The Devil & Dick Cheney

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:

I think ‘thunder’ is referring to the reality where the Iraqis’ erected a statue of Bush in the square of Baghdad, Bin Laden is safely behind bars, and there hasn’t been a GOP scandal for the past two days.[/quote]

And, assuming each claim in your sentence is 100% true, they still don’t lend a shred of empirical support to your dumbass conspiracy theories.

[quote]At least some of us have kept our dignity.
[/quote]

Don’t you have to start with some in order to keep it?

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
snipeout wrote:
My wife, a teacher, gets the NEA(highy liberal publication) for the month of October. Now anyone with half of a brain knows October is national breast cancer awareness month. What does the NEA list October as? National gay and lesbian awareness month. Now what the fuck is that? That is just a small example as to how out of touch liberal publications are.

Who cares given that NEA is not something most people have probably heard of? It’s hardly something most Democrat voters or politicians would pay any attention to. [/quote]

So, what you’r saying is, most people have not heard of the national education association? A major supporter both vocally and monetarily of the democratic party.

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
snipeout wrote:
My wife, a teacher, gets the NEA(highy liberal publication) for the month of October. Now anyone with half of a brain knows October is national breast cancer awareness month. What does the NEA list October as? National gay and lesbian awareness month. Now what the fuck is that? That is just a small example as to how out of touch liberal publications are.

Who cares given that NEA is not something most people have probably heard of? It’s hardly something most Democrat voters or politicians would pay any attention to. [/quote]

Are you serious? The NEA is huge.

Six years ago jlesk would have written the same thing about Clinton. Maybe he did.

[quote]AZMojo wrote:
snipeout wrote:

No, I actually get angry at how the left preaches tolerance as long as it isn’t chrisitian based. We must tolerate gays, muslim extremists, illegal immigrants and canadians :wink: Yet they cry about “one nation under god” in the Pledge of Allegiance.

-Wow, is this what you really think? Can you even see that the Christianity you’re describing isn’t tolerant of anything. The Christianity you’re describing isn’t too far a cry from the Muslim fundamentalists you abhor. The Christianity you’re describing isn’t very Christian at all.

-Where did you ever get the idea that anyone wants to tolerate Muslim extremists? Has anybody said it, or are you just creating your own unique vision of the “other side”?

-As far as gays are concerned, since you don’t want to tolerate them, what’s your solution?

-Illegal immigrants have alreay been discussed ad nauseum, so I won’t bring that up again, except to say that, once again, nobody is really calling for tolerance of the situation, just a different solution than the one proposed currently.

-Do you also realize the difference between tolerance and forced action? By forcing every school child to recite “one nation under God”, you’re forcing them towards Christianity, or some other God based religion. That’s not America anymore. Many are here who do not believe in God, and it’s their right not to.
What if the warden, or whoever runs your jail, was a Native American and he said that, even though he realizes you’re a Christian, every day each CO would have make an offering to some other God, what would you do? Quit, sue, make the offering?

[/quote]

If you can’t teach a child respect for their country and flag that’s just ridiculous. You are one of those pieces of shit that would probably take a school district to court over “one nation under god” in the pledge. You honestly border on making me sick AZ, you have such an ultra-liberal outlook on things. There you go in grand fashion making some ridiculous off the wall analogy. Libs have gone so off the wall that they have lost the meaning of separation of church and state. In case you have forgotten all separation of church and state really says is that government will not establish a national church. Should we reprint money because it says “In God We Trust”?

[quote]vroom wrote:
Snipe, nice, I had to laugh at the Canadian reference!

I don’t know who is pushing the brand of tolerance you mention, but I really suspect nobody is pushing for tolerance of muslim extremists.

I think that is a twist done by those that generate republican talking points in order to make tolerance out to be something it isn’t, to make it a bad thing.[/quote]

Vroom more or less of what I am saying here is that there are people who state that these extremists and terrorists are freedom fighters and we made them attack the free world. As for the other points it wasn’t an anger thing, it was more of a teaching tolerance for gays so to speak yet trying to remove “one nation under God” from the pledge. These people want to introduce the homosexual lifestyle to young children, yet have a problem about teaching the same children respect for their country and flag.

[quote]snipeout wrote:
AZMojo wrote:
snipeout wrote:

-Wow, is this what you really think? Can you even see that the Christianity you’re describing isn’t tolerant of anything. The Christianity you’re describing isn’t too far a cry from the Muslim fundamentalists you abhor. The Christianity you’re describing isn’t very Christian at all.

