Just out of curiosity, dubyaisamoron, tell us what do you believe in?

And suddenly things got quiet and perhaps on track.

In all fairness, he may still be waiting for his opinion to load.  KOS can be slow sometimes.

But what about Corparate Taxes what do you think about Corpartions that can say thier located in the Cayman Island and get Tax breaks or Companies that close US factories and take those jobs Offshore.

Oops, John Kerry was going to cut corporate taxes by 5% in his budget plan, you lose.

But what about Corparate Taxes what do you think about Corpartions that can say thier located in the Cayman Island and get Tax breaks or Companies that close US factories and take those jobs Offshore.

What do you think about the largest employer in the state of Ohio being a foreign company that “took jobs offshore” and employed thousands of workers here in our country?  Oops, you lose.

what are you afraid to say what you believe in as a conservative, or is it that you don’t have any beliefs or goals you would like conservative republicans to accomplish for you.

Change conservative to liberal...Dubyaisamoron GO!

You guys fell for it again. Unless of course you are just enjoying going through the mental gymnastics of restating obvious positions.  dubyaasamoron is probably LHAO because you bothered to answer him.  Another condescending weenie who already is sure he has all the answers.  he doesn’t want discourse Don’t waste your breath.

I’m just messin’ around myself.  I still say this discussion belongs in an open mic thread, or maybe on the boards which I can never seem to find (nice intuitive interface, jimk) ;)

Change conservative to liberal...Dubyaisamoron GO!

/crickets/

There is no harm in discussing one’s beliefs and validating them (or invalidating them in some cases)...even if it is at the prodding of a douche bag troll.

The left doesn’t seem to understand that a 5% discount on a Porsche is more than a 50% discount on a bus pass.

haha ive been trying to explain this concept to my friends many times. they like to pretend that their families didnt get anysort of benefit from the tax breaks at all, i use my own house as an example [im 23 and still livin at home] we are not the wealthiest family out there, we [my dad and i] make a lil more than enough to survive, and by that i mean, around 90k a year between the both of us [keep in mind my dads a single fathre tryin to put my younger sister through college]

he saw a 700 check from the initial tax cuts, and we are my no means rich, so for people to claim that only rich people benefited is just ridiculous.

Im sure your happy that because of those tax breaks the super wealthy where able to buy new yachts.

Speaking on behalf of the yacht sales industry, you bet your ass I’m happy about that.

There is no harm in discussing one’s beliefs and validating them (or invalidating them in some cases)...even if it is at the prodding of a douche bag troll.

That’s IF you call what was going on here between the regulars and dubyaisamoron a discussion. You can’t validate your beliefs with a cretin like dubyaisamoron by having him shit all over them with his talking points and hopefully you have already validated them to yourself on more than one occasion so what’s the point. I sure as hell know what I believe in and don’t need to throw my ideals out on the ground for a piece of dung like dubyaisamoron to tiptoe through.If he was a naive waif and ACTUALLY came her for a learning experience then yes but it was quite obvious by his name that wasnot the case.  I acytually wouldn’t have minded if he were a little more clever about his derision and we could’ve bantered back and forth but the mooreons really usually aren’t that sophisticated.’

Im sure you understand that The top 1% of tax payers got 35% of the tax benefits.

Interesting how the bold word above is capitalized, almost as if he copied it from somewhere else and pasted it into his post…

Anyhow, you’re playing with numbers, d. Let’s see if you can you answer this: As a percentage of total tax paid in this country last year, how much was paid by that top 1 percent you’re whining incessantly about?

It’s a much more interesting and meaningful number than your stolen quote from MM or DK or DU or wherever you got it.

I’ve had only one post deleted at Kos (to my knowledge). And it was a joke about Ted Kennedy’s naval experience.

Kos himself isn’t too bad, he even had a post today about how some of the loony left protestors are distracting from the point of the anti-war protest. The rest of his crew, such as Armando, are a whole ‘nother story.

But the biggest problem is the run of the mill posters who will troll rate any post that isn’t 100% anti-Bush. Prime example this week is this:
http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2005/9/26/153237/492/18?mode=alone;showrate=1#18
The site is a breeding ground for group think.  If they continue to freeze out any legitimate discussion, they will never learn how to engage in a rational, logical debate.

Yeah your way to smart for that, Im sure you understand that The top 1% of tax payers got 35% of the tax benefits. Im sure your happy that because of those tax breaks the super wealthy where able to buy new yachts.

I’m sorry, I know I’m kind-of jumping in late on this one, but I just love this arguement, because it shows just how certain ideolouges can make a perfectly meaningless statement into an arguement that they probably honestly are compelled by all because of the power of emotion.  It just sounds so...so… unfair.

Okay, here’s how it works: the wealthiest 1% makes rougly 35% of the money in the US.  That by itself sounds unfair, because in the simplest analysis, it showed that people in an advantagous state get a disproportionate amount of income.  But that’s what makes them the richest 1%.  They earn more.  Ergo, the percentage of the pie that represents what they make is obviously going to be bigger than, say, the second-richest 1%.

Next, they pay roughly 35% of the taxes.  So let’s say that EVERYBODY got a 1% tax cut.  That means that the people who earn more and therefore pay more in taxes will get more of a benefit in a proportional OR dollar-for-dollar sense.  Riddle me this: if person A makes 100x as much as person B, wouldn’t Person B have to have their rate lower by 100% (impossible, since nobody pays 100% of their income) and person A have to get a 1% tax cut to get the same dollar-for-dollar amount?

Oh, and two more things: 1) Between 2001 and now, Bush signed tax cuts in EVERY bracket, so the richest 1% (oooh, roughly the same as the people in the top bracket) got a tax break, and the not-so-rich also got a tax break.  And 2) the richest 1% aren’t all millionares.  Some make about two-or-three-hundred-thousand dollars a year.  Not exactly enough to buy a yaght.

Okay, back to being on topic: yeah, I’ve heard all the crap from the hate-mongering web-Left.  I don’t feel like stating all of my experiences, but if any of you know a race-obsessed moron… who… types… like… this and whose initials are MDC, please let me know.

Posted by Dubyaisamoron on 09/28 at 10:48 AM (Link to this comment)

“Just answer the question, do you all know what you actually believe in.”

Yes I can answer that, but you should go to the forums to ask the question so as to not hijack this thread.

http://moorewatch.com/index.php/forums/

Cheers

They will never understand the difference between a public figure and a private individual.

hillarious comment coming from a site like this one.

hillarious comment coming from a site like this one.

And thank you for proving JimK’s statement to be literally correct.

hillarious comment coming from a site like this one.

Does that comment make any sense to anyone?

Troll…

Does that comment make any sense to anyone?

Bundy,

Yeah, to Cindy Sheehan, the Queen of Senseless Comments, it would.  :)

See? I go to the dentist to get the stitches removed after last week’s wisdom teeth pull, and I *MISS* this stuff!

To [HOPEFULLY] bring the post back on topic, I think Dubyaisamoron has illustrated JimK’s point VERY nicely. The Mooreons CAN’T use policy, ideas, democracy, or, hell, even common decency to stop Conservatism. Unlike sane(r) Liberals (who you end up just arguing with for hours, go in circles, and never get anywhere--and then they hope the people don’t notice) the Mooreons need to attack people, and, Nazi-style, disrupt Conservative functions--be it Party Conventions, Protests, or comments sections on blogs.

Case in point is our group-think friend Dubyaisamoron. As y’all pointed out before that yucky-tasting stuff that was put on my tooth (but made me feel kinda nice!) wore off and I woke back up, our Mooreon friend here had nothing to add to the topic. This isn’t a suprise since denying what Moore&Co;. were doing was BEYOND trying to lie about or cover up. So, instead, our pal goes off topic, begins agitating when folks don’t want to go along, and then disappears when the scheme doesn’t work.

