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

[WizardofOz]

2008 Republican Party Platform

:rotfl: And you bought it!

Chump
Some people never learn

 

[Four O'Clock]

By the way 4 O'Clock, 2 cents doesn't buy much anymore.

I said FAR-right and FAR-left were the areas I find to be non-Christian. You can hold beliefs out there on the wacko fringe but please don't try to attach Christianity to it as some sort of hybrid-TRUTH. You deceive yourself and would be believers.

 

[Paulos]

:rotfl: And you bought it!

Chump
Some people never learn

Exactly. What a guy that "aSeattleFascist" is, quoting from the Re-Publican platform as if it really amounts anything at all. It certainly didn't mean anything during the 8 years of G.W. Bush's presidency:

http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3114.html

 

[Newman]

And then there's The Constitution Party (their preamble says it all, and their platform reflects it)

The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and preserve these United States.
http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php#Preamble

You've got to be kidding me! I thought you hated Ron Paul, individual liberty, freedom, the Constitution, etc.!!!

I disagree with very little in the Constitution Party platform. And by "very little", I mean "a very extremely microscopic nano- iota bit".

You are so confusing. Ron Paul explicitly endorsed the Constitution Party in the previous presidential election. I voted for Chuck Baldwin. Everything in the platform is directly lined up with Christian libertarian thought.

 

[Paulos]

You've got to be kidding me! I thought you hated Ron Paul, individual liberty, freedom, the Constitution, etc.!!!
...
You are so confusing. Ron Paul explicitly endorsed the Constitution Party in the previous presidential election. I voted for Chuck Baldwin. Everything in the platform is directly lined up with Christian libertarian thought.

Brilliant! :thumb:

ASC, have a look at what the Constitution Party had to say about Ron Paul during the 2008 campaign:

http://www.constitutionparty.com/news.php?aid=613

 

[Lighthouse]

That... has nothing to do with freedom. If you are free, then your actions are not arbitrarily prohibited or prohibited based on other people's beliefs.

I never said it was. You're not very bright, are you?

You talk about 'Freedom from'. Are you going to insist that you have some hypothetical right to be free from knowing that homosexuals exist and are allowed to do so, or something?

Nope. You assume too much. You are quite asinine. Are you a democrat?

Yes, pointing out trivial errors of which both the author and the readership are already aware and about which they couldn't care less is irritating, isn't it?

No.

it may be that he is just over exposed

Arthur Brain is an idiot. I don't focus on typographical errors, I point out when people misspell a word because they clearly don't know how to spell it.

You are so confusing. Ron Paul explicitly endorsed the Constitution Party in the previous presidential election. I voted for Chuck Baldwin. Everything in the platform is directly lined up with Christian libertarian thought.

You really think this means anything about anything? Ron Paul can say he supports the Constitution Party all he wants, but he still thinks the states should have the right to decide whether or not they ban abortion, individually. That is wrong.

 

[Paulos]

You really think this means anything about anything? Ron Paul can say he supports the Constitution Party all he wants, but he still thinks the states should have the right to decide whether or not they ban abortion, individually. That is wrong.

Question is, does the Constitution Party support Ron Paul? Take this link to see:

http://www.constitutionparty.com/news.php?aid=613#Paul

For his part, Ron Paul endorsed Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin for President in 2008:

Texas Rep. Ron Paul, the libertarian firebrand who made his mark in the Republican presidential primaries thanks to grassroots support and strong online fund-raising, has endorsed Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin for president.

As Paul makes clear with a statement on his website, his decision is also a pointed non-endorsement of the Libertarian Party’s candidate Bob Barr, who was expected to benefit from enthusiasm for Paul’s message but has riled the Texas congressman in recent weeks.

Source: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/...n-paul-endorses-constitution-party-candidate/

 

[Arthur Brain]

Oh. So whenever anybody else makes a spelling mistake it's not a typo and they need your help in correction? You are so up yourself LH. You're a total bore when it comes to this stuff and you've *earned* that reputation all by yourself.

 

[Lighthouse]

Question is, does the Constitution Party support Ron Paul? Take this link to see:

http://www.constitutionparty.com/news.php?aid=613#Paul

If they do, shame on them!

 

[Skavau]

I never said it was. You're not very bright, are you?

All you've said about freedom is that it contains freedom to as well as 'freedom from'. It was a vague statement and does nothing to support anything you've said or nothing to support any notion that I somehow don't get liberty.

