Sept 18, 2010: Hosni Jumps Ahead
This is a picture of the major players at the Mid-East Peace talks, taken at the White House.
Egypt’s president, Hosni Mubarak, is on your left.
But when the picture was published in Al Ahram, owned by the Egyptian government, Hosni Mubarak has jumped ahead.
The jig is up...
As The Lede explained on Thursday, an Egyptian blogger had noticed and publicized the fact that the newspaper had manipulated a news photograph in a way that seemed to flatter Mr. Mubarak without informing readers that the image was not real.
But, but, but...
Ossama Saraya, the editor of Al Ahram, Egypt’s oldest daily, argued in an editorial that the altered photograph “was meant to be expressive,” of what he called, “the precise political position of President Mubarak” in the quest for peace in the Middle East, the independent Egyptian newspaper Al Masry Al Youm reported. The editor defended the image as an expression of Mr. Mubarak’s “unique role in leading” the talks.
No harm, no foul, just a silly embarrassment, methinks. :)
linkI Call HAGGIS !!!
Its Shoped , Thus its SHIT !!!!
Not necessarily shopped.
Except for Netanyahu, the arm positions of each man has changed.
They could have simply changed positions between two pics.
Did you read the fucking link?
Did you read the op?
No, I didn't know I was supposed to. :smack:
Again, I'll try to do better next time. :sniff:
I Call HAGGIS !!! Thus its SHIT !!!!
My sentiments EXACTLY on Haggis! :eek::mad:HAGGIS :mad::eek:
Politicians are always great posers - but poor comics. Their jokes are always "on us". :(
Bruce, temper! Tsk, tsk.
I think it is obvious that a photograph was modified (is Photoshop the only way?) to place Mubarak in a more attactive light.
It just wasn't the top photo that was changed, but another one a step away.
this is a horrible parody of a "free" press.
the arm positions aren't the same, because everyone has been reversed. look at the angle of the ties.
the arm positions aren't the same, because everyone has been reversed. look at the angle of the ties.
You need to hone your "looking" skills. There is one due with a "reversed" looking tie. Look at his legs.
that's what it looks like to me; several of the guys are definitely reversed
Are we looking at the same thing ???
perhaps not; unimportant, really anyhow
I demand several more posts on this specific subject! You go next.
several more posts on this specific subject!:p:
Bruce, temper! Tsk, tsk.
I think it is obvious that a photograph was modified (is Photoshop the only way?) to place Mubarak in a more attactive light.
It just wasn't the top photo that was changed, but another one a step away.
Tsk tsk my ass, "shopped" means altered photograph, by any method.
In
both the original post, and the link, Al Ahram clearly, succinctly, irrevocably, stated the photograph had been altered by them.
this is a horrible parody of a "free" press.
Al Ahram is owned by the Egyptian government.
[SIZE="1"]sigh[/SIZE] :neutral:
yes, I realize it's a state-owned and controlled publication. And to Flint:
LOOK!
(Flint looks around. Cloud gooses Flint and dances away!)
I let you do that on purpose.
<fun!>
and you're right, btw
I think this should never have come up. I think our Prez was being a callous a-hole, a clueless noob, or an egotistical dork, in the first picture.
The entire negotiations are about people working together to solve very tough issues. Him parading along like the "leader" with a bunch of servants following along was a very poor way to reinforce the entire "working together" aspect. It was bound to cause exactly these types of petty distractions. :(
You don't herd cats, you have to lead them.
Spuck, it's actually orchestrated to be that way! They figure out who will walk where so there won't be any confusion if Mubarak walks first.
I think this should never have come up. I think our Prez was being a callous a-hole, a clueless noob, or an egotistical dork, in the first picture.
The entire negotiations are about people working together to solve very tough issues. Him parading along like the "leader" with a bunch of servants following along was a very poor way to reinforce the entire "working together" aspect. It was bound to cause exactly these types of petty distractions. :(
Yes.
This is far from being a new phenomenon. Been going on for decades.
Oh, its ok then. To me its another subtle way the media shapes the information we get.
The subconscious perception is that the person in front is more important than everyone else...after all, *they* aren't first. That's going to be pretty unacceptable in many countries.
