Schiavo's Brother Faults Media

Look, ME, I've told you what the facts are.

You've made claims and offered no proof. If that's the way you want to leave it, that's up to you. I will just dismiss those claims.

I simply want them out of the political environment.

I see - so you think citizens with whom you disagree should stay out of the political environment. Well, it's not going to happen.

Your issues are not those of America

There is no such thing as an issue that is 'of America' because Americans all have varying priorities and views. You seem to have an ego that insists that what you believe is the only correct "American" viewpoint.

you harm us as a political force for freedom.

You are free to believe that, of course.

And all of that gives me great peace of mind.

For someone who claims to have great peace of mind, you sure express a lot of anxiety over the 'religious right'. Since 'we' aren't going to go away, I shall continue to pray that God give you peace.

You've made claims and offered no proof. If that's the way you want to leave it, that's up to you. I will just dismiss those claims.

Those who are most passionate about an issue are the least bit willing to look at evidence to the contrary.

I see - so you think citizens with whom you disagree should stay out of the political environment. Well, it's not going to happen.

Not at all. I hope everyone votes for and supports the candidate of their choice. I simply want the extremist agenda out of the political process. You are welcome however.

So the election results last year didn't convince you that abortion, stem cell research, prayer in schools, creationism/evolution, Ten Commandments, gay marriage, and Terri Schiavo legislation are not the issues of importance facing America today, nor on Americans' radar screen?

For someone who claims to have great peace of mind, you sure express a lot of anxiety over the 'religious right'. Since 'we' aren't going to go away, I shall continue to pray that God give you peace.

I am always concerned over the enemies of freedom, no matter what they may call themselves. That includes extremists from either side of the political spectrum, both of whom would replace the freedoms we have today with their version of a "moral" legal structure. I spend most of my time bringing these extremist philosophies to light that impact my Party and my conservative philosophy. Democrats can worry about their own. And if a clear conscience can equate with peace, then I am at peace, but thank you for your continuing concerns.

Those who are most passionate about an issue are the least bit willing to look at evidence to the contrary.

I will look at it when you present some. I've asked you to do so multiple times, in fact, but you haven't.

I simply want the extremist agenda out of the political process.

Ah, so you want those whose 'agenda' you view as 'extreme' to sit down, shut up, and vote the way you want them to rather than as their conscience dictates. That's a rather extreme agenda you have there.

Based on the last election, which issues do you believe are "of America" and are what you would consider to be conservative? Do you believe those election results showed that all Americans are of the same mind? Be very careful how you answer these two questions. Giving the wrong response will blow your efforts to marginalize social conservatism out of the water.

I am always concerned over the enemies of freedom

Ah, so you classify as enemies of freedom those who believe in protecting the right to life. You obviously have some real issues with the Declaration of Independence then.

You really do try to do the doublespeak thing, but the fallacies of your arguments are just too obvious.

No, not at all. Vote however you want, and however your conscience dictates. What I want, is what most of America wants, and that is a slate of candidates who look to the real issues facing this Country, and not an agenda filled with personal religious/moral issues. Hopefully, you can see the difference.

And yes, my agenda is pretty extreme: Continuing the war on terror; leaving Iraq after completion of the mission; supporting the Constitution and the 3 branches of government it created; supporting a republican form of government; supporting the rights of all Americans, not just the Christian ones; balancing a budget, reducing the size of government, and holding government officials responsible for corruption and sleaze, working with both sides of the aisle to reform taxes, social security, immigration, energy, and crime.

I suppose what makes that such an extremist agenda in your eyes is my refusal to include the social right's agenda of abortion, stem-cells, gay marriage, prayer in school, evolution/creationism, Ten Commandments, medical marijuana, right to die laws, and the rest of the far right platform. But you hang on to that thought, because 90% of America is extremist under your definition, while the radical right and radical left apparently represent the norm.

Based on the last election, as I said earlier, the Republicans decided that they had enough of leadership in Congress because none of the issues I listed above were done in the 109th. You add it up.

Be very careful how you answer these two questions. Giving the wrong response will blow your efforts to marginalize social conservatism out of the water.

