H'WOOD MORONS

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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..

What do you understand by the characteristics of Liberalism? And please don't quote here - I want to hear it in your words, not Wikipedias.

[mawilson 2,133]

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.).

Why??? The United States is a Christian country, as is Germany, as well as the UK and

most other European countries. It doesn't mean that you have to convert to Christianity

to live here, but it does mean that you have to respect the beliefs of the majority.

[Heracles 417]

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.).

Why??? The United States is a Christian country, as is Germany, as well as the UK and

most other European countries. It doesn't mean that you have to convert to Christianity

to live here, but it does mean that you have to respect the beliefs of the majority.

Even awesome countries like Singapore celebrate Christmas. It's only a matter of time before the ACLU sues in regards to that..

The ACLU treats people like mushrooms. they keep them in the dark and feed them ######.. That is why all of their dirty work is conducted behind closed doors in court rooms..

[Ban Hammer 13,336]

well erekose, any comments about that link i posted or are you gonna ignore that?

[incanada1234 0]

well erekose, any comments about that link i posted or are you gonna ignore that?

Yeah, why can't liberals answer simple questions?

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.

You're such a bloody liar. As IF you would be fine with any Christian teachings in public schools. Stop being so damn self-righteous.

[Fischkoepfin 1]

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.

They do exist but for the most part they believe in a narrow definition of the second amendment, namely the right of the people to bear arms and form militias to defend their country against foreign invasion. Nowhere in the second amendment does it state that you can use your weapons to defend your house but it applies to "the security of the state."

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?

Yes, I do find it odd because swearing on the bible is only meaningful to people believing in the bible. I have no idea if you can elect to swear by anything else. like Zeus or Buddha or some pagan idol.

And about the ten commandments, don't you find it odd that the people favoring the display of commandments would go beserk if courthouses began to display pagan laws of conduct or excerpts from the qu'ran, for example?

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

This doesn't show how the ACLU is ruining America. As the article you cited states:

But the ACLU believes NAMBLA is being unconstitutionally ''sued for their ideas.'' According to court documents from the ACLU, the case raises ''profoundly important questions under the First Amendment,'' because NAMBLA is not being sued for making any particular statements, but simply for creating an ''environment'' that encourages sexual abuse.

Thus, the ACLU does not defend NAMBLA or endorse child-molesters but has an issue with the wording of the lawsuit. I'm sure if NAMBLA was sued for stating that sexual abuse of children is ok, they wouldn't interfere.

So, I'd like to see some other and more concrete examples of the ACLU destroying America.

Edited August 17, 2006 by Fischkoepfin

[Heracles 417]

What do you understand by the characteristics of Liberalism? And please don't quote here - I want to hear it in your words, not Wikipedias.

You tell me what liberals stand for..... It's an oxymoron question. It's like asking someone to tell you what you stand for..

I have come here from another country with an unpartisan view. Over time the views and actions of the right appeal to me more.. I find it hard to find many nations around the world with similar views and actions of the left, apart from socialist / communist countries but there lies the catch 22. In socialist and communists countries freedom of speech is heavily restricted..

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

well erekose, any comments about that link i posted or are you gonna ignore that?

No I read it, and I agree with you on that particular case, but you can't use one article (and one case) as the fundamental basis for saying that the entire organisation of the ACLU is inherently undermining America's founding values and democratic traditions.

While like any other large organisation, it is not perfect, does not always make the right decisions, but you have to look at its performance on balance over time.

Who else will protect your civil rights, if say, the next president decides that warrantless spying (for instance) is not enough and wants to install cameras in every home.

[Heracles 417]

And about the ten commandments, don't you find it odd that the people favoring the display of commandments would go beserk if courthouses began to display pagan laws of conduct or excerpts from the qu'ran, for example?

yeah i would, if I saw it in a predominately Christian based country but if i traveled to China or Dubai i would not have a problem with them displaying their religion of choice..

PS I have never said I hate liberals but when you look at champion like JFK and compare him to modern day liberals, damn.. I see more similarities in Fidel Castro with Bush than JFK to modern democrats

Edited August 17, 2006 by Infidel

[Ban Hammer 13,336]

They do exist but for the most part they believe in a narrow definition of the second amendment, namely the right of the people to bear arms and form militias to defend their country against foreign invasion. Nowhere in the second amendment does it state that you can use your weapons to defend your house but it applies to "the security of the state."

yup, no hunting, no self protection. i just love it. this ain't a perfect world girl.

This doesn't show how the ACLU is ruining America. As the article you cited states:

But the ACLU believes NAMBLA is being unconstitutionally ''sued for their ideas.'' According to court documents from the ACLU, the case raises ''profoundly important questions under the First Amendment,'' because NAMBLA is not being sued for making any particular statements, but simply for creating an ''environment'' that encourages sexual abuse.

Thus, the ACLU does not defend NAMBLA or endorse child-molesters but has an issue with the wording of the lawsuit. I'm sure if NAMBLA was sued for stating that sexual abuse of children is ok, they wouldn't interfere.

as cited, they are defending child molesters. that's all that matters to me. and i'd not bet against them defending nambla in any other cases either.

[Fischkoepfin 1]

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.).

Why??? The United States is a Christian country, as is Germany, as well as the UK and

most other European countries. It doesn't mean that you have to convert to Christianity

to live here, but it does mean that you have to respect the beliefs of the majority.

There is no indication in the U.S constitution that the U.S. is a Christian country and there's a reason for that, namely the founders' belief in a strict separation of church and state which grew out of enlightenment thought and out of the confrontations and wars in Europe in the wake of the Reformation. Maybe the majority of citizens of thes country are Christian, but that should not impact the equality of each individual in front of the law. Thus, if Christians want their religion to become a part of public life, every other religious group has the same right.

[Fuzzness 2]

my apologies to incanada for thinking nobody could be worse than her. we have a new champion!!!!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

What do you understand by the characteristics of Liberalism? And please don't quote here - I want to hear it in your words, not Wikipedias.

You tell me what liberals stand for..... It's an oxymoron question. It's like asking someone to tell you what you stand for..

I have come here from another country with an unpartisan view. Over time the views and actions of the right appeal to me more.. I find it hard to find many nations around the world with similar views and actions of the left, apart from socialist / communist countries but there lies the catch 22. In socialist and communists countries freedom of speech is heavily restricted..

Unpartisan perhaps, but hardly unbiased. In any case, since when did "Liberal" become "Leftist"? Separate positions my friend.

"Liberal" is about as far from "Socialist" and "Communist"; as "Conservative" is from "Fascist".

[Alex+R 0]

my apologies to incanada for thinking nobody could be worse than her. we have a new champion!!!!

Hehehe he went away for awhile, but now he's back. Like Herpes!

[incanada1234 0]

my apologies to incanada for thinking nobody could be worse than her. we have a new champion!!!!

Who? Infidel? What's he worse about?