The problem with the modern conservative movement, Christianists.

[walkstall]

You are the (intentionally) stupid one.     
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

Hmm... Name one of the 31,000 scientists that are not on the government udder. 

Climate Change in 12 Minutes - The Skeptic's Case

[walkstall]

We also allow elderly people to marry, who, like homosexuals, are unable to conceive.

Don't tell there woman there to old. 

Maria del Carmen Bousada, 66

Rosanna Della Corte, 62

Elizabeth Adeney, 66

Patricia Rashbrook, 62

Omkari Panwar, 70

Rajo Devi Lohan, 70

Adriana Iliescu, 66

Frieda Birnbaum, 60

Dawn Brooke, 59

Janise Wulf, 62



Show me two male homosexuals, that has conceived at any age.

[taxed]

Yes they want full term and partial birth, but SCOTUS gave discretion for that to the states, you fight at the state capital,  not DC.

You're going in circles now.  You're original approach was Christians are driving people away from the Republican party to the Democrat party.

At the national level,  the right of a woman to choose to end her pregnancy is her right, and the state shall only impose regulations for safety reasons.  There is a line, and SCOTUS gave a range where to draw it. Actually they said you couldn't draw it before a certain point.  Ending abortion is a pipe dream, that trying to fulfill will only push more people to vote Democrat.

"Ending" abortion is not what anyone is arguing.  Stay on track.  People will always commit crimes and commit murder.  Allowing it, promoting it, and funding it is what we don't like.  You make your state argument, and I agree it should be with the states, but abortion would be illegal in all 50 states if that happened; or at least most of them.

With respect to same sex marriage,  your argument is invalid.

Arguing that man and woman make people and continue society?  Intact families are better for children?  These are my invalid arguments?

  For many reasons. How many marriages end in divorce within just a matter of years?  A great many, almost majority,  end before any children are raised.

Is your point that more families are becoming split?  That doesn't invalidate my position that intact families are better environments for raising children, which marriage is about.  A male and female are important for raising children.

We also allow elderly people to marry, who, like homosexuals, are unable to conceive.

An elderly male and female couple can still raise children.  Try again.

So it is obvious marriage laws are not geared to enforce a family life, or to favor child birth.

Incorrect.  In fact, you simply supported my position.  Also, if they can't conceive, the male and female, in an intact family, are how you raise children.  It's been that way since the beginning of time, because it's human nature.  In nature, the mother nurtures the child and maintains the nest.  The male protects and provides for the family.  Sometimes those roles are reversed nowadays, but it happens in a male and female environment.  The children need their parents to raise them.

The fact is marriage is a legal vehicle the government uses to extend benefits to the parties thereof. These benefits cannot often be contracted for outside of the arrangement we call marriage.

You may want to do a little more research on the history of marriage.  Nevertheless, civil unions can accomplish that.

Denying homosexuals the ability to marry their chosen partner is without question discrimination,

It is not natural.  Homosexuals are homosexuals because of a damaged mental faculty, sexual abuse, or any other deviation.  When nature gives you a peepee to pro-create, and you look at another male and say "I want his peepee in me", and you look at a female and say "yuck", then you are out of line with what nature wants for you biologically to procreate and make more people.  It's common sense.  With that said, civil unions are more than adequate for gays and lezzies to be committed.  The whole gay movement is simply a push for the divorce industry, and dumb people buy into it.

  harming a homosexual,  and since heterosexuals are doing a fine job of trashing the institution, it can't be said to be special anymore.

No body is harming homosexuals.

With respect to climate change,  National Academies of Science from damn near every nation that has one all agree, as does damn near every single peer reviewed piece of research presented or published in the last few decades.

Wrong.  That is a complete lie.  Otherwise, prove it.

You are the (intentionally) stupid one.     
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

I was waiting for you to post this (you people are pretty predictable).  Non-thinkers hang onto the Cook for dear life, only to have it yanked away from them:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/13/more-pear-shaped-trouble-for-john-cooks-97-consensus/

So, let me ask you again: prove your 97% consensus assertion.  Not fake studies where they hide and manipulate data so us thinkers can dissect it and slap non-thinkers and flat-Earthers upside the head with it.  I want real, hard data.  Also, it needs to be comprised of actual scientists.  For example: http://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-scientists-dispute-climate-change-2012-4

Or, a group of credentialed scientists, like this group of ~31,000:  http://www.petitionproject.org/

The only people who support man made global warming are devout libs who can't think, and academics/government workers who fear for their jobs.  Normal, thinking people, especially people of science, don't buy into your fallacy.

[Solar]

Yes they want full term and partial birth, but SCOTUS gave discretion for that to the states, you fight at the state capital,  not DC.

