My take on the difference of Rep/Dem

I figured the cards were stacked against me pretty well and per the terms of the court, I attended:
Marriage counseling
Stress management classes
Anger Management classes
Anger Management for Parents classes
& Preventing Maltreatment classes

By the end of it I was fairly whipped into submission and just wanted to go about my life without any more issues. I almost lost my ability to be an AF cop (even after the courts-martial idea got dropped) and almost lost my right to own guns (if it had been classed as "domestic assault" instead of "child abuse", I would have).

While I've tried to put it behind me and take the Christian stance of foregiveness on this I must admit that it does still bother me. But... I just need to let it go and move on.

So......... How about that Obama? Think he'll come up with any more new tax ideas this week?

you are a bigger man than I am!

Turning the cheek is hard to do but good for you!

LIBS! LIBS! LIBS! LIBS! LIBS! LIBS! LIBS! LIBS! LIBS! LIBS! LIBS! LIBS! Really piss me off!

I always wondered why any religious person thinks "Because God said so!" is a stronger moral base than the liberals' "Because I feel like it!"

Both a liberal and a religious person agree that the source of morality is their feelings; the religious person claims they come from a 'revelation' about God's plan for man. The liberal skips the dog-and-pony show and just says thats how he feels. Ultimately they both rest on claiming the power of their feelings to discover what is right.

Before you go saying religion is a more solid base for morality than the liberals' feelings-based nonsense, ask yourself what (ultimately) religious morality rests on.

Several reason. Number one is that it's just easier. Number two would be because God's moral and ethical standards are a lot higher than mans. So when someone says "because God says so" (which I have rarely heard), there is a choice to make-the standards set by a much higher power-or some person, who is fallible (human).
Most religions strive for a higher state of being-liberals do not.
And religious morals rarely are based on what we "feel". Most times it actually goes against what we feel. So, you feel one way, but the Bible tells you to go a different way.
It would be an absolutely ridiculous argument in some instances.
"I feel like blowing this MF's head off"-whether religious or not, is an emotion everybody feels at one time or another.
So you're saying a liberal would do it and a religious man would too? Not. That is what truly separates a religious man from a non religious man. This is the perfect case in point-what this thread was started over. And this whole discussion.
A liberal, by your definition, does what they do, according to their feeling. But a religious man does what is right-regardless of how he feels.
So it's not about "feelings". It's about doing what is right and what is wrong. Something liberals rarely pay attention to, or they make up their own moral codes as they go along.
The easiest and quickest way to success in anything in life is to pattern yourself after someone who has been successful. A tried and proven method works 9 times out of 10. But we don't see that happening.
Another instance would be MacDonalds. You want a big mac when you're in Japan. It should taste the same, be made the same, etc.
That is what religion gives us. A standard and rules to govern ourselves by. Without it, we are lost and the big mac is different in every MacDonalds you come to.

Tristan, you're missing the point I was trying to make.

How do you know what morals you're following are right? Religious rules are followed, fundamentally, for the same reason the liberals follow their morals - you 'feel' that what you're doing is right. Religious thinkers labeled this as divine revelation. Thats because (by definition) there's no way to reason out God's will - thats the point, its why to be religious you need faith. So you read the bible and you 'feel' that its right, and fundamentally these rules were not reasoned out, but felt by the originators of it by 'divine revelation' - which is (supposedly, and unproveably) god-inspired feelings. How is that different than the way liberals act out - except that religious people have an older set of rules? And that one set of people claims that they have the sanction of God?

You are lost without an objective, rational morality. I am not advocating for the subjectivism of the liberals. What I am saying is that religious morality is, in the greater scheme of things, irrational and ultimately just as baseless as any liberals' feelings.

I think liberals have their own religion, whether they want to believe it or not. Go on a hike with a hippy and they'll make you stay on the trail the whole time, even when it is ankle deep mud with shin deep water over that.

