PDA

View Full Version : Political and Religious affiliation


a1na2
12-16-2007, 07:53 PM
Just wondered what the mix here is.

BucEyedPea
12-16-2007, 07:58 PM
Politically conservative as in small govt and Federalism
Registered Republican for now.
I created my own religion

BucEyedPea
12-16-2007, 07:58 PM
Ah oh! The poll wasn't there when I first posted.

Just Donkeys and Elephants though? No Independents?

banyon
12-16-2007, 08:00 PM
Politically conservative as in small govt and Federalism
Registered Republican for now.
I created my own religion

I have no trouble believing that.

'Hamas' Jenkins
12-16-2007, 08:02 PM
Agnostic liberal.

A true secular devil, one of the throng responsible for the decay of American civilization.

a1na2
12-16-2007, 08:03 PM
Ah oh! The poll wasn't there when I first posted.

Just Donkeys and Elephants though? No Independents?

I wanted to leave it open as I didn't want to use all 50 of the options for the poll. I went with the two main parties of my lifetime.

What is the name of your religion? What are the core beliefs of that religion?

BucEyedPea
12-16-2007, 08:06 PM
BucEyedPeaism

chagrin
12-16-2007, 08:07 PM
I am a Republican and Frisbiterian - I believe when you die, your soul lands on the roof

chagrin
12-16-2007, 08:08 PM
I wanted to leave it open as I didn't want to use all 50 of the options for the poll. I went with the two main parties of my lifetime.

What is the name of your religion? What are the core beliefs of that religion?

I believe hers is called "dumbassery"

I dig ya man, but you don't really expect to get a good thread out of this, do you? These folks shit their pants when you mention God, come on.

irishjayhawk
12-16-2007, 08:18 PM
Atheist - Moderate. No party identification.

a1na2
12-16-2007, 08:20 PM
I believe hers is called "dumbassery"

I dig ya man, but you don't really expect to get a good thread out of this, do you? These folks shit their pants when you mention God, come on.

I didn't expect anything so if we have people that will post based on what they are it will prove a point that I've heard bantered around for the past few days.

irishjayhawk
12-16-2007, 08:24 PM
I didn't expect anything so if we have people that will post based on what they are it will prove a point that I've heard bantered around for the past few days.

I hope it's not: religious are typically right, non-religious are typically left.

a1na2
12-16-2007, 08:26 PM
IJ gets no response. I don't really care about his views.

irishjayhawk
12-16-2007, 08:29 PM
IJ gets no response. I don't really care about his views.

Why list them, may I ask?

a1na2
12-16-2007, 08:37 PM
Why list them, may I ask?

The poll was generated to elicit responses from those with the ability to be more honest with their responses. Your responses have always been contrary to anything I post so your opinion is discounted. Sorry if you are offended.

Amnorix
12-16-2007, 08:41 PM
I hope it's not: religious are typically right, non-religious are typically left.

Let's just say that his methods are direct and obvious.

I'm a liberal agonostic, though my economic policies tend to be more conservative than the typical Democrat.

Sully
12-16-2007, 08:41 PM
I'm not a Dem, but am definitely a liberal, so I went ahead and stepped into your "Dem" label. I am a dedicated Christian.

BucEyedPea
12-16-2007, 09:35 PM
I didn't expect anything so if we have people that will post based on what they are it will prove a point that I've heard bantered around for the past few days.
Don't listen to him, he's a bigot and can't spot an unserious post.

My values are basically traditional Christianity. I don't believe in all the theology though. I do however, believe in God. I am so to speak still seeking in some respects.

Mr. Kotter
12-16-2007, 09:44 PM
Atheist - Moderate. No party identification.

You are moderate, like Karl Marx and Ralph Nader are moderate. :rolleyes:

HolmeZz
12-16-2007, 09:49 PM
Agnostic and liberal.

a1na2
12-16-2007, 10:33 PM
Originally Posted by irishjayhawk
I hope it's not: religious are typically right, non-religious are typically left.

Let's just say that his methods are direct and obvious.

I'm a liberal agonostic, though my economic policies tend to be more conservative than the typical Democrat.

You want to take another shot at what the poll is about? You missed with this shot.

HINT: It has nothing to do with any liberal being non-religious.

a1na2
12-16-2007, 10:35 PM
You are moderate, like Karl Marx and Ralph Nader are moderate. :rolleyes:

You will also notice that IJ didn't have the ethics to put his vote up. His affiliation was covered with the other-other option.

Jenson71
12-16-2007, 11:16 PM
I'm more of a Moderate-Christian, or Other-Christian. I like Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul. Maybe Confused-Christian is more like it.

Between Democrats and Republicans though, I'm definitely more Democrat, proud to say.

Jenson71
12-16-2007, 11:35 PM
Gee, where all the board's Mormons hiding?

Wouldn't a Mormon consider him/herself a Christian?

a1na2
12-16-2007, 11:37 PM
Gee, where all the board's Mormons hiding?

I'd say that they don't want to be affiliated with any political party.

I know of people that consider Mormonism a cult.

Jenson71
12-16-2007, 11:38 PM
I'd say that they don't want to be affiliated with any political party.

I know of people that consider Mormonism a cult.

Wouldn't a Mormon consider him/herself a Christian?

Count Zarth
12-16-2007, 11:40 PM
Wow. I'm the only republican agnostic?

SNR
12-16-2007, 11:42 PM
Republican + cafeteria Christian. I pick and choose what I like about it and leave the rest behind. And "the rest" is usually other believers and the church. It's sad, but I haven't found one church that I can put my time into and allow them to express my beliefs for me. Until then, I'll act completely on my own and distance myself as much as possible from some of the nuttier religious freaks in the nation right now.

a1na2
12-16-2007, 11:52 PM
Wouldn't a Mormon consider him/herself a Christian?

Not the Mormons I know.

I have questions regarding ethics when Mormons are conducting business with non-Mormons. It seems like if they are dealing with others of their faith they are upright and honest, when dealing with those outside their faith they are just as dishonest as your typical unethical businessman. Just my perception based on working with a few of them, but I feel it's pretty close to correct.

irishjayhawk
12-17-2007, 12:43 AM
Ethics on an internet message board. Sorry.

Sully
12-17-2007, 07:06 AM
Wow. I'm the only republican agnostic?
Pat is, IIRRC.

patteeu
12-17-2007, 09:23 AM
Wow. I'm the only republican agnostic?

Not anymore. I'm not really a Republican, but I'm a Republican sympathizer and I'm definitely agnostic. Apparently, Republican Agnostic is the category of choice for Major A-holes. :)

Ooops, I had you confused with Saul. The name changes confuse me.

HolmeZz
12-17-2007, 09:35 AM
Apparently, Republican Agnostic is the category of choice for Major A-holes. :)

Ooops, I had you confused with Saul. The name changes confuse me.

Nah, you were right the first time.

Adept Havelock
12-17-2007, 09:49 AM
Political- Eclecticist
Economic- Broadly Conservative, with a couple of exceptions.
Social- Broadly Liberal, with a couple of exceptions.

Religion- N/A.

Mr. Kotter
12-17-2007, 11:19 AM
Independent Universalist here, though day-to-day I associate with those who share, generally, my perspective. :shrug:

Nightfyre
12-17-2007, 02:47 PM
Libertarian Agnostic.

Hydrae
12-17-2007, 02:55 PM
Independent Agnostic, had to vote other/other

a1na2
12-17-2007, 06:36 PM
Independent Agnostic, had to vote other/other

Looks like a good fit to me!

a1na2
12-17-2007, 06:52 PM
Use the results, so far, from the poll and ask yourself a few questions.

1. Do republicans stand by their religion even through political discussions?

2. Do democrats make every attempt to totally separate themselves from religion during political discussions?

3. How many republicans believe that the Constitution was written as a document that professes the freedom of religion in the USA?

4. How many democrats believe that the Constitution was written as a document that professes the freedom from religion in the USA?

It is my belief that democrats are fearful of incorporating religion into their politic positions because they are the cafeteria Christians. They don't discuss religion because their beliefs are somewhat suspect and only present when they are politically expedient and even though they have a belief they often know less about the Bible than most.

Typically those that know about the Bible are Christians, regardless of political affiliation and atheists. It's kind of the know your enemy type of military action. A good atheist will know more about the Bible to use it against those that profess Christianity.

If I am wrong about some of you, I do humbly apologize. For those that know there is some validity to my belief what would your claims be now?

Jenson71
12-17-2007, 07:14 PM
Here's a good study of religious groups and how they voted in 2004.

http://pewforum.org/publications/surveys/postelection.pdf

tiptap
12-17-2007, 08:00 PM
You are moderate, like Karl Marx and Ralph Nader are moderate. :rolleyes:

Let him speak for himself he is as honest as your blue tick dog democrat or whatever scat you gave us for 12 years.

KILLER_CLOWN
12-17-2007, 08:05 PM
Conservative-Republican-KJV Christian.

1st priority-KJV Bible
2nd priority-US constitution

tiptap
12-17-2007, 08:13 PM
Use the results, so far, from the poll and ask yourself a few questions.

1. Do republicans stand by their religion even through political discussions?

2. Do democrats make every attempt to totally separate themselves from religion during political discussions?

3. How many republicans believe that the Constitution was written as a document that professes the freedom of religion in the USA?

4. How many democrats believe that the Constitution was written as a document that professes the freedom from religion in the USA?

It is my belief that democrats are fearful of incorporating religion into their politic positions because they are the cafeteria Christians. They don't discuss religion because their beliefs are somewhat suspect and only present when they are politically expedient and even though they have a belief they often know less about the Bible than most.




Typically those that know about the Bible are Christians, regardless of political affiliation and atheists. It's kind of the know your enemy type of military action. A good atheist will know more about the Bible to use it against those that profess Christianity.

If I am wrong about some of you, I do humbly apologize. For those that know there is some validity to my belief what would your claims be now?

It has been a while so here it is. I was raised a southern Baptist, I read the Bible through when I was 14 because I was guilted by a preacher about not having read all of it. It was the start of the undoing. Add to that the year long discussion at the religious affiliated college my freshman year concerning authority, authorship, and just plain theology and you end up with an agnostic who thinks Jesus' moral teaching are good practice. But for most people I would be considered an atheist because like Einstein and Spinoza I do not hold to the Anthropomorphic god of the Bible. Nature/Universe/Infinity/god are all one and the same and are knowable as opposed to a mystery unreasolvable. So I am definitely not in the Christian camp anymore.

a1na2
12-17-2007, 08:22 PM
Conservative-Republican-KJV Christian.

1st priority-KJV Bible
2nd priority-US constitution

You are so wrong, but entitled to your opinion.

My first Christian priority is not my Bible but my God.

My first American priority is defending the Constitution.

