Re-elect Grothman
My column for the Daily News is online. It’s called, “Re-elect Grothman.”
Grothman has been a good senator and a great steward for the taxpayers
Then why won’t he fight to have the school levy tax credit removed and take that money and put it in the equalized aid? that would reduce the mill rate in the WB school district by 59 cents. In fact, that idea would help 3/4 of the districts in the state. That would seem to be right up his alley, but the fact is he does not have the pull in the legislature to make something like this happen.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2012 at 0652 hrs
I respectfully disagree .
Early Glen was probably all these things .
Current Glen is a quirky,cranky know it all who is an embarrassment to any but the uber right.
He may indeed win,but he has been successfully challenged by someone who is practicing retail politics like Glen did to win his very first election.
(Newer members to the community might be surprised that Glenn did not get the support of Pro life forces in that campaign , he just out worked current Serigraph CEO Sean Torinus ,who did)
There are many who may agree with most of his positions but don’t like the person espousing them..
My sense is that Ms Lohr will siphon a good number or Republicans (outside Washington County) who would like a different Republican and could support Ms Lohr to send that message.
2 years later, if they don’t like what they see, they can choose a different Republican
And when it comes to the reproductive rights of my wife and daughters, Glen’s opinions don’t count, won’t count and will never count.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2012 at 0800 hrs
Interesting that you note that Glenn is there willing to listen and that “He is perhaps the most accessible state senator in history. One may not agree with him, but he will always lend an ear to an argument.”
On multiple occassions in this blog, in conversations with people I know from SD20 and in watching him “listen” to a constituent who disagreed with him, you are wrong. If Glenn agrees with you he listens, if he doesn’t he either walks away or does not return your phone call or respond.
He has done nothing for his constituents in Jackson impacted by the massive gasoline spill brought about by a ruptured pipeline except to state that he will persue legislation to relax the renewable energy requirements so that we can be more dependent on gas and oil.
If he agrees, he listens—if you have big bucks, he listens—if you struggle to make ends meet, you are entitled. Glenn thinks he is entitled to serve another term. He is not.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2012 at 0837 hrs
dodgecountydem,
And the candidate your party has put up would be a solution to your alleged communication point?
Tanya Lohr will not even talk to Owen about anything! Glenn is far superior on constituent communication just on this issue alone. Tanya has sold you down the river on this point.
Mark,
And when it comes to the reproductive rights of my wife and daughters, Glen’s opinions don’t count, won’t count and will never count.I take it “reproductive rights” is liberal code for the unfettered ability to murder pre-born children?
Do you wear that position with pride?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2012 at 0853 hrs
Kevin, Tanya has spoken with thousands of constituents as she knocks on doors. If you look at her webpage or facebook page you will see that she listens to those with differing opinions—she even has a youtube video about what that has taught her. Much better than run away Glenn.
And, I hope Tanya gets elected and gets into your reproductive rights—no vasectomies. I understand the limited pro-life position that you and Glenn embrace, but feel you have no right to tell someone what to do with their body—and it is limited pro-life because, I believe, you are pro-death penalty.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2012 at 0901 hrs
dodgecountydem,
Kevin, Tanya has spoken with thousands of constituents as she knocks on doors. If you look at her webpage or facebook page you will see that she listens to those with differing opinions—she even has a youtube video about what that has taught her. Much better than run away Glenn.
Why doesn’t she talk to Owen, then?
Even you conceded Glenn listens to constituents that disagree with him…and I know he does do that. Tanya does not even do that with Owen.
cut your losses on this one, Tanya sold you down the river by refusing Owen’s requests.
Sorry to hear that you favor pre-born baby killing.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2012 at 0916 hrs
sorry to hear you support killing adults by death penalty.
The world does not revolve around Owen. You argument only reinforces mine about Glenn, but there is proof that Tanya does talk to those who do not agree with her. Where is that proof for Glenn?
And when you ask about proof, make sure you check out her website. It is there.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2012 at 0918 hrs
dodgecountydem,
The world does not revolve around Owen.
...but the world does revolve around the vague examples you provided about Glenn?
You can’t argue Tanya will be a better communicator in this Senate District if she, OPENLY, refuses to be interviewed by Owen.
I’m not sorry about executing guilty criminals. I wish WI would do it.
The fact you are willing to execute innocent, unborn children, says a lot about you in terms of who you will, and will not protect, or defend.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2012 at 0927 hrs
Kevin,
My wife and daughters could care less what you or Glen think.“Beware the man who knows what God thinks”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2012 at 1131 hrs
Mark,
I’d encourage the following biblical reflection on your statement about knowing God.
Proverbs 28:5 Evil men do not understand justice, but those who seek the LORD understand it fully.
John 3:21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God.
John 3:20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.
1 John 1:6 If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2012 at 1142 hrs
Kris, without understanding exactly what you are proposing (only because I am ignorant on the topic, not because you said it poorly) are you saqying Tanya Lohr will have either the pull or the desire to propose that legislation? Will she do it? if not, it falls in to the same category as all the other I wish categories like I wish they would eliminate and outlaw tax loopholes.
Mark, you are once again proving that you have been properly indoctrinated. Yes, we know you think all Reps are some combination of quirky, cranky, stuffy, stupid, embarassments to the US system of Gov’t. Thanks for the reitieration. I am curious to witness what a successful challenge amounts to. A win, like my definition? 40% of the vote? Wait, the election has not happened yet, so to you an successful challenge is reading MSM, got it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2012 at 1217 hrs
I am curious to witness what a successful challenge amounts to. A win, like my definition? 40% of the vote? Wait, the election has not happened yet, so to you an successful challenge is reading MSM, got it.
Actual definition and specific number to be determined after the election.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2012 at 1341 hrs
Do I think that Tanya would try to do what Glenn will not even consider on the school levy tax credit? Yes I do. Can she be successful? Not sure. But what I know about her tells me that if she wants it she will work really hard to make it happen.
When it comes to Glenn being quirky. I have seen him wipe his mouth on his tie and put breakfast food in his shirt pocket as he left a meeting. Is that quirky enough for you?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2012 at 1407 hrs
Of the descriptors I mentioned, I don’t mind quirky in the least. If all a Rep partisan has to say about a Dem or vice versa is that they are quirky, I would have some sort of hope for the future that the two party system would again be a two party system rather than a series of one party monopolies and gridlock in between.
Who gets a school levy tax credit? i.e. who is either being screwed or being brought to justice, here?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2012 at 1423 hrs
Anyone who owns a home gets that amount taken off of their property taxes. WB gets screwed on this issue every year.
Another of your descriptors is the word embarrassing. Is it not embarassing to have your elected representative putting sausage and hash browns in his shirt pocket? This guy is just off sometimes.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2012 at 1432 hrs
Glenn can eat Skittles off the WalMart parking lot and I don’t care.
The guy voted for ACT 10 and the most important government reforms in Wisconsin in decades.
You guys who don’t like him can go at all sorts of small issues or personal idiosyncrasies but at the end of the day, regular readers here know that neither you nor Tanya Lohr votes for Act 10. Or Voter ID. Or Concealed Carry. Or any of it.
Go Glenn! Get 80 percent of the vote next month!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2012 at 1803 hrs
How much Wisconsin state tax dollars, our tax monies, has Glen brought back to this district for investment or what not?
Being a solid rep means bringing back some of the taxes we paid in.
I ain’t seen shit from Glen except some pissant school tax support.
Whoop-tee-doo.
Glenn is lazy and cheap.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2012 at 1907 hrs
Kevin,
Beware the man who quotes scripture to make his point ( on any subject)Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2012 at 2106 hrs
For you, Maley:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKvayHUIcRU&sns=em
Posted by Badger on October 23, 2012 at 2111 hrs
For you, Badger:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0la5DBtOVNI
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2012 at 2142 hrs
Mark,
If you are going to reflect on idea of knowing, or not knowing, God…
Beware the man that DOESN’T consult scripture on the issue.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 24, 2012 at 0613 hrs
Kevin, you do not consult scripture—you conform scripture to your beliefs which is a very dangerous thing. Scripture has nothing to do with governing. I say beware the person who uses scripture to govern.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 24, 2012 at 0719 hrs
to post 17—what has Glenn brought to the district?
See post 3 regarding Jackson.
If you have money, Glenn will listen. If you are an ordinary citizen struggling, forget it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 24, 2012 at 0720 hrs
Thirteen days and counting time certainly goes fast. When will this Lohr campaign kick in ? Will it be anytime soon. The leaves are falling , the morning air crisp, the other day I observed frost on the pumpkin. What are you libs waiting for you should be in full campaign mode.
Come on throw us the heater bring us the payoff pitch.Please don’t tell me this is it game over, it cant be I paid good money, I demand some type of contest, I demand you devise some type of a campaign at least pretend you are trying.
Hard for Glen to get in any solid practice time playing against the JV team.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 24, 2012 at 0746 hrs
Badger, it’s Mark, Mr Maley or Coach .
A pet peeve of mine in business or life is using people’s last name to address them.
I may disagree with Kevin on just about everything but I would never address him by his last name . ( too lazy to spell it)
You have a place here as the singularly least respectful person on B+S ( and its not even close)
I would call you by your name in a respectful way too, if we knew it.
Kevin, hit Badger with some meaningful scripture in this regard. I can’t seem to get through to him.
PS Badger ,I will apologize for calling you a candy ass. (Twice).
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 24, 2012 at 0831 hrs
Crusher,
Glenn still has his base in this county. While he will win the election, the retail politics that Ms Lohr has worked hard at will pay dividends in future elections if not this one.As the district changes and folks only see the current Glenn, my sense is that they see the person I described in post #2
Remember, Glen can’t help himself. He will continue to make comments and then have apologists say ” he didn’t mean that”.
That eventually catches up to anyone.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 24, 2012 at 0840 hrs
Crusher, Glenn has been sitting on his record. Tanya has been knocking on doors and talking to people.
I have friends working in and around the Lohr campaign. Look at the signs that are out there. Ask your friends outside of WB, how many of them have had a call or knock or mailing?
Wait until tomorrow night at the only event Glenn will participate in with Tanya. His foot will be in his mouth. Tanya will speak intelligently and articulatly.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 24, 2012 at 0855 hrs
Kris, help me with this. If I own a home in WB, I get a property tax credit. Let’s call it $800 dollars. To remove the tax credit makes me pay $800 dollars more in property taxes, right? You say the mill rate will decrease. Will it decrease greater than my $800 dollar increase?
Now I agree that it makes little sense to give a tax credit rather than just reducing taxes, why give the credit in the first place? But I don’t see who is paying less taxes because of it. Who would that be?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 24, 2012 at 0920 hrs
dodgecountydem,
Kevin, you do not consult scripture—you conform scripture to your beliefs which is a very dangerous thing. Scripture has nothing to do with governing. I say beware the person who uses scripture to govern.
Myself and Mark were talking about “knowing [or not knowing] God”.
I don’t believe that was a conversation having to do with governing.
Since you brought it up….
Liberals constantly invoke Jesus in a context of: WWJD (What Would Jesus Do) or looking after the “least of these” to justify bloated welfare programs and life destructive government dependency.
I seemed to miss this “conforming scripture” lecture to your liberal disciples when they invoke Jesus, scripture, and religion into their big government Democrat position.
Naturally, when it comes to the pre-born baby killing advocacy you support, scripture needs to be ENTIRELY divorced from the conversation because scripture is VERY clear that pre-born baby killing is wrong.
So a conservative should not talk about scripture…especially when the scripture upsets you? Could you forward me a list of which parts of the bible you wish to ignore?
Many thanks in advance for helping me out.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 24, 2012 at 0946 hrs
Well, you chose to ignore the words of Jesus—You have heard it said and eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. I tell you turn the other cheek.
I would say more, but you are not willing to engage in dialogue—you have shown that time and time again. Your agenda or no agenda.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 24, 2012 at 1059 hrs
dodgecountydem,
You have heard it said and eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.
Could you point to 3 examples of where I have done this?
Will you consider “turning the other check” when it comes to the slaughtering of unborn children?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 24, 2012 at 1129 hrs
Coach M
In post # 26 you also predict a Grothman win, do you realize that’s the second time in a week that we agree on something ?I am not urinating blood and all my limbs appear to be attached but just the same I think I will schedule a full physical as I must be overlooking something.
We all have have quirk’s, Coach Lombardi was also a quirky fellow , a great coach but one will never know what atrocities he committed while eating breakfast.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 24, 2012 at 1315 hrs
“Turn the other cheek” obviously refers to capital punishment and killing criminals from the OT and at this point, Jesus is telling us that is wrong.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 24, 2012 at 1316 hrs
dodgecountydem,
Forgiving the perpetrator of the crime is perfectly fine and Christ-like, but that does not excuse the evildoer from being punished over the murder or child molestation.
Forgiveness does not necessarily mean punishment for the evil is waived here on earth. If that were so, we could do away with the criminal justice system entirely.
Now why don’t you explain your advocacy on executing the innocent?
