Politically, I find most Liberals intolerant of other's viewpoints.

[Liability]

My experience has been that the radical religious right are among the least tolerant people - they are pretty darn close to the radical islamist jihadists.

Bull. You've had no "experience." You yourelf are quite intolerant. And even your username is dishonest.

So, what were you saying again? Ah. Never mind. Who cares what you're saying, anyway?

 

[nodoginnafight]

My experience has been that the radical religious right are among the least tolerant people - they are pretty darn close to the radical islamist jihadists.

Bull. You've had no "experience." You yourelf are quite intolerant. And even your username is dishonest.

So, what were you saying again? Ah. Never mind. Who cares what you're saying, anyway?

One more example of my experience and how I've come to my conclusions. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if this poster claims her/she is a Christian.

 

[drsmith1072]

OK, perhaps it's not conservatism. However, personal liberty comes into play. What two men or women do is none of my or your business. The Constitution actually speaks of contracts...

Ok... I do not want to hijack the pilgrim's thread... but I'll cover this again; only to the degree which is relevant...

Human rights are unalienable... they're endowed by Nature's God to the individual... they exist on God's authority and no one but God can alter those rights, EXCEPT for the individual themselves; and only where the individual FORFEITS the right, through their overt disregard for the INTRINSIC responsibilities which come with the right...

Now the advocates of Homosexuality are quick to note that homosexuality is a consensual organism... meaning that two individuals willingly consent to each other, the relevant sexual relationship...

Now where that is true... where to individuals are so inclined, in the privacy of wherever, they are entitled to tear away at each others rectums until their bowels are irretrievably compacted, if that is what they want...

But homosexuality does not exist in a vacuum... and where one individual pursues another, who is not inclined; where one seeks to lure another which is not, for whatever reason suffering the same flawed program... where one recruits another who is otherwise not already a pathetic sexual devient... THAT INDIVIDUAL IS DEMONSTRATING A BLATANT DISREGARD FOR THE RESPONSIBILITIES INHERENT IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS; SPECIFICALLY TO NOT EXERCISE ONE'S OWN RIGHTS TO THE DETRIMENT OF ANOTHER...

Homosexuality is abnormal sexuality; practicing homosexuals are demonstrating significant flaws in their character; they are subjecting themselves and their sexual partners to substantial risks to their health and to the overall health of their neighbors; and never MORE SO than where they engage in homosexual coitus with those inclined towards bi-sexuality...

There is NO Right to exercise one's right to engage in sexual intercourse with a consenting, appropriately aged partner, at the expense of the rights of those individuals who will partner down the road.

Again, this is not complex... Unalienable Individual RIGHTS... come with UNALIENABLE INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITIES... and just because one has a need to bleed from their anus... does NOT give one a RIGHT to enage in such activity that PROMOTES THE LIKEIHOOD THAT SUCH WILL RESULT IN THE USURPATION OF ANOTHER PERSONS RIGHTS...

Want to enage in twisted sexual deviency... FINE... Find someone to do it with; keep it to yourself and don't spread the potentially deadly diseases which are common to such to other people.

Now where such is the case... where on demonstrates such a disregard for one's responsibilities, they FORFEIT THEIR RIGHTS...

Any questions?

WOW, that has got to be one of the most ignorant arguments i have ever heard in my entire life.
You are actually trying to argue that one must somehow, beyond the scope of reality as we know it, know and respect the rights of the FUTURE partners of your current partner and that if they lack the ability to see the future that they are violating the rights of possible, but as of yet non existent, future partners??

Are you really this ingorant and moronic?

I mean, I have seen people try to stretch and bend in many different ways to try and justify their position but arguing that homosexuals must have the ability of precognition or they are violating someone else's rights has got to be the most warped argument that I have seen.

 

[drsmith1072]

Yeah... Conservatism is fairly simple... but that's a function of Conservatism being founded in immutable principle and such are naturally quite simple.

However, homosexuality is counter productive to a viable, sustainable culture; standing at adds with the natural order; and is to be discouraged for a host of sound reasons...

And there is absolutely NOTHING within the concept of Conservatism which requires the dismantling of necessary cultural standards.

Indeed. Homosexuality is defiant to NATURE. It is what it is. But in the cause of Liberty of us Humans, they may HAVE what they seek, without FOISTING it as NORMAL unto the rest of us or our children for that matter.

Fair Synopsis?

