Discussion with a Liberal — Part 3

Before I continue addressing your points, one more word about truth, because I suspect I’m somewhat unique in the way I approach truth, certainly, I would venture, compared to most people you know. It’s been my experience that the vast majority of people who involve themselves in political or philosophical debate tend to seek out information that supports their point of view and/or refutes their adversary’s point of view. Even I fall into that trap occasionally, as I suspect it’s human nature to not want to admit you’re wrong and someone else is right, which, in fact, dovetails with your original comments about how divided we are. My first reaction, however, is often to see if I can find concrete proof that my opponent is right. A good example of this was last year when you were uber-critical of Glenn Beck’s off-hand comment (which I had not heard first hand) on his radio show that the youth camp in Norway sounded like a Hitler Youth Camp. The first thing I did was find a sound clip, or transcript (don’t remember which) of what he said to see if you were correct. You were — he did say that. He didn’t really expand on it, however, and it appeared that it was just an isolated, reactionary comment, one in which your reaction was certainly understandable, given the circumstances of the mass murder there. Next I tried to find an article that analyzed the comment in an unbiased way, or, better yet, an explanation from Beck on why he would make such a comment in the first place. I never found any evidence of the latter, and the first 5 or 10 pages of a Google search all resulted in variations of or quotes from the same article (quite common when the Leftist blogosphere goes apoplectic over something a Conservative says or does), insinuating that Beck was an idiot and a monster for even making the comment. Eventually I did come across a foreign news service article that said while Beck’s comment may have been crass and insensitive it wasn’t that far off the mark. Now does that justify the mass killing that took place there? Of course not. I think sometimes everyone says things without thinking — I know I have.

Continuing on:

One of the things that has always puzzled me about laws, legislation and the rights granted by the Constitution is why do rights, seemingly granted under the Constitution have to subsequently be “granted” through extra legislation? Voting Rights legislation, Civil Rights legislation, Right of Women to Vote being primary examples of my concern in this area.

I think you need to differentiate between natural rights vs. legislated rights. Natural rights have to do with “unalienable” rights that you’re born with. Religious people often refer to them as “God-given rights”, but even atheists are born with the same “natural” rights, and these are spelled out in the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, aptly named “The Bill of Rights”. The Constitution tasks Congress with protecting those rights and prohibits the enactment of any legislation that would infringe on those rights. This is where I fundamentally disagree with Obama. He finds fault with the Constitution because he views it as an expression of “negative liberties”, ie. what the government cannot do to you, but doesn’t spell out what the government must do on your behalf. The main reason our federal government has grown so large and out of control with a corresponding exponential increase in debt, is that the government has increasingly involved itself in aspects of our lives that were never intended. The concept at the crux of the great American experiment — man governing himself, was that the power and scope of the central government needed to be about one notch above anarchy, and that most power would rest as close as possible to the people at the state and local level, and even with the people themselves. I think escaping that paradigm was probably what Obama meant the week before the 2008 election, when he said, “we are 5 days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” What did you think when you heard that, and were you were excited or apprehensive?

Interestingly, there was no right to “vote” guaranteed in the Constitution, and initially only free men who owned property could vote. That eliminated virtually all women and people of color, until Congress decided that everyone, regardless of gender or color, should be allowed to vote. But Congress didn’t create a new right; it expanded an existing right to include everyone.  The rationale for why it took a constitutional amendment to allow 18-year-olds to vote is also interesting:

It also seems strange to me that rights granted to individuals have now been granted to Corporations… What is that about? Citizens United being a primary example of the latest travesty in this arena.

It seemed strange to me too, until a started researching the decision. From everything I’ve read, the main justification was that Corporations are entities made up of people, just as labor unions are entities made up of people, and yet, in terms of political clout, they were not equal.  Citizens United was, in the end, about leveling the playing field. So, while I understand the rationale behind the decision, I don’t agree with it. My personal feeling is that neither corporations nor unions should be allowed to dump massive amounts of money into political campaigns, and certainly not without majority support of shareholders and union members.

Are these terms spelled out somewhere in the document or an Amendment? And if so, why can’t these be adjusted by the “will of the people” to remain viable in today’s culture of lobbyists and special interests?

As the SC has struck down previous attempts to legislate term limits, it appears it IS going to take a constitutional amendment. The problem with that is that constitutional amendments can only originate in Congress or at a constitutional convention, neither of which appears to be likely to happen any time soon.  And, actually, a Constitutional Convention would be a horrible idea, as it would open up the Constitution for all sorts of radical changes by whichever side gained control of the Convention.  Unless we get to a point where a majority in Congress puts the good of the country over their own personal self-interest, they will never legislate to diminish their own power.

Interesting that you use the word “agnostic” in terms of social issues. I’d only considered it in terms of religious views. Personally, I find the area of abortion a personal one and one that gets legislated strictly on behalf of religious moral views. I may not agree with the concept of abortion personally and, if there is truly separation of church and state then why are religious morals driving this issue? Seems the separation isn’t working as intended.

Agnostic may have been the wrong word. Perhaps “indifferent” would be more descriptive. There has never been a constitutional separation of church and state. The concept originated in a personal letter from Jefferson to, IIRC, a Baptist minister, and has evolved over nearly 2 centuries to mean that everyone has a right to not be exposed to anything religious (except, strangely enough, anything Muslim) in the public arena. I’m not a particularly religious person, at least not in terms of belonging to an organized religion — haven’t attended church regularly in over 30 years, but I’m not offended by public displays of faith, regardless of whose faith it is. The primary dynamic that brought people to this country in the 17th and 18th centuries was religious freedom.

And for gay marriage, just what is the basis for the furor? Who cares? Who would be harmed if this “right” were granted? Why does the right have to be granted at all? Why is the government meddling in the personal lives of its citizens? Again, I blame the religious extremists for continuing to pursue this vendetta. If love is universal and blind, who are these people to denigrate love between people of the same sex when love between a man and a woman is fraught with problems and such a high divorce rate? Heterosexual couples are in no position to speak about what is right for others at all.

 

We’ve had numerous discussions on the blog about homosexual marriage.  Personally, I’ve resolved myself to the fact it will eventually become as universally accepted as inter-racial marriage has.  I don’t view the two the same, but many people do, particularly people in their 40’s or younger.  Much of that has to do, IMO, with how the issue has been advanced in our educational system, as well as how the media, particularly the entertainment media, has worked hand in hand with the activist component of the homosexual community to ram the homosexual agenda down everyone’s throats at an ever-increasing pace.

The term “gay marriage” has more, I believe, to do with acceptance of the gay lifestyle as normal than it has to do with marriage per se.  Interestingly, most Conservatives I know (myself included) support civil unions for homosexuals that allow for all the legal advantages of normal married heterosexual couples.  What we object to is the hijacking of a many thousands-of-years-old term that denotes the best way to raise succeeding generations, something that, absent outside help, married couples of the same sex are biologically incapable of accomplishing.  Once the definition has been changed, what’s to prevent it from continuing to evolve to accommodate all sorts of variations — 3 men, 2 men and one woman, father and daughter, mother and son, and so on?  All sorts of abnormal relationships could be made normal by simply continuing to re-define the word marriage.

In the end, this is an issue that will be resolved, IMO, not by convincing those opposed to it to change their minds, but by the attrition of those who oppose it.  If it stops with the marriage of two people of the same sex, it may well become a permanent component of our society at large.  If it continues to evolve into marriage between anything and anyone, then I suspect it will eventually go the way of prohibition: a noble experiment with unforeseen and drastic unintended consequences.  Bottom line; I look at it just as I look at most controversial issues: how does it benefit civilization as a whole?  And I don’t think a convincing argument can be made that there is any significant benefit to the advancement of civilization.

Final note: I don’t know if there will be a part 4.  It kind of depends on his next response.

 

About these ads

92 thoughts on “Discussion with a Liberal — Part 3

  1. Cluster

    Excellent series Spook, and something of which (Judeo Christian values and Constitutional governance) are at the core of the division between liberals and conservatives. On the previous thread, Rusty has admitted that he does not believe in our inherent, God given right to life, of which Mark astutely pointed out that if that right is granted to us by government, than it can be ended by government and Rusty would have no right to defend himself. Rusty has yet to answer that.

    In this recent series, you correctly pointed out that Obama has shown a true disdain for the Constitution and in his own words, it’s negative liberties. Yet, those liberties and that document has resulted in the most successful nation in the history of the world in just 200+ short years, while Obama’s vision of government has been tried throughout the centuries, and has failed spectacularly on numerous occasions.

    Conservatives not only have the right vision, we are on the right side of history, and we need to be proud of that and fight for it. Thankfully we have young, true conservatives amongst our political ranks in people like Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Rand Paul. We just need to shed ourselves of people like John McCain and Lindsey Graham, and start to build a coalition of clear thinking, rational, small government conservatives who are not just liberal-lite.

    1. Retired Spook Post author

      Cluster,

      One of, if not my biggest disappointment over the 9 years I’ve been coming to this blog, is the almost universal failure by nearly every Lefty who’s ever come here to engage in any kind of meaningful, honest debate. That’s why, when this fellow seemed receptive to an open discussion, I seized on the opportunity. It remains to be seen if he’ll continue. Prior to this exchange we’ve had some brief discussions, and it seemed that we had quite a bit of common ground, particularly on things like term limits.

