The Religious Right, Family Values... How?

[ShadowRishi]

What good has the Family Values Right and Religious Right done for families?

I ask this because as near as I can tell, they've done nothing but screw families, screw kids, and set a grand example as a pack of liars.

Part 1: Unadopted children need parents. Period. Two homosexual parents beat to hell no parents at all. Let me ask if an unadopted kid if he or she wants a parent, and 99.9999% of them are all going to say: "Yes, I'd like a mommie/daddie."

So what does the religious right try to do? Lower the eligible parents for adoption by excluding homosexuals. I really don't quite care what your justification is for homosexuals not being able to adopt; we know clearly that:

A. Children with parents do infinitely better in school, and have much more stable emotional health and physical health.
B. We let single parents adopt. Why not let 'two' single parents adopt? If we can allow only one male or one female role in adoption, two certainly cannot be worse.

Part 2: How have they seriously helped families? Tax cuts do not help low income families with social benefits; they don't help schools, Bush's No Child Left Behind did nothing but hinder school's from doing their job and the standardized tests are (as I had to take one to graduate from high school) a joke. Bush took money away from needy schools --and while I fully agree that money does not make a good school, taking money away will, however, never do any good.

Republicans consistently try to cut down on welfare programs that help kids. I'm not talking about the ones that are for 'lazy, dead beat parents', but ones designed for children in bad neighborhoods --breakfast programs, food stamps, minor health benefits.

So what families are they helping? The wealthy or otherwise pretty well off families after screwing poor families?

Sorry, I cannot buy that one.


Part 3: So what do we get in exchange for voting for Republicans? Well, we get closet homosexual hypocrites, oil tycoon's who support their own causes, war makers who send families children off to get get killed or seriously physically wounded for absolutely no cause, and, to boot all, a president who couldn't give a crap what the public wanted.



So tell us, family value conservatives... Just how are you helping families? Why should any family-conscience parents vote for your candidates or your 'family values'? Last I checked, homophobia, war mongering, school prayer, tax-cutting, pseudo-theocracy, and anti-feminism a good family policy makes not.

[Easyrider]

What good has the Family Values Right and Religious Right done for families?

I ask this because as near as I can tell, they've done nothing but screw families, screw kids, and set a grand example as a pack of liars.

You taliking about those who do not abide by Christian values? Seems like you are.

As for screwing up kids and families, the radical secularists are really good at that. It they don't murder the kids in the first place in their mother's wombs, then they're passing parameters allowing schools to give out birth control pills to 11-14 year olds without their parent's permission. They assault their senses with the pro-gay agenda, teaching "Heather has Two Mommies" in elementary schools. They have to have parental consent to take an aspirin but they'll help run them over for a life-changing abortion at the local blood-bath clinic. And they do many things like this.

The Scourge of Liberal Fundamentalism

Liberal Fundamentalism is a failed and destructive philosophical enterprise, replete with a host of anti-Biblical, pseudo-religious doctrines that seeks to elevate the ways and “wisdom” of man above the wisdom and desires of God. Its principle aim is the sacking of traditional Judaic and Christian values and beliefs, which are revisited through suspect liberal “scholarship” or politically-correct dogma in an effort to replace them with the tenets of carnal moral hedonism and the failed social doctrines of today’s liberal elitists.

The genesis of today’s liberal fundamentalists was the anti-traditionalist hedonists of the 1960's and 70's. They advocated fornication and “free-love,” illegal substance abuse, moral relativism, contempt for authority, and they enjoyed a prosperous America founded on the very hard work and enterprise they sought to distance themselves from. The freedoms they enjoyed were purchased by the blood, sweat and personal sacrifices of the very forefathers they held in contempt.

Personal responsibility, self-restraint and self-sacrifice are often foreign concepts to them. “Right and wrong,” and “good and evil” were arbitrarily revisited, for such concepts had no objective meaning to them. They had no objective rationality for their hedonistic philosophy other than if it “feels good, let’s do it.” The only righteous cause that qualified for support in their “progressive” mindset was the undermining and revising of traditional American and Judeo-Christian values. They said not to trust anyone "over 30," and now they're over 30 and say, "Trust us, and what we teach!" Thank you, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,290642,00.html
Ward Churchill.

One of the most revered mantras of liberal fundamentalism is “equality.” The net effect of this experiment, in many instances, was to elevate women via the degradation of men, promote racial equality by instituting race-based preferences and reverse discrimination, engender class warfare against people of means via their socialistic redistribution of wealth schemes (a concept centered in greed for other people’s money, rather than relying on one’s own personal initiative and work ethic), and elevate wickedness (sodomy, fornication, pornography, and other ungodly issues) to the plateau of respectability at the expense of traditional Godly values.

Along with the failed liberal concept of equality was the mantra of liberal “tolerance.” However, liberal tolerance is not what it appears to be. It is a contradictory, partisan philosophical perspective with its own rigid set of dogmas. It assumes, for instance, a relativistic view of moral and religious knowledge. This assumption has shaped the way many people think about issues such as homosexuality, abortion rights, and religious truth claims, leading them to believe that a liberally tolerant posture concerning these issues is the correct one and that it ought to be reflected in our laws and customs. But this posture is often dogmatic, intolerant, and coercive, for it asserts that there is only one correct view on these issues, and if one does not embrace it, one may likely face public ridicule, demagogic tactics, and perhaps even legal reprisals. Liberal tolerance is therefore neither liberal nor tolerant.

Rather than truly embrace “freedom,” liberal fundamentalists seek to control virtually every aspect of the lives of the masses that are unfortunate enough to be under their fundamentalist rulership. They seek to outlaw SUV’s, impose smoking bans while advocating marijuana use, prohibit freedom of religious expression in government and public schools, advocate compulsory training in politically correct opinions and attitudes, seek to enforce Bible bans in schools and the workplace, embrace a de-facto litmus test against pro-life judicial nominees, seek to criminalize pro-life demonstrations through the RICO racketeering statute, try to squelch legitimate religious speech via “hate-speech” laws (note Canada), and generally engage in a wide range of behaviors designed to subvert the U.S. Constitution and traditional American values.

Ii is certainly arguable, then, that “progressive” liberal fundamentalism substantially undermines the basic effectiveness of the government and other societal elements of democracy. Despite the idealistic goals of liberalism, attempts to build a utopian liberal society in America have only led to heightened outbreaks of AIDS, VD, porno-related crime, social divisions, divorce, abortion, drug addictions, deficit spending, the welfare state, a crushing tax burden, the breakdown of the family unit, moral depravity, and numerous other such scourges which have resulted in enormous societal suffering and discontent. As a result, liberal fundamentalism is strongly associated with left-wing fanaticism, reverse-racism, anti-intellectualism, elitism, nihilism, godlessness, and societal violence. – Author Unknown

[MikeH]

Oh, you confused Republicans with Christians, how cute...

[ShadowRishi]

Oh, you confused Republicans with Christians, how cute...

I'm not sure if you meant him or me here, but I'll assume it's him because I was very specific in my diction.

You taliking about those who do not abide by Christian values? Seems like you are.

As for screwing up kids and families, the radical secularists are really good at that. It they don't murder the kids in the first place in their mother's wombs, then they're passing parameters allowing schools to give out birth control pills to 11-14 year olds without their parent's permission.

I see, but you know, it is more noble to make everyone have their children, then leave those children in a world where they are much more susceptible to molestation, piss poor child rearing, bad health care, and physical abuse? And then to help alleviate matters you find it even more noble to remove valid parents from the


I don't have time to debate an obstinate set-in-stone person on the merits of abortion. Call it side stepping if you like, but the question is still valid.

They assault their senses with the pro-gay agenda, teaching "Heather has Two Mommies" in elementary schools. They have to have parental consent to take an aspirin but they'll help run them over for a life-changing abortion at the local blood-bath clinic. And they do many things like this.

I wasn't aware that restricting aspirin was a huge issue on the liberal agenda --damn, it's all just a giant liberal conspiracy.

(I'll ignore, for the moment, that you were overzealous enough to bunch me up as a liberal off the bat)

I see, and it is horrible to tell children that homosexuals exist. God, that's just terrible. And the blood-bath clinics... God, I'm so glad you could remain objective here. Please, desist from appeal's to emotion; they are both fallacious and unnecessary.


First off, few schools actually give free abortions. In fact, outside of hyper-liberal New York... Nah, I cannot think of one instance of it happening.

The Scourge of Liberal Fundamentalism

Liberal Fundamentalism is a failed and destructive philosophical enterprise, replete with a host of anti-Biblical, pseudo-religious doctrines that seeks to elevate the ways and “wisdom” of man above the wisdom and desires of God. Its principle aim is the sacking of traditional Judaic and Christian values and beliefs, which are revisited through suspect liberal “scholarship” or politically-correct dogma in an effort to replace them with the tenets of carnal moral hedonism and the failed social doctrines of today’s liberal elitists.

