Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Friday, December 05, 2008

In an appearance on Hannity & Colmes, pastor and Purpose-Driven Life author Rick Warren offered scriptural justification for Sean Hannity's contention that the U.S. should assassinate leaders of hostile countries like Iran. "The Bible says that evil cannot be negotiated with. It has to just be stopped," Warren said. "In fact, that is the legitimate role of government. The Bible says that God puts government on earth to punish evildoers."

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

Redneckville

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

...no, fighting evil is Batman's deal. Government's deal is to...um....um.....hmmm....

Fuck shit up?

Well, a valid question is raised. Who should be fighting evil?

That's supposed to be what Cops are for.

I thought Austin Powers was fighting Dr. Evil?

Cops enforce laws, they don't fight evil.

Do you think all the Nazis thought they were evil or that they thought they were ridding their nation of evil???

Our government is intended to "protect and defend" us not determine what is good or evil elsewhere and act on it.

We are also a member of a world body, the UN which is given the responsibility of determining what situations are so horrific as to cause the entire world to object and possibly even interfere in. That should not be the responsiblity of any one nation. I think after the "Iraq War Depression" (TM Danni) ends Americans will "get it" that the UN is not just a place for third world nations to insult America but a place for America to show that it respects third world nations. Invading them at will demonstrates a lack of respect, in case you were wondering.

I wonder why they don't like us???

"I wonder why they don't like us???"

Indeed.

Excellent postage, Danni.

Hans

"Cops enforce laws, they don't fight evil."

Posted by Zed

Never met a Texas Ranger have you?
I have.
www.oneranger.org
My hand is still sore.

We just need a lot more cops like Joaquin.

Nick Nolte rode with Joaquin to study his character.

www.youtube.com

"Well, a valid question is raised. Who should be fighting evil?"

Not a valid question.

The valid question is:

What is the definition of "evil"? The definition of which all peoples and countries can agree?

Please get back to us when you have that answer.

Hans

Robbing a Bank is evil.
Murdering a child is evil.
Making and selling Meth is evil.
Jaywalking? Not so much evil, as-Ill-Advised.......

We are also a member of a world body, the UN which is given the responsibility of determining what situations are so horrific as to cause the entire world to object and possibly even interfere in.
#6 | Posted by danni

The biggest problem with this is that it is a statement for how the UN should act, not how it actually acts. Most UN Nations (US included) will not object to an action that serves their own interest. While the US shouldn't be unilaterally deciding "evil", there needs to be a better, non-political way for countries to intervene when "evil" in occuring.

For example, if China commits some form of "evil", what can the UN do when China vetoes every decision the UN makes?

**** and you can Stone you wife to Death if she displeases you!
.....Posted by Redneckville *****

........gotta show the wife this part of the bible.......

......not sure if I should do it before or after supper........

***** Robbing a Bank is evil.
Murdering a child is evil.
Making and selling Meth is evil.
Jaywalking? Not so much evil, as-Ill-Advised.......

#10 | Posted by frankf55 *****

.......Attacking a country is evil.........

Fighting evil the world over = a recipe for national bankruptcy, which we are well on the way towards.

My point-in #10-was this.
Some things that are illegal-ARE evil-ever seen a pic of Charles Manson on a BAD day? The look in his eyes would make your skin crawl.
Some things that are illegal-are NOT evil.
So-from that-we can presume-the "Legitimate Role of government"-is enforcing law. Not "fighting evil"...

Assigning Government the role of "fighting evil" would bring about something much worse than the Spanish Inquisition-an American "High Tech" Inquisition.
Something I'm sure the neo-cons would dearly love-they could use it as a cover to get rid of all Libs-just for instance.
The Southern Baptists would surely love it-they could FINALLY act out their hatred of anyone that doesn't think exactly as they do.

"**** and you can Stone you wife to Death if she displeases you!
.....Posted by Redneckville *****
........gotta show the wife this part of the bible.......
......not sure if I should do it before or after supper........
#12 | Posted by skizziks at 2008-12-05 03:41 AM"

I'd suggest after (or not at all), otherwise some "displeasoning" might show up in your food.

Rapture Crazed money grubbing liars.

