Evangelicals explain their support for Trump. It's the racism that stands out.

[playtime]

Most of those sects are rather small.

so? they are plentiful. with Muslims, it's pretty much fundie or moderate...

They also keep to themselves mostly.

I don't see snake handlers going on jihad.

At the risk of re-posting what's surely already been....

oh hell- there's no such thing as redundancy when it comes to proving something with facts...

note the date.

>> Mr Collier claims the no crosses will be burned, only 'lighted.' He did not, however, clarify the distinction. <<

(from here)

 

[Pogo]

so? they are plentiful. with Muslims, it's pretty much fundie or moderate...

They also keep to themselves mostly.

I don't see snake handlers going on jihad.

At the risk of re-posting what's surely already been....

Yes, a picture from the 60's or oven the 20's shows that Christians right now are a threat to all......

Aha, fell right into the Composition Fallacy trap. Just as I planned. Nya ah ah ah. (/twirls mustache)

My work is done here. Go in peace.

Ummm, no.

At best you are going with the Tu Quo Que fallacy.

Au contraire, I have taken on and vanquished yon Composition Fallacy. Long may it rot.

 

[martybegan]

How is Christianity #1?

the diverse beliefs based on eclectic practices within the 'cloak' of christianity. from speaking in tongues to using no invasive medical intervention to using snakes to having multiple 'wives'...

Most of those sects are rather small.

so? they are plentiful. with Muslims, it's pretty much fundie or moderate...

They also keep to themselves mostly.

I don't see snake handlers going on jihad.

those are the fundies. if the extreme fundie christians had their druthers- they would have their own jihad. not a lot of difference between the two extremist factions of their respective ideologies.

Really? At this point most Christian fundies probably just want to be left alone.

The best they can hope for is Roe being overturned and Abortion being kicked back to the States.

 

[martybegan]

the diverse beliefs based on eclectic practices within the 'cloak' of christianity. from speaking in tongues to using no invasive medical intervention to using snakes to having multiple 'wives'...

Most of those sects are rather small.

so? they are plentiful. with Muslims, it's pretty much fundie or moderate...

They also keep to themselves mostly.

I don't see snake handlers going on jihad.

At the risk of re-posting what's surely already been....

oh hell- there's no such thing as redundancy when it comes to proving something with facts...

note the date.

And?

They are exercising their political rights. You don't lose your rights when you get Religion or if you are a bigoted asshole.

Put it this way, if they ever got their way, it means they are a supermajority in the country, and your problems aren't limited to just some laws being passed.

 

[martybegan]

That's what I said ...

If you have to go to court make the government your arbiter in order to try and secure your business ...
Then don't be surprised when the People and government aren't really interested in your personal desires or the success of your business.

You can operate your business within the confines of your beliefs without taking someone to court.

.​

That’s worked well until those beliefs were supported by Jim Crow laws.

Exactly. And that's where we should draw the line. Equal treatment of all by government is crucial to a free society. Trying to force everyone else to treat each other equally is the opposite.

That is where the civil rights act fell short
You can pass all the laws you want.....but you can’t force me to serve negroes
Extremists are trying the same tactic against gay marriage

Actually those laws were made so you couldn't serve blacks, even if you wanted to.

you forget most of these people, if not all of them, admit they can't deny point of sale services, nor do they want to.

They are asking for a right to deny service in a very specific situation.

But progressives can't let that happen, because heresy must by stamped out in all its forms.

Progressives can't let anything happen, because if they were alive they'd be about 150 years old by now.

Ah the label game, the 1st and last resort of the person with nothing better to provide.

 

[martybegan]

They also keep to themselves mostly.

I don't see snake handlers going on jihad.

At the risk of re-posting what's surely already been....

Yes, a picture from the 60's or oven the 20's shows that Christians right now are a threat to all......

Aha, fell right into the Composition Fallacy trap. Just as I planned. Nya ah ah ah. (/twirls mustache)

My work is done here. Go in peace.

Ummm, no.

At best you are going with the Tu Quo Que fallacy.

Au contraire, I have taken on and vanquished yon Composition Fallacy. Long may it rot.

Nope.

Try learning your fallacies a bit more.

 

[Correll]

So, when pressed, your argument comes down to nothing personal attacks and an Appeal to Authority.


You lose, loser.



Anywhoo, Evangelicals had a choice between a lib, who hated them, and a populist who was willing to work with them.


