Jerry Falwell just died

[red states rule]

you gave me examples of MY words?


really?


did you just have a stroke or omething? the left side of your face feeling numb? did you just pick up a certain "larry flynt" speach impedement?


care to run that by me one more time before the valtrex commercial, dude?

I gave you examples of liberal love and tolerance

The same applied when Tony Snow went back for more treatments on his cancer

 

[Shogun]

I gave you examples of liberal love and tolerance

The same applied when Tony Snow went back for more treatments on his cancer

do you think I cant find random conservative quotes that dont necessarily apply to YOU?

besides, I didnt ask for quotes from your cut and paste sexual fantasy, did I?


did you just see how you completely DODGED and WEAVED what I, in fact, did ask of you?


now, ill ask one more time since you seem to be having some technical difficulties...


QUOTE ME WHERE I HAVE TALKED SHIT ON FALWELL EVEN THOUGH I AM A LIB AND YOU INSIST ON THROWING OUT BLANKET STEREOTYPES...


didnt you JUST say something about BEING SCARED OF FACTS?

 

[red states rule]

do you think I cant find random conservative quotes that dont necessarily apply to YOU?

besides, I didnt ask for quotes from your cut and paste sexual fantasy, did I?


did you just see how you completely DODGED and WEAVED what I, in fact, did ask of you?


now, ill ask one more time since you seem to be having some technical difficulties...


QUOTE ME WHERE I HAVE TALKED SHIT ON FALWELL EVEN THOUGH I AM A LIB AND YOU INSIST ON THROWING OUT BLANKET STEREOTYPES...


didnt you JUST say something about BEING SCARED OF FACTS?

Random?

You do not have to spend much time to find hate filled statements made by the left

Libs usually attack the messenger and ignore the message

 

[mattskramer]

Well to pacify the liberals we have special hate crime laws protecting queers to a higher degree than the rest of us.

To pacify the secular liberal We took the seperation of church and state out of context, and proceeded to take religion out of schools when we should of been putting more religion in. Istead of our children learning about EVERY religion of the world and allowing them to recieve the highest degree of education in the world. We robbed them creating some illusion that religion either doesnt exist,or is too dangerous to be even mentioned.

As far as stopping Islamic militants from attacking us after 9/11. Once again we pacified the liberal giving terrorists rights and protection when we should of been chopping off heads and taking no prisoners...

It was not to pacify people. It was not out of fear that liberals would become violent. In our nation, might does not make right. Upon reflection, government concluded that it was the right thing to do.

Many? what are you smokin ?... I would say there has been a FEW instances when Islamic leaders have condemned attacks. And in most cases it was ONLY to protect their own asses because they were afraid of retaliation...

I think that many Muslims condemn 9-11. I have provided several links. You say that it was few in number. I am not going to get into a counting game with you. We agree to disagree.

 

[Superlative]

You do not have to spend much time to find hate filled statements made by the left

Libs usually attack the messenger and ignore the message

Not you though, definetly not you.

You dont attack anyone, cause you dont think for yourself, you let other people's words and opinions do the talking for you.

You counter one persons argument with someone elses.

Cause you have no opinion of your own.

Just right wing Copy ad Paste Op-Eds, and talking points.

 

[red states rule]

Not you though, definetly not you.

You dont attack anyone, cause you dont think for yourself, you let other people's words and opinions do the talking for you.

You counter one persons argument with someone elses.

Cause you have no opinion of your own.

Just right wing Copy ad Paste Op-Eds, and talking points.

I know libs hate to be confronted on what they say and do

It is part of their arrogrance trait

 

[Superlative]

I know libs hate to be confronted on what they say and do

It is part of their arrogrance trait

What does that even mean?

How does that address what I said?


You dont attack anyone, cause you dont think for yourself, you let other people's words and opinions do the talking for you.

You counter one persons argument with someone elses.

Cause you have no opinion of your own.

Just right wing Copy ad Paste Op-Eds, and talking points.

 

[red states rule]

What does that even mean?

How does that address what I said?


You dont attack anyone, cause you dont think for yourself, you let other people's words and opinions do the talking for you.

You counter one persons argument with someone elses.

Cause you have no opinion of your own.

Just right wing Copy ad Paste Op-Eds, and talking points.

You are whining again

Go tell it to your mother if it bother you so much

 

[Superlative]

You are whining again

Go tell it to your mother if it bother you so much

Whats the matter?

Have to deflect when someone draws attention to your faults?

 

[red states rule]

Whats the matter?

Have to deflect when someone draws attention to your faults?

The only fault I have is making liberals meltdown on a daily basis - I want to do it on a hourly basis

 

[mattskramer]

More typical crass comments from your friendly neighborhood compassionate conservatives”

http://www.nndb.com/people/211/000024139/
Called openly-gay Congressman Barney Frank "Barney Fag" during a 1995 radio show interview, but later denied it was intentional. However, on 2 August 2000, columnist Dave Barry asked, "Are you really Dick Armey?" Armey replies: "Yes, I am Dick Armey. And if there is a dick army, Barney Frank would want to join up."

http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/7027/patrobertson.html
"When I said during my presidential bid that I would only bring Christians and Jews into the government, I hit a firestorm. `What do you mean?' the media challenged me. `You're not going to bring atheists into the government? How dare you maintain that those who believe in the Judeo-Christian values are better qualified to govern America than Hindus and Muslims?' My simple answer is, `Yes, they are.'" -from Pat Robertson's "The New World Order," page 218.

See http://mediamatters.org/items/200508240007 for more prejudicial crass rhetoric, from Pat Robertson, so typical of the Right.

For comments from Ann Coulter see http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=24392

To a disabled Vietnam vet: "People like you caused us to lose that war."---MSNBC

"If you don't hate Clinton and the people who labored to keep him in office, you don't love your country."---George, 7/99

Even Bill O’Reilly: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/b/bill_oreilly.html
That's my advice to all homosexuals, whether they're in the Boy Scouts, or in the Army or in high school: Shut up, don't tell anybody what you do, your life will be a lot easier.

Here is a great article: http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/06/01/31_stop.html

It took me less than 5 minutes to find these separate examples and to put them together for you. There are probably many more examples. You typically find what you are looking for. When it comes to crass hateful speech the conservatives are probably just as guilty as are the liberals. Neither side holds to moral high ground to any great degree.

 

[Superlative]

The only fault I have is making liberals meltdown on a daily basis - I want to do it on a hourly basis

You always resort to the "Liberal" comments, im talking about YOU, and your inability to articulate a thought of your own.

and how you deflect the issue with more 2 line combacks that amount to nothing.

Ill say it again cause you ignored it the first 2 times I called you out.

You dont attack anyone, cause you dont think for yourself, you let other people's words and opinions do the talking for you.

You counter one persons argument with someone elses.

Cause you have no opinion of your own.

Just right wing Copy ad Paste Op-Eds, and talking points.

 

[Dirt McGirt]

The only fault I have is making liberals meltdown on a daily basis - I want to do it on a hourly basis

How can you do it on an hourly basis? If you stop working at Best Buy you won't be able to send money to al-queerda and help fund Osama's war against secular America.

OBL was right!

 

[mattskramer]

More typical crass comments from your friendly neighborhood compassionate conservatives”

http://www.nndb.com/people/211/000024139/
Called openly-gay Congressman Barney Frank "Barney Fag" during a 1995 radio show interview, but later denied it was intentional. However, on 2 August 2000, columnist Dave Barry asked, "Are you really Dick Armey?" Armey replies: "Yes, I am Dick Armey. And if there is a dick army, Barney Frank would want to join up."

http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/7027/patrobertson.html
"When I said during my presidential bid that I would only bring Christians and Jews into the government, I hit a firestorm. `What do you mean?' the media challenged me. `You're not going to bring atheists into the government? How dare you maintain that those who believe in the Judeo-Christian values are better qualified to govern America than Hindus and Muslims?' My simple answer is, `Yes, they are.'" -from Pat Robertson's "The New World Order," page 218.

See http://mediamatters.org/items/200508240007 for more prejudicial crass rhetoric, from Pat Robertson, so typical of the Right.

For comments from Ann Coulter see http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=24392

To a disabled Vietnam vet: "People like you caused us to lose that war."---MSNBC

"If you don't hate Clinton and the people who labored to keep him in office, you don't love your country."---George, 7/99

Even Bill O’Reilly: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/b/bill_oreilly.html
That's my advice to all homosexuals, whether they're in the Boy Scouts, or in the Army or in high school: Shut up, don't tell anybody what you do, your life will be a lot easier.

Here is a great article: http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/06/01/31_stop.html

It took me less than 5 minutes to find these separate examples and to put them together for you. There are probably many more examples. You typically find what you are looking for. When it comes to crass hateful speech the conservatives are probably just as guilty as are the liberals. Neither side holds to moral high ground to any great degree.

I forgot to mention the classy comments by the great conservative mouthpiece Michael Savage. Here are examples of his typical comments:

"With the [Latino] population that has emerged, since they breed like rabbits, in many cases the whites will become a minority in their own nation... The white people don't breed as often for whatever reason. I guess many homosexuals are involved. That is also part of the grand plan, to push homosexuality to cut down on the white race."
(San Francisco Bay Guardian, 9/20/00).

Discussing student volunteers distributing food to the homeless in San Francisco, Savage declared that "the girls from Branson [school] can go in and maybe get raped... because they seem to like the excitement of it. There's always the thrill and possibility they'll be raped in a dumpster while giving out a turkey sandwich" (San Francisco Bay Guardian, 9/20/00).

 

[Shogun]

Random?

You do not have to spend much time to find hate filled statements made by the left

Libs usually attack the messenger and ignore the message

I didnt ask for what you think is random hate speach from the left...

I ASKED YOU TO QUOTE WHERE I, AS A LEFTY, HAVE SAID AS MUCH


still nothing?


did you want to throw out any punchlines about being afraid of FACTS and TRUTH again?

 

[Shogun]

I know libs hate to be confronted on what they say and do

It is part of their arrogrance trait

come on, dude..


