Wednesday, May 31, 2006
ER book review: 'Why the Christian Right is Wrong'
Edited now.
Makes me sad to write this, but Robin Meyers' latest book, "Why the Christian Right is Wrong: A Minister's Manifesto for Taking Back Your Faith, Your Flag, Your Future," is not all I had hoped it would crack up to be.
His thesis is sound and emotionally and intelligently backed: What passes for "Christianity" in the public sphere of this country now is not only a poor knock-off, but is downright evil in some ways.
Major subthesis: George W. Bush's personal faith clearly does not extend past his lips, judging by the on-his-sleeve sense of "morality" with which he has slapped down all opponents, both foreign and domestic, since taking office -- emphasis on "taking."
Meyers' book is an elucidation of a speech he made in late 2004, which college students and activists sent 'round the world via the 'Net. Here is the text of the speech. The 202-page book makes a chapter out of each major point.
Fascinating: None of the copies of the speech I found online includes the very last paragraph: "Time to march again, my friends. Time to commit acts of nonviolent civil disobedience. My generation finally stopped a war. Yours can too."
It could be because the last two sentences comprise a dubious claim. Meyers, who pastors the church I attend, does let his rhetoric run away from him at times -- ironic, since he is a professor of rhetoric in addition to being a pastor.
Although I think what Meyers has written sorely needed to be written -- shouted from the mountain tops! -- I have a few complaints about the work:
1. He needs an editor. Everyone needs an editor. I've read several of his books now, each from a different publisher, and they all have common sloppy mistakes -- repeated words, the wrong word and the like, things that spell check does not catch. A good editor could have caught the errors.
2. He needs a fact checker, which is a content editor, more or less. In "Why the Christian Right is Wrong," he refers to "Senator Tom Cole," who does not exist. He means Senate Tom Coburn, the maverick conservative senator from Oklahoma. U.S. Rep. Tom Cole, not a senator but a member of the House of Representatives, is a tolerable country-club Republican from Oklahoma. Meyers also refers to "Senator Tom DeLay" -- when he means U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay, "the Hammer," the power mongering GOP congressman from Texas, also a House member, not a senator. Meyers might as well have just sold a noose along with the book, because critics will hang him for those kinds of stupid mistakes.
3. The book is a harangue; it is a manifesto, indeed. But it borders on being a screed. The ideas in the speech cannot be sustained in a book-length work, not without some more intellectual due diligence, some more homework.
4. The last chapter, "A Call to Nonviolent Resistance: How to Save the Country and the Church," is a list of everyday things that people can do to start to turn the world around by turning their own world around. Which is fine. But it's sort of a letdown. True, marching in the streets and such is usually all "sound and fury signifying nothing." But taking a coffee cup to work to keep from using six Styrofoam cups (which I do, incidentally), is sort of mundane. Meyers could have made this chapter fit better if he had set up such a conclusion at the start, and maybe even interspersed the suggestions throughout the text, which would have tamped down his (justifiable) anger and righteous indignation as it builds, making it more persuasive.
I bought this book for two friends -- one inclined to agree with it, and one most definitely not -- before I read it. Both are editors. Apologies, guys, for the errors therein. Apologies, too, that Meyers needed an editor and apparently didn't have one.
No apologies for the central thesis of this desperate cry from the Oklahoma wilderness: There is very little "Christian" about the "Christian Right" as it conducts itself, vamps, and demonstrates its actual values in the public arena.
--ER
Makes me sad to write this, but Robin Meyers' latest book, "Why the Christian Right is Wrong: A Minister's Manifesto for Taking Back Your Faith, Your Flag, Your Future," is not all I had hoped it would crack up to be.
His thesis is sound and emotionally and intelligently backed: What passes for "Christianity" in the public sphere of this country now is not only a poor knock-off, but is downright evil in some ways.
Major subthesis: George W. Bush's personal faith clearly does not extend past his lips, judging by the on-his-sleeve sense of "morality" with which he has slapped down all opponents, both foreign and domestic, since taking office -- emphasis on "taking."
Meyers' book is an elucidation of a speech he made in late 2004, which college students and activists sent 'round the world via the 'Net. Here is the text of the speech. The 202-page book makes a chapter out of each major point.
Fascinating: None of the copies of the speech I found online includes the very last paragraph: "Time to march again, my friends. Time to commit acts of nonviolent civil disobedience. My generation finally stopped a war. Yours can too."
It could be because the last two sentences comprise a dubious claim. Meyers, who pastors the church I attend, does let his rhetoric run away from him at times -- ironic, since he is a professor of rhetoric in addition to being a pastor.
Although I think what Meyers has written sorely needed to be written -- shouted from the mountain tops! -- I have a few complaints about the work:
1. He needs an editor. Everyone needs an editor. I've read several of his books now, each from a different publisher, and they all have common sloppy mistakes -- repeated words, the wrong word and the like, things that spell check does not catch. A good editor could have caught the errors.
2. He needs a fact checker, which is a content editor, more or less. In "Why the Christian Right is Wrong," he refers to "Senator Tom Cole," who does not exist. He means Senate Tom Coburn, the maverick conservative senator from Oklahoma. U.S. Rep. Tom Cole, not a senator but a member of the House of Representatives, is a tolerable country-club Republican from Oklahoma. Meyers also refers to "Senator Tom DeLay" -- when he means U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay, "the Hammer," the power mongering GOP congressman from Texas, also a House member, not a senator. Meyers might as well have just sold a noose along with the book, because critics will hang him for those kinds of stupid mistakes.
3. The book is a harangue; it is a manifesto, indeed. But it borders on being a screed. The ideas in the speech cannot be sustained in a book-length work, not without some more intellectual due diligence, some more homework.
4. The last chapter, "A Call to Nonviolent Resistance: How to Save the Country and the Church," is a list of everyday things that people can do to start to turn the world around by turning their own world around. Which is fine. But it's sort of a letdown. True, marching in the streets and such is usually all "sound and fury signifying nothing." But taking a coffee cup to work to keep from using six Styrofoam cups (which I do, incidentally), is sort of mundane. Meyers could have made this chapter fit better if he had set up such a conclusion at the start, and maybe even interspersed the suggestions throughout the text, which would have tamped down his (justifiable) anger and righteous indignation as it builds, making it more persuasive.
I bought this book for two friends -- one inclined to agree with it, and one most definitely not -- before I read it. Both are editors. Apologies, guys, for the errors therein. Apologies, too, that Meyers needed an editor and apparently didn't have one.
No apologies for the central thesis of this desperate cry from the Oklahoma wilderness: There is very little "Christian" about the "Christian Right" as it conducts itself, vamps, and demonstrates its actual values in the public arena.
--ER
Comments:
<< Home
Copy editing and fact checking seem to be going down the drain at a lot of publishing houses these days. Everything from little massmarket genre books all the way to professional tomes are turning up riddled with errors. It's pathetic.
Passive resistance is one thing but real change takes the blood of martyrs and better yet the blood of the other guy. And even then when you win you are in the most danger of becoming what you opposed.
Stupidity will always fall on its own face. Sometimes it is best to just wait and let it fail on its own.
The 1960s anti-war protest did not stop the war. It brought down two presidential administrations, and cause one to have a single term, but the war went on and on and on until they won.
Sorry that your lone ranger didn't have a silver bullet after all.
Stupidity will always fall on its own face. Sometimes it is best to just wait and let it fail on its own.
The 1960s anti-war protest did not stop the war. It brought down two presidential administrations, and cause one to have a single term, but the war went on and on and on until they won.
Sorry that your lone ranger didn't have a silver bullet after all.
# posted by 
: 9:51 AM
: 9:51 AM
Troubling, especially the fact problems with the book. Nice, unbiased approach by you on your review, pointing out problems even though you wholeheartedly
agree with the premise.
agree with the premise.
# posted by : 11:25 AM
: 11:25 AM
Grrrr. Errors or not, Meyers' voice needs to be amplified because of bullcrap like the following, fro -- guess who? -- Focus on Our Concept of Family.
They want to "edit" discrimination into the Constitution, and it's outrageous. Y'all who are free to do so, unlike myself, feel free to contact the same senators in OPPOSITION to the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment."
God help us. Focus on the Family is at war with the judiciary, which means it's at war with the government, which means it's unAmerican and anti-freedom -- and theocratic, to boot.
Message to grassroots: The vote is only days away. There is no time to lose.
The U.S. Senate is expected to vote June 7 on the federal Marriage Protection Amendment (MPA), and grassroots pro-family groups are stepping up efforts to make sure their constituents weigh in on one of the most important issues of our time.
Focus on the Family Action Founder Dr. James Dobson will focus on the MPA during two broadcasts of his nationally syndicated radio show this week. He is asking Americans to flood the phone lines of their senators to let them know how strongly they feel about passing the amendment that defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
"They need to feel the heat from people all across the country," he said. Tom Minnery, senior vice president of government and public policy for Focus on the Family Action, said his group and FRC Action will sponsor a series of radio and print ads to run in 13 states whose senators are either officially undecided or outright opposed to the amendment.
"While many of these senators claim to support traditional marriage, their actions speak clearly," Minnery said. "They refuse to stand up and be counted in support of civilization's foundational institution."
The targeted Senators are:
Arkansas — Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor, Democrats
Colorado — Ken Salazar, Democrat
Florida — Bill Nelson, Democrat
Indiana — Evan Bayh, Democrat
Louisiana — Mary Landrieu, Democrat
Maine — Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, Republicans
Montana — Max Baucus, Democrat
Nebraska — Chuck Hagel, Republican
New Hampshire — John Sununu, Republican
North Dakota — Kent Conrad and
Byron Dorgan, Democrats
Pennsylvania — Arlen Specter, Republican
Rhode Island — Lincoln Chafee, Republican
South Dakota — Tim Johnson, Democrat
This is the second go-round for the MPA in the U.S. Senate, according to Amanda Banks, federal issues analyst for Focus on the Family Action. This time, it must pass.
"A lot has transpired over the past couple of years," she said. "Unfortunately the courts have continued their activism — where they have either overturned state marriage amendments or the state law has been challenged — and there is a question whether marriage will continue to be between a man and a woman in several states in our nation."
Indeed, 19 states have voted on state-level amendments protecting marriage, according to Minnery. All of them passed overwhelmingly.
"In each of the states that have approved constitutional amendments preserving marriage, the average vote has been 70 percent of the electorate," he said. "Seventy percent is an absolute mandate! Americans understand that marriage is the union of a man and a woman, and they want it protected from radical redefinition."
The Cornhusker State is a perfect example of why protection of marriage needs to be written into the Constitution. Dave Bydalek, executive director of Nebraska Family First, explained that his state's marriage amendment was struck down by a federal district judge.
"Nebraskans, of all people, should understand that the federal judiciary or state courts can usurp the power of the people by substituting their own political judgments for the popular will," Bydalek said. "The only way to truly protect the institution of marriage is through a federal amendment."
Interestingly, Nebraska's senators split on the issue. Nelson, a moderate Democrat has indicated that he will vote in favor of the MPA, while Hagel contends that it's premature. Nebraskans are being especially urged to contact Hagel.
Banks pointed out that it will take two-thirds — or 67 — of the Senate's 100 senators — to pass the amendment, as well as approval by two-thirds of the House, before the amendment would go to the states. There it will need to be ratified, or approved, by three-quarters of the states before it could be added on to the U.S. Constitution.
They want to "edit" discrimination into the Constitution, and it's outrageous. Y'all who are free to do so, unlike myself, feel free to contact the same senators in OPPOSITION to the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment."
God help us. Focus on the Family is at war with the judiciary, which means it's at war with the government, which means it's unAmerican and anti-freedom -- and theocratic, to boot.
Message to grassroots: The vote is only days away. There is no time to lose.
The U.S. Senate is expected to vote June 7 on the federal Marriage Protection Amendment (MPA), and grassroots pro-family groups are stepping up efforts to make sure their constituents weigh in on one of the most important issues of our time.
Focus on the Family Action Founder Dr. James Dobson will focus on the MPA during two broadcasts of his nationally syndicated radio show this week. He is asking Americans to flood the phone lines of their senators to let them know how strongly they feel about passing the amendment that defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
"They need to feel the heat from people all across the country," he said. Tom Minnery, senior vice president of government and public policy for Focus on the Family Action, said his group and FRC Action will sponsor a series of radio and print ads to run in 13 states whose senators are either officially undecided or outright opposed to the amendment.
"While many of these senators claim to support traditional marriage, their actions speak clearly," Minnery said. "They refuse to stand up and be counted in support of civilization's foundational institution."
The targeted Senators are:
Arkansas — Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor, Democrats
Colorado — Ken Salazar, Democrat
Florida — Bill Nelson, Democrat
Indiana — Evan Bayh, Democrat
Louisiana — Mary Landrieu, Democrat
Maine — Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, Republicans
Montana — Max Baucus, Democrat
Nebraska — Chuck Hagel, Republican
New Hampshire — John Sununu, Republican
North Dakota — Kent Conrad and
Byron Dorgan, Democrats
Pennsylvania — Arlen Specter, Republican
Rhode Island — Lincoln Chafee, Republican
South Dakota — Tim Johnson, Democrat
This is the second go-round for the MPA in the U.S. Senate, according to Amanda Banks, federal issues analyst for Focus on the Family Action. This time, it must pass.
"A lot has transpired over the past couple of years," she said. "Unfortunately the courts have continued their activism — where they have either overturned state marriage amendments or the state law has been challenged — and there is a question whether marriage will continue to be between a man and a woman in several states in our nation."
Indeed, 19 states have voted on state-level amendments protecting marriage, according to Minnery. All of them passed overwhelmingly.
"In each of the states that have approved constitutional amendments preserving marriage, the average vote has been 70 percent of the electorate," he said. "Seventy percent is an absolute mandate! Americans understand that marriage is the union of a man and a woman, and they want it protected from radical redefinition."
The Cornhusker State is a perfect example of why protection of marriage needs to be written into the Constitution. Dave Bydalek, executive director of Nebraska Family First, explained that his state's marriage amendment was struck down by a federal district judge.
"Nebraskans, of all people, should understand that the federal judiciary or state courts can usurp the power of the people by substituting their own political judgments for the popular will," Bydalek said. "The only way to truly protect the institution of marriage is through a federal amendment."
Interestingly, Nebraska's senators split on the issue. Nelson, a moderate Democrat has indicated that he will vote in favor of the MPA, while Hagel contends that it's premature. Nebraskans are being especially urged to contact Hagel.
Banks pointed out that it will take two-thirds — or 67 — of the Senate's 100 senators — to pass the amendment, as well as approval by two-thirds of the House, before the amendment would go to the states. There it will need to be ratified, or approved, by three-quarters of the states before it could be added on to the U.S. Constitution.
I've finally figured out the jist of this blog... All blogs on this site fall into three basic categories...
1. I hate the Christian right...
2. I hate George W. Bush and all those who like him...
3. I'm just a good ol' boy from Okiehoma... here, look at my viddles and my kitty... ain't life grand...
1. I hate the Christian right...
2. I hate George W. Bush and all those who like him...
3. I'm just a good ol' boy from Okiehoma... here, look at my viddles and my kitty... ain't life grand...
# posted by : 3:23 PM
: 3:23 PM
Lurker,
You're wrong. It's also about spittin' Beach Nutt in that dude's eye.
