Questions for those who don't believe in God

[jAZ]

Ok, I've gone back through the 12th and not found the Gunny post you must be referring to. Now I see MM is referencing, will you please be good enough to give me the link to the post you are speaking of?

Here...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=375040&postcount=169

GunnyL posted his comments in green inside his quote of my prior post.

 

[jAZ]

When a word is repeatedly used in a culture to criticize and malign people, and to put them on the defensive, one can no longer fall back on its literal meaning for some sort of justification.

Also, I know it is the typical condescending liberal view that conservatives are dumb, but I don't think people here really need to rely on you for their edification.

Your the one running around saying that a latin rooted word meaning "fear of sameness" is a "non-word".

It's not condecending to correct your false statements.

 

[jAZ]

LOL! Yeah, some of us could bury him with credentials, at the same time, more of us could bury him with truth! Yeah, Arch and RWA included!

I could care less about anyone's credentials either way. Impressive credientials don't mean speaker of facts. Nor does a speaker of fact need to have impressive credentials.

That's the beauty of facts.

 

[Abbey Normal]

Your the one running around saying that a latin rooted word meaning "fear of sameness" is a "non-word".

It's not condecending to correct your false statements.

jAZ, you must read more carefully. You must have me confused with someone else, as I have not "run around" talking about it being a non-word.

 

[musicman]

Why did you chop out my "proof" (really evidence)?

Someone's a little full of himself, isn't he? I adressed a statement you presented as provable fact. You've proven nothing.

Yeah, by doing so by controlling thoughts, words and deeds.

Look, as much as you want to change the subject, I'm not letting you. The point I am debating (for the n-teenth time) is the assertion that liberals and only liberals are trying to create an oligarchy where they control thought, word and deed (through any PC efforts).

And that is precisely the point I'm debating. Conservatives seek a return to constitutional principles of self-government. It is the liberals who fight this effort at every turn, with the desperation of cornered rats. And - as to "controlling thoughts" - one need look no further than that Orwellian liberal brainchild: hate crime legislation. You can draw a stiffer prison sentence for a crime, based on what you may have been thinking.

It's nothing more than rah-rah, my-team-rules-your's-suck-ass rhetoric.

As an American who believes that Americans can govern themselves better than elitist oligarchies can, I will state unequivocally that my team rules the White House and both houses of Congress, and enjoys the backing of the American people in the struggle to restore the constitutional balance of power to an elitist, tyrannical judiciary. You think I'm "changing the subject"? I'm hitting it right on the nose. It is liberalism that seeks to micro-manage every detail of people's lives; we lack the wisdom to see things their way, and so require direction. Conservatism trusts Americans to run their own lives.

 

[Said1]

jAZ, you must read more carefully. You must have me confused with someone else, as I have not "run around" talking about it being a non-word.

Tried to rep. The unravelling begins.

 

[jAZ]

jAZ, you must read more carefully. You must have me confused with someone else, as I have not "run around" talking about it being a non-word.

You are correct.

...manufacture terminology out of whole cloth (case in point: the ludicrous, agenda-driven non-word, "homophobia").

My mistake. I should have said "musicman" rather than "your" (which I also should have spelled correctly).

 

[jAZ]

Someone's a little full of himself, isn't he? I adressed a statement you presented as provable fact. You've proven nothing.

Baloney, I've proven that 1 rather prominant group of religous conservatives are trying to legislate thoughts, words and deeds (well in this case most likely just deeds). That's proof that such efforts to legislate such actions is not the exclusive realm of PC-liberals.

 

[jAZ]

And that is precisely the point I'm debating. Conservatives seek a return to constitutional principles of self-government. It is the liberals who fight this effort at every turn, with the desperation of cornered rats. And - as to "controlling thoughts" - one need look no further than that Orwellian liberal brainchild: hate crime legislation. You can draw a stiffer prison sentence for a crime, based on what you may have been thinking.

Well then pick another thread or another liberal here to debate. Or go start your own thread. I'm STILL debating the point I've been debating all along. That you've chosen to come into the middle of the discussion and start talking about something else.

And - as to "controlling thoughts" - one need look no further than that Orwellian liberal brainchild: hate crime legislation. You can draw a stiffer prison sentence for a crime, based on what you may have been thinking.

I agree 100%. That is one area where liberals have been able to move legilate restrictions on "thought". I'm not a supporter of such leglislation. That however doesn't disprove the fact that "conservatives do it too" which is really my key point.

 

[jAZ]

As an American who believes that Americans can govern themselves better than elitist oligarchies can, I will state unequivocally that my team rules the White House and both houses of Congress, and enjoys the backing of the American people in the struggle to restore the constitutional balance of power to an elitist, tyrannical judiciary. You think I'm "changing the subject"? I'm hitting it right on the nose. It is liberalism that seeks to micro-manage every detail of people's lives; we lack the wisdom to see things their way, and so require direction. Conservatism trusts Americans to run their own lives.

It is not exclusively liberalism.

You sound like a libertarian who somehow thinks that the fundamentalist religous right doesn't exist in the Republican party.

 

[jAZ]

So am I the lone liberal-leaning poster here? Or am I just overwhelmingly outnumbered on this thread?

 

[musicman]

Your the one running around saying that a latin rooted word meaning "fear of sameness" is a "non-word".

It's not condecending to correct your false statements.

What an awful, debilitating disease "fear of sameness" must be! Could you cite one or two examples of the poor, wretched unfortunates afflicted with this terrible malady?

