I don't believe in Santa Claus, but I'm not going to sue somebody for singing a Ho-Ho-Ho song in December. I don't agree with Darwin, but I didn't go out and hire a lawyer when my high school teacher taught his theory of evolution.

Life, liberty or your pursuit of happiness will not be endangered because someone says a 30-second prayer before a football game.

So what's the big deal? It's not like somebody is up there reading the entire book of Acts. They're just talking to a God they believe in and asking him to grant safety to the players on the field and the fans going home from the game.

But it's a Christian prayer, some will argue.

Yes, and this is the United States of America, a country founded on Christian principles. According to our very own phone book, Christian churches outnumber all others better than 200-to-1. So what would you expect-somebody chanting Hare Krishna?

If I went to a football game in Jerusalem, I would expect to hear a Jewish prayer.

If I went to a soccer game in Baghdad, I would expect to hear a Muslim prayer.

If I went to a ping pong match in China, I would expect to hear someone pray to Buddha.

And I wouldn't be offended. It wouldn't bother me one bit. When in Rome .

But what about the atheists? is another argument.

What about them?
Nobody is asking them to be baptized. We're not going to pass the collection plate. Just humor us for 30 seconds. If that's asking too much, bring a Walkman or a pair of ear plugs. Go to the bathroom. Visit the concession stand. Call your lawyer!

Unfortunately, one or two will make that call. One or two will tell thousands what they can and cannot do. I don't think a short prayer at a football game is going to shake the world's foundations.

Christians are just sick and tired of turning the other cheek while our courts strip us of all our rights. Our parents and grandparents taught us to pray before eating; to pray before we go to sleep.

Our Bible tells us to pray without ceasing. Now a handful of people and their lawyers are telling us to cease praying.

God, help us.
And if that last sentence offends you, well ... just sue me.

The silent majority has been silent too long. It's time we let that one or two who scream loud enough to be heard. That the vast majority don't care what they want. It is time the majority rules! It's time we tell them, you don't have to pray; you don't have to say the pledge of allegiance; you don't have to believe in God or attend services that honor Him. That is your right, and we will honor your right. But by golly, you are no longer going to take our rights away. We are fighting back ...
and we WILL WIN!

God bless us one and all ... especially those who denounce Him. God bless America, despite all her faults. She is still the greatest nation of all .

God bless our service men who are fighting to protect our right to pray and worship God.

May 2005 be the year the silent majority is heard and we put God back as the foundation of our families and institutions.
.
.
.
.
:)

I couldn't have said it better myself.

That is so right wing pro GWB.

Sometimes being in the middle alloy you some leeway.

Political correctness gets real old.

Even though I am atheist, I agree with you all the way. But...

Couldn't you replace this sentence :
She is still the greatest nation of all.
By this:
She is still one of the greatest nations.

No wonder you get bad replies by people from around the world. Saying that you are the best just means that we are of less value. We are not! And even if we were, then you aren't the best anymore if you keep bragging about it.
No offence!

Even though I am atheist, I agree with you all the way. But...

Couldn't you replace this sentence :
She is still the greatest nation of all.
By this:
She is still one of the greatest nations.

No wonder you get bad replies by people from around the world. Saying that you are the best just means that we are of less value. We are not! And even if we were, then you aren't the best anymore if you keep bragging about it.
No offence!


It is more of showing pride for your country. No different than a Canadien saying Canada is still the greatest nation of all, or a German saying it, etc...

Consider it less bragging and more pride and honor (for your country).

Similar to Hockey teams saying they have the best fans on the planet. Baseball fans don't get up in arms about it, they just disagree and think they are the best fans.

:)

Newman,

We're told we are the best. And we'd be considered unpatriotic if we were to dissent. :cool:
I've had arguments with my fellow Americans when I've asked what makes us the best. And I've asked how they can know we are the best when this is the only place they've ever lived. All I get is propaganda.

I'm not saying America is a horrible place. I'd agree with you that it's ONE of the best. But I don't know which country I would consider to be the best society in which to live.

I don't agree with Darwin, but I didn't go out and hire a lawyer when my high school teacher taught his theory of evolution.
Hmmm... this isn't so true anymore, now is it?

Yes, and this is the United States of America, a country founded on Christian principles.
It still amazes me how many people believe this. This country was founded by Christians, not on Christian principles. There is not one single element to the Constitution or Bill of Rights that has any relationship to Christianity whatsoever. Except of course for the part where it explicitly states that the government will have nothing to do with religion. Even the references to God in the Declaration of Independence make no reference to moral values or Christian principles.

I just love how the religious right tries to circumvent the Constitution by claiming special insight into the mindset of the framers.

If I went to a football game in Jerusalem...
If I went to a soccer game in Baghdad...
If I went to a ping pong match in China...
Ah yes, Israel...Iraq...China. These are shining examples of countries with religious freedom such as we can only hope to achieve! :rolleyes:

(I wonder why he didn't list a city in China?)

Christians are just sick and tired of turning the other cheek while our courts strip us of all our rights. Our parents and grandparents taught us to pray before eating; to pray before we go to sleep.
Who says you can't? Are any children being thrown out of school for praying at lunch time? No.

BTW, isn't 'turning the other cheek' what Jesus teaches? Isn't it extraordinarily hypocritical to claim the Christian thing to do is to stop turning the other cheek? :confused:

The silent majority has been silent too long.
I agree. But if Paul Harvey thinks the silent majority are Christians, he's got another thing coming. The silent majority are the people in the middle of the road; it's the extremists in this country who make the noise.

God bless our service men who are fighting to protect our right to pray and worship God.
God bless the priests who carry out their instructions to deny communion to politicians who do not support the Church's political positions. And let God not bless the service men who are fighting to protect our right not to pray or worship God.

Newman,

We're told we are the best. And we'd be considered unpatriotic if we were to dissent. :cool:
I've had arguments with my fellow Americans when I've asked what makes us the best. And I've asked how they can know we are the best when this is the only place they've ever lived. All I get is propaganda.

I'm not saying America is a horrible place. I'd agree with you that it's ONE of the best. But I don't know which country I would consider to be the best society in which to live.

Why Tess; Texas of course.

I don't believe in Santa Claus, but I'm not going to sue somebody for singing a Ho-Ho-Ho song in December.

and athiests in your country don't sue the government for the wording on your dollar bills either:rolleyes:

Life, liberty or your pursuit of happiness will not be endangered because someone says a 30-second prayer before a football game.
nah, you just get bored waiting for the kick off

Yes, and this is the United States of America, a country founded on Christian principles

When did you abandon them?:confused:

Christians are just sick and tired of turning the other cheek while our courts strip us of all our rights.

this is from the shoot first, ask questions later country, this is a comedy sketch, surely:rolleyes:

God, help us.

somebody's got too, but then he hasn't helped much in the past, has he? perhaps you should start looking somehere else


God bless America, despite all her faults. She is still the greatest nation of all .
depends on whether you've been murdered or not


God bless our service men who are fighting to protect our right to pray and worship God.