ONly a lib would be confused by their choice.


Dumb asses.

No, when pressed....I bring up your unrestrained bigotry against Muslims and Mexicans

Are you serious? Are you seriously pretending not to realize your own actions?


You lost the debate, Islam is not a Religion of Peace, Ali refused to fight because of racial discrimination, and now you are attacking me personally.


You are an asshole.

There are no religions of peace.....particularly all the patriarchal ones. That doesn't mean that there doesn't exist people in those religions who believe in peace over war. Gandhi for example.....the Fathers Berrigan for other examples.

Ali could have made such an argument. Instead he made it racial. That is a fail for him.

It was racial

It highlighted the fact that we should have been fighting for the civil rights of our own people rather than people 10,000 miles away

Which is not grounds for a religious objection, and thus he should have served his full sentence.


I am impressed that you have admitted that. It is very rare, especially for a lib to admit that they were wrong.


Good for you.

 

[Pogo]

That’s worked well until those beliefs were supported by Jim Crow laws.

Exactly. And that's where we should draw the line. Equal treatment of all by government is crucial to a free society. Trying to force everyone else to treat each other equally is the opposite.

That is where the civil rights act fell short
You can pass all the laws you want.....but you can’t force me to serve negroes
Extremists are trying the same tactic against gay marriage

Actually those laws were made so you couldn't serve blacks, even if you wanted to.

you forget most of these people, if not all of them, admit they can't deny point of sale services, nor do they want to.

They are asking for a right to deny service in a very specific situation.

But progressives can't let that happen, because heresy must by stamped out in all its forms.

Progressives can't let anything happen, because if they were alive they'd be about 150 years old by now.

Ah the label game, the 1st and last resort of the person with nothing better to provide.

Hey, it's your label. Show me that it actually exists in today's world. And how those people live so long.

 

[martybegan]

Exactly. And that's where we should draw the line. Equal treatment of all by government is crucial to a free society. Trying to force everyone else to treat each other equally is the opposite.

That is where the civil rights act fell short
You can pass all the laws you want.....but you can’t force me to serve negroes
Extremists are trying the same tactic against gay marriage

Actually those laws were made so you couldn't serve blacks, even if you wanted to.

you forget most of these people, if not all of them, admit they can't deny point of sale services, nor do they want to.

They are asking for a right to deny service in a very specific situation.

But progressives can't let that happen, because heresy must by stamped out in all its forms.

Progressives can't let anything happen, because if they were alive they'd be about 150 years old by now.

Ah the label game, the 1st and last resort of the person with nothing better to provide.

Hey, it's your label. Show me that it actually exists in today's world. And how those people live so long.

You deny left leaning people consider themselves "progressive"?

I actually call them progressive statists. The more hip term these days is democratic socialist.

 

[Pogo]

At the risk of re-posting what's surely already been....

Yes, a picture from the 60's or oven the 20's shows that Christians right now are a threat to all......

Aha, fell right into the Composition Fallacy trap. Just as I planned. Nya ah ah ah. (/twirls mustache)

My work is done here. Go in peace.

Ummm, no.

At best you are going with the Tu Quo Que fallacy.

Au contraire, I have taken on and vanquished yon Composition Fallacy. Long may it rot.

Nope.

Try learning your fallacies a bit more.

Au contraire again. This particular fallacy is prolly the one I smell out most often. In this case you opined, quote, "I don't see snake handlers going on jihad". Filtering out the poetic terms you're implying Christians are disinclined, by account of their Christianism, to commit violence, i.e. it is not in their compositional nature. Wellsir I read that and provided an easy example that takes that theory to the cleaners, eats its lunch and in the process mixes its metaphors for dessert.

 

[Pogo]

That is where the civil rights act fell short
You can pass all the laws you want.....but you can’t force me to serve negroes
Extremists are trying the same tactic against gay marriage

Actually those laws were made so you couldn't serve blacks, even if you wanted to.

you forget most of these people, if not all of them, admit they can't deny point of sale services, nor do they want to.

They are asking for a right to deny service in a very specific situation.

But progressives can't let that happen, because heresy must by stamped out in all its forms.

Progressives can't let anything happen, because if they were alive they'd be about 150 years old by now.

Ah the label game, the 1st and last resort of the person with nothing better to provide.

Hey, it's your label. Show me that it actually exists in today's world. And how those people live so long.

