Achtung Bubba
Refugee
I'm heading out of the forum for a while, to simply focus more on real life. I'm about to post my official last post (for the time being) in Everything You Know Is Wrong, but I'd like to take a moment to share a few words of wisdom:
80sU2isBest, Lemonite, Diamond:
We are fighting for the right reasons. Frankly, if I had all the free time in the world, I would continue to debate tooth-and-nail over these issues and continue to obliterate the opposition. But I don't, and I'm not going to urge you to continue arguing in my place even if you also find something better to do with your time.
Honestly, it hasn't been the most conducive of circumstances for generating a civil, measured debate:
The opposition has greater numbers. We are outnumbered - though I would dare say never outgunned.
The opposition defends the easier side, generally. It's usually easier on one's own conscience to say that there is no definitive truth, and that people who are simply "good enough" will be allowed into the presence of the Almighty. It's far, far easier to support such notions as "as long as it doesn't hurt anybody, it's okay," and "the rich should pay their fair share." It feels better to believe such things, though I daresay that such notions are nowhere near the right positions to take.
And the opposition has two sets of rules, one for them and one for us:
- They can call us Nazis without any evidence; we cannot suggest their ideas lead to Communism, even if it can be shown that they do.
- They can criticize us for being too vague OR for being too specific: "trying to convince that you are right has become more important in here then trying to find out what the exact truth might be." We can make no criticism whatsoever and not be called a "bully".
- They can present so-called self-evident arguments for their claims, but no amount of evidence that supports our claims is apparently enough.
But look on the bright side:
WE are right.
We are the ones supporting the political freedom guaranteed by the Constitution, the economic freedom of capitalism, and the spiritual freedom of religious pluaralism.
And, 80sU2isBest, we are the ones defending a God who is both great and good, just and merciful.
Everyone else:
I would ask you to not take the majority opinion in this forum at face value. Investigate our founding documents and the Word of God on your own.
But more than that, a lot of you claim to have a problem with me personally - much the way liberals targeted Newt Gingrich (and Clarence Thomas before him, Rush Limbaugh before Thomas, and President Reagan before Rush). The implication was everything would be fine once Gingrich left. And yet... we have the case of Henry Hyde, and now John Ashcroft.
I suspect that the same may hold true here, that you will villify whoever is most daringly defending his conservative beliefs.
I'm going for now, so prove me wrong.
Debate the issues, remain honest and consistent in your complaints, and don't resort to petty name-calling.
Show my ideological brothers the common courtesy you refused to show me.
With that, I leave you.
I shall return.
80sU2isBest, Lemonite, Diamond:
We are fighting for the right reasons. Frankly, if I had all the free time in the world, I would continue to debate tooth-and-nail over these issues and continue to obliterate the opposition. But I don't, and I'm not going to urge you to continue arguing in my place even if you also find something better to do with your time.
Honestly, it hasn't been the most conducive of circumstances for generating a civil, measured debate:
The opposition has greater numbers. We are outnumbered - though I would dare say never outgunned.
The opposition defends the easier side, generally. It's usually easier on one's own conscience to say that there is no definitive truth, and that people who are simply "good enough" will be allowed into the presence of the Almighty. It's far, far easier to support such notions as "as long as it doesn't hurt anybody, it's okay," and "the rich should pay their fair share." It feels better to believe such things, though I daresay that such notions are nowhere near the right positions to take.
And the opposition has two sets of rules, one for them and one for us:
- They can call us Nazis without any evidence; we cannot suggest their ideas lead to Communism, even if it can be shown that they do.
- They can criticize us for being too vague OR for being too specific: "trying to convince that you are right has become more important in here then trying to find out what the exact truth might be." We can make no criticism whatsoever and not be called a "bully".
- They can present so-called self-evident arguments for their claims, but no amount of evidence that supports our claims is apparently enough.
But look on the bright side:
WE are right.
We are the ones supporting the political freedom guaranteed by the Constitution, the economic freedom of capitalism, and the spiritual freedom of religious pluaralism.
And, 80sU2isBest, we are the ones defending a God who is both great and good, just and merciful.
Everyone else:
I would ask you to not take the majority opinion in this forum at face value. Investigate our founding documents and the Word of God on your own.
But more than that, a lot of you claim to have a problem with me personally - much the way liberals targeted Newt Gingrich (and Clarence Thomas before him, Rush Limbaugh before Thomas, and President Reagan before Rush). The implication was everything would be fine once Gingrich left. And yet... we have the case of Henry Hyde, and now John Ashcroft.
I suspect that the same may hold true here, that you will villify whoever is most daringly defending his conservative beliefs.
I'm going for now, so prove me wrong.
Debate the issues, remain honest and consistent in your complaints, and don't resort to petty name-calling.
Show my ideological brothers the common courtesy you refused to show me.
With that, I leave you.
I shall return.