Comment

Comment by Robert Brown on September 1, 2012 at 10:15am

James, I know what you mean about religion in republicans speeches, but I don't think most of them are catering.  I think they truly believe it, which at times is scarier for me.  How can fellow conservatives use logic and deduction for making most life and political decisions and then follow absolute fallacy and wishful thinking by believing in a god?

I mean, liberals are usually the ones making choices based on how something feels rather than by using logic so how did conservatives get stuck in the choosing god because it feels good path?

Any ideas on that?

I'm thinking part is ingraned parental loyalty, and believing what their parents told them, but they should still also believe in Santa as well then.

Comment by James Yount on September 1, 2012 at 8:51am

Not a lot.  Anyone notice how much the repubs tend to cater to the religious in their speeches and alienate us? There would be more conservative atheists if they'd just lay off the religion and focus on small government and the economy....

Comment by Chris Z on September 1, 2012 at 7:46am

Andrew, I've never seen one, but one might be able to interpolate a rough number of right-of-center nontheist types in our country from multiplying the ratio of nonbelievers to believers to the ratio of those right-of-center to left-of-center.  I did something like this once but the sources I found for each ratio itself respectively were not the best.

Comment by Andrew on September 1, 2012 at 3:43am

Does anyone have any data on what percentage of Atheists are conservative?

Comment by Matt Stath on August 27, 2012 at 8:39pm

Thank you, Robert Brown.  I've already found Neil deGrasse Tyson interesting for years and I've watched the video you posted.

Comment by Robert Brown on August 27, 2012 at 12:54pm

Here's a little clip to share with our liberal atheist counterparts everytime they claim the high ground on science.

Comment by James Yount on June 24, 2012 at 1:42am

Anyone who know me, knows that I'm not a liberal and not a supporter of the Clintons. However, listen to this interview and try to picture Obama in Clinton's place. Do you think the discourse would have been as informed and intelligent. Clinton, like his policies or not, was and is an intelligent and thoughtful man. If more of the democratic party were like him, then I would be infinitely happier with the state of our country.

Comment by James Yount on June 23, 2012 at 2:24pm

Comment by Tonya Wynn on June 20, 2012 at 1:11pm

The citizens of these countries with tyrants are much like abused women who keep choosing men who will abuse them.  They need to change their mindset and fight their own battles.  US money and lives and honor should not be compromised because fools allow themselves to be dominated or live in near chaos.

Comment by Chris Z on June 4, 2012 at 4:00pm

Jeanne, Yes, I agree.  In Afghanistan, I think we should have gotten rid of Hamid Karzai a long time ago.  In Iraq, well... Bipartisan support gave passage of a US Bill for strong consequences if Iraq didn't own up to the UN resolutions.  Then straight down party lines, the Dem leaders of the time began saying that they weren't present for the high profile intelligence high briefs as everyone else.  Intelligence officials to this day are saying, "Yes, they were present."  This and the politicization to come undermined much of the support for our mission.  We were justified going in along with the large coalition we assembled based on the fact that Saddam and his men did once gas the Kurds, and the intelligence up to that time throughout many independent intelligence offices across the world thought he was WMD capable.

We were great!  Then early on, the Marines actually captured Muqtada Al-Sadr after a huge battle.  We gave him to the Iraqi's to decide what to do with him at their request, also once again showing what great people we are.  They let him go and allowed him to join in on the political process in the country.

Also, our policy initially was to clear, capture, and release cities.  This also showed how great we are.  We later found that this wasn't working , I wonder why (perhaps all through this time the Dems outcries here back home sent signals of weakness to the decent Iraqi people, and served to embolden our enemies).

The surge was necessary.  It worked.  We changed our policy to clear, capture, and hold the areas.  This was a success.  We then handed off the areas piece by piece as the Iraqi military became more and more competent.

Very early on in the effort, there were rumors that the British weren't doing their job in securing the South from Iranian (Shiite) influence.  It was said that there were a bunch of sitters who were just going to wait the whole thing out until we left and in the meantime infiltrate the system.

I think that has occurred.  Everyone wants to know why it's taken so long and what has occurred.  It was political correctness that has won.  It was the dems via shouts of aggression and their political correctness that weakened our hand and efforts, along with of course mainly the strong Iranian influence and it's proxies in the whole region.

Having served in OIF III, while I'm upset at President Bush for not sticking up as strongly as Dick Cheney and Condolezza Rice, I'm pretty pissed to see what our very own did.

Of course, we shouldn't be the World Police for everyone, but China and Russia block all UN led activities and so coalitions are necessarily built outside the UN.

We shouldn't have been there for so long either, but the reason for that really lies with our inability to address the neighboring enemy allies quickly enough.  Our hands have been tied because the area is really that bad.  We've done great.  We need new leadership to try and turn the tied of the last 3 years.  Allen West and John Bolten are our men!!!

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• …
• 13
• Next ›
• Page