I admite, as a gay man, feeling pleasure in seeing this kind of hypocrite who is against same sex couples having the same rights as the others and defend the holiness of the traditional family, but then falling short than their own self made standards. It's a guilty pleasure, like eating too much chocolate.... and he had it coming...

Originally posted by Zindaihas

Originally posted by Cleffy

I still think he deserves a high five, he has had an affair with one of the hottest women to be affaired with politically and he was only a state senator.  Only one I think outdid this was Kennedy with Monroe.  If that wasn't a bid for presidency, I don't know what is.

 

This intern is still young and naive too.  When she learns how easy it is for her to destroy political careers, I have a feeling she won't restrict herself to lowly state senators.  With her looks, I'm sure she'll find bigger fish to fry in the future.

OMG lol - well she has all ready taken the first step.   She is just the right age.  She has the looks.   She has the stomache for it - because she had an affair for free.   Why not get paid to do it!  First she needs to ditch the boyfriend.  Then hook up with one of the many companies, either in the US or abroad, that can get her into the escort business.   She could be making some good money.   LOL!   May I recommend She International - fabulous place to work for - if I do say so myself.   :)   She'll be rubbing shoulders with rich men and women from around the world in no time.  
 

I see the same people as usual are desperately attempting to change the topic to spread more right wing propaganda and trying to excuse what this man did. Keep it up guys, you may actually fool somebody with your poor arguments someday  if you keep trying hard enough.

Originally posted by Teala

Originally posted by Zindaihas

 This intern is still young and naive too.  When she learns how easy it is for her to destroy political careers, I have a feeling she won't restrict herself to lowly state senators.  With her looks, I'm sure she'll find bigger fish to fry in the future.

OMG lol - well she has all ready taken the first step.   She is just the right age.  She has the looks.   She has the stomache for it - because she had an affair for free.   Why not get paid to do it!  First she needs to ditch the boyfriend.  Then hook up with one of the many companies, either in the US or abroad, that can get her into the escort business.   She could be making some good money.   LOL!   May I recommend She International - fabulous place to work for - if I do say so myself.   :)   She'll be rubbing shoulders with rich men and women from around the world in no time.  
 

Oh, when I learned that it was her boyfriend who was blackmailing the senator, the first thing I thought was, "the boyfriend is history."  The fact that she was sleeping with the senator says she doesn't have much respect for her boyfriend to begin with.  And now that she's a poltical power broker, she doesn't have much use for him anyway.  She's going to move on to something bigger and he'll probably be working at the local slaughterhouse until he's 57.

When Republicans get busted cheating on their wives, people scream hypocrit and demand he resign.

When Democrats get busted, it's pretty much expected and no one really cares. Any "outrage" is just going through the motions.

So is it better to have standards and be a hypocrit or have no standards at all? 

---

Originally posted by abbaba

 So is it better to have standards and be a hypocrit or have no standards at all? 

---

See that's where you're wrong. No one claims they said they don't have standards, Dems certainly didn't say they didn't have any.

Dems don't think its a moral or religious problem if they sleep around. Probably most don't look at it as "I betrayed God" or something, lol. They do what they do because they want to, not because the "Devil made them do it". When Spitzer got caught, it wasn't about God. When McGreevey got caught it wasn't about God either. They felt they let the office down so they quit. Republicans hardly ever quit. Someone does dirt, Republicans say "QUIT!", then they do the same dirt and they say "God will forgive me; no need to quit."

The fact that Dems have DIFFERENT standards and don't push them on the public are better than being a hypocrite. Being that is just about the worst thing imaginable; especially the way the Bible views it.

---

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation. (Matthew 23:14)”

“Moreover when ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a sad countenance: for they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.”

“But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; / And shall begin to smite his fellowservants, and to eat and drink with the drunken; / The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of, / And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

“Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not? / But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? / Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.”

---

Which is what most Republicans claim to go off Biblical morals daily and it's how they make laws. That's why they get double laughter (or double hellfire).

Originally posted by popinjay

 

---

Originally posted by abbaba

 

 So is it better to have standards and be a hypocrit or have no standards at all? 

---

 

See that's where you're wrong. No one claims they said they don't have standards, Dems certainly didn't say they didn't have any.

 

Dems don't think its a moral or religious problem if they sleep around. Probably most don't look at it as "I betrayed God" or something, lol. They do what they do because they want to, not because the "Devil made them do it". When Spitzer got caught, it wasn't about God. When McGreevey got caught it wasn't about God either. They felt they let the office down so they quit. Republicans hardly ever quit. Someone does dirt, Republicans say "QUIT!", then they do the same dirt and they say "God will forgive me; no need to quit."

 

 

The fact that Dems have DIFFERENT standards and don't push them on the public are better than being a hypocrite. Being that is just about the worst thing imaginable; especially the way the Bible views it.

 

---

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation. (Matthew 23:14)”

 

“Moreover when ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a sad countenance: for they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.”

“But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; / And shall begin to smite his fellowservants, and to eat and drink with the drunken; / The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of, / And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

“Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not? / But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? / Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.”

---

 

 

 

 

Which is what most Republicans claim to go off Biblical morals daily and it's how they make laws. That's why they get double laughter (or double hellfire).

The Democrats  force their "morality" on people worse than the Republicans could ever do. The only difference is the democrats think it is moral to forcibly take money from one group of people and give it to another. If you disagree, they call you greedy and evil.

They believe it is moral to force businessmen, property owners and educators to obey their "moral" social engineering schemes. If people resist their "moral standards" they are attacked as racist, sexist, or homophobes.

Since the Democrats believe screwing people is moral, as long as you have "good intentions," they don't have as much of a problem when one of their own gets caught at doing it literally. According to them, screwing people is good, even when it is against their will. That is their morality and yes, sadly, they are MUCH more consistent in that "morality" than the Republicans are.

Actually, this is more a conservative vs liberal thing than a republican vs democrat thing, but no matter, the dynamic is the same.

Nope, they are not hypocrites (in the context I am now drawing). They just believe in a backwards, post-Marxian "morality," which allows them to do anything they want as long as they bring about their  "Utopia." The ends justify the means and all that is the real religion they practice.

That all being said, since they are the ones devouring everyone's houses, and not just the widows, and they are smiting everyone, not just the servants, by confiscating their belongings without consent,  they receive an even greater damnation than anyone who boinks an intern.

Of course I believe Christ died for those sins as well; all sin is covered by the Blood of the Lamb -- but that's a debate for another time and place.

When democrats vote or make a decision, they do so out of a reason that has a noticable effect on society. When they tax you extra, they do so because it increases the functionality of society. Some (or many) republicans probably do this as well, everytime a road is built that you may not use, or a bridge is built that you may never cross or strengthening secuirity in a place that isn't relevant to you.  That is the motivation behind it, if this actually works is up for debate.

The republican in question however, didn't vote to improve the functionality of society. The only reason is his own personal moral code that he wanted to enforce on everybody that had zero effect on society .

Note: This is all a big stereotype so I'd like to note that ofcourse, not every republican and democrat thinks and acts the way i just described.

Originally posted by Gameloading

When democrats vote or make a decision, they do so out of a reason that has a noticable effect on society. When they tax you extra, they do so because it increases the functionality of society. Some (or many) republicans probably do this as well, everytime a road is built that you may not use, or a bridge is built that you may never cross or strengthening secuirity in a place that isn't relevant to you.  That is the motivation behind it, if this actually works is up for debate.

The republican in question however, didn't vote to improve the functionality of society. The only reason is his own personal moral code that he wanted to enforce on everybody that had zero effect on society .

 

Note: This is all a big stereotype so I'd like to note that ofcourse, not every republican and democrat thinks and acts the way i just described.

Yup, their morality -- or at least part of it -- is that the ends justify the means. They believe their idea is society is the good, the moral, the just, and they will screw whoever they have to to get there. In fact, however, their ideal society is universal slavery, and they don't care what rights they have to violate, who they must destroy, rob, kill or cheat to get there. Their means are their ends. Crush, kill, destroy.

Their real motivation is power, pure and simple, and they have concocted a perverted moralty to get there.

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Gameloading

When democrats vote or make a decision, they do so out of a reason that has a noticable effect on society. When they tax you extra, they do so because it increases the functionality of society. Some (or many) republicans probably do this as well, everytime a road is built that you may not use, or a bridge is built that you may never cross or strengthening secuirity in a place that isn't relevant to you.  That is the motivation behind it, if this actually works is up for debate.

The republican in question however, didn't vote to improve the functionality of society. The only reason is his own personal moral code that he wanted to enforce on everybody that had zero effect on society .

 

Note: This is all a big stereotype so I'd like to note that ofcourse, not every republican and democrat thinks and acts the way i just described.

 

Yup, their morality -- or at least part of it -- is that the ends justify the means. They believe their idea is society is the good, the moral, the just, and they will screw whoever they have to to get there. In fact, however, their ideal society is universal slavery, and they don't care what rights they have to violate, who they must destroy, rob, kill or cheat to get there. Their means are their ends. Crush, kill, destroy.

Their real motivation is power, pure and simple, and they have concocted a perverted moralty to get there.

I see you have taken Faxxer's propaganda habbit of using over dramatization to get your point across. Issues like universal healthcare is hardly destroy, or rob or kill.

To say their real motivation is power is downright silly. Their intention wasn't to get control, as I just explained, it's to have an effect on human society. Enforcing your religion onto other people without having any intention to improve society, that is a motivation for power.

Under which president did the US go to war with Iraq? ah yes, a republican president.  Thousands of Iraq citizens dead, thousands of american soldiers dead, and for what? The weapons of mass destruction that weren't there? Or was it to free Iraq?

What's that again? The end justifies the means?

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Gameloading

When democrats vote or make a decision, they do so out of a reason that has a noticable effect on society. When they tax you extra, they do so because it increases the functionality of society. Some (or many) republicans probably do this as well, everytime a road is built that you may not use, or a bridge is built that you may never cross or strengthening secuirity in a place that isn't relevant to you.  That is the motivation behind it, if this actually works is up for debate.

The republican in question however, didn't vote to improve the functionality of society. The only reason is his own personal moral code that he wanted to enforce on everybody that had zero effect on society .

Note: This is all a big stereotype so I'd like to note that ofcourse, not every republican and democrat thinks and acts the way i just described.

 

Yup, their morality -- or at least part of it -- is that the ends justify the means. They believe their idea is society is the good, the moral, the just, and they will screw whoever they have to to get there. In fact, however, their ideal society is universal slavery, and they don't care what rights they have to violate, who they must destroy, rob, kill or cheat to get there. Their means are their ends. Crush, kill, destroy.

Their real motivation is power, pure and simple, and they have concocted a perverted moralty to get there.

 I see you have taken Faxxer's propaganda habbit of using over dramatization to get your point across. Issues like universal healthcare is hardly destroy, or rob or kill.

To say their real motivation is power is downright silly. Their intention wasn't to get control, as I just explained, it's to have an effect on human society. Enforcing your religion onto other people without having any intention to improve societ, that is a motivation for power.

Under which president did the US go to war with Iraq? ah yes, a republican president.  Thousands of Iraq citizens dead, thousands of american soldiers dead, and for what? The weapons of mass destruction that weren't there? Or was it to free Iraq?

What's that again? The end justifies the means?

Actually, he's right on target.  When I read your post, I had considered responding to it myself, but decided not to.  I don't know, I guess I'm a little burned out on politics atm.  Fortunately, Fisher stepped in and picked up the slack.

The reason you disagree with his analysis is because you buy into the left's idea of moraility.  So you would never accept criticism of it.  Whenever we see a conservative and liberal debate the issue of morailty, we almost always see the conservative talk about personal responsibility and individual actions and so forth.  And without fail, the liberal will almost always respond with arguments like, "I'll tell you what's immoral.  The fact that in a country as rich as the United States, we allow children to go to bed hungry at night, that there are "X" number of citizens who do not have healthcare, etc."

Morality is viewed as a society wide issue.  And as such, government is the only entity that can solve this "morality shortfall."  And how does the government solve it?  By transferring wealth from one group of citizens to another.  Do you know how much money has been transferred since the Great Society progams were instituted?  Trillions.  And yet, the poor are still with us.  The government might as well pour the money down the toilet because it cannot solve the problems it purports to.

And Fisher correctly pegged political motivation behind it.  Power.  Raw naked power.  What better way to secure large blocks of votes than to promise voters a solution to their financial troubles?  The more the politicians promise, the more support they are likely to get.  How often do you hear a campaign promise like, "My opponent claims he will spend "X" billions on this program.  That's nothing.  I'll spend twice that.  Because I care twice as much as he does."

Well now we're spending to the tune of close to a two trillion dollar deficit every year.  At that level, the system will crash eventually.  It's just a matter of time.

Ya it's clear he's been on about me lately.

My propaganda happens to be nothing more than what half the country also supports.  Hopefully when truth is finally made clear alot more of the blind and sleeping citizens will see this sham for what it is too.

