How does one side have all the truth?

Why just ask those who "fit the bill" as "conservative" for you?

Why not question such behavior of all who exhibit it?

Why not pose the same question to "liberals" who also exhibit those behaviors?

Why are you so selective in who you will not accept such behavior from while overlooking it in others?

 

:laugh:

Your soapbox is crumbling, Libby.

Give it up. You are what you are. You can't hide it here.

You feel you have to keep trying because you are deceitful and dishonest.

Definition of "liberalism" , indeed. LOL

 

I would attribute that to selective vision on your part.

 

Yep.

Fortunately, most of us don't have the same disease you do.

Diarrhea of the pen.

 

You're the one who's deceitful and dishonest. You've shown it over and over in your tangled web of lies and deceptions.

 

No problem.

Tell us all what I've lied about. Don't leave anything out.

You made the claim, so let's have the goods.

 

Why so hateful?

 

Eric, are you ever going to offer proof for your OP premise?

If you have none then it would seem that you are guilty of exactly what you are accusing others of doing.

You have made spite-filled accusations about Conservatives based on nothing more than your disagreement with their beliefs.

You have characterized Conservatives in most negative ways - sounding most hateful in the process - and seem to presume that you alone hold all the truth.

 

Don't forget that he has a deep seated belief that Conservative Christians are racist to the core. I'd like to see him prove that one as well.

But he won't offer proof of anything. No leftist, and certainly no unacknowledged leftist, ever will.

 

Nothing to forgive. You're just doing what leftists normally do. The only real difference is you won't admit to yourself, or to us, what you are.

That's what makes you so much fun.

Come back anytime.

 

Where did I accuse you of saying "conservative unable to grasp the truth" or of saying "natural liars" or say that conservatism "is a fatal disease"?

Eric, all I keep asking for is proof of your OP premise.

But you don't offer any.

Sorry for "sidetracking" the issue again by asking for that proof.

 

When I made that observation it was referring to one specific post - namely the OP of this thread.

If I have mischaracterized your words then it is simple enough for you to defend against it.

I leave it to the readers here to visit the OP to decide for themselves if I have mischaracterized your words.

At this time I stand by my assessment of them.

 

He dosen't need to offer proof. You people proved his points for him.

 

I disagree. I think he has only proved himself to have a strong dislike for conservatives - his choice - but he can't bring himself to admit it instead hiding behind a ruse pretending to be neutral while essentially demanding that conservatives repent and compromise. His postings and his website prove that for us. His website lays out in his own words. He attacks everything from America's foundation - disgusting - to its present. His website reveals a strong racial tone as well with normal plea of victimization liberals like to play upon. Like so many liberals he has an annoying arrogant tone in his postings and I think that's something that upsets others a lot. His scriptural references are mostly gross misapplications of God's word that reflect nothing more than his own view - his biased "side" - as if no one but him has the "truth". It's essentially the same line in every thread in which I've seen him engage. It's a demonstrated pattern.

 

You have got to be kidding! You do lash out and wildly so! You have an arrogant tone in just every sentence you write. What you accuse others of doing is exactly what you do yourself. It's amazing that you don't see that or perhaps just don't want to admit it.

 

Regarding Eric's viewpoints, & his blog...

Sorry for the length; trying to be thorough.

Kudos for putting it out there. It was my first time to read it; though that's not anyone's fault...I just had never know it was there. However, I would say that now that I have read your blog, I would consider you a great deal more left-leaning than I previously thought.

After reading your blog--I would assert it's a dislike for virtually all conservative views. And frankly, you're not exactly even-handed in the treatment of conservatives versus liberals. Race is an excellent example. Time and time again, you give left-leaning racists a free pass. Not so for the stereotypical "southern white redneck racist."

Why can't sin be sin, no matter which side is engaging in it?

A point to concede: You are usually quite polite and measured in your responses. But politeness does not equal consistency. You tend to avoid ad-hominems. Congrats. But you do not give equal treatment to opposing sides for similar behaviors (see the "racism" point above; also, you often times reduce a Christian viewpoint on issues down beyond its true component. You seem to worry so much about "anti-intellectualism" that you are scared to side with Christian viewpoints on much of anything.

Once again, differentiating between style and substance: Often times, ad hominems are synonymous with venomous personal attacks. And no, you tend to shy away from that.

However...in your blog, you very seamlessly move from a hyper-fundamental issue ("Amy Grant isn't the antichrist," KJVO controversy) to a mainstream political issue (gun control, welfare reform, abortion)--and you lump "the right" on those issues in with the hyper-fundamentalists on other issues. This "guilt by association" is pretty clever. Factually incorrect...but clever. Misleading to the reader...but clever. Intellectually dishonest....but clever.


Some of Eric's positions I felt I should deal with...

Conservative vs. Liberal:

But...liberals put their faith almost exclusively in government to rectify society's ills. Conservatives put more faith in the individual. The latter isn't foolproof, but it sure is better.

Who's right?

Yes...but if a party platform happens to get an issue right, what's wrong with acknoledging such?

Abortion & Homosexuality:

Sickening. You have absolutely no ground to stand on with regard to abortion. Your argument fails on the Constitutional front: (remember "life, liberty, pursuit of happiness?" That first one is kind of important!) Your argument fails on the moral front: You can dress up your terms all you want--"conservative to libertarian"--but you simply are not willing to stand up for the most helpless of our society, and that is about as unChristian a political view as exists. It still amazes me that anyone would feel that a mother's taking the life of her baby is a "personal decision." Baloney. Your argument fails on the societal front: I can think of nothing more destructive and destabilizing to a civilized society than the murder of the children by the parents and their doctors--the two entities with the highest charge of protecting said lives.

Your gay rights arguments did not raise my ire as much, because there is less of a helpless victimhood there. But Biblically, it's still wrong. There is no doubt it will destabilize and ruin our society and culture. And make no mistake: Lives are at stake...but I would say the bulk of our laws should be more on restricting the indoctrination that is taking place. And like it or not...the slippery slope is there. The door is open for all manner of immorality to not only exist, but to be legitimized by the government, and celebrated in our schools.

The economy:

What is unsaid, but implied, is the idea that "everyone ought to have the same." Poppycock.

We as Christians are called on to give. We are called on to help those in need. And there is precedent for Christians, voluntarily and of their own initiative and action, living lives of "extreme" sharing. But nowhere is there precedent for forced govermental confiscation and redistribution. It doesn't work. It hasn't worked. It won't work.

****

For those who say, "you can't legislate morality..."

Horsefeathers. Legislation is our recognition of a moral standard. Bad morality can be legislated...but one cannot have a code of laws that is fundamentally amoral. Why else would we outlaw killing, unless there was some higher moral law that made it wrong?

(Of course, in Eric's view, if you are an unborn baby, this does not apply, apparently...government 'shouldn't get involved,' I guess, in matters of right & wrong, life & death... :tear: ).