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.
How can you expect people to have a serious discussion with you when you offend them with such stupid generalizations?
They shouldnt be offended.. they should be willing to accept it and embrace it. I am not saying things to be offensive, I am saying things that have been shown in history.
Now with that being said, I am not talking about people that support liberal political parties, I am talking about those that are actually involved in the political parties.
Just as someone that votes Democrat claims to be a democrat, where in all actuality, most of the time, they are just a supporter of the dems, not actually one of them.
Can we rename this thread "Let's all watch AeroGuyDC FAIL badly"? You're hilarious!
"All of you liberal people make generalizations. That's such a terrible thing to do! Why are you liberals all the same?"
"All of you liberals are so intolerant! Why aren't you tolerant like me? By the way, if you disagree with me, you must be dumb - I'll lay it out in easily understood terms."
L O L... pass the popcorn! Best thread in a while!
Fail badly? Not on your life. I'm still waiting on you and Jack to answer my challenge. I should point out that NEITHER of you have come forth.
Why is that Jack?
Why is that Ambient?
I'll tell you why: Because my point makes too much sense for either one of you to rebut. That's why. So instead of admitting it, you stay silent. Enjoy your popcorn and the meaningless contribution you've made to this thread.
Here's a reminder of the question that's being ignored:
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC
And after all that, can you tell us how liberal politicians are any different? I highly doubt you can illustrate that liberal politicians have accomplished anything remotely antithetical to the rhetoric you've posted here.
The only whim of difference is what you actually consider orthodox. Your orthodoxy does not follow along the traditional tagline of conservative ideals, but that doesn't mean that you don't "seek to enshrine that orthodoxy in our laws and societal norms."
Fancy verbiage. But you basically said nothing.
Last edited by AeroGuyDC; 06-07-2010 at 01:43 PM..
They shouldnt be offended.. they should be willing to accept it and embrace it. I am not saying things to be offensive, I am saying things that have been shown in history.
Now with that being said, I am not talking about people that support liberal political parties, I am talking about those that are actually involved in the political parties.
Just as someone that votes Democrat claims to be a democrat, where in all actuality, most of the time, they are just a supporter of the dems, not actually one of them.
So, you are only talking about politicians? I was talking about anyone who calls themselves liberal.
Besides, politicians of either party tend to lie and not to practice what they preach.
Interesting perspective. However, I find the liberal case for reducing the stories of the Bible to be nothing more than mere utterances of men who are ignorant of science to be highly suspect. This is pure convenience as it relates to ideology. It's easy to say that there's no reason to believe in the Bible because of plate tektonics or fossils, but what about homosexuality? The Bible has a clear stance on homosexuality, yet not a single scientist on Earth has been able to nail down the origin of homosexuality in humans. So, I believe that for anyone to imply that a wholesale dismissal of the Bible is required because there is enough scientific basis to reduce its message is nothing but a mere act of convenience that doesn't fit into the liberal purview.
I'm not calling for a wholesale dismissal of the Bible, nor do I think anyone but the most fervent of non-believers is. What I'm saying is that to believe in the literal truth of some of the claims made in the Bible requires a "suspension" of conventional reasoning. And if a person is willing to suspend their reasoning to believe certain things, what else are they willing to suspend their reasoning to believe in against the face of all odds?
But just because someone believes in the literal truth of certain Biblical stories doesn't mean that their beliefs about other things are categorically flawed. That would be ridiculous. The case that I'm making is that it would not be unreasonable to use these beliefs to determine whether you can take the person's standard of proof seriously. We do it all the time with regard to UFOs and government conspiracy theories that we think are just impossible.
I don't understand what you are getting at with regard to homosexuality. To be clear, are you saying that people who dismiss the Bible on the basis that it contradicts science ignore that homosexuality contradicts human nature?
What the parties stand for is not necessarily what party members actually do, but certainly what they are voted for (apart from personal appeal).
While this is true to a point, many of times the members also do what the parties stand for.
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.
You're hilarious!
I was talking about anyone who calls themselves liberal.
