Thursday, April 16, 2009

Is The Party Over?

I hope not. Yesterday witnessed an outpouring of sentiment from across political ideologies. People gathered in groups of thousands as well as smaller groups all over the country to protest the direction of our nation. They came together to proclaim their weariness of the same old same old and demanded REAL change, not the faux change of a Democratic presidential campaign. Strike that. Of ANY political campaign.

Conservatives were unhappy with the spending of a Republican controlled Congress. They further steamed at the stimulus and bailout policies of GW Bush. Now, with Barry's "I can spend way more than Bush" versions, even people on the left are cranky, with many thinking, "Yeah, I wanted bigger government, but this is nuts!"

And the lefty media, pundits and bloggers don't get it, calling it insanity, a right-wing "astro-turf" movement, a FoxNews stunt. Some, like Keith Olberman, referred to it as a "tea bagging" party, which is some type of homosexual reference. (Maybe Dan can enlighten us on it's meaning. He knows all about them. I'm sure it's a perfectly acceptable activity.) What idiots. Talk about phobias. They have either no clue, are scared out of their minds, or they're lying to their listeners about what's going on to demonize, marginalize and minimize those who are fed up. My money's on the lying. It's what they do.

But I digress. What I really want to say is that I hope the party isn't over. I hope that this event was actually the beginning of real involvement of the populace into the goings on of our government, and more hopefully, on all levels. We need to constantly be in touch with our representatives and let them know what we think and feel and want. We also need to be in touch with as many levels of party organizations as we can, so that they will find and support candidates that reflect what we think, feel and want.

If we do nothing more, if we fail to keep the heat on after getting their attention with this nationwide demonstration of discontent, I can guarantee everyone that absolutely nothing will change. In fact, I have no doubt that the most common thought in the intelligence-free minds of our current governmental leaders, is that this was just a tantrum by the American people, that it was mostly "right-wing extremists", and that in a week, the heat will have died down and they can get back to destroying America. Don't let it happen. Dog 'em like there's no tomorrow, because the tomorrow they're working to provide is gonna suck out loud. Make the party last until the message is perfectly understood.


Anonymous said...

Excellent points, Marshall. The TEA parties were encouraging.

We're on the right track, but Republicans blew it the last 10 years. They had a golden opportunity to do the right things and educate people on why their economic and social views were vastly superior to the pro-abortion / pro-perversion / open border Socialism being offered by the Democrats, but they largely succumbed to the temptations of politics. Hopefully they've learned their lessons.

I was amazed that the media would use the tea-bag reference. I had never heard of it but Googled it this morning. I suppose it is not surprising that the MSM is up on the latest sex perversion lingo, but to use it that way on air? It is a new low for them. But gosh, aren't they clever?!

More TEA parties!

Teresa said... was Conservative promoters that first called it "teabagging"...and after the sexual referance (not generally a homosexual referance unless both participants are aidentified as male, most people would assume a mana and a's only when a man gets on TV and says "We're going to Teabag Obama" that it has homosexual implications.

I first heard the term from some of my conservative friends who went to see the movie "Borat", looking forward to some low-brow Muslim-bashing, and then were bummed out that there was some scene that had references to it.

I wasn't interested in the movie, was not interested in hearing descriptions of the scene, and was not interested in hearing them relate the meaning of the term "teabagging"...but since I had to go through with it, I at least get to enjoy the humor of Conservatives making such a silly error and now trying to blame it on liberal.

The Daily Show has some clips of Conservatives promoting "teabagging" events and calling them such.

It's sort of funny.

Teresa said...

Here's one example of a Conservtive useing the Conservative slogan "Teabag Obama". He was trying to keep up on all the latest information of where and when the parties would be.

Teresa said...

Marshall Art said...

Thanks Teresa. Unfortunately, the link didn't work. I went directly to the site and didn't find anything sexual. The term there is used to suggest sending a tea bag to Obama as a symbol of the type of tax revolt that was the Boston Tea Party. You can post links to the Daily Show if you think it will help your cause.

The point here is that it took the likes of a Rachel Maddow, Cooper Anderson, or Keith Olberman to link the use of the term by conservatives to a sexual practice. Perhaps your Daily Show links will show something to that effect. If so, I doubt it's anything more than isolated incidents. Again, I believe the term is used as I suggested above by most people connected to the Tea Party events.

Les said...

This is just stupid. For me, the humor lies simply in the fact that the term "teabag" has been put in play and apparently not everyone was in on its double entendre. Can't blame people for the snickers and the wink winks. It's kinda like when the American Idol contestant innocently told Simon she wanted to blow his socks off, and everybody kinda stood around awkwardly for a second not sure how to react. Is the teabagging thing crass? Sure. Is it also funny? I think so.

Mark said...

So, some Conservatives used the term, "tea bagging" to describe their tax protest tea parties. No one but a pervert with deviant sex on his mind would have made a connection. Most Conservatives didn't know there was any sexual innuendo in the term. I myself had to Google it to find out what it is supposed to mean.

Leave it to Liberals to not only know what the term means, but to use it to mock Conservatives.

I saw Rachel Maddow and her lesbian lover making sexual innuendo puns at the expense of Conservatives, and it was disgusting.

But, at least she proved my point about homosexuals.

Maddow is an admitted Lesbian. I've been saying for years that Homosexuals are obsessed with sex, and constantly twist perfectly harmless statements into references about sex. Sex is always on their minds. Sex is the most important in their life, above God, and everything else. Hence, even if God didn't say homosexuality is an abomination, it would still be a sin. It violates the first commandment, "Thou shalt not have any gods before Me".

Believe me, if they can find a sexual innuendo in any harmless innocent statement, they will. I've witnessed it hundreds of times. I have never seen a homosexual miss an opportunity.

Normal people never heard the term used to describe perverted sexual practices. It takes a pervert to turn innocent statements into disgusting sexual innuendos, so Maddow only did what sick, perverted homosexuals always do.

And Dan thinks these freaks are normal and natural, and that their sick, disgusting, perverted, and deviant behavior is "blessed by God".

Mark said...

Sorry about the rant. But this is what I've said many times and idiots like Dan and his allies always try to argue. They know it's true, but they won't admit it. If they really know homosexuals as well as they say they do, they know I'm right.

Anyway, I want to address your statement, "I hope the party isn't over."

IMHO, the party never started.
Although it was a damned impressive event, no one but Conservatives care.

Barack Hussein Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and all the other left wing Liberal Marxists won't pay a bit of attention to us.

They will continue to ignore the people who pay their salaries until America resembles anything other than a Constitutional republic.

It was fun, but it has no effect on those who want to destroy this great country.

Teresa said...

OK, I see. You were not denying that the Republicans used the word "teabagging".

You are just complaining that because they used a word that they didn't' understand, everyone should have know that they were really talking about something completely different, and were not trying to insult a president that they are calling a traitor, a baby-killer, a "magic negro" and are calling a socialist just because he wants to return to the tax rates under Ronald Reagan.

Got it.

Anonymous said...

Anderson Cooper is on video saying, "It is hard to talk when you're tea-bagging" -- That's quite a bit different than a benign use of the word. I really am surprised he'd use the phrase like that. He did it so casually it is obviously a reflexive thing for him.

The media achieved a new low in recording the tea party events. They cover protesters all the time, including some really bizarre Lefties, but I don't recall them reacting this way. It was funny watching the CNN lady try to make a dig at Fox while on air. She should check the ratings.

Marty said...

"I've been saying for years that Homosexuals are obsessed with sex, and constantly twist perfectly harmless statements into references about sex."

Umm..I know some heterosexuals who are that same way. I'm not sure sexual orientation has anything to do with sex obsession.

"They will continue to ignore the people who pay their salaries"

Conservatives aren't the only ones who pay their salaries. Liberals pay their salaries too.

Anyway aren't you're paychecks a bit larger these days? My salary was cut at the beginning of the year and now I'm bringing home more than I was before my pay cut. I don't know what all this brouhaha over taxes is all about. Mine have decreased significantly. Isn't that what you conservatives want? Lower taxes. Now that we've got them, why all the protestation?