Actually, who cares? They all look like a bag of crooks anyway. Damn politicians.
Doesn't host country always go first?
I can't see everyone walking abreast. It would look like a chorus line.
Is this even worth discussing? really?
Is this even worth discussing? really?
ask
I think this should never have come up. I think our Prez was being a callous a-hole, a clueless noob, or an egotistical dork, in the first picture.
The entire negotiations are about people working together to solve very tough issues. Him parading along like the "leader" with a bunch of servants following along was a very poor way to reinforce the entire "working together" aspect. It was bound to cause exactly these types of petty distractions. :(
Ah good. We got the "Blame Bush" argument in there. I was afraid that would get missed. :rolleyes:
Do you really think the Republican and Democrat party is different? How has Obama given us "Hope and Change"? By spending us out of debt? Has he done anything better than Bush?
Gah, vote 'em all out. We need a clean sweep in all of Washington. Just make sure you are voting for someone who has a record of fixing things. People voted for Obama because he preached change without looking at his history and we ended up with another political puppet that made things worse.
Damn, relax a little.
He just put Bush in there as counter example to show that all presidents do it.
sheesh
(Course the way Spud backpedaled was priceless.)
(Course the way Spud backpedaled was priceless.)
Yeh kinda like how every democrat is backpedaling on the healthcare reform they voted for :thumbsup:
They are all crooks unlike some who still
hope their party isn't and that maybe things will
change.
This isnt the word association thread.
You're right - those words really don't associate with reality.
Thanks for pointing that out.
Have a blessed day.
Yeh kinda like how every democrat is backpedaling on the healthcare reform they voted for :thumbsup:
:facepalm:
lol...that was funny
I agree
"When you're a Jet you're a Jet all the way,
From your first cigarette, to your last dying day."
P.S. I wasn't back pedalling. I still say Yes. A very partisan statement for all you Obama sycophants out there.
P.S. I wasn't back pedalling. I still say Yes. A very partisan statement for all you Obama sycophants out there.
Ok. You made me look up 'sycophant'.
And now I'll add that this is exactly the sort of inflammatory language that turns me off of the current crop of Republicans and Republican supporters. It used to be that Republicans were pro-small-government. I could buy into that. Now they're just anti-just-about-everything-except-big-business. And they're really into hate and anger. That's not for me.
Sycophant isn't inflamatory if you ain't one. Having said that, anyone who defends a conservative or a republican is bound to be called hateful, intolerant. bigoted, homophobic, or in bed with big business. Here in the cellar I've been called worse. That's what happens when you don't follow the tolerant politically correct crowd. Try saying something good about Sarah Palin running for President, and watch the hate and scorn pour down on you.
Having said that, anyone who defends a conservative or a republican is bound to be called hateful, intolerant. bigoted, homophobic, or in bed with big business.
With all due respect, isn't that what conservatives are. You, yourself, say
when you don't follow the tolerant politically correct crowd.
Aren't conservatives apposed to DADT and same gender marriage? Don't you support a person's right to refuse to treat minorities the same as s/he treats whites? Don't you endorse subjugating workers and trashing the environment in the name of expanded profits?
With all due respect, isn't that what conservatives are. You, yourself, say
Aren't conservatives apposed to DADT and same gender marriage? Don't you support a person's right to refuse to treat minorities the same as s/he treats whites? Don't you endorse subjugating workers and trashing the environment in the name of expanded profits?
Not all conservatives - not at all.
You consistently confuse "republican" with "conservative"
THEY ARE NOT THE SAME.What's the point of calling yourself a conservative if you don't adhere to conservative values?
If it doesn't walk like a duck and doesn't quack like a duck, then it's not a duck.
I'm going to start calling myself conservative. I'm against the death penalty, I'm for rights for women, rights for minorities, I think our health care system needs reformed. I'm pro-choice. I'm agnostic. I'm a hippy.
BUT I'm a conservative, dammit.
Maybe you need another word, or fall off the fence.
Not all conservatives - not at all.
You consistently confuse "republican" with "conservative"
THEY ARE NOT THE SAME.
conservative values?
Please define some of them for me.
