Neoconservatism

[Russell Nash]

And Neo-con is a meaningless word ignorantly used by the many Neo-dems who, in their neonatal extrusion from their sequestered world, suddenly realized there are other viewpoints out there. Next time, tell me about the movie instead of ruining your credibility by repeating the neo-talking points contained within a narrow band of neo-aspersions.

Neocon–short for Neoconservative–is a meaningless word used by the people who founded and/or are currently part of the movement. The American Enterprise Institute is a conservative think tank considered the center of Neoconservatism. Fellows of the Institute include Lynne V. Cheney–Dick's wife–, Newt Gingrich–former Republican Speaker of the House–, and Fred Thompson–Republican canidate for president.

A quick Google search of the website brings up 272 uses of the term Neocon including a page about the book The Neocon Reader with a link to Amazon.

The Institute's website states that the Institute is proud of the number of Neocons in the White House.

The Institute was also one of the earliest and most vocal proponents of the war and only earlier this year stopped vocally calling for the invasion of Iran.

[torchape]

I never heard the word "neocon" until after Bush's first election win. The reason I consider "neocon" as a meaningless word is that conservatives aren't new; there is no movement among the majority of those who call themselves conservatives. That is just my opinion based on nothing but impressions. I checked this morning for the origin of neocon and it turns out, according to article called "The Neocon Slur" (Dec 3, 2003) at Dean's World website http://www.deanesmay.com/archives/005616.html, "neocon" began as a slur directed at some in the 1970s who defected from left-wing attitudes and began to accept more conservative ideas. I don't know why some have adopted "neocon" as a descriptive term for all conservatives. I'd like to see a third party climb from the present political fire and straddle the middle. Polarization has left many of us wondering why we are beginning to feel alienated.

[Russell Nash]

I never heard the word "neocon" until after Bush's first election win. The reason I consider "neocon" as a meaningless word is that conservatives aren't new; there is no movement among the majority of those who call themselves conservatives. That is just my opinion based on nothing but impressions. I checked this morning for the origin of neocon and it turns out, according to article called "The Neocon Slur" (Dec 3, 2003) at Dean's World website http://www.deanesmay.com/archives/005616.html, "neocon" began as a slur directed at some in the 1970s who defected from left-wing attitudes and began to accept more conservative ideas. I don't know why some have adopted "neocon" as a descriptive term for all conservatives. I'd like to see a third party climb from the present political fire and straddle the middle. Polarization has left many of us wondering why we are beginning to feel alienated.

It's not used to mean all conservatives. It is now used to talk about the people who follow the ideas of the American Enterprise Institute. These aren't traditional conservatives, but they are the conservatives represented by this Bush White House. Ironically they consider the first Bush White House to have been too liberal.

The Liberal-Conservative Scale goes from Hippy to Liberal to Moderate Liberal to Moderate to Moderate Conservative to Conservative to Neocon.

You're not a Neocon unless you're a Gay bashing, Democracy exporting through force, Intelligent Design pushing, Deficit Spending, Prayer in School, Anti-Stem Cell Research Conservative.

This was the problem with everyone who didn't support the president being aggressively labeled "Liberal". The president was so far to one side that evereybody except the biggest Neocon was getting painted with the same Liberal brush.

The famous examination of NPR for liberal bias was subject to this. An ex-chief fundraiser for the Republican Party listened to three shows on NPR for over a month. Anyone who said a single thing critisizing the president was counted as liberal. This included Sen. John McCain Republican of Arizona, Representive Doug Bereuter Republican of Nebraska, and Gen. Anthony Zinni Special Envoy to Isreal and Palestine under G.W.Bush.

[lowky]

I'd like to see a third party climb from the present political fire and straddle the middle. Polarization has left many of us wondering why we are beginning to feel alienated.

But the problem lies in the fact that due to Corporate lobbying and Interests being served by both parties, that America has basically become a 1 party system masquerading as a two party system.  There should be laws against former politicians becoming lobbyists, as they just already know too many people in power and too many of those people either a)respond via cronyism or b) feel they owe the lobbyists favors, for political favors done in the past.  There is a reason Americans voted for term limits, and with politicians becoming lobbyists, term limits have become a moot point.  I say we need to go over the entire constitution, and essentially return it to the bill of rights, with a few changes, such as elimination of slavery, women's sufferrage, etc.  I think if people like Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin were alive today, they would be horrified at what has become of their ideals and/or talking revolution as much as they did in 1776.

To quote Jello Biafra: I pledge alleigance to the flag of the United Snakes of America, One nation under oil with liberty and justice for all who can afford it.  I love my country but I hate what it has become.
[edit] [/rant] Okay sorry about that, can we get back to discussing how much ass this movie kicked now?  I still need to go see it again at an Imax though. [/edit]

[Swamp]

I am glad this topic was moved to its own thread.

First of all, I agree that too much labeling and grouping is done by both sides.

Russell, I am intrigued by the following definition and would like to make a few comments/questions:

You're not a Neocon unless you're a Gay bashing, Democracy exporting through force, Intelligent Design pushing, Deficit Spending, Prayer in School, Anti-Stem Cell Research Conservative.

1) By deficit spending, do you mean tax cuts?  The answer to overcoming the deficit is not more taxes, but responsible spending, which we will never get from our government, democrat or republican.  Our government may be many things, but efficient is not one of them.  I am in favor of a flat tax, or even better a consumption tax (with exception of basics like food etc.)  Of course even these can be politicized, but anything is better than our current tax system.  If you didn’t mean tax cuts, please elaborate.

2)  I am not that familiar with all that goes with “Intelligent Design”, but I believe in God, and that God created us, the world, and the universe.  Does that make me a “Neocon”?  Is that an extreme position nowadays?

3) What is considered gay-bashing?  Does that mean simply not believing that homosexuality is morally right?  Because I feel that as soon as I say that, I am cast as a bigot, a hate-monger, a homo-phobe, and a gay-basher.  If I treat a homosexual person with respect, no more or less that anyone else, and do not discriminate against them professionally or personally, why does my moral stance on the practice cast me in this hateful image.  If I do not have the same beliefs as someone of a different religion, does that mean I am hateful of people in that religion?  Of course not.  It’s the same thing as far as I’m concerned.  What I do hate is being grouped with the same scum that do discriminate, threaten, or physically hurt people because of their sexual orientation.

4)  I don’t think anyone is against the benefits of stem cell research.  The dispute lies in the use of aborted fetus’s (SP?), and thus abortion itself.  Abortion is a standard conservative/liberal debate topic; and I do not see having an anti-abortion opinion as being extreme.  However, if it moves beyond the debate and becomes an attack on someone who has had an abortion or bombing an abortion clinic then it moves even beyond neoconservatism and becomes terrorism.

[SFEley]

3) What is considered gay-bashing?  Does that mean simply not believing that homosexuality is morally right?  Because I feel that as soon as I say that, I am cast as a bigot, a hate-monger, a homo-phobe, and a gay-basher.  If I treat a homosexual person with respect, no more or less that anyone else, and do not discriminate against them professionally or personally, why does my moral stance on the practice cast me in this hateful image.

Disclaimer, the below is entirely my opinion, etc. etc.

I can respect what you say here.  To me this is a good example of the distinction I draw in my own head between "weakly unethical" and "strongly unethical."

"Weakly unethical" means that I believe something is a bad idea, but I don't feel it's proper for me to go about policing others.  Copyright violation is an example for me.  I generally don't copy things illegally; when I do, which is only for properties that I can't obtain through reasonable legal means, I don't kid myself about it.  I recognize that what I'm doing is unethical.  I disapprove of broad piracy, and occasionally I speak out against it, but I don't feel it's my moral duty to call the FBI on everyone I know who does it.

Owning a Hummer H2 is a weakly unethical act in my personal compass.  I'm not going to try to ban them, but if you own one I'm likely to judge that you're an asshole.  Most drug use is weakly unethical.  Rude behavior in general is weakly unethical.  Abortion, to me, is weakly unethical in most cases.  In particular I would be extremely upset if I was responsible for someone's pregnancy and she wanted to have it terminated.  I would do anything I possibly could to persuade her otherwise; but I wouldn't attempt to place my decision above hers -- neither personally nor through legislation.

"Strongly unethical" means that not only do I think it's a bad idea for me, if you're doing it I consider it a moral duty to stop you.  This is a much more limited set.  Most of the "classic" crimes are strongly unethical: murder, assault, robbery, etc.  Nonconsensual sex of any form, of course.  I could go on, but not for long.  Most things that leave a clear and direct victim other than the perpetrator (not theoretical damage, not damage to "society," and I really don't want to hash out the whole fetus thing right here) are strongly unethical.  Anything else is weakly unethical at best -- again, in my own morality.


It sounds to me like, in your morality, homosexuality is weakly unethical.  That's cool.  I disagree with you, and under certain circumstances I might even take up the issue verbally (I won't in this thread) but I will not challenge your freedom to your own opinions.  I don't disrespect you as a person just because you think different things are bad than I do.  I'm not even weakly opposed to your position.  >8->

I do have a problem with people who think homosexuality is strongly unethical, that it's a moral duty to stop others from engaging in it.  I am weakly opposed to them when they try to enact political positions on these grounds (and I think it's a really stupid thing to be spending serious time on); I am strongly opposed to them when they actively impede other people's liberty or when they engage in hate crimes.

The general problem I have with many conservatives -- certainly not all -- is that their personal compass of "strongly unethical" is far too broad, and they seem to think government is a proper platform for controlling other people's behavior.  I disagree strongly with this and think it's a very unhealthy prevailing attitude.

Of course I also have problems with many liberals, and there are cases where liberals have overbroad ideas of "strongly unethical" too.  But right now the conservatives have me more worried.  (Perhaps when the liberals start to gain traction and competence, they'll worry me too.)  >8->

[wakela]

Steve, that's a very enlightened viewpoint.  I think the problem is that most conservatives and liberals, basically anyone in the media, have the settings on Strongly Unethical for everything. 

Disclaimer: I am not a Bush fan, a conservative, or a Republican.
But I do think the above often get treated unfairly in the media.

Deficit Spending:
http://www.uuforum.org/deficit.htm
True that the greatest surplus was under Clinton, and the greatest deficit was under Bush II, but Clinton presided over the largest economic boom in US history, and Bush got the dot com bust and 9/11.  According to this chart the road to surplus started under Bush I and ended under Clinton.  Also, Bush's second term has been characterized by a sharp decrease in the deficit.  You could argue that the upswing was the result of Bush I policies, and the downturn the result of Clinton's.   But I have a feeling they are due more to economic fluctuations that have little to do with whoever is president. 

Intelligent Design:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/02/AR2005080201686.html
Bush said that he was in favor of both ID and Evolution being taught, but that it was up to the school districts, not the federal government to decide.  Basically he was asked what he thought of the issue, gave an honest answer, and then said it wasn't up to him, anyway.  Also, the judge that rejected the teaching of ID in public schools in Pennsylvania was a Bush appointee.

Stem Cell Research:
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/08/09/stem.cell.bush/index.html
As Kmmrlatham (?) said, not many people are against stem cell research.  Bush is against using federal money to fund stem cell research using new lines of stem cells.   I'm not against blue eyes, but I'm against blue-eyed people getting federal money.  Since many Americans are anti-abortion and would object to aborted foetuses used for scientific purposes, it isn't unreasonable that their tax money not be used for such research.  Private companies can use all the aborted foetuses they want. Of course, many Americans are against the war in Iraq, too, and Bush has no problem spending their money.

The above doesn't reflect how I feel about these things.  I just think that it's important that people argue the facts rather than what they feel the facts are.  With everyone's meter pinned Strongly Unethical, people often don't realize that the issues are usually more subtle.  Something I realized as I was writing this is that Bush seems to feel that stem cell research on aborted foetuses and the teaching of intelligent design are weakly unethical.  I didn't expect that coming from him.

[wakela]

You're not a Neocon unless you're a Gay bashing, Democracy exporting through force, Intelligent Design pushing, Deficit Spending, Prayer in School, Anti-Stem Cell Research Conservative.

Something that Russel hit on here is that to be a good Neo-con, Repulican, Democrat, whatever, is that there are several completely unreleated issues that you need to agree on.  What if I'm in favor of the aggressive spreading of democracy, but also in favor of gay marriage?  What if I want lower taxes, but less influence by religious groups? 

[torchape]

Reading all of these posts has me waffling to choose which ones to quote. I tend to see extremes on one side or the other with no headway made. We don’t see the back-and-forth in Washington; we only seem to hear the differences. I am very glad to see these posts and they only strengthen my ideas that most of us are closer in our day to day beliefs than the disparate impressions have led me to think. What I mostly object to is the vilification of people and ideas that differ from the dominant voice. For instance, Conyers is the lead attacker going after the subpoenas for Bush’s advisors. He is also the one who said that if Clinton’s impeachment proceeded, it would “decapitate the presidency.” I absolutely detest that sort of thing.

I am ambivalent about what anybody chooses to do as long as it is not harmful to people. I don’t really care is someone is gay, green, or feels like walking on their hands. But I don’t want to be told I am somehow bigoted, racist, “homophobic,” misogynistic, environmentally fatalistic, and a member of the Christian Right solely because I happen to be a white male conservative Republican.

Many of the comments in this thread follow closely with what I believe. Thanks for all the insight. It’s too late to comment on more.

Steve, thanks for the new thread and for your comments. You started with stating it was your opinion. Today on the radio, I heard a caller tell one of the hosts that the host “was extremely biased with his opinion.” I laughed heartily.



Pat Smythe

[torchape]

Something that Russel hit on here is that to be a good Neo-con, Repulican, Democrat, whatever, is that there are several completely unreleated issues that you need to agree on.  What if I'm in favor of the aggressive spreading of democracy, but also in favor of gay marriage?  What if I want lower taxes, but less influence by religious groups? 

That is how I know I am right of center. The right-wing fringe bothers me almost as much as the left-wing fringe.

[Swamp]

I disagree with you, and under certain circumstances I might even take up the issue verbally (I won't in this thread) but I will not challenge your freedom to your own opinions.  I don't disrespect you as a person just because you think different things are bad than I do. 

Thank you, Steve.  I appreciate that.  I think if we all had that attitude, we could get things done in this country.  It's okay to disagree; it's okay to debate; but when we start labeling and being disrespectful, a gulf is formed that is difficult to overcome.

"Weakly unethical" means that I believe something is a bad idea, but I don't feel it's proper for me to go about policing others
...
It sounds to me like, in your morality, homosexuality is weakly unethical.

I think I can mostly agree with that.  I guess, in my mind, I draw a line between my personal opinions about homosexuality and the way that I regard or treat a person who is a homosexual.  I have no right to treat somebody badly or judge their skill, capability, likeability, and value as a person, solely because of their sexual preferences.

To go Hollywood for a minute, I have had a person tell me, "I just can't watch that Ellen DeGeneres Show.  She's a lesbian."  I just laughed at them.  What a ludicrous idea!  She is every funny and entertaining person, and seems to be very nice.  I'm not going to change my opinion of her just because she is a lesbian!

On the other hand, I don't care to watch Rosie O'Donnell.  If I say that, people might accuse me, saying, "Oh,you just don't like her because she is a lesbian."  My response would be: "No, I don't like her because she is obnoxious."

I probably went too pop culture to make a serious point, but I guess what I'm trying to say is that while I feel I have right to my personal opinion, I do not let it effect my treatment of an individual.  I try to think of it as what I would do if one of my children told me they were gay.  Would I stop loving them?  Of course not.

[Russell Nash]

You're not a Neocon unless you're a Gay bashing, Democracy exporting through force, Intelligent Design pushing, Deficit Spending, Prayer in School, Anti-Stem Cell Research Conservative.

1) By deficit spending, do you mean tax cuts? The answer to overcoming the deficit is not more taxes, but responsible spending, which we will never get from our government, democrat or republican.

Deficit spending is spending more than you get in. Spending into a deficit. Spending less than you get in is possible. If you look at the history of the national debt (U.S.Treasury site, they recently redid it and it is far harder to use, sorry), you will see that we had the debt essentially paid off in 1960. (The space race shot it to h**l.) This included all of the debt from WWII and rebuilding Europe.(The Marshall plan wasn't exactly cheap)

More recently if you look at the dates Jan 1999-Jan 2001, you see the debt in the last two years of the Clinton administration went up 46 Billion dollars. Sounds like a lot, but from Jan.2005-Jan 2007 the debt went up 1.89 Trillion dollars. Last two years of Bush I (Sept 1990-Sept 1992) the debt went up 831 Billion dollars. Last two years of Reagan (sept 1986-Sept 1988) the debt went up 477 Billion. That was more than a 20% increase in two years. These numbers don't even take into account inflation(these are all unadjusted numbers) or the fact that each subsequent administration had to deal with the debt left behind by the previous one.

Conservatives always believed in a balanced budget. This was where Bush really started losing the support of Moderate conservatives.

2)  I am not that familiar with all that goes with “Intelligent Design”, but I believe in God, and that God created us, the world, and the universe.

No, that's the fallacy. ID says that Evolution is wrong. Everything that exists only exists because God made it just that way.

Evolution describes a system, but doesn't(can't) say where/who the system comes from.

ID says, for example, that God (ID says some unknown designer) redesigned every eyeball for every different species. So a dogs eyes didn't evolve to be good in low light, because wolves live in the woods, but because God made their eyes to be that way.

ID is creationism rebadged. God created the world in 6 days then took a break and the world is only about 10,000 years old. All evidence to the contrary was planted by God to look that way. Oh yeah, and humans didn't evolve from apes, but were set down here all hairless and standing upright.

3) What is considered gay-bashing?  Does that mean simply not believing that homosexuality is morally right?

If homosexuality repulses you, so what. I have gay friends (two of the god parents for my kids), but we have an unspoken rule. They don't tell me how good it is for them and we don't tell them the things we "breeders" do.

Gay Bashing is being outwardly hateful or discriminating. It's saying because they are the way they are, they don't deserve the rights of other Americans. Pretty much it's just like any other kind of discrimination.

Basically every arguement against gays (including the religious ones) were used to discriminate against women and blacks.

4)  I don’t think anyone is against the benefits of stem cell research.  The dispute lies in the use of aborted fetus’s (SP?), and thus abortion itself.

Once again, the idea is to not let all of the information get out or to mislabel it. Stem cell research is currently being done not on fetuses that were aborted, but on blastisuses(sp?) created in petri dishes. The difference being  a fetus is a couple of months old and was in a woman, but a blastisus(sp?) was never in a woman and is only eight cells. Also the research uses these stem cells because they are the most versital. The idea is to move beyond these stem cells as the scientists learn how they work. It's kind of like how foundries used charcoal until they figured out how to use coal until they figured out how to use gas.

Deficit Spending:
http://www.uuforum.org/deficit.htm
True that the greatest surplus was under Clinton, and the greatest deficit was under Bush II, but Clinton presided over the largest economic boom in US history, and Bush got the dot com bust and 9/11.  According to this chart the road to surplus started under Bush I and ended under Clinton.  Also, Bush's second term has been characterized by a sharp decrease in the deficit.  You could argue that the upswing was the result of Bush I policies, and the downturn the result of Clinton's.   But I have a feeling they are due more to economic fluctuations that have little to do with whoever is president. 

The blue areas under BushI just show that in the last couple of years the deficit wasn't as bad as the years before. You forget that Clinton was the first president since FDR (I think) to shut down the government because he thought the budget was too big, and he did it twice.

The dot com bust was in 2000. The stock market had recovered before the end of the year. Officially the recession Bush said he inherited started in early 2001. The stock market recovered after 9/11 by February. Forbes magazine (a conservative magazine if there ever was one) called Clinton the best president for the economy in the last century.

The Republicans always say the president has nothing to do with the economy when you talk about Clinton. However everytime the smallest indicator moves up now, it's all because of Bush's leadership.

For instance, Conyers is the lead attacker going after the subpoenas for Bush’s advisors. He is also the one who said that if Clinton’s impeachment proceeded, it would “decapitate the presidency.” I absolutely detest that sort of thing.

Lots of Clintons advisers testified on all sorts of things under oath and with transcripts. Conyers point was that Clinton was being impeached for something totally unrelated to the investigation. The Star Commission was supposed to be investigating the Whitewater investment deal and all they got was that Clinton will have sex with any chick that flashes her thong.

This turned out to be far longer than planned. Sorry I got going. I didn't really go back and proofread this, so if something seems really rude (or whatever), it's probably because my hands couldn't keep up with my brain.

[Swamp]

If homosexuality repulses you, so what.

Repulsion is not a term that I would use, and I have not used anything like it in my comments.  That is a huge misinterpretation of what I have said.  You said that you didn't proofread, so I just wanted to point this out.

The Republicans always say the president has nothing to do with the economy when you talk about Clinton. However everytime the smallest indicator moves up now, it's all because of Bush's leadership.

LOL.  You've noticed that too, huh.  I always laugh if I hear Hannity or Limbaugh change their tune depending on who they are talking about.  Of course a Democrat would never provide inconsisteant analysis to favor their party.

I am no economy expert, but my honest opinion is that the economy is based upon the the population's perception of the economy.  If we think the economy is doing well, it tends to do well.  If we think it is in the crapper it tends to drop.  I know there are external forces and events, and the President does factor in on some level, but I believe it to be very small.

[ClintMemo]

I think I may have posted tis idea somewhere else, but I'll do it again, anyway.
One problem in the US is that politicians have everyone convinced that all issues have a "left" and "right" POV and that everyone is either left, right or somewhere in between.  That just isn't true.  A person can have very leftist opinions on one topic and very rightist opinions on another.

On other topics...
"Noecons" have very little to do with conservatism.  Conservatives believe in limited government, responsible fiscal policy and individual rights.  Neocons apparently believe in running huge deficits and taking the rights away from people if it gets in the way of keeping themselves in power.  BTW, W's gov't is the biggest in the history of the US, so what dos that say about limited government.

Abortion
Now matter where you stand on abortion, let me point out one idea - abortion was the greatest red herring political idea invented in the last 50 years. Everyone had an opinion. Everyone would defend it. No one ever changed their mind about it.  Bring it up, stand back and watch people fight about it.  That's what politicians have been doing for at least 35 years - using it to keep people's minds off other topics. Topics that politicians might not want us to think too hard about. Things that we might change to their detriment. Things like responsible fiscal policy, or national health care, or the environment, or public education or campaign finance reform or fixing social security.  A few years ago, abortion began to get stale as a red herring topic, so they invented a new one. It's called Gay Marriage.  While everyone was busy arguing about gay marriage, W started a war, ran the biggest deficits in the history of the world, started spying on his own people and gave himself the power to toss anyone he wants to in jail forever without even charging them with anything.
(and if saying that gets me labeled as an "enemy combatant" you'll know why I stopped posting)

Deficits.
The deficit numbers the gov't publish are bogus for two reasons.  1) They don't include the money being spent on the war on terror.  Those are supplemental (i.e. not part of the budget) funds.  2) They don't reflect that fact that he gov't owes tons of money to the social security administration. That's like taking out a second mortgage and not counting it as debt. This isn't a new trick.  Both parties have been pulling this stunt for a couple of decades now.

Term limits.
Term limits are a way of getting rid of other people's congressman.  People don't want term limits to get rid of their own congressman.  They can already do that by voting for someone else. They just don't.  I live in Kentucky, so I have no way of getting rid of pompous idiots like Ted Kennedy or that "series of tubes" idiot Ted Stevens.  But I can vote against the pompous idiot that is Mitch McConnell and I do every chance I get.  Unfortunately, I don't have enough people on my side.   I would guess that influencing a newbie in congress is cheaper than an old pro, but that's just a theory.  (And if you think congress is corrupt, look up "operation boptrot". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Boptrot). I think term limits is not hte way to fix the problem.  The way to fix the problem is with campaign finance reform - real reform.  Here's my version: Every nickel spent on a campaign has to be accounted for. Every service has to be paid for (no volunteers). Every donor has to be identified. The maximum amount you can spend on a campaign is fixed.   Then we would know is financing these people and who can actually manage money.

ID
Originally, and this was about 20 years ago, the idea of "Intelligent Design" was complimentary to evolution.  Why are things evolving? Because God is causing it to happen.  I remember reading about the idea in college.  It was way to reconcile science and religion.  Creationists simple stole the term.    (I've always laughed at the idea that God sprinkled fossils around in order to fool non-believers.  "So is God a trickster a liar, or a tempter?  I'm confused.")

And a few random ideas...

Maybe instead of a two party system, we should have a no party system. Everyone has to run as an individual.

I also think ballots should have "none of the above" as a choice. If "none of the above" wins, then there is a new election and candidates beaten by "none of the above" are not allowed to run.  That would clean up politics pretty fast.

[Russell Nash]

If homosexuality repulses you, so what.

Repulsion is not a term that I would use, and I have not used anything like it in my comments.  That is a huge misinterpretation of what I have said.  You said that you didn't proofread, so I just wanted to point this out.

My idea was, it doesn't matter how you feel about it as long as you don't discriminate. "It could go as far as repulsion" was my idea.

[FNH]

I do have a problem with people who think homosexuality is strongly unethical, that it's a moral duty to stop others from engaging in it.  I am weakly opposed to them when they try to enact political positions on these grounds (and I think it's a really stupid thing to be spending serious time on); I am strongly opposed to them when they actively impede other people's liberty or when they engage in hate crimes.

This is where I see problems.  The evils committed by religious organisations are always when they try to enforce belief.  This is done by all religious extremes.  The problem is when people fall into the mindset of thinking they can MAKE people believe.

You cant MAKE people believe, the Bible even says that.  Only by being nice, and with discussion can you win converts, not by bashing them on the head.  Bash someone on the head, and they'll say anything you want, but it wont MAKE them believe.  If they dont believe you've gained nothing.

That said democracy is about subjugating the minority's to majority opinion so I have no problems with religious groups or non religious groups enacting their democratic rights.

Here's a scary thought.  Q. How do you get-on in an extremist society?   A. By being more extreme.

[Swamp]

If homosexuality repulses you, so what.

Repulsion is not a term that I would use, and I have not used anything like it in my comments.  That is a huge misinterpretation of what I have said.  You said that you didn't proofread, so I just wanted to point this out.

My idea was, it doesn't matter how you feel about it as long as you don't discriminate. "It could go as far as repulsion" was my idea.

That's cool.  Thanks for the clarification.

[wakela]

I think politically speaking, the only homosexuality issue on the table with whether same sex marriages should be allowed.  Both Bush and Kerry agree on this one, so I don't think it's a neocon-only issue.

A few years ago, abortion began to get stale as a red herring topic, so they invented a new one. It's called Gay Marriage.  While everyone was busy arguing about gay marriage, W started a war, ran the biggest deficits in the history of the world, started spying on his own people and gave himself the power to toss anyone he wants to in jail forever without even charging them with anything.

The media makes the conversation topics, not the politicians.  And all those things that Bush got away with were hardly ignored.  They generated and continue to generate a lot of media coverage. 

[Russell Nash]

That said democracy is about subjugating the minority's to majority opinion so I have no problems with religious groups or non religious groups enacting their democratic rights.

Does that mean it's OK to try to get there religious beliefs turned into law even when the majority do not belong to that religion?

[ClintMemo]

I think politically speaking, the only homosexuality issue on the table with whether same sex marriages should be allowed.  Both Bush and Kerry agree on this one, so I don't think it's a neocon-only issue.

The specifics of who stands where on the position is irrelevant in its usefulness as a red-herring topic.  All that matters is whether the public at large will get fired up about it and stop paying attention to other things. Its the bright shiny object the magician waves to keep you from noticing what he's doing with his other hand.

A few years ago, abortion began to get stale as a red herring topic, so they invented a new one. It's called Gay Marriage.  While everyone was busy arguing about gay marriage, W started a war, ran the biggest deficits in the history of the world, started spying on his own people and gave himself the power to toss anyone he wants to in jail forever without even charging them with anything.

The media makes the conversation topics, not the politicians.  And all those things that Bush got away with were hardly ignored.  They generated and continue to generate a lot of media coverage. 

The media reports what politicians do and say.  Yes, there is obviously some picking and choosing going on but the press very often gets manipulated into covering what politicians want covered.   Of course, other times its easy to keep people distracted, especially when so many of them are more interested in what professional celebrities are doing than what the national leaders are doing.

The mainstream press largely glossed over the things Bush has gotten away with. The only time I ever see any mainstream press stories about these topics are after the fact and generally only after underground press (i.e. web sites and blogs) rage about them for months on end.

[ClintMemo]

The media makes the conversation topics, not the politicians.

and in the interest of fair play, here is a great example of what you said...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eat-the-press/2007/03/25/time-joins-n_e_44218.html

[lowky]

Reading all of these posts has me waffling to choose which ones to quote. I tend to see extremes on one side or the other with no headway made. We don’t see the back-and-forth in Washington; we only seem to hear the differences. I am very glad to see these posts and they only strengthen my ideas that most of us are closer in our day to day beliefs than the disparate impressions have led me to think. What I mostly object to is the vilification of people and ideas that differ from the dominant voice. For instance, Conyers is the lead attacker going after the subpoenas for Bush’s advisors. He is also the one who said that if Clinton’s impeachment proceeded, it would “decapitate the presidency.” I absolutely detest that sort of thing.

 
Conyers is a hypocrite, as are most politicians.  What about the fact that has come to light recently from/about Newt Gingrich, that he was having an affair when going after Clinton for the same thing.  I will use Steve's moral compass here.  Clinton having an affair weakly unethical.  The wrongful firing of people because they disagreed with current administration, the "outing" of an undercover CIA agent, the stripping of our civil liberties that has occured under Bush II, are all strongly unethical and much more deserving of impeachment than Clinton was.  If Clinton deserved to be impeached for that, then I bet most of our presidents deserved to be impeached.  It's the fact that the media seems to only want to report scandals and sensationalism anymore.  We all know it happened under Kennedy, and yet he is considered one of this country's great leaders. 

I am ambivalent about what anybody chooses to do as long as it is not harmful to people. I don’t really care is someone is gay, green, or feels like walking on their hands. But I don’t want to be told I am somehow bigoted, racist, “homophobic,” misogynistic, environmentally fatalistic, and a member of the Christian Right solely because I happen to be a white male conservative Republican.

 
Unfortunately it is the loudest members of a group that get reported on, and make the impression on the public.  I am sure most of the country falls at Middle of the road more or less, but it's the party extremes that are the vocal majority.  If the bigoted racist "homophobic", misogynistic, enviornmentally fatalistic, members of the Christian Right, could be silenced in favor of a more middle stance, people wouldn't lump all republicans into those categories.  It's guilt by association, not by actual guilt, nor at least in my eyes is it meant as a personal attack against you, so much as the vocal majority.

[Swamp]

The wrongful firing of people because they disagreed with current administration, the "outing" of an undercover CIA agent,

Talk about your red herring issues. 

The first issue is a political fact of any administration for the types of jobs in question--presidential appointees.  Nobody complained when Rumsfeld was "fired".

The second was thoroughly investigated and the only resulting conviction had nothing to do with the naming of a non-covert agent.

Strongly unethical?  Are you sure about that?

You also mentioned "the stripping of our civil liberties".  Now, while I feel that is an exaggeration, this is something I feel comfortable with everyone keeping on eye on and questioning.  There needs to be careful checking and watching over these things, however, without politically motivated accusations.

That's the thing.  If the Democrats and Republicans want any kind of credibility on fighting for the things they feel are most important, then they have to stop squabbling in earnest over these meaningless things like the above two examples.  Do they want to solve problems, or just sling some more mud?  Unfortunately, I think I know the answer.

As far as Clinton, I still have mixed feelings about his impeachment.  To set the record strait, Clinton was not prosecuted for having an affair, but for lying under oath about an affair.  That being the truth, there did seem to be a witch hunt mentality (much like we see now).  It seems to be a pattern now that if a party can't beat the president at the polls, especially for a second term, the only goal for the opposition, Republicans and Democrats, is to bring accusations of scandal until the next elections.

[lowky]

The wrongful firing of people because they disagreed with current administration, the "outing" of an undercover CIA agent,

Talk about your red herring issues. 

The first issue is a political fact of any administration for the types of jobs in question--presidential appointees.  Nobody complained when Rumsfeld was "fired".

Yes they are presidential appointees, however it is not normal for them to be removed mid term.  It is very common for them to be removed during the start of a president's term.  And while you may think Rumsfeld was fired, he resigned.

The second was thoroughly investigated and the only resulting conviction had nothing to do with the naming of a non-covert agent.

Of the investigation, why was it that Dick Cheny didn't have to testify etc.  Say what you will, my opinion is still that Cheny was responsible, and the conviction that came about, again was only about purgery not the initial allegation.

Strongly unethical?  Are you sure about that?

Well since ethics are opinions not facts, Yes.

You also mentioned "the stripping of our civil liberties".  Now, while I feel that is an exaggeration, this is something I feel comfortable with everyone keeping on eye on and questioning.  There needs to be careful checking and watching over these things, however, without politically motivated accusations.

You don't believe that the government having access to every phone number and length of the call you have made since 9/11 is not subject to abuse?  That the "security" measures in place for travel through U.S. Airports amount to anything other than a farcical show for the wanting to be duped masses, actually doing nothing to secure anything? 

That's the thing.  If the Democrats and Republicans want any kind of credibility on fighting for the things they feel are most important, then they have to stop squabbling in earnest over these meaningless things like the above two examples.  Do they want to solve problems, or just sling some more mud?  Unfortunately, I think I know the answer. 

I can't argue with that.  Both parties are guilty of mud slinging.

As far as Clinton, I still have mixed feelings about his impeachment.  To set the record strait, Clinton was not prosecuted for having an affair, but for lying under oath about an affair.  That being the truth, there did seem to be a witch hunt mentality (much like we see now).  It seems to be a pattern now that if a party can't beat the president at the polls, especially for a second term, the only goal for the opposition, Republicans and Democrats, is to bring accusations of scandal until the next elections.

While Clinton's impeachment trial was about purgory, that he was questioned under oath about an affair is ridiculous.  It shouldn't have been anyone's business except his, his wife's and the party(ies) he had an affair with. 

[Heradel]

The first issue is a political fact of any administration for the types of jobs in question--presidential appointees.  Nobody complained when Rumsfeld was "fired".

As a semi-but-not-really-recovering Washingtonian, no one is actually disputing the ability of the president to fire them. They're questioning the motives of the people who decided to fire them, as an en-mass firing (while a very common slash nearly-automatic event at the beginning of a president's term) is incredibly rare and in many ways unprecedented event three fourths of the way through the term of a President. Throw in hints of political motives for some of the firings (jeopardizing historical non-politicization of the US District Attorneys), the calls to one of the Attorneys from a Congressman and Senator (that act in and of itself in violation of ethics rules in the House and Senate), well, you end up with a somewhat foul-smelling situation that the newly Democratic Congress decided to look into. And as they do, the situation starts looking worse and worse. The Executive branch is unused to the Congress challenging it's decisions or really looking into them, and we can see in their reaction to this —gate that they aren't ready to deal with it.

It's legal for him to fire all of them. But if it was for purely political motives in some of the cases... it's a bad precedent to set.

The second was thoroughly investigated and the only resulting conviction had nothing to do with the naming of a non-covert agent.

She had been on several overseas missions in the two years prior to her outing, the covert nature of those missions was confirmed by her testimony before congress (here, in real media format). At the very least, the knowledge of her being a CIA operative was not common knowledge and though the CIA is unable to comment due to the nature of their operations, it was hinted that it may have caused some damage to certain elements of their information gathering. Which we won't know for certain until 2060-2070 when the documents are unclassified.

As to others' guilt in the leak... well, the common wisdom around the Hill is that Fitzgerald wasn't able to build a strong-enough case for conviction and thus did not indict.

That's the thing.  If the Democrats and Republicans want any kind of credibility on fighting for the things they feel are most important, then they have to stop squabbling in earnest over these meaningless things like the above two examples.  Do they want to solve problems, or just sling some more mud?  Unfortunately, I think I know the answer.

The firing of US Attorneys for political reasons isn't unimportant. Especially when emails revealed through the investigation show they're being evaluated by the criteria of being "loyal bushies". And when the Attorney General of the United States says in front of cameras that he hadn't 'seen any memos, sat in any meetings' and is then shown to have sat in an hour-long meeting in November about the firings... well, I start wondering if Occam's Razor points to dishonesty or some sort of viral memory-destroying infection ravaging the Executive branch.