I agree that the party can't keep someone from claiming they are GOP, really. They can stop themselves from trying to legislate morality, and making it a talking point for their party. The GOP can make people's individual morality an issue or not. That is entirely up to them. Recently the GOP has decided to make people's individual morality an issue. I don't choose to talk about that, they do. Once they make it an issue, and something relevant to that issue comes up it is perfectly within bounds to discuss that. It is not my choice to bring it up. It was already chosen by the GOP. In fact I would prefer it not be an issue. I wish the GOP felt the same way.
<b>FranchiseBlade I agree that the party can't keep someone from claiming they are GOP, really. They can stop themselves from trying to legislate morality, and making it a talking point for their party. The GOP can make people's individual morality an issue or not. That is entirely up to them. Recently the GOP has decided to make people's individual morality an issue. I don't choose to talk about that, they do. Once they make it an issue, and something relevant to that issue comes up it is perfectly within bounds to discuss that. It is not my choice to bring it up. It was already chosen by the GOP. In fact I would prefer it not be an issue. I wish the GOP felt the same way.</b> Does a law prohibiting murder legislate morality? Yes. Rape? Yes. Stealing? Yes. Abortion? Yes and No. Depends on your focus, but I maintain that Right to Life is primarily about protecting innocent lives not legislating morality on a woman's right o choose. Obviously, those who want abortion on demand will disagree with that and change the focus. Where to begin and where to end? Don't make it sound like Republicans introduced morality into the consideration of law-making. You have reduced it to this: a law you don't agree with is trespassing on individual morality while the ones you (we) all take for granted don't. That's just not a fair analysis.
It isn't just morality. It is individual morality. Same sex marriage doesn't hurt anyone is completely about the individual. Yet that is a GOP talking point. It goes on and on. The GOP are the ones who make individual morality a talking point. Ones dealing with murder and stealing affect more than just the individual.
Sorry, we simplified the GOP talking points for sake of conversation but you latched onto it and are trying to spin it based on semantics. The GOP talking point is "FAMILY VALUES", IIRC. Abortion is anti-family values. Gay marriage is anti-family values. Drugs is anti-family values ("war on drugs" is a GOP deal) Stem cells... No child left behind (yet the program is underfunded while we run the deficit on the war) etc etc etc. Then we see the laundry list of Repubs that get busted for kiddy p*rn, adultry, drug offenses, etc. Yes, Dems get busted for it too but these issues aren't the foundation of the Democrats platforms. So everytime a Republic gets busted for something that is opposite of "family values," then it is noteworthy.
I don't think it is that simple. Marriage is a social institution. It is a centerpiece of how families are organized. It has many ramifications, so I don't think you can say it is "completely about the individual." I come away having learned that Democrats are not concerned with individual morality; is that really what you were imparting?
<b>krosfyah Sorry, we simplified the GOP talking points for sake of conversation but you latched onto it and are trying to spin it based on semantics. The GOP talking point is "FAMILY VALUES", IIRC.</b> ... and the Democrats do what, reject the notion? <b>Abortion is anti-family values.</b> You're going to have to explain what you mean here. The Democratic Party Platform says that abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare." Doesn't the "rare" aspect of that hinge on the intrusion onto individual morality that you so despise? The official Democratic Party Platform wishes that abortion were rare. Doesn't that imply a value judgement? <b>Gay marriage is anti-family values.</b> Understandable given the makeup of much of the party. <b?Drugs is anti-family values ("war on drugs" is a GOP deal)</b> So the Dems are, what, for drugs? <b>Then we see the laundry list of Repubs that get busted for kiddy p*rn, adultry, drug offenses, etc.</b> The "laundry" list? How long is it? Let's not exagerate... <b>Yes, Dems get busted for it too but these issues aren't the foundation of the Democrats platforms. So everytime a Republic gets busted for something that is opposite of "family values," then it is noteworthy.</b> I don't see the noteworthiness of individual frailty and failure-- unless it involves so very high-ranking elected official. Something like the case of Brian Doyle is certainly newsworthy but it's not deserving of political commentary because the guy is not an elected official.
The Democrats positions on such issues has nothing to do with THIS topic so quit trying to derail the thread with semantics. The topic is how the GOP's platform is based on "FAMILY VALUES" and we repeatedly hear about Republican officials getting busted for some of the worst offenses against said family values. Exagerate? nyquil82 (post #27) outlined what looks to be over 100 names, many of which are prominant Republicans, from the last decade or so busted all sorts of things in direct contradition to "family values." That looks like a laundry list to me. Maybe our definition is different. It's ONLY worthy of commentary, IMO, because of a pattern of contradictions of the GOP's platform of family values. If you don't feel its worthy of commentary, then don't comment. To each his own.
<b>krosfyah The Democrats positions on such issues has nothing to do with THIS topic so quit trying to derail the thread with semantics.</b> Damn, man, you brought up the topic... not me. <b>The topic is how the GOP's platform is based on "FAMILY VALUES" and we repeatedly hear about Republican officials getting busted for some of the worst offenses against said family values.</b> Republican officials? Repeatedly? I guess a few are, but anyone can claim to be a Republican. How can you indict a party over the behavior of an individual? If you are a pervert or a reprobate what better place to hide than in a group that professes to disapprove of such people, i.e. child predators in Scouting or Coaching or Teaching et al. <b>nyquil82 (post #27) outlined what looks to be over 100 names, many of which are prominant Republicans, from the last decade or so busted all sorts of things in direct contradition to "family values."</b> I did scroll the list. A lot of those were just allegations. Some were convictions. Most were nobodies as far as being REPUBLICANS like you are trying to establish. I'd like to see the same kind of search done on Democrats-- of course the data would have to be complete and not politically skewed. <b>That looks like a laundry list to me. Maybe our definition is different. It's ONLY worthy of commentary, IMO, because of a pattern of contradictions of the GOP's platform of family values. If you don't feel its worthy of commentary, then don't comment. To each his own.</b> The impetus of not commenting is worthy of commenting upon...
Marriage is completely about two individuals. It is social but that doesn't keep from it being about individual morality. You are hearing correctly that Democrats are not interested in legislating Individual morality. They are concerned with it as individuals, but not as party that uses it as an issue. It is something important, but not something that should be legislated. Only one party makes that their platform, so it is only relevant when that party violates their own platform.
1. Isn't the marriage a union which is recognized by society and law and given certain advantages or privileges? Of course individuals choose to enter into it. 2. So Democrats don't think that murder, rape and stealing are issues of morality? Look, Dems just want to draw the line in a different place. That doesn't mean that individual morality is not involved but just not recognized... 3. It is kind of craven to identify that entire party with an individual failing. We've been over this territory. I think that the whole Family Values thing is code for pro-Life and anti-Gay Marriage...
I wasn't identifying an entire party with this one person's misdeeds. I was merely saying that if he was a REpublican than it would in the boundaries of discussion.
But what you said was... "when that party violates their own platform. " The PARTY didn't violate anything; some sad guy did. Whether intentional or not you were identifying the crime with an entire group of people-- THE VAST MAJORITY OF WHOM ARE COMPLETELY INNOCENT OF THIS KIND OF CRIME. Maybe we should find out his church denomination and hang it on them too?! .... first let's find out if it's our own denomination or not.
The entire party are the one's that make morality an issue, so when one guy in said party does something contrary to that party, it is worth discussion.
The TOPIC is Republican behavior. ...not Democrats behavior. So your comparison to Democrats is irrelevant. He is a top level exec in a dept created by Bush. His behavior is relevant when the party runs on a platform of "family values." Ding Ding Ding. Unfortunately others in the party feel the same way. We each see this list with our own bias. Me...I see the names of dozens of prominant Republicans regardless of how many nobody's is also mixed into it. Irrelevant. The Democrats aren't making "family values" the cornerstone of their platform.
