Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Isn't that why abortion is legal?
Hester Prynne got her scarlett letter in a society where abortion was legal.
Explain that.
Only a moron who pretends to have read "The Scarlet Letter" would imagine that the "A" stood for 'Abortion.'
Raise your paw.
[
I have no desire for concision, .
If enough of us stipulate to the fact that we understand you are the classic example of a middleaged female delusional know-it-all who is incapable of saying anything in less than 10 times the number of words it requires,
will you at least refrain from feeling the need to remind us of said condition?
Hester Prynne lived in a society where adultery was a crime but abortion before quickening was legal.
The other poster tried to make an analogy between the immorality of adultery and the immorality of abortion.
I used the Puritan example of a society where adultery was immoral, but abortion was not,
and thus asked him for his explanation of why that was so.
Feel free to help him with his explanation.
Ironic.
Imagine....if you weren't noted for dishonesty, the charge probably wouldn't stick.
That's justice for ya'.
Your only sentence was:
"Hester Prynne ... scarlett letter ... abortion."
And, even funnier...you criticized my posts as not being short enough!
If you actually meant what you now claim you meant.....
...and you wrote in a clear fluent post....you wouldn't have indicted yourself.
Now you have to back-petal faster than Ed Begley, Jr. making himself a piece of toast!
Sometimes this is sooooo much fun!
The fact that you didn't know that adultery was a Puritan crime, but abortion was not doesn't surprise me at all.
I didn't. I just explained it to those of you who were too illiterate to read my other post in the context of what the other poster was trying to do.
I am literate enough to recognize a ridiculous moral equivalency argument when I see one.
Does that count for anything?
Who made that?
My argument was that morality is arbitrary and only exists as a collective opinion, varying from culture to culture.
I suspect you should ask the poster I responded to what moral equivalency argument he was attempting.
Hester Prynne got her scarlett letter in a society where abortion was legal.
Explain that.
Only a moron who pretends to have read "The Scarlet Letter" would imagine that the "A" stood for 'Abortion.'
Raise your paw.
If I hadn't known what the A meant in the Scarlett Letter, I wouldn't have been able to make this brilliant joke about it a month ago,
http://www.usmessageboard.com/7075301-post16.html
which went well over your head as later posts in that thread showed.
You are dull witted, and as a favor to society should accept that fact and try to live gracefully within the confines of that limitation.
I have had 3 opportunities to vote for Hillary Clinton, and I have not,
because of her unrepentant support for the disaster of Iraq.
That is how it's done, people.
1. In addition to offering all sorts of benefits from the federal fisc, the Left has the GREAT advantage of never having to reflect morality or even respectability. The obvious case in point is their championing of a rapist and personification of a 'war on women,' Bill Clinton.
2. Then, there the more recent affront to righteousness....support for an individual who would not support even minimal life-saving procedures for a child born of a failed abortion.
3. We on the Right find it difficult to simply march on and overlook moral turpitude, much less embrace same.
4. Mark Sanford is a case in point. This former Republican governor of South Carolina carried on an affair while in office. He lied to his wife and to voters,..." He resigned as chairman of the Republican Governors' Association but did not offer to resign as governor."
South Carolina governor Mark Sanford admits infidelity and resigns from Republican leadership position | World news | guardian.co.uk
6.For many on the Right, nominally the upholders of family values, voting for this....individual...was out of the question.
7. But the choice was put to us in this fashion: the push by the Democrats is to control all of the government, and Sanford's election to the House would be a bar to that.
8. And the Left followed the instructions of their guru, Saul Alinsky, who correctly stated:
"For example, since the Haves publicly pose as the custodians of responsibility, morality, law, and justice (which are frequently strangers to each others), they can be constantly pushed to live up to their own book of morality and regulations. No organizations, including organized religion, can live up to the letter of its own book. You can club them to death with their "book" of rules and regulations. This is what that great revolutionary, Paul of Tarsus, knew when he wrote to the Corinthians: "Who also hath made us able ministers of the New Testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit, for the letter killeth." -- Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals, P.152
Archived-Articles: The Totalitarian Minority
9. For many, the decision was made:
"Sanford, however, handily won the Republican primary for the House of Representatives seat he held in the 1990s before he was elected governor. And his victory in Tuesdays South Carolina special general electionshows just how far political redemption can stretch." Mark Sanford?s political redemption
10. I wish I could say the choice was easy, or even made. I remain conflicted.
PC, instead of claiming any moral advantage which is quite questionable, I think a fella with a liberal constitional view has another advantage.
