History
- Member for
- 25 weeks 16 hours
Get E-Mail Updates
TruthSeekingLiberal
Top Stories This Week
- A North Carolina Christian’s Response to Pastor Charles L. Worley
by Andrew Simpson 05-23-2012 - 10 reasons Why Men Should Not Be Ordained For Ministry
by Eugene Cho 04-30-2012 - A 'Bizarre and Peculiar' Ruling
by E.J. Dionne Jr. 06-01-2012 - What is the Chief Political Concern of the Bible?
by Tim Suttle 05-24-2012 - The Problem with Certitude
by Gary L. Tandy 05-25-2012 - Dear Pastor Charles Worley: We Condemn Your Words of Hatred and Cruelty. REPENT!
by Eugene Cho 05-23-2012 - The Gospel According to Lady Gaga
by Richard Beck 01-09-2012 - Rob Bell: 'Surrender the Outcomes'
by Cathleen Falsani 05-09-2012 - Jennifer Grant Asks 'What is an Evangelical?'
by Jennifer Grant 05-23-2012
by Karen Sue Smith 01-01-2012
Fifty years after Vatican II, will a new generation of lay Catholics lead prophetic change in the church and in the world?
by David Cortright 05-01-2010
... and make us all more secure. A pragmatic approach to nuclear disarmament.
by David Cortright 08-01-2006
Official rhetoric has helped fuel an escalation of tension between the United States and Iran. Do recent negotiations mark a change in direction, or just a temporary detour from the highway to military attack?
Comments
Unemployment among African American youth is above 20%, home foreclosures are at record levels, the deficit is spiraling out of control and Sojourners would have us believe that the pressing moral issue of our day is whether the Holy Catholic Church pays for contraception of college students and employees.
Actually, everyone now know that someone very connected to the president called the Alaskan governor a slut and a twat and the president declined to call him out or return his $1 million campaign donations. Now they may not know who he is, as I aslo didn't, or even remember his name, but conservatives are now going to tie the divisive tone to the president.
And I think you've got the polling numbers wrong. While 72% say Rush was wrong to call Fluke a slut only 19% say that Georgetown should be forced to pay for contraception.
I wish the president hadn't waded into the Limbaugh kerfuffle. As CNN has pointed out, both Limbaugh and Fluck are just private citizens and it is unpresidential to get involved in every insult thrown around by private citizens, even if they are high profile. My worry is that conservatives will hang this around the president's neck for the next 8 months.
At the same time I worry about how the president has given a pass to Bill Maher, who has donated $1 million to the president's leading Super PAC. Right or wrong, Maher is perceived by conservatives and moderates to be an extension of the administration, much like they view many of the major media networks.
I know the White House was originally giddy about what Rush said because it changed the topic at a critical time. But I worry that this may create long-term damage as Rush was quick to apologize while Maher has not.
I wish the president hadn't waded into the Limbaugh kerfuffle. As CNN has pointed out, both Limbaugh and Fluck are just private citizens and it is unpresidential to get involved in every insult thrown around by private citizens, even if they are high profile. My worry is that conservatives will hang this around the president's neck for the next 8 months.
At the same time I worry about how the president has given a pass to Bill Maher, who has donated $1 million to the president's leading Super PAC. Right or wrong, Maher is perceived by conservatives and moderates to be an extension of the administration, much like they view many of the major media networks.
I know the White House was originally giddy about what Rush said because it changed the topic at a critical time. But I worry that this may create long-term damage as Rush was quick to apologize while Maher has not.
I wish the president hadn't waded into the Limbaugh kerfuffle. As CNN has pointed out, both Limbaugh and Fluck are just private citizens and it is unpresidential to get involved in every insult thrown around by private citizens, even if they are high profile. My worry is that conservatives will hang this around the president's neck for the next 8 months.
At the same time I worry about how the president has given a pass to Bill Maher, who has donated $1 million to the president's leading Super PAC. Right or wrong, Maher is perceived by conservatives and moderates to be an extension of the administration, much like they view many of the major media networks.
I know the White House was originally giddy about what Rush said because it changed the topic at a critical time. But I worry that this may create long-term damage as Rush was quick to apologize while Maher has not.
Are you saying that the words that have come out of Valerie's mouth stand in condemnation of her and reveal what is in her heart? Is there a difference in Valerie saying that Rush's heart is about prostitution and Rush doing satire on the fact that a coed would need to have sex 3 times a day to run up a $3000 condom bill in 4 years.
