Very, very flawed "interpretation" for certain.
I waited for days before coming back to see what was said here. (Didn't want to wreck my Christmas by more dopey, baseless accusations about my integrity).
truth_seeker, I actually appreciate your response that you feel my interpretation was "flawed." I would expect that because you look at things through the eyes of a social liberal who thinks those of us who are social conservatives are a extremists.
But I also very much appreciate that you didn't attack below the belt by calling me a liar. (It's so ridiculous, I'm still in awe that someone who actually has been around here so long would use such a shameless tactic).
Nonetheless, a week later I stand by my interpretation because the words are in the MAC's posts, and the conclusion is logical....
-Social conservatives who emphasize the need to stop abortion have an 'agenda' and are 'extremists'
-The polls show that Americans don't rank abortion high on their scales of importance
- Therefore Republicans should stick with the "big issues" and avoid the "extremist agenda" of having the saving babies' lives as a priority. ("Extremist agenda" are words used by social liberals, not by me. There's nothing "extremist," IMO, about countering the pro-death left and working politically against the leftist abortion agenda).
It is a completely rational and logical interpretation that the person who said those words doesn't think the killing of the unborn is a "big issue." He as much as said it directly. (I said nothing about his personal views, which I never said I knew. Only on what he has concluded politically is not a 'big issue').
There would have been no abolition movement, and no Republican party in the first place in the 19th century if people had sought to go with the "popular" issues and not the important issues. I believe it is a wrong headed view to avoid the unpleasantness of dealing with abortion and sticking with the so-called "big issues."
By saying that the current Republican party needs to stick with those "big issues" and avoid discussion of what is quite literally "the slaughter of millions of babies," is drawing the conclusion, in my view, that Republicans should avoid what is
right to do what is
politically expedient, and that those of us who believe that the issue is far too important to avoid are somehow a danger to the Republican party.
I have seen that argument time and time again from a handful of posters here, and I strongly disagree.
If people have such
thin skin that they can't handle the conclusions drawn by others from the
actual statements they make, that they need to counter-attack by calling those who disagree liars, then the problem is theirs, and theirs alone.