The biggest shame here is that those that have been appointed to interpret the Constitution are modifying the meaning of what it says. The justices that are driving the changes are the liberals that have been appointed. Each new administration there is an effort to put in place justices that will follow the administrations political beliefs. It's a shame that they can't be impartial and only do the job that was laid out in the document they are trying to destroy.

a1na2
12-17-2007, 08:28 PM
It has been a while so here it is. I was raised a southern Baptist, I read the Bible through when I was 14 because I was guilted by a preacher about not having read all of it. It was the start of the undoing. Add to that the year long discussion at the religious affiliated college my freshman year concerning authority, authorship, and just plain theology and you end up with an agnostic who thinks Jesus' moral teaching are good practice. But for most people I would be considered an atheist because like Einstein and Spinoza I do not hold to the Anthropomorphic god of the Bible. Nature/Universe/Infinity/god are all one and the same and are knowable as opposed to a mystery unreasolvable. So I am definitely not in the Christian camp anymore.

I might question if you were ever in the camp.

I've read the Bible because I wanted to learn what it had to tell me.

If you were only participating because you were guilted into it where was your heart and head?

When I was a kid I was in Church every Sunday because that's what Mom and Dad did, we followed their lead. I was there by force. I heard all of the stories in Kids Church, just like they do today. They were just stories.

It wasn't until I found something that was true to me that got me interested in studying. I'm in Church every Sunday now because I want to be there and hear what the Bible has in it that can enrich my life.

My question is can you claim not to be in the camp any longer if you weren't really there in the first place?

Sully
12-17-2007, 09:03 PM
Your theories, in my experience, are absolute horseshit.

But it's not like you'll ever change them, so believe what makes you feel better.

a1na2
12-17-2007, 09:22 PM
Your theories, in my experience, are absolute horseshit.

But it's not like you'll ever change them, so believe what makes you feel better.

You have that right, but prove them wrong.

Sully
12-18-2007, 05:28 AM
To prove them wrong I'd have to introduce you to the dozens or so clergy that I have met who have dedicated their life to teaching people about God, and who also happen to be liberal. I'd have to introduce you to the hundreds or thousands my wife has known as she has dedicated her life to spreading God's love in the several churches she has ministered to, who all happen to be liberal. You'd have to be there as my wife comes home from work in tears, because showing the compassion of Jesus to people is hard to do when they truly believe that liberal=evil. You'd have to see the tears in her eyes, or the eyes of any number of the ministers I've met that arise when they speak about their life helping bring Jesus' love to people.
You'd have to be there while my wife holds a person's hand as they die, showing them Jesus' love, and know she is the most liberal person you'll ever know.
You'd have to either stop purposefully mis characterizing the church/state debate, or stop being blind and misunderstanding the debate to see past your own opinions.
To prove it to you, you'd have to see the dozens who show up on a Monday night to Micah ministries to hand out food and clothes to those in need, those homeless who line up for blocks outside the church for whatever reason. The crackheads, the mentally ill, those who have simply made poor decisions, those who have gotten where they are for whatever reason, and see those peole working to help them, and see how sad they are that they can't do more, and realize they all do this because of their Christianity and their liberalism. You'd have to see the thousands raised in a church that typically doesn't raise much to send a few folks to Haiti in order to build them a church, or get them doctors that they can't afford.
You'd have to see that there are several denominations of Christianity that are liberal.
But I assume, given your history of bull-headedness and anger here, added in with some pretty far out there opinions, that even this "proof" wouldn't be enough. Some people NEED to feel that "the enemy" is evil in some way, not capable of realizing that person has the same goal, the betterment of the nation/world, and just believes in going about it in a different way.
Finally, saying a Dem/liberal's beliefs are "suspect" is an insult, no matter how you try to sugar coat it. I know far too many people with Master's degrees in Divinity and Religion that would take to to town on the knowledge of their religion and the Bible, and they are all liberal. Their beliefs are, by NO means. politically expedient. But they wear that faith on the sleeve, because that is what their life is all about. Your doubt of those people is an insult, and certainly isn't what my Christianity would teach.


But like I said, I doubt anything will change your angry mind.
It doesn't make me sad that you have this opinion, it makes me sad that anyone would.

a1na2
12-18-2007, 05:49 AM
To prove them wrong I'd have to introduce you to the dozens or so clergy that I have met who have dedicated their life to teaching people about God, and who also happen to be liberal. I'd have to introduce you to the hundreds or thousands my wife has known as she has dedicated her life to spreading God's love in the several churches she has ministered to, who all happen to be liberal. You'd have to be there as my wife comes home from work in tears, because showing the compassion of Jesus to people is hard to do when they truly believe that liberal=evil. You'd have to see the tears in her eyes, or the eyes of any number of the ministers I've met that arise when they speak about their life helping bring Jesus' love to people.
You'd have to be there while my wife holds a person's hand as they die, showing them Jesus' love, and know she is the most liberal person you'll ever know.
You'd have to either stop purposefully mis characterizing the church/state debate, or stop being blind and misunderstanding the debate to see past your own opinions.
To prove it to you, you'd have to see the dozens who show up on a Monday night to Micah ministries to hand out food and clothes to those in need, those homeless who line up for blocks outside the church for whatever reason. The crackheads, the mentally ill, those who have simply made poor decisions, those who have gotten where they are for whatever reason, and see those peole working to help them, and see how sad they are that they can't do more, and realize they all do this because of their Christianity and their liberalism. You'd have to see the thousands raised in a church that typically doesn't raise much to send a few folks to Haiti in order to build them a church, or get them doctors that they can't afford.
You'd have to see that there are several denominations of Christianity that are liberal.
But I assume, given your history of bull-headedness and anger here, added in with some pretty far out there opinions, that even this "proof" wouldn't be enough. Some people NEED to feel that "the enemy" is evil in some way, not capable of realizing that person has the same goal, the betterment of the nation/world, and just believes in going about it in a different way.
Finally, saying a Dem/liberal's beliefs are "suspect" is an insult, no matter how you try to sugar coat it. I know far too many people with Master's degrees in Divinity and Religion that would take to to town on the knowledge of their religion and the Bible, and they are all liberal. Their beliefs are, by NO means. politically expedient. But they wear that faith on the sleeve, because that is what their life is all about. Your doubt of those people is an insult, and certainly isn't what my Christianity would teach.


But like I said, I doubt anything will change your angry mind.
It doesn't make me sad that you have this opinion, it makes me sad that anyone would.

You have misjudged me. You feel that I'm angry, you are wrong. I have opinions just like anyone else in the world.

This isn't about clergy that are liberals. This is totally about politicians that shy away from religion for political expedience. It would do you well to try to understand what the thread is about. You are deflecting in an attempt to change the path of the thread. The basis of the thread is to indicate that liberal politicians have an aversion to religion, some say that many of them hate religion.

I'm not familiar with your particular practice of Christianity, some of your commentary over time indicates that you are no better than anyone else. For your sake I hope you are a Christian because if you are you have the option for forgiveness as we all do.

By the way, judging others as you have is also a sin. I guess that puts you on the same level as any other human on the earth.

Something else, your wife will not get you to heaven. If your wife preaches to crowds she thinks is only liberal indicates a bias on her part, at the very least on your part. I've never been to any church service anywhere that was a "liberals only" or "conservatives only". If you believe that this is the facts that you are using to prove me wrong you have made a grave mistake.

As for your claims that those with masters in divinity can tear apart my knowledge of the Bible is ludicrous. I have not claimed to be a master of the Bible, I read the Bible for my good. I don't read it to make attacks on others. At least my opinions are my own, you are basing all of your opinion on what your wife does. Watch out for the coattails religion you seem to be practicing.

KILLER_CLOWN
12-18-2007, 06:10 AM
You are so wrong, but entitled to your opinion.

My first Christian priority is not my Bible but my God.

My first American priority is defending the Constitution.

The biggest shame here is that those that have been appointed to interpret the Constitution are modifying the meaning of what it says. The justices that are driving the changes are the liberals that have been appointed. Each new administration there is an effort to put in place justices that will follow the administrations political beliefs. It's a shame that they can't be impartial and only do the job that was laid out in the document they are trying to destroy.


ummm, well if you are well versed on the bible then you would know it IS the word of GOD. ie duh

Both sides are modifying the constitution and have no right. El presidente signed onto the worldwide Carbon tax, tell me that is constitutional.

Amnorix
12-18-2007, 06:22 AM
ummm, well if you are well versed on the bible then you would know it IS the word of GOD. ie duh

Both sides are modifying the constitution and have no right. El presidente signed onto the worldwide Carbon tax, tell me that is constitutional.

I missed the Carbon Tax prohibition in the Constitution. What section is that one again?

I did, however, see Article 1, Section 8:

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"

KILLER_CLOWN
12-18-2007, 06:24 AM
I missed the Carbon Tax prohibition in the Constitution. What section is that one again?

I did, however, see Article 1, Section 8:

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"

I'm not going to argue the carbon tax in this thread but you know it is only a tax on a select few 1st world nations and pretty much forces industry into 3rd world countries for slave labor correct? Even if you believe the carbon myth it does NOTHING for the environment.

Sully
12-18-2007, 06:30 AM
You have misjudged me. You feel that I'm angry, you are wrong. I have opinions just like anyone else in the world.

This isn't about clergy that are liberals. This is totally about politicians that shy away from religion for political expedience. It would do you well to try to understand what the thread is about. You are deflecting in an attempt to change the path of the thread. The basis of the thread is to indicate that liberal politicians have an aversion to religion, some say that many of them hate religion.

I'm not familiar with your particular practice of Christianity, some of your commentary over time indicates that you are no better than anyone else. For your sake I hope you are a Christian because if you are you have the option for forgiveness as we all do.

By the way, judging others as you have is also a sin. I guess that puts you on the same level as any other human on the earth.

Something else, your wife will not get you to heaven. If your wife preaches to crowds she thinks is only liberal indicates a bias on her part, at the very least on your part. I've never been to any church service anywhere that was a "liberals only" or "conservatives only". If you believe that this is the facts that you are using to prove me wrong you have made a grave mistake.

As for your claims that those with masters in divinity can tear apart my knowledge of the Bible is ludicrous. I have not claimed to be a master of the Bible, I read the Bible for my good. I don't read it to make attacks on others. At least my opinions are my own, you are basing all of your opinion on what your wife does. Watch out for the coattails religion you seem to be practicing.

More horseshit...

Your poll, nor your theories say anything about limiting the conversation to politicians. If that was truly your meaning (I doubt) then you certainly didn't make it clear until your silly rebuttal toward me..

Secondly, I never said anything about only preaching to liberals. You are right, there are no congregation that are liberal only or conservative only.

Thirdly, when did I say I was better than anyone? Who is deflecting?

Fourthly, you brought up the silly conversation about who has more Bible knowledge...I simply brought up how you are both wrong and silly to believe what you believe.

Fifthly, Who said anything about my wife getting me to heaven? Talk about steering away from the point.

And another insult about my belief. Who is judging? Who is the one claiming to have the correct answers here? I'm not basing my beliefs simply on my wife, I am relaying my experience.

Amnorix
12-18-2007, 06:31 AM
Use the results, so far, from the poll and ask yourself a few questions.

1. Do republicans stand by their religion even through political discussions?

2. Do democrats make every attempt to totally separate themselves from religion during political discussions?

3. How many republicans believe that the Constitution was written as a document that professes the freedom of religion in the USA?