You bet... only adding that they're responsible for their sexual actions and where such results in the transmission of disease; they should be held to account for such; which most decidely would include criminal sanctions; and where such results in serious bodily injury and or death; such should result in capital punishment, just as would any other act wherein the individual should ahve reasonably known that their actions would result in the usurpation of the rights of another.

Shouldn't this apply to everyone and not just homosexuals??

 

[drsmith1072]

Politically, I find most Liberals intolerant of other's viewpoints.

That is so funny.

I usually find conservatives "incoherent".

Well that serves reason... as a Leftists, you're likely a humanist... humanist lack a fellowship with the Father; and absent such, there is no potential for such an individual to grasp sound reason.

LOL talk of sound reason coming from the moron who believes his own spin about how homosexuals should have the ability to see the future or else they are violating someone else's rights. LOL

In other words, your failure to comprehend sound reason is a direct result of your intellecual limitations, born from the noise perpetuated by the evil which is inherent in your soul.

It's extremely common amongst the lost... But there's good news...

Here's a clue: John 3:16... seek him out; he's waiting and therein lies the solution to your problem.

LOL I grew up southern baptist and then I actually took the time to read the bible and do some research. If there is a "God," then my guess he wouldn't be pleased with what man is doing in his name.

 

[drsmith1072]

Quick responses. I spent most of the evening in Bible study and Church council since my last post, and now my 15 month old son is in bed, I need to hit the hay before I teach in the morning. This will be brief.

Well given your examples, I'd say that the problem is that you're ignorant of the individuals you reference, their stated positions and are a victim of a popularly held but erroneous propaganda campaign...

Compare the fruit of the apple with that of the orange...

Why do that when comparing apples to apples works so much better? LOL

Libby, an aid to the Vice President; was questioned on conversations he had years earlier... regarding statements he made in those conversation, which had little to do with his own actions; focusing upon comments he made with regard to and in response from actions of others..; and was charged on the wieght of evidential minutia, from which the prosecutor inferred perjury; and was able to secure a conviction from one of the most ignorant, prejudiced, politcally charged jury pools in the US...

NICE SPIN, however does any of that change the FACT that he lied under oath about the crime that was being investigated?? NOPE so he was in FACT guilty of perjury.

Clinton, the Cheif Executive Officer of the United States, was investigated for, among other things; his statements regarding his own actions; stemming from an ongoing investigation; resulting from similar actions in which he had engaged, wherein he had sought to use the power of his office as Governor of Arkansas to usurp to the rights of a fellow citizen, whom he had molested, sexually.

fishing expedition for dirt in a desperate attempt to drag down a popular democratic president and the only thing republicans got clinton for was a lie he told about his sexual relations with monica that he made during the paula jones civil suit.

The investigations of Clinton resulted in 14 felony convictions of Clinton's closest friends and associates; including the sitting Governor of Arkansas; and Clinton's impeachment... what's more there were dozens of individuals who were sought for testimony in those investigations who prior to being deposed, passed from this earth, typically suffering violent and untimely deaths... The Cheif Excutive Officer; The President of the United States...The man RESPONSIBLE for EXECUTING THE LAWS OF THE LAND: LIED DIRECTLY TO EACH INDIVIDUAL AMERICAN; STATING FLAT OUT ON NATIONAL TELEVISION THAT HE IN FACT DID NOT ENAGE IN THE ACTIONS OF WHICH HE HAD BEEN ACCUSSED... and later came and recanted his lie... confessing that he, in fact, very PUBLICLY HAD PERJURED HIMSELF.

Look at all of that BS. BTW clinton did NOT COMMIT PERJURY. In order for it to have been perjury clinton would have had to lie under oath about the case being tried. His only lie under oath was about his relationship with monica and occured during the paula jones cicil case and since his lie had no bearing one her case at most it was making false statements under oath.

The Investigation which ensnared Libby; focused upon who 'outted Valerie Plame;' it had nothing to do with Libby, per se... and despite the prosecutor knowing full well that neither Libby, nor the Bush administration had anything to do with such; he knew WHO ACTUALLY HAD INFORMED THE PRESS OF PLAME'S AFFILIATION WITH THE CIA...; AND WHAT'S MOST RELEVANT: THE PROSECUTOR KNEW THAT PLAME'S AFFILIATION WITH THE CIA WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO EVEN TRIGGER SUCH AN INVESTIGATION...

