Why Can't We Start By
 

I have been reading some very disagreeable posts. So may I suggest that we all start off by some portion of agreement. And if you cannot agree, then at least acknowledge a person's comments with a "I understand how you would come to that conclusion; however let me share with you another point of view."

I do expect at least one smart aleck response:cold:

Communication tools such as this are for learning by sharing of ideas I am not feeling that right now:confused:

I am with you on this. I will start:

Obama is an intelligent president and has given us hope, but I feel his approach to fixing the economy is falling short of the mark. We need more reduction in subsidies to big business and social programs.

What if you cannot understand how someone came to their conclusion?

When one's views are in stark contrast to another's, it's always going to be deemed "disagreeable", no matter the verbiage.

Just my opinion.

What about all the "one liners" whose sole purpose is to start an argument?

If you just listen to Rick Santorum talk about "phony theology" and medical tests leading to abortion as a goal of Obama how can anyone try to civilly respond to that? :mad:
Having said that I can only hope that Santorum gets the nomination. :D

Santorum should be a lithiums test. If you like him, you have a twisted mentality.

Maybe we should start with something a little easier... the Earth is round.

(Go for it Richie!)

Xavier

My desire to have Santorum be the Republican nominee is that he doesn't have a ghost of a chance to win the election. Americans are far to intelligent and humane that to support someone with such extreme views. :doh:

I agree with you, but for whatever reason, there are some on this site that think he is A GOOD MAN. I just cannot for the life of me understand how someone with such obvious prejudices have supporters unless they also harbor the same despicable prejudices.

nice TRY rubicon to get a discussion above school yard banter.

btk

Just call me KrazeeKatz! I love the guy and praying that he is innaugurated next January as President of these United States of America!

I know Katz, but this guy is filled with so much hate, I just cannot believe he has a chance. His dream of America is WHITE and Heterosexual and no room for anything else. We just can't go back to that 1950's mentality.

I do not support Santorum for the nomination, nor do I think he has a shot at it, HOWEVER...

This post which attacks him and his followers is sort of the anti post for this thread.....wow...if you dont agree..attack him and his folowers personally !!

I think I see what you mean. I meant no disrespect for the followers of this redneck racist idiot and apologize if they took it that way.

Villager II,

It is not nice to call Santorum a redneck racist idiot. He is not a redneck.

Liberals are craaaaaaaazzzzy
http://i921.photobucket.com/albums/a...es/Unknown.jpg

And he picks Palin as his running mate ........

What a coincidence - those were Osama Bin Laden's last words .....

seriously,
 

i think most people who have read my occasional posts would say that i choose my words wisely and make cogent arguments...i am very much a santorum supporter, but i have actually heard him speak in person, where one hears the entire remarks in context, and is not subjected only to twisted, outrageous snipets. the "theology" remark to which daleMN refers was from a speech about the green extremism which puts the earth above the needs of man, rather than viewing man as a steward of its resources for the betterment of mankind. this is not a christian theology but it is nevertheless a warped world view, or "theology". the remark about amneioscentesis was to point out that this procedure, although serious enough to risk a miscarriage, is used mainly to determine if a child is going to be handicapped in any way, and then the family is encouraged to abort..this is undeniably true...rush made a very good analogy today about how quickly "Pro choice" liberals would change their tune if a prenatal test could determine whether a child would be homosexual, and then encouraged to be aborted. suddenly all the left wing would see the inhumanity of this! but they cannot seem to see it for a disabled person. all life has worth and reason for being. every outrageous thing you hear has a very good explanation if you will only seek it out...this man speaks truth, and truth is written on our hearts.

Thank you chachacha!
I was pregnant in the beginning of the era that presented a waiver if you did not want the amniocentesis done. I signed it, as I was planning to give birth no matter what the test would find. So why go through a painful procedure for no reason whatsoever.

In both cases it's still crazy, extremist rant. :doh:

:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

OMG this is to good.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xavier
Maybe we should start with something a little easier... the Earth is round.

(Go for it Richie!)

Xavier


From the Scientific American
I hate to say it but the case is still open on this one!!! :loco:

Okay, you guys are losing me here. Not that it's that difficult.

Hey TVII, No offense taken here. However, I am wondering about something. When everyone was sure that Mitt would get the nomination by a landslide, I mentioned that I would go Independent and vote for Ron Paul. I had a deluge of folks bombard me with the mantra-"ya gotta vote whoever is the Republican nominee, we gotta stick together!" I think you might have been one of those giving me such friendly advice.
Hmmm, but now that it looks like Santorum could be on the ticket, folks are changing their tune. Even you are jumping to the Independent party. Is that a "do as I say, but not as I do" mentality? How crazy is that?!?

I do enjoy the interesting exchange of ideas and even the ascerbic comments in Political. I get so bored with threads about dog poop and roundabouts and the bond. I come to Political to learn and to be entertained, and that happens whether the posts are nice or nasty.

Honestly, Rubicon, I understand your position. But I have to say that it would be a yawn if every post started with "I understand how you would come to that conclusion, however let me share with you another point of view". It just wouldn't feel like Political! It would feel like a Ladies Knitting Circle. (Not that there is anything wrong with knitting, or with ladies!) :evil6::duck:

Okay, you're correct. I forgot who my audience was ... how about ...

The Earth is Not kitchen-table flat.

Now, have at it folks.

Xavier

Thank goodness. I feel the same way but felt if I said anything I would get reamed as mean and callous again by the "easily offended" people on this forum who insult everyone and then point fingers.

You've been my hero before Barefoot, and now you are again.

I remember that exchange and NO I was not one of them. I understand when someone is objectionable. I would have voted for any of the original candidates except Perry and Santorum. I like Paul. Newt would be fine etc. But Santorum is prejudice and that I cannot except in the WH.

If there was a Republican who was fiscally conservative, had all the Ronald Reagan qualities, was a believer in strict constitutional virtues, BUT also espoused PRO CHOICE (he himself believed in pro-life, but would not force that onto anyone else) - would any of you conservatives vote for that person for President?

I would like this as simple as possible with a yes or no - not nitpicking my statement apart like "he could not because ..." Just a yes or no, please.

help me remember what this thread was supposed to be about?
Consistently like most they always seem to skid off on some tangent. But what is more amusing is the proposal of the thread was walked over and ignored and like in Washington....business as usual!.

btk

I think it was: Let's build on something that we can all agree on. How'd that work out?

Xavier (so sad that you have to :1rotfl:)

Yes

NO.