Who do you support for U.S. Senate in...

“Liberals are closet raaacists!”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#23545 Aug 28, 2013
Informed Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
How it must hurt to have lost the presidency 2 X to a Black, Kenyan born, Muslim, illegal alien, terrorist, who flunked his classes at Harvard Law, while openly engaging in socialist, commie community organizing, with little or no experience from a family so poor his mommy was on welfare and food stamps.
And YOU voted for that pathetic excuse of an individual TWICE. You can crawl back under your rock now. Surely, you are embarrassed. You should be.

“Liberals are closet raaacists!”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#23546 Aug 28, 2013
Informed Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
How it must hurt to have lost the presidency 2 X to a Black, Kenyan born, Muslim, illegal alien, terrorist, who flunked his classes at Harvard Law, while openly engaging in socialist, commie community organizing, with little or no experience from a family so poor his mommy was on welfare and food stamps.
BTW, thanks for FINALLY owning up to your stupidity. It must have left quite a few marks on you, but you MUST feel better. "The truth shall set you free."

“Liberals are closet raaacists!”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#23547 Aug 28, 2013
Informed Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
Earth to Right Wing Wackos
Come in Right Wing Wackos
News Flash
American Presidents are limited by Constitutional Amendment to no more than two (2) terms.
On January 20, 2017, Right Wing Wackos will take credit for having driven Obama from office.
That is all.
Mothership out.
Actually conservatives will also take credit for keeping that fool under some sort of control. You're welcome, lunatic.

“Liberals are closet raaacists!”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#23548 Aug 28, 2013
Martin wrote:
Well old "Nooklurr" didn't axe anyone about bombing Iran in 1990 did he?
Did George W. get congressional approval for deploying soldiers to Iraq?

“Liberals are closet raaacists!”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#23549 Aug 28, 2013
Informed Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
"Why"
and
"Why indeed"
Hey... It's great that one phase of the Bi-Polar disorder sometimes agrees with the other phase. If this happens with sufficient frequency perhaps that schism will heal and you'll have one united personality.
We'll pray for that healing to take place.
I forget .... How do you say in Arabic :
"Dear God, please heal this Right Wing Wacko ?"
Translation: We liberals do INDEED support every single thing that was listed.

“Liberals are closet raaacists!”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#23550 Aug 28, 2013
Informed Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
I forgot to demand that I get to be the "Animalist".
Being the pervert submarine commander is great- but "Animalist" - now that's special.
Whatever it is - I demand the title "Animalist" be transferred to me also.
Posting to yourself AGAIN???? Not surprised. You can't seem to learn ANYTHING the first time around.
Informed Opinion

Cape Coral, FL

#23551 Aug 28, 2013
Synergy wrote:
<quoted text>And YOU voted for that pathetic excuse of an individual TWICE. You can crawl back under your rock now. Surely, you are embarrassed. You should be.
How's it feel to have helped get 5,000 American troops killed in the sands of Mid-East to make America's enemies and Muslim extremists stronger than ever ?

Does that make you feel the slightest bit guilty ?

How's it feel to have taken our country from a balanced budget under rational Democrats to a $1,400,000,000,000.00 annual budget deficit under Right Wing Wacko Bush.

Does that make you feel the slightest bit guilty ?

What about having indebted our nation $6,000,000,000,000.00 on wars in the MidEast to strengthen Saudi Arabia - the country responsible for 09/11 ?

Muslim terrorists around the world say thank you Right Wingers - you're our biggest allies.

Does that make you feel the slightest bit guilty ?

As for Me....

I can live with watching:
- the Bush deficit cut in half;
- the troops coming home from Right Wing Wacko wars;
- the American economic system saved;
- the Bush Great Recession conquered;
- the rescue of the American automobile industry saved;
- the American banking system saved;
- the end of freeloading deadbeat insurance system.

Yep...

I can live with my choice because I have a conscience. You can live with yours because you don't.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#23552 Aug 28, 2013
Oh my wrote:
No surprises here....
Fox News found to be a major driving force behind global warming denial
American consumers of conservative media like Fox News distrust climate scientists and don't believe the planet is warming
Posted by Dana Nuccitelli
Thursday 8 August 2013
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climat...
A new study published in the journal Public Understanding of Science (PDF available here) surveyed a nationally representative sample of over 1,000 Americans in 2008 and 2011 about their media consumption and beliefs about climate change.
The results suggest that conservative media consumption (specifically Fox News and Rush Limbaugh) decreases viewer trust in scientists, which in turn decreases belief that global warming is happening. In contrast, consumption of non-conservative media (specifically ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, NPR, The New York Times, and The Washington Post) increases consumer trust in scientists, and in turn belief that global warming is happening.
The study also examined previous research on this issue and concluded that the conservative media creates distrust in scientists through five main methods:
1) Presenting contrarian scientists as "objective" experts while presenting mainstream scientists as self-interested or biased.
2) Denigrating scientific institutions and peer-reviewed journals.
3) Equating peer-reviewed research with a politically liberal opinion.
4) Accusing climate scientists of manipulating data to fund research projects.
5) Characterizing climate science as a religion.
Media Matters provides examples of Fox News engaging in all five of these tactics. One prime example involves contrarian meteorologist Joe Bastardi, a frequent climate misinformation guest on Fox News who Rolling Stone awarded the #1 dumbest thing ever said about global warming for claiming that CO2 "literally" cannot cause warming because it doesn't "mix well in the atmosphere."
...Moreover, 73 percent of young voters under the age of 35 associate denial of global warming with words like "ignorant," "out-of-touch" or "crazy," including 53 percent of young Republicans. Climate solutions are also growing in popularity due to their real-world success, with British Columbia's revenue-neutral carbon tax enjoying 64 percent support, and California's carbon cap and
....deleted for space
I find it interesting that you don't seem to realize how the very article you posted can just as easily be used to illustrate the bias of those who buy into the man made global warming - oops, climate change - debacle.

Those who view/listen to conservative media recognize the bias/agenda of the man-made climate change (MMCC) adherents and know that "fudging" of data to further the "cause" has been proven to have occurred. Those who listen to mainstream media sources have not been exposed to the "other side" of the issue.
Mainstream media has perpetuated this misinformation through:
1. Presenting MMCC skeptics as wackos and "science deniers" without addressing their evidence.
2. Denigrating respected scientist who do not "toe the line."
3. Refusing to acknowledge the liberal agenda behind MMCC policies
4. Refusing to acknowledge known fabrication of data to support MMCC
5. Refusing to acknowledge that adherence to MMCC despite the mounting evidence debunking it amounts to a religious fanaticism in some climate change advocates

Nor is it surprising that a large number of young people would have bought into the MMCC agenda, that is all they hear in college. Those professors who dare to question the orthodoxy tend to receive cold shoulders from their colleagues and denial of tenure.
A really good article from March's The Economist takes a very even handed look at all the conflicting data currently out there.
http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-tec...

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#23553 Aug 28, 2013
Oh my wrote:
<quoted text>
You obviously have a mental impairment that has affected your ability to comprehend the simple concept of reciprocity, and it is now understandable why you are having such difficulties in having a meaningful conversation.
It is obvious that each is the examples I provided are different aspects of the same concept, that of reciprocity.
In the one example, an eye for an eye is an example of do unto others as you have been done to.
In the second example, it is do unto others as you want done to yourself.
Both are examples of reciprocity. This is obviously a concept that is beyond your infeebled capabilities to comprehend.
Okay, I admit I just skimmed the last few pages, but I am not getting why you seem to be equating the Golden Rule with "eye for an eye". While I would disagree, I suppose one can make an argument about reciprocity with the Golden Rule, but "eye for an eye" has nothing to do with it. While most people look at the "eye for an eye" statement as one of revenge, it is actually an admonishment to "make the punishment fit the crime" and to avoid escalation. To take it literally, if one man causes another to lose an eye, a fitting punishment could be given that that man will have an eye taken - as opposed to both eyes (a punishment greater than the crime) or even execution (a punishment far out of proportion to the crime).

And a little note on the Eloquent Peasant - there is some dispute over whether or not it actually contains a "golden rule" equivalent. First, some scholars say the translation must be really stretched in order to make that comparison. But even if one concedes the comparison, the usually agreed upon translation "Do for one who may do for you, that you may cause him thus to do." implies doing something for someone so as to force him into a state of indebtedness. The Golden Rule as stated in the Bible is an admonishment to "do unto others" as an entreaty to treat others well with no expectation of reward, but simply as "the right thing to do." The difference between the motivations is huge.

And if I have just completely missed the mark on the point of the discussion, my apologies. Please point me to the pertinent post so I can see my mistake.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#23554 Aug 28, 2013
@Where
Dang it, I just went back and saw your post #23510 . You already handled the Golden Rule vs "eye for an eye". Sorry for the redundancy.

“Liberals are closet raaacists!”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#23555 Aug 28, 2013
Informed Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
How's it feel to have helped get 5,000 American troops killed in the sands of Mid-East to make America's enemies and Muslim extremists stronger than ever ?
Does that make you feel the slightest bit guilty ?
How's it feel to have taken our country from a balanced budget under rational Democrats to a $1,400,000,000,000.00 annual budget deficit under Right Wing Wacko Bush.
Does that make you feel the slightest bit guilty ?
What about having indebted our nation $6,000,000,000,000.00 on wars in the MidEast to strengthen Saudi Arabia - the country responsible for 09/11 ?
Muslim terrorists around the world say thank you Right Wingers - you're our biggest allies.
Does that make you feel the slightest bit guilty ?
As for Me....
I can live with watching:
- the Bush deficit cut in half;
- the troops coming home from Right Wing Wacko wars;
- the American economic system saved;
- the Bush Great Recession conquered;
- the rescue of the American automobile industry saved;
- the American banking system saved;
- the end of freeloading deadbeat insurance system.
Yep...
I can live with my choice because I have a conscience. You can live with yours because you don't.
Read your first and last sentences. Your post is just trash. Nothing more. All lies and gullible liberal propaganda.
As for your last sentence, you don't have a conscience. If you did, you'd realize how ignorant and brainless you truly are. Your traitorous stance on this country is proof that you have NO conscience. Thanks for the laugh. Your jokes are old, though.
Where

Jefferson, GA

#23556 Aug 29, 2013
Oh my wrote:
<quoted text>
Your words
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/blairsville-g...
The whole of my posts was the Christian teachings of equality that influenced the founding Fathers in the writing of the Constitution.
Your words
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/blairsville-g...
The founding Fathers received their knowledge from their Christian forebears and passed that knowledge into the Constitution.
..........
The point that you refuse to acknowledge is that the Founding Fathers were influenced by many sources, some religous, some secular.

You said:
“The point that you refuse to acknowledge is that the Founding Fathers were influenced by many sources, some religious, some secular.”

You are a complete fool. You are once again arguing my main point with your special twist of ignorance thrown in. This has been the crux of my argument from the get go. The difference between us is I’m a Lockes man and you are a Hobbes man. My arguments are from a historical view, your arguments are from an Animalist view. I will not dawdle with you again on this subject.


I see you give no names, so I will…….
John Locke; if you’ve never read him, everyone should. His writings laid the ground work for many of the founding Fathers.“His ideas would come to have profound influence on the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.“With regard to the Bible Locke was very conservative. He retained the doctrine of the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures.”
“His arguments concerning liberty and the social contract later influenced the written works of Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and other Founding Fathers of the United States”
Some of which may have been secular men, but I can find NOTHING about them being secular men. Everything I read about any of them shows they knew the dangers of a State/Church relationship, even though many of them were Christians. Their idea of Church/State relationship was to put a bridle with bit on government, to prevent government from enacting laws pertaining to Religion.

You also said::
“This concept can be explained from the perspective of psychology, philosophy, sociology and religion. Psychologically, it involves a person empathizing with others.. Philosophically, it involves a person perceiving their neighbor as also "an I" or "self."[3][4] Sociologically, this principle is applicable between individuals, between groups, and also between individuals and groups.(For example, a person living by this rule treats all people with consideration, not just members of his or her in-group). Religion is an integral part of the history of this concept.”

The above paragraph is discussing Empathy, which is NOT the same as reciprocity or the Golden rule. The meanings are different, as is the concept. In order to practice or live by the Golden rule, one may need to practice empathy. In order to understand and abide by the golden rule, one need not have empathy. I do not expect you to understand this as you are a lite thinker.

Wikipedia is a site NOT without errors. Sources of contributions come from many political spectrums.
Perhaps you can find some secular thoughts contributing to the Constitution and post them here. I could not, so maybe there are none.

Considering this contribution was most likely from a socialist, this whole paragraph is a convoluted error, as are you. Most likely the thought comes from a libroid or socialist. I will not research it, as the meanings of words only change over long periods of time, and we live by the meanings of today, or at least I do. You apparently have constant struggles with understanding words, and the application of words.
Where

Jefferson, GA

#23557 Aug 29, 2013
Aggie23 wrote:
@Where
Dang it, I just went back and saw your post #23510 . You already handled the Golden Rule vs "eye for an eye". Sorry for the redundancy.

No apology necessary as you have expounded on the concept. The whole purpose of Oh my was to throw a rock in a china shop.
Where

Jefferson, GA

#23558 Aug 29, 2013
Looks like Obama will stand alone with his other libroid war-mongers such as Kerry and Biden. They like being the flies in the ointment.


"Cameron backs down on urgent Syria strikes"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/mid...

"France: political solution the ultimate goal for Syria"

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/29/us-...
Oh my

Blairsville, GA

#23559 Aug 29, 2013
Bigdave1 wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/blairsville-g...
Oh my, don't you just put out some of the same old propaganda that Al Gore wrote 15 years ago. Actually the world is going into a little ice age. Look toward much colder temperatures in the coming years.
If you want to call it climate change than that is o.k., as the Earth's climate has been changing for millions of years. Nothing new, and the Earth's climate will continue to change for millions of more years.
BTW I have a bridge I will sell you real cheap in Brooklyn. Seems that you will buy into anything.
Thank you for this submission which confirms the findings of the study. You've been a tremendous help.
Oh my

Blairsville, GA

#23560 Aug 29, 2013
Informed Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
I forgot to demand that I get to be the "Animalist".
Being the pervert submarine commander is great- but "Animalist" - now that's special.
Whatever it is - I demand the title "Animalist" be transferred to me also.
Most have a Veterinary Degree, but some go off the reservation and whisper to horses and dogs.
Oh my

Blairsville, GA

#23561 Aug 29, 2013
Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/blairsville-g...
I find it interesting that you don't seem to realize how the very article you posted can just as easily be used to illustrate the bias of those who buy into the man made global warming - oops, climate change - debacle....
Thank you for confirming the findings of the study, your own words are all the proof that is needed.
Oh my

Blairsville, GA

#23562 Aug 29, 2013
Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/blairsville-g...
Okay, I admit I just skimmed the last few pages, but I am not getting why you seem to be equating the Golden Rule with "eye for an eye". While I would disagree, I suppose one can make an argument about reciprocity with the Golden Rule, but "eye for an eye" has nothing to do with it. While most people look at the "eye for an eye" statement as one of revenge, it is actually an admonishment to "make the punishment fit the crime" and to avoid escalation. To take it literally, if one man causes another to lose an eye, a fitting punishment could be given that that man will have an eye taken - as opposed to both eyes (a punishment greater than the crime) or even execution (a punishment far out of proportion to the crime).

And a little note on the Eloquent Peasant - there is some dispute over whether or not it actually contains a "golden rule" equivalent. First, some scholars say the translation must be really stretched in order to make that comparison. But even if one concedes the comparison, the usually agreed upon translation "Do for one who may do for you, that you may cause him thus to do." implies doing something for someone so as to force him into a state of indebtedness. The Golden Rule as stated in the Bible is an admonishment to "do unto others" as an entreaty to treat others well with no expectation of reward, but simply as "the right thing to do." The difference between the motivations is huge.
"To take it literally, if one man causes another to lose an eye, a fitting punishment could be given that that man will have an eye taken"

Geez, it sure sounds like you've just described a reciprocal condition or relationship.
==========
"But even if one concedes the comparison, the usually agreed upon translation "Do for one who may do for you, that you may cause him thus to do." implies doing something for someone so as to force him into a state of indebtedness."

I'm not surprised that you've taken this line of reasoning, it fits you like a glove.
Where

Jefferson, GA

#23563 Aug 29, 2013
Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text>

And a little note on the Eloquent Peasant - there is some dispute over whether or not it actually contains a "golden rule" equivalent. First, some scholars say the translation must be really stretched in order to make that comparison. But even if one concedes the comparison, the usually agreed upon translation "Do for one who may do for you, that you may cause him thus to do." implies doing something for someone so as to force him into a state of indebtedness. The Golden Rule as stated in the Bible is an admonishment to "do unto others" as an entreaty to treat others well with no expectation of reward, but simply as "the right thing to do." The difference between the motivations is huge.
And if I have just completely missed the mark on the point of the discussion, my apologies. Please point me to the pertinent post so I can see my mistake.

Actually the golden rule or eye for an eye was not used in it's strictest form with the Eloquent Peasant. He lost a donkey and some food. He was given all of his opponents possessions.

A fair rendition of an eye for an eye would have been to replace his donkey and his food. The result was his opponent wound up being poor, and the peasant wound up with all of his possession.

Oh my

Blairsville, GA

#23564 Aug 29, 2013
Where wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/blairsville-g...
“This concept can be explained from the perspective of psychology, philosophy, sociology and religion. Psychologically, it involves a person empathizing with others.. Philosophically, it involves a person perceiving their neighbor as also "an I" or "self."[3][4] Sociologically, this principle is applicable between individuals, between groups, and also between individuals and groups.(For example, a person living by this rule treats all people with consideration, not just members of his or her in-group). Religion is an integral part of the history of this concept.”

The above paragraph is discussing Empathy, which is NOT the same as reciprocity or the Golden rule. The meanings are different, as is the concept. In order to practice or live by the Golden rule, one may need to practice empathy. In order to understand and abide by the golden rule, one need not have empathy. I do not expect you to understand this as you are a lite thinker.
So, on the one hand..
"In order to practice or live by the Golden rule, one may need to practice empathy."

But on the other hand...
"In order to understand and abide by the golden rule, one need not have empathy."

So according to the DEEP thoughts rising up from your brain, "to practice or live" has a different requirement than "to understand and abide", which implies that to practice, live, understand, or abide by the Golden Rule one either does, or does not, require empathy.

Thank you for this enlightening peek inside your head, as an expression of empathy I truly hope that you get help for your affliction.

Empathy
1. the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Lavonia Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Review: Milligan & Sons Garage (Jun '11) Oct '16 grandma 14
News Tennessee man charged in Lavonia with having ha... Sep '16 Claudeharmonnc 1
Sam Harbin Murder Aug '16 Deer hunter 1
Shepards Hill Farm (Jan '11) Mar '16 Bpot 6
Sick (Jan '16) Jan '16 anonymous 1
Cuckold (Sep '15) Sep '15 Anonymous 1
Puppies stolen from Northeast Georgia Animal Sh... (Apr '15) Apr '15 Elisa Taylor 1

Lavonia Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Lavonia Mortgages