Jump To » Mobile / Confirm Them / Right Shelf / Sports / State Blogs / About / Contact / Help / Posting Rules / Conservative Book Club / Human Events
Just a Company of American paratroopers, a guitar plugged
into the outpost's PA system, and a whole lot of demolitions.
Conservative? Liberal? How About Moderate Views
By ClarkKent Posted in Archived — Comments (159) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
It's certainly not something hidden beneath the sea floor of the political oceans or swept under the rug. Conservatives and Liberals continue this fight for whatever they seek to obtain in this election and in the country. But perhaps I should step in as one of the majority in America. The moderate majority that still remains silent for the most part while, and I mean this in a respectful manner, the left and the right continues to play tug of war. Or as I describe it, two young girls fighting over a Barbie doll both claim to be their favorite toy. They both crave a country carved out in their likeness, their views. Well here's some views I support and I would like for the remaining candidates to support in greater detail.
1. End the war in Iraq- You know it's not enough bragging about how you were against the war, especially if you weren't even in the Senate to vote against the resolution, *cough* Senator Obama *cough* I, like many other free thinking Independents understand the larger picture, but we also stay in tune with the rising concerns such as an empowered China and annoying Iran. I support the surge but I would rather see our boys and girls come home and our Military rebuilt for the future.
2. Health Care- I'm smart enough to weed out political pandering when I see it and the "Universal Health care" propaganda push by the Democrats is about as pandering as one can get. No one will ever be able to insure everyone with a government controlled Health care system without destroying our economic structure. I'm a native Californian and California is the proof in the pudding that Universal health care can and will bankrupt a state. Now just think about how much damage would occur nationwide. I support lower cost health care and coverage for children whose parents can't afford it. I thought Bush's plan to cover only those children who were of lower economic background was a plausible idea. God knows why Congress made a big tiff about it and tried to paint Bush as this man with a curly mustache who hates children and leaves them to die of disease.
3. Economy- Why Democrats continue to reign in big bad Mr. Oil company we should encourage the oil companies to develop different fuel options and technologies. Instead Barack Obama calls companies like Exxon Mobile the "enemy" of black and white working class Americans. Well Mr. Obama may or may not know this but most of those working class Americans invest in certain companies. Most of them are retired. I think we should be smart and allow ourselves to use our heads and not let emotions and fears of "global warming" get us into a frenzy. I personally believe that global warming is a one sided liberal scam that Al Gore created in order to stay relevant in the minds of the public. You know what? He took advantage of our great capitalist system and he made a pretty penny. He didn't deserve the Nobel Peace Prize because all he did was state the obvious but hey, he broke the bank playing on the fears of liberals.
4. Social Issues- The fabric of our society I believe is not so much under attack as it is teetering on the brink of blurred and blurry. I think we should institute gay marriage on the basis of individual rights. Many believe it's a matter of moral and religious decision but I'm of the belief that civil liberties and individual rights trump Christian talking points any day. Same goes with Roe v. Wade. I ask this of Republicans and Conservatives, if you're in favor of the government staying out of our personal lives then you must agree that government has no right to control what a woman does with her own body. If so, wouldn't that erase the argument that Republicans champion like personal responsibility and individual rights? Would you let the government take away our right to own a gun or the right to practice religious freedom? I myself stand firmly on the side of Pro Life but I also understand that it's not my place to tell a female what and what she cannot do with her body.
So the list is rather short but I guess as I grow so does my approach and stance on the issues. I used to be so misguidedly leftist, I often look back and realize that the left can be as shady and narrow minded as the right. I'm a pro gun, pro life, moderate that believes neither side has the answers but all sides can come together and create one.
W
by ClarkKent
Well I don't think the war on terror started in Iraq. I mean don't you wonder just a tad why we abandoned all that progress in Afghanistan? We had Al-Qieda and the Taliban on the verge of extinction.
You are grating on me
by speciallist
"I mean don't you wonder just a tad why we abandoned all that progress in Afghanistan? We had Al-Qieda and the Taliban on the verge of extinction."
Your starting to smell...
Try this on for size....
by KyleH
Maybe AQ and the Taliban hi-tailed it to Pakistan where we couldn't touch them without destabilizing a (very weak) nominal ally that has a bigger population than Afghanistan and nuclear weapons to boot? Of course I could be wrong. I am just a lowly scum-sucking conservative neocon.
You're not making a lot of sense
by Jeff Emanuel
Well I don't think the war on terror started in Iraq.
No, it didn't "start" there. It's ongoing there, as well as in several other places, though, and is serving as a major focus in the battle against al Qaeda and other domestic and international terrorist organizations and networks.
While there, I witnessed fighting against, and the capture and killing of, terrorists from Yemen, Syria, Lebanin, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, the Sudan, Somalia, and even more countries; are you actually advocating leaving Iraq because such a large number of the international terrorists who want to kill us -- and therefore whom we want to kill are still streaming into that country to all-but impale themselves on our soldiers' bayonets?
I mean don't you wonder just a tad why we abandoned all that progress in Afghanistan?
We didn't. We have a similar number of troops on the ground in Afgh. now that we did in 2001; the major difference is that you don't see airstrikes on the television all day and all night, and you're not hearing about the SOF activity there. Nothing about Afgh. was "abandoned" whatsoever.
It mystifies me that there are people who seriously think that, in order to do anything with our military in one place, we much "abandon" what we're doing everywhere else.
We had Al-Qieda and the Taliban on the verge of extinction.
Afgh. is an amazingly improved place compared to 7 years ago. NATO released a report just last month entitled "Progress in Afghanistan," which detailed, well, the Progress in Afghanistan since that Treaty Organization took over operations five years ago. If you had just bothered to read the first paragraph of the Executive Summary of that report, you would have seen the following:
Set against the devastating effect of decades of conflict, these five years have witnessed substantial progress in all spheres of Afghan life from a reasonably stable security situation in most of the country to a massive increase in the number of health clinics and children in schools.
Does that sound like abandoned progress to you?
Further, the so-called "resurgence" of the Taliban, which was supposed to bring with it a renewed offensive against the coalition and the Afghani forces, has never materialized in the way that the MSM and the doomsayers have been predicting for the past three years.
There absolutely are Taliban and AQ remaining in the region; however, these holdouts find their safest haven in Pakistan and in the Waziristan area on the border of Pak and Afgh. Regardless the number of troops we have in Afgh at any given time, they are effectively prevented from pursuing AQ and the Taliban to "extinction" by the fact that there's a national border in the way at which pursuit and military operations must stop; in other words, unless you advocate invading Pakistan as well, AQ and the Afghan Taliban will have a safe haven and be able to rest and rearm ad infinitum.
So, ball's back in your court. My first question still stands; now add to that the question of whether you think fighting AQ and the Taliban to "extinction" is worth invading Pakistan -- and if so, will you shortly after be calling for "our boys and girls [to] come home and our Military rebuilt for the future" once again?
And at what point do we actually have to do something now, about anything?
Jeff you know damn well we
by ClarkKent
Jeff you know damn well we should have never gone into Iraq. Bush lied, he danced around the intelligence and he got us into a blunder that cost up over a trillion dollars and 4,000 lives. How can you say Iraq serves as the central focus in the war on terror because Bush got us into this mess. Afghanistan was the focus and would be today if we had not gone to Iraq. You know it's wrong how Bush tried to convince everyone that Iraq was responsible for 9/11 when in fact they weren't. This was about finishing the job his father started. Old vendettas from the late 80s and early 1990s. And if that weren't the reason then oil certainly was on the list.
Jesus Christ give me a break will ya. Bush can't even save face in the middle east anymore. He's over there begging the Saudis for oil and they keep turning him down. He's acting pathetic and he's a far cry from who his father was. George H.W. Bush was a master at foreign policy affairs and to see the second George Bush fail so mightily at it is just sad.
The two biggest blunders George Bush created was the lack of interest or regard for our Economy and diverting attention from the epicenter or the war on terror. By going into Iraq.
And here lies Clark Kent
by c17wife
at the end of Jeff's bayonet.
Look fool, you don't cuss at a moderator in your subject line and leave Jesus Christ out of this.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just a typical, small town, white girl...
:applause: Well done, Jeff.
by Moe Lane
Well done, indeed. I couldn't have broken him better.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Revenge, blood for oil, Halliburton!
by c17wife
AARGGHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just a typical, small town, white girl...
...depleted uranium. But that's always been one of the more esoteric ones that the antiwar folks scream about.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Finish school Clark
by simpson316
Maybe some day you will learn why BushLied™ is not what happened.
Now also found at The Minority Report
and shows his true colors.
Buh bye, troll-boy.
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
Just taking a practical view
by J.Hancock
Right or wrong we are at war in Iraq. Just taking a Machivellian logical stance-losing wars is bad, giving up on wars is bad. We can't afford to have to many more Koreas or VietNams and expect to remain a world leading superpower. We need Iraq. We need to do any and everything to win this war--even if that means turning Iraq into the world's largest parking lot. Remember Machivelli "it's better to be feared than loved"
To quote the great one...
by RottDawg
Mr. Limbaugh if you didn't know...
Because, by definition, if someone or some organization is not conservative, it's by definition going to be liberal, not moderate, not independent, it's going to be liberal, because liberalism is easy. Liberalism takes no intellectual application. Liberalism is all about how you feel. Liberalism is all about making yourself feel good about yourself while you don't solve diddly-squat. Liberalism is all about thinking you're better than everybody else. Liberalism is all about thinking you're smarter than everybody else. Liberalism is all about ignoring every failure of liberalism and asking instead for your good-hearted intentions to be examined and credited.
So, by definition, these people are not moderates and independents. They're quite something else. You can attract them and get them because they're not that committed. All they need is a little leadership. All they need is a little guidance, confident, bravado, positive optimism, American exceptionalism. They want to hear about how great their country is. Most people don't want to hear how rotten we are. Most people don't want to hear what a sad-sack nation we are. Most people do not want to hear that we are to blame for every ill and bit of evil in the world. There are some that do, and those are rock-ribbed liberals and you're never going to get them. But don't cater to them!
