self appointed expertise? That made me laugh. I'll take your bashing because to provide you with the 'proof' you think you need could only be accomplished in disclosing who I am, and I'll not do that. Rest assured, we aren't even on the same playing field. would you rather I use such words as absurd, ridiculous. How about ludicrous or asinine. Laughable and brainless could easily fit the bill. But stupid pretty much sums it up.
ARogueTrader: Jesus was not into entitlements the way current liberals are. and the current liberals' morals are WAY off of what Jesus preached.
Jeff... when I posted my original remarks that launched ARogueTrader's tirade, I certainly didn't intend this to become a religious debate. That said, you're absolutely right. The hardest thing for an extremist (on either side) to do is compromise. Jesus did preach many of the things ARogueTrader says he did, HOWEVER Jesus was far more conservative on moral issues than the left wants to believe. It doesn't promote their agenda to concede on that point. The Democratic party today is so much closer to socialism/communism than they were even 25 years ago. In my humble opinion, those two political factions are precariously close to being Anti-Christ.
I suppose you could say that Jesus espoused all of the good and true aspects or what each political party is trying to do. But he wasn't into bringing about social change. He was there to talk about how to get to God and get to heaven. He didn't demand that slaves be freed for example. He didn't demand that women be treated equally, however he himself treated women equally and actually gave them quite a bit of importance. He himself treated people of all classes equally. It's really pretty irrelevant to try to align him with a political party. I think it will be awfully tough to anyone to beat Bush unless some major things turn sour. The paranoia of the left, trying to paint him as an evil dictator won't help. They're so used to using fear and confusion as someone else said, they don't seem to realize how wacked their views really are. I know there are intelligent and rational liberals out there, they're just not as vocal, unfortunately.
The intelligent and rational liberals silence is because currently within the party they are outnumbered. The extremists now run the party, so they are "the voice" you hear. There was a time moderation ruled the day. I agree, I think at this point in time Bush is unstoppable. His tactics leave the democrats in a quagmire. On what point can they nail him... really. He's already starting to position himself, just a tad. Once its beyond a doubt that Dean is the nominee, all Bush has to do is turn up the burner and shove Dean further left. Brilliant move.
Somehow you see the impossibility of being both a social liberal and a moral conservative. What limited thinking. Jesus was both a moral conservative and a social liberal in his earthly efforts. Your comments are typical of what the neo con right wing and the extreme left wing is attempting to do with their brainwashing, i.e. telling people that it is impossible to be liberal on some social issues, and conservative on other social issues. This painting of people as either all black or white, all good or evil, 100% socialist or capitalist, 100% liberal or conservative etc. is the primitive step taken by cultures as they attempt to create totality of thought. It is not progressive in nature, and breeds prejudice and bigotry. That our enemies, the terrorists, are of an extremist nature and totalitarian thought has only given people an opportunity to rationalize that we have to fight extremism with extremism, and it is reflected in the political pundits like Hannity, Rush, Coulter, Moore, etc. This all or nothing thinking, which is so prevalent today is common among people who have a need for absoluteness in their life, especially as it relates to the complex problems and changes as we enter the 21st century. My signature is expressly designed to show people how prevalent the tendency is to lump a person by category on the basis of their stance on one particular issue, or their set method of defining someone by one aspect of their personality. It is very amusing to me how upset people have become with the signature, especially those who are both Christian and geared to acquire excess capital. Some people seem to have a need to make my comments in my signature absolutely wrong, which in itself is most revealing.
Rest assured we are not on the same playing field? How assumptive you are. I don't know why it is that the internet allows people to practice such poor manners. If I was at a party and I heard someone make comments that I did not agree with, I would not immediately call them, nor their ideas stupid. Such is the reduction of civility that comes from anonymity that a handle on a message board allows.
You make some valid points. A signature generally implies something you agree with. Perhaps you need to clarify (within the signature) what exactly you are saying. And why exactly was it you jumped all over me?? I was merely showing campaign tactics, the why's and wherefore's.
If someone is unclear about my signature, all they have to do is ask. Yet people don't ask, they just assume. Your comments about my signature had nothing to do directly with the topic, did they? They were a personal attack and ad hominem in nature and without foundation. Your comments were directed to my signature, not the topic at hand. "Mmmmmm well, what can you say to someone who is irrational..."