January 24, 2006
New Rule: Anonymous Internet Bile Doesn't Count
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that you were in a public restroom and found that someone had written: I’M A REPUBLICAN AND I LIKE TO $#% #%$#$. Would you conclude that Republicans are vulgar vandals who like to engage in unnatural acts? Of course not. But political pundits do something similar all of the time, and it drives me up the wall. The latest offender is Charlie Cook.
To quote Mr. Cook:
I am deeply troubled by the tenor of current political discourse in this country... The most recent episode to deeply offend me occurred after Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito's wife left the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in tears*. An Alito opponent soon asked on a popular liberal Web site, "Do we want a judge who would marry such a weak-willed bitch?"
A naive, yet rational, person might think that the flaws in Cook's reasoning would be obvious. For one thing, one comment on the Internet by a fairly random individual does not a liberal zeitgest make. For another, it can difficult to judge a person's motives. In this case, the poster was apparently an individual called pacified, the creator of Soapblox Colorado. He does indeed appear to be an Alito opponent (in addition to being an ass). But in the final analysis, who can say? Would anyone really be surprised if some shrewd conservative created a faux-progressive blogger to produce good copy to repeat on conservative websites? Does the name Jeff Gannon ring a bell?
It is a cliche that on the Internet you can be whoever you want. Policemen pose as teenage girls. Fat, bald guys pose as young, buff guys. Yet many political commentators, both bloggers and Establishment figures like Charlie Cook, treat anonymous Internet commentary as if it actually proves something (usually about how evil and hateful the other side is).
In fact, such comments prove nothing at all. If you want to convince me that Dems/Republicans/Greens are evil and hateful, then get me a verifiable quote from an actual person.
*The tears were brought on by Lindsay Graham (R). Just saying.
Posted by Woody Mena at January 24, 2006 09:23 PMAs they say, it is easier to be an asshole than a hippie. Thus I believe Republicans are more vulnerable to this than Democrats. Its kind of hard to think of Liberals saying, “Do we want a judge who would marry such a weak-willed bitch?”. However, this IS something a Republican would say. Its right up there with “Torture is ok” and “Geneva Conventions are outmoded” and “Freedom Fries”.
You need a certain lack of brainpower to say things like that, a characteristic common to Conservatives.
Posted by: Aldous at January 24, 2006 11:05 PMWoody, the popular liberal website was The Daily Kos, and the comment in question occured in a post by the site’s author, Markos Moulitsas, whose name is widely known.
Whether or not you think Moulitsas is a pervert of the kind who writes on restroom walls (if you do think so, I agree), he is the one who got the ball rolling and incited that comment with his extremist and hateful rhetoric.
He has a bad case of Tourrette’s syndrome, and his posts are liberally (no pun intended) sprinkled with four letter words and general vile nastiness.
Of late, even John Kerry has taken up posting there, so it’s hardly a mere restroom wall in the world of Democratic politics—unless you want to agree with me that Democratic rhetoric is all worthy these days of appearing on a restroom wall at a truck stop.
The post was titled “Political Theater,” and Moulitsas himself said in the orginal post that Mrs. Alito’s tears were “all a freakin’ game.”
It wasn’t just the one comment you (and Cook) mentioned that was so bad either. Just have a look. All of the hundreds of comments were in exactly the same vein.
In the same thread, another poster said “Treat them like you’d treat Al Qaeda. They are the f***ing enemy.”
Mr. Cook wasn’t taking one extreme instance and blowing it out of proportion. If anything, he chose a relativley mild example of a larger problem to illustrate the hate that has hijacked the heart and soul of the leftist internet-culture which now drives Democratic thinking.
Posted by: sanger at January 24, 2006 11:32 PMsanger,
Markos wrote the original post, but he didn’t write the comment. You can check:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/1/12/115054/013
If you really think these web comments prove something, take a look at Free Republic some time. Here is a sample:
(on Kerry) What an insufferable booring asshole.
Kerry is a french fag afterall.
I truly believe the malignant leftists would elect a pedophile if it meant they could get rid of Bush.
Hillary = bitch.
I could have come up with hundreds, if not thousands, of these kinds of statements, but life is too short…
Now, personally, I don’t think these kinds of comments prove anything, but if you want to conclude that they say something about “the hate that has hijacked the heart and soul of the right-wing internet-culture which now drives Republican thinking”, be my guest.
Posted by: Woody Mena at January 24, 2006 11:55 PMFor the quantitatively-minded, Google shows 31,000 hits for “Hitlery” on the Free Republic website.
Again, I am NOT arguing that these kinds of things are interesting or newsworthy, but if anyone thinks they are, they should be bipartisan about it…
Posted by: Woody Mena at January 25, 2006 12:01 AMIts right up there with “Torture is ok†and “Geneva Conventions are outmoded†and “Freedom Friesâ€
Aldous,
Don’t forget about Harriet Miers. The Dems in the Alito hearings took a lot of heat for their questions and making that poor, poor lady cry. But wasn’t it the neocons that rode Miers out on a rail, before she even made it to the hearings?
But the Repubs are just up to their usual games; they have nothing worth saying so they spout their rhetoric and hope they can bushwash enough people to squeeze by. The problem is that they are getting so desperate now, that they have to scour the internet looking for absolutely anything, written by crank out there.
Just yesterday in a comment on watchblog, someone wrote that at a town hall meeting, Nancy Pelosi said that next year we are going to put George Bush up against George Bush, and if that doesn’t work, we’re going to put him up against Franklin Deleno Roosevelt. They went on to say what idiots Democrats are because GW Bush can’t run for office next year, and FDR is dead. The problem is that this statement was taken completely out of context and a few words were added to it and viola! Pelosi was actually talking about Social Security, not the election. She said we put GWB up against his own plan and FDR, and Social Security won.
I do not trust a single thing that comes out of the Neocons. Not a word.
Mr. Cook wasn’t taking one extreme instance and blowing it out of proportion. If anything, he chose a relativley mild example of a larger problem to illustrate the hate that has hijacked the heart and soul of the leftist internet-culture which now drives Democratic thinking.
Sanger,
Give me a break, the neocons illustrate their vile hate and desperate lies on the rightist talk radio culture that drives Republican thinking.
Posted by: JayJay Snowman at January 25, 2006 12:02 AMWoody, those are nasty and hateful comments—no argument here.
But to quibble slightly, nasty attacks on Kerry or Hillary who are both Senators and public figures are not the same thing at all as attacking a judge’s wife, but whatever.
To return to your point: name a former Republican presidential candidate who has a column on Free Republic? How many GOP candidates have bought ad space on Free Republic? How much money does Free Republic raise for Republicans compared to the actual campaigns to raise money for Democrats on Kos?
Free Republic is in no way as central to driving the conservative movement as the the Daily Kos is for liberals, and there’s no way that anybody can honestly deny this.
A tiny, tiny minority of conservatives ever even read Free Republic, if they’ve even heard of it, but Daily Kos is the backbone of the current liberal movement.
Posted by: sanger at January 25, 2006 12:10 AMHey Sanger,
After listening to your side’s crap since the inception of the Reagan fairy, spare me the bullshit!
If one’s hypocrisy could be a measure of the depth of one’s ignorance, the wingnuts might ought to consider swimming back to the safety of the sewer from which they floated out of so many years ago..
Posted by: expatUSA_Indonesia at January 25, 2006 12:17 AMFree Republic is in no way as central to driving the conservative movement as the the Daily Kos is for liberals, and there’s no way that anybody can honestly deny this.A tiny, tiny minority of conservatives ever even read Free Republic, if they’ve even heard of it, but Daily Kos is the backbone of the current liberal movement.
Sanger,
Really? I have never been to the their site, ever. Thanks for the tip! I guess I’ll have to head over there and see what the big deal is.
Posted by: JayJay Snowman at January 25, 2006 12:25 AMSanger,
You are probably right that Free Republic is in no way as central to driving the conservative movement. The Con movement is being driven by Focus on the Family, God Hates Fags, The illinios Family Institute, and any of the other hatemonger groups hiding behind the name family and God.
Posted by: JayJay Snowman at January 25, 2006 12:29 AMRemember when Bush ran against that guy in Texas who did all that charity work with kids, and Bush and Rove distributed leaflets at local churches suggesting he was a pedophile? And you guys are going to complain about some blogger?
It can’t be spun enough that this guy’s wife started crying during his questioning. Imagine, questioning a supreme court nominee. Asking him if he belonged to a racist group he said he belonged to on a resume. Incredible. Who do these liberals think they are? Luckily the Republicans were able to make the liberal media pick up and laser focus on the all important issue of Alito’s wife’s crying.
I like it that the Republicans have taken to crying over what bloggers write or try and compare say, jaywalking, with their disgusting practices. I love it. No one’s going to buy it, and it shows how desperate they are.
Posted by: Max at January 25, 2006 12:48 AMBut to quibble slightly, nasty attacks on Kerry or Hillary who are both Senators and public figures are not the same thing at all as attacking a judge’s wife, but whatever.
sanger, Mrs. Clinton wasn’t always a Senator. You guys were pretty damned disrespectful when she was just President Clinton’s wife.
As for Kos, I just visited for the first time following Woody’s link. I read about halfway down — at least a hundred posts — without finding the offending remark before I got bored and left. It seemed like a pretty tepid partisan bitch-fest to me.
Charlie Cook must have way more patience than I do to dig as deep into that thread as he did. Desparate for dirt? Maybe. The fact that he gets paid for that must help, too.
