The Holy Test

[MuyLocoNC]

Yeah, its true that I'm a chickenshit liberal compared to the Jesus depicted in the bible.

So, right-wing conservatives that worship in their Christian churches get a free pass from all of that? Is the conservative way better than what the bible says Jesus taught?.

Despite the unending attempt to tie the two together, Conservatism has nothing to do with Christianity or any other religion for that matter. Christians don't get any type of pass from true Conservatives.

As to the last question, yes, it is.

 

[ttystikk]

I'm just saying that while I found it easy to tell the source from each of the quotations. To me, the difference was in tone and perspective. I didn't see the same virulence that you did in the selections from the bible. If anything, I got negative vibes from the selections from the Quoran. So, I disagree that there was some sort of liberal bias in the selections from the bible. Perhaps the bias lies in yourself towards the words from the bible as my bias was reflected in my reaction to quotes from the Quoran. I sensed an authoritative tone in those passages -- almost guaranteed to get my hackles up.

But on the face of it, you have a strong bias against all things liberal. US conservatives reacted very negatively to words from the pope too. Maybe there is a correlation here. Was Jesus a liberal?

John Boehner was a good republican and catholic- until the Pope came and addressed Congress at his invitation.

Very suddenly, he announced his retirement and quit both the speakership and his own office as representative.

It sure LOOKED like a change of heart, like he realized that he'd been playing on the wrong team all this time.

 

[Fogdog]

Despite the unending attempt to tie the two together, Conservatism has nothing to do with Christianity or any other religion for that matter. Christians don't get any type of pass from true Conservatives.

As to the last question, yes, it is.

Uh, well, no, Christian churches are a meeting place and social club for right wing conservatives.

And, I think you speak your belief in your last statement. Right wing conservatives of all strains reject ideas of non-violence, inclusion and helping each other.

 

[MuyLocoNC]

John Boehner was a good republican and catholic- until the Pope came and addressed Congress at his invitation.

Very suddenly, he announced his retirement and quit both the speakership and his own office as representative.

It sure LOOKED like a change of heart, like he realized that he'd been playing on the wrong team all this time.

There isn't a Conservative out there that would describe his time as speaker as playing for our team. He was a complicit assbag progressive, good riddance to that piece of shit.

 

[kelly4]

Jesus would turn air into money and we would all be rich!

 

[MuyLocoNC]

Uh, well, no, Christian churches are a meeting place and social club for right wing conservatives.

And, I think you speak your belief in your last statement. Right wing conservatives of all strains reject ideas of non-violence, inclusion and helping each other.

I reject the premise that churches house Conservatives. They may call themselves such, but I can call my my big toe the queen of England, yet no one will be pledging fealty to it any time soon.

Conservatives do reject non-violence in the face of violence. Conservatives accept and include any individual, regardless of race, creed or color into their ranks who shares the same values and agenda for this great country. Conservatives are far and away the most generous givers of charity. They simply believe it should be voluntary and not dispersed by government bureaucrats.

 

[UncleBuck]

I reject the premise that churches house Conservatives.

of course you reject reality, you fucking hate reality. and reality hates you.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/16381/church-attendance-party-identification.aspx

In short, religious Americans skew strongly toward voting for the Republican candidate for president. Highly religious white Protestant or non-Catholic Americans in particular skew strongly toward the Republican candidate.

This review focuses not on the vote in a particular election, but rather, on partisan identification. The analysis is based on a very large aggregated sample of almost 30,000 Gallup Poll interviews conducted in 2004, in which questions about church attendance were included.

Conservatives accept and include any individual, regardless of race, creed or color into their ranks who shares the same values and agenda for this great country.

so you accept and include anyone, as long as they do not accept and include anyone who is gay, black, female, hispanic, muslim, non-religious, and the like?

that is why your party will lose every presidential election you are in, your intolerance and bigotry assures it in the face of an increasingly diverse electorate.

 

[Fogdog]

Jesus would turn air into money and we would all be rich!

He had the good sense to turn water into wine and give everybody a drink. That's pretty dang good.

 

[Padawanbater2]

I reject the premise that churches house Conservatives. They may call themselves such, but I can call my my big toe the queen of England, yet no one will be pledging fealty to it any time soon.

Conservatives do reject non-violence in the face of violence. Conservatives accept and include any individual, regardless of race, creed or color into their ranks who shares the same values and agenda for this great country. Conservatives are far and away the most generous givers of charity. They simply believe it should be voluntary and not dispersed by government bureaucrats.

You may call yourself a conservative, but I can call my car a boat, doesn't mean I can drive it to Hawaii

This is a fun game!

 

[MuyLocoNC]

You may call yourself a conservative, but I can call my car a boat, doesn't mean I can drive it to Hawaii

This is a fun game!

Thank you for your agreement. It's always nice to have one's point validated by people on the other side of the debate.

Most people claiming to be Conservatives are just progressive-lites, as is pointed out by liberal members in the section all the time.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Thank you for your agreement. It's always nice to have one's point validated by people on the other side of the debate.

Most people claiming to be Conservatives are just progressive-lites, as is pointed out by liberal members in the section all the time.

You're missing the point. People are whatever they claim they are, your belief is irrelevant and you don't get to assign anything to anyone but yourself. Someone could very well claim you don't fit their version of what "conservative" means and their statement would be equally as invalid as yours is.

 

[MuyLocoNC]

You're missing the point. People are whatever they claim they are, your belief is irrelevant and you don't get to assign anything to anyone but yourself. Someone could very well claim you don't fit their version of what "conservative" means and their statement would be equally as invalid as yours is.

