Posted on 03/26/2003 10:02:01 PM PST by billbears
Yes. I don't think my ranching neighbors should have 30mm chain guns or grenade machines on their trucks. ...or nuclear weapons. I'm a Republican, not an anarchist. IMO, anarchists and their associates are out to help the Saddamocrats win elections.
...small semi-auto weapons, sure. I can trust my neighbors that far. Some my of friends wear their sidearms, and that doesn't bother me at all. But, IMO, there's something wrong with people who want to own weapons of mass destruction if they're not members of our military. ...especially pimps, drug dealers and gambling moguls.
What makes you think I was writing about you? The form page for posting here only allows for replying to the posts of other individuals as far as I can tell. I was responding to the leftie commentators' rants against Frum's column. And I only had the time to point to the Libertarian platform at http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/
If time allowed, I would cover all of the other minute parties (like the "reform") that work to derail a tiny bit of the Republican vote for the sake of the Saddamocrats.
So now that you bring yourself up, what's your political affiliation preference?
But, IMO, there's something wrong with people who want to own weapons of mass destruction if they're not members of our military
Nuclear weapons are different in that they will harm the person you're aiming at in one fell swoop. And your statement that weapons of mass destruction now include apparently anything you don't feel safe around? I thought it was (at least according to the government at this point and time) just nuclear and chemical weapons. Don't let the government know, they'll have another limitation on the 2nd Amendment right out
I'm a Republican, not an anarchist. IMO, anarchists and their associates are out to help the Saddamocrats win elections.
Well I'm a conservative, not a Republican. And I'm for saving and returning to the limitations found in the Constitution for the government of this Republic, not making you feel safe, warm, and cozy. BTW, nice fell swoop name calling there. Anyone who doesn't agree with you is now an anarchist or a Saddamocrat
You responded to my post.
The form page for posting here only allows for replying to the posts of other individuals as far as I can tell.
For future reference, it is the general practice around here to respond to the first post in the thread if you are making a general statement about it. If you wish to respond to somebody else's statement about it, respond to their specific post.
Some constituencies pretend to see "arms" as being all inclusive for the purpose of scaring more voters into supporting "gun control," and others are mad enough to actually worship Ayn Rand and company (anarchists, many of whom are leftists in disguise).
"Do you support the current Assault Weapons Ban?"
Of course not. Semi-automatic rifles are no threat to civilian peace (although fatherlessness is). They're good hunting, marksmanship and rural home defense tools. But leftie thinks semi-autos are a threat, and a few leftie insurgents pretending to be conservatives can best defeat our 2nd Amendment rights by promoting the legalized home use of any and all weapons (e.g., chain guns, nukes) by omission of limits, to scare a lot of voters into supporting more "gun control" (although all of us who have been in combat specialties for our US military see "guns" being something different from small rifles and pistols, banning of yet another, more personal kind of "gun" being a scarier matter altogether).
The guilt-by-association technique is plainly evident in the opening paragraphs of the article. Since you seem to be unable find his use of it, here you go.
CASE 1: "You may know the names of these antiwar conservatives. Some are famous: Patrick Buchanan and Robert Novak. Others are not: Llewellyn Rockwell, Samuel Francis, Thomas Fleming, Scott McConnell, Justin Raimondo, Joe Sobran, Charley Reese, Jude Wanniski, Eric Margolis, and Taki Theodoracopulos."
Let's examine that statement. He opens by identifying the list as "these antiwar conservatives." That is a reference to what he described in detail two paragraphs earlier as persons characterized by the following terms:
"These conservatives are relatively few in number, but their ambitions are large. They aspire to reinvent conservative ideology: to junk the 50-year-old conservative commitment to defend American interests and values throughout the world — the commitment that inspired the founding of this magazine — in favor of a fearful policy of ignoring threats and appeasing enemies."
Next Frum posts his list of names of those who he considers to meet that description. This action by definition implies that the persons he names are associated in a group by shared characteristics.
CASE 2: Frum continues, "The writers I quote call themselves "paleoconservatives," implying that they are somehow the inheritors of an older, purer conservatism than that upheld by their impostor rivals."
By this action he is assigning an identity label to the people he associated together in the previous case by way of listing them. They are now, by his argument, no longer a list that allegedly shares common qualities, but now one that also shares a common label.
