Reminds me of a bumper sticker I used to see all the time in Colorado Springs, home of James Dobson and FoKKKus On The Family:

"HATRED IS NOT A FAMILY VALUE"

And the one I had on the back of my pickup:

"FOCUS ON YOUR OWN DAMN FAMILY"

Why the KKK, Wz? What is white-supremicist about traditional family values?

The evangelicals are getting a little better at the family-value thing, saying "traditional" a lot more. I guess the only argument you could have of some other situation being a "family" is a gay couple who are legally married or united with kids. Single parents, married couples without kids, non-married couples without kids, really aren't "families" by definition. Nothing necessarily "wrong" with those situations (although not psychologically ideal), but they aren't families.

Why the KKK, Wz? What is white-supremicist about traditional family values?

There's nothing "white supremecist" about them.  I put those letters in their name because I object to their heavy-handed tactics - the same reason I use them when referring to KKKarl Rove.  James Dobson and his gang of lunatics and misfits on the hill overlooking Colorado Springs are some of the most UN-Christian people I've ever come across.

My sister raised two kids by herself because her (white "Christian" evangelical, btw) husband scr*wed around on her with anything having two legs and two X chromosomes, not to mention emotionally and physically abusing both kids.  I'm sorry if ditching that lying "Christian" dirtbag and rasing her two kids with loving care doesn't meet your ****ing definition of "psychologically ideal," but neither is throwing knives at your kids!  Maybe you ought to crawl out of that basement of yours and see a little real life before you go off on another pontifical load of bullsh*t...

You're right that their situation is better. I see you chose to ignore the caveat in my original post that non-family situations aren't always "worse" relative to certain family situations. You sure are angry this afternoon; time for a bottle of Merlot.

Sorry, bright boy, doesn't cut it.  You stated that they may not be worse than your implied definition of "family" which apparently means two parents (father-mother), which btw, leaves open the possibility that they may be worse as well, but the very act of differentiating the circumstances itself implies that one is better than the other, and you did indeed claim that the "non-traditional" families are not psychologically ideal, which in itself implies that those arrangements are inferior to the "traditional family."  Can't have your cake and eat it too...

And angry?  Hearing pontifical bullsh*t which implicitly insults my family tends to have that effect on me.  Try living her life and then get up on your high horse, St. Dexteritas of the Endless Horsesh*t...

Single parents aren't families? Says who?

Silly!  St. Dexteritas of the Eternal Bloviation, that's who!  So get down and genuflect, you Godless atheistic communist terrorist-loving hooligan, you!...

A family in the traditional sense is a mother, father, and kids. If you want to call something else a "family" (I do with my fiance and dog that I live with), that's fine by me, but it doesn't make it so.

Oh, goody.  So all those widows George W. Shrub has created to show he has a bigger tool than Saddam Hussein don't head real families?  Try selling that to them, Your Holier-than-Thouship...

Again, says who? Tradition? Whose Tradition? Is it a rule invented by God... or men pretending to speak for God?

Let's be honest here. "Family Values" is a catch phrase invented by the Right to denote "White Christian Values" and used in the political arena to beat up on Liberals.

When someone espouses "Family Values", chances are he/she is a White Conservative Christian, pontificating about some moral calamity, real or imagined, from a White Conservative Christian perspective.

You guys are goofy. Man-Woman-child as a nuclear family existed well before Christianity reared its head on the world. I'm not coming from a Christian perspective at all, but apparently a much-too-literal for everyone's feelings one. Sheesh.

Nice try Dex... but I reject your elitist definition of "family."

A family in the traditional sense is a mother, father, and kids. If you want to call something else a "family" (I do with my fiance and dog that I live with), that's fine by me, but it doesn't make it so.

My present wife and I have been married for 15 years, and are childless.  (I do have two adult children from a previous marriage.)  I don't care what you think; I consider my wife and myself to be a family.  And so does Aetna - we're covered as a family under our health care plan.

"Why the KKK, Wz? What is white-supremicist about traditional family values?"

Three answers:

1. Fascist racist white supremacist conservatives back in the pre-civil rights era, both back then, and right now, defined hatred of African-Americans and opposition to civil rights as being traditional family values.

2. The late intolerant racist Jerry Falwell once spoke out AGAINST Dr. King, AND opposed the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

3. Racism and white supremacy are defended as being traditional family values.

There's also the alleged involvement of Tony Perkins with some right wing white supremacists of the present day.

