Why debating a Progressive/Liberal is akin to bashing one's head against the wall:

Civilized debate: What the heck is that? What makes it civilized? Why would civilized people want to argue with one another? What’s the difference between a free exchange of ideas in a civilized manner and just bashing one another with insults and innuendo? Inevitably, during a debate, someone’s going to get their feelings hurt. More often than not, that person will be the liberal in the bunch because their lives are led and their decisions are made based not on reason or logic but rather upon how they feel. It’s what makes debating with a liberal so doggoned difficult. Their emotions are a hindrance to a free flowing give and take conversation. Sooner or later they will become offended and then everyone will have to spend hours trying to decide who the offending party was and by that time the subject has been lost. It seems to become a sub-topic every time a hot debate begins. Thin skinned people who are short in mental stature always seem to be gravitated toward popular topics that are being debated about and they lash out with pointless comments meant only to enrage either because their ineptitude and inability to keep up frustrates them or because they feel as though you have insulted them, the end result being the same, the conversation gets steered way off topic. Often times one will note that, mysteriously enough, these occasions seem to present themselves at a time when the liberal needs to dodge a bullet, so to speak.

Debate is healthy. Open dialogue with one’s opposition is mentally stimulating. Some find it entertaining. Others find it informative. But very seldom is one actually swayed in their opinion. If anyone is actually swayed it is not the participants but rather the silent observers and even this is a rarity. So, why? Why even bother? Is it for the satisfaction that you’ve outlasted your opponent? Is anyone so shallow as to think that because an opponent disengages that it means victory? Some, perhaps. For those, it is more about their word being last rather than being significant. But for me debate solidifies my resolve to constantly evaluate my position. Why do I believe the things I do? Can I articulate to another not only what I believe, but why I believe it? Can I be persuasive enough in my statements to give an opponent a moment of pause to consider their position? Can I glean from their responses anything that would give me pause to do the same? What can I learn from my opponent? Is he crazy, misguided, embittered, or have I misread him? It is easy for one to assume that those who are polar opposites or spectrally different are stupid. I’ve been guilty of that very thing on occasion. Recognizing the ignorance and bigotry of such an assumption it is for this very reason that I seek to engage those who see the world differently than I do. To seek dialogue with a person in an effort, not necessarily to sway their opinion but rather to understand them and their point of view is what freedom is all about. If, in the end, all we have gained is a little better understanding or tolerance for another’s point of view, was it not time well spent?

Unfortunately this endeavor is rarely successful for the traditional/conservative. I speak not from some random, arbitrary opinion but from experience when I say that debating a progressive/liberal point for point is almost impossible. Emotions absolutely cannot be put aside in favor of logic and reason in a liberal mind. They are a constant in the liberal equation. It is the progressive/liberal who leads the forefront of the professionally offended left. Seeking out new things to be offended by is their pastime. They are the inventors of “political correctness” which hinders if not prevents altogether, honesty and the free exchange of ideas. One can no longer call a “spade” a “spade” in the world of the progressive liberal. One must call a “spade” a “perfectly legitimate suit of color which is normal and equivalent in every way, fitting the lifestyles of some but not others that may or may not resemble the head of a shovel.” Often harboring a double standard, progressive/liberals are free to temporarily dismiss this practice to put you in your proverbial place so long as you are not a member of a protected class of peoples. If you are a white, male, Christian, you can be attacked and insulted with no preclusions whatsoever. You however cannot respond in kind lest you be labeled a racist, fascist, or a bigot. Any point you make that cannot be disputed with fact, will be summarily dismissed with prejudice. Their creed is:

“I am a proud liberal, free from the bonds of archaic religious practice. I am the “enlightened” and you are the blind. I am tolerant and you are a bigot. I am open-minded and YOU ARE WRONG!”

They are elitists in their own right. Believing themselves to be above reproach, they make no attempt to defend their position based on any accepted form of reason and logic for it is that “reason” and “logic” that they reject. They are self-appointed custodians of the unfortunate and downtrodden. They are Socialists in Democrat’s clothing. To engage in civil debate would mean that one would have to be open to receiving suggestions from another. Progressive/Liberals aren’t open to anything except slamming the door on Traditionalist/Conservatives. They are looking for conformists. Dissenting viewpoints need not apply.

Christian Theocracy: Legitimate fear, or a fear mongering conspiracy theory of the anti-Christian liberal left?

