Replies

you have tried to characterize ME with your broad brush.

Not true. I wrote that one of my pet peeves is "The "Republicans can do no wrong" crowd. I really get annoyed by Kool Aid drinkers, even on our side."

To use your own logic, you must have recognized yourself because you chose to respond to my post thus:

"Actually, my FIRST pet peeve on FR is people who say that Republicans don't have principles." To which I replied, "None that they're willing to fight for."

Apparently, you chose to interpret that as a personal attack.

I made a blanket statement about the unappeasables on this forum who delight in trying to denigrate anybody who doesn't agree with their view of what conservatism is

First of all, as you know, there are no such people; at lesat, I've never encountered them. You seem to interpret any criticism of Republicans as somehow demandign 100 percent fealty to the poster's personal ideas all the time.

We do expect to have our team move the ball towards our end of the field.

Your abusive response to my statement that Republicans don't fight for their principles (which constituted a personal attack on me) shows your unwillingness to consider any other point of view and your unwillingness to argue the subject on the merits:

You wrote, "And you are Prime Exhibit A. Always so sure you're much better than the rest of us. Or as I like to call them, the ugly face of conservatives."

Now, this is the point where this got personal. Yet you accuse me of trsahing you. Interesting.

I have tried to keep it on conservative philosophy,, thus:

"The record is that when Republicans are in charge, the governmetn gets bigger, more expensive, more intrusive, and Republibots justify it because, after all, we have to support the Republicans. Can't have Democrats in there.

But what good does it do to ahve Republicans in charge when tehy do the same things we would excoriate Democrats for?

As I said previously, I'm not big on Kool Aid drinkers, liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat. I'm interested in advancing conservative principles, as presumably everyone here is. When that can be done via teh Republican Party, then I'm with the Republicans. When it can't, then I'll oppose them as I would oppose anyone else."

To which you felt compelled to reply again, again personally:

"Thanks for making MY point once again."

So I replied again:

"Making YOUR point? You must be kidding.

I simply asked if there is any criticism of Republicans that you consider valid. No matter what the GOP does, yoou seem ready to defend it by trying to shout down any critics and impugn their motives and their conservatism.

As I said, I am interested in pursuing the advancement of conservativ e principles. Republicans, in power, tend to move in the other direction. When they do something that advances conservative principles, such as tax cuts and the war on terror, I am very supportive. But when they do such things as declare a de facto manesty for illegal aliens, refuse to secure our borders, create the largest entitlement in almost 40 years, pass the biggest Federalization of education in many years, restrict our freedom to speak out about candidates during a campaign, I oppose them a a matter of principle."

Engendering this obviously non-personal non-attack reply from you:

"See there! My point exactly. You never miss a chance to try to make the rest of us feel like we don't have principles because we don't all agree with YOU.

But my post did give you a chance to brush up on your sanctimonious posting style. Enjoy yourself!"

To which I responded:

"Not at all. There are many disagreements among consrevatives, but we're presumably rowing in the same direction. If anything defines conservatism, it's limted government, constitutionalism, the idea that government is not the solution, it's the problem (as Ronaldus Magnus reminded us) and we would do a lot better with less of it. Sopmetimes you'll win that, sometimes you'll lose it, but to achieve vicxtory, first you must seek it. It doesn't seem to me that the programs I mentioned advance the cause of limited government. They make government bigger, more expensive, and more intrusive."

That is what led to your claim that you "made a blanket statement about the unappeasables on this forum who delight in trying to denigrate anybody who doesn't agree with their view of what conservatism is; you must have recognized yourself and replied. I stand by my statement. And I think every time you post, you're proving my orginal statement." Sure, whatever.