Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a troll by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldnt be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill, is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Dumb Things Liberals Say

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Dumb Things Liberals Say

    Of course, conservatives and Republicans never ever say anything "dumb".....

    We need to uptick our image with everyone, including one-armed midgets. ~ Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele

    Exercise freaks are the ones putting stress on the health care system. ~ Rush Limbaugh

    Good Christians, like slaves and soldiers, ask no questions. ~ Jerry Falwell

    Grown men should not be having sex with prostitutes unless they are married to them. ~ Jerry Falwell

    Facts are stupid things. ~ Ronald Reagan

    [America has to import so many workers because] for the last 35 years we have aborted more than a million people who would have been in our workforce. ~ Mike Huckabee

    The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians. ~ Pat Robertson

    President Washington, President Lincoln, President Wilson, President Roosevelt have all authorized electronic surveillance on a far broader scale.~ Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, testifying before Congress

    I find it interesting that it was back in the 1970s that the swine flu broke out under another, then under another Democrat president, Jimmy Carter. Im not blaming this on President Obama, I just think its an interesting coincidence. ~ Rep. Michele Bachmann

    Carbon dioxide is portrayed as harmful. But there isnt even one study that can be produced that shows that carbon dioxide is a harmful gas. ~ Rep. Michele Bachmann

    Capital punishment is our way of demonstrating the sanctity of life. ~ Orrin Hatch

    LiberalAmerica.org | 60 Ridiculously Stupid Republican Quotes - LiberalAmerica.org

    ?


    • #17
      Re: Dumb Things Liberals Say

      Chuck isn't a Liberal he's a thieving political hack. He's figured out how the political gravy train works and has been milking it for years. He's a fraudulent abuser of power and influence that is a living embodiment of what can be wrong with our political system.

      ?


      • #18
        Re: Dumb Things Liberals Say

        Originally posted by USCitizen View Post
        It is about recognizing governmental legislation.
        If you don't like the legislation, conjure a way to change it.
        I believe I included corruption in my posting.
        No it really is not. This is what happens when you try to apply something written in that context to today's condition. Matthew 22:15-22 is specifically about Jewish Authority at the time trying to trap Jesus in what can be more accurately described as a religious vs. state authority issue.

        Again, that understanding of history apparently few were awake for.

        At the time of these stories being written Jews were under Roman authority, thus the Jews resented these foreign rulers and resented having to pay taxes to them. The term "Caesar" holds value to the scripture as who's face was generally on that coin? The entire point of Matthew 22:15-22 was to show how Jesus would respond to dealing with an authority dilemma. Was he loyal to religion, or was he loyal to the state?

        If Jesus has answered this question in the either / or category he would have fallen into the trap. If he answered state, he would be exposed in front of others. If he answered religion, he would be turned over to that same authority the Jews disliked themselves. Again, history. The Jews may have hated foreign authority but they often worked with them to ensure they could continue on with their own goals. It was not uncommon for Rome to allow local leadership to affect faith, so long as Rome got its tax. For Rome it was about stability. In short, the Jewish authority at the time were nothing but hypocrites wanting that collection of power and wealth to go to them. They did not want the competition message Jesus brought to the table, on top of having to deal with Rome.

        Jesus however (if you belief in the concept of omnipotent) answered in a third way, not selecting state or religion. Jesus confronted the question with who's image is on the coin. In historical context it was common for coin to be branded with the image of these rulers, thus in historical context those coins were regarded as the property of the state. Not the person. The coin had value because the ruler would say as much. The Jewish authority at the time were using Roman coin. So Jesus answered with a passive confrontation.

        What belongs to Caesar should be given to Caesar. It all belonged to the state anyway, Jesus was not interested in wealth. When Jesus said give to God what is God's it could be argued well Jesus was not talking about coin at all. If you believe all of the bible then each person is a stamp of God's image, that is what Jesus was referring to. Give wealth to those blinded by it, give yourself to God. Jesus was saying faith was not about coin at all, not about tax. That answer must have really upset the Jewish authority, but amazed others. Again, Jesus spent the majority of his adult life speaking against the Jewish practices (at the time) who were all about the collection of wealth, concentration of power, showing faith by sacrifice, and so forth.

        Matthew 22:15-22 is all about Jesus handling a hypocritical trap by Jewish Authority. What it is not is a message of "recognizing governmental legislation," or government sponsorship of wealth redistribution, or anything of the like.

        Open a book...
        Last edited by Sluggo; 09-26-2013, 05:01 AM.

        ?


        • #19
          Re: Dumb Things Liberals Say

          Originally posted by Sluggo View Post
          No it really is not. This is what happens when you try to apply something written in that context to today's condition. Matthew 22:15-22 is specifically about Jewish Authority at the time trying to trap Jesus in what can be more accurately described as a religious vs. state authority issue.

          Again, that understanding of history apparently few were awake for.

          At the time of these stories being written Jews were under Roman authority, thus the Jews resented these foreign rulers and resented having to pay taxes to them. The term "Caesar" holds value to the scripture as who's face was generally on that coin? The entire point of Matthew 22:15-22 was to show how Jesus would respond to dealing with an authority dilemma. Was he loyal to religion, or was he loyal to the state?

          If Jesus has answered this question in the either / or category he would have fallen into the trap. If he answered state, he would be exposed in front of others. If he answered religion, he would be turned over to that same authority the Jews disliked themselves. Again, history. The Jews may have hated foreign authority but they often worked with them to ensure they could continue on with their own goals. It was not uncommon for Rome to allow local leadership to affect faith, so long as Rome got its tax. For Rome it was about stability. In short, the Jewish authority at the time were nothing but hypocrites wanting that collection of power and wealth to go to them. They did not want the competition message Jesus brought to the table, on top of having to deal with Rome.

          Jesus however (if you belief in the concept of omnipotent) answered in a third way, not selecting state or religion. Jesus confronted the question with who's image is on the coin. In historical context it was common for coin to be branded with the image of these rulers, thus in historical context those coins were regarded as the property of the state. Not the person. The coin had value because the ruler would say as much. The Jewish authority at the time were using Roman coin. So Jesus answered with a passive confrontation.

          What belongs to Caesar should be given to Caesar. It all belonged to the state anyway, Jesus was not interested in wealth. When Jesus said give to God what is God's it could be argued well Jesus was not talking about coin at all. If you believe all of the bible then each person is a stamp of God's image, that is what Jesus was referring to. Give wealth to those blinded by it, give yourself to God. Jesus was saying Christianity was not about coin at all, not about tax. That answer must have really upset the Jewish authority, but amazed others. Again, Jesus spent the majority of his adult life speaking against the Jewish practices (at the time) who were all about the collection of wealth, concentration of power, showing faith by sacrifice, and so forth.

          Matthew 22:15-22 is all about Jesus handling a hypocritical trap by Jewish Authority. What it is not is a message of "recognizing governmental legislation," or government sponsorship of wealth redistribution, or anything of the like.

          Open a book...
          You are completely correct. In order to understand the Bible, you must understand who each passage was addressing. Was it addressing a specific group of the day or was it addressing the church in general. People take verses out of context all the time when it suits their agenda.

          ?


          • #20
            Re: Dumb Things Liberals Say

            Originally posted by noahath
            Of course, conservatives and Republicans never ever say anything "dumb".....
            Come on, Noah: Foul ball!

            You have all the opportunity in the world to open your own thread for dumb things Conservatives say ... and I'm sure a lot will join you over there.

            ?


            • #21
              Re: Dumb Things Liberals Say

              Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
              I always love it when Libs say we shouldn't force Biblical values on people but then quote Jesus when it suits their goals. We shouldn't heed God when he says homosexual behavior is an abomination but we should somehow interpret Jesus' words to mean that the government can tax one to support another and that we should enforce that with a law.
              That is laughable, Jesus never mentions homosexuality and hardly speaks of sexual things. He speaks often about the poor. Hmmm, you want laws against homosexuality (the government) but don't want the government to assist in feeding the poor. I wonder what Jesus would do.

              ?


              • #22
                Re: Dumb Things Liberals Say

                Originally posted by compote_tom View Post
                That is laughable, Jesus never mentions homosexuality and hardly speaks of sexual things. He speaks often about the poor. Hmmm, you want laws against homosexuality (the government) but don't want the government to assist in feeding the poor. I wonder what Jesus would do.
                I find it rather disingenuous the constant and untrue repetition that the conservative perspective is against assisting the poor. It is not.

                The truth of the matter is that the conservative perspective is against the government supporting the poor indefinitely via forced charity, and would much rather have the charity given freely from local resources rather than the federal government.

