i keep hearing this now and it sounds kinda vague...]
9/1/2008 12:53:04 PM
rightwing religious nutjobs.
9/1/2008 12:53:32 PM
yeah, it's just a euphemism. just like "pro-life" or "pro-choice"If you call a group of people "fundamentalists", that has both positive and negative connotations, depending on who you ask. But call them "values voters", and everybody can get on board with that. You won't find too many politicians attacking people for having "values", whatever that means or whatever the values may be. It's pretty well accepted that just having values is better than having no values. Kind of like why Christians view other religions with more respect than atheists - in their eyes, just having faith, no matter what it is in, is better than having no faith.
9/1/2008 1:02:17 PM
People who feel as though their beliefs are somehow better than everyone elses' and tend to vote -R.
9/1/2008 1:19:58 PM
they are the kind of people that are keeping this nation sane at the moment.enjoy it while they are still alive. when ppl like you take over, this place'll unravel like the middle east. it's ok now though. the freedom fighting defenders of the atheist/anarchist state only make up about 10%-20% of the nation so far.that number will grow. that's for certain. but you won't outnumber the 'value voters' in our lifetime.yay[Edited on September 1, 2008 at 6:06 PM. Reason : .]
9/1/2008 6:06:32 PM
^
9/1/2008 6:08:18 PM
Values voters - People who go to church so that they may cast judgment on others for their shortcomings, then fail to acknowledge each other when they pass inside the liquor store.
9/1/2008 6:58:30 PM
so what do you call a person that has moral values but is atheist??....
9/1/2008 8:19:31 PM
all atheists are communists
9/1/2008 8:28:12 PM
morals were not created with the creation of religion.
9/1/2008 8:28:34 PM
Did you steal that from a bumper sticker you saw somewhere?
9/1/2008 9:08:19 PM
but what if said communist goes to church?
9/1/2008 9:30:00 PM
Then it might be Hillary or Obama
9/1/2008 9:38:01 PM
So...1) if Obama goes to churchand2) if Obama is in reality an agnostic when he leaves the churchbut3) Obama claims to have moralswhat is he?
9/1/2008 9:49:37 PM
9/1/2008 9:54:24 PM
i was thinkin the same thing, lawl
9/1/2008 9:55:43 PM
So, wait... you two are arguing that morality is impossible without religion?
9/1/2008 10:12:52 PM
no. I'm just shitting around. C#_live might be cereal, though
9/1/2008 10:18:25 PM
So if morality is possible without religion,but moral people as well as immoral people can go to church,and if democrats "claim to have, and also openly oppose some" morals while republicans "cling to, but also hypocritic" about moralswhere does religion come from? morals? wouldn't democrats with morals be a contradiction if they by and large reject religion? b/c aren't most religions practiced and founded on moral principles?why would a democrat ever want morals if they reject all forms of religion or persons who practice such.i seriously doubt a single democrat could honestly live by the parties principles and go to church and sincerely mean it.so why -does- obama go to church? you really want a leader who wastes 4/5 hours on Sunday on mindless propaganda???[Edited on September 1, 2008 at 10:35 PM. Reason : .]
9/1/2008 10:33:49 PM
Religious principles are old. Party principles are current.Both parties hold principles that contradict Christian principles.Either way, Jesus was a liberal.
9/1/2008 10:38:52 PM
So what are we going to do with 50% of the nation then?Hmmm.
9/1/2008 10:49:02 PM
?
9/1/2008 11:09:30 PM
Yes Jesus was liberalI have no problem with religion or "values"; I have a problem when politicians try to impose their morals and values on me. Or people those look down upon and smug those who don't fit into their "moral mode". My Karma beats your Dogma
9/1/2008 11:18:54 PM
uhhh, dude. every law has pretty much been an attempt to push one person's morality upon the rest of us.
9/1/2008 11:36:53 PM
9/2/2008 8:03:27 AM
9/2/2008 9:00:57 AM
9/2/2008 11:42:22 AM
rightwing religious nutjobsandleftwing [insert niche cause here] nutjobsorPeople BobbyDigital hates for $1000, Alex.
9/2/2008 11:44:49 AM
9/2/2008 11:47:26 AM
yep.laws that protect people from each other vs. laws that protect people from themselves.
9/2/2008 12:02:15 PM
If I want to cruise around driving 100mph w/o a seatbelt it is my own damn problem if i die in a wreck. The darwin award will go to me; the gov't should not be my nanny to remind me to buckle up. On the other hand i believe the annoying beep my car audiates is reasonable capitalistic measure to encourage seat belt use. With my new car i buckle up every day (i sometimes got lazy in my last car if it was a simple drive down the block) since i find the beep annoying. I still though have the choice to not wear the seatbelt and ignore the alarm.
9/2/2008 12:14:06 PM
what about the 100mph part. Do you agree the gov't should set restrictions on how fast you drive, since it can and will effect the safety of others?
9/2/2008 12:27:24 PM
^^ I'd be fine with allowing people the right to not wear seatbelts if hospitals were given the right to refuse to treat motorists injured in car accidents if they were not wearing a seatbelt.
9/2/2008 12:30:17 PM
we make rules to provide for a better societysometimes, those rules are put there to protect us from ourselvesseatbelt rules are excellent because the average joe has NO CLUE how fucked up they will be if they get into any real accident without wearing their seatbeltan annoying rule trumps untold numbers of dead and paralyzed people
9/2/2008 12:42:39 PM
i told someone that weed should stay illegal because thats just the way things are and his response was that everything thats is illegal now was legal at some point...made me think...
9/2/2008 2:12:26 PM
9/2/2008 2:13:43 PM
dood im listening to mahavishnu orchestra and its blowing my fuckin mind!!!!!
9/3/2008 7:31:26 AM