The Left Loses Ground...

[PoliticalChic]

The problem your argument presents is that it lacks any discernible depth.

Neither Friedman, nor Buckley were limited by colloquial expressions... when they referred to themselves as liberal, they did so in the true sense of the word, which as even you might guess, represents the pure antithesis of what you actually 'believe' the word means.

What the colloquial liberal 'believes' 'liberal' means, is a lie... a deceit, fraudulently advanced, as a means to mislead the ignorant.

Liberal literally means the advocate of liberty.

The Liberal-ism they believe, contests liberty. It runs from it, rejecting the responsibilities that are essential to liberty.

Liberals are, in every sense of the word: Communists... children who need others to chronically fulfill your endless needs and, fools who believe that just because they reject the responsibilities that sustain freedom, that shouldn't mean they can't be free... .

In short, Liberals are delusional.

Old time liberals thought the private sector could protect society from government. The Industrial Revolution and its attendant horrors - of laissez-faire capitalism - proved them wrong.

Modern liberals think the government needs to try to protect society from the private sector. They are right.

Gilligan, you truly are an abyss of ignorance.

Why don't ya just go dig up Zinn and let him speak for himself. That way I could refute his sorry ass first hand and wouldn't have to tear through it with you as dead weight.

Not enough folks calculate the damage done to American children by the Liberal 'educators' who use the the communist American-hater Howard Zinn's history texts as the basis for what is taught.

And I use 'taught' in only the most pejorative sense.

That's ironic coming from a hyper-partisan homeschooler.

So...you neither understand the term 'ironic,' nor know the history texts that I endorse.


Here's one:

"Freedom Just Around the Corner: A New American History: 1585-1828,"
by Walter A. McDougall


Love to see your critique of same.

 

[PoliticalChic]

When without argument, invoke Hitler. Reduction ad Hitlerum. Works every damn time.

Godwin is taking all of this to the bank.

Pay attention pea brain. Hitler has been part of the discussion for pages...

I know. Having commented on this thread previously, I see only the liberals invoking Hitler in their arguments.

Your second post:

.... battles will stop only if Christians abandon their historic faith on a truly national scale or if the Left decides that it is content to “live and let live”—to work, attend school, and share the public square with people who express moral disagreement and who work actively to promote a cultural return to traditional morality.


When it comes to the core of their faith, millions of Christians will echo, by word and deed, the words of Martin Luther: Here we stand. We can do no other."

"Today Christians stand at the head of our country. I pledge that I will never tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity... We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit.... We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theatre, and in the press - in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past few years."

Adolf Hitler
The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pg. 871-872.

When without argument, invoke Hitler. Reduction ad Hitlerum. Works every damn time.

Godwin is taking all of this to the bank.

Pay attention pea brain. Hitler has been part of the discussion for pages...

I know. Having commented on this thread previously, I see only the liberals invoking Hitler in their arguments.

Your second post:

.... battles will stop only if Christians abandon their historic faith on a truly national scale or if the Left decides that it is content to “live and let live”—to work, attend school, and share the public square with people who express moral disagreement and who work actively to promote a cultural return to traditional morality.


When it comes to the core of their faith, millions of Christians will echo, by word and deed, the words of Martin Luther: Here we stand. We can do no other."

"Today Christians stand at the head of our country. I pledge that I will never tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity... We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit.... We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theatre, and in the press - in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past few years."

Adolf Hitler
The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pg. 871-872.

I'd be remiss not to point out that it is only due to the tireless efforts of Franklin Delano Roosevelt that it is Hitler whose name is a metonym for evil, and not the far more evil Joseph Stalin.

Liberals are so very proud of Roosevelt.


'A more sinister ' proximate cause of our numbness when it come to Soviet crimes is the lies that Franklin Roosevelt told the public in support of Stalin.
Loy Henderson, State Department Russian expert of the time said: "Russia does not fight for the same ideals as the United States."

Roosevelt swore to the American public the exact opposite: he declared that Stalin fought for the same ideals!

September 30, 1941, FDR claimed that there was freedom of religion in the USSR. "The claim that Stalin's Russia allowed religious freedom was the first step in a massive pro-Soviet campaign that the White House coordinated for the duration of the war."
"Caught between Roosevelt and Stalin: America's Ambassadors to Moscow," by Dennis J. Dunn, p. 137


So, because of FDR, there are jokes about 'soup Nazi' or 'grammar Nazi,' but not 'soup commie,' or 'grammar commie.'

And Liberals buy it like it was on sale.

So you believe Stalin instread of Hitler should be used when people want to make silly comparisons. I'm sure Templar will rip you a new on for that.

I said nothing about 'silly comparisons.'

I said 'evil.'

Who was more evil, Hitler, or his facilitator and ally, who provided natural resources that Germany lacked, taught him how to build concentration camps, attacked other nations in coordination with Hitler,....

....and killed far more of his own citizens than Hitler did.




And you say?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The problem your argument presents is that it lacks any discernible depth.

Neither Friedman, nor Buckley were limited by colloquial expressions... when they referred to themselves as liberal, they did so in the true sense of the word, which as even you might guess, represents the pure antithesis of what you actually 'believe' the word means.

What the colloquial liberal 'believes' 'liberal' means, is a lie... a deceit, fraudulently advanced, as a means to mislead the ignorant.

Liberal literally means the advocate of liberty.

The Liberal-ism they believe, contests liberty. It runs from it, rejecting the responsibilities that are essential to liberty.

Liberals are, in every sense of the word: Communists... children who need others to chronically fulfill your endless needs and, fools who believe that just because they reject the responsibilities that sustain freedom, that shouldn't mean they can't be free... .

In short, Liberals are delusional.

Old time liberals thought the private sector could protect society from government. The Industrial Revolution and its attendant horrors - of laissez-faire capitalism - proved them wrong.

Modern liberals think the government needs to try to protect society from the private sector. They are right.

Gilligan, you truly are an abyss of ignorance.

Why don't ya just go dig up Zinn and let him speak for himself. That way I could refute his sorry ass first hand and wouldn't have to tear through it with you as dead weight.

Not enough folks calculate the damage done to American children by the Liberal 'educators' who use the the communist American-hater Howard Zinn's history texts as the basis for what is taught.

And I use 'taught' in only the most pejorative sense.

That's ironic coming from a hyper-partisan homeschooler.

So...you neither understand the term 'ironic,' nor know the history texts that I endorse.


Here's one:

"Freedom Just Around the Corner: A New American History: 1585-1828,"
by Walter A. McDougall


Love to see your critique of same.

Yes, we know you have that on your list of cut and pastes.

 

[NYcarbineer]

When without argument, invoke Hitler. Reduction ad Hitlerum. Works every damn time.

Godwin is taking all of this to the bank.

Pay attention pea brain. Hitler has been part of the discussion for pages...

I know. Having commented on this thread previously, I see only the liberals invoking Hitler in their arguments.

Your second post:

.... battles will stop only if Christians abandon their historic faith on a truly national scale or if the Left decides that it is content to “live and let live”—to work, attend school, and share the public square with people who express moral disagreement and who work actively to promote a cultural return to traditional morality.


When it comes to the core of their faith, millions of Christians will echo, by word and deed, the words of Martin Luther: Here we stand. We can do no other."

"Today Christians stand at the head of our country. I pledge that I will never tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity... We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit.... We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theatre, and in the press - in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past few years."

Adolf Hitler
The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pg. 871-872.

When without argument, invoke Hitler. Reduction ad Hitlerum. Works every damn time.

Godwin is taking all of this to the bank.

Pay attention pea brain. Hitler has been part of the discussion for pages...

I know. Having commented on this thread previously, I see only the liberals invoking Hitler in their arguments.

Your second post:

.... battles will stop only if Christians abandon their historic faith on a truly national scale or if the Left decides that it is content to “live and let live”—to work, attend school, and share the public square with people who express moral disagreement and who work actively to promote a cultural return to traditional morality.


When it comes to the core of their faith, millions of Christians will echo, by word and deed, the words of Martin Luther: Here we stand. We can do no other."

"Today Christians stand at the head of our country. I pledge that I will never tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity... We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit.... We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theatre, and in the press - in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past few years."

Adolf Hitler
The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pg. 871-872.

I'd be remiss not to point out that it is only due to the tireless efforts of Franklin Delano Roosevelt that it is Hitler whose name is a metonym for evil, and not the far more evil Joseph Stalin.

Liberals are so very proud of Roosevelt.


'A more sinister ' proximate cause of our numbness when it come to Soviet crimes is the lies that Franklin Roosevelt told the public in support of Stalin.
Loy Henderson, State Department Russian expert of the time said: "Russia does not fight for the same ideals as the United States."

Roosevelt swore to the American public the exact opposite: he declared that Stalin fought for the same ideals!

September 30, 1941, FDR claimed that there was freedom of religion in the USSR. "The claim that Stalin's Russia allowed religious freedom was the first step in a massive pro-Soviet campaign that the White House coordinated for the duration of the war."
"Caught between Roosevelt and Stalin: America's Ambassadors to Moscow," by Dennis J. Dunn, p. 137


So, because of FDR, there are jokes about 'soup Nazi' or 'grammar Nazi,' but not 'soup commie,' or 'grammar commie.'

And Liberals buy it like it was on sale.

So you believe Stalin instread of Hitler should be used when people want to make silly comparisons. I'm sure Templar will rip you a new on for that.

I said nothing about 'silly comparisons.'

I said 'evil.'

Who was more evil, Hitler, or his facilitator and ally, who provided natural resources that Germany lacked, taught him how to build concentration camps, attacked other nations in coordination with Hitler,....

....and killed far more of his own citizens than Hitler did.




And you say?

I say Churchill tried to get a UK alliance with Stalin in the 30's, which if successful may have thwarted the Nazis early on.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The problem your argument presents is that it lacks any discernible depth.

Neither Friedman, nor Buckley were limited by colloquial expressions... when they referred to themselves as liberal, they did so in the true sense of the word, which as even you might guess, represents the pure antithesis of what you actually 'believe' the word means.

What the colloquial liberal 'believes' 'liberal' means, is a lie... a deceit, fraudulently advanced, as a means to mislead the ignorant.

Liberal literally means the advocate of liberty.

The Liberal-ism they believe, contests liberty. It runs from it, rejecting the responsibilities that are essential to liberty.

Liberals are, in every sense of the word: Communists... children who need others to chronically fulfill your endless needs and, fools who believe that just because they reject the responsibilities that sustain freedom, that shouldn't mean they can't be free... .

In short, Liberals are delusional.

Old time liberals thought the private sector could protect society from government. The Industrial Revolution and its attendant horrors - of laissez-faire capitalism - proved them wrong.

Modern liberals think the government needs to try to protect society from the private sector. They are right.

Gilligan, you truly are an abyss of ignorance.

Why don't ya just go dig up Zinn and let him speak for himself. That way I could refute his sorry ass first hand and wouldn't have to tear through it with you as dead weight.

Not enough folks calculate the damage done to American children by the Liberal 'educators' who use the the communist American-hater Howard Zinn's history texts as the basis for what is taught.

And I use 'taught' in only the most pejorative sense.

That's ironic coming from a hyper-partisan homeschooler.

So...you neither understand the term 'ironic,' nor know the history texts that I endorse.


Here's one:

"Freedom Just Around the Corner: A New American History: 1585-1828,"
by Walter A. McDougall


Love to see your critique of same.

If you wish to claim that you are able to set aside ALL of the rightwing bias that you demonstrate here daily when you take on the role of teacher, and that your 'students' receive an education that treats left and right with equal favor,

well then just say so.

 

[Toro]

[Q

It has only been "debunked" by those whose grandchildren will be ashamed of them in coming years.

ROFLMNAO...

Reader, what the cultist is trying not to tell you, is that it believes that behavior: sexual deviancy equates to 'being black'.

See how that works?

Sexuality is hardwired, Pubes.

See how nature works?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Pay attention pea brain. Hitler has been part of the discussion for pages...

I know. Having commented on this thread previously, I see only the liberals invoking Hitler in their arguments.

Your second post:

"Today Christians stand at the head of our country. I pledge that I will never tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity... We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit.... We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theatre, and in the press - in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past few years."

Adolf Hitler
The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pg. 871-872.

Pay attention pea brain. Hitler has been part of the discussion for pages...

I know. Having commented on this thread previously, I see only the liberals invoking Hitler in their arguments.

Your second post:

"Today Christians stand at the head of our country. I pledge that I will never tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity... We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit.... We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theatre, and in the press - in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past few years."

Adolf Hitler
The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pg. 871-872.

I'd be remiss not to point out that it is only due to the tireless efforts of Franklin Delano Roosevelt that it is Hitler whose name is a metonym for evil, and not the far more evil Joseph Stalin.

Liberals are so very proud of Roosevelt.


'A more sinister ' proximate cause of our numbness when it come to Soviet crimes is the lies that Franklin Roosevelt told the public in support of Stalin.
Loy Henderson, State Department Russian expert of the time said: "Russia does not fight for the same ideals as the United States."

Roosevelt swore to the American public the exact opposite: he declared that Stalin fought for the same ideals!

September 30, 1941, FDR claimed that there was freedom of religion in the USSR. "The claim that Stalin's Russia allowed religious freedom was the first step in a massive pro-Soviet campaign that the White House coordinated for the duration of the war."
"Caught between Roosevelt and Stalin: America's Ambassadors to Moscow," by Dennis J. Dunn, p. 137


So, because of FDR, there are jokes about 'soup Nazi' or 'grammar Nazi,' but not 'soup commie,' or 'grammar commie.'

And Liberals buy it like it was on sale.

So you believe Stalin instread of Hitler should be used when people want to make silly comparisons. I'm sure Templar will rip you a new on for that.

I said nothing about 'silly comparisons.'

I said 'evil.'

Who was more evil, Hitler, or his facilitator and ally, who provided natural resources that Germany lacked, taught him how to build concentration camps, attacked other nations in coordination with Hitler,....

....and killed far more of his own citizens than Hitler did.




And you say?

I say Churchill tried to get a UK alliance with Stalin in the 30's, which if successful may have thwarted the Nazis early on.

Typical NYLiar obfuscation....

The question was "Who was more evil, Hitler, or his facilitator and ally, who provided natural resources that Germany lacked, taught him how to build concentration camps, attacked other nations in coordination with Hitler,....

....and killed far more of his own citizens than Hitler did."


Your non-response indicates that you understand that your hero, Roosevelt, chose the most evil to tie America to.


It also explains much of your worldview.

 

[PoliticalChic]

[Q

It has only been "debunked" by those whose grandchildren will be ashamed of them in coming years.

ROFLMNAO...

Reader, what the cultist is trying not to tell you, is that it believes that behavior: sexual deviancy equates to 'being black'.

See how that works?

Sexuality is hardwired, Pubes.

See how nature works?

Clearly false.

1. Prisons prove that.

2. As do the CDC studies.

a. "Moreover, even among those who describe themselves as homosexual or bisexual (a grand total of 3.7% of the 18-44 age group), overwhelming majorities (81%) say they've experienced sex with partners of the opposite gender. Among those who call themselves heterosexual, on the other hand, only a tiny minority (6%) ever engaged in physical intimacy of any kind with a member of the same sex These figure indicate that 94% of those living heterosexual lives felt no physical attraction to members of the same sex, but the great bulk of self-identified homosexuals and bisexuals feel enough intimate interest in the opposite gender to engage in erotic contact at some stage in their development."
Column Does it matter if only 1.4 of people are gay - USATODAY.com


b. "In light of this, it was not surprising that the recent findings of a survey released in March by the National Center for Health Statistics and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was largely ignored by the media. The survey is titled Sexual Behavior, Sexual Attraction, and Sexual Identity in the United States: Data From the 2006–2008 National Survey of Family Growth. This prestigious and thorough federal study revealed that only 1.4% of Americans identify themselves as homosexual.

Further, it clearly showed homosexual activity to be more a matter of lifestyle than genetics."

 

[PoliticalChic]

Old time liberals thought the private sector could protect society from government. The Industrial Revolution and its attendant horrors - of laissez-faire capitalism - proved them wrong.

Modern liberals think the government needs to try to protect society from the private sector. They are right.

Gilligan, you truly are an abyss of ignorance.

Why don't ya just go dig up Zinn and let him speak for himself. That way I could refute his sorry ass first hand and wouldn't have to tear through it with you as dead weight.

Not enough folks calculate the damage done to American children by the Liberal 'educators' who use the the communist American-hater Howard Zinn's history texts as the basis for what is taught.

And I use 'taught' in only the most pejorative sense.

That's ironic coming from a hyper-partisan homeschooler.

So...you neither understand the term 'ironic,' nor know the history texts that I endorse.