If government really listens to god, it will indict Bush NOW. herm

Hmm... I think I would even have to disagree with that statement... I am pretty sure that the government is supposed to inforce laws which I guess could argueably be punishing evil doers... but ok.

~~~
The Southern Baptists would surely love it-they could FINALLY act out their hatred of anyone that doesn't think exactly as they do.
#16 | Posted by frankf55

Thanks for your over-generalization.... did you base that on the loudest members of the denomination or is that personal experience?

We are also a member of a world body, the UN which is given the responsibility of determining what situations are so horrific as to cause the entire world to object and possibly even interfere in.-Danni

Is this why the Un is falling all over themselves to stop the evil in Darfur? I guess that's not 'horrific' enough.

I wonder why they don't like us???"

Indeed.

Excellent postage, Danni.

Hans

#7 | Posted by Hans

God, y'all just fawn all over each other when it comes to making sure you somehow make things America's fault. Not saying we're not at fault over things. Just saying you love to point it out. Makes ya feel good with all that liberal guilt you have I guess. Excellent post? You sure don't have very high standards.

What is the definition of "evil"? The definition of which all peoples and countries can agree?

Please get back to us when you have that answer.

Hans

#9 | Posted by Hans

Sort of like what the definition of 'is' is. I guess since the whole world doesn't agree that ethnic cleanising is evil then it's not evil. Yeah, you got some great logic going there, Hans.

Statist candidates are evil. It doesn't matter if they cloak themselves as Democrat or Republican. a statist candidate is a statist candidate. A statist politician is a statist politician. 99 percent of all candidates for office or those currently in office are statists. If they perpetuate the statist mentality then they inheret the evil of statism and the inevitable statist policies.

One must fight the evil of statism, but at the same time recognize the viability of the STATE, as a conduit for the Constitution. Otherwise, one can easily fall prey to the pitfalls of ANARCHISM, where the even the Constitution becomes "just a piece of paper".

A voter is not evil because he votes for a statist candidate. Most times he or she is simply excercising their adherence to the democratic system.

As americans, the word "evil" should exist first and foremost in our minds as a violation of basic human rights protected in our Consitution-- because our country has ratified it, we are beholden to it. I do not believe that it gives us the right to hold other countries' actions evil. They would only become evil if other countries ratified a similar consititution, and even then, the evil would never exist outside the scope of those who ratified it.

What I'm trying to say is that our continued statist leanings and our current two party system and our interventionist foreign policy are EVIL more than anything else on the planet because they undermine our very foundation of self governence as a republic via the Constitution.

Because Hannity and Warren are statists at heart, they perpetuate the singular evil of our lifetime and one that will inevitably swallow up our great great nation and spit it out as a has-been.

"I guess since the whole world doesn't agree that ethnic cleanising is evil then it's not evil"

Some would make a great argument for that, just as some would make a great argument that allowing it to happen in your own country, which would against the rights given in our own constitution, when you yourself are being amongst those cleansed, without even trying to put up a fight, is just as evil.

KG, your argument may hold up better if the world was still a huge place. With the world being so small now and everyone affects everyone these days I think it's harder to say what goes on in one country is their business alone.

I am pretty sure that the government is supposed to *enforce laws which I guess could argueably be punishing evil doers..

DANG IT!! I can't spell today... Is it time to go home yet?

"KG, your argument may hold up better if the world was still a huge place. With the world being so small now and everyone affects everyone these days I think it's harder to say what goes on in one country is their business alone"

One may communicate with one's neighbor without busting down his door and sticking his foot up his ass.

"Statist candidates are evil. It doesn't matter if they cloak themselves as Democrat or Republican. a statist candidate is a statist candidate. A statist politician is a statist politician. 99 percent of all candidates for office or those currently in office are statists. If they perpetuate the statist mentality then they inheret the evil of statism and the inevitable statist policies"

Careful KGBEE, this kind of independent and insightful thinking, in regards to our current political system, doesn't often go over well with the more partisan types around here...right or left.