Correct me if I'm wrong
by ClarkKent
I may be reading this all wrong but is Rush Limbaugh saying there is no such thing as a moderate? Because I don't believe that to be true. I feel a moderate is someone who takes a little from both sides. Someone who understands a little bit more than conventional liberal and conservative vision. Someone who isn't on the extreme end of either ideological scale.
What principles are you moderate on?
by JSobieski
Freedom of speech?
Capitalism?
Moderate
by J.Hancock
touchy, feely,fuzzy, warm, happy
But afraid to form an opinion
No one agrees with any platform in its entirety, but it's important to at least come to an opinion on each plank rather than just try to hold hands and sing Kumbyah while reaching a consensus (aka.compromise where liberals win) on polerizing issues. Be conservative on most issues, be Liberal on a few if you must, but enough of this "moderate"
You've got to stand for something, or you'll fall for anything.
by Tim Schieferecke
Moderates are simply people who can't make up their minds. The best way to reach them is strong leadership. Strong leadership can trump push poll populism everytime. Case in point, RONALD REAGAN anyone???
Tim Schieferecke
I'm glad that you're a
by South Park Conservative
I'm glad that you're a moderate because you just don't fit the standard definitions, not because you don't have any strong views. You seem like a really reasonable guy and as a self-described libertarian conservative I'm sure we agree on more than we disagree. But I do have to disagree on one point.
"I support the surge but I would rather see our boys and girls come home and our Military rebuilt for the future."
The problem here is your analysis, as presented here, does not mention what our goals are, how we can achieve those goals, or the consequences of withdrawal "for the future". We are in a global struggle against radical Jihadists, as I'm sure you would agree. This war is certainly not going to end if we withdraw from Iraq. While liberals love to say "end the War in Iraq", a more accurate description of that policy is "retreat from the theatre of Iraq" because Iraq is one of the many theatres in the war against global Jihadists. So the question we are left with is this: will withdrawing from Iraq make victory in the global war more or less likely?
The benefits from withdrawing from Iraq include fewer American casualties in the short term, saving money, and perhaps improving our image around the world. But would our image really be improved by losing a war? Would a single Jihadist or peace activist be convinced by our withdrawal that we're actually good guys or just continue to blame us for the invasion in the first place? Would our enemies be closer to surrendering and giving up their Jihad against America or convinced that they are winning? A case could be made that they would have won the greatest victory for the Islamic world since the fall of the Ottoman Empire, defeating the world "hyperpower".
Al Qaeda will absolutely set up bases in Iraq and control territory as they have through most of the Iraq War under the banner of the Islamic State of Iraq. They have plans to take over the rest of Iraq to turn it into a theocratic government. So withdrawal would clearly provoke civil war as I don't imagine the Shiite government or the Mahdi Army will accept that.
So - withdrawal leads to an incredible victory over America for Al Qaeda, drawing more recruits that they could ever have dreamed of otherwise. It also leads to a widespread civil war.
On the other hand, by staying in Iraq we reduced sectarian violence over 90% since the end of 2006. Life is returning to normal in most parts of the country that were under seige throughout most of 2006. Al Qaeda's only major base of operations is now in Mosul. The government has won a major victory against the Mahdi Army in Basra and media reports all indicate that they have control of the city and the residents are nearly universally grateful. This is a war that we are winning! I think many of us thought that perhaps we should give up when the situation was spiraling out of control in 2006, but to give up when we are winning, given the horrific consequences of withdrawal, is madness.
I Also Stop At One
by BigGator5
I support the surge but I would rather see our boys and girls come home and our Military rebuilt for the future.
I also support our troops coming home...
When they have finished the job that they have started. I would rather they never have to go back to Iraq, once we get out of there.
""I support the surge but I would rather see our boys and girls come home and our Military rebuilt for the future."
You see they are not "boys and girls" they are men and women who made a choice to sign up for the military....they are not children forced to fight that war in Iraq...you see it is only liberals who ever use the term "boys and girls"....so if you are a "moderate" I would suggest you stop trying to make our great military out to be children.
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
Big problems with 1 and 5
by rgregm
I echo the sentiments of my fellow RSers regarding number 1. A precipitous withdrawal from Iraq may have instant gratification (for some) but is wrong-headed for a myriad of reasons; many of which have been articulated in numerous posts here on RS. Those who favor a quick redeployment (read: surrender) of our troops often quote the statistics of American troop deaths suffered since the "invasion" in 2003. "Four thousand troops killed in Iraq! Isn't that enough?" While I lament the deaths of our brave men and women we must try to keep this war in perspective. Before our march into Baghdad the leftist "experts" in this country were saying we would suffer hundreds of thousands of casualties. Comparisons were made between Iraq and Vietnam (where we lost just over 58,000 American soldiers) but 5 years later we haven't even come close to the same casualty rates experienced in Southeast Asia. Just for clarity: Since our troops marched into Baghdad in the spring of 2003 over 200,000 Americans lost their lives on American highways. Traffic fatalities far outnumber the lives lost in Iraq.
Which brings me to number 5: Abortion. You say you are pro-life but believe the government should not tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her own body. That is false. You are not pro-life. Being pro-life does not mean believing the individual rights of one trump the individual rights of another. Being pro-life means believing the individual rights (to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) of a yet unborn child are not destroyed by the individual rights of a woman who chooses (either willfully or through neglect or ignorance) to become pregnant. There is no middle ground on this issue.
