I am probably going to open a whole new can worms here. I might regret opening later, but some of the topics being discussed really got me thinking about things. One of the things said that really kind of got me going on this was:

Pattygreen: Christians (usually conservative republicans) for the most part try to live moral, virtuous, nonsinful lives.

I am not a Christian and I live a moral, virtuous, and for the most part nonsinful life. I know several people who live the same, and are not Christian, and have conservative beliefs.

Cleo's Mom: First of all, "conservative republican" is redundant, because they are all conservative. I don't think there are any moderate republicans left particularly among those elected to office.

However, I just wonder if it is MORAL to mislead or outright lie, because listen to what these conservative republicans have said:

Dana Perino said on Fox: We did not have a domestic attack during bush's administration.

A month later Mary Matalin said: bush inherited 9/11 from Clinton.

Yesterday, Rudy Giuliani said that we never had a domestic attack under bush but we had one under Obama.

Now, I ask you - do these people think the American public is really that stupid? Apparently. Those on the right just make things up and keep repeating it. And when they repeat it often enough eventually some people begin to believe it.

They reduce things to some emotional, hate filled sound bite: death panels, obamacare, socialism, hitler, nazi.

This is because they are unable to engage in meaningful, intelligent, fact-based discussions. Maybe they don't want to do that because they don't have the facts on their side.

First I am a moderate Republican. I do tend to lean a little more to the right, but on some issues I lean to the left. Some things I can lean pretty right, and others I lean pretty far left. It really depends on the issue. I'd like to think that would make me moderate. I know many people who are moderate Republicans also. So we are still out there. There are some politicians who are still moderate also.

Second just because you are a Republican does not mean that you can not have a intelligent, meaningful, fact-based conversation. That is like saying liberals have their heads in clouds and live in fantasy nerf world filled with rainbows and butterflies.

Both sides sling mud back and forth. Both sides have their hate filled idiots. Both sides have their good and bad points. Both sides LIE, LIE, and LIE some more.

I get so sick and tired of hearing about how the Republicans have screwed everything up...I mean really they did it all alone.....no help from the left at all???

I personally feel that if you lean too far left or right you can't have a very grip on reality, and when our politicans lean too far left or right it's not good for our country either way. I hope someday too see more moderate politicans in office.

Pattygreen: Christians (usually conservative republicans) for the most part try to live moral, virtuous, nonsinful lives.

I am not a Christian and I live a moral, virtuous, and for the most part nonsinful life. I know several people who live the same, and are not Christian, and have conservative beliefs.

I did not say that unbelievers are immoral. I said that Christians tend to try to live moral, virtuous, sinless lives. On that thread, I was pointing out that for the most part, liberals tend to be 'all for' the issues that conservatives view as sinful according to God. Take gay marriage, excessive taxing, and spending beyond your means, abortion,etc., these are all moral issues that clearly are wrong, yet liberals feel are perfectly acceptable. From a Christian's perspective, conservatives are more moral than liberals. That was my point.

I think Obama's victory was also a rejection of bush's policies. People had had enough of his way of handling (or ignoring) problems

and that's exactly why Obama wont be re-elected and the senate race this year will be not be won by democrats! People have had enough of Obama's handling of affairs in this country, and it's only his first year! They are rejecting his policies as well.

I think Obama's victory was also a rejection of bush's policies. People had had enough of his way of handling (or ignoring) problems

and that's exactly why Obama wont be re-elected and the senate race this year will be not be won by democrats! People have had enough of Obama's handling of affairs in this country, and it's only his first year! They are rejecting his policies as well.

He has an overall 50% approval, 42% disapproval. Not too bad considering all the tough problems he's had to tackle. He could have just ignored the problems, like bush did, but he didn't and I, for one, am glad.

Reagan, at whose altar the conservatives worship, had a 49% approval rating going into his second year.

Edited January 14, 201016 yr by Cleo's Mom

Is Obama in trouble?

No one in the White House is celebrating over the latest polls. President Obama’s job approval rating has dipped below 50 percent in a flurry of recent surveys. Rasmussen has him at 46 percent; Quinnipiac at 45; in Gallup he’s clinging to 50. The Allstate/National Journal Heartland Monitor Poll released Thursday had some heart-stopping numbers for Democrats: The president’s job approval was at 47 percent, down from 61 percent in April. Only 26 percent of respondents said they strongly approved of the president’s performance, compared to 38 percent in April. Just 39 percent said they would probably vote to reelect him, just 23 percent definitely.

To put this into historical context, Gallup’s Lydia Saad notes that:

Obama's initial approval rating in his second year

as president is among the lowest for elected presidents since Dwight Eisenhower. Only Ronald Reagan -- who, like Obama, took office during challenging economic times -- began his second year in office with a lower approval score (49%). However, Obama's disapproval rating is slightly higher than Reagan's was (44% vs. 40%).

