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 might want to reread the post you commented on, and then read it again. The meaning you seem to have gotten from it isn't what the average native English speaker would have gleaned.
I'll give you a hint. The poster didn't call you a moron but did in fact imply that you are young and still don't yet realize that you don't know nearly as much as you think you do. That's fairly common among young adults. Generally once people pass their twenties and gain a bit of actual real world experience they realize much to their own embarrassment that they weren't nearly as well informed as they'd once believed and you likely will be no exception.
Age has nothing to do with it.
The post in question used "loose" for lose and "your" for you're.
You lose points if you can't communicate in your native language, especially when you're trying to berate others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bnepler
Hurts, doesn't it!! The potus is a joke, just as much as the rest of the elitists jerks.
What does this have to do with the topic?
Are you just trying to hijack the thread?
'Liberal Voice' may be young but I'm not buying the implied insult many conservatives throw at her that she'll grow out of her liberal views when she's mature. She's already more mature than a lot of her peer group. The Democratic party isn't just a party of kids. Most liberals stay liberals their entire lives. How else would you explain all the middle aged and elder liberals?
I concur with your first paragraph.
I'm old and very liberal. If anything, I've become more liberal with age.
Most of my friends and peer group are the same.
I haven't become hateful and filled with fear as I've aged; I'm certainly proud of that.
With all due respect, I disagree 100 percent with your post.
Greatday will probably respond to it but I am not talking with him. I am talking WITH YOU, Atilla.
Literally. Like there is not even one thing correct in it in my opinion.
How do you know I don't want to find out what conservatism is? If anything, posts like THIS is what makes it harder because it feels like you attack my very thought of thinking. You make me sound like a dumb oaf. You seriously do. You don't even know where I stand on a lot of issues. What do you know? Honestly. Even after that one post you read that I wrote, you still think I am a dumb oaf?
Listen, I agree with Obama. We aren't anymore of a Christian nation that we are a Buddhist nation or a Muslim or Hindu nation. It happens when you get other people here. Obama is 100 percent spot on. You are right about it being a Vietnamese country as well. I am PROUD of Obama for saying that. He is spot on. The only thing that would make happier is having an atheist as President
How do you know I don't question my "liberal base"? Why am I against illegal immigration and pro death penalty, huh? I lean liberal because of how hypocritical and idiotic I see the right is. This forum taught me A LOT. How do you know I just accept what I am told? Because you know I am 21 years old? You are making the same mistake Mr. Great Day did. I questioned the concept of "God", didn't I? My parents fed me a bunch of crap about "god" and I questioned that. Believing in "god" is something I consider...well....I don't want you getting mad. Still don't think I question things?
I suggest you think twice before posting ridiculous posts like this.
My post was not intended to make you angry or hurt your feelings Liberal. I happen to like you,- from what I can tell.
You are no less like my young son, now 33, when he was growing up. Fortunately I hav continued my base of love and support and made him ask himself the same questions I am making you ask yourself. I did not know your exact age but I was pretty "spot on" as you say with that as well. "Hell for all I know you may be a balding old man with a beard" Assuming we can trust what we read I made a good assessment
Liberal, I believe unlike myself when I was your age you don't sound anyway quite as open as I was. Having lived several more years 37 to be exact or 2.76x your currrent life span I have had opportunities you have not yet had. That does not make me smarter than you or even a better analyst. Lets just say it is what it is and from that perspective I want to give you an analysis of your former post as seen through the eyes of one that has made those time passages that you have not yet made. That will be my only statement of oneupmanship.
In my former post, I said what I said and I stand by it so I won't repeat it or at least not in the same context. I am too lazy to write a book so please feel free to quote me
you still think I am a dumb oaf? I don't think you'r dumb at all. I do think you are mislead. I do think you have made up your mind at this point in your life. That is fair. It is fair because each of us in each stage of our lives believe what we believe or we would obviously change our positions. My point in citing my personal experience, at your age of investigating Marx was precisely to illustrate my current beliefs are in many cases diametrically opposed to the beliefs I held at your age. It is not an affront to you personally but against an ideological mind set. An ideological mindset that I myself escaped.
I do believe that in many ways my generation taught better the concept of individualism. I do believe that that concept has been largely lost on a generation, a couple of generations? I believe it has been lost for the specific reasons I cited in my form er post and I don't think I am capable of explaining it any better that in that post.
Listen, I agree with Obama. We aren't anymore of a Christian nation that we are a Buddhist nation or a Muslim or Hindu nation
I would agree with your sense that we are evolving not to be a christian nation. We nonetheless at this time are a majority and are in fact not only founded on Christian ideals but we remain a Christian nation. It is at this point that I have to ask you why you seem offended by that notion? Is it more a rejection of your "parents" and a rebellious sentiment and less of n endeavor to explore the teachings of Jesus Christ as a possibility. Even if you study it and reject it, like myself looking into Marx, it is a very worthwile philosophy if it for whatever reason has captured the imagination of billions for over two thousand years. Surely, that makes it a viable read and at least in contentioin for your attention with such junk science as global warming, the seemed contemporary god of the secular humanists.
If Obama believes," we are no longer a Christian Nation" June 2009, what is in his interest or in our interest to state to the Egyptian forum, "You might say that America is a Muslim Nation". If Obama believes we are just as well a Muslim Nation then why not a Jewish Nation, a Chinese Nation?
What would a Muslim nation look like with Sharia Law over this nation?
Liberal, I believe you and yours need to set aside the beliefs of what the Progressives are telling you to believe long enough to listen to the right side.
I respect that you are against immigration and that you have independent positions. I would ask you to respect that I am a registered Independent since the age of 18. That does not keep me from being a conservative. Conservatism is a philosophy. I can tell you without any hesitation. If the conservatives ran a monkey for President I would choose him over any candidate of the Progressives. A correct philosophy driven by a monkey is better than an incorrect philosophy driven by its best leader.
I thoughtfully answered one of your former posts regards what it means to be conservative. Read it and try to understand that perspective and all others that proffer that perspective. You would do well not to treat all those that still believe in Christianity as imbeciles, if that is what you believe? Because my dear, even if Christ was a total fraud, what he brought to the table has not one fault, even to any fair thinking athiest it is faultless.
Therefore if you want to be an ideological leader or even found credible, it is senseless to attack the teachings of Christ. Those teachings are apolitical. They are about goodness. Christians really are good people and if they are blinded by pre conceived notions, because certainly I have also met with some rigidity in thinking that I don's respect either, nonetheless their mentor is faultless so when you attack Christians as an entire group you attack their mentor as well. I
By the time I was 21 Liberal I had already served my country four years. My country thought enough of me that they entrusted me with a top secret clearance at the age of 17. As a very young manI saw the world from perspectives most never see in a lifetime. I worked on the internet, at least 20 years before Al Gore claimed to have invented the internet, that is the truth. Certainly was the foundation for the internet.
I am not the smartest or the bravest or any of those things. I voted for what I now recognize as an idiot Jimmy Carter. A sell out ideologue as is Obama. Both products of the liberal arts world I described in detail in my former post and both traitors to the ideals of individualism and gurus of the ideas of collectivism. It is a very dangerous recipe for a free world. I wish you well in your deliberations over the years and many years to find out for yourself.
'Liberal Voice' may be young but I'm not buying the implied insult many conservatives throw at her that she'll grow out of her liberal views when she's mature. She's already more mature than a lot of her peer group. The Democratic party isn't just a party of kids. Most liberals stay liberals their entire lives. How else would you explain all the middle aged and elder liberals?
And to Liberal Voice: You said, "How do you know I don't question my 'liberal base'? Why am I against illegal immigration and pro death penalty, huh?" I've been a liberal since the 50s and I am also pro death penalty and want to see new immigration laws in place to help with illegal immigration problem. Your stand on these issues is NOT owned lock, stock and barrel by the conservatives or the Republican party.
Good pst Wayland, you're damn near half way there, there is hope for you too Unlike Liberal, sounds like you need to hurry.
I watched the Glenn Beck documentary. I came away with the firm conviction that ideas have consequences. The consequences of Progressivism were the murder of tens of millions of innocent human beings, making the twentieth century the bloodiest period of human history.
Progressivism has its roots in the theory of evolution--that all life evolves and becomes better. Marx applied that theory to economics and postulated that indeterminate forces were leading mankind to a better tomorrow--proceeding stage by stage until the ideal was achieved: communism. And it was the work of those most evolved--the vanguard--to help each society to "progress" from one stage to the other. "Helping" took on many connotations but it generally resulted in state coercion and the liquidation of those elements of society that impeded "progress." Thus, as Beck points out, in Ukraine the demands of "progress" required the starvation of an entire population and the death of between 7 and 9 million people by starvation.