At the national level,  the right of a woman to choose to end her pregnancy is her right, and the state shall only impose regulations for safety reasons.  There is a line, and SCOTUS gave a range where to draw it. Actually they said you couldn't draw it before a certain point.  Ending abortion is a pipe dream, that trying to fulfill will only push more people to vote Democrat.

With respect to same sex marriage,  your argument is invalid.  For many reasons. How many marriages end in divorce within just a matter of years?  A great many, almost majority,  end before any children are raised.

We also allow elderly people to marry, who, like homosexuals, are unable to conceive.

So it is obvious marriage laws are not geared to enforce a family life, or to favor child birth.

The fact is marriage is a legal vehicle the government uses to extend benefits to the parties thereof. These benefits cannot often be contracted for outside of the arrangement we call marriage.

Denying homosexuals the ability to marry their chosen partner is without question discrimination,  harming a homosexual,  and since heterosexuals are doing a fine job of trashing the institution, it can't be said to be special anymore. 

With respect to climate change,  National Academies of Science from damn near every nation that has one all agree, as does damn near every single peer reviewed piece of research presented or published in the last few decades.

You are the (intentionally) stupid one.     
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

Knox. I'd like to get your opinion on something. It's called Fabian Socialism, from it's roots to current day manifestations.
Read this article, absorb it, and let me know what you think.
It's not so much an opinion piece, but rather a timeline of history, and tell me if you get it.

I only ask, because if you get it, then I know others like you will as well, so you'll be saving a lot of time and trouble if you don't agree.
Thanks Solar

http://mediachecker.wordpress.com/2012/12/17/the-crimes-of-the-fabian-socialist-nwo/

[Knox1983]

I think I've found the problem.  You've assumed I am coming from your left. I am in fact storming in from your right.

You've assumed I am a statist. In fact I am just shy of an anarchist. The government ought to be so week as to not be able to prevent an abortion, nor to regulate much of anything. Marriage included. Want to enter into same sex, plural, or traditional marriage? Fine by me. As long as the parties are consenting adults, I don't much care what they do.

While I think abortion is abhorrent,  I recognize that not everyone has my sense of morality.  Who am I to force it upon them? Who are you to force yours on me? We sure wouldn't like them forcing there's upon us.

No, we have some real problems we're facing as a nation, and women terminating their pregnancies is not among them. Bill and Steve deciding to enter into a legal joining of their lives will not cause you the slightest inconvenience,  yet your injunction on them will prevent them from having the same privileges you share with a wife.

You really aren't much different from the liberals you hate. At the end of the day you want to rely on the power of the state to enforce what you see as the way things ought to be.  The only difference is the issues you place priority on. You are just as liberal as Nancy Pelosi at the end of the day. 

With regard to the fabian socialists, see the above. Mainstream republican and democrat political policies are nearly identical.

I'm in favor of freedom.  You have an agenda and are in favor of the state to provide and protect it.

[Solar]

I think I've found the problem.  You've assumed I am coming from your left. I am in fact storming in from your right.

You've assumed I am a statist. In fact I am just shy of an anarchist. The government ought to be so week as to not be able to prevent an abortion, nor to regulate much of anything. Marriage included. Want to enter into same sex, plural, or traditional marriage? Fine by me. As long as the parties are consenting adults, I don't much care what they do.

While I think abortion is abhorrent,  I recognize that not everyone has my sense of morality.  Who am I to force it upon them? Who are you to force yours on me? We sure wouldn't like them forcing there's upon us.

No, we have some real problems we're facing as a nation, and women terminating their pregnancies is not among them. Bill and Steve deciding to enter into a legal joining of their lives will not cause you the slightest inconvenience,  yet your injunction on them will prevent them from having the same privileges you share with a wife.

You really aren't much different from the liberals you hate. At the end of the day you want to rely on the power of the state to enforce what you see as the way things ought to be.  The only difference is the issues you place priority on. You are just as liberal as Nancy Pelosi at the end of the day. 

With regard to the fabian socialists, see the above. Mainstream republican and democrat political policies are nearly identical.

I'm in favor of freedom.  You have an agenda and are in favor of the state to provide and protect it.

You were asked to read it, and obviously you didn't, instead you'd rather label people than consider why we are, where we are today.
This is why I asked you to read it, it might help you understand where we're coming from.

Your opinion is that of someone with absolutely no historical reference, speaking from a point of complete ignorance. Nearly all of us here remember how this country used to function, where not everything was political, whether it as gay relations, or race, most people left one another alone, but your capitulation to the left is what's killing this country.

So read the damned article and tell me if you get it.

[Knox1983]

I read it. I pointed out that the Republican party is no better there than the Democrats. 

We've all been sold out.

Why else do you think back in 2000 we had a republican in the white house,  and six years of majorities in both houses and our debt continued to grow?

