Posted on 01/20/2010 9:50:36 AM PST by EternalVigilance
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
(Excerpt) Read more at loyaltoliberty.com ...
As is usual, Ambassador Keyes is spot on.
And when the Dems end up with 80 Senate seats, you'll really have shown 'em, eh?
But...
I just had to pontificate in a boring and humorless manner, first.
lol
“I think you’re missing the point. Even though Reagan had bedrock conservative principles, he still backed those that were less than bedrock, & didn’t go around calling them RINOS like we’ve seen here w/ Keyes et al.”
He didn’t have that luxury. We can call somebody a RINO and still hold our noses and vote against a Coakley.
“There have been some here in this very thread espousing the “all or nothing” mentality.”
Ummm, no, there haven’t.
“Especially given recent events, it’s time to seize the moment in those areas. Will they?”
Not unless they are forced to by the grassroots. Keyes is right: A clique of RINOs is running the GOP.
“but you do realize he wasn’t 100%.”
Of course I do. He couldn’t get everything he wanted, but he always knew which way was up.
The GOP has been screwed since the Rinos took it over. Oh well. Scott Brown Rino serves the purpose of killing obamacare. If he becomes an Arnie, Graham, Snowe socialist, we can wack him later.
And...
We have gone done the road of political pragmatism before. The so-called moderates have created vthe political climtae in which liberalism succeeds and conservatives have a hard to getting elected.
How is the Senate, Congress and the White House currently oriented?
We ran the politically expedient moderate presidential candidate and he got spanked and failed to generate hardly any enthusiasm in the conservative voter base.
This ought to be amusing....
Buncombe. You want us to think that approving of baby-killing under some circumstances is “more pro-life” than disapproving of baby-killing under all circumstances.
Tell me this - how many little babies' lives have been saved in the never-ending, never-to-be-successful quest to amend the Constitution with a human life amendment?
I'll save you the trouble of scratching your skull while you ponder that question. The answer is ZERO. Nada. Nil. None. Not one single little baby's life has been saved by pushing for an HLA that will never pass the 2/3 state approval + 2/3 of both houses of Congress needed to amend the Constitution.
Now, on the other hand, we know for a fact that parental notification laws - which Scott Brown supports - reduce the number of abortions that take place. We know that requiring parental consent - which Scott Brown supports - reduces the number of abortions. We know that outlawing PBA - which Scott Brown supports - would reduce to zero the number of the most gruesome types of abortions that take place. We know that making it easier to adopt - which Scott Brown supports - reduces the number of abortions. All of this is in line with Scott Brown's stated desire to "reduce the number of abortions."
In other words, Scott Brown's way works, yours does not - and this is EMPIRICALLY proven to be true. Scott Brown's way saves the lives of little babies, yours does not. In that sense, Scott Brown is actually more pro-life than YOU are.
What seems to be escaping your notice is that being pro-life is a matter of one’s convictions, and that willingness to compromise those convictions on a matter of such import demonstrates that the person in question does not really hold those convictions.
Funny, and I thought being pro-life was about, you know, saving little babies' lives, not getting to strut around grandstanding and thumping your chest about how pure and special your convictions are, even when those convictions lead you to support policies that don't and won't even save the life of a single little baby's life.
In short, if your "pro-life conviction" is to bluster and bloviate in favour of a pipe dream while ignoring all the means currently available to actually reduce the number of abortions, then your "conviction" isn't worth a pile of dog turds.
Those things are good, but they are not adequate. They tacitly admit that baby-killing under some circumstances is acceptable.
No they don't. They tacitly admit that, in the current political climate and with the current obtuse SCOTUS we have, it's better to put into place laws that will save the lives of at least some little babies rather than doing nothing.
So, your recommendation is pre-emptive surrender? Your judgment is inadequate to the task of forecasting the future of a constitutional amendment.
Okay, tell us then, exactly which 34 of the 50 states you think are going to pass that amendment through their legislatures, and which 67 Senators and which 291 Congressmen you think will vote for it, since you're obviously a prognosticator extraordinaire?
Logical fallacy. You are comparing an actual policy with a proposed policy. Of course a proposed policy has had less effect than an actual policy. It hasn’t been put into effect yet. However, an amendment would—over decades—save far more lives than all the parental notification laws that could be passed.
Refer to the question above. I prefer to save little babies' lives NOW rather than putting it off until some point in the indeterminate future where we MAY be able to scrounge up enough votes to pass an HLA.
Anyone who has read this far should see that you are asking us to admit that being pro-life is really about saving fewer lives than could be saved.
Well, anyone reading this so far who has paid the least bit of attention for the last 30 years knows that lives have already been saved by regulatory laws. NONE have been saved in the magical, donation-generating quest for a HLA.
No. Being pro-life is about working to save as many babies as possible, while at the same time striving to end abortion altogether—which entails electing representatives who share those goals. Both of those goals, not just one.
Being pro-life is about saving babies' lives. I'm all for ending abortion once and for all. The only problem is that the quest to do so through an amendment to the Constitution is quixotic. Before we mess with that, we need to change the hearts and minds of enough people to get this country to the point where the Constitutional process might be feasible. Until then, the effort does nothing but waste time and sap resources.
In short, by pursuing a HLA to the detriment of these other laws, etc. You are essentially doing something that is hindering the saving of little babies.
Another false dichotomy. Here, you try to sell the proposition that our only options are to compromise with evil, or to be content that the pro-life movement should be “merely for show.”
No, the problem is that, if we take your route, the pro-life movement WILL just be for show - since it won't accomplish anything of any actual benefit to babies in danger of abortion.
Another alternative is to continue working toward an end to abortion by supporting candidates who share that goal.
That's good, because Scott Brown himself has said he wants to see the number of abortions reduced. That works towards that goal - and certainly more so than Martha Coakley would.
When we use the word “gay,” we concede the battle of language without firing a shot. We concede that same-sex attraction disorder is an acceptable phenomenon that can rationally be described in other than clinical or pejorative terms.
It’s not.
Fine, I'll call them dirty pervert faggots. Happier now?
Which is how RINOs weasel out of supporting legislation to implement the policy in question.
Okay, wait a second. A guy says that he believes marriage is between a man and a woman - and this is evidence that he's a RINO who supports gay marriage? What sort of bizarro alternate logical universe are YOU inhabiting?
Another dishonest argument. These false dichotomies are really tiresome.
Sorry, but just because you don't understand an argument doesn't make it a false dichotomy.
Here you’re trying to sell the proposition that the only two alternatives are to approve of sodomite “marriage,” or to violate the Constitution.
No....explain to us again why you think federalism is an automatic approval of dirty perverted faggot marriage?
And just to see where you're at - you DO believe that we ought to abide by the Constitution, as a general principle, don't you?
Everyone knows—which means you never should have advanced this little canard—that states’ rights are not unlimited. States do not have the power, for instance, to set the voting age higher than 18, or to deny or abridge the right of citizens of the United States to vote (for the reasons specified in the Constitution).
True....but since the Constitution doesn't define marriage, the Constitution doesn't even mention marriage, that automatically puts marriage under the purview of the states, per the 10th amendment. You may not like this, but that's just the way it is.
A citizen has a perfect right to support the adoption of a Constitutional amendment prohibiting sodomite “marriage,” with no taint of philosophical or moral turpitude accruing therefrom.
Which brings me to my last point - if you don't like it, then amend the Constitution to reflect the fact that dirty perverted faggot marriage is unacceptable. In fact, I would agree with you on this, and would support such an amendment - but it has to be AMENDED to work. As it currently stands, marriage of any sort, true or pretended, is the purview of the states. As such, the only really rational Constitutional stance is for the issue to be relegated to the states and to work to oppose dirty perverted faggot marriage in your state. That's basically Scott Brown's position - the constitutional one. If you want a national law against dirty perverted faggot marriage to be constitutional, then work to amend the Constitution. That's one I think we'd have a reasonably good shot at getting passed.
A person really should make sure he has cause before he calls another’s statements “dishonest.” As we see, you didn’t.
Of course I had cause. You basically are taking what others said and twisting it all out of alignment to try to make it seem as if they are saying something completely different, so you can then pretend like you're some heroic citizen soldier, riding to the rescue of the Republic. Not working, bud.
But by tarnation, we'll be purer than you is!
Losing them has serious consequences. IMO, the GOP has gone off course, but Keyes is not the guy to correct that course. The fact that he cannot give an honest reading of Brown's positions means he is ill-suited to function effectively in the political arena. Someone like Palin, who can appeal to a large swath of people, who has won elections, and who does not feel compelled to lie about the positions of others, is much better suited. But Keyes turns around and attacks her conservative purity as well.
Wow, we might just have a genuine federalist on our hands. This won't go over well with the big-government, anti-Constitution "conservatives" here on FR.
I like her, but her debate against Biden was painful. Her coming out speech at the convention was spectacular, but it was downhill fom there.
Keyes' sound reason is absolutely the right thing to correct the course.
You are crazy. Keyes has never won a single election. And he lies, just like he did in this article. Sound reasoning does not require lying.
Oh?
What's this then?
"You and I both have the same position on abortion." -- Scott Brown to Martha Coakley, January 11, 2010, debate
You also mischaracterized what I said in another way.
You said this:
You claimed that Brown’s position on abortion was identical to Coakleys.
When I actually said this:
In last week's debate, Brown made it clear that his abortion position is identical to Coakley's.
So, not only were you wrong, and wrongfully called me a liar, but you yourself lied about what I actually said.
I'll patiently await your apology and retraction.
Either way...supporting State or Federal run health care ain't conservative.
“I’m not sure I’ve ever read a post that misses the mark like this one does.”
I’ll stick with what I said.
Yep. Pretty much.
You are correct, EV, Brown did say that in the debate. However, the truth about Brown’s pro-life positions is something else, and Keyes and you are not being truthful when you pretend otherwise (and also act like Brown is no different from the Dems). Brown is in favor of a ban on partial birth abortion, in favor of laws restricting abortion. So I retract my claim that you are a liar in that instance. But my larger issues with the truthfulness of Keyes and yourself stand - there are many issues where Brown is conservative, such as amnesty - an issue important to Keyes and yourself - but there is no such mention of that in the article, or from you. And omission is the most powerful form of lie.
Like I said, we’ll have to see what sorts out. But he has said he is a vote against the health care reform as written, and his election has scared the crap out of the Dem swing votes need to get it through the House.
I don't think that he lied in the article. Where? Beyond this article, you claimed that Keyes lies...On what basis do you call him a liar?
He becomes the poster child for the RINO clique's archetypal GOP candidate who: Has no differences in principle with the socialist minded Democrats;
Brown is against amnesty. So is Keyes. That is a MAJOR and CRITICAL variance from the Dems. Yet no mention from Keyes. And omission is the most powerful form of lie, to quote Orwell. That is the problem here - there are clear differences between Brown and Coakley, but Keyes refuses to acknowledge those, and broad-brushes Brown.
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.