Originally Posted by
Joe Chandler
1. "Used to be" are the operative words. Social mores change, and even the most conservative nowadays is pretty liberal compared to their forebears. Used to be, liberals were decent human beings, with the best interests of society at heart. They really were trying to make the world better. Now, they're usually arrogant and think they're better than everyone else, and can't understand why nobody likes them.
2. Again, "used to be" are the operative words. Engaging in pre-marital sexual intercourse is still labeled sinful, but a true Christian loves the sinner and hates the sin. No sense in throwing the baby out with the bathwater. We (and only loosely am I part of the Christian "coalition"...while I believe the Bible is a pretty good way to live your life, I don't take it literally, and don't really consider myself a Christian). As for the condemnation, there was a time when everyone looked down on unwed mothers, liberal and conservative alike. If more people did nowadays, we'd probably have a better country. Now, though, everything's relative, and nobody has the guts to stand up for anything decent.
3. So she believes in abstinence education...so what? Seems she didn't get pregnant until she was married, and abstinence is 100% effective in preventing pregnancy or STDs. She believes it, obviously, and it obviously works. The only people who seem to be against it are undisciplined weenises who don't want to have to take responsibility for their own actions. Yeah, her daughter got pregnant...happens every day. Doesn't make it right, nor does it invalidate the argument for abstinence. Now, you and I know kids are going to have sex outside marriage, but I also don't believe we should be encouraging it. If anything, it reinforces the idea of abstinence, since now the daughter has to deal with the consequences of her actions. At least they'll "man up" and deal with it like adults instead of murdering the baby to not have to deal with their lack of foresight.
4. I don't buy into either party's argument that the opponent is a "flip-flopper" unless someone changes their opinion just to satisfy some small fringe group, and panders to focus groups, a la Slick Willie Clinton. A rational person should be able to change their stances as new information presents itself. Seems that the construction of the bridge seemed to be a good idea until more information was presented, and the public turned against the project. Every governor wants construction in their state; it creates jobs and brings money. But a good governor will listen to the public and kill projects that it realizes are wastes of resources. That's what Palin did, however you want to spin it.
Look, it's obvious you're a die-hard liberal. I can respect that, but if you're going to attack someone and throw up ad hominem attack and strawman arguments, think about it just a little. There is usually more than one way to look at something, and regurgitating MoveOn talking points just makes you look uninformed, the same as screaming "Ditto!" at the top of your lungs.
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Oh, and it's "by and by", not "bye and bye".
