Here's to perspective...

Rob Graham

Oakman wrote:

Picking the pockets of the tax-payers, likewise appears to be something conservatives Republicans do equally as well as liberals.

FTFY - There are no conservatives in government today, just kleptocrats and theocrats masquerading as conservatives.

soap brain

Spelling is very important. Nobody ever won an argument by saying: "lol d00d ur so rong teh sky iz blue cos of raili scatering lulz n00b!!!!1111"

Stan Shannon

Ravel H. Joyce wrote:

Spelling is very important

Not so much. An occasional mispelled word is no big deal. ;P I rarely even proof read my comments. In the age of spell checkers, I actually think my spelling and grammer are pretty damn good.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

Rob Graham

That differs in what way from the Taliban's insistence on Sharia Law? Many of us do not buy into the assertion that legal availability of abortion is about

Stan Shannon wrote:

an issue... such as the very definition of human life

. No fetus is viable in the first trimester, and it is a strictly Religious definition that says otherwise.

Stan Shannon wrote:

If the issue of abortion was so important why could it not have been addressed directly by the elected representatives of the people

Yes, why not. Why must republicans sacrifice everything to pack a court, rather than seek the simple remedy of a constitutional amendment? Perhaps because they know an amendment would not pass muster?

Stan Shannon wrote:

Roe v Wade issue has nothing to do with religion at all.

Bullshit. It has to do with little else.

Stan Shannon

There are a few - Mike Pence, Tom Coburn, Paul Ryan... They are out there. The problem is that the Republican party is not, and has never been a conservative party in the same sense that the democrats have become a liberal party. Conservatives have no true home.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

Stan Shannon

Rob, all I can say is that your position is incomprehensible to me. Roe v wade was a decision that involved defining human life. That was the entire point of it. Viability is nothing but a rationalization, an arbitrary point. What does the word even mean? The viability of the fetus is precisely why an abortion is needed. If it were not viable, no abortion would be needed - it would be called a miscarriage. And we are all just supposed to get in line and salute the courts and do as they say. No politcal oppostion at all. Incredible. Did Roe V Wade mark a turning point? Absolutely. It was a convneient legal case for obliterating traditional American society. It drew a line in the sand between Jefferson and Marx. Between the state as agent of change and people as agents of change.

Rob Graham wrote:

Why must republicans sacrifice everything to pack a court, rather than seek the simple remedy of a constitutional amendment?

Because the courts need to be restrained. They have become too powerful. You cannot say you trust your neighbor and also believe he must be constantly restrained by an all powerful court. No one in congress, liberal or conservative, has the courage to force a legislative solution. That is a problem with congress, not republicans. Conservatives would accept an amendment defining when a human life actually begins. Would you?

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

Rob Graham

One last thing: How wise does the Republican strategy of single minded focus on court appointments as the determining criteria for electing representatives, senators, presidents and vice presidents seem at the present juncture? Roe v. Wade is still the law of the land, and the opposition now owns both the power of appointment and of ratification. Any court appointments in the next 4 to 8 years (and I'll bet it doesn't end at 8) will be far to the left of anything you would like. And the price paid to get here has been the abandonment of any reduction in the scope and size of government, and a complete mockery of free market capitalism accompanied by an abandonment of any semblance of fiscal responsibility. It would appear to have been a losing strategy.

Oakman

Rob Graham wrote:

There are no conservatives in government today, just kleptocrats and theocrats masquerading as conservatives.

You're correct. I meant to put quotes around both conservatives and liberals, but rushed to finish my thought because I had an appointment. Barry Goldwater and Robert Taft would not recognize the Republican party of today nor would Scoop Jackson or Hubert Humphrey find he had anything much in common with the Democrats.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Stan Shannon

Rob Graham wrote:

One last thing: How wise does the Republican strategy of single minded focus on court appointments as the determining criteria for electing representatives, senators, presidents and vice presidents seem at the present juncture? Roe v. Wade is still the law of the land, and the opposition now owns both the power of appointment and of ratification. Any court appointments in the next 4 to 8 years (and I'll bet it doesn't end at 8) will be far to the left of anything you would like. And the price paid to get here has been the abandonment of any reduction in the scope and size of government, and a complete mockery of free market capitalism accompanied by an abandonment of any semblance of fiscal responsibility. It would appear to have been a losing strategy.

