Liberals are really a group of neo communists. Thier social agenda will do to democracy exactly what Plato predicted. Thier lack of moral standards in every arena of life has produced a nation of murderers and social parasites. These are the people who justify the murder of babies right in thier mother's womb. They have removed prayer from the schools . This has resulted in the everyday carnage that is reported daily. The liberals has been successful in an orwellian re-write of history. Thier mindset has destroyed the original intent of our founding fathers. They cry "freedom of speech..freedom of the press" yet they try to suppress every idea that doesn't agree with them. They have decieved the black race and made them social parasites. They persecute those with religous beliefs and live a godly life while defending the scum that burns our flag. WAKE UP grexers...arise and throw off the chains of the liberal plantation. You are simply thier pawns and slaves. You think what they tell you to think and live how they tell you to live..REPENT YOU SINNERS>>OR FACE HELL FIRE!!!!78 responses total.
Heh. Lack of moral standards? Have we forgotten staunch conservative Bill Bennett's gambling addiction, or all the Reagan staffers & appointees who turned out to be criminals? Or W. Bush's party-boy past and evidence-fabricating present?
That should be their not thier and deceived no decieved. If you want to rant please spell check so that you don't look more stupid than you already are.
liberal (adj). 1. Possessing or manifesting a free and generous heart; bountiful. 2. Appropriate or fitting for a broad and enlightened mind. 3. Free from narrowness, bigotry, or bondage to authority or creed, as in religion; inclined to democratic or republican ideas, as opposed to monarchical or aristocratic, as in politics; broad, popular, progressive. illiberal (adj.). 1. Not liberal; not generous in giving; parsimonious. 2. Narrow-minded. 3. Lacking breadth of culture; hence, vulgar. Illiberal - and narrow minded, bigoted, and vulgar - sabre should learn how to spell their and deceived, although that will not in itself contribute any intelligence to his utterances.
<waits for the secret liberal censorship office to censor #0, since it doesn't agree with them> <...still waiting...> BTW, I love the phrase "liberal plantation". Those damn liberal southern plantation owners, they're responsible for all our country's ills! I'm also delighted to hear that sabre recognizes that not all liberals are atheists: "[The liberals] ... live a godly life while defending the scum that burns [sic] our flag."
While sabre's use of "liberal plantation" is a bit obscure it is true that all plantation owners were democrats. The republican president Abraham Lincoln was in office during the civil war. It's logical to assume that a plantation owner wouldn't vote for him.
As long as there are tests in school, there will be prayer in school. Duh.
I don't see why that should be so. It has never helped a student that didn't know something.
"Republican" and "Democrat", while their lineages can be traced back
to the 19th century parties of the same names, has noticeably different
stances on many issues. Insofar as I can tell, the biggest flip-flop is on
State's Rights.
Re 7 God Rane, have you forgotten what it was like to be a kid?
Apparently, he aced all his tests or otherwise breezed right through them ;> He has his own ingenuity to rely on, right? C'mon, sabre, you're boring. I wanna hear about how moderates are wishy-washy and indecisive. Oh wait, both political parties are too busy trying to appeal to us, eh?
This response has been erased.
That WAKE UP Grexers line is funny.
re: "#7 (rcurl): I don't see why that should be so. It has never helped a student that didn't know something." And, Mr. rcurl, precisely how would you know that. (Incidentally, it occurs to us that a truly liberal person would not publicly criticize another person for his spelling deficiencies since that would be ungenerous, narrow, and bigoted.)
So, sabre, I take it you side with the murderers who bomb the abortion clinics and the people who beat gays to a pulp? Not to mention all of the Catholic priests who have abused young boys. I find those to be upstanding examples of the conservative viewpoint. Thank you for enlightening me.
Yeah, Rane. You probably didnt know this but Jesus took my SAT's for me. ;)
I may have to fix my twit pager to auto-forget items by twits. The bozos are getting too stupid, and the rebuttals are too predictable to be worth the time.
Somehow the author of #0 has come to the impression that Plato's _Republic_ is a "conservative" work. Also seems to think the USA is a democracy (god forbid such). Somehow the lyrics of _the International_ came to mind when I read #0 - "Arise ye prisoners of starvation...", a catchy tune which I like. Any student of history knows that "our founding fathers" were anything but conservative - they were "republicans" aka radicals, and many were "libertines" (Franklin for example).
Re #9: kids that are indoctrinated to pray would probably do so when their indoctrination suggests they should. kids not so indoctrinated would not, although they may develop other methods of coping with anxiety or pressure. Re #13: please provide evidence for prayer providing a kid with the answer to a question for which he/she was totally ignorant. (No, suggestions in regard to spelling are generous efforts to educate.) Re #15: did he pass?
Re #18, Did something crawl up ..... ohhh!! never mind.
#14 So, sabre, I take it you side with the murderers who bomb the abortion clinics and the people who beat gays to a pulp? Watch it! We should all know that gays are communists, not democrats or republicans. And no I do not agree with attacking people based on their sex or other personal beliefs. (unless they decide to attack what is mine)
I disagree with #18 . . . not everyone who is "indoctrinated" is unable to think for themselves, and many whoi aren't taught such end up doing so. people do have free will, you know.
Re #0: Dood. Lay off the Ann Coulter. That stuff rots your brain. Re #9: I don't think Rane was ever a child. ;>
Re #22: I have evidence to the contrary. Te #21: I didn't say they aren't. The subject was a categorical statement that kids taking tests in school pray. I am asserting that that is probably incorrect, especially for kids not indoctrinated into prayer. If they are not indoctrinated, to what would they pray?
You speak as if "indoctrinated" was a vulgar term. It isn't if we teach children the truth(yes let's speak about truth). It is only dangerous when far left liberals use it to teach thier lies. Horace Mann started indoctrinating early in the 20th century by starting the public school system. His whole purpose was to "indoctrinate" children into his belief system.
Of course, Hitler's bitterly conservative teachings, not being far
left, were OK.
Re #24: spoken like a far right illiberal.
Re original item: what utter Neo-Fascist, reactionary, stupid, unenlightened, self-serving, conservative, right-wing, bigoted, quasi-religious, fundamentalist-Christian, Republican shite. (If there's any rightwingers who don't feel insulted yet, sorry i missed you out). Reasoned rebuttal to follow.
re: "#23 (rcurl): ... to what would they pray?" The ACLU?
To whom it may concern?
The freedom *from* public prayer is the ACLU's business, not what people do in private. One has to be indoctrinated to "prayer" to think that there is any such ritual, directed to anyone or anything, that can affect reality. So "praying" to TWIMC is still motivted by some indoctrination in mythological processes.
One also has to "indoctrinated" to believe that there ISN'T a God who can affect reality.
Re #27: Aw, c'mon, twenex. Tell us what you REALLY feel! ;-)
Re #31: Why?
Well, desperate situations have a way of making people religious, if for only a short time. Regardless of the level of indoctrination someone has received, it is unlikely that they have never heard of a higher power. Whether this sort of prayer works (or any other type of prayer for that matter) is another story.
Hahahahaha, this is the best trollpost I have seen in a while. It should be /.'d (is there a web interface for these?)
Re #34: The old "there are no atheists in foxholes" effect?
"desperate situations have a way of making people religious" It almost sounds like you're calling prayer a nervous habit. Maybe the atheists in foxholes just smoke cigarettes and bite their fingernails instead. :)
"There must be a god - mere chance could not do such horrible things", perhaps?
RE:#27 What an ultra left wing,socialistic,homosexual,ignorant ass,baby-killing, parasite promoting REACTION to said post.
Re #31: there is zero evidence for gods, so no indoctrination at all is required to reject myths as reality. Some rational education is required, of course, so one isn't flumoxed by every demagogue.
RE:#40 Man you are one blind moron if you think there isn't any evidence for a God. Consider the vastness of the universe. Consider your own complexity. nuff said.
Re #39: ultra-left wing? socialist? how flattering. thanx sabre. as for homosexual, coming from you that's a compliment even if you say it to an Iranian Ayatollah. Re #32. Russ. I am about to do just that, point-by-point relevant to original post.