The debate rages on. Jennifer has really struck a cord, it seems with her recent post that began with some cartoons mocking the liberal attack on the words "under God" in our National Pledge. This evolved to include the discussion of the words "In God We Trust" emblazoned on United States Currency. Now it has morphed into the inevitable debate about the true reason liberals object to these references to God. They fear a Christian Theocracy in the United States.

It cannot be intelligently argued against, that the liberal left has had a virtual monopoly on the Main Stream Media over the past two decades. Specific among these it the collective editorial comment in the nation's print media. Unique among newspapers is their editorial "opinion" columns. Conservatives have virtually no place in which to opine on full page ads from the powerful chair of an editor. These "opinion" pages have now spilled over into the "news" pages and the end result is unfair, biased news reporting that is significantly slanted to the left. I could list hundreds of newspapers across this country, but you all know who they are. I mention this because I believe that in addition to the monopoly the left has on the academia, this control of the print media in America is the prime catalyst for the propagation of this severely misguided fear of a government run by preachers and theologians.

There is a movement among some Protestant Christians to involve themselves in and, in fact, dominate the political process. These "Dominionists", however comprise a small insignificant portion of evangelical Christians. They derive their idea from the Biblical teaching in Genesis that God gave man "dominion" over the earth. There are basically two ways of interpreting this passage. One would be the Dominionists' concept that they are charged with total control of Earth and all of its secular institutions, while the majority of Christians tend to interpret it as a command for stewardship.

Dominionists have a bit of a paradoxical problem to confront when asserting their idea that it is the responsibility of Christians to rule by God's law. You see, God has given all that he has created, including man, the free will to choose. This is evident throughout Biblical text, the fall of Satan, the fall of man, man's continuous defiance of God and God's continuous forgiveness of man, and God's commandment to spread the Gospel to all corners of the earth. (Why would this be necessary if man had no free choice to receive it?)

It is a bit of a conspiracy theory among liberals that all Evangelical Christians seek to impose a Christian Theocracy upon the United States. They are truly frightened by the Traditionalist Conservatives in this country. They peddle this obtuse theory through opinion columns and College classrooms. More recently the internet has provided them with a very flexible forum from which to get their word out that they are the true "free thinkers", liberated from the bonds of archaic religious doctrines and that Christians are evil fascists who seek to impose their beliefs upon the world. The website Jesusland.com, for example has devised what they refer to as a "crypto-fascist theocracy" complete with maps and a new National Anthem entitled "The Star Spangled Bible". You read it. Then you decide who is fascist and who is not.

Most of us seek only to acknowledge that the United States is a country that is largely Christian not to force you to go to church or celebrate Easter. We don't believe in murder. We don't believe in adultery. We don't believe in stealing, lying or cheating. So, to those who would fear that Christians aspire to govern you: How are our beliefs any different than the laws already laid down in this country? Our Bible doesn't allow us to push the Gospel upon you or force you to comply with God's commandments. It requires us to share it with you if you will listen but you have the right to refuse. Where in the Constitution of the United States are you afforded the right to never be exposed to religion? Where in that document of our freedom are you assured that you will never be approached and offered something you have the right to refuse anyway?

Whether you believe in God or not, we have morals and concepts of right and wrong that are derived from God's laws as man has no moral compass of his own. Most would concur that killing, raping, stealing, and enslaving is wrong. But how do you know? Who says? What is wrong for you, may be right for another. If there is no God, then who is to decide what is truly right, and what is truly wrong? If we are not accountable to a higher authority than ourselves, why should we then conclude that anything is bad, so long as we benefit?

The concept of right and wrong comes from the belief in a divine creator God who is all powerful, all knowing and all present; a God who is watching and who knows our every move and our every thought. It is the only reason we should fear killing our neighbor and procuring all that he owns for ourselves under the cover of darkness. Why should that be wrong unless someone greater than ourselves says so? If you are your own God, then it is you who decides what is right and what is wrong. If you then decide that it is OK to rape a little child, who is to contest you? If survival of the fittest and evolution is true, then the weak should die and the strong should live. You should be able to plant your seed wherever your see fit. Civilized behavior and social welfare should be considered counterproductive to the natural cycle of life as it allows the sick and the weak to prosper.

Sounds barbaric doesn't it? It is. But it is in keeping with the theory of evolution to which Atheists cling so strongly. It is, in fact, their "religion", one which, ironically, they shove down the throats of everyone who obtains a public education. (kinda double standard isn't it?) Christians don't hold these propositions to be true and declare it by proclaiming the name of God as Him in whom we trust all things. If you don't believe that, then that's fine. But you are still bound and accountable to the laws of civilized society which are remarkably similar to the laws of God. So if you have to live by them anyway, why should you care to whom the credit is given?

