|
|
| Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week (1161420) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 8 of 11 |
||
|
| (1193891) | |
Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week |
|
|
Posted by gp38/r42 chris on Fri Jun 13 10:52:44 2014, in response to Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week, posted by bingbong on Fri Jun 13 10:36:06 2014. Never. Please post some of these posts where I link re blogs or sites. I never do. |
|
|
| (1193892) | |
Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week |
|
|
Posted by gp38/r42 chris on Fri Jun 13 10:53:51 2014, in response to Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week, posted by bingbong on Fri Jun 13 09:39:53 2014. Selkirk is not a reliable source. Post some of these links to priests. I call bluff. |
|
|
| (1193895) | |
Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week |
|
|
Posted by gp38/r42 chris on Fri Jun 13 10:54:48 2014, in response to Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week, posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jun 13 10:40:17 2014. As usual. And its not even an official stance of the catholic church either |
|
|
| (1193900) | |
Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week |
|
|
Posted by gp38/r42 chris on Fri Jun 13 11:06:11 2014, in response to Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week, posted by bingbong on Fri Jun 13 09:40:33 2014. Bullshit. You made the claim....you support it. Since you haven't and just spout hot air (as usual) we assume its your usual band standing. |
|
|
| (1193902) | |
Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Fri Jun 13 11:10:23 2014, in response to Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week, posted by gp38/r42 chris on Fri Jun 13 11:06:11 2014. You were told where to find substaniation. IMO, this is proven and done. If you can't deal with it, Nohing can help you. |
|
|
| (1193906) | |
Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week |
|
|
Posted by gp38/r42 chris on Fri Jun 13 11:31:26 2014, in response to Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week, posted by bingbong on Fri Jun 13 11:10:23 2014. Oh stop the shit. Really?You made the claim....YOU support it. Stop the ridiculous game. |
|
|
| (1193907) | |
Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Fri Jun 13 11:35:08 2014, in response to Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week, posted by gp38/r42 chris on Fri Jun 13 11:31:26 2014. All your doing is proving you can't deal with it in throwing a verbal tantrum. |
|
|
| (1193908) | |
Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jun 13 12:05:56 2014, in response to Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week, posted by gp38/r42 chris on Fri Jun 13 10:54:48 2014. The thing about my argument is that it's entirely irrelevant what the Catholic Church's stance is, so I can accept her claims as entirely true and still "win." |
|
|
| (1193911) | |
Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week |
|
|
Posted by gp38/r42 chris on Fri Jun 13 12:07:02 2014, in response to Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week, posted by bingbong on Fri Jun 13 11:35:08 2014. Lol....get a life |
|
|
| (1193913) | |
Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week |
|
|
Posted by gp38/r42 chris on Fri Jun 13 12:08:49 2014, in response to Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week, posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jun 13 12:05:56 2014. This is true....but we haven't even seen that is a stance the catholic church even. Her source is "Selkirk" and "some priest". |
|
|
| (1193916) | |
Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Fri Jun 13 12:19:27 2014, in response to Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week, posted by gp38/r42 chris on Fri Jun 13 12:07:02 2014. I have one. Back at you. |
|
|
| (1193957) | |
Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Jun 13 16:34:56 2014, in response to Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week, posted by AlM on Fri Jun 13 10:16:06 2014. There ya go!What's funny about it though is that the church itself is tax exempt. :) |
|
|
| (1194764) | |
Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week |
|
|
Posted by DaNd124 on Wed Jun 18 12:23:39 2014, in response to Dennis Prager's "important thinking" of the week, posted by DAnD124 on Tue Mar 4 16:29:01 2014. There was no "important thinking" from Prager this week |
|
|
| (1194815) | |
Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Wed Jun 18 13:35:55 2014, in response to Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week, posted by DaNd124 on Wed Jun 18 12:23:39 2014. There never is, any week. |
|
|
| (1194878) | |
Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Wed Jun 18 15:32:08 2014, in response to Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week, posted by DaNd124 on Wed Jun 18 12:23:39 2014. Paul Krugman did it all.And why don't you wait until Friday to evaluate the radio show? |
|
|
| (1194896) | |
Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week |
|
|
Posted by chicagomotorman on Wed Jun 18 16:50:14 2014, in response to Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week, posted by LuchAAA on Wed Jun 18 15:32:08 2014. Rush Limbaugh is better. |
|
|
| (1195386) | |
Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week |
|
|
Posted by jimmymc25 on Thu Jun 19 20:46:17 2014, in response to Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week, posted by chicagomotorman on Wed Jun 18 16:50:14 2014. Speaking of NO IMPORTANT thinking.Jimmymc25 |
|
|
| (1195395) | |
Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Thu Jun 19 21:40:41 2014, in response to Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week, posted by jimmymc25 on Thu Jun 19 20:46:17 2014. The word "thinking" is also humorous. :) |
|
|
| (1195440) | |
Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Fri Jun 20 02:57:48 2014, in response to Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week, posted by chicagomotorman on Wed Jun 18 16:50:14 2014. Rush is a great man.Hugh Hewitt is also important. dan d 124 doesn't get it. |
|
|
| (1195444) | |
Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Fri Jun 20 04:24:45 2014, in response to Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week, posted by DaNd124 on Wed Jun 18 12:23:39 2014. That's too bad. These are pretty funny.Your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (1195447) | |
Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Fri Jun 20 05:56:58 2014, in response to Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week, posted by Fred G on Fri Jun 20 04:24:45 2014. dan d 124 is l0sing his own thread.He missed a great entry last week. Prager has to take vacation you know. Truth is dead. Great 5:45 segment. link here |
|
|
| (1195462) | |
Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Fri Jun 20 08:25:14 2014, in response to Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week, posted by LuchAAA on Fri Jun 20 02:57:48 2014. Yes he does. He also knows how dangerous the spew from all of those are. They are setting American against American. That does nobody any good but the oligarchy, of which they are tools of.. |
|
|
| (1195509) | |
Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week |
|
|
Posted by ChicagoMotorman on Fri Jun 20 09:20:18 2014, in response to Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week, posted by SelkirkTMO on Thu Jun 19 21:40:41 2014. SelkirkTMO is humorous. |
|
|
| (1195820) | |
Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'': San Francisco and Islamists: Fighting the same enemy |
|
|
Posted by DaNd124 on Sat Jun 21 17:42:05 2014, in response to Dennis Prager's "important thinking" of the week, posted by DAnD124 on Tue Mar 4 16:29:01 2014. http://www.dennisprager.com/san-francisco-and-islamists-fighting-the-same-enemy/America is engaged in two wars for the survival of its civilization. The war over same-sex marriage and the war against Islamic totalitarianism are actually two fronts in the same war — a war for the preservation of the unique American creation known as Judeo-Christian civilization. One enemy is religious extremism. The other is secular extremism. One enemy is led from abroad. The other is directed from home. The first war is against the Islamic attempt to crush whoever stands in the way of the spread of violent Islamic theocracies, such as al Qaeda, the Taliban, the Iranian mullahs and Hamas. The other war is against the secular nihilism that manifests itself in much of Western Europe, in parts of America such as San Francisco and in many of our universities. America leads the battle against both religious and secular nihilism and is hated by both because it rejects both equally. American values preclude embracing either religious extremism or radical secularism. As Alexis de Tocqueville, probably the greatest observer of our society, wrote almost 200 years ago, America is a unique combination of secular government and religious (Judeo-Christian) society. Not only has this combination been unique, it has been uniquely successful. America, therefore, poses as mortal a threat to radical secularism as it does to Islamic totalitarianism. Each understands that America’s success means its demise. This is a major reason why the Left so opposes anti-Islamism (just as it opposed anti-communism). In theory, the Left should be at least as opposed to the Islamists as is the Right. But the Left is preoccupied first with destroying America’s distinctive values — a Judeo-Christian society (as opposed to a secular one), capitalism (as opposed to socialism), liberty (as opposed to equality) and exceptionalism (as opposed to universalism, multiculturalism and multilateralism). So, if the Islamists are fellow anti-Americans, the Left figures it can worry about them later. All this explains why the passions are so intense regarding same-sex marriage. Most of the activists in the movement to redefine marriage wish to overthrow the predominance of Judeo-Christian values in American life. Those who oppose same-sex marriage understand that redefining the central human institution marks the beginning of the end of Judeo-Christian civilization. Let us understand this redefinition as clearly as possible: With same-sex marriage, our society declares by law that mothers are unnecessary, since two men are equally ideal as mothers and as the creators of a family; and that fathers are unnecessary, since two women are equally ideal as parents and as the creators of a family. With same-sex marriage, our society declares that there is nothing special or even necessarily desirable about a man and a woman bonding. What is sacred to the proponents of same-sex marriage is the number of people marrying (two, for the time being), not that a man and woman bond. With same-sex marriage, when taught in school about sex, marriage and family, children will have to be taught that male-male and female-female sex, love and marriage are identical to male-female sex, love and marriage. And when asked, “Who do you think you will marry when you grow up?” thanks to the ubiquitous images of media, far more children will consider members of the same sex. With same-sex marriage, no adoption agency will ever be able to prefer a married man and woman as prospective parents. Aside from the tragedy of denying untold numbers of children a mother and a father, this will lead to a drastic diminution in women placing children for adoption, since most of these women will prefer something that will then be illegal — that agencies place her child with a man and woman, not with two men or two women. With same-sex marriage, any media — films, advertisements, greeting cards — that only depict married couples as a woman and a man will be considered discriminatory and probably be sued. With same-sex marriage, those religious groups that only marry men and women will be deemed beyond the pale, marginalized and ostracized. There have been many Christian countries, and they are no longer. They have been replaced by secular countries, and they are weakening. Only American civilization remains strong, and it does so because of its unique amalgam of values rooted in Judeo-Christian morality. This civilization is now fighting for its life — as much here as abroad. Join the fight, or it will be gone as fast as you can say “Democrat.” |
|
|
| (1195821) | |
Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'': San Francisco and Islamists: Fighting the same enemy |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Jun 21 17:45:00 2014, in response to Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'': San Francisco and Islamists: Fighting the same enemy, posted by DaNd124 on Sat Jun 21 17:42:05 2014. Nice to know that the right is at war with the American people. No surprise there. :( |
|
|
| (1195822) | |
Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'': San Francisco and Islamists: Fighting the same enemy |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jun 21 17:53:09 2014, in response to Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'': San Francisco and Islamists: Fighting the same enemy, posted by DaNd124 on Sat Jun 21 17:42:05 2014. What a hateful troll. I can't wait for people like him to all be dead. |
|
|
| (1195824) | |
Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'': San Francisco and Islamists: Fighting the same enemy |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Sat Jun 21 18:19:50 2014, in response to Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'': San Francisco and Islamists: Fighting the same enemy, posted by DaNd124 on Sat Jun 21 17:42:05 2014. WTF told him to "think"? |
|
|
| (1195829) | |
Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'': San Francisco and Islamists: Fighting the same enemy |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Sat Jun 21 19:19:36 2014, in response to Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'': San Francisco and Islamists: Fighting the same enemy, posted by DaNd124 on Sat Jun 21 17:42:05 2014. Okay....first, there's more than enough domestic religious fundamentalists tht would turn the nation talibanesque. That there wouldn't be burquas is just geography. Prager sounds like he's one of them fundies. So we have americans against Americans here.If he thinks that expanded rights for a minority is wrong, may I remind him (and you) men are a minority in this nation of 53% women. More Americans against Americans. I won't hold my breath for the RE-think on this one. This truly desperately needs one. |
|
|
| (1195832) | |
Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'': San Francisco and Islamists: Fighting the same enemy |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Sat Jun 21 20:05:13 2014, in response to Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'': San Francisco and Islamists: Fighting the same enemy, posted by DaNd124 on Sat Jun 21 17:42:05 2014. Impotent thinking all right.your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (1195861) | |
Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'': San Francisco and Islamists: Fighting the same enemy |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sun Jun 22 04:35:30 2014, in response to Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'': San Francisco and Islamists: Fighting the same enemy, posted by DaNd124 on Sat Jun 21 17:42:05 2014. Brilliant piece.Notice you could debate a single point made. |
|
|
| (1195863) | |
Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'': San Francisco and Islamists: Fighting the same enemy |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Jun 22 04:57:23 2014, in response to Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'': San Francisco and Islamists: Fighting the same enemy, posted by LuchAAA on Sun Jun 22 04:35:30 2014. The guy's declaring war on the real America, not the Palin one. I'm glad he did it myself, sure hope he runs it again in October ... GOP is marginalizing itself every day by throwing away more voters, I sure hope they keep it up! :) |
|
|
| (1195864) | |
Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'': San Francisco and Islamists: Fighting the same enemy |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sun Jun 22 05:19:18 2014, in response to Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'': San Francisco and Islamists: Fighting the same enemy, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Jun 22 04:57:23 2014. I was out late last night and really pissed off because I wanted to win some threads instead of another late night date. |
|
|
| (1195865) | |
Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'': San Francisco and Islamists: Fighting the same enemy |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sun Jun 22 05:30:06 2014, in response to Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'': San Francisco and Islamists: Fighting the same enemy, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Jun 22 04:57:23 2014. dan d 124 could not debate a single point. neither could you. that's a brilliant piece. so true what DP wrote. just look at the Ground Zero mosque controversy and who lined up where. |
|
|
| (1195866) | |
Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'': San Francisco and Islamists: Fighting the same enemy |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Jun 22 05:30:49 2014, in response to Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'': San Francisco and Islamists: Fighting the same enemy, posted by LuchAAA on Sun Jun 22 05:19:18 2014. Heh. You'd rather subtard than getting some? Man ... that's pretty serious, yo. :) |
|
|
| (1195867) | |
Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'': San Francisco and Islamists: Fighting the same enemy |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Jun 22 05:31:50 2014, in response to Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'': San Francisco and Islamists: Fighting the same enemy, posted by LuchAAA on Sun Jun 22 05:30:06 2014. What's to debate? I want that boy to get up front and center and scare MORE folks away from the GOP. I consider that silliness a w1n that even Jon Stewart couldn't pull! :) |
|
|
| (1195881) | |
Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'': San Francisco and Islamists: Fighting the same enemy |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Sun Jun 22 09:46:58 2014, in response to Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'': San Francisco and Islamists: Fighting the same enemy, posted by LuchAAA on Sun Jun 22 04:35:30 2014. Maybe is Prager made a point, he could. |
|
|
| (1195882) | |
Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'': San Francisco and Islamists: Fighting the same enemy |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Sun Jun 22 09:47:57 2014, in response to Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'': San Francisco and Islamists: Fighting the same enemy, posted by bingbong on Sun Jun 22 09:46:58 2014. Maybe IF Prager made a point, he couldOops.. |
|
|
| (1195924) | |
Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'': San Francisco and Islamists: Fighting the same enemy |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Jun 22 12:12:33 2014, in response to Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'': San Francisco and Islamists: Fighting the same enemy, posted by LuchAAA on Sun Jun 22 04:35:30 2014. And he still can't. |
|
|
| (1195931) | |
Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'': San Francisco and Islamists: Fighting the same enemy |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Sun Jun 22 12:47:38 2014, in response to Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'': San Francisco and Islamists: Fighting the same enemy, posted by DaNd124 on Sat Jun 21 17:42:05 2014. It amazes me that he can argue foreign fundamentalism is evil yet domestic fundamentalism is good with a straight face. Worse are the idiots who appear to agree with this vapid blowhard. |
|
|
| (1197352) | |
LA Mayor Exemplifies America's Decline Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week |
|
|
Posted by DaNd124 on Thu Jun 26 22:27:27 2014, in response to Dennis Prager's "important thinking" of the week, posted by DAnD124 on Tue Mar 4 16:29:01 2014. Prager thinks America was better when Jews were required to say Christian prayers at public schools.http://townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/2014/06/24/draft-n1854988 Last week, during the official celebration of the Los Angeles Kings winning the Stanley Cup, the mayor of Los Angeles, Eric Garcetti, told a jammed Staples Center that "there are two long-standing rules for politicians . ... They say never, ever be pictured with a drink in your hand and never swear. But this is a big f-----g day," he said, holding up a bottle of Bud Light. You read that right. In front of 18,000 people at Staples and hundreds of thousands of others watching on television -- many of them, of course, children -- the mayor of the second-largest city in America held up a beer bottle and used the F-word. This was not a whisper overheard by reporters. This was not an accidental loss of self-control. This was a planned use of obscene language in a public forum. The question is: Does it matter? According to the Los Angeles Times report, to the vast majority of people who heard it, it didn't. "The audience roared. Players stood up to applaud. "Outside Staples Center and L.A. Live, the remarks were a hit. Lake Forest resident Jeff Ottinger, who attended Monday's rally, said ... 'I think a lot of times politicians are uppity and stuffy and for him to actually be a fan is cool.'" "It makes me have much more respect for him," said Jason Werntz, 45, of Burbank. Not only was the mayor not apologetic, he repeated his comment on Facebook and Twitter. "Soon afterward," the Times reported, "Garcetti had similar, PG-rated messages on Facebook and his official Twitter feed. 'There are a few rules in politics, one is never swear, but this is a BFD. @ericgarcetti welcomes the #StanleyCup to LA." There are those of us who believe that this is an example of a civilization in decline (or even in free fall). And there are those who think that this is either no "BFD" (as Garcetti and his admirers might say) or actually a good thing. Here are two typical comments on the Los Angeles Times website: Bruuuce: "I love him even more!" MarkRomero: "I thought the comment was very humorous!! I laughed out loud when I heard it. You no sense of humor haters will never get it. That's exactly why you are the way you are -- humorless and republican, most likely. Go KINGS!" (He is right about "Republican" -- which tells you a lot about both the Republican and Democratic Parties.) Nor was support confined to anonymous commenters and thousands of fans. Not one member of the Los Angeles City Council condemned the mayor. At least one, Councilman Mike Bonin, "said he agreed with the mayor's vivid description of the day." Support for the mayor must have overwhelmed objection. As reported by the Times, "A day after using the F-word in televised remarks at an L.A. Kings victory party," Garcetti told those who found it offensive to "lighten up." "'I think I was just being myself for a moment there,' Garcetti told reporters . ... "'Look, I think people should be kind of light about this,' Garcetti said. 'It's something that plenty of people have heard in their lives for sure.' "KNBC-TV reporter Conan Nolan asked the mayor if his cussing contributed to the coarsening of society. "'We micro-analyze everything,' he added. 