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

[logical4u]

So we have people yelling down others trying to speak at town hall meetings and we are pointing out the Left's intolerance of opposing views?

The Left is no worse than the Right. The Right talks about "freedom" but has no problem shutting down freedoms when it conflicts with their own beliefs - whether that is on national security or morality or whatever. When the Left questioned the wars in the Middle East earlier this decade, they were overwhelmingly screamed down as being "unpatriotic" or "unAmerican." The amount of intolerance that is spewed out of the talk radio is staggering.

Yeah....There was a lot of that "shouting down" thing going on at the massive protest marches and in the rabble known as "Camp Casey" down in Crawford, TX.

Do you know who Max Cleland is? If you don't, let me clue you in.

Joseph Maxwell Cleland (born August 24, 1942) is an American politician from Georgia. Cleland, a Democrat, is a former U.S. Senator, disabled US Army veteran of the Vietnam War, decorated war hero, and a critic of the Bush Administration. ...

In 2002, Cleland lost his bid for a second Senate term to Representative Saxby Chambliss. Supporters blamed a Chambliss TV ad featuring the likenesses of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, while criticizing Cleland's votes against homeland security measures.[8] The ad, which Cleland supporters claimed questioned the senator's patriotism,[9] was removed after protests from prominent politicians including Republicans like John McCain and Chuck Hagel.[10] Chambliss supporters claimed the ad didn't question Cleland's patriotism, but rather his judgment

Max Cleland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Whether or not Cleland lost his seat because of the ad is debatable, but the fact that Republicans felt comfortable enough that they could produce a disgusting ad that analogized a triple-amputee decorated war hero with supporting Saddam Hussein pretty much is all you need to know about the environment back then.

One of Max's guys called me and asked if I would be supporting Max. I told him that I would not support any politician that when I contacted him, to tell him how I would like MY representative to vote on a bill, was sent a letter telling me how I should think. Max's guy told me, yeah, I have heard that before. It had nothing to do with him being a vet, it had to do with him not representing the voters.

 

[Vast LWC]

I recently read an interesting book on the subject of conservative and progressive worldviews.

It posited that Conservatives see the world from the viewpoint of a "strict parent", while progressives see the world from a "nurturing parent" point of view.

The insights as to why Conservatives and Liberals just don't understand each other are quite interesting. And the fact that the author didn't demonize either side was quite refreshing.

It was called "Moral Politics - How Liberals and Conservatives Think" By George Lakoff

 

[Liability]

I recently read an interesting book on the subject of conservative and progressive worldviews.

It posited that Conservatives see the world from the viewpoint of a "strict parent", while progressives see the world from a "nurturing parent" point of view.

The insights as to why Conservatives and Liberals just don't understand each other are quite interesting. And the fact that the author didn't demonize either side was quite refreshing.

It was called "Moral Politics - How Liberals and Conservatives Think" By George Lakoff

Sounds pretty much like pop psych pablum.

 

[Father Time]

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.

Should I expect you to have a study backing that up or would that be wasting my time?

I seem to remember a whole lot of slurs and mistatements coming from the right (who I'm sure you label as not conservative) at Obama during the campaign.

He's a terrorist/Muslim/socialist/wants to teach sex ed to 2nd graders etc.

 

[Father Time]

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.

The only way your post makes sense is if gays all had the same values, they don't so it's just idiotic.

You can find bigotry against gays from Christians without too much effort

Although if you REALLY want to play hardball, why then are they allowing in Muslims? Look how they treat Christians in Islamic countries, it EASILY trumps any stupid case of gay intolerance you care to throw at me.

P.S. If they're a private organization (and a bigoted one at that), why in all holy hell should they be given ANY public funding for free? It seems very un-capitalist to be in favor of subsidies.

 

[Si modo]

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.

The only way your post makes sense is if gays all had the same values, they don't so it's just idiotic.

You can find bigotry against gays from Christians without too much effort

Although if you REALLY want to play hardball, why then are they allowing in Muslims? Look how they treat Christians in Islamic countries, it EASILY trumps any stupid case of gay intolerance you care to throw at me.

