Since Trump is self destructing and Hillary is poison, still how can one consciously vote liberalism

[turzovka]

Well.... If I were you I would not vote for liberal candidates.

Thanks, but I was just venting, that's why I wrote it.

You didn't think that I thought that someone out there might take this stuff seriously or rethink some of their positions did you? Oh, please. That is not what this board is all about. It's about showing off and making fun of your opponent.

Because almost 100 responses on this thread and I notice there has yet to be one to challenge all the bullet points I made about secular liberalism, or to even deny any of that! That is what is so amazing or tragic to me. It's like, "yeah, so we support things that are bad or immoral. So?"

Not everyone believes in your god. Some like me, that are not "liberals", believe in NO god yet we still have a decent foundation and moral code.

I understand your frustration. There "seems" to be a real "evil" at play. If you are "cornered" into believing the simplistic response that you must label supposed wrong doers, you can do more evil yourself. More than half of the population want some government management of certain problems we as a society face. This was demonstrated by Obama's last two elections.

With NO government regulators and inspectors we end up with disaster as the financial and real estate lenders proved near the end of Bush's last term. We need the big banks. We need lending institutions. We just cannot put the path to the future in their greedy hands. The same with HMOs and Pharms that prey on the cost of fighting disease many of us get taken by. Unfortunately many if not most so called conservatives in congress are supported financially by the for mentioned institutions. These companies pay a lot of money to keep trying to tell the public how evil citizens that oppose their greed and recklessness are. They are LIBERALS!!! They are EVIL!!!!

Your accusations are simplistic and play right into the hands of those that profit from your willful ignorance. Yes there are some very "liberal" Americans. Just not nearly as many as you think there are.

So my accusations are simplistic, but then this is the solution or response you give? >> "More than half of the population want some government management of certain problems we as a society face. This was demonstrated by Obama's last two elections."

You know what that is? It is a cop out. Nothing more. You have said nothing, you have admitted to nothing, you have done nothing. You are playing this angle where because conservatism asks for less government and involvement in certain areas, you run with that and insinuate that conservatives think all govt is bad and they do not realize what would happened if we eliminated govt in our lives. Something pretty inane or close to that. It is a total bogus straw man approach filled with hyperbole and demagoguery. And still you stand proud as though you have defended liberal policies and truly addressed the issues?

Thanks for taking the time to comment, but all I have heard from you so far is we need a government, and, Christians do not have a clue who Jesus was, but you do.

 

[occupied]

Thanks for taking the time to comment, but all I have heard from you so far is we need a government, and, Christians do not have a clue who Jesus was, but you do.

I said that Christians have forgotten the face of their patriarch and it is true. I never left Christianity, it left me when it turned to conservative secular principals as it's basis rather than the teachings of Jesus Christ.

 

[HUGGY]

Well.... If I were you I would not vote for liberal candidates.

Thanks, but I was just venting, that's why I wrote it.

You didn't think that I thought that someone out there might take this stuff seriously or rethink some of their positions did you? Oh, please. That is not what this board is all about. It's about showing off and making fun of your opponent.

Because almost 100 responses on this thread and I notice there has yet to be one to challenge all the bullet points I made about secular liberalism, or to even deny any of that! That is what is so amazing or tragic to me. It's like, "yeah, so we support things that are bad or immoral. So?"

Not everyone believes in your god. Some like me, that are not "liberals", believe in NO god yet we still have a decent foundation and moral code.

I understand your frustration. There "seems" to be a real "evil" at play. If you are "cornered" into believing the simplistic response that you must label supposed wrong doers, you can do more evil yourself. More than half of the population want some government management of certain problems we as a society face. This was demonstrated by Obama's last two elections.

With NO government regulators and inspectors we end up with disaster as the financial and real estate lenders proved near the end of Bush's last term. We need the big banks. We need lending institutions. We just cannot put the path to the future in their greedy hands. The same with HMOs and Pharms that prey on the cost of fighting disease many of us get taken by. Unfortunately many if not most so called conservatives in congress are supported financially by the for mentioned institutions. These companies pay a lot of money to keep trying to tell the public how evil citizens that oppose their greed and recklessness are. They are LIBERALS!!! They are EVIL!!!!

