Would there be any comments?

[MaggieMae]

1. Maggie, did you read the rest of the post?

Would you have selected Kommisar Wallis as your - or even one of your advisors?

2. How do you feel about our President selecting yet another America-hating, capitalism-hating, anti-Semitic, Marxist?

Copasetic? Down wit' dat?

YES!! I don't think he's anywhere near that overreaching characterization of him. Just because the hysterical right wing bloggers (and authors) say so doesn't make it so.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. Maggie, did you read the rest of the post?

Would you have selected Kommisar Wallis as your - or even one of your advisors?

2. How do you feel about our President selecting yet another America-hating, capitalism-hating, anti-Semitic, Marxist?

Copasetic? Down wit' dat?

YES!! I don't think he's anywhere near that overreaching characterization of him. Just because the hysterical right wing bloggers (and authors) say so doesn't make it so.

Now that you are so self-identified, would it be asking too much for you to put your favs in order from 'most exhuberant about,' to least...

Anti-American?

Anti-capitalism?

Anti-semitic?

or

Pro-Marxist?

C'mon....'fess up.

 

[MaggieMae]

1. Maggie, did you read the rest of the post?

Would you have selected Kommisar Wallis as your - or even one of your advisors?

2. How do you feel about our President selecting yet another America-hating, capitalism-hating, anti-Semitic, Marxist?

Copasetic? Down wit' dat?

YES!! I don't think he's anywhere near that overreaching characterization of him. Just because the hysterical right wing bloggers (and authors) say so doesn't make it so.

Now that you are so self-identified, would it be asking too much for you to put your favs in order from 'most exhuberant about,' to least...

Anti-American?

Anti-capitalism?

Anti-semitic?

or

Pro-Marxist?

C'mon....'fess up.

Don't be ridiculous. The average American supports a healthy combination of liberalism and conservatism and doesn't disavow religious freedoms no matter what it is. That you continue to be one who can only see black and white (no pun intended) is pretty pathetic.

 

[PoliticalChic]

YES!! I don't think he's anywhere near that overreaching characterization of him. Just because the hysterical right wing bloggers (and authors) say so doesn't make it so.

Now that you are so self-identified, would it be asking too much for you to put your favs in order from 'most exhuberant about,' to least...

Anti-American?

Anti-capitalism?

Anti-semitic?

or

Pro-Marxist?

C'mon....'fess up.

Don't be ridiculous. The average American supports a healthy combination of liberalism and conservatism and doesn't disavow religious freedoms no matter what it is. That you continue to be one who can only see black and white (no pun intended) is pretty pathetic.

But..but...but...Mags! You gave an emphatic "YES!!" to endorsing the selection of a attested advocate of opposition to America, capitalism, Israel, and a proponent of Marxism..

And now you are hiding behind some presumed poll, as in "..The average American supports ..."

Are you running away from the YES!! already?
Was there something that you suddenly realize is misguided, amiss, perverse about your earlier espousal???

Well, which one?

Are you re-thinking hatred of America?

Or the efficacy of capitalism?

Or the earlier bigotry?

Or your admiration of a political philosophy that killed and enslaved over one hundred million of our fellow human being during the previous century?

Is this an admission that your earlier view was not well thought out?

My surprise is un bounded!


And if you now eschew the above viewpoints, how can you still support either Kommisar Wallis, or the individual who named him as a close, and personal religious advisor????

I'm confused.

Maggie Mae has 'feet of clay'?

 

[rikules]

Reading 'Sojourners'???

As in Jim Wallis, religious adviser to President Obama?

Here's a little background for those unfamiliar with either Wallis or Sojourners:

"In parallel with his magazine's stridently antiwar position during the Seventies, Wallis championed the cause of communism. Forgiving its brutal standard-bearers in Vietnam and Cambodia the most abominable of atrocities, Wallis was unsparing in his execration of American military efforts. Demanding greater levels of "social justice" in the U.S., he was silent on the subject of the murderous rampages of Cambodia's Khmer Rouge. Very much to the contrary, several Sojourners editorials attempted to exculpate the Khmer Rouge of the charges of genocide, instead shifting blame squarely onto the United States.

Following the 1979 refugee crisis in Vietnam, Wallis lashed out at the desperate masses fleeing North Vietnam's communist forces by boat. These refugees, as Wallis saw it, had been "inoculated" by capitalist influences during the war and were absconding "to support their consumer habit in other lands." Wallis then admonished critics against pointing to the boat people to "discredit" the righteousness of Vietnam's newly victorious Communist regime.

