Nicely put. Different people see different parts of the whole. Just because it isn't the part I see does not mean that either party is wrong.

:)

Drew

Oh, and I meant, "myself" not my self in my original thread. For some reason I'm not able to edit the word.

OK, I think there is another reason why debate has become so vitriolic over the past ten years. The wide use now of the WWW has allowed us access to a huge library of ideas, writings and information. I am a fan of the Web and I use it often but something else has happened as well. Today if I want to make the argument that Oswald was not the shooter that day in Dallas I can go find information that supports my belief. Again, today we can hold a belief and then go find information that supports it. It does not mean that the information is correct it means only that it agrees with our views.

I'm not aiming that fact at anyone. I've done it (though today I try very hard to debate the philosophy of an idea, the root of the thinking and not necessarily the act itself because I believe war is a symptom of a set of beliefs not the cause of them) and I've noticed that many other engage in it as well.

There is nothing wrong with going to a source to mine information. I am actually impressed with how many people on this forum alone read and search out information as much as they do. But where I see it as a problem is when there is no investigation or skepticism directed at the information. Think that Lipitor is really bad for you, there are sites out there that will tell you that Lipitor will kill you tonight as you sleep. But if you look just to the right of the main article on some of those pages you'll see that they indeed have a solution in the form of a product of their own. This alone does not make their product bad or Lipitor good but there is an ulterior motive to some extent and it simply cannot be ignored.

The same holds true (sorry about the Lipitor reference, I just got back from my doctor's office today and take the medicine to lower cholesterol) for politics. There are conservative sites out there that will rip everything that even leans left. Likewise there are left leaning sites that will trash everything that leans to the right.

What I find interesting is that most of it is in some way (this goes for both sides) in money or some form of institutional power.) If you run a liberal e-magazine obviously you are targeting like-minded individuals. If you were to run ads for National Review you might see your subscription base dry up as they headed for the your competition. The same holds true for conservative publications.

I am truly an independent when it comes to politics. Some have called me a fence sitter, others have said I lack conviction in that I don't take a stand for one set of ideas over another. Those who believe that don't know me and have never read anything I've written but hell, why let facts get in the way. What I do is look at issues as individual issues. I am liberal on some issues and more conservative on others. I am disappointed a great deal with how Republicans have become as "Big Government" as the Democrats they once blasted for the same. And I am disappointed that a number of Democrats view health insurance as a constitutional right.

But above all, I'm an American and I love (and have served) my country. I don't think that entitles me to fly a bigger patriotism banner than the next guy (and many people serve their country with esteem and honor without serving in the military) but I do love my country.

I guess the point of this long rambling post is that we would all probably do a lot better if we looked for truth and found and adopted ideals that were not based so much in blasting what others believe but rather contained within them a modicum of bridge building and cooperation.

I don't own glasses with a rose colored hue. And I don't think for one moment that my opinions are more important or of greater impact than the next person. But I do believe that if we reduced the rancor and hatefulness by even 10% we'd have a few more issues we could discuss and find compromise with. Compromise is not always a good thing. I won't compromise with the guy who breaks in to my house at 2:00 AM. I will protect myself to the fullest. But compromise when it comes to ideals is what we must have if we are to progress not only in realms political but in all realms human.

-Drew

Agreed!!!!

Drew

To be perfectly honest there is an element of prayer that does bother me. I remember not long ago a friend saying that she was running late for work but had to stop by the store first. It was a cold rainy morning and she mentioned that she prayed that there would be a parking spot near the store to help her save time, avoid getting rained on and just make the trip easier.

She found a spot right in front of the store and so she figured that God had answered the prayer. I guess what bothers me is the capriciousness of that story in that a different friend of mine was struggling with a very sick daughter. Her daughter had been born with a congenital defect and though both my friend and her husband prayed day and night for God to assist they lost their brave little girl not long after.

I think the question that some might ask (so I will) is this: Did God have anything at all to do with the relatively minor request for a parking spot and if so how is that more important or a more worthy prayer than healing a sick little girl? If God listened to both prayers and answered only one, why that parking spot request?

Surely the person who found the spot near the store that day would have gladly given up her prayer being affirmed so that a child could live.

I know some of the response answers about "working in mysterious" ways and that only God knows why...., but that fact is of no particular comfort when you are left to bury a child.

And imagine how you would feel if you were that parent and heard someone attribute to God the rather mundane and ordinary request for a parking spot. How could you not feel at least a bit irked about the method, the motives and the result?

Just wondering--thanks for reading.

Drew

I think whenever a thread gets off track with a point that is valid but not related specifically to the original post (e.g., someone giving thanks for something and then a bigger picture being brought up) it is good (as rose did here) to begin a new thread so that the secondary issue can be properly discussed.

Nice.

Drew

madison: Which Clinton? Because Senator Clinton voted for force to be used and she read the same intelligence data that GWB did. In other words, it was believed by a number of people.

As for the YouTube spot, LOL.....and no, not offended in the least.

-Drew

Thanks everyone! That post was also meant for me in that I have to remember that if I want to share a view or belief I need to do so in a way that doesn't instantly put someone on the defensive. If I am making them defensive they'll not really hear what I'm saying or trying to convey. And that applies to every line or form of debate. Religion, politics, Cable vs. Dish....I mean, the examples never end.

:)


Drew

I work as a manager for a small rural hospital in WA. I enjoy my work and enjoy the majority of people that I work with. Since we are a public hospital discussions/debates political or religious have to be dealt with carefully which is to say that we sometimes discuss such things when we take a break.

Not long before the last presidential election a co-worker was out in one of the on-site break areas raising just under a thousand kinds of hell about his beliefs regarding the Bush/Kerry race. I will not get in to which side he was taking because that isn't the point of my post. What I will state is that he was very angry. He was bashing the ideals held on the other side of the political spectrum and the more he discussed things the more animated and angry he became. I listened, agreed with some of it, disagreed with other parts but a few days later was talking to a person who had endured the entire display. She said something that stuck with me. "Drew, I am not very political and so I am trying to learn more but Steve (the guy who was ranting) just seemed so angry about everything...I think I'll vote for the other guy."

While her reasons were not exactly deeply thought out her emotional response was spot on.

She missed the message that Steve was trying to get across because all she could see and focus in on was the anger and the name calling (some rather graphic name calling) and the lack of positivity.

If I want you to appreciate what I believe I stand a better chance of that happening (by appreciate, I really mean respect) if I avoid becoming a sideshow unto my self and instead take the time to be kind. The same works when discussing things with me.

The girl who talked to me missed Steve's message because she couldn't hear him. To her, what he believed didn't seem to do anything but make him upset.

I'm not aiming this post at anyone specifically and it is advice I need to take myself. I guess I just wanted to write out loud a bit and remind myself (and anyone who cares to read) that bashing and ripping on people (from both sides of the debate) might leave us feeling correct but it isn't likely to change undecided minds in our favor if the message is drowned out by the antics employed in its delivery.

-Drew

Well I think that the idea behind the export in this case is democratic ideals, but I understand your point. We just differ on the causes of some of our current messes.

Drew

Welcome Hutch and don't be afraid to use Emoticons.

:)

Seriously--welcome


Drew

But we are not a democracy, madison. We are in fact a Republic so you are either going to have to warm to that or vote to tear our Constitution up in favor of something that reads very differently.

-Drew

Wow, madison, so you thought I wanted to focus on her? I wanted to focus on the guy who fired weapons on the poor innocent people of Iraq long before GWB was in office. But I'm sure your outrage was massive at the time, yes?

-Drew

Madison--any chance that you are just an anti-capitalist? You seem to be angrier with the larger issue here. I'm starting to wonder of President Bush isn't just the vehicle to your bigger issue of not really being all that fond of our capitalist republic.

-Drew

What president isn't massively connected??? You don't think the Clinton White House didn't have connections? And "oh please" if you don't get that every administration on some level abuses power. It is the nature of power. But JFK took us to Vietnam (and LBJ continued to) FDR took us to WWII and last I checked both were Dems. Clinton himself fired weapons in to Iraq as little more than a diversion from the woman who was getting sore knees serving her president. I don't mind that you take Bush to task for what you view as a massive power grab. What I think is odd is that you do it in a vacuum ignoring a large part of history.

Drew

-Drew

Dan Brown never claimed that TDC was non-fiction (and he would have been wrong to have done so) but what I found interesting was that there are a lot of things that people believe are unique to Christianity that really aren't. Long before Christ there were stories of "saviors" being born of a virgin and then undergoing sacrifice. Isis, Osiris, Demeter, Vespatian's healing of a blind man and Apollonius of Tyana raising a girl from the dead.

There are more but Brown's book gave me pause and a chance to research a number of things that I used to think meant one thing and one thing only.

There is a lot of great information out there about religion and origins of the beliefs and dogmas.

-Drew

LOL....nah, I'll just argue with you about something.

-Drew

Madison--but they bought the reasons! Congress not only funded this thing but they signed off on it. As for cutting funding and risking being accused of not supporting the troops, a first year politico could spin that to say that cutting funding is the ultimate way to support them in that they would be coming home.

Drew

Look, there is no way that we'll disagree too much on our failed war on drugs. But that failure is spread around both parties. No one has been able to get a plan together for that one. And you know--it is just one of those things that will forever be a losing battle. As long as there is stress and a chemical release from it, there will be users. I am all for taking a fresh look at how we've dealt with that and while I don't think we should move to stock Wal Mart shelves with Oxy for the public to consume at will I do think that it is pure idiocy to jail a guy for pot while the level 3 sex offender is let out of prison early.

Drew

I am sorry for jumping off-topic on this one. I was just sort of following the curve ball as it related to Rush.

I'll ask yet again. Why aren't those who are using Bush as a punching bag for Iraq punching even harder on Congress for giving him the money to fund this thing? President Bush can send troops to the moon but he cannot fund it. And without the funding none of this would have really ever happened. It wouldn't be because congress was controlled by the Democrats for most of this, would it?

Writing a check for something you consider immoral and then complaining when it is cashed makes for a pretty lousy stage from which to preach.

-Drew

In Limbaugh conservatives found a drug addict that they felt sorry for and in Limbaugh liberals found one that they showed no pity.

Who would have ever believed that Oxycontin could be so revolutionary as a political force.

-Drew