Bluegrassrivals

Full Version: Left Leading From the Front on Matters of Intolerance
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
"While many Christians were celebrating the resurrection of Jesus Christ on Sunday, Barack Obama, his family, and everyone else attending St. John's Episcopal Church in Washington, D.C. received a message that included an attack on conservatives, the Weekly Standard reported.

"It drives me crazy when the captains of the religious right are always calling us back ... for blacks to be back in the back of the bus ... for women to be back in the kitchen ... for immigrants to be back on their side of the border," said Dr. Luis Leon."

LINK --- http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-pa...-race-card


This article demonstrates perfectly one thing that "drives me crazy". Not so long ago, the liberal argument in principle, was laughed to scorn by the vast majority of the American public. That same majority has not evolved in their opinions about American idealism, moral issues, rule of law, you know, the basic building blocks of what America is supposed to be.

Admittedly, liberals have learned how to work the system to use our own government against us. And, have won a number of legal victories in this land's courts. The concept of gay rights for example, has passed from being viewed by all, but a few dope smoking kooks, as an abstract idea, absurd on it's face. To in this day, being viewed as somehow magically viable, having been given undue and unearned credibility by activist judges, misguided state and federal lawmakers and TV pundits (mostly out in that la-la wasteland we call California) who have taken to constantly referring to 'gay rights' as if they are tangible among the unalienable rights listed and defined in the Declaration of Independence. Politics isn't magic, though Obama and corps may indicate otherwise. When only bozos run for local election, to some degree only bozos ascend through the ranks up into the federal arena. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and Nancy Pelosi come to mind.

The liberal strategy includes some clever slight of hand as well. To illustrate, the US used what was referred to as an "islandhopping or leapfrogging" strategy against Japan in WWII. The idea was simply to bi-pass certain Japanese held islands and attack those that had superior military benefits for logistics and the like. In this way the US saved precious resources and manpower, choosing not slugging it out with dug in Jap forces who protected largely rocky and worthless outcroppings in the Pacific.

In the spirit of leapfrogging, liberals at some point just started to declare victory. Making fun of those who would not convert to the liberal viewpoint as relics of yesteryear, having been left behind by a society which was "moving forward". The leapfrog strategy works equally as well to describe one person or millions, as is evidenced by the lethal democrat attack on the republican party, or any prominent conservative spokesman. The liberals assign legions of staffers to pick apart every oral and written argument, statement and sentence no matter how insignificant and trifling and irrespective of the setting. As soon as some ridiculous charge can be trumped up, it is then shouted from the rooftops by the likes of say Harry Reid, when he lied through his teeth about Mitt Romney, saying he hadn't paid income tax in 10 years. An obvious retaliation by the left because Romney wouldn't be pushed into a corner, bullied into releasing 10 years worth of federal returns. Thus, ladies who deserve to be held up to our children as role models are mercilessly slammed and laughed to scorn. Sarah Palin and Minnesota Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann come to mind.

Dr. Luis Leon is a good example of the liberal mindset. Here is a guy who makes his living supposedly ministering for God, slamming the right? Are you kidding me? Hoot has it just right, the masses of American voters are ignorant and uninformed. We've had it so easy for so long that reality has leapfrogged it's way past the lazy and the unconcerned party animals that make up the majority here in America. I fully expect Dr Leon to suffer some reproach. But, can we at least be honest about this? He said what he said to impress the Obama family and they will say privately that folks like Dr Leon are still being crucified by those intolerant right wingers who are obviously lagging way behind the progressive forward march of this country as they see it. The same sort of simple minded naivety is afoot with all this legislation we keep putting forward. If we can't enforce the laws already on the books, new ones aren't the answer, unless the underlying motive is to supersede existing law with more liberally palatable replacements.
Liberals always like to lead from the front when it comes to issues such as gay marriage and making sure that Christians are not allowed the right to have a voice.

Yet, they lead from the back when it comes to dealing with foreign countries, the deficit, fixing the economy, and the lives of the unborn.
WideRight05 Wrote:Liberals always like to lead from the front when it comes to issues such as gay marriage and making sure that Christians are not allowed the right to have a voice.

