What do liberals think was meant by the following statement...?
96523
Translation:  "Enlist in the military.  We're going to start a war soon."
692379
Though I would disagree with the statement as written, what it means is as follows:\n\nDuring a period of church history known as The Protestant Reformation, the Lutheran Church as we know it broke away from The Roman Catholic Church.  A fellow by the name of Martin Luther (not to be confused with the more recent activist Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr.) had famously nailed 95 theses to the door of the church.  These theses were intellectual challenges of certain church practices and dogma.  While this may sound like a bold move, in truth there was little all that flamboyant about it.  Church doors in that place and time were also used as community bulletin boards and many people nailed notices and documents to them the way we post bills in urban areas today.  The 95 theses were little more than 95 topics of discussion for debate he'd hoped to bring attention to.  Martin Luther never had the notion of beginning a new form of the Christian religion.\n\nPerhaps the most noteworthy of the questions dealt with the then Roman Catholic Church practice of selling indulgences.  This was a transitive notion that depending on where one was either got enforced as an abuse to a large degree or got used as a quick little means of acceptance.  That's to say that people who paid the church money got absolution for sins from clergy right away, something Roman Catholics believe is necessary to enter the kingdom of heaven.  It was a practice that dated back hundreds of years in different forms and that segregated those who could pay from those who could not as if sin was a matter of barter.  Martin Luther wished to debate the practice, perhaps even eliminate it.\n\nWell, having gone so strictly against church policy, the simple questions turned into a grandiose argument that sent ripples through the Christian world without end.  The church was just too powerful to fight.  Martin Luther received the brunt of the fallout.  However, it wasn't until an almost unrelated incident, years later, when a reigning Pope excommunicated the entire nation of Germany from the church, that the people there rose up and basically said, "Hey, we don't need your church, we can follow the teachings of this guy over here, Martin Luther."  All of a sudden Luther's questions and assertions had followers.  They built their own churches, patterned after what they knew from Roman Catholicism.  They acquired their own clergy and a few practices that differed slightly from RC but ultimately fell in line with what Martin Luther had pointed out.  Though not the Protestant religion, Lutherans had much to do with the protestant movement (Protestant Reformation), a second schism away from the church after the Great Schism had divided the RC church into Eastern and Western centuries earlier..\n\nAttending a Lutheran church ceremony differs little from a Roman Catholic ceremony in the same season.  There are usually fewer images of Christ and saints, prefering a simple cross and a greater focus on the WORD.  Roman Catholics recognize seven practices as sacraments while Lutherans recognize only five.  Many of the songs are exactly the same, but sung to different tunes.  The Lutheran hierarchy goes up to bishops or so while the Roman Catholic hierarchy extends all the way to the Pope.  Lutheran churches tend to be a little smaller.  Roman Catholics traditionally go to Confession in a dark and quiet private booth called a Confessional while Lutherans tend to simply confess all their sins in a single, common sentence during part of the ceremony.  Both believe in pretty much the same versions of Christ's story and both have similar formats of services.  There’s an academic question over transubstantiation, but one of little note to a person practicing neither religion.\n\nIn recent years, post Vatican II, the similarities between the two have gotten even closer to the naked eye.  That's to say that the Roman Catholic Church has extended c
756796
When I disagree with liberals on this board, it's usually not from them being soft in the mellon, in fact, many are very bright.\n\nCertainly this person couldn't have been serious, could they?\n\nIf they were.....\n\nit's sorta of like suddenly forgetting how to fill your lungs with oxygen......
961704
First, this isn't a question but rather a political statement.\n\nSecondly, it is based on wishes and not reality.
983700
Good point. Are we supposed to read between the lines with a politician of one party but not the other? Let's see...Kerry's statement could have been misconstrued as an arrogant belief about the intellect of soldiers, if you are looking for it. And the president's statement could be taken to mean that the masses need to be controlled by the government. Hmm. I'd say look at the big picture.
1013483
DimocRATS and Liberals!!!
38554
Excellent point!  You cant tell if the quote is from Al-Queda or the liberals in congress.
40141
I think the actual quote is "Stupid is as Stupid does."\n\nOnce you put the "as" in there it is much more obvious that the phrase means our stupidity is defined by our actions.
743871
Rhetorical question, of course. The way to translate this "question" is, ......\n\n"I want for the American voters to elect people to deal with real issues and not gay marriage or flag burning."\n\nHere's my question: Since it is obvious that liberals prefer that judges "deal with" issues like flag burning and gay marriage, why don't the liberals ask for the judges to also "deal with" the issues of health care, education, social programs, debt management, foreign policy ......................? In fact, why don't liberals ask the judges to just take over the task of lawmaking from all of the legislatures since it is obvious that the legislatures never "deal with" the issues the way that liberals want them to?
394781
The problem is that-regardless of what the claim-liberals are all about individuals. They care only about issues that relate to them and what is in the best interest of them and them alone.  While we like to see the whole country flourish, and not just sit around and complain about how hard we have it.  Your points will never get across to them because they don't understand what it means to sacrifice your own benefits-and your own life-for what you believe in.\n\nIn response to EVILEMPIRE's statement:  That seems to be another problem with liberals, they feel that if you don't question every single thing, you are a "thoughtless drone".  There's nothing wrong with sometimes questioning government, it's what the country was founded on but, just because you agree with things that the governement does that doesn't make you a complete moron or a "thoughtless drone."  If you really wanted to go that route I could say the same about liberals who believe everything the Communist News Network throws at them.
717452
"Children nowadays are tyrants. They contradict their parents, gobble their food and tyrannise their teachers." - Socrates\n\nI do agree though, reading what used to be "popular magazines" in the 1770's, and knowing that it was the youth of the day that took an active interest in this, it is really sad that many can't even piece together a coherent sentence.  Media and news are now delivered in 30 second bites in such a revolving pace that it has no depth.  People in general have gotten used to this, and are taking everything at face value without a modicum of thought and not considering the source.  Truth is no longer based on fact, and illiteracy is rampant.\n\nI love asking anyone that is "liberal bashing" to define a liberal...normally they can't.  Self-proclaimed conservatives also cannot rattle off any of the basic tenets of conservatism (hint, it has nothing to do with religion).  "Pro-lifers" somehow think there are exceptions to the rules, not realizing that by believing in exceptions they are "pro-choice".  Right-wing Christians that believe we are a country founded on religion and we need to get back there don't recall history class...there was a time for this was the case in European history known affectionately as "The Dark Ages".\n\nI agree totally, the masses have lost their ability to think lately and it's starting to grate on my nerves.  As a libertarian/democrat, I really believe that the only way we will have a great country is if people become informed and able to think critically, logically AND emotionally mature.  The simple fact that some people STILL think Colbert was simply a "not so funny conservative" speaks volumes.
752557
Good Point.  I think it is just because they care about their liberal agenda.  They truly don't care about anything else.  That's just my opinion.
962166
Well, I agree with what you have said. \n\nI look forward to a response from someone who considers themselves Liberal to address each of your points, not just one. Two responders never addressed any. Unfortunately that is what tends to happen most of the time when you ask them direct questions.  \n\nThis is the perfect opportunity for them to explain their viewpoints.
736939
Nice rant.....\n\nShould I address all of the fallicies one by one or will it be okay for me to just say that your 'facts' are questionable at best and some are plain wrong.\n\nBut alas, the selective memory and closed mind of liberals is at work again.
845219
of course they were.\nbut they were "liberals" over any other thing.\nand that was a very good thing.
1077516
Good point.  If I were a liberal, I would have just told the U.S. to "MIND THEIR BUSINESS!", Like they are doing now.\n\n\n-------\n\ndon't you people understand?  the question is a parallel to what Saddam has done.  The liberals are saying things, like, "we should mind our business", and "quit sticking our nose in other countries affairs"
591521
The deal is: "Freedom of speech goes both ways"\n\nPeople not only have a right to say pretty much what they want, other people have a right to object, argue & even ask for an apology. \n\nA liberal says something, a conservative objects & the conservative is bashed for 'violating a person's freedom of speech.' \n\nA conservative says something, a liberal objects, and conservatives either let it drop there or defend the original statement on its merit.\n\nSo who is really against freedom of speech;\n\nThe conservative who asks a liberal for an apology for an offensive statement, or the liberal who acts like you aren't allowed to express the fact your offended by a statement?