The Most Disgusting Song of All Time

First, he wrote "no religion".
He did not write "no god".
There IS a difference.

Second, it was the conservative party that started the KKK. At that time, that was the Democrats.

The Democrats are no longer the party of conservatives and I DARE YOU to find even one liberal who is the anti-American, racist, slime buckets that YOU rw's are on this board.



"Second, it was the conservative party that started the KKK. At that time, that was the Democrats."

A fabrication designed to hide the history of the Democrats.


1. It was Republicans who fought for civil rights for blacks.
a. It was Republicans who overwhelmingly introduced, promoted, and passed every civil rights act from the end of the Civil War right up to and including the 1964 Civil Rights Act. President Eisenhower pushed the Civil Rights Act of 1957, written by Attorney General Herbert Brownell, guaranteeing black voting rights, to be enforced by the U.S. Department of Justice.

b. "Three years after Brown, President Eisenhower won passage of his landmark Civil Rights Act of 1957. Republican Senator Everett Dirksen authored and introduced the 1960 Civil Rights Act, and saw it through to passage. Republicans supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act overwhelmingly, and by much higher percentages in both House and Senate than the Democrats. Indeed, the 1964 Civil Rights Act became law only after overcoming a Democrat filibuster."
Everything I Know Is Wrong: History of the Republican Party


2. The Democrats in the Senate blocked every anti-lynching bill. Let's see how many Senate Democrats were 'conservative.'

a.The most important points: all the segregationists in the Senate were Democrats, and remained same for the rest of their lives…except for one. And they were not conservative.

b. Strom Thurmond became a Republican, albeit 16 years later. Lets see how many of the 12 in the Senate were conservative.

c. Senator Harry Byrd, staunch opponent of anti-communist McCarthy

d. Senator Robert Byrd, proabortion, opposed Gulf Wars, supported ERA, high grades from NARAL and ACLU

e. Senator Allen Ellender, McCarthy opponent, pacifist

f. Senator Sam Ervin, McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War, Nixon antagonist

g. Senator Albert Gore, Sr., McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War

h. Senator James Eastland, strong anti-communist

i. Senator Wm. Fulbright, McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War, big UN supporter

j. Senator Walter F. George, supported TVA, and Great Society programs

k. Senator Ernest Hollings, initiated federal food stamp program, …but supported Clarence Thomas’ nomination

l. Senator Russell Long, led the campaign for Great Society programs

m. Senator Richard Russell, McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War, supported FDR’s New Deal

n. Senator John Stennis, McCarthy opponent, opposed Robert Bork’s nomination
Covered in chapter 12 of "Mugged," by Coulter

Notice how segregationist positions went hand-in-hand with opposition to McCarthy? Not all Democrats….Robert Kennedy worked for McCarthy, and Senator John F. Kenned refused to censure him.




Now, if you are puzzled as to what just happened, I've proven that you are either a liar or a simpleton.

I'll let you announce which one it is.

"McCarthy opponents" ??

What do you do, practice being stupid in front of a mirror before posting here?

Being opposed to a lying scumbag demagogue out for personal megalomania doesn't make one "anti-conservative". Idiot.

Take it, Senator...

>> The United States Senate has long enjoyed worldwide respect as the greatest deliberative body in the world. But recently that deliberative character has too often been debased to the level of a forum of hate and character assassination sheltered by the shield of congressional immunity.

It is ironical that we Senators can in debate in the Senate directly or indirectly, by any form of words, impute to any American who is not a Senator any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming an American -- and without that non-Senator American having any legal redress against us -- yet if we say the same thing in the Senate about our colleagues we can be stopped on the grounds of being out of order.

It is strange that we can verbally attack anyone else without restraint and with full protection and yet we hold ourselves above the same type of criticism here on the Senate Floor. Surely the United States Senate is big enough to take self-criticism and self-appraisal. Surely we should be able to take the same kind of character attacks that we "dish out" to outsiders.
...

I think that it is high time that we remembered that we have sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution. I think that it is high time that we remembered that the Constitution, as amended, speaks not only of the freedom of speech but also of trial by jury instead of trial by accusation.

