Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

The libs and ownership

Last response: in News & Leisure
Share
April 10, 2013 12:47:06 AM

I find it ironic and strange where some hold their ideals.
The reason I say where is, to some, its about color, race, children, sexual relationships, and women to name the highest and most prominent in what Ive gathered from libs is important to them.
In harboring the groups of their collective, its impossible to not have a socially driven POV.
Heres the problem with this.
When it comes to claims, the libs own civil rights.
But, they dont like, and sometimes hate say, a black conservative.
The black conservative is often abused, in many ways and forms, be it physically, mentally or just verbally.
This is a type of racism that exists, which the libs wont address, yet they own civil rights.
Women, or, the war on women.
Recently, we have lost one of our greatest world leaders in Margaret Thatcher.
As a few moderate libs have pointed out, she saved Britain from itself, and more importantly, she paved the way for women to become nationally elected heads of state.
Many of those moderate libs have been attacked, ridiculed and warned by those further left in the lib collective to dont even go there.

Children
At MSNBC,
“We have never invested as much in public education as we should have because we've always had kind of a private notion of children. Your kid is yours and totally your responsibility. We haven't had a very collective notion of these are our children,” she says in a spot for the network’s “Lean Forward” campaign. “So part of it is we have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents, or kids belong to their families, and recognize that kids belong to whole communities.”

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2013/04/09/critics...
Now thats ownership as well, throw in some facism and communism, and there you have it.

The left are slowly but surely driving off many of their best contributors, as they embrace the further leftist ideals of their collective ideal.

My question is, how much farther can the libs go before they collapse?

More about : libs ownership

April 10, 2013 7:47:16 AM

The common denominator with Libs is if you agree with them, they like you. If you don't, you're an evil, horrible person. They preach from their pedestal.

I will equate it this way:

A religious person was raving about the History channel series, "The Bible" I think it is called. The other person wasn't interested in the series, to which the religious person said, "If you don't believe in Jesus and God, you have to buy this series and watch it. It will make you believe."

Well, if you don't believe, you won't buy it, therefore defeating the point of purchasing the series. Granted, the religious person didn't hate the other person, only implied they should do something to which they were not interested and it would make them a believer. They were blinded by their own ideaology to realize that it doesn't go for the other person.

The same with Libs. They can't understand how you can't agree with them because they are coming from a different perspective. Sure, on paper in a perfect world I would agree with a lot of their Utopian ideas. The reality is that it can't happen, therefore I can not understand their point of view given the variables and always uneven playing field. Sure, if everyone thought exactly as them it might work. But as they preach against evil corporations, greedy people, etc, they in fact defeat their own arguments without even realizing it.
April 10, 2013 8:15:35 AM

I think the progressives and liberals are starting to implode now. It would at least explain for the vigorous push to replace historical American principles with socialist ideology. Obama only has 3 1/2 years left before the window closes on the liberals and progressives to get their anti-American egalitarian socialist technocrat legislation enacted into law.

I'm just glad that the comment about children not being a parent's private concern and that they belong to the entire community came from an over educated talking head newscaster rather than from the likes of Feinstein or Pelosi. I mean really, is it any surprise that crap like this is considered legitimate journalism coming from MSNBC? This is the same network where Chris Matthews openly declared his homosexual desire for Obama because he got a thrill up his leg.
Related resources
April 10, 2013 8:24:53 AM

Awesome, another lib bashing thread. You guys are almost caught up with the 0 conservative bashing threads. 'Merica.
April 10, 2013 8:35:57 AM

johnsonma said:
Awesome, another lib bashing thread. You guys are almost caught up with the 0 conservative bashing threads. 'Merica.


You got kids?

If so, do you honestly believe that raising them with a sense of personal responsibility, to be honest, to develop morality, respect the life they've been given as well as the life of others to be your job as their parent or the job of everyone within the community and the whole of society?

April 10, 2013 11:11:56 AM

I don't know that Libs are imploding/exploding... I think that the success of the conservative right leaning has created a false sense of security that allows the liberals to have their utopia ideas. A necessary evil of the success of the a right leaning ideology.

I read an article that stated in war torn nations, women preferred muscle men as a sense of strength. In peaceful nations, women started preferring slender, nerdier and less masculine males. This happens in the subconscience based on the environment.

Take that concept into other areas with multiple factors and I can connect the dots on how a liberal point of view can become a viable option. Though, implementing such an idea changes the very foundation in which that idea was grown, therefore changing the dynamics which put the idea into motion. Can it still exist?

I think this is heavily present in our politics. You say, hey, companies made X amount of money. If we raise taxes, we'll generate Y amount more. When taxes are raised, the dynamics change. Companies make more or less money and spend money differently. They could make more money, or less money.. history shows less money repeatedly. The dynamics changed and therefore you can't use stale data to predict future returns.
April 10, 2013 11:23:00 AM

chunkymonster said:
johnsonma said:
Awesome, another lib bashing thread. You guys are almost caught up with the 0 conservative bashing threads. 'Merica.


You got kids?

If so, do you honestly believe that raising them with a sense of personal responsibility, to be honest, to develop morality, respect the life they've been given as well as the life of others to be your job as their parent or the job of everyone within the community and the whole of society?



Lol, so now you think that liberals automatically want society to raise their kids? Interesting....but don't let me get in the way of the lib bashing.
April 10, 2013 12:34:29 PM

johnsonma said:
Awesome, another lib bashing thread. You guys are almost caught up with the 0 conservative bashing threads. 'Merica.


You think they would get bored eventually, or move to other forums?

The news forum here reminds me a Mitch Hedburg quote:

Quote:
The depressing thing about tennis is that no matter how good I get, I'll never be as good as a wall.
April 10, 2013 1:05:35 PM

johnsonma said:
Lol, so now you think that liberals automatically want society to raise their kids? Interesting....but don't let me get in the way of the lib bashing.

Answer the question. You got kids?