Who are you or they to tell us what a family is or what values are?

By your definition my kids and I no longer had a family when my wife died.

Go peddle this kind of nonsense somewhere else pal.

"Why the KKK, Wz? What is white-supremicist about traditional family values?"

As I mentioned earlier, years ago, the late Jerry Falwell opposed the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act AND he denounced MLK Junior.

Add to that, Tony Perkins is allegedly allied with present day racist white supremacists.

There are also some in the right wing conservative evangelical movement that regard racism, white supremacy, and support for racial segregation as being "traditional family values".

Yeah, and these value-minded idealists (/sarcasm) basically say "screw these non-traditional, non-by-the-book 'families' that you listed."  These crying christians don't care one bit about any of them.  Besides: How is being anti-abortion being pro-FAMILY anyway? The two having nothing to do with one another.  How on EARTH is being anti-gay being pro-FAMILY?  Every gay person on earth is part of someone's family!  Why is harrassing, persecuting, disowning, etc... someone who ISN'T HARMING ANYONE considered PRO-FAMILY? It's absurd.  Evangelicals care abotu one thing and one thing only: Other evangelicals.  That's it.  You're either a like minded bigot clinginng to the sae religious insanity or you're the enemy. 

I'll say it again: Having a group of Christian Fundamentalists coming your way intent on doing you good is only marginally preferable to having a group of Muslim Fundamentalists coming your way intent on doing you harm. 

You can keep your family values, thank you.

This again. 

Just as "pro-family" may illicit one reaction from those who align themselves with anti-abortion, pro-life stances, it also illicits another reaction from those in disagreement, one of rigidity and narrow-mindedness.  So it isn't always a positive connotation by this label.

"This again.

Just as "pro-family" may illicit one reaction from those who align themselves with anti-abortion, pro-life stances, it also illicits another reaction from those in disagreement, one of rigidity and narrow-mindedness. So it isn't always a positive connotation by this label."

The lying fascist racist theocratic right's definition of "pro-family" and/or "traditional famliy values" not only incorporates anti-abortion views (right wingers stop pretending to care about the kids once they're born), it also incorporates anti-gay views, it also incorporates pro-segregation views, it also incorporates anti-black and/or white supremacist definitions. 

Sen. John McCain "is strongly anti-abortion; he's pro-family"

Gee I don't know - these two things go together seeing as you can't have a family if you abort the kids.

Sen. John McCain "is strongly anti-abortion; he's pro-family"

Was he that "pro-family" when he dumped his disabled first wife to shack up with his current sugar momma?

Which was oh so "Christian" of him, wasn't it?...

Which if you think about it may be "Christian," at least as far as a $100M fortune goes in the land of prosperity gospel...

Sure was. And especially when he trashed his trophy wife with the makeup comment.

God must've gotten a huge kick out of that one, must say.

Some more family values, GOP-style, for anyone who's interested...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4107635.ece

 

"Sure was. And especially when he trashed his trophy wife with the makeup comment.

God must've gotten a huge kick out of that one, must say."

There's also the time Liar McCain called his wife the C word that rhymes with punt.  God must have liked that action from Liar McCain, too. 

Really, Dems? Nobody who has ever been involved in having an abortion carried out has, or will have, a family? All of these people are anti-family?

 

Oh, Colonel, don't you know?  People who believe a woman should make decisions about abortion instead of her minister/congressperson/president/political activist all love to murder babies, sacrifice virgins to Satan during the harvest moon, have gay sex with everyone they know, and throw senior citizens in front of moving vehicles.  Isn't that right, Dems?...

Really, Dems? Nobody who has ever been involved in having an abortion carried out has, or will have, a family? All of these people are anti-family?

Maybe somewhere along the way, Dems had his brain aborted......

Nobody who has ever been involved in having an abortion carried out has, or will have, a family? All of these people are anti-family?

You made that insinuation Col - not me. 

Sen. John McCain "is strongly anti-abortion; he's pro-family"

Gee I don't know - these two things go together seeing as you can't have a family if you abort the kids (Demsol)

Nope, no insinuation there. "Insinuations" are usually more subtle.

Col - simple logic says if you are pro-life then you are obviously pro family - the reporter is stating the obvious is she not?

You made the jump to a corollary that says  if you are pro-choice you are anti-family. Nothing I wrote could have led you to imply that thought - it was in your own little mind.

Wrong, Dems.

There are plenty of "pro-life" right-wingers whose concern for children seems to end the moment they are born.