*shrugs*
You're Mr Conservative, you tell me.
Or are you a moderate today? I can't remember the schedule.
Regardless, I hear a lot from republicans about conservative values and my very favorite "it doesn't even freaking mean anything" word regurgitation about things being 'unamerican.' There was a lot of 'unamerican' being thrown around about the mosque debate.
WTF is 'unamerican'? I need a definition for that one! Disamerican? Nonamerican? Inamerican?
I need the official unabridged Rush dictionary. The entry for 'unamerican' probably follows 'ampersand.'
:lol:
I've always wondered, what are conservatives conserving?
What's the point of calling yourself a conservative if you don't adhere to conservative values?
Please define some of them for me.
*shrugs* :lol:
Good discourse.
I've always wondered, what are conservatives conserving?
Brain power.
Good discourse.
[groucho]you should see my intercourse[/groucho] :lol2:
Who me? No, it was him? I never said that. Who said that.
Thanks, though. When you add in the rest of the post the discourse says "you tell me: it's your party who bitches about people not adhering to conservative american values." You. Tell. Me. You say you're a conservative (like I said, I'm confused as to what you're leaning to on any particular day) yet you tell spexx that all conservatives are not all conservative. What in the heck do you mean?
You're either conservative or not. Maybe you're a liberalomodoconservatavo, but if you are just say so. Don't hide behind your conservative curtain then say you're not conservative.
I listed those things that make me a conservative (oh, in case you didn't get the joke, I really listed the things I think make me a liberal.) So let's hear what YOU believe in that you think makes you conservative. There are no wrong or right answers. What do YOU think makes YOU conservative?
The fence, doesn't it chafe?
I think the problem is that most of us don't really fit in one category.
I don't think there is a fence.
I don't belong to either party, I'm an independent.
Hence all your immature arrogant comments, as usual, don't apply.
You made the accusation, now back it up.
I think the problem is that most of us don't really fit in one category.
I don't think there is a fence.
Oh I disagree - I'm on the fence on many issues, if not most.
There are too many sheep who attach a label to themselves and say this is what I believe because I am a (insert choice here)
They confuse terminology like conservative and republican or liberal and democrat. All they can do is regurgitate that which they are told.
Sad really, because many of them, from both parties, are actually rather intelligent people with an apparent blind spot.
So I'm asking you, the expert, what about you makes you conservative? You can't answer the question. You're looking for the right thing to say, but you don't know. My comment came from your party, the king of regurgitation: conservative american values. I don't know what they are, but I bet I don't have them. So what are they? You purport to know of them. You use conservatism when it's convenient, when it backs up whatever you have a problem with at the time, then you turn your back on it when you're faced with defining the truth about conservatism, and the truth about who you are. Be honest. Be who you are. Give me an honest statement about what makes you conservative, or whatever you're backing today. Believe me, I'm not the biggest sheep around here, not by a long shot.
YOU HAVE A UNIQUE CHANCE TO, ONCE AND FOR ALL, TELL US WHAT IT IS YOU REALLY STAND FOR. If I'm wrong, you're not conservative, tell me now and let's end it, once and for all.
btw "sheep" and "immature, arrogant comments" sounds like insult to me.
You're not insulting me, are you? I'll cry and get you banned.
I don't know what they are
Gee was it really so hard to admit that?
So I'm asking you, the expert
I'm not an expert, never claimed to be.
"Immature, arrogant comments" sounds like insult to me.
Just returning the favor.
You're not insulting me, are you? I'll cry and get you banned.
Go for it.
Typical.
Business as usual for the c-man.
Typical for you too. Nice re-edit of your post after I already responded. Guess you learned that trick from redux.
Ha, I re-edited about 5 times as I was writing it. The thoughts were coming so fast and furiously. I have trouble keeping up with my own brain. You need to give me more time before leaving me such gems as "gee was that so hard to admit" and "I never claimed to be."
You should consider leaving Redux out of it since, thanks to you, he has no recourse here. That's cowardly even for you.
Once you get rid of me and tw and spexx and HM, you shall cut and paste and weeble and wobble to your heart's content, won't you?
