Free Republic

Quite arrogant. How dare we contradict theists who tell us how all atheists act and think.

You think individual Christians get to define Christianity in the currents of socio-political debate? hehehe yeah right. Likewise, do you believe you are untainted by all of your comrades in arms?

Just as you ping each other to the threads identifying the latest murderous opressive theocracy that is a Christmas card on the desk of some tyrannical civil servant, so you can parrot the same two arguments (funding and relativism) over and over, you collect an identity.

You think all Christians don't get identified as Taliban-like hate mongers praying for the next theocracy so we can MAKE you all go to church? Does the fact that even though I'm a Christian and I couldn't give a giant rat's behind wether you fry in hell or not mitigate the negative identification? Not hardly.

Like I wrote in an earlier post, I understand your pathological need to constantly remind us all what atheism isn't. With your dictionary type definitions of atheism, you desparately want to avoid being identified by the incessant mantra of the modern internet atheist. Well, good luck with that.

What makes you so special? You can rail against it all you like but in the end, perception is reality.

I would love to define Christianity, but I'm not so arrogant as to believe it will actually work.

As if they get to choose how they are defined in the first place. What an arrogant luxury.

I don't believe for a minute that this is about "public taxpayer expense".

Hard to blame you. When you consider all of the things money is spent on, with nary a peep from the same tired Christian haters who pop up to every one of these threads, the real motivation is obvious.

By strict constitutional interpretation, I wouldn't doubt that ENTIRE PARK is an unconstitional waste of taxpayer money. Only when the ten commandments enters the picture is it an issue.

You know what they are. I know what they are. And deep down, they know what they are when they make this claim.

It's satire...

Defining it doesn't change its' motivation, though arguing about motivation is a dead end.

and "Darwin" is hardly an atheist god, nor is evolution an atheist idea.

This is about as relevant to my point as me explaining the infield fly rule, though I understand your pathological desire to tell everyone what atheism isn't.

BAAAHHH!!

Wouldn't you know that a thread about Christians and Jews getting along would turn into a slugfest. This crap is like a divorce lawyer setting up a kiosk at a wedding.

Oh great. Now I sound like one of those "Can't we all just get along" idiots.

And I blame you chuckleheads fighting over this stupid crap.

When people who believe that hickey-giving pink elephants start suggesting that the government give their "church" funding in the name of "faith-based initiatives", then you might see some protests. When city governments start using taxpayer money to set up displays themed around hickey-giving pink elephants for holidays based on a holy myth regarding this hickey-giving pink elephant then you might hear some complaining.

Exactly so. This is where the conservative religious and the conservative atheist can find agreement. The liberal atheists only complain about the expenditure of money on religion, especially Christianity. The majority of atheism that I have been exposed to is a hatred of Christianity. In every other respect, they can't wait to spend your money an a belief system. Their's not yours.

It is unfortunate that so much money comes out of my pocket, coerced by the government, to attack my religion. Think government school system. The only people you will hear attacking that expenditure as well is the conservative atheist. The liberals cheer it, and that is why the cry of government expenditure for religion seems so disingenuous coming from the average atheist.

I say "average atheist" based solely on my experience. Dimensio can give all of the dictionary definitions of atheism he chooses to, as I see him do in most of these threads. But, that does not change the fact that a significant portion of the atheism "cause" or "movement" (I know how much they resist being identified as a group) has been coopted by the political left, who aren't FOR anything (the deconstructionist mindset).

They merely hate the predominant religion for fear of its' message of accountability and in furtherance of moral relativism. This is immediately identified by the second most common argument: "If we allow brand X, then brand Y and Z will want representation too." The primary ammunition of the relativists.

They define themselves by what they DON'T believe in, or what they're against. Look at their little fish with feet. That isn't designed to affirm anything. It is designed to deride, alienate and humiliate in my opinion.

Nothing in the decision is going to make it possible for murderers to get out of execution by feigning mental retardation or intentionally failing an IQ test.

Specifically, this is correct. However, I have a feeling that a large number of lawyers started feverishly typing the second this ruling was handed down. In other words, this decision is not without consequences, one of which is that some will try to sneak through this hole and some will succeed.

I guess your answer depends on your idea of what the death penalty is for.
If you believe it is some form of deterrent, I can see an argument for not killing the young, though I don't agree with it.
If you believe it is pest control, then exterminate them with all speed.

I lean in the Orkin direction.

