Wow.....
- Thread starter bornaneer
- Start date
Oh OK...Trump's the only "immoral" politician we have. All the rest are as pure as the wind driven snow correct? So we just need to hold Trump to our new moral standards, throw them out for the rest cause we don't need them.
"Completely" right @bamaEER ?
I posted a thread about Meehan using taxpayer money to settle his harassment suit, and not one board liberal made a giddy little school girl post in response.
KGB82 only posted a response that attacked a Democrat. NOTHING about Meehan himself.
His "predictions" are better than the media's which predicted he would never get to be President and make predictions.
We get it...you are a traditional, principled, constitutional conservative who voted for Hillary.
No, but I am pleasantly surprised how effectively he exposes the fraudulent Left. You know all about that don't 'ya Coop?
The Left IS fraudulent. They have adherents who don't admit to it...like Coop...
Whatever. Can one not be socially liberal and fiscally conservative? Can one not be what’s considered liberal on an issue like gay rights, but conservative on an issue like abortion? The divisive nature of discourse and politics is out of control, and team captains like yourself.....who spend your days running up and down the halls tying to make sure everyone is wearing their team shirts.....are the frauds. Can’t even talk about an issue as obvious and concerning as sexual harassment without making it partisan. Ridiculous.
Those two extremes are mutually exclusive and incongruent. In fact it is impossible to be both, because one obviates the existence of the other. Social Liberals are not fiscally Conservative. And Fiscal Conservatives do not see a need for massive Socially Liberal spending programs.
I can see advocacy for either extreme, that's our current political discourse. However I agree with @Brushy Bill in that there is no compromise between the two extremes.
Not exactly. Sort of like when they think whatever they want to regardless of any facts suggesting otherwise. Or simply make up their own reality or facts.
Back two summers ago (when he first came on the scene) there wasn't one thing about Trump besides his politics the Left criticized him on regarding who what when or where he screwed or preferred to have his Sex with.
Then absent an effective counter to his political message and growing appeal to voters, the fraudulent Left embarked on a smear campaign against him using his perceived or alleged seuxual impurity in an effort to discredit him and ultimately stop him politically.
When the issue of sexual harassment was prevalent prior to Trump's ascension to political viability, the fraudulent Left simply ignored it. Harvey Weinstein is exhibit A, Bill Clinton is another prime example prior to Harvey Weinstein's revelations.
Actually relativism is the process of examining facts and truth as it pertains to the situation at hand.
Is abortion moral? One would need to examine the case to discover the moral verdict of each case individually....was the mother raped, is her life in danger, how far along, etc.....
The final verdict of morality can surely be dictated by the circumstances of the situation. Relativism is the process of examination of those circumstances before determining definitions of right and wrong.
Imo, most absolutists are afraid of that analysis unless it applies to their own personal situations......mostly because it prevents them the illusion of being able to judge others in their choices and maintaining their self righteous identity that is so critical to their own self identity.
It takes an accuser to create the issue on the national scale doesn’t it? Trump didn’t make sexual harassment an issue for me.....did he make it one for you? As a husband, I hope that isn’t true.
I agree. One can even argue on a relative basis if we are truly even here, or in some sort of alternate universe where Unicorns and Mermaids have coitus and produce some really radical looking offspring!
Never argue with a relativist, they're always on all sides of the argument and can never be wrong as a result. Any facts used are automatically dismissed as irrelevant to a true "relativist".
Trump appealed to my desire to drain the swamp. I wasn't interested in his alleged ***** grabbing that had obsessed the media absent any of the rest of his political appeal to voters.
No, as a Husband I want my Wife and Daughters to be free from sexual predators. If my Daughter were Monica Lewinski, or one of those Hollywood groupies Weinstein attacked, I would have hoped someone around either of those two powerful Men would have spoken up or spoken out about their insensitive behavior. But on the Left those who knew about 'ol Harvey kept their silence, and in the case of Clinton those who saw his behavior simply asked "so what, it's just about Sex, who cares?"
