[The definition I provided was from Merriam-Webster.]
I provided the first and only definition to "hypocrisy." You provided the 2nd definition to "hypocrite". I should have made that distinction clear in my previous post. Neither of us are wrong in our definitions.
[It truly is unbelievable that you are incapable of knowing the commonly accept definition of the word "hypocrite" in regard to written words and incapable of understanding that words have multiple definitions depending on the context in which they are written.]
You said I was being hypocritical and I proved that I was not. That's why I accused you of not knowing what the word meant.
[The only one that gets to impose their beliefs on anyone in the gay marriage situation is the religious.]
False.
[My position is to include everyone.]
False.
[That's because you don't know the definition of the word.]
False.
[You had to look it up and only included the first definition you came to.]
I did not have to look it up; I already knew the definition. I posted the definition for you since you obviously didn't already know what it was.
[And you'd still be wrong because I know that Ikeithlu would be "against" any religious institution trying to impose their will through legislation on others.]
It would be illegal to force people into a certain religion. But applying religious principles in laws is not. The Founding Fathers not only knew this but they encouraged applying Christian principles to our government's laws. If you are against doing that, that's your business. But don't ruin it for the majority of our country that wants to keep it that way.
[You don't even understand the definition you provided.]
False.
[Secondly, the definition you provided for the word "hypocrite" isn't the universally accepted definition of the word.]
LOL!! I guess Merriam-Webster has it all wrong? Get them on the phone right now and tell them to change their definition! Unbelievable!!
[How are gays being given rights to marry "imposing' their "beliefs" on you? What rights are you denied by allowing marriage equality?]
The issue is about redefining marriage from what it currently is. That's how it's "imposing" on my beliefs. If gays are wanting other "rights" that they currently don't have, they should try to achieve those things through some other means.
[Marriage equality is inevitable.]
False.
[The Bill of Rights states "equal protection under law".]
Funny that you don't use this statement in defense of the unborn. I guess "consent" is a prerequisite for equal protection? Says who? Not the Constitution.
I posted a link in my 4:57 pm post yesterday. There's no question that premiums will increase more than normal next year as a direct result of the Obamacare legislation. The only question is by how much.
[You do in the United States of America for it to hold up under scrutiny of any kind.]
False.
[Especially when the SCOTUS gets involved.]
The SCOTUS is less concerned with the reasoning behind the 52% of Californians who voted down gay marriage. The issue is whether or not that kind of law can be passed in the first place. But the SCOTUS should do the right thing and uphold the vote in CA.
[I knew you didn't know what that word meant.]
You, sir, are the one who obviously does not know what the word means. From Merriam-Webster: "a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially: the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion."
[What about the fact that you don't want others to impose their "beliefs' on you, but you see no problem imposing your "beliefs" on others.]
I said earlier that ultimately someone gets to "impose" their beliefs on someone else. That's what happens when you live under a standard and the people disagree on what that standard should be. Nothing that I said about any of that is hypocritical based on the definition of the word. On the flip side, I did accuse Ike of being hypocritical because she claims to be against anyone "imposing", but in reality, she's only against Christians "imposing". It's okay to her if gays "impose" their beliefs on others. The hypocrisy falls under the "to believe what one does not" part of the definition that I provided.
[Or the fact that you are trying to accuse me of discriminating against human/animal matrimony while you're the one discriminating against two consenting adults of the same sex marrying.]
Because I am against the redefinition of marriage, then yes, I am "discriminating" against anyone who wants to be married that is not one man and one woman. I have not denied that. However, I pointed out that you are also discriminating as well if you are not in favor of opening marriage up to anyone and anything. Thus, by chastising me for "discriminating", you are the pot calling the kettle black.
[With no facts.]
So when premiums skyrocket next year (according to projections), people will have much less disposable income than they do now. And without the middle class having that extra money to spend, what do you think that will do to the economy?
[The issue in question is not about polygamy or marrying animals/inanimate objects. It's about two, consenting adults being able to marry.]
No, the issue (according to you) was about equality. And I showed you that you're not truly being equal by only extending marriage to monogamous gays.
[If you are too ignorant or brainwashed to see the difference between two adults marrying and a man marrying a sheep...]
Of course there is a difference. But you are still discriminating, are you not? Again, what/whose standard are you following by allowing some groups to marry and others not?
[You don't have a logical, non-religious reason to oppose it...]
I really don't need a non-religious reason to oppose it. Marriage originated in the Bible, did it not?
[Do you want a full run down or just a synopsis of today's hypocrisy?]
Lol. Go for it. There's zero hypocrisy in anything I've written today.
[Adams was saying that the Constitution was made for people that follow the rules.]
I got more out of his quote than just that.
[I was referring to the "recession" part. Where is your link regarding that claim?]
[If the majority (Democrats) of low income voters are not voting against their own economic interests, then you are admitting the 15-20% of low income voters that don't vote Democrat are, in fact, voting against their own interests.]
Yes, I agree that the 15-20% are voting against their own ECONOMIC interests. However, when deciding on a candidate, there's more to consider than just economic interests. For example, the 15-20% that you mentioned may have voted conservative because they valued a pro-life or traditional marriage stance more than the economic issues. If so, then it's not fair to say they simply voted against their own economic interests as if they didn't know any better.
The same is true on the flip side. You'd expect the majority of the top 1% to vote Republican because it's in their best economic interests to do so. However, there are many prominent rich liberals who kiss Obama's hind end anyway. It's not because they don't care about their economic interests, it's because they care more about the other issues instead.
[One side gives equal marriage rights to everyone. The other doesn't.]
Actually, the gays only care about redefining marriage for themselves. What about everybody else who wants more than one marriage partner? Or being married to whatever thing they want? Now it doesn't seem so "equal", does it? Whose standard are you choosing to follow? Now who's discriminating against whom?
[You obviously don't know what that word means because you are one.]
How?
[The laws in the United States ARE NOT based on biblical principles or any religious principles.]
Some of them are.
[Why did the Founding Fathers go to great lengths to make sure the United States government was founded on secular, inclusive ideals?]
They didn't. Consider the words of John Adams: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
[What biblical principles? Ten commandments? Old Testament? Or do we get to choose?]
What does it matter which ones?
[The fight against marriage equality is a good example. There is no secular reason to oppose marriage equality, so I have to assume that the Tea Party opposes it because it is against their religious views.]
So you think it's okay for gays to "impose" their belief that marriage should be open to all, but it's not okay for Christians to "impose" their belief that marriage is limited to a man and a woman? How hypocritical. In the end, someone is "imposing" on somebody else. That's the way it is.
[I can't think of a single law that is uniquely Christian in origin.]
So what's the problem then? All I said was it's okay to apply Biblical principles to craft laws. A lot of those principles are probably shared with other religions/ideas as well. So what? As an atheist, you are against any form of religious influence in the public sphere. Looking at our nation's history, there is clearly no intent for there to be a government that is devoid of religious influence.
[He has been. In spite of every effort by the GOP to get in the way. Which they freely admitted.]
The presence of the Republicans in the House is actually helping him look better than he really is. He is unable to ram through any more "pass it then we'll read it" kinds of laws.
[All of those things are basic WingNut/TeaBagger policy. If an individual that is in the lower to middle class votes for those policies, they are voting against their own economic interests.]
Easy, the middle class doesn't normally benefit from any of those things that you listed. Obamacare is an impending disaster. Premiums are going to be jacked up next year and it will send us into another recession unless something is changed. The lower class, on the other hand, does benefit from those things you mentioned. And those folks also vote Democratic. So I don't see how conservatives are voting against their own economic interests.
[Why would Rand Paul woo Evangelicals, Stewwie, if not to promise pursuing their social agenda?]
Maybe he realizes that without the Evangelical vote, the Republicans won't stand a chance.
[After all, didn't a member of the local Tea Party post right here on the TFP a list of Tea Party goals that included imposing sectarian religious views?]