4. How many democrats believe that the Constitution was written as a document that professes the freedom from religion in the USA?

It is my belief that democrats are fearful of incorporating religion into their politic positions because they are the cafeteria Christians. They don't discuss religion because their beliefs are somewhat suspect and only present when they are politically expedient and even though they have a belief they often know less about the Bible than most.

Typically those that know about the Bible are Christians, regardless of political affiliation and atheists. It's kind of the know your enemy type of military action. A good atheist will know more about the Bible to use it against those that profess Christianity.

If I am wrong about some of you, I do humbly apologize. For those that know there is some validity to my belief what would your claims be now?

The Republican Party has as it's heart, or at least as it's lungs or some other significant organ of your choice, socially conservative, religious Republicans. They constitute a subset of the Republican Party that is vocal, well-organized, and willing to back up their beliefs with pledges of financial support. They therefore, not unreasonably, enjoy political power within the Republican Party that is disproportionate to just their raw numbers.

The Democrats have no such constituency among their ranks that is heavily influenced in their political thought by their religious beliefs, or, perhaps better said, no such constituency that is organized, well-funded, and vocal around a group of religious-oriented issues.

Therefore, intelligent and strategic politicking by Republican political leaders and Presidential aspirants must either cater to and attempt to garner the support of, or at least neutralize the opposition to the extent possible of, what has commonly known as the "Religious Right."

Intelligent and strategic politicking by Democratic political leaders and Presidential aspirants, however, primarily suggests ignoring focusing heavily on religious issues because it's more likely you will hurt yourself by alienating certain factions than you will help yourself.

Whether you believe Republicans are more religious than Democrats, either in general or on average or however you want to slice it, is entirely up to you. Based on YOUR belief systems, because Republicans cater to your set of political and religious beliefs, you unsurprisingly vote Republican and you try to imprint lack of religious conviction on the enemy, Democrats.

Simply stated, just because someone doesn't vote the way YOU want doesn't make them less religious THAN YOU.

Amnorix
12-18-2007, 06:34 AM
I'm not going to argue the carbon tax in this thread but you know it is only a tax on a select few 1st world nations and pretty much forces industry into 3rd world countries for slave labor correct? Even if you believe the carbon myth it does NOTHING for the environment.

I'm sorry, I thought we were discussing Constitutional prohibitions. You didn't say that the carbon tax wasn't a good idea, you said "El presidente signed onto the worldwide Carbon tax, tell me that is constitutional."

I am in fact telling you that it is Constitutional. Sole pole regarding regulation of commerce with foreign nations, and sole power to enter into and ratify treaties rests with the Federal government. There is no reasonable argument -- not even a weak one -- that suggests the federal government can't enter into a worldwide carbon tax system.

Amnorix
12-18-2007, 06:35 AM
By the way, judging others as you have is also a sin. I guess that puts you on the same level as any other human on the earth.



Oh the irony.... ROFL

Saulbadguy
12-18-2007, 06:35 AM
The poll was generated to elicit responses from those with the ability to be more honest with their responses. Your responses have always been contrary to anything I post so your opinion is discounted. Sorry if you are offended.
Hi. I'm a complete dumbass.

Amnorix
12-18-2007, 06:41 AM
Hi. I'm a complete dumbass.

*sigh*

I can never keep up with the name changes. 29K posts and I have no idea who you are. Who did you used to be?

Saulbadguy
12-18-2007, 06:43 AM
*sigh*

I can never keep up with the name changes. 29K posts and I have no idea who you are. Who did you used to be?
Saul. However, that is not my picture.

Amnorix
12-18-2007, 06:44 AM
Saul. However, that is not my picture.

:D I did figure out that part.

Saul had the benefit of being easier to remember than Duncan Pinderhughes, but I'll try to keep up. :)

patteeu
12-18-2007, 07:03 AM
To prove it to you, you'd have to see the dozens who show up on a Monday night to Micah ministries to hand out food and clothes to those in need, those homeless who line up for blocks outside the church for whatever reason. The crackheads, the mentally ill, those who have simply made poor decisions, those who have gotten where they are for whatever reason, and see those peole working to help them, and see how sad they are that they can't do more, and realize they all do this because of their Christianity and their liberalism.

I don't know what Micah ministries is, but it sounds like a private charity. It's possible that all the people who show up on Monday nights are liberals, but there is no reason to think that volunteering to help at a private charity is a liberal thing. It doesn't really have anything to do with liberalism.

BucEyedPea
12-18-2007, 07:14 AM
This is my favorite thread....I like all the labels in the poll and all the self-labeling going on. Really cool!

stevieray
12-18-2007, 07:15 AM
It doesn't really have anything to do with liberalism.

It's not even in the same solar system.

Sully
12-18-2007, 07:16 AM
I don't know what Micah ministries is, but it sounds like a private charity. It's possible that all the people who show up on Monday nights are liberals, but there is no reason to think that volunteering to help at a private charity is a liberal thing. It doesn't really have anything to do with liberalism.
I didn't say it was.
I was saying that those who were there, that I knew, were there due to both their belief and theiur liberalism.
I'm positive some there were conservative.

Sully
12-18-2007, 07:21 AM
I think it's funny that of all the ludicrous things in this thread, that pat and stevie only took time to counter the one thing they thought I said that was wrong.

stevieray
12-18-2007, 07:22 AM
I think it's funny that of all the ludicrous things in this thread, that pat and stevie only took time to counter the one thing they thought I said that was wrong.

No, I think a lot of waht you said was wrong, but that was the most obvious.

Sully
12-18-2007, 07:24 AM
No, I think a lot of waht you said was wrong, but that was the most obvious.
Like what?

You want to actually address it, or run like usual?

Do you agree with Tom Cash?

Do you think we liberals are only fake Christians?

Are you really that dumb, as well?

Mr. Kotter
12-18-2007, 07:26 AM
This is my favorite thread....I like all the labels in the poll and all the self-labeling going on. Really cool!

I'm sure you do; given your penchant for misapplying the "neocon" label.....labels seem to be a hot button for you.

BucEyedPea
12-18-2007, 07:28 AM
Nope, I don't misapply it. I use definition #1 ( original definition) and definition #2 those going along with them. This is how Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell. Justin Raimondo, Taki, Chronicles and those at American Conservative use it. Dictionaries have multiple entries for a reason.

KILLER_CLOWN
12-18-2007, 07:29 AM
Nope, I don't misapply it. I use definition #1 ( original definition) and definition #2 those going along with them. This is how Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell. Jusstin Raimondo, Taki and those at American Conservative use it. Dictionaries have multiple entries for a reason.

Your pm box is full, please unload it! ;)

stevieray
12-18-2007, 07:33 AM
Like what?



Are you really that dumb, as well?

like claiming that good works is attributed to being liberal...like seeking accolades for doing something you're supposed to do...like claiming that people with Masters in Religion that are Liberal would run circles around others...taking their knowledge to use against others...

"are you really that dumb, as well?" ..does Micah ministries endorse this?

Mr. Kotter
12-18-2007, 07:33 AM
Nope, I don't misapply it. I use definition #1 ( original definition) and definition #2 those going along with them. This is how Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell. Justin Raimondo, Taki, Chronicles and those at American Conservative use it. Dictionaries have multiple entries for a reason.

I suppose that's convenient if your intent is to toss it around as a pejorative to demean those with whom you disagree.

By all, means then....it's a free country, afterall; despite the horseshit being spewed that it isn't..... ;)

Sully
12-18-2007, 07:39 AM
like claiming that good works is attributed to being liberal...like seeking accolades for doing something you're supposed to do...

"are you really that dumb, as well?" ..does Micah ministries endorse this?

Wow. It seems you are going out of your way to misunderstand what I posted.

Tom asked for proof that liberal Christians weren't "Cafeteria Christians."
I simply gave examples of many instances where I saw with my own eyes that wasn't the case. I certainly wasn't looking for a pat on the back. I was simply insulted by his theory, and was offering the "proof" he asked for. I NEVER said they were solely liberal acts, but I did explain (which you decided to overlook) that these acts came from people who did them due to their Christianity and liberalism. Does that mean a Christian Conservative couldn't? (that would be stupid reasoning) Does that mean they do them as well, but for different reasons, due to their religious and political frame of mind? (most likely)

My question as to the lengths of you being dumb had to do with whether you endorsed his view that we liberals could only be Christian when it was expedient for us. If your answer to that is "Yes," than you are that dumb.

Amnorix
12-18-2007, 07:47 AM
This is my favorite thread....I like all the labels in the poll and all the self-labeling going on. Really cool!

You should rename yourself to LOL (label-obsessed lunatic). :evil:

BucEyedPea
12-18-2007, 07:49 AM
I suppose that's convenient if your intent is to toss it around as a pejorative to demean those with whom you disagree.

By all, means then....it's a free country, afterall; despite the horseshit being spewed that it isn't..... ;)
As I posted before, I don't use it because I disagree. That's just your and other's opinion about what I'm doing. But that goes to intent which you can't see.

It's actually my honest opinion that it is this group that has hijacked the Republican party, and with it rank-and-file conservatives, at the leadership level and that their ideas have trickled down. I have only cited three people here as being actual NCs. I stand by it and it took me a long time to decide. Otherwise when I post in reference to the NCs, as I've clarified via rep comments to pat, I am largely referring to those inside the beltway. And that's who I'm referring to generally when I use the word NeoCon.

stevieray
12-18-2007, 07:51 AM
Wow. It seems you are going out of your way to misunderstand what I posted.

Tom asked for proof that liberal Christians weren't "Cafeteria Christians."
I simply gave examples of many instances where I saw with my own eyes that wasn't the case. I certainly wasn't looking for a pat on the back. I was simply insulted by his theory, and was offering the "proof" he asked for. I NEVER said they were solely liberal acts, but I did explain (which you decided to overlook) that these acts came from people who did them due to their Christianity and liberalism. Does that mean a Christian Conservative couldn't? (that would be stupid reasoning) Does that mean they do them as well, but for different reasons, due to their religious and political frame of mind? (most likely)

My question as to the lengths of you being dumb had to do with whether you endorsed his view that we liberals could only be Christian when it was expedient for us. If your answer to that is "Yes," than you are that dumb.

I think anyone who claims that a politcal party has anything to do with ones faith is wrong.

BucEyedPea
12-18-2007, 07:51 AM
You should rename yourself to LOL (label-obsessed lunatic). :evil:
I also read labels very carefully in the supermarket...I have to know if what I'm getting is the real thing, or pure. :)

And when it's shampoo I use a magnifying glass since the type is so tiny, and all in caps that it can't be read. Probably has poison it, I figure. :p

KILLER_CLOWN
12-18-2007, 07:55 AM
I also read labels very carefully in the supermarket...I have to know if what I'm getting is the real thing, or pure. :)

And when it's shampoo I use a magnifying glass since the type is so tiny, and all in caps that it can't be read. Probably has poison it, I figure. :p

I woke up to all the poisons in foods, detergents, and all the overall environment years ago. This was the #1 reason i woke up to Ron Paul.