You'd be that dude. :-)
ER don't rightly care for the prez, but that's his right. Or is it his left? I get confused.
ER's plenty versed in a number of categories, but he feels as though the Christian Right has pushed its agenda on us all, and he's just fed up. Sure bet his voice wasn't nearly this loud eight years ago when that Arkansan was in the White House.
But that's his left. Or is it his right? I get confused.
Lerker, just go back in history of this blog, and you'll see more variety. Not a whole bunch more, but more. ER's ER. That's why some of us like him.
You're wrong. It's also about spittin' Beach Nutt in that dude's eye.
You'd be that dude. :-)
ER don't rightly care for the prez, but that's his right. Or is it his left? I get confused.
ER's plenty versed in a number of categories, but he feels as though the Christian Right has pushed its agenda on us all, and he's just fed up. Sure bet his voice wasn't nearly this loud eight years ago when that Arkansan was in the White House.
But that's his left. Or is it his right? I get confused.
Lerker, just go back in history of this blog, and you'll see more variety. Not a whole bunch more, but more. ER's ER. That's why some of us like him.
If the American people want the MPA, let them have it. It's just another small way to quench our national fires, to set us on the path to be a failed empire like our brother great brittan. China, Brazil, and others are waiting in the wings to step up to the position that we once held, and that now we are willing to let slip from our grasp. Hell, to even through away at times.
I love America, I've done things for America that I've done not even for my family. But if she wants to sulley her skirts with the grime of bigotry, her mind with the failure of equity, and her hands with the blood of her warriors by their un-neccesary deaths, then I for one know of no way to stop her. Cetainly it's not by driving 55mph and saving styrofoam cups.
Once more to the barracades?
I think not.
I love America, I've done things for America that I've done not even for my family. But if she wants to sulley her skirts with the grime of bigotry, her mind with the failure of equity, and her hands with the blood of her warriors by their un-neccesary deaths, then I for one know of no way to stop her. Cetainly it's not by driving 55mph and saving styrofoam cups.
Once more to the barracades?
I think not.
# posted by : 4:12 PM
: 4:12 PM
Polygamy. Why not? Women should have as many husbands as they want. Or was that what you meant, Anon? What IF polygamy were legal? So what, in other words?
Lurker is part right.
I am ashamed of the Christian Right.
I am ashamed of the president and his administration.
I am an Oklahoman. I stopped being an "Okie" on April 19, 1995, when all of us became Oklahomans, whether or not we lived in Oklahoma at the time. So back off that "Okie" shit, Lurker.
I am ashamed of the Christian Right.
I am ashamed of the president and his administration.
I am an Oklahoman. I stopped being an "Okie" on April 19, 1995, when all of us became Oklahomans, whether or not we lived in Oklahoma at the time. So back off that "Okie" shit, Lurker.
Don't mean anything by what if polygamy comes back. Just wondering if society is ready to accept any and all versions of marriage if they crack open the door.
# posted by : 5:25 PM
: 5:25 PM
Boy, I wrote that badly--sheesh. What I mean is, being Mormon I think the polygamy question is an excellent one. You can bet the fringe Mormon groups that practice it will be demanding "equal protection" for their version of marriage. (Not that I'd ever want to see that happen!) But, I do wonder what kind of opposition they would meet.
Did that make sense?
I think I need a nap... :)
Did that make sense?
I think I need a nap... :)
# posted by : 5:30 PM
: 5:30 PM
Lurker, I'd come to ER's defense if he weren't handling it just fine himself--and I don't agree with him on substantial amount. :)
# posted by : 5:32 PM
: 5:32 PM
Shoot, Frenzied, "salt-and-pepper" marriages still offend some people! And *that* was the "crack." It's already open.
I could not care less what "people" think. Freedom of association between consenting adults is what the anti-gay thing is about. Amd that's unAmerican.