P.S. If they're a private organization (and a bigoted one at that), why in all holy hell should they be given ANY public funding for free? It seems very un-capitalist to be in favor of subsidies.

Muslims? You want to discuss Muslims while talking about gays?

K.

Here ya go:

Maybe it's just me, but I would try to keep from mentioning Muslims when I'm in the process of bashing Christians about homosexuality.

Your mileage may vary.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

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?

Considering I'm not what conservatives call a "conservative" no, I've already adressed this weak attempt of a personal attack previoiusly.

Funny thread, especially considering the number of intolerant Conservatives on this board towards other viewpoints isn't a low number by any means.

go back a few pages and read my response to this type of comment.

I was never commenting on the tolerance level of conservatives, if you listen to rush Limbaugh ever you will see many conservatives are just as guilty of the same political intolerance. However one of the republicans main mantras isn't tolerance, so the hypocrisy is not so glaring and annoying to me as it is with the liberals

.

Here check out this post, the Dr gave me some good challenges to my statements and I gave my reasoning/responses to him.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...rant-of-others-viewpoints-24.html#post1497020

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Funny thread, especially considering the number of intolerant Conservatives on this board towards other viewpoints isn't a low number by any means.

go back a few pages and read my response to this type of comment.

I was never commenting on the tolerance level of conservatives, if you listen to rush Limbaugh ever you will see many conservatives are just as guilty of the same political intolerance. However one of the republicans main mantras isn't tolerance, so the hypocrisy is not so glaring and annoying to me as it is with the liberals

.

Here check out this post, the Dr gave me some good challenges to my statements and I gave my reasoning/responses to him.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...rant-of-others-viewpoints-24.html#post1497020

Yeah and I responded to your SPIN and hypocrisy. It seems that you are only out to attack and smear liberals and your own quote from one of your earlier posts shows that to be the case.

Are you talking about the other post you made where you deleted half of what I orginally said and hacked apart other comments I made to fit into your view of me? Is that the dishonest hack of a post you are referring to?

Please...I know there was a big stink with the moderators not to long ago over people hacking up other's statements in quotes. Why dont you try to stay honest and open instead of dishonest and intolerant in the future.

 

[WillowTree]

i am simply intolerant of people who piss on my shoe and tell me its raining...

does this mean you didn't vote for obamalama?

 

[drsmith1072]

^ One more solid piece of evidence that you substituting your sub-moronic version of guesswork is not and never can be a valid replacement for actual facts, you imbecile.

LOL Are you actually attacking nodog for "guesswork" when you engaged in the same?? LOL

Oh my aren't you a quick study?

Apparently not.

I was not "attacking" the imbecile, I was merely noting that his guesswork was wrong. And I didn't engage in guesswork about his "experience" claim. I just called him a liar.

He is a liar, by the way. But feeel obligated to defend him. Liars like him like it when dopes like you jump to their defense!

LOL. Fact is that you did attack him and don't have the intelectual honesty to admit it. You attacked me too, imagine that. LOL

This is what you said

Bull. You've had no "experience." You yourelf are quite intolerant. And even your username is dishonest.

So, what were you saying again? Ah. Never mind. Who cares what you're saying, anyway?

and it goes above and beyond merely "noting that his guesswork was wrong."

You claim that he has no "experience" and I have to ask do you know him personally?? If not then you are in fact engaging in the same "guesswork" that you are trying to attack him for.
Then you spew this hypocrtiical rant to attack him even more

One more solid piece of evidence that you substituting your sub-moronic version of guesswork is not and never can be a valid replacement for actual facts, you imbecile.

Funny thing is that you talk about substituting guesswork as a "valid replacement for facts" and yet you don't seem to have any problems with you doing the same. Why is that?
He claims that your posts back up his conclusions while you are doing the same. LOL

 

[drsmith1072]

DrSmith why did you hack up my statements like that. You modified what i said in order to fit what you want to see, shameful. I'm trying to figure out how to punch your responses into their context properly before even bothering to respond.

