#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
France is finding out what happens when America gives up it's super power status.
Socialist nations such as France have always complained about America acting like the super power and flexcing it's muscles around the world. They never gave America much credit for all the good we have done in stopping evil around the world. France was happy when America finally elected a closet socialist President. Obama went on an apology tour around the world saying America should not have been the world's super power.
We have seen what Russia & terrorists think of our weakness and Obama's belief that the United Nations will handle world crisis(LOLOLOLOL). I wonder if France is now sad that Obama is being the weak President they wanted. America always did the dirty work protecting the Democracies of the world wth little credit given. I wonder if Socialist Canada appreciates our military and the protection we have always given them while they can save all that money not needing their own military.
We are seeing the results of Socilaism and the weakness that comes from it. Socialists are truly navie enough to think that evil tirants will change their spots if we only treat them with understanding and weakness. That same Socialist mentailty has similar results in our welfare programs. They also believe if we make it very easy on people seeking free subsidies, these people will appreciate our generosity & start living responsibly & working harder to get off the free give aways. Hmmmmm, our welfare roles keep growing under Obama and his bleeding heart Socialist ways.
It does not work! It never has & it never will. Wake up!
| Add New Argument |
|
IMO France's problems with Muslim terrorists are not the result of anything the US has done, or not done. Neither is it attributable to France's recent turn to socialism. The cause of their current problem is their missunderstanding of Muslims, Islam, the Quran and Sharia law. They alloyed allowed massive Muslim migration into France, with the missconception that Muslim intent was to assimilate. Muslim intent was never to assimilate, but rather to spread. Now ya got yerself a problem. ... exactly what is France supposed to be seeing? Pretty sure you did not say anything about how America purportedly not being a super power has negatively affected France. Conclusion... France found out nothing happens when America stops being a super power. How terrifying for France. 2
points
Maybe if America had not spent the last six years telling Russia & Terrorists that we were going to be stepping way from foreign military deterrents, and allowing Isis's and other terrorist states to grow in strength. Maybe France and other nations would not be having as much problem with this growing enemy. I bet secretly many French people wished America had kept spending all the money to fight this enemy, but would never admit it. I agree with others when they say American can not afford to be the policemen of the world. But we sure did not need it announced to our enemies by a closet Socialist president who wants nothing to do with foreign policy. We should be finding ways to use our might against evil around the world and have other democracies support that effort with money and troops. This terrorist problem is a problem to every civilized nation in the world and all democracies should stand up and fight. The UN is a corrupt joke and never does a thing to stop the spread of terrorism. Maybe if America had not spent the last six years telling Russia & Terrorists that we were going to be stepping way from foreign military deterrents, and allowing Isis's and other terrorist states to grow in strength. Maybe France and other nations would not be having as much problem with this growing enemy. The resurgence of radical Muslim terrorists is a direct consequence of literally decades of heavy-handed U.S. military interference in the Middle East. Imagine what the response would have been if any Middle Eastern country had done the same thing to the U.S. and our Western allies; there would probably be Western cultural/religious terrorists attacking the Middle East. ISIS and other terrorist organizations do not generate spontaneously; their success relies upon malcontent and heavy-handed U.S. military interventions were more than a little influential in feeding that malcontent. The U.S. has not withdrawn all military forces, but has altered its military strategy to one it realizes will be more successful in the long run. I bet secretly many French people wished America had kept spending all the money to fight this enemy, but would never admit it. I bet you have no actual basis from which to make that claim. Any surveys, data, studies? Doubt it. I agree with others when they say American can not afford to be the policemen of the world. But we sure did not need it announced to our enemies by a closet Socialist president who wants nothing to do with foreign policy. You act like terrorist cells are run by imbeciles; they are not. Regardless of who our president is, if we step back from playing global law enforcement those actions will be accurately understood for what they are by those affected by them. We should be finding ways to use our might against evil around the world and have other democracies support that effort with money and troops. This terrorist problem is a problem to every civilized nation in the world and all democracies should stand up and fight. The UN is a corrupt joke and never does a thing to stop the spread of terrorism. There is and has been international collaboration in combating terrorism, spanning across multiple presidencies. They have involved the UN, and have also been independent of that body. But none of this remotely applies to what you assume a falsely homogonized France thinks about America's purported loss of its super power status. 0
points
I'm pretty good at seeing things the way they are, not the way people or the media or Governments tell us. I have followed politics for many years and almost all my predictions and fears have proven true. It's called understanding human nature, not the political lies that media would have you believe. I have always understood that it takes tough love as well as tough deterrents to keep things in order. There will always be evil in the world no matter what anyone does.
Obama has been the perfect example of what Conservatives have been saying for years. When you show weakness, evil will spread. It takes strength to keep the peace. When we follow the Socialist Liberal's bleeding heart unconditional love philosophy, it is a complete failure when it comes to foreign affairs. Do you actually believe that America created these fanatical Islam terrorists? They have been here since time began because there has always been angry people who will interpreted or twist their religion to fit their own ideology. An ideology where they want to kill unbelievers and force them to think as they think. Similar to Liberals when it comes to forcing their ideology on others. If America is the problem why do these terrorists kill even their own Muslim children? Can you think for just one second of your life, or do you live and breathe your political ideology. Has America done things in foreign policy to help secure our way of life when it comes to oil, etc.? Yes just as every other nation on this planet has done. We are no worse than any nation & I would suggest we are far better than most nations on this Earth. We have sacrificed life and money to help secure peace to many nations of the world. Terrorists will use any excuse to keep spreading their hate for those who do not think as they think. Have you ever heard one of these terrorists say they will stop fighting when we leave Afghanistan or Iraq? Obama is doing what most Liberals do and actually believes that Terrorists care what we do. Terrorists will use anything they can as propaganda to grow their numbers and people like you eat it right up. Liberals love focusing on the bad America has done and because of this are a huge problem in this nation, constantly stirring up racial divides and class warfare all for one purpose. Getting their ideology forced on the people. You wonder why Terrorism is spreading? Look at the media, the internet, etc. Maybe you noticed how Terrorists are using the internet to recruit members? This type of media has never been available in the history of the world. Try thinking just once & quit using your dislike for America as an excuse to blame them for everything bad in this world. I'm pretty good at seeing things the way they are You have yet to show any proof of this. Obama has been the perfect example of what Conservatives have been saying for years. When you show weakness, evil will spread. Plenty of "evil" was spreading well before Obama. This type of media has never been available in the history of the world. Let me guess it's the grand conspiracy of Liberals that caused this right? 1
point
I must have missed where Putin started moving into other nations when Bush was President. I don't remember ISIS being mentioned during Bush's term of office. Do all Liberals lie? Under Obama there is no credible person in the know who thinks our foreign policy has not been a calamity. The only conspiracies that Liberals wallow in is the lie that they are not closet Socialists, that they truly care about freedom of religious expression, that they truly care about diverse opinions or thought.(they are the great censors of Christian diversity, or Christian thought) 1
point
3
points
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
Iran is making history leaps and bounds towards legitimate foreign interaction in a positive way. To sanction them now would be to force them to return to more extreme policies and pandering. But I suppose well thought out foreign policy is having your tail between your legs to some. 1
point
Maybe if America had not spent the last six years telling Russia & Terrorists that we were going to be stepping way from foreign military deterrents, and allowing Isis's and other terrorist states to grow in strength. Maybe France and other nations would not be having as much problem with this growing enemy. I bet secretly many French people wished America had kept spending all the money to fight this enemy, but would never admit it. I agree with others when they say American can not afford to be the policemen of the world. But we sure did not need it announced to our enemies by a closet Socialist president who wants nothing to do with foreign policy. We should be finding ways to use our might against evil around the world and have other democracies support that effort with money and troops. This terrorist problem is a problem to every civilized nation in the world and all democracies should stand up and fight. The UN is a corrupt joke and never does a thing to stop the spread of terrorism. 1
point
USA wars were a result of Terrorists attacking us and our allies. Tell me the last time the USA started a war with a civilized nation. Tell me the last time we started a war with a Democracy. War is a terrible thing and should never be taken unless there is no other choice. As much as Liberals want to bury their heads in the sand, we will always have evil in this world and will always need to fight against it. You can pretend it is our fault as much as you want. It is not! America has been the greatest nation on this planet in bringing peace to so many nations. Socialists will never admit it. We do most of the dirty work while they sit back enjoying the fruits of that hard work. Wow. Much nationalist. Very USA. Democracy is something of a joke, and I don't think that a true democracy really exists although it would be great if one did. Some countries are close, though. But this is not the topic. I don't think the Iraq war had anything to to with saving the Iraqi people, it had more to do with protecting the USA's business interests in the region. I don't see very much proof that Hussein caused/funded 9/11, the whole event was used to convince people to back the Iraq war. The whole nuclear weapons excuse would strike me as hypocrisy on behalf of the US and the UK. I'm all for nuclear disarmament, but two nuclear armed nations going to war with another nation suspected of building weapons of mass destruction...? It's our fault, it's their fault. Neither of the countries involved have a perfect (or decent) foreign policy and things got ugly and continue to be ugly. Stop pretending that your nation is completely righteous. We all have blame. 0
points
If you're referring to the Pakistani military school massacre, the Pakistan branch of al Qaeda's reason was because the Pakistani military co-operated with the US. Many, including the Afghanistan al-Qaeda condemned the attack. I'm not saying that the USA solely is responsible for radical Islamic terrorism, I'm saying it had a role to play in the current state of affairs. For example, do you know that the US funded ISIL? 0
points
0
points
Well I've been part of this site for quite a while now, and there's plenty of non-US members. Look! There's even a nationality option in the bio. This isn't a US exclusive site, dummy. Or what? Are you scared of foreigners? Anyway, we have many political parties with recognition in the UK. There's the est. parties like the Conservatives (also called Tories) who are right wing and Labour who used to be left wing but since Smith died they've gone a little (read a lot) downhill. There's also the Lib Dems, who were hugely popular until they were elected and voted against just about everything they'd promised to deliver (Tuition fees especially). UKIP are a right wing crazy party flying the flag of britishness and no-more-EU-ness and are rapidly gaining popularity with the politically uninformed. The Green party have overtaken the Lib Dems and are for nationalisation of infrastructure, more tax on the rich, and environmental issues. And there you have the main competitors in our little Game of Thrones. 0
points
Stick with what you know and quit trying to tell America how our nation should be run. The day I'm so arrogant to debate about the UK, where I have never lived, then shoot me because I will be an idiot. Keep wasting your time, just don't expect me to respond to any post directed at me. Most of my arguments are in a 'in general' sense. I do know quite a lot about things from the US due to the fact that americans make up more of the english speaking population online than us brits, so I read a lot of the american media. Of course my knowledge is patchy. It's not arrogance, it's curiosity (which is the only reason I am on this site). If you think human nature and the laws of physics change drastically across borders, you're wrong. EDIT: This debate is about France, damnit! 1
point
That's because your views are so different to mine that they are interesting. I am curious how you came to this conclusion, why you hold these views: isn't that the reason anyone debates? I came across this site when I was first exploring the internet a couple of years back. I've been a member for a while. Longer than you. I like this site. Why would I want to go somewhere else, just because some ethnocentric seems to think that this site is US-specific? 1
point
My conclusions came from living over 50 years in America and having every single fear come true. The Liberal anti God movement in this nation have turned our culture upside down and it shows in every facet of our nation's problems. I have lived it! That is where my views have come from. I am 100% positive that the Liberal Socialist movement in this nation is the cause of most of our problems whether it be welfare, school shootings, 18 trillion debt, gangs, drugs, easy sex, etc. etc. NO DOUBT ABOUT IT! 1
point
Your conclusions come from apparent ignorance. Most liberals are Christians, so to call it an "anti-god" movement really means "anti your opinions" movement. For heaven's sake, you don't even know the difference between liberal and socialist! You don't even know that violence is consistently going DOWN at an incredibly fast rate! You just watch FOX and let them whip you up into a frenzied fear of anyone with differing opinions. "No doubt about it". 1
point
You watch all the Liberal media and learn to say the exact SAME things every Liberal I have ever debated says. You just showed how incredibly ignorant you are to the Christian faith when you say most Liberals are Christians. I guess it is ok to be a Christian and support Mother Mary's right to have aborted Jesus. I guess it is ok to be Christian and support Gay marriage when the Bible says it is a perversion. I guess it is ok to be a Christian and supporting the censoring of our free speech and free expression of our Christian heritage on public grounds. Or censoring our Christmas & Easter holidays from public schools all under the lie of separation of church and state. I guess it is ok to be a Christian and ALWAYS vote against any Christian politicians such as Mike Huccabee, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, etc. You wouldn't want any "Christian" that actually believes what the Bible says as our President. The types of Christians you talk about are the new age humanistic Christians who only quote the verses in the Bible that they agree with. A true Christian believes all the words in the New Testament. They don't pick and choose what fits in their ideology. Yes, a Christian will love and respect everyone including Gays, including Liberals, including Feminists, etc. but that does not mean you support their anti God agendas. Loving Gays and allowing them to change our marriage laws are two totally different things. Liberals constantly use these ludicrous arguments, telling everyone that if you don't agree with Gay marriage, you are a hateful fundamentalist judgmental homophobe, etc. It is the Liberal Democrat who is the judgmental hatemongers against anyone who dares stand up for their beliefs and right's to disagree. 1
point
I have already told you, I do not watch ANY news media, and I'm not even liberal. It is a statistical fact that most liberals are Christian, one does not need to follow your concept of Christianity to be a Christian, they only have to believe in the Divinity of Christ. The rest of your post is just the "they are different than me so they can't be christian" nonsense. Leave your no true scotsman fallacy behind, and listen to your own judgmental hate mongering before having the audacity to accuse anyone else of that. 1
point
Leave your total indoctrination behind you and LOOK at what I said and ADDRESS IT! The Bible says that Homosexuality is perversion. Why would Liberals deny this if they are Christians as you say? NO RESPONSE? I asked you how can a Christian support Mother Mary's right to abort Jesus. NO RESPONSE! Try explaining why I am wrong when I say a Christian should believe what his faith teaches in the Bible. You are the one who refuses to debate! You keep insulting me over & over and you can't even see it!!!!!!! When you sit there and judge me because I do not debate in the way you would debate, that is insulting! Who made you God of debating rules? I gave you many examples of why Liberal iedology goes against the Bible's teachings and you insult me by saying I am judging them to my own beliefs. NO!!!!!!! My points come from the Bible, not my own personal beliefs. If you are not willing to address my points intelligently, then ignore me. Spare your constant insults of how I do not debate correctly. 1
point
I asked you how can a Christian support Mother Mary's right to abort Jesus. Why not? Jesus' crucifixion at the hands of the Romans is certainly supported- even celebrated- by Christians, due to its necessity for their 'redemption.' Why would that change if Jesus died at ~30 weeks from an abortion instead of ~30 years from a cross? Wouldn't he still be an innocent, killed by the hands of men? Wouldn't he still be the son of God? Seriously- what if, instead of being nailed to the cross, Jesus was aborted? Would he still qualify as having lived and died without sin? If so, would that still have redeemed our sins? Would the symbol of christianity today be a wire coat hanger instead of a cross? 1
point
Wow, is that how far you will go to make yourselves right? LOLOLOLOLOLOL! Like I said, there is not one thing an intelligent person could ever say to a Liberal to get them to admit any fault in their ideology. Not that it matters one bit to you, but Christ's birth and life was prophesied long before his birth. You missed the entire point as usual. The obvious point was that NO Christian would ever have supported the right of Jesus being aborted. As always Liberals will not address any point where they have no answer. They will spew garbage such as your last post. 2
points
