XPost: az.general
From: riever@cox.net
"Deecell Bathery" wrote in message
news:12t7a25fqh8bm2c@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "paul" wrote in message
> news:GLMAh.18596$c%2.5265@newsfe12.phx...
>>
>> "Deecell Bathery" wrote in message
>> news:12t6r1u4k0ph0da@corp.supernews.com...
>>>
>>> "paul" wrote in message
>>> news:gkHAh.12416$0y4.2818@newsfe14.phx...
>>>> nobody said the religious right didn't have any influence. i think
>>>> larry said that the loonie fringe didn't have control of anything.
>>>> thats a little different. in my experience, the vast majority of the
>>>> 'religious right', or the religious left for that matter, may have
>>>> strong views influenced by their religion, but are not fringe, or
>>>> loonie or neo anything.
>>>
>>> The religious left largely gets into politics involving care for the
>>> homeless, the sick, minorities, and many times falls into the secular
>>> category by supporting the seperation of church and state. They are
>>> pretty disorganized as a whole and by comparison to the right have
>>> little influence.
>>
>> lol
>
> Then you should be able to come up with numerous examples of where I am
> wrong.
i start with the catholic church, long a bastion of leftist support
throughout central and south america and the whole world for that matter.
there are actually quite a number of effective liberal religious
organizations. i will look them up for you if you need...
>
>>
>>>
>>> The religious right is well organized funded, and powerful. They mainly
>>> fall on the side of weakening first amendment protections and religious
>>> freedom. They do also care for the sick and hungry, but they take a
>>> backseat to their attacks on the constitutional rights of the citizens
>>> in this country.
>>>
>>> Here's a challenge for you, since you will probably argue that I am
>>> wrong about the right. Name one law they advocate that protects our
>>> freedoms rather than restrict them.
>>
>> the 'right to life'. specifically, they support the right of very young
>> human beings to not be murdered.
>
> Wrong. The right to life movement also includes the agenda of making birth
> control illegal. That is a restriction.
i know of some who oppose the personal use of birth control, but i
personally know of none who would actually make illegal the means for
prevention of pregnancy.
>
>
>>
>> as a christian conservative, i also support free speech in virtually
>> every case. i believe in allowing low lifes the right to burn our flag. i
>> support my right to call them low lifes for doing so. we generally
>> support our second amendment rights. i am big on the 4th amendment too.
>> in fact, i can think of no rights bestowed by our constitution that i and
>> most religious conservatives do NOT actively support. can you?
>
> Certainly. The right to free speech, religious freedom, and seperation of
> powers. The conservative population in general are not for free speech or
> dissent or a right to associate freely when you come down to the brass
> tacks. They are very authoritarian in nature. The whitehouse and Bush
> administration are an example of this. I have a very long list of examples
> if you want them.
there are a few authoritarians on all sides. the left has turned theirs into
a platform to control others who disagree with them. real bad guys of both
sides will be kept in check by the voters.
>
> Now, I will grant you that the group I would lable True Conservatives, as
> opposed to the neoconservatives and social conservatives, are very
> libertarian in regards to the constitution, but the current group in the
> whitehouse and in charge of the party are not.
i will admit that they have drifted a bit too far a time or two. you guys
couldn't find anybody who was any better, so we got the lesser of all evils
willing to stick thier necks out.
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> One can easily point out laws that the religious left advocate that
>>> protect us from infringements on our rights.
>>>
>>>
>
> I see you had nothing for this one.
you had been arguing that the religious left was inneffective or non
existent. i didn't want to address this and embarrass you with the fact that
you were contradicting yourself.
the religious left and the religious right are very different, but both can
be effective when you tweek their beard just right.
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> mccain severely damaged his relations with the conservatives (not just
>>>> religious conservatives) in years past. he has spent the last several
>>>> years trying to repair those badly burned bridges. the evidence i've
>>>> seen suggests that he has been somewhat effective in doing so. whether
>>>> it will be enuff,
>>>
>>> It says volumes that you believe he should be mending fences with the
>>> religious right that he alienated and dropping the moderates he courted
>>> before.
>>
>> i haven't decided who i will support for president. i speak only as an
>> observer, at this point.
>>
>>>
>>> Many conservatives would say he is on the wrong side.
>>>
>>
>> i can think of no politician who is not on the wrong side of some if not
>> many issues. if you know of one who is on the right side 100%, PLEASE
>> share that with us.
>
> The question is, would you be willing to vote for any of the democratic
> candidates. Until McCain became a great big whore I would have considered
> voting for him if I didn't like the other guy.
hm,
Obama comes off as a decent sort of guy, and is kind of riding that centrist
pony. i would need to know more about him. Kucinich has politics i couldn't
handle, but i find him to be decent and truly believes what he says, and
isn't in it to agrandize himself so much as what he believes. hillary gore
kerry and most of the rest i have little use for.
i have voted for a few democrats over the years, and probably will again.
paul
>
>
>
>
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