Ms.Green said...


I enjoyed my tea party immensely. I posted a few pictures of the radical extremists at my place.

Seriously, it was encouraging to be among thousands of other like-minded patriots who care about the left turn Obama is taking our country toward.

My hope is not that Obama and his ilk will take notice of the tea parties - they don't care.

Congress is where the change needs to be made. I'm hoping and praying the tea parties sent THOSE guys a message...and that we will follow through in the next congressional elections and clean house (and senate).

Marshall Art said...

Multiple responses in one comment:

To Les,

The point is that the "snickering" is simply part of the overall downplaying of the event by the lefty media types. Had I been aware of the sexual connotation of the term, I likely would have snickered myself and wished a different term was used instead. If you're responding to the comments between myself and Teresa, I was only pointing out that its use was innocent by the Tea Party people, at least as far as I could determine. All in all, a minor aspect of the larger point.

To Mark,

For your first comment, I don't much disagree with your sentiment, except that, like Marty says later, GLTB-types aren't the only ones who are hung up on sex. There are indeed plenty of heteros who think of little else. I do, however, get bored with those who immediately see some sexual connotation in every innocently rendered utterance.

Regarding your second comment, I think the parties ARE the start. I just don't want them to be the finish as well. I agree the usual suspects won't pay attention, and no doubt they're trying to ignore and downplay the whole thing as we type. That's why we can't let the party end and we must be vigilant in our desire to express our discontent. We can't let up and we must continually stay in contact with our representatives.

To Teresa,

Exactly! Well...sort of. I wasn't complaining about the term specifically, but as an overall example of the attitude of the left toward the event. And even then, not so much a complaint but as an observation of what could easily have been predicted.

I also wouldn't say that the right was using a term they didn't understand, but rather that they coined a term for their purpose only to find out that it already had a definition invented by perverts. That's unfortunate, but I don't in the least believe the right should be in any way slighted for such a thing. It is, however, perfectly reasonable to slight the Coopers, Maddows and Olbermans for their sophomoric reaction. Snickering over the double meaning is one thing, carrying on as they have is quite another.

As to the rest of your implications, I'll leave them alone for another time.

To Neil,

A whole 'nuther post could be done simply to highlight the lefty media's poor coverage of the event and the bias and condescencion inherent in what coverage they gave it. It really seems as if they are trying to go out of business. REAL balance is exhibited in such as Glen Beck's coverage as he insisted the people assembled were of every political stripe, and that the outcry began during Bush's administration with the overspending Republican Congress and his own stimulus and bailout packages. The left could take notes.

To Ms. Green,

Way cool that you had the opportunity to participate. I'm with you on the rest of your comments with the caveat that we shouldn't wait until the next elections, but pound those in office now with our concerns through phone calls and emails, as well as party organizations so that we never have John McCains amongst our choices of candidates, but true conservatives.

Mark said...


No doubt there are some heterosexuals who make sex their number one priority, but what I am saying is no other group places more emphasis on sex than the homosexuals.

Homosexuals alone see double entendre in everything they see or hear or read. Everything. Many heterosexuals see double entendres in a lot of things, some even in most things, but homosexuals see it in every thing. I say this because it is what I have personally observed with my own two eyes, and my own two ears.

Dan might argue....what am I saying? He will argue, but as I said, I have seen this happen hundreds of times.

Ok. now, two observations:

One. Re: "A whole 'nuther post could be done simply to highlight the lefty media's poor coverage of the event and the bias and condescencion inherent in what coverage they gave it. "

No sooner said than done. You will find my post on the subject over at my place.

Second. Apparently, I don't know how to spell "entendre". I am so far off, spellcheck doesn't even have an idea what I am trying to type.

Mark said...

Teresa, Obama is a traitor, according to the Constitution's definition (article 3 section 3), and he is a baby killer, having voted not once, not twice, but 4 times (Count em, 4 times!)against the born alive infant protection act.If you never heard of this act, look it up, but I'll give you the gist of it: Obama wanted to repeal a law that protects infants who survive abortions, and are born alive. Obama voted to allow those infants to die, untreated, alone, and in the dark. He may not have personally killed any babies, but he has the type of murderous heart that would allow the murder of infants.

