Actually Shinmen, Be Well is correct. The general requirement for posting articles is to AT LEAST post a few paragraphs, with the entire article strongly preferred. Since you're new, I won't smack you with a trout....
Do you have any evidence he is a Christian Imperialist? Is it some kind of organization? or just an ideology that people have to varying degrees? I assume you mean West wants the US to invade non-Christian countries and forcibly convert them? If so, I hope you have some kind of sources. Since the C.I. are just like the Taliban, does that mean they sodomize boys, hate women and use them as beasts of burden, and enjoy killing all infidels?
Did your mommy do you homework for you in school?!
Do I also have to do your homework as well?
You can't look up the term, "Christian Imperialism/Imperialist" on Google.
Working a keyboard hurts your fingers?!
ST
Do you have any evidence he is a Christian Imperialist? Is it some kind of organization? or just an ideology that people have to varying degrees? I assume you mean West wants the US to invade non-Christian countries and forcibly convert them? If so, I hope you have some kind of sources. Since the C.I. are just like the Taliban, does that mean they sodomize boys, hate women and use them as beasts of burden, and enjoy killing all infidels?
Did your mommy do you homework for you in school?!
Do I also have to do your homework as well?
You can't look up the term, "Christian Imperialism/Imperialist" on Google.
Working a keyboard hurts your fingers?!
ST
What *I* find ironic is how many people are all afroth over Rombama's VP pick. IT DOESN'T MATTER. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ROMBAMA AND OBAMNEY. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE DEMS AND REPS. TPTB LOVE IT WHEN YOU WASTE YOUR TIME ON SH*T LIKE THIS.
You people are the reason we're in the crapper. So have fun spinning yourselves into a lather about NOTHING....
So I have to do everyone's homework?!
Allan West is a "Dominion-ist/Christian Imperialist."
He is for total and complete war against "Islam." --and is completely for open (pre-emptive) war against Iran without any regard for the implications and blow-back (WWIII).
When you act upon the dictates of your religion (in this case ultra-whacko Christian conservatism) where he believes that he is on the "right side" of the ultimate showdown (Armageddon), and he acts to propel this showdown... this makes you a "Christian Imperialist." There is no difference between these Christian whackos, and the radical Islamic whackos--both sides are acting to propel their own version of Armageddon.
I cannot help it here is people do not listen to his speeches, or pay attention to his writings and so on.
Don't whine if you are not up on the information curve, and have not done their homework.
Here's some links to what I am talking about....
http://www.bettendorf.com/node/1216
http://oasislife.org/topic/christian-imperialism/
I know this is way over the head of many people.
Sorry.
This is also a very good article on the subject posted on Lew Rockwell's site a few months ago, but I cannot find a way to dig though his archives.
The responsible way to post info is to post the info. If your comments consist of keywords and clues and words or phrases that meaning nothing without internet searchers, then you're not being a very responsible person. More like an "attention getter" IMHO.
Like I said--do your homework and required reading before coming to my class.
ST
Anyone else think that whomever Romney picks O will dump Biden for Hitlery?
Like I said--do your homework and required reading before coming to my class.
here are a lot of folks, myself included, who feel the world would be a better place if non-Sufi Islam were eradicated; to that end, it would be necessary to hollow most of the Middle East out like a gourd. The vast majority of those who believe this do so strictly from a societal/cultural position, not a religious one. Non-Sufi Islam is not compatible with modern civilization, and they prove it many times a day.
Thank you for proving/making my point.
This is exactly what Allan West believes in as well--and it is the view of the "Christian Imperialist/s" BTW (despite you thinking it is all "societal" and so on).
Which makes this kind of belief completely insane, because it will cause WWIII, but that's perfectly okay huh?!
And it being perfectly okay with global-thermo-nuclear-war blow-back is what makes Allan West a complete lunatic.
Why don't the just have a horse run for VP??
his parents weren't citizens when he was born so he's not a NBC. Total FAIL!!!
So I have to do everyone's homework?!
Allan West is a "Dominion-ist/Christian Imperialist."
He is for total and complete war against "Islam." --and is completely for open (pre-emptive) war against Iran without any regard for the implications and blow-back (WWIII).
When you act upon the dictates of your religion (in this case ultra-whacko Christian conservatism) where he believes that he is on the "right side" of the ultimate showdown (Armageddon), and he acts to propel this showdown... this makes you a "Christian Imperialist." There is no difference between these Christian whackos, and the radical Islamic whackos--both sides are acting to propel their own version of Armageddon.
I cannot help it here is people do not listen to his speeches, or pay attention to his writings and so on.
Don't whine if you are not up on the information curve, and have not done their homework.
Here's some links to what I am talking about....
http://www.bettendorf.com/node/1216
http://oasislife.org/topic/christian-imperialism/
I know this is way over the head of many people.
Sorry.
This is also a very good article on the subject posted on Lew Rockwell's site a few months ago, but I cannot find a way to dig though his archives.
The responsible way to post info is to post the info. If your comments consist of keywords and clues and words or phrases that meaning nothing without internet searchers, then you're not being a very responsible person. More like an "attention getter" IMHO.
Like I said--do your homework and required reading before coming to my class.
ST
Condoleezza Rice VP Possibility Denounced By Anti-Abortion Group
The Huffington Post | By Laura Bassett
07/13/2012The Susan B. Anthony List, a prominent anti-abortion rights political action committee, balked at rumors on Friday that Mitt Romney is strongly considering the self-described "mildly pro-choice" Condoleezza Rice as his running mate.
In response to Thursday's Drudge Report story that claims former Secretary of State Rice is "near the top of the list" of Romney's potential vice presidential candidates, SBA List president Marjorie Dannenfelser pointed out that Romney promised to choose a running mate who shared his views on abortion.
"Former Secretary Rice's position on the sanctity of human life makes her an unqualified candidate for Governor Romney to choose as a running mate," Dannenfelser said in a statement on Friday. "Throughout the campaign, including at the Palmetto Freedom Forum last September, he has pledged to us in no uncertain terms that he would choose a pro-life running mate. We have taken Governor Romney at his word and therefore believe Secretary Rice will be ruled out of consideration. Secretary Rice's position violates criteria that Governor Romney himself has laid out.”
Rice is an unlikely choice for running mate, given that she strongly, unequivocally rejected the idea in a March interview on "Fox and Friends." It is possible that Romney staffers fed the rumor to Matt Drudge, with whom they have an established relationship, in order to distract the media from all the damaging controversy over Romney's involvement in decisions at Bain Capital after 1999.
Moreover, Romney did promise to choose an anti-abortion running mate. At the Palmetto Freedom Forum, moderator Robbie George asked Romney if he would choose as a running mate "someone who shares your pro-life and pro-marriage convictions," and Romney responded affirmatively.
Rice described herself as "mildly pro-choice" in a 2008 interview and has said she doesn't think the government should be "forcing its views" on abortion.
And Ronald Reagan voted for and supported democratic candidates WHEN HE WAS A DEMOCRAT.
So what???
I was addressing the statement that Condi has stated she voted for Obama in 2008. She has never done that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan
Reagan began his political career as a liberal Democrat, admirer of Franklin D. Roosevelt, and an active supporter of New Deal policies. In the early 1950s, as his relationship with Republican actress Nancy Davis grew,[58][59] he shifted to the right and, while remaining a Democrat, endorsed the presidential candidacies of Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1952 and 1956 as well as Richard Nixon in 1960.[60] The last time Reagan actively supported a Democratic candidate was in 1950 when he helped Helen Gahagan Douglas in her unsuccessful Senate campaign against Richard Nixon.
Meanwhile, If I recall correctly, this thread is about Condoleezza Rice being on Romney's short list of VP candidates.
Wouldn't her pro-choice stance be at odds with the GOP base?
Hmm.Rumors that Condoleezza Rice is Gay.
by Eternal HopeFollow
Share
permalink 462 Comments
A new round of outings of high-profile Republicans is occurring, and the most recent person caught up in this is none other than Secretary of State Condolezza Rice. WP Reporter Glen Kessler reveals the information that causes one to raise questions in his new book about her.
According to the book, Rice owns a home together with Randy Bean, a documentary filmmaker who once worked with Bill Moyers. Kessler made the discovery by looking through real estate records.