WOW way to lie through your teeth to avoid admitting how hypocrtical you truly are.

What did I hack up and take out of context?? Be specific and substantiate your allegation or admit that you are nothing but a dishonest HACK.

The sad FACT is that I didn't take anything out of context and your post is nothing but a lame tactic so you can try to avoid responding as you attack me with baseless accusations. It is a typical tactic of a righty hack.

 

[drsmith1072]

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.





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...

It's there in plain english. If you refuse to see it then there is no help for you.

 

[Liability]

* * * *
Funny thing is that you talk about substituting guesswork * * * *

Sorry. That effort to quote drsmith ^ got interrupted by massive boredom.

drsmith, are you, by any chance, that really swishy character from Lost in Space who was always trying to get into young Billy Mumy's pants?

"Ohhhh noooo!"

DANGER, Wil Robinson! Danger! Danger!

 

[drsmith1072]

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.

LOL so you start of your moronic rant with a baseless attack. Imagine that. LOL

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

Shouldn't this apply to anyone who has sex??

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.

spread your evil??? LOL OMG you are just so damn ridiculous.

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.

The problem with your moronic argument is that there is no basis for your claim that merely sleeping with someone ursurpts anyone elses' rights. Homosexual sex in and of itself does not in any way shape or form violate the rights of anyone else. Your belief that it is does not make it so.

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

I firmly believe that if ANYONE, mail, female, gay or straight knows that they have a transmutable disease and they do not inform their partners then yeah they should be held accountable. However, your argument is based on your moronic presumption that all gays and apparently only gays get sexually transmitted diseases and therefore only they are responsible for passing on said disease to others. I'm sorry but that is just beyond absurd.

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

What are you babbling about?

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.

LOL so it's all the female's fault LOL

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...

So you differentiate between sodomy of one's own gender and sodomy of the opposite sex?? WOW.

and where such activity is the biological means by which deadly viruses are transmitted;

Are you really trying to argue that ONLY sex between homosexuals causes the transmission of deadly viruses??

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...

So does your belief apply to heterosexuals who KNOWINGLY pass on deadly viruses and diseases to their partners or is your BS only meant to apply to homosexuals?? It seems to me that you should be against sex as a whole. LOL

Anything gettin' thru?

Yeah, like the fact that you are an ignorant, and probably self loathing, hypocrtical MORON

 

[drsmith1072]

Yeah....There was a lot of that "shouting down" thing going on at the massive protest marches and in the rabble known as "Camp Casey" down in Crawford, TX.

Do you know who Max Cleland is? If you don't, let me clue you in.

Joseph Maxwell Cleland (born August 24, 1942) is an American politician from Georgia. Cleland, a Democrat, is a former U.S. Senator, disabled US Army veteran of the Vietnam War, decorated war hero, and a critic of the Bush Administration. ...

In 2002, Cleland lost his bid for a second Senate term to Representative Saxby Chambliss. Supporters blamed a Chambliss TV ad featuring the likenesses of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, while criticizing Cleland's votes against homeland security measures.[8] The ad, which Cleland supporters claimed questioned the senator's patriotism,[9] was removed after protests from prominent politicians including Republicans like John McCain and Chuck Hagel.[10] Chambliss supporters claimed the ad didn't question Cleland's patriotism, but rather his judgment

Max Cleland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Whether or not Cleland lost his seat because of the ad is debatable, but the fact that Republicans felt comfortable enough that they could produce a disgusting ad that analogized a triple-amputee decorated war hero with supporting Saddam Hussein pretty much is all you need to know about the environment back then.

One of Max's guys called me and asked if I would be supporting Max. I told him that I would not support any politician that when I contacted him, to tell him how I would like MY representative to vote on a bill, was sent a letter telling me how I should think. Max's guy told me, yeah, I have heard that before. It had nothing to do with him being a vet, it had to do with him not representing the voters.