      1. mitchethekid

        Again I applaud this topic Retired, and you personally for taking the time to share the conversation you’re having with your friend. But in regards to your disappointment in the failure of having a meaningful and honest debate with (so called) Lefty’s, I disagree. I too have been posting here for ~ 9 yrs and on many occasions I have stated my ideas. Each time mine have been derided as well as the perspectives of the other few non-right wing posters. In the beginning of this blog; which was a fan site for GWB and the Iraq Invasion, there were many more posters. The great % of which were either run off or banned simply because they disagreed with the core. There is still a pattern of making fun of ones nom de plume if they don’t tow the line, so to speak. Not only is this juvenile, it exposes an intellectual weakness and defensiveness that in my opinion is not productive to the meaning and honesty you look forward to welcoming.
        For me, it is difficult to engage in a dispassionate dialog with (and forgive my frank and somewhat crude description) crazy people. By that I mean people who are convinced that the President is “foreign born”. Or that he is a Marxist, or a Muslim or has ordered the stockpiling of hollow point ammunition. Or that FEMA camps exist or that he’s a homosexual or any other of a myriad of paranoid delusions. There is no point in any discussion with someone who applauds McCarthy or defends the concept that corporations; as entities, should have the same influence on representative government as the individual. Unless, of course, one supports the concept of corpocracy. (Talk about communism! Ever read or see Catch 22?)
        I also find it difficult to engage in lengthy conversation with anyone who places supremacy in faith over doubt, belief over reason and religion over observable facts. For example, the off-handed, smug and disparaging manner in which evolution, global climate change (or warming) or any other aspect of science is dealt with here. Unless, of course, it supports a position. There is also a very marked tendency to focus on spelling over content, punctuation over ideas and this is nothing more than a diversion; a straw man if you will, to undermine an entire concept by drawing attention to insignificant flaws and then extrapolating them to the broader, bigger picture as a tactic to refute ones premise. Closing ones eyes or shutting ones ears doesn’t change what exists when they are open.
        I am a big fan of Carl Sagen. He wrote a book called The Dragons of Eden in which he discussed the reptilian brain-stem. It’s funny how one of the most reptilian posters here always talks about feelings in such a negative way.
        But to respond to your opening, I will offer some of my “opinions”. The first thing that comes to mind is the first 4 words of The Godfather (prt one). “I believe in America”
        There were no WMD’s in Iraq. The Patriot Act not patriotic. GWB is the locus of our economic problems. Obama is a Wm F Buckley conservative and he is not a radical. The Republican Party has been eviscerated from the inside out by religious fanatics, conspiracy theorists, science deniers and know nothing chauvinists wherein a direct line can be drawn to Roger Ailes and Richard Nixon. Nixon, Goldwater and Reagan would not be welcome in the Tea Party. Which, as many of you probably know, is in disarray. Google Dick money grubbing Armey.
        Abortion is murder in the same sense that raising animals for human consumption is. Either life is sacred or it is not. There is no in-between to pro-lifers and there is no in between for me. If one is pro-life then there is a conflict with war and the death penalty. And guns that can kill wholesale.
        Obama has been elected twice. The last time, he broke records. If you guys really want to participate in a dialog then lets engage as Retired suggested. Without calling each other names. But if I was a gambler, and I’m not, I will bet that this long rant will be made fun of. Just to make yourselves feel better.

      2. neocon01

        bmitch

        thanks for the window into a truly deranged, paranoid deluded “mind”.
        Though you had a long laundry list of the world as seen by the sky pilot Bmitch you offered no proof or rebuttal of your false narratives, However from our perspective (conservatives) we have offered many links, articles by many people who know the facts.

      3. tiredoflibbs

        Wow, mitchie posts the collected works of the left’s mindless, debunked, talking point playbook and he wants us to engage him at a serious level?

        No matter what FACTUAL evidence we posted to contradict his regurgitation of such pap, he continues to stand by it. Then whines when we lose patience with such a mindset.

        Pathetic.

        Oh, and his response to Neo is just typical mitchie (and that of the mindless drones on the left).

        Maybe now his whining will cease.

    2. neocon01

      Thankfully we have young, true conservatives amongst our political ranks in people like Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Rand Paul. We just need to shed ourselves of people like John McCain and Lindsey Graham, and start to build a coalition of clear thinking, rational, small government conservatives who are not just liberal-lite.

      it wont be long before the commie left gears up and uses it’s full might to destroy these fine conservative men.
      like they did against Allen West, Sarah Palin, and Herman Cain.

      1. neocon01

        Spook

        when the blind lead the blind BOTH fall into the ditch.
        This is also true with people who are spiritually blind. Darkness and light can not co-exist, nor can immorality and true morals. We are engaged in spiritual war in this country as well a cultural war.

      2. neocon01

        Pretty clear to me…

        Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
        George Washington

      3. neocon01

        I 100% agree

        It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible.

        George Washington

  2. mitchethekid

    (expletive deleted) you Neo. You are exactly the type of (expletive deleted) I am referring to who can’t have a rational conversation.
    bmitch?? Really?? Oh I am running into my cave! Can’t wait until you are gone.

    1. neocon01

      bmitch

      wow excellent response……thanks for reinforcing what I have been saying about you loons all along.

    2. tiredoflibbs

      mitchie, is that an example of your “rational conversation”?

      Everything neo said was true. You spout off mindless talking points, we respond with documented facts. You reply with the same undocumented pap. We respond with documented facts again with a little more frustration and note that you cannot think for yourself beyond the left’s playbook. You whine about our frustration and loose control into a Turret’s Syndrome rambling as above.

      Mitchie, you are far from rational. Your continued attack posts with no fact and chock full of leftist fiction are our proof.

      See ya.

    1. neocon01

      bmitch

      please post the link that shows how aircraft fly with a vacuum UNDER the wings……another one of your stellar postings..

  3. rustybrown2012

    Spook,
    I have to comment on what you obviously view as a meritorious method for ferreting out the truth; it relates to your post and the Glen Beck Nazi camp story. Based on what you wrote, it seems to me that rather than getting to the heart of the “truth” you may be engaging in the logical falicy of “confirmation bias”, whereby one ignores inconvenient evidence while searching for and eventually glomming onto evidence which conforms to ones worldview. By your own story you disdainfully flipped past several google pages of information you didn’t like before finding a small, tepid quote which seemed to support your bias. You provide no detail to the quote and it’s significance so it’s hard to judge definitively, but you may want to keep this logical fallacy in mind in your search for the truth.

    1. neocon01

      So?