Oh, and yes I am Canadian.

That explains a lot.

In case you missed the point: fighting for peace is like fornicating for chastity.

You really don't see the corelation between this and supporting a liberal social agenda in order to defeat a liberal social agenda?

Punishment without conviction - the new American way.

Reminds me of how easily the politically incorrect can lose their jobs these days.

I do think there's some merit to this method of scaring off the boys who will at some point come sniffing around my daughter.

All potential suitors should be given a private tour of your home, with a special emphasis on your shotgun and shovel collections.

In reality, I merely said that your expectations of Bush seem overly idealistic. I apologize for any emotional scarring this caused as it was completely unintentional.

What are my expectations of President Bush? I'll save you the time looking for it. I didn't post them. As busy as you are jumping to conclusions, I'm sure you missed it.

In actuality, I voted for Alan Keyes in the primary and Bush in the general. Perhaps the confusion comes from a crippling ideological malady I suffer from called "perspective." Purist libertarian dogma is perfect for bumper stickers and Internet forums, but I'm more interested in the real world.

I think the only thing crippling is falling of that high horse of yours. Pointing out that what the President is engaging in is race based wealth redistribution actually provides perspective.

I want a Republican House and Senate and would like to see Bush re-elected. Insane, I know, but I think that would be preferable to President Gore prosecuting the "War on Terror" with the sage guidance of Majority Leader Daschle and Speaker Gephardt. Perhaps that puts me out-of-step with many on this thread who have apparently dedicated themselves to voting against Bush in 2004.

The actual number of folks in this thread who claim that they will not vote for President Bush again is pretty small, compared to the number that are voicing displeasure over his actions. Of course, that doesn't help stuff your straw man I know. But, I can see why discussing conservative ideology on a conservative politics web forum is a problem for you. Perhaps you need some perspective. Oh yeah, you have a crippling amount of that, I remember now. I voted, contributed and volunteered for the President and will do it again. And because of that commitment I will voice my concern over what I consider a mistake whenever and wherever I choose. I'm sorry that is so troubling for you. Let's just all stop discussing everything and agree to vote for President Bush again.

It would be nice if Dubya were a perfect God-man who single-handedly ushered in a millennial conservative utopia. But he's just a flawed human in a political morass called Washington, D.C. And I'm okay with that.

Oh look another straw man. Better than Gore? By far. I will vote for him again, as will most conservatives. However, I am still capable of seeing and pointing out his mistakes so he and the rest of his supporters know, that we aren't Clintonites who will turn a blind eye to anything and everything he does. Race based government welfare programs are wrong, and they don't work. A point you still are incapable of addressing. Try not to choke on your Kool-Aid.

You focus on politics in a perfect, libertarian utopia. I focus on politics in the messy, very imperfect real world. And this is the heart of our disagreement.

Ad hominem and you STILL refuse to address the points put to you. Not bad. If my position were as hollow as yours, I wouldn't answer the questions either. I take back the Carville comment. My apologies Mr. McAuliffe.

And who exactly is against an increase in minority homeownership?

Be honest. You are really James Carville right? Where have I heard this tripe before? Oh yeah. "You aren't for starving school children are you?" or "You aren't for polluted air and water are you?" and the ever popular "You aren't for arsenic in the water supply are you?" With this one sentence you played the race card and changed the whole conversation from methodology (redistribution of wealth) to results, at the same time making a leap of faith that this program will even work and result in "an increase in minority homeownership."

It IS redistribution of wealth.

The race card is a vacant and immoral argument.

When did minority welfare programs have a net positive result in the past? Do you support all minority welfare programs? If not which ones do you NOT support?

JimRob gives me a nickel every time I post "WHY IS THIS IN BREAKING NEWS?!"

First of all, get the quote and the spelling right: "We start the bombing in five minutes." Ronald REAGAN

The spelling fuhrer gets nailed? Say it isn't so. BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Its not your cows, its my SUV.

No no no. Everyone knows that conservatives are responsible for the drought. Not my PERSONAL responsibility, mind you. I have "starving school children" this week and "poisoning the water" next week. Perhaps it is George Bush's fault.

One of the things I love about conservatives is how they argue about who is a true conservative and who is MORE conservative etc. when the snivelling RATs run from the word liberal with much speed.

Unless the perps were black. If so, it'll quickly disappear.

Unless the victim was gay, which trumps your black perps, and VOILA, back on the front page above the fold.