Posted on 02/23/2007 5:40:01 AM PST by IrishMike
I despise laundry lists, especially since I refuse to separate the white wash from the colored on grounds of discrimination. Still, I do credit the ability of conservatives, when asked, to actually answer a direct question. And so: ---That the constantly rising tide of taxation needed to be reversed, as it stifles hard work, entrepreneurship, innovation, and ultimately, prosperity. ---That the constantly rising tide of regulation needed to be halted, as compliance begins to elbow out actual production. ---That deregulation largely results in lower prices for consumers ---That communism was an ideological tyranny, an enemy of freedom and of man's spirit, needing to be opposed and rolled back at every opportunity. The Strategic Defense Initiative, "Star Wars," drove liberals nuts but drove the Soviet Union to suicide. ---That autocrats like the Shah are more able to reform than totalitarian ideologies like the one that now operates Iran. ---That, per Washington's Farewell Address, religion is not an enemy, but an indispensable ally for any republic based on individual self-governance. ---That the family is the core platoon of society , and that the welfare system was crippling it while smothering individual initiative. ---That affirmative action is at best neutral in the short term, its greater access offset by lower graduation rates and suspicion of minorities' genuine achievement. ---That portraying the discrimination against groups as trumping individual effort results in endemic hopelessness and a destructive racial divide. ---That choice in schools (vouchers) is the only real solution to resegregation. ---That locking up pathologically habitual offenders keeps them off the streets and it's a mathematical certainty, borne out by the stats, that crime rates decrease. ---That a person has a right to defend kith and kin, with a gun if necessary.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
Many will recall that on July 8, 1947, witnesses claimed that an unidentified object with five aliens
aboard crashed onto a sheep and cattle ranch just outside Roswell, New Mexico. This is a well-known incident that many say has long been covered up by the U.S. Air Force and the federal government.
However, you may NOT know that in the month of March 1948, nine months after that historic day, Albert Arnold Gore, Jr., Hillary Rodham, John F. Kerry, William Jefferson Clinton, Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein, Charles E. Schumer, and Barbara Boxer were born.
Probably what happens when aliens breed with sheep. This piece of information should clear up a lot of things.
ping
This is the sole point I'd disagree with....one of the core principles behind Separation was that human society and intelligence had evolved to the point that men could govern their own affairs based upon reason and consideration. Jefferson made this point specifically, referring to atheists and Deists who were unquestionably among the great men of that era:
If we did a good act merely from the love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? It is idle to say, as some do, that no such being exists. We have the same evidence of the fact as of most of those we act on, to-wit: their own affirmations, and their reasonings in support of them. I have observed, indeed, generally, that while in protestant countries the defections from the Platonic Christianity of the priests is to Deism, in catholic countries they are to Atheism. Diderot, D'Alembert, D'Holbach, Condorcet, are known to have been among the most virtuous of men. Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God.
-Eric
However, you may NOT know that in the month of March 1948, nine months after that historic day, Albert Arnold Gore, Jr., Hillary Rodham, John F. Kerry, William Jefferson Clinton, Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein, Charles E. Schumer, and Barbara Boxer were born.LOL, funny but not exactly true. >:)
-Eric
Ad lib a little.
new tag line
LOL
But in contrast, look how far our Party has fallen. The 109th Congress, somehow under the spell of its extreme right base, left all of its greatness behind, as it's focus was anything but continuing the greatness of the Party and our Nation.
That focus included Terri Schiavo, pushing amendments to restrict gay marriage decisions by individual states, and restrict the freedom of speech for political dissent, arguing stem cell research, abortion, prayer in school, evolution and a host of other issues of importance to the "social" conservative (RR) segment, but of little interest to the rest of the Nation.
And where was budget control, immigration reform, social security reform, tax reform, energy independence, all issues of importance to the Country, but not to the RR. And with both Congress and the White House under the control of the Republican Party, how many appropriations bills were passed during the fiscal year? And how have they controlled the earmark process? 11,000 in the current budget? But they certainly led in the area of sex and financial scandals.
Hopefully, the Republicans can put their recent pathetic history behind them and reacquire their greatness. But until they realize that the social issues of a relatively small group represent neither the desires nor the interests of the Nation, they may remain a minority for some time to come.
