20 reasons to join the fight against the Far Left

[Silver Pines]

Just because they have an R behind their nane does NOT make them republican!

@Bigun

The same will likely be true of any that we send into that pit, given rare exceptions.

Power is a drug.

[Silver Pines]

But... that control means nothing (to our side) if or when it only takes a few traitors and sellouts (the usual suspects like McCain, Collins, Lee, Paul, etc.... to kill a bill.  Control is an illusion, IOW.

@XenaLee

Yes, I agree.  And I don't see that changing.

[Silver Pines]

@CatherineofAragon
And, just in case anyone's forgotten, Congress was not intended to be a mere presidential rubber stamp.
It's the president's job to recommend (and, concurrently, convince) Congress to address this or
that matter---not to order it. And it's Congress's job to legislate but not because the president
demands as opposed to recommend it.

Now, @EasyAce, stop that talk.  Don't be treasonous.

[Cyber Liberty]

I wonder if we can get Mod1 drunk again.

It's Five O'clock somewhere.  Just don't offer him Schnapps.

[XenaLee]

@Bigun

The same will likely be true of any that we send into that pit, given rare exceptions.

Power is a drug.

And evil is contagious.   They must sprinkle it into the water in DC, in fact.  Or maybe it's in the champagne.

[EasyAce]

Now, @EasyAce, stop that talk.  Don't be treasonous.

[INVAR]

Had I done so, you'd have a point. But, as they say, that strawman don't hunt. Try...for a change of pace...just a LITTLE intellectual honesty.

What I DID do was equate late Roman and Medieval Christians to the modern Islamist in terms of their methodology for imposing their beliefs. Feel free to argue that point, but there's really no purpose in making up one that I did not assert...unless it is the absence of a sound argument for your case.

Look bub, we're not stupid here on this board.  We know what your intent was with your original comment.  You can sing and dance upon justifications for your intellectual superiority all the day long and it does not make a whit's worth of difference of the fact that we know why you equated biblical morality, and my faith with being no different than radical Islamists and historical popery.

So shove it.

you presume your own view of god is clearer than that of others...a belief that can only be held through a combination of ignorance and arrogance. Islamists, for example, assert Koranic authority in much the same way. Christians in late Roman and Medieval times made similar use of Biblical authority to slaughter innocents and annihilate free thought.

We know exactly why you wrote that - thus creating the very 'straw man' you decided to knock down and then project onto me.

[Silver Pines]

And evil is contagious.   They must sprinkle it into the water in DC, in fact.  Or maybe it's in the champagne.

@XenaLee

No wonder Ted Cruz doesn't like those cocktail parties.   ^-^

[Mesaclone]

Look bub, we're not stupid here on this board.  We know what your intent was with your original comment.  You can sing and dance upon justifications for your intellectual superiority all the day long and it does not make a whit's worth of difference of the fact that we know why you equated biblical morality, and my faith with being no different than radical Islamists and historical popery.

So shove it.

We know exactly why you wrote that - thus creating the very 'straw man' you decided to knock down and then project onto me.

Unless you have a mouse in your pocket, there's no we. Just a you. Unless of course you are referring to yourself as the "royal" we, which would be fitting given your ego issues. The fact that you are unable to read a sentence that is clearly stated, and impute the correct meaning, is also a "you" problem. If you wish to label that as being called stupid, that's...once again...a "you" choice. Personally, I'd label it intentional blindness...but you go girl and call it what you will.

My intent was clearly stated in the original statement...then I restated it to you just as clearly. A comparison of early Christian tyranny to modern Islamist methodology...a very straightforward and apt analogy. You can change it in your head to mean whatever you want, as it seems to have created sufficient cognitive dissonance in your shallow world view to prompt the need to build a strawman...but, again, all you.

As for projecting...your lack of self awareness is amusing, yet troubling. Read what others write. Refute it or not as you see fit...but don't make up strawmen to argue with...its dishonest and therefore...well...ungodly. Plus its just boring...its like you're arguing with yourself but putting it in print for others to see...and trust me, nobody wants to know about your internal dialogue OR what's going on inside your head.

Hopefully, WE are now clear.

[INVAR]

and trust me, nobody wants to know about your internal dialogue OR what's going on inside your head.

Hopefully, WE are now clear.

Trust me, few want to hear what bullshit dialog you spew externally outside of your mouth on this board either.

That much is indeed clear.

[Smokin Joe]

In history, the opposite is the most common scenario.

Yet we live in an era in which the libertine assert dominance and seek to (and do) use the law to impose that nature instead of any religious dogma. Beyond mere co-existence, that which is religiously opposed to the tenets of religion asserts a claimed 'right' to impose itself upon others, not just by its presence, but to invade commerce and the very education of the children of those who are opposed to it. That, certainly, is no less a tyranny.

We are not in danger of being overly religious, nor has this country in its history been significantly endangered by such (although prohibition did do its share of damage). The far greater hazard is the government-enforced abandonment of such standards to a libertine anti-religion, and we are seeing that.

[Bigun]

Yet we live in an era in which the libertine assert dominance and seek to (and do) use the law to impose that nature instead of any religious dogma. Beyond mere co-existence, that which is religiously opposed to the tenets of religion asserts a claimed 'right' to impose itself upon others, not just by its presence, but to invade commerce and the very education of the children of those who are opposed to it. That, certainly, is no less a tyranny.

We are not in danger of being overly religious, nor has this country in its history been significantly endangered by such (although prohibition did do its share of damage). The far greater hazard is the government-enforced abandonment of such standards to a libertine anti-religion, and we are seeing that.

@Smokin Joe

VERY well said sir!  And 100% correct as well!   

[roamer_1]

Yet we live in an era in which the libertine assert dominance and seek to (and do) use the law to impose that nature instead of any religious dogma. Beyond mere co-existence, that which is religiously opposed to the tenets of religion asserts a claimed 'right' to impose itself upon others, not just by its presence, but to invade commerce and the very education of the children of those who are opposed to it. That, certainly, is no less a tyranny.

We are not in danger of being overly religious, nor has this country in its history been significantly endangered by such (although prohibition did do its share of damage). The far greater hazard is the government-enforced abandonment of such standards to a libertine anti-religion, and we are seeing that.

I will assert these libertines, as you call them, are every bit as religious. Humanism, and it's priests in 'science'.

There is no moral neutral. In the words of Bob Dylan, 'You have to Serve Somebody'.

And what would be hilarious, were it not so desperate and profane, is that these high-minded sophists are repeating, letter by letter, the will of the ancient gods. Even now, it's pagan root is discernible, to those who would bother to study the issue.

Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.

Prov 14:2 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

[XenaLee]

@XenaLee

No wonder Ted Cruz doesn't like those cocktail parties.   ^-^

True dat.  And.... whatever you do.... never evah go golfing with da Democrats.  Bad things happen.... (Think: Podded).   

[Mesaclone]

Yet we live in an era in which the libertine assert dominance and seek to (and do) use the law to impose that nature instead of any religious dogma. Beyond mere co-existence, that which is religiously opposed to the tenets of religion asserts a claimed 'right' to impose itself upon others, not just by its presence, but to invade commerce and the very education of the children of those who are opposed to it. That, certainly, is no less a tyranny.

We are not in danger of being overly religious, nor has this country in its history been significantly endangered by such (although prohibition did do its share of damage). The far greater hazard is the government-enforced abandonment of such standards to a libertine anti-religion, and we are seeing that.

Well, we're not really in disagreement on the issue you state...that government should neither enforce nor oppose an agenda that is religious OR anti-religious. All that it SHOULD do is ensure that each citizen is free to practice whatever belief they find worthy...presuming that belief does not physically harm other citizens.

And I consistently and vehemently oppose any "libertine" effort to impose their version of a moral agenda as well. That does not negate the concerns of men like Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, who's views are what I am asserting in this thread. If you want to argue for a reinvigoration of religious belief across the nation than kudos to you. If you wish to make government part and parcel of that renewal...beyond individual leaders using a bully pulpit...then I will oppose such a thing as the aforementioned FF's did.

[Bigun]

And I consistently and vehemently oppose any "libertine" effort to impose their version of a moral agenda as well. That does not negate the concerns of men like Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, who's views are what I am asserting in this thread. If you want to argue for a reinvigoration of religious belief across the nation than kudos to you. If you wish to make government part and parcel of that renewal...beyond individual leaders using a bully pulpit...then I will oppose such a thing as the aforementioned FF's did.

You seem to be very uninformed on the HUGE role religion played in the formation of this country and it wasn't any one specific religion either!