It's because the fabian take over of the US is complete. They have the Republican and Democrat parties wrapped up.

Other than lip service,  Republicans do not do much conservative progress.

[Knox1983]

Hmm... Name one of the 31,000 scientists that are not on the government udder. 

Climate Change in 12 Minutes - The Skeptic's Case

I will, just as soon as you find me one scientist who says no, or not enough evidence to support tthe hypothesis that human activities are altering the climate who is not doing research funded by big oil.

The only ones who challenge it are akin to the doctors hired by big tobacco who said smoking wasn't harmful.

Only in the world of the ultra political is this a political issue. This is not a political issue to me.  I know it is to a great many, but it is facts and data.

By the way you guys who all claim to be way smarter than me, there is a big difference between "your" and "you're. "

[SVPete]

...  the reason Christianists are a problem is they have wholesale infiltrated the Republican party,  the only remotely conservative party, and have made their mission to piss off and drive away rational people, thusly tarnishing the Republican party.

Wow, "infiltrated"? Really? Like Christians are spies or terrorists or invaders?! That's a pretty loaded word, with crudely obvious manipulative intent. If you've ever learned when the R Party started, Christians were on this continent more than 2 centuries before the start of the R Party; And in this country from its inception, unlike the R Party. It would be a century or two or more less inaccurate to say that the R Party "infiltrated" Christians. Reality is that Christians have been at the heart of this country from colonial times.

It's interesting that you bring up the origin and etymology of the term "Christianist", but dismiss it without defining it or speaking of its origins:

You might be wondering what a Christianist is. It is a word I heard someone else once use, I have borrowed it, and have not heard it anywhere else.

Regardless of etymology ...

Let me introduce you to this wonderful tool called a "search engine". It lets people research topics - such as "Christianist". You can find a very capable search engine at Google.com. Though I knew somewhat what the results would be, I Googled "Christianist".

The term is pejorative, and not particularly new (both of which I knew). A couple of notable user of the term are Andrew Sullivan, in Time magazine, in 2006 (Sullivan is a former editor of The New Republic, and was a writer for The Daily Beast), and a Diarist on Daily Kos, in 2004. Do I need to elaborate further on why I would be skeptical of Sullivan's or a DK Diarist's objectivity as regards theologically conservative Christians?

So the very title you chose for this thread is pejorative. The title plus the tendentious tone of your OP suggest that your initial paragraph was disingenuous, and you knew quite well the meaning and connotation of "Christianist".

[Knox1983]

Of course I knew it wasn't a compliment.

And I fully feel all the contempt your post implies.

The "ist" at the end, to me, is an allusion to other political ideologies.  Marxist, capitalist, fascist, or socialists.

A Christianist is no more or less than someone wanting to govern based on Christianity. A theologist, but a specific kind. When you ask these people why they feel any certain way on any issue, their religion is at the heart of the matter.

I am a Christian.  I resent Christianists. Because of them, in my view, they have driven reasonable people away from the party that leans toward fiscal responsibility.  As much as Bush II spent, Obama is spending significantly more.

He got a lot of votes that would have gone to republicans in years gone by but for the never ending pandering many Republican leaders have to do the religious right (read Christianists.)

Homosexuality is a sin. So is over eating.  I don't see the Christianists wanting to out law all-you-can-eat buffets. All sins are equal in God's eyes. At least that's what my Bible tells me.

The ironic part is their hatred of homosexuals and troubled young women who turn to abortion is just as sinful.

These people are irrational hypocrites that few normal people want to be associated with.

Many of you seem to think I'm talking about YOU, and if you are a person who pickets abortion clinics I am. If you are a person who will only vote for someone that denounces abortion and proclaimed to seek the end of the legality of the practice I am.

Fixating on socially conservative issues has cost us fiscally conservative progress.  In 1994 the conservatives took congress and forced Clinton to balance the budget. I know he used some tricks,  but we were way more fiscally sound in 2000 than we were in 2006, after 6 years of single party majorities.  WHY?

It's because the new arrival to the Republican party,  the former southern democrat, while socially conservative is a Democrat by nature and willing to spend big money to push their agendas.

[SVPete]

So, looking a bit more at the manipulative language ...

The rational people of this world,  even rational Christians, such as myself ...

Wow! It's us vs. them, rational people vs. irrational people? Just that simple? Rational people could not disagree amongst themselves over the issues on which you focus? You've spoken with every adult in the US? Determined which ones are rational (by what criteria?)? Learned every "rational" person's views, personally?

"(E)ven rational Christians"?! Are Christians supposed to take this a a mark of kindness, rather that a euphemized version of some atheists' religion vs. reason false dichotomy?! "(S)uch as myself"?! Was this a, "Hey, I'm one of you!" appeal to home team loyalty? Can you guess how well it's worked with this believer in Jesus?

