PDA

View Full Version : Are you liberal or conservative?


Lurch
06-28-2006, 09:40 PM
And no I'm not talking about Republican or Democrat. I'm talking liberal or conservative. Take a freaking position. With credit to Dictionary.com:

lib·er·al·ism The state or quality of being liberal.
A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority. 2. often Liberalism The tenets or policies of a Liberal party..


con·ser·va·tism. The inclination, especially in politics, to maintain the existing or traditional order. A political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism, and opposition to sudden change in the established order. Conservatism The principles and policies of the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom or of the Progressive Conservative Party in Canada. Caution or moderation, as in behavior or outlook.

I see alot of folks claiming to be moderate around here. Then I read their posts. Seems to me a lot of folks are deluding themselves. So put it out there....be proud, be loud. Don't be a mushy middle wuss. For the public record, do you lean to the left of the right?2

Phobia
06-28-2006, 09:54 PM
Reading the definitions, I'm inclined to say I'm more liberal than conservative. Though I've most often fallen in line with the conservatives way of thinking. I dislike all political parties and most politicians. I think they're mostly crooks who work the system.

Mr. Kotter
06-28-2006, 09:56 PM
Reading the definitions, I'm inclined to say I'm more liberal than conservative....
That's because those definitions are skewed--they idealize liberalism, and pergoratize conservatism.....I'd could be liberal by that definition. But I marked the "right" column.

Donger
06-28-2006, 10:01 PM
The principles and policies of the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom or of the Progressive Conservative Party in Canada.

Sh*t. I guess I'm a liberal.

Mr. Kotter
06-28-2006, 10:03 PM
Sh*t. I guess I'm a liberal.

ROFL

WoodDraw
06-28-2006, 10:07 PM
That's because those definitions are skewed--they idealize liberalism, and pergoratize conservatism.....I'd could be liberal by that definition. But I marked the "right" column.

Well liberalism doesn't equal the American definition of "liberal". Liberalism is the belief in a democratic government and a free society. Liberalism and conservatism aren't opposities in the sense they are presented here.

|Zach|
06-28-2006, 10:10 PM
Ehh not interested in a poll that black and white.

But I like the way conservitives....you know real conservitives not whatever form of conservitism we have in office now run government. I don't think the government is particularly good at some things and see no reason for it being expanded with social programs that don't seem to get the job done. I don't want them wiped out but I believe in smaller government.

I tend to lean left socially across the board no doubt.

Donger
06-28-2006, 10:11 PM
Well liberalism doesn't equal the American definition of "liberal". Liberalism is the belief in a democratic government and a free society. Liberalism and conservatism aren't opposities in the sense they are presented here.

I'm admittedly simplistic in this definition, but to me, in a societal definition, conservatism is "leave it the the f*ck alone." Liberalism is, "this isn't right and we need to change it."

Logical
06-28-2006, 10:15 PM
Very slightly conservative

Lurch
06-28-2006, 10:15 PM
...I tend to lean left socially across the board no doubt.
Thanks for your vote.

|Zach|
06-28-2006, 10:16 PM
Thanks for you vote.
Didn't vote. The poll is well...

Stupid.

Lurch
06-28-2006, 10:19 PM
Didn't vote. The poll is well...

Stupid.

Eh. I C, no nads there ZachKotterKC?

|Zach|
06-28-2006, 10:21 PM
Eh. I C, no nads there ZachKotterKC?
I hate to ruin the party but voting on a political poll on an internet message board does not exactly put a stamp on your hard ass card.

Lurch
06-28-2006, 10:22 PM
I hate to ruin the party but voting on a political poll on an internet message board does not exactly put a stamp on your hard ass card.

It sure doesn't. But visiting that site of yours did.

|Zach|
06-28-2006, 10:27 PM
It sure doesn't. But visiting that site of yours did.
What can I say its been good to me.

|Zach|
06-28-2006, 10:34 PM
Iraq War...

Great War or Greatest War...

Vote.

Lurch
06-28-2006, 11:03 PM
Iraq War...

Great War or Greatest War...

Vote.
Little difference between the choices you offer If you believe that to be the case in the poll, you are naive.

|Zach|
06-28-2006, 11:09 PM
Little difference between the choices you offer If you believe that to be the case in the poll, you are naive.
I will put you down for greatest war.

Ultra Peanut
06-28-2006, 11:37 PM
PICK A SIDE YOU PUSSY

IT IS VITALLY IMPORTANT THAT YOU TAKE ONE SIDE OR ANOTHER BECAUSE IF YOU DO NOT HOW WILL PEOPLE ARGUE LIKE RETARDS

patteeu
06-28-2006, 11:43 PM
I should have read the definitions before voting. I'd like to change my vote from conservative to liberal.

tk13
06-28-2006, 11:49 PM
PICK A SIDE YOU PUSSY

IT IS VITALLY IMPORTANT THAT YOU TAKE ONE SIDE OR ANOTHER BECAUSE IF YOU DO NOT HOW WILL PEOPLE ARGUE LIKE RETARDS
ROFL

Moooo
06-29-2006, 12:03 AM
I like to think of myself as being very European in belief...

Moooo

the Talking Can
06-29-2006, 12:15 AM
my penis is liberally used by hot conservative chicks...they like it when I say "strict constructionist"...

BigMeatballDave
06-29-2006, 12:54 AM
I'm conservatively, liberal...

BigMeatballDave
06-29-2006, 12:55 AM
my penis is liberally used by hot conservative chicks...they like it when I say "strict constructionist"...
ROFL

BucEyedPea
06-29-2006, 06:31 AM
That's because those definitions are skewed--they idealize liberalism, and pergoratize conservatism.....I'd could be liberal by that definition. But I marked the "right" column.
I agree with you 100%....so I still picked conservative.

Actually, when you really think about it, the conservative philosophy is closer to the "classical liberalism" of our Founding Fathers than the modern liberals of today. Particularly since they favor a strict construction of the Constitution using the Founders own documents to clear up any ambiguities where that can be done in order to restrain federal power. They favor limited gov't that falls in line within federalism, which diffuses power so it does not get concentrated at the top—the real danger imo.

The word "liberal" has been hijacked by progressives who are really social-democrats, a type of incremental socialism ( gov't activism/social engineering to create an egalitarian society) done through the vote...'er I mean courts in order to expand federal power. Ha!


NeoCons are an entirely different matter though...they are also socialist.
Only their activism is more emphasized by social engineering foreign govts which requires military intervention—the opposite of a modern liberal.So these guys also expand federal power as well.

It's all propaganda by redefinition of words, just like Orwell said could be done.

chagrin
06-29-2006, 06:41 AM
I agree with you 100%....so I still picked conservative.

Actually, when you really think about it, the conservative philosophy is closer to the "classical liberalism" of our Founding Fathers than the modern liberals of today. Particularly since they favor a strict construction of the Constitution using the Founders own documents to clear up any ambiguities where that can be done in order to restrain federal power. They favor limited gov't that falls in line within federalism, which diffuses power so it does not get concentrated at the top—the real danger imo.

The word "liberal" has been hijacked by progressives who are really social-democrats, a type of incremental socialism ( gov't activism/social engineering to create an egalitarian society) done through the vote...'er I mean courts in order to expand federal power. Ha!


NeoCons are an entirely different matter though...they are also socialist.
Only their activism is more emphasized by social engineering foreign govts which requires military intervention—the opposite of a modern liberal.So these guys also expand federal power as well.

It's all propaganda by redefinition of words, just like Orwell said could be done.

You're very impressed with yourself, aren't you

chagrin
06-29-2006, 06:43 AM
I'm conservative, and I can't wait to see the shit that will spew on this thread.

Mr. Kotter
06-29-2006, 06:52 AM
my penis is liberally used by hot conservative chicks...they like it when I say "strict constructionist"...You are a liar, sir. No way someone like you even has a penis.

KC Jones
06-29-2006, 07:36 AM
Neo conservatives are more facist than socialist. They don't want the state to own and control industry, but rather want a strong federal government that works in conjunction with industry leaders to control and expand markets.

Most of the liberals I know are not socialists either as they do not want government to own businesses and support competitive economic practices, but instead see government as a way to balance societies general well being and safety with economic forces. Of course, it suits the conservative agenda to mislabel these endeavors with the 'socialist' bogeyman and make sure the term liberal is synonomous with socialism.

'Conservatives' today are pretty spread out between the empire building neo-conservatives, the religious right, and the more traditional reagan conservatives. Sadly, the reaganites are on the outside looking in at their former party and watching the religious nuts and neo-cons run the show.

I picked left, because I believe some regulation of markets is necessary. I do not believe that markets are self regulating and left to their own ends, ultimately kill competition with monopolies or collusion/price fixing. However, my views have changed considerably over the years and I do believe in reducing the federal government, rolling back social programs, and possibly eliminating or drastically altering the income tax.

ct
06-29-2006, 07:46 AM
And no I'm not talking about Republican or Democrat. I'm talking liberal or conservative. Take a freaking position. With credit to Dictionary.com:

lib·er·al·ism The state or quality of being liberal.
A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority. 2. often Liberalism The tenets or policies of a Liberal party..


con·ser·va·tism. The inclination, especially in politics, to maintain the existing or traditional order. A political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism, and opposition to sudden change in the established order. Conservatism The principles and policies of the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom or of the Progressive Conservative Party in Canada. Caution or moderation, as in behavior or outlook.

I see alot of folks claiming to be moderate around here. Then I read their posts. Seems to me a lot of folks are deluding themselves. So put it out there....be proud, be loud. Don't be a mushy middle wuss. For the public record, do you lean to the left of the right?

It's the extreme bipolars that are ****ing up this country. How's this, how's about we be flexible, to make the correct decisions, rather than the left/right hard-line approach?

banyon
06-29-2006, 07:48 AM
Am I supposed to pick one of the 2 or three definitions under each choice and go with it?

Who wouldn't fit in conservatism definition #3?

"Um, no let's act hastily and throw caution to the wind!"

...oh wait, I can think of a guy.

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2004/SHOWBIZ/Movies/06/24/review.fahrenheit/story.bush.911.jpg

htismaqe
06-29-2006, 08:02 AM
I voted conservative because I felt that would get the best reaction.

In reality, I see alot in BOTH definitions that I espouse, and many of them are not exlusive. For example:

I think the principle "distrust of government activism" fits in perfectly with "government by law with the consent of the governed".

BucEyedPea
06-29-2006, 08:11 AM
Neo conservatives are more facist than socialist. They don't want the state to own and control industry, but rather want a strong federal government that works in conjunction with industry leaders to control and expand markets.

Well, that's also true. However, bear in mind that fascism shares much in common with socialism—at least six points. They are under the same collectivistic umbrella. It's just a matter of how fascist do it. Instead of outright ownership by the state, they over-regulate for the collective good to the point where it is not real "ownership" of one's property even though one still holds the title to it. Ownership means the right to control something. The aim is a collectivistic one even when in partnership with corporate interests which is another feature.

Most of the liberals I know are not socialists either as they do not want government to own businesses and support competitive economic practices, but instead see government as a way to balance societies general well being and safety with economic forces. Of course, it suits the conservative agenda to mislabel these endeavors with the 'socialist' bogeyman and make sure the term liberal is synonomous with socialism.

Gonna have to disagree...I find "modern" liberals (really leftists) are just in denial that they are socialist. It may not follow the Soviet Marxist-Leninistic model but the welfare-state (transfer of wealth) is just a type of socialism. That's still control of the major means or production which is "you" and "me"—not just businesses or machinery. Sense of property is still communistic, no matter the spin.

These men said it best:

"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism, but under the name of Liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened" — Norman Thomas, Socialist Party Presidential candidate from 1928-1948

“The difference between Democrats and Republicans is: Democrats have accepted some ideas of Socialism cheerfully, while Republicans have accepted them reluctantly”—Norman Thomas

" We are going to try to take all of the money that we thing is unecesssarily being spent and take it from the 'haves' and give it to the 'have nots' that need it so much.— LBJ ( Instituted [i] War on Poverty even though it was declining)

'Conservatives' today are pretty spread out between the empire building neo-conservatives, the religious right, and the more traditional reagan conservatives. Sadly, the reaganites are on the outside looking in at their former party and watching the religious nuts and neo-cons run the show.
Good observation...I'd have to agree.
I'm definitely looking in today.

I picked left, because I believe some regulation of markets is necessary. I do not believe that markets are self regulating and left to their own ends, ultimately kill competition with monopolies or collusion/price fixing.

Depending on how much I'd say would make one left. Of course fraud,public health and things of such nature would still be regulated by a conservative or right-libertarian. But generally if you don't believe markets are self-regulating for the greater part, it is left position.

Also, there are coercive monopolies that are CREATED by GOVT and non-coercive which do not harm and will self regulate by and large. How we are educated today I feel has led to gross misunderstanding's about markets. I feel it is due to Keyenesian economics mainly being taught. If I could choose two subjects that most define a leftist-liberal today it would be their views on markets and the role of religion.

However, my views have changed considerably over the years and I do believe in reducing the federal government, rolling back social programs, and possibly eliminating or drastically altering the income tax.
Wow! I can't believe I read that. Good for you. You sound more classical liberal with a only a mild bent toward today's left. IMO. I can live with that so long as we move in the other direction.

htismaqe
06-29-2006, 08:14 AM
The political spectrum is not linear, it's circular.

htismaqe
06-29-2006, 08:26 AM
Here is an illustration of why facism and communism share so many traits...

banyon
06-29-2006, 08:44 AM
Gonna have to disagree...I find "modern" liberals (really leftists) are just in denial that they are socialist. It may not follow the Soviet Marxist-Leninistic model but the welfare-state (transfer of wealth) is just a type of socialism.


