How does one side have all the truth?

[Dragoon68]

So you weren't unhappy in the last term, and thinking Bush and his administration were "just liberal Democrats in disguise". If not, then I apologize for your sake.
It seemed everyone here for the last eight years was unhappy with Bush (and in 2004, pushing for Peroutka of the Constitution Party, and the conservatives who were against him were only so based on the premise that they knew he would lose, and the votes would go to the Democrats).

People were no longer satisfied with the Republicans, even when they controlled all the branches of govt.

So I wonder who is it out here now that you all want in office to make you happy, and what do you think is stopping this from happening? (especially, since conservatives insist they always win the ideological debates).
Sometimes; I just wish you could get the leaders you want in power, so you all could cool it already, and we could see how much of your wishes they could actually accomplish.
But then that IS all I was saying. You're not satisfied with the major parties.


But my question is not so much about "conservatives" vs "liberals" as groups, even though we have sort of veered into that. It's individual ideologies and perspectives I have been getting at all along. Like who's to blame for all the economic problems. It just so happens that conservatives will form a group that blames another group called the liberals. Liberals may in return blame conservatives.

I'm not asking why you side with "the conservatives". It's why you (and conservatives in general) blame the factors that you do, and ignore or exhonerate what others have added as factors of the problems (and then you neatly categorize them as "liberals" for that), and then claim your views are so infallibly "truth" that some of you put down your opponents as stupid, blind, liberal, "whining", etc.
You're the one making everything "conservative" vs "liberal". I and others have been opposing much of the labeling your side does.

So if it seems like I'm just arguing fine details, it's because you're not understanding the questions, and trying to push me into one of your little boxes, expecting me to take a "side". Of course, if I choose the "wrong" side, then I'm just wrong; no further debate needed. Hence, another member and his little one line insults.
I've already said over and over that I do not see either side as worth "joining" and rallying for like you do.

Yeah, well I have several conclusions, brother:

(1) You aren't a conservative,
(2) you have great difficulty understanding what's been communicated to you, or
(3) you do understand but just enjoying twisting it into some other meaning just to continue your argument,
(4) you love to argue and you really want is to pick a good fight, and
(5) you really don't have much of a stand on anything.

 

[jaigner]

I have noticed before that liberals don't like to be called liberals. In particular, liberal Christians don't like it because liberalism is often at odds with the teachings of scripture.

That doesn't make any sense. Most liberals love to be called liberal.

And conservatism (politically speaking, especially) is often at odds with the teaching of Scripture. That's the nature of life.

 

[carpro]

That doesn't make any sense. Most liberals love to be called liberal.

And conservatism (politically speaking, especially) is often at odds with the teaching of Scripture. That's the nature of life.

You have a liberal's typical disconnect with reality.:laugh:

 

[jaigner]

You have a liberal's typical disconnect with reality.:laugh:

Wow - is this the reincarnation of revmitchell?

 

[carpro]

Wow - is this the reincarnation of revmitchell?

Why?

Has he died?

 

[jaigner]

Why?

Has he died?

For the sake of the BB. He's banned.

 

[carpro]

For the sake of the BB. He's banned.

I hadn't noticed.

Just for your information, it is highly unlikely I'll be banned for calling a liberal a liberal.:thumbs:

 

[jaigner]

I hadn't noticed.

Just for your information, it is highly unlikely I'll be banned for calling a liberal a liberal.:thumbs:

Sigh. OK.

 

[Eric B]

Wow - is this the reincarnation of revmitchell?

More like Botwinick or Conservative Christian.
(I don't even see what revmitchell said that was bad enough to warrant banning).

Yeah, well I have several conclusions, brother:

(1) You aren't a conservative,
(2) you have great difficulty understanding what's been communicated to you, or
(3) you do understand but just enjoying twisting it into some other meaning just to continue your argument,
(4) you love to argue and you really want is to pick a good fight, and
(5) you really don't have much of a stand on anything.

OK, here is the crux of the issue:

I start out asking a simple question about YOU (your side of the political divide; why you believe the way you do), but what I did not ask was what people thought of me. But that's all I have gotten from two of you. That's all you have communicated. What else is there to understand about that?
And this is what you are offering again.
Why?
I ask why you think you're so truthful, not how you think I handle truth. Not how you think my posts read ("longwinded", etc). Not what political wing you think I belong to or what I'm taking a stand on or not.
You all have had plenty of other discussions to spew that stuff out.

So I ask you all about yourselves, or conservatives in general, and it keeps getting turned back to me or 'liberals' in general.
The only things you say about yourselves are that you have the truth and it's basically self-evident.

So I still ask where is all of this "truth" you are talking about? I just see a lot of deflection back to the other person. I see no verification of anyone's claim to truth. Not scripture; not even correct citing of what a person has said. That's why this topic is about.

Your side seems to be always arguing and picking fights, especially when jumping in to tell the poster what you think of him. Yet that is another thing you can point out someone else as doing. This is what I am asking about. Why do you do this? If you don't want "bunny trails", then stick to the point; not your list of "conclusions" about me. It's not what I asked. It is in fact what keeps turning these discussions into fights!

 

[Eric B]

That doesn't make any sense. Most liberals love to be called liberal.

And conservatism (politically speaking, especially) is often at odds with the teaching of Scripture. That's the nature of life.

The problem is that when we think of "liberal" in a Christian context, it usually connotates the moral issues as well as fiscal; where liberals take very non-biblical positions on things like abortion and gay rights.

So the way the "liberal" tag is being tossed around here is like a whole broad brush stroke, and notice the language of "taking a stand". Some of us here disagree with the conservatives on fiscal issues (And a few others), or at least some of the rhetoric they spew about who's to blame for the problems.
And I don't even see anyone here completely agreeing with the liberals on their policies (taxing, spending, etc). Most of us opposing the conservatives are middle ground, and it's the rhetoric we're opposing. But they can't have that. We must fit into a clear box on one side or the other so they can make their judgments.

Their philosophy seems to be that if we're going to disagree with them on those matters, then we should own up to being "liberal" and 'take a stand' with them.
But that would put us at odds on the moral issues as well, which is about the only areas the conservatives can biblically claim any "truth"; in addition to the far left ideologies such as socialism.

In other words, we're 'siding' with these immoral non-Christian socialists, and since they're wrong on biblical issues, they're wrong on everything; and everything we say is automatically wrong. Hence, it always comes back to their opinion of us. That always becomes the whole point.
It's basically a giant straw man.

My point here was to question/challenge this tactic of theirs, especially when words like "truth" are tossed around.

 

[carpro]

Your side seems to be always arguing and picking fights, especially when jumping in to tell the poster what you think of him. Yet that is another thing you can point out someone else as doing. This is what I am asking about. Why do you do this? If you don't want "bunny trails", then stick to the point; not your list of "conclusions" about me. It's not what I asked. It is in fact what keeps turning these discussions into fights!

Not really. All you do is complain.

You have offered no proof of anything. You're repeatedly mentioning "your side", but you never say what "side" you are on.

Dragoon is right. You're not interested in debate , just argument.

Until I see something out of you besides the same gobbledegook, I'm done with you. You're just not worth the effort. :thumbs:

 

[targus]

The problem is that when we think of "liberal" in a Christian context, it usually connotates the moral issues as well as fiscal; where liberals take very non-biblical positions on things like abortion and gay rights.

So the way the "liberal" tag is being tossed around here is like a whole broad brush stroke, and notice the language of "taking a stand". Some of us here disagree with the conservatives on fiscal issues (And a few others), or at least some of the rhetoric they spew about who's to blame for the problems.
And I don't even see anyone here completely agreeing with the liberals on their policies (taxing, spending, etc). Most of us opposing the conservatives are middle ground, and it's the rhetoric we're opposing. But they can't have that. We must fit into a clear box on one side or the other so they can make their judgments.

Their philosophy seems to be that if we're going to disagree with them on those matters, then we should own up to being "liberal" and 'take a stand' with them.
But that would put us at odds on the moral issues as well, which is about the only areas the conservatives can biblically claim any "truth"; in addition to the far left ideologies such as socialism.

In other words, we're 'siding' with these immoral non-Christian socialists, and since they're wrong on biblical issues, they're wrong on everything; and everything we say is automatically wrong. Hence, it always comes back to their opinion of us. That always becomes the whole point.
It's basically a giant straw man.

My point here was to question/challenge this tactic of theirs, especially when words like "truth" are tossed around.

So if you disagree with the liberals on moral issues (abortion, gay marriage, etc.)...

And if you disagree with the liberals on fiscal issues ( tax and spend)...

On what issues do you agree with them?

 

[jaigner]

The problem is that when we think of "liberal" in a Christian context, it usually connotates the moral issues as well as fiscal; where liberals take very non-biblical positions on things like abortion and gay rights.

So the way the "liberal" tag is being tossed around here is like a whole broad brush stroke, and notice the language of "taking a stand". Some of us here disagree with the conservatives on fiscal issues (And a few others), or at least some of the rhetoric they spew about who's to blame for the problems.

My point here was to question/challenge this tactic of theirs, especially when words like "truth" are tossed around.

These folks are just spoon-fed by Hannity and Beck, who are complete clowns. The way in which they create controversy is unreal, as well as, I believe, sub-Christian.

It's like they are on a witch hunt to put a spotlight on every dissenting political view, without even bothering to engage or interact with the ideas brought up with any real gracious and intelligent response.

The real kicker is that they seem to draw lines in the sand and shut people like me out, as if I were some sort of cancer or contaminant in the Kingdom. And I'm not even a liberal. I generally come down somewhere to the right of middle. The only differences are that I refuse to let some pastor or some blowhards on the radio dictate my beliefs and that I do not believe political change will ever change people's hearts, which is reflected in my stance on some moral issues (homosexual unions, etc.).

I just wish people could generally have a more gracious, lucid manner.

 

[targus]

These folks are just spoon-fed by Hannity and Beck, who are complete clowns. The way in which they create controversy is unreal, as well as, I believe, sub-Christian.

I don't know who you believe "these folks" to be.

I personally have never listened to either Hannity or Beck.

It's like they are on a witch hunt to put a spotlight on every dissenting political view, without even bothering to engage or interact with the ideas brought up with any real gracious and intelligent response.

What issues - dissenting political views - are you speaking of here?

 

[Eric B]

Not really. All you do is complain.

You have offered no proof of anything. You're repeatedly mentioning "your side", but you never say what "side" you are on.

Dragoon is right. You're not interested in debate , just argument.

Until I see something out of you besides the same gobbledegook, I'm done with you. You're just not worth the effort. :thumbs:

GOOD; :applause:because you've never done anything but spew ad-hominems; and about 100% of it, your own behavior! ("all you do is complain", etc) That's what's so infuriating.
Again; nobody ever asked you what you thought of them, get that through your head; nobody ever asked you what you thought of them; so if that's all you can talk about, then good riddance! :wavey:Never wanted your comments anyway (though I gave you a chance here; silly me); there are plenty of other people here.

Also, when I say "my side/your side"; I mean the side of these debates; not a named party, wing, or ideology which is what you keep demanding. So I don't have to be apart of any of those "sides"; I just disagree with you on something.
But when all you can do is spit out ignorant ad-hominems, then I guess you can't understand something like "context".

 

[carpro]

So I don't have to be apart of any of those "sides"; I just disagree with you on something.

Exactly.

And you won't say what your disagreement is or what you would agree on.

Just follow other posters around and criticize. Troll.

 

[Eric B]

So if you disagree with the liberals on moral issues (abortion, gay marriage, etc.)...

And if you disagree with the liberals on fiscal issues ( tax and spend)...

On what issues do you agree with them?

Probably very little. It's only about two people here who have been trying to force me and others into this "liberal" box.

The closest I come to agreeing with them, is when they make an observation on tings such as corporate greed, such as here: http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/ceo-worker-pay-inequality-index/19540733

To many conservatives, just to nod an observation like this is to be a wholesale "socialist". (You should have seen the 60 pages of responses, which apparently were redencly deleted and the comment section rebooted).
So I say that I do not believe in trying to "implement" any policy of trying to balance the divide (like through social programs, or taxing the rich), but then I'm accused of "not taking a stand" on anything.

Truth is; there is no easy answer to that issue, but one definitely won't be found when they turn reality on it's ear and argue that the poor are the ones getting too much, or draining the economy. That's what I have been opposing.

 

[Eric B]

Exactly.

And you won't say what your disagreement is or what you would agree on.

Just follow other posters around and criticize. Troll.

(Give me a chance to answer the other person's post! Now, it's there. And there's more in the other thread; and all you said was "yeah right").

And I thought you said you were done with me.

More empty insults. All you can ever do. No one's following you; you're trolling me now.

 

[carpro]

These folks are just spoon-fed by Hannity and Beck, who are complete clowns. The way in which they create controversy is unreal, as well as, I believe, sub-Christian.

Got no use for 'em myself. But you evidently know what they say or you wouldn't be able to tell who's "spoon fed" and who's not.

You'll find most of the excuses you're looking for at media matters. Your post sounds like you may already familiar with them.:thumbs:

 

[carpro]

(Give me a chance to answer the other person's post! Now, it's there. And there's more in the other thread; and all you said was "yeah right").

And I thought you said you were done with me.

More empty insults. All you can ever do. No one's following you; you're trolling me now.

Am. This isn't the real me.

I'm using your tactics on you until you actually contribute something substantive.