In fact "And to have true freedom to the good one must be truly free from the opposite" this in and of itself is unsubstantiated. Certainly doesn't redeem your notion that homosexual behaviour, fornication, adultery (etc) ought to be criminalised.

Nope. You assume too much. You are quite asinine. Are you a democrat?

I don't consider myself either a Democrat or a Republican. I do not live in the USA. I live in England. I don't define myself across United States party lines. Why do you along with aSeattleTory seem to think that I do?

 

[Lighthouse]

All you've said about freedom is that it contains freedom to as well as 'freedom from'. It was a vague statement and does nothing to support anything you've said or nothing to support any notion that I somehow don't get liberty.

You have no idea what it is to be free.

In fact "And to have true freedom to the good one must be truly free from the opposite" this in and of itself is unsubstantiated. Certainly doesn't redeem your notion that homosexual behaviour, fornication, adultery (etc) ought to be criminalised.

What does any of this have to do with the current discussion?

I don't consider myself either a Democrat or a Republican. I do not live in the USA. I live in England. I don't define myself across United States party lines. Why do you along with aSeattleTory seem to think that I do?

You missed the joke. That's okay, I'm not surprised you didn't get it.

 

[Paulos]

You are quite asinine. Are you a democrat?

I would suggest that Republicans are even more asinine than Democrats, because most Democrats have a clearer grasp of what their party stands for and represents, whereas many Republicans (especially the Christian Conservative variety) are complete dupes who have been hoodwinked by their party.

 

[Skavau]

You have no idea what it is to be free.

So you keep saying. A pity you don't really say much more other than that.

What does any of this have to do with the current discussion?

You claim to understand concepts such as freedom and liberty far better than I and yet are on record supporting repression of others.

You missed the joke. That's okay, I'm not surprised you didn't get it.

A thinly-veiled attacks against democrats accusing them of being asinine and presumptuous?

 

[Lighthouse]

I would suggest that Republicans are even more asinine than Democrats, because most Democrats have a clearer grasp of what their party stands for and represents, whereas many Republicans (especially the Christian Conservative variety) are complete dupes who have been hoodwinked by their party.

:doh:

Try again.

So you keep saying. A pity you don't really say much more other than that.

You do not know the truth, therefore you do not know freedom. For it is the truth that makes men free.

You claim to understand concepts such as freedom and liberty far better than I and yet are on record supporting repression of others.

I support nothing of the sort!

I support helping them find freedom.

A thinly-veiled attacks against democrats accusing them of being asinine and presumptuous?

No.

 

[Skavau]

You do not know the truth, therefore you do not know freedom. For it is the truth that makes men free.

Knowing the truth about reality doesn't necessitate that your actions won't or wouldn't be prohibited. A moot point.

I support nothing of the sort!

I support helping them find freedom.

By forbidding their prior liberty. By telling them that they must behave and act in different ways.

 

[Lighthouse]

Knowing the truth about reality doesn't necessitate that your actions won't or wouldn't be prohibited. A moot point.

Again you assume.

By forbidding their prior liberty. By telling them that they must behave and act in different ways.

When have I done this?

You need to learn to follow the truth, rather than your own scarecrows.

 

[Newman]

You really think this means anything about anything? Ron Paul can say he supports the Constitution Party all he wants, but he still thinks the states should have the right to decide whether or not they ban abortion, individually. That is wrong.

Butt face, be quiet. The adults are talking. Didn't your parents teach you not to interrupt an adult conversation?

 

[Lighthouse]

Butt face, be quiet. The adults are talking. Didn't your parents teach you not to interrupt an adult conversation?

My parents never regarded me as an ignorant child who should not be listened, and I never gave them reason to. Don't be jealous. It's unbecoming.

 

[Newman]

My parents never regarded me as an ignorant child who should not be listened, and I never gave them reason to. Don't be jealous. It's unbecoming.

1) Try "whom" when not writing about the subject of the sentence (objective case).

2) You also need a preposition with "listen". "To" might work.

3) Don't end sentences with prepositions.

4) You also need to tone down your puerile attitude. Your readers are losing confidence in your intellectual abilities.

Edit: 5) "Reason", in the way you used it, needs an indefinite article, such as "a".

 

[Paulos]

Try again.

Do you mean to tell me that you think Christian conservatives who supported the G.W. Bush administration weren't hoodwinked all throughout his administration?