Why do conservatives come across as angry and brittle?

See, there I am in agreement with J.C. He really would condemn the contemporary priorization of material gain so rampant in Western Society.

 

1) The first presumes that abortion is murder. Knowing that that is not a concensus opinion, but treating it as such qualifies on both points.

2) What about the system promotes the fornication of children as young as X?

 

Fair enough, giddy.

I always did like it when he opened a can of whoop-ass on the money changers. Turning over tables and taking names! I agree with MacBeth though, that today's priorities might make him that angry again. Ah well. Time to go take money from my buddies at the poker table.

 

If you believe that God is the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, and knowing your name even before you were born, you would believe that He knew what we as humans would do.

 

Ok.

Point?

Not being snarky; honestly don't get it.

 

Well if we did that, we would be accused of being ANGRY AND BRITTLE. Oh wait..

 

One thing you've yet to account for is that we are in the midst of some kind of culture war. Conservative are rising up because a liberal constituency has succeeded to a degree in achieving what is in effect legislative change through the court system's activist judges.

I would come to the opposite conclusion that you do with regard to the supposed arrogance of one group compared to the other.

Who is more arrogant: Rush Limbaugh or Al Franken? Sean Hannity or Alan Colmes? Since conservatism seems to dominate the airwaves, it is easy to find more fault with conservatives since they do seem to dominate, but in the market I find conservatives to be a much more humble and accepting group.

Hey, I've been the most conservative in several liberal communities. Don't try to tell me that I haven't been scorned for that and that alone. I spent 8 years working in a Quaker school and another decade living in a neighborhood dominated by university professors where I learned to keep quiet when and if the discussion turned to Abortion Rights and any number of other issues. One time at a Christmas Party of all places, a protest arose from the Left about how anyone could imagine interfering with a woman's right to choose. I watched an unwitting new neighbor get pounced upon from the Left. It was unbelievable to watch. Silent Night!

 

I always thought that "B" in B-Bob stood for "Baptist." I guess not !!!!

 

Boondoggle.

 

My point was just that I believe God knew what would transpire in the 20th century.

 

I still don't get your point. Wouldn;t he have also known what would transpire in the Temple? Why would that anger him but this wouldn't, if he'd know of both beforehand?

 

DOUBLE POST

 

Originally posted by MacBeth

The first presumes that abortion is murder. Knowing that that is not a concensus opinion, but treating it as such qualifies on both points.

<b>From my arrogant standpoint known as Common Sense Point (forgive me!), I know that that creature in the womb is a human and left alone will be birthed to be loved and to love some several back. It will never be a beagle or a toaster. End of subject (sorry again).

I've felt that way since long before I was married, before I had children, before I would even put a tentative claim on a faith: always, always, always. Do you see my puzzlement with the mental masturbation that I see people go through to justify their position on abortion.</b>

2) What about the system promotes the fornication of children as young as X?

<b>I didn't make the assertion, but I took it to reference a more liberal institution-oriented sex education agenda and the decay of popular culture which is awash in pornographic imagery.

I received no sex education from my parents: NOT A WORD. I got no one pregnant until I was trying to do so. It ain't that hard or complicated.

Institutions do not have to step into the breech. By doing so, more parents will abandon the responsibility that is naturally theirs... because someone is taking care of it.

I think that's what he was driving at....</b>

 

You know what they say about assumptions...


1) Giddy, I am also against abortion. Point wasn't about the validity of the position, but the arrogance and self-righteous attitude with which it was expostulated. Again, NOT LIBERAL.

2) This is a vague argument, and certainly not related to a systemic progression as was asserted. But, again, sex education isn't promotion of teenage sex, merely a precaution based on the knowledge that it's inevitable. Your personal experience aside, teen prenancies have always been a reality, and are increasingly so. To address the problem with knowledge seems to me among the more reasonable appraoches available. However, we are getting off topic. Do you see a system in place which actively promotes sexual activity for 12 year olds?

 

I always thought liberals and those that don't know they really are to the left are so angry and brittle...Politicians like: Kerry, Kennedy, Clark, Gore, and Dean spit saliva chunks in the air while pointing their finger with swaggering zealousness to the point there fakish-looking hair gets all helter-skelterish and the facial expression reddens and perculates with blistering sweat...My first inclination is to dose these fools with water, gatorade or something...The new way of being lefty is be angry, with a convulsion-like state...and then act like you are trying to appeal to centralists by not being as angry as before...

Ain't politics great?...Like a former college professor said:...Class, I'm going to tell you a secret about politics...: "Politics is only about who gets what, when, where, and how...the why is both relative and irrevelant."

...and I think the anger is, in most cases, perception to the other side of the fence.

 

It's pretty hard to be a liberal and not be pretty irked at what has transpired over the past decade.

Conservatives these days should really be footloose and fancy free, but most still have their undies in a knot and their neckties tied too tightly.

 

Originally posted by MacBeth

You know what they say about assumptions...

<b>Not sure what you were referencing here: was it the sex education assumption?</b>


1) Giddy, I am also against abortion. Point wasn't about the validity of the position, but the arrogance and self-righteous attitude with which it was expostulated. Again, NOT LIBERAL.

<b>I don't see how it is arrogant just to leave something alone and not to interfere. However, I see it as abundantly arrogant when someone's right to their own body is, without question, viewed as trumping the right to life of their own offspring.

Conjuring up scientific arguments in a feeble effort to "prove" that the thing you want to get rid of is not, in fact, a precious and innocent life of your own creating. The other issue, of course, is that you can never be assured that your argument is right. Never. That makes the cessation of that young and innocent life all the more deplorable.

Being pro-Abortion and anti-Death Penalty has more explaining to do than being pro-Life and pro-Death Penalty.</b>

2) This is a vague argument, and certainly not related to a systemic progression as was asserted. But, again, sex education isn't promotion of teenage sex, merely a precaution based on the knowledge that it's inevitable. Your personal experience aside, teen prenancies have always been a reality, and are increasingly so. To address the problem with knowledge seems to me among the more reasonable appraoches available. However, we are getting off topic. Do you see a system in place which actively promotes sexual activity for 12 year olds?

<b>You say that teenage sex is inevitable. That is just not true. You know what they say about assumptions?

Teen pregnancies have always been a reality and that reality is worse now that we are systemically trying to do more about it. Now the argument is that we are just not doing enough. Well, if we made it worse by what we did, why not just stop before it gets worse yet?!

{Isn't it ironic how when it get worse in Iraq, I want to press on with more intensity and when teen pregnancy rates soar you want to press on with more intensity. What does that say?}

It is systemic in that it is getting more and more institutionalized and widespread.

Maybe this is a silly analogy, but it is also just an extension of the common justification we have heard: why not use the school setting to teach kids how to use drugs recreationally? We know that some of them want to use drugs and are going to anyway, so let's make sure they do it "safely." Is that next for our schools?

If you think it wrong to go to that length, why is it wrong to question the institutional intrusivesness of sex education?</b>

 

Thread: DERAILED!!!

I have a problem with politicians citing Jesus Christ and claiming his authority...and then advocating against blocks of people....or putting rules ahead of people...or showing not the least bit of compassion. Referring to the poor as, "those people" and ascribing characteristics to them because of their economic condition....screaming "sinner or murderer" at abortion clinics to confused young girls...showing self-righteousness big time without the heart to match.

I'm reading the book of Isaiah in a Wed morning Bible study at my church. In the very first chapter Isaiah is speaking on behalf of God and says, "stop bringing me your worthless sacrifices. you have blood on your hands and greed in your heart...so your sacrifices in my temple disgust me...that's not what I'm seeking from you. I'm seeking a repentant and humble heart...a heart that cares about others and truly loves me." Later he talks about fasting...and he says, "you guys make such a big deal out of your fasting...calling all this attention to yourself because you go without a freaking meal...here's my idea of fasting...take care of the widows and orphans...loose the chains of injustice and oppression." Obviously I'm paraphrasing. And the temple leaders at Christ's time, though they read Isaiah quite often, did not exactly GET IT. And Christ came and affirmed all that was said.

Anyway...my point is that if you're going to preach of Christ...if you're going to preach the "law" of Moses...then also preach grace...and live it. Because that's what the man you say you are a disciple to did. And that's what I see missing big time...instead, they've turned the church and Christianity into an "us against them" when the church should be an organization that exists not for its members but rather for the glorification of God and the service of mankind.

 

Exactly. Just like these opinions that the conservatives are "taking over." I wouldn't say that, because I don't consider Bush or much of the panty-waist Republican Congress real conservatives either. For many years the right felt that way with the dominance of the mostly left-wing media. This whole agenda of going after "obscenity" on the air is just off-putting to me. Let the market decide that. In fact, the FCC should just be in the business of licensing and protecting us from chaos on the radio dial. If people want to utter the seven deadly words on air, fine. I listen to CD's anyhow. I can definitely see where conservatives could easily be depicted as sticks in the mud, but conversely where liberals could be depicted as promulgaters of hedonism.

Most of the liberals are enraged these days because they feel their power slipping away. The media can no longer parrot the lies of liberals as facts. The right is able to get its message out thanks to talk radio and to FNC, which liberals ceaseless hate because it consistently rocks in the ratings dept. over liberal networks CNN and MSNBC.

 

That is truly amusing. All of the excessive mudslinging I see is from the right and directed at the "kook fringe liberals."