Vagina Monologues At Valpo University - Again!

[rick]

Apr 11, 2010 12:21:40 GMT -5 vuweathernerd said:

it's got more to do with your insane close-mindedness and your "my-way-or-it's-socialism" attitude. conservatives in this country used to stand for smaller government and individual accountability. you're just as partisan as the likes of nancy pelosi, dick cheney, and rush limbaugh. people like you refuse to compromise and it's attitudes like this that have american politics in its current state of shambles. why was ronald reagan so successful? he recognized the importance of compromise-willingness to do so lends a great amount of credibility to any movement.

Nice dodge. You are no conservative. How old are you?
Any true conservative would not have the disdain you have for Rush Limbaugh, one of the most genuine conservatives out there fighting the good fight against liberalism. You should stop referring to yourself as conservative because you aren't conservative in any way.

Just join the democrat party where you and your liberal friends and socialists belong - the party of hate - the party of deceit - the party of socialism where hard work and success is punished and sloth is rewarded. The party of class warfare and pitting one group against another group. The party of corruption and unions. The party of coercive government engaged in legalized theft against people who work hard to become successful.
That's what the democrat party is all about, liberalism.

And liberalism, like socialism, is evil, both in the secular and the religious world.

Liberalism is the root of heresy, the tree of evil in whose branches all the harpies of infidelity find ample shelter; it is today the evil of all evils.
"The theater, literature, public and private morals are all saturated with obscenity and impurity. The result is inevitable; a corrupt generation necessarily begets a revolutionary generation. Liberalism is the program of naturalism. Free-thought begets free morals, or immorality. Restraint is thrown off and a free rein given to the passions. Whoever thinks what he pleases will do what he pleases. Liberalism in the intellectual order is license in the moral order. Disorder in the intellect begets disorder in the heart, and vice-versa. Thus does Liberalism propagate immorality, and immorality Liberalism."

Liberalism "is, therefore, the radical and universal denial of all divine truth and Christian dogma, the primal type of all heresy, and the supreme rebellion against the authority of God and His Church. As with Lucifer, its maxim is, 'I will not serve.'"
"Liberalism, whether in the doctrinal or practical order, is a sin. In the doctrinal order, it is heresy, and consequently a mortal sin against faith. In the practical order, it is a sin against the commandments of God and of the Church, for it virtually transgresses all commandments. To be more precise: in the doctrinal order, Liberalism strikes at the very foundations of faith; it is heresy radical and universal, because within it are comprehended all heresies. In the practical order it is a radical and universal infraction of the divine law, since it sanctions and authorizes all infractions of that law."
Dr. Don Felix Sarda Y Salvany

[valpo04]

Nerd, you are wrong, rick is right. In every way... in life. This is a perfect example as to why arguing anything with him is a pointless excercise. No matter what you say, you will always be wrong.

Even if you label yourself a conservative and have conservative views, rick knows you better than you know yourself.

rick even knows how far politics infiltrate into the sports world. Think you are reading a thread about Brad Stevens' success? Nope, rick will chime in about how libruls will want Stevens to give that new money away. Think you are reading a thread about tournament expansion? Nope, rick also showed us all why people who are against it are "scared of change libruls."

Final thought... don't worry about being different than rick, his intolerance and over the top act doesn't reflect poorly upon anyone else but him. Don't worry about not being a "real conservative" in rick's eyes. Especially if that means being like him.

I am a fiscal conservative and frankly, it upsets me to think I share ANY of the same thoughts as he.

[rlh]

As I said on another thread....I have blocked Rick's comments from my posts....I have enjoyed this site much much better since.....you might try it....

[valpo04]

This thread is also a prime exhibit as to why it's best to not respond to rick. These threads are never about meaningful discussion but about baiting people and then going off on the evils of the left.


Don't waste your time or give him fodder. If no one responds, its just rick talking to himself. :crazy

[rlh]

I should know better than anyone else...thus, I took the action I did to make sure I don't take the bait anylonger

[stlvufan]

Exhibit A as to how the messenger can get in the way of the message to the point that it's no longer reasonable to expect the message to be heard.

[rick]

The truth hurts. It's tough for those on the left to look in the mirror.

