Bart Stupak, Puppet of the Shadowy Theocrats
March 6th, 2010 at 11:35 am by CrankyI’m not sure this passes the smell test for me. But hey, it came from Yahoo! News, so it must be real right?
Much of what is known about the group comes from the work of investigative journalist Jeff Sharlet. His New York Times best-seller, “The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power,” notes the group’s core theological instruction reinforces a belief among its members that they’ve been handpicked by God to “rule the world.”
Now you might have some idea why a perfectly good Democrat can go off the rails on something as commonsensical as government subsidized abortion. It’s the shadow cabal of crypto-Christianists! Really, is there any other reason? Indeed, can there be?
I can’t answer that. I couldn’t if I wanted to. They’re listening.
March 6th, 2010 at 7:30 pm
Bart Stupak is an outrageous example of people in Congress who cannot separate their personal religious beliefs from the laws of this country. In case no one noticed abortion is LEGAL in this country. This is nothing but an attempt to use the health care bill as a back door to overturning Roe v. Wade. If he does have any principles he would be honest about what he is trying to do. He is not the brave soul fighting abortion but a rigid zealot who cannot support the laws of this country. Support the law you agree with, the hell with the rest. I am constantly amazed that so many people who oppose abortion have no qualms about killing. Gun laws. The death penalty. Endless war as a way to world peace. He should not be permitted to run as a Democrat. He isn’t even a DINO. He says he wants the health care bill to pass. No, he does not. He will kill it if he can. He will destroy the Democratic party and will destroy Obama’s presidency. This is not a man of reason. This is a man who believes that he, and he alone, has the power to bring down our current government.
March 6th, 2010 at 8:39 pm
Kathleen, Stupak doesn’t want the government (and by extension the taxpayer) funding abortions. Look, as strongly I feel about abortion, I recognize that you have the right to kill your unborn children. But you should expect a fight if you expect me to pay for it. What about that doesn’t make sense?
March 6th, 2010 at 9:03 pm
What is it about LEGAL that you can’t understand? Abortion is legal in this country. If you object then work to overturn Roe v. Wade. Taking the law into your own hands, killing doctors who perform abortions is crazy. Mr. Stupak has made many demands. When one demand is met he switches to something else and he has continued to do that. He should not be allowed to run as a Democrat in the future. He should also be stripped of any perks he enjoys by the good grace of the Democratic party. He is a religious zealot who somehow does not understand — or recognize the separation of church and state. Members of Congress serve the people they don’t serve the Conference of Catholic Bishops or the C Street Family. If it is his intention,and I think it is, to bring down the health care bill, the Democratic party and the President then he must be recognized for what he is.
March 7th, 2010 at 7:57 am
“Legal” does not mean it has to be taxpayer subsidized. “Legal” means “we will not throw you in jail if you do it”.
Like it or not, religious people have just as much right to representation in government as anyone else.
A principle that goes one better than the imaginary high wall separating church and state is Taxation Without Representation.
Let’s go the other way with that. If you’re not paying any taxes you shouldn’t be allowed to vote. Otherwise you’re getting Representation Without Taxation. Chances are if you’re asking me to pay for your abortion then your skank ass falls into that category. Food is legal but it’s not the government’s responsibility to provide it for free to everyone.
Most elements of abortion will eventually be illegal in this country. I do love how you compare an innocent life to that of a convicted murderer or a terrorist as you make no distinction. A life, is a life, is a life except that you’re perfectly fine as not considering the baby “a life” worth saving.
The 225+ year old 2nd Amendment to the Constitution does not guarantee a right to self-defense but a controversial 1973 case where even the plaintiff thinks the decision was wrong justifies spending taxpayer money on infanticide. Why, it’s settled law even!
March 7th, 2010 at 12:27 pm
I do love how you compare an innocent life to that of a convicted murderer or a terrorist as you make no distinction.
Remember Brian that to a liberal, a life is only worth protecting after it commits murder. Besides, all life is precious unless it infringes on your right to damn well what you please, well then, all bets are off.
March 7th, 2010 at 12:54 pm
It seems the only way they are going to get liberals to show some compassion for us whackjob rightwing extremists is if we start killing them.
Come to think of it, that’s not a bad idea. Sounds like a win-win.
March 7th, 2010 at 7:13 pm
You GO Kathleen! Someone needs to come over here to do battle with these ****ing neanderthal christianist mysoginists over at this crap blog. They must be stopped.
No.
They must be SILENCED!
Because christianists are more dangerous to our way of life than any Muslim. Christianists would deny us the right to **** anyone we want, whenever we want, and then take away free government money to rip that useless lump of flesh out of OUR bodies.
Because they are OUR BODIES.
Now…where is that cucumber?
March 7th, 2010 at 10:35 pm
Mandy, you ignorant slut! Good to see you in these parts again!