(Washington Post)

PG: Obama's initial approval rating in his second year as president is among the lowest for elected presidents since Dwight Eisenhower. Only Ronald Reagan -- who, like Obama, took office during challenging economic times -- began his second year in office with a lower approval score (49%). However, Obama's disapproval rating is slightly higher than Reagan's was (44% vs. 40%).

(Washington Post) :thumbup:

No comment?

Let me ask this question...if you had to decide if a person was conservative or liberal based on this..what would you say?

A middle-aged, married woman with 3 children, always voted Republican, a Christian (denomination is Baptist), owns many businesses, very very wealthy, the #1 financial supporter at a major SEC school, and has donated tens of millions of dollars to education and the needy? And takes at least 1200 needy children shopping every Christmas.

And yes, I do have a point to this. lol

TN,

I don't think you can split people into only 2 groups based on their ideologies. If I had to think narrow-mindedly and choose either conservative or liberal, I would definitely choose conservative. A liberal would expect the government to take the 1,200 kids shopping on my tax dollar.

TN,

I don't think you can split people into only 2 groups based on their ideologies. If I had to think narrow-mindedly and choose either conservative or liberal, I would definitely choose conservative. A liberal would expect the government to take the 1,200 kids shopping on my tax dollar.

You said "narrow-mindedly". That's my point! Almost everybody these days thinks like that! The woman I am speaking of is my mother. She is definitely not liberal, but she's really not conservative to the point that most conservatives take it. And Republicans have this reputation of being stingy, and I know that there's proof to show it, don't get me wrong. I just hate when people think because someone is a "conservative" or "Republican" they automatically think things. Just like when someone stereotypes "liberal" or "Democrat". I am not trying to start any debate here. I just don't understand why people judge other people based ONLY on their political standings. I may not be making any sense here, and I apologize if I'm not making sense.

I am outside of either realm and won't vote for a candidate in either major party.

I've been called conservative because I don't want the government giving my tax dollar to any lazy yahoo that begs for it. Yet I donate plenty to charity.

I've been called liberal because I think gays should have the same rights that straights do and because I think a woman should have the right to abort an unwanted pregnancy. Yet, I don't think my tax dollar should pay for either.

You said "narrow-mindedly". That's my point! Almost everybody these days thinks like that! The woman I am speaking of is my mother. She is definitely not liberal, but she's really not conservative to the point that most conservatives take it. And Republicans have this reputation of being stingy, and I know that there's proof to show it, don't get me wrong. I just hate when people think because someone is a "conservative" or "Republican" they automatically think things. Just like when someone stereotypes "liberal" or "Democrat". I am not trying to start any debate here. I just don't understand why people judge other people based ONLY on their political standings. I may not be making any sense here, and I apologize if I'm not making sense.

Conservatives are definitely not stingy. They are 'fair'. When a person does not want their gov. to support others with their money, it does not mean they are stingy. This is the BIG difference between liberals and conservatives. C's want the people to be independant, L's do not. It's likened to a parent who withholds things from their children because it is 'What's Best" for them. They will succeed in life if you don't buy them their first car and they save for it themselves. They will even take better care of it if they pay for it themselves. C's are very giving, yet they have higher standards for others. If they can succeed, so can those who take the governments money instead of helping themselves. Dem's are insecure because they have a great need for the gov. to control their existance here. Oh, yes, we need the gov. for some things. (military defense, police, infrastructure, etc.) But we don't need a high percentage of the wasteful spending that they do. That's another differnce between the 2. Needs vs. wants.

They will succeed in life if you don't buy them their first car and they save for it themselves. They will even take better care of it if they pay for it themselves.

I know Conservatives/Republicans aren't stingy. But people do think they are. And I come from a Republican family, and I am a Republican myself.

And I disagree with the above statement. My parents bought me my first car, brand new. And I am succeeding. I am getting my Bachelors in Entrepreneurship, and I have already started my very own business.

Pattygreen: On one of the threads you asked what buzzwords the teabaggers and like minded extremists use. Watch this video of Brown supporters (who you support) to hear one of them. And BTW, these buzzwords are not the exception, rather they are an intergral part of all the protests:

Daily Kos: Gibbs: Coakley is going to win (and one STUNNING video))

Pattygreen: On one of the threads you asked what buzzwords the teabaggers and like minded extremists use. Watch this video of Brown supporters (who you support) to hear one of them. And BTW, these buzzwords are not the exception, rather they are an intergral part of all the protests:

Daily Kos: Gibbs: Coakley is going to win (and one STUNNING video))

And do you think using a term like "teabagger" makes you any better then the crazy women calling people Nazi's......

And do you think using a term like "teabagger" makes you any better then the crazy women calling people Nazi's......

They gave that name to themselves, I didn't. They are the ones who hung teabags from their hats.