# War on goodness and wholesomeness



## City Bound (Jan 24, 2009)

*The thread on transgender workers and law got me thinking about this little article. *

The article mentions Christianity but I feel the attack is more so on wholesomeness of mind, body, and spirit rather then just on one specific religion. 

Since the cultural revolution of the 1960's you can see how the agenda mentioned in this article has begun its influence on society mainly through the influence of the hippies who were suckered into taking up this destructive crusade. The hippies of course thought they were fighting for good not evil.

Wholesomeness is under attack. 




*THE 10-POINT PLAN BY ALICE BAILEY AND THE NEW WORLD ORDER FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF CHRISTIANITY*
https://www.facebook.com/notes/past...rder-for-the-destruction-of/10151669226247539


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Pffaahahaha!


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Wow. This totally fills the bill. I will need time to reason this out...


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Alice Bailey died in 1949.

Any link to show these words are hers?

I could not find one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Bailey


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

plowjockey said:


> Alice Bailey died in 1949.
> 
> Any link to show these words are hers?
> 
> ...


There are no credible links on Google that I could find just opinion pieces that reference that Alice Bailey wrote "The Ten-Point Plan" or "The 10-Point Charter". 

It looks to me like someone wrote it recently and attributed it to Bailey to make it look like it was magically coming true.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

It's not marginally coming true. It's coming true in spades no matter who wrote it. Look around a bit. We've always had sexual deviants of one variety or another but they generally kept it hidden behind closed doors. Now they come out in public and are celebrated as an enlightened class. We've always had abortions but the vast majority of people cringed at the very thought. Now half the population think it's fine. Vulgar language used to be restricted to places like construction sites and bars. Now it is on tv, movies, and everywhere else. Politicians have always lied but today Clinton is leading in the dem polls with all her sordid history. No candidate with her past would have stood a chance not long ago. People used to be self reliant but now half the population relies on government checks of one sort or another. Immigrants used to come to Ellis Island and celebrated coming to a land of freedom where they could work hard and improve their lives. Now they sneak across the border and fly in on the flimsiest of evidence that they are refugees and you're portrayed as evil if you even question them being here. We are borrowing trillions of dollars everyone knows can never be paid back and no one seems to care. The result is population that is more dishonest, more coarse, and more fractured than ever before. Was this the intent of the do-gooders? Absolutely.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

poppy said:


> It's not marginally coming true. It's coming true in spades no matter who wrote it. Look around a bit. We've always had sexual deviants of one variety or another but they generally kept it hidden behind closed doors. Now they come out in public and are celebrated as an enlightened class.


They are Americans, also.

Why should they not have the same rights as you?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

plowjockey said:


> They are Americans, also.
> 
> Why should they not have the same rights as you?


One of the "enlightened" class.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

plowjockey said:


> They are Americans, also.
> 
> Why should they not have the same rights as you?


It has nothing to do with their rights. The problem is the acceptance by the public. In today's world, weirdness in all forms is praised and decent behavior is ridiculed. Can you honestly look at your kids and believe they and their children will grow up in a country as good as the one you grew up in?


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Inconsistency exposes people pretty often around here. I'll just drop you all a little hint. Donald Trump... Good and wholesome? Dish.

Why would I trust your judgment, y'all?


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

HDRider said:


> One of the "enlightened" class.


Apparently I am not, so maybe I need _you_ to "enlighten" me, on what _equal rights_ really means.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

wiscto said:


> Inconsistency exposes people pretty often around here. I'll just drop you all a little hint. Donald Trump... Good and wholesome? Dish.
> 
> Why would I trust your judgment, y'all?


Has Trump ever been accused of harming anyone or charged with a financial crime? Any of the republican candidates are a huge step up from Clinton. Webb was a huge step up from Clinton but the dems didn't want him. What does that say about the people in that party?


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

poppy said:


> It has nothing to do with their rights. The problem is the acceptance by the public. In today's world, weirdness in all forms is praised and decent behavior is ridiculed. Can you honestly look at your kids and believe they and their children will grow up in a country as good as the one you grew up in?


Why should anyones life, be dependent on whether _you_ accept them or not?

What was so great about the country I grew up in? That Gays and transgender lived in the shadows?

boy howdy! 

FWIW my kids a way more aware on what it is to be a good person, than any previous generation.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

poppy said:


> Has Trump ever been accused of harming anyone or charged with a financial crime? Any of the republican candidates are a huge step up from Clinton. Webb was a huge step up from Clinton but the dems didn't want him. What does that say about the people in that party?


I'm curious, do you (collective you) realize that if Trump is elected there will be naked pictures of the First Lady all over the internet? His current wife lived what many consider a deviant lifestyle...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

HDRider said:


> One of the "enlightened" class.


As opposed to "no class"?


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> I'm curious, do you (collective you) realize that if Trump is elected there will be naked pictures of the First Lady all over the internet? His current wife lived what many consider a deviant lifestyle...


Be careful with that comment I know a few guys that would vote for him if they thought that.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

poppy said:


> Has Trump ever been accused of harming anyone or charged with a financial crime? Any of the republican candidates are a huge step up from Clinton. Webb was a huge step up from Clinton but the dems didn't want him. What does that say about the people in that party?


LMAO. Look at you. As soon as I expose Trump for what he is in a thread y'all were about to ride your high horses through, suddenly not being accused of harming anyone (he has actually) or charged with a financial crime is enough to be considered "good" and "wholesome." All of the sudden it's okay to morally ambiguous as long as you can pretend the Democrats are worse.....like any of us independents have any respect for the spitting contest in the first place. You're barking up the wrong tree.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> I'm curious, do you (collective you) realize that if Trump is elected there will be naked pictures of the First Lady all over the internet? His current wife lived what many consider a deviant lifestyle...


Were they porn? Did this affect Trudeau? What might be your point on this? You afraid of a naked body because it has sex written all over it? Are all the nude statues disgraceful? Does she have the right to do this or do you want the right to say what "President's wives" can or cannot do? Your inner being is peeking out...:teehee:


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Shine said:


> Were they porn? Did this affect Trudeau? What might be *your* point on this? *You* afraid of a naked body because it has sex written all over it? Are all the nude statues disgraceful? Does she have the right to do this or do *you* want the right to say what "President's wives" can or cannot do? *Your* inner being is peeking out...:teehee:


Why must you get so personal?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Why must you get so personal?


If you had said something even remotely similar to him he would have whined to the moderators, and told you how it's important to stick to just the topic.

http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/sp...43-62-million-cubic-feet-methane-per-day.html



> As much as you would have it otherwise, I am asking you straight up. Please stop. This issue is important, there is no room for petty bickering.
> 
> Mods, please take notice.


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

Shine said:


> Were they porn? *Did this affect Trudeau?* What might be your point on this? You afraid of a naked body because it has sex written all over it? Are all the nude statues disgraceful? Does she have the right to do this or do you want the right to say what "President's wives" can or cannot do? Your inner being is peeking out...:teehee:


Why would you care if it effected Trudeau? Which Trudeau are you talking about?


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> Why must you get so personal?


Why do you allow yourself to rise to it?

I'm not making excuses for him but I think he can't help himself. He takes everything personally and then projects that on to everyone else. I think that he might be reading challenged and doesn't comprehend a lot of what he's reading. 

Want proof? Just ask any other person a question that doesn't pertain to him and you can count on it that he will quickly jump in and take it upon himself to reply on behalf of that other person before the other person has a chance to answer for themself. He'll do it even while admitting that he doesn't often understand the question that was asked of the other person. 

Ask him a direct question that is addressed specifically to him and he won't answer, he will side-step it by asking other questions that are fanciful and unrelated to what you asked. Or else he'll direct personal insults and accusations at you that don't make sense and again, are unrelated to what you asked him. 

I still read his posts and sometimes respond to the odd one here and there but I've learned to take most of what he says with a pinch of salt and just disregard it.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Fennick said:


> Why do you allow yourself to rise to it?
> 
> I'm not making excuses for him but I think he can't help himself. He takes everything personally and then projects that on to everyone else. I think that he might be reading challenged and doesn't comprehend a lot of what he's reading.
> 
> ...


I'm getting better at not responding.  This one was over the top personal and I had to call it out. 

Thank you, Fennick. :kissy:


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

City Bound said:


> Wholesomeness is under attack.


I suppose it all depends on who decides what's good & wholesome. Evidently you've appointed yourself.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Shine said:


> Were they porn? Did this affect Trudeau? What might be your point on this? You afraid of a naked body because it has sex written all over it? Are all the nude statues disgraceful? Does she have the right to do this or do you want the right to say what "President's wives" can or cannot do? Your inner being is peeking out...:teehee:


I guess that depends on if you figure British GQ is an art publication or not but a quick google search seems to show a girl with girl thing but I guess it could be considered wholesome art. 

Out of curiosity, what does this have to do with Trudeau and which Trudeau are we talking about?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> If you had said something even remotely similar to him he would have whined to the moderators, and told you how it's important to stick to just the topic.
> 
> http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/sp...43-62-million-cubic-feet-methane-per-day.html


Some here must take great comfort to know they have you as their verbal defender.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Irish Pixie said:


> Why must you get so personal?


i kind of asked the same question after some of the last few posts. They seem to have turned into a personal attack. The pot calls the kettle black.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Can anyone answer? Does the party for family values, religion, etc... have a problem that if Trump is elected there will be nude pictures of the First Lady all over the internet? I believe her lifestyle is (was?) considered deviant by many in the republican party. How do you support "party girl" but have a problem with gay? 

I have no problem with sex, the naked body, porn, etc... I'm just curious.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

I don't have a dog in this fight. Please everyone don't send me any naked pictures of Hillary this morning. Its way too early to start drinking.:nono:


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

TripleD said:


> I don't have a dog in this fight. Please everyone don't send me any naked pictures of Hillary this morning. Its way too early to start drinking.:nono:


I can send you all kinds of great stuff about the current scumbag(s) at 1600 PA.But noone will listen because he's a Dem. (communist).


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

7thswan said:


> I can send you all kinds of great stuff about the current scumbag(s) at 1600 PA.But noone will listen because he's a Dem. (communist).


No thanks its still too early to start....


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

TripleD said:


> I don't have a dog in this fight. Please everyone don't send me any *naked pictures of Hillary* this morning. Its way too early to start drinking.:nono:


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Seriously? "The war on goodness and wholesomeness"
> This entire thread was stirring the pot. :hysterical:


The thread is a fact of our modern life. Whomever may have written it.

Your beating the Trump drum was to solicit a response or imply hypocrisy. Doing the voodoo you do.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Why must you get so personal?


lol... You made a post suggesting something, are not then people allowed to question you about what you posted? This is what you call "getting personal"? me thinks that thou protesteth too much....

...or is this a new way of not having to answer the question?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Why must you get so personal?


lol... You made a post suggesting something, are not then people allowed to question you about what you posted? This is what you call "getting personal"? me thinks that thou protesteth too much....

...or is this a new way of not having to answer a question that someone might pose?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> The thread is a fact of our modern life. Whomever may have written it.
> 
> Your beating the Trump drum was to solicit a response or imply hypocrisy. Doing the voodoo you do.


Are you saying an unverified, in all probability recently written, totally fallacious article that the OP found on Facebook is a _fact_ of our modern life? Again, seriously? ound:

ETA: Aren't all posts designed to solicit a response? Isn't that the point?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Irish Pixie View Post
Why must you get so personal?

bff: If you had said something even remotely similar to him he would have whined to the moderators, and told you how it's important to stick to just the topic.

62 Million Cubic Feet of Methane per day.

Quote:
As much as you would have it otherwise, I am asking you straight up. Please stop. This issue is important, there is no room for petty bickering.

Mods, please take notice."

Really? lol. Nice of you to try to prove something, again, by taking it out of context. If someone wants to read up on what was actually said, they can go look for themselves. This is too shallow to reply to. You are proving the premise of what the title is addressing, and boy oh boy, guess which side that you are supporting...


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Shine said:


> lol... You made a post suggesting something, are not then people allowed to question you about what you posted? This is what you call "getting personal"? me thinks that thou protesteth too much....
> 
> ...or is this a new way of not having to answer a question that someone might pose?


Could you clarify which Trudeau you mentioned and how he fits into this discussion please.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Are you saying an unverified, in all probability recently written, totally fallacious article that the OP found on Facebook is a _fact_ of our modern life? Again, seriously? ound:
> ETA: Aren't all posts designed to solicit a response? Isn't that the point?


I don't care who wrote it, the esoteric author, or whomever. I don't care when it was written.

That said, I do not consider it fallacious, to use your word. I DO consider it the attack plan, in play in the not too distant past, in play today and in play in the future, thus "modern life".

I can't see how anyone could dispute it being true. Maybe not written by whom it is attributed, but true none the less.

And yes, most if not all post are meant to solicit a response, but your intent is to always label others with different beliefs as hypocrites. Stir away. I like your simple approach to everything. It may often be wrong, but it is always simple.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Fennick said:


> Why would you care if it effected Trudeau? Which Trudeau are you talking about?


Pierre, with regards to the hub-bub of his wife Margaret.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Fennick said:


> Why do you allow yourself to rise to it?
> 
> I'm not making excuses for him but I think he can't help himself. He takes everything personally and then projects that on to everyone else. I think that he might be reading challenged and doesn't comprehend a lot of what he's reading.
> 
> ...


You paint with a broad brush, my fellow poster. You accuse me of not answering questions. Please address one, any question that I have not attempted to do or one where I have "side-stepped" the question.

To you sir, I have tried to answer every question that you have posed with a genuine and sincere attempt to be fully truthful. If missed answering one in this fashion then it is just that, I missed it.

You three seem to be walking in lockstep, doing your best to divert this thread from it's original subject, it seems as this might be burning your skin? Good vs evil, which side are you on?

PS, the question that I recently posed has not been answered but... you chose to jump in and divert the question for someone else. Is this not what you are accusing me of?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

What is bad, I mean really bad about today's society is that here, in the U.S.. it is conceivable that we will have the presidential race come down to Clinton VS. Trump and once again be force to pick the lesser of two evils. That is old hat, at this point. What is new and frightening is that, by every measure, Donald Trump is the lesser of the two evils. That is why I feel that our Republic is doomed.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Shine said:


> Pierre, with regards to the hub-bub of his wife Margaret.


I'm not sure how that would relate to Irish Pixie but Canadians found her to be an embarrassment and disrespectful to both her husband and the country but then again, her husband isn't fondly remembered outside his own province either.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Are you saying an unverified, in all probability recently written, totally fallacious article that the OP found on Facebook is a _fact_ of our modern life? Again, seriously? ound:
> 
> ETA: Aren't all posts designed to solicit a response? Isn't that the point?


You sure that you are not getting too personal?


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

What's really sad is that we now live in a country where people are so deluded that they actually believe there is such thing as a lesser of two evils when Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are involved. The reality there is.... One of them is corrupt and likely to tick off the entire world, and the other is just corrupt.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Shine said:


> You sure that you are not getting too personal?


I'll make it simple- count the "you and your" in my post. The more there are the more personal the post. Now, am I referring to the _post_, or am I referring to the _poster_? Finally, do I seem hypersensitive about the post? Lots of exclamation points, etc? 

Do I get personal? Yes, I do. Most everyone does from time to time.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

wr said:


> I'm not sure how that would relate to Irish Pixie but Canadians found her to be an embarrassment and disrespectful to both her husband and the country but then again, her husband isn't fondly remembered outside his own province either.


I was not comparing Margaret to the pixie person, I was comparing the presumption that Trumps wife being viewed in the nude would be evil or some other sort of distasteful display. Margaret was seen a number of times in various states of undress, not necessarily in inappropriate situations, just exposed. I got the feeling that the Canadians that were aware of this just responded as - "meh..." and went about their business.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> I'll make it simple- count the "you and your" in my post. The more there are the more personal the post. Now, am I referring to the _post_, or am I referring to the _poster_? Finally, do I seem hypersensitive about the post? Lots of exclamation points, etc?
> 
> Do I get personal? Yes, I do. Everyone does from time to time.


Fair enough, I'll try harder to concentrate on the subject at hand. Can I count on you to do so also?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

HDRider said:


> Some here must take great comfort to know they have you as their verbal defender.


It's just the documented truth.
Feel free to disprove anything you can


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Irish Pixie View Post
> Why must you get so personal?
> 
> ...


And yet, here you are

As you said, it's all there for anyone to read, and nothing was "taken out of context". That's why I provided a link to the thread.

Are those not your exact words?


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

Shine said:


> I was not comparing Margaret to the pixie person, I was comparing *the presumption that Trumps wife being viewed in the nude would be evil or some other sort of distasteful display.* Margaret was seen a number of times in various states of undress, not necessarily in inappropriate situations, just exposed. *I got the feeling that the Canadians that were aware of this just responded as - "meh..." and went about their business.*


I think it is not a presumption, it's a fact, that if Trump becomes president his wife's past behaviour would be considered distasteful and both she and her husband would be castigated and mocked for it. But only in America. And only by the straight-laced, pious, finger-pointing types of Americans who are worried about social taboos. I don't think anyone else in America would care and certainly nobody outside of America would give it a second thought.

Re: the Trudeaus, your talking around 40 years ago but even back then Canadians were just as as laissez-faire, laid back and tolerant about _social mores_ as they are today. ALL Canadians were aware of Pierre's ex-wife's galivanting and partying in night clubs with Mick Jagger and his band and with all the other social jet-setters of the times. But there had already been a little bit of grey-beards' scandalized eye-brow lifting and harrumphing over Pierre's own behaviours long before he met and married Margaret. Him marrying such a flighty young woman nearly a third of his own age against better advice, and then their marriage breaking up and him getting custody of the kids, and her being sick with bi-polar disorder, yada, yada, yada - it was all just par for the course. So you're right that when Margaret (they were separated by that time) started partying with the jet-setters and was shown in newspaper photographs in states of partial dishabbile, Canadians just took all of that in stride, shrugged and went "Meh! What else is new?" and went about their usual business. Margaret is still just as nutty as a fruit cake as she ever was but nobody holds it against her.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> And yet, here you are
> 
> As you said, it's all there for anyone to read, and nothing was "taken out of context". That's why I provided a link to the thread.
> 
> Are those not your exact words?


