Quote from: kroz on July 09, 2015, 05:43:00 PM
I agree!

I think he is playing with us.....

In part? Yes, he loves the attention, but that's a part of his malady, which is real.

Quote from: quiller on July 10, 2015, 04:46:33 AM

Boy, isn't that the truth?
The Dims have kept their constituency, age locked at the teenage level of reason.

Quote from: Solar on July 10, 2015, 06:30:17 AM
Boy, isn't that the truth?
The Dims have kept their constituency, age locked at the teenage level of reason.

Last night I spoke to a very liberal old pal of mine who swears he works more hours under Democrats than Republicans, but can't do anything but "eat, sleep, work and a few chores before I go to bed, and NOTHING ELSE!"

This same conversation then led to him complaining how little he'd get on Social Security and how he'd already worked more than what's allowed for the calendar year. Somehow I think I woulda lost him explaining that average-of-last-five-years payout-amount, versus how long past regular retirement you go before filing for a payout.

To some young punk demanding Mommy bring him his sandwich in her basement, that stuff about Social Security is a drag and besides, isn't Obama reviving the death panels to kill us off so we can cut 400,000 troops and increase our national security and lower the debt because those old geezers drop dead? 

Nazi Germany executed thousands of prisoners, sex deviates, mentally ill, and more. That's the level of care that leftists deliver when they're in charge, and sooner or later the worm always turns and consumes the people like him.

Quote from: quiller on July 10, 2015, 05:26:56 AM
I have others. They're not nearly as kind.

Whining about one's self-professed illnesses in a public forum always incites suspicions that poster is falsely seeking sympathy. In this case he seeks absolution. Not from me.

http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/writers-guild/the-rising-cult-of-egalitarianism/

"Rather, the proponents of egalitarianism must be required to present their case on a logical basis, and those of us who support individual liberty must be ready and willing to question egalitarianism on the ideological, rather than practical, level."

My response:

Rather, the proponents of individualism, personal responsibility etc, must be required to present their case on a logical basis, and those of us who support logic and truth must be ready and willing to question individualism, personal responsibility, proving God exists with his ascribed properties and other ideas on the ideological, rather than practical, level which is what I did.

1.  This includes answering logical and rational questions especially if the ideas seem contradictory and inconsistent

2.  Avoiding Ad Hominem Attacks including but not limited to the person's character, accusing a person of lying and malingering without any evidence.

For example, on the other thread, that I posted how does anyone have the free will to choose to be good and do good if humanity is inherently evil?   How can one choose to follow God at all if one is inherently evil? 

It's like making the claim that a schizophrenic person can choose not to be schizophrenic.  How is this so?  How can one be inherently evil yet choose to do good which would require one to have some inherent goodness?

"The world does not owe you a living, you owe the world something.  You owe it your time, energy and talent so that no one will be at war, in sickness and lonely again."

What the judge here said in the article makes absolutely no sense.   Here is why.

If I owe Mary Sue a piece of paper then by logic Mary Sue is owed a piece of paper by me.  The judge is saying that I owe Mary Sue a piece of paper yet she is not owed by me the piece of paper?  Huh?   What?   This makes absolutely no sense.  How does this logic hold up?

If everyone owes the world these things then by logic isn't everyone owed these things as well by whomever owes them which is everyone?   How can one owe others yet those others are not owed by that one at the exact same time?   How can A owe B yet B not be owed by A at the same time in the same instance?

What the judge says is inconsistent and contradictory.   

How can we as mankind achieve what the judge desires which is no one will be at war, in sickness and lonely again if life isn't fair, man is inherently evil and this would be a Utopian ideal which conservatives claim as unachievable?

Which is it can we achieve these things if we as humanity work to strive for it or are they unachievable due to humanity's condition of being inherently evil and sinful? 

Again, This is inconsistent and contradictory.

Quote from: Solar on July 09, 2015, 05:31:02 PM
OK, first off, you over think simplicity way too much.
"You", in this country, are entitled to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, beyond that, you are entitled to your own opinion.
That really is about it.