      “Here’s what we do for each other as Americans:
      We grow food, we create jobs, we build homes, pave roads, teach our children, care for our grandparents, secure our neighborhoods. Government makes our country function.
      To ****put God first ****is to put humankind first.

      To put humankind first is to put the common good first.”

      This is exactly the kind of talk that led to the death camps in Germany. Put humankind and the common good first.”

      IE absence of God = EVIL…….

    2. Retired Spook Post author

      Rusty,

      This was a while back, but my recollection is that the initial article about the hideous and insensitive nature of Beck’s comment was from Media Matters or Think Progress — maybe HufPo, and then several dozen left-wing sites glommed on to their narrative — no analysis, no description, just vitriole. The one site I found that actually explained what went on at the camp, included photos of kids marching with Palistinian flags and learning about the freedom fighters engaged in breaking the Israeli blockade of Gaza. I realize the whole illustration doesn’t fit your moral or political template, but that’s your problem, not mine.

      1. rustybrown2012

        Spook,
        You know what? If you’re going to use this cretins vile remarks as an illustration of how your careful research techniques vindicate him, I think it’s incumbent on you to back up your claims of vindication. Is that too much too ask? It was only a few years ago, not the Nixon administration. After a very brief search I found these pics of the camp, pre-massacre:

        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2019720/Norway-shooting-Utoya-summer-camp-photos-Anders-Behring-Breivik-massacre.html

        …Hardly looks like Nazi youths to me. If you want to troll the backwaters of the Internet in search of justification for Becks lunatic views, that’s your problem, not mine. Go ahead, do your search for the elusive evidence that Becks comments “weren’t that far off the mark”. I’m waiting. The Internet has a long memory. Shouldnt be that hard too find. Remember, this is your example, not mine. I’m just calling bull****.

        That’s the problem with the members of this blog. You throw out the craziest bull**** and when you’re called on it, you act aggrieved instead of backing it up. Put your money where your mouth is and back up your claims.

      2. Cluster

        WE throw out crazy bullshit? This coming from a guy who thinks that governments grant people the right to life? Strange.

      3. tiredoflibbs

        crusty: ” Put your money where your mouth is and back up your claims.”

        Oh yeah, crusty backs EVERYTHING he claims 100%.

        “You know it” does quite cut it crusty.

      4. rustybrown2012

        Tired,
        What haven’t I backed up? I’m capable of agreeing to disagree, as I’ve done with Mark, but where have I made a bullshit claim and not backed it up? You know, one like “people were vilifying Beck for a disgusting comment of his but my careful research uncovered that his comment was kinda sorta not so bad only I can’t remember what it was or where I read it”.

      5. Retired Spook Post author

        Spook, You know what? If you’re going to use this cretins vile remarks as an illustration of how your careful research techniques vindicate him, I think it’s incumbent on you to back up your claims of vindication.

        I thought I made myself pretty clear, Rusty. I wasn’t trying to “vindicate” Glenn Beck. His remark was reprehensible, especially in light of the dozens of children that were massacred at that camp. I was simply trying to find some context for it.

        Go ahead, do your search for the elusive evidence that Becks comments “weren’t that far off the mark”. I’m waiting. The Internet has a long memory. Shouldnt be that hard too find. Remember, this is your example, not mine. I’m just calling bull****.

        Call whatever you want. Take your pick.

        Oh, and you were right about one thing; it WASN’T that hard to find.

      6. rustybrown2012

        Spook,
        OK, so if Becks comment was so “reprehensible”, in your words, what is the point of your story?

        The “context” you sought was found in a biased, nationalistic website, not in a “foriegn news service” as you claimed, or in the overwhelming popular opinion that Beck is an excretable douchebag for making those comments.

        I’ll ask again – what is the point of that anecdote if not to tacitly sanction his views?

      7. tiredoflibbs

        crusty gets it wrong again: “but where have I made a bullshit claim and not backed it up?”

        I never said you made BS claims and not backed it up. I said you rarely backup any claim you have made. I can look back at pages of your posts and see a handful with sources.

        In some cases you say, “you know it” – and I said you need more than that.

        Now go ahead and cherrypick the handful of posts you have cited and ignore all the rest like you always do.

      8. neocon01

        Spook 100
        crustybrownshorts 0

        in 15 seconds…..ROTFLMAO!!!

        Utøya Youth Camp was Fatah PLO Camp for Nearly 15 Years …

        seems beck was 100% spot on….imagine that. But it wont keep the useful idiots and drones from lying….AGAIN!!

      9. Retired Spook Post author

        …crickets chirping on Spook’s keyboard…

        Well, excuuuuuuse me, Rusty, if I didn’t respond to your “douchebag” comment between 2:01 AM and 2:46AM this morning.

        or in the overwhelming popular opinion that Beck is an excretable douchebag for making those comments.

        Actually, the Liberal with whom I’ve been having this discussion made a similar comment, which was what touched off my search in the first place. I felt he was judging someone for whom I have a great deal of respect and admiration and with whom he wasn’t all that familiar because of an isolated comment, blown all out of proportion on a left-wing website whose agenda is to destroy and demonize people like Beck. I happen to like Glenn Beck. From your comments I’d say you clearly don’t, and that’s your prerogative. If you dislike Glenn Beck because of things you’ve heard or read about him, then you’ve placed yourself in exactly the narrative I was describing in the process of searching for the truth. I believe the comment, reprehensible as it was, was an isolated comment that I’d bet he would take back if he could. If you’ve never done something similar, then you’re a better man than I am. The point of my search for the truth was to see if I had been conned by Glenn Beck — to see if he really is an “excretable douchebag”. I found no evidence of that except for left-wing rantings.

        Beck’s Restoring Honor Rally in D.C. in August, 2010 was one of, if not THE most spiritually uplifting events I’ve ever attended. And although I did not attend, by all accounts his Restoring Courage Rally in Israel in 2011 and his Restoring Love Rally in Dallas last summer were also spiritually uplifting events for those who did attend. I’ve never heard of anyone coming away from any of those events and saying they were disappointed and that the guy is a fraud and a charlatan. The D.C. park police praised the crowd at the rally in 2010 as being one of the most civil and orderly crowds they’d ever seen, and unlike Leftists who have invaded the Capital Mall for rallies, we cleaned up after ourselves. That wasn’t lost on the park police either.

        Glenn Beck has probably given more to charity than you will make in your lifetime. His TV show on Fox was one of the most historically informative shows my wife and I have ever watched, and his new cable channel covers material and events you won’t find anywhere else. He’s involved in some visionary projects that, if carried to fruition, will revolutionize how we live and interact with each other. His impact on those whose lives he’s touched has been overwhelmingly positive.

        Surely you must have someone in the news or entertainment media you admire and respect. Have you ever heard them say something offensive and thought, “man, what an excretable douchebag”?

      10. rustybrown2012

        Spook,
        We have radically different views on Beck. But that aside, I’m still missing the point of your anecdote. By your own admission, what Beck said was reprehensible. After dismissing several google pages of proper outrage and disgust you glom onto a xenophobic website which excuses Becks vile slur. To be sympathetic to the Palestinian quest for their own state is canyons apart from being a “nazi youth”. And remember, Beck said this about slaughtered children while their parents were still grieving. How generous of you to declare “I’d bet he would take back if he could.” Fact is, he’s had ample opportunity to tack it back and he has not. Oh well, as long as you know it in your heart.

        So this is not searching for truth or “context”, it’s textbook confirmation bias as I described in my first post on this matter. No big deal, we all commit logical fallacies from time to time, myself included. I’m just pointing it out as food for thought.

      11. The Return of Rathaven

        Maybe you should actually read what Spook wrote.

        After pages of comments and articles about what Beck said, and countless opinions about the insensitivity of Beck’s statement. Spook started to find articles discussing the context of the statement rather than the emotion of it.

        Wikipedia has a good article about the Socialist Youth Camp in Norway that was at the center of the controversy. Hardly a xenophobic website, but it describes the Camp similarly as it describes an HJ Rally or camp. the distinction is not as clear as your outrage indicates, nor as the legions of left-wingers who posted hundreds of articles about Beck’s Hitler Obsession.

        Spook’s diligence is cutting through the emotion to find the facts allowed him to make up his own mind as to the substance rather than stop at the first source that confirmed his bias is the very point of the story. He found the statements reprehensible on their face, and through investigation.

        Read before you react.

      12. rustybrown2012

        Rat,
        Here’s an article illustrating just how wrong Beck was with his analogy:

        http://www.thenation.com/blog/162287/glenn-becks-hitler-youth-slur-norway-victims-confuses-wwii-sides#

        Maybe you should educate yourself on the issues before jumping in with both feet. And just what “facts” are you claiming to present? I read nothing from you but uninformed opinion. I looked at the Wiki page and there is nothing there that comes within a country mile of comparing the camp to Nazi youth. There is simply no context for Becks remarks as you claim. And if you think there is, point it to me SPECIFICALLY. If YOU had been reading these posts, you would know that this is the charge – to back up your claims. I’m waiting.

      13. Retired Spook Post author

        But that aside, I’m still missing the point of your anecdote.

        I don’t know, Rusty — I’ve explained it every way I can. If you still don’t understand, then I guess the problem is on your end. Your MO is very reminiscent of another recently banned poster who glommed onto a single point like a Pit Bull and wouldn’t let go. I’ve wasted enough time on you — time I’ll never get back.

      14. rustybrown2012

        As for those of us who “glommed onto a single point like a Pit Bull and wouldn’t let go.”, – it just seems that way because no one here will admit when they’re obviously wrong. I call bullshit and you just keep digging yourself in deeper. You’ve shown no “context” for his remarks. No credible source is saying his remarks were “not that far off the mark”. Bullshit proven. Let’s move on.

      15. percybeezer

        Right, as proof rusty presents a Socialist in a leftist website says the groupthink of the socialist indoctrination youth camp is “the opposite” of the groupthink socialist indoctrination of another national socialist youth group.

        Because they disagreed on their brand of socialism.

        Norway’s Socialists are legions away from Germany’s National Socialist Party.

        Spanked again; You’re too predictable by half rusty.

      16. percybeezer

        Copy that.
        rusty claims to look at “the Wiki Page” that you never posted, and says it didn’t compare the camp to HJ camps.

        Except you didn’t say it did, you said the descriptions of the two were similar.

        That would require he read both descriptions and decide for himself; but progressives aren’t capable of deciding for themselves, he needs to be spoon fed his opinions in dumbed down talking points.

        Too easy letting him demonstrate his mental laziness.

