Send in the clowns.
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
Or perhaps spreading the concept of "freedom" as Giuliani suggests in the thread I posted above?
I agree completely with Giuliani (although he probably could have phrased the concept more eloquently - what he was trying to say is that freedom and responsibility are two sides of the same coin).
73Zeppelin wrote:
please proceed, but allow me to make fun of you at your expense.
Fine with me. We'll see who gets the last laugh.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
I agree completely with Giuliani (although he probably could have phrased the concept more eloquently - what he was trying to say is that freedom and responsibility are two sides of the same coin).
Oh I see - you acting responsibly according to the wishes of the authorities guarantees your "freedom". Or wait, I thought that was slavery/feudalism. Gee, I'm all confused now...
-
The so-called right-wing christian support of the republicans was a backlash against the left's overt and crushing secular assault against the traditional and deeply rooted christian traditions of American society. What is going on is not a shift towards fundamentalism, it is a reaction to an attempt to take us in the direction of European socialism. We Americans understand that separation of church and state depends upon the existence of both.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Ouch. Sounds like the Devil might have got you with the old left-right pincer movement. At least, however badly led, the US church speaks up and gets involved. In the UK it is effectively silenced with only liberals allowed a public voice and everyone else labelled a dangerous fundamentalist. I pray we find a better way forward on both sides of the pond.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I agree completely with Giuliani (although he probably could have phrased the concept more eloquently - what he was trying to say is that freedom and responsibility are two sides of the same coin).
Oh I see - you acting responsibly according to the wishes of the authorities guarantees your "freedom". Or wait, I thought that was slavery/feudalism. Gee, I'm all confused now...
Yes, responsibility includes having respect for the legitimate constitutional authority of the state. Sorry, thats just the way it is. At least we conservatives do not support the federal government having the power to change the definition of that authority on the fly as they see fit to promote their political agenda.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
Ouch. Sounds like the Devil might have got you with the old left-right pincer movement. At least, however badly led, the US church speaks up and gets involved. In the UK it is effectively silenced with only liberals allowed a public voice and everyone else labelled a dangerous fundamentalist. I pray we find a better way forward on both sides of the pond.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
In the UK it is effectively silenced with only liberals allowed a public voice and everyone else labelled a dangerous fundamentalist.
I think that is precisely the concern here. Its kind of a "One ring to rule them all" concern. I grew up in a little bible belt cow town fighting the good fight against "christian fundamentalism". But I was allowed to do it. Going the way we are, it seems there is no bottom. We will get to the point where any expression of faith will be attacked as "evil fundamentalism". I honestly do not believe that religion is the problem in the US, it is clearly the rise of a very determined secularism that shows no intention of sharing the power of the state with anyone.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
In the UK it is effectively silenced with only liberals allowed a public voice and everyone else labelled a dangerous fundamentalist.
I think that is precisely the concern here. Its kind of a "One ring to rule them all" concern. I grew up in a little bible belt cow town fighting the good fight against "christian fundamentalism". But I was allowed to do it. Going the way we are, it seems there is no bottom. We will get to the point where any expression of faith will be attacked as "evil fundamentalism". I honestly do not believe that religion is the problem in the US, it is clearly the rise of a very determined secularism that shows no intention of sharing the power of the state with anyone.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
I agree but I think sections of the church have unwittingly done a deal with the devil as a result and the fallout from that has yet to be seen. The neo-con power brokers are not really christians, they are gnostics and lucifarians who believe that 'betrayal is the highest good'. To say that they will sell you out is to understate it a lot. I hope it doesn't happen and they and their 'Democrat' fellow travllers all loose power before they get a chance to turn against the church together. A Christian in the White House would be good but only if he can get there without becoming the tool of others and once there can tell the truth. There is surely hope for the Church and the State in the USA but only if the former recognises the NWO as an agency of the Devil controlling the later and speaks out.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Theories are waiting to be proven. Look up MRSA.
-
Yes, responsibility includes having respect for the legitimate constitutional authority of the state. Sorry, thats just the way it is. At least we conservatives do not support the federal government having the power to change the definition of that authority on the fly as they see fit to promote their political agenda.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
At least we conservatives do not support the federal government having the power to change the definition of that authority on the fly as they see fit to promote their political agenda.
No, you just enforce it through the will of the President. Oh wait, there actually no difference between the two! Bot operate "...on the fly as they see fit to promote their political agenda."
"The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Whoever can supply them with illusions is easily their master; whoever attempts to destroy their illusions is always their victim." -Gustave Le Bon
-
I agree but I think sections of the church have unwittingly done a deal with the devil as a result and the fallout from that has yet to be seen. The neo-con power brokers are not really christians, they are gnostics and lucifarians who believe that 'betrayal is the highest good'. To say that they will sell you out is to understate it a lot. I hope it doesn't happen and they and their 'Democrat' fellow travllers all loose power before they get a chance to turn against the church together. A Christian in the White House would be good but only if he can get there without becoming the tool of others and once there can tell the truth. There is surely hope for the Church and the State in the USA but only if the former recognises the NWO as an agency of the Devil controlling the later and speaks out.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
There is surely hope for the Church and the State in the USA but only if the former recognises the NWO as an agency of the Devil controlling the later and speaks out.
WTF?
"The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Whoever can supply them with illusions is easily their master; whoever attempts to destroy their illusions is always their victim." -Gustave Le Bon
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
At least we conservatives do not support the federal government having the power to change the definition of that authority on the fly as they see fit to promote their political agenda.
No, you just enforce it through the will of the President. Oh wait, there actually no difference between the two! Bot operate "...on the fly as they see fit to promote their political agenda."
"The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Whoever can supply them with illusions is easily their master; whoever attempts to destroy their illusions is always their victim." -Gustave Le Bon
Regardless of all the leftist propaganda, Bush has not acted outside of his appropriate constitutional authority. This nation has always given the executive broad latitude in the exercise of his responsibilities as commander in chief. Bush is not the one acting in violation of the traditions of the US, it is his critics.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
I agree but I think sections of the church have unwittingly done a deal with the devil as a result and the fallout from that has yet to be seen. The neo-con power brokers are not really christians, they are gnostics and lucifarians who believe that 'betrayal is the highest good'. To say that they will sell you out is to understate it a lot. I hope it doesn't happen and they and their 'Democrat' fellow travllers all loose power before they get a chance to turn against the church together. A Christian in the White House would be good but only if he can get there without becoming the tool of others and once there can tell the truth. There is surely hope for the Church and the State in the USA but only if the former recognises the NWO as an agency of the Devil controlling the later and speaks out.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
I agree to the extent that the greatest schism in US politics is between social and fiscal conservatives. The two are frequently diametrically opposed to one another. Their only unifying principle is that they share a common enemy. The left is just as opposed to the expression of traditional religious faith in public life as it is to capitalism and free markets. The left for its part would very much like to see this schism result in a complete breadown of the conservative camp into two competing political factions. And that is precisely what you are trying to achieve in your comments. So, sorry, but we are on to that little tactic.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
Regardless of all the leftist propaganda, Bush has not acted outside of his appropriate constitutional authority. This nation has always given the executive broad latitude in the exercise of his responsibilities as commander in chief. Bush is not the one acting in violation of the traditions of the US, it is his critics.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
So, the traditions are: if the government fucks up, try to cover it up, hide it and silence/exterminate all whistleblowers and critics?
Cheers, Sebastian -- "If it was two men, the non-driver would have challenged the driver to simply crash through the gates. The macho image thing, you know." - Marc Clifton
-
I agree to the extent that the greatest schism in US politics is between social and fiscal conservatives. The two are frequently diametrically opposed to one another. Their only unifying principle is that they share a common enemy. The left is just as opposed to the expression of traditional religious faith in public life as it is to capitalism and free markets. The left for its part would very much like to see this schism result in a complete breadown of the conservative camp into two competing political factions. And that is precisely what you are trying to achieve in your comments. So, sorry, but we are on to that little tactic.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
So, sorry, but we are on to that little tactic.
Ahaha, got your fillings adjusted and straightened out the tin-foil hat, did we? ;P
-
So, the traditions are: if the government fucks up, try to cover it up, hide it and silence/exterminate all whistleblowers and critics?
Cheers, Sebastian -- "If it was two men, the non-driver would have challenged the driver to simply crash through the gates. The macho image thing, you know." - Marc Clifton
Sebastian Schneider wrote:
So, the traditions are: if the government fucks up, try to cover it up, hide it and silence/exterminate all whistleblowers and critics?
