Since Trump is self destructing and Hillary is poison, still how can one consciously vote liberalism

[ThoughtCrimes]

Now you are claiming the Constitution is "intentionally absent of religious dogma". For the moment, let's forget you completely contradicted yourself and are now in total agreement with me for the moment. You are correct that the framers never intended to create a theocracy!

Now for you let's return to your obvious contradiction. You want the Constitution to be secular when it's convenient for your assertions. However, you characterize the Constitution as non-secular when it's convenient for a different assertion. The obvious conclusion to draw from your penchant to say one thing here and the opposite thing there is that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about! Piss off now and have a nice Day!

I didn't contradict anything. The Constitution is not Secular or Theocratic.

You are arguing that the Constitution is "Secular" and I am opposing that argument.

The lack of theocratic dogma doesn't mean it's secular.

Secular is the absence of anything related to spiritual or religious beliefs. The Constitution is rooted in and based upon a spiritual and religious concept of individual freedom endowed by our Maker. What part of this are you failing to grasp?

You're trying to argue the lack of theocratic dogma within the Constitution proves it's secular and that's not true. It's not supposed to be chock-full of theocratic dogma, we weren't establishing a theocracy and a theocracy is impossible to ever have no matter how much Christians or any other religion would like to do so. But it's still not secular... it's still rooted in a non-secular concept of individual liberty endowed by a Creator and inalienable by man.

You wrote this!

Secular is the absence of anything related to spiritual or religious beliefs. The Constitution is rooted in and based upon a spiritual and religious concept of individual freedom endowed by our Maker. What part of this are you failing to grasp?

And you wrote this?

The Constitution is certainly NOT secular by design. It is intentionally absent of religious dogma because it's not intended to establish a theocracy.

Any reasonable person would spot the conflict between those two passages in one(1) reading! You just want to have it both ways, but really don't want anyone to mention the inconvenient truth that both statements cannot be true, create a conflict, are not in accord!

You stated unequivocally that the Constitution is "absent" of any religious dogma. The Constitution being absent of a religious "principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true", there is no other conclusion to be had other than the US Constitution is a secular document by definition. It can't be neither or both!
~~ dogma: definition of dogma in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US) ~~

Given your first statement is false and your second statement is true it is obvious to any normal person that the two are in conflict. Further, your admission that the Constitution lacks ANY religious dogma substantiates the proposition that the Constitution is secular in nature because it certainly isn't non-secular by your own acknowledgement.

Certain passages in the DOI may reflect a non-secular bias, but that does not contaminate the Constitution with a religious taint simply because the DOI predated it!! That would be akin to an atheist hearing a hymn as he passed a church on the sidewalk and declaring he was no longer free of all religious dogma! A foolish and stupid, stupid proposition!

Do you have a fucking clue what theocratic means, shit for brains? Look it up, fool! It sure as hell is not what you think it means in your post! Damn you are thick!

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Try shoveling that shit to a black man who has been required to pass a literacy test before he can vote. Tell that to a Native American who has displaced from his reservation home protected by treaty because the White Man wants what is under the ground where he lived.

I don't have to shovel anything, a noted black man by the name of Frederick Douglass already read our founding documents long before I came along. He found absolute brilliance in the wording of Madison and others which actually MADE their case for abolition and freedom. The same can be said for Native Americans who have now been able to establish casinos and have tribal sovereignty they were denied. The very brilliantly constructed Constitution is strong. It enables freedom of the individual.

Tricky little edit of my post, leaving out the conclusion. You must have missed that so here it is again, asshole!

"Try shoveling that shit to a black man who has been required to pass a literacy test before he can vote. Tell that to a Native American who has displaced from his reservation home protected by treaty because the White Man wants what is under the ground where he lived. Tell that to a woman who's right to privacy is invaded by the State for unnecessary medical procedures as a deterrence to obtain a LEGAL medical procedure! The only way to curb those unconstitutional abuses and protect the smallest minority of the individual are the rights defined in the Constitution and NOT some ethereal inalienability."

Your dishonesty and lack of decent character is proving to have no bounds! You obviously didn't want to address the point of the post your purposely left out. So transparent!

Wasn't tricky, I posted the portion of your quote exactly in context and how you wrote it. The extra part you added is a nice opinion but it means nothing to your point. I addressed your point in my response.

Obviously, my response struck a nerve and now you're going to be a dick.

Oh fuckin' well.