For those that do not use the link, only your statement remains for their understanding.

Let's both stick to the subject at hand and quit bickering back and forth, OK?

[and yes, I do admit to bickering, I would rather not, but... I've been known to do it from time to time]


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> For those that do not use the link, *only your statement remains for their understanding.*
> 
> Let's both stick to the subject at hand and quit bickering back and forth, OK?
> 
> [and yes, I do admit to bickering, I would rather not, but... I've been known to do it from time to time]


That was your statement, not mine.
It shows you doing the same thing you complain about so often.

You are proving the premise of what the title is addressing, and boy oh boy, guess which side that you are supporting...


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

HDRider said:


> The thread is a fact of our modern life. Whomever may have written it.


You know... A lot of people throughout time have failed to understand the difference between opinion and fact. I'll use some of HT's favorite examples...














































^ Last one is Emperor Nero. He was pretty sure he knew who started the fires...


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That was your statement, not mine.
> It shows you doing the same thing you complain about so often.
> 
> You are proving the premise of what the title is addressing, and boy oh boy, guess which side that you are supporting...


Can't you offer anything of substance or is all that you can do is to repeat what people say back at them as if that is some way to win a debate?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> Can't you offer anything of substance or is all that you can do is to repeat what people say back at them as if that is some way to win a debate?


You thought those replies had substance when you used them. :shrug:
I'm not seeing much "debate".

I'll let you get back to it though in case it starts again


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Shine said:


> Can't you offer anything of substance or is all that you can do is to repeat what people say back at them as if that is some way to win a debate?


Yes...but you know that.


----------



## Sumatra (Dec 5, 2013)

I think that article is pretty much on point. It's well worded too, and covers nearly all the issues that have caused people to turn to such depravity. 

Interesting the way y'all got this drifted to interpersonal attacks and politicians, though. Nice one, Wistco.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You thought those replies had substance when you used them. :shrug:
> I'm not seeing much "debate".
> 
> I'll let you get back to it though in case it starts again


As you wish.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Sumatra said:


> I think that article is pretty much on point. It's well worded too, and covers nearly all *the issues that have caused people to turn to such depravity. *
> 
> Interesting the way y'all got this drifted to interpersonal attacks and politicians, though. Nice one, Wistco.


People don't need "issues" to be depraved
It's simply human nature


----------



## Agriculture (Jun 8, 2015)

poppy said:


> It's not marginally coming true. It's coming true in spades no matter who wrote it. Look around a bit. We've always had sexual deviants of one variety or another but they generally kept it hidden behind closed doors. Now they come out in public and are celebrated as an enlightened class. We've always had abortions but the vast majority of people cringed at the very thought. Now half the population think it's fine. Vulgar language used to be restricted to places like construction sites and bars. Now it is on tv, movies, and everywhere else. Politicians have always lied but today Clinton is leading in the dem polls with all her sordid history. No candidate with her past would have stood a chance not long ago. People used to be self reliant but now half the population relies on government checks of one sort or another. Immigrants used to come to Ellis Island and celebrated coming to a land of freedom where they could work hard and improve their lives. Now they sneak across the border and fly in on the flimsiest of evidence that they are refugees and you're portrayed as evil if you even question them being here. We are borrowing trillions of dollars everyone knows can never be paid back and no one seems to care. The result is population that is more dishonest, more coarse, and more fractured than ever before. Was this the intent of the do-gooders? Absolutely.


Right on. I'm sick to death about hearing about the "courage" of the Bruce Jenners of the world. Time was when people with such perversions kept to themselves and were simply thought of as odd. Still people mind you, neighbors, coworkers, whatever, who were odd, and that was the end of it. Or else they'd channel their proclivities into some other acceptable medium such as certain aspects of show business, and still be thought of as odd, but funny. Still no less human and still accepted. Now today we have a bunch of namby pambies who decide that the previous oddballs are now subhuman, simply so that they can fulfill their savior complex and champion the cause of the poor downtrodden misfits. Here's a hint folks, they were thought of as no less human before you decided that we all treated them that way. 

