Some Conservatives Need To Be Taken To The Woodshed (vanity)

Me ^ | 18-October-2005 | Erik Latranyi

[caryatid]

" I am dismayed at the amount of name-calling taking place in these pages."

I was even flamed for having (God forbid!) strong opinions ...

LOL

[caryatid]

See Post No. 141.

[jonrick46]

Moe: "What would you rather have, a shoe full of dollar bills or two socks of five?"

[Erik Latranyi]

Maybe rockerfeller republicans like GW need to be taken to the woodshed.

Agreed. However, calling names and using labels will not make them realize the error of their ways.

[Erik Latranyi]

More than ever before, we NEED this debate and expression of opinion. You are very, very wrong.

If you really read what I wrote, you would note that I said that this internal debate is healthy and good for conservatism. We prosper when we expouse our views.

There is a difference between debate and name-calling. One will lead to our future success. The other will lead to our diminishment.

[Erik Latranyi]

I believe some of our conservative leaders have gone over the deep end on their anti-Miers rants at the expense of not keeping the light on the REAL threat to our borders and economy. The Supreme Court, regardless of its makeup, will not be able to get us out of the deep guana that we'll be in when the economy tanks.

Well, the Miers debate is about a REAL threat to our nation. The Supreme Court has devolved into another rule-making body, setting the laws of the land. Kelo, Roe, Campaign Finance are all good examples of why we need a Supreme Court that returns to its original role.

No, the Supreme Court does not have a short-term impact on our economy, but it has a long-term impact through its rulings.

[wolfcreek]

Personally, I believe that passion is a good thing, but please, keep it civil. Nobody on this board is perfect and neither is anyone in our government. I sort of enjoy some of the bickering but, I find myself at a loss for words in many of these discussions. PLEASE DON'T CONDEME ME TO LURKERLAND AGAIN!

[Warren_Piece]

So many people are dodging the original premise that we can and should disagree, but with civility. I really would like to see a defense of "cleaning lady", "paper stapler", "while Bush was boozing it up...", and these are from pundits; much worse has been said here.

Somebody tell me why the namecalling (from both sides) is neccessary.

[DarthVader]

"Somebody tell me why the namecalling (from both sides) is neccessary."

Because immaturity and self righteousness abounds in many folks today.

[TXBSAFH]

Agreed. However, calling names and using labels will not make them realize the error of their ways.

Not voting for them and not giving them money for their campaigns will.

[Smokin' Joe]

THanks for the link--it looks interesting.

[SunkenCiv]

Genius...Pure Genius. (President Bush and the GOP)
Mine | 6/24/2005 | MarketR
Posted on 06/24/2005 10:00:18 AM PDT by MarketR
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1429872/posts

[Dont_Tread_On_Me_888]

Take ANY thread on Free Republic and you will see the persoanl attacks and name-calling originate from and mostly come from the "I Agree With George Bush No Matter How Liberal He Becomes" camp.

Those who offer intelligent and well-worded views that are true conservative thought are the ones who get the name-calling directed at them. The Bush cheerleaders (that is not name-calling but represents their actions) who ignore the facts are the ones who do all the name-calling.

This is fact and can be proved by doing an audit of ANY thread on Free Republic.

Another proof is the name-calling directed at conservative icons like Michelle Malkin, Robert Bork, Ann Coulter, George Will, Peggy Noonan, and a HUGE list of other prominent conservatives.

Don't give me this crap. You need to direct your thread to just one camp at Free Republic with your request--the "Pro-Republican At Any And All Costs Even Though The Republican Party Is Going Hard Left" camp--they are the ones who launch the personal attacks. It is very one-sided.

[rdb3]

Attack, attack, attack, attack, attack, attack, attack.

If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
Also, please see The Backside of American History
You'll love this 187 page .pdf (1.99 MB)

[inquest]

Attack, attack, attack, attack, attack, attack, attack.

Attacking the attackers is legit. And he was quite right about what he said.