Note that the quote in question is one continuous thought! You truncated the bloody thing fool to change the fucking context you damn FRAUD and sorry excuse for a man.

The point of that paragraph was that the only way those injustices I cited were finally corrected was because of the CONSTRUCTION OF THE CONSTITUTION. Don't paint me with your miserable taint, asshole.

You're a dishonest piece of shit. In the beginning of this exchange back on about page 3, I thought perhaps you had turned yourself around and were going to play it straight. You hadn't and you didn't! You're the same low life dishonest slime you were during our first and second rodeo some time ago!

 

[turzovka]

Unfortunately Bill Clinton will act as another Dick Cheney , manipulating Hillary behind the scenes.

Remember Kosovo.

And someone will likely be "assisting" Bill as well in his decisions. He's getting along in years, not as spunky.

Thanks for your signature showing the Puerto Rican girl winning the tennis gold today in Rio. Great story!

 

[JakeStarkey]

I think Bill Clinton is dying, and the fact is being hidden from the American people.

 

[Contumacious]

Unfortunately Bill Clinton will act as another Dick Cheney , manipulating Hillary behind the scenes.

Remember Kosovo.

And someone will likely be "assisting" Bill as well in his decisions. He's getting along in years, not as spunky.

Thanks for your signature showing the Puerto Rican girl winning the tennis gold today in Rio. Great story!

Yep. Bibi will send them a reliable "assistant"


.

 

[Boss]

Now you are claiming the Constitution is "intentionally absent of religious dogma". For the moment, let's forget you completely contradicted yourself and are now in total agreement with me for the moment. You are correct that the framers never intended to create a theocracy!

Now for you let's return to your obvious contradiction. You want the Constitution to be secular when it's convenient for your assertions. However, you characterize the Constitution as non-secular when it's convenient for a different assertion. The obvious conclusion to draw from your penchant to say one thing here and the opposite thing there is that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about! Piss off now and have a nice Day!

I didn't contradict anything. The Constitution is not Secular or Theocratic.

You are arguing that the Constitution is "Secular" and I am opposing that argument.

The lack of theocratic dogma doesn't mean it's secular.

Secular is the absence of anything related to spiritual or religious beliefs. The Constitution is rooted in and based upon a spiritual and religious concept of individual freedom endowed by our Maker. What part of this are you failing to grasp?

You're trying to argue the lack of theocratic dogma within the Constitution proves it's secular and that's not true. It's not supposed to be chock-full of theocratic dogma, we weren't establishing a theocracy and a theocracy is impossible to ever have no matter how much Christians or any other religion would like to do so. But it's still not secular... it's still rooted in a non-secular concept of individual liberty endowed by a Creator and inalienable by man.

You wrote this!

Secular is the absence of anything related to spiritual or religious beliefs. The Constitution is rooted in and based upon a spiritual and religious concept of individual freedom endowed by our Maker. What part of this are you failing to grasp?

And you wrote this?

The Constitution is certainly NOT secular by design. It is intentionally absent of religious dogma because it's not intended to establish a theocracy.

Any reasonable person would spot the conflict between those two passages in one(1) reading! You just want to have it both ways, but really don't want anyone to mention the inconvenient truth that both statements cannot be true, create a conflict, are not in accord!

You stated unequivocally that the Constitution is "absent" of any religious dogma. The Constitution being absent of a religious "principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true", there is no other conclusion to be had other than the US Constitution is a secular document by definition. It can't be neither or both!
~~ dogma: definition of dogma in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US) ~~

Given your first statement is false and your second statement is true it is obvious to any normal person that the two are in conflict. Further, your admission that the Constitution lacks ANY religious dogma substantiates the proposition that the Constitution is secular in nature because it certainly isn't non-secular by your own acknowledgement.

Certain passages in the DOI may reflect a non-secular bias, but that does not contaminate the Constitution with a religious taint simply because the DOI predated it!! That would be akin to an atheist hearing a hymn as he passed a church on the sidewalk and declaring he was no longer free of all religious dogma! A foolish and stupid, stupid proposition!

Do you have a fucking clue what theocratic means, shit for brains? Look it up, fool! It sure as hell is not what you think it means in your post! Damn you are thick!

The Constitution being absent of a religious "principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true", there is no other conclusion to be had other than the US Constitution is a secular document by definition.

The Constitution isn't "absent" this-- it's based upon it. That's the part you don't seem to be getting. The Constitution would not exist if not for "the truths we hold to be self-evident..."

