Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/6790/shitbomb9bs.gif

This is more of your typical christian propoganda. Biased and not at all historically accurate. This post is exemplary in regards to the bible-based rhetoric you, and those like you, want to pass off as historical fact.

Make the next logical leap; behind homosexuals, the next leading cause of the collapse of a civilization is single people, right? As soon as you and people like you stop trying to legislate your opinion, the world can continue to evolve.

http://waysandmeans.house.gov/hearings.asp?formmode=view&id=954

http://waysandmeans.house.gov/heari...view&id=954

http://waysandmeans.house.gov/heari...view&id=954

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Carl Wilson: Our Dance has turned to Death. Many web results for Mr Wilson are found on:
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/




WOW! Not only are you saying that we should go back to '50's values, but your side is also quoting a f*cking COMMUNIST!...saying he was right, no less!

I wonder if the person who came up with those stats took into account a little thing called population increase?

And the bit about tax increases just made me laugh. The US has one of the lowest tax rates in the world.

http://waysandmeans.house.gov/heari...view&id=954

http://waysandmeans.house.gov/heari...view&id=954

And, you're claiming that woman's rights, civil rights and homosexuals are a communist/marxist conspiracy to destroy the " 'Merican way uh lyfe"

God, you are from the 50's...

http://waysandmeans.house.gov/heari...view&id=954

Now, now...I would really read thatif I wouldn't know that it most probably is a big pile of Bullshit. Maybe later when I am more bored.

http://waysandmeans.house.gov/hearings.asp?formmode=view&id=954

Originally posted by whobdamandog
The Federal Government continues to participate by paying the states incentives encouraging them to practice these draconian Soviet style, anti-family, child destroying policies.

This wouldn't happen to be the government that is being run by a conservative majority and the Bush Administration, would it?

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Faith based initiatives

You mean, like flying a plane into the side of a building?

Interesting points Rep Wood has made..in my humble opinion. I don't agree with everything that was posted. But it does seem as if western society has experienced a certain degree of "Social Marxism" over the last several decades.

Pitirim Sorokin's views are unorthodix. As for the rest of the article ... honestly, why bother? But I liked his rantings about Marxism; isn't it a little late to be accusing people of Communism? It's actually more than a side-note, because McCarthy's witch-hunt took place in the 40's and 50's, decades he seems to view favorably.

And ... most American's would agree that American society's taken a turn for the worse? Oh yeh, absolutely. Why, just this day, a Negro dared to ask me if I had the time! Talking to a white man like he was my equal! Give me the good old days, before they became all upity!

(Since he seems to like statistics so much ... homicide rates are lower than they were thirty years ago)

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Lawrence v. Texas pro-homosexual ruling

Oh, you mean the ruling that says that homosexuals can't be imprisioned for simply existing?



So, you would rather the State have the right to dictate what you can and cannot do in your home, or in private? So, you agree that Bush should be allowed to order illegal wire-taping? See your statement agreeing with communism in one of your previous posts..and my response to it.

http://www.legis.state.wi.us/assembly/asm67/a67comte.html

Oh, and EVERYONE!...don't forget to take tomorrow to pray for rain in Oklahoma. The governor has asked that everyone take time on Sunday to pary for rain in teh state. He also asked that, if any Native American rain dancers were still alive, after that 'rotten meant' incident, to contact him in his fall out shelter behind the baptist church at the end of nonegro street.

A bit more on Sorokin..for those that are interested. Many of his "unorthodox" philosophies about the fall of a society "mirror" the philosophies of Christian Theologians/Scholars.

http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/M_EVI/preface.htm

Originally posted by whobdamandog
http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/M_EVI/preface.htm


http://www.witness-pioneer.org/index.htm

You know, whobdamandog, we're all completely convinced of your ability to quote right-wing nut-jobs on the internet. You can stop any time you want to.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/6790/shitbomb9bs.gif

Heheheh. I see it's been made. Most impressive. Kudos to that smiley maker.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Pitirim A. Sorokin was a major figure in social thought in the previous century

Pretty much sums it up.