In Iraq? :confused:

Kenny, just curious, why wasn't this posted in the jokes thread? best laugh I've had for yonks

It still amazes me how many people believe this. This country was founded by Christians, not on Christian principles. There is not one single element to the Constitution or Bill of Rights that has any relationship to Christianity whatsoever. Except of course for the part where it explicitly states that the government will have nothing to do with religion. Even the references to God in the Declaration of Independence make no reference to moral values or Christian principles.

I just love how the religious right tries to circumvent the Constitution by claiming special insight into the mindset of the framers.


I'm guessing that if a bunch of Christain people establish a country, it would be likely that they considered their Christain beliefs when they did up the rules. However, seems they were a bit short-sighted when they claimed to want seperation of Church and State and then put the word 'God' all over everything... :confused:

Christians are just sick and tired of turning the other cheek while our courts strip us of all our rights.



BTW, isn't 'turning the other cheek' what Jesus teaches? Isn't it extraordinarily hypocritical to claim the Christian thing to do is to stop turning the other cheek? :confused:
.

I agree with you Kraj. Just another instance of a religious extremist (In the UK we call them nutters) claiming to follow Christian teachings, whilst in reality only following the bits they like.

As an atheist from childhood, (I was brought up to make my own mind up about religion not brainwashed every Sunday like so many of my friends) I do recall from the many turgid school lessons of Religious Instruction we had to endure that one of Christ's main teachings was to "turn the other cheek". Seems to me this Harvey chap (whoever he is) obviously knows better than the figure he's supposed to venerate as the son of God. Wasn't Christ supposed to have preached humility too?

Paul Harvey is a fraud and a lunatic. Read the following:

Harvey's commentary began by lamenting the decline of American wartime aggression. "We're standing there dying, daring to do nothing decisive because we've declared ourselves to be better than our terrorist enemies--more moral, more civilized," he said. Drawing a contrast with what he cast as the praiseworthy nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War II, Harvey lamented that "we sent men with rifles into Afghanistan and Iraq and kept our best weapons in their silos"--suggesting that America should have used its nuclear arsenal in its invasions of both countries.

Harvey concluded:

"We didn't come this far because we're made of sugar candy. Once upon a time, we elbowed our way onto and across this continent by giving smallpox-infected blankets to Native Americans. That was biological warfare. And we used every other weapon we could get our hands on to grab this land from whomever.

"And we grew prosperous. And yes, we greased the skids with the sweat of slaves. So it goes with most great nation-states, which--feeling guilty about their savage pasts--eventually civilize themselves out of business and wind up invaded and ultimately dominated by the lean, hungry up-and-coming who are not made of sugar candy."

No wonder we are the most hated nation on the planet. People actually think this guy is some kind of modern day philosopher. He's an idiot, maybe senility is getting him, whatever. :mad:

People actually think this guy is some kind of modern day philosopher. He's an idiot, maybe senility is getting him, whatever. :mad:

I don't think so, i think he's one hell of a stand-up comedian...
Why even take the stuff he writes serious?

Having never heard of Paul Harvey I now conclude that he's a twat! :)

They're just talking to a God they believe in and asking him to grant safety to the players on the field and the fans going home from the game.

In as much as I believe that religion should be separate from the state I don't think there's a place for religion in entertainment either...the GOD Channel on Sky being an exception since viewing that becomes choice.


Our parents and grandparents taught us to pray before eating; to pray before we go to sleep.
To pray before thinking?


Christians are just sick and tired of turning the other cheek while our courts strip us of all our rights.

I hate this half-assed statement. Rights aren't stripped; you are still free to pray in a place of worship and in the body of your own home. Where better?


God bless our service men who are fighting to protect our right to pray and worship God.
Oh...it's a holy war America's involved in? :rolleyes:



If I went to a ping pong match in China, I would expect to hear someone pray to Buddha.

Ah, ping pong matches. Nothing like bringing out the stereotypes, is there?



God bless America, despite all her faults. She is still the greatest nation of all .

Now this wouldn't have bothered me if he'd said "She is still, in my opinion, the greatest nation of all." but he didn't and made it sound so matter of fact that its nothing more than a piece of blunt brainwashing. I'm currently reading Aldous Huxley's Brave New World and the introduction of political and social mantras into one's life seems like of foreshadowing of such brainwashing.

Wow. This must have really struck a nerve. It even got SJ riled up... :D

People actually think this guy is some kind of modern day philosopher. He's an idiot, maybe senility is getting him, whatever. :mad:
' reminds me of a twat here called the Rev Ian Paisley:rolleyes:
I bet they're both Bush supporters

I'm currently reading Aldous Huxley's Brave New World and the introduction of political and social mantras into one's life seems like of foreshadowing of such brainwashing.

The symptoms of future shock are with us now...

Different book, same take. :D

' reminds me of a twat here called the Rev Ian Paisley:rolleyes:
I bet they're both Bush supporters

On November 09, 2005, Paul Harvey received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from President George W. Bush. :rolleyes:

The symptoms of future shock are with us now..

Being an owner of this (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000025AZA/qid=1134561239/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl15/002-4028106-6403248?v=glance&s=music&n=507846) on vinyl I can assure you that the symptons are awful. :(

Being an owner of this (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000025AZA/qid=1134561239/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl15/002-4028106-6403248?v=glance&s=music&n=507846) on vinyl I can assure you that the symptons are awful. :(

do you mean the music is pretty bad?

On November 09, 2005, Paul Harvey received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from President George W. Bush. :rolleyes:
what does that mean?

or is it given to everyone, like the purple heart medal that soldiers get for cutting their finger opening a tin of beans.

Col

do you mean the music is pretty bad?
Thinking back on it...yes. Ian Gillan, of Deep Purple and Black Sabbath, with a new band; early 80s rock with pitch-phased voices, etc.

Seeing that the re-released CD is going for about $75 on the Amazon marketplace I wonder how much the original vinyl in good condition would fetch. Along with all my other classic rock vinyl...e.g. Alice Cooper's School's Out in which the album cover was also a fold out desk, and all the early AC/DC stuff.

what does that mean?

or is it given to everyone, like the purple heart medal that soldiers get for cutting their finger opening a tin of beans.

Col

evidently it doesn't take any brains...

