quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

But to discuss his op-ed.....yeah both sides have their radicals,both sides tend to twist the other sides pov into caricatures of what they really are.....but....
Knew there was a but,didn't you....

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Your side,or rather the conservative side isn't ,at present,even being true to itself.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

By that I mean that conservatism isn't actually being represented by the Republican Party as it is now constituted.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

The religious Right has driven true conservatism to the back of the bus and assumed the wheel.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

There is no conversation possible between liberals and the Religious Right,that is a total non starter.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

So,in order for productive talks to resume,and in this I totally agree with Friedman....the radical aspects of the Republican oarty must have their voice muted....

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

it is awful easy to portray the Republican throwing Grandma off the cliff when your party meets the left more than half way there by proposing such radical social regression.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Trismagistus

conservatives, liberals, wake up people, the government isn't divided by these lines anymore, it's all profit all the time and anyone who dissents will eventually be dissapeared thanks to NDAA removing our right to Habius Corpus. America is dead and the nameless horror that has replaced it is so money hungry it will destroy us all.

Read this. The US is soon to get exactly what it's been asking for. The EU too.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

The religious Right has driven true conservatism to the back of the bus and assumed the wheel.

mike, you've already admitted that anyone who has religious beliefs isn't qualified for public office, and that is really the "mainstream liberal" view, pretty much.

In other words, having religious views makes someone part of the "religious Right" and pretty much throws them into the "can't talk seriously with these idiots" box, doesn't it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

The religious Right has driven true conservatism to the back of the bus and assumed the wheel.

mike, you've already admitted that anyone who has religious beliefs isn't qualified for public office, and that is really the "mainstream liberal" view, pretty much.

In other words, having religious views makes someone part of the "religious Right" and pretty much throws them into the "can't talk seriously with these idiots" box, doesn't it?

It's odd how every progressive politician I know of is religious and most are very devout christians.

The religious right is of course the ones without actual religious values and that is part of the reason the rest of America holds them is such contempt.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

The religious Right has driven true conservatism to the back of the bus and assumed the wheel.

mike, you've already admitted that anyone who has religious beliefs isn't qualified for public office, and that is really the "mainstream liberal" view, pretty much.

In other words, having religious views makes someone part of the "religious Right" and pretty much throws them into the "can't talk seriously with these idiots" box, doesn't it?

It's odd how every progressive politician I know of is religious and most are very devout christians.

The religious right is of course the ones without actual religious values and that is part of the reason the rest of America holds them is such contempt.

Ahh, DK ... but since they are "liberal" and religious, being religious isn't a disqualifying factor.

After all, they agree with you.

However, being "conservative" and religious makes them a nutcase and fruitcake, right?

They disagree with you.

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

The religious Right has driven true conservatism to the back of the bus and assumed the wheel.

mike, you've already admitted that anyone who has religious beliefs isn't qualified for public office, and that is really the "mainstream liberal" view, pretty much.

In other words, having religious views makes someone part of the "religious Right" and pretty much throws them into the "can't talk seriously with these idiots" box, doesn't it?

It's odd how every progressive politician I know of is religious and most are very devout christians.

The religious right is of course the ones without actual religious values and that is part of the reason the rest of America holds them is such contempt.

Ahh, DK ... but since they are "liberal" and religious, being religious isn't a disqualifying factor.

After all, they agree with you.

However, being "conservative" and religious makes them a nutcase and fruitcake, right?

They disagree with you.

Wrong as usual.

I'm sure there are religious people right of center that are not authoritarians who do actually follow the tenets of the religions they follow. It's unfortunate that the GOP has sold its soul to the Pat Robertson types who are authoritarians and who don't follow the religion they claim.

For instance John Chafee spoke eloquently about his faith and seemed to live a genuinely christian life. It's the lack of people like that in the modern GOP that alienates so many.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Seems disturbing to me,but we have different ways of looking at things

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

But to discuss his op-ed.....yeah both sides have their radicals,both sides tend to twist the other sides pov into caricatures of what they really are.....but....
Knew there was a but,didn't you....

Sure it happens on both sides.  But in these forums in particular, it's much worst on one side, than the other.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Your side,or rather the conservative side isn't ,at present,even being true to itself.

