"Atheism, Evolution and Humanism, AKA, Willful Stupidity", the other one says, Liberals and Criminals are birds of a feather and both are your REAL threat to National Security"
Stop, please, you're killing me
Please, please, please someone tell me that Bertot is not a real person... stereotypes don't exist as perfectly as this... do they?
Oh Bertot, you do so love to prove the point. How does it feel to be a central part of that group that has made the USA the laughing stock of the intelligent world? Idiot America in deed for all to see
You really are blind to your bombastic stupidity arent you? Being a part of the mainstream that refuse to acknowledge your arrogance as intelligence, is indeed an honor. Oh yeah thats right, none of this really exists anyway, Im just imagining it correct? Do you mean that type of intelligence. Give me a break clown.
Enjoy your new president! He seems a great guy. And don't forget, if you have any trouble understanding any of those big long words of his - just shout and we'll help you out.
2. Anyone who ignores simple principles of common sense to advance an agenda.
Now, That's a stupid definition.
Could be translated as: Anybody that desagree with Bertot in any way is a piss for brains liberal.
I'm sure that definition makes you feel prety good about yourself, but for the rest of us it only shows how hopelessly self-centered you are. I'm going to thoroughly enjoy watching people like you and Buz pointlessly complain about everything Democrats do. You are pathetic
This is just getting nasty. Since all of you seem to be having problems playing nice I'm closing the thread for "awhile". I'll see if I can remember to open it later in the day.
First of all, sorry for losing it earlier. Was a bit mad about another thing, and needed to vent, shouldn't have done it, sorry.
Bertot writes:
I wonder, do you happen to see how Cavediver treats people in his responses? Do you give him the same repremands that you do me and others, for off comments or sarcasm? Or is it just the fellas you disagree with?
Yes, like I said above, was a bit pissed about something else, should've stayed away.
1. Really, exacally what kind of liberal are you?
I'd say this definition from merriam webster suits me:
quote:5: broad-minded ; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms
2. Anyone who ignores simple principles of common sense to advance an agenda.
So, basically anyone who disagrees with you. I'm sorry but that's not a very good one.
3. Would not anyone who ignores basic principles of common sense and rational need professional help?
Would you please show where I ignored logic and raional thinking? Yes I said logic and not common sense, as common sense differs from person to person.
Would you please show where I ignored logic and raional thinking? Yes I said logic and not common sense, as common sense differs from person to person.
Nor is "common sense" used as a measure of rational behavior. People who "need professional help" are generally evaluated based on their irrational behavior and how they react to common experiences.
Color for empHAsis.
Believing the world is flat at the center of the universe around which all else revolves would be one example of a false belief. If you deny all the evidence that points to an oblate spheroid orbiting the sun in an outer arm of the galaxy in order to maintain this belief, then this is delusional.
Likewise, believing that the earth is young would be an example of a false belief. If you deny all the evidence that points to an old earth, with evidence of many things having existed for millions of years and the best estimate for the age of the earth being 4.55 billion years old, in order to maintain this belief, then this is delusional.
Common sense has nothing to do with it: for anyone who is clinically delusional it would seem to be common sense to believe what they believe.
First of all, sorry for losing it earlier. Was a bit mad about another thing, and needed to vent, shouldn't have done it, sorry.
The Bertot writes: If you can tolerate Cavedivers abuse mine should serve as no real problem. Apologies are not necessary with me, I expect such behavior from yourself and the other nutty liberals here, ha ha.
Bertot writes: I wonder, do you happen to see how Cavediver treats people in his responses? Do you give him the same repremands that you do me and others, for off comments or sarcasm? Or is it just the fellas you disagree with?
Huntard writes:
Yes, like I said above, was a bit pissed about something else, should've stayed away.
Yes what? you do agree Cavediver is an abusive putz
I'd say this definition from merriam webster suits me: quote:
5: broad-minded ; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms
"Not bound by authority", pretty much describes why liberals are tantamount to criminals for all intents and purposes. Thanks for the dictionary definition to cooroborate my point. Take a close look at it again.
So, basically anyone who disagrees with you. I'm sorry but that's not a very good one.