Imposing? Did he say he supports a law that forces people to become Christians? No. However, he supports crafting laws that apply Biblical principles. Nothing wrong with that. Lots of laws already do that.
[This has been going on since Reagan; the GOP enlisted the support of Pat Robertson and Billy Graham, and using social issues got conservative Christians in the middle class to vote against their own economic best interests.]
"Against their own economic best interests"? False.
[They then went on to destroy the middle class completely.]
False.
[Of course, without achieving a single social goal demanded by the conservatives.]
Not a single one? Hmmmmm. Either way, maybe the Democrats had something to do with that?
[Now we live with the biggest unbalance in wealth holdings since the time of the robber barons, and the past five administrations (except Clinton) raised the deficit enormously.]
Maybe if King Obama would champion reasonable policies to get people back to work then we could start reducing the wealth gap. Instead, he is satisfied with the entitlement society that we have become with more people than ever dependent on the government. Under Bush and a Republican Congress, we had full employment, but today we are still stuck with too high of an unemployment and underemployment rate. As for deficits, Obama is the torchbearer for spending money we don't have. So much for his half-hearted promise of cutting the deficit in half. He is proving his incompetence with each passing day.
Right Side Round Table: What is the future of the Tea Party? What does the Tea Party need to do in order to remain influential and effective?
[The definition I provided was from Merriam-Webster.]
I provided the first and only definition to "hypocrisy." You provided the 2nd definition to "hypocrite". I should have made that distinction clear in my previous post. Neither of us are wrong in our definitions.
[It truly is unbelievable that you are incapable of knowing the commonly accept definition of the word "hypocrite" in regard to written words and incapable of understanding that words have multiple definitions depending on the context in which they are written.]
You said I was being hypocritical and I proved that I was not. That's why I accused you of not knowing what the word meant.
Right Side Round Table: What is the future of the Tea Party? What does the Tea Party need to do in order to remain influential and effective?
[The only one that gets to impose their beliefs on anyone in the gay marriage situation is the religious.]
False.
[My position is to include everyone.]
False.
[That's because you don't know the definition of the word.]
False.
[You had to look it up and only included the first definition you came to.]
I did not have to look it up; I already knew the definition. I posted the definition for you since you obviously didn't already know what it was.
[And you'd still be wrong because I know that Ikeithlu would be "against" any religious institution trying to impose their will through legislation on others.]
It would be illegal to force people into a certain religion. But applying religious principles in laws is not. The Founding Fathers not only knew this but they encouraged applying Christian principles to our government's laws. If you are against doing that, that's your business. But don't ruin it for the majority of our country that wants to keep it that way.
[You don't even understand the definition you provided.]
False.
[Secondly, the definition you provided for the word "hypocrite" isn't the universally accepted definition of the word.]
LOL!! I guess Merriam-Webster has it all wrong? Get them on the phone right now and tell them to change their definition! Unbelievable!!
Right Side Round Table: What is the future of the Tea Party? What does the Tea Party need to do in order to remain influential and effective?
[How are gays being given rights to marry "imposing' their "beliefs" on you? What rights are you denied by allowing marriage equality?]
The issue is about redefining marriage from what it currently is. That's how it's "imposing" on my beliefs. If gays are wanting other "rights" that they currently don't have, they should try to achieve those things through some other means.
[Marriage equality is inevitable.]
False.
[The Bill of Rights states "equal protection under law".]
Funny that you don't use this statement in defense of the unborn. I guess "consent" is a prerequisite for equal protection? Says who? Not the Constitution.
[The majority cannot vote away that right.]
Marriage itself is not a "right".
http://www.nationalcenter.org/P21NVGreenMarriage90712.html
[Source?]
I posted a link in my 4:57 pm post yesterday. There's no question that premiums will increase more than normal next year as a direct result of the Obamacare legislation. The only question is by how much.
Right Side Round Table: What is the future of the Tea Party? What does the Tea Party need to do in order to remain influential and effective?
[You do in the United States of America for it to hold up under scrutiny of any kind.]
False.
[Especially when the SCOTUS gets involved.]
