Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Doug Giles :: Townhall.com Columnist
A Time to Clash
by Doug Giles
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Anger, like alcohol, is only bad if it’s abused; however, if used for right reasons and in right amounts (as the inspired Psalmist once said about wine), it can “make the heart merry.” Anger might not make you glad as quickly as a second glass of merlot can, but if channeled correctly, it will make you giddy about something you desire but can’t get—until you get angry.

For example: say you’re an unemployed, 38-year old guy who does nothing but sit on your butt playing video games, smoking weed, living with mommy and dating 18-year old girls and guys. You know what? You should get angry with yourself because you, clearly, aren’t top shelf tequila. You do not have a life, and it should make you mad that other people are actually productive—unlike you.

Need another example? Say you’re overweight. Remember what it used to be like to walk across Walmart’s parking lot without having to be gurneyed to your minivan by a paramedic? Remember the joy of not being able to hide small toys and half-eaten sandwiches between the folds of blubber on your body and being able to actually see your feet when you use the toilet? Remember those simple pleasures? You do? Does it make you mad that you don’t get to enjoy them any longer? It does?!? There you go . . . see how positive anger can be?

Folks, this righteous wrath not only works for personal improvement, but it can also change for the better all aspects of our society—if we’ll get righteously PO’ed in a precise direction. And there’s the rub . . . Our neutered nation tells us it’s a big no-no to get mad anymore.

That’s right, being angry is forbidden in our currently castrated culture—unless it’s something that the liberal thought police thinks you should be ticked at, and then you’re forced to fume also or you’re . . . you’re . . . you’re a . . . a Nazi!

Nowadays we’ve been forced to memorize this mantra of postmodernism that being nice and accepting of anything and everything—even if it is utter, uncut and unmitigated BS—is our duty. And it just so happens that BS is the chief characteristic of our society these days; we’re inundated with it but not supposed to be upset by it, which is convenient if you are its seller.

Because we have allowed “them” to program us to be nice and not heat up (unless, again, it is at something that upsets the Left), we don’t even blink an eye when we see the base and the vile; instead we force a smile. What a bunch of smack we’ve been sold vis-à-vis this whole uninterrupted “nice” wave we’ve been told we’re supposed to surf.

Today, people can do something appalling, say something contemptible and delve down the funnel exalting the lowest parts of humanity—and what’s to be our response? We’re supposed to say, “Well, alrighty then . . . okey dokey . . . have a nice day.”

Why do we show mock civility toward things that mock civility? Well, because “anger is bad.” And we don’t want to be bad, do we? No, we want to be nice. We’re supposed to be a chilled-out group of pleasant and complicit prawns who do the Miss America wave no matter what kind of insanity gets shoved in our faces, up our tail pipes or down our throats.

Well, as a free bird, I’m not buying the capitulate-your-convictions PC crack that our culture is currently dealing. As previously stated, anger ain’t all that bad boys and girls, and being nice when you should blow a gasket can aid and abet that which needs to be slapped down. Can you dig it? I knew you could.

So what gets my dander up? What/whom do I think is a threat to the US and that for which it stands? Or stood? What do I get freaked over?

Well, there are several things me no likey:

1. I don’t like our nation being threatened by Islamo-facsists. I think they should die on their turf and on our terms. Yes, I’m not buying this “religion of peace” yumminess.

2. I don’t like what democrats have become.

3. I don’t like people screwing around with my right to keep and bear arms.

4. I don’t like traditional values being trashed.

5. I don’t like folks who don’t like America.

6. I don’t like the slutification of our culture.

7. I don’t like metrosexuality.

8. I don’t like how our universities have become liberal madrasas.

9. I don’t like 11 year old girls being given birth control without parental notification by public school fools.

10. I don’t like the fact that teenage girls can have an abortion via the public school system without their parents knowing didly squat.

11. I don’t like second graders being told to read and embrace homosexual literature and lifestyle.

12. I don’t like our borders being violated by illegals.

13. I don’t like Christians being trashed at every turn in the mainstream media.

14. I don’t like gun free zones.

15. I don’t like sanctuary cities that house illegal aliens.

16. I don’t like the diminishing resolve I see in our War on Terror.

17. I don’t like how culture is making the white male out to be the Antichrist.

This is just a smattering of things I think stink of which I feel no compunction to accept. Matter of fact, folks, I think we ought to get righteously outraged and challenge those with such anti-sanity sentiments everywhere they raise their garlic-knotted heads. If we don’t solidly beat the Left and their ideologies everywhere they surface, the things we love as traditional Americans are going to end up as relics in a museum in a country that resembles a Tommy Lee keg party.

After 9/11 I decided I wasn’t going to spend my ministry on the sidelines of life naval gazing and choir preaching in a narcissistic Christian la-la land; if I’m going to live and work, it’s going to be a life of clashing with culture coarsening zombies and their dense ideas.

Since that decision not to be a beholden and silent cow to ripe and foul secular folly, I’ve had the fun and good fortune to carry out my mission on both major TV and radio shows across the nation, through writing five books, as well as through this weekly column on the nation’s largest conservative online news portal, Townhall.com. Yeehaw! Not bad for a redneck. God bless righteous outrage.

Lastly, in all honesty, as much as I enjoy being the provocateur, I’d really love to not stir things up, to be sweet like Joel Osteen or James Blunt and live a non-conflict life with my family sipping lemonade and fishing south Florida’s flats. However, sometimes the times demand that we put aside our smiley face and take off the gloves for the soul of our nation. I believe such a time has come.

Logon to www.clashradio.com and check out Doug Giles’ NEW VIDEO “Barack Obama is Change Crazy!”

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Doug Giles’ new book “If You're Going Through Hell, Keep Going!" is now available. Ann Coulter says "Doug Giles is a substantive and funny tour de force for traditional values.” Doug’s talk show and video blog can be seen and heard at www.ClashRadio.com.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Hey, doug
I remember a column of yours where you fantasized about smashing a gay person's head against the wall and breaking his hands until his fingers turned into shreds" --

Is that righteous anger? Or is it just your usual phoney "he-man" pose?

BTW
I'll just bet your local community college offers basic writing classes - all you have to do is make a call and they will send you a schedule. And, it's not expensive.

My goodness
“change for the better all aspects of our society—if we’ll get righteously PO’ed in a precise direction”

Now, there’s the real rub. Who decides the precise direction? Certainly not the self ordained leader of his own made up religion.

What does he want: “Because we have allowed “them” to program us to be nice and not heat up (unless, again, it is at something that upsets the Left)”? The same only Doug gets to do the programming for the Right.

Consider the list. In truth, it’s not all bad; but taken together, it shows Doug to be alarmingly similar to many on the Left.

1. I don’t like our nation being threatened by Islamo-facsists. I think they should die on their turf and on our terms. Yes, I’m not buying this “religion of peace” yumminess.
Fair enough, there is no such thing as a religion of peace and a threat is a threat no matter where it comes from.

2. I don’t like what democrats have become.
Agreed, and I don’t like what Republicans have become either.

3. I don’t like people screwing around with my right to keep and bear arms.
Neither do I. I just want to plug the holes that the criminals use.

4. I don’t like traditional values being trashed.
No one should have their values trashed, but I can’t imagine Doug and I sharing a tradition.

5. I don’t like folks who don’t like America.
That’s certainly his prerogative, but he doesn’t get to define what it means to like America.

