Um, yeah, that's why the Republicans are the nitwits running around claiming the sky is falling, there are terrorists in the toilet, and your revlon products are a danger to humanity. Real men prefer monopoly, an end to the bill of rights, religious limits on science, and btw global thermonuclear flaming apocalypse because they're ... um, "reasoning" - is that it?
As for "emoting", here's the spectrum we seen from every Republican every day: hate, anger, vengefulness, spite, cowardice, and, oh yeah, sanctimonious snivelling. Stick that in your "reasoning party" and smoke it.
After having a long chat with my very liberal sister-in-law, we both agreed that there are actually people that could use a little help. The question is how best to help them. In the USA, I think that both parties provided necessary ingredients to our nationaly health. If either side is neglected, society gets out of balance. The challenge is determining the proper balance.
I believe the word you're ignoring is "tolerance". Just because you're a raving theocratic monopolist with delusions of rapture doesn't mean the rest of us need to meet you half way. We're happy for you to do what you want to do so long as it doesn't violate our basic human right to do what we want to do ... so long as it doesn't violate what you or any other consenting adult want to do. Mutual non-interference ... in other words, basic human tolerance. Anything less is a hopeless compromise.
A marriage is a good analogy. Left to her own, my wife tends to let her emotions dictate her decisions. Left on my own, I will ususally pick reasoned choices that may seem a bit harsh. Together, we balance each other.
Left to your own, you self-delude that you prefer reason to emotion. Left to her own, your wife is as reasonable as any human being. We are none of us reasonable, and theis often the worst form of madness.
As much as I would like to let conservative Republicans have total reign of our government, I can see how that would let things get out of balance.
"That would"? Try "That has".
A couple of quotes that apply:
"If a person is not a liberal by the age of 18, they have no heart. If they are not conservative by the age of 40, they have no brain."
Churchill's "conservative" is not "apocalyptic christian fundy with blind faith in dicatorship". Commonwealth conservatives, among which by the way I count myself, have nothing to do with American conservatives. We prefer for example balanced budgets, parliamentary democracy, equality of opportunity, and the rule of law. Your view of conservatism is Churchill's view of fascism.
"I have searched for logic and reason through the physical, the metaphysical, the delusional, and back; and have found that it is only in the context of love that logic or reason matter." JohnNash
Nash is, as you well know, clinically deranged. The fact that you regard "insane" as the balance to "fascist" doesn't suggest a happy marriage ...
The point is that we need both. Together we create a greater whole.
I dunno, the conservative obsession with gay marriage and abortion seems like an emotional response to me.
Perhaps it could be said that progressives are practical on moral/sexual issues but emotional on economic ones, but the reverse is the case for conservatives.
You have no idea what you are talking about when you talk about "the progressive approach." You are just trying to restart LiberalMind again and make things up and fabricate and lie. Do us all a favor and stop.
How else am I to take an avowed right wing maniac blathering and spewing nonsense about gays and "the progressive approach"? What is the difference between "the progressive approach" as defined on this page and the list of lies and bullshit on LiberalMind?
Ok, it's time for some terminology clarification. To me, and most in the USA, "progressive" is just another term for "liberal." So, I'm not sure what you mean by "'the progressive approach' as defined on this page." Do you mean that the idea of honoring a joint effort to meld conservative and liberal values into a coherant and caring public policy - is a progressive idea? If so, then I think I get your meaning. If not, let me know what you mean. (BTW, there is only one person "spewing" anything on this page and it's not me, bub. You're quickly becoming the poster child for the LiberalMind page. I enjoy chatting about opposing views, but your name-calling and hot emotions are making it difficult to really cover some ground here.) -- BrucePennington
[Democrats are often called the Emoting Party....] That is a simplification that may or may not show something. The danger of such a simplification is not, that it may be wrong, but that it is a simplification. Reducing all of politics down to A or B is very dangerous. If one side "wins", there is no longer the chance for balance from any other side.
Yes, simplifications often paint with too broad a brush, but it helps in discussing some subjects in the BrucePennington. Concerning "winning," I think I agree, if I understand you. We need a balanced voice in government. --