The only rhetorical excesses I know about were reported by the media and probably taken out of context! See the vicious circle we get into here? That’s why I don’t believe most of what is reported until I have other sources to back it up. There is such a divergence of opinion here at HA and that is why I use this site!

Vince on November 26, 2008 at 11:54 AM

I think media bias is a legitimate issue. I try my best to be objective, and I think conservatives get a raw deal, there’s no question. –> But not everything the media reports is a conspiracy to destroy conservatism. Some of it, most of it even, is true. <– Sincere question – haven’t you ever thought that a Republican was trying a little too hard to establish his evangelical street cred?

Is it possible, in theory, for the Republican Party to mingle too much religion with its politics? If you answer yes, I don’t see how you can be upset with people like K. Parker (or even little old me) for raising the possibility that Republicans have gone too far.

RightOFLeft on November 26, 2008 at 12:20 PM

Your error helpfully highlighted at no charge.

The media gets many things very wrong routinely. They are least to be trusted with criticisms of a) religion b) Republicans c) Republicans and religion d) military ANYTHING e) national security f) strong foreign policy g) the economy under a Republican president h) the economy under a Democratic president i) radicals j) communists

When the media claims that Republicans are too much in bed with the religious right, just remember how much outrage they have about Democrats openly campaigning for public office in black churches. The hypocrisy is thick enough to cut with a knife.

We need to be resisting the media’s attempts to tell us what to think, not rewarding them.

Very well then. Go ahead and do it your way. When you repeatedly fail to achieve your goals with democratic measures and are forced to pursue them with force of arms I will be proven right:

This is a terrible argument fallacy. You’re stating that because I refuse to sell my morals out like you have, and disown my God, I can’t win? That’s preposterous.

God will not have protected your ‘God-given’ rights, men bearing arms will have. And if you do put an end to the abhorrent practice of abortion it will not be because ‘God willed it’ but because you and your fellow parishioners murdered your opponents rather than defeated them in the voting booth.

Again, this depends on your point of view. I’m a Christian, you are not. You’re making an argument on the basis that we believe in the same theology, when in fact we do not. I’ve not once in my life ever murdered (war kills are not murder) a political opponent, or person with differing political or moral ideology, why would I start now? People can disagree without killing each other. People can also be fierce opponents of ideology without killing someone else. The actions are not synonymous.

And since my Federalist position is so much more offensive to you than our political adversaries, I’ll change my registration. You can have the party. Maybe if you merge the Republicans with the Constitutionalists you can get enough seats in the south to ensure no new conservative party can take hold, and in doing so ensure a Democrat majority for the next generation.

I never once stated that your federalist position was offensive. I said it was wrong. If you’d take the time to read, you’d understand that I was an advocate of state’s rights. If your state wants to allow open abortion, let it allow open abortion. If your state wants gay marriage, let it have gay marriage. If your state wants to tax residents into oblivion, let it tax residents into oblivion, I could care less. I’ll only make it a point to never visit your state. However, when the federal government unnecessarily stifles the rights of my state to run itself the way that the people of my state want it run, I have a problem with it.

If you want to blame me for the fact that the John McCain lost, by all means, blame me if it dries up your tears. But don’t ever tell me that I should be selling out like you, and voting for someone that has ideology more common with his opponent than he does me.

And if you want to whine a little more about how liberals run the country because “we didn’t reach across the isle more often” whine all you want. Telling members of your party to modify their thinking to compliment a world bent on moral descent is a proprietary to liberalism, not conservatism. You and your kind are cowards. At least liberals are running as liberals, you and your kind have poisoned the Republican party so that paleoconservatives are forced to choose between a full liberal, or half a liberal.

Leave the party if you want. Good riddance. Take McCain, Bernanke, Lindsey Graham, and all of the illegal aliens that supported them with you.

God will not have protected your ‘God-given’ rights, men bearing arms will have. And if you do put an end to the abhorrent practice of abortion it will not be because ‘God willed it’ but because you and your fellow parishioners murdered your opponents rather than defeated them in the voting booth.

And since my Federalist position is so much more offensive to you than our political adversaries, I’ll change my registration. You can have the party. Maybe if you merge the Republicans with the Constitutionalists you can get enough seats in the south to ensure no new conservative party can take hold, and in doing so ensure a Democrat majority for the next generation.

