Cliff LyonBlaine Describes Democrats (for us)
This has to be the longest running debate on this blog. I’ll make it simple.
I wrote this post in March of this year. It happened to mention Blaine Nichols because of some classic garbage he wrote in the Davis County Clipper (you know, the County North of Salt Lake that has NOT ONE elected democrat). He responded a month later in April, here.
Then he responded again TODAY, challenging me to address in civil debate his original points.
So in the spirit of his gentlemanly and patient request, I post Blaines points below so that we may all address them equally.
I Do invite Blaine (and anyone) to become a contributing Author to OneUtah, by simply registering and sending me an e-mail with a head shot)
Blaine’s challenge.
“In turn, may I now issue you a challenge? I’ll make it straight forward and brief. Hopefully you will answer these questions. Then, I’ll address some of the comments you made in your “One Utah†blog article.
Does the Democrat Party ordinarily, and, oftentimes very loudly: (Yes/No/Maybe)
1. Advocate generally accepted ultra liberal positions?
2. Advocate easily available abortion, including “partial birth abortion�
3. Demand that the government pay for abortions for “victims†of pregnancy?
4. Condone and encourage queer lifestyles?
5. Sponsor active recruitment of, and education about, those deviant lifestyles?
6. Favor concentration of power into government hands?
7. Call for tolerance of a liberal view point while railing against any contrary conservative voice? Tell those who experience catastrophe that they are victims, and ??? that the government has primary responsibility to solve their problem?
8. Demand that every action taken by government be based upon race, ethnicity or some other “class�
The correct “Yes†answer to the above questions reflects the core planks of the Democrat Party Platform. Though they are not succinct, nor stated so clearly in the Platform, they appear to indeed be the guiding principles and practices of the Party.”
End - Blaine’s challenge.
My (Cliff) response is: Why SHOULD anyone respond to an obviously angry, homophobic, certainly ridiculously strict social conservative, from deep in conservative Utah who is simply a victim of the dumbing-down of civic issues by confusing them with fanatic religious interpretations?
I don’t see any substantive issues oriented questions here. Does anyone else?
Mr. Nichols equates equality with the promoting of sex. May we then equate the defining of marriage with as between a man and a woman with promoting heterosexuality?
Mr. Nichols equates the protection of privacy rights and personal choice with promoting abortion. May we not then equate government control over reproductive health with “concentration of power into government hands” (to use the words he uses to criticize democrats)?
Personally, I think Mr. Nichols is looking to us to help him escape an irrational faith-based mind-prison. Looking around his homogeneous community, he likely cannot find anyone to hold a rational discussion based on traditional civic thought.
September 2nd, 2006 at 10:52 am
What I’d like to know is what is Blaine doing in North Eastern Idaho? Hmmm.
September 2nd, 2006 at 10:59 am
Most everything Utahns (Davis County) understands about Utah Democrats are lies perpetuated from the Republican Party Leadership. This is also known as “bearing false witness”.
You should see how those in power treat Democrats, it reprehensible.
September 2nd, 2006 at 11:50 am
Funny, Blaine “Do what I want and then I’ll do what you want, maybe”
Republicans are all about control, absolute control.
September 2nd, 2006 at 1:52 pm
Hey Rob. It’s equally reprehensible how those in power treat Republicans. The only difference is Republicans willingly bend over and take it up their collective backside because they are told it will be good for them.
September 2nd, 2006 at 2:33 pm
I will attempt over the weekend to address each point as I find time in between other weekend tasks, NOT however because Mr. Nichols deserves anyone’s time and effort for the simple reason that his approach represents the classic destructive rhetoric that is the very reason the national discourse has degenerated.
To repeat his premise: “Does the Democrat Party ordinarily, and, oftentimes very loudly:
1. Advocate generally accepted ultra liberal positions?”
According to most dictionaries, the definition of liberal is as follows:
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.
10. given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.
11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.
The definition of “ultra” is:
1. adj: Going beyond what is usual or ordinary; excessive; extreme.”
I will kindly ask the gentleman (Blaine) to describe his definition of “ultra liberal” (ideally based on the conventional definitions listed above”, and then provide an example of one that “the Democrat Party ordinarily, and, oftentimes very loudly: ”
I’m guessing he will raise the abortion issue which represents a problem for him since the LDS church has taken a pro-choice position as has Mitt Romney, John McCain, and countless other republicans.
So after Mr. Nicols stumbles over that one, I will predict that his position will directly contradict the traditional conservative approach to personal choice and separation of church and state.
I will also predict that Mr. Nichols will attempt to label democrats (and by association, pro-choice republicans) as pro-abortion.
That’s generally where THAT conversation ends, as neither Blaine nor I can identify ONE PERSON who likes or promotes abortion. I can’t think of a poll or survey that has ever been conducted which asks the question “are you pro-abortion,” or “do you like abortions?”
Everybody I know HATES the idea of abortion, but hates even more, the idea that politicians and judges should decide personal reproductive health issues for American women.
I know for a fact that if Mr. Nichols were to sit through a consitutional law course and the legal and practical reasonings for Roe V. Wade, he would agree that it should not be overturned. And I will prove it, if asked. (I should however warn Mr. Nichols that he should think long and hard before asking me to take this question any further.)
September 2nd, 2006 at 2:47 pm
1. If it’s generally accepted, we should run with it. It is when a radical, whose ideology runs toward the tyranical, somehow comes up w/an election win, that the generally accepted should rule. I.e., Blaine, you fit in here somewhere.
2. Democrats generally feel that they are more or less capable of handling the decisions that confront them. Our experiences and desires are valid and therefore authoritarians have nothing on us except a desire for power which should be thwarted. Getting pregnant or having an abortion is most often a choice we make, as are whether or not to foist a criminal war onto an innocent population. Can we fairly characterize Republicans as demanding ready death and mayhem on the population of thier choosing?
3. Some people suffer from crimes and bad choices. If we can sink our economy as far as we have recently to kill Arabs, we should be able to help the ‘victims’ out a little, as needed.
4. Try looking at this as if we came in all shapes and sizes.
5. They actively recruit young and women for training in the military. Is that the deviant lifestyle to which you refer? I have friends of both sexes and I’m not ready or willing to kill a one of them. That goes for people who might just become my friends in the future. Blaine, you just might fit in here.
6. See #2.
7. Now you’re just trying to pick a fight here. Stop it.
8. Key words here: “other class”. Some officials and admins seem to think that they have ALL the class and that the individual citizens of ‘the other class’ matter less if they can’t or won’t put forward generous monitary contributions to see thier man elected. Where apon every governmental action should result in the contributors own profit-taking and ascention.
Cliff, Blaine, thanks for the opportunity to help clairify these issues.
September 2nd, 2006 at 6:01 pm
Is this some kind of threat Cliff? - “I should however warn Mr. Nichols that he should think long and hard before asking me to take this question any further”
September 2nd, 2006 at 6:19 pm
No Blaine. Its just that, its just a abortion rights is a more complicated than the typical anti-choice crowd knows. Anti-choice (pro-government intervention) people think its black and white, an easy choice between life and or the idea of life, and death.
Unfortunately, it’s NOT that simple. We kill people everyday in the name of our government, and our Country. We kill over 100,000 people accidentally every year through mistakes and negligence in our healthcare system. We kill put people to death in our penal system. And of course, we kill innocent people in war, including our own.
I could go on and on Blaine, about life and death and never touch the argument about whether a 4-cell organism or an un-hosted embryo, is life.
But those discussion pale by comparison to the discussion we will have if you challenge me on this issue. It is highly unlikely that you have ever been “schooled†on the legal challenges of our constitutional right to privacy, and what it will mean to YOU Blaine W. Nichols, and your family, if a woman’s right to control her reproductive health is given over to the government…or even her husband.
The minute you start to see things in black and white, is the moment your rights begin to be eroded.
Be careful what you wish for.
September 2nd, 2006 at 8:11 pm
Blaine, government will never solve the issue of abortion. You and we want less government and yet we will use government to rule your lives Republicans disgracfully use this sensitive and sad subject to further your agenda. That’s all it is, a way to win, and that in itself is sick.