] It defies reason, in much the same way that 52% of the nation
] does. -k]

See, this statement is what scares me. Maybe it's because I'm more centrist? I can see valid points on both sides of the spectrum. I see and agree with points on the liberal side, and I also see and agree with points on the conservative side. I don't regard *either* side as having a 100% lock on Reason and Truth. It pains me when I hear liberals refer to the religious right as "evil". It also pains me when I hear those on the right say, "We want less government, because people should be able to make choices for themselves. Except when it comes to moral values."

Do you really believe that 52% of the nation is just clueless? Is there any part of you that can try to see things from the other side, even if just as an intellectual exercise? Or do you keep coming back to, "They're wrong, I'm right, they're all idiots"?

I truly believe that there are intelligent, wise, compassionate, patriotic people on *both* sides of the spectrum (and a lot of places in between). It bothers me to hear extremist views from either side, from people who deny the possibility that there might be intelligence on the other.

Elonka wrote:
] ] It defies reason, in much the same way that 52% of the
] nation
] ] does. -k]
]
] Do you really believe that 52% of the nation is just clueless?

[ No, i said they defied reason. They may well have put a lot of thought into it, but that doesn't change facts, only their interpretation of them. Am I saying their interpretation is wrong? Of course I am. If I thought their analysis was correct, we'd have voted the same way.

Honestly, though, the president talks about being a uniter, then unrepentantly exploits the wedge issues of gay marriage and abortion in order to win re-election. He talks about fiscal responsibility while behaving in a manner which is completely contrary to the principles thereof (and that's not my analysis, the Cato institute, among others, agrees). He was willfully ignorant about the realities in Iraq, and pushed a cooked up rationale for war, ignoring his generals and undermining the search for Bin Laden. If the president had said, "Saddam is a dangerous person and while the sanctions are containing him, they won't be tenable forever, and in the meantime, the Iraqis are suffering tremendously." I may well have reluctantly agreed to the invasion, but that's not how it happened.

Bush won on nationalism and swagger, because there is just no way to argue that his *actual record* points to success. It is 100% clear that vague notions of character and the impression of being a "good guy" is what the american voting public prefers (slightly), but that, to me, defies reason. I require some degree of proof that a person will a) do what they say and b) do it well, or try to. I see primarily stubbornness (which they'll tell you is "resolve") and a moral certitude that tiptoes around the edge of oppressive. Just because this generation of americans seems to want a return to religion in government doesn't change history, and it doesn't make it a good idea. But that's democracy isn't it? The best doesn't always win... the most popular wins... it's both the best and the worst feature of the system, and we'll have to deal with it.

Then, to be truthful, 52% of the american public probably is clueless. over 40% of them didn't even bother to vote, and i don't think it's a stretch to say there's 6% or more on either side that voted a party line without thinking. So yes, 52% of americans are clueless. But no, I don't think all Bush supporters were clueless. Just wrong. -k]

Elonka wrote:
] It pains me when I hear liberals refer to the
] religious right as "evil".

Hrm. I feel like I ought to respond to this again. Because it came up in our early discussion. And here it is again. And its not directed at me anymore, but when first presented you were twisting a position that I had expressed, and you still seem to be twisting that position.

Let me try to be as clear as possible about this. References that I make to Conservative Christians are a misnomer. I'm not actually referring to Conservative Christians. I am referring to the Conservative Christian political movement. To the extent that Conservative Christians feel that they want to practice their beleifs, and express their beliefs, and advocate their beleifs, without forcing others to conform to said beleifs against their will, they are not evil, and in fact I strongly defend their right to do these things.

However, this does not characterize the Conservative Christian political movement. When people talk about the "religious right" they aren't talking about Amish people. They're talking about the politically active religious right.

And when I say that this movement is evil, I am quite confident, and what I mean is not that it's intentions are bad. However, I'm quite confident that Al'Q beleives that its intentions are good as well. What I will say is that the radical fringes of this movement have blood on their hands, and that the political leadership of this movement is engaged in widespread deception, and that the ultimate goal of this movement is an outcome which has been proven, over and over again in history, to result in tremendous human suffering, and there can be no clearer definition of evil then that.

One can look directly to organizations, connected to this movement, which advocate and participate in terrorist attacks, such as in the 1996 Summer Olympics, in murders of physicians and lyncings of homosexuals, but it is not approriate to look at a political movement based on on the actions of it's radical fringe.

One must also look to the leadership, and see the deception that leadership engages in. At its heart that deception is the attitude that when someone engages in a behavior which you disapprove, they are forcing their beliefs on you, and that legislation is required to stop that behavior, so that you can be protected from it.

It is quite a straight forward matter of common sense that if someone is engaged in behavior that you don't like, but which has absolutely no effect on you in any way, that the beliefs of said people cannot be said to be forced upon you through such an action. It is quite a straight forward matter of common sense that by banning such behavior you are not protecting yourself from anything, in the case where such behavior has no effect on you, but rather you are forcing your beleifs upon others. To consider this otherwise is to engage in deception.

Bu... [ Read More (0.4k in body) ]