Wow you find that people are socialists?

SAY IT AIN'T SO!!!

Mr. Kotter
06-29-2006, 08:57 AM
The political spectrum is not linear, it's circular.

True.

If you don't know what he means, you should.

htismaqe
06-29-2006, 09:02 AM
True.

If you don't know what he means, you should.

That's why I drew that picture. It's much easier to draw than explain for me. :D

stevieray
06-29-2006, 09:08 AM
That's why I drew that picture. It's much easier to draw than explain for me. :D

Hey, I represent that!

Baby Lee
06-29-2006, 09:20 AM
The political spectrum is not linear, it's circular.
That's why I drew that picture. It's much easier to draw than explain for me. :D

You know, for kids!!!

http://x-stream.fortunecity.com/fleetst/71/hspcover.jpg

BucEyedPea
06-29-2006, 09:24 AM
True.

If you don't know what he means, you should.

I don't necessarily disagree...nor fully agree.
I just think there needs more explanation to accompany it.

If no govt ( anarchy) is on the right with total govt on the left
(socialisms, facisms, dicatorships, totalitarianisms etc.) with the center in the middle ( half govt, half freedom)...what happens is that anarchy or an absence of govt' ( a vacuum) even if only momentarily a true vacuum, usually gets filled with something-------> usually the biggest bully.

So we usually see dictatorship fill that void but this merely gives the appearance of a circle or as some call it an arch. You could bend that line into an arch, or a circle if you prefer.

This phenomena leads me to believe that's how libertarians got their square image representation which uses cartesian coordinates...since they split anarchy on both sides. You could take that line and bend it into an arch and place it over that square chart. You'd see the same phenomena being explained.

I think if the definition's hold, one could really use any image. So I don't disagree with the circle concept...to me it's similar to the arch but they begin with a linear example. I don't see it as contradictory.

I think one reason why people associate anarchy with communism is because what's really happening is that they use anarchy to create confusion in order to overthrow the existing order, merely to replace it with it's own total govt or dictatorship, since true communism ( absence of govt never exists).

Baby Lee
06-29-2006, 09:26 AM
Fine, the spectrum is a dodecahedron.

Do-deca-HEEE-dron, maggie.

BucEyedPea
06-29-2006, 09:29 AM
Fine, the spectrum is a dodecahedron.

Do-deca-HEEE-dron, maggie.
:doh!: Could you draw a picture, please. That's Greek to me.

htismaqe
06-29-2006, 09:31 AM
I don't necessarily disagree...nor fully agree.
I just think there needs more explanation to accompany it.

If no govt ( anarchy) is on the right with total govt on the left
(socialisms, facisms, dicatorships, totalitarianisms etc.) with the center in the middle ( half govt, half freedom)...what happens is that anarchy or an absence of govt' ( a vacuum) even if only momentarily a true vacuum, usually gets filled with something-------> usually the biggest bully.

So we usually see dictatorship fill that void but this merely gives the appearance of a circle or as some call it an arch. You could bend that line into an arch, or a circle if you prefer.

This phenomena leads me to believe that's how libertarians got their square image representation which uses cartesian coordinates...since they split anarchy on both sides. You could take that line and bend it into an arch and place it over that square chart. You'd see the same phenomena being explained.

I think if the definition's hold, one could really use any image. So I don't disagree with the circle concept...to me it's similar to the arch but they begin with a linear example. I don't see it as contradictory.

I think one reason why people associate anarchy with communism is because what's really happening is that they use anarchy to create confusion in order to overthrow the existing order, merely to replace it with it's own total govt or dictatorship, since true communism ( absence of govt never exists).

Anarchy and Marxist Communism aren't depicted in my diagram because they are ideals, not governements. They don't actually exist, nor will they.

Always a Chief fan
06-29-2006, 09:32 AM
conservative

Baby Lee
06-29-2006, 09:36 AM
:doh!: Could you draw a picture, please. That's Greek to me.
http://whistleralley.com/polyhedra/dodec01.gif
Explained (http://whistleralley.com/polyhedra/dodecahedron.htm)

BTW - It was just a Simpson's reference. ;)

BucEyedPea
06-29-2006, 09:38 AM
Anarchy and Marxist Communism aren't depicted in my diagram because they are ideals, not governements. They don't actually exist, nor will they.

I don't disagree....'cept for anarchy ( which is brief and fleeting) I kinda said that in different words.

On the other hand Marxism-Leninism does exist [ violent revolutionary overthrow (Leninism) for a socialist dictatorsip (Marx)]...such as the old Soviet Union which was really just a Socialist dictatorship. Socialism requires draconian govt to implement...no?

But pure communism, has never existed on a govt level because once any group gains power it never wants to let it go...so it is an ideal. I agree with ya' there.

On the other hand true communism, which is voluntary, has existed in religious orders such as the Jesuits.

Ultra Peanut
06-29-2006, 09:41 AM
In reality, I see alot in BOTH definitions that I espouse, and many of them are not exlusive. JESUS CHRIST YOU WUSS TAKE A STAND

htismaqe
06-29-2006, 09:41 AM
On the other hand true communism, which is voluntary, has existed in religious orders such as the Jesuits.

True, it just doesn't scale.

htismaqe
06-29-2006, 09:42 AM
JESUS CHRIST YOU WUSS TAKE A STAND

Ah, the life of a moderate. :D

stevieray
06-29-2006, 09:46 AM
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

FringeNC
06-29-2006, 09:46 AM
America is the only country where socialists and statists are called "liberals".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

BucEyedPea
06-29-2006, 09:50 AM
Ah, the life of a moderate. :D

Actually, the original constitutional formula was in the middle ( even on a linear scale as discussed above). It was a balance between the big govt monarchy's of Europe (statist models) and total freedom of no govt ( as an ideal). It was a mixed formula that borrowed some from monarchy, aristocracy and democracy. It had the federal level responsible for certain "enumerated" spheres and other areas such as states, local communities, the family and individuals responsible for their spheres. This diffused power vertically among the people and horizontally in the govt. This gave us a special type of republic.... a mixed balance. This to me is "classical liberalism,"

Progressivism, modern liberalism upset this balance putting most of it at the top among doing other things. NeoConservatism does the same. Both misunderstand this...and they refuse to see what is really meant as a conservative stand on "limited govt."

htismaqe
06-29-2006, 09:50 AM
America is the only country where socialists and statists are called "liberals".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

Very true if you're talking about "classic" liberalism. Obviously, we're not. We're talking about modern liberalism.

htismaqe
06-29-2006, 09:54 AM
Actually, the original constitutional formula was in the middle ( even on a linear scale as discussed above). It was a balance between the big govt monarchy's of Europe (statist models) and total freedom of no govt ( as an ideal). It was a mixed formula that borrowed some from monarchy, aristocracy and democracy. It had the federal level responsible for certain "enumerated" spheres and other areas such as states, local communities, the family and individuals responsible for their spheres. This diffused power vertically among the people and horizontally in the govt. This gave as a special type or republic.... a mixed balance. This to me is "classical liberalism,"

Progressivism, modern liberalism upset this balance putting most of it at the top among doing other things. NeoConservatism does the same.