I figured you would like that...you COMMIE bastard.
From agora fall 2001, item 142 > #61 of 63: by Rane Curl (rcurl) on Mon, Dec 3, 2001 (12:06): > Good thing, but my theory is not invalidated by the absence of relevant > data. (yes, I've been saving that quote ever since. :)
(Psst: it isn't supported either.) Re #41: I have considered the vastness of the universe and the complexity of life and - so what? There is not an iota of evidence of gods in any of it, not even as "creators", much less as participants. And for almost the entire existence of this vast and complex universe the existence of gods was not even contemplated...until a life form evolved that could imagine such things. But imagination does not make reality, and the reality is indifferent to our imagining. The argument from vastness and complexity is the argument based essentially in ignorance. Fortunately, the boundaries of ignorance have been push far back toward the limits of space and time - and nowhere is there a hint of "gods".
This response has been erased.
Comme perhaps, bastard no: i know who my father is and he was married to my mother at the time. Plato was not a believer in democracy, but in the virtues of a monarchical, aristrocratic, military-semi dictatorship. Liberals do not lack moral standards (even if their response to persons without moral standards is sometimes less harsh than it really should be. Liberals are not baby-killers. They simply believe that the rights of womens, and specifically mothers in relation to abortion, are equal to (a) men and (b) those of the child. Conservatives, on the other hand, refuse to take into account the moral dilemma of a woman who has been raped, or is in danger of dying if a baby is born, preferring to take their "moral" standards from a book and teachings written/deriving from 2000 years ago. Liberals morals concern giving everyone as fair a deal as is possible, rather than "whatever suits me at the time" - which is a rather conservative outlook. Again, blacks have as much right to live as whites. Indeed, if, as seems likely, Africans were the first humans, humans were *originally* black, evolving white skin _only_ when necessary to deal with a different climate - much as an Afro-American will, even now, look slightly different to a native African. Even if the US is taken as the most right-wing democracy, then the fact that the US provides income support to the jobless AND provided a minimum wage *before* the UK proves that it tolerates wastage; even if these were to be abolished, those who were strong enough to survive by leeching would find a way of doing so (witness criminals, who exist in spite of laws banning their actions). Those who re-write history (denial of the Holocaust, the Irish Potato Famine/Great Hunger, etc.) are frequently (fi not always) exposed as *conservatives*, with an agenda. *Time* has destroyed "the original intent" of the Founding Fathers. Neither the US nor the UK is the same as they were in 1787. The UK has changed for the better, I'll leave Americans to decide whether this applies to the US. Wars are frequently waged for religious reasons - are wars not carnage? Removing prayer from schools (a) moves it to the province of people's private lives, where no-one has a right to interfere unless one is doing something illegal/morally reprehensible (b) removes bias in school prayers, as modern multicultural societies include Buddhists, Muslims, and other religions; providing prayer services for all these religions in cross-denominational schools is prohibitively expensive and impractical. I do not deny that i detest conservatism, and would like to see a world free of it; however, any attempt on my part to suppress it would be met by an equal and oposite reaction, in the end, which i surely wouldn't like; therefore, it is impractical to attempt to suppress it. It is also unfair to those who vehemently disagree with me, which is undemocratic. "The SCUM that burns [your] flag" do it because of conservatives' burning desire to do whatever the hell suits them, as long as people who disagree with them don't get a piece of the action. Install democracies in the Middle East _with the prior consent of the people_, if you want to stop that. "A godly life"? You admit that liberals are virtuous? Or just recognise that anyone has the right to live as godly a life as they are able to procure for themselves, *without* imposing the _in_ability to do the same on anyone else? Most liberals would agree with that, i think. History (and GREX) will decide who is in the right.
sabre has given so many needy people a chance to feel good about themselves. Is there an award for that?
Yes, a large golden troll.
An award for for who give others a chance to feel good about themselves? Good idea.
RE:#47 <sabre claps> whew that's mouthful. It challenages my adult ADD. I will respond as best as possible however. I never said Plato was an advocate of democracy. He was a critic of it. As for Platos argument for the inherent weakness of democracy in The Republic, I have to clarify what is meant by democracy in this context. By democracy Plato is not referring to modern democracy, which he would have perceived as alien. Nor is he referring to the democracy of Athens in this argument. In this argument, Plato characterises democracy as being the extreme of popular liberty, where slaves - male and female - have the same liberty as their owners and where there is complete equality and liberty in the relations between the sexes. The one point I was referring to is the liberal's desire to legislate funds for it's electorate. He said one the electorate figures this can be done democracy is FINISHED. That's what you commie..er poeple( the ones that know thier fathers anyway) are trying to do. By appropiating funds to the electorate to please them your are creating a social state. That is what I was referring to. My quote about liberals "living a godly life" was misunderstood..perhaps due to my grammer and syntax. the statement should have read "The liberals persecute those with religious beliefs and who try to live a godly life" That is all my ADD will let me deal with now. Cool post though you spent a lot of time...er do you like football? <grin>
Yeah, it's a good thing those liberals can't use the government to legislate themselves money. Thank god only the conservatives can do that.
Please stop feeding the troll.
Aw, c'mon, we're having fun. :)
An example, please, of liberals "persecuting" those with religious beliefs? Liberals *created* freedom of religions for the religious, and defend it for them too.
Rane Curl, champion of religious freedom.
resp:47 paragraph 4: silly Christian. The Bible's much older than 2000 years. [http://www.beingjewish.com/mesorah/ageoftorah.html] has a proof that the Torah is at least 3,313 years old. (While the New Testament is not as old, as the above site says, "The Christians have been using their confused mistranslations of the Tanach at least since the second century C. E., and even trying to prove their mistaken beliefs from the Torah.")
Dcat - ok, point about the age of the bible conceded. I should have said, New Testament. However, (a) I'm not saying all Christians are silly; (b) plenty of non-Christians are silly; (c) I am not a Christian; (d) 2K or 3.31K years old, it's still old and does not reflect modern life. Consider this quote from a Christian (once heard on tv), concerning evolution: Well, people say that humans evolved from monkeys, but it's not in the Bible, so I don't really believe it Are televisions and space shuttles mentioned in the Bible? No? Do they not, then, exist? Is our knowledge of the world grater now than x000 years ago (Discovery of America, invention of penicillin, etc?) How is this explained by what is (or is not) in the Bible? Evolution is a scientific concept (derived from a theory by way of trial and error. The existence of God, by contrast, cannot be proven logically, however the actions of humans cannot be proven logically either, so at most I'm keeping an open mind.
Oh yeah, i almost forgot. My arse *is* ignorant! Fortunately, unlike some
people round here ("who shall remain nameless"), I think with my *brain*.
resp:45 I do not believe that faith can be empirically measured; therefore, I doubt many empiricists give credence to it. One definition of faith is things hoped for which are not seen-- that is, faith usually requires a suspension of the senses. So therefore...
Man, one post by a *known* troll full of complete, unbelievable malarky, and there are a good 40 solid bites before anyone mentions that someone's chain is being yanked. I'm disappointed. On several levels, not the least of which is how suppressed even powerful intellects become when they allow themselves to fall into the trap of stereotyping "the enemy."
Re 61: Do you think that because someone is a "troll" he is "the enemy" and should not be responded to? People (including you) use trolls as an excuse to say things they want to say. Why is this a problem?
Re #42: Feeding the troll is wasting your time. Once you're done venting and otherwise having fun, remember to twit-filter him.
I love your labels If someone doesn't bow down and agree with you you call them a troll if they say whatever they want with total disreguard for your reaction ... they're a troll. If they care little for your literary bias..they are a troll If that's a "troll" then I'm far worse...I'm a fucking OGRE!! russ the puss..I see you still post to my threads. What a fucking hypocrite. If you want to know who I REALLY am then join pseudo
No, if you're deliberately posting to get a rise out of people -- which you are -- you're a troll. In your case, an effective one.
