Force NYTimes To Turn Over Op-Ed Writer To Trump?

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

My focus was originally upon the growing righting fanaticism and Trump worship in churches. And as the conversation continued we discussed various elements of that concern. Once the discussion had progressed, with people bringing up liberal pastors endorsing liberal candidates, I indicated that yes, I oppose liberal pastors doing the same. What's so hard to understand about that NDavid?

Nothing, other than you've denied til now that it was about conservatives until you were forced to acknowledge liberal pastors and liberal churches.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Let me ask you this... Do you believe a brother can be a Democrat, and be counted a "brother" and just as in love with Christ as yourself? Or is being a Republican/conservative a litmus test by which all brethren should be judged?

I don't judge whether one is a brother or not by political party.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

Nothing, other than you've denied til now that it was about conservatives until you were forced to acknowledge liberal pastors and liberal churches.

Well, though my personal experience and frustration comes from conservative pastors endorsing rightwing candidates, I figured that it would be common sense that I'd oppose the same on the left. I do apologize for not making that clear sooner. The issue I have is with politicking in the pulpit. Some pastors are so into it, if you're not in agreement, you don't feel welcomed.

I don't judge whether one is a brother or not by political party.

Awesome. That's a kindness not often given to some of us. Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with Dems on everything. And, in other things, I might agree on principle, but not their approach. And, though I don't like Trump, I don't disagree with everything he's done.

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Regardless of what anyone thinks about Kasich, he is a Republican.

So was John "Songbird" McShame. A name does not a political alignment make. Unlike the left, we don't believe just saying you're a thing makes it so. Someone saying they're a woman, when they were born as a male, does not make it so. Saying you're a Republican doesn't mean you actually are, if your policies are almost exclusively aligned with the other party. If Kasich doesn't want to support the ideals of the Republican party, he's welcome to run as an independent. Of course, he would never do that, because he doesn't want to give up that sweet campaign money from the RNC.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Will you offer me some of those "shades of grey" instead of pigeonholing me into a position I don't actually hold?

You're the one who keeps bringing up the mentally unstable, and saying you can understand how their immoral actions would be considered "morally justifiable". Even if you're saying it's from their perspective, surely you can understand how that would rub many of us the wrong way, especially when those actions are taken against conservatives.

If an extremist tried to blow up your hero Bernie Sanders, and someone here said they could understand how the extremist's views were considered "morally justifiable", wouldn't you take exception to that? Of course, none of us would actually say/write that, because we would find his actions to be completely repugnant.

Originally Posted by Aquila

You seem level headed and pragmatic. Certainly you can see where NDavid colored me bad and completely misrepresented almost everything he said was allegedly my position.

Originally Posted by Aquila

I think you should be commended for your level headed even handedness. Now, can you apply some of that my way and explain to NDavid why what he stated isn't actually the whole truth?

I'm not getting the middle of anything, you two can sort it out yourselves.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Jito463

So was John "Songbird" McShame. A name does not a political alignment make. Unlike the left, we don't believe just saying you're a thing makes it so. Someone saying they're a woman, when they were born as a male, does not make it so. Saying you're a Republican doesn't mean you actually are, if your policies are almost exclusively aligned with the other party. If Kasich doesn't want to support the ideals of the Republican party, he's welcome to run as an independent. Of course, he would never do that, because he doesn't want to give up that sweet campaign money from the RNC.

Politics isn't a religion Jito, there is no "orthodoxy". An elected official has to represent the needs and interests of his constituents. John McCain and other Republicans are often elected in states wherein the voters are more moderate than the party in question. This means that the elected official, if they are doing their job well, will represent the more moderate positions of their voters. Men like McCain don't get re-elected over and over again if they are originally elected by a moderate Republican voting block, and then make a hard right turn for the sake of "party loyalty". And, being from states or regions reflecting moderate positions, a Democrat might be more conservative and a Republican might be more liberal. This is the core principle of representative government. Those who would say that these men are RINOS either don't understand this principle or they are hardline party loyalists, NOT believers in representative government.

You're the one who keeps bringing up the mentally unstable, and saying you can understand how their immoral actions would be considered "morally justifiable".

Where did I say that it was morally justifiable??? This is an outright lie. I only gave an example of the logic they use. And their logic worries me as much as it does you. I'm just saying that I can see it happening.

Even if you're saying it's from their perspective, surely you can understand how that would rub many of us the wrong way, especially when those actions are taken against conservatives.

Yes, I do understand how it can rub the wrong way. And it's uncomfortable to even tell you guys. But you have to realize that many policies effect people in very serious ways. Sure, we can talk about cutting Medicare or Medicaid funding, programs, etc... and while it sounds good on paper, and it does save money... those decisions directly effect people's lives. Imagine having a loved one dependent upon one of these sources for much needed medication or a series of procedures... and their coverage is cut. That could prove to be life or death for that person. And if someone hears that such a program was cut, but big corporations are getting their subsidies and tax breaks... an unstable person will want payback. I'm not saying that it is right. I'm only warning that we should always remember that these things effect people. Real people. And often, the most desperate of people. Imagine if the government succeeded in taking away or seriously limiting the liberties protected by the 2nd Amendment. I can see some radical conservative folk taking up arms in protest.

If an extremist tried to blow up your hero Bernie Sanders, and someone here said they could understand how the extremist's views were considered "morally justifiable", wouldn't you take exception to that? Of course, none of us would actually say/write that, because we would find his actions to be completely repugnant.

Let me be clear. I find such morally repugnant too. Many are acting like Sean Hannity and trying to twist my words to an extreme to paint me bad. It's like they are stuck on rightwing radio mode. They can't keep the conversation in development. It's like I have to say everything about everything immediately, or they assume I don't care about something not mentioned. It's rather silly. Try not to fall into their false narrative about what I've said. Sometimes it takes me pages and pages of repeating myself, and they still won't accept what I really think. Why? Because if they did, they couldn't demonize my opposition or nuanced approach.

I wouldn't still be posting here if I didn't get messages in PM or even from Facebook encouraging me, thanking me, for not allowing this place to be an eco chamber. Sometimes an opposing opinion is good, because it generates thought, consideration for the other side, etc.... unless the people in question are just blind loyalists.

I'm not getting the middle of anything, you two can sort it out yourselves.

You're not problem at all. I appreciate your post and the opportunity to clarify. Thanks for joining the discussion. God bless.

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Politics isn't a religion Jito, there is no "orthodoxy".

Politics, no. Party affiliations, yes. Parties are not the government, they are groups of people who come together for a common interest. If you claim to be a member of a party, and then promptly turn around and refute the ideals of that party, then you're betraying that party and what it stands for.

Let's make up an example, say you join a jazz club, and then decide you're only going to play operas (and maybe the occasional bit of jazz). Are you really a member of the jazz club at that point? In what way do you represent the ideals of the jazz club?

By calling themselves Republicans, they are aligning themselves with the ideals of that party. If they disagree with those ideals, they should start their own party or run as an independent. Like I already said though, they won't, because they don't want to give up the election funds they receive from the party.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Where did I say that it was morally justifiable??? This is an outright lie.

You're right, you didn't say it was morally justifiable, you said morally "obligated".

Originally Posted by Aquila

Can you see how an unhinged individual might feel morally obligated to use deadly force to send a message?

As I already wrote, even if you're saying it's from their perspective, don't you think that might rub some people the wrong way, especially when those "morally obligated" actions always take place against conservatives?

Why would you even use the term "moral" at all? A deranged individual isn't doing something moral, and claiming that they think so doesn't alter the fact that you called it moral. You could have just said they believed it was justified - and in the mind of the deranged, it may well be - but you went a step further and claimed they believed it was "morally" justified/obligated.

There is nothing moral about committing murder, no matter the mental state of the instigator. I'm not saying you agree with the action, I'm saying there was no reason to use the term "moral" in that context. That's the part I take great exception to.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Let me be clear. I find such morally repugnant too. Many are acting like Sean Hannity and trying to twist my words to an extreme to paint me bad. It's like they are stuck on rightwing radio mode. They can't keep the conversation in development. It's like I have to say everything about everything immediately, or they assume I don't care about something not mentioned. It's rather silly. Try not to fall into their false narrative about what I've said. Sometimes it takes me pages and pages of repeating myself, and they still won't accept what I really think. Why? Because if they did, they couldn't demonize my opposition or nuanced approach.

I wouldn't still be posting here if I didn't get messages in PM or even from Facebook encouraging me, thanking me, for not allowing this place to be an eco chamber. Sometimes an opposing opinion is good, because it generates thought, consideration for the other side, etc.... unless the people in question are just blind loyalists.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I wouldn't still be posting here if I didn't get messages in PM or even from Facebook encouraging me, thanking me, for not allowing this place to be an eco chamber. Sometimes an opposing opinion is good, because it generates thought, consideration for the other side, etc.... unless the people in question are just blind loyalists.

Oh good grief.