More than a mere religious leader, Wallis, a registered Democrat, is also an adroit political operative, publicly portraying himself as a politically neutral religious figure whose overriding allegiance is to God. Always with the disclaimer that neither major political party can claim to authoritatively represent the values of religious faith, Wallis passionately contends that Republican policies tend to be immoral and godless." http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1833

"Today, President Obama gets his spiritual nourishment from another source, a leader of American “progressive” Christianity, named Jim Wallis… Rev. Wallis has served on Obama’s White House Advisory Council on Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships, or “Faith Council”, since 2008. But the relationship is personal and goes back at least a dozen years…Wallis went on to join and then lead the militant Students for a Democratic Society at Michigan State University.

Meanwhile, many of Wallis’ old SDS comrades had founded a new Marxist organization with some older Communist Party veterans, patriotically named the New American Movement. In 1982, NAM, in turn, merged with the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee to form Democratic Socialists of America.

The new organization took penetration of organized religion very seriously, immediately forming a Religion and Socialism Commission.

Jim Wallis is a socialist and a fervent believer in the state redistribution of wealth. He is connected to some of the most radical people in America. Loudon: Obama’s “Faith Adviser” Jim Wallis Mixes With Socialists, Radicals and “Truthers” RBO


Wallis is a leader of the so-called religious left. He is a political activist who cloaks his radicalism in religion. He founded and is the editor of "Sojourners" magazine. His relationship with Obama began to loom as Obama's ties with Wright were "disappeared".He and Sojourners have an anti-Israel animus -- just as did Pastor Wright. The magazine and church bulletins published under the aegis of Pastor Wright carried manifestos from a Hamas leader ; Sojourners magazine has also carried pro-Hamas pieces.

But Pastor Wright and Jim Wallis share much more: a stark anti-Americanism and a radicalism sharply at odds with the vast majority of religious figures in America."
American Thinker Blog: Obama's other minister problem

You are the first person in a looooooooooong time who began a conversation with "I was just reading this Communist, anti-American journal today, and......"
Middy, you make this place interesting!

Could I pay you to keep it up?

seems to me that it shouldn't matter WHICH side says it....

EVERYONE being civil to each other is a good idea

Rik-o, you never miss an opportunity to miss the point.

Hitler was a great painter: two coats in an afternoon!

seems to me, my friend, that being civil to each other was the WHOLE POINT!


"Hitler was a great painter: two coats in an afternoon"

hitler was an arse in many ways but if he could actually DO two coats in 1 afternoon then regardless of what a terrible human being he was...he was a good painter....

and I believe we should all stop snarling and snarking at each other and all try to talk to each as as frenemies

 

[rikules]

YES!! I don't think he's anywhere near that overreaching characterization of him. Just because the hysterical right wing bloggers (and authors) say so doesn't make it so.

Now that you are so self-identified, would it be asking too much for you to put your favs in order from 'most exhuberant about,' to least...

Anti-American?

Anti-capitalism?

Anti-semitic?

or

Pro-Marxist?

C'mon....'fess up.

Don't be ridiculous. The average American supports a healthy combination of liberalism and conservatism and doesn't disavow religious freedoms no matter what it is. That you continue to be one who can only see black and white (no pun intended) is pretty pathetic.

"The average American supports a healthy combination of liberalism and conservatism and doesn't disavow religious freedoms no matter what it is. "

I hope this is true.
I trust that the squeaky wheels on the left and right don't represent the 70%? that is more rational and tolerant

and civil

 

[PoliticalChic]

seems to me that it shouldn't matter WHICH side says it....

EVERYONE being civil to each other is a good idea

Rik-o, you never miss an opportunity to miss the point.

Hitler was a great painter: two coats in an afternoon!

seems to me, my friend, that being civil to each other was the WHOLE POINT!


"Hitler was a great painter: two coats in an afternoon"

hitler was an arse in many ways but if he could actually DO two coats in 1 afternoon then regardless of what a terrible human being he was...he was a good painter....

and I believe we should all stop snarling and snarking at each other and all try to talk to each as as frenemies

Rik-o, there are folks who wish only to be good people, like you, but who lack the abilty to prioritize and incorporate values and morals.

One doesn't say that, heck, he murdered millions of men, women and children, but he sure could lay on a coat of paint.

To say that would identify one as a moral moron.

Not to realize that "Sojourners: Anti-Americans, and Pro-Marxists," are using the bible and civility, but endorse the destruction of the the human spirit and human beings, would also identify one as a moral moron.

Now, be a good boy and go back to folding paper planes.

 

[rikules]

Rik-o, you never miss an opportunity to miss the point.

Hitler was a great painter: two coats in an afternoon!

seems to me, my friend, that being civil to each other was the WHOLE POINT!