Originally posted by Faxxer

wow, you guys walked right into that one.

 

So let me get this straight...

If a "republican" politician comes out against gay marriage, and is pro life and support family values....but then blunders and makes a fool of himself by betraying his family...he should be thrown out...and publicly ridiculed. (conservatives agree with this too btw)

BUT....

If a republican politician is moderate and supports gay marriage, pro choice, and pushes no prayer in public schools...he should stay in office if he betrays his family right? (I realize this might just be too much for you guys to handle)

OR...

If he is a democrat/liberal he has absolutely no reason to leave office over his choices of sexual partner, simply because he doesn't push morality on anyone else.  Ahh this is just fine then because his personal life has no bearing on his public life.

 

Wow.

I could say more, but I think the unspoken parts say more than the spoken parts.

I don't live in that reality. I live in a reality where the situations and misdeed/crime may vary for one thing, and as such require different reactions. What I am noticing is that the republican party is the one least likely to appropriately and directly suffer any consequences for their actions, commit the greater hypocricy, the most consistently. Of course theres a lot of crap going on with the democrats and independents, but there has got to be an awful lot of it republican side for it to stream on the news at a nearly weekly basis.
 

Originally posted by popinjay

 

---

Originally posted by abbaba

 

 So is it better to have standards and be a hypocrit or have no standards at all? 

---

 

See that's where you're wrong. No one claims they said they don't have standards, Dems certainly didn't say they didn't have any.

 

Dems don't think its a moral or religious problem if they sleep around. Probably most don't look at it as "I betrayed God" or something, lol. They do what they do because they want to, not because the "Devil made them do it". When Spitzer got caught, it wasn't about God. When McGreevey got caught it wasn't about God either. They felt they let the office down so they quit. Republicans hardly ever quit. Someone does dirt, Republicans say "QUIT!", then they do the same dirt and they say "God will forgive me; no need to quit."

 

 

The fact that Dems have DIFFERENT standards and don't push them on the public are better than being a hypocrite. Being that is just about the worst thing imaginable; especially the way the Bible views it.

 

---

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation. (Matthew 23:14)”

 

“Moreover when ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a sad countenance: for they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.”

“But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; / And shall begin to smite his fellowservants, and to eat and drink with the drunken; / The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of, / And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

“Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not? / But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? / Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.”

---

 

 

 

 

Which is what most Republicans claim to go off Biblical morals daily and it's how they make laws. That's why they get double laughter (or double hellfire).

Yeah your right they just betrayed the person they promised to be with till death and to not do this shit. What the hell has society come to.

So other then gay rights what religious morals are republicans pushing?

Originally posted by Arndur  

So other then gay rights what religious morals are republicans pushing?

To paraphrase the man:

Just because he violates the moral values that he asserts doesn't make those moral values any less valid when applied to you.

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Gameloading

When democrats vote or make a decision, they do so out of a reason that has a noticable effect on society. When they tax you extra, they do so because it increases the functionality of society. Some (or many) republicans probably do this as well, everytime a road is built that you may not use, or a bridge is built that you may never cross or strengthening secuirity in a place that isn't relevant to you.  That is the motivation behind it, if this actually works is up for debate.

The republican in question however, didn't vote to improve the functionality of society. The only reason is his own personal moral code that he wanted to enforce on everybody that had zero effect on society .

 

Note: This is all a big stereotype so I'd like to note that ofcourse, not every republican and democrat thinks and acts the way i just described.

 

Yup, their morality -- or at least part of it -- is that the ends justify the means. They believe their idea is society is the good, the moral, the just, and they will screw whoever they have to to get there. In fact, however, their ideal society is universal slavery, and they don't care what rights they have to violate, who they must destroy, rob, kill or cheat to get there. Their means are their ends. Crush, kill, destroy.

Their real motivation is power, pure and simple, and they have concocted a perverted moralty to get there.

 

I see you have taken Faxxer's propaganda habbit of using over dramatization to get your point across. Issues like universal healthcare is hardly destroy, or rob or kill.

To say their real motivation is power is downright silly. Their intention wasn't to get control, as I just explained, it's to have an effect on human society. Enforcing your religion onto other people without having any intention to improve society, that is a motivation for power.

Under which president did the US go to war with Iraq? ah yes, a republican president.  Thousands of Iraq citizens dead, thousands of american soldiers dead, and for what? The weapons of mass destruction that weren't there? Or was it to free Iraq?

What's that again? The end justifies the means?

If you want to discuss the Iraq war, and whether that is the result of Marxist ethics on the President, Republican Party, and the Democrats who voted for it, please start a thread. If you want to discuss how each party pushes morality down people's throats, please let us continue.

You may claim that they do it for "good" reasons, and in that case it means I am right in  the first case -- it is a MORALITY you are pushing. You are CLAIMING based upon your morality that X is GOOD, and then you seek to impose this on others. That's forcing YOUR morality on others.

However I don't believe that. I believe that leftists have created a perverted morality, which, according to one of your own progenitors, "the end justifies the means." I didn't say that, YOUR guy did.

I call him YOUR guy because If you study the history of the American Democratic Party (since you are young and not really very familiar with American History, I understand why you don't know this), but the  American Communist Party put forward a multi-point program over half a century ago. So-called liberals mostly through the Democrats, have pushed almost this entire program through, all in the name of your morality.

If you are going to comment on the politics of another country, I would suggest you learn its history a bit more first.

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Gameloading

When democrats vote or make a decision, they do so out of a reason that has a noticable effect on society. When they tax you extra, they do so because it increases the functionality of society. Some (or many) republicans probably do this as well, everytime a road is built that you may not use, or a bridge is built that you may never cross or strengthening secuirity in a place that isn't relevant to you.  That is the motivation behind it, if this actually works is up for debate.

The republican in question however, didn't vote to improve the functionality of society. The only reason is his own personal moral code that he wanted to enforce on everybody that had zero effect on society .

 

Note: This is all a big stereotype so I'd like to note that ofcourse, not every republican and democrat thinks and acts the way i just described.

 

Yup, their morality -- or at least part of it -- is that the ends justify the means. They believe their idea is society is the good, the moral, the just, and they will screw whoever they have to to get there. In fact, however, their ideal society is universal slavery, and they don't care what rights they have to violate, who they must destroy, rob, kill or cheat to get there. Their means are their ends. Crush, kill, destroy.

Their real motivation is power, pure and simple, and they have concocted a perverted moralty to get there.

 

I see you have taken Faxxer's propaganda habbit of using over dramatization to get your point across. Issues like universal healthcare is hardly destroy, or rob or kill.

