Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Rana it's even worse. It's really there way of saying that were not really Christians either.
Tea Party Sustainability
- Thread starter Beefy
- Start date
Rana it's even worse. It's really there way of saying that were not really Christians either.
Crashk
Unite or Die
I can't believe after all the years Faux has put up this phony 'war' that the believers eat it up every time like it's brand new. And act like they've never seen it before.
Faux will use anything to promote their 'us vs them' fear campaigns, no matter how ignorant or untrue. A good propaganda piece to reinforce and control their congregation.
If you work for a living, you need to be angry to worship at the Church of Faux and to their conservative gods.
Faux will use anything to promote their 'us vs them' fear campaigns, no matter how ignorant or untrue. A good propaganda piece to reinforce and control their congregation.
If you work for a living, you need to be angry to worship at the Church of Faux and to their conservative gods.
Last edited:
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
Are you?
Bfgrn
New member
I don't deny some signs exist, but the reality is it's not as big or coordinated as you imply. AND, I have provided links that expose O'Reilly's lies and hyperbole.
Like David Silverman, the president of American Atheists and the man behind the billboard in NYC said: “Every year, atheists get blamed for having a war on Christmas, even if we don’t do anything, this year, we decided to give the religious right a taste of what war on Christmas looks like.”
Lie #1: Saginaw, Michigan tells people not to where red and green clothing:
O'REILLY: In Saginaw, Michigan, the township opposes red and green clothing on anyone. [Laughing] In Saginaw Township, they basically said, anybody, we don't want you to wear red or green. I would dress up head to toe in red to green if I were in Saginaw, Michigan.
False. Saginaw township issued a statement flatly denying this ridiculous accusation and noting that the township hall has red and green christmas lights on it as well.
Lie #2: The Plano, Texas school system tells students they can't wear green and red clothing:
O'REILLY: In Plano, Texas, just north of Dallas, the school told students they couldn't wear red and green because they were Christmas colors. That's flat-out fascism. If I were a student in Plano, I'd be a walking Christmas tree after that order. Have a little thing on my head.
False. The school district issued the following statement:
"The school district does not restrict students or staff from wearing certain color clothes during holiday times or any other school days," noted Dr. Otto, who said that the school district's attorney has requested that Mr. O'Reilly retract the statement.
Dr. Otto said that attorneys have requested of Mr. O'Reilly that, in the future, he ask his fact checkers to do a more thorough job of confirming the facts before he airs them. "It would be our hope that you would engage in fair and balanced reporting of this nationally recognized school district in the future," wrote PISD's attorney.
Lie #3: The Post Office no longer issues Christmas stamps with a religious theme:
O'REILLY: Yeah. I think it's the first time in my lifetime that the United States Postal Service has not had a spiritual stamp for people like you who would like them. And, again, disrespectful. Flat-out disrespectful, insulting you and your beliefs, [caller], because your spiritual stamp is in context to the celebration of Christmas. And we gotta stop that, and we will.
False. As the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported a couple weeks ago, the Post Office didn't issue any new religious-theme stamps this year only because the price of stamps is going up to 39 cents on January 8th and they still have a backlog of last year's Madonna and Child stamps to get rid of before then. Leave it to Bill O'Reilly to turn good inventory management into a conspiracy to destroy Christmas.
christiefan915
Catalyst
So, so true. A few years ago Pittsburgh changed the holiday shopping days from "Christmas season" to "sparkle season" and you should have heard the uproar. All those people who drive to a store at 3AM so they can be first inside to snatch cheap gifts when the doors opened were whining their heads off.
"Sparkle season" didn't last but at least it was honest in acknowledging that a religious holiday changed to a commercial one.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
and why not? It's tried and true and time tested political principle that works. Machiavelli expounded upon that principle in "The Prince" in the "Foreign Devil" chapter.
It's really laughable, I completely reject the notion that by being tolerant and inclusive of other religions and cultures that I am some how rejecting my own? The mind fairly boggles at that kind of stupidity.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Yup.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Here is the platform for the American Conservative Party:
http://theamericanconservatives.org...&id=49:platform&catid=34:background&Itemid=53
How do we get there without dramatic change?
What dramatic change, like cutting the defense budget and corporate welfare along with foreign aide? These are the areas where I would start, then work my way to through the rest!
Liberty
Libertarian Minded
I would start with the 16th Amendment.
Then the EPA. (this one is personal)
Then I would put the drug cartels out of business by ending prohibition.
The Department of Education would be high on the list.
Also all the tax money going overseas. Especially the financial black holes.
I would make the "Charlie Rangel Law".
And keep cutting.
Last edited:
Again, the only person in this thread talking about a "war on Christmas" is you.
*sigh*
1. Not one post of mine was in support of O'Reilly or has stated one thing about a "War on Christmas", I am simply pointing out the differences between radicals and conservatives and giving examples.
My point was that radicals exist in both parties, those who work to end such traditions are radicals. I made no point of right or wrong, only explained the difference between radical and conservative. I have worked to explain that while somebody may be a republican it certainly doesn't mean everything they do is "conservative."
It is a radical position to attempt to change laws so that somebody cannot burn a flag, for instance. It isn't conservative to attempt to change the constitution for an exemption to free speech in one category, it's radical.
Just as an attempt to force everybody into some politically correct mold that would exclude everything religious from public property rather than setting a plate for everybody is equally radical. It is a change from rulings of the SCOTUS, and current laws.