Your accusations are simplistic and play right into the hands of those that profit from your willful ignorance. Yes there are some very "liberal" Americans. Just not nearly as many as you think there are.

So my accusations are simplistic, but then this is the solution or response you give? >> "More than half of the population want some government management of certain problems we as a society face. This was demonstrated by Obama's last two elections."

You know what that is? It is a cop out. Nothing more. You have said nothing, you have admitted to nothing, you have done nothing. You are playing this angle where because conservatism asks for less government and involvement in certain areas, you run with that and insinuate that conservatives think all govt is bad and they do not realize what would happened if we eliminated govt in our lives. Something pretty inane or close to that. It is a total bogus straw man approach filled with hyperbole and demagoguery. And still you stand proud as though you have defended liberal policies and truly addressed the issues?

Thanks for taking the time to comment, but all I have heard from you so far is we need a government, and, Christians do not have a clue who Jesus was, but you do.

I don't know about the demagogery? Just my two cents. There are a lot fewer actual "liberals" than you think there are. I think a lot of what YOU would label "liberal policy" is just common sense. The big money guys squeal like pigs and use every trick in the book like broad brushing policy that will dent their bank heists as "liberal". Then someone like you just parrots the bird calls.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Someone wrote, "So my accusations are simplistic, but then this is the solution or response you give? >> "More than half of the population want some government management of certain problems we as a society face. This was demonstrated by Obama's last two elections." You know what that is? It is a cop out."

Nope, it is not. More than half of the voters trust government more than their fellow citizen in managing certain societal issues. That is a fact. That you disagree means nothing.

Get the votes is what you need to do.

 

[Boss]

You have "asserted" assertions not facts.

It is your opinion, nothing else.

I told you that the JPs gave a blessing on married couples. That is a secular blessing. That you do not understand is your problem.

Sorry, it's not simply my opinion the declaring of our independence as a nation states that we hold truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal and endowed inalienable rights by their Creator. It's not simply my opinion the Constitution is a manifestation of this nation. Those are facts you can't refute. So now you're just going to demagogue the thread insisting you're right and I'm wrong. That's your typical shtick, Jakey.

Also... FYI:

bless·ing
ˈblesiNG/
noun

1. God's favor and protection.
   "may God continue to give us his blessing"
   synonyms: protection, favor
   "may God give us his blessing"
   • a prayer asking for God's favor and protection.
     "a priest gave a blessing as the ship was launched"
   • grace said before or after a meal.
     synonyms: benediction, invocation, prayer, intercession;
     grace
     "a special blessing from the priest"

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Now you are claiming the Constitution is "intentionally absent of religious dogma". For the moment, let's forget you completely contradicted yourself and are now in total agreement with me for the moment. You are correct that the framers never intended to create a theocracy!

Now for you let's return to your obvious contradiction. You want the Constitution to be secular when it's convenient for your assertions. However, you characterize the Constitution as non-secular when it's convenient for a different assertion. The obvious conclusion to draw from your penchant to say one thing here and the opposite thing there is that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about! Piss off now and have a nice Day!

I didn't contradict anything. The Constitution is not Secular or Theocratic.

You are arguing that the Constitution is "Secular" and I am opposing that argument.

The lack of theocratic dogma doesn't mean it's secular.

Secular is the absence of anything related to spiritual or religious beliefs. The Constitution is rooted in and based upon a spiritual and religious concept of individual freedom endowed by our Maker. What part of this are you failing to grasp?

You're trying to argue the lack of theocratic dogma within the Constitution proves it's secular and that's not true. It's not supposed to be chock-full of theocratic dogma, we weren't establishing a theocracy and a theocracy is impossible to ever have no matter how much Christians or any other religion would like to do so. But it's still not secular... it's still rooted in a non-secular concept of individual liberty endowed by a Creator and inalienable by man.

You wrote this!