Here's one:

"Freedom Just Around the Corner: A New American History: 1585-1828,"
by Walter A. McDougall


Love to see your critique of same.

If you wish to claim that you are able to set aside ALL of the rightwing bias that you demonstrate here daily when you take on the role of teacher, and that your 'students' receive an education that treats left and right with equal favor,

well then just say so.

I have no 'bias' if that means unfair inclination.

Everything I believe is based on education, experience, and insight.

The lack of same explains your 'bias.'

 

[NYcarbineer]

Gilligan, you truly are an abyss of ignorance.

Why don't ya just go dig up Zinn and let him speak for himself. That way I could refute his sorry ass first hand and wouldn't have to tear through it with you as dead weight.

Not enough folks calculate the damage done to American children by the Liberal 'educators' who use the the communist American-hater Howard Zinn's history texts as the basis for what is taught.

And I use 'taught' in only the most pejorative sense.

That's ironic coming from a hyper-partisan homeschooler.

So...you neither understand the term 'ironic,' nor know the history texts that I endorse.


Here's one:

"Freedom Just Around the Corner: A New American History: 1585-1828,"
by Walter A. McDougall


Love to see your critique of same.

If you wish to claim that you are able to set aside ALL of the rightwing bias that you demonstrate here daily when you take on the role of teacher, and that your 'students' receive an education that treats left and right with equal favor,

well then just say so.

I have no 'bias' if that means unfair inclination.

Everything I believe is based on education, experience, and insight.

The lack of same explains your 'bias.'

You have the most demented, warped version of bias I have ever seen on a message board.

And I notice you scrupulously dodged my question.

Do you teach that Evolution is by far the best scientific theory on the history of life on earth, and that Creationism has no scientific merit to speak of,

or aren't you up to that subject yet?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Not enough folks calculate the damage done to American children by the Liberal 'educators' who use the the communist American-hater Howard Zinn's history texts as the basis for what is taught.

And I use 'taught' in only the most pejorative sense.

That's ironic coming from a hyper-partisan homeschooler.

So...you neither understand the term 'ironic,' nor know the history texts that I endorse.


Here's one:

"Freedom Just Around the Corner: A New American History: 1585-1828,"
by Walter A. McDougall


Love to see your critique of same.

If you wish to claim that you are able to set aside ALL of the rightwing bias that you demonstrate here daily when you take on the role of teacher, and that your 'students' receive an education that treats left and right with equal favor,

well then just say so.

I have no 'bias' if that means unfair inclination.

Everything I believe is based on education, experience, and insight.

The lack of same explains your 'bias.'

You have the most demented, warped version of bias I have ever seen on a message board.

And I notice you scrupulously dodged my question.

Do you teach that Evolution is by far the best scientific theory on the history of life on earth, and that Creationism has no scientific merit to speak of,

or aren't you up to that subject yet?

I would suggest you stick to words you understand.....but that would be cruel as it would end your posting career.

Case in point:
Demented: driven to behave irrationally due to anger, distress, or excitement.

As I behave with nothing but seraphic calm (I'll wait while you consult a dictionary).....your post is untrue.

As for 'irrational,'.....feel free to find any such post of mine.


Or don't.....after all, you are known as the 'NYLiar.'

 

[NYcarbineer]

That's ironic coming from a hyper-partisan homeschooler.

So...you neither understand the term 'ironic,' nor know the history texts that I endorse.


Here's one:

"Freedom Just Around the Corner: A New American History: 1585-1828,"
by Walter A. McDougall


Love to see your critique of same.

If you wish to claim that you are able to set aside ALL of the rightwing bias that you demonstrate here daily when you take on the role of teacher, and that your 'students' receive an education that treats left and right with equal favor,

well then just say so.

I have no 'bias' if that means unfair inclination.

Everything I believe is based on education, experience, and insight.

The lack of same explains your 'bias.'

You have the most demented, warped version of bias I have ever seen on a message board.

And I notice you scrupulously dodged my question.

Do you teach that Evolution is by far the best scientific theory on the history of life on earth, and that Creationism has no scientific merit to speak of,

or aren't you up to that subject yet?

I would suggest you stick to words you understand.....but that would be cruel as it would end your posting career.

Case in point:
Demented: driven to behave irrationally due to anger, distress, or excitement.

As I behave with nothing but seraphic calm (I'll wait while you consult a dictionary).....your post is untrue.

