Another question for lurking conservatives:

[iconoclastic cat]

First, I want to compliment Dave Reynolds on his great post

Next, let me ask a question that I asked one year ago:
Lurking conservatives--and I know you're here--are any of you starting to think that maybe, just maybe, President George W. Bush and his administration might be harming this country?

Let me also ask a new question: Do you also think that it is a possibility that some Republicans might be using Christianity as a political tool?

Don't worry--I won't alert on you or flame you. I just want to know. Even if you think that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry, or that public schools are inferior, or that the U.S. military needs to maintain a presence in Muslim countries--in short, you might disagree with most "liberal" positions--do you ever think that maybe our current leadership is not working in the best interest of the country?

I hope you have the courage to post a reply. Thanks in advance!

[stpalm]

1. this will be interesting. tagging for later reading. (nt)

[katsy]

2. I feel so BAD for you!

You had some thoughtful questions.

I'm a flaming liberal but please allow me to play a conservative on DU.

Ahem.

Answer to your 1st question:

arrrgh mah vem splickle foo.


Answer to your 2nd question:

arrrgh mah vem splickle foo.


Answer to your 3rd question:

arrrgh mah vem splickle foo.


Ya got that you commie pinko?

[iconoclastic cat]

3. Shhhh! You're going to scare them!

They're like deer.

[BornLeft]

4. Are you kidding?

They still make excuses for tricky dick. how could their golden messiah be found lacking?

[iconoclastic cat]

5. No, I wasn't kidding THEM. I must have been, however, kidding myself.

[BornLeft]

6. Sorry I wasn't trying to be rude

at one time in my life i thought it was rewarding to engage the opposition in dialog, now my soul is so hardened against them i would rather just spit in their faces.

[iconoclastic cat]

7. You weren't being rude.

But I think they've been scared away.

[katsy]

10. sorry.

:spank:

or in the language of our infamous conservative friends:

mrgoolah fongleeb spittle bhrahlague.

[Raster]

8. My money says you won't have one lurking "conservative" with the

cajones to post. To post would entail examining the argument and formulating an opinion and then defending said opinion. All it takes is one free thought unencumbered by rhetoric.

[iconoclastic cat]

9. I'm almost considering setting up an anonymous forum and inviting them.

Perhaps they'd feel safer on neutral ground.

[katsy]

14. Pick me please!

Please invite me to the forum.

I REEEALLY promise to engage in a thoughtful manner and won't insult anyone.

Besides, you need a translator.

[Dave Reynolds]

11. Very good questions,

and thank you for the compliment.

I will be interested in seeing if you get serious replies.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[katsy]

15. a question for Lurking.

What, in your opinion and aside from terrorism, is the greatest danger to our Constitutional Republic at the present time?

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iconoclastic cat]

17. I definitely agree with you on that one, if you mean autonomy for states.

While I disgree that we are winning the war against terrorism (which will exist as long as people have it in them to kill innocent civilians), I think that the current surge in terrorism will be quelled, just as fascism in Europe was quelled.

The current administration's policies (as well as the policies of many politicians of all stripes) are definitely more worrysome, since we appear to be moving toward a consolidation of power under a small group of elites. While you and I might also disagree about the mission and motives of No Child Left Behind or the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, I doubt that anyone could dispute that these policies are dismantling any autonomy that the states had left.

Thoughts?

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iconoclastic cat]

24. First, I don't consider this administration to be my "big enemy."

Now, I don't expect you to search through DU to check up my Liberal Vitae. The fact is that I vote for the person who will do the best job with the highest level of integrity--Democrat, Green, Libertarian, and, yes, if the circumstances arose, even Republican.

Side note: I live in Illinois. If I had it to do again, I would vote for Jim Ryan over Blago in a hot second. Nobody can survive two bouts of cancer and not come out with some measure of humility and introspection.

Anyway...I digress. My "big enemy," despite what you may think, is not President Bush. In fact, I see all presidents as somewhat tragic figures, imbued with a level of power that they do not, in fact, have. The administration is not in control. The problem, however, is that the office of the Presidency is being bought and sold by special interests--special interests whose agendas are, to be blunt, dangerous and ignorant.

The President is not my enemy. The Vice President is not my enemy. Donald Rumsfeld is not my enemy. Now, I will tell you, that I do consider PNAC my enemy. I consider the DLC my enemy for the same reasons: consolidation of power in the hands of the elite.

Please excuse any rambling fallacies of logic or reason.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iconoclastic cat]

36. I've always agreed with the old "fight wars and collect taxes" idea.

Absolutely nobody could convince me that environmental policies in Utah need to be a carbon copy (pun intended) of the policies in Illinois. I also think that government waste of tax revenue is nearly impossible to eliminate on a national scale, but much easier to manage statewide.

My pet gripe in all of this is--big surprise--the idea that nationwide education standards will solve the waste and ineptitude that is rife in the public school system. If I had my way, school districts would create their own research-based standards for instruction and states would provide funding based on the highest possible per-student ratio and leave property taxes alone.

As for special interest groups, if you take a strict reading of those documents, I believe you would be correct in theory. I wouldn't mind special interest groups so much if they influenced local government activity and weren't slathered in pork.