You are still short 3 examples on the Old Testament viewpoint you claimed I have.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 24, 2012 at 1409 hrs
Christ is clearly speaking against capital punishment in these verses—any Sunday School Student knows that. While there is earthly punishment, Christ clearly states the the OT idea of physically injuring or killing criminals is wrong.
And before you argue that is not what Christ is saying—his OT reference is specifically to changing the view on capital punishment.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 24, 2012 at 1750 hrs
dodgecountydem,
Humor me, and just so I have it correct, which verses are we talking about?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 24, 2012 at 1757 hrs
Matthew 5:38-42 38-42 “Here’s another old saying that deserves a second look: ‘Eye for eye, tooth for tooth.’ Is that going to get us anywhere? Here’s what I propose: ‘Don’t hit back at all.’ If someone strikes you, stand there and take it. If someone drags you into court and sues for the shirt off your back, giftwrap your best coat and make a present of it. And if someone takes unfair advantage of you, use the occasion to practice the servant life. No more tit-for-tat stuff. Live generously.
Now please show me where Jesus says abortion is wrong.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 24, 2012 at 1844 hrs
And, what has Glenn done for the people in Jackson who have no safe water because of the pipeline rupture? He is supporting legislation to reduce renewable energy and make us more dependent on oil and gas. How does that help those people?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 24, 2012 at 1846 hrs
Tuerqas it doesn’t necessarily work that way. The money is taken out of the tax credit and reapplied via equalized aid formula. In essence the money is taken from people with higher value homes and distributed based on need of the community.
When the tax credit started to be expanded a couple of years ago WB lost about $300,000 in aid and Elmbrook increased by $1.4 million. that is a community that has fourth grade orchestra and WB is trying to save sports on a yearly basis. When this was all pointed out to Glenn he did nothing. He fully understands how this works and still does nothing.
Bottom line he could have advocated for a change that would have reduced the mill rate in WB by 59 cents. He did nothing.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 24, 2012 at 2003 hrs
Steve Austin,
The school levy tax credit issue is not small stuff. it could have lowered the property taxes for 3/4 of the taxpayers in the state. As a school board member I advocated to the governor and the legislature many parts of ACT 10 before Walker was even elected and I am in the process of getting my concealed carry permit.
So the next time you decide to spout off about what you know nothing about, stop before you prove that you are a complete D-bag
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 24, 2012 at 2008 hrs
dodgecountydem,
Abortion:
Jeremiah 1:4-5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew[a] you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”
Psalm 139 13-16 1
3 For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother’s womb.
14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful,
I know that full well.
15 My frame was not hidden from you
when I was made in the secret place,
when I was woven together in the depths of the earth.
16 Your eyes saw my unformed body;
all the days ordained for me were written in your book
before one of them came to be.Psalm 51:5 Surely I was sinful at birth,
sinful from the time my mother conceived meSince prohibition on murder is the most basic part of the Law set down by God, these passages establish life begins at conception, and such a life is a rich blessing from God.
I defer to Dr. Richard Gurgel on why capital punishment is am essential concept found in the bible.
http://www.wels.net/news-events/forward-in-christ/may-2004/in-cross-hairs-capital-punishment
Dr. Gurgel sums it up well by saying:
Life is a God-given time of grace in which unbelievers are to learn a Savior’s love, and believers are to live and share their faith. Capital punishment is an expression of God’s serious concern about unauthorized tampering with anyone’s time of grace.So you advocate executing the innocent and God’s blessings, but protect the guilty?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 24, 2012 at 2013 hrs
Did you know? It’s National Anti-Bullying Month in our public schools. As a teacher in the Kewaskum community, Beaver disrespectfully takes off after a government official and what he deems are quirky traits. Wonder how does he treat kids? I’m actually afraid for those students who have a teacher who is a bully (this hasn’t been the first time), one who consistently fails to set a good example in public.
Posted by Ginny Maziarka on October 25, 2012 at 0442 hrs
So Ginny you move away and still feel the need to be a voice of discontent in the WB community. It’s not bullying if it is true. Glenn was presented with the tax credit info and did nothing. As a taxpayer I am holding him accountable for his actions. Just like you claimed to be doing all those times that you questioned me when I was on the board. So I guess you are a bully too. Pot calling the kettle black.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 25, 2012 at 0603 hrs
Ginny would you deem wiping yor mouth on your tie and putting sausage links and hash browns in your shirt pocket quirky? If not, well then I guess that says a lot about you.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 25, 2012 at 0614 hrs
Kris, I told you I did not understand. You will have to go a little slower. You call it a tax credit. Now usually a credit means people are getting a discount on their taxes. You say it is making rich people pay more? I feel I am missing something fundamental here. How can money be taken out of a tax credit? Are you saying the credit is not a credit(as in people getting a break on a tax), but it is some sort of an allocation from what rich people already pay that goes in to a special fund?
And btw, if he took the food to his dogs or cats, it is a quirky I like, if he took it for a lint covered snack for later because he knew he wasn’t going to have time for lunch it is not quirky, it is practical and a little gross. If he did it out of some obsessive compulsion, it is quirky weird, but my wife’s parents were dirt poor and some of her family have food quirks I find distressing but admire at the same time. Now if he keeps his mother on a chain and only feeds her scraps from his pockets, he should be in jail. Context, context, context.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 25, 2012 at 0653 hrs
Yesterday it was sausage and eggs now today it changes were now talking sausage and hash browns. One thing remains consistent that is the story keeps changing.
You people do realize he attends local morning functions then he is off to Madison, so he was pressed for time and grabbed something to eat on the road, big friggin deal.Grabbing a sausage mcmuffin at the drive through and eating in route is ok but for just eating sausage he should be kicked from office.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 25, 2012 at 0726 hrs
Kris,
You crack me up.
We are talking about something allegedly quirky as a reason NOT to elect someone, meanwhile the alternative candidate favors killing unborn children as an official campaign position, favors increased regulation, increased taxes, and for some reason, thinks her household is underpaid gathering 165K in taxpayer funded salary and benefits.
If we are down to this in terms of debate, Glenn has done an excellent job as State Senator.
There is no other choice in this race, it’s Glenn all the way.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 25, 2012 at 0822 hrs
Seriously, Kris. This blog is not just West Bend. Owen, you may correct me if I am wrong here, but I’m thinking not considering the amount of national news posted here. As for Senator Grothman, his vote still affects the outcome in the Senate. It still matters to me whether or not he, or any other pro-life, pro-family candidate is elected, regardless of their district. I’ll work hard inside and outside of my own district to make it happen. You see, Kris, that’s called being a patriot. As for your statement about Grothman’s quirks being “true” as justification and validation for bullying…then I suffer for the poor children in your classes who don’t fit the status quo of your expectations. Bully you are, indeed. And you just proved it.