That's why I said "moderate" as opposed to "neutral"

A neutral is someone who espouses so little of either side that they sit in the middle.

A moderate who espouses enough of one side that it balances out the tenants of the other side that they also espouse.

And for the record, "classic" liberalism bears the individual above all else. The closest thing we have in our political system is Libertarianism.

BucEyedPea
06-29-2006, 10:00 AM
That's why I said "moderate" as opposed to "neutral"

A neutral is someone who espouses so little of either side that they sit in the middle.

A moderate who espouses enough of one side that it balances out the tenants of the other side that they also espouse.

And for the record, "classic" liberalism bears the individual above all else. The closest thing we have in our political system is Libertarianism.

You and I think a lot alike. I agree.

So many people think moderate means a little bit from left and right.
That's kinda sorta true but not exactly it.

I think of it as not really being philosophically aligned so that they adopt a mix on merely an issue by issue basis...claiming pragmatism in many cases. They are mushy so to speak imo. If one uses this, a moderate never really stands for anything on principle. One could even say it was due to the moderates that Hitler got into power. A moderate doesn't really stop some bad things.

Whereas, one can adopt a mix using classical liberal principals of the Framers model of a limited Constitutional republic. That's a type of moderatism that is based on principles. IMO.

stevieray
06-29-2006, 10:01 AM
choosey mothers choose jif

BucEyedPea
06-29-2006, 10:03 AM
choosey mothers choose jif

No. Unchoosy mothers choose Jiff.
Jiff is processed, is partially or wholly hydrogenated with trans-fats and has sugar in it.

I prefer NOTHING but those peanuts. :)

FringeNC
06-29-2006, 10:04 AM
Here is an illustration of why facism and communism share so many traits...

I always thought they were three axis: freedom, order, and equality

stevieray
06-29-2006, 10:05 AM
No. Unchoosy mothers choose Jiff.
Jiff is processed, is partially or wholly hydrogenated with trans-fats and has sugar in it.

I prefer NOTHING but those peanuts. :)

you must be a socialist...;)

BucEyedPea
06-29-2006, 10:06 AM
you must be a socialist...;)
No I prefer real Americanism. ;)

Anyone who alters peanuts, mixes sugar into them and still tries to pass it off as peanuts is a progressive or a socialist. :)

stevieray
06-29-2006, 10:09 AM
No I prefer real Americanism. ;)

Anyone who mixes alters peanuts and adds sugar and still tries to pass it off as peanuts is a progressive or a socialist. :)

processed and added sugar...McDonalds...i'm lovin' it ( honey, we're killing the kids)

BucEyedPea
06-29-2006, 10:17 AM
processed and added sugar...McDonalds...i'm lovin' it ( honey, we're killing the kids)

I'll take honey anyday though. :)

Radar Chief
06-29-2006, 10:19 AM
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice.
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill;
I will choose a path that's clear-
I will choose Free Will.

:thumb:

htismaqe
06-29-2006, 11:11 AM
I always thought they were three axis: freedom, order, and equality

Those are social ideals. That's a different diagram altogether. :D

Nightwish
06-30-2006, 10:59 AM
I see alot of folks claiming to be moderate around here. Then I read their posts. Seems to me a lot of folks are deluding themselves. So put it out there....be proud, be loud. Don't be a mushy middle wuss. For the public record, do you lean to the left of the right?2
Moderate doesn't mean dead center on all things. Moderates still lean one way or the other much of the time. They just don't go extreme on most issues. And reading peoples' entries around here is a lousy way to tell if they are moderate or hard-line one way or the other. There simply aren't enough issues discussed. A person can be hard-line on a couple issues (like I am with Iraq and the current admin) and be moderate on most other issues, thus being a moderate overall. Hell, I'm hard left on the war and BushCo, and hard right on abortion, affirmative action,welfare and a few other things. Most other things, though, I'm much closer to the middle (centrist) and have no strong feelings about (moderate).

Mr. Kotter
06-30-2006, 11:18 AM
Moderate doesn't mean dead center on all things. Moderates still lean one way or the other much of the time. They just don't go extreme on most issues. And reading peoples' entries around here is a lousy way to tell if they are moderate or hard-line one way or the other. There simply aren't enough issues discussed. A person can be hard-line on a couple issues (like I am with Iraq and the current admin) and be moderate on most other issues, thus being a moderate overall. Hell, I'm hard left on the war and BushCo, and hard right on abortion, affirmative action,welfare and a few other things. Most other things, though, I'm much closer to the middle (centrist) and have no strong feelings about (moderate).

I'd be interested to see anything from you moderate, or even conservative. Most of what I've seen so far isn't far from moonbat territory. Course, maybe I just missed it....got a couple of links? :hmmm:

Mr. Kotter
06-30-2006, 11:20 AM
Eh. I C, no nads there ZachKotterKC?

WTF is that suppose to mean, Mr. Dickweed Zombie? :harumph:

:p

Nightwish
06-30-2006, 11:24 AM
I'd be interested to see anything from you moderate, or even conservative. Most of what I've seen so far isn't far from moonbat territory. Course, maybe I just missed it....got a couple of links? :hmmm:I take it you've missed the discussions I've been in about abortion, welfare, affirmative action, socio-economic class, gun control, and so on. As I said, there are some on here who take it upon themselves to judge someone's overall politics based only on their position on one or two issues. Thank you for providing the perfect example of that kind of tunnel-vision.

Things I'm hard left about :

The war in Iraq
The so-called WoT
The Bush Administration


Things I'm moderate left about :

Gay marriage
Environment
Animal abuse
Church/State Separation


Things I'm pretty much in the center about :

Taxes
Size of government
War in general


Things I'm moderate right about :

Gun control
Welfare
Socio-economic class


Things I'm hard right about :

Abortion (I'm pro-choice only in the sense that I don't believe it is my right to dictate someone else's choice in this regard; but I'm more vehemently anti-abortion than most Pro-Lifers!)
Affirmative Action
Government anti-smoking legislation

There are other issues, of course, those are just the ones that come most immediately to mind.

Mr. Kotter
06-30-2006, 11:37 AM
I take it you've missed the discussions I've been in about abortion, welfare, affirmative action, socio-economic class, gun control, and so on. As I said, there are some on here who take it upon themselves to judge someone's overall politics based only on their position on one or two issues. Thank you for providing the perfect example of that kind of tunnel-vision.

Things I'm hard left about :

The war in Iraq
The so-called WoT
The Bush Administration


Things I'm moderate left about :

Gay marriage
Environment
Animal abuse
Church/State Separation


Things I'm pretty much in the center about :

Taxes
Size of government
War in general


Things I'm moderate right about :

Gun control
Welfare
Socio-economic class


Things I'm hard right about :

Abortion
Affirmative Action
Government anti-smoking legislation

There are other issues, of course, those are just the ones that come most immediately to mind.

Thanks for the clarification.

It will be interesting to see you demonstrate similar passion you've demonstrated on the issues you are "left," when some of those issues you are "right, or conservative" on.....are posted.

Nightwish
06-30-2006, 11:42 AM
Thanks for the clarification.

It will be interesting to see you demonstrate similar passion you've demonstrated on the issues you are "left," when some of those issues you are "right, or conservative" on.....are posted.I may or may not demonstrate that kind of passion, depending who I am discussing with. Since the issues on which I am hard left are the ones most commonly discussed around here, I have developed a sort of friendly rapport with most of the left wingers, and those are the people with whom I would most likely be arguing. Once you have developed a friendly rapport like that, it is a lot harder to take a confrontational approach to those same people, so my argumentation on those issues would most likely be a little less caustic than it is with those on the right with whom I've been arguing about Iraq and those issues, since I haven't developed the same rapport with those people. As an example, though, patteu and I have found common ground in discussions on music, and that has made it much harder to be as confrontational with him here in DC as I used to be. As a consequence, you may notice our discussions lately have been much more civil, though there are still occasional barbs exchanged.

To be honest, though, I wish some of those issues would be discussed more often, though, as it would give me a chance to develop a better rapport with the right-wingers around here, rather than having you all perpetually on the "enemy" side of the line.

BIG_DADDY
06-30-2006, 11:53 AM
I take it you've missed the discussions I've been in about abortion, welfare, affirmative action, socio-economic class, gun control, and so on. As I said, there are some on here who take it upon themselves to judge someone's overall politics based only on their position on one or two issues. Thank you for providing the perfect example of that kind of tunnel-vision.

Things I'm hard left about :

The war in Iraq
The so-called WoT
The Bush Administration


Things I'm moderate left about :

Gay marriage
Environment
Animal abuse
Church/State Separation


Things I'm pretty much in the center about :

Taxes
Size of government
War in general


Things I'm moderate right about :

Gun control
Welfare
Socio-economic class


Things I'm hard right about :

Abortion (I'm pro-choice only in the sense that I don't believe it is my right to dictate someone else's choice in this regard; but I'm more vehemently anti-abortion than most Pro-Lifers!)
Affirmative Action
Government anti-smoking legislation

There are other issues, of course, those are just the ones that come most immediately to mind.

Wow were pretty close. I didn't agree with the Iraq war either but now that we have such a huge investment in controlling a geographically strategic oil supply I know we can't just walk away leaving all our chips on the table. I would have to say I am hard right on guns. I would like to add I am left on the war on drugs.

What exactly do you mean when you say the left is against animal abuse? I didn't realize the right endorsed animal abuse.

banyon
06-30-2006, 12:22 PM
Nightwish, your abortion position is not right-leaning if you believe that you should not dictate your morality to others.

That's what "choice" means.

BIG_DADDY
06-30-2006, 12:26 PM
Nightwish, your abortion position is not right-leaning if you believe that you should not dictate your morality to others.

That's what "choice" means.

Actually I made a mistake there too. I am for the right to choose on early term pregnancies only. I am also for the death penalty so I am all over the board.

Baby Lee
06-30-2006, 12:28 PM
Nightwish, your abortion position is not right-leaning if you believe that you should not dictate your morality to others.

That's what "choice" means.
I took his position on abortion is that he wouldn't put the woman in jail, but he'd be more than happy to personally kick her in the cootchie.

|Zach|
06-30-2006, 12:33 PM
Ha.

Mr. Laz
06-30-2006, 12:38 PM
liberal about social issues
liberal about enviromental (can be considered social i guess)
conservative about financial issues
conservative about foreign policies

Radar Chief
06-30-2006, 12:39 PM
Nightwish, your abortion position is not right-leaning if you believe that you should not dictate your morality to others.

That's what "choice" means.

I read it a little different.
Sounds to me like’e hates abortion but doesn’t feel it’s his place to force his opinion on others.
That’s exactly how I feel, BTW.

Mr. Laz
06-30-2006, 12:41 PM
hates abortion but doesn’t feel it’s his place to force his opinion on others.

That’s exactly how I feel, BTW.
stinking commie liberal ...... you're going to hell





:p

BIG_DADDY
06-30-2006, 12:42 PM
Ha.

Tell me more about this Ha Party. :hmmm:

|Zach|
06-30-2006, 12:44 PM
Tell me more about this Ha Party. :hmmm:
We throw the best parties.

Radar Chief
06-30-2006, 12:49 PM
stinking commie liberal ...... you're going to hell





:p

At least I’ll have good company. ;)

StcChief
06-30-2006, 01:16 PM
Middle right.

banyon
06-30-2006, 02:16 PM
I read it a little different.
Sounds to me like’e hates abortion but doesn’t feel it’s his place to force his opinion on others.
That’s exactly how I feel, BTW.

That's the point. No one likes abortions, even though that is how the far right tries to portray the left on it. So you are pro-choice too, welcome to the club.


Anyway, I rarely discuss this issue because I view it mostly as a distraction from the more important problems our country faces. Even more than most political issues, people seem to be unable to persuade anyone to think any differently once their mind's made up.

BucEyedPea
06-30-2006, 02:19 PM
Anyway, I rarely discuss this issue because I view it mostly as a distraction from the more important problems our country faces. Even more than most political issues, people seem to be unable to persuade anyone to think any differently once their mind's made up.

I agree with banyon?

Yeah..abortion is the flame bait of all flame bait.

And there are more pressing issues today.
Anyhow, there needs to be an option up there for anarcho-socialist.

Baby Lee
06-30-2006, 02:27 PM
That's the point. No one likes abortions, even though that is how the far right tries to portray the left on it.
I tell myself that, and tell myself that, then someone pipes on the issue and remarks "you know, some kids are just better off never being born."

Baby Lee
06-30-2006, 02:28 PM
Anyhow, there needs to be an option up there for anarcho-socialist.
You really are 7.5 pounds of monkey dookie in a 2 kilogram bag. ;)

Radar Chief
06-30-2006, 02:33 PM
You really are 7.5 pounds of monkey dookie in a 2 kilogram bag. ;)

Kilograms X 2.2046=lbs. Just FYI. ;)

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001729.html

banyon
06-30-2006, 02:34 PM
I agree with banyon?

Yeah..abortion is the flame bait of all flame bait.

And there are more pressing issues today.
Anyhow, there needs to be an option up there for anarcho-socialist.


Hey, even patteeu agrees with me sometimes. :D

banyon
06-30-2006, 02:35 PM
I tell myself that, and tell myself that, then someone pipes on the issue and remarks "you know, some kids are just better off never being born."


Were you chatting with a friend about QuikSurfer? :)

BucEyedPea
06-30-2006, 02:45 PM
You really are 7.5 pounds of monkey dookie in a 2 kilogram bag. ;)
You POS moron! ;)

Baby Lee
06-30-2006, 02:47 PM
Kilograms X 2.2046=lbs. Just FYI. ;)

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001729.html
Yes, Radar. The intent of the slur is to suggest that you are MORE full of shit than your stated capacity.

Radar Chief
06-30-2006, 03:09 PM
Yes, Radar. The intent of the slur is to suggest that you are MORE full of shit than your stated capacity.


Yea got that, just try'n to help those that might not've. ;)

Baby Lee
06-30-2006, 03:21 PM
Yea got that, just try'n to help those that might not've. ;)
Well you never know with a guy who can't keep Mike Meyers' Scottish caricatures straight. ;)

listopencil
06-30-2006, 05:15 PM
I'm not going to vote in this until you can come up with two options that are mutually exclusive or change the poll to reflect that a person could actually be both/neither. The poll is flawed.

Jesus
06-30-2006, 09:26 PM
Conservative. Contrary to what some of you derelicts think, I'm not a Dad Damn hippie.

BucEyedPea
06-30-2006, 09:49 PM
I'm not going to vote in this until you can come up with two options that are mutually exclusive or change the poll to reflect that a person could actually be both/neither. The poll is flawed.

I don't completely disagree with that however in both strains I think you will find some classical liberalism on both sides as we are all Americans and reflect that tradition, even if we all fight and argue over it. :)

Sully
06-30-2006, 10:51 PM
Dad Damn

Man, is Elvis gonna be pissed that you said that.

Nightwish
06-30-2006, 10:56 PM
I have to say that most of the votes don't surprise me, but I was a bit surprised to see TJ vote conservative, and Lattimer and Lurch vote liberal.

Jesus
06-30-2006, 11:02 PM
I have to say that most of the votes don't surprise me, but I was a bit surprised to see TJ vote conservative, and Lattimer and Lurch vote liberal.

Take it from me, TJ is fooling no one, Lattimer is being sarcastic, and Lurch is a damn zombie so who knows what to expect.

banyon
07-01-2006, 09:10 AM
Conservative. Contrary to what some of you derelicts think, I'm not a Dad Damn hippie.

Yes, let's see:

Repeal of Estate Tax = Matthew 20:31

Privitization of Social Security = Mark 14:18

Starting a Pre-Emptive War resulting in the deaths of 40,000+ people = Luke 31:20

Insisting on the ability to torture prisoners = John 7:15

Caring for the poor = Not in Bible

We are to love our enemies, do good to those who hate us or oppose our views, and speak well of and pray for those who abuse us.
= Not in Bible

Greatest Commandment is Love thy neighbor = Not in Bible

It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God. The greatest sin of all the root of all evil is the love of money." = Not in Bible

Throwing moneylenders out of temple = Not in Bible

Mr. Laz
07-01-2006, 10:55 AM
At least I’ll have good company. ;)

party is at RC's house(in hell)


everyone bring plenty of ice!!!

go bowe
07-01-2006, 11:55 AM
mmmmm.. ugh!

don't forget firewater... :BLVD: :BLVD: :BLVD:

:Peace: :arrow: PBJ PBJ PBJ PBJ PBJ

Adept Havelock
07-01-2006, 12:15 PM
Take it from me, TJ is fooling no one, Lattimer is being sarcastic, and Lurch is a damn zombie so who knows what to expect.

Feh, I should take your word? You're just another good little Jewish Boy who hit the big time thanks to a few PR agents, and went all Meshuggah. :p

Mohammed
07-01-2006, 09:46 PM
Conservative. Contrary to what some of you derelicts think, I'm not a Dad Damn hippie.


Not a hippie? You had a future as a carpenter and you just threw it away. Damn hippie. Say "Hi!" to your mom for me. Ask her if I left my Koran at her place. Thanks.

Jesus
07-01-2006, 09:53 PM
Not a hippie? You had a future as a carpenter and you just threw it away. Damn hippie. Say "Hi!" to your mom for me. Ask her if I left my Koran at her place. Thanks.

Were you that damn camel jockey homeless infidel bastard who tried to hump our sheep in the middle of the night? If so, the goat ate that damn book you left you sick piece of crap.

banyon
07-01-2006, 10:07 PM
:lame:

(...wait a couple of weeks...)



still :lame: Kotter.

Mohammed
07-01-2006, 10:11 PM
Were you that damn camel jockey homeless infidel bastard who tried to hump our sheep in the middle of the night? If so, the goat ate that damn book you left you sick piece of crap.


It's not my fault your folks are into the On-The-Hoof Gangbang. I thought I was a swinger until I met them. Holy crap!

Jesus
07-01-2006, 10:20 PM
It's not my fault your folks are into the On-The-Hoof Gangbang. I thought I was a swinger until I met them. Holy crap!Swinger? You call beastiality and necrophilia "swinging?" The only Gang"bang" mom was ever involved in was when they killed those Palestinians who pissed on the Arc of the Covenant....and they had Dad's blessings for that.

And what the fukk is this banyon weirdo yapping about? I keep getting PMs for Kotter....what's with that?

Mr. Kotter
07-01-2006, 11:16 PM
.....And what the fukk is this banyon weirdo yapping about? I keep getting PMs for Kotter....what's with that?

Quit your whining. I'm getting them too. :banghead:

listopencil
07-05-2006, 04:39 PM
Bump.

Simplex3
07-05-2006, 08:47 PM
Ehh not interested in a poll that black and white.

But I like the way conservitives....you know real conservitives not whatever form of conservitism we have in office now run government. I don't think the government is particularly good at some things and see no reason for it being expanded with social programs that don't seem to get the job done. I don't want them wiped out but I believe in smaller government.

I tend to lean left socially across the board no doubt.
Another f**king closet Libertarian.

Ultra Peanut
07-05-2006, 09:11 PM
Yes, let's see:

Repeal of Estate Tax = Matthew 20:31

Privitization of Social Security = Mark 14:18

Starting a Pre-Emptive War resulting in the deaths of 40,000+ people = Luke 31:20

Insisting on the ability to torture prisoners = John 7:15

Caring for the poor = Not in Bible

We are to love our enemies, do good to those who hate us or oppose our views, and speak well of and pray for those who abuse us.
= Not in Bible

Greatest Commandment is Love thy neighbor = Not in Bible

It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God. The greatest sin of all the root of all evil is the love of money." = Not in Bible

Throwing moneylenders out of temple = Not in BibleYou poor, naive soul. It's not as he says or does, it's how his words and deeds can be twisted to fit [insert group here]'s positions.

Rausch
07-05-2006, 10:44 PM
Independant.

Eskimo Joe
07-06-2006, 07:41 AM
I'm just another American that believes that the best person to make a decision regarding the country would be the individual voter.

