ATTN Conservatives: Stop talking like Liberals

[OCinBuffalo]

And Christ said to separate the goats and the sheep into Heaven or everlasting fire, that He came to bring the sword not peace, and you pretend to know the will of God?

I do not pretend to know the will of God. That's what you pretend. I worry about what I do and I leave it at that. What other people do is between them and God. If you want to talk about law, that's different. Murder has been illegal in every culture, in every religion, since the beginning. Apparently God didn't have to tell the Hindus or the Buddhists that killing=bad. I wonder how they figured it out without people like you around to tell them? You don't get to bring the sword, nor do you get to decide who is a sheep and who is a goat. That's Christ's job, and I am certain the Son of God doesn't require input or guidance from you.

Maybe you forget St. Paul's admonition that those who do not follow Christian ethics we shouldn't have in our company, but to always preach the truth in and out of season. Listen, I'm not a preacher, but your 2 cent theology is laughable and ridiculous. A cursory examination of the gospels and patristic writers are completely against your position.

Sorry, but in my life, at work, in general, I tend to focus on what the boss says, and not what the guy carrying his water says. If I was concerned about theology, I suppose I would go to confession more often, since I can't find where Christ said that I had to step into a box on Wednesdays and then say this prayer, this way, this many times, or I was going to hell. Christ said homsexuality was an abomination. He did not say the people themselves were. Not a difficult concept to grasp for the sane.

They are essentially birds of the same feather. That's the problem and why you just don't "get it". All of today's problems are reducible at some some level to personal responsibility which is imposed by the natural and objective laws of man.

So if a woman who is walking home from work gets raped and decides to have an abortion, she is personally responsible for what exactly? Walking home? Working? Not being married and at home? What natural law of man did she break? Why should abortion be 100% illegal there, Mr. "I know what God is thinking"?

 

What about the kids in my mom's class, whose mom is a junkie/hooker and whose dad is in prison nearby, who starve over the summer because they only get to eat at school, and therefore do bad in class = summer school = at least they still get to eat? What are they personally responsible for? Being Hungry? They are 12-14. What if they steal so they can eat? What if they steal clothes so they can have some sort of self-esteem/not freeze? They get caught, so now they have a record, but nobody cares one way or the other what happens to them, so why should they? They aren't bad kids, they have just realized that they don't matter at all to their parents, and that would screw with anybody's head. What natural law of man are they breaking?

 

Unless somebody steps in and teaches them that their childhood is over, like it or not, and that they have to start doing for themselves, now, and how exactly to do that, they are screwed, and will be treated like children or punished like adults, the rest of their lives. I am happy to pay taxes for programs like my mom's because of the cost/benefit alone. Paying, locally, not Federally, for that program compared to paying for little Johnny to spend the rest of his life in prison isn't even close. That's not just cheapest thing to do, or the responsible thing to do, that's the friggin moral thing to do. It's pay a little now or a hell of a lot later, and if you can't see that, they you are retarded, plain and simple. BTW: my mom hates the teacher's union on all levels and swears that it keeps good teachers from staying and enables bad ones.

Take away those laws you lose a connection to reality, and eventually personal responsibility. I know you can't see this, but come on now... what do you think is really the cause of these issues?

 

Do you really just think that all of motherment comes from people going to college and being exposed to Marx and it just makes complete sense, and that the myriad of welfare recipients who will never be productive got that way because of grade B milk and bad playgrounds?

WTF are you talking about in terms of "I can't see this"? All I do around here is bash on unrealistic, do-gooders(but end up being do-badders) who think that they can "wish" solutions into being because things "should" be that way. They say things like: people "should" get a "living wage" and other nonsense, but provide no viable solution as to how exactly that wage should be paid for, other than taxing money from people that have earned it and not taxing those who haven't.

 

The difference is: we need to give = opportunity to people until they are 18. After that, driving everything off of personal responsibility is fine with me. A kid can't learn to be responsible and figure out how to get his act together, in our culture, if he's starving and there's no electricity. We're not some 3rd world country full of weed smoking trinket makers and subsistence farmers where that's ok, although the far-left keeps trying to make that happen, because "those cultures respect the earth".

When people complain about motherment or such and such gov't program they are complaining about personal responsibility. They expect others to agree with them because it "makes sense", but without a principle to stand on how do you expect others to reasonably understand you? The true divide of this country is not spending, but objective truth and laws. Throw that away and minimize it and you are part of the problem, not the solution.

Wrong. There is such a concept as "nuance" and the world is not as simple as you, or the far-left, would have us believe. It's both of your child-like temper tantrums when the world acts like it is = complex, and not the way you wish it was = simple, that exacerbate our problems, not solve them.

