Matt:

Have you ever read It Takes a Village? I can't believe so many people use that book as an example of anti-family values.

You might take a second to explain to me something I've been thinking about lately. Conservatives say that activist judges are taking the right to define marriage away from the states. How is it then okay for the federal government to instead take that right away by putting in place a federal definition of it?

Adam--don't try to reason with Matt. He only says what the GOP tells him to say, so he'll constantly post stuff like "Democrats hate families and want nothing more than to destroy them" without giving a single thought to what he's actually saying and how ludicrous he sounds. If you want somebody who actually thinks, you have to wait for Jonathan to post.

looks like the only person not thinking here is SeesThroughIt.. you haven't even tried to challenge Matt on what he wrote... you just wrote it off as unintelligent because you couldn't challenge it. Even Adam challenged him on whether or not he read it takes a village... even though i find that to be somewhat off topic to the real issue of his post...

What is there to challenge? He said--with ostensibly a straight face--that the agenda for the Democratic Party is, and I quote, "Destroy Marriage. Destroy Parenthood. Destroy Children." He actually believes this. He actually believes that when Democrats meet and discuss policy and strategy, they say, "How can we destroy children today? Actually, we'll destroy children tomorrow--today, let's destroy parenthood!" It's far too ridiculous to take seriously.

If he's going for lamewad GOP comedy, that's one thing. But this is what he actually believes (or at least has been instructed to believe). Personally, I can't think of any politicians--Republican or Democrat--who want to destroy families, marriage, children, blah blah blah. I can think of various policy disputes (in the land of the free and equal, should all adults have equal rights when it comes to marriage, for example) but when somebody is so lazy that they would rather simply say, "Democrats' entire platform is to destroy children," it's absurd, dishonest, and, well, completely stupid.

When somebody is that ridiculous--as Margolis frequently is, largely because he never seems to want to step outside the bounds of GOP stenographer--there's no point in trying to reason with them because they clearly have no interest in reason, preferring pabulum that makes them feel somehow superior. Which is basically what I said to Adam.

Well, thanks for your explanation, but you still fail to address what he is actually saying. Is he saying that Democrats are specifically saying "let's destroy familes?" no, of course not... and you know that.. he's saying --at least how i interpret it -- that the policies Democrats support all seem to undermine the family. I think even you know that's what he's trying say, but you don't want to talk about the specific policies, so instead you attack the writer of the post because that's all you can do.

Look, this is a direct quote from him:

"the Democratic Party's agenda can be boiled down to the following slogan: Destroy Marriage. Destroy Parenthood. Destroy Children."

He is saying that destroying marriage, parenthood, and children is the Democratic Party's agenda, point-blank. There's no wiggle room there. No other way to parse it. He believes that Democrats wish to destroy marriage, parenthood, and children, marriage, all that. As I said before, it's lazy and absurd (and typical for him). If he actually made a serious point, I'd be glad to rebut it. But if he's going to make patently absurd statements like "the Democratic Party's agenda is to destroy children,"--even offering that up as a properly descriptive slogan for the Democratic Party--then there's no reason to take him seriously.

You want me to address what he's saying? Well, when he actually gets around to saying something worthwhile instead of mealy-mouthed sloganeering that makes him feel better about his party, I'll address it. I'm not counting on that happening anytime soon because he prefers to stick to pabulum, but there it is.

Yes, "It Takes a Village" is a side point here but I am still waiting on at least one Conservative to tell me that they have in fact read the book and to point out instances of anti-family rhetoric in the book...

I don't see what the big deal is about being anti-family. Some people have a positive image of "the family," while others may have a negative view of it. Perhaps someone was abused at the hands of a family member. Maybe they were abandoned by their family. Regardless, I personally have no issue with "the family." However, when I hear people in the family supremacy movement talk about people who are anti-family, I can't help but notice the Third Reich odor. Sometimes I feel that some of these people are deliberately excluding people who may have a negative view of family life. They often give the impression to many that those without a family are not a complete person, or are somehow morally corrupt. I just wish that the family people would utilize some understanding and come to realize that not everyone has had the oppurtunity to live in a loving family environment.