Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Outofur)   "Meet the Press pitted MSNBC's Rachel Maddow against the founder of the Christian Coalition, Ralph Reed. Are these the two people you want on your news program for an intelligent, respectful conversation about gay marriage?"   (outofur.com ) divider line
    More: Obvious, Ralph Reed, Rachel Maddow, MSNBC, christians, John Dickerson, Ira Glass, political activism, worship service  
•       •       •

2499 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 Jul 2013 at 4:45 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



87 Comments   (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-13 01:35:28 PM  
AB University of Georgia/PhD Emory vs. BA Stanford/D.Phil Oxford
 
2013-07-13 01:41:46 PM  
Have evangelicals actually put too much focus on politics? Are evangelicals really more interested in legislating laws than loving their neighbors?

Well, yes. They have. It may not be all evangelicals getting involved, but those who do get involved tend to have a huge amount of influence and power within one of America's major political parties, and the legislation they tend to promote and support usually involves punishing sin instead of promoting the concepts of taking care of the poor, the sick, the weak, the infirm, the hungry, and demonstrating compassion and forgiveness as Jesus commanded.
 
2013-07-13 01:47:27 PM  

Aarontology: Have evangelicals actually put too much focus on politics? Are evangelicals really more interested in legislating laws than loving their neighbors?

Well, yes. They have. It may not be all evangelicals getting involved, but those who do get involved tend to have a huge amount of influence and power within one of America's major political parties, and the legislation they tend to promote and support usually involves punishing sin instead of promoting the concepts of taking care of the poor, the sick, the weak, the infirm, the hungry, and demonstrating compassion and forgiveness as Jesus commanded.


Pretty much.

Forget about the poverty, crime, disease etc. going on today, gays are happy and that offends me.
 
2013-07-13 02:23:02 PM  
I always love the comments on that site. everyone is just so sure of the reality of their god. No doubts, no questioning, no hesitancy. They talk about being Honest, about how Christians are thinking folk, then go on to recite biblical passages as if their imaginary god wrote them. The mass delusion is so thick it almost oozes out of your monitor.
 
2013-07-13 03:43:03 PM  
Maddow is a brilliant Rhodes Scholar and Reed is a disgusting fraudulent piece of shiat.  I'm not sure how you can compare the two in any way.
 
2013-07-13 04:04:02 PM  

gimmegimme: Maddow is a brilliant Rhodes Scholar and Reed is a disgusting fraudulent piece of shiat.  I'm not sure how you can compare the two in any way.


Plus Reed is arguing a hateful, biogoted opinion.

But that's the "liberal media" for you.  They're so shiat-scared of being called one-sided that the'y'll have hatemongers like Reed on for "balance."  shiat, that's how Ann Coulter made her name in the first place.
 
2013-07-13 04:09:01 PM  
1. My side is smarter than yours
2. No my side is smarter than yours
3. Is not!
4. Is too!
5. Is not no tag backs!
6. You can't no tag back a double stamp!
7. What the hell are you talking about?
8. Is too infinity!
 
2013-07-13 04:10:52 PM  

jake_lex: gimmegimme: Maddow is a brilliant Rhodes Scholar and Reed is a disgusting fraudulent piece of shiat.  I'm not sure how you can compare the two in any way.

Plus Reed is arguing a hateful, biogoted opinion.

But that's the "liberal media" for you.  They're so shiat-scared of being called one-sided that the'y'll have hatemongers like Reed on for "balance."  shiat, that's how Ann Coulter made her name in the first place.


I can only hear "Fox News is, like, the only non-liberal news station out there" so many more times before I go insane.  If the media were liberal OR FAIR, then Ralph Reed would not be on it.  And we might not have invaded Iraq.
 
2013-07-13 04:13:21 PM  
If churches weren't funding their side of the war with tax-exempt money, I'd have no serious problem with them shouting their hatred of the homogheys from the rooftops.  Anybody is free to express their ignorance, just not on my dime.
 
2013-07-13 04:19:46 PM  
Reed has made a good living brining "grass roots" effort for corporate and conservative efforts.

He had his Christian buddies get involved in Jack Abramoffs scandals on gambling and sweatshop.

Especially disgusting was the angle they used to get the Christians to write letters. " we will be able to give these heathans a better life and teach them the bible." In reality, they became slaves, sex slaves in men's clubs and forced to have abortions if they got pregnant.
 
2013-07-13 04:21:48 PM  

gimmegimme: jake_lex: gimmegimme: Maddow is a brilliant Rhodes Scholar and Reed is a disgusting fraudulent piece of shiat.  I'm not sure how you can compare the two in any way.

Plus Reed is arguing a hateful, biogoted opinion.

But that's the "liberal media" for you.  They're so shiat-scared of being called one-sided that the'y'll have hatemongers like Reed on for "balance."  shiat, that's how Ann Coulter made her name in the first place.

I can only hear "Fox News is, like, the only non-liberal news station out there" so many more times before I go insane.  If the media were liberal OR FAIR, then Ralph Reed would not be on it.  And we might not have invaded Iraq.


Why wouldn't Reed be on mainstream media? It's perfectly fair since both are on the opposite sidesaddle of an issue.
 
2013-07-13 04:27:40 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: gimmegimme: jake_lex: gimmegimme: Maddow is a brilliant Rhodes Scholar and Reed is a disgusting fraudulent piece of shiat.  I'm not sure how you can compare the two in any way.

Plus Reed is arguing a hateful, biogoted opinion.

But that's the "liberal media" for you.  They're so shiat-scared of being called one-sided that the'y'll have hatemongers like Reed on for "balance."  shiat, that's how Ann Coulter made her name in the first place.

I can only hear "Fox News is, like, the only non-liberal news station out there" so many more times before I go insane.  If the media were liberal OR FAIR, then Ralph Reed would not be on it.  And we might not have invaded Iraq.

Why wouldn't Reed be on mainstream media? It's perfectly fair since both are on the opposite sidesaddle of an issue.


Many reasons:

1) Reed is a disgusting piece of shiat who is only favored by people who don't know what he's done or are of dubious morality themselves.

2) There's no debate when it comes to same-sex marriage.  Gay people are humans and people can make whatever contractual agreements they like with one another.

3) Sorry, but there aren't two sides to every story.  When debating affirmative action, are news people morally obligated to call the Grand Wizard of the KKK to see what he thinks?  Why not?  We want to hear all opinions and all opinions are equally valid, right?
 
2013-07-13 04:48:36 PM  

cman: 1. My side is smarter than yours
2. No my side is smarter than yours
3. Is not!
4. Is too!
5. Is not no tag backs!
6. You can't no tag back a double stamp!
7. What the hell are you talking about?
8. Is too infinity!


Never seen a Maddow Show, eh?

/or are you "high" again?
 
2013-07-13 04:50:00 PM  
One of them is.
 
2013-07-13 04:50:32 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: cman: 1. My side is smarter than yours
2. No my side is smarter than yours
3. Is not!
4. Is too!
5. Is not no tag backs!
6. You can't no tag back a double stamp!
7. What the hell are you talking about?
8. Is too infinity!

Never seen a Maddow Show, eh?

/or are you "high" again?


I've seen it before.

I wasn't speaking about her show. I was speaking about the outline of this discussion thread.
 
2013-07-13 04:51:05 PM  

Aarontology: Have evangelicals actually put too much focus on politics? Are evangelicals really more interested in legislating laws than loving their neighbors?

Well, yes. They have. It may not be all evangelicals getting involved, but those who do get involved tend to have a huge amount of influence and power within one of America's major political parties, and the legislation they tend to promote and support usually involves punishing sin instead of promoting the concepts of taking care of the poor, the sick, the weak, the infirm, the hungry, and demonstrating compassion and forgiveness as Jesus commanded.


My thinking is that secular, right wing politics have pretty much destroyed Christianity as a force for good, but only in the short term.

Discuss.
 
2013-07-13 04:52:35 PM  

cman: I've seen it before.

I wasn't speaking about her show. I was speaking about the outline of this discussion thread


Oh, so you're high and seeing an entirely different thread.
 
2013-07-13 04:53:44 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: cman: I've seen it before.

I wasn't speaking about her show. I was speaking about the outline of this discussion thread

Oh, so you're high and seeing an entirely different thread.


Whatever
 
2013-07-13 04:55:01 PM  

MFAWG: Aarontology: Have evangelicals actually put too much focus on politics? Are evangelicals really more interested in legislating laws than loving their neighbors?

Well, yes. They have. It may not be all evangelicals getting involved, but those who do get involved tend to have a huge amount of influence and power within one of America's major political parties, and the legislation they tend to promote and support usually involves punishing sin instead of promoting the concepts of taking care of the poor, the sick, the weak, the infirm, the hungry, and demonstrating compassion and forgiveness as Jesus commanded.

My thinking is that secular, right wing politics have pretty much destroyed Christianity as a force for good, but only in the short term.

Discuss.


Uhh...I'm pretty sure Christianity has never been a force for good.  The Crusades, the Inquisition, standing by during the Holocaust, infantilizing people with the concept of Heaven and Hell, the Dark Ages....geez.
 
2013-07-13 04:56:35 PM  

MFAWG: Aarontology: Have evangelicals actually put too much focus on politics? Are evangelicals really more interested in legislating laws than loving their neighbors?

Well, yes. They have. It may not be all evangelicals getting involved, but those who do get involved tend to have a huge amount of influence and power within one of America's major political parties, and the legislation they tend to promote and support usually involves punishing sin instead of promoting the concepts of taking care of the poor, the sick, the weak, the infirm, the hungry, and demonstrating compassion and forgiveness as Jesus commanded.

My thinking is that secular, right wing politics have pretty much destroyed Christianity as a force for good, but only in the short term.

Discuss.


Because Christianity wasn't bad before secular, right-wing politics took it over?

The Bible is inherently cruel and evil: anybody who followed it as worded, and thereby ordered by God, would be a vicious, murderous person.

Christianity has some decent instructions sprinkled throughout it, but it's simple things like being nice to strangers and loving your parents, etc., etc.

If it takes a holy book for someone to be a "force for good" by helping the sick and poor, they're either retarded, an asshole, or a retarded asshole.

fark theism garbage.
 
2013-07-13 04:59:19 PM  

cman: I was speaking about the outline of this discussion thread.


And what value have YOU added to the conversation?
 
2013-07-13 05:03:19 PM  
I stopped reading at this:

"Let me begin with anecdotes--admittedly the weakest of arguments. One would assume from media reporting that evangelicals are obsessed with two things: politics and homosexuality. In my 30 years of involvement with evangelical churches, parachurch ministries, and mission organizations, I cannot recall hearing a single sermon about homosexuality."

Really? In 30 years, he never heard a sermon on homosexuality? Not even in the run-ups to the initial Proposition 8 vote, or during the national discussion of similar issues? I'm gonna come right out and call this guy a straight-up liar. And if you'll lie in the non-essential preliminaries to delivering your argument simply to score a rhetorical point you'll lie about anything, and everything. So who cares what he has to say when he's obviously willing to make stuff up on the spot to bolster his arguments? Screw him and the horse he came in on.
 
2013-07-13 05:04:23 PM  

The Why Not Guy: cman: I was speaking about the outline of this discussion thread.

And what value have YOU added to the conversation?


smug superiority.

it's what fark is good for.
 
2013-07-13 05:06:10 PM  

The Why Not Guy: cman: I was speaking about the outline of this discussion thread.

And what value have YOU added to the conversation?


Obviously a lot since many replied to my comment
 
2013-07-13 05:07:19 PM  

The Why Not Guy: cman: I was speaking about the outline of this discussion thread.

And what value have YOU added to the conversation?


HAHAHAHAHA! Oh you!
 
2013-07-13 05:08:19 PM  

cman: cameroncrazy1984: cman: 1. My side is smarter than yours
2. No my side is smarter than yours
3. Is not!
4. Is too!
5. Is not no tag backs!
6. You can't no tag back a double stamp!
7. What the hell are you talking about?
8. Is too infinity!

Never seen a Maddow Show, eh?

/or are you "high" again?

I've seen it before.

I wasn't speaking about her show. I was speaking about the outline of this discussion thread.


You shouls start stamping your feet. That works really well.
 
2013-07-13 05:10:16 PM  

cman: The Why Not Guy: cman: I was speaking about the outline of this discussion thread.

And what value have YOU added to the conversation?

Obviously a lot since a few replied to my comment


Me fail English? Thats unpossible!
 
2013-07-13 05:18:07 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-07-13 05:31:00 PM  
Maddow is perfectly capable of reasoned debate, Reed not so much.
 
2013-07-13 05:33:29 PM  
When you had over 1100 pastors give the finger last year to the IRS so they could preach from the pulpit and denounce Obama to their congregations perhaps it isn't just a "media creation" that evangelicals are more concerned with politics than loving their neighbor.
 
2013-07-13 05:36:10 PM  

gimmegimme: Maddow is a brilliant Rhodes Scholar and Reed is a disgusting fraudulent piece of shiat.  I'm not sure how you can compare the two in any way.


that's the liberal media for you
 
2013-07-13 05:38:25 PM  
This isn't the first place Ralph Reed has shown up lately.  I'm so glad that our so-called liberal media has to decided to ignore his crooked past and instead has decided that it's time to rehabilitate that fraud into a Very Serious Person.
 
2013-07-13 05:39:30 PM  
Let me offer two possibilities. First, the fact that most pastors avoid addressing politics or politically-charged issues may be at fault.

The silent majority (if it really is such) of Evangelicals who say nothing while a minority of their loud mouthed bretheren like Reed speak in their name might be part of the problem? Ya think?

That noted, his point, that the increasingly tabloidtastic media tend to gravitate to the shrillest voices in the room these days rather than the more sedate and reasonable (read: boring) ones in search of clicks is worthy of consideration.
 
2013-07-13 05:41:52 PM  
I saw nothing about Meet the Depressed in that link, just some hand wringing by a concern troll.
 
2013-07-13 05:42:23 PM  
As I'm currently marathoning The Newsroom, I'm getting a kick out of this thread (and our media).
 
2013-07-13 05:56:03 PM  

clambam: I stopped reading at this:

"Let me begin with anecdotes--admittedly the weakest of arguments. One would assume from media reporting that evangelicals are obsessed with two things: politics and homosexuality. In my 30 years of involvement with evangelical churches, parachurch ministries, and mission organizations, I cannot recall hearing a single sermon about homosexuality."

Really? In 30 years, he never heard a sermon on homosexuality? Not even in the run-ups to the initial Proposition 8 vote, or during the national discussion of similar issues? I'm gonna come right out and call this guy a straight-up liar. And if you'll lie in the non-essential preliminaries to delivering your argument simply to score a rhetorical point you'll lie about anything, and everything. So who cares what he has to say when he's obviously willing to make stuff up on the spot to bolster his arguments? Screw him and the horse he came in on.


It's a technicality. He never 'heard a sermon about homosexuality'. If you deconstruct that, there are a lot of loopholes. He never 'heard' it, but maybe he doesn't spend much time actually 'hearing' sermons. I'm sure he's 'heard of' plenty of them.

He may n
 
2013-07-13 06:15:52 PM  

gimmegimme: Maddow is a brilliant Rhodes Scholar and Reed is a disgusting fraudulent piece of shiat.  I'm not sure how you can compare the two in any way.

 
2013-07-13 06:16:14 PM  

jake_lex: gimmegimme: Maddow is a brilliant Rhodes Scholar and Reed is a disgusting fraudulent piece of shiat.  I'm not sure how you can compare the two in any way.

Plus Reed is arguing a hateful, biogoted opinion.

But that's the "liberal media" for you.  They're so shiat-scared of being called one-sided that the'y'll have hatemongers like Reed on for "balance."  shiat, that's how Ann Coulter made her name in the first place.


and now you know why i no longer bother with meet the press. david gregory is a tool and should never have been given that show.
 
2013-07-13 06:18:43 PM  

Red Herring of a "Liberal Media"


No such thing as a liberal media.  It was a myth then:

"The press is the enemy." Richard Nixon in 1972.

Rich Bond, then chair of the Republican Party, explained during the 1992 election, "There is some strategy to [bashing the 'liberal' media]. . . . If you watch any great coach, what they try to do is 'work the refs.' Maybe the ref will cut you a little slack on the next one."
http://www.utne.com/2003-07-01/Myth-of-the-Liberal-Media.aspx

The Freedom Forum's poll that "proves" a majority of reporters were for Clinton rather than Bush is bogus.  They rigged it so they got the answer they wanted.
http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/story21.html

"I admit it," Bill Kristol told The New Yorker in 1995. "The whole idea of the 'liberal media' was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures."
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20000313/alterman

<img src="http://www.howardsmead.com/image004.gif">

In 2000, newspaper publishers preferred Bush over Gore by 3 to 1.
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2002/123102a.html

The study published in 2005 claiming liberal bias is also bogus.  It too was rigged to get the desired results.
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001169.html

La pdogs: How the Press Rolled Over for Bush
http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reportsitem.aspx?id=100353

<img src="http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/mediamatters graph. gif">

Why people believe the myth of a liberal media
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15506878jobem4901_4

Th e "liberals" at CBS News cover for McCain (July 2008)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYaXr03vtNE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDIAsS9VXiM&feature=related

What liberal media?
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/what-liberal-media

And it's a myth now:

The Myth of Pro-Obama Media Bias
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3612

<img src="http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/updated_char t_2_3_ 09.jpg">

Newt Gingrich made more appearances on Meet the Press than any other individual in 2009. The actual speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, did not appear once on the show in 2009.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20100201/alterman

MSM's conservative bias
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1634/media-coverage-health-care-reform-d eb ate-review

Skepticism of Conservative Ideas Requires No Bias
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/anson-kaye/2013/02/28/the-media- ar ent-a-liberal-conspiracy

Secrets of the conservative media machine
http://www.salon.com/2013/04/23/secrets_of_the_conservative_media_ma ch ine/

 
2013-07-13 06:19:41 PM  
 
2013-07-13 06:25:41 PM  

gimmegimme: Maddow is a brilliant Rhodes Scholar and Reed is a disgusting fraudulent piece of shiat.  I'm not sure how you can compare the two in any way.


This. This right here. Rachel is right and Ralph is wrong. That DOES make for interesting TV, anyway.
 
2013-07-13 06:30:46 PM  
It'll boil down to who's prettier. It always does.
 
2013-07-13 06:30:54 PM  

Bucky Katt: gimmegimme: Maddow is a brilliant Rhodes Scholar and Reed is a disgusting fraudulent piece of shiat.  I'm not sure how you can compare the two in any way.

that's the liberal media for you


Truth does have a liberal bias.
 
2013-07-13 06:32:24 PM  
Was this the same kind of discussion that was being done when they allowed interracial marriages ~half a century ago?

This shiat makes my head hurt. Why are we even having this farking discussion now?
 
2013-07-13 06:36:10 PM  

quatchi: Let me offer two possibilities. First, the fact that most pastors avoid addressing politics or politically-charged issues may be at fault.

The silent majority (if it really is such) of Evangelicals who say nothing while a minority of their loud mouthed bretheren like Reed speak in their name might be part of the problem? Ya think?

That noted, his point, that the increasingly tabloidtastic media tend to gravitate to the shrillest voices in the room these days rather than the more sedate and reasonable (read: boring) ones in search of clicks is worthy of consideration.


The silent majority of Evangelicals who do not actively denounce their brethren for making such vitriolic and unChristian statements and deeds are just as culpable for the destruction to society and their religion as those who are wantonly abusing the pulpit to demean the gays, the poor and the weak.
 
2013-07-13 06:38:16 PM  

AnonAmbientLight: Was this the same kind of discussion that was being done when they allowed interracial marriages ~half a century ago?


Yes it was. And the guys arguing against same-sex marriages looked and sounded just like the guys arguing against interracial marriages (like giant losers).
 
2013-07-13 06:48:28 PM  

gimmegimme: Sorry, but there aren't two sides to every story. When debating affirmative action, are news people morally obligated to call the Grand Wizard of the KKK to see what he thinks? Why not? We want to hear all opinions and all opinions are equally valid, right?


www.beat102103.com
 
2013-07-13 06:51:07 PM  

cman: 1. My side is smarter than yours
2. No my side is smarter than yours
3. Is not!
4. Is too!
5. Is not no tag backs!
6. You can't no tag back a double stamp!
7. What the hell are you talking about?
8. Is too infinity!


Typical conservative rebuttal...
so vote Republican.
 
2013-07-13 06:52:52 PM  
Do I want an openly gay Rhodes Scholar with a degree in public policy from Stanford to discuss the issue of gay marriage?  Well, I guess if there's no one else available.
 
2013-07-13 06:54:32 PM  
Yeah, really, you call this infotainment?

farm4.static.flickr.com

NOW we got our talking points cookin'!
 
Displayed 50 of 87 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report