| Lynn Kempen | Kevin Craig |
| Well, Kevin, words have meaning. | Of course, but it's also possible to draw fallacious inferences from words. I'm just trying not to do that with Jonathan's words. |
| I pointed out a dichotomy between what your website stated, and what you are stating here. In response, you simply asserted, "my conclusions are unwarranted," but you never addressed the issue! (The dichotomy - the inconsistency.) | I support Democrats and Republicans to the extent they restrict government according to the Constitution. I am neither R nor D. Usually when I use the word "we" I mean something broad like "us good guys," or maybe "true Americans." I never use "we" to include myself in either the Demoblicans or the Republicrats. |
| You state you "like to argue," (personally, I prefer to debate.) Are you arguing for the sake of arguing? I'm trying to figure out where you stand, and your responses are increasingly befuddling. | |
| Rather than defending your OWN assertions, or augmenting them, you responded with a virtual sucker punch. Tell me, what have I said about either you or Johnathan that is "unwarranted?" | Identifying me as either "Republican" or "Tea Party" or a member of either. Neither one would allow me to become a card-carrying member, I suspect. |
| You stated: "But Tea Party people don't INTEND to support RINOs and elitists. In other words, we're still making progress. Baby steps, maybe." ^Those are YOUR words. |
I stand by that. I'm sure many people who voted for Brown in Mass. are disappointed by his performance thus far. |
| Let's examine those words: 1.) The term "we're" indicates you consider yourself to be part of the Tea Party. 2.) RINO, as I believe you understand, is an acronym for Republican In Name Only. Think about that term for a moment. |
1) is not a logically air-tight inference. Or maybe I should say "grammatically" air-tight. For example, let's say George Soros has control of the TeaParty movement. He certainly wouldn't consider himself a member of the Tea Party, but the movement is useful to him for furtherance of his ambitions. So he could say to like-minded elites, "We're making progress -- the Tea Party movement is growing."
As a Constitutionalist, or as a libertarian, I can say to other constitutionalists, "We're making progress" when someone decides to join the Tea Party because they want to cut government spending and view the Tea Party as a vehicle for accomplishing that. They might be mistaken in their strategy, but not their goal. |
| RINO is a pejorative that refers to a member of the US Republican Party whose political views or actions are considered liberal or otherwise insufficiently conforming to conservative values (those the Republican Party platform supposedly espouses.) | I agree with these two paragraphs. I highlighted the word "supposedly." |
| Let's use a paralell acronym. CINO: "Christian in Name Only," That would be someone who really isn't a Christian, they just say they are. It's like the pop song says "I just prayed to a god that I don't believe in." You wouldn't INTEND to hire a pastor who is CINO "Christian in NAME ONLY," you would INTEND to hire a pastor who is ACTUALLY Christian. | |
| RINO's definition, AND the way you used it, indicate that you disagree with politicians who are "Republicans in Name Only." If these politicians truly held conservative values, they would not be "Republican in Name Only," but they would be more than "Republican in Name Only" - they would BE Republican (per the term). How is that conclusion "unwarranted?" | A RINO favors more or continued government spending. I oppose all gov't spending. Therefore I oppose RINO's |
| Your comment, that "Tea Party people don't INTEND to vote for RINO's" - says, literally, they don't want to vote for those who are "REPUBLICAN in NAME ONLY." The logical extension of that is that Tea Party people INTEND to vote for those who are more than Republican in NAME ONLY, but they support true Republicans; true conservatives. If they are not Republican "in Name ONLY," they are Republican. That is a logical conclusion. | Correct |
| People, especially on the internet, flippantly throw terms such as RINO, neo-con, liberal, libtard, around without considering their actual meanings. | |
| I do not understand WHY you would use the term RINO, in the manner you did, WHILE concluding "we" (meaning the Tea Party) are making steps in the right direction, if you did not have the hope or intent that the Republican Party is redeemable. | If I want my son to become a professional baseball player, I'm going to sign him up for Little League. But I don't want him to remain there forever. In that sense, Little League is not "redeemable." If someone says, "I'm not voting for Brown -- he's just a RINO," that's progress, but it shouldn't be permanent. More growth is needed. |
| With every response you've made here, you have me more confused about where you stand. | Sorry. I think most of the problem stems from the ambiguities in the word "we." |
| Are you hoping for the Tea Party to usurp the Republican Party? | That could be progress. |
| After using the term RINO, and indicating the Tea Party is making "steps in the right direction," you then state "Not only do I NOT believe the GOP can be salvaged, I don't think the entire institution of 'Civil Government' can be redeemed. It needs to be abolished". | |
| If you "don't believe the institution of 'government' can be fixed," why would you run for Congress? It is disingenuous to run for office, accepting campaign contributions, if you don't intend to give it your all. | I don't expect to be elected to Congress. I'm in the race to gain access to opportunities (forums, debates, interviews, etc.) to educate people on the principle of "Liberty Under God." I do not accept campaign contributions, at least cash. If I were elected, I would work tirelessly, vigorously, passionately, endlessly to cut government spending and intervention. If I were elected, I would be the most newsworthy and controversial congressman in Washington, a lightening rod for media attention, and would use that media exposure to promote "Liberty Under God." |