# How Liberals View The Heartland



## IAHunter (Sep 1, 2003)

Just finished a pheasant hunt was doing a little surfing when I came upon this. At first I was just ******, then the realization dawned on me that the people who preach tolorance the most are the least tolorant, and ignorant, of us all. I will not paste it because of the length, just go and read it for yourself. I wonder if this is the same site that some posters to this site get their "facts"?

http://www.bushwatch.net/guest.htm#greg

IaHunter


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Indeed the eastern states who are nearest to the terror and gays voted strongly for Kerry, they must be ignorant. By the way, new poll shows a higher percentage of divorce rates in red states than in blue states.


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

This just in: New poll shows that 70% of all polls are wrong!

Please MT, this isnt about Intelectual "Ignorance" or "knowledge" this is about morals. the sad fact is that devorce is about level across the board because human nature has a tendency not to want to compromise or to forgive. This is true of Eveoryone- Moral people, imoral people, church goers and Atheists ECT. This is just a fact of human nature. we all want what we want ahead of what others want. its just the way people are.

If your going to make blanket statements about the people in "RED" Vs. "BLUE" states, then consider the fact that as much as 49% of the people in those "RED" stated may be "BLUE" people. We cant judge statistics, which may varry greatly from year to year, as being caused by a constant like percentage of party affiliation. :thumb:


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

I've mentioned this before but if you want another perspective on the heartland, check out:

Homegrown Democrat: A Few Plain Thoughts From the Heart of America
by Garrison Keillor

Incidently, since IAhunter brought up how people get "facts", I ran across this today. Although old news, makes me wonder about the NRA.

http://www.factcheck.org/article296.html


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

"what Kerry voted for was a proposal to outlaw rifle ammunition "designed or marketed as having armor piercing capability.""

That would be all rifle ammunition simply by its design. under the right conditions, a .22lr can be loaded to pierce throught the joints of a Civilian Grade Vest. Whether Kerry knew what this ban would meen ( likely not ), it would have been verry bad for the sport of hunting. Just another case of Ignorant Politicians trying to pass "feal good" legislation that can hurt the public.

Also...iv found that the NRA has become increasingly sleezy over the last few years. They add to many "extras" onto there facts, distorting them, and they are wiling to compromise on the values they are supposed to be in existance to protect. I no longer support the NRA. the GOA ( gun owners of America) is a better organiation for protecting our rights.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

If you read past that first paragraph in the link you see this:

"which referred to ammunition that could penetrate body armor *and* is designed or sold as "armor piercing." Both conditions would have had to apply for the ammunition to fall under the proposed ban."

I've never seen deer ammo that was labeled "armor piercing." Anyway, this is a pretty good fact checking website and if their research shows the NRA ad was falsely accusing Kerry, thats good enough for me.


----------



## IAHunter (Sep 1, 2003)

Have you guys read the web site I listed? Obviously, the person who posted a whole 4 minutes after I started the thread and decided to start spouting about things that weren't even on that site didn't. And I don't remember reading about armor piercing ammunition. Can we try to keep threads on the subject they start with, please?

IaHunter


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

You called the liberals ignorant and intolerant, the eastern states are liberal. Make the connection.


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

This is true. I think bolth sides would say we need to be tollerent. the Question is, what sould we tollerate, and how far should we tollerate it? The VALUE difference betweene what is tollerable and how long things are tollerable is what this dissention is all about! Simply saying that one side or the other is "TOLLERANT" is a moot point! Bolth sides are tollerant; but tollerant of different things.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Other than corporate fraud and molestation within the curch system what is the right tolerant of?


----------



## sdeprie (May 1, 2004)

Indeed, most liberals I have come in contact with tend to consider themselves the "enlightened few," thinking of "conservatives" as just ignorant bumpkins. If you want confirmation of this, just look at many of M T's responses. This is exactly how he appears to treat people who do not agree with him. We even had one "enlightened" college professor suspended from his job shortly before the election for showing his class "Farenheit 9/11," an obviously biased approach towards his class. I think we see this because so many educators ar on the liberal side. My opinion is, those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. I have found many extremely intelligent and well educated people on the right side of the question as well as on the left. I, too, am sick of this categorization.


----------



## sdeprie (May 1, 2004)

I would have to say that the right has been very tolerent of ignorant insulters, of late.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

"Indeed, most liberals I have come in contact with tend to consider themselves the "enlightened few," thinking of "conservatives" as just ignorant bumpkins. If you want confirmation of this, just look at many of M T's responses. This is exactly how he appears to treat people who do not agree with him. "

This is not true, I tolerate and even enjoy talking to a few republicans, ones who choose to use some logic above just rattling out what fox says verbatim.

Ignorant is a fine word when you have little to back it up with. Companies such as enron and haliburton were never brought to justice, or recieved a slap on the wrist. The church system has let the majority of corrupt preists slip away from the hands of justice, and the abuse continues. Yet I am still preached to about the immorality of the liberals, and the moral correctness of the right.


