"Moderates" are the problem

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Keys, are you afraid that if gay "marriage" becomes legal that you will give into your urges?

Well, it's official... SmarterThanTheAverageBear is a leftist pretending to be something akin to an American.

Anyone shocked by that?

Thank you for proving the point I made earlier. If you don't fall lock and step in with the "party" then you are the enemy. THIS is why people are moving away from your party. You are all nuts!

No, the party is moving away from him, and he's scared because he isn't bright enough to make his own decisions, up until now he's just had to vote (R) on everything, and now the Republican Party is getting serious about getting rid of whack jobs, and that confuses Keys.

Well, I don't know about that. There seems to be plenty of whack jobs around that claim to be republicans. The point is the republican party is the party of "conservatives," which generally means religious and in this country, that means Christian and against gay marriage, abortion and other such things that you see as a "sin." The way men have set up their religions, they are also "sinners" for going against those viewpoints, even if you can see the practicality in doing such.

I hate to say it because there are a lot of good things that come from religion, but it tends to prevent growth and knowledge and applying common sense in modern times. It was fine for back in the ancient times, but most of it is just unrealistic in our world as it is today. A perfect example of this phenomenon is the the Middle East. Easy to see how their religious beliefs put them at a disadvantage.

I would disagree.

There is no denying that this country was better off when we had a religious people. The fucking gays sure have caused a lot of trouble considering they are only 3% of the population, just as one example.

All the debauchery we see now, pedophiles, children having sex, porn etc etc. ALL of that would't exist to the degree it does if we were a more religious people.

However, the question must be asked , is doing what we would have to do to return to those times worth it in terms of personal freedom? I say no it wouldn't be worth it. But to deny that the choices people make today cause harm is silly

The question is better framed: "Which will cause greater destruction? Delaying what we must to return the culture to viability or doing it now?

(Here's a clue... the longer we wait, the deeper the destruction cuts into the foundation, separating the culture from the foundation, thus providing with every moment of delay, less to which we might set the reformed culture upon. Meaning that the longer the delay the less likely that the 'reform' will be possible, requiring the thorough razing of the culture... . The problem there is that to assure the likelihood of building a sound foundation, the eradication of the problem must be absolute, or very close to it. And that is a level of death and destruction which I doubt you can even begin to imagine. That would require today, the removal of a third of the US population... and it's not just a hundred million people, but the precisely correct hundred million people, odds there's no getting that done without significant spillage. Likely requiring the destruction of the majority of the US population.

Now in 1914... when Progressivism took root... that number would have been effective with the destruction of a few hundred. By 1924, a few thousand. 1934, 30k... by 1954, during McCarthy's day... it would have taken 150-200k.

So you tell me, when would that have been a good idea?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

So you're point was to demonstrate your tendency toward extreme positions, by standing on the rejection of something as FUNDAMENTAL as the incontestable design of human physiology?

Great job! I didn't really pick up on that being where ya were headin', but BRAVO! You truly NAILED IT!

Obviously, you are just an internet nut.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

You can't argue with the insane. ...

ROFLMNAO! I SO adore the sweeter Irony.

He says "ROFLMNAO" That doesn't even mean anything.

It means Rolling on the floor laughing my natural ass off. It s device uses to demonstrate the profound foolishness of that to which i am responding to, a means to belittle and berate the foolish notion that is at issue.

Feel better?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Well, it's official... SmarterThanTheAverageBear is a leftist pretending to be something akin to an American.

Anyone shocked by that?

Thank you for proving the point I made earlier. If you don't fall lock and step in with the "party" then you are the enemy. THIS is why people are moving away from your party. You are all nuts!

No, the party is moving away from him, and he's scared because he isn't bright enough to make his own decisions, up until now he's just had to vote (R) on everything, and now the Republican Party is getting serious about getting rid of whack jobs, and that confuses Keys.

Well, I don't know about that. There seems to be plenty of whack jobs around that claim to be republicans. The point is the republican party is the party of "conservatives," which generally means religious and in this country, that means Christian and against gay marriage, abortion and other such things that you see as a "sin." The way men have set up their religions, they are also "sinners" for going against those viewpoints, even if you can see the practicality in doing such.

I hate to say it because there are a lot of good things that come from religion, but it tends to prevent growth and knowledge and applying common sense in modern times. It was fine for back in the ancient times, but most of it is just unrealistic in our world as it is today. A perfect example of this phenomenon is the the Middle East. Easy to see how their religious beliefs put them at a disadvantage.