People who worship the environment set up rules and norms that seem just as difficult as far as a standard of living as the moral ones that religions set up. It's funny to see environmentalist scoff at God fearing people, while they fear Mother Nature just as much. You know what I mean?

Liberal religion is probably "humanist". Man has the answers and he is his own ruler. Very arrogant! Belief in Gods rules to live your life haven't changed for a long time! Maybe different definitions of the rules, but not a change in them. Libs change the rules day to day. No set rules to adhere to. Think I'm wrong then look no further than Congress!

Tristan didn't miss your point Pancho. You just can't see his and you want him to see yours and accept it. I'm guessing but neither of you or faith based vs. non-faith based people will ever see eye to eye on this. Its the damn Devil I tell you [Muaha]! Driving the wedge between God and man. Been that way since day 1 !

Libtards who don't believe in God have a special place waiting for em'!
Come to think of it, ALL who don't believe can have a big block party in HELL when their time comes!

Think.....even if God doesn't exist......the rules that "he" put out for humans to follow are good moral rules to adhere to. So if it was all in vain, at least you lived a good life and treated your fellow man well. Can't say that for mans rules. Just a thought.

When the hell did this turn religious by the way. Pancho you to blame?!?!

I understand you point, Poncho. And in some cases I'd agree with it. There's an awful lot of fake Christians out there.
But I think you missed my point-it's not about what I "feel" is right or wrong-it's a choice I've made to follow a tried and proven system.
Faith is a whole nother discussion.
Liberals are so mentally weak that one comes up with an idea and then tries to get other lost people to go along with him. And they usually do, because they don't know what else to do. You will not find many successful religious people falling into that trap. They simply don't need to. What they are doing works, so why mess with it?
Such is the case when folks lose their faith, as you mentioned, in the present system. Obama is a prime example. But there are many, many different religions. I am referring to Christianity and I believe you are too.
I am sorry you are bitter/jaded towards such.

Way to go Tristan and Ginsure! I'm completely with you.
I'll let you do the talking

I thought this was a Dems/Reps debate, but if we want to wander then so be it.

I personally cannot stand when people paint anyone that disagrees with them as a "liberal". Is this a bad word? Rush Limbaugh (and other political do-nothing pundits) seems to think it has 4 letters.

Webster's Dictionary defines Liberal as....

Main Entry:
1lib·er·al Listen to the pronunciation of 1liberal
Pronunciation:
\ˈli-b(ə-)rəl\
Function:
Adjective
Etymology:
Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin liberalis suitable for a freeman, generous, from liber free; perhaps akin to Old English lēodan to grow, Greek eleutheros free
Date:
14th century

1: a: of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts <liberal education> barchaic : of or befitting a man of free birth
2: a: marked by generosity : openhanded <a liberal giver> b: given or provided in a generous and openhanded way <a liberal meal> c: ample, full
3: obsolete : lacking moral restraint : licentious
4: not literal or strict : loose <a liberal translation>
5: broad-minded ; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms

Yeh that sounds bad.....

We also seem to forget or ignore the fact that organized religion is an institute of man. Created by man, for the governance and control of man. It has been altered and amended routinely throughout history to suit changes in policy or views. Religion and beliefs can be a great thing but not at the expense of others that may not agree with others views. We live in a big big world and people are very different from place to place, and time to time. Follow your teachings and learn to accept people's differences, hell enjoy them. I personally hate when everyone has the same opinion or looks the same or all fall in line. I live in a "melting pot", where do you live? I don’t want to live in an Orwellian world, do you?


And as per my offer to play the "Devil's Advocate"

Ginsue:

"Our Founding Fathers plan was to keep government out of religion, not religion out of government."

Really?? And you spoke to our forefathers and they told you this? I thought they implemented the plan to separate church and state. I think this was likely to allow different religions equal protection and freedom under the law. I may be wrong, please ask them when you see them again.