I don't think that the government is going to take people's kids away and put them into communal schools. But commercials, like the one with Melissa Harris-Perry, expressing the desire to change American society by promoting the 10th plank of the Communist Manifesto is extremely hard to ignore. The below quote is a regurgitation of standard socialist thought and approach to how children should be cared for and educated.
Quote:
We have never invested as much in public education as we should have because we've always had kind of a private notion of children. Your kid is yours and totally your responsibility. We haven't had a very collective notion of these are our children,” she says in a spot for the network’s “Lean Forward” campaign. "So part of it is we have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents, or kids belong to their families, and recognize that kids belong to whole communities.”
April 10, 2013 1:39:01 PM

So, no comments on what the libs want, how they own things, how they approach things.
I believe riser is right.
johnson just said in another thread, after I claimed Obama was a phony at best by attending a church, yet you see nothing in his life as doing the walk of a Christian, he came back and said that you can believe and not let it rule your life.
I pointed out that is not what liberal scientists believe, ala Prof Tyson, where he says that good Christian scientists are being held back by their beliefs.
How does he know?
Why doesnt this also apply to Obama, if he is a believer?
You cant apply it here, and omit it there, it doesnt work at all that way, and is a crazy way of thinking.

Now, since being atheistic or agnostic gives you a clarity, a sense of freedom, a certain unfallablerationalization, if you believe in a god, then youre crazy, and cant understand why people dont see this, and dont see how much better it is this way.
The reverse of what riser said from an agnostic POV instead of a believers.
My point here is, the zealots, some of them the worst of the lot, are beginning to rise into control, consciousness, the media etc into fields where libs have long held the lead, now, apply the reactions of every conservative in this thread, and ask youself if that isnt what theyre seeing.
This isnt a rare occasion here, and not being attempted on a small scale, like a school here or a school there, this is national media, where certain leaders control certain things and are pushing for those things.
If you want to leads at something, or God forbid own something such as these varying topics, you need to work hard at it, not throw money at it, not wait for some enlightened clap trap to come in and save the day, but work at it.
The zealots have, and look where its gotten them.
This isnt progress, I would consider progress by starting to condemn things like the death parties thrown in England after Thatchers death.
Defending the conservative person of color all the way to the supreme court.
It may take some work doing for those who dont "believe" as you do, but if there isnt even a certain familiarity, thats certainly not work, or working, or ever going to work.
April 11, 2013 7:23:06 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
So, no comments on what the libs want, how they own things, how they approach things.
I believe riser is right.
johnson just said in another thread, after I claimed Obama was a phony at best by attending a church, yet you see nothing in his life as doing the walk of a Christian, he came back and said that you can believe and not let it rule your life.
I pointed out that is not what liberal scientists believe, ala Prof Tyson, where he says that good Christian scientists are being held back by their beliefs.
How does he know?
Why doesnt this also apply to Obama, if he is a believer?
You cant apply it here, and omit it there, it doesnt work at all that way, and is a crazy way of thinking.


Its weird how your perception alters what people say. Tyson said that letting religion fill in the gap of ignorance is a fallacy. He based this off reasoning throughout history of great men stopping in their pursuit of knowledge after they hit a wall of ignorance. He has never said that being Christian is detrimental to being a scientist. He only said that if you see a problem that you don't understand and let God be the answer then you serve no purpose in trying to find the answer.

Being a President is completely different, not entirely sure how you can not see this as it is obvious. Is Obama trying to figure out where dark energy comes from? No, so he will not resort to God being the answer. Everything he deals with is entirely within the realm of understanding in todays world and therefore does not require God to explain why. Hopefully this makes more sense to you now.
April 11, 2013 7:25:36 AM

chunkymonster said:
johnsonma said:
Lol, so now you think that liberals automatically want society to raise their kids? Interesting....but don't let me get in the way of the lib bashing.

Answer the question. You got kids?

I don't think that the government is going to take people's kids away and put them into communal schools. But commercials, like the one with Melissa Harris-Perry, expressing the desire to change American society by promoting the 10th plank of the Communist Manifesto is extremely hard to ignore. The below quote is a regurgitation of standard socialist thought and approach to how children should be cared for and educated.
Quote:
We have never invested as much in public education as we should have because we've always had kind of a private notion of children. Your kid is yours and totally your responsibility. We haven't had a very collective notion of these are our children,” she says in a spot for the network’s “Lean Forward” campaign. "So part of it is we have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents, or kids belong to their families, and recognize that kids belong to whole communities.”


I've already deduced your thought process and disagreed with it, why would I want to go through it again?
April 11, 2013 7:55:32 AM

And he knows they stopped because of their beliefs?
I think hes just really gone rotten on his deductive reasoning then.
Why is it that every country thinks God is on their side in battle?
The troops on the ground believe this, but they dont stop fighting do they?

Tyson is truly ignorant then, and you should be able to see it, cant see why you cant, unless like I said, youre the one not trying hard enough, as is Tyson.
As riser said, when a believer offers a non believer to read the bible, to the believer its sound wisdom to do so, now whether or not the non believer would ever read it, and possibly open themselves up to God is one thing, but for the believer then to go on and say the non believer will just vfall in the ditch then says they know more about God and Gods wishes for this non believer than God does.
I say to you, this is exactly what youre doing here, ascribing supposed fact, like Tyson, where there is none.

Being president isnt completely different, or were the founding fathers who conceived our nation so out of it, and quit because they left the rest to God?
Youre doing it again, selling people short, as does Tyson, simply because you dont want to think that believers are like anyone alse and they have God too

PS
If a believer assumes a non believer will fail because of his lack of belief is doing exactly what Tyon and you appear to be doing
April 11, 2013 11:59:08 AM

Its becoming painfully obvious that you cannot grasp my point. Let me try one more time. Neither tyson nor me have said that someone who believes in God is at a disadvantage. Only when they use God to explain something they don't understand do they then become detrimental to finding out the true cause.