<b>krosfyah The TOPIC is Republican behavior. ...not Democrats behavior. So your comparison to Democrats is irrelevant.</b> No. The topic is Brian Doyle's behavior. Some want to conveniently slant it to be Republican behavior, however I am a Republican and it does not describe my behavior nor does it describe the behavior of the vast majority of Republicans. Are you really going to argue with that? <b>He is a top level exec in a dept created by Bush. His behavior is relevant when the party runs on a platform of "family values."</b> His behavior is relevant as far as his fitness/worthiness of the job he was offered, period. <b>Ding Ding Ding. Unfortunately others in the party feel the same way.</b> No doubt there are Democratic perverts, too; shall we identify them just for fun? Then we can diss everybody. How man Libertarians and Greens do you think we can "out?" <b>We each see this list with our own bias. Me...I see the names of dozens of prominant Republicans regardless of how many nobody's is also mixed into it.</b> I see them too-- only being a Republican has little or nothing to do with it. How many left-handers? Presbyterians? White wine-drinkers? People in all walks of life are frail. BTW, none of the prominent names on that list have asceneded to the zenith the Wee Billy Clinton did. Bush was only accused by some lady. Clinton was found out and even admitted it FINALLY. <b>Irrelevant. The Democrats aren't making "family values" the cornerstone of their platform.</b> Cornerstone or not-- it's part of their platform. I found it on page 29 of their 2004 statement. Maybe it's been updated since then.
True but as a high level official in the dept created by Bush, it is nearly a certainty that he is Republican. But I'll grant you that we don't know for sure. You can interpret it how you like and I'll interpret it how I like. No but that isn't the point. The "vast majority of Republicans" aren't public officials. It seems we've heard about many Republican public officials get busted for horendous things that seems in direct contradiction of the conservative "family values" party. Again, irrelevant. The Democrats aren't campaining on "family values." Again, you see the list with your rose colored glasses and I see it with mine. I'll grant you the Bush accusation in the list is weak but there are MANY MANY MANY other prominant names on that list ...and rightfully so. Again, calling out Clinton is irrelevant. The Democrats aren't differentiating themselves by being the party of "family values." Page 29, huh? Thanks for proving my point.
<b>krosfyah True but as a high level official in the dept created by Bush, it is nearly a certainty that he is Republican. But I'll grant you that we don't know for sure. You can interpret it how you like and I'll interpret it how I like.</b> I don't have much doubt that he is a Republican... but that is immaterial to the story. It's not a question of interpretation; it's a question of relevance. <b>No but that isn't the point. The "vast majority of Republicans" aren't public officials. It seems we've heard about many Republican public officials get busted for horendous things that seems in direct contradiction of the conservative "family values" party.</b> So the vast majority of Republican party officials are deviants and perverts, huh? Is that what you are saying. How are you defining "vast" ... or does it just sound ominous? Party politics are compromising. The party has a platform; you can still be a member of the party even if you don't hold one of the planks as dear-to-your-heart. I'm sure there are pro-Life Democrats and pro-Choice Republicans. <b>Again, irrelevant. The Democrats aren't campaining on "family values."</b> And you, by your own admission, have yet to certify that this guy is indeed a Republican (though he probably is) and yet you keep hammering this point which is based on an assumption. One note song. <b>Again, you see the list with your rose colored glasses and I see it with mine. I'll grant you the Bush accusation in the list is weak but there are MANY MANY MANY other prominant names on that list ...and rightfully so.</b> I don't see the list with rose-colored glasses. Those who are guilty deserve what they get. Those who are only accused deserve the benefit of the doubt. Party affiliation has nothing to do with it. If my glasses are rose-colored, yours are blood-red... <b>Again, calling out Clinton is irrelevant. The Democrats aren't differentiating themselves by being the party of "family values."</b> So they have no family values and are, thus, proud of it? <b>Page 29, huh? Thanks for proving my point.</b> It is in there. BTW, "family values" doesn't appear until page 78 or the Republican Party Platform of 2004.... The Dems beat us by about 49 pages. Did I just dis-prove your point?
You didn't say ONE single thing in your post that wasn't SPIN. First you say this: Then in the same post, you say this: Its hard to have an honest conversation with you as you spend more energy trying to spin every nuance of every statement. You SPIN again. Re-read my post. I didn't say the "vast majority of party officials are deviants." It does when the party's own platform runs on "family values." SPIN again. Not running on a platform of values values isn't the same thing as having "no family values." But nice try. Links please. TIA
Why do you call the difference between an opinion expressed and a fact exposed as "spin?" The guy "may be/probably is" a Republican but, by YOUR OWN ADMISSION, it has not been unequivocally proven that he is... and you accuse me of spin? Why do you insist on distancing the Democratic Party from Family Values? I think it is logical to wonder what the implications of that are. Does it make Democrats immune from personal failure? Republican Party Platform of 2004: http://www.gop.com/media/2004platform.pdf Democratic Party Platform of 2004: http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v002/www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf
