Something is wrong with the way they think.

[ironmonk]

"Extreme right" - this just kills me.

Liberals don't even know the meaning of right. People are "Right" if they think there is a right and wrong, conforming to justice, moral, etc....

"Extreme Justice" / "Extreme Morality" / "Extreme Do the Right Thing" = "Extreme Right"

How is it wrong to do what is right?!

Others are call left because they want to be opposite of right but they cannot call themselves wrong... The left extreme "Extreme do what you want", "Extreme do what feels good", "Extreme opposite of Right", "Extreme Emotion", "Extreme Lies"


[b] right
adj. right·er, right·est [/b]
1) Conforming with or conformable to justice, law, or morality: do the right thing and confess.
2) In accordance with fact, reason, or truth; correct: the right answer.
3) Fitting, proper, or appropriate: It is not right to leave the party without saying goodbye.
4) Most favorable, desirable, or convenient: the right time to act.
5) In or into a satisfactory state or condition: put things right.
6) In good mental or physical health or order.


[b]Left[/b]
1) The people and groups who advocate liberal, often radical measures to effect change in the established order, especially in politics, usually to achieve the equality, freedom, and well-being of the common citizens of a state. Also called left wing.
2) The opinion of those advocating such measures.


Of course the above "equality, freedom, and well being" only applies to what their definition of equality is... keep your Catholicism to yourself but if you are muslim by all means please feel free to share, freedom as long as I like what you say or do, and well being as long as someone is voting for our side we will be the hand that feeds so they don't bite... there is no right or wrong... only opinion.... So what if the facts show that God is real, you can't tell me the facts without offending me..... Contraception, abortion, porn, co-habitation, same sex unions, unending welfare for people who are able to support themselves so they keep voting for you - but say it's to end poverty, etc...



"Extreme Right" - Is a good thing. It's not the opposite of left, it's the opposite of wrong.

"Extreme Left" - is not a good thing. It's not about right and left, it's about right and wrong.


God Bless,
ironmonk

[jezic]

things get off topic in a hurry here ....

Pretty soon people will sue others because they have the potential to sue them.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='jezic' date='Feb 2 2006, 09:38 PM']things get off topic in a hurry here ....

Pretty soon people will sue others because they have the potential to sue them.
[right][snapback]873827[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Did you hear about the guy who is sueing his online "buddies" for causing him mental harm in a chat room?








Actually, he "might" have something wrong with the way he thinks.


Of course he might have had some depression from something someone wrote in it, but to sue for it?

Freedom of speech... this includes insults.


God Bless,
ironmonk

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Feb 2 2006, 09:29 PM']Let's let Ironmonk speak for himself, shall we?
[right][snapback]873798[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
OK, let's. He said:
[quote]This is a prime example of a lawsuit from a typical liberal that I have to deal with. People like this are just looking to cheat people and get out of working. [i]If this guy actually believes that Apple should be punished, it just goes to show how mindless he is.[/i] I've met far to many people like this one that think we have too much freedom and we need to be protected from ourselves... They've all been liberal dems. There is simply something wrong with the way most of them think. Just like the other thread I started shows.
[i]People are responsible for their own well being with cases like these.[/i] Any lawyer to take a case like this should be disbarred, and so should any judge that doesn't throw it out.[/quote]
I said:
[quote]Of course he'd rather talk about people's "sense of entitlement" than about "corporate responsibility." [/quote]
I summarized, based in large parts on the parts of Ironmonk's post quoted above. Was I wrong in my assessment of Ironmonk's intent with the post? My (sarcastic) comment in reply was intended as a response to IM's apparent belief that Apple could bear no responsibility for the injury due to misuse of their product.

I don't agree that companies are always guiltless in matters such as these. Not having read any of the pleadings in this case, I can't reasonably form an opinion about this particular case at this juncture. Neither can Ironmonk, but he apparently is unwilling to let the facts get in the way of his opinion. Perhaps I should have fleshed out my argument a little more fully. Instead, I opted for sarcasm.

[quote name='Socrates']It seems no one can raise a conservative point in here anymore without you going into some kind of personal attack on conservatives.[/quote]
Odd that you'd say that, as this very thread starts out stating that when it comes to "liberal dems," there's "simply something wrong with the way most of them think." IM says if the guy actually believes Apple should be punished he is "mindless," and says lawsuits such as this one filed by a "typical liberal" are intended to "cheat people" and suborn sloth. Oh wait, that's my words. He actually said "get out of working."

