Politically, I find most Liberals intolerant of other's viewpoints.

[PubliusInfinitum]

Precisely what I'm talking about. Worse is the fact that if I compare your quote to the canned responses I see on forums for Hannity, Levin, etc, the response is practically a word for word repetition. Maybe Right-Think exsists after all?

Facts are facts, Doc... Add to that, that valid principle does not change; thus reason is served that where one chronically challenges those facts, the principles common to the relevant circumstances will tend to be fairly commonly represented; and when one chronically engages those who know the facts and who understand those principles... You’re certain to see a lot of those facts and those principles…

How that citation is relevant to anything is known only to you... If it is some reference to Limbaugh presumably admitting that he had 'carried the political water' for people he otherwise felt didn't deserve it... SO WHAT? What was the option?

Speak your mind is always a courageous and intellectually honest option.

If your party doesn't represent you, finding another is also a courageous and intellectually honest option.

Limbaugh's quote is self-evident in its meaning and calls into question his honesty as an advocate of public policy. If he'll knuckle under to "carry water" for folks he doesn't feel deserve it, why trust him to speak honestly?

ROFL... So, I was correct then, in the presumption that you need to use Limbaugh's declaration as some measure which demonstrates an imperfection.

LOL... CLASSIC!

Well here's the thing Doc... Limbaugh isn't perfect, never claimed to be perfect and no one that I know expects such from him.

I don't agree with rush on everything. His tendency towards the belief that Leftists are capable of learning irritates me to no end... Rush constantly tries to convince Leftists that his argument, his ideology is the best way to go... hoping to sway them.

My experience shows that Leftists are leftists, due to a stark cognitive deficiency... that IF a Leftist had the intellectual means to understand sound reason; they'd be found espousing it from time to time...

Yet... they never are... If the Leftists were able to comprehend sound reason... THAY WOULD! The fact is that they do not... so to hell with 'em.

Nature has a cure for these things... and some day in the not too distant future, you and I will wake up and learn that some event has taken place which touched off the ideological powder Keg... and it will be open season on Left-think. At the end of that catastrophe, the Left will be extinct and sound moral principle will once again prevail; and the survivors can get to the job of rebuilding a sustainable culture upon the immutable principle of nature; sans those who disagree..

Lets talk a minute about '08. Part of the reason that Limbaugh had no impact on the final candidate is that like Hannity and others, he was scared to death to back a losing horse. The Right Wing Radio folks refused to back ANY candidate until it was far far too late to stop McCain.

Once McCain had won the primary, they all cried their tears and lined up behind him. Limbaugh himself talked about the need to "pull McCain across the finish line" If they'd had any principles or intellectual honesty they'd have recruited a candidate, backed an existing one, or left for the third party.

.

LOL... Third parties are cultural suicide... the fight is within the GOP to take it back from the Centrists... OKA: Leftists...

The SECOND the GOP is successfully fractured... the culture is doomed to generations of Leftist rule... and at this point, one more generation of such and "AMERICA" is history.

By fracturing the GOP, you splinter the electorate and what you'll end up with is what happened in 92... with Clinton coming to power in a stark minority of the vote.

No thanks...

As to the Talk Radio Hosts not backing a primary candidate, that in and of ITSELF is a PRINCIPLED POSITION. They're there to state the principles of their position and to allow the various candidates to come on their programs and state their's... If they overtly backed a candidate in the primary, such would tend towards the above noted fracturing of the Conservative electorate... and that sir is not an option.

The Candidates are all individuals; they're free to state their positions; and the Radio Hosts have advanced NO SMALL AMOUNT OF DISAGREEMENT WITH EVERY ONE OF THE CANDIDATES, with Limbaugh being no exception, since his syndication in 89... By not backing a specific candidate they remain free to argue the principles objectively, against the stated positions of ALL of the candidates; and at the end of the day, when a Candidate is selected... It serves the interests of the system to back THAT CANDIDATE!

And this due to the reality that WHERE THAT CANDIDATE FAILS... the opposition WINS... and the last time I checked, it is better for the US when something resembling an American is sitting at the helm of American governance.

Although, I must say, it is just HYSTERICAL that we in the GOP get SO much advice from our opposition on how we should run our party...

Particularly given that SO MUCH of the hierarchy of the GOP has, over the last 12 or so years, taken that advice; leading our party towards moderation; quieting down of the "family values' component and opening our tent to include the 'independent, moderate, centrist, progressives... and that has really just worked GREAT FOR US.