-Where did you ever get the idea that anyone wants to tolerate Muslim extremists? Has anybody said it, or are you just creating your own unique vision of the “other side”?

-As far as gays are concerned, since you don’t want to tolerate them, what’s your solution?

-Illegal immigrants have alreay been discussed ad nauseum, so I won’t bring that up again, except to say that, once again, nobody is really calling for tolerance of the situation, just a different solution than the one proposed currently.

-Do you also realize the difference between tolerance and forced action? By forcing every school child to recite “one nation under God”, you’re forcing them towards Christianity, or some other God based religion. That’s not America anymore. Many are here who do not believe in God, and it’s their right not to.
What if the warden, or whoever runs your jail, was a Native American and he said that, even though he realizes you’re a Christian, every day each CO would have make an offering to some other God, what would you do? Quit, sue, make the offering?

If you can’t teach a child respect for their country and flag that’s just ridiculous. You are one of those pieces of shit that would probably take a school district to court over “one nation under god” in the pledge. You honestly border on making me sick AZ, you have such an ultra-liberal outlook on things. There you go in grand fashion making some ridiculous off the wall analogy. Libs have gone so off the wall that they have lost the meaning of separation of church and state. In case you have forgotten all separation of church and state really says is that government will not establish a national church. Should we reprint money because it says “In God We Trust”?[/quote]

-That’s it? Not a single answer? Do you even have any answers, or are you just here to expose the liberal menace?

-My analogy is only off the wall because you can’t fathom living in a world where you, and your values, aren’t in complete control. How Christian of you.

-Since you’ve so adroitly pointed out “our” flaws, I guess we should all fall in line with the rest of the scared little sheep and accept whatever the shepard tells us. Welcome to pre-Nazi Germany.

[quote]AZMojo wrote:

-Since you’ve so adroitly pointed out “our” flaws, I guess we should all fall in line with the rest of the scared little sheep and accept whatever the shepard tells us. Welcome to pre-Nazi Germany.
[/quote]

Why is a difference in opinion in politics always caricatured by the Left as a sign that the Man wants control of your mind to do things His way but by differing, you are standing against Fascism by martyring yourself in dissent?

It is a romantic view Leftists -particuarly young ones - adopt because it makes them feel cool.

Bottom line: not every political disagreement on ‘values’ is a sign of ‘pre-war Germany’ no matter how desparately you want it to be.

So please, reattach yourself to reality.

Teach them both… problem solved.

[quote]vroom wrote:
These people want to introduce the homosexual lifestyle to young children, yet have a problem about teaching the same children respect for their country and flag.

Teach them both… problem solved.[/quote]

As of late I agree with you for the most part. I don’t think “alternative lifestyles” should be taught until a much later age, in high school perhaps.

[quote]AZMojo wrote:
snipeout wrote:
AZMojo wrote:
snipeout wrote:

-Wow, is this what you really think? Can you even see that the Christianity you’re describing isn’t tolerant of anything. The Christianity you’re describing isn’t too far a cry from the Muslim fundamentalists you abhor. The Christianity you’re describing isn’t very Christian at all.

-Where did you ever get the idea that anyone wants to tolerate Muslim extremists? Has anybody said it, or are you just creating your own unique vision of the “other side”?

-As far as gays are concerned, since you don’t want to tolerate them, what’s your solution?

-Illegal immigrants have alreay been discussed ad nauseum, so I won’t bring that up again, except to say that, once again, nobody is really calling for tolerance of the situation, just a different solution than the one proposed currently.

-Do you also realize the difference between tolerance and forced action? By forcing every school child to recite “one nation under God”, you’re forcing them towards Christianity, or some other God based religion. That’s not America anymore. Many are here who do not believe in God, and it’s their right not to.
What if the warden, or whoever runs your jail, was a Native American and he said that, even though he realizes you’re a Christian, every day each CO would have make an offering to some other God, what would you do? Quit, sue, make the offering?

If you can’t teach a child respect for their country and flag that’s just ridiculous. You are one of those pieces of shit that would probably take a school district to court over “one nation under god” in the pledge. You honestly border on making me sick AZ, you have such an ultra-liberal outlook on things. There you go in grand fashion making some ridiculous off the wall analogy. Libs have gone so off the wall that they have lost the meaning of separation of church and state. In case you have forgotten all separation of church and state really says is that government will not establish a national church. Should we reprint money because it says “In God We Trust”?

-That’s it? Not a single answer? Do you even have any answers, or are you just here to expose the liberal menace?

-My analogy is only off the wall because you can’t fathom living in a world where you, and your values, aren’t in complete control. How Christian of you.

-Since you’ve so adroitly pointed out “our” flaws, I guess we should all fall in line with the rest of the scared little sheep and accept whatever the shepard tells us. Welcome to pre-Nazi Germany.
[/quote]

No the problem is we point out your flaws. You run to the ACLU and the such to have “one nation under god” and “in god we trust” removed. The liberal left has absolutely no tolerance for anything that doesn’t fall in line with their set of beliefs. It’s ok to tolerate scientology, islam and whatever else there is but any reference to god or jesus through the christian or jewish religion is absurd. It’s time to grow up and realize that “one nation under god” is not a forcing of religious beliefs on children.

[quote]snipeout wrote:
AZMojo wrote:
snipeout wrote:
AZMojo wrote:
snipeout wrote:

-Wow, is this what you really think? Can you even see that the Christianity you’re describing isn’t tolerant of anything. The Christianity you’re describing isn’t too far a cry from the Muslim fundamentalists you abhor. The Christianity you’re describing isn’t very Christian at all.

-Where did you ever get the idea that anyone wants to tolerate Muslim extremists? Has anybody said it, or are you just creating your own unique vision of the “other side”?

-As far as gays are concerned, since you don’t want to tolerate them, what’s your solution?

-Illegal immigrants have alreay been discussed ad nauseum, so I won’t bring that up again, except to say that, once again, nobody is really calling for tolerance of the situation, just a different solution than the one proposed currently.

-Do you also realize the difference between tolerance and forced action? By forcing every school child to recite “one nation under God”, you’re forcing them towards Christianity, or some other God based religion. That’s not America anymore. Many are here who do not believe in God, and it’s their right not to.
What if the warden, or whoever runs your jail, was a Native American and he said that, even though he realizes you’re a Christian, every day each CO would have make an offering to some other God, what would you do? Quit, sue, make the offering?

If you can’t teach a child respect for their country and flag that’s just ridiculous. You are one of those pieces of shit that would probably take a school district to court over “one nation under god” in the pledge. You honestly border on making me sick AZ, you have such an ultra-liberal outlook on things. There you go in grand fashion making some ridiculous off the wall analogy. Libs have gone so off the wall that they have lost the meaning of separation of church and state. In case you have forgotten all separation of church and state really says is that government will not establish a national church. Should we reprint money because it says “In God We Trust”?

-That’s it? Not a single answer? Do you even have any answers, or are you just here to expose the liberal menace?

-My analogy is only off the wall because you can’t fathom living in a world where you, and your values, aren’t in complete control. How Christian of you.

-Since you’ve so adroitly pointed out “our” flaws, I guess we should all fall in line with the rest of the scared little sheep and accept whatever the shepard tells us. Welcome to pre-Nazi Germany.

No the problem is we point out your flaws. You run to the ACLU and the such to have “one nation under god” and “in god we trust” removed. The liberal left has absolutely no tolerance for anything that doesn’t fall in line with their set of beliefs. It’s ok to tolerate scientology, islam and whatever else there is but any reference to god or jesus through the christian or jewish religion is absurd. It’s time to grow up and realize that “one nation under god” is not a forcing of religious beliefs on children.[/quote]

For once I agree. I would say 90% of the country believe in some sort of God or supreme being. Being as this doesn’t say “Christian GOd”, it simply says God, I think its not all that offensive. It never bothered me, and I’m a pinko commi bastard.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
AZMojo wrote:

-Since you’ve so adroitly pointed out “our” flaws, I guess we should all fall in line with the rest of the scared little sheep and accept whatever the shepard tells us. Welcome to pre-Nazi Germany.

Why is a difference in opinion in politics always caricatured by the Left as a sign that the Man wants control of your mind to do things His way but by differing, you are standing against Fascism by martyring yourself in dissent?

It is a romantic view Leftists -particuarly young ones - adopt because it makes them feel cool.

Bottom line: not every political disagreement on ‘values’ is a sign of ‘pre-war Germany’ no matter how desparately you want it to be.

