Real Conservatives Begin To Speak Out

[gifford1967]

This was my favorite line-

As a senator, I worried every day about the size of the federal deficit. I did not spend a single minute worrying about the effect of gays on the institution of marriage. Today it seems to be the other way around.


In the Name of Politics

By JOHN C. DANFORTH

St. Louis — BY a series of recent initiatives, Republicans have transformed our party into the political arm of conservative Christians. The elements of this transformation have included advocacy of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, opposition to stem cell research involving both frozen embryos and human cells in petri dishes, and the extraordinary effort to keep Terri Schiavo hooked up to a feeding tube.

Standing alone, each of these initiatives has its advocates, within the Republican Party and beyond. But the distinct elements do not stand alone. Rather they are parts of a larger package, an agenda of positions common to conservative Christians and the dominant wing of the Republican Party.

Christian activists, eager to take credit for recent electoral successes, would not be likely to concede that Republican adoption of their political agenda is merely the natural convergence of conservative religious and political values. Correctly, they would see a causal relationship between the activism of the churches and the responsiveness of Republican politicians. In turn, pragmatic Republicans would agree that motivating Christian conservatives has contributed to their successes.

High-profile Republican efforts to prolong the life of Ms. Schiavo, including departures from Republican principles like approving Congressional involvement in private decisions and empowering a federal court to overrule a state court, can rightfully be interpreted as yielding to the pressure of religious power blocs.

In my state, Missouri, Republicans in the General Assembly have advanced legislation to criminalize even stem cell research in which the cells are artificially produced in petri dishes and will never be transplanted into the human uterus. They argue that such cells are human life that must be protected, by threat of criminal prosecution, from promising research on diseases like Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and juvenile diabetes.

It is not evident to many of us that cells in a petri dish are equivalent to identifiable people suffering from terrible diseases. I am and have always been pro-life. But the only explanation for legislators comparing cells in a petri dish to babies in the womb is the extension of religious doctrine into statutory law.

I do not fault religious people for political action. Since Moses confronted the pharaoh, faithful people have heard God's call to political involvement. Nor has political action been unique to conservative Christians. Religious liberals have been politically active in support of gay rights and against nuclear weapons and the death penalty. In America, everyone has the right to try to influence political issues, regardless of his religious motivations.

The problem is not with people or churches that are politically active. It is with a party that has gone so far in adopting a sectarian agenda that it has become the political extension of a religious movement.

When government becomes the means of carrying out a religious program, it raises obvious questions under the First Amendment. But even in the absence of constitutional issues, a political party should resist identification with a religious movement. While religions are free to advocate for their own sectarian causes, the work of government and those who engage in it is to hold together as one people a very diverse country. At its best, religion can be a uniting influence, but in practice, nothing is more divisive. For politicians to advance the cause of one religious group is often to oppose the cause of another.

Take stem cell research. Criminalizing the work of scientists doing such research would give strong support to one religious doctrine, and it would punish people who believe it is their religious duty to use science to heal the sick.

During the 18 years I served in the Senate, Republicans often disagreed with each other. But there was much that held us together. We believed in limited government, in keeping light the burden of taxation and regulation. We encouraged the private sector, so that a free economy might thrive. We believed that judges should interpret the law, not legislate. We were internationalists who supported an engaged foreign policy, a strong national defense and free trade. These were principles shared by virtually all Republicans.

But in recent times, we Republicans have allowed this shared agenda to become secondary to the agenda of Christian conservatives. As a senator, I worried every day about the size of the federal deficit. I did not spend a single minute worrying about the effect of gays on the institution of marriage. Today it seems to be the other way around.

The historic principles of the Republican Party offer America its best hope for a prosperous and secure future. Our current fixation on a religious agenda has turned us in the wrong direction. It is time for Republicans to rediscover our roots.


John C. Danforth, a former United States senator from Missouri, resigned in January as United States ambassador to the United Nations. He is an Episcopal minister.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/30/opinion/30danforth.html

[Deckard]

Praise the lord and pass the moderation.



Keep D&D Civil!!

[RocketMan Tex]

Why do Episcopal Ministers who served 18 years in the United States Senate hate America?

:D

[JuanValdez]

What's "real" about his conservatism?

[wouldabeen23]

Man....that gives me hope that we can at least lower the rhetoric of debate between Dems and Reps and go back to being gentlemen/women advasries again....

I don't know about you guys, but I'm getting worn out defending my Americanism/Faith/Values from ultra conservative christian zelaots on the right wing as I'm sure moderate Republicans are tired of the "Bush Sux--down with American Society" left-wing contingent.