Previous century! As in not today, as in not modern thinking, as in 'in the past'

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Heheheh. I see it's been made. Most impressive. Kudos to that smiley maker.

copyright: PVS

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
http://www.witness-pioneer.org/index.htm

Cap..you're being silly my friend.

The quote was actually taken directly from


Pitirim A. Sorokin, The Crisis of Our Age, E. P. Dutton & Co., Inc., New York, 1951, p. 13.


I just referenced the site where I obtained the quote from. It's always good to give credit where credit is due, regardless of differences one has regarding politcal/religious ideologies. I think we can all agree that Sorokin was definitely not a practicioner of the Islamic faith, nor am I for that matter.

The flaw with this thinking is the idea that, in contrast, all historic civilisations that had strong families survived, and that all modern day civilisations with a strong sense of family are laudable achievements.

Neither is true (if you want strong family ties, let's have a look at Iran...), so therefore the family collapse is not actually the cause of any of these problems; its collapse in civilisations that depended on it (which is not a universal requirement) was a consequence of other things.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Cap..you're being silly my friend.

The quote was actually taken directly from


Pitirim A. Sorokin, The Crisis of Our Age, E. P. Dutton & Co., Inc., New York, 1951, p. 13.


I just referenced the site where I obtained the quote from. It's always good to give credit where credit is due, regardless of differences one has regarding politcal/religious ideologies. I think we can all agree that Sorokin was definitely not a practicioner of the Islamic faith, nor am I for that matter.

Yeah, it took what, 10 of my posts before you found one you could say something about? Just more of your crappy rhetoric. You'll even go so far as to quote an Islamic site to further your old ideas. Besides, my post about who Sorokin was, and WHEN Sorokin was big news is still relevant.

Originally posted by Gregory
You know, whobdamandog, we're all completely convinced of your ability to quote right-wing nut-jobs on the internet. You can stop any time you want to.

Well I had to post a topic to add a bit of "diversity" to these forums. Most of what's posted here seems to have just a bit(sic) of a "leftist" slant too it...

This wouldn't happen to be the inspiration for this ricockulous thread, would it?


http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/decline.html



I found this by typing: Decline of the family homosexuality into the google search engine. It was the 1st results listed.



Sounds familiar....


More of your crusade against ****...

this reminds me of a Deano thread.

*cut and paste cut and paste cut and paste*

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
This wouldn't happen to be the inspiration for this ricockulous thread, would it?

Sounds familiar....


More of your crusade against ****...


You're being oversensitve Captain. No crusade against any particular group(s) of people have been made. The topic of this thread really centers around the decline of the family..and how redefining typical societal roles/standards leads to the ultimate "breakdown" of a society. If you read each and every post..you will find that "homosexuality" is not the sole argument being presented to support this argument.

Switched gender roles, sexual promiscuity(this includes homosexual AND heterosexual sexual acts), moral relativism, materialism, are among some of the other pertinent issues being discussed.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
You're being oversensitve Captain. No crusade against any particular group(s) of people have been made. The topic of this thread really centers around the decline of the family..and how redefining typical societal roles/standards leads to the ultimate "breakdown" of a society. If you read each and every post..you will find that "homosexuality" is not the sole argument being presented to support this argument.

Switched gender roles, sexual promiscuity(this includes homosexual AND heterosexual sexual acts), moral relativism, materialism, are among some of the other pertinent issues being discussed.

No, it is not. But, it's your motivation. As for your other points, I addressed those already.

"Nations most often fall from within" At least that part was true.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Interesting points Rep Wood has made..in my humble opinion. I don't agree with everything that was posted. But it does seem as if western society has experienced a certain degree of "Social Marxism" over the last several decades.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
http://www.legis.state.wi.us/assembly/asm67/a67comte.html

Did everyone understand this post? There is no representative Woods being quoted. The only Rep Woods on teh ways and means commitee is the one I posted a link to. This "Bill Wood" is a private citizen.

"When I hear the word culture, I reach for my pistol"
-Herman Goering

Originally posted by Bardock42
Now, now...I would really read that if I wouldn't know that it most probably is a big pile of Bullshit. Maybe later when I am more bored.

I wonder if Edward Gibbon's views are relevant to this.... He, in his rather brilliant work "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire", placed a good deal of the blame for Roma's tumble on declining morality and virtues of the Roman citizens. The important thing though is he believed this decline of moral standards rested largely with the ascent of Christianity. It was internal barbarism, just as much as external barbarism that laid the Romans low. Gays, had nothing to do with it - essentially Christianity was something the Roman Empire couldn't exist with - thus a slow death, and eventual fall due to many, many factors often linked to religion.

Same with Steven Runciman - noted scholar of Byzantine history, who believed the blow that really leads to the Eastern Empire's fall came not so much on the Islamic hordes, or the Byzantines own rather complex inner society, but on Christian Crusaders, and the values of western Christianity - not family values, but rather political values, and social outlook based upon Biblical morality and guidelines.

But it's always funny such things are rarely brought up - when conversations turn to such things in such a way, it's often with a pro-Christian sentiment at the detriment of an often unfairly maligned group - gays. Muslims. Abolitionists. Communists. Manichean's. Liberal thinkers. Philosophers. Reformists. Feminists. They come in, things change - WE ALL DIE!!!

That said few experts these days blame a single factor for nation death (even in cases of simplu be conquered) - it's often a mulitude of cause, social, ecnonomic, enviromental, and I've never seen any really plausible argument put forward that changing family structures destroy civilisations - in fact the opposite. Family change and power shifts often went with a culture becoming more civilised. Then families would often change with new religions. New philosophies. New concepts. No theories. Many, many times. Little changes, big changes, but never are these the single cause of a culture going belly up. Nations through history fall, yes, but always with a large number of issues when it's internal. Never just one easy scape goat like - "Gadzooks! This is because we let gays marry" or "damn, premarital sex has brought our awesome culture down on our heads!" or "Criminy, letting our women folk work is the end of us!"

And yes, I am quite confident that the US will either one day be gone, or will be changed from what it is now. At the very least I am sure it won't always be a super power. And I am certain this is a fate that most, if not all, current nations will face. As will those in the future. I'd chuck around words like entropy and that thing about the inherint nature of decline, but that's beside the point - I don't see changing family structures playing a part in this - many other causes though. And I am pretty sure God wont be stepping in to save any of them. Not a one. Because a. He doesn't exist of if he does then b. that's not what God does.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Did everyone understand this post? There is no representative Woods being quoted. The only Rep Woods on teh ways and means commitee is the one I posted a link to. This "Bill Wood" is a private citizen.

Actually I didn't even notice that. I figured that since it was posted on the Goverment Ways and Means website, it was referring to the Representative "Woods" that was actually on the commitee. Regardless, the individual who made the statement made some valid points none the less.

Moving along past semantics, I'm interested in your thoughts regarding Sorokin and Unwin's theories. Thus far my friend your argument has consisted of little substance, and is centered around attacking credibility..rather than the argument actually being presented.

Why do you believe that they're opinions are "bullshit"? Specify what you believe to be "untruthful" about what has been posted.

Originally posted by whobdamandog



I think that thing is absolutely correct, other than the religious gibberish.

Aaauuuggghhh!!! Why does it keep doing that thing?!

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Actually I didn't even notice that. I figured that since it was posted on the Goverment Ways and Means website, it was referring to the Representative "Woods" that was actually on the commitee. What Representative Woods on the committee?

Bill Thomas, CA (Chairman)
E. Clay Shaw Jr. , FL
Nancy L. Johnson, CT
Wally Herger, CA
Jim McCrery, LA
Dave Camp, MI
Jim Ramstad, MN
Jim Nussle, IA
Sam Johnson, TX
Phil English, PA
J.D. Hayworth, AZ
Jerry Weller, IL
Kenny C. Hulshof, MO
Ron Lewis, KY
Mark Foley, FL
Kevin Brady, TX
Thomas M. Reynolds, NY
Paul Ryan, WI
Eric Cantor, VA
John Linder, GA
Bob Beauprez, CO
Melissa A. Hart, PA
Chris Chocola, IN
Devin Nunes, CA
Charles B. Rangel, NY
Fortney Pete Stark, CA
Sander M. Levin, MI
Benjamin L. Cardin, MD
Jim McDermott, WA
John Lewis, GA
Richard E. Neal, MA
Michael R. McNulty, NY
William J. Jefferson, LA
John S. Tanner, TN
Xavier Becerra, CA
Lloyd Doggett, TX
Earl Pomeroy, ND
Stephanie Tubbs Jones, OH
Mike Thompson, CA
John B. Larson, CT
Rahm Emanuel, IL

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Regardless, the individual who made the statement made some valid points none the less.That remains to be seen.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Moving along past semantics, I'm interested in your thoughts regarding Sorokin and Unwin's theories. Thus far my friend your argument has consisted of little substance, and is centered around attacking credibility..rather than the argument actually being presented.

Why do you believe that they're opinions are "bullshit"? Specify what you believe to be "untruthful" about what has been posted. Semantics or deliberate misrepresentation. Past precedent favours the latter. What argument? Ctrl+C and Ctrl+V equates to an argument?
Originally posted by KidRock
this reminds me of a Deano thread.

*cut and paste cut and paste cut and paste* I find myself agreeing with KidRock... and it sickens me...

Talk about a thread that could get me on my soapbox and have me typing for hours. Seriously, the decline of the family is very evident.

Once you have a group where the needs of the individual are put above those of the group (family, state, country, whatever), the group begins its slow dissolution.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
What Representative Woods on the committee?

Bill Thomas, CA (Chairman)
E. Clay Shaw Jr. , FL
Nancy L. Johnson, CT
Wally Herger, CA
Jim McCrery, LA
Dave Camp, MI
Jim Ramstad, MN
Jim Nussle, IA
Sam Johnson, TX
Phil English, PA
J.D. Hayworth, AZ
Jerry Weller, IL
Kenny C. Hulshof, MO
Ron Lewis, KY
Mark Foley, FL
Kevin Brady, TX
Thomas M. Reynolds, NY
Paul Ryan, WI
Eric Cantor, VA
John Linder, GA
Bob Beauprez, CO
Melissa A. Hart, PA
Chris Chocola, IN
Devin Nunes, CA
Charles B. Rangel, NY
Fortney Pete Stark, CA
Sander M. Levin, MI
Benjamin L. Cardin, MD
Jim McDermott, WA
John Lewis, GA
Richard E. Neal, MA
Michael R. McNulty, NY
William J. Jefferson, LA
John S. Tanner, TN
Xavier Becerra, CA
Lloyd Doggett, TX
Earl Pomeroy, ND
Stephanie Tubbs Jones, OH
Mike Thompson, CA
John B. Larson, CT
Rahm Emanuel, IL

That remains to be seen.
Semantics or deliberate misrepresentation. Past precedent favours the latter. What argument? Ctrl+C and Ctrl+V equates to an argument?
I find myself agreeing with KidRock... and it sickens me...

No misrepresentation on my part, I should have checked exactly who was on the ways and means commitee before assuming that the comment was made by an actual representative. Apparently there is no Rep Wood's.

The statement was actually submitted to the ways and means commitee by and individual by the name of "Bill Woods", and posted on the commitee's website. Obviously, this essay must have had a pretty profound effect on the commitee..seeing as how it was posted on their site. So moving along againg..past semantics..how is this bullshit? Why should the opinions of Sorokin..and like minded socialogists..be disregarded in this day and age. Sorokin was around for quite a bit of this century, so I believe he does have a somewhat modern view on this topic..

Discuss

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Why should the opinions of Sorokin..and like minded socialogists..be disregarded in this day and age. Sorokin was around for quite a bit of this century, so I believe he does have a somewhat modern view on this topic..

Discuss



This article could easily be about you. It is no wonder that not only do you not see that he is wrong, but that you also agree with him.