I think there are at least a few in here that know where I stand and my leanings (conservative republican) I am proud of it. However, I do not necessarily go along with party lines. I happen to align myself with conservative republican because a good majority of my beliefs rest on that side of the isle.

As someone mentioned, it may have been Raoul it is not good to attack, name call or belittle someone as to their beliefs because they believe something different, “so long” as they “really” believe in what they are saying.

To qualify that statement I would have no problem with name calling and belittling the Hollywood types because they “do not” really believe in what they are saying, have no true convictions on there stance of the issue of war.

These same Hollywood types where right there and supporting a democratic president ready to do what a republican president is actually about to do. Therefore they have NO respect from me.

I pray to the good Load that the day will never come in America where anyone is silenced for any reason, unless of course they are out preaching to kill people. Preaching to kill people does not come under freedom of speech.

There use to be a guy on here that I often disagreed with who went by the name of Dennis. He was an amazing gentleman. He could be completely opposite of me on an issue and we could battle, debate back and forth and never once was a bad name thrown out or any ill feelings. It was a mutual respectful debate with both sides going at it quite hard at times.

That is what America is all about, debating ideas and solutions. Today and for quite some time it is a lost art. Most politicians use one liner to describe and put down their opponent and it usually goes for both sides of the isle.

Today it’s about having an “issue” rather then coming to some type of conclusion and solution. That point is well made by the Hollywood types. They have no solutions to offer, no conclusions to offer just some good one liners to feel like part of the crowd.

Those that have true beliefs, sincere values, sincere views on issues are not afraid to say why they feel the way they do nor are they afraid to explain what they find as a good “solution” to an issue.

It is easy to tell the fakers, those that do not have a clue, have no real values from the passionate ones that do. The ones that don’t do nothing more then name call and say they are right simple because they are right or because “it says so in the paper” or “the Hollywood guy says so, so it must be so” furthermore they usually can not explain to you “why” they feel the way they do.


Point of my mini-novel is this:

If you truly believe in something and feel strongly do not be afraid to act like a true adult and say your piece. There is nothing worse then someone that just follows the crowd to “fit in”, in the long run you will never fit in when you’re not honest.

I fixed my usual spelling problem by typing most my post in “Word” first then copying and pasting to the thread…

It may be cheating, but at least I am honest…

 

I agree with WhiskeyTango's comment. I really see it as a group of warped individuals that associate only with their type (left wing Hollywood people-type), and therefore think that "everyone" in the world has a picture in their living room of a naked man with a bullwhip up his a$$. When George Clooney or Rosie O' Donnel speak, they think in their minds "everyone agrees with me, except that stupid President, or stupid Bill O' Reilly, or stupid Tom Selleck..." Granted, there are exceptions to the rule (Tom Selleck being one of them). But in general, I believe that the movie, music, and entertainment industry "lends" itself it artsy-fartsy folks to begin with. It's just them hanging around themselves too much that makes them "break" from reality even further.

Regardless, I tend to have little respect for any of the Hollywood type, from Baldwin to Clooney. I believe it was Clooney that said Heston lost his mind for the second time when Clooney was asked about Heston's Alzheimers (the first time being when he decided to lead the NRA). I don't care if it's was the hypocritical b*tch from California, Diana Feinstein, I would never mock a person's medical malady just because they hold different viewpoints from me.

As far as the conservative versus the liberal thing, my personal experience has been that conservatives tend to be more intelligent and educated (careful to note the bifurcation between the two that has arisen in this thread) than liberals (except for the intelligent liberals that have the "guilt" complex, which is why they are liberal). The direct result of this is that I disagree with many "conservatives" around on certain topics like Limbaugh and O' Reilly, but I always have to respect their viewpoints because they have legitimate arguments backed up facts. Liberal arguments tend to be based on emotion, "facts" as they see it, and/or a laughable connection of various tidbits that is supposed to substitute for a reasonable argument.

I always find it amusing when I hear liberals bash the No-Spin Zone as Bill essentially forcing his opinion on others, when in reality he is essentially forcing them to make their argument. If the topic is whether the Constitution allows us to keep and bear arms, you had better be ready to argue what in the Constitution does or doesn't guarantee our right. Saying something emotional but meaningless like "15,000 children a year die due to handgun accidents" isn't a valid argument (it may be a valid argument for changing th Constitution by amendment), and Bill will ride that person to make an argument or be humiliated....

 

Wow! This is a great thread! I’ll just jump in with a few thoughts.
I believe that every American has the right to say anything that they believe as long as they really believe it. As has been pointed out the Hollywood crowd really doesn’t have the convictions that they are spouting. As that Garafalo chick told the Fox News guy the other day, she and her friends were against the Clinton bombing of Iraq, and putting the troops in Bosnia but they didn’t demonstrate because it “wasn’t hip”. And the guy on West Wing sent in troops to overthrow an evil dictator because of his human rights violations. Maybe he should read the scripts a little better.
I think it was Raul who mentioned the use of labels to close down discussions and used Rush as an example. I agree with you and Rush is guilty of doing it but if you were to keep score you would find that the left is a lot quicker to stick a label on people. It has been used so often that a lot of words in our language have lost their impact. It is almost impossible to disagree with any black agenda issue without being called a racist, if you think marriages are for one man and one woman you are a homophobe (which has become more of a stigma than being a homo). Well you get the point.
Now for the spell checker. I’m terrible so I started writing in WORD and doing a copy/paste. Almost as good as an ejakation!

 

cpadpl:

Good to see you my friend and an excellent post as well. I guess I scared off Raoul because as a right winger I agreed with him and it may have made him very nervous... LOL

Anyway I agree with your post in that there are a lot of liberals that just go with "feelings" rather then logic or a well thought out idea. You should also note that it is rare if at all you will find a liberal going after anything that has to do with the majority of people.

For example they go after smokers (minority of people) and gun owners (minority of people). They will use an argument such as you noted that guns kill 15,000 kids a year. I say “so what?” and not to be mean, nobody including me does not want to see one child die.

However my come back to a liberal with a stupid argument as that is “well what about drunk drivers?” what about going after the manufactures of beer. How about having a 25 cent tax of every can of beer? You know damn well the liberals would never get a way with a stupid argument like that and because the “majority” of people partake in drinking be it casual or parties etc.

As far as guns and the liberals I would argue the opposite point of, well if 15,000 kids die each year because of guns how many would die if there were NO guns? How many kids are saved each year because of guns?

I have to say I just love O’Reaily because to me he does seem independent. There are some nights I am just totally with him and other nights I am thinking “what is he talking about” but in either case he has something that sounds logical to me to back up what he believes and more important you can see his passion in what he believes. That is the difference between someone just spouting off because of “feelings” and not really knowing what they are talking about and someone else having the same opinion but yet have some logic to back it up and passion behind what they believe in.

When it comes from someone’s core beliefs and heart you know it, when it doesn’t I have no reason to listen or have any respect for the person mouthing something that don’t have a clue about.

I have my beliefs on issues but they are not concrete as far as no possibility to change my mind or alter what I feel is a logic conclusion or solution to an issue. However none of my beliefs would ever be changed or altered unless someone has some good solid logic that “may” effect how I think (not feel) on an issue.

 

Man, I can't believe the attention this thread has received. I think it is great that so many members here are willing to jump in and participate in this type of discussion. I wonder what it would be like if I had named it something else as a few of you have suggested.

You guys may or may not be familiar with a performer known as Kid Rock who is popular in several venues right now. His initial popularity was in rap/metal (I guess that's what you call it) and has since recorded a duet with Sheryl Crow that is popular on top 40 and country stations. I heard today that he has spoken out in support of the President and in support of the troops. A position that I whole-heartedly support. Kid Rock aligns himself with people like Hank, Jr. and CDB so its not outside of his image to hold this position. What's interesting is that Sheryl Crow has repeatedly and LOUDLY spoken out against the President and against the possible war (I don't think even she is stupid enough to actually speak out against the troops.) It just amuses me that they hold such differing opinions while they share a duet that is currently very high on both Top 40 and Country charts.

 

Hey 01XLT SPORT

Mini-novel!!!!
Brother thats a full-blown novel
You better get a publisher

 

BTW, I think in need a grammer checker worse than I need a spell checker. Either that or a better eduKation.

 

You think that is a "full-blown" novel just wait to we really get into an issue, just ask cpadpl. Sometimes the two of us could take our post and make it a "best seller" (of course since we are always right) LOL

Mike B'ham:

I like Kid Rock and I am 38. Don't sweet Sheryl Crow, once the kid nails her, she'll change her opinion...

 

LMAO

 

That was bad, but it sounds SO good...

 

I dig the chit out of Kid Rock myself, and I got 10 yrs on ya 01XLT.
But thanks for a good laugh on Cheryl changing her "tune"

 

I bet he could make her a soprano

 

I bet Tony Soprano could make her a better soprano

 

I bet I could FLIP her liver.....

 

Kid Rock has always been an avid supporter of our armed forces, he gave a benefit concert and donated the proceeds to the families of the victims on the U.S.S. Cole a while back, and it would be fine with me if the United States marched into Iraq with his song "American Bada$$" playing LOUD in the background!

I bet that one week with Kid Rock would change Sheryl Crow's mind, but one night with Tony Soprano would distort her view of the world!