CASE 3: In ascribing qualities to the "paleos" Frum then states "Fed up as they were with the Second America, however, the paleos felt sure that they spoke for the First America with an integrity the traditional conservatives, let alone the neos, never had" and "For a good many of the paleoconservatives, that something was, for a spell, Serbian nationalism" and "OF all the limits against which the paleoconservatives chafed, the single most irksome was the limit placed by civilized opinion upon overtly racialist speech" and "Racial passions run strong among the paleos. And yet, having read many hundreds of thousands of their words in print and on the screen, I come away with a strong impression that while their anti-black and anti-Hispanic feelings are indeed intense, another antipathy is far more intellectually important to them." and "Having quickly decided that the War on Terror was a Jewish war, the paleos equally swiftly concluded that they wanted no part of it"
In short, he says that "paleos" are by definition nationalist racist anti-semites, a claim he attaches to that label primarily by quoting American Renaissance fringers. Thus the guilt-by-association argument is complete, implicating Novak and others as anti-semites.
In shorter form, his argument breaks down as follows:
1. Conservatives sharing a certain political position on the war include persons X and Y.
2. Persons X and Y are thus included in a group, which goes by the label A.
3. Person Z is also a member of group A and person Z is a racist anti-semite as proven by an array of quotes.
4. As shown by person Z, group A's characteristics include racist anti-semitism.
5. (Implicit) And since persons X and Y are part of group A, they too must be racist anti-semites.
The obvious flaws in Frum's argument appear at every stage, but first and foremost, the list of names to which Frum applies the "paleo" label is inaccurate. It contains some people who call themselves "paleos," some who simply call themselves "conservatives," and some who would never dream of calling themselves conservative at all as they are "libertarians." Thus, to associate them all together under the blanket label of "paleos" is an act of dishonesty. Only by categorizing all of those names as "paleos" can Frum paint them together with a single brush of anti-semitism based on the statements of another "paleo." Therefore it is necessary that he fabricate an association upon which to declare guilt.
The essay by Frum was set up in the first two paragraphs and has more to do with those opening words, then anything else.
I'd say it is set up in the first four paragraphs, because it is paragraph four where he makes the first association of names.
republican.
I was responding to the leftie commentators' rants against Frum's column.
That may be so, but keep in mind that conservatives have also been very critical of Frum's piece and, IMHO, rightly so.
That's a slippery ad hominem attack. But what is the most powerful weapon you would allow in the hands of citizens who aren't in the military? Would you legalize the ownership and carrying loaded 30mm chain guns on the vehicles of non-military citizens? ...just trying to pin down some position on your part here, but they keep slipping away.
You posted "Frum's Flimflam." Do you agree with that piece?
"BTW, nice fell swoop name calling there. Anyone who doesn't agree with you is now an anarchist or a Saddamocrat."
I won't bite on the recurrent straw man and accusation. But I will say that anyone who disagrees with war being waged for the defense of the USA is not a conservative. Anyone who wants to legalize any and all drugs with absolutely no regulation is not a conservative. Anyone who pushes the "separation of church and state" and "freedom from religion" hype (which is not in the Constitution) is not a conservative. Anyone who wants to legalize the ownership by drug dealers/pimps of fully automatic, large bore weapons is not a conservative. Anyone who would want to authorize a 50% (or was it 50 cent?) gas tax, as Perot said he intended to do, is not a conservative.
My positions are clear. What are your positions on these matters?
>>>Since you seem to be unable find his use of it, here you go.
I never said anything even remotely like that. I did say, quote: "I don't see the level of guilt by association that you and others seem to see in David Frum's piece."
As I said, if you read the first two paragraphs, you'll understand the relevent aspects and the thrust of Frum's piece. You've decided to turn this into something it is not.
Frum's article is clearly about how certain conservative voices, continue to ignore the realities of terrorist threats that America faces in the world today. It is a desire on their part, to accept and appease the enemies of America, instead of condemning and challenging them. Novak and Buchanan have said it time and time again. >>> Iraq hasn't attacked the US, why are we invading Iraq? <<< I'm paraphrasing, of course. This is the thrust of the argument presented by the anti-war conservatives and goes to the core of their opposition.
These so-called conservatives have made it very clear, they want a more isolationist foreign policy then we have right now. I don't support the US being the policeman of the world, but things have changed since 9-11. It is the job of the CIC, President Bush, to make sure the US is protected and defended from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. Terrorism has no ethical foundation and no moral compass. Terrorism exists to destroy civilized society and slowly bring down the great democratic powers of the world. To allow terrorism to continue to exist, is unacceptable.
