Posted on 12/09/2006 4:33:07 PM PST by shrinkermd
You sir, should be the last to speak of strawmen.
You'll find, if you're here long enough or care to but look more closely from your high and mighty perch, that most at FR think for themselves.
I'm glad to hear that. Perhaps I was taken in by you and a few like you, who seemed to believe they represented the majority here on FR. Given the reasoned and intellectual debate I've seen from many here, including those with whom I disagree, I should have recognized that. Apparently it is you who is in the minority.
Your denigrating the RR is not escaping most.
I don't denigrate the RR. I think they can and do influence society by participation in the debate on moral issues. But what I do stand up against is the influence they have within our Party to bring so much of their agenda into the legislative arena, in lieu of the real issues facing America.
You take care.
Great comeback! Let me guess...you are a student of critical thinking?
BTW, I sleep wonderfully at night.
"If you're referring to the Blue Dogs, they did run on a platform of security, fair taxes, lowering the deficit."
So did all the democrats. It just depends on the meaning of 'security', 'fair', and 'lowering'.
"Kind of looks to me like he is a libertarian trying to convince conservatives to support the 1%er's."
Don't know about that. I'm thinking more of a republican who wants to religious right to shut up.
I would distinguish them from the Blue Dogs. Many of them also ran on a platform that included "social justice" which encompassed many of the left's favorite positions including single payer health care, rebirth of welfare, "living wage" and abortion.
So, what's your point?
Dem-light or Rino-light, they are still a weak brew.
Drink up.
Yeah, you're right. We would be far better off today without all of those judicial confirmations. I mean, look how much better off we are now with no immigration bill, no more illegals coming in, great enforcement. And boy, look how great the new Social Security reform package looks.
Actually the drink tastes kinda good. It comes after a long hard but futile battle to get the Republican Congress to actually do something of substance.
Jack, once you win an election you have to do something with it. Winning the election gave the RINOs a weapon; they refused to stay the course long enough to use it. The control of the Supreme Court was at hand and the moderates decided to freeze the ball. In the next two years the Supreme Court will be decided for another decade or more. And it won't be conservative. We will all be the poorer for that.
By the way, if you are in the middle you will either get run over or get a yellow stripe painted down your back.
It is a matter of human nature that the extremes in any political group believe they are performing a leadership role, as in "follow Me".
In reality, their role is limited and that limitation was expressed clearly, this past November.
Over the decades since our creation as a Western Democracy, there have been many names for this group of centrists. Once called the silent majority, and various other names, they are actually in the leadership role, yet do not seek it.
This is the way it should be, because if either extreme should achieve control, you will have devastating results to the country, and in our case the entire planet.
I have found few members of the extreme right, or left who understand and agree with what I just said, and I suppose this is a fact of nature and of politics.
BTW, as to the courts, yes they are the prize of winning. But it was not enough for a hard right conservative to vote for a moderate who fails the conservative litmus tests. It was not a issue for the centrists who prefer balance on the courts, and the left voted for their leftists....
The Republican party lost the populist Independents because of the far right wing of the party. The moderates did not bring that problem to the fore, it was the right that did. They did it in the same way you are responding to me, by attacking me on a personal basis. By invectives and strings of insults over some 30 months of political issues like Shiavo, Miers, the ports and immigration.
So now you are saying that you expected these people to support your candidates?
HA!HA!HA!
All can can add to this, is that the answer to what happened in November appears to be more of the same, and so you shall have it.
Personally, I made the decision to continue to vote straight tickets through 2006 and see what happened.
Now that I see what the response will be from the right, which appears to be more of the same, I will cease my support and vote independently in the future. I believe my party has been destroyed from within, and I don't think it is worth trying to put Humpty back together at this time. Perhaps by 2012, the party will have cleaned its self out and at that time it will be worth another look, but for the short term, there is not a chance in hell that you will be able to put this coalition back together.
I did not do it..............You principle over party folks did it. Just ask Santorum how all that worked out for him.
Politics is the art of compromise, a concept that you have denied and until the Conservative Right regains it's political senses, it will remain in the minority. The middle gave you a gift and you misused it. They will not trust you again, until you earn that trust back.
Tag line for rent...or sale to anyone with a idea..
Years ago, a name was coined for guys like you, MUGWUMP.
Why don't we just agree to disagree and let the future play itself out?
That is a kind term, compared to the invectives I have taken over the years here.
Mugwump or not, the fact remains that many of these social issues do not belong in the political realm. They are convictions, and personal convictions cannot ever be compromised.
Since the simple definition of politics is "The Art of compromise", what I have said on this thread is highly logical and quite correct. It can't be logically refuted.
You can't bring personal convictions to a coalition and expect to stay coalesced.
"I'm not trying to write the RR out of the conservative movement. In fact classical conservatism recognizes the importance of religion in calming the masses. Nor do I question many of it's family values agenda."
A good common ground ...
"What I do question is its insistence on making its social values the mainstay of our legislative system. "
Oh. Then we've reduced the argument to a strawman.
As a social *and* economic conservative, I know the importance of *both* economic and cultural freedom *and* moral values as the basis of good governance and laws in our country. I don't see a conflict between social conservativism and a free society, in fact, I see the combination as the only recipe for long-term civilizational success. (A ying-yang concept, if you will.)
I'm not particularly interested in those folks who do think only in terms of eg 'imposing morality' as the liberals like to say, although I have a lot of respect for those whose activism is focussed on specific areas; it shows passon (eg a 'prolife' organization has as much right to lobby and care for only their issues as much as the Chamber of Commerce and environmental groups do for their particular narrow agenda).
"I can distinguish between those values that belong in the family and church with those that belong in a legislative agenda. That is where we part company."
You can? The separation of morals from laws is fraught with danger, yet you alone are capable of the fine art of knowing ethical boundaries in legislation? hmmm. It's still a bit of strawman to argue that others *cant* draw a line simply because they have chosen to draw the line differently.
" What is not conservative is using the Congress to attempt to deny either a republican form of government or of denying the rights guaranteed by our Constitution to some in our society."
A mighty strawman. You are accusing fellow conservatives of undermining the constitution, wholly unfairly, by
using a definition of 'rights' that only liberal activists would adhere to. *that* is definitely 'not conservative'.
Nobody has rights denied when we protect the rights of the unborn, or proect traditional marriage.
" Nor is the desire for the imposition of religious tests a conservative position."
Another mighty strawman. I dont know of any religious right leader, conservative Republican politician or activist who agrees to that.
Well, without debating the concept of social conservatism, as long as the "social conservatives" don't use our legislative bodies to infringe on the rights of others, then there would be no conflict with a free society. But that's not the agenda of the RR. They would eliminate the right to privacy as a protected right; they would pass laws that would permit only married heterosexual couples to live together; they would outlaw birth control; they would permit no abortion, ever, for any reason; they would take evolution out of our schools; they would interfere from a federal level in all end of life decisions; they would not just permit, but require prayer in schools; they would ban all fetal stem cell research; they would require the Ten Commandments in all public places; they would regulate what you and I can see on the internet, in books and magazines, or on television and the theaters; they would require religious tests;
So you see, I do recognize a conflict between the RR and a free society. If these issues were kept in churches and homes, and out of the legislatures, I would completely respect them, even if not agree.
You can? The separation of morals from laws is fraught with danger, yet you alone are capable of the fine art of knowing ethical boundaries in legislation?
I suspect it's because moral values differ substantially among groups, religions and individuals, that I shun as many of them as I can with respect to laws. As you noted above, even yours are different from some in terms of the imposition of moral values. This is the problem. Whose moral values do we adopt as part of the legislative agenda? And it's because I can't distinguish the right moral values that I possess from those of others whose values I don't possess that I can't know the ethical boundaries in legislation. But a starting point is to look at legislation in terms of economic, security and healthy growth as characteristics to look for. The War on Terror, social security, immigration, energy, health and environmental issues, budgetary controls, are all issues that aren't centered around purely religious or moral concerns.
Nor am I unaware that everything we do has moral implications. But I can distinguish between the agenda I just listed, and the one I showed earlier.
A mighty strawman. You are accusing fellow conservatives of undermining the constitution, wholly unfairly, by using a definition of 'rights' that only liberal activists would adhere to. *that* is definitely 'not conservative'.
Really? No strawman at all. But I believe that a conservative seeks less government interference, supports institutions such as our republican form of government, and supports the rights of all. The two amendment efforts I referred to violate every one of those principles of conservatism.
Nobody has rights denied when we protect the rights of the unborn, or proect traditional marriage.
Depends on the extent of protection you want. If you want something akin to what was voted down in South Dakota, then that is not what most Americans want; if you want to remove family law from the venue of the states to the federal constitutional level, then you have violated the rights of the people in any state who, under the 10th Amendment may wish to change the definition of traditional marriage, even if I don't. It's called a constitutional republic, and as good as it is, will, at times, just pi$$ off most people. Frankly, my state voted down gay marriage. Good. But the good people of Massachusetts have the ability to handle their own issues with respect to marriage. It's no one else's business.
Another mighty strawman. I dont know of any religious right leader, conservative Republican politician or activist who agrees to that.
Well, at least all of my strawmen are mighty! But if you haven't seen it, you haven't been following the threads on 2008. The Religious Right has been fighting over Mitt Romney's religion. Under no circumstances will they accept a nominee who is not a Christian. You know that. And the left is no different. Some are concerned about a Catholic judge; others are concerned that some nominee is too Christian. So yes, religious tests may be outlawed by the Constitution, but they are alive and well in the political arena, and even more so among the activist bases.
Take care.
"They would eliminate the right to privacy as a protected right; they would pass laws that would permit only married heterosexual couples to live together; they would outlaw birth control; they would permit no abortion, ever, for any reason; they would take evolution out of our schools;"
I'm not even going to bother with the rest of your post if you start off with absurd strawman arguments like that....
you are ranting like a full-bore ACLU-NARAL-feminist extremist ... take away birth control?!? really?!?! I'd like to see the bill to outlaw rubbers. that's a hoot. Banning live-in boyfriends?!? What bill is that?!?
You made 10 absurd claims. Go ahead and justify your extremist statements and attacks with proof. Until you put some evidence to back your extremist statements I don't any point in arguing/debating with you... you are just trolling.
I'm not even going to bother with the rest of your post if you start off with absurd strawman arguments like that....
Everything with you is a strawman. You said the "social conservative" agenda did not conflict with a free society. I gave you specific agenda items of the so-called social conservatives, and they are all straw-men? Hardly. You just don't like to hear it, but you know those are the principal goals of the RR.
you are ranting like a full-bore ACLU-NARAL-feminist extremist ... take away birth control?!? really?!?! I'd like to see the bill to outlaw rubbers. that's a hoot. Banning live-in boyfriends?!? What bill is that?!?
Can you discuss anything at all without insults? It shows only the weaknesses of your arguments, not your perceptiveness. You are unaware of the legislation to insure that birth control measures are kept out of aid to 3d world nations with large AIDS populations? You are unaware of the RR push on legislators to push for a just say no policy in schools? You are unaware of the debate here over a major judicial issue involving a city's ordinance to preclude any unmarried persons to have the same postal address? You've led a sheltered life.
You made 10 absurd claims. Go ahead and justify your extremist statements and attacks with proof. Until you put some evidence to back your extremist statements I don't any point in arguing/debating with you... you are just trolling.
And as you know full well, every one of them is in the agenda book of the RR (social conservatives). If they would keep them to themselves, at home, or in church, I would have no issue. But they use those agenda issues to push for legislation, select candidates, pack school boards, ban books, and otherwise influence the public debate. That you are unaware of it is, well, questionable.
Take care.
It's not an insult to mock the absurd, it's just reality talking stupidity off the ledge. And not everything is a strawman, just your extremist comments that misrepresent the conservative positions. "I gave you specific agenda items of the so-called social conservatives" No, you gave a series of specious allegations, with no evidence to back it up. If you want to defend your strawman arguments, put up your evidence.
Tell me the bill numbers to outlaw birth control and shack-up lovers, and the co-sponsors, or take your phony arguments elsewhere.
Btw, in what way does abstinence education "push for a just say no policy in schools" equates to your extremist claim of outlawing birth control? Are you really incapable of understanding the difference between the two?
"You just don't like to hear it, but you know those are the principal goals of the RR."
Really... then it should be easy for you to cite something to support your extremist claims.
Insults and mockery seem to be the main tools of those here who cannot confront an issue with intellectual discourse. It's the usual attempt to move from the issue to the poster.
No, you gave a series of specious allegations, with no evidence to back it up.
Apparently you are not familiar with Free Republic, nor are you apparently familiar with all of the threads concerning each of those issues I listed. BTW I forgot about the infamous Terri Schiavo legislation moved by the RR into a special session of Congress...to tell a district court to get involved in a state and county issue. But you probably want some link to that story too.
Tell me the bill numbers to outlaw birth control and shack-up lovers, and the co-sponsors, or take your phony arguments elsewhere.
Do your own research. I told you what the agenda of the RR was and what it would accomplish if it gets enough wing-nuts elected, either at the local, state or federal level. As for so called misrepresentation of conservative positions, you are right. Anyone who claims those are conservative positions simply does not understand conservatism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.