Saturday, November 04, 2006

Pre-election/weekend free for all

going to the badger game, will not be on for a bit today...
Say what's on your mind

Posted by The Game at 8:17 AM

13 comments:

jhbowden said...

Democrats, if you take power, plllllleeeeease support efforts to combat Islamic-inspired fascists.

And of course, Go Bearss.

November 04, 2006 9:17 AM
Marshal Art said...

Conservatives. Vote. Vote Republican. Let's not take chances with the party of baby-killers, pervert enablers, Christophobes, tax raisers, and chicken-shit whiners.

My prediction:

Bears 247, Miami -8. Da Bearss.

November 04, 2006 1:50 PM
Jim said...

Assume you are talking about the California Golden Bears. :-)

Jason, the Democrats will LEAD efforts to combat Islamic inspired fascists and do a better job than the incompetents currently in power.

Marshall, pervert enablers? You mean Hastert and Reynolds? Christophobes? Don't know who you are talking about.

November 04, 2006 3:42 PM
Jim said...

It was true then and so true again today. Teddy Roosevelt:

"At this critical juncture in human affairs Republican leadership completely failed. In the face of the greatest problem in the world Republican leaders saw fit to remember only that they were Republicans."

November 04, 2006 6:01 PM
Marshal Art said...

Of course you know who I'm talking about. Those who support the gay agenda, pornographers, prostitution, are generally from the left. Those who bristle at the sound of religious speech in the public square are also generally from the left. They include the ACLU and their supporters. The party most likely to mirror these positions is the Democratic Party.

November 04, 2006 9:32 PM
Jim said...

And those who preach against homosexuality and prostitution while practicing them are usually Republics.

The so-called "gay agenda" is a myth made up by Pat Robertson and others of his ilk.

The First Amendment supports pornographers.

Prostitution is legal in Nevada which is not exactly a liberal state.

Very few people if any "bristle at the sound of religious speech in the public sqare." Most simply don't want YOUR religion in THEIR face.

The ACLU are the defenders of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. How "leftist" is that?

November 04, 2006 10:53 PM
Marshal Art said...

Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy,

Regarding your last post,

Can you support your first statement with any data? You're not referring to Foley, are you? Do you suppose he's typical of the party? Why? You must also keep in mind that succumbing to temptation doesn't necessarily mean that one is in favor of the behavior. I get angry but believe in self-control. I believe in moral purity, but have impure thoughts and desires. This isn't hypocrisy, but being human. The philosophy of the right seeks to transcend base desires, but the philosophy of the left results in the enabling of those desires.

The "so called" gay-agenda is a fact promoted by the more militant members of the gay community. Marital rights are only a part of that agenda.

The First Amendment was intended to defend one's right to challenge the government without fear of persecution. It wasn't intended to allow you to say "FUCK" anytime you wanted. It has become that through the efforts of the left. The right believes in a community's (or the state's) right to set standards and to defend those standards by laws and civil codes.

Prostitution would be legal in more states were it up to the left, who believes that morality is relative. On a side note, I believe libertarians wouldn't mind either.

The left constantly defends their right to tell people of faith to shut the hell up and seek to void any argument from the religious that may be based in part on their faith, as if it's automatically unsound or without benefit to the community. (See David Limbaugh's "Persecution" for case studies)

The ACLU are defenders of the Constitution based on the liberal perspective, which rarely matches the intent of the authors, due to their unsupportable notion of the Constitution being a "living" document. This is libspeak for, "It means what we want it to mean when we need it to mean what we want." And that's very leftist.

November 04, 2006 11:44 PM
Ron said...

Marshall say:You're not referring to Foley, are you? Do you suppose he's typical of the party? Why?

Or Ted Haggard or Jim Bakker or Jimmy Swaggart are typical of the religious right?

Marshall, on this blog your statement is laughable. Everything that happens that is not to the rights liking is grouped with the evil liberals and an overall representation of what is out to destroy you and your kind. John Kerry, Bill Clinton did it, liberal media..on and on. Live up to your own standards ...all of you that comment on this blog...and I may again take you seriously.

November 05, 2006 1:10 PM
Marshal Art said...

Standards need to be set first. The Dems like to set the bar really low. All those who succumbed to their human natures would be given a pass by the left. This cannot be disputed. So as to the best direction for this country from a social/moral behavior standpoint, the right has the better plan. To hold up a few who fall short as typical of all the right, or to give the same as evidence of a flaw in our philosophy, misses the point. Our philosophy seeks to lift up, the left's rationalizes the fall, or worse, the lack of effort. So you can name even more from the right who have fallen short of the ideal, and then compare that to all on the left who have lowered the ideal to accomodate their base desires.

And since you brought him up, you'll notice that Haggard has apologised by calling himself immoral and a liar. In fact, each of those you've named have admitted their "sin". Perhaps Haggard should have instead spoken of "his truth" ala former New Jersey Gov. McGreevey and then the left would have applauded him.

It's not MY standards, Ron. They're the traditional standards and values that have served society well for generations with every one that abides them. It's those that set their own standards which are set lower than tradition that are the bane of society. Set the higher---good. Set them lower---bad.

In fact, traditional standards are like a starting point. They're the least expected of everyone. Almost taken for granted that all will at least do that. That they may sometimes be difficult to abide is irrelevant as their value is constant. Falling short simply means one must keep at it.

But to the left (and of course I speak in general terms here), falling short means it's time to lower the bar. Lowering the bar brings about a societal atrophy and soon the bar must be lowered again. And then again. Soon, everyone has their own standards which may be just fine for each individual, but are totally useless and counterproductive for the society in general.

So rather than bid you to live up to your own standards, you can show YOUR desire to be taken seriously by living up to those standards and values that will truly maintain the nation's greatness.

November 05, 2006 5:26 PM
Marshal Art said...

BTW, Jim. Did you ever check out that link regarding your vaunted ACLU? You remember. The one about their support for child porn? Just wondering.

November 05, 2006 5:28 PM
PCD said...

I don't take any Democrat seriously, especially Jim. They lie about having an agenda other than cutting and running, raising taxes, and killing private everthing.

Jim, Pelosi voted 6 times for an admitted and censured Page molester to be a House Committee Chairman. You think I'm voting for someone like that??? If you do, you are nuts.

November 05, 2006 5:30 PM
Jim said...

Yeah Marshall, I checked it out. They were supporting the right to possess it, not produce and sell it.

Nevertheless, I don't like the idea of child pornography and I'm not necessarily happy with them defending it. That said, I approve of what the ACLU does 95% of the time. They are fighting for YOUR rights as well as mine. Someday, you will thank them.

November 05, 2006 11:23 PM
Marshal Art said...

Well, I wouldn't say they're always wrong. Maybe 5% of time they do something right. But to say they favor lefty issues more often than not is the epitomy of understatement. And I don't think they spend too much time defending 2nd Amendment rights. All in all, I wouldn't miss them were they to disappear, which would be nice for Christmas. There are better alternatives.

November 06, 2006 1:09 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)