This is what liberals absolutely have to do to even stand a chance;
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42770.html
This is also a glaring example of the liberal media bias at the politico and why I don't believe a word they say.
If you'd actually listened to Dans entire bit, which was played on Fox news, then you would know that the politico and the Democrat candidate took one small bible phrase and started making sh*t up about what Ddan meant.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Taliban Dan
Taliban DanFollow
Political ads are shameful these days no matter the origin. Still, I did find it interesting that the article reports no refute to the charges. I know nothing about the guy, but if he did in fact advocate the things the ad supposedly accused him of, I wouldn't vote for him either.
Sometimes the truth hurts, even if the method of delivery is ill-conceived.
Sometimes the truth hurts, even if the method of delivery is ill-conceived.
varusword75 wrote:
This is also a glaring example of the liberal media bias at the politico
I actually agree with this. The article did come off as very biased. "But he didn't refute anything!"
There's usually some truth, so let's see.
Quote:
Grayson for Congress TV Ad: "Taliban Dan"
Announcer: Religious fanatics tried to take away our freedom in Afghanistan, in Iran and right here in Central Florida.
Webster: Wives submit yourselves to your own husband.
Announcer: Daniel Webster wants to impose his radical fundamentalism on us.
Webster: She should submit to me. That’s in the Bible.
Announcer: Webster tried to deny battered women medical care, and the right to divorce their abusers.
Webster: Submit to me.
Announcer: He wants to force raped women to bear the child.
Webster: Submit to me.
Announcer: Taliban Dan Webster. Hands off our bodies, and our laws.
Announcer: Religious fanatics tried to take away our freedom in Afghanistan, in Iran and right here in Central Florida.
Webster: Wives submit yourselves to your own husband.
Announcer: Daniel Webster wants to impose his radical fundamentalism on us.
Webster: She should submit to me. That’s in the Bible.
Announcer: Webster tried to deny battered women medical care, and the right to divorce their abusers.
Webster: Submit to me.
Announcer: He wants to force raped women to bear the child.
Webster: Submit to me.
Announcer: Taliban Dan Webster. Hands off our bodies, and our laws.
The actual quote (a quick Google search found) is:
Quote:
Webster: So, write a journal. Second, find a verse. I have a verse for my wife, I have verses for my wife. Don’t pick the ones that say, ‘She should submit to me.’ That’s in the Bible, but pick the ones that you’re supposed to do. So instead, ‘love your wife, even as Christ loved the Church and gave himself for it’ as opposed to ‘wives submit to your own husbands.’ She can pray that, if she wants to, but don’t you pray it.
Blatant lie about saying his wife should submit to him. So instead of being against womenz, he picks and chooses the parts of the Bible he follows. Hey, bad Christian is bad, but I don't fault him for that. Everyone picks and choosing what part of their holy book they follow.
How about the abortion part?
Yup, turns out he is against all abortion, including of pregnancies from rape or incest.
How about the marriage part?
Partially true. In an effort to get tough on marriage and divorce, he introduced legislation in 1990 to create a "covenant marriage." I'll quote PoliticFact's analysis:
Quote:
When Webster was a member of the Florida House, he introduced a bill that would have created something called covenant marriage. This special form of marriage was entirely voluntary, but if couples agreed to it, they would not be able to divorce under state law except in the case of adultery. The bill did not list physical or sexual abuse as grounds for divorce.
Webster's bill wouldn't make all divorce illegal. It wouldn't even make divorce for all people who chose covenant marriage entirely illegal. There's a small window out for adultery. But Grayson is right that there was no protection in Webster's marriage bill for abused wives. So, in theory, someone who chose covenant marriage and was being abused might not be granted a divorce. Because all of that context is critical to understanding Grayson's claim, we rate it Half True.
Webster's bill wouldn't make all divorce illegal. It wouldn't even make divorce for all people who chose covenant marriage entirely illegal. There's a small window out for adultery. But Grayson is right that there was no protection in Webster's marriage bill for abused wives. So, in theory, someone who chose covenant marriage and was being abused might not be granted a divorce. Because all of that context is critical to understanding Grayson's claim, we rate it Half True.
Kernels of truth. Grayson is obviously a deceitful though. I'm wondering if varus even knew of Dan Webster before this talking point came up? Kinda doubt it.
varusword75 wrote:
He did say the bible says a wife should submit to her husband, which it says.