Posted by: American Pundit at January 25, 2006 01:15 AMMany of the comments bloggers make are nothing short of repugnent, particlularly because they are pointless. Crudeness has its place, though, and can be used to get a point across very well. My current personal favorite is “George Bush is a fiscal pedophile” (a recent bumbersticker). It drives the point home, so to speak, that Bush is literally fucking over future generations on every level. While crude, it has substance. I believe a lot of the lefts crudeness is much better at acutally making a legitimate observation.
Posted by: Jonathan at January 25, 2006 01:34 AMMany of the comments bloggers make are nothing short of repugnent, particlularly because they are pointless. Crudeness has its place, though, and can be used to get a point across very well. My current personal favorite is “George Bush is a fiscal pedophile” (a recent bumbersticker). It drives the point home, so to speak, that Bush is literally fucking over future generations on every level. While crude, it has substance. I believe a lot of the lefts crudeness is much better at acutally making a legitimate observation.
Posted by: Jonathan at January 25, 2006 01:37 AMAwe poor little republicans they can dish it out but they can’t take it—it’s sooo hateful (cry me a frickin’ river). Check out your half-retarded president defending wiretapping—the issue was never the wiretapping, the issue was him not going through the propper channels which were made quite secretive AND lenient. But we attack you on it and you ninnies get all weepy on us.
[Comment removed by column manager]
Anonymous, we have one simple rule at WatchBlog: Critique the message, not the messenger.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 25, 2006 02:12 AMBravo
Woody well versed!!!!!!!!!!!!!
“Brownie, you’re doing a good job.”
“Daily Kos is the backbone of the current liberal movement.”
You heard it here folks: get rid of a blog most liberals have never even heard of and the entire movement collapss. Why didn’t Karl Rove think of that?
Posted by: David Kelsey at January 25, 2006 02:26 AMAs for Kos, I just visited for the first time following Woody’s link. I read about halfway down — at least a hundred posts — without finding the offending remark before I got bored and left. It seemed like a pretty tepid partisan bitch-fest to me.
AP,
I’m glad I’m not the only one. I thought I was missing something. I visited this site for the first time too, because sanger claimed it is the “backbone of the current liberal movement.” Apparently, sanger doesn’t know what a movement is. A ‘move’ment moves people into action. Although, this site did move me to surf elsewhere.
Posted by: JayJay Snowman at January 25, 2006 04:13 AMAll
Congradulations people..you have successfully created for all the exact politicial hatred that exists at this very minute in Washington.
Not one word of substance on any post on this thread,not one substantive thought or suggestion.
If this thread is an indication of the hatred that the left has for the right,I think we are all in trouble.
Last I looked,I thought we were All Americans.
Guess I was wrong.
Posted by: sicilianeagle at January 25, 2006 06:43 AMBut to quibble slightly, nasty attacks on Kerry or Hillary who are both Senators and public figures are not the same thing at all as attacking a judge’s wife, but whatever.
Ok, how about Teresa Kerry, who has no political ambitions that I am aware of?
Teresa Heinz Kerry, stupidity and smugness all in a nice drunken package.
Again, this is just a teaspoon from the river.
Regardless of how “legit” Daily Kos is, anyone can get an account and post on it. That is why I compared it to a bathroom wall. Anyone with a sharpee can write.
By the way, I think I may have given the wrong impression about Charlie Cook. I am not accusing him of being a Republican flak. He was making a bipartisan point. He just used lousy data.
Posted by: Woody Mena at January 25, 2006 07:54 AMJayJay:
There are evil comments on the internet from all sides. Typically, the most vile comments come from the angriest and often most uninformed people. Its the high tech version of kicking the dog—since they don’t have the courage to speak out publicly or face to face, they do so bravely from the anonymity of the keyboard. Such comments are not the heart of either party, of course.
Regarding your comment: “The Con movement is being driven by Focus on the Family, God Hates Fags, The illinios Family Institute, and any of the other hatemonger groups hiding behind the name family and God.”
I find it silly to include Focus on the Family and Godhatesfags even in the same arena. Dobson is clear about his dislike for homosexuality and that he considers it a sexual sin. I think he looks at homosexuality in the same fashion that he looks at adultery or promiscuity—that the actions are wrong, but that it does not mean you must hate the person. I, for one, don’t know too many people who would claim adultery or promiscuity to be admirable qualities, yet we all know people who have done such things and we don’t necessarily hate the person having done them.
Godhatesfags on the other end is among the most hateful organizations I’ve ever seen. They picket funerals (such as the W.Virginia miners), they spew hatred for people, and they consider “love” to be telling people they are doomed to hell (they feel they are telling the truth, and what could be more loving than that). They distort the true meaning of God, Jesus and Christianity, and forget that the most important aspect of Christianity is love. They have none and they show none to others.
There’s really no comparison, nor any rationale to suggest that such a hateful group speaks for anyone but themselves. You do a disservice to your comments by including the worst component of society and linking them to others. It would be similar to suggesting that all athletes are bad people because some athletes do bad things —there’s simply no such correlation.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at January 25, 2006 08:21 AMNot one word of substance on any post on this thread,not one substantive thought or suggestion
Oh Mighty Sicilian Eagle,
I would disagree. This is not a fun debate for anyone but perceptions and the manipulations of public opinions is certainly an important topic. Albeit one that conservatives might like to ignore.
sicilianeagle,
You are so right! For example, I have seen your name on this site before and I have never seen it attached to anything of substance. Just derogatory commnets against Democrats.
Now see, being of a “Liberal” bent, I believe that it is possible for me to be wrong (unlike republicans who believe that being wrong is sinful and a sign of weakness) so I will apologize if there has been any postings of substance here on this site from you that proves me wrong.
Somehow the Republican party gets a free pass when it come to “right wing fanatics” like:
*Timothy McVie bombing the Federal Building in Col. because of Waco and Ruby Ridge.
*Eric Rudolph bombing the olympics and the abortion clinics.
* Here is a site dedicated to those that crossed the line: http://www.armyofgod.com/POClist.html
This is just an example of the garbage done by members of the “moral majority” Christian-conservatives that does not stick to the Republican party because Liberals know that crackpots do not represent the entire party.
When it comes to eco-terrorists such as those recently arrested people want to group the entire Democratic party into the same category.
Is there substance enough there for you?
Posted by: Darren7160 at January 25, 2006 09:45 AMMs Schwamp
Now come the mighty Sicilian Eagle who wishes to respond to the erudite Ms. Schwamp.
There is plenty of guilt to go around here I think…from perceived media bashing to “bashing with the stars”.
Sunday night CBS aired on nationial tv the 1998 movie with Will Smith and Gene Hackman “Enemy of State” ….about NSA evesdropping and surveillance.
Coincidence?
At last week’s Golden Globe awards “stars” bashed the administration.
It’s very chic,you know.
I imagine someone will do the same at the Oscars.
Politics …and politicial bashing is not for the feint of heart.
However at some point people,in their zeal to get their point accross develop a genuine hatret to those who hold opposing views.
Let’s look at the recent past:
Franklin Roosevelt wanted his liberal programs so bad that he tried to load up the Supreme Court with operatives.His actions were unconstitionial.
Harry Truman’s administration had the start of the McCarthy nightmare and Red Scare which dripped over to the Eisenhower administration.
As you recall,both Roosevelt and Truman were democrats,Eisenhower was a republician.
Most of the Eisenhower administration was politicially peaceful however(Ike loved to golf).
Kennedy,another democrat and Bobby,however,were a different matter.They brought Massachusetts bare-knuckle politics to the White House…and plotted elimination of their enemies in nefarious way…both were taught by the ultimate black-hearted politician…their father,Joe Kennedy.
Johnson,another democrat got mired in Kennedy’s war in Vietnam..plus the politicial turmoil to boot.
Thus post-WWII thru 1968,with the exception of a single 8 year respite,democrats controlled and set policy for this countrty.
Nixon’s Watergate proved the Repuyblicians just as bad however,compounded by the wink wink Ford Administration.
Jimmy Carter,a democrat,nearly gutted the strenght of America during his 4 years(inflation,high interest,Iran hostages),and it wasn’t until Regan,a republiuian came around that America was righted,militariliary and economicially.
Bush I,another republician,did a credidible job.In retrospect he was a terrific leader,with a profound understnding of world affairs.Clinton,a democrat,kept getting his ziipper stuck,so that is why Bush II got elected.
Look at the line-up and ask yourself who has the stronger slate of candidates from that list?
My answer is the republicians.
People on opposing sides of issues have for all of history resorted to nasty tactics. For example, in imperial Rome fratricide was brought to an art comparable to DiVinci’s. Even in this country we’ve had reletively recent violent suppression of opposing views (e.g. unionization). And we’ve certainly had our share of agressive political tactics.
However, I don’t think main stream politicians ever really challenged the patriotism and intentions of the other parties (at least since the American Revoloution). This is what I hold against Bush and the Neocon “win power at any price, keep in power at any price” philosophy. The cost of that is too high and we can see symptoms of its disease in the rancor exhibited in blogs all over.
If this thread is an indication of the hatred that the left has for the right,I think we are all in trouble.Last I looked,I thought we were All Americans.
LOL! That’s a pretty hypocritical statement from someone who’s party badmouths combat veterans. Nice try, SE.
Clinton,a democrat,kept getting his ziipper stuck,so that is why Bush II got elected.
I thought it was because President Clinton could only serve two terms… As far as I’m concerned, the rule should be changed to “two consecutive terms” so we can get him back in the Whitehouse and fix all the damage that President Bush has done to America.