To say their real motivation is power is downright silly. Their intention wasn't to get control, as I just explained, it's to have an effect on human society. Enforcing your religion onto other people without having any intention to improve society, that is a motivation for power.

Under which president did the US go to war with Iraq? ah yes, a republican president.  Thousands of Iraq citizens dead, thousands of american soldiers dead, and for what? The weapons of mass destruction that weren't there? Or was it to free Iraq?

What's that again? The end justifies the means?

 

If you want to discuss the Iraq war, and whether that is the result of Marxist ethics on the President, Republican Party, and the Democrats who voted for it, please start a thread. If you want to discuss how each party pushes morality down people's throats, please let us continue.

You may claim that they do it for "good" reasons, and in that case it means I am right in  the first case -- it is a MORALITY you are pushing. You are CLAIMING based upon your morality that X is GOOD, and then you seek to impose this on others. That's forcing YOUR morality on others.

However I don't believe that. I believe that leftists have created a perverted morality, which, according to one of your own progenitors, "the end justifies the means." I didn't say that, YOUR guy did.

I call him YOUR guy because If you study the history of the American Democratic Party (since you are young and not really very familiar with American History, I understand why you don't know this), but the  American Communist Party put forward a multi-point program over half a century ago. So-called liberal mostly through the Democrats, have pushed almost this entire program through, all in the name of your morality.

If you are going to comment on the politics of another country, I would suggest you learn its history a bit more first.

It is not a simple "morality" issue. By your definition of morality, everytime a bridge is built, research is funded or a road is made with tax dollars, they do it to enforce "morality".
 

The reason why the health care plan is suggested is because the health care in the United States is a joke compared to other industralized nations. The reason the Health care plan is suggested is to improve aspects of society.

Your republican friend, however, had no such motivation. His motivation, like many christian conservatives, is can only be described as religious enslavement. There is a world of difference between pushing a plan to increase an aspect of society and religious enslavement.

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Gameloading

When democrats vote or make a decision, they do so out of a reason that has a noticable effect on society. When they tax you extra, they do so because it increases the functionality of society. Some (or many) republicans probably do this as well, everytime a road is built that you may not use, or a bridge is built that you may never cross or strengthening secuirity in a place that isn't relevant to you.  That is the motivation behind it, if this actually works is up for debate.

The republican in question however, didn't vote to improve the functionality of society. The only reason is his own personal moral code that he wanted to enforce on everybody that had zero effect on society .

 

Note: This is all a big stereotype so I'd like to note that ofcourse, not every republican and democrat thinks and acts the way i just described.

 

Yup, their morality -- or at least part of it -- is that the ends justify the means. They believe their idea is society is the good, the moral, the just, and they will screw whoever they have to to get there. In fact, however, their ideal society is universal slavery, and they don't care what rights they have to violate, who they must destroy, rob, kill or cheat to get there. Their means are their ends. Crush, kill, destroy.

Their real motivation is power, pure and simple, and they have concocted a perverted moralty to get there.

 

I see you have taken Faxxer's propaganda habbit of using over dramatization to get your point across. Issues like universal healthcare is hardly destroy, or rob or kill.

To say their real motivation is power is downright silly. Their intention wasn't to get control, as I just explained, it's to have an effect on human society. Enforcing your religion onto other people without having any intention to improve society, that is a motivation for power.

Under which president did the US go to war with Iraq? ah yes, a republican president.  Thousands of Iraq citizens dead, thousands of american soldiers dead, and for what? The weapons of mass destruction that weren't there? Or was it to free Iraq?

What's that again? The end justifies the means?

 

If you want to discuss the Iraq war, and whether that is the result of Marxist ethics on the President, Republican Party, and the Democrats who voted for it, please start a thread. If you want to discuss how each party pushes morality down people's throats, please let us continue.

You may claim that they do it for "good" reasons, and in that case it means I am right in  the first case -- it is a MORALITY you are pushing. You are CLAIMING based upon your morality that X is GOOD, and then you seek to impose this on others. That's forcing YOUR morality on others.

However I don't believe that. I believe that leftists have created a perverted morality, which, according to one of your own progenitors, "the end justifies the means." I didn't say that, YOUR guy did.

I call him YOUR guy because If you study the history of the American Democratic Party (since you are young and not really very familiar with American History, I understand why you don't know this), but the  American Communist Party put forward a multi-point program over half a century ago. So-called liberal mostly through the Democrats, have pushed almost this entire program through, all in the name of your morality.

If you are going to comment on the politics of another country, I would suggest you learn its history a bit more first.

It is not a simple "morality" issue. By your definition of morality, everytime a bridge is built, research is funded or a road is made with tax dollars, they do it to enforce "morality".
 

The reason why the health care plan is suggested is because the health care in the United States is a joke compared to other industralized nations. The reason the Health care plan is suggested is to improve aspects of society.

Your republican friend, however, had no such motivation. His motivation, like many christian conservatives, is can only be described as religious enslavement. There is a world of difference between pushing a plan to increase an aspect of society and religious enslavement.

 

In a sense, it is, a BRIDGE is being defined as something GOOD. Your side wants economic enslavement and that is far, far more obvious than any conservatives want religious enslavement.

The fact that you consider it "increasing an aspect of society" shows taht it IS a moral choice. If you consider it an INCREASE, then you consider it as GOOD, which means it is moral. No difference at all with conservatives.

EDIT: note he is not my Republican friend, and I have yet to defend his actions or his advocacy of "Christian" morality. I am merely showing you how you are no different from him. I'm against both of you.

Again if you do not understand the differences between conservatism and libertarianism, you ought not comment on it.

---

Originally posted by Arndur

 
Yeah your right they just betrayed the person they promised to be with till death and to not do this shit. What the hell has society come to.
So other then gay rights what religious morals are republicans pushing?

---

Narrow minded.

Who said they "betrayed" anyone? I know people with "open" marriages as swingers and such. They don't feel having sex with other people while being married is a "sin". Some of them are quite "respectable" in the business/social world but don't come forward because its "against the Bible" and their community standing would suffer, because some local preacher/priest who molests Sunday school kids on the side secretly is using this stupid issue as a smokescreen to villify them.

These people aren't on soapboxes telling others what to do, then they go to nude beaches. They just go to nude beaches, run their businesses and keep their mouths SHUT about what YOU should do when you walk into their store.

Republicans on the other hand, DO take oaths to God and their spouses then flaunt that as a virtuous mark of distinction between them and "the Godless heathen candidate" they are running against. They believe (or so they swear to) the sanctity of one man/one woman forever in the eyes of God. Yet they bust out for some strange at any opportunity possible when they think no one is looking. Then they blubber on with tears, new conferences and excuses about how they are sorry. They are only sorry they got caught really. Very few (if any) ever come out unless someone is trying to beat them to the punch and scoop them.

Again, YOUR morals of "til death do us part" do not go for everyone in America and can mean different things depending on their marriage or union.

The sooner people like you realize its not important who you sleep with if their spouses/others don't care, as long as you do your fucking job and keep your fucking mouth shut, the better off this country will be.

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Gameloading

When democrats vote or make a decision, they do so out of a reason that has a noticable effect on society. When they tax you extra, they do so because it increases the functionality of society. Some (or many) republicans probably do this as well, everytime a road is built that you may not use, or a bridge is built that you may never cross or strengthening secuirity in a place that isn't relevant to you.  That is the motivation behind it, if this actually works is up for debate.

The republican in question however, didn't vote to improve the functionality of society. The only reason is his own personal moral code that he wanted to enforce on everybody that had zero effect on society .

 

Note: This is all a big stereotype so I'd like to note that ofcourse, not every republican and democrat thinks and acts the way i just described.

 

Yup, their morality -- or at least part of it -- is that the ends justify the means. They believe their idea is society is the good, the moral, the just, and they will screw whoever they have to to get there. In fact, however, their ideal society is universal slavery, and they don't care what rights they have to violate, who they must destroy, rob, kill or cheat to get there. Their means are their ends. Crush, kill, destroy.

Their real motivation is power, pure and simple, and they have concocted a perverted moralty to get there.

 

I see you have taken Faxxer's propaganda habbit of using over dramatization to get your point across. Issues like universal healthcare is hardly destroy, or rob or kill.

To say their real motivation is power is downright silly. Their intention wasn't to get control, as I just explained, it's to have an effect on human society. Enforcing your religion onto other people without having any intention to improve society, that is a motivation for power.

Under which president did the US go to war with Iraq? ah yes, a republican president.  Thousands of Iraq citizens dead, thousands of american soldiers dead, and for what? The weapons of mass destruction that weren't there? Or was it to free Iraq?

What's that again? The end justifies the means?

 

If you want to discuss the Iraq war, and whether that is the result of Marxist ethics on the President, Republican Party, and the Democrats who voted for it, please start a thread. If you want to discuss how each party pushes morality down people's throats, please let us continue.

You may claim that they do it for "good" reasons, and in that case it means I am right in  the first case -- it is a MORALITY you are pushing. You are CLAIMING based upon your morality that X is GOOD, and then you seek to impose this on others. That's forcing YOUR morality on others.

However I don't believe that. I believe that leftists have created a perverted morality, which, according to one of your own progenitors, "the end justifies the means." I didn't say that, YOUR guy did.

I call him YOUR guy because If you study the history of the American Democratic Party (since you are young and not really very familiar with American History, I understand why you don't know this), but the  American Communist Party put forward a multi-point program over half a century ago. So-called liberal mostly through the Democrats, have pushed almost this entire program through, all in the name of your morality.

If you are going to comment on the politics of another country, I would suggest you learn its history a bit more first.

It is not a simple "morality" issue. By your definition of morality, everytime a bridge is built, research is funded or a road is made with tax dollars, they do it to enforce "morality".
 

The reason why the health care plan is suggested is because the health care in the United States is a joke compared to other industralized nations. The reason the Health care plan is suggested is to improve aspects of society.

Your republican friend, however, had no such motivation. His motivation, like many christian conservatives, is can only be described as religious enslavement. There is a world of difference between pushing a plan to increase an aspect of society and religious enslavement.

 

 

In a sense, it is, a BRIDGE is being defined as something GOOD. Your side wants economic enslavement and that is far, far more obvious than any conservatives want religious enslavement.

The fact that you consider it "increasing an aspect of society" shows taht it IS a moral choice. If you consider it an INCREASE, then you consider it as GOOD, which means it is moral. No difference at all with conservatives.

EDIT: note he is not my Republican friend, and I have yet to defend his actions or his advocacy of "Christian" morality. I am merely showing you how you are no different from him. I'm against both of you.

Again if you do not understand the differences between conservatism and libertarianism, you ought not comment on it.

Apparently you're unable to comprehend the difference between increasing a functionality of a society and religious enslavement. By your way of reason, every single time tax dollars are spend on whatever aspect of society be it from building road, improving education or funding the military, it's because of "Morality".

If you seriously can't see the difference between that and religious enslavement, you need a reality check 

Who are you trying to kid? You have been desperately trying, along with Faxxer, to change the subject of this thread into a democrat/liberal bashing post, trying to downplay what he did and using propaganda lines such as "They are trying to destroy and kill!" 

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Gameloading

When democrats vote or make a decision, they do so out of a reason that has a noticable effect on society. When they tax you extra, they do so because it increases the functionality of society. Some (or many) republicans probably do this as well, everytime a road is built that you may not use, or a bridge is built that you may never cross or strengthening secuirity in a place that isn't relevant to you.  That is the motivation behind it, if this actually works is up for debate.

The republican in question however, didn't vote to improve the functionality of society. The only reason is his own personal moral code that he wanted to enforce on everybody that had zero effect on society .

 

Note: This is all a big stereotype so I'd like to note that ofcourse, not every republican and democrat thinks and acts the way i just described.

 

Yup, their morality -- or at least part of it -- is that the ends justify the means. They believe their idea is society is the good, the moral, the just, and they will screw whoever they have to to get there. In fact, however, their ideal society is universal slavery, and they don't care what rights they have to violate, who they must destroy, rob, kill or cheat to get there. Their means are their ends. Crush, kill, destroy.

Their real motivation is power, pure and simple, and they have concocted a perverted moralty to get there.

 

I see you have taken Faxxer's propaganda habbit of using over dramatization to get your point across. Issues like universal healthcare is hardly destroy, or rob or kill.

To say their real motivation is power is downright silly. Their intention wasn't to get control, as I just explained, it's to have an effect on human society. Enforcing your religion onto other people without having any intention to improve society, that is a motivation for power.

Under which president did the US go to war with Iraq? ah yes, a republican president.  Thousands of Iraq citizens dead, thousands of american soldiers dead, and for what? The weapons of mass destruction that weren't there? Or was it to free Iraq?

What's that again? The end justifies the means?

 

If you want to discuss the Iraq war, and whether that is the result of Marxist ethics on the President, Republican Party, and the Democrats who voted for it, please start a thread. If you want to discuss how each party pushes morality down people's throats, please let us continue.

You may claim that they do it for "good" reasons, and in that case it means I am right in  the first case -- it is a MORALITY you are pushing. You are CLAIMING based upon your morality that X is GOOD, and then you seek to impose this on others. That's forcing YOUR morality on others.

However I don't believe that. I believe that leftists have created a perverted morality, which, according to one of your own progenitors, "the end justifies the means." I didn't say that, YOUR guy did.

I call him YOUR guy because If you study the history of the American Democratic Party (since you are young and not really very familiar with American History, I understand why you don't know this), but the  American Communist Party put forward a multi-point program over half a century ago. So-called liberal mostly through the Democrats, have pushed almost this entire program through, all in the name of your morality.

If you are going to comment on the politics of another country, I would suggest you learn its history a bit more first.

It is not a simple "morality" issue. By your definition of morality, everytime a bridge is built, research is funded or a road is made with tax dollars, they do it to enforce "morality".
 

The reason why the health care plan is suggested is because the health care in the United States is a joke compared to other industralized nations. The reason the Health care plan is suggested is to improve aspects of society.

Your republican friend, however, had no such motivation. His motivation, like many christian conservatives, is can only be described as religious enslavement. There is a world of difference between pushing a plan to increase an aspect of society and religious enslavement.

 

 

In a sense, it is, a BRIDGE is being defined as something GOOD. Your side wants economic enslavement and that is far, far more obvious than any conservatives want religious enslavement.

The fact that you consider it "increasing an aspect of society" shows taht it IS a moral choice. If you consider it an INCREASE, then you consider it as GOOD, which means it is moral. No difference at all with conservatives.

EDIT: note he is not my Republican friend, and I have yet to defend his actions or his advocacy of "Christian" morality. I am merely showing you how you are no different from him. I'm against both of you.

Again if you do not understand the differences between conservatism and libertarianism, you ought not comment on it.

 

Apparently you're unable to comprehend the difference between increasing a functionality of a society and religious enslavement. By your way of reason, every single time tax dollars are spend on whatever aspect of society, it's because of "Morality". 

Who are you trying to kid? You have been desperately trying, along with Faxxer, to change the subject of this thread into a democrat/liberal bashing post, trying to downplay what he did and using propaganda lines such as "They are trying to destroy and kill!" 

Actually, no -- I am saying that BOTH sides legislate morality, and BOTH sides are hypocrites. I am not turning anything into anything -- it is what it is.

Okay, so now you are claming this "functionality" as your MORAL GOOD. You can shift the words all you want, you are still seeking to legislate morality.

I never said anyone is TRYING to destroy and kill, just that they are WILLING to destroy and kill in their quest for power. The ends justifies the means. Sorry it's simply what leftists believe in and it is part of their morality.

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Gameloading

When democrats vote or make a decision, they do so out of a reason that has a noticable effect on society. When they tax you extra, they do so because it increases the functionality of society. Some (or many) republicans probably do this as well, everytime a road is built that you may not use, or a bridge is built that you may never cross or strengthening secuirity in a place that isn't relevant to you.  That is the motivation behind it, if this actually works is up for debate.

The republican in question however, didn't vote to improve the functionality of society. The only reason is his own personal moral code that he wanted to enforce on everybody that had zero effect on society .

 

Note: This is all a big stereotype so I'd like to note that ofcourse, not every republican and democrat thinks and acts the way i just described.

 

Yup, their morality -- or at least part of it -- is that the ends justify the means. They believe their idea is society is the good, the moral, the just, and they will screw whoever they have to to get there. In fact, however, their ideal society is universal slavery, and they don't care what rights they have to violate, who they must destroy, rob, kill or cheat to get there. Their means are their ends. Crush, kill, destroy.

Their real motivation is power, pure and simple, and they have concocted a perverted moralty to get there.

 

I see you have taken Faxxer's propaganda habbit of using over dramatization to get your point across. Issues like universal healthcare is hardly destroy, or rob or kill.

To say their real motivation is power is downright silly. Their intention wasn't to get control, as I just explained, it's to have an effect on human society. Enforcing your religion onto other people without having any intention to improve society, that is a motivation for power.

Under which president did the US go to war with Iraq? ah yes, a republican president.  Thousands of Iraq citizens dead, thousands of american soldiers dead, and for what? The weapons of mass destruction that weren't there? Or was it to free Iraq?

What's that again? The end justifies the means?

 

If you want to discuss the Iraq war, and whether that is the result of Marxist ethics on the President, Republican Party, and the Democrats who voted for it, please start a thread. If you want to discuss how each party pushes morality down people's throats, please let us continue.

You may claim that they do it for "good" reasons, and in that case it means I am right in  the first case -- it is a MORALITY you are pushing. You are CLAIMING based upon your morality that X is GOOD, and then you seek to impose this on others. That's forcing YOUR morality on others.

However I don't believe that. I believe that leftists have created a perverted morality, which, according to one of your own progenitors, "the end justifies the means." I didn't say that, YOUR guy did.

I call him YOUR guy because If you study the history of the American Democratic Party (since you are young and not really very familiar with American History, I understand why you don't know this), but the  American Communist Party put forward a multi-point program over half a century ago. So-called liberal mostly through the Democrats, have pushed almost this entire program through, all in the name of your morality.

If you are going to comment on the politics of another country, I would suggest you learn its history a bit more first.

It is not a simple "morality" issue. By your definition of morality, everytime a bridge is built, research is funded or a road is made with tax dollars, they do it to enforce "morality".
 

The reason why the health care plan is suggested is because the health care in the United States is a joke compared to other industralized nations. The reason the Health care plan is suggested is to improve aspects of society.

Your republican friend, however, had no such motivation. His motivation, like many christian conservatives, is can only be described as religious enslavement. There is a world of difference between pushing a plan to increase an aspect of society and religious enslavement.

 

 

In a sense, it is, a BRIDGE is being defined as something GOOD. Your side wants economic enslavement and that is far, far more obvious than any conservatives want religious enslavement.

The fact that you consider it "increasing an aspect of society" shows taht it IS a moral choice. If you consider it an INCREASE, then you consider it as GOOD, which means it is moral. No difference at all with conservatives.

EDIT: note he is not my Republican friend, and I have yet to defend his actions or his advocacy of "Christian" morality. I am merely showing you how you are no different from him. I'm against both of you.

Again if you do not understand the differences between conservatism and libertarianism, you ought not comment on it.

 

Apparently you're unable to comprehend the difference between increasing a functionality of a society and religious enslavement. By your way of reason, every single time tax dollars are spend on whatever aspect of society, it's because of "Morality". 

Who are you trying to kid? You have been desperately trying, along with Faxxer, to change the subject of this thread into a democrat/liberal bashing post, trying to downplay what he did and using propaganda lines such as "They are trying to destroy and kill!" 

 

Actually, no -- I am saying that BOTH sides legislate morality, and BOTH sides are hypocrites. I am not turning anything into anything -- it is what it is.

Okay, so now you are claming this "functionality" as your MORAL GOOD. You can shift the words all you want, you are still seeking to legislate morality.

I never said anyone is TRYING to destroy and kill, just that they are WILLING to destroy and kill in their quest for power. The ends justifies the means. Sorry it's simply what leftists believe in and it is part of their morality.

Actually, no. You'll notice that you spend 90% of your post trying to change the subject to a democrat bashing one and then mentions at the end "Oh but both sides are bad, mkay?". You're not fooling anyone here.

You continue to desperately try to pretend as if religious enslavement is on the same level as improving functionality of society. If you do not understand that there is a huge amount of difference then there is no real reason to continue to debate with you, because any debate is pointless if you do understand this basic concept.

You can call it "Morality" all you want, it's not going to change that one motivation is to improve aspect of society, the other to enslave the population to religion.

Oh so you said they are willing to destroy and kill in their quest for power? It's good you mentioned this because this totally makes it better [/sarcasm]

Sorry, but it's not "simply what leftist believe". It's a Bullshit propaganda line that doesn't have any truth in it.

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Gameloading

When democrats vote or make a decision, they do so out of a reason that has a noticable effect on society. When they tax you extra, they do so because it increases the functionality of society. Some (or many) republicans probably do this as well, everytime a road is built that you may not use, or a bridge is built that you may never cross or strengthening secuirity in a place that isn't relevant to you.  That is the motivation behind it, if this actually works is up for debate.

The republican in question however, didn't vote to improve the functionality of society. The only reason is his own personal moral code that he wanted to enforce on everybody that had zero effect on society .

 

Note: This is all a big stereotype so I'd like to note that ofcourse, not every republican and democrat thinks and acts the way i just described.

 

Yup, their morality -- or at least part of it -- is that the ends justify the means. They believe their idea is society is the good, the moral, the just, and they will screw whoever they have to to get there. In fact, however, their ideal society is universal slavery, and they don't care what rights they have to violate, who they must destroy, rob, kill or cheat to get there. Their means are their ends. Crush, kill, destroy.

Their real motivation is power, pure and simple, and they have concocted a perverted moralty to get there.

 

I see you have taken Faxxer's propaganda habbit of using over dramatization to get your point across. Issues like universal healthcare is hardly destroy, or rob or kill.

To say their real motivation is power is downright silly. Their intention wasn't to get control, as I just explained, it's to have an effect on human society. Enforcing your religion onto other people without having any intention to improve society, that is a motivation for power.

Under which president did the US go to war with Iraq? ah yes, a republican president.  Thousands of Iraq citizens dead, thousands of american soldiers dead, and for what? The weapons of mass destruction that weren't there? Or was it to free Iraq?

What's that again? The end justifies the means?

 

If you want to discuss the Iraq war, and whether that is the result of Marxist ethics on the President, Republican Party, and the Democrats who voted for it, please start a thread. If you want to discuss how each party pushes morality down people's throats, please let us continue.

You may claim that they do it for "good" reasons, and in that case it means I am right in  the first case -- it is a MORALITY you are pushing. You are CLAIMING based upon your morality that X is GOOD, and then you seek to impose this on others. That's forcing YOUR morality on others.

However I don't believe that. I believe that leftists have created a perverted morality, which, according to one of your own progenitors, "the end justifies the means." I didn't say that, YOUR guy did.

I call him YOUR guy because If you study the history of the American Democratic Party (since you are young and not really very familiar with American History, I understand why you don't know this), but the  American Communist Party put forward a multi-point program over half a century ago. So-called liberal mostly through the Democrats, have pushed almost this entire program through, all in the name of your morality.

If you are going to comment on the politics of another country, I would suggest you learn its history a bit more first.

It is not a simple "morality" issue. By your definition of morality, everytime a bridge is built, research is funded or a road is made with tax dollars, they do it to enforce "morality".
 

The reason why the health care plan is suggested is because the health care in the United States is a joke compared to other industralized nations. The reason the Health care plan is suggested is to improve aspects of society.

Your republican friend, however, had no such motivation. His motivation, like many christian conservatives, is can only be described as religious enslavement. There is a world of difference between pushing a plan to increase an aspect of society and religious enslavement.

 

 

In a sense, it is, a BRIDGE is being defined as something GOOD. Your side wants economic enslavement and that is far, far more obvious than any conservatives want religious enslavement.

The fact that you consider it "increasing an aspect of society" shows taht it IS a moral choice. If you consider it an INCREASE, then you consider it as GOOD, which means it is moral. No difference at all with conservatives.

EDIT: note he is not my Republican friend, and I have yet to defend his actions or his advocacy of "Christian" morality. I am merely showing you how you are no different from him. I'm against both of you.

Again if you do not understand the differences between conservatism and libertarianism, you ought not comment on it.

 

Apparently you're unable to comprehend the difference between increasing a functionality of a society and religious enslavement. By your way of reason, every single time tax dollars are spend on whatever aspect of society, it's because of "Morality". 

Who are you trying to kid? You have been desperately trying, along with Faxxer, to change the subject of this thread into a democrat/liberal bashing post, trying to downplay what he did and using propaganda lines such as "They are trying to destroy and kill!" 

 

Actually, no -- I am saying that BOTH sides legislate morality, and BOTH sides are hypocrites. I am not turning anything into anything -- it is what it is.

Okay, so now you are claming this "functionality" as your MORAL GOOD. You can shift the words all you want, you are still seeking to legislate morality.

I never said anyone is TRYING to destroy and kill, just that they are WILLING to destroy and kill in their quest for power. The ends justifies the means. Sorry it's simply what leftists believe in and it is part of their morality.

 

Actually, no. You'll notice that you spend 90% of your post trying to change the subject to a democrat bashing one and then mentions at the end "Oh but both sides are bad, mkay?". You're not fooling anyone here.

You continue to desperately try to pretend as if religious enslavement is on the same level as improving functionality of society. If you do understand that there is a huge amount of difference then there is no real reason to continue to debate with you, because any debate is pointless if you do understand this basic concept.

You can call it "Morality" all you want, it's not going to change that one motivation is to improve aspect of society, the other to enslave the population to religion.

Oh so you said they are willing to destroy and kill in their quest for power? It's good you mentioned this because this totally makes it better [/sarcasm]

Sorry, but it's not "simply what leftist believe". It's a Bullshit propaganda line that doesn't have any truth in it.

If you are calling it an improvement, you are saying it is GOOD -- therefore you are making a moral judgment. There is nothing desparate here, simply taking your own statements in context and showing how you are no different than a fundamentalist Christian (or Muslim) in wanting to shove YOUR morality down everyone's throats.

Plus if you do not understand the difference between ends and means you have proven my point for me.

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Gameloading

When democrats vote or make a decision, they do so out of a reason that has a noticable effect on society. When they tax you extra, they do so because it increases the functionality of society. Some (or many) republicans probably do this as well, everytime a road is built that you may not use, or a bridge is built that you may never cross or strengthening secuirity in a place that isn't relevant to you.  That is the motivation behind it, if this actually works is up for debate.

The republican in question however, didn't vote to improve the functionality of society. The only reason is his own personal moral code that he wanted to enforce on everybody that had zero effect on society .

 

Note: This is all a big stereotype so I'd like to note that ofcourse, not every republican and democrat thinks and acts the way i just described.

 

Yup, their morality -- or at least part of it -- is that the ends justify the means. They believe their idea is society is the good, the moral, the just, and they will screw whoever they have to to get there. In fact, however, their ideal society is universal slavery, and they don't care what rights they have to violate, who they must destroy, rob, kill or cheat to get there. Their means are their ends. Crush, kill, destroy.

Their real motivation is power, pure and simple, and they have concocted a perverted moralty to get there.

 

I see you have taken Faxxer's propaganda habbit of using over dramatization to get your point across. Issues like universal healthcare is hardly destroy, or rob or kill.

To say their real motivation is power is downright silly. Their intention wasn't to get control, as I just explained, it's to have an effect on human society. Enforcing your religion onto other people without having any intention to improve society, that is a motivation for power.

Under which president did the US go to war with Iraq? ah yes, a republican president.  Thousands of Iraq citizens dead, thousands of american soldiers dead, and for what? The weapons of mass destruction that weren't there? Or was it to free Iraq?

What's that again? The end justifies the means?

 

If you want to discuss the Iraq war, and whether that is the result of Marxist ethics on the President, Republican Party, and the Democrats who voted for it, please start a thread. If you want to discuss how each party pushes morality down people's throats, please let us continue.

You may claim that they do it for "good" reasons, and in that case it means I am right in  the first case -- it is a MORALITY you are pushing. You are CLAIMING based upon your morality that X is GOOD, and then you seek to impose this on others. That's forcing YOUR morality on others.

However I don't believe that. I believe that leftists have created a perverted morality, which, according to one of your own progenitors, "the end justifies the means." I didn't say that, YOUR guy did.

I call him YOUR guy because If you study the history of the American Democratic Party (since you are young and not really very familiar with American History, I understand why you don't know this), but the  American Communist Party put forward a multi-point program over half a century ago. So-called liberal mostly through the Democrats, have pushed almost this entire program through, all in the name of your morality.

If you are going to comment on the politics of another country, I would suggest you learn its history a bit more first.

It is not a simple "morality" issue. By your definition of morality, everytime a bridge is built, research is funded or a road is made with tax dollars, they do it to enforce "morality".
 

The reason why the health care plan is suggested is because the health care in the United States is a joke compared to other industralized nations. The reason the Health care plan is suggested is to improve aspects of society.

Your republican friend, however, had no such motivation. His motivation, like many christian conservatives, is can only be described as religious enslavement. There is a world of difference between pushing a plan to increase an aspect of society and religious enslavement.

 

 

In a sense, it is, a BRIDGE is being defined as something GOOD. Your side wants economic enslavement and that is far, far more obvious than any conservatives want religious enslavement.

The fact that you consider it "increasing an aspect of society" shows taht it IS a moral choice. If you consider it an INCREASE, then you consider it as GOOD, which means it is moral. No difference at all with conservatives.

EDIT: note he is not my Republican friend, and I have yet to defend his actions or his advocacy of "Christian" morality. I am merely showing you how you are no different from him. I'm against both of you.

Again if you do not understand the differences between conservatism and libertarianism, you ought not comment on it.

 

Apparently you're unable to comprehend the difference between increasing a functionality of a society and religious enslavement. By your way of reason, every single time tax dollars are spend on whatever aspect of society, it's because of "Morality". 

Who are you trying to kid? You have been desperately trying, along with Faxxer, to change the subject of this thread into a democrat/liberal bashing post, trying to downplay what he did and using propaganda lines such as "They are trying to destroy and kill!" 

 

Actually, no -- I am saying that BOTH sides legislate morality, and BOTH sides are hypocrites. I am not turning anything into anything -- it is what it is.

Okay, so now you are claming this "functionality" as your MORAL GOOD. You can shift the words all you want, you are still seeking to legislate morality.

I never said anyone is TRYING to destroy and kill, just that they are WILLING to destroy and kill in their quest for power. The ends justifies the means. Sorry it's simply what leftists believe in and it is part of their morality.

 

Actually, no. You'll notice that you spend 90% of your post trying to change the subject to a democrat bashing one and then mentions at the end "Oh but both sides are bad, mkay?". You're not fooling anyone here.

You continue to desperately try to pretend as if religious enslavement is on the same level as improving functionality of society. If you do understand that there is a huge amount of difference then there is no real reason to continue to debate with you, because any debate is pointless if you do understand this basic concept.

You can call it "Morality" all you want, it's not going to change that one motivation is to improve aspect of society, the other to enslave the population to religion.

Oh so you said they are willing to destroy and kill in their quest for power? It's good you mentioned this because this totally makes it better [/sarcasm]

Sorry, but it's not "simply what leftist believe". It's a Bullshit propaganda line that doesn't have any truth in it.

 

If you are calling it an improvement, you are saying it is GOOD -- therefore you are making a moral judgment. There is nothing desparate here, simply taking your own statements in context and showing how you are no different than a fundamentalist Christian (or Muslim) in wanting to shove YOUR morality down everyone's throats.

Plus if you do not understand the difference between ends and means you have proven my point for me.

The whole point of Goverment is to make decision that improve society, not to enslave society to a religion.
 

You need to understand the difference first if you have any hope of having an objective and realistic view.

Originally posted by Gameloading

The whole point of Goverment is to make decision that improve society.

Where does it say that in the Constitution?