No. just anyone who refuses to adhere to authority as is indicated by the definition. Anyone who ignores rational sane behavior in place of anarchy
While I liked some of his music and the beatles are my favorite group.I pretty much thought he was a nut when he was alive as well. So to be totally consistent I made fun of him when he was abusive twords Christianity as well.
No. just anyone who refuses to adhere to authority as is indicated by the definition. Anyone who ignores rational sain behavior in place of anarchy.
So I guess the White Rose movement in Nazi Germany were evil, liberal anti-authoritarian anarchists. They were definately not rational or sane since many of them were arrested and executed, right?
Or how about the civil rights movement of the 60's. They were definately anti-establishment, many were arrested for disobeying state laws promoting discriminetation and segregation of African Americans.
Or why not got back to the very foundation of this country. Rebel colonialists according to the British monarchy were considered anarchists and dare I say "liberal".
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Dr. Carl Sagan
The Bertot writes: If you can tolerate Cavedivers abuse mine should serve as no real problem. Apologies are not necessary with me, I expect such behavior from yourself and the other nutty liberals here, ha ha
Ok, no appologies then, glad I could conform to your world view though.
Yes what? you do agree Cavediver is an abusive putz
No, I agree he uses strong words when people keep using the same ignorance everytime. I think he's getting a bit sick of explaining the same basic stuff time and again to people who will just say "you're wrong" after he's done explaining.
"Not bound by authority"
That's not what I said, now is it. I said not bound by authoritarianism. Which is something different entirely. Authoritarianism is a blind following of every authority. Stupid people that don't want to think for themselves do this. I want people to think for themselves. This does NOT mean I want anarchy. Authority is important, but it should not be followed blindly.
pretty much describes why liberals are tantamount to criminals for all intents and purposes.
Really? As opposed to you lot who run an ILLEGAL prison and torture people? That's not criminal at all, now is it?
Thanks for the dictionary definition to cooroborate my point. Take a close look at it again.
I did, which is why I can say that Authority and Authoritarianism are two completely different things. Thanks for undermining your own point.
No. just anyone who refuses to adhere to authority as is indicated by the definition.
I will avoid Godwin's law here, bu are you saying you would do ANYTHING your government asks of you?
Anyone who ignores rational sane behavior in place of anarchy.
Well, since I don't favour anarchy, you can't call me a liberal then, can you?
So I guess the White Rose movement in Nazi Germany were evil, liberal anti-authoritarian anarchists. They were definately not rational or sane since many of them were arrested and executed, right?
Or how about the civil rights movement of the 60's. They were definately anti-establishment, many were arrested for disobeying state laws promoting discriminetation and segregation of African Americans.
Or why not got back to the very foundation of this country. Rebel colonialists according to the British monarchy were considered anarchists and dare I say "liberal"
Actually most if not all of these examples are anrchy and liberalism. The results which came about may be more benificial than the previous condition, but the end does not justify the means. In the instances where there is obvious physical abuse and death, for no obvious or justified reason, the government is not acting in a sane manner, so a person has a given right to protect and defend themselves, or have others protect them. Otherwise it should be non violent change that brigs about change in policies.
While protest is a given right, it should not result in violence, which is characteristic of so many groups on both sides, neither of which is sane and both are anrchist. Tryanny in whatever form is not justified, even if you want to start another country. While England (no doubt one of Cavedivers realatives, ha ha) were tyranical, no amount of violence is justified to affect change. Thats assuming morality is not subjective and there is a definate right and wrong. But then this is where the discussion starts all over again, around and around we go.
"Render unto Ceaser those things that are Ceasers and unto God the things that are Gods". "We must obey God rather than man", "Submit to them that have the rule over you". "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers for they are ordained of God" etc, etc. Yes even the ones that go astray as did the great king Saul. Yet David would not bring an accusation against Gods annointed or lift a hand to harm him. Michael would not do this either against Lucifer, he only carried out Gods orders to cast him out.
Christ only advocated non adherence when it was in conflict with Gods commands or wishes. Yet he never advocated violene or change that resulted in mental, physical abuse or loss of life.
However, if one does not recognize even a standard of morality then it becomes a free for all.
Stop, please, you're killing me 
™ Version 4.2