Random Truths

[Moonglow]

Random Truth #3...
Why is it that throughout recorded history, no major philosophers, theologists, or sages have advanced homosexuality or gay marriage?
There have been myriad attempts to end slavery, and all sorts of evils....but none to raise homosexuality as a civil right.

Why is that?



And #4...
.Religion has been a social advancement that has bettered the lot of people....yet Leftists of every stripe....have attempted to erase all traces of religion.
In America, a nation based on the Bible, Progressives and Liberals continue to try to remove religion from the public arena.
Why?
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
John Adams

Yet the morals of the nation was slavery and the Monroe Doctrine of imperialism and invasion of land...

Both of your claims are slanderous and false.

Seems to be a patter with you.

Do you know where the bill of sale is?

 

[edthecynic]

Those on the Right take guidance from the Bible.

Following the bible makes the Right "HAPPY," oh so happy!

Psalms 137: 9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

"This refers to what was not uncommon in ancient warfare, as it is now among savage tribes - the indiscriminate slaughter of those of all ages, and of both sexes, in war. It was expressly foretold of Babylon that this would occur (see Isaiah 13:16, and the notes at that place), and there may be a reference here to that prediction, and the psalmist may mean to say that the man would be accounted happy, or would be happy, who wreaked vengeance on Babylon in carrying out that prophecy. The idea is, "This will certainly occur, for it is foretold, and happy or fortunate will he be who is the instrument in fulfilling it."
Psalm 137:9 Commentaries: How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones Against the rock.


There is only one major religion which follows that prescription today.
It is neither Christianity nor Judaism.

So you now admit that biblical "guidance" is not always a good thing.
Thank you.

1Sa 15:3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

Is 13: 15 Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword.
16 Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished.

 

[Moonglow]

Those on the Right take guidance from the Bible.

Following the bible makes the Right "HAPPY," oh so happy!

Psalms 137: 9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

"This refers to what was not uncommon in ancient warfare, as it is now among savage tribes - the indiscriminate slaughter of those of all ages, and of both sexes, in war. It was expressly foretold of Babylon that this would occur (see Isaiah 13:16, and the notes at that place), and there may be a reference here to that prediction, and the psalmist may mean to say that the man would be accounted happy, or would be happy, who wreaked vengeance on Babylon in carrying out that prophecy. The idea is, "This will certainly occur, for it is foretold, and happy or fortunate will he be who is the instrument in fulfilling it."
Psalm 137:9 Commentaries: How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones Against the rock.


There is only one major religion which follows that prescription today.
It is neither Christianity nor Judaism.

So you now admit that biblical "guidance" is not always a good thing.
Thank you.

1Sa 15:3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

Is 13: 15 Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword.
16 Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished.

I just can't believe they killed their animals also..

 

[edthecynic]

Why is it that throughout recorded history, no major philosophers, theologists, or sages have advanced homosexuality or gay marriage?

You know less about philosophy than you do about politics, and you know NOTHING about politics!

Homosexuality (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

As has been frequently noted, the ancient Greeks did not have terms or concepts that correspond to the contemporary dichotomy of ‘heterosexual’ and ‘homosexual’. There is a wealth of material from ancient Greece pertinent to issues of sexuality, ranging from dialogues of Plato, such as theSymposium, to plays by Aristophanes, and Greek artwork and vases. What follows is a brief description of ancient Greek attitudes, but it is important to recognize that there was regional variation. For example, in parts of Ionia there were general strictures against same-sex eros, while in Elis and Boiotia (e.g., Thebes), it was approved of and even celebrated (cf. Dover, 1989; Halperin, 1990).
Probably the most frequent assumption of sexual orientation is that persons can respond erotically to beauty in either sex. Diogenes Laeurtius, for example, wrote of Alcibiades, the Athenian general and politician of the 5th century B.C., “in his adolescence he drew away the husbands from their wives, and as a young man the wives from their husbands.” (Quoted in Greenberg, 1988, 144) Some persons were noted for their exclusive interests in persons of one gender. For example, Alexander the Great and the founder of Stoicism, Zeno of Citium, were known for their exclusive interest in boys and other men. Such persons, however, are generally portrayed as the exception. Furthermore, the issue of what gender one is attracted to is seen as an issue of taste or preference, rather than as a moral issue. A character in Plutarch's Erotikos (Dialogue on Love) argues that “the noble lover of beauty engages in love wherever he sees excellence and splendid natural endowment without regard for any difference in physiological detail.” (Ibid., 146) Gender just becomes irrelevant “detail” and instead the excellence in character and beauty is what is most important.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Random Truth #5.

