Hot Air reader poll results: Fiscal issues trump social issues by … quite a lot

posted at 1:22 pm on November 17, 2010 by Patrick Ishmael

These are the results of the survey we took at the end of Allahpundit’s GOProud/Tea Party priority post. The eye-popper? Question 3.

Analysis follows.

Do these results mean social conservatism has no place in the present political environment? Absolutely not. However, what this survey does suggest is that in order to maximize economic and social conservative gains, conservatives and libertarians think it will require two distinct strategies — inter-related, but clearly bifurcated. Republicans and Tea Partiers are choosing two-track governance: a fiscal issue track at the federal level, and a fiscal/social issue track among the states.

This year’s midterm voters by-and-large cast their ballots to shrink government: to roll back the massive expansions of the past two years, and probably much of the expansion of government of the last decade. Economic issues were the foremost concern of voters, and on that question conservatism won nationally.

Republicans win when voters are convinced the GOP will make the federal government smaller and less invasive, and generally speaking lose when voters believe the GOP will enlarge the federal government’s power. Nationally-speaking, that applies as much to social issues as it does to fiscal issues. To me, enshrining social issue firefights at the highest level of government necessarily suggests an encroachment by the federal government on the local and state communities that are most intimately concerned with the resolution of those issues. My own preference, and the impression I take from this survey, is that Republicans/conservatives/libertarians would rather decentralize, than hyper-centralize, its government, especially now.

So, that was the survey.

In other news, I parsed the following Presidential primary map from the data for your enjoyment. Survey responses were very close to proportional by state, so… this is pretty representative of the country (of Hot Air) as a whole. “Winners” were almost uniformly by plurality, not majority. This map includes all the candidates polled, and will very likely change going forward.

Feedback welcome. I’m on Twitter.

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5

The poll is extremely interesting, but I felt it was also extremely misleading. Why? The questions lead to the conclusion.

Question 2 is asking about the “Federal Level” and not just soc-con issues in general. Most social conservatives will answer that the Fed has no business in social engineering. The only issues I see from the so-con point of view that need to be dealt with on a Fed level are Abortion (don’t make it illegal, regulate it back to the states) and Immigration (which falls under Nat Sec and is not a position that all consider so-con). I’m willing to bet many social conservatives voted for Fiscal Conservative at the Federal Level. I think you would get much more accurate results with a better phrased question.

Question 3 is even worse that 2. A strictly fis-con would have no problem answering “no” as they don’t have to give up something important to them. Soc-cons, however, are being asked to make a sacrifice. To answer “yes” would mean that fiscal conservatism will not be pursued and is essentially the same as saying “I would support social conservatism if it meant fiscal liberalism.” This is a false choice and one that favors the answer of “no.” Most so-cons (in my experience mind you) believe that fiscal and social issues are linked. Many believe that if you shrink the gov’t then society will naturally become more conservative because it restores the role of the Church and other private charity organizations. It also helps to restore a sense of personal responsibility.

I voted “No” on question 3 after much deliberation, but that is mostly because I believed the writer did not intend to imply a “no” answer to be a rejection of fiscal conservatism (and thereby an acceptance of more liberal fiscal policy). However, the fact that I had to think about that makes the question misleading.

Sorry to be so critical of your poll. I do think it is very interesting. It may or may not be accurate though. My advice to other so-cons is to not get worked up over it. Due to the fact that so-cons were forced to make choices that strict fis-cons weren’t, the results could hardly be any different.

Pattosensei on November 17, 2010 at 6:56 PM

Question 3 is even worse that than 2

FIFM

Pattosensei on November 17, 2010 at 6:57 PM

who are we going to elect/support that gets to dictate to us what our “morality” should be? And how would that be called freedom?

Anyone?

Archimedes on November 17, 2010 at 6:55 PM

real conservatives…like REAGAN…social conservatives…

because the social libs fiscal cons..like AUNULD…are just libs.

and you do know that every law that government passes is an expression of morality of one sort or another right?

so this shibboleth about ‘legislating morality’ is laughable…since all laws legislate morality.

you probably would have thought the founders were the dreaded THEOCRATS…ever read Washington’s thanksgiving speech? and Jefferson had churches built with public funds…

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 6:58 PM

As we can see just in the HA threads, where most of us agree on most things, but none us on all of them, who are we going to elect/support that gets to dictate to us what our “morality” should be? And how would that be called freedom?

Anyone?

Archimedes on November 17, 2010 at 6:55 PM

What are you talking about? No one in government should be dictating morality. That’s what the problem is now … government has superceded society. It now tells us what is good or bad.

darwin on November 17, 2010 at 7:01 PM

Archimedes let us do away with laws regarding murder . Ok?

Funny thing is you sound awfully judgmental.

CWforFreedom on November 17, 2010 at 7:02 PM

Thanks for playing
MJBrutus on November 17, 2010 at 4:50 PM

You are a pompous arse.

CWforFreedom on November 17, 2010 at 7:06 PM

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 6:46 PM

False! Many of the organizing/founding peeps of the TEA prty are socially liberal. Dana Loesch comes to mind, so does athiest S.E.Cupp and Tucker Carlson and Andrew Brietbart and…

There are plenty of social libs in the TEA party, just because they are not smoking a joint in a public space nt of you where they could be arrested does’nt mean they are’nt there.

Archimedes on November 17, 2010 at 7:07 PM

False! Many of the organizing/founding peeps of the TEA prty are socially liberal. Dana Loesch comes to mind, so does athiest S.E.Cupp and Tucker Carlson and Andrew Brietbart and…

uh huh did any of them run for office? hmmmmm??? name names….the ones that don’t run for office don’t matter.

There are plenty of social libs in the TEA party, just because they are not smoking a joint in a public space nt of you where they could be arrested does’nt mean they are’nt there.

uh yeah there are SO many winning libertarian politicians aren’t there now?? lets see theres uhhhhhh hmmmmm can’t think of any can you?

oh and your libertarian drug legalization failed in CA, while the ban on gay marriage passed? isn’t that interesting?

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 7:10 PM

darwin on November 17, 2010 at 7:01 PM

I did’nt think that required the /sarc tag, the point is no-one can agree on just who’s morality to impose on the rest of us.

Archimedes on November 17, 2010 at 7:10 PM

I strongly doubt if the inverse were asked — if social conservatism led to fiscal liberalism — you’d see a similar 75-25 breakdown for social conservatism, but we could always poll it. Point being, at the federal level, there’s a clear fiscal priority not only for libertarians that read Hot Air, but for conservatives, as well.

Patrick Ishmael on November 17, 2010 at 4:37 PM

Sorry, I didn’t see this my first time through…

Patrick, an inverse of the question would still lead to the false choice delimma. The question is fundamentally wrong because it forces a choice to one group. I agree that there is a fiscal priority at the federal level for conservatives in general, but that doesn’t diminish so-con values. Libertarians have created the believe that social conservatives want the Gov’t to regulate people’s lives, which is nothing more than a lie.

The truth is the opposite, we don’t want the Fed forcing values on us. The problem is that the Fed is already forcing socially liberal values down our throats…we want them repealed or at least regulated to states. Fiscon Libs are good at showing us to be religious kooks who want to “take control of [their] sex life” or “teach their religion to school children (ID).” Truth is, we see it the other way around. Libs are forcing us to accept a second-class status in the political arena because of “science” and “rights” not stated in the Constitution. Opposing this not the same as wanting a nanny state.

