Democrats: The party of inclusion?

One thing I can appreciate about Jon Stewart is that even though he is unabashedly a liberal, he can still find fault in Democrats.  In my tenure as a blogger of politics, I have seen more than my fair share (get it…fair share!?) of lost irony on liberals.  Whether it’s rightfully recognizing that placement on sports teams should be based on merit and not race, but missing that it ought to be that way in academic placement. Or opposing reductions in federal spending and not wanting to pay their share (see, lost irony) of the federal debt.  Or supporting the redistribution of the wealth of Americans who’ve earned their money to those who haven’t, but opposing redistributing grade point averages to students who haven’t earned the grades.

The Daily Show sent “correspondents” to the Democratic National Convention to see just how inclusive the party of inclusion really is.  If it weren’t so funny, it’d be sad.

Click image to view video


  1. Yep, even liberals like Jon Stewart are able to see much of the hypocrisy within the Democratic Party. He also did a good piece on Fox News and the differences between their coverage of both conventions.—last-week-this-week

    It’s funny that the network considers itself a legitimate news source and the hypocrisy in its own camp. If it weren’t so funny, it’d be sad.

    • What I thought was sad was how MSNBC covered the dnc. They actually had Obama’s campaign slogans on their graphics. Not to mention the gushing in between speakers.

      Btw, why have you ignored my last post?

  2. Yep, there’s a bunch of bias to go around – but Fox has been claiming to be “fair and balanced” for quite a while now.

    As for replying to your other post, that discussion would be futile. Testimony still isn’t evidence and trying to use this court case as an example of how it could be under “special” circumstances is simply fallacious. Your conclusion simply attempts to shift the focus on what we consider “special”.

    You are free to believe in taking animals, virgin births and resurrections if you so desire. Without anything other than hearsay to support it, I’ll keep thinking you’re “special” in your own way.

    • The only thing special about the case was that hearsay was permitted. Testimony has always been evidence. All this proves is that you are as biased against God and the bible as MSNBC is against conservatives. A rather candid admission. The fact that you are becoming more and more unwilling to engage, ie you are routinely becoming a drive by commenter, speaks against your claims to really want to discover the truth of the matter.

  3. Come on Z, I’m disappointed too. You’ve asked on many occasions for examples of court cases where hearsay and written testimony was admitted as evidence. Here it is and you just dismiss it with some mild insults. I really thought you could come up with something better.

    As I’ve written previously, the New Testament accounts:
    1) Were written within the lifetime of the eyewitnesses. Nearly all skeptical scholars even agree with this.
    2) Were written by numerous authors with different writing styles, different theological perspectives, and different audiences. Yet they all agree on historical claims and theological implications.
    3) Claim to be historical. Either they are incredibly clever fabrications authored by multiple people who worked together to propagate a lie, or they are representing the honest opinions of the writers. No other explanation works. (note: I’m *not* saying they are inerrant – only that the authors BELIEVED them to be accurate)
    4) Have virtually no significant variants that change any historical detail or theological teaching. There are NUMEROUS minor variants due to the sheer number of documents and the nature of hand-written copies. But these have a negligible impact on the teachings of Christianity.
    5) Accurately describe the geography, the culture, and the leaders known for the 1st century. Again, this doesn’t mean that they are true – but it suggests that the authors were either recording things accurately or were involved in a very detailed work of deception.
    6) Were accepted as true by multitudes of people throughout the ancient world within just decades of the events. The major events of the NT (death and Resurrection) were widely believed within just 15-20 years of the events. Obviously many of the eyewitnesses were still around. Perhaps they were all part of a massive conspiracy?

    I can understand that there are numerous reasons for NOT accepting the Biblical accounts. But you are simply foolish and ignorant to casually dismiss them without bothering to seriously examine the evidence and think seriously about the origin of a book that is revered by ~1/3 of the world’s population.

  4. Sorry to disappoint, Nathan

    I have learned that speaking with people on these topics can often prove to be useless. What I’ve seen on this blog is a lot of finger-pointing and closed-mindedness. It has even been posted here that the very idea that one might be mistaken is off the table. Bloggers and posters alike here have stated unequivocally that they know the truth.

    If we are to believe anything and everything ever testified about without critical examination, we simply open ourselves up to accepting some ridiculous things.

    I suppose you would never just casually dismiss the beliefs of others based on the testimony they accept? After all, they might represent the other 2/3 of the world’s population.

  5. Who ever said anything about “without critical examination”? Much to the chagrin of some of my fellow-Christians, I am constantly questioning the Bible. It has stood up well against my critical inquiry. Particularly the New Testament. I tried to critique the New Testament on historical grounds, logical grounds, archaeological grounds, accuracy of the manuscripts, intent of the authors, and on and on. I have found that it has come through my “tests” with flying colors. I don’t care much about the issue of inerrancy. I’m not claiming inerrancy. I’m claiming overall accuracy and trust-worthyness. I have yet to see any evidence from you that it fails on these accounts. Yet we (me/John/others) have provided numerous pieces of evidence that in-so-far as we can determine, the documents we have are trustworthy, accurate, and interpreted properly.

    I strongly suspect that you have not bothered putting the Bible to the test and that you are simply speaking out of ignorance. But perhaps I am mistaken…

    The Bible is not a simple document. It has been put through the wringer by countless intellectuals, skeptics, and academics through the ages and continues to generally accepted as trustworthy.

  6. By the way, Z, if you are worried about the issue of finger-pointing and close-mindedness, then let’s debate this privately. You know how to contact me. I think you know that I don’t agree with the comment “the very idea that one might be mistaken is off the table”. I’m asserting that the NT manuscripts can stand up to your questioning.

    If you pre-suppose that the supernatural is nonexistent, then of course there is no point in debating. But you are so quick to point out that you simply “lack belief”. Therefore, you should start out as a neutral observer here, right? You lack belief in the supernatural. You don’t DISBELIEVE in the supernatural, right? So miracles are POSSIBLE, according to your “lack of belief”. God is POSSIBLE, according to your lack-of-belief. If you are genuinely honest about your “lack of belief”, then lets see if there is any evidence that any of the events of the New Testament actually transpired. You might be surprised at what you find.

  7. Nathan,

    My statements regarding my observations on this blog were not really directed at you. (

    John just has a way of writing his essays about arguing against something specific. When you broaden the view or introduce a different angle, he opines about going off-topic. He seldom defends his own beliefs.

    Case in point: His post here is pointing out the hypocrisy of the Democratic Party. I stated that this happens on both sides and referenced the Fox coverage and the bias in their “reporting”. Instead of simply agreeing, he comes back with MSNBC…

    His statement about me being “biased against God” is laughable, as I’m sure he just sees ‘non-belief’ and ‘rejection of’ as the same thing. Yes, MSNBC is clearly biased towards the left, just as Fox is a conservative echo-chamber and an outlet for the Republican Party.

  8. Z,

    Unlike John, who has posted three videos demonstrating left wing hypocrisy (they are all students, but I’ve seen similar videos dealing with adults—the responses are the same), you have shown no evidence of hypocrisy from the right. This is not to say that it doesn’t exist, but that you have nothing to back up your assertion. Your testimony does not count, because, as you know, testimony, especially your hearsay testimony, is worthless for establishing fact.

    What’s more, I doubt you could provide any video evidence of hypocrisy from the right that is equal to what John has here.

    As if that wasn’t enough, you have yet to demonstrate the value of anyone admitting the possibility of being wrong. The only value I’ve seen is that people like yourself can feel better about what you believe by someone with an opposing view conceding such a possibility. Yet, while the possibility might indeed exist for everybody, it is meaningless in a discussion debating the accuracy and credibility of a given point of view. It’s an extremely “wussy” tactic by those with less conviction regarding their own perspective. Can I admit that I might be wrong? Yeah. So what? How does that matter to whether or not I am? It doesn’t. It’s irrelevant. All that is relevant is what can actually change my perspective. Speculating that I might be wrong when all my efforts have lead to my belief that I am right is worthless.

  9. Marshalart,

    Really? Could you try to be more smug? Did you not see the video on the link in my post?

    It’s interesting that you equate your unwillingness to consider the fact you may be wrong with the strength of your conviction. You see this stubbornness as a virtue.

    Since you will never consider anything that may be contrary to your precious belief system, there is no sense in discussing anything with you. Nothing will ever be presented to you that could actually change your perspective – and that’s the point.

  10. Z,

    Really? A video from a biased person on the hypocrisy of the network against which he is biased? I’m supposed to find value in that? John’s video examples are clear examples in which the alleged beliefs of the students are put to the test.

    You continue to say I’m unwilling to consider the “fact” that I might be wrong. Of course I am. You have not established any fact that counters what I believe to be true. There’s a vast difference between considering a possibility versus a fact. Which are you asking?

    In any case, as I have stated, to consider either is a worthless endeavor if my convictions are firm and your attempts to persuade are crap. Not interesting, but rather typical that you’d equate conviction with stubbornness. They are distinctly different. But stubborn is what a person of conviction is called by another person unable to persuade the person of conviction away from his convictions.

    Another falsehood you tell yourself to assuage your self-doubts is that I “will never consider anything that may be contrary to” my “precious” belief system. It is absolutely untrue that nothing will ever be presented to me that could change my perspective. It is only unlikely. Neither of us can tell the future, so I would not insist that nothing could change my mind. The really sad part of your position is that it flows from the fact that you haven’t the evidence, any facts or the ability to present a logical and reasoned argument to even plant a seed of doubt, much less change my perspective. So, you believe instead that there is something wrong with me. How is it you haven’t considered the possibility or fact that you aren’t good at persuading a person of conviction toward your less than compelling point of view?

Any Thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: