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.
[2. Then, there is David Mamet:
Central to Liberalism is the assertion that evil does not exist, all conflict being attributed to a lack of understanding between the opposed.
.
And sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Conservatism doesn't teach one how to behave, societal mores do. The Free market, the Constitution and the Bible are all wonderful institutions, but they do not comprise all the guidelines on how to comport ones self. If someone stuck to these three ideals for all things social and personal, I'm afraid that free will will be the ultimate victim.How sad is it that some people want to see the world through a narrow template of politics?
Some folks don't like being ambushed with a political agenda. Some folks might be having a bad day. Some folks might find themselves being used as puppets by others to sell books.
And when genuine human emotions come to the forefront, there are some idiots who want to exploit those emotions and natural human reactions to make a silly, inept and totally unconvincing political points.
If I stub my toe on the coffee table and then writhe in pain, does that make me a Liberal or a Conservative?
So..."Can't we all just get along...?"
1. Charles Murray, in "Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010," states the following:
One change in societal attitude has been the ecumenical niceness dont fight, share toys, take turns .and never, ever be judgmental.
His point it that it is more important for the future of our nation to stand up for what one believes.
2. Then, there is David Mamet:
Central to Liberalism is the assertion that evil does not exist, all conflict being attributed to a lack of understanding between the opposed.
a. Sadly, this does not square with the experience of anyone. The notion that an honest exchange of views will solve all problems is an article of faith, i.e. war never solved anything.
3. The view The truth must lie somewhere in between is one of those unexamined dogmas. Who on the left says that of abortion?
a. The Israelis want peace within their borders; the Arabs would like to kill them. Where is the middle ground.
b. There are times when one side is right, and one is wrong. I try to spotlight same, and make my point as to who is right.
4. There is a reason that I try to project an extreme right wing prospective....
....I feel the left wing has hurt this great nation in every possible way. Perhaps with good intentions...but with deleterious effect.
I hope that toe feels better.
[2. Then, there is David Mamet:
Central to Liberalism is the assertion that evil does not exist, all conflict being attributed to a lack of understanding between the opposed.
.
That premise is absurdly false, absurdly stupid, and an excellent indicator of the idiocy of anyone who believes it.
If it is not, then it shouldn't be hard for you to produce a long list of liberals who can be verified to in fact believe
that evil does not exist.
Name ten for starters.
The New York Times bestselling author of the explosive new book, Hollywood Hypocrites: The Devastating Truth About Obamas Biggest Backers, Jason Mattera, had his crews camera snatched and hurled by comedian Chris Rock when he asked the star why he has called the Tea Party racist (video below).
I was stunned, said Mr. Mattera in an exclusive interview with Big Hollywood. Tea Party members get called the worst things imaginable and still remain peaceful. But ask a big Hollywood celebrity to explain himself and the guy goes ballistic, wrestles the camera away from my camerawoman, chucks it 50 feet, and then challenges me to a fight. Its unreal. And it perfectly illustrates why I decided to investigate and writeHollywood Hypocrites.
EXCLUSIVE: Chris Rock Attacks Conservative Author Over Tea Party Question
Chris Rock Attacks Camera After Tea Party Question - YouTube
Can this be???
The peaceful, tolerant Liberals???
[2. Then, there is David Mamet:
Central to Liberalism is the assertion that evil does not exist, all conflict being attributed to a lack of understanding between the opposed.
.
That premise is absurdly false, absurdly stupid, and an excellent indicator of the idiocy of anyone who believes it.
If it is not, then it shouldn't be hard for you to produce a long list of liberals who can be verified to in fact believe
that evil does not exist.
Name ten for starters.
Any help for PC on this one? She seems to have been stumped. Anyone want to name some liberals who believe that evil does not exist?
That premise is absurdly false, absurdly stupid, and an excellent indicator of the idiocy of anyone who believes it.
If it is not, then it shouldn't be hard for you to produce a long list of liberals who can be verified to in fact believe
that evil does not exist.
Name ten for starters.
Any help for PC on this one? She seems to have been stumped. Anyone want to name some liberals who believe that evil does not exist?
Any help for "NYcarbineer" in explaining the difference between:
1. A legitimate CONCLUSION, based on the words and actions from those who the CONCLUSION was based on.
2. A direct QUOTE, using the exact same words, made by several people.
Maybe "NYcarbineer" can work on naming TEN conservatives who have called a female leftist "the C-word" (the word used by Komrade Bill Maher to describe Sarah Palin).
