Ed- Hong Kong Snowden tea party hero rat-ing out America to the Communists

[thinkforyoursel]

Nice going ....tea pppuuuurrrty "patriots".....who are you going to side with next ...Al Quida...the Taliban?


A few years ago when Bush started the NSA programs you defended it .....you called democrats unpatriotic for being against the war. Because then ...you deliberately didn't want to understand people can be against the war (including many who served) but still be for our military!!

How does it feel to defend a rat in communist china telling the Chinese and the Russians all they need to know about American surveillance program?
How stupid and naieve are you people .....when did the US never not eaves drop on Americans as they wish? WHat did you believe Martin Luther King, the Kennedies went thorugh a few decades ago?

All you nut bags defended Bush and Dick Cheney running the same programs a few years ago...and today you're so stupid and conflicted that they now are against you and deem Snoden as a traitor!!!

Imagine if instead of merely publicly stating that they are against the Iraq war ....the DIXIE CHICKS had taken American secrects and started distributing it to our rivals on the communist side. They received death threats for merely being against the Iraq war....how enraged would you nut-bags be then if they did something like what Snowden did????

I am so appalled at how dunce you people are ....how the hell did you people become adults without understanding what real patriotism means?

 

[Oceandan]

Just so we're all clear. You're saying you support PRISM. Right? You're saying you support arming the rebels in Syria. Right? You're saying since the NSA is spying on all of us, the Chinese should not know. Right?

You're saying PRISM is the exact SAME program Bush started. Right? You're saying the Patriot Act was designed as it's presently being used. Right?

I mean you did use the term......"dunce"............ right???????????????

 

[ARealConservative]

A few years ago when Bush started the NSA programs you defended it .....

false. I was angry about it. I lashed out regarding it.

where were you? not here.

yet here you are now, on a soap box. come down. you don't have any moral authority on this. none. you just joined. so your post looks juvenile.

 

[OldWorldOrder]

Haha, I'm saddened to have to generally agree with a liberal nutbar. Too bad.

 

[CanadaJohn]

I am so appalled at how dunce you people are

America's education system at its finest, I'm betting.

 

[thinkforyoursel]

false. I was angry about it. I lashed out regarding it.

where were you? not here.

yet here you are now, on a soap box. come down. you don't have any moral authority on this. none. you just joined. so your post looks juvenile.

Dude ...you ...me nobody need any moral authority for this stuff......this is too easy!!

How can anybody side with a guy for rat-ing out the country to our rivals?

I listen to many liberals ...who back in the Bush era and today are very much against the eaves dropping....but they toe the line ...they realize that Snowden went too far!! The Tea Puuurrrty however ...think he didn't go far enough because for them ....as long as it some how ...GET OBAMA ......they are down with it!!

I said it before ...the tea ppppuuurrty are a bunch of petty people who always ...always ...are very much willing to cut off their nose to spite their face!!!

 

[head of joaquin]

The tea party is intellectually bankrupt. They lurch from one issue to the next using their bizarre memes as a guide, which basically reduces to Obamaphobia and a hatred of American working folk.

So it isn't a surprise that they support the Patriot Act and then turn around and support a guy like Snowden. They just have a compulsion to see conspiracies and blame Obama. The poor dears can't help it. Too much Fox News.

 

[Masada]

Nice going ....tea pppuuuurrrty "patriots".....who are you going to side with next ...Al Quida...the Taliban?


A few years ago when Bush started the NSA programs you defended it .....you called democrats unpatriotic for being against the war. Because then ...you deliberately didn't want to understand people can be against the war (including many who served) but still be for our military!!

How does it feel to defend a rat in communist china telling the Chinese and the Russians all they need to know about American surveillance program?
How stupid and naieve are you people .....when did the US never not eaves drop on Americans as they wish? WHat did you believe Martin Luther King, the Kennedies went thorugh a few decades ago?

All you nut bags defended Bush and Dick Cheney running the same programs a few years ago...and today you're so stupid and conflicted that they now are against you and deem Snoden as a traitor!!!

Imagine if instead of merely publicly stating that they are against the Iraq war ....the DIXIE CHICKS had taken American secrects and started distributing it to our rivals on the communist side. They received death threats for merely being against the Iraq war....how enraged would you nut-bags be then if they did something like what Snowden did????

