Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Originally posted by Merlin1047
There is some substantial basis for your assertion, but I believe you picked two topics so disparate that there is no logical means of tying the two together.
You may not be fully happy with Bush, that is not related to the liberal preference of a citizenry weakened through moral relativism.As you pointed out, the left needs a core constituency who depend on government. To that end, they design ever more entitlement programs. Unfortunately, in an ill-advised attempt to blunt the impact that the Democratic party acquires through these programs, Pres. Bush has attempted to emulate Democrats. This has succeeded in alienating his conservative support while failing to increase the support of the traditional Democrat voter base.
No disagreements from me here.But to address the basic premise you presented. I'm not so sure that liberals "hate" values. Liberals, in their headlong rush to create a secular state, are currently engaged in a conscious process of driving religion out of the public sector and demonizing those who profess to adhere to Christianity. The reason that libs do this is because religion teaches values and morals in absolute and unequivocal terms. That flies in the face of "feel good about yourself" lib philosophy.
Libs loathe those pesky Christians because libs are uncomfortable with biblical standards because these standards inconveniently criticize many of the people whom liberals count upon as part of their coalition. The mechanism is not unlike French opposition to our efforts in Iraq. The French opposed it because they had a vested interest in keeping Saddam in power.
To sum up, I believe that libs deride values because they know that if they imposed values or standards, their party would instantly fracture into dozens of splinter groups. This would cause the left wing to descend into total chaos (even worse than now). So the Democratic party has painted itself into a corner. They have wooed and won professional welfare recipients, homosexuals, the Hollyweird crowd, anarchists, illegals, socialists, communists, marxists, fascists and assorted nutcakes. And, horror of horrors, now they're stuck with them.
Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
There's a substantial basis supporting me, yet no means of tying the two together? The two what? I think I'm just so dead right you can't handle it.
Originally posted by Merlin1047
Yeesh. Don't be so damn touchy! I was simply indicating that I agreed with your assertion that the left needs a dependent constituency as its base. I also agreed that the left lacks moral standards. I disagreed that the two can be tied together.
Did I ever say there were no immoral business people? Nope.Lots of amoral and immoral people are successful. Nixon, Kennedy(s), Clinton(s) and Kerry just to name a few in politics. If we went into the business sector, the list would be too long to post.
It's about the values you publicly promote. It's still better to teach good values publicly, even if sometimes you fall short of the mark and make bad judgements personally. Libs promote that right and wrong are relative, that the 'pleasure principle' should rule. That's an intentional harm to society in my book.So I don't believe that you can make a case that lack of moral fibre leads to a dependency on Democrat entitlement programs.
I still believe they actively facilitate the corrosion of values. There are plenty of moral poor. Did I say the poor were evil? No. I said libs were, the inside the beltway power hungry apparatchiks are.and that Democrats hate moral standards in order to create more dependency. Matter of fact, there are probably at least as many moral poor people as in any other demographic.
And just an informational note - if I ever read a post where you are "so dead right", I will not feel one bit jealous. Matter of fact, I plan to be the first to congratulate you.
Originally posted by Captain_Steel
I've heard Micheal Savage talk about the Weimar republic in Germany where the society was completely devoid of morals and values. No limits on anything. This was right where Hitler made his move and gained power over the country.
So I agree, weak morals make a weak population who isn't going to object to anything. Just the way the democrats want it.
Originally posted by MrMarbles
To think 'libs' hate values and try to control the public is stupid. Sure they go to far sometimes in the name of political correctness, but the 'right' keep trying to move society back to a easy simple time, a time that never existed. Personally, i'd rather aim for the un-real utopia 'libs'l go for, and if someone like Howard Stern gets hurt in the process, well he will always have a good support system to fall back on in rough times.
Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
I'm waiting for my pat on the back after this one!
:
Originally posted by Merlin1047
Think we're just going to have to disagree on this one, but it's a fairly minor disagreement anyway and hardly worth making a project of.