How about using the word in a proper sentence?

In the extremely unlikely event that such a nonsensical word exists, you would nonetheless concede that it has been mangled beyond recognition by lying, agenda-obsessed liberals seeking - in typical liberal, lying, agenda-obsessed fashion - to influence and control thought - right?

 

[Annie]

...

I agree 100%. That is one area where liberals have been able to move legilate restrictions on "thought". I'm not a supporter of such leglislation. That however doesn't disprove the fact that "conservatives do it too" which is really my key point.

How do conservatives do this 'too?' Examples please, links would be nice...

 

[musicman]

Baloney, I've proven that 1 rather prominant group of religous conservatives are trying to legislate thoughts, words and deeds (well in this case most likely just deeds).

Then you ought to just say, "deeds". I think we've pretty well established that it is liberals who are trying to legislate "thoughts".

That's proof that such efforts to legislate such actions is not the exclusive realm of PC-liberals.

I don't know how to break this to you, jAZ, but the purpose of making law is pretty much to legislate actions - or, "deeds", if you like.

 

[jAZ]

How about using the word in a proper sentence?

How about "Are you a homophobe?" :funnyface

In the extremely unlikely event that such a nonsensical word exists, you would nonetheless concede that it has been mangled beyond recognition by lying, agenda-obsessed liberals seeking - in typical liberal, lying, agenda-obsessed fashion - to influence and control thought - right?

Ummm... no?

It's been used to capture in a few letters the idea that certainly exists. It's a lable for an idea. That some selected group of people despise homosexual conduct. I'm sure you wouldn't disagree with my statement.

I would say that "phobia" (or "fear") isn't particually accurate, so in that sense it's not the best word. But the thought that word conveys is pretty accurate even if the root suffix is not.

As for the motivations for having adopted such a word, I honestly have no idea of the history. And my guess is that honestly you don't either. If you do have some factual historic story, please let me know.

 

[Annie]

How about "Are you a homophobe?" :funnyface

Ummm... no?

It's been used to capture in a few letters the idea that certainly exists. It's a lable for an idea. That some selected group of people despise homosexual conduct. I'm sure you wouldn't disagree with my statement.

I would say that "phobia" (or "fear") is particually accurate, so in that sense it's not the best word. But the thought that word conveys is pretty accurate even if the root suffix is not.

As for the motivations for having adopted such a word, I honestly have no idea of the history. And my guess is that honestly you don't either. If you do

We are all aware of media matters, drudge, instapundit, dailykos, du, etcs...

While this is a tad off of the following, the same applies:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?p=375114#post375114

Again, I am well aware of mediamatters. You however, came here to act superior and have failed. You are a troll of the worst order. Ill informed and pompous.

If you wish to discourse, do it on a topic, research for you pov and defend. You have FAILED, big time, with both Abbey, MM, and myself to defend your claims. You say 1k, then send me to search for...

 

[jAZ]

How do conservatives do this 'too?' Examples please, links would be nice...

Man, I am sick of people selectively reading my posts and forcing me to post it again and again.

But for you, I'll do it.

Now, back to the point... you said :

"elitist oligarchs controlling all aspects of society in thought, word, and deed"...

The most conservative religous conservatives in american society fit this description about as well as the most PC liberals that you are imagining.

Porn... banned.
Gay marriage... banned.
Anal sex... banned.
Drugs... banned.
Drinking... banned.

Let's get reasonable here. I'm not saying that all christians feel this way. You however seem to be saying that all liberals (and only liberals) are PC-fiends who seek to control "all aspects of society in thought, word, and deed".

There are certain examples where that is true, but there are just as many examples of such being true of radical conservatives as well.

This is an article from James Dobson's "Focus on the Family" group organizing political action right now to maintain all of these morality laws that restrict the deeds of consenting adults.

http://www.family.org/cforum/fnif/news/a0032319.cfm

 

[musicman]

How about "Are you a homophobe?" :funnyface

Ummm... no?

It's been used to capture in a few letters the idea that certainly exists. It's a lable for an idea. That some selected group of people despise homosexual conduct. I'm sure you wouldn't disagree with my statement.

I would say that "phobia" (or "fear") is particually accurate, so in that sense it's not the best word. But the thought that word conveys is pretty accurate even if the root suffix is not.

As for the motivations for having adopted such a word, I honestly have no idea of the history. And my guess is that honestly you don't either. If you do have some factual historic story, please let me know.

Gotcha. It's not a word. It's made-up, agenda-driven nonsense. As I stated to begin with.

 

[jAZ]

How about "Are you a homophobe?" :funnyface

Ummm... no?

It's been used to capture in a few letters the idea that certainly exists. It's a lable for an idea. That some selected group of people despise homosexual conduct. I'm sure you wouldn't disagree with my statement.

I would say that "phobia" (or "fear") is particually accurate, so in that sense it's not the best word. But the thought that word conveys is pretty accurate even if the root suffix is not.

As for the motivations for having adopted such a word, I honestly have no idea of the history. And my guess is that honestly you don't either. If you do

We are all aware of media matters, drudge, instapundit, dailykos, du, etcs...

While this is a tad off of the following, the same applies:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?p=375114#post375114

Could you clean that up and clarify what you are saying... I have no idea what your point is.

 

[jAZ]

Gotcha. It's not a word. It's made-up, agenda-driven nonsense. As I stated to begin with.

No, it's a word.