Going tit-for-tat with classic is really boring and a waste of time. He simply reverts to passive/aggressive deflection. Thats why he seems like such a wishy-washy fence sitter.
It would have been nice if he would have just explained how his conservative values are different from being a republican. That could have been quite interesting.
Sigh, yeah, I know. I was pretty clear about what makes me identify with my "label."
I'm shutting up now.
My responses were dumbed-down so that you could relate to them. Since that was your posting style, I responded in kind.
I have no banning powers. I wasn't even here when redux was banned.
I'm sorry - where are all the posts of mine calling for his banning?
Oh thats right THERE WERE NONE.
I don't even consider such things as getting someone banned - You really should see someone about those delusional thoughts.
By the way, I asked for tw to be reinstated when I found out he was banned, you stupid fuck.
No run along and bother someone else.
There there, don't blow a gasket.
Call me dumb, call me a stupid fuck. That's tolerably non-irritating.
You can always be counted on to be the same as always. Consistency is a nice trait. I applaud you for it.
Now I'll run along. I have a lot of blow jobs to catch up on around here.
I've always wondered, what are conservatives conserving?
Their own wealth/power.
Give me an honest statement about what makes you conservative, or whatever you're backing today. Believe me, I'm not the biggest sheep around here, not by a long shot.
YOU HAVE A UNIQUE CHANCE TO, ONCE AND FOR ALL, TELL US WHAT IT IS YOU REALLY STAND FOR. If I'm wrong, you're not conservative, tell me now and let's end it, once and for all.
I don't belong to either party, I'm an independent.
She's asking what makes you a conservative. There is no conservative party, maybe you're confused, here's some help:
You consistently confuse "republican" with "conservative"
THEY ARE NOT THE SAME.
I never said I was a conservative. All I did was reaffirm my position - I'm an independent.
Soooooo....are you conservative/independent or liberal/independent?
D'oh, I know, you're a right-in-the-middle moderate independent.
At least for now.
Fiscally I lean more conservative and socially I tend to be more liberal.
Okay, I'll chime in here. Conservatives conserve the values written in the Constitution. Conservatives don't try to change the Constitution by asking some guy in a black robe to change it by fiat. Conservatives don't believe in anarchy, legalized murder and theft, or distribution of wealth. Conservatives believe in private property rights, and the freedom to enjoy your own possessions without interference from some bureaucrat who has never held down a real job, or owned his own business. Conservatives believe this country was founded on Judeo-Christion principals, and that the constitution does not allow a state religion, but it does allow freedom of religion, not from religion. Conservatives believe if you earn money, it's yours, not some hobo's. I'll shut up now. I'm sure I haven't fully defined conservatism, and I'm also sure my grammar and spelling aren't correct, but hopefully some of you will understand that conservatives aren't monsters, and Republicans aren't automatically conservatives.
Thanks spudcon.
Can you explain a little about legalized murder? You mean like war and capital punishment?
I would add to spudcon's nice summary a missed but important conservative principal:
Conservatives believe in personal responsibility as apposed to 'they made me do it, it wasn't my fault, etc., and the flip side, the government owes me x or y'.
I would add to spudcon's nice summary a missed but important conservative principal:
Conservatives believe in personal responsibility as apposed to 'they made me do it, it wasn't my fault, etc., and the flip side, the government owes me x or y'.
That's good. The implication is that liberals believe the part in quotes.
I consider myself to be liberal, yet I've worked my whole life. I don't take things from people. Hell, when I left my marriage I left the house. No one owes me a damn thing. I don't want anyone to owe me a damn thing.
This is where we get hung up. I actually do agree that you can't pigeonhole any of us.
What I was going for was "what makes you (any individual) identify with the "label" that was placed there for whatever reason (self-certifying, actions, words) or what makes you not fit the label that you believe you got erroneously."
A specific list, such as I gave, might give insight. To say "well, you know, when it comes to fiscal blah de blah I am more liberal and when it comes to social blah de blah I am more conservative" or whatever doesn't quite get beyond the same bland rhetoric over which we get nowhere. No wonder "labels" stick.