A lot of talk, and very little to even hint at backing it up.

You see what I did up above? It was called pointing out relevant facts. You've just said a lot of nothing, and used a lot of loaded words.

Once again, appeals to emotion mean nothing.

The genesis of today’s liberal fundamentalists was the anti-traditionalist hedonists of the 1960's and 70's. They advocated fornication and “free-love,” illegal substance abuse, moral relativism, contempt for authority, and they enjoyed a prosperous America founded on the very hard work and enterprise they sought to distance themselves from. The freedoms they enjoyed were purchased by the blood, sweat and personal sacrifices of the very forefathers they held in contempt.

Obviously this is true; which is why the most prosperous states in the USA are... New York and California.

Wait...

Personal responsibility, self-restraint and self-sacrifice are often foreign concepts to them. “Right and wrong,” and “good and evil” were arbitrarily revisited, for such concepts had no objective meaning to them. They had no objective rationality for their hedonistic philosophy other than if it “feels good, let’s do it.” The only righteous cause that qualified for support in their “progressive” mindset was the undermining and revising of traditional American and Judeo-Christian values. They said not to trust anyone "over 30," and now they're over 30 and say, "Trust us, and what we teach!" Thank you, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,290642,00.html
Ward Churchill.

Essentially you quoted this... Why? Loaded words, unsupported claims, and bad mouthing an argument makes not.

Please, refrain from making useless tirades like this; they serve absolutely no legitimate purpose.

One of the most revered mantras of liberal fundamentalism is “equality.” The net effect of this experiment, in many instances, was to elevate women via the degradation of men, promote racial equality by instituting race-based preferences and reverse discrimination, engender class warfare against people of means via their socialistic redistribution of wealth schemes (a concept centered in greed for other people’s money, rather than relying on one’s own personal initiative and work ethic), and elevate wickedness (sodomy, fornication, pornography, and other ungodly issues) to the plateau of respectability at the expense of traditional Godly values.

Great, so we have moved from families to tasteless, unbacked conservative rhetoric not worth the money it takes in electricity to send it before my eyes?


Red herring fallacy; keep on topic or you will get on my ignore list very fast.

Along with the failed liberal concept of equality was the mantra of liberal “tolerance.” However, liberal tolerance is not what it appears to be. It is a contradictory, partisan philosophical perspective with its own rigid set of dogmas. It assumes, for instance, a relativistic view of moral and religious knowledge. This assumption has shaped the way many people think about issues such as homosexuality, abortion rights, and religious truth claims, leading them to believe that a liberally tolerant posture concerning these issues is the correct one and that it ought to be reflected in our laws and customs. But this posture is often dogmatic, intolerant, and coercive, for it asserts that there is only one correct view on these issues, and if one does not embrace it, one may likely face public ridicule, demagogic tactics, and perhaps even legal reprisals. Liberal tolerance is therefore neither liberal nor tolerant.

Rather than truly embrace “freedom,” liberal fundamentalists seek to control virtually every aspect of the lives of the masses that are unfortunate enough to be under their fundamentalist rulership. They seek to outlaw SUV’s, impose smoking bans while advocating marijuana use, prohibit freedom of religious expression in government and public schools, advocate compulsory training in politically correct opinions and attitudes, seek to enforce Bible bans in schools and the workplace, embrace a de-facto litmus test against pro-life judicial nominees, seek to criminalize pro-life demonstrations through the RICO racketeering statute, try to squelch legitimate religious speech via “hate-speech” laws (note Canada), and generally engage in a wide range of behaviors designed to subvert the U.S. Constitution and traditional American values.

Ii is certainly arguable, then, that “progressive” liberal fundamentalism substantially undermines the basic effectiveness of the government and other societal elements of democracy. Despite the idealistic goals of liberalism, attempts to build a utopian liberal society in America have only led to heightened outbreaks of AIDS, VD, porno-related crime, social divisions, divorce, abortion, drug addictions, deficit spending, the welfare state, a crushing tax burden, the breakdown of the family unit, moral depravity, and numerous other such scourges which have resulted in enormous societal suffering and discontent. As a result, liberal fundamentalism is strongly associated with left-wing fanaticism, reverse-racism, anti-intellectualism, elitism, nihilism, godlessness, and societal violence. – Author Unknown

I will not ask this again: keep your off topic rhetoric off of my thread, or I will have mods intervene in this thread and I will put you on ignore.