Or in the event an employer offers you a health and retirement package, you are accorded certain entitlements.

If I'm overthinking simplicity way too much then  how is it really so simple? 

Quote from: cubedemon on July 10, 2015, 08:14:18 AM
http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/writers-guild/the-rising-cult-of-egalitarianism/

"Rather, the proponents of egalitarianism must be required to present their case on a logical basis, and those of us who support individual liberty must be ready and willing to question egalitarianism on the ideological, rather than practical, level."

My response:

Rather, the proponents of individualism, personal responsibility etc, must be required to present their case on a logical basis, and those of us who support logic and truth must be ready and willing to question individualism, personal responsibility, proving God exists with his ascribed properties and other ideas on the ideological, rather than practical, level which is what I did.

1.  This includes answering logical and rational questions especially if the ideas seem contradictory and inconsistent

2.  Avoiding Ad Hominem Attacks including but not limited to the person's character, accusing a person of lying and malingering without any evidence.

For example, on the other thread, that I posted how does anyone have the free will to choose to be good and do good if humanity is inherently evil?   How can one choose to follow God at all if one is inherently evil? 

It's like making the claim that a schizophrenic person can choose not to be schizophrenic.  How is this so?  How can one be inherently evil yet choose to do good which would require one to have some inherent goodness?

Wrong.

Your lack of understanding of spiritual/scriptural matters is surprising.  But I cannot give you enough information in a mere post to enlighten you.  People study for years to understand spiritual truths.

You are poking around.... trying to start arguments.  I am not biting.  You really are not interested in learning anything anyway.

Quote from: kroz on July 10, 2015, 10:48:40 AM
You are poking around.... trying to start arguments.  I am not biting.  You really are not interested in learning anything anyway.

Anyone can start an argument. It takes artistry to make it interesting, and all I'm seeing from this callow youth is the same sniveling that he can't get his own way without earning it, or taking responsibility for actions of his own doing.

QuoteWrong.

No, not wrong!

If you all demand that proponents of egalitarianism be required to present their case on a logical basis then proponents of individualism and personal responsibility should have the same requirements as well.   If you expect to question others on their ideology then you should expect others to question your ideology.   Are you saying that all of you and your belief system is beyond reproach?

QuoteYour lack of understanding of spiritual/scriptural matters is surprising.  But I cannot give you enough information in a mere post to enlighten you.  People study for years to understand spiritual truths.

So, what you're saying is that it would take years for one to grasp these supposed truths that exists in a spiritual realm(which has yet been proven to exist) and these truths came from the spiritual realm in which God is the supreme ruler of this realm and those of us whom are in the empirical and physical realm?   At the same time, these supposed truths are claimed as common sense and self evident.   Which is it?  Are these things common sense and self-evident or does it take years to understand these things? 

If these things take years to grasp and understand then what happens to those who never get these things either because they die too young, their neurology doesn't allow them to grasp these matters or some other reason?   

QuoteYou are poking around.... trying to start arguments.  I am not biting.  You really are not interested in learning anything anyway.

How do you know what I'm interested in or not interested in?   

Quote from: quiller on July 10, 2015, 11:16:57 AM
Anyone can start an argument. It takes artistry to make it interesting, and all I'm seeing from this callow youth is the same sniveling that he can't get his own way without earning it, or taking responsibility for actions of his own doing.

So, an Ad Hominem Attack?

Okay Quiller.   Here is my response

Responsibility and accountability from an individual or group can happen if the responsibility and accountability is reciprocated. In order for reciprocity to happen a society or an organization must have transparency to it. This means the social rules, moral rules and the laws in a given society or organization must be understood and accessible by all parties involved. The social rules, moral rules, and the law should have the possibility of being explained and others should be willing to explain these things including any perceived contradictions or misunderstandings. If these rules or laws are neither explainable to, accessible to, nor understood by individuals or groups and others refuse to explain these things then how is it moral and how does this display correct behavior to make someone responsible or accountable for something to which they do grasp?