In a way, our pal here has succeeded--more concretely, however, the effort was a failure for 2 reasons. 1) First, the trolling, well… I’ve seen better. AND 2) The idiocy actually provided an EXCELLENT example of who Mooreons are and who Conservatives are. They attack and offer nothing, while we Conservatives believe in Free Speech and have CONCRETE ANSWERS while they have nothing but CRITICISM.

Still, given the state of Mooreon blogs, it’s no wonder Dubyaisamoron came here: it’s one of the few refuges of free speech and honest thought left. Hell, I kinda feel sorry for the poor Mooreon given the other places he has to go [which can’t be many].

Besides, what artmonkey did was WAAAAAY worse:

I believe that conservatism is the ideology of preserving those aspects that have made and kept this country the greatest on earth.

I believe in;

Self-reliance, not victimhood.

True equal treatment for all.

Societal and individual betterment through a combination of charity and competition.

Freedom of religion, as opposed to freedom from religion.

Limited government intrusion into civilian life.

A strong defense, which sometimes includes the ability to preemptively strike, when called for.

Common sense.

Pragmatism.

Reason.

Faith.

Pride in one’s accomplishments, not in the failure of others.

Strong leadership, not apologetics.

Conclusions drawn from facts, not facts drawn from conclusions.

Love, not pity.

These are some things I believe in.

DARNIT! That’s… that’s not fair! I was too doped to do a cool little belief statement like that in time to be, well, timely… And it’s better than what I could’ve done in my present state. Hell, I’m STEALING THAT! :P MINE!

Darn you and your eloquence artmonkey--DARN YOU YOU DARN DIRTY MONKEY! [Just kidding--just don’t run for office in the Greater Cleveland Area and we’ll be cool].

hillarious comment coming from a site like this one.

I don’t understand.  Does he think that Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan are “private individuals” and not “public figures?”

The only three even slightly possible rationalizations for this classic are that a) he honestly buys into Sheehan’s (and Moore’s) humble act; b) he is under the impression that a “private individual” is someone not in government and that by “public figure” we mean anyone who works in the public sector or c) that he has a problem with them putting peoples’ hate mail and email addresses on the site.  Okay, C is a good point, but I dn’t think that’s it.

I ran into something similar at the Puffing-Ton’s Host.  I simply asked to the group, “Ok, so what are your ideas (as they’re typically leftists there) to fight the war on terror?”

The first post I got was somebody saying, ‘you can’t fight a war against an adverb’, or something equally inane.  I told him such, and this guy lost it.  He googled me, found my moorewatch profile, and started calling me a “right wing uber Christian”.  So much for “not rushing to judgements”, eh?  He never threatened to get me fired, as I was posting from home, but he certainly did start calling me names.  He also called me one of the most “closed-minded” professors in the country.  All this from asking, “So, what are your great ideas to ‘fix’ everything?”

I finally got an answer, but it was buried a few pages in from my original post.  It was at least some ideas-- shortsighted and flawed ideas, but ideas.  Everything else was unbridled hate.

My personal favorite was the guy who posted “proof” I was a sociopath.

I do know a few Coultericans on the Right, as well, but for the most part they don’t find people and threaten their jobs and livelyhood.

In all fairness, Moorewatch has done that with a few HateMailers, as far as posting their email address.  And some people on here did find these people’s bosses and sent email about the hate-filled rants.

In all fairness, Moorewatch has done that with a few HateMailers, as far as posting their email address.  And some people on here did find these people’s bosses and sent email about the hate-filled rants.

If they are bold enough to email me, they can stand behind thier words.  I never once went after anyone’s job nor do I condone the behavior.

You’re trying to compatre apples and engine blocks.

Aaaaaaand we are now off topic thanks to dubyaisamoron.  I hate, hate, hate when these moonbat mooreon libtard trolls succeed at getting us off topic around here.
The topic was the hypocrisy of these lefties and their websites.  The way they preach/lecture about “open mindedness”, “freedom of speech” and “dissent” but only agree with those concepts as long as they follow THEIR ideologies.

JimK Said:

If they are bold enough to email me, they can stand behind thier words.  I never once went after anyone’s job nor do I condone the behavior.

You’re trying to compatre apples and engine blocks

Sorry.  I didn’t mean to imply that you, Lee or Para were doing such things.  But some folks here, when presented with an email address (especially those dumb enough to send hate mail from, say, their work address), do take things to an unacceptable level.

But some folks here, when presented with an email address (especially those dumb enough to send hate mail from, say, their work address), do take things to an unacceptable level.

Who?

BAN!

Ronnie said:

Who?

geez, that was like 1 year and a half ago, or 2 years ago.  I don’t remember who.  But I do remember reading the comments section and thinking, “Well, that’s going overboard.”

Most HateMailers are smart enough to conceal their identity in some way, but this guy (from a library in Canada) didn’t.  And some MW folks looked him up, and couple said they emailed his boss.

I will say that’s an isolated incident, however.

I did some digging and found the particular HateMailer in the archives, but the comments aren’t there.

geez, that was like 1 year and a half ago, or 2 years ago.

Just asking.  I haven’t been here a year and a half.  Since you said it in present tense about the people here, I just wanted to know if they were still around.  Wasn’t asking in a challenge kind of way.

Just asking.  I haven’t been here a year and a half.

What ya been doing ronnie?  Playing World of Warcraft?  Oh wait, that was me.  8 month haitus, but I’m back too.

Noooo.  I don’t mean away for a year and a half.  I mean the total length of time I’ve been reading this site more or less regularly.  I did take a little break when I went to Europe and occasionally when the site becomes nothing but swatting trolls, but I’ve been mostly here.  Welcome back to you though.

Freedom of religion, as opposed to freedom from religion.

Can we agree on freedom from religion in government?

I just went to the daily kos and created an account.  When I did so at the DU, I had to go through a screen stating what the site was all about, support for the democratic party, not a debate site.  After reading that someone got banned from daily kos, I was expecting the same thing.  Nope. 

Either way, who cares.  If people want to circle jerk, dont get in the middle of it (literally!).  Why would you want to go there, when youre already here?  I think youd be better off just checking that site out once in a while, and maybe bring up some stuff here in an OT or forum. 

The daily kos, theyre idiots for banning.  The DU, well, they have a disclaimer going in.  Let it go.  I stopped going to southparkconservatives.com because Jim told me flat out it wasnt a debate site.  I can respect that.

Dont get riled up about daily kos.  Life is much more enjoyable when you just let morons be morons.

Freedom of religion, as opposed to freedom from religion.

Can we agree on freedom from religion in government?

How can we have freedom of religion AND freedom from religion?  Is that like freedom of speech and freedom from speech?  You can say whatever you want unless someone might not like it?  Not particularly practical.

Can we agree on freedom from religion in government?

No.

There’s nothing wrong with the respectful recognition of religion.  Politicians are people too (mostly) and they have their own views which are no less significant than anyone else’s.

I don’t support the government establishing and enforcing a state religion, as England did back and forth with the Catholic and Anglican churches, but that’s not what’s happening here, and this quest to eradicate all traces of religion from all aspects of government is beyond the pale.

Having been to a number of ex-communist states, I can assure you that the people there were not too thrilled with their government’s freedom from religion.

and this quest to eradicate all traces of religion from all aspects of government is beyond the pale.

Do you have an example that really bothers you, just so I understand where you are coming from?

btw, I agree with the first part of what you said.  I have no problem with politicians being openly religous.

How can we have freedom of religion AND freedom from religion?

Having been to a number of ex-communist states, I can assure you that the people there were not too thrilled with their government’s freedom from religion.

Sorry ronnie, I didnt answer the first time because I just assumed you knew what I meant.

What I actually said was freedom from religion in government.

Freedom of religion - you can practice any religion you want

Freedom from religion in government - a degree in theology does not quailfy you to teach science.

ronnie and w0rf put it well. Here’s my personal situation (as if anyone cares):

I am an atheist. Or perhaps, more honestly, an agnostic. My wife brings my children to church (non-denom) and they participate in relgious activities. They also go to public school.

