Compromise, Shmompromise

chuck - Look at those countries Healthcare, they are going broke, also dont the leaders come here for health care? Look at the economies they are tanking?

The book on libs is short all it says is whatever a Lib likes means it is bad for the US and Liberty :)

Libs believe in socialism whether Marxism or Stalinisn, they pray at the alter of Castro and now Chavez!

There is no mystery. The "liberal manifesto," as you call it, is nothing more than listening to what Liberals say, both in public and in private; and observing what the Liberals in Congress and in the various state legislatures have attempted to legislate over the years.

James, this will be my final posting on the subject, since I think that Jake doesn't appreciate us usurping the comments area as we have. You write, "Once universal health care is in place and widely accepted, the Liberals will be able to dictate behavior." You also write, "Liberals all around the country are trying to scare us into changing the way we live, all in the name of global warming (i.e. stop driving SUVs; and even suggestions of not eating beef)..." Both quotes are precise examples of the "slippery slope" arguments you allege not to be making, while, in reality, you are. Once again, nice try, but not cogent arguments. The points cited above are disproved by English society, French society, Canadian society, and...need I go on? Or do you consider those countries dictatorial regimes?

As for your last paragraph, all I can do is quote Ronald Reagan's favorite expression by saying, "There you go again!" Here, you mix the "slippery slope" argument with the "forecast of doom" by making a flawed assumption. The esssential problem in arguing by example as you do is that if the examples don't exactly fit the argument, they thus invalidate it. In the instance you cited, society doesn't allow minors to get married to each other, much less to adults, because of considerations of the age of consent. Minors also don't engage in business contracts, take out mortgages, get car loans, or other such legal obligations since they are recognized not to realize all the ramifications of their actions. Consequently, the canard, and it is most unmistakably a canard, that once gay "marriages" are permitted, then adult/minor marriages and anything else goes is sadly out of touch with reality.

And speaking of that, one day you and spock will have to send me a copy of that liberal manifesto you seem to have where you know everything there is to know about liberals. As much as I've heard liberals drone on about the conservatives, I've never heard them place themselves in the exalted position of knowing their philosophy, their ideas, their tactics, and their every move as well as you do. Although I'm more of a libertarian myself, I'd find it unconfortable, as well as extremely presumptuous, to proclaim with as much certitude as you do the ideology of anyone's politics when I don't subscribe to those ideas. Maybe, as spock would suggest, I should just talk to the eminence grise of liberalism, George Soros.

chuck - Not all republicans are conservatives nor are they true republicans. The libs won the last election for two reasons only, they put up conservative Democrats and the true conservatives wanted to clean house of the republicans acting like Dems.

If the libs are so good at doing things how come the only thing they did so far was name post offices. They have held symbolic investigations, which technically were unconstitutional. They try to stop others with different views from talking, is that not suppressing freedom of speech., they are against the second amendment. they are against Religious Freedom, should I go on?

Name one proven thing the Republicans did against the Constitution, and not from the lib talking points!

Abortion is not in the constitution, neither is marriage. This all should be state issues not Federal, but you libs want an oversize useless bureaucracy. Socialized Healthcare, but yet you libs are the first to say that FEMA is useless and other items are useless ran by the goverment, but yet you want more control.

You should read the Constitution, there is only one way to change it, it is not living.

Chuck, it is really the Liberals who want to deny Americans of our rights. And one step towards this is universal health care. On the surface it sounds really great, and most Americans will only be looking at the surface, so it will actually have a chance to come to fruition. Former Sen. Edwards has already touched on mandatory annual preventative doctors' visits. "PREVENTATIVE" being the key. Once universal health care is in place and widely accepted, the Liberals will be able to dictate behavior. And THAT is their goal. Eventually you won't receive medical care if you don't live a healthy lifestyle: If you don't exercise, if you eat fatty foods, if you drink sodas, if you eat red meat, and if you smoke. Hey just look at the case going on right now in the UK. Some guy broke his ankle. But they refuse to fix his ankle until he stops smoking. And then there is the current right to refuse medical treatment. Just making mandatory annual preventative doctors' visits would deny our right to NOT see a doctor. And then the next step would be to force specific treatments against our will.