CONFRONT me with what ive said...


come on already...



whip that bad boy out and lets see you raise some hell by reminding me what I HAVE SAID.....

 

[Shogun]

You are whining again

Go tell it to your mother if it bother you so much

yay.. MOM JOKES....



wow...

now THAT is savvy debate right therre...


werent you JUST talking about all the hateful shit that libs say?


hey, at least you waited until after mothers day, dude..


what would dick morris say about mom jokes?

 

[José]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
And YOU call yourself a CHRISTIAN? Try on HYPOCRITE, it fits you better.

You know Bully

Sometimes when I happen to remember this incident, I start imagining a million things I could have said to my teacher…

I phantasise I’m making eloquent speeches and putting her in her place.

But when you are 14, you can’t preach secularism not even to your classmates let alone your teacher… someone who occupies a position of authority.

BTW, I’d like to hear what Kathianne has to say about the behavior of her “colleague”.

So my tongue froze and I just stood there, in silence, being humiliated, paying for the crime of not believing a certain jew raised from the dead two millennia ago.

Anyway, Bully, what happened to me in 83 was an extreme case.

But even if the teacher didn’t ask us to stand up (what started the whole crap), it would still be wrong to say a prayer outloud.

Let’s use common sense here:

If you want to study you go to a school.

If you want to pray outloud you go to a church.

If you want a hooker you go to a whorehouse.

There are appropriate places where the individual can do each one of these things.

A school is a reunion of individuals united by a single goal: to study.

They don’t have anything else in common: they don’t root for the same team, don’t have the same political, religious affiliations.

So any prayer said outloud in a classroom will immediately provoke a feeling of being excluded from the group in people who don’t share the faith.

And like all social primates there’s nothing worse for us than feeling discriminated, isolated from the group.

School prayer creates an unpleasant atmosphere for irreligious students, just like a horny dude looking for women in a church creates an unpleasant atmosphere for the believers.

What kind of peabrain can’t understand such a simple concept, Bully?

 

[José]

Shogun

During these online debates dozens of subtopics pop up all the time and people often start them debating one thing and end up debating another, so let’s try to keep focused on the main issue here:

A democratic state has a number of features that contitute its core (meaning, without them it it isn’t a democracy any longer): the democratic process itself, the secular nature of the state, racial and gender equality etc.

I think the core values of a democratic state should be protected from the results of the electoral process by “stone clauses” which forbids the three branches of government from altering them while you believe they must be subjected to the will of the majority like any other ideal/law of the state.

This seems to be the fundamental difference between us.

Shogun, we are in fact discussing one of the oldest issues in political science:

Can the democratic process be used to overthrow democracy itself?

Can the majority of the population use the electoral process to chip away at the secular nature of the state that protects the non-religious and religious minorities against the interferences and humiliations of a confessional state (like school prayer)?

The importance and relevance of this issue is dramatic and I refuse to sit on the fence.

I take the side of the protection of the core values of democracy against the will of the majority and their pressure groups.

I can’t conceive the dilapidation of the basic principles of a secular democracy as being “a right of the electorate”.

Some people equate democracy with this “right” but they can’t even imagine how tragically mistaken they are.

This is the total corruption of all the ideals the modern democratic state stands for.

The very nature of the democratic system carries in itself the danger of its own destruction.

So I think the key elements that make up a secular democratic state should be protected not only from pressure groups like the one led by Falwell but should be protected also from the electoral process itself.

“Stone clauses” basically mean:

No matter how powerful your lobby is and no matter the size of your majority, the key elements of the democratic state simply cannot be compromised.

 

[José]

And just to clarify the issue regarding the US case in particular, Shogun.

As far as I know, the concept of stone clauses does not exist in US constitutional law. Neither the US constitution nor its amendments have “stone clauses”. There’s no special protection for the democratic system, secularism etc...

So in principle, and I repeat, just in principle, the american democratic republic could be legally dissolved, either gradually by the slow erosion of the democratic process and the secular nature of the state or as the result of a single election.

What prevents this from happening in practice is the level of civic conscience of the american electorate as well as the social, economic and political stability of the US.

So I agree with you. The US does not need “stone clauses” because it’s one of the most stable societies in the world.

But just look at what’s happening in Venezuela.

There you have a demagogic politician using his personal charisma and the tactics of blaming the US for everything bad that happens in the world to perpetuate himself in power.

And he’s doing all this without even breaking the law because the previous venezuelan constitution did not protect the core values of democracy.

The venezuelan democracy needed to have been protected from the will of the majority of the venezuelan people.

As someone who still believes in the democratic system it hurts me to say so but it is the truth.

Now it’s too late.

The hardcore of a democratic state cannot be held hostage by charismatic demagogues like Chavez and so many religious leaders who take advantage of the democratic process with the only intention of eventually destroying it.

Let’s hope America continues to have this same stability so it doesn’t need this kind of constitutional clauses.

But for countries that don’t have the same level of civic conscience and social stability the US have, “stone clauses” protecting the basic principles of the democratic state from change can mean the difference between democracy and dictatorship.