Religions > Atheism > More Fred GOP Moral Superiority: "Family Values" GOP Sentaor... Has Love Child With Hooker
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Yang, AthD h.c" |
| Date: |
19 Jul 2007 10:01:11 AM |
| Object: |
More Fred GOP Moral Superiority: "Family Values" GOP Sentaor... Has Love Child With Hooker |
And from a hooker who share his wife's first name to boot!
At least he's not like Bush, who sent his GF to the abortion clinic.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/19/52320/1071
--
Yang
a.a.#28
"I can hardly wait for your head to explode when the Repubs hold onto
both houses of Congress this November. And Yang can quote me on that."
-Fred Stone, 6/14/2006
.
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: More of Yang's Moral Inferiority |
22 Jul 2007 09:05:56 AM |
|
|
On 22 Jul 2007 12:05:20 GMT, in alt.atheism
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in
<Xns9975532AFD658freddybear@216.151.153.34>:
cobalt@newscene.com (Kate ) wrote in
news:4710c482.2034643390@news-west.newscene.com:
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 23:20:38 GMT, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
On 21 Jul 2007 23:17:41 GMT, in alt.atheism
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in
<Xns9974C52A0FE1Afreddybear@216.151.153.46>:
IAAH <iaah@dodgeit.com> wrote in
news:wpCdnaT5Xols0z_bnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@giganews.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com>
wrote in news:cfc4a39d2n6c75u77vku917ojockjhv916@4ax.com:
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 07:58:54 -0400, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<Nunya@Biznez.net> in
<46a1f39e$0$23074$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com> wrote:
[snip]
I didn't say that I *agree* with their standards, just that they
*have* standards.
An interesting point. Do you think it is better per se to have
standards than not? I don't, but I would be interested in an
argument in favor.
I find myself sorely tempted to quote the objectivists on this. It
is *necessary* to have ethical standards. If you have no
standards, you have no basis on which to make decisions about
right and wrong, no way to organize your life, your goals and your
actions to achieve those goals.
If your standards are wrong, your goals will be wrong: "evil".
You'll end up doing more harm than good.
As the present administration has done. For you to bang
on about how Democrats have no standards is pure
sophistry - what you mean is that you don't agree with
their standards.
No, I mean that they have no standards. They aren't consistent. They
can't even tell right from wrong without somebody holding a gun to
their heads.
LOL, that you don't see the consistency isn't that it isn't there
Fred. It's that you don't have the least ability for logic.
The only consistency, Katie dear, is "Bush sucks". If Bush is for it,
they're against it, whatever it is, even if they were for it before he
was elected and will be for it again after somebody else is elected,
assuming that somebody is a Democrat.
Not really. About the only thing that Bush even tried to do that was
right was a sensible immigration reform. Overwhelmingly, the Republicans
in Congress stopped it cold.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: More of Yang's Moral Inferiority |
23 Jul 2007 03:46:58 PM |
|
|
Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in
news:80p6a3p2dthdlp6j38qkgs1ecpf1vlt0ki@4ax.com:
On 22 Jul 2007 12:05:20 GMT, in alt.atheism
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in
<Xns9975532AFD658freddybear@216.151.153.34>:
cobalt@newscene.com (Kate ) wrote in
news:4710c482.2034643390@news-west.newscene.com:
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 23:20:38 GMT, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
On 21 Jul 2007 23:17:41 GMT, in alt.atheism
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in
<Xns9974C52A0FE1Afreddybear@216.151.153.46>:
IAAH <iaah@dodgeit.com> wrote in
news:wpCdnaT5Xols0z_bnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@giganews.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com>
wrote in news:cfc4a39d2n6c75u77vku917ojockjhv916@4ax.com:
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 07:58:54 -0400, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<Nunya@Biznez.net> in
<46a1f39e$0$23074$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com> wrote:
[snip]
I didn't say that I *agree* with their standards, just that
they *have* standards.
An interesting point. Do you think it is better per se to have
standards than not? I don't, but I would be interested in an
argument in favor.
I find myself sorely tempted to quote the objectivists on this.
It is *necessary* to have ethical standards. If you have no
standards, you have no basis on which to make decisions about
right and wrong, no way to organize your life, your goals and
your actions to achieve those goals.
If your standards are wrong, your goals will be wrong: "evil".
You'll end up doing more harm than good.
As the present administration has done. For you to bang
on about how Democrats have no standards is pure
sophistry - what you mean is that you don't agree with
their standards.
No, I mean that they have no standards. They aren't consistent.
They can't even tell right from wrong without somebody holding a
gun to their heads.
LOL, that you don't see the consistency isn't that it isn't there
Fred. It's that you don't have the least ability for logic.
The only consistency, Katie dear, is "Bush sucks". If Bush is for it,
they're against it, whatever it is, even if they were for it before he
was elected and will be for it again after somebody else is elected,
assuming that somebody is a Democrat.
Not really. About the only thing that Bush even tried to do that was
right was a sensible immigration reform. Overwhelmingly, the
Republicans in Congress stopped it cold.
Don't give me that *****, Lunchie. I have my eyes open. Save it for the
other self-blinded liberals.
No Child Left Behind was one of Teddy Kennedy's brainstorms, which all
you leftards fell into line *HATING* as soon as Bush signed onto it.
The Medicare Prescription Drug Program is another one you leftards are
*HATING* with a passion, even though it's another Big Government handout
program and you'll gladly pork it up after Bush leaves office.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Contempt of Congress is not a crime, it's a duty."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: More of Yang's Moral Inferiority |
23 Jul 2007 04:41:08 PM |
|
|
On 23 Jul 2007 20:46:58 GMT, in alt.atheism
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in
<Xns9976AB44A1066freddybear@216.151.153.14>:
Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in
news:80p6a3p2dthdlp6j38qkgs1ecpf1vlt0ki@4ax.com:
On 22 Jul 2007 12:05:20 GMT, in alt.atheism
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in
<Xns9975532AFD658freddybear@216.151.153.34>:
cobalt@newscene.com (Kate ) wrote in
news:4710c482.2034643390@news-west.newscene.com:
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 23:20:38 GMT, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
On 21 Jul 2007 23:17:41 GMT, in alt.atheism
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in
<Xns9974C52A0FE1Afreddybear@216.151.153.46>:
IAAH <iaah@dodgeit.com> wrote in
news:wpCdnaT5Xols0z_bnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@giganews.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com>
wrote in news:cfc4a39d2n6c75u77vku917ojockjhv916@4ax.com:
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 07:58:54 -0400, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<Nunya@Biznez.net> in
<46a1f39e$0$23074$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com> wrote:
[snip]
I didn't say that I *agree* with their standards, just that
they *have* standards.
An interesting point. Do you think it is better per se to have
standards than not? I don't, but I would be interested in an
argument in favor.
I find myself sorely tempted to quote the objectivists on this.
It is *necessary* to have ethical standards. If you have no
standards, you have no basis on which to make decisions about
right and wrong, no way to organize your life, your goals and
your actions to achieve those goals.
If your standards are wrong, your goals will be wrong: "evil".
You'll end up doing more harm than good.
As the present administration has done. For you to bang
on about how Democrats have no standards is pure
sophistry - what you mean is that you don't agree with
their standards.
No, I mean that they have no standards. They aren't consistent.
They can't even tell right from wrong without somebody holding a
gun to their heads.
LOL, that you don't see the consistency isn't that it isn't there
Fred. It's that you don't have the least ability for logic.
The only consistency, Katie dear, is "Bush sucks". If Bush is for it,
they're against it, whatever it is, even if they were for it before he
was elected and will be for it again after somebody else is elected,
assuming that somebody is a Democrat.
Not really. About the only thing that Bush even tried to do that was
right was a sensible immigration reform. Overwhelmingly, the
Republicans in Congress stopped it cold.