"The rational people of this world ... don't want ..."? While your wording is better, your mother's response to, "Everybody does it!" would still be appropriate: "So if everybody is jumping off a cliff, are you going to jump too, because everybody is doing it?" Sorry, K1983, I'm not into mooooving herd action.

... don't want politicians to discuss abortion, teaching creationism in school ...

Why? If politicians believe certain issues are important, why shouldn't they discuss it? There's a word for politians who play only to the passions of their audience rather than focusing on important issues whether popular or not: demagogue! It's an ugly word, approipriate to an ugly beast.

... freaking out about equal rights for ALL Americans ...

Really? "Christianists" would deny rights recognized by the US Constitution to some sub-group in society? Leave the realm of vague generalities and provide specifics to support this claim. What Constitutionally recognized right(s)? To what sub-group in society? Name names! What Christian do you speak of? Quote him/her and give a link to what they said (and not some advocacy group's claim of what they said!).

... and  constantly acting as if the white christian is being persecuted around the nation.

"(W)hite christian"?!!! Wow! I may not be the first here to do so, but Playing the Race Card?!!! Really?!!! That tactic alone - a single word used monstrously - gives the lie to any and every claim you make to being conservative or a Christian!

I'm about as new to CPF as you are, and am not familiar with its epectations of courtesy in posts, so I'll follow the standard I follow on another discussion site of attacking the post rather than the member who posted it. I do not appreciate the insinuation that I might be a racist! The churches my family and I have attended since 1989 - you do the Math! - have been so multi-ethnic that "whites" were/are a plurality in both, rather than in the majority. Both have or have had blacks, Hispanics, and east Asians among its pastoral staff. Mrs. SVPete and I are home group leaders, and at various times our group has (and does) included east Asians and Pacific Islanders. So don't play the Race Card on me! The shoe doesn't fit, and I won't try it on. Further, I know that that shoe does not fit the vast majority (quite an understatement, in my experience!) of my brothers and sisters in Christ here in the US (the US being your frame of reference).

I will thank you, however, for Playing the Race Card, because it was so very self-revelatory!

[SVPete]

Of course I knew it wasn't a compliment.

Thank you for your candor in confirming the dis-ingenuity of your first paragraphs of your OP. Not that you used that word.

And I fully feel all the contempt your post implies.

I simply followed the tone you set. Don't like my tone? Be less manipulative and contemptuous in your posts. Though as you can see from the latter part of my post of several minutes ago, that's water under the bridge, gone far beyond and over a cataract.

[Solar]

I read it. I pointed out that the Republican party is no better there than the Democrats. 

We've all been sold out.

Why else do you think back in 2000 we had a republican in the white house,  and six years of majorities in both houses and our debt continued to grow?

It's because the fabian take over of the US is complete. They have the Republican and Democrat parties wrapped up.

Other than lip service,  Republicans do not do much conservative progress.

And as suspected, you didn't read it.
The point was to see the true enemy, the left and communism. They use divide and conquer as a weapon, pitting groups against one another.
None of the issues going on today were a problem 40 years ago, and for the commies to seize power, they needed angry people fighting, and what better way to succeed? Make God and prosperity evil and appear oppressive.

There never was an issue with people being gay, they quietly led their lives like everyone else, no one cared, that was their business.
Minorities, the same, they too found a place in this country and a way to thrive and were quite happy.

Our culture was built around Liberty, Freedom and the belief in God, all of which are under attack.
But somehow you see fighting the left over these principles as nonproductive, when in truth, it is you who are capitulating to the enemy in it's efforts to destroy our culture.

No, you did not read the article, because had you done so, you wouldn't be parroting Libertarian ideals.
You are a walking conflict of ideals.

Here's another you can ignore, as I know you will.
But take my word for it, this was yesterdays America, one most of here remember, because the left has managed to achieve nearly all on the list.

http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/library/communist-goals-(1963)/

[Knox1983]

Oh dear God....

The minority found his place? 40 years ago and before, eh? 1974, less than 10 years after the signing of civil rights laws.

I guess you are one of those people who thinks the black man was happier then. That voting restrictions, the inability to eat lunch in the same place as you, and the occasional lynching were what he really liked best.

No wonder people say Republicans are racist.

[taxed]

I fully believe climate change is real. I fully believe the climate scientists don't have all of their facts straight.  But there is ample evidence,  it's just not 100% nailed down. Of the people who dedicate their career to studying such things, 97% of them agree.

I have asked you to prove your 97% assertion.  The one rule we have on this forum is you prove your posts.  We are a fact based forum, meaning this isn't a medium for you to spew liberal propaganda.  You may post it, but you must back it up.  Liberals have an impossible time with that, hence why you are dodging.

I'm asking you again, prove your assertion that 97% of scientists buy into man made global warming.