Certain passages in the DOI may reflect a non-secular bias, but that does not contaminate the Constitution with a religious taint simply because the DOI predated it!

No, the opening preamble states this as a self-evident truth... not a "reflection of bias." It is the centerpiece of our founding intent. It doesn't matter that it predates the Constitution... it's SUPPOSED to predate it! When else would you have the founding basis for the country the Constitution applies to? AFTER it? This isn't some kind of evolution where the DOI was some sort of makeshift document to get us by until the Constitution and now we can just disregard it. It establishes the foundation for our country, what we're about, why we're doing this and later, the Constitution will apply to it.

I don't know what you mean by "contaminate with religious taint" here. I've already said the Constitution isn't chock-full of religious dogma... it's not supposed to be... we weren't establishing a Christian theocracy.

You stated unequivocally that the Constitution is "absent" of any religious dogma.

And I've asked you repeatedly, why would anyone expect it to unless we were forming a theocracy? The absence of religious dogma inside the Constitution doesn't make it secular. Again.. secular means the absence of any religious/spiritual basis. The foundation and basis on which the Constitution exists is very clearly non-secular. So we cannot state the Constitution is secular.

Now you can say that the Constitution is written without deference to any particular religion. But again, what is a document that articulates religious freedom supposed to contain? It;'s intentionally written this way but that doesn't make it secular. To be secular, it would have to NOT be based on the premise of individual liberty endowed by our Creator. You cannot MAKE that be the case just because you think it should be or want it to be. Sorry... it doesn't work that way.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Boss refers to "The Constitution isn't "absent" this-- it's based upon it. That's the part you don't seem to be getting. The Constitution would not exist if not for "the truths we hold to be self-evident" is a silly non-statement.

Show us where in the Constitution is the term "these truths are self evident."

That a word is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence then in The Constitution does not mean that the meanings are similar or are derivative. Any such argument that they are must be proved.

Boss is saying that he has done that, but he is wrong.

 

[Boss]

Note that the quote in question is one continuous thought! You truncated the bloody thing fool to change the fucking context you damn FRAUD and sorry excuse for a man.

Nooo... I didn't truncate anything or take anything you said out of context. The quote I posted ended with punctuation so that ended the thought. If you wanted the thought to continue you shouldn't have used punctuation to end the sentence.

Your point was to challenge "all men are created equal" by pointing to slavery and other injustices. But the point is, all of those injustices were resolved using the brilliant wording of Madison and the framers. In other words, if it hadn't been a self-evident truth that all men are created equal and endowed with rights from their Creator and not man... then slavery could still exist and all the other injustices could still exist... because man is the final arbiter. It's only when you remove man from the equation and understand your rights are endowed by your Creator and inalienable, that individual freedom is truly achieved. And these abhorrent examples are proof that it works.

Frederick Douglass loathed the DoI and Constitution written by white slave owners.... until he read them! Then, he realized the profound argument for abolition was built in to the language, it could not be denied without complete hypocrisy. We hold these truths to be self-evident... very powerful words there. Indeed, a damning indictment of the institution of slavery.

 

[Boss]

Boss refers to "The Constitution isn't "absent" this-- it's based upon it. That's the part you don't seem to be getting. The Constitution would not exist if not for "the truths we hold to be self-evident" is a silly non-statement.

Show us where in the Constitution is the term "these truths are self evident."

That a word is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence then in The Constitution does not mean that the meanings are similar or are derivative. Any such argument that they are must be proved.

Boss is saying that he has done that, but he is wrong.

The Constitution is the rule of law for a nation that was established on a non-secular belief that our Creator endows us with inalienable rights and equality. No country--no constitution! There aren't free-radical constitutions floating around awaiting a nation to attach themselves to. Generally, a constitution is written FOLLOWING establishing of a nation. That establishing basis doesn't need including in the Constitution that applies to it. It's redundant.

Oh... and I am still waiting for one of you brain-trusts to explain what secular source bestows "the blessings of liberty" upon us? That text is very prominently in the preamble of the Constitution. I've never heard of any blessing that was secular!

 

[JakeStarkey]

You noted the similarity of the word "liberty", but cannot explain the link between the DOI and the Constitution.

JP's bless couples they have married secularly: I have witnessed such.

 

[HUGGY]

Because liberalism by and large implies and deploys secular liberalism in this nation.

