Blogcritics Comments on Democrats' Key to Success: The Spiritual Left

Comment by Jet in Columbus

Thu, 30 Mar 2006 14:58:09 EST

Now I'M offended. One of my favorite musical groups was Enigma!!

Comment by MCH

Thu, 30 Mar 2006 10:52:05 EST

Chris; Give up, my man. He's an enigma wrapped in an illusion.

Comment by Christopher Rose

Thu, 30 Mar 2006 09:49:54 EST

I can see why you'd think that, Dave, doesn't take a lot of figurin'.

Comment by Dave Nalle

Thu, 30 Mar 2006 08:50:16 EST

CR, one man's 'negative prejudices' are apparently another man's 'positive outlook'. Go figure. Dave

Comment by Steve

Wed, 29 Mar 2006 23:10:53 EST

Yeah, JP, I'm really curious as to whether and how she runs in the next election two years down the road on the show, be interesting to see if anyone tries to follow her lead in real life.

Comment by JP

Wed, 29 Mar 2006 22:30:52 EST

Steve - I haven't really watched it, honestly, but I'm not opposed to a woman, and I'm certainly not opposed to an Independent! Probably a better idea in some ways than the schmucks we usually have to decide between.

Comment by Steve

Mon, 27 Mar 2006 11:56:05 EST

Has anyone seen the new TV series "Commander in Chief" on ABC??? What do you all think of having an Independent president???

Comment by JP

Mon, 27 Mar 2006 11:51:31 EST

Being loud and obnoxious as the far right does not make a group the majority, no matter how much it wants to be.

Comment by Jet in Columbus

Thu, 23 Mar 2006 08:07:33 EST

It would seem to me that we get what we deserve. The only block of voters that at the moment, seems to be motivated to get to the voting booths in droves ARE right-wing church-going Southern-Baptist White-conservative voters. Though that group is considerably a minority, they have and claim the right to call themselves the "majority" as did Jerry Falwell's moral "majority" because the WENT to the polls. Unfortunately, a three party system would never work in our country because of one simple fact... In a close election the President/ruling party would be elected by only one third of the population, meaning two-thirds DIDN'T vote for him. As you can see by the poll numbers over the last few months, we already HAVE that system, as the only people still supporting Bush are his core rabid, foaming at the mouth supporters of around 30%-less than a third! I'd dare say they're hanging on to him by their fingernails, simply because they don't want to admit they were wrong. Kinda sad isn't it, especially since the Democratic Party is now fighting to sound like the Republicans, and the Republicans are now sounding like the Democrats. Personally I hope Hillary Clinton gets elected... after it'd be a shame if Rush Limbaugh couldn't continue his comedy show...

Comment by Christopher Rose

Thu, 23 Mar 2006 05:57:57 EST

Aah, Comment #59, in which our dear Mr Nalle proves the very point of my remark about him not drawing conclusions (if only) but simply re-iterating his mostly negative prejudices. Nice of you to display them so clearly though, Dave. Thanks for removing any lingering ambiguity.

Comment by Dave Nalle

Wed, 22 Mar 2006 18:53:10 EST

Dave, I don't know if you've taken a course in ignoring what people say to you as you make your carefully constructed remarks that simply ignore other people but it sure seems that way. I'm taking it right now in the classroom of Professor Christopher Rose. I have repeatedly stated on BC that I am not a Socialist and that I don't believe in political or other dogma. And I just said, not 5 posts ago, that I'm drawing conclusions based on your expressed beliefs, not having access to the inner workings of your mind or your personal manifesto. You can SAY you're not a socialist all you want, but if you repeatedly promote socialistic assumptions, what am I to conclude? You also don't know anything about who I am surrounded by so once again, your remarks are simply ludicrous and totally lacking in any relevance to anything, particularly the topic under discussion. Again, I am merely trying to understand you in context, based on a very limited amount of information. Atrributing your obtuseness to your environment was intended to be charitable. How we get from me asking you to lay out a positive agenda rather than attacking other people all the time to details of the war in Iraq is a mystery that, along with your so-called "positive" views, seems entirely confined to the inside of your own marvellous little mind. I guess I didn't latch on to the 'positive agenda' thing. I don't have an 'agenda' at all, merely a viewpoint. What I was responding to was the second part of that statement where you commented that you "struggle to come up with any memories of your positivity", which is particularly bizarre since most of my statements are based in a positive view of the world, which is what I tried to illustrate with a couple of concrete examples. The only thing I see coming from you is the certainty that you know best and that everybody else is wrong. If that is so, it only seems reasonable to ask you to come up with positive contributions rather than simply disagreeing so arrogantly. You seem to have reached this conclusion solely because I disagree with YOU, and therefore am arrogant, because only an arrogant person could have the temerity to disagree with you. There are plenty of people on BC and elsewhere who I agree with, but I generally don't spend a lot of time patting them on the back and saying 'huzzah'. That's a pointless waste of time. You think I disagree all the time because I respond to things I disagree with (duh). Believe me, it would be boring and pointless if all of our discussions took the opposite route. Dave

