Dems Without a Prayer!!

[ReillyT]

ReillyT:

If you and so many of the Democrats in your party are religious as you seem to claim in your post#23, then why does your party support issues such as homosexual marriage, abortion, and euthanasia?

I can see how you might be convinced into thinking religion and government should be "separated" the way you do, however, I cannot see "religious" men supporting these other things as the major religions of the world do not support them. Which religion do the Democrats belong to that supports, say, homosexual marriage, as a "right"?

That wasn't the point of my posts, but what the hell. However, I want to point that most democrats don't support gay marriage and nearly none of them support euthanasia (although I support an individuals right to decide via a living will, etc.). I also can't point to a specific religion that recognizes gay marriage. It might exist, but I really am not that familiar with the myriad of religions in the U.S.

First, democrats belong to the whole panopoly of religions, and we treat them pretty much like everyone else does. Most people disagree with some of the things their church tells them. Plenty of Catholics in the U.S. use contraception even though their church says it is a sin. That doesn't mean that they aren't Catholic and not religious. They just disagree with this tenet or are willing to accept the consequences of defying the church doctrine.

Some of us belong to churches that support our convictions. There are actually quite a lot of very liberal churches in the U.S. The first that comes to mind are the Universal Unitarians, but the Episcopalians just appointed a gay clergy member and they are a rather large sect. In addtion, the other protestant churches tend to take a more liberal approach in some areas of the country than others. Lots of variety in churches.

Finally, some democrats believe that they must walk the walk, but that they can't make others walk it with them. Some democrats would never have an abortion and would consider it a sin. However, they believe that this (on both the religion and the abortion) is a personal decision that every woman has to make for herself. They want woman to have the freedom to act according to their own consciences.

Anyway, these are few of the reasons that people can be both religious and a Democrat. I won't go in depth into one other reason, because it will just get people excited. I will just say a word on it. Some people think that the Republicans who spend all of their time railing against gay marriage and upholding specific religious rules (to them at least) tend to fall a little short on some other Christian values - namely when it comes to caring for the poor and under-privileged, valuing life (death penalty), and doing no harm to others if it can be prevented (war and reports of torture by the U.S. government).

I am not writing this to start an argument or debate the issues individually. It is however, what many people feel.

I have to go, but have a nice day.

 

[Edward]

The first bold is in context of the birth of the nation the second bold is mention of the consitution.

You are incorrect, the first bold was not in "context of the birth of the nation," but was instead to say that the union would not have come into being had the anti-federalists reacted violently. This you seem to stretch to include my comparison, which had nothing to do with the birth of the nation. You base your premise on a preconceived opinion of your own. I would not consider the signing of the Constitution to be the birth of the nation, because the nation existed before the Constitution was drafted. If you wish you could say that I had mentioned the birth of the union but that would also be incorrect for the same reasons I have previously given.

Here is the proper context of my statements.

I said, "Had the anti-federalists chose to cease being civil even though they did not win the union would never have came into being. The anti-federalists would have just shot those who supported the Constitution. Britian I am sure would have been happy if they chose not to be civil. That would have destroyed any chance we would have had at being a nation."

You responded by asking, "Are you attempting to compare the birth of our nation and the constitution to the conduct on an internet messageboard? If so, wow quite the stretch."

I answered by saying, "It is part of my training to make such comparisons. To compare what took place in history to current events. There would be no reason or purpose to study history unless it has application today. While it is obvious for anyone to see that the two situations or scenarios are not the same they are comparable enough. Every time we have an election, every time we pass a law we add to the constitution (as differentiated from the Constitution) of this nation."

Responding to this you say, "Lessons from the past should certainly be applicable to today, but in the proper context. Again to give equal weight to the birth of the nation and the constitution to a discussion on an internet messageboard is a stretch."

Again I respond by seeking to clarify, "I would refer you back to my original post and request that you read my statement in context. I did not give equal weight to the birth of the nation and the constitution to a discussion on an internet message board....I did not mention the birth of the nation, nor did I mention the constitution in that post. I was speaking specifically of the anti-federalists and the federalists and their actions, not their opinions or their beliefs. That makes my point a theoretical one and not an literal point.