Let's just agree that both Valerie and Rush have said things inapproprite. But Rush has given us a heart felt appology. Still waiting on Valerie.
If the decision was a year from now the right decision may have been to approve the pipeline. But in the short term, Obama may the best decision based on the situation he faced. Sure the project will create jobs but not quick enough to help before the election. But if Obama were to approve the project it would significantly reduce campaign donations from a loyal group of supporters that Obama needs to keep positively energized to keep the funds coming in.
Justice, you need to remember that Kansas has an naturally acidic personality and that he doesn't speak for every progressive on this site.
I'm confident that we can depend on God's Politics to continue raising the issues that bring in the donations. And we can all pray that there is some intersection between those topics and the real evils of today.
I don't know if it is you or Karl that has it right on Rush. But I agree with Karl in that when the editors, and even the bloggers, on this site misuse facts then this blog becomes no different than talk radio.
Have you noticed that it seems to be the same 6 people on this blog that is was two years ago! No new bloggers, no new thoughts.
But what can people in poverty contribute to society? The reason we shouldn't abide by 50% of Americans living in poverty is that we lose our tax base and our ability to grow the government.
All these articles about the increasing number of Americans living in poverty create the perception that the cause is all related to the president’s stimulus package. But I believe that is not the sole factor at work here. Over the past 3 years we’ve seen lower profits being taken out of the stock market. So when you have wealthy individuals, who’s only source of income is dividends and profits from their invested assets, going through a period where they aren’t claiming income you will see an increase in the poverty rate. That increase isn’t all Obama’s fault.
And at the same time, much is said about how Obama’s policies have decreased the income of the top 1% of earners from 17% of our countries income in 2008 now down to 11% in 2011. Again, this is all related to the wealthy not claiming dividends in their income or exercising stock options. So again, we should be giving Obama excessive credit for this either.
So in summary, all this talk about more people living in poverty and the rich no longer getting richer – it is an incomplete interpretation of the situation.
All these articles about the increasing number of Americans living in poverty create the perception that the cause is all related to the president’s stimulus package. But I believe that is not the sole factor at work here. Over the past 3 years we’ve seen lower profits being taken out of the stock market. So when you have wealthy individuals, who’s only source of income is dividends and profits from their invested assets, going through a period where they aren’t claiming income you will see an increase in the poverty rate. That increase isn’t all Obama’s fault.
And at the same time, much is said about how Obama’s policies have decreased the income of the top 1% of earners from 17% of our countries income in 2008 now down to 11% in 2011. Again, this is all related to the wealthy not claiming dividends in their income or exercising stock options. So again, we should be giving Obama excessive credit for this either.
So in summary, all this talk about more people living in poverty and the rich no longer getting richer – it is an incomplete interpretation of the situation.
There is no question in my mind that all the discussions about the high poverty rate is timed to come out during the reelection run up of the first African American president.
I can understand why you think voting against the current administration is consistent with Biblical values if you are talking from a social justice point of view. In the past 3 years the portion of income the top 1% earns has dropped from 17% of total in 2008 down to 11% now. That is good as it has narrowed the income disparity. But it has come at a real social justice price - 25% unemployment among African American youth.
The reality is that the current administration's policies are hurting the weakest among us more than others.
Well, Kansas, I certainly must disagree with you. On this blog we are very much concerned with equal outcomes. Those knucklehead conservatives are singularly focused on creating jobs, reducing the unemployment rate and creating what they call “opportunities”. But they seem to not care if this results in some, like Steve Jobs, Bill Gates & Oprah becoming super rich. We, on the other hand, know that driving the unemployment rate to 5% is not the ultimate answer nor is doubling our GDP so that the American lifestyle is ever increasing. The disparity between the wealthy and the poor is very important to both the blogger and the editors on this site.
Pinkpaddler asks: "what about if virtually the same words come from an African-American minister in New Orleans' Lower Ninth Ward?"
There is nothing wrong with African-American ministers saying what Newt said. The problem is that Newt's solutions are "bottoms up" solutions that focus on jobs, culture and opportunities and our side is heavily politically invested in "top down" solutions, such as entitlements, which often help the non-poor more than the poor.
recent studies are showing that entitlements, as a whole, are responsible of redistributing wealth away from the poor to the middle class and rich.