That's not "pro-family" in my book ....

Wrong, Dems.

There are plenty of "pro-life" right-wingers whose concern for children seems to end the moment they are born.

That's not "pro-family" in my book ....

And then you have "pro-lifers" like Mark Foley who haed a thing for Congressional pages, and pro-lifer Larry Craig, who had a "wide stance"....

So, Dems, by your logic, anyone who is pro-war is anti-family, right?

I think you need a vacation - your brain isn't working too good right now.

Its working fine, Dems, thanks for your concern.  You said that people who would have an abortion are not "pro-family" because they would have said abortion: " these two things go together seeing as you can't have a family if you abort the kids."

By that logic, when potential fathers go to war and don't return, those families can't even get to the point where an abortion would even be an option.

Therefore, if someone is pro-war, especially when some soldiers are fathers or potential fathers, families are not possible.

If abortion stops a family, so does killing a husband or potential father.

You said that people who would have an abortion are not "pro-family"

Here is the portion that leads me to believe your brain needs a vacation.  Show me where I said that?  You can't because I didn't.

Carol Costello reported that Sen. John McCain "is strongly anti-abortion; he's pro-family"

Freid - I'll repeat what I replied to COl below - look carefully at the statement above.  It's an ipso-facto statement - my comment was a lighthearted illustration of that.  To presume the corollary is ture, that to be pro-choice is to be anti-family is a leap made by you, not me.  You may have some preconceived notions that bring that thought to the surface - but those are your issues, not mine.

Ok, Dems, perhaps I didn't phrase things right, but you did say this: McCain is strongly anti-abortion; he's pro-family.

If one is pro-family in your strict definition, why do they want to get dads killed?

Sorry if I made a "logical leap." But abortion isn't the only issue that makes someone "pro-family."

and if I need a vacation, perhaps you do as well.  You have never spelled the first five letters of my name correctly ;).

I think you need a vacation - your brain isn't working too good right now.

Has your brain EVER functioned properly?

Col - simple logic says if you are pro-life then you are obviously pro family - the reporter is stating the obvious is she not?

If you're pro-life, you're against abortion. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's what it's generally interpreted  to mean.

You're making the leap; that being against abortion is being pro-family.Leave aside the complete emtiness of the phrase "pro-family", and let's pretend it means "you like families". How is ones opinion on reproductive rights  any indicator of how they feel about families?

I won't argue against your defense of "simple logic". Veeerrryyy simple.possibly simpleton logic.

How is ones opinion on reproductive rights  any indicator of how they feel about families?

It's an ipso-facto argument.  If one is pro-life then they are pro family.  For if they are pro-life and anti-family what would happen with all the children born, how would they be raised?  Note the reporterette didn't say  "He's pro life- he's pro family values" - yet that the notion that Media Matters ran with. 

  For if they are pro-life and anti-family what would happen with all the children born, how would they be raised?

Badly. If you don't understand this, go to your local Child Protective Services office and ask an employee for details.

You tried to blow this off as an "ipso-facto" argument. Interesting. On another thread, another righty left his position hanging on something he considered "obvious". Do you wingnuts understand that your unquestioning acceptance of BS doesn't qualify as logic?

You take this stuff way tooo seriously.  I simply pointed out the Media Matters went off on what apparently is a topic that rubs them.  Family values.  The reporter didn;t mention family "values".  When you look at what the reporter says about McCain says "He's anti abortion, he's pro family" - it is indeed an ipso-facto statement. 

I'm parsing words - just like Media Matters does.

"You take this stuff way tooo seriously.  I simply pointed out the Media Matters went off on what apparently is a topic that rubs them.  Family values.  The reporter didn;t mention family "values".  When you look at what the reporter says about McCain says "He's anti abortion, he's pro family" - it is indeed an ipso-facto statement. 

I'm parsing words - just like Media Matters does."

Taking that statement on it's face, yes, you're right.  But by labelling Republicans "Pro-Family," the implication is that Democrats are "anti-family," and has been for some time now, since the Republicans courted the evangelical vote.  You can't just take that statement by itself,  as noted above, because it is a repeated pattern.  You're just being obtuse for the sake of being obtuse, and it's tiring.

But by labelling Republicans "Pro-Family," the implication is that Democrats are "anti-family,

DB - look carefully at MM's byline - we are talking ideaologies, not parties. Just as in the race topic we discussed last week, party lines do not always define ideaologies.  There are liberal republicans and conservative democrats. 

