Still talking? You already conceded "family values" is part of the GOP platform. IIRC, you brought up the "first appearance" argument. You are just mad cause I demonstrated "family values" showed up way before page 78 (or whatever). So you countered saying it wasn't substantive. Whatever. It had its own bullet point in the section that outlined the ENTIRE GOP platform. To me, that means "substantive" but you spin it how you like. I'm done arguing the meaning of word placement since you already conceded my point (that "family values" is an important part of the GOP platform). So in summary, Page three shmee. Preamble Sme-smamble. You conceded ...I'm moving on. Dunno. But she might not want to take this "family values" talk at face value next time she is in the voting booth.
No, you implied that it wouldn't be part of the Democratic platform. I pointed out that it indeed was and, in an effort to rub it in, I pointed out that it made an earlier substantive (key word here) appearance in the Dem platform than it did in the Republican platform by some 49 (?) pages. You countered with a FIND ON PAGE search that came up with "family" or "family values" in the Republican preamble in an attempt to register a prior appearance. I found that same place when I did my FIND ON PAGE search but it was merely preamble so i went to the next substantive mention which came up on page 78. You were satisfied with a first appearance while I demanded something of substance. I win. Dunno? Are you changing your mind? If she's voting for Brian Doyle, yes, she might want to keep that in mind when she walks into that voting booth, but don't you think it would be wrong, dead wrong, to carry that prejudice into the voting booth for every Republican man and woman that runs for any office. If you don't conced that you are just hate-mongering.
If it makes you feel better that you won a petty little disagreement that has no bearing on the actual point of conversation, then fine. I don't care about that. So even if you did win, it is irrelevant. ...since you conceeded the larger point that the GOP runs on a platform of "family values." Thanks for playing. Nope. Given the number of times Republicans have broken the publics trust by personally betraying "family values", I don't think it is unreasonable to explore your candidate a little further before you accept their speech at face value ...particularly if that is an important issue for you. I don't beleive I once said not to vote for a Republican.
I didn't concede that point because I never argued against it. It is a well-known fact that Republicans take a stronger public posture on family values. The fracas arose because you started criticizing the Republican Party for trying to inject personal morality into the law. I pointed out that pesonal morality is indicated in many laws we have against murder, rape, thievery et al-- which are, hopefully, also supported by Democrats. I pointed out that you, meaning Democrats, merely draw the line at a different place but then hypocritically start screaming about imposition of morality when there is simply something that you disagree with. Your next trick was to try and distance the Democrats from the ugly moniker of Family Values with which you want to pound the Republican Party into submission because of the failure of individuals like Brian Doyle. I pointed out that Family Values, too, was party of the Democratic Party Platform. It is irrefutably in their platform-- although not as expansive as the Republican position. Your final trick was to try and smear all Republicans with the stain of hypocrisy on the issue of Family Values. Every candidate, Democrat and Republican, needs to be scrutinized by the voting public, however as a voter you are never going to find out if they are pedophiles until law enforcement tells you. As voters, all we get is a polished image. Don't forget about your own Bill Clinton who did all the things you abhor (or actually you kind of admired) and then lied about it to the nation. Maybe he should jump parties?
No, there is not one single instance of "Family Value(s)" appeared in the Democrat Party 2004 platform. Zero, nada, zilch, nothing. Democrats do care about families. However, they never intend to elevate the holy word Family in a moralistic way as their hypocritical Republican counterparts do. Instead, Democrats focus on the substances families need most -- quality and affordable health care, world-class education, clean air and water, to name a few. Even when family unity is at stake, Republicans waste little time in seizing political opportunity to manifest their pathological hatred at the expense of the inseparable bond between a young boy and his loving and caring father. Don't know what I am talking about? Go back to review the Elian Gonzalez saga, aka "Screw Fatherhood If You Are Not In Republican Voting Bloc." Did Dan Quayle, the consummate "Mister Family Values", had any regard for moral principles when he chose Kirk the wife-cheater Fordice as his campaign co-chair? You are getting desperate giddy. Are Republicans and Democrats in any disagreement on murder, rape, and thievery, such that they each take different stances on the common laws covering these crimes? Republicans bring the ridicules upon themselves. Good grief. Snicker. That I agree.
Thanks WNES! Great post about counting the words in the platforms too. You said in post #63: I'll accept your concession. Okay, well you are now rehashing the entire thread. If you want my rebuttal to your subsequent comments, just go back and read the thread. I stand by everything I said. All I've been saying over and over and over is: If Republicans are going to run on a platform of "protecting the family," then they should be held to a higher standard in their personal lives on such issues with the voting public. You accused me of playing "tricks" on you. I have had a singular point throughout this conversation (see above). You sir, have continuously put words in my mouth and drawn assumptions from my statements and you say I'm the one playing tricks. For example I said: You replied: That is the TRICK you are playing...not me. How did you infer that if something isn't a talking point that the entire notion is rejected? You have yet to demonstrate that the Dems run on a platform of anti-sex and honesty. Furthermore AND JUST AS IMPORTANT, you have yet to demonstrate that breaking said platform is a pattern of behavior by the Dems. Once you do that, I'll concede. I will admit, however, that Dems arses don't smell rosey. But the Repubs seem to take screwed-upedness to a higher plane.
Concession my ass! Here's my entire first post about the issue of morality. I don't even mention Family Values. The argument (actually with Franchise Blade at this point) is to refute YOUR argument that moral standards have no place in legal considerations. This post by me obliterates that silly notion. So by your logic should we extend a supporting vote to a Democratic pedophile but deny one to a Republican pedophile... ... due to some crazy notion about punishing someone for party affiliation? Because you try to distance the Democratic party from any moralizing. It's called sarcasm on my part. I asked the question of you trying to force you to consider how you could not answer it the way you were insinuating it should be answered and are accusing me of answering it. I didn't answer the question. I tried to set you up but you ignored it... I don't think it is demonstrable. Again, I was poking into your tomfoolery that would insist that the Democrats don't touch morality issues with a 10-foot pole. I'm just asking you to be accountable for your statements. I think you need a thorough side-by-side comparison to really make that analysis.
Based on your semantic rigidity, I conceeded the word morality several pages ago. "Protecting families" is where its at ...or where it's not at. For that, you conceeded. Thanks. This is not about any one individual. This is about a pattern of behavior and the Republican platform. Yes I agree with you that each candidate should be evaluated on an individual basis. That being said, you can't evaluate a candidate in a vacume. Among MANY other things, you have to look at their political stances and how their party has handled them in the past. If a Republican candidate is running on platform of "Protecting the Family," the Repubs have demonstrated a poor track record. In turn, I'd have to dig deeper than simply accepting their platform at face value. Why is that so bad? If you don't answer any other of my questions, please answer this. I think it is VERY clear who is playing tricks here. Again, you are playing word tricks. Platform: A list of issues by which a party campaigns on. Support: All other issues Dems support "family values" but Dems don't campaign on the topic ...at least not as hard as the Repubs do. Its difficult when you intentially misinterpret everything I say.
Semantic rigidity? You can't keep changing the meaning of words. That's why I challenge you to expound on the things you say... they often don't hold up. There was nothing to concede.... It started out being about Brian Doyle and his human weakness/sickness. You quickly dragged the whole Republican platform and their party into it... How does Doyle's failure indicate how the Republicans would handle the issue of child p*rnography and predation?
You challenged me on the difference between "morality" and "family values." To most in this day and age, those are loaded words and are used interchangably. But you want to waste everybody's time by forcing me to find the exact term used by the GOP ("protecting families"). Semantic regidity. Once I got the EXACT term right, you conceeded. Thanks. DING DING DING. Thats been EXACTLY my point from the beginning. You can chose to accept it or deny it if you like. But the voting public can use whatever justification they like to picking a candidate ...whether you think it is preducial or not. If people hold an entire party accountable for the actions of a few ...so be it. It happens EVERY SINGLE election. Candidates get lumped together largely because they run on the party platform rather than their own ...which is by design, btw. see above Yup. You. Everytime you concluded something I didn't actually say. See below. Please spend more energy interpretting my exact words and less energy understanding "implications", please. It makes for more honest conversations. I did. Here's another example of a trick: Step 1: You "asked" me what the "implications" were that democrats don't support family values. Remember? I never brought up the Democratic party, you did. All I said was this isn't a referrendum on Democrats since the subject is probably (and you agreed) a Republican. Step 2: Here the real trick. You then later said: "Because you try to distance the Democratic party from any moralizing" Again, never once did I mention the democrats position of "moralizing" (which is the wrong word, btw, Mr. Semantics. It should be "protecting the family"). So you are trying to "trick" me by "implying" that I'm distancing myself from the Dems when I never even brought up the subject of Dems. You did. Then you accuse me of "tomfoolery?" You are the trickster, sir. I've held firm on my position from the very beginning. Touche. And in honesty, that is what disappoints me. The public hears the "platform" speeches but few people bother to dig a little deeper to understand the candidates themselves. If people did, then perhaps they can flush out the perverts claiming to be a "family values" candidate. Thats all I've said from the beginning. But you try to twist it and make me look a some diabolical monster. Relax dude.
