You act like those conservative values of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY are important, until you say or do something that requires the use of that idea.

And many times when I read what you write, I too say, just…wow.

As I said, man up and accept responsibility for what you write. Sometimes it is completely different that what you later claim you meant.
Maybe that should tell you something.

… those “conservativ” values you keep yammering about.

You know, I have no idea what to say. Just… wow

And then you go on to be shitty to one of the posters because they wont let you get away with the BS. All whilst bemoaning Party Polotics in a differing thread. I think you are not dim, but desperate to be right, even when you provide contradictory statements.

Man Up when you screw up. I thought personal responsibility was supposed to be one of those “conservativ” values you keep yammering about. You, like the LCR and Romney, will say anything.

I don’t think I know the contents of your head better than you do, I just think that after you implied Obama had moved jobs from the public sector to the private sector and I showed you that wasn’t the case you saw a “get out of your own jail free” card based on a technicality and that was preferable to admitting you were wrong. I’m sure I’m not the only one who sees that.

He said that we had to see how the other side thought, so we could better confront them.

Thank god we have Timothy Kincaid. It’s the McLaughlin group all over again.

You are entitled to have “virtual certainty” about anything that crosses your rather colorful imagination. Though you may want to consider that when you insist that you know the contents of my head better than I do, it makes you look like a crazy person.

And I’m done with this conversation. So please go ahead and get the last word. Or last several hundred.

And their conclusion is that we have to be harmed. That we do not deserve to have our names on our children’s birth certificates; that it should be okay to fire us based on who we love; that families should not be protected unless they fall under specific gender norms, which conveniently look like the norms they themselves are a part of. they oppose protecting children like us from harm. They oppose treatment for disease, and endorse people who have advocated for our marginalization, imprisonment, and death.

Just like us.

Seeing as you’d like to maintain that you didn’t make that implication and that you only believed the Obama administration thinks moving people from the private sector to the public sector is an economic solution I, and I think other readers, would like to know on what basis, on what evidence do you make the claim that this is the Obama’s administration’s belief?

For the record, I’m neither obtuse nor dim – nor do I think you are obtuse or dim. I just disagree with your reasoning and your underlying principles on a number of issues. Of course, we probably do agree on most things, but during the week before an election I find that the smallest difference between most anybody suddenly take on the importance of nuclear policy.

But your comment raises an interesting point. I often hear or read from those with strong opinions (on both sides of most issues) that their views are so obviously correct that those who disagree must be stupid or uneducated or blinded by hate, greed, envy, etc. etc.

That’s natural, I guess. We all do it. But it is very foolish to go too far down that road.

Most often, those with whom we disagree are neither stupid nor callous (I’m not speaking of the professional anti-gays or the hate groups here). Most often they are attempting to make sense of the world based on what they know and the experiences they’ve had. Just like us.

And we lose out if we dismiss them; we lose the benefit of their experience and we lose the possibility of sharing our experiences with them. Which leaves both sides with limited knowledge to apply to a situation and consequently each coming to opposite conclusions.