It Don't Take Much with Progressives!
Oh, where do I begin? My latest post regarding the hideous paradigm of Bruce Prescott of Mainstream Baptist has set off the boyz at Talk2Action. They told me they'd be responding. So, they're anticipating a response from me. Hey, Fred! [waving]
Let's start with Fred Clarkson. What can I say. I like Fred. He's a good guy -- a hard worker that seems to care about people. But, Fred does what libs do best, he misconstrues. He accuses me of "eliminationist rhetoric." He claims the following:
Here's what I wrote:
Either Fred is a novice or he's being purposely deceptive. Fred is no novice. He claims I'm "calling for the death or removal" of those with whom I disagree. Fred, this would be a call for death:
What I said was that those who espouse having few or no children will eliminate themselves in history. Those who continue to have large families will multiply exceedingly. I did say that this may be a blessing in disguise. Big deal. After all, what liberal sits around and hopes the Religious Right has more children? Wasn't that the point of Prescott's comments?
Clarkson refers to Prescott as a "serious Christian whose view of Christianity happens to be different than that of Rev. Ortiz." Fred, what in the world is a serious Christian? You'd think it would be someone who actually believed the Bible. Well, Prescott denies the veracity of the Christians holy text, and labors to convert others away from such biblical confidence. Sorry, Fred, this is not Christian in any sense.
Then Fred continues miscontruing:
I have to laugh, lest I take Fred seriously. I N-E-V-E-R hinted, implied, or suggested that anyone be eliminated now or later. Elimination implies, Fred, that I would have a hand in destroying someone. This is a terrible insinuation and a typical communications ploy used by your side. I expect more from you, Fred. This is spin.
He continues...
Fred is more than deceptive here. I honestly don't know how he can refer to my comments as a "call for theocratic vigilantism." He's not tellling the truth and intentionally exaggerating my comments beyond proportion. I said that those who have few or no children will eventually eliminate themselves. Fred refers to this as a call for theocratic vigilantism.
Let's start with Fred Clarkson. What can I say. I like Fred. He's a good guy -- a hard worker that seems to care about people. But, Fred does what libs do best, he misconstrues. He accuses me of "eliminationist rhetoric." He claims the following:
"Eliminationist rhetoric, such as that used by Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, Pat Robertson and organized hate groups, typically calls for the death or removal of people with whom they happen to disagree."
Here's what I wrote:
But, then again, this may be a blessing in disguise! Dedicated protestants will continue producing large families while oxymoronic "liberal Christians" have little or none. These useless faith-bearers will eventually face extinction by their own doing.
Either Fred is a novice or he's being purposely deceptive. Fred is no novice. He claims I'm "calling for the death or removal" of those with whom I disagree. Fred, this would be a call for death:
"I hereby call for the death of those I disagree with!"
What I said was that those who espouse having few or no children will eliminate themselves in history. Those who continue to have large families will multiply exceedingly. I did say that this may be a blessing in disguise. Big deal. After all, what liberal sits around and hopes the Religious Right has more children? Wasn't that the point of Prescott's comments?
Clarkson refers to Prescott as a "serious Christian whose view of Christianity happens to be different than that of Rev. Ortiz." Fred, what in the world is a serious Christian? You'd think it would be someone who actually believed the Bible. Well, Prescott denies the veracity of the Christians holy text, and labors to convert others away from such biblical confidence. Sorry, Fred, this is not Christian in any sense.
Then Fred continues miscontruing:
He [Ortiz] also strongly implies that the only reason they should not be eliminated now, is that they will eventually eliminate themselves by failing to sufficiently breed.
I have to laugh, lest I take Fred seriously. I N-E-V-E-R hinted, implied, or suggested that anyone be eliminated now or later. Elimination implies, Fred, that I would have a hand in destroying someone. This is a terrible insinuation and a typical communications ploy used by your side. I expect more from you, Fred. This is spin.
He continues...
His words sound a great deal more like a call for theocratic vigilantism than the patience he elsewhere claims to counsel.
Fred is more than deceptive here. I honestly don't know how he can refer to my comments as a "call for theocratic vigilantism." He's not tellling the truth and intentionally exaggerating my comments beyond proportion. I said that those who have few or no children will eventually eliminate themselves. Fred refers to this as a call for theocratic vigilantism.