 

Just because you wish your simplistic, all-or-nothing, so called "principles" applied in every single situation the exact same way sure as hell doesn't mean that they do.

 

I think you have confused the words Principle and Value. A principle, like adultery is 100% bad every day, all the time, is not the same as valuing religious beliefs like eating fish on Friday or wearing a towel on your head. You may have different values than others, but we all have the same intrinsic principles. The only people that don't are known as: sociopaths. One person may value family more than money, the next just the opposite. It doesn't make the first stupid, or the second greedy. Neither is immoral, or dumb. But, if either murdered somebody, then f them, because they denied a principle.

BTW, I'm not agreeing with the original poster either. The entire idea that Palin and JTP are a litmus test of conservatism is laughable and silly.

 

Owens, you would be wise to study Robert Taft and Davy Crockett's conservatism, not Palin or JTP.

Yeah, talking about Davy f'ing Crockett in this day and age is a sure fire way to win the next set of elections

[The Dean]

In return, I will explain how and why the far-left agenda of forcing gay marriage on people backfired so massively.

 

 

Nobody on the left has ever forced anyone to have a gay marriage.

 

Women aren't forced to vote...they have a RIGHT to.

[billybob]

I do think Joe the Plumber is the perfect representative for the Republicans because his names not Joe and he's not a Plumber.

[OCinBuffalo]

Nobody on the left has ever forced anyone to have a gay marriage.

 

Women aren't forced to vote...they have a RIGHT to.

Thanks for completely missing my point. The far-left is making up a right that is not guaranteed anyplace in the Constitution and was purposely left to be decided by the states, just like all other property issues. Then they lamely attempted to force that view on others. Then Massive Fail.

 

I guess what boggles my mind is the final outcome = 35+ states now with anti-gay marriage laws hardly seems to be "helping" gay people who want to get married. IF I was in that group, I'd be pissed as hell = "Thanks for the 'help', idiots".

 

You f with the bull, you get the horns. Far-left people think they can f with the bull, and then call the bull a racist/bigot/(insert bad name here) and that the bull won't give them the horns because it is scared to be called those things. What the far-left idiots don't understand is that they had already gone far past most people's tolerance for calling wolf(or bigot), and that we patently don't care what they think or say about us. The result, 35+ anti-gay marriage laws, speaks for itself. The bull gave them and their agenda the horns in a big way.

 

The smart thing would have been to patiently explain their views at town hall meetings, campus lectures, debates etc. To encourage the religious people to engage in high-minded debate, and to take their case rationally to the American people and ask for our understanding and convince us of their position. The OP is asking their question, thus the point of this entire thread, precisely because these idiots didn't do the smart thing and tell him where they were coming from, before setting up the false choice of "you either support gay marriage, or you hate gay people".

[ExiledInIllinois]

The smart thing would have been to patiently explain their views at town hall meetings, campus lectures, debates etc. To encourage the religious people to engage in high-minded debate, and to take their case rationally to the American people and ask for our understanding and convince us of their position. The OP is asking their question, thus the point of this entire thread, precisely because these idiots didn't do the smart thing and tell him where they were coming from, before setting up the false choice of "you either support gay marriage, or you hate gay people".

 

Never going to happen. People are lazy.

[StupidNation]

I do not pretend to know the will of God. ...That's Christ's job, and I am certain the Son of God doesn't require input or guidance from you.

 

If God reveals the truth and His will then by adhering makes me pretend I do? So by adhering to divine and nature law is now a pretension then you cannot debate, but merely pretend you do. Adherence is not my input or guidance. Not once did you attempt to refute in principle what I said, but made up happenstance and pretended it was a debate. Clever, but laughable. Read these 2 lines and stop lying to others:

 

"He therefore that shall break one of these least commandments, and shall so teach men, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. But he that shall do and teach, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Matt 5:19

 

Go read the patristics and early biblical commentaries before you continue to sound more ridiculous than you already do.

 

If I was concerned about theology, I suppose I would go to confession more often, since I can't find where Christ said that I had to step into a box on Wednesdays and then say this prayer, this way, this many times, or I was going to hell. Christ said homsexuality was an abomination. He did not say the people themselves were. Not a difficult concept to grasp for the sane.

 

I couldn't see you making statements to physics departments, but you think because theology uses common language you are capable of debate on the issue. And for reference where confession is refer to John chapter 18 and read patristic language to see if the original followers of Christ did so. You see that's the problem, you are theologically and historically worthless, so here's a suggestion, don't argue the core of the discussion but propose question to dispel your ignorance.

 

I never said people afflicted with homosexuality are an abomination but the act. I have repeatedly divided the act and the person. I have said people should be rejected but the act. All of your arguments so far are empty.

 

So if a woman who is walking home from work gets raped and decides to have an abortion, she is personally responsible for what exactly? Walking home? Working? Not being married and at home? What natural law of man did she break? Why should abortion be 100% illegal there, Mr. "I know what God is thinking"?

 

So she lacks free-will? She has to have an abortion? You are clueless. Unless you prove that she has to kill then good luck. For a guy claiming theological matters maybe you forget the "forgive" part, and "thou shalt not murder". I never remembered any part in life where doing evil for evil solves anything.

 

What about the kids in my mom's class... are they breaking?

 

Again, learn the theology of double effect before sounding like an ignoramus. I don't think you are posing a question as much as trying to prove me wrong otherwise I would answer this question.

 

Unless somebody steps in and teaches ... enables bad ones.

 

So one cannot judge justice even without formal training? So all abused children assume "I was abused, let me go abuse others" or they are impossible to come to the conclusion to judge "I didn't like that so I won't do it myself". You are assuming, falsely, that we are reduced to our education, which was the error of Socrates and repeated again by the anti-tobacco campaigns in schools which have worked wonderfully haven't they? People will do things against their education based on the good they perceive (apparent or real) and based on the desire to be good and responsible or deny their responsibilities to themselves and others.

 

 

WTF are you talking about in terms of "I can't see this"....

 

You bash effects not principles, which is like bashing the play of Coy Wire when we forgot someone drafted him and some coach is playing him.

 

The difference is: we need to give = opportunity to people until they are 18. After that, driving everything off of personal responsibility is fine with me.

 

I never said to bash children. I help fund children's organizations so I don't know what your point is. You think by proving a circumstance you establish a rule. I've never said children have fully formed reason. I was asserting principles in society.

 

Wrong. There is such a concept as "nuance" ...mean that they do.

 

And it also doesn't mean that your assertion makes fact does it? An examination of history, sociology, and philosophy bear this out. The reason why message boards are poor indicators of what to do is you require a lesson in all of these things and even if I do you can just deny them while hiding cowardly behind a computer denying the obvious.

 

I think you have confused ...because they denied a principle.

 

It does make them stupid and greedy; and values and principles, which do have different meanings, are not confused in my statements but merely in your mind and maybe the minds of others who either do not or have thought out what a principle is. There is objective truth and while you deny it on so many levels yet "complain" all the time is laughable and sophomoric. You can't really complain about values can you? That's like complaining over pepperoni vs cheese pie, while I say that pizza in principle cannot contain poisons and frankly don't care about the toppings in the discussion.

 

Politics, unlike morality, is mostly a value based and pragmatic system; whereas morality is based on principle either on the natural or supernatural law.

 

You have no grounds to make your statements unless you believe they are founded in principle. Otherwise you are a lunatic ranting instead of a man of principle debating.

 

Yeah, talking about Davy f'ing Crockett in this day and age is a sure fire way to win the next set of elections

 

Ignorance of history is a sure sign of arrogance and stupidity. Maybe we should throw out our history books too and establish the next election solely on polls. Read Crockett's speech "Not Yours to Give" on the theft of gov't against it's people.

[The Dean]

Thanks for completely missing my point. The far-left is making up a right that is not guaranteed anyplace in the Constitution and was purposely left to be decided by the states, just like all other property issues. Then they lamely attempted to force that view on others. Then Massive Fail.

 

I guess what boggles my mind is the final outcome = 35+ states now with anti-gay marriage laws hardly seems to be "helping" gay people who want to get married. IF I was in that group, I'd be pissed as hell = "Thanks for the 'help', idiots".

 

You f with the bull, you get the horns. Far-left people think they can f with the bull, and then call the bull a racist/bigot/(insert bad name here) and that the bull won't give them the horns because it is scared to be called those things. What the far-left idiots don't understand is that they had already gone far past most people's tolerance for calling wolf(or bigot), and that we patently don't care what they think or say about us. The result, 35+ anti-gay marriage laws, speaks for itself. The bull gave them and their agenda the horns in a big way.

 

The smart thing would have been to patiently explain their views at town hall meetings, campus lectures, debates etc. To encourage the religious people to engage in high-minded debate, and to take their case rationally to the American people and ask for our understanding and convince us of their position. The OP is asking their question, thus the point of this entire thread, precisely because these idiots didn't do the smart thing and tell him where they were coming from, before setting up the false choice of "you either support gay marriage, or you hate gay people".

 

 

Sorry. Basic rights don't belong to the state, and we shouldn't have to fight each systematic abuse, as if it is the first. The end of slavery, women's right to vote, Blacks serving along side Whites in the military, women in the military, the end to segregation, inter-racial marriage...why is it we have to fight these issues, one at a time, as if they are all unique? By now, it's pretty clear when an issue is a basic right's issue, and when bigotry, disguised as tradition/religion/natural law, rules the day. Same-sex marriage will be legal, in every state, in a very short period of time. I'd say within five years. Shortly thereafter (10-20 years) your arguments will sound as ridiculous (to most) as those used by pro-slavery (and anti-women's right to vote) did before those injustices ended.

 

Nobody if forcing anyone to do anything, except let two consenting homosexual adults have the same rights as two heterosexual adults.

[The Dean]

If God

 

 

End of discussion. Your imaginary friend has no place in the conversation.

[AlaskaDarin_Has_AIDS]

Well, then conservatism is doomed, if that is the case.

 

Unfortunately for you conservatism is alive and well.

[Alaska Darin]

Unfortunately for you conservatism is alive and well.

Where?

[AlaskaDarin_Has_AIDS]

Where?

 

Every room I walk into!

[DC Tom]

Every room I walk into!

 

So it's alive and well...but drooling and wearing a bicycle helmet.

[The Dean]

So it's alive and well...but drooling and wearing a bicycle helmet.

 

 

Ouch!

[The Dean]

Unfortunately for you conservatism is alive and well.

 

 

...as is this fine organization.

[AlaskaDarin_Has_AIDS]

...as is this fine organization.

 

That's a fake website.

[The Dean]

That's a fake website.

 

 

It's a real website. It's a parody website, though.

 

Here's their "official" website:

 

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/

[yall]

This thread is regressing toward the mean.

 

Also - OwensMania has to be an joke-alt for someone. No one who can operate a computer is that stupid in real life.

[The Dean]

This thread is regressing toward the mean.

 

Also - OwensMania has to be an joke-alt for someone. No one who can operate a computer is that stupid

 

 

erynthered's presence on the forum suggests otherwise.

[finknottle]

Sorry. Basic rights don't belong to the state, and we shouldn't have to fight each systematic abuse, as if it is the first. The end of slavery, women's right to vote, Blacks serving along side Whites in the military, women in the military, the end to segregation, inter-racial marriage...why is it we have to fight these issues, one at a time, as if they are all unique? By now, it's pretty clear when an issue is a basic right's issue, and when bigotry, disguised as tradition/religion/natural law, rules the day. Same-sex marriage will be legal, in every state, in a very short period of time. I'd say within five years. Shortly thereafter (10-20 years) your arguments will sound as ridiculous (to most) as those used by pro-slavery (and anti-women's right to vote) did before those injustices ended.

 

Do you acknowledge corporate rights as basic rights? Or are you - as you might put it - one of those bigots, hiding behind tradition/religion/natural law, who would suggest corporations are different and would deny them those rights?

 

Sure, a main-stream view of today may seem ridiculous in 10-20 years. But the enlightened thinking of 10-20 years may seem just as ridiculous in another 50. It is not an inexorable march forward: the Supreme Court *does* reverse its own rulings rulings on occasion:

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/scourt.html

[The Dean]

Do you acknowledge corporate rights as basic rights? Or are you - as you might put it - one of those bigots, hiding behind tradition/religion/natural law, who would suggest corporations are different and would deny them those rights?

 

Sure, a main-stream view of today may seem ridiculous in 10-20 years. But the enlightened thinking of 10-20 years may seem just as ridiculous in another 50. It is not an inexorable march forward: the Supreme Court *does* reverse its own rulings rulings on occasion:

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/scourt.html

 

 

I don't think it has anything to do with "tradition/religion/natural law". It has to do with science. Corporations AREN'T people, and shouldn't be given the same rights as people. Corporations were created (at least in part) to protect people from legal responsibilities they might otherwise face.

 

Is the right to create a corporation a "basic right"? Wow, I never actually thought of it, that way. I'd say it isn't. I understand our system of law recognizes them as having human rights, but I always thought that was idiotic. Corporations aren't human, they don't breath, sleep, have a heart, etc. Hell, a dog is more alive than a corporation. IMO, Corporate rights are simply a legal fabrication.

 

But I am open to other views, if they make sense. So, take me to school, finky. Explain why Corporations deserve to be treated as people, in the eyes of the law.