APP - Karen Santorum: 2012 Is a 'Battlefield' for 'Defending God's Truth'

Mott the Hoople said:
It's a valid comparison. You're as intolerant as they are.
Click to expand...

No, it is not a valid comparison at all. You won't find me forcing my beliefs on anyone or killing those with whom I disagree. Your claim is childish and absurd. If you actually believe what you said, you're so detached from reality that there's no point in discussing this any further.

You're trying to paint all Muslims at extremist terrorist.
Click to expand...

I am trying to do no such thing. I merely pointed out that by and large, liberals overlook Muslim extremism in the name of political correctness.

That's just pure and plain bigotry and considering Catholicism sordid and murderous history, no Catholic has room to criticise Muslims. They've done far worse.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm not a Catholic, and I will not defend their gruesome history. But I do find it interesting that on one hand you accuse me of being a bigot, and on the other, you essentially blame modern-day Catholics for actions that were taken four hundred years ago.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
You're missing a point. Being a person of faith is fine. It's great. It's highly recommended, as a guiding influence. It has no place in public policy though.
Click to expand...

You have contrary statements. It should "guide" me but not "influence" me? It has a place as a guide, but no place? You are contrary. I'm sure you can elaborate and make the dichotomy disappear. How should one deny what they believe is right, and exactly where should they when allowing their belief to "guide" them?
 
Don Quixote said:
whose morality

the religious have been claiming that social decay is rampant for centuries

change happens, deal with it
Click to expand...

I do deal with it by voting and by volunteering. YOU DEAL with that. Moral decay is nothing new and it will never cease to be a fact of life. As such it ought to be dealt with both politically and privately as it impacts both public policy and private lives.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
You're missing a point. Being a person of faith is fine. It's great. It's highly recommended, as a guiding influence. It has no place in public policy though.
Click to expand...

WOW! More cognizant dissonance in a liberal-it must go hand in hand! If it is a guiding influence it does, by nature, influence those it guides.
 
Ice Dancer said:
I do deal with it by voting and by volunteering. YOU DEAL with that. Moral decay is nothing new and it will never cease to be a fact of life. As such it ought to be dealt with both politically and privately as it impacts both public policy and private lives.
Click to expand...

you cannot legislate morality (especially as an individual or a subgroup) - even if you achieve limited success, people will continue to act as they want, they just will be more circumspect about it

the best way to effect change is to be an example and develop a larger group of friends to be an example to

why do you feel that you can tell others how to live their lives or that you even have the authority
 
Damocles said:
You have contrary statements. It should "guide" me but not "influence" me? It has a place as a guide, but no place? You are contrary. I'm sure you can elaborate and make the dichotomy disappear. How should one deny what they believe is right, and exactly where should they when allowing their belief to "guide" them?
Click to expand...

i think that he meant that a persons opinions may guide or influence their lives, but their responsibility to their constituents is to listen to (and vote) them and not his personal opinions
 
I don't believe a politician should base any of his decisions on the opinions of his constituents. That's what elections are for. In theory, a politician should be where he is because he knows better how to govern/legislate/judiciate better than most of his constituents.
 
Don Quixote said:
you cannot legislate morality (especially as an individual or a subgroup) - even if you achieve limited success, people will continue to act as they want, they just will be more circumspect about it

the best way to effect change is to be an example and develop a larger group of friends to be an example to

why do you feel that you can tell others how to live their lives or that you even have the authority
Click to expand...

All law is based on a set of morals and or values. So it gets legislated all the day long. Abortion kills human life...it's a worthy debate in the public sector. Gay marriage is less so-but still, for those who have strong convictions either way, they have a right to have a voice via political representatives...why do you have such a problem with our Constitution and the rights it grants to voters?
 
Don Quixote said:
you cannot legislate morality (especially as an individual or a subgroup) - even if you achieve limited success, people will continue to act as they want, they just will be more circumspect about it

the best way to effect change is to be an example and develop a larger group of friends to be an example to

why do you feel that you can tell others how to live their lives or that you even have the authority
Click to expand...


Uhhhh is "your brother Stephen" taking a little sabbatical now that you're back? How far away is the basement anyway Don?

:rofl:
 
King of Kings said:
I don't believe a politician should base any of his decisions on the opinions of his constituents. That's what elections are for. In theory, a politician should be where he is because he knows better how to govern/legislate/judiciate better than most of his constituents.
Click to expand...

uh, a politician who isn't aware of the opinions of his constituents isn't going to be where he is for very long......
 
usaloyal2theend said:
Uhhhh is "your brother Stephen" taking a little sabbatical now that you're back? How far away is the basement anyway Don?

:rofl:
Click to expand...

i will not bore you with the odyssey of our move but suffice to say it was and continues to be a pain

we finally got internet service with wifi

stephen posts on current events and i post on app

i will mainly restrict my posts to health, science and scotus while he gets everything else

our new home has a granny unit complete with its own kitchen and bath, however, we usually eat together and discuss what we will post
 
Ice Dancer said:
All law is based on a set of morals and or values. So it gets legislated all the day long. Abortion kills human life...it's a worthy debate in the public sector. Gay marriage is less so-but still, for those who have strong convictions either way, they have a right to have a voice via political representatives...why do you have such a problem with our Constitution and the rights it grants to voters?
Click to expand...

i did not say it does not get legislated or that people cannot seek representation - just that i disagree with people that want to impose their morality on me

i do not have a problem with you following your own morality - i do have a problem when you or people like you decide what i can or cannot do

if you oppose abortion then do not get one

if you oppose gay marriage then do not marry someone of the same sex

ps your cat video does not show the cat sharpening one of its claws with the emery board but one of its pads - painful

pps i happen to like cats and find your video more offensive than humorous, in fact i find it downright abusive
 
Don Quixote said:
i did not say it does not get legislated or that people cannot seek representation - just that i disagree with people that want to impose their morality on me

i do not have a problem with you following your own morality - i do have a problem when you or people like you decide what i can or cannot do

if you oppose abortion then do not get one

if you oppose gay marriage then do not marry someone of the same sex

ps your cat video does not show the cat sharpening one of its claws with the emery board but one of its pads - painful

pps i happen to like cats and find your video more offensive than humorous, in fact i find it downright abusive
Click to expand...

Well, when you vote opposite of me, you are trying to impose your own brand of morality on me...and you most certainly did state that you "cannot legislate morality"- so quit your damned back sliding eh?

The stupid logic of your statements are inane with regards to abortion which kills a human being.

If you don't like slaves don't have one. If you don't like theft don't steal. See what I mean?...never mind I forgot who I was posting to.

PS I like cats too and I like the fact that you hate my avatar :D PPS I think your pathetic need to have two identities is well...pathetic.
 
Ice Dancer said:
Well, when you vote opposite of me, you are trying to impose your own brand of morality on me...and you most certainly did state that you "cannot legislate morality"- so quit your damned back sliding eh? my brand of morality is do not harm others needlessly

The stupid logic of your statements are inane with regards to abortion which kills a human being. i am pro-choice and accept the scientific designation that a fetus is not a human being until it is viable outside the uterus
If you don't like slaves don't have one. If you don't like theft don't steal. See what I mean?...never mind I forgot who I was posting to. the previous two instances fall under hurting other needlessly

PS I like cats too and I like the fact that you hate my avatar :D PPS I think your pathetic need to have two identities is well...pathetic.
Click to expand...
since you have no way to prove or disprove my statement that my brother has joined the fray, tough
 
Don Quixote said:
since you have no way to prove or disprove my statement that my brother has joined the fray, tough
Click to expand...

Harming the unborn is harm. Science is emphatic that the human fetus is 100% human life-viability is a legal, not an ethical position...much the same way slavery was a legal not an ethical position. You support hurting a human being, so long as it aligns with your own moral compass...that makes you a hypocrite at best.

I don't need to prove anything...I just know :D
 
Ice Dancer said:
Harming the unborn is harm. Science is emphatic that the human fetus is 100% human life-viability is a legal, not an ethical position...much the same way slavery was a legal not an ethical position. You support hurting a human being, so long as it aligns with your own moral compass...that makes you a hypocrite at best.

I don't need to prove anything...I just know :D
Click to expand...

'you just know', that is not an argument, it is an opinion and not subject to debate :palm:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top