6. I don’t like the slutification of our culture.
This laughable comment can be found in literature dating from more than 100 years ago.

7. I don’t like metrosexuality.
Tough, deal with it. What does Doug get to do, decide how we can dress and wear our hair?

8. I don’t like how our universities have become liberal madrasas.
Edgar Allen Poe said the same about the U of VA, of course he was high at the time. The truth is that Doug doesn’t like competition.


continued
9. I don’t like 11 year old girls being given birth control without parental notification by public school fools.
This one, you guys can sock it to me because I’d like to know just how often that actually happens.

10. I don’t like the fact that teenage girls can have an abortion via the public school system without their parents knowing didly squat.
I don’t like when any woman gets an abortion, but I’m not sure I like seeing a beat up pregnant teen any less.

11. I don’t like second graders being told to read and embrace homosexual literature and lifestyle.
You mean like “Hop on Pop”?

12. I don’t like our borders being violated by illegals.
Ok, I guess we do share a value here.

13. I don’t like Christians being trashed at every turn in the mainstream media.
It’s too bad his machismo doesn’t extend to his faith.

14. I don’t like gun free zones.
I don’t like ones that can’t be enforced. That gives the bad guys the advantage. Otherwise, a court house should be a gun free zone.

15. I don’t like sanctuary cities that house illegal aliens.
I only like sanctuary churches.

16. I don’t like the diminishing resolve I see in our War on Terror.
Maybe Doug should go outside and shoot one of his guns blindly into the air. The only thing diminishing resolve is tactics that have no result.

17. I don’t like how culture is making the white male out to be the Antichrist.
Oh, quit whining. Playing the poor victim is the liberals’ game.



Good Boy Doug
Smashing a gay is not that bad to merely have thought about. That is how to handle anger, play the tape to the end, and learn from it. Anger is excellent,if not the best, motivation for positive change. It can be used to set aside differences between people, who would have fought each other, if they were not angrier with someone else's actions. Action is the key here, though. If you are angry at a person's nature, it can lead to hate, which leads to irrational thinking, and major mistakes. When something someone does leads one to feel anger, it is in everyone's interest to do something about it. If they do nothing, it is unlikely the culprit will stop the action if there is no adverse reaction. Alas, the libs only think about right now, and often, it is easier to blow it off, and let someone else deal with it later. You have to be a doormat to get walked on, and the libs want us to be doormats, and trust them to talk people into not walking on us. Well, I do not trust them, as they are frequently changing their minds on issues, and always blaming others, when things go wrong. And passing the buck leads to continuing, and worsening, mistake making, due to not having to worry about taking responsibility for mistakes. Libs are just like alcoholics. Libaholics, they are. Now where is that Pepto?

#13
"13. I don’t like Christians being trashed at every turn in the mainstream media."

How so? How much anti-Christian propoganda is REALLY in the mainstream media? Certainly it's not present on Fox News, which has more viewers than CNN. Enough with the persecution complex already.

Religion of Peace
"there is no such thing as a religion of peace."

I'd say Buddhism qualifies.

Clash Doug Clash
Doug I agree with you, the "pussification" of America is in full effect and has been for some time, don't worry all the folks who are trashing us either live here already or are about to move here.
Like George W. Bush says they hate us for our freedoms and it's true, name one none western country where you can critize that country's leader and live to tell about. Bill Maher mentioned the other night that his butt pal Micheal Moore in his movie sicko was just showing how Cuba under Castro have a much better medical system than our's, that said, either one of them has never gone to Cuba for medical treatment or ever will.

Christianity IS THE Religion Of Peace
Peace is a state of mind
Believe in Jesus, Then you'll find
All your tears from all your fears
Will soon be falling far behind.

A Christian is easy to see. They are commanded to love. Love is not enabling, though. When a person's actions require action to protect themselves or others, appropriate action is required. Man's law is to be obeyed, unless it goes against God's law, and law is for defining appropriate action. However, one cannot make up laws as they see fit, as certain judges are prone to do these days. Apparently, Hillary, and Obama are planning to make up a few of their own.
A Christian, when given the chance, will exclaim the difference Jesus Christ has made in his life. He will not lie about registering in school as a Muslim, when going to school in Indonesia. A Christian, by definition, CANNOT be gay. Obama's 'church' endorses same sex marriage, and has had, at least one, openly gay minister for 35 years. The BIBLE, like the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, is not to be interpreted and paraphrased to fit your desires. You are supposed to change your desires to fit them, or go somewhere else, even if somewhere else is not a good place. The reason Heaven is a good place is because of God's law, as it was written. The reason America is a good place is because of the United States Constitution, as it was written. Now stop messing things up by trying to change them, just because there are so many people who do not want to act right.

Oh my! glasser pronounces
"A Christian, by definition, CANNOT be gay."

Is that because if he is xian being gay is not a possibility? Or is it because if you gay you are not allowed to be a xian?

A question to all you theologians out there (you know who are): Since some of you say being gay is a 'sin' like any other, and we are all sinners, does glasser's pronouncement mean there are no xians?

Oh, BTW, "me no likey" Doug Giles (or his kindergarten writing style).

glasser
But a Christian can be and very often is a violent bigot, like Giles. But then you defended him wirting a column about beating up a gay man in great, very Christian details about crushing fingers and smashing face against the wall. Such healthy Christian thinking.

You have the audacity to denigrate even the belief in GOd some gay person may have becuase you're viciousness only allows God to be yours and yours alone. Like Giles you cherish your hate and try to declare hatemongering a Christian virtue. The More you hate, the more you preach hate, The more you encourage hate and the more you condone and support viiolence against gays, more Christian you are.

Doug Giles fantasized about beating up and mutilating gay men and declared it to eb Christian, virtuous and manly thing to do. Well, let's hope someone in the future treats you both in similar Christian manner.




Giles is not alone
with messages of violence disguised as "righteous" anger.

Quote from another notorious anti-gay bigot Ken Hutcherson from his SERMON in his church of hate: "God hates soft men" and "God hates effeminate men." and "If I was in a drugstore and some guy opened the door for me, I'd rip his arm off and beat him with the wet end."

A ermon in Church that suggests that God wants you to mutilate and beat up "effeminate" men.



Akagi writes: Buddhism's a "Religion"
".... of Peace."

But Buddhism's not a religion at all.

It's a Teaching.

And nyrock writes as if the Word of God,
... AKA The Holy Bible, doesn't detail a clue or two about His Giles-like attitudes toward and beatings up of the Sodomites. Some of whom might have gladly swapped a whipping or two with the wet ends of an arm or two for what they were delivered!

That much, it seems to me, is Black and White.

Fool Brian (was banned BrianR?)
Merriam-Webster, religion: "2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices," and

religious: "1: relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity (a religious person) (religious attitudes) 2: of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances (joined a religious order)"

Now tell me, genius, in what way is Buddhism not a religion?

MellorSJ2 projects the "progressive"
... psychopathology, the product of his own room-temperature IQ -- and M-W's shortcomings.

I just live in a "Buddhist nation" (and have for the greater part of the past 45 years or so) am as I write surrounded by hundreds of temples, thousands of monks, and by several hundred million Buddhists, including the many in my immediate and extended family and until I realised the pointlessness of it all, spent several decades a student of Buddhism's Teachings.

Next?

Is it just me,...
...or do the people who hate Doug the most never fail to read him? Their criticism always falls as flat as their name-calling.I don't know about you,but I don't read columnists who I don't respect.I can disagree with columnists,but I will still read them if I respect their view point,and if they argue in a logical manner.