Posted by: American Pundit at January 25, 2006 10:22 AMDarren 1760
What a nice liberal name.
If you have in fact read my post(many many)when the administration screws up,I blast them…as I do the left.
I am labeled a neo-con,which is ok by me.I can give it and take it with the best,as insults roll off the Eagle’s feathers.
Point of the matter is that democrats have every bit a smear machine as the republicians..and also control of the media to boot.
Mcveigh and the other nut case are poor examples of your point.Republicans like myself led the charge to fry that bastard.
Posted by: sicilianeagle at January 25, 2006 10:24 AMAP:
Clinton,a democrat,kept getting his ziipper stuck,so that is why Bush II got elected. I thought it was because President Clinton could only serve two terms…
It’s pretty well known that Al Gore distanced himself from Clinton during Gore’s presidential campaign. Its true that Clinton couldn’t be elected again, but its also quite fair to suggest that the stain left over from Clinton’s actions hurt Gore’s chances, which ultimately led to Bush 43 being elected.
And yes, I used the word “stain” on purpose. I thought it fit in multiple ways.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at January 25, 2006 10:34 AMAP
What is this,pick on the Eagle day or what?
Here I am minding my own business responding to a blog thread that is dripping with partisian hatred and whatdaya think…the Eagle himself gets it from all sides including his pal AP.
PLUUZEE..AP,Clinton was the worst on that list post WWII…including Nixon.
Look at the World Trade Center and tell me exactlt when the intelligence failure of this nation began….I dare you….
Posted by: sicilianeagle at January 25, 2006 10:36 AMsicilianeagle,
I would really love to see the sites regarding Kennedy, and Johnson. While I agree that Johnson was awful ( I consider him to be a murderer because of the Token Gulf mess) I believe that it was Eisenhower who actually got us involved in Vietnam to begin with.
As for Nixon - I’d say burglary is a pretty heavy duty crime. At least he got pardoned by Ford, which goes to show how bad even a ‘wink wink’ administration can be.
As for Reagan and Bush I
Anyone remember Oliver North and the Iranian-Contra Affair? The one one where Reagan forgot (early on-set of Alzheimer’s?)and I’m still waiting for a tickle down of the “tickle down economic theory” and Bush I’s “I will not raise taxes” and his backing of the Iranian-Contra Affair? I’m still waiting for the actual final report of that - seems like it sort of disappeared once Bush I was not re-elected. (Maybe the Republicans should thank Clinton for that.)
As for Bush II
I still don’t understand what we are doing in Iraq and yes I know all about the the supposed terrorist training camps, etc which have cost thousands of lives, or being accused of trying to usurp the Constitution (wiretaps and NO warrants what so ever)
PLUUZEE..Clinton was the worst on that list post WWII…including Nixon.
How many men and women in today’s world have ‘affairs’. While I can not condone him, I can’t help but believe that was a personal problem,and was none of mine or anyone else’s business. Yes he lied to Congress (which it appears that so have many on your list) - but what was Congress doing being involved in Clinton’s sex life to begin. With?
Oh and I think you are right, AP,
Clinton could not run again… So he had no real affect on Bush’s election - which if memory serves me, was an extremely close election, definitely NOT a landslide.
I’d say that both the Democrats and Republicans have a fair share of idiots in our government.
The question is who’s going to be next?
Oh and would someone please explain the definetion of Neocon to me? I bow to my ignorance.
As I recall, Mrs. Alito’s tears were precursored with positive remarks. Graham said Alito was upstanding and respectful. THAT’S when his wife began to cry. Besides, these are confirmation hearings which have turned into nothing more than an evil media circus no matter which side you are on. Republican candidates will ALWAYS get scrutinzed by Democratic congresspeople and vice versa. It’s how the game is played. So all I can think of is, “If you can’t stand the heat…”
Posted by: Dop at January 25, 2006 11:41 AMThere’s really no comparison, nor any rationale to suggest that such a hateful group speaks for anyone but themselves. You do a disservice to your comments by including the worst component of society and linking them to others. It would be similar to suggesting that all athletes are bad people because some athletes do bad things —there’s simply no such correlation.
JBOD,
Thank you. My point exactly. I am glad someone got it. No website, anywhere on the endless WWW, represents a movement, liberal or otherwise. A large collection of them together, maybe. Just one? No way.
One thing I will say though, regardless of how they say it, one claims “love”, the other is obvious hate, they (FOF, GHF) are spreading the same mis-informed message tageted at a very specific group.
Posted by: JayJay Snowman at January 25, 2006 12:06 PMSanger,
“he chose a relativley mild example of a larger problem to illustrate the hate that has hijacked the heart and soul of the leftist internet-culture which now drives Democratic thinking.”
From Pat Robertson:
“There is no such thing as separation of church and state in the Constitution. It is a lie of the Left and we are not going to take it anymore.
— Pat Robertson, address to his American Center for Law and Justice, November, 1993.
When I said during my presidential bid that I would only bring Christians and Jews into the government, I hit a firestorm. “What do you mean?” the media challenged me. “You’re not going to bring atheists into the government? How dare you maintain that those who believe in the Judeo-Christian values are better qualified to govern America than Hindus and Muslims?” My simple answer is, “Yes, they are.”
— Pat Robertson, The New World Order, p. 218
[Planned Parenthood] is teaching kids to fornicate, teaching people to have adultery, every kind of bestiality, homosexuality, lesbianism — everything that the Bible condemns.
— Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, April 9, 1991
(Planned parenthood sounds like a fun place to visit if you’re drunk and hanging with your friends)
The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians.
— Pat Robertson, fundraising letter, 1992
The Islamic people, the Arabs, were the ones who captured Africans, put them in slavery, and sent them to America as slaves. Why would the people in America want to embrace the religion of slavers.
— Pat Robertson, quoted from the American Muslim Council press release, “Statement regarding anti-Muslim comments made by Pat Robertson on October 27,1997” and elsewhere. (Read Robertson’s entire anti-Muslim segment.)
The wars of extermination have given a lot of people trouble unless they understand fully what was going on. The people in the land of Palestine were very wicked. They were given over to idolatry. They sacrificed their children. They had all kinds of abominable sex practices. They were having sex apparently with animals. They were having sex men with men and women with women. They were committing adultery and fornication. They were serving idols. As I say, they were offering their children up, and they were forsaking God. God told the Israelites to kill them all: men, women and children; to destroy them.”
— Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, May 6, 1985, justifying (and in fact celebrating) the wholesale genocide allegedly committed by the early invading Israelites. (Read Robertson’s entire segment celebrating biblical genocide.)
Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the evangelical Christians. It’s no different. It is the same thing. It is happening all over again. It is the Democratic Congress, the liberal-based media and the homosexuals who want to destroy the Christians. Wholesale abuse and discrimination and the worst bigotry directed toward any group in America today. More terrible than anything suffered by any minority in history.
— Pat Robertson, interview with Molly Ivins, 1993. Yeah, right! Robertson here sounds remarkably like a certain political leader of yore who once bemoaned that “the Jews” were oppreseing his Aryan people.
Jerry Falwell:
““Homosexuality is Satan’s diabolical attack upon the family that will not only have a corrupting influence upon our next generation, but it will also bring down the wrath of God upon America.â€
D. Rumsfeld: (Not religious but stupid and funny)
“I would not say that the future is necessarily less predictable than the past. I think the past was not predictable when it started.”
“We do know of certain knowledge that he [Osama Bin Laden] is either in Afghanistan, or in some other country, or dead.”
“Death has a tendency to encourage a depressing view of war.”
“I believe what I said yesterday. I don’t know what I said, but I know what I think, and, well, I assume it’s what I said.”
“The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” -on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction
George W. Bush:
“There ought to be limits to freedom.” May 21, 1999
Reading these Republican quotes has un-hijacked my heart and soul. I’m all better. Thanks
It’s pretty well known that Al Gore distanced himself from Clinton during Gore’s presidential campaign. Its true that Clinton couldn’t be elected again, but its also quite fair to suggest that the stain left over from Clinton’s actions hurt Gore’s chances, which ultimately led to Bush 43 being elected.
JBOD,
I’m not so sure. Maybe the real problem was that he did distance himself from Clinton. Besides, Gore did receive more votes than Bush.
Posted by: JayJay Snowman at January 25, 2006 12:23 PMAs far as I’m concerned, the rule should be changed to “two consecutive terms†so we can get him back in the Whitehouse and fix all the damage that President Bush has done to America.
AP,
One way to get him back in the White House is to elect Hillary. I certainly am not endorsing Hillary, but IMO, despite being human, Billary Clinton was the best President we have had since I have been alive. The others don’t even compare.
Posted by: JayJay Snowman at January 25, 2006 12:29 PMSic Eagle:
“If this thread is an indication of the hatred that the left has for the right,I think we are all in trouble.
Last I looked,I thought we were All Americans.”
Well, well! Isn’t this a sweet new tune, coming from the guy who called Sassyliberal and myself disloyal and unpatriotic for having the nerve to say anything negative about The Neocon’s Pre-Emptive-War-By-Mistake.
Should anyone really wonder why there are indications of hatred from the left for the right, they need look no further than to the fact that the vast majority of them, including members of Congress and people within this Administraton, immediately attacked our loyalty and patriotism to this country for opposing their consummate idiocy and incompetence.
“Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.”
—Samuel Johnson
Now again comes zooming into the fray the Mightyy Sicilian Eagle who seems to have ignited a firestorm this fine day:
Linda H.
A terrific book for you is called The Sins of the Father written by two Boston Globe reporters.You will get an insight on what kind of a family the Kennedys were and are.