BS, the right questioned his patriotism and tried to claim that he would stop bush from keeping us safe. Some even tried to discredit him and spin how he lost his limbs and tried to blame him. They smeared him over the airways constantly so don't even pretend that it had to do with him not representing the voters.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

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.

Should I expect you to have a study backing that up or would that be wasting my time?

I seem to remember a whole lot of slurs and mistatements coming from the right (who I'm sure you label as not conservative) at Obama during the campaign.

He's a terrorist/Muslim/socialist/wants to teach sex ed to 2nd graders etc.

I've never seen anyone assert that The BOY King is a terrorists...

Of course it is an incontrovertible FACT that Hussien has close associations with Domestic US terrorists... specifically in Mr. and Mrs. William Ayres... Mrs. Ayers having been convicted of such and Mr. Ayers having avoided prosecution for the Boming of the US Pentagon and Police Stations, which I believe were in NYC... but where is less relevant that the fact that THEY DID IT and what's MORE Mr. Ayers most recent public comments regarding those murderous actions... was that his only regret, was thay his little band of domestic US terrorists did not DO MORE...

Now Ayers was essential to Hussein's rise to power through the radical Chicago Democrat Party... That's a FACT and it is a FACT wherein Barak Hussein Obama is closely associated; and that association is LONG STANDING... with TERRORISTS...

It's not even debatable...

The same is true for his being a MUSLIM!

First, he was born to a Muslim Father... and Islam considers that circumstance to represent the conception of a MUSLIM individual... JUST as being born to a Jewish Mother... makes ya a Jew... Being born ot a Muslim Father, makes ya a MUSLIM...

Secondly... and towards discrediting the nay-sayers... The ONLY record intrinsic to Hussein's life, in terms of what was listed on the official record by his parents... as the balance of such records have been SEALED or otherwise placed out of the means of the public to scrutinize such records... is the enrollment records of the school which Barry attended as a youngster while living in Indonesia; list his religion as ISLAM... Now that is information that Barry's MOM advanced... and reason is served that Mom would know if barry was a Muslim or not.

Now some will say that Hussein Obama converted from Islam to Christianity... SUPER! Let's hope so... but what that would simply mean, is that Barak Hussein Obama is a Muslim Christian... just as those born to a Jewish mother, who profess Jesus Christ as their Lord; thus converting to Christianity from Judeism... are Jewish Christians... I.e.: "Jews for Jesus..."

So, again, it is an incontrovertible fact that Barak Hussein Obama is a Muslim... if at the LEAST only by birth... but CERTAINLY... BY BIRTH.

Now with regard to this incredible delusion that Hussein is something other than a SOCIALIST... this is truly coming to be a clear manifestation of some mass-hysterical delusion... Given his own words, in his OWN BOOK... wherein he PROUDLY states his having INTENTIONALLY SOUGHT OUT THE SOCIALISTS... THE RADICALS.... The Communists...

Given his long standing, close associations with Socialists, Radicals and Communists...

Given his long standing advocacies for Socialist, radical policy... such as his infamous desire for everyone to share in the wealth of those who have earned their wealth... His attempts to force those fo means to subsidize those with NEEDS... and given that such policy rests in the geometric CENTER OF MARXISM... a decidely SOCIALIST ideology...

The potential for Barak Hussein Obama to be something other THAN a Socialist, rest just below the potential, that Hussein is something other than BLACK...

Now that you contest ANY of that, is simply indicative of you being either a fool or a delusional imbecile.

Any questions?

 

[drsmith1072]

go back a few pages and read my response to this type of comment.



.

Here check out this post, the Dr gave me some good challenges to my statements and I gave my reasoning/responses to him.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...rant-of-others-viewpoints-24.html#post1497020

Yeah and I responded to your SPIN and hypocrisy. It seems that you are only out to attack and smear liberals and your own quote from one of your earlier posts shows that to be the case.

Are you talking about the other post you made where you deleted half of what I orginally said and hacked apart other comments I made to fit into your view of me? Is that the dishonest hack of a post you are referring to?

Please...I know there was a big stink with the moderators not to long ago over people hacking up other's statements in quotes. Why dont you try to stay honest and open instead of dishonest and intolerant in the future.

