Regarding Bush’s 8 years in office, Ivan Eland of the Independent Institute writes:
"For starters, invading another country on false pretenses is grounds for impeachment. Also, the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution essentially says that the people have the right to be secure against unreasonable government searches and seizures and that no search warrants shall be issued without probable cause that a crime has been committed. And the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) requires that warrants for national security wiretaps be authorized by the secret FISA court. The law says that it is a crime for government officials to conduct electronic surveillance outside the exclusive purviews of that law or the criminal wiretap statute. President Bush’s authorization of the monitoring of Americans’ e-mails and phone calls by the National Security Agency (NSA) without even the minimal protection of FISA court warrants is clearly unconstitutional and illegal. Executive searches without judicial review violate the unique checks and balances that the nation’s founders created in the U.S. government and are a considerable threat to American liberty. Furthermore, surveillance of Americans by the NSA, an intelligence service rather than a law enforcement agency, is a regression to the practices of the Vietnam-era, when intelligence agencies were misused to spy on anti-war protesters.
President Bush defiantly admitted initiating such flagrant domestic spying but contended that the Congress implicitly authorized such activities when it approved the use of force against al Qaeda and that such actions fit within his constitutional powers as commander-in-chief. But the founders never intended core principles of the Constitution to be suspended during wartime. In fact, they realized that it was in times of war and crisis that constitutional protections of the people were most at risk of usurpation by politicians, who purport to defend American freedom while actually undermining it.
The Bush administration’s FBI had also expanded its use of national security letters to examine the personal records of tens of thousands of Americans who were not suspected of being involved in terrorism or even illegal acts. Information on peaceful anti-war demonstrations apparently found its way into Pentagon databases on possible threats to U.S. security.
Finally, the president’s policies on detainees in the “war on terror” probably qualified as impeachable offenses. The Bush administration decided that the “war on terror” exempted it from an unambiguous criminal law and international conventions (which are also the law of the land) preventing torture and inhumane treatment of prisoners. An American president permitting torture is both disgraceful and ineffective in getting good information from those held. Furthermore, the administration concocted the fictitious category of “enemy combatants” to deprive detainees of the legal protections of either the U.S. courts or “prisoner-of-war” status. The administration then tried to detain these enemy combatants, some of them American citizens, indefinitely without trial, access to counsel, or the right to have courts to review their cases.
According to the Washington Post, the Bush administration described the president’s war making power under the Constitution as “plenary”—meaning absolute. The founders would roll over in their graves at this interpretation of a document that was actually designed to limit the presidential war power, resulting from their revulsion at the way European monarchs easily took their countries to war and foisted the costs—in blood and treasure—on their people.
Conservative
Bob Barr, a former Congressman from Georgia who was quoted in the Post, said it best: “The American people are going to have to say, ‘Enough of this business of justifying everything as necessary for the war on terror.’ Either the Constitution and the laws of this country mean something or they don’t. It is truly frightening what is going on in this country.”
I could go on and on, talking about Creationism and the fact that three of the republican presidential hopefuls in the last election, Senator Sam Brownback, Governor Mike Huckabee, and Representative Tom Tancredo, don’t believe in evolution; but what it ALL boils down to is this…
I’m a liberal because for almost forty years, conservatives have demonstrated time and time again that they are readily willing to usurp the very constitution that they claim to uphold and are willing to do whatever they need to do to win, using the Machiavellian philosophy that the end justifies the means, and since they firmly believe that their views are the only right ones, breaking a few laws or bypassing the constitution is perfectly OK.
I would add to what Ivan Eland said, by saying that invading another country on false pretenses isn't just grounds for impeachment, it's grounds for being tried for War Crimes. And if the principles laid out in Nuremberg are applied that would mean that it would leave a few people dangling.
1. You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on demand for 7 month term, viable fetuses.
2. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.
3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens are more of a threat than nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Iran or Chinese and North Korean communists.
4. You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding and ONLY Federally funded art is worthwhile.
5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by historically cyclical changes in the earth's climate and more affected by soccer moms driving SUV's.
6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial, but being homosexual is beautiful.
7. You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal funding.
8. You have to believe that the same teachers who can't teach 4th-graders how to read are somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.
9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but PETA activists do....even if they are blowing up people with bombs to make their point!!!