Thinking back on it...yes. Ian Gillan, of Deep Purple and Black Sabbath, with a new band; early 80s rock with pitch-phased voices, etc.

Seeing that the re-released CD is going for about $75 on the Amazon marketplace I wonder how much the original vinyl in good condition would fetch. Along with all my other classic rock vinyl...e.g. Alice Cooper's School's Out in which the album cover was also a fold out desk, and all the early AC/DC stuff.

Right now there is one on Ebay with a buy it now (http://cgi.ebay.com/FUTURE-SHOCK-IAN-GILLAN-LIKE-NEW-UK-LP-W-BOOK-ROCK_W0QQitemZ4780162809QQcategoryZ306QQssPageName ZWD1VQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem)price of $45.99 (US dollars).

Wonder why the CD is worth more. Probably because it carries extra tracks.

Wonder why the CD is worth more. Probably because it carries extra tracks.

Probably 'cause CD's are more popular than vinyl. After all, most folks don't even have a turntable anymore.

When will the bible-beating, rhetoric-spouting, "good Christian" people realize that the United States most definitely was NOT founded on Christian principles, nor religion, but most certainly WAS founded on FREEDOM of religion. Any religion. We are supposed to have the right to believe as we choose, no matter what we choose. If you want your children to pray to your god, teach them to do so, instill your mantra, and let them decide. Spirituality is an individual concern, not a roadmap created by someone else to control the masses. Don't pray in my schools and I won't think in your church. When I go to a football game, I don't want to hear a prayer, I want to see the game...if I wanted a prayer, I'd have gone to a church.

Last time I checked, we are still taught that our Founding Fathers were fleeing religious persecution...isn't it ironic that the opressed have become the opressors in a mere 200 years?

and as Paul Harvey says:
"Now you know the rest of the story....good day."

Sometimes being in the middle alloy you some leeway.
That's the funny part, all you liberals say your in the middle :p

I'm guessing that if a bunch of Christain people establish a country, it would be likely that they considered their Christain beliefs when they did up the rules.
Which is exactly why they went out of their way to keep their beliefs seperate from their government. If these smart men believed that Christian morals were essential to government, why didn't they write them into the Constitution? Would you have me believe that a group of men who designed the most stable government in modern history simply couldn't conceive of a government not dictated by Christian beliefs? Mmmhmmm, sure...

However, seems they were a bit short-sighted when they claimed to want seperation of Church and State and then put the word 'God' all over everything... :confused:
Ummm... what, excatly, did they put the word "God" on (other than one instance of "nature's God" in the Declaration of Independence)?

That's the funny part, all you liberals say your in the middle :p
Actually, the funny part is that when you're extremely conservative everybody except other extreme conservatives looks like a liberal. (And vice versa.)

Which is exactly why they went out of their way to keep their beliefs seperate from their government. If these smart men believed that Christian morals were essential to government, why didn't they write them into the Constitution? Would you have me believe that a group of men who designed the most stable government in modern history simply couldn't conceive of a government not dictated by Christian beliefs? Mmmhmmm, sure...


Seems you're pretty much dug in on this when you twist a 'considered' into a 'dictated', etc. In which case I doubt anything substainal will come of our dialog... :)

Seems you're pretty much dug in on this when you twist a 'considered' into a 'dictated', etc. In which case I doubt anything substainal will come of our dialog... :)
Fair enough, but the law doesn't suggest behavior, it dictates it. If Christians want the law to reflect Christian morals, then they want Christian morals to dictate behavior. Perhaps the framers were well aware that if they codified their beliefs (as Christians today want to do), they would be dictating.

If you want Christian morals to be "considered" in the lawmaking process, then elect Christians to office and trust that they will consider their morals and make the right decision (which might not be the "Christian" one).

Fair enough, but the law doesn't suggest behavior, it dictates it. If Christians want the law to reflect Christian morals, then they want Christian morals to dictate behavior. Perhaps the framers were well aware that if they codified their beliefs (as Christians today want to do), they would be dictating.

If you want Christian morals to be "considered" in the lawmaking process, then elect Christians to office and trust that they will consider their morals and make the right decision (which might not be the "Christian" one).

Excellent points. I think I'm closer to you on this than I may be willing to openly admit ;) . For instance, our Pastor is on the 'let us have prayer time in school' and 'leave the Ten Commandments in the courthouse' bandwagons. However, my stance is that these are fine as long as the local community want it that way. But if issues arise, do away with them for I as a Christian would not want Islamic or Buddha stuff everywhere...

do away with them for I as a Christian would not want Islamic or Buddha stuff everywhere...
why not, what are you afraid of?:confused:

See the seperation of church and state was brought about to keep government out of religon. As I understand it they wanted to be able to serve their God as their religon permits. They didn't want state ran churchs (Oh hail the mighty and powerful God Hillary Clinton). What it does not say is it has to keep religon out of government. Now that the problem seems to be that would be a mighty fine line, and there we have it. But I think each community should be able to handle these issue on their level. Why should a public school in the bible belt in a city with a population of 350 have to suffer because some libreral nut in LA didn't like it there? I think the swings too much in either direction are bad.

See the seperation of church and state was brought about to keep government out of religon. As I understand it they wanted to be able to serve their God as their religon permits. They didn't want state ran churchs (Oh hail the mighty and powerful God Hillary Clinton). What it does not say is it has to keep religon out of government. Now that the problem seems to be that would be a mighty fine line, and there we have it. But I think each community should be able to handle these issue on their level. Why should a public school in the bible belt in a city with a population of 350 have to suffer because some libreral nut in LA didn't like it there? I think the swings too much in either direction are bad.

I too would tend to go for the local control thing, for the good reasons you pointed out :)

Why should a public school in the bible belt in a city with a population of 350 have to suffer because some libreral nut in LA didn't like it there? I think the swings too much in either direction are bad.
Why should a free thinker have to suffer indoctrination in the bible belt?:confused:

See the seperation of church and state was brought about to keep government out of religon. [...] What it does not say is it has to keep religon out of government. Now that the problem seems to be that would be a mighty fine line, and there we have it.
That's an excellent way of expressing that. Kudos! I also agree with choices being made by communities.

Rich, if a person is truly a free thinker then they will continue to think freely whether or not a group around them chooses to pray. No one is being forced to pray.

That's an excellent way of expressing that. Kudos! I also agree with choices being made by communities.
Aren't those the same communities that hated blacks and now hate gays too?:confused:

Rich, if a person is truly a free thinker then they will continue to think freely whether or not a group around them chooses to pray. No one is being forced to pray.
They have to be given a chance to think freely though, don't they?

