Liberal is the new Communist

[yeahwho]

Gay is the new nigger. Meet the new boss same as the old boss. As much as I think things have changed, they haven't. The level of hate and prejudice by ignorant redneck assholes stays at the same setting, the target just rotates.

Is this what the new moral America is all about? One thing for sure, the rest of the world has fucking had it with USA ass backwards way of perception and really don't care that we are spending our dollar right out of the standard.

just sayin'

[cookiepuss]

well look on the bright side..McCarthyism hasn't resurfaced. We aren't holding trials to weed out the liberals..yet.

[Ace42]

well look on the bright side..McCarthyism hasn't resurfaced. We aren't holding trials to weed out the liberals..yet.

Patriot Act. Dissent is terrorism.

[Whois]

well look on the bright side..McCarthyism hasn't resurfaced. We aren't holding trials to weed out the liberals..yet.

UCMJ - Article 134

In the military they are...

[ASsman]

What liberals? Few.

[yeahwho]

What liberals? Few.

truedat. That is what makes our current climate so scary, it will be anybody and everybody at anytime and everyway that fits the sermon of the week. You must agree with the war You must agree with the right. You must agree with the hetrosex.

Real liberals, few and far between.

take Alabama (http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/news/1101896768316400.xml) for instance. The state that outlaws sextoys, they've come up with some forward thinking recently.

[Whois]

What liberals? Few.

Dissenters and liberals.

[yeahwho]

Whatever this new climate is.....it is not what a uniter creates, unless you can accept,

"rigid government control of peoples' private lives is the new liberty." And

"crushing debt is the new prosperity."

[Cashew]

"Once the communist now the terrorist"

God Flogging Molly is good band.

Anyway.

I agree totally, we are trying to start a liberal magazine at my highschool now, we are worried we won't have any support, living in the middle of nebraska. They get bible study (IN A FUCKING PUBLIC SCHOOL, IT IS SCHOOL SPONSORED) we should get our damn magazine!

[ASsman]

True that, but you don't need support.. That's the point you are suppose to be creating awareness.

[Cashew]

True that, but you don't need support.. That's the point you are suppose to be creating awareness.

Try publishing a magazine or even a pamphlet from your basement, it's not easy. School has a massive network and massive printers, we kinda need them.

[ASsman]

Hijack that shit, in the name of freedom. Well I meant public support, like the student body.. not school adminstrator support. Also you could try printing it old school.... By hand and so on... Believe me if you're resourceful you can accomplish anything.

[Cashew]

This crap weighs tons. Can't Hijack anything. School has security cameras. We are going to try are damndest, we have an attorney in the area (members father) willing to take them to the house of pain.

[ASsman]

E-Dissent.

[Cashew]

No one takes E-Dissent seriously, you of all people assman should know that.

[ASsman]

Wachutalkingbout. I talking about taking action. E-Revolution.

[Qdrop]

you funny little liberals..........

[Cashew]

you funny little liberals..........

Funny little consevatives, always starting wars and singling out groups of people to hate to further your own evil agendas.

[100% ILL]

Funny little consevatives, always starting wars and singling out groups of people to hate to further your own evil agendas.

The Vietnam conflict was started by a democrat. Disagreement is not hate.

[Qdrop]

Funny little consevatives, always starting wars and singling out groups of people to hate to further your own evil agendas.

i'm not a conservative.

progressive-mined, pragmatic rationalist, thank you.
i voted for kerry (so sick of saying that to people).


are you not a liberal?

[racer5.0stang]

Funny little consevatives, always starting wars and singling out groups of people to hate to further your own evil agendas.

Throught this entire thread has been talk a/b singling out groups (such as the bible study) obviously animosity there. So it is not just liberal or conservative people, it is everyone.

[yeahwho]

100%ILL, Disagreement is not hate

Legislating disagreement is. As is the case in Alabama above and many other instances of moral values being legally implicated upon the citizens. This is a country of free will, the idea behind the constitution is not to protect me from myself, it is to protect me from others who may harm me and my family. I disagree with alot of things, but unless these things are harming me or my family, I see no reason to turn it into a taxpayers burden by making up more laws.

Weed, gay books? WTF? I am still looking for the statistics on how my life is better by criminalizing marijuana? The war on drugs is actually a war on freedoms and our collective pocketbook, plus it creates criminals! It is not a solution, just a perpetuation and exploitation of a drug culture. Kids are now hardcore criminals. Thanks.

[Qdrop]

Legislating disagreement is. As is the case in Alabama above and many other instances of moral values being legally implicated upon the citizens. This is a country of free will, the idea behind the constitution is not to protect me from myself, it is to protect me from others who may harm me and my family. I disagree with alot of things, but unless these things are harming me or my family, I see no reason to turn it into a taxpayers burden by making up more laws.

Weed, gay books? WTF? I am still looking for the statistics on how my life is better by criminalizing marijuana? The war on drugs is actually a war on freedoms and our collective pocketbook, plus it creates criminals! It is not a solution, just a perpetuation and exploitation of a drug culture. Kids are now hardcore criminals. Thanks.

nice.
(y)

[100% ILL]

Legislating disagreement is. As is the case in Alabama above and many other instances of moral values being legally implicated upon the citizens. This is a country of free will, the idea behind the constitution is not to protect me from myself, it is to protect me from others who may harm me and my family. I disagree with alot of things, but unless these things are harming me or my family, I see no reason to turn it into a taxpayers burden by making up more laws.

Weed, gay books? WTF? I am still looking for the statistics on how my life is better by criminalizing marijuana? The war on drugs is actually a war on freedoms and our collective pocketbook, plus it creates criminals! It is not a solution, just a perpetuation and exploitation of a drug culture. Kids are now hardcore criminals. Thanks.

Yes you're right of course. I wish I could be inundated with more information about how "normal" it is to be homosexual. And drugs, nothing but positive things come from the sale and use of drugs to be sure. I can't see why on earth anyone should be opposed to them. :rolleyes:

[yeahwho]

Yes you're right of course. I wish I could be inundated with more information about how "normal" it is to be homosexual. And drugs, nothing but positive things come from the sale and use of drugs to be sure. I can't see why on earth anyone should be opposed to them. :rolleyes:

Your Morals. I do not drink or use drugs, I also don't give a shit if you do. I do not partake in the gay culture, I don't care if you do. I am free to do what I like and with my freedom comes responsibilities that I am intelligent enough to respect. Such as respecting other citizens rights to privacy and property.

[100% ILL]

Your Morals. I do not drink or use drugs, I also don't give a shit if you do. I do not partake in the gay culture, I don't care if you do. I am free to do what I like and with my freedom comes responsibilities I am intelligent enough to respect. Such as respecting other citizens rights to privacy and property.


That's my point, You Don't Care. But you don't like me because I do care.
As far as privacy rights are concerned, I'm all for privacy, but it's not private. The Gay rights agenda. I still don't comprehend. I don't have rights based on my heterosexuality. Why are they special or why do they require special legislation to be homosexual? They want to deviate from the "standard norm" and then make it appear the norm. They despise traditional values but want the right to enter into Holy Matrimony. Seems to me they want to force our culture to accept theirs. The term "alternate lifestyle" is laughable. What life can be continued on through the homosexual lifestyle? None
Next I suppose The Man Boy Love Association Of America will seek legislation to promote their alternate lifestyle and so on and so forth. But then again You Don't Care

[Schmeltz]

Perhaps you should explain, rationally and scientifically, with no hysteric slippery-slope bullshit or flowery Bible passages, what exactly is so abnormal about homosexuality. Maybe then people might take your radical right-wing agenda somewhat seriously. What you care about, obviously, is preserving the "standard norm" - or at least your version of it - at all costs, including the basic freedoms and dignity of others. It's not so much a matter of gay people forcing you to accept their culture, it's a matter of you forcing them to occupy the same low rung on the social ladder to which your close-minded ilk has subjected them since... well, since the advent of the great monotheistic religions, to put it bluntly.

[100% ILL]

Perhaps you should explain, rationally and scientifically, with no hysteric slippery-slope bullshit or flowery Bible passages, what exactly is so abnormal about homosexuality. Maybe then people might take your radical right-wing agenda somewhat seriously. What you care about, obviously, is preserving the "standard norm" - or at least your version of it - at all costs, including the basic freedoms and dignity of others. It's not so much a matter of gay people forcing you to accept their culture, it's a matter of you forcing them to occupy the same low rung on the social ladder to which your close-minded ilk has subjected them since... well, since the advent of the great monotheistic religions, to put it bluntly.

Explain my position without referencing The Bible from which I draw my position? That's not very fair now is it? I cannot debate you if you will not allow me that at least.......... low rung on the social ladder? They enjoy a high social status now and likewise in the past, Ancient Rome, Greece etc.

[Ace42]

I don't have rights based on my heterosexuality.

Except you do. There are plenty of laws governing sexual conduct between male and females that do not apply to same-sex relationships. For example, in the UK, long-term sexual partners are (after a set period has elapsed uninterupted) given the status of "Common-law spouse" with no ceremony necessary. This is not afforded to same-sex relationships. Not being an American lawyer, I cannot specify the particulars for you, but there are rights afforded to you and a partner of your choice which are not afforded to homosexual's partners. An obvious example is marriage and the legal rights it affords.

By being a heterosexual, you have the right to get married, and thus benefit from tax and legal advantages. Homosexuals do not have this same right. If your sexuality was "celebate" you would not have these rights affordable to a purely platonic companion, thus it can be seen to be strictly heterosexual.

Why are they special or why do they require special legislation to be homosexual?

Because current legislation excludes them. They are special in that the law unfairly singles them out. To deny them the right to marry is like denying inter-racial couples the right to marry "because it deviates from the standard norm." - Well yes, inter-racial marriage at one point was unheard of.

They want to deviate from the "standard norm" and then make it appear the norm. They despise traditional values but want the right to enter into Holy Matrimony.

Many just wanted the right to enter *CIVIL* matrimony, and wanted nothing to do with churches which descriminated against them. And what "traditional values" do they despise? Let me guess, all gays are thieves, right? And they are all promiscuous rapists, yeah?

Or maybe they just despise the "tradional values" which unjustly persecute them? Well how unreasonable of them...

Seems to me they want to force our culture to accept theirs.

Yeah goddamn niggers with their hiphop. Oh wait, we are talking about homosexuals... Sorry, couldn't tell from the rhetoric.

The term "alternate lifestyle" is laughable. What life can be continued on through the homosexual lifestyle? None

By that argument, infertile couples should be banned from marriage. Anyone who is infertile or simply *doesn't want children* should be socially ostracised and persecuted.

And of course, by "lifestyle" they mean THE LIFE THEY LIVE. Not "the life they create by having sex with a woman."

Next I suppose The Man Boy Love Association Of America will seek legislation to promote their alternate lifestyle and so on and so forth. But then again You Don't Care

And we can't have fellatio, anal sex, bondage, sex-toys, or any number of other "alternate" sexual activities either.

Anything other than miserable face-down silent missionary position (hopefully praying for forgiveness all the way through, and with genitals rendered paralysed by numbing agents to prevent any possible pleasure gleaned from a purely utilitarian act) strictly for the purposes of conception is a SIN!

[phinkasaurus]

Explain my position without referencing The Bible from which I draw my position?

so the bible is why homosexual people should not be allowed to marry, givng them all the inheritance rights and tax rights of married hetero couples? And the bilble is the word of your god, rihgt? so your god says homsexual couples should not marry? so you are legislating from your religious stance? so religion and state are not seperated?

100%ILL, in Denmark homosexuals have been legally able to get maried since 1989. The divorce rate there is only 17 percent for homosexuals, compared to 46 percent for heterosexuals. (from yahoo! health (http://health.yahoo.com/health/centers/relationships/920))

[100% ILL]

Your attempt to minimize my argument as rhetoric and blatant racism is ridiculous. Especially the nigger hip-hop reference. My views are based on Biblical principles and are in no way hate based. Also sexual positions ect. are fine, but I realize you were mocking me with the asking forgiveness the whole while comment.
Also I don't think there should be a common law marriage simply because two people live together and do not commit legally, I personally am opposed to that as well. I stand by my convictions based on Biblical principle. We are to love all people, but that does not mean condone inappropriate behavior. I love my son, but I correct him for misbehavior. Just because I do not agree with the behavior does not mean that I cease to love him. And such is the case in my view of homosexuality

[Ace42]

My views are based on Biblical principles and are in no way hate based.

"My views are based on the principles in Mein Kamph, and are not hate based" - a neo Nazi.

Basing your opinion on a book doesn't justify it to anyone but people who already accept your interpretation of said book.

I stand by my convictions based on Biblical principle.

Well I am sure that Buddhists, Hindus, Moslems, Taoists, Jews, Pagans, etc are all relieved to here that.

I mean, it is obvious that they should all live their lives by YOUR principles. I mean, whose elses would be sufficient? Certainly not heathens'!

Surely you can see it is hypocritical to expect civil law to be based on your religion and not theirs?

[yeahwho]

I love my son, but I correct him for misbehavior

Just curious, Is Dick Cheney a bad father in your opinion?

[100% ILL]

Just curious, Is Dick Cheney a bad father in your opinion?

I don't know enough about him or his skills as a father to formulate an opinion.

[100% ILL]

"My views are based on the principles in Mein Kamph, and are not hate based" - a neo Nazi.

Basing your opinion on a book doesn't justify it to anyone but people who already accept your interpretation of said book.


Well I am sure that Buddhists, Hindus, Moslems, Taoists, Jews, Pagans, etc are all relieved to here that.

I mean, it is obvious that they should all live their lives by YOUR principles. I mean, whose elses would be sufficient? Certainly not heathens'!

Surely you can see it is hypocritical to expect civil law to be based on your religion and not theirs?

Comparing the Bible to Hitler's book is depressing at best. Of course I knew you would disagree with me, but I must contend they are not My principles. They are God's principles I simply follow them.
Your comparison of the Bible to Mein Kamph to me is like saying that milk is just excrement from a cow and therefore no different from the urine or saliva.
But in reality one is good for consumption and beneficial to the body and the other not.

[Ace42]

They are God's principles I simply follow them.

Unless you belong to a different religion, in which case they are lies and heresy, and thus totally worthless in debate, QED.

[racer5.0stang]

False religions are started because people were told the truth and didn't like some of it or all of it and then decided to start their own.

[Qdrop]

T-minus 10 posts till Ace puts 100% ILL on his Ignore list......

[racer5.0stang]

T-minus 10 posts till Ace puts 100% ILL on his Ignore list......

Now that isn't fair :D

[yeahwho]

Your attempt to minimize my argument as rhetoric and blatant racism is ridiculous. Especially the nigger hip-hop reference. My views are based on Biblical principles and are in no way hate based. Also sexual positions ect. are fine, but I realize you were mocking me with the asking forgiveness the whole while comment.
Also I don't think there should be a common law marriage simply because two people live together and do not commit legally, I personally am opposed to that as well. I stand by my convictions based on Biblical principle. We are to love all people, but that does not mean condone inappropriate behavior. I love my son, but I correct him for misbehavior. Just because I do not agree with the behavior does not mean that I cease to love him. And such is the case in my view of homosexuality

So you do know Mary Cheney is a lesbian. Now from what I gather, your God deems lesbianism as inappropriate behavior. So if the parents of Mary Cheney are raising their child in a moral upright Christian values fashion, how did she learn this inappropriate behavior? Shouldn't she be condemned rather than accepted? Or, worse, is the daughter of Vice President of the USA, handpicked by self admitted Born Again Christian GWB a fucking sinner? Out in the open for all to see! :eek:

[Schmeltz]

Explain my position without referencing The Bible from which I draw my position?