'We ought to let people be people. I was just being a person yesterday.'" So, who are those who think this reflects serious social decay? They probably fall into two categories: those over, let's say, 55 years of age and religious individuals of all ages. Older Americans grew up in a religious America, and religions draw a strong distinction between the holy and the profane. That explains why even some non-religious older Americans will find this objectionable. But the secular and left-wing tsunami of the last half century has all but extinguished the concept of the holy, and thereby extinguished the concept of the profane. If nothing is holy, nothing is profane. Teachers tell us how common it has become for students to curse in class -- including cursing teachers. Fifty years ago students were allowed to mention God in class prayer. But in 1962, Supreme Court justices considered it progressive to outlaw all school prayer. And school prayer was shortly thereafter replaced by school cursing. To appreciate just how perverse our moral standards have become, imagine if Garcetti, instead of celebrating with a bottle of beer and the f-word, had lit up a cigar. He would have been excoriated by every liberal medium in the country. And many millions of Americans would have expressed horror at what a poor model he was for America's children. A society that is horrified by a mayor publicly smoking a cigar, and either apathetic or enthusiastic about that mayor publicly holding up a beer bottle and cursing, is in deep trouble. One is tempted to dismiss Eric Garcetti as either a fool or a bad guy. Based on what he did, and his continuing defense of it, he may well be the former. But he is not the latter. Above all, he is a man of the left, a Democrat, and a product of a secularized culture. |
|
|
| (1197359) | |
Re: LA Mayor Exemplifies America's Decline Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Thu Jun 26 22:40:56 2014, in response to LA Mayor Exemplifies America's Decline Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week, posted by DaNd124 on Thu Jun 26 22:27:27 2014. NO "moral decay" seen here. And I qualify in one of the demographics.The guy was happy*, it's a boost to the morale of the city, which is also part of being mayor BTW, and fewer care about a...Bud Light? Enjoy and let loose. *I still would have been happier had the Rangers won. But he wouldn't. |
|
|
| (1197378) | |
Re: LA Mayor Exemplifies America's Decline Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Fri Jun 27 02:26:56 2014, in response to LA Mayor Exemplifies America's Decline Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week, posted by DaNd124 on Thu Jun 26 22:27:27 2014. What is wrong with any of Prager's points? |
|
|
| (1197387) | |
Re: LA Mayor Exemplifies America's Decline Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Jun 27 06:11:56 2014, in response to Re: LA Mayor Exemplifies America's Decline Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week, posted by LuchAAA on Fri Jun 27 02:26:56 2014. He doesn't know. |
|
|
| (1197392) | |
Re: LA Mayor Exemplifies America's Decline Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jun 27 08:28:59 2014, in response to LA Mayor Exemplifies America's Decline Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week, posted by DaNd124 on Thu Jun 26 22:27:27 2014. I hate this obsession with foul language. If I ran the MPAA, and reviewed a movie with 200 instances of the word "fuck" and no sex, violence or nudity, I'd rate it "G."For that matter, if it had casual use of ethnic slurs like "nigger" or "chink," I would rate it PG-13. |
|
|
| (1197396) | |
Re: LA Mayor Exemplifies America's Decline Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jun 27 08:39:31 2014, in response to LA Mayor Exemplifies America's Decline Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week, posted by DaNd124 on Thu Jun 26 22:27:27 2014. I would rather children say "fuck" than smoke. Just saying.And there's nothing wrong with the word "fuck." That it's considered such a horrible word is a byproduct of our society's ridiculous obsession with repressing sex. Back in the days of a "religious America," saying "fuck" was horrible, but "nigger" was OK. I'm glad I live in a world where the latter is considered the more awful word. |
|
|
| (1197397) | |
Re: LA Mayor Exemplifies America's Decline Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jun 27 08:40:31 2014, in response to Re: LA Mayor Exemplifies America's Decline Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week, posted by LuchAAA on Fri Jun 27 02:26:56 2014. That saying "fuck" is bad. That's his whole thesis. |
|
|
| (1197398) | |
Re: LA Mayor Exemplifies America's Decline Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Fri Jun 27 08:42:39 2014, in response to Re: LA Mayor Exemplifies America's Decline Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week, posted by LuchAAA on Fri Jun 27 02:26:56 2014. There aren't any. It's just hatespeak. |
|
|
| (1197417) | |