Sully
12-18-2007, 08:02 AM
I think anyone who claims that a politcal party has anything to do with ones faith is wrong.
Then you agree with me that Tom's theories are horseshit.
Thank you.
I was worried that more people than I thought held that ridiculous view.
I appreciate the backup.

tiptap
12-18-2007, 08:12 AM
I might question if you were ever in the camp.

I've read the Bible because I wanted to learn what it had to tell me.

If you were only participating because you were guilted into it where was your heart and head?

When I was a kid I was in Church every Sunday because that's what Mom and Dad did, we followed their lead. I was there by force. I heard all of the stories in Kids Church, just like they do today. They were just stories.

It wasn't until I found something that was true to me that got me interested in studying. I'm in Church every Sunday now because I want to be there and hear what the Bible has in it that can enrich my life.

My question is can you claim not to be in the camp any longer if you weren't really there in the first place?

Let me just say yes I was in the camp by age 9. I publicly accepted that Jesus was the son of god, died for my sins and was raised the third day and will come again at his time to pass judgement. I read and faithfully went to church because I liked it and took faithfully what my elders gave instruction. I was a goody good shoes. That child is father to the man and I take GREAT OFFENSE to your even suggestion that that child was not diligent and pursuant to a christian understanding. The man tells you to go suck a big one.

Amnorix
12-18-2007, 08:13 AM
I woke up to all the poisons in foods, detergents, and all the overall environment years ago. This was the #1 reason i woke up to Ron Paul.
Does he propose eliminating them? And if so, however, how without heavy increases in regulation, which would seem anathema to his reduced government concepts.

BucEyedPea
12-18-2007, 08:17 AM
Does he propose eliminating them? And if so, however, how without heavy increases in regulation, which would seem anathema to his reduced government concepts.
He'd allow the market ( the people taking responsibility to check, not buy and buy elsewhere) to decide. There's a reason the organic food movment is growing. FTR, I buy organic on certain things, because they list food on the labels where commercial brands have names ( chemicals) that can't be pronounced. More freedom means one has to take more personal responsibilty.
This is how I'd answer this question for Paul.

banyon
12-18-2007, 08:23 AM
I woke up to all the poisons in foods, detergents, and all the overall environment years ago. This was the #1 reason i woke up to Ron Paul.

I don't get it. Your join date is too old to be a Kotter alt. Are you really this cartoonish?

Cochise
12-18-2007, 08:24 AM
I don't get it. Your join date is too old to be a Kotter alt. Are you really this cartoonish?

Haha. This reminds me of that thread about how if you eat food that was microwaved you'll get cancer.

KILLER_CLOWN
12-18-2007, 08:25 AM
I don't get it. Your join date is too old to be a Kotter alt. Are you really this cartoonish?

eh? i dunno wtf your talking about.

KILLER_CLOWN
12-18-2007, 08:27 AM
Haha. This reminds me of that thread about how if you eat food that was microwaved you'll get cancer.

Microwaving food 100% ensures your killing all nutrients, beyond that it is only a crapshoot. try an experiement, microwave a small portion of water, let sit to room temperature, then feed a plant and watch it die.

banyon
12-18-2007, 08:29 AM
eh? i dunno wtf your talking about.

That doesn't surprise me in the least.

Mr. Kotter
12-18-2007, 08:32 AM
I don't get it. Your join date is too old to be a Kotter alt. Are you really this cartoonish?

Okay. Fine. Dang it. I can't have any fun here anymore. :harumph:

You're right; this was my original ID, and I remembered the password a while back....and have periodically used it to stir the pot.

Guess I shoulda been more restrained. Mods, feel free to ban the KILLER_CLOWN ID. :(

Amnorix
12-18-2007, 08:32 AM
He'd allow the market ( the people taking responsibility to check, not buy and buy elsewhere) to decide. There's a reason the organic food movment is growing. FTR, I buy organic on certain things, because they list food on the labels where commercial brands have names ( chemicals) that can't be pronounced. More freedom means one has to take more personal responsibilty.
This is how I'd answer this question for Paul.



So....he wouldn't change anything on this front? That's what I get out of your post, but you've confused me before, so....?

Amnorix
12-18-2007, 08:33 AM
Okay. Fine. Dang it. I can't have any fun here anymore. :harumph:

You're right; this was my original ID, and I remembered the password a while back....and have periodically used it to stir the pot.

Guess I shoulda been more restrained. Mods, feel free to ban the KILLER_Clown ID. :(

ROFL

BucEyedPea
12-18-2007, 08:34 AM
eh? i dunno wtf your talking about.
The irony of banyon name calling. Point out the origin of the term "social contract" and he goes beserk. Just watch the reaction. Me thinks he doth protest too much.

Cochise
12-18-2007, 08:35 AM
:shake:

that alt was too d-baggy to be an alt, or so I thought.

BucEyedPea
12-18-2007, 08:40 AM
So....he wouldn't change anything on this front? That's what I get out of your post, but you've confused me before, so....?
Sorry, I do understand that text communication, particularly on a BB can lead to misunderstandings.

On a scale of one to ten, if it were a food item whereby a few mouthfuls would make a people in generally ill, kill them eventually or known to be harmful to a large degree. ( speaking generally here of course) Then I can see govt involvement. I'm guessing here that this would also be true for Paul. But where it comes to learning to eat healthy, getting educated on what that takes, and being a responsible shopper then no...that'd be up the individual. The govt should not be called on to micromanage such things. So there is a scale of personal responsibility versus govt. If more people did this, food suppliers would rise to the demand or just not survive in the market. They'd have to out of necessity because business cannot survive without supply products and services that people ( the market) need or want. When the govt does too much, people tend to act less responsibly. I say it breeds apathy.

Mr. Kotter
12-18-2007, 08:45 AM
:shake:

that alt was too d-baggy to be an alt, or so I thought.

Now that I think about it, my decreased activity here.....coupled with the KILLER_CLOWN's coinciding increased presence, and obnoxiousness (especially here in D.C.) should have been a dead give-away.

For awhile, I thought I could get away with it.....and have people think it was an alt of Jim/Logical/Dr. Doom.....since he's been around less.

But banyon, figured me out.... :banghead:







;)

Amnorix
12-18-2007, 08:57 AM
Sorry, I do understand that text communication, particularly on a BB can lead to misunderstandings.

On a scale of one to ten, if it were a food item whereby a few mouthfuls would make a people in generally ill, kill them eventually or known to be harmful to a large degree. ( speaking generally here of course) Then I can see govt involvement. I'm guessing here that this would also be true for Paul. But where it comes to learning to eat healthy, getting educated on what that takes, and being a responsible shopper then no...that'd be up the individual. The govt should not be called on to micromanage such things. So there is a scale of personal responsibility versus govt. If more people did this, food suppliers would rise to the demand or just not survive in the market. They'd have to out of necessity because business cannot survive without supply products and services that people ( the market) need or want. When the govt does too much, people tend to act less responsibly. I say it breeds apathy.

While I don't disagree with your broadly outline concepts, don't make the mistake of assuming that the marketplace/consumer have access to the information necessary to make an educated choice between products. That's why the FDA exists.

Read "The Jungle" and you'll redraw your line a bit I think.

banyon
12-18-2007, 08:58 AM
BEP doesn't do "history" Amniorix.

Mr. Kotter
12-18-2007, 09:30 AM
BEP doesn't do "history" Amniorix.

But "history is hard!" :deevee:

Cochise
12-18-2007, 09:48 AM
BEP doesn't do "history" Amniorix.

It's a shame you can't deal when you are confronted with the actual definition of history, rather than your neo-Albrechtsberger redefinition of the term. :harumph:

banyon
12-18-2007, 10:00 AM
It's a shame you can't deal when you are confronted with the actual definition of history, rather than your neo-Albrechtsberger redefinition of the term. :harumph:

Thanks, with CPIggy, I no longer know how I should label myself. :)

Cochise
12-18-2007, 10:02 AM
Thanks, with CPIggy, I no longer know how I should label myself. :)

1. select name of Austrian person.
2. ...
3. Profit!!!

banyon
12-18-2007, 10:03 AM
1. select name of Austrian person.
2. ...
3. Profit!!!

got it.

http://www.miamihawktalk.com/images/uploads/gnome.jpg

Chief Faithful
12-18-2007, 10:04 AM
Other - Christian

Cochise
12-18-2007, 10:06 AM
got it.

http://www.miamihawktalk.com/images/uploads/gnome.jpg

I was kind of sad that nobody understood when she started calling me a neo-Straussian debbil or whatever it was, and I alluded a few times to Johan Strauss, the composer.

Obscure humor I guess, 18th century Austrian composers.

BucEyedPea
12-18-2007, 10:16 AM
While I don't disagree with your broadly outline concepts, don't make the mistake of assuming that the marketplace/consumer have access to the information necessary to make an educated choice between products. That's why the FDA exists.

Read "The Jungle" and you'll redraw your line a bit I think.
I know about "The Jungle" from HS. FTR I'm not necessarily opposed to the FDA. But any govt agency lacks complete information too. They are afterall made up of human beings. And any govt agency can be subjected to corruption by vested interests. Think it was a former CocaCola guy who helped make aspartame legal...and I don't consider that a healthy substance at all. In fact saccharine, which was banned is safer. It's legal in Canada. So the FDA doesn't always keep us safe. People would have to do some research and make their own decisions as everyone has their own standards. Mine are much higher than the FDAs. Look at the stuff that's allowed as it is currently.

I think such agencies can only set a minimum standard. No system is perfect but generally speaking govt does not aspire to excellence simply by its very nature which is group think. Ya' know committees. Not the most effective type of operation.

patteeu
12-18-2007, 11:12 AM
I didn't say it was.
I was saying that those who were there, that I knew, were there due to both their belief and theiur liberalism.
I'm positive some there were conservative.

I just wanted to be clear about it because I got the sense that you were saying that "they all" were liberals. I'm glad you've cleared it up.

BTW, you did say that "they all" do what the do at Micah Ministries because of their liberalism so you'll have to excuse me if it wasn't clear that you allow for the possibility that some of them are actually conservatives. Beyond that, you might also notice that I explicitly allowed for the possibility that everyone who shows up on Monday night is a liberal even though there is no reason to believe that liberals have a corner on charitable activities.

patteeu
12-18-2007, 11:14 AM
I think it's funny that of all the ludicrous things in this thread, that pat and stevie only took time to counter the one thing they thought I said that was wrong.

You're kind of touchy aren't you?

And accepting your premise for the sake of argument, why would I counter all of the things I thought was right instead of focusing on what I thought was wrong? That doesn't even make sense.

Amnorix
12-18-2007, 11:20 AM
I know about "The Jungle" from HS. FTR I'm not necessarily opposed to the FDA. But any govt agency lacks complete information too. They are afterall made up of human beings. And any govt agency can be subjected to corruption by vested interests. Think it was a former CocaCola guy who helped make aspartame legal...and I don't consider that a healthy substance at all. In fact saccharine, which was banned is safer. It's legal in Canada. So the FDA doesn't always keep us safe. People would have to do some research and make their own decisions as everyone has their own standards. Mine are much higher than the FDAs. Look at the stuff that's allowed as it is currently.

