a question for the atheists

Werbung:
That is by far the most intelligent thing you have ever written here, but that is not saying much. I agree with it for the most part, but I voted for Romney because Ron Paul did not run. I prefer a progressive Neocon over a progressive Socialist. You prefer the socialist.

I am tired of educating uninformed liberals. But out of the goodness of my heart you can start here: http://www.thepeoplescube.com/
and here: http://frontpagemag.com/
:) Funny joke on me. The People's Cube is a fun satire on total leftists, and the frontpagemag was fairly funny but not as entertaining. I did a site search on leftist revolution on frontpage but didn't see any new info about the leftist revolution except that billionaire Soros presumably started a failed revolution, and the usual stuff about Obama. Most of the stuff was about Arabic revolutions.

Now I am in a quandary. Are you serious about these sites as representing what leftist are, or are you just pulling my leg. Either way I'm not convinced that there is a leftist revolution nearly to the extent that there is a nascent rightist revolution with a potential for high firepower. You need to give me more explicit references.
 
That is by far the most intelligent thing you have ever written here, but that is not saying much. I agree with it for the most part, but I voted for Romney because Ron Paul did not run. I prefer a progressive Neocon over a progressive Socialist. You prefer the socialist.

I am tired of educating uninformed liberals. But out of the goodness of my heart you can start here: http://www.thepeoplescube.com/
and here: http://frontpagemag.com/

Forward_Obama_Lenin_330.jpg


So nice of you to provide us with the type of "resources" you consider as reliable and unbiased!
Very funny, really!
 
:) Funny joke on me. The People's Cube is a fun satire on total leftists, and the frontpagemag was fairly funny but not as entertaining. I did a site search on leftist revolution on frontpage but didn't see any new info about the leftist revolution except that billionaire Soros presumably started a failed revolution, and the usual stuff about Obama. Most of the stuff was about Arabic revolutions.

Now I am in a quandary. Are you serious about these sites as representing what leftist are, or are you just pulling my leg. Either way I'm not convinced that there is a leftist revolution nearly to the extent that there is a nascent rightist revolution with a potential for high firepower. You need to give me more explicit references.

Spend a little more time on frontpage.com. It might come to you, but sorry, I can't guarantee you will ever exit your terribly uninformed existence.
 
Spend a little more time on frontpage.com. It might come to you, but sorry, I can't guarantee you will ever exit your terribly uninformed existence.
We are talking about a leftist revolution that is supposed to be happening. You say I'm terribly uninformed about it. You give me two references that don't have any leads to it even though I used their site search. I really don't think you have any facts about an ongoing leftist revolution and are either making it up, or terribly uninformed yourself.

You have to remember that insults are a poor way to support an argument.
 
We are talking about a leftist revolution that is supposed to be happening. You say I'm terribly uninformed about it. You give me two references that don't have any leads to it even though I used their site search. I really don't think you have any facts about an ongoing leftist revolution and are either making it up, or terribly uninformed yourself.

You have to remember that insults are a poor way to support an argument.


Hmmm lets try this...

Do you see Obama as leftist ?
No... probably not worth proceeding
Yes... do you find his actions that ignore law troubling (not getting Congressional approval on the Libyan actions, ordering ICE to stand down on deportations among others) ?
No.. got to ask why not
Yes... are these not signals that the left is systematically countermanding the Constitution ? And is doing so not a (to date and forgetting Fast & Furious etc) form of bloodless revolution ?
 
Hmmm lets try this...

Do you see Obama as leftist ?
No... probably not worth proceeding
Yes... do you find his actions that ignore law troubling (not getting Congressional approval on the Libyan actions, ordering ICE to stand down on deportations among others) ?
No.. got to ask why not
Yes... are these not signals that the left is systematically countermanding the Constitution ? And is doing so not a (to date and forgetting Fast & Furious etc) form of bloodless revolution ?
But of course Obama is left, as most Democrats are.

I find a lot of Obama's actions troubling. The ones you cite are not all that high on my troubling list though.

Bloodless revolution. Naw, I wouldn't go that far. Obama was voted in. If Obama took office with a cadre of generals that arrested and ousted some other president without gunfire, then the term "bloodless revolution" would apply.

This is a far cry from what some of you guys are thinking as you went nuclear when I didn't think there was a recent leftist revolution. But as it turns out, some of you are thinking of the possibility of a future bloody right wing revolution with assault rifles. I'm amazed that the paranoia is running that high.
 
We are talking about a leftist revolution that is supposed to be happening. You say I'm terribly uninformed about it. You give me two references that don't have any leads to it even though I used their site search. I really don't think you have any facts about an ongoing leftist revolution and are either making it up, or terribly uninformed yourself.
The leftist revolutionary tact is stated clearly in the "Bible" of leftist progressives, Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. Hillary Clinton wrote her Senior thesis at Wellesley College on Saul Alinsky. Barack Obama taught Alinsky's philosophy to ACORN and other activists groups while a community organizer in Chicago. The left embraces Saul Alinsky and his philosophy. The actions of the Democrat party are based soley on Alinsky's teachings and those of Cloward and Piven! These people are unadulterated scum!