10. You have to believe that being "given" self-esteem is more important than actually making the effort to earn it.
11. You have to believe that Mel Gibson spent $25 million of his own money to make "The Passion of the Christ" for financial gain.
12. You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution. If you don't know what we're talking about here......it's time you looked it up.
13. You have to believe that Federal "taxing of the rich" is too low, but ATM fees are too high.
14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, Gen. Robert E. Lee, and Thomas Edison.
15. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides are not.
16. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in
charge. You believe that Hollywood, California has those people.
17. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag queens and transvestites, often unclothed, should be constitutionally protected, and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.
18. You have to believe that Barbara Streisand and The Dixie Chicks know more about National Security than Condeleeza Rice.
19. You have to believe that The New York Times and CNN are Patriotic and individuals that proudly display the American Flag are NUTS!!
20. You have to believe that this message is a part of a vast, right-wing conspiracy.
GOD BLESS AMERICA............oops, can't say that if you're Liberal
Bottom line, I am not a liberal because my IQ is just too damn high
If your IQ is high, you certainly didn't demonstrate it with that post. It's easy to distill conservativism and liberalism down to one sentence cliches. The problem is that their usually incomplete, misleading or just plain incorrect, as are most of your either/or statements.
Liberals don't have to think homosexuality is "beautiful", but we do believe it's an individual's right.
You can be pro-choice and still believe in capital punishment... I do.
I'm a life-member in the NRA; I don't hunt any longer, but I trap and skeet shoot and own four handguns that I target practice with. That doesn't mean I'm a drone that swallows everything the NRA says. I DO believe in regulating certain types of weapons, assault rifles and fully automatic weapons among them.
I believe gay parades should be protected under free speech, as I believe that Nativity scenes should be protected as well... but again, you're arguement is wrong; nativity scenes aren't illegal, they're just illegal to display on government property. Seperation of church and state was one of the principles this country was founded on for fear of religious persecution by the religious majority in power.
It's easy to sloganize things; I could have said I'm NOT a conservative because:
1. You have to believe it's not OK to abort a fetus because it's a human being, but it's OK to execute a human being even if they're retarded.
2. You'd have to believe that it's not OK to abort a fetus because it's a human being, but it's OK to kill an abortion doctor.
3. You'd have to believe that Barbara Streisand and The Dixie Chicks aren't entitled to oppose the war in Iran and publicly express those opinions, but it's OK for Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh to say anything they please about Obama.
4. You'd have to believe that this message was inspired by me listening to the liberal media.
I could go on... but the point is that I gave a long and factually accurate account of why I'm a liberal, and the best you could do was list a bunch of conservative dogma and stereotypes.
I am more of a Libertarian, this means fiscal conservative, socially more liberal.
Sum it up, I actually support right to choose (BUT NO FEDERAL MONEY) and domestic partnerships.
A little research on your part and you have seen thsi list posted all over the internet. While not my material, many of the points are dead on.
In regards to intelligence, I am a member of Mensa (look it up)
I enjoy politicial sparring but do not have a ton of free time so will never spend any extracted amount of time to respond to posts (most are so full of emotion and little fact they really do not warrant any serious time)
Your rant in your first post spoke about the Republicans ignoring the constitution. GROW UP!! BOTH PARTIES DO WHATEVER THEY CAN TO GET THEIR AGENDS THROUGH AND KEEP GETTING RE-ELECTED!!
Your first post is easy enough to debunk. If LIberals so much love the constituion why do they constantly attack the second amendment.
We are talking about politics here, time to grow up.
More of a Libertarian. Jesus....You wouldn't know libertarianism if it fell out of the sky and wiggled it's tookus in your face.
hint-hint. The first person to call himself a libertarian was a French communist bucko.
Parties Change!!
JFK, a DEMOCRAT, believed that the best way to raise revenues for the tresury and help the economy was to cut taxes.
WHEN IS THE LAST TIME YOU HEARD A DEMOCRAT SUPPORT TAX CUTS!! If anything, you need to be aware of jthe party you side with...
Because I'm OCD, I gotta reply to this.
1. You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on demand for 7 month term, viable fetuses.
You don't want the state to be able to take away your guns, but you DO want the state to have the right to kill you? Are you mad? Yes, abortion should be legal because YOU HAVE NO SAY in a woman having the right of self determination. Take away abortion rights, and you take away the rights of DUE PROCESS, and not just from women, but from EVERYONE. Besides, with less people there are fewer workers, and wages are higher. You should be encouraging MORE abortions.
2. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." Guess who said that? No, not Karl Marx. Abe Lincoln. Workers create prosperity. Businesses are just the leeches that skim off the top. Govts are not all the same. A democratic govt. can very much help create prosperity, just look at the Marshall Plan or The New Deal.
3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens are more of a threat than nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Iran or Chinese and North Korean communists.
I'm all in favor of gun ownership, the only thing I think should be regulated are WMDs. Nobody on the planet should have a nuke.
4. You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding and ONLY Federally funded art is worthwhile.
As an artist (musician, song writer, poet, recording engineer, & graphic artist) I know the vast majority of all art is organically made without the aid of the government. I'm all in favor of government funding for the arts. It makes people SMARTER.
5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by historically cyclical changes in the earth's climate and more affected by soccer moms driving SUV's.
I suggest you read the science on the topic instead of corporate PR coming from oil companies.
6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial, but being homosexual is beautiful.
All things are beautiful. Gender roles are not artificial, but they aren't absolute either, and no one should be discriminated against for their gender.
7. You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal funding.
Actually, it's spread by funding "abstinence only" education. You of course know that abstinence is a dumb idea, otherwise you wouldn't be on TER, now would you?
8. You have to believe that the same teachers who can't teach 4th-graders how to read are somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.
The U.S. has a 99% literacy rate. I doubt that entire 1% who are illiterate are 4th graders.
9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but PETA activists do....even if they are blowing up people with bombs to make their point!!!
What's wrong with PETA? You do know that swine flu was caused by meat eaters right? You also know, don't you, that antibiotic resistant bacteria has developed BECAUSE of the meat industry right? Enjoy your bacon.
10. You have to believe that being "given" self-esteem is more important than actually making the effort to earn it.
Self esteem isn't something you can give or earn...just like you can't give someone depression or schizophrenia.
11. You have to believe that Mel Gibson spent $25 million of his own money to make "The Passion of the Christ" for financial gain.
Mel Gibson made that movie because he's a sado-masochist.
12. You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution. If you don't know what we're talking about here......it's time you looked it up.
The NRA supports one badly misunderstood amendment, the ACLU supports the whole damn document.
13. You have to believe that Federal "taxing of the rich" is too low, but ATM fees are too high.
Yes. The rich used to pay 94% income tax rates. Today they pay 35%. ATM fees are way too high.
14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, Gen. Robert E. Lee, and Thomas Edison.
Um, no, but I think Mother Jones, John Brown, and Fredrick Douglas were more important figures than Robert Lee (a traitor) or Thomas Edison.
15. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides are not.
Yes, standardized tests are racist. This has been studied. Conclusions have been made. They have a racial bias. We know this because they've been able to reverse enginneer tests that are biased against whites. Do you have any intellectual curiosity at all? How do you not know this? Yes, I'm in favor of giving people a leg up when they've been put down for 500 years.
16. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in
charge. You believe that Hollywood, California has those people.
Socialism is working just fine, thank you very much in Sweden, Norway, Germany, France, the UK, the Netherlands....need I go on?
17. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag queens and transvestites, often unclothed, should be constitutionally protected, and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.
You are aware, aren't you, of the very first clause of the very first Constitutional Amendment?
18. You have to believe that Barbara Streisand and The Dixie Chicks know more about National Security than Condeleeza Rice.
My dog knows more about National Security than Condi Rice. And my dog's been dead for 2 years.
19. You have to believe that The New York Times and CNN are Patriotic and individuals that proudly display the American Flag are NUTS!!
No, I think the NYT and CNN are corporate media outlets, and pretty lousy ones at that. You know, the Germans waved their flags too...back in the 30's.
20. You have to believe that this message is a part of a vast, right-wing conspiracy.
---No, just part of a vast dumb conspiracy.
GOD BLESS AMERICA............oops, can't say that if you're Liberal
---You can, but it makes about as much sense as "may the boogey man bless America" sense neither exists.
Bottom line, I am not a liberal because my IQ is just too damn high
---IQ isn't a measurement of intelligence. Of course, you knew that, right?
-- Modified on 10/8/2009 1:59:12 PM
1) If I were to kill someone, yes, they should be able to execute me. At teh same time, I want the ability to protect myself and my family if necessary. NO BRAINER ON THIS ONE...
