Rekna

There are a few things that seem to be occuring more and more lately which are getting very annoying. It seems like every post is about the same thing with a minor difference.

1) Christian Conservitives are taking over the world.
2) Hippy liberals are destroying the world.

Why are we boxing everyone into these categories? I find both equally offensive being a very christian person with some very liberal views. Maybe things aren't as black and white as you people are making them.

Just because someone doesn't like abortion or wanted Terri to live does not mean they are a Christian extreamist trying to force their beliefs on you.

Just because someone doesn't like Bush or any conservitive ideal it does not mean they are god hating atheists that hate america.

Let's stop opening up posts with sweaping attacks on half the population please.

samcol

I agree totally. People need to take everything issue by issue rather than playing the left/right game. Nothing is worse than getting stereotyped into a group that you don't even associate yourself with just because you don't follow strict party lines.

tecoyah

As an "observer" I will also agree completely......I cannot tell you how many times I have been tempted to close a thread because of the party line debate going on. It is an unfortunate sogn of the times.....and I have watched it become far more pronounced in this forum over the last year......pity, but not suprising.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

liquidlight

I've caught myself doing it, that the situations that we're living through engender such powerful emotion that it takes almost a physical checking at times to stop and be mature about my opinions, rather than being reactionary and agressive. I suppose it very difficult to admit that what you see as "right" could be imperfect, so we lash out and make these generalizations to defend our own vulnerable positions.

__________________
Halfway to hell and picking up speed.

Tophat665

"Just because someone doesn't like abortion or wanted Terri to live does not mean they are a Christian extreamist trying to force their beliefs on you."

But when that person starts writing their congressman to tell them that they have to ignore the state courts' rulings and do something (what, under the law, I have no idea) to end abortion or save a breathing corpse, then they really are Christian extremists trying to force their values on me.

Doesn't mean you are, but stop complaining about being lumped with the rabid morons and continue to be an intelligent Christian in such a way that people can recognize that it's not all God-Zombies trying to eat the country's brain. If you don't do that, if all you do is protest without backup, then, whether or not you are, you will come across as disingenuous, because that is a tactic much used by the Bush Whitehouse for the blatant lie: Deny without Defense, then complain ad nauseum about being not taken their word. People who are already predisposed to distrust vocal Christians on substantive issues are very sensitize to this tactic and frankly, sick to death of hearing it.

__________________
Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns.
Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

pan6467

The problem is not just here. We are a very divided nation right now.

During the Cold War we knew who the "enemies" were and we fought to be the best in everything (education, standard of living, healthcare, etc).

What has happened is there is no true threat anymore and we are being divided over the radicals on both sides that cannot allow someone to say "I have liberal views and I have conservative views."

Our 2 parties (and even the Liberalism, Greens and other minor parties) dictate views and preach that you must subscribe to all their views or you are the enemy.

There's no concessions anymore, as seen in numerous posts lately, the radicals on both sides consider compromise in anything a sign of weakness and refuse to give anything.

Perhaps we need an exterior enemy to maintain our greatness (as sad as that seems), because indeed we seem to want to feast upon ourselves if we have noone outside to hate.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

ARTelevision

Actually, I see folks from all poles of the spectrum posting their disaffection with party-line rhetoric. I see that more and more these days. That is the kind of positive evolution I pay most attention to.

Rigidly dogmatic rhetoric is always retrogressive, isn't it?

__________________
create evolution

Rekna

If someone feels something is wrong they have every right to try to get the law makers to change the laws. They have every right to try to get abortion ended and you have every right to try to prevent it but calling them christian extreamists is absolutly retarded. If people didn't act from what they believed in their hearts to be true then we would still have slavery amoung many other problems in this nation. As long as people are civil in how they act I have no problem with them doing it.

pan6467

Yes it is Art.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Lebell

I agree wholeheartly.

I am staunch supporter of abortion rights and gay rights, but I am painted heavily with the "conservative" brush by some here.

Sometimes it bothers me, but then I remember that it's just a web BBS

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Tophat665

I do want to point out that it's apparent to anyone who spends any amount of time around here that some folks are arguing each issue from conviction, regardless of whether it would fit neatly into a liberal or conservative ideal-package, and some folks who just seem to spout talking points.

On the other hand, I don't know very many people at all who don't have a very definite and one sided opinion of the current Administration and its allies in Congress - be it positive or negative, it's rarely mixed, and frequently extreme. I'm afraid this has lead to a with us or against us attitiude that tends to make people's mouths fill with spit when the see the "wrong" bumper sticker on the car ahead of them.

In such a polarized environment, the question to ask is how to restore moderation. I, frankly view myself as a moderate who has had the political center pulled out from under me, and I experience nearly as much cognitave dissonance trying to parse the idiotic extreme liberal positions as I do the idiotic extreme conservative ones. Unfortunately, those are the only positions that get any airtime any more. So how to bring back a sense of moderation? The problem, as I see it, is that an attempt to moderate one's position is likely to be viewed as weakness by the more extreme elements in opposition, who will then demand further concessions, rather than moderating their position. I can surely see that happening on both sides, and I am at a loss to figure out what to do about it civilly. Less civilly, it seems to me that the more extreme positions on both sides should be mercilessly ridiculed, preferably from their own sides. But, then, when more extremist positions are held by those leaing each side, it gets to be a simple problem of pack loyalty, and I have never been good at figuring out how to manipulate that.

__________________
Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns.
Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

Tophat665

Actually, it's absolutely accurate. By attempting to change the laws to coincide with their religious beliefs in contravention of the Constitution, and by trying to fill the court system with judges that will not see such laws as contravening the Constitution, they place their religion above their civic duty. That's religious extremism nearly by definition.

It's that whole pesky 1st ammendment thing. There is no overt role for religion in government. It's more subtle than that though, and I didn't phrase it all that well. When individuals act from religious conviction, that's one thing. When a large group of individuals band together over many years and subordinate one of the only two viable political parties in the country to their agenda, it's rather another.

Now, I am not necessarily saying you have any part of this, but it is your responsibility to distiguish yourself from these people if you don't want to get tarred with a broad brush, and, unortunately, because of the rhetorical devices prevalent in obscuring that agenda, just saying you aren't is not believable. This is not my fault. Nor is it yours. Doesn't it piss you off that these people have damaged the value of your word? It does me.

__________________
Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns.
Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

moosenose

I'd disagree with this statement. A fair number of Americans (Hanoi Jane and her ilk springs to mind) either didn't know who the enemy was during the Cold War or else didn't care and supported our enemies anyway. Was it appeasement or was it treason? I lean towards thinking it's treason, but that's just me.

flstf

I saw Jane on TV the other night (I think she has a new book out). She said that the one thing she regretted most in her life was the trip to Hanoi. The other was the 3-ways she engaged in with her first husband and hookers.

Back to the thread topic: I think most people aren't so far to the left or right as they come across in these forums. I bet if we were all sitting around having a discussion over a few beers that we would find much in common. Sometimes after I've written a reply, after reading it later I realize that I came out stronger than I really feel. Also sometimes when I've softened from a somewhat hard position based on others input I have neglected to say so in a timely fashion.

analog

Yeah- but sadly no one wants to take their own gripes and advice to heart. They complain about how the other side just sits there and toes the party line while they do the same themselves. Rarely do I ever see a person admit that maybe someone else has a point with what they're saying, and that maybe they've been given something to think about. Everyone just keeps the fight going.

guy44

Really? Who was our enemy? USSR, OK. But Vietnam? We were wrong to go there, W-R-O-N-G. The Vietcong were not our enemy until we made them our enemy. That was a nationalistic dispute that we had no business getting involved in. And those who stood up and said just that weren't even close to treason. They were the very definition of patriots.

__________________
"You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

host

I am glad to read that you are cocksure about your talking points, Rush......
I mean moosenose, what research have you done to be so sure about the political details of a 32 year old event?

moosenose

Yup, Russian Communists = bad, Vietnamese Communists = Good.

The more things change, the more things stay the same....

<img=src:> http://www.1stcavmedic.com/Jane_Fond...from_Hanoi.jpg </img>

I've done enough research to know who Tom Hayden is...and to know that committing felonies is wrong. "YMMV".

alansmithee

You call it religious extremism, but what you described is no such thing. It seems as if your personal dislike for those with religious beliefs coulors your thinking. The Constitution does not ban people from having religious beliefs, nor does it ban people from acting on their beliefs. Also, what if someone had the same exact beliefs and moral set, but didn't actually practice religion, or believe in any particular religion? Would they also be a religious extremist? And maybe judges don't see a law as non-constitutional because it isnt, not because of some vast religious conspiracy. There seems to be a tactic of the left now to label any position they don't agree with that has to do with morality as a religious issue, and then try to ban people holding that belief from making their opinion known, regardless of if they are actually religious. That is how being anti-abortion can make you a religious extremist trying to subvert the Constitution, because rather than deal with the issue head on liberals desire to have the other position disqualified from being debated.

Why is it any different? What makes religion so heinous that it should be excluded? What is religion but a belief system? There is no functional difference, but by labelling positions that they oppose as being religious, the left is able to attempt to deny a large portion of the population a voice. This has nothing to do with the first amendment, it has to do with politics.

host

moosenose, have you ever examined what you "know" to identify how you came to know it? It just doesn't seem that you have come to your conclusions from a personal study of the details of the US involvement in SE Asia in the '60s and '70s.

You posted a "Hanoi Jane" talking point worthy of Rush/Hannity.

Your response to whether you did any research that you could post, other than talking points is quoted above.

It seems that your answer consists of a simplistic anti communist sarcasm,
followed by a cliche, a link to a photo of Jane and Tom from a Vietnam era medical unit's website (no surprise, they were married to each other for a number of years, but had been divorced for many years when Hayden wrote
the piece on Fonda that I quoted).

Then you bashed the messenger, Tom Hayden, and you declared that "you know that committing felonies is wrong", claiming the moral high ground for yourself. You ended with an abreviation of a cliche, "YMMV".

You have a very strong opinion that does not stand up to the facts, and you
offer a link to a photo to defend your point. Hayden was divorced from Fonda for many years when he wrote to defend her motives for her actions in Hanoi last year. Isn't ironic that Nixon was impeached, resigned in disgrace, and that the succeeding president, Ford, felt so certain that Nixon would be indicted, that he quickly issued Nixon a blanket pardon, in advance of any indictment?

Nixon's chief of staff, HR Haldeman, his chief policy advisor, John Ehrlichman,
and his Atty. General, John Mitchell, all served time in federal prision for their
illegal actions while serving in Nixon's administration. Kissenger was deemed unfit to serve when oppointed by Bush to head the 9/11 commission two years ago, because of his performance in the Nixon administration during the Vietnam war. Future president GHW Bush was found to have lied to the UN general assembly when he denied Jane Fonda's disclosures about the Nixon plan to bomb dikes in North Vietnam that would have caused massive flooding and signifigant avoidable civilian casualties, followed by starvation,

You display a black or white perspective when confronted with a very complicated set of circumstances. The person that you attempt to smear and
label as treasonous, damaged her reputation protesting against and exposing a corrupt president and his administration that lied to the world, committed war crimes, and recorded many of their discussions for posterity.

Jane Fonda was not indicted, or pardoned. The authorities that she challenged and exposed, were! Your apparent anger and loathing are misplaced, and I doubt that there is any hope of persuading you to think any differently. Others will read our exchanges and draw their own conclusions.

The Watergate Conspirators:
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/watergate/players3.htm">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/watergate/players3.htm</a>

Over 58,000 of our young troops died in Vietnam, moosenose; in a war that two presidents knew was unwinnable, yet they continued to send our troops to their deaths, and in the process, killed more than 2 million Vietnamese.
Jane Fonda was not the problem in that era, moosenose, Nixon and Kissenger were, and they ordered GHW Bush to lie to the world to refute the truth that Fonda attempted to expose. I know that communism was bad and America was good, but do the ends always justify the means, in your world?

Rekna

This thread sure got derailed fast...

Coppertop

Welcome to Tilted politics.

Rdr4evr

This thread turned into the same thing you were trying to make a point against...lol. Better luck next time.

moosenose

That wasn't directed at Tom Hayden.

Well, I guess that means Nixon wasn't the only beneficiary of a blanket pardon, then...

So apparently, they didn't hide when they were wanted for criminal activity.

Or, depending on your perspective, she used her noteriety for personal pecuniary gain...

I don't need to remind you that others WERE pardoned, do I?

WHY was the war unwinnable? Certainly it was winnable militarily. Did you ever read what Giap said about how the war was won by his side? You should, because he talks about people like you, and how people like you kept the war from coming to a sucessful conclusion for the Americans. And while you scream "NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, I notice you're not screaming "JFK! JFK! JFK!" or "LBJ! LBJ! LBJ!" Why is that?

Vietnam wasn't lost on the battlefield. It was lost on the home front. It was lost because people committed multiple felonies like refusing to register for the draft and being fugitives from justice. Yes, they were later pardoned, just like Nixon was. That doesn't make them any less of a criminal than Nixon was....

Tophat665

Look, bottom line, and all my predjudices against religious wheel-spinning any opression, and all yours against secular humanism and constitutional law aside (seriously: aside), the problem is not that Christian Fundamentalists will strive for Power by any means necessary nor that those who oppose them will do so by any means necessary. The problem is that we are all people, fundamentally the same kind of thing, perhaps even the very same thing. We need to figure out how to talk to each other.

Does it make me feel like I am accomplishing something by calling you "benighted idiot" or "papist pig-boy" or some other reprehensible epithet? Surely it does, but it is a pleasure I would willingly forego if I could figure out a way that we could all come out of our ideological bastions and start trying to figure out what really is good for ourselves, not what a Texas Oilman or Sexless Nebraska Bluenose says is good for us.

So let's drop it. I know you will try to get your ideals reflected in the law, as will I. I know that you will obstruct my efforts, as I will yours. This is not war - it is political inevitiablity. But we must, unless we care to continue this circular silliness, find common ground where we can. Only then does it become less important that I have a swimming date in a rather warmish and sanguinary pool, and you are worshipping the being that wants to put me there.

Think of it this way: however you want to put it, it was and remains literally true that "The Kingdom of God is at Hand". What could you possibly do to improve on that? Nothing but love your enemy.

__________________
Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns.
Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

HAL3000

Well said analog... I couldn't agree more. So many people like to hear themselves talk... enamored with their own opinionl... blinded bytheir own arrogance... stuck in their own insecurity and need to be "right".

Even here and other boards on the web... the discussions aren't really conversations so much as "one upping" each other with the best worded posts, and quick replies.

We could all do well with listening a bit more... closing our mouths, and opening our minds. imho anyway.

F-18_Driver

Actually, Nixon wasn't impeached (Clinton was). Ford stated that his purpose in pardoning Nixon was to keep the country from bogging down in Watergate for years.

I believe that President Kennedy sent the first "advisors" to Vietnam, and it has been reliably reported (by the pilot involved--I've read his book and spoken with him about it) that LBJ lied about Tonkin Gulf II, which was his basis for dramatically increasing the number of US troops there. Records also indicate that LBJ was well aware that he was sending our soldiers to needless deaths.

A huge percentage of Vietnam vets would tell you that Jane Fonda caused the deaths of some of our servicemen, and extended the imprisonment time of others.

They're not going to forgive her just because she'd like to sell more copies of her book.

It would also be helpful if you would not intermingle Vietnam with Watergate. Your use of Watergate sequelae to discuss Vietnam is not logical.

Mojo_PeiPei

How dare you blaspheme against the architect of the great society, there is no way that a progressive liberal would ever betray his country or lie to the people.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

moosenose

Heh. Yup, just like prisons throughout the US are filled with felons who either committed their crime as a "matter of conscience" (yeah, we just HAD to rob that bank to "stick it to Tha Man" but we SWEAR it was morally the right thing to do!) or who are outright innocent and who are only in jail because of "society's injustice!"

analog

Rekna

This thread should be locked and sticked for all to read as a perfect example of how threads should not degenerate. hehe