What world are you living in? The party that claims moral superiority is the one that preaches "family values." Oh, and they never promoted tolerance until one of their own is caught redhanded. Republican's definition of tolerance is to shout "why does so-and-so hate America" whenever someone questions Bush's policy.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Party of ideas? Not the GOP
- Thread starter dddooo
- Start date
What world are you living in? The party that claims moral superiority is the one that preaches "family values." Oh, and they never promoted tolerance until one of their own is caught redhanded. Republican's definition of tolerance is to shout "why does so-and-so hate America" whenever someone questions Bush's policy.
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:
I find it highly ironic that all the name calling comes form Democrats and liberals, who are intoxicated with self-love because of their moral superiority and tolerance.
I just find the above a bit of a stretch. Just a google, I'm sure there are millions of stupid things said on both sides.
"It was Limbaugh who ridiculed Chelsea Clinton, then 13, as the "White House dog."
It was Limbaugh in 2001 who routinely referred to Democratic leader Tom Daschle, literally, as "El Diablo."
Of course, the "sanity" of Ann Coulter: "These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much."
Maybe both sides should remember what they should have learned in 2nd grade about name calling.
Anyway, there is plenty of tit for tat on both sides, but no one can really be called a winner when engaging in such activities.
Save the venom for the terrorists...let's get back the "united" in U.S.
An opinion.
c
Quote from cgroupman:
I just find the above a bit of a stretch. Just a google, I'm sure there are millions of stupid things said on both sides.
"It was Limbaugh who ridiculed Chelsea Clinton, then 13, as the "White House dog."
It was Limbaugh in 2001 who routinely referred to Democratic leader Tom Daschle, literally, as "El Diablo."
Of course, the "sanity" of Ann Coulter: "These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much."
Maybe both sides should remember what they should have learned in 2nd grade about name calling.
Anyway, there is plenty of tit for tat on both sides, but no one can really be called a winner when engaging in such activities.
Save the venom for the terrorists...let's get back the "united" in U.S.
An opinion.
c
It's not that I disagree with what you say, it's just that it's so much more pervasive on the liberal side. If you doubt me, go to your company's next mandatory sensitivity/diversity training session and announce that you find homosexuality to be morally wrong and perverted, or try to give a speech on a major university campus with the same topic.
Liberals are not interested in debating ideas. They honestly feel that their positions are so morally superior that any disagreement is evidence of a mental condition. They even made up a word, homophobia, to try to intimidate opponents of the radical gay agenda.
Conservatives who make controversial statements, such as those you cited, are routinely assailed as subhuman. When was the last time a liberal speaker got shouted down on a university campus? Or was attacked on stage, as happened to the Minuteman founder and Ann Coulter?
Again, civil debate is my preferred choice, understanding that we have differences, but I really think that the "bad guys" win (the Real bad guys who want Americans dead) when we divide and conquer ourselves with such awful verbal attacks all the time. Saying that liberals want the terroists to win, or stating that the conservatives have opened up a terrorist breeding haven in Iraq, really subverts what I think Americans all stand for.
Rather than "my bad guy is not as bad as your bad guy" which is a pretty poor argument in my opinion. Why not let good guys from both sides discuss issues as it was in the past, at least from what I was taught.
Do we really need another Workd War to bring U.S. together again? I hope not.
c
Rather than "my bad guy is not as bad as your bad guy" which is a pretty poor argument in my opinion. Why not let good guys from both sides discuss issues as it was in the past, at least from what I was taught.
Do we really need another Workd War to bring U.S. together again? I hope not.
c
Actually if that's what you celebrate, please vote Mark Foley, Dennis Hastert and other republicans who covered up for him. And lest you forget, republicans did not just cover up Foley's homosexual conduct, the party of moral values covered up his pedophilia, the party of grown ups covered up the kind of behavior that in any other amercian workplace with the exception of the republican controlled congress is known as sexual harassment.Quote from AAAintheBeltway:
If you celebrate homosexual conduct, please vote Democrat.
PS It's almost comical to watch how republicans are desperately trying to use wedge issues like gay marriage to hold on to power. AAA, you can do better than that, can't you see it's not working this election cycle, get over it!!!
by the way zzz - I was wondering if you could docucment the 450 species - and then document the way the anal sex is used.
for instance from what I have seen on t.v. chimps use anal sex to let the the inferior males undestand the the leadership heiracrchy. Sort of the way it is used in prisons. Sort of perhaps you wont be willing to take it up your butt when you wish to be the dominant male in this tribe.
That is not my idea of good morality, is it yours?
Now are you claiming some animals use anal sex to express their mutal love and do pair bonding?
Again I am not out to tell people to not be homosexual - that is really not my business - what I do wish to see is legitmate facts.
for instance from what I have seen on t.v. chimps use anal sex to let the the inferior males undestand the the leadership heiracrchy. Sort of the way it is used in prisons. Sort of perhaps you wont be willing to take it up your butt when you wish to be the dominant male in this tribe.
That is not my idea of good morality, is it yours?
Now are you claiming some animals use anal sex to express their mutal love and do pair bonding?
Again I am not out to tell people to not be homosexual - that is really not my business - what I do wish to see is legitmate facts.
I don't know if animals love, how they think, if and or what the "use" sex for...etc. No one really knows, they just guess, as we can't get their opinion on the matter...
What is observed, factually, is homosexual behavior in animals, in a natural setting, making homosexual behavior in over 450 species natural...
What is observed, factually, is homosexual behavior in animals, in a natural setting, making homosexual behavior in over 450 species natural...
Quote from jem:
by the way zzz - I was wondering if you could docucment the 450 species - and then document the way the anal sex is used.
for instance from what I have seen on t.v. chimps use anal sex to let the the inferior males undestand the the leadership heiracrchy. Sort of the way it is used in prisons. Sort of perhaps you wont be willing to take it up your butt when you wish to be the dominant male in this tribe.
That is not my idea of good morality, is it yours?
Now are you claiming some animals use anal sex to express their mutal love and do pair bonding?
Again I am not out to tell people to not be homosexual - that is really not my business - what I do wish to see is legitmate facts.
Quote from dddooo:
And lest you forget, republicans did not just cover up Foley's homosexual conduct, the party of moral values covered up his pedophilia......
And lest you forget, Foley resigned amid the publicity over seemingly LEGAL conversations. Why? Because he would NEVER be re-elected in his semi-conservative district. Few Dem's would have been compelled to leave office (i.e. Gerry Studds) over the same behavior.
My main point though is I'd be careful doodoo to not hide behind your "apparent" anonymity on a message board and post flat out libel. Calling someone a pedophile, without evidence, is not kosher. one trend you can BANK ON going forward is that courts are going to continue treating ISP addresses as no different than mailing addresses, phone numbers or license plate numbers. Feel free to leave a digital fingerprint wherever you go.......
Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:
Calling someone a pedophile, without evidence, is not kosher. one trend you can BANK ON going forward is that courts are going to continue treating ISP addresses as no different than mailing addresses, phone numbers or license plate numbers. Feel free to leave a digital fingerprint wherever you go.......
LOL
Foley + Pedophilia = 419,000 hits
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&q=foley+pedophilia&lr=lang_en%
Pabst as much as I like to agree with you - I do not wish to see any curtailment of first amendment rights by a boards moderator or even its participants.
so I must say that I cant imagine anyone getting in trouble for calling foley a boy molester.
First of all a public figure especially a politician has very little protection against someones saying his opinion. Now if someone were to say Foley molested his child and this was patently false that would be another situation.
Second could you imagine foley attempting to sue. Attorneys would jump at the chance to defend ddd. The fun would only just begin when discovery against foley began. By the time I was done with my national t.v. appearances and my book tour. I would be wealthky enough to start taking depos of every politician who spoke with foley. I would be annocing to Geraldo why Hastert lives with his aide, why pelosi marches with lamda. Oh the muck raking.
They would need a new law just to stop me from being the next bob woodward.
so I must say that I cant imagine anyone getting in trouble for calling foley a boy molester.
First of all a public figure especially a politician has very little protection against someones saying his opinion. Now if someone were to say Foley molested his child and this was patently false that would be another situation.
Second could you imagine foley attempting to sue. Attorneys would jump at the chance to defend ddd. The fun would only just begin when discovery against foley began. By the time I was done with my national t.v. appearances and my book tour. I would be wealthky enough to start taking depos of every politician who spoke with foley. I would be annocing to Geraldo why Hastert lives with his aide, why pelosi marches with lamda. Oh the muck raking.
They would need a new law just to stop me from being the next bob woodward.