And what is it with attaching the depraved to other people's cause simply because both issues deal with sexuality? Black people and snakes are often both treated unfairly at times, although both deserve it at times too, but no one is calling for the Society for the Protection of Blacks and Snakes. Homosexuality is natural, and is observed in nature. Does any normal animal ever wish it were of the opposite sex? I don't know if we'll ever know the answer, but I tend to doubt it. What is up with transgenders attaching themselves to the gay cause? One is normal and natural, one is a mental or emotional illness. What is the latest acronym that they want to use to lump them together with gays HEBEGEBEES or something? Blacks and snakes.


----------



## Sumatra (Dec 5, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> People don't need "issues" to be depraved
> It's simply human nature


Perhaps. The details of human nature are deeply arguable. But I'd say most of the time that stays hidden and restrained by the good in human nature until it rears it's ugly head on a massive scale when societal morals degrade as they slowly been doing since, I agree, the 1960's.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

It's like some Star Wars movie. The Dark Side of the Force is attacking. Or maybe Harry Potter where liberals are aligned with Vandervort. 

Notice that I have not used any Biblical reference, although it is plainly obvious.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

JJ Grandits said:


> *It's like some Star Wars movie. The Dark Side of the Force is attacking. Or maybe Harry Potter where liberals are aligned with Vandervort. *
> 
> Notice that I have not used any Biblical reference, although it is plainly obvious.


Nah, it's more like this -


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Sumatra said:


> Perhaps. The details of human nature are deeply arguable. But I'd say most of the time that stays hidden and restrained by the good in human nature until it rears it's ugly head on a massive scale *when societal morals degrade* as they slowly been doing since, I agree, the 1960's.


The thing is each generation has been saying that same thing since the beginning of time.

There are no "societal morals" 
There are only people, and half of them like to pretend they are better than the other half


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The thing is each generation has been saying that same thing since the beginning of time.
> 
> There are no "societal morals"
> There are only people, and half of them like to pretend they are better than the other half


Well said. The half that likes to pretend also does supposedly "immoral" stuff but they hide it.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Farmerga said:


> What is bad, I mean really bad about today's society is that here, in the U.S.. *it is conceivable that we will have the presidential race come down to Clinton VS. Trump and once again be force to pick the lesser of two evils.* That is old hat, at this point. What is new and frightening is that, by every measure, Donald Trump is the lesser of the two evils. That is why I feel that our Republic is doomed.


We have nobody to blame but ourselves, for having "only" Trump and Clinton, clinton..


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

The dark side speaks.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

JJ Grandits said:


> The dark side speaks.


To whom are you referring?


----------



## Agriculture (Jun 8, 2015)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The thing is each generation has been saying that same thing since the beginning of time.


Very true. The earliest quote I've ever seen has it attributed to an ancient Roman writer. Look where they ended up. Has any other society which may have said it continued on?

My pet peeve poster child for the concept is illegitimate children and the unwed mothers who are proud of their situation, along with welfare, both in general and connected to the phenomena. Can our society really withstand a change to having that be the norm? We are headed there. Someone has got to be the bread winner for these people, and there is going to reach a breaking point where there are not enough resources from the workers to give to the slouches. What happens then? The only thing that they know is how to take, so that is what they will continue to do, by force when it stops being handed to them. We as a society have created them by acceptance and support of their poor choices. Good girls from good families should go back to giving up for adoption or aborting, and go on to be productive members of society instead of leeches, having children when they can build a stable family and support it with a husband by her side. The breakdown of the nuclear family is going to be our downfall. Look at Fergeson, Detroit, Baltimore or any prison in America. It is not primarily intact families which make up any of those populations. It just isn't.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Only someone whose head is truly up their cracks could really believe that liberals are actively doing things or believing what they believe because they're evil. It probably really is just like the movies inside your heads...considering how out of touch with reality and humanity y'all appear to be.


----------



## City Bound (Jan 24, 2009)

wiscto said:


> Only someone whose head is truly up their cracks could really believe that liberals are actively doing things or believing what they believe because they're evil. It probably really is just like the movies inside your heads...considering how out of touch with reality and humanity y'all appear to be.


Not knowingly disseminating and defending evil knowingly but doing so because they have been tricked to believe that what is bad is good and what is good is bad, so they think they are crusading for liberation when that liberation is really just destruction though they can not see it.

Same goes for any dogma.


----------



## City Bound (Jan 24, 2009)

Agriculture said:


> Right on. I'm sick to death about hearing about the "courage" of the Bruce QUOTE]
> 
> I do not see jenner as courageous. He lives in secluded world and does not even really go out in public like an everyday person would.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The thing is *each generation has been saying that same thing* since the beginning of time.
> 
> There are no "societal morals"
> There are only people, and half of them like to pretend they are better than the other half


And they might be right...


