So, morality stands for religion, except when it works in your favor?
Published on November 29, 2004 By messybuu In Politics
Something I just realized awhile ago: many liberals insist that Jesus freaks won Bush the election because moral values was a choice many voted for Bush, and moral values obviously meant religious faith even though religious faith was also an option in exit polls. So, moral values equate to religious values, but then they turn around and say that moral values are not dependent on religion and that they can stem from humanistic sources. So, on one hand, moral values stand for religious values, but on another, moral values aren't necessarily religious?
Comments (Page 3)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Dec 03, 2004

ive no doubt you could. so how do you explain why nixon (who clearly disliked kerry and can be heard saying so on tape in the oval office; in fact, disliked him enough to condemn him to a lifetime of being stalked by a psychopath loser stalker like john o'neil) and j edgar hoover (whom we know to have assigned a team of fbi agents to keep kerry under surveilance) never even tried to obtain an indictment for charges that are so well evidenced you could keep quoting them all night?


Now you jumped on the kook bandwagon.  What DR says is true, whether you want to believe it or not.  He did provide docuementation.  Nixon did not sick O'Niell on Kerry, that was O'Neill's doing himself.  Nixon just did not try to reign him in.  J Edgar was dead by then, so that was a non factor as well.  The FBI may have been hounding him, and probably was.  But then so were many other anti--war protestors of the time.


You assign Nixon so much credit for sabotaging the Peace talks, yet offer no basis in proof for it.


In a nut shell, you are rapidly approaching kook status in that anything about a liberal must be false, and any innuendo or allegation about a conservative must be true.

on Dec 03, 2004

Reply #30 By: kingbee - 12/3/2004 3:55:22 AM
I could keep this up all night



ive no doubt you could. so how do you explain why nixon (who clearly disliked kerry and can be heard saying so on tape in the oval office; in fact, disliked him enough to condemn him to a lifetime of being stalked by a psychopath loser stalker like john o'neil) and j edgar hoover (whom we know to have assigned a team of fbi agents to keep kerry under surveilance) never even tried to obtain an indictment for charges that are so well evidenced you could keep quoting them all night?


lemme guess...cuz its all bullshit speculation and nothing was done in secret that could be considered negotiating with a foreign power? or the kerry family bought em off?


Sorry it's not *bullshit* speculation. You obviously did not read/comprehend what I posted. Kerry admitted to these accusations "out of his own mouth"! And I do not know why Nixon did not pursue this. He obviously should have. And BTW there are people trying to rectify that mistake even now. Check link:

Link

on Dec 04, 2004

Nixon did not sick O'Niell on Kerry, that was O'Neill's doing himself

your command of facts sometimes rivals your colleaque drmiler.  according to a houston chronicle article about oneil dated 3/31/04: 

In 1971, O'Neill squared off against Kerry on the Dick Cavett Show in a 90-minute, televised forum in which the two Vietnam War veterans sparred over the U.S. role in Southeast Asia.

President Nixon and top aide Charles Colson had taken a keen interest in O'Neill as part of their effort to discredit Kerry and the anti-war movement, according to memos and tapes in the National Archives. A clean-cut Naval Academy graduate, O'Neill was viewed by Nixon's team as an effective messenger against Kerry, who was causing the administration headaches as the leader of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War.

In a series of memos, Nixon aide Colson, who later went to prison for his role in the Watergate scandal, referred to the administration's efforts to promote O'Neill and to challenge Kerry to debate him.

On June 15, 1971, Colson noted that Kerry first turned down a debate offer with O'Neill and that he was "beginning to take a tremendous beating in the press."

"Let's destroy this young demagogue before he becomes another Ralph Nader," Colson wrote about Kerry.

Colson wrote that he arranged an Oval Office meeting between Nixon and O'Neill on June 16, to boost the morale of O'Neill, who had become disillusioned because of the hostile reception he received during other television appearances.

O'Neill, who had flown up from his hometown of San Antonio, spent about 40 minutes chatting with Nixon and National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger about the war and its opponents.

Nixon said he understood that O'Neill was "the guy to take brickbats when you go on some of these TV shows." He encouraged the young veteran to continue his fight.

"Give it to 'em. Give it to 'em. You can do it," said Nixon, according to a tape of the meeting.

O'Neill mentioned to the president that he had supported Democrat Hubert Humphrey against Nixon in the 1968 presidential election. But he was critical of the beating that Nixon was taking in the press and advised the president that when reporters "ask you totally stupid questions about which they always seem to ask, laugh at them, and I think the whole country will laugh with you."

The next day Colson wrote a memo to top Nixon aide H.R. Haldeman, pronouncing the session a success:

"O'Neill went out charging like a tiger, has agreed that he will appear anytime, anywhere that we program him and was last seen walking up West Executive Avenue mumbling to himself that he had just been with the most magnificent man he had ever met in his life.

on Dec 04, 2004

J Edgar was dead by then, so that was a non factor as well.

apparently i--and the rest of the world--am incorrect in believing that hoover died on may 2, 1972.  

on Dec 04, 2004

In a nut shell, you are rapidly approaching kook status in that anything about a liberal must be false, and any innuendo or allegation about a conservative must be true.

in a nutshell (strange turn of phrase considering where you went with that), if im losing my mind, its due in no small part to incorrect statements about something as easily checked  as the date of j edgar hoover's too-long-delayed departure from this vale of bliss or as well documented as nixon's meetings with oneil.

on Dec 04, 2004

Reply #35 By: kingbee - 12/4/2004 3:18:51 AM
In a nut shell, you are rapidly approaching kook status in that anything about a liberal must be false, and any innuendo or allegation about a conservative must be true.

in a nutshell (strange turn of phrase considering where you went with that), if im losing my mind, its due in no small part to incorrect statements about something as easily checked as the date of j edgar hoover's too-long-delayed departure from this vale of bliss or as well documented as nixon's meetings with oneil.


I have a question. Just what in the heck does ONeil have to do with what I posted? My command of facts is perfectly fine thank you. Although yours is up for debate. I posted quite a bit of fact for you. If you choose to ignore it then that's your bad not mine.
on Dec 04, 2004

Just what in the heck does ONeil have to do with what I posted


i was responding to the other doctor's claims.

on Dec 04, 2004

your command of facts sometimes rivals your colleaque drmiler


sorry for the confusion.  it shoulda read 'your command of facts sometimes rivals that of your colleage, drmiler'

on Dec 04, 2004

And I do not know why Nixon did not pursue this


you keep overlooking the obvious.  nixon may have been an asshole but he wasnt a stupid asshole.  he knew there was no basis for an indictment.

on Dec 04, 2004

What the hell does any of this have to do with the original moral values/religious faith topic?


well, the moral of this story
the moral of this song
is simply that one should never be
where one does not belong
so if you see your neighbor carryin somethin
help him with his load
and dont go mistaking paradise
for that house across the road 

the ballad of frankie lee and judas priest--bobby zimmerman

on Dec 04, 2004

Reply #40 By: little_whip - 12/4/2004 7:49:40 AM
For fucks sake....this WAS an interesting topic....but so far gone now that i wont even bother trying to respond....nixon. hoover, kerry, vietnam.....blah blah blah.

What the hell does any of this have to do with the original moral values/religious faith topic?


I'm sorry for the hijack messybuu. I won't post anymore to keep my arguement going.
on Dec 06, 2004

your command of facts sometimes rivals your colleaque drmiler. according to a houston chronicle article about oneil dated 3/31/04:

Your post just made my statement.  O'neill was on Kerry before Nixon got involved, or cared.  I stated that Nixon encouraged him, which you quoted text indicates, but he did not 'sic' him on Kerry.  You lost, so take back your incorrect snide comment if you dare.

on Dec 06, 2004

apparently i--and the rest of the world--am incorrect in believing that hoover died on may 2, 1972.

I did not mean to imply that Hoover died before Kerrymade a fool of himself, but he was not hounding Kerry like you said as he was in ill health and died during the whole sordid mess.  Each time you try to refute me, you just wind up proving my point.  Or, correctly pointing out an ambiguity that I am glad to correct for the record.

3 Pages1 2 3