Tyson knows this because the great men throughout history HAVE SAID that they could not explain something so its must be god and STOPPED trying to solve the problem. Then someone else came along and solved the problem. There are quotes in the writings of these people explaining their God reasoning.

To reiterate one final time, faith doesn't put you at a disadvantage, using faith to explain your ignorance does.
April 11, 2013 4:37:07 PM

Then with all his negative quips, all his innuendo, all his insistence that these men failed themselves again, simply means they dont understand, as you cant seem to.
If you think our will is somehow curtailed because some are believers, then again, you/he are still simply not getting it.
So, anytime someone mentions only God knows, it surely must mean theyve quit.
I mentioned the battlefield, because expecting a miracle, or waiting on God isnt what people do.

This should be a simple understanding here, yet somehow you separate one man from another because in all mans greatness he fails here and there.
The believer is saying that Tyson is failing by his refusal to accept God, and has as much empirical truth behind those thoughts and words as does Tyson, because believers know God helps people.
Doctors have shown prayer helps, without the patients knowledge, tests have been done.
Now, Im not saying whether God will help Newton more or less, nor am I saying He would help Tyson more or less, but claiming either way you know is wrong, just as wrong as a non believer saying a believers motivations are tied thru God.
What hes omitting here is, not all knowledge was known throughout all people/scientists in those times, it simply wasnt possible, so when a great mind was on his own, it was never so profound as in those times.
This isnt the case today, and he has failed in a very eaasy to understand way, then condemned a believer in another, and condemning, which he snidely does, is something only the worse of both sides do.
This is like blaming Einstein for not solving string theory and completely defining quantum mechanics and the Higgs bosun because of God.
Thing here is, he isnt the first man to blame God for something, whether he believes or not.
Only God knows where Tyson comes up with this lame ideals about God, hows that?
April 11, 2013 8:01:36 PM

riser said:
The common denominator with Libs is if you agree with them, they like you. If you don't, you're an evil, horrible person. They preach from their pedestal.

I will equate it this way:

A religious person was raving about the History channel series, "The Bible" I think it is called. The other person wasn't interested in the series, to which the religious person said, "If you don't believe in Jesus and God, you have to buy this series and watch it. It will make you believe."

Well, if you don't believe, you won't buy it, therefore defeating the point of purchasing the series. Granted, the religious person didn't hate the other person, only implied they should do something to which they were not interested and it would make them a believer. They were blinded by their own ideaology to realize that it doesn't go for the other person.

The same with Libs. They can't understand how you can't agree with them because they are coming from a different perspective. Sure, on paper in a perfect world I would agree with a lot of their Utopian ideas. The reality is that it can't happen, therefore I can not understand their point of view given the variables and always uneven playing field. Sure, if everyone thought exactly as them it might work. But as they preach against evil corporations, greedy people, etc, they in fact defeat their own arguments without even realizing it.
There is no perfect party at all.They both have their mistakes and they both do not want it rectified.


April 11, 2013 8:43:41 PM

If it worked in their favor they would want it.
Its why my sig is so important nowadays, as Jefferson knew just what from whence this new country and its people had run/come from, and where it should be going.
Some idealists believe the opposite, and is why we see MSNBC doing their correspondent drive byes having the state with more responisbility and ownership into our childrens wellbeing and future, lessoning the parents overall, as they would move the goalposts as to what role a government plays into raising our children, and of course, they want more money doing so.
Like Ive mentioned, the zealots rise to the top in many areas here, and is why we see such blatant racist attitudes, such sexist POVs, where everything revolves around sex or race, as in the zealots mind, that is how the world works.
To "own" things like womens rights, or civil rights, or sexual freedoms is a dangerous POV, and when a lib is ever questioned, it is always replied with disbelief that someone outside of their idealism could even have an inkling as to how it is.
So, I think in order to keep the zealots at bay, we need the good libs to push for known abuses against conservative blacks and get some civil action done.
We need for good libs to stop letting the zealots wage their war on mothers and their children, and for them to give them their blessing, and not to give more authority to the state instead.
We need to see a greater concern when a crazy/zealot riots in the streets, camps in the streets, raises cain at a conservative gathering, when a world leader of conservative ways dies and theres partying going on, when theres more and more abuses os liberal mindset only on campus and differing ideas arent given or only ridiculed by lib profs.
People in the country, after 911, wanted to see the good Muslim stand up against what had just happened, show it, walk it, and lead, but instead, we see more and more zealotry there as well.
Tearing down tradition has been good where it was bad, and forming new paths for our future can be good, it all depends on when to start, what to leave, and whos leading the way
April 12, 2013 6:22:01 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Then with all his negative quips, all his innuendo, all his insistence that these men failed themselves again, simply means they dont understand, as you cant seem to.
If you think our will is somehow curtailed because some are believers, then again, you/he are still simply not getting it.
So, anytime someone mentions only God knows, it surely must mean theyve quit.
I mentioned the battlefield, because expecting a miracle, or waiting on God isnt what people do.

This should be a simple understanding here, yet somehow you separate one man from another because in all mans greatness he fails here and there.
The believer is saying that Tyson is failing by his refusal to accept God, and has as much empirical truth behind those thoughts and words as does Tyson, because believers know God helps people.
Doctors have shown prayer helps, without the patients knowledge, tests have been done.
Now, Im not saying whether God will help Newton more or less, nor am I saying He would help Tyson more or less, but claiming either way you know is wrong, just as wrong as a non believer saying a believers motivations are tied thru God.
What hes omitting here is, not all knowledge was known throughout all people/scientists in those times, it simply wasnt possible, so when a great mind was on his own, it was never so profound as in those times.
This isnt the case today, and he has failed in a very eaasy to understand way, then condemned a believer in another, and condemning, which he snidely does, is something only the worse of both sides do.
This is like blaming Einstein for not solving string theory and completely defining quantum mechanics and the Higgs bosun because of God.
Thing here is, he isnt the first man to blame God for something, whether he believes or not.
Only God knows where Tyson comes up with this lame ideals about God, hows that?


Its absolutely incredible how you could possibly miss my point again, I thought I laid it out to where it could not be misunderstood. Let me put it another way as the fact that religion is involved has got you so emotional that you refuse to see my point.

It use to be that people thought the earth was flat. They wouldn't sail too far because they thought they would fall off. The vikings could of cared less about this and sailed west anyways. This is the same principal as the one that Tyson outlined. When you accept an explanation that is based entirely without evidence, you become absolutely worthless in the pursuit of the true cause.

Somehow you keep assuming that I am grouping all non-believers and all believers. This is wrong, please quit doing it. I am grouping anyone who accepts an explanation without evidence as fact. This group of people should stay out of the way of the ones who are truly interested in knowledge.

April 12, 2013 6:36:07 AM

chunkymonster said:
Answer the question. You got kids?
johnsonma said:
I've already deduced your thought process and disagreed with it, why would I want to go through it again?

I don't understand why you won't say if you have kids or not. It's a legitimate questions related to the context of this thread.

If you have kids, you do. If you don't have kids, you don't. I don't want to ass-u-me either way...

I asked you again because your answer and position may greatly differ if you have kids.
April 12, 2013 6:45:22 AM

To which my reply is is simple.
What was believed before Newton, or to be more precise, since Tyson didnt get it, in Newtons time, what was the belief in regards to gravity?
This was the accepted norm was it not?
When any inventor or scientist goes beyond what previously was conceivable thats OK, but when one doesnt, its Gods fault?

I hope you understand how one cant be without the other here?
Now, lets say it was a Godless society back then, whos fault would it have been?
What would you blame on someones inability to "go further" ?
Hmmm, seems this scenario doesnt offer up any ideas, maybe its jjust someone ranting about God and blaming Him or the believers?
It wasnt peoples faith that inspired them to go where no ones thoughts had previously taken them, nor was it their fault when those thoughts came to their conclusions.
Oh, and lets get this right, since scientists even in those days used whatever they could use from other previously discerned science, one would have to assume the entire earth believed the world was flat, and people of other faiths, and those with none came to the same conclusion all together?

No, its Tyson
And if he were conservative, and attacked time and again by the media, the whackos, leaders of various groups, theatened, would you seek civil rights for h9im, or let him squander as most black conservatives do regarding these things?
April 12, 2013 6:58:48 AM

I think Mr Tyson needs to do some simple research:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth
The Flat Earth model is an archaic belief that the Earth's shape is a plane or disk. Many ancient cultures have had conceptions of a flat Earth, including Greece until the classical period, the Bronze Age and Iron Age civilizations of the Near East until the Hellenistic period, India until the Gupta period (early centuries AD) and China until the 17th century. It was also typically held in the aboriginal cultures of the Americas, and a flat Earth domed by the firmament in the shape of an inverted bowl is common in pre-scientific societies.[1] The Jewish conception of a flat earth is found in biblical and post biblical times.[2][3][4]

Once again, it is attributed by the libs to be solely a "Gods creation" , thus proving their irrational reactions to faith.
So, in many libs minds, Tyson was only doing what is right and inevitably the truth, until that is, you actually look into what hes attempting to do.
April 12, 2013 8:38:33 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:

When any inventor or scientist goes beyond what previously was conceivable thats OK, but when one doesnt, its Gods fault?

Lets focus on this singular statement. Its not God's fault if one doesn't go past what is conceivable. However, if someone accepts that something unknown is the work of God then they have given up trying to explain it. If someone says something is beyond our comprehension and then gives up, this is the same thing. If someone accepts that the world is flat without logical reasoning then this is the same thing.

You are taking this as a personal attack on faith, which it isn't. Its more of a challenge on a particular mindset. I've tried numerous times to explain this mindset but for some reason you keep going back to it being a discrimination against those who believe in God.

Also, someones inability to go further is not what we are questioning. Their desire to go further is what we are talking about.


April 12, 2013 8:50:53 AM

OK, lets be real here.
Look into Tysons attacks on faith, consistent, often and reliable.
Again, as I said, how does he know when a scientist just hits the wall, attributes it to only God knowing, and then, further seperate this from any scientist, which I showed as in the flat earth scenario, where it wasnt just Christians, nor Muslims or even faithful that believed such a thing, then to transfer itm over into a false belief Gods children are wimps, and God wants it that way as well shows how little he really knows his history, his fellow man, and lastly God, whom he seems to find displeasure in others pleasure of knowing God.
Sorry, it just doesnt break down the way youre trying to make it appear johnson, nor does history, nor does the will of the human spirit, of which to what end, only God knows ;) 
April 12, 2013 9:03:43 AM

Heres one libs dont claim to own : sports
Ever notice how all these failure champions attribute their abilities to God?
Just think how good they could have been if only they didnt, oh wait........

Notice how easy this was?
Notice how this doesnt equate to certain lib beliefs?
Notice also, as someone mentioned above, that sports arent girlyman territory, no metrosexuals here attitudes, yet somehow, the women do find them somehow attractive.
Something about a man being a man I guess ;) 
April 12, 2013 9:21:17 AM

One last thing about Tyson.
I found this interesting, as if a non believer would claim to be agnostic when clearly hes an atheist in this atheists POV, also, typical ownership/response:
Atheists are in short supply in this country. For that reason we love to try to claim people whenever possible. Many an atheist will make the argument that Obama is part of our club simply because he’s intelligent, scientifically literate and doesn’t talk about Jesus with the incessant fervor that Bush did. It may be true that Obama is an atheist. Political reality would not allow him to admit as much, but there is also no direct evidence to suggest that he is. When we try to claim him we’re really not doing much better than the folks who try to claim him a Muslim.
http://scathingatheist.com/tag/neil-degrasse-tyson/

So, owning not believing in God is an interesting thought, one only a few libs could come up with
April 12, 2013 11:46:25 AM

History breaks down the exact way I'm explaining, people have said God is responsible and that was that. Throughout history this has been proven wrong. The earth is the middle of the universe....wrong. God created the earth before the Sun...wrong. God created man and the universe around the same time....wrong. All of these were taken as facts before someone decided not to accept the God did it reasoning.