As for 'irrational,'.....feel free to find any such post of mine.


Or don't.....after all, you are known as the 'NYLiar.'

So you don't objectively teach about evolution. That's why you won't deny it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The extremist rightwing overreach with insane legislation like the RFRA has hurt the religious right.

Instead of achieving their theocratic goals they alienated corporations who chose to take their business elsewhere rather than risk losing customers nationwide.

As a theist PR exercise it was a complete and utter failure of monumental proportions.

To pretend otherwise, as the OP is trying to do, just exposes the fact that those who use religion as a cudgel to impose their bigotry on We the People are completely out of touch with reality.

"....those who use religion as a cudgel to impose their bigotry..."


....cudgel...

...bigotry....


Exactly the sort of faux pas one would expect from a dunce line you.



"A prominent Silicon Valley chief executive stepped down just days after his appointment, amid a firestorm across the Internet that was sparked by employees who complained about his opposition to gay marriage.

Brendan Eich resigned from Mozilla, the organization behind the Firefox Web browser, after intense criticism over a six-year-old, $1,000 donation he made in support of a 2008 California ballot initiative to ban gay marriage."
Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich Steps Down - WSJ

You want to trade anecdotes?

1. Lisa Howe (Tennessee)
This former Belmont University soccer coach was fired in December 2010 after she came out to her soccer team that she is a lesbian and announced that she and her partner were expecting their first child. While the university’s official statement at first said that she had resigned, it was soon amended to say that the decision had been mutual, and that her continuing to work for Belmont would not be beneficial to her or the university. Demonstrators protested Howe’s termination, as she was a highly successful and popular coach, and they called for an official apology, which they never received. Although Belmont had terminated its ties with the Tennessee Baptist Church in 2007, chairman of Belmont’s board of trustees Marty Dickens told The Tennessean that, “We expect people to commit themselves to high moral and ethical standards within a Christian context.” -

See more at: 5 People Who Were Fired for Being Gay And The 29 States Where That Is Still Legal Williams Institute

Lost her job to the cudgel of conservative Christian anti-gay bigotry.

And...

2. Jodi O’Brien (Wisconsin) O’Brien, a sociology professor at Seattle University who is openly a lesbian and writes about sexuality, was originally offered a job as dean of one of Marquette University’s colleges. In May 2010, her offer was rescinded. The Roman Catholic and Jesuit-run University told the New York Times that she lacked “the ability to represent the Marquette mission and identity.” University President Rev. Robert A. Wild argued that the choice not to hire O’Brien wasn’t due to her sexuality, but rather to her academic writing, in which he found “strongly negative statements about marriage and family.” O’Brien has written extensively about the topic of gay marriage; if this isn’t discrimination based on sexual orientation, it’s certainly discrimination based on beliefs about sexual orientation. Is there a substantial difference between the two?

- See more at: 5 People Who Were Fired for Being Gay And The 29 States Where That Is Still Legal Williams Institute

So I'm ahead 2 - 1.

Your turn.

Did PC post anymore?

Or should I, and run up the score?

lol

 

[NYcarbineer]

That's ironic coming from a hyper-partisan homeschooler.

So...you neither understand the term 'ironic,' nor know the history texts that I endorse.


Here's one:

"Freedom Just Around the Corner: A New American History: 1585-1828,"
by Walter A. McDougall


Love to see your critique of same.

If you wish to claim that you are able to set aside ALL of the rightwing bias that you demonstrate here daily when you take on the role of teacher, and that your 'students' receive an education that treats left and right with equal favor,

well then just say so.

I have no 'bias' if that means unfair inclination.

Everything I believe is based on education, experience, and insight.

The lack of same explains your 'bias.'

You have the most demented, warped version of bias I have ever seen on a message board.

And I notice you scrupulously dodged my question.

Do you teach that Evolution is by far the best scientific theory on the history of life on earth, and that Creationism has no scientific merit to speak of,

or aren't you up to that subject yet?

I would suggest you stick to words you understand.....but that would be cruel as it would end your posting career.

Case in point:
Demented: driven to behave irrationally due to anger, distress, or excitement.

As I behave with nothing but seraphic calm (I'll wait while you consult a dictionary).....your post is untrue.

As for 'irrational,'.....feel free to find any such post of mine.