Wow, is that how far you will go to make yourselves right? LOLOLOLOLOLOL! Like I said, there is not one thing an intelligent person could ever say to a Liberal to get them to admit any fault in their ideology. Not that it matters one bit to you, but Christ's birth and life was prophesied long before his birth. You missed the entire point as usual. The obvious point was that NO Christian would ever have supported the right of Jesus being aborted. As always Liberals will not address any point where they have no answer. They will spew garbage such as your last post. I am not a 'Liberal' as you suggest, and I'm not pushing any kind of ideology here whatsoever. If your statement "The obvious point was that NO Christian would ever have supported the right of Jesus being aborted." is true, then it would also hold true that NO Christian would ever have supported the right of Jesus being crucified. I'm not debating your points here, at all. I'm simply asking specific questions regarding a specific point you made. I'll reiterate. I asked you how can a Christian support Mother Mary's right to abort Jesus. Why not? Jesus' crucifixion at the hands of the Romans is certainly supported- even celebrated- by Christians, due to its necessity for their 'redemption.' Why would that change if Jesus died at ~30 weeks from an abortion instead of ~30 years from a cross? Wouldn't he still be an innocent, killed by the hands of men? Wouldn't he still be the son of God? Seriously- what if, instead of being nailed to the cross, Jesus was aborted? Would he still qualify as having lived and died without sin? If so, would that still have redeemed our sins? Would the symbol of christianity today be a wire coat hanger instead of a cross? 1
point
I wish you would read the new testament in the Bible so you might actually understand that most Christians at that time did not want Christ to be killed. Most of them did not understand why he had to die until the resurrection and then they started understanding. The crucifixion is supported today by Christians because they now know it was God's will and the way to be forgiven for their sins. We are not just talking about aborting Jesus, that is just an example of why Abortion is so wrong. If it were God's will to allow Romans to kill Jesus in another manner such as with a forced abortion, then so be it. It's a lame point believe me :) Listen, if you don't want to be called a Liberal, that is fine, I'm not talking to you if that's the case ok? Now if you must challenge everything I say about Liberals, ask yourself.... WHY? Hmmmmmmmmmm....... 1
point
I wish you would read the new testament in the Bible so you might actually understand that most Christians at that time did not want Christ to be killed. Most of them did not understand why he had to die until the resurrection and then they started understanding. I have- and I'm not suggesting that in an alternate universe where Jesus was aborted, there would be widespread accepting and understanding of the abortion- I expect at the time there would still be just as much confusion and lack of understanding in this case. The crucifixion [of Jesus] is supported today by Christians because they now know it was God's will and the way to be forgiven for their sins. And in our alternate universe, The abortion [of Jesus] would be supported today by Christians because they would now know it was God's will and the way to be forgiven for their sins. We are not just talking about aborting Jesus, that is just an example of why Abortion is so wrong. If it were God's will to allow Romans to kill Jesus in another manner such as with a forced abortion, then so be it. It's a lame point believe me :) Which is exactly my point and why the argument 'What if Jesus was aborted' is fundamentally flawed. Listen, if you don't want to be called a Liberal, that is fine, I'm not talking to you if that's the case ok? Is that a promise? So I can continue replying and saying pretty much whatever, and I needn't expect further reply? Can this offer be extended to other members of the community here as well? What do they need to do? Now if you must challenge everything I say about Liberals, ask yourself.... WHY? Hmmmmmmmmmm....... I don't need to challenge anything you say about Liberals, or any of it really. I would prefer not to be classified as either 'liberal' or 'conservative' as my political stance doesn't align with either. I'm very liberal on some issues, very conservative on others, moderate on still others, and either undecided or in flux on some as well. If you feel the need to group everyone who you perceive to be in disagreement with you (including those simply asking questions) under a blanket term to denigrate them en masse, you needn't ask yourself why- simply admit it's due to an inability to actually address their points, or even answer their questions! 1
point
You have nice grammar skills that exceed my own, which would seemingly imply a certain semblance of intelligence :) But then you talk further and keep missing what I would call very simple points. This would imply a semblance of naivety or ignorance or brainwashing or I don't know what :) Now listen carefully so you and other members of this seemingly Liberal community (though NO ONE will ever admit they are Liberal) can understand. I use the word Liberal to address a movement in this nation for the past decades. When people attack my opinions I rationalize that they are probably of the Liberal persuasion or why else would they attack my opinions? It's not meant to insult you or judge you but rather address an ideology that seems bent on controlling our lives and forcing their politically correct mindset. For the life of me it seems their main goal is an anti Christian message. I say this because the main issues they seem so adamant over are issues with connections to the Bible such as Homosexuality, abortion, school prayer, separation of church and state, spanking children, hunting, etc. etc. I have wondered for years why this is the case. My only conclusion is that they are the world with which the Bible speaks. The Bible speaks of these things going on in nations. It says the Godless worldly people will hate Christians, will make fun of Christians, etc. I guess that clarifies why few people on the Left ever lift up Christians in a good light. The network sitcoms, news programs & Hollywood are all too comfortable pointing out the hypocrites rather than pointing out the good Christians and the wonderful things the Church does for poor people, the helpless etc. Ask yourself why Hollywood is so bent on only spot lighting the fake hypocritical Christians. Why do they fear speaking to the good things Christians do? Is it because of their big Government mentality where they want Government controlling the people's minds rather than any faith in God? So therefore they must demonize any faith in God? Remember when Obama made the condescending remark that Christians cling to their God and guns? I believe the Obama's of the world want people clinging to their socialist Government. But I digress........ You can continue replying as long as you address my points rather than complaining about my debating skills :) If I should slip and throw out an insult or two, be an adult and turn the other cheek. I will do the same. I guess the insults stem from a lifetime of watching this Liberal movement strip away at our Christian heritage and the traditional values that stood our nation well for centuries. I've debated for years & very few Liberals have come to any epiphany of thought and it seemingly changes nothing while our culture degrades. I guess at this stage of my life I take solace in letting the Liberals of this world know that not all people are brainwashed to their hypocrisy and their laughable so called compassion for all people. It's all about politics and a battle for who controls the minds of Americans.... a big corrupt Government or a faith in something bigger and better than Government. 1
point
Out of curiosity, how can you ask someone to address your points when your "points" are claims you make without any legitimate evidence or backing? You have repeatedly claimed things like "Liberals are anti-christian" or "Liberals are trying to strip away christian heritage", but you don't explain how or why. You say things like liberals "seem bent on controlling our lives and forcing their politically correct mindset" but you don't say how. You are using rhetoric in place of arguments, which makes it difficult if not impossible to legitimately respond to anything you are saying. If you could use actual examples of what you are claiming, then people could address the points you are making. 1
point
I guess I just take it for granted that you have lived on top of this earth and not under a rock. I have given a thousand examples a thousand times of what the Liberal movement has created and you act dumbfounded. How old are you? If you are young then you have not seen what I have seen 50 years ago. Do you remember when the Liberal movement started screaming at the so called censorship of nudity or vulgarity on TV? From that point on, it was one TV moral standard after another censored from our nation. As tv started showing sex & nudity on tv, it pushed the limits year after year until we now have a sexual culture that thinks one night stands are normal and thinks you are a nerd if you are still a virgin in high school. Our culture today tells women they need no husband to raise a child, just go get some sperm from a sperm bank. Do you remember Roe V Wade? Those on the Left said it would legalize first trimester abortions only. Look at that lie and where abortion has come today. Liberals said they would never force Americans to pay for abortions, LIARS! I lived through the Liberal movement when the Left started censoring prayers in school, nativity scenes on public land, Christmas & Easter holidays from schools. As with everything else, it keeps getting worse as they take one freedom after another from the people. All under the lie of separation of church and state. Now the Liberal movement is after our guns and they will not stop until they have taken them all. They started with the Gay rights propaganda decades ago and when they started they claimed they only wanted civil laws for Gay unions. Look where that has come in 20 short years. The vast majority of Americans laughed at the thought of Gay marriage until Liberals pushed it year after year after year on all the Liberal media. Even the most Liberal president in our history said he was against Gay marriage before his first election. Now the liar and chief is their biggest cheerleader. What an epiphany. I could care less what your description of Liberal is. What I just described is the Liberal movement in this nation as far as I am concerned. These are the people I speak of when I say Liberals. If you don't fit in on the majority of those issues, quit wasting your time with me. I am not against you. If that definition does not satisfy you, ignore me because I am about to ignore you if you refuse to debate the substance of my arguments. 1
point