You deny left leaning people consider themselves "progressive"?

I actually call them progressive statists. The more hip term these days is democratic socialist.

"Democratic Socialist" at least has a shred of definition, via Bernie Sanders. "Progressive" is a term from the turn of the 19th/20th century that has long faded into history.

What you just used above was "progressive" the adjective. Anything that includes progress is "progressive". At base it means "not static". But your original term was 'Progressive" the noun, to wit: "progressives can't let that happen". And that, sir, is a label.

A label which I might add I've been challenging anyone and everyone to define on this board outside of its 1890-1920 usage, which no one has ever addressed.

Now me, I don't use terms I can't define....

 

[martybegan]

Actually those laws were made so you couldn't serve blacks, even if you wanted to.

you forget most of these people, if not all of them, admit they can't deny point of sale services, nor do they want to.

They are asking for a right to deny service in a very specific situation.

But progressives can't let that happen, because heresy must by stamped out in all its forms.

Progressives can't let anything happen, because if they were alive they'd be about 150 years old by now.

Ah the label game, the 1st and last resort of the person with nothing better to provide.

Hey, it's your label. Show me that it actually exists in today's world. And how those people live so long.

You deny left leaning people consider themselves "progressive"?

I actually call them progressive statists. The more hip term these days is democratic socialist.

"Democratic Socialist" at least has a shred of definition, via Bernie Sanders. "Progressive" is a term from the turn of the 19th/20th century that has long faded into history.

What you just used above was "progressive" the adjective. Anything that includes progress is "progressive". At base it means "not static". But your original term was 'Progressive" the noun, to wit: "progressives can't let that happen". And that, sir, is a label.

A label which I might add I've been challenging anyone and everyone to define on this board outside of its 1890-1920 usage, which no one has ever addressed.

Now me, I don't use terms I can't define....

If you use the term progressive today, most people automatically know what you are talking about.

The SJW, big government types that infest the democratic party.

If you think government is the solution to pretty much everything, you are a progressive.

If you think 1st amendment free speech protections have limits beyond fighting words and "yelling fire in a theater" you are a progressive.

If you follow identity politics from a leftist bent, you are a progressive.

It's actually quite easy to define if you actually put some effort into it.

What they are no longer is "liberal" in the classical sense.

 

[Pogo]

Progressives can't let anything happen, because if they were alive they'd be about 150 years old by now.

Ah the label game, the 1st and last resort of the person with nothing better to provide.

Hey, it's your label. Show me that it actually exists in today's world. And how those people live so long.

You deny left leaning people consider themselves "progressive"?

I actually call them progressive statists. The more hip term these days is democratic socialist.

"Democratic Socialist" at least has a shred of definition, via Bernie Sanders. "Progressive" is a term from the turn of the 19th/20th century that has long faded into history.

What you just used above was "progressive" the adjective. Anything that includes progress is "progressive". At base it means "not static". But your original term was 'Progressive" the noun, to wit: "progressives can't let that happen". And that, sir, is a label.

A label which I might add I've been challenging anyone and everyone to define on this board outside of its 1890-1920 usage, which no one has ever addressed.

Now me, I don't use terms I can't define....

If you use the term progressive today, most people automatically know what you are talking about.

The SJW, big government types that infest the democratic party.

If you think government is the solution to pretty much everything, you are a progressive.

If you think 1st amendment free speech protections have limits beyond fighting words and "yelling fire in a theater" you are a progressive.

If you follow identity politics from a leftist bent, you are a progressive.

It's actually quite easy to define if you actually put some effort into it.

What they are no longer is "liberal" in the classical sense.

First off I'll readily agree that nothing on that list is "Liberal". But the question was "Progressive".

"Most people know what you're talking about" obviously falls on its face as definition. Most of what you've given as examples here are activist leftist stances. If that's what you actually mean --- and I don't know yet if it is but if so --- why not just say that instead of trying to recycle a hundred-year-old already-used different term? That just results in a single term meaning two disparate things.

The problem with this sort of vague terminology is it's weasel-wording. If you charge in without an established definition, you can retroactively plug in (or remove) any trait you want after the fact if it turns out to be convenient or inconvenient to have done so.

So given the only definitions we have, if we're not referring to the corpse of Jane Addams, by "Progressive" you must be describing "people who desire things to improve". That's all we have to go on, and it ain't exactly scary. It should include --- everybody.

