Dear God,Follow

Labeling is not the same as explaining. Nothing in your long rambling treatise accurately describes me, my reasons for posting my opinions, nor the methodology I use when posting those opinions. Saying it's so doesn't make it so.



I have repeatedly stated my disagreement with the phrase "under god" in the pledge of allegiance. There's a section in the Republican platform that supports it. Technically it just supports requiring kids to say it, which I agree with, but I think we can all agree that there's an implication in the platform that they support the phrase I disagree with.


I have also stated a firm disagreement with any policy that mandates prayer or teaching of creationism in public schools. I have however stated that this does not include teaching "about" religion in a social studies format (which often excludes *only* Christianity), and double standards when it comes to public displays of religion, especially with regards to holiday decorations and celebrations.


My positions are based on a reasoned assessment of the degree to which religion (in this case) shouldn't be thrust upon those who don't want it, while protecting the rights of those who practice religion. I don't just "pick a side". Yet, I'm often embroiled in debates with people who seem to equate their "side" with "anti-religion" and pursue this well beyond the rational balance point.



Go find any thread discussing the pledge Smash.

The problem is that since my position is nuanced, and most people's aren't, I end up being labeled on a "side" regardless of my actual stated position. Since I don't agree with making the practice of religion just plain illegal, I'm apparently in lockstep with those who want to make all kids in public schools say the Lords Prayer every morning...

I get that a whole lot Smash. Much of it from you in fact. I know it's easier for you to just characterize my disagreements with your own radical liberal positions as an equally radical conservative position, but that's simply not the case.

I'm just please to see that some things will never change around here.

I'd go point for point on those Joph. But not a single one addresses an actual policy position. They are, as I've pointed out several times, irrelevant side statements taken out of context, and made into ridiculous issues.


Are you saying that being "blindly partisan" means not jumping on the "So and so said/did something foolish" bandwagon? Is that really what matters most to you?


Cause to me, being blindly partisan is when you continue to insist that Democrat social spending helps out those it's targeted at, even as the rates of those groups in need have grown over the decades we've been doing them, with no sign that this trend will stop. Being blindly partisan is insisting that something like the surge can't possibly work, right up until it does, and then attempting to insist that its success had nothing to do with any actions taken by those you opposed. Being blindly partisan is supporting "your side" on the issue of home schooling, and insisting that it really has nothing to do with an active attempt to eliminate people's right to worship, even when in a thread full of people on your own side arguing that parents don't have a right to pass their religious beliefs on to their children (that's one I'm still kinda mystified on).


Those are real policy positions. Those are real issues going on right now. Of the list of things you included only one of them is remotely close. And while I know "your side" characterizes any national attempt to allow states to each make their own laws regarding abortion as an attempt to "ban abortion", I personally think that's ridiculous. The day you find a quote from McCain saying he'd make it illegal for those on "your side" to work to pass laws lifting restrictions on abortions you have a point. Until then, McCain is simply saying both sides get to fight over the issue at the state level.

The problem is that since my position is nuanced, and most people's aren't

You apparently don't understand what "nuance" is. Here's a hint: it's not qualifying any statement to a significant degree that it can never be disproved and it therefore completely useless. While I'd agree that many of your positions are vague, qualified, or filled with unsound assumptions, I can't recall ever finding any of them nuanced in the slightest.


Go find any thread discussing the pledge Smash.

No, Gbaji, demonstrating you lying is Joph's hobby, not mine. I'm the ridicule side of the house, perhaps you've forgotten. Feel free to cite one of the many times you've disagreed with a GOP position. Not what the position might imply, or what people think the position means, or what you assume it means but the actual position. Cite a GOP vote on a bill that you would have voted the other way on. I can do this for 20 Democratic votes immediately.

Heh.