- This topic has 260 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 7 months ago by
Allan from Fallbrook.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 5, 2010 at 8:52 AM #613782October 5, 2010 at 9:05 AM #612716
Allan from Fallbrook
Participant[quote=ucodegen][quote briansd1]
A new poll shows that half of those who consider themselves part of the tea party movement also identify as part of the religious right, …
[/quote]
Yawn.. Even odds on two choices is 50% or half. The other way to read the statement is;“half of those who consider themselves part of the tea party movement don’t identify as part of the religious right”
You conveniently forgot about the other ‘half’.. You also forgot about other quotes.. ie:
Members of the tea party, including Christian conservatives, he said, would generally think George Bush’s use of government money to subsidize faith-based institutions “was the wrong direction.” They also might have a strong personal opposition to same-sex marriage, he said, but believe banning gay marriage “is not a role for the federal government.”
From same article.[/quote]
Ucodegen: You forget Brian’s visceral dislike of facts, or arguing issues based on merits.
If the facts prove inconvenient, Brian will simply ignore them, or shift the argument onto safer ground, claiming the facts aren’t really relevant, its the “policies” or the “intent” of the participants (meaning those that are in agreement with Brian are right, and those that are not are wrong).
If you’ve ever had kids, you’ll instantly get it.
October 5, 2010 at 9:05 AM #612803Participant[quote=ucodegen][quote briansd1]
A new poll shows that half of those who consider themselves part of the tea party movement also identify as part of the religious right, …
[/quote]
Yawn.. Even odds on two choices is 50% or half. The other way to read the statement is;“half of those who consider themselves part of the tea party movement don’t identify as part of the religious right”
You conveniently forgot about the other ‘half’.. You also forgot about other quotes.. ie:
Members of the tea party, including Christian conservatives, he said, would generally think George Bush’s use of government money to subsidize faith-based institutions “was the wrong direction.” They also might have a strong personal opposition to same-sex marriage, he said, but believe banning gay marriage “is not a role for the federal government.”
From same article.[/quote]
Ucodegen: You forget Brian’s visceral dislike of facts, or arguing issues based on merits.
If the facts prove inconvenient, Brian will simply ignore them, or shift the argument onto safer ground, claiming the facts aren’t really relevant, its the “policies” or the “intent” of the participants (meaning those that are in agreement with Brian are right, and those that are not are wrong).
If you’ve ever had kids, you’ll instantly get it.
October 5, 2010 at 9:05 AM #613355Participant[quote=ucodegen][quote briansd1]
A new poll shows that half of those who consider themselves part of the tea party movement also identify as part of the religious right, …
[/quote]
Yawn.. Even odds on two choices is 50% or half. The other way to read the statement is;“half of those who consider themselves part of the tea party movement don’t identify as part of the religious right”
You conveniently forgot about the other ‘half’.. You also forgot about other quotes.. ie:
Members of the tea party, including Christian conservatives, he said, would generally think George Bush’s use of government money to subsidize faith-based institutions “was the wrong direction.” They also might have a strong personal opposition to same-sex marriage, he said, but believe banning gay marriage “is not a role for the federal government.”
From same article.[/quote]
Ucodegen: You forget Brian’s visceral dislike of facts, or arguing issues based on merits.
If the facts prove inconvenient, Brian will simply ignore them, or shift the argument onto safer ground, claiming the facts aren’t really relevant, its the “policies” or the “intent” of the participants (meaning those that are in agreement with Brian are right, and those that are not are wrong).
If you’ve ever had kids, you’ll instantly get it.
October 5, 2010 at 9:05 AM #613472Participant[quote=ucodegen][quote briansd1]
A new poll shows that half of those who consider themselves part of the tea party movement also identify as part of the religious right, …
[/quote]
Yawn.. Even odds on two choices is 50% or half. The other way to read the statement is;“half of those who consider themselves part of the tea party movement don’t identify as part of the religious right”
You conveniently forgot about the other ‘half’.. You also forgot about other quotes.. ie:
Members of the tea party, including Christian conservatives, he said, would generally think George Bush’s use of government money to subsidize faith-based institutions “was the wrong direction.” They also might have a strong personal opposition to same-sex marriage, he said, but believe banning gay marriage “is not a role for the federal government.”
From same article.[/quote]
Ucodegen: You forget Brian’s visceral dislike of facts, or arguing issues based on merits.
If the facts prove inconvenient, Brian will simply ignore them, or shift the argument onto safer ground, claiming the facts aren’t really relevant, its the “policies” or the “intent” of the participants (meaning those that are in agreement with Brian are right, and those that are not are wrong).
If you’ve ever had kids, you’ll instantly get it.
