How does one side have all the truth?

[rbell]

I wish he could be a nice person like Rbell or Ken.

Thanks for the kind words.

However, if you get angry phone calls in the middle of the night, it's not me , and it's not Mel Gibson ; it's Ken.

Comparing him to me just might send him over the edge...

 

[Eric B]

Sorry for the length; trying to be thorough.

After reading your blog--I would assert it's a dislike for virtually all conservative views. And frankly, you're not exactly even-handed in the treatment of conservatives versus liberals. Race is an excellent example. Time and time again, you give left-leaning racists a free pass. Why can't sin be sin, no matter which side is engaging in it?

What left leaning racists do I give a pass? Who are you talking about? Sharpton, et.al? Whenever I do mention them, it is critical, but in passing.

Unless you're thinking of someone else you consider racist. Or just saying I do not go after the left enough.
But the page is about conservativism, and the reason why, is because they are the ones often associated with evangelical Christianity and claim to be biblical.
The religious left (Jackson, etc) doesn't seem to claim such, so why even bother with them? The conservatives, by their own boast, are better at getting their views across (After all, Limbaugh and the others flourish while Air America keeps dying) and most liberals are usually more soft-spoken, as they have the institutions of the academia and Hollywood to get their influence across. So conservatives are the most vocal and the other, and have gotten their point across about liberalism. So you don't need another voice on the evils of liberalism.

That's why I liked Horton's Beyond Culture Wars so much. He nailed the issue. He too criticized both, but focused on conservatives because of their association with Christianity, and sees them as veering off of a Biblical focus at times.[/QUOTE]

A point to concede: You are usually quite polite and measured in your responses. But politeness does not equal consistency. You tend to avoid ad-hominems. Congrats. But you do not give equal treatment to opposing sides for similar behaviors (see the "racism" point above; also, you often times reduce a Christian viewpoint on issues down beyond its true component. You seem to worry so much about "anti-intellectualism" that you are scared to side with Christian viewpoints on much of anything.

Don't understand these last two points. I don't recall going directly into anti-iintellectualism.

However...in your blog, you very seamlessly move from a hyper-fundamental issue ("Amy Grant isn't the antichrist," KJVO controversy) to a mainstream political issue (gun control, welfare reform, abortion)--and you lump "the right" on those issues in with the hyper-fundamentalists on other issues. This "guilt by association" is pretty clever. Factually incorrect...but clever. Misleading to the reader...but clever. Intellectually dishonest....but clever.

Well, I never thought anyone would object on those subjects being "lumped together". And they are in separate sections. To say "clever" and "dishonest" implies I know this, but are deliberately trying to do something with it.

I know not all share all of those views. The point there was that I see the same attitudes undergirding those issue.

Conservative vs. Liberal:
But...liberals put their faith almost exclusively in government to rectify society's ills. Conservatives put more faith in the individual. The latter isn't foolproof, but it sure is better.

So that's why I don't completely identify with the liberals. I don't trust government either. (see also below on this).

Who's right?


Yes...but if a party platform happens to get an issue right, what's wrong with acknoledging such?

One issue is different from claiming all issues, which was what was happening here.

Abortion & Homosexuality:
Sickening. You have absolutely no ground to stand on with regard to abortion. Your argument fails on the Constitutional front: (remember "life, liberty, pursuit of happiness?" That first one is kind of important!) Your argument fails on the moral front: You can dress up your terms all you want--"conservative to libertarian"--but you simply are not willing to stand up for the most helpless of our society, and that is about as unChristian a political view as exists. It still amazes me that anyone would feel that a mother's taking the life of her baby is a "personal decision." Baloney. Your argument fails on the societal front: I can think of nothing more destructive and destabilizing to a civilized society than the murder of the children by the parents and their doctors--the two entities with the highest charge of protecting said lives.

****
For those who say, "you can't legislate morality..."

Horsefeathers. Legislation is our recognition of a moral standard. Bad morality can be legislated...but one cannot have a code of laws that is fundamentally amoral. Why else would we outlaw killing, unless there was some higher moral law that made it wrong?

(Of course, in Eric's view, if you are an unborn baby, this does not apply, apparently...government 'shouldn't get involved,' I guess, in matters of right & wrong, life & death... :tear: ).

Well, sorry about that. I guess I was wrong to say that. I've just given up on expecting the government to ever fix that problem. Everyone wants less government, less regulation, and even if you could have that, there is no guarantee it will ban abortion. The momentum of the secular viewpoint is too great. Haven't most of the Republican candidates even given in on it, to the point that a lot of you aren't happy with them?