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Well like I said. It takes having a head stuck too far up the crack to believe that not caring about gay people having sex is evil.

Guess what? Crime is actually down. Teen pregnancy is actually down; up here in evil liberal land anyway. Smoking is down. The AIDS epidemic was slowed by education and safe sex practices. If we were half the crazed mob orgy some of you out of touch folks believed we were, we wouldn't even be walking right now. 

Actually, if the AIDS epidemic had hit in the late 60s early 70s, the American population would have been seriously damaged. Because, let's face it, Generation X was a hundred times _less_ likely to trip out on LSD and diddle a lamp post than the Baby Boomers.

Get over yourselves, guys.

And by the way, how's that ever-so-acceptable drug abuse, ALCOHOLISM, going for all you moral red staters? Helping all those moral Christians cheat for 2,000 years.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

HDRider said:


> And they might be right...


I'm sure they all *THINK *they are


----------



## Sumatra (Dec 5, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The thing is each generation has been saying that same thing since the beginning of time.
> 
> There are no "societal morals"
> There are only people, and half of them like to pretend they are better than the other half


Okay, so pretty much the same theory you applied to the forum's dynamics a while back. 

Just saying that? So you're suggesting that people are always just as good, or just as bad, no matter how many negative or positive influences on human culture are added/removed? 

I'd disagree, especially since it's very visible in the timescale of the past century, even as we are increasingly disconnected from that generation. It's been said often, yes, but usually about small things. 

Never before has it actually come true to such a level of corruption, and so blatantly obvious when compared to nearly any other generation. 

Yet all these things came on slowly, rather than just in one generation, making it much less obvious to most, and far more dangerous in it's effects.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

Sumatra said:


> Okay, so pretty much the same theory you applied to the forum's dynamics a while back.
> 
> Just saying that? So you're suggesting that people are always just as good, or just as bad, no matter how many negative or positive influences on human culture are added/removed?
> 
> ...


I see it as more ebb and flow, we have had very corrupt administration's in the past and fairly honest admins. We have had periods of whatever feels good and periods of tight control and that's just our fairly young country.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Sumatra said:


> Okay, so pretty much the same theory you applied to the forum's dynamics a while back.
> 
> Just saying that? So you're suggesting that *people are always just as good, or just as bad, no matter how many negative or positive influences on human culture are added/removed? *
> 
> ...


Exactly, because "human culture" is one of those cool sounding phrases that means something completely different to everyone.

All the so-called "culture" in the world won't change the fact that 10,000 years ago we pretty much lived like animals, and biologically and mentally we haven't really changed.

You only think it's worse now because "now" is all you have to base things on from real experience


----------



## RichNC (Aug 22, 2014)

Agriculture said:


> Good girls from good families should go back to giving up for adoption


Why? Is it your opinion that people only want to adopt babies from good girls from good families??


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

I thought it was the "bad girls" who were having to make those decisions.
I need a scorecard


----------



## Sumatra (Dec 5, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Exactly, because "human culture" is one of those cool sounding phrases that means something completely different to everyone.
> 
> All the so-called "culture" in the world won't change the fact that 10,000 years ago we pretty much lived like animals, and biologically and mentally we haven't really changed.
> 
> You only think it's worse now because "now" is all you have to base things on from real experience


Despite everyone having their own subjective definition of those things, it is unrealistic to have all terms defined and agreed upon before every conversation. 

Maybe it won't change that fact, but the culture is what keeps us from returning to that, rather than just being it biologically and mentally. Not to mention the fact that in other ways, we're far worse than animals. We can only try to avoid that and focus on staying good, rather than just accepting it as a fact of life and letting it run wild.

So if a previous generation says it, it's to be discredited because every generation says that. And if a person without experience other than "now" says it, it's disqualified due to lack of experience... So then who would you say is qualified to make a statement on current times?




coolrunnin said:


> I see it as more ebb and flow, we have had very corrupt administration's in the past and fairly honest admins. We have had periods of whatever feels good and periods of tight control and that's just our fairly young country.


Sure it will flow again. These things are of course nothing in the face of the past 5000 years of recorded history, but they tend to be very significant to the people who live in that time frame. So are we just to ignore it?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> So if a previous generation says it, it's to be discredited because every generation says that. And if a person without experience other than "now" says it, it's disqualified due to lack of experience... So then *who would you say is qualified* to make a statement on current times?


Everyone is equally qualified and all the statements are equally meaningless.