Posted by Ginny Maziarka on October 25, 2012 at 0838 hrs
Ginny I was responding with a true example of Glenn being quirky. Nothing more nothing less. I did not call him quirky to begin with that was another commenter. no one here is being a bully, but if name calling is what you need to do then go ahead. You making this personal to me and the way I conduct myself at work now that’s bullying. You are trying to get me to back off Glenn by making this personal.
I agree with the Glenn’s prolife stance. I am pro life and as you know from other conversations with me I am also pro family. Remember we went through the GSA and harassment policy issues together.So, you can stop the venom and veiled threats.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 25, 2012 at 0850 hrs
Crusher,
it was never sausage and eggs go back and read the comments. No one said he should be kicked out of office for being quirky. it was just an example of Glenn being Glenn. If people are ok with that type of behavior then so be it. Don’t make this out to be more than it is.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 25, 2012 at 0913 hrs
Will you clarify for the serious commentor or are you blowin’ smoke, Kris? How does money from a tax credit go anywhere but back in the receiver of the credit’s pocket? I am not accusing you of being stupid, if anything that is me, but I admit it bothers me that you spend two comments on extraneous topics and ignore explaining something that may well put someone on your side of an argument.
The real question I would eventually be getting at is who is being protected/advantaged by Glenn’s inaction?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 25, 2012 at 1036 hrs
Kris,
No one said he should be kicked out of office for being quirky. it was just an example of Glenn being Glenn.
Where was this Democrat heightened awareness, and scrutiny, of personal behavior scrutiny when Clinton was in office?
If we gave politicians 10% of the scrutiny that is given Glenn here, nearly all Democrats, and a fair number of Republicans would have to resign from the sheer public cruelty.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 25, 2012 at 1419 hrs
Putting sauage and eggs in your shirt pocket is not considered quirky in West Bend.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 25, 2012 at 1636 hrs
Jusr wondering—the man who calls protesters slobs, keeps food in his pocket—pot/kettle?
And Kevin, thanks for not answering again. I presented Jesus’ words stating capital punishment is wrong—you did not - -you used the OT—not Jesus. I want Jesus’ words.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 25, 2012 at 1702 hrs
dodgecountydem,
Did you read Dr. Gurgel’s article I linked to? It addressed you Matthew 5 head on.
“Similarly, nowhere does the context of Matthew 5 or Romans 12 indicate that Jesus or Paul is conducting a seminar on judicial sentencing. Both are instructing Christians in their personal lives to be on their guard for a spirit of revenge against personal enemies. It’s fascinating again to note what Paul writes just after urging us to “leave room for God’s wrath.” He immediately moves on to God exercising his just wrath through government! While personal vengeance is always sin, God’s own vengeance working through government isn’t.”
This is why Christians can support Capital punishment through the government.
However, nowhere does the bible support killing innocent unborn children. Just curious why you don’t make this same effort to protect the pre-born?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 25, 2012 at 1820 hrs
That should say, “It addressed your point on Matthew 5 head on.”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 25, 2012 at 1821 hrs
Pretty tortuous 3rd party logic Kevin.
If the book speaks to you, why does one need another’s interpretation to justify your position.I think going after Bin Laden was necessary,Iraq wasn’t
I think the State should kill Jeffry Dahmer and Jessie Anderson , and
Shouldn’t interfere in the private lives of consenting adults.I think the folks who love the fetus have an obligation to worry about it after its born.
I think the government has an obligation to feed the hungry and I won’t demonize the well off who couldn’t be bothered.
And I think my wife and kids can make better choices about their bodies than men can
I don’t rely on others to justify how I feel. I guess it’s just observations based upon 60 years on the planet.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 26, 2012 at 1052 hrs
Mark,
If the book speaks to you, why does one need another’s interpretation to justify your position.
Dr. Gurgel trains ministers of the gospel at Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary. He is an excellent, and articulate, authoritative reference on the subject. I think it effectively addressed dodgecountydem’s points.
I think the folks who love the fetus have an obligation to worry about it after its born.
So because the world is sinful, this justifies destroying the life of the pre-born?
I take it from your statement, those that destroy the fetus, don’t love the fetus? That would be contrary to
1 Corinthians 13: 1-3.If I speak in the tongues[a] of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.
There is an excellent song by King and Country on these verses:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-2dKOfbC9c
Just some reflection for consideration.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 26, 2012 at 1240 hrs
Kevin, that is why I did not address Dr. Gurgel—he is at a seminary that teaches if you do not belong to his particular denomination, you will not see the kingdom of God. He is short-sighted in his interpretation of scripture.
Mark is correct. I see Glenn talking about people feeling entitled and living off of the State—he really does not care about the kids born into these situations—he wants no abortion, wants to limit contraception and then screams that poor people are having too many babies. Can’t have it both ways.
No one has answered my question about what Glenn has done for those in Jackson without safe drinking water due to the gasoline spill—so the answer is what I thought—nothing because big business is more important to him than those people in Jackson.
Glenn has no respect for many of the constituents in his district. I find it interesting that the WB Daily News today pointed out who did not attend last night’s candidate forum in Ozaukee County but failed to mention that it started late because Glenn chose to show up late. Glenn can’t even show up to address constituents on time.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 26, 2012 at 1459 hrs
He is short-sighted in his interpretation of scripture.
Translation: Your argument fell apart.
You seemed to also drop the ‘abortion is not mentioned in scripture’ argument rather fast as well.
Glenn is saying when you reward irresponsible life choices you get more of the irresponsible life choices.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 26, 2012 at 1506 hrs
But what has he done for the people in Jackson, his constituents who do not have safe drinking water?
Is it respectful to those involved for Glenn to arrive late at a voter forum?
I never really cared about the abortion debate nor capital punishment—it is fun to push your buttons and watch you respond with the bold type and your same old tired line. Notice I stated your seminary professor also believes that only WI Synod Lutherans will be in heaven, and since that is true, you offer no disagreement.
What I want is real answers to what has Glenn done for his constituents without safe water brought about by a gasoline spill except supporting more dependence on oil and gas?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 26, 2012 at 1514 hrs
dodgecountydem,
Well, since Tanya Lohr supports killing the innocent, why would anything else, like the Jackson situation, concern her?
The Jackson property owners seem to have the issue well in hand, they got big time lawyers to get a big time injury payment. More power to them.
Why would you want Glenn to interfere with the property owners current plan to get a big check from the company that caused the spill and their ins. company?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 26, 2012 at 1523 hrs
Yet, it has been argued that Glenn is responsive.