Says Friedman?  The liberal NYT Op-ed writer?

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

By that I mean that conservatism isn't actually being represented by the Republican Party as it is now constituted.

And the Democratic Party doesn't represent "liberal values" at all, either.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

The religious Right has driven true conservatism to the back of the bus and assumed the wheel.

mike, you've already admitted that anyone who has religious beliefs isn't qualified for public office, and that is really the "mainstream liberal" view, pretty much.

In other words, having religious views makes someone part of the "religious Right" and pretty much throws them into the "can't talk seriously with these idiots" box, doesn't it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

There is no conversation possible between liberals and the Religious Right,that is a total non starter.

But not because religious people aren't willing to have the conversation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

So,in order for productive talks to resume,and in this I totally agree with Friedman....the radical aspects of the Republican oarty must have their voice muted....

In other words, give up our beliefs, then we might have something to talk about? 

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

it is awful easy to portray the Republican throwing Grandma off the cliff when your party meets the left more than half way there by proposing such radical social regression.

Don't even think I could parse this sentence without pissing you off.

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Seems disturbing to me,but we have different ways of looking at things

Yes, yes we do.  Which has been my main point.

Mike, we don't have to agree to everything to be friends, yanno.

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
Ya mean the John Chafee who is now safely dead, and was considered a "Rockefeller Republican"?

You know of any living conservatives who hold strong religious views that you don't consider "far right" DK?

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Seems disturbing to me,but we have different ways of looking at things

Yes, yes we do.  Which has been my main point.

Mike, we don't have to agree to everything to be friends, yanno.

No Firm we don't,but it does help if we each grant that the other approaches the divide with honesty....if only of an intellectual bent.
It appears from some of what you said you do not believe this,so.....it's a little tough to characterize that as friendship .

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
Ya mean the John Chafee who is now safely dead, and was considered a "Rockefeller Republican"?

You know of any living conservatives who hold strong religious views that you don't consider "far right" DK?

And the labeling continues. Is Rockefeller supposed to be a pejorative?

There are so few actual conservatives around today, they've gotten their own label now (paleoconservative). I can't recall ever hearing or reading anything regarding religion from that small group.

I guess the closest would be George H W Bush. I disagree with him on most everything but he does seem to try and live a "christian" life especially in his post White House years.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

Even the kool-aid drinking faux-conservative Republicans have given up here

quote:

ORIGINAL: SilverBoat

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

There are a few, very occasional "left of center" posters who have an open mind, understand the depths of their own reasoning, and are interested in opposing points of view.
 -^- general adhominem attack on left of center posters

But most of you have a couple of simple responses to any point of view that doesn't simply mesh 100% with your view.  The most common is:  "Poopie head!".
 -^- more general adhominem attack

The level of political discourse here from the left pretty much rises to the level of kindergarten.  On a good day.
 -^- more general adhominem attack

As well, read his post here, in another thread, where he just slams in a gratuitous insult to me, just for the hell of it. 
 -^- drags in some other topic to whine about somebody else's supposed attacks that justify counter-attacks

So ... what he apparently really wants are sacrificial victims, not any kind of open and honest debate.
 -^- more general adhominem attack about open and honest, combined with a 'victim' ploy and strawman

He's a "poopie head" debater.
-^- direct attack on the poster in question

Fuck him and his "faux" whinging.
-^- more direct attack and insults to the poster in question

... ***shrug*** ... Considering how many times in just this one thread you chose to post generic insults, personal attacks, etc, instead of discussing its topic, which was pretty much explicitly was about people not debating political topics, maybe there's unintentionally twisted ironic example of exactly that in this one thread. There really was pretty much zero factual content in everything else you posted, just long diatribes of boilerplate rhetorical garbage that an astute observer might note had been carefully contrived to hedge the borderlines of plausibly deniable intent to personally and generally insult, etc.

Note to any moderators, should they take interest: The above statement is *not* an attack on the person's character, but merely a condensed description of the actions they chose to take in posting as they did. I won't presume to judge whether the person's repeated posting of general and personal ad-hominem attacks violates this board's TOS, that's totally your bailiwick, thank you.