Secularism implies there is no room for God in political discourse or in public education. And any moral issue that hints at a religious value is considered bad for society by secular liberalism. So children are taught being gay is great, being bi-sexual is great, turning into a transgender is perfectly acceptable, premarital sex is totally expected with some precautions, and oral sex will be covered as well.

That is secularism taking over morality and the indoctrination of an abhorrent universal moral understanding. Don’t want to ever mention God, fine, don’t ever discuss matters that are not reading writing or arithmetic. When schools usurp the authority of parents and promote immoral practices it is wrong. When they whoosh kids off for secret abortions, that is an even more unspeakable crime.

Liberalism promotes illegal immigration and open borders, risks conservatives do not want to take with potential terrorists and also other trafficking. We want legal immigration only. We will fund them if we can afford it and the elected congress says it’s Ok.

Liberalism turns a blind eye to the unvetted Middle Eastern migrants coming in here by untold thousands. How insane is that? We already have tens of thousands of Arab men on student visas who we can no longer locate in this nation. Want a link?

Liberalism leads the parade against cops making them out to be this terrible racist menace. Do they care what fallout that brings? Heck no, because it assures the black vote. Are they coming down hard against the thugs in the Black Lives Matter demonstrations? Of course not. More racial divide.

Liberalism does nothing to stop Obama’s defunding of the military, reduction of troops, and demoralizing the entire military. Nor does it take the threats of terrorism or hostile nations near as seriously as conservatism does. Very misguided. National security is job one!

Liberalism is against increased offshore drilling, Alaskan drilling, fracking, keystone pipeline, nuclear plants, and are anti-coal. All these measures to please the gods of extrement environmentalism. This is so wrong. These are national security issues first and foremost. Dependence on Arab oil or other subversive nations should be done away with as soon as possible. Our economy would benefit enormously as well – again, liberals do not care.

Liberals are soft on crime and light on sentences. It is not conservative judges giving rapists, and violent criminals mitigated sentences and paroles. Worst of all, liberalism is far less likely to address the worst of crimes in this nation, urban gang violence. What conservative would be against a huge cop presence and very stiff sentences for these young offenders? You need to eradicate gang violence by attacking it vehemently. That is the only hope of stopping its perpetual presence. I think it is reprehensible children are afraid to walk to school, bus to school, or go outside in Chicago and other gang infested U.S. cities. Unforgivable! What has Obama ever said or done about that?? Not giving congress much credit here either, as it is.

Liberalism is insanely hung up on pushing transgenderism on this nation and its institutions. They are promoting a bizarre perversion that ruins lives. They push everything gay to the point of punishing anything that stands in its ways.

Liberalism has demanded legalized abortion and gay marriage. Both of these evolutions are an enormous affront to God. They are immoral and sinful, especially abortion, and with the government and our schools celebrating it all it influences children and society that this is all good. The worst of govt’s faults.

Liberalism is an enemy of Israel and an apologist for Islam. This is so cowardly and so wrong. Islam is the scourge and Israel is the perpetual victim and the world’s punching bag and scapegoat for their own sins.

Liberalism has taken the word God out of school out of our nation's history. No one can say the word, carry a Bible to school, mention the word Christmas or sing about it. Our Christian history and tradition is now treated like a pox on this nation. And all it takes is for one creep to sue.

Our universities are immersed in liberalism and its social engineering. Their course and the elitist snobbish liberal professors sicken me. They do anything but encourage dialogue and counter arguments. I have no interest in tax dollars funding that kind of enemy.

Our tax dollars also have to fund liberal public radio and their agenda. Screw that. You are fooling no one.

Liberalism allows a lying criminal like Hillary to get away with murder. Only because they have a corrupt mainstream media ready to do their bidding and support their every cover up and lie. This is a sickness that is killing America or has killed America.

Liberalism is weak on Islamic terrorism, of course no better example than our “coward in chief.” That bastard would not even march in Paris after Charli Hedbo with all the other heads of state of Europe and Israel and Palestine. No, he hid under his desk. And you guys give him another free pass. I don’t!

Well.... If I were you I would not vote for liberal candidates.

 

[Boss]

You noted the similarity of the word "liberty", but cannot explain the link between the DOI and the Constitution.

JP's bless couples they have married secularly: I have witnessed such.

I did link it. The DoI is the establishing document which lays out the intent of our founding as a nation. Without that, you don't have a need for a Constitution.

