Being Poor is NOT a virtue!

I repeat, "republicans" are not conservatives. Never have been, never will be. Let's get past that asinine assumption and then we can move on from there.

 

All conservatives vote Republican, but all "Republicans" do not always vote for their party (such as Colin Powell voting for Obama in 2008 ). Unless there is some kind of wacky race, a conservative is not going to vote Democrat though. However, you are right to point that that there is a distinction between being a conservative and being a Republican (a two party system forces you to only have two options, so any party you choose is bound to do things you don't like). The Republicans would just be the closest thing you can vote for to get what you want.

But where do we go from here?

 

It took over two hundred years to get in the mess it is now. People are going to have to eventually stop voting party lines, get people elected at the local level that are not on the corporate dole, and in about 20 years there will be a decent candidate to run for president. Neither party is what they pretend to be, it's all political propaganda and posturing, for the good of a few.
　
　
It's the only way to take control of the government again. Even then many will have to be weeded out, and exposed as the criminals they are along the way. In any case any movement like the tea party that joins forces with either of the dominating parties, is accomplishing nothing, especially any sort of real reform. In any case the lesser of two evils isn't a choice or an option this country can endure.

 

I can agree with this.

 

The past, history, is a learning tool, nothing more. And what do you, or anyone, know of what Jesus said? Not a single word. You have no proof that there ever was a Jesus. What you have is a bible. Back in those days, that was the primary form of advertising and hence, just another marketing tool for religions. Why so many different bibles? Marketing, not truth.

Now I do not care one way or another if you wish to wrap yourself in some "Faith." But don't attempt to think that "Faith" carries an ounce of weight in a debate.
Its your "Booga, Booga, belief. It is not FACT.

 

What proof do we have that George Washington ever existed?

 

If one is lost and wandering in some "Fog of Faith," Then none. But the writings of numerous historians lends a certain credence for Washington over tales told verbally for thousands of years, and "recorded" in many different ways. Robin Hood and King Arthur are fabled creatures too. They both would have done many many good deeds had they ever existed. But if you look, you will find thousands that will swear they were real too.

I am not anti-faith. For those who wish to 'have faith,' how I think of it means nothing. Your decision, not mine. Enjoy whatever your faith gives you. But do NOT try to impress it on me or ask me to acknowledge your faith's teachings as reality. That is your reality, not mine.

 

What you are proposing is not a hand-out, and that is why others and you are quick to find it logical, as you are independent types who fancy people having to pay for what they get from the state a healthy compromise. I feel America, and what it was intended to be, has compromised to the point of non-existence. Sure, there are drastic times like the great depression where the CCC camps made perfect sense. However, instead of learning from our mistakes, the major players who caused that scenario systematically built the modern version of America around their corruption. Every thing about the new "America" needs to be thrown in the trash. The chipping away of American individualism that has been going on, decade after decade, for a century, needs to be erased from our people's brains. Basically, (*)(*)(*)(*) the state. You will find when you take that stance, the neocon form of thinking will swoop in to defend the modern version of America as quick as the liberals. I have said it before, and I will say it again. The greatest ploy used by the global regime to break America was not the FED, it was the invention of neoconservatism. Without neoconservatism, there is no FED. There is no mass unemployment. There is no handouts to artificially deflate unemployment numbers. The is no great wealth gap. There are no pleas for innovation, as if one can plea for a work of art. There are more reasons to revolt now then there ever was when we threw the British crown out on its ass. The global regime learned from their mistakes in pre-Nazi Germany. The effects are all over our nation. It is time for nationalists to take over, but also learn from the mistakes of Nazi Germany, so once again a western power can be free from their control. All world wide independence of nations, at this point, literally depends on whether or not the American people can grow the balls to take back their own.

 

If Jesus didn't exist they had some very clever novelists-before-novels to create his character and som weird forward-looking Romans out of an American cosnspiracy theory to plan centuries ahead. You are suffering from an extreme case of faith in my view.

 

Til the last drop;

Logic and common sense will not get you very far on this forum or in the general public with the progressives and the neo-con artists, or the sheeple who follow them.

 

Indeed. True, old school Ron Paul conservatives are fighting statists in the Democrat party and in our own. You make a good point.

 

You're attaching factuality to 2000 year old legends and I'm suffering from something? As I said, its none of my business how you enjoy your faith. But FAITH,** is not fact and has no standing in a debate.

**FAITH

n
1. strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence
2. a specific system of religious beliefs
3. (Christian Religious Writings / Theology) Christianity trust in God and in his actions and promises
4. (Christian Religious Writings / Theology) a conviction of the truth of certain doctrines of religion, esp when this is not based on reason

I was raised in an Irish Catholic home. Attended a Catholic grade school, and was an Alter Boy for years. My family had both Priests and Sisters. I have seen the other side of the coin. I took a long unemotional look at religions and decided that they all are simply businesses. Selling air for big bucks.

 

You offer a dictionary definition, I raise you a biblical definition. Considering the Bible has been a trusted source of authority for far longer than Webster's dictionary, I'm certain it carries weight.

Hebrews 11 (NKJV)
1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
2 For by it the elders obtained a good testimony.
3 By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.

Assuming that there is no reality beyond what 5 senses tells us is an exercise in blind stupidity. Faith is that 6th sense by which we are able to detect realities beyond what can be seen, heard, weighed, or measured by calipers. The visible was created by the invisible. To consign all reality to what can be seen by the eye is to make an arrogant and very unscientific presumption. Faith always has a place in discussions because it broadens the discussion to its correct parameters, acknowledging all realities, seen and unseen.

Based on this and other posts Ive seen from you, your hostility toward faith is based on emotional sentiments arising from your past. Very unscientific.

 

Your bible thumping has no position in a factual argument. But it does corroborate my position. Faith is in your head, the bible tells you that. I have no need for it to be in my head. You may enjoy all of it.

 

You just don't get it. As far as a literary authority, the Bible trumps your dictionary or any other book you can offer. It's longeavity gives it more credence in any evidence based discussion than anything you can bring from your Richard Dawkins "God Delusion" materials. You can say it has no place in any discussion, but you don't get to make that decision. The vast majority of the world that believes in God in one way or another aren't crazy. It's far more likely that YOU'RE crazy.

 

IN YOUR OPINION. Your faith is your faith, it is not mine. You have a belief, enjoy your belief, I am NOT asking you to give it up. I do not share your belief, do not ask me or tell me I'm wrong because I do not share your belief.

And I have no idea of who or what Richard Dawkins "God Delusion" is.

And I have as much right to reject your assertions in a discussion as you have to make them. Your religious and biblical assertions mean zero to me. They carry no weight. That you believe they overpower all is your belief, not mine. If your beliefs give you warmth and comfort, that's your business, not mine.

 

Then all opinions being equal, you don't get to decide what is and isn't valid in a factual discussion. Relativism is a two edged sword.

I'm sure you're thinking of getting the book even as we speak. You'll fall in love with it.

You mean they carry no weight with YOU. I believe in absolute truth so I don't undermine my own opinion like you do by suggesting that nothing can be established beyond doubt. You've pretty much admitted that your opinion means nothing by suggesting that my opinion means nothing in a paradigm where all truth is relative.

I don't live in that paradigm.

 

but You Refuse To Allow Me To Live In Mine. That Is Hypocrisy.

And it is YOU that is determined to undermine my opinion, not the other way round. I said your opinion was yours and was not valid to me. While you are militantly claiming that my opinion is worthless in all cases.

You're a believer, I'm not. That does not make either of us better or worse than the other.

You said, "I Believe In Absolute Truth" And chastised me for not accepting things that cannot be proved beyond a doubt. Things that cannot be proved beyond a doubt are hardly ABSOLUTE TRUTHS. So I find both hypocrisy and contradictions in your posts. Just as I have found hypocrisy and contradictions in religions. That is why I decided to maintain my own council.

But it is your choice to believe or not believe. And I pass no judgement on your beliefs for you. Please refrain from passing your judgments on my lack of belief.

 

Faith is not the issue. Picking and choosing historic evidence is. I find it easier to believe Jesus existed(god or just man) than George Washington, which I have 0 doubt either did not.

 

hahaha, you believe in fairy tales

 

Believing Jesus is the son of God may be a fairy tale, believing Jesus existed is completely legitimate.

 

Never said he didn't exist. I said you had no proof that he did. That is not proof that he didn't. I don't care if he did or didn't, you evidently do. Doesn't make either of us right or wrong.

 

You have faith in an incredibly unlikely plot by persons unknown to make up another person for reasons unknown with the result that powerful persons centuries later in totally different conditions could make use of their work to manipulate the mugs. You might as well have stayed with popery, if you ask me: you've just got it innoculated backwards!