The Liberal Bind

[Acumen]

Faithfulee,

Firefox has a spell check - something that is very useful in debate.

[Faithfulee]

The liberal bind is that the goals of Islamic radicals is not to different from that of the US Liberals

Islamic radicals want to install Sharia law that will take care of all the social needs of Muslims in a manner that is "fair".

Does that sound familiar??  It should because that is exactly what obama is campaigning on.

[jacknky]

You know Lee, your rhetoric has become so partisan you are beginning to lose all credibility. How can I talk to you when your point is that my goal as a liberal is the same as the Muslim extremists? That is so far removed from reality there is really nothing to say.

[Faithfulee]

You know Lee, your rhetoric has become so partisan you are beginning to lose all credibility. How can I talk to you when your point is that my goal as a liberal is the same as the Muslim extremists? That is so far removed from reality there is really nothing to say.

I regret that you feel that way.  No disrespect intended. My comment was based on the glee at some liberals that the reconstituted Sadr army was now directed toward "social services".  Are you saying that you are not one of those liberals who agree with or who fail to see the danger in this redirected Army??

Clue:  Sharia Law

[Acumen]

You know Lee, your rhetoric has become so partisan you are beginning to lose all credibility. How can I talk to you when your point is that my goal as a liberal is the same as the Muslim extremists? That is so far removed from reality there is really nothing to say.

LOL, I think he uses this place to vent because his liberal wife rules the roost at home.   

[Acumen]

Faithfulee,

Seriously though, you ARE way too partisan.  And it does detract from what you have to say.

[Faithfulee]

Faithfulee,

Seriously though, you ARE way too partisan.  And it does detract from what you have to say.

I am a proud partisan Republican and I welcome anyone to challange my thinking and my statements.

Perhaps I am not getting my point across like the above point with respect to the similarity with Sadrs new push for "social services" and the Democrats stand on "social services". 

There is a perverse aspect of Al Sadr's goal that may or may not be shared by Dems.  If liberals applaud and sign on to the Al Sadr goal as they seem to be.  I will make a point to demonstrate the danger of Dems thinking. 

This deserves another topic, but I assure you,  liberals will be in a bind if they think al Sadr's new army goal is something they can applaud without understanding what it means. 

Incidentally the AP reported the transition yesterday and I haven't seen any recognition of the fact that the alSadr army has been disbanded.  The reason of course is that it is a monumental change in Iraq for the good and the Surge was responsible in part.  This puts Obama in a bind, and I love it.

[Acumen]

I am a proud partisan Republican and I welcome anyone to challange my thinking and my statements.

There is nothing good about being partisan.  The Webster's Dictionary defines partisan as "a firm adherent to a party, faction, or cause with blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance."  Being a proud partisan republican will get you ignored.

I consider myself a proud republican too.  However, I like to believe I'm open to reasonable points made by liberals, and I strongly rebuff cliche "talking points" because reliance on them in debate suggests one cannot think apart from what others tell you.

Perhaps I am not getting my point across like the above point with respect to the similarity with Sadrs new push for "social services" and the Democrats stand on "social services".

You're not getting your point across because your opponents are starting to believe you are not open to reasonable discussion, but rather you are more interested in being heard.  Take this bit of criticism from a fellow conservative.

[jacknky]

Thank you, Acumen.

[Faithfulee]

I am a proud partisan Republican and I welcome anyone to challange my thinking and my statements.

There is nothing good about being partisan.  The Webster's Dictionary defines partisan as "a firm adherent to a party, faction, or cause with blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance."  Being a proud partisan republican will get you ignored.

I consider myself a proud republican too.  However, I like to believe I'm open to reasonable points made by liberals, and I strongly rebuff cliche "talking points" because reliance on them in debate suggests one cannot think apart from what others tell you.

Perhaps I am not getting my point across like the above point with respect to the similarity with Sadrs new push for "social services" and the Democrats stand on "social services".

You're not getting your point across because your opponents are starting to believe you are not open to reasonable discussion, but rather you are more interested in being heard.  Take this bit of criticism from a fellow conservative.

On the other hand, Wikipedia says

In politics, a partisan is a committed member of a party.

In multi-party systems, the term is typically understood to describe a person who supports their party's measures without an eye to fairness or compromise with their opponents.

I retract my "partisan" comment with respect to being "fair or compromising".
I do admit to holding firm positions and not appearing "fair" (my definition of which is "agreeable between parties in matters that affect those parties only" 

By that I mean that one cannot decide what is "fair" in matters that involve others.

I don't compromise on principles, but welcome other's opinions that define their own principles and themselves.

But this is getting off topic.  The liberal bind is more that the Liberals are "partisan" in the dictionary definition.  A good example was Nancy Pelosi and the debate of drilling.  She adjourned congress rather than "compromise", but she has finally come around . . . . . . maybe.