H'WOOD MORONS

[Heracles 417]

You are trying to say that we should discard one of the fundamental tenets the US is built on?

Also, where do you get the idea that 90% of people are affiliated with religious groups and 10% are part of non-religious groups? I'm really confused by that. I am thankful every day that the US has separation of church and state. If the government does not protect the rights of a minority (yes be it religious) who will?

That was just an example.

Face it, Australia has suffered no attacks on par with what the US and Britain have dealt with because it is not as consequential in the world, not because it is some sort of utopia. I agree that we would be better served with two dominant parties who were further apart on the spectrum, but please don't tell me Australia is never corrupt. We've seen more than enough evidence to the contrary these past few years...

Come on now you can't even begin to compare the US legal system to the AUS / UK legal system. You won't see some liberal suing Mcdonalds for spilling hot cofee on themselves in AUS.. or groups like the ACLU able to bankrupt a county, just to remove a cross.. It's not a matter of AUS vs US. It's a matter of liberals having their heads so far deep in the sand that they have no idea how the real (non-hollywood) world works. No offence, Australia is a 1st world country, the US is a 2nd world country so this gives me some leverage..

Uh, are you going to advocate a "colorblind" society? Because that really works for us :rolls eyes:... race issues are impossibly complicated and we're not going to solve them by pretending we aren't often segregated and that we don't see differences between people.

In AUS racism is illegal and is NOT covered under freedom of speech. Therefore everyone is viewed as and 'equal', the second one steps on AUS soil. No special treatment is given to one particular race or group.. Pretty simple concept used by numerous 1st world nations..

Indeed. I DO think it's kind of adorably naive, however, that you (incanada and other conservatives of your ilk) believe you should keep all your money because of some vague 'even playing field' concept. Either that or greediness. I hope it's the former.

Funny how liberals have no problems citing the amendments and how the country was founded on these principles yet seem to forget that the country is also capitalist. Therefore the one who pays the tax should be the one who decides what is done with it..

Let's not even talk about greediness. How many billionaire liberals are there enjoying the high life yet barely contribute to their parties so-called humanitarian cause?? Last time i check Al Gore refused to pay 2 cents more per kw on his electricity bill, which would ensured he used renewable energy such as windpower for his 3 houses..

Edited August 17, 2006 by Infidel

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

I'm convinced! Australia really is the land of milk and honey.

Especially when they practice that one thing that many liberals hold dear and makes the right wing scream about protecting constitutional rights the loudest -- strict gun control.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The simple act of labelling someone as fundamentally "Liberal" is an shaky argumentative point, based as it is on a huge unquestioned assumption (and these days party affiliation has a tendency to define the politics of an individual rather than their actual behaviour and values). That Incanada and others who use similar reasoning refuse to understand that point and question those assumptions only highlights the inherent weaknesses in their arguments. Specifically:

1) They think the broad spectrum of political thought is simpler than it really is.

2) They rely on labels to dismiss views that are contrary to their own (although "deviant" I'm sure is the word they would use), and seem to think that attacking the person is the same as attacking the idea. It goes with the idea that slogans have replaced free thought as a means of political expression.

How can you even discuss issues with such people when they appear ignorant of the terms of the argument?

Edited August 17, 2006 by erekose

[incanada1234 0]

While 90 % of Americans believe in some sort of higher being (note: this means not just the Christian God), only a small group (around 30%) are considered Christian fundamentalists, meaning they are in a minority.

That's good to know - thanks. I feel better knowing that 90% of people are idiots, but only 30% are complete idiots.

And those 30% of us complete idiots will probably snicker at you 70% when we're in heaven.

That sounds very Christian, "hahaha, we told you so!"

Much like how "compassionate" and "open-minded" it is of you to laugh and belittle Christians, eh?

