My fear about McCain...

RStringfield said:
You are making it the focus when you argue that the south is somehow worthy of derision while states that have chosen warmongers are not.

When has Huckabee used it to limit freedom? His attacks on the first amendment are far less bothersome than Clinton (see video games) and McCain's (CFR).

Oh, they put up a nativity scene. My rights have been violated. I might not agree with it, and his rhetoric is loathsome but it's little more than an annoyance.
Click to expand...

If Senator Clinton opposed putting up a nativity scene in the privacy of ones own bedroom, and used religen as a reason to oppose it, I would be just as offended. You see the liberals usually do not USE relgous tenates to try to get the government to force people to comform, if they did I would be very opposed to it.
 
Jarod said:
If Senator Clinton opposed putting up a nativity scene in the privacy of ones own bedroom, and used religen as a reason to oppose it, I would be just as offended. You see the liberals usually do not USE relgous tenates to try to get the government to force people to comform, if they did I would be very opposed to it.
Click to expand...

What is a good basis to force people to conform?
 
AssHatZombie said:
So totalitarianism based on environmentalist propaganda is not as bothersome as totalitarianism based on religious propaganda.
Click to expand...

Both offensive, but using something as sacred as religen to promote totalitanism is more offensive to me. I dont find the enviroment to be sacred.
 
AssHatZombie said:
What is a good basis to force people to conform?
Click to expand...

The only one I know of is, in a limited way, to protect the rights of others. For example, stealing someone's money should be illegal because I have a right to keep what is physically mine.

To keep this from getting out of control, you have to use a ballancing test in the courts. Is the law promoting a legitatmate state interest? If so, is that state interest more inportant that the right its infringing upon, and is the infringement upon personal freedom as limited as it can be to still effectivly promote that State interest.

Using Freedom of Speech. I have an absolute right to yell "fire" when and where I want. (First amendment). However the State has a right to protect the health and safety of the people. So is it okay to make a law prohibiting the yelling of "fire" in a crowded theater...

You do the analysis...
 
Yes. Ok. So your made up false respect for religion that you just pulled out of your ass so you can create a false category for "right wing totalitarianism" is the reason you don't understand southern voters. Respect for religion is precisely why you don't understand them. You're so perfectly ass backwards and upside down in your pathetic attempts to craft a thought.
 
RStringfield said:
You are making it the focus when you argue that the south is somehow worthy of derision while states that have chosen warmongers are not.

When has Huckabee used it to limit freedom? His attacks on the first amendment are far less bothersome than Clinton (see video games) and McCain's (CFR).

Oh, they put up a nativity scene. My rights have been violated. I might not agree with it, and his rhetoric is loathsome but it's little more than an annoyance.
Click to expand...

Money does NOT equate to free speech. Why should Soros and Murdoch have more influence on the elections simply because they are billionaires?
 
Jarod said:
The only one I know of is, in a limited way, to protect the rights of others. For example, stealing someone's money should be illegal because I have a right to keep what is physically mine.

To keep this from getting out of control, you have to use a ballancing test in the courts. Is the law promoting a legitatmate state interest? If so, is that state interest more inportant that the right its infringing upon, and is the infringement upon personal freedom as limited as it can be to still effectivly promote that State interest.

Using Freedom of Speech. I have an absolute right to yell "fire" when and where I want. (First amendment). However the State has a right to protect the health and safety of the people. So is it okay to make a law prohibiting the yelling of "fire" in a crowded theater...

You do the analysis...
Click to expand...

State is an abstraction used to justify one-sided totalitarian relationships. There are only other individuals. There is no state.
 
Last edited:
Jarod said:
If Senator Clinton opposed putting up a nativity scene in the privacy of ones own bedroom, and used religen as a reason to oppose it, I would be just as offended. You see the liberals usually do not USE relgous tenates to try to get the government to force people to comform, if they did I would be very opposed to it.
Click to expand...

Bullshit. Tell me... if the government forces people to conform to atheistic beliefs... how is that any different?
 
Jarod said:
I hope you are correct, you are the one who called me a fear monger, for bringing up something just about every expert on television mentioned last night!

BTW, whats wrong with the south that creates these type of voters?
Click to expand...
You called yourself that, because you said you "feared" this in the title. When somebody says you are afraid of something when you have said you are first it isn't "calling" you afraid, it is the state of emotion that you informed us you were in.
 
Damocles said:
Again wrong. Coming afterward to find out who victimized you is not "protecting". You protect yourself.
Click to expand...

It's not always wrong. SOme times they can get there in time, or happen to be there. It happens. And when they do protect you, they are actually individual and not "the state".
 
Superfreak said:
Bullshit. Tell me... if the government forces people to conform to atheistic beliefs... how is that any different?
Click to expand...
Because it is his set of beliefs and therefore isn't bad.

Atheists pretend that they have evidence and are therefore not practicing faith. It's total rubbish.

I explained that it takes an infinite leap of faith no matter where on the line of probability you jump off from. Saying that they use "more" of it to believe in a Deity is total rubbish. Going from a probability to an assurance without evidence is an infinite leap regardless of which direction you leap.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top