That's actually too funny. It's the social right that tells us unless they get their candidate, they are going to split and vote 3d party, and you tell me that without them our Party will lose seats. Actually, I don't really care where they go. I would just as soon see a Republican Party that ceases withdrawing into a party who sees only the social agenda you folks do. Without that agenda, our Party can maintain its conservative principles and reach out to the millions you folks want to chase away. I'd say, we may actually come out ahead in that game.
supporting the rights of all Americans
Does that include the right to life?
Absolutely, though we can't forget the small clause "due process". I said before that I think the USSC will overturn Roe and send it back to the states where it belongs. As for all Americans, however, I'm sure you understood who I was referring to.
I suppose what makes that such an extremist agenda in your eyes is my refusal to include the social right's agenda
Oh hogwash. You know very well I was refering to your implication that everyone who doesn't agree with your agenda should sit down and shut up. How completely dishonest of you.
That's not what you were referring to. It was my extremist conservative agenda, which is supported by most Americans. But no one told you to shut up, nor whom to vote for. But that social agenda has cost us dearly as a Party and as a conservative mainstay in this Nation. With the help of the MSM, your message is getting out too well, because they love controversy. As a result, the Republican Party has been covered with this blanket of social goals, most of which belong in the home and church, not in the political debate. If your agenda were where it truly belonged, I wouldn't be wasting your time with these posts. But because of the money and organizational skill of the RR, letting America know that our Party is not a theocracy or a party of hate takes a lot of doing.
Polls also show that the biggest issue during the last election was the Iraq war. That's what caused the big change in party power. Based on what you've been saying, it appears you are trying to blame that change on social conservatives. Sorry, but that doesn't work.
Yes, you can blame part of it on the Iraq war, part of it on the sleaze and corruption of the Congress, but polls definitely reflected that the 109th was one of the most do-nothing congresses in our history. But people are not stupid, they remember the efforts to amend our Constitution twice, debate stem cells until the wee hours of the morning, argue about prayer in school, Terri Schiavo, and a number of other social issues. You know as well as I do that those are not the issues the American people want our Congress to tackle.
Not sure why you believe the Declaration of Independence has anything to do with the issues of today?
So the Declaration of Independence has nothing to do with freedom and is an outdated document?
It's a wonderful document and a great part of our history, but has no legal status, and for the life of me, I still don't know what it has to do with any of today's issues. I'm perfectly satisfied with our Constitution.
Which 'church' are you refering to, and do you have evidence to support that claim?
I'm referring to the Catholic Church, and you may want to read up on St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas to learn about the 1200+ years within the Church where abortion was not considered the taking of a human life until after ensoulment had taken place, which was after the fetus had been sufficiently formed and was "animated". The Church ruled abortion a sin at any stage in a 1859 encyclical by the Pope. I have no idea how Martin Luther believed.
In your view. But we all know it takes a concerted effort on all fronts if there is going to be any success in changing abortion laws, including nominations to SCOTUS.
Conservatives would reject any litmus test for the USSC except how the candidate views the Constitution, temperament, and knowledge of the law. How the candidate would rule on any particular issue should not be asked in any case. But to the gist of the issue, as far as I have heard, every candidate who has any chance of success has already stated that nominees such as Scalia and Alito are the type of candidates they would submit.
I seem to be doing very well. You've resorted to personal attacks instead of providing proof of your claims and responding to questions honestly.
So after charging me with doublespeak and fallacious arguments, you now tell me I am resorting to the personal attack? And as for honesty in answers, for some all answers they disagree with are "dishonest" to them.
Take care.
Some of the social conservatives do that. So do some fiscal conservatives. I'm sure you know that. Not sure why you are being dishonest.
I said before that I think the USSC will overturn Roe and send it back to the states where it belongs.
Should the determination of all rights be sent back to the states? If not, then that should also hold true for the right to life.
That's not what you were referring to.
LOL Now you presume to tell me what I was refering to. That is just too funny.
Yes, you can blame part of it on the Iraq war
You apparently did not pay much attention during the last election cycle. The Iraq war was the number one issue that caused the change in party power.
they remember the efforts to amend our Constitution twice, debate stem cells until the wee hours of the morning, argue about prayer in school, Terri Schiavo, and a number of other social issues.
Perhaps. But those issues were not the driving force in the power change.
It's a wonderful document and a great part of our history, but has no legal status, and for the life of me, I still don't know what it has to do with any of today's issues.
A few posts back, you mentioned that your interest was freedom. The Declaration of Independence was the document on which our freedom was founded. Without it, there would have been no constitution. If the Declaration is irrelevant today, then so is our freedom.
I'm referring to the Catholic Church
I'm not Catholic, so that's irrelevant to me.
Conservatives would reject any litmus test for the USSC except how the candidate views the Constitution, temperament, and knowledge of the law.
I agree. Which means Roe v. Wade would be overturned, and the right to life, on which all other rights depends, would be upheld.
So after charging me with doublespeak and fallacious arguments, you now tell me I am resorting to the personal attack?
Yes, I did say those things. Those are comments on your behavior, not name calling. Your arguments are fallacious, and you have 'spoken' out of both sides of your mouth throughout our exchange.
"And as for honesty in answers, for some all answers they disagree with are "dishonest" to them.
And for others, like me, when someone is truly being dishonest, I call them on it.
Take care.
You too. Have a nice day.