[Alex+R 0]

The simple act of labelling someone as fundamentally "Liberal" is an shaky argumentative point, based as it is on a huge unquestioned assumption (and these days party affiliation has a tendency to define the politics of an individual rather than their actual behaviour and values). That Incanada and others who use similar reasoning refuse to understand that point and question those assumptions only highlights the inherent weaknesses in their arguments. Specifically:

1) They think the broad spectrum of political thought is simpler than it really is.

2) They rely on labels to dismiss views that are contrary to their own (although "deviant" I'm sure is the word they would use), and seem to think that attacking the person is the same as attacking the idea. It goes with the idea that slogans have replaced free thought as a means of political expression.

How can you even discuss issues with such people when they appear ignorant of the terms of the argument?

That was what I was beginning to think.

[incanada1234 0]

The simple act of labelling someone as fundamentally "Liberal" is an shaky argumentative point, based as it is on a huge unquestioned assumption (and these days party affiliation has a tendency to define the politics of an individual rather than their actual behaviour and values). That Incanada and others who use similar reasoning refuse to understand that point and question those assumptions only highlights the inherent weaknesses in their arguments. Specifically:

1) They think the broad spectrum of political thought is simpler than it really is.

2) They rely on labels to dismiss views that are contrary to their own (although "deviant" I'm sure is the word they would use), and seem to think that attacking the person is the same as attacking the idea. It goes with the idea that slogans have replaced free thought as a means of political expression.

How can you even discuss issues with such people when they appear ignorant of the terms of the argument?

That was what I was beginning to think.

Sure ya were.

[Jenn! 918]

While 90 % of Americans believe in some sort of higher being (note: this means not just the Christian God), only a small group (around 30%) are considered Christian fundamentalists, meaning they are in a minority.

That's good to know - thanks. I feel better knowing that 90% of people are idiots, but only 30% are complete idiots.

And those 30% of us complete idiots will probably snicker at you 70% when we're in heaven.

That sounds very Christian, "hahaha, we told you so!"

Much like how "compassionate" and "open-minded" it is of you to laugh and belittle Christians, eh?

Actually I don't have a problem with most Christians, just you.

[Alex+R 0]

While 90 % of Americans believe in some sort of higher being (note: this means not just the Christian God), only a small group (around 30%) are considered Christian fundamentalists, meaning they are in a minority.

That's good to know - thanks. I feel better knowing that 90% of people are idiots, but only 30% are complete idiots.

And those 30% of us complete idiots will probably snicker at you 70% when we're in heaven.

That sounds very Christian, "hahaha, we told you so!"

Much like how "compassionate" and "open-minded" it is of you to laugh and belittle Christians, eh?

You clearly did not understand. The person who said "haha" was you. :wink:

Edited August 17, 2006 by Alex+R

[incanada1234 0]

Actually I don't have a problem with most Christians, just you.

Fair enough. I don't like you either.

[Alex+R 0]

The simple act of labelling someone as fundamentally "Liberal" is an shaky argumentative point, based as it is on a huge unquestioned assumption (and these days party affiliation has a tendency to define the politics of an individual rather than their actual behaviour and values). That Incanada and others who use similar reasoning refuse to understand that point and question those assumptions only highlights the inherent weaknesses in their arguments. Specifically:

1) They think the broad spectrum of political thought is simpler than it really is.

2) They rely on labels to dismiss views that are contrary to their own (although "deviant" I'm sure is the word they would use), and seem to think that attacking the person is the same as attacking the idea. It goes with the idea that slogans have replaced free thought as a means of political expression.

How can you even discuss issues with such people when they appear ignorant of the terms of the argument?

That was what I was beginning to think.

Sure ya were.

?

That's what I was beginning to think = in reference to the last line of erekose's post.

[incanada1234 0]

While 90 % of Americans believe in some sort of higher being (note: this means not just the Christian God), only a small group (around 30%) are considered Christian fundamentalists, meaning they are in a minority.

That's good to know - thanks. I feel better knowing that 90% of people are idiots, but only 30% are complete idiots.

And those 30% of us complete idiots will probably snicker at you 70% when we're in heaven.

That sounds very Christian, "hahaha, we told you so!"