JP's bless couples they've married secularly? What the hell does that mean?

 

[frigidweirdo]

I watched Braveheart for the first time the other day, yeah, 21 years after it came it, shocking huh?

I could have used any battle scene from any war film from before WW1 I guess, where two sides watch each other over the battlefield waiting for battle and then just slam into each other in absolute slaughter.

When Republicans and Democrats get together to discuss which one has the best politics and policies, it feels like such a battle. You know both sides are going to descend into this chaos, people on both sides die (which has now become insulting, silly arguments, petty games, nonsense) and at the end of it the battlefield is just strewn with bodies and the ONLY person to come out of it with anything positive is the overlord guy (which is basically those who control US politics) and the man who's doing the argument is still getting fucked up the arse on a daily basis.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You noted the similarity of the word "liberty", but cannot explain the link between the DOI and the Constitution.

JP's bless couples they have married secularly: I have witnessed such.

I did link it. The DoI is the establishing document which lays out the intent of our founding as a nation. Without that, you don't have a need for a Constitution. JP's bless couples they've married secularly? What the hell does that mean?

You have made an assertion that means nothing about a "link", Boss. I have seen JPs give a secular blessing on new couples.

 

[Boss]

You have made an assertion that means nothing about a "link", Boss. I have seen JPs give a secular blessing on new couples.

All that I have asserted are the facts. I can't help that you don't understand what the Declaration of Independence has to do with the Constitution. I guess you must have slept through government class or something? But that's not my problem and I can't educate you.

I'm asking you again... what the fuck is a "secular blessing" and what does that mean? If it's just a word that sounds good but has no meaning, why use it? What is the purpose of that? Look... this is YOUR argument, you need to support it with some explanations. Otherwise, it's about to go down for the count, just like most of your arguments. You can prattle on about how right you are, but we expect that behavior from you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You have "asserted" assertions not facts.

It is your opinion, nothing else.

I told you that the JPs gave a blessing on married couples. That is a secular blessing. That you do not understand is your problem.

 

[turzovka]

Well.... If I were you I would not vote for liberal candidates.

Thanks, but I was just venting, that's why I wrote it.

You didn't think that I thought that someone out there might take this stuff seriously or rethink some of their positions did you? Oh, please. That is not what this board is all about. It's about showing off and making fun of your opponent.

Because almost 100 responses on this thread and I notice there has yet to be one to challenge all the bullet points I made about secular liberalism, or to even deny any of that! That is what is so amazing or tragic to me. It's like, "yeah, so we support things that are bad or immoral. So?"

 

[JakeStarkey]

^^^ just so

 

[occupied]

My liberalism is based in part on my early christian upbringing. When you really take to heart Jesus' teachings of love, acceptance, charity, justice etc. there is simply no other political ideology that is acceptable. Jesus was a great man, his lousy fan club has no idea who he was.

 

[HUGGY]

Well.... If I were you I would not vote for liberal candidates.

Thanks, but I was just venting, that's why I wrote it.

You didn't think that I thought that someone out there might take this stuff seriously or rethink some of their positions did you? Oh, please. That is not what this board is all about. It's about showing off and making fun of your opponent.

Because almost 100 responses on this thread and I notice there has yet to be one to challenge all the bullet points I made about secular liberalism, or to even deny any of that! That is what is so amazing or tragic to me. It's like, "yeah, so we support things that are bad or immoral. So?"

Not everyone believes in your god. Some like me, that are not "liberals", believe in NO god yet we still have a decent foundation and moral code.

I understand your frustration. There "seems" to be a real "evil" at play. If you are "cornered" into believing the simplistic response that you must label supposed wrong doers, you can do more evil yourself. More than half of the population want some government management of certain problems we as a society face. This was demonstrated by Obama's last two elections.

With NO government regulators and inspectors we end up with disaster as the financial and real estate lenders proved near the end of Bush's last term. We need the big banks. We need lending institutions. We just cannot put the path to the future in their greedy hands. The same with HMOs and Pharms that prey on the cost of fighting disease many of us get taken by. Unfortunately many if not most so called conservatives in congress are supported financially by the for mentioned institutions. These companies pay a lot of money to keep trying to tell the public how evil citizens that oppose their greed and recklessness are. They are LIBERALS!!! They are EVIL!!!!

Your accusations are simplistic and play right into the hands of those that profit from your willful ignorance. Yes there are some very "liberal" Americans. Just not nearly as many as you think there are.