How does one side have all the truth?

What left leaning racists do I give a pass? Who are you talking about? Sharpton, et.al? Whenever I do mention them, it is critical, but in passing.

Unless you're thinking of someone else you consider racist. Or just saying I do not go after the left enough.
But the page is about conservativism, and the reason why, is because they are the ones often associated with evangelical Christianity and claim to be biblical.
The religious left (Jackson, etc) doesn't seem to claim such, so why even bother with them? The conservatives, by their own boast, are better at getting their views across (After all, Limbaugh and the others flourish while Air America keeps dying) and most liberals are usually more soft-spoken, as they have the institutions of the academia and Hollywood to get their influence across. So conservatives are the most vocal and the other, and have gotten their point across about liberalism. So you don't need another voice on the evils of liberalism.

That's why I liked Horton's Beyond Culture Wars so much. He nailed the issue. He too criticized both, but focused on conservatives because of their association with Christianity, and sees them as veering off of a Biblical focus at times.[/QUOTE]

Don't understand these last two points. I don't recall going directly into anti-iintellectualism.

Well, I never thought anyone would object on those subjects being "lumped together". And they are in separate sections. To say "clever" and "dishonest" implies I know this, but are deliberately trying to do something with it.

I know not all share all of those views. The point there was that I see the same attitudes undergirding those issue.

So that's why I don't completely identify with the liberals. I don't trust government either. (see also below on this).

One issue is different from claiming all issues, which was what was happening here.

Well, sorry about that. I guess I was wrong to say that. I've just given up on expecting the government to ever fix that problem. Everyone wants less government, less regulation, and even if you could have that, there is no guarantee it will ban abortion. The momentum of the secular viewpoint is too great. Haven't most of the Republican candidates even given in on it, to the point that a lot of you aren't happy with them?

And as Horton points out, it does no good to legislate morality when the problem is sin. People are not Christians, and don't believe in Biblical morality. The only thing that can solve that is the gospel, and even then, there is no way to make them believe it. (whether it is free will, or election).
However, since it is actual lives at stake, and the next step was partial-birth, I do not know what to suggest about that. Should the government be overthrown? I don't even think we have the power to do that.

I was curious on who you all who are passionate on that voted for this last time?

But I never say that. (all should have the same, and the government should force redistribution).

My statements on economics are a reaction to the blaming of the so-called "redistribution" that has already occurred for the economic problems, while defending the rich, (and as in Poncho's topics, ignoring the global factor). I belive money is being redistributed, but most of it is upward rather than downward. Downward was decreasing, until the health bill (which my page was written way before), and a lot of the complaining seems to be people's fears that this will increase their taxes. All I have heard so far is an end to the Bush era tax breaks for the wealthy. But that is probably opposed as well, because they are seen as "deserving" it (supply side economics).

Yet if people are already unhappy about taxes, then apparently they feel they should have more than they do (so it's not just "the poor" demanding more, or someone demanding absolute equal). But I think the problem is them looking the wrong way as for where all the money is going.

 

Well, you know what; I do admit it. (the arrogant tone) I'm basically responding in kind to what I am seeing; here, and over the past 30 years in politics. In a wide range of campaigns, writing, broadcast punditry, Christian writings, etc. I saw most liberal or Christian moderate responses as too soft-pedaled, and then vented in the same tone I have been seeing over the years. My wife always said I was becoming like those I was responding too.
So that was a mistake on my part.

Those pages are old, and contain a lot of stuff from the time I was getting off my chest (though some issues continue), and have moved away from the project, and even before this was thinking of what to do with it. Perhaps I'll just take it down. Maybe redo it for more current issues. Like in the racial area, it won't reflect "victimization" (But I wonder when conservatives will ever cut down on their victimization rhetoric. They're the ones who have mastered it now, and largely what I was responding to as well).

Now that I have seen conservative resposnses to it, I know how to tone it down so that you won't feel so unfairly put upon. So I apologize for this.

 

I didn't say "they made me do it". The idea is that when we choose to react to someone else and then become like them, it is our choice, so we made ourselves do it. But I guess you know nothing about that, since you never admit any error, and don't even have any deceit like every other human does.

So you make a big deal about me "admitting" things, but you don't accept admissions, nor even apologies, but only turn them back into more accusations. Well, it's obvious why, now. It's all "fun".

When I saw the issues here and the passion they were fought with, I took you seriously, but I see that was mistaken. You last night admitted I was "fun" to run around this mill of accusation of dishonesty, and that explains everything. You've exposed yourself now! You've blown your credibility. So the issue is therefore also not about truth.

So it also answers the OP, at least as far as you are concerned.

So say what you want; you're not to be taken seriously. Hope you've enjoyed yourself.

Thank you Dragoon for your post. Glad we can come to some sort of peaceful interaction.

 

To address the claim that I'm too hard on the right, and give others a pass, I have been meaning to post this:

http://www.erictb.info/rap.html

This ultimately stems from the same project that became the other page. It is basically in the same tone, but now aimed in a diametrically opposite direction. Same thing; I was very frustrated about the issue, and vented. (I look at it now, surprised at how fired up I was about it).

 

And you are what you are; and that's un-serious.

Let's not forget these bold faced lies