As a Parent of little Girls, were you upset with that excuse for overlooking their behavior on the Left even before Trump was out there "grabbing pussies"?
You do realize the man you voted to be our nation’s leader has been accused by 15 different women as far back as the 1980’s right?
Your disdain for “leftists” not attacking Weinstein would carry more weight if it wasn’t cloaked in hypocrisy. In one instance, you don’t care because it gets you something you want....but in the other, you are bashing people for not caring because it gets them what they want. ????
Philosophers have pondered the meaning of existence since the beginning of recorded history. It’s healthy to examine things, even if it scares you.....big man.
So then Truth can never exist, or it depends on what a relativst says it is?
Let's say the Mother simply doesn't want the Baby. Does she then have moral license to kill it? That's why 97% of most abortions are done.What if the kid is deformed, or a Girl instead of a Boy? In China they kill the Girl. Is that OK to a relativist?
Of course...this is relativism in practice. So where is something called Truth?
Is Truth ever right to a relativist or something that even exists? What's "wrong" to a relativist?
This is a direct contradiction to the entire relativist approach! If Truth is what you say it is according to your own analysis of any particular situation, why would an absolutist be exempt from the 'absolute' relativist position that Truth is whatever one thinks it to be according to their own situation in their own absolute terms? Absolutists aren't entitled to their own analysis by realtivists?
You're violating your own relativist dogma criticizing absolutism. Shame on you!
Again, this is the relativist's appeal. The ability to judge by one's own standards whatever their Truth happens to be. Why are you arguing both for your ability to decide Truth for yourself, yet criticizing those who choose that option for themselves as absolutists? That's arguing out of both sides of your mouth...Oh I forgot...you're a relativist...so this is normal for you!
Sorry. [eyeroll]
Last edited:
No one knew Trump was running for President back in the 80's. Most folks are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Clinton was having his knob polished by an intern well before Trump decided to prostrate himself before the media to criticize, and Weinstein was a known sexual predator on the Left even years before Trump's accusations. No one on the Left cared. Now, Trump's a sexual reprobate. Who's cloaked in hypocrisy?
Last edited:
When it's an intern and the President of the United States I doubt most folks would see that as something no one should care about. Especially if the President was Married with his own adolescent Daughter!
Did I say it was something no one should care about? No. I said it’s not sexual harassment, when it’s consensual sex.
See what I mean [eyeroll]...'ya just can't win when a relativist gets to decide your opinions are worthless (even while arguing everyone has a right to their own opinions no less) [pfftt]
Instead of admitting that in some cases abortion is not morally wrong.... you choose to simply assert it is ABSOLUTELY wrong because of the situations in which it is (in your opinion). Your percentages do not change the fact that in SOME CASES it isn’t.
In most Fortune 500 companies, if the CEO was having oral sex done to him by his subordinate entry level office secretary, he would be fired for "sexual harassment". It's not just "unwanted" sex...it's ANY Sex of a Superior over a subordinate.
School teachers often have consensual Sex with their students. They still get fired when it's discovered because it is wrong...even to a relativist!
The morality of Abortion is not open to interpretation because it is never "moral" to kill an innocent Child. Not even in relative terms. The Baby doesn't ask to be born, yet it is given Life regardless of its circumstances of conception. That is out of our control, and we have no right to intercede in that since we have no control over when (or if) conception occurs or what happens after it does. We don't get to form the Babies, why do we get to kill them?
Last edited:
Ok, so go ******* believe that and be moral, let pro choice women make an immoral decision, you can't legislate morality and you won't stop abortion by laws, the rich ***** will just fly off like they always have and get them. But hey, run on that platform, ban all abortions, it'll be a winner.
You are giving me advice you don't follow on your side. You don't want any restrictions on abortion? Most voters do favor some restrictions. You think it should be available at any time, anywhere, for anyone whenever they want one at taxpayer expense? There isn't a Democrat or anyone else alive who believes that. So WTF are you talking about? When would you restrict it?
Last edited: