Am I missing something?

[gaijin178]

I just came accross this blog online and I have to admit, I really had a good laugh when I read it because it seemed so surreal. Two guys from Campus Progress went undercover at the College Republican National Convention. I know that I am probablly going to get slammed for posting this because there were stereotypes from both angles but seriously...some of this stuff I just don't get. What is it about being conservative and Christian that skews their view of morality? The jokes and the talks that apparently went on during this convention don't resemble any kind of morality that we 'liberals' are supposed to know nothing about.

Here is the link if you are interested: http://www.campusprogress.org/page/community/group/collegegopundercover

I'm just confused that's all.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

I'm just confused that's all.

Confused about what?
That you might not want to take a 'blog' as if it were hard and balanced information?
Or that a suspect, but special selection from a Liberal site doesn't jive with what Conservatives (or Christians for that matter) espouse as being valued?

As a Conservative Christian, I would suggest that you might want to not take "everything" off the Internet as being the real world and/or use a filter with your input node.

I hope that helps.

 

[gaijin178]

Thanks, but that doesn't help. I don't take everything that I read off the internet to be true and that's why I said before that I know that it would be biased from both sides. I guess there has to be some truth to the words being spoken by both sides, whether it is on an internet blog or not. Those pictures of bumperstickers and people at the convention look real to me.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Thanks, but that doesn't help. I don't take everything that I read off the internet to be true and that's why I said before that I know that it would be biased from both sides. I guess there has to be some truth to the words being spoken by both sides, whether it is on an internet blog or not. Those pictures of bumperstickers and people at the convention look real to me.

So what? Is everyone there required to have a Conservative card? Could there possibly be Liberal Republicans? How about carding to make sure everyone in there were Christians... or maybe they were Atheist Republicans (*gasp* - is that even possible?).

That about sums up all the motivation I have for this thread... I'm done - sorry but, meh.

 

[Cheli]

Could there possibly be Liberal Republicans?

Isn't that an oxymoron like compassionate conservatism?

 

[Randall McNally]

So what? Is everyone there required to have a Conservative card? Could there possibly be Liberal Republicans? How about carding to make sure everyone in there were Christians... or maybe they were Atheist Republicans (*gasp* - is that even possible?).

That about sums up all the motivation I have for this thread... I'm done - sorry but, meh.

Is that really your rejoinder? That it's possible that all the seemingly bad-faith activities going on there are actually the work of the little-publicized liberal, atheist faction of the Republican Party?

 

[Hydra009]

Isn't that an oxymoron like compassionate conservatism?

Nah. The more common synonym for liberal Republican is burned-at-the-stake-by-his-comrads Republican.

or maybe they were Atheist Republicans (*gasp* - is that even possible?).

It's possible, but as creationism and theocratic leanings are currently en vouge with the Republicans, I wouldn't count on it.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Is that really your rejoinder? That it's possible that all the seemingly bad-faith activities going on there are actually the work of the little-publicized liberal, atheist faction of the Republican Party?

Actually, I was pretty much done with the thread, but since you asked...
No, I am not asserting that a person in any picture or reference is a Liberal or an Atheist and I wasn't attempting any other mind reading omniscient feat. I was simply pointing out the fact that there were slurs against Christians and Conservatives and nudged a call to actually think before someone opens their mouth. IOW - slurs were made based on alleged 'evidence' that hasn't been proven true to support the slurs.

 

[Alecto]

Isn't that an oxymoron like compassionate conservatism?

Kinda like a Volvo with a gun-rack

 

[Randall McNally]

No, I am not asserting that a person in any picture or reference is a Liberal or an Atheist and I wasn't attempting any other mind reading omniscient feat. I was simply pointing out the fact that there were slurs against Christians and Conservatives and nudged a call to actually think before someone opens their mouth. IOW - slurs were made based on alleged 'evidence' that hasn't been proven true to support the slurs.

What slurs? The Republican Party is the party of moral publicity - I think there is very little doubt of that. The OP was simply pointing out what he considers an incongruity.

I think your persecution complex is acting up again.

 

[MoonlessNight]

or maybe they were Atheist Republicans (*gasp* - is that even possible?).

It's possible, but as creationism and theocratic leanings are currently en vouge with the Republicans, I wouldn't count on it

Actually, I believe that (offline) I know more atheist republicans than atheist democrats.

 

[Randall McNally]

Actually, I believe that (offline) I know more atheist republicans than atheist democrats.

I know less about my atheist acquaintances' party affiliations than about their ideologies. I would say they divide roughly equally amonst liberal and libertarian, with a decided minority of true conservatives.

 

[Hydra009]

I know less about my atheist acquaintances' party affiliations than about their ideologies. I would say they divide roughly equally amonst liberal and libertarian, with a decided minority of true conservatives.

That's about right in my experience, too. Atheists are a small minority in the US, and a minority of atheists are Republicans. My point: a small portion of a small portion of the general population means that the chances of randomly pointing out two guys who match that description is pretty unlikely.

 

[Aimee30]

And here is a moderate's point of view--what is the standard of morality in allowing people to have guns with less restrictions? I read the article and one of the bumperstickers said "Got Ammo". I guess I would have to say there is something lacking in both sides, since both sides have a few questionable things support/do not support--which is why I'm neither Democrat nor Republican. We all have a right to know more about what these people think however, it might help us to make clearer decisions in regards to who to vote for and what standards we want to be pushed forward. An informed choice in leadership is the best choice. Look at all the information for both sides and then make a rational decision. We can't just defend some Christian causes and not others. Indeed, when it comes to election day we usually end up making a choice between Republican and Democrat--but I must make one thing clear--the best choice is the one that covers the most moral dilemmas and is the best choice for the future. We can't just choose a leader based on a few criteria being met or the ability to make quick decisions--as we all know hasty decisions sometimes bring on even more problems than we are prepared to deal with.
However, getting back to what I am supposed to be talking about, we do need this information. We need any information that can help us make better choices for the future.

 

[gaijin178]

And here is a moderate's point of view--what is the standard of morality in allowing people to have guns with less restrictions? I read the article and one of the bumperstickers said "Got Ammo". I guess I would have to say there is something lacking in both sides, since both sides have a few questionable things support/do not support--which is why I'm neither Democrat nor Republican. We all have a right to know more about what these people think however, it might help us to make clearer decisions in regards to who to vote for and what standards we want to be pushed forward. An informed choice in leadership is the best choice. Look at all the information for both sides and then make a rational decision. We can't just defend some Christian causes and not others. Indeed, when it comes to election day we usually end up making a choice between Republican and Democrat--but I must make one thing clear--the best choice is the one that covers the most moral dilemmas and is the best choice for the future. We can't just choose a leader based on a few criteria being met or the ability to make quick decisions--as we all know hasty decisions sometimes bring on even more problems than we are prepared to deal with.
However, getting back to what I am supposed to be talking about, we do need this information. We need any information that can help us make better choices for the future.

Finally, this is what I was getting at. I posted the link because I was confused about this issue of party affiliation and being willing to support a whole party based on a few moral issues that a particular group believes in. While I am a registered democrat, that does not mean that I agree on everything and that I always vote that way. It makes me sad and wonder why some people will vote all the way down the line based on party and not on the issues at hand. The got ammo? sticker was one that I noticed as well and thought, how could any one support this? I am just afraid that many people who vote on party alone don't realize that this kind of ideology is being supported by their vote. I realize that I am an extremist in many matters as well in that even though I am a democrat, I am pro-life in my choices, however, I am pro-choice in my vote. I know that I am not normal in this sense. I also frequent a site called www.militaryfreezone.org which I know isn't the norm as well. I do try to vote on what my heart tells me, not what my party does.