Yet, they lead from the back when it comes to dealing with foreign countries, the deficit, fixing the economy, and the lives of the unborn.
If RvW were to be turned over, as you would like, how many unwanted kids would you be willing to adopt?
TheRealVille Wrote:If RvW were to be turned over, as you would like, how many unwanted kids would you be willing to adopt?

If it was overturned. We would have to hear them complaining about how the kids are a leech of the system and that there low life scum living on the government.
Wildcatk23 Wrote:If it was overturned. We would have to hear them complaining about how the kids are a leech of the system and that there low life scum living on the government.

George Carlin pretty much nailed it.

"Boy, these conservatives are really something, aren't they? They're all in favor of the unborn. They will do anything for the unborn. But once you're born, you're on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don't want to know about you. They don't want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you're preborn, you're fine; if you're preschool, you're f**ked."
TheRealVille Wrote:If RvW were to be turned over, as you would like, how many unwanted kids would you be willing to adopt?

You make my job easier every time you duck and dodge the main point of my post and try to nitpick one little sentence. You're certainly not doing the liberals any favors when it comes to presenting a good argument for people who read this board. Then again, you don't even read the links you post so I probably shouldn't expect you to take 30 seconds to fully read and comprehend a post. :biglmao:
WideRight05 Wrote:You make my job easier every time you duck and dodge the main point of my post and try to nitpick one little sentence. You're certainly not doing the liberals any favors when it comes to presenting a good argument for people who read this board. Then again, you don't even read the links you post so I probably shouldn't expect you to take 30 seconds to fully read and comprehend a post. :biglmao:
You and TRT are the main two that keep bringing up abortion. I am just wondering if RvW is turned over, how many kids are you willing to adopt? Simple question.
TheRealVille Wrote:You and TRT are the main two that keep bringing up abortion. I am just wondering if RvW is turned over, how many kids are you willing to adopt? Simple question.

And I'm bringing up a simple point about liberals that you refuse to answer - as you do many points, and questions. Conservative posters like TRT, Hoot, Skinnypig, and others will post paragraphs of information only for you to take one little sentence and blow it out of proportion.

I certainly will be happy to answer your question when you reply to my point, don't get me wrong. BUT, why don't you actually respond to my point instead of nitpicking from it?
TheRealVille Wrote:George Carlin pretty much nailed it.

"Boy, these conservatives are really something, aren't they? They're all in favor of the unborn. They will do anything for the unborn. But once you're born, you're on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don't want to know about you. They don't want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you're preborn, you're fine; if you're preschool, you're f**ked."
Great quoting a comedian for supporting a position:Thumbs:
WideRight05 Wrote:And I'm bringing up a simple point about liberals that you refuse to answer - as you do many points, and questions. Conservative posters like TRT, Hoot, Skinnypig, and others will post paragraphs of information only for you to take one little sentence and blow it out of proportion.

I certainly will be happy to answer your question when you reply to my point, don't get me wrong. BUT, why don't you actually respond to my point instead of nitpicking from it?
If your point made sense, I would have responded to it. I understand what you were saying in the first sentence, but what does the second one even mean?
Quote:Liberals always like to lead from the front when it comes to issues such as gay marriage and making sure that Christians are not allowed the right to have a voice.

Yet, they lead from the back when it comes to dealing with foreign countries, the deficit, fixing the economy, and the lives of the unborn.
Your party destroyed the economy, it will take awhile to fix. Your party drove the deficit sky high, from a surplus I might add. Wars cost money, especially one that we had no reason to be in. How do you want to deal with foreign countries, give us an example. To end my post, and to respond to the part about abortion, what do you propose we do about abortion? How many will you adopt if we make abortion illegal?
nky Wrote:Great quoting a comedian for supporting a position:Thumbs:
Comedian or not, he pretty much nailed the conservative position on the subject.
TheRealVille Wrote:Comedian or not, he pretty much nailed the conservative position on the subject.