[Mizpah]

I do agree that the Supreme Court has and can have profound impacts to our society. What is shocking to me is the vehemence of many conservatives opposing her. I DO trust GW on THIS but it is not a blind trust. The little that has been squeezed out on her potential leanings since her announcement has been pro-life and she certainly is NOT a revisionist. Can conservatives disagree? Absolutely! Should they eat their own? That is what I see happening. That too, can have long term impacts on our ability to shape the future. There are darker clouds ahead than whether someones pet conservative judge is recommended to SCOTUS. That is my opinion and you are free to disagree with it, as is inquest.

[inquest]

The little that has been squeezed out on her potential leanings since her announcement has been pro-life and she certainly is NOT a revisionist.

As far as I know, there have been no public arguments made by her that push a pro-life view. All we have are some boxes checked off on a questionnaire put out by a pro-life group when she was running for Dallas City Council. Only a year earlier, she was donating to the Democrats. So stack this up against the public positions she has taken, such as

-identifying the root causes of crime as things like poverty and "low self-esteem", without mentioning lack of discipline, the entitlement mentality, the debasement of the culture, etc. (Source),

- the view that lawyers have a bad rap only because of public ignorance, not because of, say, the fact that they've rendered the laws unintelligible to the regular citizen (a concern of vital importance when considering her for a spot on the court which has been notorious for doing that to the Constitution)*,

- her recently unearthed opinion about the "pay gap" myth,

- and her efforts at SMU to start a "women's studies" (read: feminist indoctrination) curriculum that featured such luminaries as Gloria Steinem and Patricia Schroeder (Source),

-and her comments that the Federalist Society was too "political" an organization for her to be involved in, but had no problem being involved with the Democratic (as in, Democratic Party) Progressive Voters League (Source)

All these things tend to point in an uncomfortably left-wing direction.

(* to see the piece that I'm referring to in the second-listed item above, click here, then go to the third paragraph down in the yellow inset, where you can click to see her opinions in the Bar Journal, then go to the opinion from January '93)

[Mizpah]

I've taken the time to read your sources except for the one you asterisked, in that I could not find the relevant link. If taken at face value, I can see where you believe she leans left of your position. I will say this, I too believe that if all things are equal, women should not be paid less just because they are women. That does not mean that I support affirmative action in hiring or pay. I am a victim of such affirmative action, by the way. Perhaps there is more behind Miers’ words in this regard but it would have to be a suspicion not a given.

There should not be any doubt that self-esteem, poverty and living conditions impact behavior and by extension, crime in a negative way. That is not to say that they are the only factors. There are those who live in hellish conditions yet choose to follow the law. They are some of my heroes. The 1992 article sounds rather benign for the era.

Is the suspicion of Miers’ statements on equality and poverty really a bundle of unexamined prejudices?

I have little respect for SMU and that report, if taken at face value, is the strongest argument against her qualifications because of an alleged passivity trait. For me, that is somewhat offset by evidence of her being the behind the scene warrior tweaking the liberal Senates noses with continued renomination of conservative judges.

I would go on but it is clear that your SCOTUS appointment would need to be an outspoken conservative activist. Not that I am opposed to many such advocates. I just don’t believe that is absolutely required to be an effective conservative judge. Or even an effective conservative.

[inquest]

Each of those things, taken in isolation from the rest, could possibly be excused one way or the other, as some misunderstanding, or out-of-context opinion, or even as a forgivable exception to a generally conservative outlook. But taken together, and given the absence of publicly stated opinions in a conservative direction (boxes checked on questionnaires put out by political pressure groups during a political campaign notwithstanding), it paints a picture of a woman who either has mostly liberal political leanings, or no clear political convictions at all. Experience tells us that this is not likely to be consistent with a justice who has a strong commitment to reading the Constitution only for what it says. It suggests to me instead that she'll be swayable by fashionable opinion, just as her would-be predecessor, Justice O'Connor, was.

(by the way, about the link you were unable to find on that page, did you see the yellow section at the right, with her picture at the top?)