So, you'll forgive me if I climb up eyeball to eyeball and laugh in your face, at the notion that you represent anything approaching principled Conservativism.

Instead, they advocated for a McCain victory.

Yep... and they did it because there was no alternative... as to not do so was to surrender to the Muslim Marxist which opposed Mccain.

Had McCain won, Conservatives would have lost out in the GOP for a generation. Now he's lost, there's a chance they can gain ground again.

McCain had no chance of winning... recall that McCain's campaign was BROKE... 6 months prior to the election, he was days from throwing in the towel and then; and I don't recall the specifics, but the Huckster came into play and McCain’s bulb re-ignited... and after he selected Palin, he had a sliver of a chance... absent Palin, McCain would have lost by 20%.

But had he won, he'd be at 30% right now... I personal can't stand that sorry fascist fuck... And I seriously doubt that he'd have improved much as President.

It's arguable that had McCain won, that his failure would have demonstrated in finality the foolishness of tolerating Centrists in the GOP.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Followed by a bunch of words in which you excuse Reagan. What is it with the deification of Reagan by Conservatives? Why are you all so willing to toss aside nearly his entire record to build some sort of Conservative myth?

ROFL... You're clearly turned around... We simply reject the myth that Reagan was the US government during the period 1981-88. Reagan's record is unimpeachable... and never more so, than when compared to the incontestably impeachable Presidency of say... William the Bubba. That Reagan was required to compromise with the strong Leftist Majorities in the Legislature during his Presidency doesn't discredit his staunch advocacies for the immutable principles and for policy which reflects the interests of those principles; any more than Clinton being forced to compromise with the Sound, Principled Fiscal Responsibility brought by the 94 Conservative Congress, makes Clinton an American.

Should have addressed this yesterday, but I did listen to Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck laughably oppose the Mr. Bush. A typical segement consisted of about 5 minutes of opposition to the policy, during which they tried valiantly to mention Mr. Bush by name as little as possible, and then a shift to the attack on Democrats that aligned with the President on these issues.

Absolute nonsense... All spent WEEKS, wherein the near entirety of their respective 3 hours were spent hammering away in opposition to Amnesty for illegal’s, SCOTUS appointments, Medicare expansion, the Kennedy Education bill and so on. Your observations here are deceitful at BEST; and at worst they're just more tired misinformation.

That is central weakness of the Modern Conservative, and the seeds for it were sown with Buckley. If a Modern Conservative isn't flailing around on the attack against a "D", then he's got nothing.

Well Doc, where the Ds are advocating for a future policy failure... it's a certainty that there's going to be an American contesting it... But, it's cute that you would go to the trouble of posing such as a denigration; when in truth, its the duty of Americans to oppose policy which runs counter to the principles on which America rests.

My experience begs to differ. I've yet to encounter any two "Liberals" who agree on more than a single issue. There is no group think here.

All that proves doc, is that you've either precious little experience of you're a damnable liar.

No news there...

I'm willing to bet that because I live and work in the world of Academics I encounter far more "Liberals" than you do.

Doc, if you were a person with any discernible means and if there were a means to objectively determine such, I'd take that bet.

I've spent the last 15 years, actively seeking out Leftists, on a daily basis, 7 days a week and on average 8 or more hours a day... I'd set my understanding of Left-think against the entire sum of the academic world.

If you can herd them onto this forum... Start a thread and I'll demonstrate...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

In exactly what way does the Government insuring the poor satisfy the condition of "sets aside individual rights and tranfers the responsibilities inherent in the devinely endowed, unalienable human rights at the foundation of Americanism, to "the people"", or is going bankrupt because of a catastrophic illness a "human right?"

The 'need' of the ethereal 'poor,' does not constitute an entitlement to the means of those who possess such.

And by giving the government the power to usurp the means of one person to subsidize the existance of another, one is establishing just such an entitlement.

Where one establishes the entitlement of those in need to the means of others; one is IMPLEMENTING MARXISM... a rather distinct facet of Socialism...

Your argument falls apart right here in a very spectacular moment of flawed reasoning.

The needs of one person A entitle them to the means of person B when the needs of person B depend upon the means of person A.

ROFL... The “Interdependency” farce? Seriously? So you ARE a Marxist… Go figure.