This has nothing to do with families; all you have attempted to say is "Yeah, well WE'RE not as BAD as YOU!" and then --even ignoring that that is in itself yet another logical fallacy, the ad hominem fallacy-- you completely failed to even debate that premise. Quoting a bunch of zealous, racist, xenophobic, homophobic, ignorant, hillbilly crackers is not a way to debate, Easy.

[Easyrider]

What good has the Family Values Right and Religious Right done for families?

Quite a bit, unless you're going to try to diss them by citing examples of those who don't practice them.

I ask this because as near as I can tell, they've done nothing but screw families, screw kids, and set a grand example as a pack of liars.

Your view is stunted by your political / and or theological bias.

Part 1: Unadopted children need parents. Period. Two homosexual parents beat to hell no parents at all.

And two decent heterosexual parents beat the dickens out of two homosexuals engaged in an unhealthy and ungodly lifestyle.

So what does the religious right try to do? Lower the eligible parents for adoption by excluding homosexuals.

Good. Why be brought up by moral-less individuals who refuse to repent of immoral behavior and who would arguably teach the kids to do the same thing, so they can all wind up in hell? Whee! You guys don't think things through to the end, do you?

Part 2: How have they seriously helped families? Tax cuts do not help low income families with social benefits; they don't help schools..

That's the liberal lie. Tax revenues have been shown to actually increase when reasonable tax cuts have been effected, by stimulating growth in the economy. It happened under JFK, Reagan, and Bush. But if you think raising taxes helps, that's a lie too, since it stymies growth and often puts the little guy out of work (i.e. the 10% Yacht surcharge - "GET THE RICH", when people largely quit buying yachts and the workers were laid off). Real nice.

Bush's No Child Left Behind did nothing but hinder school's from doing their job and the standardized tests are (as I had to take one to graduate from high school) a joke. Bush took money away from needy schools --and while I fully agree that money does not make a good school, taking money away will, however, never do any good.

Competition keeps them honest, and they will either have to improve their failing schools or parents can put the kids in more worthy schools. A school system that grades on a curve, so that Little Billy gets a B when he can't even spell needs to go down the tubes.

Republicans consistently try to cut down on welfare programs that help kids. I'm not talking about the ones that are for 'lazy, dead beat parents', but ones designed for children in bad neighborhoods --breakfast programs, food stamps, minor health benefits.

No, we try to limit the growth factor in spending to a reasonable limit. Somehow, limiting the GROWTH in welfare spending to 4% over last year, instead of going for 7 or 10% like the liberals wants, is somehow a CUT. LOL!.

What's more, if you're going to drop trou and pump out another human compactor or five, then be darn sure you can raise them yourself, instead of going whining to Uncle Sam for MORE MONEY. Personal responsibility there, ShadowRishi. That's the Achille's Heel of the liberal left. Need another example? Don't want the kid someone just copulated to create? KILL IT, so it's not an INCONVENIENCE!! Real nice.

Part 3: So what do we get in exchange for voting for Republicans? Well, we get closet homosexual hypocrites, oil tycoon's who support their own causes, war makers who send families children off to get get killed or seriously physically wounded for absolutely no cause, and, to boot all, a president who couldn't give a crap what the public wanted.

This is a sick, sweeping over-generalization.

Don't like the war?

The main question for Mrs. Clinton, Harry Reid, ShadowRishi, and the other quitters / appeasers of evil is, what happens in Iraq and the region should the U.S. prematurely depart? If you think Iraq is a bloodbath now, just wait and see what happens next. The Killing Fields will be back with a vengeance. With Iran backing Al Sadr and other like-minded murderers, the Iraqi government would likely disintegrate within a matter of weeks. Anyone who ever backed coalition forces would be hunted down like the Jews under Adolph Hitler. The lucky ones who do survive would find themselves in fundamentalist “reeducation” camps until their views coincided with those of their supremacist slave masters. Nor would the Kurds escape. Their way of life is over too. Once that holocaust ends, and it will go on for quite some time, then you are left with pro-terrorist nations Iran, Iraq, and Syria dominating the Middle East, and very likely the Persian Gulf. Who then will be next? And there will be a “next.” Very likely, Saudi Arabia and, most certainly, Israel. Then any Arab or Muslim country with a non-fundamentalist government. The whole region would become a breeding ground for the export of terror and fundamentalism. But that's what the libs apparently want (or else they're blind to the consequences).

