Posted on 03/07/2007 6:28:29 AM PST by MadIvan
No one is 'throwing her under the bus'.
The "point" here is a small % of people -- on both side, obviously -- wants the political debate to be full of rude, tacky insults. The Mike Savage type people. A small group of folks are so partisan that when "one of ours" makes a mistake they'll excuse it with their last breath.
The rest of us, still the majority, want *BOTH SIDES* to cut out the childishness.
We can't object to D name calling if we excuse it by our own. It's that simple.
Sure we can.
As in any war, as soon as hostilities cease, we can all return to civilized behavior.
"Man in the street" interviews always claim this, but the results rarely support it.
:-D
Oh, of course you *can* continue to be partisan hyporites, criticizing the other side while excuse your own side for the same behavior . . . it's a free country.
But the rest of us -- the vast majority -- are also free to shake our heads at you and wonder why some people just don't get it.
By your reasoning it is therefore partisan hypocricy for a nation to loose the dogs of war whilst still enforcing laws on the domestic front.
I wouldn't pontificate too much about "people who just don't get it" if I were you. You run the risk of becoming one of the aforementioned "useful idiots."
I think this is the specific difference here. Most folks would say that elections are still peace-time, and that the other party are just people we disagree with. We should treat people who disagree with us with decency and respect, when discussing serious issues.
Then you have the Mike Savages, the partisan extremists, who seem to think that any people who disagree with you are "the enemy", to be insulted, verbally abused and denigrated, and mocked. "Liberalism is a mental disease", and the like. Is that helpful in winning the debate? No. Does that make his audience happy? Absolutely.
It's funny when Ann calls someone a faggot in a comedy routine, or in her book. It is inappropriate when she does it at a 'Conservative Forum' where she is supposedly speaking for people who believe in a conservative use of federal power.
She appealed to her core market, the folks who want people who disagree with them insulted. She actually hurt the conservtive movement a little, and she made it clear she doesn't speak for the majority of us.
Herein lies your fundamental error.
It is when men of goodwill are treated so, that they take up the practice.
By your lights, the mugger and the victim should try for an amicable settlement.
It is what weak men and women do when others insult them.
We're not talking about war, violence being committed against us. Muggers, etc.
We're talking about simple political debate.
When the other side slanders, stick to your points. Be respectful. Disagree firmly and persuasively. Don't sink the the level of the dawgs. Be a man. Stand up and fight for what you believe, and do it with dignity.
Or, don't. Up to you. No one can force another to act with class.
We're talking about simple political debate.
Tell that to Scooter Libby. Violence comes in many forms, and some of them are legal.
And calling Fitzgerald a faggot will help Libby?
That's the point you refuse to address. When hanging out, cracking jokes, writing funny articles, that kind of thing is fine.
But at CPAC? When the focus is on Conservatives, and political issues?
She made me, and others like me who believe in a conserative use of federal power, want to distance myself from CPAC. Therefore hurting the cause of CPAC.
Ronald Reagan never once said, "oh yeah faggot!"
Strong men don't do that. Only weak men with no character stoop to the level of a D.
I believe we conservatives are above that.
I believe we conservatives are above that.
So you keep saying, like repetition will make it true. You're a regular doctrinaire of philosophy.
It rather reminds my of how my mom used to tell me never to throw the first punch...of course, not knowing a damned thing about fistfights, she didn't know the one that draws first blood is usually the winner.
Tell me, who won the Revolutionary War? Was it those dastardly Americans, hiding behind trees and rocks, or was it the noble British, who stood there and took it like men?
Again with the violence analogy!
Look, if folks like you insist on pretending that honest political debate is a war, and those who disagree with us are the enemy, then so be it.
We just disagree, friend. People like *me* are somehow able to win debates by sticking to facts and reason. If you lack that ability, then I s'pose I can't fault you for looking for another way to vent. It won't bring you success, but if it's all you got . . .
Folks like yourself and Ann in the last election when talking to anti-war Ds called them "Traitors" and "cowards" and such. Folks like myself would instead focus on saying things like, "We lost 6,000 dead, 25,000 wounded in 30 days of fighting for Iwo Jima, and that was a victory!"
Guess which approach is more effective? If you want to be effective, then measure your words. If you want to just vent, then name-call.
Up to you, it makes no never mind to me. I am who I am, you are who you are.
Look, if folks like you insist on pretending that honest political debate is a war, and those who disagree with us are the enemy, then so be it.
The problem is folks like you insist on pretending it's an honest political debate.
We're all Americans here. They think we want things that are bad for America. We think the same about them.
They vote, we vote. Majority rules. So our job is to convince them to vote our way. Some of them are like you -- partisan to their core, and immune to reason. But the majority of them are open to good points, made with reason.
I have had a *lot* of luck discussing these issues with 1/2 a dozen Ds I know, including my parents-in-law.
Real discussion is possible.
And while you are patting yourself on the back for possibly convincing a half dozen liberals to entertain discussion with you, the broader culture is falling to their dirty tricks aided by your insistance no one on your side get their hands dirty.
The pro-life faction has been comforting themselves with such drivel for almost 40 years, all the while ignoring the fact forty million children have been killed and the fact they have LOST the policy debate.
Well in large part, possilby that's cuz people like me, who are both pro-choice and effective in communicating?
I am pro-choice. And I'd never call a pro-life person a name. I respect your opinions, and debate ya'll openly and honestly. Calling you names would *not* help.
And my side has won the debate, for now.
Just reflect on your tactics, and look back and ask yourself, "How's that workin' for ya?"
Your side has not won the debate, only the political placement.
In the meantime, the effects of abortion on demand on the demographics of the United States and Western Europe are NOT pretty.
Implosion of the Social Security trust fund and dhimmitude for Western Europe are just two of the side effects.
No cheers, unfortunately.
Hardly. It's because your side obtained an illegitimate ruling from the SCOTUS, then managed to make every effective tactic your opposition used, illegal.
That communication skill is real effective when you can use RICO statutes against nonviolent protesters practicing civil disobedience...which by the way wouldn't even be civil disobedience if you hadn 't managed to stripped them of their civil rights around abortion clinics.
Well, interestingly enough, we certainly don't know the full consequences of this policy.
Did you ever read 'Freakonomics'? One of the topics covered was an analysis of abortion figures, as compared to crime rates.
This guy argued that abortions are overwhelmingly had by young, low-income, problem girls. And a high % of those children grow up to be criminals.
He used his figures to suggest that the lowering crime rates starting in 1991, 18 years after Roe v. Wade, are in part due to abortion.
It was a fascinating theory, but it's only a theory.
You have to this point lost the public debate.
I do believe that Roe v. Wade should be overturned. I believe this is a state's issue, there should be no federal ruling on it at all.
But I think that it should remain an option for women who want to excersize it.
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.