So please, reattach yourself to reality.

[/quote]

You bring up a good point Thunder. I often wonder when tolerance got confused with acceptance. It seems that many on the Left think if you have definitive moral/ethical/religious beliefs, you are somehow “intolerant.” Tolerance is the allowance of veiws different from one’s own.

Granted, there are a number of Christians, Conservatives, Neocons, or whatever, who are wholly intolerant of differing veiw points, but there are just as many on the Left.

I find it pretty funny that some ultra- leftists fail to realize that when they characterize an entire group of people as “rednecks,” “jesus freaks,” ect, they are no better than the whacko holding a sign that says “god hates fags.”

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
snipeout wrote:

No the problem is we point out your flaws. You run to the ACLU and the such to have “one nation under god” and “in god we trust” removed. The liberal left has absolutely no tolerance for anything that doesn’t fall in line with their set of beliefs. It’s ok to tolerate scientology, islam and whatever else there is but any reference to god or jesus through the christian or jewish religion is absurd. It’s time to grow up and realize that “one nation under god” is not a forcing of religious beliefs on children.

For once I agree. I would say 90% of the country believe in some sort of God or supreme being. Being as this doesn’t say “Christian GOd”, it simply says God, I think its not all that offensive. It never bothered me, and I’m a pinko commi bastard.[/quote]

-For the record, I’m not personally opposed to it either. I have bigger priorities in life beyond what’s written on my money.

-I’m merely trying to point out the hypocrisy of his position on tolerance. If the left calls for tolerance, they are not advocating that Scientology, or Islam, or homosexuality, or whatever snipe is against today, be institutionalized. Nobody on the left is calling for recitations of the Koran in public school, at least nobody credible.
The religious right, on the other hand, is constantly trying to force, or keep, their agenda in the school system, or whatever public institution they can get their claws into.

We should realize that when our nation was founded, there were no other religions represented, only variations of the same one. So, it was only natural to address God. What else was there? Then our country and society grew and incorporated other belief systems. Maybe the old way isn’t as appropriate as it once was.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
AZMojo wrote:

-Since you’ve so adroitly pointed out “our” flaws, I guess we should all fall in line with the rest of the scared little sheep and accept whatever the shepard tells us. Welcome to pre-Nazi Germany.

Why is a difference in opinion in politics always caricatured by the Left as a sign that the Man wants control of your mind to do things His way but by differing, you are standing against Fascism by martyring yourself in dissent?[/quote]

-Probably for the same reasons that a difference in opinion is ALWAYS caricatured by the Right as proof that the Left strives for a state of lawless anarchy, with illegal-alien- communist gay orgies going on inside abortion clinics. Oh, that’s right it isn’t. Making broad generalizations may look like you’re proving some kind of point, but you aren’t. You’re merely demonstrating you closed-mindedness to all. There’s nothing romantic about that.

The real bottom line: The citizens of our country have been whipped into a state of fear the likes of which hasn’t been seen since the start of the Cold War. Bad policy decisions are being made in the name of security and protection that are stripping away our rights, but Americans, especially conservatives, are sitting back and saying “Well, as long as I’m safer, it’s okay”.

That’s the reality. I’m suprised you can’t see it from your high horse.

[quote]LBRTRN wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
AZMojo wrote:

-Since you’ve so adroitly pointed out “our” flaws, I guess we should all fall in line with the rest of the scared little sheep and accept whatever the shepard tells us. Welcome to pre-Nazi Germany.

Why is a difference in opinion in politics always caricatured by the Left as a sign that the Man wants control of your mind to do things His way but by differing, you are standing against Fascism by martyring yourself in dissent?

It is a romantic view Leftists -particuarly young ones - adopt because it makes them feel cool.

Bottom line: not every political disagreement on ‘values’ is a sign of ‘pre-war Germany’ no matter how desparately you want it to be.

So please, reattach yourself to reality.

You bring up a good point Thunder. I often wonder when tolerance got confused with acceptance. It seems that many on the Left think if you have definitive moral/ethical/religious beliefs, you are somehow “intolerant.” Tolerance is the allowance of veiws different from one’s own.

Granted, there are a number of Christians, Conservatives, Neocons, or whatever, who are wholly intolerant of differing veiw points, but there are just as many on the Left.

I find it pretty funny that some ultra- leftists fail to realize that when they characterize an entire group of people as “rednecks,” “jesus freaks,” ect, they are no better than the whacko holding a sign that says “god hates fags.”

