Dems Without a Prayer!!

[Bonnie]

Wow, Bonnie just gave you a huge laundry list of what the Democratic Left is trying to foist upon us everyday Americans and you basically waltz off obviously still thinking the Democrats are "middle America" or whatever and the best party to belong to because 1) you don't agree with everything the Dems push 2) you think you should have the right to denouce the government. Man, that's lame.

My guess is that if you ever really thought about each issue, one by one, you would probably become a Republican supporter by and large because you seem like a decent sort but it'll probably never happen because you, like most liberals I've encountered 1) don't want to analyze anything - they'd rather just huff-n-puff-n-walk away 2) have too much pride to admit they might just be wrong. 3) they are still living in JFK yesteryear.

By the way, us on the Rep side do not always agree with everything the right does either. Also we think everyone has the right to denounce the government as we believe in the freedom of speech ("Baghdad Jim" was never arrested) ...the same freedom many of the lefty PCers seem to have forgotten. :bat:

ps: sorry Bonnie, couldn't rep you - again!

Hey it's great knowing you see my point!

 

[ReillyT]

Wow, Bonnie just gave you a huge laundry list of what the Democratic Left is trying to foist upon us everyday Americans and you basically waltz off obviously still thinking the Democrats are "middle America" or whatever and the best party to belong to because 1) you don't agree with everything the Dems push 2) you think you should have the right to denouce the government. Man, that's lame.

I hope that you didn't think I "waltzed off" because I didn't like the conversation. I had a prior obligation that I had to attend to.

I don't believe that the laundry list Bonnie presented accurately reflects the views of most Democrats. It ignores the complexities of many of the issues and varied opinions of a group of people who hold to the same general political philosophy.

However, that was not the point of my posts (which I believed was missed). I think the Democrats are the best party to belong to because I, for the most part, agree with what they stand for. However, I respect the Republican view of the world (even if many times I disagree with it) and I try to understand why Republicans feel the way they do. I accept that two educated, rational and well-intentioned people can look at the same facts and come to different conclusions about what is best for the country and those who live in it, without either one being a religious zealot or a communist.

My guess is that if you ever really thought about each issue, one by one, you would probably become a Republican supporter by and large because you seem like a decent sort but it'll probably never happen because you, like most liberals I've encountered 1) don't want to analyze anything - they'd rather just huff-n-puff-n-walk away 2) have too much pride to admit they might just be wrong. 3) they are still living in JFK yesteryear.

You think that because I disagree with you that I haven't thought about the issues. That pretty much sums up my point and my main complaint. I don't assume that just because many on the board disagree with me that they haven't thought about the issues. They just came to different conclusions, which is perfectly understandable when the issues are as complex as the issues we face and many of us have different backgrounds and experiences to draw from.

I think I have done an admirable job arguing my points on this board, whether others agree with my points or not. I don't resort to name-calling (with 2 exceptions, one of which I apologized for and the other relating to RWA, so I don't think an apology is necessary) and I try not to leave a discussion unless I either have nothing to say on it (because I have no special knowledge that anyone else doesn't) or have said my piece to the best of my ability.

I am happy to admit I am wrong when I think I am wrong.

I wasn't alive when JFK was president, and don't view the early-mid sixties as a heyday that I would want to harken back to.

Thanks for calling me a decent sort. Likewise.

By the way, us on the Rep side do not always agree with everything the right does either. Also we think everyone has the right to denounce the government as we believe in the freedom of speech ("Baghdad Jim" was never arrested) ...the same freedom many of the lefty PCers seem to have forgotten. :bat:

I never doubted that you or most of the people on this board appreciate the First Amendment. I also recognize that the people on this board are individuals who do not always tow their respective parties' lines. Admirable all around.

I disagree with the suggestion that Democrats do not appreciate the First Amendment.

 

[Edward]

You think that because I disagree with you that I haven't thought about the issues. That pretty much sums up my point and my main complaint. I don't assume that just because many on the board disagree with me that they haven't thought about the issues. They just came to different conclusions, which is perfectly understandable when the issues are as complex as the issues we face and many of us have different backgrounds and experiences to draw from.

I agree. Quoting the definition of a paradigm, "For example, in social science, the term is used to describe the set of experiences, beliefs and values that affect the way an individual perceives reality and responds to that perception." - Wikipedia

Basically, it must be recognized that we each act based on different paradigms, these paradigms consist of our "experiences, beliefs, values" and this paradigm affects how we perceive reality and how we respond. Two intelligent people looking at the same set of facts may arrive at two separate conclusions, and react in two different ways. Let's hypothezize that there are 5 people, person A, person B, person C, person D and person E. There are so many different possible conclusions.

1) every person can disagree,
2) person A and B can agree, and disagree with persons C, D and E,
3) person C and D can agree, and disagree with person A, B and E,
4) person D and E can agree, and disagree with person A, B and C,
5) every person can agree

These examples can continue but I move on to reaction now,

1) every person can disagree and react in the same way,
2) person A and B can agree, but person A may react differently then B,
3) person C and D can agree, but can react the same way,
4) every person can agree but react in totally different ways,

These examples again are limitless, as limitless as the experiences, values and beliefs held by individuals. Labels are beneficial to some extent, it would be confusing if we didn't have labels including political labels but these labels do not really tell you what someone believes or why they believe it. So again, I agree with you but probably for very different reasons.

I never doubted that you or most of the people on this board appreciate the First Amendment. I also recognize that the people on this board are individuals who do not always tow their respective parties' lines. Admirable all around. I disagree with the suggestion that Democrats do not appreciate the First Amendment.

I have no doubt that most Americans value the First Amendment, there may be some of us who do not, or who believe it is arcane, or they may even be some of us who do not value the Constitution, but we should respect that and respect the different interpetations that are given to the First Amendment.

I indeed value the First Amendment, and I agree in part with the Democrat party interpretation of this amendment, but disagree in part as well. My being a democrat does not mean that I do not value the first amendment or have not studied out the issues. I disagree and agree with others (including democrats) based on my own knowledge, experiences, beliefs and values. This does not mean I do not value it.

 

[007]

If you (and some on the other side) would stop thinking the absolute worst of those that disagree with you, and if you would listen to their concerns and try to understand them, you would have a better understanding of why they feel the way the feel and who they are.

Ya know T, I'm not one to get too much out of pages and pages of psycho-babble, and over diagnoses of what "is" is. It's all too clintonesque. I like simple talk, cut to the chase you might say. What do you REALLY want to say, and you don't have to be polite if you don't want to. I'm not quite a lot of the time. Because you see, I pick up on the simple things people say, like what you said that I highlighted above. 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" 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 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.

Watch you what you say here. I'll call you on it every time you puke out your liberal babble.

 

[Edward]

Ya know T, I'm not one to get too much out of pages and pages of psycho-babble, and over diagnoses of what "is" is. It's all too clintonesque. I like simple talk, cut to the chase you might say.

Now wouldn't that be easy. Everyone could cut to the chase including you; if I were inclined to I could sum up your whole post simply as, "I hold liberals to a double standard."

What do you REALLY want to say, and you don't have to be polite if you don't want to. I'm not quite a lot of the time.

Thanks for the warning, but I personally think ReillyT prefers to be civil and to consider everyone's viewpoint and to arrive at his own conclusions, that is he seeks first to understand then to be understood. I personally like that when talking to people, of course there are extremists on both ends of the political spectrum who do not seek first to understand before seeking to be understood but I don't count myself among them.

Because you see, I pick up on the simple things people say, like what you said that I highlighted above. You want us conservatives, to listen to the liberals.... like your liberal professors do at 87% of the nations colleges? Or is it "we" should listen, but you don't have to? You see this is what you liberals do.

