birth, prove that claim. full dependency does not make the unborn child a part of the woman any more than full dependence on life support makes a person a full part of some machines.

    Yes, people have rights. The question is why don’t we recognize the rights of the unborn child.

  • tatoo,
    I don’t call any place where there are people a sh*thole. To me, to do so because of the economics is to make economics more important than people. Yes, the economics of the place need improving, but there are still people there.

  • YolkeAndAway,
    Interesting name. we need to start conversing about our poverty stricken places but without using the vernacular that Trump does.

  • Shall we talk about the reports from yesterday and today, that Jabba the Trump paid $130,000 to a porn star prostitute in 2016, right before the election, to shut up about his encounter with her in 2006?

    Let’s see.

    He married a woman famous for being seen on the internet, breasts and all, engaging in a little HAWT girl-on-girl action (because we really don’t want to call it homosexual lesbian porn for heterosexual men who get off on it) in 2005.

    Access Hollywood tape: 2006. Grab ’em while they’re HAWT.

    So, married to his third wife, divorce, remarriage, fornication, adultery, more adultery, more fornication. And now bush money, err, umm, hush money. Daily lies, including lying about his widely reported “vulgar” remarks.

    The evangelicals, always whining about how great their values are and how horrible everyone else’s values are, and how they must have power, money, and dominion over the lives of those slutty wimmens facing difficult family decisions, and over them evillllll figs for even thinking about full participation in society and protecting their families, because, ya know…..

    GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWD!

    The only think worse than their morals are the excuses these evangelical hypocrites make for them. Power, money, and dominion. That’s all this is about, all it has ever been about.

    Thank god im an atheist. Christianity was much better before it became a political party. The Republican Party was much better before it became a religion.

  • It left them without a comfit to their names…almost. But maybe some money or power would make him feel better.

  • Actually the woman is the ONLY person rightfully involved here. The only other person is the outsider who is trying to make decisions for her. A fetus is not a person. People have an independent and autonomous existence. A baby has both, fetus has neither.

    “The woman’s decision forces the unborn child to di9e.”

    Yup, because it is her will to do so and her body is necessary for it to live. Her body, her choice. You don’t have to like or approve of such choices. They are not yours to make. I support the right to the choice and make the decision.

    “And instead declaring that the unborn child is only a part of a woman until birth,”

    Its not a declaration, its physical biological reality. One you are trying to handwave away. You can’t physically separate a fetus (children are born) from its mother. When it can be done, its called birth. It is no longer a fetus, its a baby/child.

    ” than full dependence on life support makes a person a full part of some machines.”

    Horrifically bad analogy. You are equating a mother with life support machines. A machine is not a person. It has no rights of its own. It is very fitting. Since your view requires removing the personhood of women. They are simply machines or chattel property to be commanded in your view. Not human beings, not people.

    “The question is why don’t we recognize the rights of the unborn child.”

    Because they can’t exist. Such rights only come at the expense of the personhood of its mother. A fetus’s existence until birth is subordinate to its mother, so it can’t have its own rights independent of her. No one’s personhood is based on removing it from others.

    Why can’t you recognize women have rights and are not subject to your opinion as to their personal decisions?

  • Who vote for the proponents of the economic and social policies that make the places where they live the kind of places that they are.

    Talibama?

  • Spuddie,
    Your first sentence is right only if you deny the humanity of the unborn child. People on life support do not have independent autonomous existence. For what you cannot do to the unborn child, you cannot do to a person on life support. A person in a coma is still a human life. And if you are consistent with your argument, then the unborn child becomes a person once they are old enough to survive life support outside of the womb.

    Right now, you have only given a declaration. If what you are saying is a biological reality, then you can prove your point using biology.

  • I don’t have to recognize the fetus. I am not the one whose body it gestates it. Her will is the only thing keeping it alive. Its telling you will only discuss the fetus and deny the existence and personhood of the mother. As if you have a say in what goes on in her body. You don’t. Nobody has to care what you think of her decisions because there is no reason you have any control over them.

    “A person in a coma is still a human life. ”

    A person in a coma isn’t physically attached to another person. Also it is not consistent with my argument because you have never actually addressed it. A person in a coma has personal rights that can be exercised (even in proxy) independent of any other person’s existence. None of that is true for a fetus. You just want to pretend it is because you want to pretend the woman’s personhood is an irrelevance. Analogy is crap because there is no analogous situation for people, the born, to gestation.

    You don’t respect life at all. If you can’t respect the personhood of the born, of the woman here, your concern for the unborn is hypocritical, self serving garbage.

    “If what you are saying is a biological reality, then you can prove your point using biology.”

    One can remove a baby from its mother and place it in protective custody. Feel free to take possession of a fetus. See how that goes. The most boneheaded part of your position is the deliberate and dishonest inability to distinguish the physical reality of the born and unborn.

  • Ben,
    How are you?

    That is an excellent question which I am afraid to answer because Talibama is located in many of the rural areas of our nation. They are fellow citizens. You picked a great name for them.

  • Thanks for asking. I’m past the flu, still a little worried about it turning into bronchitis, but I think I’m ok.

    They are my fellow citizens. But they are also people who vote against their own interests. Look what happened to Kansas.

  • Ummm, the remarks are not alleged. They are widely reported, substantiated by people who were there, and without the asterisks.

    Please lose the headline, or you’re going to start sounding like some of those evangelical supporters of Jabba the Trump.

  • Spuddie,
    Here’s a news flash: One’s humanity does not depend on our willingness to recognize it. Nor does it depend on our willingness to care for it. Remember that our nation’s history is fully of the refusal to recognize the humanity of people from different races. That lack of recognition did not change the human status of the people from those races.

    I asked you to prove the biological reality that the unborn child is only a part of a woman’s body. All you have done is to give one selective declaration after another, you have yet to prove your claim.

  • Evangelical leadership definitely reflects the person they supported for President. There are some very fine people who are part of the Evangelical movement. Here is hoping they get people leading them who really reflect the way of the Lord they say they follow.

  • Ben,
    I’m sorry about the flu. Hope you can avoid bronchitis. I use to get that twice a year and then it stopped. But that restarted last year. I now get the flue the last weekend in February. Who knows why? Also, I sometimes get the flu after visiting the grandchildren. No need to ask who knows why there.

    Though we don’t vote against my immediate interests, their voting is disheartening and even angering because they vote against sharing society as equals.

  • Except in your view. The humanity of the mother and her personhood is completely ignored by you in every possible way. Even considered no different than a machine. I care about life beyond the nine months of gestation. You can think of nothing but that. Very pointless and infantile.

    “Remember that our nation’s history”

    More bad analogy. They were people, born. There is no equivalent of gestating with that of those already born. You are the one who is refusing to recognize the humanity of people here. Considering women to be your chattel property to be commanded and subject to your will and opinion.

    “I asked you to prove the biological reality that the unborn child is only a part of a woman’s body. ”

    And I did. If it were not the case, you could take possession of a fetus from her and it would still exist. That went right over your head.

    I respect life here. I respect people’s lives and bodies are not subject to my wishes. You show utter contempt for it. A fetus is human but its mother isn’t to you.

    This whole conversation exists because you have a deeply immoral, rather malicious and narcissistic desire to attack others and interject yourself into to lives where you do not belong.

  • Me either. And while this article focuses on the continuing support of the Evangelical leadership, I won’t forget that the Catholic bishops, too, helped get Trump elected. They traded respect and care for the poor and those trying to escape from war and violence for, what?… some feint toward stopping legal abortions which will never happen?

  • No we can condemn him for that. The statement was a tone deaf attack on all immigrants made in an intentionally racist manner.

    “start discussing America’s so called “s-hole” places as well as how the US can put the squeeze on countries that get million/billions in aid that the destitute never see.”

    Except for the fact that we don’t give foreign aid as charity. We give it to promote US interests in those countries. In many cases it comes in the form of trade agreements favoring the US and efforts to keep those nations stable (again out of our own interests in the regions).

    People who favor your view also don’t want to make efforts to improve the lot of poor Americans either. Its usually not an either/or, its a neither.

  • We agree there for sure. You remind me a lot of my oldest friend in the world, a minister in a very conservative denomination . You seem to think similarly.

  • Spuddie,
    I gave no indication that we should ignore the personhood of the mother. Quite the opposite, I stated the personhood of both in equal terms. If you practice all-or-nothing thinking, I imaging that any recognition given to the unborn is a denial of recognition given to the mother and vice-versa. This is a collision of rights between two equal parties.

    And the analogy is quite real unless one assumes that humanity is granted on birth and thus the unborn child is not a human life. But I am still waiting for the biological proof from to that fact. After all, you called it a reality and thus there should be some proof for that reality. But yo have yet produced even the tiniest amount of proof. So instead, your all-or-nothing thinking is content with accusing me of a position I have already spoken against from the beginning.

    Again, instead of accusations, provide the biological proof for your poistion that the unborn child is a part of the mother and nothing else. Remember that dependency does not prove your point. For we do not consider people who are on life-support to be part of those machines.

  • And now the White House is a shithole headed by an asshole, and hopefully headed into a sinkhole.

  • You ignored her completely. Your whole view is dependent on ignoring her and focusing on a fetus as if it grows in a vat and not in the body of a woman. Your view is nothing but utter contempt for a woman’s personhood. Putting yourself in the place as the decision maker for her body. As if she was incapable of acting without your approval.

    “I stated the personhood of both in equal terms. ”

    No you didn’t. Quite the opposite. You even equated a woman with machines.

    You can’t give personhood to a fetus. Not without removing it from the mother. Any claim to do both is dishonest garbage. Your version of “recognizing” or “protecting” a fetus always comes at attacking the mother’s personhood. Removing any control she has to decide as to what goes on in her body.

    Unless you can take possession of a fetus from its mother, its only her rights and personhood that matter. Certainly not your opinion.

    “unborn child is not a human life. But I am still waiting for the biological proof from to that fact”

    Because it is not my argument. Never was. You are trying to go according to a given script and avoiding what I am saying. I am saying a fetus is not a person. There is a difference here you clearly either don’t understand or won’t address.

    A fetus can’t live outside its mother’s body. Therefore it is not conceptually separate enough to have its own rights and be considered a person.

  • Spuddie,
    Again you are employing all-or-nothing thinking so that any consideration being given to the unborn child is marketed as a lack of recognition of the woman and her rights. There are pro-life advocates who employ the same kind of thinking you do. The end effect is to eliminate the reality that issues, like abortion, could consist of a collision of rights.

    But something more is involved. You declared that idea that the unborn child is only a part of the woman as a biological reality. It was your claim, so you can’t excuse yourself by saying that it was not your argument. Note what you wrote before:


    “And instead declaring that the unborn child is only a part of a woman until birth,”Its not a declaration, its physical biological reality. One you are trying to handwave away.

    And note that since I’ve asked you to provide proof of that, you have filled your responses with baseless accusations. Yes, baseless because you haven’t even proven those claims. So who is doing the handwaving now?

    And while you talk about using dependency as being a part, again, the person on life support is totally dependent on machines. Does that make them a part of the machine. And do they lose their personhood when they are on life support?

    Let me ask this: Is the possible prohibiting a person from killing another person robbing them of their personhood?

  • We Christians can spend all day questioning each other’s loyalty to Christ. I certainly wouldn’t mind taking a few shots at some Christians, just for sport.

    But something else is more important. Only a few days ago, Donald Trump and Nancy Pelosi were doing “Let’s Make A Deal on DACA” soundbites. To hear them talk, a long-awaited bipartisan Dreamer deal was merely one Photo-Op away.

    Rev. Tony Suarez is right. A Dreamer deal was THIS close. But now it’s gone again. What really happened? Sure wish we had some transcripts to look at. The media has NOT given the whole story, especially not on what exactly prompted Trump to say what he said.

    Tell me: Despite a vulgar phrase and excessive Norway-love, how is it that the entire long-awaited DACA solution was allowed to die when at least it could’ve been secured first?

  • US President Donald Trump must’ve learned from the best. Check this out, All We Hypocritters Great and Small!

    (1) “Now I’m sittin’ at a red light, I feel somethin’ tickin’ way down / The night’s moving like a slow train crawling through this s***hole town / Got my bags packed in the back and I’m tryin’ to get going again”.
    – Bruce Springsteen, “Loose Change”, 1998.

    (2) “Sometimes I think [of my dead mother that] she’s lucky, you know. I hate this place. … But I do think there’s a heaven … [which] as my dad would say, it means she’s out of this s***hole.”
    – Ruth, book character in Alice Sebold’s The Lovely Bones, 2002.

    (3) “It’s a s***hole. … Is[n’t] Belgium with all those child abuse murders lately?”
    – Ray, movie character, In Bruges, 2008.

    (4) “Escaping the S***hole: How and Why to Leave a Bad Neighborhood Once and for All”.
    – M. W. Sphero, Herms Press, 2009.

    (5) “Was Reykjavík a S***hole in the Seventies?”
    – Helgi Hrafn Guðmundsson, The Reykjavík Grapevine, July 10, 2013.

    (6) “When you grow up in Bolton, you grow up knowing that your hometown is s***. Bolton is a s***hole, but it’s our s***hole”.
    – Jennifer Nuttall, The Tab, 2016.

    ADDENDUM

    (7) “W/each new day I know why part of my family left s***hole of imperial Russia. 100 years after last rev lets hope 4 another1 #ComeAtMeBroski
    – Tim Wise (@timjacobwise), Twitter, December 15, 2016.

  • FHRITP,
    Which death penalty? Are you referring to the one the results from no healthcare coverage and.or poverty wages or are you referring to the penalty for capital crimes? Or are your referring to the mass death penalties from war?

    Myself, I believe that the death penalty is valid for those who wantonly take life. But how it is implemented indicates that racism comes into play during the sentencing. As for the other penalties I mentioned above, I’m against them.

    Let me know what you think because my guess is that your see a contradiction in part of what I wrote.

  • You have no rightful and meaningful input into the lives and intimate decisions of people and their bodies. That alone makes your view morally repugnant.

    Your alleged concern for a fetus comes at the expense of complete and utter disregard of a woman as a person. It comes with a narcissistic sense of entitlement that allegedly overrides the personhood of a woman. It makes no difference what you think is the “right” decision to be made by them here. The idea that you think its your decision is the evil of your view.

    “And note that since I’ve asked you to provide proof of that”

    Asked and answered. Several times. Same answer. Try to separate a fetus from its mother prior to birth and keep it alive. Until you can do that, it is for all intents and purposes part of the mother.

    “And while you talk about using dependency as being a part”

    Not just dependency, but complete and total lack of a separate individual existence. You miss that part or don’t understand what autonomy means.

    Your script needs work.

    “the person on life support is totally dependent on machines”

    YOU ARE CALLING THE MOTHER A MACHINE! HERE IS THE PROOF YOU DO NOT CONSIDER HER A PERSON!

    A person on life support is not physically attached to another person. Your analogy fails because of the difference in fact.

    “Let me ask this: Is the possible prohibiting a person from killing another person robbing them of their personhood?”

    Wrong question. A fetus isn’t a person. There is no analogous situation for a fetus. This dishonesty goes to the heart of your immorality.

  • Thank you, ATF45. I very much agree with you.

    The monomaniacal single-issue focus on abortion (but not on any coherent, authentically pro-life approach) to politics has yielded very bitter fruit — an overtly racist politics that is deeply callous towards the poor and is as anti-life as can be imagined.

  • Spuddie,
    Your first sentence is like saying if you don’t like slavery, dob’t own one. If the unborn child is a human life, we all have a right, and possibly a duty, to say something. And you have done is to make one unsubstantiated claim after another. You act like human depends on whether one is dependent, and those on life support would beg to differ. You act like human depends on location, but how is a 9 month old unborn child less human than a child prematurely born at 7 months? Your criteria are not thought out, but are assumed. Let me ask, are you saying that there is no difference between a woman’s organ and the unborn child?

    You have done everything except to admit that you assume that the unborn child cannot be human., And your all-or-nothing thinking, which in most cases is not psychologically healthy, causes you to make one overstatement after another that cannot be backed. In addition, I understand the conflict because I understand that legitimate concerns on each side. You have this attitude that Martin Luther King Jr attribute to the West during the Vietnam War:


    The Western arrogance of
    feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from
    them is not just

    Let’s replace the word ‘Western’ with a fill-in-the-blank. Then we could say that you have the pro-choice arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach and nothing to learn. And you have counterparts on the pro-life side. It is arrogance to declare that you are completely right and that the other side is only evil. And that is what you have done.

    I only wish that with all your passion, you could actually discuss this subject like a rational person. But you haven’t. So come back after you can conduct like a rational adult who will speak with those who disagree as equals.

  • From your first sтuрid paragraph I’ll pass on even engaging you. Didn’t ask you in the first place. Run along now, please.

  • I asked you to run along. Then you asked me to help you understand things you don’t understand. I’m not your mother, stop pretending I am. Get lost.

  • FHRITP,
    I guess you’re impressed with yourself that you can use the imperative mood. Hate to break it to you but my kids mastered that mood since they were very young.

  • You’re “guessing,” you come to me for understanding, you stick your nose in a question asked to someone else. Now you’re telling me about your kids. I’M NOT YOUR MOTHER!! GO FIND SOMEONE ELSE TO BE ANNOYING TO PLEASE, BETA MALE!

  • We could bomb them back to the Stone Age, except they’re almost already there. Maybe we can sell their governments a lot of arms.

    We could not question where the money we gave them for years went. It worked for Ferdinand Marcos, who died a billionaire on a salary of $100K a year.

  • FHRITP,
    You certainly know how to flatter yourself. But can you talk about issues as an adult? The answer is ‘no’ if your self-esteem is based on insulting others.

  • Curt. I’ve been following the discussion between you and Spuddle, I think it might help to talk about definitions. A fetus is a biological growth that is part of the women.
    It is alive as all biological growths are. It is special because it is a potential human person. A person is capable of experiencing and becoming conscious of its world, feeling pain and pleasure etc. A fetus in not capable of these until its cortex has developed enough, which is in the third trimester.

    Until this time a fetus is not a person. An abortion would end the formation of a person before there is a person to kill.

    Only a women can support the formation of a baby. Only she is responsible to make the decision to do this.

  • Bob,
    Sorry, but your definition does not match the definitions, whether from medical sources or not, that I have read. The fetus is referred as an unborn offspring. But what distinguishes the fetus from earlier stages is that its major structures have been formed.

    Is the fetus inside the woman? Yes. Is the fetus like an organ, a muscle, or some other part of the woman? No. And what distinguishes a 7 month premature baby from a 9 month fetus? It’s location. Why does the fetus’s location determine whether it is a human life?

  • Curt,
    The key is consciousness without it, its alive but not yet a person. This is a different situation from someone in a coma. That is a person as it has had experiences, that is it has lived and is living,

  • Bob,
    First, why is consciousness the key? Second, what do we know about the consciousness of an unborn child? Is the consciousness of a 9 month old unborn child less than that of the 7 month old? Doesn’t the unborn child have experiences in the womb?

  • What, specifically, is a Talibama? (Exact fact-driven definition please.)
    We all love wordsmithing, but making sense is a virtue as well.

    If you’re merely trying to accuse folks of extremism, hatred, bigotry, that highway runs straight through your “liberal” California. Those weird and terrifying wildfires almost appear openly symbolic of what’s going on in people’s hearts & minds & belief systems. Including the SF Bay Area of course.

    So forget about ragging on Alabama. Look at your own state, as I must also look at mine. All 50 are in real trouble.

  • So in St. Luke’s gospel, when Mary, maybe 2 weeks pregnant, was addressed as “Mother of my Lord”, she was not a mother?

    So the child was not a child & the Holy Spirit got it wrong?

  • It would be good is you could provide references, as to your statements on ranking of the US vs “developed nations, & how they arrived at their conclusions.

    I remember seeing one UN survey where the rating was highly influenced by having, or not having, a government health care program, without any consideration on outcomes.

    One of my favorite books was “How to Lie with Statistics”, & how polls can be rigged to come up with desired results. So until ones gets into the dirty details, along with is doing the polling & would they benefit from it.

  • “God created all of us humans in His image, and that makes us all equal.”

    You’re right. White evangelicals and their fellow travelers in communities of color have paid a horrendously high price for worshiping the false god of white supremacy, as they defended slavery and then opposed civil rights laws and the abolition of legal segregation.

    I suspect that price won’t be nearly as high, however, as the price white evangelicals and their tiny group of fellow travelers in communities of color are going to pay for worshiping the false god of patriarchal misogyny at this point in history.

    The choice of white evangelicals and their fellow travelers to place the moral monstrosity in the White House while lying about and denigrating his opponent — because she is a woman — has exposed a moral rottenness among a sector of American Christians that is now glaringly obvious to increasing numbers of people inside and outside the churches.

    Inside the churches, it’s spurring on the mass exodus of a generation of young people from the churches that was already underway before this debacle. Outside the churches, it has resulted in a tremendous loss of credibility for evangelical Christians and for Christians in general.

    This is, as you say, lamentable, when a fundamental message of the gospels is that we are all made equal in the eyes of God — male and female, gay and straight, black and white. The refusal of many Christians today to adhere to that message is alienating large niumbers of people from the message of Jesus — whose face is entirely different from the face of the man these Christians are choosing to worship as a false god.

    There is always a price for this kind of behavior, in a universe with moral rules, where God has the last word.

  • OK, so, let me see if I understand all this correctly: 

    The Apricot Wonder runs his mouth through the entire campaign, which started off asserting that all Mexicans in the US are drug dealers, rapists, etc. — although, inexplicably, a few of them are “good people.”  During that campaign, he condemned any number of people based on all sorts of ridiculous rationales (such as, John McCain isn’t a war hero because he’d been captured, and the AW likes people who weren’t captured), tossed personal insults around like they were candy, and otherwise acted like he was 70 going on 7 

    Yet …. evangelicals were fine with that. Sure, he was infantile, but he was their guy. 

    The Apricot Wonder can’t manage to cite scripture in a usual way … especially as evangelicals themselves would. Yet …. evangelicals were fine with that. Sure, he’s Biblically ignorant, but he was their guy. 

    The Apricot Wonder had a long and proud history of womanizing — he promoted his “playboy” image himself, acting as his own P.R. rep in order to do it. He’s twice divorced. And he was caught on audio tape confessing to multiple instances of sexual assault and getting away with it because he was “a star” and by virtue of that could get away with “anything.” Yet …. evangelicals were fine with that. Sure, he’s predatory against women, but he was their guy. 

    Once in office, the AW continued to rage and bluster and fume about anything and everything, generally still carrying on like a sniveling crybaby. Along the way, he’s endangered our relations with allies and neutral countries, and he continues to treat anyone who’s not a white man like crap. Yet …. evangelicals were fine with that. Sure, he’s rude, juvenile, and can’t control himself, but he was their guy. 

    Now, however, … he talks about “s—hole countries” — and, suddenly — maybe magically! — evangelicals finally decide that, possibly, maybe, perhaps, the AW may finally have gone too far. 

    Really!? 

    This is what it took for them finally to decide the AW’s antics may have gone too far … ? What made all of his previous immature hijinks acceptable, but a “s—hole countries” suddenly awakened them to the guy’s monumental lack of anything resembling character? 

    Sorry, but I’m not buying any of it. At all. Evangelicals made their bed when they supported the AW’s candidacy, two years ago when they already knew what kind of man (or, more specifically, man-boy) he was. I am nowhere near stupid enough to now believe they’ve finally “seen the light” (to use a religious expression). What I think is that the AW’s crybaby antics have gone on for so long that they’ve finally understood just how bad he makes them look … and they’re reacting as though they actually object to the guy. I don’t believe that for one single moment. 

    Evangelicals made the Apricot Wonder and got him into the Oval Office. He’s your man, guys. You backed him, you got him. It’s time to toughen up and admit it. If he’s carrying on like an infant, then get off your sorry behinds and do something about it already. Just telling people you object to his latest childish comment does not, in any way, constitute “doing something about it.” It’s just an attempt at disavowal … which is useless and carries no weight whatsoever. 

    The time to do something — and I do mean, “do something” — is now. Either evangelicals will do it, or they won’t. Pardon me if I don’t assume they’re capable of it, or even want to. I think, deep down, evangelicals love the guy — and are especially fond of his childish antics — and don’t really wish there to be any change in him. They just don’t want others to think poorly of them, because of him. 

    Speaking for myself, though, that ship has already sailed. I already think poorly of evangelicals, and this only sets that in concrete. 

  • You don’t support the born and the unborn do not ever need your alleged support. The fact that you think you have any role in the personal and intimate decisions of women and what goes on in their bodies is immoral narcissistic crap in of itself. Not your body, you have no say in the matter. Your inability to recognize that demonstrates the contempt you have for people. Your position is just self righteous preening. Pretending a moral stance with dishonest language and slogans, but really showing contempt and utter disregard for the most basic form of respect and support one gives people.

  • How many anti-choice advocates support the two best ways to prevent abortion? Sex education and access to birth control.
    How many anti-choice advocate support programs that help with prenatal care for the mother to be like SNAP? How about CHIP that provides medical coverage for children?
    That is the point. That is why anti-choice =/= pro-life and is morally bankrupt.

  • J_Bob,

    Below are some of the references available. I cannot find the one I was citing at the time because I was citing it from memory. This way you can read for yourself what they are basing their findings on:

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2016/01/04/which-countries-have-the-highest-rates-of-child-poverty-infographic/#2a186e301c68

    https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/06/these-rich-countries-have-high-levels-of-child-poverty/

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/04/15/map-how-35-countries-compare-on-child-poverty-the-u-s-is-ranked-34th/?utm_term=.5285c4285daa

    As far as lying with stats, that is an good point to raise. But though we quibble over the exact placement of the US regarding placement, the general area in the rankings is an indicator of real problems.

  • Sarah,
    Your first question raises an excellent point. I would say not enough because those things are outside of how many pro-lifers want to control society.

    As for your second question, I am not sure. I do know that they run centers that help women who are pregnant and struggling. Unfortunately, what is part & parcel of the religion of many pro-lifers but not necessarily a part of the pro-life thinking is that it is assumed government programs cannot work. That assumption comes from a lot of arrogance.

  • tatoo,
    The sentence following the ‘Yes’ is true. But fetuses can exist outside the body after 7 months of gestation or maybe a bit shorter than that. The word ‘fetus’ refers to the unborn who are old enough to have their major structures already formed. The transition from embryo to fetus begins around the 10th week. They start to become viable at 20 weeks. Obviously the longer the gestation, the more probable that the fetus can survive outside the womb.

  • You sold your soul to the Devil, so to speak. You lost any sense of honor or integrity that you may ever have had and are now but a hollow shell of a human being.

    Clinton was indeed incredibly stupid with her basket of deplorables remark and she paid for it. Trump hasn’t paid for any of his remarks, yet. BUT I think he is running out of time, the chickens are coming home to roost!

  • You REALLY think that 45 is going to campaign on restricting abortion? Abortion is a tool for the GOP/TP. They have to have the issue or they wouldn’t get elected. Eliminating it would ensure they go tot he dustbin of history. Evangelicals were openly mocked by Rove and Bush.

  • At the restaurant you had a choice between the steak dinner and a plate of dog poo with crushed glass……..and you asked how the steak was prepared.

  • “it is a matter of taking a human life”
    Do you get upset about ‘god’ taking 20-25% of all fetuses naturally?

  • Only a slight correction. A person is a distinct and autonomous human being. One has to be born to be a person. Their bodies independent of attachment to another human body to survive.

    My argument is entirely based on where a fetus resides and how it exists.

  • ” I do know that they run centers that help women who are pregnant and struggling. ”

    Not really. They have this nasty habit of lying to women about their options and what can happen.

  • Even before this Shit-hole comment, any religious leader who stayed with Trump was an amoral hypocrite. No moral person can support Trump.

  • Your poor little feelings got hurt, so you decided to destroy our country. This is why ‘None’ is the fastest growing religion. No one who has morals, likes their fellow humans wants to be associated with people who would support Trump.

  • I don’t know why these leaders are surprised, it isn’t like Trump didn’t give plenty of examples of the oft-times crudity of his language during the campaign. So why should they be shocked that he used a scatalogical (if accurate) term for economically depressed and educationally backward countries?

  • Spuddie,
    You assumed those were facts that spoke that spoke without bias about everyone who works in those centers? You don’t know anyone, let alone everyone, in those centers and yet you spoke about all of them. And you have an article that speaks from an antagonistic position against the pro-life side.

    Real studies that present facts to so objectively. Not saying that the CPCs are without fault. But your article proves nothing except that a filtered story written from an antagonistic position is be presented as what happens in every single case. If you knew the rules of logic, you would understand how implausible your position is. But you don’t. But instead, you employ the rules anger and hate. If you want to talk about specific faults of the CPCs, that is fine. But you deny them from having any positive contributions. And you do without evidence and not know what is involved with proving your claim.

    I am surprised you actually provided some documentation since you failed to provide any documentation about the biology involved. Do you remember how you claimed that yhour position was a biological reality but never provided any evidence?

  • Spuddie,
    BTW, if you want to read more documentation, you can try the following:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/249931/crisis-pregnancy-centers-new-york-city-what-misinformation-greg-pfundstein

    https://pregnancyhelpnews.com/care-net-report-delivers-valuable-snapshot-of-pregnancy-centers

    http://www.ababysbreath.org/about/testimonials.html

    http://www.ababysbreath.org/about/history.html

    Again, places like CPCs are not without fault, but neither are places that advise that abortion is an option without the risk of some serious consequences.

    To speak about either side as being totally negative is to exhibit bigotry and the kind of thinking that makes each group think that it has everything to teach and nothing to learn.

  • Anti-choice =/= pro-life. Who is they? Most of the anti-choice crowd are trying to shut down clinics that provide prenatal services.
    This might be a good opportunity to show skeptics like me Christian organizations that provide prenatal services at little or no cost to poor mothers.
    But my suspicion is that they are considerably more progressive and don’t support the orange traitor.

  • Sarah,
    First, Anti-choice is not equal to prol-life. Pro-life is concerned about all of life, not just about aborting embryos and fetuses. Some of whom you would call anti-choice are really pro-life. But, unfortunately, most are not.

    Second, it is wrong for anti-choice advocates to shut down those centers. They should focus on ending abortion. But they should not forget the other services provided.

    Third, there are organizations that provide such services but they are heavily criticized because they recommend against aborition.

  • 3 of them are from the same source, already noted for dishonesty. The national review article is a rather poorly written and reasoned op ed to lamely cover for news articles like the one I linked to

    CPC centers flat out lie to people about abortion. Many aren’t even run by people qualified to give the medical advice they dispense.

    Your side is totally negative. You don’t bring anything to the table to discuss reasonably because you are not interested in doing so. You are lying to people and trying to force your way into personal decisions where you do not belong. I respect the lives of people, you do not.

  • It also turns out that Republicans can’t plausibly deny anymore the president is both racist and a dolt.

