Democrat caught telling bald face lie.

[Mr. Shaman]

Really? He's going to get reelected with 36% of the vote?

Even if you like that dick weed, the fact that you would still defend an ad he puts out with blatantly false attacks and slandering another man's character is pretty despicable on your part. This type of sleaze should not be defended on either side of the aisle. I actually feel embarrassed for you.

I neither need, nor want your pity. Is it blatantly false? Not hardly. His opponent, Taliban Dan, is a religious extremist. It's a clear caricature, but not a blatantly false attack.

Since you're more or less a fence sitter, here's a clue. Politics isn't nice. It isn't gentle. It's war, using words as weapons. It's bare knuckles street fighting. You, and the other milquetoast pretentious nambie pambies, can whine about gutter politics all you want. It makes no difference. The fact is that attack politics works, and has always worked. I have respect for Grayson taking the gloves off, and it's something more Democrats need to do.

The ad is a flat out lie perpetuated by a dishonest and dishonorable man.....

So........​

"Grayson spokesman Sam Drzymala told FactCheck that "the campaign interpreted Webster's remarks to mean that he believes wives should submit to their husbands."

The ad also claims Webster opposes abortion in cases of rape (something Webster has not denied)http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upsho...yson-receives-pushback-for-taliban-dan-attack, wants to "make divorce illegal," tried to prohibit alimony payments to an adulterous wife but not to an adulterous husband, and "denied abused women health care."

Sarah Posner at Religion Dispatches raises the question of whether Webster's complete remarks really do show a different context. Posner interviewed author Kathryn Joyce, who said the following:

"Saying that a woman should pray for God's guidance in submission, if she wants to, is not leniency, but rather standard evangelical language that emphasizes individuals must obey biblical mandates regardless of how others around them behave. So, Webster is saying, men must be accountable to God for their responsibility to love their wives regardless of whether she submits -- that they must pray to do right, even if she doesn't."

Webster's camp hasn't spoken directly about the submission statement, but it continues to blast the ad overall."

......where are all o' the CONFLICTS??????

​

 

[rdean]

I neither need, nor want your pity. Is it blatantly false? Not hardly. His opponent, Taliban Dan, is a religious extremist. It's a clear caricature, but not a blatantly false attack.

Since you're more or less a fence sitter, here's a clue. Politics isn't nice. It isn't gentle. It's war, using words as weapons. It's bare knuckles street fighting. You, and the other milquetoast pretentious nambie pambies, can whine about gutter politics all you want. It makes no difference. The fact is that attack politics works, and has always worked. I have respect for Grayson taking the gloves off, and it's something more Democrats need to do.

The ad is a flat out lie perpetuated by a dishonest and dishonorable man.....

So........​

"Grayson spokesman Sam Drzymala told FactCheck that "the campaign interpreted Webster's remarks to mean that he believes wives should submit to their husbands."

The ad also claims Webster opposes abortion in cases of rape (something Webster has not denied)http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upsho...yson-receives-pushback-for-taliban-dan-attack, wants to "make divorce illegal," tried to prohibit alimony payments to an adulterous wife but not to an adulterous husband, and "denied abused women health care."

Sarah Posner at Religion Dispatches raises the question of whether Webster's complete remarks really do show a different context. Posner interviewed author Kathryn Joyce, who said the following:

"Saying that a woman should pray for God's guidance in submission, if she wants to, is not leniency, but rather standard evangelical language that emphasizes individuals must obey biblical mandates regardless of how others around them behave. So, Webster is saying, men must be accountable to God for their responsibility to love their wives regardless of whether she submits -- that they must pray to do right, even if she doesn't."

Webster's camp hasn't spoken directly about the submission statement, but it continues to blast the ad overall."

......where are all o' the CONFLICTS??????

​

The conflict is that it's only Taliban when they do it in Afghanistan.

Forcing a rape victim to give birth? Why can't the right wing see the evil? I don't get it.

Will the father get shared custody? That part has never been clear.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

The ad is a flat out lie perpetuated by a dishonest and dishonorable man.....

