A MAJOR LEFTIST MEDIA ASSHOLE DOES THE COUNTRY A FAVOR

[mraynrand]

Let me clue you in. The republican party is far more unified under thought then dems. For you to argue this is insane. That is the point.

.....
We love it when you invoke the judeo christian thing. One, the judeo part is quite limited...as jews don't even come close to having the same views...jews are not conservs. They don't veiw sex the same, nor do they have the same view on homo marriage.

Interesting. If you note, Bobble never brought up repubs and dems. He was talking conservatives and liberals. Seems like this is a distinction you always bring up when other people mix the two. But I'm intrigued that you think the Dem party is split - could you expand on that. What are the major lines of thought among dems that split them apart? Who are the pols who fracture the party? Joe Lieberman? Ted Strickland?

About the Judeo Christian ethic/tradition. It's a historical fact. It's not dependent on or relevant to modern changing ethical views of jewish people who have fallen away or who are practicing but who are all over the map on belief. The Judeo Christian ethic follows from the law of the Old testament, with the message of Christ - love your God, salvation through grace, the beatitudes, love your brother as yourself. Law and Salvation. Whether it survives current ethical trends (like Richard Rorty's 'free consensus' John Rawls 'veil of ignorance' or the Orwellian assaults on meaning (like gay 'marriage') is yet to be seen, but I'm not optimistic.

[texaspackerbacker]

Tyrone, you are way off base with your description. Most conservatives are VERY liberal on social issues right up to the point where you want us to PAY for all the results of that "open mindedness" the left pushes.

I am all for gay rights, blacks rights, I'm pro choice (though I like the 11 week rule for certain biological reasons), and I'm pretty liberal on all the social issues...right up until you want me to prove my openness by paying for peoples bad choices.

Your signature shows me that you equate consevatives with religious whackos, and that is about as fair as me labelling all liberals with green freaks.

Let me clue you in to something that may piss off some religious people...we accept them into our ranks so that the left won't completely screw up this country with their socialist agenda. Many of us don't think homosexuality is a sin, but we do believe that the fundamentals of the judeo christian lifestyle is advantageous to the individual and society. We don't care if you choose to live differently, just don't ask us to pay for it.

Let me clue you in. The republican party is far more unified under thought then dems. For you to argue this is insane. That is the point.

Who said anything about conservs and social issues. What a leap.

The point was simply that very little unites the dems...it is a myriad of disparate interests. Are you trying to tell me that if i'm a believer in Peta that i would support unions. Or if woman's reproductie rights are my big issue that i'll support eco issues? They have no linkage.

Sig: Again, your bias limits you. How you can equate my sig with conservs is..well bogling. Are you trying to say that liberals don't read the bible, koran or Torah. BTW, i'm sure those east coast liberal Jews sure would like you to explain that to them. Yikes.

The sig is from a song by Bright Eyes. Nothing more.

The problem with conservs..not all, but those like Tex..is that they believe lilberals have some sorta communist agenda. Far from it. And, for liberals...the ones you don't like..they believe conservs are all racists and have sheets waiting to be put on. Far from it. But, you show your colors by talking about socialism. Get serious.

P.S. We love it when you invoke the judeo christian thing. One, the judeo part is quite limited...as jews don't even come close to having the same views...jews are not conservs. They don't veiw sex the same, nor do they have the same view on homo marriage.

Tyrone, are you close enough to lucidity to notice the trend here?

Bobblehead and I and practically any conservatives are willing, in fact, downright anxious to spell out exactly what our positions are. National conservatives the same thing--we are PROUD of our beliefs and confident that anytime they are correctly articulated, the vast majority of those exposed to them will see the wisdom in what we say.

You, on the other hand, and practically all liberals/leftists/whatever you want to call yourselves, adamantly refuse to even say what you are for. You came about as close as you or any of your kind ever come in the post above by mischaracterizing conservative positions and by vaguely alluding to a few things you do not think.

I tried with a whole thread about political issues to draw you guys out--to get you to articulate what you are FOR, but neither you nor any of the rest of your kind would do it. How about now--without me making any disparaging remarks about leftist genitalia or anything like that, you coming out of the liberal closet and giving a simple little statement of what you are for and against, but especially what you're for?

[sooner6600]

Adding a little Okie humor here.

Will Rodgers once said; I am not a member of an organized party.
I am a democrat.

- - - - - - - -

Well done; Will.

[bobblehead]

Tyrone-

After a long discussion you and I had on another thread you stated something to the effect of, I can't be for the republican party in its present form due to its intolerance. We had specifically been talking about race issues, and the religious right. Couple that in with your sig, and I don't think I made that big of a leap in logic.

Also, I didn't say we aren't more unified than the left, I was merely making the point we are not in lock step, the left has positions all over the map, many in direct contradiction with each other...it drives me batty, so you don't have to convince me that they are more diverse in their beliefs.

Tex's post hits it right head on...trying to get a lib to actually make a stance instead of simply attacking conservative issues is like jacking off with sandpaper...its much to painful to do just to get the desired result.

As far as conserves and social issues, I was merely pointing out how a lot of conservatives differ from the "lockstep" party line, I wasn't addressing anything you said.

Now, that being said, I don't think all libs have socialist or communistic desires, but I think a good hefty percentage of them do, or at the very least they desire the power of control over me and my money. Those few do their damndest to label consevatives close minded, rascist, bigoted, homophobe, or any other thing to try and brainwash the youth(and some adults) into buying into their party as somehow the "enlightened" ones. This helps them win elections and further their destructive tendencies economically.

Again, the Judeo Christian thing. Strong family, consequences for your actions, responsibility ect...these are all the things that give you a better chance in life. The left will tell you I'm "judging" behavior outside of these boundries, I'm NOT!! I simply can intellectually acknowledge that they are advantageous and refuse to want to support someone who makes bad choices. You can get knocked up at 17 if you want, you can drop outta high school, you can be pissed at the man, but don't whine about how society somehow owes you better than a job at wal-mart.

[texaspackerbacker]

Now I understand why you are such a POLISHED poster, Bobblehead.

Sooner, in case I forgot to say earlier, welcome aboard. It's been a while since the old days at JSOnline.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Tyrone-

After a long discussion you and I had on another thread you stated something to the effect of, I can't be for the republican party in its present form due to its intolerance. We had specifically been talking about race issues, and the religious right. Couple that in with your sig, and I don't think I made that big of a leap in logic.

Also, I didn't say we aren't more unified than the left, I was merely making the point we are not in lock step, the left has positions all over the map, many in direct contradiction with each other...it drives me batty, so you don't have to convince me that they are more diverse in their beliefs.

Tex's post hits it right head on...trying to get a lib to actually make a stance instead of simply attacking conservative issues is like jacking off with sandpaper...its much to painful to do just to get the desired result.

As far as conserves and social issues, I was merely pointing out how a lot of conservatives differ from the "lockstep" party line, I wasn't addressing anything you said.

Now, that being said, I don't think all libs have socialist or communistic desires, but I think a good hefty percentage of them do, or at the very least they desire the power of control over me and my money. Those few do their damndest to label consevatives close minded, rascist, bigoted, homophobe, or any other thing to try and brainwash the youth(and some adults) into buying into their party as somehow the "enlightened" ones. This helps them win elections and further their destructive tendencies economically.

Again, the Judeo Christian thing. Strong family, consequences for your actions, responsibility ect...these are all the things that give you a better chance in life. The left will tell you I'm "judging" behavior outside of these boundries, I'm NOT!! I simply can intellectually acknowledge that they are advantageous and refuse to want to support someone who makes bad choices. You can get knocked up at 17 if you want, you can drop outta high school, you can be pissed at the man, but don't whine about how society somehow owes you better than a job at wal-mart.

1. I disagree about your leap. But, no biggie.

2. What is the point of saying that conservs/repubs arent' lock step? Who suggested otherwise. Perhaps if you read where is STATED that there was diversity you would then understand why someone then feels like you are arguing to prove that is more diverse than the liberals/dems.

3. Dem party. Agreed...and that was the whole point of what is said. I stated liberals...for which there is huge differences. If we are talking classical liberalism and classical conservatism..then i would say both are equal. But, you and i both know we are talking in regards to what is going on today...liberal means tree hugger, baby murder, commie/socialist,e tc.

4. Judeo..perhaps if you knew more about the religion you wouldn't have those viewpoints...or could then understand why in a Jewish country...conservatism doesn't dominate.

My point was that to even suggest judeo christian is a joke..better to say old testament and christian..since christians, for the most part, have no interest in really following judeo values.

A few decades ago, Christian preachers would NEVER describe a moral system in terms of being 'Judeo-Christian' or having 'Judeo-Christian' values. The term would simply be 'Christian,' or often, 'Godly,' which implied 'Christian.'

But now, 'Judeo-Christian' almost seems MORE popular as a descriptive term than 'Christian' alone. How often do you hear the phrase 'This nation was founded on Judeo-Christian values' as opposed to 'This nation was founded on Christian values'?

Why is this? Did any of the 'founding fathers' describe themselves as 'Judeo-Christians?'

The term "Judeo-Christian" was invented during World War II, when Christians started realizing how rude it was to rail against the Nazis for violating "Christian decency" since so many of the Nazi victims were Jewish. It was a superficial attempt to appear diverse and inclusive. Usually when I see the term used, the author actually is only talking about Christianity, and thus denies the truly different nature of Judaism.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The term "Judeo-Christian" was invented during World War II, when Christians started realizing how rude it was to rail against the Nazis for violating "Christian decency" since so many of the Nazi victims were Jewish. It was a superficial attempt to appear diverse and inclusive. Usually when I see the term used, the author actually is only talking about Christianity, and thus denies the truly different nature of Judaism.

I was railing about this a while back, it's pretty funny. The next time I hear a Jew refer to their "Judeo-Christian" values will be the first. Somehow it is always a Christmas-tree-in-every-government-office advocate like Bill O'Reilly who use "Judeo-Christian."

And why don't they ever say our country was founded on "Judeo-Islamic-Christian" values? After all, the Muslims are the children of Abraham just as much as the Christians.

[th87]

Okay Tex. So you're celebrating the death of an American who disagrees with you.

Which can be logically extended to say you'd celebrate the death of every American who disagrees with you.

That being the case, how does this make you different from say, oh, the terrorists?

[MJZiggy]

Hey, TH, I was wondering when you were gonna pop in. Welcome to PR, finest forum on the web!

[th87]

Thanks, Zig - it's good to see you.

I've just been following things here from afar. I thought the time was finally right to join the ranks!

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Thanks, Zig - it's good to see you.

I've just been following things here from afar. I thought the time was finally right to join the ranks!

which ranks are you joining?

The ranks of the good, normal, conservative american lovin Packer Rats.

The ranks of the evil, despicable, liberal american hating Packer rats.

[Joemailman]

This call for a poll.

[PackFan#1]

Quick, somebody invite St. Lou, thePack, Lamboo, RobertJ, AbeForman and Anti-Polar Bear!

[Scott Campbell]

Thanks, Zig - it's good to see you.

I've just been following things here from afar. I thought the time was finally right to join the ranks!

It's been a long time - welcome!

[GrnBay007]

Good to see you here TH. Welcome to PR!