+ 1

Amen Chris,

The lack of serious thought in these forums is discouraging. You have to weed through a lot of chaff to get to any kernels here. The number of folks that just throw ideological talking points out that they heard on the radio far outnumber people that give their own opinions. The truly mean spirited ones are the most discouraging ones.

I don't know if I want the staff of the N&R deciding who makes the cut & is being serious though. I doubt they want the job.

Shut up hippy. You lost- get over it.

*massive sarcasm*

"especially for those of us who have moveon.org on from such ridiculous notions. "

Mr. Knight, I have always appreciated your comments for being void of personal attacks. I concur with your idea of more civil responses. However, it's not going to happen. As long as ignorance of proper discussion is perpetuated by news channels, magazines, and tabloid television, we will see the same here. There will always be room for labeling and name calling while our elected officials set the example. I'm willing to bet someone right now is desperately labeling your label as liberal, censorship, or whining. That same person will work on their response diligently in order to get the best derogative comment possible. The sad thing is that person could easily have spent the energy finding some way to discus instead of being disrespectful to a person.

Christopher, I believe I understand what you're saying but I have to disagree with you, at least partly.

I agree with you concerning Democrats and Republicans; imagine a political spectrum ten feet wide from end-to-end, and the Democrats and Republicans are one inch apart on policy issues.

Where I disagree with you is on the "labels" Liberal and Conservative, which are completely separate (yes, there are still conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans, although the latter have to be very, very quiet these days and just bide their time).

The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines (the "political" definitition) "liberalism" as:

>

and "conservatism" as:

>>

and I perceive a real and substantive difference between these two philosophies, and I think the "labels" have value.

However, as you imply, when people forget what these "labels" actually mean, and simply hurl them as invective (as sometimes happens in the blog comments), they not only lose their meaning but become insults, at least in the mind of the hurler, if no one else.

:-)

Anyway, this is why I'm proud to consider myself a liberal (and I certainly have some very strong opinions), but never assume a conservative's viewpoint has any less value than my own, at least not until hard evidence is provided that his/her motive is destructive or subversive of the Constitition and the Bill of Rights.

Some people will always use words as insults rather than stop to think about what the words mean and why they are saying them. I'm pleased to see (in my opinion) relatively little of this on the N&R blogs.

Warmest regards to all our N&R bloggin community,
Tony

Joe, when did labeling a person's ideological belief become "disrespectful"?

Hugh, undoubtedly one has not been reading the blogs if that question has to be asked. And that may sound mean spirited, if taken that way, that is the reader's misconception.

Choose any of the previous letter's of a political nature and read the responses. There one can find a full spectrum of disrespectful comments.

They are there, only only has to read to find them.

Darryl, spend some time out there on other blogs. Believe me, the worst it gets on the N&R blogs is NOTHING!

:-)

Regards,
Tony

Darryl, let's set the parameters here. If I catagorize your ideological statements as liberal, or you as a liberal, do you consider that to be disrespectful?

hugh, I believe you answered your own question when you refered to it as labeling. Labeling has many names. When one labels, one is usually stereotyping that person. If a person's ideology is tinted with conservatism, one might label them as an ultra-conservative. Conversly, someone with liberal tints might be labeled as a bleeding heart liberal.

Too often I have been accused of being one or the other. In fact, I consider myself to be middle of the road. I hold some conservative ideals like a strong military. I also hold some liberal ideals like a woman's right to choose what happens to her body.

Here lies the problem with labeling. It leaves very little room for discussion because it is akin to name-calling. Once the label is attatched, the person has very little room to clarify a position. Generally, if the person starts to explain his argument and it differs from what the accuser has labeled him, then the person is called a waffler by the labeler. Of course, we're back to labeling....again.

Joe Schmoe,

Another down-side to labeling that I've experienced is when I've been misunderstood by a responder who then labels me, which colors the responses of other responders and blinds them to the actual point(s) I was making.

Christopher Knight,

I agree with much of your letter, but I personally prefer NOT to have the N&R staff taking measures. I don't see it as their responsibility to educate the public on civil discourse.

Joe,

I tend to take one side of an arguement, others take the opposite and some will sit in the middle.

I give certain agrguments consideration and other arguements I don't even consider as they violate my personal beliefs. Those that violate my personal beliefs I label into different catagoroies.

Now, with that last statement, do you, Christopher and others think that having an immovable personal convicition about a certain issue is wrong?

"Darryl, let's set the parameters here. If I catagorize your ideological statements as liberal, or you as a liberal, do you consider that to be disrespectful?"

Hugh,

Try to think beyond this. Life's really is not this simple. Every issue isn't about lib vs. con.

Hugh, I could be mistaken, but I don't think Christopher and others *are* saying that one can't have "[...] an immovable personal convicition about a certain issue [...]," but rather that there is no value in denigrating or excoriating those who may not share this conviction.

Guys, if I've gotten this wrong, my apologies.

Regards,
Tony

Labels tend to imprison the labeller's mind with the same restraints that he is trying to impose upon someone else's character.

Tony: "but rather that there is no value in denigrating or excoriating those who may not share this conviction."

But when did the terms liberal/conservative become deragatory? Those were the two terms Knight mentioned in his letter.

