Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ben Carson, famed neurosurgeon, running for president

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Savez View Post
    Never held a sign but I do think Obama is a liar. I also think the left is trying to destroy/ruin/corrupt the nation but not necessarily on purpose. Those are my only symptoms.
    The on purpose bit is sorta important. If you think someone from a different political ideology is taking the nation down the wrong path, that's one thing - destroying and corrupting the nation is pretty strong imagery, but hardly Nut Job territory.

    But for the Nut it's all deliberate - Obama is a secretly Muslim anti-American who wants to destroy America from the inside. Just like how Bush was a fascist corporate shill who invaded Iraq to steal the oil and help implement a return to conscription, etc.

    Remember that being a Nut Job requires having views that are extreme, conspiratorial, downright loony, and they are incapable of understanding those points.

    Is Clinton a bad choice for next president due to her personal politics and a track record of failure and undesirable politics? Perfectly sane!

    Is Clinton a bad choice for next president because she and her husband secretly execute their enemies in a slow climb to the top? Nut job!

    So really, as long as you don't start talking about how the Gay Masons are trying to control banking or why we need to be prepared for when the Chinese launch a secret first strike, you're far from nut job territory!

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Savez View Post
      This article says it better than I can, except I disagree that there is a "militant secularization". Militant seems too strong of a word.

      http://m.christianity.com/christian-...er-attack.html
      See, I would disagree because of bits like this from the article:

      What is happening in America is an increasing hostility and intolerance toward Christian beliefs and values that many perceive to be an attack on religious freedom. In current American culture, you are free to be a Christian as long as you donít actually live out your faith, vote your faith, take a stand in relation to your faith, or believe others should embrace your faith.
      The reason is, from the perspective of a filthy heathen from a good Christian family - and who has gone to Baptist higher education all his life - that the fact that people are not accepting a strictly Christian interpretation of morality and ethics that some view as an attack.

      There is literally nothing to stop you from voting, living, or believing in your faith.

      But gay marriage, for instance, is not an "attack" on Christianity. What it is is supplanting the previous domination Christianity had over the nation. It's loosing its monopoly on morality and ethics, and despite the fact that Christianity and Christians still possess a privileged position in the United States that small fact is viewed by some as an "attack".

      The sheer facts on the ground just don't match up with an attack on the faith. For instance, gay marriage doesn't demand you yourself have to accept gays - it just makes it so legally they have the same rights and privileges. It's a key difference - there is no law saying that you have to like anybody, but they can make it illegal to actually discriminate against them.

      And these blows to Christianity's previously held position being seen as a real threat to the religion seem ludicrous to us on the outside because I will face far more discrimination for being an Atheist than you will for being a Christian.

      To put it bluntly, because of Christianity's privileges in our nation and society, any move that brings it down to a more even position with other faiths or ideologies is going to seem like an attack from within. People still argue that the US is a Christian nation, after all - and if that doesn't show how it's really a matter of perspective, well, nothing will.

      The reason why I'm slow to believe claims about the faith being attacked is that not only does Christianity still possess a privileged position in our nation and society, but the term "attack" has been badly misused before, like when they were trying to put the 10 commandments into that court house, etc.

      The fact is that we still have presidents swearing an oath over a Bible, our money still says "In God We Trust", and every single President and Vice-President in our entire history has been a Christian.

      And even if that were to change and we removed those Christian trappings from the state, it wouldn't be an attack or a prosecution of Christians, unless we were to believe that right now all non-Christians are being prosecuted by not being held in that same privileged position.

      And despite some loons on the left who like to claim that sort of crap, it just isn't so.

      So if Christianity is under "attack" in the nation, then what about Atheists like me? You still have your deity mentioned on the money I use, and it's your holy book used to swear in our elected executives. So you can understand why it might take me some convincing to believe that Christians are being prosecuted.

      But then, I guess if one believes that secularization and the reduction of Christianity from its position of monopoly to a lesser role is an attack, then it becomes an issue of terminology really.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
        The on purpose bit is sorta important. If you think someone from a different political ideology is taking the nation down the wrong path, that's one thing - destroying and corrupting the nation is pretty strong imagery, but hardly Nut Job territory.

        But for the Nut it's all deliberate - Obama is a secretly Muslim anti-American who wants to destroy America from the inside. Just like how Bush was a fascist corporate shill who invaded Iraq to steal the oil and help implement a return to conscription, etc.

        Remember that being a Nut Job requires having views that are extreme, conspiratorial, downright loony, and they are incapable of understanding those points.

        Is Clinton a bad choice for next president due to her personal politics and a track record of failure and undesirable politics? Perfectly sane!

        Is Clinton a bad choice for next president because she and her husband secretly execute their enemies in a slow climb to the top? Nut job!

        So really, as long as you don't start talking about how the Gay Masons are trying to control banking or why we need to be prepared for when the Chinese launch a secret first strike, you're far from nut job territory!
        This , this is really at the same time ,brilliant and hilarious.
        That rug really tied the room together

        Comment


        • #64
          In 1905 ,we voted a law that said "no religion of ANY kind will be visible in the exercise of our republic"
          It made things more simple .
          It was not a simple task to apply this law , but we don't know your present troubles.
          That rug really tied the room together

          Comment


          • #65
            Here was a situation which occurs in real life, we see below how sometimes folks do not like the answers they are getting to the question they ask,



            Mr Carson was pretty much asked the same question irt gay rights about 5 or 6 times in a row. I thought Mr. Carson handled himself in a gentlemen like manner, I say this even though I may disagree with some of Carsons viewpoints.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by sebfrench76 View Post
              This , this is really at the same time ,brilliant and hilarious.
              Mostly, it's just hilarious. Here's a guy - DoD - who rants against anyone with strong personal views and then goes on a multi-part rant of his own to express...wait for it...his very own strong personal views.

              Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by sebfrench76 View Post
                In 1905 ,we voted a law that said "no religion of ANY kind will be visible in the exercise of our republic"
                It made things more simple .
                It was not a simple task to apply this law , but we don't know your present troubles.
                And from all accounts it has not simplified your situation with all of your Muslim immigrants, while the Cathedral of Notre Dame remains standing, right?

                We were doing fine until Mohammed Barack got into office, and then the racism and the anti-religious attacks began in full force. A lot of us see a distinct connection; others, who voted for this walking scrotum, claim they do not.
                Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                Comment

                Latest Topics

                Collapse

                Working...
                X