A community of 30,000 US Transcriptionist serving Medical Transcription Industry

Right vs left

Posted: Jan 13, 2011

I have often wondered why it is Conservatives are called “right” while Liberals are called “left.” By chance I stumbled upon this verse in the Bible: Ecclesiastes 10:2 (NIV) "The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left." Yep, that’s it!

;

Nice jab - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
Try this link for a basic quick web search explanation. I know wikipedia isn't the most reliable bank of info out there, but if you don't question my source, I won't question yours.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics

You mean like - "Fox proven hazardous to the brain"?

[ In Reply To ..]
That kind of jab?

What in the world does that have to do with it? - no1joe

[ In Reply To ..]
If someone posted on here about Fox being hazardous to one's brain, so what? It might be childish, but so what? It's a freakin' news source for crying out loud. If you took that post about Fox as a personal insult (really?), that's your deal. But, if someone is searching the Bible for answers or spiritual guidance, I guess I'm safe to assume that that person is Christian. Is it very Christian like to twist a verse in the Bible and publically post it as a jab or an insult to others, keeping in mind that the group of people being jabbed read the same book? It raises the level of hypocrisy that some of us find distasteful.

Excuse me. Please stop characterizing - entire segments of

[ In Reply To ..]
people based on one post.

"If someone is searching the Bible for answers or spiritual guidance, I guess I am safe to assume that person is a Christian..." ... no, just like you were not safe to assume the shooter in Arizona was tea partier.

Perhaps that person is not a Christian at all but copied and pasted it from the net (where it is all over the place). Perhaps that person was a paid blogger trying to rabble rouse the base (and it worked with you, didn't it?).

Talk about raising the level of hypocrisy. When are folks like you going to stop wholesale condemning millions of people for what one does, especially when you have no proof whatsoever that the original poster is a Christian at all. And if the "people being jabbed," whoever they may be, DO read the same book then they know just saying you are a Christian or posting a Christian verse does not make you a Christian.

And it is that level of hypocrisy that we in the middle also find distasteful.

Where did you come up with this?? - no1joe

[ In Reply To ..]
The OP said "By chance I stumbled upon this verse in the Bible." (Which, btw, does not imply that they got this off the net. Not a mindreader here). Okay, so now I'm hypocritical for assuming that someone who "stumbles upon a verse in the Bible" isn't reading the Bible for religious purposes? What would you think if someone posted "By chance I stumbled upon this in the Koran?" I believe I said I was "safe to assume," which means that, logically thinking, someone reading that form of religious text would be from a certain religion. If I offended the OP who may be Muslim, Jewish, Atheist, etc., etc., I apologize. As for folks like me "wholesale condemning millions of people," where did I do that???? And where did I say anything in any post about a shooter or tea partier??? (I always use the same monkier btw and have not commented ONCE about the recent events in Arizona). Little extreme dontcha think? Sounds like that rah-rah go-team blind political party loyalty thing that I dislike so much. Personally, I am not religious and really don't care what any religious text has to say. HOWEVER, I do have a tremendous amount of respect for people who do including my neighbors and loved ones (my family happens to be Chrisitan). For anyone to imply that a biblical verse (in essence God) is calling them - or anyone - foolish for their "left" political views is mean spirited and ultimately hypocritical since you are supposed to gain peace and enlightenment out of reading the Bible... not childish playground rank-outs. PERIOD.

My point was "safe to assume." It was not... - safe to assume.

[ In Reply To ..]
Reading a Bible does not make you a Christian. Quoting from a Bible does not make you a Christian. Being saved through faith in Jesus Christ makes you a Christian. Christianity is not a religion...Baptist is a religion, Lutheran is a religion, Catholicism is a religion, for examples. Christians can be found in any of those religious denominations. There are people within those denominations who probably are not Christians. Denominations are man made and have separate rules that are man made. A Christian is a follower of Christ..part of his "church"...believers. They come from all different "religions."

It is a huge stretch that the post was made to imply God is calling them foolish for their "left" views...as I said, the same thing appeared in mass spam emails and was, as the first poster rightly imagined...a "jab." Much like the jab regarding Fox News poked at conservatives. I am very seriously doubting it was posted by someone who actually believes God was calling liberals foolish in the Bible.

That being said, if indeed the poster IS a Christian, said poster should be ashamed because said poster knows that is not what the verse means.

And to be honest, the left wing of Dem party has no room to chide anyone else rah-rah go team blind political party loyalty. I think that was clearly demonstrated in the recent rush to judgment in Arizona that continues today.

Christians have no political party. I am one, I am registered Independent because I cannot stand firmly in either of the mainstream ones and I have to register as something to vote (another ridiculous law, but as it is the law one must follow it). Many Christians are registered Republicans. Many Christians are registered Democrats. Many are members of a local tea party. Many are libertarians.

The Bible said that many would come in his name...you just have to look and see if their life matches what they say...that's what God says to do. In other words not only listen to what they say...watch what they DO.

So let's not assume, shall we?

THAT was the point of the post.

You really are just looking to pick an argument - no1joe

[ In Reply To ..]
First of all, I don't appreciate your tone, and I do not need an explanation of what Christianity is and how to distinguish between different demoniations. I was raised Irish-Catholic for crying out loud. We know a thing or 2 about different demoniations of Christianity.

Yes... in certain circumstances people are "safe to assume" in order to reach a logical conclusion. People do it every day. For example, growing up, there was a neighborhood boy whose family had a picture of the Pope hanging in their living room and crosses on the wall. They had another picture of the Pope in the kitchen. I remember it. I'm not 100% sure, but I am safe to assume that said family was Catholic. Logical right? Is there the off chance that they were Jewish or Muslim and saw the above-stated items as attractive things to hang on the wall? Ummm... maybe, but it's safe to assume that my first guess was right. If not, I apologize. With that being said, who would have a Bible around in order to "stumble" onto something? Look at the original post!! If it was worded something like "According to the Bible...," and someone jumped to the conclusion that the poster was Christian, you might have a point. But, according to you, I should have taken into consideration that this was a paid blogger rabble rousing? Come on! If anything, you should be blasting the OP for trying to come across as a Bible-reading person... not me.

Lastly, as I tried stating before, although I am not religious, I find it offensive to take something that people hold SACRED and use it as a childish jab. I don't do it. Others shouldn't do it, and if a Christian does it, it makes it hypocritical since, as Christians, you are supposed to be like Christ. As far as comparing this to the Fox News post... apples and oranges, unless, of course, you hold Fox News sacred. In that case, that "damaging to your brain" thing might be 100% right.

I believe it is you who are trying to pick a fight... - and I have no wish to

[ In Reply To ..]
fight with you. I still don't think it is safe to assume. If you had been in the poster's house and there were Bible verses in pictures on the wall, Bible in plain view. etc., then yes, one might assume the person residing there is a Christian. However, this is an anonymous posting board, you have no idea what is in the house of the person who posted that, nor do you have any idea if the person was a Christian. If you have read the Bible you understand that Satan is a fallen angel and he knows the Bible better than most Christians do. Atheists know the Bible and can quote scripture with the best of them to support THEIR arguments. Knowing, posting, and using Bible verses does NOT make you a Christian.

The post could have been posted by someone on the left knowing it would elicit the response it did...from you. There is as much chance the person was not a Christian than was. You have absolutely nothing except the content of the post and that is hardly grounds to assume anything. Assumptions are what caused the hellish vitriol we have seen in the last few days.

We will agree to disagree then and stop beating this dead horse, ok?

One of the reasons why I find the "religious right" distasteful - finding some higher ground

[ In Reply To ..]
Here is a rather cute analysis of whether Jesus would be right or left.

He would call abortion murder, and yet forgive.
He would provide for all unwanted children.
He would encourage helping the poor as if you were helping yourself.
He would give special status to widows.
He would give tax breaks...for who gave the "most"..... not the most amount of money (social tax credits).
He would render respect for governmental authority but teach our battle is not with people but with institutions (less government).
He would confront evil at every opportunity (law and order) and offer conditional forgiveness for those who have done evil (amnesty).
He would seek peace in all corners of the earth, and be willing to liberate all who are suffering at the hands of evil.
He would announce publicly who is wrong and yet offer help to do what is right.
He would educate the world and require those who have knowledge ... to pass it on.
He would be an environmentalist, and yet promote growth.
He would be a Union carpenter and demand of Himself the best.
He would live in a modest home, with a nice garden.
He would like to fish.
He would never retire but enjoy the blessing of His labor.
He would make family values a top priority.
He would encourage the marriage amendment, and extend the hand of love to all.
He would love a good BBQ... and enjoy Oysters and Catfish.
He would like a good glass of wine in the evening or weddings.
He would have many friends... and more enemies.
He would love weddings, and give tax breaks to newly married couples.
He would live in the United States and have a vacation home in Israel.
He would have dual citizenship.
He would attend a non denominational church.
He would believe in the seperation of church and state.
He would gladly pay all His taxes.
He would give 90% of His salary to various charities.
He would save 25% of His net salary.
He would always stop at lemonade stands.
He would like Donkey's more than Horses.
He would live where Palm tree's grow.
He would spend some time in the desert, maybe be friends with John McCain.
He would always speak about His mother.
He would be a neat guy.

Please define "the religious right..." - again the broad stroke

[ In Reply To ..]
of the brush. Who would that include?

The ones that use religion to support their political agenda - and use politics to support their religion

[ In Reply To ..]

Okay...who are "the ones?" What is their - political agenda?

[ In Reply To ..]
can we get away from broad statements? Surely you know what specific people or specific groups you are referring to. How do they use politics to support their religion? Please expound. I would really like to understand.

"Any" = See original post for example - or ask oringinal poster about broad statements

[ In Reply To ..]
I am sure that person might have an answer you might agree with.

"The ones" was your statement, not the - original poster.

[ In Reply To ..]
I was asking you who "the ones" were, what their political agenda is. Those were your words, no the OP's. If you find them distasteful, surely you know who they are, and what their political agenda is. I just asked for some specificity. There has to be something you are basing your opinion on...doesn't there?

I just asked a question. Either you can define "the ones" and their "political agenda" or you can't.

Thanks.

"Religious right" is a mistake. They should be called - "The Religious WRONG".

[ In Reply To ..]
Much more appropriate.

That was helpful. Now can YOU identify who - the religious "Wrong" are?

[ In Reply To ..]
Anyone who is "religious?" Christians? Catholics? Lutherans? All of them? Some of them?

Or are you part of the condemn the whole bunch crowd?

And while we are at it...some examples of why they are "wrong?"

Thanks so much.

Apparently it is in your DNA so I try not to fault you too much - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/sep/19/science/sci-politics19

Born to be conservative?

A study suggests that our innate levels of fear in response to stimuli help determine our political views.

Die-hard liberals and conservatives aren't made; they're born. It's literally in their DNA.

That's the implication of a study by a group of researchers who wanted to see if there was a biological basis for people's political attitudes.

They found to their surprise that opinions on such contentious subjects as gun control, pacifism and capital punishment are strongly associated with physiological traits that are probably present at birth.

The key is the differing levels of fear that people naturally feel.

"What is revolutionary about this paper is that it shows the path from genes to physiology to behavior," said James H. Fowler, a political science professor at UC San Diego who was not involved in the research.

The researchers, whose findings were published today in the journal Science, looked at 46 people who fell into two camps -- liberals who supported foreign aid, immigration, pacifism and gun control; and conservatives who advocated defense spending, capital punishment, patriotism and the Iraq war.

In an initial experiment, subjects were shown a series of images that included a bloody face, maggots in a wound and a spider on a frightened face. A device measured the electrical conductance of their skin, a physiological reaction that indicates fear.

In a second experiment, researchers measured eye blinks -- another indicator of fear -- as subjects responded to sudden blasts of noise.

People with strongly conservative views were three times more fearful than staunch liberals after the effects of gender, age, income and education were factored out.

Kevin B. Smith, a political science professor at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and a study author, said conservatives were more vigilant to environmental threats, and he speculated that this innate tendency led them to support policies that protect the social order.

Fowler said the study added to the growing research suggesting that over millions of years, humans have developed two cognitive styles -- conservative and liberal. Cautious conservatives prevented societies from taking undue risks, while more flexible liberals fostered cooperation.

"For the species to survive, you need both," he said.

But Jon Krosnick, a political science professor at Stanford University, said it was impossible to draw any conclusions from a study with so few people, all from a small Midwestern town. What's more, he said, it's just too squishy interpreting people's reactions.

"I don't believe any of this," he said. "The people who are most scared are less in favor of gun control. Why wouldn't they be more in favor? Because they need guns to fight the bad guys? You can make up a story in either direction."

The study is the latest to challenge the long-standing dogma that upbringing and environmental factors determine political attitudes. Recent studies have found that identical twins -- who share the same genetic inheritance -- think alike on political issues more often than other siblings.

Last year, researchers reported that the brains of conservatives and liberals process information differently.