If any of the authorized minority group members fail to meet any required objective standards, eliminate the requirement.

NYC taxi drivers may not have to take written English test

If this is the doctrine under which government operates.....is it a good plan or not?
Shouldn't we question whether any standards are worth enforcing?


And #6:
The death penalty solves the problem of recidivism. Why is it rarely enforced?
Could it be that Leftist governance is based on a refusal to recognize evil?
Or..only imaginary evils, such as second-hand smoke, global warming, and income inequality.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Why is it that throughout recorded history, no major philosophers, theologists, or sages have advanced homosexuality or gay marriage?

You know less about philosophy than you do about politics, and you know NOTHING about politics!

Homosexuality (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

As has been frequently noted, the ancient Greeks did not have terms or concepts that correspond to the contemporary dichotomy of ‘heterosexual’ and ‘homosexual’. There is a wealth of material from ancient Greece pertinent to issues of sexuality, ranging from dialogues of Plato, such as theSymposium, to plays by Aristophanes, and Greek artwork and vases. What follows is a brief description of ancient Greek attitudes, but it is important to recognize that there was regional variation. For example, in parts of Ionia there were general strictures against same-sex eros, while in Elis and Boiotia (e.g., Thebes), it was approved of and even celebrated (cf. Dover, 1989; Halperin, 1990).
Probably the most frequent assumption of sexual orientation is that persons can respond erotically to beauty in either sex. Diogenes Laeurtius, for example, wrote of Alcibiades, the Athenian general and politician of the 5th century B.C., “in his adolescence he drew away the husbands from their wives, and as a young man the wives from their husbands.” (Quoted in Greenberg, 1988, 144) Some persons were noted for their exclusive interests in persons of one gender. For example, Alexander the Great and the founder of Stoicism, Zeno of Citium, were known for their exclusive interest in boys and other men. Such persons, however, are generally portrayed as the exception. Furthermore, the issue of what gender one is attracted to is seen as an issue of taste or preference, rather than as a moral issue. A character in Plutarch's Erotikos (Dialogue on Love) argues that “the noble lover of beauty engages in love wherever he sees excellence and splendid natural endowment without regard for any difference in physiological detail.” (Ibid., 146) Gender just becomes irrelevant “detail” and instead the excellence in character and beauty is what is most important.

You should have someone explain the links you post to you before you embarrass yourself further.

From your link: " ...the ancient Greeks did not have terms or concepts that correspond to the contemporary dichotomy of ‘heterosexual’ and ‘homosexual’. "


Even simpler- just not as simple as you-....see if you can find 'gay marriage' in your vapid post.

 

[Camp]

Those on the Right take guidance from the Bible.

Following the bible makes the Right "HAPPY," oh so happy!

Psalms 137: 9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

"This refers to what was not uncommon in ancient warfare, as it is now among savage tribes - the indiscriminate slaughter of those of all ages, and of both sexes, in war. It was expressly foretold of Babylon that this would occur (see Isaiah 13:16, and the notes at that place), and there may be a reference here to that prediction, and the psalmist may mean to say that the man would be accounted happy, or would be happy, who wreaked vengeance on Babylon in carrying out that prophecy. The idea is, "This will certainly occur, for it is foretold, and happy or fortunate will he be who is the instrument in fulfilling it."
Psalm 137:9 Commentaries: How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones Against the rock.


There is only one major religion which follows that prescription today.
It is neither Christianity nor Judaism.

So you now admit that biblical "guidance" is not always a good thing.
Thank you.

1Sa 15:3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

Is 13: 15 Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword.
16 Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished.

I just can't believe they killed their animals also..

This was a tactic of the ancients to prevent resettlement and assistance to those who escaped slaughter in the genocidal effort.

 

[Moonglow]

Those on the Right take guidance from the Bible.

