toldailytopic: Liberal vs. Conservative. Where and why do you stand?

[Paulos]

Hello Newman.

Let's see what "maximum freedom" is in the eyes of a "if it feels good do it" libertarian:

Pro-legalized abortion
Pro-legalized euthanasia (killing of sick and handicapped people, etc.)
Pro-legalized homosexuality
Pro-legalized pornography
Pro-legalizing drugs (Crack cocaine, etc.)
Pro-legalizing suicide
Pro-legalizing prostitution
Etc.

A lot of that could be said of George Bush as well.

 

[aSeattleConserv]

Slow on the sarcasm meter are you? This is TOL. Turn it up.

Why waste perfectly good sarcasm on good people like you Nick, when it can be used on fire hydrant/leg lifting atheists like Fido?

 

[Skavau]

Hello Newman.

Let's see what "maximum freedom" is in the eyes of a "if it feels good do it" libertarian:

Pro-legalized abortion
Pro-legalized euthanasia (killing of sick and handicapped people, etc.)
Pro-legalized homosexuality
Pro-legalized pornography
Pro-legalizing drugs (Crack cocaine, etc.)
Pro-legalizing suicide
Pro-legalizing prostitution
Etc.
http://www.lp.org/platform

You're a slave to Satan Newman.

Jesus saves!

You're still not getting the concept behind libertarianism, liberty, or freedom in itself are you?

 

[aSeattleConserv]

A lot of that could be said of George Bush as well.

LOL. When in political discussions, I often leave liberals speechless when I say the following words:

"You won't find me defending George Bush".

Republicrats have sold out the conservative movement, and hence God.

 

[Newman]

good people like you Nick

:rotfl:

 

[aSeattleConserv]

You're still not getting the concept behind libertarianism, liberty, or freedom in itself are you?

I've seen your definiton of "freedom" Skabau; I know your "concept" quite well.

This quote sums up your false religion best:

"Those who embrace libertarianism believe that there is no ultimate authority to which men and their civil society must answer other than themselves and the words of their own constitutions and laws. Men are "free," and there should be as few restrictions on "freedom" as possible."

God and His laws are "restrictive"; He gets "in the way" of moral relative atheist/libertarians such as yourself; hence your denial of His existence, or outright HATRED and mockery of Him.

 

[Skavau]

I've seen your definiton of "freedom" Skabau; I know your "concept" quite well.

What's this 'Skabau' business?

This quote sums up your false religion best:

I only casually, and at times describe myself as a Libertarian. I have a lot of time for it though.

"Those who embrace libertarianism believe that there is no ultimate authority to which men and their civil society must answer other than themselves and the words of their own constitutions and laws. Men are "free," and there should be as few restrictions on "freedom" as possible."

That's funny, most of the right-wing element in the United States tend to lean towards right-wing libertarianism (when it suits them) of course. Indeed, the Tea Party movement itself contains a lot of traditional self-proclaimed conservative christians.

God and His laws are "restrictive"; He gets "in the way" of moral relativist atheist/libertarians such as yourself.

I don't care what you think God and his laws are. I don't believe in a God. This means as much to me as a Muslim telling you that Allah has plans for this world.

 

[Paulos]

God and His laws are "restrictive"; He gets "in the way" of moral relative atheist/libertarians such as yourself

1 Corinthians 5:12-13
What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside.​

 

[Newman]

I've seen your definiton of "freedom" Skabau; I know your "concept" quite well.

This quote sums up your false religion best:

"Those who embrace libertarianism believe that there is no ultimate authority to which men and their civil society must answer other than themselves and the words of their own constitutions and laws. Men are "free," and there should be as few restrictions on "freedom" as possible."

God and His laws are "restrictive"; He gets "in the way" of moral relative atheist/libertarians such as yourself; hence your denial of His existence, or outright HATRED and mockery of Him.

This is absolutely false. I believe in the ultimate authority, God, who everyone must answer to. I just don't believe that the state IS God, unlike you, who worship and extol praises to the wonderful mechanisms of the state to exercise control on every human being as you see fit. Christian thought and libertarian thought are NOT mutually exclusive. In fact, they are entirely coordinated.

