To which I then replied as you’ve shown, that I wasn’t trying to assert an overall dominance of this type of activity.

No memory problem, and these statements are not inconsistent as you are trying to make them out to be. Success in some locations, which proves intent by SOME people on the left (see, I chose a fine brush there, not a broad one). Rudi doesn’t seem to think it’s important to call those people out on it, but focuses a lot on calling out the RR. That’s a double standard that he justifies based on the relative current power of each side of the spectrum. My argument is that if you give the other side a pass, they’ll eventually gain power, so we should hold both sides accountable for extremist interventionism. Anyone with libertarian ideals (like Rudi) should be just as concerned about laws that intrude on dietary choices, parenting, owning weapons, smoking, etc, as he/she is about laws that would restrict the option of aborting one’s progeny.

CS,

When Rudi says this:

What laws have the Far Left enacted in the last ten years? W and the Republicans have controlled the Federal gov for years.

This is your response:

Uh, state legislatures, anyone? That’s where most of the leftist wacko agendas have been fulfilled during the last decade, obviously.

Then you say this:

Rudi,
I’m talking about intent, not current success levels.

Having a bit of a memory problem? Your comment had nothing to do with intent but a lot to do with “agendas being fulfilled”. That means success.

CS The interventionist Left is a canard. I give you two links with a map and article to dispell that strawman.

Rudi,
I’m talking about intent, not current success levels. I acknowledge that you seem to justify a double standard for the two sides of the political spectrum based not necessarily on a preference of one over the other but based on which side you currently feel is more powerful. I just happen to think that’s a dangerous attitude. If the left has intent that is just as misguided, to impose their views of morality, I feel it’s just as important to be vigilant against those who lead that effort. Just because the most successful ones so far have been confined to a couple of states doesn’t mean that their efforts won’t spread. As superdestroyer constantly reminds us, the Democratic party has a lock on certain demographic groups and while I don’t share his belief that this will lead to one party rule, I do think that in the short term the Democrats’ stars are rising. That makes it important to watch closely to see how they seek to yield that power.

I should clarify, I don’t care about individual or local RR or fundamentalists, their leadership is corrupt just like JJ and AS.
Follow the history of Ralph Reed and Christian Coalition for leadership and politics. Groups and individual leaders of the RR recently split on the Enviroment and Helping the poor. The powerfull leadership of the RR(Donohue and Reed) are the problem, not the members.

Where was BD concern as Clark and Hudson died in Texas, wasn’t a media cause and he ignored their “murders” by official decree of the Texas powers. Little black baby doesn’t mouth,”I wanna live”.

However, every example of RR activism must be counted. The more radical groups must be held out as examples that depict what the entire RR wants to accomplish. No matter that there is a more moderate contingency there that has more reasonable goals and has legitimate complaints. If these people agree with Bill Donohue on any one issue, then they are radicals.

But the more radical groups on the left are just anomalies. They aren’t dominant right now so no need to complain about them.

Is that about it?

WoD = War on Drugs, not eminent domain. Don’t support that either, though!

One thing I find intriguing…I actually am beginning to think that people like Amanda use the gratuitous gross out comments specifically because they can hide behind them. In other words, this allows her to bury the actual offensive comment within the muck of obscenity, so that when her statements are criticized she can say, “Some people just don’t like to hear dirty language”.

You can see how some people take it that way; look for example at egrubs’ comment:

his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit

becomes offensive when sex is a bad, dirty thing. It has nothing to do with whether one believes in Christianity or not

See what I mean? The trash talk is a way for her to slip her actual bigoted comment in there and then have people defend her statement on the basis that those who complain are really just prudes.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but talking about SCOTUS in general is a dis-ingenious way of skirting the fact it was all 4 of the Liberal justices with one Conservative that made up the Kelo majority.

And for schools, I am talking about vouchers and school choice, which is vehemently opposed by the left.

And CS is correct that it is at the state and local level that the Left has wielded its agenda control, and I should have made that clear.

egrubs:I think this very accurate point underscores one of the least offensive (and therefor least commented upon) aspects of the now-infamous quote.

You’d have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology.

The first part was offensive. The second part might (or might not) speak to some truth about the situation.

It’s not the religion justifying the (perceived or real) misogyny, but the person.

I commented on the second part of her comment when this story first broke here, because it’s actually the most offensive part IMO. The first part that is more often getting quoted, is gratuitously raunchy in order to provoke response, but the second part is where she uses a stereotypical (and ignorant) view of Catholic teaching to make a joke and to make her point about birth control. This is what led me to quip that I thought I might get together with a few women from my church and photograph ourselves holding up a sign reading: “Halp us Jon Edwurdz, we’re being brainwashed by misogynists.” The offense here (though I admit, not uttered directly by John Edwards) is similar to that taken by soldiers to Kerry’s ‘botched joke’. In both cases, the offensive statements presume something about the reasons that people adhere to a belief or subscribe to a practice, and that presumption is offensive, untrue, and patronizing. I believe in the Catholic teaching about birth control because I’ve studied it and I believe it to be the best way to live my life. I understand that this is a theologically based belief therefore I do not wish to impose it on anyone via legislation. I realize that some people do take it to that extent and I understand that these are the people that Marcotte is railing against. However, she conflates me with those people with her remarks and she presumes that only misogynists (or those oppressed by them) would hold the beliefs consistent with the Church’s teaching. This is where I take issue with those kinds of comments. I think that when people like Marcotte make them, they believe that they are criticizing specific policies but they are also expressing contempt for people who believe in or adhere to those policies, and they are making assumptions about those beliefs that are based on ignorance.

Where did I say I support the WoD??

I am firmly against it, and think it has been one of the most socially and society-destructive programs of all time, even more destructive than the Prohibition, and possible in some ways as destructive to minorities and blacks in particular as slavery was in its day.

Sorry if the obvious SNARK wasn’t apparent, but at the same time you have been on this board for some time too, and I find it hard to believe that you would really think I was claiming David Duke is a victim.

The point I thought I was making obvious is DD is no victim, and has been rightfully rejected by ALL reasonable (not nut-cases) people on the right (and the left, obviously).

Amanda deserves the same fate, based on her expressed viewpoints and rhetoric.

Rudi, the problem I have with your comments here is that you are righteously indignant about the RR elements who push for legislation on social issues but when AR gives you a whole laundry list of leftist interventions, you only grudgingly admit that you don’t like seeing this either. Lots of excuses and downplaying of those activities from the left while you erupt with anger over BD and his ilk. And do you not see the obvious ironical contradiction in these statements:

If my girlfriend and I want to: roll around in shit, do 20 Kama Sutra positions, and do what ever we enjoy with inanimate object, but harm no living creatures, it’s our buissness, not yours or that demogogue Billy Donohue.

When exactly did BD comment on your bedroom activities? I don’t defend some of the stuff he says- so if he actually has proposed ANY legislation that restricts your right to engage in ANY sexual practice whatsoever, I will concur with you that he is wrong to do so. But if I take you literally on the part where you say “but harm no living creatures”, isn’t it obvious that this is where the RR might see a need for laws to prevent harm to those “living creatures” that occasionally result from sexual activity? I’ve really had it with the canard of “stay out of my bedroom”. Frankly I’ve never had the slightest interest in being involved in your bedroom in any way, shape or form.

What laws have the Far Left enacted in the last ten years? W and the Republicans have controlled the Federal gov for years.

Uh, state legislatures, anyone? That’s where most of the leftist wacko agendas have been fulfilled during the last decade, obviously.

it’s fine for the religious right to express their opinions.
But they do more than express opinions, they push for their moral agenda as law for eveyone.

Well, this may be your opinion, Rudi, but a lot of people are opposed to religious people even expressing their opinions of their personal beliefs because this is viewed as “condemning other people to hell.” Plus, as Lynx said, EVERYONE is pushing for their moral agenda as law. If religious people do so for issues that strictly have a theological basis then they should be called on it(take blue laws, for example: ridiculous- if people don’t think they should drink on the Sabbath, there is no secular basis to say that they should be able to force this belief on others. Abortion: different story because it involved the belief that a pre-born human is a human, which is not strictly a religious belief)

Hehehe, Lynx, I know that feeling!

Here’s a bi-partisan centrist position: EVERYONE is interventionist, the differences lie merely in what subjects they are.

The minute the government is saying you can’t commit murder, or imposing speed limits, or age-of-consent laws, or ANY law, it is imposing limitations on society. Government as the vehicle of other people controlling the way one conducts ones life is everywhere, every day and in almost every aspect of our lives. It’s what gives structure to society, and the vast proportion of these impositions, these rules, are uncontroversial and aren’t even noticed by people. When was the last time you resented a pedestrian crossing? A routine saftey check on a plane? A doctors certificate of aptitude?

Left and right diverge on a tiny minority of the rules they would like imposed. Issues that are on the border (it’s placement in and of itself a matter of societal consensus) between personal liberty and societal good. At which point does the right to a students free speech impinge on the right of another student to not feel threatened? To what extent does the government, having created a civil institution inspired in a religious one, have the right to change the definition for civil purposes (like they did when they allowed divorce)? Each side sees the others issues as impositions and their own as basic rights. Personally, I lean left, but in no way wish to imply that the rules I want are not impositions and the rules the Right wants are.

This statement doesn’t build up any confidence in your sound judgment, Austin…