It's ALL cyclical....the Republican, ultra-conservative-christian-activist arm is going to strecth to it's apex and then coming screaming back at an exponential decline--count on it

Maybe somewhere in between we can reach common ground again--I TRULY hope so for the sake of this country.

Thanks for the article, gives me some hope

[Sishir Chang]

As I said before without the 9/11 and the War on Terror the Republican party would tear itself apart between social and fiscal conservatives.

[wouldabeen23]

Originally posted by JuanValdez
What's "real" about his conservatism?

SURELY you mean that in a rhetorical or sarcastic sense?

What's real about his conservatism is:

-Concern for the National Debt

-Less government intrusion on personal privacy/freedom

-Smaller Federal government

-Less Federal government involvement in social matters and or less Federal Government power trumping that of the State.

The NEW conservatives have shown, on the whole, to now represent the OPPOSITE of these ideals.

They want government to legislate morality, trump State's right's, judicial activism in favor of THEIR moral values, blatant disregard for the soaring national debt and fiscal conservatism while spending money at a break-neck pace, government intrusion into a private citizen's life and a general partnering with far right Christian groups to promote the Republican party platform.

He didn't say it's WRONG to look for Christian groups to participate in government and advance their causes. I took from his argument that the Republican Party/Conservatives shouldn't let the fundamental Christian movement be another arm of the party that dictates their will through a Republican legislative/Executive majority.

I could be wrong, I'm trying NOT to be inflamatory...however, with my limited intelligence I could be doing the opposite! ;)

[JuanValdez]

When you say "Real Conservatives Begin To Speak Out," it has an implication that other so-called conservatives are somehow less legitimate as political agents or otherwise inferior than the "real" ones, such as Mr. Danforth. It suggests there is some archtype of what a conservative is, one that is static and never changes over time -- a Platonic conservative. It doesn't make much sense. The nature of conservatives in America will change over time, just as the liberals change. They are, after all, defined by their relationship to one another and the political landscape itself. So, conservatives aren't quite the same as they used to be. OK.

On a separate note, I sense some sort of idealized nostalgia for the conservatives of old. They were not any more honorable, gentlemanly, wise, prudent, or otherwise palatable than the current crop. They are only different.

That's all I meant by it.

[wouldabeen23]

Originally posted by JuanValdez
When you say "Real Conservatives Begin To Speak Out," it has an implication that other so-called conservatives are somehow less legitimate as political agents or otherwise inferior than the "real" ones, such as Mr. Danforth. It suggests there is some archtype of what a conservative is, one that is static and never changes over time -- a Platonic conservative. It doesn't make much sense. The nature of conservatives in America will change over time, just as the liberals change. They are, after all, defined by their relationship to one another and the political landscape itself. So, conservatives aren't quite the same as they used to be. OK.

On a separate note, I sense some sort of idealized nostalgia for the conservatives of old. They were not any more honorable, gentlemanly, wise, prudent, or otherwise palatable than the current crop. They are only different.

That's all I meant by it.

Call them "traditional" rather than "real" then...I think you are really arguing semantics to be a foil to a blanket statement--which I applaud you in doing so.


In either case, there certainly is a propensity for nostalgia towards traditional conservatives of yore.

I disagree with your statement that the Republican party of the past compared to the current crop of hard-liners whom represent the Republican party are, in your words, "not any more honorable, gentlemanly, wise, prudent, or otherwise palatable than the current crop. They are only different.".

When the Vice President of this Country tells another Senator on the Senate floor to "F*ck-off", then Washington, we have a problem. Cheney is emblematic of the Republican attitude towards discourse and differing opinions I'm afraid. I don't excuse the far left for being any less combative, but they don't control almost every level of government either.

I mean, Rove/Bush and cohorts attacked one of the Republican party's brightest leaders, John McCain, UNMERCIFULLY. Calling in to doubt his patriotism and service/captivity in Vietnam. Not to mention the call drive asking voters in South Carolina(correct me if I have the wrong state) if they would be more/less likely to vote for John McCain if they knew he had fathered a child of a black woman out of wedlock.

Sorry Juan, I can't accept your arguement.

[langal]

Can someone enlighten me? My knowledge of US history leaves much to be desired.

Just how did the Yankee-dominated GOP of old "win" the South - and subsequently become dominated by the newly-won constituents? In 1860, Lincoln wasn't even on the ballot in the Southern states - and I think JC Breckinridge won every southern state. Breckinridge even became the Confederate Secretary of War(?).

I suppose the 60's civil-rights movement caused a lot of chaos and upheaval amongst the ranks of both parties. "Reagan Democrats" (socially conservative Dems) probably started swelling the GOP numbers later on. I suppose the Bible-thumpers had the numbers at some point to start controlling the GOP platform. Hopefully someone here can elucidate further.

As a Republican I can only hope some prominent social-moderates carry the torch in 2006/08.

[SamFisher]

Originally posted by langal
Can someone enlighten me? My knowledge of US history leaves much to be desired.

Just how did the Yankee-dominated GOP of old "win" the South - and subsequently become dominated by the newly-won constituents? In 1860, Lincoln wasn't even on the ballot in the Southern states - and I think JC Breckinridge won every southern state. Breckinridge even became the Confederate Secretary of War(?).

I suppose the 60's civil-rights movement caused a lot of chaos and upheaval amongst the ranks of both parties. "Reagan Democrats" (socially conservative Dems) probably started swelling the GOP numbers later on. I suppose the Bible-thumpers had the numbers at some point to start controlling the GOP platform. Hopefully someone here can elucidate further.

As a Republican I can only hope some prominent social-moderates carry the torch in 2006/08.

Quite simply the migration was the result of the "Southern Strategy", by the Republicans in the late 60's, early 70's - pick off disaffected Democrats (or Dixiecrats) who left over the civil rights movement when LBJ irrevocably put the Dems in that corner. It took time but the Solid south is now solidly republican - and the population is growing there too, so natuarlly their influence has been waxing.

As for the moderate hope, well, the last election showed the new strategy as defined by Rove: why scrap over the middle when I can simply enhance my base? It's precisely what he did, and it precisely worked - much better than fighting for the middle in 2000. If the recent (2008 contenders) Frist-Jeb dueling banjoschiavo match means anything, you're going to be waiting a long time for moderation to come back into vogue. On the plus side, the sanctity of your marriage is unlikely to be threatened, and your feeding tube is safer...

[langal]

Originally posted by SamFisher
Quite simply the migration was the result of the "Southern Strategy", by the Republicans in the late 60's, early 70's - pick off disaffected Democrats (or Dixiecrats) who left over the civil rights movement when LBJ irrevocably put the Dems in that corner. It took time but the Solid south is now solidly republican - and the population is growing there too, so natuarlly their influence has been waxing.

As for the moderate hope, well, the last election showed the new strategy as defined by Rove: why scrap over the middle when I can simply enhance my base? It's precisely what he did, and it precisely worked - much better than fighting for the middle in 2000. If the recent (2008 contenders) Frist-Jeb dueling banjoschiavo match means anything, you're going to be waiting a long time for moderation to come back into vogue. On the plus side, the sanctity of your marriage is unlikely to be threatened, and your feeding tube is safer...

Thanks Sam-

That's a good point. The Bush-Kerry election strategy only further validates that strategy. I suppose what we have now is a socially-conservative, fiscally-ambiguous GOP. In your opinion, do you see a McCain or Guiliani candidacy coming to the fore?

[glynch]

Danforth is out of step politically with the current electoral dynamics of the GOP.

The real base of the GOP remains the higher income folks. They can be counted on to hold their nose and vote Republican as long as their tax rates are lower with the Repubs. Hence you find many well off Repubs who have nothing against gay marriage and might even be gay themselves, voting to lower their taxes while the GOP professes to hate gays. A classic case was ol Ronnie Reagan who pretended to be religious. Ronnie had to be told to go to church occasionally after he got elected in large part to the religious working claass folks.

The reason why the GOP keep the emphasis on side show interests like gays, god, guns, and death and dying is to keep the poor simple minded working class Repubs from thinking about which party is really in their favor economically. Hence you have these folks, who often pay very little in taxes, voting to cut the taxes of the $300k per year plus crowd and voting to raise their own sales taxes, college tuitions etc.

[SamFisher]

Originally posted by langal
Thanks Sam-

That's a good point. The Bush-Kerry election strategy only further validates that strategy. I suppose what we have now is a socially-conservative, fiscally-ambiguous GOP. In your opinion, do you see a McCain or Guiliani candidacy coming to the fore?

McCain has a much better shot since he talks the pro-life talk and generally walks it too.

Pro-Choice, pro-gay rights Rudy would have to have a miraculous conversion, perhaps he will be saved!

[giddyup]

Originally posted by glynch
Danforth is out of step politically with the current electoral dynamics of the GOP.

The real base of the GOP remains the higher income folks. They can be counted on to hold their nose and vote Republican as long as their tax rates are lower with the Repubs. Hence you find many well off Repubs who have nothing against gay marriage and might even be gay themselves, voting to lower their taxes while the GOP professes to hate gays. A classic case was ol Ronnie Reagan who pretended to be religious. Ronnie had to be told to go to church occasionally after he got elected in large part to the religious working claass folks.