I've met several Blacks who didn't know that the republican party was founded because the founders wanted to abolish slavery and give equal rights to Blacks. I thought that all high school history teachers should have taught that. Do you think more Blacks would be Republicans if they knew why the party was founded?
We cannot ever mitigate such scandals by comparison to the Democrats. Having said that, I remember that Newt's Contract with America (1994) had as a prologue, the cleaning up of Congress. It appears that in their exuberance over running both houses of Congress, the Republicans forgot both the spirit and details of that Contract.
Conservative must stand firm on convictions. We must do a better job with the bully pulpit.
I agree. First though, we must come to consensus on what that bully pulpit should address. I can suggest Newt's new Contract with America for the 21st Century.
You have made the point of the day! Yes, and while the MSM has some blame here, I partially blame our Party for not pushing that history, and instead working harder to shrink the big tent. Times change, but history shouldn't, nor should the values that brought the Party together.
Add to this the abject and in-your-face failure to secure the border, the failure to reign in government spending, Foley-gate, no perceived progress in Iraq, and the aura of corruption in Congress and you have the real reasons.
Perhaps you failed to read the whole post in your zeal to defend the indefensible. It was all of that, but not lost on the voters was the little interest "social" issues that seem to be the only issues that took up the time and effort of Congress.
To state otherwise is spin. But then again, I don't expect honesty from certain posters here whose sole purpose seems to be to pump-up the homosexual agenda.
At least some here don't try and hide their single minded attempt to drive a great political Party into ruin with their passionate rejection of everything not white, straight and fundamentalist Christian.
As for securing the borders, yes Americans strongly wanted that, and it was a Republican House who held that very important national security issue hostage so that the Republican Senate would give up on what Americans also wanted in great numbers, a comprehensive immigration bill.
"somehow under the spell of its extreme right base"
What you call the "extreme right base" of the Republican Party is well to the left of where Kennedy was in 1960, socially, economically, and diplomatically.
"That focus included Terri Schiavo"
Road apples. Elected Repubs completely wimped out, through sheer cowardice allowing the institution of murder-by-lawsuit in our body politic.
"pushing amendments to restrict gay marriage decisions by individual states"
You think opposition to the forced endorsement of deviant sexual practices is a bad thing?
"and restrict the freedom of speech for political dissent"
I don't recall many Repubs advocating that. Not, at least, since the campaign finance disaster.
"arguing stem cell research, abortion"
Protecting the lives of innocent people is the state's first and foremost duty. Complaining about time spent on these issues is misguided.
"prayer in school, evolution"
Again, of vital interest to our survival, and under attack by our enemies.
"and a host of other issues of importance to the "social" conservative (RR) segment, but of little interest to the rest of the Nation."
Ya know, I care very little what may or may not be of interest to people too dim, ignorant, or wrong-headed to know what is and is not important, or what is right and what is wrong.
"And where was budget control, immigration reform, social security reform, tax reform, energy independence, all issues of importance to the Country, but not to the RR."
Yes, the Stupid Party certainly sold us down the river. However, that was not due to the influence of any "right-wingers," of whom there are maybe two or three in national office, but of the Republican left...which is well to the left of the Hubert Humphrey of 1968.
"And with both Congress and the White House under the control of the Republican Party, how many appropriations bills were passed during the fiscal year? And how have they controlled the earmark process? 11,000 in the current budget?"
Yes, a round of impeachments would certainly be in order.
"But they certainly led in the area of sex and financial scandals."
That's only because the Evil Party's propaganda arm trumpets Repub peccadillos to the heavens, while suppressing any news of the legions of major felonies committed daily by Demonrats.
"Hopefully, the Republicans can put their recent pathetic history behind them and reacquire their greatness."
Not until the crypto-commies are flushed, they can't. Not until they are willing to stand shoulder-to-shoulder like men and say No! to baby-killing, No! to sodomy, No! to ever-increasing regulation, No! to everything tainted with leftist thought.
"But until they realize that the social issues of a relatively small group represent neither the desires nor the interests of the Nation"
You're a mole, right? Seeking to sow discord from within? Same tactic the communists used to get Russian armies to desert in WW1?
Moral decay is destroying us, and unless we get back on track, no other issue will have any relevance in this world or the next.
That would then make Kennedy Pope, if that's the case.
Road apples. Elected Repubs completely wimped out, through sheer cowardice allowing the institution of murder-by-lawsuit in our body politic.
Yes, we'll permit a republican form of government as long as the states do what a select few of us want. Why not just eliminate the states and the 10th Amendment, and turn all decision making over to the RR?
You think opposition to the forced endorsement of deviant sexual practices is a bad thing?
No, not at all. What I oppose is the turning of our Constitution into a tool of the RR. I oppose those who want to ensure that no state be permitted to manage family law issues, as they have traditionally done, without the permission of the RR.
I don't recall many Repubs advocating that. Not, at least, since the campaign finance disaster.
You don't recall the attempt to amend the Constitution last year to restrict the First Amendment?
Protecting the lives of innocent people is the state's first and foremost duty. Complaining about time spent on these issues is misguided.
This has nothing to do with protecting the lives of its citizens, and everything to do with ensuring that only certain religious beliefs form the basis for federal law. If these are constitutional issues, then leave it for the courts to decide. The Congress has much more to concern itself with.
Again, of vital interest to our survival, and under attack by our enemies.
Only the RR would consider most of America their enemy.
Ya know, I care very little what may or may not be of interest to people too dim, ignorant, or wrong-headed to know what is and is not important, or what is right and what is wrong.
Exactly my point about the RR. They will dictate to America what the correct cultural, political and legal positions are, and if America is too dim, ignorant or wrong-headed to understand, screw 'em. And to hell with republican government. If it's ok with my particular version of theology, it ought to be ok for America.
Yes, a round of impeachments would certainly be in order.
Don't know about that, but the voters certainly got tired of that "109th Agenda" last November.
That's only because the Evil Party's propaganda arm trumpets Repub peccadillos to the heavens, while suppressing any news of the legions of major felonies committed daily by Demonrats.
Yes, it's always the fault of the messenger. I'm not much for the "Well, uh, they do it too" defense.
Not until the crypto-commies are flushed, they can't. Not until they are willing to stand shoulder-to-shoulder like men and say No! to baby-killing, No! to sodomy, No! to ever-increasing regulation, No! to everything tainted with leftist thought.
Somewhere in that I would hope there would be something of interest to most Americans. Oh yeah, the regulation part.
You're a mole, right? Seeking to sow discord from within? Same tactic the communists used to get Russian armies to desert in WW1?
I almost feel like it here at times. There doesn't seem to be many left who believe that the Republican Party, the Party of Lincoln, is not just the Party of a small group of right wing theocrats, but a Party that welcomes all into it; a Party that understands that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not just someone's particular version of the Bible; and a Party governed by the principles of real conservatism, not the so-called "conservatism" claimed by a relative few.
Moral decay is destroying us, and unless we get back on track, no other issue will have any relevance in this world or the next.
And I don't disagree with you in principle. But moral issues are culturally based issues. Culture is the purview of the people, and a free nation permits its people the prerogative of changing culture. The Constitution is a moral document, but not a document of morals. It is a document designed to ensure the government is properly organized, and an enumeration of the rights of its citizens. Those rights include the freedom of expression, one of the principal means of impacting social and cultural values.
I wonder why the RR fears losing its grip to the majority, and therefore feels it must force its agenda through the federal legislative process.
Hillary, is that you?
"That would then make Kennedy Pope, if that's the case."
Let me look more closely...no, no, no logic there anywhere.
"Yes, we'll permit a republican form of government as long as the states do what a select few of us want."
That form of argumentation reeks of dishonesty. Firstly, you seek to imply that preventing one rogue judge in one state from committing murder would have damaged our republic. That is pernicious nonsense. If we are to apply that standard, then we must condemn everything the federal government has done in terms of civil rights.
Secondly, you have continously asserted that whatever position you hold is the majority position. Some people are of the opinion that the murder of Terri Schaivo was right and proper, but such opinions were created by the deceit of the lamestream media, and do not survive an acquaintance with the the facts. There are a few people, of course, who approve of her murder because they are under the sway of Evil, but they are a small minority.