Roe v. Wade is a prime example of anti-federalist, anti-state’s rights principals. Again, this is an action decided at the federal level, yet affects people locally. Can the great State of Kentucky place a Ban on Abortion?

Rights are not granted by God, but rather by force of arms. God didn’t free America from the English Crown, men did. God didn’t free the slaves, soldiers did. God didn’t defeat the Nazi’s, or the Communists- patriots did.

Again, we differ in opinion. This really depends on your perspective. Every single example of defense of human rights that you described was religiously motivated in some way. Without the existence of a deity, it is extremely illogical for anyone to have love, care, or concern for any human being.

That in no way calls into question the existence or motives of God, only that men do evil upon one another and God judges. As mortals, we should allow God to enforce his laws and not delude ourselves into believing we can do it for him.

Wrong. There’s a very clear, concise line between be complacent and “acting above our pay grades”. Besides, many of God’s greatest works were performed through men. Take Moses, David, Solomon, Isaiah, even Jesus (Before the question even comes up, let me clarify that I consider Jesus to be both 100% human and 100% God).

Look at it this way, abortion and homosexuality are sins yes? And if a child is murdered by abortion, what happens? Does God damn the innocent to hell for the sins of another? You may believe that (that’s not an accusation), but I do not. If there is a God he must be omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient but above all he must be JUST. Where is the justice in damning a child that never even drew breath to eternal torture? Does it not make more rational sense that such a Deity would welcome the spirit of a murdered child into his realm? Therefore, if a child is murdered by abortion then the child goes to heaven, directly to heaven (do not pass go, do not collect $200). Only the murderers will be punished by God, and since he sees and knows all he is in a much better position to do so.

By this flawed logic, one could justify themselves in not participating in the prevention of a life-threatening crime against another. At this point, what would be the reason that we would need police, firefighters, or military? Even some atheists believe that we should preserve life in one way or the other.

Now how about Bob banging Billy? That’s a sin, yes? But who will be called to account for this sin? Will Bob and William get a free pass if they were imprisoned here in the mortal realm? If they are never caught on earth will they slip into heaven unnoticed?

Surely an intellectual such as yourself could find a less crass way to state your first sentence in that paragraph? I’m not against Bob and Billy doing whatever they want. That’s their choice. The problem is when they seek to FEDERALLY redefine the terms of a union that I, and many others like me consider to be sacred and proprietary.

I also have a problem with this because such redefinition would subject pastors and clergymen/clergywomen from my religion to defamation lawsuits and marriage licensing revocation if they refuse to perform a homosexual marriage as defined by their virtues and beliefs. And yes, it happens. This is government intervention and federal terrorism of the Christian religion at its worst, and wholly unconstitutional, as a restriction of the First Amendment.

So my conclusion is this:

Let God judge and punish those that break his divine laws and let men judge and punish those that break man’s laws.

And I do. But I’m going to defend my rights to religious freedom. If that offends you, you should probably find somewhere else to troll.

At last we have common ground!

I don’t support abortion. I don’t support gay marriage. And I can’t stand the idiots that get all bent out of shape when somebody says “Merry Christmas” in a public place.

I fully support Federalism. If California wants to ban guns and legalize abortion, let them! If Massachusetts wants to socialize their entire state, let them! If Utah wants to establish Mormonism as their state religion, let them! But let’s not have New York tell Arkansas they must legalize abortion. Let’s not have Georgia ban prostitution in Nevada. Let’s not have Vermont define marriage for Florida.

Did you think I suggested otherwise? I only have a problem with something when it’s decided at the federal level, but affects me at the local level.

Freedom is ensured by Federalism. Local control of spending and social issues is a winner because even people on the Left will be attracted to the idea. Once the social issues are brought back tot he states rather than hung up in the courts we’ll both have what we want.

But the path to that goal is not to stand here banging our collective heads against Roe vs. Wade. The winning strategy to achieve this is to pursue and promote Federalism.

Browncoatone on November 26, 2008 at 12:29 PM

Roe v. Wade is a prime example of anti-federalist, state’s right’s principals. Again, this is an action decided at the federal level, yet affects people locally. Can the great State of Kentucky place a Ban on Abortion?