You really haven't given me legitimate examples, From Within. You have listed off partisan generalizations without any specifics aplenty, however. 1. Liberals were not alone in fighting censorship: libertarians and "small government" conservatives did as well. You are clearly a social conservative (see Big Government Conservative), so I can see how you would oppose it, but most channels do not show sex or nudity on TV, and human culture has always focused on sex. And do you happen to have the figures on women who voluntarily become single mothers? You are claiming it is a problem, so I want see your numbers. 2. Roe V. Wade is another thing supported by truly small government conservatives (non-social conservatives) and libertarians, and late term abortions have only been legalized in very specific instances. And can you provide evidence that the American people do pay for abortions? The Hyde amendment prevents that when it comes to planned parenthood (oh, and I oppose abortion). 3. Prayer in school is an unconstitutional action that forces a religion down the throats of children using public funds on public grounds on a captive audience. If you actually valued small government, you would realize how horrifying that is, and agree with the liberal AND conservative justices who have ruled against it. Nativity scenes on public property are allowed when the government also allows other symbols to be put up next to it, and Christmas and Easter are still taken off for the school year. Oh, and separation of church and state is a well recognized concept stemming from over a hundred years of precedent regarding the Establishment and Free Worship Clauses, so how can you call Constitutional amendments lies? Because you don't like them? 3. No, the "liberal movement" (there is no such thing, as liberals are not monolithic) is not after your guns. Some support heightened gun control, but few (if any) have advocated getting rid of the second amendment (as if that were even possible). Personally, I'm simply for add more requirements for gun related training and classes, and am a strong supporter of the 2nd amendment. 4. Gay rights is not propaganda, it is simply constitutional rights being recognized for a minority. "Gay unions" are, in fact, two homosexuals getting married. That is a "gay union", and is constitutional recognized via the Due Process and Equal Protections Clauses (as has been recognized by both Conservative and Liberal Judges). And Obama supported same-sex marriage long before you think he did, as if that really proves anything (again, not a fan of Obama at all). 5. No, you did not describe the liberal movement (which, again, doesn't exist), you described your incredibly biased, quite partisan perception of some liberals within this country, as reported on by conservative media (see FOX). That is why it is problematic when you refer to a VERY large group of people that have some very diverse opinions and call them all Liberal using a very narrow minded description. 6. You may not be against me, but I am against you, because you are actively bringing down the discourse and disseminating falsehoods. There. Go ahead and claim I didn't argue the substance (nice lack of specifics, by the way) of your arguments. 1
point
All you did was deny obvious truth. You made so many false assumptions in your remarks, I don't have the time to refute them all. When did I say women chose to be un wed mothers. They become pregnant in this sexual culture by choosing to have one night stands, sleeping with men who would never marry them. They get pregnant! That's the point, this immoral sexual revolution is creating broken homes with anything goes sexual lifestyles. If you can't even admit that, IGNORE ME! You can deny that Liberals were the groups attacking our traditional values all you want, it makes you look so naive. Abortion was NEVER supported by the vast vast majority of Conservatives and PLEASE don't spew such garbage that we are not forced to pay for other's abortions through medicaid and now Obamacare. Planned parenthood gets money from the Government and planned parenthood helps with abortions. Late term abortions can be done for any reason at any stage in many states. Did you watch the news when Texas wanted to limit abortions past FIVE MONTHS unless it was for life of mother or extreme cases and did you know the Democrat party fought that law tooth and nail. Why would they need that law if it were true what you just claimed. I told you that after the constitution was written, many school teachers were required to be Christians and they had "PRAYERS" at the beginning of each day in public schools. OBVIOUSLY the Constitution never meant to censor our free speech in schools. No child is FORCED to pray and hearing a prayer does not establish a religion!!!!!! I guess sports fans are all being forced to be Christians when they hear prayer at a football game. GET REAL! Oh that's right, football fans are not forced to be at the football game so it is ok their? LOL! If Democrats allowed school choice, children could choose schools of their choice where they would not have to hear a simple prayer of love and forgiveness(how terrible). Cover their ears and close their minds to diversity! Don't let them hear someone else prayer but of course it is ok to indoctrinate our children that Homosexuality is natural & normal. What has this nation come to?????????? I believe that every community should have the freedom to choose a prayer or to not choose a prayer. No child should ever be forced to pray. What do you think these prayers were? They were simple prayers of love, forgiveness, etc. etc. things that no parent should be against and if they were against it they should be able to choose another school that does not say a prayer. FREE CHOICE! They want it with abortions but not with schools. I understand the argument that Muslims might someday out number Christians in communities and would want Islamic prayers. This is America and our heritage is Christianity. The Prayers should never be used to proselytized and should be simple prayers of loving and forgiving each other. Kids need this much more than being indoctrinated with political correctness such as transgender and homosexual lifestyles. It was mostly Liberals pushing the Gay agendas over the years. It only takes one pathetic judge to over rule an entire state's vote on Gay marriage... Pathetic! Yes some conservatives are for Gay marriage... there is never any issue in life where all those of any particular groups agree or disagree. We are talking majorities here.... keep up! I'm totally against any person who twists simple facts to make himself right. You can keep spewing the same old tired rhetoric of how Liberals did not create the self love culture we now live in. THEY 100% DID!!!!!!!!! I could care less your description of Liberals. I made my points clear who I believe Liberals to be. If you don't agree, IGNORE ME because I will ignore you. Your denials are bringing down the discourse and disseminating falsehoods. 2
points
"All you did was deny obvious truth." Ah yes, you believe it, therefore it is obvious. 1. "When did I say women chose to be un wed mothers. " Actually you did when making that statement regarding sperm banks. Would you like me to quote you on it? 2. "our traditional values all you want, it makes you look so naive." Care to list which "traditional values" liberals have "attacked"? 3. "Abortion was NEVER supported by the vast vast majority of Conservatives " Never claimed it was. 4. "on't spew such garbage that we are not forced to pay for other's abortions through medicaid and now Obamacare." Can you prove that we are? Planned Parenthood is limited by the Hyde Amendment, which means no taxpayer money can go towards funding abortions. 5. " Late term abortions can be done for any reason at any stage in many states. " Which states are you referring to? 6. "I told you that after the constitution was written, many school teachers were required to be Christians and they had "PRAYERS" at the beginning of each day in public schools. OBVIOUSLY the Constitution never meant to censor our free speech in schools." It was also never meant to apply to anyone who wasn't white, didn't own land, and was a woman, so let's not pretend that is a strong argument. 7. "No child is FORCED to pray and hearing a prayer does not establish a religion!!!!" The courts (liberal and conservative) have determined that subject a captive audience (students) to a government funded prayer (using taxpayer dollars) constitutes an establishment of religion. You are arguing against constitutional scholars ALL across the political spectrum here, and over a hundred years of established precedent. 8. "I guess sports fans are all being forced to be Christians when they hear prayer at a football game. " Sports fans are not legally obligated to stay, where as students are, hence why students have been ruled to be a captive audience. 9. "If Democrats allowed school choice, children could choose schools of their choice where they would not have to hear a simple prayer of love and forgiveness(how terrible). " Democrats have not banned "school choice". Parents can choose to send their children to private schools, including religious schools. 10. "Don't let them hear someone else prayer but of course it is ok to indoctrinate our children that Homosexuality is natural & normal." Are you referencing certain curriculum? Oh, and homosexuality is natural, as it occurs in nature. That means it is, factually speaking, natural. As for normal, that comes down to if you are referring to statistically normal, or occurring within normal circumstances. 11. "I believe that every community should have the freedom to choose a prayer or to not choose a prayer." They already have that choice. Nobody has, or could, taken that away from anyone. 12. "No child should ever be forced to pray. What do you think these prayers were? They were simple prayers of love, forgiveness, etc. etc. things that no parent should be against and if they were against it they should be able to choose another school that does not say a prayer. FREE CHOICE! " Again, this is about the government using taxpayer money (including non-christians) to have a captive audience listen to a prayer from a particular religion. If you want to choose to have your child partake in such actives, you can choose to send them to a religious school. That is free choice. But there is no reason to force non-christians to pay for the government to employ Christian prayer. 13. "I understand the argument that Muslims might someday out number Christians in communities and would want Islamic prayers. This is America and our heritage is Christianity." Actually, our heritage is the greatest melting pot of cultures and religions in the world. Let's not pretend otherwise. 14."Kids need this much more than being indoctrinated with political correctness such as transgender and homosexual lifestyles." Can you reference any curriculum that is indoctrinating them with "transgender and homosexual lifestyles" (which don't exist, by the way, as they are not "lifestyles" but a sexual identity and a sexual orientation respectively). 15. "t was mostly Liberals pushing the Gay agendas over the years. It only takes one pathetic judge to over rule an entire state's vote on Gay marriage... Pathetic! Yes some conservatives are for Gay marriage... there is never any issue in life where all those of any particular groups agree or disagree. We are talking majorities here.... keep up!" That is hour our government works, FromWithin. That is how a Constitutional Republic works and how our country was designed to work. You want to speak of majorities? Same-sex marriage is legal in a majority of the entire country, and almost all recent polls show a majority of the citizens in this country agree with that. But that isn't even relevant, because popular opinion has no effect on constitutional rights and protections, nor should it. 16."'m totally against any person who twists simple facts to make himself right. You can keep spewing the same old tired rhetoric of how Liberals did not create the self love culture we now live in. THEY 100% DID!!!!!!!!! " Then specifically explain HOW they did, please. 17. "Your denials are bringing down the discourse and disseminating falsehoods." So if I disagree with you, I am bringing down the discourse? Do you listen to yourself? 0