And then the vicious circle of far-left liberal statesmanship will become complete. They will once again go back to the impotent U.N. for assistance. Calls for sanctions will once more abound. More liberal senators and statesmen will give blustery speeches. And more long-winded rhetoric and half-baked condemnations will again be meted out, first at Bush and the U.S. for letting this happen, and then at anyone else left standing. This time, though, they’ll be showing up at the U.N. on their bicycles, because Middle East oil will be at a serious premium, if available at all. And that’s as far as it will all go. That’s as far as it ever goes with them. Once the liberals are done at the U.N. - after all the calls for sanctions and bleeding-heart admonitions to play nice are duly pontificated; after their patented appeasement resolutions are passed, and after the bad guys still haven’t budged one inch – they’re done. Finis. End of story. That’s all there is from the libs - there isn’t any more. All that’s left is for them to go home, wring their hands, and wait for Osama and Company to eventually come calling. And they will. You can count on it.

So tell us, family value conservatives... Just how are you helping families? Why should any family-conscience parents vote for your candidates or your 'family values'? Last I checked, homophobia, war mongering, school prayer, tax-cutting, pseudo-theocracy, and anti-feminism a good family policy makes not.

<chuckle>

Next time you're down and out, and Uncle Sam already has all your money because you keep voting in an endless array of bleeding heart tax-and-spend liberals, try finding a "Bitter Atheist's Homeless Shelter"!! LOL!

p.s. Hillary's going to lose in 2008. Just check out what happened to the radical left's Kerry and the Goron. They're still trying to figure out what happened to them.

[ShadowRishi]

Quite a bit, unless you're going to try to diss them by citing examples of those who don't practice them.

Again, all talk and absolutely no examples.

Your view is stunted by your political / and or theological bias.

If you have acquired over 2,000 posts on this forum, then I am going to make a very brave assumption that you are capable of something better than red herrings, ad hominems, and posts chalk full of claims and zero support.


If I am mistaken, then you will quickly find yourself on my ignore list.


Post evidence or post not at all.

And two decent heterosexual parents beat the dickens out of two homosexuals engaged in an unhealthy and ungodly lifestyle.

Two heterosexual parents are, Easy, not in large commodity. People want their own kids, and adopting kids is not .

Perhaps you lack eyes, the question was not whether or not you are a homophobe and you get to pick between two homosexuals, a single parent, and two heterosexuals.

The facts tell us we can pick for the children either no parents or gay parents. Choose now.

Good. Why be brought up by moral-less individuals who refuse to repent of immoral behavior and who would arguably teach the kids to do the same thing, so they can all wind up in hell? Whee! You guys don't think things through to the end, do you?

I'm going to pretend like you are not the fourth most ethically, morally, and logically bankrupt individual I've met before.

You, Easy, live in a fantasy world where it you fight magical demons and then make choices for everyone else --and do you know who suffers? Children, families, groups that displease you, but never yourself.

We have terms for that; we call them unethical, immoral, and ignorant. Not to mention, the fact that you'd make decisions so easily, that will never affect you, is cowardice.

That's the liberal lie. Tax revenues have been shown to actually increase when reasonable tax cuts have been effected, by stimulating growth in the economy. It happened under JFK, Reagan, and Bush. But if you think raising taxes helps, that's a lie too, since it stymies growth and often puts the little guy out of work (i.e. the 10% Yacht surcharge - "GET THE RICH", when people largely quit buying yachts and the workers were laid off). Real nice.

I'm aware of the Reagan notion of the trickle effect. Yes, tax revenue goes up, but that still doesn't mean it is going to a proper place.

Competition keeps them honest, and they will either have to improve their failing schools or parents can put the kids in more worthy schools. A school system that grades on a curve, so that Little Billy gets a B when he can't even spell needs to go down the tubes.

God, you reek of conservative-brainwashed rhetoric bullshit.


How are parents supposed to afford private school if they don't make crap?


Go read The Working Poor; it's not the greatest book, but at least it exposes the fallacies employed by conservatives about the poor.

No, we try to limit the growth factor in spending to a reasonable limit. Somehow, limiting the GROWTH in welfare spending to 4% over last year, instead of going for 7 or 10% like the liberals wants, is somehow a CUT. LOL!.

No, welfare reform is a necessary thing; I have, however, no idea what the hell you are talking about. And since you thoroughly lack the ability to cite your information, or even give a general idea, I'll ignore this until you explain yourself like you mean it.

What's more, if you're going to drop trou and pump out another human compactor or five, then be darn sure you can raise them yourself, instead of going whining to Uncle Sam for MORE MONEY. Personal responsibility there, ShadowRishi. That's the Achille's Heel of the liberal left. Need another example? Don't want the kid someone just copulated to create? KILL IT, so it's not an INCONVENIENCE!! Real nice.

Ah, the classical argument of the conservative:

The mother acts stupidly, so we punish the kid. Right?

Yes, I can smell the family support there.


Here's the failure of your rhetoric: poor people simply do not rationalize like we do. They do a lot of dumb things and they don't think very well; and punishing them for it is not going make them not do it, so.... What good does it end up doing? Now on the other hand, 99.99% of them were not raised like I or... well, I have no idea how you were raised, and I seriously doubt the strength of your applied logic, but that is all right. You still get my point.

This is a sick, sweeping over-generalization.

Don't like the war?

The main question for Mrs. Clinton, Harry Reid, ShadowRishi, and the other quitters / appeasers of evil is, what happens in Iraq and the region should the U.S. prematurely depart?

Educate yourself. For your own sake; I'm quite finished with you.

Hilary Clinton supports keeping the troops in there. I know in your bus scurry to tag that liberal whore with every bad label you could hit her with, you might have missed a few details. That's okay, you just keep in chucking!


I could tell you that I don't support Hilary Clinton, but due to past experience, I am going to assume that you've split the world into to two groups: super conservatives and everyone else. So, the effort seems futile.

If you think Iraq is a bloodbath now, just wait and see what happens next. The Killing Fields will be back with a vengeance. With Iran backing Al Sadr and other like-minded murderers, the Iraqi government would likely disintegrate within a matter of weeks. Anyone who ever backed coalition forces would be hunted down like the Jews under Adolph Hitler. The lucky ones who do survive would find themselves in fundamentalist “reeducation” camps until their views coincided with those of their supremacist slave masters. Nor would the Kurds escape. Their way of life is over too. Once that holocaust ends, and it will go on for quite some time, then you are left with pro-terrorist nations Iran, Iraq, and Syria dominating the Middle East, and very likely the Persian Gulf. Who then will be next? And there will be a “next.” Very likely, Saudi Arabia and, most certainly, Israel. Then any Arab or Muslim country with a non-fundamentalist government. The whole region would become a breeding ground for the export of terror and fundamentalism. But that's what the libs apparently want (or else they're blind to the consequences).

Given that your comprehension skills are lacking in every other area, forgive me while I refuse to take your word for it. As it so happens, I was blessed with a wonderful ability to rationalize, and I have just happened to spend a decent amount of time dwelling on this issue.

It's funny though that you speak of re-education camps.

And then the vicious circle of far-left liberal statesmanship will become complete. They will once again go back to the impotent U.N. for assistance. Calls for sanctions will once more abound. More liberal senators and statesmen will give blustery speeches. And more long-winded rhetoric and half-baked condemnations will again be meted out, first at Bush and the U.S. for letting this happen, and then at anyone else left standing. This time, though, they’ll be showing up at the U.N. on their bicycles, because Middle East oil will be at a serious premium, if available at all. And that’s as far as it will all go. That’s as far as it ever goes with them. Once the liberals are done at the U.N. - after all the calls for sanctions and bleeding-heart admonitions to play nice are duly pontificated; after their patented appeasement resolutions are passed, and after the bad guys still haven’t budged one inch – they’re done. Finis. End of story. That’s all there is from the libs - there isn’t any more. All that’s left is for them to go home, wring their hands, and wait for Osama and Company to eventually come calling. And they will. You can count on it.

It is a shame that a person like you could remain on this forum for so long.

<chuckle>

Next time you're down and out, and Uncle Sam already has all your money because you keep voting in an endless array of bleeding heart tax-and-spend liberals, try finding a "Bitter Atheist's Homeless Shelter"!! LOL!

p.s. Hillary's going to lose in 2008. Just check out what happened to the radical left's Kerry and the Goron. They're still trying to figure out what happened to them.

Kerry was hardly radical left, and I don't give a damn if Hilary wins or not; I don't even see her making it through nominations.


The only sick and disgusting sweeping generalizations made in this thread are your ignorant, uneducated, nonsensical, unsupported claims about liberals, and your childish assumption that I'm even a liberal.


