NationStates Jolt Archive

The shit I miss when I go off to spend the afternoon reading a book in the park. Incredible. Oh well, it could just as easily have been me being pilloried by angry NSers... I'm quite taken aback by a few of you, though. And not even just the usual suspects, either.

Tsk-tsk.

Did I do something wrong this time?

Conservatives arent the ones screwing up America, or supporting Michael Moore. The only reason Republicans are losing votes is because the Democrats let in millions of illegal immigrants and give them far more rights than other Americans. So guess who they vote for.

And I suppose it's the Democrats who proposed the Guest Worker Amnesty Program that Your Beloved Dear Leader Bush George-Dubya is pushing for over the objections of fellow Republicans then?

So I could point out all the flaws and stupidities in this rather typical opinion piece, but what I thought most amusing - and horrifying, since some people will actually swallow it up like it was God Himself splooging - was the implication that not only do "secularists" "blame man" for "catastrophes" like "racism" (apparently that's really God's doing), and "blame Bush" for a lack of "utopia" and for him being a "man of God" and "reason," but will CONQUER AMERICA!

But maybe I'm just using "trendy liberal reasoning" like logic and knowledge of the English language and am failing to see past my own supposed "cognitive dissonance" and obvious desire to "undermine the troops." What do you make of this?

Or maybe your using a logical strawmen in this sense that you believe the quote represents all right-wing thinking in America? Or maybe its just my niche for spotting logical fallacies. =/

http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9230588
The politics of plenty

How mass affluence shapes American politics and culture

ON JULY 24th 1959, Richard Nixon and Nikita Khrushchev had an argument in a well-equipped kitchen. The kitchen, in a model ranch house, was part of an exhibition in Moscow aimed at showing the Russians how well ordinary Americans lived. Soviet journalists dismissed the house as the “Taj Mahal”, no more representative of American homes than the tomb was of 17th-century Indian buildings. Nixon retorted that the necessary $100-a-month mortgage was well within the reach of a typical American steelworker. “However casual his commitment to honesty over the course of his career, on that particular occasion Richard Nixon spoke the truth,” writes Brink Lindsey in his new book, “The Age of Abundance”.

Reading an account of the “kitchen debate” half a century on, one is struck that the Soviet leader sounds like a quaint echo of a bygone era while the American president says little that would sound odd today. Khrushchev decries the wastefulness of having more than one brand of washing machine. Nixon replies that people like choice, and that American capitalism has proven rather good at providing lots of it.

What was true then is even more so now. Even visitors from other rich countries are often startled, when they first visit the American heartland, by the staggering abundance they encounter. Nowhere else do blue-collar workers have so much stuff: two-car garages, all-terrain vehicles, wide-screen TVs, tons of toys and knick-knacks and plenty of space to store it all. Mr Lindsey thinks mass prosperity is a wonderful thing. He also sees it as the main force driving cultural and political change in America since the 1960s.

His argument goes like this. The industrial revolution in America was driven by a bourgeois Protestant ethic that celebrated work and frowned on self-indulgence. Those who invested their pay earned respect as well as compound interest; those who wasted it on whiskey and cards forwent both. But over the years, thrift combined with technology and capitalism produced such vast returns that thrift went out of fashion. The 1960s saw the coming-of-age of the first generation whose members had never known scarcity, and therefore did not fear it. Spurning their parents' self-restraint, the baby-boomers rebelled against every form of authority and sampled every form of fun.

It was quite a party. Mr Lindsey, a vice-president at the libertarian Cato Institute, makes two observations about it. First, it could not have happened without mass prosperity. The search for alternative lifestyles was driven by college students, whose numbers exploded during the 1960s, and who were the only group with the spare time and cash to attend love-ins, be-ins and yogic retreats. Second, the 1960s spawned the two cultural movements that still dominate American politics. There was the counter-cultural left, whose members were eager to explore new freedoms and who pushed for civil rights, feminism and environmentalism as well as sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll. And partly in reaction to the excesses of the counter-culture, there was a revival of socially conservative Protestantism. As flower children were celebrating the “Summer of Love” in San Francisco, Oral Roberts, a fundamentalist preacher, was founding a university in Oklahoma to fight their dissolute ideas.

To Mr Lindsey, the two movements offered conflicting half-truths. The counter-cultural left combined genuine liberation with dangerous excess, while the traditionalist right mixed reaction with a desire to preserve some precious institutions, such as marriage. The left attacked capitalism while rejoicing in its fruits; the other side celebrated capitalism but denounced the social dynamism it unleashed. Both movements also swallowed an unhealthy dose of unreason. The Aquarians elevated distrust of authority to the status of dogma and “ransack[ed] ancient faiths for useful jargon” that might justify “getting high, getting laid and getting out of the materialistic rat race”. Evangelicalism, meanwhile, “marked a dismal intellectual regress in American religion [and a] blatant denial of scientific reality.”

The shadow of the 60s

Today, the influence of these two movements can be seen in daily headlines. Three of the ten Republican presidential candidates recently indicated that they do not believe in evolution. A similar proportion of Democrats believe that President George Bush knew in advance about the attacks of September 11th 2001. The kind of people who believe such nonsense are fighting a noisy culture war that poisons American political discourse.

Mr Lindsey reckons this shouting match leaves most Americans cold. The silent majority, he argues, have learned sensible lessons from the 1960s. They are far less prejudiced than earlier generations against blacks and gays. They embrace the idea that people should make their own choices about how they want to live, so long as they accept responsibility for how those choices pan out. They reckon that both capitalism and its fruits are, by and large, a good thing. Since neither of the main political parties articulates this world view, Lindsey sees an opening for a third party to capture the centre ground. Alas, he sees no plausible efforts to create one, nor much sign that the two big parties will soon tone down their shrillness.

But he could be pleasantly surprised. The favourite to win the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008, Hillary Clinton, is arguably the most centrist candidate. The Republican front-runner (although his polls are slipping) is still Rudy Giuliani, a pro-gay, pro-choice ex-mayor of New York. And if either party nominates a zealot, Michael Bloomberg, the socially liberal, fiscally conservative current mayor of New York, is reportedly ready to step in and spend $500m of his own money on a third-party candidacy. American affluence is concentrated as well as widespread, and that too has political consequences.

Much smarter article, about a similar topic, perhaps.

Conservatives arent the ones screwing up America, or supporting Michael Moore. The only reason Republicans are losing votes is because the Democrats let in millions of illegal immigrants and give them far more rights than other Americans. So guess who they vote for.

Who got us into a war under false pretenses that has led to the deaths of over 3,000 American soldiers for no clear purpose or reason? And Bush himself refers to illegal immigrants as "undocumented Americans"- a load of politically motivated BS if there ever was one.

And as for Bush being a "man of God", he's about as Christian as a horse's ass, and about as intelligent.

http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9230588


Much smarter article, about a similar topic, perhaps.

This is intelligent, well thought out and perfectly reasonable.


It has no place on NSG :p

Or maybe your using a logical strawmen in this sense that you believe the quote represents all right-wing thinking in America?

No because I never so much as mentioned "all right-wing thinking," nor do I care about the "left/right" pissing contest that I'm supposed to.

Or maybe its just my niche for spotting logical fallacies. =/

Unlikely.

Who got us into a war under false pretenses that has led to the deaths of over 3,000 American soldiers for no clear purpose or reason? And Bush himself refers to illegal immigrants as "undocumented Americans"- a load of politically motivated BS if there ever was one.

And as for Bush being a "man of God", he's about as Christian as a horse's ass, and about as intelligent.


This explains how Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, all voted too give Bush the power too invade how? I know im quite the minority now, but im with the tiny group of Americans who doesnt blame Bush for all our woes. =/ As for illegals, Bush has been very political when attacking the issue, but it still doesnt measure up too liberals who call for amnesty, as it would seem that would be as political you could get in the issue.

No because I never so much as mentioned "all right-wing thinking," nor do I care about the "left/right" pissing contest that I'm supposed to.



Unlikely.


But you based your entire rebuttle on that quote....I suppose you assumed it without saying it.... As far as partisan politics go, no one is telling you where too go. I know you can piss and moan about how people will associate with the left, but as far as your thinking goes, your pretty liberal.

As for me being unlikely, I could say likewise for your process of thought concerning this issue. =/

This explains how Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, all voted too give Bush the power too invade how? I know im quite the minority now, but im with the tiny group of Americans who doesnt blame Bush for all our woes. =/ As for illegals, Bush has been very political when attacking the issue, but it still doesnt measure up too liberals who call for amnesty, as it would seem that would be as political you could get in the issue.