The SCOTUS is less concerned with the reasoning behind the 52% of Californians who voted down gay marriage. The issue is whether or not that kind of law can be passed in the first place. But the SCOTUS should do the right thing and uphold the vote in CA.
[I knew you didn't know what that word meant.]
You, sir, are the one who obviously does not know what the word means. From Merriam-Webster: "a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially: the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion."
[What about the fact that you don't want others to impose their "beliefs' on you, but you see no problem imposing your "beliefs" on others.]
I said earlier that ultimately someone gets to "impose" their beliefs on someone else. That's what happens when you live under a standard and the people disagree on what that standard should be. Nothing that I said about any of that is hypocritical based on the definition of the word. On the flip side, I did accuse Ike of being hypocritical because she claims to be against anyone "imposing", but in reality, she's only against Christians "imposing". It's okay to her if gays "impose" their beliefs on others. The hypocrisy falls under the "to believe what one does not" part of the definition that I provided.
[Or the fact that you are trying to accuse me of discriminating against human/animal matrimony while you're the one discriminating against two consenting adults of the same sex marrying.]
Because I am against the redefinition of marriage, then yes, I am "discriminating" against anyone who wants to be married that is not one man and one woman. I have not denied that. However, I pointed out that you are also discriminating as well if you are not in favor of opening marriage up to anyone and anything. Thus, by chastising me for "discriminating", you are the pot calling the kettle black.
[With no facts.]
So when premiums skyrocket next year (according to projections), people will have much less disposable income than they do now. And without the middle class having that extra money to spend, what do you think that will do to the economy?
Right Side Round Table: What is the future of the Tea Party? What does the Tea Party need to do in order to remain influential and effective?
[The issue in question is not about polygamy or marrying animals/inanimate objects. It's about two, consenting adults being able to marry.]
No, the issue (according to you) was about equality. And I showed you that you're not truly being equal by only extending marriage to monogamous gays.
[If you are too ignorant or brainwashed to see the difference between two adults marrying and a man marrying a sheep...]
Of course there is a difference. But you are still discriminating, are you not? Again, what/whose standard are you following by allowing some groups to marry and others not?
[You don't have a logical, non-religious reason to oppose it...]
I really don't need a non-religious reason to oppose it. Marriage originated in the Bible, did it not?
[Do you want a full run down or just a synopsis of today's hypocrisy?]
Lol. Go for it. There's zero hypocrisy in anything I've written today.
[Adams was saying that the Constitution was made for people that follow the rules.]
I got more out of his quote than just that.
[I was referring to the "recession" part. Where is your link regarding that claim?]
Here's a link:
http://www.moneynews.com/MichaelCarr/IRS-Obamacare-recession-shell/2013/03/08/id/493769
[If the majority (Democrats) of low income voters are not voting against their own economic interests, then you are admitting the 15-20% of low income voters that don't vote Democrat are, in fact, voting against their own interests.]
Yes, I agree that the 15-20% are voting against their own ECONOMIC interests. However, when deciding on a candidate, there's more to consider than just economic interests. For example, the 15-20% that you mentioned may have voted conservative because they valued a pro-life or traditional marriage stance more than the economic issues. If so, then it's not fair to say they simply voted against their own economic interests as if they didn't know any better.
The same is true on the flip side. You'd expect the majority of the top 1% to vote Republican because it's in their best economic interests to do so. However, there are many prominent rich liberals who kiss Obama's hind end anyway. It's not because they don't care about their economic interests, it's because they care more about the other issues instead.
Right Side Round Table: What is the future of the Tea Party? What does the Tea Party need to do in order to remain influential and effective?
[One side gives equal marriage rights to everyone. The other doesn't.]
Actually, the gays only care about redefining marriage for themselves. What about everybody else who wants more than one marriage partner? Or being married to whatever thing they want? Now it doesn't seem so "equal", does it? Whose standard are you choosing to follow? Now who's discriminating against whom?
[You obviously don't know what that word means because you are one.]
How?
[The laws in the United States ARE NOT based on biblical principles or any religious principles.]
Some of them are.
[Why did the Founding Fathers go to great lengths to make sure the United States government was founded on secular, inclusive ideals?]
They didn't. Consider the words of John Adams: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
[You're making this up as you go along.]
Read it and weep...
http://washingtonexaminer.com/insurers-predict-100-to-400-obamacare-rate-explosion/article/2529523
[The 15-20% of low income people that still vote Republican are voting against their own economic interests.]
Fine. But the majority of low income people are obviously not voting against their own economic interests.
Right Side Round Table: What is the future of the Tea Party? What does the Tea Party need to do in order to remain influential and effective?
[What biblical principles? Ten commandments? Old Testament? Or do we get to choose?]
What does it matter which ones?
[The fight against marriage equality is a good example. There is no secular reason to oppose marriage equality, so I have to assume that the Tea Party opposes it because it is against their religious views.]
So you think it's okay for gays to "impose" their belief that marriage should be open to all, but it's not okay for Christians to "impose" their belief that marriage is limited to a man and a woman? How hypocritical. In the end, someone is "imposing" on somebody else. That's the way it is.
[I can't think of a single law that is uniquely Christian in origin.]
So what's the problem then? All I said was it's okay to apply Biblical principles to craft laws. A lot of those principles are probably shared with other religions/ideas as well. So what? As an atheist, you are against any form of religious influence in the public sphere. Looking at our nation's history, there is clearly no intent for there to be a government that is devoid of religious influence.
[He has been. In spite of every effort by the GOP to get in the way. Which they freely admitted.]
The presence of the Republicans in the House is actually helping him look better than he really is. He is unable to ram through any more "pass it then we'll read it" kinds of laws.
[All of those things are basic WingNut/TeaBagger policy. If an individual that is in the lower to middle class votes for those policies, they are voting against their own economic interests.]
Easy, the middle class doesn't normally benefit from any of those things that you listed. Obamacare is an impending disaster. Premiums are going to be jacked up next year and it will send us into another recession unless something is changed. The lower class, on the other hand, does benefit from those things you mentioned. And those folks also vote Democratic. So I don't see how conservatives are voting against their own economic interests.
5@10 -- All-time Heisman head scratchers
How about Marshall Faulk and Garrison Hearst (snubbed in the same year!) And Randy Moss was pretty good too.
Right Side Round Table: What is the future of the Tea Party? What does the Tea Party need to do in order to remain influential and effective?
[Why would Rand Paul woo Evangelicals, Stewwie, if not to promise pursuing their social agenda?]
Maybe he realizes that without the Evangelical vote, the Republicans won't stand a chance.
[After all, didn't a member of the local Tea Party post right here on the TFP a list of Tea Party goals that included imposing sectarian religious views?]
Imposing? Did he say he supports a law that forces people to become Christians? No. However, he supports crafting laws that apply Biblical principles. Nothing wrong with that. Lots of laws already do that.
[This has been going on since Reagan; the GOP enlisted the support of Pat Robertson and Billy Graham, and using social issues got conservative Christians in the middle class to vote against their own economic best interests.]
"Against their own economic best interests"? False.
[They then went on to destroy the middle class completely.]
False.
[Of course, without achieving a single social goal demanded by the conservatives.]
Not a single one? Hmmmmm. Either way, maybe the Democrats had something to do with that?
[Now we live with the biggest unbalance in wealth holdings since the time of the robber barons, and the past five administrations (except Clinton) raised the deficit enormously.]
Maybe if King Obama would champion reasonable policies to get people back to work then we could start reducing the wealth gap. Instead, he is satisfied with the entitlement society that we have become with more people than ever dependent on the government. Under Bush and a Republican Congress, we had full employment, but today we are still stuck with too high of an unemployment and underemployment rate. As for deficits, Obama is the torchbearer for spending money we don't have. So much for his half-hearted promise of cutting the deficit in half. He is proving his incompetence with each passing day.
Right Side Round Table: What is the future of the Tea Party? What does the Tea Party need to do in order to remain influential and effective?
Double D,
Your psychosis has been duly noted.