Will a nuclear attack cure the liberal mental disease?
Yes.
18%
[ 2 ]
No.
81%
[ 9 ]
Total Votes : 11
Author
Message
ZiaAries FemaleFirst Guru
Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 13347 Location: United States of America
Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 4:59 am Post subject:
azraelle wrote:
Registered Republican....
Voted either Libertarian, or Independent American for presidential nominee since I was eligible to vote, however--1976 to the present, to be exact. Why break a perfect record of non-compliance to business-as-usual Party Politics? Although, if a decent candidate had made it into the Republican Party nomination this year, I probably would have been sorely tempted, but there's no chance of that now.
Azraelle, So you support the Idiotarian party. Ahh.... Okay.
Different times calls for different thinking. In FDR and Truman's days, Americans had jobs, were working, and starting to build wealth in the midlle class. In this day and age, with right wing thought leaning towards globalization and corporate profit at any cost, Americans are losing their jobs, homes, possessions, and the liberal politicians have to find a way to honor the flawed agreements made by the right and still find new ways to help those effected here.
Explain to me how a global health care plan, which is what ultimately liberals want, is going to be any different than globalization?
I would think socialized medicine is a shortcut FOR globalization?
And though I am not sure republican are at the root of globalization, as you say...I do know they are against socialized medicine!
And did not FDR take office during the great depression?
Did not the war effort play a part in turning the economy around?
They are against socialized medicine because their big business buddies won't be able to golden parachute their execs at 8 or 9 figure retirements. Poor things! Why conservatives are SO against EVERYONE having adequate health care is, to me, nothing more than an atrocity towards humanity. Without health, we have NO LIFE! So, am I to believe that I am worth less as a human being than some jerk with every benefit in a ivory tower?
I work and PAY my own way!
And I work very HARD for my health care coverage!
Explain to me why my hard work has to cover someone that desires not to work at all?
Explain to me how you make an responsible adult of someone when they are dependent on the handouts of others?
As usual, Fred, YOU OVER SIMPLIFY EVERYTHING! I WORK DAMN HARD FOR MY LOUSY HEALTH CARE COVERAGE--70/30, $3000 DEDUCTIBLE THAT I CAN'T AFFORD TO USE!
Lots of people in the same boat I'm in. I think it would be MIGHTY WHITE of the US Government to put everybody in the same boat--INCLUDING YOU! Or how about putting me in the same boat that you're in?? I could certainly go for that as well.
Mighty white?
Mighty stupid you mean!
See... I went to school and I work hard for my insurance!
I'm not here to take up YOUR SLACK!
How about being a MAN and carrying your own weight!
Or do you miss your momma's teat and want a new one to suck on? (the governments teat engorged with my hard earned money taken away by taxes)
Joined: 29 Apr 2005 Posts: 2820 Location: southern utah, usa
Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 2:12 pm Post subject:
You went to school, huh? You sound like an ORU grad to me. Or maybe ITT. A REAL school would have taught you such things as philosophical ethics (as opposed to situational), e.g. atheistic philosophers have consistently come up with essentially the same codes of ethics as the major religions--for different reasons, of course. You don't seem to understand that at all. E.G. What is good for the many, ultimately ends up being the best for the few or the one.
You went to school, huh? You sound like an ORU grad to me. Or maybe ITT. A REAL school would have taught you such things as philosophical ethics (as opposed to situational), e.g. atheistic philosophers have consistently come up with essentially the same codes of ethics as the major religions--for different reasons, of course. You don't seem to understand that at all. E.G. What is good for the many, ultimately ends up being the best for the few or the one.
No.
Christianity is NOT for welfare states.
They believe in personal charity and true altruism.
They know it begins with ones self. Not taxation forced upon all.
Joined: 29 Apr 2005 Posts: 2820 Location: southern utah, usa
Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 3:02 pm Post subject:
Fred75 wrote:
azraelle wrote:
You went to school, huh? You sound like an ORU grad to me. Or maybe ITT. A REAL school would have taught you such things as philosophical ethics (as opposed to situational), e.g. atheistic philosophers have consistently come up with essentially the same codes of ethics as the major religions--for different reasons, of course. You don't seem to understand that at all. E.G. What is good for the many, ultimately ends up being the best for the few or the one.
No.
Christianity is NOT for welfare states.
They believe in personal charity and true altruism.
They know it begins with ones self. Not taxation forced upon all.
And they, coincidentally, don't believe in the teachings of Christ, such as
Matthew 22:21 wrote:
Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s
preferring to say, in effect, "That's not in my Bible"!