 

[Ktoyou]

Your paranoid loner trophy is on it's way! :thumb:

Now all we need is a physical address to reach you...

:noid:

By the way, I think it is interesting to note that although this thread was supposed to be about liberal/conservative opinions, almost all of the discussion has been dominated by authoritarian vs. libertarian viewpoints and issues. It just goes to show you that the two-party system in the USA is totally flawed. It affords no room for real change, real freedom, and real respect for the Constitution. One party will let you make your own economic decisions, but not personal ones, and the other will let you make your own personal decisions, but not economic ones. What kind of a choice is that? The only way we will move forward as a nation is by electing leaders that push for individual freedom and responsibility and a return to original interpretation of the Constitution. We cannot rely on the government to control our lives. We cannot rely on the government for anything, really. Government is bulky, irresponsive, irresponsible, immoral, and full of people with a lust to dominate. Why would anybody in their right mind view more government as a viable solution for anything?

I don't think that's the problem...the problem is the one party pretending at two while serving the interests of the not so new, but increasingly powerful landed gentry. A problem in Jefferson's time counted as a virtue, but at least it had a rounded education going for it.


So it looks a lot like the general public, but without an overriding concern for them as individuals...or do I repeat myself? :think:


Depends on the particular.

Thank you for bringing up the Paul boys. Rand, unlike his father, isn't that well known to us YET. Other than being an admirer of the atheist, pro abortionist, adulterer, selfish and greedy Ayn Rand, I don't have much to say about him, other than I hope that he doesn't follow in the footsteps of his father. It's questionable if he is a member of the Libertarian Party like his father is. He's been quiet about it if he is, and wisely chooses a mainstream political party to pursue his political ambitions.

And now onto "daddy"



Yet for some reason Ron Paul thinks the murdering of the unborn is OK at the State level.

Ron Paul is Pro-Choice state by state:
- opposes a national ban on the dismembering of unborn children
- claims the states may decide if they want to permit the killing of children
- has not acknowledged that human rights trump state's rights
- legislates as though rights come from the state and not from our Creator, thus
- believes the states have the right to permit genocide and commit holocaust
- claims that killing children in the womb cannot "conceivably" violate the U.S. Constitution
- believes the state is the ultimate authority, superseding God's enduring command, Do not murder
- is essentially a Libertarian (small godless government) but runs as a Republican for greater visibility
- The Libertarian Party promotes legalized abortion, pornography, adultery, crack cocaine, suicide, euthanasia, and prostitution
- Ron Paul uses Libertarians for financial and political support but doesn't warn them about their party's gross immorality
http://prolifeprofiles.com/paul

As shown in an earlier link, Ron Paul doesn't think homosexuality is a "sin". Let's see how his voting record reflects his ideology:

House Democrats voted in overwhelming numbers last night to repeal the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy that has for decades allowed gays to serve in the military. The only caveat is they aren’t allowed to broadcast what they’re doing in their government-supplied bedrooms.
Five Republicans voted to join the radical gay lobby in pushing passage of Nancy Pelosi’s remaining priority item before the elections. Those five Republicans are: Reps. Judy Biggert (Ill.) Joseph Cao (La.), Charles Djou (Hawaii), Ron Paul (Texas) and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Fla.)
This vote was not about gays openly serving in our military. It never has been. The radical gay lobby seeks to force the military to allow their fellow travelers to serve openly as a means to achieve other elements of their radical agenda in the civilian world.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=37254

Regarding the Libertarian Party, a political party that Ron Paul ran for President on back in 1988. While he did support a good man in the last presidential election, he didn't cut his ties with the "if it feels gooood do it" party:

"The Libertarian Party Candidate admonished me for “remaining neutral” in the presidential race and not stating whom I will vote for in November. It’s true; I have done exactly that due to my respect and friendship and support from both the Constitution and Libertarian Party members. I remain a lifetime member of the Libertarian Party and I’m a ten-term Republican Congressman. It is not against the law to participate in more then one political party.
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=547





Ron Paul is a phony, plain and simple. What kind of "Christian" would suport a political party that spits in the face of God and His laws?

How about Paul quoting communist sympathizer Sinclair Lewis on national tv?

"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2007/12/ron_paul_patrio.html
(To keep the record straight, I'm no fan of Mike "Hucksterbee" either).

Or stating "I am uncomfortable talking about religion in public..."
http://www.christorchaos.com/ShowingLibertarianismsTrueBiases.html

What kind of Christian is ASHAMED about talking about his faith in public?

The author of the last article, Thomas A. Droleskey, said it best:

"Sin, Dr. Paul, is not a human "right." No one has the moral or civil "right" to sin. One has the physical ability or potentiality to choose to commit a sin. One has no "right" to commit a sin. The civil state has no authority founded in the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law to reaffirm people in their sins, no less to extol them as a "civil right" or to be indifferent to the harm that sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance do to the common good of society. Sin is what caused Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the God-Man, to suffer unspeakably in His Sacred Humanity during His Passion and Death and caused His Most Blessed Mother's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart to be thrust through and through with Seven Swords of Sorrow. The Cross of the Divine Redeemer is the means of our liberation from the power of sin and eternal death. Each man and each nation should be proud to raise this standard of true liberty, indeed, the very foundation of civilization itself, as high as possible."

Per the article:

"The Lord established three fundamental institutions for the governance of men: family, the Church, and civil government. While these three institutions are separate spheres of authority under God, they clearly have mutually supportive, interwoven functions. The performance — or lack of performance — of each inescapably influences the functioning of the other two."

"The unity of purpose of family, Church and civil government is to glorify God, by teaching, obeying and enforcing His word and law. Family, Church and civil government all are to do these things, but each is given a unique function or sphere of operation. This division of function is not historical, in the sense of historical dispensations in which one or the other of God's institutions is to dominate (the three were united in our first parents), but is rather a continuity of division of labor over time."
http://reformed-theology.org/html/issue08/civil_government.htm



Let me look in the Communist Manifesto (or any other of Marx's blathering) and see if he promotes Christianity.

Of course anyone with a lick of common sense knows that the more Christian principles a society applies to itself, the less force of government is needed. (It's called "self discipline").

No. You're saying that there are decisions of ethical/moral importance that are rightly and solely the province of the individual making them. A conservative should understand that notion.

I disagree with Newman on this, believing we all pay the freight for people who make the wrong decisions and so have a right to raise our hands in objection, but you shouldn't distort his conclusion.


So does sugar, if it's abused. Sodas, most fast food, the lack of exercise, smoking. Are you as outraged and where do you draw the line at legislative, government control and intrusion?


What nonsense. Where did he say that, in essence or otherwise?


You're another funny fellow, having the same governmental leaders. Else, bad beans and worse rhetoric.


Errant.
:e4e:

As I said, the problem is that you consider things to be perversions when they are not. So you assume I support making things illegal when I do not. And this conversation is going nowhere until you understand the difference between perversion and mere difference.


:doh:

I didn't say you had reached the point where you were no longer worthy of attention. But this clenched it. Good bye.


I have to respond to this.

If I have cause to call you a moron I am not doing it arbitrarily. And I have plenty of cause.

Moron.


I can promise you Nick M is not a Republican.

And I'll admit I voted for Bush. Back when I was unaware of just how deviated he was from God. I was wrong.

Lighthouse, SCon, and others think that allowing people to sin without political/legal/criminal consequences is wrong. Therefore, God is wrong because he does the same. God does not provide immediate punishment for sins, and even if he did, that would be an even better case for the libertarian perspective. But he doesn't. He allows people to go on in their sin.

Lighthouse and SCon want to, essentially, go over God's head and punish people for sinning before God does. Unchristian. Ungodly. Unrealistic. Illogical.

My mom calls people "scum buckets". No joke.