Glad you ignore his lack of respect. Kevin, grow up. The world does not revolve around you. You argue what suits your narrow world view and ignore the rest.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 26, 2012 at 1614 hrs
dodgecountydem,
So you want Glenn to interfere in the property owners mega civil action? Why?. What do you want him to do, that is not being done?
I think what upsets you is: I don’t think everything in life should revolve around government.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 26, 2012 at 1625 hrs
Kevin get the fuck outside more. Jesus fucking Christ already…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 26, 2012 at 1843 hrs
No one has answered my question about what Glenn has done for those in Jackson without safe drinking water due to the gasoline spill
I don’t agree with Glenn most of the time, but this is a lame campaign issue. The pipeline company, Town of Jackson, and the DNR are working on this. To quote the JS:
In addition to extending municipal water from the Village of Jackson or other communities, such as Germantown or Cedarburg, the options on table include: establishing a town-operated water system distributing water pumped out of deep wells or purchased from a nearby community; replacing existing private shallow wells with deeper wells; creating a privately owned water system that would have its own deep wells or would distribute municipal water.
This isn’t about his views on pipelines and the environment; you want to know what he’s done “for those in Jackson without safe drinking water”. What SHOULD he do that hasn’t been done?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 26, 2012 at 1902 hrs
Kevin, what did you do? Everything is in boldface!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 26, 2012 at 1905 hrs
What could he have done—shown compassion. Sat down with those impacted, offered his care and concern and asked if there was anything he could do. He could have shown them basic human respect as one with power.
What did he do? Showed up at the meeting with 800 people and posed the question “Who is going to pay for this?”
This is the same person who has so little respect for his constituents that last night, he was late to the voter forum. From what those there tell me, no apology—he strolled in late just believing it was not a problem.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 26, 2012 at 2008 hrs
dodgecountydem,
It shows compassion that he expects the company to pay for their equipment failure.
Sat down with those impacted, offered his care and concern and asked if there was anything he could do. He could have shown them basic human respect as one with power.
Has Tanya Lohr ever done this in relation to anyone’s tax bill? She complains education is not adequately funded with a 165K+ household income from the taxpayers. Basic human respect would demand she would thank taxpayers…not demand more.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 26, 2012 at 2017 hrs
Kevin,
I am sorrowful for you—that you are so bitter and self-absorbed and jealous. You must know a different Christ than I do, because mine gives me joy and happiness every day. I hope you can find that some day.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 26, 2012 at 2033 hrs
dodgecountydem,
I’ll pray for you as well, because I merely emulated your tactic in #68.
I’m reminded on Matthew 10:16: I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.
I was making a point that you were being over the top in #68, and the same unfair tactic could be levied to any candidate on any issue and question their “compassion.”
I’m sorry you find your tactic “bitter”.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 26, 2012 at 2048 hrs
Kevin, you missed my point completely. It is not about this exchange between us, it is about how I have always experienced you—a joyless, self absorbed Christian.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 26, 2012 at 2055 hrs
dodgecountydem,
I find a lot of “joy” in the debate itself.
If you find “joy” in government running every little aspect of our lives, certainly, you must find me completely “joyless”.
To me, Christianity does not require a taxing authority to be involved in the joy of helping others.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 27, 2012 at 1643 hrs
Really DCD? That has not been my primary experience at all. My feelings of Kevin and his arguments has always been more like a Republican using the Bible to rationalize or prop up his beliefs. Quite often I have questioned whether Kevin is a Christian or a ‘christian lawyer’. If he is a John 3:16 christian, I question right now whether he would go to heaven as his words as often as not belie Christian values. That is for God to judge, though.
Kevin, your arrogant use of the Bible, your lack of humility before God, your lack of compassion and forgiveness for your ‘enemy’(read any non-Republican) and your incessant comparsion of non-religions to a milieu describing the beliefs of your God(Religion) are what make me feel this way about you. I sincerely hope this makes you more contemplative than offended, but it will be what tool you make of it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 29, 2012 at 0756 hrs
Tuerqas,
I’ll admit I will bring up a biblical reference from time to time, but many times it is others who want to bring up the biblical discussion, knowing that I profess to be an Evangelical conservative Christian. (It’s the “conservative” part that bothers them, probably not the “evangelical” part.)
I’m not afraid to embrace the biblical discussion.
If dodgecountydem is going to absurdly assert abortion is not mentioned in scripture as being wrong, I’m certainly going to point out to him where it is mentioned.
It’s a duty of an Evangelical Christian to gently correct a Christian supporting, or encouraging sin. (In this case, abortion). If I lack the “gentle” part of that Christian duty, I will surely repent of it this Sunday in church.
So I appreciate the feedback on that. This is the most difficult part of being a Christian…not simply ignoring those that overtly support sin, but acknowledging the Christian duty to correct and gently admonish those in a direction away from that sin.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 29, 2012 at 0935 hrs
If you are truly willing to reflect upon yourself, stop comparing all manner of beliefs to religion. Despite a few comparables, religion is different than government. The main thing it does is cheapen religion and others’ belief that you actually believe in a religion at all. Progressivism et al is not a religion. It has a few similarities as anyone’s belief in any human organized activity does. When I was young I had hero worship for my elder brother sometimes. Despite some similarities I did not deify him or replace God with him. You demean everyone’s beliefs by doing that.
As an evangelical, the stupidest thing you can do with an atheist/agnostic is compare other beliefs of his, to your belief in God. I can’t say it any more plainly. No matter how you think you sound, you come off as a cheap religion-like republican. The worst stereotype of conservative bible thumper.
To convert others, the very first thing you want to do is separate belief in God from non-religious beliefs. You will never change someone else’s religious beliefs if you attack all of his beliefs at once by lumping everything as ‘religion’. In an argument it is perfectly okay to cite a verse or two to support your belief, that is an entirely different thing.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 29, 2012 at 1333 hrs
Tuerqas,
Point taken.
However, religion is under assault in the public square. It is being censored by the left in leaps and bounds. That is a much bigger deal.
Why would anyone be upset at having a “religion” label slapped on their beliefs? Answer: because they realize religious speech IS second class speech.
Is it a problem to subject leftist religions to the same speech oppression reserved for Christianity in the public square?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 29, 2012 at 1346 hrs
“Why would anyone be upset at having a “religion” label slapped on their beliefs? Answer: because they realize religious speech IS second class speech.”
No, Kevin. Tuerqas just told you a different, but entirely valid reason: that not every belief is necessarily a religious belief. “Point taken”, you say, and then immediately drop back into your “leftist religions” spiel without missing a beat.