Newt won't run

Alright, this post is just a "Brain Dump" so I can sleep! Don't look for any "pearls" of cleverly contrived composition, just random ramblings in no particular order. This is what happens in my mind 24-7. I'm trying to turn it off. I'm sick at home with viral meningitis and I feel like a turd on a stick. Lower your standards for me.


The former Speaker of the House has decided not to run for President. That kinda sucks. I like Newt Gingrich. He's a straight shooter and, in my humble opinion, he's "electable". Not saying that's where I'd cast my vote were he to jump in the race, it's just that I'd like to see more competition for R.I.N.O's, Rudy and McCain. So far, they've got three real contestants competing against them. I guess, for true, conservative base Republicans, it's Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee or Fred Thompson, though Tancredo isn't all that bad. I'd be happy with any of those taking a seat in the Oval Office so long as the R.I.N.O's arent' elected. Fred is my fav but I believe his late intro has hurt his chances. He better start waving wands and pulling rabbits out of his hat. Not debating at Morgan State was a stupid move. Thompson's plain talking persona might have done better than expected there.

Losing the Presidency, the House, and the Senate is a recipe for socialism. God help us all if "Shrillary" takes the helm. My stomach gets queasy just thinking about it. The GOP needs to start making some more noise...a lot more noise. The MSM, of course is doing their part by giving triple the face time to Hilary than to any Republican Candidate. Fox is the only outlet for Republicans to mount their soapbox. Good thing they're killing the other networks in ratings.

If he's not going to run, I'd like to see Newt get behind a candidate with a strong endorsement. I wish Thompson, Huckabee, or Romney would pull out in front in the polls. Giuliani needs competition and is a strong contender with the moderates/pansy fencepost riders. I really don't like that guy. How he's got an "R" after his name, I'll never understand.

God, please don't let the Dems, or R.I.N.O's take the White House....please!

The Bush - Republican schism

WSJ contributing editor, Peggy Noonan raises some interesting observations in a recent opinion entitled "Too Bad" . Referring to the "style" of governing that the Bush administration has become renowned for, the title speaks volumes. She makes, what in my opinion, is an obvious assessment when she says that it is not the party base who has abandoned Bush but rather Bush who has abandoned the party base, and remarkably so. He has forsaken some of the most basic tenets of conservative politics in favor of what can arguably be charactarized as just plain incompetence. His administration is replete with examples of Wasteful spending; The weakening of states in favor of an expansive and more powerful Federal Government; Unsecured borders and an unwillingness to enforce this country's immigration laws to the absolute dismay of native born citizens everywhere; The stagnation of progress in Iraq and the questionable stance of eternal peacekeeper of the region.

Bush hasn't done everything wrong, but there is a great deal that he hasn't done right either. What makes it all so especially difficult to swallow for many Republicans is the arrogance with which he continues to rapidly depart himself from the mainstream conservative base. Noonan draws reference to this fact particularly well by describing both Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. as monumental "wasters of political inheritance". 'Tis true. Both Presidents basically waltzed into the leadership of a unified party and managed, through a series of bungled decisions, to divide and weaken it. Bush Sr. rode in on the the coat tails of Reagan's success and in course of four years, managed to cost his party the Presidency for another eight. He inherited a stable country and a strong, unified party but wasted it. Bush Jr. had the entire country supporting him after 9-11. Men and women, old and young, conservative and liberal...all rallied around the flag and supported their President. He even enjoyed a Republican majority in both houses of Congress, yet somehow, he has managed to divide the party and strengthen the opposition. So many opportunities for greatness were literally dropped in his lap but he wasted the inheritance. This careless squandering is reckless...almost as if loyalty were owed to him.

Perhaps the latest blunder of granting amnesty to law breaking aliens will paradoxically serve to unite, rather than divide the party in 2008 as Democrats share the responsibility by having authored that traitorous, anti-American bill. Perhaps the conservative base will have had enough. Perhaps we will see reason in and elect the supposedly unelectable third party voice of Ron Paul who seems to unapologetically stand for all of those true conservative standards that Bush has abandoned. Perhaps the plain talking, straight shooting Fred Thompson will get the nod and bring common sense and wisdom to a White House that, at the moment, seems devoid of both. Perhaps I'm just grasping at straws and all is lost to the multi-culturalistic audacity of Barack Obama's hope or Hillary Clinton's familyless village of surrogate parents. God I hope not.