I have never heard such a un-serious debating point. "There is no difference in conservatives and liberals".

Believe me when I tell you.... that most are not interested in your liberal views. Your views were put to the vote this past year and the people spoke by 53% to ?.

Liberal views are like a cancer on our country but it is in remission. The childern you murder (45 million as of today)since Roe vs Wade is an example of typical liberal humanity.

Liberals worry about the slaughter in AFRICA, but turn their backs on the slaughter in ABORTION CLINICS every day in this country.

Every 3rd baby concieved...is murdered by LIBERAL MINDS and LIBERAL ACTIONS. A little boy or little girl enters Heaven not by choice, but the "right to choose" arguments of a 1st Degree Murderer who will go un-punished and un-forgiven.

There are too many differences to list here. It is enough to say the "in-breeding of liberal elite mind" is the cancer that is being delftly defeated as we speak!

One can see them trying to come back home to normal traditional values.

Their PRIDE won't let them say "I was wrong". It was PRIDE that got SATAN kicked out of Heaven making it the worst possible sin!

I can imagine him making the same argument to God as he sailed off the end of a square Heaven.

Rejoice Dear Hearts...Our redemption draws near.

"Try to think beyond this. Life's really is not this simple. Every issue isn't about lib vs. con."

Marshall, you are correct. I have no idea what I'm having for lunch today nor have I decided if I'm mailing my insurance payment this month or next.

Hugh, I believe the point Christopher is making is that the terms *aren't* derogatory, but (he feels) are being used as if they were in the N&R blogs.

So to answer your question, never, to the best of my knowledge. I know that when I am called a liberal, I take it as a compliment.

:-)

Regards,
Tony

As Americans become more and more fearful of true freedom, they run to whichever philosophy, right or left, thet seems to provide them with the most protection from responsibility. Jefferson, Adams and Franklin would all be apalled at the blatant attacks both sides make against the original "contract with America"- the beloved Constitution.
Yeah, I'm a Libertarian, and I find current discourse between the right & left to be utterly lacking in historical and ethical foundation.
God bless Ayn Rand (and I hope she forgives me for that!).

"Marshall, you are correct. I have no idea what I'm having for lunch today nor have I decided if I'm mailing my insurance payment this month or next."

Two signs of progress. Handling 2 thoughts at once, and agreeing with me. (;-}

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.-Bertrand Russell

We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another.-Jonathan Swift

If we didn't have the freedom to be either liberal or conservative in our views and to publicly express those views...we'd be communists.
I prefer the two-party (or more) system.
And if we all believed the same we'd have no blogs to waste our time on!!

The "conservative versus liberal" game is one colossal con, intended to keep good people fighting each other in a war that goes nowhere, and distracted while the REALLY rotten people get away with just about everything.

It's like in 1984, where Oceania is always at war. Doesn't matter if they're at war with Eurasia or Eastasia, so long as they're engaged in nonstop fighting. Constant warfare keeps the people too focused on winning, and so much so that they have no time to think for themselves why it is that they are fighting in the first place or what they even stand to win. They're told they are about to win often enough, but victory never happens. It's not supposed to happen. The war saps away the people's independence and productivity, leaving them too distracted and inured to everything else to notice that they are now less men than they are cattle, or sheep. Those that do assert the right to their own minds are automatically guilty of crimethink. They don't belong in the party. Double-plus ungood. Down the memory hole for them...

And really, haven't we become so indoctrinated with the "liberal versus conservative" mindset that when we encounter those who are outside that "mainstream", we consign them to the memory hole of our own making? We don't kill them, but we do actively refuse to acknowledge their existence. They are a waste of ideas. "They would be a wasted vote" we tell ourselves.

I've known maybe a dozen well-qualified and sober-minded people who ran for President during the past few elections. Any one of them would have been wonderful in the job. They never stood a chance because they weren't Democrat, or Republican. Some were and got snubbed from the getgo by the bigwigs in either party. Anyone who thinks we got a "choice" this past November with Bush and Kerry is deluded and almost beyond hope, I am tempted to say. The game was rigged. They were picked to run against each other by forces far outside the control of most Americans. They were tapped by the powerful so that a status quo would be maintained. The powerful cannot tolerate a threat to their hold on people, you see...

...so the "spoilers" get shunted to the outside of the American conscience, and everyone is made to look at two individuals, who only care for power, who only got as far as they did by the grace of the powerful, and not by any fanfare from the grassroots of either MoveOn.org or Focus on the Family. "Grassroots"? Feh! It's very rare that the base of a political campaign or some other movement does anything on its own: they are made to think that "they really matter" somehow. They're even given a big enough stake in the game to believe they're being heard out... but in the end it's all a charade to keep them plugged into the matrix as happy little minds (fortunately this can't be said of ALL such movements lately: the Minutemen f'rinstance come to mind).

One way or another, everyone and everything is taken into consideration. The "spoilers" are ejected before they can even really get started and the masses are kept deluded by petty gestures and void promises that "with enough of your support" that victory is assured...

...is anyone even asking if that "victory" is deserved? Is anyone stopping to ask if this kleptocratic duopoly even deserves being in power, at all?