The notion of morality was injected into the discussion by nyquil, wnes, and Franchise Blade on Page 2. Here is the first mention of the word by you OR me in post #58 (by YOU): So, who did what? Again: Well, of course people who walk or crawl into a voting booth can do whatever they want. That doesn't make it off-limits for discussion. Again, you say I made conclusions. I say that I usually asked questions who were indicative of your conclusions and were meant to instigate you to re-assess your conclusions. If you can knock me away with your answer, you might win me over. If you can't, it indicates a lack of thoroughness. I didn't spend hardly any time drawing out questions to ask. They popped right out of my forehead. I think you dodged most of them as evidence by your complaining about them. Imagine complaining about being asked questions which buttress or undermine your position! Do I have to go back through and list all the questions that you didn't answer for me? I don't remember asking you that question. I did ask in Post #75 for a like-list of the Democratic offenders. You said it was irrelevant becaue Democrats don't run on a Family Values platform. I reminded you of The Great Offender, Bill Clinton, and you called his failure something akin to irrelevant-- again because Democrats don't run significantly on a platform of Family Values. My introduction of Dems into the discussion was a joke about Birkenstocks. You picked it up here in Post 58: So I believe that (between you and me) you made the first serioius affirmation about the Democratic Party. Who really brought it up? Here it is again. If the Republicans hold to this "moralizing" (and you are critical of them), what are you saying about the Dems? That doesn't make it a reasonable position. Sure people need to be more informed, but they are never going to find out something like what was going on with Brian Doyle unless the police are involved. I'm TOTALLY relaxed and I'm sorry if you feel like I'm trying to make you look like a diabolical monster. No one needs be offended because someone pushes them to better or more completely express their viewpoint. If anything, you have demonized Republicans to which I am attached. I should be offended, but I'm not... because I don't think your position on this stands up to the scrutiny. Brian Doyle be damned-- bless his poor pitiful soul.
Fine, I conceed I mentioned the word. BUT only in an exclusionary way which in fact supports the same thing I've been saying from the very beginning ...that this isn't about Dems since Dems aren't guilty of the same thing I'm alleging the Repubs are. Example: The topic is Red Orange is nothing like Green. Orange is a shade of red. In my example, I'm mentioning Green simply to illustrate that it is off-topic. In my example, to continue to bring up green simply detracts from the actual topic...which is Red. Repubs repeatedly break party platform. Dems DON'T break party platform. Therefore a continued conversation about Dems is subsequently irrelevant unless you can prove that Dems DO in fact break party platform which you haven't. Since you didn't demonstrate that, to continue to bring up Dems is irrelevant. Right, so we are in agreement. If a Repub breaks the law in a manor that conflicts with the party platform, then it's automatically MORE newsworthy. If Repubs continuously break the law, then it reflects poorly on the whole party is therefor on-limits for discussion. Hence the thread. I don't think you disagree with that premise. You only disagree that Brian Doyle isn't relevant. I agree that Brian Doyle isn't particularly important but I don't think he is irrelevant. I said: The GOP talking point is "FAMILY VALUES." You said: "... and the Democrats do what, reject the notion?" No reasonable person would conclude that I suggested that Democrats are rejecting "family values" based on what I said. Example: Me: I like the color red. You: So you are saying that you hate yellow? WHAT? That simply isn't a normal response but that seems to be your BBS MO. It isn't honest and its tiresome. Rather than making me re-assess my position, most people would stop taking you seriously at that point. If that's the case, then I'd ask you TO spend more time. The conclusions you draw to try to trick me into a position are just plain silly and frankly a waste of time because said conclusions are sooo far off context that they only derail the actual thread. As you have seen, when you ask me honest questions, I answer them. But when draw silly conclusions like above, I'm not going to bother answering cause its so far off base that's its difficult to take you seriously. You ought to. And you'll see I answered all/most of your honest questions. Your derailing, double-talk questions aren't worth answering. Post 75 was mine. But in the post you are referring to you simply said you'd like to see such a list. You didn't ask. But you are welcome to produce such a list and I'd actually be interested to see it. I'd be curious to know if as many prominant Democrats have been busted for things that completely opposed the party platform. I don't recall such a pattern of behavior. A couple, yes, but the list I doubt would rival the Repubs list. Just a hunch. If you can demonstrate that, then I'll gladly fully conceed all my complaints about Republicans in this thread. Sorta. It is a two part problem: 1. The Repubs ran on said platform. 2. The Repubs have REPEATEDLY been caught doing things that oppose their own platform. Key word: Repeatedly. As a result, singling out Clinton fundamentally opposes my argument because the "repeatedly" part is key. There are ALWAYS isloated incidents ...but the Repubs seem to continuously get caught. Again, you established "moralizing" is the wrong term. "Protecting Families" is the right term. But again, until you can demonstrate the Dems are guilty of REPEATEDLY breaking their own party platform, then IMO it doesn't say anything about the Dems. That is your opinion. Is nothing reasonable unless it meets your approval? Often we know in advance. For example, Bush had been convicted of DUI but yet he panders to the religious right. His daughters are known partyers. To us lefties, that seems hypocritical. Bob Barr sponsored "Defense of Marriage" act yet he has been married 3 times. Ken Calvert was a champion of the Christian Coalition yet was sued by his wife for alimony. Rush Limbaugh divorced a zillion times and a drug addict yet continues to be popular as a "conservative" talk show host. Bill O'Reilly is another goon. Schwarzenegger: A known womanizer yet elected as a Republican. Gulianni: Had an affair (at the same time as Clinton) yet remained in office ...as a Republican. JC Watts: Ran on platform of "family values" has kids out-of-wedlock. There are others but I'm bored. And you have the right to not accept my position ...but that doesn't nullify my position. It takes all kinds in this world and we don't all see the world the same way. Just cause somebody doesn't hold your opinion doesn't make them an idiot or unreasonable. My position is that the Repubs are guilty of breaking the publics trust by betraying their own party platform repeatedly. Brian Doyle is one TINY data point to support that argument. You are welcome to disagree with me but I feel I am perfectly justified in drawing that conclusion and I've backed it up.