2) Labor deserves as labor is. If you have a highly valued set of skills, you should be compensated accordingly. If you have a common set of skills that are easily replaced, you should be complicated accordingly. REMEMBER, LINCOLN WAS A LAWYER!!
3) Noce thought but Pandoras box, they are here and are not going anywhere.
4) Looking at a painting, while it can be inspiring, does not "make you smarter". How about we spend that money on vouchers to promote school choice so children in failing schools can have a chance. Remember, the rich people already send their kids to private school, you know Al Gore, Barack Obama...
5) OK, science, the hottest year on record was over 10 years ago, the sun has been going though a high activity spell which it does tend to cycle through. FOR GOD'S SAKE, THE TEMPERATEUE ON VENUS HAS ALSO RISEN DURING THIS TIME!! WHO THE HELL IS DRIVING THEIR SUV ON VENUS!!
6) "All things are bueatiful" Really, the comradary of the nazi rallies, how inspiring!! The true love between a man and a boy as supported by NAMBLA, oohhh, how sweet. You best put that broardbrush up, there is a lot of bad stuff in this world as well as good.
7) News flash, its spread by a virus, nothing more. To blame any type of government program (or lack thereof) is simply trying to shift the responsibility. I know this is suprising, but people really are supposed to be personally responsible for their actions.
8) We spend more in education than any other country and still rank 11th in math, 9th in Science. Oh, we've got time to teach them songs about Obama, but not to sork more in these CRITICAL areas!! BTW, Literacy is not a good measure because you fail to mention AT WHAT GRADE LEVEL. HOW CONVENIENT.
9) PETA = PEOPLE EATING TASTY ANIMALS!! Nothing wrong there!!
10) WRONG. People can try to build up other's esteem in themselves. Happens every day. BUt when it is done and not earned, the long wrong just causes damage.
11) What can I say about you response on this one. JUST PLAIN IGNORANT.
12) NO, the ACLU supports THEIR interpretation of the document. Check out the link below for their stance on the 2nd amendment, so basically, like most lobbying groups, they only act in their own interests.
13) YOU DO NOT HAVE TO USE AN ATM. YOU DO HAVE TO PAY TAXES. Do you need me to break out the crayons and draw you a picture
14) You have no sense of the interconnection of things. Edison's inventions moved our society forward by leaps and bounds. In regards to Lee, it was a Democrat (Byrd) and Democartically controlled congress who restored his citizenship. Seems the Dems do not share your views.
15) See # 11 response
16) Yet none of those countries has as high a standard of living as the U.S. So I guess lowering our standard of living is your definition of suceess. UH YEAH, THAT MAKES SENSE!!
17) I am, so tell me what the hell scares you so much about a Manger scene!!
18) See #11 response
19) So basically you are implying US = NAZI GERMANY. See #11 response
20) Just because you can not follow a line of logic does not make it wrong. More likely just beyond your comprehension...
is more of a function of bad judgment, if not willful blindness, by Bush and the other government officials rather than a general indictment of a convervative political philosphy.
Sadly, President Obama has gotten off to a bad start by continuing the Predator Execution program where one report on the ground is apparently enough to authorize the vaporization of a presumed bad guy and any innocents in the drop zone. Yes, that is a war crime just as bad as though committed by Bush.
It is always tempting to go to John Stuart Mill in discussions of this nature -“Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives” – but bad judgment, incompetent management, and downright stupidity are equally spread between conservatives and liberals.
From my chair, better not to join either group – an issue by issue analysis and critical thinking is more likely to result in better policy making.
but I do agree, neither camp has a monopoly on stupidity.
I also don't put much stock into what anybody that claims to be either a staunch Republican or Democrat. IMO it just means that they are not capable of independent thought and must instead rely on the ideas of others.
I have to agree about criticizing an entire political philosophy. I shake my head whenever a point is made about a policy or an individual, and the retort involves some type of irrelevant jibe at an entire ideology. RWU and Phil, for example, love doing this.
-- Modified on 10/8/2009 8:00:16 AM
You can't call lying to congress and the American people an act of stupidity. The only thing stupid about it was that they thought they could get away with it. In several of the incidents I cited, federal laws were broken and impeachable and imprisionable acts comitted. Plain and simple.
I didn't even go into the willful outing of Valerie Plame Wilson in retribution for her husband's op-ed pieces in the New York times criticizing George Bush for misrepresenting intelligence information about Iraq's nuclear weapons program. "Scooter" Libby used Robert Novak to publicly expose Mrs. Wilson as a CIA operative. That's treason and a hangable offense. While Libby wasn't charged for the crime, he was indicted and found guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice... of course, he was Pardoned by Bush. And if anyone can honestly say that they don't think Cheney pulled the strings, then they're delusional or stupid. It was payback, nothing more and nothing less, by people who's arrogance bordered on meglomania.
I'm not condeming conservatism as a political philosophy, but I am condeming the BRAND of conservatism that is convinced that THEY are the only ones who knows what's best for America and disregard the laws and constitution of this country in pursuit of their vision. And unfortunately, starting with Nixon, then to Reagan, H.W.Bush and finally epitomized by Bush/Cheney, that's the brand of conservatism that's dominated conservative politics for the last 40 years or so and is ruining the republican party while damaging America.
BTW, while I consider myself a liberal, I'm registered as an independent and I've voted for republicans in local and state elections when I thought they were the best choice. Unlike some on this forum, I don't blindly follow the dogma of any single party.
but you certainly preach the dogma of only one party. Your posts reek of partisan politics. Criticize the left every once in a while and your claims of independence will carry more weight. In the mean time you are just another partisan democrat to me. Which is no better (or worse) than a partisan Republican.
I'll believe you have an open mind when I see evidence of it. Most of the most blatant partisans here claim independent status, but their posts and their opinions prove them wrong.
I see your point; I tend to respond to things I see as blatent lies or right-wing bullshit so my answers may seem just as dogmatic.
There are a lot of things I find wrong with the liberal agenda, and while I voted for Obama I'm not happy with many of the things he's done (or hasn't done). However, the fact that he was blind-sided by a lot of the financial woes after he was elected, and considering he's only been president for five months, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt for a while.
But when I hear the moronic cries of "we want our country back" or people talking about Obama leading us into socialism, which is patently ridiculous (and indicates that most people have no clue about what socialism is), or people protesting his speaking to school children, it just gets my dander up and I respond in kind.
And as a liberal I'll be the first to admit that I do see the sins of the right to be far more dangerous than the sins of the left. I find the right to be arrogant, self-rightous and mean spirited, and the left to be whining wimps that have been the minority for so long that now that they're the majority, they don't have the faith or resolve to forward their ideals.
What this country needs is a VIABLE third party. If Perot hadn't turned out to be an UFO-seeing whack job, things might be different today.
-- Modified on 10/8/2009 9:09:16 AM
say that there “ a BRAND of conservatism that is convinced that THEY are the only ones who knows what's best for America and disregard the laws and constitution of this country in pursuit of their vision.”
As far as I know, there is no mainstream brand of conservatism that holds that the laws and constitution of this country may be disregard in pursuit of a conservative vision.
With respect to most of the unlawful conduct by Bush, remember that he was careful to have legal opinions manufactured that opined that the actions were lawful. True, sometimes he acted before the legal opinions were written, but that is another issue.
And when you are the President – the ultimate executive decision maker - is it really such a travesty to think that you are the only one who knows what is best for America? The president hopefully makes his decision after considering all view points but he is elected to be final arbiter here.
As to Scooter Libby, the public exposure of Ms. Wilson as a CIA operative if she was covert would be a violation of law but would not be treason as defined by Article III, so I think you are being a little hard on a guy who did not act for personal gain but bc he was too weak to withstand peer pressure from Cheney and Addington.
-- Modified on 10/8/2009 11:53:57 AM
-- Modified on 10/8/2009 11:54:26 AM
You actually sound downright reasonable today. You must have got laid this morning. lol
Maybe I should have said that there are a group of conservatives that have the ARROGANCE to believe that they are the only ones who know what's best for America and disregard the laws and constitution of this country in pursuit of their vision. Unfortunately I believe it's a fairly large group: Nixon, Halderman, Colson, Liddy, Erlichman, Agnew, Mitchell, Reagan, Oliver North, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld... and I find it telling (and somewhat scary) that many conservatives today think of Liddy and North as patriots.
Bush/Cheney/North/Liddy; they remind me of Burt Lancaster's character, Gen. James Matoon Scott, in the movie "Seven Days In May" who led a conspiricy to overthrow the president. He considered himself a patriot who was doing what was best for the country, regardless of the means and what laws needed to be broken. Ironically, in the novel, the story is set not long after the conclusion of a stalemated war in Iran. Kirk Douglas, playing Colonel Martin Casey, discovers the plot and prevents it from happening. In a final scene between Lancaster and Douglas, Lancaster asks Douglas "Do you know who Judas was?" Douglas answers, "Yes. He's a man I used to work for and respect, until he disgraced the four stars on his uniform."
He commuted the remainder of his sentence. A significant difference.
And, remember, if President Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction, then so did Sens. Kerry, Clinton, Edwards, etc., who all believed and supported the same faulty intelligence that President Bush did.
President Bush did not invade Iraq alone. Funny how people forget how things actually were.
As stated by PW, GWB did not pardon Libby. Libby still has a felony record.
It was not Libby or Cheney that outed Plame. It was Dick Armitage.
All except for the joining statement.
I'd phrase it, it's better to not treat either group as a monolithic homogeneous set of people. Even the most ardent of believers in any group, disagree on some things. By denying even a partial "membership" in a group with whom you can identify even just a little bit can result in the diluting of a passion that might otherwise serve to better you and others.
"Sadly, President Obama has gotten off to a bad start by continuing the Predator Execution program where one report on the ground is apparently enough to authorize the vaporization of a presumed bad guy and any innocents in the drop zone. Yes, that is a war crime just as bad as though committed by Bush."
That is a bit shocking. To date I haven't found anyone on this board who seems to have a problem with this.
But it is insightful that you admit that you believe the severity of war crimes depends upon who commits them.
Your entire castigation of conservatism in favor of liberalism is based on the deeds of people, and only a few people at that. Granted they were powerful people but none the less they were simply people. You make a case against each of them. Some of it is true. Some is taken out of context. For the some of it, no plausible case was ever made and some was just based on made up shit for partisan reasons (not made up by you, just repeated by you). Maybe you meant to say, "Why I am a Democrat." Your diatribe against past GOP Presidents would have then made much more sense.
Just like all liberals are not in lock step with a monolithic mind set, neither are all conservatives. I've been a conservative since forever. Nixon was my first Presidential election. Guess what? I thought and still think he should have gone to jail. In retrospect it was most likely the best thing that Ford pardoned him. All the subsequent GOP Presidents were flawed in one way or another (as are all people including Democrats), but I did stop believing in conservative principles because of the actions of people or even the GOP. If anything has tested or strained the GOP/conservative relationship it has been GWB and the last 3 Congresses (2000 to 2006). But I still haven't stopped believing in conservative principles.
I don't know you very well, but I'd be willing to bet that you probably lead your personal life according to many conservative principles. I bet you even hold a couple of strong or major conservative principles near to your heart. When it comes down to their personal life and that of their families a lot of liberals live more as conservatives than they'd dare admit. In several ways, conservatism is a philosophy that directs it's believer in how to life their daily life. Liberalism on the other hand is (or has become for many) a philosophy for how OTHER people should live their lives. Yea, yea I know there is a long history of bedroom issues where some conservatives try to direct others, but that's not my brand. But I side with them on more issues than not and certainly more than I side with some liberals. That's because I'm more precisely a conservative/libertarian. Pure libertarianism leads to anarchy. A total lack of libertarianism leads to a slave state, and you can get there along either a liberal OR conservative path. More easily via the liberal path but that's just a conservative talking.
Interesting Rightwing. I'm curious to know what conservative values you hold. As someone who's to the left of your average American liberal, I find this stuff fascinating.
You're right, I do lead my personal life according to many conservative principles. As I stated before, I believe in the death penalty, (but not as strongly as I once did after seeing Earl Morris' "The Thin Blue Line" and having seen the alarming number of people who through DNA evidence are now being proven innocent). I'm a life member of the NRA, I own guns, including handguns, and I use to hunt. I'm environmentally aware but not big on saving endangered species (we're all going to be extinct one day anyway) and I think PETA people are fuckin' nuts.
But I'm not confused... first of all, I didn't castigate conservatism; I castigated a particular TYPE of conservatism; neo-conservativism. Yes, based on the deeds of people, but your definition of a few and mine must be worlds apart. Just about every republican administration since Nixon has exhibited a willingness to trample the constitution in pursuit of executive power, and have shown a marked lack of respect, bordering on contempt, for the very people they're suppose to serve. Just about everyone in Nixon's admin. was either politically or morally corrupt, J.Edgar Hoover used the FBI as his personal anti-liberal intelligence gathering force while he sat in his office wearing women's clothing... Oliver North, Ken Starr; the list goes on and on. Hell, I'm not even going back to Joe McCarthy and the House Un-American Activities Comittee.
Look, I'm not saying that the Dem's aren't without sin. L.B.J. spied on his opponents and you could make the arguement that Clinton should have been impeached for waging an illegal war in Kosovo instead of for lying to Congress about getting a blow-job (and you'll notice I said he was impeached for lying; I didn't use the old liberal chestnut that he was impeached for getting the blow-job).
But there was a time when the "liberal" wasn't a dirty word... Here's the dictionary definition of the word:
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.
I just don't see the words "traitor" or "socialist" any where in there. Coulter, Beck and Limbaugh must have a different edition of the dictionary than I do.
The neo-cons have co-opted the word patriotism... if you're not one of them, you're; a. a socialist, b. a communist, c. a fascist or d. a traitor.
You know, there have been a couple of threads recently about how stupid Americans are, and having worked in sales for most of my adult life and having come into contact with the public on a daily basis, I'm sorry to say that I agree with the assessment. Then it dawned on me. The neo-cons count on the general stupidity of the American public to foist their agendas onto them.
And the myths that they get these dumbasses to buy into... "The Liberal Media". How they can say it with a straight face amazes me! As my conservative fellow posters are only too gleeful to point out time and time again, Fox News dominates television news by a far shot. And journalists from ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, etc.? Most make seven-figure salaries and in a poll were shown to be for the most part at least fiscally conservative. Radio? That's not even open for debate. The radio airwaves are crowded with neo-con hacks like Limbaugh, Beck, O'Reilly and Hannity. Print news is dead so it doesn't matter if it's liberal or not - nobody reads it any more, and the internet has Matt Drudge (And again, Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter et. al.).
So it doesn't suprise me to find all of the Birthers and Teabaggers (lol - gotta love that nickname), and Town-Hallers out there spewing the dogma that the neo-cons spoon feed them.
And I love it when someone here says "Why does Limbaugh bother you 'liberals' so much? he is just an entertainer" Excuse me? He's an entertainer that has been crowned by many of the conservatives, and not all of them neo-cons, as "The voice of the republican party"!!
So understand; I'm not here to excoriate all conservatives - hell, some of my best friends are negr... uh, I mean republicans (lol). I enjoy listening to Joe Scarborough's conservative viewpoints because they are generally based on facts and not hysterics; I admired William F. Buckley's intellect, I consider Bob Dole one of the finest republican senators of his time, and I admired John McCain until he sold out to the religious right during the 2008 campaign. And I don't beieve Bill O'Reilly is as conservative as he pretends to be.
But when I see some dim-witted boob who can't shove an adjective against a noun or who thinks a gerund is what Jerry Penacoli shoved up his ass spouting neo-con bullshit, I gotta rant, man!
-- Modified on 10/8/2009 9:40:42 PM
You over use and misuse the term neo-conservative. No way is Limbaugh or Beck part of that ideology. Neo-cons are just a bunch of elitists that would be content pretending to be liberals if they could be a 1950’s liberal. They like big government and quite frankly I think what drives them is simply being in charge. Ronald Reagan definitely was not cut from that cloth. But the early neocons did like Nixon I think. If it weren’t for their apparent passion for war and the anger that foments today’s liberals the two would probably get along together fairly well.
When liberal wasn’t a dirty word, the liberals weren’t nearly so liberal, LOL. Even the moderate libs today feel they must cater to the fringe, similar to how most of the GOP caters to the more extreme social conservatives.
I think you are more conservative than you want to admit. The right of center politicians have just pissed you off over the years that you don’t feel welcome even standing in the middle on occasion.
I hate the term tea baggers. It’s an MSNBC concoction. The town-hallers and 9/12ers are mostly frightened and with good reason. Yes there is some incivility and worse. But the vast majority are people that have never been politically active before and do not include themselves in the aforementioned group.
BTW, Fox only kills in the CABLE ratings. The network’s still have far more viewers of their 6PM news shows than FOX.