Gee, politicians being 'political'? Who'd-a-thunk it? :rolleyes:

But you based your entire rebuttle on that quote....

I didn't actually make a "rebuttal." I could, of course. I could go point-by-point. Somehow I doubt that would be worth it.

I suppose you assumed it without saying it....

Assume whatever you like, but don't pretend your assumptions are mine.

As far as partisan politics go, no one is telling you where too go. I know you can piss and moan about how people will associate with the left, but as far as your thinking goes, your pretty liberal.


I love how simple this all is for you. Liberal, pretty liberal, non-liberal. No issues to deal with. No definitions. It's just black and white.

As for me being unlikely, I could say likewise for your process of thought concerning this issue. =/

Sure, but you'd be just as wrong then as you were when you proclaimed something I said was a strawman fallacy. And now you'd be making a pointless insult in addition.

I like how conservatives use the term "secular progressive" as if it's a bad thing.

He bases his opinions on reason, not emotion. He is a man of God and stands for all the traditional values

Oxymoron?

Oxymoron?

It's talking about Bush, no need for the oxy-.

I like how conservatives use the term "secular progressive" as if it's a bad thing.

I wonder what they think of Teddy Roosevelt.

In response to your thread title.....


OMG! Dubya and his cabinet are all liberals? Who'd'a thunk it?

What's that treaty that explicitly states that America is a secular country?

Article Seven of the Treaty of Tripoli. Ratified Unanimously.

Article Seven of the Treaty of Tripoli. Ratified Unanimously.

I think it's Article 11: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli#Article_11

Yes, you missed it. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12754066&postcount=144)

Not a joke. Something much better (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire). Lost on many, apparently.

The problem is when he uses it on people that don't support that kind of argument.

I think it's Article 11: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli#Article_11

Whatever. Seven, Eleven, both rhyme and are the name of a store when combined.

That article is pretty good comedy.

May Osama tear America up to shreds, liberals and conservertives alike... LoL :p

Seriously the Goverment of the US today, which is a conservertive is destroying America right now? :confused:

I swear though, that article is so the stereotypical conservative it's almost uncanny.

While listening to phone calls, the government overheard numerous terrorist plots.

Enumerate them.

No far-left? What does that make Bill Mayer, Al Franken, Stephen Colbert, Michael Moore, and Hillary Clinton? The Patriot Act has saved lives by listening in on terrorist plots. And they true America hating comes from your constant hatred for this country, and the fact that you would sooner protect terrorists than American citizens. You want to turn America into an Anarchy, and eradicate all Christianity, which by the way is what the country was founded on.

Please give us a source on the lives saved.

By the way, I am a liberal, Christian, and hate anarchy.

Ooooh!

Please give us a source on the lives saved.

By the way, I am a liberal, Christian, and hate anarchy.

Ooooh!

Lies perpetrated by the liberal media :eek:

You want to turn America into an Anarchy, and eradicate all Christianity, which by the way is what the country was founded on.

The Founding Fathers were not all Christians, and they were the ones who came up with separation of church and state. And how exactly are liberals trying to turn America into an anarchy? Oh, that's right, just more hollow right-wing propaganda with no basis in reality.:rolleyes:

Please give us a source on the lives saved.

By the way, I am a liberal, Christian, and hate anarchy.

Ooooh!

The Founding Fathers were not all Christians, and they were the ones who came up with separation of church and state. And how exactly are liberals trying to turn America into an anarchy? Oh, that's right, just more hollow right-wing propaganda with no basis in reality.:rolleyes:

I hope is chaotic anarchy you all are referring to...

Listen up conservatives, this flag will soon be flying over Washington.
http://www.cpcml.ca/Tmld2005/RedFlagOverReichstag550.jpg

The scary thing is the "Liberal" democrats are conversatives in Australia because our lefties are more left than the left of right Democrats.

Listen up conservatives, this flag will soon be flying over Washington.
http://www.cpcml.ca/Tmld2005/RedFlagOverReichstag550.jpg

:eek:

In Soviet America that flag flys over Washington.

I agree with the article. Liberals should have their property seized as payment for all the harm they caused us and be stripped of citizenship and deported to an enemy nation like when Castro shipped all his criminals to the USA.