Depends on your version of the Bible. The wording is actually commonly translated to "respect" not "submit to" in most modern versions.
LockeColeMA wrote:
varusword75 wrote:
He did say the bible says a wife should submit to her husband, which it says.
Depends on your version of the Bible. The wording is actually commonly translated to "respect" not "submit to" in most modern versions.
varusword75 wrote:
and the lie that people like you eat up.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
LockeColeMA wrote:
I'm wondering if varus even knew of Dan Webster before this talking point came up? Kinda doubt it.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Elinda wrote:
LockeColeMA wrote:
I'm wondering if varus even knew of Dan Webster before this talking point came up? Kinda doubt it.
I only knew of him for two reasons - he's in Orlando (an hour south of where my folks live), and he's one the major pricks in the Terri Schiavo case who made a name for himself at the time by proposing a bill making it illegal to cease giving sustenance to someone in a vegetative state.
Apparently he has a history of proposing unpopular bills that don't pass.
varusword75 wrote:
This is also a glaring example of the liberal media bias at the politico
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Seriously? The "OMFG Palin just tweeted something and we need a full page talking about this with no remarks as to the validity of them claims themselves RIGHT NOW... shit! There she just tweeted something again!" Politco?
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
varusword75 wrote:
Elinda,
So not checking the anti-lib/dem sites makes me dumber? lmao...i'm sure you have no idea what you just wrote.
What we need is a no posting if you're pmsing rule.
Quote:
Varus hasn't even been checking out the anti-lib/dem links he's been posting lately. Consequently, he's getting dumber.
So not checking the anti-lib/dem sites makes me dumber? lmao...i'm sure you have no idea what you just wrote.
What we need is a no posting if you're pmsing rule.
She said you don't check the sites you link. And they turn out to either:
1. Not say what you think they say
2. Say the opposite of what you think they say
3. Are in no way related to what you think they say.
varusword75 wrote:
Locked,
So i'm getting dumber for not checking out the anti-lib/dem links.
lmao
Quote:
Varus hasn't even been checking out the anti-lib/dem links he's been posting lately. Consequently, he's getting dumber.
So i'm getting dumber for not checking out the anti-lib/dem links.
lmao
Yeah, most conservatives are smarter than you are. When you copy their arguments rather than make your own, you appear more intelligent.
-REDACTED-
Scholar
1,150 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Kavek,
nuh uh yur stoopid.
nuh uh yur stoopid.
varusword75 wrote:
Locked,
So i'm getting dumber for not checking out the anti-lib/dem links.
lmao
Quote:
Varus hasn't even been checking out the anti-lib/dem links he's been posting lately. Consequently, he's getting dumber.
So i'm getting dumber for not checking out the anti-lib/dem links.
lmao
No, I don't think you're made much of a change at all. Before you didn't post links. Now you post the wrong ones. It kinda all evens out, but now you appear to try and put more effort into being wrong.
varusword75 wrote:
Which is obviously why they need to lie about Republicans.
Not that it's surprising but this doesn't make sense. They constantly carry Palin's water so they need to lie about Republicans?
Obviously you're not an avid reader of Politico.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Quote:
lie that people like you eat up.
Ho-hum.
Politicians are, by and large, scumbags.
What's next?
Politicians are, by and large, scumbags.
What's next?
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
Obviously falsified ad. Unfortunately, there's really no requirement for accuracy in political ads. You can say whatever the hell you want regardless of how untrue it is, then after everyone has heard it and starts talking about it, take the ad down. Politics as usual, so who is going to do something about it? If you think only Democrats do this you're just as delusional about how the world works as you make yourself out to be.
So what Dan really means is that you should be able to pick and choose items from the bible that you think should apply and those that shouldn't? How... unchristian of him. Maybe instead of cherry picking lessons from the bible, he should take the whole book and throw it in the garbage, and then just go by his own moral compass like a modestly intelligent adult.
Edited, Sep 30th 2010 1:25pm by bsphil
varusword75 wrote:
started making sh*t up about what Ddan meant.
Edited, Sep 30th 2010 1:25pm by bsphil
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
Recent Visitors: 416
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (416)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Taliban Dan
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC