Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was waiting for it to happen in 2012. Guess everybody got the math wrong.
It was a good start though. Remember they openly voted to remove all references to God at the DNC. The vote actually won, but the party realized it was too much and would hurt more than help getting Obama re-elected.
So, to the boos of the crowd they didn't erase God from the convention.
THAT is their ultimate goal and anyone who believes otherwise is either in denial or delusional.
It was a good start though. Remember they openly voted to remove all references to God at the DNC. The vote actually won, but the party realized it was too much and would hurt more than help getting Obama re-elected.
So, to the boos of the crowd they didn't erase God from the convention.
THAT is their ultimate goal and anyone who believes otherwise is either in denial or delusional.
Yes, the democrats wanted God gone in 2012 by booing Him, so it's just a matter of time before it's accomplished. Then, at some point in the not-so-distant future, the man of sin will step on to the world scene -- and the liberals will worship him as though he is a god. Obama was the forerunner to this antichrist world leader.
From what we are repeatedly told day after day, Liberals are supposedly tolerant of everything. Yet, I notice that some are more tolerated than others. That got me thinking of the liberal "tower of tolerance" that they seem to have built. For instance:
If a Christian bakery refuses to bake a gay wedding cake, liberals believe they need to be in prison for life.
If a gay college professor speaks out about the way Muslims treats gays, he is promptly fired.
If a black professor says "kill all white people" he is praised as a visionary
If a Jewish person shows concern about campus anti-semitism, he is villified and given death threats.
So, at this tower, Straight, white, Christians are the least tolerated, followed by Jews, then illegal aliens, then Blacks, then LGBT, with the followers of Islam at the top.
I wonder why gay "rights" dont apply to Mooslims?
It's all very complicated. But it does seem that the recent spate of attacks by Muslims has helped them move to the top of the protected class totem pole. Here in the Washington Post, a Jewish American woman writer calls out an older gay male British rock star for saying, in the wake of the Manchester attack, that his own government is soft on radical Islamic terror. She calls him a "drama queen".
Originally Posted by jetgraphics The LEFT are tolerant of everyone who agrees with them.
The LEFT are champions of the oppressed until they gain power and can oppress others.
The LEFT are predators, hiding behind bafflegab, using envy and greed to further their political goals.
Change the LEFT to PROGRESSIVES and you nailed it.
The true LEFT, the moderates who actually are tolerant and open to discussion have lost all control of their party. Blame them for allowing insidious fascists to hijack it.
Though it may be trendy to assign labels, the issue is very simple : if you support endowed rights to life, liberty and absolute ownership, then you're in compliance with the Declaration of Independence. If you support the notion that governments are instituted to secure those endowed rights, great. And that absent consent of the governed, government can do nothing more than adjudicate disputes, prosecute criminals, and defend against enemies, foreign or domestic, we have no problem.
But if you want government to rule, govern, tax and regulate those who did not consent to be governed, and if you're an advocate of government TAKING from one to GIVE to another, then you're opposed to the Declaration, the republican form of government, and that's not good.
...
LIBERAL, “Classic” versus “New”
The Classic Liberal (18th century) supported ideas such as free and fair elections, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free trade, and a right to life, liberty, and private property ownership.
The New Liberal (21st century) supported ideas such as social justice, expropriation of property for the benefit of the needy, compelled labor for the benefit of another, and government management of the economy. Those ideas are contrary to classical liberalism, and are an assault upon absolute ownership of private property, natural and personal liberty and the freedom to exercise same.
Have no idea what this thread is actually supposed to be about, but this happy liberal sees a bunch of miserable people dwelling in their tower of hate.
Have no idea what this thread is actually supposed to be about, but this happy liberal sees a bunch of miserable people dwelling in their tower of hate.
Happy Memorial Day!
You need to figure it out since this stuff matters to your co-ideologues. Get the protected class totem pole seriously wrong and you could be cast out of the happy liberal club.
The masters are wroth with us, if we fail to shut up, sit down, pay and obey.
I prefer the republican form of government, where the people are sovereigns with creator endowed rights, and the government is their servant, instituted to secure those rights.
But if folks want the democratic form of government, where the people are subjects and the government rules them, who am I to say they can't. It’s their option to consent to be governed.
BUT
When Americans embraced the notion it was a good thing that government TAKES from one to GIVE to another, they embraced their doom.
How else did you think they would ENFORCE that?
Wheedling "pretty please, with sugar on top?"
Of course not.
That's how we became the People's Democratic Socialist Republic of America... a full service, perpetually bankrupt, “benevolent” totalitarian police state.
In this glorious socialist paradise everything not mandatory, is taxed, licensed, regulated or forbidden. Where the aggregate tax bill consumes 39% of the GDP. And don’t forget your government issued photo I.D. (Internal passport) to be shown on demand to your humble, demure, reserved “public servants.”
[/sarcasm]
- - - -
Reference:
"What I do say is that no man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent. I say this is the leading principle, the sheet-anchor of American republicanism. Our Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
- - - Abraham Lincoln, Speech at Peoria, Illinois (1854)
As Lincoln reminds us, under the republican form, promised by the USCON, described by the Declaration of Independence, NO MAN (nor American government) is good enough to govern you without your consent. Without your consent, all that government is authorized to do is secure endowed (sacred) rights (prosecute trespass; adjudicate disputes; defend against enemies, foreign or domestic).
But once consent is given, shut up, sit down, pay and obey.
It's too late to object.
In a recent thread liberals are defending female genitalia mutilation just because a small group of Muslims practice it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