Pattosensei on November 17, 2010 at 7:12 PM

I agree with those that say the 3rd question, in particular, is flawed.

A couple of points. It is not social conservative Christians who are obsessed with what is going on in others’ bedrooms. It’s HOMOSEXUALS who are obsessed with what’s going on in their OWN bedrooms, to the point where they want to march in parades to tell us how proud they are of their “lifestyle choice.” It is not social conservative Christians who are trying to “legislate morality.” It is homosexual activists who are trying to legislate IMMORALITY. They are trying to redefine marriage through the law. They are trying to prevent people from criticizing their behavior through the law. They are trying to create SPECIAL “protected” status for themselves, through the law. Social conservatives are fighting those attempts.

And I’m tired of reading the phrase “you can’t legislate morality.” All laws are based on morality. And our US governmental foundation is based on God-fearing people with MORALS. Without morality as a foundation, to demonstrate right and wrong, “fiscal responsibility” is meaningless. You can’t have fiscal conservatism without social conservatism. DeMint is right. You who advocate dropping social issues in favor of fiscal issues are promoting a false concept.

JannyMae on November 17, 2010 at 7:12 PM

A couple of points. It is not social conservative Christians who are obsessed with what is going on in others’ bedrooms. It’s HOMOSEXUALS who are obsessed with what’s going on in their OWN bedrooms, to the point where they want to march in parades to tell us how proud they are of their “lifestyle choice.” It is not social conservative Christians who are trying to “legislate morality.” It is homosexual activists who are trying to legislate IMMORALITY. They are trying to redefine marriage through the law. They are trying to prevent people from criticizing their behavior through the law. They are trying to create SPECIAL “protected” status for themselves, through the law. Social conservatives are fighting those attempts.

Bingo!!

gay marriage would also end religious liberty for those who disagree..

I find it interesting that so-called ‘libertarians’ are all for that.

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 7:15 PM

I did’nt think that required the /sarc tag, the point is no-one can agree on just who’s morality to impose on the rest of us.

Archimedes on November 17, 2010 at 7:10 PM

Why is it a problem now? Societies have agreed upon what morals work for them for thousands of years.

Apparently we had no problem in the US either until the left came along and started growing the government and doing it’s best to get religion out of our lives.

darwin on November 17, 2010 at 7:16 PM

Your argument, if I understand it, is that human dignity and human justice can be separated and compartmentalized. My stance is that when human justice is truly honored and administered, human dignity is protected by the very act of honoring true human justice. In fact, human dignity is brought into bold relief when a human acts justly.

I think that all rights come into conflict with each other at some point and we as rational people have to make the hard decisions. The right to life is not absolute and we all know this. Even innocent life does not trump all considerations. There are no easy answers to these conflicting principles but at some point even the rights of an innocent must stop.

The TSA pat downs are a case in point. What is wrong with them? No real harm is done and who knows it might just stop someone. Well, the answer is that it is not dignified for someone to be groping people as the price of an airline ticket.

We make these kinds of decisions all the time and there is always a balance to be struck. Human justice is the result of this balancing act. Human life is just one of the considerations that leads to justice, but there are others. We know this when it concerns adults but understandably have a tough time accepting that when it concerns children.

Human dignity is the origin of many of our rights so it doesn’t need to be separated from human justice. Human justice is what does honor to human dignity. Take a look at the bill of rights and you see almost all of them address what is right and proper to ask another to put up with.

That said you can be deprived of your dignity based on your conduct as well as your life if it comes to that. None of these concepts or principles reign supreme in all cases and I would submit that this is one of those cases. I agree with you 99% of the way but this last is one step too far for me.

This is a long way of saying that when justice is done by the mother to her innocent unborn child who was conceived through assault, then the mother’s honor as a human being and woman is also acknowledged and enhanced.

Without justice there is no honor, without honor, no justice. Doing the hard, almost impossible, but morally right thing is it’s own reward, and though you may think that it helps a woman to allow/encourage her to kill her own child, it dishonors all involved because the killing of the innocent is the ultimate injustice.

tigerlily on November 17, 2010 at 6:31 PM

This is an argument and a good one, that killing the baby isn’t a good idea. I don’t know what’s right for her. There is a revulsion in me at the idea that anyone should make a demand that a woman bear that child. I think there are just some things you cannot make mandatory and this is one of them. It may be better for the mother, but this isn’t something society should demand of another human beings.

sharrukin on November 17, 2010 at 7:17 PM

. There is a revulsion in me at the idea that anyone should make a demand that a woman bear that child

so why did she get pregnant then? she can give the child up after its born…

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 7:19 PM

Funny thing is you sound awfully judgmental.

CWforFreedom on November 17, 2010 at 7:02 PM

Hunh?

Of all the people in here, some getting rather testy and calling eachother names, I have not indulged in any of it and I’ve judged no one.

The overiding theme of case is that if don’t get our fiscal act together in hurry we will be in an anarchy, and if you think there is alot of immorality now wait until we go bankrupt, our government collapses and no one to enforce any laws… then you’ll see immorality on steroids.

Archimedes on November 17, 2010 at 7:22 PM

so why did she get pregnant then? she can give the child up after its born…

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 7:19 PM

We are discussing what should be done in the case of rape or incest.

sharrukin on November 17, 2010 at 7:23 PM

The overiding theme of case is that if don’t get our fiscal act together in hurry we will be in an anarchy, and if you think there is alot of immorality now wait until we go bankrupt, our government collapses and no one to enforce any laws… then you’ll see immorality on steroids.

Archimedes on November 17, 2010 at 7:22 PM

the 30s weren’t a lawless decade.

and fiscal issues and social issues are inextricably linked…the whole war on poverty is an expression of morality.

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 7:23 PM

We are discussing what should be done in the case of rape or incest.

sharrukin on November 17, 2010 at 7:23 PM

Oh I’m sorry…I wasn’t following the whole conversation.

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 7:24 PM

Oh I’m sorry…I wasn’t following the whole conversation.

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 7:24 PM

No problem.

sharrukin on November 17, 2010 at 7:28 PM

After reading thousands (if not more) of derogatory comments from people who identify as “social libs, fiscal cons” that derogate religious morality if not moral perspectives altogether, this is really boiling down to an issue of antagonism by the Left (“social libs”) upon those on the Right (“social cons, fiscal cons”).

And Libertarians are, essentially, Liberals. They just want taxes lowered and government reduced (good things) but otherwise, in my experience, are as Leftwing as anyone ever is about anyone else who isn’t. Which means, they’re highly critical and denigrating of anyone who expresses any belief or belief-inspired-position that is rooted in, particularly, Christianity.

Christie isn’t Conservative, he’s Libertarian: a social liberal, a fiscal conservative. But more than “fiscal conservative,” I think what Christie is is old-fashioned rocko-socko anti-authoritarian (a good thing as to our bloated government situation). So you have to wonder where he’d go on OTHER important issues aside from rapping on reducing government.

What a person believes defines a large part of their character and certainly administers most of what their ethics are. We see these vanity-belief people such as Pelosi who exercises plans based upon terribly compromised ethics and that’s not the nature of her religious association (she claims to be Catholic), it’s a fault of her highly questionable state of mind and something quite rotten about her character — runs deep and speaks as to ingrained and poor familial instruction as to her psychological development process, not the problem of Catholicism but of something in her development to the contrary while she uses Catholicism to moreorless feign excuses or claim some special bypass as to personal responsibility for her damaging activities.

The point being, we’ve all seen individuals like that who set a bad, very bad, standard of sorts as to “all people like them” or associated with similar beliefs as theirs, which is the damage done by the wicked: a false standard is established by their wickedness (think, Pelosi’s) as to what they claim is their belief system (Catholicism), which she violates repeatedly yet claims to be righteous (certainly she isn’t, and her failings are not inspired BY Catholicism, but by her, something very wickedly wrong with her, mind, heart, whatever).

So people in general want these “belief driven” issues to go away. They never will and should not be shunned, but allowed to be discussed despite the baggage.

The issue of GoProud/GOProud, whatever, is that they are formed upon a very specialized “social issue” advocacy. Their very group is a representative of a social issue advocacy movement, members associate with that group for their concerns ABOUT their idea of “social issues.”

Yet they are attempting to suppress others from even discussing or broaching social issues in the public discourse. If that was a genuine concern by that group, they’d then dissolve their group if their logic there was reliable.

But because they’re persisting in some more aggressive nature AS that group, any group of similar advocacy, they are actually working toward eliminating any obstacles TO the advocacy of their social issues: run around, yell at people, write nasty things about critics, shame others, demand silence on social issues, no discussion…yet their very own rendition as a group and with identity politics persists, so they’ve silenced possible critics while promoting their own concerns…

The poll is skewered toward that audience.

Lourdes on November 17, 2010 at 7:37 PM

oh and your libertarian drug legalization failed in CA, while the ban on gay marriage passed? isn’t that interesting?

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 7:10 PM

Uhhmm, I have’nt advocated for drug legalisation, so I am not sure where you are coming from. And someone mentioned why don’t we get rid of laws against murder in response to statements, let’s not get obtuse shall we.

To say a society cannot function without christianity as its guide is a falsehood, there were many societies prior to Christ.

If the Soc-Con’s refuse to do what is necessary to get our finances together unless they get a nominee that promises to overturn Roe(BTW a prez can’t do this only the courts can)we will lose in ’12. If we lose, its bloody game over man, head for nearest bunker in a non-disclosed location.

The Dhims have teetering on the brink of a complete implosion, why can we not shelve the abortion issue untik were out of this mess? If the country implodes you will have more to worry about than someone elses abortion, like trying to keep you and yours alive.

Archimedes on November 17, 2010 at 7:41 PM

After reading thousands (if not more) of derogatory comments from people who identify as “social libs, fiscal cons” that derogate religious morality if not moral perspectives altogether, this is really boiling down to an issue of antagonism by the Left (“social libs”) upon those on the Right (“social cons, fiscal cons”).

And Libertarians are, essentially, Liberals.

absolutely true.

they’ve lost the argument.

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 7:41 PM

Uhhmm, I have’nt advocated for drug legalisation, so I am not sure where you are coming from. And someone mentioned why don’t we get rid of laws against murder in response to statements, let’s not get obtuse shall we.

you said something about people smoking a joint…I just made the observation…I didn’t say you were advocating for that…but it is a libertarian position.

Actually William F. Buckley was for drug legalization…and I would agree if we did not have to pay for the care of the drug addicted.

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 7:43 PM

To say a society cannot function without christianity as its guide is a falsehood, there were many societies prior to Christ.

I don’t think anyone said that…but would you like to live in a society that has islam or atheism as its foundation?

The Dhims have teetering on the brink of a complete implosion, why can we not shelve the abortion issue untik were out of this mess? If the country implodes you will have more to worry about than someone elses abortion, like trying to keep you and yours alive.

Archimedes on November 17, 2010 at 7:41 PM

we’re here because the morality of the left was imposed upon us…we are our brother’s keeper…the bible says if you don’t work, you don’t eat.

hate to say it, but I think its too late for us..and an implosion is inevitable. obama is going to rule by decree for the next 2 years…and the left is going to get violent and very ugly….its gonna be a wild ride….

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 7:46 PM

Excellent work and very promising results for our future.

motionview on November 17, 2010 at 7:46 PM

oh and contrary to what most people think….Prohibition of alcohol and drugs in the early part of the 20th century were PROGRESSIVE ideas….not christian ideas.

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 7:47 PM

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 7:23 PM

The 30′s is not even close to the scale of what we teeter upon now, by a mile. The depresssion was god awful, but the financial structure was not such that gov’t ceased to function. Not so this time around, municipaties are alredy cutting servives like cops and firemen, when the guv’s checks start to bounce how many cops you think are going to keep doing their jobs?

If we do not fix this now, like yesterday, its gonna ber every man for himself and it gonna be pretty.

Archimedes on November 17, 2010 at 7:49 PM

The 30′s is not even close to the scale of what we teeter upon now, by a mile. The depresssion was god awful, but the financial structure was not such that gov’t ceased to function.

I don’t think you understand whats going on..the government won’t cease to function…it will become a fascist dictatorship much like red china…cloward-priven…its what the left is working so hard for.

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 7:56 PM

And Libertarians are, essentially, Liberals.

Unfortunately, in modern terms you’re absolutely right. The Libertarians are fast becoming the party of dope-smokers and deviants, completely ignoring the laundry list of negative effects that come with same.

It’s very sad because we could use a good alternative to the Democrat-Republican dilemma. The Libertarians have let a major opportunity slip by.

Dark-Star on November 17, 2010 at 7:56 PM

The truth is the opposite, we don’t want the Fed forcing values on us. The problem is that the Fed is already forcing socially liberal values down our throats…we want them repealed or at least regulated to states. Fiscon Libs are good at showing us to be religious kooks who want to “take control of [their] sex life” or “teach their religion to school children (ID).” Truth is, we see it the other way around. Libs are forcing us to accept a second-class status in the political arena because of “science” and “rights” not stated in the Constitution. Opposing this not the same as wanting a nanny state.

Pattosensei on November 17, 2010 at 7:12 PM

Well said. This argument keeps coming down to people with differing values afraid that the other’s beliefs are going to interfere with their own. But most of us believe in limited government solutions and making these decisions at the local level. If we limit it to that arena, I don’t see how we can’t support each other and just agree to disagree.

njrob on November 17, 2010 at 7:57 PM

I don’t think you understand whats going on..the government won’t cease to function…it will become a fascist dictatorship much like red china…

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 7:56 PM

China? You mean the nation that’s taking our jobs, building our stuff and buying our nation out from under us?

Lose the fiscal battle soon and you won’t have to worry about a ‘fascist dictatorship’ because there will be nothing to govern!

Dark-Star on November 17, 2010 at 7:58 PM

China? You mean the nation that’s taking our jobs, building our stuff and buying our nation out from under us?

why not take it when we’re giving it away? I don’t blame them…they’re playing to win..power politics….and we’re bowing down to them.

Lose the fiscal battle soon and you won’t have to worry about a ‘fascist dictatorship’ because there will be nothing to govern!

I think its already too late…we are in so much debt, it would take a radical restructuring of our government..and with half the population on the dole in one form or another…and not paying taxes….

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 8:05 PM

I think its already too late…we are in so much debt, it would take a radical restructuring of our government..and with half the population on the dole in one form or another…and not paying taxes….