What I'm trying to say is that our continued statist leanings and our current two party system and our interventionist foreign policy are EVIL more than anything else on the planet because they undermine our very foundation of self governence as a republic via the Constitution.
#25 | Posted by k_g_beekeeper

KG, who exactly is perpetuating (or directing) the USA's interventionist foreign policy?
Would you care to speculate, as I am curious.

"Would you care to speculate, as I am curious"

I've already speculated for you. Read my post agian. one of the answers is in there perhaps several times.

In order to truly recognize ourselves, we must first look at who we are putting in office.

Sell yer daughter into slavery? Stone your wife? Got a chapter and verse for that?

"I am pretty sure that the government is supposed to *enforce laws which I guess could argueably be punishing evil doers.."

Is lickin' carpet "Evil"?

It is against the law in many states, even with your wife --- argueably!

It's funny/sad, how many people still think there are TWO teams.

In reaching out to general public, the role of the church is by persuasion and presentation of spiritual truths. Moral force and the voice of reason.

Physical power. The role of the government is enforcement of civic laws, encouraging and rewarding the good, preventing the bad, and punishing the evil. (Romans 13). It is also incumbent on the government to protect its citizens and discourage foreing agents from harming the nation and its interests.

He certainly looks healthy enough. So when is he enlisting?

"The role of the government is enforcement of civic laws, encouraging and rewarding the good, preventing the bad, and punishing the evil. (Romans 13). It is also incumbent on the government to protect its citizens and discourage foreing agents from harming the nation and its interests."

Otherwise Known as Socialism!

"(Romans 13). "

Funny you mention Romans 13 Takitez. I always think of Romans 13 when I am slaughtering sheep. First, I enter the pen calmly and pick one out, drop him down, and bind his legs, and put him in a wheelbarrow and wheel him out to the block and knife. We all know what happens next. I do this, one by one, over the course of a fourteen hour day.

Next week I will be slaughtering around 30 sheep. I will read Romans 13 outloud and it will help the Sseep understand that I am only doing it for their own good.

I'll bet dollars to donuts that God will make Hannity pay for his bloviance.

I've slaughtered two full grown deer, numerous birds, suicidal ground squirrels, a few rabbits, some snakes, not to mention the dragonflies with the vehicle and never felt good about any of it.

Also shot a rabbit and a couple birds with a 22 and didn't see the use of it. Killing isn't fun.

Last bird I hit was a California quail and he just exploded.

Sometimes a yellow jacket will bounce off the door and fall in the truck and be crawling around and that ain't fun at all.

K G BEEKEEPER

My wife is preparing a Burnt Offering right now for dinner

Sell yer daughter into slavery? Stone your wife? Got a chapter and verse for that?
Posted by Do Boy

Sell daughter into slavery: Exodus 21:7
Stone wife: Deuteronomy 13:6-10

"Stone wife"

See the dope stash thread.

Sell daughter into slavery: Exodus 21:7
Stone wife: Deuteronomy 13:6-10

Posted by rjgonzalez

Sell daughter into slavery for cash
Buy stuff to get wife stoned with proceeds
Make more daughters?

Make more daughters?

#43 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

You could-but it's kind of random what you'll get. You could easily end up with a passel of boys.

You could easily end up with a passel of boys.

They'd probably have brought some cash too. All those pyramids and aqueducts to build .....

My copy of the New Testament says nothing about assassinating foreign leaders. Maybe Warren has one of them new-fangeled translations.

I've always found it amusing that god chose a bunch of assholes to believe in him. Sure there are some decent people who believe in him. But for every one of those decent people there are nine assholes. I guess god loves creating a bunch of assholes. That and black holes, he created a bunch of those too.

So, to sum it up, god loves ass holes and black holes.

Then he must love you Dallas guy.

He didn't deem me to be a big enough ass hole to part of his fan club.

The preacher says governments were created by God to punish man. I say religions were created by man to subjugate God (and women too... and now that I think of it, all of of us). Ever wonder why the liberals, humanists, mystics, and scientists are usually the first to become "apostates"? They refuse to accept the arbitrary statements of popular demagogues who hide behind religion.