Don't give me that *****, Lunchie. I have my eyes open. Save it for the
other self-blinded liberals.
No Child Left Behind was one of Teddy Kennedy's brainstorms, which all
you leftards fell into line *HATING* as soon as Bush signed onto it.
Is there anyone at the local level who likes the unfunded mandate called
NCLB?
By the way, another one of Kennedy's disasters was in ERISA, allowing
insurance companies to call themselves HMOs.
The Medicare Prescription Drug Program is another one you leftards are
*HATING* with a passion, even though it's another Big Government handout
program and you'll gladly pork it up after Bush leaves office.
The handout is to pharmaceutical companies.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: More of Yang's Moral Inferiority |
24 Jul 2007 07:46:28 AM |
|
|
Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in
news:cs7aa3dno0irm961tt53atpgcc20ecrqiu@4ax.com:
On 23 Jul 2007 20:46:58 GMT, in alt.atheism
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in
<Xns9976AB44A1066freddybear@216.151.153.14>:
Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in
news:80p6a3p2dthdlp6j38qkgs1ecpf1vlt0ki@4ax.com:
On 22 Jul 2007 12:05:20 GMT, in alt.atheism
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in
<Xns9975532AFD658freddybear@216.151.153.34>:
cobalt@newscene.com (Kate ) wrote in
news:4710c482.2034643390@news-west.newscene.com:
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 23:20:38 GMT, Free Lunch
<lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
On 21 Jul 2007 23:17:41 GMT, in alt.atheism
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in
<Xns9974C52A0FE1Afreddybear@216.151.153.46>:
IAAH <iaah@dodgeit.com> wrote in
news:wpCdnaT5Xols0z_bnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@giganews.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com>
wrote in news:cfc4a39d2n6c75u77vku917ojockjhv916@4ax.com:
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 07:58:54 -0400, in alt.atheism , Fred
Stone <Nunya@Biznez.net> in
<46a1f39e$0$23074$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com> wrote:
[snip]
I didn't say that I *agree* with their standards, just that
they *have* standards.
An interesting point. Do you think it is better per se to
have standards than not? I don't, but I would be interested
in an argument in favor.
I find myself sorely tempted to quote the objectivists on
this. It is *necessary* to have ethical standards. If you have
no standards, you have no basis on which to make decisions
about right and wrong, no way to organize your life, your
goals and your actions to achieve those goals.
If your standards are wrong, your goals will be wrong: "evil".
You'll end up doing more harm than good.
As the present administration has done. For you to bang
on about how Democrats have no standards is pure
sophistry - what you mean is that you don't agree with
their standards.
No, I mean that they have no standards. They aren't consistent.
They can't even tell right from wrong without somebody holding a
gun to their heads.
LOL, that you don't see the consistency isn't that it isn't there
Fred. It's that you don't have the least ability for logic.
The only consistency, Katie dear, is "Bush sucks". If Bush is for
it, they're against it, whatever it is, even if they were for it
before he was elected and will be for it again after somebody else
is elected, assuming that somebody is a Democrat.
Not really. About the only thing that Bush even tried to do that was
right was a sensible immigration reform. Overwhelmingly, the
Republicans in Congress stopped it cold.
Don't give me that *****, Lunchie. I have my eyes open. Save it for the
other self-blinded liberals.
No Child Left Behind was one of Teddy Kennedy's brainstorms, which all
you leftards fell into line *HATING* as soon as Bush signed onto it.
Is there anyone at the local level who likes the unfunded mandate
called NCLB?
Yes. Parents and children who get to choose schools that actually
educate instead of make excuses. And teachers who prefer to teach
instead of making excuses.
By the way, another one of Kennedy's disasters was in ERISA, allowing
insurance companies to call themselves HMOs.
The Medicare Prescription Drug Program is another one you leftards are
*HATING* with a passion, even though it's another Big Government
handout program and you'll gladly pork it up after Bush leaves office.
The handout is to pharmaceutical companies.
Thank you for your comments, Comrade Stalin.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Contempt of Congress is not a crime, it's a duty."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: More of Yang's Moral Inferiority |
24 Jul 2007 04:18:34 PM |
|
|
On 24 Jul 2007 12:46:28 GMT, in alt.atheism
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in
<Xns99775A34F6DEBfreddybear@216.151.153.66>:
Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in
news:cs7aa3dno0irm961tt53atpgcc20ecrqiu@4ax.com:
.....
The handout is to pharmaceutical companies.
Thank you for your comments, Comrade Stalin.
Do you know that pharmaceutical companies tell us that they make more
money selling their drugs in countries with price controls than in the
United States?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: More of Yang's Moral Inferiority |
24 Jul 2007 07:25:01 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 16:18:34 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
On 24 Jul 2007 12:46:28 GMT, in alt.atheism
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in
<Xns99775A34F6DEBfreddybear@216.151.153.66>:
Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in
news:cs7aa3dno0irm961tt53atpgcc20ecrqiu@4ax.com:
....
The handout is to pharmaceutical companies.
Thank you for your comments, Comrade Stalin.
Do you know that pharmaceutical companies tell us that they make more
money selling their drugs in countries with price controls than in the
United States?
So Fred thinks you are defined as communist if you don't want to give
welfare to rich corporations?
How, er, facist of him.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: More of Yang's Moral Inferiority |
24 Jul 2007 09:31:13 PM |
|
|
(Kate ) wrote in news:471b97b1.2285314203@news-
west.newscene.com:
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 16:18:34 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
On 24 Jul 2007 12:46:28 GMT, in alt.atheism
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in
<Xns99775A34F6DEBfreddybear@216.151.153.66>:
Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in
news:cs7aa3dno0irm961tt53atpgcc20ecrqiu@4ax.com:
....
The handout is to pharmaceutical companies.
Thank you for your comments, Comrade Stalin.
Do you know that pharmaceutical companies tell us that they make more
money selling their drugs in countries with price controls than in the
United States?
So Fred thinks you are defined as communist if you don't want to give
welfare to rich corporations?
Welfare is for poor Americans, Kate.
How, er, facist of him.
How, er, gulliberal of you.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Contempt of Congress is not a crime, it's a duty."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: More of Yang's Moral Inferiority |
22 Jul 2007 01:14:03 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 14:05:56 GMT, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
On 22 Jul 2007 12:05:20 GMT, in alt.atheism
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in
<Xns9975532AFD658freddybear@216.151.153.34>:
cobalt@newscene.com (Kate ) wrote in
news:4710c482.2034643390@news-west.newscene.com:
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 23:20:38 GMT, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
On 21 Jul 2007 23:17:41 GMT, in alt.atheism
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in
<Xns9974C52A0FE1Afreddybear@216.151.153.46>:
IAAH <iaah@dodgeit.com> wrote in
news:wpCdnaT5Xols0z_bnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@giganews.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com>
wrote in news:cfc4a39d2n6c75u77vku917ojockjhv916@4ax.com:
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 07:58:54 -0400, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<Nunya@Biznez.net> in
<46a1f39e$0$23074$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com> wrote:
[snip]
I didn't say that I *agree* with their standards, just that they
*have* standards.
An interesting point. Do you think it is better per se to have
standards than not? I don't, but I would be interested in an
argument in favor.
I find myself sorely tempted to quote the objectivists on this. It
is *necessary* to have ethical standards. If you have no
standards, you have no basis on which to make decisions about
right and wrong, no way to organize your life, your goals and your
actions to achieve those goals.
If your standards are wrong, your goals will be wrong: "evil".
You'll end up doing more harm than good.
As the present administration has done. For you to bang
on about how Democrats have no standards is pure
sophistry - what you mean is that you don't agree with
their standards.
No, I mean that they have no standards. They aren't consistent. They
can't even tell right from wrong without somebody holding a gun to
their heads.