  • I thought you atheists didn’t believe in the existence of souls or devils. Oh well.

    (And by the way….Hillary DID lose the election. Time to get over it already. Start today?)

  • Did you look up Eric Williams — aka Eric WhoRu? Listen to his really early audio files from RBN. He was pretty good at always giving a summary of his POV. How he discovered the true meaning of “Sovereignty”. Great stuff.

  • “A universe with moral rules, where God has the last word.”

    Yeah, that’s good ‘n’ eloquent. But maybe we better be careful what we’re wishin’ for around here, ’cause I don’t think these I-Hate-Trump types got much of ANY clue in their heads about how much weight those eleven words just might carry for this nation.

  • Are you purposely uninformed or what all those crimes against people of color were done by democrats you need to do some research and maybe you’ll come off the plantation if not then oh well.. Democrats are racist have always been racist they’re just excellent Liars anyone that supports abortion of black babies is a racist. Now go get some knowledge and holla back at me. Peace

  • Good question, but my guess is 50/50.

    However, I would also guess that most pro-lifers go with the Biblical commandment, in the original Hebrew:

    “Not shall you shed innocent blood”

  • It would be interesting to read, if one had the time, to look at a minimum 2 pro & con views on that problem.

    From the limited number of Dr’s I know, I hear a different tune on foreign health care, where emphasis is on procedures not outcomes, as is not unusual in government institutions.

  • One comment on the Forbes short ref., Look at all the Trillions of $’s the US taxpayers gave those higher ranking countries (except the Swiss), in order to

    have those nice ratings. Along with keeping the Communists out.

    Seems only the Western European countries are on the list, where are the Eastern ones?

  • Spuddie,
    All you have in your response are attempts to discredit sources that disagree with you. Your slam on the Nation Review article addresses no relevant points. And your attempts to discredit the two centers reported offers no details or documentation.

    Again, all you offer here is all-or-nothing thinking. Those opposed to elective abortions are are evil and have produced nothing good is your mantra. Logically speaking, it is an untenable position but you don’t realize that because you arguing by anger and emotion, not logic.

    In addition, you have never produced documentation about the biological reality of your claim. In fact, most of what you have are claims. And any legitimate criticisms of the anti-abortion side, and there are legitimate criticisms, you use to make overgeneralizations. That is what you did with what was valid from the Salon article.

    You are simply arguing emotionally, not logically. And that kind of arguing is sometimes, certainly not all the time, based in bigotry.

  • J_Bob,
    There are no nations, other than our own, that express interest in outcomes? Meanwhile, what are our outcomes for those who don’t have wealth or good insurance?

  • All people have souls Mr. floydlee. Atheist just don’t accept the belief that a soul is an entity separate unto its self! Our soul is the nature the core of who we are as a human being. It is made up of all our physical parts as well as all that we learn and all that happens to us over the course of our lives. Once our life is gone, so goes our soul.

  • J_Bob,
    You might be interested to know that Germany gives more in development aid to countries than it receives from the US. The same goes for the United Kingdom. 15% of the US aid given to Germany is military aid. With military aid, the money never sees the destination country. Rather, it goes directly to US corporations that send the military equipment to Germany.

    The average aid given to nations in the region in which Germany resides is $30m with Germany receiving $5.5M, the UK receiving $3.9M and the Netherlands receiving -$868K. If you look at the list, you will see that Israel has worse healthcare than the US and yet Israel receives close to if not the most aid. Guess at what much of that aid is.

    BTW, where are the Eastern European nations? The list was comparing the wealthiest nations.

    And btw, is installing brutal dictators really preferable to keeping Communists like Gorbachev out? Was Yeltsin preferable to Gorbachev? Is Putin? Was starting an almost now 40 year-old war in Afghanistan preferable to a Soviet backed government that protected the rights of women?

  • Thank you for your silence on my request for the names of any conservative or “non-liberal” media. Your silence is positively deafening–not that we needed any more evidence about your thinking, or the kin d of person you are.

  • As far as you’re concerned, Republicans can’t “plausibly deny” anything. But in the meantime, NO ONE can plausibly deny that Haiti is indeed a “s***hole country” – or at the very least, “a country of s***holes” – so the President’s alleged remark can’t be faulted from the standpoint of accuracy. This whole flap is another tempest in a pee-pot.

  • “so the President’s alleged remark can’t be faulted from the standpoint of accuracy.”

    Of course it can be.

    The issue is not really the description of the country and salty language. Its the white supremacist friendly notion that people from there are worthless to our country as immigrants.

    This whole flap is because we have a president who has utter disdain for his office and any notion of appropriate behavior.

  • “… the white supremacist friendly notion that people from there are worthless to our country as immigrants.”
    No, not “worthless”… uneducated, unskilled immigrants are hardly “worthless” – especially to the Elite, who need the cheap labor and the votes (they’re the REAL “supremacists,” and you do a good job of shilling for them). But clearly, the underlying issue is whether we should have a merit-based standard for admission to the citizenship process or an emotion-based one. That should be a no-brainer for most folks, unless 1) you’re a recent immigrant who wants his whole extended family to be with him regardless of any other consideration, or 2) you want the U.S. to be flooded with low-skilled, un-assimilatable immigrants for political reasons. I don’t think you’re a recent immigrant.

  • What an ignorant and dishonest response.

    Legal immigration, is always skilled labor or those who can sustain themselves economically. It has been that way for the last 2-3 generations. Family visas require a showing that the person being sponsored will not be a burden on the state.

    Your idea of “merit based” immigration is a code word for the neo-nazi inspired attacking of family based immigration. The RAISE Act proposed by white supremacists and favored by our racist President.

    Family based immigration is one of the largest forms of legal immigration and a huge source of investment of capital and skills into the US. What essentially spurs small business growth in immigrant groups. The “Diversity Lottery” is only for people who could qualify for a green card’s financial requirements.

    Your take on how family immigration works is contrary to actual facts. Visas are only granted to certain levels of relation to a citizen/LPR. “The whole extended family” thing is an outright lie on your part. As mentioned earlier, low skilled unassimilatible immigrants aren’t part of family immigration either.

    You are nothing but an ignorant lying bigot who wants to attack successful legal immigration to keep people of color out of the country.

  • Well, we almost had a discussion going there — until you reverted to type and resorted to your hole-card — ad hominem attacks on the character and motives of your opponent. “No — you’re just a bigot” is your ultimate comeback to everything, isn’t it? I’m sure you win a lot of arguments that way inside your little bubble of moral superiority, but outside of it, that approach puts the quash on any possibility of a serious, back-and-forth discussion — if a person truly has corrupt motives, talking about the “issues” only cedes them a false moral equivalency; for true “bigots,” the proper response is not “discussion” but suppression. For efficiency’s sake, you should just say “I’m not talking to you” — unless (as I suspect is the case) you just like to hear yourself talk.

  • Actually we didn’t.

    You started off with an irrelevancy which missed the point.

    Then you went into outright lying about family based immigration which is used to support the white supremacy friendly RAISE Act. Something which would please bigots of all stripes and hobble the country in the process.

    I see no need to take a conversation with you seriously either. 🙂

    It doesn’t help you in attacking my air of moral superiority when you had to flat out lie to support your statements. You have obviously corrupt motives and engaged in obviously corrupt discourse.

  • I’m going to stick with discussion mode for long enough to point out that your assumption of a “lie” is actually a misunderstanding. In the context of the immigration issue as a whole, I presented two reasons for wanting relaxed standards of entry, one of them arguably “legitimate,” based on the family connection (of course – who wouldn’t want their family about them), and one of them illegitimate – a cynical political maneuver. In its own way, the reference was actually a nod to the integrity of the immigrant’s motives – my point being that you didn’t have the immigrant’s (arguably legitimate) personal motives, so your motives would be supercilious, cynical and political.

    But you could only read it as a “lie,” because (guess what) your mind was fully made up way ahead of time about my interior mental and emotional state – a subject about which, I can reliably declare, you know absolutely nothing.

    You really should put the motto “NO, YOU’RE JUST A BIGOT” underneath your picture of the Spuddiesaurus.

  • Don’t bother. I am not particularly Interested how else you want to spin the white supremacist agenda.

    Once you started lying about legal immigration to support the turd of a bill called the RAISE act, there was no point in pretending your have a reasonable view.

    You flat out lied about family based immigration. Stuff which is so obviously untrue all one had to do is look at USCIS requirements for family visas to see how full of crap you are.
    Your “reasons” were utter garbage because your assumptions were wildly false. Something that could not he passed off as a mistake, but willful ignorance or denial of facts of the matter.

    As a rule, conservatives are virtually all, not only ignorant of immigration laws, but they make zero effort to find out about it before spouting off. You are no exception.

    The only thing I ever have to say in reaction to your posts is to point out how full of crap you are.

    BTW don’t be too surprised at being called a bigot. You post some of the most racist, sectarian, nativist, and even antisemitic garbage seen on this site. You should be used to it.

  • I don’t know why I keep trying to talk reason to someone infected with ideological mania, but for the benefit of any interested observers, I’ll make one more try.

    I made NO comment about “family-based immigration” at all, OTHER than to raise it as a potential motive for wanting relaxed immigration standards – your alleged “lie” is a figment of your own fevered imagination, period, and so is the rest of your wildly off-target rant. I’m happy to engage you on anything I’ve actually said, but ’m not going to rise to defend offenses you’ve invented.

    Now go ahead and sign off with your signature slur: “No – you’re just a bigot.”

  • Do you consider it reasonable then for me to conclude that those who support it value human life differently depending on behavior and that they place greater value on the lives of some animals than the lives of those on death row?

  • She stated, “so to speak” which means she acknowledged that was a saying. You aren’t so moronic that you didn’t know that, are you? Why then did you even mention it? You were whining about it to be dramatic, yes?

  • You ARE deplorable. After all, you do get your morals by worshipping and pledging your allegiance to an imaginary, very angry, very petty and vengeful deity who chooses to torture children by the billions who have never been exposed to Christianity, for eternity, for no other reason than being born to parents who teach them to worship other imaginary deities, right? Doesn’t get much more deplorable than that!

  • Reason? You lied like a cheap rug in order to make a bigoted talking point about family based immigration. I am not going to pretend you were engaging in a serious good faith discussion.

    Seriously anyone remotely knowledgeable about the subject could see you were full.of crap.

  • Not to mention Sen. Dicky Democrat Durbin — was outed by the Obama White House for making up comments by Republicans at a leadership meeting with President Obama.

  • And that excuses the support of terrible behavior by our current president?

    Whataboutism is about the only way you can defend the disgrace in the White House. Otherwise you have to bother to address the various ways he has brought shame upon the office and our nation.

    Like this current remark where he demonstrates the blatant racism inherent in conservative views of immigration. Its not that there is no room for immigrants in this country, he just doesn’t like their complexion or ethnicity.

    Hillary Clinton was wrong, deplorables was far too mild a term.

  • Another dishonest trolling POS. All those Dixiecrat racists became the backbone of the Republican Party. You are their legacy.

    Read this and shut your lying piehole.
    https://weeklysift.com/2012/12/03/a-short-history-of-white-racism-in-the-two-party-system/

    Seriously, do you ever get a reaction to this crap other than calling you a malicious liar and people demonstrating your assertions are garbage? Its not even meant to be taken seriously anymore. Its what people say when they want to rile up Democrats.

  • When a source is noted by news agencies to be dishonest, quoting them directly doesn’t make them more credible.

    You are the one who is so distrustful and disdainful of a woman’s personhood that you can’t even bring yourself to respect their lives, choices and opinions as to what goes on in their own body. There is no middle ground here if you can’t respect such basic things.

    “In addition, you have never produced documentation about the biological reality of your claim.”

    If you can’t understand why a fetus can’t be removed from its mother prior to birth and live an independent existence, you can’t possibly have anything of value to bring to a discussion on pregnancy and family planning choices. You are ignoring the most important facts of the matter.

    Your whole spiel relies on ignoring the fact that a fetus lives inside its mother and is utterly dependent on her bodily systems until birth. If you have trouble with that condition, blame the designer.

  • Spuddie,
    But Salon is a left-leaning news agency. That doesn’t imply everything they write is wrong. But it does have a leaning.

    BTW, since you so heavily depned on news agencies, how did you miss the following from Reuters on the appeals court striking down a Baltimore law requiring all pregnancy centers to mention abortion as an alternative (see https://www.reuters.com/article/us-baltimore-abortion/court-voids-baltimore-law-requiring-no-abortion-clinic-disclaimers-idUSKBN1EU1X1 )?


    Circuit Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, however, wrote for the
    Richmond, Virginia-based appeals court that Baltimore’s approach
    amounted to “too loose a fit” with those ends.

    “The ordinance forces the center to utter in its own waiting room words at odds with its foundational beliefs and with the principles of those who have given their working lives to it,” he wrote. “Without proving the inefficacy of less restrictive alternatives, providing concrete evidence of deception, or more precisely targeting its regulation, the city cannot prevail.”

    So deception wasn’t proved by the city of Baltimore according to the Appeals judge. And that was reported by a well known news agency and you get your information from news agencies.

  • Spuddie,
    your binary vision, which the Cold War showed to be an impairment, is not an enhancement,

    So can you provide the documentation that shows news agencies proving how the sources I documented were dishonest?

    And while you claim something to be a biological reality, you need documentation. Your line of argument begs the question. And begging the question is a logical fallacy.

    II didn’t ignore any facts about the relationship between the mother and the unborn child. I just said that that relationship does not negate the human status of the unborn child any more than being on life support negates the human status of the person who is dependent on those machines.

  • More bad analogy to avoid the point here.

    Unless you are willing to concede that the choice for keeping a pregnancy is the woman’s and hers alone, there is no point in pretending middle ground has to exist. There is no such thing as a compromise of basic rights.

    Middle ground is acknowledging abortion may be a bad thing, but respecting the right to have one. Working to make it less likely by supporting family planning, young families and the poor.

    You don’t appear willing to make that concession, so your talk of binary thinking is strictly because of your stance. You are a hypocrite.

  • Indeed. And as I pointed out it is consciousness of self, of their own nature, of who they are as a human being.

    Though it also implies consciousness of others and of the world around them. Which my definition didn’t specify but didn’t disallow.

  • You are the one stuck on the election Mr. floydlee. I pointed out that Clinton was incredibly stupid with her basket of deplorables remark and that she paid for it.

    You still haven’t admitted that Trump hasn’t paid for his remarks, far more egregious than hers! But his time to pay the piper is coming.

  • Salon has never been accused of lying to the public nor documented as doing so. CPC’s have been documented from a variety of sources as doing so. Most aren’t even run by medical personnel.

    Actually the ruling also is a flat out admission that those clinics will not discuss abortion in a factually accurate fashion and are there to deliberately steer women away from it. It turned on the notion of the disclaimer law being against deeply held beliefs of the people running the clinic. Meaning religious concerns overtaking the need to be honest. Again the need to lie in service of your beliefs undermines pretensions of moral standing here. Just because one claims it is their religious beliefs, doesn’t make it any less dishonest.

  • Spuddie,,
    What does your statement about Salon prove? That everything in it is exactly right? It has a high rating for factual reporting but not the very highest. In addition, stories that are slanted to the right or left in terms of interpreting news is not always called nor should it.

    And yes, the ruling states that however it also says that they shouldn’t be required to. But the ruling also shows that there was no proof of deception.

    You need to take off the binary vision glasses before there is permanent damage.

  • Spuddie,
    When the woman decides to get an abortion, she determines the fate of another human being. Why should she have the right to determine the fate of another human being?

    Sorry, but what we have with the abortion issue is a collision of rights. And with such collisions, distinctions have to be made so as to weigh interests of equal value.

  • When a woman decides to have an abortion, your opinion is neither necessary nor asked for. It’s in her body. Your concern for it is meaningless in light of that fact.

    Your desire to “protect” it doubles as your desire to attack it’s mothers personhood.

    “Why should she have the right to determine the fate of another human being?”

    Because it uniquely requires her body and will to exist. Her body, her right.

    There is no collision of interests here because you have no legitimate interest here. You are simply barging into lives of others nobody asked or needs your input here.

  • Nope. Still there. You are a lying troll. It’s ironic you pretend others are racist but then engage in a patently racist argument. Essentially saying minorities are too dumb to vote like you do.

    I know I am wasting time with such a dishonest turd here, but Sparky, if Republicans weren’t so beholden to white supremacist policies, they would have a huge % of minorities in their fold. Many groups have large conservative populations. But they go diving for cover with the DNC when you guys attack their communities.

    As for eating, you have done Commisar Borsht well. For your trolling, you earn your black bread and vodka ration. Dasvidaniya Comrade. You may return to your quarters in the gulag.

  • WE have gotten over it long ago. YOU are the ones who keep bringing her up. It’s like your security blanket. When Golden Showers screws up yet again, and your guilt over helping to elect the Worst President in American History flares up again, what is there to do but grab your lovie?

  • She regretted saying half because it was less than half, not more. Either way, it was an unforced error, one of her worst.

  • Do you mean 8 in 10? Which would be 0.8 of the population subset. Otherwise, it’s a weird way to be statistically exact.

  • “Our obligation is to pray that God will work in his heart”

    Any plan that requires us to pray that god will fix Trump is a really terrible one, and is guaranteed to fail. What a ridiculous thing to say.

  • Spuddie,
    All you can do here is to make claims. You have provided only 1 piece of documentation while not acknowledging the fact that document disagrees with your position.

    If all you are going to do is to make claims, then talk to yourself.

  • Well, you’re definitely hoping for your piper pal Robert Mueller to strike up the tune. We’ll see what song he eventually plays.

    But meanwhile, doesn’t it seem a little weird to you (or slightly over the top, or something), to be omnisciently declaring other folks to be “but a hollow shell of a human being”, when all you really know is that they voted for Trump as a perceived lesser of two evils?

    Just seems a little too stuck on 2016, to me.

  • Spuddie,
    A 9 month-old fetus is more biologically developed as a human being than a 7 month-old prematurely born baby. But if a parent, regardless of which one, decides to kill the prematurely born child, it is society’s business because that a human being.

    That is what we are talking about. We are talking about the taking of human life. And the location or dependency of that life does not change its human status.

    Does a woman have rights to her body? Certainly, every human being does. And that is why there is a collision of rights here. The unborn child is a human being as is the mother. Location and dependency do not make us less human.

  • Because Trump never wanted DACA to happen to begin with. He poisoned the well and now is going to try to blame Democrats for the plan’s failure.

  • No, what makes the pro-life position look bad is calling anyone who disagrees with them baby killers.

  • Immaterial consciousness, that is. And maybe that immaterial consciousness was created by an immaterial God!!

  • Arbustin,
    I believe that reducing pro-life to the abortion issue is what partially causes the calling of others ‘baby killers.’ I fully agree that that practice hurts the pro-life position.

  • This case is primarily about the First Amendment, not whether CPCs engage in deceptive practices. In any event, the Court only addressed whether Baltimore proved that deception was occurring in Baltimore CPCs, not whether any CPCs anywhere engage in deceptive practices.

  • No because many of those folks still support Trump after a years worth of further proof of the type of man that he is.

  • Someone else saying shithole in a completely different context, not even related to politics or even real life, is not even close to relevant.

  • Seems like there are a lot of Eastern European nations that aren’t looking too great these days (like Slovenia, home of Trump’s illegal immigrant wife). Why weren’t they mentioned in the Great Leader’s rant?

  • It can’t be a “lie” if it wasn’t a “statement” to begin with.

    You can’t seem to get it into your head that I made NO statement about “family based immigration” at all – none whatsoever – EXCEPT as a reference in passing, on the way to making a point about your self-righteous moral preening. Maybe that’s why you don’t want to deal with what I actually said, and plunged straight into your reflexive talking points instead. You’re right – we weren’t having a “discussion.” I was talking to you and you were busy talking down to some weird caricature of “conservatives” lodged deep in your own brain. By all means, keep him in there – I’m sure you two have a lot of fun together.

  • Arbusin,
    BUt the explicit from the judge was that there was no proof of deception. Not only that, Baltimore’s law was meant to stop what the city considered to be deceptive advertising. Thus, this statement about the city not being able to prove that deception took place is an important part of the decision. Please note what an earlier part of the article linked to above said about the purpose of Baltimore’s law:


    Maryland’s largest city had argued that its 2009 law was meant to
    address deceptive advertising and reduce the potential health risks from waiting too long to have an abortion.

  • Yes, the Court ruled that Baltimore did not prove these CPCs — if there is even more than one in Baltimore — were engaging in deceptive advertising. Because the law is the government directing persons to engage in speech, it’s a high burden to prove. It doesn’t mean other CPCs aren’t engaging in deceptive advertising.

  • Arbustin,
    Many people have opinions on abortion. And if you group those opinions together, you will find within each group those who are objective and those who are partisan. Those who are objective are not threatened by facts that do not support their opinion. Those who are partisan are so threatened.

    Spin it anyway you want, the decision provides evidence that not all of the accusations about deception are true. That doesn’t mean that there are not some centers that are deceptive. But, without offering any percentages, the judge’s opinion offers evidence that not all use deception.

    Unfortunately, we live in an age where we suffer from a binary vision syndrome when addressing issues and looking at groups. All too often, too many people have this syndrome and thus look at the other side as being totally wrong and evil. It is a carry over from the Cold War days.

  • Oh brother. Now you are trying to weaselword and equivocate a position you made perfectly clear. One based on having absolutely no knowledge of the situation.

    Whatever. After your last few posts, I really have no interest in your POV. You want to pretend people who want to maintain the family visa program are trying to flood the country with unskilled labor. I am telling you you are full of crap and noting how you are repeating a white supremacist trope.

    Nothing more needs to be said.

  • The President was out of line in his language as we have to work with these countries for our own good. Of course he is a racist. Almost all people are xenophobic, it is just more people have it under control these days. . Many of the immigrants who come here legally from poor countries are some of the brightest and well educated but cannot find good jobs in their home countries. Some countries are currently S__hole countries and that is why so many folks want to leave and immigrate to the US. But there is good in every nation if you look around. In the 1800s, many countries that are fine today could be described a S__hole nations certainly for poor people such as Ireland, Germany, Norway, Sweden, England, Poland, Japan, China and Italy, etc.

  • (1) According to William Ruhlmann, ” Bruce Springsteen: Biography by William Ruhlmann”, ALLMusic:

    “The wonder of [Bruce Springsteen’s] nearly unbroken string of critical and commercial success is that he achieved it while periodically challenging his listeners by going off in unexpected directions, following his muse even when that meant altering the sound of his music or the composition of his backup band, or making his lyrical message overtly POLITICAL. … Clarence … Clemons’ last recorded solo appeared on ‘Land of Hope and Dreams,’ one of many POLITICALLY charged songs on the resulting album, Wrecking Ball.”

    (2) According to Elizabeth Lyon, A Writer’s Guide to Fiction, Penguin, 2004:

    “Within narration, you have a vast number of choices for how to begin. Because narration means telling, in contrast to a scene, which is showing, narration includes the following possibilities, each of which may offer you an effective story beginning: Exposition … Characterization … Environment … Events: in the present, past, or future, related to the immediate plot or related to a larger and/or philosophical or POLITICAL nature. Example: The Lovely Bones, by Alice Sebold.”

