Forums Index >> General >> The Political/Ideological Tone
Page : <1> :
Short? Sweet? This is short & sweet. That wasn't.
Arrrrrrrrrggggggg...jusgrl
@ supra
LOL - where the heck were you in the days of the Swiftboat thread????????
Also - as to why the "Righties" are silent:
It is my personal belief that our point was made in November of 2004. As to why we don't debate as vehemently as we once did...I think we can show a film of GWB beating the snot out of OBL and the libs would still find an issue with it.
@ DJ
Compared to some of the stuff that has flown around, that was a marriage proposal.
Last edited: Friday, January 28, 2005 at 7:00:31 AM
God's Politics : Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It
Since when did believing in God and having moral values make you pro-war, pro-rich, and pro-Republican? And since when did promoting and pursuing a progressive social agenda with a concern for economic security, health care, and educational opportunity mean you had to put faith in God aside?
While the Right in America has hijacked the language of faith to prop up its political agenda -- an agenda not all people of faith support -- the Left hasn't done much better, largely ignoring faith and continually separating moral discourse and personal ethics from public policy. While the Right argues that God's way is their way, the Left pursues an unrealistic separation of religious values from morally grounded political leadership. The consequence is a false choice between ideological religion and soulless politics.
The effect of this dilemma was made clear in the 2004 presidential election. The Democrats' miscalculations have left them despairing and searching for a way forward. It has become clear that someone must challenge the Republicans' claim that they speak for God, or that they hold a monopoly on moral values in the nation's public life. Wallis argues that America's separation of church and state does not require banishing moral and religious values from the public square. In fact, the very survival of America's social fabric depends on such values and vision to shape our politics -- a dependence the nation's founders recognized.
God's Politics offers a clarion call to make both our religious communities and our government more accountable to key values of the prophetic religious tradition -- that is, make them pro-justice, pro-peace, pro-environment, pro-equality, pro-consistent ethic of life (beyond single issue voting), and pro-family (without making scapegoats of single mothers or gays and lesbians). Our biblical faith and religious traditions simply do not allow us as a nation to continue to ignore the poor and marginalized, deny racial justice, tolerate the ravages of war, or turn away from the human rights of those made in the image of God. These are the values of love and justice, reconciliation, and community that Jesus taught and that are at the core of what many of us believe, Christian or not. In the tradition of prophets such as Martin Luther King Jr., Dorothy Day, and Desmond Tutu, Wallis inspires us to hold our political leaders and policies accountable by integrating our deepest moral convictions into our nation's public life.
I just ordered the book. Looks like a good read from the description.
Good post Supra. Even though we're at opposite ends of the spectrum on several issues in regards to politcs I respect your view and other Bush supporters.
The intellectual card used by Lefties somewhat contradicts itself. Some on the Left feel that the Right favors the wealthy. If this is the case are we to believe that the majority of wealthy Americans are morons? I do however believe that the Right does in fact play the religion card to their advantage. Saying things such as, "The war in Iraq was a gift from God." is a simple example of political niche positioning or as I call it bluntly, BS posturing. I feel the Right is not representative of all religious American's but appears to have gained a slight edge using this tactic. Getting back to my former example, using God's name to legitimize a war should be quite offensive to any religious person. In fact, is this not what the terrorists do to justify their Jihad?
Personally I feel that the Right says one thing to gain support and does the exact opposite when implementing a political position or motive.
I too watch as we attack each other in regards to politcal and religious beliefs on this forum. I've noticed one important thing. It's gotten us nowhere. One other thing that still bothers me about the RIght is the use of the word "Liberal" as a negative connotation. It just doesn't make sense. We've talked about this and you know I'm as Liberal as they come, but yet we still can talk about it while respecting each others views.
Like a midget at a urinal, I was going to have to be on my toes.
Invite a retard to a picnic and you'd better expect to get drool in the potato salad.
Last edited: Friday, January 28, 2005 at 11:36:30 AM
Getting back to my former example, using God's name to legitimize a war should be quite offensive to any religious person. In fact, is this not what the terrorists do to justify their Jihad?
This is what has been done thoughout the ages - The Crusades, the Jihads, and hundreds of other Holy Wars. It is one of the reasons I am not religious. There may be a God (or Gods), but I don't think any of the religious organizations give me any good reason to believe their claims. Or, as I tend to put it, "I'm still holding a grudge from the Middle Ages." XD
But I don't expect other people to live by my beliefs. If they believe in Christianity, or Islam, or Judaism, or Buddhism, or Taoism, or anything else, that is entirely their decision to make. It is not my mission in life to make other people think like me.
