Reply With Quote
lol red scare
lol red scare
ANTIFA COUP!
TESTIFY!
Jesus...
Boycotting Amazon tbh
Did you ever use it before?
skid row
- totally representative of the entire state of california
- was full of rainbows and bunnies before jerry brown
why are you boycotting amazon. what did they do?
he's not really taking a shot at Amazon, genius.
And how stupid do you have to be to equate amazon with the USPS?
http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/ind...idacy_wil.html
where does this question her intelligence for believing in god or make any sexist attack??
Lol Chris deflecting from his amazon whiff
She's a resident of the party's lunatic fringe, firmly aligned with the Steve Bannon wing of President Donald Trump's version of the Republican Party.
That's the same Trump-Bannon alliance that enthusiastically embraced failed Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore, a phobic slavery apologist brought down by credible allegations that he made numerous sexual advances to under-aged girls.Clearly not a hit piece.Hagan proudly boasts of her unwavering support for Trump, Bannon, and Jesus Christ, not necessarily in that order. Her campaign website solemnly proclaims, "Christina believes when we fix our hearts and attention on Jesus, the founder, the author of our faith, things begin to change."
How all that "attention on Jesus" fits in with a president accused of predatory behavior by a dozen women is unexplained in Hagan's spiritual biography. It's all part of the blind spot those on the religious right have with people like Trump and Roy Moore. And it's at the core of a hypocrisy that seems to cons ute the essence of their very being.
"She's a resident of the party's lunatic fringe"
"Hagan proudly boasts of her unwavering support for Trump, Bannon, and Jesus Christ"
"How all that "attention on Jesus" fits in with a president accused of predatory behavior by a dozen women is unexplained in Hagan's spiritual biography. It's all part of the blind spot those on the religious right have with people like Trump and Roy Moore. And it's at the core of a hypocrisy that seems to cons ute the essence of their very being."
I don't see anything sexist, except that she's a she and the writer could have gone for a male instead. If she was black and said "racist" I don't think many here would take issue with it, considering she was singled out while the men in the party were said to be much better choices. He stated basically that Gonzales would be a better choice because of his non-American ancestry
" Gonzalez is a thoughtful conservative. He's young, bright and genuinely cares about issues related to all Americans - not just some. His Cuban ancestry and star-quality potential represent everything the Republican Party should embrace."
So if you were to contrast that (as implied) to Hagan, she's not bright, not young? and not thoughtful. He basically calls her a crazy hypocrite.
Sorry if it wasn't clearly spelled out, counsel.
nothing to do with religion or sex
yes. none of that questions her intelligence for believing in god. none of that is sexist"Hagan proudly boasts of her unwavering support for Trump, Bannon, and Jesus Christ"
yes. there is an inherent hypocrisy in acting pious while turning a blind eye to abusive behavior. none of that questions her intelligence due to her belief in god. it questions her integrity"How all that "attention on Jesus" fits in with a president accused of predatory behavior by a dozen women is unexplained in Hagan's spiritual biography. It's all part of the blind spot those on the religious right have with people like Trump and Roy Moore. And it's at the core of a hypocrisy that seems to cons ute the essence of their very being."
agreed wholeheartedlyI don't see anything sexist,
lol. she's running for office.except that she's a she and the writer could have gone for a male instead.
but that isn't the claim im addressing (racism). her claim was that the piece was sexist and questioned her intelligence due to a belief in godIf she was black and said "racist" I don't think many here would take issue with it, considering she was singled out while the men in the party were said to be much better choices. He stated basically that Gonzales would be a better choice because of his non-American ancestry
honestly i dont know much about her. if its true that she turned a blind eye to moore/trump accusations, and that she is deeply religious, then i'd agree she's a hypocrite on that frontGonzalez is a thoughtful conservative. He's young, bright and genuinely cares about issues related to all Americans - not just some. His Cuban ancestry and star-quality potential represent everything the Republican Party should embrace."
So if you were to contrast that (as implied) to Hagan, she's not bright, not young? and not thoughtful. He basically calls her a crazy hypocrite.
it was very clear that the piece wasn't sexist nor did it question her intelligence for believing in godSorry if it wasn't clearly spelled out, counsel.
i dont doubt that it was a hit piece.
but it wasn't sexist in any way, nor was it anti-christian or question her intelligence due to a belief in god
she's just a snowflake that gets offended too easily imo. probably an SJW and antifa apologist tbh
Sex no, but certainly the right is characterized by their religious beliefs and the writer goes to great length to mention hers repeatedly.
Yet she's a lunatic. Pretty sure had she been Muslim, it would have been more clear to you and others.yes. none of that questions her intelligence for believing in god. none of that is sexist
Why is he judging her belief in god without mentioning his or her opponent's beliefs? How does her belief in god have anything to do with what Trump is "accused" of? The bible doesn't hold one person accountable for the transgressions of another, and both parties are rife with sinners.yes. there is an inherent hypocrisy in acting pious while turning a blind eye to abusive behavior. none of that questions her intelligence due to her belief in god
So is Gonzales. The owner of the Cleveland news is also the owner if Vanity Fair.agreed wholeheartedly
lol. she's running for office.
It stands to reason they support a liberal approach.
No, you're looking for a cut and dry "because she's a female..." but you'd not need the cut and dry "because she's black".. That's my point. Let's not get caught up in low hanging fruit.but that isn't the claim im addressing (racism). her claim was that the piece was sexist and questioned her intelligence due to a belief in god
Are you religious? If not, how can you judge? If you are religious, why would you judge?" Gonzalez is a thoughtful conservative. He's young, bright and genuinely cares about issues related to all Americans - not just some. His Cuban ancestry and star-quality potential represent everything the Republican Party should embrace."
honestly i dont know much about her. if its true that she turned a blind eye to moore/trump accusatinos, and that she is deeply religious, then i'd agree she's a hypocrite on that front
Sure it did. It's clear you won't tie the two together "lunatic" and "unwavering support for Jesus" (then says "not in that order" even though the writer had complete control over which order he wrote it).it was very clear that the piece wasn't sexist nor did it question her intelligence for believing in god
If you wish to argue merely by assertion, fine. You can have it.
i think trump is a lunatic and on the right wing fringe, but he's not religious. the two aren't mutually exclusive
If you said "trump is a lunatic, he believes in jesus"
That's a relationship you just built with your statement.
This isn't rocket science. Calling someone a lunatic just before pointing out their religious beliefs would doom many a political candidate. The opinion writers get no free pass, since they'd be the ones stoking the fires.
i would criticize anybody who governs primarily with religion in mind. like a judge that says "in my courtroom, the bible comes before the cons ution." thats not questioning his intelligence for his belief in god. that is questioning his judgment when his religious tendencies override reason
As would I. I would also criticize anyone who professed a belief in a supernatural being and then professed that they could govern without regard to it. One shows a mental illness, the other shows a character flaw. Unfortunately a professed atheist couldn't get a seat on a city council, much less the ticket of either party.
Judicial decisions are based on law. The executive branch has more leeway to make decisions and more leeway to hide the underlying reasons. You'll never read a 10 page case law of why Obama used executive power to force legislation or why Trump fired Comey. You'll only see the opinions of those who were aware of it.like a judge that says "in my courtroom, the bible comes before the cons ution." thats not questioning his intelligence for his belief in god. that is questioning his judgment when his religious tendencies override reason
yeah, and the jab the article took was doing just that. again, nothing there called her intelligence into question due to a belief in god
true. i still see a religious executive who governs with that in mind as someone forcing his religion down the populace's throat. that is different than calling his intelligence into question (though i might do that anyway)Judicial decisions are based on law. The executive branch has more leeway to make decisions and more leeway to hide the underlying reasons. You'll never read a 10 page case law of why Obama used executive power to force legislation or why Trump fired Comey. You'll only see the opinions of those who were aware of it.
There are currently 4 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 4 guests)
Posting Permissions