Re: LA Mayor Exemplifies America's Decline Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Fri Jun 27 09:21:24 2014, in response to LA Mayor Exemplifies America's Decline Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week, posted by DaNd124 on Thu Jun 26 22:27:27 2014. I think it's very bad taste and I would prefer public speakers to use more appropriate language. But is it an important sign of the degradation of American society? No way.Maybe we should go back to the days when Norman Mailer was forced to change the language in The Naked and the Dead. :) |
|
|
| (1197467) | |
Re: LA Mayor Exemplifies America's Decline Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Fri Jun 27 15:03:33 2014, in response to Re: LA Mayor Exemplifies America's Decline Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week, posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jun 27 08:39:31 2014. +1Fuck is a good thing. Your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (1197514) | |
Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' flashback: What I learned at the Metrodome |
|
|
Posted by DaNd124 on Sat Jun 28 01:08:46 2014, in response to Dennis Prager's "important thinking" of the week, posted by DAnD124 on Tue Mar 4 16:29:01 2014. http://www.dennisprager.com/what-i-learned-at-the-metrodome/Broadcasting from the Minneapolis affiliate of my radio show last week, I was treated to a Minnesota Twins game. Having become accustomed to baseball games at home in Los Angeles, I observed many differences at the Metrodome. Among them was an absence of foul language from the fans — I felt I had taken a time machine to the 1950s, so family-friendly was the atmosphere. I also appreciated the lack of instant replay on the stadium video screen. Apparently, the Twins management has the rare attitude that fans come to a baseball game to watch the game live, not on a TV screen. But the Twins feature that most intrigued me was the “kiss cam.” A couple of times between innings, a stadium camera focused on couples, who, when they saw themselves on the large stadium monitor inside a big red heart, gave each other a kiss. It was all quite innocent. I know because I did not feel at all uncomfortable with my 9-year-old son, and I am zealous about guarding his innocence in the jaded culture America gives its children. Indeed, as often as not, the couples were in their later years, and when they kissed each other, we all felt good. Who isn’t happy to see romance flourish in older couples? And then a thought occurred to me: Wasn’t the Metrodome engaging in discrimination? Surely, there were some same-sex couples at the ball game. Why weren’t any of them shown kissing on the “kiss cam”? How could it be that in the state of libertarian Gov. Jesse Ventura and Sen. Paul Wellstone, perhaps the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate, such discrimination could take place? I raised this question on my radio show, and Minneapolis callers were unanimous in responding that whether Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, the vast majority of people attending a Twins game would not accept a “kiss cam” depicting two men or two women kissing each other. If these callers were right — and I suspect they were — it means that even liberal and libertarian Minnesotans do not want to be confronted by public displays of homosexual affection, especially when children are present. But how can that be? The answer is that many liberals engage in self-deception regarding homosexuality. Their rhetoric of “tolerance” and “diversity” has trapped them into losing touch with their own deepest values and intuitions. Liberals boycott the Boy Scouts because the Boy Scouts want to provide heterosexual scoutmasters as models for their boys. But when actually confronted with homosexuality, most liberals do not react with the acceptance they seek to impose on others. A writer in a major gay journal noted the phenomenon years ago — how even his most liberal straight friends do not want him to kiss his boyfriends in front of their children. In the depths of the consciences and hearts of the vast majority of heterosexual liberals, there is a voice that says that male-male or female-female sexual bonding is not quite the same as male-female sexual bonding, and that while the homosexual is every bit as lovable as the heterosexual, homosexual sex is not what we wish for our children. And not because there exists social discrimination against gays but because we truly want our children to love a member of the opposite sex and to sexually bond with that person. It is almost impossible for heterosexual liberals, who have redefined tolerance to mean acceptance, to admit all this, but the Twins game made it abundantly clear. That is why the “kiss cam” at the Minneapolis Metrodome will only show heterosexual kissers for the foreseeable future, even as most Minneapolis liberals, like liberals all over America, continue to defame the Boy Scouts and anyone else who holds the same ideal for their children that these liberals hold for theirs. |
|
|
|
Page 8 of 11 |
||