And for those who are distraught over the 4,000 deaths of American forces in Iraq and use that statistic as the basis for their support of an immediate withdrawal from that war, consider this: More children are killed via abortion every 26 hours in this country than the number of soldiers we have lost in Iraq to date! That's roughly 1,370,000 deaths each year. Since we 'invaded' Iraq: More than 7 million children have been murdered in the name of a 'women's right to choose.'
http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html
I don't remember who said it but I'll paraphrase it here:
"A conservative is one who has a moral compass-he knows right from wrong and he knows it instinctively. A liberal has no compass, or if he does it's broken. A moderate may have one but he's a coward and he's afraid to use it."
yup-for more info
by J.Hancock
see my first blog
More children are killed via abortion every 26 hours in this country than the number of soldiers we have lost in Iraq to date! That's roughly 1,370,000 deaths each year. Since we 'invaded' Iraq: More than 7 million children have been murdered in the name of a 'women's right to choose.'
Between 1 in 4 and 1 in 5, concieved pregnancies are aborted and 1/3 women have had an abortion by the age of 40. To put things in perspective, how fast would we be out of Iraq if one out of every three parents had lost a son or daughter in Bagdad??
Yet we let abortion continue, because if we don't see the violence on the news it must not be real...
Ok Guys, Calm Down
by ClarkKent
Abortion is wrong, I totally agree, but all I'm saying is that even with my stern Pro-Life stance, and I am a firm believer in the right to life, I also take in consideration one's personal responsibilities and individual rights. Who am I to suggest the government tell a woman what to do with her body? Who are any of us to do so? Sure we can be against it and we should, but we shouldn't get rid of or overturn laws that would protect a woman's right to choose. And I want to make this very clear, just because a woman has the right to choose doesn't mean she will get abortions like they're going out of style. We need to keep that in mind. People often think that "Right to choose" means right to abort without giving it some thought. Women don't enjoy having abortions. I mean do you really think it's an easy decision to make? Let's be smart guys.
Your statements are an oxymoron.
by BrianH
1. Stern pro-life
2. Support right to choose
Those 2 statements are diametrically opposed. You can't be both.
Your support for the "right to choose" presupposes that the baby being killed is not a human being. Pro-life people don't take that stance. We believe the baby is a human being and should have the right to life.
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
God this topic never dies
by ClarkKent
Look I understand the meaning of Pro-life but I don't believe the government should control what a women does with her body. Point blank. It's an issue I went back and forth on. I don't believe government should interfere with anything we do in our personal lives. Just as I oppose stricter gun control laws. I am of the belief that we should live and let live.
And you guys know you would be raising hell if the government overturned the 2nd amendment and cracked down on gun rights. Remember the old lady who was apprehended by the police for having a hand gun in her house? They kicked her door down, threw her down and forced her outside.
Now imagine thousands of homes being raided by the law.
ClarkKent, if you're tired of arguing "this topic," how about...
by Jeff Emanuel
...you hop back upthread and re-engage here, where we have some business that is quite unfinished?
And to my Conservative
by ClarkKent
And to my Conservative friends on this site, where were you guys when the liberals were protesting and causing a stir at the Pro-Life rallies in Washington? Don't stir nothing with me because I'm not of one those types to support Abortion at will. I want women to choose adoption or just take care of the kid but hey, we have to face facts, it's not our choice.
What I do instead is try to give insight and maybe some options whenever I work with young teen mothers and or young mothers to be. Some of them made mistakes but some of them were rape victims and so what I do is make sure they know that they're not a murderer or the villain. There are two victims in all this. As a small time community organizer and out reach speaker I have to make sure the people I work with don't feel attacked or shameful. They have nothing to be ashamed of.
PS. Unlike Barack Obama I'm no Saul Alinsky bred community organizer. Nor do I think community organizer qualifies me as president of the United States.
and slaves weren't people either
by JSobieski
the failure of the law to protect the unborn is a tragedy.
If you favor adoption, you must recognize the humanity of the unborn. In some ways, you are far worse the pro-abort crowd--many of whom genuinely think the unborn are just a bunch of cells
But again I'd submit that the right of the baby to live, outweighs the right of the mother to avoid a few months of discomfort.
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
Not really, it's not.
by Leon H Wolf
A Libertarian who accepts that life begins at conception (a biological and philosophical argument, not a political one) will accept that the State has a legitimate interest to protect the unborn from a physical assault, even if the origin of the assault is the child's mother.
This is really just the argument of someone who is just assuming that the unborn child is not alive and proceeding to argue from there. In other words, someone who doesn't think much.
------------
A slow horrible, painful death for the perversion of the Constitution that it is. I don't support HLA, but I believe that abortion laws should go to the states, and then, very much like murder, state's should decide what to do about abortion. I for one would favor that my state would categorize it as first degree murder and bar from practicing the doctor who performs abortions permananently with heavy fines and possible jail time. But if Texas wants to automatically give them 25-life for it, that's their right too. This is something to be dealt with on the state level-but don't go distorting libertarians as all pro-choice folks.
The trouble with our friend John McCain isn't that he's ignorant, but that he knows so much that isn't so.
My apologies to Libertarians. <nt>
by BrianH
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
His stand is similar to the Libertarian Party position.
http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml#reprodright
Their stance is that it's wrong but the government should stay out of it.
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
The party platform is pretty and I would say purposely vague on it. The Federal government should definitely stay out of it, but then again I'm not a Big L libertarian-I'm a libertarian fiscal war hawk with a couple socially conservative positions and I've never voted anything but Republican my entire life (a long 23 years lol). I was just saying libertarians wouldn't support HLA, or anything that's coming down on the federal government-but you can be a libertarian and strongly pro-life, just thinking as I do, that this is a question for the states, not the feds.
The trouble with our friend John McCain isn't that he's ignorant, but that he knows so much that isn't so.
L when I first made the statement. The party Libertarians are a strange lot. They give us people like Dr. No.
Well actually I differ with you on 2 major items.
1. I have voted non-Republican once. To my utter shame I voted for John Anderson in my first election. I believed the Democrat lies about Reagan and made a youthful mistake. I haven't believed the Democrat fear mongering since.
2. I'm double your age.
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
Wow Brian, I bet that hurts
by BlackRepub
I only wish I could have been alive to vote for Reagan or my hero, Goldwater. Although, I will say if Paul had supported the GWOT, he would have gotten my vote.
The trouble with our friend John McCain isn't that he's ignorant, but that he knows so much that isn't so.
A scarry amen to that
by tadams1138
I was willing to humor the little fruit bat but for his WOT stance. I liked a some of what he said, but like I told several friends of mine who were all RonPaul!RonPaul!RonPaul!RonPaul!RonPaul!RonPaul!, and can't even consider voting for someone who would back stab those who helped keep me alive (Iraqi citizens).
"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."
Do you ever listen to yourself talk? <nt>
by Leon H Wolf
------------
so child abuse and molestation is fine with you?
by JSobieski
Polygamy?
The selling of organs?
Domestic (e.g. spouse) abuse?
My commiting suicide on your front lawn after I make sure I have your kids attention so they can see may brains splatter onto your windows?
My body allows me to put my hands and choke the life out of someone? Is that prohibited?
The topic never dies because the responses never address the topic.
"what a woman does with her body" is something government does interferre with in numerous ways. Your argument is so obviously flawed.
Look I stand by my issues. I
by ClarkKent
Look I stand by my issues. I don't believe in government telling a woman what she can do with her body. I'm not backing down. It's not a liberal view, a conservative view, it's my view. God forbid I actually belief in something these days right? God forbid my view differs from yours or anyone else on this site. What have we learned from the way Liberals attack on sites like Huffington Post or the Dailykos? Have we learned nothing? Let's be the site that actually welcomes and supports debate. Let's not hamper opinion because it makes us angry. Debate the issues guys. That's how you win.
If we learned anything from the way Liberals treat other people it is that they are ultimately afraid of being wrong. That's why they pile on and attack those who actually have a mind of their own.
You are being debated n/t
by simpson316
If you stand by your issues, pick ONE
by BrianH
You don't get the luxury of claiming both sides on abortion. You're either for it, against it or have not thought it through enough to have an opinion.
If you don't want a debate on the topic, don't bring up the subject. Around here, the overwhelming majority believe that those babies are human beings and have a right to live. We believe that killing them is an act of murder. That's a stance that brings up a LOT of emotion and isn't one that allows one to sit idly by and let people kill an innocent child.
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
he just wants to feel above it all--superior . . .
by JSobieski
in other words, he is a liberal at heart
I think he's more Libertarian.
by BrianH
And I think there's hope to recruit him, which is why I bother with these kinds of postings.
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
Untill he rethinks his stance
by J.Hancock
I don't want to recruit him. There are far too few Republicans willing to take a stand on abortion asit is. Too many more people who are soft on morality and we can remane our party to the "Democrats for a Richer America" party. What makes Republican Republican is economic policy superiority coupled with moral responsibility.
who is stifling debate?
by JSobieski
If you want to learn what real censorship is, move to China or Saudi Arabia--now those are places where people know how to stifle debate
their argument...you know...they didn't win so now they are mad so in their minds debate has been stifled.
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
You aren't addressing any of the questions
by JSobieski
Yuo articulated a position: no interference in personal lives
I articulated follow-up questions: What about X? Y? etc.
You repeat your position.
How about ANSWERING THE QUESTIONS?
How can there be a discussion if you just talk past the questions?
You don't want a debate. You want to mouth off your opinion, and have people genuflect before it and praise you.
How am I hampering your opinion?
Let me get this straight:
You disagree with me because you are enlightened, neither conservative or liberal
I disagree with you, and I am hampering debate.
I treated you like an adult by asking follow-up questions. You are acting like a child by complaining about many things without addressing the issues while at the same time pontificating about how great you are.
Other people believe in stuff too. There are people in the world who believe all sorts of crazy stuff. Doesn't make them right, doesn't make them wrong.
You seem unable to back up the things you say beyond repeating the initial position.
HAHAHAAH
by Jeff Emanuel
*whimper whimper* You don't agree with me! You think I'm wrong! You're stifling debate!
It's only debate when you all agree with me and we're ganging up on somebody else!!
Come ON, guys!!!
*whimper whimper*
/ClarkKent
First because I find it totally silly to say that we (RedState) should bend our principles because you (an individual) thinks that a child in th womb is nothing more than spare cells worth nothing.
Second, no one here is attacking you, they are asking what the hell you are thinking. Your argument that we should have civil debate is a play at getting sympathy for your position. And it's crap!!
By the way anybody can "stand by their issues" but it takes a grown up to stand by their principles...you see the difference there.
"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy
conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!
They should pass a law against...
by birdmojo
Your commiting suicide on his front lawn after I make sure you have his kids attention so they can see your brains splatter onto his windows?
A federal law, even.
We need something like the TSA.
Only for suicide prevention.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
They could use a SWAT team.
by birdmojo
Shoot the guy 15 times to prevent the suicide.
Later, at a press conference, they could explain that they would review the policy but, at this time, there was no evidence that any of the officers had done anything wrong.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
Here is your problem Clark....
by aaronbg
"I don't believe the government should control what a women does with her body."
This statement right here is the critical mistake you make. A child living in the mothers womb does not constitute her own body. This is one of the fundamental errors of Roe v. Wade. To devalue the child in her womb as nothing more than spare cells of her body is stupid and frankly not based in any sort of scientific measure of what constitutes life. It's the difference between murder and plastic surgery. If you cannot understand this than you cannot truly be pro life or ever expect to understand people who are. The fact that Micheal Vick is in jail for killing his dog but doctors are paid for performing abortions should make your mind explode. Not that I condone killing dogs, but your view of pro-choice would be more in line with Michael Vicks (it's my property so I can do what I want with it) defense. It sickens me when people say that they are pro life personally but pro choice politically. If you follow that logic to it's end it comes out like this:
"It's wrong to have an abortion but there is no "value" worth losing an election for"
If you follow this you will eventually be morally bankrupt and a liberal, but I repeat myself.
"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy
conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!
I am stupider for having read this comment. <nt>
by Leon H Wolf
------------
There were peopel in the North
by J.Hancock
...who supported tobacco farmers and field owners and textile mill owner’s right to choose? Slavery was distasteful but who were we to put good citizens and business owners in a financially difficult position by taking away their choice...
Apartheid in Africa supported white people’s choice to live separately as did segregation in our own country.
Should we respect a dead beat dads "choice" to spend his money on himself instead of his kid?
Obviously this kind of relativism doesn't work with important ethical issues. The problem all starts when we let people have "rights" that are not "natural rights" or "constitutional rights". A woman has a right to her body, in that no one can force her to sleep with them (rape), work for them (slavery), or give blood or organs (China)-this is part of her basic freedoms and self determination. However if as an adult she exercises the right to have sex and gets pregnant, exercising her rights violate a more basic right of the child the right to "LIFE, liberty, and happiness". Yes a mother has to give of her body for a child...and a father has to give of his bank account. But dependence and provision are not arguments for choice. I can't choose to stop providing for my kid until he is 18, to do so is unethical and not meeting my responsibilities as an adult--abortion is the same PLUS whereas neglect of dead beat dads often results in poverty abortion results in DEATH
uh huh...and thats a good argument??
by J.Hancock
"Women don't enjoy having abortions."
and abusive parents don't enjoy shaking their babies to death.
Most of the time it happens because of frusteration, a lack of resources, a lack of parenting skills, preparation, and education.....but it's still illegal and there are consequences put in place for the protection of children
Excellent point n/t
by tadams1138
"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."
why is abortion wrong?
by JSobieski
if the unborn are just a bunch of cells, there is nothing immoral about abortion.
You believe that the unborn are persons, and yet you deny them the rights that should be afforded to persons
You are so correct in your assessment!!
by From ME to you
I was going to say 'right' but that would have made it a political assessment.
I've been researching that fantastic quote:
"A conservative is one who has a moral compass-he knows right from wrong and he knows it instinctively. A liberal has no compass, or if he does it's broken. A moderate may have one but he's a coward and he's afraid to use it."
I still haven't found the author but it sure sounds like something Ronald Reagan would have said!!!!!
veritas vos liberabit
hey superman
make babies dude or dudette with a spouse of opposite gender that you grow old with.
Why do gay couples' seem to have one that acts out stereotypical female traits and another that acts out stereotypical male traits- at least in the movies?
don't do that either
by tadams1138
I didn't take the time to read over what Bizaro Superman up their wrote since it looked really irritating, but don't you go swinging the pendulum the opposite way. I think you'd probably agree with me that abortion is murder, so lets not go around trying to say that gay marriage is just as bad/important/whatever. It's several notches down on the importance scale.
"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."
Pro gay marriage and anti Christian comments are treated with utmost prejudice in my book. I'm a good neighbor to everyone, but to say that you are pro life and pro gay marriage, well logically, gays don't have the ability to procreate life, period- unless they get another's couple's assistance.
you are combining to vastly different issues
by tadams1138
pro-life is first anti-murder. It is secondly a pro-family issue. When we talk about pro-life we aren't talking about stopping pregnancy outside of marriage, or reducing the divorce rate, etc. Those are family issues that are related but vastly less important.
I just don't like it when our opponents trivialize things like HLA by lumping it with FMA. I don't think you do the pro-life cause any favors by lowing the pro-life importance to the same level as gay marriage. And no, I don't think it is possible to raise the importance of gay marriage to that of murder. I think that'd be silly, no one would buy it, and it'd be wrong.
And don't think I'm saying that gay marriage is pro life or whatever. I'm trying to divorce the issues to make the arguments clearer.
"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."
. . gay lobbyists to make make marriage an archaic institution, an anti life, anti children, anti family, hence an anti life position. Allowing the laissez faire lobbyists that the gays should have their marriage or else its discriminatory is an attempt to shut down the debate of those who hold dear the 4000 year Judeo Christian source as the bedrock of any free society.
"Morality is impossible without true religion."
George Washington quoted by Ravi Zacharias in Light in the Shadow of Jihad.
Not just homosexual lobbyists
by robertallen
But some in our party would say let the homosexuals marry, let there be "sensible" gun laws, let their be a "health of the mother" exception to abortion laws...then we can concentrate on our bread-and-butter winning issues of Iraq and the economy. Talk about a recipe for having about 10 Senate seats, 100 house seats and a left-wing Dem in the White House for the next several decades!
yes yes yes
by tadams1138
and socialism contradicts God's laws too, but you don't see me saying that universal healthcare isn't pro-life or is anti-life. Just because everything is related to morality and breaks down at some point to its relation to society and civilization does not make them all equal. Murder is way worse than sexual immorality so I try to distinguish them and it doesn't make me less fervent. It just makes me prioritize my battles.
"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."
post on more liberal venues and got accused of being a far right conservative. I think what you'll find is that "moderates" are not real well respected anywhere. I saw a couple of suggestions that moderates are really liberals above.
I think both sides are telling you that you feel all squishy and they prefer a more crunchy flavor.
But to your points... first I should say that we have people posting here that are experts on just about any subject you can name. And I mean the term experts as in that is their day job, not that they have googled it a bit. (I'm more of a generalist, I know a little about a lot of things, but can't claim mastery of many).
1. In the matters of Iraq/Afghanistan I'll defer to Jeff Emanuel. Argue at him only if you actually KNOW he's wrong. Chances are he's had personal experience in the matter (IE: was on site at the time it happened or talked directly to the person who was on site). You aren't likley to win. I'll only add that the only way to withdraw is by making Iraq stable enough to support itself. We're getting there, but it's not a fast process. Pulling out too soon is guaranteeing an Al Queda victory and granting a large strategically located country to the enemy. Not a good idea.
2. I can't argue much with your assessment of Hillarycare or whatever other version of a government takeover of a large portion of the economy is called. Despite what Michael Moore would have you believe socialized or "single payer" health care is a recipe for disaster. The Canadian system only works as well as it does because the US is it's safety valve. One Canadian I spoke with loved his system and was defending it to me, but ended his defense with "If you don't die while you're on the waiting list.". Remember that phrase because the only way socialized medicine functions at all is by rationing.
3. I think your summary of the Democratic economics plan is right on. I suspect you're a free trading capitalist. If not, might I recommend Milton Friedman's "Free to Choose" book or the old television series (available on line) as an argument why you should be. This is also a good primer for why "that government governs best which governs least". This is a core conservative principal.
4. Gay marriage. You might be surprised, but at least one of our front page posters has a similar position. Also a fair number of the people here are libertarian or lean that way and are receptive to your arguments. However, you will always get an argument on that topic (take a look postings on the topic and you'll find several hundred replies). My own thought is there are limits on what can be defined as marriage. The main argument is "where do you place those limits?" in my mind. For example, if you ask gay marriage supporters if they support multiple marriage they'll usually go into a long diatribe on how it's different because it's TWO people they are talking about. I don't see how their arguments don't apply equally to multiple marriage as gay marriage, but hey that's just me.
As for your Pro-life argument, you basically said your a pro-life pro-abortion person. Come on, pick one (actually you have). They are mutually exclusive. You're either for allowing killing of unborn babies or you're not. The "can't tell the mother what to do" argument lands firmly on the "for killing unborn babies" side of the argument.
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
That's pretty common among "moderates."
First, if you want to use the "rights" paradigm, homosexual individuals have the same right to marry as heterosexual individuals. They have the right to marry one other individual of the opposite gender (one, not two or four). They do not, however, have the right to define marriage however they would like and have the State recognize their definition.
Secondly, none of the arguments against same-sex "marriage" or abortion are simply "Christian talking points" as you so disdainfully suggested. They are well developed philosophical and legal arguments that all people of good faith (don't worry, not the religious kind...) can and ought to embrace, which is precisely why you don't have to be a Christian to embrace them. In fact, many uninformed liberal Christians don't feel obliged to accept the logic that would conflict with what they feel.
--------------------
Small is beautiful.
Let's rephrase it into a different sentence (one that I am *NOT* making up but one that I have heard before when discussing this topic):
"Homosexuals can get married! They just have to marry lesbians!"
