Liberals Toss Away Religion So They Can Reign

[Spamity Calamity]

[quote name='Autumn Dusk' post='1410116' date='Oct 27 2007, 01:02 PM']The other thread became much too convoluted for me to go through to make the point that liberals use escape from religion to set themselves up as a sort of diety.

The social welfare programs take people's money as taxes and give it to the poor as they see fit. Genorisity is not necessary.
The they run on fumes of moral-less ideals, such as homosexual living, sex outside of marriage, accepted infidelity and lower ages of sexual consent. This makes self-control not necessary, and familys bothor.
They want all schooling to be free so they can control it. This makes free thought impossible.
They speak of free press but then overwhelm the press with total liberalism. This makes open-mindness impossible.
They speak of our impending ecological doom, expect others to change, but do nothing themselves. It encourages the divide between the rich and the poor.

The people then become dependant on the government...there is no religion but to self...and no duty but to government.[/quote]

Yeah, pretty much.

[Socrates]

[quote name='tgoldson' post='1411031' date='Oct 29 2007, 07:53 AM']Liberals do not have a patent on this form of manipulation. habeas corpus? illegal spying?

Who is the pot and who is the kettle? I can't tell them apart.

This article: [b]Manipulating Emotional Issues to Obtain Votes[/b] "[url="http://www.acriticaldecision.org/links/manipulating-emotional-issues-to-obtain-votes.html"]http://www.acriticaldecision.org/links/man...tain-votes.html[/url]" highlights some interesting questions.[/quote]
Again, I don't equate George W. Bush with conservatism (nor vice-versa), nor will I defend every single thing he does.
But, as was pointed out, this is the pick-on-liberals thread, not the pick-on-conservatives thread.

The article you linked was essentially a lot of leftist blatherskyte (yes, that's a word - blatherskyte), and I honestly wasn't much impressed. In fact, I'd have to disagree with about everything stated there. It wasn't so much interesting, as a rather predictable far-left diatribe (pro-"choice", pro-contraception, pro-gun-control, pro welfare-state, etc.)
I've debated against similar arguments on most of the issues listed there numerous times here in the past (just run a search on here on "abortion" or "gay marriage", etc.).
Abortion and other moral issues are not just "emotional issues" as they are often dismissed by liberals. As I've said many times before, if the law does not protect human life at its most vulnerable, it is worthless.
Here's an old poll/thread of mine on the issue: [url="http://Catholics/Christians%20and%20Law/Government,%20(Laws%20on%20abortion,%20homosexuality,%20etc.)"]Catholics/Christians and Law/Government, (Laws on abortion, homosexuality, etc.)[/url]

And, while you've claimed to lean libertarian, the article you linked to basically preaches extreme leftism, and takes quite a few positions quite at odds with libertarianism, such as its support of gun control, strict government restrictions on "environmentally unfriendly" technologies, and the welfare state.
In fact, the article basically dismisses as "emotional" any stance which opposes an amoral left-wing socialist state, and thus is a bit hard to take seriously.
If you want to be more convincing, you might try linking to something which isn't so blatantly leftist.

Edited October 30, 2007 by Socrates

[Adrestia]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1411325' date='Oct 29 2007, 10:03 PM']Again, I don't equate George W. Bush with conservatism (nor vice-versa), nor will I defend every single thing he does.
But, as was pointed out, this is the pick-on-liberals thread, not the pick-on-conservatives thread.[/quote]

My bad. Still learning the rules here. Please forgive me.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1411325' date='Oct 29 2007, 10:03 PM']The article you linked was essentially a lot of leftist blatherskyte (yes, that's a word - blatherskyte), and I honestly wasn't much impressed. In fact, I'd have to disagree with about everything stated there. It wasn't so much interesting, as a rather predictable far-left diatribe (pro-"choice", pro-contraception, pro-gun-control, pro welfare-state, etc.)
I've debated against similar arguments on most of the issues listed there numerous times here in the past (just run a search on here on "abortion" or "gay marriage", etc.).
Abortion and other moral issues are not just "emotional issues" as they are often dismissed by liberals. As I've said many times before, if the law does not protect human life at its most vulnerable, it is worthless.
Here's an old poll/thread of mine on the issue: [url="http://Catholics/Christians%20and%20Law/Government,%20(Laws%20on%20abortion,%20homosexuality,%20etc.)"]Catholics/Christians and Law/Government, (Laws on abortion, homosexuality, etc.)[/url][/quote]
I did not intend to imply that I support the items in the article. I actually thought that it pointed out issues facing both Dems and Reps... not so much elevating one party over the other.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1411325' date='Oct 29 2007, 10:03 PM']And, while you've claimed to lean libertarian, the article you linked to basically preaches extreme leftism, and takes quite a few positions quite at odds with libertarianism, such as its support of gun control, strict government restrictions on "environmentally unfriendly" technologies, and the welfare state.
In fact, the article basically dismisses as "emotional" any stance which opposes an amoral left-wing socialist state, and thus is a bit hard to take seriously.
If you want to be more convincing, you might try linking to something which isn't so blatantly leftist.[/quote]

I do lean Libertarian on economic issues. There's no question about that. I didn't link to a Libertarian article because we're not talking about Libertarian policies. But since you brought it up, wouldn't it be great the the government stopped telling us what to do with the money we earn? a girl can dream...

Edited October 30, 2007 by tgoldson

[Socrates]

[quote name='tgoldson' post='1411361' date='Oct 29 2007, 10:50 PM']My bad. Still learning the rules here. Please forgive me.[/quote]
You're forgiven. . . . just this once.
[quote]I did not intend to imply that I support the items in the article. I actually thought that it pointed out issues facing both Dems and Reps... not so much elevating one party over the other.[/quote]
I just thought the article was a poor example to make the point - it basically thought neither party was left-wing enough (while I of course believe the opposite).
And I take issue with the common liberal accusation that issues like abortion, gun-control and whatnot are simply trivial "emotional issues" which distract from the important stuff, like government redistribution of wealth, or banning fossil fuels, or whatever socialistic schemes that clown's advocating.

There are plenty of people on the right (Joe Sobran and Pat Buchanan come to mind) who are disgusted with both major parties, and make a much better case than that guy.

Btw - just found out my link in my last post to the Law/Morality thread was screwed-up. [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=49261&hl="]This link should work: Catholics/Christians and Law/Morality[/url].

[quote]I do lean Libertarian on economic issues. There's no question about that. I didn't link to a Libertarian article because we're not talking about Libertarian policies. But since you brought it up, wouldn't it be great the the government stopped telling us what to do with the money we earn? a girl can dream...[/quote]
Can't disagree with you there . . .

[little2add]

On 10/27/2007 at 1:02 PM, Autumn Dusk said:

The people then become dependant on the government...there is no religion but to self...and no duty but to government.

words truer now, more than ever.  

Chuck Schumer, the incoming Senate Majority Leader, has vowed to push through $2,000 stimulus checks after President-elect Joe Biden takes office.

if it sounds like a bribe, smells like a bribe, looks like a bribe.  I must be a bribe.