04-24-2012, 02:51 PMIn Memory Of My Friend 1st Sgt. Tim Millsap A Co, 70th Eng. Bn. 3rd Bde 1st AD...K.I.A. 25 April 2005
Liberalism Is The Philosophy Of The Stupid
To Achieve Ordered Liberty You Must Have Moral Order As Well
The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.
04-24-2012, 03:24 PM
Last edited by NJCardFan; 04-24-2012 at 03:34 PM.The Obama Administration: Deny. Deflect. Blame.
04-24-2012, 03:36 PM
Generally speaking "hot button issues" get a lot of publicity and people are well aware of what the bills are.
Issues like "prop 8" and "prop 19" in their respective states get enough publicity that generally "vote yes on prop #" is enough to get the point across without a manifesto stapled to the sign.
What is there to hide?
That's like saying phrases like "support the 2nd amendment" are trying to hide something because they don't say "I want to walk around carrying a gun on my hip like I'm in an old Clint Eastwood movie"Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
04-24-2012, 03:40 PMThe Obama Administration: Deny. Deflect. Blame.
04-24-2012, 03:58 PM
And where do I get off judging gays? Simple. Their lifestyle is a deviant lifestyle and it has little to do with actual love than it does sex. Anal and oral sex is all about getting off and never about procreating.
When you were a kid did your parents tell you that you couldn't get a boy and girl rabbit because they will love each other and have babies? Don't take it too literally my friend.
You've got to help explain your logic in linear terms because this doesn't make sense.
Not that I don't enjoy the occasional BJ but in my relationship, I can also make babies so my relationship isn't 100% about sex.
You do realize that none of this makes any sense, right?
Let's do this the logical way.
A: Gay men are 100% about sex because they enjoy oral sex.
B: You enjoy oral sex.
It would follow then that: C: your relationship is also 100% about sex, however....
D: your relationship not 100% about sex because you are able to create a baby.
E: Making a baby requires having sex.
Therefore: if all of these are true, it must be true that being 100% about sex is not connected to how much or what kind of sex one participates in, but whether it is possible (although not necessary actualized) for one to have a baby through sex.
Finally F: if your relationship is "all about sex", it is deviant and should be judged accordingly.
This would mean the following things are true:
1. You can have sex all day every day, anal, oral, ear, fetishes or whatever, and your relationship is not all about sex, if it's physically possible for you to make a baby. This is nice and decent and proper.
2. You can have sex once a month or less in an emotionally-based relationship, but your relationship is 100% about sex if you are unable to make a baby. This is deviant and wrong.
This means heterosexual relationships with post-menopausal women or partners who otherwise are not able to have children are "100% about sex" and therefore should be judged as deviant.
Also, I find gays obnoxious and IMO all they want is attention. Why else would you dress like this:
You are confusing "those gays" with "gays" in general. I've known several homosexuals since college and none of them did anything like that. In fact, at some crazier college parties in my younger days, straight men were doing things closer to that.
If you find homosexuality to be gross, that's fine. If you don't like seeing men dance around in gay pride parades, then that's fine too, you don't have to like it. If you think gays are filthy sodomites who deserve to be buried, well that's your thing I hope that works for you.
I personally think it's silly to be so sensitive about gays, but that's because I live in a gay-friendly city and I've had more exposure. The shock has worn off long ago and it's really no big deal to me. I can totally see how someone with traditional values and traditional gender roles would see it as perverted and wrong. I'm not going to tell you that you should not feel that way.
Living in a society like ours with different groups doesn't mean you have to smile and get along with everyone and like everyone and hold hands and form a rainbow and appreciate everyone's differences. In fact, if anything it means there is going to be more conflict and discomfort from having things you don't agree with around.
However, if you want to have to right to be opposed to homosexuality, the right to teach your kids that homosexuality is a perverted lifestyle, the right to say you think it's gross (and I think you should have all these rights staunchly protected from oversensitive liberals), then you should also respect the rights of them to live their lifestyle in their own homes. That's the give and take.
I think if you are opposed to the stereotypical promiscuity and lewdness of homosexuality, then you should let them be married, if anything that will encourage a more toned-down monogamous brand of homosexuality that you can more easily ignore.Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
- Join Date
- Mar 2009
04-24-2012, 04:05 PM
I've noticed something about your pattern of posting, you almost always tell me what I believe and how wrong it is, but I can't recall a single time you've honestly asked me if I agreed or disagreed with something, or openly asked me to articulate my thoughts on a subject.
You simply conflate me (and everyone else who is politically to the left of you) with this large thing called "liberalism".
I don't think it's simply fighting strawmen, you seem eager to beat up on "liberalism" and you use people on the internet who are to the left of you to stand in for that place so you have an object to aim your frustration at. I am eager to beat up on liberalism as well, so perhaps your motivations are misplaced.
I have many extreme criticisms about liberals today and you'd be surprised how often I agree with you, even though I'm looking at them from a different angle.
You should try to get my perspective before you argue against it.Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
04-24-2012, 04:53 PM
There is no inconsistency. On the issue of welfare reform most single mothers aren't watching after their children so expecting them to work is only going to be a positive effect on the children. Teach by example, instill in them the work ethic. If you want things a job will be the best shot at getting them. Many two parent households have both parents working to support an out of control Tax anything and everything govt. Sure it would be better for a parent to stay home and rear the children but one parent works primarily to pay the tax bill the other for support.
So you can see there is no inconsistency in the Welfare to work argument.
Try harder next time.The 21st century. The age of Smart phones and Stupid people.
It is said that branches draw their life from the vine. Each is separate yet all are one as they share one life giving stem . The Bible tells us we are called to a similar union in life, our lives with the life of God. We are incorporated into him; made sharers in his life. Apart from this union we can do nothing.
04-24-2012, 06:09 PM
Teach by example, instill in them the work ethic. If you want things a job will be the best shot at getting them. Many two parent households have both parents working to support an out of control Tax anything and everything govt. Sure it would be better for a parent to stay home and rear the children but one parent works primarily to pay the tax bill the other for support.
I would even support optional pro-family parenting classes, nutrition classes, and other information sources that would help parents raise their kids better.
The tricky part is requiring people to do things that will take them away from their kids.
Another option, if you really want parents to work to receive welfare (I'm not entirely opposed to the idea of people having to work for benefits. I agree that sitting in your butt and getting welfare checks is not a good thing), is to have government-funded daycare centers for their children. This would be costly, but if the theory holds that making people work for welfare will ultimately result in less people on welfare, it should pay for itself. Not to mention the next generation of kids having better upbringing opportunities, so they have a better chance of not needing welfare when they grow up.
So you can see there is no inconsistency in the Welfare to work argument.
Try harder next time.Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|