 

I am totally anti-family and I support candidates that vote on an anti-family platform.  Not only that, I will vote for the candidate with the slogan: "He's against the people!"

Sounds like Mr. McCain wouldn't allow his daughter to marry if she was in love with a woman.  That doesn't sound "pro-family" to me.  Maybe there needs to be an application for some of these families.

Reminds me of an old posting I once saw.  "You may be a teacher if...you think people should have to get a license to procreate."

Well, let's see what other family values the republicans of today are known for:

sex with pages

wide stances

cheating on their wives

leaving their wives because they are disfigured (so much for in sickness or in health)

soliciting prostitutes

rape

child pornography

And those are just the ones we know of!

Their top family value is turning 4,000+ families into grieving relatives, all because of irrational fear and hatred.

You forgot not giving health care to children...

I don't have to give healthcare to anyone's child but my own.

I don't have to give healthcare to anyone's child but my own.- dexteritas0071418

You're absolutely correct, Dex.

You also don't ,legally,have to cover your mouth when you cough.

You don't have to push your shopping cart out of the lot before you drive off.

You don't have to hold the door for an old lady.

But, some of us are trying to have a civilization here. If you ever feel like joining us, we're pretty cool, and will forget all of the stoopid childish stuff you said.

Well put, Col.

Thanks, Kyle. I get pretty bored of the spoiled-5-year-old as tough-guy act that seems to have posessed some conservatives.

"I don't have to! I want mine!you can't make me!"

True, we can't make other adults use their turn signals or wipe their arses, but it sure would be nice if they just did it because they gave a flying funk.

"I don't have to give healthcare to anyone's child but my own."

Fair enough. Does that mean I don't have to pay for defending anybody's back yard but my own? You know, that drug dealer downtown hasn't hurt me... why should I have to help pay for having him arrested? I never drive on 90% of the streets in my town... why should I pay to fix potholes on streets I don't use?

Because you can't find examples of that in the Democratic Party, at all.

Oh, there are some, but interestingly enough, you can't find them in the quantities you will find them in the republican party!

You also don't find discussions of who is excluded from the definition of a family either, Dex.

You forgot making unsolicited phone sex (Bill O'Lielly), and addiction to oxycotin (Flush Drugbaugh).

Speaking of Jeff Christie, a REALLY good family value is getting married and then not consummating the marriage because of a... ahem, personal issue that seems to have not been addressed. And not just once too! THREE times!

Of course, he can easily come clean by telling the universe about his arrest in da Burgh with a prostitute that seems to have the same equipment that he allegedly has.

Of course, he can easily come clean by telling the universe about his arrest in da Burgh with a prostitute that seems to have the same equipment that he allegedly has.

That male prostitute had a polonidal cyst, too? Ewwwwwwwwwwww... :-)

"Sen. John McCain "is strongly anti-abortion; he's pro-family"

Was he pro-family when he called his current billion dolar trophy wife the C word?

Also, is Liar McCain the same as most other pro-lifers, meaning that they pretend to care about the babies before they are born, but once these kids are born, these two-faced hypocritical lying fascist pro-lifers don't even pretend to care about the kids or their parents?  I think the aswer to that question is Yes, he is.

They're not "pro-life," they're only pro birth.

After that, they don't care if the kid has a good life or not. 

Which would seem to indicate -- as does the behavior of so many their spokesman -- that they are not truly pro-family, either.  They are pro-getting-their-name-in-the-news.

Historygeek, these lying right wing hypocrites were never pro-family to begin with.

Then again, most of the lying right wing fan base are just as big or BIGGER hypocrites than they are.

I always wonder how few people actually BELIEVE what they say whenever I see anything like this in the news.  I suspect very few really do.

"They're not "pro-life," they're only pro birth.

After that, they don't care if the kid has a good life or not."

Exactly. 

I'am sure WZ. can explain himself, but to me Wz was not calling "family values" (whatever that means)kkk or white supremacist but he was implying that the organization FOF and James Dobson are advocating social policies that intrude into peoples private lives,telling  them how to live,taking personal decisions away from the individual and placing them in the hands of the state.  Come- on I know you've heard of ''big brother,"and I know you've heard of Fascism. I don't think that the Repugnicans can lay claim to any label associating them exclusively  with "family values." 

...taking personal decisions away from the individual and placing them in the hands of the state...

And these are the people who scream and whine about small government.  As has already been said elsewhere, just small enough to fit into your bedroom...

And these are the people who scream and whine about small government.  As has already been said elsewhere, just small enough to fit into your bedroom...

That's one right-wing hypocrisy that always bugs me.  They complain that they want government to stay out of their lives, yet they have no problem with government telling others who they should marry, how they should have sex, or injecting the government into the most personal decision a woman will ever have to make - whether or not to have an abortion.

Speaking for this "rightwinger", I want government out of my bedroom, out of my pocketbook, out of my business, out of my choices, out of my responsibilities, out of my......  in fact, I want as little to do with the government as humanly possible, the DMV is plenty enough for me, thank you.

You're saying this to someone who has a daughter coming of driving age, you know... :o)

Say it ain't so, Tommy! I was darn sure you were a real conservative in the mold of Rockefeller, and here ya go bursting my bubble telling me you're one of those whigged out fundie nazis. Oh, the horror of it all!

Here's some information about your fellow oligarchic fascist right wingers, Tommy.

The current oligarchic fascist right wingers favor government power in terms of denying women their rights, making non-whites second class citizens, and making gays second class citizens.  The oligarchic fascist racist homophobic theocratic right wingers favor state rights when states want to restricit women's rights, when states want to deny gays their rights, and when states want to reinstate or rebuild racial segregation.

The current oligarchic fascist corporatist right wingers oppose government power in terms of regulating big business and/or oppose any laws that regulate big business in any manner, and the current oligarchic fascist corporatist right wingers oppose states' rights when states seek to pass any state laws and/or pass any state regulations that reasonably control the behaviors of big business in any manner.

Thanks for the reminder.  Oh, btw, you don't happen to know where I can order a black or a gay person to be my second class citizen?, I have misplaced my rightwing catalogue with its order forms.   You're a real peach if you can help, thanks.

:) 

Oh, I forgot, I could use a woman too....

Sorry, Tom, you have to do that one yourself.

P.S....you forgot to throw in the snide comments about unlimited unchecked power for corporations.

You should ask O'Lielly, or Hannity, or Ingraham, or Malkin, or Elder, or one of their many evil lying homophobic fascist racist theocratic fan clubs (and I am using that term charitably to describe them) to send you a new set.

tee hee. Tommy carries a pocketbook. ;0)

Left and WZ, you're absolutely right about that. I think socially-conservative Republicans are absolutely hypocrites when it comes to attempting to legislate morality and culture.

You mean groups like... Focus on the Family?

"Left and WZ, you're absolutely right about that. I think socially-conservative Republicans are absolutely hypocrites when it comes to attempting to legislate morality and culture."

Not only is that fact true of Republican politicians, it's also true of their base voters, many of whom are even BIGGER hypocrites than the Republican politicians they support. 

"I am sure WZ. can explain himself, but to me Wz was not calling "family values" (whatever that means)kkk or white supremacist but he was implying that the organization FOF and James Dobson are advocating social policies that intrude into peoples private lives,telling them how to live,taking personal decisions away from the individual and placing them in the hands of the state."

True, but many right wingers, Dobson included, use racially divisive code words/codespeak phrases amongst their divisive definition of family values.

The Repuginicans have been masterful in hiding their true intentions(i.e., the roll back of FDR's great society) behind slick Madison Ave., campaigns that sell canidates like any other product, and use issues to divide by blurring reason inserting jingoistic slogans to explain complex issues. Expose them whenever you see these hyprocrites try and talk about "family values" but then vote against the extension of SCHIP,or against family leave legislation, or against the increase in the minumum wage, or against a womens right to choose. or against ,or sex education that includes more than just abstinence, I could go on but you get my drift. Shine the light into the dark corners exposing them wherever they raise their phony campaigns to rob us of our rights.

 Was it so long ago when family included grandparents. The extended family has been lauded as a way for young people to get a better understanding of life as senn from multiple generations.   

I am so tired of reading criticism of Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann for their pro-Obama stance. CNN, which paints itself as THE objective network, demonstrated a pro-Clinton bias during the primaries that was so obvious, various bloggers dubbed it the Clinton News Network. Wolf Blitzer is the worst offender, and I hear nothing about this anywhere. I was so frustrated with his comments, I stopped watching CNN entirely, and will not go back. As a journalism student, and a writer for more than 20 years, I learned that subtle subjectivity is far more insidious than obvious bias. Please, get honest, and be balanced in your criticism!