Sorry. Not in the back-patting category yet.
Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Wrong. Libs do hate values and seek to control the public. It's not stupid. i promise.
The right believes in basic values and acknowledges that sexuality is a potent force that must be moderated and socialized, hence clothing and the much villainized "shame". The very essence of society is the moderation of animal urges. Restraint and planning are the very defining nature of the human animal. Libs seek strategic cultural devolution to weaken independence and ultimately, self determination.
All in the name of free love! It's more like free hate.
Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Do you really believe what you wrote? If you do, you're far more ignorant than you would like to believe.
Originally posted by musicman
Please elaborate.
Originally posted by acludem
Clearly you and Michael Savage lack a basic understanding of political systems. The Weimar Republic failed because Hitler exploited a weakness in the structure of the political system. The Weimar Republic used a system of proportional representation, that is each party received a number of seats in the legislature equal to the proportion of the popular vote received in a given area. The weakness was that they failed to set a minimum requirement to receive seats. This set up an extremely fractured system in which massive coalitions were necessary to set up a government. Hitler exploited this weakness, got his foot in the door, and then kicked the door down. Weimar had a duel executive - Chancellor (legislative head) and then a President which was a figure head designed to check the power of the Chancellor. Hitler forced the President out, took his job, and named himself Fuhrer.
Don't believe some garbage about "no moral values" from Michael Savage.
acludem
Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Wrong. Libs do hate values and seek to control the public. It's not stupid. i promise.
The right believes in basic values and acknowledges that sexuality is a potent force that must be moderated and socialized, hence clothing and the much villainized "shame". The very essence of society is the moderation of animal urges. Restraint and planning are the very defining nature of the human animal. Libs seek strategic cultural devolution to weaken independence and ultimately, self determination.
All in the name of free love! It's more like free hate.
Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Do you really believe what you wrote? If you do, you're far more ignorant than you would like to believe.
Originally posted by MrMarbles
What? I'm a 'lib' and I don't hate values. Restraint is not in the human vocabulary, it never was since we emerged from apes, and it isn't now, look at us as a species, we expand expotentially. Restraint can be good, but education is better, allow poeple the right to make good decisions, there is the 'lib' point of view for you
Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Why, you wouldn't understand anyways.
Individuals are restrained by society to a high degree
Expanding exponentially is the very definition of successful living.
You reject preemptive defense; I reject preemptive guilt-induced self genocide.
Responsible cooperative expansion of all people in a free market environment, baby, that's what it's all about.
Do I make you randy?
Originally posted by MrMarbles
Not compared to other species on this planet.
Pre-emptive is a dangerous term, with lots of different meanings. Japan's attack on pearl harbour was deemed pre-emptive. Osama would probably argue 9/11 as pre-epmtive. Where you see protection, I see greedy land grab.
Originally posted by MrMarbles
Not compared to other species on this planet.
Sounds a like a fundamentalist apocalyptic story of faith to me. Who's scientific and who's rational? Who are you to be the limiter on human population? Let's let the natural limiting reagents limit our growth in whatever way they may, focusing our resources on the CORRECT problems, instead of making politically motivated decisions under the flimsy cover off the errant apocalyptic pseudoscience of "sustainable development".Possibily, but it will also mean our end.
Exactly! you and your ilk make no distinction between naked aggression and valid preemptive defense, and this is a grave moral failing.Pre-emptive is a dangerous term, with lots of different meanings. Japan's attack on pearl harbour was deemed pre-emptive. Osama would probably argue 9/11 as pre-epmtive. Where you see protection, I see greedy land grab.
'Fair shake at the stick' comes to mean so much in this modern era. It includes a range of meanings: everything from a right to attend public school, to the right to a corporate job without adequate skill or experience, due to a race-based, liberal vote buying system (Affirmative Action).Free-market fine. Gov't protecting the rights and privs of people, and allowing everyone is treated the same, and has a fair shake at the stick, is also good. They can both exists.
No. Sorry.
