Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Many posters on the cs.com thread loudly proclaim themselves to be non-donks and non-conks. But very few possess the temerity to say what they stand FOR.

It's easy to criticize. Some are critical of overspending. I absolutely agree. Others are critical of Bush's mishandling of the war. I also agree.

Many are critical of Judeo-Christian values. I may agree with some such criticism, but many who spew such extreme hatred of Christians are self-absorbed libertines who fear Judeo-Christian values not because of some righteous and thoughtful dedication to truth, but because they perceive themselves to have been called out by Christians for some "sin" or another which they have decided is their right to pursue, and damn the consequences.

On the right, Islamo-fascism is intolerant, destructive and deadly to human beings. On the left, the "progressive" religion is intolerant, destructive and deadly to human beings. Both extremes are guilty of leading the unexamined life and indulging in extreme hatred and intolerance.

Judeo-Christian culture and values still offer the best hope for nonpartisan "scientists" to lead the examined life of Socrates, or at least lead a life of liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

So what do you stand FOR? What are your SOLUTIONS?

I am talking to you, Brother Bear. I am talking to you, Appy. I am talking to you, Mr. Blue Pants Engineer. I am talking to you, Colonel! Not so much on the values thing, which you possess. You are among the posters who have exhibited heart, brains, class and civility on these pages. I am more interested in your solutions and a functional alternative worldview.

We know what you are against. What are you FOR?

I..Like..pie

I'm in that group and what I'm for is some of one side and some of the other. I basically want less government interference with our lives. Now that sounds Conservative at the outset but it carries over to abortion, free speech, the rights of others as far as race, their sexual apetite, and many other things. There are things that we should spend money on as a society. The Military, Police, Fire, and so forth but we are letting government infringe on way too many of our personal decisions. We are squelching individual rights to make all of us more palatable for the rest of us.

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:I'm in that group and what I'm for is some of one side and some of the other. I basically want less government interference with our lives. Now that sounds Conservative at the outset but it carries over to abortion, free speech, the rights of others as far as race, their sexual apetite, and many other things. There are things that we should spend money on as a society. The Military, Police, Fire, and so forth but we are letting government infringe on way too many of our personal decisions. We are squelching individual rights to make all of us more palatable for the rest of us.

Thank you Brother Bear, you should have been the first on my list! I fixed it.

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:I'm in that group and what I'm for is some of one side and some of the other. I basically want less government interference with our lives. Now that sounds Conservative at the outset but it carries over to abortion, free speech, the rights of others as far as race, their sexual apetite, and many other things. There are things that we should spend money on as a society. The Military, Police, Fire, and so forth but we are letting government infringe on way too many of our personal decisions. We are squelching individual rights to make all of us more palatable for the rest of us.

Sounds Libertarian

OL FU wrote:

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:I'm in that group and what I'm for is some of one side and some of the other. I basically want less government interference with our lives. Now that sounds Conservative at the outset but it carries over to abortion, free speech, the rights of others as far as race, their sexual apetite, and many other things. There are things that we should spend money on as a society. The Military, Police, Fire, and so forth but we are letting government infringe on way too many of our personal decisions. We are squelching individual rights to make all of us more palatable for the rest of us.

Sounds Libertarian

Libertarian rule of law and public policy works for me, because I think it is the only possible way to save our country and preserve some semblence of the social contract to prevent a descent into either chaos, fascism or socialism/communism.

However, I personally remain socially conservative and fear the unexamined alternatives to the Judeo-Christian foundations of our country. Profligate libertine excess only makes sense if you don't think things through and don't care about anyone but yourself.

native wrote:Many posters on the cs.com thread loudly proclaim themselves to be non-donks and non-conks. But very few possess the temerity to say what they stand FOR.

It's easy to criticize. Some are critical of overspending. I absolutely agree. Others are critical of Bush's mishandling of the war. I also agree.

Many are critical of Judeo-Christian values. I may agree with some of such criticism, but many who spew such extreme hatred of Christians are self-absorbed libertines who fear Judeo-Christian values not because of some righteous and thoughtful dedication to truth, but because they have been called out by Christians for some "sin" or another which they have decided is their right to pursue, and damn the consequences.

On the right, Islamo-fascism is intolerant, destructive and deadly to human beings. On the left, the "progressive" religion is intolerant, destructive and deadly to human beings. Both extremes are guilty of leading the unexamined life and indulging in extreme hatred and intolerance.

Judeo-Christian culture and values still offer the best hope for nonpartisan "scientists" to lead the examined life of Socrates, or at least lead a life of liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

So what do you stand FOR? What are your SOLUTIONS?

I am talking to you, Appy. I am talking to you, Mr. Blue Pants Engineer. I am talking to you, Colonel! You are the posters who have exhibited heart, brains, class and civility on these pages. What are you FOR?

I consider myself to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal.
I am cynical towards politicians - there aren't enough statesmen.
I have always been a registered republican, but I have been voting for a lot of democrats lately. I never voted for W, although I voted for his father. I also voted for McCain.
I hate when politicans make political issues of of things we don't fully understand - like global warming.
I am in favor of gay rights.
I lean pro-choice, very slightly. I understand the pro-life argument and I don't think I would ever advise someone to have an abortion.
I don't think we should have gone into Iraq. The elder Bush's solution at the end of the first Gulf War was good enough for me and 9/11 didn't change my view.
I think we should have stayed on top of things in Afghanistan, I think we took our eye of the ball there.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

There is some truth in your humor, TT.

Over the past couple of centuries, the Constitution your side is destroying has created unlimited opportunities for anyone to become rich, delivered millions of rich people and made everyone else a lot richer than they otherwise could have been.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

For a sharp guy you are really confused.

BlueHen86 wrote:

native wrote:Many posters on the cs.com thread loudly proclaim themselves to be non-donks and non-conks. But very few possess the temerity to say what they stand FOR.

It's easy to criticize. Some are critical of overspending. I absolutely agree. Others are critical of Bush's mishandling of the war. I also agree.

Many are critical of Judeo-Christian values. I may agree with some of such criticism, but many who spew such extreme hatred of Christians are self-absorbed libertines who fear Judeo-Christian values not because of some righteous and thoughtful dedication to truth, but because they have been called out by Christians for some "sin" or another which they have decided is their right to pursue, and damn the consequences.

On the right, Islamo-fascism is intolerant, destructive and deadly to human beings. On the left, the "progressive" religion is intolerant, destructive and deadly to human beings. Both extremes are guilty of leading the unexamined life and indulging in extreme hatred and intolerance.

Judeo-Christian culture and values still offer the best hope for nonpartisan "scientists" to lead the examined life of Socrates, or at least lead a life of liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

So what do you stand FOR? What are your SOLUTIONS?

I am talking to you, Appy. I am talking to you, Mr. Blue Pants Engineer. I am talking to you, Colonel! You are the posters who have exhibited heart, brains, class and civility on these pages. What are you FOR?

I consider myself to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal.
I am cynical towards politicians - there aren't enough statesmen.
I have always been a registered republican, but I have been voting for a lot of democrats lately. I never voted for W, although I voted for his father. I also voted for McCain.
I hate when politicans make political issues of of things we don't fully understand - like global warming.
I am in favor of gay rights.
I lean pro-choice, very slightly. I understand the pro-life argument and I don't think I would ever advise someone to have an abortion.
I don't think we should have gone into Iraq. The elder Bush's solution at the end of the first Gulf War was good enough for me and 9/11 didn't change my view.
I think we should have stayed on top of things in Afghanistan, I think we took our eye of the ball there.

86, you didn't leave the GOP, it left you, about 15 years ago.

you have posted the profile of the "Blue Dog" Dems.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:
I consider myself to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal.
I am cynical towards politicians - there aren't enough statesmen.
I have always been a registered republican, but I have been voting for a lot of democrats lately. I never voted for W, although I voted for his father. I also voted for McCain.
I hate when politicans make political issues of of things we don't fully understand - like global warming.
I am in favor of gay rights.
I lean pro-choice, very slightly. I understand the pro-life argument and I don't think I would ever advise someone to have an abortion.
I don't think we should have gone into Iraq. The elder Bush's solution at the end of the first Gulf War was good enough for me and 9/11 didn't change my view.
I think we should have stayed on top of things in Afghanistan, I think we took our eye of the ball there.

86, you didn't leave the GOP, it left you, about 15 years ago.

you have posted the profile of the "Blue Dog" Dems.

I know.

Signed BlueDog86

See BH 86 and you have my stance. Only difference is I think Delaware is a bunch of pussies!!!



Oh and correction, most of us are not "non-partisans" but the people that were driven away from our Republican roots by whackos like wildkyle.

wideright82 wrote:See BH 86 and you have my stance. Only difference is I think Delaware is a bunch of pussies!!!

I'm intrigued by your theory, and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

BlueHen86 wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
86, you didn't leave the GOP, it left you, about 15 years ago.

you have posted the profile of the "Blue Dog" Dems.

I know.

Signed BlueDog86

Maybe the Republican Party left you eight years ago, but not fifteen years ago. The Republican Contract with America was closer to a libertarian agenda than anything either party has since demonstrated and the only fiscally responsible Congress in more than 50 years. The Blue Dogs are critical to our survival, but unless they step up REAL SOON, they are merely a siren song.

I'm squarely in the same corner as bluehen86 except I'm not a registered republican.

BlueHen86 wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
86, you didn't leave the GOP, it left you, about 15 years ago.

you have posted the profile of the "Blue Dog" Dems.

I know.

Signed BlueDog86

The democratic party of the 50 & 60's is more like the GOP side today than the democratic party of today in my view though.

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:
I know.

Signed BlueDog86

The democratic party of the 50 & 60's is more like the GOP side today than the democratic party of today in my view though.

Civil rights? Fiscal responsibility? Strong national defense? Interesting.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

wideright82 wrote:See BH 86 and you have my stance. Only difference is I think Delaware is a bunch of pussies!!!

I'm intrigued by your theory, and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Please make a blank check out in my name and I will send you the first copy upon completion.

danefan wrote:I'm squarely in the same corner as bluehen86 except I'm not a registered republican.

Same thing with me DF. I am exactly with him on the abortion thing. I am torn on that one more than anything and can't find a way to feel good about any stance on it so I have to side with the individual choice thing and since I am certain that a law against it would do no good I can't support the thing. I can absolutely listen to the other side of the argument and see the point there also.

native wrote:

OL FU wrote:
Sounds Libertarian

Libertarian rule of law and public policy works for me, because I think it is the only possible way to save our country and preserve some semblence of the social contract to prevent a descent into either chaos, fascism or socialism/communism.

However, I personally remain socially conservative and fear the unexamined alternatives to the Judeo-Christian foundations of our country. Profligate libertine excess only makes sense if you don't think things through and don't care about anyone but yourself.

Hint to Native: One thing TravelinMan hasn't learned yet.....if you want D1B and Cap'n Cat to read your post, you're going to HAVE to use smaller words.

native wrote:

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote: The democratic party of the 50 & 60's is more like the GOP side today than the democratic party of today in my view though.

Civil rights? Fiscal responsibility? Strong national defense? Interesting.

the Dems of the 50's and early 60's were tearing themselves apart over civil rights.

and the GOP exploited it in the late 60's and brought the dixiecrats and racists in to their political fold. (Nixon's southern strategy)

the current GOP is about as concerned with "civil rights" as the southern dems of 40 years ago

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:
I consider myself to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal.
I am cynical towards politicians - there aren't enough statesmen.
I have always been a registered republican, but I have been voting for a lot of democrats lately. I never voted for W, although I voted for his father. I also voted for McCain.
I hate when politicans make political issues of of things we don't fully understand - like global warming.
I am in favor of gay rights.
I lean pro-choice, very slightly. I understand the pro-life argument and I don't think I would ever advise someone to have an abortion.
I don't think we should have gone into Iraq. The elder Bush's solution at the end of the first Gulf War was good enough for me and 9/11 didn't change my view.
I think we should have stayed on top of things in Afghanistan, I think we took our eye of the ball there.

86, you didn't leave the GOP, it left you, about 15 years ago.

you have posted the profile of the "Blue Dog" Dems.

Oh, BS. You and your "Blue Dog" Dems. He posted the profile of about the middle 80% of America. Conservative Democrats, Liberal Republicans.....middle of the roaders.....Indepenents.....whatever you want to call them....It's why I STILL believe if McCain had had to guts to name Joe Lieberman as his running made he'd have won in November. Quit trying to appeal to the fringes (religious right, communist left) and run for the MIDDLE of the country. THAT'S the new third party. Fiscally conservative, socially moderate.

AZGrizFan wrote:

native wrote:
Libertarian rule of law and public policy works for me, because I think it is the only possible way to save our country and preserve some semblence of the social contract to prevent a descent into either chaos, fascism or socialism/communism.

However, I personally remain socially conservative and fear the unexamined alternatives to the Judeo-Christian foundations of our country. Profligate libertine excess only makes sense if you don't think things through and don't care about anyone but yourself.

Hint to Native: One thing TravelinMan hasn't learned yet.....if you want D1B and Cap'n Cat to read your post, you're going to HAVE to use smaller words.

I don't give a $h!t about those useless dingleberries. I did not believe in euthanasia until encountering them on this web site.

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:

danefan wrote:I'm squarely in the same corner as bluehen86 except I'm not a registered republican.

Same thing with me DF. I am exactly with him on the abortion thing. I am torn on that one more than anything and can't find a way to feel good about any stance on it so I have to side with the individual choice thing and since I am certain that a law against it would do no good I can't support the thing. I can absolutely listen to the other side of the argument and see the point there also.

Just in case you missed it, I concur. I am deeply torn because some of the idiots who would be forced not to have an abortion if abortion were legally banned would be unimaginably abusive parents. It's just that you have to stand somewhere.