I agree with some principles of both groups, I'm a conservaberal.

Eskimo Joe
07-06-2006, 08:00 AM
Me thinks ye know not how to Google.


Caring for the poor = Not in Bible

We are to love our enemies, do good to those who hate us or oppose our views, and speak well of and pray for those who abuse us.
= Not in Bible

Greatest Commandment is Love thy neighbor = Not in Bible

It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God. The greatest sin of all the root of all evil is the love of money." = Not in Bible

Throwing moneylenders out of temple = Not in Bible


"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." (Matthew 19:24)

Matthew 22:35 Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,
36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

The conflict between Jesus and the moneychangers in the Jerusalem Temple is one of the very few events in Jesus' life which is described by all four gospels. The event is sometimes euphemistically referred to as the Cleansing of the Temple, though that phrase is misleading for various reasons and I prefer to avoid it.

The Setting

Herod the Great put a great deal of work into the Jerusalem Temple during his reign, and spent many years adding plazas, porticoes, and monuments to the complex. Many of these building projects continued after Herod's death in 4 BCE, and some were still incomplete even when Jesus reached adulthood thirty-odd years later.

The Temple in Jesus' time consisted of numerous "courts" that were open to different groups of people for the purpose of sightseeing, socializing, and, of course, taking part in rituals. Gentiles were allowed to visit the outer plaza and mill about, just as non-Christian tourists are invited to tour cathedrals today. Pagans were warned away from entering the areas restricted to Jews by means of inscriptions engraved on a low balustrade called the soreg. Further in, past the soreg, there was a court where all Jewish people were permitted to meet, then a smaller court restricted to Jewish men, then a still smaller court restricted to priests, then finally the sanctuary itself where the ark of the Covenant was kept.

Sacrifices took place regularly, and Jewish people from around the known world were encouraged to bring their sin offerings whenever they could. However, the Temple was busiest during major festivals: thousands and thousands of pilgrims and tourists would flock to Jerusalem on the holiest days of the Jewish year. It was during one of these, Passover, when the "Cleansing" was supposed to have taken place.

Keep in mind that the entire Temple complex measured about a square kilometer, give or take. If you're imagining Jesus starting an argument in a building the size of a modern church, you haven't got your sense of proportion right; it's more like an argument taking place in front of a food stand in an amusement park. This fact has led Paula Fredriksen to wonder how much of an impact the conflict could actually have had: how many people would have noticed one angry man in all the noise and bustle? how much could it really have inconvenienced the hundreds of priests, merchants, and "support staff" who worked there?

The Conflict

John disagrees with the other three Gospels on the timing of what we in religious studies like to call the Temple tantrum. John places the event at the beginning of Jesus' ministry, describing it in the second chapter of his gospel.

The Passover of the Jews was near, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple he found those who were selling cattle, sheep, and doves, and the money changers seated at their tables. Making a whip of cords, he drove all of them out of the temple, both the sheep and the cattle. He also poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. He told those who were selling the doves, "Take these things out of here! Stop making my Father's house a marketplace!"
The Synoptic authors, by contrast, place this event at the end of Jesus' ministry; in fact, they make it clear that it was this action of Jesus that caused the Roman and Jewish authorities to decide to kill him. (For John, it was the raising of Lazarus that got Jesus sentenced to death.)

Here is Mark's version:

Then they came to Jerusalem. And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who were selling and those who were buying in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves; and he would not allow anyone to carry anything through the temple. He was teaching and saying, "Is it not written, 'My House shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations'? But you have made it a den of robbers."
Matthew and Luke both tell an abbreviated version of the story (see Matthew 21:12-13 and Luke 19:45-48).

"Jesus answered, If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.'" Matthew 19:21
"For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in." Matthew 25:35
"They devour widows' houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. Such men will be punished most severely." Mark 12:40
"The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because He has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed." Luke 4:18
"So he replied to the messengers, Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor.'" Luke 7:22 [ E-book: The Kingdom strikes back ]
"Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys." Luke 12:33
"But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind." Luke 14:13
"When Jesus heard this, he said to him, You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.'" Luke 18:22
"Beware of the teachers of the law . . . They devour your widows' houses . . . Such men will be punished severely." Luke 20:46-47
"'Why wasn't this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year's wages.' He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it." John 12:5
"In Joppa there was a disciple named Tabitha (which, when translated, is Dorcas), who was always doing good and helping the poor." Acts 9:36
"Cornelius stared at him in fear. What is it, Lord?' he asked. The angel answered, Your prayers and gifts to the poor have come up as a memorial offering before God.'" Acts 10:4
"After an absence of several years, I came to Jerusalem to bring my people gifts for the poor and to present offerings." Acts 24:17
"On the contrary: If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.'" Romans 12:20
"For Macedonia and Achaia were pleased to make a contribution for the poor among the saints in Jerusalem." Romans 15:26
"All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do." Galatians 2:10
"Give proper recognition to those widows who are really in need." 1 Timothy 5:3
"Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world." James 1:27
"Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in shabby clothes also comes in. If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, 'Here's a good seat for you,' but say to the poor man, 'You stand there' or 'Sit on the floor by my feet,' have you not discriminated among yourselves and becomes judges with evil thoughts? Listen, my dear brothers: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom He promised those who love Him? But you have insulted the poor. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court?" James 2:2-6
"If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth." 1 John 3:17-18

Jesus revealed to us how to live in accordance with how his creation works. “Love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you.” ( Mt 5.44 , Lu 6.27 , Lu 6.3 ) “Do not use force against an evil man.” ( Mt 5.39 ) “Do not resist evil with evil.” “Forgive and you will be forgiven.” (Lu 6.37 ) “Do not be anxious about your life.”( Lu 12.22 ) “He who lives by the sword will perish by the sword.” ( Mat 26.52 ) “In everything do to others as you would have them do to you.” (Mat 7.12 )

The rest of the New Testament contains more of the same. “Do not return evil for evil.” ( 1 Pet 3.9 , Rom 12.17 , 1 Thes 5.15 )
“Overcome evil with good.”( Rom 12.21 ) “Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave room for the wrath of God; for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.’” (Rom 12.19 )

Then there are the Biblical statements that will get people questioning your patriotism if you take them seriously. If we consider “ First take the log out of your own eye.”( Luk 6.42 ) we might question what our own nation has done. “Alas for those …who rely on horses, who trust in chariots.” ( Isa 31:1 )

htismaqe
07-06-2006, 08:18 AM
Another f**king closet Libertarian.

I think you'd find that almost everyone here, whether they consider themselves a modern conservative or modern liberal, is, at their core, a classic liberal. We all want similar things, we just have different means of getting there.

Of course, our two-party government has different ways of attaining the same end, it's just that their goal differs from ours.

banyon
07-06-2006, 08:19 AM
Me thinks ye know not how to Google.

Blah,Blah...(some dude's interpretation of the Gospels)

where was the estate tax reduction?

Baby Lee
07-06-2006, 08:38 AM
I think you'd find that almost everyone here, whether they consider themselves a modern conservative or modern liberal, is, at their core, a classic liberal. We all want similar things, we just have different means of getting there.

Of course, our two-party government has different ways of attaining the same end, it's just that their goal differs from ours.
I dunno, equality of opportunity and equality of outcome might look similar, but they end up being pretty darn different.

htismaqe
07-06-2006, 08:50 AM
I dunno, equality of opportunity and equality of outcome might look similar, but they end up being pretty darn different.

Sometimes, the means you utilize to realize you goal end up steering you off your original course.

Eskimo Joe
07-06-2006, 08:58 AM
where was the estate tax reduction?

You knertz, you referenced that one.

Some dude's interpetation? Those references were actual bible verses that covered your specific points, some of them almost verbatum. You are fighting facts with inuendo.

You don't have to be a thumper to realize that your refusal to believe that you missed the boat by saying "NOT IN THE BIBLE".

I just pointed out that you don't read the bible and do not know what is in it, and you were too lazy to do a simple search!

banyon
07-06-2006, 12:58 PM
You knertz, you referenced that one.

Some dude's interpetation? Those references were actual bible verses that covered your specific points, some of them almost verbatum. You are fighting facts with inuendo.

You don't have to be a thumper to realize that your refusal to believe that you missed the boat by saying "NOT IN THE BIBLE".

I just pointed out that you don't read the bible and do not know what is in it, and you were too lazy to do a simple search!

I have a lot of difficulty beliving that you, or any human being for that matter is this retarded.

The entire post that you replied to should have been obvious to anyone as sarcasm. That's why I intentionally picked out things that I knew were in the Bible and said that they weren't.

Why you feel it necessary to reply in this completely mistaken way, I have no idea.

Eskimo Joe
07-06-2006, 06:40 PM
I have a lot of difficulty beliving that you, or any human being for that matter is this retarded.

The entire post that you replied to should have been obvious to anyone as sarcasm. That's why I intentionally picked out things that I knew were in the Bible and said that they weren't.

Why you feel it necessary to reply in this completely mistaken way, I have no idea.


In that case I'd say that you aren't sarcastic, you are just an asshole.

banyon
07-06-2006, 07:00 PM
In that case I'd say that you aren't sarcastic, you are just an asshole.

Your act is very worn out around here.

Nightwish
07-06-2006, 07:01 PM
The entire post that you replied to should have been obvious to anyone as sarcasm. That's why I intentionally picked out things that I knew were in the Bible and said that they weren't.
To be honest, I didn't know you were being sarcastic either. You never know, because Christian detractors often make similar statements, and sometimes just as wrong, fully believing it to be accurate. I didn't comment, though, for two reasons: (1) I'm not a Christian, and couldn't care less; and (2) I don't know enough about scriptural quotations to have said for certain whether those things were mentioned, though I was fairly confident they were.

banyon
07-06-2006, 07:02 PM
To be honest, I didn't know you were being sarcastic either. You never know, because Christian detractors often make similar statements, and sometimes just as wrong, fully believing it to be accurate. I didn't comment, though, for two reasons: (1) I'm not a Christian, and couldn't care less; and (2) I don't know enough about scriptural quotations to have said for certain whether those things were mentioned, though I was fairly confident they were.

I guess maybe I should've put one of these: :rolleyes: there to make it official.

I just feel that it is a very overused smilie, though.

Lurch
07-06-2006, 07:03 PM
I guess maybe I should've put one of these: :rolleyes: there to make it official.

I just feel that it is a very overused smilie, though.:rolleyes:

Eskimo Joe
07-06-2006, 07:08 PM
Your act is very worn out around here.

I've just been here since June, what's your problem?

Lurch
07-06-2006, 07:09 PM
I've just been here since June, what's your problem?

Dude, I'm a noob. And I know who you are, Mr. T.C.

Nightwish
07-06-2006, 07:12 PM
Dude, I'm a noob. And I know who you are, Mr. T.C.
That's T.C,? How come I can never pick this guy out when he comes back, until after somebody else has already outed him? My radar must be slipping!

Lurch
07-06-2006, 07:14 PM
That's T.C,? How come I can never pick this guy out when he comes back, until after somebody else has already outed him? My radar must be slipping!

Gotta be. Search his posts. The same surliness and petty squabbles with the same posters.

Eskimo Joe
07-06-2006, 07:25 PM
If more than one person has tangled with the same people you might try to figure out that it's the other people and not the noob.

At least I can rest assured that I'm not the only person on the planet that has the same values. I think.

banyon
07-06-2006, 07:40 PM
And there's the classic denial.

Eskimo Joe
07-06-2006, 07:56 PM
And there's the classic denial.

You are stuck in a situation that there is no escape from. You have made a claim and cannot back down.

It looks as if there might be more people in your category than there is in mine.

To bad, this might have been a good board.

Sully
07-06-2006, 10:20 PM
That's T.C,? How come I can never pick this guy out when he comes back, until after somebody else has already outed him? My radar must be slipping!

If it's not him, it's a pretty close facsimile.

listopencil
07-06-2006, 10:20 PM
You are stuck in a situation that there is no escape from. You have made a claim and cannot back down.

It looks as if there might be more people in your category than there is in mine.

To bad, this might have been a good board.

Nightwish
07-07-2006, 01:29 AM
If it's not him, it's a pretty close facsimile.
After seeing post #135, I'm now pretty convinced.

Eskimo Joe
07-07-2006, 01:30 AM
If it's not him, it's a pretty close facsimile.

Close only works in hand grenades and nuclear weapons.

You win nothing.

Baby Lee
07-07-2006, 05:38 AM
Close only works in hand grenades and nuclear weapons.

You win nothing.
Ahmtayaschkaye: "Ha ha!! You can't prove I'm me . . . err . . who you say I am!!"

the Talking Can
07-07-2006, 06:39 AM
Close only works in hand grenades and nuclear weapons.

You win nothing.

what's it like to wake up every day and think "shit...I'm still Tom Cash?"

Eskimo Joe
07-07-2006, 07:00 AM
I'm not sure who your friend is, but this is very boring.

I'm out of here.

the Talking Can
07-07-2006, 07:33 AM
testing:

tom cash

the Talking Can
07-07-2006, 07:34 AM
what's it like to wake up every day and think "shit...I'm still - ahem, shut your mouth -?"

who altered my post?

banyon
07-07-2006, 08:00 AM
who altered my post?

htismaqe changed the filter to protect his secret identity

htismaqe
07-07-2006, 08:16 AM
Nobody altered your post.

It's a filter.

Logical
07-07-2006, 09:20 AM
Gotta be. Search his posts. The same surliness and petty squabbles with the same posters.Well except he has avoided me, which I am thankful for. Small favors are a blessing.

Nightwish
07-07-2006, 12:43 PM
So who won the "when will Voldemortom sneak back in" poll?