Here's the thing Doc, we.. Human beings, are not interdependent upon each other...

I am not dependent upon you; you're not dependent upon me... When I die, my passing will not effect you in the slightest and vice versa.

That's pretty much the fundamental axiom of Capitalism and bartering.

ROFLMNAO...Sweet mother...

So you 'feel' that the concept of 'Needs' and that of 'Means' naturally compliment one another... Thus where needs/means results in the freely exchanging of the means wherein one possesses goods and or services, to resolve a need for goods and services represents an interdependency, wherein those with needs are inherently entitled to the means... So... if I need a meal and you own a restaurant, thus the means to solve my need for a meal; and I have the means to say walk a goat... then I am entitled to eat the food at your restaurant and satisfy your need for payment, by walking your goat...

And that you don't own a goat; thus have no need of a goat walker... well that’s just tough shit for you then? After all, we both have needs and means... Right? And that we're interdependent upon one another... using the Calculation of interdependency, cited above; entitles me to you food, without regard to your need for my means...

Here's the thing Doc... As a human being I was endowed by my Creator with my life... that life rightfully entitles me to pursue the fulfillment of that life... thus I am rightfully entitled to sustain my life, through the biological necessity of consuming nutrients to sustain my biological system by which my life is transported... I.e.: Eating ...

Of course, I am also duty bound to not exercise my rights to the detriment of another's right, thus I've two choices when it comes to eating... I can roam about and find that which is provided by nature that is consumable... Meaning that I can exist upon the back of natures bounty... Picking fruit, nuts and berries... the rare wild veggy... or perhaps even kill a sub-species... and eat it.

But in maintaining my responsibilities, I cannot deprive another of their property, so I'm bound by principle to not just walk into a orange grove, apple orchard; I can't jump the fence into Farmer Jacks Corn field or The Big Easy ranch and help myself to a Steer...

Because that is another person's property; and by consuming their property I am disregarding my responsibility to not exercise my rights, to the detriment of another's rights and when I consume their crops without fairly compensating them, through a mutually agreed upon exchange of value... I deprive them of the use of the product of their labor...

Which brings us to option 2... It is my responsibility to produce a valuable skill or some form of goods; OKA: MEANS; which the owners of that nutritious property will recognize will solve a need of theirs... so as to exchange that MEANS... for their means... solving our mutual NEED.

Now that interdendency DOES NOT ESTABLISH ENTITLEMENT OF ANY FREAKIN' KIND.

I am not entitled to Farmer Jack's corn... He is NOT entitled to my goods and services... His need for my goods and services does NOT obligate me to exchange a damn thing with him... My need does not obligate him to exchange his corn to fill my groanin' belly...

That we are ENTITLED to trade; that we both have needs and we both have means to do so... is the basis of Capitalism... There is no entitlement facet to Capitalism... beyond the entitlement TO EXCHANGE GOODS AND SERVICES TO THE MUTUAL BENEFIT OF BOTH PARTIES...

What's more... the notion that the needy: Party A, is entitled to the means of Party B, is the antithesis of the free exchange of goods and services to the mutual benefit of both parties... as where one is ENTITLED to the means, this has a negative effect on the potential value of those means...

Meaning that where say... Oh I dunno... Let's say you own a Truck... and lets say I need a truck... We run across one another and I happen to notice your truck... possessing the entitlement producing need... I walk over to you and say "Hey Doc, get out of that truck I need it... " To which you respond " I hear you telling me that you've a need of this truck... perhaps you have something that I need, which you could exchange for the use of my truck... " Screw your exchange Doc... Based upon the principle of your interdependency calculation, I'm entitled to your means... Now get out of the truck or face the consequences of your greed..."

So do ya see how my being entitled to your means has sorta set aside my need to compensate you through the exchange of fair value?

God's law provides for perfection in reasoning... wherein we are each rightfully entitled to pursue the fulfillment of our respective lives; bound by the responsibility to not exercise our rights to the detriment of another; bound to defend our rights and the rights of our neighbors... Thus we are entitled to produce valuable means, which we may exchange with other free sovereigns for their valuable means, toward the end of that pursuit.