Or don't.....after all, you are known as the 'NYLiar.'

Blurting out personal insults at other posters in practically every post you make may be considered calm behavior in whatever jungle you grew up in,

but it's not so among the civilized.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
I dont know what "ultra nationalism" is. Neither do you. .

Let Joseph Goebbels explain it to you:

Those Damned Nazis 1932

I'm sure there's much there a nationalist like you can relate to.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So...you neither understand the term 'ironic,' nor know the history texts that I endorse.


Here's one:

"Freedom Just Around the Corner: A New American History: 1585-1828,"
by Walter A. McDougall


Love to see your critique of same.

If you wish to claim that you are able to set aside ALL of the rightwing bias that you demonstrate here daily when you take on the role of teacher, and that your 'students' receive an education that treats left and right with equal favor,

well then just say so.

I have no 'bias' if that means unfair inclination.

Everything I believe is based on education, experience, and insight.

The lack of same explains your 'bias.'

You have the most demented, warped version of bias I have ever seen on a message board.

And I notice you scrupulously dodged my question.

Do you teach that Evolution is by far the best scientific theory on the history of life on earth, and that Creationism has no scientific merit to speak of,

or aren't you up to that subject yet?

I would suggest you stick to words you understand.....but that would be cruel as it would end your posting career.

Case in point:
Demented: driven to behave irrationally due to anger, distress, or excitement.

As I behave with nothing but seraphic calm (I'll wait while you consult a dictionary).....your post is untrue.

As for 'irrational,'.....feel free to find any such post of mine.


Or don't.....after all, you are known as the 'NYLiar.'

So you don't objectively teach about evolution. That's why you won't deny it.

Why did you begin with "So"?

There was no discussion of evolution.

No wonder you are nothing but a low-life lying Liberal.

Were you born this way, or is it a conscious effort never to allow honesty to influence your life?

 

[PoliticalChic]

The extremist rightwing overreach with insane legislation like the RFRA has hurt the religious right.

Instead of achieving their theocratic goals they alienated corporations who chose to take their business elsewhere rather than risk losing customers nationwide.

As a theist PR exercise it was a complete and utter failure of monumental proportions.

To pretend otherwise, as the OP is trying to do, just exposes the fact that those who use religion as a cudgel to impose their bigotry on We the People are completely out of touch with reality.

"....those who use religion as a cudgel to impose their bigotry..."


....cudgel...

...bigotry....


Exactly the sort of faux pas one would expect from a dunce line you.



"A prominent Silicon Valley chief executive stepped down just days after his appointment, amid a firestorm across the Internet that was sparked by employees who complained about his opposition to gay marriage.

Brendan Eich resigned from Mozilla, the organization behind the Firefox Web browser, after intense criticism over a six-year-old, $1,000 donation he made in support of a 2008 California ballot initiative to ban gay marriage."
Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich Steps Down - WSJ

You want to trade anecdotes?

1. Lisa Howe (Tennessee)
This former Belmont University soccer coach was fired in December 2010 after she came out to her soccer team that she is a lesbian and announced that she and her partner were expecting their first child. While the university’s official statement at first said that she had resigned, it was soon amended to say that the decision had been mutual, and that her continuing to work for Belmont would not be beneficial to her or the university. Demonstrators protested Howe’s termination, as she was a highly successful and popular coach, and they called for an official apology, which they never received. Although Belmont had terminated its ties with the Tennessee Baptist Church in 2007, chairman of Belmont’s board of trustees Marty Dickens told The Tennessean that, “We expect people to commit themselves to high moral and ethical standards within a Christian context.” -

See more at: 5 People Who Were Fired for Being Gay And The 29 States Where That Is Still Legal Williams Institute

Lost her job to the cudgel of conservative Christian anti-gay bigotry.

And...

2. Jodi O’Brien (Wisconsin) O’Brien, a sociology professor at Seattle University who is openly a lesbian and writes about sexuality, was originally offered a job as dean of one of Marquette University’s colleges. In May 2010, her offer was rescinded. The Roman Catholic and Jesuit-run University told the New York Times that she lacked “the ability to represent the Marquette mission and identity.” University President Rev. Robert A. Wild argued that the choice not to hire O’Brien wasn’t due to her sexuality, but rather to her academic writing, in which he found “strongly negative statements about marriage and family.” O’Brien has written extensively about the topic of gay marriage; if this isn’t discrimination based on sexual orientation, it’s certainly discrimination based on beliefs about sexual orientation. Is there a substantial difference between the two?

- See more at: 5 People Who Were Fired for Being Gay And The 29 States Where That Is Still Legal Williams Institute

So I'm ahead 2 - 1.

Your turn.

Did PC post anymore?

Or should I, and run up the score?

lol

Your score is zero.

Add as many cyphers as your like.

Still zero.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So...you neither understand the term 'ironic,' nor know the history texts that I endorse.


Here's one:

"Freedom Just Around the Corner: A New American History: 1585-1828,"
by Walter A. McDougall


Love to see your critique of same.

If you wish to claim that you are able to set aside ALL of the rightwing bias that you demonstrate here daily when you take on the role of teacher, and that your 'students' receive an education that treats left and right with equal favor,

well then just say so.

I have no 'bias' if that means unfair inclination.

Everything I believe is based on education, experience, and insight.

The lack of same explains your 'bias.'

You have the most demented, warped version of bias I have ever seen on a message board.

And I notice you scrupulously dodged my question.

Do you teach that Evolution is by far the best scientific theory on the history of life on earth, and that Creationism has no scientific merit to speak of,

or aren't you up to that subject yet?

I would suggest you stick to words you understand.....but that would be cruel as it would end your posting career.

Case in point:
Demented: driven to behave irrationally due to anger, distress, or excitement.

As I behave with nothing but seraphic calm (I'll wait while you consult a dictionary).....your post is untrue.

As for 'irrational,'.....feel free to find any such post of mine.


Or don't.....after all, you are known as the 'NYLiar.'

Blurting out personal insults at other posters in practically every post you make may be considered calm behavior in whatever jungle you grew up in,

but it's not so among the civilized.

I don't 'blurt.'

I'm very careful of how I express my opinions of you because I want to put as much vituperation in them as possible.

It's my dream job ... driving the karma bus.

 

[PoliticalChic]

[
I dont know what "ultra nationalism" is. Neither do you. .

Let Joseph Goebbels explain it to you:

Those Damned Nazis 1932

I'm sure there's much there a nationalist like you can relate to.

Who was more evil, Hitler, or his facilitator and ally, Stalin, who provided natural resources that Germany lacked, taught him how to build concentration camps, attacked other nations in coordination with Hitler,....

....and killed far more of his own citizens than Hitler did.




And you say?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Using degrading language doesn't constitute an effective dodge. Yeah, I'm interested in seeing who has the longer list of right AND left on air personalities, that's right. That's what makes BALANCE in a cable news show.. So, longer list. You got one ?

Thanks for tacitly admitting that all you are interested in is a pissing contest.

If you were genuinely interested there would be absolutely nothing stopping you from doing your own research into the guest lists on MSNBC.

But I suspect that isn't your honest intention at all.

Anyone who starts out trumpeting FauxNoise obviously has an agenda.

And there is absolutely nothing "balanced" about the mindless entertainment on FauxNoise. It is there purely to incite the emotions of it's gullible viewers.

Oh, and research has established that FauxNoise viewers are the most ignorant and misinformed.

Have a nice day.

I'm already having a nice day watching you squirming to dodge my challenge to you to come up with a list of conservatives on MSNBC or any liberal media. Looks like all you can do is utter a laughble LIE that Fox News isn't balanced, after I just proved (with your help) that not only is it very balanced, with a lengthy list of liberals on its shows, creating serious DIalogue, but it is extremely balanced, relative to the pathetically UNbalanced MSNBC and many other liberal laughingstocks, and the MONOlogues they present.

As for research, you just got it, and your lack of words contributed to it. Thanks, man.

Joe Scarborough has a 3 hour show in MSNBC. He is a conservative.

What liberal has a 3 hour show on Foxnews?

There are plenty of lefties who regularly appear on Fox... Juan Williams, Allan Colmes and Bob Beckel to name a few....

lol, the question was, which liberal has his own 3 hour show on Fox?

Whatev... you have one conservative given 3 hours on MSNBC vs. numerous libs on Fox given several hours. You get the picture. Frankly, what's your point? That MSNBC is balanced? MSNBC is a veritable loony bin of leftwing nutjobs.

That's laughable.