Little help for the ol' blank-shooting "carbine"............
This is like demanding that someone prove that leaves are green....Any help for PC on this one? She seems to have been stumped. Anyone want to name some liberals who believe that evil does not exist?
Any help for "NYcarbineer" in explaining the difference between:
1. A legitimate CONCLUSION, based on the words and actions from those who the CONCLUSION was based on.
2. A direct QUOTE, using the exact same words, made by several people.
Maybe "NYcarbineer" can work on naming TEN conservatives who have called a female leftist "the C-word" (the word used by Komrade Bill Maher to describe Sarah Palin).
Little help for the ol' blank-shooting "carbine"............
Central to Liberalism is the assertion that evil does not exist
"central to liberalism"...do you need that phrase explained to you??
If you believe that, then you should be able to produce some examples of Liberals Who Have Asserted That.
You can't. PC can't. David Mamet can't. The premise is imbecilic, so all of you are imbeciles for believing it.
This is like demanding that someone prove that leaves are green....Any help for "NYcarbineer" in explaining the difference between:
1. A legitimate CONCLUSION, based on the words and actions from those who the CONCLUSION was based on.
2. A direct QUOTE, using the exact same words, made by several people.
Maybe "NYcarbineer" can work on naming TEN conservatives who have called a female leftist "the C-word" (the word used by Komrade Bill Maher to describe Sarah Palin).
Little help for the ol' blank-shooting "carbine"............
Central to Liberalism is the assertion that evil does not exist
"central to liberalism"...do you need that phrase explained to you??
If you believe that, then you should be able to produce some examples of Liberals Who Have Asserted That.
You can't. PC can't. David Mamet can't. The premise is imbecilic, so all of you are imbeciles for believing it.
Begin with this.....
In 2002, was the only member of the Illinois state Senate to speak on the floor against a bill protecting premature infants born alive in the course of failed abortions. He had argued that to give such legal recognition to the humanity of a bby born so prematurely would threaten the right to legal abortion: [W]hat were really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided a- a child a nine-month old- child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortion to take place. OBAMA Senate Bill 1093 (Illinois)
Proceed to this.....
1. " Partial-birth abortion is a term invented by pro-lifers. But after-birth abortion is a term invented by two philosophers, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva. In the Journal of Medical Ethics, they propose:
W]hen circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible. [W]e propose to call this practice after-birth abortion, rather than infanticide, to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk.
2. The case for after-birth abortion draws a logical path from common pro-choice assumptions to infanticide. It challenges us, implicitly and explicitly, to explain why, if abortion is permissible, infanticide isnt.
3. Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life, they write. Indeed, many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life, such as spare embryos where research on embryo stem cells is permitted or fetuses where abortion is permitted....They note that neural development continues after birth and that the newborn doesnt yet meet their definition of a personan individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.
4. Personhood doesnt begin until sometime after birth. Once that premise is added, the newborn, like the fetus, becomes fair game.
5. Any burden on the woman outweighs the value of the child. Giubilini and Minerva note that philosophers such as Peter Singer have presented arguments for neonaticide for many years....Actual people's well-being could be threatened by the new (even if healthy) child requiring energy, money and care which the family might happen to be in short supply of, they observe.
6. If criteria such as the costs (social, psychological, economic) for the potential parents are good enough reasons for having an abortion even when the fetus is healthy, if the moral status of the newborn is the same as that of the infant and if neither has any moral value by virtue of being a potential person, then the same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn."
After-Birth Abortion: The pro-choice case for infanticide. - Slate Magazine
The article is published in the Journal of Medical Ethics. These are the same kind of professionals who designed ObamaCare/
"For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world."This is like demanding that someone prove that leaves are green....Central to Liberalism is the assertion that evil does not exist
"central to liberalism"...do you need that phrase explained to you??
If you believe that, then you should be able to produce some examples of Liberals Who Have Asserted That.
You can't. PC can't. David Mamet can't. The premise is imbecilic, so all of you are imbeciles for believing it.
Begin with this.....
In 2002, was the only member of the Illinois state Senate to speak on the floor against a bill protecting premature infants born alive in the course of failed abortions. He had argued that to give such legal recognition to the humanity of a bby born so prematurely would threaten the right to legal abortion: [W]hat were really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided a- a child a nine-month old- child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortion to take place. OBAMA Senate Bill 1093 (Illinois)
Proceed to this.....
1. " Partial-birth abortion is a term invented by pro-lifers. But after-birth abortion is a term invented by two philosophers, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva. In the Journal of Medical Ethics, they propose:
W]hen circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible. [W]e propose to call this practice after-birth abortion, rather than infanticide, to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk.
2. The case for after-birth abortion draws a logical path from common pro-choice assumptions to infanticide. It challenges us, implicitly and explicitly, to explain why, if abortion is permissible, infanticide isnt.
3. Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life, they write. Indeed, many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life, such as spare embryos where research on embryo stem cells is permitted or fetuses where abortion is permitted....They note that neural development continues after birth and that the newborn doesnt yet meet their definition of a personan individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.
4. Personhood doesnt begin until sometime after birth. Once that premise is added, the newborn, like the fetus, becomes fair game.
5. Any burden on the woman outweighs the value of the child. Giubilini and Minerva note that philosophers such as Peter Singer have presented arguments for neonaticide for many years....Actual people's well-being could be threatened by the new (even if healthy) child requiring energy, money and care which the family might happen to be in short supply of, they observe.
6. If criteria such as the costs (social, psychological, economic) for the potential parents are good enough reasons for having an abortion even when the fetus is healthy, if the moral status of the newborn is the same as that of the infant and if neither has any moral value by virtue of being a potential person, then the same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn."
After-Birth Abortion: The pro-choice case for infanticide. - Slate Magazine
The article is published in the Journal of Medical Ethics. These are the same kind of professionals who designed ObamaCare/
Nothing you said has an iota of connection to the claim that liberals deny the existence of evil.
Barack Obama 2009 Nobel prize speech:
"For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world."
See how easy it is to comprehensively refute someone beyond all reasonable doubt, AND be concise about it??
Take a lesson.
Remarks by the President at the Acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize | The White House
"For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world."This is like demanding that someone prove that leaves are green....
Begin with this.....
In 2002, was the only member of the Illinois state Senate to speak on the floor against a bill protecting premature infants born alive in the course of failed abortions. He had argued that to give such legal recognition to the humanity of a bby born so prematurely would threaten the right to legal abortion: [W]hat were really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided a- a child a nine-month old- child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortion to take place. OBAMA Senate Bill 1093 (Illinois)
Proceed to this.....
1. " Partial-birth abortion is a term invented by pro-lifers. But after-birth abortion is a term invented by two philosophers, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva. In the Journal of Medical Ethics, they propose:
W]hen circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible. [W]e propose to call this practice after-birth abortion, rather than infanticide, to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk.
2. The case for after-birth abortion draws a logical path from common pro-choice assumptions to infanticide. It challenges us, implicitly and explicitly, to explain why, if abortion is permissible, infanticide isnt.
3. Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life, they write. Indeed, many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life, such as spare embryos where research on embryo stem cells is permitted or fetuses where abortion is permitted....They note that neural development continues after birth and that the newborn doesnt yet meet their definition of a personan individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.
4. Personhood doesnt begin until sometime after birth. Once that premise is added, the newborn, like the fetus, becomes fair game.
5. Any burden on the woman outweighs the value of the child. Giubilini and Minerva note that philosophers such as Peter Singer have presented arguments for neonaticide for many years....Actual people's well-being could be threatened by the new (even if healthy) child requiring energy, money and care which the family might happen to be in short supply of, they observe.
6. If criteria such as the costs (social, psychological, economic) for the potential parents are good enough reasons for having an abortion even when the fetus is healthy, if the moral status of the newborn is the same as that of the infant and if neither has any moral value by virtue of being a potential person, then the same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn."
After-Birth Abortion: The pro-choice case for infanticide. - Slate Magazine
The article is published in the Journal of Medical Ethics. These are the same kind of professionals who designed ObamaCare/
Nothing you said has an iota of connection to the claim that liberals deny the existence of evil.
Barack Obama 2009 Nobel prize speech:
"For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world."
See how easy it is to comprehensively refute someone beyond all reasonable doubt, AND be concise about it??