Now where we come across another who has no means, but which has a need; we are entitled to assist that person... but we are not OBLIGATED TO DO SO... as such an obligation represents an ENTITLEMENT by those in NEED OF MY MEANS... thus usurping my right to the unfettered use of the product of my labor, towards the fulfillment of my life... thus reducing the value of the product of that labor... thus destroying My MEANS TO SUSTAIN MYSELF... thus representing my failure to recognize my duty to defend my rights and my life...

Get it Doc?

Your need does not represent my obligation to solve your need... your need merely provides me with an opportunity to fulfill your need, given you've the means to exchange fair value, towards that end. And IF you've no fair value to exchange, I am entitled to GIVE you some of my means towards helping you resolve your need... IN AN ACT OF KINDNESS... BY WAY OF CHARITY.

Not to mention the social contract formed when humans join together to form communities. It is not socialism.

Bullshit Doc... It is socialism... The Social Contract does not obligate me to fulfill your need... I've made no contract to that affect. I've not consented in ANY WAY to such terms; and that you feel otherwise is YOUR ERROR.

My contract is with Nature's God; that I have received as a GIFT from God: my life. That I will use that life to pursue the fulfillment of said life and to not exercise the rights inherent in the life, to the detriment of the rights of others; and that I will defend to the extent of my means, the aforementioned rights, not only for myself, but for my neighbors as well... and THAT is ALL to which I've committed.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Right now the current situation in the world of health care is that we who have insurance pay for those that do not through increased medical costs passed along when a person absolutely can not pay.

Ok... So you're saying that those that cannot pay are receiving medical treatment... sounds like the system is working.

What's the problem? I think you're heading headlong into the 'Fairness' farce... wherein you're about to lament that the poor aren't able to receive equal medical care with those of higher means... when in truth, that is exactly fair. Sadly, there is no way to produce sufficient means to provide the healthcare common to those with substantial means... the only thing that is possible is to lower the resulting exchange, so that everyone will realize the product available to those of insufficient means...

No thanks... The system we have now isn't perfect; with perfection being defined as that which satisfies every opinion... but it works REALLY well... So we'll just keep what we have. But thanks for the offer to ruin it, so you and the Academics feel better about yourselves...

Insuring the poor is not socialism

Hmm... Lets see... First... Confiscating the means of one, to resolve need of another...

Uh, Yeeaah... that's socialism alright, Doc.

Secondly, one doesn't insure against a certain loss... where there is certainty for a loss, one simply sustains the loss... we call that 'reality.'

Third, the word you're searching for is ENSURING... as in ensuring need through an entitlement to the means.

, its just a wise use of tax dollars to help address the needs of the community as a whole.

"The community as a whole?" Doc you just stated that the need was possessed by the segment of the community known as the poor...

"That is why people since time immortal have paid taxes... to address the needs of the community as a whole."

Well Doc, not really... Taxes have been many things... more often than not, they've ensured the neediness of those who were entitled to the means... And as a general rule, the need was presented by those with the power to force their entitlement...

That is until this neat idea came to light: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,..."

And those truths remain self evident Doc... and there is NOTHING truthful, in the proposition that one is entitled to the product of another's labor, due to their being in need of that product; what's more such a proposition stands anathema TO THE AFOREMENTIONED TRUTHS...

Party affiliation isn't a sure sign of political philosophy. There are many liberal Republicans just as there are conservative Democrats.


Yes... Zell Miller is a Conservative Democrat...

Would ya care to remind the board of the Democrats perspective on Zell Miller?

Frankly, Zell Miller brought this on himself. If you pick the most embarrassing and public forum possible to air your griefs with your colleagues, you should expect a cold shoulder from even the most patient and open co-workers.

Whoa... Hold on Doc... The issue was the tolerant nature of the Left for those within their party who happen to hold differing ideas...

I said that being a Democrat was the good indicator of one being a Leftist; you said that this wasn't so and ya pointed to the Blue-dogs... making a big deal relevant to what a big ole' tent the Democrat party was... implying a common respect for Democrats of a Conservative nature...; and I pointed out Zell Miller being a life long Democrat and how he was shoved under the BUS the INSTANT he disclosed his Conservative views...

And now you want to rationalize how he brought the shove onto himself, by espousing conservative views in public.

Sweet fail... it really seems to be your gift.

Now, by all means, go ahead and ignore the bulk of the response; denigrate the courtesy of my having taken a couple of hours to consider your views and respond to them, through the heady witticisms such as 'blah, blah, blah... and so forth.

And do all this, while your denying the notion that there's something inherently intolerant about the Left...