----------



## sdeprie (May 1, 2004)

Oh, never mind. I stand completely corrected. :wink:


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

Did anyone notice that Montana voted strongly for Bush but all statewide offices except one had a Democrat elected? Anyone from Montana on the list who would care to comment? Just as there is more than one shade of Republican, there is also more than one shade of Democrat. Not all Democrats are liberals and not all Republicans are conservative. From my travels, a Democrat or Republican from the midwest is quite different from a Democrat or Republican from the coast. Do not assume the viewpoint of your party and friends of the same party in your area are the same as from somewhere else.


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

"Other than corporate fraud and molestation within the curch system what is the right tolerant of?"

Eveorything except Gays, hippies, and communists. We are tollerant of the rest of you Good Ol' Boys that try to live deacent lives. Iagree that we are not as tollerant of Democrats as we should be, but its hard with all the name calling and Acussations. See above Quote for example.


----------



## Gunner (Oct 30, 2002)

Militant_Tiger said:


> By the way, new poll shows a higher percentage of divorce rates in red states than in blue states.


Must be because the men from the blue states have moved to the red states to marry our wholsome women and when they find out how ignorant the men are they divorce them and send them packing back to the blue states.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

By wholesome do you mean fat or toothless? :lol:

As for the states being up to 49% liberal, the tops in divorce were those that voted overwhelmingly for bush.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editor ... ly_values/


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

Nice Stereotyping. How verry "TOLERANT" of you.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

How is it that I don't tolerate them?


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

I should rephrase that statement as it was a little blunt.

"By wholesome do you mean fat or toothless?"

What is would have said was:

MT, with a statement like that, what would you expect your readers to Infer? What i got was that you think "wolesome" people, as we would say it (and thus ourselvs) are fat & Toothless. THAT is not beng tollerant, as it would we ridiculing people who think differently than you do; Thats not tollerant. If you ment something else, could you please clerify your statement?


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

I thought the laughing smiley would impart some sense of joke into the statement, but you obviously didn't take it as such. I do not prohibit "wholesome" women, thus I tolerate them.


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

I take you seriously unless you specify it is a joke. Most people infer the "joking" by REAL facial expressions or voice inflections. The internet doesn't show either of them very well.

Did you at least understand my point, that whether your joking or not, making fun of people in NOT being tolerant, regardless of your actions? You don't have to be PHISICALY intolerant to not tolerate something.

To be "tolerant" we have to go past mere physical prohibition of something. it must be tolerated in the heart also. Time to take the next step.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

"making fun of people in NOT being tolerant"

Words do not hurt, I'm not sure who brought us to this place where words hurt. You see no problems with baring gays from marrying, but when I make fun of country folk I am a terrible person. I just dont get it.


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

I never said you were a terrible person!

Its like me making fun of Democrats. im shure you would see that as intollerant.

As for the Gay issue, we have discussed it in depth, and you know why im against it. It has nothing to do with the Gay person. They are not "terrible" either. Marriage is a religious institution, and homosexuality is against my religion. thats what it boils down to. im sorry, thats the way it goes. just for the hey of it ill restate: I dont think there is anything wrong with Gays as Human beings. i simply object to their behavior.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

"Its like me making fun of Democrats. im shure you would see that as intollerant. "

I would not think you intolerant, ignorant perhapse but not intolerant.

As for the gays, worshiping another God is against our religon as well but we do not ban muslims. What gives us the right to enforce our beliefs on someone else?


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Since when are religious or moral values only found in one party or the other? To say that the 59 million Americans that voted for Bush are the only moral and religious people in America is about as un-American as you can get. How stupid can you be??? This kind of logic is illogic. This kind of arrogance is not about freedom but reminds me of a "New World Order."


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

Its a mater of institutions Tigre.

The Other religions arnt Bothering ours by practicing different teachings. Gays getting married, in our beiefs, distorts the Institution of Marriage, wich was established by God (with the creation of Addam and Eve) as betweene a man and woman specificaly. That is the Sole reason i disagree with gay mariage. Because it is completely contrary to what marriage was intended to be.

Thats all im going to say. i WONT be drawn into another gay marriage debate.

And Rooster, you missed the point completely. *Whoosh* right over the head. No one said anything about anyone being Immoral. We know your Moral, We just disagree with some of the things you see as moral. all groups are inherantly "moral". the question is what is held as "moral".


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

"The Other religions arnt Bothering ours by practicing different teachings. Gays getting married, in our beiefs, distorts the Institution of Marriage, wich was established by God (with the creation of Addam and Eve) as betweene a man and woman specificaly. "

You mean that they aren't teaching that Jesus was not the son of God? Wow was I ever ignorant.


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

...You know what i meant MT. i meant that they arnt directly interfering with our beliefs.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Not in the least trooper, if a gay is married your marriage is no less sanct. Your marriage certificate will not be any less valid. Just like if a muslim worships another god it does not make your belief any less valid. These are equal matters, but you do not choose to view them as such.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Mr trooper

One our wise friends (sdeprie) once said on another post "don't feed the troll". At the time I didn't realize how many times I would feel that way. I may give that advise also, but find it hard to take my own advice many times.


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

your right plains. Iv stated my positions, and why I believe it. i dont need to defend myself, and i DONT need to apologise. especialy to the likes of my agressors.


----------