I am so appalled at how dunce you people are ....how the hell did you people become adults without understanding what real patriotism means?

How many tea party rallies have u been to?

 

[fmw]

The tea party is intellectually bankrupt. They lurch from one issue to the next using their bizarre memes as a guide, which basically reduces to Obamaphobia and a hatred of American working folk.

My understanding is that most of the tea party activists are working folk.

 

[soot]

How many tea party rallies have u been to?

Pot, this is Kettle, are you black?

Seriously, I was just reading over on the "Obama can play with toy guns" thread where you were holding court on how "liberals this" and "liberals that" with the implied conclusion that liberals are destroying America.

How much contact with liberals have you had?

Being in NJ I have a lot of exposure to liberals. Some of my very best friends are deeply involved in state and municipal liberal politics. I'm liberal on a number of policies and I've voted for a number of Democrats, some fairly liberal Democrats.

Many of them think that the "Pop Tart" gun situation and zero tolerance rules in general are just plain stupid.

One thing I can tell you about "liberals" is that they are not, by any means, one single, homogeneous, unitary group.

No more than "conservatives" or "tea partiers" are one single, homogeneous, unitary group.

When you say "Look at the liberals, look at what they're doing!!!!" you're talking about the few liberals that have real power in government. The old school, institutional liberals, the left wing progressives, the folks that actually have a stake in providing handouts in order to keep themselves in power.

In terms of education you're talking about maybe the educated, pseudo-intellectually elite.

But if you're going to paint with a broad brush in terms of what leadership is doing and where policy is going you can't criticize the other side of the aisle for making the same charges in respect to the Tea Party "establishment".

What does that "establishment" look like?

It's the faaaaaaaaaar right "nutbag" fringe.

The Christine O'Donnell, ''What I believe is irrelevant.", fringe.

The Mark Williams, "[President Obama is a] Indonesian Muslim turned welfare thug.", fringe.

The Carl Paladino, ''There is nothing to be proud of in being a dysfunctional homosexual. That's not how God created us.'', fringe.

The Michele Bachmann, "I will tell you that I had a mother last night come up to me here in Tampa, Florida, after the debate. She told me that her little daughter took that vaccine, that injection, and she suffered from mental retardation thereafter.", fringe.

You don't think people looking at that kind of stone-cold crazy can draw generalizations about the Tea Parties too?

Come on man, apply the same standard to others that you apply to yourself.

Or better yet, raise your game.

 

[mak2]

Is the tea party really regarding Snowden as a hero? Really?

 

[Masada]

Pot, this is Kettle, are you black?

Seriously, I was just reading over on the "Obama can play with toy guns" thread where you were holding court on how "liberals this" and "liberals that" with the implied conclusion that liberals are destroying America.

How much contact with liberals have you had?

Being in NJ I have a lot of exposure to liberals. Some of my very best friends are deeply involved in state and municipal liberal politics. I'm liberal on a number of policies and I've voted for a number of Democrats, some fairly liberal Democrats.

Many of them think that the "Pop Tart" gun situation and zero tolerance rules in general are just plain stupid.

One thing I can tell you about "liberals" is that they are not, by any means, one single, homogeneous, unitary group.

No more than "conservatives" or "tea partiers" are one single, homogeneous, unitary group.

When you say "Look at the liberals, look at what they're doing!!!!" you're talking about the few liberals that have real power in government. The old school, institutional liberals, the left wing progressives, the folks that actually have a stake in providing handouts in order to keep themselves in power.

In terms of education you're talking about maybe the educated, pseudo-intellectually elite.

But if you're going to paint with a broad brush in terms of what leadership is doing and where policy is going you can't criticize the other side of the aisle for making the same charges in respect to the Tea Party "establishment".

What does that "establishment" look like?

It's the faaaaaaaaaar right "nutbag" fringe.

The Christine O'Donnell, ''What I believe is irrelevant.", fringe.

The Mark Williams, "[President Obama is a] Indonesian Muslim turned welfare thug.", fringe.

The Carl Paladino, ''There is nothing to be proud of in being a dysfunctional homosexual. That's not how God created us.'', fringe.