Okay, George W is a buffoon and George Carlin is the voice of America, is that about right? You still cannot divorce yourself from the schoolyard antics can you? Create a slander from within that movie-land noggin of yours and begin the character assassinations, name calling, and false charges. There is nothing on which to base yours and Carlin's assertions that the conservative's interest stop with the unborn. In fact, practically every organization that deals with unwed Moms and their children are of right wing origin.

There was no mention of the 55 million who have been murdered under the nightmarish and Satanic wingspread of Roe v Wade in the thread starter, of that much I am sure. But, your response does serve to again set forth in clear terms the liberal mindset. You can't deny the gist of the thread with any credible rebuff, so you leapfrog into territory in which you believe you hold some advantage.

The mindset of the liberal has created a place I like to call la-la land. It is a place where rationalizing, judging one's fellows and self justification is the norm. There, even the preachers are off planet, the Jeremiah Wrights, and reverends, such as Dr. Luis Leons, are hate spitting, right wing haters full of venom. It wasn't good enough for these guys that the gays were allowed to live out their private lives without intrusion from the straight worlders around them. No, they had to put their deviant sexual rebellion on parade, and demand equality under the law. Leapfrogging over the social stigma of which their lifestyle was held by Christians and otherwise rightly convicted citizens of this land, in an effort to LEGISLATE the unconvertible into submission. Even to the point of demanding taxpayer funded benefits, as sort of a homosexual reparation entitlement. Well, sorry to tell you, respect and admiration is something they will never get. Just as any other sin is depraved, murder, theft, lying, and homosexually abominable behavior, does not deserve to be elevated to become suddenly morally correct. And, the clever machinations intended to repackage their sin and manipulate public opinion in a process they have dubbed "moving forward" will not be successful until every last Christian is gone. Until then, they can expect God's people to call out sin for what it is. After all, that is the idea wouldn't you say? Jesus called out the sin of Jerusalem and the church crucified Him for having done so.

So, the good news is, once we have been raptured out of here at the Lord's second coming, the stage is yours.
TheRealVille Wrote:Comedian or not, he pretty much nailed the conservative position on the subject.

Only someone left leaning would believe that jibberish but oh yea they're right and any opinion different is wrong, hateful, and irrelevant
TheRealVille Wrote:If your point made sense, I would have responded to it. I understand what you were saying in the first sentence, but what does the second one even mean?
Your party destroyed the economy, it will take awhile to fix. Your party drove the deficit sky high, from a surplus I might add. Wars cost money, especially one that we had no reason to be in. How do you want to deal with foreign countries, give us an example. To end my post, and to respond to the part about abortion, what do you propose we do about abortion? How many will you adopt if we make abortion illegal?

Both parties destroyed the economy, no getting around that.
SO to the left of this country 20 dead children is enough to subvert the very principles upon which our nation was founded to "protect the children". But it is foolish for people on the right to question the murder of 3,750 fetuses that are aborted every day?
ITs very simple.

No abortions period.
Then, you are allowed to have one child, unless you can prove your income can support more than one.
Its not hard to do. Tie em up as soon as they have there first. That would also take care of the welfare problem in a big way.
TheRealThing Wrote:Okay, George W is a buffoon and George Carlin is the voice of America, is that about right? You still cannot divorce yourself from the schoolyard antics can you? Create a slander from within that movie-land noggin of yours and begin the character assassinations, name calling, and false charges. There is nothing on which to base yours and Carlin's assertions that the conservative's interest stop with the unborn. In fact, practically every organization that deals with unwed Moms and their children are of right wing origin.

There was no mention of the 55 million who have been murdered under the nightmarish and Satanic wingspread of Roe v Wade in the thread starter, of that much I am sure. But, your response does serve to again set forth in clear terms the liberal mindset. You can't deny the gist of the thread with any credible rebuff, so you leapfrog into territory in which you believe you hold some advantage.

The mindset of the liberal has created a place I like to call la-la land. It is a place where rationalizing, judging one's fellows and self justification is the norm. There, even the preachers are off planet, the Jeremiah Wrights, and reverends, such as Dr. Luis Leons, are hate spitting, right wing haters full of venom. It wasn't good enough for these guys that the gays were allowed to live out their private lives without intrusion from the straight worlders around them. No, they had to put their deviant sexual rebellion on parade, and demand equality under the law. Leapfrogging over the social stigma of which their lifestyle was held by Christians and otherwise rightly convicted citizens of this land, in an effort to LEGISLATE the unconvertible into submission. Even to the point of demanding taxpayer funded benefits, as sort of a homosexual reparation entitlement. Well, sorry to tell you, respect and admiration is something they will never get. Just as any other sin is depraved, murder, theft, lying, and homosexually abominable behavior, does not deserve to be elevated to become suddenly morally correct. And, the clever machinations intended to repackage their sin and manipulate public opinion in a process they have dubbed "moving forward" will not be successful until every last Christian is gone. Until then, they can expect God's people to call out sin for what it is. After all, that is the idea wouldn't you say? Jesus called out the sin of Jerusalem and the church crucified Him for having done so.

So, the good news is, once we have been raptured out of here at the Lord's second coming, the stage is yours.
Again, how many kids are you willing to adopt if they overturn RvW? BTW, way to man up on your mischaracterization of my post in the other thread.
PaintsvilleTigerfan Wrote:SO to the left of this country 20 dead children is enough to subvert the very principles upon which our nation was founded to "protect the children". But it is foolish for people on the right to question the murder of 3,750 fetuses that are aborted every day?
A fetus is not a child according to law. It's not a viable human, according to law. How many are you willing to adopt, to get RvW overturned?
TheRealVille Wrote:Again, how many kids are you willing to adopt if they overturn RvW? BTW, way to man up on your mischaracterization of my post in the other thread.



LOL, even when I challenge you to answer you still won't "man up". And how do you know but what I have not already adopted a child? How many have you had mercy on there RV, according to you, you have the means, leading by example or are you judging again?
TheRealVille Wrote:A fetus is not a child according to law. It's not a viable human, according to law. How many are you willing to adopt, to get RvW overturned?



I would venture to say there isn't one who would not. That isn't the problem anyway; "In 2010, there were somewhere between one and two million couples in the United States waiting to adopt a child. Each year there are approximately 50,000 children placed for adoption in the U.S., and about 20,000 international adoptions are completed each year. As a result, most families hoping to adopt will not get a child each year."

http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/2092595#ixzz2PQpc4EIr

Answer your own question for us, how many would you be willing to take?
TheRealVille Wrote:Again, how many kids are you willing to adopt if they overturn RvW? BTW, way to man up on your mischaracterization of my post in the other thread.



If you think I mischaracterized a post of yours in another thread, put up a challenge, in the thread. Right now, neither of us knows what you're talking about.
TheRealThing Wrote:If you think I mischaracterized a post of yours in another thread, put up a challenge, in the thread. Right now, neither of us knows what you're talking about.
Feel free to travel back over to the NY politicians thread, and start when you tried to insinuate my miscounting of the republicans, and check my response post.
TheRealVille Wrote:A fetus is not a child according to law. It's not a viable human, according to law. How many are you willing to adopt, to get RvW overturned?

So the laws are ALWAYS right?
PaintsvilleTigerfan Wrote:So the laws are ALWAYS right?
In this instance, yes. Until you guys, that fight abortion so hard, step up to the bat and adopt some of these kids, the law should stand.
TheRealThing Wrote:If you think I mischaracterized a post of yours in another thread, put up a challenge, in the thread. Right now, neither of us knows what you're talking about.
That's what I thought. Confusednicker:
TheRealVille Wrote:In this instance, yes. Until you guys, that fight abortion so hard, step up to the bat and adopt some of these kids, the law should stand.



LOL, but not when we're talking about the law that states the congress must pass a budget. Not when we're talking about border security or illegal immigrants and the free health care Obama is about to bestow upon them in direct contradiction to his word. Not when we're talking about ObamaCare funding abortions on demand, again in direct contradiction to his word. Not when we're talking about going before congress BEFORE we start hostilities with foreign countries as in the case of Libya. And certainly not when we're talking about holding up voter ID laws.

If these girls knew they would have to raise their kids instead of murdering them in some abortion clinic, they would think twice before sewing wild oats. The law should change. If the men of this country (or boys) were held responsible for raising, or at least funding their own kids till they reach the age of 18, or otherwise go straight to jail, they would think twice too. In the mean time, I'll go with what you say. I'll take on one of these little ones and people like you who likely would see the hot spot iced over long before you would do the same, should have to pay for all the abortions that still happen. Let's try it that way.
TheRealThing Wrote:LOL, but not when we're talking about the law that states the congress must pass a budget. Not when we're talking about border security or illegal immigrants and the free health care Obama is about to bestow upon them in direct contradiction to his word. Not when we're talking about ObamaCare funding abortions on demand, again in direct contradiction to his word. Not when we're talking about going before congress BEFORE we start hostilities with foreign countries as in the case of Libya. And certainly not when we're talking about holding up voter ID laws.

If these girls knew they would have to raise their kids instead of murdering them in some abortion clinic, they would think twice before sewing wild oats. The law should change. If the men of this country (or boys) were held responsible for raising, or at least funding their own kids till they reach the age of 18, or otherwise go straight to jail, they would think twice too. In the mean time, I'll go with what you say. I'll take on one of these little ones and people like you who likely would see the hot spot iced over long before you would do the same, should have to pay for all the abortions that still happen. Let's try it that way.

You mean you want people to take personal responsibility for their actions? You must be a Right wing religious nut job who wants to throw grandma over a cliff or something
TheRealVille Wrote:If your point made sense, I would have responded to it. I understand what you were saying in the first sentence, but what does the second one even mean?

Your party destroyed the economy, it will take awhile to fix. Your party drove the deficit sky high, from a surplus I might add. Wars cost money, especially one that we had no reason to be in. How do you want to deal with foreign countries, give us an example. To end my post, and to respond to the part about abortion, what do you propose we do about abortion? How many will you adopt if we make abortion illegal?

TRV,

First off, in all seriousness, thank you for responding to my point.

To answer your first question - I take it you're referencing where I said "leading from the back" - which is referring to Obama's passive leadership in the situations described with it.

Here is a difference between you and I. The Republican party is not "my party." Most of my votes go there, yes, but if you search through these boards you will find plenty of posts from TRT, Hoot, and I criticizing them, especially the big-spending republicans. Judging from your posts, you are so caught up in Obama that you fail to realize that he can make plenty of mistakes. I have no problem saying that the republicans have their faults, but they are the cleaner of the two turds right now. George Bush is LONG gone - the democrats swept the house and senate in 2006, and Obama had a super-majority his first two years, and he still has control of the senate. Obama is in his fifth year now, and one would have to be delusional to say that we are making progress as a country. Reagan and Clinton both faced higher opposition in congress than Obama and dealt with it.

Now, to respond to the point you made about "my party destroying the economy" - I'll actually go along with that. Let's say the republicans destroyed the economy. Again, "your party" gained control of the house and senate in 2006 and then Obama failed to accomplish anything with a super-majority for his first two years. The deficit increased under Bush, but it skyrocketed under Obama and by 2016 we are looking to be over 20 trillion in debt. Also, the economy continues to worsen, the actual unemployment rate doesn't even begin to describe the number of "discouraged workers" that have stopped searching for work.

How do I want to deal with foreign countries? Look at Ronald Reagan. I don't think Jimmy Carter, or any president since Ronald Reagan, has been taken seriously by other countries. When Reagan said he was going to do something, he did it. Plain and simple. We need to quick talking so much and start walking.

Abortion should be banned. If I put some pictures on here of aborted fetuses, I'm sure they would be removed immediately due to their offensive nature. In fact, I remember a few years ago when a few conservatives brought in pictures of aborted babies to a meeting and the liberals staged a walkout. I am not sure what you mean about adoption, I certainly don't plan on creating any kids until I am married, unlike a lot of the fools in our society that will spread their legs at any opportunity. Are you saying that because a girl makes a stupid decision, that instead of somebody raising the baby that wants to adopt him/her, the baby should lose his/her life?

What are your thoughts on foreign policy? How do we fix the deficit? Obama is in his fifth year now and chaos is about to break loose - at what point will you start holding him accountable?
WideRight05 Wrote:TRV,

First off, in all seriousness, thank you for responding to my point.

To answer your first question - I take it you're referencing where I said "leading from the back" - which is referring to Obama's passive leadership in the situations described with it.

Here is a difference between you and I. The Republican party is not "my party." Most of my votes go there, yes, but if you search through these boards you will find plenty of posts from TRT, Hoot, and I criticizing them, especially the big-spending republicans. Judging from your posts, you are so caught up in Obama that you fail to realize that he can make plenty of mistakes. I have no problem saying that the republicans have their faults, but they are the cleaner of the two turds right now. George Bush is LONG gone - the democrats swept the house and senate in 2006, and Obama had a super-majority his first two years, and he still has control of the senate. Obama is in his fifth year now, and one would have to be delusional to say that we are making progress as a country. Reagan and Clinton both faced higher opposition in congress than Obama and dealt with it.

Now, to respond to the point you made about "my party destroying the economy" - I'll actually go along with that. Let's say the republicans destroyed the economy. Again, "your party" gained control of the house and senate in 2006 and then Obama failed to accomplish anything with a super-majority for his first two years. The deficit increased under Bush, but it skyrocketed under Obama and by 2016 we are looking to be over 20 trillion in debt. Also, the economy continues to worsen, the actual unemployment rate doesn't even begin to describe the number of "discouraged workers" that have stopped searching for work.

How do I want to deal with foreign countries? Look at Ronald Reagan. I don't think Jimmy Carter, or any president since Ronald Reagan, has been taken seriously by other countries. When Reagan said he was going to do something, he did it. Plain and simple. We need to quick talking so much and start walking.

Abortion should be banned. If I put some pictures on here of aborted fetuses, I'm sure they would be removed immediately due to their offensive nature. In fact, I remember a few years ago when a few conservatives brought in pictures of aborted babies to a meeting and the liberals staged a walkout. I am not sure what you mean about adoption, I certainly don't plan on creating any kids until I am married, unlike a lot of the fools in our society that will spread their legs at any opportunity. Are you saying that because a girl makes a stupid decision, that instead of somebody raising the baby that wants to adopt him/her, the baby should lose his/her life?

What are your thoughts on foreign policy? How do we fix the deficit? Obama is in his fifth year now and chaos is about to break loose - at what point will you start holding him accountable?
A super majority is one that is filibuster proof. He only had that for about 12 months.



I don't understand what more you want Obama to do in foreign policy. We can't afford another war right now, we are broke. You've already admitted that. He is moving a defense system to ward off that little punk from NK. We will go to war I'm sure, if we have to, but who is going to pay for it?



If, like you and others want, abortion were made illegal, 1.2 million more kids would be born. Not really, but theoretically. There almost as many abortions before it was legal, as after. Whether or not it is right, or the responsible thing to do, those babies will be put up for adoption. My question is how many pro life people will put up, or shut up, and start adopting those kids?


[Image: w-Ezra01_Policies.jpg]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/e...aphic.html

Quote:Adding to the deficit: Bush vs. Obama
Since President Obama became chief executive, the national debt has risen almost $5 trillion. But how much of that was because of policies passed by Obama, and how much was caused by the financial crisis, the continuation of past policies and other effects? For this analysis, we worked with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities to attach a price tag to the legislation passed by Obama and his predecessor. George W. Bush’s major policies increased the debt by more than $5 trillion during his presidency. Obama has increased the debt by less than $1 trillion
Millions of Couple are waiting to adopt in this country. That doesn't even count the gay/lesbian couples that wish to adopt as well. So yes there is an option to abortion
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5