Comments Posted By Dale
Displaying 11 To 20 Of 33 Comments
WHO ARE YOU CALLING A MODERATE?
Rick,
As an avid reader of yours, I think your critics here miss your point entirely. If I may, you are not saying the others are not conservative; you are claiming the right to define yourself as one. And if the others be twisted in knots by your views, to hell with them.
I, too, am confused by frequent commenters, those who know your positions, taking you to task as a moderate. As a God-botherer, I disagree with some of your opinions. As a science-phile, I disagree with some others. And I think you have over-nuanced the degree of Obama's swallowing of New Left political philosophy and Ailinsy methodology to overturn centuries of American ideals.
But you are a thoughtful man of the right, unwilling to incorporate the positions of others without finding them worthwhile. Unfortunately we have lost the ability, which the Dems have so adroitly managed, to disagree on particulars while recognizing agreements in principle.
Comment Posted By Dale On 29.10.2008 @ 06:48
ARE CONSERVATIVES ANGRIER THAN LIBERALS?
There was a time in our not too distant past when like-minded individuals had to physically assemble together to share their thoughts. Union halls, churches, groups like the Lions and Moose, KKK, and Communist party halls were used to share thoughts, opinions, and plans. Nothing was off the table. People gathered their information from a large number of local newspapers, each with its own political slant.
Of course the vast majority of persons who were too busy living life and providing for their families had no time for such activities. But those who made it a priority had to reach out physiscally to be involved.
Now with the internet, the ability to be connected has exploded exponentially. Our time available to spend connecting is also much greater. And our collective knowledge has also grown dramatically. The group-think mentality has acheived greater certainty for which ever side of the divide you fall.
For example, there is a portion of the populace that is certain that Bush drove the war against Iraq to fill the pockets of his cronies, there are reasonable issues to be considered in our government's involvement in 9-11, Bush stole Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004, and the government let Wall Street drive the economy into our current crisis. There is another portion equally certain that cries of voter fraud are laughable in FL and OH, but voter fraud in Milwaukee and St. Louis and Cleveland were driven by Acorn, the group that also pushed the subprime loans; that the press is attacking Palin because they are elitist, Obama is certainly a socialist if not a communist.
The biggest problem facing America, IMHO, is the intelectual divide. We have assembled into information ghettos where rumor is fact, and the threat of the "other" on both sides of the information divide is used to whip up a frenzy of emotion.
Rick, your blog is an assault on this divide, as you can tell, because you are attacked by both sides. But the red/blue ugliness appears to be headed toward a horrible tipping point. On the left I read threats of riots and civil unrest if the polls are not reflected in the elctoral college; on the right the call to load up ammunition for the expected government assault on the second amendment.
I don't know where this is all headed, but the division of the late 1960's is back, with greater communication capabilities, greater weaponry, and a more equal distribution of number and power. This is frightening.
Comment Posted By Dale On 11.10.2008 @ 08:04
Oh, and from my evil twin, Dale with a gotee (for you Star Trek fans), McCain frolics nude with goats. I have pictures of him and Karl Rove kissing. (Once I figure out this photoshop thingy.)
Comment Posted By Dale On 23.09.2008 @ 06:28
Chuck,
Your point about the psycological differences is well taken. But the point about the MSM is even more instructive. How could the left and the right be so certain that they are getting screwed by the same media?
The internet age is the age of group think. We seek out writers who reinforce our preconceptions. We have no degree of opposition viewpoint in many cases, because those who disagree with the ideological leanings of the proprietor of the blog are branded "trolls". (psycology of trolls is another topic of my interest.)
The problem is that we are now our own filters. We have the responsibility, if we wish to be well-informed, to seek out opposing opinions to be given both sides of the story.
And who has time for that crap! We've got an election to win. Obama is a known drug kingpin. He accepts contributions from cat-skinners. He is actually an alien from Saturn.
There you go! Take that viral, now!
Comment Posted By Dale On 23.09.2008 @ 06:24
McCAIN CAMPAIGN STILL FOUNDERING
I must admit 1 thing: The Obama campaign is right about McCain being Bush III. They have no coherant message, are too concerned about being "mean", and they have no concept of the salemanship aspect of the American polical scene. I would prefer to see McCain elected, but he is lacking in understanding how Americans think.
He is making the assumption that Americans see his vast difference in experience over Obama so as to not need to attack him effectively.
He is making the same mistake Gore made in '00: he assumes that he is so better prepared for the job that he doesn't need to make that case to the public.
Comment Posted By Dale On 31.07.2008 @ 15:21
McCAIN'S DISAVOWAL OF HAGEE A GOOD SIGN
#18 TTT
I agree, to a point, with your dimunition of the support of Israel by end-times proclaiming fundamentalists. But your depiction of that as the reason for Jewish support of Dems is far too simplistic.
Many Jews care less about those sorts of issues as they are far more secular than that. Jewish traditional support for trade unionism, support for the needs of the poor, the rights of blacks, the peace movement, etc. Jews were also more likely to settle in urban areas which have always been Democrat strongholds.