The Michele Bachmann, "I will tell you that I had a mother last night come up to me here in Tampa, Florida, after the debate. She told me that her little daughter took that vaccine, that injection, and she suffered from mental retardation thereafter.", fringe.

You don't think people looking at that kind of stone-cold crazy can draw generalizations about the Tea Parties too?

Come on man, apply the same standard to others that you apply to yourself.

Or better yet, raise your game.

I'm happy to see that you have taken interest in my posts, even in other threads. Perhaps you'll learn something.

Let's clear something up real quick, the tea party isn't "fringe", or "farrrrrr right". I'll be happy to go line by line through ANY tea party charter, and ask you what is not "mainstream" about them, or what is "fringe" beliefs.

Here, I'll use a few, then I'm going to illustrate the difference between tea partiers, and leftists/progressives. Because the two aren't even in the same galaxy.

Tell me what is "fringe", "radical", or "far right" about the following:
1. Limited government
2. Less government spending
3. Lower taxes
4. Opposition to single payer health care system
5. Pro Life
6. Pro immigration, yet anti ILLEGAL immigration
7. Constitutional integrity
8. Personal responsibility
9. Pro term limits

What is so "radical" or "fringe" about any of those issues? Tell me.....Because I don't see ANYTHING "fringe" about those issues or stances. Fact is, liberals think that JUST BECAUSE THEY SAY SOMETHING, IT'S TRUE. Soooo, if they say enough times that tea partiers are "fringe, kook, radicals", then it becomes their truth. I'm sure you truly believe tea partiers are radical kooks, the right "fringe". But just because the left has repeated it a million plus times, doesn't make it true. Just because the people at NBC agree with you, doesn't make it true.

Now, let's discuss one of the main differences in the tea party, and the progressive left.....

1. The Tea Party's goal is to MAINTAIN elements of American society, law, and politics. To PRESERVE Constitutional integrity for instance. The precise opposite is true of Progressive leftists. They don't like the Constitution necessarily. Progressives look upon the Constitution as "a charter of negative liberties". Now, those are also OBAMA'S OWN WORDS. He said that about the Constitution. Progressives are always trying to CHANGE the Constitution, or find ways around parts of the Constitution they don't like, like the 2nd amendment. Progressives by and large believe the Constitution tells government what it CANT do, but doesn't stipulate what it CAN do, so they push the Constitutional boundaries all the time. They believe the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, whereas the TEA PARTY believes the Constitution is intended to LIMIT government and their authority.

2. Tea party conservatives are by and large pro life. The exact opposite is true of the progressive left. To the point that they support abortion at any and all stages of pregnancy. What is more radical, protecting life from conception, or protecting the practice of ending life, even partially born outside a woman's womb? You tell me which is more "mainstream", and which mentality or philosophy is the "fringe" in our society. Because I can tell you, FAR more people are pro life than people who agree with partial birth abortion, or late term abortion. FAR MORE. So, who's fringe and who's not?

3. Tea Party conservatives believe in limited government, less spending, and lower taxes. What's fringe about that? The progressive left is precisely opposite. They espouse philosophies of larger and more centralized government, higher spending, and higher taxes, more entitlement spending, and larger more invasive government programs. Every single year, our country spends more money than the year before to address issues like poverty. But look at the results. Today, there are more people living in poverty than the year before, and more that year than the year before that, despite increasing spending dramatically. Doesn't work does it? If you say, "yes it does", you'd be a fool, and I would accuse you of ignorance, and rightfully so.

4. Tea Partiers believe in LEGAL immigration, while the progressive left believes illegal immigrants should be rewarded with amnesty. I mean, think about this issue. So, all these amnesty groups, like La Raza, organize and protest people's businesses and private homes. They threaten and intimidate politicians, like the Kansas Secretary of State, march on their personal homes, protest with bull horns, DEMANDING amnesty. So, they break the law to get here, they trespass on private property, not respecting the rights of Americans, then they have the audacity to DEMAND our country grant them amnesty with no strings attached? And this is what the progressive left supports. So, What message does THAT send? It says to immigrants world wide, "come to America, protest, threaten, break the law, and DEMAND they capitulate to you, and they will".

