I don't know of any "Obamatrons" on Free Republic, but I notice that I do get rather regularly attacked at the ad hominem level by people claiming to be "more conservative than thou".
YHAOS: "The simple matter is this whole “struggle” is all about seizing the control of power and wealth: power over Conservatives and the confiscation of Conservative wealth (Liberals will surrender their very souls with barely a whimper - if even so much as that).
Yes or no?"
You know, I travel a lot (it's why I can't post every day) and am a great fan of conservative talk show hosts -- Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, Beck, Wilkow, even secessionist Mike Church -- they all say that's exactly what's happening, and I agree.
I also think, at least for now, we are losing the struggle.
YHAOS: "Liberals have taken over Science and use it to demonstrate their “superiority” over Conservatives.
Yes or no?"
Certainly, in the case of government funded research on "Anthropogenic Global Warming", where they've skewed the data and corrupted computer models to produce politically inspired results.
But I am not aware of such large-scale corruptions in other fields of natural-science.
As for precisely who claims "superiority" to whom, seems to me there's quite a bit of that going around, even right here, on Free Republic.
My whole suggestion here is that much of this "superiority" issue disappears if we simply recognize the stark boundaries between what is "natural-science" and what is not.
Back in the Old Days, many other branches of knowledge (i.e., theology, metaphysics) were considered equal or superior to natural-science.
Indeed, iirc, wasn't it you YHAOS who told me theology was called the "Queen of sciences"?
YHAOS: "Liberals do not believe anything of value exists beyond backsides.
Yes or no?"
I would give them more credit than that.
As Rush says, liberals claim they are out to "help the poooooooooor", and doubtless the youngest among them actually believe that.
Cynical older pols are a different matter, of course.
YHAOS: "It is not the Judeo-Christian Tradition that mistakenly thinks Science is an ethical and moral system designed to guide us in the value judgments with which we must deal.
Yes or no?
Yes, but why the double negative and what's your point?
Do you suppose that's controversial?
YHAOS: "The truth is both Liberals and Scientists know better, but dare not admit it.
Yes or no?"
Better than what, exactly?
YHAOS: "In fact, Paine died in poverty, unforgiven for his betrayal of the American People."
False, false & false.
In fact, 72-year-old Paine died "poor" only relative to his previous wealth.
He was far from "poor" by average American standards.
In fact, there was no "betrayal of the American People", period.
The real American list of indictments against Paine consists of exactly two items: 1) in 1779 he criticized wealthy Pennsylvanian Robert Morris for war profiteering, and 2) in 1796 Paine publically criticized George Washington, in the belief that Washington had left Paine rot in a French jail, almost to the point of beheading.
Yes, in fact, many religious Americans of the early 1800s strongly disagreed with Paine's ideas in Rights of Man (1792) and Age of Reason (completed 1807).
But Age of Reason was a best seller, so Paine at even that late date still had admirers in America, including President Jefferson.
So there was no "betrayal" and no "forgiveness" required.
Some Americans -- then and now -- strongly disagreed with Paine's ideas, others as strongly agreed.
YHAOS: "Included among those six, neither you, I, nor Thomas Jefferson?"
Do you want to explain to us why, exactly, you so wish to gloat over the death and burial of a great British citizen supporter of the American Revolution?
What is your problem, exactly?
You mean personally? Or by simple casual observation?
Studied incomprehension. The four D’s in action . . . ducking, dancing, dodging, and discharging (great gaseous displays).
people claiming to be “more conservative than thou”.
Who dat? You personify that tendency more than anyone I know. Politically, I come closer to being a Jeffersonian liberal than anything (the difference usually is not worth the explanation). Principally, of course, I am a Christian.
I began this present thread by writing, “I would like for someone to explain to me the allegorical meaning of “In the beginning” or “Thou shalt not steal.” (post #4) I have, yet, to receive a response. Would you care to get in front of that parade?
“am a great fan of conservative talk show hosts -- Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, Beck, Wilkow”
Getting out in front . . . pretending to lead the parade. Another display of the four D’s.
“iirc, wasn't it you YHAOS who told me theology was called the “Queen of sciences”?
Don’t recall ever using that expression.
I have, more than once, observed:
“Science, as it has been developed by our Judeo-Christian Western Civilization is successful because it is of use. So useful, in fact, that I claim it to be Judeo-Christianity’s happiest inspiration.
“Some people have seized upon the readily observable phenomena of Natural Selection and have projected it into the religion of Darwinism; with “Evolution” as its most holy of sacraments. Like most religions, Darwinism is jealous of other religions. Unlike the Judeo-Christian Tradition, Darwinism has not learned to control its jealousy, so it seeks to drive Christianity not only from the public schools, but entirely from the public common.
“The prohibition against the establishment of religion is an onus that falls entirely on the state. Government may not establish a religion or prohibit its free exercise. The prohibition may not act on individuals or private institutions. The Constitution limits and defines the powers only of government.”
I have also declared Science to be the “handmaiden” of Philosophy (and that would include Christianity).
Your error surely.
Do you claim the many facets exhibited by Liberals in their quest to control our lives extends beyond their interest in controlling our backsides? Do you think their interest extends to our morale? Our souls? Our love for our dear ones? Our love of liberty and regard for freedom of speech and thought? Do you not think that they believe they can control us by controlling our backsides (being faithful adherents to the Darwinian religion)? Put your studied incomprehension to work here, and you surely can come up with something.
“. . . why the double negative and what's your point?”
What double negative? and which word didn’t you understand?
Studied incomprehension
“Better than what, exactly?
Which word didn’t you understand?
Studied incomprehension
“False, false & false.”
In his writing of The Age of Reason, Paine betrayed the primary reason why he was praised by the American People, his grounding of the American Revolution in the Judeo-Christian principles espoused in the Declaration of Independence. Paine died in poverty, unforgiven for his betrayal of the American People.
Studied incomprehension.
”Do you want to explain to us why, exactly, you so wish to gloat over the death and burial of a great British citizen supporter of the American Revolution?”
Would you like to explain your consistent use of propagandist terms to mischaracterize your protagonists’ expressions? why do you so studiously labor to distort their clearly expressed ideas and engage in such intense studied incomprehension?
Miz boop, spirited, kevmo, and several others have spent an inordinate amount of their valuable time (especially boop and spirited) explaining their ideas. Their reward has been your disrespect and contemptuous dismissal of their sincerity with studied incomprehension and deliberate misconstruction.
“What is your problem, exactly?”
The four D’s in action . . . ducking, dancing, dodging, and discharging (great gaseous displays).
I have no problem. What is yours (exactly)?