                Granted, your post specifically calls out 'government feeding the poor', but as is often the case from the liberal perspective it's called out as 'conservatives against the poor', which amounts to little more than a liberal politicians talking point trumpeted throughout the Biased Lame Stream Media, and often repeated verbatim by many of the liberal perspective.

                All this trumpeting and verbatim repeating doesn't make the point any more true, which is not true at all.

                ?


                • #23
                  Re: Dumb Things Liberals Say

                  Originally posted by compote_tom View Post
                  That is laughable, Jesus never mentions homosexuality and hardly speaks of sexual things. He speaks often about the poor. Hmmm, you want laws against homosexuality (the government) but don't want the government to assist in feeding the poor. I wonder what Jesus would do.
                  Congratulations, Tom: You just made the list of "Dumb things Liberals Say!"

                  IMO, if you're going to try to argue Biblical concepts, you should read the whole Bible, and not just cherry-pick those snippets you believe supports your position.

                  In your statement here, you twist concepts together to make your case but anyone here who is even passingly familiar with Scripture knows you're talking through your hat. SO:

                  • Matthew 5:17-20 reveals to us Jesus' perspective on The Law. Simply put, He came to fulfill the law, not to abolish or replace it. So, since He supports the law, please cross-reference Leviticus 18:22 for God's perspective on homosexuality (which is shared by Jesus, of course).
                  • Jesus speaks frequently about feeding the poor and taking care of the widows and orphans. But He was not speaking to governments: HE was speaking to His followers individually. He told ME to look after the poor ... and He told Dan to look out for the poor (et al) ... What He did not say was "Give your money to the government so they can feed the poor."
                  • I do not wonder what Jesus would do. I'm pretty sure what he would do.

                  ?


                  • #24
                    Re: Dumb Things Liberals Say

                    Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post
                    I find it rather disingenuous the constant and untrue repetition that the conservative perspective is against assisting the poor. It is not.
                    Pretty much it is. Of course it's couched in other language, but it is. Cutting Medicaid, Food stamps ect is always a part of the conservative agenda.

                    The truth of the matter is that the conservative perspective is against the government supporting the poor indefinitely via forced charity
                    Forced Charity? Is that referring to taxes? Or welfare? No one is forced to receive food stamps, Medicaid, Medicare, or almost any program. You have to apply.

                    which amounts to little more than a liberal politicians talking point trumpeted throughout the Biased Lame Stream Media, and often repeated verbatim by many of the liberal perspective.
                    An overused meaningless phrase use to refer to any news outlet other that Fox news. That's just regurgitating rhetoric.
                    Last edited by OldmanDan; 09-26-2013, 02:33 PM.

                    ?


                    • #25
                      Re: Dumb Things Liberals Say

                      Guam will Capsize and Tip Over into the ocean Hank Johnson - YouTube

                      ?


                      • #26
                        Re: Dumb Things Liberals Say

                        Originally posted by Good1 View Post
                        Congratulations, Tom: You just made the list of "Dumb things Liberals Say!"

                        IMO, if you're going to try to argue Biblical concepts, you should read the whole Bible, and not just cherry-pick those snippets you believe supports your position.

                        In your statement here, you twist concepts together to make your case but anyone here who is even passingly familiar with Scripture knows you're talking through your hat. SO:

                        • Matthew 5:17-20 reveals to us Jesus' perspective on The Law. Simply put, He came to fulfill the law, not to abolish or replace it. So, since He supports the law, please cross-reference Leviticus 18:22 for God's perspective on homosexuality (which is shared by Jesus, of course).
                        • Jesus speaks frequently about feeding the poor and taking care of the widows and orphans. But He was not speaking to governments: HE was speaking to His followers individually. He told ME to look after the poor ... and He told Dan to look out for the poor (et al) ... What He did not say was "Give your money to the government so they can feed the poor."
                        • I do not wonder what Jesus would do. I'm pretty sure what he would do.
                        Wow. Complains about cherrypicking then cherrypicks.
                        You realize that Leviticus, Deuteronomy etc. the old jewish laws, had alot in there about not working on the sabbath, stoning adulteresses etc......... Shall I quote the section of the Bible where Christ goes directly against the old laws by NOT stoning an adulteress and instead shames the crowd gathered to stone her into going home with their tails between their legs?
                        Shall I pick another example of him going against the law? How about where he removes the idea of constantly sacrificing? Or causes the curtain in the temple to be torn asunder, forever uniting the people directly with god without having to go through the Torah legit priest caste first?