Well, I can't speak for every American, but I can point you to polls that clearly show the Republican Party of the 109th was completely out of step with most Americans. And I needn't marginalize the social right. It is already there, and made it with no help from me. If enough people like me continue to shine the light on them, and disclaim them as conservatives, in the end, the Party of Lincoln will win out. But I guess we'll see in 2008.

Ah, so you classify as enemies of freedom those who believe in protecting the right to life. You obviously have some real issues with the Declaration of Independence then.

Not sure why you believe the Declaration of Independence has anything to do with the issues of today? And not to pop your bubble, but in 1776, abortion was not considered the taking of human life by the Church, at least in the first trimester, so I doubt Jefferson's call for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness had a lot to do with abortion...at least in his mind. And for the second or third time, abortion is not a presidential issue, and will ultimately be resolved by a USSC, one of the institutions that I support, and which the social right obviously does not.

You really do try to do the doublespeak thing, but the fallacies of your arguments are just too obvious.

You're not terribly gifted in this debate thingy...are you? One reason why extremists who depend only on emotion and what they are told by others of their thinking, is that they don't hold up well under debate conditions. Doesn't matter if they come from the left or right. Generally, their whole philosophy is a house of cards, and when they can't respond to logic or reason, they usually just go to the personal attack. You ever notice that?

What I want, is what most of America wants, and that is a slate of candidates who look to the real issues facing this Country, and not an agenda filled with personal religious/moral issues.

There are a number of social conservatives in this country. If you want to brush them off and try to hold and/or gain seats without them, good luck.

supporting the rights of all Americans

Does that include the right to life?

I suppose what makes that such an extremist agenda in your eyes is my refusal to include the social right's agenda

Oh hogwash. You know very well I was refering to your implication that everyone who doesn't agree with your agenda should sit down and shut up. How completely dishonest of you.

Based on the last election, as I said earlier, the Republicans decided that they had enough of leadership in Congress because none of the issues I listed above were done in the 109th.

That wasn't an answer to my question.

Well, I can't speak for every American, but I can point you to polls that clearly show the Republican Party of the 109th was completely out of step with most Americans.

Polls also show that the biggest issue during the last election was the Iraq war. That's what caused the big change in party power. Based on what you've been saying, it appears you are trying to blame that change on social conservatives. Sorry, but that doesn't work.

Not sure why you believe the Declaration of Independence has anything to do with the issues of today?

So the Declaration of Independence has nothing to do with freedom and is an outdated document?

And not to pop your bubble, but in 1776, abortion was not considered the taking of human life by the Church

Which 'church' are you refering to, and do you have evidence to support that claim?

And for the second or third time, abortion is not a presidential issue

In your view. But we all know it takes a concerted effort on all fronts if there is going to be any success in changing abortion laws, including nominations to SCOTUS.

You're not terribly gifted in this debate thingy...are you?

I seem to be doing very well. You've resorted to personal attacks instead of providing proof of your claims and responding to questions honestly.

There are a number of social conservatives in this country. If you want to brush them off and try to hold and/or gain seats without them, good luck.

That's actually too funny. It's the social right that tells us unless they get their candidate, they are going to split and vote 3d party, and you tell me that without them our Party will lose seats. Actually, I don't really care where they go. I would just as soon see a Republican Party that ceases withdrawing into a party who sees only the social agenda you folks do. Without that agenda, our Party can maintain its conservative principles and reach out to the millions you folks want to chase away. I'd say, we may actually come out ahead in that game.

supporting the rights of all Americans

Does that include the right to life?

Absolutely, though we can't forget the small clause "due process". I said before that I think the USSC will overturn Roe and send it back to the states where it belongs. As for all Americans, however, I'm sure you understood who I was referring to.

I suppose what makes that such an extremist agenda in your eyes is my refusal to include the social right's agenda

Oh hogwash. You know very well I was refering to your implication that everyone who doesn't agree with your agenda should sit down and shut up. How completely dishonest of you.