None of this, however, suggests that people are slaves to their biology, researchers agree.

The latest study "does not mean that people can't sit down and think about the issues and come to some logical compromise," Smith said. "What it does mean is that it is going to be hard work."

September 19, 2008|Denise Gellene | Times Staff Writer

Just when I thought I read the most ridiculous - stuff...along comes this.

[ In Reply To ..]
There is so much wrong in it. It presupposes that "liberals" actually believe and act like the dictionary definition of "liberal." If this site is any indication, nothing could be further from the the truth.

Wonder how much of our tax dollars went into these studies? LOL! Much like belch meters on cows. lol.

I assume you are referring to the OP - nm

[ In Reply To ..]

It referred to the article posted regarding in - your DNA, not any poster. nm

[ In Reply To ..]
nm

Read on . . . - maybe you will find some really good stuff

[ In Reply To ..]
Another reason for the separation of church and state.

No such language in the Constitution. - Never has been.

[ In Reply To ..]
The first ammendment to the Constitution (Bill of Rights): Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Please note the phrase "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

It is the epitome of why America was settled...by those running from England because the government wanted them to worship in one church (Church of England) and one way. So they came here, and determined that they would never again be subject to one government sponsored church and not free to worship in their own way, made it part of the Constitution of their newly formed government.

That being said, I believe the note from the moderators was to confine religious arguments to the Faith Board.

The original post is a religious quote, not from the Constitution - ?

[ In Reply To ..]
The first Amendment clearly aims to separate church from government. The actual words "separation of church and state" come from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to reassure Baptists in Connecticut that the Constitution would not result in the state being able to penalize people who weren't part of a state church.

The post above is just another example why I am happy this country attempts to separate the two. Hopefully the religious right won't be able to take away our freedom of religious choice.

Separation of church and state - Zville MT

[ In Reply To ..]
is a line in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Baptist Association in Danbury, Conn., who had written to congratulate him on his becoming president and that they were hopeful that he would continue the the idea of the government not meddling in the church's affairs.

He wrote back assuring them that they had nothing to worry about and that free exercise of religion would never be interfered with by the government. That particular sentence reads:
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes ccount to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State"

This was a personal, private letter, not a law or part of the constitution, and the wall that he mentions was meant to show that government was to stay out of religious matters except in cases where it acted "to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor" (this quote from the letter from the Baptist Association to Jefferson).

So many people use this phrase and have no idea where it came from, much less that it appears nowhere in any federal document. There are actually many early legal precedents for this, but they have been largely ignored, as well as the remainder of Jefferson's letter, choosing to utlize those five words only.

Thank you for posting this! - nm

[ In Reply To ..]
nm

LOL. I guess I have to clarify - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
The original post is an example of why we need separation of church and state.

Not that you would find the separation of church and state in a bible.

Further reading of the bible might provide enlightenment regarding bearing false witness.

That is not a strict rendering of the verse... - and this kind of thing

[ In Reply To ..]
is not helpful either when trying to bring the sides together.

I can't help but laugh - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
Boy this was this blown WAY out of proportion. The moment scripture is mentioned you atheists and religion haters get your panties in a twist. LOL.

Which begs the question why atheists get - aso bent about something that in

[ In Reply To ..]
their mind does not exist, i.e., God? Seems to me it would be simple to ignore something that does not exist.

That one has always baffled me. lol.

Excellent point. - nm

[ In Reply To ..]
.

Religion itself it not the problem. The problem lies - with the way its practiced, used for manipulation.

[ In Reply To ..]
.

It is interesting, isn't it? - Kendra

[ In Reply To ..]
I understand why Christians try to tell people about Jesus (the whole save your mortal soul thing), but what is the push for atheists to get someone to believe that there is no God? If I am delusional, it is a positive delusion,a delusion that prompts me to treat others well, be charitable, not kill or commit adultary, et cetera. Why not just leave me with my craziness? I can understand why Christians want to get others to believe in God, although I try not to push my beliefs on anyone (I will tell you all about it if you ask :D), but why try to dash such a belief?

to OP - the real reason - shoo-shoo

[ In Reply To ..]
"The terms "left" and "right" appeared during the French Revolution of 1789 when members of the National Assembly divided into supporters of the king to the president's right and supporters of the revolution to his left."

"Traditionally, the Left includes progressives, social liberals, social democrats, socialists, communists and anarchists. The Right includes conservatives, reactionaries, capitalists, monarchists, nationalists and fascists."

So, it sounds like the terms go WAY back in history.

Similar Messages:

Jul 17, 2010
What was the reason for your divorce (if any)? Infidelity? Cheating? Other? ...

Nov 13, 2015
I got this in an email and it makes a lot of sense. WHAT IF THEY LEFT? And if they would cut out most of the “you don’t have to work” benefits, someone would have to do these jobs! VERIFIED AS BEING CORRECTLY ATTRIBUTED TO A DENVER POST EDITORIAL REPORTER. WHAT IF THEY LEFT Considering the Denver Post is a very liberal paper I'm surprised they published this. This really shows how the hiring of illegal's is false economic practice. Tina Griego is a Free-L ...

May 06, 2011
I don't know if any of you do this, but every time I forget something, like part of the alphabet or my phone number, I am terrified that I have the beginnings of Alzheimer's Disease. It just happened again a few minutes ago. I was trying to file something alphabetically and momentarily forgot my ABC's or my OPR's in this case. I have no doubt that I can take care of myself right now while I'm in great health, but what if... ...

Apr 07, 2012
Chris Maisano is the editor of Democratic Left and chair of the New York City local of Democratic Socialistsof America.Keep Pushing By Chris Maisano When he campaigned for the White House in 2008,President Obama spoke admiringly of RonaldReagan’s status as a transformational figure whoreshaped the nation’s political order. In his State of theUnion speech and in recent campaign appearances, Obamahas sought to channel the Gipper’s sunny, can-do spirit bydeclaring that “Ame ...

Jan 10, 2010
This man is spot on. It is well worth the watch - a bit long, but true, true, true!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmEE61iVhCA ...

May 15, 2011
What does left wing mean? ...

Jun 16, 2011
This from a UCLA professor? I'm honestly shocked. I don't know how others feel, but I actually prefer Drudge to all others because I can get to anywhere from his site - from the extremes of Maureen Dowd to Ann Coulter - from Daily Kos to Daily Caller. From US News & World Report: Book: Liberal Media Distorts News Bias By Paul Bedard Posted: June 16, 2011 The liberal bias of the mainstream media tilts so far left that any outlets not in ...

May 10, 2013
Sharing some perspective on the Benghazi coverage. "...absent in ABCâ��s report is the key point that Obama and various members of his administration referred to the Benghazi assault as a terror attack on numerous occasions shortly after the incident...." "In other words, ABCâ��s 'exclusive' reveals a turf battle, not some cover-up. As it turns out, the story is more about how talking points are generated in the interagency process." The links at the end of the the piece - ...

Jul 31, 2016
We will see a rise of the religious left in this country over the next 100 days, as evidenced by the speech of William Barber at the DNC. If you missed his mini-sermon, it's posted below. Well worth the read. Good evening. my Brothers and Sisters. I come before you tonight as a preacher, the son of a preacher, a preacher immersed in the movement at five years old. I don't come tonight representing any organization, ...

Dec 28, 2013
Don't forget - only three days left to get your incandescent light bulbs, if you can find them. ...

Jan 27, 2017
The Democrat Party claims to be all about: * Immigration * Inclusiveness * Racial/Ethnic equality * Tolerance And lefties in particular claim to be about: * Respecting others' feelings Their latest attack is on Melania Trump. For what, you ask? HER ACCENT! It was blatant in Nov. 2016 at the American Music Awards and has just gotten worse since then. Liberals are laughing at the ACCENT of an immigrant. Only they won't c ...

Oct 19, 2014
As in Kansas, where the Democrat dropped out to allow the Independent to surge, in Alaska the Democrat has consolidated with a former Republican who has become "undeclared" and is running against the establishment Republican right. The left, albeit not as left as in some places, Alaska has its own barometer, is figuring out how to run against the crazies. I hope it works in Kansas and Alaska. http://www.npr.org/2014/10/18/356942426/in-alaska-race-for-governor-demo ...

Feb 16, 2015
You know the left. Those "separation of church and state" folks who completely misunderstand and misapply that constitutional concept in order to keep God, or any mention of Him other than as a curse word, out of the public square. But it's okay for them to try to use churches to get people to sign up for Obamacare. When you hold two opposing ideas in your brain at the same time, it's called "cognitive dissonance", and the only way to do it without your brain exploding is to on ...

Mar 16, 2017
Too funny!!! ...