If my kids public school ever suggested that my children couldn’t pray in school, I would be outraged. Why? It’s nothing to do with religious conviction, and everything to do with freedom of religion. They should have the right to clasp hands and thank their deity, just as you would have the right to not participate.

Now, interrupting the classroom teacher to praise Jebus is out of hand and should not be tolerated. Suggesting that instances of self-imposed religiousity are against what this country was founded upon is, well, wrong. The Framers were religious folks, and they wanted the ability to practice their beliefs, and even non-beliefs.

Religion and government can co-exist, and they can function well together, such as establishing monetary rules for religious charities. However, founding laws on religion (aka morality) is where the stickiest wickets are, and should be avoided (Prohibition, anyone?).

Do we have laws against murder because it violates religious tenet? No, we have laws against murder because murder cannot be tolerated in a civilized society.

Hi All....

Very regular lurker, rare poster, here.

To Nethicus’ comment on the Hate Mailer from Canada: I live in Canada and have some labour relations experience. I expect that as an employee at a library the Hate Mailer is likely not just an active member of a public sector union but very likely one of the left of the left. If their boss found out that they had run afoul of Moore Watch their boss likely would have given them a parade.

Freedom from religion in government - a degree in theology does not quailfy you to teach science.

If a degree in theology is irrelevant to teaching science, that’s an example of freedom OF religion.  If a theology degree disqualifies you from teaching science, that’s freedom FROM religion.

Do we have laws against murder because it violates religious tenet?

That made me think of another example ....

Freedom of religion in government - the bible saying marriage is one man and one woman should not prohibit a gay couple from obtaining a marriage license.

Freedom of religion in government - the bible saying marriage is one man and one woman should not prohibit a gay couple from obtaining a marriage license.

Certainly there is a biological side to that standard as well.  Weenie goes in the hoohoo?  Ring a bell?  It takes more than just finding something in common with religion to say it’s religious.

If a degree in theology is irrelevant to teaching science, that’s an example of freedom OF religion.  If a theology degree disqualifies you from teaching science, that’s freedom FROM religion.

ronnie oh ronnie, the master of rewriting others words.  Did I say a degree in theology disqualifies you from teaching science? 

Ill rephrase what I said so you can understand what Im sure most people understood when they read what I said.

Freedom from religion in government - a degree in theology alone, does not quailfy you to teach science.

But you understood that.

ronnie oh ronnie, the master of rewriting others words.  Did I say a degree in theology disqualifies you from teaching science?

Did I say you did, asshole?  Your words were parapshrased in my first sentence, not my second sentence.  Spare me your gripes about reading comprehension.

It takes more than just finding something in common with religion to say it’s religious.

Yes, its just a coincidence.  Ill go check google, I wonder if I can find a “Biologists Against Gay Marriage” organization?

Yes, its just a coincidence.  Ill go check google, I wonder if I can find a “Biologists Against Gay Marriage” organization?

Well, I can see the troll is back with his sarcastic rants and baseless insults.  I guess I’ll be on hiatus again until my civilized remarks can be met with the same.

Did I say you did, asshole?

I apologize if I misread what you said. 

And I agree with both of those sentences. 

Well, I can see the troll is back with his sarcastic rants and baseless insults.  I guess I’ll be on hiatus again until my civilized remarks can be met with the same.

Calm down, you love sarcasm.  Have a great weekend.

Freedom of religion in government - the bible saying marriage is one man and one woman should not prohibit a gay couple from obtaining a marriage license.

Civil unions, anyone?

Simply put, marrages being ordained by the state is violation of the separation of church and state.

Posted by up4debate on 09/29 at 12:03 PM (Link to this comment)

“Freedom of religion in government - the bible saying marriage is one man and one woman should not prohibit a gay couple from obtaining a marriage license.”

Marriage is a religious sacrament. Why do [mostly secular] progressives get to use the state to redefine religious sacraments?

Answer: they don’t