General discussion


Peer Messages from the "tolerant" Left?

By jdclyde ·
We hear all the time from the loonie left about the intolerant religious right. It has been almost a battle cry for at least the last decade.

Just how "tolerant" are these same loonie lefties with anything that they don't agree with? Here is an example from FAKE James (JamesG ) from Albuquerque, NM, not the REAL one (JamesRL) up in Canada.

One of your fellow TechRepublic members has sent you a private message:

From: JamesG@...
Subject: abortion
Typical Repugnant fool - keep government out of our lives! Freedom! Wait, you want to make a mdeical decision I don't agree with??? You can't have an abortion!! I don't approve!!
Well, keep your right wing fascist nose out of my wifes panty hose, you f@@k.

Thanks fake James. You have confirmed everything I had thought about you.

For the casual reader, you may be asking "what the H E double L is he going off on?"

I have to ASSuME that this is in regards to a recent discussion with "ABSOLUTELY". I was comparing the contradictions for both Dems and Reps, and he made the contention that Abortions are NOT "birthcontrol".

(my post, his reply, then my reply.)

My counter was:
"Abortion for non-life threatening reasons, or the rape/incest IS birthcontrol because that is the only function being performed. Controlling birth."

At no point did I discuss making this illegal or preventing FAKE James from taking his wife for as many abortions as his sick little heart wants. I only made the call of being HONEST enough to call it what it is. If you are not willing to be honest about this FAKE James, so be it. Maybe you can get frequent flier miles if you do it enough and pay for it with your credit card?

Abortions should be safe, legal, and rare is the stance I have always taken. Don't worry FAKE James, I will stay out of your wifes panies.

(what are some people thinking?)

NOTE: see how nice I was to NOT post his email address, as he has peer messages turned off? Of course, that doesn't stop him from peering others, OR putting his comments in the dicussion where they originate from? No, lets make it a personal attack instead? Nice and tolerant of you FAKE JamesG. Real nice. By the way, to you eat with that mouth?

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

The other side of the moderate sword

by jdclyde In reply to Why be a thinking moderat ...

it shows you don't have convictions you are willing to stand up for if everything in your life is one big compromise.

SOME issues ARE right and wrong, black and white.

It is only when the party is more important than the ideas that we have real problems.

Collapse -

I disagree

by faradhi In reply to The other side of the mod ...

being a moderate does not mean you don't have convictions.

Being a moderate means that there some issues you are "conservative" and others you are "liberal".

Ultimately, I consider myself moderate. I don't agree with abortion as birth control. I don't agree with gun control. ("Conservative" Ideals) I don't agree with the Death penalty. I don't agree with bible classes in schools. ("Liberal" ideals)

I am not arguing these in this thread. I am just punctuating the point that you can be moderate and have convictions.

Collapse -

What is in a name?

by jdclyde In reply to I disagree

I personally consider myself an "independent" because I will look at the idea. I think the option for a single check box to vote party line should be removed.

I vote Republican because voting independent would be splitting the vote and only put the Democrats in power again.

The direction the Democratic party has gone since Clinton got in office has left me with less and less things that I can agree with Dems on. The core values are against everything that I believe in. It is clear to me that the party leaders HAVE no core values and are only doing whatever they can to make Republicans look bad, because whatever is bad for Republicans is good for Democrats, hense the intentional undermining of the war on terror. Making the country out to be in worse shape than it really is, because if the country is doing badly it makes the party in power look bad. They WANT things to be bad because it is the only way they can get back to the power that they crave.

Collapse -

What does that have to do with moderates?

by faradhi In reply to What is in a name?

Your post I am disagreeing with said (and I am paraphrasing) moderates do not have convictions about anything.

The other stuff about democrats having no core values is irrelevant to that statement. Now, the only way the Democratic party will change is if us democrats work to change it. I do that by voting in the primaries for more moderate members.

Collapse -


by jdclyde In reply to What does that have to do ...

Too lazy right now on a friday after noon to go look up what I said, so I will take your paraphrasing as correct so we have a starting point.

I never INTENDED to imply that moderates have NO convictions about anything, although I could see it coming out like that. (oops! ;\ )

What I DO contend is that you can't go through life as one big compromise. People that do that DON'T have any convictions.

People that pick and chose their issues are classified as "independents" in my head. The people that will follow a good idea, regardless which political party came out with the idea. THAT is what I TRY to be.

Moderate, I do question convictions.

We are saying the same thing but with different definitions I believe. You consider yourself by a different title than I would consider you, but they do have the same meaning (as I understand it).

I want people that support the same ideas I do to be in office, and with as devicive and dishonest as the democrats in office are, we need people that will stand up for what they believe in.

Appeasement NEVER resolves an issue. Britan tried that by allowing islomic hate groups to form and thrive in their mists, and paid for it dearly.

Spain tried that with the troop withdrawls, and is still in the cross hairs.

Collapse -

Fair enough

by faradhi In reply to What does that have to do ...

You say tomato I say tomato (only diffrently) :)

Collapse -

Sometimes, other times

by NickNielsen In reply to The other side of the mod ...

For all of us thinking moderates, there are many issues about which we are able to objectively consider both sides and, therefore, come to a compromise that benefits all.

On the other hand, some issue do not lend themselves to compromise. Religion is one. The problem is that many people (on both the left and right) are incapable of seeing issues except through the filter of their religion.

Collapse -

And of course

by jdclyde In reply to Sometimes, other times

don't religious people have a RIGHT to lead a religious life?

Oh, I forgot, this only applies to Christians.

I don't see people applying the same anti-religion rules on Muslims. Why is that?

Collapse -

What are the chances...

by Jellimonsta In reply to And of course

We will have a Muslim president?

Collapse -


by jdclyde In reply to What are the chances...

just because it isn't fashionable to attack muslims like it is Christians, doesn't mean they will be allowed in high offices anywhere but in muslim communities or California where they have no standards for anything.

Related Discussions

Related Forums