Say what you want about Nixon but he (a)ended the war started by Kennedy(not Eisenhower)(B)opened China up to the west.Had Watergate not occurred he would have had a distinguished presidency.Other than Kissinger,I can’t think of a single post-WWII intellect on foreign affairs than him.
As for Reagan..yes Iran-Contra was a stinker,but he got America off the mat..and back into the world.Say what you want but prior to him,interest on home loans were 20%…they drasticially went down during his presidency.Plus he put the ball into motion that bankrupted the USSR.
On Clinton:I guess I can say bravo for men who have affairs…right?But didn’t that demean the office of the president?
Who’s next? That’s easy. McCain?Guilianni or the other way around.
Adrienne:
Happy new year.That’s about all I will say to you for this year.Skip over my posts please.
“The more honest a person says he is,the faster I count the silver in my pocket” Emerson
Posted by: sicilianeagle at January 25, 2006 01:28 PMSicilianeagle,
I thought we had the warm and fuzzy eagle to look forward to?
Adrienne is tough to debate and she has strong opinions(I happen to agree with). Why would you want to exclude her from debating against you?
She brings that polar opposite stance that is good for political discussion.
Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at January 25, 2006 01:53 PMAndre
The Mighty Eagle is indeed warm and fuzzy…and downright loveable too.
However I do not respond to any of her posts and I’d just prefer for her to do likewise.You can articulate her position admirably anyway.From my responses to you,you both can become enlightened.
Andre, thank you for the compliment.
“Why would you want to exclude her from debating against you?”
Indeed.
“She brings that polar opposite stance that is good for political discussion.”
Am I viewed as so extreme in my views? Perhaps that is how it appears…
But since I come to my opinions by my own process of reasoning, it would be pathetic and gutless of me to worry over that.
“The Mighty Eagle is indeed warm and fuzzy…and downright loveable too.”
This reminds me of an old Gaelic saying: Ge milis a’ mhil, co dh’imlicheadh o bharr dri i.
Honey may be sweet — but no one licks it off a briar.
JayJay:
I wouldn’t call it accurate to suggest that FOF is spreading a “mis-informed” message. I recognize that you apparently disagree with their message, but that doesn’t mean its necessarily uninformed. Perhaps I should ask for a clarification as to where you think they are misinformed, so as to not jump to a conclusion regarding your comment.
I’m glad we agree that there are extremes of every position out there, and many of them exist on the Web. You simply cant believe everything you read on the Web—you and I obviously understand that, though some people seem not to. Consider as an example the following link regarding how climate is affecting an important California crop:
http://home.inreach.com/kumbach/velcro.html
Posted by: joebagodonuts at January 25, 2006 03:18 PMI still don’t know what the definition of a Neo-Con is…
Sounds like a car, or a candy bar, or even the (I hestitate say)the neo-nazi movement.
Linda H.,
The new term is Repub-likud, Neocon is so 2005.
Posted by: ANON at January 25, 2006 04:14 PMLinda H
Neocon-defination-Noun-Latin-
A person who holds conservatives beliefs.A deragatory term used in blogging by ultra-leftists liberals who usually have the most need of guidance by the neo-con.
A kind,considerate person.
From the philospohy of compassionate conservatism.
A badge of honor which is worn by the brave as they hold steadfast to their beliefs…sometimes even their Christian beliefs,but not necessarily so.
A word that will be never ever be used to describe by friend Andre and his friend you-know who.
A conservative with a keen sense of humor and wit who can write the above defination.
SOURCE: The Americian Eagle Dictionary(get it?)
Put simply:
Any kvetching about political decorum from the people that brought you “feminazi” - coined by a man who is indisputedly the most listened to voice in the Conservative movement for the last 20 years is both disingenious and insulting.
Posted by: Grubbery at January 25, 2006 04:45 PMNeo-con: 1. abbreviation for neo-conservative; 2. an ideological belief system wherein might makes right; 3. as used to describe elected government officials, usually refers to myopic world views. See also megalomaniac.
SOURCE: The last 5 years
Posted by: ant at January 25, 2006 04:49 PMLinda
“even the (I hestitate say)the neo-nazi movement”
Thats the point. If it makes the right seem more like nazis, that means more votes for the dems.
All about word games, just like this thread.
Both sides crying about how mean the other is but yet defending their own brand of hatred.
Neither side has a leg to stand on here.
Wrong it just means New Conservative and having little to do with Nixonian Conservatism for instance, or other eras of conservative policy. there was a time as few years back as the nineties when the conservatives did not want to involve themselves as world policemen and nation building would have never been on any of their platforms ever. there was an era when conservatism was fiscally responsible—that’s gone. Conservatives of the early nineties (with exception to Bush sr.) were very much against the Nafta agreements.
There has been a change in Conservatism over the last few years hence the name NEO-CON (new conservative).
Repub-likud is reference to the Likudist Party in Israel—I mean while we ARE doing their bidding in the mideast.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 25, 2006 06:10 PMJust like NEO-NAZI means “New Nazi”—Neo means New. New Nazi Movement get it, it means “new”—yeesh.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 25, 2006 06:16 PMSicilian Eagle,
Is “defination” like defecation but done by eagles?? (I had to—you understand)
Posted by: Anonymous at January 25, 2006 06:23 PMEagle,
Looking over your posts it has become apparent that eagles can’t spell worth a damn.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 25, 2006 06:52 PM“As for Reagan..yes Iran-Contra was a stinker,but he got America off the mat..and back into the world.Say what you want but prior to him,interest on home loans were 20%…they drasticially went down during his presidency.Plus he put the ball into motion that bankrupted the USSR”.
Another merchandise sale in the great Republican marketing scam!
Posted by: expatUSA_Indonesia at January 25, 2006 06:52 PMjoebagodonuts said:
I find it silly to include Focus on the Family and Godhatesfags even in the same arena. Dobson is clear about his dislike for homosexuality and that he considers it a sexual sin. I think he looks at homosexuality in the same fashion that he looks at adultery or promiscuity—that the actions are wrong, but that it does not mean you must hate the person. I, for one, don’t know too many people who would claim adultery or promiscuity to be admirable qualities, yet we all know people who have done such things and we don’t necessarily hate the person having done them.Godhatesfags on the other end is among the most hateful organizations I’ve ever seen. They picket funerals (such as the W.Virginia miners), they spew hatred for people, and they consider “love†to be telling people they are doomed to hell (they feel they are telling the truth, and what could be more loving than that). They distort the true meaning of God, Jesus and Christianity, and forget that the most important aspect of Christianity is love. They have none and they show none to others.
It’s not silly at all, these organizations are spun from exactly the same thread. While Phelps adds a more prominent edge of rage to his message, the underlying agendas are 100% identical.
Both organizations have a desire to abolish homosexuality based on their inexperience with personally feeling that kind of attraction, combined with their strong faith in mythological texts they believe should govern not only thier own lives, but the lives of everyone around them. Much like a salad bar, they get to pick and choose which parts of this mythology to heap on their plate, based on if it does or does not serve their political agenda.
Phelps is a good example of the rage, intolerance and misguidance that festers in the heart of one infected with the religion virus too long and too severly.
As for the hate the sin, not the sinner rhetoric, spare me. I can say, for example, that I hate the concept of owning a gun**, but that I don’t hate gun owners themselves. Fine. As soon as I form an organization, to lobby for the passage of laws, preventing gun owners from basic rights, my arguement that I don’t hate the gun owner falls flat on it’s face.
For example:
I could lobby for legislation that gun owners are completely ineligible for health insurance, as is anyone living in their homes, because the danger of a gun in the house is simply too great.
I could lobby for legislation that gun owners who have children should have those children removed from their home by the state on no other grounds that it’s dangerous because of the gun.
I could lobby that gun owners cannot adopt children, again, same danger.
You see the point? I can say I hate the “sin” of owning a gun, but not the person themselves, but as soon as I take it to the next level and push for rules and laws, limiting the rights and happiness of the people that fit that description, I have now transferred my hate of guns onto the people themselves by seeing to it that those people live with less rights and freedoms than everyone else.
Phelps is only running his mouth. Yeah, it’s blatent hate. Dobson plays politically, he’s even MORE dangerous, and while much more disguised, and hiding behind the rhetoric of “doing what’s best for our families”, his hatred runs just as deep as Phelps, if not deeper, as evidenced by his widespread crusade to keep rights and freedoms away from American citizens who happen to have been born to be something that is different from himself.
In conclusion, based on agenda and motive, there is no discernable difference between the two organizations, and I have no problem with them being uttered in the same breath. Dobson is merely a few decades of frustration, and perhaps a slight increase in mental illness away from becoming Phelps.
**I chose gun ownership simply as an example, and actually have no problem with gun ownership. Since this is a topic near and dear to many of the right wing, I thought it the most appropriate comparison of how inconsistent right wing philosophy can be. Guns don’t commit crime, people do —- is a perfectly reasonable line of thought. In the same breath however, homosexuality doesn’t commit crime either, people do. For some reason, however, the right insists on centering their platform around the idea that homosexuals are wrong for society, but can talk out the other side of their mouths about how a proven killing machine, is not.
“Sunday night CBS aired on nationial tv the 1998 movie with Will Smith and Gene Hackman “Enemy of State†….about NSA evesdropping and surveillance.”
Oh, now that’s just sad. This show is running on at least 3 different cable channels around the clock. it get’s almost as much airtime as Die Hard.
Posted by: tony at January 25, 2006 09:01 PMTaylor:
I can see that you have a lot of emotion over this issue, and that you have strong opinions about religion. From my vantage point (which consists only of having read your post), I’d suggest that if you see FOF and GHF as being even remotely similar, then you are viewing them both through a lens of pre-conceptions.
In my opinion, homosexuality equates pretty close to promiscuity, in that they are both sexual issues and I think they are both wrong. I have an friend who was quite promiscuous—I thought it was wrong behavior. Of course, her actions were her choice, but nonetheless, I thought it wrong. I kept my opinion to myself, but when asked I gave it honestly. It made our friendship no less, even though I disapproved of her sexual behavior—we are still friends to day.
That’s an example of how one can accept the person without accepting the behavior. I’m sure there are plenty of others, even in your own experience.
By the way, I don’t have much energy about the gun issue. In fact, I’m for gun control and support the use of existing gun control laws on the books. I agree with the idea of waiting periods and courses in gun safety.
So much for your stereotype, I guess.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at January 25, 2006 09:05 PMjoe -
But what about promiscuous homosexuals? Would that make things OK (ya know - 2 wrongs make a right?)
Basically, I think people should have sex as often and with whomever they feel is appropriate – unless the other person is armed. (Of course, gun conrtrol and sexual control in same sentence gets kind of confusing.)
Posted by: tony at January 25, 2006 09:16 PMsicilianeagle,
Please do not play with my name by changing the numbers. What may be called “political correctness” I will again describe as people tired of putting up with boorish behavior. It really is uncalled for. I am sorry if my attempt to maintain a bit of civility and insistance in proper manners might seem weak or “whiny” to you or others… but I believe that this type of thing reflects on the way in which one was raised.
I just love the people that use neo-conservatives and have absolutely no idea what it means… either to detract or to identy themselves. Amazing the lack of real insight… some are so busy searching out the tiniest bit of trivia that they miss the entire picture.
A Neoconservative is from the 1970’s democrats who supported the war in Vietnam. They believed in the active use of the federal govenment to implement domestic change but they believed in the purpose of halting the spread of communism in s.e. Asia.
They are (or were until people who liked the name but had no idea what they were signing up for) believed in big goverenment and the projection of American values and capitalism across the world.
They see this as the right and proper use of a superpower.
Possibly this explains why Republicans have such a hard time understanding Democrats. They have no real idea what the terms and concepts are that they spout out? They admit that they are “just simple people” and take pride in their ignorance and detest intellectuals… which suprisingly was the same thing that the Nazis did.
sicilianeagle,
You proved my point exactly!!!! You just don’t see it. I was saying that there was the opportunity to smear the Republican party with the “sins” of the far right… but we do understand that those fanatics do not represent the mainstream republicans… just as eco-terrorsists are not the same people that wish to increase gas efficeincy and decrease dependancy by slowing consumption. But, the Republican party lumps them all together.
The Democrats are too intellectually honest to use the tactics such as Rove and that is why the Democratic mainstream is starting to get tired of it all. They are getting kicked in the teeth by the message machine who doesn’t ever draw a line.
They don’t want to get down into the muck and the mire and smear the Republicans with inane comparisons to fringe elements because they know that is wrong.
Know what that is called? Morality. Integrity.
However, it is like humility… if a person has to tell people he has humility then he obviously doesn’t have it. If a party has to continually tell people how moral they are… they also do not have it.
Posted by: Darren7160 at January 25, 2006 09:51 PMMany thanks to ALLALL who responded to my question. I will have to take some time to process all the various interesting definitions.
Most of all thank you for not banning me for asking what may have appeared to stupid question. I am merely ignorant sometimes.
I did however manage to get myself banned from the New Republic this afternoon - and apparently caused a policy change.
I simply asked them how they could be a “serious discussion site” if everyone agreed with each other. Boy did I cause an up-roar. I sent an e-mail but I doubt I’ll receive a response.
Any comments?
P.S. I can’t just highlite the ALL. For some reason I can’t get it turn off completely. Sorry
I wouldn’t call it accurate to suggest that FOF is spreading a “mis-informed†message. I recognize that you apparently disagree with their message, but that doesn’t mean its necessarily uninformed. Perhaps I should ask for a clarification as to where you think they are misinformed, so as to not jump to a conclusion regarding your comment.
JBOD,
Taylor did a great job of explaining my feelings on this. You cannot possibly be informed on a subject you know nothing about. It always makes me angry when someone who is heterosexual talks about homosexuality like they are some sort of expert on the subject. I agree totally with Taylors assessment of Dobson beeing more dangerous than Phelps. Dobson spreads his message in such a way that people buy into it, whereas, Phelps repels people with his extreme hatred.
Posted by: JayJay Snowman at January 25, 2006 10:24 PMLinda,
I know exaclty what you mean.. going to a political site where everyone agrees is not only boring but nonproductive.
For some reason, I kept getting my messages “Held until verified” on the conservative side of this weblog… it was really quite frustrating because as near as I could tell, the person I was debating with was also the one that put my name on the filter and “lost?” my posts. They were not derogatory but I did have to take a week off to purge my soul of the darkness of their beliefs.
I have no idea what your beliefs are but I welcome you as one relative newcomer myself. If you were the original one asking about the neoconservative then that was an excellent question and my reply was not geared towards you.
That phrase has been thrown around on this site by both sides with neither seeming to have a very good idea what it means.
Since my aim is teaching I do believe that curiosity is the most important aspect of education… more so than textbooks, scores on tests or the ability to find the area of a circle.
I do believe that everyone here is writing more to pursuade the other through the strength of their argument. This is not always the case… but it happens more often than not.
Now, and intersting point I have been wondering about… Like I said, I do not know your political leanings… but from the previous election it was made clear by the Republican message machine that Kerry’s changing of his mind was seen as a sign of weakness, lack of morality and made him “two-faced” and “wishy-washy”. Where as, the President was seen as “steadfast”, “determined” and “moral”.
This has shown that when he has made a mistake he has been willing to admit it. This unwillingness shows me that he is incapable of learning from his mistakes. When he does sort of admit that something wasn’t exactly right he still cannot help from pointing the finger at others.
So, on this site I cannot help but be confused. If I change my mind because of the logical presentation of facts by a conservative, should I stick to my error and my ignorance in defiance of the facts so I can be “steadfast”? Or, should I admit that I was wrong, change my opinion and be “wishy-washy”, “immoral” and “two-faced”?
I am soooo confused!
But, welcome!!!!
Posted by: Darren7160 at January 25, 2006 10:30 PMDarren7160
That sounds like another definition I need consider.
BYW - I not only checked out the New Republic, but also the, Army of God (how totally scary), and Daily Kos. I was banned from the first one, frighten by the
second, and bored by the third.
In my opinion, homosexuality equates pretty close to promiscuity, in that they are both sexual issues and I think they are both wrong.
Heterosexuality is a sexual issue, why isn’t it wrong? What makes homosexuality wrong? Because you are straight?
That’s an example of how one can accept the person without accepting the behavior. I’m sure there are plenty of others, even in your own experience.
That’s Great! Except if she finds someone she falls in love with, she is free to marry that person and start a family. You talk about things you think are wrong, don’t you that it is wrong to single out one group of people and imposing your will on them? Don’t you think it is wrong to single out one group of people and tell them that they are not good enough to have the same rights as every other couple that can marry?
Posted by: JayJay Snowman at January 25, 2006 10:47 PMDarren,
Actually I’ve been here several months, but I thank you for your post. There are frequently terms I don’t understand - I try to stay in touch but unfortunately I miss the new terms that seem to pop-up. I realize that neo-con is not new, but I honestly had not notion of how to define it.
I hope you stay here a while. Sometimes there are kleches (speling)in the system. I have found that if you are patient with all three sides, they will post your comments, as long as you talk about the message, not the writer. (I’ve accidentaly done that once and was warned, as I should have been) Usually I just “go home and hit the site button again” and find that it has posted.
I suspect you will find that there are many interesting people here, while there maybe a few who will not budge from their postions, most are open-minded and interested in each other’s thoughts.
Weclome
>>I still say, when you lose an opposing voice you have lost something vital to a democracy… you have gained a one party state. And folks… no matter how partisan you may be… show me one time when that was a good thing?
Darren,
I hope you don’t mind, but I copied this from one of you posts to another blog.
It seems to fit in here very well, and I sure wish I’d been the one to say it.
Posted by: Marysdude at January 25, 2006 11:36 PMTesting a theory while driving home this evening, I ping ponged between the two conservative AM radio stations here and the one liberal (Air America) station. Time limit of 2 minutes or until the first hyperbolic, inflammatory comment was made.
1. Contestant A: Bill O’Reilly - Time: 45 Seconds. Comment (limited paraphrase): “Liberals don’t care about victims who are raped or murdered. All they care about is lying about how much the DON’T care.”
2. Contestant B: Michael Savage - Time: 15 Seconds. Comment (limited paraphrase): “Liberals are so anti-American, they’d buy a Chinese car, they’d buy a HEZBOLLAH CAR, and think they were cool to show their Mickey Mouse friends how much they hate America.”
3. Contestant C: Randi Rhodes - Time: NA. Note: I was mildly surprised that NOTHING came out that I could even mildly construe as a hyperbolic attack on “conservatives.” Yet at no time did she say anything close to what O’Reilly and Savage did - painting ALL conservatives with the same broad brush. She did brutalize Bush, and out and out called him a liar. This is a far cry from stating simply that “all conservatives are liars” which would parallel both Savage and O’Reilly’s comments WITHIN 45 SECONDS of listening to their shows.