points
Maybe you missed my point. I said we need school choice where parents can send their children to schools where there are no hated prayers and they would not have to cover their child's ears(we don't want tolerance for other's religious expressions of course). That then eliminates the pathetic excuse of censorship because of a so called "captive audience". They are not captive if they can chose that school. I love how pathetically selfish you are to expect parents who do not fear prayers to pay extra for private schools on top of paying the public school taxes, but you don't want people who fear a prayer to pay extra. Just one more instance of Liberal hypocrisy where you want it all your way. The majority of Americans are & were against Gay marriage as was Obama six years ago. Judges are over ruling entire states of people who voted to NOT ALLOW Gay marriage. Quit spewing such garbage lies. Americans are starting to be brainwashed by the media to accept Gay marriage and of course the numbers are changing. THAT DOES NOT MAKE IT RIGHT! The media can control a nation's minds! The power of the press is unbelievable and this is why the majority of Liberal media outlets are so dangerous to a free nation. Gay marriage is a perfect example of this. You show we one dog or cat or any animal we would ever know, that is Gay(meaning it would not have sex with the opposite sex). A dog would hump a man's leg. I guess that makes it Gay. GET REAL! Your arguments are such a crock when you talk about nature and Homosexuality. 1
point
"I said we need school choice where parents can send their children to schools where there are no hated prayers and they would not have to cover their child's ears(we don't want tolerance for other's religious expressions of course)." Again, they HAVE that choice. If you want to send your child to a private school where they have prayer, you HAVE that choice. Nobody has taken it from you. "That then eliminates the pathetic excuse of censorship because of a so called "captive audience". " Actually it doesn't, as the courts (again, liberal and conservative) have determined. Public school attendants remain a captive audience, legally speaking. "They are not captive if they can chose that school. I love how pathetically selfish you are to expect parents who do not fear prayers to pay extra for private schools on top of paying the public school taxes, but you don't want people who fear a prayer to pay extra. Just one more instance of Liberal hypocrisy where you want it all your way." First, can you demonstrate how that is hypocritical? You keep using that word, but I don't think you know what it means. Additionally, I don't WANT them to pay extra money, but that is what a parent has to do if they want their child to get a particular type of education. That is reality. You can not use that as a means of getting tax dollars to fund YOUR religious exercises in public schools! Even if you want to, the courts have already determined that is not going to happen, as I have told you before. "The majority of Americans are & were against Gay marriage as was Obama six years ago. Judges are over ruling entire states of people who voted to NOT ALLOW Gay marriage. Quit spewing such garbage lies. Americans are starting to be brainwashed by the media to accept Gay marriage and of course the numbers are changing. THAT DOES NOT MAKE IT RIGHT" Tell me, what kind of government do you think we have? Do you understand how our Constitution works? Or do you think that the will of the people overturns the Constitution? I am in an interracial relationship. Not very long ago, the majority of the United States (as well as some presidents) would have said that what I am doing is wrong and I do not have the right to get married to her. Loving v. Virginia (the courts) changed that against the will of the people. Were you against that as well? "The media can control a nation's minds! The power of the press is unbelievable and this is why the majority of Liberal media outlets are so dangerous to a free nation. Gay marriage is a perfect example of this." Dude, the majority of this country does not watch TV news. You REALLY don't understand the "power" of the media. "You show we one dog or cat or any animal we would ever know, that is Gay(meaning it would not have sex with the opposite sex). A dog would hump a man's leg. I guess that makes it Gay. GET REAL! Your arguments are such a crock when you talk about nature and Homosexuality." Do you want me to provide you with one example, or the 1,500 examples that have been documented? Do you want me to provide you with homosexual trysts in the animal kingdom, or life long same-sex pairings? I'd be happy to provide you with any and all of the above, not that you will let facts change your mind. 1
point
LOL, again not one animal any of us would ever know that does not have sex with the opposite sex, but only with the same sex. Animals are animals, they would hump anything that moves which means nothing. Show me one Gay animal that we would know that does not have sex with the opposite sex. 1
point
1
point
I told you what I wanted! Animals or birds that never have sex with their opposite sex but have sex with their same sex. Just quit wasting our time and drop it. Your excuses to say that Homosexuality is normal and naturals defies a rational intelligence. Now see how i used the wording "rational intelligence"? I used your logic and made one of those grass is not green statements. My statement where you must be lacking rational intelligence, was not the same as calling you a moron. My words were not an insult :) I'm starting to get this Liberal double speak and I'M LIKING IT :) 1
point
First, you really don't seem to understand what an insult is, but I'll just go ahead and let you feel like you had a win. Second, http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/14479670. This is a test source. If you would like more I will provide you with some, I just want to see if you are going to react predictably before bothering to give you more evidence. Third, I never said "normal", as statistically it isn't. But something that occurs in nature is, in fact, natural. Which would make homosexuality natural, and religion unnatural. Ironic :P 1
point
At this very moment, Hell is freezing over! What you just said is as close to an admittance of wrong doing I will ever hear from a "person on the Left". You said "I'll just go ahead and let you feel like you had a win"! Even though that was not a true admittance of any mistake or hypocrisy or double standard, it must have been mind blowingly hard for you to say. I see an improvement :) 1
point
0
points
So it's just reality that parents who do not want their kids in a captive audience when it comes to Evolution indoctrination and Gay diversity training, must pay twice, but those who fear a prayer should not live under that same reality? The double standards from those on the Left is horrendous. Oh that's right, those on the left have decided that Evolution theory is ok to indoctrinate kids because they deemed it was science. But a prayer or creationism was censored because these same people deemed it unconstitutional. LOLOLOLOLOL you cant make this stuff up. Do they have college courses to teach Liberals how to twist any law to fit their ideology? 1
point
First off, teaching the theory of evolution in a biology class is not "indoctrination". Second, teaching that gay people exist and are not evil is not "indoctrination". Third, yes if you want your child to have a religious education, you have to pay for that education. Fourth, you do not seem to understand what a double standard is. There are many things that people do not get to choose about a public education. NO religion gets promoted, nor does atheism. No ideology gets promoted. If you want a particular lifestyle or ideology promoted to your child, that is your responsibility, not the states. Fifth, creationism can and IS taught in schools in religious ed classes. It is not science, and therefore there is no reason to be taught in a science class. Nobody is twisting law here, you just don't really understand the Constitutional law that pertain to these issues. Do not get mad at liberals because of your failings. 1
point
1
point
1
point
You can continue replying as long as you address my points Seriously? I've been trying to get an elaboration/explanation regarding one of your points for several posts now. I will be happy to address your "points" if you can respond to my questions- if you refuse to explain further when asked, I can only draw the conclusion that your position has no substance. I'll reiterate. I asked you how can a Christian support Mother Mary's right to abort Jesus. Why not? Jesus' crucifixion at the hands of the Romans is certainly supported- even celebrated- by Christians, due to its necessity for their 'redemption.' Why would that change if Jesus died at ~30 weeks from an abortion instead of ~30 years from a cross? Wouldn't he still be an innocent, killed by the hands of men? Wouldn't he still be the son of God? Seriously- what if, instead of being nailed to the cross, Jesus was aborted? Would he still qualify as having lived and died without sin? If so, would that still have redeemed our sins? Would the symbol of christianity today be a wire coat hanger instead of a cross? 1
point
