Politics of Christian hate: 'Pray for Obama: Psalm 109:8' - Page 3

The Shrike · 23rd November 2009, 09:17 AM

Originally Posted by CriticalSock

Um, what are "Teabaggers"? Because in the UK it is the term for the sexual act of dipping your scrotum into your partners mouth.

That's what it means here, too. That's why it was so funny when legions of people who turned out several months ago to protest . . . something about Obama* . . . started waging "tea parties," in an homage to one of the greatest political protests American kids actually learn about in history class, the Boston Tea Party. The protesters, largely white, middle class, conservative folks, would wave teabags in the air and call themselves "teabaggers," blithely immune to the snickers of those of us familiar with the term.

*I think their primary beef was the government bailout. A lot of them, however, just attended so they could cry about how they "wanted to their country back." No one I've spoken to knows what that sentiment means unless the intent was "from that black guy."

Originally Posted by CriticalSock

Also, what does the acronym GOP stand for?

"Grand Old Party" - nickname for the Republican party.

fishbob · 23rd November 2009, 09:40 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic

Well, "The most stupid twat" view was mostly and enthusiastically received by people who wanted Bush to fail in everything, heart failure included. So you answered your own question -- yes, many Americans want their president to fail miserably, especially if he's from the other side.

Revisionism 101.

We didn't want him to fail.
We gave him a chance, then pointed out his failures.

Skeptic Ginger · 23rd November 2009, 07:13 PM

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

No, they don't. I don't much care for Evangelicals.

Pay attention to Oliver's title: Politics of Christian hate
Funny, I don't see any distinction being made there. Par for course. (Plus, I like tweaking Oliver's nose.) ....

DR

Your post illustrates my point. I certainly didn't assume because of Oliver's word choices he was referring to all Christians. I assumed he meant the Evangelical fundies who are actually the ones sporting these tee shirts and bumper stickers.

You have a chip on your shoulder.

gtc · 24th November 2009, 08:27 PM

Originally Posted by skeptigirl

Your post illustrates my point. I certainly didn't assume because of Oliver's word choices he was referring to all Christians. I assumed he meant the Evangelical fundies who are actually the ones sporting these tee shirts and bumper stickers.

You have a chip on your shoulder.

You say that you don't assume that it refers to all Christians. However, you demand that Christians denounce fundamentalists lest they be considered to be fundamentalists too:

Originally Posted by skeptigirl

Your message would be a lot more powerful if you'd just cite a few links to Christian web pages that condemn the fundies. You sound like the Muslims who are angry at being accused of being terrorists. What people want to see are Muslims condemning terrorists more prominently. And I realize it is an uphill battle for them since their condemnation doesn't automatically make the news. But regardless, that is what people need to hear if they are going to recognize every god believer is not a Muslim terrorist or an assassination promoting Christian fundy.

The problem is that you are defending the belief that, unless they can prove otherwise, all Republicans share the views of Rush, all Christians share the views of the fundamentalists and all Muslims share the views of the extremists.

You can see the diversity of beliefs amongst groups you identify with, the left, scientists, feminists etc and would never assume that a black female activist shared the views of Cynthia McKinney for example.

A.A.Alfie · 26th November 2009, 01:36 AM

Originally Posted by Oliver

(snip)..... but you Christians should be ashamed of yourself.

All of them aparently.

I get involved in these religious threads only because I am genuinely offended at the overgeneralisations thrust at the Christians (religious). They are easy targets for the haters of humanity and it is this hate-mongering I like to question.
I do not deny their are some 'bad' people within these organisations, however there are 'bad' people in any organisation. None are without sin. But why do these atheists feel the need to denigrate all the many wonderful individuals within Christian (religious) movements?
Most of the time these atheists have self claimed membership of the liberal intelligent elite, yet see fit to ridicule and malign these honest citizens and try and prove their beliefs wrong. Many of these same people will then turn around and defend the human rights of the most vile individuals. Why? - it smacks of the most appalling hypocricy.

Is there some fundanmental flaw in their personal make ups? Personality disorders? Or just a case of very low self-esteem that compels them belittle others?

I have always been curious about this and these threads make me more so.

TokenMac · 26th November 2009, 01:44 AM

Originally Posted by CriticalSock

Um, what are "Teabaggers"? Because in the UK it is the term for the sexual act of dipping your scrotum into your partners mouth.

Same here that is why it's so funny.

Quote:

Also, what does the acronym GOP stand for?

The Grand Old Party

Andrew Wiggin · 26th November 2009, 01:49 AM

Originally Posted by CriticalSock

Um, what are "Teabaggers"? Because in the UK it is the term for the sexual act of dipping your scrotum into your partners mouth.

Also, what does the acronym GOP stand for?

That's what teabagger means here too, more or less. That's why the teabagger movement is so funny to those in the know.

GOP means 'Grim Old Parody'.

A

23rd November 2009, 09:17 AM	#81
The Shrike Thinker Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: USA Posts: 126	Originally Posted by CriticalSock Um, what are "Teabaggers"? Because in the UK it is the term for the sexual act of dipping your scrotum into your partners mouth. That's what it means here, too. That's why it was so funny when legions of people who turned out several months ago to protest . . . something about Obama* . . . started waging "tea parties," in an homage to one of the greatest political protests American kids actually learn about in history class, the Boston Tea Party. The protesters, largely white, middle class, conservative folks, would wave teabags in the air and call themselves "teabaggers," blithely immune to the snickers of those of us familiar with the term. I think their primary beef was the government bailout. A lot of them, however, just attended so they could cry about how they "wanted to their country back." No one I've spoken to knows what that sentiment means unless the intent was "from that black guy." Originally Posted by CriticalSock* Also, what does the acronym GOP stand for? "Grand Old Party" - nickname for the Republican party.
	Last edited by The Shrike; 23rd November 2009 at 09:24 AM.

23rd November 2009, 09:40 AM	#82
fishbob Seasonally Disaffected Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Chilly Undieville Posts: 4,758	Originally Posted by Skeptic Well, "The most stupid twat" view was mostly and enthusiastically received by people who wanted Bush to fail in everything, heart failure included. So you answered your own question -- yes, many Americans want their president to fail miserably, especially if he's from the other side. Revisionism 101. We didn't want him to fail. We gave him a chance, then pointed out his failures.
	__________________ When you believe in things you don't understand, then you suffer . . . " - Stevie Wonder Arlen Specter to Alberto Gonzales: "You may be treading on your interdiction and violating common sense, Mr. Attorney General." I hate bigots.

23rd November 2009, 07:13 PM	#83
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: headed back to that dark dark house in the dark dark woods Posts: 19,317	Originally Posted by Darth Rotor No, they don't. I don't much care for Evangelicals. Pay attention to Oliver's title: Politics of Christian hate Funny, I don't see any distinction being made there. Par for course. (Plus, I like tweaking Oliver's nose.) .... DR Your post illustrates my point. I certainly didn't assume because of Oliver's word choices he was referring to all Christians. I assumed he meant the Evangelical fundies who are actually the ones sporting these tee shirts and bumper stickers. You have a chip on your shoulder.
	__________________ Sk'p' 'el (Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, Republic Party, in response.) (*Tired of the current Republican talking point of naming everything after Pelosi, Reid &/or Obama, I've decided to start adding Republican names to their fault fiascos.)

24th November 2009, 08:27 PM	#84
gtc Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: the downunderverse Posts: 7,109	Originally Posted by skeptigirl Your post illustrates my point. I certainly didn't assume because of Oliver's word choices he was referring to all Christians. I assumed he meant the Evangelical fundies who are actually the ones sporting these tee shirts and bumper stickers. You have a chip on your shoulder. You say that you don't assume that it refers to all Christians. However, you demand that Christians denounce fundamentalists lest they be considered to be fundamentalists too: Originally Posted by skeptigirl Your message would be a lot more powerful if you'd just cite a few links to Christian web pages that condemn the fundies. You sound like the Muslims who are angry at being accused of being terrorists. What people want to see are Muslims condemning terrorists more prominently. And I realize it is an uphill battle for them since their condemnation doesn't automatically make the news. But regardless, that is what people need to hear if they are going to recognize every god believer is not a Muslim terrorist or an assassination promoting Christian fundy. The problem is that you are defending the belief that, unless they can prove otherwise, all Republicans share the views of Rush, all Christians share the views of the fundamentalists and all Muslims share the views of the extremists. You can see the diversity of beliefs amongst groups you identify with, the left, scientists, feminists etc and would never assume that a black female activist shared the views of Cynthia McKinney for example.
	__________________

26th November 2009, 01:36 AM	#85
A.A.Alfie Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Melbourne Australia Posts: 2,113	Originally Posted by Oliver (snip)..... but you Christians should be ashamed of yourself. All of them aparently. I get involved in these religious threads only because I am genuinely offended at the overgeneralisations thrust at the Christians (religious). They are easy targets for the haters of humanity and it is this hate-mongering I like to question. I do not deny their are some 'bad' people within these organisations, however there are 'bad' people in any organisation. None are without sin. But why do these atheists feel the need to denigrate all the many wonderful individuals within Christian (religious) movements? Most of the time these atheists have self claimed membership of the liberal intelligent elite, yet see fit to ridicule and malign these honest citizens and try and prove their beliefs wrong. Many of these same people will then turn around and defend the human rights of the most vile individuals. Why? - it smacks of the most appalling hypocricy. Is there some fundanmental flaw in their personal make ups? Personality disorders? Or just a case of very low self-esteem that compels them belittle others? I have always been curious about this and these threads make me more so.
	__________________ “The wolfhound is right and the cannibal is wrong". Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein

26th November 2009, 01:44 AM	#86
TokenMac Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Desoto, TX Posts: 278	Originally Posted by CriticalSock Um, what are "Teabaggers"? Because in the UK it is the term for the sexual act of dipping your scrotum into your partners mouth. Same here that is why it's so funny. Quote: Also, what does the acronym GOP stand for? The Grand Old Party
	__________________ The Inflationary Model of Conspiracy Theories Part I Part II My argument does not depend on proof-Southwind17 My opinion is not uninformed there are just many things I have no clue about.- atavisms

26th November 2009, 01:49 AM	#87
Andrew Wiggin Muse Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: A small planet named for it's dirt. You'll find it filed under 'mostly harmless' Posts: 578	Originally Posted by CriticalSock Um, what are "Teabaggers"? Because in the UK it is the term for the sexual act of dipping your scrotum into your partners mouth. Also, what does the acronym GOP stand for? That's what teabagger means here too, more or less. That's why the teabagger movement is so funny to those in the know. GOP means 'Grim Old Parody'. A
	__________________ "Everyone takes the limits of his own vision for the limits of the world." - Arthur Schopenhauer "New and stirring things are belittled because if they are not belittled, the humiliating question arises, 'Why then are you not taking part in them?' " - H. G. Wells