Pretty much, yes. Whats yours?
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
So, sorry, but we are on to that little tactic.
Ahaha, got your fillings adjusted and straightened out the tin-foil hat, did we? ;P
73Zeppelin wrote:
Ahaha, got your fillings adjusted and straightened out the tin-foil hat, did we?
I find that a properly configured wire hanger attached to the tin foil hat negates the fillings so I didn't need to have them drilled out...
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
Sebastian Schneider wrote:
So, the traditions are: if the government fucks up, try to cover it up, hide it and silence/exterminate all whistleblowers and critics?
Pretty much, yes. Whats yours?
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Nuttin', was just wondering....
Cheers, Sebastian -- "If it was two men, the non-driver would have challenged the driver to simply crash through the gates. The macho image thing, you know." - Marc Clifton
-
I agree to the extent that the greatest schism in US politics is between social and fiscal conservatives. The two are frequently diametrically opposed to one another. Their only unifying principle is that they share a common enemy. The left is just as opposed to the expression of traditional religious faith in public life as it is to capitalism and free markets. The left for its part would very much like to see this schism result in a complete breadown of the conservative camp into two competing political factions. And that is precisely what you are trying to achieve in your comments. So, sorry, but we are on to that little tactic.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
I'm no agent of the left. If it was my country I would rather stand with a just minority than get into bed with evil to try and hold onto influence as a bulwark against another evil. The supposed common enemy, The Left, that scares good people so much that they don't look at whose hand they're holding, is actaully controlled by the same people who control the right. "We own both sides", Paul Voelker referring to Democrats and Republicans before he was president of the World Bank. In the US the church's failure to understand this endangers it. In the UK the church's failure to do anything about it codemns us. You still have time.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
I missed that. Sounds like they're biased in the favour of the creationists! Even the caption on the photo is telling!! Mike Huckabee provided an eloquent explanation of his belief in creationism.
73Zeppelin wrote:
Mike Huckabee
is a f***in moron...all he ever did for my state was lose weight and talk about it. By the way he was a Baptist preacher before becoming governor of Arkansas.
CleaKO
"Now, a man would have opened both gates, driven through and not bothered to close either gate." - Marc Clifton (The Lounge)
-
America, I weep for you. MANCHESTER, New Hampshire (CNN) -- During the first GOP presidential debate last month in California, three Republican candidates raised eyebrows by indicating they did not subscribe to Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, a widely accepted scientific concept about the origins of life. CNN article[^]. This is sad for the U.S. Only post WWII were you the world's leader in science and scientific discovery. The amazing things you brought the world were fantastic - leading scientists flocked to your shores. And now? Now you are but a shadow of your former self.
I watched part of the debate last night. Could someone please stay on topic for once? Anyhow, the one answer I liked (in response to what do you think is the biggest moral problem in America right now) came from a representative from Texas (Paul Tims I think?) who discussed the morality of a pre-emtive war. I thought Hucabee's response about how the Republican platform is to value life at all stages was a joke since it's the Republican party that mostly endorses capital punishment. I still have no idea who I will vote for. But I think they should bring in the Academy Awards orchestra to the next debate. That way when they go on and on (and Wolf Blitzer just keeps trying to interrupt) the orchestra can drown them out.
______________________ stuff + cats = awesome
-
America, I weep for you. MANCHESTER, New Hampshire (CNN) -- During the first GOP presidential debate last month in California, three Republican candidates raised eyebrows by indicating they did not subscribe to Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, a widely accepted scientific concept about the origins of life. CNN article[^]. This is sad for the U.S. Only post WWII were you the world's leader in science and scientific discovery. The amazing things you brought the world were fantastic - leading scientists flocked to your shores. And now? Now you are but a shadow of your former self.
-
America, I weep for you. MANCHESTER, New Hampshire (CNN) -- During the first GOP presidential debate last month in California, three Republican candidates raised eyebrows by indicating they did not subscribe to Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, a widely accepted scientific concept about the origins of life. CNN article[^]. This is sad for the U.S. Only post WWII were you the world's leader in science and scientific discovery. The amazing things you brought the world were fantastic - leading scientists flocked to your shores. And now? Now you are but a shadow of your former self.