LOL, that you don't see the consistency isn't that it isn't there
Fred. It's that you don't have the least ability for logic.
The only consistency, Katie dear, is "Bush sucks". If Bush is for it,
they're against it, whatever it is, even if they were for it before he
was elected and will be for it again after somebody else is elected,
assuming that somebody is a Democrat.
That particular consistency is far more universal than democrats.
Most of the world agrees that Bush sucks. That's because amazingly
enough, Bush does suck - really really badly. Reality has more than a
liberal bent.
Sorry Fred
Not really. About the only thing that Bush even tried to do that was
right was a sensible immigration reform. Overwhelmingly, the Republicans
in Congress stopped it cold.
Consistency - apparently such an important feature to Fred. Obviously
more so than competency. I guess he likes it when a leader can't
admit to being horribly wrong, so he can change a losing tactic.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: More of Yang's Moral Inferiority |
26 Jul 2007 03:49:36 PM |
|
|
On 21 Jul 2007 17:39:32 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<Xns99748BD5DB83Dfreddybear@216.151.153.47> wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:cfc4a39d2n6c75u77vku917ojockjhv916@4ax.com:
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 07:58:54 -0400, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<Nunya@Biznez.net> in <46a1f39e$0$23074$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>
wrote:
[snip]
I didn't say that I *agree* with their standards, just that they
*have* standards.
An interesting point. Do you think it is better per se to have
standards than not? I don't, but I would be interested in an argument
in favor.
I find myself sorely tempted to quote the objectivists on this.
Go ahead, but only if you agree with what you quote.
It is
*necessary* to have ethical standards.
Probably. I suspect that everyone except sociopaths have ethical
standards.
If you have no standards, you
have no basis on which to make decisions about right and wrong, no way
to organize your life, your goals and your actions to achieve those
goals.
If your standards are wrong, your goals will be wrong: "evil". You'll
end up doing more harm than good.
So do you really think that Democrats actually have no standards or is
that simply rhetoric?
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: More of Yang's Moral Inferiority |
27 Jul 2007 07:05:18 PM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:d42ia3hqe15a5v6dr2864ejhpughbhl9em@4ax.com:
On 21 Jul 2007 17:39:32 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<Xns99748BD5DB83Dfreddybear@216.151.153.47> wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:cfc4a39d2n6c75u77vku917ojockjhv916@4ax.com:
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 07:58:54 -0400, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<Nunya@Biznez.net> in <46a1f39e$0$23074$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>
wrote:
[snip]
I didn't say that I *agree* with their standards, just that they
*have* standards.
An interesting point. Do you think it is better per se to have
standards than not? I don't, but I would be interested in an
argument in favor.
I find myself sorely tempted to quote the objectivists on this.
Go ahead, but only if you agree with what you quote.
It is
*necessary* to have ethical standards.
Probably. I suspect that everyone except sociopaths have ethical
standards.
I think that an awful lot of people operate on feelings instead of
ethics.
If you have no standards, you
have no basis on which to make decisions about right and wrong, no way
to organize your life, your goals and your actions to achieve those
goals.
If your standards are wrong, your goals will be wrong: "evil". You'll
end up doing more harm than good.
So do you really think that Democrats actually have no standards or is
that simply rhetoric?
I think that, as a party, their ethics are opportunistic at best. There
is nothing that they will not sell out for political gain. The mad
scramble among the presidential candidates to disavow their prewar votes
in support of the Iraq invasion are a perfect example.
If you'll sell out that easily then you don't really have any standards.
You have nothing more than a price tag. By that measure, Obama may have
the most integrity of the lot. But that ain't saying much.
At least the Republicans have staked their claim to the moral high
ground. The Democrats just point fingers.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Contempt of Congress is not a crime, it's a duty."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: More of Yang's Moral Inferiority |
27 Jul 2007 08:01:02 PM |
|
|
On 28 Jul 2007 00:05:18 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:d42ia3hqe15a5v6dr2864ejhpughbhl9em@4ax.com:
On 21 Jul 2007 17:39:32 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<Xns99748BD5DB83Dfreddybear@216.151.153.47> wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:cfc4a39d2n6c75u77vku917ojockjhv916@4ax.com:
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 07:58:54 -0400, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<Nunya@Biznez.net> in <46a1f39e$0$23074$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>
wrote:
[snip]
I didn't say that I *agree* with their standards, just that they
*have* standards.
An interesting point. Do you think it is better per se to have
standards than not? I don't, but I would be interested in an
argument in favor.
I find myself sorely tempted to quote the objectivists on this.
Go ahead, but only if you agree with what you quote.
It is
*necessary* to have ethical standards.
Probably. I suspect that everyone except sociopaths have ethical
standards.
I think that an awful lot of people operate on feelings instead of
ethics.
Feelings is what we base our ethics on. You value what you want to,
and then base your ethics on that value.
If you have no standards, you
have no basis on which to make decisions about right and wrong, no way
to organize your life, your goals and your actions to achieve those
goals.
If your standards are wrong, your goals will be wrong: "evil". You'll
end up doing more harm than good.
So do you really think that Democrats actually have no standards or is
that simply rhetoric?
I think that, as a party, their ethics are opportunistic at best. There
is nothing that they will not sell out for political gain. The mad
scramble among the presidential candidates to disavow their prewar votes
in support of the Iraq invasion are a perfect example.
Only if you pretend it wasn't a perfectly valid reason for voting for
it when the president lies to you.
If you'll sell out that easily then you don't really have any standards.
You have nothing more than a price tag. By that measure, Obama may have
the most integrity of the lot. But that ain't saying much.
At least the Republicans have staked their claim to the moral high
ground. The Democrats just point fingers.
LOL, the republicans just set themselves up as hypocrits and show
repeatedly that they don't have those morals. Face it Fred. the
republican party is the party of the stupid people that believe con
men when they say they have their morals.
It's not real morals they value. It's just power of the head man.
That's the problem with your morals, which you have always shared with
them and their pretend book of God. It's not about what is right, but
me making you do what I want you to do.
It's all about me me me me, and punish others when you feel like it
rather than sharing power and respecting other people.
Unfortunately as we get more powerful, that works out very very badly.
We end up with destroyed cities, destroyed planets and no peace. I
know you don't value such things but the rest of us do.
You might grow up some day Fredo, if you learn to stop thinking with
your penis and use your head instead.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: More of Yang's Moral Inferiority |
28 Jul 2007 07:58:05 AM |
|
|
(Kate ) wrote in
news:47259268.2546104687@news-west.newscene.com:
On 28 Jul 2007 00:05:18 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:d42ia3hqe15a5v6dr2864ejhpughbhl9em@4ax.com:
On 21 Jul 2007 17:39:32 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<Xns99748BD5DB83Dfreddybear@216.151.153.47> wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote
in news:cfc4a39d2n6c75u77vku917ojockjhv916@4ax.com:
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 07:58:54 -0400, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<Nunya@Biznez.net> in <46a1f39e$0$23074$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>
wrote:
[snip]
I didn't say that I *agree* with their standards, just that they
*have* standards.
An interesting point. Do you think it is better per se to have
standards than not? I don't, but I would be interested in an
argument in favor.
I find myself sorely tempted to quote the objectivists on this.
Go ahead, but only if you agree with what you quote.
It is
*necessary* to have ethical standards.
Probably. I suspect that everyone except sociopaths have ethical
standards.
I think that an awful lot of people operate on feelings instead of
ethics.
Feelings is what we base our ethics on. You value what you want to,
and then base your ethics on that value.
Kate, I can always count on you to back me up in my opinions about
liberal ideology. You realize that you just told me that your ethical
philosophy is pure sophistry?
If you have no standards, you
have no basis on which to make decisions about right and wrong, no
way to organize your life, your goals and your actions to achieve
those goals.