Take a lesson.
Remarks by the President at the Acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize | The White House
He was bragging.
The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.
Shakespeare
This President is a monster who supports allowing a new-born baby to die rather than be given medical attention.
Have someone more astute than you to explain why I chose that quote for your post....
....finding someone of that description will be child's play.
In fact, any child would do.....
And, be advised...your Attention Deficit Disorder does not constitute a reason for me to change my style of posting.
Read my posts as a serial.
"For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world."Nothing you said has an iota of connection to the claim that liberals deny the existence of evil.
Barack Obama 2009 Nobel prize speech:
"For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world."
See how easy it is to comprehensively refute someone beyond all reasonable doubt, AND be concise about it??
Take a lesson.
Remarks by the President at the Acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize | The White House
He was bragging.
The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.
Shakespeare
This President is a monster who supports allowing a new-born baby to die rather than be given medical attention.
Have someone more astute than you to explain why I chose that quote for your post....
....finding someone of that description will be child's play.
In fact, any child would do.....
And, be advised...your Attention Deficit Disorder does not constitute a reason for me to change my style of posting.
Read my posts as a serial.
Proving you wrong is enjoyable enough, but getting you writhe in agony as you refuse to admit is quite a bonus.
"For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world."
He was bragging.
The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.
Shakespeare
This President is a monster who supports allowing a new-born baby to die rather than be given medical attention.
Have someone more astute than you to explain why I chose that quote for your post....
....finding someone of that description will be child's play.
In fact, any child would do.....
And, be advised...your Attention Deficit Disorder does not constitute a reason for me to change my style of posting.
Read my posts as a serial.
Proving you wrong is enjoyable enough, but getting you writhe in agony as you refuse to admit is quite a bonus.
Based on the fact that you've done neither, I'm prodded to ask ...does this come with coo-coo clock sound effects?
Before you next post, you should consider asking yourself "Do I really want the word ‘moron’ in my obituary?”
"For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world."This is like demanding that someone prove that leaves are green....
Begin with this.....
In 2002, was the only member of the Illinois state Senate to speak on the floor against a bill protecting premature infants born alive in the course of failed abortions. He had argued that to give such legal recognition to the humanity of a bby born so prematurely would threaten the right to legal abortion: [W]hat we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided a- a child a nine-month old- child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortion to take place.” OBAMA Senate Bill 1093 (Illinois)
Proceed to this.....
1. " “Partial-birth abortion” is a term invented by pro-lifers. But “after-birth abortion” is a term invented by two philosophers, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva. In the Journal of Medical Ethics, they propose:
W]hen circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible. … [W]e propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide,’ to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus … rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk.
2. The case for “after-birth abortion” draws a logical path from common pro-choice assumptions to infanticide. It challenges us, implicitly and explicitly, to explain why, if abortion is permissible, infanticide isn’t.
3. “Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life,” they write. “Indeed, many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life,” such as “spare embryos where research on embryo stem cells is permitted” or “fetuses where abortion is permitted.”...They note that neural development continues after birth and that the newborn doesn’t yet meet their definition of a “person”—“an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.”
4. Personhood doesn’t begin until sometime after birth. Once that premise is added, the newborn, like the fetus, becomes fair game.
5. Any burden on the woman outweighs the value of the child. Giubilini and Minerva note that philosophers such as Peter Singer have presented arguments for neonaticide for many years....“Actual people's well-being could be threatened by the new (even if healthy) child requiring energy, money and care which the family might happen to be in short supply of,” they observe.
6. If criteria such as the costs (social, psychological, economic) for the potential parents are good enough reasons for having an abortion even when the fetus is healthy, if the moral status of the newborn is the same as that of the infant and if neither has any moral value by virtue of being a potential person, then the same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn."
After-Birth Abortion: The pro-choice case for infanticide. - Slate Magazine
The article is published in the Journal of Medical Ethics. These are the same kind of professionals who designed ObamaCare/
Nothing you said has an iota of connection to the claim that liberals deny the existence of evil.
Barack Obama 2009 Nobel prize speech:
"For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world."
See how easy it is to comprehensively refute someone beyond all reasonable doubt, AND be concise about it??
Take a lesson.
Remarks by the President at the Acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize | The White House
He was bragging.
The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.