                        (̅_̅_̅(̅(̅_̅_̅_̅_̅_̅̅()ڪ

                        Originally posted by compote_tom View Post
                        PHP Code:
                        I find it rather disingenuous the constant and untrue repetition that the conservative perspective is against assisting the poorIt is not
                        Pretty much it is. Of course it's couched in other language, but it is. Cutting Medicaid, Food stamps ect is always a part of the conservative agenda.


                        PHP Code:
                         The truth of the matter is that the conservative perspective is against the government supporting the poor indefinitely via [B]forced charity[/B
                        Forced Charity? Is that referring to taxes? Or welfare? No one is forced to receive food stamps, Medicaid, Medicare, or almost any program. You have to apply.

                        PHP Code:
                         which amounts to little more than a liberal politicians talking point trumpeted throughout the[BBiased Lame Stream Media,[/B] and often repeated verbatim by many of the liberal perspective
                        An overused meaningless phrase use to refer to any news outlet other that Fox news. That's just regurgitating rhetoric.
                        tom forced charity obviously refers to taking my tax dollars and giving them to someone else (welfare) for nothing. Don't be obtuse.

                        ?


                        • #27
                          Re: Dumb Things Liberals Say

                          Idk if this has been done yet but "What difference does it make at this point" is a good one.

                          Gore's hockey stick graph is another favorite of mine. And the lockbox

                          ?


                          • #28
                            Re: Dumb Things Liberals Say

                            Originally posted by compote_tom View Post
                            I find it rather disingenuous the constant and untrue repetition that the conservative perspective is against assisting the poor. It is not.
                            Pretty much it is. Of course it's couched in other language, but it is. Cutting Medicaid, Food stamps ect is always a part of the conservative agenda.
                            These programs need to be cut back because the number of illegitimate and fraudulent claims and exploded the costs beyond what can be shouldered by those to pay taxes. Democrats just love to enslave people with benefits from the government. It maintains their voting block. The progressive and liberals in congress as well as the administration, bloat the programs, fund them with taxes continuously burdening the producers in society for the benefit of the non-producers in society. The conservatives want to restore the balance. It goes back to the 'give a fish or teach to fish' argument. The liberals and progressives want to give fish so that the people receiving the fish stay dependent on the fish, and continue to vote them into office; to maintain their power base.

                            Originally posted by compote_tom View Post
                            The truth of the matter is that the conservative perspective is against the government supporting the poor indefinitely via forced charity
                            Forced Charity? Is that referring to taxes? Or welfare? No one is forced to receive food stamps, Medicaid, Medicare, or almost any program. You have to apply.
                            Forced charity as in taxes, yes. Since when did anyone have any choice about what the government thought you owe them in taxes? None at all.

                            True, no one is forcing anyone onto welfare, other than the loss of income should someone on welfare wants to work at something - currently structured as a disincentive to work, that's a problem. Of course, no one is forcing the able bodied off of welfare either. That's also part of the problem.

                            Originally posted by compote_tom View Post
                            which amounts to little more than a liberal politicians talking point trumpeted throughout the Biased Lame Stream Media, and often repeated verbatim by many of the liberal perspective.
                            An overused meaningless phrase use to refer to any news outlet other that Fox news. That's just regurgitating rhetoric.
                            It's not regurgitating anything from anyone. I believe I was the first to use the phrase Biased Lame Stream Media. I took it from no one. Looking at the media, http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/cult...edia-bias.html, it's pretty clear that they are by and large progressive / liberal, and are mostly centered around the New York City (and East Coast) Liberal Echo Chamber, from which they receive their talking points which they faithfully parrot.

                            You want to get away from BLSM? Force 1/2 of the news outlets from New York and spread them between the major cities across the nation. Then we'd have a far more level handed reporting of the news.

                            ?


