"Moderates" are the problem

[Mac1958]

.

Could you map out what you think it would look like if all national lawmakers were purists, both Left & Right?

Would it be safe to assume that you'd prefer the abject gridlock that would result, and is that the goal?

.

Perhaps if the hard left negotiates with the hard right, you arrive at a hard decision...with hard management of hard rules. I get the feeling moderates enter debate with squishy beliefs and end up with squishy results. We need hard men.

That's a great point. The potential problem, is that there would be so few decisions. Like a guy who hits 40 home runs but strikes out 500 times.

We sure as hell do need more hard decisions, though.

.

 

[Votto]

German losses 3.3 million, US losses .295 million.

Japanese Losses add another 1.5 million.

And before ya go giving credit to Histler for the Russian Meat grinder, Stalin was responsible for that mess. Total axis losses were 18 million, deduct Stalin's suicidal tactics, resulting in 13.5 million and the Allies did the most killing by nearly half a million.

Who cares? When I called you Hitler, it wasn't a compliment.

Your concession is AGAIN duly noted and summarily accepted.

Okay crazy dude. If some of you extremists ...

Sweety, you've established yourself as the extremist in this discussion.

You claim that nature has no authority to design the human species... and that your feelings should outweigh the design of the species... . It doesn't get more extreme than that sugar.

I haven't said any of those things. I said that gay people, regardless of their sexuality, deserve to be treated as people and have the same rights and privileges as any other people who are citizens of the United States. If they aren't hurting anyone else, then it shouldn't be a problem.

Do you really feel like all citizens should be treated the same? In that case, everyone should have the rights that married folk have. That means if aunt Mary and aunt Susan want to move in together to make ends meet but don't intend on having sex they should have the protections of marriage. Or how about that polygamist in Utah?

The fact of the matter is, the state should not care in the least what our sexual preferences are, let alone giving us special perks for that arrangement. The whole thing is creepy. The state has no business in marriage whatsoever.

 

[Votto]

Cromnibus a winter festival of unrestrained spending Human Events


The new spending bill just passed by Congress is an example that moderates appear to be the problem. Here we have a bill with unrestrained spending, thus upsetting conservatives, and a bill that favors the corporate banking industry, thus inciting the left.

Really it is the best of both worlds. It is a continued path to insolvency, as well as easing corporate restrictions that caused the credit crisis to occur only a few years ago.

I'm tired of these so called "moderates'. Just the mere term makes me nauseated. They should just be renamed the "rapists" of society and maybe send Bill Cosby to the Oval Office in 2016.

For me, moderates have become the most radical extremists of all, since they appear to be sowing the seeds for our ultimate destruction.

I agree. the "moderates" are just those without any principles.....the sell-outs...I'm a leftist but I think wed be better off with a bunch of tea party people than a bunch of corrupt sell-out "moderates".

Part of the problem is our system...it would be better if we had proportional representation.....with more parties represented.

We need to take the money our of the system also.

I think those on the left and right want the same things, but go about things differently. However, moderates just want more of the same, probably because they make a good wage and are content. The way things are headed now, that won't last much longer.

 

[ChrisL]

Who cares? When I called you Hitler, it wasn't a compliment.

Your concession is AGAIN duly noted and summarily accepted.

Okay crazy dude. If some of you extremists ...

Sweety, you've established yourself as the extremist in this discussion.

You claim that nature has no authority to design the human species... and that your feelings should outweigh the design of the species... . It doesn't get more extreme than that sugar.

I haven't said any of those things. I said that gay people, regardless of their sexuality, deserve to be treated as people and have the same rights and privileges as any other people who are citizens of the United States. If they aren't hurting anyone else, then it shouldn't be a problem.

Do you really feel like all citizens should be treated the same? In that case, everyone should have the rights that married folk have. That means if aunt Mary and aunt Susan want to move in together to make ends meet but don't intend on having sex they should have the protections of marriage. Or how about that polygamist in Utah?

The fact of the matter is, the state should not care in the least what our sexual preferences are, let alone giving us special perks for that arrangement. The whole thing is creepy. The state has no business in marriage whatsoever.

You don't think that all citizens should be treated the same? Seriously?

I don't care what Aunt Mary and Aunt Susan do in their bedroom! It's none of my business, nor is it any of your business. What makes you think it's your business anyways? Because you think the type of sex that Mary and Susan are having is wrong or a sin? Well that's just too bad for you, isn't it? I don't CARE what reason Susan and Mary get married for. Why do you care?

What is creepy? Who is getting special perks?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So, what about the conservative stance on gay marriage?

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman. As a result, there is no such thing as 'gay-marriage'.

Now that is not to say that the asexually abnormal can't marry... as such happens all the time. But for the sexually abnormal to marry, they must find a person of the distinct gender, with which to institutionalize themselves.

That 'stance' is in keeping with the natural design of the human species. So unless you can show how the design of the species represents 'extreme', your 'stance' is the one which is demonstrably LUDICROUS... therefore given the definition of such, its you that are holding down the position OKA: EXTREME!

Great now Mr Conservative small government, show me where the government is empowered to define marriage

I'll wait.

it isn't but it should be now that liberals have killed the church and morality. Don't forget, our Founders assumed a foundation of religious behavior that no longer exists. Today we have hip hop culture.

Our founders wanted freedom to have religion or freedom to NOT have religion. They were running from religious tyrants, so you are wrong. Our constitution guarantees people of the United States the right to pursue happiness! If getting married makes gay people happy, then you don't have the right to deny them their happiness, tyrant!

No, you're wrong there. In the time of our founding there simply was no atheist movement, certainly not within our government.

When the founders spoke of freedom of religion, they were thinking of a situation like the Church of England specifically, where one branch of Christianity was enforced by the government. It's a complete misnomer to state that our country wasn't founded ON religion though, I mean our Declaration of Independence speaks of God. Our Congress has a clergyman, and opens EVERY session with prayer. Our national monuments are packed full of religious symbols.

In their time, an atheist was unthinkable. Remember, they thought the indians were savages because they didn't believe in the monotheistic God.

The freedom of religion has totally been misshapen by those with agendas. Heck, I'll go even further, at the time they signed the COTUS many of the colonies/soon to be states DID have official religions, and that is the way the founders intended. Each state could have religion as they chose, free from the FEDERAL government intervening. If one state had a religion you didn't like, you simply moved to another.

even more important, our Founders assumed the people had a religious morality. Today, liberals have killed religious morality so we need a new source of religious morality and that has to be the govt I'm afraid.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Why would you care about what someone's behavior in their own home.

too stupid and 100% liberal. As Aristotle said the family is the basis of civilization. If the family is non existent or is teaching hate and hip hop culture the civilization must intervene.

 

[bendog]

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman. As a result, there is no such thing as 'gay-marriage'.

Now that is not to say that the asexually abnormal can't marry... as such happens all the time. But for the sexually abnormal to marry, they must find a person of the distinct gender, with which to institutionalize themselves.

That 'stance' is in keeping with the natural design of the human species. So unless you can show how the design of the species represents 'extreme', your 'stance' is the one which is demonstrably LUDICROUS... therefore given the definition of such, its you that are holding down the position OKA: EXTREME!

Great now Mr Conservative small government, show me where the government is empowered to define marriage

I'll wait.

it isn't but it should be now that liberals have killed the church and morality. Don't forget, our Founders assumed a foundation of religious behavior that no longer exists. Today we have hip hop culture.

Our founders wanted freedom to have religion or freedom to NOT have religion. They were running from religious tyrants, so you are wrong. Our constitution guarantees people of the United States the right to pursue happiness! If getting married makes gay people happy, then you don't have the right to deny them their happiness, tyrant!

No, you're wrong there. In the time of our founding there simply was no atheist movement, certainly not within our government.

When the founders spoke of freedom of religion, they were thinking of a situation like the Church of England specifically, where one branch of Christianity was enforced by the government. It's a complete misnomer to state that our country wasn't founded ON religion though, I mean our Declaration of Independence speaks of God. Our Congress has a clergyman, and opens EVERY session with prayer. Our national monuments are packed full of religious symbols.

In their time, an atheist was unthinkable. Remember, they thought the indians were savages because they didn't believe in the monotheistic God.

The freedom of religion has totally been misshapen by those with agendas. Heck, I'll go even further, at the time they signed the COTUS many of the colonies/soon to be states DID have official religions, and that is the way the founders intended. Each state could have religion as they chose, free from the FEDERAL government intervening. If one state had a religion you didn't like, you simply moved to another.

even more important, our Founders assumed the people had a religious morality. Today, liberals have killed religious morality so we need a new source of religious morality and that has to be the govt I'm afraid.

Wow, I wonder what form of govt shared that view

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Great now Mr Conservative small government, show me where the government is empowered to define marriage

I'll wait.

it isn't but it should be now that liberals have killed the church and morality. Don't forget, our Founders assumed a foundation of religious behavior that no longer exists. Today we have hip hop culture.

Our founders wanted freedom to have religion or freedom to NOT have religion. They were running from religious tyrants, so you are wrong. Our constitution guarantees people of the United States the right to pursue happiness! If getting married makes gay people happy, then you don't have the right to deny them their happiness, tyrant!

No, you're wrong there. In the time of our founding there simply was no atheist movement, certainly not within our government.

When the founders spoke of freedom of religion, they were thinking of a situation like the Church of England specifically, where one branch of Christianity was enforced by the government. It's a complete misnomer to state that our country wasn't founded ON religion though, I mean our Declaration of Independence speaks of God. Our Congress has a clergyman, and opens EVERY session with prayer. Our national monuments are packed full of religious symbols.

In their time, an atheist was unthinkable. Remember, they thought the indians were savages because they didn't believe in the monotheistic God.

The freedom of religion has totally been misshapen by those with agendas. Heck, I'll go even further, at the time they signed the COTUS many of the colonies/soon to be states DID have official religions, and that is the way the founders intended. Each state could have religion as they chose, free from the FEDERAL government intervening. If one state had a religion you didn't like, you simply moved to another.

even more important, our Founders assumed the people had a religious morality. Today, liberals have killed religious morality so we need a new source of religious morality and that has to be the govt I'm afraid.

Wow, I wonder what form of govt shared that view

"it takes a village to raise a child"

-Hillary Clinton

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

it isn't but it should be now that liberals have killed the church and morality. Don't forget, our Founders assumed a foundation of religious behavior that no longer exists. Today we have hip hop culture.

Our founders wanted freedom to have religion or freedom to NOT have religion. They were running from religious tyrants, so you are wrong. Our constitution guarantees people of the United States the right to pursue happiness! If getting married makes gay people happy, then you don't have the right to deny them their happiness, tyrant!

No, you're wrong there. In the time of our founding there simply was no atheist movement, certainly not within our government.

When the founders spoke of freedom of religion, they were thinking of a situation like the Church of England specifically, where one branch of Christianity was enforced by the government. It's a complete misnomer to state that our country wasn't founded ON religion though, I mean our Declaration of Independence speaks of God. Our Congress has a clergyman, and opens EVERY session with prayer. Our national monuments are packed full of religious symbols.

In their time, an atheist was unthinkable. Remember, they thought the indians were savages because they didn't believe in the monotheistic God.

The freedom of religion has totally been misshapen by those with agendas. Heck, I'll go even further, at the time they signed the COTUS many of the colonies/soon to be states DID have official religions, and that is the way the founders intended. Each state could have religion as they chose, free from the FEDERAL government intervening. If one state had a religion you didn't like, you simply moved to another.

even more important, our Founders assumed the people had a religious morality. Today, liberals have killed religious morality so we need a new source of religious morality and that has to be the govt I'm afraid.

Wow, I wonder what form of govt shared that view

"it takes a village to raise a child"

-Hillary Clinton

Aristotle shared that view as did our Founders. Family is the center and source of civilization. A nation will be no stronger than its families. Liberals are destroying our families that were built by Judeo Christian morality.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman. As a result, there is no such thing as 'gay-marriage'.

Now that is not to say that the asexually abnormal can't marry... as such happens all the time. But for the sexually abnormal to marry, they must find a person of the distinct gender, with which to institutionalize themselves.

That 'stance' is in keeping with the natural design of the human species. So unless you can show how the design of the species represents 'extreme', your 'stance' is the one which is demonstrably LUDICROUS... therefore given the definition of such, its you that are holding down the position OKA: EXTREME!

Great now Mr Conservative small government, show me where the government is empowered to define marriage

I'll wait.

it isn't but it should be now that liberals have killed the church and morality. Don't forget, our Founders assumed a foundation of religious behavior that no longer exists. Today we have hip hop culture.

Our founders wanted freedom to have religion or freedom to NOT have religion. They were running from religious tyrants, so you are wrong. Our constitution guarantees people of the United States the right to pursue happiness! If getting married makes gay people happy, then you don't have the right to deny them their happiness, tyrant!

No, you're wrong there. In the time of our founding there simply was no atheist movement, certainly not within our government.

When the founders spoke of freedom of religion, they were thinking of a situation like the Church of England specifically, where one branch of Christianity was enforced by the government. It's a complete misnomer to state that our country wasn't founded ON religion though, I mean our Declaration of Independence speaks of God. Our Congress has a clergyman, and opens EVERY session with prayer. Our national monuments are packed full of religious symbols.

In their time, an atheist was unthinkable. Remember, they thought the indians were savages because they didn't believe in the monotheistic God.

The freedom of religion has totally been misshapen by those with agendas. Heck, I'll go even further, at the time they signed the COTUS many of the colonies/soon to be states DID have official religions, and that is the way the founders intended. Each state could have religion as they chose, free from the FEDERAL government intervening. If one state had a religion you didn't like, you simply moved to another.

even more important, our Founders assumed the people had a religious morality. Today, liberals have killed religious morality so we need a new source of religious morality and that has to be the govt I'm afraid.

Even more important, our founders designed a government which requires a virtuous people for it to work. As evidenced by the failure of our government, as it is presently comprised.

 

[deltex1]

.

Could you map out what you think it would look like if all national lawmakers were purists, both Left & Right?

Would it be safe to assume that you'd prefer the abject gridlock that would result, and is that the goal?

.

Perhaps if the hard left negotiates with the hard right, you arrive at a hard decision...with hard management of hard rules. I get the feeling moderates enter debate with squishy beliefs and end up with squishy results. We need hard men.

That's a great point. The potential problem, is that there would be so few decisions. Like a guy who hits 40 home runs but strikes out 500 times.

We sure as hell do need more hard decisions, though.

.

How many decisions, hard, soft or smart have been made in the last six years? We are adrift.

 

[bendog]

it isn't but it should be now that liberals have killed the church and morality. Don't forget, our Founders assumed a foundation of religious behavior that no longer exists. Today we have hip hop culture.

Our founders wanted freedom to have religion or freedom to NOT have religion. They were running from religious tyrants, so you are wrong. Our constitution guarantees people of the United States the right to pursue happiness! If getting married makes gay people happy, then you don't have the right to deny them their happiness, tyrant!

No, you're wrong there. In the time of our founding there simply was no atheist movement, certainly not within our government.

When the founders spoke of freedom of religion, they were thinking of a situation like the Church of England specifically, where one branch of Christianity was enforced by the government. It's a complete misnomer to state that our country wasn't founded ON religion though, I mean our Declaration of Independence speaks of God. Our Congress has a clergyman, and opens EVERY session with prayer. Our national monuments are packed full of religious symbols.

In their time, an atheist was unthinkable. Remember, they thought the indians were savages because they didn't believe in the monotheistic God.

The freedom of religion has totally been misshapen by those with agendas. Heck, I'll go even further, at the time they signed the COTUS many of the colonies/soon to be states DID have official religions, and that is the way the founders intended. Each state could have religion as they chose, free from the FEDERAL government intervening. If one state had a religion you didn't like, you simply moved to another.

even more important, our Founders assumed the people had a religious morality. Today, liberals have killed religious morality so we need a new source of religious morality and that has to be the govt I'm afraid.

Wow, I wonder what form of govt shared that view

"it takes a village to raise a child"

-Hillary Clinton

Actually, Lenin

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

.

Could you map out what you think it would look like if all national lawmakers were purists, both Left & Right?

Would it be safe to assume that you'd prefer the abject gridlock that would result, and is that the goal?

.

Perhaps if the hard left negotiates with the hard right, you arrive at a hard decision...with hard management of hard rules. I get the feeling moderates enter debate with squishy beliefs and end up with squishy results. We need hard men.

That's a great point. The potential problem, is that there would be so few decisions. Like a guy who hits 40 home runs but strikes out 500 times.

We sure as hell do need more hard decisions, though.

.

How many decisions, hard, soft or smart have been made in the last six years? We are adrift.

Well, such is the nature of evil.

 

[bendog]

Edward suffers from the myopia that morality is enshrined solely with organized religion.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

How many decisions, hard, soft or smart have been made in the last six years? We are adrift.

more specificially the American family has been set adrift by liberalism

 

[nodoginnafight]

It takes a village - only if you give up on a family

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Edward suffers from the myopia that morality is enshrined solely with organized religion.

dear, then please tell us the source of morality if not religion. Imagine, you have to be asked to complete your own thoughts?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It takes a village - only if you give up on a family

well govt and religion define and support a definition of what the family is. It really does not appear from outer space or arise from our genetics the way it would for a lion family, for example.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Our founders wanted freedom to have religion or freedom to NOT have religion. They were running from religious tyrants, so you are wrong. Our constitution guarantees people of the United States the right to pursue happiness! If getting married makes gay people happy, then you don't have the right to deny them their happiness, tyrant!

No, you're wrong there. In the time of our founding there simply was no atheist movement, certainly not within our government.

When the founders spoke of freedom of religion, they were thinking of a situation like the Church of England specifically, where one branch of Christianity was enforced by the government. It's a complete misnomer to state that our country wasn't founded ON religion though, I mean our Declaration of Independence speaks of God. Our Congress has a clergyman, and opens EVERY session with prayer. Our national monuments are packed full of religious symbols.

In their time, an atheist was unthinkable. Remember, they thought the indians were savages because they didn't believe in the monotheistic God.

The freedom of religion has totally been misshapen by those with agendas. Heck, I'll go even further, at the time they signed the COTUS many of the colonies/soon to be states DID have official religions, and that is the way the founders intended. Each state could have religion as they chose, free from the FEDERAL government intervening. If one state had a religion you didn't like, you simply moved to another.

even more important, our Founders assumed the people had a religious morality. Today, liberals have killed religious morality so we need a new source of religious morality and that has to be the govt I'm afraid.

Wow, I wonder what form of govt shared that view

"it takes a village to raise a child"

-Hillary Clinton

Actually, Lenin

Lenin? LOL, the term is actually from an African proverb. Certainly Lenin never said it.

 

[deltex1]

How does morality outside of organized religion differ from morality inside of organized religion?