McCain-Feingold OUT!

[nohesitation]

In the U.S., religious majorities have tolerated religious minorities, secularists, atheists, etc., since day one. Here we don't have intolerant religions (although Islam is on the rise)...we have elitist moral relativists who are rabidly intolerant of religion.

When you say “elitist moral relativists”, are you referring to the world view of Marquis de Sade? Is this what you think of Liberals?

[Skarp]

In the U.S., religious majorities have tolerated religious minorities, secularists, atheists, etc., since day one. Here we don't have intolerant religions (although Islam is on the rise)...we have elitist moral relativists who are rabidly intolerant of religion.

When you say “elitist moral relativists”, are you referring to the world view of Marquis de Sade? Is this what you think of Liberals?

I'm referring of people who reject the existence of moral absolutes, preferring rather the post-structuralist lunacy that everything is contextual...which of course allows the selection of purely utilitarian means to achieve (necessarily) arbitrary goals. (Without moral guideposts, all goals are arbitrary.)

Focusing on utility without reference to moral principles is how bureaucrats become tyrants and mass murderers. And yes, that is what I think of liberals, and their never-ending parade of arbitrary, often inconsistent goals that they will happily advance from the business end of a gun.

[nohesitation]

In the U.S., religious majorities have tolerated religious minorities, secularists, atheists, etc., since day one. Here we don't have intolerant religions (although Islam is on the rise)...we have elitist moral relativists who are rabidly intolerant of religion.

When you say “elitist moral relativists”, are you referring to the world view of Marquis de Sade? Is this what you think of Liberals?

I'm referring of people who reject the existence of moral absolutes, preferring rather the post-structuralist lunacy that everything is contextual...which of course allows the selection of purely utilitarian means to achieve (necessarily) arbitrary goals. (Without moral guideposts, all goals are arbitrary.)

Focusing on utility without reference to moral principles is how bureaucrats become tyrants and mass murderers. And yes, that is what I think of liberals, and their never-ending parade of arbitrary, often inconsistent goals that they will happily advance from the business end of a gun.

What are the moral guideposts you refer to?

[Skarp]

In the U.S., religious majorities have tolerated religious minorities, secularists, atheists, etc., since day one. Here we don't have intolerant religions (although Islam is on the rise)...we have elitist moral relativists who are rabidly intolerant of religion.

When you say “elitist moral relativists”, are you referring to the world view of Marquis de Sade? Is this what you think of Liberals?

I'm referring of people who reject the existence of moral absolutes, preferring rather the post-structuralist lunacy that everything is contextual...which of course allows the selection of purely utilitarian means to achieve (necessarily) arbitrary goals. (Without moral guideposts, all goals are arbitrary.)

Focusing on utility without reference to moral principles is how bureaucrats become tyrants and mass murderers. And yes, that is what I think of liberals, and their never-ending parade of arbitrary, often inconsistent goals that they will happily advance from the business end of a gun.

What are the moral guideposts you refer to?

Lol...what is this, the Socratic Method?

How about the Ten Commandments, for starters. Or the idea that all men are created in the image of God, and thus must always be treated as ends in themselves, and not merely means to other ends.

Eternal principles are completely foreign to liberals. Liberalism is an aesthetic...it's whatever makes me feel good about myself (or just feel good) now...other peoples' liberty, prosperity, and dignity be damned.

[nohesitation]

In the U.S., religious majorities have tolerated religious minorities, secularists, atheists, etc., since day one. Here we don't have intolerant religions (although Islam is on the rise)...we have elitist moral relativists who are rabidly intolerant of religion.

When you say “elitist moral relativists”, are you referring to the world view of Marquis de Sade? Is this what you think of Liberals?

I'm referring of people who reject the existence of moral absolutes, preferring rather the post-structuralist lunacy that everything is contextual...which of course allows the selection of purely utilitarian means to achieve (necessarily) arbitrary goals. (Without moral guideposts, all goals are arbitrary.)

Focusing on utility without reference to moral principles is how bureaucrats become tyrants and mass murderers. And yes, that is what I think of liberals, and their never-ending parade of arbitrary, often inconsistent goals that they will happily advance from the business end of a gun.

What are the moral guideposts you refer to?

Lol...what is this, the Socratic Method?

How about the Ten Commandments, for starters. Or the idea that all men are created in the image of God, and thus must always be treated as ends in themselves, and not merely means to other ends.

Eternal principles are completely foreign to liberals. Liberalism is an aesthetic...it's whatever makes me feel good about myself (or just feel good) now...other peoples' liberty, prosperity, and dignity be damned.

“Socrates” you flatter, anyway his methods only rendered hatred and execution by his peers.. Besides traping Skarp would only unleash hells verbal hornets nest.

Ok, your using Christian morals.
1. Love God with heart, soul and mind.
2. You shall love your neighbor as yourself.

My question is: Do you think you can love your neighbor as yourself in the context and meaning of a Christian moral system and not love God? Can you love your neighbor and not God? A pagan with all the Christian moral value set in tack of “love thy neighbor”. Call it pagan morals. Not driven by pain and pleasure but driven by the virtues of “You shall that love your neighbor as yourself.”

[Skarp]

“Socrates” you flatter, anyway his methods only rendered hatred and execution by his peers.. Besides traping Skarp would only unleash hells verbal hornets nest.

Ok, your using Christian morals.
1. Love God with heart, soul and mind.
2. You shall love your neighbor as yourself.

My question is: Do you think you can love your neighbor as yourself in the context and meaning of a Christian moral system and not love God? Can you love your neighbor and not God? A pagan with all the Christian moral value set in tack of “love thy neighbor”. Call it pagan morals. Not driven by pain and pleasure but driven by the virtues of “You shall that love your neighbor as yourself.”

I'm not using "Christian morals" per se. I'm referencing moral principles present in virtually every religion, and recognized by every civilized society throughout history. They are principles that can actually be derived at from a few basic "truths" (e.g., "one should treat like things alike") and the application of pure logic...and as such do not depend on religion for their validity at all.

So, to answer your question, of course it is possible to be governed by a set of moral principles that do not derive from a belief in (or love for) God. Liberals, however, are not governed by any such principles. Oh they will give lip service to whatever principle best supports their position on X or Y topic, but rest assured that they will reject that very principle when it works to their disadvantage on topic Z. They can do this, because the principles themselves hold no value to the liberal. Only the desired outcome is important. Because liberals are moral relativists.

[blackwidow]

A victory for those poor under-represented multi-national corporations. After all, multi-national corporations and international banking cartels are people too.


Yet, I prefer to go along with Thomas Jefferson on the subject of corporate personhood and his ideas of what a true democracy should be.

"I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our
moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our
government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of
our country." --Thomas Jefferson to George Logan, 1816.

"The selfish spirit of commerce knows no country, and feels no
passion or principle but that of gain." --Thomas Jefferson to
Larkin Smith, 1809.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffersonian_democracy

Peace.

[Skarp]

"I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our
moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our
government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of
our country." --Thomas Jefferson to George Logan, 1816.

"The selfish spirit of commerce knows no country, and feels no
passion or principle but that of gain." --Thomas Jefferson to
Larkin Smith, 1809.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffersonian_democracy

Peace.

Well somebody certainly needs to challenge our government to a trial of strength. Or do you prefer the de facto monopoly on political speech currently enjoyed by a select few international media conglomerates? No...screw that. Let all the voices in. We don't need anyone hand-selecting what gets talked about.

And by the way, that "selfish spirit of commerce" is the wellspring from which innumerable good things flow. It derives directly from the human spirit--the desire for improvement, achievement, security, and reward--and without it life would be pretty godawful.

You are aware that corporations are owned by (and provide goods and services for) real people, aren't you? There is a consistent theme of corporations as big, sinister "others" running through your posts. That is a false dichotomy.

[SoCalASABlue]

Black Widow - why do you and folks that agree with you NEVER mention that the labor unions have had carte blanche to spend what they want on political messages for years and all SCOTUS has done is now even the playing field? Or because they represent the "workers", somehow the unions are more noble and deserving of respect?

How about lobbyists, regardless of what cause they fight for? Are they greedy bloodsucking scum just like corporations that should have no voice?

When McCain-Feingold was first passed, there were even liberal talking heads (albeit not many) who said that it would not pass constitutional muster and would eventually be overturned.

Just be honest enough to admit that there are greedy bloodsuckers on both sides.

[Skarp]

Black Widow - why do you and folks that agree with you NEVER mention that the labor unions have had carte blanche to spend what they want on political messages for years and all SCOTUS has done is now even the playing field? Or because they represent the "workers", somehow the unions are more noble and deserving of respect?

Corporations are created to act in their naked self-interest. That is their REASON for being. And anyone who likes a particular company's business model can buy an ownership interest in that company. Or sell, as the case may be. So if a company adopts a stance on a political issue that you disagree with, you can invest your money elsewhere. And consumers can spend their money elsewhere too.

This is NOT the case with most unions, which extract dues from members who have no choice and precious little voice, and spend it almost exlusively to elect liberal politicians. Unions and liberal pols have danced together to make American businesses so competitively disadvantaged that the vast majority of high-paying union jobs are either gone or on the way out. The notion that unions represent workers is a farce.