Posted on 02/23/2007 5:40:01 AM PST by IrishMike
"About as much logic as claiming the extreme right is to the left of Kennedy."
Ah, but it's not the case that the extreme right is to the left of Kennedy. It is the case that what you wrongly believe to be the extreme right is to the left of Kennedy. That’s not a matter of logic. It is a statement of fact, and widely accepted as such.
“Civil Rights? I hate to let you in on this, but this was not a civil rights issue.”
Nobody said it was. One more time for the cheap seats: the federal government interfered in states’ rights for the sake of civil rights. If you complain about the federal government interfering in states’ rights to oppose legal shams posing as sodomite marriage, the principal holds for federal government interference in the realm of civil rights.
“Where does Congress come in directing the federal courts to short circuit a county and state court issue?”
Wrongfully killing the innocent is an issue that rightfully concerns any branch of government; indeed, any citizen. Further, there would have been no “directing the federal courts.” I don’t know where you came up with that.
“Did any of the 11 or so reviews by various courts find any murder?”
I’m sure they avoided that by limiting their review to procedural questions, carefully excluding questions of fact.
“Many in your camp still have no concept of the 10th Amendment when it comes to religious issues.”
So, the wrongful killing of the innocent is “a religious issue?” Good grief. It is in such statements that we see the pure evil of your camp.
“Please link me to that statement (asserting that whatever position you hold is the majority position.)”
I don’t play silly little games like that. You’re lucky I’m still bothering to reply. (Which, by the way, I’m doing for any lurkers, not for you)
“I saw no one dancing at her funeral.”
The smug satisfaction of the culture of death was palpable. Not my fault if you were oblivious.
“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.”
Pernicious, evil nonsense. Perhaps you believe that because you are misinformed; perhaps you proselytize falsehood because you are evil. Don’t know, don’t much care. Either way, you have a moral duty to discover the truth of the matter and utter nothing else from now on.
“The judge, a conservative, and 11 reviews found that the law was followed properly.”
Are you trying to say that the judge in the Terri Schaivo case was a conservative? How could a person get so confused? And such reviews confine themselves to procedural matters to the exclusion of questions of fact.
“And most conservatives support the rule of law, even if they don't agree with the outcome.”
The rule of law is essential; however, as in the case of Southern trials in which white men obviously guilty of doing violence to blacks were exonerated by white juries, a basic respect for the facts of the case is required. Otherwise, even if procedure is followed to the last iota, what ensues is not rule of law.
“As for the facts, most here ignored those before and after her death.”
You are completely out of touch with reality. The facts were dissected here at agonizing length, over weeks and months, both by those who reported them correctly, and those who had them wrong.
“If insults like this is your best argument”
Now, see, that’s just typical of your dishonest style. That’s not an argument; it is a digression into humor. Still, the resemblance to Hillary is uncanny.
“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.”
No, what you can’t fathom is that you yourself are well to the left of center. That is what makes the center look like the right to you. The 109th was not centrist, either. It was well to the left of center.
“So marriage, divorce, and adoption are no longer family law issues?”
Marriage has nothing to do with sodomites. Only a man and a woman can validly enter into marriage. That being the case, divorce and adoption are moot. Therefore, there is no family law issue.
“And as for your "sodomy" concerns, is that only same sex sodomy or does that concern apply to heterosexuals too?”
I wouldn’t want your head to explode, so let’s just limit it to people who suffer from same-sex attraction disorder for now.
“As for a criminal issue, you lost me on that one. I may have mistakenly thought the 14th Amendment hadn't yet been repealed.”
Are you really arguing that turd-wrangling is among the “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” under the 14th amendment?
“Our only tinkering with social issues and the Constitution was the absurd 18th.”
Buncombe. Extending the franchise to women and children was exactly that. For that matter, so was shifting to direct election of senators.
“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.”
If a lexicographer needed an example to illustrate the term, “babbling incoherent nonsense,” he couldn’t do any better than that. (By the way, you are again claiming that your position is the majority position.)
“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.”
Gee, you know, people used to say that 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 slavery. Then, later, they made that same argument with regard to segregation. Eisenhower and Kennedy sent troops in to override the will of the people of those states. If we apply your argument, nothing should have been done to force a faster end to segregation in southern states.
“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.”
Oh, I am well read. Not only that, I understand what I read well enough to know that sodomy is not protected speech under the First Amendment.
“Absolutely”
Don’t give me that. You’ve done nothing but wail that people who disagree with you are “dictating” and otherwise acting wrongly when they support or oppose legislation.
“though I suspect the left would like to see that change.”
Sorry, you still have to count yourself among them.
“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.”
What you are shining a light on is your own lack of comprehension of…well, pretty much anything, really. The defense of marriage is no more out of place in the constitution than is the 15th amendment…which was also a social and cultural matter.
“And the issue is in the proper purview, the judicial branch”
Blood just shot out of my eyes. And that sound is Thomas Jefferson spinning in his grave. He wrote, “You seem... to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so ... and their power [is] the more dangerous, as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.”
“Hopefully it will be returned to the states where such medical issues belong.”
You consider the wrongful killing of innocent babies to be a “medical issue?”
Monstrous.
“Not at all.” (All law is simply the legislation of morality, and all morality has its wellspring in religion.)
Oh yes, at all, and in every way. If you don’t understand that, you don’t understand anything. Here, let me help you get started.
The morality of the country is deeply ingrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of other religions. In people whose manners are refined, and whose morals have been elevated and inspired with a more enlarged benevolence, it is by means of the Christian religion. United States Supreme Court, 1811
Why may not the Bible, and especially the New Testament be read and taught as a divine revelation in the school? Where can the purest principles of morality be learned so clearly or so perfectly as from the New Testament? United States Supreme Court, 1844
The happiness of a people and the good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality. United States Supreme Court, 1892
Religion, morality, and knowledge are necessary to good government, the preservation of liberty, and the happiness of mankind. United States Supreme Court, 1892
“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.”
They only “stand out” because you find them inconvenient. In other words, they “stand out” only in the same way laws against murder “stand out” to a serial murderer.
“No one, even you I suspect, buys that one.”
Zow, now you’ve gone past insisting that your position is the majority position to insisting that your position is universally held. Is it true that Napoleon has a MACVSOG68 complex?
“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.”
My, you will insist on getting things backwards, won’t you?
“Morality and justice are not necessarily linked to religion.”
Ah, bringing in “justice” to try and cloud the issue, eh? No, you don’t get away with that.