I would disagree.

There is no denying that this country was better off when we had a religious people. The fucking gays sure have caused a lot of trouble considering they are only 3% of the population, just as one example.

All the debauchery we see now, pedophiles, children having sex, porn etc etc. ALL of that would't exist to the degree it does if we were a more religious people.

However, the question must be asked , is doing what we would have to do to return to those times worth it in terms of personal freedom? I say no it wouldn't be worth it. But to deny that the choices people make today cause harm is silly

The question is better framed: "Which will cause greater destruction? Delaying what we must to return the culture to viability or doing it now?

(Here's a clue... the longer we wait, the deeper the destruction cuts into the foundation, separating the culture from the foundation, thus providing with every moment of delay, less to which we might set the reformed culture upon. Meaning that the longer the delay the less likely that the 'reform' will be possible, requiring the thorough razing of the culture... . The problem there is that to assure the likelihood of building a sound foundation, the eradication of the problem must be absolute, or very close to it. And that is a level of death and destruction which I doubt you can even begin to imagine. That would require today, the removal of a third of the US population... and it's not just a hundred million people, but the precisely correct hundred million people, odds there's no getting that done without significant spillage. Likely requiring the destruction of the majority of the US population.

Now in 1914... when Progressivism took root... that number would have been effective with the destruction of a few hundred. By 1924, a few thousand. 1934, 30k... by 1954, during McCarthy's day... it would have taken 150-200k.

So you tell me, when would that have been a good idea?

Well, seeing as how I am not INSANE, I don't advocate removing anyone.

 

[ChrisL]

Keys, are you afraid that if gay "marriage" becomes legal that you will give into your urges?

Well, it's official... SmarterThanTheAverageBear is a leftist pretending to be something akin to an American.

Anyone shocked by that?

Thank you for proving the point I made earlier. If you don't fall lock and step in with the "party" then you are the enemy. THIS is why people are moving away from your party. You are all nuts!

No, the party is moving away from him, and he's scared because he isn't bright enough to make his own decisions, up until now he's just had to vote (R) on everything, and now the Republican Party is getting serious about getting rid of whack jobs, and that confuses Keys.

Well, I don't know about that. There seems to be plenty of whack jobs around that claim to be republicans. The point is the republican party is the party of "conservatives," which generally means religious and in this country, that means Christian and against gay marriage, abortion and other such things that you see as a "sin." The way men have set up their religions, they are also "sinners" for going against those viewpoints, even if you can see the practicality in doing such.

I hate to say it because there are a lot of good things that come from religion, but it tends to prevent growth and knowledge and applying common sense in modern times. It was fine for back in the ancient times, but most of it is just unrealistic in our world as it is today. A perfect example of this phenomenon is the the Middle East. Easy to see how their religious beliefs put them at a disadvantage.

I would disagree.

There is no denying that this country was better off when we had a religious people. The fucking gays sure have caused a lot of trouble considering they are only 3% of the population, just as one example.

All the debauchery we see now, pedophiles, children having sex, porn etc etc. ALL of that would't exist to the degree it does if we were a more religious people.

However, the question must be asked , is doing what we would have to do to return to those times worth it in terms of personal freedom? I say no it wouldn't be worth it. But to deny that the choices people make today cause harm is silly

Are you forgetting about the Catholic church sex abuse scandal? No, no, no! A LOT of religious people are certainly not as "good" as they would like you to believe. The fact is, most of them are no better or moral than anyone else.

 

[ChrisL]

Obviously, you are just an internet nut.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

You can't argue with the insane. ...

ROFLMNAO! I SO adore the sweeter Irony.

He says "ROFLMNAO" That doesn't even mean anything.

It means Rolling on the floor laughing my natural ass off. It s device uses to demonstrate the profound foolishness of that to which i am responding to, a means to belittle and berate the foolish notion that is at issue.

Feel better?

You're an idiot. Period. End of story. I don't waste my time with extremist morons who are beyond help.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Well, it's official... SmarterThanTheAverageBear is a leftist pretending to be something akin to an American.

Anyone shocked by that?

Thank you for proving the point I made earlier. If you don't fall lock and step in with the "party" then you are the enemy. THIS is why people are moving away from your party. You are all nuts!

