Here's to perspective...

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.

Rob Graham · modified on Saturday, January 24, 2009 7:08 PM

No fetus is viable in the first trimester. That is a simple statement of fact. Even with the most aggressive medical assistance, a fetus of three months or less will not survive outside the womb. It is therefore not viable. In the opinion of some, it is also not yet a human life entitled to the same protections given those fully formed humans outside the womb. The assertion that such a fetus is from the moment of conception forward, a self-aware human life and deserving the full protection accorded a breathing human is a religious decision. No legal opinion has been presented on that subject, nor can one be presented because it is simply not possible to determine at what point the fetus becomes self-aware. This is exactly the decision rendered by Roe v. Wade, which overturned Texas' prohibition of abortion based on the fetus not having the protection of the constitution before it is viable, rather than on some definition of when life begins. It found that the mothers right to terminate was based in the due process clause of the constitution (specifically the majority opinion cited section 1 of the 14th amendment which prohibits the states from abridging the un-enumerated rights of citizens. The Appeals court decision that preceded the Supreme Court case found the same justification in the 9th amendment). The court in no way made any legal determination as to when life begins. They instead chose to define at what point life acquires the rights of a citizen. I see no point in belaboring this any further. As I pointed out, my original point had to due with the negative impact this issue has on the resolution of all others, not on the correctness of one position or another with regard to this issue. Personally, I find abortion tragic and would neither recommend nor support it, but agree with the courts finding on the superiority of the mothers rights up until the fetus is viable. Your dogged pursuit of this issue only serves to emphasize the accuracy of my original point.

Rob Graham · modified on Saturday, January 24, 2009 7:08 PM

Stan Shannon wrote:

And we are not debating abortion, we are debating Roe v Wade. Two completely separate issues.

Not so's I can tell. On both points.

Stan Shannon wrote:

In fact, I do not. A capitalistic society cannot exist without a moral foundation controlled by the people.

And since the only "moral foundation" you accept is a religious one, you concede the original point, that you would have a religious belief determine the law, which is different how from the Taliban (other than in choice of religion and degree)? Bah, enough. You shout in circles like Ilion, not wishing to convince but rather to berate.

Stan Shannon

Rob Graham wrote:

Bah, enough. You shout in circles like Ilion, not wishing to convince but rather to berate.

Rob, you people are absolutely incredible. I have presented well reeasoned objections to each of your points. I merely claim that religious inspired political opinions are as viable as any other, even though I largely disagree with them myself. You started this debate by accusing me of being like the taliban, and you end if with accusing me of being like the taliban while at each step of the way you have ridiculed and belittled those who take a principled, moral stance against things with which they disagree. And the reason they are not supposed to do that is (a) the supreme court said so, and (b) we have money problems. And then you turn right around and say you didn't. ANd unless I agree with you, I'm demonized as being like the evil Illion. God all mighty... This is precisely why I am perfectly comfortable with the economic meltdown. It is time for this insanity to end. No civilization can survive such a blatant abandonment of even the slightest shred of common sense and logic such as you exhibit, economy or no economy.

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 Graham wrote:

In the opinion of some, it is also not yet a human life entitled to the same protections given those fully formed humans outside the womb. The assertion that such a fetus is from the moment of conception forward, a self-aware human life and deserving the full protection accorded a breathing human is a religious decision. No legal opinion has been presented on that subject, nor can one be presented because it is simply not possible to determine at what point the fetus becomes self-aware. This is exactly the decision rendered by Roe v. Wade, which overturned Texas' prohibition of abortion based on the fetus not having the protection of the constitution before it is viable, rather than on some definition of when life begins. It found that the mothers right to terminate was based in the due process clause of the constitution (specifically the majority opinion cited section 1 of the 14th amendment which prohibits the states from abridging the un-enumerated rights of citizens. The Appeals court decision that preceded the Supreme Court case found the same justification in the 9th amendment). The court in no way made any legal determination as to when life begins. They instead chose to define at what point life acquires the rights of a citizen.

Well what about those who disagree? You are saying that you want them to be abandoned. To be given no access to any political means to express their disagreement. That is exactly what your entire argument is based upon.

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.

peterchen

The markets.. yes. You do realize that all this attempts to "help" the market are actually about the people that depend on them?

Burning Chrome ^ | Linkify!| FoldWithUs! | sighist

Stan Shannon

peterchen wrote:

You do realize that all this attempts to "help" the market are actually about the people that depend on them?

I realize its an attempt to enslave the people who would otherwise be free in a free market system. And you realize, dont you, that none of this is going to work. The situation for the people who depend on the markets is only going to worsen because of government.

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.