Following the bible makes the Right "HAPPY," oh so happy!

Psalms 137: 9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

"This refers to what was not uncommon in ancient warfare, as it is now among savage tribes - the indiscriminate slaughter of those of all ages, and of both sexes, in war. It was expressly foretold of Babylon that this would occur (see Isaiah 13:16, and the notes at that place), and there may be a reference here to that prediction, and the psalmist may mean to say that the man would be accounted happy, or would be happy, who wreaked vengeance on Babylon in carrying out that prophecy. The idea is, "This will certainly occur, for it is foretold, and happy or fortunate will he be who is the instrument in fulfilling it."
Psalm 137:9 Commentaries: How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones Against the rock.


There is only one major religion which follows that prescription today.
It is neither Christianity nor Judaism.

So you now admit that biblical "guidance" is not always a good thing.
Thank you.

1Sa 15:3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

Is 13: 15 Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword.
16 Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished.

I just can't believe they killed their animals also..

This was a tactic of the ancients to prevent resettlement and assistance to those who escaped slaughter in the genocidal effort.

So was sowing salt into the crop fields...

 

[Moonglow]

Why is it that throughout recorded history, no major philosophers, theologists, or sages have advanced homosexuality or gay marriage?

You know less about philosophy than you do about politics, and you know NOTHING about politics!

Homosexuality (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

As has been frequently noted, the ancient Greeks did not have terms or concepts that correspond to the contemporary dichotomy of ‘heterosexual’ and ‘homosexual’. There is a wealth of material from ancient Greece pertinent to issues of sexuality, ranging from dialogues of Plato, such as theSymposium, to plays by Aristophanes, and Greek artwork and vases. What follows is a brief description of ancient Greek attitudes, but it is important to recognize that there was regional variation. For example, in parts of Ionia there were general strictures against same-sex eros, while in Elis and Boiotia (e.g., Thebes), it was approved of and even celebrated (cf. Dover, 1989; Halperin, 1990).
Probably the most frequent assumption of sexual orientation is that persons can respond erotically to beauty in either sex. Diogenes Laeurtius, for example, wrote of Alcibiades, the Athenian general and politician of the 5th century B.C., “in his adolescence he drew away the husbands from their wives, and as a young man the wives from their husbands.” (Quoted in Greenberg, 1988, 144) Some persons were noted for their exclusive interests in persons of one gender. For example, Alexander the Great and the founder of Stoicism, Zeno of Citium, were known for their exclusive interest in boys and other men. Such persons, however, are generally portrayed as the exception. Furthermore, the issue of what gender one is attracted to is seen as an issue of taste or preference, rather than as a moral issue. A character in Plutarch's Erotikos (Dialogue on Love) argues that “the noble lover of beauty engages in love wherever he sees excellence and splendid natural endowment without regard for any difference in physiological detail.” (Ibid., 146) Gender just becomes irrelevant “detail” and instead the excellence in character and beauty is what is most important.

You should have someone explain the links you post to you before you embarrass yourself further.

From your link: " ...the ancient Greeks did not have terms or concepts that correspond to the contemporary dichotomy of ‘heterosexual’ and ‘homosexual’. "


Even simpler- just not as simple as you-....see if you can find 'gay marriage' in your vapid post.

You can't tell why Waring nations liked to extol the virtues of child bearing, but never condemned homersexuality....?? I don't think your reasoning abilities have the capacity...

 

[edthecynic]

Why is it that throughout recorded history, no major philosophers, theologists, or sages have advanced homosexuality or gay marriage?

You know less about philosophy than you do about politics, and you know NOTHING about politics!

