Replies

So Jim, I'm appealing to your common sense. Stop this drive for conservative purity. No good can come of it.

Sooo...how much manure are you willing to tolerate in a batch of brownies? Oh, they look like brownies, and they smell like brownies, and they're certainly brown. But if you know there's an ounce or two of manure in the batch, are you still going to eat one of the brownies? Purity is a good thing, not a bad thing.

But it is not so much about purity that has driven the recent bloody fighting here on this forum. When we're fighting from the trenches and we see that some of the people in the trenches are firing on us and fighting for the other side, we have to turn and return fire and clear the trenches of the enemy. We have to shore up what they've undermined in order to invade the trenches.

You were born too late. You should have been in political control in 1939.

Sooo...how much manure are you willing to tolerate in a batch of brownies? Oh, they look like brownies, and they smell like brownies, and they're certainly brown. But if you know there's an ounce or two of manure in the batch, are you still going to eat one of the brownies? Purity is a good thing, not a bad thing.

While that's certainly a very colorful analogy, it's not a particularly good one. We're not talking about food contaminated with fecal matter, we're discussing the growing demand for idealogical conformity. Worse, we're talking about assigning the designation of liberal to anyone who dares disagree with anything at all. Sorry, but the attaboy simply does not apply to politics.

The humerous thing about the attaboy principle and politics is the absurdity of both sides applying. You'd have conservatives labling 90% of the population as liberals, while liberals would label 90% of the population as conservatives. Nothing but confusion would result.

But it is not so much about purity that has driven the recent bloody fighting here on this forum. When we're fighting from the trenches and we see that some of the people in the trenches are firing on us and fighting for the other side, we have to turn and return fire and clear the trenches of the enemy. We have to shore up what they've undermined in order to invade the trenches.

Spiff, back up a second. Since when has supporting different candidates in a Republican primary been tantamount to enemy fire? Again your analogy is failing, because politics isn't truly analogous to combat. I've been in physical struggles with the intent to genuinely hurt, and it's not the same. It shouldn't be the same. It shouldn't be the same amongst fellow countrymen from different parties, and damned sure shouldn't hold up for intra-party struggles.