I think such agencies can only set a minimum standard. No system is perfect but generally speaking govt does not aspire to excellence simply by its very nature which is group think. Ya' know committees. Not the most effective type of operation.

Let's me point out a few things you're missing.

1. the only reason there's a list of ingredients for you to see is because of FDA rules.

2. not many people have time to inspect meat plants. Even if they did, absent laws allowing them to, the meat plant company wouldn't let them in, and rightly so. Free markets and consumerism work best when there si a maximum of information to use in the process of making your consumer choices. Unless you grow the stuff yourself, or inspect THE PLANT OF EVERY PRODUCT YOU BUY, you cannot possibly be sure that either (1) the plant is up to basic safety and health requirements, or (2) that the ingredients listed on the labels are remotely accurate.

Regulation can help smooth the way for the marketplace to work, by substituting government officials for hte entire public to garner information to help free markets operate, or they can hinder things by overregulating. The FDA is a classic case of the former.

That said, your point is taken regarding aspertame (sp). It's inevitable, unfortunately, the regulators and the industries they regulate get into bed together to a greater or lesser degree. That's an unfortunate and mostly unavoidable by-product of oversight and regulation.

Sully
12-18-2007, 11:25 AM
You're kind of touchy aren't you?

And accepting your premise for the sake of argument, why would I counter all of the things I thought was right instead of focusing on what I thought was wrong? That doesn't even make sense.
Admittedly I'm touchy about this particular thing. If people want to question my Christianity, or worse, the Christianity of those I know who are defined by their faith and the works they do to further that faith, simply because they are liberal, then I'll be the guy to make an ass out of himself speaking up. I pick my fights, but this is one of them. I see people work too hard (namely, my wife) in ministry, who are also liberal, to see some angry guy make such bat-shit crazy comments. Obviously non of the conservatives are going to come out and disagree with him, and I don't know who of the liberals are as passionate about it as I am, so I made my points.

As far as the other part:
The emphasis I was hoping for was on the "I" as I was hoping you were sensible enough to realize that just about the entire premise of Tom's theory was incorrect at best, and ludicrous. Maybe you agree with him, though, and that's why you only spoke up about that which you think was posted which was by me) that is "wrong."
If so, I gave you too much credit... if not... then it's still interesting that my miniscule mistype was bad enough for you to respond to, but Tm's gaping flaw of logic wasn't.

BucEyedPea
12-18-2007, 11:35 AM
Let's me point out a few things you're missing.
I wouldn't make that assumption. I know very well that ingredient listings are due to the FDA.

1. the only reason there's a list of ingredients for you to see is because of FDA rules.
See above. But they still allow too many toxins imo. That standard is low.

2. not many people have time to inspect meat plants. Even if they did, absent laws allowing them to, the meat plant company wouldn't let them in, and rightly so.

No kidding. I didn't make such a case.

Free markets and consumerism work best when there si a maximum of information to use in the process of making your consumer choices. Unless you grow the stuff yourself, or inspect THE PLANT OF EVERY PRODUCT YOU BUY, you cannot possibly be sure that either (1) the plant is up to basic safety and health requirements, or (2) that the ingredients listed on the labels are remotely accurate.
See above. My point is that they allow a certain amount of junk...stuff that I consider unacceptable. I just do my own inspection of labels and buy more organic where the standards are higher without the govt.

I buy organic hamburger, chicken and pork unless it's not available. Same with veggies. I will buy some non-organic things. I have my own poisons but I limit them. Organic has higher nutritional content but some will say it doesn't. I say hogwash. I've seen the nutritional comparison charts.

Regulation can help smooth the way for the marketplace to work, by substituting government officials for hte entire public to garner information to help free markets operate, or they can hinder things by overregulating. The FDA is a classic case of the former.
Now see there you go....Where did I say the FDA should be abolished? I didn't. I made a case that govt can only do a certain level of protection...and that it's lower by some people's standards, such as my own.

That said, your point is taken regarding aspertame (sp). It's inevitable, unfortunately, the regulators and the industries they regulate get into bed together to a greater or lesser degree. That's an unfortunate and mostly unavoidable by-product of oversight and regulation.

Precisely my point. Which is why people need to still take responsibility for a higher standard as the govt, due to its very nature, can only set a minimum standard. Most people don't they think a govt standard is good enough.

Amnorix
12-18-2007, 12:02 PM
BEP -- maybe we're in agreement on something then. How shocking. :)

BucEyedPea
12-18-2007, 12:08 PM
BEP -- maybe we're in agreement on something then. How shocking. :)
Yeah, sorta. I'm more adding that it's not good enough is all.
But we do agree on fp to certain extent.

BTW I am a fomer liberal dem...not too liberal though. Afterall, I grew up in Mass. The south has changed me somewhat.

Amnorix
12-18-2007, 12:18 PM
Regulatory agencies establish floors, not ceilings, of performance. Consuemrs are of course free to try to demand a higher standard. The marketplace cna force companies into higher standards, certainly, and there's nothing wrong with that.

patteeu
12-18-2007, 12:21 PM
Admittedly I'm touchy about this particular thing. If people want to question my Christianity, or worse, the Christianity of those I know who are defined by their faith and the works they do to further that faith, simply because they are liberal, then I'll be the guy to make an ass out of himself speaking up. I pick my fights, but this is one of them. I see people work too hard (namely, my wife) in ministry, who are also liberal, to see some angry guy make such bat-shit crazy comments. Obviously non of the conservatives are going to come out and disagree with him, and I don't know who of the liberals are as passionate about it as I am, so I made my points.

As far as the other part:
The emphasis I was hoping for was on the "I" as I was hoping you were sensible enough to realize that just about the entire premise of Tom's theory was incorrect at best, and ludicrous. Maybe you agree with him, though, and that's why you only spoke up about that which you think was posted which was by me) that is "wrong."
If so, I gave you too much credit... if not... then it's still interesting that my miniscule mistype was bad enough for you to respond to, but Tm's gaping flaw of logic wasn't.

I don't know what a1na2's point was. I read his explanation but I didn't really get it. So rather than agreeing with it or disagreeing with it, I ignored it. To be honest, I'm not that jazzed about analyzing the nexus between religion and politics.

But when I read your post, the part that seemed to say that all the good people helping out at the Micah Ministries were liberals didn't go down well. I'm willing to believe that you didn't mean it the way I took it, but that's why I responded to such a narrow detail from within this much larger discussion.

FWIW, I do see more negative posts about the nexus of religion and politics from lefties around here than I do from righties. And maybe my memory is flawed, but it doesn't seem like you have as much of a problem with the criticisms when they come from the lefties as when they come from the righties.

Nightfyre
12-18-2007, 12:23 PM
Regulatory agencies establish floors, not ceilings, of performance. Consuemrs are of course free to try to demand a higher standard. The marketplace cna force companies into higher standards, certainly, and there's nothing wrong with that.
Floors can still create inefficiencies. Best to let the market determine the standards through strong-use of consumer groups in the majority of circumstances, imo. Though, you'll get no argument from me that ceilings are almost always worse.

Kraut
12-18-2007, 12:26 PM
3rd party Christian

Sully
12-18-2007, 12:47 PM
FWIW, I do see more negative posts about the nexus of religion and politics from lefties around here than I do from righties. And maybe my memory is flawed, but it doesn't seem like you have as much of a problem with the criticisms when they come from the lefties as when they come from the righties.

Tom's main point was that liberals (later changed to liberal politicians) were only "Cafeteria Christians."

No, I don't find as much fault with those who espouse a belief in seperation of church and state, as that is something I strongly believe in.

However, I did get into it with irishjayhawk just last week for his constant running down of all things religious. I don't say much to those who make jokes at religion's expense, because they are typically just jokes. The serious things they say, though I have said little in the past, I will respond to if I feel they are baseless (again...my responses to irish last week).

Many of the things I hear about religion from those on the left, though, I can typically understand the place they are coming from. Even if I disagree with their conclusions, or the entire premise of the argument, I can see what makes them feel that way. Mainly I don't respond because something tangible has brought them to their conclusions. In Tom's case, i don't see that in the slightest. Even his poll has absolutely nothing to do with his claims.

Mainly, though, this was far more insulting to me, coming from a Christian, than anything a non-believer would say. So...yes... I am probably more sensitive to this than other things. But we all have our hot buttons.

a1na2
12-18-2007, 01:32 PM
More horseshit...


Secondly, I never said anything about only preaching to liberals. You are right, there are no congregation that are liberal only or conservative only. :BS:


I'd have to introduce you to the hundreds or thousands my wife has known as she has dedicated her life to spreading God's love in the several churches she has ministered to, who all happen to be liberal.


There you go, direct quote from your response.

You can't even keep your own story straight.

a1na2
12-18-2007, 01:36 PM
The Republican Party has as it's heart, or at least as it's lungs or some other significant organ of your choice, socially conservative, religious Republicans. They constitute a subset of the Republican Party that is vocal, well-organized, and willing to back up their beliefs with pledges of financial support. They therefore, not unreasonably, enjoy political power within the Republican Party that is disproportionate to just their raw numbers.

The Democrats have no such constituency among their ranks that is heavily influenced in their political thought by their religious beliefs, or, perhaps better said, no such constituency that is organized, well-funded, and vocal around a group of religious-oriented issues.

Therefore, intelligent and strategic politicking by Republican political leaders and Presidential aspirants must either cater to and attempt to garner the support of, or at least neutralize the opposition to the extent possible of, what has commonly known as the "Religious Right."

Intelligent and strategic politicking by Democratic political leaders and Presidential aspirants, however, primarily suggests ignoring focusing heavily on religious issues because it's more likely you will hurt yourself by alienating certain factions than you will help yourself.

Whether you believe Republicans are more religious than Democrats, either in general or on average or however you want to slice it, is entirely up to you. Based on YOUR belief systems, because Republicans cater to your set of political and religious beliefs, you unsurprisingly vote Republican and you try to imprint lack of religious conviction on the enemy, Democrats.

Simply stated, just because someone doesn't vote the way YOU want doesn't make them less religious THAN YOU.

You've completely missed the point. Maybe I've not been clear enough in what I'm saying but I've never claimed to be more religious than anyone.

The facts are that liberal politicians tend to shy away from commentary about how a religious background affects the way they vote on issues and how they represent themselves.

For someone that professes to be intelligent you seem to really have trouble following what is happening.

a1na2
12-18-2007, 01:37 PM
Oh the irony.... ROFL

I'm glad to see that you feel so superior. You are a sinner just like everyone else. :rolleyes:

a1na2
12-18-2007, 01:42 PM
Then you agree with me that Tom's theories are horseshit.
Thank you.
I was worried that more people than I thought held that ridiculous view.
I appreciate the backup.

You are getting back up for something that I didn't say and never inferred. It was you that read that into my post.

Get a grip dude.

Sully
12-18-2007, 01:43 PM
There you go, direct quote from your response.

You can't even keep your own story straight.
ROFL

I never said all the peole in those churches were liberal. I said all the people I would introduce you to happen to be liberal. For once, I can see where your confusion comes from. But it's not too hard to figure out.