Now this is an incontrovertible FACT; and such rests at the basis of the absurd comparison of the two issues... DESPITE KNOWING THAT LIBBY HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE RELEASE OF PLAME'S AFFILIATION WITH THE CIA, THE PROSECUTOR NEVER EVEN CHARGED THE MAN WHICH HE HAD LONG SINCE KNOWN HAD INFORMED THE PRESS OF PLAME'S AFFILIATION WITH THE CIA...

WOW look at the pandering of this righty lemming.

Back when clinton lied under oath and was only guilty of "making false statements under oath", NOT perjury, the righties were all talking about how perjury was a high crime and then when one of their own LIES UNDER OATH and is CONVICTED of perjury the righties flip flop and claim that the punishment is too harsh. LOL


The fact is that libby lied under oath about the crime that was being investigated, then was charged and convicted of perjury. Whether he was charged or guilty of the underlying crime has no bearing on the FACT that he was convicted of perjury for lying under oath.

 

[Liability]

My experience has been that the radical religious right are among the least tolerant people - they are pretty darn close to the radical islamist jihadists.

Bull. You've had no "experience." You yourelf are quite intolerant. And even your username is dishonest.

So, what were you saying again? Ah. Never mind. Who cares what you're saying, anyway?

One more example of my experience and how I've come to my conclusions. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if this poster claims her/she is a Christian.

^ One more solid piece of evidence that you substituting your sub-moronic version of guesswork is not and never can be a valid replacement for actual facts, you imbecile.

 

[drsmith1072]

Bull. You've had no "experience." You yourelf are quite intolerant. And even your username is dishonest.

So, what were you saying again? Ah. Never mind. Who cares what you're saying, anyway?

One more example of my experience and how I've come to my conclusions. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if this poster claims her/she is a Christian.

^ One more solid piece of evidence that you substituting your sub-moronic version of guesswork is not and never can be a valid replacement for actual facts, you imbecile.

LOL Are you actually attacking nodog for "guesswork" when you engaged in the same?? LOL

 

[Care4all]

Politically, I find most Liberals intolerant of other's viewpoints.

That is so funny.

I usually find conservatives "incoherent".

Well that serves reason... as a Leftists, you're likely a humanist... humanist lack a fellowship with the Father; and absent such, there is no potential for such an individual to grasp sound reason.

LOL talk of sound reason coming from the moron who believes his own spin about how homosexuals should have the ability to see the future or else they are violating someone else's rights. LOL

In other words, your failure to comprehend sound reason is a direct result of your intellecual limitations, born from the noise perpetuated by the evil which is inherent in your soul.

It's extremely common amongst the lost... But there's good news...

Here's a clue: John 3:16... seek him out; he's waiting and therein lies the solution to your problem.

LOL I grew up southern baptist and then I actually took the time to read the bible and do some research. If there is a "God," then my guess he wouldn't be pleased with what man is doing in his name.

well, the parable of the Sheep and goats comes to mind....

On judgement Day
All those who claimed to be believers in the Lord and do the Lord's work were gathered to one side of Him, they were precisely the ones that Jesus reprimanded in this parable....And Paraphrased: They proclaimed belief in Him and were praising themselves in their own belief in Him, so he basically said, "oh yeah, where were you when the stranger needed help, or a person was hungry, or visiting those in prison etc etc etc, but because what you did and how you treated the least among you, you did unto me"....

And then he began to praise those gathered on the other side of Him....who also called on his name as Lord, but who did not boast and said to them, when I was hungry-you fed me, when I was a stranger, you took me in, when I was in prison, you visited me, etc etc etc....and this group of people were in COMPLETE SHOCK and said, Lord, when did we do these things to you? And he said, Whatever you did to the least among you, you have done unto me!

He sent the first crowd of believers above to hell and sent the ones in the 2nd crowd on to everlasting life.

I guess I am saying, that those who think just saying they believe in Christ and what he taught, no matter how showy they get with their praise....will be called out on judgment day and the truth will determine their fate...Christ doesn't miss a thing and isn't really in to showiness...

He's more a show me your walk, and not your talk kind of guy, imho!


care

 

[Modbert]

Funny thread, especially considering the number of intolerant Conservatives on this board towards other viewpoints isn't a low number by any means.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Funny thread, especially considering the number of intolerant Conservatives on this board towards other viewpoints isn't a low number by any means.

go back a few pages and read my response to this type of comment.

I was never commenting on the tolerance level of conservatives, if you listen to rush Limbaugh ever you will see many conservatives are just as guilty of the same political intolerance. However one of the republicans main mantras isn't tolerance, so the hypocrisy is not so glaring and annoying to me as it is with the liberals

.