Whether it be a criminal prosecution in court or a character prosecution in the Senate, there is little practical distinction when the life of a person has been ruined.

Those of us who shout the loudest about Americanism in making character assassinations are all too frequently those who, by our own words and acts, ignore some of the basic principles of Americanism:

The right to criticize;

The right to hold unpopular beliefs;

The right to protest;

The right of independent thought.

The exercise of these rights should not cost one single American citizen his reputation or his right to a livelihood nor should he be in danger of losing his reputation or livelihood merely because he happens to know someone who holds unpopular beliefs. Who of us doesn’t? Otherwise none of us could call our souls our own. Otherwise thought control would have set in.

The American people are sick and tired of being afraid to speak their minds lest they be politically smeared as "Communists" or "Fascists" by their opponents. Freedom of speech is not what it used to be in America. It has been so abused by some that it is not exercised by others.

The American people are sick and tired of seeing innocent people smeared and guilty people whitewashed. But there have been enough proved cases, such as the Amerasia case, the Hiss case, the Coplon case, the Gold case, to cause the nationwide distrust and strong suspicion that there may be something to the unproved, sensational accusations.

... The nation sorely needs a Republican victory. But I don’t want to see the Republican Party ride to political victory on the Four Horsemen of Calumny -- Fear, Ignorance, Bigotry, and Smear.

I doubt if the Republican Party could -- simply because I don’t believe the American people will uphold any political party that puts political exploitation above national interest. Surely we Republicans aren’t that desperate for victory.

I don’t want to see the Republican Party win that way. <<

-- Margaret Chase Smith (R-ME), June 1950


I'll leave to other fallacy hunters who have more time the low-hanging fruit canards of what the fuck sexual allegations, specious quotes and a public hug have to do with political philosophies. Some fruit just hangs too low.

Not to mention what the fuck any of this has to do with a topic on a British songwriter, which has apparently been abandoned... :cuckoo:



Well, well....another moron who needs slapping down.

Coming right up.

"Being opposed to a lying scumbag demagogue out for personal megalomania doesn't make one "anti-conservative". Idiot."


1. Whittaker Chambers wrote in his book WITNESS that liberals are/were incapable of ever effectively fighting Communism because they did not see anything in Communism that was antithetical to their own beliefs. In short, Liberals are Communists and Communists are Liberals.

And, sure enough....a mentally incapacitated Liberal jumps right up to prove it.

Communists, Liberals...same thing. You.




2. Only a Liberal would claim that Senator McCarthy was more of a danger than the paid Soviet spies in the government....the ones who helped FDR send plans for the atomic bomb to Stalin, caused the Korean War, and....lost China to the homicidal maniac Mao.

Raise your paw.




3. The thrust is that it was McCarthyism, more than Soviet espionage or Communism infiltration of government, that was – in the words of the October 23, 1998, NYTimes editorial, “a lethal threat to American democracy.” This, in the same editorial that admitted that the evidence against Julius Rosenberg, and “most likely” Alger Hiss, was clear.



And this:

4. As a result of the Venona Papers, and declassification of KGB files verifies pretty much all of McCarthy’s charges….and no one was ‘ruined’ by McCarthy revelations….The greatest complaint against McCarthy was that he was unkind….even mean….to those in question.



Think of it....you might still be a virgin except for what nature did to your mind.


Man, that was fun.


Drop by when you need another lesson.
 
Imagine there no liberals....It's not hard to do (all you have to do is replace college professors with actual competent teaches)

There it is again - that stark raving terror rw's have of real education.

This is why China and India are leaving us in the dust.

Really, we need to take all power away from the right.

The backward right gets more government assistance than any other group and, of course, we will continue to subsidize them, but we cannot let the drag our country down into the gutter where they live.
 
Imagine there no liberals....It's not hard to do (all you have to do is replace college professors with actual competent teaches)

There it is again - that stark raving terror rw's have of real education.

This is why China and India are leaving us in the dust.

Really, we need to take all power away from the right.

The backward right gets more government assistance than any other group and, of course, we will continue to subsidize them, but we cannot let the drag our country down into the gutter where they live.





I posted three posts that slapped the stuff out of you.

You can slink away....typical of a Liberal.
 
Imagine there no liberals....It's not hard to do (all you have to do is replace college professors with actual competent teaches)

There it is again - that stark raving terror rw's have of real education.

This is why China and India are leaving us in the dust.

Really, we need to take all power away from the right.

The backward right gets more government assistance than any other group and, of course, we will continue to subsidize them, but we cannot let the drag our country down into the gutter where they live.

Idiot it is a plea FOR education instead of the indoctrination factorys we have now

tapatalk post
 
"Second, it was the conservative party that started the KKK. At that time, that was the Democrats."

A fabrication designed to hide the history of the Democrats.


1. It was Republicans who fought for civil rights for blacks.
a. It was Republicans who overwhelmingly introduced, promoted, and passed every civil rights act from the end of the Civil War right up to and including the 1964 Civil Rights Act. President Eisenhower pushed the Civil Rights Act of 1957, written by Attorney General Herbert Brownell, guaranteeing black voting rights, to be enforced by the U.S. Department of Justice.

b. "Three years after Brown, President Eisenhower won passage of his landmark Civil Rights Act of 1957. Republican Senator Everett Dirksen authored and introduced the 1960 Civil Rights Act, and saw it through to passage. Republicans supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act overwhelmingly, and by much higher percentages in both House and Senate than the Democrats. Indeed, the 1964 Civil Rights Act became law only after overcoming a Democrat filibuster."
Everything I Know Is Wrong: History of the Republican Party


2. The Democrats in the Senate blocked every anti-lynching bill. Let's see how many Senate Democrats were 'conservative.'

a.The most important points: all the segregationists in the Senate were Democrats, and remained same for the rest of their lives&#8230;except for one. And they were not conservative.

b. Strom Thurmond became a Republican, albeit 16 years later. Lets see how many of the 12 in the Senate were conservative.

c. Senator Harry Byrd, staunch opponent of anti-communist McCarthy

d. Senator Robert Byrd, proabortion, opposed Gulf Wars, supported ERA, high grades from NARAL and ACLU

e. Senator Allen Ellender, McCarthy opponent, pacifist

f. Senator Sam Ervin, McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War, Nixon antagonist

g. Senator Albert Gore, Sr., McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War

h. Senator James Eastland, strong anti-communist

i. Senator Wm. Fulbright, McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War, big UN supporter

j. Senator Walter F. George, supported TVA, and Great Society programs

k. Senator Ernest Hollings, initiated federal food stamp program, &#8230;but supported Clarence Thomas&#8217; nomination

l. Senator Russell Long, led the campaign for Great Society programs

m. Senator Richard Russell, McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War, supported FDR&#8217;s New Deal

n. Senator John Stennis, McCarthy opponent, opposed Robert Bork&#8217;s nomination
Covered in chapter 12 of "Mugged," by Coulter

Notice how segregationist positions went hand-in-hand with opposition to McCarthy? Not all Democrats&#8230;.Robert Kennedy worked for McCarthy, and Senator John F. Kenned refused to censure him.




Now, if you are puzzled as to what just happened, I've proven that you are either a liar or a simpleton.

I'll let you announce which one it is.

"McCarthy opponents" ??

What do you do, practice being stupid in front of a mirror before posting here?

Being opposed to a lying scumbag demagogue out for personal megalomania doesn't make one "anti-conservative". Idiot.

Take it, Senator...

>> The United States Senate has long enjoyed worldwide respect as the greatest deliberative body in the world. But recently that deliberative character has too often been debased to the level of a forum of hate and character assassination sheltered by the shield of congressional immunity.

It is ironical that we Senators can in debate in the Senate directly or indirectly, by any form of words, impute to any American who is not a Senator any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming an American -- and without that non-Senator American having any legal redress against us -- yet if we say the same thing in the Senate about our colleagues we can be stopped on the grounds of being out of order.