It is legitimate to discuss why those on the far left engage in evil and why socialism is evil. That you are all afraid of even going there says a lot about you, not about me. You wish to make only personal attacks directed towards me to marginalize me and not to debate the issue. Sort of like a child who covers his ears and screams so that he doesn't have to listen to the truth or what is being debated. This is a typical cowardly tactic of those who have no argument and who try and silence those with whom they disagree. So typically liberal!

I will leave you with this article by Walter Williams:

econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles/04/socialism.html

What is socialism? We miss the boat if we say it's the agenda of those left-wingers and Democrats. According to Marxist doctrine, socialism is a stage of society between capitalism and communism where private ownership and control over property is eliminated. The essence of socialism is the attenuation and ultimate abolition of private property rights. Attacks on private property include, but are not limited to, confiscating the rightful property of one person and giving it to another to whom it doesn't belong. When this is done privately we call it theft. When it's done collectively we use the euphemisms: income transfers or redistribution. It's not just left-wingers and Democrats who call for and admire socialism but right-wingers and Republicans as well.

Republicans and right-wingers support taking the earnings of one American and giving them to farmers, banks, airlines and other failing businesses. Democrats and left-wingers support taking the earnings of one American and giving them to poor people, cities, and artists. Both agree on taking one American's earnings to give to another; they simply differ on the recipients. This kind of congressional activity constitutes at least two-thirds of the federal budget.

Regardless of the purpose such behavior is immoral. It's a reduced form of slavery. After all what is the essence of slavery? It's the forceful use of one person to serve the purposes of another person. When Congress, through the tax code, takes the earnings of one person and turns around to give it to another person in the forms of prescription drugs, social security, food stamps, farm subsidies or airline bailouts, it is forcibly using one person to serve the purposes of another.

The moral question stands out in starker relief when we acknowledge that those spending programs coming out of Congress do not represent lawmakers reaching into their own pockets and sending out the money. Moreover, there's no Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus giving them the money. The fact that government has no resources of its very own forces us to acknowledge that the only way government can give one American a dollar is to first through intimidation, threats and coercion take that dollar from some other American.

Some might rejoin that all of this is a result of a democratic process and it's legal. Legality alone is no guide for a moral people. There are many things in this world that have been, or are, legal but clearly immoral. Slavery was legal. Did that make it moral? South Africa's apartheid, Nazi persecution of Jews, Stalinist and Maoist purges were all legal but did that make them moral?

Can a moral case be made for taking the rightful property of one American and giving it to another to whom it does not belong? I think not. That's why socialism is evil. It uses evil means (coercion) to achieve what are seen as good ends (helping people). We might also note that an act that is inherently evil does not become moral simply because there's a majority consensus.

An argument against legalized theft should not be construed as an argument against helping one's fellow man in need. Charity is a noble instinct; theft legal or illegal is despicable. Or, put another way: reaching into one's own pocket to assist his fellow man is noble and worthy of praise. Reaching into another person's pocket to assist one's fellow man is despicable and worthy of condemnation.

For the Christians among us, socialism and the welfare state must be seen as sinful. When God gave Moses the commandment "Thou shalt not steal", I'm sure He didn't mean thou shalt not steal unless there's a majority vote. And, I'm sure that if you asked God if it's okay just being a recipient of stolen property, He would deem that a sin as well.

Walter E. Williams
C16-04
July 26, 2004

Carry on in your echo chamber. Bye!

[bbtds]

Who's Rick?

[milwvu04]

Apr 11, 2010 21:58:54 GMT -5 bbtds said:

Who's Rick?

I believe this is the Rick you were wondering about...

[vuweathernerd]

Apr 11, 2010 23:14:53 GMT -5 milwvu04 said:

Apr 11, 2010 21:58:54 GMT -5 bbtds said:

Who's Rick?

I believe this is the Rick you were wondering about...

well played.

[agibson]

I don't have the energy to dive deeply into this discussion.

The one version of the show I've attended was put on by students, and perhaps others, at a Lutheran seminary. (No, not St. Louis or Ft. Wayne!) I was uncomfortable in the audience, but it seemed like a valuable addition to the discussion of gender and human sexuality.

I'm inclined to take criticism of the show more more seriously when it comes from someone with a vagina. (e.g. not from my own discomfort, or from Rick). Heck, I'm even inclined to take the comments from the indefinitely authored "Catholic Women's Joint Statement on Monologues " more seriously.