America is held within the power of one political party, masquerading as two opposing ones, that has a very simple means of keeping just about everyone under control. Go watch Hotel Rwanda if you haven't already, and listen to the part about how the Hutus and the Tutsis first came into being as factions. That's what has happened to the American people for way too long. We've been called-out and split up into two warring factions that didn't used to exist and have no purpose to exist outside of keeping us at each others throats long enough to forget that those who've divided us so are robbing us - and our children - blind of everything that America used to stand for.

There's more I could write or could have written in this letter, but the News & Record's verbage policy kept me to 200 words or less. :-)

CK, you got that right.

Now that you've discovered their heinous secret, they're going to have to silence you before you wake up too many others.

Oh, that's right. Everyone's too distracted to notice. Pity.

Christopher, it is indeed frustrating to realize that it is occasionally necessary to verbalize what most Americans (on some level) already know, or at the very least suspect.

And it is thankless, too, so I will take this opportunity to thank you. Your explanation was as articulate as any I've read in several years.

Regards,
Tony

Billy,

That number you're looking for would be 47. Keep on beating that dead horse.

Christopher,
You make good points. I think debate/discussion of serious issues is restricted by the labels people put on other's opinions. What am I? I think the war in Iraq was fraudulently undertaken, but that Cindy Sheehan is using her son's death to make a political point, which to me as a mom, is wrong. I think abortion is wrong, but I don't want a man telling me what to do with my body. Am I a confused liberal or a weak-kneed conservative? I'm sure I'll come under fire from both sides. But I'm also sure that there are a lot more like me out there.

Susie, I don't see you telling anyone else that if s/he doesn't think the way you do, then s/he is a traitor.

And that is a good thing, because that is where the damage is done.

Regards,
Tony

"Susie, I don't see you telling anyone else that if s/he doesn't think the way you do, then s/he is a traitor."

This is what's been bugging me most about the Iraq war, especially Cindy Sheehan lately. I've seen it written way more than once online that she deserves to be convicted as a traitor and sentenced to hang, or the firing squad.

The scary part of it is, the people involved with this line of thinking really don't believe that there is anything wrong with believing that, at all. They want to see her life ruined, if not outright killed. Because she dared step out of line and disagree with her government: the unpardonable sin in their eyes. Whatever happened to not having to agree with what someone says, but defending their right to say it all the same?

Lately I'm seriously wondering if we aren't one bad incident away from being a repeat of Nazi Germany. That same kind of hatred is percolating beneath our own surface, screaming for some kind of release to come. You tell me: would you be at all comfortable knowing that someone is chomping at the bit to denounce you as a traitor - and maybe have you destroyed - because you happen to have a difference of opinion?

Susie makes a good point. Why should we care whether she is a good/bad Liberal/Conservative. It's her thoughts that we wish to discuss. The rest of it is just background noise. Most folks here just want to know which team you're on before they attack you or support you.

Note I didn't say attack or support your ideas. Big difference there.

Of all people who should be beyond labels, it is followers of Christ. Sadly, most people equate Christian with right-wing conservativism or even the Republican party. There ARE things in the Republican party which reflect Christian values. And, there are things in the Democratic party which reflect Christian values.

The danger comes in when one is convinced that his or her party is always correct. Even more dangerous is the belief that would equate ANY political ideology with God's kingdom.

Any time any political party is assumed to be equal to a faith tradition, disastor occurs.

So, the "world" can use their labels if they wish. Those of us who follow Jesus cannot carry any label save anarchist for His Kingdom.

www.sojo.net
www.quaker.org

Wanna say something here, before this gets any bigger...

I wouldn't have written this if it wasn't 'cuz I'm the kind of guy who really does expect the best out of everyone. No matter what their persuasion is.

That's why I wrote this: I do expect the best out of people. 'Cuz God made each of us special in our own way. We all have something valuable to lend to this world.

But we can't lend that if we're letting someone - and much less a collective mindset - else define who we are instead of us defining ourselves.

We aren't intended to be mindless automatons, marching to whatever orders "the party" gives us. We're supposed to think for our own, 'cuz if you don't do it yourself there's always gonna be somebody willing to do it for you.

The News & Record has a great thing going with the letters to the editor/blogging format. I don't think they have any idea how innovative this is. Now it's time for them - and for us - to up our game. Make this a forum of ideas, not ideologies.

"Lately I'm seriously wondering if we aren't one bad incident away from being a repeat of Nazi Germany."

I wanted to come back and answer a few points as to when the "liberal" vs. Conservative split came about, but this statement above bears comment first.

I think it's an hyped, sensationalist comment. There is no comparison between what happened in Germany in the 20's-30's that created the Nazis and what has happened in this country in the past 20 years. None, period.

The psychosis that was the in the Nazi leadership in now way compares to the egos in the the US govt, on both sides of the aisle.

Pulling out the Nazi card is bad form, and along the same lines of "labeling" that you wrote the letter about in the first place.

Now for the other stuff, i'll have to come back to it, the Post Office closes at 5:00.

Hugh,
Germany was considered one of the most enlightened and Christian countries in Europe. Look at how many great writers and scientists have come from that land. They didn't think anything like this would happen either.