A liberal can think up an idea, good or bad, and act on it. A true Conservative has a narrow Constitutional view and must live by it, good or bad idea be damned.
A liberal wants universal healthcare, great, it is for the general welfare.
A conservative recognizes the math problem and wants it? Well, here come fifty different systems or a constitutional convention.
A liberal wants to invade someplace? Call it a NATO action in the Balkans.
A conservative wants to overthrow some government with no declaration of war? He looks like he is just giving lip service to the constitution.
Liberal wants to keep government out of the abortion debate? Odd but great.
A Conservative does? Well ain't that backwards. Guess the Constitution does not matter so much to him or her.
So yes, the Conservative in a big way DOES have it harder.
1. You appear clueless about what a conservative is.
2. As for your view of Liberal behavior, I recommend Dr. Thomas Sowell's "Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One."
From the Amazon review:
Sowell takes the key political issues and challenges the reader to analyze not only their short term (Stage One) political impact but to also think ahead to their long term (Stage Two, Three, etc) economic impact. He reminds the reader that politicians do not think beyond Stage One because they will be praised (and elected) for the short term benefits but will not be held accountable much later when the long term consequences appear.
He lays out the Stage One benefits of each political issue and then predicts the long term consequences that politicians don't address. Price controls on drugs and health care may have an immediate benefit, but the consumer will pay years later as health care quality decreases and new drug research declines. Reducing the price does not reduce the cost. Does raising the minimum wage really help entry level workers? What happens in the long term when communities raise taxes on businesses? Is free health care really free, or better?
We need to look beyond Stage One and separate politics from economics on the hot election year issues.
Your post reflects said Stage One thinking.
PC, instead of claiming any moral advantage which is quite questionable, I think a fella with a liberal constitional view has another advantage.
A liberal can think up an idea, good or bad, and act on it. A true Conservative has a narrow Constitutional view and must live by it, good or bad idea be damned.
A liberal wants universal healthcare, great, it is for the general welfare.
A conservative recognizes the math problem and wants it? Well, here come fifty different systems or a constitutional convention.
A liberal wants to invade someplace? Call it a NATO action in the Balkans.
A conservative wants to overthrow some government with no declaration of war? He looks like he is just giving lip service to the constitution.
Liberal wants to keep government out of the abortion debate? Odd but great.
A Conservative does? Well ain't that backwards. Guess the Constitution does not matter so much to him or her.
So yes, the Conservative in a big way DOES have it harder.
1. You appear clueless about what a conservative is.
2. As for your view of Liberal behavior, I recommend Dr. Thomas Sowell's "Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One."
From the Amazon review:
Sowell takes the key political issues and challenges the reader to analyze not only their short term (Stage One) political impact but to also think ahead to their long term (Stage Two, Three, etc) economic impact. He reminds the reader that politicians do not think beyond Stage One because they will be praised (and elected) for the short term benefits but will not be held accountable much later when the long term consequences appear.
He lays out the Stage One benefits of each political issue and then predicts the long term consequences that politicians don't address. Price controls on drugs and health care may have an immediate benefit, but the consumer will pay years later as health care quality decreases and new drug research declines. Reducing the price does not reduce the cost. Does raising the minimum wage really help entry level workers? What happens in the long term when communities raise taxes on businesses? Is free health care really free, or better?
We need to look beyond Stage One and separate politics from economics on the hot election year issues.
Your post reflects said Stage One thinking.
Was quoting the Amazon review of a conservative theorist a nice way of saying a conservative has three steps to rationalize their non constitutional ideas?
If I misunderstand the typical modern conservative's view on the abortion issue my apologies. If I misunderstood the modern conservative follower's view on the president's new found power to declare war, sorry.
If the modern conservative has, right or wrong, progressed past being constitutionally conservative on these issues, perhaps their new name should be progressive.
Oh, if a liberal wants to declare a quasi bank / savings in loan too big to fail so be it. Could be a mistake or not, he/she is bailing out the bank for the general welfare.