 

[The Irish Ram]

One prominent black pastor, Lawrence Ware, left the denomination altogether, writing that the widespread reluctance to criticize Trump on racial issues revealed a “deep commitment to white supremacy.

^ Stop right there. One cannot assume that a reluctance to bash a sitting American president is the direct result of "White Supremacy". In fact I can prove this pastor is full of shit. If the denomination were really racist, Ware would have left while Obama was president, because of the denomination's hatred for the "uppity negro' in their White House. Apparently, they weren't racist enough to bash the last president either.

All Ware did was expose HIS racism. Maybe pastor Ware would find Chicago and the Rev. GD America Wright, and friends, Louis Farrakhan, and Rev. Al Sharptongue more to his liking...

Or better yet, remove the politics and the hatred for Trump from your church and replace it with the doctrine of Jesus:

"Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's"

He didn't say, "Do away with Caesar, or condemn Caesar, or rebel against Caesar".
We are to pray for our leaders. And Love God and each other. Preach that...

 

[martybegan]

Ah the label game, the 1st and last resort of the person with nothing better to provide.

Hey, it's your label. Show me that it actually exists in today's world. And how those people live so long.

You deny left leaning people consider themselves "progressive"?

I actually call them progressive statists. The more hip term these days is democratic socialist.

"Democratic Socialist" at least has a shred of definition, via Bernie Sanders. "Progressive" is a term from the turn of the 19th/20th century that has long faded into history.

What you just used above was "progressive" the adjective. Anything that includes progress is "progressive". At base it means "not static". But your original term was 'Progressive" the noun, to wit: "progressives can't let that happen". And that, sir, is a label.

A label which I might add I've been challenging anyone and everyone to define on this board outside of its 1890-1920 usage, which no one has ever addressed.

Now me, I don't use terms I can't define....

If you use the term progressive today, most people automatically know what you are talking about.

The SJW, big government types that infest the democratic party.

If you think government is the solution to pretty much everything, you are a progressive.

If you think 1st amendment free speech protections have limits beyond fighting words and "yelling fire in a theater" you are a progressive.

If you follow identity politics from a leftist bent, you are a progressive.

It's actually quite easy to define if you actually put some effort into it.

What they are no longer is "liberal" in the classical sense.

First off I'll readily agree that nothing on that list is "Liberal". But the question was "Progressive".

"Most people know what you're talking about" obviously falls on its face as definition. Most of what you've given as examples here are activist leftist stances. If that's what you actually mean --- and I don't know yet if it is but if so --- why not just say that instead of trying to recycle a hundred-year-old already-used different term? That just results in a single term meaning two disparate things.

The problem with this sort of vague terminology is it's weasel-wording. If you charge in without an established definition, you can retroactively plug in (or remove) any trait you want after the fact if it turns out to be convenient or inconvenient to have done so.

So given the only definitions we have, if we're not referring to the corpse of Jane Addams, by "Progressive" you must be describing "people who desire things to improve". That's all we have to go on, and it ain't exactly scary. It should include --- everybody.

I'm not the only one using the term, and like most recycled terms, it's use is for convenience, nothing more. If most people understand what I am talking about when I call someone "progressive" what is the real issue?

Progressives back then are different from Progressives now. Liberals in the 1700's to 1800's were different from liberals in the 1950's and 1960's, and the term nowadays is in flux, with classic liberals saying current leftists, i.e. progressives, are often illerbeal.

Labels are there to simplify language. When i say progressive, in most people's mind, the SJW, tofu eating, straw hating, government loving trans-ish pan sexual stereotype is what pops in.

 

[rightwinger]

No, when pressed....I bring up your unrestrained bigotry against Muslims and Mexicans

Are you serious? Are you seriously pretending not to realize your own actions?


You lost the debate, Islam is not a Religion of Peace, Ali refused to fight because of racial discrimination, and now you are attacking me personally.


You are an asshole.

There are no religions of peace.....particularly all the patriarchal ones. That doesn't mean that there doesn't exist people in those religions who believe in peace over war. Gandhi for example.....the Fathers Berrigan for other examples.

Ali could have made such an argument. Instead he made it racial. That is a fail for him.

It was racial

It highlighted the fact that we should have been fighting for the civil rights of our own people rather than people 10,000 miles away

Which is not grounds for a religious objection, and thus he should have served his full sentence.


I am impressed that you have admitted that. It is very rare, especially for a lib to admit that they were wrong.