There, I've now listed what I think makes me "liberal" and why I don't adhere to some definition that liberals are a bunch of whining takers. In these threads, I've seen much whining from the other front, that the "takers" are getting something someone else isn't getting. Yet, we are often, in the very next post, reminded that if we want something we work for it. Which is it? Do you want what the takers are getting? No, you don't. So human up and work for the change you want to see? Maybe?
Or kvetch a lot. *shrugs*
Can Conservatives write what they believe in without couching it in angry code?
To add:
My dear older brother, who is really my best friend on earth, as we grew up a year and a half apart, highly identifies himself as conservative. We don't agree on a lot, for sure.
But he is one of the smartest and most caring people I know. I don't have to pigeonhole him, because he is clear on what he stands for and what he stands against.
And he works to change things that he sees as wrong. I have the utmost respect for him, even though we rarely agree on anything political.
Okay, I'll chime in here. Conservatives conserve the values written in the Constitution.
Ok, but is that good? The Constitution allowed slavery and held women in such low esteem that they were forbidden to vote. A blanket statement to conserve the values written in the constitution may not be the best philosophy to have.
Conservatives don't try to change the Constitution by asking some guy in a black robe to change it by fiat.
Of course conservatives don't try to change the Constitution - you don't want it changed. But when laws are made that conservatives don't like, or a presidential election is in question, they use the court system like everyone else does.
Conservatives don't believe in anarchy,
They want limited regulation. Conservatives are often heard saying "keep government out of my life". Where does lawful society end and anarchy start?
legalized murder and
Capital punishment?
theft, or
Nobody does.
distribution of wealth.
Distribution of wealth. Distribution of wealth. Is that when taxes are collected from everyone who can afford to pay taxes and used to pay for our miltary, police, teachers, etc.? Sure, it also goes to help those who cannot help themselves - the old, infirm, young - but a society is measured by how well they take care of the weakest among them. And yes, some of those who get help aren't the ones who should be getting it, but do you allow some in need to fall through the cracks because of a few bad apples? FWIW, I'm a liberal who believes in workfare. I view taxes as an investment. I don't mind paying taxes if I get a return on my investment, even if it's streets that are swept clean.
Conservatives believe in private property rights, and the freedom to enjoy your own possessions without interference from some bureaucrat who has never held down a real job, or owned his own business.
If you're objecting to emminent domain, it was a supreme court with a conservative majority who upheld that ruling.
Conservatives believe this country was founded on Judeo-Christion principals,
I disagree. The founding fathers were deists, not theists
Thomas Jefferson
"I have examined all the known superstitions of the world and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth."
Jefferson again
"Christianity...(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on man...Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and imposters led by Paul, the first great corruptor of the teachings of Jesus."
More Jefferson
"The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for
enslaving mankind and adulturated by artificial constructions into a
contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves...these clergy in fact,constitute the real Anti-Christ."
Jefferson's word for the Bible? "Dunghill."
John Adams
"Where do we find a precept in the Bible for Creeds, Confessions, Doctrines and Oaths, and whole cartloads of other trumpery that we find religion encumbered with in these days?"
Also Adams
"The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for
absurdity."
Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli. Article 11 states
"The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."
Here's Thomas Paine
"I would not dare to so dishonor my Creator God by attaching His name to that book (the Bible)."
"Among the most detesable villains in history, you could not find one worse than Moses. Here is an order, attributed to 'God' to butcher the boys, to massacre the mothers, and to debauch and rape the daughters. I would not dare so dishonor my Creator's name by (attaching) it to this filthy book (the Bible)."
"It is the duty of every true Diest to vindicate the moral justice of God
against the evils of the Bible."
"Accustom a people to believe that priests and clergy can forgive sins...and you will have sins in abundance."
And; "The Christian church has set up a religion of pomp and revenue in pretend imitation of a person (Jesus) who lived a life of poverty."
Finally let's hear from James Madison
"What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyrrany. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy."
Madison objected to state-supported chaplains in Congress and to the
exemption of churches from taxation. He wrote "Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."
and that the constitution does not allow a state religion, but it does allow freedom of religion, not from religion.
Do you think the constitution defends a preference for one religion over another, or defends one religion in it's goal to dominate American society?
Ok, but is that good? The Constitution allowed slavery and held women in such low esteem that they were forbidden to vote. A blanket statement to conserve the values written in the constitution may not be the best philosophy to have.
Of course conservatives don't try to change the Constitution - you don't want it changed. But when laws are made that conservatives don't like, or a presidential election is in question, they use the court system like everyone else does.
[COLOR=RoyalBlue]There is a clause or two in the constitution that allows for change, and it has been used many times to eliminate slavery, allow women's sufferage etc. In fact, the Bill of Rights is an example of legal change. But it takes the will of the people and time to do that, and Conservatives would like to follow that rule of law.[/COLOR]
They want limited regulation. Conservatives are often heard saying "keep government out of my life". Where does lawful society end and anarchy start?
Capital punishment? [COLOR=RoyalBlue]Anarchy doesn't start with removing capital criminals from society. It starts by letting them go free to commit their crimes again.[/COLOR]
Nobody does. [COLOR=RoyalBlue]A balance of law and freedom prevents anarchy. That's why we need government. But government is not the source of all answers or wisdom. It's a necessary evil.[/COLOR]
Distribution of wealth. Distribution of wealth. Is that when taxes are collected from everyone who can afford to pay taxes and used to pay for our miltary, police, teachers, etc.? Sure, it also goes to help those who cannot help themselves - the old, infirm, young - but a society is measured by how well they take care of the weakest among them. And yes, some of those who get help aren't the ones who should be getting it, but do you allow some in need to fall through the cracks because of a few bad apples? FWIW, I'm a liberal who believes in workfare. I view taxes as an investment. I don't mind paying taxes if I get a return on my investment, even if it's streets that are swept clean.
[COLOR=RoyalBlue]Paying taxes to fund government is an obligation of citizenship. Paying taxes to fund research into the sex life of possums is not. Nor is funding special programs for illegal activities. Again, the constitution delineates specifically what the Federal Government has charge over, and what powers belong to the states. Sweeping streets is not something the feds are in charge of. Neither is paying for teachers. That is left to the states.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=RoyalBlue]And taxes are not an investment. Savings bonds are. Taxes are mandatory, investment is not. I'll choose my own investments every time. The financial geniuses in Washington have us in debt far beyond our ability to repay for the forseeable future.[/COLOR]
If you're objecting to emminent domain, it was a supreme court with a conservative majority who upheld that ruling.
I disagree. The founding fathers were deists, not theists
Do you think the constitution defends a preference for one religion over another, or defends one religion in it's goal to dominate American society?
[COLOR=RoyalBlue]90% of those quotes were in opposition to religion, not Christianity. Semantics again, as in deists, theists. [/COLOR]
Wait, what?
The founding fathers were DENTISTS?
:lol:
Ok, but is that good? The Constitution allowed slavery and held women in such low esteem that they were forbidden to vote. A blanket statement to conserve the values written in the constitution may not be the best philosophy to have.
Of course conservatives don't try to change the Constitution - you don't want it changed. But when laws are made that conservatives don't like, or a presidential election is in question, they use the court system like everyone else does.
There is a clause or two in the constitution that allows for change, and it has been used many times to eliminate slavery, allow women's sufferage etc. In fact, the Bill of Rights is an example of legal change. But it takes the will of the people and time to do that, and Conservatives would like to follow that rule of law.
But you said:
Conservatives conserve the values written in the Constitution.
Which I interpret to mean that you don't want to change tose values, regardless of any clauses that allow for change. When liberals use the rule of law, conservatives object, if the outcome does not fit their agenda.
They want limited regulation. Conservatives are often heard saying "keep government out of my life". Where does lawful society end and anarchy start?
Capital punishment? Anarchy doesn't start with removing capital criminals from society. It starts by letting them go free to commit their crimes again.
My comments about anarchy and capital punishment were independant.
Nobody does.
A balance of law and freedom prevents anarchy. That's why we need government. But government is not the source of all answers or wisdom. It's a necessary evil.
How is government evil? How does your response address my statement that nobody believes in "legalized theft"?
Distribution of wealth. Distribution of wealth. Is that when taxes are collected from everyone who can afford to pay taxes and used to pay for our miltary, police, teachers, etc.? Sure, it also goes to help those who cannot help themselves - the old, infirm, young - but a society is measured by how well they take care of the weakest among them. And yes, some of those who get help aren't the ones who should be getting it, but do you allow some in need to fall through the cracks because of a few bad apples? FWIW, I'm a liberal who believes in workfare. I view taxes as an investment. I don't mind paying taxes if I get a return on my investment, even if it's streets that are swept clean.
Paying taxes to fund government is an obligation of citizenship. Paying taxes to fund research into the sex life of possums is not.
"Fund the government" may very well mean funding "research into the sex life of possums". If understanding the sex life of possums leads to the development of the cure for cancer, would it be worth the funding? Or in your case, if undertanding the sex life of possums leads to the development of a weapon that would kill all non-christian capitalists, would it be worth the funding?:p:
Anything that makes America a better nation is worth funding.
Nor is funding special programs for illegal activities.
What are you talking about?
And taxes are not an investment. Savings bonds are. Taxes are mandatory, investment is not. I'll choose my own investments every time.
Just because they're mandatory doesn't mean I can't demand a return on the taxes I pay.
The financial geniuses in Washington have us in debt far beyond our ability to repay for the forseeable future.
Thank GWB and Reagan for the debt. Do you think you have a better grasp on economic policy than both the Bush AND Obama administrations?
90% of those quotes were in opposition to religion, not Christianity. Semantics again, as in deists, theists.
So you think our forefathers were anti-religion? Ok. That really contradicts your assertion that
Conservatives believe this country was founded on Judeo-Christion principals
Wait, what?
The founding fathers were DENTISTS?
:lol:
Yes, Spex said so.:lol:
Can Conservatives write what they believe in without couching it in angry code?
If you don't get conservatives angry, they don't vote. It's true of most voters, but the Republican Party has been cultivating fear and anger for so long now that it seems an integral part of their M.O. And yes, Im sorry, I still believe that you can interchange Republicans and Conservatives - at least since Reagan.
But you said:
Which I interpret to mean that you don't want to change tose values, regardless of any clauses that allow for change. When liberals use the rule of law, conservatives object, if the outcome does not fit their agenda.
[COLOR=RoyalBlue]When did liberals use the rule of law?
[/COLOR]
My comments about anarchy and capital punishment were independant.
[COLOR=RoyalBlue]Agreed, they were. But the argument isn't.[/COLOR]
How is government evil? How does your response address my statement that nobody believes in "legalized theft"?
[COLOR=RoyalBlue]Government is evil because it imposes limits on liberty. It is a neccessary evil, because there will always be people in any society that will use liberty without self control or discipline. Thus, limited government.
Lots of people believe in legalized theft. When congress decides to take your money and gives it to someone or some organization that it is not authorized to give it to, is that not theft? Liberals were up in arms about Iran Contra, but the Democrat controlled congress disallowed paying for aid to the Contras, so North raised the money another way. He let the Iranians pay for it.[/COLOR]
"Fund the government" may very well mean funding "research into the sex life of possums". If understanding the sex life of possums leads to the development of the cure for cancer, would it be worth the funding? Or in your case, if undertanding the sex life of possums leads to the development of a weapon that would kill all non-christian capitalists, would it be worth the funding?:p:
Anything that makes America a better nation is worth funding.
[COLOR=RoyalBlue]Who defines making America better? The ends seldom justifies the means. If the Constitution says it is illegal to fund a church, should we fund it anyway, because someone thinks it will be better for America?
[/COLOR]
[COLOR=RoyalBlue]What are you talking about?[/COLOR]
Just because they're mandatory doesn't mean I can't demand a return on the taxes I pay.
You're right, you should demand a return. But the return should be in those enumerated in the Constitution. If you want a return on your investment, buy theater tickets, not a politician.
Thank GWB and Reagan for the debt. Do you think you have a better grasp on economic policy than both the Bush AND Obama administrations?
[COLOR=RoyalBlue]No, but wait, probably more than Obama. Reagan was not the cause of our debt. His policies gave the foundation for the surplus Clinton was able to claim. As for Bush, his debt was caused by the war, and his appeasement attempts with liberals by supporting education reform and medicare prescription drug program.
[/COLOR]
So you think our forefathers were anti-religion? Ok. That really contradicts your assertion that
[COLOR=RoyalBlue]You're putting words in my mouth. You're the one who is anti religion, the majority of the founding fathers were members of religious organizations.[/COLOR]
Can Conservatives write what they believe in without couching it in angry code?
Voter Anger Palpable At Intentionally Anger-Stoking RallyThe real reason the founders chose a hands off policy, was because it was the only way to sell the revolution to a fractious bunch of colonies. After all, many if not most of the colonists had suffered shit from their previous nation because the rulers had chosen one religion over another. Now under English rule, the leaders were an ocean away and pretty much let these fractious groups do what the hell they wanted... as long as they paid taxes.
The real story of religion in the colonies and how the founding fathers dealt with it.
President Obama declared: “This is America. And our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country and that they will not be treated differently by their government is essential to who we are.” In doing so, he paid homage to a vision that politicians and preachers have extolled for more than two centuries—that America historically has been a place of religious tolerance. It was a sentiment George Washington voiced shortly after taking the oath of office just a few blocks from Ground Zero.
But is it so?
In the storybook version most of us learned in school, the Pilgrims came to America aboard the Mayflower in search of religious freedom in 1620. The Puritans soon followed, for the same reason. Ever since these religious dissidents arrived at their shining “city upon a hill,” as their governor John Winthrop called it, millions from around the world have done the same, coming to an America where they found a welcome melting pot in which everyone was free to practice his or her own faith.
The problem is that this tidy narrative is an American myth. The real story of religion in America’s past is an often awkward, frequently embarrassing and occasionally bloody tale that most civics books and high-school texts either paper over or shunt to the side. And much of the recent conversation about America’s ideal of religious freedom has paid lip service to this comforting tableau.
Much more.
I only read the first page of the Smithsonian article, and all it is doing is chronicalling what the American dream was trying to escape. The French, British and Spanish were exporting their religious intolerance to the colonies. It reminds me of an Irishman who was speaking about his homeland, and someone asked him about the Christians who were fighting each other in Ireland. His reply was "There are no Christians fighting in Ireland."
I only read the first page of the Smithsonian article,...
That's the best way to remain ignorant.
That's the best way to remain ignorant.
No, the
best way to remain ignorant is to read revisionist history promulgated by the Smithsonian, liberal college professors and the media.
:facepalm:
“For the great enemy of truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth – persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we hold to the clichés of our forebears….We enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
John F Kennedy
and he thinks people laugh at Obama.
I don't think Kennedy ever heard of Obama.
Government is evil because it imposes limits on liberty.
Limits like not allowing openly gay men and women serve in the military, not allowing US citizens marry the gender of their choice, not allowing a woman to choose to end a pregnancy, etc. Don't act as though it's only liberals who impose limits on liberty.
I don't think Kennedy ever heard of Obama.
Pssst. I think he was referring to you.;)
I think you're right. It's ok though, I come here to laugh.
Although I don't completely disagree on
DADT & Marriage versus Civil Unions.
not allowing a woman to choose to end a pregnancy
This one is a matter of perspective... To some this is akin to murder. I find it interesting that the left has this "perversion of science" mentality against the right with global warming and whatnot, but is perfectly ok with abortion.
I guess I shouldn't post this here, cuz I don't want to hijack the thread & turn it into an abortion of an abortion debate..
This one is a matter of perspective... To some this is akin to murder.
Maybe to some, but not to many. There are very few who would support life imprisonment, or even ten years, for a woman who got an abortion. People may not like it, but the number who
really think it's murder is vanishingly small.
No, the best way to remain ignorant is to read revisionist history promulgated by the Smithsonian, liberal college professors and the media.
If you'd read the goddamn thing, you'd see that the federal government was not founded on Religious principles, it was founded on neutral principles. It had to be, because the individual states
were founded on religious principles, but not all the same, and the only way to get them to join together was to guarantee a neutral position by the feds. That's why the individual states carried on with laws that supported the semi-official religion in that state. Your claim of being founded Christian principles is true when you talk about states, but not the United States.