Homosexuality (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

As has been frequently noted, the ancient Greeks did not have terms or concepts that correspond to the contemporary dichotomy of ‘heterosexual’ and ‘homosexual’. There is a wealth of material from ancient Greece pertinent to issues of sexuality, ranging from dialogues of Plato, such as theSymposium, to plays by Aristophanes, and Greek artwork and vases. What follows is a brief description of ancient Greek attitudes, but it is important to recognize that there was regional variation. For example, in parts of Ionia there were general strictures against same-sex eros, while in Elis and Boiotia (e.g., Thebes), it was approved of and even celebrated (cf. Dover, 1989; Halperin, 1990).
Probably the most frequent assumption of sexual orientation is that persons can respond erotically to beauty in either sex. Diogenes Laeurtius, for example, wrote of Alcibiades, the Athenian general and politician of the 5th century B.C., “in his adolescence he drew away the husbands from their wives, and as a young man the wives from their husbands.” (Quoted in Greenberg, 1988, 144) Some persons were noted for their exclusive interests in persons of one gender. For example, Alexander the Great and the founder of Stoicism, Zeno of Citium, were known for their exclusive interest in boys and other men. Such persons, however, are generally portrayed as the exception. Furthermore, the issue of what gender one is attracted to is seen as an issue of taste or preference, rather than as a moral issue. A character in Plutarch's Erotikos (Dialogue on Love) argues that “the noble lover of beauty engages in love wherever he sees excellence and splendid natural endowment without regard for any difference in physiological detail.” (Ibid., 146) Gender just becomes irrelevant “detail” and instead the excellence in character and beauty is what is most important.

You should have someone explain the links you post to you before you embarrass yourself further.

From your link: " ...the ancient Greeks did not have terms or concepts that correspond to the contemporary dichotomy of ‘heterosexual’ and ‘homosexual’. "


Even simpler- just not as simple as you-....see if you can find 'gay marriage' in your vapid post.

The link continues:

Even though the gender that one was erotically attracted to (at any specific time, given the assumption that persons will likely be attracted to persons of both sexes) was not important, other issues were salient, such as whether one exercised moderation. Status concerns were also of the highest importance. Given that only free men had full status, women and male slaves were not problematic sexual partners. Sex between freemen, however, was problematic for status. The central distinction in ancient Greek sexual relations was between taking an active or insertive role, versus a passive or penetrated one. The passive role was acceptable only for inferiors, such as women, slaves, or male youths who were not yet citizens. Hence the cultural ideal of a same-sex relationship was between an older man, probably in his 20's or 30's, known as the erastes, and a boy whose beard had not yet begun to grow, the eromenos or paidika. In this relationship there was courtship ritual, involving gifts (such as a rooster), and other norms. The erastes had to show that he had nobler interests in the boy, rather than a purely sexual concern. The boy was not to submit too easily, and if pursued by more than one man, was to show discretion and pick the more noble one. There is also evidence that penetration was often avoided by having the erastes face his beloved and place his penis between the thighs of the eromenos, which is known as intercrural sex. The relationship was to be temporary and should end upon the boy reaching adulthood (Dover, 1989). To continue in a submissive role even while one should be an equal citizen was considered troubling, although there certainly were many adult male same-sex relationships that were noted and not strongly stigmatized. While the passive role was thus seen as problematic, to be attracted to men was often taken as a sign of masculinity. Greek gods, such as Zeus, had stories of same-sex exploits attributed to them, as did other key figures in Greek myth and literature, such as Achilles and Hercules. Plato, in the Symposium, argues for an army to be comprised of same-sex lovers. Thebes did form such a regiment, the Sacred Band of Thebes, formed of 500 soldiers. They were renowned in the ancient world for their valor in battle.
Ancient Rome had many parallels in its understanding of same-sex attraction, and sexual issues more generally, to ancient Greece. This is especially true under the Republic. Yet under the Empire, Roman society slowly became more negative in its views towards sexuality, probably due to social and economic turmoil, even before Christianity became influential.
Exactly what attitude the New Testament has towards sexuality in general, and same-sex attraction in particular, is a matter of sharp debate. John Boswell argues, in his fascinating Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, that many passages taken today as condemnations of homosexuality are more concerned with prostitution, or where same-sex acts are described as “unnatural” the meaning is more akin to ‘out of the ordinary’ rather than as immoral (Boswell, 1980, ch.4; see also Boswell, 1994). Yet others have criticized, sometimes persuasively, Boswell's scholarship (see Greenberg, 1988, ch.5). What is clear, however, is that while condemnation of same-sex attraction is marginal to the Gospels and only an intermittent focus in the rest of the New Testament, early Christian church fathers were much more outspoken. In their writings there is a horror at any sort of sex, but in a few generations these views eased, in part due no doubt to practical concerns of recruiting converts.

