yes, truce.

No, it means that I am not going to engage in a debate with you on here any more about abortion or God. I let it go…can you?

There is a homeless campsite …aka…mini shantytown…over near the city water company…back in the woods…down the street from where that girl was killed this summer.

Glad you had change of heart and voted with your head.

I was also one that had actually thought Chuck forgot about us. He has always had a good reputation. It was easy to feel that way, as we Americans across the nation are feeling this way.

I last minute, chose to vote for Chuck. I think that so much attention has been made and it has not gone unnoticed and MORE SO will not go unnoticed. The attention has been watched ( he has been alerted) and will not leave his term ( after all these years) on a bad note.
I believe he will come through…and Chuck, we are watching…

Timmy? Howdy REMEMBER YOUR CLASSMATES…your friends that are still here!

I did see Mr. Colgan knocking doors near King George and Strasburg. I believe he will work on the illegal issue. He will not beat his chest and scream like others. He will simply do it.

I agree that he should Thank Westgate. My point is he has and continues to you. Patty seems to believe his family forgot where they came from and nevers nears Westgate, that is simply not true.

Remember some of Colgan’s Grandkids are attending the same school as the kids as ours in Sudley.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZcMkvylnLM

Does that mean you have been muzzled since you are not going to debate me on my love affair with abortion?

Actually, you have no idea how I personally feel about abortion or about God and it is presumptuous for you to think you do. I have not discussed my religious beliefs here. They are deeply personal and not for public purview. I also have not said how I personally feel about abortion. I have spoken only from a political framework.

I am long past the stage of debating abortion. Women have them for a myriad of reasons and they will continue to have them whether you or I like it, approve of it or not. They have had them throughout history, although not with the same degree of safety as one finds today.

My position stated here is simply political. I do not give the state the right to make deeply personal decisions for me or those I care about and who are descended from me.

Uncivil discourse never solves anything.

First, you might have guessed that I’m pro-life, and would like to achieve an ideal world where abortion is against the law. I know my reasons for this are unlikely to persuade anyone to change their position, but I feel compelled to at least defend my own position against certain of the sentiments advanced above. I realize that many pro-lifers are motivated by an abundance of religious zeal, and still others can be downright misogynist in their positions, both of which tend to be unappealing and offensive to large portions of our fellow citizens. It is said that Republicans are hypocrites when they argue for limited government and greater individual autonomy on the one hand, while at the same time calling for intrusion into “the bedrooms” of private citizens on the question of abortion. I think this is a false dichotomy. I maintain that there is a large plurality of pro-lifers that have arrived at their position after thoughtful consideration, and base their views–like I do–on an understanding that one of the fundamental purposes of government is to protect the lives of its subjects against the violence of others. If one believes that womb-based life is just as valuable as any other (or at least that we cannot be certain it is not), I have difficulty understanding any other position. However, I do realize opinions on the latter question differ, and I respect reasoned arguments on the other side. I hope that people who disagree with my position can be persuaded to respect mine, without imputing unsavory motives on my part (e.g., that I am a theocrat, chauvinist, etc.).

Second, anonymoustoo responded to my earlier comment/essay by saying that she and others like her are not comfortable with some “right-wing male ideologue” telling her what to do, and that rigidly ideological social conservatives make unattractive candidates for her. I totally agree that conservative positions aren’t going to appeal to everyone, and even more so that stridency and extreme rhetoric are often pff-putting. However, when one responds to my earlier argument that conservative positions–when confidently and consistently articulated–win elections, one should be careful not to confuse that point with a point that I DID NOT make (namely, that truly conservative positions will attract ALL votes). I am only saying that an identifiable set of core principles (the kind that can predict how a person would vote on most kinds of legislation) tends to make voters want to follow the leader that consistently and confidently espouses them. But, regardless of whether a person agrees 100% with everything a particular candidate says, the candidate that believes in something identifiable will always punch above his weight, relative to the candidate who (a) defines him/herself in opposition to conservative positions; (b) takes positions based on the direction of the latest flit of public opinion; or (c) directs his/her policy choices on the basis of which has the greatest political opportunity to satisfy the appetites of various constituencies or interest groups.

I could go on, but I’ve got a job (and you all probably have better things to do than read essays from me). I just wanted to point out (in partial response to the “rigid ideologue” language) that there are a lot of respectable but nonetheless widely divergent interpretations of conservative core principles, and conservative positions actually can and do have a fair amount of diversity (hence, Rudy Giuliani being the GOP frontrunner). There’s even a fairly philosphically consistent conservative case to be made for state-sanctioned gay marriage, regardless of the fact that most conservatives would reject it. Whatever the identifiably conservative position, though, it is distinguished from modern liberalism in that the position springs from what its adherents would like to think of as immutable, time-honored truths. Liberalism (short of outright left-lunacy) is, at best, merely a technocratic pragmatism rooted in nothing more than the subjective, relativist viewpoint of each of its perpetrators.

There…I’m done throwing gasoline onto the fire.

I hope the homless living in the woods by Rosemary Dr
are not turning it into a place like this:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=1plBae1Qoy8&feature=PlayList&p=76628A2C165B2880&index=13

and/ or this:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=RoHR1zveagI

You have confused Dolph with me. I’m the non-believer.

There’s a reason most people don’t discuss religion and politics in general society. We all have different ideas of what is moral or appropriate and these differences are personal. We’re not easily won over on these differences. They stem from our upbringing, different religious backgrounds, our education, our experiences, and our hardwiring. Your opinions are no more valid or appropriate than mine and vice versa.

That’s the reason socially conservative Republicans need to butt out of others’ personal affairs. The intrusion is viewed as unwarranted. In my mother’s words, “Mind your own business.” And I’ll mind mine.

If you want to debate a general, nonpersonal issue such as transportation, education, even illegal immigration, I don’t think most people have problems with that even though they may disagree with your view.

Yes, you and I will agree to disagree on this but for someone who has closed her mind concerning the Right to Life and her love affair with abortion, (love affair meaning NO compromise, for example, I may FULLY support the 2nd Amendment I REFUSE to back the NRA on ALL their positions) I will not debate on here with her anymore about it.

And by the way, I, too, am a busy man, which is why you don’t see too many back-to-back posts from me