President Bush understands that terrorism will only be defeated if we stay on the offensive and keep the terrorists off guard. Some people, like Novak and Buchanan, call this idea of pre-emptive strikes, imperialism or colonialism. I say buckola!
I say, we hit the bastrads before they hit us, again.
It is true that Frum's column contained generalizations, but the rebuttal against Frum's column, called "Frum's Flimflam" (above, by Mercer?) was openly anti-American and anti-defense in general. There was nothing conservative about it. As for Novak's piece, any location of a copy of it has not been presented here that I can see. As for Pat Buchanan, he's blamed the Jews for too many things (like the war against the Iraqi regime) and has stated in slippery language that our government is controlled by the Jews. That's not American conservative. Compared to Frum, Buchanan is far more detrimental to conservative efforts.
The "lesser of two evils" is always better than allowing Hitlery in any form to be re-elected by the insidious shunting of otherwise Republican votes to teeny weeny, powerless third parties that devise anarchistic policies in order to defeat conservatives by associating their stated insane policies with the policies of conservatives.
I generalize, too, in that oddball third parties and "independents" are not good for conservatism in politics. And any who work against our defense with propaganda while we are at war, hurt the war effort and are probably not conservatives. Regarding being against attacking Iraq, I was only against it before the war started, as I am more inclined toward allowing Old Europe to invite it's own defeat while we build an umbrella defense and huge military unprecedented anywhere (contrary to third parties's efforts to shut down the military in favor of having citizens armed with WMD/large bore machine guns). But now that the war is started, I'm in lock-step with the rest of my conservative kind and want Sodom's regime defeated. I believe all who speak against the effort now to be anti-American whether they realize it or not.
I gave a link to Novak's column at RE:#17.
Please supply evidence of Iraqi soldiers, missiles, etc. that have the range of 5000 miles. As I've said before, I support the troops and after the shooting started I will not question the decisions made by the President or his advisors.
Anyone who wants to legalize any and all drugs with absolutely no regulation is not a conservative
Find somewhere I've said that. You won't find it. However I do not support a national war on drugs. Any laws that the separate and sovereign states see fit to pass in response to drugs (which should be done) is up to the states
Anyone who pushes the "separation of church and state" and "freedom from religion" hype (which is not in the Constitution) is not a conservative
Again, I don't think I've ever said that. Quite to the contrary I believe the separate and sovereign states should maintain the state, not national, churches that many Founders fully supported
Anyone who wants to legalize the ownership by drug dealers/pimps of fully automatic, large bore weapons is not a conservative
I can fully support the right of the citizens of the respective states to own whatever weapon they choose to own. If drug dealers are owning them I suggest you ratchet up your unConstitutional federal WOD to get rid of the drug or allow the states to take care of them as an issue covered under the Tenth Amendment. Either way, what law abiding peaceful citizens choose to arm themselves with for self defense is none of the national government's business
Anyone who would want to authorize a 50% (or was it 50 cent?) gas tax, as Perot said he intended to do, is not a conservative.
And where exactly are you getting these arguments? Where have I said anywhere I supported Perot or his ideas?!? Perhaps if the government limited itself to the powers as outlined in the Constitution 'conservatives' like yourself would find you'd have a whole lot more in your pocket and a lot less of intrusion into issues that are no business of the national government
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-may031203.asp
So Novak is a buddy of Buchanan and sees a Jewish conspiracy under every rock. He writes conspiracy stories against American intelligence gathering (links behind following URL). The other conspiracy story writers of the left like his work.
http://freemasonwatch.freepress-freespeech.com/newsroom.html
And I see that the people behind the following URL are "pleased" with Novak nonsense about Zimbabweans being more of a threat to the USA than the Sodom regime.
http://aryanrevolution.blogspot.com/
Novak issued propaganda to defame conservatives and cheer for Sodom's troops in the following.
"Iraqis eating into coalition 'cakewalk'"
http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak271.html
The Iraqi Information Minister couldn't have said it better.
Show me one before last month. This is for show.
It was for the citizenry to own muzzle loaders, as that's all that existed in those days. But I think they would agree with citizens owning semi-auto small arms now.
The burden of proof's on the accuser. That means you, so dig it up yourself.
This oughta start you off http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a2993855096.htm
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.