 

[Camp]

Random Truth #5.

If any of the authorized minority group members fail to meet any required objective standards, eliminate the requirement.

NYC taxi drivers may not have to take written English test

If this is the doctrine under which government operates.....is it a good plan or not?
Shouldn't we question whether any standards are worth enforcing?


And #6:
The death penalty solves the problem of recidivism. Why is it rarely enforced?
Could it be that Leftist governance is based on a refusal to recognize evil?
Or..only imaginary evils, such as second-hand smoke, global warming, and income inequality.

The taxi cab test is a red herring. The drivers would still have to be able to communicate in English.
#6 is being distorted, your usual dishonest way of spinning. In this case, you use leading questions. Old tricks.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Random Truth #7
Which is the 'Party of the Rich'???
Hard to believe the obvious lies that the Left gets away with...but this is one of the most obvious.
"....the financial assets of the 115 major tax-exempt foundations of the Left add up to $104.56 billlion. Not only is this total not less than the financial assets of the 75 foundations of the Right, it was more than ten times greater!

With over $100 billion in tax-exempt assets at their disposal, left-wing foundations have been able to invest massively greater amounts in their beneficiary groups. Ford gave more in one year than Scaife in 40!
“The New Leviathan,” David Horowitz and Jacob Laksin




And #8....
Self-control is far more important than self-esteem.'
Liberals have devastated the American school system in so very many ways, but the most lingering has been the self-esteem movement.

In the light of the essential nature of emotion to the Left, it makes perfect sense that they have created the (highly destructive) self-esteem movement, based on how one feels about oneself. Of course, it is always quite a high number for Leftists, convinced that they are brighter, kinder, finer, more sophisticated, more enlightened, more selfless, and, of course, more intellectual.

a. “A 1989 study of mathematical skills compared students in eight different countries. American students ranked lowest in mathematical competence and Korean students ranked highest. But the researchers also asked students to rate how good they were at mathematics. The Americans ranked highest in self-judged mathematical ability, while the Koreans ranked lowest….There is no evidence that high self-esteem reliably causes anything.” Home

 

[PoliticalChic]

#9.
A defining characteristic of conservatism is hatred of evil.
Not so with Liberalism....it is accommodation with evil, it is the rationalization of evil, and the pretense not to recognize evil.


and for #10 today.....an example of the above:
What has Obama to show as a result of normalizing relations with Cuba?
Not a thing.

 

[NYcarbineer]

#9.
A defining characteristic of conservatism is hatred of evil.
Not so with Liberalism....it is accommodation with evil, it is the rationalization of evil, and the pretense not to recognize evil.


.

Bush identified an axis of evil and then accommodated it. What was his rationalization?

Reagan called the USSR the evil empire, but then let it's most powerful component, Russia, survive.

 

[bripat9643]

10. If the desire is for a ‘level playing field,’ how to explain progressive income tax?

The progressive income tax applies equally to everyone. The taxable income you earn in each bracket is taxed the same as everyone else who earns money in that bracket.

You're an idiot. By definition it doesn't apply "EQUALLY." That's why it's called "PROGRESSIVE."

 

[bripat9643]

Who are the liberals on USMB who only demonize and refuse to debate?

Can anyone help PC here? She's lapsed into another one of her bewilderment episodes.

She claims liberals on USMB only demonize and won't debate. Which ones would that be?

You, for one.

 

[bripat9643]

10. If the desire is for a ‘level playing field,’ how to explain progressive income tax?

The progressive income tax applies equally to everyone. The taxable income you earn in each bracket is taxed the same as everyone else who earns money in that bracket.

".... progressive income tax applies equally...."

You have a facility with language....just not the English language.

Prove it doesn't. The progressive income tax divides earnings into brackets, and all earnings in each bracket are taxed the same.

The idiocy of your claim is that different taxpayers occupy different brackets.

 

[Agit8r]

There are so many conservative commentators, and conversations, that have contributed to these truths....you may recognize some of your words, as well.....