Shakespeare
This President is a monster who supports allowing a new-born baby to die rather than be given medical attention.
Have someone more astute than you to explain why I chose that quote for your post....
....finding someone of that description will be child's play.
In fact, any child would do.....
And, be advised...your Attention Deficit Disorder does not constitute a reason for me to change my style of posting.
Read my posts as a serial.
Proving you wrong is enjoyable enough, but getting you writhe in agony as you refuse to admit is quite a bonus.
Based on the fact that you've done neither, I'm prodded to ask ...does this come with coo-coo clock sound effects?
Before you next post, you should consider asking yourself "Do I really want the word moron in my obituary?
My next question is,
is it not 'central to Liberalism', in your own opinion, that corporations are evil?
Or, if your answer is no, are then all the conservatives who believe that full of shit?
"For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world."Nothing you said has an iota of connection to the claim that liberals deny the existence of evil.
Barack Obama 2009 Nobel prize speech:
"For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world."
See how easy it is to comprehensively refute someone beyond all reasonable doubt, AND be concise about it??
Take a lesson.
Remarks by the President at the Acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize | The White House
He was bragging.
The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.
Shakespeare
This President is a monster who supports allowing a new-born baby to die rather than be given medical attention.
Have someone more astute than you to explain why I chose that quote for your post....
....finding someone of that description will be child's play.
In fact, any child would do.....
And, be advised...your Attention Deficit Disorder does not constitute a reason for me to change my style of posting.
Read my posts as a serial.
George Bush CHOSE to kill innocent children, nine years ago as of yesterday, interestingly. Willfully, knowingly, and proactively.
Do you apply the same standards when deciding whether or not he's a monster?
Based on the fact that you've done neither, I'm prodded to ask ...does this come with coo-coo clock sound effects?
Before you next post, you should consider asking yourself "Do I really want the word ‘moron’ in my obituary?”
My next question is,
is it not 'central to Liberalism', in your own opinion, that corporations are evil?
Or, if your answer is no, are then all the conservatives who believe that full of shit?
First of all, I never use that sort of language.
Second, corporations are no more 'good' nor 'evil' than labor unions are.
"For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world."
He was bragging.
The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.
Shakespeare
This President is a monster who supports allowing a new-born baby to die rather than be given medical attention.
Have someone more astute than you to explain why I chose that quote for your post....
....finding someone of that description will be child's play.
In fact, any child would do.....
And, be advised...your Attention Deficit Disorder does not constitute a reason for me to change my style of posting.
Read my posts as a serial.
George Bush CHOSE to kill innocent children, nine years ago as of yesterday, interestingly. Willfully, knowingly, and proactively.
Do you apply the same standards when deciding whether or not he's a monster?
[ostentatious verbal superfluity removed]
George Bush CHOSE to kill innocent children, nine years ago as of yesterday, interestingly. Willfully, knowingly, and proactively.
Do you apply the same standards when deciding whether or not he's a monster?
[ostentatious verbal superfluity removed]
It's a simple question.
When Bush ordered the bombing of Baghdad, to begin the Iraq war, that he knew beyond all reasonable doubt would kill innocent children,
does that make hiim a monster or not?
[ostentatious verbal superfluity removed]
It's a simple question.
When Bush ordered the bombing of Baghdad, to begin the Iraq war, that he knew beyond all reasonable doubt would kill innocent children,
does that make hiim a monster or not?
[more irrelevant verbal effluent removed]
It's a simple question.
When Bush ordered the bombing of Baghdad, to begin the Iraq war, that he knew beyond all reasonable doubt would kill innocent children,
does that make hiim a monster or not?
[more irrelevant verbal effluent removed]
Let's just review YOUR record on the subject of Liberals believing there is no such thing as evil:
Remember saying this?
For those of us who have had to sit through predictable movies/plays/books that evince the accepted Liberal memes, you know: evil white folks, greedy big corporations and wonderful long-suffering minorities and native Americans, with wisdom beyond the ordinary, the times, they may be a-changin!
Ah, yes, so in your own words you believe that Liberals believe that there is such a thing as evil.
So that makes Mamet an idiot to say otherwise, correct? Or is this a flip flop on your part?
The old PC was an idiot for disagreeing with Mamet...
btw, the irony of the above? You said it in a post that also touted Mamet. Elegant.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/1868570-post1.html
