Watching the Democrats - it's Fun and Macabre!

[Adak]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

Adek is sounding more Merc-ian all the time.

Obama is no longer a Socialist, but now is called out as a "true liberal" !
Yea ! I felt there was hope for him all along.

But how long will it be until we have a post about Obama having sex with a donkey
That post will connect the donkey, as an allegory of a consenting Democrat,
with a link to an article that Michelle is pregnant again... whether she is or not.

Culpability will be denied.... such is the adekian way

All socialists are "true" liberals, but I'd never smear Obama with a story like this one. Obama has enough to answer for, on his own.

The donkey story was just for a laugh. The real comedy is that Roger Hedgecock has been stating that this civil rights claim would be made, if the gay rights movement made progress. People have been "beating" Roger up about this prediction, for years now.

Now, here it is, just as Roger predicted. Funny stuff!

[Lamplighter]

All socialists are "true" liberals,...

From this, it follows that all conservatives are "true" facists.

What other "true" terms shall we throw about ?

[Spexxvet]

Truvia is sweet

[Adak]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

From this, it follows that all conservatives are "true" facists.

What other "true" terms shall we throw about ?

You can describe fascists as "true" ultra right wingers, on the political spectrum.

You can describe conservatives in the USA, as "true" proponents of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, as it was written - not as it's "interpreted" by the liberals.

Smaller federal government, more freedom and more responsibility for each citizen. Lower taxes, and lower spending.

Each party has the RINO's or DINO's: Republicans or Democrats In Name Only, so you have to watch out for them.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Adak

Now, here it is, just as Roger predicted. Funny stuff!

I must have missed the civil rights claim. Was there one? It's not in the article cited.

I love slippery slope arguments. Everyone makes them, for and against. Guns, abortion, you name it. I'm sure someone made the donkey argument in Loving v. Virginia, which struck down miscegenation laws against interracial marriage.

The point is that it always comes the the 'reasonable person' argument. That middle of the road man or woman who draws the line.

Adak, I'm pretty sure I know where you would have come down on Loving v. Virginia. The reason you don't say so now is the same reason no one else does - that what seemed radical, heretical, and against tradition to a large number of people turned out to be rational public policy.

Look at the 'biblical' justification by the segregationist judge ruling against the couple. The wave of ignorance coming off a man in a position of trust is terrifying.

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

We evolve, Adak. The reason Christians are not still burning people at the stake or in other ways acting as atrociously as some conservative Muslims is that 'liberal' forces as well as a few hundred years of internal bloodshed have acted upon the church. There is still ethnic strife involving Christian populations, but none of it is sanctioned. People evolve, religions evolve. Maybe at some point they will go too far, but I for one am glad that noone listened to the Adaks of the past who fought for tradition and belittled change.

[Adak]

[quote=richlevy;843972]I must have missed the civil rights claim. Was there one? It's not in the article cited.

He has been charged with beastiality, which his attorney has announced they will be fighting as illegal as it violates Carlos's civil rights.

That's the announcement - but legal work has to be done before it can be filed.

I love slippery slope arguments. Everyone makes them, for and against. Guns, abortion, you name it. I'm sure someone made the donkey argument in Loving v. Virginia, which struck down miscegenation laws against interracial marriage.

The point is that it always comes the the 'reasonable person' argument. That middle of the road man or woman who draws the line.

Adak, I'm pretty sure I know where you would have come down on Loving v. Virginia. The reason you don't say so now is the same reason no one else does - that what seemed radical, heretical, and against tradition to a large number of people turned out to be rational public policy.

Look at the 'biblical' justification by the segregationist judge ruling against the couple. The wave of ignorance coming off a man in a position of trust is terrifying.



We evolve, Adak. The reason Christians are not still burning people at the stake or in other ways acting as atrociously as some conservative Muslims is that 'liberal' forces as well as a few hundred years of internal bloodshed have acted upon the church. There is still ethnic strife involving Christian populations, but none of it is sanctioned. People evolve, religions evolve. Maybe at some point they will go too far, but I for one am glad that noone listened to the Adaks of the past who fought for tradition and belittled change.

That might be true for some people - my Bible says to love your neighbor, as yourself, to love your enemy, when they do you harm.

Mine never mentions this "burn them alive at the stake", so what you are calling "liberal" NOW, is really quite conservative with the original message of Jesus' teachings.

And what you are calling "conservative", in the days of the Inquisition and religious wars and laws, really were quite liberal, weren't they?

Because there is no torture recommendation in the Bible - that's something that some Liberals thought up, all on their own. They couldn't accept the real teachings of Christ - so they substituted in it's place, their own doctrine, of hate.

And now they want to substitute their own "living document" meanings for our Constitution and Declaration of Independence.

No thanks!! We've seen where that kind of thinking leads, before.