I know I’m repeating myself, but you seem to have a real problem with ignoring the things people tell you about their own beliefs and motivations in favor of the beliefs and motivations you attribute to them.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 29, 2012 at 1531 hrs
Major,
Why does throwing the “religion” label around get you so worked up if religious speech is NOT being oppressed in the public square?
In other words, if such thought has same free speech protections, why does it matter if I consider certain beliefs religion?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 29, 2012 at 1632 hrs
Oh, for crying out loud. First, the word you’re looking for is “suppressed”, not “oppressed”.
Second, in answer to your question, post 76. There is a non-zero chance that your stubbornness in this area could harm your ability to effectively witness for Christ. Is that a risk you’re willing to accept?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 29, 2012 at 1900 hrs
Major,
I like “oppressed” (vs. suppressed) because it puts a human factor on the intimidation toward religious speech. Your suggestion focuses on the speech, not the human consequence. Just a preference of mine.
There is a non-zero chance that your stubbornness in this area could harm your ability to effectively witness for Christ. Is that a risk you’re willing to accept
Bringing attention to the “speech content sifting” going on in the public square is an important issue and I will continue to talk about it. The very ability and freedom to mention “Christ” in the public square is an important issue. If you classify that as being “stubborn”...I cannot control the word you use to describe my defense of free speech
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 29, 2012 at 2022 hrs
“I like “oppressed” (vs. suppressed) because it puts a human factor on the intimidation toward religious speech.”
So abstract concepts are assigned human qualities, while human debate partners are reduced to strawmen. How appropriate.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 29, 2012 at 2048 hrs
Major,
It is not “abstract concepts”:
http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF12H29.pdf
We should treat leftist religions “equally”. That’s all I’m saying….unless you are making argument leftist religions are superior, or “more equal”, than Christianity.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 29, 2012 at 2118 hrs
No, Kevin, the abstract concept I was referring to was religious speech itself, not the persecution of it. I was taking issue with your English usage, not your position… but I see you’re back to begging the question on “leftist religions” again. The circle of life continues.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 29, 2012 at 2146 hrs
Major,
Why does it bother you so much that I call worship of big government, global warming, and evolution “religions”?
If no religious speech censorship exists in the public square, what is there to fear from this label?
....Or will we come to the honest admission/agreement that religious speech is secondhand speech in our society, sifted and filtered, based on content?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 30, 2012 at 0724 hrs
Why would anyone be upset at having a “religion” label slapped on their beliefs? Answer: because they realize religious speech IS second class speech.
Wrong answer, Kevin. You are right in that religion is under attack from a wide range of leftist positions. Fight that. However, in the grand scheme of things, I don’t care why leftists would be upset about your labeling problems(though I could tell you why). As a believer in Christ, I care because your mislabeling is offensive to religion. A duck is a bird, but it is not a goose. All abstract concepts are not Gods. Further, you are not trying to raise religious speech back to first class status with your argument, you are trying(hopefully forever unsuccessfully) to bring other abstract concepts down to second class too. It is the opposite of what you want to do.
Religions believe in a higher/divine authority. How do you think God feels about you comparing him to progressivism? You are the one doing that comparison, not evolutionists. You are the one continually trying to downgrade God to second class status rather than exalting Him above first class status, not GW alarmists. If you don’t believe God should be down where you believe progressives are, stop putting him there! How can you think anyone believes you have any faith at all?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 30, 2012 at 0805 hrs
Personally, I’m offended by “religion” being applied to a secular belief, whether that’s liberalism or conservatisim, the “Left” or the “Right”. The conventional understanding in our society is that religion includes a belief in a supreme deity.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 30, 2012 at 0829 hrs
Tueras,
You are the one continually trying to downgrade God to second class status rather than exalting Him above first class status, not GW alarmists.
On the contrary, I want religious speech to have same protection as Global warming speech and worship of big government speech. It has been the liberal assault on free speech that has reduced God to second class status in the public square.
All abstract concepts are not Gods.
“Abstract concepts”, like evolution, can be false gods or idols. The bible constantly talks about the subject of false religions, false gods, and idols. Even money can be its own religion.
Just because something is not of the Christian religion, does not mean it is not religion to others.
I know professors who will subscribe and swear to evolution scripture in relation to how man came into being, even though the evidence is lacking….its a matter of religious faith, albeit, an incorrect faith from the Christian perspective.
There are numerous examples in the history of man of tribes, peoples, and nations worshiping “abstract concepts” (rejecting the Triune God)...especially in the Old Testament.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 30, 2012 at 1007 hrs
Yes, you do have a Jewish obsession with the Old Testament which Christ specifically said was not to be a guide for Christians. Are you christian or jewish?
Hey, if you want to be a particularly ineffective evangel, worship the wrong books, etc. that is your choice. If you want to bring your personal belief in God up or down(I don’t care which you believe it is) to the level of Global warming ‘believers’, go ahead. If you want to believe that organized religions(including yours) is equivalent to a bowling league organization because they believe they know when and whom they will bowl against next, I can’t stop you. If you want to fight the separation of church and state by demanding they be the same thing, less power to you.
Any other ‘instruction’ I would give to you here will just sound (more?) condescending.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 30, 2012 at 1404 hrs
Tuerqas,
The warnings about not having other gods, and worshiping false idols, are also in New Testament.
Yes, I understand the difference between Old and New Testament, so there is no need to claim I’m all of a sudden in favor of Old Testament ceremonial law coming back.
If you want to believe that organized religions(including yours) is equivalent to a bowling league organization because they believe they know when and whom they will bowl against next.A bowling league would be more “science” than the religion of global warming, because global warming disciples do not know what the temperature will be 10 days from now. A bowling team would know who they play 10 days from now.
Heck, global warming believers can’t even get their belief in the temperature trend correct, based on the cooling the last 16 years.
Bowling league schedule would be science, since it deals with strict data sets.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 30, 2012 at 1542 hrs
Really? GW scientists cannot predict the temp, but what, bowling leaguers can predict their scores? They both know past averages. Read yourself, Kevin. A bowling league org is science? No, it’s not. It is not science or religion. And no, the point was not taken. Too bad, sometimes you have meaningful contributions. No worries, I will just continue to skim past your comments as I have been.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 31, 2012 at 0651 hrs
Tuerqas,
I said the data points on the schedule was science.
To be able to predict bowling scores is akin to fortune telling. I said nothing about scores.
Many try to predict scores in the NFL, and as you see on the Fox pre-game, they constantly fail at it.
Fortune telling (the claimed ability to tell the future) is a false religion, and global warming is all about people claiming they can tell the future.
We’ve met these liberal doomsday soothsayers before…population bomb, mass starvation, global cooling, etc, etc.