We play with folly, when we believe that we are immune from the same madness. All it takes is the right circumstances to click into place for Lord only knows what to happen. We do tend to have the same human nature as those Germans did, after all...

My thanks to everyone here involved in making this thread so productive, even if we aren't coming up with any Firm Answers.

Chris, we do indeed know how innovative this is. And speaking purely for myself, I know how risky it is, as well. I've been involved in various online forums since about 1990, and NOT ONE that wanted to remain worthwhile was able to for any length of time without at least minimal moderation. So we don't have history on our side in this experiment, but we're experimenting anyway.

Here's to more threads conducted in the spirit of this one, and thank you all.

Christopher, I've had some of the same concerns lately at low moments. I've thought about national politics in American for that last 35 years, and how things have changed.

In the 1980s, when a person disagreed with how the Reagan administrations tried to effect change, one might be ridiculed or belittled, but no one questioned one's patriotism.

During the Bush 41 administration, many people who shared my convictions didn't really feel much about George H. W. Bush at all, but were distracted by the jaw-dropping inanities mumbled by our esteemed Vice President.

During 1993-2000, God knows that the extreme right had plenty of complaining to do about Clinton, but I don't remember hearing anyone tell them they were un-American for doing so.

But since 2001, accusations as extreme as treason have become commonplace if one critcizes the Bush 43 administrations.

And it is so ironic, since accusing someone of being un-American is in and of itself as un-American a thing as a person can say.

Why has it gotten so vitriolic? I have lots of theories, but they don't belong here.

Best regards to all the N&R bloggers,
Tony

Wow, I am amazed at the wonderful responses seen here up until 5:10 PM on 8/22/2005!

This is what makes being civil and non-labeling with one another so great! Just look, differing opinions, yet, no bashing or anything. I love this type of dialogue!

Mr.Knight, you state that "the newspsper isn't doing anything to make it different" and that they "should take active measures to create a more intellligent dialogue". What do you suggest? That the editors screen the comments? I call this censorship. What we have is raw opinions in these blogs. You may not agree with the way people express themselves,but that is the real world. I have seen comments on both sides (lib&con)that I consider rude,crude,and insulting.But I would rather have that than a phony list of comments after they have passed the "screen test" of the N&R editors.

Tony, I found this a short while ago and as a Christian this literally makes me sick to my stomach...

Pat Robertson calls for assassination of Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez

There's a video too, from today's edition of Robertson's 700 Club.

How the $&@# does Pat Robertson dare take it upon himself to pass a judgement of death on another person... for the sake of political expediency?! Where the $&@# is the Christ-like showing of love for one another, even for your enemies?!

Hugh, this is what I was talking about earlier. We gotta watch ourselves, make sure we don't head down that all-too-slippery slope.

Lex, so far as I know the N&R is the only paper doing letters like this. Here's wishing y'all all the best in this lil' endeavour 'cuz so far it's going pretty good :-)

Darryl: agreed 100% friend :-)

Jon, you misunderstant what I'm saying. Defining our arguments per the old "conservatism versus liberalism" has gotten so old and stale, there's no more vigor to our debates. We've been reduced to labelling each other and those labels don't even necessarily reflect who we are at all.

The times we live in are showing us how stagnant the left/right perspective really is, and always has been. We shouldn't frame our debating around that because it's easier, or because it's expected of us by the world around us. It's time to boldly challenge that perspective, and embrace a serious and polite exchange of ideas... one that has some real meat on its bones.

Censoring? Far from it. If anything I wanna see it wilder than it's ever been before :-)

Chris,

Thank you for elevating the level of the debate. This is the most refreshing exchange of ideas I've seen here.

As for Jon's comment, I believe he is addressing the last paragraph in your original LTE.

Also, a suggestion. Read "Wealth and Democracy" by Kevin Phillips. I've only gotten partway through it, but I think it will add an intersting perspective to your views.

Dough: yeah, that last paragraph, I think that was the one part of it where I let frustration get the better part of me. It wasn't directed at anyone in particular per se though, just the whole tired left/right paradigm.

Okay, we clear on that, right? :-)

GREAT thread.

To the writer: I think this (the above) just proved your point. Some of these comment areas are just the same folks talking amongst themselves.

Chris,

This has been refreshing.

Christopher, thank you for the link to the Pat Robertson quotes. I was on the mediamatters.org website earlier today but only briefly.

I grew up as a Christian, a Southern Baptist; my parents took this very seriously even though they were moderate Democrats (this was the '60s and '70s, before the fundamentalists hi-jacked the denomination, which disappointed my mother until her death).

I don't consider myself a Christian any more but have no issues with Christians (as long as they don't tell me how to live my life), but the fundamental moral and ethical beliefs that my parents taught me remain, and I find it absolutely appalling that a man who calls himself a Christian would say such things.

Appalling.

Regards,
Tony

Tony , you were doing well until you used the label fundamentilist to describe a group of people already in a "fundamental denomination" and further labeled them as "highjackers of the denomination". Fundamentilist may be from any group of people and not necessarily Christians. Please note what Webster has to say about the matter. Please note the second defination.

One entry found for fundamentalism.
Main Entry: fun·da·men·tal·ism
Pronunciation: -t&l-"i-z&m
Function: noun
1 a often capitalized : a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching b : the beliefs of this movement c : adherence to such beliefs
2 : a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles
- fun·da·men·tal·ist /-t&l-ist/ noun
- fundamentalist or fun·da·men·tal·is·tic /-"men-t&l-'is-tik/ adjective

As for Pat Robinson he represents only a small faction of people who have failed to see him as he is, a politician and business man, nothing more and nothing less. He is not accepted among most religioius groups with the exception of the very small faction.
I could explain to you much about the SBC during the 60's and 70's but I will not do that here as it has no place in the discussion. I will say that the real take over of the SBC did not actually occur until the 80's. If you would care to e-mail me on this I will be more than happy to share some of my views and experiences with the SBC.
Oh and no put down intended Tony, this is just another label I wish could be put aside when it comes to makeing persons good or bad.

Great thoughts here Christopher. The discussion has gone well but then the normal bombthrowers have not shown up. Hopefully they will continue to stay away. I , like you , have been labeled many things on these threads when actually those doing so have no clue as to what they are labeling except they disagree with me the writer. Thanks for an enjoyable afternoon of reading.

Just had to say that my wife read this whole thread and found it to be a really wonderful discussion by everyone :-)

mrproduce, I understand your point, but I saw no need to qualify "fundamentalist" with "Christian" since I assumed most readers would know that Southern Baptists consider themselves Protestant Christians.

:-)

Additionally, "hi-jacked" was intended to imply nothing qualitatively, but intended literally, as I remember vividly from the early '80s onward how upset my parents -- and, in fact, the majority of the members of their church (my church growing up) -- were when they felt that the denomination they loved and had supported financially was being stolen (not literally, of course, but this is how they felt) from them. Based on what I continue to hear from my father and what I read, many Southern Baptist churches over the years since have either left the denomination altogether or cut back financial support for the same reasons.

I am relieved to hear that most people don't share Mr. Robinson's views on Chavez, but I'm not surprised, I didn't think there would be many at all who did.

But anyway, to me, the word "fundamentalist" implies nothing qualitatively as a noun in and of itself, it is when it is used as an adjective in conjunction with another noun, verb or string-of-additional-qualifiers that the meaning usually carries implications outside of the literal meaning.

Best regards,
Tony

Chris, I don't think a nutbag ex-preacher's(oops! label again) whacked out comments is going to lead us on a slippery slope to nazism.

Robertson should have kept his opinions to himself. He doesn't represent me or anyone in a church that I know.

I was out of town yesterday and did not have time to read this thread till this morning. Nice to see everyone getting along so well, althought I didn't agree with you Christopher that our country is heading towards Nazism, and feel that comparison is ill warranted and hackneyed.

One thing I did not read is the idea of, despite our differences, us all being united as Americans.

Last night I watched a two hour documentary on 9/11 on the Natl Geo channel. It hurt me to see that horrible event again, but it was heartening to see the actions of the firemen and police to help their fellow citizens regarless of who they were. They interviewed a Muslim who helped rescue a Jew, a white man who rescued a black woman in the Pentagon. After all, there were north and south towers that came crashing down that day, not right and left towers.

I wish everyone would watch this show and realize that terrorists could give a rats ass if you are lib or con, just being American is sufficient to kill.

I'm not going to get into the hornets nest called Iraq, but this country does need to become united against a common enemy. I don't know what that will take and I doubt it will happen until terrorists start taking over other countries and attack us again.

I consider myself a conservative and do not think that's a bad word, but I consider myself American first.

Dan,

To me the value in getting away from labels is that a person may have a variety of positions on a variety of issues. To use a label, either on yourself or others, can oversimplify one's world view. In seeing you call yourself a conservative I wonder if you have traditional conservative positions on welfare (both personal and corporate), abortion, foreign aid, family, economics, etc, etc. How does one define "conservative?" Well, maybe that's one for another thread.

I would be a little surprised if your beliefs on all issues were monolithic. I certainly hope the majority of Americans are more complex than that.

Mr. Knight you seem to have started a civil discourse here - congratulations. I would like all of you to notice how N&R selects letters to publish; the same way AM radio guys pick subjects to talk about. My guess is N&R gets letters that are on subjects that are not so inflamatory. There are lots of things to discuss other than Iraq and Skip and Jamestown's school woes. They are all topical but not the only subjects worthy of discussion. If we want N&R to be more responsible let's help by not responding to some of their poorer choices.

Dan, yellowdog, I think one of the things this thread demonstrates is that if no one (on either "side") gets hostile or angry, then this is the way things go -- positively. I think it is a very good sign.

Dough, if you want the dictionary (in the context of politics) definitions of liberal and conservative, I posted them earlier in this thread to illustrate that neither portrays a monster.

:-)

Best regards,
Tony

Tony,

Thank you for reminding me of that. Those were excellent definitions. I should rephrase my comment to Dan to ask: if by calling himself conservative does he mean that that definition applies to all issues he's interested in?

By way of which I was hoping to reiterate Christopher's initial plea to not use broad classifications for complex issues.

I read this letter in the newspaper and couldn't wait to see the responses. This has been the most cordial, thoughtful discussion I've ever seen. Thank you, Christopher, for opening this can of worms.