That's an excellent way of expressing that. Kudos! I also agree with choices being made by communities.

Rich, if a person is truly a free thinker then they will continue to think freely whether or not a group around them chooses to pray. No one is being forced to pray.

And they would also be FREE to move to a more liberal community :)

And they would also be FREE to move to a more liberal community :)
yeah that's what Cav said about those abandoned to their own fate in the wake of Katrina:rolleyes:

Aren't those the same communities that hated blacks and now hate gays too?:confused:
I don't believe anyone has been referring to any specific communities, we've been saying all communities should have the right to determine their own religious expression. And no, not all communities that may choose a degree of religious expression in their schools are full of homophobes and/or (former) racists.

They have to be given a chance to think freely though, don't they?
So which are we talking about? Free thinkers or potential free thinkers?

So which are we talking about? Free thinkers or potential free thinkers?
Even free thinkers can be persuaded otherwise more especially if they're young and impressionable

Even free thinkers can be persuaded otherwise more especially if they're young and impressionable
Then they're not exactly free thinkers are they?

I find it interesting that your usage of the term "free thinkers" appears to preclude the religious. Wouldn't abolishing personal religious expression in schools prevent individuals from freely choosing to express themselves? Is freely choosing not to engage in religious expression more valid than freely choosing to engage in religious expression? Isn't the choice to relinquish one's independent thought in favor of groupthink a valid personal choice one should be free to make, even if we think that choice is a terrible one?

That's the funny part, all you liberals say your in the middle :p


I think anyone that applies intellectual vigor to reviewing my words would find me squarely in the middle, with occasional leanings towards one side or the other.

I expect to hear a resounding comment from both sides of the fence on that one.

Which of course will prove my point.

oh, c'mon we're all brainwashed in some way.
Our environment shapes us.
We could be conditioned to worship a Coke bottle.

Why should it be a Coke bottle?
I want to worship a Pepsi can.:D

Ok. But I don't want to see any Pepsi vending machines in the court house!!!

Ok. But I don't want to see any Pepsi vending machines in the court house!!!
coke and pepsi machines are being banned in schools here now because the kids become aggressive, insolent and even violent after drinking them.
Is there such a machine in the White House at the minute?:cool:

oh, c'mon we're all brainwashed in some way.
Our environment shapes us.
We could be conditioned to worship a Coke bottle.

Haven't you been already?:D

:o
On some level, that is very true!

Why should a free thinker have to suffer indoctrination in the bible belt?:confused:
Or maybe a closed minded individule might be able to see the light of day (dang another slang). But why should 100 kids be dictated to by one, is that not in a loose sense kind of what the NAZI's were all about?

Aren't those the same communities that hated blacks and now hate gays too?:confused:
Humm, sounds like a little predujice on your part to me. Seems like someone is jumping to conclusions without any facts. Oh there's a news flash (another slang?)

Even free thinkers can be persuaded otherwise more especially if they're young and impressionable
And that is what free thinking is all about! The only difference I see from your example is who maybe imposing thoughts on the free thinker. So if that free thinker does not go along with your thinking, then all of a sudden it is brain washing?

I think anyone that applies intellectual vigor to reviewing my words would find me squarely in the middle, with occasional leanings towards one side or the other.
As Liberals think....

And that is what free thinking is all about! The only difference I see from your example is who maybe imposing thoughts on the free thinker. So if that free thinker does not go along with your thinking, then all of a sudden it is brain washing?
There's a difference between teaching and preaching

Or maybe a closed minded individule might be able to see the light of day (dang another slang). But why should 100 kids be dictated to by one, is that not in a loose sense kind of what the NAZI's were all about?
Exactly, now why should one man in a white house dictate to the world?:rolleyes:
Why should one old fart in a frock dictate to millions, eh?:rolleyes:

As Liberals think....

Actually, many liberals do... maybe that's where the divider lies... :eek:

From what I can tell from my local landscape and from where I came from (respectively urban northeast liberal vs. suburban midwest conservative) the political spectrum tends to dictate that a larger percentage of conservatives are more 'staunchly' conservative versus those who could or would be considered leftists since many of the root philosophies of leftists involve consideration for all parties including that of conservatives (leftists fight for the underdog, conservatives for the 'majority' -- IE, Christians outnumber buddhists). It is easier then to have 'middle ground' liberals (which is sadly mistaken in the US for 'indecisiveness') if only because the gravitational pull of consideration for all parties is applied. It's also not suprising that leftists are in a traditionally weaker fighting stance because they must battle the concept of fighting for the minority while appealing to the majority. When the political landscape is not so polarized as it is now this carries less import since the battles being fought seem more casual and at times, the cause of the minorty grows to that of the majority (vietnam, civil rights just to name a few). But with such a highly polarized landscape (one could question to what extent an overactive media has played a role in this) the appeal for minority protection with a need for majority votes leaves them straddling a rather great divide.

Just my two cents.
~chad

Actually, many liberals do... maybe that's where the divider lies... :eek:

From what I can tell from my local landscape and from where I came from (respectively urban northeast liberal vs. suburban midwest conservative) the political spectrum tends to dictate that a larger percentage of conservatives are more 'staunchly' conservative versus those who could or would be considered leftists since many of the root philosophies of leftists involve consideration for all parties including that of conservatives (leftists fight for the underdog, conservatives for the 'majority' -- IE, Christians outnumber buddhists). It is easier then to have 'middle ground' liberals (which is sadly mistaken in the US for 'indecisiveness') if only because the gravitational pull of consideration for all parties is applied. It's also not suprising that leftists are in a traditionally weaker fighting stance because they must battle the concept of fighting for the minority while appealing to the majority. When the political landscape is not so polarized as it is now this carries less import since the battles being fought seem more casual and at times, the cause of the minorty grows to that of the majority (vietnam, civil rights just to name a few). But with such a highly polarized landscape (one could question to what extent an overactive media has played a role in this) the appeal for minority protection with a need for majority votes leaves them straddling a rather great divide.

Just my two cents.
~chad

Well put (IMHO) Good to see you back in the mix :)

Not only well put, but also an extremely good point.

How've you been, Chad? Long time, no see. Are you still acting?

Good to be back. I've just swamped to hell with life and work. Moved, saw my first solo application at the office take flight, dealt with horrid issues with the ex who I almost have to see daily (lives 60ft from my apt), and now dealing with the police and ejecting a very bad roommate with a drug problem. Haven't really had the time to chat and, thanks to the forums, haven't much need to post or even stop by for help... But things are slowing down (at least I believe so now that that app of mine has started running -- now I get to pioneer some SQL Server development! :eek:).

How's everyone else been?
~Chad

Not only well put, but also any extremely good point.

Could you summarize it for me? To me it started like an attack thing then meandered around a while and then ended up sounding like some sort of excuse...?

Was it; Because liberals must represent a fragmented group set (all the different minorities), they have a hard time maintaining momentum. ?

Wow, that's a heckuva lot! What happend with your girlfriend? Things had been going well last we heard. :(

Actually as a sidenote to my post, though I recognize no political structure can be so simply put (iow, conservatives can be 'conservatives' for differing reasons than the overwhelming generalization I presented), if we, for a moment, accept my generalization does not the Christian Right seem a contradiction in terms? (Majority rule vs. protecting the minority?) The Beatitudes (as argued by many to be far more important in christian religious and moral significance than the ten commandments) have a clearly leftist bendt. Yet history has shown us time and time again that there are occasional waves of christian zealotry (no, I'm not ignoring that other religions have proven this too, merely focusing on christianity) that lead to actions that truly do seem to blatantly ignore the beatific guidelines supposed to be set forth for the backbone for the christian moral authority (french purging of protestants, crusades, etc).

I'm very curious to know if this has been tracked and studied? What factors lead to the development of that type of mentality and could we say that is, in so many ways, happening in America right now? Moreso, has it happened before? Massacres of the flesh are far more difficult to find in our modern world but other types of massacre can still take place (financial, religious, political, etc).

~Chad

Could you summarize it for me? To me it started like an attack thing then meandered around a while and then ended up sounding like some sort of excuse...?

Was it; Because liberals must represent a fragmented group set (all the different minorities), they have a hard time maintaining momentum. ?
I'm confused...you said that the post was well-put, but now it seems you don't think so?

In any case, the point Chad was making is that the position of a libral tends to take into account consideration for all sides of an issue, including the conservative side. In contrast, a conservative tends to be very focused on his or her own perspective. The effect of this is a more widespread set of views that fall under the "liberal" blanket and a weaker political platform than the more narrowly focused conservative platform.

Could you summarize it for me? To me it started like an attack thing then meandered around a while and then ended up sounding like some sort of excuse...?

Was it; Because liberals must represent a fragmented group set (all the different minorities), they have a hard time maintaining momentum. ?

Oh it wasn't an attack the first line was wholly meant in jest.

I wasn't actually referring to whom the leftists must represent as much as whose interests they set out to protect (different concepts).

Merely, the point is that a major difference in political philosophy exists between the rightist and leftists whereby one seeks to protect the interests of the majority (but first must decide on a 'majority') and one seeks to protect the interests of the minority.

More easly put: If you have 34 apples, 24 oranges, and 3 pears the rightist philosophy tends towards protecting the interests of the apples first, the organges are considered but if in direct contention with the apples often must give, and the pears ignored. In leftist philosophy the view is narrowed to the existance of a type: we have pears, oranges and apples -- three entities and each, theoretically, deserves equal right even if those rights are in direct contention with one another. But the leftist does not exclude apples from that view of whose interests must be protected so they are also seeking to protect the same interests of the conservatives if not to the same total effect.

In this way 'extreme liberals' are actually much more similar to conservatives where your 'middle grounders' are much closer to being what a true liberal is. This is all in response to the comments posted earlier in how all liberals believe they are in the middle ground and in so many ways they are. The draw of protection of the conservative agenda as well as the liberal agenda not only weakens their position on the political battlefied in winning opinion but inevitably gravitates them closer to center.

It's silly to believe that liberals fight only for the minority because at some point the minority does become the majority after enough battles have been one and then they find themselves tearing down that which they built. Rather an all-inclusive philosophy tends to motivate the base.

~Chad

I'm confused...you said that the post was well-put, but now it seems you don't think so?

In any case, the point Chad was making is that the position of a libral tends to take into account consideration for all sides of an issue, including the conservative side. In contrast, a conservative tends to be very focused on his or her own perspective. The effect of this is a more widespread set of views that fall under the "liberal" blanket and a weaker political platform than the more narrowly focused conservative platform.

Much better put than I! Cheers mate.

I'm confused...you said that the post was well-put, but now it seems you don't think so?

In any case, the point Chad was making is that the position of a libral tends to take into account consideration for all sides of an issue, including the conservative side. In contrast, a conservative tends to be very focused on his or her own perspective. The effect of this is a more widespread set of views that fall under the "liberal" blanket and a weaker political platform than the more narrowly focused conservative platform.

Hum... Ok. So we were kinda on the same page.

Sorry, I quess I did over react a bit. I quess it was from the conditioning of the 'Traditional' banter around here and it was refreshing to see a non bitter, 'I hate Americans' post - I was over egar to respond. Still the post was food for thought. (For me at least :))

Wow, that's a heckuva lot! What happend with your girlfriend? Things had been going well last we heard. :(

The girl is young and making several very poor choices. She's never really grown out of this staunchly independent phase where she believes that people can't and shouldn't grow and / or change in relationships to make things work. And of course it's a gray issue -- you can't change and shouldn't seek to change a partner, but the best relationships, I believe, are the ones in which change is willing to help grease the wheels of happiness -- she believes such things are a destruction of the very rigid idea she holds of her 'self' and as such refuses to grow. I've done my growing as a person and, well, I've kinda left her in the dust behind me and eventually came to see it all as a one-way street of my giving and not receiving.

Tis very sad. She lost a good one who was willing to do a lot for her.

I quess it was from the conditioning of the 'Traditional' banter around here and it was refreshing to see a non bitter, 'I hate Americans' post -


Where are those to?

Oh it wasn't an attack the first line was wholly meant in jest.

I wasn't actually referring to whom the leftists must represent as much as whose interests they set out to protect (different concepts).

Merely, the point is that a major difference in political philosophy exists between the rightist and leftists whereby one seeks to protect the interests of the majority (but first must decide on a 'majority') and one seeks to protect the interests of the minority.

More easly put: If you have 34 apples, 24 oranges, and 3 pears the rightist philosophy tends towards protecting the interests of the apples first, the organges are considered but if in direct contention with the apples often must give, and the pears ignored. In leftist philosophy the view is narrowed to the existance of a type: we have pears, oranges and apples -- three entities and each, theoretically, deserves equal right even if those rights are in direct contention with one another. But the leftist does not exclude apples from that view of whose interests must be protected so they are also seeking to protect the same interests of the conservatives if not to the same total effect.

In this way 'extreme liberals' are actually much more similar to conservatives where your 'middle grounders' are much closer to being what a true liberal is. This is all in response to the comments posted earlier in how all liberals believe they are in the middle ground and in so many ways they are. The draw of protection of the conservative agenda as well as the liberal agenda not only weakens their position on the political battlefied in winning opinion but inevitably gravitates them closer to center.

It's silly to believe that liberals fight only for the minority because at some point the minority does become the majority after enough battles have been one and then they find themselves tearing down that which they built. Rather an all-inclusive philosophy tends to motivate the base.

~Chad

That’s a colorful and well done follow - up. Thanks for putting the effort into it. And the 'looking out for the minority' by the Liberals is a noble gesture. The problem as I see it, in the US, you will eventually end up with 280 million individual types to accommodate... (At which point we may be back to square one anyway...?)

What do you think? Am I missing something?

That’s a colorful and well done follow - up. Thanks for putting the effort into it. And the 'looking out for the minority' by the Liberals is a noble gesture. The problem as I see it, in the US, you will eventually end up with 280 million individual types to accommodate... (At which point we may be back to square one anyway...?)

What do you think? Am I missing something?

Mmmmwhahaha, yes, come closer my pretty. :p That is -exactly- my point as to why no one side really has the equation entirely balanced in my opinion. You do end up with 280 million 'types.' I wish I had the answer as to how to protect everyone's interests fairly but there is no direct way short of the tug of war in our political system where one side has power for a while, then the other side so that if you can't protect both at the same time, maybe it can be done so by 'sharing' the spotlight -- a little bit of good from a two-party system. Wouldn't it be nice if we didn't have to bicker and kill one-another to get there, though?

~chad

Mmmmwhahaha, yes, come closer my pretty. :p That is -exactly- my point as to why no one side really has the equation entirely balanced in my opinion. You do end up with 280 million 'types.' I wish I had the answer as to how to protect everyone's interests fairly but there is no direct way short of the tug of war in our political system where one side has power for a while, then the other side so that if you can't protect both at the same time, maybe it can be done so by 'sharing' the spotlight -- a little bit of good from a two-party system. Wouldn't it be nice if we didn't have to bicker and kill one-another to get there, though?

~chad

You know, speaking of killing one another, I have mixed feelings about Iraq, I'm glad they're finally getting to vote and decide their destiny, I think it's admirable that loved one are will to die for them to give them that right, etc, etc, etc. The thing I can't fathom is how can W appear on TV night after night in an upbeat mood while bullets are killing my friends. And I'm sure it's not just W, if Kerry was there I sure we'd see the same thing....

Just some thoughts...

From what I can tell from my local landscape and from where I came from (respectively urban northeast liberal
So just because of the geography you are pretty much a left leaner.
who could or would be considered leftists since many of the root philosophies of leftists involve consideration for all parties including that of conservatives (leftists fight for the underdog
Interesting, except today GWB seems to be the "underdog" and I sure do not see people like Rich fighting for him, so maybe it is more of a choosen underdog rather than all underdog's? Besides I hear that dribble (The left considers all) but only if the "all" agree with them. You never truly know where a liberal stands. You may think you know, than WHAM, the wind changes, and so does what they stand for. Oh you say, that is just the politicians, which I then assume you mean the left's leaders?
More easly put: If you have 34 apples, 24 oranges, and 3 pears the rightist philosophy tends towards protecting the interests of the apples first, the organges are considered but if in direct contention with the apples often must give, and the pears ignored. In leftist philosophy the view is narrowed to the existance of a type: we have pears, oranges and apples -- three entities and each, theoretically, deserves equal right even if those rights are in direct contention with one another. But the leftist does not exclude apples from that view of whose interests must be protected so they are also seeking to protect the same interests of the conservatives if not to the same total effect.
I like that, however it would seem that even a neat example, just shows to display the gap the left likes to put in the differances. It has been my experience that the right does care about the "pears", how ever not to the point that they deserve 1/3 of the output when they don't supply the same input. But apples and oranges aside, lets just dive in headfirst. Pretty mush the left wants to throw more money at the poor. The last 40 years has pretty much tought us that has not had the desired effect of helping them out of the position they find themselves in. And as a result it has actually created more poor because the kids see their parents getting a free check from the gov., so they do the same thing (yes not all, but I get to generalize too). Where as the right says, If we are going to throw money at this problem, lets at least try to fix it instead of making it worse. I don't pretend to have the answer, so don't ask. And at least by outward appearance it is in the Left's best interest to keep things like they are because it drives their vote count up.
In this way 'extreme liberals' are actually much more similar to conservatives where your 'middle grounders' are much closer to being what a true liberal is.
Ha, that one is dead on!
I wish I had the answer as to how to protect everyone's interests fairly but there is no direct way short of the tug of war in our political system where one side has power for a while, then the other side so that if you can't protect both at the same time, maybe it can be done so by 'sharing' the spotlight
So maybe our founding fathers got that right also, well maybe they didn't dictate a two party system, but balancing the power I think is what they had in mind.

You know, speaking of killing one another, I have mixed feelings about Iraq, I'm glad they're finally getting to vote and decide their destiny, I think it's admirable that loved one are will to die for them to give them that right, etc, etc, etc. The thing I can't fathom is how can W appear on TV night after night in an upbeat mood while bullets are killing my friends. And I'm sure it's not just W, if Kerry was there I sure we'd see the same thing....

Just some thoughts...

You're right. Once we had foolishly gotten into this mess it was to be a mess no matter who had charge of it but you bring up another interesting point of distinction between the right and left. I can't say I've totally embraced it or that I've internally shot this down, more or less that I haven't really analyzed it closely but it was pointed out to me that supposedly it's historically correct to say that the right traditionally seeks to make permanent changes in american life whereas the leftists, all too aware of their attempts to protect all, tend to move towards more temporary solutions. This was presented to me in the form of alaskan oil and how once it is allowed it is considerably more difficult to disallow after billions are put into infrastructure and how that resource will never be the same. I don't know enough political history to go digging for other examples but, if true, then the war would be a perfect example -- a choice, knowingly made when made, that it could not be undone or revoked when increased sanctioning, etc could have it's course altered mid-flight.

~Chad

So just because of the geography you are pretty much a left leaner.

You shouldn't make assumptions like that. In portions of Queens and almost exclusively in Staten Island and certain in parts of Jersey you have extreme rightists. Let's not forget where the RNC happened before the elections.

Interesting, except today GWB seems to be the "underdog" and I sure do not see people like Rich fighting for him, so maybe it is more of a choosen underdog rather than all underdog's? Besides I hear that dribble (The left considers all) but only if the "all" agree with them. You never truly know where a liberal stands. You may think you know, than WHAM, the wind changes, and so does what they stand for. Oh you say, that is just the politicians, which I then assume you mean the left's leaders?

You do know where a liberal stands -- for the least common denominator as equally as the most common. As the power shifts so too must the political philosophy. My personal sense of self is as a supple individual who is capable of adaptation, growth in new direction and the understanding that 'right' is not a direct concept with black and white answers to everything but is more or less a personal decision within the moment it is made. If we are incapable of growing or changing then we'd all be quite dead for the COUNTLESS times humanity has gotten itself into a pot of hot water for it's choices. Even in the short-lived American history we have examples in the Vietnam War or the Cold War -- what if we never strayed from nuclear armament ... what if we never sought peace? We can and SHOULD change to adapt to the environment of the moment -- it's not being 'weak' or 'indecisive' it's being intelligent.

Hawking, arguably the greatest mind in recorded history, has himself made proofs that changed the entire physics community that now, later on in life, he has taken to DISproving. That takes balls but it's also extremely noble.

I like that, however it would seem that even a neat example, just shows to display the gap the left likes to put in the differances. It has been my experience that the right does care about the "pears", how ever not to the point that they deserve 1/3 of the output when they don't supply the same input. But apples and oranges aside, lets just dive in headfirst. Pretty mush the left wants to throw more money at the poor. The last 40 years has pretty much tought us that has not had the desired effect of helping them out of the position they find themselves in. And as a result it has actually created more poor because the kids see their parents getting a free check from the gov., so they do the same thing (yes not all, but I get to generalize too). Where as the right says, If we are going to throw money at this problem, lets at least try to fix it instead of making it worse. I don't pretend to have the answer, so don't ask. And at least by outward appearance it is in the Left's best interest to keep things like they are because it drives their vote count up.

I don't know about you but I don't tend to comment on the beauty (or lack thereof) of 'mush' ... mush is just sort of 'mush' whether it's pretty or not. ;)

And I find it stunning that you've been inside the homes of a large (say, 1000 from each region) sampling of those under the poverty line and taken them to psychotherapists to determine exactly why it is they end up relying on the government for income. There can be just as strong an argument that not enough opportunities have been opened to them -- that without proper financial support you can do almost nothing in this country. Certainly there are fairy tales of kids who get out from under the thumb of the financial oppression but I work with those children on a daily basis -- the real poor -- the new york city slum kids. Some of them aren't geniuses, most are just more or less 'normal' and to say that they have every opportunity every other kid in the US has is ludicrious. Not only do the slum schools have a harder time finding equally adequate instructors, most are overcrowded and lacking proper instructional materials. They lack computers for writing papers, they lack motivation too because they know that if they get a B, unlike a priveleged midwest kid (like myself), they can't get a dollar out of mom or dad to pay the portion of tution the shrinking grants can't cover. Even $100 a year is too much when your rent is $2100 a month for a five-person family apartment. Sure you may say, just get a job, then but what does someone have to live for working for the great American institution of wal-mart where benefits, union protection, and pay are all-substandard enough to ensure that you're just as poor when you die as when you started off and that you can waste your life away breaking your back for nothing. And besides, even wal-mart in certain locations, won't hire everyone. I have a friend with a bachelor's degree in literature who's been looking for a job for 3 months now and incapable of so much as even getting a position with Barnes and Noble because there are so few jobs available. Even I have to moonlight to make rent payments because the rich continue to get richer and drive up the costs of living for everyone else. Trickle-down economics simply does not work in a society that consumes more than it creates. So, I ask kindly, that before you make broad sweeping and ignorant statements about the psychological reasoning of those caught under the financial oppression of the times that you A) Actually meet some and spend time with them and B) meet quite a few more to make sure it isn't an isolated incident and C) meet yet more in different regions.

~Chad

Pretty much everything I'd say about this has been said already. However, I will agree with FoFa that the democrats lean towards continually pumping money into a clearly ineffective system. However, the republican perspective of completely eliminating wealth transfer programs is equally erroneous, and the justification of "trickle down econmics" is a ludicrous rationalization. If either side would compromise just a little we might actually accomplish something in this area. *sigh*

In a brief addendum, I don't think a president who's party holds majority in the house, the Senate, and the courts could even REMOTELY be considered an 'underdog.' It seems to me he has an awful lot of power.

:rolleyes:

In a brief addendum, I don't think a president who's party holds majority in the house, the Senate, and the courts could even REMOTELY be considered an 'underdog.' It seems to me he has an awful lot of power.
Not to mention being born into a wealthy and powerful family... :rolleyes:

I sure do not see people like Rich fighting for him
I'll fight to get rid of him and the sooner the better:mad:

You're right. Once we had foolishly gotten into this mess it was to be a mess no matter who had charge of it but you bring up another interesting point of distinction between the right and left. I can't say I've totally embraced it or that I've internally shot this down, more or less that I haven't really analyzed it closely but it was pointed out to me that supposedly it's historically correct to say that the right traditionally seeks to make permanent changes in american life whereas the leftists, all too aware of their attempts to protect all, tend to move towards more temporary solutions. This was presented to me in the form of alaskan oil and how once it is allowed it is considerably more difficult to disallow after billions are put into infrastructure and how that resource will never be the same. I don't know enough political history to go digging for other examples but, if true, then the war would be a perfect example -- a choice, knowingly made when made, that it could not be undone or revoked when increased sanctioning, etc could have it's course altered mid-flight.

~Chad

Hum... Thinking about that for a moment, would you feel comfortable in saying that sometimes the left may tend to look at treating symptoms in some cases instead of addressing the root causes more than the right?

To be honest, I don't really like to be labled right or left. I think the opinon of others as to if I'm right or left is more of a function of the other persons experiences and view points than it is of mine...

the new york city slum kids. Some of them aren't geniuses, most are just more or less 'normal' and to say that they have every opportunity every other kid in the US has is ludicrious.
THANK YOU, you made my point even thou you had to wrap it in abunch of dribble that really had nothing to do with anything. You made assumptions, and it comes off as dribble pretty much.
So what the real conservatives that I know (know being used loosely as know, read, listen, watch, what ever) want to know, is rather than just throwing money at them, what can we do to FIX it? I never said they had the same opportunity as everyone else (you assumed as liberals do), it is clear that is not so. We would all be better off if we can get them educated and in good jobs, but it seems clear the welfare state is not the answer, maybe part of the answer, but not the answer. It may take something like decreasing welfare (so it is not so attractive) while trying to bring the young out of the hole that seems to ever increase in depth.

Hum... Thinking about that for a moment, would you feel comfortable in saying that sometimes the left may tend to look at treating symptoms in some cases instead of addressing the root causes more than the right?
I think it would be more accurate to say liberals give a higher priority to treating symptoms than conservatives do. I think both sides try to address the root, with conservatives believing if you address the root the symptoms will cease and the liberals believing the root and symptoms must both be addressed. I don't believe I've ever encountered a liberal who believed unemployement benefits should be paid without limiting the benefits and/or making job training, counseling, etc. available in conjunction. I think the conservative viewpoint is to provide job training, etc., with unemployment benefits at a minimum (or none at all).

To be honest, I don't really like to be labled right or left. I think the opinon of others as to if I'm right or left is more of a function of the other persons experiences and view points than it is of mine...
Elegantly stated. I agree completely.
THANK YOU, you made my point even thou you had to wrap it in abunch of dribble that really had nothing to do with anything. You made assumptions, and it comes off as dribble pretty much.
Considering this this thread is in the Watercooler instead of the Politics forum, I think we'd all appreciate if you'd take extra care to avoid being rude.

So what the real conservatives that I know (know being used loosely as know, read, listen, watch, what ever) want to know, is rather than just throwing money at them, what can we do to FIX it?
The problem is I've not heard any real solutions proposed. I agree that our current system needs fixing but (I apologize in advance for any over-generalization) the main theme I hear from the conservatives on this forum is that if we simply stop spending money on welfare programs, everything will work itself out. (ie., the hard working/deserving will reap the rewards and the rest will suffer the consequences of their own device.) That is not a solution.

Considering this this thread is in the Watercooler instead of the Politics forum, I think we'd all appreciate if you'd take extra care to avoid being rude.
Rude? Not rude, just a statement. I was reading it and thinking to myself, what the heck is all this that has nothing to do with what I was talking about. A conservative would have seen it as a constructive statement :rolleyes:

The problem is I've not heard any real solutions proposed. I agree that our current system needs fixing but (I apologize in advance for any over-generalization) the main theme I hear from the conservatives on this forum is that if we simply stop spending money on welfare programs, everything will work itself out. (ie., the hard working/deserving will reap the rewards and the rest will suffer the consequences of their own device.) That is not a solution.
That is not what I hear. What I hear is crap coming from both ends, but the closer to an actual middle you get, it seems the conservatives are more looking for an answer, and the left is still trying blame. The farther right says it's because of the racist left, while the far left says conservatives want to throw them all out on the street to die. Seems to me there is some real middle ground here that could actually do some good. Problem seems to be politics.

Would this be an example of mild right vs left on welfare:

Right - People should get there own lives in order
Left - We should collectively help each other out


???

but the closer to an actual middle you get, it seems the conservatives are more looking for an answer, and the left is still trying blame.
Good job. Keep telling yourself that.

Would this be an example of mild right vs left on welfare:

Right - People should get there own lives in order
Left - We should collectively help each other out
That's sounds about right. :)

As Liberals think....

What do you think make me a liberal?

Hint:
Thinking GWB is an idiot does not qualify.
Nor does saying the republicans hoodwinked the American people with religious and moral propaganda.
And as far as I can see supporting banning assault rifles probably does not qualify me either.

Thinking GWB is an idiot does not qualify.
Nor does saying the republicans hoodwinked the American people with religious and moral propaganda.
And as far as I can see supporting banning assault rifles probably does not qualify me either.
You can be anything you want of you disqualify the qualifing factors.

I am an astronaut, if you disqualify the fact that I don't work for the gov. or NASA, have never been higher than commercial jetliners fly, and never had one of them suits on.

I am king of the U.S.A., if you disqualify the fact that no one else knows it.

You can be anything you want of you disqualify the qualifing factors.
I find it interesting how people's understanding of the distinction between "liberal" and "conservative" is more and more becoming purely about religion and "hot button" issues (which are usually religion-based). In actuallity, there is an extensive list of social and political ideological differences (ones that are actually relevant :rolleyes: ) between the two. I found an excellent definition at - of all palces - urbandictionary.com:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=liberal
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=conservative

I would like to specifically point out that a major "qualifying factor" of the liberal platform is the belief in the need for some fashion of federal welfare/wealth transfer system, like Medicare. That is something jsanders has vehemently argued against, so how can you claim he's a liberal?

Ok but along those same lines it says this about conservatives:
One who believes in such "outmoded" ideas as civil liberties (freedom of speech, separation of church and state, right to keep and bear arms, that kind of thing)
Yet Freedom of Speech and seperation of church of state is more being yelled by the left than the right. And todays commonly held concept is conservatives are more to the right (how ever I think a true conservative is closer to the middle). And it also stated One who believes in less government being better government. which really, I think is correct, but if true than right wingers are not conservatives (or how would explain their wanting gov. to get envolved in the whole roew vs. wade thing). Now the Liberal one also says Technically, someone who falls to the left in a political system and since a few of the major issue jsanders is far left from the convservative view point, HE IS A LIBERAL:p
Any way I think the definition is flawed, so bringing one little piece out as an example is kin to the press taking something out of context and thereby giving it a different meaning.

Yet Freedom of Speech and seperation of church of state is more being yelled by the left than the right. And todays commonly held concept is conservatives are more to the right (how ever I think a true conservative is closer to the middle). [...]And it also stated which really, I think is correct, but if true than right wingers are not conservatives (or how would explain their wanting gov. to get envolved in the whole roew vs. wade thing).
Real quick: a conservative is to the right, a liberal is to the left. That's part of the definition. Neither side can be defined as the middle.

Other than that small point, I agree with what you say and that's why I generally hate the Republican party. And I mean it. There are issues where I disagree with the Democrats and agree with the Republicans. More often than not I agree with the Democrats but I still respect the reasoning behind the Republican postion, even though I personally disagree. However, in recent years the Republican party has become more and more hypocritical - which you more or less identified in your analysis above - and I absolutely cannot stand that.

BTW, I actually didn't look at the definition for conservative - I assumed it was equally as good a discussion as liberal and it is not. My apologies.

Any way I think the definition is flawed, so bringing one little piece out as an example is kin to the press taking something out of context and thereby giving it a different meaning.
Isn't it equally flawed to choose a portion of issues and apply a label to a person based on that? If jsanders is very liberal in some issues and very conservative on others, doesn't that mean he's both? Or in the middle? Isn't is wrong to say he's one or the other?

Real quick: a conservative is to the right, a liberal is to the left. That's part of the definition. Neither side can be defined as the middle.
True, but the right defines conservatives typically closer to the middle, while the left typically defines liberals as far left. Then there are those that define middle as undecided, goes the way the wind blows, can't make up their mind, etc.

True, but the right defines conservatives typically closer to the middle, while the left typically defines liberals as far left.
I'm very confused here. The right are the conservatives, so you're saying that the right defines itself as the middle?