BUT the most obvious example is global warming. Liberals all around the country are trying to scare us into changing the way we live, all in the name of global warming (i.e. stop driving SUVs; and even suggestions of not eating beef). California is already considering the elimination of the common lightbulb and forcing everyone to use the compact fluorescent light bulbs because they are more efficient. The argument is that "replacing one 75-watt incandescent light bulb with a 20-watt compact fluorescent bulb would prevent 1,300 pounds of carbon dioxide from being pumped into the atmosphere." That sounds great until you accidentally break one of these bulbs, which will release dangerous levels of mercury. One woman found out the hard way. Her daughter became seriously ill; and the woman has to come up with $2,000 to have professionals cleanup her daughter's bedroom.

Now then you wrote: "...if we allow 'this,' then we must then allow 'that.' " I did not make that argument. I only asked if whether you think the others should be allowed to marry. If you believe that it is okay to not allow adults to marry young children, and that we are not denying them of their civil rights, my question to you is why do you believe that way? Your answer will probably be similar to why we social conservatives do not believe in same-sex marriages. And then maybe these adults will consider you as feeling "morally superior."

As I attempted to point out, conservatives are experts at denying rights to others because it offends their moral sensibilities and it makes them feel morally superior, all of which you reinforce. Most of your arguments, James, especially in your third and fourth points, are canards of the "slippery slope" variety: if we allow "this," then we must then allow "that." Nice try, but not cogent arguments. And recent news reports have shown that it's not just "the Liberals who are holding back the progress on this issue," since the conservatives can't even agree on what to do, either. It seems that if the liberals "need to feel good -- whether or not the others are actually being helped," conservatives need to feel good by repressing others to conserve their views of society as it should be, using, of course, as their idea of perfection the antebellum South.

James Danley Excellent Post!

Chuck
See Liberals want to rewrite the constitution all the time. Is not the first Line Right to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"

Well Abortion takes away Life, there is a choice use protection or practice Abstinence

Why are you not screaming at the top of your voice for Kennedy, Reid and Pelosi to resign

As far as Education - Vouchers is the answer, school choice but you libs say it is for the rich, well the rich do not need vouchers, they already send their kids to private school, it would help the poor and minorities more then anybody oh but then you could not indoctrinate kids into socialist views.

Oh and there is billions in school aid not being used by lib governors because they do not want President Bush's Education plan to work.

See our Country was founded on individual rights and state rights. This is not suppose to be a nanny state. You libs want people to be dependant on goverment so you get voted for because you would be needed, just like crack users.

As far as Healthcare, easies solution get rid of the lawyers, that will cut costs drastically, but then most libs will be out of jobs.

Chuck, my examples were to make my point that Liberals want to help others and do for others for their own (Liberals) need to feel good -- whether or not the others are actually being helped. But since you brought these up:

1. "...furnishing arms to revolutionaries in Afghanistan." You never know where tomorrow's enemies or friends will come. I suppose that if we sent in 500,000 troops to Darfur and cleaned up that genocide only to have today's victims become tomorrow's terrorists you would complain about helping today's victims. You can't live that way. Otherwise you will be spending the rest of your life wondering why didn't we just drop the atomic bomb on the Middle East in 1945?

2. "...denying gays and lesbians civil rights and creating social red herrings by never failing to bring up the perceived immorality of gay "marriage" whenever possible..." We social conservatives believe that what goes on in the bedroom should stay in the bedroom. Don't bring it out doors and flaunt what we believe is an unnatural act. You already have the right to draw up power-of-attorney papers for a partner. Congress can pass legislation which covers most of the needs (i.e. allows for doctors visits by partners where currently prohibited). For many marriage is a sacrament and is therefore sacred, deeply rooted in religious beliefs. The same religious beliefs that hold homosexuality as an unnatural act. Sorry but that is the way it is. Do you think we should legalize marriage between 5-year olds and adults? Do you think we should allow marriage between siblings? Do you believe we are denying civil rights to adults who love little children and to siblings who love each other?

3. "...denying women the right to choose to carry to term by imposing strict morality on them..." Abortion is murdering the innocent. Sorry, we social conservatives don't believe we should kill the innocent just because it is an inconvenience. We believe in the sanctity of life, especially innocent life. Now many of us do believe in the death penalty. Someone who has been convicted of intentionally killing others, or a member of law enforcement, is not an innocent life. And, therefore, under certain circumstances the penalty of death is justifiable.

4. "...not funding education sufficiently..." Throwing money into education isn't the answer. If it were, the Washington D. C. school districts would have one of the highest literacy and graduation rates. When government throws money into education it is swallowed up by the bureauracies. I, personally, wish we could abolish the Department of Education and abolish every school board in America. Instead each school should be it's own entity. The principals should be the administrative CEOs. State and federal money would go directly to each school, teachers salaries could double and include monetary incentives for success. And parents should have the right to send their children to the school of their choosing. Finally, the states and federal government should have the right to withhold funding to any school that fails to meet specific standards over a specified period of time.

5. "...paying lip service to legalisms..." Would you care to expand on this with examples?

6. "...treating immigration issues as something to be indefinitely delayed." Sorry, but it's the Liberals who are holding back the progress on this issue. The Liberals don't want us to keep illegals out. And they want to give illegals amnesty with an immediate track to citizenship. Liberals believe this is a sure vote for them and it will keep them in power.

"True Conservatives do not celebrate the "act" of doing, but rather the "doing." Truer words were never written, given the sterling examples of furnishing arms to revolutionaries in Afghanistan which were later used against us, denying gays and lesbians civil rights and creating social red herrings by never failing to bring up the perceived immorality of gay "marriage" whenever possible, denying women the right to choose to carry to term by imposing strict morality on them, not funding education sufficiently but paying lip service to legalisms, and treating immigration issues as something to be indefinitely delayed. Yes, the actual "doing" certainly seems to be paramount for the conservatives, especially when they "do" it to someone else!

chuck - The Schiavo case is not the same.

James - Great post

Chuck - The libs in senate got their orders from moveon/Geaorg Soros to do this, that is why. They meet with moveon members every morning.

Our own congress cant pass the Benchmarks they gave the Iraqi parliament to pass, so we should ask for the Libs resignations!

True Conservatives do not celebrate the "act" of doing, but rather the "doing." Whereas Liberals are very happy when they, themselves, feel better knowing that they tried. Like the old adage, “If you feed a man a fish, you feed him for a day. If you teach a man to fish, you feed him for life...” LIberals aren't happy when people are able to do for themselves. But Liberals ARE happy when THEY (the Liberals) can do for others -- because THEY (the Liberals) feel better.

The prime example is universal health care. Former Sen. Edwards wants mandatory preventative annual doctor's visits for everyone. It's bad enough trying to see a doctor now, just wait until the other 200 million people have to see a doctor. You all know that perfectly healthy people will be given multiple tests and placed on medications for near borderline conditions; and be scheduled for follow-ups. That will only drive up the cost of health care and greatly increase the waiting time for seeing a doctor. JUST so that Liberals can FEEL better knowing that they have made a difference.

Symbolic acts are non-partisan, conservative as well as liberal, or need I mention the name of Terri Schiavo? There are equally symbolic acts as a conservative attempting to explain what he thinks horribly wrong with the opposition and futilely dredging up his nemeses' failures and shortcomings, or need I mention the classification of ketchup as a vegetable?

"Why does the Senate insist on banging their collective heads against an intractable wall?" Actually Liberals believe it is the "act" of doing something that matters, not necessarily the actual "doing." So the Liberal Democrats aren't "banging their collective heads" they are getting the people's work done. As long as they pass legislation it doesn't really matter if the bill becomes law are not. Because they can feel good at about what they did.

And if a bill does become law, they tout their accomplishments even if the law never does what it was intended. Remember the 1994 "100,000 new cops" law? The very moment that President Clinton signed that bill into law he declared, "We now have 100,000 new cops on the street." Yet it never really increased more than 40,000 new cops. And many of these were doing nothing more than paperwork or administrative duties. Yet it is still touted as one of President Clinton's great accomplishments.

And what about all the hype of the Kyoto Protocol? Do you really think that forcing most countries to cut their greenhouse gas emissions to a collective 5% below their 1990 levels without forcing countries like India and China to do the same will have any effect on global warming? But worse yet, even if EVERY country cut their greenhouse emission levels to 5% below their 1990 levels, do you really think that would be enough to stop global warming?

Why don't the Dems in the Senate do something more useful which will have a greater chance of passage, like work on a bill to repeal the law of gravity? Sen. Reid must certainly know, even if he won't admit it, that the legislation he and others are proposing to withdraw troops on a timetable won't have the necessary Republican support in the Senate, much less any chance of being signed into law by the President. Why does the Senate insist on banging their collective heads against an intractable wall?