The fact is that morality is not merely “tied to religion,” it is an integral part of the universe, in that it derives from God’s nature. Any “morality” that does not derive from God’s nature is not properly termed “morality.” It is merely a human conceit.
“Can an atheist by a moral and just person? Of course.”
Possibly, as long as it’s easy, but why would he? Even if he did, he would merely be following God’s laws without admitting it.
“Can a religious person by immoral and unjust? Certainly.”
And what do you imagine that you have proved with that? Interesting that someone who smarms about being “well read” has clearly read neither his G. K. Chesterton nor his C. S. Lewis.
“But if you believe that killing the innocent is wrong”
What, you don’t?
“then you will agree to let the USSC send it back to the states where it belongs.”
I’ve advocated that for decades.
“Or do I hear the beginnings of another constitutional amendment to deny the 10th Amendment?”
So, you’d oppose an amendment to the effect that “No state shall make any law legalizing the wrongful killing of innocent human beings?” That we would need such an amendment would merely show how successful those in your camp have been at wreaking evil, but if we need to pass it, we should.
“Exactly, so what is the problem. Why can't the states resolve them?”
Have you been living in the bowels of the earth for the last forty years? The states can’t resolve them because our rogue judiciocracy won’t allow it, and elected demonrats support them.
I just realized…it’s so obvious that it just didn’t occur to me that you had this wrong too…The purpose of the Defense of Marriage amendment is not to abridge the 10th amendment…the Supremes have already obliterated that…it is to restrain the judiciocracy in its hurtling stampede toward despotism.
“I won't stoop to the inane name calling you enjoy”
Just another way of admitting that you have no sense of humor. But we already knew that.
“You are very hung up on who is debating you.”
Of course. I have very little patience with people who are too far to the left.
“You notice I respond to the issues you present”
You have thus far responded to them with the long-impeached arguments of the left.
“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?”
This is not an election. It is a conservative discussion forum. Leftists are not welcome here. If any of us wanted to waste time rebutting the same tired, toxic nostrums of the left, we could go anywhere else on the Internet and quickly get our fill.
If I am out in the real world and someone makes a stupid, deeply evil statement like, “Abortion is a medical issue,” I may – or may not – attempt to reason with him, presenting for the kazillionth time the arguments that show abortion to be the wrongful killing of an innocent human being.
Here on FR, though, we shouldn’t have to go through that. If you’re on FR, you should know better than that already.
“Really? You definitely haven't followed many threads here.”
You can tell how long someone has been here by placing your mouse cursor over his screen name at the bottom of one of his posts.
“Believe me, both the radical wings use lies, distortions and threats to achieve their goals.”
You’re really not going to be able to make much progress until you realize that what you think is the “radical wing” of the right is actually the center.
“When it comes from the left, most conservatives here simply expect that”
Yes.
“and assume that it's the job of the Democrats to bring them into line”
What idiot could possibly imagine a thing like that?
“When it happens here, it's the job of conservatives to shine a light on it.”
Firstly, I don’t see any signs that you are a conservative, and secondly, you have only made invalid arguments in failed attempts to rebut the truth.
“Some try, but they are generally threatened with zotting, branded as Nazis, leftists, communists, and yes even given names like Hillary.”
Dude, if you come here and spout leftism, you have to expect a modicum of hostility.
“The radicals really don't want to debate the issue”
As I said above, I don’t care to be bothered with the same, long-discredited arguments day in and day out. Some things are established, and in the absence of new evidence or new arguments, I’m not interested.
“Every Democrat is a felon, miscreant and moral leper? Even Lieberman?”
Oh, yeah. He couldn’t have survived this long in the demonrat party if he weren’t. He looks good in comparison to other elected demonrats, but then, Jeffry Dahmer looks good in comparison to some of them. After all, Dahmer only killed a few. Teddy Kennedy has caused the deaths of millions.
“It was "Well they do more of it"....
That’s right, and it’s a valid point. When you have two groups of a hundred, and one group has two or three scumbags, and the other has a hundred scumbags, it’s very easy to see that one group is better than the other.
“Hmmm. Wonder why America hasn't elected 435 who think just like you do, since those are the issues of importance to them?”
One reason is that the left has had control of our media and schools for decades. Another is that people do think they’re electing people who think like me, but the dirtballs show their true colors once they’re in office.
“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?”
That comment is the sort of thing that earns you hostility. And I do mean, “earns.” You deserve it. It was clear that I was speaking of elected demonrats. There may be as many as fifteen or twenty ordinary citizens registered as demonrats who are not moral lepers.
“Finally, I wonder who is out of step, given the polls on Rudy?”
Polls? Dear Lord, are you actually citing polls as an authority?
“The RR doesn't need to explain conservatism to me.”
Somebody better, because you sure don’t get it.
“They have no ownership of it, and the term radical conservative is an oxymoron.”
Well, considering that this “RR” nonsense is solely a product of your fevered imagination, I think you’re going to have to take ownership of that one.
“Good. If I can make the RR a bit uncomfortable, I have not failed.”
You know that uncomfortable feeling you get when someone is making a fool of himself and you just wish he’d shut up? I wouldn’t consider myself a success for causing that kind of discomfort.
“A common fallacy.”
No, it’s the plain truth. The leftist garbage you’ve gobbled is the fallacy.
“It was written, modified, debated and finally ratified by a host of different kinds of philosophies”
Speaking of leftist garbage…I see you’re not familiar with the Federalist Papers, either.
I quote, “What relation is to subsist between the nine or more States ratifying the Constitution, and the remaining few who do not become parties to it? The first question is answered at once by recurring to the absolute necessity of the case; to the great principle of self-preservation; to the transcendent law of nature and of nature's God, which declares that the safety and happiness of society are the objects at which all political institutions aim, and to which all such institutions must be sacrificed.”
The absence of the word God from the constitution itself is in fact a small matter, except insofar as it shows that God was so much a part of the Founding Fathers’ thinking that they didn’t find it necessary to take great pains to ensure that the obvious was well belabored.
“And what of Christian theology is present in that document?”
My word. My word, my word, my word. This has turned into a Herculean task.
The great, central principle of our government is that our rights come from God. It is that and only that which justifies limits on government power. Without that, our rights derive from government, and government is free to define, expand, and restrict them as it will. It is that principle which the Constitution enshrines, and that is Christian theology.
“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.”
No, seriously, do you live in a cave? I am accustomed to finding that people in your camp have a child’s understanding of theology, but you have take it to entirely new realms of wrongitude.
“Conservatism and religion have no linkage”
Okay, you still don’t get it. Maybe you need another decade.
“To somehow believe that non-Christians cannot embrace conservatism is the height of arrogance.”