Here check out this post, the Dr gave me some good challenges to my statements and I gave my reasoning/responses to him.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...rant-of-others-viewpoints-24.html#post1497020

 

[drsmith1072]

Funny thread, especially considering the number of intolerant Conservatives on this board towards other viewpoints isn't a low number by any means.

go back a few pages and read my response to this type of comment.

I was never commenting on the tolerance level of conservatives, if you listen to rush Limbaugh ever you will see many conservatives are just as guilty of the same political intolerance. However one of the republicans main mantras isn't tolerance, so the hypocrisy is not so glaring and annoying to me as it is with the liberals

.

Here check out this post, the Dr gave me some good challenges to my statements and I gave my reasoning/responses to him.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...rant-of-others-viewpoints-24.html#post1497020

Yeah and I responded to your SPIN and hypocrisy. It seems that you are only out to attack and smear liberals and your own quote from one of your earlier posts shows that to be the case.

 

[Diuretic]

Funny thread, especially considering the number of intolerant Conservatives on this board towards other viewpoints isn't a low number by any means.

Self-professed "conservatives". I suppose reactionaries don't like to think of themselves as reactionaries. "Conservative" is much more moderate and a tad more respectable.

 

[Si modo]

Funny thread, especially considering the number of intolerant Conservatives on this board towards other viewpoints isn't a low number by any means.

Self-professed "conservatives". I suppose reactionaries don't like to think of themselves as reactionaries. "Conservative" is much more moderate and a tad more respectable.

Using 'liberal' instead of 'socialist' in the USA is like a proctologist using KY before an exam.

 

[Liability]

One more example of my experience and how I've come to my conclusions. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if this poster claims her/she is a Christian.

^ One more solid piece of evidence that you substituting your sub-moronic version of guesswork is not and never can be a valid replacement for actual facts, you imbecile.

LOL Are you actually attacking nodog for "guesswork" when you engaged in the same?? LOL

Oh my aren't you a quick study?

Apparently not.

I was not "attacking" the imbecile, I was merely noting that his guesswork was wrong. And I didn't engage in guesswork about his "experience" claim. I just called him a liar.

He is a liar, by the way. But feeel obligated to defend him. Liars like him like it when dopes like you jump to their defense!

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

^ One more solid piece of evidence that you substituting your sub-moronic version of guesswork is not and never can be a valid replacement for actual facts, you imbecile.

LOL Are you actually attacking nodog for "guesswork" when you engaged in the same?? LOL

Oh my aren't you a quick study?

Apparently not.

I was not "attacking" the imbecile, I was merely noting that his guesswork was wrong. And I didn't engage in guesswork about his "experience" claim. I just called him a liar.

He is a liar, by the way. But feeel obligated to defend him. Liars like him like it when dopes like you jump to their defense!

What's going on here? now i gotta go back in the thread

 

[Diuretic]

Funny thread, especially considering the number of intolerant Conservatives on this board towards other viewpoints isn't a low number by any means.

Self-professed "conservatives". I suppose reactionaries don't like to think of themselves as reactionaries. "Conservative" is much more moderate and a tad more respectable.

Using 'liberal' instead of 'socialist' in the USA is like a proctologist using KY before an exam.

Excuse me if I don't burst out laughing. Someone else who doesn't understand plain English.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

DrSmith why did you hack up my statements like that. You modified what i said in order to fit what you want to see, shameful. I'm trying to figure out how to punch your responses into their context properly before even bothering to respond.

 

[Si modo]

Self-professed "conservatives". I suppose reactionaries don't like to think of themselves as reactionaries. "Conservative" is much more moderate and a tad more respectable.

Using 'liberal' instead of 'socialist' in the USA is like a proctologist using KY before an exam.

Excuse me if I don't burst out laughing. Someone else who doesn't understand plain English.

I am not too sure an Aussie has much room to discuss 'plain English', but okie doke. It seems I've offended you. The collective obviously doesn't like what I said.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Brief replies from combined posts:

Compare the fruit of the apple with that of the orange...

