mnealtx 0 #51 November 13, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteThis feels like the argument of the definition of, "hypocrite" we had a couple days ago. It is very hypocritical for Haggert to profess ever lasting life in hell for homosexuals, then be one himself. Only if Haggard said HE was going to Heaven. Quote It is not hypocritical for Clinton to be a womanizer, as he has nevr taken a position against it or for an ultra-conservative family. Yeah, that whole "forsaking all others" thing is SOOOOoooo Puritanical, man.... *YAWN* I'm going to take judical notice on this one, I don;t have a quote or a sound bite, but I think he professed his holliness and place in heaven. QuoteYeah, that whole "forsaking all others" thing is SOOOOoooo Puritanical, man.... Making a promise not to fool around in your marriage is FAR different than denouncing others for doing it in a judgmental way. Uh huh.... it's ALWAYS "far different" when it's the Dems doing something...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #52 November 13, 2006 QuoteTwo things have always fascinated me about the POA: 1. How was the US able to survive without it that first 116 years until it was written in 1882? 2. How was the US able to keep from slipping into devil worship until the phrase "under God" was added to the POA in 1952? 3. How the Dems seem to think that kids saying the pledge is going to turn them into raging fundies / mindless robots...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,590 #53 November 13, 2006 Quote 3. How the Dems seem to think that kids saying the pledge is going to turn them into raging fundies / mindless robots... And what possible purpose does it serve to have an authority figure (the teacher) mandate that kids mouth a bunch of words regardless of whether or not they believe them??? It is just as pointless as those idiotic corporate "vision statements" that became a fad ten years ago."There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #54 November 13, 2006 >How the Dems seem to think that kids saying the pledge is going to >turn them into raging fundies / mindless robots... A reference to another thread - This is a perfect Speaker's Corner example of a strawman. If you can't argue the original premise, construct a new one that's easier to argue. "How can you agree with someone who thinks not saying the pledge will turn kids into mindless robots? You can't! Mike's right." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ExAFO 0 #55 November 13, 2006 Please don't feed the Attention-Whore Starbuck's with books junior college "students."Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #56 November 13, 2006 Quote Uh huh.... it's ALWAYS "far different" when it's the Dems doing something... Yes, it's ok to lie under oath, in a case about sexual harassment, or to be a pedophile an receive a standing ovation, it's all ok as long as the perpetrators never spoke against the crimes they commit."According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
headoverheels 334 #57 March 29, 2007 http://www.pgmuseum.org/archives/exhibit/pledge~1.htm Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #58 March 29, 2007 QuoteSee, you're making it a microcosm, dissecting little bits. On the right you have: 1) Moral conservatives 2) Fiscal conservtaives 3) Both The moralists are more about 1 man, 1 woman, the fiscal righties are about screwing the poor out of benefits like health coverage and shifting teh governmental power to corporations. Either way, the theme is intollerance. What do you consider Libertarians, left or right? Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #59 March 29, 2007 QuoteWhat do you consider Libertarians, left or right? Libertarianism is about fiscal conservatism and social permissiveness. Sounds pretty good, but it's a political party term (like Democrat or Republican), not a mindset (like conservative or liberal). Socially, there are people of very social liberal mindset in all the parties (liberal = simply open to new ideas) and there are people of very social conservative mindset as well (simply have a desire to maintain certain status quo). But it's more fun to wallow in the Dem vs Rep false stereotypes and pat ourselves on the back with what each party SAYS they stand for. To answer your question, most people can't get out of the stereotype that left or right is defined by the social position they wish to FORCE (this is a key word here) on the rest of the population, so: 1 - a Libertarian would be considered 'neutral' socially as they don't want to force or pay for any social problems, but only to let people do as they will under their own resources 2 - social dems would be left as they want to force a leftist social viewpoint on the rest of us 3 - social reps would be right as they want to force a rightist social viewpoint on the rest of us 4 - special case - some extreme social reps and dems would want to force a reversion to an earlier state - that's actually liberal as it advocate being open to change. But most would call it hyper-conservative. doesn't matter, same thing, just dramatically different results from more typical socially liberal tendencies Most people aren't that socially radical as to really identify in either party, but they like to think they are. In fiscal definitions, "liberal" doesn't take on the social definitions, it's simpler, it just means "a lot", and conservative means "controlled", or "little". Reps and Dems are both fiscally liberal. What we need, is a socially neutral, and fiscally conservative party that is effective. And, to be fiscally conservative (thrifty), one might need to be liberal (open to new ideas) in how to manage money. But, I'll assume most people will wallow in the connotations that liberal = good, that buzz word social programs = good, and then come to the completely unrelated conclusion that this means their party is good and the other party is evil. ... 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
livendive 8 #60 March 29, 2007 Hey, I didn't ask you! I wanted the rabid people aligned with both sides of the aisle. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #61 March 29, 2007 QuoteQuoteSee, you're making it a microcosm, dissecting little bits. On the right you have: 1) Moral conservatives 2) Fiscal conservtaives 3) Both The moralists are more about 1 man, 1 woman, the fiscal righties are about screwing the poor out of benefits like health coverage and shifting teh governmental power to corporations. Either way, the theme is intollerance. What do you consider Libertarians, left or right? Blues, Dave What Rehwma said here: Libertarianism is about fiscal conservatism and social permissiveness. Sounds pretty good, but it's a political party term (like Democrat or Republican), not a mindset (like conservative or liberal). Socially, there are people of very social liberal mindset in all the parties (liberal = simply open to new ideas) and there are people of very social conservative mindset as well (simply have a desire to maintain certain status quo). I agree with that, some of the rest. The upside to Libers is that they are for less government control, something both main parties can't leave alone, and yes I said the Repubs too. The downside is that they have this this concept I call the majic wand approach to medical care. They want the church to get a cash grant from the gov, a small one, and take care of all ills. This is the biggest issue with governement by far and their fix is to ignore it and consider themselves efficient. Bush is n't far behind with his recent taxation of worker's medical benefits to dissuade workers from acceptong the benefits..... but we have a free market, right? If teh Libers would fix their inane take on Med care, they would have a lot going for them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #62 March 29, 2007 QuoteHey, I didn't ask you! I wanted the rabid people aligned with both sides of the aisle. Blues, Dave Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdweller 0 #63 March 30, 2007 I agree with you 100%. Keep in mind that that includes the freedom to say, or not say, what you choose. _________________________________________________________________________ 100%, really, Like yelling fire in a movie theater, or publicly threatening the life of the president. So it's ok to lie about someone and ruin there character because " "Keep in mind that that includes the freedom to say, or not say, what you choose." interesting....------------------------------------------------------ "From the mightiest pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?" C. Montgomery Burns Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
