Stop whining
-
led mike wrote:
Examples of what?
war is immoral, republicans are corrupt (one of the Democrats' main platforms the last election), etc...
led mike wrote:
Examples of how it's logical to whine about a double standard that you set up yourself?
You still haven't explained your original post. You even said "Please could just one republican in the Soapbox please step forward and explain the logic in this seemingly inescapable contradiction?" Now two posts ago you said it's not about hypocrisy, but a simple whine about whining. Well then what was the point of claiming it was a contradiction if now you're saying it's not? What's wrong with you?
TROLL No answers to the question... not a single one... "I don't understand the question", now claiming there is no question... run away run away To late, Stan already posted that something was "not true".
Stan Shannon wrote:
Because that statement is not true,
You even responded, so obvoiusly you both understand but of course can't point to the part that is not true "even when I numbered them". run away .... run away so lame X|
led mike
-
Thanks for stepping up and answering my question.... wait you didn't... that's just shocking... no really... it is. :rolleyes:
led mike
led mike wrote:
Thanks for stepping up and answering my question
led mike wrote:
And no, this does not mean that someone like Ilion should post another list of Democratic leaders and their misadventures as if there is no list of Republican leaders misadventures.
But, of course, I did not *merely* "post [a] list of Democratic leaders and their misadventures as if there is no list of Republican leaders misadventures." Not, mind you, that I could ever even begin to imagine that Honest Mike would actually be attempting to misrepresent the list I posted[^]:
Red Stateler wrote:
The double standard ...
A quick overview: Clinton ... Nixon JFK; Gore ... Nixon (The Democrats *did* steal JFK's "win" over Nixon, and it was widely known at the time. Including by Nixon. And JFK.) Kennedy, Ted (of MS) ... ??? (specifically, directly causing the death of another and trying to hide it) Kennedy, Patrick (of RI) ... Tower, John (of Texas) (specifically, public drunkenness) Clinton ... Packwood, Bob (of Oregon) (specifically, the "unwelcome advances") Clinton ... ??? (specifically, the quite creditable accusation of rape) Studds, Gerry (of MS) ... Foley, Mark (of Florida) (specifically, actual sex with actual minors vs. "icky" (though legal) email/PMs) Frank, Barney (of MS) ... Cunningham, Randy 'Duke' (of California) -- (specifically, the prostitution component) Kerry, John (of MS) and others too numerous to mention ... ??? (specifically, falsely slandering *all* members of the military) Clinton ... Gingrich (not even about the same things, yet Dem partisans try to make it equivalent)
-
TROLL No answers to the question... not a single one... "I don't understand the question", now claiming there is no question... run away run away To late, Stan already posted that something was "not true".
Stan Shannon wrote:
Because that statement is not true,
You even responded, so obvoiusly you both understand but of course can't point to the part that is not true "even when I numbered them". run away .... run away so lame X|
led mike
Huh? Instead of demanding that your original post was "crystal clear" (despite the fact nobody has any idea what you're talking about), why don't you just explain it again for us dolts who are too dim to understand? That seems more sensible to me.
-
Shog9 wrote:
Start chiding yourselves for buying them.
Of course "I" don't and I posted as much last week[^]
Shog9 wrote:
Stop chiding the whores for acting like whores.
Yeah, I could care less what any of those washington pukes do or say... but the people here in the Soapbox, that's another fish to fry. :-D
Last modified: 3hrs 38mins after originally posted --
led mike
led mike wrote:
[link removed since something is totally hosed with CPHog or CP or something, anyway it was in the "Libby" thread on the 7th]
There's a bug with CPhog and certain URLs. Generally though, if you use the
| Get Link]link to get forum links, you'll be fine.----
...the wind blows over it and it is gone, and its place remembers it no more...
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Because that statement is not true
Hmmm... ok I'll bite. Which part is not true? 1) The Republican Platform of Religion and Family Values 2) Republicans in the Soapbox claiming moral superiority 3) Republicans in the Soapbox whining about a double standard
led mike
led mike wrote:
- Republicans in the Soapbox claiming moral superiority
I have never heard anyone but a leftist use the expression "moral superiority".
