Navy Bans Chaplain
-
Its like slamming your head against a wall over and over. Why bother arguing about it? No one will change their viewpoint.
-
Another example of lib self-defense mechanisms. I simply voiced my opinion about lib
tendencies, referring to a general group of people, and the anger got rolling, telling me to
butt out of the thread.
Oooooooooh. Scary. Sorry, blowehard, but I'm fine with people disagreeing. I disagree a lot,
and a lot of folks disagree with me on different subjects. But liberals tend to go irate when they
are disagreed with - look at the "denier" of mmgw theories. They want to persecute them.
Either get them kicked off a board.....@@, or...
- Obama 'Absolutely' Wants To Go Off On Climate Change Deniers ...www.huffingtonpost.com/.../obama-climate-change-deniers_n...Cached
Jun 07, 2014 ยท Around the Web. Obama Admits That He Wants to Go Off On RepublicanClimate Change Deniers. Obama: Climate Change Deniers Are 'Wasting Everybody's Time'
- Arrest Climate-Change Deniers - Gawker - Today's gossip is ...gawker.com/arrest-climate-change-deniers-1553719888
Willful, profiteering public deniers of climate change can compare themselves to Galileo all they want, pretending that they're voices of sanity in a cruel wilderness.
-
-
I imagine that narrative is easier to push when you claim everyone that disagrees with you is a liberal
-
Because I believe the truth has to be revealed I don't take offense when I get criticized for my beliefs (such as believing in absolute truth). Would I be critical or take offense at a blind man trying to judge art?
In general though I see conservatives as seeing many issues as black and white while many liberals see most issues as grey areas and everything is relative. Conservatives get hammered by liberals for being too simplistic while I see liberals not having a strong foundation and sometimes lack of a strong moral compass without having strong principals that don't change to guide them.
-
Posted Today, 11:31 AM
I'd think that anyone who is all about liberal "inclusiveness" would try very hard not to be an insultin abusive prickto every single person who doesn't believe like they do.
-
Because I believe the truth has to be revealed I don't take offense when I get criticized for my beliefs (such as believing in absolute truth). Would I be critical or take offense at a blind man trying to judge art?
In general though I see conservatives as seeing many issues as black and white while many liberals see most issues as grey areas and everything is relative. Conservatives get hammered by liberals for being too simplistic while I see liberals not having a strong foundation and sometimes lack of a strong moral compass without having strong principals that don't change to guide them. OldBrownsFan
*******************************
Well, if you're going to be all reasonable, intelligent, and fair about it, you're no fun.
No, I agree with ya.
-
We can all believe what we want. I think religious beliefs are baseless and not grounded in fact. I have not seen an argument to suggest otherwise. In my mind, it is a "magic" book and a "magic man" in the sky, because no real arguments can be found to support religious claims. Call me a heathen, savage, uncultured, whatever. I wont care because I know why I think what I do and what argument is made for it.
Also, again, anger and fear are emotions. The right plays to emotions as well.
Also, not everyone that disagrees with you is a liberal. The liberals aren't out to get you. Calm down overly paranoid Rob Lowe
Calm down overly paranoid Rob Lowe
bahahaha I will never get this image out of my head whenever I think of ole' cal
-
Yeah, woodypeckerhead is all about hanging on other people's posts to go after somebody
he disagrees with a lot, the little sniveling Gollum.
-
Cal, you have a religious guy saying that he believes the Bible is the truth and a nonbeliever who believes there is nothing greater than what is going on right now. So because the nonbeliever says there are different versions of the truth for everyone instead of just being a jerkoff and saying "no, I am right and you are wrong" then somehow the nonbeliever is some sort of manipulator who "never has to honestly appraise issues". We aren't talking about whether or not 2+2=4. It is a faith based issue that most definitely means something different to each person. Log
**************************************************
But I am not talking about people discussing different beliefs. I'm talking about blowehard saying that he has
a different definition of the WORD "truth". You missed my point, but it's my fault, I reckon, because I didn't put
TRUTH in quotes.
Libs strongly tend to argue issues emotionally, and when they (usually) end up on thin ice,
they simply change the definitions of their words so they are still "justified" in their stances. The primary example
is when libs were losing their dramatic declaration of man made global warming doom, instead of backing up a bit,
and looking at ALL the science, they simply redefine it by using different words - so, "climate change" is now
what they were referring to as "man made global warming". Which, is obviously bogus, since climate does change
all the time, going back before the Pleistocene era of earth's history. What they are still dishonestly referring to,
is "man made global warming" pleas to allow them to control, and major liberal politicians to profit from,
all the various activities of people.
And, on a grander olde time global liberal scale... redistribute wealth
to around the globe. And that's exactly why the Kyoto Treaty excluded the most polluting countries on earth -
China and India, to name a few. Because it was all about redistribution of wealth, and having poor countries
involved with the requirements of the treaty defied the intent of the stupid treaty in the first place.
It was figured out, and that treaty went kablooey.
We all have different beliefs.It's when you are ridiculed for not following the standard liberal line that it gets
all emotional and screwed up with bickering about what the defintion of "IS" is. See? That's another example.
Cal, you have a religious guy saying that he believes the Bible is the truth and a nonbeliever who believes there is nothing greater than what is going on right now. So because the nonbeliever says there are different versions of the truth for everyone instead of just being a jerkoff and saying "no, I am right and you are wrong" then somehow the nonbeliever is some sort of manipulator who "never has to honestly appraise issues". We aren't talking about whether or not 2+2=4. It is a faith based issue that most definitely means something different to each person. Log
**************************************************
But I am not talking about people discussing different beliefs. I'm talking about blowehard saying that he has
a different definition of the WORD "truth". You missed my point, but it's my fault, I reckon, because I didn't put
TRUTH in quotes.
Libs strongly tend to argue issues emotionally, and when they (usually) end up on thin ice,
they simply change the definitions of their words so they are still "justified" in their stances. The primary example
is when libs were losing their dramatic declaration of man made global warming doom, instead of backing up a bit,
and looking at ALL the science, they simply redefine it by using different words - so, "climate change" is now
what they were referring to as "man made global warming". Which, is obviously bogus, since climate does change
all the time, going back before the Pleistocene era of earth's history. What they are still dishonestly referring to,
is "man made global warming" pleas to allow them to control, and major liberal politicians to profit from,
all the various activities of people.
And, on a grander olde time global liberal scale... redistribute wealth
to around the globe. And that's exactly why the Kyoto Treaty excluded the most polluting countries on earth -
China and India, to name a few. Because it was all about redistribution of wealth, and having poor countries
involved with the requirements of the treaty defied the intent of the stupid treaty in the first place.
It was figured out, and that treaty went kablooey.
We all have different beliefs.It's when you are ridiculed for not following the standard liberal line that it gets
all emotional and screwed up with bickering about what the defintion of "IS" is. See? That's another example.
Talk about an emotional fly off the handle rant. I think you are the libtard.
-
Yeah, woodypeckerhead is all about hanging on other people's posts to go after somebody
he disagrees with a lot, the little sniveling Gollum.
-
Little Woodypeckerhead
-
-
No, responding to insults in self defense. You libs never understand
"self-defense".
Want me to post that, which has been done in the past?
-
Well this thread cannonballed into the toilet.
-
It did. But my part was I just voiced a simple general opinion about what
I was reading, somebody jumped at it, and all obamao hit the fan.
-
Cal did nothing! Anything he says is ALWAYS in response to hurtful, personal attacks. The poor guy.
... But this is going no where.
I want to hear more responses from the discussion we were having on religion. It was interesting hearing Olds viewpoint
-
Well this thread cannonballed into the toilet.
Well this thread cannonballed into the toilet.
Which is why I wanted that twat to stay out of it.
I want to hear more responses from the discussion we were having on religion. It was interesting hearing Olds viewpoint
Same.
-
bloweshardonwoodypeckerhead blows as part of this board.
At least woody has some merit to the board...he....eh......makes points
about......uh....
never mind. I liked the board better when he finally was able to tear himself
away from personal attacks involving me.
Of course, he started with a few other folks. It's all he has to offer - nonsense.
-
Be religious, don't be religious, I don't really care.
Many miss the mark on the arguments regarding using religious (mostly Christian) beliefs to influence or create laws. 90% of the "hateful, bigot-face Christians" couldn't care less about your lifestyle, your privacy, etc. They (we) just don't want to pay for your birth control, your weddings, your wedding fucking cake, your mosque, your art, etc. Or be told that we have to like it or support it.
It's amazing that one side claiming tolerance and acceptance can "opt-out" of going to church on Sundays without social repercussion (and be real vocal shitheads about it too), yet the moment a "Christian" "opts-out" of a wedding/abortion/free birth-control/parade/free mosques, it's societal torch and pitchfork time.
Quit being so fucking selfish and demanding.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better ๐
Register Login