And as Horton points out, it does no good to legislate morality when the problem is sin. People are not Christians, and don't believe in Biblical morality. The only thing that can solve that is the gospel, and even then, there is no way to make them believe it. (whether it is free will, or election).
However, since it is actual lives at stake, and the next step was partial-birth, I do not know what to suggest about that. Should the government be overthrown? I don't even think we have the power to do that.

I was curious on who you all who are passionate on that voted for this last time?

The economy:
What is unsaid, but implied, is the idea that "everyone ought to have the same." Poppycock.

We as Christians are called on to give. We are called on to help those in need. And there is precedent for Christians, voluntarily and of their own initiative and action, living lives of "extreme" sharing. But nowhere is there precedent for forced govermental confiscation and redistribution. It doesn't work. It hasn't worked. It won't work.

But I never say that. (all should have the same, and the government should force redistribution).

My statements on economics are a reaction to the blaming of the so-called "redistribution" that has already occurred for the economic problems, while defending the rich, (and as in Poncho's topics, ignoring the global factor). I belive money is being redistributed, but most of it is upward rather than downward. Downward was decreasing, until the health bill (which my page was written way before), and a lot of the complaining seems to be people's fears that this will increase their taxes. All I have heard so far is an end to the Bush era tax breaks for the wealthy. But that is probably opposed as well, because they are seen as "deserving" it (supply side economics).

Yet if people are already unhappy about taxes, then apparently they feel they should have more than they do (so it's not just "the poor" demanding more, or someone demanding absolute equal). But I think the problem is them looking the wrong way as for where all the money is going.

 

[Eric B]

I disagree. I think he has only proved himself to have a strong dislike for conservatives - his choice - but he can't bring himself to admit it instead hiding behind a ruse pretending to be neutral while essentially demanding that conservatives repent and compromise. His postings and his website prove that for us. His website lays out in his own words. He attacks everything from America's foundation - disgusting - to its present. His website reveals a strong racial tone as well with normal plea of victimization liberals like to play upon. Like so many liberals he has an annoying arrogant tone in his postings and I think that's something that upsets others a lot. His scriptural references are mostly gross misapplications of God's word that reflect nothing more than his own view - his biased "side" - as if no one but him has the "truth". It's essentially the same line in every thread in which I've seen him engage. It's a demonstrated pattern.

You have got to be kidding! You do lash out and wildly so! You have an arrogant tone in just every sentence you write. What you accuse others of doing is exactly what you do yourself. It's amazing that you don't see that or perhaps just don't want to admit it.

Well, you know what; I do admit it. (the arrogant tone) I'm basically responding in kind to what I am seeing; here, and over the past 30 years in politics. In a wide range of campaigns, writing, broadcast punditry, Christian writings, etc. I saw most liberal or Christian moderate responses as too soft-pedaled, and then vented in the same tone I have been seeing over the years. My wife always said I was becoming like those I was responding too.
So that was a mistake on my part.

Those pages are old, and contain a lot of stuff from the time I was getting off my chest (though some issues continue), and have moved away from the project, and even before this was thinking of what to do with it. Perhaps I'll just take it down. Maybe redo it for more current issues. Like in the racial area, it won't reflect "victimization" (But I wonder when conservatives will ever cut down on their victimization rhetoric. They're the ones who have mastered it now, and largely what I was responding to as well).

Now that I have seen conservative resposnses to it, I know how to tone it down so that you won't feel so unfairly put upon. So I apologize for this.

 

[Dragoon68]

Well, you know what; I do admit it. (the arrogant tone) I'm basically responding in kind to what I am seeing; here, and over the past 30 years in politics. In a wide range of campaigns, writing, broadcast punditry, Christian writings, etc. I saw most liberal or Christian moderate responses as too soft-pedaled, and then vented in the same tone I have been seeing over the years. My wife always said I was becoming like those I was responding too.
So that was a mistake on my part.

Those pages are old, and contain a lot of stuff from the time I was getting off my chest (though some issues continue), and have moved away from the project, and even before this was thinking of what to do with it. Perhaps I'll just take it down. Maybe redo it for more current issues. Like in the racial area, it won't reflect "victimization" (But I wonder when conservatives will ever cut down on their victimization rhetoric. They're the ones who have mastered it now, and largely what I was responding to as well).

Now that I have seen conservative resposnses to it, I know how to tone it down so that you won't feel so unfairly put upon. So I apologize for this.

I'm glad you're coming around to thinking on this a bit!

By the way, EricB, I can certainly admit that I need to work on my communications more than anyone else - it is a life long struggle! If fact, I have much to work on in every aspect of my life because although I have total confidence in the foundation of my beliefs I know that I fall very short of meeting even the minimum standards of it.

 

[carpro]

Originally Posted by Paul3144

You're the one who's deceitful and dishonest. You've shown it over and over in your tangled web of lies and deceptions.

No problem.

Tell us all what I've lied about. Don't leave anything out.

You made the claim, so let's have the goods.

Still waiting, JG.

 

[carpro]

Well, you know what; I do admit it. (the arrogant tone) I'm basically responding in kind to what I am seeing; here, and over the past 30 years in politics. .

Excuse making by blaming others seems to be your forte. You should stick to it. It's another strong liberal trait.

"It's not my fault. They made me do it." is the usual liberal's childish retort when caught with their hand in the proverbial cookie jar or forced to admit fault or error.

 

[Eric B]

I didn't say "they made me do it". The idea is that when we choose to react to someone else and then become like them, it is our choice, so we made ourselves do it. But I guess you know nothing about that, since you never admit any error, and don't even have any deceit like every other human does.

So you make a big deal about me "admitting" things, but you don't accept admissions, nor even apologies, but only turn them back into more accusations. Well, it's obvious why, now. It's all "fun".

When I saw the issues here and the passion they were fought with, I took you seriously, but I see that was mistaken. You last night admitted I was "fun" to run around this mill of accusation of dishonesty, and that explains everything. You've exposed yourself now! You've blown your credibility. So the issue is therefore also not about truth.

So it also answers the OP, at least as far as you are concerned.

So say what you want; you're not to be taken seriously. Hope you've enjoyed yourself.

Thank you Dragoon for your post. Glad we can come to some sort of peaceful interaction.

 

[Eric B]

To address the claim that I'm too hard on the right, and give others a pass, I have been meaning to post this:

http://www.erictb.info/rap.html

This ultimately stems from the same project that became the other page. It is basically in the same tone, but now aimed in a diametrically opposite direction. Same thing; I was very frustrated about the issue, and vented. (I look at it now, surprised at how fired up I was about it).

 

[FR7 Baptist]

Still waiting, JG.

Here's a small sampling of your lies taken from posts you've made. I've also included some of your hateful comments that aren't lies so people can see the hate that resides inside your heart shaped box.

You are a troll.

Probably one that's been here before under several different names.

Have a good nights sleep child. Maybe when your mind matures, your eyes will open...like a puppy.

No matter who you are or what your history, if you're a member of the democrat[sic] party, you either are an enemy of America or you support those who are.

Holw's[sic] that?

Most of them probably don't know you are an abortion supporter, because you tell them you're not. You may even attend some pro- life events, put on a good show and talk the talk. Then you vote for the next abortion advocate that comes along, so you can't walk the walk.

It is you that lies , young man.

But to yourself and God.

Pity.

They have no credibility to you because they're the truth and liberals have no use for the truth.

Maybe when you're grown, maybe you'll open your eyes...kinda like a puppy.

Advanced liberalism is a form of elitism. They believe that they know what's best for everyone, that the lower classes are too stupid to run their own lives.

When it doesn't work out (which it usually doesn't), they blame it on the stupidity of the masses and never ever take responsibility for their own actions.

Unfortunately many census workers are incompetent boobs, but what little common sense they might have is buried under a mountain of bureaucratic nonsense and a politicaly correct approach to taking the census.

And he aspires to be a lawyer. God help us!

I hope he grows a brain.

I have no liberal friends and don't want any. Why would I want to be friends with baby killers, flag burners , military haters, freeloaders and thieves?

If you voted for or support Obama, you hands are as bloody as his. If you support and vote for those who support or vote in favor of flag burning, you are a flag burner. If you are in favor of Obamacare, you are the same as a thief.

There is no explaining it away.

That's the nature of liberal[sic] and democrats.

His ultimate goal is to destroy America as we know it, strip us of our wealth, and redistribute it according to his marxist views to those that he considers more deserving.

All of which has absolutely nothing to do with redistribution of wealth.

At any rate, as a wannabe attorney Kool Aide drinker, you should apply for work with the Obama administration. I'm sure they could use another brain dead attorney that knows as little as they do about how to assure national security.

While you're there, you can finish your indoctrination into marxism. Until you learn how to steal the money of hardworking Americans to give to the UN for redistribution to 3rd world countries, you're not really in their league.

From this thread:

That's a total cop-out. Going to the archives wouldn't be following anyone. I can see you would prefer to believe you are right, even if it's a lie about someone else, than find out that you are wrong.. Another liberal trait.

You're really a very dishonest individual. Not just about who you are and what you stand for, but your cloak of holier than thou Christianity is threadbare. It didn't take the readers here long to out you.

You might as well come clean. You're fooling no one here anymore.

Unlike, Eric B, I am honest about what I believe in and who I am, warts and all. Deceit is not in my nature, while it's part of the required makeup for a liberal.

He's just not mature enough to handle it any other way. Like a lot of college kids nowadays, he's been educated way beyond his ability to think critically and project those thoughts onto paper coherently.

You feel you have to keep trying because you are deceitful and dishonest.

Definition of "liberalism" , indeed. LOL

 

[AresMan]

I am a Constitutionalist. I will criticize anyone and any policy that violates the Constitution.

Why?

Because those in office have to put their hand on the Bible and swear an oath before God and man that they will defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

If someone in office supports anything that blatantly violates the obvious and original intent of the Constitution, that person is guilty of perjury. The Constitution is not a campaign platform or a suggestion. It is the law of the land.

I don't give a rip about "conservative," "liberal," "democrat," or "republican." I am equally critical of anyone that will LIE through their teeth in taking an oath of office.

I am sick to high heaven of this political "taking sides" garbage an party loyalty. What matters is honesty and integrity. If someone must swear an oath to uphold a document called the Constitution, then the only thing that matters in the realm of politics is the Constitution itself.

PERIOD.

 

[Dragoon68]

... What matters is honesty and integrity. If someone must swear an oath to uphold a document called the Constitution, then the only thing that matters in the realm of politics is the Constitution itself. ...

That, my friend, is the position of a true conservative.

 

[carpro]

I didn't say "they made me do it".

Semantics. Same-o same-o.

You are what you are.

There's no need to try to hide it anymore. Not here.

 

[carpro]

Here's a small sampling of your lies taken from posts you've made. I've also included some of your hateful comments that aren't lies so people can see the hate that resides inside your heart shaped box.

Strike three, JG.

It is impossible for an opinion to be a lie. I would think an aspiring attorney would know the difference.

No wonder our legal system is such a mess.

Grow up.

As for the so called "hateful" statements, without context it's hard to say for sure, but in general, I stand by every word and apologize for none.

You can add this to your nonsensical list of so called "lies". LOL

 

[jaigner]

Here's a small sampling of your lies taken from posts you've made. I've also included some of your hateful comments that aren't lies so people can see the hate that resides inside your heart shaped box.

Wow - kinda makes you wonder who we're really dealing with here, huh Paul?

 

[jaigner]

Grow up.

Hey Paul, here's another one.

 

[Eric B]

Semantics. Same-o same-o.

You are what you are.

There's no need to try to hide it anymore. Not here.

And you are what you are; and that's un-serious.

Let's not forget these bold faced lies

The fact that you don't see the blame game being used in both directions once again tells me you are a liberal. Blinded by your own ideology.

You've said it more than once.

How liberal of you to plead innocence of obvious guilt and , of course, blame others.

 

[FR7 Baptist]

And you are what you are; and that's un-serious.

Let's not forget these bold faced lies

Carpro knows that his lies and hate are wrong, but he doesn't care. He has no shame. It's pathetic, really. He is the archetypal angry white man, imprisoned in his own mind as he psychologically projects his own insecurities on others to protect his fragile, wounded ego.

 

[Dragoon68]

I don't think Paul3144 has a clue what he's talking about but it sure does have a classical liberal tone to it. It sounds so "cute" to suggest the root of conservative ideology is insecurity. If anything my observations are the opposite.

 

[FR7 Baptist]

I don't think Paul3144 has a clue what he's talking about but it sure does have a classical liberal tone to it. It sounds so "cute" to suggest the root of conservative ideology is insecurity. If anything my observations are the opposite.

I did not say insecurity is the root of conservative ideology.

 

[Dragoon68]

I did not say insecurity is the root of conservative ideology.

Of course you didn't literally say that!

You wrote about Carpro saying: "He is the archetypal angry white man, imprisoned in his own mind as he psychologically projects his own insecurities on others to protect his fragile, wounded ego."

What does that mean then? Was it personal against Carpro or was it aimed at his conservative ideology? Let's get out what's really bothering you down deep inside.