Couldn't happen here? But it has and is. Margaret Sanger was an avowed Progressive. She believed in the betterment of society. And that betterment required the elimination of those elements that impeded progress. The movement was known as eugenics and its implementation was Planned Parenthood, whose goal was to rid society of the deadweight of black and brown babies. Her clinics were initially located in the slums of our cities for that very reason. She and Hitler had much in common. They both produced a holocaust of "undesireables." Hitler killed 6 miilion? Sanger is responsible for the deaths of ten times that many.
And yet monsters like Sanger, and Che (the butcher of the Cuban Revolution), and Mao, and Ho, and Gorbachev and others are lionized by the progressives. The whole purpose of Beck's documentary was to unmask these monsters (because our history has been scrubbed by leftists) and to tie them back to the ideas that made them possible and that still hold sway among the Left in this country and the West in general. Ideas have consequences.
If people on the right did not know about Margaret Sanger it’s only because they haven't paid much attention to womens history. She hasn’t been “scrubbed from history by the left.” In fact, a lot has been written about her and is there for anyone to find. I’m sure that Beck probably left out the part about her ideas on eugenics having softened and evolved during her lifetime to the point that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. even accepted an award from Planned Parenthood and complimented them for their efforts to help black women. Her early study in eugenics was a reflection of the times she lived in with all its flaws and ideas that today are shocking on face value, but let me repeat....they only reflected the extreme racism of a timeframe when black men coming back from WWI and still in uniform were lynched for the mere offense of thinking they were good enough to serve their country. If you want to study history, don't cherry pick the parts that back up your own agenda which is what Beck obviously did. Like most of us, Sanger was neither all good or all bad.
Last edited by Wayland Woman; 01-23-2010 at 09:55 AM..
Reason: changed the word prejudices to agenda
A man who pretends to cry while posing for publicity photos. Suuure, there's a source you can rely on for disinterested fact-based scholarship.
I've read enough history to recognize a rabble-rouser when I see one.
And what else was Obama during the whole of 2008? He aroused many and along with them pure rabble as is evidenced by the lack of knowledge about his opposition exhibited by so many who voted for him. His charisma was used to great advantage and many who knew so little ran with one or another of his promises, none of which have come close to being kept.
Whoops, I guess you weren't talking about Obama. Actually I knew that.
I watched the Glenn Beck documentary. I came away with the firm conviction that ideas have consequences. The consequences of Progressivism were the murder of tens of millions of innocent human beings, making the twentieth century the bloodiest period of human history.
Progressivism has its roots in the theory of evolution--that all life evolves and becomes better. Marx applied that theory to economics and postulated that indeterminate forces were leading mankind to a better tomorrow--proceeding stage by stage until the ideal was achieved: communism. And it was the work of those most evolved--the vanguard--to help each society to "progress" from one stage to the other. "Helping" took on many connotations but it generally resulted in state coercion and the liquidation of those elements of society that impeded "progress." Thus, as Beck points out, in Ukraine the demands of "progress" required the starvation of an entire population and the death of between 7 and 9 million people by starvation.
Couldn't happen here? But it has and is. Margaret Sanger was an avowed Progressive. She believed in the betterment of society. And that betterment required the elimination of those elements that impeded progress. The movement was known as eugenics and its implementation was Planned Parenthood, whose goal was to rid society of the deadweight of black and brown babies. Her clinics were initially located in the slums of our cities for that very reason. She and Hitler had much in common. They both produced a holocaust of "undesireables." Hitler killed 6 miilion? Sanger is responsible for the deaths of ten times that many.
And yet monsters like Sanger, and Che (the butcher of the Cuban Revolution), and Mao, and Ho, and Gorbachev and others are lionized by the progressives. The whole purpose of Beck's documentary was to unmask these monsters (because our history has been scrubbed by leftists) and to tie them back to the ideas that made them possible and that still hold sway among the Left in this country and the West in general. Ideas have consequences.
Thanks for the recap. Sounds like the show lived down to expectations.
Whoops, I guess you weren't talking about Obama. Actually I knew that.
Most droll. But I can't help noticing you didn't really comment on Mr. Beck's calculated appeal to emotion.
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.