Lesson #1:If you don't like his viewpoint DON'T READ HIM!

His writing style is coarse
but his message is correct.

Deal with it.

Fool Brian digs deeper
And these personal details of where you live has just what to do with the fact that Buddhism is a religion?

Right. Nothing.

If Jesus were alive today...
he would:

1) Be dead-set against the preposterous DH rule in baseball. What's next - a designated runner rule for fat, slow catchers? C'mon, American League. Get real. The double-switch, unpredictable bunting escapades, more late game strategy - traditional baseball is better, and more exciting.

2) Love Stephen Colbert -- that guy's hilarious -- but would not approve of John Stewart, who is a talentless, so not funny hack (Jesus would probably be more gracious, especially since they are from the same tribe).

3) Would be a regular poster at TH, but would probably skip the lunatic liberal rantings at DailyKos and HuffintonPost.

4) Would almost always agree with me.

Since I just realized that Giles is a preacher (as shocking as that news is considering the level of vitriol in many of his columns), I thought I would center my remarks around a religious theme.

It's purely a coincidence that Jesus would see the world as I do, were he alive today. I just assume we would see eye-to-eye, since he is an extremely intelligent, omnipotent being and all.

Of course, my wife would argue that Jesus is alive today, which blows my entire premise. So on second thought - never mind.

Giles
Yours was the comment I chose to spend a couple seconds on this day. Your point is correct. But your list can use some more insite.

Because I do (not just scold what you say).

...and BETWEEN public hearings, petitions, letters to government officials, etc.; my retail store customers get a dose of, "Come on, guys, we have no right to complain. We have the right to use our power to change all of this."...and by the way,

Joel Osteen is a very good means of producing the courage to stop being so apathethic...and just do what it takes.

My window reads (loud and clear) "Hillary will say anything for your vote"

Read award winning papers of choice, while you're at it. THINK FOR ONCE. PRAY like you mean it. Prayer (unknown to ya'll). is the most powerful tool in the universe. But you must really learn how it works. Take the time and make the commitment to seek out a good school on the knowledge of prayer.

It takes hard work to learn how to pray affectively.

You'd rather blog.




Don't BE spoon fed. The Christian Science Monitor; for example.

I love reading Doug Giles ...

His writings make the liberal wacko posters here go completely insane. I love to hear "wailing and knashing of teeth" in the morning. It sounds like victory...

Talk about quality entertainment.

Challenge the Republican Party

In my town, the Republican Party have run candidates who are self professed Democrats or so moderate that I can't tell the difference.

The Republicans who run the party have such a narrow view of what should be encompassed in the Party and have a hostile view of all else that social and fiscal conservatives have vanished. To them winning is more important then the Republican Creed. And yet they do NOT win.

So last week I got together with a Ron Paul supporter who got Ron Paul on the ballot in my State. He challenged the Chair and yesterday we lost by 59 votes for one week's worth of work.

Imagine if ever Chair was challenged to force back into the Party those that are the backbone of any Republican winning election, the young and the social and fiscal conservatives.

The upshot is, I lost my temper. Now - as any good christian would do I looked for the beam in my own eye. We ran a clean campaign on the objectives to rebuild on conservative values the Republican Party, develop viable candidates and win elections.

Imagine if folks took two weeks of their time to reclaim their local parties.


What the Chair said afterwards

After the incumbent Chair won he said and I paraphrase "Lisa, if you're looking for me to thank you, you have another think coming."

I said and I paraphrase, 'We just brought you 100 new activists in the Republican Party. The trick now is for you to retain them."

They felt what we had done was attempt a "coup." I feel we invigorated and expanded the Party and hopefully gave the Chair a "Come to Jesus" moment.

However, given his bitter and hate filled means of denigrating Ron Paul supporters as freaks and extremists as they battled to convince their supporters to go to the polls, I'd submit that eventually we'll have to replace him.

If he can not win on his own merit, he doesn't deserve the leadership position.

Nam65-66 writes
Lesson #1:If you don't like his viewpoint DON'T READ HIM!

How are we supposed to know we don't like his viewpoint unless we read him? MikeR has excellent points on Doug Giles. If there is a God, Doug you will have some explaining to do.

Just copying my email to Doug.
It's so good to hear a follower of Christ say these things. Even among Christians we are expected to be quiet little creatures who just smile and pat people on the head and never get upset over anything - not even sin. It makes me sick.

I can't stand it when people make Jesus out to be some wimp who walked around kissing babies and telling people to be nice to each other.

Jesus was not 'nice'. And neither should we be. Loving, yes. Full of grace and mercy, yes. But also angry at the sin and injustice and lies and trash constantly put forth in our society - angry enough to DO something about it.

Keep up the great work.

Interesting.
In skimming the comments here, I am not seeing people actually refute the content of what Doug is saying.

Funny, that.

this red-blooded American woman
happens to think that a man who is willing to protect and defend his conservative values is inspiring and sexy...


okay MO
Doug says
5) I don’t like folks who don’t like America.

Who is he talking about here? Everyone who does't go to his church? name some people.

He is a total jerk. What needs refuting? He's an antichristian in my opinion. Any thinking person can
tell from his writing that he isn't a serious political writer.

I don’t like
1. ...our nation being threatened by anyone. I think they should die on their turf and on our terms.
Ditto... Lock and load.


2. ...what democrats have become.
I don’t like what republicans have become because they have become more like democrats.


3. ...people screwing around with my right to keep and bear arms.
That would be Liberals who hate America to the extent that they want to undermine the foundation upon which it was built.


4. ...traditional values being trashed.
Liberals hate traditional values because they work.


5. ...folks who don’t like America.
See #3


6. ...the slutification of our culture.
A new (but accurate) word enters the lexicon.


7. ...metrosexuality.
Why, just because it is not traditional? See #4


8. ...how our universities have become liberal madrasas.
The liberal madrassas' goal is to undermine America. See #3


9. ...11 year old girls being given birth control without parental notification by public school fools.
10. …the fact that teenage girls can have an abortion via the public school system without their parents knowing diddle squat.
11. …second graders being told to read and embrace homosexual literature and lifestyle.
See #3 & #4


12. …our borders being violated by illegals.
But, Doug, that is part of the plan to undermine America.


13. …Christians being trashed at every turn in the mainstream media.
Actually, it shows we are being salty and salt on a wound purifies and cleanses.


14. …gun free zones.
But, criminals (and by extension Liberals) love them.


15. …sanctuary cities that house illegal aliens.
See #12


16. …the diminishing resolve I see in our War on Terror.
It is because the madrassas are diluting the ability of the people to think critically. See #3


17. …how culture is making the white male out to be the Antichrist.
If you want to weaken an army, then you divide and conquer.

Keep standing Doug. Stay salty.

Anger is one thing and firmness another
I have found that forceful, firm, unwavering responses are just as effective as getting angry. For example, recently the Champ Car World Series sold out to a rival organization which I have held in contempt for the 13 years of its existence. When it was suggested that I surrender and embrace the rival series, I replied that I am too old to sell my principles for a mess of pottage and repeated my firm stance. I changed at least one important mind.

Likewise my refusal to accept the *fact* that most people under 30 know only two words and insist on using them as nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, gerunds and pronouns. I persist in asking people (or telling them) that I do not want to hear that kind of talk and many of them have cleaned up their acts.

And when dealing with government agencies, I appear in person and say when they try to brush me off that I will stand right where I am -- on their very desk if needed -- until they deal with my difficulty.

A loud, firm NO saves a lot of time, trouble, stress and worry. Anger should be saved, like profanity, for those times when all other methods have failed.

And as for Real Men
I do not consider you a Real Man just because you burp, fart, curse and wear your pants at half mast and your baseball cap sideways.

Mo - It's hard to specifically refute...
--
...what Mr. Giles has written above because so goddam much of it is pure subjectivity.

You can't get much traction on Jell-O.

Like a great many other social (as opposed to constitutional) conservatives, Mr. Giles is disturbed by cultural and political trends that threaten his personal world-view.

He objects to "traditional values being trashed." Okay. To *WHAT* traditions does he refer? The tradition embodied in Jim Crow laws? The traditions of high protective tariffs?

"Traditional values" is an overbroad garbage term, guys.

And his objection to the "slutification of our culture" doesn't tell us much. I get a fair idea about what he's panty-twisted about; I've got a grown daughter and a bunch of granddaughters, and the prevailing standards of dress make the slovenly Haight-Ashbury styles of the '60s seem quaint and innocent by comparison, but just how House-Amish does Mr. Giles want us to Stepford our girls?

And what the hell does Mr. Giles think "metrosexuality: *IS*, anyway?

Too much inchoate angst, damnit. Too much gripe just for the sake of spleen, the silly boob.

I want the Bill f Rights enforced against the government as precisely what they are: the law of the land.

Nothing more, nothing less.

People can behave as they goddam please: slutty or saintly, promiscuous or virginal, Christian or pagan.

I don't give a damn. Every man is entitled to go to hell in his own handbasket.

Government is different.

Government is all-pervasive. It's goons with guns, bureaucrats with avalanches of paperwork, politicians with corruption oozing out their ears.

Concentrate on government. Anything else is an idiot distraction.

--

madrasas

"8. ...how our universities have become liberal madrasas.
The liberal madrassas' goal is to undermine America. "

For people who say they don't like people that don't like America, they sure cut down our country enough. I'm very proud of or schools, all of them. Calling them madrasas is just your fear mongering. isn't ever a good quality to be brave?

Giles
"Lastly, in all honesty, as much as I enjoy being the provocateur, I’d really love to not stir things up, to be sweet like Joel Osteen or James Blunt and live a non-conflict life with my family sipping lemonade and fishing south Florida’s flats. However, sometimes the times demand that we put aside our smiley face and take off the gloves for the soul of our nation. I believe such a time has come."

Notice he never, ever, quotes Jesus or reflects on Christian teachings. I wonder why?

OK Doug
1. I don’t like our nation being threatened by Islamo-facsists. I think they should die on their turf and on our terms. Yes, I’m not buying this “religion of peace” yumminess.

Join the army. Tell your flock to join the army.
Lead the way. Get Angry and get over there and take them out.

Mo
said:

"Jesus was not 'nice'. And neither should we be. Loving, yes. Full of grace and mercy, yes. But also angry at the sin and injustice and lies and trash constantly put forth in our society - angry enough to DO something about it."

Who would Jesus beat up? Whose face would Jesus bash in and whose hands Jesus would crush?

Giles has made it clear that "doing something about it" includes encouraging violent acts towards gays. Ken Hutcherson has openly boasted his violent images and has endorsed and encouraged amti-gay violence during his trip to Lithuania.

Does your concept of "doing something" include causing physical harm and potentially killing gays just because you feel like it? And then tell hthat "Jesus told me to do it"... there has been men who killed gays using tbat particular defense?


Christ and the Money Changers

Jesus did get angry - at the money changers. He was much better at justified anger than us poor mortals.

Last time I got angry - I got angry at just about everyone and hit a few not necessarily guilty of complicent behavior in destroying our Republican Party. There are some that have worked in virtual solitude in a sea of waste and unachored self-interest.

I hope in the comments I have made have since made amends specifically for my disbeleif after CPAC in Rep Jeff Flake being promoted to the Appropriations committee. What a mistake, especially when I went to his website to see what he was promoting.

Taft it is not only what we say but wat do. I recommend the same excersise I put myself through, first look for the beam in your own eye, then act with clarity and the firmness of a just cause for the soul of America and the Constitution that supports it are definitely worth fighting for.


Lisa
I agree our nation is worth fighting for. We should be well informed and vote intelligently. How does it help our nation by attacking our schools though or gay people?

Where is Howard Beale when ya need him?
There are lots of things to like, and dislike.

That is as it should be.

The question arises: Does my disliking of something mean government must ban or forbid its expression?

We are not talking legal prohibitions here. I may feel the need to commit murder, but it is illegal.

I may not like "slutty" behavior, or "trashing" of traditional values, but does that mean government can forbid such behaviors?

Now, an Islamic nation practicing sharia law may place "slutty behavior" in the same category as "murder", and assert penalty of death for both offenses, but I trust we are not quite there. Not yet anyway.

SJ Doc has a point. Alot of what Giles objects to is subjective. I might even agree with alot of it.

But I would fear any government seeking to enforce upon its citizens only behaviors Giles approves of.

This reminds me of the old movie, "Network", where the character, television news-anchor Howard Beale, exhorts his audience to go to their windows and holler into the night: "I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonna take this any more".


the Dougster
is a very mediocre opinion maker who has never, to my knowledge had anything particularly challenging or interesting to say. His shtick is to assume a written Burt Reynolds/Dukes of Hazzard persona that is somehow supposed to give the impression that he is just a nose-picking good ole boy who should be taken seriously.

What I want to know is, does anybody actually publish this drivel or is he just a contriutor to TH?

The photo
that accompanies these sorry excuses for interesting debate is deliberately posed to make gullible readers think he is "no nonsense"

(That's his "no nonsense" expression, folks, posed and delivered straight through his CoolPix to TH).

jerabaub

"But I would fear any government seeking to enforce upon its citizens only behaviors Giles approves of."


But a segment of our society seeks to make government enforce upon its citizens acceptance of values only that segment approves of. Why don't you see the inconsistency in that?


Giles & Birdman: Spot ON!
.

Birdman
As usual you distort the issue. Giles, you and rest of religious right seek to forde others to submit under the tyranny of your belief system and religion.

People who oppose you seek a society where everuone has equal rights and not forced to live according the dictation of rbid religious bigots.

Giles is actually advocating for useing physical violence against gays in the name of his personal, vindictive interpretation of Jesus. Not only should gays be oppressed and discriminated against, Christians should be allowed to beat them, mutilate them or jail them (Christians were in favor of keeping being gay a crime)...

You think that you have God given right to hurt others who don't believe like you do.

Too cute by half
I agree with you Doug, up until you start whining about the persecution of Christianity. How absolutely foolish!

Your humor, Doug, is too cute by half and worthy of a sixth-grader. How about dropping out of the Townhall bloggers?

Sorry nyrock,
the distortion comes from you. Live your life as you see fit. Do not impose it upon me. And do not use the government to force it upon me.

You fear Doug? Read up on Islam's answer to your condition. The fact that you are still here, in America, doing what you do, says you are safer here than in Iran.

You seem to think that I hurt you in some way. Tell me how.

Neo-con = Nazi
This idiot Giles is spouting anger and he thinks thats a new thing or something to be proud of. No, it's dangerous. The thing is it fits into the Neo-con dogma. And it comes from Nietsche, who provided the philosophic support for Hitler.

See the Neo-con idea is that men weaken when the government provides for them. So, it's better to have war and, yes, terror than to have a working government. Nietsche famously wrote, "I am not a man, I am dynamite."

This goes to the heart of the Chicago Business School and all those medievalists like George Schultz, William Kristol, and Paul Wolfowitz.

They are medievalists, because they believe in an idea primarily and when facts don't support their beliefs, they consider that heresy. They are not willing to change their belief that human beings need war and competition. Just like the Taliban are medievalists. No difference. A rational person whose thinking had benefitted from the Enlightenment would believe in solving problems as they come up, dealing with the facts.

The trouble we, who learned something from the history of civilization, is that anybody can whip up emotions into hatred, and that beliefs have caused more senseless murder and expense than any other human failing.

Witness our current quagmire. And we are there because no one investigated what actually happened on 9-11. Wrong headed beliefs whipped by emotions, like this idiot Giles, is trying to do. You go, Lemmings.

BirdmanII
On the money and well said!

!True Values
!Right on, Doug!

We need more people like you willing to take a stand and speak out!

I just read a story about Nebraska legislators fighting term limits by "passing laws" denying the citizens the right to petition for those term limits or requiring petitioners to wear "buttons" with personal info (so that they can be tracked by the legislators) just like the Natzis did with the jews.

Talk about a reason to be angry! And there is so much more just like that going on everywhere!

We have been docile for too long.

trughes

"Witness our current quagmire."

Wow!!!! I have not hear of the "current quagmire" since the Afghanistan campaign in the GWOT. Seems that not only Afghanistan, but also the campaign in Iraq is going pretty good.

If you have some solid facts you would like to share, please trot them that we can all learn.

Sound and Fury
Doug Giles is an Idiot, the Archie Bunker of the 21 Century. He is just as stupid and bigoted, only now it is chic to be stupid and bigoted.

Birdman II
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/23/us-soldier-in-afghanist an-we-scrounge-for-everything/

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0204/p06s01-woiq.html

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4059

No things aren't going "swimmingly".

Going pretty good?
You have got to be joking.

We are going to spend $700 Billion over our current 6 years and the National Pukers are trotting out a guy who says the war will never end. Do you hear those words: NEVER END!

Oh, right now, Bush wants a $100 billion off-budget, just to keep things going. Are you a military contractor? Then, I could understand your thinking. Anyway, it's not a war. We won the war in Iraq, or don't you remember? There was not any terrorism in Iraq before we got there, so we created what ever part of your beloved GWOT, the war against a word, there is in Iraq.

What part of that is "going good"??????????

What kind of facts do you need????

If you want to say, like they tell you on Fox, that we were attacked, just try to tell me how Building 7 fell down at free fall rate, when just seconds before it had been a regular building fully engineered according to standards and the knowlege of physics gathered from the beginnings of human history. How did all that experience disappear in a moment of confusion. Gosh, I guess the laws of physics were just too confused on that day.

Oh, you low-life, keep watching Fox, eventually you will forget what America used to be.

Birdman
Are you serious?

We bribe sunni insurgents in Anbar to stop killing our troops.

Muqtada al-Sadr's decision for another extension of cease fire is a major reason violence is down in Baghdad, readily admitting Petraeus, after four long years of Bush administration bungling and incompetence, has seized upon a strategy that while not addressing fundamental political questions, resolves shortterm military matters.

Eventually, al-Sadr, or one of his minions, will control Iraq.

On Afghanistan, it is now little more than a narco-state. Poppy fields are everywhere. Warlords thrive. Al Qaida and Taliban are more assertive than ever, branching out into Pakistan. Karzai's authority hardly exists beyond parts of Kabul. Our "partners" in NATO refuse to commit the number of forces we think they should.

Yessir, things sure are going great.

Meantime, the U.S. taxpayer must pony up more billions and billions.

Taft

"No things aren't going "swimmingly"."

I never said things were going "swimmingly".

I viewed the posts you offered. Children are starving in Detroit. Children are being killed in drive-bys in Chicago. What's your point?

Things must be a "quagmire".
All the commie-lovers said so.

Trughes Long as you
live in la la land you will never understand what Giles said. I feel very sorry for you and those like you. I must be horrible to think that your government is out to destroy you and this country. My God get a grip!

On another entry here, you want to know who hates America? How about Danny Glover, Susan Surandon, Tim Robbins, Harry Reid, Jack Murtha, Barbara Strisand, Nancy Pelosi, Obama, Clinton, Kennedy, George Clooney, Sean Penn, I could go on, and on, and on, but you get the idea. These are people who are full of hatred for America and all it stands for. They blame America for all the ills of the world and pay no attention to all the good we do to help the world!

Birdman Falsely Accuses

Birdman is disingenous in his arguement about Giles. What he fails to realize it that parents have the right and obligation to educate their children in a matter that promotes and encourages them toward their full potential which includes marriage and cildren.

What Birdman is actually doing is trying to deny the rights of parents. And parents have a right and duty to descern what subject matter will aid in their objective.

Birdman, the beauty of the Constitution is that if you wish to engage in homosexuality, you may do so in the confinds of your own home.

What you do not have a right to do, is impose your values on my child or me for that matter. I feel that practicing homosexuality is a sterile way to live. And I have a right to that opinion - it's like shooting blanks. And you have a right to do anyway.

I'm a smoker and it is bad for me. However, it is legal just like homosexual activity since the sodomy laws were eliminated. And though many who love wish me stop, I still smoke. Sadly I'd probably need to be dropped into wilderness with enough food to walk out in order to quit.

I think what they are trying to say is - "We love you and we want to to live life to your full potential as God made you." After that, all they can do is witness.

Lisa

What, exactly, have I said that is false?

Taft Not Birdman

Sorry, Taft not Birdman

Wrong Again - It was Col Mustard

Wrong again, it was NYRock

Birdman
We both agree no segment of society has a right to impose its views on all.

We have a bill of rights, which explicitly restricts government, in furtherance of the wishes of a presumed majority, to violate the rights of a minority.

I knew we would find common cause, even if we may disagree on the wars.

By the way, I am not suggesting we "lose" Iraq or Afghanistan. Only that we cease viewing the two campaigns thru rose colored glasses.

Censorship?
I expect TH debate to be spirited and contentious...and while I abhor heavy-handed censorship I do expect some reasonable degree of civility in a public discussion. So my post has nothing to do with lifestyles...but with public expression.

Giles slams the low-caste liberal element for “utter, uncut, and unmitigated BS”, committing the “base and the vile”, doing the “contemptuous”, saying the “appalling”, and delving “down the funnel exalting the lowers part of humanity”.

Yes, we do need to express healthy and appropriate levels of anger against such conduct. How-some-ever, one might peruse the vulgar posts which too often appear on TH, and then look IN VAIN for other post which have angrily “called down” the miscreants. Those low-life’s drown out intelligent discussion of public policy issues…and they make the responsible conservative movement look bad, bad, BAD! I’ve expressed appropriate anger against recurrent filthy posts and I’ve had my posts removed. I’ve also written the TH editor and to their credit [or mere happenstance] some of the worse offenders have “disappeared” from TH-land!

Jim-Too!.

Agree on all 17 points!
Can't find anything to dispute, have nothing to add.
Great article!

jerabaub

"We have a bill of rights, which explicitly restricts government, in furtherance of the wishes of a presumed majority, to violate the rights of a minority."


And there you have a wrong understanding of the Bill of Rights. The sole purpose of the Bill of Rights is to restrict the government from trampling the rights of the individuals - period. It has nothing to do with majority or minority rule.

When one segment of society seeks for the government to redefine words inorder to force their views on the rest of society, then the only response left to the rest of society is set in legal concrete, the definitions sought to be changed.

As to the situation in Afghanistan and Iraq, I absolutely refuse to look at it thru muddy water glasses that nyrock uses. "Quagmire?" Get real. The only purpose of using such a term is to poison the well.

Jim

Jim, thanks to the Democrats and many Republicans the weight of our ever expanding government is stiffling free enterprise and limiting our freedoms on a local, State and Federal level.

Bottom-line when you do the Franklin decision making the left is more heavily responsable for intruding on our liberty and stiffling with big government the entreprenueral spirit and capabilities of America.

jim
Don't you have any kind words to say for the Liberal who jumps to the end of a thread, paraphrases the last Conservative post into his own words and denounces the words as a lie by the Conservative?

How many times a day do you see this happen?

The resulting scrap does make TH more interesting than the hundreds of other dull boring sites.

Birdman
We just disagree on that.

Why our founders did not want a pure democracy, as opposed to a constitutional democratic republic, was precisely to mitigate against the effects of mob rule, majority rule.

Consistent with that belief was their insistence that a bill of rights be in the constitution, to prevent the will of the majority from violating the rights of a minority.

Our entire system of represntation is based upon restraints upon unfettered power of the majority.

U.S. Senate was equally apportioned...two senators per state regardless of population PRECISELY to keep the more populous states(majority)from dominating those with less population(minority)..

As you know, the House does reflect population...but not the senate.

Founders knew what they were doing.

Mob rule, mobocracy, unfettered power of majority, was something they were against.

It does rule, but with strict limitations and acceptance that the minority does have rights which even a majority cannot abridge.

jerabaub
Do you mean to imply that we should not extort taxes from the rich and distribute the money to the Proletariat?

navywave61
Would you also think that Dwight D. Eisenhower was a man who lived in La-la land? Maybe you would because, if you watch enough Fox news you probably don't even know who he was. Here's a quote from the former president, 1 year into his first term, in a letter to his older brother:

"The political processes of our country are such that if a rule of reason is not applied in this effort, we will lose everything--even to a possible and drastic change in the Constitution. This is what I mean by my constant insistence upon "moderation" in government. Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."

Document #1147; November 8, 1954
The Papers of Dwight David Eisenhower, Volume XV

Notice the date.

You might take a look at that and wonder how he knew exactly what these "texas oil millionaires" were up to.

Doug's chugged the communion wine again
DG: "1. I don’t like our nation being threatened by Islamo-facsists."
------------------------
I don't even know what Islamo-fascists are. It's a word some neo-con-artist made up that means nothing in and of itself. Frankly, if we had treated the Arab world with some semblance of decency over the past 100 years, we'd probably be on better terms with them.

DG: "2. I don’t like what democrats have become."
-----------------------
Still, that is a far sight better than what today's Republicans have become.

DG: "3. I don’t like people screwing around with my right to keep and bear arms."
-----------------------
I want the right to buy Stinger missiles.

DG: "4. I don’t like traditional values being trashed."
-----------------------
Rudy Guiliani looks horrible in pumps. As for John McCon, let's hear it for traditional Christian values like adultery, prostitution, and lying!

Birdman
You're still distorting it. A single gay is not imposing anything to you. You can hate gays as much you want and nobody is forcing you to become one. You instead demend that Christians are given free ride on imposing their beliefs and using them as excuse to oppress and discriminate against gays.

Giles has in great detail described in which manner he wishes to mutialte gay men in the name of Christ. I do believe that should evengelicals be given equal amount of political power as muslim extremists have in iran, the fate of gays would be equally dire. After all US religious right wingers already export their hatred and openly support anti-gay violence and suppression of their rights in Africa and Eastern Europe.

Personally I am not afraid of Doug Giles. Should he try to bash my head against the wall or crush my hands or any other things he dreams of doing to gays, I would kill him.

Doug's chugged the communion wine again
DG: "5. I don’t like folks who don’t like America."
------------------
Define "don't like America."

6. I don’t like the slutification of our culture.
------------------
Take it up with your wife.

7. I don’t like metrosexuality.
------------------
Then, you should get the hooker a hotel room next time, Doug! Having sex in a Geo Metro is a physical impossibility.

8. I don’t like how our universities have become liberal madrasas.
-------------------
You're about fifty years too late.

Doug's chugged the communion wine again
DG: "9. I don’t like 11 year old girls being given birth control without parental notification by public school fools."
----------------
Better that they should be instructed in the many benefits of hot oral sex.

10. I don’t like the fact that teenage girls can have an abortion via the public school system without their parents knowing didly squat.
---------------
Most of the parents in your congregation wouldn't know diddly-squat if you hummed them a few bars.

11. I don’t like second graders being told to read and embrace homosexual literature and lifestyle.
---------------
Better that we just send them to church to become prey for the local pedophiles.

12. I don’t like our borders being violated by illegals.
---------------
But I'm sure you'll hire them to do your basement like Tom Tancredo.

Doug's chugged the communion wine again
DG: "13. I don’t like Christians being trashed at every turn in the mainstream media."
-----------
Look, it's not our fault that Ted Haggard and Paul Crouch are caught having sex with men, and David Vitter likes to wear diapers....

14. I don’t like gun free zones.
----------
No doubt, you sleep with yours.

15. I don’t like sanctuary cities that house illegal aliens.
----------
Angry enough to prosecute the employers who hire them?

16. I don’t like the diminishing resolve I see in our War on Terror.
----------
After five years of fraud, there is nothing left to believe about it. It's all a scam.

17. I don’t like how culture is making the white male out to be the Antichrist.
----------
You resemble that remark, Giles.

You guys are missing it
He listed what made HIM angry, not what laws should be passed.

Maybe other things make you angry. Maybe the same things make you angry, but your definitions are different (like what 'traditional values' is).

He has an absolute right not only to feel angry about these things but to try to do something about them and making a... change. Isn't that what Obama's campaign is based upon? Angry people wanting change?


All I can say to you smug people who criticize his anger... the things he's angry about are changes that have been made to the country in the past 50 years. The country is faltering today; 50 years ago it was the envy and power of the world.

So there's a very strong argument about going back to "traditional values" and undoing all that he complains about, and not much of an argument to be made for continuing on the course of liberal fascism.

I bet reading that makes some of you angry, huh? 8c)

Christians and homosexuality
"A Christian, by definition, CANNOT be gay."

Of course he/she can be homosexual. It is not a sin to be homosexual. It is a sin to surrender to it's urges.

I was graced by stumbling upon an article written by a Christian homosexual. He had found personal peace by returning to Christ and by becoming celibate and his universe had expanded to include thelocal church and the support of it's many members. He did not say it was easy nor will it ever get any easier. As my Grandfather used to say, whipping the devil around a stump (meaning not likely to end in your lifetime). Will all homosexuals choose this path? probably not many and the younger ones will attack this post vehemently.

It is also a sin to use our body parts for what they were not intended even among heterosexual marrieds.


jdw
No, no, Doug is listing more than just personal grievances. In this statement: “this righteous wrath not only works for personal improvement, but it can also change for the better all aspects of our society—if we’ll get righteously PO’ed in a precise direction”, Doug is making his work list. The entire point of the column is not that some things bother him, but that it is time to clash or take action and he has listed his targets. He has every right to find annoyance where ever, but he is not a dictator and I don’t think he represent even a large minority let alone the will of the people..


Here's what I don't like
1. I don't like non-christians being trashed in the media at every turn.

2. I don't like muslims being murdered because some people lost friends on 9/11.

3. I don't like christo-fascists screaming for eliminating all civil liberties for anyone who doesn't believe exactly as they do.

4. I don't like idiots who lie about 2nd graders being told to embrace the homosexual "lifestyle".

5. I don't like how idiots who've never read Sun Tzu's _Art of War_ think that there can validly be such a thing as the "war on terror". You can't overturn nearly 3 millenia of empirical data just because you hate muslims. You want to make more terrorists? Then have your war on terror. You want to have the number of terrorists go down? Stop murdering their families.

Hey, navywavy, I don't hear you...
So, tell me, what do you think? Ike, coming from Lala land??? Crazy Conspiracy theorist??

Or, dead on, 54 years ago!!!!

And the texas Oil millionaires are still at it, destroying the Constitution and the "Rule of Reason".

But where's the Republican party????

Oh, Giles, here's my list:

1. I don’t like our nation being threatened by TEXAS OIL MILLIONAIRES. I think they should die on their turf and on our terms. Yes, I’m not buying this “religion of peace” yumminess.

2. I don’t like what REPUBLICANS have become.

3. I don’t like people screwing around with my right to A CONSTITUTION.

4. I don’t like traditional values being trashed.

5. I don’t like folks who don’t like America!






I don't like
conservatives who trash Republicans for not being the perfect idea of some perfect cons.

I don't like 19th c. socialism masking as "new" programs

I don't like twisting the Constitution to include everybody else in the world

I don't like jihads and fatwas

I don't like Europeans who are afraid of free speech and afraid of their Muslim immigrants

I don't like "allies" who expect us to defend them but who can't cough up a 100 troops for us

I don't like the Clintons

I don't like the NYTimes or CBS News

I don't like liberal blogs

Anger-management
"Anger...if channeled correctly, it will make you giddy about something you desire but can’t get—until you get angry."

Of course when anger is not channelled properly you get a series of one sentence rants devoid of rationality -- kind of like this article -- a pretty much what the Republican Party has become.

Can you spell Ann Coulter?

jerabaub part 1 of 2

You said, "Consistent with that belief (to mitigate against the effects of mob rule, majority rule) was their insistence that a bill of rights be in the constitution, to prevent the will of the majority from violating the rights of a minority."

I list the Bill of Rights (in 2 parts). Show me where mob rule or majority, or minority is mentioned.

1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

2nd Amendment: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

3rd Amendment: No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

4th Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

5th Amendment: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

Cont...

jerabaub part 2 of 2

6th Amendment: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

7th Amendment: In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

8th Amendment: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

9th Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

nyrock

"You're still distorting it."

What, exactly, have I distorted?

Live you life as you see fit. Do not attempt to force me in any way to approve of your life. Make no attempt to have government coerce me to approve of your life.


"Giles has in great detail described in which manner he wishes to mutialte gay men in the name of Christ."

Then take up your concerns with Doug Giles. In the mean time, read up on Islam's methods of dealing with people with your condition. You, living and loving here, in America, are still living and loving. In Iran You would already be dead. Where are you most safe, here, or there? Why are you most safe here?

A Conservative Independent
I'm a little surprised to find I agree almost entirely with your list of 17, as a conservative Christian American, who happens to be black. I even agree with #17, although I think most who demonize white males don't use the term "Antichrist."

All those things you mentioned are truly enemies of our American people.

Richard Brown
very concerned citizen in Michigan

jerabaub

If we were in a direct democracy, then all of us would have gather together to vote for each law to be passed. Each of us would have a vote in the process. But then each of us would lose out on earning our livelihood because all of us would be in DC and not working.

We have a representative form of government. We, the people, elect an agent to represent us in government. The elected agent is chosen by a majority. If the majority was of a single mind to eliminate gays, we would vote in an individual who would push for that law. It isn't happening.

The real problem is those agents, once elected, become the minority (there are more of us than there are of them). They become the government and they have the power to enact laws that are detrimental to us, the majority (it happens today). There is a reason for the saying that 'power corrupts'.

The Bill fo Rights is there to prevent those in power from infringing upon the rights of the individuals - period. You are an individual just as I am an individual. Our individual rights are guaranteed against infringment by those in power becasue of the Bill of Rights.

Birdman

I have to like a guy willing to post the Bill of Rights. It really helps the conversation move along.

Birdman & Jerabaub

I just wanted to let you both know I am enjoying your conversation.

nyrock

Why are you such a heterophobe?

Lisa

I am naive. Was that said 'tongue in cheek'?

birdman II
what is a heterophobe?


Gee, Matt

I don't know. What is a homophobe?

I Myself On Probation
I posted without investigating. I was not aware of Doug Giles condoning violence against gays. I was commending him for, what I assumed, was thoughts of aggression not acted upon. Again, I made an a$$ out of me and me. I do believe a Christian will have no urge to have sex with another of the same gender., even if they have the whole of their previous life. To follow Jesus, one MUST repent(turn from sin). Sure we all slip and slide, but a Christian will NOT go through all the premeditation it takes to act as a gay person. Now I need to go throw up. I am taking a month off, for posting about something I did not look into.

Hey, Night of Boo Hoo
Run out of meds agains?

Hey gretskeboohoo
Run out of meds again?

Would you idiots please read this:
"The political processes of our country are such that if a rule of reason is not applied in this effort, we will lose everything--even to a possible and drastic change in the Constitution. This is what I mean by my constant insistence upon "moderation" in government. Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."

Dwight David Eisenhower
Document #1147; November 8, 1954
The Papers of Dwight David Eisenhower, Volume XV

Great article

I agree with Doug's list.

Doug: Being called a "salty pastor" is an honor. Keep up the great work.

Five stars!

Birdman

My compliment was serious. Sometimes the liberal fear mongering by the likes of NYRock makes me realize that posting the Bill of Rights is an occasional necessity.

It is clear that NYRock is applying his intolerance and hysterical fear to others despite the fact that I can find nothing in Giles writing to support his accusations.

It is a comfort to re-read the Bill of Rights to remind everyone of what their protections are despite disagreements in view point and practice.

Birdman
The whole notion of ratification of our U.S. constitution by various states was predicated upon apprehensions from the "minority population states" that the "large population
states" would run roughshod over them and their interests...dominate them.

Read the "Federalist Papers". For instance, Federalist 52. Madison talks about factions, majority factions, and without guarantees to the minority, such majority factions "in a society...where the stronger factions unite to oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature".

It was for this reason, among others, the framers devised a system of checks and balances, the three branches of government, and the bill of rights, which was a mechanism offered by proponents of the new constitution to induce reluctant smaller states, fearing an oppressive majority from the larger, to ratify the constitution. It was an olive branch, a recognition that minority states will be protected.

In Federalist 51, Madison talks about effects of (majority)factions upon the minority.."if a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure". Notice he said nothing about individuals. He referred to rights of the minority and by that he meant factions within the repubic that were not part of the majority.