      17. rustybrown2012

        Do you ever plan to add to or take part in a discussion or is your whole purpose just to attack what others say? Time to ante up or take a hike. //Moderator

      18. percybeezer

        No, he didn’t “reference a Wiki page” that compared the “camps”.

        Yes you are a proven liar.

        The Wikipedia descriptions of the Norway camp and the Wikipedia descriptions of the HJ are similar. Point made from a source rusty quotes often.

        But rusty wouldn’t understand that because he never bothered to look up any of the numerous pages on Wikipedia on either socialist groups, their similarities and their differences.

        Just to remind everyone, here’s what Beck actually said;

        “… there was a shooting at a political camp, which sounds a little like the Hitler Youth. Who does a camp for kids that’s all about politics? Disturbing,”

        Social political indoctrination at a camp for children?

        but now that numerous places including Wikipedia have proven rusty a soft-headed, mind numbed, robotic fool with no ability to think for himself, he keeps up the happy snoopy dance celebrating his victory over anyone that makes sense.

        Last word? C’mon, you have something to say … post it, you know you want to.

      19. rustybrown2012

        Do you ever plan to add to or take part in a discussion or is your whole purpose just to attack what others say? Time to ante up or take a hike. //Moderator

      20. percybeezer

        Wikipedia is hardly a xenophobic website, but it describes the Camp similarly as it describes an HJ Rally or camp.

        I guess the genius didn’t notice the period between the two sentences. The website is the subject of the second sentence; the article on AUF is the subject of the first. .

        Just like Spook’s point; every one else can understand it except poor silly rusty.

        my bad, making fun of the intellectually challenged. ;-)

  4. 02casper

    Spook,
    Nice thread. I hope you have more of them. I’ve had some similar conversations with a good friend of mine who is very conservative.

    1. neocon01

      ” I’ve had some similar conversations with a good friend of mine who is very conservative.”

      SURE!! RIGHT!! WHATEVER!!
      BS flag tossed on ground!!

  5. Cluster

    There is still a pattern of making fun of ones nom de plume if they don’t tow the line, so to speak. Not only is this juvenile, it exposes an intellectual weakness and defensiveness that in my opinion is not productive to the meaning and honesty you look forward to welcoming.

    Mitch, this narrative is an excellent example of the current Democratic Party. Look what just happened to Bob Woodward. He had the gall to call out just one of Obama’s lies and for that he was eviscerated by the regime and the liberal media. The current Democratic Party has no desire for an meaningful and honest conversation. They simply demonize anyone, and I mean anyone who opposes them and their agenda. That is irrefutable.

    Secondly, saying that GWB was the “locus” of our economic problems is admitting an ignorance to the last two decades of legislative policies that is frightening. And furthermore, a blind ignorance on how private capital works, but I have found that to be a common thread with liberals.

    Mitch, I have said this before and I will say it again, you are a moron and I hope that didn’t offend you because I know how delicate your sensitivities are.

  6. Cluster

    I applaud Adam Corolla for the following bitch slap of liberals. We need more of this:

    “You are the system, Gavin Newsom,” Carolla said. “Fix the system, but you won’t fix the system, because you know what it takes to fix the system and you’re a fucking coward. And guys like Huffington Post — you guys fucking line up behind these people and let me tell you something, you guys all have blood on your hands, because the problem could be fixed. It’s a problem, and it’s a problem that involves bodies. People die every year.”

    “There’s people getting shot,” Carolla added. “There’s brown people shooting other brown people on the streets of Chicago every fucking day of the week. And you guys sit there silently. If it was a Sandy Hook situation or anything else, you’d be all up in arms. But you can’t say a word, so you sit there with your fucking coward hands over your fucking little cowardly soup coolers. And then when somebody has the guts to say something — to speak the truth for fucking one hot second, you jump up his ass and call him a racist. Thus, you silence the media. Now you perpetuate the problem.”

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/09/adam-carolla-rips-the-huffington-post-media-you-guys-all-have-blood-on-your-hands/#ixzz2NBeCqdYc

      1. Cluster

        Good for you Rusty. We can’t solve problems unless we have an honest conversation about the problems in our society, and irresponsible men are a huge part of our problem. Single parent households are not a good environment to raise children, period.

      2. percybeezer

        Single parent households are not a bad environment, cluster they’re just not the ideal environment by and large.

        just as two-parent households don’t always produce stand up citizens, alternate family arrangements often do.

        If i was writing a book on how to raise a society I’d have one mother careing and nurturing and one father caring and patient.

        In my opinion.

      3. Cluster

        Percy,

        Single parent households are not good far more often than not. The single parent usually has to work a lot to keep food on the table and is absent from the home and stressed out as a result. The kids are left to fend for themselves much of the time and many times end up finding their “family” within gangs.

        The exception is the well functioning single parent household. And I blame men for this problem. Men need to “man up” for lack of a better term and not get women pregnant that they don’t want to be with, and be a father to those children they do have.

      4. percybeezer

        just messin with ya.

        the fact that its a single parent home isn’t the only reason families fail or children fail to succeed. Its how the parent chooses to raise the child or children. One dedicated practical faithful parent can do much more than two indifferent self absorbed parents.

      5. Cluster

        Well Percy, you have just identified the main problem and that is indifferent parents of which single parenthood originates from. What father chooses not to have a relationship with their children? I don’t understand that.