Ah, so you draw your opinion from a religious text instead of principles of logic or reason. And you seriously think that your personal interpretation of a religious text should form the basis of legislation that denies rights to other people? Surely you must see why this is unacceptable in a free society. It's all well and good for you to form your convictions based on Biblical principles - I'm sure they have made you a fine person - but asking an entire society to formulate its norms based on your private religious beliefs, as opposed to empirical principles of freedom, is absolutely ridiculous.


They enjoy a high social status now and likewise in the past, Ancient Rome, Greece etc.


What the... this is so absolutely mind-boggling I hardly know where to begin addressing it. How can you claim that homosexuals "enjoy a high social status" when your country won't even permit them the same rights as other people? When there is serious consideration of a Constutional amendment to restrict their freedoms? What, gay people get to hold a parade once a year so this makes up for the widespread denigration and descrimination against them that permeates Western culture?

In the Classical world homosexuality was looked on as completely normal and was in no wise a factor in the moral character of a human being. The very fact that we are having this discussion proves that this is no longer the case - in large part thanks to your non-hate-based Biblical principles.

[D_Raay]

What the... this is so absolutely mind-boggling I hardly know where to begin addressing it. How can you claim that homosexuals "enjoy a high social status" when your country won't even permit them the same rights as other people? When there is serious consideration of a Constutional amendment to restrict their freedoms? What, gay people get to hold a parade once a year so this makes up for the widespread denigration and descrimination against them that permeates Western culture?

In the Classical world homosexuality was looked on as completely normal and was in no wise a factor in the moral character of a human being. The very fact that we are having this discussion proves that this is no longer the case - in large part thanks to your non-hate-based Biblical principles.
(y) (y)

[100% ILL]

So you do know Mary Cheney is a lesbian. Now from what I gather, your God deems lesbianism as inappropriate behavior. So if the parents of Mary Cheney are raising their child in a moral upright Christian values fashion, how did she learn this inappropriate behavior? Shouldn't she be condemned rather than accepted? Or, worse, is the daughter of Vice President of the USA, handpicked by self admitted Born Again Christian GWB a fucking sinner? Out in the open for all to see! :eek:

Let's see....To my knowledge Dick Cheney is not a believer, and besides that even if he was how can you hold him responsible for a choice he didn't make? If every child that was raised up in a Christian home continued to abide by christian beliefs that would be wonderful, but as you are aware children often rebel against what their parents teach them. Should the person be condemned? I condemn no one, it is not my place to condemn them. I simply will not agree with or condone the behavior.
Romans 1:26-28
For this cause God gave them up to vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another;...........And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind.
And we are all sinners, wether we are born again or not
Romans 3:10
As it is written there is none righteous, no, not one.

[100% ILL]

Ah, so you draw your opinion from a religious text instead of principles of logic or reason. And you seriously think that your personal interpretation of a religious text should form the basis of legislation that denies rights to other people? Surely you must see why this is unacceptable in a free society. It's all well and good for you to form your convictions based on Biblical principles - I'm sure they have made you a fine person - but asking an entire society to formulate its norms based on your private religious beliefs, as opposed to empirical principles of freedom, is absolutely ridiculous.


In the Classical world homosexuality was looked on as completely normal and was in no wise a factor in the moral character of a human being. The very fact that we are having this discussion proves that this is no longer the case - in large part thanks to your non-hate-based Biblical principles.

Principles of logic and reason? Personal interpretation of a religious text? How do you arrive at your conclusions? reasonable according to what? Logic dereived from what?
II Peter 1:20
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
II Timothy 4:3
For the time will come when they will ot endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers having itching ears; And shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned to fables.
There is not hate there. There is a right and wrong and of course if you choose to do wrong, you will naturally hate those that do right.

II Timothy 3:12-13 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived.
But then this is not logical to you because it is not a worldly learned principle or doctrine. Only the Socially accepted subjects of the day are valid, but I digress

[yeahwho]

Let's see....To my knowledge Dick Cheney is not a believer, and besides that even if he was how can you hold him responsible for a choice he didn't make? If every child that was raised up in a Christian home continued to abide by christian beliefs that would be wonderful, but as you are aware children often rebel against what their parents teach them. Should the person be condemned? I condemn no one, it is not my place to condemn them. I simply will not agree with or condone the behavior.
Romans 1:26-28
For this cause God gave them up to vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another;...........And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind.
And we are all sinners, wether we are born again or not
Romans 3:10
As it is written there is none righteous, no, not one.

Quoting scripture doesn't mean jackshit to me. You may never accept the fact that two humans love one another, be it man to man or woman to woman....in the legal sense, but it is going to happen. Gays will be legally married in this country. Just like Blacks were freed from slavery, votes were given to woman and everybody drinks from the same water fountain in Selma.

The overwhelming majority of gays just want equality, then they would like to be left alone. You on the other hand will continue to quote scripture to people who really would rather see an example of love than a series of quotes.

Chicken Little will once again find the sky really isn't falling, until the next stupid fucked up hate mongering distraction comes along.

[Schmeltz]

Logic and reason aren't derived from anything, they are natural thought processes possessed by all human beings. Your scriptural quotations are not logical or rational because they are derived from absolutist faith-based thinking that does not allow for progressive reasoning. You are attempting to define morality - and the legislation that enforces it - on the basis of a monolithic, static text whose only grounds for support is your private conviction that it is the truth, an assertion that flies in the face of modern knowledge.

It's all well and good for you to be a Christian; all the best with that. But your personal religious beliefs do not constitute a valid basis for the definition of morality or legislation. These things, in a free society, must be defined on the basis of empirical, rational principles that best allow for the dispensation of freedom and human rights to all, irrespective of whatever antiquated prejudices are found in anybody's faith-based texts.

[Ace42]

Precisely.

[100% ILL]

Quoting scripture doesn't mean jackshit to me. You may never accept the fact that two humans love one another, be it man to man or woman to woman....in the legal sense, but it is going to happen. Gays will be legally married in this country. Just like Blacks were freed from slavery, votes were given to woman and everybody drinks from the same water fountain in Selma.

The overwhelming majority of gays just want equality, then they would like to be left alone. You on the other hand will continue to quote scripture to people who really would rather see an example of love than a series of quotes.

Chicken Little will once again find the sky really isn't falling, until the next stupid fucked up hate mongering distraction comes along.

The only one of us who seems to be angry or hateful here is you sir. And again comparing homosexuality to racial inequality, or women's sufferage does not jibe. I have no doubt that eventually homosexuals will win the fight for marriage, the majority of people seem to be behind them or will be soon. That does not change the fact that it is wrong. I have no doubt that social morals will continue to decline. That does not mean I will abandon my convictions to suit them.

[Ace42]

That does not change the fact that it is wrong.

According to you and your book. I have a book that says otherwise. I guess that makes you "wrong."

And you can't argue against it, because according to you, simply choosing to believe something to be the case is adequet basis for denying people rights that are afforded to everyone else.

[Schmeltz]

It seems that if homosexuality was factually wrong or immoral, you'd be able to support that claim with something besides a two-thousand year old religious text. Where's the logical, empirical evidence for the immorality of homosexuality? A Biblical definition of morality simply isn't going to wash just because you want it to, man. The world's moved on since St. Paul died.

[100% ILL]

It seems that if homosexuality was factually wrong or immoral, you'd be able to support that claim with something besides a two-thousand year old religious text. Where's the logical, empirical evidence for the immorality of homosexuality? A Biblical definition of morality simply isn't going to wash just because you want it to, man. The world's moved on since St. Paul died.

In a sense things are much the same as they were in Paul's day or I dare say as far back as Noah's day for that matter. In Paul's day homosexuality was common practice,sexual promiscuity was the norm also. And in the cities of Rome and Corinth were art and culture were abundant and the philosophers of the day, the Epicureans and the Stoicks, often talked with Paul and ridiculed him for his beliefs. So no really not much has changed, except of course they eventually killed Paul, and so far society hasn't gotten to the point where they persecute christians now like they did back in Paul's day. But that too will probably occur again, it's not all that unfathomable.
But the same Jesus that Paul preached is the same Jesus I believe in and He is alive and well.

[yeahwho]

The only one of us who seems to be angry or hateful here is you sir. And again comparing homosexuality to racial inequality, or women's sufferage does not jibe. I have no doubt that eventually homosexuals will win the fight for marriage, the majority of people seem to be behind them or will be soon. That does not change the fact that it is wrong. I have no doubt that social morals will continue to decline. That does not mean I will abandon my convictions to suit them.

And your intolerence of human love qualifies you to be the judge of who seems angry and hateful? I haven't expressed any anger in my responses to your condoning of Gay Marriage/behaviour. I do not believe you and I agree on this topic, or on Jesus, or on how the Gospel is spread. I have no quarrels with you on a personal level and I respect your opinion, just don't try and get the goverment to tell me what is right or wrong through your religion.

[100% ILL]

And your intolerence of human love qualifies you to be the judge of who seems angry and hateful? I haven't expressed any anger in my responses to your condoning of Gay Marriage/behaviour. I do not believe you and I agree on this topic, or on Jesus, or on how the Gospel is spread. I have no quarrels with you on a personal level and I respect your opinion, just don't try and get the goverment to tell me what is right or wrong through your religion.

Again I ask you when is it not okay to love? Or condone some gross interpretation of love? Some people love animals and have sex with them, do you condone that? Would you support legislation that would allow a man to marry a dog? What about pedophiles? They often claim to love the children they molest. What if they wanted government approval would you support that? All I'm saying is just because someone calls it love doesn't mean it is.

[Ace42]

What about pedophiles? They often claim to love the children they molest. What if they wanted government approval would you support that? All I'm saying is just because someone calls it love doesn't mean it is.

Funny you bring that up. In Judea at the time of Jesus, people we would consider "young children" were often married off, and Jesus did not say a word against it if I am not mistaken.

If anything, legislating against pedophillia is moving away from the "tradional values" you seem to enshrine.

[Schmeltz]

Yeah, so I'm still waiting for you to provide some empirical evidence for the immorality of homosexuality, 100%Ill, although given your implicit reference to Noah as a real person and your nutball assertion that someday secular humanists are going to start killing Christians I'm starting to think you don't have much use for reason anyway.

But simply in order to further the debate: we can define love as a consenting practice between mature people, with age as a general hallmark for a definition of maturity. Obviously pedophilia doesn't enter into that equation, nor does bestiality. You see, there are perfectly reasonable, empirical compromises through which morality and legislation can be defined, none of which involve the totally asinine slippery slope you've idiotically laid down for us.

So let's have something that isn't just a dogmatic religious opinion, because it won't wash in a free society. Come on. Something. Anything.

[100% ILL]

Up until the late nineteenth century in America it was common for 14yr old girls to be married off. In Jesus' time men weren't adults until they were 30 but they took younger wives. Jesus mother was commonly believed to be around sixteen at the time of his conception, Joseph her husband was most likely much older as there is no mention of him at the time of Jesus' crucifixtion so he was most likely dead. Which would explain why Jesus told James to look after his mother.

[Qdrop]

Getting back to the thread topic...

you wanna know why "Liberal has become the new communism"?

it's because of the fringe liberal left (who make up much of this board).

You fringe, far left liberals, who hate your own country, and those foreign Liberals who hate it more.

you are a small minority...yet you get much of the press and color the word "liberal" a dirty shit brown.

and this last election, you rept the rewards for it.

and Independants like me get fucked for it.......

brilliant.

sometimes i actually fear the far left more than the far right....
then i realize the bulk of the far left will never do anymore than type on message boards like this.....particularly the younger generation.
lotsa talk.....very little action.
this past election showed that.

[Schmeltz]

Actually, I'd say it's because public discourse has been hijacked by the extreme right, such that any kind of dissent from anybody to the left is considered tantamount to treason and hating one's country. You criticize American foreign policy failures? That means you hate America and everything about it. This showed up in the election, where Bush won by playing up the fears and insecurities of Americans: the very fact that he was fighting overshadowed the actual nature of the fight, such that Americans voted for the principe of action rather than its quality.

You have to laugh. If only the liberals were more like conservatives! Then everything would be so much better.

[yeahwho]

Getting back to the thread topic...

you wanna know why "Liberal has become the new communism"?

it's because of the fringe liberal left (who make up much of this board).

You fringe, far left liberals, who hate your own country, and those foreign Liberals who hate it more.



I voted for Kerry, I'm about as liberal as Phillips Petroleum. I will not try and define anybody else on this board as far as their political leanings. IQ wise, all but a few are smart enough to know Bush is up to no good.

[Qdrop]

You have to laugh. If only the liberals were more like conservatives! Then everything would be so much better.

on this point, we have common ground.


although i would blame much of the media in general for giving voice to the far left liberals (like those on this board) and letting it color the entire liberal cause.
tis a shame.

i suppose the same could be said for the right.

[100% ILL]

Yeah, so I'm still waiting for you to provide some empirical evidence for the immorality of homosexuality, 100%Ill, although given your implicit reference to Noah as a real person and your nutball assertion that someday secular humanists are going to start killing Christians I'm starting to think you don't have much use for reason anyway.

But simply in order to further the debate: we can define love as a consenting practice between mature people, with age as a general hallmark for a definition of maturity. Obviously pedophilia doesn't enter into that equation, nor does bestiality. You see, there are perfectly reasonable, empirical compromises through which morality and legislation can be defined, none of which involve the totally asinine slippery slope you've idiotically laid down for us.

So let's have something that isn't just a dogmatic religious opinion, because it won't wash in a free society. Come on. Something. Anything.
Just because you disagree with my belief in the Bible and it's principles doesn't mean it is worthless. It is simply worthless to you. I will never be able to satisfy your requirements for proof because you have already drawn the conclusion that the Bible is not true and therefore is of no value in decision making processes. If I were to use another source that was contrary to my belief structure thus redering my argument invalid. So I believe that it is safe to conclude that we disagree. And based on your last post you will go on thinking that I am a nutball with the inability to reason. Sure human reason says if the two people are adults and consenting and their behavior ins't harming anyone then it's ok. I understand that. It's not always easy to have the position I have because I know that people will disagree with me and think I'm narrow minded, however it's much like discussing life with someone who's dead. I am talking in the spiritual sense. God is a Spirit and when you accept him into your heart and life it changes you in a way that people who don't know him cannot understand. So I suppose that in the sense that you see in I'm a nutball with no ability to reason.

For the wisdom of this world is folishness with God.
I Corinthians 3:19

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: For they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them , because they are spiritually discerned.
I Corinthians 2:14

[Qdrop]

I voted for Kerry, I'm about as liberal as Phillips Petroleum. I will not try and define anybody else on this board as far as their political leanings. IQ wise, all but a few are smart enough to know Bush is up to no good.

i voted for kerry too.....yet half these fuckers call me a bush-supporting neo-con.

i think most are well aware of bush's failures....at least on this board.

i think even those that voted for him did as well.

yet, because many of the far lefties (who make up much of this board) are given voice on mainstream media.....like michael moore, noam chomsky, ect.....
much of america was galvanized against the left...and therefore against kerry.
they figured a vote for kerry was a vote for "those liberals".

well done, you fringies.........
now here we sit.....under the rule of Bush for 4 more years.....

[yeahwho]

Just because you disagree with my belief in the Bible and it's principles doesn't mean it is worthless. It is simply worthless to you. I will never be able to satisfy your requirements for proof because you have already drawn the conclusion that the Bible is not true and therefore is of no value in decision making processes.


Honestly, I don't think engaging people in a debate over their core beliefs is going to get you anywhere. It reminds me of this story (http://www.freep.com/news/cfp/3/vshoot28_20041028.htm)*. People, fundamentally speaking, do not change that easily.

[phinkasaurus]

although i would blame much of the media in general for giving voice to the far left liberals (like those on this board) and letting it color the entire liberal cause.
tis a shame.
i suppose the same could be said for the right.


the media should be blamed for giving a voice to the people?
doesn't that sound a little like a facist or totalitarian complaint?
and I wish the media gave a voice to the far left... Where did you see this? All the major networks, all the cable news channels, short of having Moore on, really said nothing about how pertinent war issues, such as is this for oil? or did our foriegn poilcies bring this about?
Did anyone else see the report released by the advisory board to the DOD? It was linked on this board! It was huge condemnation of the DOD and this war, and where is that in the media?

[phinkasaurus]

noam chomsky....
please point to a main stream media source in THE U.S.A. that hand Chomsky on. I really must have missed it.

please.

[100% ILL]

Honestly, I don't think engaging people in a debate over their core beliefs is going to get you anywhere. It reminds me of this story (http://www.freep.com/news/cfp/3/vshoot28_20041028.htm)*. People, fundamentally speaking, do not change that easily.

I can see your point. That story was horrible by the way. I doubt he truly was a follower of God.

Not every one that saith unto me Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kindom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven,
Matthew 7:21

[Qdrop]

it just seems to me that people look at the right as a bunch of "hannity's, coulters, and Limbaughs...even Fallwell's" and the left as a bunch of "Moore's and Chomsky's".

why do the fringes get the notoriaty?
both sides basically call the other out as being radical (and that the fringe represents the majority) and color the whole side and party accordingly.

so this election came down to "bible thumping, flag waiving, conservative value, money lovers" vs "america hating, flag burning, peaceknick, ideologists"

when it comes down to it.....which of those do you think the swing voters would vote for?

no wonder Bush won.

[Qdrop]

please point to a main stream media source in THE U.S.A. that hand Chomsky on. I really must have missed it.

please.

Real time with Bill Maher did last week. or is that too "cable" for you?

you can do a google search pretty easy to see all of the apprearances Chomsky has made in the media circle.....and many like him with similar views.

[yeahwho]

yet, because many of the far lefties (who make up much of this board) are given voice on mainstream media.....like michael moore, noam chomsky, ect.....
much of america was galvanized against the left...and therefore against kerry.
they figured a vote for kerry was a vote for "those liberals".

You know I find it funny that a guy like Michael Moore is considered a far left liberal. He is concerned about jobs in America, Guns in schools and GWB's middle east connections. That is far left? Noam is the result of what happens if you set your remote control down and really engage in thought.

The Bush administration is all about Global Cheap Labor. Eventually this will become all too apparent to anyone with an IQ above 60.

[100% ILL]

You know I find it funny that a guy like Michael Moore is considered a far left liberal. He is concerned about jobs in America, Guns in schools and GWB's middle east connections. That is far left? Noam is the result of what happens if you set your remote control down and really engage in thought.

The Bush administration is all about Global Cheap Labor. Eventually this will become all too apparent to anyone with an IQ above 60.

I thought the Bush adminisration was all about Imperialism and genocide.

[phinkasaurus]

Real time with Bill Maher did last week. or is that too "cable" for you?
that' not a news program or a policy shaping program or a show that people turn to in order to hear what's going on in the world. It's a round table discussion show, a great one, but not one that informs the public (what's HBO's ratings share for that one hour slot?)

you can do a google search pretty easy to see all of the apprearances Chomsky has made in the media circle.....and many like him with similar views
you know I did, and everything was colleges or indy web zines or the CBC. funny, nothing on CBS or ABC or NBC or CNN or FOX or MSNBC.... wow.
Chomsky though has said why he never gets on these news programs, and yeahwho touched on it, he's not a sound byte guest. everything is not black and white with him, he knows the intricacies of issues and can expound on them, he doesn't however speak quick easily condensed rhetoric.

Qdrop, do you consider yourself a "liberal?" and if so, why does it matter what people think of you for it? aren't you only keeping with your beliefs?


*for the record, I don't consider you a liberal, based on your posts here alone.

[Qdrop]

You know I find it funny that a guy like Michael Moore is considered a far left liberal. He is concerned about jobs in America, Guns in schools and GWB's middle east connections. That is far left?

when you say it like that, no...he seems like a rational human being.
but we both know his stances go far beyond that.
he has an axe to grind.
but yes, there are farther left than him....
like...


Noam is the result of what happens if you set your remote control down and really engage in thought.

there is much more to Chomsky then meets your mind.
he uses alot of smoke and mirrors......
as does the far right.


The Bush administration is all about Global Cheap Labor. Eventually this will become all too apparent to anyone with an IQ above 60.
not gonna argue with you on that.
spot on.

i'm out for the weekend......
peace.
(oh, the irony)

[yeahwho]

I thought the Bush adminisration was all about Imperialism and genocide.

Now, now, now....I'm talking about the end result not the recipe.....it's sposed to be hush hush, like the Colonel's secret blend original recipe. Cheap labor is not always easy to cook up. It takes many ingredients to get the cauldron simmering. Throw in a tax break for the witnesses, a little fear, some war, a pinch of international alienation...before you know it, you've made quite a tidy profit!

[Qdrop]

Qdrop, do you consider yourself a "liberal?" and if so, why does it matter what people think of you for it? aren't you only keeping with your beliefs?


*for the record, I don't consider you a liberal, based on your posts here alone.

no, i don't consider myself a liberal...in as far as the term is used now, and who it describes.

i consider myself a independant, progressive, rational, pragmatist.
period.

parties are for the weak.

[phinkasaurus]

there is much more to Chomsky then meets your mind.
he uses alot of smoke and mirrors......

you are going to have to back that up, man.
please give me some of his "smoke and mirrors"


and have a good weekend.

[ASsman]

The Gay rights agenda. I still don't comprehend. I don't have rights based on my heterosexuality. Why are they special or why do they require special legislation to be homosexual?
Like them niggers, I don't have rights or "special legislation" on my behalf why should black people.

False religions are started because people were told the truth and didn't like some of it or all of it and then decided to start their own.
So you are a Jew?

he uses alot of smoke and mirrors......
He means big words.. etc.

[Paul Nice]

Hey look - a post about how GWB or America sucks. How suprising and original.

[ASsman]

This message is hidden because Paul Nice is on your ignore list.
Much, much better.

[Whois]

Much, much better.

Paul is just spamming the same message over and over...nothing new.

[ima_zombie]

What liberals? Few.

well they all live in D.C. and Maryland. They're real bad drivers to. I see so Kerry stickers, and it's like BOOM bad driver. I almost got hit by one too. Crazy Bastards.
hahahha

[checkyourprez]

it just seems like the "southern strategy"(kevin phillips on nixons campange) works so well for conservatives and repulicans when running for office.

it worked for nixon regan and W too.


to get people like <100% WILL> to identify with social issues and get votes like they currently do, instead of what is really good for people. they get votes bc people think homosexuality is wrong, instead of caring about how bush lied, started a hokey war, and many other shady activites.


with Nixon they made it look like blacks were getting more than whites when in reality they were just catching up and becoming equal. and now homosexuals are just trying to gain those equal rights, not special rights.

the manipulation of these people by playing to their deep convictions seems to have the same effect then as now. conservatives winning elections on shit promises and patriotism instead of humanitaritism

[D_Raay]

you are going to have to back that up, man.
please give me some of his "smoke and mirrors"


and have a good weekend.
I am waiting patiently as well for this response Q....
And please Q, I implore you, stop lumping Chomsky in with Moore. It cheapens your arguments for those who know of Chomsky's work.

[Qdrop]

I am waiting patiently as well for this response Q....
And please Q, I implore you, stop lumping Chomsky in with Moore. It cheapens your arguments for those who know of Chomsky's work.

God! *Napleon Dynomite voice*

so i really gotta go pull up dozens of his statistics and interpretations of documents from his books and show you how they can be/were manipulated to support his views and misinterpreted for the same reason?

man...i do have a job, and a life.

look, take these 2 books: "Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics"....and "Year 501",
cross referance.....
it will open your eyes.


does Chomskey have it all wrong?....No.
Is he brutally bias?.....yes.


Here (http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/21/may03/chomsky.htm)
this will point out some of the issues i have with Chomsky. Now is THIS article infallable?....no, of course not.
but it will give you a differant point of view on your beloved liberal leader.

the main point of the article:
"Chomsky has declared himself a libertarian and anarchist but has defended some of the most authoritarian and murderous regimes in human history. His political philosophy is purportedly based on empowering the oppressed and toiling masses but he has contempt for ordinary people who he regards as ignorant dupes of the privileged and the powerful. He has defined the responsibility of the intellectual as the pursuit of truth and the exposure of lies, but has supported the regimes he admires by suppressing the truth and perpetrating falsehoods. He has endorsed universal moral principles but has only applied them to Western liberal democracies, while continuing to rationalize the crimes of his own political favorites. He is a mandarin who denounces mandarins. When caught out making culpably irresponsible misjudgments, as he was over Cambodia and Sudan, he has never admitted he was wrong. "

Noam is 5 times the intellectual that Moore is.......and Moore is much more of a sensationalist.
but both of these men are self-serving and hypocritical in there stances.
as are many on the right.