You say leave my indoctrination behind me, then you go ahead and follow up with your own. Christians all over the world have theological disputes, but so long as they believe in the divinity of Christ, they are, by definition, Christian. That really is how it works. I didn't get any response to your specifics because they are not worthy of them! I can list HUNDREDS of doctrinal disputes amongst Christian sects but the fact that they all believe in the divinity of Christ means they are ALL Christian. That is why you are wrong. And can you quote a single time I have insulted you? You keep claiming I have, yet I haven't seen any evidence. Hint: Saying you are judging people is not an insult. Disagreeing with you is not an insult. Saying you are being hypocritical is not an insult. And yes, your points are coming from your personal beliefs REGARDING the bible. Just because that is how you follow your dogma does not mean it is how every Christian follows the same dogma. P.S: A protestant isn't somehow "not a Christian" to a Catholic just because they do not agree on specific aspects of the Bible. 1
point
1
point
1
point
P.S. I would never say Catholics are not Christians. Yes there are doctrinal differences but not when it comes to inhuman things such as the right to have aborted Jesus or other Babies. News flash, not everyone believes your evolution "dogma" but you teach it to all our kids as fact in schools. 1
point
If there are doctrinal differences, then by YOUR arguments from earlier, they are not Christians to you. You said if someone does not adhere to the bible, they are not Christian. Now, you are saying they can have different opinions about the bible, but not on issues YOU find important. That isn't how this works. And you have no idea what my views on evolution are, so why bring that up? 1
point
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh I see......... when you insult me it is not an insult in your narrow definition but when I insult you it is. Thanks for clearing that up. It's as clear as mud now. Take the word Dogma for example. You use that word in a demeaning way towards people of faith as if they are robots controlled by words rather than a personal relationship with God. But you will deny it and life goes on. Ahhh the hypocrisy of the Left. Their sh_t don't stink. 1
point
First off, I did not use dogma in a demeaning way. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ I used it based on the actual definition, and referring to the dogma set out by the New Testament. You still have yet to provide any way that I have insulted you. And I'm not sure how you can possibly not know what dogma means... 1
point
What makes a Christian a Christian is that they accept Christ as their Lord.... THAT'S IT! Now when they accept Christ as Lord, they also obviously accept the Bible as God's word of how we should live our lives. Unless of course they do what I see Liberal churches doing today & twisting the Bible, and only following the verses they agree with. When it comes to issues such as Homosexuality or Abortion, the Bible is clear so when I hear a person deny the faith that he claims to follow, I have doubts. The Bible says God knows us in the womb and he even knows what we will someday be. Now you tell me if it is ok for Christians to support killing unborn Babies that God knows in the womb. I will never judge any specific person as being or not being a Christian. That is God's job when we die. When I'm talking in general terms as far as the majority of Liberals, I have serious doubt to the sincerity of their Christian faith, only because they are at odds with so many things in the Bible. Can you understand this? It's kind of like Obama saying he wants to compromise with the GOP and bring both sides together. After watching him for six years I can pretty much say .... LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL 1
point
FromWithin, you have already agreed that Christians are allowed to have doctrinal differences, so that right there undercuts your entire argument here. You can't really say (with any authority) that they are allowed to disagree on dogma EXCEPT on issues where you say they can't. There are many issues where the bible is "clear" and Christians still disagree, but that does not in any way change their beliefs regarding Christ and therefore their Christianity. "I will never judge any specific person as being or not being a Christian. " No, you will simply judge millions upon millions of people so long as they hold a political ideology that differs from yours, because somehow you have the authority to do that so long as you aren't doing it towards individuals. I'm not even going to start with the issues of your comparison to Obama (whom by the way I disagree with vehemently and never voted for) trying to compromise with a political party that has employed more filibusters and filibuster threats than any point in the entirety of United States history and declared its intent to do so before Obama had passed any real legislation. 1
point
Maybe if you could think for one tiny moment, you might grasp why the GOP tried to filibuster. It was because of the lie of Obamacare, and the over spending, etc. They were 100% correct about everything they said! Obama let everyone know who & what he stood for and that is why they tried to stop his extremist dictator like politics. The American people spoke out loudly that they did not want Obamacare and he pushed it through anyways. 1
point
"Maybe if you could think for one tiny moment", you'd know they filibustered before there was even any DEBATE on the ACA. Before the ACA had even been proposed to the floor the threats and filibusters began. You really do try to use that as an excuse for everything, but the Republicans set the tone before that even happened. Nice try though. 1
point
You say I judge millions of people because of their ideology? No I speak out against them politically because they are stealing mine & yours freedoms. It will be God that judges each and every one of them as far as their faith, not me. I told you I have doubts to any person's Christian faith if he denies God's word. We have all sinned but rather than admitting our sin if we instead say God is wrong or say he did not say that in the Bible, watch out. I never said I know if they are Christians in God's eyes or not. If they make it to heaven, God bless them. 1
point
1
point
Do you actually think you are going to change any of these Liberal's minds with reasoned arguments? They know the facts, THEY COULD CARE LESS! They voted for Obama a second time after he proved to be such a radical extremist. They are paranoid insecure extremists lost in their ideology. There is nothing you will say that changes their insecure minds. Maybe you are too brainwashed to be angry of all your freedoms you are losing in this nation thanks to Democrats. I put out the facts of what is going on in this nation & they attack those facts and twist those facts. They are a joke & I'm only on this site hoping there are some moderates who have the rational intelligence to see the facts that I am giving them. I hope they will not vote for a Democrat next time. All you have done is attacked my posts from the beginning because you don't like the way I debate. TOO BAD! I tell it like it is. I don't like the way you debate. GET OVER IT! I also don't like how you attacked my opinions never agreeing with my points but always finding reasons to insult my opinions. You are doing no better changing anyone's minds on this site, but live in your world of reasoned arguments and see where it gets you. My arguments are reasoned to the truth of what is going on in this nation. 2
points
1
point
1
point
Do you actually live in some kind of lala land when you say such hypocritical things to me? Read some of your posts and tell me you have not said insulting things to me. LOOK IN THE MIRROR! Do I insult Liberals? Yes I do and i will again because it is sickening for any group of people to be so arrogant as to force us all to think and do as they think and do. When an arrogant group of control fanatics try to take our guns, or force me to buy their pathetically expensive Socialist healthcare plan, or support killing late term Babies for any reason at any stage, or tell me i am an abusive person if i spank my child, or that College grads can not talk about their faith in God during their graduation speeches, or that a school can not have the freedom to choose to say a prayer even when the children are not forced to pray along, etc. etc. etc. etc. to infinity. This is why I insult the arrogance of Liberals. Yes I know lumping every Liberal into one group is not accurate but when I talk about Liberals, I am talking in general terms about those who fight for most of the things I just spoke against. I will call any person an idiot who is so arrogant to think he has the right to take my guns from my home. Guns I use for protection or target shooting, etc.. Yeh, I know, you will repeat the laughable excuse that you don't want to take my guns the way they did in the UK and France, etc. YOU JUST WANT TO TAKE ASSAULT RIFLES, right? LOLOLOLOLOL, do you honestly believe that crap coming from Liberal Democrats? They want all our guns one step at time. In New York Cuomo passed the safe act where any gun that could hold more than seven rounds could be taken from our homes! Their goal is to take all our guns! THAT MAKES THEM IDIOTS! I will continue to call it like it is to people so arrogant! If you don't like my debating skills, ignore my posts. 1
point
Can you provide a quote of me actually insulting you? The rest of your post is demonstrably hypocritical, but you don't really seem to care. You have the arrogance to lie about others, to tell others what to do (while accusing them of doing the same), to categorize everyone you disagree with as worthy of hate, then in the same breath accuse others of hate mongering. You are projecting, it really is that simple.The thing is, you aren't employing debating skills. What I really, REALLY want is to actually debate you on the merits of your beliefs. I want to have a conversation of you where you don't pretend you know what I believe or what political ideology I am (because you don't), where you don't resort to and rely on ad hominem. I want a conversation where we can actually DEBATE the merits of our beliefs, instead of simply listening to you arrogantly generalizing everyone of differing opinions with hyperpartisan rhetoric. Is that really so far outside the realm of possibility? Is it really asking too much, for you to debate on a website about debating? 1
point