I could not care less what "people" think. Freedom of association between consenting adults is what the anti-gay thing is about. Amd that's unAmerican.
I don't get it, SOL, why would car insurance companies complain about the number of spouses?
Oh, wait, maybe you meant something else...
I need to go make dinner now. Play nice, kids. ;)
Oh, wait, maybe you meant something else...
I need to go make dinner now. Play nice, kids. ;)
# posted by : 5:51 PM
: 5:51 PM
What with all this phallogocentrism assuming that a polygamous relationship is always polygny. Much of the Indian sub-continent and parts of China and Sri Lanka are also polyandrous.
Marriage does as marriage is needed in cultural terms. The MPA is redundant law as far as English Common Law is concerned (under which America still falls). Marriage in English common Law is defined as one man and one woman united together. Thus bigamy as well as all of the variations of poly* are illegal. And English Common Law in this case is law declared to be based on English Christian Tradition.
Now if we were in modern Israel and I died my brother would have to marry my widow. She couldn't marry just anybody else she chooses because of Mosaic law.
Point being that there is a reason for the separation of Church and State in the United States. The MPA will breach that separation once again and will show the world America ain't what she claims to be (again).
Be careful what you wish for. In order to enforce the MPA the terms man and woman will have to be defined in Federal regulations and that may be the unintended consequence that turns on its supporters.
Marriage does as marriage is needed in cultural terms. The MPA is redundant law as far as English Common Law is concerned (under which America still falls). Marriage in English common Law is defined as one man and one woman united together. Thus bigamy as well as all of the variations of poly* are illegal. And English Common Law in this case is law declared to be based on English Christian Tradition.
Now if we were in modern Israel and I died my brother would have to marry my widow. She couldn't marry just anybody else she chooses because of Mosaic law.
Point being that there is a reason for the separation of Church and State in the United States. The MPA will breach that separation once again and will show the world America ain't what she claims to be (again).
Be careful what you wish for. In order to enforce the MPA the terms man and woman will have to be defined in Federal regulations and that may be the unintended consequence that turns on its supporters.
# posted by : 5:26 AM
: 5:26 AM
Ahem, note that I alluded to polandry in my 4:53 p.m. comment.
And yer right, of course. What they don't talk about is the reams and reams of federal laws, regulation and "guidance" that will grow like kudzu around the freshley constitutionalized concepts of "man" and "woman." It's because they don't think. They FEEL, then react -- them and all their bleating sheep.
And yer right, of course. What they don't talk about is the reams and reams of federal laws, regulation and "guidance" that will grow like kudzu around the freshley constitutionalized concepts of "man" and "woman." It's because they don't think. They FEEL, then react -- them and all their bleating sheep.
All of the people who lost their land and/or jobs during the dust bowl of the 1930's and went West to work the fields of the West Coast were called Okies. Didn't matter if you were from Texas, or Kansas or Arkansas, or where-ever you were an Okie. Generally it had a prefix of "dumb", as in dumb Okie, or "good for nothin", or "worthless". Much of the problem was documented in the Steinbeck novel, "Grapes of Wrath".
Those who stayed behind generated a saying that when ever an Okie went to California it raised the IQ level of both States. Yep, its a slam and a sensitive matter, but I don't think the OKC Federal building bombing really erased any of that.
Those who stayed behind generated a saying that when ever an Okie went to California it raised the IQ level of both States. Yep, its a slam and a sensitive matter, but I don't think the OKC Federal building bombing really erased any of that.
# posted by : 7:25 PM
: 7:25 PM
It's kind of like the N-word. The bruthas can call each other that, but I can't -- and wouldn't.
Kind of like "redneck," too. Any urban snob who calls me that should expect a good ol' country ass-kickin'.
Okie is for damn sure a slam when embedded in a message that itself is meant as a slam, yes.
Kind of like "redneck," too. Any urban snob who calls me that should expect a good ol' country ass-kickin'.
Okie is for damn sure a slam when embedded in a message that itself is meant as a slam, yes.