Ever wonder why one civilization's gods and godesses become its conqueror's demons? Why do Christians alter the timing or outright ignore the holidays celebrated by their putative messiah? Why is legitimate criticism of Israeli policy always twisted into some form of anti-semitism? Where do Shi'ite clerics get the hairbrained notion that humans are so degeneated as to require intercession by the Imams of old? Isn't it strange that "Pres." Ahmadinejad and "Dr." Dobson both eagerly await the immanent return of a petty, judgmental, and undead religious figure? To the former, it is a zombie imam while to the latter, it is a zombie messiah. It is kind of funny that the two would gladly strangle one another based on this matter of zombie semantics, and kind of disappointing that they haven't done so already.

I asked all of these questions to make a point. Of their many valid answers, few have anything to do with human compassion or the application of reason. The clerics many believers look to for spiritual guidance are as human as their followers and as useful as an asshole under your toenail (at least you can crap out of one on your elbow). What about being old or hairy makes their opinions so special? I have a beard and can speak in cryptic, nonsensical phrases. I know you can't see me, but consider it a test of faith. All of you should listen to me and do exactly what I tell you.

"God, y'all just fawn all over each other when it comes to making sure you somehow make things America's fault. Not saying we're not at fault, Just saying you love to point it out."

If we don't, Ev, who will? I don't think any of us enjoy it. herm


Sell yer daughter into slavery? Stone your wife? Got a chapter and verse for that?
Posted by Do Boy

Sell daughter into slavery: Exodus 21:7
Stone wife: Deuteronomy 13:6-10

#41 | Posted by rjgonzalez at 2008-12-05 07:17 PM | Reply | Flag:


Exodus 21:7 does not initiate or condone the practice of selling a daughter into slavery; but places restrictions and regulates an already established practice.

Deuteronomy 13:6-10

The penalty for apostasy amongst the convenant people of Israel was death. Deuteronomy 13:1-5 prescribes the execution of that penalty for false prophets. Deuteronomy 13:6-10 prescribes the execution of that penaly for relatives who entice family members to apostasize and worship other gods. The covenant contained blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience. The Bible teaches that human beings were not created autonomous (free to be a law to themselves) but theonomous--subject to the law of God.

The three purposes of the Old Testament Law...

1. To be a mirror reflecting to us both the perfect righteousness of God and our own sinfulness and shortcomings.

2. Its civil use, to restrain evil. The law cannot change the heart; but, it can to some extent inhibit lawlessness by its threats of judgment, especially when backed by a civil code that administers punishment for proven offenses.

3. To guide the regenerate (those whose hearts are changed by God by His grace alone, through faith alone, because of Christ alone) into good works that God has planned for them. Christ was speaking of this third use of the law when He said that those who become His disciples must be taught to do all that He had commanded (Matthew28:20), and that obedience to His commands will prove the reality of one's love for Him (John 14:15). The Christian is free from the law as a system of salvation (Romans 6:14; 7:4, 6; 1 Corinthians 9:20; Galatians 2:15-19; 3:25), but is "under the law of Christ" as a rule of life (1 Corinthians 9:21; Galatians 6:2) -- The Reformation Study Bible, note, page 264.

Genuine Christians are sinners sharing the Gospel with other sinners; much like one beggar telling another beggar where to find food. There is no genuine basis for an air of moral superiority on the part of the believer. The believer does not merit God's forgiveness or eternal life in Christ. That's why God's grace is so amazing.

Hannity is dumb.

Quick poll:
The Crusades - For or against?

Sean Hannity's contention that the U.S. should assassinate leaders of hostile countries like Iran.

Why does this ignorant bloodthirsty hate monger have a television show? Better yet, who the hell watches this crap?

One wonders how much our media media is responsible for terrorism when blowhards like this tell millions of people we should be assassinating world leaders.

The iranian mullahs would absolutely love it if we killed their puppet leader. It would keep them in power for another 50 years, and quell any rebellion in their country.

Hannity is beyond stupid. His parents should hang their heads in shame.

Sean Hannity's contention that the U.S. should assassinate leaders of hostile countries like Iran

If it keeps bloodshed to a minimum, I agree.

Goatman- Doing that would turn the average iranian against us for a generation or more. Use your head.

If there is a net gain in lives saved, it is worth it.

If it keeps bloodshed to a minimum, I agree.

Posted by goatman at 2008-12-06 03:08 AM | Reply

So saddam would have been OK killing our president if it kept us from invading his country? Somehow I doubt if that would get the goatman seal of approval.

So saddam would have been OK killing our president if it kept us from invading his country? Somehow I doubt if that would get the goatman seal of approval.

No. There still would have been a net loss of life. The VP would have become president and ordered an invasion of Iraq to retaliate.

Better analogy.

What would have been better in 1935: Assasinate Hitler and piss off a bunch of Germans or allow him to live and start WWII with its loss of 70 million?

I'd say one life (Hitler's) and the wrath of the germans would be worth it the saving of 70 million souls.

But that's just me.

Your analogy is shit, goatman. (and I KNEW a hitler analogy was coming. Godwins law, you lose)

You know why? cuz Ahmadinejad aint fucking hitler. period. Not even close. We're talking about iran, not germany, BTW...try to keep up.

And assassinating world leaders is against an executive order in the US. So there's a legal reason for you, since the rational geo-political one where we lose 90% of the Iranian citizens ever wanting peace with the US for 50 years or more didn't persuade you.

I won't even bother trying to make a moral argument here. I mean, really...what did ahmadinejad do that sean hannity thinks he should be murdered? Does he even know? Do you? Do you care?

There's zero good reason to blow ahmadinejad's brains out. Hannity is a bloviating idiot who hates the guy because he was told to.

With crazy Muslims you kill their leader and he becomes a martyr which is even worse.

You wanna know what bothers me, goatman?

That we have a highly paid pundit on a mainstream news network in the US...

And his words are almost indistinguishable from propaganda I've heard on al-jazeera.

This is shameful that we allow this, that this passes for adult conversation for so many Americans. It's simultaneously frightening and embarrassing.

cuz Ahmadinejad aint fucking hitler.

???

I didn't say he was. I said if an assasination results in net lives saved, it would be worth it.

try to keep up.

what did ahmadinejad do that sean hannity thinks he should be murdered?

I don't know. I don't speak for him. I don't watch him on TV or listen to him on the radio, so I couldn't make an intelligent guess.

Does he even know?

I presume he does. But again, I'll have to defer to him.

Do you?

No.

Do you care?

Not really. He's entitled to his opinion. I'm entitled to mine. You are entitled to yours. I really don't care why you or Sean have your respective opinions. It's y'all's right to have them without justifying them to others.

And assassinating world leaders is against an executive order in the US.

i.e., an order from a president? Which president? Are subsequent presidents obliged to follow executive orders of previous presidents? I could be wrong, but I don't think they are.

Besides, what does this have to do with Sean and his opinion?

Sean Hannity's contention that the U.S. should assassinate leaders of hostile countries like Iran

If it keeps bloodshed to a minimum, I agree.

#57 | Posted by goatman at 2008-12-06 03:08 AM | Reply | Flag:

And I ask...

What bloodshed? What 'bloodshed' would we be keeping to a minimum by killing Ahmadinejad? What "net gain in lives saved"?

That's the subject here. Not your opinion on Adolph hitler and your time machine.

Hannity is talking about assassinating a world leader. Got that? You agree with him if it stops Bloodshed. WHAT bloodshed, specifically, would end if Ahmadinejad died tomorrow?

Hannity is a bloviating idiot who hates the guy because he was told to.

Well, you could be right. Looks like you answered a couple of your own questions.

You wanna know what bothers me, goatman?

That we have a highly paid pundit on a mainstream news network in the US...

And his words are almost indistinguishable from propaganda I've heard on al-jazeera.

Which is exactly why I don't watch TV. I don't want a corporation telling me what to think. It sounds like you would be a happier person if you made the same decision.

This is shameful that we allow this

???

It is shameful that we allow an unfettered press and freedom of speech. I have to vehemently disagree.

I can only force myself not to watch it. I can't force others not to. But I certainly will not suggest that others don't have the right to watch that crap as I feel that right is one of the most important ones guaranteed by our Constitution.

Looks like you answered a couple of your own questions.

#69 | Posted by goatman at 2008-12-06 03:51 AM | Reply | Flag:

You agreed with Hannity's position, and when asked about it, you used generalities ("net lives gained") a stupid hitler analogy that had nothing to with the topic (READ: Hannity, Iranian leader, Assassination) and now you're totally backing off his position since you can't even tell me why Ahmadinejad deserves to have his head blown off.

Thanks for wasting my time like you always do. Jerk.

It is shameful that we allow an unfettered press and freedom of speech. I have to vehemently disagree.

Oooh, maybe I should stick around to get a moral lesson from the guy who thinks murder makes for great foreign policy.

Maybe not.

By "allowing this" I mean that it is shameful that Hannity has enough viewers to keep a show that is so incredibly stupid and harmful. In NO WAY did I say it should be illegal for him to have said show. AT ALL.