The reason why the GOP keep the emphasis on side show interests like gays, god, guns, and death and dying is to keep the poor simple minded working class Repubs from thinking about which party is really in their favor economically. Hence you have these folks, who often pay very little in taxes, voting to cut the taxes of the $300k per year plus crowd and voting to raise their own sales taxes, college tuitions etc.
Are you saying that the Republican "base" is that special <1% of the US population who make anywhere near $300,000 or more? Man that's a narrow base-- should topple over any day now.

:eek:

How does the GOP "profess to hate gays?"

:eek:

[andymoon]

Originally posted by giddyup
Are you saying that the Republican "base" is that special <1% of the US population who make anywhere near $300,000 or more? Man that's a narrow base-- should topple over any day now.


Not as long as they continue to help out with efforts like the Swift Boat Liars.

Originally posted by giddyup

How does the GOP "profess to hate gays?"


You mean aside from putting forth the idea of a discriminatory amendment to the Constitution?

[giddyup]

Originally posted by andymoon
You mean aside from putting forth the idea of a discriminatory amendment to the Constitution?
Do you mean the one with 200+ years of tradition behind it? That's some powerful discrimination!

[andymoon]

Originally posted by giddyup
Do you mean the one with 200+ years of tradition behind it? That's some powerful discrimination!

Yes, the Constitution has 200+ years of tradition behind it. 200 years where it has detailed the rights we have and (with only one exception that I know of) has only had amendments that broaden our freedoms.

The GOP actually proposed an amendment that would override states' rights (nothing new for this administration) and specify that certain people could not form a family. This is powerful discrimination indeed. This is discrimination so powerful that some people actually supported codifying said discrimination into a document that is supposed to protect, not diminish, our freedom to live our lives as we see fit and to form a family with the person we love.

Discrimination plain and simple.

[Sishir Chang]

Originally posted by giddyup
Do you mean the one with 200+ years of tradition behind it? That's some powerful discrimination!

The Constitution has never said anything about Gays or marriage.

[Sishir Chang]

What's ironic, or hopeful, about this is that John Danforth isn't considered a moderate on both fiscal or social issues. That a politician like him is speaking out about this is a HUGE warning sign to the Republicans about the strenght of their coalition.

All things being equal in 2008 the party could fragment between social conservatives and fiscal conservatives as they realize that many of the stances they take are diametrically opposed to each other.

[rhadamanthus]

Originally posted by giddyup
Do you mean the one with 200+ years of tradition behind it? That's some powerful discrimination!

Good grief you're an idiot.

[giddyup]

Originally posted by rhadamanthus
Good grief you're an idiot.
Thank you for your contribution. Can you elaborate or are you better at or just satisfied by name-calling?

[rhadamanthus]

Originally posted by giddyup
Thank you for your contribution. Can you elaborate or are you better at or just satisfied by name-calling?

Sure - why not.

Tradition, like patriotism, is the refuge of the weak minded and cowardly. The constitution and the bill of rights were intentionally written to be malleable documents. Proclaiming that an amendment banning gay marriage is acceptable due to tradition is akin to saying that the 13th and 14th amendments should never have been passed, or any other legislation that attempts to curb discriminatory practices.

For that - you are an idiot. ;)

[giddyup]

Originally posted by rhadamanthus
Sure - why not.

Tradition, like patriotism, is the refuge of the weak minded and cowardly. The constitution and the bill of rights were intentionally written to be malleable documents. Proclaiming that an amendment banning gay marriage is acceptable due to tradition is akin to saying that the 13th and 14th amendments should never have been passed, or any other legislation that attempts to curb discriminatory practices.

For that - you are an idiot. ;)

If it makes you feel better to call most of the country "idiotic," go right ahead.

For the record, and recorded here many times, I have no problem with gay marriage.

If tradition is the refuge of the weak-minded, do you also scoff at birthday parties and parades?

And thanks for the reminder that it is weak-minded to be patriotic. I needed that refresher!

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by giddyup
If it makes you feel better to call most of the country "idiotic," go right ahead.

For the record, and recorded here many times, I have no problem with gay marriage.

If tradition is the refuge of the weak-minded, do you also scoff at birthday parties and parades?

And thanks for the reminder that it is weak-minded to be patriotic. I needed that refresher! Most of the country is against an amendment in the constitution prohibiting gay marriage.

They are against marriage as well, but don't want an amendment added to the constitution to strike it out.

That being said, calling people an idiot doesn't help anything. You made good points sunsequently, but the debate is only side tracked when names are brought into it.

[Deckard]

Keep D&D Civil!!

[BMoney]

Originally posted by langal
Can someone enlighten me? My knowledge of US history leaves much to be desired.

Just how did the Yankee-dominated GOP of old "win" the South - and subsequently become dominated by the newly-won constituents? In 1860, Lincoln wasn't even on the ballot in the Southern states - and I think JC Breckinridge won every southern state. Breckinridge even became the Confederate Secretary of War(?).

I suppose the 60's civil-rights movement caused a lot of chaos and upheaval amongst the ranks of both parties. "Reagan Democrats" (socially conservative Dems) probably started swelling the GOP numbers later on. I suppose the Bible-thumpers had the numbers at some point to start controlling the GOP platform. Hopefully someone here can elucidate further.

As a Republican I can only hope some prominent social-moderates carry the torch in 2006/08.

Sam said it well...Nixon originated the Southern Strategy (split the Democratic working class coalition by getting the blue collar white male vote in the South) and Reagan solidified it into the GOP gameplan. Whenever I hear what a nice guy Ronald Reagan was I think back to hisappearence Philadelphia, Mississippi in 1980. Philadelphia, Mississippi is most famous for being the place where three civil rights workers were murdered by white supremicists in 1964. Reagan *kicked off his presidential campaign there* ("I am for states' rights") with the express intent of getting the southern racist vote to stop voting democratic as they had since the Civil War. Reagan didn't take the opportunity to condemn the murder of those three men, or call for racial harmony....nope, he just send a code to racists that he was open for business. Trent Lott got scapegoated for expressing much the same sentiments.

[Ottomaton]

Danforth was the chancellor of my University!

Quite a way back I saw somebody attempt to say that Newt Gingrich was a liberal in conservative clothing and I laughed it off at the time, but I'm beginning to wonder if he was...

The alteration of political demographics is a completely normal thing in the history of American politics. Anybody remember the odd world of the Dixicrat, or the Bull Moose party? The Wall Street Republican and the Christian Coalition Republican really do make strange bed-fellows.

I've also saw somebody compare Bush to Leon Trotsky in the degree of belief in ideology above all else, which doesn't sound like a conservative to me.

Traditionally, a conservative in America has been described as a liaise fair capitalist and one who doesn't seek to have the government involve its self in everyday life. Under this description, he not a conservative, his brand of liberalism is at once completely different and similar to liberalism in the traditional sense. It reminds me of Hitler's National Socialism vs. Stalin's Communism. Both evolved from the same idea, but both were subverted, and both were forms of state control, though on the surface they couldn't be more different.

I think perhaps the terms liberal and conservative are less than enough to properly describe the spectrum of beliefs.

[rhadamanthus]

Originally posted by giddyup
If it makes you feel better to call most of the country "idiotic," go right ahead.

Sometimes it does - for a brief moment. I apologize for calliing you an idiot.

For the record, and recorded here many times, I have no problem with gay marriage.

Glad to hear it. Wish more republicans thought that way.

If tradition is the refuge of the weak-minded, do you also scoff at birthday parties and parades?

Sorry, let me adjust the previous statement. Tradition, when used to prevent forward movement in society, is a bad thing.

And thanks for the reminder that it is weak-minded to be patriotic. I needed that refresher!

We can agree to disagree. IMO, patriotism is more often than not just an excuse to ignore the opposition's position. Logically, that self-imposed ignorance in turn fuels a bigoted agenda.

I am not trying to say that all patriotism is evil necessarily. However, patriotism without proper judgement is only asking for trouble. And it seems there is a lot of that going around...

[giddyup]

Originally posted by rhadamanthus
I am not trying to say that all patriotism is evil necessarily. However, patriotism without proper judgement is only asking for trouble. And it seems there is a lot of that going around...
I should hope not; I hope you have some patriotic stirrings of your own. The challenge here is that you discount a judgement that does not agree with your own as not being proper.

I guess we can all be guilty of that sooner or later, but your comparison of a hetero-marriage amendment to issues of slavery is a bit of a stretch in my opinion.

I've heard gays who do not feel oppressed that they cannot marry because they understand its place in our society... and there is a 200-year history behind it. It oppresses no one-- except some who enter the matrimonial gates!

[Dubious]

I'm just glad Arnold Vinnick has secured the nomination and returned some real rational thinking to the Republican Party.

http://www.nbc.com/nbc/The_West_Wing/images/imgs_bio/alan_alda.jpg

[rhadamanthus]

Originally posted by giddyup
I should hope not; I hope you have some patriotic stirrings of your own. The challenge here is that you discount a judgement that does not agree with your own as not being proper.


The judgement I discount is a lack of judgement. I don't think it hypocritical to take a stance against not thinking for one's self and mindlessly following an agenda.

[wouldabeen23]

Originally posted by Dubious
I'm just glad Arnold Vinnick has secured the nomination and returned some real rational thinking to the Republican Party.

http://www.nbc.com/nbc/The_West_Wing/images/imgs_bio/alan_alda.jpg


HAHAHAHA!!


If my Mom could have written in the fictional Bartlett(Martin Sheen) as a REAL canidate she would have.

[giddyup]

Originally posted by Dubious
I'm just glad Arnold Vinnick has secured the nomination and returned some real rational thinking to the Republican Party.

http://www.nbc.com/nbc/The_West_Wing/images/imgs_bio/alan_alda.jpg
You know "they" can't beat him...

[giddyup]

Originally posted by rhadamanthus
The judgement I discount is a lack of judgement. I don't think it hypocritical to take a stance against not thinking for one's self instead of mindlessly following an agenda.
Why is one side "mindlessly following an agenda" while the other side is not?

[rhadamanthus]

Originally posted by giddyup
Why is one side "mindlessly following an agenda" while the other side is not?

I like how you keep turning what I say against myself. Seriously - it's a neat trick that you no doubt aquired from all of this debate on D&D. ;)

Being a lurker (at least for the most part in D&D) this has been fun...

Addressing your question:
Logically, someone not thinking for themselves and being blindly patriotic is "mindlessly following an agenda". Currently, I think this ideology has a distrubingly large following in America.

Someone buying into that agenda even after some critical thinking has other issues (IMHO, mind you) which do not pertain to this debate.

[Dubious]

Originally posted by wouldabeen23
If my Mom could have written in the fictional Bartlett(Martin Sheen) as a REAL canidate she would have.

You mean I wasn't supposed to do that?:(

[giddyup]

Originally posted by rhadamanthus
I like how you keep turning what I say against myself. Seriously - it's a neat trick that you no doubt aquired from all of this debate on D&D. ;)
You called me an idiot for my views and you think I'm up to some trickery? ;)

If what you say deserves being turned against you or upside down is not my fault...

I'm just trying to figure out what you mean. The form on this place is brevity so sometimes we have to ask for amplification. It's not necessarily a challenge... though sometimes it is.

[rhadamanthus]

Originally posted by giddyup
You called me an idiot for my views and you think I'm up to some trickery? ;)

If what you say deserves being turned against you or upside down is not my fault...

I'm just trying to figure out what you mean. The form on this place is brevity so sometimes we have to ask for amplification. It's not necessarily a challenge... though sometimes it is.

I have not changed my opinion from that second post. However, I have clarified it to amend against absolutes.

Also, I still think that having the US government endorse discrimination based on tradition is silly. Let each individual church decide who can get married in them.

Oh - again, sorry about calling you an idiot. :)

[dylan]

Originally posted by giddyup

I've heard gays who do not feel oppressed that they cannot marry because they understand its place in our society... and there is a 200-year history behind it. It oppresses no one-- except some who enter the matrimonial gates!


Originally posted by giddyup
You called me an idiot for my views and you think I'm up to some trickery? ;)


No, I'm pretty sure he called you an idiot because you act so obtuse on this board so often. You post moronic chain letters in the guise of "discussion" and act offended and upset when they are refuted. I imagine he called you an idiot because you compare being against an amendment that strips rights of homosexuals to being against birthday parties. Or that you claim nobody is oppressed by said amendment when it prevents a large number of homosexuals from getting insurance equivalent to a heterosexual spouse and from being able to attain power of attorney, let alone such mundane issues as veterans benefits.

It's not your views per se that got you labeled. It's your complete lack of understanding.

[rhadamanthus]

Originally posted by dylan
No, I'm pretty sure he called you an idiot because you act so obtuse on this board so often. You post moronic chain letters in the guise of "discussion" and act offended and upset when they are refuted. I imagine he called you an idiot because you compare being against an amendment that strips rights of homosexuals to being against birthday parties. Or that you claim nobody is oppressed by said amendment when it prevents a large number of homosexuals from getting insurance equivalent to a heterosexual spouse and from being able to attain power of attorney, let alone such mundane issues as veterans benefits.

It's not your views per se that got you labeled. It's your complete lack of understanding.

To be honest, there was a whole lot of this in my accusation...

Nevertheless, D&D should be civil debate - no matter how ludicrous the opinion. My name-calling was useless without a counterpoint - which I subsequently gave.

The hardest thing about internet debate is the inability to just avoid opinions you already know are stupid, and usually (unfortunately) resolute.