No, the party is moving away from him, and he's scared because he isn't bright enough to make his own decisions, up until now he's just had to vote (R) on everything, and now the Republican Party is getting serious about getting rid of whack jobs, and that confuses Keys.

Well, I don't know about that. There seems to be plenty of whack jobs around that claim to be republicans. The point is the republican party is the party of "conservatives," which generally means religious and in this country, that means Christian and against gay marriage, abortion and other such things that you see as a "sin." The way men have set up their religions, they are also "sinners" for going against those viewpoints, even if you can see the practicality in doing such.

I hate to say it because there are a lot of good things that come from religion, but it tends to prevent growth and knowledge and applying common sense in modern times. It was fine for back in the ancient times, but most of it is just unrealistic in our world as it is today. A perfect example of this phenomenon is the the Middle East. Easy to see how their religious beliefs put them at a disadvantage.

Let the record reflect, that no where in this discussion has a single religious tenet been so much as introduced, let alone discussed.

Yet there is the individual who opened this discussion on the premise that she's perfectly reasonable and only opposes the political extreme... DEMANDING that it's the religious who oppose her 'feelings' and therefore its the religious who are extreme.

Point of fact: Claiming that that which did not appear, were present ... is EXTREME. (Specifically: Delusional)

It is the religious right who oppose gay marriage. That's a fact, moron. It's no wonder you can't find your keys.

It is well reasoned people, who recognize the facts regarding human physiology. It naturally follows that most of those people are religious Americans. As such people are imminently well reasoned people.

With that said, no one here, in this discussion has made a religious contest against sexual abnormality. Not that such could not be made, it simply relegates the discussion to an axiomatic push between to opposing points of view.

I prefer the factually incontestable approach. But hey... that's just how I roll.

 

[ScienceRocks]

The Unwavering extremist are the problem. On the left, we have the idiots that can't speak the truth about certain groups of people and on the other we have the idiots that think cutting science, infrastructure and investing in r&d is evil.

Both extremes SUCK!

 

[ChrisL]

Thank you for proving the point I made earlier. If you don't fall lock and step in with the "party" then you are the enemy. THIS is why people are moving away from your party. You are all nuts!

No, the party is moving away from him, and he's scared because he isn't bright enough to make his own decisions, up until now he's just had to vote (R) on everything, and now the Republican Party is getting serious about getting rid of whack jobs, and that confuses Keys.

Well, I don't know about that. There seems to be plenty of whack jobs around that claim to be republicans. The point is the republican party is the party of "conservatives," which generally means religious and in this country, that means Christian and against gay marriage, abortion and other such things that you see as a "sin." The way men have set up their religions, they are also "sinners" for going against those viewpoints, even if you can see the practicality in doing such.

I hate to say it because there are a lot of good things that come from religion, but it tends to prevent growth and knowledge and applying common sense in modern times. It was fine for back in the ancient times, but most of it is just unrealistic in our world as it is today. A perfect example of this phenomenon is the the Middle East. Easy to see how their religious beliefs put them at a disadvantage.

Let the record reflect, that no where in this discussion has a single religious tenet been so much as introduced, let alone discussed.

Yet there is the individual who opened this discussion on the premise that she's perfectly reasonable and only opposes the political extreme... DEMANDING that it's the religious who oppose her 'feelings' and therefore its the religious who are extreme.

Point of fact: Claiming that that which did not appear, were present ... is EXTREME. (Specifically: Delusional)

It is the religious right who oppose gay marriage. That's a fact, moron. It's no wonder you can't find your keys.

It is well reasoned people, who recognize the facts regarding human physiology. It naturally follows that most of those people are religious Americans. As such people are imminently well reasoned people.

With that said, no one here, in this discussion has made a religious contest against sexual abnormality. Not that such could not be made, it simply relegates the discussion to an axiomatic push between to opposing points of view.

I prefer the factually incontestable approach. But hey... that's just how I roll.

So what if it's sexually abnormal? It's not your business. Somebody else might think something you do is abnormal (I'm sure they do - LOL). So what?

I never claimed homosexuality was "normal" because I do not think that it is. I'm certainly not into it, but that is not for me to say that other people cannot do that if that's what they like.

They are still PEOPLE.

 

[Toro]

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.

You're right.

Elizabeth Warren for President!

Or Bernie Sanders!

Damn the moderates!

We need an extremist as President.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Are you forgetting about the Catholic church sex abuse scandal?

You're speaking of the scandal that the Catholics brought upon themselves by accepting the sexually abnormal into the Priesthood?

Good lord who could forget THAT?

They dam' near did the same thing to the Boy Scouts of America... luckily the Scouts stood strong and rejected the introduction of the train of pedophiles into the BSA.

We should point out that the North American Man-Boy Love Association is exclusively (100%) comprised of Homosexuals.

 

[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.

 

[ChrisL]

Are you forgetting about the Catholic church sex abuse scandal?

You're speaking of the scandal that the Catholics brought upon themselves by accepting the sexually abnormal into the Priesthood?

Good lord who could forget THAT?

They dam' near did the same thing to the Boy Scouts of America... luckily the Scouts stood strong and rejected the introduction of the train of pedophiles into the BSA.

We should point out that the North American Man-Boy Love Association is exclusively (100%) comprised of Homosexuals.

That has nothing to do with gay marriage. Gay marriage would have to follow the same rules and regulations that any other marriage would. DUH! No one would be allowed to marry CHILDREN. As I stated earlier, as long as both parties are consenting and OF LEGAL AGE.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Well, it's official... SmarterThanTheAverageBear is a leftist pretending to be something akin to an American.

Anyone shocked by that?

Thank you for proving the point I made earlier. If you don't fall lock and step in with the "party" then you are the enemy. THIS is why people are moving away from your party. You are all nuts!

No, the party is moving away from him, and he's scared because he isn't bright enough to make his own decisions, up until now he's just had to vote (R) on everything, and now the Republican Party is getting serious about getting rid of whack jobs, and that confuses Keys.

Well, I don't know about that. There seems to be plenty of whack jobs around that claim to be republicans. The point is the republican party is the party of "conservatives," which generally means religious and in this country, that means Christian and against gay marriage, abortion and other such things that you see as a "sin." The way men have set up their religions, they are also "sinners" for going against those viewpoints, even if you can see the practicality in doing such.

I hate to say it because there are a lot of good things that come from religion, but it tends to prevent growth and knowledge and applying common sense in modern times. It was fine for back in the ancient times, but most of it is just unrealistic in our world as it is today. A perfect example of this phenomenon is the the Middle East. Easy to see how their religious beliefs put them at a disadvantage.

I would disagree.

There is no denying that this country was better off when we had a religious people. The fucking gays sure have caused a lot of trouble considering they are only 3% of the population, just as one example.

All the debauchery we see now, pedophiles, children having sex, porn etc etc. ALL of that would't exist to the degree it does if we were a more religious people.

However, the question must be asked , is doing what we would have to do to return to those times worth it in terms of personal freedom? I say no it wouldn't be worth it. But to deny that the choices people make today cause harm is silly

Are you forgetting about the Catholic church sex abuse scandal? No, no, no! A LOT of religious people are certainly not as "good" as they would like you to believe. The fact is, most of them are no better or moral than anyone else.

Too true, too true. I agree that religion or lack thereof alone does not guarantee morality, BUT I was speaking of the country as a whole. There's no denying that things were more wholesome in the 1950s for example, than they are today.

Frankly, I blame women.

I'll wait for the screaming to calm down before explaining

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

.

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 swishy results. We need hard men.

The problem with hard men is, someone like myself would walk into Congress and tell both sides to shut the fuck up, and this is what we're going to do and both sides would whine like little pussies, and I'd end putting them all down.

 

[ChrisL]

Thank you for proving the point I made earlier. If you don't fall lock and step in with the "party" then you are the enemy. THIS is why people are moving away from your party. You are all nuts!

No, the party is moving away from him, and he's scared because he isn't bright enough to make his own decisions, up until now he's just had to vote (R) on everything, and now the Republican Party is getting serious about getting rid of whack jobs, and that confuses Keys.

Well, I don't know about that. There seems to be plenty of whack jobs around that claim to be republicans. The point is the republican party is the party of "conservatives," which generally means religious and in this country, that means Christian and against gay marriage, abortion and other such things that you see as a "sin." The way men have set up their religions, they are also "sinners" for going against those viewpoints, even if you can see the practicality in doing such.

I hate to say it because there are a lot of good things that come from religion, but it tends to prevent growth and knowledge and applying common sense in modern times. It was fine for back in the ancient times, but most of it is just unrealistic in our world as it is today. A perfect example of this phenomenon is the the Middle East. Easy to see how their religious beliefs put them at a disadvantage.

I would disagree.

There is no denying that this country was better off when we had a religious people. The fucking gays sure have caused a lot of trouble considering they are only 3% of the population, just as one example.

All the debauchery we see now, pedophiles, children having sex, porn etc etc. ALL of that would't exist to the degree it does if we were a more religious people.

However, the question must be asked , is doing what we would have to do to return to those times worth it in terms of personal freedom? I say no it wouldn't be worth it. But to deny that the choices people make today cause harm is silly

Are you forgetting about the Catholic church sex abuse scandal? No, no, no! A LOT of religious people are certainly not as "good" as they would like you to believe. The fact is, most of them are no better or moral than anyone else.

Too true, too true. I agree that religion or lack thereof alone does not guarantee morality, BUT I was speaking of the country as a whole. There's no denying that things were more wholesome in the 1950s for example, than they are today.

Frankly, I blame women.

I'll wait for the screaming to calm down before explaining

In the old days, such things were just "not discussed." It is a myth that life was so wonderful in the 50s. Sure, I'm sure men thought so, but there are a LOT of women (obviously - women's suffrage?) would disagree with that. Life was not so wonderful for SOME women, I'm sure ,and once they married an asshole, they were stuck with him. Thank GOD that is not the case anymore.

Yeah, I've heard the traditionalist point of view before. I'm not a newbie to these kinds of forums you know.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

No, the party is moving away from him, and he's scared because he isn't bright enough to make his own decisions, up until now he's just had to vote (R) on everything, and now the Republican Party is getting serious about getting rid of whack jobs, and that confuses Keys.

Well, I don't know about that. There seems to be plenty of whack jobs around that claim to be republicans. The point is the republican party is the party of "conservatives," which generally means religious and in this country, that means Christian and against gay marriage, abortion and other such things that you see as a "sin." The way men have set up their religions, they are also "sinners" for going against those viewpoints, even if you can see the practicality in doing such.

I hate to say it because there are a lot of good things that come from religion, but it tends to prevent growth and knowledge and applying common sense in modern times. It was fine for back in the ancient times, but most of it is just unrealistic in our world as it is today. A perfect example of this phenomenon is the the Middle East. Easy to see how their religious beliefs put them at a disadvantage.

I would disagree.

There is no denying that this country was better off when we had a religious people. The fucking gays sure have caused a lot of trouble considering they are only 3% of the population, just as one example.

All the debauchery we see now, pedophiles, children having sex, porn etc etc. ALL of that would't exist to the degree it does if we were a more religious people.

However, the question must be asked , is doing what we would have to do to return to those times worth it in terms of personal freedom? I say no it wouldn't be worth it. But to deny that the choices people make today cause harm is silly

Are you forgetting about the Catholic church sex abuse scandal? No, no, no! A LOT of religious people are certainly not as "good" as they would like you to believe. The fact is, most of them are no better or moral than anyone else.

Too true, too true. I agree that religion or lack thereof alone does not guarantee morality, BUT I was speaking of the country as a whole. There's no denying that things were more wholesome in the 1950s for example, than they are today.

Frankly, I blame women.

I'll wait for the screaming to calm down before explaining

In the old days, such things were just "not discussed." It is a myth that life was so wonderful in the 50s. Sure, I'm sure men thought so, but there are a LOT of women (obviously - women's suffrage?) would disagree with that. Life was not so wonderful for SOME women, I'm sure ,and once they married an asshole, they were stuck with him. Thank GOD that is not the case anymore.

Yeah, I've heard the traditionalist point of view before. I'm not a newbie to these kinds of forums you know.

That's why I CLEARLY said that I don't think we should strive to return to those days. Yes, in MANY ways things were bettter, that's undeniable, but at what cost?

 

[deltex1]

No, the party is moving away from him, and he's scared because he isn't bright enough to make his own decisions, up until now he's just had to vote (R) on everything, and now the Republican Party is getting serious about getting rid of whack jobs, and that confuses Keys.

Well, I don't know about that. There seems to be plenty of whack jobs around that claim to be republicans. The point is the republican party is the party of "conservatives," which generally means religious and in this country, that means Christian and against gay marriage, abortion and other such things that you see as a "sin." The way men have set up their religions, they are also "sinners" for going against those viewpoints, even if you can see the practicality in doing such.

