Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Current Events

Current Events Current Events Forum - Latest political news and events


Thanks Tree104Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old September 3rd, 2017, 04:44 PM   #21
Senior Member
 
Asimov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,816
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bookworm View Post
But isn't it possible to be going too far to the left, to one of the extremes mentioned in the article, if one sees those on the right as totally lacking in inclusiveness or human kindness or recognizing human dignity? Freedom of speech is a valued ideal in America, yet the left often uses "inclusiveness" as a club to bang on the heads of people who hold to traditional Christian values in the areas of marriage and sexuality. If you don't follow the left's version of "inclusiveness," then you're holding to "rigid ideology" and are a hater and should potentially even lose your job and reputation.
I have to fall back on what Paul wrote in Romans 12: "So far as it concerns you be at peace with all men..." That doesn't mean I have to agree with or even approve of all peple, just stop looking for an opportunity to start a fight. And if a fight comes looking for me, consider that in most cases it is best to walk away.

Christ's commission is to go into the world and preach the gospel, that is the message of redemption and grace. He never commissioned us to go into the world and set ourselves upon a pedestal to act as everyone else's judge. Church inquisitions have a historical track record of being exceptionally bad.

"For did not send His son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved." Jn 3:17
If Christ does not condemn the world, then by who's authority can I take that upon myself?
Asimov is offline  
Old September 3rd, 2017, 05:27 PM   #22
Senior Member
 
Bookworm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,718
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asimov View Post
Christ's commission is to go into the world and preach the gospel, that is the message of redemption and grace. He never commissioned us to go into the world and set ourselves upon a pedestal to act as everyone else's judge. Church inquisitions have a historical track record of being exceptionally bad.
Quite so, and yet the left often jumps on the pedestal of "inclusiveness" to judge those who do not hold their "progressive" values. Does the left want Christians to just give up certain Biblical values so that they no longer have to see us being "judgmental"? If they start fighting with us over our values, should we have to just walk away from those values?

Quote:
"For did not send His son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved." Jn 3:17
If Christ does not condemn the world, then by who's authority can I take that upon myself?
Let's not forget the very next verse. Verse 18 says "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son." We preach the gospel to a condemned world, not one in which everyone is already in a right relationship to God. If we fail to express God's condemnation of sin, then why would people ever think that they need a Savior from sin?

But to my mind, the article that started this thread is saying that even if people have fundamental differences, they can still work together politically if the are WILLING to work together within the Constitutional framework that is set up in our nation. Certain extremes on both sides simply do not want to compromise in any way.
Thanks from imaginethat and Panther
Bookworm is offline  
Old September 3rd, 2017, 05:59 PM   #23
Senior Member
 
Twisted Sister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Brown Township, Ohio
Posts: 10,832
[QUOTE=tristanrobin;1092902]On a forum where 'libtard' and 'fascist Nazi' are two familiar epithets aimed at the other side, this may be a little rose-colored glasses moment for me. But I thought this was an excellent article.

Liberals and Conservatives Must Stand Together Against the Extremes

White nationalists carry torches on the grounds of the University of Virginia, on the eve of a planned Unite The Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, August 11, 2017.


Charlottesville. Berkeley. Houston. Three dots that lead to something urgent about our politics.

Let’s connect them.

Wanna-be Nazis parading by torchlight through Charlottesville was a radical moment. Masked leftists marauding through Berkeley was another radical moment. Radical politics are the most dangerous kind, whether they arise from the right or the left. Around the world, the past 100 years have been an orgy of wars, genocides, famines and purges — the bloody fruits of various radical ideologies. Americans ought to be on guard.

Houston, battered, sodden, unbowed, stands for the opposite. Radicals emphasize and inflame political differences, which they find everywhere because for radicals everything’s political: what you wear, what you eat, what you enjoy. The Khmer Rouge in Cambodia murdered people for wearing eyeglasses. The Islamic State radicals of Raqqa lopped off the head of a teenager caught listening to Western music.

In Houston, politics ended at the water’s edge. Within hours of the first raindrops, the highways of Trump Country filled with pickup trucks towing boats. This flat-bottomed flotilla rescued people by the thousands, black, brown and white, regardless of voting history, religious preference or passport status.

This affirmation of shared human dignity is the serum that largely inoculated Americans against the deadly lure of radicalism. But while this spirit is strong in times of disaster, it is sagging on the political front. Liberals and conservatives must come together to revive it.

Say what? Liberals and conservatives together?

You see, Charlottesville and Berkeley are rampaging reminders that the political spectrum is much broader than we Americans are used to acknowledging. The spectrum runs far beyond Republicans and Democrats, from fascism to communism and from tyranny to anarchy. Conservatives and liberals are actually shoulder to shoulder at the center of this range.

