Quote:
Originally Posted by host
ace, I've stopped engaging you for the most part, because your citations are regularly so "over the top", that it gives me a sense of you that persuades me that what you choose to let influence your political thinking puts you and I op-edin such extremely opposite "worlds", that there is no point in dialogue. The following is an effort to give others here, an idea of what I see as so outrageous in your decision to offer the opinion of Sen. Jim Demint, author of that WSJ, op-ed piece you've posted, as some sort of reasonable voice. He's not, ace:
|
My citations often present a point of view shared by me and many Americans. Like I wrote, if I were you I would not be as dismissive of alternative points of view. I make a point of engaging those who disagree with me, I watch shows like MSNBC, I read your sources and try to understand them. I ask you and others questions to try and better understand - but that's me. There was a recent post showing some Chaney quotes, and I found it amusing given what Chaney has done (or gotten away with depending on your point of view) while liberals stand there being baffled in disbelief basically not understanding what happened.
Quote:
|
ace.... can you understand, at all....how I have come to view the "jesufied" republican party as a cancer....a pox on all American houses, and, ironically, on the very religion it has elected to wrap itself, around? Does it make any sense that the most hawkish are the religious right who take money from arms manufacturers and enthusiastically align themselves with Saddam Hussein lookalikes, as far as the atrocities they commit in their agenda to strengthen their dictatorial hold on their own countries? Isn't all of this....along with "capitalsim at any price and/or consequence", opposite the teachings of the savior who men like Demint say they are committed to supporting and following?
|
I think over time I have gotten a better understanding of how you have come to your "view", although many who share your view seem to be a tad hypocritical. At least I have read posts where you have questioned the apparent hypocrisy. I admit when political gamesmanship is being used on the Republican side, and it is used often and it is used to "win". I try to understand what motivates people to do certain things and to take certain actions. When presented with this information liberals often stand in disbelief, engage in name calling, and take a "holier than thou" view, i.e. profits making in capitalism (greed) is evil while it is necessary for an effective government and to do good. Liberals condemn the profit motive (or greed), call those who are honest about it names, pretend that good can come from nothing, and say they are above such basic motivations like greed. I think I have it nailed, don't you agree?