Welcome to my ignore list.

[Easyrider]

Welcome to my ignore list.

Can't stand the truth there, Rishi? Not only did you hiss out the usual array of profanities and / or ad hominems in that last post, but you were a full quart short on disputing anything I presented.

Here's a flash for you and the sheep of the radical left:

Sheep, Wolves and the Sheepdogs

This letter was written by Charles Grennel and his comrades, veterans of the Global War On Terror. Grennel is an Army Reservist who spent two years in Iraq and was a principal in putting together the first Iraq elections in January 2005.

They wrote it to Jill Edwards, student at the University of Washington, who did not want to honor Medal of Honor winner USMC Colonel Greg Boyington.

Ms. Edwards, other students and faculty do not think those who serve in the U.S. armed services are good role models.

To: Jill Edwards, Student, University of Washington

Miss Edwards,

I read of your student activity regarding the proposed memorial to Colonel Greg Boyington, USMC and a Medal of Honor winner. I suspect you will receive many angry emails from conservative people like me.

You may be too young to appreciate fully the sacrifices of generations of servicemen and servicewomen on whose shoulders you and your fellow students stand. I forgive you for the untutored ways of youth and your naivety. It may be that you are simply a sheep. There's no dishonor in being a sheep, as long as you know and accept what you are.

William J. Bennett, in a lecture to the United States Naval Academy November 24, 1997 said "Most of the people in our society are sheep. They are kind, gentle, productive creatures who can only hurt one an other by accident. We may well be in the most violent times in history, but violence is still remarkably rare. This is because most citizens are kind, decent people, not capable of hurting each other except by accident or under extreme provocation. They are sheep.

Then there are the wolves who feed on the sheep without mercy. Do you believe there are wolves out there who will feed on the flock without mercy? You better believe it. There are evil men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds. The moment you forget that or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep. There is no safety in denial.

Then there are sheepdogs and I'm a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf. If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen, a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath, a wolf. But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep lo ve for your fellow citizens? What do you have then? A sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the unchartered path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed.

We know that the sheep live in denial, that is what makes them sheep. They do not want to believe that there is evil in the world. They can accept the fact that fires can happen, which is why they want fire extinguishers, fire sprinklers, fire alarms and fire exits throughout their kid's schools. But many of them are outraged at the idea of putting an armed police officer in their kid's school. Our children are thousands of times more likely to be killed or seriously injured by school violence than fire, but the sheep's only response to the possibility of violence is denial. The idea of someone coming to kill or harm their child is just too hard. So they choose the path of denial.

The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, cannot and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheepdog that intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed. The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a representative democracy or a republic such as ours. Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that there are wolves in the land.

They would prefer that he didn't tell them where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our airports, in camouflage fatigues, holding an M-16. The sheep would much rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go Baa. Until the wolf shows up. Then the entire flock tries desperately to hide behind one lonely sheepdog.

The students, the victims, at Columbine High School were big, tough high school students, and under ordinary circumstances would not have had the time of day f or a police officer. They were not bad kids; they just had nothing to say to a cop. When the school was under attack, however, and SWAT teams were clearing the rooms and hallways, the officers had to physically peel those clinging, sobbing kids off of them.

This is how the little lambs feel about their sheepdog when the wolf is at the door. Look at what happened after September 11, 2001 when the wolf pounded hard on the door. Remember how America, more than ever before, felt differently about their law enforcement officers and military personnel?

Understand that there is nothing morally superior about being a sheepdog; it is just what you choose to be.

Also understand that a sheepdog is a funny critter. He is always sniffing around out on the perimeter, checking the breeze, barking at things that go bump in the night and yearning for a righteous battle. That is, the young sheepdogs yearn for a righteous battle. The old sheepdogs are a little older and wiser, but they move to the sound of the guns when needed, right along with the young ones.

Here is how the sheep and the sheepdog think differently. The sheep pretend the wolf will never come, but the sheepdog lives for that day.

After the attacks on September 11, 2001, most of the sheep, that is, most citizens in America said "Thank God I wasn't on one of those planes." The sheepdogs, the warriors, said "Dear God, I wish I could have been on one of those planes. Maybe I could have made a difference." You want to be able to make a difference. There is nothing morally superior about the sheepdog, the warrior, but he does have one real advantage. Only one. And that is that he is able to survive and thrive in an environment that would destroy 98 percent of the population.