Tristan:

"Another instance would be MacDonalds. You want a big mac when you're in Japan. It should taste the same, be made the same, etc.
That is what religion gives us. A standard and rules to govern ourselves by. Without it, we are lost and the big mac is different in every MacDonalds you come to."

A Big Mac does taste different in other countries. McDonalds tunes their menu for local flavors. Don’t believe me go try a hamburger from Mickey D's in Hong Kong!

Sturtle:

"I think liberals have their own religion, whether they want to believe it or not. Go on a hike with a hippy and they'll make you stay on the trail the whole time, even when it is ankle deep mud with shin deep water over that."

Is this some broad generalization or do you often go hiking with "hippies"?

And I am just getting warmed up………

Pedro

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elhuero

the problem I have with liberals is the complete lack of parity. you must conform to their world view. there is zero live and let live......

you must celebrate diversity by accepting our lifestyle, but fuck you if you want to own a gun.

we love democracy as long as it goes our way, if not then we protest in the streets.

universities are bastions of higher learning and free speech, but if you say something we don't like we'll yell, rush the stage, and throw things at you.

guns hurt kids and should be banned, but a woman has the right to kill an unborn any time she likes.

al sharpton says "you're not allowed to say that, it's offensive" kanye says "she ain't messin with no broke niggas"

gay man in west hollywood hangs sarah palin in effigy for two weeks with no problems. straight boys in texas hang obama in effigy and get charged with a hate crime.

if I point my finger in a threatening manner and say "bang!" I can be charged with assault, but terrorists trying to kill americans deserve miranda rights and constitutional freedoms.

I can keep going, but I think the point has been made.

---

I believe this says it all. Well said!

I'll take a liberal approach. Agree with me or start your own thread!

90&#37; of the people you encounter on a serious hike are hippies. Especially when they invite you. :(

Anyway, I could have elaborated more, but I was just trying to point out that people who don't like religion because of the strict rules, will sometimes have their own set of strict rules that they try to live by themselves. Take a vegan for example. A Vegan telling a religious person that they are an extremist is the pot calling the kettle black. The same goes for someone who is strongly religious telling a Vegan that they are weak willed or something. It goes both ways. That is the point I was getting at. I wasn't trying to pigeon hole every person into two groups, there is of course more diversity than that. I was just making an observation.

You know 80% of statistics are made up.http://www.co-ar15.com/forums/images/icons/icon7.gif

And as for Parity... I dont see it either.

Parity
Main Entry:
1par·i·ty
Pronunciation:
\ˈper-ə-tē, ˈpa-rə-\
Function:
noun
Inflected Form(s):
plural par·i·ties
Etymology:
Latin paritas, from par equal
Date:
1608
1: the quality or state of being equal or equivalent
2 a: equivalence of a commodity price expressed in one currency to its price expressed in another b: equality of purchasing power established by law between different kinds of money at a given ratio
3: an equivalence between farmers' current purchasing power and their purchasing power at a selected base period maintained by government support of agricultural commodity prices
4 a: the property of an integer with respect to being odd or even <3 and 7 have the same parity> b (1): the state of being odd or even used as the basis of a method of detecting errors in binary-coded data (2): parity bit
5: the property of oddness or evenness of a quantum mechanical function6: the symmetry of behavior in an interaction of a physical entity (as a subatomic particle) with that of its mirror image

Maybe you/we/them should also "live and let live".
PS: Adding quotes from Al Sharpton and Kanye West does not add clarity to your opinion, you might as well quote Scoobie-Doo and Shaggy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Delfuego

You know 80% of statistics are made up.http://www.co-ar15.com/forums/images/icons/icon7.gif