This philosophy is much like Hitler's Mein Kampf in that it's so decadent and so self-serving that it's dificult to believe he really means what he says. Hitler believed what he said, and so did Alinsky and his followers, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama! What did Alinsky believe that made such a impact on two of the most powerful and influential leftists of the past 30 years?? Read below, all from Alinsky's aforementioned book:

"An organizer working in and for an open society is in an ideological dilemma to begin with, he does not have a fixed truth -- truth to him is relative and changing; everything to him is relative and changing.... To the extent that he is free from the shackles of dogma, he can respond to the realities of the widely different situations...." pp. 10 -11 In other words, "Truth" is whatever you need to say it is in order to get what you want!

"The end is what you want, the means is how you get it. Whenever we think about social change, the question of means and ends arises. The man of action views the issue of means and ends in pragmatic and strategic terms. He has no other problem; he thinks only of his actual resources and the possibilities of various choices of action. He asks of ends only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means, only whether they will work. The real arena is corrupt and bloody."... pp. 10-11 The meaning here is 100% clear; i.e., The end justifies the means!

"The third rule of ethics of means and ends is that in war the end justifies almost any means...." p. 29 Clearly stated!

"The seventh rule.... is that generally success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics." p. 14 In other words, Don't worry about what's good or evil, do whatever achieves victory.

"The tenth rule... is you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments". p. 26 In other words, use whatever you have in any manner necessary to gain victory, but pretend you're doing it for some higher and more-moral purpose than just gaining power.

The above "rules" are those used by the Democrat party. When your opponent's philosophy clearly states that he'll do ANYTHING needed to gain and maintain power, one can assume he means what he says; i,e., ANYTHING!
 
Funny how you automatically assume left leaning politics to be bad

If Jesus Christ had existed he would have been a socialist

He would have wanted peace, to look after the poor, to not worship money and to be meek

In fact the very opposite of you guys who claim to follow him with your love of war and hatred of the poor and your adoration of money

But then you don't let the few good bits of Christianity get in the way of your half witted hate filled agendas do you

More guns, more guns

Guns, gotta have more guns
 
Funny how you automatically assume left leaning politics to be bad

If Jesus Christ had existed he would have been a socialist

He would have wanted peace, to look after the poor, to not worship money and to be meek

In fact the very opposite of you guys who claim to follow him with your love of war and hatred of the poor and your adoration of money

But then you don't let the few good bits of Christianity get in the way of your half witted hate filled agendas do you

More guns, more guns

Guns, gotta have more guns
One of the major complaints non-believers level against Christianity is that the churches are full of hypocrites.Christianity should not be judged on the basis of those who claim to be its adherents, when, in reality, they practice the opposite of what it teaches.
Yes, hypocrisy is not just limited to those who believe in God. When I first started reviewing Richard Dawkins(The God Delution) I expected to find some pretty crazy atheists arguments, but did not expect to find any intentional misquoting. However, like some of the creationists he detests for misquoting, Dawkins, in his defense of atheism used the exact same tactic - not just once or twice, but a bunch of times. It's good to know that even atheists can be hypocrites.

Christians are often accused of being hypocrites. However, the Bible clearly indicates that those who practice hypocrisy really aren't Christians at all, but will be judged to be non-believers and sent to hell. If you are a non-believer, this is a good reason to consider the Christian faith, since you don't want to end up in hell with all the hypocrites. Having attended many Christian churches, I can assure you that the pretenders are few and far between. One should judge Christianity not on the basis of what the fakers do, but on the basis of what Jesus taught and how He lived.
 
Yada yada {old leftist has-beens}.... Hitler's Mein Kampf... anything to stay in power ...
It seems that every presidential nominee, no matter what side he's on does ANYTHING to gain power, and if he is an incumbent, will do ANYTHING to stay in power. That's the way things are, and both sides have to grit their teeth and live with it... and hopefully not finance the NRA to help them amass high power automatic weaponry to try to swing power their way.
 
The leftist revolutionary tact is stated clearly in the "Bible" of leftist progressives, Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. Hillary Clinton wrote her Senior thesis at Wellesley College on Saul Alinsky. Barack Obama taught Alinsky's philosophy to ACORN and other activists groups while a community organizer in Chicago. The left embraces Saul Alinsky and his philosophy. The actions of the Democrat party are based soley on Alinsky's teachings and those of Cloward and Piven! These people are unadulterated scum!

This philosophy is much like Hitler's Mein Kampf in that it's so decadent and so self-serving that it's dificult to believe he really means what he says. Hitler believed what he said, and so did Alinsky and his followers, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama! What did Alinsky believe that made such a impact on two of the most powerful and influential leftists of the past 30 years?? Read below, all from Alinsky's aforementioned book:

"An organizer working in and for an open society is in an ideological dilemma to begin with, he does not have a fixed truth -- truth to him is relative and changing; everything to him is relative and changing.... To the extent that he is free from the shackles of dogma, he can respond to the realities of the widely different situations...." pp. 10 -11 In other words, "Truth" is whatever you need to say it is in order to get what you want!

"The end is what you want, the means is how you get it. Whenever we think about social change, the question of means and ends arises. The man of action views the issue of means and ends in pragmatic and strategic terms. He has no other problem; he thinks only of his actual resources and the possibilities of various choices of action. He asks of ends only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means, only whether they will work. The real arena is corrupt and bloody."... pp. 10-11 The meaning here is 100% clear; i.e., The end justifies the means!

"The third rule of ethics of means and ends is that in war the end justifies almost any means...." p. 29 Clearly stated!

"The seventh rule.... is that generally success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics." p. 14 In other words, Don't worry about what's good or evil, do whatever achieves victory.

"The tenth rule... is you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments". p. 26 In other words, use whatever you have in any manner necessary to gain victory, but pretend you're doing it for some higher and more-moral purpose than just gaining power.

The above "rules" are those used by the Democrat party. When your opponent's philosophy clearly states that he'll do ANYTHING needed to gain and maintain power, one can assume he means what he says; i,e., ANYTHING!

View attachment 337

We need a thread for this topic
 

Attachments

  • applaud.webp
    applaud.webp
    2.4 KB · Views: 1
Werbung:
You'd think that after having his butt handed to him time after time, this kid would get tired of looking like a fool. Apparently, he enjoys it, so let's hand it to him one more time.

Funny how you automatically assume left leaning politics to be bad

It's not an assumption to claim that left-leaning politics are bad, it's a fact! The leftist, political "Bible" tells progressive Democrats that morality is a stupid hinderance to getting what you want. The proof is in the pudding, as we see Obama and his ilk accuse their Conservative opponents of racism, sexism, hatred of the poor, a love of violence, etc. Their claims are lies, but Alinsky's told them that lying is perfectly fine, as long as it gets you what you want. Leftist politicians are taught that it's wise to pretend you have good, moral intentions while seeking power, so everyday citizens believe you simply want to improve their lives. The best example of this tactic is Al Gore and his attempts to impose carbon taxes and radical regulations on the energy users of our nation. Al claims that implementing his proposals is a wonderful, nature-loving thing to do, hiding his real intent in a "cloak of morality". In fact, the purpose of his proposals is to gain more power for the government and those leftist supporters who benefit from such taxes and regulations. I don't just claim that left-leaning politics are bad, but that left-wing politicians are despicable scum who do anything to get and maintain power! They've told us so in their political "Bible"!

If Jesus Christ had existed he would have been a socialist

Like a typical leftist, you confuse Christ's command that Christians be charitable, with the intent of the American left to redistribute wealth via taxes and penalties. Charity is given by willing citizens who wish to help those who are incapable of helping themselves. Taxes and penalties that take monies from hard-working, charitable citizens for the sole purpose of giving it to those who vote to put you and maintain you in power is corruption, not charity! Christ would have been as unhappy with lazy scum who refuse to work while demanding the income of their successful brethern as he was with the money-changers in the Temple!

He would have wanted peace, to look after the poor, to not worship money and to be meek

Christ did indeed desire peace. However, I recall nowhere in the Bible where Christ commanded that a nation should sit by meekly as it's citizens were attacked and murdered by others. We Christians don't need the Bible interpreted by a religion-hating bigot like you. We've read the Bible, and we admire the teachings of Christ. You, on the other hand, would like us to accept the premise that Christ wanted us to be peaceful and meek while self-serving losers walked all over us to take what they're incapable of obtaining with their own hard work!! If that's your expectation of Christians, kid, don't hold your breath with me!

In fact the very opposite of you guys who claim to follow him with your love of war and hatred of the poor and your adoration of money

I and virtually all Christians I know don't hate the poor. If I hate anyone, it's those who are capable of working but refuse to do so while demanding that those who do work take care of them. As I wouldn't demand that Al Gore give me one of his homes, I refuse to let him tell me that I must give part of my estate to some loser who votes Democrat, and who won't even thank me for doing so.

But then you don't let the few good bits of Christianity get in the way of your half witted hate filled agendas do you

More guns, more guns

Guns, gotta have more guns

Moderators, please note that this kid called me and others here "half-witted", saying that we have "hate-filled" agendas. Those comments qualify as a "personal attack" by most any definition. Therefore, please cut me a break as I return fire in kind?? We intelligent Conservatives see you and those like you for what you are; i.e., hateful, bigoted, lying, and ignorant losers who have to attack us with lying accusations, rather than with logically-structured and well-reasoned arguments. Like most leftists, you're incapable of accomplishing anything of worth in your life, so you attack those who are hard-working and successful winners. We understand why you are the way you are, and we're sorry for you. Our pity, however, doesn't extend to tolerating your hateful bigotry with a smile on our faces and closed mouths.
 
Back
Top