I hope your not a neurological scientist. Your view that only God knows the human spirit would be detrimental to research the TRUE extent of our psychological prowess.

The sports comment only proves you don't understand the concept. If an athlete gave up after having a bad game and decided that God didn't want him to be an athlete then it would be the same. However, attributing success to God is a completely different matter.
April 13, 2013 4:21:19 PM

You see, limiting yourself doesnt do any good here.
If Tyson were truly serious, he would include, oh, just for the sake of math, the Greeks, and their thoughts, but no, he doesnt, or gun powder and Confucious, nope not there either, or, how bout the Muslims many contributions, and blaming Allah?
Oooops, musta forgot that one, no, he spends all his time chasing the Christian God, not really going after the Judeo part either, seems mighty picky for someone who must therefore credit all these discoveries to Christians, as he spends his time only only the Christian God.

So, I say Tysons a loser, he gave up, instead of looking for God, he gave up, what a loser.
Hes not as succesful as he could have been because obviously he gave up with not being far enough along because others gave up as well.
You missed my point, these athletes are losers, but when they do win, they give credit to God.
So, when they lose, is it because theyve spent too much time somehow thinking God doesnt want them to do this, and they quit?
You are only champion for that year, that one event, and no ones undefeated, this is a no brainer, and short sighted.
So, since they dont win right away, they quit if they believe?
Or, they get only so far, lose, then quit?
What you and Tyson are proposing doesnt make sense, its simply a rant on the Christian God and His faithful, nothing more.
April 13, 2013 6:22:03 PM

riser said:
The common denominator with Libs is if you agree with them, they like you. If you don't, you're an evil, horrible person. They preach from their pedestal.

I will equate it this way:

A religious person was raving about the History channel series, "The Bible" I think it is called. The other person wasn't interested in the series, to which the religious person said, "If you don't believe in Jesus and God, you have to buy this series and watch it. It will make you believe."

Well, if you don't believe, you won't buy it, therefore defeating the point of purchasing the series. Granted, the religious person didn't hate the other person, only implied they should do something to which they were not interested and it would make them a believer. They were blinded by their own ideaology to realize that it doesn't go for the other person.

The same with Libs. They can't understand how you can't agree with them because they are coming from a different perspective. Sure, on paper in a perfect world I would agree with a lot of their Utopian ideas. The reality is that it can't happen, therefore I can not understand their point of view given the variables and always uneven playing field. Sure, if everyone thought exactly as them it might work. But as they preach against evil corporations, greedy people, etc, they in fact defeat their own arguments without even realizing it.
At least the Libs are more open minded than the narrow minded Republicans who only care about money and really nothing else.What are we defeating you point out in your post?
Again both parties present no great accomplishments towards the people in the U.S.Yes banks are greedy and care about how much they can screw the ordinary person in especially the mortgage field and the banking system.You can greedy Wall Street for this escapade they put us through financially.
April 15, 2013 6:24:47 AM

musical marv said:
At least the Libs are more open minded than the narrow minded Republicans who only care about money and really nothing else.What are we defeating you point out in your post?
Again both parties present no great accomplishments towards the people in the U.S.Yes banks are greedy and care about how much they can screw the ordinary person in especially the mortgage field and the banking system.You can greedy Wall Street for this escapade they put us through financially.

The Liberals/Progressive/Democrats are no more open minded than the Republicans. The so called open minded Liberals publicly harass and lambaste any conservative minority who dare to contradict the Progressive narrative, i.e.; Thomas Sowell, Ben Carson, the entire Conservative Black Caucus, and so on and so on. The epithets of "Uncle Tom", "sell-out", "house-nigger", and "milk chocolate" spewed by Liberals an Progressives at conservative minorities are no less ignorant and racist. If anything, the fact that these epithets are thrown out by Liberals and Progressive makes them all that much more ignorant and racist.

Don't get me wrong, the ignorance, racism, and bigotry comes from both sides; Democrats and Republicans. The primary difference is the Liberals/Progressives/Democrats own the false narrative that they are the savior or the minorities. As a result of owning this false narrative it is easier and much more believable when Democrats/Progressives cry foul of Republicans. This hypocrisy only demonstrates the complete dis-ingeniousness of the Liberals and Progressives and lends proof to their political strategy of maintaining minorities as a voting bloc and the lies they tell to minorities.
April 15, 2013 7:23:43 AM

musical marv said:
riser said:
The common denominator with Libs is if you agree with them, they like you. If you don't, you're an evil, horrible person. They preach from their pedestal.

I will equate it this way:

A religious person was raving about the History channel series, "The Bible" I think it is called. The other person wasn't interested in the series, to which the religious person said, "If you don't believe in Jesus and God, you have to buy this series and watch it. It will make you believe."

Well, if you don't believe, you won't buy it, therefore defeating the point of purchasing the series. Granted, the religious person didn't hate the other person, only implied they should do something to which they were not interested and it would make them a believer. They were blinded by their own ideaology to realize that it doesn't go for the other person.

The same with Libs. They can't understand how you can't agree with them because they are coming from a different perspective. Sure, on paper in a perfect world I would agree with a lot of their Utopian ideas. The reality is that it can't happen, therefore I can not understand their point of view given the variables and always uneven playing field. Sure, if everyone thought exactly as them it might work. But as they preach against evil corporations, greedy people, etc, they in fact defeat their own arguments without even realizing it.
At least the Libs are more open minded than the narrow minded Republicans who only care about money and really nothing else.What are we defeating you point out in your post?
Again both parties present no great accomplishments towards the people in the U.S.Yes banks are greedy and care about how much they can screw the ordinary person in especially the mortgage field and the banking system.You can greedy Wall Street for this escapade they put us through financially.