We can wage intense debates across the liberal-conservative divide precisely because we share common assumptions and principles. Ronald Reagan and Walter Mondale, one a true conservative, the other a true liberal, vied for the presidency in 1984 while sharing the conviction that individuals are created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights, including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That speech and conscience are free. That government is fettered by the rule of law and accountable to the people.

They argued over the best means to achieve these shared ideals. And because those were less radical times, it was easy to accentuate their differences while taking the ideals for granted.

Thomas Jefferson put this heritage succinctly in the wake of the bitterly polarized election of 1800 . Party does not come first. As Americans, he declared in the terms of his times, “we are all Republicans, we are all Federalists.”

Today’s parties are accustomed to placating their radical elements with gestures and dog-whistles. But converging forces — including niche media, social networks and partisan gerrymandering — have tipped power from the center to the extremes, where radicals will no longer be placated.

These forces gave us perhaps the most radical presidential election in American history last year. The ostensibly conservative Republican Party was taken over by a man who stands against core conservative values such as prudence, order, tradition and free markets. Meanwhile, the ostensibly liberal Democratic Party was nearly hijacked by a socialist.

The fascists who invaded Charlottesville and the anarchists rioting in Berkeley may appropriate some language of liberty and rights. But in their radicalism there’s no room for the spirit of Houston. There is only division.

Principled liberals and conservatives need to wake up to this peril. The solid center that has defined American politics for generations is under assault by empowered radicals on both sides. The old game of stirring big battles over small differences only serves to drive more people to the extremes. While the parties continue to demonize each other in hopes of winning the next election, they are feeding beasts that could devour them both.

The center still holds in many of our local and state governments. Some centrists remain in both parties of Congress, while others inside the White House maneuver to tame the Oval Office radical. But on the whole, we see only politics as usual from party leaders, the same old wedge issues, empty slogans and personal attacks. As if the storm is sure to pass.

We need leaders who can read the clouds of Charlottesville and Berkeley for the genuine menace they pose. Who, in the spirit of Houston, can shelve their differences, climb into their boats, and begin collecting all the stranded Americans they can find. Our pragmatic, can-do, solution-seeking people, regardless of party, are marooned in the radical flood.

There’s no time to waste. The water is rising.


By David Von Drehle Columnist September 1 at 8:21 PM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...inionsA&wpmm=1[/QUOTE

Extremophile's have to be eliminated from the gene pool.
Twisted Sister is offline  
Old September 3rd, 2017, 06:33 PM   #24
concerned citizen
 
titan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Adirondack Park, NY
Posts: 615
Liberals and Conservatives Must Stand Together Against the Extremes
tr

Quote:
"What is objectionable, what is dangerous, about extremists is not that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents." Robert Kennedy (1925-6
It might be a mistake to try to institutionalize limits on ideology.
The essence of the First Amendment is to leave human imagination unrestrained.

BUT !!
Quote:
"No right is absolute. Conversely, no government authority is absolute." lawyer, law Professor and former ACLU head Nadine Strossen
I'm not suggesting we scrap the laws against perjury or slander.
To the contrary.

But our socio-political perspectives can populate the spectrum defined by the termini of "liberal" to "conservative" without changing one another from "political opponent" to "enemy".
Know it or not, believe it or not, like it or not, admit it or not; we are on the same team; even if a cohort of Republicans ranks partisanship ahead of citizenship.
titan is online now  
Old September 3rd, 2017, 06:48 PM   #25
Senior Member
 
Asimov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,816
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bookworm View Post
Quite so, and yet the left often jumps on the pedestal of "inclusiveness" to judge those who do not hold their "progressive" values. Does the left want Christians to just give up certain Biblical values so that they no longer have to see us being "judgmental"? If they start fighting with us over our values, should we have to just walk away from those values?

Let's not forget the very next verse. Verse 18 says "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son." We preach the gospel to a condemned world, not one in which everyone is already in a right relationship to God. If we fail to express God's condemnation of sin, then why would people ever think that they need a Savior from sin?

But to my mind, the article that started this thread is saying that even if people have fundamental differences, they can still work together politically if the are WILLING to work together within the Constitutional framework that is set up in our nation. Certain extremes on both sides simply do not want to compromise in any way.
The difference between us, I think, is that and I have a legal background and you have a theological one. And while I may disagree with an issue such as same-sex marriage, let's say, from a biblical point of view, I cannot ascertain any legal or constitutional argument against it that bears rational substance. Therefore I cannot as a citizen of this country justify a movement to oppose it. "Equal Protection of the laws" applies to all people, citizen or alien, legally or illegally in the country, right or left, straight or gay, not just to those who ascribe to my particular reading of certain passages in the Bible.

Further, when it comes to "calling out sin", except where an action is clearly against the law, I am prone to be much more concerned with my own shortcomings than with the personal and private choices of those around me. So in the end, who am I to first of all to snoop, and secondly to judge?
Thanks from imaginethat, RNG and titan
Asimov is offline  
Old September 3rd, 2017, 07:32 PM   #26
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: California
Posts: 17,183
Quote:
Originally Posted by tristanrobin View Post
No. President Trump said there were nice and good people on both sides.

THERE ARE NO GOOD AND NICE NAZIS AND KKK'ERS AND WHITE SUPREMACISTS.
There it is, the Liberal version of inclusiveness. There is no middle. Your assumption is, there was no one there non-violently protesting. That, you cannot know although, odds are there were people who didn't belong to either group of scumbags. So, we either condemn everyone or we're Nazi's. Which is why we rarely agree with the Liberal position.
Thanks from webguy4 and Jimgorn
caconservative is online now  
Old September 3rd, 2017, 07:48 PM   #27
concerned citizen
 
titan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Adirondack Park, NY
Posts: 615
Quote:
""Equal Protection of the laws" applies to all " A #25
Which as you know is binding in law.

But in addition: "liberty and justice for all" is binding in our ethic, for anyone that has taken our Pledge of Allegiance.
And if you check the definitions for "pledge" and "oath" you'll find there's little if any substantive difference between the two.
They are both solemn binding promises.

Jam it back to most fundamental level:
Quote:
"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." Matthew 7:12

[often translated or paraphrased as:
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you]
Let us not forget:

"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." Thomas Paine

"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak out for me." pastor Martin Niemöller
Thanks from Asimov
titan is online now  
Old September 3rd, 2017, 08:09 PM   #28
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: The Truth
Posts: 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by tristanrobin View Post
No. President Trump said there were nice and good people on both sides.

THERE ARE NO GOOD AND NICE NAZIS AND KKK'ERS AND WHITE SUPREMACISTS.


More misrepresentation. All those protesting taking down that statue were NOT KKK or white supremacists.

And all those protesting the KKK and white supremacists were NOT antifa.

President Trump spoke factually, your abject hatred cannot get past that.
Thanks from Jimgorn
Truther is offline  
Old September 3rd, 2017, 08:18 PM   #29
concerned citizen
 
titan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Adirondack Park, NY
Posts: 615
Quote:
"More misrepresentation. All those protesting taking down that statue were NOT KKK or white supremacists.

And all those protesting the KKK and white supremacists were NOT antifa." T #28
Syntactically you are wrong.

Perhaps you meant to say:

NOT all those protesting taking down that statue were KKK or white supremacists.

And NOT all those protesting the KKK and white supremacists were antifa.


If that was your intended meaning, I agree.
Quote:
"President Trump spoke factually"
Really?
That's rare.
I'm sorry I missed it.
Thanks from Camelot
titan is online now  
Old September 4th, 2017, 05:07 AM   #30
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: massachusetts
Posts: 9,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimgorn View Post
Answer is.............NO....But that is the point of my Strawman Fallacy......The Strawman being...KKK, Neo Nazis, Anti-fa and some other assorted anarchists....of course no one (including Trump) supports these violent anarchist groups... But the left insists on inferring there is a KKK/Conservative nexus, to trick the right into defending these extremist cretins....The answer is to call the left out for it's ingenuous position. You can not negotiate with people who are being dishonest in the first place, therefor the premise of this post is flawed..
And yet, KKK, Nazis and Conservatives defend Confederate monuments, support flying the Confederate flag, think that Civil Rights legislation "has gone too far", heck, all three oppose ObamaCare.

It's the pandering of the GOP, that has established the connection between the Alt-Right, the Nazis, the KKK and the Republican Party.
The GOP pandered for votes, but the connection is real, and it is their doing.
Thanks from Camelot and Asimov
goober is online now  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Current Events

Tags
conservatives, extremes, liberals, stand



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Difference Between Conservatives and Liberals... BordenMilk Political Ideologies 35 December 24th, 2016 06:45 AM
The Reason I Despise Conservatives And Everything They Stand For skews13 Current Events 136 June 19th, 2013 04:35 PM
Why Liberals Are More Intelligent Than Conservatives Mrs. CJ Parker Social Issues 0 May 24th, 2013 04:48 PM
What conservatives and liberals believe alias Americas 5 November 19th, 2006 09:35 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.