If your standards are wrong, your goals will be wrong: "evil".
You'll end up doing more harm than good.
So do you really think that Democrats actually have no standards or
is that simply rhetoric?
I think that, as a party, their ethics are opportunistic at best.
There is nothing that they will not sell out for political gain. The
mad scramble among the presidential candidates to disavow their prewar
votes in support of the Iraq invasion are a perfect example.
Only if you pretend it wasn't a perfectly valid reason for voting for
it when the president lies to you.
He didn't lie. The CIA was *wrong*.
If you'll sell out that easily then you don't really have any
standards. You have nothing more than a price tag. By that measure,
Obama may have the most integrity of the lot. But that ain't saying
much.
At least the Republicans have staked their claim to the moral high
ground. The Democrats just point fingers.
LOL, the republicans just set themselves up as hypocrits and show
repeatedly that they don't have those morals. Face it Fred. the
republican party is the party of the stupid people that believe con
men when they say they have their morals.
You have them confused with the Democrats, Kate. Bubba was the con man.
It's not real morals they value. It's just power of the head man.
That's the problem with your morals, which you have always shared with
them and their pretend book of God. It's not about what is right, but
me making you do what I want you to do.
I won't do what you want me to do, Kate, and that's what chaps your *****.
It's all about me me me me, and punish others when you feel like it
rather than sharing power and respecting other people.
Where "sharing power" = "letting Kate have her way".
Unfortunately as we get more powerful, that works out very very badly.
We end up with destroyed cities, destroyed planets and no peace. I
know you don't value such things but the rest of us do.
Yes, Kate, I know that you value destroyed cities, destroyed planets and
no peace. You support them every time you trash traditional American
values and support terrorists and their allies.
You might grow up some day Fredo, if you learn to stop thinking with
your penis and use your head instead.
You still worried about my penis, Kate? Trust me, you aren't going to
get any of it.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Contempt of Congress is not a crime, it's a duty."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: More of Yang's Moral Inferiority |
30 Jul 2007 05:54:21 PM |
|
|
On 27 Jul 2007 20:01:02 -0500, (Kate ) wrote:
On 28 Jul 2007 00:05:18 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:d42ia3hqe15a5v6dr2864ejhpughbhl9em@4ax.com:
I think that an awful lot of people operate on feelings instead of
ethics.
Feelings is what we base our ethics on. You value what you want to,
and then base your ethics on that value.
But a lot of people confuse morality with ethics.
At least the Republicans have staked their claim to the moral high
ground. The Democrats just point fingers.
That's the assertion that claiming to have morals means having morals.
It's as patently false as any other self-proving claim.
LOL, the republicans just set themselves up as hypocrits and show
repeatedly that they don't have those morals. Face it Fred. the
republican party is the party of the stupid people that believe con
men when they say they have their morals.
How can Fred admit that when he's one "of the stupid people that
believe con men when they say they have their morals"?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: More of Yang's Moral Inferiority |
30 Jul 2007 09:56:39 AM |
|
|
On 28 Jul 2007 00:05:18 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in <Xns997ACCA54CD8freddybear@216.151.153.21>
wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:d42ia3hqe15a5v6dr2864ejhpughbhl9em@4ax.com:
On 21 Jul 2007 17:39:32 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<Xns99748BD5DB83Dfreddybear@216.151.153.47> wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:cfc4a39d2n6c75u77vku917ojockjhv916@4ax.com:
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 07:58:54 -0400, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<Nunya@Biznez.net> in <46a1f39e$0$23074$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>
wrote:
[snip]
I didn't say that I *agree* with their standards, just that they
*have* standards.
An interesting point. Do you think it is better per se to have
standards than not? I don't, but I would be interested in an
argument in favor.
I find myself sorely tempted to quote the objectivists on this.
Go ahead, but only if you agree with what you quote.
It is
*necessary* to have ethical standards.
Probably. I suspect that everyone except sociopaths have ethical
standards.
I think that an awful lot of people operate on feelings instead of
ethics.
Quite a few people do not bother to sit and codify their views. And
lots of people take their feelings and make them into ethical codes.
If you have no standards, you
have no basis on which to make decisions about right and wrong, no way
to organize your life, your goals and your actions to achieve those
goals.
If your standards are wrong, your goals will be wrong: "evil". You'll
end up doing more harm than good.
So do you really think that Democrats actually have no standards or is
that simply rhetoric?
I think that, as a party, their ethics are opportunistic at best.
Parties don't have ethics only individual do.
There
is nothing that they will not sell out for political gain.
You mean like how Giuliani, a thrice divorced pro-choice pro-gun
control pro-gay rights candidate leads the GOP because of one thing
only: electability?
The mad
scramble among the presidential candidates to disavow their prewar votes
in support of the Iraq invasion are a perfect example.
Excepting that no such mad scramble exists. Obama was against it,
Hillary has not disavowed it, etc.
If you'll sell out that easily then you don't really have any standards.
You have nothing more than a price tag. By that measure, Obama may have
the most integrity of the lot. But that ain't saying much.
At least the Republicans have staked their claim to the moral high
ground. The Democrats just point fingers.
Staking a claim to moral ground when you have no morals is worse than
not staking the claim. When you have gay anti-Gay activists in the
party you pretty much give up actual claims to morality. I know they
have political claims, but that is what makes the GOP the party of
hypocrisy.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: More of Yang's Moral Inferiority |
30 Jul 2007 01:27:17 PM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:1qura318j0hdv12qesjt6nf6mi8skrc5cp@4ax.com:
On 28 Jul 2007 00:05:18 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in <Xns997ACCA54CD8freddybear@216.151.153.21>
wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:d42ia3hqe15a5v6dr2864ejhpughbhl9em@4ax.com:
On 21 Jul 2007 17:39:32 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<Xns99748BD5DB83Dfreddybear@216.151.153.47> wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote
in news:cfc4a39d2n6c75u77vku917ojockjhv916@4ax.com:
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 07:58:54 -0400, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<Nunya@Biznez.net> in <46a1f39e$0$23074$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>
wrote:
[snip]
I didn't say that I *agree* with their standards, just that they
*have* standards.
An interesting point. Do you think it is better per se to have
standards than not? I don't, but I would be interested in an
argument in favor.
I find myself sorely tempted to quote the objectivists on this.
Go ahead, but only if you agree with what you quote.
It is
*necessary* to have ethical standards.
Probably. I suspect that everyone except sociopaths have ethical
standards.
I think that an awful lot of people operate on feelings instead of
ethics.
Quite a few people do not bother to sit and codify their views. And
lots of people take their feelings and make them into ethical codes.
That does not make them into ethical codes.
If you have no standards, you
have no basis on which to make decisions about right and wrong, no
way to organize your life, your goals and your actions to achieve
those goals.
If your standards are wrong, your goals will be wrong: "evil".
You'll end up doing more harm than good.
So do you really think that Democrats actually have no standards or
is that simply rhetoric?
I think that, as a party, their ethics are opportunistic at best.
Parties don't have ethics only individual do.
False. And once again you prove my point. If the party didn't have
ethical standards, you couldn't be calling them the party of hypocrisy.
But nobody calls the Democrats hypocrites because everybody knows that
they don't have standards.
There
is nothing that they will not sell out for political gain.
You mean like how Giuliani, a thrice divorced pro-choice pro-gun
control pro-gay rights candidate leads the GOP because of one thing
only: electability?
Just because you choose to ignore Giuliani's positive achievments
doesn't mean that other voters who don't share your infatuation with
fascist ideologues will have done the same.
The mad
scramble among the presidential candidates to disavow their prewar
votes in support of the Iraq invasion are a perfect example.
Excepting that no such mad scramble exists. Obama was against it,
Hillary has not disavowed it, etc.
Obama's opposition was meaningless, since he wasn't in a position to
have to vote on it.
If you'll sell out that easily then you don't really have any
standards. You have nothing more than a price tag. By that measure,
Obama may have the most integrity of the lot. But that ain't saying
much.
At least the Republicans have staked their claim to the moral high
ground. The Democrats just point fingers.
Staking a claim to moral ground when you have no morals is worse than
not staking the claim. When you have gay anti-Gay activists in the
party you pretty much give up actual claims to morality.
You mistake anti-leftwing-lunacy for anti-gay. The Log Cabin Republicans
are not anti-gay.
I know they
have political claims, but that is what makes the GOP the party of
hypocrisy.
Like I said, Matt, and you keep proving my point, if they didn't have
standards, you couldn't accuse them of hypocrisy.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Contempt of Congress is not a crime, it's a duty."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: More of Yang's Moral Inferiority |
30 Jul 2007 02:23:20 PM |
|
|
On 30 Jul 2007 18:27:17 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<Xns997D9313C5901freddybear@216.151.153.47> wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:1qura318j0hdv12qesjt6nf6mi8skrc5cp@4ax.com:
On 28 Jul 2007 00:05:18 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in <Xns997ACCA54CD8freddybear@216.151.153.21>
wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:d42ia3hqe15a5v6dr2864ejhpughbhl9em@4ax.com:
On 21 Jul 2007 17:39:32 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<Xns99748BD5DB83Dfreddybear@216.151.153.47> wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote
in news:cfc4a39d2n6c75u77vku917ojockjhv916@4ax.com:
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 07:58:54 -0400, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<Nunya@Biznez.net> in <46a1f39e$0$23074$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>
wrote:
[snip]
I didn't say that I *agree* with their standards, just that they
*have* standards.
An interesting point. Do you think it is better per se to have
standards than not? I don't, but I would be interested in an
argument in favor.
I find myself sorely tempted to quote the objectivists on this.
Go ahead, but only if you agree with what you quote.
It is
*necessary* to have ethical standards.
Probably. I suspect that everyone except sociopaths have ethical
standards.
I think that an awful lot of people operate on feelings instead of
ethics.
Quite a few people do not bother to sit and codify their views. And
lots of people take their feelings and make them into ethical codes.
That does not make them into ethical codes.
Thank you for agreeing with me.
If you have no standards, you
have no basis on which to make decisions about right and wrong, no
way to organize your life, your goals and your actions to achieve
those goals.
If your standards are wrong, your goals will be wrong: "evil".
You'll end up doing more harm than good.
So do you really think that Democrats actually have no standards or
is that simply rhetoric?
I think that, as a party, their ethics are opportunistic at best.
Parties don't have ethics only individual do.
False. And once again you prove my point.
Nope. Parties don't have ethics just like parties don't vote. Just
like parties don't have hormones or a heartbeat (except
metaphorically).
If the party didn't have
ethical standards, you couldn't be calling them the party of hypocrisy.
Prepositions are to language like aim is to a gun.
But nobody calls the Democrats hypocrites because everybody knows that
they don't have standards.
Democrats are not the Democratic Party. I am sure that there are
hypocritical Democrats, but the Democratic Party has not pushed a long
series of supposed moral based views. You are free to point out the
offenders you object to, but you have not done so. You wave your hands
and make broad claims about Democrats, but fail to provide evidence.
Sure, Jefferson broke the law, he has been indicted and will go to
jail. But in your world somehow this Administration has ignored law
breaking by Democrats because it is somehow expected. In your world
somehow this Administration has targeted Republicans because
Republicans have higher standards. That is astoundingly silly.
There
is nothing that they will not sell out for political gain.
You mean like how Giuliani, a thrice divorced pro-choice pro-gun
control pro-gay rights candidate leads the GOP because of one thing
only: electability?
Just because you choose to ignore Giuliani's positive achievments
Like what?
doesn't mean that other voters who don't share your infatuation with
fascist ideologues will have done the same.
Wow, that mirror must be beautiful. Exactly all Giuliani has to offer
is that he will "take charge", he will ignore pesky things like laws.
His fascism is his most attractive (to the Republicans) quality. I
will let you provide evidence of his supposed accomplishments that
people support him for.
The mad
scramble among the presidential candidates to disavow their prewar
votes in support of the Iraq invasion are a perfect example.
Excepting that no such mad scramble exists. Obama was against it,
Hillary has not disavowed it, etc.
Obama's opposition was meaningless, since he wasn't in a position to
have to vote on it.
So what is this mad scramble? You mean that people voted one way and
now have a different view? I gather that is just fine by you when it
is Romney and abortion, but not when it is this cluster ***** of a war.
If you'll sell out that easily then you don't really have any
standards. You have nothing more than a price tag. By that measure,
Obama may have the most integrity of the lot. But that ain't saying
much.
At least the Republicans have staked their claim to the moral high
ground. The Democrats just point fingers.
Staking a claim to moral ground when you have no morals is worse than
not staking the claim. When you have gay anti-Gay activists in the
party you pretty much give up actual claims to morality.
You mistake anti-leftwing-lunacy for anti-gay.
You mean gay marriage is left-wing lunacy? It is lunacy to not want to
change the Constitution to ban gay marriage? Is that really your
position? So what about the current nominee for Surgeon General? Is
it lunatic to see his writings as anti-gay?
The Log Cabin Republicans
are not anti-gay.
No, they are not, they are also shunned by the Republican mainstream.
IIANM Shrub returned their campaign contributions.
I know they
have political claims, but that is what makes the GOP the party of
hypocrisy.
Like I said, Matt, and you keep proving my point, if they didn't have
standards, you couldn't accuse them of hypocrisy.
You really don't understand this stuff, do you? I will try to explain.
Parties are not moral actors, they can' have moral standards. But
parties are collective groups and we can discuss the qualities of
members of that group. The Republican Party has lots and lots of
people who preach morality at others, but radically violate the
standards they proclaim.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: More of Yang's Moral Inferiority |
31 Jul 2007 09:22:09 AM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:oiesa3he6u8dpkd4atei8i0u88vbt8juj1@4ax.com:
On 30 Jul 2007 18:27:17 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<Xns997D9313C5901freddybear@216.151.153.47> wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:1qura318j0hdv12qesjt6nf6mi8skrc5cp@4ax.com:
On 28 Jul 2007 00:05:18 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<Xns997ACCA54CD8freddybear@216.151.153.21> wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote
in news:d42ia3hqe15a5v6dr2864ejhpughbhl9em@4ax.com:
On 21 Jul 2007 17:39:32 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<Xns99748BD5DB83Dfreddybear@216.151.153.47> wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com>
wrote in news:cfc4a39d2n6c75u77vku917ojockjhv916@4ax.com:
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 07:58:54 -0400, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<Nunya@Biznez.net> in
<46a1f39e$0$23074$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com> wrote:
[snip]
I didn't say that I *agree* with their standards, just that they
*have* standards.
An interesting point. Do you think it is better per se to have
standards than not? I don't, but I would be interested in an
argument in favor.
I find myself sorely tempted to quote the objectivists on this.
Go ahead, but only if you agree with what you quote.
It is
*necessary* to have ethical standards.
Probably. I suspect that everyone except sociopaths have ethical
standards.
I think that an awful lot of people operate on feelings instead of
ethics.
Quite a few people do not bother to sit and codify their views. And
lots of people take their feelings and make them into ethical codes.
That does not make them into ethical codes.
Thank you for agreeing with me.
If you have no standards, you
have no basis on which to make decisions about right and wrong, no
way to organize your life, your goals and your actions to achieve
those goals.
If your standards are wrong, your goals will be wrong: "evil".
You'll end up doing more harm than good.
