If this were so there would be a lot more people on that thread that said they are progressive. They didn't. They said they were moderate. Others said they were actually Commies, since they didn't vote for McCain. Look, I really would love it if the GOP would stop purging itself of anyone that isn't 100% in lockstep agreement with them. If they would realize that a Republican in upstate New York isn't going to be just like a Republican from Natchez MS. But they've decided they would prefer to be ideologically pure and in the minority, rather than in the majority and encompassing a broad range of ideas. The party told me to go jump off a bridge. You have been daring me for ten years to be a Democrat, saying that I'm a Maoist anyway. Why on earth would I vote for that? They offer nothing but insults. This is absurd. You are basically saying that people can't define their own beliefs, and it is up to you to pigeonhole them instead. I am a moderate. I am not a liberal. Deal with it.
Can people define themselves as Christian even if they are, say, Unitariansn or don't believe in Creationism? ? Or is it up to others to tell them what they really are?
OT: How much do I have to contribute to be able to edit posts? I type fast and consequently make typos from time to time. I also tend to reword my posts when I repeat a word or can express my point better after reflecting on it. I'd really appreciate being able to change them.
Not much, I contributed a fairly small amount many years ago (I think it was when all I could afford was $5).
If you find out what the requirements are to get the edit button activated, please let us know. Thanks.
I wish I knew, but there is a board for "ClutchFans Feedback" if you want to ask Clutch a direct question.
Oddly, I believe I did not gain the ability to start new posts until I donated. I know when I first registered I couldn't. This may have something to do with being a member for a certain period of time, I'm not sure.
I will oblige you and jump in with the we should abandon the use of labels. I have no problem with the use of the terms "liberal" or "conservative" I don't consider either are a compliment or an insult but it seems to me that many posters including yourself are getting caught up in the self-identification to the point of tribalism. The feeling I get from you and a few other posters is that you are taking an us vs them mentality and it is those evil liberals out to get you conservatives. The truth is while certainly there are issues where you can say some posters are liberal while others are conservative there is actually a much greater diversity of views even among those who you would think are liberal or conservative. It might surprise you but its not like things always break down in regard to mere liberal or conservative sides and there have been heated, even personal, debates between your so called liberals. The problem though if you keep on looking at things and post accordingly on the basis of a tribal view it shouldn't surprise you that is the reaction you will get. So while you might be looking at this as your conservative tribe versus the liberal tribe here the only true tribe here is the Rockets Tribe.
Clutch is a busy guy so just because he doesn't get back to your right away doesn't mean he is ignoriing you. To get editting power just contribute to the tipjar and you will get it. You might not get it right away but once your status changes to "contributing member" you will have it.
There are debates among conservatives as well. Also, it is normal for everyone to have a basket of different beliefs. It is unusual for anyone to be 100% liberal or 100% conservative. So obviously, that is not what these terms necessarily mean. Rather than type the 10 paragraph description of these terms every time, I will continue to avail myself of the terms themselves as I feel the need. My experience has been that even people that object to the use of these terms tend to use them also, and for the same reasons that I have described.
The left never lies. Really. Say, for example, that I asked you to post something to back up a given claim re: your perceived truth. You really think there aren't people here who couldn't dissect it to appear false? Basso posts what Basso posts, and it gets torn apart. "Oh, that's from Fox News. It's obviously a lie." Then someone else posts something from MSNBC and a conservative is going to do the same thing re: his perception that MSNBC is slanted so far left that it cannot possibly be truth. To be so secure in whatever information you have must be a wonderful thing. I don't trust any of the bastards. And I think I "get that" better than most, so I'm not going to feign outrage when things the Left or Right said they'd do didn't get done or when someone switches stances or espouses rhetoric for the sake of political gain. Simply color me not surprised. And the above is what gets me with people (not necessarily you) who are so firmly entrenched in one camp or the other. Members of my own family can't talk politics without screaming at each other. For the most part, the only time I really have anything to say in the D&D pertains to drugs (legalize), prostitution (legalize), gay marriage (legalize), and any other restriction that I perceive to be against personal freedom. I'm as socially liberal as you can get and I'm most definitely not a republican. And if I could get past Glenn Beck's personality enough to actually listen to what he has to say, I could then offer to you and the rest as to whether or not I like what he has to say. But I can't stand his personality, so I don't watch him/listen to him. Same with Rush.
I think people on the left do lie. Bur there aren't left leaning movements based on them. The health care debate is an example of the right simply lying about things like dearth panels and government takeovers, and creating a movement based on those lies.
Witness the game playing... MojoMan's splitting the vast political spectrum into two halves and then shaming the "other side" into admitting they're "those" people and Lynus's game of false equivocation... Glenn Beck lies as a matter of course so Keith Olberman by virtue of being on the other side must be a liar too. The days of forming your opinions based on evaluating the available information must be dead... or not so much really.
his legal defense of the program went beyond what bush claimed - that, by definition is called expansion. as for the rest, we can keep going back and forth forever, but its pointless. its stupid to complain when obama doesnt do what he said he would do? thats your opinion and you are entitled to it, but to call others stupid b/c they point out that obama went back on his word is just...stupid. its also your right to be in favor of warrantless wiretapping and supression of torture evidence. but you shouldnt 'b****' as you put it when others get upset at obama for doing this - this is clearly not the kind of 'change' he campaigned on. you have made a few condescending comments, calling me stupid. questioning my motives, saying that im just complaining to complain, that im just b****ing. it doesnt bother me, but it does make you seem overly defensive. its a tactic that bush supporters used - over and over again legitimate criticisms were met with "you just hate bush" or accusations of "bush derangement syndrome". you are just doing the same thing. honestly the fact that i get it from bush and obama supporters tells me im probably on the right path. all im doing is pointing out things that candidate obama went back on and his continuation of many of the more egregious bush-era policies. for some reason it really strikes a nerve w/ you. again, im b****ing b/c im pointing out that obama has gone back on what he campaigned on. it was candidate obama who offered the timeframe that as president he has not met, but im b****ing for simply pointing it out. and lastly, it it worse to b**** about our government or to b**** about people b****ing about the government?
My Glenn Beck Observation: People gravitate to vicarious emotion, they crave it, they will pay for it: Movies, books, sports, Evangelists etc. The desired or effective emotion varies between people but the intensity is the value. Beck sells a weepy, tortured self-righteous indignation. If that's your trigger emotion, he brings craploads of intensity.
i cant believe i turned a good cheney-bashing thread into an obama-bashing one. apologizes to the thread starter! allow me to try and bring it all back around... mojoman, if you are reading this i would be curious what you think of it in light of your claims that obama would love nothing more than to take down cheney. to me, this is another example of obama going out of his way to cover for his predecessors.
