Wounded Veterans and 12-year Old Kids

[Schneibster]

I have a question: what kind of mentality does it take to:
1. Assert that anyone who doesn't support the war must not be a Republican?
2. Tell wounded veterans they are "fake soldiers" if they don't support the war?
3. Attack a 12-year old child because he told the truth?
4. Get busted for soliciting gay sex, after voting against every bill that said anything about gays for a decade, and then stay in the US Senate "for the good of my state?"
5. Veto a bill that costs little and provides much-needed healthcare for small children who can't get it any other way?

These are merely the most recent and heinous of examples; the list goes back many years. The Republican party has lost touch with American values, or at least part of it has. I think it's been taken over by greedy people without principles. I don't think conservatives in this country have a party that represents their values any more. I can't imagine that most conservatives think that it's a good idea to harass a 12-year old kid, nor any of the other things on this list, or any other one like it. I'm a liberal myself, but I have respect for the conservative viewpoint; what I don't respect is what I see happening in this country on a daily basis. This needs to stop. Y'all need to register your disapproval, loudly and continuously, until it does.

I'm pretty disgusted with my party too; they were elected to get one and only one job done, and they aren't doing it. I'm angry, and I've been expressing myself to them. It may affect how I vote. I strongly recommend you do the same thing, because if you don't, they'll keep doing it.

Winning isn't everything. There are principles at stake here. Do the right thing.

[NeoRicen]

Assert that anyone who doesn't support the war must not be a Republican?
Getting told you're not a republican is a bad thing now?

I do strongly agree with your other points though.

[JoeEllison]

I can't imagine that most conservatives think that it's a good idea to harass a 12-year old kid, nor any of the other things on this list, or any other one like it..

I think that they just don't think, they really just don't use reason or rational thinking when it comes to politics.

If you presented any of those things on your list in a politically neutral way, and they would be repulsed by it. If you attributed it to the Democrats, they would somehow be more repulsed and disgusted. But, because it comes from people who they trust and agree with, they accept that it must be fair and just and the obvious thing.

There's a sort of "backwards reasoning" that seems to take place. They start by choosing someone to agree with, and then twist what those people say, and twist their own values as well, in order to come up with a way to keep agreeing with that person, no matter what they say or do. It is a weird sort of sucking up and toadying, combined with an overwhelming sense of superiority in the face of conflicting reality... which explains the connection between that sort of political view and the religious views that tend to go along with it.

[JoeEllison]

Getting told you're not a republican is a bad thing now?

I'm sure it sucks for people who became Republicans for reasons besides what the current party stands for(or, more accurately, doesn't stand for). Imagine being a Republican who stands for basically decent and worthy values... and then imagine that person being called a fraud by people who have betrayed those values.

[Lonewulf]

It seems that being a republican nowadays has more to do with teaching "abstinence only", being pro-war (any war, especially wars on abstract concepts), being "tough on drugs", being anti-abortion, anti-stem cell research, and anti-gay marriage, more than anything else.

And if you're not for any of the above, welcome to having massive pressure put on you by the Republican party to conform to the "status quo".

There's some guy on this forum, "Tokenconservative", and others I've ran into that exemplify this altogether. They make everything about "liberal vs. conservative"; if you don't act like the stereotypical conservative, you're a "liberal". Fun stuff.

Oh, and I can't wait until someone rants about the dominant "liberal media". That's always a hoot.

[Puppycow]

I'm pretty disgusted with my party too; they were elected to get one and only one job done, and they aren't doing it. I'm angry, and I've been expressing myself to them. It may affect how I vote. I strongly recommend you do the same thing, because if you don't, they'll keep doing it.

I think you should be more realistic about how politics works. First of all, not everyone necessarily had exactly the same motivation as you when they cast their vote. Second, party leader can't force everyone to vote one way. The democrats don't even have a real majority in the Senate, unless you consider Leiberman a democrat. It takes a larger shift and preferably the White House to really get anything major done. If the country wanted the war to end sooner, they shouldn't have reelected W in '04.

One silver lining of not getting SCHIP (which about 75% favor) is that it might actually increase the demand for national health care. So it could be a tactical loss but a strategic victory if there is a Democratic tsunami in '08. Just hang in there until the next election. I think it'll be a good one for democrats.

[JoeEllison]

Oh, and I can't wait until someone rants about the dominant "liberal media". That's always a hoot.
Put that right next to how "liberal" the Democrats are.

Really, the only "value" the current crop has is being opposed to things. I think I've figured out why: because their entire philosophy is completely bogus and unworkable and useless, and cannot do anything but fail to produce what they claim it will. Now, most people would blame their philosophy for being full of sour owl poop.

What happens with some people, however, is that they project their own failings on everyone who disagrees with them. The "thinking" is that their unworkable philosophy fails because of "moral failings" within the society... and if only we would all agree with them, and follow their moral code, we would magically get some sort of positive result. Because they see their political opponents as standing in the way of them getting what they want, everyone who disagree with them is a mortal enemy.

[Rika]

Actually, the Republican party post 2004 is hte main reason I now consider myself left of center. I mean, I disliked Kerry, but after seeing what Bush did, I'd vote for him anytime.

[Lonewulf]

Politically, I don't know where I stand. I know that the "family values" espoused by conservatives are utter baloney, but at the same time, I've conflicting ideas. For one, I look at the mistakes of strong government in the past, and I start to dislike the idea of strong government. Then I come to live in Germany, see a beautiful landscape, and know that this place has very strong government; it's about as strong as you can get.

Germany's not perfect; in fact, it's bureaucracy can be a hassle to deal with. Not fun. But it seems like a small cost for what I get in return; happy living, beautiful land, humane ways to treat animals (for instance, it's illegal to shoot a deer with a bow and arrow or crossbow), etc. It's a place I'd rather be in.

I dunno. I wouldn't say that every government would be good... Germany is innately different than the U.S., which is an entire country made up for 50 entire states, each a bit more different than the other. It's hard to govern 300 million people.

I dunno. I'm just undecided when it comes to politics. Though I think as far as the U.S. is concerned, they desperately need a (good) democrat in the white house for a bit to balance out the decisions of the bush administration.

[Puppycow]

Dudes, Have some pity for Nancy Pelosi (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/09/AR2007100902006.html?nav=hcmoduletmv)

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was in a determinedly good mood when she sat down to lunch with reporters yesterday. She entered the room beaming and, over the course of an hour, smiled no fewer than 31 times and got off at least 23 laughs.

But her spirits soured instantly when somebody asked about the anger of the Democratic "base" over her failure to end the war in Iraq.

"Look," she said, the chicken breast on her plate untouched. "I had, for five months, people sitting outside my home, going into my garden in San Francisco, angering neighbors, hanging their clothes from trees, building all kinds of things -- Buddhas? I don't know what they were -- couches, sofas, chairs, permanent living facilities on my front sidewalk."

Unsmilingly, she continued: "If they were poor and they were sleeping on my sidewalk, they would be arrested for loitering, but because they have 'Impeach Bush' across their chest, it's the First Amendment."

Though opposed to the war herself, Pelosi has for months been a target of an antiwar movement that believes she hasn't done enough. Cindy Sheehan has announced a symbolic challenge to Pelosi in California's 8th Congressional District. And the speaker is seething.

"We have to make responsible decisions in the Congress that are not driven by the dissatisfaction of anybody who wants the war to end tomorrow," Pelosi told the gathering at the Sofitel, arranged by the Christian Science Monitor. Though crediting activists for their "passion," Pelosi called it "a waste of time" for them to target Democrats. "They are advocates," she said. "We are leaders."

Schneibster, is that you on Nancy Pelosi's lawn? Can't you cut the poor old gal a little slack?

[egslim]

For one, I look at the mistakes of strong government in the past, and I start to dislike the idea of strong government.
I think part of the problem is due to some people being so opposed to strong government, that if it is bad they are happy to accept that as proof for their conviction, instead of as an incentive to improve government.

[Lonewulf]

I think part of the problem is due to some people being so opposed to strong government, that if it is bad they are happy to accept that as proof for their conviction, instead of as an incentive to improve government.
The problem is, the more power government has, the more it decides whether it's good or bad. It's hard to change government without revolution or a LOT of bureaucracy.

And the U.S. government is a bit messed up in the bureaucracy department. My mom is continually frustrated with the standards the U.S. Army has, what they continually spend tax payer money on (such as obselete systems that have to be updated and managed when there's a much less obselete system available)...

Government can be a mess, even if it works well, like in Germany. Saying that we can improve it is almost always optimistic... but saying that we can't improve it is always pessimistic.

Smaller countries are innately easier to manage than larger ones it seems sometimes, if you remove the corruption factor and depending on the beliefs/values of the locals. But then, Canada seems to be doing okay, though it only has 1/10th the population of the entire U.S. Which is still big, natch, but it's a bit different than running a country of 300 million.

[Schneibster]

I think you should be more realistic about how politics works. Oh, I can be extremely pragmatic. I just don't like it.

First of all, not everyone necessarily had exactly the same motivation as you when they cast their vote. That's as may be; but it's pretty clear now that the majority of people want us out of Iraq. I've discussed elsewhere whether or not I think that's a good idea, and I don't think it is, if we're talking about completely walking away. I think that would leave a mess that would haunt us for generations. But propping up a puppet government is not on the menu.

I'd like to see us pull, say, 90% of our people, and I mean both military and civilian- and ALL security contractors- out of there. And US diplomats need to be protected by United States Marines, I'm sorry, I don't trust anyone else. Marines aren't just hired thugs, which from what I've seen of Blackwater is how I'd describe them. Let the Iraqi government stand or fall on its own, and if they decide to have a real civil war (and I have to agree with the opposition here, it's not one- yet) just make it clear they stay the **** away from us until they're done. That Maliki government would be making deals left and right, instead of stonewalling the opposition, without US soldiers protecting them. Didja listen to that guy whine about how we shouldn't interfere in their internal politics? I say, be careful what you wish for, you may get it.

President wants a budget? Go fish. Here's the budget. Don't like it? Fine. Don't sign it. We'll write another one when we get around to it; sorry, we've got a few other things that are more important to take care of.

I haven't stopped to analyze whether that's realistic or not. It's sure how I feel. I have to think a while before I know what I'll write to them next.

Second, party leader can't force everyone to vote one way. Doesn't have to. The people are trying to get their elected representatives to vote like they want them to, and not having much success, or at least that's what the polls say. If I was Pelosi, I'd be threatening to go on Olbermann and announce the names of all the Dems who won't vote to stop the war, curtail the so-called P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act, and fund medical for poor kids, and see you in the primaries, boys. That would light some fires under some butts.

The democrats don't even have a real majority in the Senate, unless you consider Leiberman a democrat. It takes a larger shift and preferably the White House to really get anything major done. The people don't want anything major done; they want a few thises and thats, but primarily what they want is out of Iraq, and all they have to do is just stop giving that idiot more money. All that takes is 40 votes, and they got more than that. Freeze the whole damn thing cold solid until numb nutz gets it that he ain't goin no farther, period. Every time he goes on TV and whines about how they're not supporting the troops, every Dem goes on somewhere and says, "We were elected to stop the war. It's as stopped as we can make it. If you want something different, write and tell us so." Make people think about what they want.

If the country wanted the war to end sooner, they shouldn't have reelected W in '04. But they didn't want it then- they want it NOW.

;)

One silver lining of not getting SCHIP (which about 75% favor) is that it might actually increase the demand for national health care. So it could be a tactical loss but a strategic victory if there is a Democratic tsunami in '08. Cynical as that is, I almost agree- but I wouldn't choose it as a strategy, and I don't think they did.

Just hang in there until the next election. I think it'll be a good one for democrats.I think it's likely to be, but I don't think it's a slam dunk. And I'm not as convinced as I was four years ago that that will necessarily be all that great a thing.

Like I said, I don't know if this is realistic; I'm just expressing my feelings. I might start to analyze in a while, but you know, right now, the presidential primaries are a ways off, and I don't have to think about it yet.

[Schneibster]

Dudes, Have some pity for Nancy Pelosi (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/09/AR2007100902006.html?nav=hcmoduletmv)

Schneibster, is that you on Nancy Pelosi's lawn? Can't you cut the poor old gal a little slack?LOL, nawww, I got a day job. I gotta tell ya, though, here's her problem: she wants to do something, but that's not what those Repubs got kicked out for. They got kicked out because their constituents wanted them to NOT do something. All it takes is foot-dragging. Nothing more. Just wait the ******* out. He's got nowhere to run, nowhere to hide, he's a lame duck and he knows it. Let him sit and stew in his juices, and whine to the media, and just keep repeating the mantra. "We were elected to stop the war. We stopped it." He'll give in, or he'll go away, at worst on 20 Jan 2009.

[egslim]

The problem is, the more power government has, the more it decides whether it's good or bad. It's hard to change government without revolution or a LOT of bureaucracy.
Small changes can be made, and a lot of small changes equal a major shift. I'm just slightly more optimistic about how people can affect government.

[Lonewulf]

Small changes can be made, and a lot of small changes equal a major shift. I'm just slightly more optimistic about how people can affect government.

Trust me, start to work for the government. You start to get a little less optimistic as it eats away at your soul, bit by bit...

Okay, I'm exaggerating. Honestly, I'm not entirely pessimistic either. I just wouldn't embrace big government with open arms without some big addendums.

[TragicMonkey]

Wait, are you people thinking that politicians actually hold opinions on any actual issues? Of course they don't. Each and every possible and actual issue is just a battleground for power. It doesn't matter what side a party takes on anything, so long as that side wins. The only goal is the advancement of the party, the increased power of the party, and all the wealth, personal power, and material goods that will be the reward to the party members for helping the party. If Murdery Mutant Gerbils were suddenly an issue, both parties would instantly assume opposing stances, and by polarizing the voters one party would gain and the other would lose. And some politicians would have lovely speeches to express how deeply they feel about the issue. They memorize heartfelt speech templates, with blanks to insert the particular issue into.

So go ahead, and feel strongly about issues. Work for them. Campaign. Agitate. Your efforts will not be wasted, they will go to feed the glory and power of whichever party is pretending to care about your favored position. And some day some wide-stanced jerk will explain that by trolling for bjs he was actually doing the moral thing required to make sure that America does the right thing by doing ________, as the voters mandated. We're all deeply concerned about __________, American family something, __________ way of life, Founding Fathers, finish with big smile to the cameras, etc.

[egslim]

I just wouldn't embrace big government with open arms without some big addendums.
I agree. Republicans and Democrats have no incentive to provide good government, as long as it's preceived as slightly less bad than their competition people will vote for them.

[egslim]

Wait, are you people thinking that politicians actually hold opinions on any actual issues? Of course they don't.
I expect most third party candidates in the US actually do, nutty as they sometimes are. Why else would they run without any chance of winning?

[Soapy Sam]

I wonder if the good folks in North Korea, Iran and (gods save them) Iraq, think as poorly of their politicians as we in the west do of ours?

[TragicMonkey]

I expect most third party candidates in the US actually do, nutty as they sometimes are. Why else would they run without any chance of winning?

They share the megalomania, greed, and evil of other politicians, but they lack the team spirit necessary to serve in one of the normal parties.

[Chaos]

I wonder if the good folks in North Korea, Iran and (gods save them) Iraq, think as poorly of their politicians as we in the west do of ours?

Most probably do. Except that, for the most part, *thinking* poorly of their politicians is all they do, as *expressing* these thoughts can have a detrimental effect on their life expectancy.

[Lonewulf]

[It is in my speculative opinion that t]hey share the megalomania, greed, and evil of other politicians, but they lack the team spirit necessary to serve in one of the normal parties.

Fixed for you. Unless you have conclusive evidence?

[TragicMonkey]

[I vote for LaRouche every year.]

Fixed for you.

[Lonewulf]

[I vote for LaRouche every year.]Fixed for you.

Evidence?

[TragicMonkey]

Evidence?

Claus?

[Lonewulf]

Claus?
Naw.

I just find it intriguing at your amazing mind-reading abilities. Not only do you read the minds of every single living politician, but my mind as well.

There's a million in it for you.

[TragicMonkey]

Naw.

I just find it intriguing at your amazing mind-reading abilities. Not only do you read the minds of every single living politician, but my mind as well.

There's a million in it for you.

Yeah, and I find amazing your inability to detect whether someone is making a serious claim or not. That must go over really well at home. Do you shriek at the television because Tony the Tiger can offer no proof that they are, in fact, grrrrreat?

[Lonewulf]

Yeah, and I find amazing your inability to detect whether someone is making a serious claim or not. That must go over really well at home. Do you shriek at the television because Tony the Tiger can offer no proof that they are, in fact, grrrrreat?

I act seriously to joke around. ;)

But just so we're clear, you're claiming that this:

They share the megalomania, greed, and evil of other politicians, but they lack the team spirit necessary to serve in one of the normal parties.
was not a serious claim, right?

Seems odd, because you were the first one to start joking around. Hence why I can see some people, such as myself, might be confused.

Thank you for your clarification. :)

Now, resuming the conversation about government...

[Charlie Monoxide]

Reading all the vile and hate that pours out of the right-wing noise machine (Fox, blogs, Limbaugh etc.), I get the impression that these right-wingers believe that the "left" (non-Republicans) are just as evil as they are, and the left should be exposed for that.

Also, the right-wingers try to convince everyone, that they are less evil and more righteous, and gosh darn it, are just greater leaders than anyone else ...

Charlie (evilier leftie) Monoxide

[Lonewulf]

Don't forget the EEEEVIL liberal media.

[Darth Rotor]

Schneibster: is it your position, in points 1-5, that the Republicans are all part of a hive mind, a Borg come to life?

Perhaps you intended this as satire, but if the objection to your ideological opposite is to depict him as a cartoon, are you not getting into the ditch to mud wrestle with the pig?

As to the Dems making some of their support angry, I imagine they consider the sources: what's in your wallet? (or should I say, how thick is your wallet?)

I don't think conservatives in this country have a party that represents their values any more
Yes, I tend to agree, but I think there is more than one kind of conservative. For example, I don't see Pat Buchanan making another run for the White House, as a paleoconservative.

DR

[Puppycow]

This sort of fits in with the theme in the OP (http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?bid=3&pid=240234)

Summary: GOPers attack a former Iraqi anticorruption official who was fired by Maliki for actually fighting corruption.

The problems in Iraq go far beyond the insurgency. It seems like there is a ubiquitous epidemic of criminality and outright, for lack of a better word, evil including throughout most of the government. You can't have a functioning society when honest people trying to enforce the law can just be kidnapped, tortured and murdered with impunity.

[Schneibster]

Schneibster: is it your position, in points 1-5, that the Republicans are all part of a hive mind, a Borg come to life? No; I think there's a small faction that thinks this is the right way to run the ship, and not enough of the rest are speaking up to stop them. I sincerely doubt that most registered Republicans agree with doing things like this. They are merely uncritical. Most Democrats appear little if any better to me. You usually read more carefully; I thought I made both these points later in the diatribe. I am not, however, averse to repeating them.

As to the Dems making some of their support angry, I imagine they consider the sources: what's in your wallet? (or should I say, how thick is your wallet?) Well, that may be the most important consideration, but Obama's funding seems relatively healthy so far. Piss enough people off and some people who think they've got everything all sewn up could get some nasty surprises.

Yes, I tend to agree, but I think there is more than one kind of conservative. For example, I don't see Pat Buchanan making another run for the White House, as a paleoconservative.

DRLOL, yeah, no kidding. The Radical Old. :D

[This Guy]

I have a question: what kind of mentality does it take to:
1. Assert that anyone who doesn't support the war must not be a Republican?
2. Tell wounded veterans they are "fake soldiers" if they don't support the war?
3. Attack a 12-year old child because he told the truth?
4. Get busted for soliciting gay sex, after voting against every bill that said anything about gays for a decade, and then stay in the US Senate "for the good of my state?"
5. Veto a bill that costs little and provides much-needed healthcare for small children who can't get it any other way?

These are merely the most recent and heinous of examples; the list goes back many years. The Republican party has lost touch with American values, or at least part of it has. I think it's been taken over by greedy people without principles. I don't think conservatives in this country have a party that represents their values any more. I can't imagine that most conservatives think that it's a good idea to harass a 12-year old kid, nor any of the other things on this list, or any other one like it. I'm a liberal myself, but I have respect for the conservative viewpoint; what I don't respect is what I see happening in this country on a daily basis. This needs to stop. Y'all need to register your disapproval, loudly and continuously, until it does.

I'm pretty disgusted with my party too; they were elected to get one and only one job done, and they aren't doing it. I'm angry, and I've been expressing myself to them. It may affect how I vote. I strongly recommend you do the same thing, because if you don't, they'll keep doing it.

Winning isn't everything. There are principles at stake here. Do the right thing.

I've long considered myself an independent. But, having a conservative leaning, I've tended to lean Republican.

Regrettably I have to agree with much of what you say.

My change of views regarding religion (from a Christian view to an Atheist view) has opened my eyes to many problems with the Republicans. Items such as those that are on your list have certainly added to my displeasure with that party. My disagreement with the war in Iraq, I believe, was the first major disagreement with "the party", though.

I've come to hate our two party system. Any third party candidate will most likely only sway the balance of the vote toward, or away from one of the two big parties. With the big two, we basically have the choice of what I've come to view as religious wing nut war mongers, or tax and give away liberals (yes, I exaggerate to the extremes a bit;)). I'm not really happy with either option, and any good third option isn't really viable. I'm feeling very disenfranchised lately.

ETA:This post is mostly intended to express my general frustrations, and the particular "bad funk" mood I've been in, politically speaking. My thoughts go deeper, and there are certainly other facts and issues that are involved. But, I feel better for having expressed some of my frustrations ;)

[UnrepentantSinner]

I think that they just don't think, they really just don't use reason or rational thinking when it comes to politics.

Oh come now! Everyone knows that liberals rely on emotion while conservatives rely on logic (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JohnHawkins/2007/02/16/liberal_emotion_vs_conservative_logic).

[JoeEllison]

Oh come now! Everyone knows that liberals rely on emotion while conservatives rely on logic (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JohnHawkins/2007/02/16/liberal_emotion_vs_conservative_logic).

Yeah... Conservatives rely on the "logic" of racism and bigotry. Wonderful link... ;)

[UnrepentantSinner]

Yeah... Conservatives rely on the "logic" of racism and bigotry. Wonderful link... ;)

I had the displeasure of listening to Michael Medved discuss the topic of that op-ed (I thought he was the one who wrote it) one night and his smug, santimonious delivery almost made me shave my mustache as an act of pennance.

[Schneibster]

I'm having a great deal of trouble imagining a delivery that would make it any more smug and sanctimonious than it is already. I really don't think I'd care to actually hear such.