You responded again by saying, "The first bold is in context of the birth of the nation the second bold is mention of the consitution."

These are the bold text you are speaking about, "Had the anti-federalists chose to cease being civil even though they did not win the union would never have came into being. The anti-federalists would have just shot those who supported the Constitution. Britian I am sure would have been happy if they chose not to be civil. That would have destroyed any chance we would have had at being a nation."

So did I say anything about the constitution? No. Did I say something about the Constitution? Yes. Did I say anything about the birth of the nation? No. Did I say something about the birth of the union? Yes. So as I said before, I did not mention the birth of the nation or the constitution in my post. If you cannot tell the difference in what I was saying I will quote myself, "Every time we have an election, every time we pass a law we add to the constitution (as differentiated from the Constitution) of this nation."

Also, note that I again used the proper phraseology when I said "of this nation," and not of this union. I am quite consistent, and I say again. I did not speak of the constitution or the birth of this nation. You may choose to mingle the terms, constitution and Constitution, union and nation but I do not because my training does not allow me to.

 

[Edward]

You can "suggest" until your blue in the face, and it won't do any good son. You are the new liberal here, and I am the old conservative. So far you haven't addressed the ONE POINT I made.

In contrast, you've shoved your liberal lecturing, I'm better than you are, conservatives don't listen, bull shit attitude, in my face.

I did no such thing. Tell me one thing I said to you that was liberal lecturing. As for me thinking I'm better than you are. Well I do, but not because you are a conservative and I am a liberal, but because you are uncivil and I am civil.

I put you in the catagory of liberals that stand in a group "shouting down" one single conservative. You're cowards, and your thinking is flawed. I live by my God and his comandments, you live by if it feels good do it. I believe in a higher power, you believe you are the answer to everything.

I also live by my God and His commandments, nor do I live by "if it feels good do it." Interesting that you should say this because sadly and patently it is false. I do not believe or live by "if it feels good do it."

So if you like my demeanor towards you here, then I'd suggest you find a nice liberal message board where everybody kisses your lilly white ass, just the way you like it, because you ain't changing the way I deal with liberals on this board BOY. Only "MODS" do that.

Well, if I found myself a liberal message board the liberals like you would be saying the same things about me as you are now saying. You think liberalism and conservatism is a neat little box which you can fit people into but you cannot.

Wake up and smell the coffee mister egotist, you've just stumbled into the "no spin zone".

It is you who are the egoist. I agree with about half of what the Republican Party supports, and I get along fine with my collegues who are Republicans and it is you who gives those positions bad light.

The more you speak the more I realize that you are nothing more then an uncivil child. You want to get down to name callings. You are not a Republican, you do not speak for Republicans. You go right ahead and believe what you want. The next time I go to a Council meeting me and the Republicans on the council will get a laugh at what you have to say. I can just imagine them cracking up in laughter because that is what I am doing. You have made absolutely no point since the start of my discussion with you, other then your claim to be right and liberals to being wrong.

 

[Edward]

Thing is, I'd rather see that than liberal psycho-babble. At least your saying something with some substance.

Look whose talking. You have said nothing of substance. Absolutely nothing. Talking to you is like talking to a child. As for me and mine I will continue to be as civil as possible and attempt to have a conversation of substance with you, yet I doubt if that is possible. You really have no idea what liberals believe or what conservatives believe, or what Republicans believe or what Democrats believe. You live in a little fantasy land where everyone is either with your or against you.

 

[Edward]

ReillyT: If you and so many of the Democrats in your party are religious as you seem to claim in your post#23, then why does your party support issues such as homosexual marriage, abortion, and euthanasia?

Religious persons can have political and religious opinions that support homosexual marriage, abortion, and euthanasia. When you really get down to why I believe the way I do it is because while my religion teaches against these things, is because of my religion. In fact, I could not be a Democrat if I was not a Christian. It is because I am a Christian that I am a Democrat.