So........​

"Grayson spokesman Sam Drzymala told FactCheck that "the campaign interpreted Webster's remarks to mean that he believes wives should submit to their husbands."

The ad also claims Webster opposes abortion in cases of rape (something Webster has not denied)http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upsho...yson-receives-pushback-for-taliban-dan-attack, wants to "make divorce illegal," tried to prohibit alimony payments to an adulterous wife but not to an adulterous husband, and "denied abused women health care."

Sarah Posner at Religion Dispatches raises the question of whether Webster's complete remarks really do show a different context. Posner interviewed author Kathryn Joyce, who said the following:

"Saying that a woman should pray for God's guidance in submission, if she wants to, is not leniency, but rather standard evangelical language that emphasizes individuals must obey biblical mandates regardless of how others around them behave. So, Webster is saying, men must be accountable to God for their responsibility to love their wives regardless of whether she submits -- that they must pray to do right, even if she doesn't."

Webster's camp hasn't spoken directly about the submission statement, but it continues to blast the ad overall."

......where are all o' the CONFLICTS??????

​

The conflict is that it's only Taliban when they do it in Afghanistan.

Forcing a rape victim to give birth? Why can't the right wing see the evil? I don't get it.

Will the father get shared custody? That part has never been clear.

I'm sure Grayson was merely using Taliban as a slur; accusing Webster of being the same type o' religious-fundamentalist.

Maybe Grayson should have used Taliban-Lite, or....Webster being a 'Bagger-fave, something much-less-insulting, like Vanilla-Taliban.​

 

[Charles_Main]

Grayson gets pushback for ‘Taliban Dan’ attack | The Upshot Yahoo! News - Yahoo! News

He took a statement completely out of context. The Republican challenger said the OPPOSITE of what this guy claimed he said. When confronted on it his staff claimed they stand by their opinion.

To claim it's a bald faced lie, you'd have to prove that Dan Webster isn't remotely part of the Taliban. You'd first have to prove that Webster isn't a right wing theocrat.

No dick head, all have to do is listen to the full tape of what he said.

This is no different then what breibart did to sherrod.

Blatantlt and intentionally misrepresenting what he said.

 

[Charles_Main]

So........



......where are all o' the CONFLICTS??????

​

The conflict is that it's only Taliban when they do it in Afghanistan.

Forcing a rape victim to give birth? Why can't the right wing see the evil? I don't get it.

Will the father get shared custody? That part has never been clear.

I'm sure Grayson was merely using Taliban as a slur; accusing Webster of being the same type o' religious-fundamentalist.

Maybe Grayson should have used Taliban-Lite, or....Webster being a 'Bagger-fave, something much-less-insulting, like Vanilla-Taliban.​

What about the fact that he took his opponents words completely out of context. Making it sound like he was saying wives should submit to their husbands, when in fact he was saying DON'T Prey that verse.

 

[driveby]

Grayson is a hero for "having the balls" to do this shit? You moonbats get more whacked out by the minute.......

 

[Dick Tuck]

Grayson is a hero for "having the balls" to do this shit? You moonbats get more whacked out by the minute.......

Wake me up when the douche bag, tea baggers stop claiming that Obama is a Kenyan born muslim, and a socialist.

 

[Charles_Main]

From the link:

While the Grayson campaign can be taken to task for taking Webster's comment out of context, in the larger context, they're correct. Grayson's campaign argued that Webster seemed to be supporting submission in his comments to an audience of conservative men, whom he directed to pray that they would better fulfill their biblical duty to love their wives, and leave prayers about women's submission to their wives. However, the emphasis of these remarks, as those familiar with Christian rhetoric could recognize, is not on the optional nature of wives' submission. Wifely submission is part of an often-unbalanced equation to Christians who subscribe to "complementarian" or "patriarchal" marriage roles, where men must "love" and women "obey." Saying that a woman should pray for God's guidance in submission, if she wants to, is not leniency, but rather standard evangelical language that emphasizes individuals must obey biblical mandates regardless of how others around them behave. So, Webster is saying, men must be accountable to God for their responsibility to love their wives regardless of whether she submits -- that they must pray to do right, even if she doesn't.
However, the much more relevant application of this principle on following God's orders despite your circumstances is on women. Submission is a contentious and tricky issue even within conservative evangelical churches. Most churches promoting submission make certain to couple demands for submissive wives with those for loving, servant-leader husbands. But at the end of the day, it's women who bear the brunt of the principle; their obligations are to God, not to a husband who may or may not keep his end of the contract. Accordingly, the message is impressed by countless women's ministries and leaders that women must continue submitting even when their husband doesn't show love, because they owe their obedience, above all, to God. In circles that take submission seriously -- as does any organization associated with Bill Gothard -- that's what wives' options really look like.


