How does one side have all the truth?

That is the real you, as far as you've shown here. I've never seen you do anything else but either start these threads on Obama or other liberals, or take shots at others.
You can look at other posts of mine in other threads (mostly "Other Denominations"; just came from there now), and you don't see me hurling one line shots of insults at people.

I'm the one who used your tactic on you in your Obama vacation thread, which was probably a mistake to "return evil for evil"; but I was supporting the point of this thread that you accuse others of whining or complaining, while doing most of the complaining yourself.

I'm trying to gain from you the rationale behind that. Again, this topic did not ask what you think of how substantive my posts are. But you keep turning it back to that. So you seem to be the one who can't explain yourself, (as you've been asking me).

 

Precisely the point; I, and others here cannot answer for "many liberals" like that. We are called liberals, but we do not agree with "end justifies the means", or "think we know better than you do what is good for you"; at least I don't.
This is the problem I'm pointing out. People paint others with a label, and then respond to them as if they agree wholly with that side. If we say we don't, then we're accused of not taking a stand.

Sorry, but there are more than two viewpoints in politics.

So I did not even know how to answer that. It didn't pertain to me. I don't try to save people from themselves. A lot of that stuff I disagree with in the liberals, so why would I even dispute you on that to begin with?

 

I didn't ask why conservatives disagree with liberals.
For one thing, in that last post, I forgot to add that the issue is more about how we here are responding to each other, than a general "conservative vs liberal" distinction. Inasmuch as the demeanor here (especially from the conservatives) does reflect the larger political debate, it can extend to the general "parties" or "wings".
But I was addressing primarily us here. (And again, it keeps becoming just about what I'm doing). I have not seen anyone here advocating what you claimed in that post, so it was no answer to the question; just another instance of what begs the question.

I asked conservatives why the attitude that liberals, or anyone here who disagrees with them, are stupid, "blind", or "denying the truth" or whatever other pejoratives people hurl. I asked about the recurring fundamental attribution error that we're "whining", while you do not see yourselves as whining, but are doing far more complaining than anyone else.

So I'm questioning conservatives, and I think it seems like "criticism" when people think they are so much into "truth" that they are beyond any question. That's what I'm questioning in the first place, and I think it is a fair question, especially as Conservatives are also making the most criticisms themselves.

 

OK.
It's not a "shame-filled confession" I expect. And not any "moral defect". (That seems to be what is expected of non-conservatives).

I guess you've answered the question, at least as far as you're concerned.

 

You quoted it, in few words, from post #85. The answer you seemed to give, which I was satisfied with, was that you wouldn't or couldn't answer. I wish the other two would be that honest, instead of constantly turning the topic back to what I believe.

(I wouldn't be insulting if you weren't).
Why is that "dishonest? All you need to know is that whatever view you're espousing that I'm pointing flaws in, I must disagree with. So my views on the subjects have been clear.

The problem is, your idea of "views" is limited to two partisan labels, and you've already shown to Robert that if one agrees with one point, then they are guilty of ALL of their policies. And that's how you determine "truth".

THAT is the dishonest tactic on your part, and why I have not embraced your labeling system. And it's why you keep bringing the topic back to being about me. You can only argue off of ready made judgments of all of liberalism, and ad-hominems towards those who disagree.

 

Just another stupid excuse for an ad-hominem. What have I pretended or lied about? Did I ever say "I'm conservative" or "right wing"? I gave you this list of my key political views (which have long been obvious from my posts):

•Liberals and Conservatives are sinful humans and neither has a monopoly on the truth. Both take parts of truth that suits them, and ignore the rest.
•Truth is from God's word (and proper citing of claims you make about another person), not a party platform
•More conservative-to-libertarian on abortion and gay rights. They are biblically wrong, but government should not be so involved in promoting or restricting them.
•The economy is being drained by a combination of government waste on all levels, as well as corporate greed, and global financial shifting; and very little of it going to the poor or other groups such as minorities, contrary to apparent conservative assumptions
•Welfare has thankfully been reformed. Any who still abuse the system are wrong.
•For other social programs, it is hard to tell whether they are good or not. Health care seems to be needed because of the high cost of private health care. But socialized health often is not good. Not sure what else can be done.

So does this deny anything I have written on that page? You most likely got it from me linking to it, which I know I have done several times in the past, and if I were trying to hide something, I wouldn't do that, would I? The whole purpose of linking to it is so that my full views could be seen, since it would be too much to post on the BB. I've even excerpted parts of it in the past in pertinent topics.

And it's not "dislike" for the other side, it's dislike for many of their views.

It seems you're the only ones allowed to dislike anything, and you're the ones who go after the people, not just the views.

That was the point of this topic; but again, you've just turned it back around into nothing but ad-homimems.

 

You still have not even defined what truth is, other than some ready-made package of conservativism "grounded" on some areas where it favors a biblical view. So "truth" ends up relative to what you believe.

So you want to call someone dishonest and hiding their views; every time I bring it back to this, you just turn it back to me. You have sucessfully dodged the challenge made to you to prove your "truth" every time.

That shows to me that you don't really have the truth, and can't really defend it. I even bring God and scripture into the equation, and this is totally bypassed. How can you claim to have all this infallible 'truth', when you won't even bring/keep God in the discussion?
Face it, you have a source of [so-called] 'infallible truth' other than God and nobody is obligated to follow something other than God. (And you could be a secular conservative as far as I know. Again, I never see you reference scripture; just hurling very unChristian insults!)

You would be better off to just admit that many of these topics (especially the fiscal ones, or what Obama's doing now), are your opinions and not infallible truth. That doesn't mean there is NO truth, or truth is all releative; it means you have formed your own ideas on what parts of it is. And that anyone who disagrees is not stupid, blind, a liar, hating you, etc.
You're not God who can pass those judgments on people for disagreeing.

 

How about the truth of scripture; which I have yet to ever see you reference. It's your "truth" that is your own, and you have not shown otherwise.
I could mention people or movements you sound like, but I'm not going there.

 

Sorry, that's dodging the question. I do not see why a person cannot disgree with someone else's views without stating his own views, and that makes him dishonest.

For years, I have seen your responses to others (mostly shooting them down rather than stating what you believe), and I knew you were a strong conservative without you having to state "I am a conservative". And since your views neatly fit into a conservative platform, which does not carry the negative connotation "liberal" does here, you could easily embrace that label. And it didn't matter to me. I knew I disagreed with what you said, and that was all that was important.

There are conservatives who strongly disagree with each other. Like the whole "neo/paleo" thing. (Don't know which side of that you are on).

But if you're dealing with truth not in scripture, then you need to have a better way of proving it than what you have done. Gravity is one such truth. It can be easily proven in an instance, wherever you are, and it is tied to God because He is the Creator, and gravity is one of the laws He has created.

But in many of these other issues, "truth" is not always that clear, and what ends up happening is that both sides (notice, I said both) end up putting forth their own ideas as "truth", and it then becomes relative to the side's own perspective. We're all fallible humans, and we all do this.
Hence, it is better in instances like that to admit that something is your opinion, and not slam the other side as you frequently do. If the other side does it too, remember, most of the liberals in the public sphere are not bible-believing Christians, so who should know better?