[Mesaclone]

I will assert these libertines, as you call them, are every bit as religious. Humanism, and it's priests in 'science'.

There is no moral neutral. In the words of Bob Dylan, 'You have to Serve Somebody'.

And what would be hilarious, were it not so desperate and profane, is that these high-minded sophists are repeating, letter by letter, the will of the ancient gods. Even now, it's pagan root is discernible, to those who would bother to study the issue.

Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.

Prov 14:2 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

There were no ancient gods...just humans trying to explain the incomprehensible in terms they could relate to. Often that attempt at comprehension took a violent or even absurd direction, despite the best intentions of believers. This is the nature of religion in general, and it is why men like Thomas Jefferson and John Adams (even George Washington by many accounts) were Deists. As am I. Wisdom dictates that god exists, and likewise asserts that men will always fail in their attempts to define and categorize the infinite...it is beyond us. THIS is why the Founders were adamant that all men be free to practice any belief they so choose...and that governments only task in relation is to protect that freedom.

[Mesaclone]

You seem to be very uninformed on the HUGE role religion played in the formation of this country and it wasn't any one specific religion either!

No, I'm actually quite well informed on the topic. The Founders drew directly from Classical Liberalism and men like Locke...contextually, looking at each FF's personal religious views misses the target...as they were diverse in their personal preferences. But collectively, they drew on the philosophical concept that the threat of religious tyranny...and the corrupting effect of "state" religion...must be mitigated. The idea of a wall of separation did not emerge from Thomas Jefferson out of the blue....long years of Protestant-Catholic struggle across Europe and within England had taught lasting lessons about the perils any government faces when it directly involves itself in the religious choices of its citizenry.

[roamer_1]

There were no ancient gods...just humans trying to explain the incomprehensible in terms they could relate to. Often that attempt at comprehension took a violent or even absurd direction, despite the best intentions of believers. This is the nature of religion in general, and it is why men like Thomas Jefferson and John Adams (even George Washington by many accounts) were Deists. As am I. Wisdom dictates that god exists, and likewise asserts that men will always fail in their attempts to define and categorize the infinite...it is beyond us. THIS is why the Founders were adamant that all men be free to practice any belief they so choose...and that governments only task in relation is to protect that freedom.

Absolutely incorrect. And deism is nothing but a cop-out.

[EasyAce]

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several
State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and
of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;
but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public
Trust under the United States. (Emphasis added.)

---Article VI, Section 3, the Constitution of the United States.

[Mesaclone]

Absolutely incorrect. And deism is nothing but a cop-out.

Good argument. I could just as easily claim that of Protestantism or Catholicism....with a better argument...but I wouldn't. Because in the end it's simply about belief....which, again, applies to all religious views. Including my own.

[roamer_1]

Good argument. I could just as easily claim that of Protestantism or Catholicism....with a better argument...but I wouldn't. Because in the end it's simply about belief....which, again, applies to all religious views. Including my own.

No, it is not. It is about proof. If you cannot prove your faith, then you are doing it wrong. The 'faith' part is in believing the proofs - and therein understanding that the god of your choice is indeed God, and will do as he said.

And in that, there is only One.

[Bigun]

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several
State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and
of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;
but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public
Trust under the United States. (Emphasis added.)

---Article VI, Section 3, the Constitution of the United States.

And I, for one, have never once suggested that any be imposed!  But that does not mean that ANY member of the government must give up his religious beliefs in order to serve in government.

[Bigun]

No, I'm actually quite well informed on the topic. The Founders drew directly from Classical Liberalism and men like Locke...contextually, looking at each FF's personal religious views misses the target...as they were diverse in their personal preferences. But collectively, they drew on the philosophical concept that the threat of religious tyranny...and the corrupting effect of "state" religion...must be mitigated. The idea of a wall of separation did not emerge from Thomas Jefferson out of the blue....long years of Protestant-Catholic struggle across Europe and within England had taught lasting lessons about the perils any government faces when it directly involves itself in the religious choices of its citizenry.

And that citizenry includes those who happen to hold public offices!

[EasyAce]

And I, for one, have never once suggested that any be imposed!  But that does not mean that ANY member of the government must give up his religious beliefs in order to serve in government.

I sometimes think the one biblical admonition those in government adhere to without question or fail,
whether or not they enunciate it while acting, is Christ's distinction between Caesar and God---while
they make bloody sure that Caesar makes off with the whole pot.