​

Someone should ask Webster the question: Does the bible say wives should submit to their husbands? And if so, should wives submit to their husbands?

He answered it on TV last night. He said wives and husbands should submit to each other.

Furthermore if you had listened to the whole tape instead of just the add. You would hear him say that we should pick the verses to prey that talk about what WE should do, not what our spouse should do. He said DON'T pick the one that says Wives should submit to their husbands.
It is funny as hell to me, that you people that got so worked up over My sherrodd being taken out of context, seem to have no problem with this BLATANT misrepresentation of what he said.

 

[Dick Tuck]

From the link:

While the Grayson campaign can be taken to task for taking Webster's comment out of context, in the larger context, they're correct. Grayson's campaign argued that Webster seemed to be supporting submission in his comments to an audience of conservative men, whom he directed to pray that they would better fulfill their biblical duty to love their wives, and leave prayers about women's submission to their wives. However, the emphasis of these remarks, as those familiar with Christian rhetoric could recognize, is not on the optional nature of wives' submission. Wifely submission is part of an often-unbalanced equation to Christians who subscribe to "complementarian" or "patriarchal" marriage roles, where men must "love" and women "obey." Saying that a woman should pray for God's guidance in submission, if she wants to, is not leniency, but rather standard evangelical language that emphasizes individuals must obey biblical mandates regardless of how others around them behave. So, Webster is saying, men must be accountable to God for their responsibility to love their wives regardless of whether she submits -- that they must pray to do right, even if she doesn't.
However, the much more relevant application of this principle on following God's orders despite your circumstances is on women. Submission is a contentious and tricky issue even within conservative evangelical churches. Most churches promoting submission make certain to couple demands for submissive wives with those for loving, servant-leader husbands. But at the end of the day, it's women who bear the brunt of the principle; their obligations are to God, not to a husband who may or may not keep his end of the contract. Accordingly, the message is impressed by countless women's ministries and leaders that women must continue submitting even when their husband doesn't show love, because they owe their obedience, above all, to God. In circles that take submission seriously -- as does any organization associated with Bill Gothard -- that's what wives' options really look like.


​

Someone should ask Webster the question: Does the bible say wives should submit to their husbands? And if so, should wives submit to their husbands?

He answered it on TV last night. He said wives and husbands should submit to each other.

So he changed his view after the light was shown on him, and you think that's now OK?

 

[driveby]

Grayson is a hero for "having the balls" to do this shit? You moonbats get more whacked out by the minute.......

Wake me up when the douche bag, tea baggers stop claiming that Obama is a Kenyan born muslim, and a socialist.

Did the tea party run a political ad taking Obama's words out of context stating such things? ......

 

[driveby]

From the link:

While the Grayson campaign can be taken to task for taking Webster's comment out of context, in the larger context, they're correct. Grayson's campaign argued that Webster seemed to be supporting submission in his comments to an audience of conservative men, whom he directed to pray that they would better fulfill their biblical duty to love their wives, and leave prayers about women's submission to their wives. However, the emphasis of these remarks, as those familiar with Christian rhetoric could recognize, is not on the optional nature of wives' submission. Wifely submission is part of an often-unbalanced equation to Christians who subscribe to "complementarian" or "patriarchal" marriage roles, where men must "love" and women "obey." Saying that a woman should pray for God's guidance in submission, if she wants to, is not leniency, but rather standard evangelical language that emphasizes individuals must obey biblical mandates regardless of how others around them behave. So, Webster is saying, men must be accountable to God for their responsibility to love their wives regardless of whether she submits -- that they must pray to do right, even if she doesn't.
However, the much more relevant application of this principle on following God's orders despite your circumstances is on women. Submission is a contentious and tricky issue even within conservative evangelical churches. Most churches promoting submission make certain to couple demands for submissive wives with those for loving, servant-leader husbands. But at the end of the day, it's women who bear the brunt of the principle; their obligations are to God, not to a husband who may or may not keep his end of the contract. Accordingly, the message is impressed by countless women's ministries and leaders that women must continue submitting even when their husband doesn't show love, because they owe their obedience, above all, to God. In circles that take submission seriously -- as does any organization associated with Bill Gothard -- that's what wives' options really look like.