It's all relative, and everyone wants to think their situation is "the worst".

Ask one of Vlad the Impaler's "friends" just who had the worst time with the "current culture" and they would say things are much better now


----------



## Sumatra (Dec 5, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Everyone is equally qualified and all the statements are equally meaningless.
> 
> It's all relative, and everyone wants to think their situation is "the worst".
> 
> Ask one of Vlad the Impaler's "friends" just who had the worst time with the "current culture" and they would say things are much better now


Very well. I just hope you don't believe yours to be the exception.

Wants to? No, everyone wants to believe quiet the opposite. That is, to think they're the best generation, the most advanced, socially and technologically, etc... And very rarely to admit how many increased problems they actually have.

Sorry, I'm not going to go through all that history just to disprove your one point there, but I doubt that one leader's crimes are very much on the same level as the combined and cumulative moral corruption of an entire country, however brutal he was.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

wiscto said:


> Only someone whose head is truly up their cracks could really believe that liberals are actively doing things or believing what they believe because they're evil. It probably really is just like the movies inside your heads...considering how out of touch with reality and humanity y'all appear to be.


They don't think themselves evil. They think themselves righteous.

Are you "they"?


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

HDRider said:


> They don't think themselves evil. They think themselves righteous.


Yes. Exactly. Now you're getting it, Emperor Nero.


----------



## Agriculture (Jun 8, 2015)

RichNC said:


> Why? Is it your opinion that people only want to adopt babies from good girls from good families??


No, like we've seen with the rescue dog phenomena, they will adopt anything that breathes. My point was that in the past good girls who made mistakes did the honorable thing. They, their children and society were much better off for it.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

wiscto said:


> Well like I said. It takes having a head stuck too far up the crack to believe that not caring about gay people having sex is evil.
> 
> Guess what? Crime is actually down. Teen pregnancy is actually down; up here in evil liberal land anyway. Smoking is down. The AIDS epidemic was slowed by education and safe sex practices. If we were half the crazed mob orgy some of you out of touch folks believed we were, we wouldn't even be walking right now.
> 
> ...


Not quite sure of the ages of the moms but the unwed pregnancy among African American women is 72%. Would you say that's down? Or more importantly, is that a good thing?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Tricky Grama said:


> Not quite sure of the ages of the moms but the unwed pregnancy among African American women is 72%. Would you say that's down? Or more importantly, is that a good thing?


Teen pregnancy is down. It's the graph on page six.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_01.pdf


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Tricky Grama said:


> Not quite sure of the ages of the moms but the unwed pregnancy among African American women is 72%. Would you say that's down? Or more importantly, is that a good thing?


So now we need to narrow it down to one demographic to "prove" the point? Do you think anybody thinks that's a good thing? Because I can tell you right now there isn't a single liberal I know who thinks it's good.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

wiscto said:


> So now we need to narrow it down to one demographic to "prove" the point? Do you think anybody thinks that's a good thing? Because I can tell you right now there isn't a single liberal I know who thinks it's good.


So you're the spokesperson for all liberals? Huh.

Seems a while back all 'families' were celebrated. Unwed moms included. Was all a beautiful thing the libs thought. How dare anyone try to fix what was not considered a problem.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

wiscto said:


> Well like I said. It takes having a head stuck too far up the crack to believe that not caring about gay people having sex is evil.
> 
> Guess what? Crime is actually down. Teen pregnancy is actually down; up here in evil liberal land anyway. Smoking is down. The AIDS epidemic was slowed by education and safe sex practices. If we were half the crazed mob orgy some of you out of touch folks believed we were, we wouldn't even be walking right now.
> 
> ...


Got any stats to back up that claim that crime is going down? Here in Los Angeles the police chief Beck has been caught lying about crime stats and the LA times caught him with his pants down and proved that the police were fudging the numbers to make them look better. The bottom line is that violent crime here has gone up around 40% in the last 4 years, so I'm interested to see your stats.


----------



## Declan (Jan 18, 2015)

City Bound said:


> *The thread on transgender workers and law got me thinking about this little article. *
> 
> The article mentions Christianity but I feel the attack is more so on wholesomeness of mind, body, and spirit rather then just on one specific religion.
> 
> ...


About 62M Americans will volunteer in their community at some point this year--about 1 in 4. Wholesomeness is fine.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

wiscto said:


> So you're the spokesperson for all liberals, huh? God the hypocrisy is thick around here....


What is it you disagree with? Did you not see it? Maybe you're too young to remember. 
But its certainly not being a spokesperson for libs. Merely an observation. Unlike your statement.
But you knew that.


----------