There you go, earning more hostility. I didn’t say that, and it can’t be reasonably read into what I did say. Jews, of course, can also be conservatives. Atheists and agnostics are in a state of contradiction that prevents them from moving forward.
“I may need help completing my journey to conservatism, but embracing radicalism will likely do more to derail that journey than to direct it.”
You’re not likely to make much progress until you wake up to the fact that what you think is “radicalism” is actually the sensible center.
“Really? Was abortion always considered murder by the Church?”
See? A child’s understanding of theology. Frankly, I’d be embarrassed to make that boneheaded an argument even on a subject about which I knew nothing.
I said that moral laws were absolute, not that man’s understanding of them was perfect. It is typical of the god-haters, though, that they use human fallibility to try and prove all sorts of things about God.
“are those are some of the moral absolutes you are referring to?”
I hope my statement above will prevent you from making this sort of embarrassing error again.
“you want to hide your agenda”
Nonsense. Those in “my camp” are completely open about what we advocate.
“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.”
Nope. Those arguments are sophistry, woven by the left from smoke. Besides, wherever there is sin, there is a victim.
“They frequently involve cultural or "moral" issues, with no victim. I think we can distinguish between murder and the privacy of consenting adults.”
Yeah, we’ve already seen that you think baby-killing is a cultural issue with no victim. Frankly, I doubt your ability to distinguish your ass from your elbow. The ivory-tower notion of the “victimless crime” is entirely without any analog in the real world.
“You mean like the laws that permitted the ownership of people?”
Tiresome. Boring and tiresome. If you want to argue theology, at least learn something about it.
“God did not write our Constitution.”
Actually, He had a lot to do with it.
“We the people did.”
It really offends me that you use the word “we” in that context. You don’t even understand the basis for the Constitution.
“And hopefully child molesting will not be legal in any state.”
Why won’t it? Without God, all things are permitted.
“To the extent that some state eases the laws on it, I would assume that people correct that issue.”
That assumption is so outré that I find it hard to believe you’re serious.
“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.”
Sophistry. When laws stray from right and wrong, the attainment of the other things you mention becomes impossible.
“I had a feeling you wouldn't understand that broad distinction.”
It’s not a question of my not understanding. It’s dimwitted.
“Well, I guess they sure screwed up with that old 10th Amendment thingy didn't
they then?”
That makes no sense at all.
“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.”
You really have to get away from this notion that you understand things that other people don’t.
“any reasonable effort to separate religion from government.”
That is unreasonable a priori. The government is prohibited from meddling with religion; religion is not prohibited from meddling with government. It’s a one-way filter, and that was the intent of the Founding Fathers.
“But the Roy Moore's of the Country continue giving the left all the ammo they need.”
Leftist nonsense.
“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.”
Considering that the “RR” exists only in your fever dreams, it is not surprising that such people are not to be found inhabiting the real world.
“They cannot accept that freedom of speech is one of the greatest freedoms we have, and that it does not restrict most speech”
And we’re including public skinflute concerts under the rubric of “speech,” are we? You can pontificate till the cows drop dead from boredom, but in the end it boils down to abusing the First Amendment by redefining “speech.” Speech means using words to communicate ideas of significance. Period.
“(believed by most intelligent people to be expression)”
There you go again, claiming that your position is the majority position.
“Does a mute have no such right?”
How can you have a right to do what you cannot do? I’m reminded of the Coliseum scene in Life of Brian. Of course, if a mute learned to read and write, he would have a right to write down his thoughts on paper he owned with writing utensils he owned. Of course, it would be up to each person whether he cared to read it or not.
“And political dissent is the greatest speech right we have. I am disgusted by any abuse or disrespect of our Flag, But I could never agree to laws which would prevent it.”
Burning the flag is not speech. Most of the people who say it is don’t really believe it. People who actually think it is are idiots.
“whether from the right or the left (and both do it).”
Kindly provide some support for your assertion that conservatives dishonor the flag.
“We are a Nation based on the freedom and rights of the individual, not the rule of the majority.”
That is not an either/or dichotomy, and it is unbelievably wrong-headed to think it is. We have rule of the majority together with individual rights, existing in tension, just as freedom is in tension with equality.
“But I also have the right to call you on it and to tell the world you are wrong. Is that not my right?”
No, but you’re nowhere nearly ready to understand why.
“Ah yes”
Drone on about race all you like. Racial tensions now are worse than they were then, and a large segment of the black population is far worse off. Back then black universities were graduating doctors, lawyers, engineers, and things were getting better. Slowly, but they were getting better. Since the civil rights movement, they have gotten better in some limited ways, but worse in many other important ways.
“when privacy was not part of that "pursuit of happiness" thing”
What “privacy” are you talking about? The “privacy” of a woman to kill her unborn child, or the “privacy” of disordered men and women to indulge their loathsome perversions? Yeah, those are real improvements, all right.
“when men and women had their respective assigned jobs?”
Which was a good thing. Equal opportunity for women has been a disaster, and may yet bring America down, and Western Civilization itself.
Let me let you in on a little secret: Ozzie and Harriet was a fable.”
Let me let you in on a secret: I remember when America very closely resembled Ozzie and Harriet, Leave it to Beaver, and Father Knows Best. Those who deny it are lying.
“Are those the good old days?”
The reality was. Your rewritten leftist faux history was not.
“You mean all those evil people who outlawed the social and cultural issues I mentioned above?”
How does one “outlaw an issue?” I don’t know what you’re trying to say, and I don’t think you do either.
“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.”
Once again, the liberal judiciocracy has already usurped that power. The Constitutional Amendment would take power from unelected judges, not from the people.
“That's the difference between us. Everyone in my Country has the same right, both moral and legal to participate in the debate.”
That only reflects your failure to understand the source and nature of a right.
“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.”
There you go with that “dictate” crapola again. You slouch toward Bethlehem issuing edicts at every shuffling step, then have the nerve to accuse others of “dictating.”
Sigh. Since I’m near the end, I’ll make a brief effort…
Rights come from God. Therefore, one can only have a right to do things that are in accord with God’s will. Free will is very important to God, so He leaves us free to do as we decide. However, it is still important to make a distinction between rights and freedoms. We may be free to do evil, in the sense that we are physically and psychologically able to do so, but that in no way indicates that we have a right to do evil.
Because we men have imperfect understanding, we have decided that, in our country, men will be free to speak even preposterous error. However, that is a legal freedom we accord ourselves. It might be termed a legal right, but it is not a moral right that derives from God. Therefore, while you are legally free to speak preposterous error, and while we might say you have a constitutional right to speak preposterous error, you have no moral right to do so.
“Whose truth?”
Don’t even start with that crap. There is only Truth. All else is error.
“Some of the most preposterous deception I have seen has come out of the rants of the RR and it's moral police.”
Tell me, are these “rants” that only you can hear?
“The most moral philosophy recognizes the inherent rights of man”
And what is the source of those rights, pray tell?
“I can guarantee you those rights did not come from the RR nor without many battles.”
Actually, those God-given rights were enshrined into law by men who were far to the right of your imaginary “RR.”
“So no, you and the RR have no "truthful" history on which to base a legitimate claim on morality or justice.”
Actually, conservatives – of whom you are not one – do have a good deal of truth on which to base a legitimate claim on morality and justice.
I hope some day you’ll decide to become a conservative too.
Then perhaps you can explain. I know what the extreme right base is, as does much of America. But perhaps you can show how what you said is true:
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.
Nobody said it was. One more time for the cheap seats: the federal government interfered in states’ rights for the sake of civil rights.
Here's another point for those who would teach me about the Constitution and conservatism. States have no rights; persons have rights. States have powers, which never trump the rights of its citizens.
If you complain about the federal government interfering in states’ rights to oppose legal shams posing as sodomite marriage, the principal holds for federal government interference in the realm of civil rights.
A state by virtue of the 10th Amendment has the power to handle all family law issues including marriage, divorce, adoption and all other such issues. There is nothing in the Constitution to prevent that. There is something in the Constitution to prevent the violation of the rights of its citizens. Hopefully you understand that distinction.
There are those here who want to use the Constitution to prevent a state from exercising those powers it has under the 10th Amendment for purely religious or otherwise cultural reasons, and most in America don't want or need the Constitution to be used in such a cheap manner.
Wrongfully killing the innocent is an issue that rightfully concerns any branch of government; indeed, any citizen. Further, there would have been no “directing the federal courts.” I don’t know where you came up with that.
You may not have read the legislation then. But the federal district court was empowered by Congress to hear lawsuits by the parents of Terri Schiavo, and the court was directed to issue a finding on any supposed rights violations that it finds. No specific rights violations mentioned though. It was cheap pandering at best.
I’m sure they avoided that by limiting their review to procedural questions, carefully excluding questions of fact.
I'm not sure what "facts" of relevance were excluded from the reviews, appeals, etc, but every court found that Schiavo received due process. Aside from those "to the left of Kennedy", most people in the legal, ethical and medical community found that the decision reflected a very broad medical, legal and ethical consensus. And of course there was the autopsy that substantiated what the doctors had diagnosed.
So, the wrongful killing of the innocent is “a religious issue?” Good grief. It is in such statements that we see the pure evil of your camp.
If there is a violation of the rights of anyone, bring a case in federal court. That is the purview for rights cases. But in any case, you missed my point completely. For some here, the 10th Amendment only applies to states that enforce their particular view of morality. It was an overall statement prompted by the Schiavo fiasco, but applicable to much the RR has fought against over the years. If right to die issues constitute murder, then bring charges and file in various courts. Or better yet, change the laws. But my camp does not consider the 10th Amendment evil, any more than any other part of the Constitution.
I don’t play silly little games like that. You’re lucky I’m still bothering to reply. (Which, by the way, I’m doing for any lurkers, not for you)
In other words, you make a broad brush statement about me, but cannot link me to any example, and to do so would play silly games? And no, I'm not lucky to be discussing the issue with you. When I see constitutionally challenged viewpoints coming from those who would consider themselves conservative, I feel it my responsibility to respond.
The smug satisfaction of the culture of death was palpable. Not my fault if you were oblivious.
I'm afraid the only craziness I observed included such things as sending small children out to get arrested, desecrating the US flag, desecrating crucifixes, issuing death threats, and a panoply of other disgusting conduct...all coming from your side of the issue. So no, I saw only an appreciation for the rule of law and our Constitution from the "other" side.
Either way, you have a moral duty to discover the truth of the matter and utter nothing else from now on.
I agree, which is what I did...go after the truth. When I first saw the video of Terri Schiavo, I fell for the extreme right's story. I didn't really search for anything else for quite a while. But when I did, and stopped listening to the "truth" as portrayed by WND, I saw a completely different story. I learned much about the parents that no one wanted brought out. I learned that the only doctor who agreed she was not PVS was a quack in Florida; I learned that the judges who participated in the reviews looked at everything. And I began to see that what I was reading here was anything but the truth.
From that point on, I looked very carefully at the crusades that were started by such publications as WND, Life-site and their sister publications. Few of the issues brought forward contained much truth and plenty of distortions, all designed to get the RR cranked up about some right to die, homosexual, religious intolerance issue or another. So please don't tell me about my moral responsibility for the truth.
Are you trying to say that the judge in the Terri Schaivo case was a conservative?
Judge Greer is a conservative Republican Christian, who regularly attends church.
And such reviews confine themselves to procedural matters to the exclusion of questions of fact.
Every judge who looked at the case considered all of the legal and factual issues in the case. But for those whose moral compass does not point to the truth, but rather to their crusade, they may have missed that bit of history.
The rule of law is essential; however, as in the case of Southern trials in which white men obviously guilty of doing violence to blacks were exonerated by white juries, a basic respect for the facts of the case is required. Otherwise, even if procedure is followed to the last iota, what ensues is not rule of law.
Yes, I'm glad you mentioned that history of jury nullification by good Christian men in the South. Jury nullification is the very antithesis of the rule of law.
Now, see, that’s just typical of your dishonest style. That’s not an argument; it is a digression into humor. Still, the resemblance to Hillary is uncanny.
Suffice is to say that Hillary has little respect for the rule of law any more than did her husband, so that would put her closer to the camp of those who stood outside the hospice than it would me.
The 109th was not centrist, either. It was well to the left of center.
Statements like that is what makes the RR a very scary group, and one to be watched.
Marriage has nothing to do with sodomites. Only a man and a woman can validly enter into marriage. That being the case, divorce and adoption are moot. Therefore, there is no family law issue.
Well, that logic, or lack thereof, is the problem. The state of Massachusetts recognizes same sex marriage. It is in their law, if not their constitution. Massachusetts is a legal entity and a state as recognized by the Constitution. Therefore your statement has no meaning in law. My state does not permit same sex marriage as we voted a constitutional amendment to prohibit it. We took care of the issue by virtue of the powers reserved to our State under the 10th Amendment, as did Massachusetts. Isn't a republic a wonderful thing?
I wouldn’t want your head to explode, so let’s just limit it to people who suffer from same-sex attraction disorder for now.
Exploding heads aside, I wouldn't use the term sodomy if I meant only for certain people. Isn't a sodomite a person who engages in sodomy?
Are you really arguing that turd-wrangling is among the “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” under the 14th amendment? Turd wrangling? Hadn't heard that term before, but then I don't spend my days studying such habits. But you mentioned criminal, and that was my question. Are you suggesting that some sodomy is criminal and some isn't? That is when you are entering the domain of the 14th Amendment.
Buncombe. Extending the franchise to women and children was exactly that. For that matter, so was shifting to direct election of senators.
So you are equating the recognition of the rights of women to vote to limiting marriage to heterosexuals? You can't be serious. I said the Constitution was limited to the makeup of government, the electoral process and the recognition of the rights of individuals, and your two examples to prove me wrong fall into those groups. You may want to work on that argument a bit.
If a lexicographer needed an example to illustrate the term, “babbling incoherent nonsense,” he couldn’t do any better than that. (By the way, you are again claiming that your position is the majority position.)
Wonder what part of that statement you didn't understand, given your extensive legal background (/s). And yes, in this case, I am taking the position of the majority.
Gee, you know, people used to say that 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 slavery.
What part of "The 10th Amendment does not give a state the power to infringe the rights of its citizens"? Is it all or nothing with you?
Then, later, they made that same argument with regard to segregation. Eisenhower and Kennedy sent troops in to override the will of the people of those states. If we apply your argument, nothing should have been done to force a faster end to segregation in southern states.
Again, segregation was a violation of due process and equal protection of the laws and is not permitted any state. I think I can distinguish that from family law issues that violate no rights.
Oh, I am well read. Not only that, I understand what I read well enough to know that sodomy is not protected speech under the First Amendment. Apparently sodomy is the only thing on your mind, but there were other issues last year including a flag protection amendment.
What you are shining a light on is your own lack of comprehension of…well, pretty much anything, really. The defense of marriage is no more out of place in the constitution than is the 15th amendment…which was also a social and cultural matter.
You still have this basic misunderstanding of rights. Rights trump everything. A government's first duty as I have said is to protect the rights of its citizens. It has nothing to do with cultural or moral issues. The 15th Amendment was a rights issue, not a cultural issue.
Blood just shot out of my eyes. And that sound is Thomas Jefferson spinning in his grave.
Thomas Jefferson seems to be the only port in the storm for those who have no real concept of the structure of government or of the Constitution, or who do but want to short circuit it because they are not pleased with the results. Since we were discussing abortion, and I said the issue is in the proper purview, and you disagreed, what is your proposed solution...another constitutional amendment? Because whether you like it or not, the USSC is where that issue is going to be resolved.
You consider the wrongful killing of innocent babies to be a “medical issue?”
Abortion is a medical procedure. If the court sends it back to the states, some states may outlaw all abortions; I suspect most will put serious limitations on it. But yes, it is a medical issue.
Why may not the Bible, and especially the New Testament be read and taught as a divine revelation in the school? Where can the purest principles of morality be learned so clearly or so perfectly as from the New Testament? United States Supreme Court, 1844
Yes, the courts prior to the Civil War permitted the most egregious violations of the Constitution and the rights of citizens. Doesn't mean it must continue.
They only “stand out” because you find them inconvenient. In other words, they “stand out” only in the same way laws against murder “stand out” to a serial murderer.
I found your statement inconvenient, not the thesis that laws are designed to provide for a society, to ensure its protection and to the maximum extent possible to provide an environment where the people have the greatest freedom. Laws are intended to protect others. Call them moral if that makes you feel "good", but don't take it as an opening to the creation of "moral" laws designed to simply prevent social change, or to otherwise limit the freedoms of citizens consistent with the limitations contained in the Bible. This is exactly why religious tests was strictly prohibited by the Constitution.
Zow, now you’ve gone past insisting that your position is the majority position to insisting that your position is universally held. Is it true that Napoleon has a MACVSOG68 complex?
If he had, his wars would not have taken place, countless deaths would not have taken place, and he would have understood something about "rights". So it's unfortunate he didn't have a MACVSOG68 complex. But it's never over, because there are those alive even today who believe that rights are not supreme.
The fact is that morality is not merely “tied to religion,” it is an integral part of the universe, in that it derives from God’s nature. Any “morality” that does not derive from God’s nature is not properly termed “morality.” It is merely a human conceit.
And it is the height of human conceit to presume to speak for the Creator. Such a statement as you just made is your belief, but of course, untrue.
Possibly, as long as it’s easy, but why would he? Even if he did, he would merely be following God’s laws without admitting it.
And you accuse me of conceit? This is the real sticking point for the RR. They believe that one can only be moral based on a belief in a Creator. So they argue that an atheist is only moral because of God, but at the same time argue that atheism is immoral in itself. Whether it's God or just nature, man can be moral or immoral. Certainly you don't believe that slavery is moral? Yet for centuries Christians pointed to the Bible as God's word that slavery was permitted. God wouldn't permit something immoral, would He? Which of the rights contained in the Constitution came from God...or the Bible?
So, you’d oppose an amendment to the effect that “No state shall make any law legalizing the wrongful killing of innocent human beings?” That we would need such an amendment would merely show how successful those in your camp have been at wreaking evil, but if we need to pass it, we should.
Then propose it, don't bellyache about who is in whose camp. As I said before, if it was in the states, most would limit its use more than exists today. So what's the problem?
One reason is that the left has had control of our media and schools for decades. Another is that people do think they’re electing people who think like me, but the dirtballs show their true colors once they’re in office.
And you accuse me of having a superiority complex? Wow!
I just realized…it’s so obvious that it just didn’t occur to me that you had this wrong too…The purpose of the Defense of Marriage amendment is not to abridge the 10th amendment…the Supremes have already obliterated that…it is to restrain the judiciocracy in its hurtling stampede toward despotism.
No, it's designed to ensure that states do not exercise the powers they have under the 10th Amendment. And as for the silly name it was given: Defense of Marriage Amendment, I know of no one whose marriage is in some kind of jeopardy because of a handful of same sex marriages in Massachusetts. So marriage needed no defense. It is in far greater danger from other issues than it ever will be from same sex couples.
This is not an election. It is a conservative discussion forum. Leftists are not welcome here. If any of us wanted to waste time rebutting the same tired, toxic nostrums of the left, we could go anywhere else on the Internet and quickly get our fill.
I agree, which is why I remain here, in spite of the fact that the loud mouthed extreme RR seem to take over threads continually, driving conservatives to other forums. As I have said before radical conservative is an oxymoron. A conservative can debate an issue without continually insulting the debater. The RR has little in common with conservatism as I have pointed out. It has attempted to hijack conservatism and modify it to fit their worldview, but in the long run, it won't work.
If I am out in the real world and someone makes a stupid, deeply evil statement like, “Abortion is a medical issue,” I may – or may not – attempt to reason with him, presenting for the kazillionth time the arguments that show abortion to be the wrongful killing of an innocent human being.
I'm not here to argue abortion. I don't agree with abortion, but for completely different reasons than the RR. It's irrelevant to our original discussion, which is that abortion is now in the court system, will be reviewed again in the court system, and may well be returned to the states where that issue belongs. I don't care what you want to call it. And it doesn't belong in presidential politics, or the coming election.
You can tell how long someone has been here by placing your mouse cursor over his screen name at the bottom of one of his posts.
Yes, I know that. I said if you didn't know that you haven't followed many threads here. I didn't say you hadn't been registered here for long. Try reading.
Firstly, I don’t see any signs that you are a conservative, and secondly, you have only made invalid arguments in failed attempts to rebut the truth.
My whole point about the RR is that their version of conservatism is not really conservatism. No I am not member of the radical right, nor do I espouse their form of "conservatism". And as for invalid arguments, fine, then anyone who reads them can reach that conclusion. You however, have not expressed sufficient original thought on this thread to reach that conclusion.
You’re really not going to be able to make much progress until you realize that what you think is the “radical wing” of the right is actually the center.
Which again doesn't quite explain where Rudy stands with the public as opposed to say Brownback.
Dude, if you come here and spout leftism, you have to expect a modicum of hostility.
As opposed to intellectual discourse?
That’s right, and it’s a valid point. When you have two groups of a hundred, and one group has two or three scumbags, and the other has a hundred scumbags, it’s very easy to see that one group is better than the other.
I'd say after seeing all the many scandals over the past few years that your "relative defense" is a tad weak. Elected officials, just as with Church officials are quite capable of falling into scandal without regard to political affiliation.
That comment is the sort of thing that earns you hostility. And I do mean, “earns.” You deserve it. It was clear that I was speaking of elected demonrats. There may be as many as fifteen or twenty ordinary citizens registered as demonrats who are not moral lepers.
Well, you seem prone to labeling everyone something, so when you called every Democrat a felon, miscreant and moral leper, I assumed you meant what you said.
That comment is the sort of thing that earns you hostility. And I do mean, “earns.” You deserve it. It was clear that I was speaking of elected demonrats. There may be as many as fifteen or twenty ordinary citizens registered as demonrats who are not moral lepers.
So why were you so upset earlier when I called you saying all. But I suspect Democrats feel the same about Republicans. That kind of pure drivel is worthless in a political debate, or any reasoned debate for that matter.
Polls? Dear Lord, are you actually citing polls as an authority?
Well, it was you who believed the whole Country believed in your system of "values". I was merely suggesting that polls might disagree with you a tad.
Speaking of leftist garbage…I see you’re not familiar with the Federalist Papers, either.
Yes, I've read them in their entirety along with a book many here refuse to recognize, "The Anti-Federalist Papers". The Federalist Papers were written by three people for the purpose of advertising the new Constitution in the media and gaining support for it. They are not authoritative; nor do they represent the "intent" of various parts of the Constitution, as many would believe. They are misused far more than they are used.
The absence of the word God from the constitution itself is in fact a small matter, except insofar as it shows that God was so much a part of the Founding Fathers’ thinking that they didn’t find it necessary to take great pains to ensure that the obvious was well belabored.
And yet the Constitution, not the word of God is the supreme law of the land. Both have their place in our society. But they are separate and distinct.
The great, central principle of our government is that our rights come from God. It is that and only that which justifies limits on government power. Without that, our rights derive from government, and government is free to define, expand, and restrict them as it will. It is that principle which the Constitution enshrines, and that is Christian theology.
This is your great error. One can just as easily believe that rights derive from the very nature of man himself, and are no less supreme. Many atheists fully support the belief that rights always trump powers, and that belief in a supreme being is unnecessary to maintain that hierarchy. Christian theology is not rife with concerns over rights. It is far more taken with the duty to obey God's laws that it is concern for the rights and well being of God's children. So Christian theology has no sole claim to morality, justice or the rights of man.
“Conservatism and religion have no linkage”
Okay, you still don’t get it. Maybe you need another decade.
But you cannot refute that, or where conservatism came from. You and the RR do not own conservatism. You may have bastardized it to fit your own perspectives, but conservatism is not a religious philosophy. I may not be well read, but I have read Hume and Burke among others. If you really want to see what modern thought is on the concept of morality, read a little of Hume.
There you go, earning more hostility. I didn’t say that, and it can’t be reasonably read into what I did say. Jews, of course, can also be conservatives. Atheists and agnostics are in a state of contradiction that prevents them from moving forward. That is no answer to my contention that non Christians can embrace conservatism. What do you mean moving forward? I do agree that atheists and agnostics would have a hard time embracing radical conservatism, since there can be no such thing.
I said that moral laws were absolute, not that man’s understanding of them was perfect. It is typical of the god-haters, though, that they use human fallibility to try and prove all sorts of things about God. God-hater? Is that the best you can do? Another dependence on an inane insult in the absence of any argument. It is typical of the RR that they try and impose their moral worldview on everyone...while using the defense that their own violation of them is simply human frailty. I do agree though, there is a lot of hatred going on here, but it is not me who is doing it.
“are those are some of the moral absolutes you are referring to?”
I hope my statement above will prevent you from making this sort of embarrassing error again.
Embarrassed? I don't use the "Don't do as I do, do as I say" argument as my premise that the laws should reflect a moral structure that even "I" can't live with.
Nope. Those arguments are sophistry, woven by the left from smoke. Besides, wherever there is sin, there is a victim.
This is why the RR is so feared by most Americans. Sin has no place in our secular structure of laws. Sin is to be governed by the Church. I for one, do not want to return to the middle ages, where the Church enforced its moral structure on the people. If you want sin put into the laws, then of course, we must take out all rights from the Constitution, and pretend they don't exist.
Actually, He had a lot to do with it.
But probably not the part that restricts the use of religious tests for office, huh?
“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.” You really have to get away from this notion that you understand things that other people don’t.
Well, you were the one who thought the 10th Amendment was some sort of rights amendment, not me. I merely set the record straight.
It really offends me that you use the word “we” in that context. You don’t even understand the basis for the Constitution.
Oh? You mean it really means "We the God-fearing people"? Sorry you are offended, but stuff happens.
Why won’t it? Without God, all things are permitted.
BS! It won't be because there are criminal penalties for harming other people, not because somehow it requires God. Much has been done in the name of God that I'm quite sure you wouldn't necessarily want to take credit for.
Sophistry. When laws stray from right and wrong, the attainment of the other things you mention becomes impossible.
So sin should be regulated by the state? Sounds an awful lot like a theocracy. Sharia law, now that works!
That is unreasonable a priori. The government is prohibited from meddling with religion; religion is not prohibited from meddling with government. It’s a one-way filter, and that was the intent of the Founding Fathers.
Then which of those Founding Fathers accidentally put the restriction on religious tests in the Constitution? An oversight? Of course religion does not belong in the government. It deserves complete freedom, and to attain that, government must stand back and ensure that freedom. It may not participate in religion or there is no religious freedom.
And we’re including public skinflute concerts under the rubric of “speech,” are we? You can pontificate till the cows drop dead from boredom, but in the end it boils down to abusing the First Amendment by redefining “speech.” Speech means using words to communicate ideas of significance. Period.
Whose ideas? Whose words? Whose significance? Is all of that explained anywhere in the Constitution, or just in your mind?
How can you have a right to do what you cannot do? I’m reminded of the Coliseum scene in Life of Brian. Of course, if a mute learned to read and write, he would have a right to write down his thoughts on paper he owned with writing utensils he owned. Of course, it would be up to each person whether he cared to read it or not.
Well, so much for an understanding of freedom of speech.
Burning the flag is not speech. Most of the people who say it is don’t really believe it. People who actually think it is are idiots.
Burning a flag is desecration of the flag, perhaps to some the most important political thought they can convey, and the Constitution permits it, just as it permits the "idiots" as you say to desecrate the flag outside of the Terri Schiavo hospice. I don't remember all of those high minded patriots complaining then. Do you? Of course, as despicable an act the desecration of our Flag is, it is free speech. If it was not, why the constitutional amendment?
That is not an either/or dichotomy, and it is unbelievably wrong-headed to think it is. We have rule of the majority together with individual rights, existing in tension, just as freedom is in tension with equality.
Finally we agree on something. The BOR was not written to protect the majority, but rather the minority. So no matter how much you feel two consenting adults in the privacy of their home are sinning, their right to privacy trumps your powers to govern.
“But I also have the right to call you on it and to tell the world you are wrong. Is that not my right?”
No, but you’re nowhere nearly ready to understand why.
And I never will be, because no one tells me what I must think or say, especially the RR and its ilk. And yes, I will continue to call you on it as long as I remain here.
Drone on about race all you like. Racial tensions now are worse than they were then, and a large segment of the black population is far worse off. Back then black universities were graduating doctors, lawyers, engineers, and things were getting better. Slowly, but they were getting better. Since the civil rights movement, they have gotten better in some limited ways, but worse in many other important ways.
Blame many things but not the civil rights movement. But I can show you newspapers that editorialized how blacks were better off slaves than freedmen. That is the same argument you are using and it still doesn't work.
What “privacy” are you talking about? The “privacy” of a woman to kill her unborn child, or the “privacy” of disordered men and women to indulge their loathsome perversions? Yeah, those are real improvements, all right.
No, I don't believe the courts correctly found that the right to privacy gave a woman any freedom with respect to abortion, and I suspect a reading of that by this court will reach the same conclusion. The other issue, however, and several involving contraception and single couples, not just gays, living together all fall within the right to privacy. If we as Americans have no privacy, why the 4th Amendment, which laid down the specific rules for violating that privacy? And if some people have privacy, such as white Christian heterosexual couples who do not use birth control and who do not engage in anything but the missionary position, then the other 99.9% of Americans also have the same right to privacy.
Let me let you in on a secret: I remember when America very closely resembled Ozzie and Harriet, Leave it to Beaver, and Father Knows Best. Those who deny it are lying.
Yes, white Christian males.
“You mean all those evil people who outlawed the social and cultural issues I mentioned above?”
How does one “outlaw an issue?” I don’t know what you’re trying to say, and I don’t think you do either.
Oh, yes you do. You want to use history to support a religious foundation for our Nation, but you want to deny it at the same time. You want to take us back to a time that was fraught with massive denials of rights. With freedom comes both the good and the bad. There is no freedom, where you are only free to do what I tell you. Sorry, that's not a winner for most Americans.
Once again, the liberal judiciocracy has already usurped that power. The Constitutional Amendment would take power from unelected judges, not from the people.
If the good people of Massachusetts want to change their constitution, they have that power. Our Constitution guarantees a republican form of government (which includes your despised judiciary), but does not guarantee specific results. In any case, the Massachusetts issue is in the legislature, not the judiciary.
“That's the difference between us. Everyone in my Country has the same right, both moral and legal to participate in the debate.”
That only reflects your failure to understand the source and nature of a right.
And your statement tells me that you disagree, and that not everyone has that right. So clue me in. Is is only God-fearing Christians who have the right to participate in the debate?
Rights come from God. Therefore, one can only have a right to do things that are in accord with God’s will.
Then it is not a right, but a privilege. But then, I doubt you or anyone knows what is in accord with God's will.
But in any case, in a theocracy, that might just be true. In this Nation, it is BS! A right cannot be trumped by the government or any powers, including the RR.
It might be termed a legal right, but it is not a moral right that derives from God. Therefore, while you are legally free to speak preposterous error, and while we might say you have a constitutional right to speak preposterous error, you have no moral right to do so.
Again, conservative thought does not require God in any sense. That God is a part of the lives of many here is irrelevant to either morality, or the rights of man. Such "moral" rights as you call them are governed by the laws of the Church, and not by the laws of the state. Nor should they.
Therefore, while you are legally free to speak preposterous error, and while we might say you have a constitutional right to speak preposterous error, you have no moral right to do so.
But whose definition of moral shall we use? Many of us believe that morality derives from the growth of man and civilization, and a fear of eternity in Hell is not required by some of us to be a moral person. Others of course, can only be moral because they fear the wrath of God. Fine, but my morality is no less pure than is yours. So no, you have no claim of ownership of morality just because you read the Bible.
“Some of the most preposterous deception I have seen has come out of the rants of the RR and it's moral police.”
Tell me, are these “rants” that only you can hear?
Almost anything coming out of WND. It could have been Terri Schiavo, Mae Magouirk, David Parker, the Marriage Amendment, stories of the purge against Christians (some of which are actually true), stem cell research, and a host of other issues. Check the threads. They're there, and you might just see me there fact checking and correcting when necessary.
Actually, those God-given rights were enshrined into law by men who were far to the right of your imaginary “RR.”
And those very same men ignored them for almost 200 years. But the rights do exist, and exist with or without a belief in God. If they exist only because God endowed them, then man is nothing special. If they exist because man has developed and evolved to the point where he recognizes these rights as inherent in man himself simply because of where he is, then humankind has certainly proved itself a worthy being, and is truly special. So each of us can believe rights come from different places, but the important thing is whether those rights really do exist, and if so, are above any government or power.
I hope some day you’ll decide to become a conservative too.
Fortunately for this Nation, those in your camp who actually think you have a claim on conservatism, are much fewer in numbers than the fear of you would warrant. Of course radicals are not conservative. The very idea of it is laughable. But you do have the "right" to believe anything you want.
Take care.
This is going to be short, because I have paying work to do, and just can’t keep wasting so much time on a person who will not hear.
“Then perhaps you can explain. I know what the extreme right base is”
That is the explanation: you don’t know what the extreme right is. You think you do, but you don’t.
The rest of your reply is so wrong-headed, paranoid, and divorced from reality that it drives me to despair. If I wanted to waste time on that sort of thing, I’d go to any of the liberal sites that infest the Internet.
Yes, you complained in an earlier post about wasting time with me, but I would remind you, that it was you who posted to me, and I simply responded to your points.
That is the explanation: you don’t know what the extreme right is. You think you do, but you don’t.
I've spent a lot of time explaining it to you, and if you saw the article in the NY Times today (posted on FR), you will see that the extreme right base is not shy about identifying itself or its goals. Much of what is discussed here on FR lately, and will continue until at least a candidate is chosen will be just that, a discussion of where the Party is ideologically.
The rest of your reply is so wrong-headed, paranoid, and divorced from reality that it drives me to despair.
So much so, that you were unable to respond to the points made. You set a pattern early on in the posts you sent to me. You substituted insults for logic, and there were many of them, almost too many to count. If you could not respond to a point I made, you did one of two things: Either you used a one line insult, or you took a few words out of a paragraph and completely out of context, to respond to something I never said. Even this short (by your standards) note is filled with nothing but insults.
You are obviously a good person who believes firmly is what he says. But you cannot accept the goodness of others who do not share your particular beliefs, or who feel they do not belong at the center of the political debate.
I have debated others who, like you, feel that the "social" issues should be front and center, and a couple have been extremely cordial, intelligent and respectful of the opinions of others. Most on the RR do not or can not.
Those of us who believe the Republican Party should embrace a conservative ideology which encompasses classical conservatism and today's society and needs, are not the enemy of the RR; we are the adversary of anyone who fails to understand that government's first duty is the protection of the rights of its citizens, and that freedom for one must be freedom for all. Many in the RR do not support those basic theses.
I do not see our Party coming together for a long time. The Democrats will hold power as they once did, not because America embraces their philosophy, but because they were smart enough to know that their enemy was not within, but across the aisle. We will not be so smart. I hope the upcoming campaign, and time, prove me wrong.
In spite of all the name-calling and insults, I hold no animosity toward you. Take care.
“Yes, you complained in an earlier post about wasting time with me, but I would remind you, that it was you who posted to me...”
I didn’t realize it was going to be a task on a par with cleaning the Augean Stables.
“I've spent a lot of time explaining it to you, and if you saw the article in the NY Times”
Now you’re offering the NY Slimes as an authority? No wonder you think the center is the far right.
“So much so, that you were unable to respond to the points made.”
So much so, that I don’t care to. You make no point that I haven’t seen advanced by a hundred liberals and rebutted a hundred times.
“You substituted insults for logic”
There’s no “substitution” involved. I merely added a few well-deserved shots to my reasoned arguments.
“But you cannot accept the goodness of others who do not share your particular beliefs”
Oh, I could, but I would be wrong to do so. All leftist thought, from the murderous rage of Stalin to the half-baked maundering of a Babs Streisand, to…well, you…is of and from Satan. Leftist thought, together with the conclusions and proposals that grow out of it, is Evil, capital “E” Evil. It is to be despised, hated, fought, and feared, but never, never, never accorded the slightest legitimacy, never to be compromised with or tolerated.
“or who feel they do not belong at the center of the political debate.”
Your repeated use of the word “feel” would alone betray that you are far to the left of center, even without the fact that you have cited polls and the NY slimes as authorities.
“I have debated others who, like you, feel that the "social" issues should be front and center, and a couple have been extremely cordial, intelligent and respectful of the opinions of others.”
Insofar as they were cordial and respectful, they were less than intelligent. They’ll get over cordiality and respect with time, as they come to understand the Satanic nature of what they face. It is a moral failing to be respectful of leftist thought.
“Those of us who believe the Republican Party should embrace a conservative ideology which encompasses classical conservatism and today's society and needs, are not the enemy of the RR”
You are the enemy of all mankind, as you are doing Satan’s work for him.
“that freedom for one must be freedom for all.”
What you mean by "freedom for all" is "freedom to work evil." Those in your camp would expand the concept of freedom to include “legal freedom to do evil, even where it does harm.” You want freedoms that the Founding Fathers would have died to oppose, freedoms that no civilized society has ever even considered extending, and which should never be extended.
God leaves us free even to commit the worst atrocities; that in no way means that the laws we make should condone such things.
“I do not see our Party coming together for a long time.”
It doesn’t deserve to. It’s half stupidity and half sell-out. Not since Reagan has the party confronted Evil and said, “You shall not pass.”
“they were smart enough to know that their enemy was not within, but across the aisle.”
That’s only because every decent person has fled the demonrat party, leaving them no enemies within. The Republican Party, in contrast, still clasps veritable hosts of vipers to its skanky breast. Not until it does something about the Enemy within will it again be effective.
This one, though, doesn't hit the mark:
---That the 55 mile an hour speed limit totally, clearly, and unimpeachably sucked. (With apologies to Liddy Dole who zealously enforced that as Secretary of Transportation. She was clearly not up to speed on that one.)
Saying that this or that policy "sucked" is pretty juvenile. A 55 mph speed limit may have been justified by the circumstances at the time. It might be imposed again, and saying that it "totally, clearly, unimpeachably sucked" isn't a very good argument against it. Legal minimum ages for drinking and smoking "suck" too, if that's what you want to do, but that's not a convincing argument against them either.
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.