Young Right Tries to Define Post-Buckley Future

NY Times ^ | July 17, 2004 | DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

Anyone check to see if that is a clan Tartan? Perhaps he's a wee Scottish and proud member of the St. Andrew's Society.
Thomas Reid or Russell Kirk enthusiast perhaps.

[NutCrackerBoy]

No one is being "regulated" by conservative policies on this matter.

Not on that matter. However, if conservative policies that I espouse are a form of "regulation" of others' behavior, I want to have the intellectual honesty to call it that.

Sodomy. I don't believe the Constitution guarantees a right to sodomy. I would be opposed to any per se anti-sodomy laws in my state. But I am not opposed to anti-incest laws. That is regulating someone's private behavior.

Gay marriage. That phrase is now universally used: "the FMA is a proposed constitutional ban on gay marriage." What I really think is happening is that you had (proper) governmental support for an ancient institution, marriage, which has been uniformly a union of one man and one woman, and is a foundation of civilization. Noone was prosecuted for calling their homosexual unions "marriage". So you have the beginnings of an informal institution of gay unions. I have no problem with that. But it seems to me that the gay marriage advocates now want to use the awesome power of government to force everyone to treat this new thing as exactly the same as the old thing. An incredibly absurd idea.

[The Scourge of Yazid]

Young Conservatives

-The Kinks.

DORKS!!!

[tpaine]

What current "conservative" policies "regulate the behavior of others"?
No idea what on earth you could be
thinking of.
28 HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity

______________________________________

Absurd claim you make. You have "no idea" that ALL levels of our governments, -- fed/state/local, -- are making ever increasing numbers of 'laws' to regulate the behavior of others?

Virtually every other post on FR is made about some new outrageous 'law' imposed upon us by the RinoCratic regime that infests DC, and every Statehouse in the USA.

Pretending that the GOP is blameless in our slide into socialism is ludicrous.
34 tpaine

______________________________________


-- no one is being "regulated" by conservatives or conservative policies on this matter. The pseudo "libertarian" spin on this is rather lame.

Tom Paine was an extremist wacko, by the way. Totalitarian secular humanism is not part of the conservative tradition. Nor is it mandated by the U.S. Constitution. Paine's Jacobinism died a deserving death in the gallows of 18th-century France. No serious man romanticizes that or venerates its memory.
38 Howling-Absurdities

______________________________________


Whatever.
Get back to me when you want to address the issue.

Your claim that there are no
'-- conservative policies that regulate the behavior of others --' is a howler.

The renewal of the AWB is just one such 'conservative policy' supported by the current administration. You have 'any ideas' about it?

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

That's the other leg of the lame argument to break. There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution which says we must tolerate sodomy. There is nothing which says a senator or congressman (or president) must explain why he does not favor marital unions of same-sex persons. We may be opposed to these either because of the obvious health hazards and hygiene perils or as informed by religious-based morality. It does not constitute an "establishment of religion" to exercise public disapproval of legalized sodomite unions registered by state licensing bureaus.

There are certain behaviors which are regulated or prohibited for various reasons. Prostitution and child pornography come to mind. I see no problem with legal prohibitions on such vices, dangerous and damaging activities. If a legislator decided, as informed by religious-based ethics, to vote to prohibit or regulate such things that is not an unconstitutional "establishment of religion" as some wacky liberal zanies like to suggest.

An "establishment of religion" is a very specific thing based on Anglo-American experience from the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries. It is one particular denomination of Christianity being designated officially by law to be the state church, membership in which is either required for citizenship rights or to enjoy certain privileges like owning property, voting, and avoiding penal double taxes.

Merely to acknowledge the existence of God and of a moral law were not considered matters in dispute. We all still acknowledge that the murder of a human being is an unlawful and gravely immoral act. And this is a principle also of Christianity and Judaism. That does not make it permissable for non-Christians or non-Jews merely because they do not accept the Ten Commandments as divine. Liberals seem to talk as if ANYTHING which is prohibited by Christianity should be allowed. That's absurd.

[MadIvan]

How about this, then...

Regards, Ivan

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

Your claim that there are no '-- conservative policies that regulate the behavior of others --' is a howler.

Where did you get that? Are you on drugs now? As noted above (more than once), the issue I addressed was condoms and abstinence as commented on in the article. Conservative policies Do NOT control or regulate people from copulating or buying condoms.

IS THAT CLEAR? CAN YOU READ? CONDOMS SEX ABSTINENCE ZANY UN DEPOPULATION SCHEMES

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

I don't see any burden upon the U.S. taxpayers to help the United Nations supply condoms to people in Tasmania or Luxembourg. Someone suggesting not to fund such things is not "regulating" anyone on the matter of their "privacy of the bedroom."

[The Scourge of Yazid]

Gothalicious!

[cyborg]

I'm not looking. I just got up the nerve to start wearing pink :)

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

Tucker Carlson's bow tie and girlie hair really annoys me, too. 36 posted on 07/17/2004 2:18:11 PM PDT by NYCVirago

The fratboy dandyism can be a little silly. Makes you wonder who his stylist is. It's the annoying smirk on his face that makes him hard to watch or take seriously. He seems to be getting the Tourette's a little more under control now though.

[EternalVigilance]

Tom Paine was an extremist wacko, by the way. Totalitarian secular humanism is not part of the conservative tradition. Nor is it mandated by the U.S. Constitution. Paine's Jacobinism died a deserving death in the gallows of 18th-century France. No serious man romanticizes that or venerates its memory.

One of the best summaries of Tom Paine and his philosophy I've ever seen.

Good work.

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

"Keep it pithy." Succinct yet thorough.

Maybe there is an essay here:
"Tom Paine and His Minions: An Autopsy."

[EternalVigilance]

Sounds great!

;-)

[The Scourge of Yazid]

Bill Press:

Why, I ought to kick your butt for that unseemly remark about my colleague. It's on like Donkey Kong bee-yotch!

[tpaine]

HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity:

No one is being "regulated" by conservative policies on this matter.

______________________________________


Not on that matter. However, if conservative policies that I espouse are a form of "regulation" of others' behavior, I want to have the intellectual honesty to call it that.
-nutcrackerboy-

_____________________________________


HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity replied:

There are certain behaviors which are regulated or prohibited for various reasons.

Prostitution and child pornography come to mind. I see no problem with legal prohibitions on such vices, dangerous and damaging activities.

If a legislator decided, as informed by religious-based ethics, to vote to prohibit or regulate such things that is not an unconstitutional "establishment of religion" --

______________________________________


Earlier, at #27 you asked:

What current "conservative" policies "regulate the behavior of others"?
27 HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity

Now, just above, you illustrated two:

"Prostitution and child pornography come to mind. I see no problem with legal prohibitions on such vices, dangerous and damaging activities."

Do you ever give any thought to the intellectual consistency of what you post from minute to minute?

[Siamese Princess]

IMO both liberals and conservatives venerate their own versions of both individualism and the common good. Regardless, I think there is a problem we could call radical individualism in which we no longer have a handle on certain limits. Nothing must get in the way of a woman's (for example) potential for individual fulfillment. There are serious threats to Western civilization, such as low birth rate, low marriage rate. But we've lost the ability to reason about these issues.

You are correct. Radical individualism and radical equalitarianism are destroying our country and civilization. An excellent book to read about this is Judge Bork's Slouching Towards Gomorrah.

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

I'm sure Tucker is a fine young boy with a taste for good cigars. Reminds me of some of the overly-precocious spoiled young Turks I used to teach in my classes who think that drinking Scotch is a philosophy of life. Fortunately, I am way OUTSIDE of the beltway. I just wish he would stop smirking. It hurts to have to look at someone that smug and proud.

[Siamese Princess]

Seems to me it is primarily wild-eyed liberal zanies who want to restrict tobacco use and curb Non-PC speech. They would probably ban heterosexual marriages with more than 2 children if they could. And prohibit any public discussion of religious moral values. I understand there are some who want to ban religious private schools.

Liberals are every bit as moralistic and judgmental as any traditional conservative -- they are just moralistic and judgmental about different things. Seems to me that compulsion seems to be a liberal characteristic: steadily raising the levels of taxes and regulation, forcing people to associate with those that they don't wish to associate with, that sort of thing.

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

What current "conservative" policies "regulate the behavior of others"?

And when we studied logic in college a rhetorical question is not a universal negative proposition as was suggested. That is...following the principles of non-contradiction. If you want to argue that that particular rhetorical question can be converted into the universal negative proposition you suggested was my actual point I will appeal to the Aristotelian umpire of logical rulings for your fraternal correction. Don't try it again. [IRONY]