I read ALL of that as attacks on liberals. What, y'all can dish it out, but not take it?

[quote name='Socrates']If you can show how Mr. Jobs has done something abusive or evil (other than donating to the Dems) feel free to start a thread on it! 

And I'd argue that lawyers and such tend to be at least as greedy and corrupt as corporate types (and far more damaging to America).[/quote]
There are bad apples in every barrel. No argument from me on that one.

[quote name='Socrates']The problem with your posts lately  is that rather than simply attack conservative ideas or programs, you tend to ascribe motives such as "greed" or "political leverage" to conservatives across the board.[/quote]
Turn about is fair play. When I start seeing intelligent posts from conservative viewpoints that aren't rife with unnecessary insults and ridiculous editorializing, I'll be happy to respond in kind.

[quote name='Socrates']Your tactic of "turning the point around" on here has gotten rather old, and over 90% of the time simply doesn't work - such as ascribing immorality and dissent in the Church to "conservatism."

If you want others to respect your views, you should stick to debating the ideas - not just making meaningless attacks against the supposed motivations of "conservatives."[/quote]
Again, right back to you. I'm soooooooo tired of seeing the ranting. It's ridiculous. Just attacking "liberals" and their supposed motivations does nothing for me or anyone else except unnecessarily polarise people. This is supposed to be a debate board, and instead it's been a soapbox forum. We routinely have threads just like this one that rant against "liberals" and any attempt at intelligent discourse on the topic is immediately quelled by more ranting. I just got tired of it.

[Cow of Shame]

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Feb 2 2006, 04:19 PM']Right, so when I say that conservatives are greedy [b]dumbleknockers[/b] who use the unborn as political leverage, I don't mean everyone.
[right][snapback]873363[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Has someone been taking advantage of a name generator?

[Cow of Shame]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Feb 2 2006, 08:14 PM']Almost any stereo system or audio device can cause hearing loss if played at screamingly loud volumes.  They all have volume controls which can be turned up or down.  If someone lacks the good sense to listen to his music at reasonable levels, it is his fault, not that of the manufacturer.
[/quote]
Except that earphones are more likely to cause hearing loss than normal stereos.

[url="http://www.chicagotribune.com/technology/chi-0601280035jan28,1,1664604.story?coll=chi-techtopheds-hed"]CHECK IT[/url]

[Cow of Shame]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Feb 2 2006, 09:29 PM']I do not presume to know the hearts of liberals,
[/quote]
Come, come...we've all heard the opening lines...


"Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of liberals?"

So-Crates knows!!

[desertwoman]

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Feb 2 2006, 09:32 PM']I know of no conservatives making or encouraging such lawsuits.

Conservatism is for personal responsibility.

Liberalism is about promoting a culture of victimhood, and making others pay for one's own bad choices.
[right][snapback]873806[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
In your view, is it even [i]possible[/i] for someone who's conservative to file such a suit? So if someone filed such a suit, wouldn't they by (your) definition be "liberal"? If a conservative couldn't file such a suit, then it's no wonder you know of no conservatives making or encouraging them.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Feb 2 2006, 06:14 PM']  They all have volume controls which can be turned up or down.  [right][snapback]873658[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Hey, there's a novel concept - if it's too loud, turn down the volume!

[Jaime]

Funny how the article doesn't actually call into play the man's politics.

[Winchester]

The communist is right, there is no mention of his political persuasion. He is obviously very American because he is trying to get rich on the efforts of others. The only thing more American than that is killing people over taxes.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Winchester' date='Feb 3 2006, 08:14 AM']The communist is right, there is no mention of his political persuasion. He is obviously very American because he is trying to get rich on the efforts of others. The only thing more American than that is killing people over taxes.
[right][snapback]874224[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Ok so let's see...

Apparently I'm now a communist.

If an american has liberal views, (s)he abdicates his/her citizenship


BRILLIANT discourse

[Winchester]

I'm sorry, I thought I was being cheeky. Apparently my joke didn't find it's mark. I am dreadfully sorry. I misunderestimated your capacity for laughing at yourself in the context of how others might see you.

I am greatly saddened that my final sentence was overshadowed by my initial outburst.

[Jaime]

No no you silly muslim, I find jokes about calling into question my patriotism to be hysterical.

[Winchester]

There are plenty of patriotic communists.

Hollywood is filled with them.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Feb 3 2006, 07:37 AM']No no you silly muslim, I find jokes about calling into question my patriotism to be hysterical.
[right][snapback]874236[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
i thought that communists tended to be patriotic.

Edited February 3, 2006 by Paphnutius

[scardella]

First off... what happened to respect in debate?

Secondly, I agree that potential harm in such a case is quite frivolous. It's like warning against plugging in a toaster and dropping it into the bathtub with yourself. It gets ridiculous after a while. I, for one, would rather see the courts being used for important issues, not money grabs.

On a side note, I know a guy named Jon Kiehl. I'm glad he's not from Louisiana and that his name is spelled differently... or else I'd have to

[Desert Walker]

I think the real problem in the debate over what constitutes "liberal" and "conservative" is that nobody can apparently agree as to what constitutes "liberal" and "conservative" thought and action. Time to shamelessly complicate things a little (for some at least).

When Martin Luther King died the then governor of Georgia, Lester Maddox (such a white, southern, redneck, RACIST name isn't it liberals?), protested the closing of the state capital for King's funeral. Lester Maddox was, among other apparently GOOD things, an ardent supporter of enforced segregation of ethnicities (no I'm not saying segregation is a good thing). Ok here's my point: if everyone in government thought like Lester Maddox government enforced segregation would never have ended, and would still be with us today. Lester Maddox was CONSERVATIVE in that he was unwilling to CHANGE his mind about ethnic segregation. Lester Maddox should have been LIBERAL and CHANGED his mind about ethnic segregation. Why?

Now for something that sounds weird and will probably only be understood by "conservatives." Hopefully not but here it is:

[i]It is sometimes necessary to for a conservative to be liberal in order to support conservative principles.[/i]

Let me explain further. Is it not true that conservatives hold the high opinion that they adhere to the principles of God Himself? That is, of orthodoxy? Yes that is true. Hearkening back to good old Governor Lester now; Lester held the belief that government enforced ethnic segregation was a Godly principle (don't ask me how I know this, I just do). Governor Lester was wrong about this. Government enforced segregation of the races is not a principle contained in orthodoxy; it is not a principle held by God. It is, therefore, a [i]liberal[/i] principle.

My point here is this: true conservatism is equal to true orthodoxy. A man like Lester Maddox is the perfect example of a false (unknowingly so) conservative. Lester Maddox was in fact a LIBERAL because he believed in racial segregation which is not supported by the principles of God (orthodoxy).

Now let me, hopefully, tie this together with this earlier statement:

[i]It is sometimes necessary to for a conservative to be liberal in order to support conservative principles.[/i]

That statement, NOW, should read like this:

[i]It IS necessary for all people to RETURN to true conservatism.[/i]

What is true conservatism? The principles of God. How do we know what those are?

Look to Rome.

[ironmonk]

Well put. It seems that some here focus on the word and not the meaning.

I have addressed my view of the various meanings of both words in various threads/posts... then it seems as if some people forget or did not read what else was posted then they get a skewed view of meaning. Then take what is written out of context...

I prefer the label "Right" other than conservative because I do want to change a lot of things... I will not use radical means (as leftist do)... My views are firstly based on the laws as set forth by God through the Church and secondly the laws of men... I see much need to change many laws and policies of men (which technically is liberal)... but the change is Right, that is based on Church teachings, God's Laws, morals, justice, facts, etc... All "Right" thinking reasons.

Too many people use right/conservative interchangably and technically they have different meanings.

I blame the media for skewing everything... most of the media is about ratings not truth. Fear and hate are "great" tools to manipulate people... just ask Hitler. It would be nice if people used love and facts but they don't get the big ratings.

What sounds more important to see on TV:
"Learn the facts of the plan the right want to do" (Give tax cuts to coroporations that create jobs in America)
OR the edited media spin:
"Learn how the evil right extremists want to take money away from you and put it into the greedy corporations hands"
(and they don't tell you how the right want to give tax cuts to corporations that create jobs, not to corporations that don't)

God Bless,
ironmonk