Are you one of these people who would never vote for Conservative Christian politicians like Mike Huccabee, Rick Santorum, Perry, Tea party, etc. etc. Are they just too say it like it is for you? Did you notice how well Obama's apology tour has done for our foreign policy. Did Obama's reasoned apologies and bleeding heart respect for Putin in Russia, and his reasoned dialog with Arab nations housing terrorists, or his reasoned pull out of troops in Arab nations. Did the terrorists says thank you for getting out of Afghanistan? Liberals have the same arrogant extreme ideology where they could care less about your reasoned arguments. They love people like you who are so polite while they take your freedoms. WAKE UP! 1
point
1
point
1
point
It was not hard to see through your true passions. Your passions are being liked by those you debate so they will say nice things about your debating techniques. My passion lies in ACTUALLY saving some late term Baby's lives! Who knows, you might have been one of those babies saved by words from a passionate Christian Conservative to your mother at the right time. My passions are keeping our freedoms from these Liberal idiots who listen politely to your reasoned arguments and then vote for the very people who will force you to bend to their ideology. They love people like you who will be polite while they take your guns, force you to pay for abortions, force you to buy Obamacare. They love your reasoned self. Have you noticed how much they hate people like me who actually shine the light on their inhumanity & their arrogant controlling personalities? Live in your dream world of actually making a difference. Once again (and likely not the last time), your mission is noble, your tack is rude. Learn this: Liberals are easy to debate. They always turn to discrediting conservative voices, rather than debating the merits of their own argument. They don't have a playbook, because there's just one play. Frame them first by pointing to this tactic. Force then to explain the rightness of their position. Hint: They can not. The purpose of debating liberals is not to awaken them to truth, but to show to the observer the fallacy of their claims. To influence those who still have the potential for reason. These are your audience. Speak to them with convincing argument. The liberal cannot win a debate in the eyes of the observer, if you subvert his tactic before its used and remain on topic. 1
point
I know exactly of what you speak. They play the Devil's advocate as if it were their career. My tack might come off a little rough but that is from years of wasting time trying to get Liberals to admit that grass is green. They never will! They will always find that one Conservative who also believes that Grass is not green which in their mind makes their argument right. No matter that 99.9999% of those denying grass is green are Liberals. They love getting you to talk about semantics and how Liberals do not all think alike. I KNOW THIS but that has nothing to do with my arguments and the Liberal ideology i speak of. When I speak about Liberals, it is in a general sense of those on the Left who further the Progressive Democrat movement in this nation. 1
point
"They love getting you to talk about semantics and how Liberals do not all think alike. I KNOW THIS but that has nothing to do with my arguments and the Liberal ideology i speak of. When I speak about Liberals, it is in a general sense of those on the Left who further the Progressive Democrat movement in this nation." So you know liberals are not the same yet you admit you refer to them with generalizations. How do you think that accomplishes anything? "My tack might come off a little rough but that is from years of wasting time trying to get Liberals to admit that grass is green. They never will! They will always find that one Conservative who also believes that Grass is not green which in their mind makes their argument right. No matter that 99.9999% of those denying grass is green are Liberals." If Liberals are denying that the grass is green, you are denying that the sky is blue. See what I did there? I assumed that because you don't hold my opinions, you are denying objective reality. How fun! "I know exactly of what you speak. They play the Devil's advocate as if it were their career." No, they simply disagree with you. You need to realize that it is possible to hold different opinions than the ones you hold. 1
point
That would be a great analogy if Conservatives actually denied the sky is blue when it comes to taking our freedoms. Try again. Those on the Left as a whole are 100% responsible for things a speak about. It matters not if part of that movement does not agree on every single word of the laws such as Obamacare. There were many Democrats who did not agree with all of Obamacare, BUT THEY MADE SURE THEY HAD THE EXACT NUMBER OF VOTES IT TOOK TO PASS IT. 1
point
1
point
I'm using the analogy of how Liberals deny the obvious to make themselves right. I thought with your superior intellect you might have understood the point. They will deny grass is green which for instance means they might say Homosexuality is natural and normal. They say this because of the political correct indoctrination from our public schools and colleges. Remember back 50 years ago when psychologists agreed that homosexuality was not a normal thing? What happened? Liberalism happened where political correctness could no longer allow any behavior to be considered unnatural or abnormal. In their anything goes culture they had to make it normal. In my opinion, they did this and many others things to tear down the Christian faith and the moral values our nation had always derived from that Christian heritage. Let me put it in a way that anyone could grasp ok? The America before Political correct Liberals came along... Grass is green.... Heterosexuality is normal.... The America after Liberals grew in the vocal media.... Grass is not green..... Homosexuality is natural and normal.... 1
point
First off, whenever someone has to argue that "they are right because the grass is green and you are denying the obvious by disagreeing" as you are, it shows how weak their (your) argument is. You are doing yourself a disservice. Second, remember 150 years ago when psychologists agreed that mental illness was because of an imbalance in humors? What happened? Was it those evil public schools? That argument of yours is a joke. The rest of your post is per persecution complex rhetoric. "They disagree with me so clearly I am the victim". Well done. 1
point
Ahhhhh..... the old stand by..... go back a thousand years to use extreme cases to make your argument correct. Kind of like the old stand by.... remember when science thought the earth was flat? Liberals love going back to the dark ages to try and paint Christians as judgmental hatemonger hypocrites.... that's always a good one for Liberals. So to refute my argument, you must make it sound like any thought or science 50 years go must be wrong? Well shucks, lets go back 20 years ago when Al Gore and scientists told us all the earth temperatures were going to keep going up and our coastal homes would be flooded and we would run out of Alphabetical letters to name the glut of Hurricanes descending on our helpless homes. Hmmmm, hardly any hurricanes these past years on our east coast. Your argument is what? That science is wrong much of the time? I agree but when it comes to something as simple as biology and the way nature is suppose to work for procreation, then I need no scientist telling me that grass is not green. 2
points
A thousand years? You went back half a century to prove yours, I went back a little bit beyond that. You do realize that I employed YOUR reasoning, right? And no, I used that to prove that we are always learning more about the world around us, and to claim that just because you don't like homosexuality, that means that our understanding of it plateaued 50 years ago is faulty, logically speaking. Additionally, I LOATHE Al Gore. I really, REALLY, REALLY do, so don't think that putting him front in center proves anything to me. You don't need a scientist telling you anything about science, it seems, unless it fits your preconceptions. We have learned far more about sexuality than we know 50 years ago. Deny that if you want, but it doesn't change the "color of the grass" so to speak. 1
point
Using your words, since we are always learning more about the world around us, what would you say if the majority of Doctors and psychologists once again deemed homosexuality a mental disorder. Would you accept it? Are you now saying our understanding of it has plateaued since you agree with the current consensus? 2
points
1
point
NO ONE on the left showed ANY evidence to prove that Homosexuality is not a mental thing. They proved nothing but since their new found Politically correct change of heart, pressured on them from the Left, conveniently fit your preconceptions, it was ok. Put your same arguments against your own preconceived notions the way you do with mine. 1
point
0
points
I am not going to waste my time trying to explain how the grass is green. Men and women are designed to come together as a couple. Our bodies are made for sex between a man and a woman. It is totally abnormal for two men to come together. If you are so totally ignorant not to know this, IGNORE ME! 1
point
1
point
Plateaued? It has never been and never will be normal for two men to come together for sex. Our bodies have never been and never will be designed for that. Take biology again please, you might learn something. It's so laughable that when it comes to the theory of Evolution and our captive children hearing their theories, you accept that as settled science or why else would they be teaching it like it is fact. But when it comes to the science of biology where there is no debate of it's truth, you won't accept that science as fact like you do evolution. You have been brainwashed by political correctness where you can no longer state the obvious truth about Homosexuality or the Left will beat you over the head and insult you and call you a homophobe. They will pressure you to follow Political correctness(as they did psychologists) over settled science. Thankfully not all of us are so gullible and easily led down such a ludicrous path. I would hope you grow someday and start thinking for yourself, not what Liberals tell you to believe. If you actually think the same way as those on the Left, it might be time to stop our correspondence because I would hate wasting my time with someone so easily indoctrinated with nonsense. You never address the equal rights of men who want the equal rights to have 20 wives. Why do you only give special rights to Gays? Start defending the right's of polygamists as you do Gays. And then when they can have multiple wives, we must all allow the next weird group of people to change our marriage laws under the ludicrous argument of equal rights. Then after the family unit is totally destroyed, you can blame the collapse of our culture on George Bush. 1