Amnorix
12-18-2007, 01:44 PM
Floors can still create inefficiencies. Best to let the market determine the standards through strong-use of consumer groups in the majority of circumstances, imo. Though, you'll get no argument from me that ceilings are almost always worse.

How are you going to have sufficiently well organized and funded consumer groups to provide the information necessary for consumers to have the choices they want.

a1na2
12-18-2007, 01:45 PM
Let me just say yes I was in the camp by age 9. I publicly accepted that Jesus was the son of god, died for my sins and was raised the third day and will come again at his time to pass judgement. I read and faithfully went to church because I liked it and took faithfully what my elders gave instruction. I was a goody good shoes. That child is father to the man and I take GREAT OFFENSE to your even suggestion that that child was not diligent and pursuant to a christian understanding. The man tells you to go suck a big one.

Your description was a fully documented comment that says that you weren't there because you wanted to be there but you were there because you were guilted into it.

It takes a man to admit they were wrong and I don't see that in you .... boy. Still trying to weasel around your belief. Either you did or you didn't and based on what you said you nevere did.

Sully
12-18-2007, 01:45 PM
Did you, or did you not say this:

It is my belief that democrats are fearful of incorporating religion into their politic positions because they are the cafeteria Christians.

If you don't stand by that, then fine. I wouldn't want to either. Either way, it's horseshit.

a1na2
12-18-2007, 01:50 PM
I never said all the peole in those churches were liberal. I said all the people I would introduce you to happen to be liberal. For once, I can see where your confusion comes from. But it's not too hard to figure out.
I'd have to introduce you to the hundreds or thousands my wife has known as she has dedicated her life to spreading God's love in the several churches she has ministered to, who all happen to be liberal. .
Which part of this are you misunderstanding?

I didn't write it you did!!

Your statement indicates that hundreds or thousnads of people your wife preached to happen to be liberals? I find that harder to believe than anything.

What I find hardest ot believe is that you to be professing something that you aren't. Which is it?

Amnorix
12-18-2007, 01:50 PM
I'm glad to see that you feel so superior. You are a sinner just like everyone else. :rolleyes:

As often as I can...

Sully
12-18-2007, 01:53 PM
I can bold, too!

You are purposely trying to mis characterize this, now... even after I've explained it to you...

I'd have to introduce you to the hundreds or thousands my wife has known as she has dedicated her life to spreading God's love in the several churches she has ministered to, who all happen to be liberal.


How better can I explain it to you?

a1na2
12-18-2007, 01:58 PM
As often as I can...

There are some really good Churches in Boston that can help you. You might make an effort to get up on a Sunday and pay them a visit. If for nothing else to drop off your tithe check.

Amnorix
12-18-2007, 02:06 PM
You've completely missed the point. Maybe I've not been clear enough in what I'm saying but I've never claimed to be more religious than anyone.

The facts are that liberal politicians tend to shy away from commentary about how a religious background affects the way they vote on issues and how they represent themselves.

For someone that professes to be intelligent you seem to really have trouble following what is happening.


Actually, I'm dumb as a rock and live to be as smaht as you.

Amnorix
12-18-2007, 02:07 PM
There are some really good Churches in Boston that can help you. You might make an effort to get up on a Sunday and pay them a visit. If for nothing else to drop off your tithe check.
Why, can I pay for admission into heaven? That used to be the system, but that was a LONG time ago, and I hadn't heard that it had returned.

You worry about your soul, and I'll worry about mine. Proselytizing me is a complete waste of your time.

a1na2
12-18-2007, 02:17 PM
Why, can I pay for admission into heaven? That used to be the system, but that was a LONG time ago, and I hadn't heard that it had returned.

You worry about your soul, and I'll worry about mine. Proselytizing me is a complete waste of your time.
You are dumber than I first thought. Which part of that post did you take seriously? It's not that I don't want you to experience Christ, I don't think you can intellectually experience him.

a1na2
12-18-2007, 02:19 PM
Actually, I'm dumb as a rock and live to be as smaht as you.

See, now you are using insults to try to prove your intelligence. Great thing that won't get you anywhere.

Saulbadguy
12-18-2007, 02:20 PM
See, now you are using insults to try to prove your intelligence. Great thing that won't get you anywhere.
hahahahaahahaaa

Amnorix
12-18-2007, 02:31 PM
You are dumber than I first thought. Which part of that post did you take seriously? It's not that I don't want you to experience Christ, I don't think you can intellectually experience him.

Your sarcasm and wit are too subtle to me. I'm too dense to follow it.

Amnorix
12-18-2007, 02:32 PM
See, now you are using insults to try to prove your intelligence. Great thing that won't get you anywhere.
My intelligence (or lack thereof) isn't proven by my insults. I'm insulting you because you practically beg to be insulted.

Nightfyre
12-18-2007, 02:32 PM
You are dumber than I first thought. Which part of that post did you take seriously? It's not that I don't want you to experience Christ, I don't think you can intellectually experience him.
Oh boy, this should be good. Do explain how you "intellectually experience Christ"

Amnorix
12-18-2007, 02:34 PM
Oh boy, this should be good. Do explain how you "intellectually experience Christ"

I can see how you read it that way, but I think he means that no one can "intellectually" experience him, but rather you can only experience him emotionally via true faith. At least, that's what I assume he meant. :shrug:

Cochise
12-18-2007, 02:35 PM
with adherents like these...

a1na2
12-18-2007, 02:39 PM
My intelligence (or lack thereof) isn't proven by my insults. I'm insulting you because you practically beg to be insulted.

Good thing that you are trying, bad thing that you are failing.

You just aren't very good at this are you?

a1na2
12-18-2007, 02:40 PM
Oh boy, this should be good. Do explain how you "intellectually experience Christ"

If you have to ask the question you are beyond explanation.

Sorry. Maybe you can get Amoronix to 'splain' it to you Lucy.

Sully
12-18-2007, 02:44 PM
What I find hardest ot believe is that you to be professing something that you aren't. Which is it?

Help me out, Tom. What am I professing that I'm not? Your sentence here doesn't make much sense, but I'm not sure if you are questioning my faith (again) or something else.

Sully
12-18-2007, 02:47 PM
Your statement indicates that hundreds or thousnads of people your wife preached to happen to be liberals? I find that harder to believe than anything.


What is hard to believe about that?

My wife is the head pastor at her church right now, has been the keynote speaker at several national conferences, and has preached at several other churches in different states through her career. Even if we figure only half of those people were liberal (which is very low, considering where she preached), then that would equal hundreds at the low end, but more realistically, thousands.

ChiefsGirl
12-18-2007, 02:47 PM
It's people like a1na2 that initially drove me away from religion.

Adept Havelock
12-18-2007, 02:53 PM
It's people like a1na2 that initially drove me away from religion.


That's a pity. You shouldn't let yammerheads like that affect your life, whether you believe or not.

ChiefsGirl
12-18-2007, 03:02 PM
That's a pity. You shouldn't let yammerheads like that affect your life, whether you believe or not.

While my initial rejection of religion may have been an act of rebellion or disdain, I believe that over the years I have given plenty of thought to my religious decisions and I probably wouldn't change them.

Adept Havelock
12-18-2007, 03:17 PM
While my initial rejection of religion may have been an act of rebellion or disdain, I believe that over the years I have given plenty of thought to my religious decisions and I probably wouldn't change them.

Good for you. I was fortunate that my early Religious education was in an environment where questioning things was encouraged. Over the years, and after reading most of mans "Holy Books", talking to religious folks and non believers, is how I came to the conclusions I now hold as well.

Amnorix
12-18-2007, 04:34 PM
Good thing that you are trying, bad thing that you are failing.

You just aren't very good at this are you?

Since you're about the least popular person on this board, EVER, it seems to me that you just can't take a hint and leave when you're not generally wanted.

I admit that this latest iteration of you seems a bit less annoying than some of your prior incarnations, but I'm sure you'll revert to form soon enough.

patteeu
12-18-2007, 04:34 PM
However, I did get into it with irishjayhawk just last week for his constant running down of all things religious. I don't say much to those who make jokes at religion's expense, because they are typically just jokes. The serious things they say, though I have said little in the past, I will respond to if I feel they are baseless (again...my responses to irish last week).

Yes, I do remember that.

patteeu
12-18-2007, 04:38 PM
You've completely missed the point. Maybe I've not been clear enough in what I'm saying but I've never claimed to be more religious than anyone.

The facts are that liberal politicians tend to shy away from commentary about how a religious background affects the way they vote on issues and how they represent themselves.

For someone that professes to be intelligent you seem to really have trouble following what is happening.

I've missed your point too. I'm still missing it. I don't really see how your poll is related to what you say your point was.

Amnorix
12-18-2007, 04:42 PM
I've missed your point too. I'm still missing it. I don't really see how your poll is related to what you say your point was.

That's cuz you and I couldn't muster enough brain power to light a candle. You go sit in the dunce corner over there and I'll sit in the idiot circle over here...

patteeu
12-18-2007, 04:43 PM
While my initial rejection of religion may have been an act of rebellion or disdain, I believe that over the years I have given plenty of thought to my religious decisions and I probably wouldn't change them.

I've heard that liberal agnostic girls are easy, is this true? :p

Amnorix
12-18-2007, 04:47 PM
The facts are that liberal politicians tend to shy away from commentary about how a religious background affects the way they vote on issues and how they represent themselves.



I'll try again, and ignore the insults...

My response to the statement above is "so what?" Democrats don't have a well organized, well-heeled and vocal religious group to kow-tow to, so why the heck shoudl they bother to explain why their belief in religion X has led them to hold political beliefs A, B and C?

Very few or no Democrats voting in the primaries cares, it's not going to help the candidate to explain it, and it may hurt them because a signficiant segment of Democrats are either areligious or are from such a widespread cross-section of religions (Jewish, etc.) that professing extremely strong religious beliefs in one particular religion may hurt the candidate among other religious groups.

So I've proven above that it's not smart to do what you suggest, but the question remains -- "so what?" Why is this bad for America or for voters or anyone.... WTF difference does it make?

Amnorix
12-18-2007, 04:50 PM
I've heard that liberal agnostic girls are easy, is this true? :p

Yes. We agnostics lack moral fibre after all. I freely admit that I lust early and often over the girls on the Girly Pic thread. I have sinned in my heart and with my .....erm..... I'll stop there.


:D

a1na2
12-18-2007, 05:03 PM
I'll try again, and ignore the insults...

My response to the statement above is "so what?" Democrats don't have a well organized, well-heeled and vocal religious group to kow-tow to, so why the heck shoudl they bother to explain why their belief in religion X has led them to hold political beliefs A, B and C?

Very few or no Democrats voting in the primaries cares, it's not going to help the candidate to explain it, and it may hurt them because a signficiant segment of Democrats are either areligious or are from such a widespread cross-section of religions (Jewish, etc.) that professing extremely strong religious beliefs in one particular religion may hurt the candidate among other religious groups.

So I've proven above that it's not smart to do what you suggest, but the question remains -- "so what?" Why is this bad for America or for voters or anyone.... WTF difference does it make?

Liberal politicians can't be honest with themselves, how can we expect them to be honest with anything?

Politicians in general aren't honest so it's probably a wash. Republicans don't feel the need to hide their religious beliefs, I just think it's strange that the liberals will attack the conviction of conservatives and attempt to hide theirs.

Now tell me, where in the quoted response that you used was there an insult?

tiptap
12-18-2007, 05:49 PM
Your description was a fully documented comment that says that you weren't there because you wanted to be there but you were there because you were guilted into it.

It takes a man to admit they were wrong and I don't see that in you .... boy. Still trying to weasel around your belief. Either you did or you didn't and based on what you said you nevere did.

That was for not having read the Bible in its entirety, not in going to church and feeding my spiritual instruction goof off.


here is the statement

It has been a while so here it is. I was raised a southern Baptist, I read the Bible through when I was 14 because I was guilted by a preacher about not having read all of it.


There it is the statement was only about not having read the Bible through cover to cover. That is a far cry from not wanting to be in church and not be engaged in my christianity.

But of course you must insist that my belief was somehow invalid. If it will help you any, you can think I have become a fallen from grace reprobate. That should be biblical enough for your thinking. I believe Paul talks about such persons who no longer are under grace. And most theological thought in this area hold that they can never repent and be saved again. OK by me.

But of course I would have had to know quite a bit of Bible and theology to know that when YOU didn't.

So own up boy you been had by the atheist.

a1na2
12-18-2007, 06:06 PM
That was for not having read the Bible in its entirety, not in going to church and feeding my spiritual instruction goof off.


here is the statement

It has been a while so here it is. I was raised a southern Baptist, I read the Bible through when I was 14 because I was guilted by a preacher about not having read all of it.

In fairness I think that your whole comment needs to be shown:

It has been a while so here it is. I was raised a southern Baptist, I read the Bible through when I was 14 because I was guilted by a preacher about not having read all of it. It was the start of the undoing. Add to that the year long discussion at the religious affiliated college my freshman year concerning authority, authorship, and just plain theology and you end up with an agnostic who thinks Jesus' moral teaching are good practice. But for most people I would be considered an atheist because like Einstein and Spinoza I do not hold to the Anthropomorphic god of the Bible. Nature/Universe/Infinity/god are all one and the same and are knowable as opposed to a mystery unreasolvable. So I am definitely not in the Christian camp anymore.

From the text above it sounds as if you were forced to be where you were as well as never being committed to the Church.

When you were "forced" to read the Bible through you started your path to Atheism? At least your departure from the Christian camp was started at the age of 14. I have problems believing that you were any different from any other 14 year old that was forced to be in Church by his family.

I asked a minister to look at the above statement and give me his read on it. Without prompting he came up with the same outcome as I did. FTR, he was a Baptist minister. He said that there didn't seem to have ever been any commitment to your faith.

Sing and dance all you want, your story is pretty much self explanatory.

BucEyedPea
12-18-2007, 06:13 PM
I have sinned in my heart and with my .....erm.....
Were you trying to write Herm or sperm? :p

tiptap
12-18-2007, 06:27 PM
We part now tom. When Christians start imitating their savior by raising from the dead after two, three or four days we can talk about reality being on your side. Until then whether or not Jesus, being god could ever be dead, seems entirety a different circumstance than being human and being resurrected to eternal life.

a1na2
12-18-2007, 06:33 PM
We part now tom. When Christians start imitating their savior by raising from the dead after two, three or four days we can talk about reality being on your side. Until then whether or not Jesus, being god could ever be dead, seems entirety a different circumstance than being human and being resurrected to eternal life.

Your comment seems to be written by someone that is drunk.

I'm not sure if you have checked happenings around the world, but there have been resurrections. They have always been blown off.

Your inability to have faith is where you are defeating yourself.

Live your life the way you feel correct for you. Do I care if you die and go to hell? Yes I care. If you do have a base of knowledge about God and how he has orchestrated your life you may again be to a point that you believe in God. Rest assured of one thing, you may not currently believe in Him, but he believes in you.

Amnorix
12-18-2007, 08:24 PM
Liberal politicians can't be honest with themselves, how can we expect them to be honest with anything?

Complete non-sequitur. Feel free to connect the unconnected dots.

Now tell me, where in the quoted response that you used was there an insult?

I deleted the very next sentence in your post, which was:

For someone that professes to be intelligent you seem to really have trouble following what is happening.

Amnorix
12-18-2007, 08:26 PM
I'm not sure if you have checked happenings around the world, but there have been resurrections. They have always been blown off.

Who else?

Your inability to have faith is where you are defeating yourself.

FYI, the self-righteousness is really endearing. Keep it up...

a1na2
12-18-2007, 08:48 PM
Who else?



FYI, the self-righteousness is really endearing. Keep it up...

I'm speaking only of you. You don't know what my background is, nor do you know what kind of a person I am. I could be an atheist.

I think that you just have a problem with any kind of faith, thus your response.

a1na2
12-18-2007, 08:49 PM
I deleted the very next sentence in your post, which was:

Dude, that's not an insult, it's an observation.

ChiefsGirl
12-19-2007, 08:03 AM
Liberal politicians can't be honest with themselves, how can we expect them to be honest with anything?

Politicians in general aren't honest so it's probably a wash. Republicans don't feel the need to hide their religious beliefs, I just think it's strange that the liberals will attack the conviction of conservatives and attempt to hide theirs.

Now tell me, where in the quoted response that you used was there an insult?

I know that I'm going to regret engaging in a conversation with you but...

You realize that most Republican politicians who are very outward about their religious beliefs are doing so because they're pandering to people like you?

banyon
12-19-2007, 08:25 AM
I know that I'm going to regret engaging in a conversation with you but...

You realize that most Republican politicians who are very outward about their religious beliefs are doing so because they're pandering to people like you?

You're learning fast! :)

a1na2
12-19-2007, 04:26 PM
I know that I'm going to regret engaging in a conversation with you but...

You realize that most Republican politicians who are very outward about their religious beliefs are doing so because they're pandering to people like you?

Whatever.

Jilly
12-19-2007, 05:08 PM
Does democrat Christian automatically equal liberal? I'm asking this, not to start anything, just curious.

BucEyedPea
12-19-2007, 05:10 PM
I don't think it does. I know a devout Roman Catholic girl who is a conservative democrat.

a1na2
12-19-2007, 05:27 PM
I don't think it does. I know a devout Roman Catholic girl who is a conservative democrat.

I know a Catholic Priest that wishes the Church would allow them to be married.

There are always variables in life that don't follow convention.

BucEyedPea
12-19-2007, 05:38 PM
A lot of Catholics are Democrats a1na2. They're economically liberal but socially conservative.

a1na2
12-19-2007, 05:45 PM
A lot of Catholics are Democrats a1na2. They're economically liberal but socially conservative.

You are confusing the issue of the thread. I don't care who might be democrats and who might be republicans. The thread is about how liberal politicians only bring up their religion when it is politically expedient.

Some have misunderstood my thread, possibly because I was not clear enough with the intent. That being the case most of the discussions here are moot.

I would say that some of my best friends are democrats but that would be untrue. I can say that my wife is a registered democrat that has conservative leanings but is still quite the liberal.

BucEyedPea
12-19-2007, 05:53 PM
I actually not following the thread. I am just responding to what you posted last and just earlier to Jilly.

Amnorix
12-19-2007, 08:06 PM
Dude, that's not an insult, it's an observation.

And you are a f**king moron. It's not an insult -- just an observation. ;)

a1na2
12-19-2007, 08:22 PM
And you are a f**king moron. It's not an insult -- just an observation. ;)

I figured that you couldn't have a discussion without going that direction. I used to have a little respect for you, very little, but at least there was some there. No more.

Mr Luzcious
12-20-2007, 02:30 AM
I admit that this latest iteration of you seems a bit less annoying than some of your prior incarnations, but I'm sure you'll revert to form soon enough.

You're saying he used to be worse?? :eek:

a1na2
12-20-2007, 04:22 AM
You're saying he used to be worse?? :eek:

Only in the eyes of those I've pissed off. But I don't expect anything from members of the dc forum. liberals often attack conservatives.

Amnorix
12-20-2007, 06:50 AM
I figured that you couldn't have a discussion without going that direction. I used to have a little respect for you, very little, but at least there was some there. No more.

Mainly, I'm being ridiculously over the top in pointing out how silly your comment that your insult was "an observation" rather than insult was.

Do you point to people that are overweight and say "hey you're fat, but I'm only making an observation, not an insult".

It's absurd. What you apparently fail to realize is that a statemetn can be BOTH a true statement (and not all of your "observations are necessarily true), and an insult.

Amnorix
12-20-2007, 06:51 AM
You're saying he used to be worse?? :eek:

This particular incarnation has lasted longer than some of his prior ones. He seems to be trying to be slightly more civil, though perhaps I'm mistaken and am just inured to his approach...

a1na2
12-20-2007, 06:52 AM
Mainly, I'm being ridiculously over the top in pointing out how silly your comment that your insult was "an observation" rather than insult was.

Do you point to people that are overweight and say "hey you're fat, but I'm only making an observation, not an insult".

It's absurd. What you apparently fail to realize is that a statemetn can be BOTH a true statement (and not all of your "observations are necessarily true), and an insult.

You are going quite a distance to try to make your point that you are easily insulted, get a thicker skin.

You are no better than me when it comes to resorting to insults, you often take the first shot.

Play your stupid word games and deflect from the topic at all costs. Good job, you have achieved your agenda.

Jilly
12-20-2007, 08:38 AM
You are confusing the issue of the thread. I don't care who might be democrats and who might be republicans. The thread is about how liberal politicians only bring up their religion when it is politically expedient.

l.

I think the problem you're seeing, Tom, is that Christians who are not evangelical, conservative Christians, have a harder time articulating their faith because they are trying not to alienate people and because there is a lot more grey area. Some Christians forgo taking stands in order to be more accepting of people. And some politicians, who are Christian democrats, only really let their faith surface when it is not alienating of people, in general. At least that's how I see it. It isn't being wishy washy or elective, it's, in their mind, a living out of the life of Christ in being tolerant and loving. I think because you come at faith from such a strong conservative standpoint, there are issues that are important to you that some folks just aren't willing to take religious stands on for the sake of unity and acceptance. And while that may frustrate you, I'm glad for it and I find it really refreshing. I like to hear a politician talk about faith, but I don't like to hear them apply that faith to issues like abortion, death penalty, gay marriage, etc. I'm sure it's an influence, but at the same time, I'd rather the decision about those issues come from a purely constitutional standpoint.

Amnorix
12-20-2007, 08:40 AM
You are going quite a distance to try to make your point that you are easily insulted, get a thicker skin.

You are no better than me when it comes to resorting to insults, you often take the first shot.

Play your stupid word games and deflect from the topic at all costs. Good job, you have achieved your agenda.

My skin is plenty thick or I wouldn't have lasted long around here.