Please understand that there are perspectives where this sentence and attitude makes a far greater mockery of marriage than gay marriage ever could.
The theory that marriage is intended by God to be both Unitive and Procreative is a compelling one... but it leads to questions about women who cannot conceive, men with narrow pipes, multiple miscarriages followed by vasectomy, etc.
Those issues are usually waved away as changing the subject because these people are following the template of marriage as being unitive and procreative (even if they are unable to achieve the procreative portion).
But the argument that homosexuals, if they wanted to get married, should marry lesbians is one that ignores the unitive intent of marriage just as fully as homosexual marriage would ignore the procreative aspect.
Homosexual marriage, while not as fully realized as Heterosexual marriage, is still capable of creating a Unitive Bond (though, granted, not a Procreative one).
This is, if not an unalloyed good... it's an alloyed one.
And the mockery of saying that homosexuals should engage in a marriage that is neither unitive nor procreative mocks marriage far, far more than a marriage that is merely unitive could ever do.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
For example, that person would need (1) be of the age of consent; (2) consent; and (3) not be currently married to anyone else.
The idea that the sole requirement of marriage is consenting adults opens the door to polygamy. Is this something you support?
Otherwise, you are admitting that marriage is MORE than simply a partnership between two consenting adults, and that "more" is the point that needs to be further developed.
Ok Once and For All
by ClarkKent
Look for those who don't understand me for some odd reason.
I'm Pro-Life
I believe in a women's right to choose. Get it?
Choice doesn't automatically mean Abort. Ok?
Choice is exactly what it says. Choice.
Contrary to what you may think women don't enjoy abortions. It's not like shopping or spa treatments.
Conservatives must do away with the mindset that choice means abortions round the clock. That conventional wisdom must cease if Conservatives are going to expand within the mainstream.
Like Liberals, Conservatives, or let me say "hard right" thinking is too narrow minded and stagnant.
Listen I know an unborn child is more than just cells. But you have to understand something. Women aren't going to choose abortions as the first choice. It's the last thing a woman wants to do.
So cool it guys. Calm down.
I get it "Superman"-your spineless
by BlackRepub
You acknowledge that you are pro-life and would prefer that women didn't have abortions because you understand that abortion is murder. Rather than acknowledging that saving innocent lives or even respecting the work that the pro-life movement has done in light of that knowledge, you choose to throw your hands up and say there is nothing we can do, and besides it's not my decision. In addition you attempt to hide behind libertarian views that it is not the governments decision, when libertarians argue that it is not the job of the federal government to infringe on the right of the state, sort of like the state, not the feds are allowed to define murder. But go ahead and tell the 6 million plus babies that were killed that you were just defending choice because you thought it was better to just give up. Go to one single ultrasound and tell me that's not a child worth saving.
The trouble with our friend John McCain isn't that he's ignorant, but that he knows so much that isn't so.
This very issue is the
by ClarkKent
This very issue is the reason why I make sure I'm in the middle. I have a personal belief(Pro-Life)and a mainstream belief(Pro-Choice)So yes I concede to the accusation, i do in fact share both views in some ways. More so pro-life but I'm willing to stand for the woman on the basis of individual rights
Great, so in a Nazi Germany setting
by JSobieski
You will triangulate
You wont help run the gas chamber
But you will run the trains that take people to the gas chamber.
You talk like a college student who has discovered very basic arguments for the first time. You need to get over yourself if you are going to have any growth at all.
Patting youself on the back and ignoring all attempted interactions is not going to make you an effective advocate.
Thank you for the lecture
by Hooah Mac
We are a little tired of people coming here and telling us that to "get along" we have to adopt liberal positions.
Can I get someone to sanction my choice whether or not to beat this guy senseless? Having the choice doesn't mean I would do it. Don't worry, because it's the last thing I want to do.
All I'm saying is debate me.
by ClarkKent
All I'm saying is debate me. Don't call me a liberal or a murderer. Both are insulting and no one deserves to be called either of them.
de·bate Audio Help /dɪˈbeɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[di-beyt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -bat·ed, -bat·ing.
–noun
1. a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints: a debate in the Senate on farm price supports.
2. a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers.
3. deliberation; consideration.
4. Archaic. strife; contention.
–verb (used without object)
5. to engage in argument or discussion, as in a legislative or public assembly: When we left, the men were still debating.
6. to participate in a formal debate.
7. to deliberate; consider: I debated with myself whether to tell them the truth or not.
8. Obsolete. to fight; quarrel.
–verb (used with object)
9. to argue or discuss (a question, issue, or the like), as in a legislative or public assembly: They debated the matter of free will.
10. to dispute or disagree about: The homeowners debated the value of a road on the island.
11. to engage in formal argumentation or disputation with (another person, group, etc.): Jones will debate Smith. Harvard will debate Princeton.
12. to deliberate upo
For the future? For what use in the future? Quitting the next conflict?
I'd love to hear an explanation of why you, the self-described voice for "the majority in America," think it is in the best interest of our nation, our military, our civilians, our standing in the world, and our security to abandon the War on Terror.
Seriously.