Republicans prefer Satan
-
Huh? Namecalling? I just asked if you like my keys. What's wrong with you?
Apparently you have forgotten your previous post. I am not suprised, after all others have pointed out, numerous times, your inability to remember more than one post back.
-
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
Of course, and all these claims are pure fiction.
Pretty much, yes. Voter fraud always benefits the left overwhelmingly. There's always going to be some in limited amounts of fraud, but that fraud has historically been perpetrated primarily by the left.
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
Bullsh*t. Leftist revolutions are based mostly on economic inequality and corruption.
Yes...inequality and corruption. And oftentimes the left claims that elections were rigged (by the corrupt upperclass, of course) to oppress them, thereby justifying revolution in the process.
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
All dead people? Man, those are some "interesting" connections you've got.
I'm referring to the fact that in New York and Ohio last election, numerous dead people magically began voting from the grave. Naturally they voted Democrat.
Happened in Memphis recently as well.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
prefer
Wrong again. Tolerance or their right to freedom has nothing to do with who one "prefers". You guys just can't get the simple truth of things can you? Also "reasonable" people understand that if you need someone to build you a bridge their sexual preference is not logically included in the assessment of who you prefer to build a freakin bridge. You prefer the person that will do the best job for the least money and again "reasonable" people "get" that a person can fulfill those qualifications even though one does not "prefer" their sexual preference. Right-wingnuts, illogically draw the conclusion that being homosexual is equivalent to being bad and/or less intelligent, incapable, and therefore you would exclude that person from being qualified to build a bridge. In short you are just plain wrong, period.
led mike
I don't know what the hell any of that has to do with my post. I was not talking about sexual 'preference'. I was referring to the left's general tendency to elect people who do not profess strong commitment to traditional religious values. When people on the right resign or guit their positions for violating the values they campaigned on or promoted in some way, that is not hypocrisy. Rather, it is an affirmation of why the values were important. The recent incidents with Foley and Haggard(sp?) only serve to reinforce my own beliefs in the importance of religious values within a society. As to your silly rant on homosexuality, if the issue is important enough to someone that they don't want to hire a homosexualy to build their bridge, that should be entirely up to them. The attitude of the right is that the freedom to discriminate on the basis on one's own personally defined values is at least as important as the right to have oral sex with another man (or woman). It is the left, not the right, that wishes to force their moral views of homosexuality (as with so many similar issues) upon the entire society in the name of some extremist principle of "equality" rather than a traditional view of freedom.
Thank God for disproportional force.
-
I don't know what the hell any of that has to do with my post. I was not talking about sexual 'preference'. I was referring to the left's general tendency to elect people who do not profess strong commitment to traditional religious values. When people on the right resign or guit their positions for violating the values they campaigned on or promoted in some way, that is not hypocrisy. Rather, it is an affirmation of why the values were important. The recent incidents with Foley and Haggard(sp?) only serve to reinforce my own beliefs in the importance of religious values within a society. As to your silly rant on homosexuality, if the issue is important enough to someone that they don't want to hire a homosexualy to build their bridge, that should be entirely up to them. The attitude of the right is that the freedom to discriminate on the basis on one's own personally defined values is at least as important as the right to have oral sex with another man (or woman). It is the left, not the right, that wishes to force their moral views of homosexuality (as with so many similar issues) upon the entire society in the name of some extremist principle of "equality" rather than a traditional view of freedom.
Thank God for disproportional force.
Stan Shannon wrote:
When people on the right resign or guit their positions for violating the values they campaigned on or promoted in some way, that is not hypocrisy. Rather, it is an affirmation of why the values were important.
Resigning once you have been found out doesn't take a lot of character. What about the hypocrisy before you are found out? I rather prefer Haggard's take on the issue: "I am a liar and a deceiver".
John Carson "All Mr. Bush and his party can do at this point is demonize their opposition. And my guess is that the public won’t go for it, that Americans are fed up with leadership that has nothing to hope for but fear itself." Paul Krugman
-
I don't know what the hell any of that has to do with my post. I was not talking about sexual 'preference'. I was referring to the left's general tendency to elect people who do not profess strong commitment to traditional religious values. When people on the right resign or guit their positions for violating the values they campaigned on or promoted in some way, that is not hypocrisy. Rather, it is an affirmation of why the values were important. The recent incidents with Foley and Haggard(sp?) only serve to reinforce my own beliefs in the importance of religious values within a society. As to your silly rant on homosexuality, if the issue is important enough to someone that they don't want to hire a homosexualy to build their bridge, that should be entirely up to them. The attitude of the right is that the freedom to discriminate on the basis on one's own personally defined values is at least as important as the right to have oral sex with another man (or woman). It is the left, not the right, that wishes to force their moral views of homosexuality (as with so many similar issues) upon the entire society in the name of some extremist principle of "equality" rather than a traditional view of freedom.
Thank God for disproportional force.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I was referring to the left's general tendency to elect people who do not profess strong commitment to traditional religious values.
When political religious leaders stop preaching oppression rather than tolerance, as prescribed by many famous people like Jesus, I am sure the left would embrace them whole heartedly.
Stan Shannon wrote:
When people on the right resign or guit their positions for violating the values they campaigned on or promoted in some way, that is not hypocrisy. Rather, it is an affirmation of why the values were important.
What a great example of hypocrisy that statement is! Quitting after you are exposed does not diminish the level of hypocrisy in "any way". Thank you for proving my point! Oh and if you think the latest two exposed Gay and Anti-Family Value Republican Leaders are the last two in your midst you need to stop smoking crack.
Stan Shannon wrote:
As to your silly rant on homosexuality
It was not a "rant" it was an example of the flawed right-wing platform.
Stan Shannon wrote:
that they don't want to hire a homosexualy to build their bridge, that should be entirely up to them.
I agree. But it should not be a matter of public "government" policy and it absolutely should not be legislated.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The attitude of the right is that the freedom to discriminate
No one has a problem with you controlling your own life. You are perfectly within your rights to be a homophobe just as I am perfectly within my rights for believing that being a homophobe means one is frightened by their own homosexual tendencies. Where the line MUST be drawn is legislating bigotry and oppression. That is what the political fight is about, not because you are afraid to let a homosexual in your house.
Stan Shannon wrote:
It is the left, not the right, that wishes to force their moral views of homosexuality (as with so many similar issues) upon the entire society in the name of some extremist principle of "equality" rather than a traditional view of freedom.
The principle of equality is extremist? :wtf: Stop smoking crack... no really it is bad for you. You are a fountain of hypocrisy Stan. We have had conversations about fre
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I was referring to the left's general tendency to elect people who do not profess strong commitment to traditional religious values.
When political religious leaders stop preaching oppression rather than tolerance, as prescribed by many famous people like Jesus, I am sure the left would embrace them whole heartedly.
Stan Shannon wrote:
When people on the right resign or guit their positions for violating the values they campaigned on or promoted in some way, that is not hypocrisy. Rather, it is an affirmation of why the values were important.
What a great example of hypocrisy that statement is! Quitting after you are exposed does not diminish the level of hypocrisy in "any way". Thank you for proving my point! Oh and if you think the latest two exposed Gay and Anti-Family Value Republican Leaders are the last two in your midst you need to stop smoking crack.
Stan Shannon wrote:
As to your silly rant on homosexuality
It was not a "rant" it was an example of the flawed right-wing platform.
Stan Shannon wrote:
that they don't want to hire a homosexualy to build their bridge, that should be entirely up to them.
I agree. But it should not be a matter of public "government" policy and it absolutely should not be legislated.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The attitude of the right is that the freedom to discriminate
No one has a problem with you controlling your own life. You are perfectly within your rights to be a homophobe just as I am perfectly within my rights for believing that being a homophobe means one is frightened by their own homosexual tendencies. Where the line MUST be drawn is legislating bigotry and oppression. That is what the political fight is about, not because you are afraid to let a homosexual in your house.
Stan Shannon wrote:
It is the left, not the right, that wishes to force their moral views of homosexuality (as with so many similar issues) upon the entire society in the name of some extremist principle of "equality" rather than a traditional view of freedom.
The principle of equality is extremist? :wtf: Stop smoking crack... no really it is bad for you. You are a fountain of hypocrisy Stan. We have had conversations about fre
led mike wrote:
When political religious leaders stop preaching oppression rather than tolerance, as prescribed by many famous people like Jesus, I am sure the left would embrace them whole heartedly.
The notion that you think Jesus preached tolerance indicates how self delusional you are. Any interpretation of the bible clearly shows that in both the old and new testament homosexuality is considered a sin. (Probably because the Jews would have found open homosexuality an alien threat to their own culture introduced by the Greeks)
led mike wrote:
What a great example of hypocrisy that statement is! Quitting after you are exposed does not diminish the level of hypocrisy in "any way". Thank you for proving my point! Oh and if you think the latest two exposed Gay and Anti-Family Value Republican Leaders are the last two in your midst you need to stop smoking crack.
Well when exactly is someone supposed to quit? The reason they quit is because they were being held to their values by the communities they served. That is the positive results of having a values based community - you have standards to hold people to. I'm not arguing about the hypocricy of the individuals, I am arguing that the hypocricy ends with them and is not a manifestation of the values culture itself. Besides, the obvious fact tht these scandals are as much an indictment of homosexuality as of religious based values seem to completely elude you. These peopel were not christians, or conservatives - they were homosexuals and liars. That says a lot more about the homosexual community than it does about the religious community. This was not Christian deception, it was homosexual deception.
led mike wrote:
The principle of equality is extremist?
The notion that enforced equality is to be preferred to individual moral preferences is most certainly one of the most extreme political principles our society has ever been subjected to.
led mike wrote:
Look it is this simple, you can be frightened of homosexuals all you want, no one cares, but stop trying to legislate bigotry, hatred and oppression. If that is the civilization you desire perhaps you should move to an Islamic State. In the US freedom rules.
And you can regurgitate all the Orwellian Marxist double speak you were ever taught, the si
-
led mike wrote:
When political religious leaders stop preaching oppression rather than tolerance, as prescribed by many famous people like Jesus, I am sure the left would embrace them whole heartedly.
The notion that you think Jesus preached tolerance indicates how self delusional you are. Any interpretation of the bible clearly shows that in both the old and new testament homosexuality is considered a sin. (Probably because the Jews would have found open homosexuality an alien threat to their own culture introduced by the Greeks)
led mike wrote:
What a great example of hypocrisy that statement is! Quitting after you are exposed does not diminish the level of hypocrisy in "any way". Thank you for proving my point! Oh and if you think the latest two exposed Gay and Anti-Family Value Republican Leaders are the last two in your midst you need to stop smoking crack.
Well when exactly is someone supposed to quit? The reason they quit is because they were being held to their values by the communities they served. That is the positive results of having a values based community - you have standards to hold people to. I'm not arguing about the hypocricy of the individuals, I am arguing that the hypocricy ends with them and is not a manifestation of the values culture itself. Besides, the obvious fact tht these scandals are as much an indictment of homosexuality as of religious based values seem to completely elude you. These peopel were not christians, or conservatives - they were homosexuals and liars. That says a lot more about the homosexual community than it does about the religious community. This was not Christian deception, it was homosexual deception.
led mike wrote:
The principle of equality is extremist?
The notion that enforced equality is to be preferred to individual moral preferences is most certainly one of the most extreme political principles our society has ever been subjected to.
led mike wrote:
Look it is this simple, you can be frightened of homosexuals all you want, no one cares, but stop trying to legislate bigotry, hatred and oppression. If that is the civilization you desire perhaps you should move to an Islamic State. In the US freedom rules.
And you can regurgitate all the Orwellian Marxist double speak you were ever taught, the si
Stan Shannon wrote:
The notion that you think Jesus preached tolerance indicates how self delusional you are. Any interpretation of the bible clearly shows that in both the old and new testament homosexuality is considered a sin.
Let he who is without sin .... etc. "Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy." "But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; " "Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned:" STOP CHERRY PICKING THE BIBLE and save your hatemongering rhetoric for your fellow mindless homophobes that will lap it up.
Stan Shannon wrote:
You cannot logically argue that outlawing homosexual marriages is any more oppressive than requireing every one else to accept radical leftist reiterpretations of what marriage means.
Yes I can and I will. One "restricts real personal freedom" while the other holds no "real properties" but rather extols the voluntary emotional response from the self proclaimed victim. Sorry to rain on your psychosis parade with logic but that’s just how I roll.
led mike
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
The notion that you think Jesus preached tolerance indicates how self delusional you are. Any interpretation of the bible clearly shows that in both the old and new testament homosexuality is considered a sin.
Let he who is without sin .... etc. "Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy." "But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; " "Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned:" STOP CHERRY PICKING THE BIBLE and save your hatemongering rhetoric for your fellow mindless homophobes that will lap it up.
Stan Shannon wrote:
You cannot logically argue that outlawing homosexual marriages is any more oppressive than requireing every one else to accept radical leftist reiterpretations of what marriage means.
Yes I can and I will. One "restricts real personal freedom" while the other holds no "real properties" but rather extols the voluntary emotional response from the self proclaimed victim. Sorry to rain on your psychosis parade with logic but that’s just how I roll.
led mike
led mike wrote:
STOP CHERRY PICKING THE BIBLE and save your hatemongering rhetoric for your fellow mindless homophobes that will lap it up.
You seem to believe that intolerance and hatred are the same thing. Thats a leftist fabrication. Being intolerant of something that you personally find morally repugnant is not hatred. Jesus' mission was not to justify homosexual behavior, or sexual perversion of any kind. Christianity is not about tolerance, it is about living a moral life.
led mike wrote:
One "restricts real personal freedom" while the other holds no "real properties" but rather extols the voluntary emotional response from the self proclaimed victim. Sorry to rain on your psychosis parade with logic but that’s just how I roll.
You don't roll at all and there is nothing logical about your argument regardless of how many leftist professors patted you on the head and gave you A's on your papers in college. It is a far greater abuse of liberty to compel individuals to accept the normality of perverse sexual life styles than it is to disallow the behavior itself. We should return to our true Jeffersonian roots and allow the free citizens of each community to decide among themselves what behaviors they find acceptable and which they do not by means of their local legal codes. Doing that is the very definition of freedom.
Thank God for disproportional force.
-
led mike wrote:
STOP CHERRY PICKING THE BIBLE and save your hatemongering rhetoric for your fellow mindless homophobes that will lap it up.
You seem to believe that intolerance and hatred are the same thing. Thats a leftist fabrication. Being intolerant of something that you personally find morally repugnant is not hatred. Jesus' mission was not to justify homosexual behavior, or sexual perversion of any kind. Christianity is not about tolerance, it is about living a moral life.
led mike wrote:
One "restricts real personal freedom" while the other holds no "real properties" but rather extols the voluntary emotional response from the self proclaimed victim. Sorry to rain on your psychosis parade with logic but that’s just how I roll.
You don't roll at all and there is nothing logical about your argument regardless of how many leftist professors patted you on the head and gave you A's on your papers in college. It is a far greater abuse of liberty to compel individuals to accept the normality of perverse sexual life styles than it is to disallow the behavior itself. We should return to our true Jeffersonian roots and allow the free citizens of each community to decide among themselves what behaviors they find acceptable and which they do not by means of their local legal codes. Doing that is the very definition of freedom.
Thank God for disproportional force.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Christianity is not about tolerance, it is about living a moral life.
Well I can certainly find many references on the internet to the contrary but what would be the point. Using the bible as you do to excuse your own bigotry is about as low as it can get.
Stan Shannon wrote:
there is nothing logical about your argument regardless of how many leftist professors patted you on the head and gave you A's on your papers in college.
Way to back up your assertion. :rolleyes:
Stan Shannon wrote:
It is a far greater abuse of liberty to compel individuals to accept the normality of perverse sexual life styles than it is to disallow the behavior itself. We should return to our true Jeffersonian roots and allow the free citizens of each community to decide among themselves what behaviors they find acceptable and which they do not by means of their local legal codes. Doing that is the very definition of freedom.
"what behaviors they find acceptable" What a load of shit. Your twisted version of freedom is about as un-patriotic as it gets. The founders of this country left England to avoid the very same load of shit that you want to start all over again. You and your kind base your whole definition of "perverse sexual life style" on your religion. Therefore since we have freedom of religion in the United States of America you cannot use the Government to persecute and oppress people that do not believe in "your" religion and it's "values", period, that is a "fact" not an opinon. Based on past conversations we have had, the idea that you are not capable of grasping the simple truth is hard to believe. I find it much more likely that you follow this "wrong" path with full knowledge of what you are doing. That means intent which means "evil".
led mike
-
oilFactotum wrote:
For someone who professes to love liberty and Jeffersonian democracy it's curious how you support every restriction on liberty and every anti-democratic act that the republicans do. Your not interested in democracy, your interested in imposing your ideas on others by whatever means necessary. You have more in common with the Ayatollahs than with democracy
Because that is not my perception of the situation. The left in our society, as empowered by the democratic party, has inflicted far more damage upon the Jeffersonian principles our society was founded upon than the right, as empowered by the Republican party, has ever even come close to doing. In fact, the current criticism of the Republicans from the left represents little more than Orwellian Marxist double-speak. You could not mention a single real instance of the current administration, or repbublicans in general, restricting any liberty or commiting any anti-democratic act, as they are defined within the context of our political system, but I could mention many that the democrats have been responsible for. The left has no love of Jeffersonian democracy. Their goal is to turn the US into a European Social Welfare state.
Thank God for disproportional force.
Stan Shannon wrote:
You could not mention a single real instance of the current administration, or repbublicans in general, restricting any liberty or commiting any anti-democratic act, as they are defined within the context of our political system, but I could mention many that the democrats have been responsible for.
Well, I would point out the abuse of signing statements, the elimination of habeas corpus, and the domestic eavesdropping campaign for starters. That's a bold statement. What I find funny, is that y'all get stuck in a polarized world as if there were only two parties possible. Both Reps and Dems are full of sh*t. And to quote Jeffersonian democracy as if it was sacred is total bull. It was a good idea with a lot of holes, and it will take a few hundred years to build it into something worthy. So while the "left" and "right" bicker and backbite, don't mind the guy picking your pockets. There are more views than your either/or system. I say its time to flush the toilet and give this country the enema it sorely needs. So full of sh*t.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The left has no love of Jeffersonian democracy. Their goal is to turn the US into a European Social Welfare state.
Gotta be one or the other heh? There's only room for extremism? This isn't democracy. Too much collateral damage.
What's in a sig? This statement is false. Build a bridge and get over it. ~ Chris Maunder