​

Someone should ask Webster the question: Does the bible say wives should submit to their husbands? And if so, should wives submit to their husbands?

He answered it on TV last night. He said wives and husbands should submit to each other.

So he changed his view after the light was shown on him, and you think that's now OK?

No dick suck, sick fuck or whatever your name is, Grayson lied about his views just like Grayson lied about Health Care on the House floor.

 

[AmericanFirst]

To claim it's a bald faced lie, you'd have to prove that Dan Webster isn't remotely part of the Taliban. You'd first have to prove that Webster isn't a right wing theocrat.

Why am I not surprised that the terminally stupid defend it.

I've come to accept your ignorance. How hard is this? If you want to make the claim that this is a bald faced lie, you'd have to prove that the wingnut isn't a right wing theocrat.

Bullshit!! If a democrat said it, it is a lie.

 

[KMAN]

Grayson gets pushback for ‘Taliban Dan’ attack | The Upshot Yahoo! News - Yahoo! News

He took a statement completely out of context. The Republican challenger said the OPPOSITE of what this guy claimed he said. When confronted on it his staff claimed they stand by their opinion.

Amazing.... A Democrat lie...

 

[MikeK]

This issue is a tempest in a teapot. The right-wingers are desperately seeking to hang their hat on anything that looks like it might hold it.

Alan Grayson is exactly the kind of congressman we need. He's smart, he speaks his mind, he is not in anyone's pocket and he is a fighter.

Dennis Kucinich is another good one.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

He answered it on TV last night. He said wives and husbands should submit to each other.

So he changed his view after the light was shown on him, and you think that's now OK?

No he didn't change his view because it was always his view, but you already knew that. Since all you seem to want to do is lie and agitate others, you're not worth talking to any further on this subject. I'm not wasting any more time on your adolescence.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

This issue is a tempest in a teapot. The right-wingers are desperately seeking to hang their hat on anything that looks like it might hold it.

They don't need to. Grayson is imploding all on his own. He's trailing badly in the polls and has next to no shot at getting reelected. He may as well just pack it up and save his donors some of their money.

Alan Grayson is exactly the kind of congressman we need. He's smart, he speaks his mind, he is not in anyone's pocket and he is a fighter.

He's an arrogant, over the top, blustering buffoon and that is why he's losing.

 

[rdean]

The ad also highlights other extreme positions held and votes cast by Webster. He introduced a bill in 1990 that would outlaw divorce, even in cases of domestic violence. (Florida House bill 1586, introduced in 1990)

-----------------------------------

Funny, Republicans are screaming and howling, "He never said for wives to submit to their husbands".

When, in fact, he clearly said, "Victims, submit to your rapists". Telling a rape victim she must carry the baby of her rapist is so far beyond the pale, it can only be described as "evil".

 

[Charles_Main]

This issue is a tempest in a teapot. The right-wingers are desperately seeking to hang their hat on anything that looks like it might hold it.

They don't need to. Grayson is imploding all on his own. He's trailing badly in the polls and has next to no shot at getting reelected. He may as well just pack it up and save his donors some of their money.

Alan Grayson is exactly the kind of congressman we need. He's smart, he speaks his mind, he is not in anyone's pocket and he is a fighter.

He's an arrogant, over the top, blustering buffoon and that is why he's losing.

Not to mention a straight up liar who makes Andrew Briebart look like an angel