It is strange that we can verbally attack anyone else without restraint and with full protection and yet we hold ourselves above the same type of criticism here on the Senate Floor. Surely the United States Senate is big enough to take self-criticism and self-appraisal. Surely we should be able to take the same kind of character attacks that we "dish out" to outsiders.
...

I think that it is high time that we remembered that we have sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution. I think that it is high time that we remembered that the Constitution, as amended, speaks not only of the freedom of speech but also of trial by jury instead of trial by accusation.

Whether it be a criminal prosecution in court or a character prosecution in the Senate, there is little practical distinction when the life of a person has been ruined.

Those of us who shout the loudest about Americanism in making character assassinations are all too frequently those who, by our own words and acts, ignore some of the basic principles of Americanism:

The right to criticize;

The right to hold unpopular beliefs;

The right to protest;

The right of independent thought.

The exercise of these rights should not cost one single American citizen his reputation or his right to a livelihood nor should he be in danger of losing his reputation or livelihood merely because he happens to know someone who holds unpopular beliefs. Who of us doesn&#8217;t? Otherwise none of us could call our souls our own. Otherwise thought control would have set in.

The American people are sick and tired of being afraid to speak their minds lest they be politically smeared as "Communists" or "Fascists" by their opponents. Freedom of speech is not what it used to be in America. It has been so abused by some that it is not exercised by others.

The American people are sick and tired of seeing innocent people smeared and guilty people whitewashed. But there have been enough proved cases, such as the Amerasia case, the Hiss case, the Coplon case, the Gold case, to cause the nationwide distrust and strong suspicion that there may be something to the unproved, sensational accusations.

... The nation sorely needs a Republican victory. But I don&#8217;t want to see the Republican Party ride to political victory on the Four Horsemen of Calumny -- Fear, Ignorance, Bigotry, and Smear.

I doubt if the Republican Party could -- simply because I don&#8217;t believe the American people will uphold any political party that puts political exploitation above national interest. Surely we Republicans aren&#8217;t that desperate for victory.

I don&#8217;t want to see the Republican Party win that way. <<

-- Margaret Chase Smith (R-ME), June 1950


I'll leave to other fallacy hunters who have more time the low-hanging fruit canards of what the fuck sexual allegations, specious quotes and a public hug have to do with political philosophies. Some fruit just hangs too low.

Not to mention what the fuck any of this has to do with a topic on a British songwriter, which has apparently been abandoned... :cuckoo:



Well, well....another moron who needs slapping down.

Coming right up.

"Being opposed to a lying scumbag demagogue out for personal megalomania doesn't make one "anti-conservative". Idiot."


1. Whittaker Chambers wrote in his book WITNESS that liberals are/were incapable of ever effectively fighting Communism because they did not see anything in Communism that was antithetical to their own beliefs. In short, Liberals are Communists and Communists are Liberals.

And, sure enough....a mentally incapacitated Liberal jumps right up to prove it.

Communists, Liberals...same thing. You.




2. Only a Liberal would claim that Senator McCarthy was more of a danger than the paid Soviet spies in the government....the ones who helped FDR send plans for the atomic bomb to Stalin, caused the Korean War, and....lost China to the homicidal maniac Mao.

Raise your paw.




3. The thrust is that it was McCarthyism, more than Soviet espionage or Communism infiltration of government, that was &#8211; in the words of the October 23, 1998, NYTimes editorial, &#8220;a lethal threat to American democracy.&#8221; This, in the same editorial that admitted that the evidence against Julius Rosenberg, and &#8220;most likely&#8221; Alger Hiss, was clear.



And this:

4. As a result of the Venona Papers, and declassification of KGB files verifies pretty much all of McCarthy&#8217;s charges&#8230;.and no one was &#8216;ruined&#8217; by McCarthy revelations&#8230;.The greatest complaint against McCarthy was that he was unkind&#8230;.even mean&#8230;.to those in question.



Think of it....you might still be a virgin except for what nature did to your mind.


Man, that was fun.


Drop by when you need another lesson.

In self-satisfied smirking snark swaddled n superficial spandex? Hey, there's none better.

So much pig-ignorance, so little time... believe it or not there are more important threads than "John Lennon was a closet Republican who wrote the most disgusting song of all time and by the way Joe McCarthy" but I'll just repost this turd and let it stink on its own:

Communists, Liberals...same thing. You.

:lmao:

Just pray I don't find the time to come back and kick your snarky spandex ass back to Krypton on this one like I did when I first got here.

Remember that? Ah, those were the daze...
 
Last edited:
Of course Democrats love this song that talks about no religion LOL We are talking about the party of slavery and the KKK after all. They know if there is a God they are not going to be looked down on favorably...

First, he wrote "no religion".
He did not write "no god".
There IS a difference.

Second, it was the conservative party that started the KKK. At that time, that was the Democrats.

The Democrats are no longer the party of conservatives and I DARE YOU to find even one liberal who is the anti-American, racist, slime buckets that YOU rw's are on this board.




First, he wrote "no religion".
He did not write "no god".
There IS a difference.


No there isn't.

Really?

So you believe that there are NO people on this planet who believe in a super being but do not subscribe to a particular religion.

As always, you're more than welcome to your (idiotic and ignorant) opinion but you are not welcome to pretend its fact.

(Thanks Pogo, for knocking his/her/its dick in the dirt but don't expect him/her/it to admit that he/she/it doesn't have a friggin clue.)
 
Imagine there no liberals....It's not hard to do (all you have to do is replace college professors with actual competent teaches)

There it is again - that stark raving terror rw's have of real education.

This is why China and India are leaving us in the dust.

Really, we need to take all power away from the right.

The backward right gets more government assistance than any other group and, of course, we will continue to subsidize them, but we cannot let the drag our country down into the gutter where they live.

Idiot it is a plea FOR education instead of the indoctrination factorys we have now

tapatalk post

An intelligent plea for better teaches?
 
"McCarthy opponents" ??

What do you do, practice being stupid in front of a mirror before posting here?

Being opposed to a lying scumbag demagogue out for personal megalomania doesn't make one "anti-conservative". Idiot.

Take it, Senator...

>> The United States Senate has long enjoyed worldwide respect as the greatest deliberative body in the world. But recently that deliberative character has too often been debased to the level of a forum of hate and character assassination sheltered by the shield of congressional immunity.

It is ironical that we Senators can in debate in the Senate directly or indirectly, by any form of words, impute to any American who is not a Senator any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming an American -- and without that non-Senator American having any legal redress against us -- yet if we say the same thing in the Senate about our colleagues we can be stopped on the grounds of being out of order.

It is strange that we can verbally attack anyone else without restraint and with full protection and yet we hold ourselves above the same type of criticism here on the Senate Floor. Surely the United States Senate is big enough to take self-criticism and self-appraisal. Surely we should be able to take the same kind of character attacks that we "dish out" to outsiders.
...

I think that it is high time that we remembered that we have sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution. I think that it is high time that we remembered that the Constitution, as amended, speaks not only of the freedom of speech but also of trial by jury instead of trial by accusation.

Whether it be a criminal prosecution in court or a character prosecution in the Senate, there is little practical distinction when the life of a person has been ruined.

Those of us who shout the loudest about Americanism in making character assassinations are all too frequently those who, by our own words and acts, ignore some of the basic principles of Americanism:

The right to criticize;

The right to hold unpopular beliefs;

The right to protest;

The right of independent thought.

The exercise of these rights should not cost one single American citizen his reputation or his right to a livelihood nor should he be in danger of losing his reputation or livelihood merely because he happens to know someone who holds unpopular beliefs. Who of us doesn’t? Otherwise none of us could call our souls our own. Otherwise thought control would have set in.

The American people are sick and tired of being afraid to speak their minds lest they be politically smeared as "Communists" or "Fascists" by their opponents. Freedom of speech is not what it used to be in America. It has been so abused by some that it is not exercised by others.

The American people are sick and tired of seeing innocent people smeared and guilty people whitewashed. But there have been enough proved cases, such as the Amerasia case, the Hiss case, the Coplon case, the Gold case, to cause the nationwide distrust and strong suspicion that there may be something to the unproved, sensational accusations.