1. The Left survives on demonization of the Right…rather than debating ideas: they teach their drones that the Right is not wrong, but evil…
2. The minute you envy another, your happiness is injured,and breeds unhappiness. Religious folks tend to be happy with what they have. Thus Marx hated that view because the Utopia had to be here and now…
3. Government must be limited in scope Madison: laws must be simple clear few. Must be understood by all: otherwise it is government by experts, bureaucrats and technocrats. a. Sure enough, Liberals snap to attention when they hear 'studies show....'
4. Unlimited opportunity can only come with limited government.
5. What leftism has done to every profession is to put leftism above being good at the task…
   a. Famine under communist rule in the USSR is a perfect example.
   
   6. The danger is not a man like Barack Obama, but a citizenry capable of entrusting the office of the presidency to a man like Barack Obama
   
   7. The mind of the Liberal: Whatever they imagine, they believe must be imposed.
   
   8. For Liberals, wishful thinking substitutes for an understanding of reality…thus…the view of the Arab Spring as a good thing…and overthrowing of Mubarak in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood
   
   9. We want liberty…but mistakenly say democracy…you can have democracy but deprive people of liberty (see Egypt)
   
   10. If the desire is for a ‘level playing field,’ how to explain progressive income tax?

Wow. No depth of thought. A complete ignorance of history. Just another PC OP.

 

[bripat9643]

There are so many conservative commentators, and conversations, that have contributed to these truths....you may recognize some of your words, as well.....

1. The Left survives on demonization of the Right…rather than debating ideas: they teach their drones that the Right is not wrong, but evil…
2. The minute you envy another, your happiness is injured,and breeds unhappiness. Religious folks tend to be happy with what they have. Thus Marx hated that view because the Utopia had to be here and now…
3. Government must be limited in scope Madison: laws must be simple clear few. Must be understood by all: otherwise it is government by experts, bureaucrats and technocrats. a. Sure enough, Liberals snap to attention when they hear 'studies show....'
4. Unlimited opportunity can only come with limited government.
5. What leftism has done to every profession is to put leftism above being good at the task…
   a. Famine under communist rule in the USSR is a perfect example.
   
   6. The danger is not a man like Barack Obama, but a citizenry capable of entrusting the office of the presidency to a man like Barack Obama
   
   7. The mind of the Liberal: Whatever they imagine, they believe must be imposed.
   
   8. For Liberals, wishful thinking substitutes for an understanding of reality…thus…the view of the Arab Spring as a good thing…and overthrowing of Mubarak in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood
   
   9. We want liberty…but mistakenly say democracy…you can have democracy but deprive people of liberty (see Egypt)
   
   10. If the desire is for a ‘level playing field,’ how to explain progressive income tax?

Wow. No depth of thought. A complete ignorance of history. Just another PC OP.

Wow: meaningless babble.

 

[PoliticalChic]

There are so many conservative commentators, and conversations, that have contributed to these truths....you may recognize some of your words, as well.....

1. The Left survives on demonization of the Right…rather than debating ideas: they teach their drones that the Right is not wrong, but evil…
2. The minute you envy another, your happiness is injured,and breeds unhappiness. Religious folks tend to be happy with what they have. Thus Marx hated that view because the Utopia had to be here and now…
3. Government must be limited in scope Madison: laws must be simple clear few. Must be understood by all: otherwise it is government by experts, bureaucrats and technocrats. a. Sure enough, Liberals snap to attention when they hear 'studies show....'
4. Unlimited opportunity can only come with limited government.
5. What leftism has done to every profession is to put leftism above being good at the task…
   a. Famine under communist rule in the USSR is a perfect example.
   
   6. The danger is not a man like Barack Obama, but a citizenry capable of entrusting the office of the presidency to a man like Barack Obama
   
   7. The mind of the Liberal: Whatever they imagine, they believe must be imposed.
   
   8. For Liberals, wishful thinking substitutes for an understanding of reality…thus…the view of the Arab Spring as a good thing…and overthrowing of Mubarak in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood
   
   9. We want liberty…but mistakenly say democracy…you can have democracy but deprive people of liberty (see Egypt)
   
   10. If the desire is for a ‘level playing field,’ how to explain progressive income tax?

Wow. No depth of thought. A complete ignorance of history. Just another PC OP.

And just the typical hit and run of a Liberal.
Not a single denial of the ten "Random Truths."