Christspeak, Rx

Well... one of the reasons Rush rules radio and Fox News took over so quickly (and significantly) is that most people truly are conservative. Also, guys like you are much more informed than most on certain issues...like Global Warming.

It's understandable that most folks simply defer to others who are more informed and with whom they agree with politically.
 

I'm going to point out that there are a whole lot of points that point to Christianity. Christianity does not equate to conservativism, nor vice versa.

So those points are actually mixing religion and politics.

For example, the point:
"If you believe Christianity is a threat to your freedom..."

What does this have to do with being a liberal or conservative? It doesn't. And it shouldn't.

I'll point out that many of these points stand on absolutes, of which while you perhaps see them as such, but they are not. If things were as easy as black and white, then the world would be much more simplistic.

Reminds me of the time one of the local bloggers said: "All Muslims are terrorists." I mentioned the IRA, and this blogger said that that was a "revolutionary movement". Uhh. yeah.
 

DM- many liberals in the US are threatened by or actively dispute Christianity.

there are few absolutes- save abortion maybe.

for example, most conservatives are open minded about the enviroment, they just don't want to make policy based on speculation.

there are plenty of liberals who are Christians, but most of them are threatened by conservative believers.
 

Well sure. as are conservative Christians feeling threatened by liberal Christians.

I hope you didn't mean these two posts as middle ground pieces since, if you read the grammar, it is very non-neutral.

For example, with the liberal post, you use the word "hate" with GWB.

With conservatives, you use "not a liar" with GWB.

The tone is very lopsided. Each of the points are very much in this writing style. Just pointing it out in case you missed it since if you use the "hate George Bush" then you should use in the conservative post something like "hate Bill Clinton" to be equal.
 

If you take a look at most of the liberal blogs, you will note that they hate Bush.,, and he is a war criminal, terrorist, liar, profiteer- the list goes on and on and on. It is sad but true.
 

And you'll note that the same goes for the right? I don't see any difference in the matter. That's why while politically, I have my opinions, I don't see myself as a Democrat or a Republican. Both sides fling mud with the best of them, it's just in the mannerisms that the mud is thrown.

Pretty pathetic if you ask me. From both sides. For instance, the left you have Kos that goes off the deep end sometimes. Then on the right you have those like Vernon Robinson that go on political ads that bash other people (when you'd think Republicans held their head a bit higher than that). While it's my opinion, I find both sides despicable.

I have yet to see a Party stand for the people. There's all these underlying motives.

I'll give a good example. I want the war in Iraq to end swiftly and quickly and bring the boys home. Yet, the Army has first banned, then poo-poo'd and now begrudgely is allowing testing of the Dragon Skin body armor. This is the same armor that is being rated by the NIJ as Level 3 protection (no other one is rated level 3 without metal plate inserts). Level 3 = stops AK-47 fire.

So you'd think that with all the money we're spending, we could buy these things of all things. But we're spending millions on UAVs and robotics field testing in Iraq for contractors such as iRobot. Why? As a gadget freak, I love iRobot stuff. But isn't armor more important until you actually can have robots do some menial tasks (like storm compounds?)

That war becomes a problem for both sides, be it Democrat of Republican now that it's started. If it was up to me, I'd replace every single one of those Congressional guys every term and send a random citizen from every state to serve on a "4 year jury duty type service to DC. Sick and tired of people claiming a lot of stuff, but if you follow the money trails, there are lots to uncover on what isn't being said.
 

Chip, I'm a self-described "flaming liberal" and could only manage a yes to 5 of the questions. If you boil the list down to:
1. gay issues
2. abortion
3. war/terrorism
4. taxes
All four of those issues are nuanced and you've reduced them to the extreme position. When you use the logic "all liberals believe x, you are liberal, you believe x", that is not a good starting point for debate or conversation.
 

this is right and left, not right and wrong. my contention is that everyone has to compromise. we debate- me as a conservative, jim as a liberal, dark moon in the perilous middle- but we all agree to live and abide by current laws.

i don't think roe vs wade is constitutional or a moral law, but i compromise by respecting the rights aforded by the law andnot taking up arms against clinics or judges.

likewise, you may think the war is immoral, but you compromise by supporting the troops and not taking up arms against political and military figures and such.

so from my perspective, if you are more liberal you tend to believe certain things- the real point is- so what? personally, i am not bothered by friends who disagree with me on key political issues.
 

One objection. I don't believe that it's a compromise.

Morals and law are not one and the same. Neither are ethics. We live by moral and ethics, but law is such that it's a lower boundary so there shouldn't be any compromise.

I look at it this way. The only thing I can control are my actions, and my actions alone. Not the ones I love, not the people that are my friends. I apply morals and ethics to myself. All the while, I can still abide by the laws, even though there are plenty of unethical laws (for example, certain laws that protect "not-for-profit" corporations in running the same pricing as "for profit" corporations).

Regardless of whether or not the war is immoral (since we're already in it so it makes no difference in arguing about causality), the real point is that we don't need our boys out there dying needlessly. If we're to finish what we started, then give them the best. That's not a compromise. But that is taking "arms" against military figures and political figures.

Regardless of "why" you feel like we should be fighting the war, it's going on. So the only other thing is to either 1) get out. 2) keep fighting until over. Obviously #1 isn't becoming an option anytime soon, so for #2 to exist, you have to do the above. My bitch is basically with the mismanagement of funding and bad prioritization.

Another example. War on terror: DHS provides funding for small rural towns to buy things. I don't know about you, but I know half a dozen western NC towns that bought law enforcement four-wheelers with DHS funding. Now what does four-wheelers have to do with protecting the homeland? You tell me, since I can't figure that one out for the life of me. That's my basic bitch.

Regardless of who's in charge, the above will still happen since no one is accountable. It's a sad thing. Really.