WHAT ROUGH BEAST? America sits of the edge

george, george, george.........what will I ever be able to do with you? <shaking head>

And perc wrote:

Quote:

The religious right is DEMONIZED by the left, for allegedly doing what this new leftist organization has stated as it's goal. And Tart cheers.

Perc,

The religious right has stated this very goal and have been stating it since the early eighties. It's not their stated goal that I object to.......I think I've said this a number of times already. It's the secrecy and dirty tricks to which I object.

Thanks Tartarin for that article. I'll consider it to be a good OMEN.

0 Replies

Hey folks, the Massachusetts Supreme court JUST found the ban on gay marriage to be unconstitutional.

DAMN that sounds good!!

0 Replies

Tartarin wrote:

So basically, Perc, you're against organized dissent? What sort of democracy would you like?

Wrong----I am NOT against organized dissent or any kind of dissent. I object to the tactics used by the elitist minority to subvert the will of the majority. The tactics of attempting to distract the electorate by demonizing one group or individual with the lowest forms of criticism including slander, character assassination, and the devious work of the ACLU, while at the same time employing intellectual rhetoric to cast doubt on the validity of every traditional value which makes this country the dream of every oppressed individual who lives under the thumb of those countries ruled by a minority. Sometimes the minority is a committee of elites or a single despotic ruler but the effect is the same ------ you will do as I/we say because I/we know best and we have the power to force you to do as we say.

That is why I despise the elitist philosophy which is so prevalent on this forum.

0 Replies

Perc,

You confuse me. You speak of the left as using different, more elitist tactics than the right. How can this be? After all this discussion, how can this be? The articles Blatham posted to guide the discussion on this tread demonstrate the untruth of this idea. Observe the postings I've made of the FRC.

Am I misunderstanding you?

0 Replies

Perc -- We are taking away the ID card which allows you credibility in the matter of democratic dissent. A nourishing aspic awaits you in the basement cafeteria.

0 Replies

Tartarin,

That's great news about the Massachusetts Supreme Court. I can't wait to read today's edition of the Washington Update.

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

Perc,

You confuse me. You speak of the left as using different, more elitist tactics than the right. How can this be? After all the discussion, how can this be? The articles Blatham posted to guide the discussion on this tread demonstrated the untruth of this idea. Observe the postings I've made of the FRC.

Lola

If I may ask that you, for a moment, put aside your one specific condemnation (and rightly so) of the use by the religious right of arrogant fundamentist dogma to influence political decisions and to just try to take a look from my point of view. I'm now talking about the general tactics used by the opposition ( Bush bashers, liberal elitists, intellectual pundits, and just plain Dems who are now on the outside looking in----all lumped together) to save face and regain some semblance of stature once held by the Democratic party.

Let's start with the nearly illiterate rants of Michael Moore in his contemptible attacks on Bush which now have been brought to a new level by that obese, unloveable non-swimming coward-----Ted Kennedy on the floor of the US Senate. Moore is merely a hypocritical opportunist who has capitalised on his brilliant recognition of a vast pool of Bush haters who would buy his trashy books just because he insulted Bush in several different ways. Kennedy's motivations appear to be much more complex but none of which would get him nominated for the statesman of the year award. He is an embarrassment to any well meaning Democrat.

Next you have the very cleverly hidden agenda of the ACLU which is intent upon changing the face of American culture and to revise the intent of the constitution their way. This is very evident in their selectivity in choosing only those cases that will further their agenda. Fainess in protecting your and my liberties is not among their criteria for selecting cases. Fairness is replaced with prejudice against any form of religious tradition ----- pure revisionism as their objective.

And last the most dangerous of all ----- the insidious but relentessly patient (like the drip----drip ---drip of a leaking fauset) of liberal intellectuals in their vicious attempt to demean and demonize the traditions of this country. Patriotism is evil and causes wars-----religion is for non thinkers----if you work hard and pay taxes without complaint you're stupid-----only those who dissent are patriotic, anyone else is a stupid dolt----marriage with committment is a myth to be shattered----ethical behavior is myopic and old fashioned-----we have inalienable rights which need not be defended-----appeasement is the true road to peace.

Last but not least----maintaining discipline in the schools is somehow old fashioned and despotic----we should instead let the little darlings indulge every whim lest we stunt their intellectual growth

0 Replies

Tartarin wrote:

Perc -- We are taking away the ID card which allows you credibility in the matter of democratic dissent. A nourishing aspic awaits you in the basement cafeteria.

You just couldn't leave your broom in it's parking space.

0 Replies

Perc,

I hope you'll love me anyway, as I do you and george, for being the very essence of those you so dislike. I am a Bush hater, a liberal intellectual, a fan of Michael Moore and Ted Kennedy, and a member of the ACLU. But being all those things doesn't make me believe that patriotism is evil (I don't think this) or that religion is for non-thinkers (I don't believe this either.) I don't believe that marriage with commitment is a myth to be shattered, but I do think people take "commitment" to mean something other than my own definition of it and therefore are bound by rules rather than true commitment. And non desent is not unpatriotic if there is nothing to be desenting about.

I wish you would look at your assumptions above. If the ACLU chooses thier battles, this means they're intent on revising the constitution? Could you see it as a disagreement about the meanings in the Constitution? That's what I think it is. And since that's what it is, I prefer to try to explain to you why I think the Constitution means what it seems to me to mean. Intrepretation is what we're struggling over.

0 Replies

Ah Lola

I do love you but there is this vast chasm that will never be bridged. You could say it's a matter of perception :wink:

0 Replies

Perc -- You get absolutely nowhere when you simplify others' beliefs, boiling them down into fightin' statements which your opponents haven't, in fact, made. You're a troublemaker: you assign beliefs to people and then fight them over what's going on in your own imagination:

Patriotism is evil and causes wars.
[No, but jingoism does, and the distinction must be made between the two very carefully]

Religion is for non thinkers
[No, but imposing religion on others is tyrannical and antidemocratic and was the cause of the many fleeing to America -- to be free of that imposition.]

If you work hard and pay taxes without complaint you're stupid.
[No, even liberals work hard and pay taxes and tend to complain even less about paying them than conservatives do!]

Only those who dissent are patriotic, anyone else is a stupid dolt.
[No, stupid dolts are those who do not dissent when they believe their government is misleading them.)

Marriage with committment is a myth to be shattered
[No, but marriage is not the only way of life for two loving people.]

Ethical behavior is myopic and old fashioned.
[That may well be true. That's why we're so horrified by young Bush's hot-shot yuppie friend, Ken Lay and his ability to get away so neatly with robbery, and by the tax cuts favoring those who have over those who need.]

We have inalienable rights which need not be defended.
[In fact, those against whom you are arguing are those who are doing their damnedest to prevent the administration from eroding any more of our inalienable rights. Don't stand there carping, help us!!]

Appeasement is the true road to peace.
[No, not making war is the true road to peace.]

0 Replies

Ah Ha Tart

You've just given me some real ammo but must take a break and run some errands---don't go way.

0 Replies

Tartarin wrote:

Perc -- You get absolutely nowhere when you simplify others' beliefs, boiling them down into fightin' statements which your opponents haven't, in fact, made. You're a troublemaker: you assign beliefs to people and then fight them over what's going on in your own imagination

What do you think this polarization is all about----its what liberals just cannot grasp----it's what makes O'Reilly successful---it's what makes all liberal talk shows failures---you say I assign beliefs and that these are just figments of my imagination. What you can't grasp is that approcimately 50% of the American electorate think just as I do---they have the same perceptions of liberals as I do----you need to stop saying I'm the troublemaker and do a little self analysis.

perception wrote:

Patriotism is evil and causes wars.