You dishonest piece of shit.

Good day to you, sir.

What bloodshed? What 'bloodshed' would we be keeping to a minimum by killing Ahmadinejad? What "net gain in lives saved"?

I don't know Alex. What is it with you? You are asking me these questions as if I agreed with what Sean said about ahmadinejead should be assasinated.

Again, my point is -- I feel assination is justified if there is net savings of lives. I haven't done a risk assesment or strung numbers together to say if in the case of Iran, more lives would be saved with amadinejead's assasination. Please don't read anything more into my simple statement than what I wrote, OK?

jeez

You agreed with Hannity's position,

Honestly, Alex, you need to take a chill pill.

I said I agree IF (you do understand that operative word, don't you?) IF it would result in a net savings of lives would I agree.

I don't know if it would or not but IF (and only IF) it would, do I agree with him.

I hope I have finally made myself clear on this. I was actually quite clear on my first post until you put your own interpretation on my clearly stated position.

Thanks for wasting my time like you always do. Jerk.

Well, Alex, no thanks to you for taking my very succinct and clearly stated postion, (see post #57) putting your own personal spin on it, then becoming indignant when I maintain my original position -- as you always do.

Oooh, maybe I should stick around to get a moral lesson from the guy who thinks murder makes for great foreign policy.

If you want to be disingenous and play the "take-out-of-context" game by not including my qualifying phrase that began with the word "IF", feel free. It sure doesn't make you look very good, though. You usually don't stoop to using buffalo bob tactics. What's eating you tonight?

You dishonest piece of shit.

???

Me, dishonest? Who took my very simple statement and turned it into something I did not intend? It was you. Who took part of post out of context just two entries ago? You again.

Please show me where I was being dishonest. I made a simple statement. You transformed it, then you have the nerve to call me dishonest because I disagree with your mutation of my statement?

Are you for real? LOL

I wonder why they don't like us???

#6 | Posted by danni
-----------------
I have a hard time believing this one. Your implying that they only started hating us during Bush's presidency. I can prove that is bullshit.

We did have several Al Quaeda attacks during Bill Clinton's presidency. You mean they didn't like us then either? They didn't like us back when Iran kidnapped all those people from the American Embassy either. So just when in history has the US ever been liked?

How can you explain how when these countries have a tragic event they come running to the US? Personally I'd close uncle sugar daddy's coffers for a couple of years. No financial assistance to anyone no matter how much they kiss up to us.

Lonnie

Lordie, we debate the moral pros and cons of assassinating the leader of a rival nation. We've really sunk into the mire during the Bush tyranny, haven't we? herm

Rick Warren doesn't think that assasinating World Leaders is evil?

Rick Warren is a piece of shit.

America's legacy of assasinating or causing coup d'etats of democratically elected leaders who won't play ball with American based multinationals linked to the MIC is evil.

And most shameful.

Problem with defining evil as good is that it is not a one way street.

By Warren's ill logic Iraqis would be justified in setting off a nuke in the US.

Not cool.

Be Well.

/Yes, Yawn HamncheeZ is a POS too but that kinda goes w/o saying.

Lordie, we debate the moral pros and cons of assassinating the leader of a rival nation. We've really sunk into the mire during the Bush tyranny, haven't we? herm

Is it naivete, loathing of Bush, or something else that makes you believe that other presidents haven't clanestinely endorsed political assassinations, herm?

Yep it says that.

It sounds weird but he makes you depend on him and makes you remember who grows your food every year.

If you wonder why your not rich, it is because he doesn't want you to be. He wants you to search for him. Here is a clue, he knits you together and is invisible.

Is it naivete, loathing of Bush, or something else that makes you believe that other presidents haven't clandestinely endorsed political assassinations, herm?

* Spud waves his hand in the air frantically *

Ooh, ooh!

Spud KNOWS this one!

It's sommat else.

Specifically, it's an American MSM that exist to malinform, under-inform, and misinform, first and foremost.

That uses time honored Mad Ave techniques and Think-Tanked sound bites in order to turn the vast majority of the American population into one of the most propagadised and dumbed down groups of folk on the earth. So much so that if Goebels and Stalin were alive today could only shake their heads in mute admiration.

/Wot did Spud win?

Be Well.

Sean Hannity is a fascist demogogue, and it is little surprise that he can conjure up some crackpot preacher to parrot his insanity. Isn't it strange that Ahmadinejad and Hannity both eagerly await the immanent return of a petty, judgmental, undead religious figure? To the former, it is a zombie imam while to the latter, it is a zombie messiah. It is kind of funny that these two would gladly strangle one another based on this matter of zombie semantics, and kind of disappointing that they haven't done so already.

Just think how much more beautiful a world it would be if Hannity and Ahmandinejad took eachother out. If O'Riley became collateral damage, it would be icing on the cake. The Faux News lackeys and the rest of the worlds nutcases should be pitted against one another in gladiatorial combat so that atheists have something cool to watch on TV while they're not taking the 10 commandments out of redneck courthouses or doing of embryonic stem cell shooters. Knowing Rupert Murdoch, Fox would definitely try to cover it.

People blame "God" blamed for the damndest things.

At a time when everything belonged to government, even the citizen, Jesus made the revolutionary statement, "Give unto Caesar, that which is Caesars, and to God that which is Gods." (a saying used out of contest for a couple of millenia to justify paying taxes) indicating that there were some things, such as the tithes (which was the actual context) that did not belong to Caesar.

Paul said, "We fight not against flesh and blood, but against evil forces in high government places."

Some people use biblical text for whatever purpose they like, and it's easy to get away with because most people have either a flawed traditional view of Christianity or no view at all.

The most entertaining are the full-on atheists who use a flawed traditional understanding of a subject when showing their lack of tolerance for it's often admittedly asinine adherents, who also for the most part have no clue at all.

....all this killing is the sickest crap I ever heard of. We unfortuately live in a world filled with psycho drama.....

The most entertaining are the full-on atheists who use a flawed traditional understanding of a subject when showing their lack of tolerance for it's often admittedly asinine adherents, who also for the most part have no clue at all.

Most atheists do not have issues with religious individuals who are tolerant of atheism. When atheists do lash out, it is against a group of believers that continually restates the same defunct arguments for belief and depend on traditional interpretations of religion. Any flaws in atheists' understanding of religion stems from their desire to see everything rationally- by examining physical evidence. Religions are founded upon the acceptance of arbitrary beliefs without supporting facts. They are incapable of making claims that a true atheist can understand or acknowledge.

If we assassinate theirs, we shouldn't be surprised when they assassinate ours.

"The Bible says that evil cannot be negotiated with. It has to just be stopped," Warren said. "In fact, that is the legitimate role of government. The Bible says that God puts government on earth to punish evildoers."

Without the full context, I'll withhold judgment.

But there are FOUR jurisdictions of government, ALL of which are to handle things differently.

First, the individual
Second, the family
Third, the church
Fourth, civil government

The purpose of civil government is to protect the innocent and condemn those who harm the innocent, take their life, liberty, property.

TRUE, PURE EVIL cannot be negotiated with, but as you and I know, most people, governments and situations are rarely and cut-and-dry case of PURE EVIL.

So in our constitutional republic, there's alot that needs to be taken into consideration.

Assasination was clearly used in the Old Testament, but is clearly absent (when carried out by human agency, through a legitimate due process) in the New Testament.

MANY tactics are not biblical that the US uses, such as embargoes. Embargoes ALWAYS harm women and children and the poor disproportionately and thus are wrong.

The draft is not biblical (and we've used THAT before).

Holy crap, I don't even want touch this one.

It's like some kind of bad mixture of a combo of Church and State and a jihad.

Biblicaly I have found references to very few governments that have been directly influenced by God. That of Sodom and Gomorrah and that of Israel. In all (?) others (sorry Jerrico and some other OT cities) it is a matter of free will. This BOZO is nuts and rewriting things to suit himself.

I call a big BS on this.

Hmmmmmm....then why wouldn't the righties want a much bigger govt then?

Oh wait, they got just that under their idol, Dumbya.

If Hanutty want's to champion political assassinations, he needs to be prepared for some vicious retribution from his proposed targets. After all, a 'preemptive policy' is one that Hanutty himself loves to espouse. He should expect the same policies to be used against him.

Bye Hanutty!

Comments are closed for this entry.


Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Copyright 2012 World Readable