Comment by JP

Wed, 22 Mar 2006 07:50:13 EST

AC, I do agree that a spoken prayer in unison, as Ruvy described in #43, would be imposing upon persons of other beliefs. Personally, I have no problem with a moment of silence, as one is free to pray to a deity of choice or not pray during that time. Others may feel differently. Dave, good summary of why the opposing sides find the world so polarized--we cannot agree on a simple set of facts to work from. I'm including myself here, I recognize my bias; but your paragraph is insightful: "Perhaps this is because what I look at as a positive you see as a negative. I look at Iraq and see the positive progress towards freedom and self government. You look at it and see nothing but the violence which is a natural attendant on the birth of freedom, but which you see only as violence. You look at America and see an oppressive would-be empire. I look at America and see a nation going above and beyond any reasonable effort and expense to help others. And these are reactions to the same policies."

Comment by Arch Conservative

Wed, 22 Mar 2006 07:36:36 EST

"Dave, I don't know if you've taken a course in ignoring what people say to you" Haha. That was actually pretty funny.

Comment by Christopher Rose

Wed, 22 Mar 2006 05:05:57 EST

Dave, I don't know if you've taken a course in ignoring what people say to you as you make your carefully constructed remarks that simply ignore other people but it sure seems that way. I have repeatedly stated on BC that I am not a Socialist and that I don't believe in political or other dogma. You also don't know anything about who I am surrounded by so once again, your remarks are simply ludicrous and totally lacking in any relevance to anything, particularly the topic under discussion. How we get from me asking you to lay out a positive agenda rather than attacking other people all the time to details of the war in Iraq is a mystery that, along with your so-called "positive" views, seems entirely confined to the inside of your own marvellous little mind. The only thing I see coming from you is the certainty that you know best and that everybody else is wrong. If that is so, it only seems reasonable to ask you to come up with positive contributions rather than simply disagreeing so arrogantly. Please stop embarrassing yourself so regularly by ignoring reality in favour of your own pet delusions, it makes the place look bad as well as being poor politics...

Comment by Dave Nalle

Tue, 21 Mar 2006 19:44:37 EST

Dave, you'll never win me over at all as long as you have completely delusional ideas in your mind that I am any kind of socialist. I can only go based on what I see you saying on BC. I can't read your inner mind. Perhaps it's a function of perspective. What you, surrounded by more extreme socialists, see as a moderate position, appears to those of us isolated from the eurosocialist environment as much more extreme than it does to you. Perhaps you'd be so good as to lay out this positive agenda of yours for, try as I might, I struggle to come up with any memories of your positivity Perhaps this is because what I look at as a positive you see as a negative. I look at Iraq and see the positive progress towards freedom and self government. You look at it and see nothing but the violence which is a natural attendant on the birth of freedom, but which you see only as violence. You look at America and see an oppressive would-be empire. I look at America and see a nation going above and beyond any reasonable effort and expense to help others. And these are reactions to the same policies. Dave

Comment by Christopher Rose

Tue, 21 Mar 2006 18:12:25 EST

Dave, you'll never win me over at all as long as you have completely delusional ideas in your mind that I am any kind of socialist. The fact that you ignore the fact that I have already pointed that out to you several times now only goes to show how truly blinded you are by your own shining wit and wisdom. Perhaps you'd be so good as to lay out this positive agenda of yours for, try as I might, I struggle to come up with any memories of your positivity

Comment by Arch Conservative

Tue, 21 Mar 2006 16:51:12 EST

I surely do but I'm at work now when I get home I will provide some more.

Comment by Michael J. West

Tue, 21 Mar 2006 16:40:18 EST

That is, indeed, just one example, Arch. (An example on which I happen to agree with you. I question Jessica Reed's appropriateness and taste in making those remarks, but not her rights to make them.) But one example does not equate to "countless." If there are so many more you can surely provide me with some of them. I'm actually looking for other examples in which the ACLU singles out Christians as the targets of lawsuits, but I'm having a hard time finding them. So can you give me any more examples?