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 8:05 PM

Not sure I can disagree with you, much as I’d like to. All I can say for sure is that if the right gets bogged down in social issues and doesn’t win the next few rounds of elections, it definitely will be over.

I don’t always see eye-to-eye with you all, but I do know reelecting the left would be a lot worse…

Dark-Star on November 17, 2010 at 8:13 PM

hate to say it, but I think its too late for us..and an implosion is inevitable. obama is going to rule by decree for the next 2 years…and the left is going to get violent and very ugly….its gonna be a wild ride….

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 7:46 PM

Here, I agree with you and why I’ve already gone Galt.

I don’t think you understand whats going on..the government won’t cease to function…it will become a fascist dictatorship much like red china…cloward-priven…its what the left is working so hard for.

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 7:56 PM

Oh I understand all too well and have written extensively on fascis, progressives and the core figures around Obama at American Thinker and PAPundits Int’l, no doubt about the tyranny they have planned for us. But I think they’ll to contain what they have unleashed, this is’nt going to like the thirties, it’s going to be more like 565AD,the fall of Rome and the Dark Ages that followed.

But we must try to save this nation if we can, and if we have shelve the abortion issue for just one cycle to try to get our house in order don’t you think we can do so?

Archimedes on November 17, 2010 at 8:15 PM

Not sure I can disagree with you, much as I’d like to. All I can say for sure is that if the right gets bogged down in social issues and doesn’t win the next few rounds of elections, it definitely will be over.

social conservatives ARE fiscal conservatives….

social libs ARE fiscal libs…as we’ve seen with Arnold.

people talk about appealing to blacks and hispanics…the social issues are the way to do that…as we have seen with the gay marriage vote in CA.

we’re in a social issues war one way or the other…the whole war on poverty reflects the religion of the left…you are your brother’s keeper….it will take fortitude of steel to beat them…and reduce the government…if its even possible..Reagan tried and failed…I don’t think anyone alive now was better than Reagan…we’re in a great deal of trouble…

I do know we can’t have anymore ‘compassionate’ conservatives….or RINOS.

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 8:16 PM

But I think they’ll to contain what they have unleashed, this is’nt going to like the thirties, it’s going to be more like 565AD,the fall of Rome and the Dark Ages that followed.

But we must try to save this nation if we can, and if we have shelve the abortion issue for just one cycle to try to get our house in order don’t you think we can do so?

Archimedes on November 17, 2010 at 8:15 PM

that would actually be preferable to a totalitarian state…at least they were free…

I think social issues and fiscal issues are intertwined…we’ve ignored abortion all these years….and we’re in this mess…so how will focusing on it hurt?

but there are other powers at work here…people like SOROS..the devil’s pawn if I ever saw one…who are desperately working to build a one-world government…and the signs are right….Israel exists…iran is her primary enemy….russia is iran’s ally….the MAHDI will raise his wounded head…as ahmadinajad wants….christians know this MAHDI as the anti-christ.

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 8:19 PM

Here, I agree with you and why I’ve already gone Galt.

its a good idea…I’ve been stocking up on lead..

I figure its easier to loot than hoard!! ;-)

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 8:24 PM

There is a revulsion in me at the idea that anyone should make a demand that a woman bear that child. I think there are just some things you cannot make mandatory and this is one of them. It may be better for the mother, but this isn’t something society should demand of another human beings.

sharrukin on November 17, 2010 at 7:17 PM

imho, there should be more revulsion at the murder of the unborn child. That is a far greater and in fact a lethal injustice in comparison to the way the child was conceived. And of course, the child itself not an injustice but a unique creation willed into being it’s Creator.

Also, think about this for a minute. Perhaps the soft bigotry of low expecatations also comes into play here.

Generally speaking, women are a great deal stronger and more courageous than to automatically be presumed to be hysterically unable to carry their own child and must be rushed to the abortionist’s knife in order to kill the child and spare the little woman from having to deal, because we all know that she can’t deal and we don’t have the time to help her deal with such a gross-out, if the truth be told.

In fact, once the abortion is accomplished, we can all pat her on the back and falsely claim that her abortion was an act of vengeful courage, as in, “she sure showed that rapist, hmm?”

So, let the guys rape ‘em and scrape ‘em and women better go along with that program because that’s what’s good for them. The Left and the abortion industry told us so.

Rape ‘em to steal their dignity, scrape ‘em to restore it with a little child-murder. Simple.

And don’t call us when the depression and nightmares won’t end, lady. We don’t have the time to support you in giving life, why should we care how you handle the baby’s death? In fact, something must be wrong with you if you don’t want to irrationally take out your hate of what the rapist did to you by killing your baby.

You can’t rise to the challenge….

The soft and violent bigotry of low expectations….

And beyond that, it should never be legal to take innocent life through abortion, or any “justification” or idea that some persons dignity trumps another person’s right to live. And while innocent lives are lost in war, which in itself is a mystery of evil that man has grappled with since the beginning, the direct and intentional killing of the innocent unborn in the womb is an issue that stands on it’s own and should be prohibited in any sane, Judeo/Christian society. The society which the Founders gave us and millions have sacrificed life, limb and family for, and what we have let the Left dismantle for us at what is becoming breakneck speed.

And now folks, with the new shiny GOProud astroturf of a vocal yet tiny minority (no matter what Allah says) in America of useful idiots who are teaming with GOProud who think that moral issues should be ignored while we work on the fiscal issues. (Not you sharrukin)

Meanwhile, the warped human-rights-and-freedom-of-speech- violating social issues are rammed through by GOProud and the Left as they laugh at the rubes who fell for the idea that social and fiscal conservatism can be separated without killing both.

P.S. This is the only part of your post that I read and started to answer without reading the other parts. I have to go now but will try to reply as needed when I get back. :)

tigerlily on November 17, 2010 at 8:25 PM

Reagan tried and failed…I don’t think anyone alive now was better than Reagan…we’re in a great deal of trouble…

Oog. That’s more than a little scary. All presidents make mistakes, but…

I do know we can’t have anymore ‘compassionate’ conservatives….or RINOS.

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 8:16 PM

Depends on your definition of “compassionate conservatives”, I suppose. I’ve never heard one that categorized them as social liberals.

Dark-Star on November 17, 2010 at 8:29 PM

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 8:24 PM

I liquidated everthing, got out of Chicago(where the implosion will be epic!), bought some acreage of hardwoods in dixie with 4 commercial greenhouses, a 1 1/2 acre stocked pond with catfish & bass, a wood miser for building and waste oil to diesel conversion still for a fuel source. I’ve already collected 4000gl+ of oil and trust me plenty of lead.

Archimedes on November 17, 2010 at 8:33 PM

Oog. That’s more than a little scary. All presidents make mistakes, but…

he was a great man, I remember him well..damn it was a great decade with him around.

Depends on your definition of “compassionate conservatives”, I suppose. I’ve never heard one that categorized them as social liberals.

reagan’s biggest mistake was to pick george as a running mate….they’re progressives like mccain. they were nominally pro-life, but they were for big government socialist programs. such a missed opportunity. but then they were much like nixon..desperately wanting the left and the washington DC culture to like them.

reagan didn’t care about things like that.

I can’t name someone running for president that I can get excited about…Palin would be fun just to irritate the left…but there is no reagan around today. he was the only president in my lifetime that I admired.