"Hitler was a great painter: two coats in an afternoon"

hitler was an arse in many ways but if he could actually DO two coats in 1 afternoon then regardless of what a terrible human being he was...he was a good painter....

and I believe we should all stop snarling and snarking at each other and all try to talk to each as as frenemies

Rik-o, there are folks who wish only to be good people, like you, but who lack the abilty to prioritize and incorporate values and morals.

One doesn't say that, heck, he murdered millions of men, women and children, but he sure could lay on a coat of paint.

To say that would identify one as a moral moron.

Not to realize that "Sojourners: Anti-Americans, and Pro-Marxists," are using the bible and civility, but endorse the destruction of the the human spirit and human beings, would also identify one as a moral moron.

Now, be a good boy and go back to folding paper planes.

"Rik-o, there are folks who wish only to be good people, like you, but who lack the abilty to prioritize and incorporate values and morals."

I'm sure you are speaking of OTHER people and NOT me...



"One doesn't say that, heck, he murdered millions of men, women and children, but he sure could lay on a coat of paint."

No!
of course not

but one can also accept reality;


tiger woods was a womanizer who cheated on his wife
AND he has been the best golfer in the world for the past 11 years!



"Not to realize that "Sojourners: Anti-Americans, and Pro-Marxists," are using the bible and civility, but endorse the destruction of the the human spirit and human beings, would also identify one as a moral moron."

if, as you say. the sojourners are who you say they are then THEY THEMSELVES may be questionable people but the concept of "can't we all be civil to each other" is certainly still a good one.

Hitler endorsed belief in the christian religion (regardless of whether he was an atheist or not) to his people

since hitler was such a scumbucket does that mean he was WRONG to promote religion?


"Now, be a good boy and go back to folding paper planes"

I wish you would just discuss the issues
give your opinions
which I appreciate
without the personal attacks

much of what you say has relative merit and I enjoy reading MOST of your posts to see/hear your opnions on these various topics...

regardless of the fact tha I do not 100% agree with you.

but these interchanges would be so much nicer
and my respect for you so much greater
if you would drop the personal attacks....

anyway
I truly hope you have a nice day!

 

[PoliticalChic]

seems to me, my friend, that being civil to each other was the WHOLE POINT!


"Hitler was a great painter: two coats in an afternoon"

hitler was an arse in many ways but if he could actually DO two coats in 1 afternoon then regardless of what a terrible human being he was...he was a good painter....

and I believe we should all stop snarling and snarking at each other and all try to talk to each as as frenemies

Rik-o, there are folks who wish only to be good people, like you, but who lack the abilty to prioritize and incorporate values and morals.

One doesn't say that, heck, he murdered millions of men, women and children, but he sure could lay on a coat of paint.

To say that would identify one as a moral moron.

Not to realize that "Sojourners: Anti-Americans, and Pro-Marxists," are using the bible and civility, but endorse the destruction of the the human spirit and human beings, would also identify one as a moral moron.

Now, be a good boy and go back to folding paper planes.

"Rik-o, there are folks who wish only to be good people, like you, but who lack the abilty to prioritize and incorporate values and morals."

I'm sure you are speaking of OTHER people and NOT me...



"One doesn't say that, heck, he murdered millions of men, women and children, but he sure could lay on a coat of paint."

No!
of course not

but one can also accept reality;


tiger woods was a womanizer who cheated on his wife
AND he has been the best golfer in the world for the past 11 years!



"Not to realize that "Sojourners: Anti-Americans, and Pro-Marxists," are using the bible and civility, but endorse the destruction of the the human spirit and human beings, would also identify one as a moral moron."

if, as you say. the sojourners are who you say they are then THEY THEMSELVES may be questionable people but the concept of "can't we all be civil to each other" is certainly still a good one.

Hitler endorsed belief in the christian religion (regardless of whether he was an atheist or not) to his people

since hitler was such a scumbucket does that mean he was WRONG to promote religion?


"Now, be a good boy and go back to folding paper planes"

I wish you would just discuss the issues
give your opinions
which I appreciate
without the personal attacks

much of what you say has relative merit and I enjoy reading MOST of your posts to see/hear your opnions on these various topics...

regardless of the fact tha I do not 100% agree with you.

but these interchanges would be so much nicer
and my respect for you so much greater
if you would drop the personal attacks....

anyway
I truly hope you have a nice day!

1. First of all, the tone and substance of your post identifies you as both a good person, and as being civil.

2."tiger woods was a womanizer who cheat on his wife
AND he has been the best golfer in the world for the past 11 years!"
You see, this, essentially validated my earlier premise... your desire to Rodney King this thread, "can't we all just get along" overwhelms your abilty to judge, to prioritize...

One cannot bring the attributes of Tiger Woods into a discussion of Hitler, and equate the two in any way. Any way. No bearing at all, and rather than support your idea, it is jaw-droppingly illustrative of the fact that you, for whatever reason, cannot give the proper precedence to different sets of data.

You see, once one identifies the heinous acts of Hitler, one with any sense would not go on to say, as you did, "...but if he could actually DO two coats in 1 afternoon then regardless of what a terrible human being he was...he was a good painter...."


If one had a clear understanding of at lest, logic, such a clause would mark one as,...insane? or at leat inane.

3. And, finally, my view of 'insults' as in "I wish you would just discuss the issues
give your opinions
which I appreciate
without the personal attacks"
is the following: I never us vile language. But I do enjoy poking or teasing, often pointedly, as long as the same is ancillary to the theme of a post or thread.
In other words, it is in addition to an idea or premise.

I find that posts that do as you suggest tend to be bland and dull.

But we can remain, what was your term, 'frenemies'?
(not sure of the definition of your term, but I certainly don't consider
you or any other boardie as an enemy)

 

[Quantum Windbag]

seems to me that it shouldn't matter WHICH side says it....

EVERYONE being civil to each other is a good idea

Why?

 

[Tom Clancy]

Should we also add this? This goes especially for you midcan.

I will not be a partisan hack, I won't blame one side for all America's problems and I will admit my parties faults. (Tom Clancy 1:1)

Ahem...we're ALL "partisan hacks" when discussing the political issues. Otherwise, there would be no need for the category and this site would be just another flowery one discussing, er, cookies (and such).

It's debatable.

Partisan Hacks in my book are not like you and me, it's more like rdean, Truthmatters, USarmyretired, etc..

 

[MaggieMae]

Now that you are so self-identified, would it be asking too much for you to put your favs in order from 'most exhuberant about,' to least...

Anti-American?

Anti-capitalism?

Anti-semitic?

or

Pro-Marxist?

C'mon....'fess up.

Don't be ridiculous. The average American supports a healthy combination of liberalism and conservatism and doesn't disavow religious freedoms no matter what it is. That you continue to be one who can only see black and white (no pun intended) is pretty pathetic.

But..but...but...Mags! You gave an emphatic "YES!!" to endorsing the selection of a attested advocate of opposition to America, capitalism, Israel, and a proponent of Marxism..

And now you are hiding behind some presumed poll, as in "..The average American supports ..."

Are you running away from the YES!! already?
Was there something that you suddenly realize is misguided, amiss, perverse about your earlier espousal???

Well, which one?

Are you re-thinking hatred of America?

Or the efficacy of capitalism?

Or the earlier bigotry?

Or your admiration of a political philosophy that killed and enslaved over one hundred million of our fellow human being during the previous century?

Is this an admission that your earlier view was not well thought out?

My surprise is un bounded!


And if you now eschew the above viewpoints, how can you still support either Kommisar Wallis, or the individual who named him as a close, and personal religious advisor????

I'm confused.

Maggie Mae has 'feet of clay'?

I think my YES response was adequate. What part didn't you get? And why do you continue to read something ominous into everything?

"YES!! I don't think he's anywhere near that overreaching characterization of him."

 

[PoliticalChic]

Don't be ridiculous. The average American supports a healthy combination of liberalism and conservatism and doesn't disavow religious freedoms no matter what it is. That you continue to be one who can only see black and white (no pun intended) is pretty pathetic.

But..but...but...Mags! You gave an emphatic "YES!!" to endorsing the selection of a attested advocate of opposition to America, capitalism, Israel, and a proponent of Marxism..

And now you are hiding behind some presumed poll, as in "..The average American supports ..."

Are you running away from the YES!! already?
Was there something that you suddenly realize is misguided, amiss, perverse about your earlier espousal???

Well, which one?

Are you re-thinking hatred of America?

Or the efficacy of capitalism?

Or the earlier bigotry?

Or your admiration of a political philosophy that killed and enslaved over one hundred million of our fellow human being during the previous century?

Is this an admission that your earlier view was not well thought out?

My surprise is un bounded!


And if you now eschew the above viewpoints, how can you still support either Kommisar Wallis, or the individual who named him as a close, and personal religious advisor????

I'm confused.

Maggie Mae has 'feet of clay'?

I think my YES response was adequate. What part didn't you get? And why do you continue to read something ominous into everything?

"YES!! I don't think he's anywhere near that overreaching characterization of him."

Although I don't believe that you prevaricate, you clearly have the ability to close your eyes, ignore, pretend, that you don't know that everything I have claimed about Wallis is true.