[giddyup]

<b>Originally posted by dylan

No, I'm pretty sure he called you an idiot because you act so obtuse on this board so often.</b>

He made no such references.

<b>You post moronic chain letters in the guise of "discussion" and act offended and upset when they are refuted.</b>

I post whatever I want to if I think it will launch worthwhile discussion. I rarely get "upset" but I do oppose the personal attacks such as his and yours now. Check the record.

<b>I imagine he called you an idiot because you compare being against an amendment that strips rights of homosexuals to being against birthday parties.</b>

Homosexuals have never had they right to marry; how can you strip them of that right? Isn't there room for tongue-in-cheek? It is ludicrous to simply denounce tradition and I pointed that out.

<b> Or that you claim nobody is oppressed by said amendment when it prevents a large number of homosexuals from getting insurance equivalent to a heterosexual spouse and from being able to attain power of attorney, let alone such mundane issues as veterans benefits.</b>

I made a wisecrack about only certain numbers of those who enter into matrimonial unions being oppressed. Either refine your sense of humor or I'll develop better joke-writing skills. I'll tell you what, we'll both work on it...

<b>It's not your views per se that got you labeled. It's your complete lack of understanding.</b>

My complete lack of understanding of a position that I have no problem with? That's rich. Who doesn't understand? :eek:

[SWTsig]

ahhhh..... you gotta love the D&D, baby!

[SamFisher]

Originally posted by giddyup
<b>Originally posted by dylan

No, I'm pretty sure he called you an idiot because you act so obtuse on this board so often.</b>

He made no such references.



:D

You can't make this kind of stuff up. Thanks for that.

[giddyup]

Originally posted by SamFisher
:D

You can't make this kind of stuff up. Thanks for that.
You're welcome. What are you thanking me for?

[SamFisher]

Originally posted by giddyup
You're welcome. What are you thanking me for?

even better.

[giddyup]

Originally posted by SamFisher
even better.
Still can't be forthcoming can you Sam?

[pirc1]

Originally posted by giddyup
Still can't be forthcoming can you Sam?

This is sort of like a quote I heard some where. A guy calls another person "You are the incarnation of the devil!" The second person answers "You cann't prove it!"

;)

[Doctor Robert]

Originally posted by SamFisher
:D

You can't make this kind of stuff up. Thanks for that.
Sig material.

[Deckard]

Hate to disrupt the hilarity, but here's more regarding the Schiavo drama's affect on the Republican Party. It seems that the GOP may have a hard time getting rid of the damage. This is from the Washington Post, and is an interesting read.


Post-Schiavo Questions Await Congress's GOP Leaders
Priorities Debated As Recess Ends
By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, April 5, 2005; Page A04


Republican congressional leaders return to Washington today to confront a political landscape that is considerably more problematic than the one they left two weeks ago, when the House and Senate adjourned for Easter recess.

The searingly emotional Terri Schiavo case divided Republican-leaning voters and drew Congress into an extraordinary Palm Sunday intervention, which is now fueling claims that party leaders are out of step with mainstream America.

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), already battling ethics charges, added to his combative reputation by bitterly attacking state and federal judges who rejected pleas to keep the brain-damaged woman alive. Meanwhile, his allies were rattled by criticisms from several conservative publications, including a Wall Street Journal editorial that accused DeLay of abuses that "sooner or later will sweep him out."

President Bush's top priority, restructuring Social Security, made little if any progress despite his all-out campaigning during the recess, key lawmakers said. And the Senate seems closer than ever to a major collision over judicial nominations, a topic made even more emotional by the role of federal judges in the Schiavo case.

Aides to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) said yesterday that he soon will offer Democrats a compromise on the long-standing impasse, even though a growing number of conservative activists are pressing him to force a showdown now. Democrats predict the offer will be too flimsy to entice them to stop filibustering several appellate court nominees, but the mere fact that Frist is talking of negotiations, they say, convinces them he lacks the 51 votes he needs to change the filibuster rules in a chamber with 55 GOP members.

The mixture of issues and events, some top Republicans say, puts the party at a precarious juncture, where it needs to reassure voters that its leaders are ethical and focused on hearth-and-home issues such as jobs, affordable gasoline and secure retirements.

Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) says Democrats suffered major setbacks in the 1990s when an ethics-challenged leader -- House Speaker Jim Wright (D-Tex.), who resigned in 1989 -- became a larger symbol of his party than its platform issues. "That's a cocktail for disaster," Graham said. If a political leader's personal problems are coupled with "some policy decisions that are disconnected to the public, then you've got an opening" for trouble, he said. "If we don't watch it, it could happen to us."

Graham is wary of some Republicans' calls for further Schiavo-inspired legislation, such as a federal definition of "persistent vegetative state." The states, he said, "are capable of defining end-of-life terms."

Republican pollster Tony Fabrizio said several national surveys found that 60 to 80 percent of Americans opposed Congress's March 20 intervention in the Schiavo case. Federal courts promptly rejected the lawmakers' directive to review a series of Florida court decisions allowing Schiavo's feeding tube to be removed. One appellate judge chastised Congress and Bush for their actions.

Fabrizio said voters "are probably wondering why we can't get deficit reduction or tax reform or Social Security reform as quickly as we got the Schiavo bill" from the Republican-controlled Congress. Because conservative Christian activists were seen as pushing the legislation, he said, "that's a symbol of what your [party's] priorities are, and you'd better show them another symbol."

Also during the recess, former GOP senator John C. Danforth of Missouri, an ordained Episcopal minister, wrote a New York Times op-ed article criticizing his party's emphasis on opposing stem cell research, same-sex marriage and Schiavo's husband. "Republicans have transformed our party into the political arm of conservative Christians," he wrote.

DeLay hinted last week that Congress might try to impeach some of the judges involved in the Schiavo case, but other prominent Republicans are urging calm. "I think there will be some legislation out there [dealing with end-of-life issues], but I don't think there will be a mainstream effort to put this in the top 10 priorities," said Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), a member of the House GOP leadership. "We're hearing a lot about the prices of gasoline," he said, and "the timing is right to pass the energy bill."

Kingston dismissed suggestions that DeLay's problems could hurt the party. He said he has held more than a dozen town hall meetings in his district recently and "I have had not one single question, even from political followers, about him."

With the Schiavo case dominating national news during the two-week break, Bush made modest progress in his 60-day campaign to build support for adding personal accounts to Social Security, key players said. "I believe it's about where we left off two weeks ago," Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) said at the end of the recess. He is the chairman of the Finance Committee, which is responsible for Social Security legislation.

But Grassley said he is optimistic that support for the president's efforts will grow as more Americans realize that Social Security faces long-term solvency problems.

Grassley told Republican committee staff members yesterday that he will press forward with Social Security legislation this year. At a meeting attended by staff members and Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), Grassley said he will call a Social Security hearing before the end of the month and plans to put a bill before the committee in July, according to GOP aides who attended the meeting. Only last week, Grassley told reporters he did not believe Social Security legislation could be passed this year.

But underscoring the difficult road ahead, Grassley said the president's Social Security plan would swell the national debt tremendously if the move is not accompanied by significant cuts to promised benefits.

Under Bush's proposal for individual accounts, the national debt would more than triple, from about 40 percent of the economy, or gross domestic product, to 150 percent of GDP by 2072. "That does not sound like something the Democrats would sign on to," the aide said Hatch remarked.

Like Bush, Grassley is focusing mainly on the proposal to allow private accounts, which would divert a portion of workers' payroll taxes into stock and bond portfolios that would follow them into retirement.

To some, the darkest cloud above Congress is the Senate's looming clash over judicial nominees. Democrats have used the filibuster -- which can be stopped only by 60 votes in the 100-member chamber -- to thwart several of Bush's most conservative appellate court appointees. Republican leaders have threatened to change Senate rules to bar such filibusters, which would require 51 votes. Democrats say they would respond by bringing the Senate to a standstill, hence the scenario's moniker, "the nuclear option."

Yesterday, dozens of conservative groups released a letter urging Frist to end the filibusters "at the earliest possible moment." Some of the signers predicted Frist has the votes he needs, but others said the vote count is uncertain and may remain so for weeks.

If anything, the Schiavo case has heightened tensions over the judicial stalemate. Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, said the woman's death "should awaken Americans to the problems of the courts." More conservative judges are needed, he said, even though others noted that several of the judges involved in the Schiavo case are Republican appointees.

Even some Republicans who strongly oppose the Democrats' filibusters are worried that the Schiavo case suggests a GOP drift away from nuts-and-bolts legislation and toward the more polarizing agenda of religious conservatives. "I didn't come here to make a statement," said Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.), the former majority leader. "I came here to get results."

Intervening in Schiavo's case, he said, "was the morally right thing to do," but "it really bothered me that the federal government would inject itself into a family medical case."


Keep D&D Civil!!

[giddyup]

Originally posted by SamFisher
even better.
I guess you're just full of giggles.

rad and I were replying at the same time. I could run in there and edit what I wrote (which was entirely true and accurate when I wrote it) but I'm leaving it alone because it still illustrates the principle that it is wrong to name-call people with whom you disagree.

I'm going to go out and find a spurious email to post just to piss you guys off...:D

Wish it were election season.