That’s ALWAYS a gas...

 

[Diuretic]

Using 'liberal' instead of 'socialist' in the USA is like a proctologist using KY before an exam.

Excuse me if I don't burst out laughing. Someone else who doesn't understand plain English.

I am not too sure an Aussie has much room to discuss 'plain English', but okie doke. It seems I've offended you. The collective obviously doesn't like what I said.

Not offended. And as for my use of English, plain, plaintive or just a pain, ask me to explain when I declaim so that both of us might gain.

 

[Si modo]

Excuse me if I don't burst out laughing. Someone else who doesn't understand plain English.

I am not too sure an Aussie has much room to discuss 'plain English', but okie doke. It seems I've offended you. The collective obviously doesn't like what I said.

Not offended. And as for my use of English, plain, plaintive or just a pain, ask me to explain when I declaim so that both of us might gain.

I like it.

 

[Diuretic]

I am not too sure an Aussie has much room to discuss 'plain English', but okie doke. It seems I've offended you. The collective obviously doesn't like what I said.

Not offended. And as for my use of English, plain, plaintive or just a pain, ask me to explain when I declaim so that both of us might gain.

I like it.

Thank you, much appreciated.

 

[Si modo]

Excuse me if I don't burst out laughing. Someone else who doesn't understand plain English.

I am not too sure an Aussie has much room to discuss 'plain English', but okie doke. It seems I've offended you. The collective obviously doesn't like what I said.

Not offended. And as for my use of English, plain, plaintive or just a pain, ask me to explain when I declaim so that both of us might gain.

I like it.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Sure. I think that if you want to identify yourself as a Conservative you should believe in:
1. The basic freedoms of non-interference and self-determination the country was founded upon. agreed...
2. The rule of law and the necessity of government.Agreed...
3. Sound reasoning.agreed...

The Founders fought for greater independence and self-determination, recognized the need for a strong but limited central government, and championed personal rights. They were the product of an era where the average educated man was actively involved in scientific research and understood the value of critical thinking.

I do not consider the Right-Wing Talk show hosts to represent this at all.

Well given your examples, I'd say that the problem is that you're ignorant of the individuals you reference, their stated positions and are a victim of a popularly held but erroneous propaganda campaign...



This is patently false... and indicates that you're suffering from the above noted ignorance.

The list of Republican policy which has been blasted by Limbaugh, Beck and Coulter is ENDLESS, from amnesty for illegals to Moderate SCOTUS appointees... Medicare expansion, Federal usurpation of education, bailouts and ON AND ON AND ON...





Nonsense... Socialism is not some encrypted code known only to a few who possess the keys... it is a commonly understood concept which sets aside individual rights and tranfers the responsibilities inherent in the devinely endowed, unalienable human rights at the foundation of Americanism, to "the people"... which is Left-think code for the State...

Socialism is anathema in every facet of the long discredited ideology to the very concept of America... If you've some specific example of a policy which has been erroneously defined as socialist, but which in reality is in keeping with the immutable principles on which American liberty rests... cite it... otherwise your argument fails a miserable and humiliating death.

"Liberal" is another. If a person boasts a "D" following their name, they are automatically Liberal in the eyes of the Right Wing Radio establishment. That is blatantly false as there is a growing "Blue Dog" wing of the Democratic Party.

Again, this is a ridiculous mischaracterization... A liberal is not a difficult thing to identify and being a partisan Democrat is in point of FACT, a first class sign of such.


Sadly, I'm out of time... we'll cover the rest later..

LOL I find it hilarious that you are attacking him claiming he is basing his defintion of a conservative on mischaracterizations and the you do the same when you try to define liberals based on your mischaracterizations. LOL

What mischaracterization is that, sis? BE SPECIFIC...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

My experience has been that the radical religious right are among the least tolerant people - they are pretty darn close to the radical islamist jihadists.

Well that's likely due to your advocacting for those things which are intolerable?

Ever considered that?

And you're entitled to believe that the Religious Right (defined as Christians) are 'close to Islamic Jihadists'... just recognize that your belief is without foundation... meaning, that in fact; you're full of shit.

But there's no surprise there for either of us... is there?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

OK, perhaps it's not conservatism. However, personal liberty comes into play. What two men or women do is none of my or your business. The Constitution actually speaks of contracts...