If a conservative does, he has a problem and has to find a solution in the constitution. Right or wrong if he just all willy nilly goes and bails them out it looks pretty liberal.
The Great Advantage of the Left.
There is more advantage other than being brilliant and good looking?
I have had 3 opportunities to vote for Hillary Clinton, and I have not,
because of her unrepentant support for the disaster of Iraq.
That is how it's done, people.
She lost my support for the same reason.
[
I have no desire for concision, .
If enough of us stipulate to the fact that we understand you are the classic example of a middleaged female delusional know-it-all who is incapable of saying anything in less than 10 times the number of words it requires,
will you at least refrain from feeling the need to remind us of said condition?
Pretending again?
First, there's no "us" here.....there is only lying, ignorant, pretentious "You."
And the fact that I've wounded you so very badly is not only evident in you feeble attack on me, but, I must admit....heartwarming.
I love it.
1. You appear clueless about what a conservative is.
2. As for your view of Liberal behavior, I recommend Dr. Thomas Sowell's "Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One."
From the Amazon review:
Sowell takes the key political issues and challenges the reader to analyze not only their short term (Stage One) political impact but to also think ahead to their long term (Stage Two, Three, etc) economic impact. He reminds the reader that politicians do not think beyond Stage One because they will be praised (and elected) for the short term benefits but will not be held accountable much later when the long term consequences appear.
He lays out the Stage One benefits of each political issue and then predicts the long term consequences that politicians don't address. Price controls on drugs and health care may have an immediate benefit, but the consumer will pay years later as health care quality decreases and new drug research declines. Reducing the price does not reduce the cost. Does raising the minimum wage really help entry level workers? What happens in the long term when communities raise taxes on businesses? Is free health care really free, or better?
We need to look beyond Stage One and separate politics from economics on the hot election year issues.
Your post reflects said Stage One thinking.
Was quoting the Amazon review of a conservative theorist a nice way of saying a conservative has three steps to rationalize their non constitutional ideas?
If I misunderstand the typical modern conservative's view on the abortion issue my apologies. If I misunderstood the modern conservative follower's view on the president's new found power to declare war, sorry.
If the modern conservative has, right or wrong, progressed past being constitutionally conservative on these issues, perhaps their new name should be progressive.
Oh, if a liberal wants to declare a quasi bank / savings in loan too big to fail so be it. Could be a mistake or not, he/she is bailing out the bank for the general welfare.
If a conservative does, he has a problem and has to find a solution in the constitution. Right or wrong if he just all willy nilly goes and bails them out it looks pretty liberal.
1. "Was quoting the Amazon review of a conservative theorist a nice way of saying a conservative has three steps to rationalize their non constitutional ideas?"
So.....clueless was the correct term?
2. The OP was specific.
If you would like some other question vis-a-vis liberals and conservatives, other than their adherence to morality, or lack thereof, please don't hesitate to begin a thread.
I was sure this would be a thread about the LW media. kudos. It's nuts, but in a good way.
The Great Advantage of the Left.
There is more advantage other than being brilliant and good looking?
Good looking????
Liberals should be made to stand in front of pharmacies just to make people sick.
Let me check out that 'brilliant' part......
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNZczIgVXjg]3-25-2010_Hank_Johnson_Guam_Tip_Over.wmv - YouTube[/ame]
The Great Advantage of the Left.
There is more advantage other than being brilliant and good looking?
Good looking????
Liberals should be made to stand in front of pharmacies just to make people sick.
Let me check out that 'brilliant' part......
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNZczIgVXjg]3-25-2010_Hank_Johnson_Guam_Tip_Over.wmv - YouTube[/ame]
The Great Advantage of the Left.
There is more advantage other than being brilliant and good looking?
Good looking????
Liberals should be made to stand in front of pharmacies just to make people sick.
Let me check out that 'brilliant' part......
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNZczIgVXjg]3-25-2010_Hank_Johnson_Guam_Tip_Over.wmv - YouTube[/ame]
I would say that it's hard to believe that there are people like you still around who are dimwitted enough to think that the brilliant Hank Johnson, a master of deadpan,
was being serious, but no,
that is not hard to believe.
I was sure this would be a thread about the LW media. kudos. It's nuts, but in a good way.
This thread was a weird attempt to prove that liberals have no morals via the OP admitting that conservatives are no different.