[/quote]

Not a proper analogy. “Rednecks” or “Jesus Freaks” are characterized by what they do, not by who they are. No one using the phrase “Jesus freak” means all Christians. They mean those who view their entire lives (and ours) through the narrow prism of their interpretation of a 2,000 year old book.

Why is it not okay to call assholes assholes?

[quote]LBRTRN wrote:
I often wonder when tolerance got confused with acceptance.[/quote]

It happened when extremist from BOTH sides of the political arena managed to take over their respective parties.

Actually, tolerance is the capacity for respecting the opinions or practices of others. It’s that lack of respect for others that has caused so many issues in this country. Lack of respect is why you have such animosity brewing in the country. Lack of respect is why people with opposing viewpoints end up getting into shouting matches rather than true political discourse.

Also, there are many that identify themselves as being on the Right that believe that many of those that identify themselves as being on the Left don’t possess any moral/ethical/religious beliefs. Because of this, those on the Right feel that they can dismiss anything that comes from those on the Left simply because they don’t agree with their viewpoint on a particular issue or issues. Moral/ethical/religious beliefs are not the sole province of one group over another.

I totally agree.

[quote]
I find it pretty funny that some ultra- leftists fail to realize that when they characterize an entire group of people as “rednecks,” “jesus freaks,” ect, they are no better than the whacko holding a sign that says “god hates fags.”[/quote]

And I find it pretty funny that some ultra-right wingers fail to realize that their placing people in neat little boxes (ABBer’s, thinktards, whackjobs etc.) and shutting their minds down when someone presents a different veiwpoint than their own without truly listening to what is being said, and then trying to get into a pissing match to prove their superiority, are no better than the ultra-leftist that is calling people who have religious beliefs “bible thumpers” and “jesus freaks”. In other words, there are psychos on both sides.

Personally, I think that the whole Left/Right, choosing sides bullshit is ridiculous. There is a small percentage of powerful, connected extremists on both sides that are using this game to control the country and it is sucking the rest of us down the tubes. This is why I refuse to identify myself with either side despite the fact that many extremist-attitude posters on here want to place me in their own catagory because I don’t agree with them.

[quote]AZMojo wrote:

-Probably for the same reasons that a difference in opinion is ALWAYS caricatured by the Right as proof that the Left strives for a state of lawless anarchy, with illegal-alien- communist gay orgies going on inside abortion clinics. Oh, that’s right it isn’t.[/quote]

So - your characterization right there implies that doing such caricatures are wrong and shouldn’t be done. So, if you think they are wrong, why do you do still do it?

Everyone uses broad generalizations to make points. How many people have used the term ‘neocon’ around here as a catchall for anything hated right of center, even though a ‘neoconservatism’ is a very narrow ideology that not all right of center folks share?

So, as to your charge of ‘closed mindedness’ because I - or anyone around here - might generalize is stupid. Everyone does it, and it can be useful as long as it doesn’t devolve into a pure ad hominem attack.

The only people consistently bitching about labels are those with the self-esteem of a pre-pubescent 9th grader. Every sane person who posts here is fully aware of the limits of labels, but still use them as a means of discussion. No need to constantly whine that ‘you can’t put people in boxes!’

Put Boston Barrister, Zap, Rainjack, Zeb and myself in a bag and you will get some very different characters and different versions of conservatism. But I am not gonna cry like a 9 year old with a skinned knee if someone makes a generalization about the Right - I’ll offer up my explanation, but I don’t reject the label outright as some infringement of my delicate sensibilities.

This has become a reflexive squawk from the Left - but not all the Left, but most of the ones I have heard, but certainly not every single one (is that better?) - that Bush and Co. have been using a ‘campaign of fear’ to cow people into following them.

Hogwash. First and foremost, after 9/11, there is every reason to sober up and be wary of attack. We should be a little scared. Second, by the same rationale, if a John Kerry tells voters that a second Bush term will make the world less safe - which he did, often - how is that not playing on a ‘campaign of fear’ by your own standards? Trying to scare people into voting Democrat because Bush is gonna get us all killed?

Does your analysis go both ways or do you just pick and choose, buffet-style?

So which of your civil liberties are you not currently enjoying as a result of the war?

That being said, a free society will always have to balance liberty and order, particularly in wartime. Although I wonder what you think of Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus? Nevermind, the issue is simple - Lincoln must have been a neocon.