Research was conducted a few years ago with individuals convicted of violent crimes. These cons were in prison for serious, predatory crimes of violence: assaults, murders and killing law enforcement officers. The vast majority sa id they specifically targeted victims by body language: Slumped walk, passive behavior and lack of awareness. They chose their victims like big cats do in Africa, when they select one out of the herd that is least able to protect itself.

Some people may be destined to be sheep and others might be genetically primed to be wolves or sheepdogs. But I believe that most people can choose which one they want to be, and I'm proud to say that more and more Americans are choosing to become sheepdogs.

Seven months after the attack on September 11, 2001, Todd Beamer was honored in his hometown of Cranbury, New Jersey. Todd, as you recall, was the man on Flight 93 over Pennsylvania who called on his cell phone to alert an operator from United Airlines about the hijacking. When they learned of the other three passenger planes that had been used as weapons, Todd and the other passengers confronted the terrorist hijackers. In one hour, a transformation occurred among the passengers - athletes, business people and parents - from sheep to sheepdogs and together they fought the wolves, ultimately saving an unknown number of lives on the ground.

Edmund Burke said "There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of evil men." Here is the point I want to emphasize, especially to the thousands of police officers and soldiers I speak to each year. In nature the sheep, real sheep, are born as sheep. Sheepdogs are born that way, and so are wolves. They don't have a choice.

But you are not a critter. As a human being, you can be whatever you want to be. It is a conscious, moral decision. If you want to be a sheep, then you can be a sheep and that is okay, but you must understand the price you pay. When the wolf comes, you and your loved ones are going to die if there is not a sheepdog there to protect you.

If you want to be a wolf, you can be one, but the sheepdogs are going to hunt you down and you will never have rest, safe ty, trust or love. But if you want to be a sheepdog and walk the warrior's path, then you must make a conscious and moral decision every day to dedicate, equip and prepare yourself to thrive in that toxic, corrosive moment when the wolf comes knocking at the door.

This business of being a sheep or a sheepdog is not a yes-no distinction. It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. On one end is the head-in-the-sand-sheep and on the other end is the ultimate warrior. Few people exist completely on one end or the other. Most of us live somewhere in between.

Since 9-11 almost everyone in America took a step up that continuum, away from denial. The sheep took a few steps toward accepting and appreciating their warriors, and the warriors started taking their job more seriously. It's OK to be a sheep, but do not kick the sheepdog. Indeed, the sheepdog may just run a little harder, strive to protect a little better and be fully prepared to pay an ultimate price in battle a nd spirit with the sheep moving from "baa" to "thanks".

We do not call for gifts or freedoms beyond our lot. We just need a small pat on the head, a smile and a thank you to fill the emotional tank which is drained protecting the sheep. And, when our number is called by The Almighty, and day retreats into night, a small prayer before the heavens just may be in order to say thanks for letting you continue to be a sheep. And be grateful for the millions of American sheepdogs who permit you the freedom to express even bad ideas.

[micatala]

Moderator Warning

God, you reek of conservative-brainwashed rhetoric bullshit.

Let me remind SR that the rules prohibit personal attacks and profanity.

[MikeH]

So what does the religious right try to do? Lower the eligible parents for adoption by excluding homosexuals. I really don't quite care what your justification is for homosexuals not being able to adopt; we know clearly that:

You seem to have invented a shortage of willing adoptive parents here. The last time I checked, the number of parents outnumbers the number of available infants, that is why there are waiting lists years long and rigorous background checks to adopt. You're then saying that the solution to this made up problem is to allow homosexuals to adopt. Homosexuals make up approximately 6% of the population, only a fraction of which would want to adopt a child. Even if there was a problem, your solution is not even a solution, just an argument from emotion.

[Goat]

So what does the religious right try to do? Lower the eligible parents for adoption by excluding homosexuals. I really don't quite care what your justification is for homosexuals not being able to adopt; we know clearly that:

You seem to have invented a shortage of willing adoptive parents here. The last time I checked, the number of parents outnumbers the number of available infants, that is why there are waiting lists years long and rigorous background checks to adopt. You're then saying that the solution to this made up problem is to allow homosexuals to adopt. Homosexuals make up approximately 6% of the population, only a fraction of which would want to adopt a child. Even if there was a problem, your solution is not even a solution, just an argument from emotion.

Well, there are plenty of children that are NOT infants that need a home. People are insisting to adopt INFANTS, and they seem to be needing them of the proper race and gender.

How about the ones that are a bit older?? Plenty of them need families.