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 8:34 PM

I liquidated everthing, got out of Chicago(where the implosion will be epic!), bought some acreage of hardwoods in dixie with 4 commercial greenhouses, a 1 1/2 acre stocked pond with catfish & bass, a wood miser for building and waste oil to diesel conversion still for a fuel source. I’ve already collected 4000gl+ of oil and trust me plenty of lead.

Archimedes on November 17, 2010 at 8:33 PM

yeah chicago is a hell-hole…headed towards detroit status..smart man! its a good move, you’re way ahead of where I am. but then I work in high tech, and moving to the country would be hard for me…but I used to hunt a lot…I spent a lot of time in the woods, and am very comfortable there…wish I was in your position

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 8:37 PM

For example, it is illegal for me to set my cat on fire. I am glad for this and would not want to live in a place where such actions were permitted!

MJBrutus on November 17, 2010 at 5:50 PM

Would it make any practical difference if it were legal to set your cat on fire?

DarkCurrent on November 17, 2010 at 8:41 PM

Archimedes on November 17, 2010 at 8:33 PM

the only bad thing is, if my vision of the future comes true…there is no hiding, and there is no escape, other than the rapture….

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 8:41 PM

Well, I tried to post in the poll and it wouldn’t accept it. I wonder if any others had that problem.

For the record, I went against fiscal conservatives if they would lead to social liberal culture.

pannw on November 17, 2010 at 8:42 PM

Dark-Star on November 17, 2010 at 8:29 PM

you know who we really need in times like these?? CHARLES MARTEL.

apart from the fiscal problem we’re in…the problem of ISLAM looms large….already we have lost the freedom to insult islam..they are on the march, and we are bowing down…who aren’t we bowing down to? sad.

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 8:43 PM

yeah chicago is a hell-hole…headed towards detroit status..smart man! its a good move, you’re way ahead of where I am. but then I work in high tech, and moving to the country would be hard for me…but I used to hunt a lot…I spent a lot of time in the woods, and am very comfortable there…wish I was in your position

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 8:37 PM

I was in const. & RE, needless to say Chicago is raft with afirmitive action housing, so the market tanked especially hard there, seeing no reason that it’s going to improve I packed my tools and PBing’s and went like a bat outta hell.

Seeing you’re in high tech, can’t work online? Hughesnet has a reliable dish system(unlike Dish or Direct)thats fairly reasonable. Its the only away I am chatting with you now, too far in the outback for anything else.

Archimedes on November 17, 2010 at 8:48 PM

the warped human-rights-and-freedom-of-speech- violating social issues are rammed through by GOProud and the Left as they laugh at the rubes who fell for the idea that social and fiscal conservatism can be separated without killing both.
tigerlily on November 17, 2010 at 8:25 PM

It is false dichotomy being pushed by AP here and other liberals elsewhere: “You can’t be for both fiscal and social conservative values, it has to one or the other.”

whatcat on November 17, 2010 at 8:50 PM

And I wouldn’t make too much out of some “poll” on a website. If I did, I’d have to believe that Ron Paul won the last Presidential election. GIGO.

whatcat on November 17, 2010 at 8:53 PM

I packed my tools and PBing’s and went like a bat outta hell.

Seeing you’re in high tech, can’t work online? Hughesnet has a reliable dish system(unlike Dish or Direct)thats fairly reasonable. Its the only away I am chatting with you now, too far in the outback for anything else.

Archimedes on November 17, 2010 at 8:48 PM

don’t blame you at all…you had to work with the chicago OUTFIT if you were in construction didn’t you? Joey batters and the boys? did they make you an offer you couldn’t refuse??

yeah it would be nice, but I have kids in school…and its hard to move them…and those jobs are much harder to find now…sigh….not like the boooosh terror of 5% unemployment…oh well..

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 8:54 PM

you know who we really need in times like these?? CHARLES MARTEL.

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 8:43 PM

I’m going to be honest and admit I’ve never heard of him before. If you’ll excuse me, I’m off to do some research.

Dark-Star on November 17, 2010 at 8:56 PM

I’m going to be honest and admit I’ve never heard of him before. If you’ll excuse me, I’m off to do some research.

Dark-Star on November 17, 2010 at 8:56 PM

he was the winner of the battle of tours in 732 AD. when he stopped the muslim horde from invading france. and that battle marked the end of the muslim offensive in europe..they never got any farther. he was known as THE HAMMER…no one thought he could win that battle…against the muslim heavy calvary….but he used the phalanx (alexander the great’s innovation) to great effect.

he was also the grandfather of Charlemagne…and he is spinning in his grave as we speak…

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 9:00 PM

Well I’ll catch y’all later, I’m off to shoot pool with friends at a watering hole up the road (its the nearest one, 9 miles).

G’nite!

Archimedes on November 17, 2010 at 9:03 PM

don’t blame you at all…you had to work with the chicago OUTFIT if you were in construction didn’t you? Joey batters and the boys? did they make you an offer you couldn’t refuse??

yeah it would be nice, but I have kids in school…and its hard to move them…and those jobs are much harder to find now…sigh….not like the boooosh terror of 5% unemployment…oh well..

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 8:54 PM

I actually worked with Obama’s BFF Martin Nesbitt on a lot of Rezko’s props, so yeah I knew what we were electing outta the gate. Went on the campaign trail 12/26/07 through the FA primary and did oppo research at the back office till 11/4/08, so tried my best to keep the Obamanable from ever getting the oval. Since then I saw the hand wrighting on wall and started making preperations.

Now I gotta go, cheers guys and gals!

Archimedes on November 17, 2010 at 9:10 PM

Unfortunately, in modern terms you’re absolutely right. The Libertarians are fast becoming the party of dope-smokers and deviants, completely ignoring the laundry list of negative effects that come with same.

It’s very sad because we could use a good alternative to the Democrat-Republican dilemma. The Libertarians have let a major opportunity slip by.

Dark-Star on November 17, 2010 at 7:56 PM

Yes. The Tea Party seems to be divided into two groups. Conservatives (Soc and Fis) and the greedy libertines. I think there are more of us conservatives regardless of this poll. We shall see.

pannw on November 17, 2010 at 9:13 PM

or any “justification” or idea that some persons dignity trumps another person’s right to live.

Except a womans right to dignity not to submit to a sexual assault that doesn’t threaten her life does trump another’s right to live.

An innocent life is a much harder thing, but we make that trade off as well. The leftists want to dictate to people what children must eat (Salt/Happy meals/etc) and we as conservatives resist that. If it could be demonstrated that more lives of innocent children could be saved by agreeing to those demands should we then submit? I would say no because there are other principles at work that counter-balance the concern for innocent lives.

Meanwhile, the warped human-rights-and-freedom-of-speech- violating social issues are rammed through by GOProud and the Left as they laugh at the rubes who fell for the idea that social and fiscal conservatism can be separated without killing both.

Agree totally. The two are linked and cannot realistically be separated. You can choose to argue that social conservatism is best served by fighting for fiscal conservatism, but you cannot have a liberal society without also paying for those liberal values both in social costs and financially.

P.S. This is the only part of your post that I read and started to answer without reading the other parts. I have to go now but will try to reply as needed when I get back. :)

tigerlily on November 17, 2010 at 8:25 PM

Actually I had to go as well. Coincidentally a visit to the hospital for a woman who just had a new baby boy. Don’t think there’s any deeper meaning to it than that, but who knows.

sharrukin on November 17, 2010 at 9:13 PM

Like many bands people sometimes don’t like specific labels. I used to identify myself as a conservative libertarian, now I just say libertarian (not Libertarian). I have voted for a DFL candidate 3 times in my life and I have voted in generals and midterms since 1994. Two of the three were local races so I don’t place a lot of stock in it. Do I agree with everything that makes up a conservative? No, but I would say I most often pull the lever for Rs because in principal they are the closest to my ideology. I have no qualms about doing it for a very conservative candidate vs a more moderate liberal.

closetgop on November 17, 2010 at 9:20 PM

Sharrukin,

I just got back and have a couple of thoughts on your post at 7:17 P.M.

It seems to me that you are saying that there is no right that is absoulute because in human experience, rights that should be absolute, such as a human being’s sovereign right to life is violated in ways such as innocents dying through acts of war, the death penalty, etc.

And because of these violations happen in the course of other events, unpleasant as they may be, (legal warfare, death penalty, etc.), then all rights to life are to be weighed in the balance of where, when, and why this right can or should be violated.

Firstly, I would say that there are absolute rights. Our Founders called these God given, and didn’t enumerate all of them but said that “among these” were the right the Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

To illustrate my point I will use your example of warfare. Assuming the war is a just war (I am using the Roman Catholic definition), no innocent lives will be intentionally sought out for destruction. However, in the course of the methods and strategies necessary for prosecuting the war successfully, some innocent lives will be lost. This effect is real, but unintended. In Catholic theology this may be called an instance of double effect, where the licit and legitimate carrying out of an action may result in the completely unintended death of another.

It may happen when, as we discussed earlier, a grave medical condition necessitates the doctor to end the pregnancy early. A doctor of moral character and courage will not end the pregnancy through abortion, but deliver a living baby, who may or may not be able to survive, but because both mother and child would perish if the pregnancy continues, be delivered and given every medical chance to survive or every medical comfort and parental experience of love until the baby returns to God. If the baby does not live, but dies, it will not be because the doctor took it upon him/herself to end the baby’s life, but to treat the mother. The baby’s death would be unintended; the double effect.

I had a friend who delivered knowing her child had a medical condition that would mean the infant would only live a few hours after delivery. The abortionists and those who do not know better encourage these kind of children be destroyed through abortion. I could never see the logic in that. If the baby is to die, why should the mother take that death on to herself? How does that help? (btw, not a few women have been misdiagnosed as having hopelessly deformed babies who deliverd healthy children.) Long story short, the few hours that the baby came into the world were hours were my friend and her husband could love, baptise and receive love from their child before she went back to the Lord. My friend will forever be grateful for the meeting, the seeing, touching, bonding and being there for her child’s return to Heaven.

Direct, intentional murder of another human being, defenseless and innocent, is always wrong and does violate an absolute right. Such rights do exist. If they don’t then there is nothing to stop our devolution into a society of Hitlers, Stalins or Obamas. Welcome to hell.

tigerlily on November 17, 2010 at 10:01 PM

Actually I had to go as well. Coincidentally a visit to the hospital for a woman who just had a new baby boy. Don’t think there’s any deeper meaning to it than that, but who knows.

sharrukin on November 17, 2010 at 9:13 PM

Who knows, indeed. ;)

P.S. in matters of defense of one’s person in an attack by another, if the attacker loses his life because the person defending themselves had no recourse to save themselves but to use lethal force, that would not be considered the loss of an innocent’s life and cannot, I’m sure you agree, be made equivalent to the intentional search and destroy mission that constitutes the abortion of the most innocent and defenseless among us. If we can’t defend an unborn child, we are among the most hopeless persons in a nation not founded to support such an abomination. I firmly believe that if abortion continues, we will never get out from under the avalanche of corruption and moral decay that it breeds. Abortion is the taproot and feeder of complete disorder and dissolution. All these other solutions and fiscal fix-its are ineffectual dust in the hurricane of a rotting culture that allows/encourages this kind of insane bloodletting.

(Coming next is a jumpy transition, hold on…)
There is an amazing story of a modern day saint, Maria Goretti, who, as an eleven year old girl was stabbed to death when a peasant boy, who she fought off, attempted to rape her. Here is the start of an interesting article on the little saint:

In a time that has increasingly stressed education as an indispensable need, she knew neither how to read nor how to write; but she knew better than others how to live and how to die.” —Marie Cecilia Buehrle.

Her life reads like a script for one of those gritty black and white peasant pictures — on the surface. An eleven year old Italian child, knowing nothing but hard labor, born of illiterate farm stock, herself unable to read or write, brutally stabbed to death resisting rape, her reputation attacked by her attacker — what could there be about her then to illumine our lives now?

To read more you can go here: http://catholicism.org/goretti.html

tigerlily on November 17, 2010 at 10:30 PM

It seems to me that you are saying that there is no right that is absoulute because in human experience, rights that should be absolute, such as a human being’s sovereign right to life is violated in ways such as innocents dying through acts of war, the death penalty, etc.

No, not really. What I am saying is that absolute rights have a way of destroying themselves and the very purpose for which they were enacted if taken too far.

The right of free speech if taken too far results in mob being able to scream down any dissenters in any venue which allows the suppression of free speech. Victory goes to the most out of control and thoughtless fools, which is not really the intent of that right.

The right to due process and trial by jury is currently being taken to apply to terrorists and foreigners which is never what was intended. Now they are suggesting that it must be applied on the battlefield which is ridiculous.

In my opinion no right exists which cannot be taken too far and therefore become self defeating.

And because of these violations happen in the course of other events, unpleasant as they may be, (legal warfare, death penalty, etc.), then all rights to life are to be weighed in the balance of where, when, and why this right can or should be violated.

Correct and I would further add that we do this anyway when we make decisions about safety standards.

Firstly, I would say that there are absolute rights. Our Founders called these God given, and didn’t enumerate all of them but said that “among these” were the right the Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Absolute in the sense that they cannot be alienated by government fiat. Not absolute in the sense that they cannot be countered by another conflicting right. If two absolute rights do conflict then how do you resolve such a situation if your sense of absolute is used?

To illustrate my point I will use your example of warfare. Assuming the war is a just war (I am using the Roman Catholic definition), no innocent lives will be intentionally sought out for destruction. However, in the course of the methods and strategies necessary for prosecuting the war successfully, some innocent lives will be lost. This effect is real, but unintended. In Catholic theology this may be called an instance of double effect, where the licit and legitimate carrying out of an action may result in the completely unintended death of another.

We have fought wars in which the mass bombing of civilians was carried out over Germany. I disagreed with that due to it not being effective as other alternatives. That said the mass killing of civilians has taken place at Hiroshima and at Nagasaki as well as Dresden and Hamburg. These are just a few of the examples. Civilians were deliberately targeted. You can argue the necessity of doing so but you cannot claim that this was collateral damage in the sense that another target was intended. Civilians were the target.