I have several horses, and they average about 16 hand. How is the view from your mule?

[quote]harris447 wrote:
LBRTRN wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
AZMojo wrote:

-Since you’ve so adroitly pointed out “our” flaws, I guess we should all fall in line with the rest of the scared little sheep and accept whatever the shepard tells us. Welcome to pre-Nazi Germany.

Why is a difference in opinion in politics always caricatured by the Left as a sign that the Man wants control of your mind to do things His way but by differing, you are standing against Fascism by martyring yourself in dissent?

It is a romantic view Leftists -particuarly young ones - adopt because it makes them feel cool.

Bottom line: not every political disagreement on ‘values’ is a sign of ‘pre-war Germany’ no matter how desparately you want it to be.

So please, reattach yourself to reality.

You bring up a good point Thunder. I often wonder when tolerance got confused with acceptance. It seems that many on the Left think if you have definitive moral/ethical/religious beliefs, you are somehow “intolerant.” Tolerance is the allowance of veiws different from one’s own.

Granted, there are a number of Christians, Conservatives, Neocons, or whatever, who are wholly intolerant of differing veiw points, but there are just as many on the Left.

I find it pretty funny that some ultra- leftists fail to realize that when they characterize an entire group of people as “rednecks,” “jesus freaks,” ect, they are no better than the whacko holding a sign that says “god hates fags.”

Not a proper analogy. “Rednecks” or “Jesus Freaks” are characterized by what they do, not by who they are. No one using the phrase “Jesus freak” means all Christians. They mean those who view their entire lives (and ours) through the narrow prism of their interpretation of a 2,000 year old book.

Why is it not okay to call assholes assholes?[/quote]

Well first, homosexuals are also characterized by what they do…you may object to their behavior or you may not, but it is still a behavior regardless of whether they have a genetic predisposition to be attracted to members of the same sex. Secondly, analogies are never perfect and I was only pointing out the hypocrisy of those who disparage entire groups of people on the basis of their beliefs, and then turn around and claim moral superiority becuase of their more “tolerant” nature.

Good post.

My political beliefs tend to get me called a neocon by liberals and a lefty by conservatives. So I figure my beliefs must be pretty good.

[quote]ALDurr wrote:
LBRTRN wrote:
I often wonder when tolerance got confused with acceptance.

It happened when extremist from BOTH sides of the political arena managed to take over their respective parties.

It seems that many on the Left think if you have definitive moral/ethical/religious beliefs, you are somehow “intolerant.” Tolerance is the allowance of veiws different from one’s own.

Actually, tolerance is the capacity for respecting the opinions or practices of others. It’s that lack of respect for others that has caused so many issues in this country. Lack of respect is why you have such animosity brewing in the country. Lack of respect is why people with opposing viewpoints end up getting into shouting matches rather than true political discourse.

Also, there are many that identify themselves as being on the Right that believe that many of those that identify themselves as being on the Left don’t possess any moral/ethical/religious beliefs. Because of this, those on the Right feel that they can dismiss anything that comes from those on the Left simply because they don’t agree with their viewpoint on a particular issue or issues. Moral/ethical/religious beliefs are not the sole province of one group over another.

Granted, there are a number of Christians, Conservatives, Neocons, or whatever, who are wholly intolerant of differing veiw points, but there are just as many on the Left.

I totally agree.

I find it pretty funny that some ultra- leftists fail to realize that when they characterize an entire group of people as “rednecks,” “jesus freaks,” ect, they are no better than the whacko holding a sign that says “god hates fags.”

And I find it pretty funny that some ultra-right wingers fail to realize that their placing people in neat little boxes (ABBer’s, thinktards, whackjobs etc.) and shutting their minds down when someone presents a different veiwpoint than their own without truly listening to what is being said, and then trying to get into a pissing match to prove their superiority, are no better than the ultra-leftist that is calling people who have religious beliefs “bible thumpers” and “jesus freaks”. In other words, there are psychos on both sides.

Personally, I think that the whole Left/Right, choosing sides bullshit is ridiculous. There is a small percentage of powerful, connected extremists on both sides that are using this game to control the country and it is sucking the rest of us down the tubes. This is why I refuse to identify myself with either side despite the fact that many extremist-attitude posters on here want to place me in their own catagory because I don’t agree with them. [/quote]