Oh, and by the way, the way conversations/forums/debates usually go is that one person says something or asks a question and then the other person responds or answers the question. Your "response" did absolutely nothing to convince me or anybody else that all sins should be declared illegal by the state. In fact, it really just reinforced my own confidence in my position. The notion that you think I'm a "scum bucket liar" is more of a compliment to me than you think, Butt face. Are you really this stupid or are you just playing games?

I win!

Hello Newman.

Let's see what "maximum freedom" is in the eyes of a "if it feels good do it" libertarian:

Pro-legalized abortion
Pro-legalized euthanasia (killing of sick and handicapped people, etc.)
Pro-legalized homosexuality
Pro-legalized pornography
Pro-legalizing drugs (Crack cocaine, etc.)
Pro-legalizing suicide
Pro-legalizing prostitution
Etc.
http://www.lp.org/platform

You're a slave to Satan Newman.

Jesus saves!

:noid:

I'm gonna go buy some more guns. BRB.

:noid:

You're still not getting the concept behind libertarianism, liberty, or freedom in itself are you?

LOL. When in political discussions, I often leave liberals speechless when I say the following words:

"You won't find me defending George Bush".

Republicrats have sold out the conservative movement, and hence God.

I've seen your definiton of "freedom" Skabau; I know your "concept" quite well.

This quote sums up your false religion best:

"Those who embrace libertarianism believe that there is no ultimate authority to which men and their civil society must answer other than themselves and the words of their own constitutions and laws. Men are "free," and there should be as few restrictions on "freedom" as possible."

God and His laws are "restrictive"; He gets "in the way" of moral relative atheist/libertarians such as yourself; hence your denial of His existence, or outright HATRED and mockery of Him.

This is absolutely false. I believe in the ultimate authority, God, who everyone must answer to. I just don't believe that the state IS God, unlike you, who worship and extol praises to the wonderful mechanisms of the state to exercise control on every human being as you see fit. Christian thought and libertarian thought are NOT mutually exclusive. In fact, they are entirely coordinated.

What we have here, is failure to communicate.

 

[Paulos]

By the way, I think it is interesting to note that although this thread was supposed to be about liberal/conservative opinions, almost all of the discussion has been dominated by authoritarian vs. libertarian viewpoints and issues. It just goes to show you that the two-party system in the USA is totally flawed. It affords no room for real change, real freedom, and real respect for the Constitution.

Great points. A significant libertarian political trend is currently taking place, not only in general society but also among Christians. This is a good thing, because 1 Corinthians 5:12 refutes the notion that Christians should be imposing their own authoritarian rule on the larger society.

 

[Newman]

What we have here, is failure to communicate.

More like a failure to indoctrinate.

 

[Town Heretic]

What we have here, is failure to communicate.

deja ktoyou...

 

[Lon]

I used to be conservative. Nowadays, I look for any candidate with religious and moral convictions who is not bent toward swaying peer-pressure or party affiliations but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. Whoever has that gets my vote.

 

[chrysostom]

I used to be conservative. Nowadays, I look for any candidate with religious and moral convictions who is not bent toward swaying peer-pressure or party affiliations but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. Whoever has that gets my vote.

is abortion an important issue for you?

 

[chrysostom]

What we have here, is failure to communicate.

here being TOL?

 

[Newman]

here being TOL?

No, I think "here" meant the numerous parts of the conversation we've been having on this specific thread that were quoted in the post.

 

[aSeattleConserv]

What's this 'Skabau' business?

Obviously a typo (White lie alert! White lie alert!).

Actually, referring to a moral degenerate atheist like you as a "scab" is highly inappropriate. Scabs help the healing process of a wound; atheists (such as you) are the CAUSE of the wound.

A more appropriate term would be "blood sucking leech". You see SkaVau, atheists are parasites that prey on others that have done all of the work for them. In this case, you prey on a Christian founded society that were given "God-given rights" by the Founders, yet you don't want to acknowledge that, you only want to enjoy the fruits of THEIR labor.

If you would like to debate what principles our Founders followed when they gave us our Constitutional Republic, how about we start with this one:

"The Ten Commandments in American History" (all 10 are covered; page one only covers the First Commandment).
http://vftonline.org/TenC 4 USA/UShistory/1st.htm

I only casually, and at times describe myself as a Libertarian. I have a lot of time for it though.

You'd fit quite well into their Godless agenda.

That's funny, most of the right-wing element in the United States tend to lean towards right-wing libertarianism (when it suits them) of course. Indeed, the Tea Party movement itself contains a lot of traditional self-proclaimed conservative christians.

Hence my concern about the Tea Party from the beginning: a mixture of "if it feels good do it'ers", along with legitimate conservative Christians.

Not many are aware that the modern day Tea Party concept was conceived by the Libertarian Party of IL:
http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/04/libertarian-party-we-had-the-tea-party-idea-first/

Ideology will eventually clash (concerns are already being expressed).
http://www.michnews.com/Guest_Commentary/wl032310.shtml

I don't care what you think God and his laws are. I don't believe in a God.

WHAT A COINCIDENCE! God doesn't care what YOU think. He is STILL the Creator of the Universe and EVERYTHING in it.

 

[aSeattleConserv]

1 Corinthians 5:12-13
What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside.​

Ah yes; a liberal's favorite Bible verse: "Thou shalt not judge (my wicked ways)."

"Although God alone is the Judge, this does not mean that only God judges. In fact, the Word of God says that God enables man to judge, commands man to judge, and is pleased with those who seek to judge righteously.

Scriptures clearly show that throughout time God has imparted to man the authority to judge (Leviticus 19:15; Deuteronomy 1:16; Deuteronomy 16:18; Judges 2:16-19; II Chronicles 19:5; Ezra 7:25; Isaiah 1:17; Ezekiel 23:45; John 7:24; Romans 2:27; I Corinthians 2:15; I Corinthians 6. In Zechariah 3:7 God states that He gives those who obey Him the authority to judge, "Thus saith the LORD of hosts; If thou wilt walk in my ways, and if thou wilt keep my charge, then thou shalt also judge my house, and shalt also keep my courts, and I will give thee places to walk among these that stand by." There are also additional references in Scripture to this process of judging that may not specifically use the word judge. For example, in the original languages, the words translated as judge in Scripture are also translated examine, search, discern, ask, question, contend, esteem, and determine...
http://www.jesuscult.org/judge.htm

HOWEVER Paulos, let it be known, if I EVER get in trouble with the law, I'd want you on my jury.

:idunno:

 

[aSeattleConserv]

This is absolutely false. I believe in the ultimate authority, God, who everyone must answer to. I just don't believe that the state IS God, unlike you, who worship and extol praises to the wonderful mechanisms of the state to exercise control on every human being as you see fit. Christian thought and libertarian thought are NOT mutually exclusive. In fact, they are entirely coordinated.

Hello Newman.

As I pointed out in our so-called "debate" that started I believe back on page 11, you are a "Christian libertarian" (at which point you rolled on the floor, throwing a temper tantrum that would make a 3 year old green with envy).

What is a Christian libertarian? You used part of the description in an earlier post (I'll highlight the part that you used in the following description of Christian libertarianism):

"Christian libertarianism is a term used by people to describe the synthesis of their Christian beliefs with their libertarian political philosophy. It is also a political philosophy in itself that has its roots in libertarianism and it is a political ideology to the extent that Christian libertarians promote their cause to others and join together as a movement. In general, Christian libertarians believe that Christians should not use government as a tool to control others' moral behavior or to initiate the use of force against others. They further believe these principles are supported by Christ's teaching and by the Bible.

According to the Reverend Andrew Sandlin while he was at The Chalcedon Foundation, Christian libertarianism is the view that mature individuals are permitted maximum freedom under God's law.
http://www.ourholycause.com/2009/05/discussion-so-what-is-christian.html

I've asked many a Christian libertarian the following question, yet NONE have answered it:

"What is "maximum freedom under God's law" mean?