I could go all day. The first lie you told was that the tea party is somehow "fringe" or "farrrr right". They're not. Which is why I asked if yall have ever been to a tea party rally.

 

[soot]

I'm happy to see that you have taken interest in my posts, even in other threads. Perhaps you'll learn something.

So far what I've learned is that you need to learn how to read.

Let's clear something up real quick, the tea party isn't "fringe", or "farrrrrr right". I'll be happy to go line by line through ANY tea party charter, and ask you what is not "mainstream" about them, or what is "fringe" beliefs.

Go back through my comments and point out to me where I said that the Tea Party charter or any tenets of the Tea Party platform were fringe.

Then go back through what I wrote and point out where I generalized that rank-and-file Tea Party members were fringe.

You can't.

Because I said no such thing(s).

What I said is that many of the most vocal members of the Tea Party leadership of fringe.

I even named a few of the worst offenders.

Did you go back and reread what I'd said, like I told you to?

If so then you're probably nodding your head and agreeing with me right now.

So let me take it a step further.

What I was really saying is that some folks on the left take the stone-cold crazy, outrageous fringe things that those members of the leadership say and then, wrongly, extrapolate out to make generalizations about what every member of the numerous assorted Tea Parties must believe.

I suggested that perhaps you, personally, should make some allowances for that kind of behavior because it's the EXACT SAME THING that you do with to left.

My point is that cherry-picking the most outrageously offensive statements and positions of the most outrageously offensive and vocal members of the opposition and then extrapolating out to the point that you're painting all members of the opposition with that same broad brush is wrong.

It's wrong when the left does it to the Tea Parties.

It's wrong when you, and other conservatives do it to the left.

 

[Masada]

So far what I've learned is that you need to learn how to read.



Go back through my comments and point out to me where I said that the Tea Party charter or any tenets of the Tea Party platform were fringe.

Then go back through what I wrote and point out where I generalized that rank-and-file Tea Party members were fringe.

You can't.

Because I said no such thing(s).

What I said is that many of the most vocal members of the Tea Party leadership of fringe.

I even named a few of the worst offenders.

Did you go back and reread what I'd said, like I told you to?

If so then you're probably nodding your head and agreeing with me right now.

So let me take it a step further.

What I was really saying is that some folks on the left take the stone-cold crazy, outrageous fringe things that those members of the leadership say and then, wrongly, extrapolate out to make generalizations about what every member of the numerous assorted Tea Parties must believe.

I suggested that perhaps you, personally, should make some allowances for that kind of behavior because it's the EXACT SAME THING that you do with to left.

My point is that cherry-picking the most outrageously offensive statements and positions of the most outrageously offensive and vocal members of the opposition and then extrapolating out to the point that you're painting all members of the opposition with that same broad brush is wrong.

It's wrong when the left does it to the Tea Parties.

It's wrong when you, and other conservatives do it to the left.

There's a fundamental difference you don't seem to recognize. Those people on the "far right" you accuse of being kooks, might of said a couple of stupid things in their careers, but THEIR PHILOSOPHIES aren't "fringe". Case and point, Sarah Palin, she's said some stupid things in her career, but her philosophies are main stream American. She's about limited government, lower taxes, energy independence, pro life, self reliance and responsibility, pro constitutional integrity, pro gun. Those aren't "fringe" philosophies.

Now highlight the extemes of the left side of the isle. They're anti 2nd amendment, pro choice at any and all stages of pregnancy, pro amnesty, support higher taxes and redistribution of wealth schemes, support larger government, support higher spending, support greater entitlements. All of these issues work COUNTER to the constitution.

So, there's fundamental difference in what each "fringe" believes and espouses. One is EXTREME traditionalist, and the other is EXTREME about changing what America has traditionally stood for, the Constitution we were founded on, and the principles of a conservative society.

"Conservative" is an adjective, not a political statement. Anyone who argues that "conservatism" isn't good simply doesn't know the meaning of the word. Conserve our energy, conserve our Republic, conserve our freedoms, conserve nature, conserve our laws, conserve our liberties, conserve our money, conserve the reach of the central government. These are all philosophical touch stones of our Constitution, and all philosophies the progressive left works diligently to change and reverse.

So, while you may be able to identify the fact that each party has its' extremes, you are still trying to discredit them both simply for the sake of their extremity. Try comparing ideologies for once, philosophies. One extreme is extreme about PRESERVING American and Constitutional traditions, while the other is extreme about ERADICATING them.

When you come to this understanding, you'll stop trying to compare apples to oranges.

 

[soot]

Those people on the "far right" you accuse of being kooks, might of said a couple of stupid things in their careers, but THEIR PHILOSOPHIES aren't "fringe".

No.

They haven't said "a couple stupid things".

They say stupid things every time they get in front of a camera.

How?

Religion.

Conservative Christianity to be precise.

They're the idiological decendents of the Moral Majority, the Christian Coalition, Focus on the Family, and the Family Research Council.

And they can't say a God damn thing about anything without turning it into a come-ta-JAYsus(!!!) fundamentalist revival.

Anyone who argues that "conservatism" isn't good simply doesn't know the meaning of the word. Conserve our energy, conserve our Republic, conserve our freedoms, conserve nature, conserve our laws, conserve our liberties, conserve our money, conserve the reach of the central government. These are all philosophical touch stones of our Constitution, and all philosophies the progressive left works diligently to change and reverse.

I agree.

No kidding.

I support conserving pretty much all of those things.

But I don't support ANY of them because "God gave them to us as a gift when he created the world and all that is in it 4000 years ago and it's our duty to preserve God's bounty".

I won't vote for a leader who denies evolution, or calls for "the preservation of liberty" while doing everything in his or her power to limit liberty for any minority group they believe God has given them a divine mandate to discriminate against, or doesn't see the value in a very strict seperation between Church and State.

Understand that I have absolutely no problem with religion per se.

Your relationship with God is your relationship with God and I respect both your right to it and it (in and of itself).

But I don't want to live in a theocracy, or on the slope leading toward one. Period.

 

[Visbek]

Let's be clear on something: The hypocrisy can cut both ways.

Democrats who were livid about the Patriot Act and warrantless wiretapping are acting rather blasé about expansive NSA surveillance. Republicans didn't bat an eyelash about the Patriot Act and NSA surveillance are now livid about the same.

Such is the nature of partisanship.

 

[Thrilla]

Is the tea party really regarding Snowden as a hero? Really?

not that i'm aware of... but for the purposes of fanatical partisan idiocy, sure.. we can say they are.

 

[Masada]

No.

They haven't said "a couple stupid things".

They say stupid things every time they get in front of a camera.

How?

Religion.

Conservative Christianity to be precise.

They're the idiological decendents of the Moral Majority, the Christian Coalition, Focus on the Family, and the Family Research Council.

And they can't say a God damn thing about anything without turning it into a come-ta-JAYsus(!!!) fundamentalist revival.



I agree.

No kidding.

I support conserving pretty much all of those things.

But I don't support ANY of them because "God gave them to us as a gift when he created the world and all that is in it 4000 years ago and it's our duty to preserve God's bounty".

I won't vote for a leader who denies evolution, or calls for "the preservation of liberty" while doing everything in his or her power to limit liberty for any minority group they believe God has given them a divine mandate to discriminate against, or doesn't see the value in a very strict seperation between Church and State.

Understand that I have absolutely no problem with religion per se.

Your relationship with God is your relationship with God and I respect both your right to it and it (in and of itself).

But I don't want to live in a theocracy, or on the slope leading toward one. Period.

Well, it's obvious what your offense is. It's NOT politics, it's Christians and Christianity. I hate to break this fact to you, but MOST Americans are Christians, so the philosophies of Christians would be mainstream, and the philosphies of anti-christianity are what would be "fringe". Is it shifting? ya, I think so. But that's a whole other debate.

Do you believe our founders created a "theocracy"? Because I don't see any conservative, tea partier, or republican advocating we create a "theocracy". What I see are people wanting to protect and maintain Constitutional principles and integrity. Protect and maintain certain principles that once defined our society, and yes, many of those principles are based in Christian principle. The world you create has "zero tolerance" for anything "Christian". That's not what this country is, that's not what our founders created. That's the liberal/progressive wet dream. It's what liberal progressives WISH America was, but it's not, and it never has been.

Historically, we have been a nation that honored GOD, espoused Christian principles, without imposing them on society. No one is forcing you to be a Christian. Even if the government honored Christian principles, it isn't forcing you to be a Christian, to worship a certain way, to pledge allegience to a certain denomination or church. I mean, your straw man argument is almost too big to mount.

If a politician doesn't believe in evolution the same way you do, DON'T VOTE FOR HIM/HER. If they limit freedoms of others, DON'T VOTE FOR THEM. If they don't value YOUR VERSION of seperation of church and state, guess what? Don't vote for them.

What you really want is to BAN those types of people from government. While that's not a "theocratic" mindset, it's certainly a "despotic" one. Is your philosophy any different then?

You have a right to be an atheist, or anything you'd like. But you don't have a right to demand that Christians take a back seat when it comes to politics. Period.

 

[soot]

Well, it's obvious what your offense is. It's NOT politics, it's Christians and Christianity.

No, it's political policy as a means of forcing what should be a matter of personal morality on society as a whole.

Christianity happens to be the religion involved because, as you say, Christianity is the majority religion in the U.S. but I have nothing against Christianity in and of itself.

If it was Muslims or Buddhists trying to legislate their morality/theology I'd be no more or less opposed.

I hate to break this fact to you, but MOST Americans are Christians, so the philosophies of Christians would be mainstream, and the philosphies of anti-christianity are what would be "fringe". Is it shifting? ya, I think so. But that's a whole other debate.

I understand that. As such, MOST of my friends are Christians. But I don't want them in my bedroom anymore than I want complete stranger Christians in Washington in my bedroom.

Do you believe our founders created a "theocracy"? Because I don't see any conservative, tea partier, or republican advocating we create a "theocracy". What I see are people wanting to protect and maintain Constitutional principles and integrity. Protect and maintain certain principles that once defined our society, and yes, many of those principles are based in Christian principle. The world you create has "zero tolerance" for anything "Christian". That's not what this country is, that's not what our founders created. That's the liberal/progressive wet dream. It's what liberal progressives WISH America was, but it's not, and it never has been.

You've got it bassackwards.

What far-right-wing-fringe Christians have is "zero tolerance" for anything that isn't strictly defined in terms of their religion.

Hence, my problem with the far-right-wing-fringe.

Historically, we have been a nation that honored GOD, espoused Christian principles, without imposing them on society. No one is forcing you to be a Christian. Even if the government honored Christian principles, it isn't forcing you to be a Christian, to worship a certain way, to pledge allegience to a certain denomination or church. I mean, your straw man argument is almost too big to mount.

Nonsense. Christian principals have been forced on this nation since the day it was founded.

Look, I'm pro life, but for scientific, biological reasons. Okay. I oppose abortion because I believe it's murder and I believe that all human beings have a right to life until they forefit that right through their own actions (in which case I believe very strongly in capital punishment). I can accept abortion in cases of rape, incest, or a grave and demonstrable medical threat to the life of the mother. I hate the fact that aboortion is used essentially as a form of irresponsible birth control.

But in accepting abortion in cases of rape, incest, or a grave and demonstrable medical threat to the life of the mother I part ways with the far-right-wing-fringe because they believe that even in (what I consider to be) such perfectly reasonable exceptions abortion is a "sin".

That's legislating by religious fiat, which I have no interest in or use for.

I'm perfectly fine with you not having an abortion under any circumstances. But I don't believe that you have any right to tell my wife or daughter that they have no right to an abortion if they're raped because you believe that it's a sin (that I don't believe in).

If a politician doesn't believe in evolution the same way you do, DON'T VOTE FOR HIM/HER. If they limit freedoms of others, DON'T VOTE FOR THEM. If they don't value YOUR VERSION of seperation of church and state, guess what? Don't vote for them.

Well, duhhh.

Obviously I don't. What you really want is to BAN those types of people from government.

Where do you get that from?

Seriously, explain that.

When did I say I want to ban anyone from anything?

But you don't have a right to demand that Christians take a back seat when it comes to politics. Period.

Of course I do. By wanting them to take a back seat I'm still perfectly content with them getting on the bus. I just don't want them steering it.

Isn't that, essentially, the same thing you want?