---

Ya, a study came out last year that confirms that 92% of studies are incorrect.
And I have had a Big Mac in Hong Kong. And in Tokyo. And in Moscow.
That's my point-it's still the same anywhere you go-yes, they cater to certain tastes, with different meat and spices added to the sauce and such. But the process they use, the methods of business and their policies vary very little. MacDonalds is a very successful business based upon a very successful business model-that's why I brought it up.
But just like when our great Country was founded, the rules/laws were meant to be the same all over. When Mikky D's first sprouted all over the world, a big mac in hong kong was the exact same as here.
Jeesh, I remember when the mikky d's sign said "almost 1 million sold".......
Damn mexicans! You guys really stick together, don't ya?! :) jk
The sad part about this whole deal is now I and others are labeled as extreme right-wingers. Yet 100 years ago, we would be considered very mild conservatives.
That's how stuff has changed.
And who labels us as such?
The libtyards.
Not us.
Yet true Republicanism hasn't changed-just like someone mentioned earlier, it's the label.
Regardless, I'm an American and proud and actually kinda mean. And I personally believe that if you're not a republican, then you don't belong in this country. Since some here want to quote others and dictionary definitions, then find a true copy of the constitution-you may be amazed.

How to be a good LIBERAL...

> Another one of those silly missives that captures the heart of liberalism
> so well.
> Still having a hard time believing any person who has attained any level
> of intelligence and logic can sit 'on that side of the aisle'.
>
> **How To Be a Good Liberal... **
>
You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on demand.**
>
You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments
create prosperity.**

You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans
are more of a threat than U.S. nuclear weapons technology in the hands
of Chinese and North Korean Communists.**

You have to believe that there was no art before federal funding.**

You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical documented changes in the earth's climate and more affected by soccer moms driving SUV's.**
>
You have to believe that defined gender roles are artificial but being
homosexual is natural.**
>
You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal funding.**
>
You have to believe that the same teacher who can't teach 4th graders
how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.**
>
You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but loony
activists who have never been outside of San Francisco do.**
>
You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.**
>
You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain
parts of the Constitution.**
>
You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.**
>
You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, Gen. Robert E. Lee, Thomas Edison, and Alexander Graham Bell.**
>
You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides are not.**
>
You have to believe that Hillary Clinton is normal and that she is a
very nice person.**
>
You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked any-
where it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.**
>
You have to believe that conservatives telling the truth belong in
jail, but a liar and a sex offender belonged in the White House.**
>
You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag queens,
transvestites, and bestiality should be constitutionally protected, and
Christian manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.**
>
You have to believe that illegal Democratic Party funding by the
Chinese government is somehow in the best interest to the United States.**
>
You have to believe that it's okay to give federal workers Christmas
Day off but it's not okay to say "Merry Christmas."**
>
You have to believe that this message is a part of a vast right wing
conspiracy. **
>
Needless to say, I am not a liberal.

Very Funny!

The reason for the definitions is that people often use words improperly to prove a point, but frequently they contradict their own statements.

But is seems to me you are the one who keeps labeling people.

"And who labels us as such? The libtyards."

Come on, is this a discussion or a name calling contest. I am trying to be forthright and sincere. I detest name calling on the internet or in person.

I think you may be mistaken on the evolution of conservatism. It seems to be working in the opposite direction. The Conservatives of 30-40 years ago were people like Nixon, Kissinger and William F Buckley. They would be moderates by today’s standards.

"if you're not a republican, then you don't belong in this country". If you believe this you should start your own country, because this country was started on the concept of freedom. We have the right to believe what we wish. If you want to live in a Communist (1 Party) state then have at it. And don’t you ever question my patriotism.

And I hope people can do better than copying and pasting some dumb (not funny) email into this thread.

I am still just gettting warmed up![Twist]

PS: I am not Mexican... Try again

You say you don't like name calling and then you say "dumb". That's dumb.
So you want to turn this from a friendly discussion into an idiotfest?
It was a joke.
And libytard was just a much of a joke. That's why I said it.
Also, again, read the Constitution.
And I personally don't give a flying you-know-what about you patriotism. No one questioned it. You are really barking up the wrong tree.
Act intelligent and mature and I'm sure we can have a great debate. Act like this and I won't talk to you. Ha.
p.s.-it also would appear that you are not up to date on you politics. Kissinger is the one who schooled Obama and is still around-yes, even in the white house. So you proved my point about the direction it has taken-the wrong one.
I know you're not mexican-again it was a joke. Get a life. Jeesh. But apparently you would like to think of yourself as such. Go ahead! That's what America is all about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Delfuego

Very Funny!

The reason for the definitions is that people often use words improperly to prove a point, but frequently they contradict their own statements.

But is seems to me you are the one who keeps labeling people.

"And who labels us as such? The libtyards."

Come on, is this a discussion or a name calling contest. I am trying to be forthright and sincere. I detest name calling on the internet or in person.

I think you may be mistaken on the evolution of conservatism. It seems to be working in the opposite direction. The Conservatives of 30-40 years ago were people like Nixon, Kissinger and William F Buckley. They would be moderates by today’s standards.

"if you're not a republican, then you don't belong in this country". If you believe this you should start your own country, because this country was started on the concept of freedom. We have the right to believe what we wish. If you want to live in a Communist (1 Party) state then have at it. And don’t you ever question my patriotism.

And I hope people can do better than copying and pasting some dumb (not funny) email into this thread.

I am still just gettting warmed up![Twist]

PS: I am not Mexican... Try again

---

Easy there big guy..I guess it's okay for you to copy and paste dictionary definitions then? Yawn....

You say you don't like name calling and then you say "dumb". That's dumb.
So you want to turn this from a friendly discussion into an idiotfest?
It was a joke.
And libytard was just a much of a joke. That's why I said it.
Also, again, read the Constitution.
And I personally don't give a flying you-know-what about you patriotism. No one questioned it. You are really barking up the wrong tree.
Act intelligent and mature and I'm sure we can have a great debate. Act like this and I won't talk to you. Ha.
p.s.-it also would appear that you are not up to date on you politics. Kissinger is the one who schooled Obama and is still around-yes, even in the white house. So you proved my point about the direction it has taken-the wrong one.
I know you're not mexican-again it was a joke. Get a life. Jeesh. But apparently you would like to think of yourself as such. Go ahead! That's what America is all about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Delfuego

I thought this was a Dems/Reps debate, but if we want to wander then so be it.

I personally cannot stand when people paint anyone that disagrees with them as a "liberal". Is this a bad word? Rush Limbaugh (and other political do-nothing pundits) seems to think it has 4 letters.

---

It's not a bad word. Liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. I personally like preservation of my birth rights and voluntary private decisions which unlike liberal version of 'equality,' my good decision may profit better than the surrounding people.

Quote:

---

Webster's Dictionary defines Liberal as....

Main Entry:
1lib&#183;er&#183;al Listen to the pronunciation of 1liberal
Pronunciation:
\ˈli-b(ə-)rəl\
Function:
Adjective
Etymology:
Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin liberalis suitable for a freeman, generous, from liber free; perhaps akin to Old English lēodan to grow, Greek eleutheros free
Date:
14th century

1: a: of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts <liberal education> barchaic : of or befitting a man of free birth
2: a: marked by generosity : openhanded <a liberal giver> b: given or provided in a generous and openhanded way <a liberal meal> c: ample, full
3: obsolete : lacking moral restraint : licentious
4: not literal or strict : loose <a liberal translation>
5: broad-minded ; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms

Yeh that sounds bad.....

---

Yes it sounds bad!

Quote:

---

We also seem to forget or ignore the fact that organized religion is an institute of man. Created by man, for the governance and control of man. It has been altered and amended routinely throughout history to suit changes in policy or views. Religion and beliefs can be a great thing but not at the expense of others that may not agree with others views. We live in a big big world and people are very different from place to place, and time to time. Follow your teachings and learn to accept people's differences, hell enjoy them. I personally hate when everyone has the same opinion or looks the same or all fall in line. I live in a "melting pot", where do you live? I don’t want to live in an Orwellian world, do you?

---

You miss out on the real issue - which is a whole other topic. There is no such thing as melting pot - show me one instance and I ll stand corrected. [Beer]

Quote:

---

Ginsue:

"Our Founding Fathers plan was to keep government out of religion, not religion out of government."

Really?? And you spoke to our forefathers and they told you this? I thought they implemented the plan to separate church and state. I think this was likely to allow different religions equal protection and freedom under the law. I may be wrong, please ask them when you see them again.

---

His claim has validity, although Thomas might have meant belief instead of religion. The word 'God' is mentioned in final sentence of the Constitution and in many forefathers letters. The first amendment prevents the U.S. from an establishment of religion and guarantees free religious exercise in this land -- However, this country is based on a belief in God. And obviously belief and religions are two completely different things. I have argued with many on the topic. Some could not see through it, while others, like myself, who am not necessarily religious yet have beliefs, can see it clearly.

Quote:

---

Tristan:

"Another instance would be MacDonalds. You want a big mac when you're in Japan. It should taste the same, be made the same, etc.
That is what religion gives us. A standard and rules to govern ourselves by. Without it, we are lost and the big mac is different in every MacDonalds you come to."

A Big Mac does taste different in other countries. McDonalds tunes their menu for local flavors. Don’t believe me go try a hamburger from Mickey D's in Hong Kong!

Quote:

---

Again, you need to see through his thought. The end result of every big mac is the same. It doesn't necessarily mean taste rather than satisfaction.

---

Sturtle:

"I think liberals have their own religion, whether they want to believe it or not. Go on a hike with a hippy and they'll make you stay on the trail the whole time, even when it is ankle deep mud with shin deep water over that."

Is this some broad generalization or do you often go hiking with "hippies"?

And I am just getting warmed up………

Pedro

---

Do you always like to take things out of context?

Why did it double post double post?? Sorry.

I dont know I dont know that's ok that's ok! [Coffee]

[ROFL1]
[ROFL1]
Thnaks!
Thnaks!

Anyone who disagrees here seems to be some kinda nut.

Sometimes I feel like a nut.... sometimes I don't.

This country was founded by people looking for religious freedom. Separation of "Church and State" is one of the main goals of the formation of our country. This was to protect religious freedoms and allow people to worship in their own way. Just because now we dont have wars between different Christian churches, does not mean it has always been this way.

And as for Kissinger (who I think is a total numbskull), the fact that he is counseling (not as you say schooling; they have not know each other very long) Obama, proves that he is now a middle of the road politician. Because the "Right" has moved so far to the right they left him in the middle.

MB888:

And it was not out of context, in fact it was within context, thats why the quotes were there.

Tristan:

No melting-pot? I personally have friends, relative and neighbors that have come from all different parts of the world and now live here. They look different, talk different and have different beliefs than my own. I would call that a melting-pot. What would you call it?

And I still have not broken a sweat yet!

PS: I called the joke dumb, not the person.

PSS: You did not know I was not a Mexican until I told you i was not.

So you are like my left nut?[ROFL1]

This is retarded. Yes I said retarded! Debate away but in the name of ___ keep it on topic!

How about this.....since I started this whole DUMB thread out of anger because of the dumb libtards of this country......I will say, it is however nice that all (Americans) aren't on the same page. If we all marched to the same tune then we would be, well not American.

I don't know how to multi quote because I'm dumb.

Sturtle, you are a closet hippy. You have played disc golf! And go hiking, and hiking with hippies at that. Get over it!

Delfuego aka Pedro, you are not Mexican! Get over it! This guy does exsist and he isn't Mexican. You like to stir shet up, so what! Still ain't Mexican!

The Ginsue, you the man!

Tristan, see above.

MB888 look two up!

Jumpstart, you still haten on Mexicans? Delfuego isn't Mexican. I do however think he likes "Spanish" music while shopping at Sportsmans.

Elhuero, you kind of funny! And nailed it best so far. Not to deep, not too shallow!

Pancho, deep man very deep! Too deep for shallow minds.

Rest of you have made no direct impact on this thread. Try harder!

Fuck it. MJ is dead who cares anyway!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Delfuego

Ginsue:

"Our Founding Fathers plan was to keep government out of religion, not religion out of government."

Really?? And you spoke to our forefathers and they told you this? I thought they implemented the plan to separate church and state. I think this was likely to allow different religions equal protection and freedom under the law. I may be wrong, please ask them when you see them again.

---

I dont have to actually speak with them. While sarcastic and condescending, your manner of speech belies an education, and perhaps intellect. I have. In fact, I've spent a great deal of time and energy studying our history - with a particular focus of the period from the mid-1600's into the early 1800's. While my career and formal education has focused on IT and Computer Science, my self-educational pursuits have always been towards our nations origins. I'd hazard to say that I've studied this era as much as any U.S. History PhD candidate.

With all of that said, I believe that I have some ground to make the claim that I'm not speaking from ignorance. I also believe that what you have stated is A PART of the truth - but fails to look at the whole picture.


You are right though - this thread moved well away from where it started so I'm going to stop here and let this thread be what it was intended to be; differences between Rep/Dem.

ETA: WHOOPS - I skipped ahead in the posts again and missed the last post before posting my statement above. GunTroll - Please accept my apologies for hijacking this thread again - it wasn''t intentional.

You are right Troll.....

I am just trying to stir up shit, and I do listen to and dance and to Latin/Salsa music. And I like wise latina women... he he he

However I am a card carring Democrat, my whole life. Goes back to my parents and family.

My only point would that maybe we have more in common, than we have differences.

Pedro....OUT!

GunTroll: It was nice to meet you and good luck on your new endeavor!

How did I get brought into this? My hiking experience is limited to my failed attempt at a 14'er (mount Harvard) and who better to show you the ropes than a damn hippy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Delfuego

MB888:

And it was not out of context, in fact it was within context, thats why the quotes were there.

No melting-pot? I personally have friends, relative and neighbors that have come from all different parts of the world and now live here. They look different, talk different and have different beliefs than my own. I would call that a melting-pot. What would you call it?

---

It was out of context as far as you fail to see what message he intended to send. You are just being an ass [ROFL1] Not that Stu deserves it sometimes.

As far as the melting pot, to me melting pot requires "FUSSION" on inter-culture. Not a take over, not a side by side, not multicultural. What you described sounds like a multi cultural 'status quo.' It only lasts until one culture gets larger and strong enough to take over. It's happening all over the western world. I can think of only one place that's close to a melting pot; Singapore. Indian, Malay, Chinese, Muslim, Christian, Buddhist work together for the ultimate goal of "GETTING RICH," meanwhile its surrounding neighbors are fighting religious and ethnic low level wars.

And in my opinion, your observation on the 'right has gone far right' is flaw. This country have been steadily moving to the left. I considered myself as a democrat about 15 years ago - until the lovely Clintons started to mingle in private life - attempted to tell me what health care to obtain and so on. [Rant1]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Delfuego

And as for Kissinger (who I think is a total numbskull), the fact that he is counseling (not as you say schooling; they have not know each other very long) Obama, proves that he is now a middle of the road politician. Because the "Right" has moved so far to the right they left him in the middle.

Tristan:

No melting-pot? I personally have friends, relative and neighbors that have come from all different parts of the world and now live here. They look different, talk different and have different beliefs than my own. I would call that a melting-pot. What would you call it?

And I still have not broken a sweat yet!

PS: I called the joke dumb, not the person.

PSS: You did not know I was not a Mexican until I told you i was not.

---

Jeesh. It's not that hard. Follow along and learn.
Ya-huh. I know people here on this board that have had dealings with you. And since the obvious escapes your comprehension level sometimes, I can read, too! Wow! There are posts on this board!
Ya-huh. Kissinger "schooled" obama ALSO back when he was in high school and College. And now he's obama's adviser. I'd call that "Schooling". Pardon the colloquialism. In the future I'll try to keep in simpler for you.
??? I never said anything about a melting pot. Mr. MB888 did in his good post. But your "explanation" of such and your relations pretty much prove the point I believe you are referring to.
Sweat? Naw, just some crying.
Calling the joke dumb is calling the person dumb.
Being wrong and/or misinformed every time must get old.
So, without risk of getting you panties in a wad some more or offending your anima and causing you to have your personality conflict (evidenced be you nickname) turn into a gender conflict also, I am done with you. If, in the future you wish to "stir shet up" as Troll said, then knowing what you are talking about would certainly help. Otherwise you appear to be both uneducated and inept. And you spelled "I" incorrectly.
Not calling the person such, just the posts, he-he. [Beer][ROFL2]

But I do agree with you on Kissinger being an numbskull. Smart numbskull, yet numbskull nonetheless. So you were right on something! Kudos! :)
Okay. Done.

Did anybody see "Defiance"? Interesting movie. We watched it last night. Hits this thread on the head in a lot of ways. Tuvia kinda started things out democratically, but because of human nature, ended up going into a dictatorship. Just like the overview movie talks about. It has the fellow from the new James Bond movie in it-but he's better as Bond.

Regardless, this Country was founded and subsisted by Republicans-not liberals. That's why I say that if you're not Republican, then you don't belong here. The founding fathers knew more about people and life and psychology than most experts today. They knew what they were doing. The founded an REPUBLIC, not a democracy, not a librocracy and not anything else. The Republican way. Period.

Sturtle,can you Sir please state for the record whether you have or have not gone to play disc golf? Don't try to deny it! Its in this forum somewhere! Hippie sympathizer!

I have played disc golf, only by myself though. In my defense, I showered before and after, and did not have a mangy shoulder bag to hold my 1 Frisbee (that was NOT a disc golf frisbee). For further clarification, the park with the course is adjacent to my home, and I run there. I doubt I would have driven any where to try it out.

I've also played Ultimate Frisbee. It is such a good work out, that I always feel like puking while playing.

Glad you cleared it up for all. So it is in my opinion you have dabbled with the stank side and saw the grass wasn't greener on the other side( or is it? ). Without google-ing.... Does the word patchouli mean anything to you? Last test I swear.

Yeah it means something to me. It was what my girl's God damned hippy friend smelled like on the whole hike. Don't even get me fucking started on patchouli.

*Thanks for reminding me to look it up though, to see what it actually is. I was under the impression that it is some rank ass flower or something.*

I looked it up. Even Wikipedia says that it is a damn dirty hippy thing!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patchouli

It is in my opinion you are not a hippy. A sympathizer at best but still bashing so you lean to the right side.

I use the word granola to describe mnt hippies. Not your city tour rat types. Those are the worst! And I am a recovering hippie sympathizer so I know one when I see one.

Good luck to you on all future endeavours with bashing hippies![Beer]


This is my closing statement on this topic of dem vs. rep.....
Red will always rule Blue! If not in DC at least in logic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tristan

The founding fathers knew more about people and life and psychology than most experts today. They knew what they were doing. The founded an REPUBLIC, not a democracy, not a librocracy and not anything else. The Republican way. Period.

---

I agree with the wisdom of the founding fathers. They knew people and life far better than I think we do today. But I doubt they would see much in common with the Republican party of today. Everything has drifted so far left. Even the conservatives of today are left of Jefferson and the rest. But the Rep. are the best option out there. We need another Regan revolution.