Secular is the absence of anything related to spiritual or religious beliefs. The Constitution is rooted in and based upon a spiritual and religious concept of individual freedom endowed by our Maker. What part of this are you failing to grasp?

And you wrote this?

The Constitution is certainly NOT secular by design. It is intentionally absent of religious dogma because it's not intended to establish a theocracy.

Any reasonable person would spot the conflict between those two passages in one(1) reading! You just want to have it both ways, but really don't want anyone to mention the inconvenient truth that both statements cannot be true, create a conflict, are not in accord!

You stated unequivocally that the Constitution is "absent" of any religious dogma. The Constitution being absent of a religious "principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true", there is no other conclusion to be had other than the US Constitution is a secular document by definition. It can't be neither or both!
~~ dogma: definition of dogma in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US) ~~

Given your first statement is false and your second statement is true it is obvious to any normal person that the two are in conflict. Further, your admission that the Constitution lacks ANY religious dogma substantiates the proposition that the Constitution is secular in nature because it certainly isn't non-secular by your own acknowledgement.

Certain passages in the DOI may reflect a non-secular bias, but that does not contaminate the Constitution with a religious taint simply because the DOI predated it!! That would be akin to an atheist hearing a hymn as he passed a church on the sidewalk and declaring he was no longer free of all religious dogma! A foolish and stupid, stupid proposition!

Do you have a fucking clue what theocratic means, shit for brains? Look it up, fool! It sure as hell is not what you think it means in your post! Damn you are thick!

The Constitution being absent of a religious "principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true", there is no other conclusion to be had other than the US Constitution is a secular document by definition.

The Constitution isn't "absent" this-- it's based upon it. That's the part you don't seem to be getting. The Constitution would not exist if not for "the truths we hold to be self-evident..."

Certain passages in the DOI may reflect a non-secular bias, but that does not contaminate the Constitution with a religious taint simply because the DOI predated it!

No, the opening preamble states this as a self-evident truth... not a "reflection of bias." It is the centerpiece of our founding intent. It doesn't matter that it predates the Constitution... it's SUPPOSED to predate it! When else would you have the founding basis for the country the Constitution applies to? AFTER it? This isn't some kind of evolution where the DOI was some sort of makeshift document to get us by until the Constitution and now we can just disregard it. It establishes the foundation for our country, what we're about, why we're doing this and later, the Constitution will apply to it.

I don't know what you mean by "contaminate with religious taint" here. I've already said the Constitution isn't chock-full of religious dogma... it's not supposed to be... we weren't establishing a Christian theocracy.

You stated unequivocally that the Constitution is "absent" of any religious dogma.

And I've asked you repeatedly, why would anyone expect it to unless we were forming a theocracy? The absence of religious dogma inside the Constitution doesn't make it secular. Again.. secular means the absence of any religious/spiritual basis. The foundation and basis on which the Constitution exists is very clearly non-secular. So we cannot state the Constitution is secular.

Now you can say that the Constitution is written without deference to any particular religion. But again, what is a document that articulates religious freedom supposed to contain? It;'s intentionally written this way but that doesn't make it secular. To be secular, it would have to NOT be based on the premise of individual liberty endowed by our Creator. You cannot MAKE that be the case just because you think it should be or want it to be. Sorry... it doesn't work that way.

The Constitution being absent of a religious "principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true", there is no other conclusion to be had other than the US Constitution is a secular document by definition.

The Constitution isn't "absent" this-- it's based upon it. That's the part you don't seem to be getting. The Constitution would not exist if not for "the truths we hold to be self-evident..."

You bloody fool! you are the one who wrote the Constitution was absent religious dogma here;

The Constitution is certainly NOT secular by design. It is intentionally absent of religious dogma because it's not intended to establish a theocracy. You are interpreting that as being secular but secular is the absence of religious or spiritual basis, and that's not the Constitution. It's basis is very much spiritual/religious... that all men are created equal and endowed inalienable rights by a Creator.

Now you claim it isn't. Just another example of you trying to have it both ways and writing what is convenient at the moment. Move the goal posts much you dumb fuck?

Certain passages in the DOI may reflect a non-secular bias, but that does not contaminate the Constitution with a religious taint simply because the DOI predated it!

No, the opening preamble states this as a self-evident truth... not a "reflection of bias." It is the centerpiece of our founding intent. It doesn't matter that it predates the Constitution... it's SUPPOSED to predate it! When else would you have the founding basis for the country the Constitution applies to? AFTER it? This isn't some kind of evolution where the DOI was some sort of makeshift document to get us by until the Constitution and now we can just disregard it. It establishes the foundation for our country, what we're about, why we're doing this and later, the Constitution will apply to it.

The opening paragraph of the DOI states;

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Shit on fucking toast, you don't even know the construction of the DOI! It was a document dealing with the question of separation and sundering a political relationship rather than unification and combining politically! Where the Hell do you get these outlandish notions of fancy? Further, the passages of the second paragraph of the DOI certainly DO present a religious bias and certainly can't be considered secular in nature as shown here;

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

What sprang from that? The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union later known as the Articles of Confederation were created in 1777. However, to claim the DOI founded anything at all it a gross exaggeration of the facts and false on its face. The DOI simply created a political vacuum as a natural reaction relating to its purpose of severing its political ties with England and King George III. The DOI created a need for self governance among other important aspects not related to governance alone, dimwit. The DOI, in and of itself did not create a government, it created the NECESSITY for a government.

Therein lies the genesis of your abject ignorance of the action and reaction of those times and those necessities! Creating the need for a new government is NOT creating the BASIS OF the new government to come later, fool.

You stated unequivocally that the Constitution is "absent" of any religious dogma.

And I've asked you repeatedly, why would anyone expect it to unless we were forming a theocracy? The absence of religious dogma inside the Constitution doesn't make it secular. Again.. secular means the absence of any religious/spiritual basis. The foundation and basis on which the Constitution exists is very clearly non-secular. So we cannot state the Constitution is secular.

Now you can say that the Constitution is written without deference to any particular religion. But again, what is a document that articulates religious freedom supposed to contain? It;'s intentionally written this way but that doesn't make it secular. To be secular, it would have to NOT be based on the premise of individual liberty endowed by our Creator. You cannot MAKE that be the case just because you think it should be or want it to be. Sorry... it doesn't work that way.

Your self-admission that the Constitution is absent any religious dogma is proof that we agree on that point! If there was evidence of such dogma, that would be proof positive that the Constitution were non-secular. You also assert that the Constitution is non-secular by claiming the mere existence DOI makes it so. Your unfounded assertion that the DOI was the basis of the Constitution and therefore non-secular in nature is notwithstanding.

One can easily claim the Constitution is secular in nature because it is based on MORAL principles, which are the very basis of religiosity. Religiosity itself is based on those same MORAL principles. For that matter, the DOI is based on those same MORAL principles. Given the facts that religiosity, the DOI and the Constitution all have their foundational basis in MORAL principles and ONLY the DOI has religious dogma that is merely referenced as a MORAL JUSTIFICATION for action to rebel against a despotic ruler, there is no proof or evidence that the DOI, in and of itself, as you asserted, formed a non-secular basis for the Constitution.

I've already shown above the that the DOI created the NECESSITY for a new government. That new government was tried in 1777 with the Articles of Confederation, which were found to be unworkable because that union was permitted to allow faction, avarice and petty jealousy to exist from its inception without any checks on a States' form of governance one to another. That created the NECESSITY to change that form and type of union to another. In other words, chump:

Secular Constitution ≠ Non-Secular Constitution
&
Political Necessity ≠ Non-Secular Constitution
&
Political Necessity = Constitution Necessity
∴
Political Necessity = Secular Constitution

Q.E.D.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You have "asserted" assertions not facts.

It is your opinion, nothing else.

I told you that the JPs gave a blessing on married couples. That is a secular blessing. That you do not understand is your problem.

Sorry, it's not simply my opinion the declaring of our independence as a nation states that we hold truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal and endowed inalienable rights by their Creator. It's not simply my opinion the Constitution is a manifestation of this nation. Those are facts you can't refute. So now you're just going to demagogue the thread insisting you're right and I'm wrong. That's your typical shtick, Jakey.

Also... FYI:

bless·ing
ˈblesiNG/
noun

1. God's favor and protection.
   "may God continue to give us his blessing"
   synonyms: protection, favor
   "may God give us his blessing"
   • a prayer asking for God's favor and protection.
     "a priest gave a blessing as the ship was launched"
   • grace said before or after a meal.
     synonyms: benediction, invocation, prayer, intercession;
     grace
     "a special blessing from the priest"

That is a blessing in the context of God means.

The judges are not God.

Your opinion is not fact.

 

[Boss]

Now you claim it isn't. Just another example of you trying to have it both ways and writing what is convenient at the moment. Move the goal posts much you dumb fuck?

You're the one trying to move goal posts.

You said: The Constitution being absent of a religious "principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true", there is no other conclusion to be had other than the US Constitution is a secular document by definition.

I replied: The Constitution isn't "absent" this-- it's based upon it. That's the part you don't seem to be getting. The Constitution would not exist if not for "the truths we hold to be self-evident..."

So then, you claim that I have contradicted myself when I say the Constitution is intentionally absent religious dogma. It doesn't need to have religious dogma, it's establishing religious freedom. But the fact that it doesn't contain religious dogma doesn't mean it is secular. For it to be secular, it would have to NOT be based on the concept that our nation is founded upon. That we are endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights and this is a self-evident truth. That is a non-secular basis.

It was a document dealing with the question of separation and sundering a political relationship rather than unification and combining politically! Where the Hell do you get these outlandish notions of fancy? Further, the passages of the second paragraph of the DOI certainly DO present a religious bias and certainly can't be considered secular in nature as shown here;

No, it was a declaring of independence from England and the establishing of a new nation. I get that outlandish notion from the title... the Declaration of Independence. And yes... I know (because it's MY argument) that the DoI certainly does present a religious bias that is non-secular. This is the nation the Constitution was written for and whom it applies. It cannot be secular.

 

[Boss]

You have "asserted" assertions not facts.

It is your opinion, nothing else.

I told you that the JPs gave a blessing on married couples. That is a secular blessing. That you do not understand is your problem.

Sorry, it's not simply my opinion the declaring of our independence as a nation states that we hold truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal and endowed inalienable rights by their Creator. It's not simply my opinion the Constitution is a manifestation of this nation. Those are facts you can't refute. So now you're just going to demagogue the thread insisting you're right and I'm wrong. That's your typical shtick, Jakey.

Also... FYI:

bless·ing
ˈblesiNG/
noun

1. God's favor and protection.
   "may God continue to give us his blessing"
   synonyms: protection, favor
   "may God give us his blessing"
   • a prayer asking for God's favor and protection.
     "a priest gave a blessing as the ship was launched"
   • grace said before or after a meal.
     synonyms: benediction, invocation, prayer, intercession;
     grace
     "a special blessing from the priest"

That is a blessing in the context of God means.

The judges are not God.

Your opinion is not fact.

And so I have asked you... what does "bless" mean in a secular context?

 

[JakeStarkey]

what does "bless" mean in a secular context?

Your question is meaningless. A judge gave his blessing to a married couple means just that. I enjoy reading your points. They are wonderful assertions.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Note that the quote in question is one continuous thought! You truncated the bloody thing fool to change the fucking context you damn FRAUD and sorry excuse for a man.

Nooo... I didn't truncate anything or take anything you said out of context. The quote I posted ended with punctuation so that ended the thought. If you wanted the thought to continue you shouldn't have used punctuation to end the sentence.

Your point was to challenge "all men are created equal" by pointing to slavery and other injustices. But the point is, all of those injustices were resolved using the brilliant wording of Madison and the framers. In other words, if it hadn't been a self-evident truth that all men are created equal and endowed with rights from their Creator and not man... then slavery could still exist and all the other injustices could still exist... because man is the final arbiter. It's only when you remove man from the equation and understand your rights are endowed by your Creator and inalienable, that individual freedom is truly achieved. And these abhorrent examples are proof that it works.

Frederick Douglass loathed the DoI and Constitution written by white slave owners.... until he read them! Then, he realized the profound argument for abolition was built in to the language, it could not be denied without complete hypocrisy. We hold these truths to be self-evident... very powerful words there. Indeed, a damning indictment of the institution of slavery.

Nooo... I didn't truncate anything or take anything you said out of context. The quote I posted ended with punctuation so that ended the thought. If you wanted the thought to continue you shouldn't have used punctuation to end the sentence.

Horseshit! EXAMPLE; "The man fired a .30 caliber machine gun killing three an wounding 7 others, two of them gravely. The jungle floor was scattered with VC!"
Deleting the last sentence completely changes the context of the first sentence.

You're a lying piece of shit! Here is what I wrote and highlighted is the remainder of paragraph which completes the full context of the message you attempted to alter for the purpose of dodging that actually intended;

Try shoveling that shit to a black man who has been required to pass a literacy test before he can vote. Tell that to a Native American who has displaced from his reservation home protected by treaty because the White Man wants what is under the ground where he lived. Tell that to a woman who's right to privacy is invaded by the State for unnecessary medical procedures as a deterrence to obtain a LEGAL medical procedure! The only way to curb those unconstitutional abuses and protect the smallest minority of the individual are the rights defined in the Constitution and NOT some ethereal inalienability.

The FULL context of what I wrote centered on the proposition that the Constitution and the Constitution ONLY protected all the rights of the individual and not a phrase for the DOI nodding to "ethereal inalienability"! To dodge that expressed intent you selected the first two of four sentences of the paragraph switching the context to center on Douglas and a phrase from the DOI. I told you that you were fucking transparent, jerk wad!

Your point was to challenge "all men are created equal" by pointing to slavery and other injustices. But the point is, all of those injustices were resolved using the brilliant wording of Madison and the framers. In other words, if it hadn't been a self-evident truth that all men are created equal and endowed with rights from their Creator and not man... then slavery could still exist and all the other injustices could still exist... because man is the final arbiter. It's only when you remove man from the equation and understand your rights are endowed by your Creator and inalienable, that individual freedom is truly achieved. And these abhorrent examples are proof that it works.

Horseshit! My point was not, "...to challenge "all men are created equal"..." as you claim, fool! BTW, idiot, slavery existed for 76 years after the Constitution was ratified but was finally abolished by Amendment XIII in 1865. That was after a war in which our Nation took part and only Americans and former Americans died! Yet, before then the Constitution could NOT have actually stood for any notion of equality among men with slavery a very real aspect of the US Constitution until it was repealed! Again, my point was centered on the proposition that the Constitution and the Constitution ONLY protects all the rights of the individual and not a phrase from the DOI nodding to "ethereal inalienability"!

Frederick Douglass loathed the DoI and Constitution written by white slave owners.... until he read them! Then, he realized the profound argument for abolition was built in to the language, it could not be denied without complete hypocrisy. We hold these truths to be self-evident... very powerful words there. Indeed, a damning indictment of the institution of slavery.

Frederick Douglass loathed the DoI and Constitution written by white slave owners.... until he read them! Then, he realized the profound argument for abolition was built in to the language, it could not be denied without complete hypocrisy. We hold these truths to be self-evident... very powerful words there. Indeed, a damning indictment of the institution of slavery.

Irrelevant to the point, but informative for a 4th grader! However, redundant to someone above your level, slick!

 

[turzovka]

Thanks for taking the time to comment, but all I have heard from you so far is we need a government, and, Christians do not have a clue who Jesus was, but you do.

I said that Christians have forgotten the face of their patriarch and it is true. I never left Christianity, it left me when it turned to conservative secular principals as it's basis rather than the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Thanks for pointing out my error. I thought that was Huggy who made that reference, but it was from your post. Apology to huggy.

Anyway –So I am confused, are you still a Christian? Or are you saying because the Christian voice so often aligns itself with many conservative social and political positions that you have left attending any Christian churches or abiding by Christianity period?

Regardless, it sounds kind of a weak argument. I cannot conceive of too many true faith believing Christians who do not pray heavily and attend a church on a regular basis. Otherwise, this one who claims to be a Christian and does not possess some minimums, is breaking too many “rules” IMO.

I do not think God would ever fault a Christian for voting republican if trying to eradicate legal abortion was their main reason. And when you also consider many other moral and social differences between the two parties, again, the republican platforms look more “godly” to me. (Not saying those republican punks in congress are doing crap about it. They don’t impress me.)

 

[JakeStarkey]

Too many of the far right socons seem to me to be Pharisaical in behavior and heart.

The desire to restrict abortion is not balanced by a huge outreach to help mother and child to get where Mom can be a tax payer down the road.

Calling foul without providing solution is Pharisaical to me.

Also when doctrine undercuts the goal is exemplified in Mormonism. Every soul is to have a body, thus abortion cannot prevent that Mormon principal. An aborted soul will come back to another fetus, yeah?

 

[turzovka]

Well.... If I were you I would not vote for liberal candidates.

Thanks, but I was just venting, that's why I wrote it.

You didn't think that I thought that someone out there might take this stuff seriously or rethink some of their positions did you? Oh, please. That is not what this board is all about. It's about showing off and making fun of your opponent.

Because almost 100 responses on this thread and I notice there has yet to be one to challenge all the bullet points I made about secular liberalism, or to even deny any of that! That is what is so amazing or tragic to me. It's like, "yeah, so we support things that are bad or immoral. So?"

Not everyone believes in your god. Some like me, that are not "liberals", believe in NO god yet we still have a decent foundation and moral code.

I understand your frustration. There "seems" to be a real "evil" at play. If you are "cornered" into believing the simplistic response that you must label supposed wrong doers, you can do more evil yourself. More than half of the population want some government management of certain problems we as a society face. This was demonstrated by Obama's last two elections.

With NO government regulators and inspectors we end up with disaster as the financial and real estate lenders proved near the end of Bush's last term. We need the big banks. We need lending institutions. We just cannot put the path to the future in their greedy hands. The same with HMOs and Pharms that prey on the cost of fighting disease many of us get taken by. Unfortunately many if not most so called conservatives in congress are supported financially by the for mentioned institutions. These companies pay a lot of money to keep trying to tell the public how evil citizens that oppose their greed and recklessness are. They are LIBERALS!!! They are EVIL!!!!

Your accusations are simplistic and play right into the hands of those that profit from your willful ignorance. Yes there are some very "liberal" Americans. Just not nearly as many as you think there are.

So my accusations are simplistic, but then this is the solution or response you give? >> "More than half of the population want some government management of certain problems we as a society face. This was demonstrated by Obama's last two elections."

You know what that is? It is a cop out. Nothing more. You have said nothing, you have admitted to nothing, you have done nothing. You are playing this angle where because conservatism asks for less government and involvement in certain areas, you run with that and insinuate that conservatives think all govt is bad and they do not realize what would happened if we eliminated govt in our lives. Something pretty inane or close to that. It is a total bogus straw man approach filled with hyperbole and demagoguery. And still you stand proud as though you have defended liberal policies and truly addressed the issues?

Thanks for taking the time to comment, but all I have heard from you so far is we need a government, and, Christians do not have a clue who Jesus was, but you do.

I don't know about the demagogery? Just my two cents. There are a lot fewer actual "liberals" than you think there are. I think a lot of what YOU would label "liberal policy" is just common sense. The big money guys squeal like pigs and use every trick in the book like broad brushing policy that will dent their bank heists as "liberal". Then someone like you just parrots the bird calls.

Ok, I withdraw the demagoguery in this case.

I will concede that there are not that many die hard liberals but how one feels or votes on particular issues brands one as a liberal or conservative on that issue. So even if you are not really a liberal, if you are pro-choice you are a liberal on that. Same with gay marriage, etc.

