billvon 3,119 #126 November 7, 2006 >but neo-fascism is here and alive . . . KABLOOIE! >unlike Italian Fascsism of old. Are you really saying that neocons are fascists but Mussolini wasn't? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #127 November 7, 2006 QuoteAre you really saying that neocons are fascists but Mussolini wasn't? Plenty of images of Il Duce and fasces OMG and what is that on the wall just to the left of Hastert and Cheney??? Hmmm must be fascists Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royd 0 #128 November 7, 2006 QuoteIt is not hypocritical when a man who advocates for gay rights has an affair with another gay man.So, if a person doesn't have a problem with stealing another man's money, or sleeping with another man's wife, he and his cronies should get a pass, because in their minds it's OK? This is the mentality of the left. They can't call you a liar because in your mind there is no such thing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lindsey 0 #129 November 7, 2006 QuoteQuoteIt is not hypocritical when a man who advocates for gay rights has an affair with another gay man.So, if a person doesn't have a problem with stealing another man's money, or sleeping with another man's wife, he and his cronies should get a pass, because in their minds it's OK? This is the mentality of the left. They can't call you a liar because in your mind there is no such thing. Doesn't mean it's not wrong, but it's not hypocritical. That's the point. linz-- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #130 November 7, 2006 QuoteQuoteIt is not hypocritical when a man who advocates for gay rights has an affair with another gay man.So, if a person doesn't have a problem with stealing another man's money, or sleeping with another man's wife, he and his cronies should get a pass, because in their minds it's OK? This is the mentality of the left. They can't call you a liar because in your mind there is no such thing. Whoosh.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,119 #131 November 7, 2006 >So, if a person doesn't have a problem with stealing another man's >money . . . If a man is a lifetime criminal, talks to his friends about how clever he is, what a great thief he is etc and then is caught robbing a bank, that makes him a criminal - but he is not a hypocrite. He has never claimed to be anything other than what he is, a criminal. If a man is a pastor at a local church, and speaks every week about avoiding greed, not placing emphasis on riches, giving money to the poor, living a simple life etc and then keeps much of what people donate to the church to buy himself new cars and steak dinners - then he is a hypocrite, but not necessarily a criminal. That's because what he claims (that no one should covet riches) is the opposite of what he does (collects money for the poor and keeps it for himself.) Can you see the difference? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #132 November 7, 2006 QuoteYou will never acknowledge that your party went as far as making it a Constitutional Amendment that marriage in only man/woman, so with that, everytime you even look at a person of teh same sex with a smirk, well, we'll be there to remind of the proposed 28th homophobe amendment. Get it? Not *my* party hero. Just because I don't agree with all the tripe you write does not mean anything. I vote republican more than democratic simply because most of the dem leaders have worse shortcomings than the repubs. Just because they/you don't seem to MIND their shortcomings does not mean I don't see them as such. Take the double standard (per Bill) discussed here. You don't seem to mind the fact that Dems did really bad things, only that Repubs did. I don't like the fact EITHER did. I find it great that you think it is fine to have a double standard. Says a lot about you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #133 November 7, 2006 QuoteNo, it'smore like: - How can you commit the acts that I consider to be reasonable, but you consider to be an abomination? You think trying to have sex with underage people is REASONABLE? QuoteYou claim they should have no place in society and I'm sure you would criminalize it if you could. You so sure of that hero? You know me? Or are you just attacking anyone that does not agree with you? Quote Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #134 November 7, 2006 QuoteIf you look you'll see that I wrote there should be a double-standard for moral violations, but not crimes. That IS what I wrote, not that there should be criminal immunity as you claim. Interesting, with nothing more than what someone checks on their party affiliation box, you'd implement a double standard. This begs the question of how to implement it, how to determine the legitimacy of the party claim, etc. Heck, I'd argue murder and theft are serious "moral" violations. Do you count those too? Or just policial buzz topics only? With that claim and it's totally group-based stereotyped bias, how can one not help but suspect that you wrote one thing, but really would take it farther if you had your druthers. The only thing that's fair is to take people one at a time and ignore the cosmetic crap like party affiliation etc. You live in a very interesting world. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #135 November 7, 2006 QuoteOr are you just attacking anyone that does not agree with you? Bingo... The right has not got a leg to stand on with all the faults that have been shown in their party. They keep binging up this hypocrisy... thing.. I guess having the mirror turned on them.. they are not seeing things so flattering anymore. And then they have the audacity to claim others have a double standard????Where the hell did I put my hip waders.. For the righties.. one more time.. when you prop yourselves up on one HUGE HIGH HORSE...you are now finding what its like to fall off that sucker. There is no double standard when someone breaks a law.. PROSECUTE them to the full extent of the law. If someone breaks a moral law.. vote them out of office if that suits you.. but do realize when you have been trumpeting moreality and family values and then you are shown to be a pedophile.. drug user.. or adulterer... I do not have to support your lies any longer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NCclimber 0 #136 November 7, 2006 So, what you're saying is reprehensible behavior, by a national politician is really no one's business, unless they hold themselves up as a paragon of virtue. Immoral or unseemly behavior is okay for everyone, except those who condemn those actions? It's okay to bang 17 year old girls (and boys), as long as you haven't pushed legislation against it. Gay prostitution in your home? Not a problem, as long as you never spoke against it. And people think that whole conversation about declining values and moral decay is being driven by just the ultra-conservatives. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #137 November 7, 2006 QuoteSo, what you're saying is reprehensible behavior, by a national politician is really no one's business, unless they hold themselves up as a paragon of virtue. Immoral or unseemly behavior is okay for everyone, except those who condemn those actions? It's okay to bang 17 year old girls (and boys), as long as you haven't pushed legislation against it. Gay prostitution in your home? Not a problem, as long as you never spoke against it. And people think that whole conversation about declining values and moral decay is being driven by just the ultra-conservatives. Please reread with out the right wing filter of rose colored glasses. The right is the one who has been riding one big assed high horse... they have fallen off. The right set themselves up for that fall. But now they seem to be supporting hypocrisy in all its myriad forms.. from the President who jokes around in church during the National Prayer service whiole the rest of the congregation is lifting up their voices to the Lord ( kinda makes me think he follows the same group of thought there that was denigrating evangelicals behind their backs).... right on down to the protector of children Rep Foley....hmm I wonder if he was on those White House conference calls to Haggard. I hold those I vote for to the standard that what is right is right.... and what is legal..I do give them wiggle room....and they had best conform to that... or I will vote for someone who will. Remember... if you live in a glass house.. dont throw geological hand samples at the glass walls. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #138 November 7, 2006 The gist of the argument is that these people don't think laws are based on morality. It's the whole moral relativism thing. Else they wouldn't be talking about crime and morality as totally separate entities. But, there are laws that aren't morality based. These are the ones that should be taken off the books. The next step is a consensus morality - that's impossible and always battled against in any case. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites CornishChris 5 #139 November 7, 2006 "It's okay to bang 17 year old girls " If it's any consolation it is perfectly okay to bang 17 year old girls in our country... CJP Gods don't kill people. People with Gods kill people Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,119 #140 November 7, 2006 >The gist of the argument is that these people don't think laws are based on morality. Many laws are indeed based on morality. The decision on where to draw the line is a tough one, because they are not the same thing. Indeed, the strongest underpinnings of our nation (freedom and liberty) argue that morality is not universal; each person is free to have their own morality. The place where morality _is_ legislated is in cases where expression of that morality can interfere with another's life/liberty/pursuit of happiness. Laws against murder, theft, pollution, drunk driving and fraud fall into this category. >Else they wouldn't be talking about crime and morality as totally >separate entities. In many cases, they are. I gave two examples above. Crime is violation of a codified law; morality is conforming to one's on social mores and values. I think most people understand the difference. It may be illegal to pick up a hitchhiker, but may be the moral thing to do if you see a family stuck in a snowstorm by the side of the road. It may be perfectly legal to blast your stereo at 3am where you live, but not a very nice thing to do. I think some people get confused by this, and think "hey, if it's not illegal, then by definition it's a moral thing to do!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NCclimber 0 #141 November 7, 2006 QuoteQuoteSo, what you're saying is reprehensible behavior, by a national politician is really no one's business, unless they hold themselves up as a paragon of virtue. Immoral or unseemly behavior is okay for everyone, except those who condemn those actions? It's okay to bang 17 year old girls (and boys), as long as you haven't pushed legislation against it. Gay prostitution in your home? Not a problem, as long as you never spoke against it. And people think that whole conversation about declining values and moral decay is being driven by just the ultra-conservatives. Please reread with out the right wing filter of rose colored glasses. The right is the one who has been riding one big assed high horse... they have fallen off. The right set themselves up for that fall. But now they seem to be supporting hypocrisy in all its myriad forms.. from the President who jokes around in church during the National Prayer service whiole the rest of the congregation is lifting up their voices to the Lord ( kinda makes me think he follows the same group of thought there that was denigrating evangelicals behind their backs).... right on down to the protector of children Rep Foley....hmm I wonder if he was on those White House conference calls to Haggard. I hold those I vote for to the standard that what is right is right.... and what is legal..I do give them wiggle room....and they had best conform to that... or I will vote for someone who will. Remember... if you live in a glass house.. dont throw geological hand samples at the glass walls. Did you actually address or refute any of what I wrote? It's hard to tell. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #142 November 7, 2006 QuoteDid you actually address or refute any of what I wrote? It's hard to tell. Well since what you wrote to me is a complete non sequitur to what I wrote.. I dont find that hard to b eleive you still would not understand. If you want to take people out and shoot them for breaking biblical laws( although I think it would be far more appropriate to stone them since that is basically where the right could get to sooo easily for breaking Old Testament prohibitions)... Funny thing is though.. you BETTER go read Leviticus realllly well.. so you know the right laws they have broken before you start stoning them. Next time you have Shrimp for dinner or you wear that nasty wool shirt.. with cotten underwear...you need to make sure your neighbors know you are breaking biblical law....and they will want to be there with some big ass rocks.... kapiche??? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NCclimber 0 #143 November 7, 2006 What do irrelevant Old Testament "laws" have to do with modern day morality in America? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #144 November 7, 2006 QuoteIt's okay to bang 17 year old girls (and boys), as long as you haven't pushed legislation against it. No one said it was okay. However, it is not hypocritical.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #145 November 7, 2006 A hell of a lot of Ultra Right wingers keep dragging up that shit... to justify all kinds of proscriptions...like.... OMG.. Gay Marriage... If you are going to support one "irrelevant Old Testament "laws" ".. then you better not piss GOD off and not take the rest of his laws too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NCclimber 0 #146 November 7, 2006 QuoteQuoteIt's okay to bang 17 year old girls (and boys), as long as you haven't pushed legislation against it. No one said it was okay. However, it is not hypocritical. No. But it is hypocritical to use political affiliation as the determining factor in who one condemns. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,150 #147 November 7, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteIt's okay to bang 17 year old girls (and boys), as long as you haven't pushed legislation against it. No one said it was okay. However, it is not hypocritical. No. But it is hypocritical to use political affiliation as the determining factor in who one condemns. Absolute nonsense. If one voluntarily belongs to and takes a leadership role in a political party which has a stated platform including family values and moral rectitude, then it's quite appropriate to hold an individual to those standards that they chose to adopt by joining said party.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #148 November 7, 2006 QuoteBut it is hypocritical to use political affiliation as the determining factor in who one condemns. You may want to recheck the definition of hypocritical. It's been posted about a dozen (give or take) times in this or other recent threads. Your example is not consistent with the word's definition.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NCclimber 0 #149 November 7, 2006 I agree. Those Republican "defenders of morality and family values", who are guilty of immoral behavior should be condemned for their hypocrisy. Who I'm talking about are those politicians (and run-of-the-mill citizens) that claim "personal behavior is no ones business" when defending one of their own, but spew forth righteous indignation when it involves an opponent. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NCclimber 0 #150 November 7, 2006 QuoteQuoteBut it is hypocritical to use political affiliation as the determining factor in who one condemns. You may want to recheck the definition of hypocritical. It's been posted about a dozen (give or take) times in this or other recent threads. Your example is not consistent with the word's definition. If someone says "it's no ones business what a person does in private" and criticizes those who do, then, when the shoe in on the other foot, they "spew righteous indignation", they are hypocrites. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next Page 6 of 8 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
rehmwa 2 #134 November 7, 2006 QuoteIf you look you'll see that I wrote there should be a double-standard for moral violations, but not crimes. That IS what I wrote, not that there should be criminal immunity as you claim. Interesting, with nothing more than what someone checks on their party affiliation box, you'd implement a double standard. This begs the question of how to implement it, how to determine the legitimacy of the party claim, etc. Heck, I'd argue murder and theft are serious "moral" violations. Do you count those too? Or just policial buzz topics only? With that claim and it's totally group-based stereotyped bias, how can one not help but suspect that you wrote one thing, but really would take it farther if you had your druthers. The only thing that's fair is to take people one at a time and ignore the cosmetic crap like party affiliation etc. You live in a very interesting world. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #135 November 7, 2006 QuoteOr are you just attacking anyone that does not agree with you? Bingo... The right has not got a leg to stand on with all the faults that have been shown in their party. They keep binging up this hypocrisy... thing.. I guess having the mirror turned on them.. they are not seeing things so flattering anymore. And then they have the audacity to claim others have a double standard????Where the hell did I put my hip waders.. For the righties.. one more time.. when you prop yourselves up on one HUGE HIGH HORSE...you are now finding what its like to fall off that sucker. There is no double standard when someone breaks a law.. PROSECUTE them to the full extent of the law. If someone breaks a moral law.. vote them out of office if that suits you.. but do realize when you have been trumpeting moreality and family values and then you are shown to be a pedophile.. drug user.. or adulterer... I do not have to support your lies any longer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #136 November 7, 2006 So, what you're saying is reprehensible behavior, by a national politician is really no one's business, unless they hold themselves up as a paragon of virtue. Immoral or unseemly behavior is okay for everyone, except those who condemn those actions? It's okay to bang 17 year old girls (and boys), as long as you haven't pushed legislation against it. Gay prostitution in your home? Not a problem, as long as you never spoke against it. And people think that whole conversation about declining values and moral decay is being driven by just the ultra-conservatives. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #137 November 7, 2006 QuoteSo, what you're saying is reprehensible behavior, by a national politician is really no one's business, unless they hold themselves up as a paragon of virtue. Immoral or unseemly behavior is okay for everyone, except those who condemn those actions? It's okay to bang 17 year old girls (and boys), as long as you haven't pushed legislation against it. Gay prostitution in your home? Not a problem, as long as you never spoke against it. And people think that whole conversation about declining values and moral decay is being driven by just the ultra-conservatives. Please reread with out the right wing filter of rose colored glasses. The right is the one who has been riding one big assed high horse... they have fallen off. The right set themselves up for that fall. But now they seem to be supporting hypocrisy in all its myriad forms.. from the President who jokes around in church during the National Prayer service whiole the rest of the congregation is lifting up their voices to the Lord ( kinda makes me think he follows the same group of thought there that was denigrating evangelicals behind their backs).... right on down to the protector of children Rep Foley....hmm I wonder if he was on those White House conference calls to Haggard. I hold those I vote for to the standard that what is right is right.... and what is legal..I do give them wiggle room....and they had best conform to that... or I will vote for someone who will. Remember... if you live in a glass house.. dont throw geological hand samples at the glass walls. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #138 November 7, 2006 The gist of the argument is that these people don't think laws are based on morality. It's the whole moral relativism thing. Else they wouldn't be talking about crime and morality as totally separate entities. But, there are laws that aren't morality based. These are the ones that should be taken off the books. The next step is a consensus morality - that's impossible and always battled against in any case. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CornishChris 5 #139 November 7, 2006 "It's okay to bang 17 year old girls " If it's any consolation it is perfectly okay to bang 17 year old girls in our country... CJP Gods don't kill people. People with Gods kill people Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,119 #140 November 7, 2006 >The gist of the argument is that these people don't think laws are based on morality. Many laws are indeed based on morality. The decision on where to draw the line is a tough one, because they are not the same thing. Indeed, the strongest underpinnings of our nation (freedom and liberty) argue that morality is not universal; each person is free to have their own morality. The place where morality _is_ legislated is in cases where expression of that morality can interfere with another's life/liberty/pursuit of happiness. Laws against murder, theft, pollution, drunk driving and fraud fall into this category. >Else they wouldn't be talking about crime and morality as totally >separate entities. In many cases, they are. I gave two examples above. Crime is violation of a codified law; morality is conforming to one's on social mores and values. I think most people understand the difference. It may be illegal to pick up a hitchhiker, but may be the moral thing to do if you see a family stuck in a snowstorm by the side of the road. It may be perfectly legal to blast your stereo at 3am where you live, but not a very nice thing to do. I think some people get confused by this, and think "hey, if it's not illegal, then by definition it's a moral thing to do!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #141 November 7, 2006 QuoteQuoteSo, what you're saying is reprehensible behavior, by a national politician is really no one's business, unless they hold themselves up as a paragon of virtue. Immoral or unseemly behavior is okay for everyone, except those who condemn those actions? It's okay to bang 17 year old girls (and boys), as long as you haven't pushed legislation against it. Gay prostitution in your home? Not a problem, as long as you never spoke against it. And people think that whole conversation about declining values and moral decay is being driven by just the ultra-conservatives. Please reread with out the right wing filter of rose colored glasses. The right is the one who has been riding one big assed high horse... they have fallen off. The right set themselves up for that fall. But now they seem to be supporting hypocrisy in all its myriad forms.. from the President who jokes around in church during the National Prayer service whiole the rest of the congregation is lifting up their voices to the Lord ( kinda makes me think he follows the same group of thought there that was denigrating evangelicals behind their backs).... right on down to the protector of children Rep Foley....hmm I wonder if he was on those White House conference calls to Haggard. I hold those I vote for to the standard that what is right is right.... and what is legal..I do give them wiggle room....and they had best conform to that... or I will vote for someone who will. Remember... if you live in a glass house.. dont throw geological hand samples at the glass walls. Did you actually address or refute any of what I wrote? It's hard to tell. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #142 November 7, 2006 QuoteDid you actually address or refute any of what I wrote? It's hard to tell. Well since what you wrote to me is a complete non sequitur to what I wrote.. I dont find that hard to b eleive you still would not understand. If you want to take people out and shoot them for breaking biblical laws( although I think it would be far more appropriate to stone them since that is basically where the right could get to sooo easily for breaking Old Testament prohibitions)... Funny thing is though.. you BETTER go read Leviticus realllly well.. so you know the right laws they have broken before you start stoning them. Next time you have Shrimp for dinner or you wear that nasty wool shirt.. with cotten underwear...you need to make sure your neighbors know you are breaking biblical law....and they will want to be there with some big ass rocks.... kapiche??? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #143 November 7, 2006 What do irrelevant Old Testament "laws" have to do with modern day morality in America? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #144 November 7, 2006 QuoteIt's okay to bang 17 year old girls (and boys), as long as you haven't pushed legislation against it. No one said it was okay. However, it is not hypocritical.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #145 November 7, 2006 A hell of a lot of Ultra Right wingers keep dragging up that shit... to justify all kinds of proscriptions...like.... OMG.. Gay Marriage... If you are going to support one "irrelevant Old Testament "laws" ".. then you better not piss GOD off and not take the rest of his laws too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #146 November 7, 2006 QuoteQuoteIt's okay to bang 17 year old girls (and boys), as long as you haven't pushed legislation against it. No one said it was okay. However, it is not hypocritical. No. But it is hypocritical to use political affiliation as the determining factor in who one condemns. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #147 November 7, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteIt's okay to bang 17 year old girls (and boys), as long as you haven't pushed legislation against it. No one said it was okay. However, it is not hypocritical. No. But it is hypocritical to use political affiliation as the determining factor in who one condemns. Absolute nonsense. If one voluntarily belongs to and takes a leadership role in a political party which has a stated platform including family values and moral rectitude, then it's quite appropriate to hold an individual to those standards that they chose to adopt by joining said party.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #148 November 7, 2006 QuoteBut it is hypocritical to use political affiliation as the determining factor in who one condemns. You may want to recheck the definition of hypocritical. It's been posted about a dozen (give or take) times in this or other recent threads. Your example is not consistent with the word's definition.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #149 November 7, 2006 I agree. Those Republican "defenders of morality and family values", who are guilty of immoral behavior should be condemned for their hypocrisy. Who I'm talking about are those politicians (and run-of-the-mill citizens) that claim "personal behavior is no ones business" when defending one of their own, but spew forth righteous indignation when it involves an opponent. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #150 November 7, 2006 QuoteQuoteBut it is hypocritical to use political affiliation as the determining factor in who one condemns. You may want to recheck the definition of hypocritical. It's been posted about a dozen (give or take) times in this or other recent threads. Your example is not consistent with the word's definition. If someone says "it's no ones business what a person does in private" and criticizes those who do, then, when the shoe in on the other foot, they "spew righteous indignation", they are hypocrites. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
