What beliefs define a 21st Century American conservative?

[M14 Shooter]

If you want to bring christian "religion" into the discussion, what passage in the Bible can you point that showed Jesus EVER going to the Romans and forcing the government to change? Did he not look to the "individual" to provide for those needs around him? Yes or No?

Christian charity is predicated on the idea of free will - you have to willingly give for it to mean anything. Liberals who use the idea Christian charity as the basis for the imposition of their morality onto others in this regard either do not understand the concept, or do understand it and choose to be dishonet about it.

Given that liberals are virtually always ignorant and/or dishonest, it's really a toss-up as to which applies.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Sorry, you lost me with your dishonesty and your further justification for it.

I am not at all surprised that you do not have the courage to answer these questions.

Do with that as you want, I don't care. If you want to honestly debate, fine but start now, ok?

Two questions. Do try to be honest:
-Who do you think you are to be OK with imposing your morality on others, but refusing to accept them doing them same to you?
-Given your propensity to impose your morality on others, and in that regard, how are you any different from the social/religious conservatives who wish to do the same?

Try not to let these questions scare you away (again).

 

[Nic_Driver]

Who do you think you are to be OK with imposing your morality on others, but refusing to accept them doing them same to you?

I don't accept you premise. I've said the majority rules, I want to change the majority. I don't have to be silent, I can voice my opposition the same as you can and the same as you do.

Given your propensity to impose your morality on others, and in that regard, how are you any different from the social/religious conservatives who wish to do the same?

I would try to raise enough awareness to the issue so that the social/religious conservatives are not in the majority.

I’m different than they are in the message, as I’ve already explained to you earlier.

 

[Dr.Drock]

This is it, in a nutshell.

It is wrong to let old/poor people starve.

Exactly, so we should be able to donate OUR money to efficienct charities rather than force our money to be taken from us and given to an inefficienct gov't and put faith in the morals of politicians and bureacrats.

I could donate 100% of my earnings and still old/poor people would starve...and it would still be wrong.

The government is the only way we can ensure old/poor people in America don't starve.

You quote Matthew in you signature, too bad you miss the point.

Do you really want to help the old/poor or is it lip service? Are you really ok with letting your neighbor die so you don't have to pay taxes?

If you are, I am truly sorry for you and really have nothing more to say. I am on the opposite end of the compassion spectrum than you and will happily spend your money along with mine to make sure others live.

I hope there are more of me than there are of you.

Hahahaha is there ANYTHING you liberals can post that isn't 100% purely based on emotion rather than intellect?

I say and encourage people to have more money and donate to charity, and that means I'm ok with letting my neighbor die according to the Obamabot brain, just adorable.

I have nothing but pity and sympathy for someone who puts all their faith in gov't, and none of it in the hearts and character of the american people.

 

[Nic_Driver]

Given that liberals are virtually always ignorant and/or dishonest, it's really a toss-up as to which applies.

Do you expect to be taken seriously after comments like that?

 

[Nic_Driver]

Exactly, so we should be able to donate OUR money to efficienct charities rather than force our money to be taken from us and given to an inefficienct gov't and put faith in the morals of politicians and bureacrats.

I could donate 100% of my earnings and still old/poor people would starve...and it would still be wrong.

The government is the only way we can ensure old/poor people in America don't starve.

You quote Matthew in you signature, too bad you miss the point.

Do you really want to help the old/poor or is it lip service? Are you really ok with letting your neighbor die so you don't have to pay taxes?

If you are, I am truly sorry for you and really have nothing more to say. I am on the opposite end of the compassion spectrum than you and will happily spend your money along with mine to make sure others live.

I hope there are more of me than there are of you.

Hahahaha is there ANYTHING you liberals can post that isn't 100% purely based on emotion rather than intellect?

I say and encourage people to have more money and donate to charity, and that means I'm ok with letting my neighbor die according to the Obamabot brain, just adorable.

I have nothing but pity and sympathy for someone who puts all their faith in gov't, and none of it in the hearts and character of the american people.

I'm sorry you feel that way (emotion).

Good luck to you and yours.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Given that liberals are virtually always ignorant and/or dishonest, it's really a toss-up as to which applies.

Do you expect to be taken seriously after comments like that?

Keep running, son - no one expects anything else.

 

[Dr.Drock]

I could donate 100% of my earnings and still old/poor people would starve...and it would still be wrong.

The government is the only way we can ensure old/poor people in America don't starve.

You quote Matthew in you signature, too bad you miss the point.

Do you really want to help the old/poor or is it lip service? Are you really ok with letting your neighbor die so you don't have to pay taxes?

If you are, I am truly sorry for you and really have nothing more to say. I am on the opposite end of the compassion spectrum than you and will happily spend your money along with mine to make sure others live.

I hope there are more of me than there are of you.

Hahahaha is there ANYTHING you liberals can post that isn't 100% purely based on emotion rather than intellect?

I say and encourage people to have more money and donate to charity, and that means I'm ok with letting my neighbor die according to the Obamabot brain, just adorable.

I have nothing but pity and sympathy for someone who puts all their faith in gov't, and none of it in the hearts and character of the american people.

I'm sorry you feel that way (emotion).

Good luck to you and yours.

You're the one who posted based on feelings, my posts are based on facts.

Put more money in people's pockets=they have more money to donate.

Your feelings tell you that if someone disagrees with you on a gov't policy, that they don't care about people's lives. What's that based on? ONLY emotion, nothing else.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Who do you think you are to be OK with imposing your morality on others, but refusing to accept them doing them same to you?

I don't accept you premise. I've said the majority rules...

Except when you don't like what the majority says.
Translation: You're OK with imposing your morality, but not OK when others impose theirs.
Honest people would see the clear hypocrisy. You...?

Given your propensity to impose your morality on others, and in that regard, how are you any different from the social/religious conservatives who wish to do the same?

I’m different than they are in the message, as I’ve already explained to you earlier.

Translation: Its OK to impose morality on others so long as YOU think the "message" is legitimate.
Again:
You're OK with imposing your morality, but not OK when others impose theirs.
Honest people would see the clear hypocrisy. You...?

 

[Mac1958]

Funny watching both the lefties and the righties whining that the other is "trying to impose your morality on me", when, of course, they're BOTH correct. Both ends of the political spectrum have become so radicalized that neither has any credibility left at this point. Pointing out their various hypocrisies is like shooting fish in a barrel.

Gotta love it!

.

 

[Nic_Driver]

You're the one who posted based on feelings, my posts are based on facts.

I have nothing but pity and sympathy

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

And what evidence do you have that anybody would starve if the government didn't feed them? Why are you so sure that if the federal government got out of the charity business altogether than that the local community would not pick up the slack?

Because if local communities and families were to do a better job of taking care of the poor, it might put other government involved programs into question. Somehow there is this idea if the Federal Government would suddenly stop caring for the poor, it would be the end of the world as we know it and the whole nation would simply collapse! If the government is the only solution, it puts to question the belief that families should share in the responsibility to care for one another, the Chinese seem to do that alot better job of it than those who believe it's the governements responsibility to take on that role.

 

[Nic_Driver]

Except when you don't like what the majority says.
Translation: You're OK with imposing your morality, but not OK when others impose theirs.
Honest people would see the clear hypocrisy. You...?

I'll try this once more. If I am unhappy or disagree with a law or regulation I will voice my opposition in an attempt to sway enough people to the majority and end what I see as an injustice or other failure.

Are you trying to tell me that you don't do the exact same thing?

Translation: Its OK to impose morality on others so long as YOU think the "message" is legitimate.
Again:
You're OK with imposing your morality, but not OK when others impose theirs.
Honest people would see the clear hypocrisy. You...?

Again, the democratic process provides for vocal opposition to policies and procedures, rules and regulations that one or many don't like, or are not in favor.

You are the same as I in this regard, hence your presence on this BB.

We just have different messages and agendas.

