Click here to view this media Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas Monday finally got to tell a television audience why he had been banned from MSNBC for the past year. “Well, it seems your old boss had a little problem with me,” Moulitsas told Keith Olbermann on Current’s premiere episode of Countdown . “I was under the impression that you were in charge of your own guests, that you could decide who could speak on your show… Turns out Joe Scarborough has veto power over who can speak on everybody else’s shows.” “I got in a little Twitter war with him,” he explained. “Apparently I made him cry. He went crying to Phil Griffin, your old boss.” The “Twitter war” had begun after Scarborough criticized the media for not covering a story about the White House allegedly offering a job to Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA). “Like story of a certain dead intern,” Moulitsas tweeted , referring to the death of Lori Klausutis, a staffer working for Scarborough when he was a congressman in 2001. “So, I found it kind of bizarre that the lowest rated morning show host in all of cable news at the only show on cable news that could crack Fox News’ stranglehold on the top ten,” Moulitsas told Olbermann Monday. “Yours was the most successful show, not just on MSNBC but one of the most successful shows on cable. Yet, Joe Scarborough, such a loser host, was dictating who you could talk to.” “Well, that’s kind of sad story you just told us there, Markos,” Olbermann admitted.
Continue reading …
Bristol Palin has shown her true colors, and those are definitely not the colors of the rainbow. The young Palin daughter of the once vice presidential hopeful, has harsh words directed at Cindy McCain in her new book,
Continue reading …
Surprise, Surprise: CNN Belief Blog Offers Lazy, Hasty Rebuke of Biblical Condemnation of Gay Marriage
June 21, 2011 No Comment
CNN's Belief Blog contributor Jonathan Dudley offered the same tired liberal arguments against a Biblical defense of traditional marriage in a June 21 piece. The same writer who satirically argued that heterosexuals should not be allowed to raise children grilled the Biblical argument as being “riddled with self-serving double-standards.” “I also don't doubt that those who advocate gay marriage are advocating a revision of the Christian tradition,” Dudley boldly asserted. Why is the Biblical position on gay marriage fallacious? Dudley's first argument is that St. Paul condemns homosexual relations as “unnatural,” but later preaches that long hair is naturally degrading for men, but is women's glory. Hence, he condemns both long hair and homosexuality as “unnormal,” but today's Christian church would only condemn homosexuality – therefore today's Evangelical Christians are hypocritical. Do you follow his logic here? The rest of the post follows in a similar pattern. Dudley finds Bible verses or random teachings by Church Fathers to buttress his position, which is that beliefs and practices that were condemned or allowed in the early Christian church are not so today, and so today's Christians are not pro-tradition though they might like to think so. And apparently abortion was a part of the Christian tradition for 1900 years – contrary to popular opinion. Dudley used two isolated philosophical positions by Church Fathers (St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas) as “proof” that the early and medieval Christian church widely did not believe that life begins at conception. Yes, Dudley uses two opinions that the human soul might not be present at the moment of conception to deduce that today's pro-life Christians are at odds with Christian “tradition” on the matter of abortion.
Continue reading …Surprise, Surprise: CNN Belief Blog Offers Lazy, Hasty Rebuke of Biblical Condemnation of Gay Marriage
June 21, 2011 No CommentCNN's Belief Blog contributor Jonathan Dudley offered the same tired liberal arguments against a Biblical defense of traditional marriage in a June 21 piece. The same writer who satirically argued that heterosexuals should not be allowed to raise children grilled the Biblical argument as being “riddled with self-serving double-standards.” “I also don't doubt that those who advocate gay marriage are advocating a revision of the Christian tradition,” Dudley boldly asserted. Why is the Biblical position on gay marriage fallacious? Dudley's first argument is that St. Paul condemns homosexual relations as “unnatural,” but later preaches that long hair is naturally degrading for men, but is women's glory. Hence, he condemns both long hair and homosexuality as “unnormal,” but today's Christian church would only condemn homosexuality – therefore today's Evangelical Christians are hypocritical. Do you follow his logic here? The rest of the post follows in a similar pattern. Dudley finds Bible verses or random teachings by Church Fathers to buttress his position, which is that beliefs and practices that were condemned or allowed in the early Christian church are not so today, and so today's Christians are not pro-tradition though they might like to think so. And apparently abortion was a part of the Christian tradition for 1900 years – contrary to popular opinion. Dudley used two isolated philosophical positions by Church Fathers (St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas) as “proof” that the early and medieval Christian church widely did not believe that life begins at conception. Yes, Dudley uses two opinions that the human soul might not be present at the moment of conception to deduce that today's pro-life Christians are at odds with Christian “tradition” on the matter of abortion.
Continue reading …Surprise, Surprise: CNN Belief Blog Offers Lazy, Hasty Rebuke of Biblical Condemnation of Gay Marriage
June 21, 2011 No CommentCNN's Belief Blog contributor Jonathan Dudley offered the same tired liberal arguments against a Biblical defense of traditional marriage in a June 21 piece. The same writer who satirically argued that heterosexuals should not be allowed to raise children grilled the Biblical argument as being “riddled with self-serving double-standards.” “I also don't doubt that those who advocate gay marriage are advocating a revision of the Christian tradition,” Dudley boldly asserted. Why is the Biblical position on gay marriage fallacious? Dudley's first argument is that St. Paul condemns homosexual relations as “unnatural,” but later preaches that long hair is naturally degrading for men, but is women's glory. Hence, he condemns both long hair and homosexuality as “unnormal,” but today's Christian church would only condemn homosexuality – therefore today's Evangelical Christians are hypocritical. Do you follow his logic here? The rest of the post follows in a similar pattern. Dudley finds Bible verses or random teachings by Church Fathers to buttress his position, which is that beliefs and practices that were condemned or allowed in the early Christian church are not so today, and so today's Christians are not pro-tradition though they might like to think so. And apparently abortion was a part of the Christian tradition for 1900 years – contrary to popular opinion. Dudley used two isolated philosophical positions by Church Fathers (St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas) as “proof” that the early and medieval Christian church widely did not believe that life begins at conception. Yes, Dudley uses two opinions that the human soul might not be present at the moment of conception to deduce that today's pro-life Christians are at odds with Christian “tradition” on the matter of abortion.
Continue reading …