This is much the same phenomenon seen previously about Bill Clinton.

Those on the left, it seems, are able to nod knowingly about the deviance, the evil, the statements that fly in the face of experiece and truth, and yet carry on as though it is nothing out of the ordinary.

I've never been able to quite get the knack of that trick.

Now, I don't belive that I have found it necessary to question your vocabulary in the past, but the term "overreaching"...you are aware that it means " To reach or extend over or beyond."

But, this might be part of the self-delusion trick that I've not been able to incorporate into my psyche...you throw about a term that would disabuse an opponents' argument...whether it applies or not...whether it is true or not.

Interesting tactic.

Too bad I gave accounts of Wallis' past, his personal history, his own statements, and you have not disputed any.

Therefore, "I don't think he's anywhere near that overreaching characterization of him[/B]."[/QUOTE]" really isn't defensible, is it.
And it was not a characterization: it was an indictment.

Here, let me help you.

Closer to the truth would be "I don't care if Wallis is a Marxist Communist who hates America and Israel. Nor is it of any importance to me that were his dreams fulfilled, many Americans would suffer death, imprisonment, or any of a hundred other penalties! And the same goes double for President Obama! So there!"

Now, wouldn't that statement have been a more honorable exposition?
Or did I mean disreputable?


Now, let's review
1. Middy was perusing his Daily Worker, er....'Sojourner: the Communist/anti-American Journal, and found an interesting item on civility.

2. Excited that I had the opportunity to enlighten any unfamiliar with the the 'journal' as to its typical anti-American, pro-Marxist, ant-Israel, pro-socialist fare, I posted same with documentation and links.
Wasn't it interesting reading?

3. Maggie Mae found an exemplary defense: although Wallis was selected for the post of religious adviser by President Obama, who would probably claim that 'although I read his work for twenty years, I never actually understood any of it...' (you know, based on the Jeremiah Wright defense), Maggie found after much searching, that there were several other 'advisers.'
That makes it alright, these jaundiced views in the ear of the President.
Or is it the 'D' next to ones voter registration that does the trick?

4. When I curiously asked Mags, exactly which of Wallis' charming views she most adored, Maggie claimed...what?...all of them? Well, you were unable to pick any one.

5. But, then, curiously, Maggie denied that there were any such views...the views expressed of Wallis' historicity, were not true, or not accurate...but provided no proof other that the invalid 'overreaching.'

Did I get it all? Correct?


Feel free to retract any of your statements...

 

[midcan5]

Reading 'Sojourners'???

As in Jim Wallis, religious adviser to President Obama?

You are the first person in a looooooooooong time who began a conversation with "I was just reading this Communist, anti-American journal today, and......"
Middy, you make this place interesting!

Could I pay you to keep it up?

Weird that you can't keep your dislike of Obama and social justice out of the discussion for even a minute. The trouble with much that you post is veracity. Is Wallis all those things? I doubt it, but I don't have time to counter every revisionist and exaggerated attempt to criticize an Administration doing a heck of a lot more for all the people of the nation than the just the well heeled.


"No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money." Matthew 6:24

 

[PoliticalChic]

Reading 'Sojourners'???

As in Jim Wallis, religious adviser to President Obama?

You are the first person in a looooooooooong time who began a conversation with "I was just reading this Communist, anti-American journal today, and......"
Middy, you make this place interesting!

Could I pay you to keep it up?

Weird that you can't keep your dislike of Obama and social justice out of the discussion for even a minute. The trouble with much that you post is veracity. Is Wallis all those things? I doubt it, but I don't have time to counter every revisionist and exaggerated attempt to criticize an Administration doing a heck of a lot more for all the people of the nation than the just the well heeled.


"No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money." Matthew 6:24

1. Well, you've convinced me: even the Devil can quote the Bible.

2. "...I don't have time to counter every revisionist and exaggerated ..."
How about 'countering' this one:
But in 1979, he was quoted in the journal "Mission Tracks" saying he hoped that "more Christians will come to view the world through Marxist eyes."Wallis put another radical professor, James Cone, on his Sojourners editorial board. Cone is Wright's mentor and the father of black liberation theology, a Marxist version of Christianity that worships a white-hating black Jesus."Together," Cone said, "black religion and Marxist philosophy may show us a way to build a completely new society."

Such foes of capitalism and apologists for communism belong in communes, not national leadership. Better they sojourn their way completely out of American politics." Sojourning Socialists - IBD - Investors.com
(emphasis mine)

3. "...an Administration doing a heck of a lot more for all the people..."
I don't know about that, but I know one guy really, really happy about the job the Obama folks are doing: Jimmy Carter!
Now Jimmy may not be the most incompetent President!
See, the old saw is true: "It's an ill wind that blows nobody any good,..."

4. "Weird that you can't keep your dislike of Obama and social justice..."
Why weird?
Wouldn't you try to combat a viral disease?

5. Middy, I like the civil banter that we both engage in, and, as I told you in the PM, because of you I'm having my towels monogrammed 'wingnut.'

6. I hope we both carry on in our respective manner, as I truly believe that the truth will out.

All the best to you and yours, and I'll do my best to cure you of this viral disease.

 

[MaggieMae]

But..but...but...Mags! You gave an emphatic "YES!!" to endorsing the selection of a attested advocate of opposition to America, capitalism, Israel, and a proponent of Marxism..

And now you are hiding behind some presumed poll, as in "..The average American supports ..."

Are you running away from the YES!! already?
Was there something that you suddenly realize is misguided, amiss, perverse about your earlier espousal???

Well, which one?

Are you re-thinking hatred of America?

Or the efficacy of capitalism?

Or the earlier bigotry?

Or your admiration of a political philosophy that killed and enslaved over one hundred million of our fellow human being during the previous century?

Is this an admission that your earlier view was not well thought out?

My surprise is un bounded!


And if you now eschew the above viewpoints, how can you still support either Kommisar Wallis, or the individual who named him as a close, and personal religious advisor????

I'm confused.

Maggie Mae has 'feet of clay'?

I think my YES response was adequate. What part didn't you get? And why do you continue to read something ominous into everything?

"YES!! I don't think he's anywhere near that overreaching characterization of him."

Although I don't believe that you prevaricate, you clearly have the ability to close your eyes, ignore, pretend, that you don't know that everything I have claimed about Wallis is true.

This is much the same phenomenon seen previously about Bill Clinton.

Those on the left, it seems, are able to nod knowingly about the deviance, the evil, the statements that fly in the face of experiece and truth, and yet carry on as though it is nothing out of the ordinary.

I've never been able to quite get the knack of that trick.

Now, I don't belive that I have found it necessary to question your vocabulary in the past, but the term "overreaching"...you are aware that it means " To reach or extend over or beyond."

But, this might be part of the self-delusion trick that I've not been able to incorporate into my psyche...you throw about a term that would disabuse an opponents' argument...whether it applies or not...whether it is true or not.

Interesting tactic.

Too bad I gave accounts of Wallis' past, his personal history, his own statements, and you have not disputed any.

Therefore, "I don't think he's anywhere near that overreaching characterization of him[/B]."

" really isn't defensible, is it.
And it was not a characterization: it was an indictment.

Here, let me help you.

Closer to the truth would be "I don't care if Wallis is a Marxist Communist who hates America and Israel. Nor is it of any importance to me that were his dreams fulfilled, many Americans would suffer death, imprisonment, or any of a hundred other penalties! And the same goes double for President Obama! So there!"

Now, wouldn't that statement have been a more honorable exposition?
Or did I mean disreputable?
It means your own overreaching characterizations are so bizarre as to make me worry about you. In other words, you're full of shit.


Now, let's review
1. Middy was perusing his Daily Worker, er....'Sojourner: the Communist/anti-American Journal, and found an interesting item on civility.

2. Excited that I had the opportunity to enlighten any unfamiliar with the the 'journal' as to its typical anti-American, pro-Marxist, ant-Israel, pro-socialist fare, I posted same with documentation and links.
Wasn't it interesting reading?
No.

3. Maggie Mae found an exemplary defense: although Wallis was selected for the post of religious adviser by President Obama, who would probably claim that 'although I read his work for twenty years, I never actually understood any of it...' (you know, based on the Jeremiah Wright defense), Maggie found after much searching, that there were several other 'advisers.'
That makes it alright, these jaundiced views in the ear of the President.
Or is it the 'D' next to ones voter registration that does the trick?
There is no doubt that Obama would choose someone like Wallis for theological advice as it relates to the current political realm because Obama is, after all, a Democrat and not a conservative Republican. Who should he have chosen instead? Billy Graham? Shall we discuss HIS prejudices? Wallis is also a respected member of the Evangelical Christian community. You know, those folks who try to do as Jesus would do?

4. When I curiously asked Mags, exactly which of Wallis' charming views she most adored, Maggie claimed...what?...all of them? Well, you were unable to pick any one.
I really know very little about the man. I've heard him interviewed and he seems quite sane to me. That's all I need to know. But then again, my reading material and thought process isn't continually stuck in negativity. Oddly, your heroine du jour seems to be Ann Coulter. Again, shall we discuss HER prejudices?