What happened? Population is negative growth in many Western countries, causing a crisis in opposite direction! Obesity is the problem du jour for liberals these days! and of course, rather than the new ice age, the earth is melting.
How many false leftist religions do we have to spend money on before we say, stop it with the false religion?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 31, 2012 at 0705 hrs
Kevin,
Haven’t looked at this in a while but got bored.
Tuerqas and others have stated it quite well. At its core to be a Christian is to reflect Christ into the world knowing as others look at you the see Christ and define Christianity by what you say and do.
Having said that, the Christ I see in you is judgemental, condemning and unwilling to listen to other points of view. That Christ wants to impose itself on all aspects of life and government. The Christ you witness to in the world is a Christ who is to be shoved onto others—and by others I mean anyone who does not believe in your narrow interpretation of scripture.
That is the Christ that send people away from the Bible and the church.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 02, 2012 at 0753 hrs
dodgecountydem,
Having said that, the Christ I see in you is judgemental, condemning and unwilling to listen to other points of view.
Humor me, where have I done this?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 02, 2012 at 0842 hrs
Sorry, Kevin, I have better things to do than to humor you. I have told you before you lack self-reflection and your response is a perfect example. Grow up, put on man pants, own your own crap and acknowledge that others have valid opinions and you might be wrong.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 02, 2012 at 0904 hrs
dodgecountydem,
I was hoping you could point out the statement where I have done the issue you accuse me of….for some self reflection and discussion.
I though you said you were “bored”...now you do not want to take the time?
I’m sorry if I perceived that as a mixed signal on your part.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 02, 2012 at 0913 hrs
Luckily, my capacity for humoring people is pretty broad, at least in the “unwilling to listen to other points of view” department.
Let’s look back on some old favorite comment threads and see how, in Kevin’s world, “self-reflection” seems to mean “coming up with a slightly different way to explain how I was right all along”.
“Synchroflush” (In which Kevin receives a short lesson in the very complex legacy of colonialism in Africa, and clings to his very simplistic answer)
“Norway Justice?” (In which Kevin ignores the input of a person with firsthand experience in favor of his own assumptions)
“Wisconsin Smoking Ban Marks Two Years” (In which, beginning around post 50 or so, the meaning of the phrase “empirical evidence” is patiently and repeatedly explained to Kevin, to no visible effect)
And this very thread, in which arguments against Kevin’s overuse of the term “leftist religions” roll off him like water off a duck’s back.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 02, 2012 at 1143 hrs
Major,
Remember what dodgecountdem said;
Having said that, the Christ I see in you is judgemental, condemning and unwilling to listen to other points of view.
In response, if these are the examples you cite…well, let’s address them.
1.) Synchroflush—-I believe I acknowledged the complexities of colonial legacy in Africa, but maintained the stance socialism in Zimbabwe made things worse, not better. No one refuted that point.
2.) Norway Justice—-True, we had an alleged firsthand account, but that does not negate my opinion about the subject, that 21 years is too light a sentence for 70+ murders. Many have “faith” the Norway government will keep the murderer beyond 21 years, but memories fade, and I objected to the very idea there is a chance of this guy getting out. I just don’t share the same faith in socialist style governance…history is replete with disregard for human life in socialist systems…Stalin, Mao, Castro, Chavez, Mugabe, etc.
3.) Wisconsin smoking ban. I don’t even remember the debate on “empirical evidence”. If I was “judgmental” and “condemning” toward the idea of what constitutes, or does not constitute, “empirical evidence”, I’m sorry if I offended you on this pressing issue of the day.
4.) You talk like “leftist religion” is a bad, or negative term. Be proud of what one believes in. How could this be “overused”? Is the word “religion” bad or negative?
I appreciate your feedback.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 02, 2012 at 1238 hrs
Three slightly different wordings of your original positions, and a straight-up admission that you didn’t even read at least one of the exchanges in question before responding.
Glorious.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 02, 2012 at 1710 hrs
Major,
Could you be more specific?
Even if I stated it a slightly different way, does my discussion of the issues rise to “...judgmental, condemning and unwilling to listen to other points of view.”?
I do listen to other points of view, but am I required to agree with them in the process?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 02, 2012 at 1748 hrs
“I do listen to other points of view, but am I required to agree with them in the process?”
No, of course not. However, given the fact that I’m speaking to a man who has not let another person’s opinion modify his own on any issue in any meaningful way in the three-odd years I’ve been following this blog, I would wonder if that person even allowed for the possibility of agreeing with another point of view.
In other words, “I listen to other points of view, but I am required to disagree with them in the process.”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 03, 2012 at 0040 hrs
Major,
So you condemn someone for being sure of his opinions?
With the exception of gay marriage, Obama has been very rigid in raising taxes, rapidly expanding government, and spending like a drunken sailor despite obvious waste.
Do you share the same condemnation standard for Obama?
Just curious.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 03, 2012 at 1015 hrs
“So you condemn someone for being sure of his opinions?”
No, Kevin. I’m saying that someone who enters into a debate allowing for no possible concessions to any dissenting opinion, consistently fails to directly address points raised by others, either through willful obtuseness or by changing the subject, and seems to be so terrified of being wrong about anything that he can’t own up to a ‘sleight’ spelling error, is arguing in bad faith.
I’m saying that I believe you argue in bad faith, Kevin. And until I see evidence to the contrary, that’s all I’m going to say on the subject.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 03, 2012 at 1436 hrs
I’m saying that I believe you argue in bad faith, Kevin. And until I see evidence to the contrary, that’s all I’m going to say on the subject.
Perfectly stated here.
Even if I stated it a slightly different way, does my discussion of the issues rise to “...judgmental, condemning and unwilling to listen to other points of view.”?
The porch shooting threads. I believe two of them. You condemned the victim to pretty much deserved of being shot with no pity for him or his family.
Your condemnation of Lohr on this thread fits all three of the above as well. Others have made a valid point on why not to come to this blog, just as many have stated that she should have, to get he word out there. Both are valid. candidates do not spend money on lost states/counties or in this case blogs. You then followed that up with a misinterpretation of Mark Maley in comment 10. He was accusing you of ‘‘knowing what God thinks’ after which you proceeded to try and prove him correct by telling him what you thought God thinks.
Your dogged use of comparing all beliefs to religion is tired and overused in the sense that you bring it up when there are very few valid comparisons between the belief in discussion and religion and very many invalid comparables. When pointed out, you just disagree, though everyone else in the blog tries to point out the same problem(s). You really think we are all wrong. There is no persuasion possible.
