whoever it is he reads that day. whatever he's been told to think that day.
Corrected that for you.
Careful, Blackadar, I've been told that there is nothing constructive about goading members of the lesser party. I meant "other" party! "Other"! Fuck.
msduncan appears to have used the Heritage foundation blog again today - the link he quotes in the OP here is from this blog post
Many people will do just enough research to support their pre-conceived notions and that's it. These opinions were often formed during childhood - most often from family or their own particular religion. They're not interested in analyizing those beliefs, only justifying them. As such, they'll browse those sites that only agree with them and then wonder why they're laughed at when they post those links here. I don't have a lot of patience with people who can be categorized as sheep. On this board, a number of conservative posters happen to fall into this category (and a few liberals as well).
(WARNING - self-serving examples below. Read at the risk of nausea)
For example, my pro-choice stance came after a lot of research, including reading a number of pro-life books (including looking at shock pictures). Now religious dogma may say "life begins at conception" but there's no scientific consensus. As such, I came to conclude that a balanced approach - while satisfying no one - is probably the best approach and that Roe v. Wade was probably as good a decision as can be made. As such, my decision was made from a scientific viability standpoint - without a consensus on when life starts, the rights of the mother must outweigh the rights of the fetus at least
until viability (typically around 24-28 weeks). On the States Rights vs. Federal Rights issue, it comes down to a matter of personal liberties. If a state says that abortions are illegal, then it's pretty obvious that decision was made from a religious standpoint given the lack of consensus in the scientific community. Hence, the state is favoring one class (fetus) over another (women) on a decision based on religion. I believe that's unconstitutional....and therefore the Federal government has an obligation to step in.
My pro-2nd Amendment stance came after similar research. While I detest guns, I believe the founding fathers fully intended to allow personal firearms to be owned by private citizens as a protection against Government tyranny. It's pretty obvious given the way this country was formed what those 16 words mean.
Global warming is another one. I've read books and articles from Al Gore to David Douglas. The vast majority of scientific data - and there are far better minds than mine looking at this stuff - indicates that it's happening. What finally clinched it for me was watching the opinions of the anti-global warming group shift from "it's not happening" to "it's a natural
warming". Uh, those two aren't congruent opinions. You can't go from one to another without admitting you were wrong in the first place. Plus, if anyone is watching where most of anti-warming group's funding is coming from (Exxon and other business segments that have a financial interest in not reducing emissions), it's not hard to figure out what's really happening if you're really interested in the truth rather than a position that someone told you to have on Faux News.
(self serving, nausea-causing examples over)
It's unfortunate, but I've found few - especially religious conservatives - who have undertaken any such comprehensive research. Therefore, they continue to parrot the dogma with no real understanding behind it. I've gotten to the point that I have little to no respect for such people, and I'm sure it shows. I'd much rather go at it with someone who is actually informed about such issues.