menageriekeeper said:
See that's the problem. Folks can profess all they want, but until they put feet on their profession it's just talk and dishonest talk at that.
I see. You are perfectly consistent with your professions all the time in every situation? However FTR (for the record), the GOP has put more constructionist/pro-unborn rights judges on the bench. They have cut funding for abortion. They have lowered taxes. They have implemented a much more common sense and I would argue effective environmental policy (the only thing it hasn't been effective in doing is creating lawsuit opportunities for leftist groups which is the REAL issue speaking of dishonesty).
I perfer an honest man with whom I disagree to a dishonest man any day of the week.
The problem is that you have created a fallacy of limited alternatives. Liberals have a long history of deception. Roe v Wade is a classic example. Unable to get national legislation they set up a test case to change the law through a compliant judiciary. Resistance to voter ID's is another. The whole concept that gov't is the arbitor of good and therefore empowered to decide the one has too much while another has too little or that one person's point of view is more worthy of protection than another's is a fundamental "dishonesty" of liberalism.
Liberalism accepts no absolute moral standard and objects to the notion that law should be based on one. This idea is by definition, "dishonest".
Accountability? Where's the accountability when Christians are being told by other Christians to ignore the dishonesty and vote for the Republicans anyway because it's the "Christian" thing to do.
Who said to ignore it? Who said that dishonest people shouldn't be held accountable. Though by no means as thorough as I would have it, the GOP has been much more accountable than Dems for many reasons. Want examples?
Kennedy is guilty of manslaughter. Foley is guilty of writing perverse things to minors... which one is more severe? Which man is still in Congress?
Barney Frank was involved in a male prostitution scandal... Where is he? Where was the investigation to see who knew what and when?
Bill Clinton assaulted Juanita Broderick and engaged in much more than dirty talk with a page... yet he was defended by the media and liberals. Is that what you consider "honest"?
Gingrich, Livingston, and others were defrocked for much less than many Dems have been guilty of... Does the GOP not get credit for accountability there?
The Dems and liberals prevented even legislation to stop partial birth abortion... Are you saying you would rather side with them because they were "honest" about supporting an ideal that is rotten and dishonest to its very foundation?
Wealth redistibution is what the Republicans call it when folks complain about the big businesses and the rich abusing their workers, paying unfair wages, cutting safety corners because it cuts profits to be safe and so on.
No. It is what libertarians call it when gov't claims the power to confiscate the wealth of one person and give it to another for political reasons. Like any other problem society has, there were many more and better solutions than for gov't to interfere.
Nonetheless, your examples are poor if not false. Define "abuse their workers". Would that be requiring them to meet the terms of the contract they agreed to when they freely accepted the PRIVILEGE of employment?
Who gets to decide what is an "unfair wage"? You? How are you or liberals in gov't more qualified than the free market to determine what a job is worth?
Safety issues could have easily been resolved by making laws enabling employees to sue for damages when injured. The whole system of gov't interference in the workplace protects "big business" at least as much as the employee.
Of course we could go back to the days of our grandfathers, when they were paid less than what it cost them in rent and groceries at the company store. Oh and back to the days when Dad was killed and the family was left without resources.
Or we could just demagogue with non-sense. The "cure" for the robber barrons has turned out to be far worse than the disease ever was.
Public school indoctrination is NOT the fault of the liberals, but the fault of parents everywhere that allow it to go on because they are to busy to read the notes the teacher sends home, much less actually walk through the doors to the school.
Tell it to the parents and politicians in Smyrna, GA who wanted to simply put a notice in science books telling kids the truth- Evolution is a theory, not a fact. That was determined to be an attempt to religiously indoctrinate.
In districts where parents pay attention, there is no "indoctrination"(well except the constant smoking and drinking are bad for you stuff. I guess that kind of indoctrination is okay).
That simply isn't true. We've experienced it in the Chicago area schools ourselves. We were effectively blown off when we complained about some of the material our 2nd grade child was being given.
How about California? Didn't they recently rule that the school could teach positively about homosexuality without the parents approval or prior knowledge... or was that Mass.?
Homosexuals? My goodness they are just sinful people just like us. Why some sins become such mega sins that God can't/won't forgive is beyond me.
They're not. That isn't the point. The point is that I should not be forced by gov't to accept ANY person who defines themselves by something I consider immoral. I don't claim the right to deny them their freedom. I only claim that they don't have a right to impose themselves in violation of my freedom.
If homosexuals "marry", does that make them any more sinful?
No. But because liberals have successfully shifted the forum of debate for social mores from the free public to the halls of gov't... it amounts to societal consent in the name of all of us.
My solution would be to eliminate gov't involvement in any type of marriage and let free individuals work out their own contracts. Free private individuals and companies would have the "RIGHT" to determine which of those relationships, if any, they chose to honor... of course this is based on consent to employer/gov't based healthcare which I don't. It is a vile centralization of power over individuals and a grievous restriction of freedom.
The only issue here is that they shouldn't expect MORE rights just because they are perverts and the rest of us don't want to be around them. That is a problem and I don't vote for a man who espouses such nonsense.
Exactly! I'm not arguing any different. I know a guy who went to Hawaii and "married" another man. I have never been nor am I now hostile toward him in the workplace. In fact, he would probably tell you that I am one of the nicer people in the company to him even though he knows exactly where I stand on morality.
I just want everyone's freedom back. The primary deception is the premise that these issues should be determined in gov't via a political power struggle. I say reduce the gov't to its literal constitutional restrictions and let a free, very intelligent people work out the problems for themselves.
This is probably the most important idea that Christians will never get. Why on earth do we ever expect nonbelievers to act like believers? In a free nation even unbelievers get to vote. And if they have the majority, then we need to shut up and put up until we can change enough hearts to regain the majority.
NO, NO, NO, NO. We need to restore the system in which all of us can exercise our rights and liberties regardless of who happens to be in the WH or Congress. We need to reject the very notion that "majority rule" is a legitimate means of restricting individual freedom.
Ideally, I don't want or even want to discuss creation in public schools... or sex education... or political indoctrination... or any number of other issues but not because I don't favor those things being taught in school. I oppose in principle the idea that gov't should have the ability, used or not, to directly shape the opinions and ideals of children.
The first, best step if we want a restoration of our just and civil society would be to privitize all primary education.
But we Christians aren't going to do that because we are to lazy, to uneducated, or simply to unmotivated to discuss the Solution to the world's problem with those we come in contact with.
I just spent a good portion of three days trying to help out some people who called our church for help. We gave them food and shelter but I also "preached" to them and laid ground rules that they would have to submit to if they wanted continued help. Namely, he had to start looking for a job and they had to stop co-habitating and that I wanted them in church. Would gov't do that? Or would they simply facilitate/subsidize their self-destructive behavior?
Until Christians start acting like Christians, this country will be stuck in the rut we've been in for the last 30 years. (going downhill fast)
30 years? Try at least 90 going back to the Amendment that allowed income tax.
