Dude, I just said--and I'm paraphrasing--that I consider you and your ilk to be willfully ignorant. Does that sound objective?

I am a logical person and an American... why do I need to identify myself with some philosophical group? I don't believe in a flying spaghetti monster. I don't see any physical proof that there is a higher power and all religions were developed by men as a way to justify their existence... it's as simple as that

I am not advocating anything... it's a fact and you disagreed with me and agreed with me in the same paragraph... are you schizophrenic?

The religious right does think that... I grew up in evangelical churches... believe me... they think they are the "chosen"... alot of religions do. Again... Atheism does not equal secular humanism... that is a single philosophy among many... just like there are different theological beliefs among religions.

Wow, I guess your ability to sense sarcasm is as hilarious as your interpretations. I'll use your logic though seeing as how you're too stupid to see the irony and hypocrisy of your statements. Are those "wacko conservatives", truly wacko conservatives, or are they "wacko conservatives" because they don't agree with your wacko liberal mindset? Hmmm maybe you should stay out of big boy conversations until you get your thoughts in order.

Which is your opinion, at best. You need to see something in front of you to believe it? I see ethical monotheism as a way to better oneself, so we disagree on that.

I'm not too sure what you're talking about, seeing as I just explained what you described as being a form of "relativism".


I do believe the Jewish people were chosen. But how would that make us look down on other religions exactly? For religious people, there is no one truth path to God/higher order. If the religious right truly does that, then they're ignorant..

Edit: And if you're telling me I agreed and disagreed with you in the same post, it's because you made more than a single point, which I thought would be quite obvious.

I can understand what you are saying... I find that is it quite common for them to contradict themselves constantly... the reason is that they aren't arguing based on logic but rather on feeling... how they feel about the subject... so they trip over the logic arguing to defend their indefensible position as someone who believes in magic.

And yet you don't call me out. Why? Because you can't. :1orglaugh

You guys shouldn't argue about anything, yall have something in common, you believe that angry terrorists guided by a guy in a cave from a laptop and cellphone (with at&t) created sept 11. You should join forces and go after the evil truffers.

This is hilariously strange seeing as how liberals are the one credited with arguing emotionally rather than logically, and constantly contradicting themselves, but that's what you get from both sides of the coin who think they're objective and right.:thumbsup

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh funny shit

Like I said, willfully ignorant. And bullies.

Yea, definitely ignorant:thumbsup

Thanks for proving my point. :)

The mistake people make with the Demon is assuming he actually has an inkling about the buzzwords and ideas he throws around. Don't debate ideas with him, that's giving him the benefit of the doubt... just make him explain his own. He will dig his own hole every single time.

Kinda easy seeing why Gambrinus is largely ignored. I have nothing more to teach him so I laugh at his posts. Perhaps if we all ignore him he'll just stop.

Credited by whom? Purely stating that someone is credited with something doesn't make it fact...

There was no need to "explain" that to me... it's a fact. I didn't advocate anything. Just because it's a fact doesn't mean that I advocate one side or the other... I think it's simple to say that there are common actions that can be clearly defined as right and wrong.

Pot.Kettle.Black which was my point:)


Right, so you're describing relativism. I'm not sure if you're saying everything can be relative, or certain things are. If you're advocating the former, I disagree, and you would be contradicting your earlier position regarding your opinions on moral relativism. If you're advocating the latter, then I agree.

Yes... I was describing relativism... and I clarified my post. Everything is NOT relative in the sense that one can easily discern the morality of an action taken by someone of a different culture that just doesn't make any logical sense and is based purely on the stupidity of tradition, religious or otherwise. For example, it's pretty stupid to sentence a young woman to cane lashing for being raped purely because she spoke with her rapist before the crime was committed. Similarly, it is beyond the pale that parents would cut off the ears and nose of a girl for speaking to boys or for any other reason for that matter. Justifying those actions is not an Atheist philosophy... it's an idiot philosophy.

Ok... Then in this regard, we are in agreement. You don't have to respond to the initial quotes, as that conversation is bound to go nowhere.

I find that, on many issues, people who identify themselves as conservatives and similarly lash out at liberals seem to feel that there is this great divide in general philosophy. There isn't really. Liberals do not advocate bigger government as a specific goal (only a means at times) and only the extreme left are Marxists. The extreme right is just as loony as the extreme left. It is the rhetoric that separates us more than anything... it is the way that politicians frame the debate that leads to the chasm between us. Yes... there are differences. Liberals believe strongly in personal freedoms... just as strongly as conservatives... the difference is that liberals think it is logical to consider the welfare of the whole country rather than individualism. America was not founded on individualism... "We, the people...".

There isn't an organized secret plot among liberals as described by Beck and Brietbart... want proof? Democrats argue with each other just as much as they argue with Republicans. However, the current political landscape is a little scary and all of the rhetoric and misinformation is separating us... the people. Why is that? During the watergate scandal "Deep Throat" told the Wapo reporter to "follow the money". Who stands to gain the most from our separation? The government? I don't think so... I think it's the ultra wealthy and powerful who stand to gain. The new "Robber Barons".

This is highly debatable. I can just as argue that classical liberalism conforms to modern conservativism, whereas modern liberals(which became the dominant leftist group since the 60s), are pretty much a perversion of the left.

Nobody cares about Beck, O'Reilly', Marr, Pelosi, Limbaugh. These are all nut cases, both left and right wing.

And that's how you can identify people, like the demon, who get all their "knowledge" from tv pundits and talking heads. Their little brains can only grasp left, right, black, white, us, them.