 

[Nic_Driver]

Funny watching both the lefties and the righties whining that the other is "trying to impose your morality on me", when, of course, they're BOTH correct. Both ends of the political spectrum have become so radicalized that neither has any credibility left at this point. Pointing out their various hypocrisies is like shooting fish in a barrel.

Gotta love it!

.

One difference that you've missed is that I long ago agreed with your post and happily admit that I want to sway people to my agenda.

What was your point again?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Except when you don't like what the majority says.
Translation: You're OK with imposing your morality, but not OK when others impose theirs.
Honest people would see the clear hypocrisy. You...?

I'll try this once more. If I am unhappy or disagree with a law or regulation I will voice my opposition in an attempt to sway enough people to the majority and end what I see as an injustice or other failure.

You have made it very clear that you are not OK when someone imposes their moraliy on you. Not sure what your post, above, does other than restate what is already clear.

So, lets recap....
If you disagree with these, please be sure to explain exaclty how I am wrong:

1- You are OK with imposing your morality on others
2- You are NOT OK with others imposing their morality on you
3- An honest person would see the two above statements as clear example of hypocisy

So... do you have the honesty to admit your hypocrisy, or not?

 

[Douger]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIG6y0jErPg&feature=related]David Allan Coe-Fuckin in The Butt - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Dr.Drock]

You're the one who posted based on feelings, my posts are based on facts.

I have nothing but pity and sympathy

Earlier in this thread, actually quite recently, you pretended to care about people cutting out parts of quotes as a misrepresentation.

Were you lying then, or are you just being a hypocrite?

You posted based on feelings, and you've done in throughout this thread that you're morally superior to those who disagree with you because you support inefficient big gov't programs rather than putting more money in the hands of americans and relying on this generosity and charity.

You can't simply disagree, you have to pretend your somehow holier than thou solely for a political position you hold.

Sadly, I see that a lot in american politics where partisanships take precedent over anything and everything.

 

[Nic_Driver]

Except when you don't like what the majority says.
Translation: You're OK with imposing your morality, but not OK when others impose theirs.
Honest people would see the clear hypocrisy. You...?

I'll try this once more. If I am unhappy or disagree with a law or regulation I will voice my opposition in an attempt to sway enough people to the majority and end what I see as an injustice or other failure.

You have made it very clear that you are not OK when someone imposes their moraliy on you. Not sure what your post, above, does other than restate what is already clear.

So, lets recap....
If you disagree with these, please be sure to explain exaclty how I am wrong:

1- You are OK with imposing your morality on others
2- You are NOT OK with others imposing their morality on you
3- An honest person would see the two above statements as clear example of hypocisy

So... do you have the honesty to admit your hypocrisy, or not?

Let's recap;

You accuse me of having the same agenda as you have only I’m the one who admits I want to sway the majority and establish my agenda while you somehow are having a hard time with what is a very basic concept.

I follow all the laws of the land and cooperate with every ruling in place, whether I like it or not.

I do try to change those things with which I disagree.

You've failed to admit that you are EXACTLY the same as I, only with a different message.

Who's the hypocrite here?

You and others like you.

I've been transparent about my plans and motivations, you have not.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Conservatives don't believe in dumping all your problems at the doorstep of the Federal Government, then look to the rich for a "bail-out" when (through uncontrollable spending) you are incapable of allowing the American people to fail on their own and learn from their OWN mistakes.

Yet we bail-out the wealthy.

See the obvious dichotomy there?

Are you refering to Solyundra, Navada Geothermal, Raser Technologies, and U.S. Geothermal? They all look to the Obama for a blank check, and yet they all had financial problems. Funny how the the term "bail-out the wealthy" can have a sudden change in meaning there. I don't support any government interference in the financial struggles of corporations like Solyndra, Dodge, or General Motors.

Having the wealthy not "bail-out" the Federal Government through increased taxes and cutting Federal Spending, outside of just military cuts, is showing fiscal responsibility. The problem with our Federal Government is in the form of spending NOT in the need to raise more taxes.

 

[Full-Auto]

David Allan Coe-Fuckin in The Butt - YouTube

As a connoisseur of twisted tunes.

THIS ONE SUCKED..........