                            • #29
                              Re: Dumb Things Liberals Say

                              Originally posted by reality View Post
                              Wow. Complains about cherrypicking then cherrypicks.
                              You realize that Leviticus, Deuteronomy etc. the old jewish laws, had alot in there about not working on the sabbath, stoning adulteresses etc......... Shall I quote the section of the Bible where Christ goes directly against the old laws by NOT stoning an adulteress and instead shames the crowd gathered to stone her into going home with their tails between their legs?
                              Shall I pick another example of him going against the law? How about where he removes the idea of constantly sacrificing? Or causes the curtain in the temple to be torn asunder, forever uniting the people directly with god without having to go through the Torah legit priest caste first?
                              I'm not cherry-picking, friend: That was a direct response to Tom's post (where he specified homosexuality and no other sin). Sure, you can line up the Levitical law on any or all you choose ... but you won't be responding to a specific post in so doing.

                              Further, you mentioned Jesus "not stoning an adulteress" but that is not exactly what happened. They were already going to stone her and his admonition to them was "...he who is without sin, let him cast the first stone." Had there been anyone there without sin, the stoning would still have gone on, but Jesus was very adept at knowing peoples' hearts: HE KNEW there was no one there without sin other than Himself. ALSO, please understand Jesus came to fulfill the law: That means He assumed all the punishment for sin on Himself. NOT the punishments prescribed in The Law ... but the ultimate punishment for all sin, of all mankind.

                              (̅_̅_̅(̅(̅_̅_̅_̅_̅_̅̅()ڪ

                              Originally posted by reality View Post
                              Idk if this has been done yet but "What difference does it make at this point" is a good one.

                              Gore's hockey stick graph is another favorite of mine. And the lockbox
                              I don't know how this thread went on so long without
                              What difference does it at this point make -Hillary Clinton
                              Thanks for bringing it up.

                              ?


                              • #30
                                Re: Dumb Things Liberals Say

                                Originally posted by Good1 View Post
                                I'm not cherry-picking, friend: That was a direct response to Tom's post (where he specified homosexuality and no other sin). Sure, you can line up the Levitical law on any or all you choose ... but you won't be responding to a specific post in so doing.

                                Further, you mentioned Jesus "not stoning an adulteress" but that is not exactly what happened. They were already going to stone her and his admonition to them was "...he who is without sin, let him cast the first stone." Had there been anyone there without sin, the stoning would still have gone on, but Jesus was very adept at knowing peoples' hearts: HE KNEW there was no one there without sin other than Himself. ALSO, please understand Jesus came to fulfill the law: That means He assumed all the punishment for sin on Himself. NOT the punishments prescribed in The Law ... but the ultimate punishment for all sin, of all mankind.

                                (̅_̅_̅(̅(̅_̅_̅_̅_̅_̅̅()ڪ



                                I don't know how this thread went on so long without


                                Thanks for bringing it up.
                                Hate to disagree with you (not really) but I was responding to a particular post. YOURS. You stated Christ didn't come to change any of the laws etc... except that he did change the laws. He replaced the thousand+ rules of the old testament with "Love your neighbor as yourself.".
                                I'm well aware of what the stoning (or lack thereof) and His statement meant. He was saying "You people are a bunch of rabid animals and filthy sinners all, none of you better than this strumpet, but you don't see me smiting the shit out of you. Leave the skank alone and let me handle it in my own way as I am God and you are not, or maybe I will start casting the first stone on the lot of you."
                                Which goes directly against the law as written. So he DID change it. You can call that "fulfilling" (when what they mean by fulfilling is the prophecy of the messiah) or whatever semantic game you want to play to make yourself feel better about your belief system. Doesn't change what happened (or rather what happened was change).
                                He took us from a strict rules lawyer style system laid out in a religious text to a personal relationship with one's own deity to whom one is solely accountable for judgement. That is the whole point of "judge not lest ye be judged". Those that are in glass houses should sit down and be quiet about the failings of others. "Thou hypocrite, remove the beam from thine own eye before complaining about the speck in your brother's". What does that say to you when coupled with his other statements? To me it says "you are a sinner. you are damned except for I save you. So shut the fuck up and play nice, and quit being such a dick about it."

                                Also, the "render unto caesar" quote can be taken a different way. God is God. Everything is God's. Nothing rightly belongs to man, not even Caesar. But then one would have to truly understand and believe the Word to catch that and the Pharisees don't strike me as those sort of people. They tried to catch him with a word game, he answered honestly and still tripped them up without compromising his views or lying (which is a sin).



                                yeah hilary has some good ones. another fav of mine isn't so much a quote but her reaction to losing a state primary where she cried like a little girl that nobody liked her.

                                ?

                                Working...
                                X