No doubt narrow minded... as I would think that is the position of a government. They are not there to solve all the problems. Our Constitution clearly spelled out the role of government; everything else should be handled by the people to resolve. Granted, funding is a major issue these days and the government can harness the necessary resources to achieve greater goods. Though, the government needs to back out of certain areas and step up more in other areas. The government cannot solve all issues; that is a misconception we have.
April 15, 2013 7:52:40 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
You see, limiting yourself doesnt do any good here.
If Tyson were truly serious, he would include, oh, just for the sake of math, the Greeks, and their thoughts, but no, he doesnt, or gun powder and Confucious, nope not there either, or, how bout the Muslims many contributions, and blaming Allah?
Oooops, musta forgot that one, no, he spends all his time chasing the Christian God, not really going after the Judeo part either, seems mighty picky for someone who must therefore credit all these discoveries to Christians, as he spends his time only only the Christian God.

So, I say Tysons a loser, he gave up, instead of looking for God, he gave up, what a loser.
Hes not as succesful as he could have been because obviously he gave up with not being far enough along because others gave up as well.
You missed my point, these athletes are losers, but when they do win, they give credit to God.
So, when they lose, is it because theyve spent too much time somehow thinking God doesnt want them to do this, and they quit?
You are only champion for that year, that one event, and no ones undefeated, this is a no brainer, and short sighted.
So, since they dont win right away, they quit if they believe?
Or, they get only so far, lose, then quit?
What you and Tyson are proposing doesnt make sense, its simply a rant on the Christian God and His faithful, nothing more.


I'm starting to think you have never watched an entire video of his. He has talked about muslims plenty and a lot of other religions. He most certainly does not focus on "the Christian God". Its seem you are jumping to conclusions yet again or you are already so decided in your viewpoint you will make statements from ignorance to back it.

We are talking about the idea that God can limit someone when they accept that he/she/it is responsible for something so there is no reason to pursue it any further. The only way you can translate this criteria to sports is if an athlete QUIT playing because he/she thought that God didn't make them to be an athlete. If they lose but keep going, then obviously they think they still have what it takes and the argument does not apply.

I'l try to steer us back towards the subject of the thread.

Why are there no conservative atheists?
April 15, 2013 8:07:24 AM

John, on another note per religious views of God, etc.

The Bible doesn't say much of what people say. People should challenge other people and what they say. What is in the Bible (and other written religious texts, not just the Bible) says one things.. and then people interpret it with their own meanings.

Religions tend to be wrong but they offer structure. Those leaders do not fully teach the religious texts as they were intended, therefore religions are created and misinterpreted.

But they offer a structure. Is it really wrong that someone may believe that the Sun was created after the earth? I could probably argue that it could go either way to be honest. How do we know the earth didn't exist prior to the sun being a sun? Maybe it was something else prior to igniting? :) 

Religion has been created for structure. Lots of people need structure. Everyone in fact has structure. At some point you need a solid foundation to leap from to make your conclusions.

For example, if you didn't beleive in a God (This is your foundation) you can openly argue against the concept. If you believed a God (Your foundation) you wouldn't make that argument.

Structure. It has worked well considering there has not really been a better alternative. Think large scale, not down to individuals. Creating a structure people believe in gives much power to an individual to accomplish tasks. History proves this.
April 15, 2013 8:09:35 AM

Ah, appended.

The opposite of a structure is anarchy. Anarchy is only 3 things:

1) Leaderless.
2) Violent
3) Short lived.

Anarhy is without a leader. It doesn't take long for someone to take leadership and direct people to do their will, therefore it is short lived and always violent.

Look at riots, LA Riots, or around the world. You see leaders emerge quickly and they're always violent.
April 15, 2013 9:58:23 AM

Often, Christ is said to be an anarchist, the difference is, turning over a few tables in a Temple vs the above.
Its assumed there are no atheist, real black, (look into RG3), homosexual, intellegent and beautiful women (look into Fox), basically, the criticisms are so scathing cominjg from the libs, some tend to actually believe the tripe.
Everyone that discovered something wasnt a believer, and again, as riser said, religion doesnt disprove science or God or His word, but the interpretation can and does.
My point, which isnt about Tyson attacking solely Christian, tho for some reason its tilted hugely so, and again, giving so much credit for science and discovery to Christians when we all know its tiltd at the Christian when it comes to this Tyson rant, but has to include others, of whom he either never knew or will ever know anything about, as per their religion, or they werent believers at all, yet somehow excludes their failure to not end in total solutions to their discoveries, for his sake alone.
I also would point out, when people mention the founding fathers, and their beliefs, often libs say, hey, they werent really Christians, again, this is a libs interpretation with all the scathing fanatical underpinnings of the people making the observation, much like Tyson.
Now, if you are a believer, and know how God helps in your life, as well as others lives, yet they seem to believe different from you, and you want all men, those the same, and different and non believers as well, you limit governments ownership regarding religion, where even in the bible thumpingist states, you didnt see the things we are seeing today, invading our schools, our health care, how much we eat, interpreting when life begins, yet also inerpreting how life began,
if youre a certain color youll get government privilieges , ertc etc
but our founding fathers were much wiser, those believers who were held back by their beliefs, and found ways to make it work, as we see others tear them down, and replace real bigotry, racism, sexism in places where no existed before, or for reparations/hope/fairness.
You want to get a clue as to whose tolerant?
Lookup the google chrome app murdochblocker, that will show, since theres soooooooooooooooooooooooo many intolerant conservatives, there must be at least 5 to its one.
The truth is there to see, if one only looks first, dares to be different instead of a 1960s hippy type anarchist apologist.
April 16, 2013 8:59:58 AM

Many of the founding fathers were Free Masons. The benefit of being a free mason is you didn't adhere to any specific religion but you believed in God as was written in the Bible. Your religious background means nothing. All forms of Christians and Muslims were accepted. Yes, Muslims, as the Koran states that the Bible is in fact the Light and Right way.
April 17, 2013 7:05:20 AM

riser said:
John, on another note per religious views of God, etc.

The Bible doesn't say much of what people say. People should challenge other people and what they say. What is in the Bible (and other written religious texts, not just the Bible) says one things.. and then people interpret it with their own meanings.

Religions tend to be wrong but they offer structure. Those leaders do not fully teach the religious texts as they were intended, therefore religions are created and misinterpreted.

But they offer a structure. Is it really wrong that someone may believe that the Sun was created after the earth? I could probably argue that it could go either way to be honest. How do we know the earth didn't exist prior to the sun being a sun? Maybe it was something else prior to igniting? :) 

Religion has been created for structure. Lots of people need structure. Everyone in fact has structure. At some point you need a solid foundation to leap from to make your conclusions.

For example, if you didn't beleive in a God (This is your foundation) you can openly argue against the concept. If you believed a God (Your foundation) you wouldn't make that argument.

Structure. It has worked well considering there has not really been a better alternative. Think large scale, not down to individuals. Creating a structure people believe in gives much power to an individual to accomplish tasks. History proves this.


Let me put it this way, the sun ignited before there was life on earth.

Leaping and conclusions are not exactly what I aim for in my reasoning, My structure is more based on logic than the disbelief of religion. How else did I "jump" to the conclusion that religion is wrong? I would consider religion more of a belief system than a structure, since there are so many different outcomes from religions both good and bad. It can be manipulated to fit whatever pre conceived notions people have.
April 17, 2013 7:11:09 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Often, Christ is said to be an anarchist, the difference is, turning over a few tables in a Temple vs the above.
Its assumed there are no atheist, real black, (look into RG3), homosexual, intellegent and beautiful women (look into Fox), basically, the criticisms are so scathing cominjg from the libs, some tend to actually believe the tripe.
Everyone that discovered something wasnt a believer, and again, as riser said, religion doesnt disprove science or God or His word, but the interpretation can and does.
My point, which isnt about Tyson attacking solely Christian, tho for some reason its tilted hugely so, and again, giving so much credit for science and discovery to Christians when we all know its tiltd at the Christian when it comes to this Tyson rant, but has to include others, of whom he either never knew or will ever know anything about, as per their religion, or they werent believers at all, yet somehow excludes their failure to not end in total solutions to their discoveries, for his sake alone.
I also would point out, when people mention the founding fathers, and their beliefs, often libs say, hey, they werent really Christians, again, this is a libs interpretation with all the scathing fanatical underpinnings of the people making the observation, much like Tyson.
Now, if you are a believer, and know how God helps in your life, as well as others lives, yet they seem to believe different from you, and you want all men, those the same, and different and non believers as well, you limit governments ownership regarding religion, where even in the bible thumpingist states, you didnt see the things we are seeing today, invading our schools, our health care, how much we eat, interpreting when life begins, yet also inerpreting how life began,
if youre a certain color youll get government privilieges , ertc etc
but our founding fathers were much wiser, those believers who were held back by their beliefs, and found ways to make it work, as we see others tear them down, and replace real bigotry, racism, sexism in places where no existed before, or for reparations/hope/fairness.
You want to get a clue as to whose tolerant?
Lookup the google chrome app murdochblocker, that will show, since theres soooooooooooooooooooooooo many intolerant conservatives, there must be at least 5 to its one.
The truth is there to see, if one only looks first, dares to be different instead of a 1960s hippy type anarchist apologist.


The interpretation of religion proves God exists? Haha, i guess murdering all those people in the name of religion throughout the ages was the master plan!

Its obvious that you haven't listened to tyson or read his books based on your comments about him attacking your religion. Never once does he give any indication towards christianity and yet you continue to find a way of taking offense because that is your religion view. Without a level headed approach you will never be able to understand the reasoning that viewing something as being "magic" limits your usefulness is understanding the true cause.

He credits the muslim faith for ending the golden age in the middle east.

If you want to figure out how a magician did his "magic", you must first figure out that its not "magic".
April 17, 2013 8:14:44 AM

I didnt say understanding Gods words proves God, again, you know nothing of Christianity.
The first thing, its but faith, thats all, nothing more.
So, youre wrong there.

I can give link after link where he attacks religion, makes fun of it, and fits descriptions in the Bible of such people, nothing new here, and wrong about why he does this, his motivation while having so much fun, and so often I think would lead a investigator as being a prime suspect .
This isnt offense either, again, youre wrong here.
Im not like you, I am not offended, I am tho, looking at the facts, the amount of times, the pleasure he gains from doing it, the notoriety he achieves. I mentioned he refers to the world being flat, as many do, and yet the Godless also came to this conclusion, which by his own standards should have lifted them out of this folly. Yet, he mentions only the believers, propping up himself not with fact, but his other previously mentioned motives.

Now, again, why credit Muslim over Christian? If you slowly break it down, he is hedging against not only believers, not only Judeo Christian Muslim, but Christianity.
He doesnt understand a thing, wont be a part of a thing, his history shows something other than what he says about that thing motivates him.
The only thing I know on faith is, and this is not my own account, but others whove never had it, are often lead to a wondrous change for the good in their lives when they do, and thats the only evidence I, he or anyone should acknowledge here, like riser has done, and the exact opposite of what Tyson has done, without taking this very basic fact into accountability
April 17, 2013 8:41:27 AM

I can tell you are offended, just by the statement "you know nothing of Christianity".