Direct, intentional murder of another human being, defenseless and innocent, is always wrong and does violate an absolute right. Such rights do exist. If they don’t then there is nothing to stop our devolution into a society of Hitlers, Stalins or Obamas. Welcome to hell.

tigerlily on November 17, 2010 at 10:01 PM

I agree with you that human life must be held to be sacrosanct, but it isn’t the only right. There are others that must also be respected or you quickly enter the territory of the absurd.

p.s. My point regarding defense during an attempted rape was to suggest that sometimes the right to life does not trump human dignity. Innocent life of course is something else entirely.

sharrukin on November 17, 2010 at 10:42 PM

To read more you can go here: http://catholicism.org/goretti.html

tigerlily on November 17, 2010 at 10:30 PM

That was a very interesting read. Thanks for that. It’s things like this that make coming here worthwhile.

I am not a Christian and while I have a great deal of respect for Christians my reaction to this is not forgiveness, but something much more dark that would result in a body oozing life. I know that isn’t the point and is in some ways the opposite, but this is why I don’t honestly think I could ever be a Christian.

sharrukin on November 17, 2010 at 11:21 PM

there is nothing to stop our devolution into a society of Hitlers, Stalins or Obamas. Welcome to hell.

tigerlily on November 17, 2010 at 10:01 PM

Sesame Street question:

Which of these things is not quite like the others?

DarkCurrent on November 17, 2010 at 11:28 PM

To read more you can go here: …

tigerlily on November 17, 2010 at 10:30 PM

Whenever I read one of your brief comments, the first thing I wish is that there was a link to more…

DarkCurrent on November 17, 2010 at 11:32 PM

Whenever I read one of your brief comments, the first thing I wish is that there was a link to more…

DarkCurrent on November 17, 2010 at 11:32 PM

Then don’t read it. It’s not as if you are going to understand it in any case.

sharrukin on November 17, 2010 at 11:36 PM

It’s not as if you are going to understand it in any case.

sharrukin on November 17, 2010 at 11:36 PM

If I can understand you I can understand any nonsense

DarkCurrent on November 17, 2010 at 11:42 PM

DarkCurrent on November 17, 2010 at 11:42 PM

Weren’t you the one claiming that Christianity was pacifist, or was that someone else?

sharrukin on November 17, 2010 at 11:46 PM

Weren’t you the one claiming that Christianity was pacifist, or was that someone else?

sharrukin on November 17, 2010 at 11:46 PM

That certainly wasn’t me.

DarkCurrent on November 17, 2010 at 11:49 PM

That certainly wasn’t me.

DarkCurrent on November 17, 2010 at 11:49 PM

Must have been Dark Star then.

sharrukin on November 17, 2010 at 11:51 PM

Must have been Dark Star then.

sharrukin on November 17, 2010 at 11:51 PM

We’re easily confused

DarkCurrent on November 17, 2010 at 11:52 PM

I see at least 106 ignoramus dumbasses frequent this site…

silverfox on November 18, 2010 at 1:06 AM

No, not really. What I am saying is that absolute rights have a way of destroying themselves and the very purpose for which they were enacted if taken too far.

Absolute rights, such as the innocent person’s right to his or her life, have no way destroying themselves, per se. However, if by “destroying themselves” you mean that these rights have been violated by men throughout history, and they have, I don’t see how that would in any way diminish the right itself, which is not something enacted, but bestowed; inborn; imperishable; immutable even if violated, by man’s law. In other words, the fact that transgressions of sovereign, God given rights occur is no reason to find these rights somehow defective. Actually, the transgression of absolute rights shine a light on the injustice of the transgression and is not a justification for the “eradication” of the right. A right can be violated or abused, (freedom of speech is not a right properly exercised when “fire” is shouted in a crowded theater. Terrorists, by their very definition, have no right to the judicial system of civilian trial. These are two examples of rights that are misapplied. The right does not change, because it is a truth, however in the hands of transgressors it can be applied to those to whom it should not. The blame lies with the subjective perpetrator, not the objective truth, or God given right. btw, I don’t know if I would agree that freedom of speech or a right to a trial of a jury of peers is on the same level as the sovereign right to life. The right to life is the Foundational Right from which all “lesser rights” such as freedom of speech flow. It stands alone, because without life, all other rights are non-existant.

And because of these violations happen in the course of other events, unpleasant as they may be, (legal warfare, death penalty, etc.), then all rights to life are to be weighed in the balance of where, when, and why this right can or should be violated.

Correct and I would further add that we do this anyway when we make decisions about safety standards.

You may have misunderstood me here, or maybe not. To clarify, I was laying out what I understand to be your pov, but I don’t agree with it.

We have fought wars in which the mass bombing of civilians was carried out over Germany. I disagreed with that due to it not being effective as other alternatives. That said the mass killing of civilians has taken place at Hiroshima and at Nagasaki as well as Dresden and Hamburg. These are just a few of the examples. Civilians were deliberately targeted. You can argue the necessity of doing so but you cannot claim that this was collateral damage in the sense that another target was intended. Civilians were the target.

I was careful to make my example an example of what the Church considers a “just war” which has a very narrow and specific set of parameters. While WWII itself could be considered a just war, some of the actions during the war, such as the bombing of Dresden, could have, and imo, did violate innocent persons’ right to life. The nuking of Japan says that perhaps a million would have died without it; the calculation and action taken in an extraordinary time and place in the history of the world, and not repeated since. It can also be argued that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were also a violation of the right to life. But if so, does that mean that the right to life should be all the more protected, or less? Because Hiroshima and Nagasaki occured, should we have made nuclear bombing a regular occurance? In fact, we have done everything in our power to never have it repeated. Once again, because transgressions occur, does that mean we should look to increase such violations, because the transgressions prove that the right transgressed is either non-existant or unimportant?

Absolute in the sense that they cannot be alienated by government fiat. Not absolute in the sense that they cannot be countered by another conflicting right. If two absolute rights do conflict then how do you resolve such a situation if your sense of absolute is used?

It is not usually two rights conflicting in a vacuum, but two human beings or more claiming dominance over others.
And there is a hierarchy of rights, the first being the right to life, as our Founders recognized and listed first, and not just because they didn’t think it out before writing it, also. Case in point – abortion. The pro-aborts insist all along that the “right to choose” (they hate to finsish the sentence with the object of choice: abortion),
trumps the right to a child’s life. No. Not even close.
Usually, when the exercise of one person’s rights costs the other guy or gal loss of equal or greater rights, then the path as to whose rights are soverign is clear. If a neighbor wants to play loud music at 3 A.M and wake the neighborhood, his right to loud music is abrogated by the neighbors’ right to use that time of day for sleep, i.e., peace.

I agree with you that human life must be held to be sacrosanct, but it isn’t the only right. There are others that must also be respected or you quickly enter the territory of the absurd.

Exactly, but turn the telescope around! If all rights are given equal standing, then no rights can be subservient to others. A hierarchy of rights exist, and if this isn’t acknowledged, or perverted, as in the right to make a choice to kill trumps the other person’s right to life, then of course we enter the territory of the absurd. In fact, we have done just this thing through abortion, and the territory is not even alien to us anymore.

Another example of hierarchy of rights can be made using the rights and needs of our own bodies. We need water and food and shelter, usually in that order. Then we need clothing and furnishings. Then we need transport, then things like music, appliances, life-easing gadgets, etc.
No one would trade their access to water for a car. That would be a trip to the territory of the absurd, wouldn’t it. Hierarchy of the body’s rights so to speak.

To read more you can go here: http://catholicism.org/goretti.html

That was a very interesting read. Thanks for that. It’s things like this that make coming here worthwhile.

I am not a Christian and while I have a great deal of respect for Christians my reaction to this is not forgiveness, but something much more dark that would result in a body oozing life. I know that isn’t the point and is in some ways the opposite, but this is why I don’t honestly think I could ever be a Christian.

You never know. Ask Him about it and you will get an answer, though. That I do know.

P.S. Thanks for all the challenging discussion, sharrukin.

tigerlily on November 18, 2010 at 1:25 AM

p.s. pls forgive typos, mispells, etc. too lazy to proof closely enough to catch ‘em all. Besides, they keep you on your toes, right? :)

tigerlily on November 18, 2010 at 1:33 AM

You know sometimes you believe something without exactly knowing why. Having been made to think about this I must say that I do believe that human dignity matters more than human life. Life on certain terms is not worth living, and this is the wellspring of freedom. If you believe that life alone is the supreme value then you aren’t going to trade down are you? As long as you believe that life on any terms can be accepted then you are not free. Slaves trade their dignity for life, free men don’t.

The right to life is the Foundational Right from which all “lesser rights” such as freedom of speech flow. It stands alone, because without life, all other rights are non-existant.

I think in fact that it is human dignity that has preeminent value. Survival itself, life itself doesn’t lead to any rights. This is the fallacy of libertarians and Darwinism. There is no moral imperative that stems from mere existence. As Dostoevsky said “they…want to base justice on reason alone” and I don’t think it can be done. I realize that you clearly do not stand in that camp, but I wonder if some of their thinking hasn’t drifted over.

Because Hiroshima and Nagasaki occured, should we have made nuclear bombing a regular occurance? In fact, we have done everything in our power to never have it repeated. Once again, because transgressions occur, does that mean we should look to increase such violations, because the transgressions prove that the right transgressed is either non-existant or unimportant?

Well I would say that we made hard choices in an unfair world. We could not, and did not choose the innocent lives in those cities as having a right to life. I would have made the same choice as they did then. Other considerations were of greater value than the lives of those innocents killed.

Exactly, but turn the telescope around! If all rights are given equal standing, then no rights can be subservient to others.

I agree that not all rights are equal, and a hierarchy of rights does exist. I would go further though and assert that not all circumstances are equal either.

A belligerent man wielding a knife is a threat to life and a police officer might or might not be justified in killing him depending on circumstances.

A man belligerent near the trigger of a nuclear device is also a threat to life but a police officer would be justified in killing him on sight.

The implications of acting or failing to act in a circumstance do make a significant difference. Abortion for the sake of convenience is not at all the same as abortion undertaken for the victim of rape.

the right to make a choice to kill trumps the other person’s right to life, then of course we enter the territory of the absurd.

Except it does trump the other persons right to life if he means a sexual assault. In that case human dignity does trump human life.

In fact, we have done just this thing through abortion, and the territory is not even alien to us anymore.

And that in my opinion is a fundamental assault upon the value of a human life. I would ask what gives a human life value? We choose to execute criminals and give our soldiers leave to kill on the battlefield. So there is more here than just human life. Other rights and values are being used to inform us as to the worth of a human life.

We make clear the distinction between human life and innocent human life and that in itself tells us we cannot use the right to life as the sole guide. It must be informed by other considerations.

sharrukin on November 18, 2010 at 3:32 AM

Seems to me the result is more in line with Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs If you are worried about getting a job and feeding your family then social issues will, of course, take a back seat.

What is significant, is that despite the economy, 25% still consider the social issues to be a high priority in the mix. That should be very troubling for RINOs like Christie who may be considering running for President. And,it should be remembered that some so called “social issues” such as Cap & Trade (environmental) and illegal immigration have a direct effect on the fiscal issues. So if you ask those same people; “Would you support Christie if you knew he supports Cap & Trade and Amnesty for Illegals?” you might get a very different result.

Done That on November 18, 2010 at 6:02 AM

I would say this poll is pretty accurate, considering the audience, based on comments (rants) posted here over the last 2 years.

I think you would get a much different result if the poll was taken outside to the public at large.

jparks1972 on November 18, 2010 at 8:45 AM

and Jefferson had churches built with public funds…

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 6:58 PM

he also wrote a version of the bible that stripped jesus of his miracles, denied the immaculate conception and the divinity in general of christ. He was no christian
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2005/Jesus-Without-Miracles1dec05.htm

snoopicus on November 18, 2010 at 9:34 AM

That certainly wasn’t me.

DarkCurrent on November 17, 2010 at 11:49 PM

Must have been Dark Star then.

sharrukin on November 17, 2010 at 11:51 PM

Wrongo. crr6 maybe?

Dark-Star on November 18, 2010 at 10:14 AM

snoopicus on November 18, 2010 at 9:34 AM

Yes. He was.

From wallbuilders.com:

The reader, as do many others, claimed that Jefferson omitted all miraculous events of Jesus from his “Bible.” Rarely do those who make this claim let Jefferson speak for himself. Jefferson’s own words explain that his intent for that book was not for it to be a “Bible,” but rather for it to be a primer for the Indians on the teachings of Christ (which is why Jefferson titled that work, “The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth”). What Jefferson did was to take the “red letter” portions of the New Testament and publish these teachings in order to introduce the Indians to Christian morality. And as President of the United States, Jefferson signed a treaty with the Kaskaskia tribe wherein he provided—at the government’s expense—Christian missionaries to the Indians. In fact, Jefferson himself declared, “I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.” While many might question this claim, the fact remains that Jefferson called himself a Christian, not a deist.

kingsjester on November 18, 2010 at 10:54 AM

I found it interesting that you would support a Constitutional Amendment guaranteeing the Right to Life for unborn persons. Even though I believe our Constitution and Declaration already guarantee this and that horrific jurisprudence has brought us the wonders of abortion, I agree that an Amendment would be a wonderful thing.

I would like to see how many who have been posting here regarding making abortion legal state by state will support you in calling for a Constitutional Amendment protecting all unborn in this nation. I have a sneaking suspicion that your “friends” will not agree in any way to support this human life amendment.

Show of hands please.

tigerlily on November 17, 2010 at 5:44 PM

I think that the sanctity of human life in the Const is obvious, just like the Const does not promote slavery, as nutcase is assuming.
I actually don’t think we need any Amendment at all, but we in reality need it for the obtuse & stupid to consider.
I also think the 10th was never necessary, but sometimes you have to state the obvious in 10 different ways bcs of the morons out there who want to twist things.
So tigerlily, listen to nutcase, paint me what you will, or whatever you’d like to do, but the simple matter is, I believe in giving the fed only enumerated powers & nothing else.
It is obvious that a person is a person, whether a fetus or not.
But since science somehow has blinded people to the reality that a person is one at conception & they diddle over the true definition of what a human being is, we have a chance to define once & for all humanity in a onst Amendment.
Why support it?
Bcs what’s been happening so far hasn’t been working.
Let’s stop abortion by getting an Amendment in to stop it.
I think this is the only way to get rid of this evil practice.

Badger40 on November 18, 2010 at 4:25 PM

I see at least 106 ignoramus dumbasses frequent this site…

silverfox on November 18, 2010 at 1:06 AM

THE INTERNET IS SERIOUS BUSINESS!

Inanemergencydial on November 18, 2010 at 9:54 PM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5