Bluegrassrivals

Per a discussion in another thread, do you think America is getting more liberal and "immoral" according to your standards?

In one word ...Yes. If you don't think so, take some time and walk the halls between classes at your local high school.

Our society is dying, Liberals and conservatives are fighting against each other over stupidity like gun control, and gay marriage. All the while we are losing rights every day, Hey TRV I thought liberals were supposed to be against more government control? But I guess you have fallen into politician worship and don't realize the writing on the wall is that we are moving close to the kind of government we have fought wars to stop for 60 years. And no before any of the dems on here say anything I am not saying Obama is Like Hitler, he isn't that smart. However he is a hell of a lot like the leaders of the Weimar republic, ineffectual government is destroying us, and we are all too caught up in social issues to notice that we are bankrupt, and losing the guiding principles of our nation.

PaintsvilleTigerfan Wrote:Our society is dying, Liberals and conservatives are fighting against each other over stupidity like gun control, and gay marriage. All the while we are losing rights every day, Hey TRV I thought liberals were supposed to be against more government control? But I guess you have fallen into politician worship and don't realize the writing on the wall is that we are moving close to the kind of government we have fought wars to stop for 60 years. And no before any of the dems on here say anything I am not saying Obama is Like Hitler, he isn't that smart. However he is a hell of a lot like the leaders of the Weimar republic, ineffectual government is destroying us, and we are all too caught up in social issues to notice that we are bankrupt, and losing the guiding principles of our nation.

Are you sure you don't mean conservatives, libertarians, and republicans? BTW, I just asked a question for a poll, and didn't interject my beliefs on liberal, conservative, or libertarian. I simply asked if you thought our country was getting more liberal and immoral, according to your beliefs.

TheRealVille Wrote:Are you sure you don't mean conservatives, libertarians, and republicans? BTW, I just asked a question for a poll, and didn't interject my beliefs on liberal, conservative, or libertarian. I simply asked if you thought our country was getting more liberal and immoral, according to your beliefs.

The whole idea of liberalism is protecting the bill of rights, other than the 2a (never figured that one out). Hence why all civil rights issues are a liberal issue. Groups like the NAACP, ACLU, and SPLC, as just a few examples are all heavily liberal. So you would think a liberal like you would despise Obama over his continuing the destruction of the bill of rights. The NDAA, Use of drones, and the 1.6 Billion rounds of hollow point ammo, along with Fast and furious , and Benghazi. My point in this was that these social issues have no place in a federal government that is bankrupting itself and taking away its peoples civil rights. And as to your original question the US is losing morals but not becoming more liberal, they are not synonymous with each other. It seems to me more and more people want to let their states decide what the people want. Which is how the constitution was written. Once more when the Government cant even put a budget in place they have no business even breathing of gay marriage, or gun control.

PaintsvilleTigerfan Wrote:The whole idea of liberalism is protecting the bill of rights, other than the 2a (never figured that one out). Hence why all civil rights issues are a liberal issue. Groups like the NAACP, ACLU, and SPLC, as just a few examples are all heavily liberal. So you would think a liberal like you would despise Obama over his continuing the destruction of the bill of rights. The NDAA, Use of drones, and the 1.6 Billion rounds of hollow point ammo, along with Fast and furious , and Benghazi. My point in this was that these social issues have no place in a federal government that is bankrupting itself and taking away its peoples civil rights. And as to your original question the US is losing morals but not becoming more liberal, they are not synonymous with each other. It seems to me more and more people want to let their states decide what the people want. Which is how the constitution was written. Once more when the Government cant even put a budget in place they have no business even breathing of gay marriage, or gun control.

Me thinks you mean libertarian. Liberals want there rights protected, but not by conservative values.


Bold: LOL

PaintsvilleTigerfan Wrote:The whole idea of liberalism is protecting the bill of rights, other than the 2a (never figured that one out). Hence why all civil rights issues are a liberal issue. Groups like the NAACP, ACLU, and SPLC, as just a few examples are all heavily liberal. So you would think a liberal like you would despise Obama over his continuing the destruction of the bill of rights. The NDAA, Use of drones, and the 1.6 Billion rounds of hollow point ammo, along with Fast and furious , and Benghazi. My point in this was that these social issues have no place in a federal government that is bankrupting itself and taking away its peoples civil rights. And as to your original question the US is losing morals but not becoming more liberal, they are not synonymous with each other. It seems to me more and more people want to let their states decide what the people want. Which is how the constitution was written. Once more when the Government cant even put a budget in place they have no business even breathing of gay marriage, or gun control.

^Great post. But, as far as to why all the birds of a different feather are flocked together? It's like when a bunch of countries who hate each other come together in spite of their shared hatred to form a coalition force to hopefully deal on equal terms with a superior foe. Take OPEC for example. In order that these 3rd world countries can compete with America, you've got Algeria, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Venezuela agreeing to stick together with rules set forth in a kind of super collective bargaining pact. These guys hate each other, and under any other circumstances they would likely be clawing each other's eyes out. But, America is number one, and their hatred for us is more than their hatred of each other. So, they're buddies until we get knocked off our perch. Which, FWIW, is what Obama is trying to help them with, LOL.

Same way with the zoo that makes up the dems voting base. They don't really like each other but, they band together under the democrat party roof and contribute millions of dollars to help get democrats elected to office, so they can then get the political favors they need to advance their own selfish agendas. You've got environmentalist/global warming kooks and the green crowd, gay rights activists, pro-choice activists, feminists, social justice bozos of every stripe, organized labor (I still need help with that one), the academia, pacifists, Keynesian economists, liberals, progressives, Vegans, animal and plant rights activists, and on and on ad nauseum. A regular secular humanistic ship of fools. The only thing these guys have in common is their bent for selfish interests, hence the term 'special interest groups'. They demand change, of the greatest society man has ever known. Thus they have banded together with democrats to depose the only force that stands between them and the complete dismantling of America as we know it, that force, is traditional American idealism. Which of course is largely represented and championed by the republicans, so, it's off with their political heads in an all out, no holds barred onslaught. Which, in the very best tradition of the craft known as propaganda, is carefully managed by the finest programming production specialists CBS et-al can put forth, in something called the 3 hour 24/7 news loop.

TheRealVille Wrote:Me thinks you mean libertarian. Liberals want there rights protected, but not by conservative values.


Bold: LOL

I said nothing of conservative values in my description of liberalism, Liberals want Uncle Sam to protect their rights, and force their views down everyones throats, libertarians want as small a government as possible governing by the constitution.

TheRealThing Wrote:^Great post. But, as far as to why all the birds of a different feather are flocked together? It's like when a bunch of countries who hate each other come together in spite of their shared hatred to form a coalition force to hopefully deal on equal terms with a superior foe. Take OPEC for example. In order that these 3rd world countries can compete with America, you've got Algeria, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Venezuela agreeing to stick together with rules set forth in a kind of super collective bargaining pact. These guys hate each other, and under any other circumstances they would likely be clawing each other's eyes out. But, America is number one, and their hatred for us is more than their hatred of each other. So, they're buddies until we get knocked off our perch. Which, FWIW, is what Obama is trying to help them with, LOL.

Same way with the zoo that makes up the dems voting base. They don't really like each other but, they band together under the democrat party roof and contribute millions of dollars to help get democrats elected to office, so they can then get the political favors they need to advance their own selfish agendas. You've got environmentalist/global warming kooks and the green crowd, gay rights activists, pro-choice activists, feminists, social justice bozos of every stripe, organized labor (I still need help with that one), the academia, pacifists, Keynesian economists, liberals, progressives, Vegans, animal and plant rights activists, and on and on ad nauseum. A regular secular humanistic ship of fools. The only thing these guys have in common is their bent for selfish interests, hence the term 'special interest groups'. They demand change, of the greatest society man has ever known. Thus they have banded together with democrats to depose the only force that stands between them and the complete dismantling of America as we know it, that force, is traditional American idealism. Which of course is largely represented and championed by the republicans, so, it's off with their political heads in an all out, no holds barred onslaught. Which, in the very best tradition of the craft known as propaganda, is carefully managed by the finest programming production specialists CBS et-al can put forth, in something called the 3 hour 24/7 news loop.

Your second paragraph is painfully true. I have never figured the left out. Every place they control is bankrupt, and has a high crime rate yet they can't realize how wrong they are.

PaintsvilleTigerfan Wrote:I said nothing of conservative values in my description of liberalism, Liberals want Uncle Sam to protect their rights, and force their views down everyones throats, libertarians want as small a government as possible governing by the constitution.

Liberals are not concerned with individual rights. They want the government to grant special privileges for groups that go well beyond the rights with which we were all born and that are guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Gay marriage, for example, is not a right, but liberals consistently mischaracterize the issue as a civil rights issue. Nothing could be further from the truth.

PaintsvilleTigerfan Wrote:I said nothing of conservative values in my description of liberalism, Liberals want Uncle Sam to protect their rights, and force their views down everyones throats, libertarians want as small a government as possible governing by the constitution.

Surely you mean conservative, bible thumpers?

Hoot Gibson Wrote:Liberals are not concerned with individual rights. They want the government to grant special privileges for groups that go well beyond the rights with which we were all born and that are guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Gay marriage, for example, is not a right, but liberals consistently mischaracterize the issue as a civil rights issue. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Marriage is considered a right, as attested to the supreme court ruling 14 times that it is a right. If marriage is considered a right, it is a right for all voting, taxpaying citizens.

TheRealVille Wrote:Surely you mean conservative, bible thumpers?

Nope. He means the ones that are consumed with changing 6,000 years of man's recorded history.

TheRealThing Wrote:Nope. He means the ones that are consumed with changing 6,000 years of man's recorded history.

I'm confused. Sometimes you say recorded history is 4000 years, now you say it's 6000 years? So, 6000 years of "god people" force their views down peoples' throats?

^TRT, go back to being a retired, support craftsman, you will fair better than being a politician.

TheRealVille Wrote:I'm confused. Sometimes you say recorded history is 4000 years, now you say it's 6000 years? So, 6000 years of "god people" force their views down peoples' throats?

I know it's tough to debate online when reading comprehension skills let you down so often. Recorded history started with God's record of Adam and Eve and the subsequent genealogies. Said genealogies are chronologically verifiable and if you were the Biblical scholar you claim to be, you'd know that. Even you have attempted to ridicule the Christian view that man has been around for about 6,000 years, give or take just a few. "God people," warn of the coming judgment, if you want to characterize that as forcing views down people's throats go ahead. One thing is sure, come Hell or high water, you will stand before Him and give an account of your life.

TheRealThing Wrote:I know it's tough to debate online when reading comprehension skills let you down so often. Recorded history started with God's record of Adam and Eve and the subsequent genealogies. Said genealogies are chronologically verifiable and if you were the Biblical scholar you claim to be, you'd know that. Even you have attempted to ridicule the Christian view that man has been around for about 6,000 years gives or take just a few. "God people," warn of the coming judgment, if you want to characterize that as forcing views down people's throats go ahead. One thing is sure, come Hell or high water, you will stand before Him and give an account of your life.

No, you said recorded history started 4000 years ago on another thread. We have Vundy33 to back that up. He brought up the fact that I was arguing with you about it, and failed to see your "recorded" part of your post.

TheRealVille Wrote:^TRT, go back to being a retired, support craftsman, you will fair better than being a politician.

That's my boy. When the ruse fails you, resort to name calling and slander.

TheRealVille Wrote:Marriage is considered a right, as attested to the supreme court ruling 14 times that it is a right. If marriage is considered a right, it is a right for all voting, taxpaying citizens.