So, how can one take responsible for one's actions if one knows not what one did wrong, what one is doing wrong, why it is wrong, what the absolute correct path is and why that path is the absolute correct path above all the others?

Solar's advice I assume other people believe this as well is to work it out myself.  If we're youth then aren't we more than likely ignorant and unwise?  In addition, I was diagnosed by different medical professionals as having Aspergers Disorder.   In addition to that for me, If we're such screws ups, unwise, lack of foresight and sound judgement then wouldn't it behoove to us to go to those who are wise and ask exactly what is the absolute correct path and why? 

Since we're talking spiritual truths let's look at this. 

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs+22%3A6&version=KJV

If we as youths are a bunch of narcissists, screw-ups, unwise, lacking in foresight, with a sense of entitlement then who is responsible for raising us this way?   Weren't we as youths your charges?   So, if we are as you all claim then who is the responsible party?   The older and wiser generation who should have trained us properly in the way we should have all went and what the absolute correct path was. 

Quote from: cubedemon on July 10, 2015, 12:30:44 PM
No, not wrong!

If you all demand that proponents of egalitarianism be required to present their case on a logical basis then proponents of individualism and personal responsibility should have the same requirements as well.   If you expect to question others on their ideology then you should expect others to question your ideology.   Are you saying that all of you and your belief system is beyond reproach?


So, what you're saying is that it would take years for one to grasp these supposed truths that exists in a spiritual realm(which has yet been proven to exist) and these truths came from the spiritual realm in which God is the supreme ruler of this realm and those of us whom are in the empirical and physical realm?   At the same time, these supposed truths are claimed as common sense and self evident.   Which is it?  Are these things common sense and self-evident or does it take years to understand these things? 

If these things take years to grasp and understand then what happens to those who never get these things either because they die too young, their neurology doesn't allow them to grasp these matters or some other reason?   

How do you know what I'm interested in or not interested in?

Oh, you foolish man....

It is called "faith" for a good reason.  It is beyond proof in the physical realm.  There is no argument to be made.  You either "get it" or you don't.  If you don't..... accept the fact that it has not been providential.

If you cannot accept the concept of a Creator God...... that is your problem.  But EVERY man is without excuse because God has revealed Himself to all men through nature.

If you really had a hunger for truth it would be made obvious to all.   ...... it is not.

It is not anyone else's responsibility to convince you of anything.

Go your merry way......

Quote from: cubedemon on July 10, 2015, 08:28:50 AM
"The world does not owe you a living, you owe the world something.  You owe it your time, energy and talent so that no one will be at war, in sickness and lonely again."

What the judge here said in the article makes absolutely no sense.   Here is why.

If I owe Mary Sue a piece of paper then by logic Mary Sue is owed a piece of paper by me.  The judge is saying that I owe Mary Sue a piece of paper yet she is not owed by me the piece of paper?  Huh?   What?   This makes absolutely no sense.  How does this logic hold up?

If everyone owes the world these things then by logic isn't everyone owed these things as well by whomever owes them which is everyone?   How can one owe others yet those others are not owed by that one at the exact same time?   How can A owe B yet B not be owed by A at the same time in the same instance?

What the judge says is inconsistent and contradictory.   

How can we as mankind achieve what the judge desires which is no one will be at war, in sickness and lonely again if life isn't fair, man is inherently evil and this would be a Utopian ideal which conservatives claim as unachievable?

Which is it can we achieve these things if we as humanity work to strive for it or are they unachievable due to humanity's condition of being inherently evil and sinful? 

Again, This is inconsistent and contradictory.

Look up the meaning of Statesman. I consider myself a Statesman as a solid Conservative, while a lib is the exact opposite.

Quote from: cubedemon on July 10, 2015, 09:30:12 AM
If I'm overthinking simplicity way too much then  how is it really so simple?

Quote from: walkstall on July 10, 2015, 03:56:19 PM

I saw a bunch of black symbols on my screen above your post. Maybe you should ask Taxed to check into this forum-flaw, immediately.