That's not what you were referring to. It was my extremist conservative agenda, which is supported by most Americans. But no one told you to shut up, nor whom to vote for. But that social agenda has cost us dearly as a Party and as a conservative mainstay in this Nation. With the help of the MSM, your message is getting out too well, because they love controversy. As a result, the Republican Party has been covered with this blanket of social goals, most of which belong in the home and church, not in the political debate. If your agenda were where it truly belonged, I wouldn't be wasting your time with these posts. But because of the money and organizational skill of the RR, letting America know that our Party is not a theocracy or a party of hate takes a lot of doing.

Yes, you can blame part of it on the Iraq war, part of it on the sleaze and corruption of the Congress, but polls definitely reflected that the 109th was one of the most do-nothing congresses in our history. But people are not stupid, they remember the efforts to amend our Constitution twice, debate stem cells until the wee hours of the morning, argue about prayer in school, Terri Schiavo, and a number of other social issues. You know as well as I do that those are not the issues the American people want our Congress to tackle.

Not sure why you believe the Declaration of Independence has anything to do with the issues of today?

So the Declaration of Independence has nothing to do with freedom and is an outdated document?

It's a wonderful document and a great part of our history, but has no legal status, and for the life of me, I still don't know what it has to do with any of today's issues. I'm perfectly satisfied with our Constitution.

Which 'church' are you refering to, and do you have evidence to support that claim?

I'm referring to the Catholic Church, and you may want to read up on St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas to learn about the 1200+ years within the Church where abortion was not considered the taking of a human life until after ensoulment had taken place, which was after the fetus had been sufficiently formed and was "animated". The Church ruled abortion a sin at any stage in a 1859 encyclical by the Pope. I have no idea how Martin Luther believed.

In your view. But we all know it takes a concerted effort on all fronts if there is going to be any success in changing abortion laws, including nominations to SCOTUS.

Conservatives would reject any litmus test for the USSC except how the candidate views the Constitution, temperament, and knowledge of the law. How the candidate would rule on any particular issue should not be asked in any case. But to the gist of the issue, as far as I have heard, every candidate who has any chance of success has already stated that nominees such as Scalia and Alito are the type of candidates they would submit.

I seem to be doing very well. You've resorted to personal attacks instead of providing proof of your claims and responding to questions honestly.

So after charging me with doublespeak and fallacious arguments, you now tell me I am resorting to the personal attack? And as for honesty in answers, for some all answers they disagree with are "dishonest" to them.

Take care.

It's the social right that tells us unless they get their candidate, they are going to split and vote 3d party

Some of the social conservatives do that. So do some fiscal conservatives. I'm sure you know that. Not sure why you are being dishonest.

I said before that I think the USSC will overturn Roe and send it back to the states where it belongs.

Should the determination of all rights be sent back to the states? If not, then that should also hold true for the right to life.

That's not what you were referring to.

LOL Now you presume to tell me what I was refering to. That is just too funny.

Yes, you can blame part of it on the Iraq war

You apparently did not pay much attention during the last election cycle. The Iraq war was the number one issue that caused the change in party power.

they remember the efforts to amend our Constitution twice, debate stem cells until the wee hours of the morning, argue about prayer in school, Terri Schiavo, and a number of other social issues.

Perhaps. But those issues were not the driving force in the power change.

It's a wonderful document and a great part of our history, but has no legal status, and for the life of me, I still don't know what it has to do with any of today's issues.

A few posts back, you mentioned that your interest was freedom. The Declaration of Independence was the document on which our freedom was founded. Without it, there would have been no constitution. If the Declaration is irrelevant today, then so is our freedom.

I'm referring to the Catholic Church

I'm not Catholic, so that's irrelevant to me.

Conservatives would reject any litmus test for the USSC except how the candidate views the Constitution, temperament, and knowledge of the law.

I agree. Which means Roe v. Wade would be overturned, and the right to life, on which all other rights depends, would be upheld.

So after charging me with doublespeak and fallacious arguments, you now tell me I am resorting to the personal attack?

Yes, I did say those things. Those are comments on your behavior, not name calling. Your arguments are fallacious, and you have 'spoken' out of both sides of your mouth throughout our exchange.

"And as for honesty in answers, for some all answers they disagree with are "dishonest" to them.

And for others, like me, when someone is truly being dishonest, I call them on it.

Take care.

You too. Have a nice day.

Some of the social conservatives do that. So do some fiscal conservatives. I'm sure you know that. Not sure why you are being dishonest.

I've yet to see a conservative take that position here. But almost every thread on Giuliani includes several "good Republicans" who say they will not vote for him even in the general election. I am not being dishonest when I tell you each of those I've seen is from the social right. Conservatives believe in their Party, and understand the nightmare a Hillary presidency would bring to this Nation.

Should the determination of all rights be sent back to the states? If not, then that should also hold true for the right to life.

Because no one yet has made the Constitutional case that a fetus is also a citizen or person with constitutional guarantees. Perhaps the courts will look at that. Until then, it belongs in the states with all other medical issues.

Perhaps. But those issues were not the driving force in the power change.

Those issues took the place of a real agenda, which, if accomplished would more than likely have kept the Republicans in power, despite the war.

I agree. Which means Roe v. Wade would be overturned, and the right to life, on which all other rights depends, would be upheld.

If it does, fine. But don't look for them to include in their reversal any extension of the constitutional guarantees to fetuses, unless that issue is in the case already. There are several in the pipeline.

I'm not Catholic, so that's irrelevant to me.

That's interesting. If Christianity is your preference, then that means you accept Christ. How can you accept Him and deny 1400 years of Christianity that created all the doctrine you now embrace with the exception of those related only to your specific Church? The fact still remains that Christianity did not define an early fetus as a human with a soul for over 1200 years.

That's not my question. I consider it one of the great documents in our history. But it has no basis in the Constitution of our Nation. So my question was what is the relevance?

Yes, I did say those things. Those are comments on your behavior, not name calling. Your arguments are fallacious, and you have 'spoken' out of both sides of your mouth throughout our exchange.

Well, if you can't defeat the argument, defeat the person. I'm not sure how I've spoken out of both sides of my mouth, since my message has been pretty plain throughout, my concern that the social right will negatively impact the '08 election. Nor am I aware of how I personally attacked you.

And for others, like me, when someone is truly being dishonest, I call them on it.

Dishonesty is a frame of mind, not a response. So I conclude as I did in my last post about those who would classify an answer they disagree with as dishonest. I disagree with much of what you said, but it never dawned on me that you might be dishonest. I assume you believe what you said.

I've yet to see a conservative take that position here.

If by 'here' you mean this particular thread, possibly. If by 'here' you mean FR, then I find that extremely difficult to believe. The fiscal conservatives who were threatening not to vote for Bush in the last presidential election were all over the place on FR.

Because no one yet has made the Constitutional case that a fetus is also a citizen or person with constitutional guarantees.

Everyone was a fetus at one point in their life. A fetus is a human being. If there is no right to life, all other rights are meaningless.

Until then, it belongs in the states with all other medical issues.

We disagree on that, but I'm sure you already know that.

Those issues took the place of a real agenda, which, if accomplished would more than likely have kept the Republicans in power, despite the war.

You are obviously choosing to remain in denial about what caused the change in power at the last election. Since that is what you choose, I won't waste any more time on it with you.

How can you accept Him and deny 1400 years of Christianity that created all the doctrine you now embrace with the exception of those related only to your specific Church?

LOL What the pope or Catholic Church may or may not say is irrelevant. What counts to me as a Christian is what God has said in His word. If the Catholic Church did not view the unborn child as a person at one point, then they were in error.

The fact still remains that Christianity did not define an early fetus as a human with a soul for over 1200 years.

Most incorrect. Read the book of Luke. The unborn John leaped with joy at the sound of Mary's voice because she was carrying the Lord Jesus.

The bible certainly indicates that the unborn child is a 'person'. Anyone who disagrees with that disagrees with the bible.

So my question was what is the relevance?

Already answered. Without the Declaration of Independence there would be no Constitution.

Well, if you can't defeat the argument, defeat the person.

LOL Is that why you were personally attacking me? I see.

I assume you believe what you said.

I do. Perhaps you believe everything you've said and are not being intentionally dishonest. If that's the case, then you have some other issues to deal with.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.