The courts are at the center of the battle. Control them, and you control the entire agenda. And as long as our guys stay healthy, there is little Obama can do to change things. It would have been nice to have had one more, but Kennedy will probably become more conservative as Obama tries to use his own appointments to enable his true leftist agenda. But, frankly, I don't give a damn. Liberalism will not work. It will ultimately fail for both fiscal and social reasons. It is fatally flawed on both scores. (Libertarians are only wrong on social issues) All we conservatives need do is set and wait. The freer the collectivist left is to promote its principles, the sooner the end will come. If all the rest of you have to learn your lessons the hard way, so be it. Not my fault.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

Stan Shannon

Oakman wrote:

Barry Goldwater and Robert Taft would not recognize the Republican party of today nor would Scoop Jackson or Hubert Humphrey find he had anything much in common with the Democrats.

But modern conservatives would embrace Goldware and Taft much more eagerly than modern liberals would do so for Jackson and Humphrey.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

Stan Shannon

Oh, and btw, the fact that you essentially want some groups removed from the political arena because you disagree with them, actually makes you far more like the taliban than any fundamentalist christian is. The only real difference is - you are actually doing it.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

Rob Graham

Stan Shannon wrote:

the fact that you essentially want some groups removed from the political arena because you disagree with them,

I never suggested anything of the kind. I said you deserve condemnation, not extinction. OTOH, if you prefer suicide, I'm not about to stand in your way as long as you keep it to yourself.

Stan Shannon wrote:

The only real difference is - you are actually doing it.

How is that? At the ballot box? Try winning back my vote.

peterchen

The "socialize losses" part?

Burning Chrome ^ | Linkify!| FoldWithUs! | sighist

Stan Shannon

peterchen wrote:

The "socialize losses" part?

Thats a good way to describe it. The free markets could actually swallow these loses whole sale, and keep chugging right along after a bit of choking and puking. The collectivist state can never swallow them. It will choke to death trying to socialize them.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

Rob Graham

Agreed. Reagan was a poor choice. He also was the first to plunder the Social Security trust fund under the guise of "reform".

Stan Shannon

Rob Graham wrote:

I never suggested anything of the kind.

You just stated above that anyone questioning the decision of the court on religious grounds was unacceptable to you. That is a hell of a lot more than mere condemnation. What does that mean if not that you believe religious points of view are to be excluded from national discourse? Everyone is just supposed to accept that some arbitrary definition of what human life is because the courts say so. If the courts had decided that Jews were not human would religious opposition be invalid? How about just plain old moral conscience completely independent of religion? Is that acceptable? Rob, your reasoning flabbergasts me. Honestly, I am always stunned by the libertarian world view. I find it difficult to even put it together in a way that allows it to be evaluated for any sort of intellectual merit.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

Oakman

Stan Shannon wrote:

I am always stunned by the libertarian world view

This is not a surprise. It require a relatively agile mind to understand libertarians.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Rob Graham

Stan Shannon wrote:

You just stated above that anyone questioning the decision of the court on religious grounds was unacceptable to you. That is a hell of a lot more than mere condemnation.

No I did not. Your imagination runs away with you.

Stan Shannon wrote:

you believe religious points of view are to be excluded from national discourse?

Nor did I say that.

Stan Shannon wrote:

Everyone is just supposed to accept that some arbitrary definition of what human life is because the courts say so.

Nor that. In fact, it was you who introduced the topic.

Stan Shannon wrote:

If the courts had decided that Jews were not human would religious opposition be invalid? How about just plain old moral conscience completely independent of religion? Is that acceptable?

Now you stumble into the absurd. But, thanks for proving my original point: You are so damn possesed by the mere mention of the topic of abortion, that all else fades. That, and That alone was my point - I never intended an argument on the topic of abortion, but rather on the degree to which it monopolizes the discourse to the exclusion of much more important topics. I think the survival of capitalism and ethical government merits more concern than whether or not access to abortion (including for contraception) is legal. You have proven again that you think it does not.

Stan Shannon

Than would you mind elaborating on this comment: No fetus is viable in the first trimester, and it is a strictly Religious definition that says otherwise.

Rob Graham wrote:

I think the survival of capitalism and ethical government merits more concern than whether or not access to abortion (including for contraception) is legal. You have proven again that you think it does not.

In fact, I do not. A capitalistic society cannot exist without a moral foundation controlled by the people. And we are not debating abortion, we are debating Roe v Wade. Two completely separate issues.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

modified on Saturday, January 24, 2009 7:08 PM

Stan Shannon

I'll say... Every other statement is mutually contradictory. "I trust my neighbor..." "OMG! My neighbor is a christian!!!!"

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.