Another typical liberal distortion of facts - wrong on so many levels. I will simply point out that marriage laws are not limited to "all voting, taxpaying citizens." Rights are never limited to voters or taxpayers in this country.

TheRealVille Wrote:No, you said recorded history started 4000 years ago on another thread. We have Vundy33 to back that up.

Go for it. I'm sure the context of the post will bare me out.

Hoot Gibson Wrote:Another typical liberal distortion of facts - wrong on so many levels. I will simply point out that marriage laws are not limited to "all voting, taxpaying citizens." Rights are never limited to voters or taxpayers in this country.

14 times the high court has stated that marriage is a right.

TheRealThing Wrote:Go for it. I'm sure the context of the post will bare me out.

No it won't, because over and over throughout the thread you kept saying recorded history went back 4000 years.

TheRealVille Wrote:14 times the high court has stated that marriage is a right.

How many times have they ruled that gay marriage is a right? Or polygamist marriages? Or marriage between brothers and sisters or grandfathers and granddaughters? Or horses and their owners?

The fact that marriage may or may not have been ruled a "right" (your numbers are always suspect, particularly with no links to support them), does not mean that it is the right of all combinations of adults or animals have the right to marry. Citing a number of Supreme Court rulings does nothing to support your position.

Hoot Gibson Wrote:How many times have they ruled that gay marriage is a right? Or polygamist marriages? Or marriage between brothers and sisters or grandfathers and granddaughters.

The fact that marriage may or may not have been ruled a "right" (your numbers are always suspect, particularly with no links to support them), does not mean that it is the right of all combinations of adults have the right to marry.

14 times they have ruled that marriage is a right. Look it up.

TheRealVille Wrote:No, you said recorded history started 4000 years ago on another thread. We have Vundy33 to back that up. He brought up the fact that I was arguing with you about it, and failed to see your "recorded" part of your post.

You were arguing about it? There's a shocker! There is a gap in recorded history that Moses dealt with in the first five books of the Bible. That period of history is still recorded. But, is not corroborated by other writings of the same era because they do not exist. However, there are known writings known to exist as far back as 3,500 years ago. I know what ever I posted does not contradict these facts.

Hoot Gibson Wrote:How many times have they ruled that gay marriage is a right? Or polygamist marriages? Or marriage between brothers and sisters or grandfathers and granddaughters? Or horses and their owners?

The fact that marriage may or may not have been ruled a "right" (your numbers are always suspect, particularly with no links to support them), does not mean that it is the right of all combinations of adults or animals have the right to marry. Citing a number of Supreme Court rulings does nothing to support your position.

^ Here's you a list of the 14 rulings.
http://www.afer.org/blog/video-14-suprem...-marriage/

TheRealVille Wrote:14 times they have ruled that marriage is a right. Look it up.

So, what is the relevance of marriage being ruled a right to this discussion? Until the Supreme Court redefines marriage as something other than a relationship involving one man and one woman, gay people have no right to marry. The 14 rulings cited in your belated link are irrelevant.

TheRealThing Wrote:You were arguing about it? There's a shocker! There is a gap in recorded history that Moses dealt with in the first five books of the Bible. That period of history is still recorded. But, is not corroborated by other writings of the same era because they do not exist. However, there are known writings known to exist as far back as 3,500 years ago. I know what ever I posted does not contradict these facts.

:biglmao: Ok. All of the "recorded history" facts only go back 4000 years. At least be consistent man.

Hoot Gibson Wrote:You asserted it as a fact, you look it up. Are you ashamed of your source again? :biglmao:

Besides, as I said, even if the number is accurate, it is not relevant to gay marriage, which is not marriage at all.

It's as much marriage as yours is.
http://www.afer.org/blog/video-14-suprem...-marriage/

http://www.freedomtomarry.org/landscape/...reme-court

TheRealVille Wrote:14 times they have ruled that marriage is a right. Look it up.

I've seen where they have made rulings on marital issues because the individual states recognize marriage. But, I've never seen a SCOTUS ruling decreeing that marriage is a right.