5. But, then, curiously, Maggie denied that there were any such views...the views expressed of Wallis' historicity, were not true, or not accurate...but provided no proof other that the invalid 'overreaching.'

Did I get it all? Correct?


Feel free to retract any of your statements...[/QUOTE]

Well, you've done it again, PC. Made such a lengthy post that I'm already too bored to go on. So no, I stand by my generalized statements, and don't feel a need to retract any of them.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I think my YES response was adequate. What part didn't you get? And why do you continue to read something ominous into everything?

"YES!! I don't think he's anywhere near that overreaching characterization of him."

Although I don't believe that you prevaricate, you clearly have the ability to close your eyes, ignore, pretend, that you don't know that everything I have claimed about Wallis is true.

This is much the same phenomenon seen previously about Bill Clinton.

Those on the left, it seems, are able to nod knowingly about the deviance, the evil, the statements that fly in the face of experiece and truth, and yet carry on as though it is nothing out of the ordinary.

I've never been able to quite get the knack of that trick.

Now, I don't belive that I have found it necessary to question your vocabulary in the past, but the term "overreaching"...you are aware that it means " To reach or extend over or beyond."

But, this might be part of the self-delusion trick that I've not been able to incorporate into my psyche...you throw about a term that would disabuse an opponents' argument...whether it applies or not...whether it is true or not.

Interesting tactic.

Too bad I gave accounts of Wallis' past, his personal history, his own statements, and you have not disputed any.

Therefore, "I don't think he's anywhere near that overreaching characterization of him[/B]."

" really isn't defensible, is it.
And it was not a characterization: it was an indictment.

Here, let me help you.

Closer to the truth would be "I don't care if Wallis is a Marxist Communist who hates America and Israel. Nor is it of any importance to me that were his dreams fulfilled, many Americans would suffer death, imprisonment, or any of a hundred other penalties! And the same goes double for President Obama! So there!"

Now, wouldn't that statement have been a more honorable exposition?
Or did I mean disreputable?
It means your own overreaching characterizations are so bizarre as to make me worry about you. In other words, you're full of shit.


Now, let's review
1. Middy was perusing his Daily Worker, er....'Sojourner: the Communist/anti-American Journal, and found an interesting item on civility.

2. Excited that I had the opportunity to enlighten any unfamiliar with the the 'journal' as to its typical anti-American, pro-Marxist, ant-Israel, pro-socialist fare, I posted same with documentation and links.
Wasn't it interesting reading?
No.

3. Maggie Mae found an exemplary defense: although Wallis was selected for the post of religious adviser by President Obama, who would probably claim that 'although I read his work for twenty years, I never actually understood any of it...' (you know, based on the Jeremiah Wright defense), Maggie found after much searching, that there were several other 'advisers.'
That makes it alright, these jaundiced views in the ear of the President.
Or is it the 'D' next to ones voter registration that does the trick?
There is no doubt that Obama would choose someone like Wallis for theological advice as it relates to the current political realm because Obama is, after all, a Democrat and not a conservative Republican. Who should he have chosen instead? Billy Graham? Shall we discuss HIS prejudices? Wallis is also a respected member of the Evangelical Christian community. You know, those folks who try to do as Jesus would do?

4. When I curiously asked Mags, exactly which of Wallis' charming views she most adored, Maggie claimed...what?...all of them? Well, you were unable to pick any one.
I really know very little about the man. I've heard him interviewed and he seems quite sane to me. That's all I need to know. But then again, my reading material and thought process isn't continually stuck in negativity. Oddly, your heroine du jour seems to be Ann Coulter. Again, shall we discuss HER prejudices?

5. But, then, curiously, Maggie denied that there were any such views...the views expressed of Wallis' historicity, were not true, or not accurate...but provided no proof other that the invalid 'overreaching.'

Did I get it all? Correct?


Feel free to retract any of your statements...

Well, you've done it again, PC. Made such a lengthy post that I'm already too bored to go on. So no, I stand by my generalized statements, and don't feel a need to retract any of them.[/QUOTE]

My, oh, my...it appears I've hit nerve!

You don't usually respond with this sort of language...

But, outside of the empty verbiage, again not denying nor disputing that our presidential advisor Wallis is anti-American, pro-Marxism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Israel...there was really nothing in your post, and simply showed a desire to respond.

And I do appreciate that!

I have a question about "...material and thought process isn't continually stuck in negativity."
Is it my posting about communism that is negative? Or socialism? or anti-Americanism?
Is it the subject matter that is negative, or any discussion in opposition to your views?
Is that what's negative..for, surely, if that is the case, I will allow you to select the subjects, and to write what I should think about same.