Good for you.

He can’t have both?
It was not his only objection

Court agreed he was right

 

[Correll]

Are you serious? Are you seriously pretending not to realize your own actions?


You lost the debate, Islam is not a Religion of Peace, Ali refused to fight because of racial discrimination, and now you are attacking me personally.


You are an asshole.

There are no religions of peace.....particularly all the patriarchal ones. That doesn't mean that there doesn't exist people in those religions who believe in peace over war. Gandhi for example.....the Fathers Berrigan for other examples.

Ali could have made such an argument. Instead he made it racial. That is a fail for him.

It was racial

It highlighted the fact that we should have been fighting for the civil rights of our own people rather than people 10,000 miles away

Which is not grounds for a religious objection, and thus he should have served his full sentence.


I am impressed that you have admitted that. It is very rare, especially for a lib to admit that they were wrong.


Good for you.

He can’t have both?
It was not his only objection

Court agreed he was right

The racial angle was the real one, because Islam is not a religion of peace.


The court was wrong. His argument is obviously bullshit.

 

[BlackSand]

I'm not the only one using the term, and like most recycled terms, it's use is for convenience, nothing more. If most people understand what I am talking about when I call someone "progressive" what is the real issue?

Progressives back then are different from Progressives now. Liberals in the 1700's to 1800's were different from liberals in the 1950's and 1960's, and the term nowadays is in flux, with classic liberals saying current leftists, i.e. progressives, are often illerbeal.

Labels are there to simplify language. When i say progressive, in most people's mind, the SJW, tofu eating, straw hating, government loving trans-ish pan sexual stereotype is what pops in.

Dang Marty ... Pogo is not going to agree with you ...

Whether or not Pogo is satisfied with your or anyone else's understanding of the labels they commonly use is not a requirement.
It would be easier to honestly respond to Pogo with ... "We don't necessarily give a **** what you like to use as far as terms".

Priorities people ... Leave the shit like arguing with Pogo about his desired definitions ...
When you and the rest of the people you are talking to know what you are saying ...
And that doesn't serve a useful purpose ... Alone.

You're not debating policy, ideas, vision, nor direction ... You're arguing about whether or not Pogo can accept change ...

.​

.​

 

[playtime]

Most of those sects are rather small.

so? they are plentiful. with Muslims, it's pretty much fundie or moderate...

They also keep to themselves mostly.

I don't see snake handlers going on jihad.

At the risk of re-posting what's surely already been....

oh hell- there's no such thing as redundancy when it comes to proving something with facts...

note the date.

And?

They are exercising their political rights. You don't lose your rights when you get Religion or if you are a bigoted asshole.

Put it this way, if they ever got their way, it means they are a supermajority in the country, and your problems aren't limited to just some laws being passed.

the point being they are just as active 'today' as they were back then... only their violence has been curtailed because of the law. you tried to pass that ideology off as something that isn't happening today. just wait until august 12 in DC... all those christiany taliban types will be out & proud of themselves.

 

[playtime]

Progressives can't let anything happen, because if they were alive they'd be about 150 years old by now.

Ah the label game, the 1st and last resort of the person with nothing better to provide.

Hey, it's your label. Show me that it actually exists in today's world. And how those people live so long.

You deny left leaning people consider themselves "progressive"?

I actually call them progressive statists. The more hip term these days is democratic socialist.

"Democratic Socialist" at least has a shred of definition, via Bernie Sanders. "Progressive" is a term from the turn of the 19th/20th century that has long faded into history.

What you just used above was "progressive" the adjective. Anything that includes progress is "progressive". At base it means "not static". But your original term was 'Progressive" the noun, to wit: "progressives can't let that happen". And that, sir, is a label.

A label which I might add I've been challenging anyone and everyone to define on this board outside of its 1890-1920 usage, which no one has ever addressed.

Now me, I don't use terms I can't define....

If you use the term progressive today, most people automatically know what you are talking about.

The SJW, big government types that infest the democratic party.

If you think government is the solution to pretty much everything, you are a progressive.

If you think 1st amendment free speech protections have limits beyond fighting words and "yelling fire in a theater" you are a progressive.

If you follow identity politics from a leftist bent, you are a progressive.

It's actually quite easy to define if you actually put some effort into it.

What they are no longer is "liberal" in the classical sense.

teddy roosevelt... (R)... was the founder of the progressive party.