... The nation sorely needs a Republican victory. But I don’t want to see the Republican Party ride to political victory on the Four Horsemen of Calumny -- Fear, Ignorance, Bigotry, and Smear.

I doubt if the Republican Party could -- simply because I don’t believe the American people will uphold any political party that puts political exploitation above national interest. Surely we Republicans aren’t that desperate for victory.

I don’t want to see the Republican Party win that way. <<

-- Margaret Chase Smith (R-ME), June 1950


I'll leave to other fallacy hunters who have more time the low-hanging fruit canards of what the fuck sexual allegations, specious quotes and a public hug have to do with political philosophies. Some fruit just hangs too low.

Not to mention what the fuck any of this has to do with a topic on a British songwriter, which has apparently been abandoned... :cuckoo:



Well, well....another moron who needs slapping down.

Coming right up.

"Being opposed to a lying scumbag demagogue out for personal megalomania doesn't make one "anti-conservative". Idiot."


1. Whittaker Chambers wrote in his book WITNESS that liberals are/were incapable of ever effectively fighting Communism because they did not see anything in Communism that was antithetical to their own beliefs. In short, Liberals are Communists and Communists are Liberals.

And, sure enough....a mentally incapacitated Liberal jumps right up to prove it.

Communists, Liberals...same thing. You.




2. Only a Liberal would claim that Senator McCarthy was more of a danger than the paid Soviet spies in the government....the ones who helped FDR send plans for the atomic bomb to Stalin, caused the Korean War, and....lost China to the homicidal maniac Mao.

Raise your paw.




3. The thrust is that it was McCarthyism, more than Soviet espionage or Communism infiltration of government, that was – in the words of the October 23, 1998, NYTimes editorial, “a lethal threat to American democracy.” This, in the same editorial that admitted that the evidence against Julius Rosenberg, and “most likely” Alger Hiss, was clear.



And this:

4. As a result of the Venona Papers, and declassification of KGB files verifies pretty much all of McCarthy’s charges….and no one was ‘ruined’ by McCarthy revelations….The greatest complaint against McCarthy was that he was unkind….even mean….to those in question.



Think of it....you might still be a virgin except for what nature did to your mind.


Man, that was fun.


Drop by when you need another lesson.

In self-satisfied smirking snark swaddled n superficial spandex? Hey, there's none better.

So much pig-ignorance, so little time... believe it or not there are more important threads than "John Lennon was a closet Republican who wrote the most disgusting song of all time and by the way Joe McCarthy" but I'll just repost this turd and let it stink on its own:

Communists, Liberals...same thing. You.

:lmao:

Just pray I don't find the time to come back and kick your snarky spandex ass back to Krypton on this one like I did when I first got here.

Remember that? Ah, those were the daze...





So, you don't know who Whittaker Chambers was...nor why he is important to the conversation?

So, you didn't know that the FDR administration was riddled with paid Soviet spies?

So, you never read the Venona Papers?



Why, it’s so charming of you to attempt to join in the discussion, considering how little you know about the subject.
You know, I’m tempted to give you the oh-so-Progressive ‘E for Effort.’

But that would, sadly, allow you to continue in that ‘blue funk’ that in Progressive circles allows you to dispense with actual learning.
And I had such high hopes for you…


I’ve seen people like you before…but then I had to pay admission.






I shredded you pretty well, huh?
Go home and lick your wounds.



Did I mention how much fun it was?
 
First, he wrote "no religion".
He did not write "no god".
There IS a difference.

Second, it was the conservative party that started the KKK. At that time, that was the Democrats.

The Democrats are no longer the party of conservatives and I DARE YOU to find even one liberal who is the anti-American, racist, slime buckets that YOU rw's are on this board.




First, he wrote "no religion".
He did not write "no god".
There IS a difference.


No there isn't.

Really?

So you believe that there are NO people on this planet who believe in a super being but do not subscribe to a particular religion.

As always, you're more than welcome to your (idiotic and ignorant) opinion but you are not welcome to pretend its fact.

(Thanks Pogo, for knocking his/her/its dick in the dirt but don't expect him/her/it to admit that he/she/it doesn't have a friggin clue.)