Followed by a lot of blah blah blah where in you excuse Libby

With "Blah, blah, blah" being defined as the fact relevant to the explanation demonstrating that Libby was charged with a crime, stemming from the investigation, wherein THE MAN WHO WAS IDENTIFIED; THE MAN WHO ADMITTED COMMITTING THE VERY OFFENSE WHICH THE INVESTIGATION WAS TASKED WITH BRINGING TO JUSTICE: WAS NOT CHARGED WITH THAT CRIME; AND WHAT'S MORE HE HAD NO AFFILIATION WITH LIBBY... Thus Doc... use your noddle; what was Libby lying ABOUT? It was not a crime to tell someone that Mrs Plame works for the CIA... it was common knowledge to anyone who knew her that she worked for the CIA... And just what would be the end game for Libby to lie to the FBI to cover up a crime, which neither he, nor his boss; The Vice President, had no part in NOT COMMITING?

..., bring in several unproven charges against Clinton that never saw trial

What unproven charges are those sir? Be specific... I merely repeated the facts of the Clinton Regime... I was there, lived it day in and day out, read dozens of books, including "The Star Report"... watched thousands of hours of live news coverage; and engaged in hundreds of debates on the issue over the 8 years of which the Clinton Regime was in power. I have more than sufficient knowledge of that period to qualify for a Doctorate in the subject... If you'd like to debate it... I'd be happy to do so... just open a thread and let me know where it is... then brace yourself... it's gonna get ugly.

, make slanderous accusations against an American Vet and excuse the poor service of someone that (legally) found a way to dodge service in Nam.

First, I didn’t slander anyone... and it's worth noting that you seem to have found a bit of a reticent streak here... STATE THE SPECIFICS OF THAT WHICH YOU CONTEST...

It's hilarious that you bust Bush's balls about serving in the Air Guard, even while promoting John Kerry to hero status for his tour with the Naval RESERVE... which is the naval equivalent of the National Guard...

Kerry is a worthless piece of shit, whose service is such that he REFUSED to ISSUE THE RELEASE OF THAT SERVICE RECORD...

When you're own CREW and those crews of Boats you floated next to, spend 40 years chasing your sorry ass down to report to anyone who will listen, what a piece of shit you were when they served with you... it's a fair bet that you were a piece of shit, of the first order.

This in contrast to GW Bush who released the FULL SCOPE of his service record... and with regard to your assertion that service in the Air National Guard is somehow a means to avoid combat, I'd love to introduce you to some friends of mine who've been in the Air and Land forces of the National Guard for most of their adult lives and I suspect if you'd like to meet them, that most of them would be happy to accept your apology... but there's one who you'd have to kill...; and while I've never met ya... and thus have no means to know the level of your physical prowess... suffice it to say that if you're not a regular contestant, with a superior record of performance in the MMA, you'll be lucky to survive... well, actually... surviving might not be such a great option.

The fellas in the National Guard are fairly accustomed to taking crap on this issue... and MOST are fairly tolerant of it... particularly with those who've served active duty... but when someone comes out and emphatically asserts that JOINING THE GUARD IS COWARDOUS... the odds of getting out of that scene with all of your teeth are fairly slim.

I served 6 years all told, in the Marine Corps... never had a single shot fired at me... but in that time, I broke my leg; was nearly killed twice; witnessed a friend break his back... after I left the Corps, one of my closest friend was nearly killed when the chopper he was in was blown off the fantail of the ship they were landing on and I still have the photos of him hanging upside down, dangling from his safety harness as the chopper rested precariously from the edge of that ship... and so it goes...

My last year of active duty, on the order of 2500 individuals lost their lives in the US Military... and all we were doing friend was training ourselves to destroy whatever we might face, when we were ordered to destroy them...

No one pinned a medal on any of us when we were injured; no one threw parade when the Helicopter we were in crashed... No news accounts even noted the day that my buddy fell from that ridge and broke his back... we just filed it under 'shit-happens' and went on down the road.

John Kerry used his military service to feather his personal nest... he RECOMMENDED HIMSELF FOR MERITORIOUS RECOGNITION... AND HE MET WITH THE NORTH VIETNAMESE COMMUNIST ENEMY, IN PARIS IN 1971, EVEN AS HIS FORMER CREW WAS STILL FIGHTING THAZT ENEMY... while a member of the US Naval Reserve... and returned to the United States and began to actively undermine the US war effort in Vietnam... LYING to a SENATE COMMITTEE... about his service and has since lied about it in numerous written accounts; not the least of which was the now infamous Christmas he falsely claimed to have spent in Cambodia... the lying sack of shit...


Lastly, you want to declare that 'perjury is perjury'; setting aside the FACTS of the Respective cases... And the reasoned perspective of your opposition, relevant to that case… Sorry Doc... That doesn't serve reason; and what’s more, it is NOT a principled position.