Mar 18, 2011
I feel like I have a bubble in my ear; hot shower did not help and the doctors\' voices sound muffled in my left ear (the voices in my head are loud and clear though - lol, just kidding). I am hoping this is only a temporary thing. Had no such problem yesterday. ...

Nov 17, 2009
Interesting. http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/11/on-president-obamas-bow-to-the-japanese-emperor-an-academic-friend-writes-that-both-the-left-and-the-right-are-wrong.html ...

Mar 03, 2011
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/left-wing-protesters-call-for-clarence-thomas-to-be-lynched/ ..and you people are worried about the TEA Party? ... look at your own!... sick people here. ...

Jan 10, 2011
see link. ...

Mar 21, 2012
As I see it, one problem on this board is citing acurate sources. It's really not our fault as informed voters. It's the fault of the media - radio, TV, internet, newspapers, etc. For example, if a poster here wants to discuss "Fast and Furious," the only sources are going to be right-leaning sources (RLS), since the left-leaning sources (LLS) are not covering the story. The same is true, for example, regarding the transvag ultrasound story only being reported ...

Apr 08, 2010
See Link From www.westernjournalism.com ...

Jan 30, 2013
Frankly, these scenarios are very incomplete. These dramatic changes will inevitably drive many others--not even begun to be addressed here. For instance, why would there be self-driving trucks if nobody could buy what they're carrying? Part of what might be likely, short term, anyway: “If you’re 55 years old now and lose your job, the odds of you ever getting hired into what you were doing before is as close to zero as you can imagine. If you are a 12-year-old, you have a very ...

May 29, 2013
they would ALL go along with the AP and NYT and not attend Holder's little "off the record" coffee klatch. ...

Jul 26, 2016
Monday marked the beginning of the Democratic National Convention, where Hillary Clinton and her fellow Democrats will try to convince the country that they are the party of the future. To combat their lies, here is a list of seven things they don’t want you to realize about their history from my latest book, Hillary’s America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party. 1. The Founder of the Democratic Party was a Racist Land Stealer Andrew Jackson didn’t really go around the law; h ...

Feb 25, 2017
"Pray on your own time!" some shouted during the minister's opening prayer, which has been done at town halls since time imemorial. I have no problem with anyone showing up to a town hall meeting and respectfully expressing their opinions. I'd expect that from either side of the aisle. This behavior - the depth of my disgust is simply inexpressible. ...and I'm betting they wouldn't have shouted down an imam. ...

Dec 30, 2013
what fool even thought of this? Oh, never mind, I know....... Link ...

Aug 01, 2014
Mind you, they are 22 and 25. They are driving from upstate NY to Long Island to stay with friends and see a concert. Now, each of them has been gone on their own, my son's been to the other end of the country on both a plane and train. I think my problem with this trip is that they're together in his car. I have these visions of a crash and losing both of them at the same time. I know - silly, right? Yes, I know it. But a mom worries. ...

Jan 19, 2017
Trump is neither a conservative or a liberal. Liberals are blowing it, emphasizing the "R/D" distinction. They have no understanding that any idea with merit THAT BENEFITS THE PEOPLE will be given due consideration in a Trump administration. Liberal blind rage and partisanship. Business as usual. ...

Feb 10, 2015
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal responded with humor Monday when asked about the controversy over a portrait that depicts the Indian-American governor with light skin. “You mean I’m not white?” he joked at a Christian Science-Monitor breakfast. As the Republican Party looks to appeal to an increasingly less white and more ethnically diverse electorate, Jindal appears uninterested in playing up his ethnic background as he considers a 2016 presidential bid. “I think thi ...

Nov 24, 2016
what lies from the left and all the fake news has done to this country. I blame the media for this crap.There has been so much divisiveness in the two weeks since the presidential election, but an Albuquerque business is going a step further by refusing to have any dealings with Donald Trump supporters. Matthew Blanchfield runs 1st in SEO, an Albuquerque-based internet marketing company. He's making his case pretty clear in a blog post, writing “if you are a Republican, v ...

Oct 06, 2015
The Right asks, “Does it do good?” Assuming that there are good and bad people on both the right and the left and that everyone is horrified by mass shootings, how is one to explain the great divide between the Right and the Left on the gun issue as it relates to mass murders, such as the one recently committed at Umpqua Community College? Why does the Left focus on more gun-control laws, and why doesn’t the Right? One reason the Right doesn’t focus on gun-control laws is quin ...