You don't know if Dems are as guilty because no documentation was ever provided-- not that I expected you to provide it. I tried to go to the site and do the same kind of search only for Democratic office-holders. Couldn't figure out how to do it. I know we would have come up with at least one.... .. and my guess is many. I love how you like to use the words "repeatedly" and "continuously" to describe the incidence of accusation (much less conviction) of these types of stories. Would you care to share your statistical analysis? The main problem that I had with your approach is that you convict all Republicans because some are guilty. That's why I egged on about Democrats (and Clinton in particular). Just because one is guilty does not make all guilty but you won't let go of that position. You seem to hold a party platform in higher esteem than the law. Last but not least, "family values" really means 1) Pro-Life and 2)Anti- Gay Marriage. That's one reason why you "don't find it" on any Democratic platform. That laundry list of offenses shrinks abruptly if you comb through it for offenses against those two stances.
That's true and I admitted it. That being said, I just can't think of any examples off hand where a Democrat ran on an issue only to get found guilty of the same thing later. I'm sure it happened but I can't think of any. And I'm pretty certain it isn't a pattern of behavior. I'm terrible at statistics. What would the relevant data points be in the analysis? Exactly. Your Clinton example proves my point, actually. I'm speaking to a pattern of behavior otherwise I could care less about this Brian Foyle guy. These elected officials are the law makers. Their platforms matter. Then they should say that but it is a word game. That is where you learned your tricks, btw. "How could you be against family values?" The Repubs intentionally frame their conversation to shame the other side when they take the opposite stance. Pro-life is another one. If you oppose "pro-life" then does that mean you are "pro-death?" Of course not. It is trickery. If you make your own bed then you must sleep in it.
You know there are pro-Choice Republicans and pro-Life Democrats. Platforms are just gross generalities. That's why you can't get so hung up on it. I'm a pro-Gay Marriage Republican. Deal with it! I'm no statistician either, buthow about an expression of a percentage. Also let's separate the accusations from the incriminations from the convictions. Those citations were just all lumped together as unattractives. Clinton was the highest office-holder in the land when he demolished Family Values. Doyle was an appointee-- not even an elected official. Who do we have the right to expect more of? And who are you wanting to let off the hook because he is not part of some larger pattern. Huh? It's not a word game. It's short-hand. The Dems have their pro-Choice which is an expression of the single issue of the woman's right to choose and doesn't even address the principle issue of right to life. Likewise, pro-Life accomplishes the same thing but in the opposite direction. If you want to be self-satisfied about convicting one of word trickery, I'm afraid that you have to convict both Dems and Republicans. See all the above... Happy Easter!
Platform: A formal declaration of the principles on which a group, such as a political party, makes its appeal to the public. Candidates rarely stray far from the platform. As an individual, you can do as you like. Statistics are famous for proving nothing. Besides, we've beat this subject to death now and I doubt either of us will come up with a statistical analysis that is going to change either of our minds. So you'll excuse me if I don't bother. Sigh. Acknowlegded that Doyle is a peon. Acknowlegded that Clinton was guilty of lying. All that does not speak to the point. Interestingly. The opposite of Pro-Choice is anti-choice. Repubs favor anti-choice. The opposite of pro-life is anti-life. Dems do not favor anti-life. Definately true. They both do it. But that doesn't mean YOU need to do it here on the BBS. It is one thing when a national compaign is trying to get their message out. It is quit another when two people are having a conversation. Yup, and when the Repubs campaign on "family values," they are subject to looking like idiots when anybody in the party does something anti-family values. That's reality.
