Conservative identification question

[The Rabbi]

Your post stated that libs are committed to a "a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends."


I just asked for a nice big example.

Soooooooo?

I answered your question. I am not going to legitimize your agenda...

I have a hard time understanding people being so boastful of a philosophy based on FEAR...

No, you didn't answer the question. And through your failure to do so, you conceded to their points.

But, I want you to know that I can see that you did the very best you could, such as it was.

Opps, I missed his reply.

So, BFGRN.

Nothing in my question, ie asking for an example, would imply that you agreed with or "legitimized" my agenda just because you would give an example of something you would "allow" us cons to do.


But the piece your quoted claimed you libs would allow us to "pursue different ends".


But you are unable to give an example of that.

That strongly indicates that the man you quoted was wrong.

Did he give any examples in the article you quoted?

I admit I did not read the entire thing.

As a liberal who believes in liberty, I will quote a sentiment I strongly believe...

'You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours.' You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then, you can stand up and sing about the land of the free.

Yeah tell us all about it

 

[The Rabbi]

They were all republicans until that name became an embarrassment, and then they were tea party.....same thing happened. Now they use a wide range of names to identify themselves. The fact is, if you put them all in a sack and shook them up, it would be impossible to separate them into their chosen groups. They are all the same, no matter what they want you to call them.

If be embarrassed to be you. You support baby killing.

"Kill them all and let God sort it out" was a battle cry of right wing haters. I would be ashamed to be a Republican and support killing entire nations.

It was a democrat that nuked Japan.

"who"

- not "that".

Note: "who" refers to human beings, while "that" refers to inanimate objects.

Ever consider an English language course? It could be fun!

You lecturing anyone on English or any other language is hilarious.

 

[Statistikhengst]

They were all republicans until that name became an embarrassment, and then they were tea party.....same thing happened. Now they use a wide range of names to identify themselves. The fact is, if you put them all in a sack and shook them up, it would be impossible to separate them into their chosen groups. They are all the same, no matter what they want you to call them.

If be embarrassed to be you. You support baby killing.

"Kill them all and let God sort it out" was a battle cry of right wing haters. I would be ashamed to be a Republican and support killing entire nations.

It was a democrat that nuked Japan.

"who"

- not "that".

Note: "who" refers to human beings, while "that" refers to inanimate objects.

Ever consider an English language course? It could be fun!

You lecturing anyone on English or any other language is hilarious.

Hey, little puppy-dog, are you enjoying following me around?

Now, roll over and let us scratch your belly.

Good boy.

Can you also play dead?!?! Fetch?? Bring me the newspaper?

 

[Oldstyle]

They were all republicans until that name became an embarrassment, and then they were tea party.....same thing happened. Now they use a wide range of names to identify themselves. The fact is, if you put them all in a sack and shook them up, it would be impossible to separate them into their chosen groups. They are all the same, no matter what they want you to call them.

The ignorance of that statement is amusing, Bulldog! I'm a Republican. I'm an agnostic. I'm also pro-choice. I'm also in favor of some stricter gun control laws. I also have zero problem with same sex marriage. So if you put me in a "sack" and shake me up...I'm going to be the same as a born again evangelical? That's about as stupid a statement as I've heard here in a long time.

As for people running from names? I've been proud to label myself as a conservative and a Republican for the better part of forty years. Neither of those things have been relabeled. On the other hand...you on the left used to call yourselves "liberals"...then that term became toxic so you changed to "progressives". So spare me the blather about changing names over "embarrassment"! Try and get someone on this board to identify themselves as a liberal or a progressive...the majority of you claim that you're moderates. So who's REALLY embarrassed?

Nope.Democrat the first time I voted, and democrat still.

Do you self identify as a "liberal" or a "progressive", Bulldog?

 

[BULLDOG]

They were all republicans until that name became an embarrassment, and then they were tea party.....same thing happened. Now they use a wide range of names to identify themselves. The fact is, if you put them all in a sack and shook them up, it would be impossible to separate them into their chosen groups. They are all the same, no matter what they want you to call them.

The ignorance of that statement is amusing, Bulldog! I'm a Republican. I'm an agnostic. I'm also pro-choice. I'm also in favor of some stricter gun control laws. I also have zero problem with same sex marriage. So if you put me in a "sack" and shake me up...I'm going to be the same as a born again evangelical? That's about as stupid a statement as I've heard here in a long time.

As for people running from names? I've been proud to label myself as a conservative and a Republican for the better part of forty years. Neither of those things have been relabeled. On the other hand...you on the left used to call yourselves "liberals"...then that term became toxic so you changed to "progressives". So spare me the blather about changing names over "embarrassment"! Try and get someone on this board to identify themselves as a liberal or a progressive...the majority of you claim that you're moderates. So who's REALLY embarrassed?

Nope.Democrat the first time I voted, and democrat still.

Do you self identify as a "liberal" or a "progressive", Bulldog?

I'm a liberal Democrat. Always have been. The terms are interchangeable.

 

[Oldstyle]

They were all republicans until that name became an embarrassment, and then they were tea party.....same thing happened. Now they use a wide range of names to identify themselves. The fact is, if you put them all in a sack and shook them up, it would be impossible to separate them into their chosen groups. They are all the same, no matter what they want you to call them.

The ignorance of that statement is amusing, Bulldog! I'm a Republican. I'm an agnostic. I'm also pro-choice. I'm also in favor of some stricter gun control laws. I also have zero problem with same sex marriage. So if you put me in a "sack" and shake me up...I'm going to be the same as a born again evangelical? That's about as stupid a statement as I've heard here in a long time.

As for people running from names? I've been proud to label myself as a conservative and a Republican for the better part of forty years. Neither of those things have been relabeled. On the other hand...you on the left used to call yourselves "liberals"...then that term became toxic so you changed to "progressives". So spare me the blather about changing names over "embarrassment"! Try and get someone on this board to identify themselves as a liberal or a progressive...the majority of you claim that you're moderates. So who's REALLY embarrassed?

Nope.Democrat the first time I voted, and democrat still.

Do you self identify as a "liberal" or a "progressive", Bulldog?

I'm a liberal Democrat. Always have been. The terms are interchangeable.

So why did so many of you start calling yourselves "progressives"? Why the need to change from liberal?

 

[hunarcy]

I am not a Conservative.

I know, I know, you are shocked.

Good!

 

[sakinago]

Marriage is a union of opposite genders in the bible, not the Constitution and since we are a secular nation, it is all the people that have the same right to dignity and respect.

Proving once again just how retarded the left really is. Marriage has always been male/female, and in all cultures, secular and religious alike.
It isn't a dignity and respect issue just because you are too stupid to understand simple things.

The Supreme Court of this country disagrees with you and has the full force and weight of the law of the land on their side. Your opinion means squat.

Aw, did I pee you off? Sodomy laws were legal once so that made it OK? Dred Scott decision? The supremes didn't change the fact that you're wrong, opposite gender is what marriage was all through man's history and culture. If we don't let three or more or adult siblings marry then all gay marriage is is a imitation of marriage. And no, not all the justices agreed with the politically correct decision that should be a state matter. Like abortion.

No, you didn't pee me off (whatever that is) The law stands and that is all that matters.

No. They're homophobes and xenophobia because of their avowed policies.

They resent extending equal rights to the LGBT community. Ergo, homophobes.

They view all undocumented workers as threats to national security. Ergo xenophobes.

There you go. Disagree with anything leftist and you are phobic.

My dogs are smarter.

Demonstrate for us the support Conservatives have for equal rights for the LGBT community. I have yet to see it.

Show us the Conservative policy toward undocumented workers that prevent those workers from fearing deportation. I have yet to see it.

Explain how Conservative policies are not draped in homophobia and xenophobia. I have yet to see it.

By their policies they are defined.

And you'll never see it.

With regard to the rights of gay Americans, the clerk in Kentucky is actually a veiled effort by conservatives to continue the fight against the right of same-sex couples to marry.

You are correct he will never see it. People see what they want.
The clerk in KY is a result of what happens when judicial tyranny overtakes popular will. I hope we will see more patriots resisting outside tyranny. Let a hundred clerks bloom!

She's not talking about 'judicial tyranny' (a term used by those who disagree with the freedoms granted by this decision). She's talking about God. Drape her in your own cloth if you must, but it's not a judicial robe, it's ministerial vestments.

Marriage is a union of opposite genders in the bible, not the Constitution and since we are a secular nation, it is all the people that have the same right to dignity and respect.

But what is in the constitution and the very first BOR, is...
The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitutionprohibits the making of any lawrespecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

Don't see anything in there about the right to dignity or to not be offended

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 recognized the principle of dignity.

No it doesn't, nothing about dignity, especially when it can only be enforced selectively