I hate to say it because there are a lot of good things that come from religion, but it tends to prevent growth and knowledge and applying common sense in modern times. It was fine for back in the ancient times, but most of it is just unrealistic in our world as it is today. A perfect example of this phenomenon is the the Middle East. Easy to see how their religious beliefs put them at a disadvantage.

I would disagree.

There is no denying that this country was better off when we had a religious people. The fucking gays sure have caused a lot of trouble considering they are only 3% of the population, just as one example.

All the debauchery we see now, pedophiles, children having sex, porn etc etc. ALL of that would't exist to the degree it does if we were a more religious people.

However, the question must be asked , is doing what we would have to do to return to those times worth it in terms of personal freedom? I say no it wouldn't be worth it. But to deny that the choices people make today cause harm is silly

Are you forgetting about the Catholic church sex abuse scandal? No, no, no! A LOT of religious people are certainly not as "good" as they would like you to believe. The fact is, most of them are no better or moral than anyone else.

Too true, too true. I agree that religion or lack thereof alone does not guarantee morality, BUT I was speaking of the country as a whole. There's no denying that things were more wholesome in the 1950s for example, than they are today.

Frankly, I blame women.

I'll wait for the screaming to calm down before explaining

In the old days, such things were just "not discussed." It is a myth that life was so wonderful in the 50s. Sure, I'm sure men thought so, but there are a LOT of women (obviously - women's suffrage?) would disagree with that. Life was not so wonderful for SOME women, I'm sure ,and once they married an asshole, they were stuck with him. Thank GOD that is not the case anymore.

Yeah, I've heard the traditionalist point of view before. I'm not a newbie to these kinds of forums you know.

Yeah, now you can marry an asshole, get rid of him, marry another asshole and another...have six kids living in a shack with no father....sounds like Ferguson.

 

[ChrisL]

Well, I don't know about that. There seems to be plenty of whack jobs around that claim to be republicans. The point is the republican party is the party of "conservatives," which generally means religious and in this country, that means Christian and against gay marriage, abortion and other such things that you see as a "sin." The way men have set up their religions, they are also "sinners" for going against those viewpoints, even if you can see the practicality in doing such.

I hate to say it because there are a lot of good things that come from religion, but it tends to prevent growth and knowledge and applying common sense in modern times. It was fine for back in the ancient times, but most of it is just unrealistic in our world as it is today. A perfect example of this phenomenon is the the Middle East. Easy to see how their religious beliefs put them at a disadvantage.

I would disagree.

There is no denying that this country was better off when we had a religious people. The fucking gays sure have caused a lot of trouble considering they are only 3% of the population, just as one example.

All the debauchery we see now, pedophiles, children having sex, porn etc etc. ALL of that would't exist to the degree it does if we were a more religious people.

However, the question must be asked , is doing what we would have to do to return to those times worth it in terms of personal freedom? I say no it wouldn't be worth it. But to deny that the choices people make today cause harm is silly

Are you forgetting about the Catholic church sex abuse scandal? No, no, no! A LOT of religious people are certainly not as "good" as they would like you to believe. The fact is, most of them are no better or moral than anyone else.

Too true, too true. I agree that religion or lack thereof alone does not guarantee morality, BUT I was speaking of the country as a whole. There's no denying that things were more wholesome in the 1950s for example, than they are today.

Frankly, I blame women.

I'll wait for the screaming to calm down before explaining

In the old days, such things were just "not discussed." It is a myth that life was so wonderful in the 50s. Sure, I'm sure men thought so, but there are a LOT of women (obviously - women's suffrage?) would disagree with that. Life was not so wonderful for SOME women, I'm sure ,and once they married an asshole, they were stuck with him. Thank GOD that is not the case anymore.

Yeah, I've heard the traditionalist point of view before. I'm not a newbie to these kinds of forums you know.

That's why I CLEARLY said that I don't think we should strive to return to those days. Yes, in MANY ways things were bettter, that's undeniable, but at what cost?

I agree that perhaps some things were better, but there were also a lot less people, a lot less immigrants, etc.

 

[ChrisL]

Well, I don't know about that. There seems to be plenty of whack jobs around that claim to be republicans. The point is the republican party is the party of "conservatives," which generally means religious and in this country, that means Christian and against gay marriage, abortion and other such things that you see as a "sin." The way men have set up their religions, they are also "sinners" for going against those viewpoints, even if you can see the practicality in doing such.