Anyone really doubt it would take more than any random two minutes to find Limbaugh, Hannity, Bortz, Beck, etc making SOME comment describing the way ALL liberals think, believe, etc in the most pejorative terms?
Do Liberals name call? Absolutely. The folks on the right, however, have made an industry out of it, and it drives the AM side of the dial almost to the exclusion of all else in the talk format. And before anyone jumps on me, I’m NOT saying all conservatives think this is a good thing. It is, however, indisputable that the debasement of the political structure on the public airways (and in it’s most influential form) began on the Right, continues to be done more effectively and more pervasively on the Right, and will not STOP until the our brethren on the Right demand something more intelligent that better serves the national good than the wholesale hysterical cacophony dominates so much of what issues forth from the mouthpieces of the Right.
Posted by: Grubbery at January 26, 2006 12:39 AMWoody,
This is an excellent article. I agree that there is too much extreme and hateful rhetoric on both sides. I don’t think that either side should be characterized by the inarticulate and hateful rhetoric of its proponents. We need a more substantive debate. This is not a black and white issue. There is a gray scale.
For myself, I am still trying to figure out where the line should be. I don’t want my vehemence to drown out my message. I don’t want to dilute my message by not making a strong emphatic statements of my views. I often refer to President Bush as King George, as Bush II, or as the Disgrace on the Presidency. I use these derogatory disrespectful terms toward the “person of” George Bush who occupies the “office of” the President because they express how I really feel about him and because they highlight the substantive issues of what I consider to be his over-reaching attempts to gain excessive and inappropriate executive power. These derogatory statements also highlight Bush’s incompetent use of Presidential power. I make these statments in the midst of substantive comments like for example:
But “We the People†did not know about this “Unitary Executive†threat to our constitutional democracy. Bush flat out bald faced lied and said that they did not wire tap anybody without a warrant. The “Unitary Executive theory†is the idea that the President has the power to interpret the constitution and declare any law unconstitutional - such that the only law that he is bound by is the Constitution - and then only by his own interpretation of it. Alito was an author of that theory. Bush has used it to justify crossing his fingers behind his back when he signed the Anti-torture bill by issuing a signing statement saying that the law does not apply to him. Bush has used the Unitary Executive†theory to justify his illegal wiretaps by saying that the FISA law does not apply to him. This is not just about war time powers. Let us not forget that Bush has formally declared an end to major combat operations.
I was relatively polite toward Bush in that particular excerpt from an earlier post but it is an example of the types of substantive comments that I attempt to make, yet I have not figured where the balance should be between being emphatic and going overboard.
As for Alito’s wife crying… it seemed clear that she had some sincere emotion for her husband - probably related to the Democratic questioning - but so what - nice lady - so what - the so called “liberal press” latched on to it - much to the Bush Administrations advantage - it became a distraction form the real issues. What is also clear is that Alito dodged questiones and gave the Senators no new information. His record is extreme… extreme deference to the executive… membership in racist / sexist organisations… authorship of this extremely dangerous concept of the “Unitary Executive” which threatens to completely undermine our constitutional democracy. He was given an opportunity during the hearings to set the record straight - so that he could be judged on who he is now - he chose to dodge questions - so we should ignore everything that he said at the hearings, and judge him entirely on his record… his record which is extremely extreme. He should be filibustered. The Republicans complain that the Democrats are too partisan and will vote against Alito along party lines - but the Republicans are going to vote for him along party lines - partisanship is partisanship - it is the pot calling the kettle black.
For more on this, visit my blog at: www.rayspoliticalblog.blogspot.com
Posted by: Ray G. at January 26, 2006 01:52 AMAm I viewed as so extreme in my views? Perhaps that is how it appears… But since I come to my opinions by my own process of reasoning, it would be pathetic and gutless of me to worry over that.
Adrienne,
Your views don’t seem extreme to me. But that might not mean much, because my own views may be viewed as extreme too. I don’t know. But you make a good point, that we come to our views through independent thinking and reasoning. I was quite suprised by sicilianeagle asking you not to respond to him, that really makes his arguments look weak. I would never ask someone not to respond to my posts or comments. He obviously fears you, for some reason, or he would welcome the debate.
Posted by: JayJay Snowman at January 26, 2006 03:48 AMlinda h.
I asked the same question regarding the necessitiy of everyone agreeing on this very site and was called a troll.
By the way, I think that the distinction between a conservative and a neo-con is that the neo-con philosophy is more secular in nature. What I want to know is what is a paleo-con.
Posted by: good king ned at January 26, 2006 05:32 AMDarren7160
Sorry Darren 7160 but it was a typo…nothing more.There was no hidden meaning,no insult intended,nor would I insult you or anyone personally.I am a notorious misspeller because I write these posts with no spell check or edits as I respond between seeing clients as a stress reliever.
That being said,because I accidently switched around your numbers,you made the leap to how I was raised by my parents.
That’s moronic.
What’s more,the defination I posted was supposed to be somewhat whimisical.Nothing more,nothing less.
The term Neocon has been used pretty much to label anyone slightly right of center for a while now with thousands of appliciations depending on what the subject is.
Support Roberts or Alito:Neocon.Support Alaska oil drilling:Neocon.Support Isreal:Neocon.Support the tax cut:Neocon.Support a ban on birth canal abortion:Neocon…and the list goes on.
You ended your post talking about integrity and morality.I suppose Bill Clinton had integrity and morality as he zipped his fly,right?Or Ted Kennedy as he swam away from the floater at the Cape,right or cheated on his exams at Harvard,right?History is replete with examples of lack of integrity ON BOTH SIDES.
Please don’t preach until you have examined the soul of both parties,and as David Reemer has written about in the center column..they both need to be booted out of office.
The only quote that fits really is that absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Anonymous
You are correct…eagles can’t spell worth a damn…nor do they want do.However flying at 4000 feet and with a keen eye,not to mention very sharp claws,that’s the trade off.
Andre and Adrienne
I slept on what Andre said yesterday about Adrienne and he is correct.I will engage her in discussion for the reason that it does foster discussion.Neocons are,after all,very thoughtful people.
Woody Mena,
Good post. The one thing that surprises me is no one else really caught on to the fact that she began weeping during hubby’s “questioning” by Lindsey Graham who I believe has a BA in Psychology.
Now, step back and think, have you ever gone to a psychologist with a wife or girlfriend? (for you gals it could just as well be a husband or boyfriend)I watched that whole damn hearing and I can tell you his tone was purely that of a shrink trying to convince someone that “oh, you’re not that bad”. It was all, ” Now you’ve never discriminated against women or minorities have you? ya-da-ya-da”
Has anyone read that tired old crap “You’re OK, I’m OK”? Anyway from a psychological point of view he drew a “sympathetic” response from the wife.
The same response can be obtained from almost anyone. Some people will respond with a “defensive” response and actually become vocal. Others will get “angry” and leave. So, from a psychological point of view she did OK.
The press screwed up.
It’s psych 101.
KansasDem
Posted by: KansasDem at January 26, 2006 06:20 AMSicilian Eagle,
This:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Neocons are,after all,very thoughtful people.
Posted by: sicilian eagle at January 26, 2006 06:20 AM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
can’t possibly mean that no libs, including myself, are not thoughtful.
Have you had your furnace and water heater checked out. Carbon monoxide can cause delusional thinking.
Actually, this is a great way to start the day though.
New daily regimen:
#1. Walk as far as possible if possible.
#2. Read the spiteful crap SE had to say.
#3. Shit, shower, and shave. (Adjust given
ability to stand that day)
#4. Reread the spiteful crap SE had to say.
#5. Ponder the possibility of changing SE’s political orientation.
#6. Repeat #5 until SE makes his first donation to the DNC.
Good Morning
KansasDem
Linda H,
If you get banned by a site (assuming that you want to get back on) find a system called Crap-Cleaner I’ve heard good things. With blogs (such as this) who try to ban or mark you, go to control panel open ‘internet options’ and erase cookies then erase all temporary files online/offline (check the little box). For some reason it works.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 26, 2006 07:03 AMLinda H,
I kinda like your style, and because you speak with forked tongue I’m not sure if you wish to get back onto the site you were banned from or not. But, if you really do want to return to a site where you’re not wanted…WHY?
Posted by: Marysdude at January 26, 2006 07:13 AMOh and to any liberal/libertarian/conservative who doesn’t want to be spied on by Daddy Government get the Clusty toolbar by Vivisimo (free) in ‘advanced’ features it has a way to erase all search cookies and search history. Being that the NSA hysteria is building there are rudementary ways to get around spying to some extent.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 26, 2006 07:17 AMLinda,
Did you mean Free Republic (FReeper)? or New Republic?
Posted by: Anonymous at January 26, 2006 07:30 AMKansas Dem,
The exact word that Mrs. Alito began blubbering on was the word “African American”. What I think happened was she had a flashback to a Lifetime movie of the week or something. Republicans have gotten pretty sensitive or ‘overly sensitive’ to race as an issue (almost eggshell walking). They make claims of their having the first blacks to do this and that (circa 1970”s rhetoric) and we are progressively into judging character, actions and content of the individual and they can’t figure out why we aren’t impressed anymore that the first black did this or that within their party anymore. It absolutely mystifies them as to why.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 26, 2006 07:46 AMsicilian eagle,
Yes… I did make a presumption concerning the way in which a person is raised being reflective of the way that person behaves in public (Most do. When a child misbehaves it is common to wonder where is the parent and how was that child raised!) If you believe that tv or violent video games cause bad influences on children which can cause them to act out (Is this not part of the conservative moral questioning of society?). I would also postulate that bad parenting does likewise. Isn’t that a conservative belief? That parents are failing their children and used to jusify bringing religion into schools? Because parents are doing such a bad job at home? That we need to limit the sex and violence on TV and in movies because of the bad influence? Power Rangers lead to children kicking each other in the playground?
