Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Will Anyone Vote for Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal or Mike Huckabee... (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Will Anyone Vote for Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal or Mike Huckabee...
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Don't wait for Rafi G to respond to one of my posts"

Haven't . won't .

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of it. Search up the threads on Wright and Obama, wallow in it a bit. It's pretty cool to see it go full circle now.
Rafi, I'd be happy to explain my views about how Obama's relationship with Rev. Wright was not as odious as these politicians seeking the endorsement of Swanson and his ilk, but it really is beside the point.

Since you apparently believe that Obama's relationship with Wright is somewhat equivalent to these politicians relationship with Swanson, would you agree that Cruz, Jindal and Huckabee should not be elected President? As I recall, you were pretty upset with Obama for attending Wright's church, back in your G2 days. [Smile]

Because that is the real point. Do we want a President who wants and seeks the support of people who endorse killing Americans?

quote:
Wait. I figured all those links, might be a little something to this. Perhaps I should check it out to see if it's nothing more than simple hypocrisy or if there really is more. All the links go to the same site, Right Wing Watch:


quote:
To our readers: Right Wing Watch, a project for People For the American Way, is run by a dedicated staff driven to shed light on the activities of right-wing political organizations. As a non-profit working hard every day to expose the Far-Right's extreme and intolerant agenda, our main source of support is donations from readers like you.

[LOL] so much for taking this seriously

Right Wing Watch is highly biased, I'll grant you that. However, they also document their assertions, which you can read and decide for yourself their accuracy. And all the ones I've looked at, I've found pretty accurate.

So when you say "so much for taking this seriously," do you mean that you don't take the facts they document seriously because they told you, or you don't take their conclusion seriously? Because the facts don't seem to be in dispute, and the conclusion seems pretty straight forward: Cruz, Jindal and Huckabee want the support of leaders who are calling for the murder of homosexuals (in the name of God).

I see nothing for you not to take seriously.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's not worth taking seriously because it is literally nothing more than a hit piece with the framing draped around it to get the leftwing nuts tonehichnit caters the validation it craves. Id take The Onion more seriously.
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
IOW, Rafi, you don't see a problem with Cruz, Jindal and Huckabee cuddling up with and trying to get on the good side of people advocating murder. I see. [Smile]

I also implies you really didn't have a problem with Rev. Wright, since, after all, you said that it was hypocritical for people to have a problem with one but not the other.

You are extremely transparent, Rafi. Far more than you realize. [Big Grin]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If you want to embarass him for not responding, do get a source more credible that right wing watch.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
At least as credible as Breitbart.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
RWW is actually pretty credible. It's partisan, since it exists only to document stupid and/or odious things conservatives say or do, but as a consequence of that focus it's pretty good at documenting things they actually say and do.

Don't quote it looking for any larger (or, especially, exculpatory) context, since that's where its partisanship will appear. But if RWW says that a bunch of conservatives turned up at a forum hosted by, say, Adolf Hitler, they probably did. What it WON'T tell you is whether any of them took the opportunity to criticize Hitler to his face, or had no choice but to show up because Hitler's people had kidnapped their grandchildren.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
IOW, Rafi, you don't see a problem with Cruz, Jindal and Huckabee cuddling up with and trying to get on the good side of people advocating murder. I see. [Smile]

I also implies you really didn't have a problem with Rev. Wright, since, after all, you said that it was hypocritical for people to have a problem with one but not the other.

You are extremely transparent, Rafi. Far more than you realize. [Big Grin]

[LOL] Yeah. [Roll Eyes]

you may infer whatever you like that makes you feel better. I'll make a decision on this when it comes from a real news source, not some whiny, hate speech, bloggers in moms basement.

Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I keep thinking there must be more here, so I'm looking about.
quote:
"This is a political event. This is a Republican presidential candidates' event," Maddow said. "It really was a 'kill-the-gays' call to arms. This was a conference about the necessity of the death penalty as a punishment for homosexuality."

But except for scattered online media coverage and blog posts, that was it. CNN's Jake Tapper asked Cruz if it was appropriate to speak at the conference before the event -- and Cruz dodged the question, claiming to know nothing of the pastor's views, and spinning back to religious people supposedly being under attack -- but there was no coverage I could find on CNN after the conference and focused on this evangelical leader who called for a future genocide after introducing presidential candidates who lauded him. As far as I can tell, no broadcast networks or major American newspaper covered the blood-curdling speech in which several times Swanson said the punishment for homosexuality is the death penalty.

Where is The New York Times? The Washington Post covered the conference and the candidates' comments, but didn't mention the "kill the gays" speech. Not news to them apparently. Several online sources that did focus on the conference placed more attention on Cruz telling Swanson that an atheist shouldn't be president, or on the unhinged Swanson's advice to parents that they should drown their children rather than let them read Harry Potter, than on Swanson calling for the extermination of an entire group of people at an event at which presidential candidates spoke.

So a dedicated hate speech blog is all fired up about it - no surprise there. But any one trying to at least pretend to be a real news source is not even touching it - even the ones dedicated to left wing ideology. Given the demand to infer things here, what can we infer from this?
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'll make a decision on this when it comes from a real news source...
Is it your contention, then, that they did not attend? Or that Kevin Swanson has not called for execution of homosexuals?

I'm curious, specifically, which claims of fact you find dubious.

(If you really need me to, I can provide links to Colmes on Fox News, Emma Margolin on CNBC, and a number of other "mainstream" pundits speaking and writing on this issue. The facts of RWW's article here are not disputed by any of the other writing on the conference, including the conference's own website.)

[ November 13, 2015, 09:07 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This reminds me of exchanges between two of my friends. One will post a video hosted by media matters of Fox saying something dumb. The other will rebut it by claiming that it is biased because it is hosted by media matters. And then they go round and round in circles talking about media matters instead of the stupid thing that were said on Fox. Kind of a brilliant strategy, but not very honest.
Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here's the thing: it is not ridiculous to point out the flaws in a source when that source is famous for outright making up facts, editing documentation, etc. And if we had no other way to know who Swanson was, or no other way to identify who attended his conference, or no way to know what was said at that conference, whether Right-Wing Watch had a habit of maliciously editing video or straight-up lying about things would be relevant. But this was a national conference promoted heavily by a number of major right-wing sponsors, and attended by three presidential candidates. RWW is not the only source on this.

G# is right that RWW was among the first large groups to observe that it's, um, somewhat untoward of presidential candidates to seek the approval of a group led by someone calling for the death of homosexuals (who then proceeded immediately after the portion of the conference in which he introduced and interviewed those candidates to call for the death of homosexuals again). It's interesting that only a handful of mainstream outlets have mentioned it, although it appears that every major news corporation has covered the topic at least once. Perhaps, for whatever reason, the story just doesn't get much traction with regular folk or network executives.

But unlike, say, Breitbart, RWW doesn't have a reputation for making up news wholesale. And, again, the facts of their report aren't disputed. The only editorializing here is that they're asserting that it might be fairly assumed that a presidential candidate who chooses to stump for his campaign at a conference does not find the positions of the conference's keynote speaker(s) to be odious, offensive, or embarrassing. This may be an unfair assumption.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
1,600 Christians Will Gather in Des Moines, Iowa for National Religious Liberties Conference, Nov. 6-7

National Religious LIberties Conference

Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes, interesting what their headline is to attract attendees:
quote:
Persecution against Christians is on the rise in Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Sudan, China, Oregon, and Kentucky.
Better get down there to Kentucky and beat back those persecutors.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1