::golf clap::
(woof!)
What, no dog smiley?
Damn.
-Joe
That was rather my point, actually. I was hoping to see if Starving Artist would judge Martin = indicative of all christians in the same way that he’s judged some liberals in this thread = indicative of all liberals.
This isn’t about politics. Sam Stone, Bricker, and John Mace are all well regarded conservative posters. They can make their arguments without resorting to personal abuse. They have not, to my knowledge, called those who disagree with them “mentally ill degenerates” or wished that they’d be killed by “some unnamed malignant force.” If anyone with lefty views said such things the majority of the board would be on them like white on rice.
That’s why I have to disagree with elanorigby’s post #130. Sometimes it is the person, not the position that’s the problem. I think there’s a lot more going on here than conservatism, even extreme conservatism.
To the degree that he or other Christians here are trying to use their Christian standing in a hypocritical way against other posters, yes. I don’t know that it would be legitimate to claim that you’re exposing hypocrisy on the part of Christians in general based on what MH says, just like I don’t necessarily claim that liberals in general are guilty of the same behavior as some of the liberals here. I think that there are people here who embrace liberalism but don’t live by its tenets, and I think there are Christians also who don’t live by the tenets of Christianity.
But that’s uhhhhh different. 
If that’s your position, then I can most certainly agree with you. **Martin Hyde’s ** still an asshole, though. 
Fair enough!
As one of the people slammed by Martin on many different levels (perhaps we should start a thread about waitresses who live in trailers and sport tattoos for it all to be so well-steered in its aim, but I digress), he really merely does just amuse me more than anything. I can’t take him seriously and although I’m angered at his comments as directed at others, I resort to what I learned as a wee small child when faced with something similar. I consider the source and promptly disregard if it is unworthy of respect. But I do believe everyone else has the right to jump his shit any way that they see fit and he deserves every last bit of it for bringing it on himself.
Other than that, I just wanted to say that I still loves me some Merijeek and would have his babies if I wasn’t too insane to do so. Is marriage still possible though once I get my divorce? I should have enough money in tips by then to cover the license.
::: evil cackle :::
I think you’re right and I may be responding to all the echos of all the neo-cons that are in my RL. I think it’s a part, but not as a big a part as I may have portrayed it.
SA -riddle me this. If the liberals are to pride themselves on tolerance and acceptance (whatever that may mean)–what is the tact of the conservatives? Do they not value tolerance? acceptance? Fair-mindedness? It’s ironic that these days the Dems are painted as not setting an agenda and all (and there is merit in that position, IMO), but really, what exactly DOES the Right stand for? They claim to be Christians (thereby excluding Jews and Muslims et al) but practice none of Jesus’ teachings that I can see.
I’m nost being snarky, Iam truly puzzled by the sanctimony repeatedly demonstrated by the right (in such spewings as MH’s) but all I hear is talk, no walk.
One thing I’d disagree with you is the idea that “liberals are more tolerant and enlightened than conservatives” is a “tenant of liberalism.” It’s certainly not something I believe, nor is it something that, in my experience, is believed by the vast majority of liberals. No more than “conservatives represent true American Christians” is a tenant of conservatism. It may very well be that the posters you’re excoriating in this thread believe just that, but you’ll have to do a lot more work to prove it than simply pointing out that they share some degree of leftist bent.
I used to be a tenant of liberalism, but she was a crazy old bat who dissed my guinea pig and stole my shampoo.
Holy shit! You’ve got to warn people before posting something that funny.
CD - it’s not just a way of life - it IS life!
-Joe
Can anyone tell me if it’s beloved Mart-o or msmith357 who refers to fast food employees as “the organic component of my fast food experience”?
-Joe
I’d love to. Unfortunately, my girlfriend might object. You know how women are - they get kind of pissy if you try to swap them out three months before they’re supposed to move into your house.
You know us libruls - we love living in sin!
If only a childless couple could find a way to get us some welfare checks…we could live the librul dream!
-Joe
Well, SA, I must say you’ve brought up an interesting point here. “Leftists”, whatever the living fuck they are (can you tell I have little patience with infantile and meaningless polarisations?), are supposed to display tolerance, yet show little here. Does this strike you as contradictory? It actually doesn’t strike me that way at all.
Let me explain.
Take “Freedom” as a warm-up exercise. Lovely word isn’t it? We should all have freedom, right. But wait! I can’t kill someone without getting in trouble for it. Waaah, why don’t I have that freedom? Well that’s because, by killing someone, I deprive them of their freedom. IOW, freedom in general is protected by denial of freedom in particular. In order for us to be free, we must deny people the freedom to deny others of freedom.
I don’t regard that as a paradox, simply as a grounding of the noble concept of freedom in the messy world of the real. So, I suspect, do most “liberals” (whatever the fuck that means). And so do most “conservatives” (blah blah). So do you, I expect.
Now take “tolerance”. Great concept, right? But I submit that it has a qualification in the real world, rather similar to that of “freedom”. Namely, in order for a society to be tolerant in general, it must be intolerant towards intolerance. Not in an “I’m going to kill you” way (that is the properly-intolerant way of doing things!), but in a “go fuck yourself” sort of way.
In short, the wise tolerant person’s response to rabid intolerance, is in fact “go fuck yourself”, not “aww, isn’t it so beautiful that you’re intolerant, I respect that sooo much”. I understand that it’s great fun for you to point to a bunch of people and go “haw haw you said you were tolerant and now look”, but I think you’re missing the point.
But I take your point of people here acting less-than-honourably. I just put it down to them having taken enough abuse already.
Oh one more thing: for the Nth time, Martin Hyde, please get some professional help. It’s grimly amusing, I’ve been watching “Downfall” here, just caught the bit with Hitler shrieking:
We now return you to your regularly scheduled pit fight.
You are largely correct and this is one of the reasons I’m areligious (if there is such a word).
But to address your question in broader terms, I’d say it all goes back to what I said earlier about people being the same regardless of their political orientation. It’s been my observation in life that people are pretty much the same no matter where they may stand politically and I think the same could be said of religion.
What it all boils down to, in my opinion, is that people are people and anytime one group or another starts to claim the moral high ground based upon the group they belong to they’re on shaky ground, as the members of any one group are not likely, in the final analysis, to be any better the members of another.
You are largely correct and this is one of the reasons I’m areligious (if there is such a word).
But to address your question in broader terms, I’d say it all goes back to what I said earlier about people being the same regardless of their political orientation. It’s been my observation in life that people are pretty much the same no matter where they may stand politically and I think the same could be said of religion.
What it all boils down to, in my opinion, is that people are people and anytime one group or another starts to claim the moral high ground based upon the group they belong to they’re on shaky ground, as the members of any one group are not likely, in the final analysis, to be any better than the members of another.
And if you still don’t believe me, I’ll post it again. 
I do understand. That’s exactly why us wimmin folk aren’t allowed to preside over the whole communion thing. Duh. I shoulda remembered that. But I do wish you guys the best. I have no welfare checks to offer (although I hear disability for ‘someone like me’ might be a great thing – I’ll have to check into if I can get someone to read the paperwork for me), although I hope everyone persues our librul dreams. Someday it won’t be necessary to gloat over $500 suits!
Oooh, you said sin too! Yummy!!!