    (3) According to Anthony Lane, “Strangers: ‘In Bruges’ and ‘The Band’s Visit'”, The New Yorker, February 11 & 18, 2008 Issue:

    “No one wants a movie that tiptoes in step with political correctness, yet the willful opposite can be equally noxious, and, as “In Bruges” barges and blusters its way through dwarf jokes, child-abuse jokes, jokes about fat black women, and moldy old jokes about Americans, it runs the risk of pleasing itself more than its paying viewers. McDonagh is a garlanded playwright, famed for “The Pillowman” and “The Beauty Queen of Leenane,” and it comes as no surprise that this film (his first feature, after an Oscar-winning short entitled “Six Shooter”) should be menaced by its creator’s gifts. If your verbal facility streams along like McDonagh’s, it must be almost impossible to check the rush, and the result is a number of scenes that overspill their boundaries; he should have hired the fiercest editor in the business.”

    (4), (5), (6), (7) – I’m not going to spoonfeed you, ‘bruh! Research on your own. And do some serious nonpuerile-like thinking – covering all grounds – before commenting next time.

  • Oh yes it does.

    “You want to pretend people who want to maintain the family visa program are trying to flood the country with unskilled labor.”

    This is where your assumption gets turned into an outright invention. Try re-reading my original comment. I never said or implied the family visa program would flood the country with unskilled workers. I raised the family connection as one circumstance that would motivate people toward an inclusive view of immigration policy. I then raised the desire to flood the country with cheap labor as a distinctly different motivation, emanating from a distinctly different group, with different aims. I distinguished the two; ignoring that, you conflated them.

    But the real point of that whole paragraph was to suggest that since you lacked even the rationale of emotional ties to justify your stance, it was likely for more cynical and calculating political reasons – and THAT, I would suggest is why you didn’t want to follow the comment to its obvious conclusion (i.e., that you’re blinded by your ideology), but instead leaped over to one if your favorite themes (i.e., that your opponent is a bad person). The problem is that you had to invent an argument I never made in order to do it. That’s not just a “straw man” – that’s a man stuffed with imaginary straw (i.e., an empty set of clothes).

    But hey…I’m a bad person, and you’re not – and that’s what really counts, right?

  • Well, of course not – if you actually cared what I actually said, you’d have to engage with an actual person, instead of running through your catalog of tropes, memes, and themes to find one you can turn into another self-righteous high-horse. Moral preening: it’s what Spuddie’s all about…”No – you’re just a bigot” is his trademark put-down

  • You are complaining about being called a bigot, but not refuting it. Whiny snowflake is upset that I knew his playbook. Oh well.

  • Those who were there already established its veracity.

    I believe them over the Mendacious Mango. The two senators who denied it had just weasel worded. “The president said. Sht House, not Sht Hole”.

    Your excuses for the terrible behavior of our president are pretty weak stuff.

  • First of all, I don’t take orders from you, “bruh.” Second, I should introduce you to the Catholic individual who insisted yesterday that the painted scenes of the Last Judgment on the interior dome of Il Duomo (Santa Maria del Fiore) in Florence are actually “pornographic” because there are naked people. I think you’d get along really well. You seem to lack the same thing: an awareness of the basic communications principle that meaning is defined by context.

  • There is nothing more frustrating on Disqus than someone who won’t take yes for an answer.
    The Court’s opinion could not offer percentages of all CPCs because they weren’t relevant to the case. Only CPCs in Baltimore were relevant. This is not spin, it is a basic legal principle. The Court addressed Baltimore and nothing else.

  • Arbustin,
    Don’t know what you are talking about with taking ‘yes’ for an answer, but we are in some disagreement over the case. The law was passed because of the belief that CPCs, there is more than one btw, in the Baltimore area were practicing deception. Agreed that the ruling applied to those particular centers. But I wasn’t using them to prove that no centers practice deception. I was using the finding to show that not all do. And determining how many do can be tricky because what some call deception because of ideology or, let’s face it, antagonism others won’t.

    So far a broad accusation has been made about CPCs But insufficient evidence has been exhibited here to back that claim. And there is no reason to show frustration when I use the judge’s words to point to the centers in the Baltimore area as examples of centers that don’t use deception.

  • Meriam-Webster
    a : indicate, show: the clock says five minutes after twelve
    b : to give expression to : communicate a glance that said all that was necessary

  • Don’t waste further time. The poor guy is absolutely enslaved to his emotions. I’ve known a couple of people like that and they’re a drag on everyone’s energy if they’re taken too seriously. They can’t be reasoned with, although they can often be very funnily played with and exposed — sometimes even without their awareness.

  • Dixie-crats would never vote for American Black Civil rights. That would be IKE and the GOP.it is apparent that you know nothing about Dixie-crats .

  • LOL you have a little skill though.. put some real knowledge with that.. you’d be a power house and it wouldnt be so easy to destroy your positions. Peace

  • you are a fraud.. tryin to pose as an intellect.. go on back to your plantation Spuddieee, rhymes with Toby..yep you betta stay with massa until you can think for yourself. Peace.

  • Get back to me when you read a history book or three. Or just read that link I sent.

    I have no need to pretend you know what you are talking about. You had no desire for an adult conversation or obvious well known facts. Only lying trolls use your argument. You are not ignorant. Just a dishonest POS.

    Republicans are currently the party of white supremacist nonsense. Stop being such a snowflake and just own it.

  • Trump’s going down and you’re going to be wha-wha-wha forever after. Your savior is a punk and a bully.

  • they are doing it…they really think the SCOTUS will overthrow Roe v. Wade and imprison women who get abortions.

  • I think it’s note worthy that the most self-righteous of the Evangelical leaders (hear that, Franklin Graham?) have remained silent. They are very vocal about same-sex relationships (which Christ never mentioned) but have nothing to say about America’s sins against the poor.

  • Yeah, thanks for the reminder – anyone who hangs out on this comment board gets to be familiar with the type; voluble and full of self-righteous rage to exalt themselves and diminish others, as long as they feel like they’re on the offensive. But raise a challenge that takes them away from their talking points, or puts them otherwise off their game…and suddenly it’s:
    “Whatever.… I really have no interest in your POV” and “ZZZZZZZ I couldn’t care less what you have to say…”

    It is “fun” (or at least a diversion) to play with their pavlovian conditioning – to pull their triggers and watch them go off, so to speak. But that form of entertainment reaches a point of diminishing emotional returns pretty quickly, especially when the point of the joke goes whistling past its intended target completely – as we’ve repeatedly seen to happen. Still, they routinely present such fat and tempting rhetorical targets, it’s often difficult to just walk away.

  • I just want to check in real quick to see if Trump having sex with a porn star while his wife is at home with his newborn son is in accordance with your strict Christian values. I’ll wait for your answer.

  • Here’s the only “context” you need – ‘bruh!

    (1) “Screaming ‘racism’, ‘fascism’, and ‘supremacism’ just because someone has an individual opinion – no matter how disrespectful and offensive, though given that it doesn’t objectively conform to any of those three aforementioned terrible terms – is hypocritical because one can be certain that the person casting the stones also has their own ‘hierarchical’ views on something or another, even if they’re more ‘politely’ expressed.”
    – Andrew Korybko, “Is There Such a Thing As a ‘S***hole Country’?”,Oriental Review, January 13, 2018.

    (2) “Outrage about ‘s***holes’ is hypocritical. … Elite ‘progressives’ – Noam Chomsky, Tariq Ali — accept US power. It’s not just US power. It’s the ideological power of the rich North.”
    – Susan Babbitt, “Trump’s ‘S***holes’ Are an Easy Target”, Global Research, January 18, 2018.

  • Nope, you gotta troll elsewhere.

    They won’t give you bread and vodka twice for revisiting the same thread. You certainly don’t get points for creativity or declarations of victory.

    Took you two days to come up with that? Shouldn’t have bothered. So long Sparky.

ADVERTISEMENTs