I still don’t accept the reasoning behind that name thing. One of the oldest tricks in the bully’s arsenal is to abuse someone, be crude towards someone or to make a cheap comment and then when called on it saying that “They were only “joking/teasing” and it must be the problem of the recepient of the bullying that has the problem because they “can’t take a joke.”
I never let a person get away with that. No one should. That is the whole premise behind “political correctness”. Sexual and racist comments are no longer cringed at in silence.
I am not saying that your comments regarding my name are racist… but you made a clear connection between a name and a political affiliation and I would really love to hear your rationale. One that is a bit better than blaming me for not being able to “take a joke” please.
Is there a connotation surrounding the name Darren that I don’t understand? Is there a nod and a wink among the conservatives when the name is mentioned? I am 45 years old and according to my parents I was named after Darren McGavin of “The Apartment”, “Days of Wine and Roses” fame. I wasn’t aware that in 1959 the name had a particular connotation. Did it aquire one over time?
Now… Neoconservatives as I mentioned were orignally democrats that split with the party over the issue of Vietnam. Thus, in the vernacular of the times, they were conservatives, not liberals who were anti-Vietnam.
For those who were not living during the 1960s it may be difficult to understand. This was a foreign, undecleared war in a tiny country. It was draining the lifeblood from minorities and poor while the better off got college defferments (Clinton and Cheney), ANG or Reservist (GWB) slots (which were difficult to come by). There were no Vietnamese crashing airplanes into American buildings.
There was also the Civil Rights movement that was battling doscirmination and the killing of people in the south that wanted to vote. These were also the blacks that were being drafted to die in a war.
To rewrite the civil unrest of that era into something that it was not is dishonest.
The neoconservatives believed in the “big government” portion of the democratic platform, but could not support the peace movement. Therefore the split.
Conservatives meant fiscally conservative. Minimum interference of government in public and private life. Their belief was that through supporting companies by not interfering, they would let the companies create more jobs and wealth for everyone. This is still a tenent of the fiscal conservatives.
Another conservative (Not neoconservatives, remember they believed in the social aspects of the democratic party) belief was that the government should not involve itself in what they considered “state’s rights” such as determining and requiring literacy tests before allowing someone to vote… or to segregate their schools to keep their children away from blacks.
The Christians switched to the Republican party based on their opposition to abortion and possibly other motives which I will keep as just my opinion. Their concern had nothing to do with fiscal policy.
The fiscal conservatives pandered to the Christian conservatives so they could gain members. However, this does lead to interesting conflicts because not ALL Republicans are Pro-Life… nor are they ALL heterosexual.
There is a lot of disagreement even among the people of neoconservative beliefs as I have outlined them. So, a different definition can probably be found… but the general idea of the differences would be necons do believe in a more liberal interpretation of the role of government versus the “hands off” approach of the classical conservatives.
MarysDude,
Thank you for the kind words. Not many people like to be forced to conform blindly and obediently to a party line, even when they believe in it completely. It is no longer based on a free decision but upon force.
This is even seen in the changes and reactions from some of the Republicans that can be seen since the removal of Tom Delay from his position in Congress as the arm twister and heavy.
Now, some will try to say that the dissention and the assertion of the individual Republicans in the Congress is overblown by the liberal MSM… but it is there… it can just be argued how much.
Posted by: Darren7160 at January 26, 2006 07:53 AMKansas Dem
(As tears of laughter roll down the mighty Eagle’s eyes)….Classic..truly classic post…hilarious.Three points for you.Bravo.
One suggestion though is when you walk,try circling to the right a bit more..you’re developing a distinctive left leaning gait.
Kansas…isn’t that where Dorothy was from,though?I bet you do a lot of close your eyes and click your heels three times wishing,right?
The important thing today we have to worry about,all kidding aside is the Hamas election.
This changes the curve completely.
Last month I said that 2006 wouild be interesting geo-politicially but I don’t think anyone figured that Fattah would get the boot as completely as it did.
Now the battlefield moves.
Posted by: sicilianeagle at January 26, 2006 08:01 AMGood King Ned,
Neo-con is more secular? please feel free to Let Bill O’Reilly, Ralph Reed, Joe Scarborough, George W. Bush (originator of ‘Jesus Day’ in Texas) and others of your party in on it, will ya’?
Posted by: Anonymous at January 26, 2006 08:02 AMAnonymous,
I hadn’t thought, “it was a “color purple” guilt moment”. I know that probably seems tasteless but I live in the real world where I still hear the word nigger several times a week.
The Neo-Cons would love for us to believe that racism no longer exists. I’m unhappy to report that racism is alive and very well.
A distant relative, my daughter-in-laws cousin, (and married to a scandinavian like me) who’s white as the driven snow has caught a lot of flack for adopting twin sons that are “coal” black. We’ve heard all kinds of comments.
The most disgusting to me is “that they would be better accepted if they were only more brown”.
Color & race still matters? I’ve been married three times. I have a daughter that’s mixed race and so light complected that no one thinks she’s mixed race, they’re only amazed that my boys are blond and she has dark hair. My oldest grandson is “the brown kid”. No one ever thinks that he can be her son or my grandson.
Can I just say a lot of people are real dumb-asses? Once race and color of skin gain the same importance as hair color we’ll have truly acheived equality of the races.
KansasDem
Posted by: KansasDem at January 26, 2006 08:15 AMDarren 7160
No offense,but get a grip…all I did was type a couple of numbers incorrectly,no hidden meaning,no nod to other conservatives,no wink wink…nothing…just a typo.
Although my favorite person named Darren was Samantha’s husband(the first guy) on Bewitched years ago on tv.
Had I wanted to drill you for any reason(and I don’t..I think you are profoundly intelligent actually although we disagree on everything it seems) I would have,and I don’t need to be coy about it.
All I can about myself in defense is that I am a product of Augustinian,Jesuit,and Franciscian education (a lapsed Catholic in other words) who enjoys blogging here and exchanges consepts and theories with others.
Had time allowed,I would repoond to your Vietnam thing(I completely disagree..plus dragging the Vice president into this was a cheap shot…where was Clinton back than?)
If time allowed I would also respoind to politicial correctness too.
That terms has mutated into a laughable concept…you want to survive in this world,grow thick skin and become skilled in the art of intellectual knife fighting…the same art that pervades Washington today….and is a concept also that is used as a cheap accucation for everything..including typographicial errors it seems.
My dad is dead.Pick on me.I can take it.He trained me well.I don’t run.
Posted by: sicilianeagle at January 26, 2006 08:17 AMKansas Dem
See?We Do have something in common…I was married three times too!
Well,it’s a start,no?
Posted by: sicilianeagle at January 26, 2006 08:21 AMSicilian Eagle,
Just from reading your posts I can tell you’re much more of a McCain Republican than you are a Bush & Co. Neo-Con, how the hell do you sleep at night knowing you’re at least slightly crapping on your own beliefs.
To me it’s American first, Democrat second. I just think you’re a misguided American that needs a bit more of the truth. You’ll come around.
KansasDem
Posted by: KansasDem at January 26, 2006 09:31 AMRegarding Darren 7160’s comment:
I went to that Army of God site…here’s a direct quote regarding the circumstances that lead to the arrest of a man planning to blow up an abortion clinic- “Stephen’s own brother and his church sold him out to the authorities. Another example not tell ANYONE; before, during or after, if you are planning on taking action. Your family, pro-lifers and your church ‘friends’ will sell you out in a heartbeat, thinking they are doing God’s will.”
Why is this group not recognized by the government as the terrorists they are? Writing like that on a Muslim website would result in a one-way ticket to Gitmo…
Posted by: sideshow bob at January 26, 2006 10:15 AMLinda H.
I too was banned.
Banned from the Republic for being a flaming liberal and banned from the democraticunderground.com (DU) for thinking for myself and not totally agreeing with the liberal agenda.
THEN I found WatchBlog. Wish I would have found it first.
Also, I had the same problem with text as you mentioned. I finally discovered that I was forgetting the / at the beginning of the second “strong, em, strike etc…”
WatchBlog
Not sure if that is what is happening with you or not, but just offering my two cents on what helped me.
Posted by: kctim at January 26, 2006 10:30 AMKansas Dem
How’s that walk today?
I am an American first.I am also an Italian citizen too,so I have the best of both worlds.
I like McCain a lot on ‘08…can’t see a viable democratic candidate that will challenge him to be truthful,although Rudy Guilliani would be a great president as well.
I play the part of a neo con well on this blog since anyone even slightly right of center gets that tag quickly,but I support the president almost unflinchingly although I havd thrown barbs at some of his actions here and there.
Johhn Kerry made me puke,so it wasn’t much of a decision for me in the last election to be honest.He was (and is) perhaps the biggest fraud to hit the nationial scene since Mike Dukakis.
This Hamas election has me very worried today though.Nothing good can happen from it I fear.
Can’t blame George either on this.No way.
Posted by: sicilianeagle at January 26, 2006 10:32 AMsicilianeagle,
Nice try… it isn’t “thin skin”… it wasn’t the mistyping of the numbers… it was the implication that the name was liberal. I believe I made that point very clear.
Your explanation does not adress the question as to why you decided that my name was significant enough to be a “liberal” name. Again, it is not the numbers… it is the belief behind it.
So, you are either blowing hot air, or there was something that you meant to imply that you are now hesitant to have brought out to the light.
“I would have,and I don’t need to be coy about it.”
Ahhh, but you were and that is what I am asking about.
”..plus dragging the Vice president into this was a cheap shot…where was Clinton back than?)”
Did you read what I wrote, or what you thought I wrote? Did you see that I did put Clinton in that post? Nice try…
“If time allowed I would also respoind to politicial correctness too.”
That really is too bad, because we could go on and on about political correctness… such as it is “wrong” to disagree with the President concerning the war…
Sir, what you keep trying to deflect is that you made a very specific comment regarding my name and won’t fess up to what that is.
It is uncomfortable… isn’t it? Why are you so shy about it?
Mine taught me not to run either… that is why I stand up to bullies and call them on their behavior… such as I am doing right now. It isn’t that I have thin skin… it is you implied something and are now unwilling, unable or scared to admit to.
Again, you try to deflect responsibility for your own behavior by putting it on the other person. I either don’t have a sense of humor or I am thin skinned… when all I am asking is… you made a very specific comment towards me that I do not understand and when I ask you about it you decide to try to pass it off as nothing… an error or it being my problem.
I do know it isn’t the numbers… But, there is just something about the name Darren that struck a cord… you made a statement connecting my name to what you consider a derogatory term (Liberal).
As far as intellect… I do not believe that I questioned your intellect… I did question your motive.
If, besides my name causing your problems you won’t cop to, my intellect is in serious doubt and you are concerned enough… I will make you the same offer I made someone else… compare college transcripts.
Now, will you either admit to what made you think my name was “Liberal”, admit you were blowing smoke, or try to put this off on me.
You see… I have a theory why you might have made that statement… you say you are thick skinned and intellectually honest and all the rest… are you honest enough to answer my question?
Otherwise, I will just have to consider the source.
Thank you!
Posted by: Darren7160 at January 26, 2006 11:05 AMAnonymous:
I don’t think that O’Reilly or Bush are neo-cons. Rumsfeld is and Cheney maybe. I think that neo-cons are more into global influence than traditional moral pot boilers like abortion.
By the way, what makes you think I’m Republican?
Posted by: goodkingned at January 26, 2006 11:48 AMThere are many liberal issues that can be solved by states rights - the left coast and east coast can be the abortion capitols of north america.
residency requirements are necessary - however the consequences are unacceptable to the state governments because they will be a magnet for the “downtrodden victims “
Posted by: Reporter for Doody at January 26, 2006 11:51 AMReporter,
I am unclear on the “downtrodden victims”. Could you please elaborate? I am not sure who you are talking about.
Thanks in advance.
Posted by: Darren7160 at January 26, 2006 11:53 AMMarysdude,
I really have no desire to go where I am not wanted. I just didn’t know I wouldn’t be wanted there. I tried to ask a question and got shut out. I find myself wondering what I did that was so terribly offensive. Well, maybe I understand a little. There are apparently some sites where they like to hear their own ‘voices’ (so to speak)regardless of whether they actually have anything to ‘say’. I just didn’t realize that was where I had gone to.
I visited the Free Republic, to answer one question.
I wanted to ask you, Marysdude, what exactly do you mean by forked-tongue? I simply try to ask about things of which I am ignorant, and speak (write) my opinion.
I believe I am more confused that ever about what a neo-con is. Thanks for the help, however! ;-)
Posted by: Linda H. at January 26, 2006 11:57 AMLinda,
have you tried:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocon
There is a pretty good explanation of Neocon.
Posted by: Darren7160 at January 26, 2006 12:29 PMdarren7160
Lighten up! Maybe you need to take a 714.
Posted by: gookingned at January 26, 2006 12:31 PMkctim,
Thanks for the suggestions. I can’t get the preview to let me type the suggestions. However I’ll give it a try next time.
I went to the Free Republic because I wanted to read some of the posts they made in order to better understand where they are coming from. I prefer to get all sides of an issue before making up my mind.
I’ll have to try the democraticunderground.Com and see how quickly I can get banned there too!
Anonymous,
I went to the Free Republic. I am not sure about the nickname - I wasn’t there that long.
Sideshow bob,
I too followed Darren’s link to the Army of God site. I was horrified to realize that they were serious. It frightens me to think that they support and ask for monetary support for these people. And tell how to avoid capture.
I don’t know what they are reading, but my Bible says “Thou shalt not commit murder”. Plain and simple.
Hi Daren
Your opening sentence said that I changed the numbers on your nom d’internet…which I did by accident..and apologized for…but now you are refering to the first pasrt of your name…Daren…which I said was a nice liberal name.I get it now.I thought you were talking about the nembers,instead you were talking about the reference to being a liberal.
For that,I am dreadfully sorry.I didn’t realize that your feelings would be hurt by referring to you as a liberal.,,,actually what I said I believe was a “nice liberal name”…not you specificially.
No matter.I like your name and I don’t care if you are a conservative,liberal or even a neo-con…what ARE you,anyway?
As far as comparing transcripts,you got me there,fella.I was a hippie during my college years and vaguely remember any of the “experience”.
My law school transcript isn’t so bad though,so will that do?Or maybe I can send you a opy of the books that I have written?
Nope,you said college transcripts,and I guess you win.
Hey…guess what…check the first post you made…you said yourself “being of a liberal bent:…that’s why I said Darel was anice liberal name!
Sorry about that…I guess I win.
Again.
(Sigh.)
Posted by: sicilianeagle at January 26, 2006 12:49 PMHi Daren
Your opening sentence said that I changed the numbers on your nom d’internet…which I did by accident..and apologized for…but now you are refering to the first pasrt of your name…Daren…which I said was a nice liberal name.I get it now.I thought you were talking about the nembers,instead you were talking about the reference to being a liberal.
For that,I am dreadfully sorry.I didn’t realize that your feelings would be hurt by referring to you as a liberal.,,,actually what I said I believe was a “nice liberal name”…not you specificially.
No matter.I like your name and I don’t care if you are a conservative,liberal or even a neo-con…what ARE you,anyway?
As far as comparing transcripts,you got me there,fella.I was a hippie during my college years and vaguely remember any of the “experience”.
My law school transcript isn’t so bad though,so will that do?Or maybe I can send you a opy of the books that I have written?
Nope,you said college transcripts,and I guess you win.
Hey…guess what…check the first post you made…you said yourself “being of a liberal bent:…that’s why I said Darel was anice liberal name!
Sorry about that…I guess I win.
Again.
(Sigh.)
Posted by: sicilianeagle at January 26, 2006 12:50 PMSE,
Yes, let’s hear about your books and how you passed the bar with that awesome spelling and flawless logic you exhibit. That way I’ll know which state will pass just about anyone.
Thanks.
Posted by: Dave at January 26, 2006 01:02 PMGood King Ned,
You had said they were more secular but I think it’s actually that they know how to work religiosity and the religious right in this country at election time better than the opposition. Neocons are only secular unless speaking or appearing in public.
And I’m sorry if I claimed you to be a Republican and sorry for them that now they have no one to tell them that they are supposed to be more secular.
See now here’s the weird thing all partisan stuff aside NED, when Democrats have the house or the majority republicans don’t trust them and want them to stay out of state business. when Republicans have the house or the majority we don’t trust them and want them out of state’s business. There really is a divine comedy to all this.
Posted by: ANONY at January 26, 2006 01:04 PMDave
Now,now,now…critique the message,not the messenger.
It’s not my fault I can buy and sell you ten times over it is?
“Isn’t America a great place” said the mighty Eagle..as he takes off the gloves…..”to be a republician?”
Posted by: sicilianeagle at January 26, 2006 01:10 PMJay Jay:
“Your views don’t seem extreme to me. But that might not mean much, because my own views may be viewed as extreme too. I don’t know.”
:^) As I said in another thread today: unapologetically liberal. For some people it’s the only way to live!
“But you make a good point, that we come to our views through independent thinking and reasoning.”
Yes. We as in most Democrats and Liberals. Unscripted thought is a hallmark of ours, and something to be very proud of, don’t you think? I’m not so sure about the other side. I see lots of GOP talking points and reiterated justifications for all kinds of bad, corrupt or illegal behavior.
“I was quite suprised by sicilianeagle asking you not to respond to him, that really makes his arguments look weak. I would never ask someone not to respond to my posts or comments. He obviously fears you, for some reason, or he would welcome the debate.”
Between these two sentences and Andre’s earlier comments, it seems you each threw down a gauntlet on the Sic Eagle, because today he says:
“I slept on what Andre said yesterday about Adrienne and he is correct.I will engage her in discussion for the reason that it does foster discussion.Neocons are,after all,very thoughtful people.”
Hilarious.
We may henceforth look forward to discussions being fostered!
Thank you Andre and Jay Jay. Much appreciated.
Darren,
Thanks for the link. I found it sort of informative. Considering that even Wikipedia says it is confusing.
The term “neocon,” while increasingly popular in recent years, is somewhat controversial and is rejected by many to whom the label is applied. They say it lacks a coherent definition.
Compared to other U.S. Conservatives, neoconservatives may be characterized by an aggressive moralist stance on foreign policy, a lesser social conservatism, and a much weaker dedication to a policy of minimal government, and, in the past, a greater acceptance of the welfare state, though none of these qualities are necessarily requisite.
kctim!!! It worked!!! Thanks!!!
gookinged,
The reason I have c