No.

Why? Because Roe v. Wade dictated that abortion bans in most fashions violates constitutionally protected rights to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. Aside from the fact that I believe abortion during any period starting at conception is murder, it enrages me as a man to know that my country doesn’t allow me to have my God-given rights as a parent in deciding the future of my child for the first 9 months of its existence.

Remember, “he” is gender neutral.

Count to 10 on November 26, 2008 at 1:54 PM

I mangled that one pretty badly, for sure.

I can’t think of anyone whose opinion I could care less about than yours, so I won’t waste any more of either of our time. That’s all I have to say to you.

RightOFLeft on November 26, 2008 at 1:13 PM

But where is the other quote, you keep dodging that, the one regarding ignoring science.
Oh that’s right, you don’t have anything more to say, because it doesn’t exist…
You are good at dodging, but not so good on facts.
Once again I remind you…McCain said “Hitler was a good example”, by your thinking, McCain things Hitler was a good man…sheeesh, doesn’t comprehension mean anything to you? he who wants to win an argument.
Now, where is that person who quoted about science?…hmmmm?
(BTW, you do know that Palin’s father is a science teacher)

You know damn well that creationism is a cause celebre among conservatives

No I don’t know that, you said we ignore biologists.
This is what happens when you pin down a non-believer, he gets nervous and begins to quote things out of context, stretches the truth.
You consider a demand for you to back up your statements with specifics (and then find out the specifics are out of context), and they fall apart, as some unusual request.
All you had to do was originally show the quote (and I can see why you held onto it for several hours), and now show who made the other statements.
You said Palin, but she never made such a statement…never.

we are now trying to impose Democracy there… it will be interesting to see if it lasts in a Moslem dominated society.

Romeo13 on November 26, 2008 at 1:36 PM

Would an Iceberg last if towed to the equator?

No, we would have had our asses kicked by an even larger margin.

People need to get over the fact that its no longer 1980, and exhuming Reagan is going to solve all our problems.

JFS61 on November 26, 2008 at 1:46 PM

Not actually a testable hypothesis, but there is theory to support the conjecture that a more conservative candidate may have prevailed.

“That” referring to right4life (can’t remember his/her gender, not myself.

RightOFLeft on November 26, 2008 at 1:48 PM

Remember, “he” is gender neutral.

Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin, Hugh Hewitt, and so many others are a blessing in these troubled times.

Keemo on November 26, 2008 at 9:26 AM

IQ test time!Game show time! Which one of the names listed above does not fit in with the others?

MB4 on November 26, 2008 at 1:44 PM

I plead insufficient knowledge, as I don’t listen to the radio, get cable or read Hewitt.

RightOFLeft has been around awhile.
Though I keep getting him visually confused with right2bright and right4life.

Count to 10 on November 26, 2008 at 1:37 PM

Which is ironic, in an Alanis Morissette kind of way. I don’t want right4life to get lumped in with my trollish ways, though. That’s a cool poster, imo.

Will these people ever wake up and admit; on this last election we had a RINO as our canidate “not even close to being a true conservative” AND WE GOT OUR ASS KICKED!
If we would have listend to Rush and nominated a TRUE conservative we could have won!

time2taketheglovesoffGOP on November 26, 2008

No, we would have had our asses kicked by an even larger margin.

People need to get over the fact that its no longer 1980, and exhuming Reagan is going to solve all our problems.

Um, Osama Bin L was NOT part of the Afgan government… we invaded because they would not cough him up. We then overthrew the government and attempted to institute Democracy. Not saying we were wrong… but IF we did it to get Al Q, we have failed. The only losers so far was the old Afgan Government, and the Taliban who had supported Al Q.

Iraq was NOT a viable threat to the mainland US. Even if they GOT nukes, then the supposed threat was that they would give them to terrorists… we are now trying to impose Democracy there… it will be interesting to see if it lasts in a Moslem dominated society.

But IMO the whole Neo Con idea is silly, and against what History has taught us.

Democracys have started many wars throughout History.

Romeo13 on November 26, 2008 at 1:36 PM

It doesn’t matter if OBL was officially part of the Taliban government. They supported his actions by not handing him over, thus committing an act of war. They were already at war with forces inside of Afghanistan, so doing this invited us into that war.
We were still at war with Iraq, just in a ceasefire that had been unenforced. It was a threat to our allies in the region, and nuclear weapons are always a threat to everyone.

It is not so much that Democracies don’t “start” wars (which is loaded in and of itself), but capitalist and law abiding democracies are significantly less likely to engage in conquest, revenge, and looting against other capitalist, law abiding democracies.

Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin, Hugh Hewitt, and so many others are a blessing in these troubled times.

Keemo on November 26, 2008 at 9:26 AM

IQ test time!Game show time! Which one of the names listed above does not fit in with the others?

Will these people ever wake up and admit; on this last election we had a RINO as our canidate “not even close to being a true conservative” AND WE GOT OUR ASS KICKED!
If we would have listend to Rush and nominated a TRUE conservative we could have won!

time2taketheglovesoffGOP on November 26, 2008

No, we would have had our asses kicked by an even larger margin.

People need to get over the fact that its no longer 1980, and that exhuming Reagan is going to solve all our problems.

RightOFLeft

Oh, goody. Another secular humanist troll. Does AP recruit you guys or are you the canadian sheetrock’s roommate?

SKYFOX on November 26, 2008 at 1:33 PM

RightOFLeft has been around awhile.
Though I keep getting him visually confused with right2bright and right4life.

Inaccurate. One was accepting an (unfriendly) invitation to a war already in progress, while the other was finishing a war left half done by the “realists.”

Count to 10 on November 26, 2008 at 1:19 PM

Um, Osama Bin L was NOT part of the Afgan government… we invaded because they would not cough him up. We then overthrew the government and attempted to institute Democracy. Not saying we were wrong… but IF we did it to get Al Q, we have failed. The only losers so far was the old Afgan Government, and the Taliban who had supported Al Q.

Iraq was NOT a viable threat to the mainland US. Even if they GOT nukes, then the supposed threat was that they would give them to terrorists… we are now trying to impose Democracy there… it will be interesting to see if it lasts in a Moslem dominated society.

But IMO the whole Neo Con idea is silly, and against what History has taught us.

Democracys have started many wars throughout History.

Oh, goody. Another secular humanist troll. Does AP recruit you guys or are you the canadian sheetrock’s roommate?

I think it’s also possible that the democrat party mingles anti-religion and racism and class struggle and a chicken-in-every-potism with it’s politics.

I don’t think that the Republican Party is guilty of using religion as a club. Some individuals are, true conservatives don’t. The ones that do are hauled up for example by the media as mainstream.

Vince on November 26, 2008 at 12:29 PM

By way of example, would you consider Ann Coulter a mainstream conservative? I think I can make a convincing argument that she is just based on the book sales of Godless: the Church of Liberalism.

NeoConism, from a Democracy, has started TWO wars and is threatening at least THREE others…

But thats for another thread…. LOL…

Romeo13 on November 26, 2008 at 12:15 PM

Inaccurate. One was accepting an (unfriendly) invitation to a war already in progress, while the other was finishing a war left half done by the “realists.” But, then, simple democracy is not sufficient: what has been promoted is rule-of-law governance restricted by individual rights and responsive to democratic considerations.

I just posted the full quote, as told on national television by the man who heard him say it, using the exact words I originally posted. There’s no question about what he said, only how he meant it. Do you understand? Probably not.

I don’t know what your dribbling about when it comes to taking science out of school. I made a fairly obvious and specific reference to evolution. You know damn well that creationism is a cause celebre among conservatives – making appearances in: the presidential primary debates, the National Review Online and other mainstream conservative journals, a sympathetic review on this very site of Godwin’s Law: The Movie, the Texas Board of Education (currently), and pretty much anywhere there’s a Republican with an evangelical constituent. Gov. Palin couldn’t even bring herself to mutter the “e” word when asked to debunk the rumors she subscribes to the Flinstone’s theory of natural history – rumors that no one would have taken seriously if Republicans didn’t have such an abysmal track record of tolerating crackpot science to avoid offending fundamentalist Christians.

I can’t think of anyone whose opinion I could care less about than yours, so I won’t waste any more of either of our time. That’s all I have to say to you.