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
led mike wrote:
[link removed since something is totally hosed with CPHog or CP or something, anyway it was in the "Libby" thread on the 7th]
There's a bug with CPhog and certain URLs. Generally though, if you use the
| Get Link]link to get forum links, you'll be fine.----
...the wind blows over it and it is gone, and its place remembers it no more...
-
led mike wrote:
- Republicans in the Soapbox claiming moral superiority
I have never heard anyone but a leftist use the expression "moral superiority".
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
I have never heard anyone but a leftist use the expression "moral superiority".
Sure, because that would be in response to someone "claiming moral superiority" not someone using the expression, right? But at least you answered and no I don't have any actual quotes so.... unless I find one or more ( I know they exist ) you have a legitimate complaint.
led mike
-
Red Stateler wrote:
I'm at a loss to even know what you're talking about.
sure you are
Red Stateler wrote:
The double standard is both indescribable and enlightening.
apparently being morally superior does not include being honest :rolleyes: Thanks for posting more of of your usual drivel that makes no attempt at answering my question... very honorable of you.
Red Stateler wrote:
Despite your attempts to paint Republicans as hypocritical
Would you like some cheese with that whine?
led mike
led mike wrote:
apparently being morally superior does not include being honest
One excludes the other.
led mike wrote:
Would you like some cheese with that whine?
:laugh: brilliant!
Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Velopers, Develprs, Developers!
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
Linkify!|Fold With Us! -
led mike wrote:
- Republicans in the Soapbox claiming moral superiority
I have never heard anyone but a leftist use the expression "moral superiority".
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Red Stateler wrote:
We're now seeing a reemergence of eugenics (through the manipulation of embryonic life) in the west which atheists find perfectly acceptable through flimsy morals.
Red Stateler wrote:
Secularists have, by rejecting the concept of sin altogether, found themselves wallowing in it since they're unable to distinguish virtue and vice. They lack guidance and simply have no concept of good and evil. The left will continue to refuse to recognize their influence on the decline of western civilization simply because they are unable to recognize what their actions entail.
I know there is much much more but I do not intend to look further for what any reader of the Soapbox knows only too well. While looking I found a thread with you and John Carson a few weeks back that I had missed. It was .... interesting...
Stan Shannon wrote:
That is a fundamental disagreement I have with modern political systems in general. That is why I am opposed to the Libertarians. If you have civilization, you have tyranny. It simply cannot be avoided. Even if your civilization only has one law "You cannot spit on the sidewalk" - all those who wish to spit on the sidewalk live in a tyranny, they are being deprived of doing something they wish to do. Laws against murder are tyranny to those who wish to murder, etc. Civilization is about controlling the behavior of people in some way. So your example of what adults do in their bedroom is meaningless. We exert all kinds of control over what people do in their bedrooms. What you want to establish is a standard of "no harm". Well, fine. But some power still has to dictate the definition of an adult, the definition of 'consent', the definition of 'private' the defintion of 'harm'. Some source of authority has to define those things. We don't allow an 18 year old to have sex with a 17 year old in a private bedroom or not. That is a completely arbitrary form of tyranny which cannot be avoided - there has to be a line that we are not allowed to cross. Who are you to tell me that two men having anal sex in their bedroom does me no harm? If I feel harmed, thats my call, and if my community feels the same way, who should have the power to force us to accept your definition of harm?
"If I feel harmed" ... wow ... whatever...
led mi
-
Dont talk to this infadel, One day he will be begging you for a drop of water on his tounge when he is burning in hell! :rolleyes:
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I have never heard anyone but a leftist use the expression "moral superiority".