Comment by Dave Nalle

Tue, 21 Mar 2006 16:28:17 EST

It wasn't intended to be a response to #39 - I'd missed that comment. Here's a real response to it. Every time you get called on it, you leap to your figleaf of neutrality but you appear to be consistently attacking the left whilst ignoring the far more important acts of the party currently in power in your country and their extremist supporters. I am not neutral and never claimed to be. I'm relatively moderate in my views with the exception of my extreme distaste for the left-wing hate machine and the failed policies of socialism. But I feel the same way about the religious right and the neocons. Furthermore, you also seem to delight in distorting or caricaturing views you instinctively dislike without any serious regard for the actual issues. Indeed I do. The issues have often already been discussed to death. All that's left is the scoffing. I don't agree with your political perspective or your slowly emerging partisan agenda but if you go to such extreme lengths and adopt such outlandish postures, you will simply reduce yourself and, possibly more importantly, your interesting and often well-informed or at times impressively detailed knowledge to the level of background noise. Christopher, I can't expect to win you over. You're not my target audience. We may agree on some issues, but you're so totally snowed under by the lies and deceptions of socialism that I don't have the wherewithal to dig you out. It's generally thought of as a good thing in human discourse and politics to lay out positive scenarios for the future but you seem to do nothing but denigrate those with whom you disagree. Or am I missing something? You must be, because I'm all about positivism. It's the naysayers and doom and gloomers who I'm usually denigrating. Dave

Comment by Arch Conservative

Tue, 21 Mar 2006 15:00:51 EST

"I'm talking about groups who, by their behavior, let those not agreeing with them know that they are not welcome." You sound like your describing the litigious secularists not the average American chrisitan Rucy. Michael there are countless examples of secularists singling out Christian individuals as targets of lawsuits. The most recent one that comes ot mind is the case in Jonesboro Arkansas, where a the ACLU is seeking to sue the Jonesboro high school because it allowed a graduating senior, Jessica Reed to discuss her faith in god during her gradutaion speech despite the fact that no one at the ceremony contacted the ACLU or the school saying they were offended. That's just one example.....look it up Michael. there are many more.

Comment by Ruvy in Jerusalem

Tue, 21 Mar 2006 12:16:17 EST

Sorry AC, I'm talking about what I lived through and what other Jews lived through in the States. I'm not talking about single individuals talking about their religion. That never bothers me. I'm talking about groups who, by their behavior, let those not agreeing with them know that they are not welcome. This was one of the big reasons I joined the Democrats in Minnesota instead of the Republicans. They never said it, but through their behavior, they let it be known that except for good fundraisers like Rudy Boschwitz and vote getters like Norm Coleman (whose wife is Catholic), Jews were not really welcome in the party. I repeat. The acts of a sigle individual mean nothing to me. The acts of groups do.

Comment by Michael J. West

Tue, 21 Mar 2006 12:06:30 EST

You know, Arch Conservative, you're talking about the "evidence," about what is "mostly the case," and about what the ACLU and "the rest of the secularist commandoes" have done in lawsuits "time and time again." How about providing some actual, specific examples? I'd very much like to see some of the "evidence" you mention.

Comment by Arch Conservative

Tue, 21 Mar 2006 11:45:10 EST

Ruvy it is mostly the case that these rabid anti Chrisitian secularist commandoes are railing against a single person who has expressed thier Christian beliefs without telling others that they must adhere to these beliefs. Where these lawsuits are concerned, it is never the case that Chrisitans are ganging up on others en masse and purposely making them feel as if there religions are inderior. A public high school valedictorian is not "leaving anyone out in the cold" by referring to Christ as thier own personal source of strength and motivation in thier valedictorian graduation speech. Nor can this be considered by any reasonable person as the school itself endorsing Christianity. It is merely an individual expressing their personal reliogous beliefs, while not denigrating other religious beliefs, in a public setting. A right that is garenteed under the Free Exercise clause of the first amendment. If someone else has a problem with this expression that's thier problem. Every attempt by the ACLU nd thier ilk to stifle this speech is an attempt to deny the constituion. You're usually a reasonable person who makes logical arguments so I'm sorry to have to say that your last argument was nothing but bullshit given the evidence.

Comment by Christopher Rose

Tue, 21 Mar 2006 10:02:22 EST

Well, RedTard, I'm afraid we'll just have to disagree. I reject all attempts to manipulate me by fear. I am not afraid. Dave: Lol, I'll take your #45 as an answer to my #39!

Comment by Dave Nalle

Tue, 21 Mar 2006 09:20:39 EST

Sounds like you want them to nominate a right wing Christian like Bush. Sounds good to me. I'll take all the right wing non church attending, pagan owl worshipping, mammonite Christians we can get. Dave