Furthermore, commitment to education has led to a greater proportion of Jewish folks being taught liberal notions.
The end game for the pro-Israel evangelicals is certainly to be questioned. But it has to be far down the list of reasons for most Jews as to their liberal leanings in politics.
Comment Posted By Dale On 25.05.2008 @ 06:20
10edward cropper Said:
2:39 pmI have no desire to defend John Hagee or Rod Parsley for anything they say or believe. They are free to say whatever they feel they need to say no matter how absurd or inflammatory I may think it to be. That’s called a Constitutional freedom.
Based on some of the comments being put forward by those who are trying to explain John Hagee or Rod Parsley, including Rick Moran, it would appear for the most part they do not have much insight into their theological background.
I disagree with both of them on many of their “prophetic” concepts, and would not express myself in the often obnoxious way they do, but I do not consider either of them to be bigots in any way. Strongly disagreeing with someone’s theological teachings does not necessarily a bigot make.I could not agree more. Christian exclusivity is essential Christian dogma. Christ said, "I am THE way The truth and THE life. No one goes to the Father but through ME." No equivocation there.
I am in no way a supporter of the endtimes teachings of this part of the evangelical community. They are being consistant with their beliefs, and unwilling to backdown despite societal conventions.
As to their positions on "sinners," I would be hard pressed to believe they do not consider themselves sinners, as that is also Biblical. What they oppose is rampant anti-Christian teachings in the secular world in general and in America in particular. And as to the Hitler comments, as a Christian, you are sort of given two options. Either God is in omnipotent control of the world, in which case he has the evil of Hitler and others to allow or stop; or the evil in the world is beyond His control. The problem of evil is one of the foremost challenges to Christian apologetics, for those who attempt to work through it. These comments are a rather ham-fisted attempt to do so.
McCain is running for POTUS, a secular position. I have no doubt he understands the necessity of disavowing these comments, and did so willingly. The cost of such connections is higher than the benefit.
One more thing: being a member of their flock would be McCain endorsing them; they endorsed him. This is the primary, and often unspoken, difference between Hagee/Parsley and Obama's problem with Wright.
Comment Posted By Dale On 24.05.2008 @ 09:43
NO SERIOUS BLACK GOP CANDIDATES
I don't know what can be done by Repubs to enlist and support more black candidates. But I can identify the cost to those who would take up the offer. To be ostracized by friends and family, attacked by former friends, for even running for the office is a pretty high risk. And, should you lose, you will not be welcomed back into the fold with open arms. You children will suffer insults, you will be called vile names, and many other indignities that I will fail to know let alone mention.
And, at the risk of being defeatist, why should such candidates trust us, especially right now? For someone who takes the inherent risks of swimming upstream, there must be one of two reasons: reasonable chance of success, or strong commitment to a cause.
For the former, look to some recent history. Good candidates like Michael Steele in MD, Ken Blackwell in Ohio were unsuccessful in a period of relative Republican strength. Why run now?
As to the latter, Repubs have no cause. Say what you will about Pelosi and Reid, they have taken the fight to Repubs in conservative states by running conservative Dem candidates. At the same time, Repubs are tacking left to out moderate the Dems. What do Repubs stand for? Beats me! Dems stand for "Not Bush," a short-term winner.
In short, it's too expensive a lottery ticket with bad odds and an uncertain payout.
Comment Posted By Dale On 21.05.2008 @ 07:07
FOR THE LAST TIME - BARACK OBAMA IS GOING TO BE THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE FOR PRESIDENT
A portion of the speech Obama should give:
"We know who Hillary is. We know who the Clintons are. Remember how they treated women who had the misfortune of passing Bill's zipper? They are not for women. Remember how they sold out the poor in welfare reform when Bill's poll numbers were tanking? They're not for the poor. Remember how they issued don't ask don't tell in the military? They're not for gay rights. And now, with their attacks on me, do you think they really care about Black advancement?
The truth is, the Clintons are only for the Clintons. They always were. They always will be. Period."
Comment Posted By Dale On 3.05.2008 @ 06:58
Just for clarity's sake, Rick, would you like to describe the number of "wingnuts" that you had to cleanse from your comments for being unwilling to take your heart-felt opinion in the constructive sense it was offered? As opposed to the sock-puppet posts calling for all Republicans to be water-boarded.
I doubt you bonked any. Cons who want to be ditto-heads have learned by now that this is not the place for lockstep thought.
But the point is valid: what is and is not torture? Where is the line we cannot ethically cross? Does the Administration's duty to protect America ever take priority over laws governing human rights?
But I take exception with you and Ashcroft (although you come at it from different vantagepoints.) I am heartened that these conversations do take place in the highest levels. I would be much more alarmed to know that we had a "do what you have to do; I don't want to know about it," ethic. And I have no doubt that that ethic has existed in our government many times in our nation's history.
My point is that this is a hugely important and complex topic. Your additions to the conversation are commendble. The convergence of the presumed-moral vs. the presumed-pragmatic has value in many policy discussions. Ultimately, the best course is known retrospectively, if ever.
Comment Posted By Dale On 10.04.2008 @ 11:08