Ok... I do not want to hijack the pilgrim's thread... but I'll cover this again; only to the degree which is relevant...

Human rights are unalienable... they're endowed by Nature's God to the individual... they exist on God's authority and no one but God can alter those rights, EXCEPT for the individual themselves; and only where the individual FORFEITS the right, through their overt disregard for the INTRINSIC responsibilities which come with the right...

Now the advocates of Homosexuality are quick to note that homosexuality is a consensual organism... meaning that two individuals willingly consent to each other, the relevant sexual relationship...

Now where that is true... where to individuals are so inclined, in the privacy of wherever, they are entitled to tear away at each others rectums until their bowels are irretrievably compacted, if that is what they want...

But homosexuality does not exist in a vacuum... and where one individual pursues another, who is not inclined; where one seeks to lure another which is not, for whatever reason suffering the same flawed program... where one recruits another who is otherwise not already a pathetic sexual devient... THAT INDIVIDUAL IS DEMONSTRATING A BLATANT DISREGARD FOR THE RESPONSIBILITIES INHERENT IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS; SPECIFICALLY TO NOT EXERCISE ONE'S OWN RIGHTS TO THE DETRIMENT OF ANOTHER...

Homosexuality is abnormal sexuality; practicing homosexuals are demonstrating significant flaws in their character; they are subjecting themselves and their sexual partners to substantial risks to their health and to the overall health of their neighbors; and never MORE SO than where they engage in homosexual coitus with those inclined towards bi-sexuality...

There is NO Right to exercise one's right to engage in sexual intercourse with a consenting, appropriately aged partner, at the expense of the rights of those individuals who will partner down the road.

Again, this is not complex... Unalienable Individual RIGHTS... come with UNALIENABLE INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITIES... and just because one has a need to bleed from their anus... does NOT give one a RIGHT to enage in such activity that PROMOTES THE LIKEIHOOD THAT SUCH WILL RESULT IN THE USURPATION OF ANOTHER PERSONS RIGHTS...

Want to enage in twisted sexual deviency... FINE... Find someone to do it with; keep it to yourself and don't spread the potentially deadly diseases which are common to such to other people.

Now where such is the case... where on demonstrates such a disregard for one's responsibilities, they FORFEIT THEIR RIGHTS...

Any questions?

WOW, that has got to be one of the most ignorant arguments i have ever heard in my entire life.
You are actually trying to argue that one must somehow, beyond the scope of reality as we know it, know and respect the rights of the FUTURE partners of your current partner and that if they lack the ability to see the future that they are violating the rights of possible, but as of yet non existent, future partners??

Are you really this ingorant and moronic?

I mean, I have seen people try to stretch and bend in many different ways to try and justify their position but arguing that homosexuals must have the ability of precognition or they are violating someone else's rights has got to be the most warped argument that I have seen.

This isn't a complex problem sis... it just may be beyond your intellectual means.

If you infect partner A, then your risk partner B and so on down the line...

IF your queer ass is engaged by a queer who hasn't quite weened themselves off the opposite gender, then you spread your evil to their partners.

The argument is one wherein YOU'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR ACTIONS. And when those actions result in the usurpration of another's RIGHTS... YOU FORFEIT YOUR OWN RIGHTS.

Whether you infect one or 100... you are still responsible for your actions.

Now perhaps... just perhaps... the thing to do is to not be casual about those thingss which bring with them severe consequences....

For instance... Hetero sexual intercourse is the bilogical means by which human life is conceived... now knowing that one is responsible for one's actions; and that engaging in sexual intercourse will likely result in the conception of a human life; where one is not prepared to take responsbility for the life of another human being... maybe its a BAD IDEA to engage in sexual intercourse... and never MORE so than when one is a FEMALE; and as a result carries that responsibility in the extreme.

Where one is a pathetic sexual devient which is incapable of denying one's twisted sexual obsessions; and where one's obsession happens to be the need to sodomize one of their own gender... and where such activity is the biological means by which deadly viruses are transmitted; and where one is not desirous of being subjected to the unenviable curcumstances common to the contraction of a deadly virus... PERHAPS ITS A BAD IDEA TO SUCCUMB TO THAT OBSESSION AND ENGAGE IN SUCH ACTIVITY... particularly where one's tendency to succumb to such leaves them responsible for the usurpation of the rights of others, for which they will forfeit their own rights...

Anything gettin' thru?

 

[logical4u]

However when it comes to dealing with the conservative culture liberals become very ethnocentric. The majority of liberals show very little, if any, respect for the conservative culture. Especially on message boards. In fact on message boards liberals are completely intolerant of conservative culture and values.

That is because conservative culture stands in the way of freedom and peace and equality. Not hard to understand why liberals argue against conservatives as conservatives have fought against everything that makes life free. Conservative politics is reactionary politics, it fights against all that makes life good. Witness only the lunacy over UHC.

A Short History of Conservative Obstruction to Progress | Conceptual Guerilla


recent damage
The bill for the Bush administration | Salon News

For a brilliant analysis of reactionary politics see:

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Rhetoric-Reaction-Perversity-Futility-Jeopardy/dp/067476868X/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1246707264&sr=1-8]Amazon.com: The Rhetoric of Reaction: Perversity, Futility, Jeopardy (9780674768680): Albert O. Hirschman: Books[/ame]

conservative values:
our gov has the responsibility of protecting the constitution, not making one up or pretending extra words are written in there.
our gov should protect the country's borders (national security)

believe that everyone (the whole variety ofpeople, all of them) has opportunity, what you do with that is entirely up to you.

believe that the laws should be enforced equally for all (groups do not get to pick and choose which laws should be obeyed). If the public is against a law, repeal it, or change it, but do not allow selective breakage.

Believe that human life is special, innocent life should be protected (no matter what age, including in embryo and fetus stages). Those that take innocence should pay the ultimate penalty: death, that all protect the lives of the innocent (vs turning sexual predators loose, repeatedly).

believe that small gov and lower taxes ensure that citizens will have more opportunity and freedoms, not the other way around.

Believe that liberals are more destructive than constructive. They seem to concentrate more on taking things away than providing real assistance to anyone. We keep hoping they will mature....still waiting. Maybe they will read and understand socialist/communist/tyrantical histories and see that it never ends well.

 

[logical4u]

btw, your post was full of bullshit, but you already know that.

Did it hit close?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

btw, your post was full of bullshit, but you already know that.

Did it hit close?

She's the in-house idiot... and not capable of cogent response.

 

[logical4u]

Conservatives and Liberals have very different outlooks on life. In fact liberals have a completely diffferent culture than conservatives. This leads to both sides arguing over subjects as their differing culture leads them to different opinions on the subject.

A big part of the liberal culture is the preaching of tolerance for others. Tolerance and respect for those around the world, tolerance and respect for minorities, tolerance for illegal immigrants, and so on.

However when it comes to dealing with the conservative culture liberals become very ethnocentric. The majority of liberals show very little, if any, respect for the conservative culture. Especially on message boards. In fact on message boards liberals are completely intolerant of conservative culture and values.



This constantly makes me think of hypocracy. The liberals who do this remind me of the conservatives who preach family values then cheat on their wifes, hypocrites.

So liberals next time you get all wound up and ready to bash on some conservative for wanting guns, not wanting abortion, being against radicals in their white house, being wary of who the president surrounds themselves with, or their hate of government involvment in our lives and the taxes that comes along with it....remember it makes you sound like hypocrites to many fair minded individuals.



Another random thought of mine that i decided to post

i would keep your random bullshit to yourself...please show me the tolerant "neo cons" and i really thought you were above this partisan shit...did you say you were...

why is it the ones who say they are non partisan are the biggest fucking partisan hacks!

The "tolerant" neo-cons are the ones that do not walk aroung killing (remember, they are clinging to their guns and Bibles) the wacko libs. They wait patiently for them, the libs, to "get it".
Because they do not "accept" your views, does not mean they are not tolerated.

Apparently, this post hit home with you, do you see some truth there?

 

[logical4u]

ohhhhhhhhh... so people can say what they want? make whatever slurs they choose... state any misstatements they want...

and if people respond, THEY are the ones who are intolerant?

lol...

if you check the blogs, the libs use slurs and misstatements more than the conservatives. Just an observation. I think it is because they can't defend their ideas.

 

[Si modo]

Conservatives and Liberals have very different outlooks on life. In fact liberals have a completely diffferent culture than conservatives. This leads to both sides arguing over subjects as their differing culture leads them to different opinions on the subject.

A big part of the liberal culture is the preaching of tolerance for others. Tolerance and respect for those around the world, tolerance and respect for minorities, tolerance for illegal immigrants, and so on.

However when it comes to dealing with the conservative culture liberals become very ethnocentric. The majority of liberals show very little, if any, respect for the conservative culture. Especially on message boards. In fact on message boards liberals are completely intolerant of conservative culture and values.



This constantly makes me think of hypocracy. The liberals who do this remind me of the conservatives who preach family values then cheat on their wifes, hypocrites.

So liberals next time you get all wound up and ready to bash on some conservative for wanting guns, not wanting abortion, being against radicals in their white house, being wary of who the president surrounds themselves with, or their hate of government involvment in our lives and the taxes that comes along with it....remember it makes you sound like hypocrites to many fair minded individuals.



Another random thought of mine that i decided to post

i would keep your random bullshit to yourself...please show me the tolerant "neo cons" and i really thought you were above this partisan shit...did you say you were...

why is it the ones who say they are non partisan are the biggest fucking partisan hacks!

*pops head in door* Did someone call for a tolerant Neocon?

Now, where are the cocktails?

 

[Vast LWC]

Conservatives and Liberals have very different outlooks on life. In fact liberals have a completely diffferent culture than conservatives. This leads to both sides arguing over subjects as their differing culture leads them to different opinions on the subject.

A big part of the liberal culture is the preaching of tolerance for others. Tolerance and respect for those around the world, tolerance and respect for minorities, tolerance for illegal immigrants, and so on.

However when it comes to dealing with the conservative culture liberals become very ethnocentric. The majority of liberals show very little, if any, respect for the conservative culture. Especially on message boards. In fact on message boards liberals are completely intolerant of conservative culture and values.

This constantly makes me think of hypocracy. The liberals who do this remind me of the conservatives who preach family values then cheat on their wifes, hypocrites.

So liberals next time you get all wound up and ready to bash on some conservative for wanting guns, not wanting abortion, being against radicals in their white house, being wary of who the president surrounds themselves with, or their hate of government involvment in our lives and the taxes that comes along with it....remember it makes you sound like hypocrites to many fair minded individuals.



Another random thought of mine that i decided to post

Politically, Liberals find Conservatives intolerant.

Your position as a Conservative tends to color your viewpoint on this matter, don't you think?

 

[logical4u]

sounds to me like you needed to do a thread on why people are generally intolerant today? you could have covered it with that...so it was your choose to slant it one way or another...now wasnt it?

Maybe he's feeling guilty that he is intolerant of troofers and Obama making a speech to school children.

whats wrong with the president speaking to schoolkids about the importance of education?

Didn't reagan and bush sr do that too?


Oh my the assumptions one makes.

i think 9/11 trufers are as off base as the birfers

Bush 41 did not try to "take over" (hee, hee, hee) the entire nation's schools, as Obama did. He went to one school (as a photo op), and gave a speech. the dems demanded an investigation over the waste of money.
This man was elected president, not king, he needs to get off the high horse.

 

[logical4u]

I agree with PLYMCO_PILGRIM to some point.

Anyone remembers Boy Scouts of America vs. Dale? It's about Boy Scouts refusing homosexuals to join them because of homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the values. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Boy Scouts due to the First Amendment right of expressive association.

But it didn't stop there. Liberals can't stand anyone who refuse to bow down to their ideology. To diverse leftists, freedom only means that you are free to agree with them. You are not free to disagree. In response to the Court's ruling and the Scouts' refusal to change their code of ethics to accommodate gays, they started national campaign of petitions and protests against the Boy Scouts. Then they proposed bill in Congress that would repeal the federal charter of the Boy Scouts of America and cut their federal funding. That bill didn't pass.

The point is, if far left liberals can't get their way, they will do whatever it takes to get around laws and Constitution to force you to accept their agenda.

What you cant seem to figure out is that the Boyscouts were being intolerant to gay people.


Gay people are not monsters to fear, they are merely people.

Do you really think no gay people are in the boys scouts just because they treat gays like monsters to be feared?

Gays do not embody the values of the scouts. Why would someone want to hire a CEO that disagreed with your companies values and wanted to replace those values with the competitions' values? No one said they are monsters (that is a game libs play to pretend they don't understand logic).

compare the treatment of religious people practicing their freedom of speech in a gay neighborhood: the gays were a lot less "tolerant" of the religious, they attacked, like those they accuse of being intolerant. It is sad.