If a person is willing to discuss things civilly with me, I am willing to talk with them - although I am not particularly well educated on a lot of the issues. It's too much of a pain to get through the partisanship and spin. It's kind of like trying to have a rational discourse about baseball with a rabid Cubs fan.
Lol. Well said.
It will come as unwelcome news to many conservative American Christians that the introduction to the West, not of democracy, but of Christianity itself, came from sincerely zealous men of Faith who thought their duty to God required the Baptism of orphaned native infants and children before they were beheaded, thus assuring the children an eternity in heaven.
The Eastern religions, Taoism and Buddhism in particular, emphasize a non-dual aspect of being: No personification of a God separated from His creation(s); No relevant differentiations among beings; No narcissistic, anthropomorphic projections of aggressive male human characteristics; An emphasis on Harmony and Interrelatedness, Balance and Flow.
Many may choose to believe otherwise, but the introduction and administration of Judeo/Christian/Islamic Faith has always brought a most virulent and ancient War Mythology. Truly and always: US versus THEM, with God favoring US.
Imposing religion or democracy at gunpoint has only ever required superior military technology, and the conceit to claim that on earth, God favors those who win the wars.
Last edited: Friday, January 28, 2005 at 11:44:23 PM
PS. The above polemic notwithstanding...(the irony is not lost), I think Supra's very thoughtful original post is reasonable and well stated.
@ Supra
AMEN Brother!!
Chuck
@Nyarlathotep
Wow. Thanks for the compliment.
Tipping hat machine activated (SELECTED: Eastern religions)
Thanks for your heavily biased interpretation of the Judeo/Christian worldview through the eyes of the east. Again, picking out a collection of horrors of the past to condemn the whole is chalked full of problems philosophically and logically.
Your historical analysis above is a problem too. It is rather easy to make such statements without a full context and discussion. Primary sources please? Context? I do not argue that people have made atrocious mistakes under the banner of Christ. Enormous good has been done as well. I'm not sure your polemic is that riveting to the Judeo/Chritian worldview...or why you believe you have more of the truth based on a few choice statements you made....but that is my opinion in contrast to yours.
My sincere thanks for the compliment.
Last edited: Saturday, January 29, 2005 at 12:34:54 PM
The following speech was delivered on May 8, 2004, on the East Lawn of the Hillsdale campus, at the 152nd Hillsdale College Commencement Exercises.
Lay Your Hammer Down
In 1969 a Stanford University psychologist named Philip Zimbardo set up an experiment. He arranged for two cars to be abandoned – one on the mean streets of the Bronx, New York, the other in an affluent neighborhood near Stanford in Palo Alto, California. The license plates had been removed, and the hoods were left open. Zimbardo wanted to see what would happen to the cars.
In the Bronx, he soon found out. Ten minutes after the car was abandoned, people began stealing parts from it. Within three days the car was stripped. When there was nothing useful left to take, people smashed windows and ripped out upholstery, until the car was trashed.
In Palo Alto, something quite different happened: nothing. For more than a week the car sat there unmolested. Zimbardo was puzzled, but he had a hunch about human nature. To test it, he went out and, in full view of everyone, took a sledgehammer and smashed part of the car. Soon, passersby were taking turns with the hammer, delivering blow after satisfying blow. Within a few hours, the vehicle was resting on its roof, demolished.
At this point, you might be wondering what all this has to do with graduating from Hillsdale. “Why did this man come from Washington to tell us about cars that were abandoned in a psychology experiment 35 years ago?” I promise I’ll try to make that story relevant to this happy occasion.
I know today is special for you because you’re leaving this campus to enter the next phase of your lives. For me, arriving here is a delightful experience. My work in Washington consists largely of grappling with policy issues that boil down to how the federal government spends our tax money. You can’t imagine what a wonderful breath of fresh air it is for me to visit a college that refuses to accept federal funding. This is one of the very few places in America where I truly am away from all of the “inside the Beltway conspiracies” to get more money out of the taxpayers.
But beyond that, as your president has said, this is an “institution that is tied to the principles of the United States.” Hillsdale is indeed a very special place.