Much like how "compassionate" and "open-minded" it is of you to laugh and belittle Christians, eh?

You clearly did not understand. The person who said "haha" was you. :wink:

Clearly I did understand and you didn't - I wasn't referring to the "hahaha".

[Jenn! 918]

Actually I don't have a problem with most Christians, just you.

Fair enough. I don't like you either.

Yes, but you don't like me just because I'm a non-Christian liberal. The reasons for me not liking you are not because you are a conservative Christian.

[Alex+R 0]

Much like how "compassionate" and "open-minded" it is of you to laugh and belittle Christians, eh?

You clearly did not understand. The person who said "haha" was you. :wink:

Clearly I did understand and you didn't - I wasn't referring to the "hahaha".

What?

I meant the whole post. Obviously. You are embarrassing yourself. Ok, or, should be.

[Fischkoepfin 1]

Face it, Australia has suffered no attacks on par with what the US and Britain have dealt with because it is not as consequential in the world, not because it is some sort of utopia. I agree that we would be better served with two dominant parties who were further apart on the spectrum, but please don't tell me Australia is never corrupt. We've seen more than enough evidence to the contrary these past few years...

Come on now you can't even begin to compare the US legal system to the AUS / UK legal system. You won't see some liberal suing Mcdonalds for spilling hot cofee on themselves in AUS.. or groups like the ACLU able to bankrupt a county, just to remove a cross.. It's not a matter of AUS vs US. It's a matter of liberals having their heads so far deep in the sand that they have no idea how the real (non-hollywood) world works. No offence, Australia is a 1st world country, the US is a 2nd world country so this gives me some leverage..

Alright, we got the point about Australia being inherently better. But could you please explain how the ACLU bankrupted the US? And could you cite a few examples of the way in which 2nd-world U.S.-liberals live outside "the real world" and how things would be handled in "the real world" instead?

Uh, are you going to advocate a "colorblind" society? Because that really works for us :rolls eyes:... race issues are impossibly complicated and we're not going to solve them by pretending we aren't often segregated and that we don't see differences between people.

In AUS racism is illegal and is NOT covered under freedom of speech. Therefore everyone is viewed as and 'equal', the second one steps on AUS soil. No special treatment is given to one particular race or group.. Pretty simple concept used by numerous 1st world nations..

This sounds pretty" first-world" "liberal" to me. Are you sure you are a conservative?

Indeed. I DO think it's kind of adorably naive, however, that you (incanada and other conservatives of your ilk) believe you should keep all your money because of some vague 'even playing field' concept. Either that or greediness. I hope it's the former.

Funny how liberals have no problems citing the amendments and how the country was founded on these principles yet seem to forget that the country is also capitalist. Therefore the one who pays the tax should be the one who decides what is done with it..

Let's not even talk about greediness. How many billionaire liberals are there enjoying the high life yet barely contribute to their parties so-called humanitarian cause?? Last time i check Al Gore refused to pay 2 cents more per kw on his electricity bill, which would ensured he used renewable energy such as windpower for his 3 houses..

I would love to determine where my taxes go, believe me. I hate funding a war I have no interest in, and I consider it an insult to my pacifist ideals. I also mind paying taxes for agricultural and corporate subsidies benefitting not small family businesses and totally ignoring the impact of these corporations on the environment. I don't like the fact that some of my money goes to tax breaks for SUVs and other oversized vehicles. And finally I totally despise paying for lawmaker for which I cannot vote, who spend most of their time discussing irrelevant issues, and who spent more time fundraising, pandering to corporations, and flying around the country than on doing their job.

[incanada1234 0]

Actually I don't have a problem with most Christians, just you.

Fair enough. I don't like you either.

Yes, but you don't like me just because I'm a non-Christian liberal. The reasons for me not liking you are not because you are a conservative Christian.

Errr, no, sorry. I don't like you because you're a complete b*tch. My mom's side of the family are non-Christian liberals and I certainly don't hate them.