That is one of the hallmarks of the left, isn't it.
And sort of has a nexus with these words of Ms. Coulter:
"Uttering lines that send liberals into paroxysms of rage, otherwise known as “citing facts,” is the spice of life. Veins bulging…pulsing above their eyes.."

(I think there is some sort of pulsing above your eyes....)

But I so enjoyed the part where you said you know nothing about the guy, but intend to support him with every fibre of your being! (A bit of poetic license, there)...as in "I really know very little about the man....That's all I need to know."

Query: if you know very little about the man, how do you know my statements "are so bizarre..."?

And the filler in the post, you know, to bring up Queen Ann...
really doesn't fill the lacunae, does it.

My apology for the length..."such a lengthy post that I'm already too bored..." I know you've said that in the past, but I do like to write, and this is such an important topic, as there are many who are unaware of the breadth and depth of infiltration into our society by left wing janissaries, and the danger posed by same.

Thank you for the opportunity to post on this important subject, one with such eschatological bearing.

 

[midcan5]

2. "...I don't have time to counter every revisionist and exaggerated ..."

How about 'countering' this one:
But in 1979, he was quoted in the journal "Mission Tracks" saying he hoped that "more Christians will come to view the world through Marxist eyes."Wallis put another radical professor, James Cone, on his Sojourners editorial board. Cone is Wright's mentor and the father of black liberation theology, a Marxist version of Christianity that worships a white-hating black Jesus."Together," Cone said, "black religion and Marxist philosophy may show us a way to build a completely new society."

This is exactly what I mean, the only place I can find a journal called Mission Tracks is in wingnut tool world. Can you find a link to the original source? I can't, I can't even find the journal mentioned anywhere except in wingnuttery world.

Here is a piece on Wallis, I am not his defender but surely his work for all people is more Christian than the social Darwinism of the right today. Jim Wallis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The source is Wiki but if you want to read his words just visit his site. That seems like the fair thing to do. Sojourners: Christians for Justice and Peace

There is a curious irony in the right's criticism of a person like Wallis who early in life found Marxism's ideas appealing. Beck distorts Wallis' comments to claim he is a "Marxist" | Media Matters for America Many did and still do, nothing evil flows directly from any economic idea or you would just as easily criticize laissez faire capitalism for its outcomes. But you don't.

I'll never see a just and civil world as a disease so you can give that up now.

I also took a minute to look up and read about James Cone, if he is a bad guy, I think I have a working theory to explain you wingnuts; you suffer from a severe case of moral dyslexia in which good is bad and bad is good. Hopefully there is a cure, you may try reading other sources than corporate supported think tanks of wingnuttery as a start towards a healthy view of this complex, but interesting world we inhabit for this brief moment. This Far by Faith . James Cone | PBS

 

[MaggieMae]

2. "...I don't have time to counter every revisionist and exaggerated ..."

How about 'countering' this one:
But in 1979, he was quoted in the journal "Mission Tracks" saying he hoped that "more Christians will come to view the world through Marxist eyes."Wallis put another radical professor, James Cone, on his Sojourners editorial board. Cone is Wright's mentor and the father of black liberation theology, a Marxist version of Christianity that worships a white-hating black Jesus."Together," Cone said, "black religion and Marxist philosophy may show us a way to build a completely new society."

This is exactly what I mean, the only place I can find a journal called Mission Tracks is in wingnut tool world. Can you find a link to the original source? I can't, I can't even find the journal mentioned anywhere except in wingnuttery world.

Here is a piece on Wallis, I am not his defender but surely his work for all people is more Christian than the social Darwinism of the right today. Jim Wallis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The source is Wiki but if you want to read his words just visit his site. That seems like the fair thing to do. Sojourners: Christians for Justice and Peace

There is a curious irony in the right's criticism of a person like Wallis who early in life found Marxism's ideas appealing. Beck distorts Wallis' comments to claim he is a "Marxist" | Media Matters for America Many did and still do, nothing evil flows directly from any economic idea or you would just as easily criticize laissez faire capitalism for its outcomes. But you don't.

I'll never see a just and civil world as a disease so you can give that up now.

I also took a minute to look up and read about James Cone, if he is a bad guy, I think I have a working theory to explain you wingnuts; you suffer from a severe case of moral dyslexia in which good is bad and bad is good. Hopefully there is a cure, you may try reading other sources than corporate supported think tanks of wingnuttery as a start towards a healthy view of this complex, but interesting world we inhabit for this brief moment. This Far by Faith . James Cone | PBS

Thanks for picking up the pieces of PC's numerous and running with her disengenuous allegations. I find her form of "debate" tedius and has a tendency to run off the rails to the point I barely know what she's talking about. And it's at that point when I just run screaming from my monitor.