I don't know what point it is you are making. You seem to take an almost ACLU obsession with individual rights. The framers feared tyranny imposed by government upon citizens and they were concerned about the pernicious effects of factions and how best to reconcile various factions within the body politic.

Read the Federalist Papers.

jerabaub

Just as you misrepresent the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, I would expect you to misrepresent the Federalist Papers too. You have an agenda and seek to validate that agenda w/o regard to anything else.

The Constitution, with all of its Amendments, is all there is regarding duties and rights. The duties of the government is spelled out in the Constitution. The Amendments (specifically the Bill of Rights) spell out the restrictions placed on that government concerning the individual.

There was an tyrant in Africa named Idi Amin. He was notorious for human rights violations because he was the 'strong man' and could get away with it. The USSR under Lenin, Stalin, Kruschev (sp?) up thru and including Putin was notorious for human rights violations because they were the 'strong men' and could get away with it.

If you want to start adding to (and subtracting from) the Constitution, I guarantee that another 'strong man' will arise and tear up that document we hold so dear and begin abusing human rights here. I don't trust you or nyrock or even our resident expert in all knowledge, Robert. Why, I don't even trust John McCain, Hillary, Clinton, or Barack Obama to protect your and my rights.

I take your reference to me being equated with the ACLU as an insult. I feel that organization is a communist front with a agenda to weaken the foundations of our great nation.

The framers feared tyranny, agreed. But they feared the tyranny of the government over the governed. They did not fear majority rule over minority rule as that is what this nation was built on. The Bill of Rights is the only thing that protects your individual rights. Preserve it, love it, and fight for it.

Aren't you both right?

Birdman and Jerabaub, Is it possible that you both may be right?


Lisa asks,

“Is it possible that you both may be right?”

I don't see how. Logic says that 'A' is 'A'; this is an identity. Can 'A' be 'not A' at the same time? No.

Jerabaub, on 02/24/08 @1:17 PM, stated: "We have a bill of rights, which explicitly restricts government, in furtherance of the wishes of a presumed majority, to violate the rights of a minority."

He used the term "explicitly" meaning clearly expressed and/or leaving nothing implied. If that were true I should see it clearly expressed. That led to my listing the Bill of Rights. I expect him to point out these explicit restrictions of a majority over a minority in that document.

All can see that there are no such explicit restrictions as jerabaub says. There are explicit restrictions of a governing BODY over the governed; but that is not what jerabaub says.

The framers of the Constitution feared that one man could take over the rule of the government in the same manner as King George of England. The restrictions are to prevent that possibility of tyranny from happening.

Jerabaub’s only recourse is to dance a new jig using the Federalist Papers as his tune. Just as I listed the Bill of Rights to prove my point, so jerabaub can list his excerpts from the Federalist Papers to prove his. Without that, jerabaub’s argument is as a rag flapping in the wind, a lot of noise and motion signifying nothing.

At least that is the way I see it.

(BTW I take his shift to the Federalist Papers to mean that he surrenders in his argument concerning the contents of the Bill of Rights.)

Perhaps you could explain your possibility, that we may both be correct, more completely.

jerabaub

Since your take on the Bill of Rights is non-existent, I did read Madison #51.

"It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part."

How does this statement apply in Roe v Wade? Clearly, there is oppression involved, even to the point of death. Should Roe v Wade be scrapped on the basis of the above quote?

jerabaub

Continuing in #51,

"Whilst all authority in it will be derived from and dependent on the society, the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests, and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority."

Isn't our society broken into so many parts right now that we cannot elect a president without having such a small margin of votes that one precinct must be re-re-re-counted and the chads must be analyzed to determine the outcome in a court of law? Or is it your goal to totally fragment society into such small parts and interests that such bad law as Roe v Wade can never be challenged?

jerabaub

Continuing #51,

"In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker..."

Isn't that the goal of the Liberal Left and their desire for gun control? Without a means of self defense, the stronger government with force of unmatched arms can make the citizenry do anything... even build camps and start cleansing programs.

I go back to the Bill of Rights, 2d Amendment. We shall not have our rights to keep and bear arms infringed. It is to protect us from an out of control government.

jerabaub

I found #51 to be confusing and unclear. It was difficult to read. I wonder if that was intentional on the part of James Madison. It is definitely a politician writing.

I also note that #51 was addressed to the People of the State of New York. I will have to research to find out is something unusual was happening there at the time that bring some special meaning to it.

But, until you can show how/why you allow one party to oppress another, even unto death, I don't see where your argument from Federalist #51 concerning majority v minority carries any weight.

jerabaub

It seems all the Federalist papers were addressed to the people of New York. That is probably because he came from New York.

Did you know that Alexander Hamilton believed that a strong central government would be the best for our country. He wanted the government to be ruled by only the rich and educated. He didn't believe that middle class should have any power in the government.

I guess that you and I would not have a vote if it were up to Hamilton. Now, how does this information measure up to your belief he was at all concerned for majority or minority? The majority of Americans of the time were poor to middle class.

Some how I think that you put your own interepretation where it should not be. Hamilton was not for you, he was for his own class of people. He would have fit right in with the rascals we now have in DC. And they show a certain lack of concern for the people until they want our votes.

Jerabaub

That will be all for now.

Ciao.

Bill of Rights

Given we have the right to petition the government as an individual, minority or majority, I'd submit the who and how of who speaks up against the infringment depends on who the infringer is..

jerabaub re: Majority v Minority

Everything done in our government today depends on that concept. In order to pass any legislation, a majority is required.

If we want to build a road, we must have a majority consensus as to where the road goes and whose property must be condemned, what money will be used, who will do the work, etc. The famous 'Bridge to Nowhere' required a majority vote to pass; it did not just happen.

Too many people seek their beliefs and values to accepted and will jump at any mention of minority oppression to justify their claim. Federalist 51 is titled 'The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments'. Let us keep in mind that the discussion between majority and minority has to fit within that title.

The purpose of the different departments is to ensure that minority rights will be addressed. It is not guarantee that the will of the majority must be negated.

And so, again, I point out that the Bill of Rights recognizes your right to live your life as you choose. It guarantees that the government cannot deny you that right. It does not guarantee that the majority must approve, accept, or fund it in any way.

Birdman

Then we have our work cut out for us if we conservatives wish to make an impact for the health and well being of our Nation.

I'd even go so far as to suggest the interchange between you and Jarabaub should be repeted on every blog - both Republican and Democrat.

It seems to me, everybody needs to be reminded of what the the ground rules are.

Minorities at home

Minorities however must be protected in terms of private property and their right to assemble. Which is at issue in almost every state.

Then their is the issue of dispropotinate "sin" tax...


Let private enterprise price vice

If health policies were all individual then obesity, tobacco, unprotected sex and other behaviors can be offset by increased premium and must be based on losses actually sustained.

Then I'm taking responsibility for my "cross."

Well, Lisa

It looks like you and I are the last of the die hards. Jerabaub does not seem to be responding any more.

I like your last post "Let private enterprise price vice". That is quite catchy - and to the point.

See you around.

Enquiring cows want to know.
"silent cow to ripe and foul secular folly"

Did not Churchill refer to her?


(Excellent article)

Re: 12:54 AM post

I apologize to all I have offended. It was not my intention.

My last sentence (dictionary definition) was not read before it was posted, and it did not come out sounding right with the rest of my post.

My mistake was "unintentional," and I am very sorry.

I ask for your forgiveness.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.