I wonder what special effects were used to make this video of reid supporters throwing eggs at buses carrying Tea Party members and threatening someone there witnessing it? I mean, it can't be real because we all know that liberals are incapable of violence and intimidation.
Give it up for God's sake. Yes, lots of liberals are shameless and hypocritical, I am sure. In fact I'm sure I've met some. But what are you implying? That conservatives are not frequently ALSO shameless and hypocritical? Get a grip.
What I see is teabaggers trying to claim the mantle of victimization. To the point of sending a stooge with cameramen to provoke Reid suporters who were NOT provoking the teabaggers.
I hear the claim of eggs, but I did not see any. Maybe true. On the other hand google 'militias' and then try to find a left-wing group with assault weapons advocating the overthrow of the US government....
IN a worst-case scenario, we on the left should be ashamed of egg-throwing extremists - and the right has paramilitary groups plotting the murder of cops and civilians. Does anyone see a difference?
Lay-off Brenda, she believes what she says and I believe shes a lot more right than wrong. Christians believe the world would be a better place if everyone followed the teachings in the Bible reguardless of your feelings about God. The key is honesty you know certain behaviors are wrong and unhealthy. If you choose those lifestyles thats fine but don't argue their morality it just makes you look foolish.
Besides, Christians do not believe this. I mean, sure, that is one (I guess valid) interpretation of what Christians believe.
But having been a Christian myself, I can say that many Christians interpret the Gospel to teach that the world has gone to hell in a handbasket IN ANY CASE, and that, no matter what non-Christians do, or how they behave, this is irrelevant, because SALVATION IS BASED ON BELIEF IN CHRIST.
Therefore, God is ALREADY pissed off at mainstream Americans, and legislating them into following the Bible COMPLETELY MISSES THE POINT, because it is what is in someone's HEART that counts.
I don't believe and have never believed you will go to hell unless thats your choice. I believe your level of glory will be affected by your behavior here. That said, you were given Free Agency so exercise your right to choose.
OK. But I have been good friends with (and believed this myself) people who claimed that the only true Christian was one who saw the world as controlled by Satan and lost, in effect, and that salvation came only through conversion to faith in Jesus. Therefore, homosexuals were not going to hell for their behaviour, but because they were not converts.
This is a pretty typical evangelical line, and one, in fact, that I think held a dominant position among evangelicals in America until the nineteen eighties. To be honest my suspicion is that elements in the Republican Party have been manipulating Christians for decades along these lines, ie, beguiling them into thinking that Christianity called them to political action. This was the opposite of Jesus' mission as it was explained to me.
She is just an example. Brenda can do what she wants. So... I'll change my original statement: what about evangelical conservatives. Evangelicals were staunchly opposed to meddling in politics and trying to influence the moral agenda so that they COULD DICTATE HOW OTHERS' LIVED (particularly gays... not sure what that is about...) before the nineteen eighties. So, BEFORE THEN, perhaps your statement would have held more water.
Normally (I am sure you already know this, but whatever, I'll repeat it anyway) there are two kinds of conservatives:
fiscal conservatives (the type you are referring to)
social conservatives (often with religious leanings, whether Christian, Muslim or otherwise) who would like to see the social agenda dominated by their views on morality.
But you see, it is not really about you and me, is it. I mean, if people on this thread can't even agree on the DEFINITION of terms, then what's the point at all...
So, given, for example, that the term "conservative" gets used a lot around here, doesn't it make sense that we know what people mean when they use it. Otherwise, what is this, painting with splotches on a wall?
And we all, believe it or not, I think, share an innate common sense and an ability to spot logic (and its absence) when we see it.
And for me, if a conservative is supposed to mind their own business, and in fact is irritated at liberals exactly for NOT minding their own business, then someone like Brenda, who calls herself a conservative seems to be agitating for wholescale overhaul of society (isn't that socialism, to some, or at least totalitarianism)... you can see the confusion...
I didn't actually mean the 'sniping and judgementalism' to refer to you. I do think that sniping and judgementalism are far more offensive to God than having a monogamous, lifelong, loving relationship with someone who happens not to be of the opposite sex (I mean, assuming God's priorities are compassion and mercy, before all else... I mean the believer's conception of God is that, as I am an agnostic).
I love my gay friends and relatives, yes I said relatives. I just have a problem with the issue of calling their commited relationships marraige. That is my opinion and I support it but I would obey the law regaurdless of my opinion.
Hmmmmm.....I think everybody preaches what they believe thats why politics are so volitile. Remember Code Pink in California harassing a Marine recruiting office? That is exactly what are best young men deserve, what do you think?
Well the scolars of religion have spoken, Woo-Hoo! Lets review some of the sexual behaviors of the liberals. There's anatomically incorrect sex, theres the any object will do sex, theres tv sex, movie sex, child sex, with anyone you feel like sex, theres women dominating sex, there's women denying sex and lets make sure are teenagers are having sex. All of which are supported by NAMBLA, queer nation, planned parenthood, abortionists and our liberal supreme court. Uh-Oh, liberals your lack of morality is showing again!
Well a man of your age and I have to explain to you about aborant sex practices, thats a shame. Here goes, Well for starters men have an outsie and women have an insie. Two outsies are not correct and two insies are not correct but if you don't believe me checkout an antomy book on reproduction thats what those parts are for, sorry.
The womens rights movement has gone too far and failed to access the damage they've caused our sociaty as a whole. Case in point the femanization of America, you know, metrosexualisms.
I'm sorry, are you referring to NAMBLA or Queer nation? They both exist so I don't believe thats bashing just stating the truth.
I actually agree with you on the privacy issue but heterosexuals don't go around screaming their preferences, now do they?
You have a right to your opinion and you have the right to be wrong. Just be happy with that.
You don't actually. I'm well aware of them. I'd just as soon not know who is doing them, unless "doing them" is unlawful. Homosexuality, like it or not, isn't unlawful. But to be honest I don't like being presented with a mental picture of acquaintances "bumping ugly," if you know what I mean.
That comes and goes. I've actually seen a more interesting return to older values. There was a time when opening a door for a woman, even if she was heavily burdened, would get a scowl at the least or a tongue lashing. That seems to be gone...at least for now.
I may have overreacted on that one. Sorry.
The only reason gays go around "screaming their preferences" is because they feel they've been slighted. I tend to agree.
If they had the same basic rights as every one else they wouldn't have anything to scream about.
Why is it when we discuss you end your comments with a directive that I "should follow?" I certainly don't tell you to be happy with things you disagree with. I most certainly wouldn't expect you to even if I did say that.
I'm not asking you to change your views, well, not directly. I am simply asking you to consider an alternative point of view. Maybe give it a "well that's you; not me."
Well I am pleasantly surprised we had a civil conservation! Yeah us! Well you know your thoughts were well presented and based in an argument of reason! Thank you! Lets continue this trend to resonable discussion and I promise I will listen but please understand I may not agree! Thanks Rick!
So it feels good to dominate women but not the other way around ? Hypocrisy is sign being a conservative. No wonder conservative women just love to get dominated in the name of Christ.No wonder they say "jesus" while having sex and not name of their partner, oops that being faithful to jesus and not to partner.
Even when Trump may have a good idea or two, his temperament and personality negates it all.There is a place for conservatives ideas within the public forum and while their messages are valid and at least deserving of...
Hi friendsThe first forty years i.e. before Muhammad was appointed Prophet Messenger by the Creator- God Allah YHWH has been offered as a reasonable argument/challenge in Quran before Nonbelievers-of-Mecca, and they...
To refer to the "press as the enemy of the American people' in the terms he did was the epitome of stupid. This was attacked by many GOP as attacking the very foundation of America Democracy, the Fourth Estate. So...
Here's the link to the poll, which was taken in February:http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main … leads.htmlHere are some of the things that South Carolina's Trump supporters apparently believe:80% support a...
I'll let you answer that but provide this insight from a recent CNN poll. Q16. If you had to choose, would you rather see Donald Trump and the Republicans in Congress mostlyimplement Republican policies and pay...