October 5, 2010 at 9:05 AM #613787Participant[quote=ucodegen][quote briansd1]
A new poll shows that half of those who consider themselves part of the tea party movement also identify as part of the religious right, …
[/quote]
Yawn.. Even odds on two choices is 50% or half. The other way to read the statement is;“half of those who consider themselves part of the tea party movement don’t identify as part of the religious right”
You conveniently forgot about the other ‘half’.. You also forgot about other quotes.. ie:
Members of the tea party, including Christian conservatives, he said, would generally think George Bush’s use of government money to subsidize faith-based institutions “was the wrong direction.” They also might have a strong personal opposition to same-sex marriage, he said, but believe banning gay marriage “is not a role for the federal government.”
From same article.[/quote]
Ucodegen: You forget Brian’s visceral dislike of facts, or arguing issues based on merits.
If the facts prove inconvenient, Brian will simply ignore them, or shift the argument onto safer ground, claiming the facts aren’t really relevant, its the “policies” or the “intent” of the participants (meaning those that are in agreement with Brian are right, and those that are not are wrong).
If you’ve ever had kids, you’ll instantly get it.
October 5, 2010 at 12:10 PM #612811briansd1
GuestAt least I provided facts that conservatism and evangelical religiosity are joined at the hip.
Show me how liberal means French socialist (since you guys like to tell us to move to France so much).
BTW, good intent is always better than bad intent. For example, wanting to improve employment standards is better than wanting to roll them back.
October 5, 2010 at 12:10 PM #612898GuestAt least I provided facts that conservatism and evangelical religiosity are joined at the hip.
Show me how liberal means French socialist (since you guys like to tell us to move to France so much).
BTW, good intent is always better than bad intent. For example, wanting to improve employment standards is better than wanting to roll them back.
October 5, 2010 at 12:10 PM #613449GuestAt least I provided facts that conservatism and evangelical religiosity are joined at the hip.
Show me how liberal means French socialist (since you guys like to tell us to move to France so much).
BTW, good intent is always better than bad intent. For example, wanting to improve employment standards is better than wanting to roll them back.
October 5, 2010 at 12:10 PM #613567GuestAt least I provided facts that conservatism and evangelical religiosity are joined at the hip.
Show me how liberal means French socialist (since you guys like to tell us to move to France so much).
BTW, good intent is always better than bad intent. For example, wanting to improve employment standards is better than wanting to roll them back.
October 5, 2010 at 12:10 PM #613881GuestAt least I provided facts that conservatism and evangelical religiosity are joined at the hip.
Show me how liberal means French socialist (since you guys like to tell us to move to France so much).
BTW, good intent is always better than bad intent. For example, wanting to improve employment standards is better than wanting to roll them back.
October 5, 2010 at 1:43 PM #612890Participant[quote=briansd1]At least I provided facts that conservatism and evangelical religiosity are joined at the hip.
Show me how liberal means French socialist (since you guys like to tell us to move to France so much).
BTW, good intent is always better than bad intent. For example, wanting to improve employment standards is better than wanting to roll them back.[/quote]
Brian: Again, mistruths, half-truths and outright untruths litter your little epigram above.
As ucodegen pointed out and proved, you did NOT provide any such facts. Rather, you showed that some 50% of the participants are NOT affiliated with evangelical Christianity (like me).
And, if you’ll recall, I did NOT say move to France for its Socialistic ways, I opined that the poster should move to France to see, first-hand, the results of their policies and programs over the last four to five decades.
You cherry pick from the various responses and either ignore (or editorialize) certain elements of the response, or twist yourself into a pretzel trying to prove your convoluted “logic”.
True conservatives are not trying to “roll back time” with “bad intent”. Rather, we argue for smaller government, with a strong emphasis on self-government. You cannot look to the inner cities of America, and argue with a straight face that 50 some years of social engineering on the part of the government has worked. Given black-on-black violence, teenage and out-of-wedlock pregnancies and the complete destruction of the two parent black family, social programs have proved an unmitigated disaster.
Moreover, the tone and tenor of so-called “Progressives” is paternalistic and patronizing and their actions are intrusive and unwanted. I do not want nor do I need the United States Government to tell me how to live my life. As long as my actions do not impinge on the rights of others, leave me the hell alone.
People like you always think they know better, and if only the poor, beknighted, huddled masses would simply listen, everything would be okay. That isn’t life. That’s a twisted fairy tale and every government that has tried, using various methods, to “help” its citizenry using social engineering, has failed utterly.
October 5, 2010 at 1:43 PM #612977Participant[quote=briansd1]At least I provided facts that conservatism and evangelical religiosity are joined at the hip.
Show me how liberal means French socialist (since you guys like to tell us to move to France so much).
BTW, good intent is always better than bad intent. For example, wanting to improve employment standards is better than wanting to roll them back.[/quote]
Brian: Again, mistruths, half-truths and outright untruths litter your little epigram above.
As ucodegen pointed out and proved, you did NOT provide any such facts. Rather, you showed that some 50% of the participants are NOT affiliated with evangelical Christianity (like me).
And, if you’ll recall, I did NOT say move to France for its Socialistic ways, I opined that the poster should move to France to see, first-hand, the results of their policies and programs over the last four to five decades.
You cherry pick from the various responses and either ignore (or editorialize) certain elements of the response, or twist yourself into a pretzel trying to prove your convoluted “logic”.
True conservatives are not trying to “roll back time” with “bad intent”. Rather, we argue for smaller government, with a strong emphasis on self-government. You cannot look to the inner cities of America, and argue with a straight face that 50 some years of social engineering on the part of the government has worked. Given black-on-black violence, teenage and out-of-wedlock pregnancies and the complete destruction of the two parent black family, social programs have proved an unmitigated disaster.
Moreover, the tone and tenor of so-called “Progressives” is paternalistic and patronizing and their actions are intrusive and unwanted. I do not want nor do I need the United States Government to tell me how to live my life. As long as my actions do not impinge on the rights of others, leave me the hell alone.
People like you always think they know better, and if only the poor, beknighted, huddled masses would simply listen, everything would be okay. That isn’t life. That’s a twisted fairy tale and every government that has tried, using various methods, to “help” its citizenry using social engineering, has failed utterly.
October 5, 2010 at 1:43 PM #613528Participant[quote=briansd1]At least I provided facts that conservatism and evangelical religiosity are joined at the hip.
Show me how liberal means French socialist (since you guys like to tell us to move to France so much).
BTW, good intent is always better than bad intent. For example, wanting to improve employment standards is better than wanting to roll them back.[/quote]
Brian: Again, mistruths, half-truths and outright untruths litter your little epigram above.
As ucodegen pointed out and proved, you did NOT provide any such facts. Rather, you showed that some 50% of the participants are NOT affiliated with evangelical Christianity (like me).
And, if you’ll recall, I did NOT say move to France for its Socialistic ways, I opined that the poster should move to France to see, first-hand, the results of their policies and programs over the last four to five decades.
You cherry pick from the various responses and either ignore (or editorialize) certain elements of the response, or twist yourself into a pretzel trying to prove your convoluted “logic”.
True conservatives are not trying to “roll back time” with “bad intent”. Rather, we argue for smaller government, with a strong emphasis on self-government. You cannot look to the inner cities of America, and argue with a straight face that 50 some years of social engineering on the part of the government has worked. Given black-on-black violence, teenage and out-of-wedlock pregnancies and the complete destruction of the two parent black family, social programs have proved an unmitigated disaster.
Moreover, the tone and tenor of so-called “Progressives” is paternalistic and patronizing and their actions are intrusive and unwanted. I do not want nor do I need the United States Government to tell me how to live my life. As long as my actions do not impinge on the rights of others, leave me the hell alone.
People like you always think they know better, and if only the poor, beknighted, huddled masses would simply listen, everything would be okay. That isn’t life. That’s a twisted fairy tale and every government that has tried, using various methods, to “help” its citizenry using social engineering, has failed utterly.
October 5, 2010 at 1:43 PM #613644Participant[quote=briansd1]At least I provided facts that conservatism and evangelical religiosity are joined at the hip.
Show me how liberal means French socialist (since you guys like to tell us to move to France so much).
BTW, good intent is always better than bad intent. For example, wanting to improve employment standards is better than wanting to roll them back.[/quote]
Brian: Again, mistruths, half-truths and outright untruths litter your little epigram above.
As ucodegen pointed out and proved, you did NOT provide any such facts. Rather, you showed that some 50% of the participants are NOT affiliated with evangelical Christianity (like me).
And, if you’ll recall, I did NOT say move to France for its Socialistic ways, I opined that the poster should move to France to see, first-hand, the results of their policies and programs over the last four to five decades.
You cherry pick from the various responses and either ignore (or editorialize) certain elements of the response, or twist yourself into a pretzel trying to prove your convoluted “logic”.
True conservatives are not trying to “roll back time” with “bad intent”. Rather, we argue for smaller government, with a strong emphasis on self-government. You cannot look to the inner cities of America, and argue with a straight face that 50 some years of social engineering on the part of the government has worked. Given black-on-black violence, teenage and out-of-wedlock pregnancies and the complete destruction of the two parent black family, social programs have proved an unmitigated disaster.
Moreover, the tone and tenor of so-called “Progressives” is paternalistic and patronizing and their actions are intrusive and unwanted. I do not want nor do I need the United States Government to tell me how to live my life. As long as my actions do not impinge on the rights of others, leave me the hell alone.
People like you always think they know better, and if only the poor, beknighted, huddled masses would simply listen, everything would be okay. That isn’t life. That’s a twisted fairy tale and every government that has tried, using various methods, to “help” its citizenry using social engineering, has failed utterly.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.