I and others have been having a little debate with a blogger named “Another perspective” an avowed Neocon and he has brought up issues in another post that I think we would all like to discuss with him and he is willing to engage in this debate. He has given me permission to post his comment.
This was lifted from the Gannon Gukert diary yesterday :
http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2005/3/28/211358/771
and several other posters had engaged with him on these issues and then this morning I wrote a post and he responded. So I am just going to post my comment, then his response and invite you all to discuss and inform each other.
My Comment:
I think you have this all wrong though it may appear to be the way you are assessing.
We just came off a long and frustrating presidential campaign, that was filled with all kinds of problems from voter fraud to Swift Boat veterans for untruth.
Our candidate (and candidates) was pounded relentlessly in the media all during that period, with the most emphasis paid to Swift Boat stories, flip, flopping, he said this, and he said that reg.Kerry, etc. Purple band aids were even handed out at the Rep. Campaign. You know the story.
>
This pounding and smearing continued after the election and then we had to deal with a fraudulent election, yes a fraudulent election, see Black Box voting for details.
Everywhere we turned Republicans were gloating, said you lost, your done, get over it you lost, and continued smearing our representative and us.
We could not even feel truly safe from attack even in the white house press conference, and we noticed when this guy got to ask his loaded question.
We took notice and sought to find out about this guy and why he was able to even ask such a question with such a biased premise. “Divorced from reality,” was the last straw in a long series of unfair misrepresentations of the Dem side.
Because we feel that Bush and Co. are the ones divorced from reality and cannot for one second understand how everyone does not see that. Yet here someone in the press conference with the President is asking this most unprofessional question, that is once again casting Dems in a bad light and this is the Presidents Press Conference.
I don’t think anyone following this story ever expected that the story would turn out this way, but it did. WE did not go looking for a sex connection, it was already there.
We found this pretty suspicious that someone with such a checkered past, and no history of journalism, no established newspaper or outlet behind him, could in these times of greatest security surrounding the President and every move he makes, even be within 10 miles of the Pres.
We mobilized in the effort to turn the stone over on the story and find the bugs beneath, many of us did endless hours of research to find the truth. We organized and formed a group just to deal with this issue. Thousands and thousands of hours of research went into this. and a new blog was born.
So this story is not about Jeff Gannon and sex, this story is about what the hell is going on in the White House that could even allow this man to have access to the President. Especially in light of the fact that Dems. could not even get into Bush town Hall meetings, during campaign.
We think we are fighting to save this country (and the world)and the american people from the gross ineptitude of this whole administration. We cannot understand why Republicans do not see these things as problems and continue to support a President who clearly in his public representation has no clue. Sure he can read prepared speeches, but can he speak without a written speech, we have found over and over that he cannot.
So I ask you, how you can support such a man.”
Another Perspective’s response:
“”We cannot understand why Republicans do not see these things as problems and continue to support a President who clearly in his public representation has no clue. Sure he can read prepared speeches, but can he speak without a written speech, we have found over and over that he cannot.””
(So I ask you, how you can support such a man.), my comment in post.(editor note)
Quite simply: because I’ve met the man, I’ve had a discussion with him about his stand on some issues, and he expressed it just fine for me. He’s not dumb, he just doesn’t know how to handle himself in front of a camera for some reason.
Now, on the Gannon thing, yeah, I did follow a lot of it as it was unfolding. And again, I think you’ve shown a lot of smoke, but no fire aside from personal attacks on the guy. I still want to know what qualifies someone for a job in journalism.
I want to know how you think the media was attacking Kerry by reporting on the Swift Boat Veterans, but not once asking him why he would not sign a form 180, and allowing him to say “my military records have been released,” when to this very day they still have not been.
I want to know what you think of that in comparison with a 60 minutes report that released FALSIFIED DOCUMENTS and then had its anchor say “well, that’s ok because we were getting at the truth anyway.” Whatever you think of the Swifties, they didn’t falsify evidence, or reproduce the falsified evidence created by others.
You were upset by the fact that someone in the White House Press Room asked a biased question–that’s fine. So where was the outrage when the same thing happened again a few weeks later? What am I talking about? Read this.
You see, the Kossacks (and apparently a lot of people on this site) don’t care about the principle of it, as you made clear with the direction of your questions for me. You care about bringing down the President, and anyone who isn’t working for that is an enemy.
I want to know, why aren’t you bothered that Kerry had his discharge status changed by Carter, after he was elected to the Senate? And that he promised to sign that form, and still hasn’t done so, despite the fact that every single Swiftie who served in Vietnam has done so?
Because, whether you want to face it or not, you’re partisans. You won’t criticize your guy, because Bush is the prime enemy. I understand that—a unified line is a strong thing. But don’t try to pretend this is about principle.
When you find some evidence of a White House patron, then we’ll talk. Until then, this is a guy who had a shady past, and made a concerted effort to clean it up. He was very successful, and went far quickly. And your only objection is that he’s on the opposite side of the aisle.
One more thing, and then I have to run to class: what would have happened if a liberal had asked a tough question of the President (something like Elizabeth’s in the link above), the Right had investigated and found out that he was gay and used to be an escort, and the White House had banned him from the Press Room?
Quite simply: the ACLU would be all over it, and Kossacks would use it as evidence of a bias against homosexuals. But when the kossacks do it, it’s principled, right?”
So debate away.
and looking for your comments, pleased to respond.
So ask me questions!
Thank you for starting this, Diane, and hello, AP! I get to talk to conservatives quite a bit – I’m married to one and the daughter to another. We have some very interesting and lively conversations when we have the strength to talk politics. I admire you for offering to answer questions and talk freely about your beliefs.
A question I have for you is, how do you feel about Bush’s Social Security plan? Do you see benefits to privatization, and do you approve of his plan?
I have been itching to do this for awhile now, and this opportunity came and I took it.
I think it is important for us to try to refine our message so that the other side can hear them and we can hear why they don’t get it and maybe we have some things to learn too, some meeting in the middle.
I do support privatization for younger generations, as I think it can provide significantly better returns in the long run, increasing benefits overall.
Also, I generally think that individual freedom trumps everything, and people should have control of their own money.
As far as Bush’s plan? I’m not sure I can answer that, since he hasn’t put up anything concrete that I’ve seen yet. I actually think the whole debate is just a smokescreen for other legislation (Bankruptcy and Class Action bills, for example).
Generally, I feel this way too.
I fall on the Libertarian side of things more often than the Democratic side. Ultimately, my belief is that everyone should be allowed to do and say whatever the hell they please, as long as it’s not hurting anyone else.
What you fail to realise is that people already have the freedom to invest their money in anything they wish from IRAs to bonds to SEPs to mutual funds anytime they want. Private accounts will do nothing to solve the ss problems we MAY face in 2052.
“So this story is not about Jeff Gannon and sex, this story is about what the hell is going on in the White House that could even allow this man to have access to the President. Especially in light of the fact that Dems. could not even get into Bush town Hall meetings, during campaign.”
This particular quote sums up the perspective of many of us that have followed the stories from an objective distance.
The working background of Gannon concerns me that he went overnight from an obscure website reporter to White House access, not what he did before he became a reporter. The lack of vetting process of Secret Service and FBI concerns me as matter of national security as it should everyone. The exposure of secret information to a reporter regardless of who they are concerns for me.
Comparison to other issues such as 60 Minutes is Republican talking points as a means to obfuscate an issue. Address the issue that the Gannon report concerns.
The issue is access and security in this case and the excessive security to prevent any dissenting views from being heard.
Access: I’d rather the restrictions on the press gaggle be as lax as seating can allow. If want you want is transparent government, then we should let people who want the information get in there. I’m bothered that he had such regular access, but letting him in in the first place doesn’t bother me in the least.
Security: The Press (particularly with soft passes) does not have free roaming priveleges in the White House, nor do they have open access to the President. For security purposes, I don’t think there’s much of a concern. Also, if I remember correctly, he did submit his real name to get the pass—and if the FBI and SS saw his websites and still let him in, good for them! I’m not one to believe we should hold people back because of their past transgressions.
His websites and professional sexual activities were still ongoing when he received his press pass and beyond.
The FBI and Secret Service can and do take orders to bypass traditional security clearances from whatever department someone is going to visit. Congress, the Executive Branch, or the Judiciary can waive those clearances.
Since there was an apparent lack of security clearance done for Gannon, then the vetting process was again apparently waived. There have been MSM reports of respected reporters with years of experience being denied press passes.
Question: why should someone have a waiver of security clearance to be in the press room?
Question: why should independent or democrat oriented press be denied similar waivers for road trips that the President or other WH officials take?
as I don’t know the specifics. But, as I’ve said elsewhere, keep digging. If you find something, I’ll listen.
In the meantime, my overall point is that all the lefty blogs have right now is a lot of speculation without proof (smoke without fire), and I’m not willing to condemn the man or any White House officials until there’s something there.
For me, it goes back to the fact that the ePluribus Media investigation is open source, and by nature all their findings will be out there as they progress. (The speculation comes from posters) While I consider much of the media and blog reporting of Gannon to be terribly distasteful, I continue to respect Susan Gardner’s approach. Particularly in light of the fact that the investigation team discovered Gannon’s background as a male escort (including full frontal web pictures) long before Kos chose to put it on his front page – completely separate of the ePluribus investigation. Susan Gardner went out of her way to avoid sensationalism, and kept to the issues of substance (IMO).
I guess my point is that not all left wing blogs are reporting the matter for sensationalism. I’ve been very interested in this issue from the beginning – and for me it has absolutely nothing to do with the issues referenced in Diane’s comments. I’m simply intrigued – and very impressed that a group of strangers successfully pulled together to conduct an investigation of this type. Quite frankly, I think I’d be much less intrigued if there hadn’t been so much fast and furious purging of data from various websites from the outset.
I just can’t find it in myself to believe that the media wouldn’t be all over this 24/7 if it had involved the Clinton administration. And it does bother me that all the ministers who hit the ceiling over Tinky Winky and Sponge Bob were silent on this issue.
I agree with you on the spongebob comment. I would expect them to be up in arms over this too.
But that’s part of what’s strange to me about it from another aspect too. Since when do Democrats offer the same reaction you’d expect out of Christian Right ministers? Anyway, I’ve expressed that enough here.
I’d like to reiterate that I’m very itrigued to see what comes from this. I just caution people to not condemn before the facts are in. I think there are people out there like those you mention, who are behaving appropriately, but I tihnk there are a lot who are approaching it with the wrong motive, just as there were many who approached MonicaGate in entirely the wrong way. (I, for one, was pissed that he would do that in the Oval Office, but only thought it should be a public issue because he lied under oath about it (and don’t tell me he didn’t). I he’d just said “that’s a private matter about which I will not comment,” I would have supported him, and those who wouldn’t just care about the SEX SEX SEX of the whole thing, or about tearing down the opposition. The problem is, I think a lot of the people who were upset over the handling of MonicaGate are calling for the same sort of thing here—and it wasn’t right then, and it isn’t right now.)
had still not removed one of his escort sites as of a month ago. How is that a past transgression?
Is he still in the business? Is he updating them? Is he even checking them?
Like I said, don’t speculate, find out! When you do, I’ll be listening (reading).
Gee, if you had time to look at the evidence I suggested Americablog, has all the details with the records from the web designed, etc. copies can be found on that site, not to mention that DK and Propagannon have done excellent job of outlining the whole thing.
I know you are busy with papers today, but do try to look when you have time, and I will go and look at your Rathergate info, although I don’t know what more info could be there that isn’t allready known.
When I have more energy I will comment on that subject.
is that you seem to entirely dismiss any criticism of Gannon, Bush, etc. by bringing up things Kerry has done, or a hypothetical liberal reporter might do.
I see this frequently with Limbaugh et al.: everything can be explained away by blaming Clinton. “Clinton did it too” or “Clinton did something else bad”.
From where I’m standing, very few politicians on either side are doing what is on OUR best interest as citizens. They are all primarily out for their own self-interest, just like most of the rest of us. It’s just that sometimes, for the good ones, their self interests and the interests of the people they represent coincide.
Before 2004 and the lead-up, I was never interested in politics the way I am now. I’m still registered as an Independent. It’s just that right now, the Republican administration is, as I see it, waging war on the less fortunate, and promoting an unconstitutional theocracy, which is why I care so much about what Democrats are doing. In a two-party system, they are my only hope right now.
These are the things I care about, and I’m not interested on what Democrats did ten or twenty years ago when they were in power. I was a little girl then. I surely couldn’t vote.
So what, the Democrats voted to change the number needed for cloture from 66 to 60? That wasn’t okay then, and Republicans voting to invoke the “nuclear option” isn’t okay now. In both cases, politicians on both sides went on to have nice lives and make a lot of money, and American people suffered because the checks and balances of our government suffered.
My question is: What is the automatic need to stand up for an elected official because he or she is on your “side”?
None of us should be standing up for the sorry excuse for a government we have currently (certain exceptions aside). We get so distracted by partisan fighting that we forget that we, the people, are supposed to be represented by our government, BOTH parties, and I don’t know about you but I don’t feel that I am.
I’d prefer a multi-party system but, absent that, I feel like two parties should craft compromises that represent a fair majority of people (being cognizant of the fact that you can’t please all people all of th time), instead of trying to gain all of the power so one group can run roughshod over the other.
Simple ajority rule can suck. I saw this somewhere (and apologies if I’m stealing it from a fellow froggie, but:
You don’t let four wolves and one sheep vote on what’s for dinner.
that I’ve never used the “Clinton did it too, so it’s OK” (or any similar) line. When I compared it to the Kerry situation, it was an attempt to disprove the “the press was unfair to Kerry and tossed softballs to Bush” idea.
As far as the nuclear option and others, I’m right with you. Just because something was done in the past doesn’t make it right now. Too many people think it’s a justification, and it’s not.
Since I’m often accused of just repeating “talking points,” I have to accuse the same on your “trying to institute a theocracy” spiel. I don’t think that’s true. Yes, I think Bush is governed by his religious beliefs, and tries to act accordingly. I disagree with his attempts to ban gay marriage, but I’d also point that he’s never really pursued the issue. And on abortion, if you believe it’s murder, don’t you have an obligation to oppose it? To allow it to pass as a “choice” is to become an accessory to the act.
that you never said anything about Clinton. Truthfully, that rant wasn’t as much directed at you…this just seemed to be the right place for it at the right time.
“Theocracy” is not at all my parroting of talking points, but my reaction to many different initiatives I see that all have a common theme. Now I don’t mind if the president is religious, but I think there is a line that should not be crossed when it comes to legislating one’s religious views, because we live an a country where very many do NOT subscribe to the same views. Here are some of my concerns that lead me to believe we are going down the road of theocracy
-The gay marriage ban. You can point out he hasn’t pursued it if you like, but it was a major platform of his campaign. He did drop it after the election, and I don’t care to speculate why (I’m just relieved), but you cannot deny that anti-gay initiative continue to be pursued by Republicans at every level across the country.
-Abortion is murder. Believe that all you want, but if your beliefs are rooted in your religion, and you are trying to legislate that, you are pursuing theocracy.
-Restricted access to birth control. I don’t think it’s right that Republicans are pursuing legislation to make it alright for pharmacists to refuse to prescribe birth control AND refuse to transfer the prescription. If you’re unfamiliar with the issue, please see http://www.boomantribune.com/user/KB/diary
-The Ten Commandments. It’s not high on my list of things I hate, but our judiciary is NOT in the business of enforcing them. They’re historical documents, fine. Put them in a museum.
-Anti-evolutionism. What is Creationism but a religious belief? Why should anyone be required to teach this in school?
This is all off the top of my head. I’m at work and I have to attend to that, but I’ll check in when I get home.
and, before I go, how about Terri Schiavo?
The president can rush home from vacation to sign a bill saying the government can interfere with the rulings of numerous lower courts, her husbands marital rights and her stated wishes to preserve her “right to life”, a life she didn’t want to live (a judgment upheld by said courts).
Well said, my friend. Well said.
I’m a Christian, I’ll state that up front. While I admire the strong faith Bush has, I also believe it has no place in his job. His religious beliefs should have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on society and the way this country is ran. Unfortunately, he seems to think they do.
He doesn’t even go to church.
It’s just part of the con, the PR image.
Evidence?
Also, I know a lot of Christians who don’t go to Church, so I’m not sure that disqualifies him. In fact, if you take the Bible quite literally, Jesus IS the church. There’s no mention of weekly gatherings.
I think I can find a photo of Bush not in a church but you may feel that’s insufficient evidence of his not attending a church regularly. I wonder what evidence you would aprove….
Usually the church the president attends is well known. Clinton’s daughter was in the choir for example. As far as I know Bush makes the usual Republican excuse (per Reagan) about how he couldn’t possibly attend a real church because it would interupt the services and so on. He visits for photo ops.
A lot of christians don’t attend church but Bush is pretending to be a right-on evangelical christian and they usually attend church multiple times a week and if they have no church they belong to presently are considered backsliders unless they just moved or something.
He’s a fake christian. Do you care either way?
David, do you want to continue the debate on my new diary, where I took my last comment on this page. Called my rant, Bush, Iraq, etc. Would love to see you there to continue the debate only this time on our side. Left that is. Anyway I would love to see your input.
A)What makes you assume that I’m not a big Bible reader?
And 2) (sic) I’m not in the practice of criticizing how an individual practices his faith. Bush doesn’t attend a church regularly in DC, but when he’s home he does. I, on the other hand, am the opposite. When I’m home, I rarely attend church, and when I’m a school I almost always do. Are you going to tell me I’m not a Christian because there’s no church in my home community that I find appealing?
I don’t know if this will mean much to you but the evangelicals are very big on their gospel / salvation narrative and needing to ask God for forgiveness and so on. It is not possible to be an evangelical christian and at the same time be so unaware of wrong doing in your own life as Bush claims.
In fact even a normal person would be able to come up with something they’d done wrong in their job over a four year period — it’s a standard job interview question to ask, “What’s your biggest fault”. Bush couldn’t even come up with a safe “fake” answer the equivalent of “My biggest fault is that I work too hard”. This despite having warning of the question. His speech writers knew it was coming and could easily, perhaps did supply him with a safe answer like, “My biggest mistake was trusting the CIA’s WMD report too much.”
His inability to answer this question suggests some kind of mental problem to me — narcissism. He just can’t bring himself to say “I was wrong”. At any rate such a view of yourself (never making a mistake) is simply incompatible with the theology of the christian gospel which states that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, but are forgiven for their sins by the blood of the lamb (upon asking for forgiveness). The evangelicals have a saying. Before hearing the good news (gospel) a person must receive the “bad news” (acknowledge their sin). Bush says he is sinless. Therefore he cannot be saved.
to come to my diary “My rant”and post your comment and continue the dialogue over there, if you don’t mind, this diary is way to long and hard to read.
Besides I would like to have this new diary to present our point of view (to conservatives) and he can answer there if he wishes to join that discussion or any other conservatives if they are on site, or we can just discuss among ourselves..
So paste your comment above over there or add to it. Please!
But there’s one problem with your argument that Bush is not an evangelical:
Bush is not an evangelical; he’s a methodist.
There’s a bit of a difference that you might want to investigate.
Now, if you don’t think he follows Christianity the way you wish, that’s fine. But I maintain that church attendance is not a prerequisite to Christianity. Would I feel better if he found a church in DC that he could attend and be satisfied? Sure. But that doesn’t mean I’m going to tell the man how to practice his religion. In fact, I give him a bit of credit for not just finding a church to satisfy his critics.
I don’t think the President really wants a gay marriage ban. At least I’d like to think that. He starts pursuing it again, I’ll object. In the meantime I’m willing to leave it alone. Ideally, there’d be no such thing as governmental marriage, and we’d all get civil unions on request.
I posted some thoughts on abortion below:
My religious convictions tell me that abortion is murder. They also tell me that to allow it to continue without trying to stop it is to condone it. I can’t do that, and demanding that I do is legislating your beliefs on me.
In other words, some beliefs are mutually exclusive, and someone will always be legislating his religious beliefs on someone else. How do you rectify that one?
I don’t think a pharmacist should be compelled to dispense birth control, but he should not be allowed to deny the transfer of a script for it. I also think if you don’t want to dispense birth control and you become a pharmacist, you’re a jackass.
There are many museum-like displays at many courthouses. If you want to restrict the Ten Commandments to museums, then move all that shit too.
I have no problem with a biology teacher saying “some people believe that evolution is wrong, and in fact a deity created the whole thing as we see it now” and then moving on. I DO have a serious problem with their not being allowed to teach evolution at all.
Except for “abortion is murder”…our views aren’t so radically incompatible. I’ll post something about that below, where the topic is more specifically addressed.
I do have a slight issue with this: have no problem with a biology teacher saying “some people believe that evolution is wrong, and in fact a deity created the whole thing as we see it now” and then moving on. I DO have a serious problem with their not being allowed to teach evolution at all.
I don’t KNOW how the world was created, and neither does anyone. But the process of scientific inquiry has developed a pretty sound working theory of how it was. In a SCIENCE class, I think students should learn about the scientific method, its practice and results, and the theories that have been established because of it.
You can tell students about evolution, and then tell them that some people believe otherwise, but WHY? Their beliefs otherwise have nothing to do with science. If we’re going to discuss non-scientific beliefs, why don’t we tell them that some people believe that the moon is made of green cheese, that some people believe women are made out of men’s ribs, and so forth?
Mostly because it’ll make it that much easier to move on from the pointless debate over creationism, I think.
I’m not saying it should be done. I’m just saying I’m not going to raise a stink if it is done.
Thanks for being here. You claim to have hasd conversations with the president and you feel you know him well. If you are so close to this president, what are his religous beliefs. Oh I have heard him say Jesus is his favorite philosopher and that god told him he was destines to be president. But what are his religous beliefs? Does he read the bible or just quotes that Rove gives him?
I do not know the president on a personal level. I’m sorry if I gave that impression.
I had dinner at the White House, and an opportunity for brief (maybe an hour) conversation with him and several other people that basically became a conversation between him and myself.
So I can’t answer those questions with any authority.
Sorry!
When the conversation became just the two of you what did you talk about? Quite frankly if I had the presidents ear for two minutes I sure would have an awful lot of questions.
it was about 6 months post-9/11, so we talked pretty much about the war on terror and safeguarding our borders.
I kinda doubt he would know the Presidents religious beliefs, but I think he could tell us how he comes across in person and the difference in his public persona. So could you Another?
Exactly true, as I posted above.
He is completely different in person. He’s more charismatic than I could believe, and he converses very well and intelligently.
Honestly, I’m not sure it’s the same person when I see him on TV.
Maybe this lends credence to your claim that he’s got people whispering in his ear during press conferences and such, Diane?
Was he drinking? That can change ones personality rapidly.
he doesn’t drink. Also, that doesn’t tend to make people MORE intelligent.
No, it doesn’t make people more intelligent, only makes them think they are. sorry, George bush(if he truly is not drinking again)is a dry drunk. Some of the syptoms are illusions of granduer, egomania and the feeling of being untouchable. This man is so out of step with the mainstream it would almost be funny if it wasn’t so pathetic.
As reported from hid “townhall meeting” in Iowa(where dems are not allowed) on social security today, Bush, “I don’t care what anyone says, especially the propaganda out there, this plan will not cut retired or near to retirement peoples benefits.” You see my friend he has no idea or plan how to reform ss but we better buy it anyway because he says its a good idea? Please spare me.
How do you know he doesn’t drink? Are you really with him all the time. Drunks are very good at hiding it.
That’s just ridiculous
Why is that ridiculous? You are very good at not answering questions. That’s the problem with trying to have a conversation with someone like you. You either answer a question with a question, try to turn the question into a blanket statement against someone from the democratic side or you call us ridiculous. There have been many questions about Bush’s attitude and behavoir and quite frankly it deeply concerns me that this man has his finger so close to the button. He has lied to all of us for the last five years. I find that insulting and you find me ridiculous. Guess I got exactly what I expected from you….nothing.
For me, the attached article represents a prime example of crossing the line of appropriate religious power in an administration, while entering into Theocracyland.
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/index.php?issue=0420&page=perlstein&id=53582
Really? He no longer pursued the issue once he was elected. He stirred up the christain base on a topic he knew would get them out to vote. Once he had that vote he abandoned the issue.
On a recent thread you claimed it unproven that “Jeff Gannon” has engaged in prostition, even though, quoting Booman:
You demanded “evidence that would hold up in a court of law, stronger than the circumstantial variety that you’ve got so far.”
And yet, with respect to the so-called Rather-gate, you charge without hesitation:
Now, what exactly is the evidence that these documents were forgeries in fact? Please note that the evidence should be such as to hold up in a court of law.
Thank you in advance!
I can admit honestly that the man probably acted illegally, and probably performed acts of prostitution. But a)I’m still not sure why that disqualifies him from being a journalist, especially if he’s turned his life around. b)I stick by my “if we’re going to condemn a guy for prostitution, we’d better be damned certain” stance.
As far as rather goes, I’d start with the fact that the typeface used to create the letters was unavailable (or sparingly available) at the time the memos were supposed to have been written, and not known to be available to any government agency at any level (they were prohibitively expensive and entirely unnecessary) at that time. As far as specifics, go to RatherGate.com and click through “The Evidence” bar on the right. I’d love to break it down further for you, but I’m in the midst of writing two papers and a column about “right-to-die” issues, and I just don’t have that kind of time on my hands right now. Sorry I can’t do better.
I’m not sure that what you assert about the typeface is correct, but I will check out the link.
Good luck with your writings.
AP, where do you stand on that? On the Schiavo case, for example? Do you think government intervention was the right thing?
What about that little matter of owing the U.S. Government $20,000 in back taxes, penalties and interest?
And once he gets out let him do whatever he wants with his life.
Except vote of course, as I believe tax evasion is a felony.
Hmmm …
In Diane101’s diary entry, this was (apparently) your final note.
Quite simply: the ACLU would be all over it, and Kossacks would use it as evidence of a bias against homosexuals. But when the kossacks do it, it’s principled, right?”
You want to try to raise every defense, huh. Kind of assault your own credibility?
The timeline in question has made it clear that he’d received a WH pass without having any credentials as a journalist. He was hanging out there before TALON was established.
Furthermore, the Whitehouse vets all press passes. They knew exactly who he was, yet they issued the pass anyway. You really do seem comfortable on such thin ice. Best take care, we’d hate to see you fall through. (And you’d better hope that, when you do, it isn’t James Carville that hears your cry for help.)
rant above, that doesn’t contain much of a real question. I apologize for that, it’s just been building up for a while.
Anyway, I do have a couple of specific questions/points about the Gannon affair:
-My objection is hardly that he’s on the other side of the aisle, or asking biased questions. My objection is that he’s even able to be in the press room. I think there should be some kind of STANDARD to be in the privileged position of asking the president questions, and when established journalists with degrees cannot get credentials, but Jeff Gannon can, dammit, I want a credential too.
-If established journalists cannot get credentials, and JG can, my question is: WHY? What standard was applied that let’s him in, and keeps Maureen Dowd of the NYT out? Is there another reason besides simple partisanship? And if not, is it really healthy for America that only people who support the president can question him? The free press is supposed to be our bulwark against tyranny.
-Very few liberals CARE whether JG is GAY. I just find it ironic and hypocritic to the extreme that Republicans can demonize gays; foster, play off, and benefit from of a climate of homophobia and hatred in the US; and generally be the supposed arbiters and enforcers of morality in the US, and yet see nothing wrong with having a gay ex-prostitute questioning the president.
Wholehearted thanks for being here and answering questions. If fostering understanding between opposing viewpoints isn’t one of the best possible uses of the internet, I don’t know what is.
Sigh. I had written a huge response, and my computer froze and I lost it. Well, I’ll try to recreate it here.
I have to answer your first question with one of my own: What restrictions do you want to impose?
You ask why established journalists can’t get in, but Gannon can. Since you clearly refer to Maureen Dowd, I’ll refer you to Tom Maguire. Dowd wanted a hard pass, Gannon got a soft pass. When asked if she would have taken a soft pass, Dowd responded something like “Why would I want that?” There’s the difference. This guy settled for something most “established” “journalists” (scare quotes around journalist refers to Dowd, in my opinion) will generally not want. Good for him.
Your second:
You set up a false premise. The VAST majority of the White House Press Corps are registered Democrats. Questions given to him in Press Briefings, and those given to his press secretary are not softballs. Again, I refer you to Mr. Maguire, who gives a great example from just a few weeks back.
I think the press situation in the US is far from one of government propaganda.
Your third: They may not. My only point is, if a Republican attacks a man for being a “gay prostitute (escort),” he will be met with screams of discrimination and homophobia from the left, especially the ACLU and others. When a Dem does it, though, it’s somehow OK. That’s pretty sad.
Glad to help in whatever way I can.
Reg. this point.
“”My only point is, if a Republican attacks a man for being a “gay prostitute (escort),” he will be met with screams of discrimination and homophobia from the left, especially the ACLU and others. When a Dem does it, though, it’s somehow OK. That’s pretty sad.””
You are not getting this point, we are not attacking him because he is gay or a prostitute or any such thing, we are pointing out the ambiguities in the White House position concerning the gay community and further we are wondering why anyone with no journalism credentials is allowed in the press conf. in the first place and what strings had to have been pulled to get him there.
Maybe someone here can reference the site that discussed a blogger trying to get in Pres conference recently and what he went through. You don’t just walk up to the gate and say I want in. No one can do that. So who let him in in the first place. That’s the question. And is this part of the ongoing discovery of prepaid journalism this admin. has so far done and probably we have only seen the tip of the iceberg.
and I encourage you all to find the answer to that question.
But, again, if a Republican said “The guy shouldn’t be there. You can’t walk up to the gate and say I want in. Heck, less than a year ago this guy was a gay prostitute!” which is what I see on DKos a lot of the time, the Republican would be immediately accused of hate speech.
The blogger that did try, first was abjectly refused at the gate, then he had to make a long series of calls to the press office and was put off every time, at the end another press person had to step in to pull some strings for him to have access. And he did have a journalism background, I wish others would did up that article for me.
The whole gay issue has been overblown in my opinion and only holds a small part of this issue.
There is some inconstiencies in the lefts stand on this, but I assure it is not shared by all.
But your argument does bring up one thing, we on the left are not doing a very good job of stating our position and getting it out there. Perhaps we make everything too complicated in our message.
Ummm…sorry pal I don’t think you do get it. Last time I checked the law books, prostitution was still illegal, you know a crime? So it’s not that GUCKERT is gay it is that he is a criminal element being let within four feet of the president while we are ingaged in the GD WAR ON TERROR!
“I encourage you all”. Why not encourage your representatives to call for an investigation into the Guckert matter. If they have nothing to hide they would be more than willing to open an investigation. Why should it be up to just those that openly question Guckert’s presense in the WH?
I think there are much more urgent matters to attend to.
Like, oh, say, Social Security, which is not in crisis, but will be soon. How about fixing our intelligence community? Securing our borders?
Any of this seem more urgent than how a gay prostitute got to ask the president a question?
I agree that two of these issues are in need of fixing right now…securing our borders and ficxing our inteligence community. Social security will need adjustments and we may start the dialogue now but it is far from urgent.
I do, as I am sure you may well have guessed, feel quite strongly about the Guckert scandal because it isn’t just about Guckert but about the others that have been paid by this administration to spread their propaganda which was paid for with OUR tax dollars. For me, this arrogant behavoir by this administration is deeply disturbing.
Let me go back to one of your answers of last evening which I find the most disturbing. You said you do not believe Bush lied ever? What would you call no WMD’s and his rush to war? What about his State of the Union address when he claimed that Iraq sought uranium? What about Bush stating that he would not stop until OBL was caught dead or alive? What about the “faked” capture of Saddam in a rat hole that a soldier verified was staged and Saddam was actually captured the day prior in a small cottage? These are all facts. tha Even after it has be proven by a commission you still believe he has not lied to you? That is what is so amazing to me.
and don’t have time to respond at length. I will be back at 3:30 eastern (and may have wireless in class in the meantime), and I promise you that as soon as I can, I will respond to these questions.
Sorry for the vapid response, but I didn’t want you to think I’m ducking you. These are good questions, and I’m sorry to make you wait but I do want to dig into them.
I’ll try to address your questions point by point. If you need further clarification, please respond. Here we go:
There is a difference, for me, between lying and being wrong.
The intelligence on Iraq was totally FUBAR, but you may remember that the CIA chief assured the President it was a slam-dunk. That means to me that he honestly believed it, and was misled. On the uranium in Niger issue, there are still two camps—the Brits to this day, even after their investigation into the intelligence failings, stand by the claim that Saddam sought uranium there, and the Wilsons of the world disagree. I don’t think we can know what went on there, but I see no reason to take Wilson’s word over the president’s and the British government’s, nor do I see a reason to take their word over his. So, I don’t operate on the assumption that anyone’s lying, I operate on the assumption that one should give both parties the benefit of the doubt and refuse to speculate.
Admittedly, this one is harder for me to dismiss. I think Bush at all points was completely honest about the situation, he just didn’t think things through appropriately.
Of course, immediately following 9/11, the temptation was to focus all of our vehemence on OBL. I did too. With a little distance (and perspective) from the event though, I reached the conclusion I discuss elsewhere on this threat—that OBL is not the primary concern, and his capture could in fact work against our ultimate efforts. I think Bush came around to a similar line of thinking.
So, while the two statements are clearly contradictory, I again don’t think he was lying, he just changed his mind. (Also, I’ve never once called Kerry a flip-flopper, since I know that’s an automatic response. I think it shows character when a politician changes his mind, which is why—while I wish W would think through things before responding emotionally immediately—I don’t mind that once he thought through them, he settled on a more measured response. Kerry’s problem, in my mind, was that he got caught in the middle of an election not knowing where he stood on the issues, and didn’t puzzle it out quickly enough. In other words, bad timing for him.)
That one’s pretty easy to respond to.
Take a look at what WorldNetDaily has to say about it, in an article dated March 11 of this year:
And just in case you think WND is a propaganda source that props up the President, they lend some decent credence to the idea that the capture might have been faked in an article dated March 11.
So, at least one of these does not fall under the category “fact,” as you claim with such certainty.
And again, the fact that a commission reported that he was wrong is not evidence of lying. There’s a big difference between the two. You think he is purposely misleading the American people—I think he was misled himself.
President, they lend some decent credence to the idea that the capture might have been faked in an article dated March 11.
So, at least one of these does not fall under the category “fact,” as you claim with such certainty.
Nah, WND would never resort to using a scarecrow …
was never in the marines…!
I find the bickering about the Swift Boat Liars and “Gannongate” to be not so interesting somehow. But I would like to ask you a few questions if you are in fact a true “neocon” and not just a regular Bush conservative who adopts the latest label.
I tend to find myself agreeing with neocons about the Iraq war (I’m the “avowed leftist” if you couldn’t guess), and vehemently disagreeing about Israel’s occupation of Palestine. But what I’ve been curious about is where neocons stand on other issues. (They don’t seem to talk about them much.)
So: what’s your stance on (take your pick or answer a bunch of ’em if you feel up to it!):
(1) The minimum wage (either within the U.S. or a worldwide variable minimum as Gephardt proposed during the primary campaign);
(2) Environmental regulations;
(3) Civil liberties and the rights of the accused;
(4) Abortion;
(5) Unionisation;
(6) Separation of church and state;
(7) Affirmative action;
(8) Universal health care
Thanks in advance,
Alan
Maverick Leftist
My apologies, but I dont’ have the time for huge detail at the moment. I’ll do what I can, though.
(1)Minimum wages beat the hell out of small businesses. A worldwide minimum wage would be a disaster, especially if it varies from country to country—business would flow to the low-paying countries, and you’d squeeze the hell out of the “working class” Americans with off-shoring (different than “out-sourcing,” though that’s the term commonly used for it these days to my chagrin) far more than today.
(2) Environmental regulations are fine, in moderation. I don’t want to go further than that, without specifics. Some are excessive and cause far more harm than good.
(3) Civil liberties are great (depending upon what you mean by them), but I generally believe everyone should be free to be who they are and do what they want as long as there are no externalities. As far as rights of the accused, they should be protected at every step of the way. Once convicted, though, take away their cable TV and their weight rooms.
(4) I find it hard to believe that a part of a woman’s body with entirely different DNA is actually a part of that woman’s body. So what is it? I have to operate on the assumption that it is something different. Maybe a rock? A dolphin? No, we know it will become a human, and I think we should operate on the assumption that it already is a human to be safe. (If you asked me for my religious justifications, I’d give you a different, and probably less-palatable, answer).
(5) Unions have way too much power in a lot of cases, and are entirely necessary in others.
(6) You and I probably define the separation differently. I dont’ believe that a wall should exist between the two, and I don’t believe that officials should be restrained from governing according to their religious beliefs. I believe that the Amendment was written to protect religion from government, and the people from being forced to endorse, support, or join a specific religion. I don’t think displaying the ten commandments on the grounds of a courthouse come anywhere near that mark.
(7) I think affirmative action is a racist and backwards policy. You want to make society equal? Give them jobs and let them into colleges based on merit. You say black people can’t be as qualified for college because of poverty levels, inner-city schools, etc.? Then base affirmative action on poverty, not race—what about all of those poor whites and hispanics in the same circumstances who don’t get that extra boost? Better yet, fix the lower-level schools so that college admissions can really be based on merit.
(8) Universal health care is a great ideal. But the government is entirely ill-equiped to manage it efficiently. Did you happen to hear about the woman in Britain who recently waited six years to see an eye surgeon, out-lived him, and then was put on a two year list to see a different one? Government bureaucracies just can’t do this one well. Find me another solution, a way to get the market to pull it off, and I’ll listen closely.
Okay, I’ll give some basic stuff back to you so we define our positions, then you can feel free to focus on any that you’d like to debate in more detail (but be warned: I’m going to clean your clock across the board <g>).
Preface: I’m still not sure if you’re really a “neocon” as opposed to just a solid member of the GOP base. But that’s okay, I’ll still debatecha. 😉
(1) I’m for living wages, both here and abroad. Business already flows to lower-paying countries; the Gephardt proposal would set a floor so there’s no “race to the bottom” (and down the drain). And every time Democrats have pushed through a minimum wage increase, Republicans have bellyached about the economic devastation it will cause–and it ends up doing just the opposite. Keynes was right: put money in regular workers’ hands, and it gets circulated in a way that is more of a shot in the arm to the economy than letting fatcats keep more of their dividend income.
(2) What environmental regulations “cause more harm than good”? Like you, I need specifics–but I think we need a lot more regulation than we currently have. (Though I do think nuclear power should be an option as it does not spew pollutants into the air.)
(3) Seems we basically agree. But do you acknowledge that puts you at odds with the usual GOP handling of the justice system and in particular the judiciary?
(4) I think no woman should be forced to carry what starts out as a little speck all the way to term if she does not want to. So I think there should be a constitutional amendment to guarantee the right to abortion in the first trimester–but would ban it thereafter. Do you believe all abortions should be banned?
(5) Hard to judge how much we disagree without specifics. I am very pro-union, but I don’t pretend there aren’t those who get too fat, lazy, and corrupt, like any institution.
(6) I’m at a loss to understand how you could not see that a monument, intended to celebrate the “Christian origins of our nation” or whatever, displayed in a state supreme court, implies an “establishment of religion”. And why do conservatives feel so insecure about their religion? No one’s stopping them from going to church every day, praying hours daily if they want to (though why they’d want to, I can’t fathom). But they act as though they are being horribly deprived if they don’t make sure they rub their religion in everyone else’s noses too!
(7) We basically agree, especially your last sentence. However, I do think there has to be some kind of reparations settlement for slavery, Jim Crow, and segregation.
(8) Conservatives can always come up with such anecdotes. And if the choice was between socialised, rationed health care and classic fee-for-service health insurance, they might even have a point. But the rise of HMOs has brought rationed care, and the attendant horror stories, to our country as well. Difference being that under one system, the voters ultimately control what is covered and what isn’t, while the other’s rationing of care is done so that the maximum amount of profit can be skimmed off and sent to stockholders. Add in the inherent inefficiency of having to deal with myriad different companies and plans, and it’s not even close. Let me ask you this: are you labouring under the illusion that a majority of citisens in Canada or any European country would vote to trade their health care system for ours (though I hestate to call our patchwork a “system”)?
Ball’s in your court!
Alan
Maverick Leftist
(1)I think one of your biggest problems with that line of thinking is that a minimum wage adjustment can, in fact, take money out of the fat cats hands. In a simple world, assume you have one group of people making $5 an hour, one group making $15, and the fat cats, making $30. Now raise the minimum wage to $10. What do you think will happen? Of course, the fat cats are still in charge, and they’ll just adjust things so everybody else is making $10. And it will always go down that way.
And if you say “well, you could just raise the minimum to $15 or $20,” then you are really advocating socialism, and you might as well come out and push for that instead. Because small businesses (in many cases) simply won’t be able to make those kinds of leaps in their wages, and your next step will be to take some money from richer companies and add it to the smaller companies’ payrolls.
(2) Generally regulatory laws are fine, but a lot of them are poorly thought out and inefficient, causing serious economic harm, and often creating incentive to skirt them. Pollution, however, is a negative externality, which is the only reason we have government—to address them.
(3) Well, let’s not go nuts here. There are limits to the rights an accused should have. They should not, however, be treated as if they are already guilty under any circumstances.
And, sure, I know that this puts me out of step with the GOP base. I’m not a party-liner, what can I say?
(4) I do believe all abortions should be banned, and I believe so because of my religious beliefs. And yes, I know how quick Kossacks and Frogs (?) are to sneeze at religiously-based political beliefs. And I’m sorry for that. But I also think you’re full of shit if you say you would never legislate based on faith.
The fact that you think legislating on faith is wrong comes from some deeply-founded belief—most likely that people should be free from having their beliefs forced on them. As an extreme, maybe I don’t want to be free from having your beliefs forced on me. You’re violating my freedom, then, by keeping your beliefs off of me (and, in turn, forcing your beliefs on me and creating a paradoxical loop). Try not to think about that one for too long.
Here’s the thing: some religious beliefs are strictly mutually exclusive when it comes to politics. You think leaving women the choice is promoting freedom—I feel it’s forcing me to condone murder, which in my mind is a sin equal to the murder itself. If you’re ok with forcing me to adhere to your belief system, fine. Say that. Don’t play it off as you’re just trying to stear clear of mine.
And finally, what is it that makes a religious justification for something any worse than any other justification in so many of your minds? I’ll never understand that one.
(5) Fair enough.
(6) The Constitution says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” First off, neither Congress, nor any other legislative body passed a law to put that monument there. Second, I think a law that forbids the display of a religious monument, even on governmental grounds, would be a “law respecting an establishment of religion,” would it not? Things just aren’t as black and white as we might like to believe. In the separation of Church and State, it’s not always “religion bad, atheism good” where government is concerned. Sometimes it’s “religion is fine as long as everyone is allowed to bring his or her religion (or lack thereof) to the table.” For more on this, I recommend this (rather old) post on the subject. And I recommend you pick up the book it mentions.
As far as your “insecurity” question, I think you’re missing a big point of Christianity. I offer you a passage from the Second Book of Timothy:
You see, evangelism is a part of christianity. Some sects exercise this in different ways. I’m from the Northeast, and I’m Anglican—we see no problem with religion being kept largely in private. But some sects think that the entire point of passages like this (and I find it hard to disagree with them) is to make it loud and proud—put it in front of people, and make them deal with it.
If you tell them that they cannot put up that Ten Commandments, you are infringing on the exercise of their beliefs just as stringently as you feel they are infringing on yours by putting them up. Again, it’s not cut and dry—if you’re ok with restricting their beliefs in favor of another group’s, go right ahead. But again, say that. Don’t pretend that you’re just taking religion out of the picture and they can still worship however they want, because, in pure and simple terms, you are removing a portion of their worship.
(7) So, should there be reparations for the Chinese, who built the railroads in the West? The Japanese who were put in internment camps?
And who owes these reparations? What if none of my ancestors were in this country before the Civil War? Why should my family be punished for something in which it had no part?
I think reparations creates a whole host of problems with no solutions, and we need to settle for governmental apologies and move on. We’re too far removed to punish the actual culprits at this point, and instead we’ll be convicting a whole lot of innocents.
Of course, if you want to imprison neo-nazis and white supremacists who make calls for violence, seize their assets, and use that money for reparations, go right ahead. Of course then you’ve got your “protect the accused” problem too.
(8) I’ve seen a lot of evidence of the inefficiencies of socialized healthcare. And of course they don’t want to trade it… they all think they’re getting free healthcare, so the costs aren’t evident to them. But do you want a doctor being paid a set, governmental wage to be the one operating on you? Or do you want the possibility that you can have the guy who makes boatloads of money because he’s damn good at what he does?
Federalizing healthcare would push out the high-end doctors, because they’ll be able to keep making big bucks in another industry. And you’ll end up with a lot of mediocre doctors instead.
And what happened to the American dream of aspiring to better things than you have now? If I’m willing to pay a premium for better care, honestly, I think I should be able to do that.
Now, as far as providing healthcare for everybody? I think it’s a great idea. What I’m saying is, I won’t approve of any system that asks any group to give up any of the quality of their care in order to make it work.
————–
Back to your court.
on your exchange with SlackerInc, but this from above struck me:
If you tell them that they cannot put up that Ten Commandments, you are infringing on the exercise of their beliefs just as stringently as you feel they are infringing on yours by putting them up. Again, it’s not cut and dry–if you’re ok with restricting their beliefs in favor of another group’s, go right ahead. But again, say that. Don’t pretend that you’re just taking religion out of the picture and they can still worship however they want, because, in pure and simple terms, you are removing a portion of their worship.
In other posts, you seem to be a strong supporter of civil liberties. Awesome. But shouldn’t our civil liberties include some sort of provision for the freedom from having someone else’s religion shoved down your throat? Isn’t that what civil liberties are, freedom from interference in your life?
I think civil liberties should be on the individual level. Any given Christian should be allowed to evangelize in the sphere of his influence. One Christian by himself is not going to get the ten commandments posted in a school or courthouse by him or herself, at least not without the support of a whole group of other Christians.
I’m not running down freedom of association or anything like that, but I don’t think groups, on the left or right, should have their agendas favored over individual freedoms.
Let me try to clarify. (Also, no need to apologize for butting in—this is a free-form discussion).
First off, I don’t think a statue of the Ten Commandments is “forcing religion down your throat.” Displays like these have been a part of courthouses since our country’s founding, and it was never a problem until recently. But ignore that for now, because that’s a useless bit of strict opinion.
If you believe that protecting the freedom from faith is a higher (more valuable) civil right than the right to worship how you see fit, then you might as well stop reading here (though I hope you don’t).
Personally, I don’t think civil rights are so cut and dry. Assume I believe that displaying the Ten Commandments in my place of work (a courthouse, say) is an important part of my worship. Now, assume you are a very religious person who does not believe that displaying the TC is an important part of worship.
If I insist and display the commandments, then I am holding my religion above yours. BUT—and this is the important bit—if you insist and prevent me from doing so, you are holding your religion above mine to an equal extent. Whichever one of us wins that debate, we using the strength of government to enforce our view of religion over the other.
No, assume that you are an atheist. In the same scenario, you are holding your lack of religion above mine, and I am holding mine above yours, and we’re both trying to use the government to enforce it.
In other words, it is impossible to pick a side without infringing on somebody‘s beliefs.
Now, like I said, you might think the freedom from religion is more important than the freedom of religion. Personally, I don’t think that’s in the Constitution—I think they are both protected vehemently.
And therefore, we’re in a connundrum without a clear solution.
And instead of yelling at someone in my shoes “don’t ram your religion down my throat” (not that you did), Democrats should try and pick up on the nuance that they are doing the same in reverse.
(Note: This is not intended to absolve the Christian Right’s behavior in these disputes. For example, Roy Moore’s violation of a court order should be an offense punishable by imprisonment. Also, you’ll notice I said “assume I believe this way.” I don’t. I couldn’t care less whether the TC are displayed publicly or not. And I think if you’re that threatened by it, you need to gain a little more confidence in your own religious beliefs—or lack thereof.)
Hope that cleared some things up for you.
misunderestimated me.
Your argument above seems to take no cognizance of the actual content of the 10 commandments, and this is the most common problem in this discussion. It is commonly asserted that the 10 commandments merely express a kind of consensus wisdom of basic morality. That’s true for commandments 5-10. But not for 1-4.
1. “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”
This means Jehovah, expanded to mean God/Christ/Holy Ghost in a Christian context. This commandment in the public halls of justice is not neutral.
2. “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me. And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.”
Again, this is not a proper message for our courts to display.
3. “Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.”
Jesus Fucking Christ, will you lighten up already? Okay, this is kinda of okay, since oaths are still taken on the Bible. But we should really phase that out.
4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.”
This is America. We love the NFL.
I have one request, if you’d be so kind. Feel free to blaspheme as much as you want anywhere else you want. But I’ve been nothing but respectful to everyone here, including you. “Jesus F*cking Christ, will you lighten up already?” particularly when directed at my God is incredibly offensive to me. I would be bad enough if you said it to me, but blaspheming directly to God isn’t right, and if you want to have a theo-political debate with me, that’s not the way to go about it.
Now that we’ve got that out of the way.
“This commandment in the public halls of justice is not neutral.”
Again, I did not claim that its presentation is neutral. What I said is that its absence is not neutral either.
“Again, this is not a proper message for our courts to display.”
Again, you are entirely welcome to that opinion. But since you are favoring one religious view over another (that these symbols are not necessary on governmental grounds in order for proper worship over those who think they are), I ask simply that you recognize you ARE infringing on an (albeit small) other group’s religious views. It’s not a case of “religion or not” it’s a case of “your version of religion or theirs.”
For them, displaying these symbols at these locations is a part of the expression of their faith. You prevent that, you are preventing them from exercising the faith the way they would like.
Obviously we must choose your world view or theirs, because they are mutually exclusive. And, like I said, I don’t care one way or the other.
But don’t pretend that yours is the “unbiased one” because it’s not. It’s equally biased, just in a direction that a larger majority finds acceptable.
“Okay, this is kinda of okay, since oaths are still taken on the Bible. But we should really phase that out.”
I agree with you on that. Those guilty of most crimes have already abandoned the will of God, in my opinion, and therefore swearing an oath on a Bible probably won’t mean much to them anyway.
Plus, if you’re Christian to begin with, it’s pretty clear from the “though shalt not bear false witness” one that God doesn’t want you lying—why do you need to swear it on a Bible?
Also, I’m not a fan of swearing oaths period, thanks to this tasty passage, spoken by Jesus:
So, technically, Christians aren’t supposed to take oaths at all.
And finally, I also love the NFL. And I think the biggest problem here is that we’re approaching this from different angles. You’re trying to argue that these commandments are not indicative of American society, and so should not be included.
I say fine—again, I don’t care—but I want you to recognize that you are choosing one set of values over another, and that the set you are choosing represent a different interpretation of religion than the one you are rejecting, not merely an absence of religion.
I don’t know how much more clearly I can say it, but if you’re still not following, I’d be happy to try and say it a different way again.
take the Lord’s name in vain in your thread again.
Honestly, I have no idea what you are talking about. I really don’t. I makes a superficial amount of sense. But it evaporates upon even a cursory inspection.
My point is this: the 10 commandments are not what they are most often portrayed to be: namely, a near universal moral code that no one sane really disagrees with.
The first 4 commandments are incredibly specific to Judaism, and have been been, more or less (Saturday vs. Sunday, graven images) taken on by Christians.
Since the constitution states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” it would be a violation of the law for the Federal Government to pass a bill that required the display of the first 4 commandments.
Most state constitutions would be violated by state laws.
It’s not a matter of imposing my religious views on anyone. It’s a matter of the principle that the government should not pass a law that favors one religion over another.
Plus, it makes no sense to have a display of your God threatening me, paid for by my tax dollars. But that’s a secondary issue.
to a consensus.
I don’t want a law requiring their display either. But in the case of Roy Moore (as I said, a despicable man who should be locked up), there was no such law. The law said that the judge could decorate the courthouse however he saw fit.
In that circumstance, I honestly couldn’t give a hoot. I agree, I do not want tax dollars paying for it. But if a judge wants to buy a monument and display it, have at it.
I also don’t want a law BANNING the display of such a monumet, as I think that’s just as big a violation of the first amendment as requiring it would be.
cutting in!?
the discussion on the 10 commandments has been curious … it’s ignored two simple, and unrelated angles:
repeatedly, I don’t favor these displays. I just don’t give a hoot one way or the other.
I’m comfortable enough with my own faith that I don’t need testaments to it in public.
But I’m also comfortable with my faith that I’m ok with testaments of other people’s religions being displayed on public grounds.
My ideal would be, a judge wants to display the moral code of his religion (even if he’s in some hippie cult) then go right ahead!
Instead of worrying about the TC, we should just let anyone put whatever they want. (It’s basically the same way I feel about nativity scenes at christmas time. If you want to display your religious symbols on the town green, go ahead… just don’t complain when I put mine up too.)
It’s not a question of being comfortable in one’s faith. The issue involved is that the grounds – the property – is part of the public trust. As such, it belongs to all people. Therefore, it’s not a question of whether you yourself, or another group of folks, whether a small group, or a large majority, are comfortable with it.
I don’t care to display my symbols on public land, but your argument entirely misses the point.
The issue is whether it conforms to the law of the land. It does not. The issue is entirely about the government officials performing as a fiduciary in protecting the rights of all citizens, rather than catering to any. Should you or others care to proselytize, there are all sorts of private-land options for monuments and displays.
You may be right on principle, that lands held in public trust should not allow it–but I don’t think the Constitution says so.
(1) This is just silly. In fact, what tends to happen when the minimum wage goes up is that the wages of those over (but fairly close to) the minimum go up, as well, because management feels pressure to maintain the disparities between a bottom-level job’s pay and that of someone who is higher up. No way are they going to lower anyone’s pay.
(4) Notice that I’m in a kind of centrist position here. Normally, here or on Kos, I argue for why I have a problem with abortion after the first trimester (but it’s not for religious reasons, as I am an atheist). Scientifically, first trimester abortions are quite different in terms of sentience and so on. But if you believe in “ensoulment”, we’re just fundamentally never going to even agree on common definitions, so we might as well drop this one. I don’t, by the way, believe you should automatically be prevented from advocating public policy that is based on religious beliefs. But I’m not going to give your religious beliefs any special reverence, especially if you’re the one putting them in the political arena!
(7) “So, should there be reparations for the Chinese, who built the railroads in the West? The Japanese who were put in internment camps?”
Whoops, you shouldn’t have used that last example. Those Japanese did get $20,000 each as a result of the Civil Liberties Act of 1988. How does three years in an internment camp compare to getting kidnapped from your home country, enduring a slave ship where most people died, then spending generation after generation in appallingly brutal slavery, only to be “set free” and have the freedom yanked away again after only a decade or so, and then suffer under Jim Crow for a few more generations until just forty years ago? I’d say we’re talking about at least a factor of a hundred here, but I’d settle for less than that, and I’d want only a portion of the money to be direct payments, with the rest going toward infrastructure, education, small business loan guarantees, etc.
(8) You didn’t address any of my points about HMOs, or the inefficiency of dealing with hundreds or thousands of different insurers. And I never said anything about cutting doctors’ pay, though its rate of growth should be curtailed (a distinction you conservatives love, no? <g>).
Alan
Maverick Leftist
(1) Need to think more on this one. I gave you my gut response (probably should have specified that when I did) and not I’ll take your input back to the drawing board and reconsider my position. (So thanks, that’s a big part of why I’m here).
(4) I thank you for handling that respectfully. I agree that we’ll likely never reach a consensus on this, but at least you seem to understand my position. Too many don’t.
(7) I did not know that, and I stand corrected. Still, what about the Chinese? Native Americans? How about the Cajuns who were forced by the Brits to leave Canada and move down to Louisiana way back when? I’m not asking necessarily for specific answers. I just want to know who you’d force to pay these reparations and what other groups you might think are deserving of them.
(8) Honestly? I’m nothing of an expert on healthcare, so I’d need to read up on this more. All I know is my experience with european healthcare (once when I got sick over there, once when some people in a choir I was touring with did) were anything but exceptional.
(2,3,5,6) Should I assume we’ve reached consensus on these?
(1) You’re welcome, and I look forward to your future thoughts.
(4) No prob.
(7) Yes, I think those other groups (especially American Indians/Native Americans) have a case to make. And I realise I didn’t fully respond to something you previously pointed out about this. Yes, you’re right that having the government pay reparations (via money collected through taxes) can mean that someone who just recently arrived in this country might have to shell out for them. Heck, it means rich blacks, who would be disqualified from receiving the payments if I were writing the bill, would be paying for them too!
But it is the U.S. government that is the party ultimately at fault here for allowing all this stuff to occur or even aiding and abetting it; and so they are the ones to look at for redress. Part of the equation here is that current generations of Americans (including those who just arrived) benefit my the wealth and infrastructure created by all that slave labour (and Chinese labour, and Indian land). So what I’m proposing is assigning damages which could be seen as punitive but need not be, since compensatory damages plus interest will be more than the U.S. can pay anyway. Let’s not forget, though: once the reparations are settled, and a truly equal playing field is guaranteed in terms of education and opportunity, I’m all for ending racial (and gender) preferences in college admissions, hiring, all that. They are insulting and degrading to those they patronisingly help; and they cause every minority or female who works in a high level position to be regarded with suspicion or condescension as an “AA hire” or “token”.
(8) Rationed care can be tough. Again, though, that is not limited to the public sector–just look at all those HMO horror stories. I tend to think it’s likely to be tougher when it’s a profitmaking entity doing the managing. My sister is now a Canadian citisen, and she and her friends report never having had any problems. They see their doctor when they like, get everything taken care of satisfactorily, and just have to show that little card, no worries.
I do think it would be important for the U.S. to include a true “patients’ bill of rights” in any universal health care plan, though, just to be sure. This is one case where I would not want the rich to be “taken down a notch” to benefit the poor–I’d rather everyone be brought up to the same, or ideally better, level of care.
Alan
Maverick Leftist
OK, well, I think we’ve reached the logical conclusion of this thread, at least until I think some things over.
I appreciate your civility, and your willingness to engage me on exactly the level that was intended for this diary.
Take care, and I look forward to chatting with you in the future.
Cool, take it easy. You may not be doing my “rep” (which already is shaky in some quarters) any favours by calling me so civil! LOL
[Actually, I hope that this little debate has been helpful in the opposite respect: demonstrating, to those detractors I alluded to, that I do have some strong differences with conservatives. It’s just that what I enjoy doing most is debating, so my differences with whomever I’m discussing stuff with always seem to come out more than the common ground we share.]
Alan
Maverick Leftist
Alan, your position on the war in Iraq really threw me for a loop. If you have a moment, I’ll appreciate an expansion of your thoughts.
Sure, no problem.
Did you read the WaPo interview, and/or my short explanation in the “Maverick Leftist” link in my sig? Where would you like me to expand? I’ll take a guess, in advance:
It literally horrifies me to have to find myself on the “same side” of this issue as Bush. I believe the best take on Bush is The Case for Bush Hatred by Jonathan Chait, who also supported the war by the way. I just think that Reagan and Rumsfeld were wrong to cosy up to Saddam in the ’80s, and while that makes them hypocrites, what would it make me if I suddenly wanted to keep Saddam in power?
Alan
Maverick Leftist
Read the WaPo interview, and read the Kos piece awhile back, so I revisited. Having said that, does your position on the Iraq war fall under Item #1 in your Kos diary? If so, would Darfur not take precedence over Iraq? Am I interpreting your viewpoints correctly in drawing the conclusion that you support PNAC (at least to some extent)?
Not PNAC per se, but I’m sure many of our goals would be parallel. And you’re right: Darfur would rank higher–but that still doesn’t make me go against the Iraq war.
Alan
Maverick Leftist
In my opinion, if George W. Bush was perfect in every other area, he still would not deserve re-election because of the failure to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. As early as October 2001, soldiers and equipment were being diverted and withheld from Afghanistan to prepare for Iraq. Bush promised OBL dead or alive. He has achieved neither as commander in chief. Six months after Sept. 11th, 2001, Bush said he didn’t care where OBL was, he wasn’t concerned with it. Bush is a failure in every possible way as president. But how the right lets him off the hook over Osama bin Laden is beyond me. And don’t blame the troops. Bush claimed politics would not interfere like in Vietnam. Yet he has done nothing but play politics in the “war on terrorism” since the beginning.
I’m mixed on this issue.
While a part of me wants to torture OBL myself, another part of me hoped from the beginning that I didn’t want us to catch him. Hear me out and I’ll try to explain.
Since 9/11, there’s been a sentiment that Al Quaeda is the problem. One of the major objections to the Iraq war has always been “there’s no Al Quaeda connection.”
I understand that. And I think it’s a disasterous way to think. If we caught OBL, the people who think this way would say “OK, we got him, now let’s return to our normal lives.”
I support a broader war on terrorism, and anyone willing to commit terrorist acts, and the capture of OBL would eliminate nearly all support for that kind of thing—in my opinion opening us up to some serious danger.
That being said, if we figure out where he is, we should take him dead or alive. I’ll deal with the repercussions when we cross that bridge.
Justice delayed is justice denied. Every single asset at our disposal should have been put in the hunt for Osama bin Laden and Al-Quaeda. EVERY SINGLE ASSET.
I don’t give a damn about terrorists in other organizations who didn’t attack us when the villains that did are free to roam, to plot, to breathe, to do as they will.
We should take care of our own problem first and foremost. We should have eliminated those responsible for Sept. 11th. You know that as well as I and unless you’re a base Bush apologists then you should be as fucking pissed about it as I am. Think of the people who died that day. They were our people. Even those from foreign lands working in the World Trade Center towers were our responsibility because they were guests in our nation.
And how can you claim the Bush administration is conducting a broader war on terrorism? We ARE HARBORING people in our country accused of terrorism in their native lands. We’re not extraditing them. We’re not holding them prisoner. How can you claim we support a broader war on terrorism when we are doing that?
Al Quaeda is the problem. They are the ones that attacked us. Not Hamas. Not Hezbollah. And the Bush administration is ignoring the threat of terrorism as if Sept. 11th never happened. The Bush administration is already acting like everything is normal when it comes to investing the money to protect us from terrorism. They’ve not invested money in protecting our borders, our ports, our airports, our chemical and nuclear plants, our IT infrastructure. Not nearly enough funds have gone into that. So except for the lip service and terror alerts to play with peoples fears and boost the polls, how can you believe anything other than the Bush administration?
And if you think OBL’s capture or death would only make us less safe, isn’t that proof that Bush hasn’t protect our nation properly?
worth responding to. Of course, for some reason I will anyway.
This dialogue is about dialogue, not presumptions of “you know as well as I do,” and accusations of being a mere apologist.
Obviously I believe these things very strongly, or I wouldn’t be subjecting myself to these conversations.
So, for the rest of you: if you’re planning to head down this sort of road, don’t expect me to follow.
Carnacki, none of the conclusions you make in that post are indisuptable fact, even though you present them as such. You think Al Quaeda is the problem—I don’t. What makes you more right than me? That they’re the only ones who’ve attacked us so far?
Well, geez. Guess I’d better rethink intervening in the Holocaust then.
Guess what Hamas and Hezbollah are going to do as soon as they’ve finished with Israel, my friend. Guess where they’ll turn next?
I don’t support harboring people who have committed acts of terrorism in other countries—go ahead and extradite them. (Also, provide me with a link, if you would.)
I don’t think our borders are secure enough, or our ports. But I’ll bet you oppose the MinuteMan project, too, don’t you?
And, for the rest of you, I mean it. The minute you start assuming that everything I say is wrong “and I know it,” you’re going to lose my willingness to engage you. This is the last time it’ll happen.
you haven’t been getting troll rated or anything have you?
Everything seems to be running smoothly.
Carnacki seems pretty upset, but that’s bound to happen now and again. Thanks for your interest.
I’m done engaging you. The Sept. 11 attacks happened under Bush’s watch. He has done nothing to secure the country. The MinuteMan missile did nothing to stop those airliners from crashing into the towers. Your words: “You think Al Quaeda is the problem–I don’t. What makes you more right than me? That they’re the only ones who’ve attacked us so far?” You don’t think Al-Quaeda’s the problem? You don’t think the organization that killed 3,000 people on our soil the problem? You’re not worth speaking to. I was wrong to think you ever were. You are a Bush apologist.
to listen again:
I do think Al Quaeda is a problem, but not THE problem. And I think removing OBL would give people a false sense of security that is more dangerous than pretty much anything else that could happen.
And no, since I was saying this starting on September 12, it’s hard to justify calling me a Bush apologist.
To give this comment to Carnacki?
Well, geez. Guess I’d better rethink intervening in the Holocaust then.
Guess what Hamas and Hezbollah are going to do as soon as they’ve finished with Israel, my friend. Guess where they’ll turn next?
Statements:
Looking at the title of diary, I was saddened I missed the opportunity. Looking a bit closer by reading your style of “debate”, I didn’t miss anything of importance. This is not engaging in a discussion by proposing lunatic questions in return. If this is your idea of useful engagement, I think it’s just hogwash.
I will not repeat all parts of war crimes, lack of adherence to Geneva conventions by Bush | Cheney | Rumsfeld et al. that would just be a waste of my time with you as a “moderate NeoCon”.
Don’t ever consider me your friend, you’re not even close.
It will cost a few lives, but democracy never comes FREE? Who decides. The number 30,000 is not open for dispute, the US occupation forces and effort in civil “deconstruction” of Iraq do not find it worthwhile to count the Iraqi victims.
Signing off.
ELECTION 2006 will be the start of CHANGE and the beginning of the end of the BUSH NEOCON EMPIRIUM.
Oui – Liberté – Egalité – Fraternité
What do we know for sure about this neocon other than he has a website? I think his answers quite frankly are not answers at all and he seems to be able to avoid answering with talking points retoric. Sorry, in this day and age I DO NOT trust that he is here at all. He does not seem interested in the facts. I’m uncomfortable. Is he here to answer or questions or get information as to how far we will go to get the facts on guckert and company. If he does not see anything wrong with a reporter having access to the WH by day and turning tricks by night then he is not ever going to give a straight answer.
Well to answer your question, he first came to this site after I saw one of his postings on DK where he was troll rated for holding a position much like mine. I sent him and email and we started to chat, and I invited him to this site so that he could dsicuss some of these issues with people who were open to discussion. He did come that night and started to post. I have been trying to get him to do this discussion thing and finally an opportunity came up and so here we are.
He may not give you the answers you want, but they are his.
I think it is important to us to know how the right thinks, even if its just this one, and to have an opportunity to discuss these issues with him.
So now’s your chance,
alohaleezy, I exchanged ideas with him before in this thread. I think he explains well why he’s on DailyKos other than right wing sites. I think he’s looking as much for answers and I hope we can bring him to our side.
Ignore my previous post. You were right. I was wrong. You should be suspicious of him. He’s a tool.
have you listened to the Hannity audio? It will cheer you up.
I heard it on AirAmerica tonight coming home from our grassroots meeting. I get very angry about Sept. 11th. And when someone describes OBL and AlQuaeda as not a problem, that pisses me off. I see what you’re trying to do by heading off problems and I respect it’s your site. I won’t exchange anything with him again either here or on DailyKos where I actually have had some positive exchanges with him once or twice. But I will never forgive Bush for his failure to heed the warnings or to take the appropriate response after the attacks. Bush failed this country and if someone is blind to that, he is blind to the dangers still facing us.
Damn, did you miss my mangling of your name. No props for comedy?
I was starting to wonder if it was just me and am so glad to have you say this. The guy is a tool and quite frankly am offended that he is allowed here. I have not troll rated him as I wanted to try for an opportunity here. I was very skeptical from the beginning and this guy is a total talking points, Bush apologist.
for someone else to give out something other than a 4..I tossed out a 2 for a hijacking..and I think that is about it…Is there a troll here that needs to be outed??????
do you want to explain that, I don’t get what you are saying. chamonix old friend from Sat.
He is not a troll, how could he be, he came here willingly announcing who and what he was, to engage in this debate so that we could get an idea how someone thinks on the other side. How could he be a troll.
We see how he thinks and we are no where close to what he believes are his ideals. Are you? And yes he can be a troll. He is just upfront about it.
you and others feel this way. What did you expect of this discussion? It seems to be an interchange of ideas is it not, how do you want him to state his positions. I think he has done a good job, maybe not to your satisfaction, but consider for a moment, maybe we are not all that clear at times either.
How can we understand the other side if we do not listen to them, he is just as representative of his side as you or I are of ours.
What would you prefer, send him back to Conservative land with a kick in the but, for what telling you his views.
It was known at the outset he differed, how else could he call himself a neocon.
The idea of this discussion was not to wrench out of him a confesstion that he was all wrong and we are all right. But rather to hear his views. If this is not relevant to you that’s fine, don’t participate, I guess.
But for me I do want to know, I do want to reach out, I do want to learn about the other side, and I do want to bring some to this side. But if they are not welcome on this side; if they should differ in the slightest to prevelant cemented positions, they will not come.
Ease up OK, its not life or death here, just a discussion. Another poster said they were insulted, for what I ask. This was clearly stated at the beginning to be a discussion, nothing less, nothing more. Ok.
Since this thread is titled “Join the debate with a Neocon,” I wonder, Chamonix, if you can explain to me how it’s possible that I hijacked it?
The whole point is for you guys to ask me what I believe, and for me to answer with what I believe. So where did this alleged hijacking occur?
And are you implying that I’m a troll, or simply questioning if there are trolls here?
No, we wanted a dialogue. That means exchanging ideas not just agreeing with you. Are you heare to get validation for your beliefs? Are you having trouble with what you believe? Do you believe Bush and company has repeated lied to the American public? Bush told us he would get OBL dead or alive and six months later literally said he quite frankly didn’t care about OBL. Why? Because he no longer needed him for the excuse to invade and occupy Iraq and kill hundreds of thousands of innocents. Torture is acceptable to you? I cannot fathom that belief EVER!
OK… so you’re accusing me of doing what you actually did? As I laid out below, I have responded to every one of your ideas with my take on things.
I don’t expect you to agree with them, but it seems you expect me to agree with every one of yours. Strange, that.
I do not believe Bush has lied, and I’m sorry that you do. As I laid out, I’m OK with not capturing OBL, I know you disagree–but does that mean I’m not exchanging ideas? Doesn’t seem that way to me.
And where did I say torture is acceptable to me?
of the thread..and I may be making a poor judgement, but just based of the fact that you think Bush has not lied WOW…you are so close to getting a troll rating on that one..that I am doing all I have in me to not hit that Troll button. This is not even taking into account that you think it’s O-Fucking-K that he doesn’t give a shit about capturing Osama…now we get to the pro-torture deal, It’s now getting very serious….I am hoping you are not pro torture…Anyone who supports torture is an ass and deserves nothing but misforturne…..right now..this second ….I am thinking Troll..
Chamonix he never said he was for torture and about the OBL that is a theory that has been out there, from respected people in the field, can’t pull up the link just now, and “how can he be a troll,”
Don’t get mad just because he doesn’t think Bush lies, try to convince him he does. Don’t dismiss.
Why are you getting so worked up at this, read the whole thread when you can and you will see what I am saying.
You know what Diane? What I am finding amazing is that you feel the need to defend this guy. If he is capable of getting himself invited here, he well should be able to defend his beliefs as a neocon. Why do you feel you need to keep interjecting on his behalf?
Well I am really not defending him,per.se. I am merely pointing out what I see.
I do think he is fully capable of defending himself as he has shown.
I am “engaging” in this debate also, as well as you and others are, so I certainly feel free to interject my thoughts and opinions and I have commented on just what I have read thoughout this whole thread..
Do I not have that right????
I certainly hope so, just as you have the right to make the comment you just made and all others.
I have commented just the same as I would have if he were any other poster.
And I am going to do it again.
This is an open discussion, after all.
Yes, Diane you do have every right to make comments here. It IS an open discussion. I guess what at least four other posters seem to be feeling here is that we aren’t really learning anything new here as far as how and why neocons think the way they do.So if I counted correctly a third of the posters feel this way. I guess I should not try to speak for others and only express my own veiws.I don’t believe this is your “average” neocon in anyway. He is a student at Yale, that seems quite intelligent, that has, for some reason, spent an hour with the most “charismatic” president. This is not an average republican by any means. How and why was he invited to the White House? Is he related to anyone in the government? I mean we still no nothing about him. He just ‘dropped in” to dkos? Am I missing something here? he hasn’t express any point of view differently than any other republican that I have chosen to engage with. Why do you beileve he may hold some golden key answers? I believe the people we should be engaging with should be the leaders od our party. Write, call, ask for town hall meetings with these reps. Go to meet ups, work for local candidates, run for office. That, to me is how one can affect change in the party. Thanks for listening.
Well maybe you have missed something. This is what happened, I was checking hidden comments on DK last week and I saw that he had received zeros on onoy one comment he had made and I happened to agree with that comment. So I sent him an email and he responded and we continued to chat and have a discussion. I invited him here to this site saying that he would be welcome her, according to what Booman has said previously. He did come that night, he did become a member and even had a discussion with Boo that night and Boo said he was welcome knowing full well he was a Neo. This site is not limited exclusively to Dems, according to what I have gathered from Booman.
I have continued to communicate with him and I came to the conclusion that it might be benificial to actually have a public dialogue with a Neocon, or conservative, whatever you want to call him.
We were actually planning on co-writing a diary but the other day when we were having a discussion on this site, I thought our comments would be a good opening to having a dialogue and creating a diary.
I discussed this with Boo before hand and he said esentially it was up to me.
So I put it out there so we could talk to him and maybe find out a little why and how and least one Cons. feels and thinks.
The fact that he may be a moderate, is not germaine, he still votes Repub.
All I can say to you is that if this discussion is not your cup of tea fine, but others have said otherwise, so perhaps just not reading this thread will be best.
Are you suggesting that because he is a student at Yale and intelligent we cannot have this discourse. Would you prefer a far right repub.
For your information I happen to be a moderate Dem. and find the little distance between the two of us to be a surmountable one and I will continue to try to persuade him to our side, even if our side does not welcome him.
I do not agree with all of his positions nor do I apparently agree with all of yours, but I do want to hear them.
He did explain in another part of the thread that he was at a dinner, cannot remember all the details.
There is also another post by him explaining why he calls himself a neo con, which to me means new conservative.
I find it slightly ironic that you first asked me to stop defending him and them you ask me to defend myself from what, the fact that I posted this diary in the first place, or what?
Frankly I don’t understand your objections,3 people said they don’t like this dairy, that really is a huge number isn’t it. well fine, they have their opinion. But others did not. What do you expect me to do, delete the diary, stop talking, make no more comments, what.
You know there is disent even amomg Dems and I do not agree with all views of dems espoused here and elsewhere, nor am I required to do so. So how is this diary any different from any other, some will agree on a issue or point and some will not.
Shall we discard the voices of disent and disagreement and refuse to hear them. Shall we silence the voice of any one and refuse to try to come to some meeting of the mind or refuse to compromise.
I am challenging him on his position just as other.
Are you perhaps suggesting we on the Dem side should all think the same way. Well you don’t have my vote on that one.
Anyway, I hope that has answered at least some of his questions.
I am sorry if I haven’t made myself clear. All I was trying to discuss with you was that you really know nothing about this man. I am not saying this is true but for all you know it is Jeb bush, Karl Rove or even Guckert. I do believe I am obligated to dissent when I believe in something. One of the resons I came to booman’s site is I was beginning to feel at dkos there was too much, me toos. I am not saying you are wrong oto try and talk with this guy and you are right I can choose to read or not to read anything on this site. But what I am hearing and tell me if I am wrong is that I should just move along and not challenge this guy. Yes, he said he was at a dinner at the WH but never explained how it came to be he was there.
None of us are perfect Diane and we will all hold different views on different issues. Jeez, that’s what makes life interesting. Nothing like a good debate but when you ask someone a direct question and that is answered in generalities or “I am too busy with writing papers and articles and thesis papers right now to answer in detail” then don’t initiate a conversation. In my limited life experience this is called avaoidance. Politicians on both sides are very good at this. My instincts are pretty damn good and something doesn’t sit right for me with this person. You will noticed I didn’t troll rate him. You know why? I want to see this guy stick around long enough for him to expose himself.
I give you big fours and kudos for the effort. I even agreed with alot of your comments and questions for him. If you are satisfied with his answers that is fine. I just happen to disagree and let’s leave it at that.
Last night I was so frustrated with his non answers not that he disagred with me. I thought maybe today with a fresh perspective things may have looked differently but I am convinced otherwise. It certainly was not my intent to offend you Diane but to maybe have you look at things from some others perspective.
Challenge away,when di I ever say not to.
And sorry if the debate did not perform the way you wanted, sorry he could not be here all the time,sorry that people can not always be on this site, sorry that it wasn’t fast enough for you, sorry I bothered you by interjecting, sorry for whatever….
I just don’t get what you are trying to say.
What do you want to expose him for; being a neo con, being Karl Rove, what…… don’t know how more open he could be.
And so what….
What would you troll rate him for, for not doing as you wish. Not thinking as you like. What exactly. Maybe for not being on site every minute. Not answering your questions the way you want. Really.
You are actually challenging me more than you are him, and I still think that is ironic.
In my mind he has attempted to answer as many questions as possible, what more do you want.
Oh just thought, maybe you want to expose me, for being a troll, whatever that really means. Who could I be posing as.
Why are you getting in such a tizzy over this.
I am not related to anyone in government (that I know of).
I was invited to a private dinner at the White House as part of my singing group at Yale. I ended up assigned to a table with the president. As I said, the conversation at the table quickly turned to focus mostly between myself and the president.
I did not call him “the most charismatic president,” I perhaps said he is most charismatic. This may be semantic, but it’s a distinct difference.
The reason I’m here is that, while you may engage Republicans on a daily basis, a lot of liberals do not. I think we can all gain by hearing the other side. This is a place that I can hear the other side without any personal attachments (friends, family, etc.) because I don’t know any of you. I can therefore listen to what you say, and learn a lot about my opposition, and about what we have in common. If you don’t value the same experience, then stop coming back here and asking me more questions. If you do value it, then stop harassing diane for making something available that a few people have enjoyed.
Diane and I have found that we share common ground, and by exploring that, we’ve learned a lot from one another. We wanted to open that opportunity up to the Booman community so that she, I, and anyone who chose to take part might find some benefit.
I’m sorry you didn’t, but does that mean no one else can? This isn’t about boosting the Democratic party through hard work—which I agree with you is absolutely necessary for electoral success—it’s about opening your mind to someone who sees things differently.
Just think, maybe one of the people who is engaging me with an open mind will figure out some portion of how I think. Maybe she’ll take that to her advantage and (as many on Kos have tried to convince me before) get me to switch parties. Even if not, maybe she’ll find some tool in convincing swing voters who don’t necessarily see eye-to-eye with you or her.
More than that, what do you have to lose from listening to someone who disagrees with you? If it’s time, then don’t spend it here. No one has put clothes pins on your eyelids and pointed you towards this diary. You don’t want to be here, then don’t be here.
But what do you get out of attacking us for doing this in the first place? Is it some sick pleasure? Does it feel good to let everyone know that you’ve got everything figured out and you don’t need to ever listen to anyone who disagrees with you because they’re lacking a golden key?
Get off your high horse. Try walking among us imperfect people sometime. You know, it can be fun to make mistakes, and it can be even more fun to learn from them with the help of someone who approaches the world a little differently than you do.
coming from someone that cannot or will not admit that the man he chose to elect to the highest office of our nation is a liar and a fraud, a man that is not willing to admit mistakes have been made, one that has resulted in 100,000+ deaths, I find totaly arrogant and absurd.
Because I have challenged you or Diane does not mean I don’t think that this type of interaction could be productive. You seem to want me to only see your views yet lamblast me for mine. Now who is calling the kettle black. If you and Diane want to be buddies more power to you. I just don’t find any of your arguments based in reality.
I think you make a good point, and I understand your perspective better with your last comment.
I just felt at the time, why are we discussing why you do not like the diary and if you don’t why do you care.
What would you say to someone who said this diary is pointless when you think it worthwhile. that was my problem and I tried to deal with in the best way possible in the midst of a flurry of writing.
I still don’t see why you care so much and can’t just ignore it.
I don’t want to fight with you over this, it’s just a diary, after all. We can just agree to disagree on this, is that ok…., she said nicely with a friendly smile on her face.
Yes, I absolutely agree that we can disagree on this. That is each of our choices. I care so much because I am afraid Diane. I am afraid for you and me and my son and my grandaughter. I am afraid for our safety and freedoms. These past five years have been a real eye opener for me. I have become deeply involved in the pursuit of putting these criminals where they belong…behind bars. I am concerned over the division Bush has caused in this great country of ours. I am concerned that I have lost friends and can barely speak to one sister anymore because of these political divisions. What Bush has done and the direction he is taking us is beyond comprehension. That we have a media that has been bought and intimidated I never could have imagined in my wildest dreams. The young man you invited here is very intelligent and very well versed but has, imho so very much more to learn. It’s called life experience and my greatest hope for him is he sees his party for what they really are before it is too late. Quite frankly I do not trust him, he is far to vague in his answers(it is not the content that disturbs me it is the lack of it imho).
Nothing personal Diane but I feel very strongly about these things and I will continue to shout it from the roof tops in the hopes that enough people will hear the truth. Have a pleasant evening.
Hi, Aloha, by the way are you from Hawaii, just curious about the screen name.
BTW have you commented on my latest diary about poltical blogs, would love to get you input there as we are discussing ways to make political blogs more action based, or at least that’s my thrust.
I too am worried to death for the same reasons you are and I am trying to find a way for us to make changes, just from these blogs and the interconnectedness we have with the whole world through these blogs.
So please comment on the diary.
And thank you for your response, I think we really all need to stick together on these site and others so we can have some power to make some changes.
I live in Del Mar CA now but lived on Kauai for eight years ’94-’02. Alohaleezy has been my screen name for the past ten years.
I lived on Oahu in the 60’s and visited Kauai in the 70’s and feel Hawaii is my spiritual home and love it so and am so sad I cannot live there now. Was the Jetty Bar still there when you lived on Kauai?
I live in Santa ana, Orange County, and my sister used to live near La costa Resort.
California is the next best thing to Hawaii, I think. Do you.
Kauai was a beautiful experience and I feel I found myself there. It was a magnificent journey albeit a painful one. However, through the pain(went through a horrible divorce)I grew leaps and bounds as a person. Don’t know about the Jetty Bar. I am a recovering alcoholic(24 years) so did not frequesnt bars there.
Kauai was the first place I felt truly at peace and it will always be “home” to me. The only reason I came back was due to 9/11 and realiseing just how short life can be and I needed to be closer to my son and grand daughter. I have been here for three years now and love it. I am in Del Mar and manage an apartment complex a block from the ocean. It is as close to Kauai one may come to on the mainland I think.
sentiment. But I encourage you to read the rest of the diary before you go down that road. If you have to do it, you have to do it.
But I personally don’t think a person should be trolled merely for stating his opinions. I came here of my own will, exposing myself to all kinds of vehemence, hatred, and ill-will, and was completely honest about everything I believe.
I’m not just some freeper here to pick a fight, I’m a conservative who was asked her that you guys could pick my brain a bit. If you pick and don’t like what you find, does that really mean I deserve a troll rating?
Isn’t that just a chilling effect? Is that what the troll rating is about? If so, as I’ve said before, you’re just going to end up with an echo chamber and BooMan Tribune will, sadly, sink into obscurity.
So, troll if you must—I can’t, and wouldn’t want to stop you. But I’d hope you could keep a more open mind than to troll someone for answering a question about his beliefs with honesty. After all, wouldn’t it be more productive for all involved if, rather than assuming that any rational person must believe that Bush lied, you chose to lay out for me the case that he’s lied from scratch?
Heck… maybe you’ll even convince me.
sorry, I meant to include this:
I honestly don’t have a firm position on torture, so you guys can feel free to convince me. I think as a general principle torture is to be abhored. But I also think that, in certain circumstances, it might have some value (i.e. if it were objectively possible to know that someone had information about an iminent attack, and that information could save thousands of lives, but he isn’t talking).
So, on the issue at large, I don’t know where I stand.
hijack part, i was talking about another thread where we had a guest (soldier from Iraq) and were asked if we wanted to ask questions..that was the hijacking I wrote about…and I have no idea if you are a troll. I just saw a comment where you were accused of being one. I would need to go and read your comments. As a matter of fact…since no one here has ever been troll rated we are in new territory. I am not even sure what a troll is on this site. But I am sure we are allowed to rate people trolls or the option wouldn’t be there. Perhaps someone should ask Booman what a troll really is? On dkos it is very clear..Here..I am not so sure.
Thank Chamonix, for clearing that up for me too. Iwas sure I could count on you for being reasonable.
Several people have asked about my stance on Right to Die issues.
I am currently writing a column on that topic, and don’t have the time to expand here. I will post my ideas when I finish it.
The basics: Euthanasia is suicide, and the easy way out. If you want to do that, go ahead. You have NO right to ask a doctor to participate, and I think a doctor’s participation is a violation of the “Do No Harm” clause if he takes an active step (overdose, etc.) to make it happen. Removing a respirator or other heroic device is fine. A feeding tube merely provides nutrition, and I do not consider to be a heroic option, but if you do, get a living will.
Without a living will, the next of kin should decide. If there’s a disagreement, “err on the side of life.”
how I feel about the government intervention.
In a word: furious.
I want a national debate about right-to-die issues, but I want legislation to remain on the state level. And with this particular case, the appropriate state laws were applied, and the courts reached their decision. Weeks ago, it was time to move on and worry about the bigger issues instead of the specifics of this case.
I disagree with the courts decision, but we long ago reached the point where it was time to comply with them and worry about the future instead. I will mourn her passing, but I think it was unavoidable.
It’s been productive, but I have two papers and a column due over the next 36 hours, so I really need to do some work on those.
Keep posting your questions, and I’ll check back some time later tonight, and again in the morning and respond as best I can.
As always, you’re also welcome to email me, as well.
Recommend this diary so that others can take a crack at me!
apparently I can’t put HTML tags in the subject line.
Lesson learned… see? Even if I am a conservative, I can learn from my mistakes!
I would llike to ask Another, what he thinks we as Democrats can do to get our message out better and where he thinks we are missing the boat.
Why do Conservatives think we are so bad?
Do they lump us all in the group tent with our leaders?
Do you see all ranges of thinking within the Rep Party or do they all think alike. Now I don’t think they all think alike, but I want to know your view on this.
The first is a complicated issue, but I think the problems stem from the fact that liberal thinking in America today consists largely of “We know we’re right, so let’s scream about it as loud as we can and evnetually things will get better! YEARGHHHHHHHHHHHH!” (Yes, that is an obvious allusion to Howard Dean’s infamous Iowa scream).
When the Massachusetts Supreme Court passed its decision on gay marriage, when the Supreme Court handed down Lawrence v. Texas, and when the San Fran mayor violated standing law to marry people without licenses, I wrote a lot on the coming backlash. Sure enough, you’ve now got a dozen states that have banned gay marriage. Seems like things backfired a bit, no?
My point is simple: relax. You make much better arguments when you take on the issues calmly. Americans are, by in large, resistant to change, so you have to be patient with them. You have to convince them to see your way, instead of just knowing you’re right and not caring about the people who disagree with you.
My best advice would be: try to do a better job of understanding the people you’re trying to win over. John Kerry couldn’t believe he was losing to George W. Bush—and neither could a lot of people. But you know what? Half the country wasn’t surprised at all. So, really, it’s not such a ridiculous idea to have supported the President’s reelection, but liberals are too quick to act like the other side is just uninformed, ignorant, evil, or stupid. You’re never going to convince people that way. Take a lesson from Second Timothy, as I quoted above.
I’d say the conservatives I know don’t generally identify leaders of the liberal movement in America, largely because there is no liberal movement. I recommend reading this Op-Ed in today’s (Wednesday’s) NYT, by Bill Bradley. He points out that the conservative movement has a pyramid structure, filing down to the President at the top. Right now, it seems to me, that the Dems are missing that kind of thing. You are, largely, a churning mess of activism that can’t organize into any vertical efficiency.
Honestly, I think the Dems are going to need to spend a few years in the Wilderness (yep, another Biblical allusion) before they’ll reemerge with some strength. The Dems, and the progressive movement generally, has lost its book and needs to write a new one like the Republicans did in the 70s.
Of course Republicans don’t think alike, but there are some general themes that remain consistent across large swathes of our Party. I think that’s true of Dems too, but it’s become less clear what they are for you guys.
“George Bush is the worst thing to happen to this country” doesn’t count as a common theme, and is the primary leason y’all lost in ’04.
(Trust me on that at least a little… it’s what I’m writing my senior thesis on).
Some very thoughtful questions were posed by people on this diary today. I’ve read through each comment several times and am mostly discouraged by the answers that were given by this ‘neocon’. Almost to an item I can find the same answers on a right-wing blog or talk show. Lots of links to facts and information was provided by commenters and yet was summarily dismissed.
Lots of people I know are thoughtful republicans – some areas we agree and some area we disagree. This isn’t a republican or democrat issue – it is a fact versus talking points situation.
I suppose the 2 areas that lost me were (1) the assertion that one persons belief in abortion as murder should be legislated to prevent others from a medical procedure and (2) the assertion that not capturing OBL was irrelevant and that the war in Iraq is not immoral.
I’ll pass on further engagement in this dialogue and have unrecommended the diary.
But since I don’t listen to talk radio, and have reached the conclusions I have largely on my own, I again reject the idea that I’m just offering talking points.
However, it’s your right, and I regret that you feel the need to disengage.
So where do you get your information to form your views?
I spend 3-4 hours a day reading. I regularly read: the NYT, the WSJ, WaPo, Washington Times, the Economist, CNN.com, MSNBC online, InstaPundit, Taegan Goddard’s Political Wire, any pieces I find interesting on RealClearPolitics, several Yale papers, DailyKos, now Booman Tribune, and a various assortment of blogs that you can find on my blogroll if you like. Yes, you’ll see the incredible right wing Powerline among them, and I read it as part of my effort to get extreme takes on both sides.
My basic underlying philosophies were formed growing up in a moderate house (my mom is an independant, my Dad a Republican on the libertarian side of things), where any view I took was immediately challenged. As an example, I once had a debate with my Dad. I was arguing against the death penalty, he in favor. He convinced me. I told him as such, he asked me why. I laid out what had swung me, and he immediately started arguing against those points.
At all times I was forced to defend what I believed, and as a result, I try to still do that. I visit Kos and Booman to try and continue that pattern, lest I become too comfortable in any of my views.
And what I see most often, on both sides of the aisle, are people unwilling to do the same and really challenge their underlying presumptions. At first it seemed that Booman Tribune was freer of that kind of thing.
But watching people here tonight get upset because I’m not immediately submitting to their will (their “superior logic”?), I finding that maybe it’s not the case afterall.
Suprior logic? How arrogant of you. You have no intention of hearing anything here. You can take your ball and go home now. I really am done now. Good night!
I think you misread. I wasn’t claiming to have superior logic, I was only disputing the fact that you seem to think you have a monopoly on it…
But ok, it seems you’re the one taking the ball and going home, not me… I’m still here, you may notice.
For participating in the experiment to see if the two sides could have a discussion in a civilized way and I think for the most part that has been accomplished.
I hope we haven’t been too hard on you.
By in large, people have been very open and productive. The few who were upset seem to have gotten that way through miscommunication, for which I apologize to each of you.
I have to get back to work on a paper due in 7 hours, so I think Diane and I are signing off now.
However, I’m still hoping for a response from SlackerInc on this stream, which seemed to be among the most useful, so I’ll be checking back now and again over the next day or so. If you post something and I don’t seem to have seen it, please email me and I will be sure to get back to you.
Thanks for participating!
I am sorry that you find this discussion unworthy of you and that you find his answers to be typical rep. talk, well he is after all a Rep and he has certainly made that clear.
Did you expect to agree with him on anything or everything.
This is a discussion to explore the differences we have and to find some common ground we can come to. This is not a discussion for him to talk the way you want him to, and as for talking points, I think they can be found on both sides.
If you do not wish to participate, that’s fine with me, but not everyone on this side might agree with your postions.
It’s about finding out what other think. We can talk all day about what “we” think endlessly to each other, but that’s not doing any good as far as finding common ground, which we have to do to achieve anything in this country.
This side is just as guilty of group think as the other so I think it is unfair to paint him into that corner.
So based on two points you do not agree with you wipe out the whole discussion as being in any way worthwhile. How unfortunate.
but there is no common ground with this guy Diane. I really have no onteresst in exchanging ideas with a person thast thinks what a woman does with her own body is any of his GD business. He first made it sound as if he and George were “close” then backed off and said he didn’t mean to make it sound that way. But then said he had a private conversation with him but would not to respond to what they talked about. Then he when asked if Bush was drinking his response was Bush doesn’t drink. I responded with how did he know, he’s not with him twenty four hours a day and that Bush’s erratic behavoir points to the possibility that he could still be drinking. His response was “I won’t dignify that with an answer, that is just ridiculous”. This guy is just another Hannity. I am surprised he hasn’t called me an asshole yet. Wake up Diane. This guy has absolutely nothing to offer. Would you rather have him here? You already have three people that feel insulted by this what 20 year old that writes well? He is just anothe Guckert as far as I am concerned only he has invaded our space with his “thought”.I will no longer participate in this thread either. Good night.
1)A fetus has entirely different DNA than the woman in question. Is it really that unreasonable for me not to consider that a part of her body? And it seems to me that “a woman can do what she wants with her own body” sounds quite a bit like a talking point.
2)I said I’ve met the man, and base a lot of my judgement of him off of that. That is in no way an implication that I “know” him. Please tell me how this implies otherwise:
2b) If you bothered to check, you might see that I did, in fact, respond to your question about what we discussed: right here.
3) If there’s no way for me to know whether or not Bush was drinking, how do you expect me to answer the question in the first place. Allow me to rephrase: according to any source who knows the man, he does not drink, and I did not see him drink anything but non-alcoholic beer (might also have been apple juice, but I assume the former) all night. That’s the best I can give you my friend.
I apologize that I did not see your response to my calling it a ridiculous question. I will answer it here now. What I meant by calling it ridiculous was that you set up a question for me that there was no way to answer with any authority, and when I answered the best I could based on publicly available information, you asked if I’m sure. Of course I’m not sure. How could I possibly sure? In other words, that’s a ridiculous question. Sorry for not making that clearer.
——–
I’m sorry that you feel the need to avoid the thread, but I hope at least you’ll come back to read this.
Otherwise, enjoy your echo chamber. Should be really productive in winning over the people that don’t already see eye-to-eye with you.
Newsflash, people, I’m a moderate whether you want to accept it or not. I may have an extreme position on the Iraq war, and a pretty firm stance on abortion, but I’m the guy who’s willing to let you try to swing his vote. If you won’t engage because you don’t like what you hear at first, then you’re in deep, deep trouble.
conversation with a Neocon and the apparent Neocon just said he/she is a Moderate? Also…I am all for getting one of Them to become one of Us..I am sure more and more will be joining us based on the disaster Bush has proven that he is and the mess he has gotten us into.
Well he called himself a neo con, but I found him to be a moderate myself in my conversations with him off site. I guess there are moderate neocons.
Maybe he will explain that.
gets thrown around a lot as if we’re all a bunch of warmongering right-wingers. In fact, the term means:
As quoted by WikiPedia
Now, I am not a strict Neocon, but I subscribe to Neocon foreign policy. I am aggressively moralistic with regards to foreign policy and the spread of democracy. I am, with the exception of abortion, socially very moderate. As far as the welfare state, well, my libertarian side battles with its expansion, but I’ve come to terms with its existence.
Hope that helps.
Could you provide details as to your understanding of the foreign policy concepts espoused by the neocons, and then your observations from travel overseas where you felt that the policies were accomplishing the goals?
I could if I had time.
And no, I don’t have any experience in observing their effects. I’m a 21 year-old college student, so to expect me to have worldly wisdom is a bit silly. Traveling, at this point in my life, is a little beyond my financial means. Sorry I’m not perfect.
I know you disagree with me, and I respect that. But don’t act so damned superior.
Here we go again.
You state: “I subscribe to Neocon foreign policy.” I ask you to expand your understanding of what that means, and to provide some credentials by which folks can jusge whether you have some idea what you are talking about or whether you are simply blowing smoke, and your response is to say that I shouldn’t “…act so damned superior.
Do you have the slightest clue as to the nature of neocon foreign policy and the effects that it has on the rest of the world? If so, why not state it? If not, then why make the statement in the first place, and once again, undermine your own arguments?
As to acting superior, perhaps it comes across that way because you see, I have taken the time to take a look at what is going on on the world, and have seen the effects of “neocon foreign policy” on friends of mine who happen to live in other countries, and I can assure you that it is not pretty. Some of these folks were once strong admirers of the US, and they are now bewildered at best, angry and hateful at worst.
Your “neocon foreign policy” is creating implacable enemies of the US, and one day soon you may get to meet them when the US decides it needs you to put on a uniform and sally forth to defend that policy.
Don’t worry about finances – they’ll pay all your expenses.
I respect you for putting forward this diary Diane and will respond to your comment only.
Out of that respect I have not troll rated items that I would have on DailyKos or elsewhere. The responses were in general talking points and others were totally off base and hypocritical. Several other commenters have addressed the issue of being lied to by this administration. I will address only the issue of a woman’s right to choose.
Upthread AP stated that effectively the fetus is a life and a woman’s choice should be taken away by the government. He subsequently stated that the government should not interfere in a right to life decision. He can’t have it both ways. Both decisions are between an individual and the doctor not the government.
This country and government were founded on the principles of choice and escape from prosecution. It was founded on the theory that the minority should not be oppressed by the majority. The neocon philosophy is counter to the principles of this country.
Now back to the regular diaries….see the signature line.
thank you for your comment I appreciate your post.
I am just going to say that the point of this diary was to discuss how Conservatives in general and this conservative in particular think and the conclusions they come to.
I understand your position on the issues you have stated above and that’s fine, not everyone as you know agrees on all issues even in this party.
I also appreciate Booman for allowing this interchange of ideas.
My entire point of this diary was to have the interchange, and if you would have read the entire thread you would see that AP did indeed on several occasions come a bit closer to the strongly held views on this side after the discussion with others.
He has also told me privately and also stated here he is willing to hear any evidence he has not already, concerning some of these issues and I have been sending him links and data.
He was preparing a paper for school at the same time (due today)as the discussion and I appreciate that he participated at all. He was putting himself out there, to try to articulate his views and had the whole hoard of us to deal with.
I don’t think I could have taken that on in a conservative group myself, so I give him kudos for that. Perhaps the discussion was too wide open with many points being discussed by commenters. A daunting task just to respond.
So once again I thank you for at least joining the conversation for a little while and to all the others who did.
I think we can be very proud as a group of the manner in which this discussion was conducted.
Thanks again to all.
Side note, we are having one heck of a wind storm (called the Santannas) here in Santa ana, Calfiornia at the moment so I must go now to see the damage outside.
that you’ll probably never see.
The point of this, as diane pointed out, was to provide an opportunity for you to try and understand a conservative point of view–not necessarily to be convinced by it, and not to try and convince me of my wrongness (though I expected a lot of that). Do you see the distinction?
Now, on the two points you raise: I don’t support the government’s intervention on individual cases.
Tell me, if I believe that a fetus is not a part of a woman’s body (different DNA and all), how am I supposed to act? That’s not a belief of faith, that’s a rational conclusion based on biological evidence. And the rational following point is that it is not necesarily an issue of a woman’s right to choose what to do with her own body.
Now, you are absolutely entitled to think that’s wrong. But just saying “that’s wrong, that’s wrong, that’s wrong,” as you and others have effectively done is self-defeating.
Don’t agree with me… as I said, that’s not my goal. But ask me questions. If you think I’m only spouting talking points, as me about the logic and philosophy behind what I’m saying.
Obviously this is a broad spectrum forum, so in answering people’s questions I have not been able to be extremely detailed. But if you are willing to follow up one of my responses with a clarification point, go right ahead.
And to make one more point, that abortion is a “woman’s choice” is just as much a talking point as anything I’ve said in this entire diary. That doesn’t makie it inherently wrong, and that doesn’t mean you don’t believe it with every fiber of your being. Does it?
I guess I don’t understand why some of the folks on this thread are offended with AP’s expression of his own opinions. He’s not representing the entire right wing, and he needn’t take on the debate style of each individual poster. He was invited here by Diane to engage in conversation.
Heck – if you want to go after someone for their ideals, I suggest you check out SlackerInc. (Sorry Alan, just trying to make a point 🙂
I’m just not seeing anything offensive about AP stating his viewpoints – just my opinion.
For your comment above, you said it better than I could and I appreciate that you did.
I agree with Anomalous – I don’t see anything in this thread that qualifies as offensive to me. AP is stating his opinions, much like we have been. He’s been very open to questions and answered mine to my satisfaction. I appreciate his offering to do this, and thank Diane for opening the dialogue.
For your support. something funny has happened with the thread, it’s all rearranged. Not in the sequence conversation occurred.
that the rearrangement of the comments is because the default setting is for “highest rated first.” If you go to your comment preferences and change the “Sort” settings to “Ignore ratings” and “Oldest first” the comments stay in chronological order. I changed mine, and it seems to have worked.
I tried and I think it’s ok but not sure, it told me to put a + sign and I couldn’t decide which one. Do you know.
By the way did you ever receive my email over the weekend. It may be in your spam box, pshark53.
below all of the boxes to where it says “Sort.” There are two pull-down menus next to it that you can pull down to set at “Ignore ratings” and “Oldest first.”
I don’t get it about the +’s either. I just picked one at random.
I respect those who choose to engage in lively debate. (And in other settings, I’ll be the first to ignite the flames.) I just don’t want to set any standards of discourse that I myself can’t meet. I sometimes speak in generalities, and many of my opinions could be construed as left wing talking points. But they’re not. They’re simply my opinions.
It would be a very sad day for me indeed if I came under attack for expressing myself in a manner that didn’t meet another poster’s expectations. (But I’m kinda sensitive that way 🙂
Peace
You certainly have a gift for speaking succinctly and to the point and I very much admire that quality in you and others such as Mindmouth, who comes to mind.
I think the debate or discussion itself is imperative to our success as Democrats and as citizens.
We can always preach to “our” choir, but I’m not sure what that accomplishes.
Your credible source of information for this statement:
“I want to know, why aren’t you bothered that Kerry had his discharge status changed by Carter, after he was elected to the Senate?”
is what?
to give you a link to the original article that I saw in the NY Sun, but unfortunately it’s unavaible except to subscribers, starting 30 days after it’s publication.
Instead, I’ll have to offer you this blog post/round-up on the issue.
Sorry I can’t give you more.
Re-read the statement that you made. See any equivocation? I don’t.
Yet, even in following the link you give, I get a RW blog, which states that a reporter, Thomas Lipscomb, speculates about the possibility that Kerry received bad paper. Links from that site go to another RW site, where the “issue” is debated back and forth, with the clear indication from those with experience in bad paper that he could not have received a less than honorable discharge, because he would not have been admitted to the bar in MA.
John Kerry did not just spring onto the national scene in 2004. He was very well known in the 70s for his work in VVAW and trust me, as one who was around then and very active in the Vietnam veteran antiwar movement, there is flat out no way that John would have gotten bad paper without it having been front page news at the time.
He ran for Congress in 1972, he passed the character committee of the bar, and was hired as a prosecutor in one of the largest district attorney’s offices in the country – does it make sense to you that he could have hidden bad paper from prying eyes throughout all of that?
Do yourself a favor. Rather than listen to those who have never gotten over the fact that the Vietnam War was a disaster and a national tragedy, and would have us go back and fight it over again, read “Home to War” by Gerald Nicosia. It will tell you all you want to know about JFK, his military service, his antiwar activities, and his unwavering support for veterans over the past three decades.
He must have had an honorable discharge or he never would have passed the bar is pretty darn close to saying Guckert must have had journalist’s credentials or he never would have gotten into the white house press room.
We don’t KNOW what Kerry’s records say, because he won’t sign the form to release them, despite having promised to on Meet The Press, 61 days ago today.
Tell you what. You demand for Kerry to sign form 180, and I’ll dig into the Gannon investigation. Sound like a good deal?
Because until we have all of the facts, which are currently unavailable in both cases, all we have is speculation.
Was it not you who stated, as fact, that “…Kerry had his discharge status changed by Carter, after he was elected to the Senate?”
And your defense now is to divert the argument onto a completely irrelevant tangent, and say “Because until we have all of the facts, which are currently unavailable in both cases, all we have is speculation“?
If a statement is your opinion, identify it as your opinion; if it is specualtion, identify it as such. One thing you do not want to do is confuse your opinion and/or speculation with fact, because someone will call you on it, and you will wind up looking like a fool. You undermine every single argument you make here by failing to recognize that very simple principle.
state is as fact, I apologize. My main concern is that we don’t know. He MAY have had it changed. What we do know is that a comission reviewed his discharge, which shouldn’t happen in a standard honorable discharge.
And we know that, for some reason, Kerry won’t release his records by signing the simple form.
Transcipt of interview with meet the press.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6886726/
MR. RUSSERT: Many people who’ve been criticizing you have said: Senator, if you would just do one thing and that is sign Form 180, which would allow historians and journalists complete access to all your military records. Thus far, you have gotten the records, released them through your campaign. They say you should not be the filter. Sign Form 180 and let the historians…
SEN. KERRY: I’d be happy to put the records out. We put all the records out that I had been sent by the military. Then at the last moment, they sent some more stuff, which had some things that weren’t even relevant to the record. So when we get–I’m going to sit down with them and make sure that they are clear and I am clear as to what is in the record and what isn’t in the record and we’ll put it out. I have no problem with that.
MR. RUSSERT: Would you sign Form 180?
SEN. KERRY: But everything, Tim…
MR. RUSSERT: Would you sign Form 180?
SEN. KERRY: Yes, I will. But everything that we put in it, Tim–everything we put in–I mean, everything that was out was a full documentation of all of the medical records, all of the fitness reports. And I’d call on those who have challenged me, let’s see their records. I want to see the records of each of those people who have put up a challenge, because some of them have some serious questions in them, and it hasn’t been appropriate…
MR. RUSSERT: So they should sign Form 180s for themselves as well?
SEN. KERRY: You bet.
And every one of the swifties who served signed the 180 the next day.
This discussion is not about if or what or when John Kerry did anything; this discussion is about the fact that you came here, made the statement that I have now twice-quoted, and when called on to substantiate the statement, you tried to pull a Hannity and change the direction of the discussion with, incredibly, yet another bogus accusation for which you could not possibly have any knowledge or substantiation.
When you sling accusations as you have, and then cannot back them up, you undermine each and every argument that you have made here, and invite folks to discredit everything that you say. Falsus in uno, falsus in omni.
You want to debate John Kerry, his military service, his VVAW days, his public service at the state and national levels? Fine, we can do that.
Fair warning, though: I have known John Kerry longer than you have been alive, have spent an awful lot of time researching his service, and the accusations that have been made against him, and unless you are prepared to get your ass kicked all over this board, you will need to come armed with a lot more facts that you have put forth so far.
Wayward, would you like to take this post and paste it on the Rant diary I just created, or add to it, or make another entry. I hope that AnotherP will join us over there and I want you to flesh out the John Kerry thing for him, I have tried but you seem to have a good handle on getting it all together as a package, I will add to it if you post, I just don’t have the energy to start it.
The biggest thing Ihave learned from this diary is just how poorly our side is presenting itself in the media, etc. and how misinformed at least one neocon is. At least in some areas. So lets inform him, about whatever you wish, in the new diary. Ok.
No, Diane, I do not want to do that, and let me tell you why.
AP came here, if I understood it correctly, to engage in a debate on issues. Folks asked his opinions on a whole range of areas – too many, in my opinion – and he obviously had his hands full trying to respond in multiple directions simultaneously. Quite frankly, I would not have done it if I were him, because it is highly unlikely that one would have the range of knowledge which would be needed to adequately discuss the various topics that were sure to arise.
I chose two statements that he made: first, that he supported “Neocon foreign policy” and second, that John Kerry had his discharge changed by Jimmy Carter when John was elected to the Senate, both of which I happen to have more information than I do on some of the other issues and positions that he put on the table, like theology, abortion, etc.
I started both inquiries with a simple request for credentials and sources for the statements. On the foreign policy query, I get a response that (1) I am only 21 years old, so it is not reasonable for me to have any experience, (2) that I don’t have the funds to travel and investigate this foreign policy, and (3) that you are acting “so damned superior” by posing the question.
As to the Kerry question, I asked for credible sources for a statement AP presented as fact. Not only did such a source not exist, but even the source that he relied upon (which itself referred to another source) did not support the statement that he made. I give him a reference to a source that will, if he took the time to read it, answer pretty much any question that he has about John Kerry’s antiwar activities. The invitation is ignored. He also completely ignores the fact that his statement is chronologically impossible, since John’s election to the Senate was well distanced from Carter’s term of office.
He goes on to question whether he made the statement, even though it is in black and white two posts above. He then finishes by saying that it is Kerry’s obligation to supply the evidence that he needs to support his statement of alleged fact.
This young man has amply demonstrated throughout this thread that he is simply parroting RW talking points, some of which he doesn’t even fully understand enough to discuss, that he has zero personal knowledge and/or information upon which he bases his statements, and that he is not interested in gaining that knowledge. He takes wildass statements made on RW blogs and comes here and presents them as fact, and then whines when challenged?
I see no point in any further debate or discussion on these issues. I believe that he does not want to be informed. If I am wrong on that, then perhaps the best way to obtain that knowledge if spend some time away from the RW blogs, more time in the library, and yes, some time lurking at blogs like this one, sort the wheat from the chaff, and then form opinions. I somehow doubt that this will happen.
I get your point and I agree with you. You could however still post your own rant about anything, if you like.
I think we both like to debate and discuss.
I think that the thing that struck out to me the most in this debate here and the private one I am having with Another, is that the right side is so stuck on several points such as Kerry 180, kerry not taking a position, (althought I fail to see why Kerry matters at all at this point), Rathergate, and a lot of misconsceptions concerning the war on terror, foreign policy. It seems to be a mind set that is very hard to bridge.
I hope that you will read my rant on the other diary, because I “tried” to sum up all that I felt that he (AnotherP ) needed to know in the areas I thought he was misinformed in.
That’s really what I was hoping you would do, but nevertheless you seem to have done it here.
I have tried to lay out the Kerry thing in a consise way, but it’s really hard to distill it down into a small presentation, that would cover all the problem areas, that would make sense to REps. But then again, I feel that the issues are so complex that it cannot be reduced to a few paragraphs.
Sometimes I wonder if that is what the reps are trying to do, throw up all these smoke screens(create isues where there are none) that are impossible to debate in a few seconds, making it look like the Reps are right, cause we can’t get our answer out in one sentence like they can.
The thing that realy astounds me is that two Americans can see the President in a totally different manner, direct opposites in views,i.e. ‘he is has a vision and is focused on that vision and it seems to be working, therefore all that he does is right and sorry about the little mess in Iraq, and it is neccessary by any means available to accomplish any goal he Bush has in mind, and besides that he is a good Christian man,’ Or along those lines.
How in the world can we ever combat that?
Well I would appreciate your take on what I have just said. Thanks for your comments and your participation.
Jimmy Carter was President from 1976-1980; John Kerry was elected to the Senate in 1984. Neat trick by Carter, eh?
Concerted effort to “clean it up” or concerted effort to conceal it? Big difference.
Diane:
I really don’t see our guest as a neocon. He’s much more corporatist-cum-old-school-conservative, and his views are most similar to big-oil republicans.
Neocon was how he described himself previously and upthread. I had a hard time deciding whether to use conservative, republican or neocon and in the end chose neocon, his definition is somewhere above.
My point in he is a Republican and votes that way, sorry if the neocon title doesn’t seem to fit.
Thanks for participating at any rate. I hope you see that my goal in this diary was to get an idea of how the other side sees the issues.
The whole AWOL Bush thing and the Gannon thing is about attacking Bush by pointing out his lies and hypocrisy and that he cheats. But I don’t much care about any of that because (1) it seems like any sensible person already knows that about Bush – ie it is common ground (2) big deal anyway, expecially for a politician and (3) Bush is guilty of far worse crimes namely being a war criminal responsible for a quarter of a million deaths or so, as well as enough corruption domestically to make him a traitor to his country.
So I’d like to ask if AP is willing to accept that Bush is a liar and a cheat and a hypocrite, at least some of the time. Or specifically that Bush has constantly lied about his Vietnam record and that this is an example of his hypocrisy and cheating. And that allowing Gannon in would be another area where Bush’s minions have lied and shows hypocrisy and “cheating” (by rigging the system to get asked softball Qs when he’s supposed to be facing an independent and critical press)
The Vietnam war thing is especially ironic because frankly anyone who becomes a war time deserter (as Bush did technically) from that war deserves a medal IMO. Why should I criticise him for something I applaud? It’s only the hypocrisy and the fact that it might stir up trouble with Bush’s supporters who are the type who really might be bothered about a war time deserting being the CinC.
As to the whole Kerry, Bush, Vietnam thing, I am not sure that you understand the times, I was there, or at least alive and I can give you the perspective of seeing history as it passed by me. Kerry was considered a hero for his senate testimony as well as a war hero.
I do not care if Bush went to Vietnam or not, that is not my issue at all, no one wanted to go period. My second husband was there, but before I met him, my first husband sweated out the Draft. Many friends went and some did everything they could not to go even shooting themselves in the foot, or to Canada. It was a terrible time, death sentence to go there just like Iraq now. But then they only did a 12 month rotation, and no national guard went. That is one of the hypocrisies I see with Bush, he did not go, did not want to go, and now he sends national guard.
The whole Vietnam thing was a huge mess, and very similar to this today in Iraq.
Us older folks could just see it coming, with Iraq, seemed like deja vu, all over again, to paraphrase Yogi Barra or whatever his name is.
It took tooth and nails to get us out of V, we agonized for years over it as we saw the daily death tally, the body bags, etc. Some of us were ready to overthrow the presidency if it wasn’t stopped as a last resort, fruitless and horrible endeavor, it was.
This whole swift boat thing is an extension of that and the bitterness that divided us. Some were pro war just like now, some were against, but at the end all were against except the admin.
So a lot of us are very disturbed that this Pres led us down that road again. That is what you should be concerned about, why and with what motivation. That is what leads me down the road of bush is evil.
Why there, why then, why do such a bad job if you are going to do it and why act like this is going to save the world. Au contraire. I think he had motives, and then justified them with twisted or loose facts. Read the history of Wolf, Feith, Rumsfeld, Cheney, all came from the Viet era, read Wolfs college history and the paper he wrote while in college on how to do this very thing.
They all picked up it seems to me and adopted the pre viet. theory of saving this country or the world from communism, then communism now terrorism. Wars on isms, do not work. The scope is to broad if it can even been defined in any kind of salient way. How can you have a war on ism and then say its to spread democracy,which is a hell of a way to go about it.
Our conversation the other day about force to remove evil, well yes I think a little force is necessary, at times, such as why not just take out sadaam and not the country. But then why sadaam, go to the history of Bush 1, and bush 2’s reaction to the first gulf war where we did not “finish job” which bush 2 wanted. Vowed to finish the job I think,
Sadaam was used by us and he helped us, then he was no good for us.
The Kuwait thing that started the fist gulf war, was allowed to happen, US said they didn’t care, via ambassador, she appeared to tell here story at the time and then disappeared from history, few remember, but I do, I saw it happen on tv, then the whole focus was changed denials all around, go to war, became the slogan, why? and then why stop. Bush 1 told Iraqi that if they rose up he would help, they did and he didn’t so they were sacrificed.
A better way to handle the whole deal in 2003 with Sadaam, would simply have been to buy him off, he could have been, he had been before, why did he suddenly become no. one enemy., The country had been decimated by Sanctions, if you don’t believe that ask my Iraq friend. while at the same time making Salaam rich. We created a situation with sanctions that led to this present state, He was contained, on all sides and overhead, he was no menace. Don’t even bring up the al quada thing, that dog does not hunt.
Sure he was bad, evil and vicious, but 200 billion dollars to take out one man, is absurd. All the money he got underhanded could just have been given to him to allow freedom in his country if that’s what we wanted.
He was nothing but a second rate dictator, much bigger ones out there to worry about. Talk to my Iraq friend about pre war Iraq and Post war Iraq,
She was a college student, able to walk freely in the streets, not wear Arab garb, drive a car, have a job, have a future, but now her future is in doubt, if she even lives. Mess up there from day one. do you want me to send you her emails, about all of this. Depleted Uranium is all over the place over there, causing birth deformities, death, leukemia, from our bombs. Napalm has been used in Faluja, and other places, The dreaded napaalm from Viet, the horrible napalm that burn you alive. We thought it was never to be used again, but here it comes.
GI coming home with radiation poisoning from DU and then passing it through sperm into their spouses and any embryo chanced to make.
This is just the beginning of why I think Bush and co. are evil. They were warned about what would happen, they wouldn’t listen. Iraq is going down the tubes regardless of what you hear on TV. Electricity 2 hours a day and that is right now, 2 years after the invasion. They had electricity 24/7 pre war. They had water 24/7 pre war. We bombed the crap out of everything that could help the country to be able to function post war, nothing left, start from scratch and for what to kill sadaam, he is here, he is there, bomb till you find him. no worries of collateral damage. My God, spread democracy, what a method to use.
If this is what democracy can bring to the world, the world may not want it.
Planning for Iraq war started pre election, and went into full swing post election, pre 911. PBS had a documentary regarding rumsfeld and how he started to plan right after 2000 election, worked with Franks, etc. its all there.
Anyone who had been through Viet. era, knew what a problem Iraq would be times 10. That’s why we were against it.
Rant on. People shouldn’t be allowed to ignore inconvenient history (or current reality), or to change it to suit their purposes.
It’s up to those who remember to make sure they don’t.
to my new diary called My rant. See you there if you want to discuss.