Aren't you even competent to understand what you wrote??

Of course not....you're a liberal.


You wrote this:
First, he wrote "no religion".
He did not write "no god".
There IS a difference.


That means you are stating that Lennon- and Liberals- believe in a religion sans God.


Of course, that is exactly what 'personal morality' implies.
One can make it up as he goes along.

It means that any morality devolves to, simply, one's opinion.


I know that this is over your head, but I like doing it:

1. Can a human being be good without reference to God? Sure….there could be good pagans….or bad religious folks. But God is necessary for morality to survive. Take as an example, a sadist who gets satisfaction from murdering children. If there is no God who declares that such an act is wrong, then my arguing such is simply my opinion versus that of the murderer. Without God, good and evil are a matter of taste.

2. If there's no God - making ourselves the source of ethics for everybody, or declaring that nobody can be the source of ethics for anybody, and therefore morality is, again, purely subjective. Abortion may be legal, and a woman’s right….but this doesn’t it is ethically right. The Greeks believed in a version of same in which they placed deformed babies on the hillside. The reason I use the Greek example of ugly children is not because we do it today, but because they had reason on their side. Reason supports a lot of things, as for example, a very liberal position on abortion. If there is no God, "Love your neighbor as yourself" is just a good idea. That's why it is written, incidentally, in Leviticus, "Love your neighbor as yourself, I am God." I, God, tell you to be decent to other people.

The above based on the lectures of Dennis Prager.




So....what do we have?
You responded to only one of the three posts where I pounded you into the ground because you thought you might have a chance to same face with this one.

As you can see.....you failed.




Good to see you realized that I destroyed you in the other two.
 
God is not necessary for morality.

God is not even the proven source of morality - and neither is Religion.
 
First, he wrote "no religion".
He did not write "no god".
There IS a difference.


No there isn't.

Really?

So you believe that there are NO people on this planet who believe in a super being but do not subscribe to a particular religion.

As always, you're more than welcome to your (idiotic and ignorant) opinion but you are not welcome to pretend its fact.

(Thanks Pogo, for knocking his/her/its dick in the dirt but don't expect him/her/it to admit that he/she/it doesn't have a friggin clue.)







Aren't you even competent to understand what you wrote??

Of course not....you're a liberal.


You wrote this:
First, he wrote "no religion".
He did not write "no god".
There IS a difference.


That means you are stating that Lennon- and Liberals- believe in a religion sans God.


Of course, that is exactly what 'personal morality' implies.
One can make it up as he goes along.

It means that any morality devolves to, simply, one's opinion.


I know that this is over your head, but I like doing it:

1. Can a human being be good without reference to God? Sure&#8230;.there could be good pagans&#8230;.or bad religious folks. But God is necessary for morality to survive. Take as an example, a sadist who gets satisfaction from murdering children. If there is no God who declares that such an act is wrong, then my arguing such is simply my opinion versus that of the murderer. Without God, good and evil are a matter of taste.

2. If there's no God - making ourselves the source of ethics for everybody, or declaring that nobody can be the source of ethics for anybody, and therefore morality is, again, purely subjective. Abortion may be legal, and a woman&#8217;s right&#8230;.but this doesn&#8217;t it is ethically right. The Greeks believed in a version of same in which they placed deformed babies on the hillside. The reason I use the Greek example of ugly children is not because we do it today, but because they had reason on their side. Reason supports a lot of things, as for example, a very liberal position on abortion. If there is no God, "Love your neighbor as yourself" is just a good idea. That's why it is written, incidentally, in Leviticus, "Love your neighbor as yourself, I am God." I, God, tell you to be decent to other people.

The above based on the lectures of Dennis Prager.




So....what do we have?
You responded to only one of the three posts where I pounded you into the ground because you thought you might have a chance to same face with this one.

As you can see.....you failed.




Good to see you realized that I destroyed you in the other two.

The non religious are oh so quick to throw scripture into the face of the believer with whom they disagree! LOL.
 