Joined: 29 Apr 2005 Posts: 2820 Location: southern utah, usa
Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 3:28 pm Post subject:
ZiaAries wrote:
azraelle wrote:
Registered Republican....
Voted either Libertarian, or Independent American for presidential nominee since I was eligible to vote, however--1976 to the present, to be exact. Why break a perfect record of non-compliance to business-as-usual Party Politics? Although, if a decent candidate had made it into the Republican Party nomination this year, I probably would have been sorely tempted, but there's no chance of that now.
Azraelle, So you support the Idiotarian party. Ahh.... Okay.
You went to school, huh? You sound like an ORU grad to me. Or maybe ITT. A REAL school would have taught you such things as philosophical ethics (as opposed to situational), e.g. atheistic philosophers have consistently come up with essentially the same codes of ethics as the major religions--for different reasons, of course. You don't seem to understand that at all. E.G. What is good for the many, ultimately ends up being the best for the few or the one.
No.
Christianity is NOT for welfare states.
They believe in personal charity and true altruism.
They know it begins with ones self. Not taxation forced upon all.
And they, coincidentally, don't believe in the teachings of Christ, such as
Matthew 22:21 wrote:
Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s
preferring to say, in effect, "That's not in my Bible"!
Explain to me how that says "that's not my Bible"?
Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 13347 Location: United States of America
Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 4:27 pm Post subject:
azraelle wrote:
ZiaAries wrote:
azraelle wrote:
Registered Republican....
Voted either Libertarian, or Independent American for presidential nominee since I was eligible to vote, however--1976 to the present, to be exact. Why break a perfect record of non-compliance to business-as-usual Party Politics? Although, if a decent candidate had made it into the Republican Party nomination this year, I probably would have been sorely tempted, but there's no chance of that now.
Azraelle, So you support the Idiotarian party. Ahh.... Okay.
Joined: 29 Apr 2005 Posts: 2820 Location: southern utah, usa
Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 5:54 pm Post subject:
Fred75 wrote:
azraelle wrote:
Fred75 wrote:
azraelle wrote:
You went to school, huh? You sound like an ORU grad to me. Or maybe ITT. A REAL school would have taught you such things as philosophical ethics (as opposed to situational), e.g. atheistic philosophers have consistently come up with essentially the same codes of ethics as the major religions--for different reasons, of course. You don't seem to understand that at all. E.G. What is good for the many, ultimately ends up being the best for the few or the one.
No.
Christianity is NOT for welfare states.
They believe in personal charity and true altruism.
They know it begins with ones self. Not taxation forced upon all.
And they, coincidentally, don't believe in the teachings of Christ, such as
Matthew 22:21 wrote:
Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s
preferring to say, in effect, "That's not in my Bible"!
Explain to me how that says "that's not my Bible"?
Not taxation forced upon all. Taxation was forced upon all in Roman times, by Caesar, as much as it is in our day. By saying "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's", Christ was acknowledging the necessity of secular governments, and the necessity of sustaining them. When you complain about being forced to pay taxes as a Christian, even if it means subsidizing government-sponsored charity, you are in effect denying what Christ said, or implied, about supporting your secular government. E.G. "That's not in my Bible."
You went to school, huh? You sound like an ORU grad to me. Or maybe ITT. A REAL school would have taught you such things as philosophical ethics (as opposed to situational), e.g. atheistic philosophers have consistently come up with essentially the same codes of ethics as the major religions--for different reasons, of course. You don't seem to understand that at all. E.G. What is good for the many, ultimately ends up being the best for the few or the one.
No.
Christianity is NOT for welfare states.
They believe in personal charity and true altruism.
They know it begins with ones self. Not taxation forced upon all.
And they, coincidentally, don't believe in the teachings of Christ, such as
Matthew 22:21 wrote:
Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s
preferring to say, in effect, "That's not in my Bible"!
Explain to me how that says "that's not my Bible"?
Not taxation forced upon all. Taxation was forced upon all in Roman times, by Caesar, as much as it is in our day. By saying "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's", Christ was acknowledging the necessity of secular governments, and the necessity of sustaining them.
No.
He was telling the Jews they can either worship Caesar and his money or follow God's path.
Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 13347 Location: United States of America
Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 9:44 pm Post subject:
Bushwalker wrote:
Minutes Of The Inaugural Meeting Of The New Conservatives Club:
Present: Azraelle, B&P, Bushwalker, Cambridge, the Chairman, the Colonel, Ivan Diederhoff, Lena, Mogadishu.
Points of Order:
1. OUR most esteemed Patron, comrade Fredski, has declared that "Liberals" do not judge, hence we old-fashioned 'small l' liberals are hereby rebadged as the 'New Conservatives'..