You don't want to ban progressives from running for office (because, as you say, that would be despotic, and I'm assuming that you're not a despot). But you don't want them driving the bus. You don't want this country governed exclusively by progressive principals (and while I'm a little more accepting of some of them then you are I certainly don't want the far-left-wing-fringe governing this country exclusively either).

So why is it that what's good for you (the goose) is not equally good for me (the gander)?

 

[Masada]

No, it's political policy as a means of forcing what should be a matter of personal morality on society as a whole.

Christianity happens to be the religion involved because, as you say, Christianity is the majority religion in the U.S. but I have nothing against Christianity in and of itself.

If it was Muslims or Buddhists trying to legislate their morality/theology I'd be no more or less opposed.



I understand that. As such, MOST of my friends are Christians. But I don't want them in my bedroom anymore than I want complete stranger Christians in Washington in my bedroom.



You've got it bassackwards.

What far-right-wing-fringe Christians have is "zero tolerance" for anything that isn't strictly defined in terms of their religion.

Hence, my problem with the far-right-wing-fringe.



Nonsense. Christian principals have been forced on this nation since the day it was founded.

Look, I'm pro life, but for scientific, biological reasons. Okay. I oppose abortion because I believe it's murder and I believe that all human beings have a right to life until they forefit that right through their own actions (in which case I believe very strongly in capital punishment). I can accept abortion in cases of rape, incest, or a grave and demonstrable medical threat to the life of the mother. I hate the fact that aboortion is used essentially as a form of irresponsible birth control.

But in accepting abortion in cases of rape, incest, or a grave and demonstrable medical threat to the life of the mother I part ways with the far-right-wing-fringe because they believe that even in (what I consider to be) such perfectly reasonable exceptions abortion is a "sin".

That's legislating by religious fiat, which I have no interest in or use for.

I'm perfectly fine with you not having an abortion under any circumstances. But I don't believe that you have any right to tell my wife or daughter that they have no right to an abortion if they're raped because you believe that it's a sin (that I don't believe in).



Well, duhhh.



Where do you get that from?

Seriously, explain that.

When did I say I want to ban anyone from anything?



Of course I do. By wanting them to take a back seat I'm still perfectly content with them getting on the bus. I just don't want them steering it.

Isn't that, essentially, the same thing you want?

You don't want to ban progressives from running for office (because, as you say, that would be despotic, and I'm assuming that you're not a despot). But you don't want them driving the bus. You don't want this country governed exclusively by progressive principals (and while I'm a little more accepting of some of them then you are I certainly don't want the far-left-wing-fringe governing this country exclusively either).

So why is it that what's good for you (the goose) is not equally good for me (the gander)?

Pardon me if I pick through this, maybe not in order.

There's a difference between who "should" be driving the bus, and who actually "is" driving the bus. We do live in a Democratic Republic do we not? But America has become a nation that cannot be governed at all, because somewhere along the way, we've perverted the interpretation of "majority rules" while maintaining protections of minorities.

I believe the majority should drive the bus. Politically, and socially. I mentioned a "perversion" along the way. Here's what I think part of it is. Promotion has become synonymous with creation. In other words, if the government even "promotes" Christianity or Christian principles, people have perversly interpreted that as "creating" a state sponsored religion. This is such a fundamental lie and gross misinterpretation. Every single President in American history has claimed to be a "Christian". Now, that's "promoting" Christianity without "establishing" Christianity as a state sponsored religion, or establishing a "theocracy". Mere promotion of Christian principles is not "forcing" those principles on individuals. You may not be a Christian, which doesn't disqualify you from being a citizen, it doesn't prevent you from working, it doesn't prevent you from voting, it doesn't prevent you from pursuing your own happiness, it doesn't prevent you from owning property, it doesn't prevent you from joining the armed forces. In other words, it doesn't impede your freedom.