Imagine there no liberals....It's not hard to do (all you have to do is replace college professors with actual competent teaches)

There it is again - that stark raving terror rw's have of real education.

This is why China and India are leaving us in the dust.

Really, we need to take all power away from the right.

The backward right gets more government assistance than any other group and, of course, we will continue to subsidize them, but we cannot let the drag our country down into the gutter where they live.

^ there it is again. A typical left wing goober's mistaken belief that liberal propaganda "is" a "real" education. It's not even just a "belief." It's a doctrine of faith and cannot even be questioned by these lolberal goofballs.

:lol:

:lol:
 
God is not necessary for morality.

God is not even the proven source of morality - and neither is Religion.




And so saith the model for the stone heads on Easter Island.



I know you try, but the subject revolves around religion and reason.
As you are a reservoir of neither.....it might be best if you go back to the 24-hour Cartoon Channel.
 
God is not necessary for morality.

God is not even the proven source of morality - and neither is Religion.




And so saith the model for the stone heads on Easter Island.



I know you try, but the subject revolves around religion and reason.
As you are a reservoir of neither.....it might be best if you go back to the 24-hour Cartoon Channel.

^mirror mirror.

There is not a single moral of any Religious bible that was not, and could not be arrived at solely through reason and without a God or Gods.

You cannot name a single one, aside from those referring back to the way said God or Gods is/are treated or worshipped.

Not one.
 
God is not necessary for morality.

God is not even the proven source of morality - and neither is Religion.




And so saith the model for the stone heads on Easter Island.



I know you try, but the subject revolves around religion and reason.
As you are a reservoir of neither.....it might be best if you go back to the 24-hour Cartoon Channel.

^mirror mirror.

There is not a single moral of any Religious bible that was not, and could not be arrived at solely through reason and without a God or Gods.

You cannot name a single one, aside from those referring back to the way said God or Gods is/are treated or worshipped.

Not one.






I don't know why I allow myself to get tricked into offering you insights, since we both know that you are no more than a head of stone....totally incapable of learning....


But....here in a way you won't understand it, is the difference between religion and reason:


1. In 1984, Holland legalized euthanasia, the right of Dutch doctors to kill their elderly patients.
Would said doctors rely on religion and morality....or reason, and efficiency?
Would they do so based on their whim?

a. “The Dutch survey, reviewed in the Journal of Medical Ethics, looked at the figures for 1995 and found that as well as 3,600 authorized cases there were 900 others in which doctors had acted without explicit consent…. they thought they were acting in the patient's best interests.”
Involuntary Euthanasia is Out of Control in Holland


b. Euthanasia, as Dr. Peggy Norris observed with some asperity, "cannot be controlled."
If this is so, why is Harris so sure that stem-cell research can be controlled? And if it cannot be controlled, just what is irrational about religious objections to social policies that when they reach the bottom of the slippery slope are bound to embody something Dutch, degraded, and disgusting? How many scientific atheists, I wonder, propose to spend their old age in Holland? [Berlinski, "The Devil's Delusion"]



2. What makes men good?
Certainly they are not good by nature. In fact, frequently, the contrary. Does science have an opinion? Well, "Perhaps," Richard Dawkins speculates, "I... am a Pollyanna to believe that people would remain good when unobserved and unpoliced by God." Why should people remain good when unobserved and unpoliced by God? - Yahoo! Answers


Is that what we see in the good doctors of Holland?



Now go back to your Legos and build something nice.
 
You offered examples of people doing bad things who happen to not be Religious.

You did not provide any moral scripted in a Religious text that cannot be arrived at by Man through reason alone, without God or Religion.

Not one. Not a single one that cannot be arrived at through reason.
 
It's a bit more scary to think that some sickos out there only have their religion as their barricade from believing in these awful and disgusting things such as euthanasia. wow
 
You offered examples of people doing bad things who happen to not be Religious.

You did not provide any moral scripted in a Religious text that cannot be arrived at by Man through reason alone, without God or Religion.

Not one. Not a single one that cannot be arrived at through reason.




Once again you have proven to be as resistant to learning as a vampire is to embracing a cross.


No surprises here.
 

Forum List

Back
Top