Subject:
|
Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 12 Sep 2002 14:09:28 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1037 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
>
> > > OK. But you're a socialist, right? Since belief that a socialist system can
> > > actually work is counterfactual, holding such a belief is a kind of religion
> > > since it requires faith.
> >
> > I suppose that depends on what level of socialism you are refering to.
> > Virtually every nation on the planet practices
>
> Practices...
>
> Amen, brother. They all **practice** it, but none of them have gotten it to
> WORK.
>
> > some form of socialism, so
> > I'd have to say that your claim that socialism working is counterfactual
> > is...well, counterfactual.
>
> Don't confuse using with working. I'm happy with my claim, socialism doesn't
> **work**.
>
> > Okay, yes, I've defined soviet-style communism as akin to religion here
> > before (complete with gods, demi-gods and demons cast into the void), but
> > the one political movement in the U.S. that I'd say seems closest to being
> > gripped by a fevor that seems religious in nature is...well, you tell me
> > which party is the most uncompromising in its approach to its sacred
> > scriptures....uhhh, professed doctrines? And proud of it! (ooooooo, what a
> > trap!) :-)
>
> Um... I dunno. :-)
>
> What party sacrifices principles (and freedoms) at the altar of expediency
> regularly? The demopublicans!
>
> ++Lar
Yes, but which party staunchy 'misinterprets' the 2nd ammendment so Homer
can have his cache of assault weapons "cause 'looky right there--that's what
it says in black and white, now git off my porch ya varmit!" while adapting
others, "Well, what they *really* meant to say was this or that...", or
"Well, that was written for back then, but we have to interpret it this way
in todays age."
I mean, if TJ mentions some sort of divinity, what he really was doing was
'being flowery...' and a creator really doesn't exist so we can
ignore/remove that... but don't take away our guns, cause #2 says we can
have 'em...
Well, whatever.
TGIC :)
Dave K.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
220 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