Tartarin wrote:

No, but jingoism does, and the distinction must be made between the two very carefully

I'm not sure when or how the term jingoism came into being but I think it's more than coincidental that it's use became common during wars that were "unpopular with leftist liberals". Just another way for lefties to defend their anti war views and at the same time demonize a word that is near and dear to Americans

perception wrote:

Religion is for non thinkers

Tartarin wrote:

No, but imposing religion on others is tyrannical and antidemocratic and was the cause of the many fleeing to America -- to be free of that imposition.

Isn't it a bit of a stretch to make that charge in a country that is the most tolerant of all religions of any country in the world? The only thing I see is the desire for christianity to be practiced as it has for the past two hundred years----no more ---no less.

perception wrote:

]If you work hard and pay taxes without complaint you're stupid.

Tartarin wrote:

No, even liberals work hard and pay taxes and tend to complain even less about paying them than conservatives do!

I will concede that many liberals work hard and pay taxes----but----without complaint???????

perception wrote:

Only those who dissent are patriotic, anyone else is a stupid dolt.

Tartarin wrote:

No, stupid dolts are those who do not dissent when they believe their government is misleading them.)

As of this moment the only sources telling me that my gov't is misleading me are those of the opposition-----with no proof. When the Pres or any member of his cabinet is forced to resign with proof of perjury----then I will believe it. Scurilous charges are all that we have now.

perception wrote:

Marriage with committment is a myth to be shattered

Tartarin wrote:

No, but marriage is not the only way of life for two loving people.

Marriage with committment is almost a thing of the past---why ---because the liberal view does not stress committment----liberals say well so what? we made a mistake ----- let's get a divorce. Liberals encourage civil marriage ceremonies which IMO lack the official sanction of a church and therefore it can be argued carry less conviction to continue the marriage after the sexual attraction has worn off. As far as endorsing gay marriage--I believe that is something for society as a majority to endorse---not for a minority to impose upon the rest of society but then you liberals are consistent in your desire to impose your will upon the rest of society. As for your inference that living together is a viable alternative----I would agree until there are children to consider---what about them? Here again the liberal slant is to change our culture to accept children born out of wedlock as entirely normal and acceptable. So far society is fighting that concept tooth and nail and you don't like it----here again is the minority attempting to impose it's will on the majority

perception wrote:

Ethical behavior is myopic and old fashioned.

Tartarin wrote:

That may well be true. That's why we're so horrified by young Bush's hot-shot yuppie friend, Ken Lay and his ability to get away so neatly with robbery, and by the tax cuts favoring those who have over those who need.

Ken Lay stayed at the White House-----but it was during the "sell out" reign of Clinton-----not Bush.

What I have in mind was the liberal attitude(yours in particular on another thread) that it is beneath the dignity of a college student to study ethics in college. This IMO will allow liberal college professors to have the most free reign to fill our childrens undeveloped brains with socialist nonsense.

perception wrote:

We have inalienable rights which need not be defended.

Tartarin wrote:

In fact, those against whom you are arguing are those who are doing their damnedest to prevent the administration from eroding any more of our inalienable rights. Don't stand there carping, help us!!

LOL-- The point here is that we all have inalienable rights endowed by a creator but I have never known of the creator preventing a dictator from taking them away from the citizens who were unwilling to fight for them

perception wrote:

Appeasement is the true road to peace.

Tartarin wrote:

No, not making war is the true road to peace.]

Ok I'll accept that for a moment but what happens when diplomacy fails and the other side declares war? As in the case of bin Laden and Saddam---they both declared war on us you know.

0 Replies

Yes, perception, I agree.........it IS a matter of perception. But I do think we could learn more from each other if we listened and tried to understand. Asked questions and tried to make some sense of the other's perceptions.

0 Replies

perception and tartarin argue about principles. Tartarin will never agree with Perception since Tartarin's assumptions are diffrerent. For example, Tartarin does not agree with Perception's idea of family. That is because the left wing is aware that the family is the crucial vehicle for the transmission of specific ideas and values and because it is in the family that the sense of TRADITION, a basic human sense of respect for the ancestral past, is preserved and conveyed. That is why socialists and left wingers subvert tradition and celebrate impiety.

0 Replies

Tartarin oversimplifies. He says that stupid dolts are those who do not protest when they believe that their government is misleading them.

Apparently, Tartarin feels that ALL that is necessary for people to dissent is to BELIEVE that their government is misleading them.

Tartarin seems to be very naive about human nature if he really thinks that people do not have an almost infinite capacity for self-delusion.

0 Replies

I am greatly heartened by the court decision in Mass. The reasons the court has given for its decision are precisely the ones which speak to the best part of America - coming from the notion that all people are equal, and that none should be excluded on the basis of tradition or the value beliefs of a segment of the nation.

The protests from the Christian Coalition, from the President and from other republicans that this decision does not respect the 'sanctity' of marriage is, of course, exactly what the court found to be an argument at odds with the Constitution.

Tradition once held that blacks were non-human. Tradition once held that women were too hysterical to wield the responsibility of leadership or even the responsibility to cast a vote. Is it an 'activist' court which decides women too should have access to the ballot box? Is it an activist court which overturns local ordinances directing blacks to the rear of the bus?

0 Replies

What Blatham does not seem to understand is one of the basic facts of modern social thought, namely that the family is the basis of stable social life. Now, if Blatham wants to equate Homosexuality a basis for a stable society, he may but he is overlooking the fact that even though there may be homosexuals who are "faithful", almost every study of human sexuality has found that promiscuity is rampant among homosexuals.

Blatham apparently does not fear the slippery slope.

Why, one of our greatest playwrights has told us, in his putrid "Who is Slyvia" that there is nothing basically wrong with bestiality. and Man-Boy love.

Why, the stupid idea that boys should be over 18 to engage in consensual sex is so old-fashioned.

Why boys were married at 13 in the Middle Ages.

And, just what is wrong with people in the same family loving each other? Isn't the sex act the highest expression of true love.

Blatham would probably dismiss the above as faniciful and improbable.

We would have dismissed Gay Power parades as fanciful and improbable in the fifties.

But, I forgot. Blatham is an academic from Canada.

A sure formula for falling into the category of
far left wing perversion.

0 Replies

Italgato wrote:

What Blatham does not seem to understand is one of the basic facts of modern social thought, namely that the family is the basis of stable social life. Now, if Blatham wants to equate Homosexuality a basis for a stable society, he may but he is overlooking the fact that even though there may be homosexuals who are "faithful", almost every study of human sexuality has found that promiscuity is rampant among homosexuals.

Would these be the same studies that show the same amount of promiscuity among hets? What about those of us who play for both teams? Are we twice as likely to stray ( some of my exes would actually say "yes" to that one Sad

)

Quote:

Blatham apparently does not fear the slippery slope.

Correct. Blatham is not afraid of the fairies under the bed! Wink

Quote:

Why, one of our greatest playwrights has told us, in his putrid "Who is Slyvia" that there is nothing basically wrong with bestiality. and Man-Boy love.

[
Who would that be? Confused

Quote:

Why, the stupid idea that boys should be over 18 to engage in consensual sex is so old-fashioned.

Or new fangled.

Quote:

Why boys were married at 13 in the Middle Ages.

And girls at ten. What is your point? It is a matter of societal norms.

Quote:

And, just what is wrong with people in the same family loving each other?

See: Universal Incest Taboo.

Quote:

Isn't the sex act the highest expression of true love.

Most of us moved past that line in tenth grade. Rolling Eyes

Quote:

Blatham would probably dismiss the above as faniciful and improbable.

One can only hope!

Quote:

We would have dismissed Gay Power parades as fanciful and improbable in the fifties.

See: Societal Norms.

Quote:

But, I forgot. Blatham is an academic from Canada.

Jealousy? Green is SO not your colour!

Quote:

A sure formula for falling into the category of
far left wing perversion.

Why are conservatives so afraid of sex? Is it becasue you guys can't get laid? Cool

0 Replies

WHAT ROUGH BEAST? America sits of the edge

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know