An effective troll can get a rise out of people who're making an effort
to maintain decorum. Getting a rise out of GREX is prety easy - just state
a position on the far right and don't back it up.
I've backed everything that I have said with fact. Give me an example of where this didn't happen and it will be corrected. and for the record that's all your posts are "decorum"
#62: We all bite occasionally, but when it turns into a giant landslide of a strawman contest, it gets a bit annoying. My reference to the "enemy" was a reference to people of the opposite viewpoint, not the troll who represents them in this situation, by the way. I actually just wonder when it occurs to people that they are being trolled. Most people mention it when they figure it out, but some don't--however, those are rare, because there is pride involved.
I don't even buy into the concept of "troll". Is sabre posting things "just to get a response?" Partly, but that's about 75% of why I post to Grex too. I'm always rather disappointed when something I post doesn't get a response. Are the opinions he puts forward different than what he actually believes? I have no way of telling that about anyone, but I'd bet good money that he really is pro-life, and basically believes nearly every opinion he has stated here, though sometimes in a slightly less extreme form. We all are sometimes deliberately provocative. We'd be danged dull conversationalists if we didn't. I don't believe there is a class of people who should not be responded to. I do believe in trying to keep my responses fresh, even if responding to something that is far from fresh. Sabre's statements are mostly pretty darn stale, but that doesn't mean all responses to them have to be.
Well, yeah, but there are some folks that just like to rile people up, and some that do it for sheer amusement. Apparently on the 'Net, they gave that a name. At least our little man here is self-professed.
Sometimes things need to be riled up a little bit.
Re #70: Yes, and I've known several who would take any extreme position as long as it was contrary and would generate a lot of argument. They weren't trying to convince anyone, just stir the pot. Those are the people I think of as trolls.
re: "#30 (rcurl): The freedom *from* public prayer is the ACLU's business, not what people do in private." Which explains why legislative proceedings, for example, are never initiated by prayer. re: "#40 (rcurl): Re #31: there is zero evidence for gods ." Quite to the contrary, Mr. rcurl. There are mountains of evidence. However, you have chosen not to recognize nor believe it. re: "#47 (twenex): Conservatives, on the other hand, refuse to take into account the moral dilemma of a woman who has been raped, or is in danger of dying if a baby is born, preferring to take their "moral" standards from a book and teachings written/deriving from 2000 years ago ." Mr. twenex- You need to obtain some accurate information regarding conservatives --- or cease your use of overly broad generalizations. Regards, klg re: "#55 (rcurl): An example, please, of liberals "persecuting" those with religious beliefs? Liberals *created* freedom of religions for the religious, and defend it for them too." Mr. rcurl probably wouldn't recognize a true "liberal" if he tripped over one on the street.
First of all, there is no "freedom from religion", the establishment clause merely attempts to prevent a state mandated religion. Secondly, re god, the absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. There is a simple litmus test for determing a liberal from a conservative. A liberal religiously believes children as they are socially promoted through the sans religion school system will naturally (nature -v- nurture) develop a keen moral sense and adhere to an inate social compact. A conservative is somewhat skeptical of that view.
That's a pretty dim grade of liberal that you're testing for, pvn. How about the "America could *never* have had a Civil War 'cause everyone had a gun back then" conservative test? (BTW, what do you think of those slightly-draconian reform schools that they've been shutting down lately in Mexico/Central America?)
Most everybody *did* "have a gun" back then so what is the point? And I don't have a clue of what you are refering to about draconians in south america. Other than the exchange rate of the US dollar if I am planning a visit I personally don't give a shit.
Ignorance must be bliss, then.
Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence. It is just not proof of it. In this case, it is strong evidence, as so many millions of people have been assiduously seeking evidence for millenia - with zero confirmable postive results. Ethics are human contrived ideas, with or without religion. The only thing religion adds is hypothetical rewards and punishments for those that cannot see the societal value of ethics by themselves. Children get their ethics primarily from their parents. This does not require religion. Schools should both exhibit and require ethical behavior, but this also does not require religion.
You have several choices: