Posted on 10/06/2003 8:23:46 AM PDT by kellynla
I also haven't seen the magnificent Jean Kirkpatrick lowering herself to endorse Arnie nor would I expect to see her do so.
LMAO!! 80%? Wow. Perhaps you could easily come up with a laudrey list of conservative things Arnold has PROMISED to impliment.
Incrementalism? You mean you support banning semi-auto firearms along with "sniper rifles" and you have no problem with illegal immigration?
No. I don't believe in making the perfect the enemy of the good.
Being pro-life is not only a litmus test for being a Republican but also a litmus test for being a civilized human being.
Here is my post back to Black Elk: It is your litmus test, Black Elk. It is how you judge who is worthy and who is not worthy of being a human being.
Except for the p*ssing contest you and I are involved in, I’ve spent my time on this thread suggesting that being a Republican doesn’t necessarily mean being a conservative. In my answer to Black Elk, I was saying that pro-life was Black Elk’s litmus test… it didn’t mean that pro-choice Republicans were not Republicans.
Then here comes you: Surely you wouldn't dare say that ABORTION is how you judge who is worthy and who is not worthy of being a human being. Certainly it isn't A WOMAN'S CHOICE that is the arbiter of that distinction. You wouldn't dare say that here, would you? Because guess what? That's what Arnold believes. He won't say it in so many words. It comes with the euphemistic package, "pro-choice," but that is really what he's saying.
I called this post incoherent.
You clarified your post by saying: You said someone gets to make a distinction about who should and shouldn't be a human being on the basis of their pro-life views. However, it is actually the "PRO-CHOICE" people who are making that case. Arnold is one of those making that case. I don't know if you are pro-abortion or pro-life, but if you are pro-life and admonish others for judging "who is worthy and who is not worthy of being a human being," you've also condemned your friend, Arnold. If you are pro-abortion, you are a hypocrite of the worst kind.
No… my post was calling Black Elk’s litmus test his own personal litmus test and not a litmus test for Republicans. I was talking about the narrowness of his view as the one true litmus test… not whether I thought his view was correct or not.
Do you get that distinction?
Here is how I responded: I hate to break it to you, but Arnold isn't my friend. I think it is laughingly funny that you automatically judge me because you think I'm pro-choice (even though you did give me the benefit of the doubt)... and if I'm pro-choice, I can't possibly be for McClintock. Second of all, I'm not the one who made the distinction. Black Elk did... You are prime example one for my entire argument on this thread... Thank you for being so accommodating.
Remember, This all started because I challenged Black Elk’s litmus test for Republicans and civilized human beings.
Next, came your response: If I gave you the benefit of the doubt, then I did not judge you. However, because you implied your position, the argument still stands. You believe it is up to a woman's choice to determine who has a right to live and who does not. You admonished Black Elk for "making that distinction," which was exactly the point I made, which you did not address.
My position was neither implied nor stated. I did not admonish Black Elk for making that distinction… I admonished him because of the narrowness of his litmus test for all Republicans. I think you can be pro-choice and still be a Republican and a civilized human being.
Then the p*ssing contest began (and I have enjoyed it thoroughly… I love to watch you get all smug as you condescend and instruct me on my behavior. That was worth the laugh…)
Here’s your response to me… acting all parental and such: Don't be mad at me. I'm just the messenger. I am not upset by the fact that you won't respond to logic. If you did, you wouldn't be pro-choice, because being pro-choice is logically indefensible when based on correct premises. I doubt you want to reject the premises (though you may), but if you did, I would let that argument rest on its own merit.
Let’s see… an argument about a litmus test turned into to one where I am pro-choice and that makes me unable to respond to logic.
The issue was never whether I was pro-choice or not, or whether I supported Arnold or not. The issue was whether pro-life is the only litmus test for being Republican or a civilized human being. I disagreed with Black Elk. The rest is you twisting the post and having fun jabbing me with your put-downs.
For the record, I am pro-life… and I would have voted McClintock.
When you are drowning (and it is your own fault for trying for years to marry "fiscal conservatism" to the ethics of social revolutionaries), your rationality is not at its sharpest as anyone can see from the willingness of otherwise sensible people (SOME of you) to trade every principle for a false mirage of miniscule tax relief. I hope you are prepared to be honest when Arnie, Wilson and Buffet slam you with the biggest tax increase in Gollyvornia history exceeding even Pete Wilson's first year thievery.
If you think of Arnie, Wilson and Buffett as ropes, remember that they are kind of ropes one finds dangling from the gallows.
If you allow your situational interpretation of "good" to become progressively worse, you sure as hell are not working toward "better".
Purchasing a few brief moments of political viability at the expense of the freedom of those to come has to be the epitome of "immoral greed" of which Keys speaks.
Supporting taxpayer funded abortions. Yet you keep trying the Roe v Wade dodge.
So, there are no hierarchies in your world? If one favors Arnold, then one is "immoral"? How stupid!
No wonder McClintock has faded into insignificance.
For the record, then, this is what you said. "It is your litmus test, Black Elk. It is how you judge who is worthy and who is not worthy of being a human being."
However, that is not what BlackElk said. His distinction was "civilized human being," not merely a human being. Big difference.
Second, you said, "and if I'm pro-choice, I can't possibly be for McClintock."
First of all, I mentally changed "if" to "because," and my lumping together of you and Arnold was a logical progression of that error. That is my mistake, and I apologize. Beyond that, I never said a pro-choice person couldn't be for McClintock. I did, however, say that being pro-abortion is logically idefensible when starting from the correct premises.
Now, you've made several assertions about "you" not being able to block other people outside of conservatism from coming into the Republican party. You are correct if by "you," you mean me or any other individual. However, the Republican Party can, if they so choose. I don't know of any pro-slavery expansion Republicans in 1861. Do you? Similarly, if abortion is not wrong, then nothing is wrong, and the Republican Party should not have to apologize for standing against the slaughter of the unborn. They can exclude the pro-aborts if they choose, and I think doing this the right way actually adds credibility to the argument against abortion.
Thank you for finally addressing my statement. It wasn't a trap you would have fallen into if you are pro-life. It could have been more easily resolved, but at least we are now on the correct issue.
I am hoping for a defeat of the recall to let the dems get full credit/blame for what the state will look like in a few yearas.
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.