Early in our nation, the founders DID espouse Christian principles, but they disqualified rights to no one based on their belief or non belief in that religion. This brings up the other side of the coin concerning "perversion" of interpretations over time in our society. And it's the word "right". Today, people argue they have a "right" to anything and everything, and this has been the argument of the progressive left for decades. I have a right to an education, a right to a job, a right to a house, a right to marry whatever and whoever I want, a right to use abortion as a contraceptive, a right to a free phone, a right to certain federal benefits, a right for this, that. These people have completely lost touch with the spirit of America. Our country does gaurantee certain rights, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Everything else is a privaledge and opportunity. I don't have a "right" to a job, I have the opportunity to work in a country like America and earn a ton of money. I don't have a "right" to an education, I have an opportunity to attend world class schools to make myself smarter and more competitive. I don't have a right to government benefits, I have the privaledge to live in a country that if times get real bad, I have a government that will help me out. I don't have a "right" to kill another human being through abortion, I have the privaledge of bringing life into this world.

It's a mindset, a philosophy. And truth be told, if you really understood Christianity, you would recognize that the grand idea of America itself is ONLY POSSIBLE within Christian philosophy. Christian philosophy espouses personal freedom, choice, faith, moral goodness, kindness, love for your neighbor, self reliance, responsibility, discipline, charity, but above all things, love. I understand why you have a sour taste in your mouth towards fundamentalist Christianity. But understand, they too have perverted a lot of Christian principles themselves.

I also believe in moral law, not subjective morality. Therefore, I judge things on a "right and wrong" basis. So then it becomes pretty easy for me really:

abortion: Morally right or wrong?
homosexuality: morally right or wrong?
murder: morally right or wrong?
class warfare and stirring up animosity between classes: morally right or wrong?
starting wars we shouldn't: morally right or wrong?
taking money from citizens when the government wastes so much already: morally right or wrong?
breaking the law: morally right or wrong?

Liberal progressives espouse philosophies that work COUNTER to American traditions, constitutional integrity, Christian principles, and moral goodness. I can back that up with a million examples. This is why I oppose them, not because of politics, but because of their philosophies on virtually everything.

 

[thinkforyoursel]

Tell me what is "fringe", "radical", or "far right" about the following:
1. Limited government
2. Less government spending
3. Lower taxes
4. Opposition to single payer health care system
5. Pro Life
6. Pro immigration, yet anti ILLEGAL immigration
7. Constitutional integrity
8. Personal responsibility
9. Pro term limits

And this is the problem with the republicans = libetarians=neo-cons= tea party......go ahead re-label yourselves all you like .....but you my friend are tied to a meaningless ideology!! Republicans/Tea party candidates ...ONLY SAY THOSE WORDS....thats all they do REPEAT THOSE WORDS OVER AND OVER ...and you guys think they mean any of it!!

For example item number 5 ...pro-life .....cancel item number one and two.....because the pro life wing nuts are all about legeslating laws to control others!! Right now ..today with millions unemployed they passed another abortion bill banning all and every abortion ...and the little crack they left there for rape is all but meaningless!!!

Small ...limited government my ass!!!

The Tea-party...like the republicans believe in less taxes .....LESS TAXES FOR THE WEALTHY...ONLY!!! There was no reason why they couldn't repeal the bush tax on the wealthy ...instead the conned the dems into passingsome weak bill thats fraught with loop holes!! Loop holes that you and I can never take advantage of!

Items 7 ...8 and 9...like I saiid ...even in the initial post of this thread ......OBAMA DID NOT START THE NSA PROGRAM......BUSH AND CHENEY DID!!!

Listen ...you and whatever new label you want to use ...ARE NOT NEW PEOPLE WHO SUDDENLY DROPPED FROM THE SKY!! You people roared and cheered when Bush was ......GROWING THE GOVERNMENT!!!
And I am 100% sure given another opportunity.....you people will do it again...because you always do everything out of SPITE!!

99% of what you froth at the mouth for because Obama is president....get a republican in the WH and you flip 180 degree and DEFEND IT!!

Where the hell were the tea party marching in the streets then for their liberty...where where those FRAUDS??

You people are just an empty vessel laying wide open to be CONNED ...over and over again by the Sarah Palins and Rush Limbaughs out there!!

The dems get conned ..too I agree ...but like I said ....they always think about their self interest...they vote for their personal welfare!!

MOVE TO RAWANDA ....and you can get most of what you want on your top ten list!!

Look at my handle ...THINK-FOR-YOUR-SELF ...I wish to God you people try that sometime ....stop reading those stupid books and know that you....you can have the answer!!!