But let me now return to those abandoned cars: Among the scholars who took note of Zimbardo’s experiment were two criminologists: James Q. Wilson, who is now the Ronald Reagan Professor of Public Policy at Pepperdine University, and George Kelling. The experiment gave rise to their now famous “broken windows” theory of crime, which is illustrated by a common experience: When a broken window in a building is left unrepaired, the rest of the windows are soon broken by vandals.
Why is this? Aside from the fact that it’s fun to break windows, why does the broken window invite further vandalism? Wilson and Kelling say it’s because the broken window sends a signal that no one is in charge here, that breaking more windows costs nothing, that it has no undesirable consequences. The broken window is their metaphor for a whole host of ways that behavioral norms can break down in a community. If one person scrawls graffiti on a wall, others will soon be at it with their spray cans. If one aggressive panhandler begins working a block, others will soon follow. In short, once people begin disregarding the norms that keep order in a community, both order and community unravel, sometimes with astonishing speed.
Police in big cities have dramatically cut crime rates by applying this theory. Rather than concentrate on felonies such as robbery and assault, they aggressively enforce laws against relatively minor offenses – graffiti, public drinking, panhandling, littering.
When order is visibly restored at that level, a signal is sent out: This is a community where behavior does have consequences. If you can’t get away with jumping a turnstile into the subway, you’d better not try armed robbery.
Broken Civility
Now all this is a preface. My topic is not crime on city streets. Rather, I want to speak about incivility in the marketplace of ideas. The broken windows theory is what links the two.
As the head of a think tank in Washington, I work exclusively in the marketplace of ideas. Our job at the Heritage Foundation is to engage in a wide range of public debates about public policy issues. We put forward traditional conservative policy options and ideas with the aim of persuading others to our viewpoint on the whole range of national policies – both international and domestic.
What we’re seeing in the marketplace of ideas today is a disturbing growth of incivility that follows and confirms the broken windows theory. Alas, this breakdown of civil norms is not a failing of either the political left or right exclusively. It spreads across the political spectrum from one end to the other.
A few examples: A liberal writes a book calling Rush Limbaugh a “big fat idiot.” A conservative writes a book calling liberals “useful idiots.” A liberal writes a book titled The Lies of George W. Bush. A conservative writes a book subtitled “Liberal Lies About the American Right.” A liberal publishes a detailed “case for Bush-hatred.” A conservative declares, “Even Islamic terrorists don’t hate America like liberals do.”
Those few examples – and unfortunately there are many, many more – come from elites in the marketplace of ideas. All are highly educated people who write nationally syndicated columns, publish best-selling books, and are hot tickets on radio and television talk shows.
Further down the food chain, lesser lights take up smaller hammers, but they commit even more degrading incivilities. The Internet, with its easy access and worldwide reach, is a breeding ground for Web sites with names like Bushbodycount.com and Toostupidtobepresident.com. This is how the broken windows theory plays out in the marketplace of ideas. If you want to see it working in real time, try the following: Log on to AOL, and go to one of the live chat rooms reserved for political chat. Someone will post a civil comment on some political topic. Almost immediately, someone else will swing the verbal hammer of incivility, and from there the chat degrades into a food fight, with invective and insult as the main course.
This illustrates the first aspect of the broken windows theory, which we saw with the car in Palo Alto. Once someone wields the hammer – once the incivility starts – others will take it as an invitation to join in, and pretty soon there’s no limit to the incivility. And if you watch closely in that chat room, you’ll see something else happening. Watch the screen names of people who make civil comments. Some – a few – will join in the food fight. But most will log off. Their screen names just disappear. They leave because the atmosphere has turned hostile to anything approaching a civil exchange or a real dialogue.
This illustrates the second aspect of the broken windows theory: Once the insults begin flying, many will opt out. Wilson and Kelling describe this response when the visible signs of order deteriorate in a neighborhood:
Many residents will think that crime, especially violent crime, is on the rise, and they will modify their behavior accordingly. They will use the streets less often, and when on the streets will stay apart from their fellows, moving with averted eyes, silent lips, and hurried steps. Don’t get involved. For some residents, this growing atomization will matter little.... But it will matter greatly to other people, whose lives derive meaning and satisfaction from local attachments.... For them, the neighborhood will cease to exist except for a few reliable friends whom they arrange to meet.
