I am amazed by the ignorance exhibited by Lola in her posts.
First of all, she apparently uses a story written in 1993( a full ten years ago) to quote a nobody( does anyone know who he is?) who said ( in a far left wing magazine) that the religious right was trying to establish a theocracy in the USA.
Lola's ignorance is massive.
First of all, the alleged quote comes from someone whose works or person is unknown to me, and I am sure to almost everyone else.
Is his quote supposed to be definitive? If so, why?
Secondly, Lola is apparently unaware of the fact that the Nation magazine was the conduit for Pravda before the Soviet state imploded. Quotes from that magazine are taken seriously by middle America as often as quotes from National Review are accepted. The Nation is a far far left venue.
Thirdly, Lola apparently does not know what a Theocracy is.
A theocracy is a country in which God or a deity is recognixed as the country's supreme CIVIL ruler.
Perhaps Lola does not know, or has never learned about our first amendement to the constitution which clearly states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
I respectfully suggest that before Lola quotes another questionable source she should take some time to look up terms like Theocracy and
should read the Articles of the Constitution and the Amendments. It may help her and keep her from becoming confused.
I freely admit The Left in general provides more hilarity than The Right.
Though both camps have their embarrassments.
The left sure does provide hilarity. Lola's quote of a 1993 Nation Magazine article is nothing if not hilarious.
We are all having a yuck up night, aren't we. Here's another, just to add to the hooting and backslapping cameraderie....
from the Christian Coalition website (you know, Ralph Reed, John Ascroft, George Bush - that crowd...
Quote:GOD'S WORD clearly states that He will bless those who bless Him and that the nation that honors Him will be honored among the nations. Charles Finney reiterated that Word when he said, "The Church must take right ground in regards to politics . . . God will bless or curse the nation according to the [political] course Christians take." So why, in America today, do we see the social fabric of society being torn away at the seams? The answer is simple: We have neglected the Biblical principles of sound government that God ordained for America. Can we expect God's blessing if we neglect His principles and abandon our stewardship responsibilities? Of course not. God, therefore, expects us to take part in the political process so that righteous men are placed in positions of authority.
Italgato wrote:The left sure does provide hilarity. Lola's quote of a 1993 Nation Magazine article is nothing if not hilarious.
Like the smell up there do you?
blatham wrote:We are all having a yuck up night, aren't we. Here's another, just to add to the hooting and backslapping cameraderie....
from the Christian Coalition website (you know, Ralph Reed, John Ascroft, George Bush - that crowd...
Quote:GOD'S WORD clearly states that He will bless those who bless Him and that the nation that honors Him will be honored among the nations. Charles Finney reiterated that Word when he said, "The Church must take right ground in regards to politics . . . God will bless or curse the nation according to the [political] course Christians take." So why, in America today, do we see the social fabric of society being torn away at the seams? The answer is simple: We have neglected the Biblical principles of sound government that God ordained for America. Can we expect God's blessing if we neglect His principles and abandon our stewardship responsibilities? Of course not. God, therefore, expects us to take part in the political process so that righteous men are placed in positions of authority.
There was once another guy who talked about what God ordained for his country. Some of you may have heard the name. Adolf Hitler!
Wilso's point is telling . . . i could go find Old Adolf's religious quotes in such abundance as to fill a page here in a matter of minutes . . . he had the same cynical contempt for those who elected him, as well . . . he just didn't have the military muscle which the Shrub commands . . .
Actually, Hitler dragged God out of Germany, and instituted a religion wherein he was the god.
I thought Democrats supported Mapplethorpe and his art... So, it is OK to take nude photos, and pose for them... unless you are a Republican? The moral code of the Dems seems to be based on whatever furthers their agenda at the time.
Is is bad to pose nude? Should the Dems put a stop to this immoral practice?
I would opine that it is bad to have posed nude in the event that your opponent is able to exploit the act--the last statement is partisan-neutral.
I have as much respect for the religious conviction of the Shrub as i would of Hitler. Hitler was notorious for his appeals to "christian values."
Lola I enjoy your posts for the record, and find you a charming member of this forum. Great legs too. Great ass I'd bet.
There, now we're fair and balanced. :wink:
The great masses of the people... will more easily fall victims to a great lie than to a small one.
Adolf Hitler
What luck for rulers that men do not think.
Adolf Hitler
The Religious Views of Adolf Hitler
There's some very familiar reading here. The parallels are frightening.
Italgato,
Did you get my note from the other thread? Just in case you missed it, I'll repost it here.
Quote:Note to Italgato:
The source for the above post is myself. It's my opinion, my attempt to communicate with you and the others on this board who I am and what I believe. It's about being myself so that others can know who I am. I expect others to let me know who they are as well, that's the way we learn from and influence each other. You're responses to these attempts by, not just me, but most of the rest of us is to attempt to force us to bow to the rule of authority (mostly your own.)
You use fallacious reasoning to make your points. An ad hominem fallacy is one in which a person tries to win a debate by discounting the other. Discounting the other's sources or choice of sources is discounting the judgment of the other. Which is an ad hom. It's like you're saying, "you're foolish to believe this source." Further when I quote a source, it's also an ad hom to argue against the opinion of the source by discounting the source. This tactic doesn't win points in a debate. I know others have said this to you before, but I'm trying again. Did you know you're not arguing logically?
But I think your technique is the very essence of what I believe is the problem with this administration's technique. They appeal to authority, only one authority, the one of their choosing. You say in essence, "don't think for yourself or express an opinion, or consider others opinions........pay attention only to the one true opinion."
Joan Didion has a lot of experience in the world of Washington and politics. What she writes is her opinion. But this is true about what everyone writes. It's up to each of us to construct our own opinions. And it's irresponsible to depend too heavily on the authority of any other person's opinion. In the same way it's a mistake to depend only on our own. I could just as easily point to Timber's source of the news story last night about the WMD in Kawait. It's a site supported by the functionaries of Richard Mellon Scaife's foundations. I could argue and I may, sometime on a different thread, that RMS is an authoritarian madman, but in that case, that would be the question and then we could all speak to that.
One of the reasons I'm here, discussing politics with my friends is because I want to be exposed to the opinion of others. And of course, I hope to influence as well as be influenced. We call that communication. But in order to communicate with others, I believe we must have some working hypothesis that is currently acceptable to ourselves before we can participate in any discussion. I prefer to think for myself. This is what I try to do, and what most of the other posters on this board try to do. It's usually a friendly, if sometimes strained, mutual attempt. You don't have to attack us to make your points. Please speak to the question and not to the character of the others here.
Italgato wrote:
Cheers- Perception- We are a few against many but we prevail since we are smarter and are in the right!
Lola, you're wasting your breath. He's as arrogant as Bush, as this quote clearly shows. You see he's smarter than the rest of us. Just ask him-he'll tell you.
But the destructo-twins haven't been around much lately. Instead of five or six posts in a row, with no other members posts interrrupting their stream of consciousness pontificating, they now show up once a day on a thread, toss in an insult, and then leave.I'm hoping they are getting bored and giving up.
Ahhh, fer chrissakes ... now you've prolly just encouraged 'em.
Thanks Bear. I should thank you for the compliment on the legs too. Now about my ass............
