Kirk: "Bones, are you saying that Spock is really DarkDrake?"
McCoy: "He's Fred, Jim."
Posted on 08/02/2003 10:39:40 PM PDT by Uncle Bill
Kirk: "Bones, are you saying that Spock is really DarkDrake?"
McCoy: "He's Fred, Jim."
There is a piece of legislation. We've reacted to it differently. I have some concerns about it you don't share. That's all ok. This is politics.
It doesn't mean that either of us is motivated by irrationality, hatred of FR, the GOP, President Bush, or anything else. Nor does it mean that one of us is more at odds with God than the other.
We've gotten along in the past, and while you're clearly passionate about this topic, I don't sense any malice in your posts. I hope, however, that in the future you might contemplate your reaction here a bit, and reconsider some of the rhetorical excess.
Regards
No Toothy...that's YOUR crowd, isn't it?
From the person that said I had a thousand screen names. LOL
It would be funny if it wasn't so sad. The psychosis appears to be in advanced stages.
The attitude of the nation, the numbers in the Senate and House with a Republican in the WHite House, and a different complexion in the SCOTUS, all are vital aspects in rolling back three+ decades of death on demand reality. Every time a case hits the news that focuses upon the LIFE of the little ones (like Connor Peterson), the tide changes ever so slightly. It will not be long before a wave will be poised to wash the liberal socialist approach to death on demand right out of our national reality ... the insidiousness of liberal societal engineering is gradually coming clear to Americans as the harvest of dead relatives becomes more exposed.
If there is sufficient good left in America, abortion slaughter on demand will come to an end, albeit an incremental end. The next goal is a ban on all killing of viable little ones. [BTW, Mercuria is still pro-life, without a doubt. What she says about me or anyone else at FR is actually irrelevant; she's wrestling with political 'spectres', that's all.]
But also we need to remember that there are times when it's best to get into a slugfest, with the full determination to win, and crush our opponents.
Their are many arts in political war.
It is self evident that neither the left or the right has a majority. If one side did they would win all the national elections. Poll after poll after poll has shown that roughly 1/3 on the voters are on the left and 1/3 more are on the right and 1/3 are in the center. The Center is made up of RINOs and DINOs. It does not take a big stretch of the imagination to see that neither conservatives nor liberals ever have control of the the Federal Senate. If the Democrats elect more DINOs than the Republicans elect RINOs the Democrats have the most power in the Senate.
I am always amazed by those that want to run the RINOs out of the Republican Party. They would just become DINOs and let the Democrats rule forever.
If the Republican have 45 conservatives and 10 RINO's in the Senate and the Democrats have 35 Liberals and 10 DINOs in the senate, the Republicans rule. NO the Republicans would not be able to hold all the RINOs on every issue. But they could always get a few DINOs to make up for the loss of some RINOs. They would not win them all, but they would win a lot more than they lose.
The Senate under FDR had a ton of Southern DINOs. But FDR could always pick up a few RINOs to win on his issues when the conservative southern senators went off the reservation. LBJ did the same thing.
Reagan constantly argued for tolerance for RINOs. He said it this way.. A Republican who is with you 80 percent of the time is not your enemy. Reagan as always used words that appealed with out invoking the wrath of buzz words. But describing some Republicans as "those who are mostly with you" is another way to say RINO.
My point is there is never a way to garner a conservative majority .... or a liberal majority for that matter. The reason is clear. About a third of the population is not ideological. They do not vote based on ideology. Thinking that people can be taught or educated to be ideological is like educating a left handed person to be right handed. It does not work well at all.
Surprisingly some ideological people can be changed from the left to the right and vice versa. But getting a majority to one side or the other has proved very elusive. It is must more effective to structure the arguments of the right so they appeal to the non ideological center.
Let me give you a couple of Reagan examples. When Reagan described his economic policy as letting people keep more of their own money, he was appealing to the non ideological voter. Telling the non ideological voter that cutting marginal tax rates is a good think, won't get their support. Letting them keep more of their own money will. Cutting marginal tax rates is an ideological appeal. Cutting government regulations is an ideological appeal. Getting Government off your back is the non ideological appeal. Cutting Goverment Regulations is an ideological appeal. To persuade the center, it is not so much what you want to do, but how it is described that makes the difference. Getting the votes of the non ideological center is the ONLY road to success. The left is quite good at selling the center. "Taxing the rich", "Special Interests", "Under the control of rich, fat, cats"... are ways the Democrats appeal to the center.
But if I make no other point, I would urge the consideration of the fact that at no time in our history has the ideology of the left or right ever enjoyed a majority. About a third of the voters and politicians are died in the wool DINOs and RINOs. The party that gets a majority of their support rules on nearly all issues. The ideology that rules is the one that learns to structure the arguments for policies so they appeal to the centrists. Failure to recognize the need to appeal to the center results in continuous defeat. Belief that the arguments that persuade the ideological will persuade the non ideological is political folly.
You make an interesting point. I was watching C-SPAN2 over the weekend and the son of Julius & Ethel Rosenberg was hawking his new book to a tiny group of aged & addled Birkenstock customers. (He is obviously a product of his parents since he heads a "progressive" non-profit org. that funnels contributions to the victimized children of leftist activists. In other words...he's a commie too.)
He ended his talk by making the point that must be the unofficial motto of the Communist party operating in America and that is...take what you can get. Don't be discouraged by people's lack of purity on your issues. Know that you will be disappointed. Expect it. Don't expect purity. Take a crumb if that's all you can get. Learn from your mistakes. Withdraw. And come back stronger another day.
Interestingly, Hillary made the exact same point when she trashed the Bush judicial nominees last week.
This philosophy makes the Left almost unbeatable because our side is sometimes newly converted and fragile, and so gung-ho and motivated that they can be devastated by a single set-back.
That you understand the politics of taking what's possible, is a huge credit ot you. I just hope more people on our side can hang in long enough to evolve like you did. It's really our only hope.
In reference to my rhetorical excess, that's just how I like to write.
I speak that way, too.
I'm passionate. I used to be irascible. I've been reborn but I'm still growing. (:
I have some concerns about it you don't share.
Your anxiety is unsubstantiated. Your continuously posted concerns appear to me to be either irrational weakness or purposeful subterfuge. I love and respect you; your behavior on this thread makes no sense to me. Every question you have posed about the language and possible loopholes of this legislation has been invalidated. The answers you have received have not been insubstantial opinion but established fact, direct quotes, verifiable truth: they have made no difference to you.
I have known you to be very actively pro-life. This is the first piece of pro-life legislation we have seen brought through the US Congress that will actually be signed by the President. It outlaws partial birth abortion. With no basis in logic whatsoever you are actively against it.
That was the cause of my reaction.
I can only guess that you've confused someone else's post with mine. I have questions about the legislation, but I've nowhere suggested that I'm against it.
Let me give you my take in a nutshell... I think a slugfest for more strongly-worded PBA legislation would have been preferrable, and winnable. However, given the circumstances we currently have, I'll take the bill as written. I'm simply trying to get a handle on what it actually does. I understand you have a strong opinion on that, and that's fine. You may even be right, but I'm still going to ask more questions and wait and see how things shake out, ok?
"These cowards have no morals. They have no shame about lying."
************************
"It would be funny if it wasn't so sad. The psychosis appears to be in advanced stages."
"We are in control. They are in a state of hysteria. Losers, they think that by killing civilians and trying to distort the feelings of the people they will win. I think they will not win, those bastards."
Whenever you kids decide to revamp the stale talking points, there's a plethora to choose from HERE.
when it's genuine
a lipstick job
what's really incremental retreat
buy into
trap
You have been spreading lies throughout this thread by couching them in terms you hope will convince others you are sincerely 'questioning.'
there are times when it's best to get into a slugfest, with the full determination to win, and crush our opponents
You sure have been slugging away here.
Their are many arts in political war.
It's pretty obvious to me now what you are doing. I hope it is equally obvious to others who have been following this thread. I'm saddened by it, because I never would have thought Sabertooth capable of sinking so low.
And you've made it this far with so much less.
when it's genuine
a lipstick job
what's really incremental retreat
buy into
trap
You have been spreading lies throughout this thread by couching them in terms you hope will convince others you are sincerely 'questioning.'
It's pretty obvious to me now what you are doing. I hope it is equally obvious to others who have been following this thread. I'm saddened by it, because I never would have thought Sabertooth capable of sinking so low.I was speaking in general terms about political strategy, in what I believe to be the out-of-context snippets from posts that you didn't reference.
If you think you've got something on which to out me, by all means, do so. However, I gently suggest that you're wasting your time, looking for more disagreement between you and me than there actually is here.
Let me explain a small part of my dilemma when I sift a story to the best of my ability...
I've gotten to the point that when I hear "incremental," it's meaningless. For example, when I was told the new prescription drug entitlement was an incremental step toward smaller government, "incremental" was meaningless, because the prescription drug entitlement actually makes the government bigger.
Unfortunately, when I now read "incremental," it has no immediate value to me, until I'm certain it actually means what it's supposed to mean, in the instance in which it's been used.
Since you've been following this thread, kindly refer me to what you believe are my low points, and explain how they are so.
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.