Sure, because that would be in response to someone "claiming moral superiority" not someone using the expression, right? But at least you answered and no I don't have any actual quotes so.... unless I find one or more ( I know they exist ) you have a legitimate complaint.
led mike
Frankly, the left seems far more committed to implementing a moral agenda than the right does. All the right wants is to have an equal voice in defining morality for our society. The left wants an exclusive right to define it. Just consider abortion or gay rights, the conservatives are far more compromising on those issues than the left is. The lefties are the true moral absolutists in our society.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
Frankly, the left seems far more committed to implementing a moral agenda than the right does. All the right wants is to have an equal voice in defining morality for our society. The left wants an exclusive right to define it. Just consider abortion or gay rights, the conservatives are far more compromising on those issues than the left is. The lefties are the true moral absolutists in our society.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Yeah I know... "you feel harmed" by what other people do in the privacy of thier homes. Yeah I know... we have laws about 18 year old and 17 year old. Yes we have an arbitrary line of 18 where we put the "children" and have laws to protect them. I have two questions about that: 1) How is a law defined to protect children compare with you wanting a law because you feel harmed by what the consenting adult couple 2 blocks down the street are doing in the privacy of their home? 2) Don't you think we have proof beyond a doubt that children need protection from adult predators?
led mike
-
Frankly, the left seems far more committed to implementing a moral agenda than the right does. All the right wants is to have an equal voice in defining morality for our society. The left wants an exclusive right to define it. Just consider abortion or gay rights, the conservatives are far more compromising on those issues than the left is. The lefties are the true moral absolutists in our society.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
The lefties are the true moral absolutists in our society.
It's a strange quirk of human nature. Those oh-so-nuanced persons who decry/denounce the concept of objective truth (or morality, or ..., etc) tend to be absolutists, especially when they're in a position to force or bully others to bend to their wills.
-
Yeah I know... "you feel harmed" by what other people do in the privacy of thier homes. Yeah I know... we have laws about 18 year old and 17 year old. Yes we have an arbitrary line of 18 where we put the "children" and have laws to protect them. I have two questions about that: 1) How is a law defined to protect children compare with you wanting a law because you feel harmed by what the consenting adult couple 2 blocks down the street are doing in the privacy of their home? 2) Don't you think we have proof beyond a doubt that children need protection from adult predators?
led mike
led mike wrote:
How is a law defined to protect children compare with you wanting a law because you feel harmed by what the consenting adult couple 2 blocks down the street are doing in the privacy of their home?
Because that is how the country was intentionally designed to work - social policies in the hands of the people at the local level.
led mike wrote:
Don't you think we have proof beyond a doubt that children need protection from adult predators?
Who gets to define "child"?
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
I just went back to see what he has posted since last night, so I'd know what to vote as spam the next time round, and most of his messages have been removed. :doh:
Ðavid Wulff What kind of music should programmers listen to?
Join the Code Project Last.fm group | dwulff
I'm so gangsta I eat cereal without the milk -
David Wulff wrote:
I just went back to see what he has posted since last night, and most of his messages have been removed.
:laugh: Oh, how thoughtful! You just can't get enough. I'll bet you want more goodies. :laugh:
See subject.
Ðavid Wulff What kind of music should programmers listen to?
Join the Code Project Last.fm group | dwulff
I'm so gangsta I eat cereal without the milk -
led mike wrote:
How is a law defined to protect children compare with you wanting a law because you feel harmed by what the consenting adult couple 2 blocks down the street are doing in the privacy of their home?
Because that is how the country was intentionally designed to work - social policies in the hands of the people at the local level.
led mike wrote:
Don't you think we have proof beyond a doubt that children need protection from adult predators?
Who gets to define "child"?
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
So now we are back to not answering questions? You were the one that made that comparison and now you can't explain it? NO forget "can't" you don't even try, you purposely avoid the questions, just like the whore politicians we all complain about.
led mike
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
The lefties are the true moral absolutists in our society.
It's a strange quirk of human nature. Those oh-so-nuanced persons who decry/denounce the concept of objective truth (or morality, or ..., etc) tend to be absolutists, especially when they're in a position to force or bully others to bend to their wills.
-
Ilíon wrote:
especially when they're in a position to force or bully others to bend to their wills.
WTF are you talking about? Stan is always advocating doing exactly that! :omg::wtf: Oh it's ilion.... never mind
led mike
-
Ilíon wrote:
especially when they're in a position to force or bully others to bend to their wills.
WTF are you talking about? Stan is always advocating doing exactly that! :omg::wtf: Oh it's ilion.... never mind
led mike