I don't agree that the differences between the 2 parties are insignificant. Major issues do divide us. The war against terror, abortion, gay rights, loss of freedoms, taxes, etc.

But I do concur that the game is one that the average American has little control over. So, we either need to lighten up the angry rhetoric or get off our butts and REALLY do something about it.

Thankfully, there are some things that are under control. One of those is our own words and actions. We are responsible for those. I think your letter was a great reminder of that.

Thanks.

Dough, defining myself as a conservative is not in my opinion defining myself as simple minded.

As for welfare, I believe that it is appropriate for people who are disabled or temporarily out of work, but should not be a lifestyle for those who choose not to work. I am against corporate welfare such as forking our money over to Dell, rather I think lower taxes for businesses and citizens in this state would attract business. That is not happening with Easley.

Abortion, definitely against it except for rape or incest. As a fortunate father of two beautiful healthy children, the thought of ending their lives before birth makes me tremble. Even though I am Catholic, I have no problem with birth control, but don't think it should be advocated in schools, that should be a parents job.

Foreign aid: A degree of it is necessary, but we are the world bank. Aid to needy countries is noble to provide food and medicine, especially after a disaster like the tsunami last year. But perputual aid to corrupt governments without accountability is not wise.

Family: I was fortunate to have a mom and a dad who made the sacrifice to raise me and my siblings. Not before I had my own children did I really start to understand and appreciate what my parents did for me. I believe a family should ideally have a mom, dad and children if mom & dad want to have them and can care for them. Obviously there are circumstances in life which prevent this, but it should be the goal. I don't believe the idea that gay parents, single parents, divorced/remarried parents are just the same as the traditional nuclear family.

Economics: I could go on forever on this one, but don't have the time today. I abhor the massive government waste and pork on both sides. I am for low taxes and limited government. Just take the example of the guy who wrote the letter about the local schools. A woman suggested the schools pay parents of suspended children to attend training classes. With who's money????

I'll add two more you didn't mention Dough. Environment: I don't know any conservatives or liberals who want a polluted environment. I am for environmental regulation to the extent that corporations who trash the environment without regard should be punished.

That being said, I don't believe the sky is falling because of global warming. I don't believe that gas is going to be gone in a decade. I believe people should be able to drive the vehicle they want without scorn and do gooders trying to chastise them. I also think that when oil is no longer practical that mankind will develop alternative sources of energy. History has shown that mankind is adept at solving technical problems, we will do so again in the future. The market will decide.

Illegal immigration: This is my biggest beef with the Bush admin, but I don't see Dems doing anything about it either. They are both terrified of alienating the Hispanic vote, but I saw a poll that legal Hispanics don't favor illegal immigration either!! I think both parties are jeopardizing our national and economic security with unfettered illegal immigration. As someone who has lived abroad and speaks another language fluently, I have respect for different languages. However I think English should be the national language and we should stop enabling immigrants to not learn English. Speak it at home or amongst others who speak the language fine, but putting bilingual signs in Home Depot or on ATMs burns me.

So Dough, maybe this proves I'm not conservative to the party line, but I still consider myself more of a conservative in nature rather than a liberal. I don't disagree with all liberals. You guys read the new book "100 People who are Screwing up America". It's pretty enlightening.

Nuff said, I gotta get to work and then head to WV for some business.

This has been a "interesting thread". Woven in it was the desire of liberals to get away from that label! The left=wing wants you to think that they are moderates and very near to conservative values.

The game is about power no doubt!! It is about the ability to change policies like Roe vs Wade to Private Property Rights.

This thread (by honest people) who are confused by the real.... in reality.

The "Susie" comment should explain the thought process; "I'm against abortion but I don't want a man to tell me what to do with my body".

While it is true that she owns her own body? It is also true that when you decide to have sex with a man it is possible that a human egg will be a result.

At that time, the argument; "My Body" ceases to have merit. It has become a shelter for a new life that also has rights ie. "My Shelter". Your Body has become a life support system for the new life as God intended it to be.

The label "liberal" very quickly comes into play when a decision is made; "it's my body and no man can tell me I have to carry this baby". And then you become a murderer in cold blood. 45 Million to date. All our wars to date would be less than 10% of this number!!!

You don't hear "conservatives" complaining about their "label" do you? They all know it is not
about process but about result. Power is all about the result.

When "liberals" have/had the power, evil became the objective. Treason became the objective. The word Freedom became a dirty word. And dirty words became normal discourse. Our schools have become havens for criminals instead of students.

This "liberal thread" has marched in place and gone nowhere fast. If you read between the lines you would hear the moans of Rap Music. Racial slurs and Women are Things, Possessions, and good for Sex Only.

We all know the purpose of all this talk: Define the "conservative nature" of the American People as being close to Nazi Germany and to Hitler so that the "liberal label" will not seem so bad.

None of these arguments hold water, it's just liberals being liberals. I just want to thank them for showing their colors again!

There is another argument that does hold water that was mentioned in this thread about Pat Robinson. What would have happened if Hitler had lost his life by a well placed bullet early in the process?

What would have happened if Stalin had lost his life right awter WWII? I know all these are un-knowable but who can say it would have been a worse thing?

You can look for a place to hide your true feelings but you can't find a true place to hide left-wing idealogy.

The aroma, the stink, will rise and envelope the hiding place and you will be exposed.

This is a fitting place to cut this thread. The liberals have had a little chance to moan and grown while thinking they have really got this thing figured out and will be back in power soon.

I must close with a big smile!!!

"This has been a "interesting thread". Woven in it was the desire of liberals to get away from that label! "

********DING-DING-DING**********

We have a winner!

The only thing missing from this thread is Joan Baez. I have seen comments from the left in here who praise the theme of "civil discussion" who a day or so ago was calling names such as moron,murderer (Bush) stupid,babbler,on and on.

We'll see how long this lasts when we see another pro-Bush letter from the N&R.

Billy, did you forget your medication today?

hugh, I hope you're not including me in there, I'm extremely proud to be called a liberal. I just don't think you're scum because you are (or may be) proud to be called a conservative.

yard dog, do you have a link?

Best regards,
Tony

Tony,yeah,the link is WWW.news-record.com. Click on "opinion" and then "letters to the editor". Scan back to any pro Bush letter.

Yes, and you see the same sort of comments from the folks with opposing viewpoints when there is an anti-Bush letter.

I think this thread shows that the shouting doesn't start until someone starts it. If no one starts it, the discussion is potentially of value. If someone *does* start it, then the value is only comedic, and then maybe only to me, I don't know.

Thanks anyway, though!

Regards,
Tony

Wow, this had been a great thread. Why some feel the need to categorize and label is beyond my comprehensive thinking.

People with differing opinions were communicating and having dialogue. It only takes one to mess that up. Let us get back to that communication and dialogue. Things will happen then!

Shalom

"The game is about power no doubt!! ...They all know it is not
about process but about result. Power is all about the result."

Was Jesus all "about power"? Maybe He was but His was the power of humility, rather than the power of pride.

You don't have to try to control the world around you in order to make it a better one.

I think one reason this thread hasn't seen the rabidness of either side is because the rabid conservatives/liberals are bored by civil discussion and rant mostly to hear themselves talk and pat themselves on the back that they're right, it's obvious because all the smart people agree with them.
On Pat Robertson, the media needs to stop identifying him as a Christian and label him a political commentator. His kind of suggestion helps no one or cause and does a lot to hurt everyone. As a Christian, I condemn his comments and call other Christians to do the same, whether they be conservative or liberal.

I must have missed Pat Robertson's comments. What did he say that was SO awful?

all this drama, and I ain't even in it.
LOL!

truth, there's a link in Christopher's post of 8/22 at 7:10 pm.

I wish there was a way to determine if there's a connection between "rabid" bombthrowers (on both sides) and the rabid media talk shows. In other words, are the posters that label and insult also watching the talk shows that are doing the same thing?

Dough, that is a good question.

I've been harsh before, but I don't think I've been *rabid.*

And I do listen to Al Franken, Randi Rhodes and Jerry Springer occasionally on Air America Radio, but not daily.

Sometimes Sam Seder and Rachel Maddow, too, but their shows are at times that I always forget.

Because I listen to them doesn't mean I agree with them on everything, but I agree with them on many things. One thing I've never heard *any* of these three say, however, is that if you don't agree with them, then you're a traitor.

Regards,
Tony

susie, I called Pat what he is and that is a politician and business man. I haven't met a preacher lately that would call for the death of another human . But then come to think of it he has done exactly what he condemns the Islamic hardliners of doing, calling for the death of another.

Tony, again I have to thank you. I was indeed assuming that everyone that listens to talk radio hold extreme beliefs, and I see that was wrong.

I am used to assuming that because they scream, so do their listeners. I should know better, because I listen to shows that oppose my views for information and perspective.

Seems there were two groups of sailors on a ship that had been torpedoed and was taking on water. Well, one group was shouting we know how to save the boat better than you cause we volunteered. The other group shouted, no , we know better cause we were drafted and had to learn how to do things faster than you did. On and on the argument went. Finally the Captain appeared and said you all can argue all you want as to who is best, but unless you get busy and manage the pumps you all are going to sink.

Kinda seems that way to me these days in this world we live in. Folks get on here and argue that they know best cause they one way and another group gets on and argues they know best cause they the other and all they do is shout and call names. Best we can do is like the captain says, man the pumps ,ie pay attention to what is actually going on and get busy or the whole dang bunch of us are going to sink.

And this is for Billy Hammack. I believe that my body was given to me by God and I'm responsible to him for what I do with it. That means I have to make good choices when it comes to, among other things, sex. I'm a mom by choice, not by accident or mishap. I have never been in a situation that I had to consider alternatives to having and raising a child. However there are women who are pregnant by accident or force who do consider other alternatives. An awful lot of them. The issue for our country shouldn't be is abortion wrong, but how can we give women other alternatives to abortion? Hell, yes, abortion is murder. But these days, that distinction seems to matter less and less to women in a crisis pregnancy. What matters to them is what options are available. I don't think any woman WANTS to have an abortion. They want help out of a tough situation. Whether or not it's legal, abortion is not going away. We need to make it the hardest worst choice by helping women with neo-natal care, job skils, parenting skills and give them the ability to stand on their own two feet. Give them easy adoption choices. They need to feel like they have control over their lives. When I mentioned abortion, I was trying to illustrate that there are grey areas to almost any question and there is very little black and white in this world. That's what this thread has been all about. Discussing the gray areas and not having to listen to someone rant while they pigeon-hole you as a liberal or conservative. I have not yet figured out all of the questions life presents me with on a daily basis, but I'm working on it. I'll come to conclusions, some of which will probably be wrong. But I won't be listening to the tirades of people like you while I consider the conundrums of the world. You've already closed your mind, so there's little chance that any wisdom or truth will dribble out of it.

... so who have you been voting into office, Susie?

Oh well so much for civil conversation.
JDR , who she has been voting for has no bearing on anything and frankly is none of your nor anyone elses business.
Now I hate to be a bit harsh but dang it we have been having a right good conversation and no one has been "prying" or being catty.

Susie, you did good also until you got to the last few sentenses and questioned the mental or reasoning abilities of Billy . I know it is hard not to question these things sometimes but by now we or most of us know who does what and who doesn't. You are not alone because I don't beleive any of us have it all figured out either.
Thank you for your thoughts on a very sticky subject.

I didn't question Billy's reasoning ability. I just said that not much can get into and out of a closed mind. In the last two years, my opinions on several different issues have changed, because of experiences I've had and because I've listened to people present well-reasoned arguments. I also had the privilege of being a mentor to a woman at Room at the Inn of the Triad, a local crisis maternity home. She had been given options other than abortion and she opted to keep and parent her baby. He is now a strapping 2 y/o. This experience has shown me that the shrill debate that surrounds the issue of abortion is not doing anything for anyone except the protesters and maybe the lawyers. We need to use our resources better than that. Demonizing a woman who chooses abortion doesn't help anyone. Working to provide better choices helps everyone. We can't work together if we're not going to listen to each other and if we think that someone with different opinions from ours is flat-out wrong. JDR can sneer at me all he wants to. I don't think we had a good choice of candidates last election and I'm actually hoping John McCain will run in '08. I think he's a listener. We need more of those.
And Billy, if you read your bible, you'll find that God is the one who will judge the souls of people, none of us is qualified. I'm certainly not. I've got my own flaws I have to work out before I start pointing out the sins of others.

Susie, I commend you on what I consider some well thought out dialogue that has been posted.

I do especially like that one point on God being the one to judge and none other is qualified. That to me is a most important point to make. I appreciate your having made that distinction.

I only hope that the good dialogue continues, not only in this specific blog, with all the N & R blogs. As I see the names, many here comment on other letters as well. I hope that we all will think of this blog and the dialogue here when we post on other letters.

Peace to you!

MRP: I stand down - "... so who have you been voting into office" was meant as rhetorical, but one can't really tell in the posted quip.

... and Susie, I was not sneering (or smearing), and not really expecting an answer, but do I apologize for your offense.

MOST Americans (myself included) agree with Susie - Abortion is to be avoided and disdained in all but the most special and difficult of circumstances.

All that said - It's wholly ON subject - Labels. Why? The Pro-Life / Pro-Choice labeling has become the king pin of everything from Intelligent Design to Iraq, school vouchers, even the Pledge of Allegiance - and we are polarized. It has become a black-white divisive issue, and there is no middle ground in the debate. I'll refrain from using as proof these famous quotes: "With us, or against us", and "Dead or Alive".

We either are or are-not supporting "leaders" solely on this one issue - will they "take an unborn life" (labeled "Abortion by Demand", like it was a choice of what movie to see).

To quote the original letter, "The terminology's are so outdated and outmoded that there's no constructive dialogue possible, especially for those of us who have moved on from such ridiculous notions."

Murder isn't a gray area, JDR. It either is or isn't.

"Murder isn't a gray area, JDR. It either is or isn't."

I wholly disagree. If I shoot a burgler in my home at 3 am with a pistol pointed at my child - is that murder? (I'm taking a life; is it justifiable homicide?).

What if one of the Priests in the Temple was packing a gun and retaliated when Jesus tossed the tables - would the courts rule "justifiable homicide"?

What if a cop kills a suspected terrorist in the tubes of London because he fit a description and was running away?

What if that suspected terrorist were really carrying a bomb and many lives were in fact saved - does that change it?

What if Agnes of God were a true story?

I gather a few passengers and storm terrorists hijacking a plane and aiming at the Whitehouse, ditching it in a Pennsylvania field - is that murder? What about the pregnant woman in the seat beside me that also dies in the action?

If I smoke, am I murdering myself? Am I murdering others?

Did Sophie make the right Choice?

If I use pesticides on my crops, feeding some starcing folks but poisoning the water of others, someone's gonna die. What is the worst crime?

What if I dump chemicals into Love Canal?
If I play football too agressively, and accidently kill the player I just tackled?

If I let knowingly my wife die in the delivery of a child, is that murder?

If I let knowingly my wife die in the delivery of a child, is that murder?

If I otherwise decide to save my wife even if that means the death of the child, is that murder?

Ever hear of Christian Scientists?

I don't have the answers - just many gray areas to consider.