I can see how you might be convinced into thinking religion and government should be "separated" the way you do, however, I cannot see "religious" men supporting these other things as the major religions of the world do not support them. Which religion do the Democrats belong to that supports, say, homosexual marriage, as a "right"?

Whether a religion believes homosexual marriage is a right or not is irrelevent. Their opinion is just as valid as mine. Religions are made up of individuals, and just because those individuals choose to associate with each other doesn't make their opinion any more valid then the people who choose to associate together and call themselves Democrats or Republicans.

If there was a religion that supports homosexual marriage as a right I would disagree with them. It is not a right. I support civil unions, oppose same-sex marriages, and believe that sodomy should be legal. I do not wish to legislate my morality instead I prefer to call others to repentance and bring them into the fold of God. I would not go so far as to say that there is a "separation of Church and State," because that is impossible. Go ahead, believe what you will, but don't presume that others will agree with you or support your lifestyle choice.

 

[Merlin1047]

The more you speak the more I realize that you are nothing more then an uncivil child. You want to get down to name callings. You are not a Republican, you do not speak for Republicans. You go right ahead and believe what you want. The next time I go to a Council meeting me and the Republicans on the council will get a laugh at what you have to say. I can just imagine them cracking up in laughter because that is what I am doing. You have made absolutely no point since the start of my discussion with you, other then your claim to be right and liberals to being wrong.

If conservatives are laughing while you're around - leave and see if the laughing stops. That may give you a clue what they're laughing at. Maybe it's your goofy philosophy, maybe it's your self-righteous, arrogant "I'm smarter than you" attitude. But when you trot out your psychobabble BS, you certainly got me to laughing, little buddy.


And then there was this little gem:

If I was not trying to be civil I would probably get really upset and tell you that if you and I were on the Senate floor and you started talking like that I would yell, "grab your gun Senator Pale Rider because it is time that we settled this once and for all," but I don't think that would do any good.

Oh THAT was good. Too bad it doesn't wash. First, I think PR is probably faster than you and second, I very much doubt you have the cojones to call him out anyway. But do practice your quick draw if it makes you happy.

 

[Edward]

That wasn't the point of my posts, but what the hell. However, I want to point that most democrats don't support gay marriage and nearly none of them support euthanasia (although I support an individuals right to decide via a living will, etc.).

I agree that you will find very few democrats who support euthanasia, at least of the active kind. There are Democrats and Republicans who would at minimum support the right to die. There are very few people who would prevent someone from dying if it was their express wish and desire to die. Most Americans acknowledge that if someone made their express wish known that they should be allowed to die. That to do otherwise would be a violation of their natural God-given rights.

First, democrats belong to the whole panopoly of religions, and we treat them pretty much like everyone else does. Most people disagree with some of the things their church tells them.

I don't think I disagree with anything my Church tells me. As to how I apply those things to my individual circumstances is another matter. I am a Democrat because I am a Christian. It is because of what my Church teaches that makes me a Democrat.

Finally, some democrats believe that they must walk the walk, but that they can't make others walk it with them. Some democrats would never have an abortion and would consider it a sin. However, they believe that this (on both the religion and the abortion) is a personal decision that every woman has to make for herself. They want woman to have the freedom to act according to their own consciences.

This is entirely consistent with my position on abortion. The right to abortion is not absolute, I agree with Roe v. Wade on that. Yet, to proscribe abortion entirely would be wrong, it deprives people of responsibility and accountability. A person who cannot choose to have an abortion or to put their child up for adoption is not responsible, or able to choose their response and because they aren't responsible they cannot be accountable. The Democrat Party supports adoption incentives, and believes abortion should be very rare. Democrats generally do not promote abortion. In fact, we generally support adoption and family planning. What we cannot and will not equivocate on is the right of a woman to choose whether to have an abortion consistent with Roe v. Wade (which by the way makes it very clear that abortion is not an absolute right).

 

[Merlin1047]

That wasn't the point of my posts, but what the hell. However, I want to point that most democrats don't support gay marriage and nearly none of them support euthanasia (although I support an individuals right to decide via a living will, etc.). I also point to a specific religion that recognizes gay marriage. It might exist, but I really am not that familiar with the myriad of religions in the U.S.

First, democrats belong to the whole panopoly of religions, and we treat them pretty much like everyone else does. Most people disagree with some of the things their church tells them. Plenty of Catholics in the U.S. use contraception even though their church says it is a sin. That doesn't mean that they aren't Catholic and not religious. They just disagree with this tenet or are willing to accept the consequences of defying the church doctrine.

Here's the point you're missing Reilly - Democrats may have all the attributes you mentioned. Matter of fact, I won't even dispute your assertion. I don't believe it, but for the sake of discussion I'll just let that go unchallenged. But the real point is that it doesn't matter what individual Democrats want or believe because the Democratic Party has an agenda. Now perhaps that ultra-left whacked out program that the party is pursuing doesn't jibe with your personal philosophy or that of many Democrats. But as I said, that doesn't matter. Every time you vote to put another leftist dingbat in office you are enabling the Deocratic Party to pursue it's agenda. And you know what? I very much doubt that your party cares what you think because your party represents their own ideology and you're just the filler that allows them to do that.

 

[Edward]

If conservatives are laughing while you're around - leave and see if the laughing stops. That may give you a clue what they're laughing at. Maybe it's your goofy philosophy, maybe it's your self-righteous, arrogant "I'm smarter than you" attitude. But when you trot out your psychobabble BS, you certainly got me to laughing, little buddy.

Let's cut the bullshit. I am not the one who advocates laughing at other people because their ideas aren't as smart as my own (i.e., worthy of my laughter because I am so much smarter).

I say go ahead and laugh, because you think you are so much better than me and smarter but it just doesn't fly Merlin. Your philosophy seems to be, "If you can't convince someone, force them." The fact that I hold many conservative opinions should only go to show that if you cared one whit about me as a person you would seek for me to understand.

Democrats would say, "abortion should be legal because I am able to convince others to do the right thing and I have no need to force them to do what is right."

You simply do not understand what makes Democrats tick. Why would a heterosexual democrat who is happily married support some form of same-sex marriage? If you can answer that you will finally come to understand that Democrats (at least religious ones) would whether convince others of the right thing instead of forcing them to do the right thing.

I would whether convince a homosexual of the rightness of my belief, and in the religious sense convince him to repent and to come unto the Lord because he wants to. Telling him he can't do something is only going to make him so angry that when I tell him that Jesus is the Christ and the savior of the world, and that if he comes unto him he will obtain life eternal that homosexual will think, "I hate you, and because you believe in God I hate God too." All these laws against things don't do any good for the Lord's cause. Indeed, they are only likely to increase the level of bitterness felt by those who hold differing viewpoints. For me I do not support same-sex marriage. I do on the other hand support civil unions. Why do I support civil unions? Because, homosexuals will be homosexuals. I cannot change that by passing a law or not passing a law. So I should do something to make sure that they aren't left without any protection under the law. This does not mean that I support same-sex marriage. Why do you think that so many states have passed amendments to their Constitution against same-sex marriage.

Let's look at election year. Of the eleven states that passed a ban on same-sex marriage, Michigan, and Oregan both passed such amendments and Kerry won 52% of the vote in Oregan and 51% in Michigan. Why would these Democratic states pass a ban on same-sex marriage? The answer is that Democrats do not support same-sex marriage. They instead support marriage between a man and a woman but they are looking for ways to help homosexual couples as well. Some solutions we offer are civil unions.

Why do democrats support adoption incentives instead of favoring proscribing abortion? Because democrats believe that a person who chooses to place their child up for adoption because they are convinced it is the right thing to do is better off for it and so is the child then someone who wants to have an abortion but cannot and hates the child for it.

What it really comes down to is about the Democrat position. After all, if you can't convince them do as the Republicans do and force them to do what you want. You can swear at them and call them arrogant, and pompous and self-righteous. As for me. I won't be swearing at you anytime. I also will live my religion, and one of the tenants of that religion is to do "unto others as you would have them do unto you."

 

[Edward]

Here's the point you're missing Reilly - Democrats may have all the attributes you mentioned. Matter of fact, I won't even dispute your assertion. I don't believe it, but for the sake of discussion I'll just let that go unchallenged. But the real point is that it doesn't matter what individual Democrats want or believe because the Democratic Party has an agenda. Now perhaps that ultra-left whacked out program that the party is pursuing doesn't jibe with your personal philosophy or that of many Democrats. But as I said, that doesn't matter. Every time you vote to put another leftist dingbat in office you are enabling the Deocratic Party to pursue it's agenda. And you know what? I very much doubt that your party cares what you think because your party represents their own ideology and you're just the filler that allows them to do that.

What agenda is this? Is it the agenda of the individual democrat who is elected to be a Senator, or the individual democrat who is elected to be a representative? You speak of the "ultra-left whacked out program that the party is pursuing." I would be interested in what this program is, because I have read the Party platform, and it jibes with my personal philosophy. Calling these men and women who hold elective office leftist dingbats is insulting. I am sure their husbands and wives and sons and daughters and mothers and fathers wouldn't be to happy hearing you calling their loved one a dingbat.

The party doesn't represent its own ideology, it represents my ideology. Give me a concise rundown of what Democrats believe on the issues. I bet you can't.

 

[ReillyT]

Here's the point you're missing Reilly - Democrats may have all the attributes you mentioned. Matter of fact, I won't even dispute your assertion. I don't believe it, but for the sake of discussion I'll just let that go unchallenged. But the real point is that it doesn't matter what individual Democrats want or believe because the Democratic Party has an agenda. Now perhaps that ultra-left whacked out program that the party is pursuing doesn't jibe with your personal philosophy or that of many Democrats. But as I said, that doesn't matter. Every time you vote to put another leftist dingbat in office you are enabling the Deocratic Party to pursue it's agenda. And you know what? I very much doubt that your party cares what you think because your party represents their own ideology and you're just the filler that allows them to do that.

I disagree that the leadership of the Democratic party is ultra-left. Most democrats support some sort of recognition for gay relationships, as does most of the party leadership. Many (and maybe most) democrats are against the idea that gay people should be allowed to marry. Of course there is an ultra-left (mostly independent organizations) that is pushing for gay marriage, but it hasn't been adopted by the people/ legislature of any state, not even those states that are predominantly Democratic (NY and California, for instance). This is because Democrats are split on the issue. There is no one party line that is followed here.

That is the same is true with the Republican party. Take the legal status of homosexuals and homosexual unions again. I take it for granted that most Americans do not want gay marriage. However, Republicans also support the rights of states to decide for themselves these issues. Nonetheless, the President and some members of the Congress have tried to place an amendment into the Constitution prohibiting gay marriage. It hasn't suceeded not just because of Democratic opposition, but also Republican opposition, even at the top of the party.

Neither party is controlled by any one faction. Leadership is split on some issues all the way to the top of the parties.

 

[Merlin1047]

What agenda is this? Is it the agenda of the individual democrat who is elected to be a Senator, or the individual democrat who is elected to be a representative? You speak of the "ultra-left whacked out program that the party is pursuing." I would be interested in what this program is, because I have read the Party platform, and it jibes with my personal philosophy. Calling these men and women who hold elective office leftist dingbats is insulting. I am sure their husbands and wives and sons and daughters and mothers and fathers wouldn't be to happy hearing you calling their loved one a dingbat.

The party doesn't represent its own ideology, it represents my ideology. Give me a concise rundown of what Democrats believe on the issues. I bet you can't.

What agenda is that??? Come on. I don't think that I have waste my time enumerating the obvious simply because you're being an obtuse ass.

And if the wives, husbands and miscellaneous other relations don't like me calling the dingbats dingbats - well, tough cookies. You apparently took a wrong turn thinking you were still in the politically correct zone. We'll you're not. And as far as what any leftist loon like you thinks about what I have to say or how I say it, let me summarize my philosophy for ya. It's just one easy sentence - "You obviously have me confused with someone who gives a shit what you think".

 

[Merlin1047]

Let's cut the bullshit. I am not the one who advocates laughing at other people because their ideas aren't as smart as my own (i.e., worthy of my laughter because I am so much smarter).

Well cutting the bullshit is a bit of a challenge when dealing with a leftie like you since that's about all you people do. And as far as your denial that you do not advocate laughing at others - well, your posts don't support that assertion.

I say go ahead and laugh, because you think you are so much better than me and smarter but it just doesn't fly Merlin.

Never said is was "smarter" than you, but it's pretty damned obvious that I've got you nailed hands down in the common sense department.

Your philosophy seems to be, "If you can't convince someone, force them."

Wowee, you figured all that out in such record time too. Boy you really ARE smart. I'm impressed!

The fact that I hold many conservative opinions should only go to show that if you cared one whit about me as a person you would seek for me to understand.

Well truth is that I'm a calloused right winger and based on your posts so far, I don't give even a teenie-tiny hoot in hell about you as a person. I just want to tell you that I think your philosphies suck. I don't want to get engaged.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I disagree that the leadership of the Democratic party is ultra-left. Most democrats support some sort of recognition for gay relationships, as does most of the party leadership. Many (and maybe most) democrats are against the idea that gay people should be allowed to marry. Of course there is an ultra-left (mostly independent organizations) that is pushing for gay marriage, but it hasn't been adopted by the people/ legislature of any state, not even those states that are predominantly Democratic (NY and California, for instance). This is because Democrats are split on the issue. There is no one party line that is followed here.

That is the same is true with the Republican party. Take the legal status of homosexuals and homosexual unions again. I take it for granted that most Americans do not want gay marriage. However, Republicans also support the rights of states to decide for themselves these issues. Nonetheless, the President and some members of the Congress have tried to place an amendment into the Constitution prohibiting gay marriage. It hasn't suceeded not just because of Democratic opposition, but also Republican opposition, even at the top of the party.

Neither party is controlled by any one faction. Leadership is split on some issues all the way to the top of the parties.

You don't think the Democrat Party is going far-left? What do you think supporting homosexuality, abortion, and euthanasia is? Middle of the road?

If you guys are the good religious people you purport to be, you need to take a closer look at exactly where your Democrat party is trying to lead mainstream America. It ain't pretty, especially for the normal religious guy who believes in family values. Look again at Bonnies examples below. Is this the kind of country you are praying for?

I would say mainstream America are the many who are tired of hearing how stupid, religious fanatical, moralistic, and backward they are for not wanting government telling them they must just sit down and shut up and keep their morality, ideas, and concerns to themsleves, while they watch their parental authority taken away by the government, their freedom of religious expression being taken away by the ACLU who CLAIMS they wish to "protect individual freedoms", have their hard earned money taxed away by Libs in Government such as Ted Kennedy and other elitist liberals who have never had to worry about money or taxes a day in their lives, then proceed to call those who oppose socialistic taxation (redistribution of money form those who do work to those who live off everyone else) selfish and greedy, mainstream America are those who can't stand to be preached to by immoral celebrities who can't keep their own families together, but tell everyone else the real meaning or morality is abortion on demand, endlessly taxing those who earn money, using tax dollars to fund art that many would find offensive, that Fidel Castro is a hero, the UN is great even though everyone now knows they are corrupt and useless, that kids should be sexually promiscious, that homosexuals should have extra rights and priviledges, that it's perfectly okay to go overseas and denounce America on foreign soil, and yes it's perfectly okay for Ted Kennedy to stand before the Senate and call make a ridiculous and irresponsible comparison between Hitler and President Bush. Shall I go on?

 

[BR-549]

It is part of my training to make such comparisons. To compare what took place in history to current events. There would be no reason or purpose to study history unless it has application today. While it is obvious for anyone to see that the two situations or scenarios are not the same they are comparable enough. Every time we have an election, every time we pass a law we add to the constitution (as differentiated from the Constitution) of this nation. This continual adding to the constitution is necessary, it is what makes us a society and what identifies us as a people. Is it a stretch to compare the beliefs held by the two dominant factions in our Revolutionary period to that of our current party system. I don't think so. The politics may be different, the opinions may be different but if a federalist and an anti-federalist had access to the internet and was able to express their views in this media they hopefully would be just as civil as they were then. I don't know if the internet culture has changed the dynamic of our national debate but I do know that if we fail to compare the events of history to the present and to our circumstances we will surely fail.

I believe this to be true of the scriptures as well. If we fail to apply the lessons, and examples found in the scriptures to our individual lives and to our public policy debates we will fail.

What liberals are today hardly compares to the federalists like Hamilton..And the arguments between the Anti-federalists and the Federalists at the time were not as philosophically fundamentally juxtasposed as modern liberalism is to conservatism. Liberals are Socialiists... Hyper-Federalists... Hamilton, were he alive today, would be shocked at the attempt at thought control, speech control , and action control that is openly defended by today's left.. Hamilton would be dumbfounded at the left's attempt to overturn what is western philosophical continuing thought with the trumped up values of the left. Your side, if you are aligned with the left of the Dem party is WAYYYYYYYYYYYYY out there and would scarce be recognized by the founding fathers as being part of western political thought. You want to understand different positions fine.. I understand what liberals want and I find it a threat to my Christian beliefs, and a threat to my freedom and liberty. Do you understand conservatism? It's roots are freedom and liberty of the individual, limited government and respect for, and adherance to, traditional western ideas and culture.. It's you folks on the left that want to discard what has given us the society we have and replace it with VERY questionable values that threaten to tear this society apart and ruin this nation.. Understand my point of view , bro?

 

[Annie]

What liberals are today hardly compares to the federalists like Hamilton..And the arguments between the Anti-federalists and the Federalists at the time were not as philosophically fundamentally juxtasposed as modern liberalism is to conservatism. Liberals are Socialiists... Hyper-Federalists... Hamilton, were he alive today, would be shocked at the attempt at thought control, speech control , and action control that is openly defended by today's left.. Hamilton would be dumbfounded at the left's attempt to overturn what is western philosophical continuing thought with the trumped up values of the left. Your side, if you are aligned with the left of the Dem party is WAYYYYYYYYYYYYY out there and would scarce be recognized by the founding fathers as being part of western political thought. You want to understand different positions fine.. I understand what liberals want and I find it a threat to my Christian beliefs, and a threat to my freedom and liberty. Do you understand conservatism? It's roots are freedom and liberty of the individual, limited government and respect for, and adherance to, traditional western ideas and culture.. It's you folks on the left that want to discard what has given us the society we have and replace it with VERY questionable values that threaten to tear this society apart and ruin this nation.. Understand my point of view , bro?

Hey cool, poly sci 231~

 

[007]

Talking to you is like talking to a child.

Well isn't that special. The new board liberal is cutting on my ass. More than likely because I've simply said "I don't like liberals", but then maybe again it's because I said that 87% of the college professors today in America proclaim to be "LIBERAL". This has NOT been addressed by EITHER of our new found liberal toys.

Have I ribbed on them some? Sure. I'd like nothing better than to stand toe to toe with any one of them... IF, they had the "cajones" as my pard Merlin refers to. But like all liberals, they're only tough in a pack, as in cowards. You liberal's on bloggers do nothing but pump out psycho-babble by the barrel. Nothing you ever say is "this is what I mean". It's always some fucking conveluted, twisted, over psycho-analized bull shit so diluted in "feeling", that whatever the fuck you were ever trying to say in the first place, the meaning is lost. And that's what's inside you pricks heads... CONFUSION.

Step back, try and get in touch with "America", because "you" are not.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Thanks for repping me on my post, reillyt. A thoughtful reply would have been better.

I think you get my point: Listening and understanding is only half of a rational life, the other half is making decisions and acting. Liberals are fundamentally cleaved in two, their decision making having been impeded by indoctrination into politically correct dogma.

 

[Edward]

You liberal's on bloggers do nothing but pump out psycho-babble by the barrel. Nothing you ever say is "this is what I mean". It's always some fucking conveluted, twisted, over psycho-analized bull shit so diluted in "feeling", that whatever the fuck you were ever trying to say in the first place, the meaning is lost. And that's what's inside you pricks heads... CONFUSION.

I will say exactly what I mean. Most of my friends are Republicans. I have worked on Republican campaigns, and have voted for Republicans. I will continue to do so. You haven't said anything at all since beginning this discussion with me. You have yet to say anything of substance. It is your posts that are convulated. I could sum up your posts in this discussion simply as, "Liberalism=Psycho-babble." Everything you posted I could have easily ignored since you didn't say anything of substance.

You seem to have democrats and liberals all in one box, but the reality is that this is a false dicthomy. Liberals and Democrats are not themselves in agreement on every issue. If you were to attend one of our Conventions and listen to the heated debates that go on between democrats you would realize just how divided we are on the issues. The same goes for the Republicans, but you don't know anything because you are inexperienced in the political process.

Step back, try and get in touch with "America", because "you" are not.

Wrong. I am not in touch with you. You and those who agree with you, yet America is a lot more blue and purple than you may seem to think it is. The illustration below shows you by county just how red these counties were. In fact, there are far more totally blue counties then there are red, and there are far more purple colored counties than red which indicates that by counties America is far more divided. When looking at the map below what colors are prominent. The answer: blue, shades of blue, and shades of red. Red is not prominent which means that the majority of the counties in the country did not overwhelmingly vote for the Republicans. Simply put, Republicans won by a very narrow (if they won at all) margin in almost every single county in this country which indicates to me that I am not out of touch with America. Instead, I am out of touch with the Republicans who happened to get out their vote. Democrats always fail at getting out the vote. This is our greatest weakness. The reason for this in my mind is simply that we don't make it, "if you don't vote you aren't doing God's will, and if vote Republicans you are spawns of Satan," as the Republican party likes to refer to the Democratic party.

But let's cut the crap away. Name the issues, the positions Democrats take on those issues, and the positions Republican take on those issues. These issues may not include same-sex marriage, abortion, euthansia, and the war in Iraq. Anything else goes. The reason I have chosen to exclude these four issues is because the majority of people are so ignorant of politics that these are the only four they know anything about. I hearby challenge you Pale Rider to a discussion of the issues, excluding the above. To begin this discussion I ask that you stop wasting valuable time with your horsehit (i.e., saying nothing but liberalism=psycho-babble) and start making some sense. Now I know why some Democrats like to laugh at Republicans. I can understand why some of them think Republicans are stupid and ignorant and extremists. They read your idiotic posts and think you represent the Republican party but I know better because my friends are republicans as well.

 

[007]

IYou haven't said anything at all since beginning this discussion with me.

*sigh*... Just like a liberal to IGNORE selectively. Or are you simply that stupid? I SAID...

You want us conservatives, to listen to the liberals.... like your liberal professors do to conservative students who speak their mind at 87% of the nations colleges? Or is it "we" who should listen, but you don't have to? You see this is what you liberals do. It's always something the conservatives are NOT doing, according to you, but whether "you" are doing it or not, is irrelevant, in your mind. The double standard you liberals live by is MASSIVE. The liberal media's double standard is UNFATHOMED! And you have the LIBERAL GAWL to come here and tell us to "LISTEN TO YOU"? Sorry man, don't give me that line. It's bullshit in it's purest form, and it don't wash.

You seem to have democrats and liberals all in one box,

Yes I do lump them all into one, because LIBERALS *vote* DEMOCRAP. See, simple. Something you have no fucking grasp of. You're too damned busy disecting every sylable of every word, and then pumping out the grinded up shit.

You notice how many people have responded to you here eddie? Just about no one but me. You know why eddie? Because none of them really want to waste their time with you. You know what else eddie? I'm done with your liberal ass too.

Lets see if someone else will listen to your liberal psycho-babble.

That's got to be the stupidest thing I've ever seen. I'm sure a liberal thought that up. What... a... joke.