The chat room shows us that a similar response occurs when civility breaks down in the marketplace of ideas. Many people withdraw and tune out, regardless of whether the incivility occurs in a chat room, on a talk show, in a newspaper column, in political campaign ads, or on the floor of Congress. This is the real danger of incivility. Our free, self-governing society requires an open exchange of ideas, which in turn requires a certain level of civility rooted in mutual respect for each other’s opinions and viewpoints.
What we see today, I am afraid, is an accelerating competition between the left and the right to see which side can inflict the most damage with the hammer of incivility. Increasingly, those who take part in public debates appear to be exchanging ideas when, in fact, they are trading insults: idiot, liar, moron, traitor.
Civility and Character
Earlier this week I was in London and attended a dinner honoring Lady Margaret Thatcher on the 25th anniversary of her accession to the Prime Ministership of Great Britain. As you know, she is a good friend of Hillsdale College and has visited your campus. She was also a great political leader and has always been a model of civility.
If you want to grasp the nature of civility, try to imagine Lady Thatcher calling someone a “big fat idiot.” You will instantly understand that civility isn’t an accessory one can put on or take off like a scarf. It is inseparable from the character of great leaders.
...
Incivility is not a social blunder to be compared with using the wrong fork. Rather, it betrays a defect of character. Incivility is dangerous graffiti, regardless of whether it is spray-painted on a subway car or embossed on the title page of a book. The broken windows theory shows us the dangers in both cases.
But those cases aren’t parallel in every way, and in closing I want to call your attention to an important difference. When behavioral norms break down in a community, police can restore order. But when civility breaks down in the marketplace of ideas, the law is powerless to set things right. And properly so: Our right to speak freely – even with incivility, if we choose – is guaranteed by those five glorious words in the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law....” And yet, the need for civility has never been greater. Our nation is divided as never before between the left and the right. We are at loggerheads on profoundly important political and social questions. Meanwhile, civilization itself is under barbaric attack from without.
Sadly, too many of us are not rising to these challenges as a democratic people. On the contrary, we’ve seen a 40-year decline in voter participation in national elections. In the last two presidential elections, fewer than half of eligible voters bothered to vote. Rather than helping to reverse this decline, the rising chorus of incivility is driving out citizens of honest intent and encouraging those who trade in jeering and mockery.
Fortunately, this is not the stuff of Hillsdale.
If we are to prevail as a free, self-governing people, we must first govern our tongues and our pens. Restoring civility to public discourse is not an option. It is a necessity.
Who will begin the restoration of civility? I hope you will. Your graduation today is proof that you’re up to the job, and I urge you to take it on as a serious, lifelong commitment.
Graduating senior Jennifer Meyer said today that this college has given her – and all of you – “all that is virtuous in one’s life.” Civility is, I firmly believe, one of those virtues. After four years of study at Hillsdale, you know the difference between attacking a person’s argument and attacking a person’s character. Respect that difference.
Your education here has taught you how to engage in rational debate and either hold your own or lose with grace and civility. Take that lesson with you.
Your professors at Hillsdale have shown you, by their example, that you don’t need the hammer of incivility to make your point. Follow their example. Defend your convictions – those virtues – with all the spirit you can. But do it with all the civility that you ought. As you leave this special place, lay your hammer down.
I wish you Godspeed on your journey through life. Thank you, and congratulations to the Class of 2004.
Copyright © 2004. Permission to reprint in whole or part is hereby granted, provided a version of the following credit is used: "Reprinted by permission from IMPRIMIS, the monthly journal of Hillsdale College (www.hillsdale.edu
)."
Last edited: Saturday, January 29, 2005 at 12:08:39 PM
Now we're talking. ;)
Tone is civility?
Thatcher could stand toe to toe with her political opponents and give as good as she took. Her tone may have been civil but her mind was fight.
Tough-mindedness is not incivility.
It would have been interesting to see what would have happened if Zimbardo had left a car on the internet...
Last edited: Saturday, January 29, 2005 at 4:59:08 PM
Oh good! Finally some meat and potatoes from the right. Well done supra. I've been baiting and baiting and all I ever get is puerile spew...finally some content from the right. I knew you guys had it in ya.
Good posts.
In regards to the intellectual snobbery from the left...my contribution to this phenomenon is a reaction to the much of the often mindless ideology masquerading as "thought" from the conservative posts. My hatred of the current flavor of american politics is obvious. It is multiplied by the recalcitrance of conservative posters to engage in critical discussions on policy. Their lockstep partisanship makes me crazy. My nasty side comes out. I bully and cajole the stubborn bush supporters, who seem to support the president from the sheer force of emotion alone.
If we could have a discussion, an honest discussion...i would happily tone down the rhetoric. But if the discussion turns to the chorus of the braying herd...
A Cubs fan?
Baseball is boring. Mephis...can I borrow the book when you're done?
NO WAR FOR BASEBALL!!!
NO WAR FOR BASEBALL!!!
Did you know that the Bush administration has plans to take over Cuba in an effort to get players for his rich baseball club owner buddies?
Hello, Supra.
My thanks to you for embodying in practice the civility to which your initial statement refers.
Reading Master TMO's post triggered a rather inappropriate diatribe against western religion which, in the context of the subject of your thread, really has no place. It is understandable, though, that in the current political climate, and in the wake of this most recent inauguration, the subjects of religion and politics may stir a more fervent passion. I feel personally affected by the declarations of devout piety by the republican executives of this administration whom I see as having chosen war over peace for reasons which I consider dishonorable, deceitful and unnecessary. I feel deeply and sincerely that in the aftermath of Sept. 11, a majority of the world came together in sympathy and support of our nation not seen since President Kennedy was assassinated. But, in a period of little more than a year, in declaring to the world that Iraq represented an immediate threat to the security of the United States, and that unilateral military action was our only available solution because of the WMD imperative, that international goodwill and support was turned into almost unanimous opposition. To have squandered the support and solidarity which might otherwise have been the foundation of a truly international effort to examine the conditions that create breeding ground for terrorists, is something for which I believe this president and his advisors should have been denied a second term. That's something about which I suspect we would disagree.
Rather than defend and recite the primary and secondary sources pertaining to my claims about western history and the devastation of indigenous peoples, cultures, civilizations wrought by God fearing Christians such as Columbus, Cortez, others...I will admit that my remarks read as more heavily biased than was my intent. The eyes through which I see and interpret the Judeo/Christian worldview are looking at specific individuals, events and developemental stages. I regret having given the impression of criticizing the whole.
I believe that the tone of our public discourse is mostly a reflection of our social discord. Whether this forum of mutually addicted cartoon tank enthusiasts qualifies as a microcosm of Society, I couldn't say. I do agree with your observation that overtones of pedantic, arrogant, elitist snobbery are not constructive methods for creating either mutual respect, mutual tolerance, or mutual understanding among thoughtful people of differing beliefs and perspectives.
I do appreciate your courtesy and the depth of your convictions.
Last edited: Sunday, January 30, 2005 at 12:32:24 AM
Bump
Representative ron paul, Republican?...of Texas? Read this statement he delivered to the US house of reps...its amazing.
C'mon fellers, if he can do it ...so can you! A little "what if?" is good for the soul, and good for democracy, no?
Sadly, though, when governments, politicians, and bureaucrats make mistakes and refuse to reexamine them, there is little the victims can do to correct things. Since the bully pulpit and the media propaganda machine are instrumental in government cover-ups and deception, the final truth emerges slowly, and only after much suffering. The arrogance of some politicians, regulators, and diplomats actually causes them to become even more aggressive and more determined to prove themselves right, to prove their power is not to be messed with by never admitting a mistake. Truly, power corrupts!
The unwillingness to ever reconsider our policy of foreign intervention, despite obvious failures and shortcomings over the last 50 years, has brought great harm to our country and our liberty. Historically, financial realities are the ultimate check on nations bent on empire. Economic laws ultimately prevail over bad judgment. But tragically, the greater the wealth of a country, the longer the flawed policy lasts. We'll probably not be any different.
Couldn't agree more...
Our government now is permitted to monitor the Internet, to read our mail, to search us without proper search warrants, to develop a national ID card, and to investigate what people are reading in libraries. Ironically, illegal aliens flow into our country and qualify for driving licenses and welfare benefits with little restraint.
These issues are discussed, but nothing has been as highly visible to us as the authoritarianism we accept at the airport. The creation of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has intruded on the privacy of all airline travelers, and there is little evidence that we are safer for it. Driven by fear, we have succumbed to the age-old temptation to sacrifice liberty on the pretense of obtaining security. Love of security, unfortunately, all too often vanquishes love of liberty.
Unchecked fear of another 9/11-type attack constantly preoccupies our leaders and most of our citizens, and drives the legislative attack on our civil liberties. It's frightening to see us doing to ourselves what even bin Laden never dreamed he could accomplish with his suicide bombers.
Right on...
The present situation requires the government to punish some by targeting those individuals who clearly offer no threat. Any airline that tries to make travel safer and happens to question a larger number of young Muslim males than the government deems appropriate can be assessed huge fines. To add insult to injury, the fines collected from airlines are used for forced sensitivity training of pilots who do their very best, under the circumstances, to make flying safer by restricting the travel of some individuals. We have embarked on a process that serves no logical purpose. While airline safety suffers, personal liberty is diminished and costs skyrocket.
Sorry liberals, but the man is right...
Sometimes practicality takes precedence, even in liberal democracies...
Finally, a balanced critique. A very fine one, and from the right no less. Notice the absence of the orwellian double-speak? No emotive string-pullers like "freedom" and "terrorism."
What if?
Sorry for the double post...i wrote this and then thought it might address Rogues question on rebublican party affiliations...
Thomas frank noted in his book "wassa matter wif kansas" that the republicans suck in religious conservatives, and other decent, though somewhat intolerant people by playing up issues like abortion, gay marriage, yada yada. Frank isn't the only one to notice this strategy...many pundits have commented on it by now.
This explains why so many working class americans are affiliated with the party of greed and big business kick-backs. The GOP gets these folks all riled up on cultural issues...manipulates them emotionally (and since the DNC have cut the "people are the power" rhetoric of the 50s, 60s, and 70s in pursuit of new money democrats...there isn't much to attract these folks to the left...)
But frank says what the GOP eventually does, after it uses these rubes to vote them into office...is to then ignore these emotional issues. Abandons them. And then in the next election cycle, they start beating the drum again...
Well, now we get to the part where the rubes get abandoned:
http://www.thehollandsentinel.net/stories/012805/opi_012805019.shtml
And so on and on it goes...the GOP gets people to vote against their own economic interests...and the rest, as you can tell by dropping standards of living, record federal deficits, increasing child poverty, burgeoning gap between the rich and poor...is history.
The GOP gets these folks all riled up on cultural issues...manipulates them emotionally (and since the DNC have cut the "people are the power" rhetoric of the 50s, 60s, and 70s in pursuit of new money democrats...there isn't much to attract these folks to the left...)
But frank says what the GOP eventually does, after it uses these rubes to vote them into office...is to then ignore these emotional issues. Abandons them. And then in the next election cycle, they start beating the drum again...
IMO, this statement applies equally to all political parties. Democrats are no better than the Republicans. It's all a matter of who can spin the hardest and cloud the minds of the voters better. But I'm skeptical of the political system, while acknowledging that there is no perfect system.
Yes...Master TMO
Stink, I think your post has merit of course. However, I wouldn't agree that this baiting phenomenon is one sided. I find the left does the same things to mobilize its political action on a few really hot issues, only to see the candidate drop his rhetoric when the "real" campaigning starts, choosing to tone-down his message to "woo" more people, and thus selecting a more moderate position. In the end, the Democrat or "left" candidate becomes more of a moderate then when they started.
One of the tragedies of the evangelical Christian, to be fair, is the embracing of the Republican party to carry the torch and be the voice of our values. I think some get so wrapped up in the Republicans being our hope, when in fact the Bible doesn't teach that kind of allegience to combating the worlds ills. It rather teaches to be a follower of Christ, to be known by our love and service, with a clear message that "as you go," (Matt. 28:18-20) day to day, you will carry the message of Christ into the world, not only as a verbal witness, but also in how you treat and serve people. Embracing the Republicans to champion, solve, and be the vehicle for this phenomenon Christ has called believers to is a huge mistake. If this is what your talking about stink, then you nailed it.
Last edited: Monday, January 31, 2005 at 8:01:46 AM
And I apologize if I accidentally derailed the thread into an anti-religious topic. It was unintentional on my part. I have nothing against religion, I just don't happen to follow one myself. A lot of good has been done in their name throughout history.
O! I like this supra fella...
Wait, supra are you suggesting that righteousness does not come by the law?
@56
Sorry, your question too brief; your conclusion to vague. GIve me more meat and we can discuss, otherwise its just me clamoring on about what I "think" you mean by the above statement. Please expound more my friend....
Thanks!
Ya thats real short & sweet.
Cloud
^ that was your contribution...?
Im sorry, im in a rush. Just skimed over it. Will have response later B)
P.S. Supra, have you been playing under any other names. Havent seen you in a while. I ask Supratank. Is that you?
Cloud
Ahem...i say! Did anyone read the republican congressman's critique of administration policy? It makes one stop and think. It is probably the best critique of current policy I have seen.
Is the right completely incapable of reflection? Is the texas republican alone? Why the astonishing lack of skepticism from posters in this forum?
I'm about to jump to some conclusions, all un-civil-like...more meat and potatoes, please...
I mean, I'm all "power to the people." if you think for one minute it be sitting all smug and silent if kerry won, you gotta nuther thing comin. I'd still be all "blah blah blah."
Like my friend jiggles says, "where's your outrage?"
I had wanted to say more concerning this topic. For the most part, due to the incivility of the tone often expressed here by those who disgree with me, I've opted out of discussions more and more. When those discussion turn mean, I just leave. Its not a admittance that my position is wrong or that the opposition has asked a question too difficult to answer, its just that I'm not interested in being insulted as I try to explain my position/opinion/POV.
For what its worth, as things come down the pike in the news or other media, I find myself imagining how the opposition would react to the statements made by the outlet presenting the information. I've also begun applying this critique to some of the religious information I receive and sometimes they are a bit over the top in making assertions and taking my support for granted. Somehow, the voices of stink and tankgirl are injected into my thoughts like little angles (or devils?) sitting on my shoulder and raising questions that I wish the originator had considered. Those "voices" are also helping me to try to consider how I should present my material in order to promote a better understanding of my position and phrase it in a way that offers an opportunity for compromise and a meeting of the minds.
So that's my goal, so have real, civil discussions here and elsewhere. As soon as it gets ugly though, I'm out.
(o guddy! I've wormed my way into your central nervous system...)
Well, as for civil discussions...where are they? JJ and I had a pretty decent one in the darwin thread recently, but no one joined us...and it petered out. Im relegated to posting wackiness in my tempests in teapots thread...
Page : <1> :
: :
Ok.... Here I dive.
Short and sweet. I have been watching the forums for a long time. Many posts, good discussions, etc. I have played this game for a long time. I think a majority of the community are great people, with many differing viewpoints, which I appreciate. However, the tone of discussion revolving around the "right" or persons of faith, the people who supported George W Bush, etc. Is amazing. Couple of things.
I find the "leftish" articles that are posted as support of the many things that are argued on the general forum terribly biased and suspect in many ways. Yes I have followed the links to some ridiculous articles, websites, and commentaries from people that have every right to make them. No - they are not all rubbish. I find some of them well written with an astute point to make. Others are garbage. Nor do I think for a minute that many of the "lefties" would embrace ONE source a "right-wing person" might post. I can hear the screeching now. The tone in some posts seems to lump all of us "righties" in the idiot pile; as if we embrace ALL that Bush does, follow him blindly and without question or concern. Then, some posts resort to trivializing our faith in God, leading to sarcastically portray most "righties" as out-of-touch and old fashioned; and more generally that faith is a weakness. More posts are sometimes even flavored with a kind of superiority of intellectual brawn to serve as "the best proof" for your positions, sources and arguments. We, of course, dont have this benefit (as it would seem by some posts). To be fair and accurate, I have had questions and concerns at some point with every president that has ever been in office. Bush is not perfect or error free in ANY way. I believe he has made mistakes. Nor do I demonize and call him traitor like many here.
Someone asked on another thread why "the righties" were silent. The reason... The perceived level of intellectual snobbery is amazing. The lack of consideration for an opposing view, opposing evidence, or sources you dont agree with is astounding. IMHO, I find it a closed discussion for the most part.. Ah, politics.
In responding here, this is not levied at a person, but at a TONE of posts I have witnessed. If you want a response, (PUSH BUTTON AND PLEASE release ANGER here), please allow for a dialogue without personal attacks and silly arguments that really arent constructive. I imagine what will follow will bring the onslaught of sarcasm, witty one-liners, articles, links, and devices to bear on my forum entry. Save it...the silence will continue, its not worth it.
Last edited: Friday, January 28, 2005 at 8:48:41 AM