      6. percybeezer

        Try not to be quite so specific; we can all name good church going fathers and mothers that don’t pay attention to their kids; we see them all the time in restaurants and public places.

        We agree that the two-parent one father one mother is the best way to insure society continues stable and growing. But dont rule out that situations sometimes make that impossible.

        I’m sure you can name many great men and women raised by single parents, or by extended family members. These families need our support. not held up as examples of how to raise a family but as examples of how to raise a family through adversity.

  7. rustybrown2012

    Spook:
    “There has never been a constitutional separation of church and state. The concept originated in a personal letter from Jefferson to, IIRC, a Baptist minister, and has evolved over nearly 2 centuries to mean that everyone has a right to not be exposed to anything religious (except, strangely enough, anything Muslim) in the public arena.”

    Your wrong about how the concept has evolved. NO ONE is arguing that we have a right to not be exposed to religion in the public arena, as you claim. The argument is that everybody has a right to be free of government subsidizing or endorsing any particular religion in any way. Scream your religion in the parks or in the street – free country. Just don’t have publicly-funded teachers leading my kids in prayer.

      1. rustybrown2012

        Cluster,
        Yeah, that guy is a nut. I totally disavow his views. I hope his next job is municiple dog-catcher.

      2. neocon01

        crusty brownshorts

        do you dis avow
        wright? farracan? shabazz? je$$e? al? the naacp? laRaza? spls? van jones? KKKlinton? skerry? algwhore? al ubama? hell 99.9% of your leftist party?

        IF NOT you are one of them and part of the problem.

    1. The Return of Rathaven

      ” publicly-funded teachers” are publicly funded by the state not the Feds; Jefferson’s letter (wall of separation) was specifically about the Federal Government not endorsing a religion, the individual states are not restrained such.

      1. rustybrown2012

        Doesn’t matter. I’m still paying the teachers salary and they will not indoctrinate my child with superstitious incantations, period.

      2. percybeezer

        You should try reading before being spanked rusty.

        Did you read the Danbury letter? How about the constitution?

        This is getting embarrassing.

      3. percybeezer

        btw Rat, the courts ruled in the 1960s that teachers cant lead prayers with students, but they can participate. or teach biblical studies if its part of their curriculum, like history teachers and like that.

      4. rustybrown2012

        “Too bad you don’t have the law on your side.”

        What are you talking about? I do have the law on my side – public schools in this country are banned from conducting prayer. Wow, this IS getting embarrassing!

      5. percybeezer

        Progressives!

        A belief system founded on universal acceptance, tolerance and brotherly love who’s first order of business is the systematic violent exclusion of all those that don’t agree.

      6. rustybrown2012

        Do you ever plan to add to or take part in a discussion or is your whole purpose just to attack what others say? Time to ante up or take a hike. //Moderator

      7. rustybrown2012

        Do you ever plan to add to or take part in a discussion or is your whole purpose just to attack what others say? Time to ante up or take a hike. //Moderator

      8. rustybrown2012

        I love this:
        “Discussions with a liberal” – we delete 75% of what you say! Way to go blogs for victory!

        You might really think that attacking others is “discussion” but all you are is rude and offensive without offering anything resembling discussion. You make it clear you do not come here to discuss but to insult. The thread is about a liberal who has the integrity and courage and intelligence to actually enter into a discussion. You have proved to us that you do not. //Moderator

      9. rustybrown2012

        I was under the impression you welcomed debate. If you guys just want to perpetually agree with one another, that’s a different thing altogether; easy to set up a closed forum and you’re welcome to it.

        You seem to be under the impression that what you do here is “debate”. You contribute nothing but insults and attacks. You call names. You wait for someone else to say something and then you try to pick it apart but this is all you do. You have been repeatedly warned that this is not acceptable. //Moderator

        I challenge you to leave this post up as a general call for civility. You are hardly in a position to call for civility. We have been quite civil to you in warning you about the consequences of posting nothing but attacks and insults. Your total lack of civility is one of the things that has you removed from the blog. You have been rude, vulgar and insulting since you came here. If you call your posts here civil or debate you need a new dictionary. //Moderator

  8. Jeremiah

    Thanks for sharing this, Spook.

    I found the conversation between you and your liberal friend interesting.
    I read all three parts.

    I will note that your liberal friend realizes that there is division, and that there is a problem in America. Though he probably doesn’t see the problem that is causing the divisiveness as being the same as what most any conservative would.

    One thing I found unsurprising was his characterization of Christians. However, unsurprising as it may be, it does not lessen the seriousness for which he finds himself spiritually speaking.

    There seems to be some confusion on the part of many as to why the discussion of moral issues such as the murdering of unborn children and the relationship status of homosexuals within the law is on the table.

    Well, quite frankly, abortion would not be a topic of discussion had it not been signed into law by the Supreme Court. That is the reason it is a topic of discussion. Because the Supreme Court decided to legalize the murder of the most innocent among us. And, as many have rightly pointed out, the issue was already settled even before Roe v. Wade entered the picture … that being, by way of our Declaration of Independence. As our Founders recognized a fundamental right to Life. Even much longer before the founding of America there were laws against the shedding of innocent blood. And though many have disobeyed God’s law against murder, they were always punished for their disobedience. So, America may have to suffer for disobeying this law.