Ok you dishonest hack, how about some specifics? What SPECIFICALLY are you trying to claim I took out of context?? PUT UP OR SHUT UP LOSER. LOL

The sad FACT is that you know that you can't prove your allegation and this post of yours is nothing but a lame attempt to avoid responding to the fact that you are nothing but a dishonest hypocritical hack.

 

[drsmith1072]

* * * *
Funny thing is that you talk about substituting guesswork * * * *

Sorry. That effort to quote drsmith ^ got interrupted by massive boredom.

drsmith, are you, by any chance, that really swishy character from Lost in Space who was always trying to get into young Billy Mumy's pants?

"Ohhhh noooo!"

DANGER, Wil Robinson! Danger! Danger!

LOL imagine that, after having your hypocrisy and dishonesty exposed your best tactic is the run away. LOL

BTW, not very original on the lame attempt at a personal attack. As if i haven't heard that a billion times over.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

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.

The only way your post makes sense is if gays all had the same values, they don't so it's just idiotic.

You can find bigotry against gays from Christians without too much effort

Although if you REALLY want to play hardball, why then are they allowing in Muslims? Look how they treat Christians in Islamic countries, it EASILY trumps any stupid case of gay intolerance you care to throw at me.

P.S. If they're a private organization (and a bigoted one at that), why in all holy hell should they be given ANY public funding for free? It seems very un-capitalist to be in favor of subsidies.

Whats the problem with exposing a Muslim to sound, sustainable Christian, American values? It's not like they're sexual predators who sexuality is by design self extinguishing... and as such is dependent upon influencing, cajoling, tempting... OKA: recruiting the uninitiated into the abyss of their devient obsession...

And for the record... do you see the irony that you are perpetrating through advancing these intolerant, strongly held opinions relevant to religion, ethnicity and so on; given that such are all common traits of bigotry?

If not, be so advised...

LOL...






Leftists...

 

[Dr.Traveler]

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...

Plenty I could dispute in your other posts, but reading this right here, I'd rather not.

When I turn off the monitor on my computer and walk down my hallway at School, I'll pass by the offices of other Mathematicians with whom I have worked to build a department that I can be proud of and that meets the needs of our students while allowing us to pursue valuable academic research. A system that thrives on our interdependecy as we work and strive together.

As I walk across the parking lot to my car I'll meet students I've worked with in class, in Bible study, and outside of class along with Professors with whom I've worked countless hours to build a University that we can all be proud of... a relation of interdependency culminating in a community I'm proud to be a part of.

I'll drive home past the Church where I'm proud to serve on the Church Council and organize outreach to the University and community. A Church where together with doctors, mechanics, nurses, retirees, and other members of the community and I worship the God of my Fathers and work to further his will in this world. A relation of interdependency in service to my God.

I'll go home through a neighborhood where I work with the fellow residents to beautify the neighbor, keeping it clean and safe for our children as we work together to improve not just our block, but our community as a whole. A community where I work closely with mathematics teachers at all age groups and others to build up a school system we can be proud of in a city built and maintained by us. An interdependency for building a better neighborhood, community, and nation.

When I arrive at home, I'll find a beautiful wife with whom I've survived the worst nature can throw at us, growing together in faith and love. Waiting with her will be a wonderful son with whom I will share my Faith and my love of learning. An interdependency to build a better family with Christ as our head.

Before I go to bed I'll correspond with fellow researchers the world over. Working to prove new results to apply in the world at large. An interdependency of knowledge and reasoning to make for a better world and academic community.

The fact you scoff at the idea of interdependency of humans, the fact you do not understand these basic relations and the needs and obligations they bring makes me..... sad for you. I pity you. Tonight before I sleep I'll pray to my Father that his Holy Spirit can work through you and your community that you may find a way to a life of service and purpose.

I will turn to the other cheek and leave you to it. Beat on me in the thread as you wish. If you need to talk your way around to a sense of superiority, have at it. I hope that someday God blesses you with more than that.