Liberalism is an Addiction

:rollinglaugh: :rollinglaugh: :rollinglaugh: :rollinglaugh: :rollinglaugh:

I'm wondering if townhall.com is a blog site or a comedy site.

If liberalism is an addiction, conservatism is a religion.

Your statement doesn't bother me, does it bother you? And by that token i can claim Darwinism a religion.

Not really, and you know you cant.

I just did!

Ok, now prove your statement to be correct

Does it surprise anyone that the author of this article has no qualifications in any academic field to make such an assessment? :dunno:

You prove it incorrect.

And you can do so much better? Lets see some of your published work?

You've violated the negative proof fallacy


negative proof: Information from Answers.com

Point is that the author has about as many academic qualifications as I do, yet you don't see me writing articles for CNN or some other news source.

What are his qualifications? You don't write for CNN you write here, so what's the diff?

You made the statement, are you not able to back it up with evidence?

If not was it then a personal observation and nothing more?

I wouldn't say "able" i'd say "willing" is closer to it.Do you not "believe" the observations of Darwin?

The "diff" is that this is a debate forum not a news source.

Nouning a verb again, are we?

To 'believe' something is different from having a 'belief' in something.

I believe the sky is blue. Turns out it is.

I believe water is wet. Yup.

Fire burns? I believe so.

Again, this is your attempt to incorrectly define something. Scientists do not "believe" something or have a "belief" in something. We accept the observations and research. That's the word you're looking for.

Of course I could always ask if you believe in gravity. Do you, you Newtonist?

I believe in the science, which is tested, retested and conclusions drawn from the evidence collected. When scientists conduct multiple tests independantly of each other with the same results, this constitutes as fact.

"With all that in mind, doesn?t it strike you as hypocritical for the Democrats to get up in arms over a married mother of five running for the vice presidency? Doesn?t it seem at least slightly absurd that the only sexual activity that liberals frown upon is the sort that actually leads to babies being born?"


I'll tell you what's hypocritical....

If Barack Obama had a 17 year old daughter, that got pregnant out of wedlock, the Right Wing Ubernuts would have shut that down in a New York Minute....and that would be have been the end of his campaign. Out would come the Repubs...with their "weapons of mass distraction" touting good wholesome Family Values, and "how can a candidate expect to teach a good clean message to Americans, when his daughter got knocked up?" would be flying all over the place. That campaign would have ended with that news, because as we all know, Conservatives are a very tolerant group of people who love colors and races of all types, especially when they pour them glasses of water in restaurants, and manicure their lawns.

And here's a newsflash for ya pal, Liberals and Democrats, aren't so hot on all the infidelity and the skirt chasing, either. Skirt chasing and infidelity doesn't sit well with anyone, but while we're exposing one party as clearly the one who can't keep it zipped up, Bush Sr. has had a mistress in Europe for years, Bush Jr...was so messed up on coke and God Knows What, and I'm sure wasn't exactly...chaste. The only difference, is that Liberals get caught. They gotta work on that part, cause no one likes a cheat. But then again, the biggest difference is that Liberals get caught screwing outside of their marriage, and Conservatives get caught screwing the entire nation.

We're never happy when that kind of thing happens, and it has nothing to do with being Liberals, or Democrats, so much as just being..well...PEOPLE.

What we do vomit from and object to, is ignorance, and chicanery passing as religious and moral values, because it's a really great political platform to pander to a lot of people who are so out of touch with the world that they hoodwink us back to the middle ages.

That evil bad excuse for a womb with legs, no experience and her head clearly up her rectum, McCain's running mate, who's last name, I am positive is something of an Anagram for Satan, passing misinformation as a good thing, is completely reprehensible. Hence no Sex Education, no grounded realities to speak of, and worse, no abortions even in cases of RAPE. A woman with that series of values, clearly has no soul. Having been raped, I can tell you that I'd do just about anything to ensure that Sarah Palin never makes it out of Alaska. May she freeze to death there for all I care.

But no one said, "hey lady...what's up with all the Christian values, seeing as how firstly you are a liar, you have more skeletons in your closet than The Cask of Amontillado, and your little girl is knocked up!!!!" Nope, The Dems didn't do that. and they SHOULD HAVE!!! Cause the only reason she's getting away with it, is cause she is A WHITE WOMAN!!!

So, as for the little smug quip about Liberals seem to frown only upon the kind of sex that produces children, I'd argue that the only sex Conservatives are interested in are the ones that produce children...

At least...in the public eye.

I rake it as yes then, you believe?

We do not believe. We accept.