2. AS our honourable brother Gay&Proud has been cured of his gayness by Fred's ministrations, he is now to be known as "Butch&Proud", and after this meeting he shall be getting his Republican Party membership # tattooed onto his legendary elephant-trunk-sized penis..
[Aside: No, No, BigBen and Zia - nothing to see in here - Fred and myron are waiting for you youngsters down in the old Tory hovel - oops, I mean chambers - just down the end of that dark, dank corridor. Now, just watch that first step.. ].
3. Election of Directors:
President: Chairman (already has right handle for position)
Vice President: Butch&Proud
Master-at-Arms: the Colonel
Secretary: Bushwalker
Policy Advisors: Azraelle, Cambridge
Republican Liaison: Lena
Press Officers: Mogadishu, Ivan Diederhoff
Inaugural Patron: Comrade Fredski
Okay then, if that's the business for tonight, I call this meeting closed; and before we retire down to the pub, let us all sing our Official Song -
"Alfie's a little teapot, short and stout
here is his handle, here is his spout.."
I am 100% on Fred's team now.
Bushwalker, I want to thank you for helping me to see clearly. Later, I won't say now, but I will have some news for you all. You might be pleasantly pleased how you have aided me.
Joined: 29 Apr 2005 Posts: 2820 Location: southern utah, usa
Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 5:08 pm Post subject:
Fred75 wrote:
azraelle wrote:
Fred75 wrote:
azraelle wrote:
Fred75 wrote:
azraelle wrote:
You went to school, huh? You sound like an ORU grad to me. Or maybe ITT. A REAL school would have taught you such things as philosophical ethics (as opposed to situational), e.g. atheistic philosophers have consistently come up with essentially the same codes of ethics as the major religions--for different reasons, of course. You don't seem to understand that at all. E.G. What is good for the many, ultimately ends up being the best for the few or the one.
No.
Christianity is NOT for welfare states.
They believe in personal charity and true altruism.
They know it begins with ones self. Not taxation forced upon all.
And they, coincidentally, don't believe in the teachings of Christ, such as
Matthew 22:21 wrote:
Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s[
preferring to say, in effect, "That's not in my Bible"!
Explain to me how that says "that's not my Bible"?
Not taxation forced upon all. Taxation was forced upon all in Roman times, by Caesar, as much as it is in our day. By saying "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's", Christ was acknowledging the necessity of secular governments, and the necessity of sustaining them.
No.
He was telling the Jews they can either worship Caesar and his money or follow God's path.
There is no "OR" in the above quote, Fred. As usual you are being stercoraceous in your interpretation of scripture to make it conform to your own warped view of the way things should be.
You are guilty as charged of doing what Peter warned Christians to refrain from doing, e.g.
2 Peter 1:20-21 wrote:
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
You went to school, huh? You sound like an ORU grad to me. Or maybe ITT. A REAL school would have taught you such things as philosophical ethics (as opposed to situational), e.g. atheistic philosophers have consistently come up with essentially the same codes of ethics as the major religions--for different reasons, of course. You don't seem to understand that at all. E.G. What is good for the many, ultimately ends up being the best for the few or the one.
No.
Christianity is NOT for welfare states.
They believe in personal charity and true altruism.
They know it begins with ones self. Not taxation forced upon all.
And they, coincidentally, don't believe in the teachings of Christ, such as
Matthew 22:21 wrote:
Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s[
preferring to say, in effect, "That's not in my Bible"!
Explain to me how that says "that's not my Bible"?
Not taxation forced upon all. Taxation was forced upon all in Roman times, by Caesar, as much as it is in our day. By saying "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's", Christ was acknowledging the necessity of secular governments, and the necessity of sustaining them.
No.
He was telling the Jews they can either worship Caesar and his money or follow God's path.
There is no "OR" in the above quote, Fred. As usual you are being stercoraceous in your interpretation of scripture to make it conform to your own warped view of the way things should be.
You are guilty as charged of doing what Peter warned Christians to refrain from doing, e.g.
2 Peter 1:20-21 wrote:
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
You hand Ceasors money back you then have the option of never accepting it anymore.
Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 13347 Location: United States of America
Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 6:25 pm Post subject:
Fred,
Azraelle is correct on the meaning of scripture Matt 22:21. Make note; they were trying to set a trap for Jesus with the question and he didn't fall for it. He acknowledged taxation by the government.
Site Map
FAQ
Usergroups
Search
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Register
My Profile Space
Why conservatives are SO against EVERYONE having adequate health care is, to me, nothing more than an atrocity towards humanity. Without health, we have NO LIFE! So, am I to believe that I am worth less as a human being than some jerk with every benefit in a ivory tower? 