I think you can argue that it matches your idea of what modern conservatism is... but that doesn't mesh with what the real modern conservative movement is... that would be neo-liberalism pure an simple. It is the mainstay of the Republican ideology... just listen to what they support and what they don't support and you will see what I mean. They are not constitutionalists... they just play one on TV.

Anyone else want to respond to this buffoon? I almost feel terrible that nobody is reading his "I want to sound as intelligent as possible" script.

I knew you would just call me stupid again and refuse to answer the question. You call EVERYONE stupid and yet it is YOU who have faith in utter nonsense. Nobody in here likes you. Do you believe in evolution? Or is it just an unproven theory made up by the left to destroy your faith in your MORON GENOCIDAL invisible friend in the clouds?

I look at classical liberalism, and then I look at modern liberalism and the Democratic movement, and they're not comparable on any level.

http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/Classical_L...ervatis m.pdf

^This is the one of the best things I've read explaining all the differences..

^Does this even warrant a response? Hahahahahahaha

I think you can see what I mean now, Nation:)

You have an obsession with intelligence. Every fucking post you go on and on about how we are all dumb and how you are so much smarter than everyone because you are not a liberal or an atheist. You make some claim about being a lawyer but I think you are full of shit.

Liberals are MUCH smarter on the average than the trailer trash religious cunts like you. I bet you rank in the bottom 10% on the intelligence scale in this forum. You might be smarter than Pathfinder, but maybe not. You are a fucking joke. :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:321GFY

Get the fuck out, did the Demon actually claim to be a lawyer? :1orglaugh

If you refuse to debate, then what is your point here? HINT TROLLING!

FUCK OFF, loser. Go suck YHWH's dick!

Wow. I would ask for proof and claim that you're intentionally misrepresenting my position, but your head would explode thinking about those two concepts:)

http://www.thebloodyforeigners.dk/v2...o_bullshit.jpg

He said he was in law school. BULLSHIT!

Look where you are getting your information... would you believe any document that I showed you from a lefty liberal think tank? It is a partisan description and doesn't even reflect anything near what the current liberal philosophy really is... it is a justification of what I described above... the ideology of individualism. How exactly does that mesh with something like "Country First" OR Patriotism? It doesn't. It is a neo-liberal description of the left... and by the way... neo-liberal does not equal left either. There is a wide swath of liberal ideologies.

I feel awful for you bro, your attempts at sound intelligent are going unnoticed. I'm sorry man. :( :(

I didn't say I get my information from there, I said it's a good read, nothing more. Yes, there are differences between liberal and left, and there are enough similarities to put the two in the same equation. If you told me you were a liberal who held the classical beliefs, I would ask you why you would call yourself a liberal in this day and age.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=127365

Hey, slow down with all that fancy lawyer speak!

and then you link to WND... lol... are you kidding me?

Look... you are being bamboozled by these guys... I am not kidding. It's funny that they write articles like this and didn't write a single fucking similar article about Bush... who had a 1.4 Trillion dollar deficit... and didn't even blink when Cheney said that deficits don't matter. This article is ridiculous on it's face...

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...25-503544.html

You 2 can both go sit in the corner for a time out.

Dont you know the world will end in 2012 unless the aliens come and take us over???


Sabby:)

Here is 25% of why I am not a Republican:
Watergate
Iran/Contra
S&L Scandal
WMD Lie
Abramoff Scandal
Outed CIA Agent for political gain
Thousands of Democrats targeted for prosecution by Republicans who were members of the Federalist Society that used the Justice Department for political gain... only a handful of convictions...
^^ ie: Federal Prosecutors scandal that led to the the resignation of the AG of the US
Ensign Scandal (which is just developing really)
Blackwater - executives have been formally charged at this point
Financial Deregulation by Republicans that led to the financial crisis

Show me a single Democratic scandal that is even close to any of these... I can only think of a couple of a blowjob, some bribery cases, hookers and closet gay congressmen and the Republicans had all of those too.

I was linking you to Dennis Prager, who used to be a liberal Democrat for most of his life before he understood that liberalism went so far left, he identified with the conservative movement, but ok. I guess we're just automatically going to discredit each other's sources.

If you notice, most of those are bolded, because your facts aren't actually facts. LOL@Republicans causing financial crisis. Oh no not Abramoff! How could I raise my kids knowing what he did. I guess he represents the whole REpublican party. By your logic, Democrats are wife cheating pimps. Just when I think you're intelligent, you come up with all of this nonsense, MOST of which could be debated, and others can be disqualified as inaccurate. I really don't need to find each Democratic scandal because I'll be searching for hours, and I'd be ignorant to say "I don't follow this party because one guy cheated on his wife and one guy cheated the citizens!" Next thing you're going to tell me, you can't raise your kids properly because the government lies and cheats.

Furthermore, you haven't exactly clarified why you were a Democrat or a liberal. If you want to maintain a serious debate, you don't start throwing out reasons why you're not something.

So Iran/Contra didn't have anything to do with Republicans? It is a proven fact that the Bush admin fudged the intelligence and pressured analysts to justify the invasion of Iraq... you can choose not to believe it if you want but history will tell a fairly plain truth of it.... and Republicans made Derivatives and Credit Default swaps legal financial instruments after 75 years of being outlawed... the trading of those is what caused the financial crisis... the subprime crisis is something completely different... without derivatives and Credit Default Swaps there would have been only a crash of the real estate bubble.... which wasn't enough to bring down all of the banks.