Nice generalization, but if you had read what he actually wrote you would understand that is not what he meant to say. Anyone who seeks to understand others before they start to jockey for their own position may gain a lot more insight into what others believe. Of course, there are those on the Republican and Democrat sides that do not seek to listen and to understand others but seek only to get their own laws passed, based on their own personal beliefs and they are willing to knock anyone down who gets in their way. The only reason politics must be a win-lose situation is because of those who hold to the win-lose belief on life. If Republicans and Democrats were really willing to shut up long enough to listen to what the other has to say they may get somewhere. I am not just talking about Democrats or Republicans either. I am speaking of individuals as well. If individuals shut up long enough to listen to others and seek to understand what they say they will get a lot further than if they tell someone how wrong that person is and how right they are.

An example, you are speaking to your child. He tells you he had a bad day at school so you interrogate him as to why he had a bad day, and when he tells you the teacher isn't nice to him, instead of waiting for him to tell you what the real problem is you go off on how he could be such a better student if he were to just listen to him more and to do his homework and assignments more. While you are ranting the child is thinking, "if he will only shut up long enough I will be able to tell him how my teacher tried to molest me today."

It's always something the conservatives are NOT doing, according to you, but whether "you" are doing 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 tell us to "LISTEN TO YOU". Sorry man, don't give me the line. It's bullshit in it's purest form, and it don't wash.

My first reaction to this was not a postive one, it was one of shock that you really expect liberals to read what you just posted and to react positively. You need to be dealt with the good old fashion democratic way because it seems that is the only way you can interact with others. 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. You are so close-minded you don't care what others believe or why they believe that way. You don't want a discussion, you just want to tell others how wrong they are and how right you are. I can see that I am not going to take a liking to you on this message board, but I will attempt to remain civil in the future. My friends who are Republicans and conservatives would be shocked that you would say such things but I don't think it matters if they are republicans or democrats because any civil person would react negatively to what you just posted.

Watch you what you say here. I'll call you on it every time you puke out your liberal babble.

Go right ahead, you will not convince me or other liberals of anything other then that you don't care one whit about us as people, and that you care only about proving to everyone how right you are. I am a democrat and I will probably disagree with other democrats on this message board from time to time and I will recognize their right to believe differently and I will LISTEN to them and seek to UNDERSTAND them, and then when I UNDERSTAND them I will seek to help them UNDERSTAND me. Hopefully we will get somewhere, otherwise we will have to do as you do and say, "to hell with it, you believe what you will and I will believe what I will." This solves nothing. Instead of coming up with common solutions or mutually beneficial solutions we fight each other until we are blue in the face. One side will win one election, the other the next. Nothing will be accomplished because each administration or dominant party will reverse what the previous did.

 

[Bonnie]

Edward...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,

Im glad you believe in civility and responsiblity from those on the Senate floor as well. I wonder though if you think it resposible or civil for some democratic politicians to stand on the Senate floor and make Bush- Hitler comparisons?

 

[007]

Now wouldn't that be easy. Everyone could cut to the chase including you; if I were inclined to I could sum up your whole post simply as, "I hold liberals to a double standard."



Thanks for the warning, but I personally think ReillyT prefers to be civil and to consider everyone's viewpoint and to arrive at his own conclusions, that is he seeks first to understand then to be understood. I personally like that when talking to people, of course there are extremists on both ends of the political spectrum who do not seek first to understand before seeking to be understood but I don't count myself among them.



Nice generalization, but if you had read what he actually wrote you would understand that is not what he meant to say. Anyone who seeks to understand others before they start to jockey for their own position may gain a lot more insight into what others believe. Of course, there are those on the Republican and Democrat sides that do not seek to listen and to understand others but seek only to get their own laws passed, based on their own personal beliefs and they are willing to knock anyone down who gets in their way. The only reason politics must be a win-lose situation is because of those who hold to the win-lose belief on life. If Republicans and Democrats were really willing to shut up long enough to listen to what the other has to say they may get somewhere. I am not just talking about Democrats or Republicans either. I am speaking of individuals as well. If individuals shut up long enough to listen to others and seek to understand what they say they will get a lot further than if they tell someone how wrong that person is and how right they are.

An example, you are speaking to your child. He tells you he had a bad day at school so you interrogate him as to why he had a bad day, and when he tells you the teacher isn't nice to him, instead of waiting for him to tell you what the real problem is you go off on how he could be such a better student if he were to just listen to him more and to do his homework and assignments more. While you are ranting the child is thinking, "if he will only shut up long enough I will be able to tell him how my teacher tried to molest me today."



My first reaction to this was not a postive one, it was one of shock that you really expect liberals to read what you just posted and to react positively. You need to be dealt with the good old fashion democratic way because it seems that is the only way you can interact with others. 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. You are so close-minded you don't care what others believe or why they believe that way. You don't want a discussion, you just want to tell others how wrong they are and how right you are. I can see that I am not going to take a liking to you on this message board, but I will attempt to remain civil in the future. My friends who are Republicans and conservatives would be shocked that you would say such things but I don't think it matters if they are republicans or democrats because any civil person would react negatively to what you just posted.



Go right ahead, you will not convince me or other liberals of anything other then that you don't care one whit about us as people, and that you care only about proving to everyone how right you are. I am a democrat and I will probably disagree with other democrats on this message board from time to time and I will recognize their right to believe differently and I will LISTEN to them and seek to UNDERSTAND them, and then when I UNDERSTAND them I will seek to help them UNDERSTAND me. Hopefully we will get somewhere, otherwise we will have to do as you do and say, "to hell with it, you believe what you will and I will believe what I will." This solves nothing. Instead of coming up with common solutions or mutually beneficial solutions we fight each other until we are blue in the face. One side will win one election, the other the next. Nothing will be accomplished because each administration or dominant party will reverse what the previous did.

My God Edwierd... what a frothing pile of dog shit. Did you shit that all yourself, or did you have a liberal brother shitting some for you?

Don't presume to lecture me boy on the in's and out's of differences between liberals and conservatives. I know what you are and how you operate. And now it's obvious that my straight foward talk upsets your delicate liberal balance. That's the way I like it. When I make one simple point, and you have to fill a whole damn page with diatribe and psycho-babble. If I offended you, then good. I'm here to offend you. You liberals turn my frickin' stomach.

Now if you're incapable of dealing with facts, then this conversation is over, because I'm not going to do your little fucked up dance with words. Get to the ******* point, or shut the **** up.

 

[Edward]

I would suggest Pale Rider that you tone your posts down because I will not tolerate your abusive and insulting posts. Unlike other people I don't tolerate such nonsense. As I have said, I will remain civil even when you are not civil because I know what happens when civility exits the political sphere. 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.

Don't presume to lecture me boy on the in's and out's of differences between liberals and conservatives. I know what you are and how you operate. And now it's obvious that my straight foward talk upsets your delicate liberal balance. That's the way I like it. When I make one simple point, and you have to fill a whole damn page with diatribe and psycho-babble. If I offended you, then good. I'm here to offend you. You liberals turn my frickin' stomach.

I see. You think you are on some kind of crusade. If you know how I operate, then tell me my positions on abortion, same-sex marriage, foreign policy, economic policy, and so forth. I suspect you cannot, because you don't know how anyone operates. You have no idea what I believe, what my values are or what my experiences are. You have no idea who I am or what I believe or why I believe it. You just like to fit everyone into neat little boxes so that you can rest easily at night. In your mind everyone who disagrees with you is either evil, twisted, babbling or just plain stupid. If this helps you sleep at night that is fine by me. My being a liberal isn't what makes me upset with your nonsense. If such nonsense was coming from a liberal I would be just as offended and just as shocked that someone can be so childish as to act in such an uncivil and discourteous manner.

My God Edwierd... what a frothing pile of dog shit. Did you shit that all yourself, or did you have a liberal brother shitting some for you?

If you are seeking to incite me it will not work. I long ago gave up reacting negatively to childish behavior. Now that I am a man I put away childish things. I suggest you do the same.

Now if you're incapable of dealing with facts, then this conversation is over, because I'm not going to do your little fucked up dance with words. Get to the ******* point, or shut the **** up.

What facts would these be? I don't recall you presenting any facts for me to deal with. And I am just as capable of dealing with the facts as you are. So don't think that I am going to be pushed around by some childish conduct of someone who thinks he is a man when he swears. Vulgarity is very unbecoming. I am sure some of my liberal brothers would welcome you for the use of such language. Your whole posts "danced around the point."

Your post can best be summed up: I disagree with you. I think you are wrong. Shut the **** up. If you think I am the one dancing with words then I suggest you re-read your own posts which saidly absolutely nothing of worth.

 

[MtnBiker]

I would suggest Pale Rider that you tone your posts down because I will not tolerate your abusive and insulting posts. Unlike other people I don't tolerate such nonsense. As I have said, I will remain civil even when you are not civil because I know what happens when civility exits the political sphere. 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.

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.

 

[Edward]

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.

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.

 

[Edward]

I just found the most interesting signature, ""Nothing should be said anonymously behind a P.C., that can't be respectfully said in person"

I haven't had the time to hold any discussion with the person who uses this signature (Eightball) but I look foward to doing so if he actually applies this standard to his posts on this message board. Maybe I will get the opportunity to have a discussion with him. It will be interesting indeed. Now only if Pale Rider could be like that. It may be fun to have a discussion with him then because the current discussion with Pale Rider isn't intellectually stimulating or amusing. Actually it is irritating. Who likes to read nonsense? Not I.

 

[MtnBiker]

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.

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.

 

[Edward]

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.

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. How you came to that conclusion is beyond me. Maybe I wasn't clear enough or maybe you just didn't get the comparison.

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. I was not saying that these two situations were equally the same, or had equal weight. That is a stretch. I was merely comparing two separate and distinct events. I could have chosen another entirely and made the same point. The fact that I chose the anti-federalists was for two reasons. One, because they were the minority, and two, because they were called anti-federalists when in fact they probably had more claim to the term federalists then those who actual were called federalists. This among other reasons is why I chose this situation instead of another.

 

[MtnBiker]

I did not mention the birth of the nation, nor did I mention the constitution in that post.

From the original post of yours that I quoted :

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.

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

 

[MtnBiker]

Verbosity

 

[ReillyT]

Ya know T, I'm not one to get too much out of pages and pages of psycho-babble, and over diagnoses of what "is" is. It's all too clintonesque. I like simple talk, cut to the chase you might say. What do you REALLY want to say, and you don't have to be polite if you don't want to. I'm not quite a lot of the time. Because you see, I pick up on the simple things people say, like what you said that I highlighted above. 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" 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 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.

Watch you what you say here. I'll call you on it every time you puke out your liberal babble.

That was some personal message you left me. At first I was annoyed, but then I realized you are just a stunted and sad little man, and... you still (amazingly) missed the point of my post. Perhaps I should have written it simpler - small sentences and small words- so that you would be able to understand it. I just didn't anticipate (that means expect) to find someone quite so daft as you on the board. You may find it an endearing quality, but I just find you... well... simple.

So let me put my point simply for you. It would be better if everyone actually considered others' points of view and took them seriously instead of just assuming that everyone who disagrees with them is plain stupid or a wacky extremist (although in your case, I may make an exception).

 

[007]

I would suggest Pale Rider that you tone your posts down because I will not tolerate your abusive and insulting posts.

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 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.

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.

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

 

[007]

That was some personal message you left me. At first I was annoyed, but then I realized you are just a stunted and sad little man, and...

Didn't take long to reduce you to sarcasism.

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

 

[rtwngAvngr]

That was some personal message you left me. At first I was annoyed, but then I realized you are just a stunted and sad little man, and... you still (amazingly) missed the point of my post. Perhaps I should have written it simpler - small sentences and small words- so that you would be able to understand it. I just didn't anticipate (that means expect) to find someone quite so daft as you on the board. You may find it an endearing quality, but I just find you... well... simple.

So let me put my point simply for you. It would be better if everyone actually considered others' points of view and took them seriously instead of just assuming that everyone who disagrees with them is plain stupid or a wacky extremist (although in your case, I may make an exception).

yes. Listening, understanding, they're great, but then there's judgement. We all must judge which ideas seem accurate and or beneficial. That's where the liberal pap falls short. It's a bunch of glittering generalities.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

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"?