He is a Socialist. Do you really think he will be able to spend 10+ trillion dollars over the next ten years without raising taxes? Give me a break.

Magic Negro? Those are Rev. Al Sharptons words. take that up with him.

Marty, as a matter of fact, I have been losing moeny since Obama was elected. My income depends on charitable giving by people and people have generally gone into bunker mode now that Obama is threatening their livelihood, so the contributions are getting fewer and smaller.

And this was the first year in many that I didn't get a refund and actually owed money.

But, this isn't about my personal income. It's not about yours, either. It's about the eventual collapse of America's economy due to irresponsible spending and taxation by Obama.

Just because it isn't immediately happening to you on a personal basis, it doesn't mean it isn't happening to other people now, or won't eventually happen as a result of Obama's irresponsible policies.

That's the trouble with Liberals. They don't think of anyone outside themselves. If it doesn't negatively effect you personally, it can't be happening, right?

Les said...

Mark, I'll drop my normally contentious tone with you for a sec because I'm genuinely curious here. Your comments have become almost alarming in their maliciousness. Why are you this hateful? Do you not realize you're coming off just as crazy as the moonbats you guys loved to rip on during the Bush years? It's one thing to disagree and be angry when cultural and political tides shift, but this? What do hope to accomplish by arguing like this? I'm a liberal, and I take great offense at the accusation that I think only of myself. Statements like that only further the idea that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Mark said...

Re: "I'm a liberal, and I take great offense at the accusation that I think only of myself"

You're kidding, right? Don't you understand your objection enforces my point?

There's no "I" in team, Les.

Mark said...

You really don't see the point?

Instead of saying, "I disagree because I know someone..."

or, "I disagree because my income isn't being affected..."

or, "I disagree because it isn't happening to me...."

Why not say, "I disagree because it's happening to many other people, not just myself, or not necessarily myself"?

Do you see the point now, Les?

Mark said...

That's how I see the attitude anyway. You are free to disagree. You are also free to be wrong.

Marty said...

Oh Mark don't get your underwear all in a wad. Of course I care about what happens to other people.

My husband and I always have to pay at the end of the year. It's been that way ever since the kids moved out.

My income also comes from charitable giving. I work at a church. My pay cut is more because it is a small older congregation in an ethnically changed neighborhood whose membership is dying out one by one than the economy though.

Time will tell whether you are correct regarding Obama. He really hasn't been in office long enough for me to make any judgements like that. The economy started spiralling out of control well before he took office.

My son is a stock trader and investor. He told me to take my retirement out of the stock market well over a year ago. So I put it in a capital preservation fund. He is now saying it might be time to re-invest it. I'm waiting on him to give me the go-ahead. He saved me from losing my retirement.

Mark I truly hope that 2009 is a better year for you.

Les said...

"Don't you understand your objection enforces my point?"

That makes no sense whatsoever. Your argument makes the following assumption:

1. Group A = liberals
2. Members of Group A think only of themselves
3. Therefore, liberals think only of themselves

For our purposes here, I cannot speak for other people, as such would be mere speculation. Ergo, as a liberal, I can only tell you that I do not think only of myself. Therefore, the second criterion in your argument is untrue. Which, of course, makes the entire assumption crumble.

Marshall Art said...

Let's not get carried away here. The use of generalizations can be problematic, but that doesn't mean all generalizations are unfounded. I'd like to think they can be properly used without everyone who considers themselves to be an exception chiming in about how the underlying thought is bogus because THEY "aren't like that". Keep in mind, it's pretty easy to sit at the keyboard and say, "None of the libs, homosexuals, conservatives, people of faith, aboriginees, etc... do/act/think/talk like that." I'm more concerned with support for the premise. For example, to say all conservatives are racist is a pretty bold statement and demands some substantial support. Mark takes pains to say that all the homosexuals he knows act in a particular fashion and thus, that is the basis of his beliefs about them.

But there are tendencies manifested and displayed by most, if not all (generalizing here) groups, yet, I think it's a given that there are exceptions to every rule.

OK. Carry on.

Les said...

"...that doesn't mean all generalizations are unfounded."

Agreed. Just the ones that are untrue.

Marty said...

Can someone please explain to me what taxes the teabaggers were protesting???

I understand that "tea" stands for "taxed enough already".

Anyone who could shed some light on this I would appreciate it.

ALL middle class families, along with me and my husband, just got a nice tax decrease on federal witholding taxes. More money in our pockets. Social security and medicare taxes remain the same.

So, I'm thinking they can't be protesting those taxes.

So is it sales taxes, state taxes, property taxes...what?

Or is it that you think the Obama bail out spending and stimulus package will tremendously increase our taxes later on. And if so, which taxes do you see increasing?

Ms.Green said...

Your comments have become almost alarming in their maliciousness.Maliciousness? Hahahahhah.

Direct, to the point, factual, and provocative maybe, but not malicious.

Mark said...

All generalizations are false, including the statement that all generalizations are false.

Marshall Art said...

""...that doesn't mean all generalizations are unfounded."

Agreed. Just the ones that are untrue."
Like conservatives being racist.

I think you're supposing Mark's generalization is untrue because as a lib, you don't fit the generalization. But it doesn't have to be true of you to be true in general. That's what makes it a generalization.

Anonymous said...

"ALL middle class families, along with me and my husband, just got a nice tax decrease on federal witholding taxes. More money in our pockets. Social security and medicare taxes remain the same.


Or is it that you think the Obama bail out spending and stimulus package will tremendously increase our taxes later on."

Yes! The outragegous spending will increase taxes later. Also, Obama is poised to raise taxes everywhere so the TEA is a pre-emptive move. He'll go after anything. Increased limits on FICA. Death taxes (the government should not profit from the death of anyone). Mandates that raise the price of products. And on and on. Reduced deductibility of charitable contributions (which will move even more responsibility from churches to the gov't).

Why would I possibly trust him not to raise taxes?

Les said...

"Direct, to the point, factual, and provocative maybe, but not malicious."

You might want to invest in a dictionary one of these days, Ms. Green. Here's Merriam Webster's primary definition:

malice - desire to cause pain, injury, or distress to another

In his time here, Mark has equated my morality to that of murderers, has tried scare tactics with his opponents by invoking the threat of eternal damnation, has insinuated others who disagree with him were sexually abused in their youth, has criticized homosexuality by hypocritically using the same sexually crude kind of language to which he claims to take such great offense in this "teabagging" situation, and, as demonstrated in this very thread, uses broad generalizations about his opposition in an effort to dismiss and marginalize them.

Does one need to use such tactics to argue a political or religious position? Of course not. Rational people normally use tact and information to convince people to join their side on any given issue. Mark doesn't do that. He tries to incite emotional responses. He uses inflammatory mumbo jumbo like "traitor" and "murderous". From a man who claims to be a Christian, I find such stratagem a contradiction to the creed he professes to hold dear, and he's certainly not doing the image of Christianity as perceived by an outsider any favors.

Look, everyone has a temper tantrum in the blogosphere from time to time. I've done it. We all have. But when one consistently uses ridicule, religious psychological coercion, and outright personal attacks as the primary weapons in their rhetorical arsenal, then it's clear their objective is not to convince. It's merely to deride one's opposition and cause them distress. That, Ms. Green, is malicious.

Mark said...

I call 'em as I see 'em.

Telling the truth is often hurtful, and provocative, and results in angry quarreling, but it is certainly not malicious.

Jesus Christ made the same type of accusations. He said unrepentant sinners will go to Hell, He called his critics "Whited Sepulchers" and "Vipers", and at no time did He lie. He told the truth, painful as it may be to hear. Would you say He is malicious, too?

I am not equating myself with Jesus, merely stating the truth, as I always do. Sometimes the truth I speak makes some people uncomfortable, just as the truth Jesus spake made people uncomfortable.

But you're right about one thing:

I don't attempt to convince. It has become painfully obvious that Libtards will never be convinced, no matter how much common sense is presented to them. How else would you describe someone who ignores common sense and logic and what, in his heart, he knows to be true, just because he doesn't want to agree with it?

That's one difference out of many between Jesus and me. Jesus sought to convince, but unlike me, He spoke as one having authority, so He was convincing.

Knowing that I'll never have the authority Jesus has, I don't try to convince anyone of anything. I only tell the truth and pray the skeptics will examine their own heart and realize their own folly.

You, and Dan, and most other Liberals, are just mad because you know I am right, and you are wrong, but most importantly, because I am smarter than you, and you know it, and that drives you batty.

Mark said...

Oh, and by the way. If by angering someone or hurting someone's feelings, that someone is led to repentance and is saved from everlasting torment in the bowels of Hell, wouldn't it be worth it?

"And if your right hand offend you, cut it off, and cast it from you: for it is profitable for you that one of your members should perish, and not that your whole body should be cast into hell." ~ Matthew 5:30

(Jesus said that)

Les said...

And thank you for demonstrating, yet again, that superior mental acumen of yours for all to see, Saint Mark. I missed the verse where Jesus called people "libtards".

Mark said...

Les, apparently you miss most of the verses. Since you obviously detest the Bible and it's precepts, you must not read it, so, how do you know what Jesus had to say. About anything?

What we call Libtards, Jesus called vipers.

Mark said...

And what better, more concise way should we describe people who are both Liberal and retarded than to condense the two words into one?

Mark said...

But I repeat myself.

Les said...

Mark, you'd be a much better ambassador for Christ if you'd think before you speak (or type, as it were). You know nothing about my familiarity with the Bible, yet you make assumptions about me nonetheless. Allow me to give you some personal background.

I was raised attending a Pentecostal church. For those who don't know, these churches adhere to one of the strictest standards of holiness that you'll ever encounter. I attended a Christian school for grades 1 through 8, and was quite active in the Bible-based activities inherent in such attendance. As a 12-year old kid, I was the captain of our school's junior Bible quizzing team (our version of a debate team). Ironically, the portion of the Bible we were assigned that year happened to be the Gospel of Saint Mark. Preparation for the season's quiz competitions involved a rigorous study regimen that resulted in my having memorized - verbatim - our assigned Chapters, which happened to be the majority of the Book of Mark. Coupled with the fact that I'd read the Bible many times over through the annual BREAD program, I'd argue I've been rather familiar with the text of the King James Bible since the day I learned how to read, friend. My parents are still quite religious, and although I don't hold the same perspectives I held as a youth, I enjoy engaging in lively debates with them about the Bible to this very day.

As it were, the absolutism that permeated my earlier years contributed significantly to the way I approach political issues as an adult. I recognized very early on the alienating effect that threats and forced morality can have on peoples' lives, and it instilled in me an acute appreciation of the value of free will. You may notice many of my arguments involve the role of the state in certain controversial topics. I find satisfaction in debating the legality - NOT the morality - of social issues, and have no problem whatsoever making that distinction.

Please stop assuming you know anything at all about Americans who politically lean left and their motivations for doing so. You have no clue.

Marshall Art said...

While I would question whether Christ's righteous judgement of hypocritical Pharisees gives us the green light for name calling (Christ being the Judge of all mankind), I do not necessarily part company with those who also engage in the fun of mockery. I'm fully up to the task of taking my opponents to task and insisting on supporting their name calling, as I am prepared to justify when I do it.

However, there is a benefit of always taking the high road. These days it seems to be the road less travelled. Don't always drive it myself.

But, it's such a tiresome task of qualifying each generalization with, "Of course not ALL libs..." or whatever the case may be. (Didn't I already say this?) It's amazing just how thin everyone's skin seems to be.

Marshall Art said...


Regarding your last comment:

First of all, though you've laid claim to the label before, I have a hard time viewing you as a lib, even though you support some social lib positions, to varying degrees.

Naturally, I would argue that there is not much separation between morality and legality, as I believe all laws are based on some sense of morality in the first place. But I think that perhaps your youth has distorted your appreciation for consequences. That is, what may appear to be a "forced morality" can also likely be the simple appreciation for consequences. "Don't play with fire! You'll burn yourself!" is a pretty strict absolute, though it isn't absolutely true that everyone will absolutely burn themselves every time they play with fire.

I have insisted that state recognition of homosex marriages is bad for our country/society/culture and have done so with and without the aid of my faith.

I have insisted that abortion is bad as well and have also done so with and without my faith.

I could likely argue any law from either religious or secular points of view, but in any case, law comes from a commonly shared sense of morality regarding the issue that provoked the law. In fact, I consider it somewhat silly to ignore that fact. If I was to say that we should enact a law simply because my holy book says it's wrong, I would agree that that is insufficient basis for doing so.

But I don't argue from that narrow perspective at all. Doing so would indeed be an example of "forced morality". What we do instead is still, however, forced morality.

At the same time, I find it curious that your upbringing has led to your appreciation of free will, while mine spoke to that all the while giving me the same sense of absolutes. Roman Catholics can be very strict as well, particularly back in the day. The absolutes still exist, just as they always have. We've always had the free will to disregard those absolutes and it seems to me that we as a nation are the worse off because of that. It seems to me that when we exercise our free will in a manner inconsistent with those absolutes, that's when trouble occurs.

True, some teachers take a hard line in teaching those aboslutes and rather than guiding those in their charge they provoke rebellion. But that's a teaching defficiency.

What I don't hold is that because some do not believe as I do, that such difference is a good argument against my position, that the law I favor is lacking because not everyone feels the same way. Not too many laws exist with universal agreement. But absolutes will exist with our without our collective belief in them and we will suffer or enjoy the consequences of abiding or ignoring them.

Mark said...

Wow! So much righteous indignation over such a minute quantity of spilt milk!

As Art rightfully surmised earlier, the statement was a generalization and certainly not worth getting your panties in a twist over.

But let me attempt to explain my statement further, although I thought I was clear enough the first time:

I said, "Liberals only think of themselves". Of course, that statement is a generalization.

You responded by feigning outrage that I would include you in that generalization. But do you not see how your response solidified my point?

You could have said, that is not true of all Liberals, thereby demonstrating that you are thinking of other Liberals other than yourself, but instead, you explicitly singled out the one person my statement made you think of: Yourself.

Is that not only thinking of yourself? Am I wrong, really?

Nevertheless, for fear that my bluntness should be a stumbling block to you, I apologize.

Now, in reply to the exhaustive biographical history of your religious instruction, I will allude to a higher power than myself, Jesus Himself, who said, "[B]lessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." John 20:29b

How fortunate that you received such extensive religious instruction, and how unfortunate that you have chosen to reject it!

You know, many Pentecostals believe that one may fall from grace and lose their salvation. I am of the camp that believes once saved, always saved. Both doctrines can be perceived to be problematic, but I like mine better, as long as it's properly understood. We try not to continue in sin, but we are human. OSAS is not a license to continue to sin purposely and without repentence, but we know when we inevitably do, being human, we are already forgiven and don't have to be saved all over again.

The good news is that hope remains for all of us while we yet live.

Les said...

"...feigning outrage that I would include you in that generalization."

Dude - YOU'RE the one missing the point of my response. Entirely. Go back to my comment from earlier. I simply used myself as an example of your error, as I can only speak for myself. If I'm a member of a group whose ideology you claim leads them to think a certain way, when in fact I, for one, do NOT think that way, then your evaluation of that group is wrong. See what I'm sayin'? It's not that I'm outraged you've included ME in said group - it's that I'm of the opinion your analysis of that group is simply flawed to begin with.

"...and how unfortunate that you have chosen to reject it!"

Please refer back to my comments about how my involvement with these issues revolves primarily around the role of the state.

" reply to the exhaustive biographical history of your religious instruction..."

And you've apparently missed the point here, too. Your previous comment suggested I've not read the Bible. I simply gave you my history to demonstrate this is also incorrect.

Les said...

"... I have a hard time viewing you as a lib..."

I'm guessing that's because the word "liberalism" evokes a certain negative connotation in your mind, yes? Sorry to disappoint, Art. I am what I am.

Bulls suck.