|
fleeing from challenges to the rationality of their point of view is sadly common among today's right. david brock eloquently calls attention to this in his book 'blinded by the right.'
i hoped you would step up with some depth in your posts and provide some of the historical and philosophical background that supports your conservative foundation. it looks like you have it in you, and that is sorely needed here.
but many of your commnents lately have been more rush limbaugh and less william f. buckley. when you constantly dish one liners bashing "whining liberals", quote opinion pieces penned by conservative pundits on the heritage foundation and aei payrolls as news, and champion the administration's policy without justifying it with supporting reason, you're pretty much guilty of representing what you complain about:
"What I've found is seething with hatred, often illogical complaints, and selective history, from all but a handful. Its like having a debate with a religious fanatic (the irony), and all you can do is try to smile and turn away."
there is nothing wrong with the conservative point of view. the big problem is that most conservatives don't comprehend the foundation of their philosophy beyond talk radio's thin veneer of hate. we need both points of view to balance our nation, perhaps less of 'social darwinism' and more of charles atlas' 'dynamic tension.' the conflict and tension between the two camps makes us stronger as a whole. i hope you will come back and lead by example.
__________________
if everyone is thinking alike, chances are no one is thinking.
|