So I could point out all the flaws and stupidities in this rather typical opinion piece, but what I thought most amusing - and horrifying, since some people will actually swallow it up like it was God Himself splooging - was the implication that not only do "secularists" "blame man" for "catastrophes" like "racism" (apparently that's really God's doing), and "blame Bush" for a lack of "utopia" and for him being a "man of God" and "reason," but will CONQUER AMERICA!

But maybe I'm just using "trendy liberal reasoning" like logic and knowledge of the English language and am failing to see past my own supposed "cognitive dissonance" and obvious desire to "undermine the troops." What do you make of this?

Actually, I hear a lot of posts on this forum claiming that "Conservatives will destroy America!" or "Neocons will destroy America!"

You know, the threads about surveillance programs, Guantanamo, etc.

In this political environment today, it's not worth posting unless you can assert that your opponent is "destroying" something like a country, or civilization, or all of humanity.

The scary thing is the "Liberal" democrats are conversatives in Australia because our lefties are more left than the left of right Democrats.
Thinking about that makes my brain hurt.

Actually, I hear a lot of posts on this forum claiming that "Conservatives will destroy America!" or "Neocons will destroy America!"

You know, the threads about surveillance programs, Guantanamo, etc.

In this political environment today, it's not worth posting unless you can assert that your opponent is "destroying" something like a country, or civilization, or all of humanity.

Kind of a moot point. Conservatives WILL destroy America. Specifically, North America. Specifically, the USA.

Liberals, on the other hand, no.

This has been another episode of "Answers that could've been shorter but were purposely elongated for comedic value to stupid statements".

Kind of a moot point. Conservatives WILL destroy America. Specifically, North America. Specifically, the USA.

Liberals, on the other hand, no.

This has been another episode of "Answers that could've been shorter but were purposely elongated for comedic value to stupid statements".


Thank you for posting that. Now I don't have to link to an example of what I was talking about.

Thank you for posting that. Now I don't have to link to an example of what I was talking about.

I'm always here to help.

This is the Mayflower Compact, written by some of the first people who came to America. This proves that America was founded on Christianity.

IN THE name of God, Amen.

We whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread sovereign Lord, King James, by the grace of God, of Great Britain, France and Ireland king, defender of the faith, etc., having undertaken, for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith, and honor of our king and country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the Northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God, and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the colony, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.

In witness whereof we have hereunder subscribed our names at Cape-Cod the 11 of November, in the year of the reign of our sovereign lord, King James, of England, France, and Ireland the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Domine 1620.

Signed by BRITISH SUBJECTS, this has nothing to do with AMERICA. Once again, I respect your right to make an ass out of yourself, but for god's sake, could you at least make the rebuttal a teensy little bit more challenging?

No, George Washington was a strong Christian and belived in God not because his wife wanted him to, he truly belived in God. Thomas Jefferson was also a Christian, not an an atheist, agnostic, or a pagan, he was also a Christian. John Hancock was the president of the first and second Conteniental Congress meetings, making him a founding father. Think about it One Nation UNDER GOD. We were based on Christianity, and it should stay that way.

Can i reccomend a book? It's called Moral Minority. Read it, read it carefully, then come back and quit being a jackass.

I agree with the article. Liberals should have their property seized as payment for all the harm they caused us and be stripped of citizenship and deported to an enemy nation like when Castro shipped all his criminals to the USA.

And what should we do with trolls, I wonder?

And what should we do with trolls, I wonder?

Well, there's the old cure for rhino hides: Keep hitting until they acknowledge the shot.

Well, there's the old cure for rhino hides: Keep hitting until they acknowledge the shot.

I prefer the "light them on fire so they don't regenerate" method, but that never seems to work anymore.

I prefer the "light them on fire so they don't regenerate" method, but that never seems to work anymore.

Decapitation. Or a wooden stake to the heart.

Usually works for me. *shrug*

Decapitation. Or a wooden stake to the heart.

Usually works for me. *shrug*

That's vampires.

That's vampires.

Dammit.

Direct sunlight turns 'em into rocks. I remember that, now...

Dammit.

Direct sunlight turns 'em into rocks. I remember that, now...

So we load them onto planes with large windows that can traverse the globe in 24 hours and don't require fuel. That should hold 'em indefinitely.

So we load them onto planes with large windows that can traverse the globe in 24 hours and don't require fuel. That should hold 'em indefinitely.

I'm pretty sure the petrification is permanent, actually.

Jersey rocks, btw.

I'm pretty sure the petrification is permanent, actually.

This would explain my theory about all trols posting from their mothers' basements.

And yes, Jersey rocks. Hardcore.

I agree with the article. Liberals should have their property seized as payment for all the harm they caused us and be stripped of citizenship and deported to an enemy nation like when Castro shipped all his criminals to the USA.

Castro didn't deport anyone to the U.S. Junior. They were wanting to get away from Cuba and Fidel let them. Plus, you're saying that the Cuban Exile Community are all criminals.

Might want to keep away from Florida for a while there.

:D

I agree with the article. Liberals should have their property seized as payment for all the harm they caused us and be stripped of citizenship and deported to an enemy nation like when Castro shipped all his criminals to the USA.

What are you, Dane Cook? Nah...Carlos Mencia? Too over the top, even for him. I give up, which comedian are you?

What are you, Dane Cook? Nah...Carlos Mencia? Too over the top, even for him. I give up, which comedian are you?

DEE DEE DEE!

:D

My favorite Mencia bit.

Castro didn't deport anyone to the U.S. Junior. They were wanting to get away from Cuba and Fidel let them. Plus, you're saying that the Cuban Exile Community are all criminals.

Might want to keep away from Florida for a while there.

:D
Well, he did. In a way. When the US said any Cuban was welcome to immigrate, Castro thought it would be nice if he helped all the criminals and mentally insane get there. But you're right, that doesn't apply to all Cubans.
I'm not sure I should even comment on the thread-starting article. I think making statements like this has become almost a business, and attacking it is like buying A Big Mac, to disprove the McDonalds' ad that claims it is delicious: anything you say about it is irrelevant, as long as you buy it. Cf. Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, or Al Franken, for that matter.

I have difinitive proof that liberals have had control of the media since the 1980's, and that they are pressing their gay agenda on us!

Behold:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8Nc8RCLy1s

And for the record, that's about as silly as the that person's article was.

DEE DEE DEE!

:D

My favorite Mencia bit.

His only good joke is about this guy named Bamfelo.

AND WILL DESTROY IT!

Some people keep saying that like it were a bad thing.

Well DUH! It IS a bad thing! You actually WANT America to be destroyed? Well, I DON'T!

So I could point out all the flaws and stupidities in this rather typical opinion piece, but what I thought most amusing - and horrifying, since some people will actually swallow it up like it was God Himself splooging - was the implication that not only do "secularists" "blame man" for "catastrophes" like "racism" (apparently that's really God's doing), and "blame Bush" for a lack of "utopia" and for him being a "man of God" and "reason," but will CONQUER AMERICA!

But maybe I'm just using "trendy liberal reasoning" like logic and knowledge of the English language and am failing to see past my own supposed "cognitive dissonance" and obvious desire to "undermine the troops." What do you make of this?

I believe there is actually a lot of truth in that "rather typical opinion piece", because America HAS lost any sense of moral standards and replaced it with "social justice", which is news media doublespeak for discrimination against "WASPs" in favor of the so-called "oppressed minorities", against straight people in favor of "gays", against Bible believers in favor of atheists, agnostics, Muslims, and Satanists, against conservatives in favor of liberals, and against America in favor of those who wish to destroy her.

YOU might not "desire to "undermine the troops"", but the news media in general certainly DO!

Kind of a moot point. Conservatives WILL destroy America. Specifically, North America. Specifically, the USA.

Liberals, on the other hand, no.

This has been another episode of "Answers that could've been shorter but were purposely elongated for comedic value to stupid statements".

I don't understand what you're talking about; how do conservatives destroy America, but liberals don't? :confused:

The irony is that it has been the so called "conservative" republicans that have in a very real way, been bringing down America. Especially with the Iraq war on the military front, and debt to China on the economic front. O the irony, it burns!

Then your opinion is contrary to both the Constitution and the intention of the Founders.

Then I take it that you think the State should get involved in the Church? I heartily disagree. The State has NO BUSINESS WHATSOEVER in interfering with the Church, and in fact THAT (and taxation without representation under English dominion) is why America was founded; so that people could be free to worship God APART FROM THE DICTATES OF THE STATE.

THAT much of what he said is NOT at all contrary to either the Constitution or the intention of the Founders.

Though the Church should also stay out of the State. I agree with you there.

How could you say that all liberals hate America. Unfortunately you judged based on harsh criticism then rather logical discussion. Not, because one liberal or so called "liberal" claims America to be a unwanted location to server under, its still the best nation to live in.
How many nations do you know that can practice their freedom of speech daily without worrying about what you said.
Little to none!

I see no reason to judge the US as a source of liberals, even I do not like the US, but I support it because I know what we are doing is mostly moral.

The irony is that it has been the so called "conservative" republicans that have in a very real way, been bringing down America. Especially with the Iraq war on the military front, and debt to China on the economic front. O the irony, it burns!

OK, I get it now! *light bulb comes on over head*

So both cons AND libs are responsible for the coming destruction of America!

How could you say that all liberals hate America. Unfortunately you judged based on harsh criticism then rather logical discussion. Not, because one liberal or so called "liberal" claims America to be a unwanted location to server under, its still the best nation to live in.
How many nations do you know that can practice their freedom of speech daily without worrying about what you said.
Little to none!

I see no reason to judge the US as a source of liberals, even I do not like the US, but I support it because I know what we are doing is mostly moral.

I wasn't saying that ALL liberals hate America; just the ones who get attention from the news media.

You didn't specify who you were replying to, so if it wasn't me, sorry!

I believe there is actually a lot of truth in that "rather typical opinion piece", because America HAS lost any sense of moral standards and replaced it with "social justice", which is news media doublespeak for discrimination against "WASPs" in favor of the so-called "oppressed minorities", against straight people in favor of "gays", against Bible believers in favor of atheists, agnostics, Muslims, and Satanists, against conservatives in favor of liberals, and against America in favor of those who wish to destroy her.

Oh yes, white Christian heterosexuals are just so discriminated against :rolleyes:

Discriminating against gays, ethnic minorities, and non-Christians does not equate having "moral standards". Discrimination is immoral, un-Christian, and un-American.

Cry me a river.

That's vampires.

Actually, decapitation and a stake through the heart is surprisingly effective on a number of non-vampire critters, as well...

I also have the urge to lick your ear, GT.Sweet. :D
Who says no good comes of liberal vs. conservatives threads?

"social justice", which is news media doublespeak for discrimination against "WASPs" in favor of the so-called "oppressed minorities", against straight people in favor of "gays", against Bible believers in favor of atheists, agnostics, Muslims, and Satanists, against conservatives in favor of liberals, and against America in favor of those who wish to destroy her.


Nonsense. I like how you put Muslims and Satanists right next to each other though, very cute. Hey so where do the Jews fit in? Are Christians oppressed in favor of Jews too? And what about centrists? Are they discriminated against in favor of the Liberal Jewish Elite, or are they in cahoots? And how about bisexuals?

But the best part is where you say they are "so-called" oppressed minorities.

Nice try paly, but no one in his right mind believes that "social justice" means any of those things to begin with. You've constructed one big strawman and used it to try to justify what I'm reading as your own bigotry.

Having chosen man over God, liberals, secular progressives if you will, naturally believe that any catastrophe, like Katrina, global warming, racism, etc., is man's fault.

Soo... racism is God's fault, then? Loving guy and all that...

Based on trendy liberal reasoning, only those with power can oppress.

... um... yes?

Can anyone give me an example of one situation where someone can oppress someone they don't have power over?

You've constructed one big strawman and used it to try to justify what I'm reading as your own bigotry.

And that's essentially it, in a nutshell. Thanks for schooling him/her.

The same bullshit we've seen for the latter part of the 20th Century...and the first few years of the 21st...

Liberals...Conservatives...its really old and its starting to rot

Exactly, you guys need some socialism :p

AND WILL DESTROY IT!

Some people keep saying that like it were a bad thing.

And this is not a bigoted statement, why?;)

Then I take it that you think the State should get involved in the Church? I heartily disagree. The State has NO BUSINESS WHATSOEVER in interfering with the Church, and in fact THAT (and taxation without representation under English dominion) is why America was founded; so that people could be free to worship God APART FROM THE DICTATES OF THE STATE.

THAT much of what he said is NOT at all contrary to either the Constitution or the intention of the Founders.

Though the Church should also stay out of the State. I agree with you there.

Way to go off half-cocked, Deadeye.

I believe in a high wall of seperation of Church and State. Nothing I said indicated to the country.

Perhaps you should save your ammo for the idiot to which I was responding.

Exactly, you guys need some socialism :p

No thanks.:)

Oh yes, white Christian heterosexuals are just so discriminated against :rolleyes:

Discriminating against gays, ethnic minorities, and non-Christians does not equate having "moral standards". Discrimination is immoral, un-Christian, and un-American.

Cry me a river.

What Bible have you been reading? Mine says that gays are less worthy/going to hell and that we should stone them to death.

Yes, it also says to accept other people-- my point is, both views have a valid claim to being "Christian" beliefs, depending on what way you want to cherry-pick verses.

So I could point out all the flaws and stupidities in this rather typical opinion piece, but what I thought most amusing - and horrifying, since some people will actually swallow it up like it was God Himself splooging - was the implication that not only do "secularists" "blame man" for "catastrophes" like "racism" (apparently that's really God's doing), and "blame Bush" for a lack of "utopia" and for him being a "man of God" and "reason," but will CONQUER AMERICA!

But maybe I'm just using "trendy liberal reasoning" like logic and knowledge of the English language and am failing to see past my own supposed "cognitive dissonance" and obvious desire to "undermine the troops." What do you make of this?

There are so many things I want to say from the infuriating and misinformed article, but to let it take that kind of control over me would to let Nancy Morgan win. All I'll say is I find it rather interesting that she wants to moan and bitch about liberals spreading a negative image of America while she herself feeds the fire of this childish "your party is wrong because it's not my party!" game.
Both parties have their pros and cons and there is no one party that is unconditionally right all the time. That's all I say.

What Bible have you been reading? Mine says that gays are less worthy/going to hell and that we should stone them to death.

Yes, it also says to accept other people-- my point is, both views have a valid claim to being "Christian" beliefs, depending on what way you want to cherry-pick verses.

How is it possible to be tolerant...and then be intolerant of gays? The Bible fails.

How is it possible to be tolerant...and then be intolerant of gays? The Bible fails.

I dunno. I don't mind the people who throw away that bad stuff and keep the good stuff so much-- I just wonder why they need to. If they already have an independant reason for believing those things, why not just cut it out?
*shrugs*
But I'm just saying that it's just as Christian to be intolerant, according to their Holy Book.

... um... yes?

Can anyone give me an example of one situation where someone can oppress someone they don't have power over?

Heh it's impossible by definition (http://m-w.com/dictionary/oppress).

Comprehending the English Language: Now nothing more than trendy liberal reasoning!

How is it possible to be tolerant...and then be intolerant of gays? The Bible fails.

The bible is full of contradictions. Here's (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_book.html) a list of 1334 of them.

And what should we do with trolls, I wonder?

Report them to the...

Oh. Right. :D

The bible is full of contradictions. Here's (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_book.html) a list of 1334 of them.

Really? I thought there'd be more than that....

The bible is full of contradictions. Here's (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_book.html) a list of 1334 of them.

One of my fave sites.

Goddamn, I'm - I'm - I'm being compelled to destroy America!

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j315/crashcow/NSG/Stalin.jpg

I'll see you in Hell, Joe Stalin!

Goddamn, I'm - I'm - I'm being compelled to destroy America!

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j315/crashcow/NSG/Stalin.jpg

I'll see you in Hell, Joe Stalin!

*Re-do of "A Streetcar Named Desire"*

*On a drunken state, with no shirt on.*

STAAAAAAAALIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIN!!!

STAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIN!!!

I agree with the article. Liberals should have their property seized as payment for all the harm they caused us and be stripped of citizenship and deported to an enemy nation like when Castro shipped all his criminals to the USA.

Look everyone!
It's Freedom and Glory's alternate account!!!

Originally Posted by Glorious Freedonia View Post
I agree with the article. Liberals should have their property seized as payment for all the harm they caused us and be stripped of citizenship and deported to an enemy nation like when Castro shipped all his criminals to the USA.

But then they'll take them over and come back to the US somehow.

Both parties have their pros and cons and there is no one party that is unconditionally right all the time. That's all I say.

Here is the solution: Become a single party state!

Please don't.