You call it “common sense” to vote in favor of liberal ideas generally? Is that a joke? Your goals are not my goals. National security is #1, care for the most needy which includes their safety from gang violence might be #2. Then the moral soul of this nation would be #3 and the liberals are about as wrong as often as possible.

 

[Boss]

what does "bless" mean in a secular context?

Your question is meaningless. A judge gave his blessing to a married couple means just that. I enjoy reading your points. They are wonderful assertions.

What is "gave his blessing"? What does that mean? (Secularly speaking, of course.)

 

[JakeStarkey]

what does "bless" mean in a secular context?

Your question is meaningless. A judge gave his blessing to a married couple means just that. I enjoy reading your points. They are wonderful assertions.

What is "gave his blessing"? What does that mean? (Secularly speaking, of course.)

You answered it: a secular blessing. When your Dad gave you a blessing to go forth and be good, that was a Dad's blessing. I miss my Dad.

 

[occupied]

Thanks for taking the time to comment, but all I have heard from you so far is we need a government, and, Christians do not have a clue who Jesus was, but you do.

I said that Christians have forgotten the face of their patriarch and it is true. I never left Christianity, it left me when it turned to conservative secular principals as it's basis rather than the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Thanks for pointing out my error. I thought that was Huggy who made that reference, but it was from your post. Apology to huggy.

Anyway –So I am confused, are you still a Christian? Or are you saying because the Christian voice so often aligns itself with many conservative social and political positions that you have left attending any Christian churches or abiding by Christianity period?

Regardless, it sounds kind of a weak argument. I cannot conceive of too many true faith believing Christians who do not pray heavily and attend a church on a regular basis. Otherwise, this one who claims to be a Christian and does not possess some minimums, is breaking too many “rules” IMO.

I do not think God would ever fault a Christian for voting republican if trying to eradicate legal abortion was their main reason. And when you also consider many other moral and social differences between the two parties, again, the republican platforms look more “godly” to me. (Not saying those republican punks in congress are doing crap about it. They don’t impress me.)

I happen to believe that if you are kind, honest, generous, tolerant of others and help the downtrodden you practice real religion, the rest is just ritualistic mumbo-jumbo. I do not attend church or subscribe to mainstream Christian dogma because the threat of hell is no way to make people be good, they should do it for the sake of goodness. I am a grown adult, I do appreciate being treated like a child with empty promises of eternal treats and punishments. Fear has no place in a person's spiritual life, it should be a source of inner peace not a constant gnawing guilt.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No one should be going to a church that emphasizes fear.

Go to a chuch that gives you opportunity to achieve fullness of character in serving others.

 

[turzovka]

Too many of the far right socons seem to me to be Pharisaical in behavior and heart.

The desire to restrict abortion is not balanced by a huge outreach to help mother and child to get where Mom can be a tax payer down the road.

What's the saying?... "if you repeat a lie often enough it turns into accepted fact?"

Catholic missions in this country have countless orphanages, homes for pregnant mothers, domestic abuse shelters, and providers for single mothers. I would like to find the numbers (not easy) and then compare that to how many secular non-government shelters and care for the needy homes they have? I bet if you look in the yellow pages the vast majority will have some Christian association with them.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Too many of the far right socons seem to me to be Pharisaical in behavior and heart.

The desire to restrict abortion is not balanced by a huge outreach to help mother and child to get where Mom can be a tax payer down the road.

What's the saying?... "if you repeat a lie often enough it turns into accepted fact?"

Catholic missions in this country have countless orphanages, homes for pregnant mothers, domestic abuse shelters, and providers for single mothers. I would like to find the numbers (not easy) and then compare that to how many secular non-government shelters and care for the needy homes they have? I bet if you look in the yellow pages the vast majority will have some Christian association with them.

I said "a huge outreach to help mother and child to get where Mom can be a tax payer down the road." Shelters and homes for the short-term and the breaking up of families is not long term. Don't turzovka, you look stupid.