The Bottom Line Angst Of Liberalism

[grant]

J. Grant Swank, Jr.

After the November elections, Dick Hartpootlian, Chairman of the South Carolina Democratic Party, told reporters that “we never really defined our position on economy. We never said what we would do differently. We have no message this year other than we’re not Bush.”

Interesting.

And those folks boast so loudly and longly that they are the epitome of intelligence, state-of-the-art workmanship and at-the-front-of-the-line relevancy.

Give me a break.

When are liberals going to discover conscience? Don’t they get it?

A levelheaded individual has convictions that are reasonably down-to-earth. Fuzz won’t cut it. Nor does braggadocio nor money-alone nor egocentricity nor strut-and-sway nor prance-and-preen. Nor does being-on-Hollywood’s-side. Nor does ad infinitum weeping and wailing at how dumb conservatives are.

So liberals are losing big time in an era of logical-practicality-is-a-must.

The same goes, not only for politics, but religion. Theological liberals have one main line: “We’re not conservatives.”

That means: “We’re not Billy Graham.” Or “We’re not evangelicals.” Or “We’re not Bible-carriers.” Or “We’re not virgin birth holders.” Or “We’re not personal religion enthusiasts.” Or “We’re not Jesus cheerleaders.” Or “We’re not morality advocates.” Or “We’re not absolutes defenders.” Or “We’re not clear-with-convictions citizens.” And on and on.

Liberalism—theological and political—is basically a postulate of “knots” ("nots"), though liberalism’s p.r. puts out just the opposite. However, once thinker figures out that the liberal line is honestly understood when flipping its “logic coin” to reveal the liberal lie, then thinker gets to liberal reality.

For instance. . .

Liberals say they are pro-choice when actually they are pro-murder.

Liberals say they are for open dialogue when actually they are tolerant only of liberal diatribes.

Liberals say they are for first amendment rights when actually they are for killing off religious faith.

Liberals say they are for separation of church and state when actually they are for gagging the church.

Liberals say they are for inclusive language when actually they are for championing radical feminism.

Liberals say they are for female clergy when actually they are for every pulpit to be womaned by radical feminism.

Liberals say they are for ethical this-n-that when actually they are for amoral rule.

Liberals say they are for sex education when actually they are for a sexually active culture.

Liberals say they are for safe sex when actually they are for sexual amorality.

Liberals say they are for the family when actually they are for family-as-relativists-define-it.

BUT. . .

When conservatives say they’re for life, they’re for life, not murder.

When they say they honor honest dialogue, they enter courteously into intelligent exchange.

When they say they’re for separation of church and state, they mean they’re in favor of no state-run denomination.

When they say they’re for first amendment rights, they mean they’re for free religious expression.

When they say they’re for family, they mean they honor God-given absolutes for marriage and home.

When they say they’re for sex education, they mean abstinence as the baseline.

In other words, theological and political liberals don’t really mean what they say; they are masters at double-speak.

When theological and political conservatives speak, they really mean what they say. Why? Because conservatism is based on conscience—plain and simple—a conscience formed by eternal absolutes.

So that brings us back to Hartpootlian’s wailing comment. He speaks truth, even as a wide-eyed but sad Democrat.

In other words, when a double-edged tongue lets loose, flip it over to find a lie. However, when a single-focused tongue lets loose, believe what you hear.

With that, single-focused tongues end up on the right side, for both earth and eternity.

[FightinDaMan]

BUT. . .

When conservatives say they’re for life, they’re for life, not murder. (assuming you aren't born yet)

When they say they honor honest dialogue, they enter courteously into intelligent exchange. (which is why they swear on the senate floor)

When they say they’re for separation of church and state, they mean they’re in favor of no state-run denomination. (which is why they always criticize liberals who talk about the seperation of church and state)

When they say they’re for first amendment rights, they mean they’re for free religious expression. (except flag burning, holding hands with another member of your sex in public, etc.)

When they say they’re for family, they mean they honor God-given absolutes for marriage and home. (this one's actually accurate. They want everybody to live the lifestyle that they chose)

When they say they’re for sex education, they mean abstinence as the baseline. (once again, you are correct, they want to force their lifestyle on everybody)

[DefacedCreation]

I'm going to have to go and say that this entire document that you quoted is horribly biased. Yes, liberals do believe in all of thoe things listed, but to a smaller degree. That's like saying "conservatives say they are for keeping people safe, when actually they want to kill off the pettiest of criminals." While the statement holds a little bit of merit, (Wanting to invoke the death penalty against vicious criminals that are dangerous to society), the statement is still not true.

[aequitas_justice]

BUT. . .

When conservatives say they’re for life, they’re for life, not murder. (assuming you aren't born yet) [and yet liberals want to kill those who's only only crime is to exist]

When they say they honor honest dialogue, they enter courteously into intelligent exchange. (which is why they swear on the senate floor) [the use of swear words does not make one unintelligent, dammit, it just means you are making use of all words at your disposal]

When they say they’re for separation of church and state, they mean they’re in favor of no state-run denomination. (which is why they always criticize liberals who talk about the seperation of church and state) [they criticiz liberals who talk about the biased seperation of church and state, for example teaching about islam but not christianity]

When they say they’re for first amendment rights, they mean they’re for free religious expression. (except flag burning, holding hands with another member of your sex in public, etc.) [flag burning and holding hands with somone of your sex in public isn't a religious practice]

When they say they’re for family, they mean they honor God-given absolutes for marriage and home. (this one's actually accurate. They want everybody to live the lifestyle that they chose) [we know this, its left wing extremists who can't grasp that fact]

When they say they’re for sex education, they mean abstinence as the baseline. (once again, you are correct, they want to force their lifestyle on everybody) [now you are wrong, they dont think that everyone should do what they want, they just want kids to understand that abstinence is the safest course of action]

[WhiteAfricanAmerican]

which is why they swear on the senate floor

For the Record, John "The F Word" Kerry, was the first one in the last election year to start the ball rolling with regards to expletitives. Three words:
Rolling Stone Interview.



they criticiz liberals who talk about the biased seperation of church and state, for example teaching about islam but not christianity

First off, there is no such thing as seperation of Church and State in the constitution. There is only Freedom of Religion. Note, not Freedom FROM Religion.


Secondly, with regard to the whole 'teaching about islam not christianity'

You and yours are always whining about equality, yadda yadda yadda. So, what then is the problem you people have when Christians demand their equal access?



When they say they’re for family, they mean they honor God-given absolutes for marriage and home. (this one's actually accurate. They want everybody to live the lifestyle that they chose)

This is ridiculous, how about the fact that homosexuality is unnatural?

[FightinDaMan]

aequitas_justice, I'm not defending the democrats, I'm just pointing out that Conservatives are as pure and holy as he makes them out to be. Swearing may not make you unintelligent, but it certainly isn't "courteous".

WAA: As usual, conservatives love to point out that the words "seperation of Church and State" do not appear in the Constitution. Also, who cares if homosexuality is unnatural? What business of it is yours if others do something "unnatural".

[WhiteAfricanAmerican]

As usual, conservatives love to point out that the words "seperation of Church and State" do not appear in the Constitution.

If these words do not appear in the Constitution, how then are they UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

What follows then, is how does a judge, who's purpose is to understand and apply the laws of the country visa vie the consitiution, justify a ruling that strikes down somelike displaying the ten commandments in a court house, based on his opinion that display is UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND IN VIOLATION OF THE SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, WHEN NEITHER OF THEM EXISTS!?


Also, who cares if homosexuality is unnatural? What business of it is yours if others do something "unnatural".

Simple, the very existance of this mindset threatens the survivability of the species. The ultimate destination of homosexuality is the extinction of the human race.

Any foreign body that threatens your physical body's well being is fought and destroyed by your body to the best of it's abilities. That is the natural order of things.

This fact is mirrored in every facet of this planet and it's natural order.

Thus, it is natural for natural humans to be repulsed by homosexuality, and that they have a natural urge to see it come to an end.

[FightinDaMan]

If these words do not appear in the Constitution, how then are they UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

What follows then, is how does a judge, who's purpose is to understand and apply the laws of the country visa vie the consitiution, justify a ruling that strikes down somelike displaying the ten commandments in a court house, based on his opinion that display is UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND IN VIOLATION OF THE SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, WHEN NEITHER OF THEM EXISTS!?

The establishment and free exercise clauses of the first amendment prevent the government from involving itself in religion.


Simple, the very existance of this mindset threatens the survivability of the species. The ultimate destination of homosexuality is the extinction of the human race.

Any foreign body that threatens your physical body's well being is fought and destroyed by your body to the best of it's abilities. That is the natural order of things.

This fact is mirrored in every facet of this planet and it's natural order.

Thus, it is natural for natural humans to be repulsed by homosexuality, and that they have a natural urge to see it come to an end.

So I assume that you support genetic engineering, artificial insemination (which kills more unborn children than it creates), allowing nature to kill off the sick/weak/genetically inferior humans, and other such things which promote the survival of the species.

If the human race ever goes extinct, it won't be because of a few people having anal sex.

[Wadi66]

With homosexuality then we have the whole disease thingy going on. All it takes is one or two cases of tainted blood and the govt (having this moral obligation to protect us) starts wanting to know who you've had sex with, and who they have had sex with and on and on and on. Now for that, because the data is so massive and complex, we'll need computerized information on ID cards so that should you be involved in an accident, they'll know in advance if your blood is tainted or if your relative wanting to donate, has tainted blood. Suddenly, you've created an entire mess and opened up your life to the govt and given them permission to involve themselves. You have willingly given them jurisdiction in an area they have no right to involve themselves. And why? Because we don't want to offend anyone who may be gay. We want to make them feel warm and fuzzy.

Since I or a member of my family may one day need a transfusion, I'l like to know if the blood is tainted. You see, I have something at stake here, therefore.... It is my business.

[FightinDaMan]

You aren't allowed to give blood if you have had anal sex with a man, used an illegal needle drug, had sex for money, or had sex with somebody who has sex for money or has used an illegal drug or has had sex with another man.

Even after all that they still screen everybody's blood for HIV.

[Wadi66]

You aren't allowed to give blood if you have had anal sex with a man, used an illegal needle drug, had sex for money, or had sex with somebody who has sex for money or has used an illegal drug or has had sex with another man.

Even after all that they still screen everybody's blood for HIV.I'm aware of all that FDM, but that doesn't get away from the fact that NOW the govt has the right to involve themselves in an aspect of your life that shouldn't be any of their business.

[OmegaRed]

Remember when we where small and we had to get a shot call MMR?
By law getting this shot makes you Gov't property and they have control of your body

[FightinDaMan]

Since the American Red Cross handles all that, no it doesn't involve the government.

Also, if you think the government has no business involving itself in the private sex lives of its citizens, then how can you support government legislation against homosexuality?

[Wadi66]

Since the American Red Cross handles all that, no it doesn't involve the government.Please tell me that was a momentary brain freeze.


Also, if you think the government has no business involving itself in the private sex lives of its citizens, then how can you support government legislation against homosexuality?Actually I'm of two minds on the issue. On the one hand I don't favor legislation against homosexuality, but since a disease is so prevalant among a particular group and since that group pushes for greater acceptability which results in experimentation, it has now affected my life. I'm being forced to do something, to support something, I don't want to.

[FightinDaMan]

The American Red Cross functions independently of the government but works closely with government agencies, such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), during times of major crises. It is responsible for giving aid to members of the U.S. Armed Forces and to disaster victims at home and abroad. It does this through services that are consistent with its Congressional Charter and the Fundamental Principles of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement allowing the Red Cross to stay neutral and impartial.

Another group among which AIDS is relatively prevalent, is blacks. AIDS is also much more prevalent among the poor. Just some food for thought.

[Wadi66]

Exactly

The American Red Cross functions independently of the government but works closely with government agenciesThe red cross does not act independent of the law nor in violation of the law. So whatever laws the government passes, the red cross complies with.

By the way, the red cross is not the only one handling blood.

[WhiteAfricanAmerican]

The establishment and free exercise clauses of the first amendment prevent the government from involving itself in religion.

True, but it says nothing or, nor does it define what is the mythical 'seperation' statement.


So I assume that you support genetic engineering, artificial insemination (which kills more unborn children than it creates), allowing nature to kill off the sick/weak/genetically inferior humans, and other such things which promote the survival of the species.

All of the above are scientific 'advancements' that have as many arguements for their existance, as there are against them. Homosexuality on the other hand is a perversion of one of the most base human instincts: Procreation.

Try to stay on topic.



If the human race ever goes extinct, it won't be because of a few people having anal sex.

You're missing the point (you leftwingers tend to do that alot)

You wanted reasons why homosexuality is bad. I gave you one. Address the meat of my reason without drawing conclusions that have no bearing on my reason.

[FightinDaMan]

You said homosexuality is a threat to the species. I said that it wasn't.

Homosexuals represent such a small percentage of teh population that they could not possibly cause the extinction of the human race.

[WhiteAfricanAmerican]

If you're going to tell me what I said, I'd appreciate it if you would be accurate.

Here's what I said:


the very existance of this mindset threatens the survivability of the species. The ultimate destination of homosexuality is the extinction of the human race.

You can't deny the fact that the objective of the homosexual community is to increase numbers, take a look at NAMBLA for example.

Frankly, I think the homosexuals ought to consider a trade off. Seeing as how none of them have the 'equipment' if you will, to procreate with their chosen partners, they ought to trade the ability to marry with a promise not to adopt, or undergo artificial insemination (for women obviously).

That way within 70 years, they'll be extinct. Which proves my point.

[Argonath]

This is ridiculous, how about the fact that homosexuality is unnatural?


Due to chemical inbalances in Homosexuals of Estrogen, or the "W-Factor", to Testosterone, or the "M-Factor", men/women have a chemical want of a same-sex relationship. It's completly natural. Way does it matter so much to you? Hidding something? Gannon sure was

[Avid_Liberal_Hater]

Also, if you think the government has no business involving itself in the private sex lives of its citizens, then how can you support government legislation against homosexuality?

Where is this legislation against homosexuality?

[FightinDaMan]

Evil Activist judges made it go away, so it's gone now.

[deek]

yea...it isnt illegal to be gay.

you said HIV is more prevalent amongst blacks and the poor, and the we include homosexuals in the category. so pretty much what you have told me is that the most immoral groups (as a whole) in america are the ones getting AIDs, but you think that is all fine and dandy?

im not being a homophobe, racist or a poorist (whatever you want to call it), i am however pointing out that the liberal mindset of doing whatever you want and having no moral values is the key cause of the spread of the disease.

i dont want to hear bitching either, i am very aware that whites and blacks, rich and poor, are no better than each other. however, the activities the each engage in are very different on the whole. and the poor and blacks tend (more than other groups) to follow the liberal mindset of lets go do something irresponsible without thinking about the consequences.

and now we have found the root of the problem, conservatives on the whole are much nicer, moral people that liberals.

[FightinDaMan]

you said HIV is more prevalent amongst blacks and the poor, and the we include homosexuals in the category. so pretty much what you have told me is that the most immoral groups (as a whole) in america are the ones getting AIDs, but you think that is all fine and dandy?

I wouldn't say that blacks, as a group, are any more immoral than any other racial group. I think the reason that more of them have AIDS is because of the great degree of overlap between poor and black.


im not being a homophobe, racist or a poorist (whatever you want to call it), i am however pointing out that the liberal mindset of doing whatever you want and having no moral values is the key cause of the spread of the disease.

Not having your moral values doesn't mean having no moral values. If you expect people who feel that they have nowhere to go in life to be responsible and think about long term consequences, you are dreaming.


and now we have found the root of the problem, conservatives on the whole are much nicer, moral people that liberals.

:icon_lol: :icon_lol: :icon_lol: That's funny.

[stackdogg]

Who gets to decide whats ethical and moral and what isn't? I don't think its ethical to start a war under false pretenses. obviously, many people disagree with me. i think all the so called 'liberals' or hippies, or peaceniks or what ever you want to call them, all the people who are pro choice, and pro gay marriage, and all the other issues that really have no place in politics, we should all cecede from the united states. i'm calling an island off the coast guam, there we can have our sodom and gommorah love fest away from all you wetblankets.