Bean explained the joint ownership and line of credit to Kessler by saying she had medical bills which left her financially drained and Rice helped her by co-purchasing the house along with a third person, Coit Blacker, a Stanford professor who is openly gay.
Blacker later sold his line of credit to Rice and Bean.
None of this, of course, proves that she (Rice) is gay. However, it raises a lot of questions and has triggered rumors that she is. But she, like a lot of Republicans who have been outed in the past, has exhibited homophobic behavior. But whether or not she is gay is not important. What is important is her refusal to speak out when her opinion would have mattered.
For instance, she refused to condemn the execution of people in Iran because they were gay. She has been silent on the Bush administration's refusal to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell even in the face of ever-increasing troop shortages. Although she is not actively anti-gay, she has stood silently by as Bush and his rabid homophobic allies write anti-gay legislation. Although that in and of itself does not prove that she is gay, many people who are homophobic are also secretly gay themselves.
And by her silence on the right-wing's homophobic behavior, she gives her consent for their radical reinterpretation of the Constitution. It is not necessarily the Fred Phelps' of the world who are responsible for the lack of advancement on gay rights. Rather, it is the people like Rice who are silent and who refuse to speak out against that sort of thing who are the most responsible for mainstreaming hatred in this country. And Republicanism, totally devoid of ideas, is nothing more than segregationism repackaged and recycled for modern consumption.
And Raw Story quotes Steve Clemons as saying that this relationship in question legitimately raises these kinds of questions. I cannot speculate, for instance, on whether or not she is gay. However, at the very least, it seems like she is a highly conflicted person who is living a double life -- one as an apologist for an ideology whose mission is to promote homophobia under the guise of "moral values." The other life is the one mentioned here.
The main thing is, she had a well-paying job at Stanford. She gave it up for what? The fact of the matter is that she is a person who has totally sacrificed her ideals and her values on the altar of power and access. That makes her very similar to those in the press both in the Nixon and the Bush administrations who gave up their dedication to the truth so that they could have access to the powerful. In so doing, she has sacrificed a large portion of her humanity.
The fact of the matter is that she, like all of us, have the unique power to change the world and alter it in unique ways. That observation by Hannah Arendt, is even more relevant now than it was over 50 years ago when it was written. But when you sacrifice your humanity, you lose that ability until you are able to cast out the mote out of your eye and reclaim it.
And there is a broader question that is at play here -- where is she when right-wingers attack affirmative action? Where is she when activist judges decide that affirmative action is no longer relevant? When she actively works against the policies that have made her the kind of successful person that she is today, that shows how she has sacrificed her humanity at the altar of power even more. This makes her similar to people like Clarence Thomas, who benefitted from affirmative action programs and then turned around and opposed the very programs that made him a successful person.
here are a lot of folks, myself included, who feel the world would be a better place if non-Sufi Islam were eradicated; to that end, it would be necessary to hollow most of the Middle East out like a gourd. The vast majority of those who believe this do so strictly from a societal/cultural position, not a religious one. Non-Sufi Islam is not compatible with modern civilization, and they prove it many times a day.
Thank you for proving/making my point.
This is exactly what Allan West believes in as well--and it is the view of the "Christian Imperialist/s" BTW (despite you thinking it is all "societal" and so on).
Which makes this kind of belief completely insane, because it will cause WWIII, but that's perfectly okay huh?!
And it being perfectly okay with global-thermo-nuclear-war blow-back is what makes Allan West a complete lunatic.
Sure it's going to happen. But do WE want to be the ones that initiate it?
West wants "holy war" against islam IMO. For us to initiate something like that would be a VERY BAD THING.
Just sayin....
What I posted was in no way a personal slam on you or what you posted. Lots of politicians have changed their political affiliations. Some for expediency and some for true changes of values. I only reported the Pres candidate she HAS publicly stated she voted for and that she has also changed party affiliation. IOW, additional information to the discussion, not contradictory.
West wants "holy war" against islam IMO. For us to initiate something like that would be a VERY BAD THING.
Just sayin....
I'd like to see Alan Keyes in the veep position, or even herman caine for that matter!
Also she has spoken in favor of homo-marriage. Read about it yesterday, maybe if I have time I'll find link and copy/paste.