Michael Stafford wrote: ... George Monboit (no friend of religion's role in politics) has correctly described the GOP's brand of libertarianism as
"a pitiless, one-sided, mechanical view of the world, which elevates the rights of property over everything else, meaning that those who possess the most property end up with great power over others. Dressed up as freedom, it is a formula for oppression and bondage. It does nothing to address inequality, hardship or social exclusion. A transparently self-serving vision, it seeks to justify the greedy and selfish behaviour of those with wealth and power."
This is a soulless, materialist, view of the world that transforms unbounded greed and selfishness into positive goods. It is a recipe for creating a reckless and irresponsible rent-seeking elite, and then keeping it in power. It bears no resemblance to the world-view articulated in the Sermon on the Mount.
In a search in the browser Google Chrome, 6 of the top 20 conservative sites had â€śreviewed claimsâ€ť showcased in the summary. By contrast, none of the top 20 liberal sites had â€śreviewed claims.â€ť Instead, three of them â€” The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The New Yorker â€” had â€śawardsâ€ť displayed where â€śreviewed claimsâ€ť would have been
According to Eric Lieberman of the Daily Caller, â€śGoogle, the most powerful search engine in the world, is now displaying fact checks for conservative publications in its results. No prominent liberal site receives the same treatment.â€ť Thirty percent of the top 20 conservative sites, as reported by PJ Media, were slammed by such "fake"checking sites as Snopes, FactCheck.org, Politifact,& ClimateFeedback.org. None of the top 20 liberal sites, as reported by TopTere.com, were targeted at all. The conservative sites that were censored with â€śreviewed claimsâ€ť by Google were Breitbart, The Daily Caller, The Daily Wire, The Blaze, Gateway Pundit, &WorldNet Daily (WND). For Breitbart, ...
Quiet Christian, I gave up on Facebook years ago, you're not missing anything. I guess there's many occasion some people use it for family contact and the like, so as a communication tool I guess it has its purposes.
As a family, we're not on Facebook and don't have a Twitter account either. We often wonder what we could be missing but it seems like not much that's worth anything. Actually, SA's church pages are pretty complete and typically we've not been in the dark. There is something to be said for a good Sunday bulletin.