    As to the uniting of two people of the same sex in marriage. This would not be on the table as a matter of discussion if those within the homosexual community were not trying to force their lifestyle through legislation that would make their lifestyle “equal” to that union which is ordained by God the Father of all living as One Man and One Woman. Two people of the same sex cannot create such an institution. It can only create one thing, and that is a nation against itself. As is shown through Sodom and Gomorrah. This matter was also settled in the beginning when God said to Adam, “You shall leave your father and mother and cling to your wife.”

    To put it in the words of Billy Graham, “If God does not bring judgment on America, He will have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah.” But He is patient, long-suffering, not willing that any should perish, but that all would come to repentance. However, His patience will not last forever.

    This discussion you had with your friend, Spook, points to something very obvious to anyone who has some grounding in the truth. And that is that we have to have to build a good, solid foundation, that being through our young people. And if we don’t reach them before the age of 12, then they’ll never make it. If we do not reach them before they are teenagers, then they will be taken over by the State controlled educational system, in whose hands they will be indoctrinated daily with all the hogwash put out by planned parenthood and the LGBT community.

    And last but not least, to all you liberal critters out there … to all you Rusty’s and Mitchie’s of the world, I will offer this…

    If you want to find the Truth, then go to the Bible.
    What is philosophical Truth? It is the Bible.

    Out of all the many philosophies that there are in the world, only One has stood the test of time, and that is the Bible, God’s Holy Word. Its seen a lot, and been through every situation imaginable, been across high seas through some pretty gruesome storms, seen a lot of bloody battles, yet it still prevails….and why? Because of the truth that is contained in its pages, inspired by the glorious, uncontainable mind of the God who Created us all.

    So, Believe! And you won’t come away disappointed.

    If you want to dismiss God’s Holy and righteous decrees as mere “fantasy,” then you do so at your own peril.

    If either one of you two liberals (Rusty and Mitch) were standing next to, say, someone like Mr. Billy Graham or one of his family members, and you were under the domination of a communist regime and you all were murdered by the administration officials, the only difference there would be that the Graham family would have a home in heaven, whereas, yourself, you would stand lost, and forever lost at that. And that, my friends, is nothing less than a tragedy! So it might be a good time to think about your personal standing with the Lord, who is willing and waiting for you to come to Him with open arms!

    1. neocon01

      HERE is what im talking about!!!

      STARBUCKS TO DEFY BLOOMBERG’S BIG-DRINK BAN

      we need to start telling the leftist pigs we ARE NOT going along with this crap any more…..PERIOD!!

      1. neocon01

        UPDATE: Number of Gun Makers Refusing Sales to Gov’t More Than Triples…

        NEXT….maybe we WORKING stiffs you know the 53% with hold our taxes say for 90 days and see who REALLY is in charge?

      2. neocon01

        OUR PROPERTY…..OUR RULES, DONT LIKE it DONT COME!!!

        Gay Couple Asked To Leave Mall For Holding Hands, Kissing…

      3. Retired Spook Post author

        STARBUCKS TO DEFY BLOOMBERG’S BIG-DRINK BAN

        It would be the ultimate irony if civil disobedience were to become the tactic of choice of Conservatives.

      4. J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock)

        UPDATE: Number of Gun Makers Refusing Sales to Gov’t More Than Triples…

        Neocon, the backlog of private gun store orders, both ammo and firearms, is so great, why would any manufacturer sell to the government at a discount at this point? Karma at work my friend.

      5. neocon01

        and ANOTHER one bites the dust OOH YEAHHHHHHHHH!!

        Jury convicts former Detroit mayor Kilpatrick on corruption charges

        along with Je$$ah jakSIN jr and his Loooovely wife…….OJ, make room!!

  9. mitchethekid

    The mind of one free thinker can possess a million ideas. A million fanatics can have their mind possessed by a single idea. You guys are nuts, inconsequential and irrelevant. The country has moved on. You should do as well.

    1. GMB

      ” You guys are nuts,”

      So says the whackjob that believes in vacuums under airplanes, that he was in Vietnam and called arty in on his own troops, and that he had relatives that perished in nazi gas chambers. i am sure that I have forgotten some of vacuum boys less outrageous claims but I covered the big ones.

      Nuts!! He said. You are nuts!!!

    2. GMB

      Honestly now vacuum boy. Which blogger/moderator are you a sock puppet of? You can tell me, I won’t blab.
      :)

  10. tiredoflibbs

    mitchie: “A million fanatics can have their mind possessed by a single idea.”

    Based on your posts mitchie, where you regurgitate the dumbed down talking points from the leftist playbook, you fall into that category. You have gone on your rants and have regurgitated many debunked talking points from the Iraq war to “it’s Bush’s fault” for the pathetic policies of obAMATEUR.

    Go to the democraticunderground or the dailyKos you will fit right in with the other 999,999 fanatics (mindless drones actually – a far far cry from the free thinker you fantasize about) “possessed by a single idea”.

    Pathetic.

    1. GMB

      Don’t be too hard on ole bomberboy there Tired. He still suffering distress over the pastry gun incident and his crisis worker hasn’t had time for him yet.

      Bummer there hey?

      1. neocon01

        GMB

        dont forget bomber boy bmitch CLAIMES to have called in arty strikes on American troops AFTER the war was over and we were GONE
        maybe he also spent Christmas in Cambodia with the OTHER Fn stooge sKerry.

Comments are closed.