Your last defense is that everyone is allowed their own opinion, That is certainly true, and it just now hit me how I think you justify it. Your faith in God should be unshakable by any argument. Good, you outwardly act this way. Since you seem to see all issues through your faith, you believe all of your beliefs in everything are equally unshakable. An interesting psychiatric phenomenon. Further, you then project your beliefs on to others. You want others to believe in their abstract thoughts as you do yours, so you project the religion comparison on to all thoughts. It is either the best or only way you can process other people’s beliefs. Huh. I have always believed the saying: “Men judge other’s after their own hearts” and it seems especially true of you. Kevin.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 05, 2012 at 0820 hrs
tuerqas,
Are you saying liberal religious beliefs tend not to be just as unshakable?
In my life experience, you just described nearly all the liberal advocacy groups out there.
Evangelical Christians have not exclusive to the idea of unshakable beliefs.
Unlike liberalism however, I can honestly acknowledge my religion.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 05, 2012 at 1925 hrs
I can honestly acknowledge my religion.
Kevin, how many religions do you acknowledge belonging to?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 06, 2012 at 0618 hrs
Pat.
1.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 06, 2012 at 0823 hrs
That’s weird, you argue for the religion of conservatism and the religion of the Republican all the time. Christianity is not the only religion you advocate. How do you explain that?
Are you saying liberal religious beliefs tend not to be just as unshakable?
Actually no, as usual you are saying that. When you play that game, all kinds of people who normally argue liberal disagree that they believe in a religion. They believe in a cause. I think part of any valid religion is that the believers acknowledge it is a religion. Heck, some of them think you believe in a cruel hoax, not a religion. Does that make Christianity not a religion? Usually redefining terms is an argument I have with liberal academics.
Yeah, yeah, now you say you are just using their playbook. However, there is a major difference. They have the writers of Mirriam Webster’s Dictionary on their side, you don’t. i.e. for them it works, for you it doesn’t. If you have a stable of big offensive linemen and 3 star running backs, do you pass to your 5.65 forty yard dashing wide outs because the other team uses theirs?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 07, 2012 at 0733 hrs
Tuerqas,
I think part of any valid religion is that the believers acknowledge it is a religion.
So if Christians label themselves a “cause”, that “cause” can have same access to the public school curriculum and public square speech protection?
You are making a speech review “content” argument. Deciding what is a “cause”, and what is a “religion”, is speech review.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 07, 2012 at 0738 hrs
Promoting Christianity speech rights in public is certainly a cause. Trying to redefine your religion as something other than religion or as comparable to a political cause/belief is closer to sacreligious(or cynicism) than it is to anything else.
Think about it! Are you trying to bring up and defend/promote the cause of free speech for Christianity or do you really want Christians and non-Christians to equate progressivism with christianity? They are equal in your eyes? The current President and God are then equals according to you. Progressives don’t say that, they disagree that Progressivism is a religion. Your arguments show that you believe God and the President should be considered equals. Why?
Frankly, that makes you look like a crackpot and all of your words will be treated with suspicion. Not a great position to be evangelizing(or debating) from.
For instance, to answer your question above: Sure, if you want to downgrade your whole religion(as opposed to the cause of equal speech only) to a cause and promote God as god, equal to PETA’s fight for animal rights, then it should have equal status as other causes in public speech. The separation of church and state should be removed from the constitution and if a majority makes it illegal to be a Christian or beat animals, live with it.
I am ignorant of the phrase ‘speech review’ as having a specific meaning so I don’t have a comment on your last paragraph.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 09, 2012 at 0951 hrs
Tuerqas,
Speech review—long held concept by courts that political speech content cannot be reviewed by government on any level.
Government reviewing speech, on content, is held to be an automatic violation of the 1st amendment.
How can a government entity determine if speech is “religious”, without reviewing the speech and violating the 1st amendment in the process?
As a veteran of speech rights litigation, I am very familiar with this concept of speech review…you should read up on it. Oppressive Maxist administrators UW-Milwaukee attempted speech content review with me and I became very familiar with 1st Amendment lawyers as a result.
This is why you are offended by me throwing the “religion” label around….thanks to the behind the scenes assault on religious speech, we have censorship coming from the Democratic Party on anything with a whiff of religion.
If censorship was not rampant among the left on religious speech, would anyone care about the “religion” label being thrown around?
It’s clear you do care, because you know what it means to that speech if it “catches on”.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 09, 2012 at 1019 hrs
Now you are just playing an apples and oranges word game. None of what we have been talking about is political. It is a red herring statement making the rest of comment 53 invalid.
How can a government entity determine if speech is “religious”, without reviewing the speech and violating the 1st amendment in the process?
Under the rules you just defined, speech review is only valid concerning political speech.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 12, 2012 at 1051 hrs
Tuerqas,
Are you making the claim religious speech is not political speech?
My lefty friends constantly think religion is political. If it wasn’t, they should not get worked up at all about the conservative evangelical community.
Anyway, even if you justify a distinction…don’t you have to review all speech to judge political vs non-political…thus invoking the review violation?
This is the twisted road liberalism is forcing us down with 1st class, protected speech, and 2nd class speech. It becomes a debate over who is protected, or unprotected.
I always serve notice that I am 100% political.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 12, 2012 at 1130 hrs
I always serve notice that I am 100% political.
Everyone’s point exactly! You use religious speech, religious views and quote religion in a political manner. Your political use of religious doctrine makes you look like a 100% political animal, o% religious animal. That makes the points themselves look like you are merely using religion as a tool for political issues rather than approaching a political issue from a religious point of view. You say you are religious and that religion colors your opinions on politics, but between the two, politics always wins and it shows in your words.
As the common belief and the stereotype both put conservatives as Christians, your views more often come off as one whose politics chose his religion, rather than the other way around. And hey, that is fine, I respect a good atheist argument as much as any other. Just admit that your arguments are politically motivated, and if you can muster up enough respect for Chrisitianity, stop using it as an equivalent to your politics. S-e-p-a-r-a-t-i-o-n of church and state. Try it sometime. You might find your political arguments easier if they are not constantly weighed down with seemingly insincere religious innuendo.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 15, 2012 at 1205 hrs
BTW, your whole speech review argument would come off a lot better if this whole thing weren’t about how you are constantly using your own version of speech reach review to compare politics to religion in the first place. When no one else is buying in to it, even if it were a revolutionarily brilliant idea (rather than a tired retread) you may have to abandon the whole progressivism=Christianity meme to be taken seriously on related subjects.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 15, 2012 at 1215 hrs
Total Entries: 21059
Total Comments: 146944
Most Recent Entry: 05/17/2013 05:57 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/18/2013 05:31 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 50
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/22/2013 12:13 pm
The most visitors ever was 663 on 09/02/2012 05:13 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).