O yes, the Redneck Okie moves into his hypersensitivity mode... i guess that is one of the things he likes to cover as well... and now he is resorting to violence, my o my, we've gone to fisticuffs ... (that's fighting for those of you in Okihoma!)
This is so much fun...
This is so much fun...
# posted by : 9:10 AM
: 9:10 AM
And what about proud to be an Okie from Muskogee??? What a great Merle Haggard song... I would think a redneck would love that song and proud to be an Okie from Muskogee...
No, I'm not buying this... you can't equate the word "Okie" with the N-word... your panties are in a wad... relax, take them off, and quit being such a pansy...
O, only those from Okiehoma can say Okie... what a cry baby...
Your entire attitude comes from the liberal victim mentality... what junk...
No, I'm not buying this... you can't equate the word "Okie" with the N-word... your panties are in a wad... relax, take them off, and quit being such a pansy...
O, only those from Okiehoma can say Okie... what a cry baby...
Your entire attitude comes from the liberal victim mentality... what junk...
# posted by : 9:46 AM
: 9:46 AM
You asked, you got a real answer.
Okie from Muskogee: Merle is one of us. It was sort of like using n...er in black rap music by blacks, an in your f..king face kind of thing.
Having had the term dumb ass Okie hurled at me in California simply because I was driving through with Oklahoma tags on my car tells me that as a insult, it is still very much alive.
If you think that our sensitivity is "liberal", I got some Okie skinheads, who would love to have you call them Okies to their face.
Insult my home or my mamma, and you can't hide even on the internet. ER, what's this guys url?
I'll run it by some ole Okie boys at Big Daddy.
Okie from Muskogee: Merle is one of us. It was sort of like using n...er in black rap music by blacks, an in your f..king face kind of thing.
Having had the term dumb ass Okie hurled at me in California simply because I was driving through with Oklahoma tags on my car tells me that as a insult, it is still very much alive.
If you think that our sensitivity is "liberal", I got some Okie skinheads, who would love to have you call them Okies to their face.
Insult my home or my mamma, and you can't hide even on the internet. ER, what's this guys url?
I'll run it by some ole Okie boys at Big Daddy.
# posted by : 10:48 AM
: 10:48 AM
Lurker needs his ass kicked by a good Oklahoma yellow-dog "liberal." Shit fire and save matches! I was a regular ol' conservative Oklahoma Dem until the idiot in the White House took the Right Wing for a ride -- and then dissed 'em. Since the Right has gone SO far right, and is in power, I reckon that *does* make me liberal. But they moved, not me.
Pshaw. If Lil Lurker even kinda half way knew what he was talking about, he'd be worth engaging.
Pshaw. If Lil Lurker even kinda half way knew what he was talking about, he'd be worth engaging.
Anonymous...
Interesting that you want my url, but you don't post yours...
This is fascinating. All these Okies getting there panties in a wad, over that?
I would think they would be proud be be Okies. Instead, they are trying to turn it into a racial slur. This is interesting... now we have racial slurs based upon region... what's next, affirmative action for Okies.
Check the appropriate box
African American
White
Okie
Interesting that you want my url, but you don't post yours...
This is fascinating. All these Okies getting there panties in a wad, over that?
I would think they would be proud be be Okies. Instead, they are trying to turn it into a racial slur. This is interesting... now we have racial slurs based upon region... what's next, affirmative action for Okies.
Check the appropriate box
African American
White
Okie
# posted by : 11:09 AM
: 11:09 AM
Dear Erudite,
I would like to invite you to write a short review of a new Christian ebook called Land of Canaan: Ancient Hope for Future Peace. See it free online at www.landofcanaan.info and let me know what you think.
Your brother,
Paul
Post a Comment
I would like to invite you to write a short review of a new Christian ebook called Land of Canaan: Ancient Hope for Future Peace. See it free online at www.landofcanaan.info and let me know what you think.
Your brother,
Paul
<< Home