I hate to say it because there are a lot of good things that come from religion, but it tends to prevent growth and knowledge and applying common sense in modern times. It was fine for back in the ancient times, but most of it is just unrealistic in our world as it is today. A perfect example of this phenomenon is the the Middle East. Easy to see how their religious beliefs put them at a disadvantage.

I would disagree.

There is no denying that this country was better off when we had a religious people. The fucking gays sure have caused a lot of trouble considering they are only 3% of the population, just as one example.

All the debauchery we see now, pedophiles, children having sex, porn etc etc. ALL of that would't exist to the degree it does if we were a more religious people.

However, the question must be asked , is doing what we would have to do to return to those times worth it in terms of personal freedom? I say no it wouldn't be worth it. But to deny that the choices people make today cause harm is silly

Are you forgetting about the Catholic church sex abuse scandal? No, no, no! A LOT of religious people are certainly not as "good" as they would like you to believe. The fact is, most of them are no better or moral than anyone else.

Too true, too true. I agree that religion or lack thereof alone does not guarantee morality, BUT I was speaking of the country as a whole. There's no denying that things were more wholesome in the 1950s for example, than they are today.

Frankly, I blame women.

I'll wait for the screaming to calm down before explaining

In the old days, such things were just "not discussed." It is a myth that life was so wonderful in the 50s. Sure, I'm sure men thought so, but there are a LOT of women (obviously - women's suffrage?) would disagree with that. Life was not so wonderful for SOME women, I'm sure ,and once they married an asshole, they were stuck with him. Thank GOD that is not the case anymore.

Yeah, I've heard the traditionalist point of view before. I'm not a newbie to these kinds of forums you know.

Yeah, now you can marry an asshole, get rid of him, marry another asshole and another...have six kids living in a shack with no father....sounds like Ferguson.

Smart people just don't do those things, but if they make a mistake they don't HAVE to be forced into an unhappy situation. There are plenty of people in the world after all.

 

[ChrisL]

Well, I don't know about that. There seems to be plenty of whack jobs around that claim to be republicans. The point is the republican party is the party of "conservatives," which generally means religious and in this country, that means Christian and against gay marriage, abortion and other such things that you see as a "sin." The way men have set up their religions, they are also "sinners" for going against those viewpoints, even if you can see the practicality in doing such.

I hate to say it because there are a lot of good things that come from religion, but it tends to prevent growth and knowledge and applying common sense in modern times. It was fine for back in the ancient times, but most of it is just unrealistic in our world as it is today. A perfect example of this phenomenon is the the Middle East. Easy to see how their religious beliefs put them at a disadvantage.

I would disagree.

There is no denying that this country was better off when we had a religious people. The fucking gays sure have caused a lot of trouble considering they are only 3% of the population, just as one example.

All the debauchery we see now, pedophiles, children having sex, porn etc etc. ALL of that would't exist to the degree it does if we were a more religious people.

However, the question must be asked , is doing what we would have to do to return to those times worth it in terms of personal freedom? I say no it wouldn't be worth it. But to deny that the choices people make today cause harm is silly

Are you forgetting about the Catholic church sex abuse scandal? No, no, no! A LOT of religious people are certainly not as "good" as they would like you to believe. The fact is, most of them are no better or moral than anyone else.

Too true, too true. I agree that religion or lack thereof alone does not guarantee morality, BUT I was speaking of the country as a whole. There's no denying that things were more wholesome in the 1950s for example, than they are today.

Frankly, I blame women.

I'll wait for the screaming to calm down before explaining

In the old days, such things were just "not discussed." It is a myth that life was so wonderful in the 50s. Sure, I'm sure men thought so, but there are a LOT of women (obviously - women's suffrage?) would disagree with that. Life was not so wonderful for SOME women, I'm sure ,and once they married an asshole, they were stuck with him. Thank GOD that is not the case anymore.

Yeah, I've heard the traditionalist point of view before. I'm not a newbie to these kinds of forums you know.

Yeah, now you can marry an asshole, get rid of him, marry another asshole and another...have six kids living in a shack with no father....sounds like Ferguson.

This post is interesting. So, what exactly do you think of women? That they are idiots who need to be married in order to make any wise decisions regarding their lives? That their lives should be dedicated to getting married and having children, instead of pursuing their own hopes and dreams, if they so choose?