H'WOOD MORONS

[Jenn! 918]

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.

I really have to laugh at that. No one's ever thought I was a ###### before. For the first time hearing it, I'm glad it came from you, since it means nothing.

[incanada1234 0]

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.

I really have to laugh at that. No one's ever thought I was a ###### before. For the first time hearing it, I'm glad it came from you, since it means nothing.

Heh, it's fun having an insult match eh? Maybe we could try not acting like children now. Which means we'll probably have to ignore each other.

[Jenn! 918]

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.

I really have to laugh at that. No one's ever thought I was a ###### before. For the first time hearing it, I'm glad it came from you, since it means nothing.

Heh, it's fun having an insult match eh? Maybe we could try not acting like children now. Which means we'll probably have to ignore each other.

But you only came off of ignore like a week ago, it'd be a shame to have to put you back on...

[mawilson 2,133]

I still incanada1234 even though she believes in things that I don't.

[incanada1234 0]

But you only came off of ignore like a week ago, it'd be a shame to have to put you back on...

Please do feel free to put me back on ignore.

I still incanada1234 even though she believes in things that I don't.

Even though I'm included in the 30% complete idiots category?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Seems our old friend "intellectual dishonesty" is at work again.

And we're still no closer to understanding how alleged "liberals" are destroying the country.

And still no closer to understanding how hollywood actors are not qualified to have and express political opinions.

True to form though - Incanada demonstrates her lack of basic education, the gaps filled with fundamentalist interpretations of religion. Like most people however, how you interact with people (in general) is not defined by education or religion, but how you are brought up.

Edited August 17, 2006 by erekose

[Heracles 417]

Seems our old friend "intellectual dishonesty" is at work again.

You guys crack me up. You want freedom of speech, which is the first amendment, yet cant stand the fact that someone believes in God and would like their state / government etc to represent their views. yet demad the government listen when a liberal is campaining for some stupid new cause like "civil rights for gay whales".

So, what you are basically saying is that it is ok for a liberal atheist to have their way, (i.e e.g removing any signs of religion from public view) yet not ok for someone, including a government department, to display anything religious, period! That looks like reverse discrimnation..

Maybe some of you should check the meaning of equal..

Definition of Equal

For example, to be 'equal' would be a government building, school or whatever represting all views, be it religious or not. That is equal.

Edited August 17, 2006 by Infidel

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

maybe because the first amendment also has a clause for seperation of church and state

[mawilson 2,133]

...yet not ok for someone, including a government department, to display anything religious, period! That looks like reverse discrimnation..

I never understood that, to be honest. If you don't believe in Jesus, why do you care if there's a cross?

[Fischkoepfin 1]

Seems our old friend "intellectual dishonesty" is at work again.

And we're still no closer to understanding how alleged "liberals" are destroying the country.

And still no closer to understanding how hollywood actors are not qualified to have and express political opinions.

Yup, it's frustrating this way. Why can't some conservatives answer simple questions?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Seems our old friend "intellectual dishonesty" is at work again.

You guys crack me up. You want freedom of speech, which is the first amendment, yet cant stand the fact that someone believes in God and would like their state / government etc to represent their views. yet demad the government listen when a liberal is campaining for some stupid new cause like "civil rights for gay whales".

So, what you are basically saying is that it is ok for a liberal atheist to have their way, (i.e e.g removing any signs of religion from public view) yet not ok for someone, including a government department, to display anything religious, period! That looks like reverse discrimnation..

Maybe some of you should check the meaning of equal..

Definition of Equal

For example, to be 'equal' would be a government building, school or whatever represting all views, be it religious or not. That is equal.

That's not the point at all. I'm simply questioning the unspoken and unqualified assumptions that you and Incanada (amongst others) seem to be basing your arguments on. You attack ideas and dismiss (out of hand contrary) ideas as being liberal without questioning the assumptions they are founded on.

What I am saying is that your entire conception of what constitutes "liberal ideas" is skewed and intellectually corrupt. While I may disagree with you on a number of issues, that's not what this is about. Its about your process of argument, and the apparent refusal to approach (any) issue in a manner that applies basic reasoning and critical thinking.

Its like performing a school science experiment - but rather than do the thing in logical steps - planning through implementation, you skip right to the end, copy someone else's results and write a conclusion that relies on plagiarising the textbook.

On this specific issue, as I said, we are still no closer to understanding how someone becomes qualified to hold and express a political opinion.

Neither have you responded to Fischkoepfin's question about how the ACLU and alleged liberals are supposedly "ruining" America.

Edited August 17, 2006 by erekose

[Fischkoepfin 1]

Seems our old friend "intellectual dishonesty" is at work again.

For example, to be 'equal' would be a government building, school or whatever represting all views, be it religious or not. That is equal.

Ok with me. Of course it would take about an hour to recite the pledge in public schools every morning to make sure that everyone is treated equally. And there needs to be room for banners saying "One nation under (insert deity of choice)". Religious studies would have to become a mandatory subject covering world religions without any bias, including atheism and paganism. Courthouses would not only sport the ten commandments but also any other code of law if it is relevant to other religions. Marxists would finally be able to include the "Capital" into mandatory reading lists, alongside the bible, the qu'ran, and other holy writ. And let's not forget about holidays for everyone, not just Christians (Christmas is the only official religious holiday in the U.S.).

I'm not too sure if this is the world you're envisioning, but believe me, instead of trying to make everyone in this country happy by taking into consideration their religious beliefs, it is way easier to treat them equally by keeping them out of the public sphere.

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

maybe because the first amendment also has a clause for seperation of church and state

i also have yet to meet a liberal who believes in the right to bear arms too.

Seems our old friend "intellectual dishonesty" is at work again.

For example, to be 'equal' would be a government building, school or whatever represting all views, be it religious or not. That is equal.

Ok with me. Of course it would take about an hour to recite the pledge in public schools every morning to make sure that everyone is treated equally. And there needs to be room for banners saying "One nation under (insert deity of choice)". Religious studies would have to become a mandatory subject covering world religions without any bias, including atheism and paganism. Courthouses would not only sport the ten commandments but also any other code of law if it is relevant to other religions. Marxists would finally be able to include the "Capital" into mandatory reading lists, alongside the bible, the qu'ran, and other holy writ. And let's not forget about holidays for everyone, not just Christians (Christmas is the only official religious holiday in the U.S.).

I'm not too sure if this is the world you're envisioning, but believe me, instead of trying to make everyone in this country happy by taking into consideration their religious beliefs, it is way easier to treat them equally by keeping them out of the public sphere.

don't you find it odd that we put our hand on a bible and swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth - yet we can't have the 10 commandments posted?

Neither have you responded to Fischkoepfin's question about how the ACLU and alleged liberals are supposedly "ruining" America.

how's this for starters?

link

[Heracles 417]

Yup, it's frustrating this way. Why can't some conservatives answer simple questions?

Like wise. Yet if we did answer, liberals (head in the clouds) refuse to listen or try to understand it anyway..

It's like we explain equal means 1.0 vs 1.0, yet liberals say you are wrong..

Why are the right wrong.. well because in the liberal mindset changing a number (a underdog) from 0.8 to 1.2 while lowering (a high achiever) from 1.5 to 0.9 is equal...

it's like libs hate the big bad government, corporations, repubs etc. Yet have no problem with their h'wood actors making millions off those same people..

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

That's true most so-called liberals like gun control -- but why is limiting the purchase of semi-automatic weapons unconstitutional but allowing religious displays (presumably funded by the taxpayer) not?