Being a non-believer does not automatically lift you out of the folly of ignorance. I am absolutely astounded that you cannot grasp the concept we are discussing. You are so set that Tyson is somehow attacking your religion that you cannot comprehend the idea that thinking some things are just "magic" can limit you when trying to pursue the true cause. When trying to understand something you must approach it from a neutral perspective and "God did it" is most certainly not a neutral perspective.

Faith by its definition is mired in ignorance but it only subjugates a singular question at its core. Does God exist? Letting that "faith" replicate itself to the other questions of the universe will limit your perspective.

Tyson provides examples of this yet you refuse to contemplate them in a reasonable manner, insisting that he is somehow attacking religion.
April 17, 2013 8:47:24 AM

No, I am truly not offended, and its a basic tenet of belief in the Christian church as regards faith, period.

When he reaches for laughter?
How scientific, how rational does he look when he tries to be the next Maher?

A neutral position is not to say, believers cant do it, how rational is that?
This is what hes done, hes said, and many a time, with as many barbs as he can attribute to it.

Again, look into what faith means before commenting on my being offended, I am only stating well known fact about faith
April 17, 2013 8:55:20 AM

No ones faith in the world, its makeup is the faith in what Im talking about, and indeed you can walk about the world and know much without faith in God.
But not having faith in God to begin with leaves him lacking of discernment , whereas, if a believer had said the same things, he could show where and how such a thing occurred with much higher understanding.
Understand, when it comes to faith, believers and religion, Tyson comes off looking muddled in his understanding of it, and how it effects those who believe.
If you think Ive simply quit because I let God do it, then how faithful am I really?
One quote to maybe help you understand somewhat
Should we go on sinning that grace may abound?
We are what we are meant to be, and can only be less if we so choose, our faith doesnt enter into this, but our will certainly does
April 17, 2013 9:00:06 AM

Oh, and before you go on how tainted a believers will can be, dont waste your time with nme at least.
Our will is free, period.
Look at the strife in our world, attribute that where you may, but, according to words I believe, its our will, not a religion.
Others will say, if God were a loving God, etc etc, but where and when does He intervene in our will?
If the teacher does the test for the student, how then can he be truly graded?
April 17, 2013 11:05:00 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Oh, and before you go on how tainted a believers will can be, dont waste your time with nme at least.
Our will is free, period.
Look at the strife in our world, attribute that where you may, but, according to words I believe, its our will, not a religion.
Others will say, if God were a loving God, etc etc, but where and when does He intervene in our will?
If the teacher does the test for the student, how then can he be truly graded?


You are again missing the point, neither tyson nor I say that God is limiting a person through his/her/it's own actions. The people are limiting themselves by leaving explanations to the theory of "God did it".

This argument is the same for many things besides religion. If you see a magic trick that you don't understand and then attribute it to magic, you are essentially giving up on finding the real explanation. You are accepting an explanation without facts or evidence because you don't understand it.
April 17, 2013 11:22:30 AM

And to this again, failing yourself is just failing yourself, saying God knows is within a believers faith.
It doesnt transgress into whether God wants the believer to go forwards or not.
It does say we are what we are, nothing more than this, we cant exceed what God wants of us, thats the norm, everything we can possibly do, anything less is failing ourselves and God alike.
So, coming from this POV, its easy to understand Tysons misunderstandings.

I can give quotes from the bible to back up what Im saying, but lets just say, when a man does great things, its only what he should be doing, lest no man boast.
To go from this to having God know while we are to just flail away says Tyson knows God better than believers do
April 17, 2013 1:03:03 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
And to this again, failing yourself is just failing yourself, saying God knows is within a believers faith.
It doesnt transgress into whether God wants the believer to go forwards or not.
It does say we are what we are, nothing more than this, we cant exceed what God wants of us, thats the norm, everything we can possibly do, anything less is failing ourselves and God alike.
So, coming from this POV, its easy to understand Tysons misunderstandings.

I can give quotes from the bible to back up what Im saying, but lets just say, when a man does great things, its only what he should be doing, lest no man boast.
To go from this to having God know while we are to just flail away says Tyson knows God better than believers do


Alright, its become abundantly clear you cannot view this subject indifferently. I'm not sure why but you keep reverting back to this notion that God is being blamed for something when that is wrong.

When we do great things its because of God, when we do bad things its because of us. Lol, man i'm glad I don't have to deal with that kind of reasoning on a daily basis.
April 18, 2013 3:55:04 AM

Yea, I will toss back one.
Some super domestic, not too dark, but not a blonde ale either....wait we are talking beer here
I may have been having flashbacks about my last GF
April 21, 2013 4:42:36 PM

Now, as for the other things mentioned here, which were primarily ignored, why is someone treated as a white uncle Tom when they dont agree with certain "ownership" ?
Theres so many attempts at this thru the media, various political orgs etc.
I do remember a time when the libs always said "youre trying to fit us all in one box", I find this ironic as each "box" if you will contain differing peoples of color creed and sexual orientation, and what theyre supposed to believe, accept as fact, whats supposed to offend them, what isnt, and is why political correctness took off, for these very reasons.
I say, equal, not seperate but equal, just equal, its a shame some arent educated or evolved enough to see the freedom and simplicity in this, and anyone who pushes away from this needs reprimand or worse.
Divide and conquer it would appear, but to me, its more like the good ol days with the good ol boys in power, true, a different set, but using the same hatreds to keep everyone in line.
April 21, 2013 7:59:58 PM

chunkymonster said:
johnsonma said:
Awesome, another lib bashing thread. You guys are almost caught up with the 0 conservative bashing threads. 'Merica.


You got kids?

If so, do you honestly believe that raising them with a sense of personal responsibility, to be honest, to develop morality, respect the life they've been given as well as the life of others to be your job as their parent or the job of everyone within the community and the whole of society?

We are human beings not Jesus Christ who supposedly was perfect.Everyone makes mistakes in life.There is to much liberation today and not enough respect.
      • 1 / 2
      • 2
      • Newest
!