So do you really think that Democrats actually have no standards
or is that simply rhetoric?
I think that, as a party, their ethics are opportunistic at best.
Parties don't have ethics only individual do.
False. And once again you prove my point.
Nope. Parties don't have ethics just like parties don't vote. Just
like parties don't have hormones or a heartbeat (except
metaphorically).
If the party didn't have
ethical standards, you couldn't be calling them the party of
hypocrisy.
Prepositions are to language like aim is to a gun.
But nobody calls the Democrats hypocrites because everybody knows that
they don't have standards.
Democrats are not the Democratic Party. I am sure that there are
hypocritical Democrats, but the Democratic Party has not pushed a long
series of supposed moral based views. You are free to point out the
offenders you object to, but you have not done so. You wave your hands
and make broad claims about Democrats, but fail to provide evidence.
You want evidence, I got evidence.
http://www.caucusofcorruption.com/home/
Sure, Jefferson broke the law, he has been indicted and will go to
jail. But in your world somehow this Administration has ignored law
breaking by Democrats because it is somehow expected. In your world
somehow this Administration has targeted Republicans because
Republicans have higher standards. That is astoundingly silly.
There
is nothing that they will not sell out for political gain.
You mean like how Giuliani, a thrice divorced pro-choice pro-gun
control pro-gay rights candidate leads the GOP because of one thing
only: electability?
Just because you choose to ignore Giuliani's positive achievments
Like what?
Leadership after 9/11 in New York. Like cleaning up the crime rate in
New York City.
doesn't mean that other voters who don't share your infatuation with
fascist ideologues will have done the same.
Wow, that mirror must be beautiful. Exactly all Giuliani has to offer
is that he will "take charge", he will ignore pesky things like laws.
Where did he say that, Matt? Go ahead and quote where he says that he'll
ignore pesky things like laws.
His fascism is his most attractive (to the Republicans) quality. I
will let you provide evidence of his supposed accomplishments that
people support him for.
The mad
scramble among the presidential candidates to disavow their prewar
votes in support of the Iraq invasion are a perfect example.
Excepting that no such mad scramble exists. Obama was against it,
Hillary has not disavowed it, etc.
Obama's opposition was meaningless, since he wasn't in a position to
have to vote on it.
So what is this mad scramble? You mean that people voted one way and
now have a different view? I gather that is just fine by you when it
is Romney and abortion, but not when it is this cluster ***** of a war.
Where did I say that it is fine by me, Matt? Quote my words. \
Go ahead, I'll wait.
If you'll sell out that easily then you don't really have any
standards. You have nothing more than a price tag. By that measure,
Obama may have the most integrity of the lot. But that ain't saying
much.
At least the Republicans have staked their claim to the moral high
ground. The Democrats just point fingers.
Staking a claim to moral ground when you have no morals is worse
than not staking the claim. When you have gay anti-Gay activists in
the party you pretty much give up actual claims to morality.
You mistake anti-leftwing-lunacy for anti-gay.
You mean gay marriage is left-wing lunacy? It is lunacy to not want to
change the Constitution to ban gay marriage? Is that really your
position? So what about the current nominee for Surgeon General? Is
it lunatic to see his writings as anti-gay?
I mean depriving the American people of the right to vote on issues.
The Log Cabin Republicans
are not anti-gay.
No, they are not, they are also shunned by the Republican mainstream.
IIANM Shrub returned their campaign contributions.
Cites?
I know they
have political claims, but that is what makes the GOP the party of
hypocrisy.
Like I said, Matt, and you keep proving my point, if they didn't have
standards, you couldn't accuse them of hypocrisy.
You really don't understand this stuff, do you? I will try to explain.
Parties are not moral actors, they can' have moral standards.
Matt, lots of associations have moral codes, or "codes of ethics".
But
parties are collective groups and we can discuss the qualities of
members of that group. The Republican Party has lots and lots of
people who preach morality at others, but radically violate the
standards they proclaim.
And they have vastly more people who follow the standards that they
espouse.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Contempt of Congress is not a crime, it's a duty."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: More of Yang's Moral Inferiority |
31 Jul 2007 10:09:51 AM |
|
|
On 31 Jul 2007 14:22:09 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<Xns997E698A0E6E4freddybear@216.151.153.48> wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:oiesa3he6u8dpkd4atei8i0u88vbt8juj1@4ax.com:
On 30 Jul 2007 18:27:17 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<Xns997D9313C5901freddybear@216.151.153.47> wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:1qura318j0hdv12qesjt6nf6mi8skrc5cp@4ax.com:
On 28 Jul 2007 00:05:18 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<Xns997ACCA54CD8freddybear@216.151.153.21> wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote
in news:d42ia3hqe15a5v6dr2864ejhpughbhl9em@4ax.com:
On 21 Jul 2007 17:39:32 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<Xns99748BD5DB83Dfreddybear@216.151.153.47> wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com>
wrote in news:cfc4a39d2n6c75u77vku917ojockjhv916@4ax.com:
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 07:58:54 -0400, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<Nunya@Biznez.net> in
<46a1f39e$0$23074$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com> wrote:
[snip]
I didn't say that I *agree* with their standards, just that they
*have* standards.
An interesting point. Do you think it is better per se to have
standards than not? I don't, but I would be interested in an
argument in favor.
I find myself sorely tempted to quote the objectivists on this.
Go ahead, but only if you agree with what you quote.
It is
*necessary* to have ethical standards.
Probably. I suspect that everyone except sociopaths have ethical
standards.
I think that an awful lot of people operate on feelings instead of
ethics.
Quite a few people do not bother to sit and codify their views. And
lots of people take their feelings and make them into ethical codes.
That does not make them into ethical codes.
Thank you for agreeing with me.
If you have no standards, you
have no basis on which to make decisions about right and wrong, no
way to organize your life, your goals and your actions to achieve
those goals.
If your standards are wrong, your goals will be wrong: "evil".
You'll end up doing more harm than good.
So do you really think that Democrats actually have no standards
or is that simply rhetoric?
I think that, as a party, their ethics are opportunistic at best.
Parties don't have ethics only individual do.
False. And once again you prove my point.
Nope. Parties don't have ethics just like parties don't vote. Just
like parties don't have hormones or a heartbeat (except
metaphorically).
If the party didn't have
ethical standards, you couldn't be calling them the party of
hypocrisy.
Prepositions are to language like aim is to a gun.
But nobody calls the Democrats hypocrites because everybody knows that
they don't have standards.
Democrats are not the Democratic Party. I am sure that there are
hypocritical Democrats, but the Democratic Party has not pushed a long
series of supposed moral based views. You are free to point out the
offenders you object to, but you have not done so. You wave your hands
and make broad claims about Democrats, but fail to provide evidence.
You want evidence, I got evidence.
http://www.caucusofcorruption.com/home/
It is an ad for a book. When you have something substantive, like an
FBI raid on a senator's house, let me know.
Sure, Jefferson broke the law, he has been indicted and will go to
jail. But in your world somehow this Administration has ignored law
breaking by Democrats because it is somehow expected. In your world
somehow this Administration has targeted Republicans because
Republicans have higher standards. That is astoundingly silly.
There
is nothing that they will not sell out for political gain.
You mean like how Giuliani, a thrice divorced pro-choice pro-gun
control pro-gay rights candidate leads the GOP because of one thing
only: electability?
Just because you choose to ignore Giuliani's positive achievments
Like what?
Leadership after 9/11 in New York.
I was here Fred, I know what he did. The fire fighters and police of
this city are not exactly friends of his. How about you give some
examples of actual accomplishments after 9/11. I'll give you one: he
looked really good on TV.
Like cleaning up the crime rate in
New York City.
Crime started to drop before he became mayor, it dropped in cities
across the country while he was mayor, and community policing, which
was the law enforcement policy most responsible for the drop started
under Dinkins. So, I ask again, what accomplishments?
doesn't mean that other voters who don't share your infatuation with
fascist ideologues will have done the same.
Wow, that mirror must be beautiful. Exactly all Giuliani has to offer
is that he will "take charge", he will ignore pesky things like laws.
Where did he say that, Matt? Go ahead and quote where he says that he'll
ignore pesky things like laws.
It was not a quote, it was my description of his attitude.
His fascism is his most attractive (to the Republicans) quality. I
will let you provide evidence of his supposed accomplishments that
people support him for.
The mad
scramble among the presidential candidates to disavow their prewar
votes in support of the Iraq invasion are a perfect example.
Excepting that no such mad scramble exists. Obama was against it,
Hillary has not disavowed it, etc.
Obama's opposition was meaningless, since he wasn't in a position to
have to vote on it.
So what is this mad scramble? You mean that people voted one way and
now have a different view? I gather that is just fine by you when it
is Romney and abortion, but not when it is this cluster ***** of a war.
Where did I say that it is fine by me, Matt? Quote my words. \
Go ahead, I'll wait.
When you made up the mad scramble as an example of Democratic
opportunism and ignored the wide spread opportunism among the
Republican candidates. Don't like the Romney example, how about the
slime Giuliani who signed up for the Iraq Commission while running for
president, but was too busy getting big speaking fees to actually do a
thing for his country.
If you'll sell out that easily then you don't really have any
standards. You have nothing more than a price tag. By that measure,
Obama may have the most integrity of the lot. But that ain't saying
much.
At least the Republicans have staked their claim to the moral high
ground. The Democrats just point fingers.
Staking a claim to moral ground when you have no morals is worse
than not staking the claim. When you have gay anti-Gay activists in
the party you pretty much give up actual claims to morality.
You mistake anti-leftwing-lunacy for anti-gay.
You mean gay marriage is left-wing lunacy? It is lunacy to not want to
change the Constitution to ban gay marriage? Is that really your
position? So what about the current nominee for Surgeon General? Is
it lunatic to see his writings as anti-gay?
I mean depriving the American people of the right to vote on issues.
So now you are anti-Court. Like any two bit bigot, you hide behind the
popularity of your bigotry when it suits you.
The Log Cabin Republicans
are not anti-gay.
No, they are not, they are also shunned by the Republican mainstream.
IIANM Shrub returned their campaign contributions.
Cites?
I can't find a cite and may be confusing this with other candidates
returning their contributions. But the LCR did refuse to endorse Shrub
in 2004, so it is kind of silly to claim their support now.
I know they
have political claims, but that is what makes the GOP the party of
hypocrisy.
Like I said, Matt, and you keep proving my point, if they didn't have
standards, you couldn't accuse them of hypocrisy.
You really don't understand this stuff, do you? I will try to explain.
Parties are not moral actors, they can' have moral standards.
Matt, lots of associations have moral codes, or "codes of ethics".
Yes, they are codes of ethics for their members. You are engaging in
the fallacy of composition.
But
parties are collective groups and we can discuss the qualities of
members of that group. The Republican Party has lots and lots of
people who preach morality at others, but radically violate the
standards they proclaim.
And they have vastly more people who follow the standards that they
espouse.
And they have a very high number of *leaders* who do not follow the
rules they demand of others. It is actually part of the ideology
followed by the neo-cons. They get it from Plato via Strauss: the
"noble lie", the rules for the little people.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: More of Yang's Moral Inferiority |
31 Jul 2007 06:30:38 PM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:4bjua3l4fdo34rgjebvtdnkd3un0ul9nmb@4ax.com:
On 31 Jul 2007 14:22:09 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<Xns997E698A0E6E4freddybear@216.151.153.48> wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:oiesa3he6u8dpkd4atei8i0u88vbt8juj1@4ax.com:
On 30 Jul 2007 18:27:17 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<Xns997D9313C5901freddybear@216.151.153.47> wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote
in news:1qura318j0hdv12qesjt6nf6mi8skrc5cp@4ax.com:
On 28 Jul 2007 00:05:18 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<Xns997ACCA54CD8freddybear@216.151.153.21> wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com>
wrote in news:d42ia3hqe15a5v6dr2864ejhpughbhl9em@4ax.com:
On 21 Jul 2007 17:39:32 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<Xns99748BD5DB83Dfreddybear@216.151.153.47> wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com>
wrote in news:cfc4a39d2n6c75u77vku917ojockjhv916@4ax.com:
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 07:58:54 -0400, in alt.atheism , Fred
Stone <Nunya@Biznez.net> in
<46a1f39e$0$23074$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com> wrote:
[snip]
I didn't say that I *agree* with their standards, just that
they *have* standards.
An interesting point. Do you think it is better per se to have
standards than not? I don't, but I would be interested in an
argument in favor.
I find myself sorely tempted to quote the objectivists on this.
Go ahead, but only if you agree with what you quote.
It is
*necessary* to have ethical standards.
Probably. I suspect that everyone except sociopaths have ethical
standards.
I think that an awful lot of people operate on feelings instead of
ethics.
Quite a few people do not bother to sit and codify their views.
And lots of people take their feelings and make them into ethical
codes.
That does not make them into ethical codes.
Thank you for agreeing with me.
If you have no standards, you
have no basis on which to make decisions about right and wrong,
no way to organize your life, your goals and your actions to
achieve those goals.
If your standards are wrong, your goals will be wrong: "evil".
You'll end up doing more harm than good.
So do you really think that Democrats actually have no standards
or is that simply rhetoric?
I think that, as a party, their ethics are opportunistic at best.
Parties don't have ethics only individual do.
False. And once again you prove my point.
Nope. Parties don't have ethics just like parties don't vote. Just
like parties don't have hormones or a heartbeat (except
metaphorically).
If the party didn't have
ethical standards, you couldn't be calling them the party of
hypocrisy.
Prepositions are to language like aim is to a gun.
But nobody calls the Democrats hypocrites because everybody knows
that they don't have standards.
Democrats are not the Democratic Party. I am sure that there are
hypocritical Democrats, but the Democratic Party has not pushed a
long series of supposed moral based views. You are free to point out
the offenders you object to, but you have not done so. You wave your
hands and make broad claims about Democrats, but fail to provide
evidence.
You want evidence, I got evidence.
http://www.caucusofcorruption.com/home/
It is an ad for a book. When you have something substantive, like an
FBI raid on a senator's house, let me know.
Oh, so a book isn't substantive. OK, duly noted. Accoring to Matt's New
Standards, nothing in books is substantive.
Sure, Jefferson broke the law, he has been indicted and will go to
jail. But in your world somehow this Administration has ignored law
breaking by Democrats because it is somehow expected. In your world
somehow this Administration has targeted Republicans because
Republicans have higher standards. That is astoundingly silly.
There
is nothing that they will not sell out for political gain.
You mean like how Giuliani, a thrice divorced pro-choice pro-gun
control pro-gay rights candidate leads the GOP because of one
thing only: electability?
Just because you choose to ignore Giuliani's positive achievments
Like what?
Leadership after 9/11 in New York.
I was here Fred, I know what he did. The fire fighters and police of
this city are not exactly friends of his.
Their *unions* aren't friends of his. What a surprise.
How about you give some
examples of actual accomplishments after 9/11. I'll give you one: he
looked really good on TV.
Oh, is that how you're going to play it?
Like cleaning up the crime rate in
New York City.
Crime started to drop before he became mayor, it dropped in cities
across the country while he was mayor, and community policing, which
was the law enforcement policy most responsible for the drop started
under Dinkins. So, I ask again, what accomplishments?
Your opinions are not germane to the discussion.
doesn't mean that other voters who don't share your infatuation with
fascist ideologues will have done the same.
Wow, that mirror must be beautiful. Exactly all Giuliani has to
offer is that he will "take charge", he will ignore pesky things
like laws.
Where did he say that, Matt? Go ahead and quote where he says that
he'll ignore pesky things like laws.
It was not a quote, it was my description of his attitude.
Your opinion is not substantive.
His fascism is his most attractive (to the Republicans) quality. I
will let you provide evidence of his supposed accomplishments that
people support him for.
The mad
scramble among the presidential candidates to disavow their prewar
votes in support of the Iraq invasion are a perfect example.
Excepting that no such mad scramble exists. Obama was against it,
Hillary has not disavowed it, etc.
Obama's opposition was meaningless, since he wasn't in a position to
have to vote on it.
So what is this mad scramble? You mean that people voted one way and
now have a different view? I gather that is just fine by you when it
is Romney and abortion, but not when it is this cluster ***** of a
war.
Where did I say that it is fine by me, Matt? Quote my words. \
Go ahead, I'll wait.
When you made up the mad scramble as an example of Democratic
opportunism and ignored the wide spread opportunism among the
Republican candidates.
Nope, sorry, doesn't make it.
Don't like the Romney example, how about the
slime Giuliani who signed up for the Iraq Commission while running for
president, but was too busy getting big speaking fees to actually do a
thing for his country.
Nope, I didn't say it, and you can't put the words in my mouth that
easily.
If you'll sell out that easily then you don't really have any
standards. You have nothing more than a price tag. By that
measure, Obama may have the most integrity of the lot. But that
ain't saying much.
At least the Republicans have staked their claim to the moral high
ground. The Democrats just point fingers.
Staking a claim to moral ground when you have no morals is worse
than not staking the claim. When you have gay anti-Gay activists
in the party you pretty much give up actual claims to morality.
You mistake anti-leftwing-lunacy for anti-gay.
You mean gay marriage is left-wing lunacy? It is lunacy to not want
to change the Constitution to ban gay marriage? Is that really your
position? So what about the current nominee for Surgeon General? Is
it lunatic to see his writings as anti-gay?
I mean depriving the American people of the right to vote on issues.
So now you are anti-Court. Like any two bit bigot, you hide behind the
popularity of your bigotry when it suits you.
Oh, the irony.
The Log Cabin Republicans
are not anti-gay.
No, they are not, they are also shunned by the Republican
mainstream. IIANM Shrub returned their campaign contributions.
Cites?
I can't find a cite and may be confusing this with other candidates
returning their contributions. But the LCR did refuse to endorse Shrub
in 2004, so it is kind of silly to claim their support now.
Huh? Who is claiming their support? I'm not Bush.
I know they
have political claims, but that is what makes the GOP the party of
hypocrisy.
Like I said, Matt, and you keep proving my point, if they didn't
have standards, you couldn't accuse them of hypocrisy.
You really don't understand this stuff, do you? I will try to
explain. Parties are not moral actors, they can' have moral
standards.
Matt, lots of associations have moral codes, or "codes of ethics".
Yes, they are codes of ethics for their members. You are engaging in
the fallacy of composition.
You are engaging in the fallacy of decomposition. Or maybe that's just
your brains decomposing.
But
parties are collective groups and we can discuss the qualities of
members of that group. The Republican Party has lots and lots of
people who preach morality at others, but radically violate the
standards they proclaim.
And they have vastly more people who follow the standards that they
espouse.
And they have a very high number of *leaders* who do not follow the
rules they demand of others. It is actually part of the ideology
followed by the neo-cons. They get it from Plato via Strauss: the
"noble lie", the rules for the little people.
You mean like every Democrat in both houses of Congress.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Contempt of Congress is not a crime, it's a duty."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: More of Yang's Moral Inferiority |
01 Aug 2007 09:43:51 AM |
|
|
On 31 Jul 2007 23:30:38 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<Xns997EC679B4B13freddybear@216.151.153.13> wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:4bjua3l4fdo34rgjebvtdnkd3un0ul9nmb@4ax.com:
On 31 Jul 2007 14:22:09 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<Xns997E698A0E6E4freddybear@216.151.153.48> wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:oiesa3he6u8dpkd4atei8i0u88vbt8juj1@4ax.com:
On 30 Jul 2007 18:27:17 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<Xns997D9313C5901freddybear@216.151.153.47> wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote
in news:1qura318j0hdv12qesjt6nf6mi8skrc5cp@4ax.com:
On 28 Jul 2007 00:05:18 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<Xns997ACCA54CD8freddybear@216.151.153.21> wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com>
wrote in news:d42ia3hqe15a5v6dr2864ejhpughbhl9em@4ax.com:
On 21 Jul 2007 17:39:32 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<Xns99748BD5DB83Dfreddybear@216.151.153.47> wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com>
wrote in news:cfc4a39d2n6c75u77vku917ojockjhv916@4ax.com:
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 07:58:54 -0400, in alt.atheism , Fred
Stone <Nunya@Biznez.net> in
<46a1f39e$0$23074$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com> wrote:
[snip]
I didn't say that I *agree* with their standards, just that
they *have* standards.
An interesting point. Do you think it is better per se to have
standards than not? I don't, but I would be interested in an
argument in favor.
I find myself sorely tempted to quote the objectivists on this.
Go ahead, but only if you agree with what you quote.
It is
*necessary* to have ethical standards.
Probably. I suspect that everyone except sociopaths have ethical
standards.
I think that an awful lot of people operate on feelings instead of
ethics.
Quite a few people do not bother to sit and codify their views.
And lots of people take their feelings and make them into ethical
codes.
That does not make them into ethical codes.
Thank you for agreeing with me.
If you have no standards, you
have no basis on which to make decisions about right and wrong,
no way to organize your life, your goals and your actions to
achieve those goals.
If your standards are wrong, your goals will be wrong: "evil".
You'll end up doing more harm than good.
So do you really think that Democrats actually have no standards
or is that simply rhetoric?
I think that, as a party, their ethics are opportunistic at best.
Parties don't have ethics only individual do.
False. And once again you prove my point.
Nope. Parties don't have ethics just like parties don't vote. Just
like parties don't have hormones or a heartbeat (except
metaphorically).
If the party didn't have
ethical standards, you couldn't be calling them the party of
hypocrisy.
Prepositions are to language like aim is to a gun.
But nobody calls the Democrats hypocrites because everybody knows
that they don't have standards.
Democrats are not the Democratic Party. I am sure that there are
hypocritical Democrats, but the Democratic Party has not pushed a
long series of supposed moral based views. You are free to point out
the offenders you object to, but you have not done so. You wave your
hands and make broad claims about Democrats, but fail to provide
evidence.
You want evidence, I got evidence.
http://www.caucusofcorruption.com/home/
It is an ad for a book. When you have something substantive, like an
FBI raid on a senator's house, let me know.
Oh, so a book isn't substantive. OK, duly noted. Accoring to Matt's New
Standards, nothing in books is substantive.
No, Fred, an *ad* for a book is not substantive. An ad for a book is
just an ad. It shows the likely existence of the book, but the
evidence for the existence of the book is not evidence for the
corruption you have claimed. Have you read this book yourself? If so,
how about you give us some of the major claims to discuss.
Sure, Jefferson broke the law, he has been indicted and will go to
jail. But in your world somehow this Administration has ignored law
breaking by Democrats because it is somehow expected. In your world
somehow this Administration has targeted Republicans because
Republicans have higher standards. That is astoundingly silly.
There
is nothing that they will not sell out for political gain.
You mean like how Giuliani, a thrice divorced pro-choice pro-gun
control pro-gay rights candidate leads the GOP because of one
thing only: electability?
Just because you choose to ignore Giuliani's positive achievments
Like what?
< | | | | | | | | | |