I'm comforted by the fact that while I often do battle here, I generally have the respect of most posters on this board, and have never been banned, or even threatened with being banned. Can you say the same?

a1na2
12-20-2007, 12:18 PM
My skin is plenty thick or I wouldn't have lasted long around here.

I'm comforted by the fact that while I often do battle here, I generally have the respect of most posters on this board, and have never been banned, or even threatened with being banned. Can you say the same?

Why would I try to say that?

Your belief is that each and every time I was banned was due to something I initiated, you are very wrong.

I still have zero respect for you, that point will never change.

Amnorix
12-20-2007, 12:55 PM
Why would I try to say that?

Your belief is that each and every time I was banned was due to something I initiated, you are very wrong.

So was it that it was only your fault some of the time, or are you shifting blame to others for every time you were banned.

And, btw, just how many times do you have to be banned before you take a hint about it?

I still have zero respect for you, that point will never change.

And yet somehow I will manage to soldier on in life...

Ebolapox
12-20-2007, 01:23 PM
technically a registered republican, but don't trust EITHER political party.

somewhat practicing buddhist.

Logical
12-20-2007, 02:01 PM
Independent and a Deist

stevieray
12-20-2007, 02:08 PM
So was it that it was only your fault some of the time, or are you shifting blame to others for every time you were banned.

And, btw, just how many times do you have to be banned before you take a hint about it?



And yet somehow I will manage to soldier on in life...

so you choose to engage in barbs, then claim that his don't matter while you continue to respond?

wow. I'm surprised you didn't get awarded some sort of medal...

Amnorix
12-20-2007, 03:13 PM
so you choose to engage in barbs, then claim that his don't matter while you continue to respond?

wow. I'm surprised you didn't get awarded some sort of medal...

:shrug: Unlike many on here I don't bother to put him on Iggy. As there's hardly any more love lost between you and I as between him and I, I can't say your barbs hurt any either, though I'm also responding to you. :)

a1na2
12-20-2007, 04:25 PM
So was it that it was only your fault some of the time, or are you shifting blame to others for every time you were banned.

And, btw, just how many times do you have to be banned before you take a hint about it?


The first few times were joint between one of the mods and me. We both were over the edge, he had mod powers I didn't. His solution was to ban me.

If every one were banned for the offenses that I were banned for this board would be virtually empty. There have been some very loose enforcement of the rules that apply here.

So tell me. What is it that you feel I've done that deserves banning? Just curious.

Logical
12-20-2007, 06:49 PM
You are confusing the issue of the thread. I don't care who might be democrats and who might be republicans. The thread is about how liberal politicians only bring up their religion when it is politically expedient.

Some have misunderstood my thread, possibly because I was not clear enough with the intent. That being the case most of the discussions here are moot.

I would say that some of my best friends are democrats but that would be untrue. I can say that my wife is a registered democrat that has conservative leanings but is still quite the liberal.LOL like the same is not true for conservative politicians.

go bowe
12-20-2007, 07:38 PM
Let him speak for himself he is as honest as your blue tick dog democrat or whatever scat you gave us for 12 years.12 years?

just when did you start counting?

twelve years ago, kotter was a toddler still in diapers, er...i hope lj won't be offended by my diapers reference...

i'd better shut up for a minute or two... :rolleyes:

go bowe
12-20-2007, 07:46 PM
...You don't know what my background is, nor do you know what kind of a person I am...ohhhh, tommy...

we know what kind of person you are, unfortunately...

been doing any hiding behind a skirt lately?

go bowe
12-20-2007, 07:52 PM
I figured that you couldn't have a discussion without going that direction. I used to have a little respect for you, very little, but at least there was some there. No more.oooh, oooh, oooh...

could i get two helpings of no respect please?

do you take checks?

tiptap
12-20-2007, 08:03 PM
12 years?

just when did you start counting?

twelve years ago, kotter was a toddler still in diapers, er...i hope lj won't be offended by my diapers reference...

i'd better shut up for a minute or two... :rolleyes:

Kotter has talked this through two Presidential Cycles, that is 8 years. And then he talks about blue dog Democrats FROM THE 90'S. IT just seemed longer hearing it over and over and over and over. Let me get my beer because here it comes again.

go bowe
12-20-2007, 08:04 PM
You're saying he used to be worse?? :eek:oh, it's hard to imagine what it was like...

just think shit-stirring troll carrying a grudge against our former leader...

he was far, far worse before...

of course, from time to time, he "makes up" with everybody that responds to him (and i try really hard to stay off his threads and not respond to him, but the force is weak and his kung fu is strong)...

as for his methods, you'll be able to see for yourself after reading a few of his threads/posts...

and you'll see how long his promises last...

of course, every board has a resident evil troll, it's part of the package when you set the place up...

but tommy is so much of a pita that we have begun interviewing other assholes to replace him...

any nominations?

not even tj?

ok, then, how 'bout den-ise?

somebody?

a1na2
12-20-2007, 09:06 PM
ohhhh, tommy...

we know what kind of person you are, unfortunately...

been doing any hiding behind a skirt lately?

You will believe someone that lies over the truth.

I have no qualms about telling you that you are totally deceived by your homer friend.

Mr Luzcious
12-20-2007, 10:43 PM
oh, it's hard to imagine what it was like...

just think shit-stirring troll carrying a grudge against our former leader...

he was far, far worse before...

of course, from time to time, he "makes up" with everybody that responds to him (and i try really hard to stay off his threads and not respond to him, but the force is weak and his kung fu is strong)...

as for his methods, you'll be able to see for yourself after reading a few of his threads/posts...

and you'll see how long his promises last...

of course, every board has a resident evil troll, it's part of the package when you set the place up...

but tommy is so much of a pita that we have begun interviewing other assholes to replace him...

any nominations?

not even tj?

ok, then, how 'bout den-ise?

somebody?

And I thought it was bad now..

Mr. Kotter
12-20-2007, 11:04 PM
Kotter has talked this through two Presidential Cycles, that is 8 years. And then he talks about blue dog Democrats FROM THE 90'S. IT just seemed longer hearing it over and over and over and over. Let me get my beer because here it comes again.

You know what? :shrug:

...even if Thompson isn't the guy, my takes will be....pretty much vindicated...

Hillary (unelectable, in the general) and Giuliani (unelectable, in the primary) as toast.....Dems turning to Obama or Edwards, which will make a general election win, unlikely....meaning the "real" conservative to survive the Rep nomination process.....(at this point, Huck, McCain, or...yes...Thompson) will survive to defeat the Dem nominee in November of 2008.....

No it isn't coming again....as much enjoyment as I have gotten from this place; as much as I've honed certain skills, posting here....I'm just about done in D.C., I think. In a Michael Michigan sort-of-way....probably.

Much to the chagrin, of my haters.... :)

Life is too short.... :hmmm:

a1na2
12-21-2007, 04:50 AM
oh, it's hard to imagine what it was like...

just think shit-stirring troll carrying a grudge against our former leader...

he was far, far worse before...

of course, from time to time, he "makes up" with everybody that responds to him (and i try really hard to stay off his threads and not respond to him, but the force is weak and his kung fu is strong)...

as for his methods, you'll be able to see for yourself after reading a few of his threads/posts...

and you'll see how long his promises last...

of course, every board has a resident evil troll, it's part of the package when you set the place up...

but tommy is so much of a pita that we have begun interviewing other assholes to replace him...

any nominations?

not even tj?

ok, then, how 'bout den-ise?

somebody?

Who is your former leader? I think you are on drugs again.

Just say no to drugs.

Amnorix
12-21-2007, 06:06 AM
So tell me. What is it that you feel I've done that deserves banning? Just curious.


Don't know or care. I'm not a Mod, so it's neither my problem nor my decision to make.

Amnorix
12-21-2007, 06:07 AM
You know what? :shrug:

...even if Thompson isn't the guy, my takes will be....pretty much vindicated...

Hillary (unelectable, in the general) and Giuliani (unelectable, in the primary) as toast.....Dems turning to Obama or Edwards, which will make a general election win, unlikely....meaning the "real" conservative to survive the Rep nomination process.....(at this point, Huck, McCain, or...yes...Thompson) will survive to defeat the Dem nominee in November of 2008.....

Only time will tell.

stevieray
12-21-2007, 06:19 AM
Don't know or care.

BS. That's why you brought it up like some freaking popularity contest my 11 year old comes home from school and tells me about...

Adept Havelock
12-21-2007, 09:46 AM
Hillary (unelectable, in the general) and Giuliani (unelectable, in the primary) as toast.....Dems turning to Obama or Edwards, which will make a general election win, unlikely....meaning the "real" conservative to survive the Rep nomination process.....(at this point, Huck, McCain, or...yes...Thompson) will survive to defeat the Dem nominee in November of 2008.....


Out of curiousity, what did you see regarding spending or immigration when he was a Gov. that qualifies Huck as a "real" conservative? I'm not talking about what he says he'll do now that the national spotlight is on him, I'm talking about what he has done. :hmmm:

From what I see, his track record looks close to Bush43, except he's a bit further Right on the Social spectrum, and further Left on spending and immigration. A big-government supporting "social" conservative would be considerably closer to the truth, IMO. Maybe I'm naive, but I don't think using the government to fix social ills and save people from their own decisions is a conservative position. The huckster does.

As another poster said, what is it with Arkansas and hucksters? :shake:

Regardless, as Amnorix said...time will tell.

a1na2
12-21-2007, 10:48 AM
Don't know or care. I'm not a Mod, so it's neither my problem nor my decision to make.

Then why would you bring it up as you did?

And, btw, just how many times do you have to be banned before you take a hint about it?

My guess is that you don't really know anything about the things that's happened in the past besides the remarks that have been made by those left behind after the fact.

That's OK with me though, I've put that behind me, it's jerks like you that just can't seem to move on.

a1na2
12-21-2007, 10:59 AM
BS. That's why you brought it up like some freaking popularity contest my 11 year old comes home from school and tells me about...

stevieray, clear a little space in your PM Inbox. I've got a message for you.

Logical
12-22-2007, 12:14 AM
Independent and a DeistHow weird, Nelson Muntz felt so threatened by me being either an independent or a Deist to the extent he neg repped that post of mine.:shrug:

go bowe
01-19-2008, 02:00 PM
You know what? :shrug:

...even if Thompson isn't the guy, my takes will be....pretty much vindicated...

Hillary (unelectable, in the general) and Giuliani (unelectable, in the primary) as toast.....Dems turning to Obama or Edwards, which will make a general election win, unlikely....meaning the "real" conservative to survive the Rep nomination process.....(at this point, Huck, McCain, or...yes...Thompson) will survive to defeat the Dem nominee in November of 2008.....

No it isn't coming again....as much enjoyment as I have gotten from this place; as much as I've honed certain skills, posting here....I'm just about done in D.C., I think. In a Michael Michigan sort-of-way....probably.

Much to the chagrin, of my haters.... :)

Life is too short.... :hmmm:and to the lamentations of your lovers...

.

you are one of the last of the original keyboard warriors who made this place what it is...

we won't let you leave us...

not evar...

CHIEF4EVER
01-20-2008, 04:05 AM
What about the Independent - Christian option?