"turn all decision making over to the RR?"
What happened, Hillary, did "vast right wing conspiracy" grow stale? The Republican party never gets any further right than the center, and that's only by the few "right-wing extremists." I dearly wish there was a "Republican Right," but sadly it is a product only of your private propaganda generator.
"I oppose those who want to ensure that no state be permitted to manage family law issues, as they have traditionally done"
Woah, there, Nelly-Belle. Sodomy is not a "family law issue." It is a criminal issue, a health issue, a mental health issue, a freedom of religion issue, a freedom of association issue, an economic issue, a survival-of-civilization issue, and probably a few others. The one thing it definitely is *not* is a "family law issue."
Our Constitution contains procedures for amendment. It is perfectly appropriate for people to seek amendments through legal means. Today, with state governments trembling on the brink of falling to Evil, an amendment to brace them up would be quite welcome.
"without the permission of the RR. "
Brace yourself for a shock: even people who disagree with you have a legal and moral right to lobby for the laws they would like to see enacted.
"You don't recall the attempt to amend the Constitution last year to restrict the First Amendment?"
I can't even guess what historical event you are torturing to arrive at that.
"This has nothing to do with protecting the lives of its citizens"
Another shock for you: every abortion kills an innocent human being.
"and everything to do with ensuring that only certain religious beliefs form the basis for federal law."
What, are you under the impression that any idea can be invalidated simply by tying it to a religion? All law is simply the legislation of morality, and all morality has its wellpring in religion. Even if those self-evident truths are ignored, most of us agree that killing the innocent is wrong, and that government should try to prevent and punish it.
"If these are constitutional issues, then leave it for the courts to decide."
In a pig's eye. It is for the people to decide. We may be a de facto liberal judiciocracy, but we are still supposed to be a representative republic, which is a form of self-government. Of course, liberals forget that.
"Only the RR would consider most of America their enemy."
Most of America wants some restrictions on abortion. Most of America opposes a legal sham that pretends to be the marriage of sodomites.
Something you wouldn't know, Hillary: unlike you, people like me don't think too much about who are *our* enemies. We are much more concerned with who is the enemy of the Constitution, who is the enemy of truth, justice, and the American way.
"They will dictate to America what the correct cultural, political and legal positions are"
Classic liberal argument. The left legitimately lobbies for their positions; anyone else who does the same thing is trying to "dictate." Whenever you see the word "dictate" in political discourse today, you know someone is trying to say that his opposition does not have the same right he has to lobby for their own positions.
"and if America is too dim, ignorant or wrong-headed to understand, screw 'em. And to hell with republican government."
That, of course, is the modus operandi of the left. Unlike the left, the center (and even those like myself who may be a tiny bit right of center) does not lie or use violence to attain its objectives. People like you go on and on about your boogyman lurking somewhere over there on the right, and it's nothing more than a smoke screen for the real abuses of the left.
"If it's ok with my particular version of theology, it ought to be ok for America."
Which is just exactly what you do. The only difference is that you don't extend to other Americans the same right.
"Yes, it's always the fault of the messenger. I'm not much for the "Well, uh, they do it too" defense."
I wonder if that was due to sloppy reading, stupidity, or dishonesty. I didn't offer the "Well, uh, they do it too" defense. My argument is that there are a few corrupt Republicans -- and unlike scum like Kennedy and Barney Fag they always get hammered, because the Republicans don't protect them -- while every democrat is a felon, miscreant, and moral leper. Hard to believe you actually didn't see the difference between the "Well, uh, they do it too" defense and a comparison of scale.
"Somewhere in that I would hope there would be something of interest to most Americans. Oh yeah, the regulation part."
Everything in there is of interest to most Americans. You are out of step, not those who understand the importance of morality to the survival of civilization.
"I almost feel like it here at times."
Yes, you have far to go on your journey to conservatism. There is much you still don't understand.
"There doesn't seem to be many left who believe that the Republican Party, the Party of Lincoln, is not just the Party of a small group of right wing theocrats, but a Party that welcomes all into it; a Party that understands that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not just someone's particular version of the Bible; and a Party governed by the principles of real conservatism, not the so-called "conservatism" claimed by a relative few."
Zow. There are so many misconceptions and philosophical gaffes in that paragraph that it's literally painful to read. I'm just not up to it. We'll have to wait for the decades to straighten you out. One thing I will say, just as a clue: the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, is grounded in, grew out of, and is intended to be understood and applied in light of Christian theology. You're going to have to come to grips with the fact that your position on religion is that of the hard left. You cannot hold to that opinion and complete your journey to conservatism.
"But moral issues are culturally based issues."
No, they are absolutes.
"Culture is the purview of the people, and a free nation permits its people the prerogative of changing culture."
How much Evil does a free nation leave its people free to commit? Stealing? Murder? Live sodomy on stage? Child molesting? There is no moral right to these things, and there is no requirement that society allow them just because some people want them--nor even if a 99% majority wants them. Child-molesting does not become moral just because NAMBLA managed to get some laws corrupted. The laws don't tell us what is right and wrong. We make laws based on our prior knowledge of what is right and wrong, written on our hearts by the finger of God.
"The Constitution is a moral document, but not a document of morals."
That's a shoo-in for the "distinction without a difference" award.
"It is a document designed to ensure the government is properly organized, and an enumeration of the rights of its citizens."
It is a document designed to limit the powers of government. The first ten amendments list *some* of our rights.
"Those rights include the freedom of expression"
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
It's interesting that the word "expression" appears nowhere in the Constitution. We used to talk about freedom of religion and freedom of speech. But the left doesn't want freedom of religion, and it's a pain to keep making the argument that pornographic images and flag-burning are "speech." Much easier to rewrite the Constitution to cover "expression" rather than "speech."
It's also interesting that you are condemning people who disagree with you for petitioning the Government for a redress of grievances. I guess that right is only for the left, eh?
"one of the principal means of impacting social and cultural values."
Some decades ago, our social and cultural values were pretty good. Race relations were getting better. The only people who had an interest in "impacting social and cultural values" were evil people out to hurt America. As a result of their success, there are now good people who want to "impact social and cultural values" for the purpose of rolling back the harm done by the evil. People like you condemn them for it.
"I wonder why the RR fears losing its grip to the majority"
The majority of Americans are morally conservative. The only way you form a majority opposed to them is by adding together RINOs and the left, and the left has no moral right to a voice in our discourse.
"and therefore feels it must force its agenda through the federal legislative process."
What crap. Nobody is using force. Every American citizen has the same legal right to lobby for his position that you do. The difference, of course, is that a person who is lobbying for the truth also has a moral right to do so, and you do not.
About as much logic as claiming the extreme right is to the left of Kennedy.
That form of argumentation reeks of dishonesty. Firstly, you seek to imply that preventing one rogue judge in one state from committing murder would have damaged our republic. That is pernicious nonsense. If we are to apply that standard, then we must condemn everything the federal government has done in terms of civil rights.
Civil Rights? I hate to let you in on this, but this was not a civil rights issue. The federal courts were already involved and if there was 5th, 6th, 14th Amendment issue, it would have been filed and ruled as such. Where does Congress come in directing the federal courts to short circuit a county and state court issue? Did any of the 11 or so reviews by various courts find any murder? Many in your camp still have no concept of the 10th Amendment when it comes to religious issues.
Secondly, you have continously asserted that whatever position you hold is the majority position.
Please link me to that statement.
Some people are of the opinion that the murder of Terri Schaivo was right and proper, but such opinions were created by the deceit of the lamestream media, and do not survive an acquaintance with the the facts. There are a few people, of course, who approve of her murder because they are under the sway of Evil, but they are a small minority.
I saw no one dancing at her funeral. Perhaps you did because you wanted to see them. There was no murder; there was a right to die issue, and the issue involved the extent of evidence substantiating her desire not to continue. Whether or not you believed the family or her husband is irrelevant. The judge, a conservative, and 11 reviews found that the law was followed properly. And most conservatives support the rule of law, even if they don't agree with the outcome.
As for the facts, most here ignored those before and after her death.
What happened, Hillary, did "vast right wing conspiracy" grow stale? The Republican party never gets any further right than the center, and that's only by the few "right-wing extremists." I dearly wish there was a "Republican Right," but sadly it is a product only of your private propaganda generator.
If insults like this is your best argument, I may be concerned for my Party over nothing. And if the right wing activities of the 109th (as I have previously delineated), are considered by some here to be center oriented, even I cannot fathom the extent of extremism present here.
Woah, there, Nelly-Belle. Sodomy is not a "family law issue." It is a criminal issue, a health issue, a mental health issue, a freedom of religion issue, a freedom of association issue, an economic issue, a survival-of-civilization issue, and probably a few others. The one thing it definitely is *not* is a "family law issue."
So marriage, divorce, and adoption are no longer family law issues? And as for your "sodomy" concerns, is that only same sex sodomy or does that concern apply to heterosexuals too? And you are right about one thing; it does involve freedom of association. As for a criminal issue, you lost me on that one. I may have mistakenly thought the 14th Amendment hadn't yet been repealed.
Our Constitution contains procedures for amendment. It is perfectly appropriate for people to seek amendments through legal means. Today, with state governments trembling on the brink of falling to Evil, an amendment to brace them up would be quite welcome.
Our only tinkering with social issues and the Constitution was the absurd 18th. All the rest involved the functioning of our government, election issues and most importantly the admission that persons in the United States have rights. But fortunately, most Americans will never again permit the Constitution to establish cultural norms or to act as an end run around the 10th Amendment. And in any case, each state has its own constitution and its own republican form of government guaranteed by the Constitution, and is completely capable of resolving its own issues with respect to same sex marriage.
I can't even guess what historical event you are torturing to arrive at that.
I'm sorry. I assumed you were well read, but in the passion over the gay marriage amendment fiasco, a few seem to have forgotten there were two efforts at the amendment process last year.
Brace yourself for a shock: even people who disagree with you have a legal and moral right to lobby for the laws they would like to see enacted.
Absolutely, though I suspect the left would like to see that change. But when I see some, under the false guise of conservatism, trying to make purely social and cultural issues part of the Constitution, I also have the right to shine a light on it.
Another shock for you: every abortion kills an innocent human being.
And the issue is in the proper purview, the judicial branch, where it will no doubt be resolved within the near future. Hopefully it will be returned to the states where such medical issues belong.
What, are you under the impression that any idea can be invalidated simply by tying it to a religion? All law is simply the legislation of morality, and all morality has its wellpring in religion.
Not at all. But you cannot simply hide your social issues in the "all laws are moral" thesis. They stand out, and cannot be justified by a claim that they are no different than any other law. No one, even you I suspect, buys that one. As for morality and religion, many do not subscribe to the thesis that a moral person is religious, any more than a religious person is moral. Morality and justice are not necessarily linked to religion. Can an atheist by a moral and just person? Of course. Can a religious person by immoral and unjust? Certainly.
Even if those self-evident truths are ignored, most of us agree that killing the innocent is wrong, and that government should try to prevent and punish it.
Well, as I said, there is nothing self-evident about it. But if you believe that killing the innocent is wrong, then you will agree to let the USSC send it back to the states where it belongs. Or do I hear the beginnings of another constitutional amendment to deny the 10th Amendment?
In a pig's eye. It is for the people to decide. We may be a de facto liberal judiciocracy, but we are still supposed to be a representative republic, which is a form of self-government. Of course, liberals forget that.
How?
Most of America wants some restrictions on abortion. Most of America opposes a legal sham that pretends to be the marriage of sodomites.
Exactly, so what is the problem. Why can't the states resolve them?
Something you wouldn't know, Hillary: unlike you, people like me don't think too much about who are *our* enemies. We are much more concerned with who is the enemy of the Constitution, who is the enemy of truth, justice, and the American way.
I won't stoop to the inane name calling you enjoy, but suffice is to say that it is the Constitution that conservatives have the greatest respect for, and who would never use it as their own little bridge over the 10th Amendment.
Classic liberal argument. The left legitimately lobbies for their positions; anyone else who does the same thing is trying to "dictate." Whenever you see the word "dictate" in political discourse today, you know someone is trying to say that his opposition does not have the same right he has to lobby for their own positions.
You are very hung up on who is debating you. You notice I respond to the issues you present; you respond to me. As for the distinction between lobbying and dictating, try reading a few threads here to see how the RR reacts to those who disagree. If you don't like the term "dictate", how about "stifle dissent"? How does that work for you?
That, of course, is the modus operandi of the left. Unlike the left, the center (and even those like myself who may be a tiny bit right of center) does not lie or use violence to attain its objectives.
Really? You definitely haven't followed many threads here. Believe me, both the radical wings use lies, distortions and threats to achieve their goals. When it comes from the left, most conservatives here simply expect that, and assume that it's the job of the Democrats to bring them into line, which they rarely do. When it happens here, it's the job of conservatives to shine a light on it. Some try, but they are generally threatened with zotting, branded as Nazis, leftists, communists, and yes even given names like Hillary. The radicals really don't want to debate the issue, they would rather just use the old insult, etc to run off the offender.
I wonder if that was due to sloppy reading, stupidity, or dishonesty.
And the more you shine the light, the higher the level of attack.
My argument is that there are a few corrupt Republicans -- and unlike scum like Kennedy and Barney Fag they always get hammered, because the Republicans don't protect them -- while every democrat is a felon, miscreant, and moral leper. Hard to believe you actually didn't see the difference between the "Well, uh, they do it too" defense and a comparison of scale.
Every Democrat is a felon, miscreant and moral leper? Even Lieberman? How about Zell Miller? Ok, your defense wasn't "Well, they do it too" My mistake. It was "Well they do more of it"....
Everything in there is of interest to most Americans. You are out of step, not those who understand the importance of morality to the survival of civilization.
Hmmm. Wonder why America hasn't elected 435 who think just like you do, since those are the issues of importance to them? And how is it that half the Country that is registered in one of the two parties is a registered Democrat, given that every Democrat is a felon, etc, etc? Finally, I wonder who is out of step, given the polls on Rudy?
Which is just exactly what you do. The only difference is that you don't extend to other Americans the same right.
As I said before, everyone has that right, and I have the right to shine the light.
Yes, you have far to go on your journey to conservatism. There is much you still don't understand.
The RR doesn't need to explain conservatism to me. They have no ownership of it, and the term radical conservative is an oxymoron.
Zow. There are so many misconceptions and philosophical gaffes in that paragraph that it's literally painful to read.
Good. If I can make the RR a bit uncomfortable, I have not failed.
One thing I will say, just as a clue: the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, is grounded in, grew out of, and is intended to be understood and applied in light of Christian theology.
A common fallacy. It was written, modified, debated and finally ratified by a host of different kinds of philosophies, various Christian, Catholic, Deists, Athiests...But it's no small matter, that the term God is nowhere in it, and in the original Constitution, the only mention of religion was a restriction on it as a test for office. Pretty telling, I'd say. And what of Christian theology is present in that document? Theology is not concerned with the construct of government, nor of the rights of individuals. It is concerned with following the law of God, or face the consequences.
You're going to have to come to grips with the fact that your position on religion is that of the hard left. You cannot hold to that opinion and complete your journey to conservatism.
Conservatism and religion have no linkage, except to the extent that classical conservatives believe that religion is good for the people as a calming and satisfying cultural philosophy. To somehow believe that non-Christians cannot embrace conservatism is the height of arrogance. I may need help completing my journey to conservatism, but embracing radicalism will likely do more to derail that journey than to direct it.
No, they are absolutes.
Really? Was abortion always considered murder by the Church? Was the ownership of people once justified by the Bible? Were women once prohibited from voting and even from owning property? Were whites and blacks once forbidden from marrying each other? Obviously I could go on, but are those are some of the moral absolutes you are referring to?
How much Evil does a free nation leave its people free to commit? Stealing? Murder? Live sodomy on stage? Child molesting? There is no moral right to these things, and there is no requirement that society allow them just because some people want them--nor even if a 99% majority wants them.
Once again, you want to hide your agenda within the structure of laws designed to permit society to prosper. Stealing, murder, child molesting? Of course there's no legal right to do these things in any state. But these things cause direct harm to victims. Other things that the RR wants to regulate involve privacy, due process and equal protection of the law issues. They frequently involve cultural or "moral" issues, with no victim. I think we can distinguish between murder and the privacy of consenting adults.
Child-molesting does not become moral just because NAMBLA managed to get some laws corrupted. The laws don't tell us what is right and wrong. We make laws based on our prior knowledge of what is right and wrong, written on our hearts by the finger of God.
You mean like the laws that permitted the ownership of people? Were those laws written by the finger of God? God did not write our Constitution. We the people did. And hopefully child molesting will not be legal in any state. To the extent that some state eases the laws on it, I would assume that people correct that issue. Laws involve a bit more than just right and wrong. They involve the regulation of a peaceful and prosperous society that permits the maximum freedom to its citizens consistent with the intent of our Constitution and the rights of all. Government's first duty is to protect its citizens.
That's a shoo-in for the "distinction without a difference" award.
I had a feeling you wouldn't understand that broad distinction.
It is a document designed to limit the powers of government. The first ten amendments list *some* of our rights.
Well, I guess they sure screwed up with that old 10th Amendment thingy didn't they then? Actually, it's the first nine and several after that, especially the 14th, that many don't understand applies to all, not just a few.
It's interesting that the word "expression" appears nowhere in the Constitution. We used to talk about freedom of religion and freedom of speech. But the left doesn't want freedom of religion, and it's a pain to keep making the argument that pornographic images and flag-burning are "speech." Much easier to rewrite the Constitution to cover "expression" rather than "speech."
Yes, it's all the fault of the left. At least I agree with you that the left has gone way past any reasonable effort to separate religion from government. But the Roy Moore's of the Country continue giving the left all the ammo they need. As for freedom of speech, the RR believes it only permits kids to read the Bible on the schoolground and to pontificate the word of God. They cannot accept that freedom of speech is one of the greatest freedoms we have, and that it does not restrict most speech (believed by most intelligent people to be expression). Does a mute have no such right? And political dissent is the greatest speech right we have. I am disgusted by any abuse or disrespect of our Flag, whether from the right or the left (and both do it). But I could never agree to laws which would prevent it. We are a Nation based on the freedom and rights of the individual, not the rule of the majority.
It's also interesting that you are condemning people who disagree with you for petitioning the Government for a redress of grievances. I guess that right is only for the left, eh?
You have that right, and I am more than happy that you have. But I also have the right to call you on it and to tell the world you are wrong. Is that not my right?
Some decades ago, our social and cultural values were pretty good.
Ah yes, when the races were separated by our good social and cultural values; when our wonderful morals segregated schools, water fountains, restrooms; when it was a crime to marry someone of a different race; when privacy was not part of that "pursuit of happiness" thing; when men and women had their respective assigned jobs? Are those the good old days? Let me let you in on a little secret: Ozzie and Harriet was a fable.
The only people who had an interest in "impacting social and cultural values" were evil people out to hurt America.
You mean all those evil people who outlawed the social and cultural issues I mentioned above?
People like you condemn them for it.
Only when you try and use our great Constitution to remove moral and cultural decision making from the hands of the people where it belongs. But you have the right to try, and I have the right to try and block you.
The majority of Americans are morally conservative. The only way you form a majority opposed to them is by adding together RINOs and the left, and the left has no moral right to a voice in our discourse.
That's the difference between us. Everyone in my Country has the same right, both moral and legal to participate in the debate. And that last sentence of yours completely describes the RR and it's belief that it has some greater right to dictate a moral philosophy to the Country.
What crap. Nobody is using force. Every American citizen has the same legal right to lobby for his position that you do. The difference, of course, is that a person who is lobbying for the truth also has a moral right to do so, and you do not.
Whose truth? Some of the most preposterous deception I have seen has come out of the rants of the RR and it's moral police. The most moral philosophy recognizes the inherent rights of man, and I can guarantee you those rights did not come from the RR nor without many battles. So no, you and the RR have no "truthful" history on which to base a legitimate claim on morality or justice.
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.