point
Daver, why are you doing this? You have proven you are capable of debating, yet now your posts are looking more and more like FromWithin, making ridiculous generalizations about millions of people because they hold an ideology other then yours, which you MUST know is rather ignorant. I mean seriously, you just said that nobody of an ideology other than yours is capable of winning any debate, simply because he holds that ideology. Do you not realize the absurdity of what you are saying? 1
point
"There is this thing though about liberal (big government) ideology being rooted in misinformation and misunderstanding. " Except it isn't, it is simply rooted in opinions that differ from yours. Why are you continuing to stooping to FromWithin type levels? Or was I wrong about you, and you truly don't recognize that people can hold legitimate yet differing opinions from yours? I am a "big government" type (on some issues, at least), yet I do not believe that your ideology is based on either misinformation or misunderstanding, simply different understandings and often different information. One need not be a liberal (too amorphous a word to be a decent label anyway) to be in favor of "big" government. That being said, if you are opposed to big government you must assume that those who are for it simply misunderstand the implications (the perceived alternative is that they are actually bad people). Small gov proponents believe that the stated intentions behind gov expansion never comes to fruition. Rather, unintended consequences make for worse conditions in the long run with corrupt power brokers in a position to broker more power. To summarize, if you are for something as destructive as big government, you must simply misunderstand it. This is the perspective you are facing. 1
point
Which is exactly the sort of perspective I find myself unable to completely disagree with. While I AM a "big government" type, I see no way to show disdain to that perspective because history has shown it to be a reasonable one. Now if only FromWithin could explain his views that way. 1
point
Where as Daver perceives each liberal as being either uninformed, or uneducated. Better, but not by much. I really wish more people would stock in the idea of their own fallibility and humanities ever impressive ability to come up with endlessly different opinions and ideas. Would back debates so much more fun. Actually, the problem of fallibility is a factor for why conservatives want smaller government. If power is more diffuse, than the mistakes of those who have power will have less of an impact on humanity. It's why they find free market principles so much more desirable than command economies. 1
point
Again Gen, I'm not trying to be disagreeable by saying that liberal big government ideology is flawed, it is. My opinion stands, that There is this thing though about liberal (big government) ideology being rooted in misinformation and misunderstanding. Its so tempting to conclude that liberals are misguided. This is not intended as a disparaging statement. In fact my comment seeks to explain why otherwise rational people would adhere to flawed ideology. For example liberal big government ideology, if I'm not mistaken, supports the notion that "redistributing wealth" is good for the economy. I know this to be incorrect. Would you be of the opposite opinion? 1
point
Again, you are declaring your opinions as fact, which is, itself, INCREDIBLY flawed. It is easy to hold up proof of "big government" ideologies working in some places, and failing at others. Just because one holds to an ideology that you do not believe in does not mean they are misinformed or misunderstood, or believe in a flawed ideology. For example, are you really going to sit there and tell me that the Scandinavian Social Democracies, some of the most affluent, happiest, safest places in the entire world, are failing right now? That the ideologies they espouse and use as a basis for their government are inherently wrong? I am very disappointed in you. Before this thread, I did not expect arrogance from you at all, and I hope you will realize the arrogance you are putting forth and return back to a more civilized conversation. Usually the flaw is over big government structures shows itself over the long run. The short run successes cause them to be held up as models for te future by people on the left. This was the case with Argentina, Indonesia, and (originally) Russia. Over the long run, perverse incentives create cultures of corruption and apathy and the economy fails. Denmark will go this way as well. Though they lack a culture of corruption, perverse incentives are already beginning to impact how people work. This has happened time and again. its not unreasonable to think that big government idiology is inherently flawed. If it is inherently flawed, then it's not unreasonable to think that proponents of it have misunderstood something. 1
point
Out of curiosity, where is your evidence that Denmark, or any of the Social Democracies, will go this way? Thus far they have pulled this off exceedingly well. And though it has happened time and time again, that by no means indicates that it can not be fixed. I agree that it is not unreasonable to think that government is inherently flawed, but so is the capitalist economic system, as history has shown. As has pretty much every economic and governmental system tried thus far. Which would mean that the proponents of essentially all economic and political ideologies would have misunderstood something :P My info on Denmark comes from a book whose name I can't remember but was definatly biased, so it's fair to throw that out until I come back with a source. Nonetheless, one can look at the trend from the past and extrapolate one more example into the fire and generally suppose it will fail in the long run. Ill concede this one until I am able to substantiate. When you argue that capitalism has failed at points throughout history, you'll find an argument to the contrary for each event. This argument will point to government interference that caused perverse incentives or inefficiencies in the market. Basically there is likely an argument that points to government failure for every occasion of supposed market failure. Furthermore, free markets represent freedom in personal economic decision making. This makes makes it more of an emotional issue to those on the right. Economic regulation and red tape begins to look like shackles and people will start yelling about freedoms while those on the left stay calm because they wanted the regulation anyway. You may have noticed that I am avoiding pointing to dems or reps. No one is happy with either party in this country. I'm trying to explain a general perspective 1
point
I assume you can already discern this, but just in case. The main point of disagreement between you and GN is the use of "misinformation" and "misunderstanding" and "I know this to be incorrect" rather than just different. It is certainly not a known fact that big government is never reasonable - you just have certain opinions about when big government is too big. 1
point
Davers, are you seeing what I'm talking about. As soon as you took a stand and told it like it is, those who debate politely turn on you in a second. GenericName just called you absurd (but of course in his definition of an insult, that is ok). I repeat.... they are hypocrites so much of the time! Those on the Left will politely debate you until you actually get down to the truth of their ideology, the truth of what they support and how they refuse to ever admit any error in their thinking. They will always have reasons why they are not wrong. I admitted I was wrong when I insulted people in certain instances. I never hear a Liberal admit anything. 2
points
Do you not know the difference between saying "the absurdity of what you say" and calling someone absurd? The former is a judgement of an argument, the latter is an insult. You keep using the term hypocrite, but you really don't understand what it means. And both you, and now Daver, are not debating politely, so how would you know if people will debate politely with you? You spend all your time insulting people you disagree with, yet expect them to be polite when responding to you? And I've never heard you admit you were wrong about anything either. Does that mean that you just refusing to admit the error in your thinking? 1
point
I admitted I was wrong when I insult people for no good reason. I call you a hypocrite when you are a hypocrite. Yes i sometimes use the word hypocrite when I should have said double standard.... sue me! When a person complains about something someone did to them, and then turns round and does the same thing.... that is being a hypocrite. Like all good "people on the left"(I can't use the word Liberal because none of you want to own up to the pathetic ideology you push forward). Where was I? Oh yes, most people on the Left will never admit their hypocrisies so they must say grass is not green. They will say things such as "the absurdity of what you say" is not n insult such as calling them absurd..... LOL Do you have any idea how much of everyone's time you waste pointing out semantics, or definitions of words, or correct grammar, or the correct way to debate, or the definition of an insult, etc. etc. etc. I repeat, do you know the definition of narcissism? When a person constantly wants to show off his supposed superiority to others, there are some serious insecurities going on. Here's an idea.... how about addressing the obvious intent of people's arguments instead of nit picking them to death just so you can void admitting the truth in the argument. I realize defending the ideology from the Left is extremely difficult with all the evidence refuting their assumptions of how bigger Government is good for the people's freedoms, but that won't stop you I'm sure. 1
point
But that's the thing, what you are doing is ACTIVELY making having a conversation less and less possible because you are so unwilling to use the actual definitions of words. That is not narcissism, that is proper discourse! For me to call you out on using socialism as if it was an insult is not me "showing off", and for you to call it that shows exactly how prickly you are to being corrected. I'm not even going to bother addressing your first paragraph though, as we have already been over your incorrect usage of both "hypocrisy" and your inability to understand the difference between judging one's argument and insulting one's character. |