It's a fair argument to a point. However, when a self described Conservative has a history of supporting progressive agendas and policies, that argument goes right out the window. It would be no different than a self described liberal supporting a majority of my viewpoints. You wouldn't hesitate for a second to call them out and you would most likely be correct.

 

[UncleBuck]

It's a fair argument to a point. However, when a self described Conservative has a history of supporting progressive agendas and policies, that argument goes right out the window. It would be no different than a self described liberal supporting a majority of my viewpoints. You wouldn't hesitate for a second to call them out and you would most likely be correct.

except you are an extremist fringe wingnut, so to call you a conservative would be wrong. right wing extremist hate monger would be a better term for you.

 

[budlover13]

except you are an extremist fringe wingnut, so to call you a conservative would be wrong. right wing extremist hate monger would be a better term for you.

Sooo.... you agree with his point vs. Pada? Or via Pada it's irrelevant? Or you just feel the need to attack?

 

[Padawanbater2]

It's a fair argument to a point. However, when a self described Conservative has a history of supporting progressive agendas and policies, that argument goes right out the window. It would be no different than a self described liberal supporting a majority of my viewpoints. You wouldn't hesitate for a second to call them out and you would most likely be correct.

The difference is that I wouldn't claim anyone is a liberal until they do something bad, like murder someone. If they claim they're a liberal who believes in liberal or progressive policy, then they go shoot up a school or something, they're still a liberal. You guys disown the clowns as soon as they do something bad regardless of motive (even if it's conservative) and refuse to acknowledge the belief system that breeds them (Christianity). Meanwhile, Islam takes the blame for everything bad a Muslim extremist does.

The double standard should be very clear to anyone looking at this issue


Overall I think you're still missing the point. The problem with defining someone under any label is you then also have to define what policies are "liberal" and "conservative". Some self-proclaimed conservatives believe helping the poor through social safety net programs is the conservative thing to do, others think taxing people to pay for the poor is progressive. Some conservatives believe protecting the environment is the conservative thing to do, others, like you I'm sure, don't. Some conservatives believe increasing the military budget every year isn't fiscally conservative, many others do.. So as you can see, the definition throughout your party of what it means to be "conservative" isn't very clear, even among other conservatives. Therein lies the problem with labeling others what you believe them to be.

 

[UncleBuck]

Sooo.... you agree with his point vs. Pada? Or via Pada it's irrelevant? Or you just feel the need to attack?

he tries to label himself as a conservative, but he is an extremist in terms of political thought. as are you.

anything he says is wrong, so pada is right by default. but i also agree with what padawan is saying in this argument, as i very often do, because he is pretty much always right about everything, even if i disagree with his politics sometimes.

i wish fringe nuts like muyloco would just accept how rejected their stupid ideas are in the spectrum of political thought and just stop being stupid publicly.

 

[Harrekin]

Sooo.... you agree with his point vs. Pada? Or via Pada it's irrelevant? Or you just feel the need to attack?

If you'd a wife like that you'd be angry all the time too...

 

[UncleBuck]

If you'd a wife like that you'd be angry all the time too...

i thought you were on a crusade to ignore me, not obsess over me.

 

[MuyLocoNC]

The difference is that I wouldn't claim anyone is a liberal until they do something bad, like murder someone. If they claim they're a liberal who believes in liberal or progressive policy, then they go shoot up a school or something, they're still a liberal. You guys disown the clowns as soon as they do something bad regardless of motive (even if it's conservative) and refuse to acknowledge the belief system that breeds them (Christianity). Meanwhile, Islam takes the blame for everything bad a Muslim extremist does.

The double standard should be very clear to anyone looking at this issue


Overall I think you're still missing the point. The problem with defining someone under any label is you then also have to define what policies are "liberal" and "conservative". Some self-proclaimed conservatives believe helping the poor through social safety net programs is the conservative thing to do, others think taxing people to pay for the poor is progressive. Some conservatives believe protecting the environment is the conservative thing to do, others, like you I'm sure, don't. Some conservatives believe increasing the military budget every year isn't fiscally conservative, many others do.. So as you can see, the definition throughout your party of what it means to be "conservative" isn't very clear, even among other conservatives. Therein lies the problem with labeling others what you believe them to be.

I don't know who "you guys" is directed at, it sure isn't me. If a religious whacko shoots up a church, he gets called what he/she should be called. If they happen to be christian, Atheist, liberal or Conservative, it doesn't affect me in the slightest. It doesn't threaten or shape my personal political positions if he/she happens to agree or disagree with everything I believe.

I think you're missing the point. The only thing more stupid than denying a killer's political persuasion or religious affiliation, is trying to use those as the cause. Of course, there are exceptions. If Conservatives, liberals, christians or Atheists form an exceptionally large army and cut a murderous swath through several states or countries, killing and torturing innocent civilians in the name of their beliefs, their affiliation should probably be investigated and precautions would seem to be in order.

It may be good "fuck with you" fuel here in the Politics section, but the reality is a nutcase is a nutcase, whatever the flavor. Except Carnies. Circus folk. Nomads, you know. Smell like cabbage. Small hands.

 

[UncleBuck]

The only thing more stupid than denying a killer's political persuasion or religious affiliation, is trying to use those as the cause.

so when a white supremacist who holds the same beliefs that you do goes and shoots up a black church, we should not look at his white supremacy as the cause of his terrorist rampage?