"Bible Belt leads the nation in consumption of gay porn". Does this surprise you?
put the word "bible thumper" and "hypocrite" together and WE GOT A WINNER!!! (yes, I'm dorky)
And no I'm not generalizing.. I know quite a few that are :(
Doopy, there is a difference between Christianity and Salvation. Christianity is a religion that encompasses millions of people. Salvation is an act of surrender that many who claim to be Christians have never done. You would call them HYPOCRITES.
Naturally. Living in the midst of the morally steadfast, the perverts have to turn to the Internet for their debauchery fix.
Your profile photo is repugnant.
That's because your sense of humor is as nonexistent as your ability to determine what is and what isn't repugnant, which is as nonexistent as the relevance of your opinion.
It's humorous to you to posture yourself as more totalitarian than Stalin?
Yes. the humor lies in the fact that I paint myself as totalitarian when my political adversaries are immeasurably more totalitarian than I ever will be.
It sounds like you don't know what that word means.
Yes, I do. And if you're a leftist, it is virtually guaranteed that you're a greater totalitarian than I am.
Let's get this straight: you believe that "leftists" (a vague term), by which I must assume you mean persons in this country who believe the people should be in control of their government, are more totalitarian than the psycho authoritarians who
believe government and business should control every aspect of an individual's life? Yeah. You don't understand what that word means.
"I must assume you mean persons in this country who believe the people should be in control of their government,"
You assumed wrong. A leftist is simply one who falls on the left side of the political spectrum.
0bama, for example, who thinks the government gets to decide what insurance everyone must by, is a leftist.
Ghey rites warriors, for example, who think it should be illegal for businesses to refuse gays service, are leftists.
I can go on.
So, you REALLY don't know what you're taking about, huh? Obama doesn't fall on the left side of the political spectrum. He's up in that top right quadrant with you, though much nearer the middle.
"Obama doesn't fall on the left side of the political spectrum." - Arctostaphylos
And for posterity, if I could get you on record, Do the aforementioned ghey rites warriors fall on the left or the right of the spectrum?
"Ghey rites" isn't a thing, so...
And he's gotten more conservative since elected: doggedly pursuing whistleblowers, silencing the press, executing terrorism suspects by drone with no trial, etc.
There's no need to beat around the bush, you've simply declined to answer the question asked.
And you have made the mistake of confusing the left-right spectrum with the totalitarian-libertarian spectrum.
Pursuing whistle blowers doesn't push 0bama
to the right it pushes him up. He is still a firmly lodged on the left.
Left or right is determined by what policies you believe are best for society, totalitarian or libertarian is determined by how you go about enforcing said policies.
There's nothing wrong with being pig-ignorant, some people just are. But don't be so foolish as to claim others don't know what they're talking about when you are.
Ah! So now we're at the crux of the matter: on the political compass that your profile pic refers to, North-South equates to right-left on social issues (i.e. how much [right] or little [left] control government should have over individuals and their
private lives), and East-West equates to right-left on economic issues (i.e. how much [left] or little [right] control government should have on business and markets). The product of these two would then be NE as right and SW as left. Any move east
or north is a move to the right politically, and any move south or west is a move to the left politically. Obama is about a (2.3, 2.9), i.e. right of center on both social and economic issues. Of note is that any society or government in the NE or NW
extreme corners is a relatively totalitarian society, since in either corner, government and business are indistinguishable, run by the same interests. In the NW, government in control of business with complete subjugation of the individual, and in
the NE, business control of government with complete subjugation of the individual. In either case, society and the individual are slave to a governing industrial complex.
But that positioning of Obama was based on his political stances expressed as of 2008. Since then, he has moved north (i.e. to the right socially) as evidenced by his suppression of speech and denial of due process. He has also moved much more subtly
east (i.e. to the right economically) as evidenced in his utter inaction on reigning in financial malfeasance and his support of the TPP.
Here's 2008 again:
"North-South equates to right-left on social issues "
No. North south relates to totalitarian-libertarian. You would have discovered this if you had bothered looking at the labels on the map.
tl;dr the rest.
Make your point succinctly if you want to.
Ordinarily, I don't mind reading long
Posts, but not from an individual who claims '0bama doesn't fall on the left'.
And since you appear to find pictures on the Internet so convincing, here's one I took of 0bama last week.
So, your argument is "I don't know anything about the politicalcompass.org chart and, even though it's just been thoroughly explained to me, I'm going to stubbornly stand on my incorrect argument!" Nice.
Those pictures I posted are BY THE PEOPLE WHO CREATED THE POLITICAL COMPASS you cite in your profile pic and are according to THEIR application of data through THEIR algorithm.
If it isn't abundantly clear by now, I don't take the site, or its pictures seriously.
And my profile pic wasn't created by their algorithm, I made it in ms paint.
I see. So you're using their image, which references a very specific metric, to mean something that has nothing to do with their site or that very specific metric, but rather a completely arbitrary metric you've conjured in your head. Gotcha.
In that case, your profile pic isn't repugnant, just nonsensical, though, by the explicit priories of its imagery, there's no way to know that it's meant to be nonsensical. Thanks for the clarification.
(*properties, not priories)
No, I do take the left-right and the totalitarian-libertarian spectrums seriously. I just don't take the site's ability to determine where one falls on the spectrums seriously.
Also interesting that you initially called leftist "a vague term" but now all of a sudden, when it comes to the site which places people on the left and the right, it becomes a "very specific metric".
Leftist is a vague term because it doesn't explain whether it's meant as left on an economic spectrum (west on the compass) or left on a social spectrum (south on the compass).
If you're not serious about the political compass and what it measures and indicates, why feature it in your profile pic? Especially since you seem to have your own imaginary metric for political positioning?
But see, you're wrong. Left on social issues isn't south, it's west. Just like left on economic issues. That's why the labels on the chart are left, right, totalitarian, libertarian and not left economics, right economics, left social, right social.
It appears you're trying to make the case, erroneously, that right on social issues is totalitarian, and left on social issues is libertarian. In that case, please state it so that I can get you on the record. For posterity.
You are making the erroneous assumption that your imagined metrics are what that chart references, but, as I explained above, and as you would understand if you visited their website for even a fraction of a second, on that chart that your pic cites
the north-south axis (labeled "authoritarian" [not "totalitarian"] and "libertarian") refers to right-left on social issues.
You're welcome for clarifying this for you *again*.
Just answer the question, for posterity.
Is it your opinion that right on social issues is authoritarian and left on social issues it libertarian?
This is a yes or no question, don't waste your time dodging it with 2 paragraphs.
Yes. If your political views on social issues are on the right, i.e. that government should regulate how individuals can live their lives, and prohibit forms of behavior that don't fit your arbitrary standards of morality, you are an authoritarian.
If your political views on social issues are on the left, i.e. that government has no business interfering in the social behavior of citizens or legislating morality, you are a libertarian. This is a different concept from the modern American
American incarnation of "Libertarian" which is on the left socially and on the right economically.
This last bit is WHY that political compass you cite was made, to illustrate that the variety of people's political opinions is not purely dichotomous.
The 'yes" is all that was required of you.
for posterity: '0bama doesn't fall on the left', 'being on the right on social issues is authoritarian' -
Glad I could set you straight on those! Surprised that you made it to adulthood without being able to sort that out for yourself, but whatever; everyone at their own pace.
On another note, I find it funny that you are so timid that you can't type Obama's name using the correct characters, like a scared little kid afraid of saying Voldemort.
"...you can't type Obama's name using the correct characters"
As usual, you're wrong.
Ah! Well done! I'm proud of you! You tried really hard at that! You should be proud of your breakthrough!
It just means the south is much more liberal than is known.
*repressed (not liberal)
There's still plenty of gay people. Just like there are people that supported Mitt Romney in Vermont.
Stereotypes rarely are their stereotype.
I disagree with you on this. I think there usually is truth behind stereotypes.
Yes, Oregonians are all hemp wearing, pot smoking hippies. ;)
I hug my fir tree every morning.
It doesn't surprise me. I've known many gay Christians.
Ironically, Mississippi, Georgia and other southern states have the fewest people identify as gay on the gallop poles. Do you think there is a connection?
Texas and Oklahoma are fairly high too lmao!
The Bible Belt is tagged that because they have the largest number of churches per capita. That does not mean the Bible Belt has only Christians who live there. There are murderers, rapists and thieves here just like the rest of the country.
Nonetheless it's still ironic. Lol!
And in areas where people are more openly against homosexuality and porn, the Internet becomes the only option for more gay men.
It's a much much MUCH higher percentage of Christians than any other part of the country.
Also, murderers, rapists and thieves are just as likely to be christians as any other faith or lack there of.
Face it Glock, there are a TON of closeted christians
Nope. That would be an impossibility. One can't be a Christian and and engage in sexual immorality.
Glock, they consider themselves to be Christians even though you don't. That's the important part.
@glock -what you just said is not consistent with Christian theology, i.e. heretical.
So what do you contend are the sufficient and necessary conditions for Christianity, Glock?
No Earlybird. That IS NOT the important part. Being a Christian is the important part, not thinking you are one. Of course that means total surrender of your life to the authority of Christ. Not something most people want to do.
Smart Texan...it is consistent with SCRIPTURE.
@glock - writer scripture? If yes, exactly what?
So, GlockMan, do you delineate between Christianity and salvation? What defines Christianity? What defines salvation? Are you arguing that sexual immorality is somehow special or that all sin disqualifies you from Christianity?
I consider Glockman to be the Rotavele of the conservative side. It wouldn't surprise me if they are actually the same person. He is 100% conservative on every issue ever, just as rota is 100% liberal on every issue.
That being said, I don't think the people/person behind those user names is actually that way, but trying to make a point about how stupid both sides are.
Both sides have their idiots who refuse to see any good from the other and those people are wrong. We need more people in the center, rather than sticking to one side with all their might.
Well yeah, but what I'm getting at is whether you can you be a saved non-Christian.
Hahahaha not at all