Basically, radicals are everywhere and they usually gather in different parties for different reasons, but that doesn't make them "Progressive" necessarily, nor does it turn a radical into a "conservative" simply because they are in the party where more conservatives are members.
Was the GDR "Democratic" because they said they were?
If dramatic change in laws that effect personal freedom is what they work for, Conservative is a misnomer. The founding fathers were radicals, not conservatives. The conservatives at that time supported the crown.
If our nation turns into some socialistic menace that stamps on our freedoms, I plan on being a radical and working towards liberty at every moment, attempting to return the nation to the principles of rights that cannot be infringed on by the government. Will you proudly be "Conservative" at that point and work to keep the status quo? I think not.
The problem most people are having is that they think that some certain list of beliefs is "conservative", it isn't. It may be right wing, but that doesn't necessarily make it conservative. If you are working towards dramatic change that effects the personal liberties of others, you are not acting conservatively even if you are fighting for more freedoms and less taxes.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
You obviously want Africans to die of AIDS.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
This is a political discussion board is it not? We are therefore debating the positions of the political entities. The fact is the the American Conservative Party has ideals which closely match the ideals of the Constitution, and to reach those ideals supports radical change. The modern American Liberal, in contrast, wishes to ignore the Constitution, specifically the limitations on the federal government, and thus supports the exact opposite of the Founder's intent.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
The problem is, you can't rationalize belief that rights can't be infringed on by government, unless you believe our rights are endowed by something greater than man. If you don't have spiritual faith in a Creator, then all of our rights were determined by man, and thus, can also be taken by man. If there is no supreme entity which establishes those rights as inalienable, then 9 people in black robes determine which rights are alienable.
The tea party has already disappeared. The nuts are still around, Bachmann, Palin, et al but notice the money got what it wanted, more gridlock, while they continue to steal the nation blind. Nothing truly changes, the wingnuts are still fighting FDR and social security. LOL
"In the political turnover in the United States in the autumn of 1994, as previously indicated, those opposing aid to the poor in its several forms won their stunning victory with the support of less than one quarter all eligible voters, fewer than half of whom had gone to the polls. The popular and media response was that those who had prevailed represented the view and voice of the public. Had there been a full turnout at the election, both the result and the reaction would have been decidedly different. The sense of social responsibility for the poor would have been greatly enhanced." John Kenneth Galbraith 'The Good Society'
"'Practical' politics, it is held, calls for policies that appeal to the fortunate. The poor do not vote; the alert politician bids for the comfortable and the rich. This would be politically foolish for the Democratic Party; those whose primary concern is to protect their income, their capital and their business interest will always vote for the party that most strongly affirms its service to their pecuniary well-being. This is and has always been the republicans. The Democrats have no future as a low grade substitute.." John Kenneth Galbraith 'The Good Society'
"In the political turnover in the United States in the autumn of 1994, as previously indicated, those opposing aid to the poor in its several forms won their stunning victory with the support of less than one quarter all eligible voters, fewer than half of whom had gone to the polls. The popular and media response was that those who had prevailed represented the view and voice of the public. Had there been a full turnout at the election, both the result and the reaction would have been decidedly different. The sense of social responsibility for the poor would have been greatly enhanced." John Kenneth Galbraith 'The Good Society'
"'Practical' politics, it is held, calls for policies that appeal to the fortunate. The poor do not vote; the alert politician bids for the comfortable and the rich. This would be politically foolish for the Democratic Party; those whose primary concern is to protect their income, their capital and their business interest will always vote for the party that most strongly affirms its service to their pecuniary well-being. This is and has always been the republicans. The Democrats have no future as a low grade substitute.." John Kenneth Galbraith 'The Good Society'
None of which changes that if everything were the way you wanted it to be and you worked to keep it that way you would be acting politically conservatively. "Faith" isn't "conservative" any more than any other platform of a party. Conservatives work to maintain the status quo, whether it was conservatives working to keep the Communists in power in the USSR, or if it were a conservative working to continue the belief that the earth was flat...
Conservative isn't a specific set of beliefs, it is how one reacts to what is. I will always believe in personal freedoms, including freedom of religion. I will always work to regain those rights we've lost. But what we have today or what we had in the 60s? IS the government perfect enough now to work to stop it from changing? Heck no.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
You are saying something convolutedly retarded, Damo. By your philosophical interpretation of "conservative" all who fight the status quot are liberal, all who accept it are conservative. IF we lived in a Libertarian Utopia from top to bottom, the Liberals would be more than content to maintain the status quot. Thus, they would be conservatives? Happy little conservatives living happily in their perfect Liberal Utopia! If you support Roe v. Wade and don't want to see it overturned, you must be a conservative!
While the pragmatic and fundamental basics of conservatism are often aligned with the status quot, it only means conservatives are prudent. Since what is the status quot, is also very often, what is best common sense, it only means conservatives use a lot of common sense. You seem to think a conservative is basically a sheep, a follower of whatever is the status quot. I disagree with your analysis completely. First of all, conservatism as a movement, could never exist, if it were committed to defending the status quot. Perhaps this explains your warped perspectives of social conservatism?
You stop sounding like a conservative, and start sounding like a pinhead, when you fail to comprehend the value of a strong moral and spiritual foundation for your conservative beliefs. Without that underpinning, conservatism often fails, because there is nothing to answer the bleeding heart complaints from the left. You've left the ideology vulnerable, and liberals can declare checkmate.