[Sparkly]

26. Oh, please.

NCLB is a huge erosion of state's rights. The USSC decision of 2000 was a huge erosion of state's rights.

I don't see this cabal as "conservative" in the traditional sense of that word. There hasn't been a fiscally conservative Republican administration for decades at LEAST. And this group is just plain radical. They don't want to "conserve" separation of church and state, they don't want to "conserve" the military including the national guard, they don't want to "conserve" energy, money, rights, unity, foreign relations, infrastructure, citizens' health, or anything else. They're on a virtual SPREE of expending all the trust, credibility, power, economic standing and progress that three generations have worked to build.

"Conservative" my ass.

[iconoclastic cat]

29. Your ass, indeed.

I think you are correct: radical groups are steering policy. Conservatives--real ones--wouldn't do this kind of crap.

[enid602]

63. funds

But how can we win the war on terror, when our costly new conventional wars not only drain us, but create new havens for terrorism? And these wars leave a dearth of available funds for protecting us against terrorism at home.

[katsy]

19. Is the greatest threat to Federalism...

at this time, stemming from Roosevelt policies, the Fed, or globalism?

[iconoclastic cat]

21. Interesting question.

I'm not a Roosevelt scholar, nor am I an expert on globalism (in its current incarnation). We need some expertise here...Where the hell is H2O Man?

[KansDem]

22. Something I ask neo-Cons about Bush, but rarely get an answer...

On 9/11, Andrew Card informed Bush that we were under attack, yet Bush didn't do anything. The videotape of this exchange is available (most notably in Michael Moore's movie "F 9/11"). Why didn't Bush leap into action, or, at least, communicate to Card what he wanted done? Why continue reading on and talking with the children while 3,000 Americans are being killed?

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[KansDem]

25. He told Bush "We are under attack..."

This footage, obtained and presented exclusively by The Memory Hole, shows President Bush sitting in a Florida classroom for 5 minutes after he was told that the second Twin Tower has been hit and that America was being attacked. A truncated version of this footage that has been available online since June 2002 shows Bush for only 2 minutes, 10 seconds after being told. This new footage more than doubles this length of time.
http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/bush-911.htm

Chief of Staff Andrew Card was in a nearby room when he heard the news. He waited until there was a pause in the reading drill to walk in and tell Bush. The children were getting their books from under their seats to read a story together when Card came in. Card whispered to Bush: "A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack." Another account has Card saying: "A second plane has hit the World Trade Center. America is under attack." Accounts vary as to when Card gave Bush the news. Some say 9:05 , and some say 9:07. ABC News reporter Ann Compton, who was in the room, said she was surprised by the interruption and "wrote down in my reporter's notebook, by my watch, 9:07 a.m."
http://www.cooperativeresearch.net/timeline/main/essayaninterestingday.html

But I was whisked off there, I didn't have much time to think about it. And I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my Chief of Staff, who is sitting over here, walked in and said, "A second plane has hit the tower, America is under attack."
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WTCDEMO/wot/bushflub.htm

So why did Bush do nothing when informed that we were under attack?

[iconoclastic cat]

27. Now, how the heck is Lurker1 going to know that?

[KansDem]

32. I provided him with three links that report this...

There are dozens/scores more...

I really would like a Bush supporter to explain to me the actions of Bush on that day, especially how he can sit and do nothing after having learned that we, the United States, are under attack...

[iconoclastic cat]

38. But a Bush supporter cannot explain that unless they were on GWB's staff.

And even then, who knows?

Now, if you were to ask whether or not the White House should be allowed to avoid criticism for its ineptitude, that's another issue altogether. But none of us can know what is going on at the highest levels of power. Except H2O Man.

[Sparkly]

43. The point is that there is no good explanation. And no excuse.

"So why did Bush do nothing when informed that we were under attack?"

Is there any answer at all that could possibly excuse his response, or lack thereof? In failing to come up with any good answer, a thinking person might be forced to reach the obvious conclusion that something is very WRONG there.

I think that's the point of the question.

[iconoclastic cat]

45. But you're asking a unanswerable question with one answer in mind!

That's just baiting an argument.

[Sparkly]

46. I don't think it's baiting an argument, I think it's making a point.

And there's not "one answer in mind." There's an absence of a plausible excuse, which leads to any number of negative conclusions.

[iconoclastic cat]

47. Yes, there is no acceptable answer to that question.

But we can only speculate about the all the unacceptable possiblities. Unless you're Karl.

[Sparkly]

48. That's right.

The fact is that all the possibilities are unacceptable, which ought to cause concern to anyone who thinks having a competent president is important.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sparkly]

35. "What difference does it make?" Are you kidding?!?

:crazy:

The POTUS is told the nation is under attack and he SITS there, doing nothing, apparently waiting for someone to tell HIM what to do. That makes a difference.

He has the authority to take and command action. The South tower should have been evacuated IMMEDIATELY particularly with urging from people who had MEMOS and information on the threat of terrorist attacks.

Anyone with an ounce of authority or half a brain cell might want to inquire what was known, whether DC was under threat, whether planes had been grounded, whether jets had been scrambled, etc. etc. etc... Maybe even whether his family was safe.

"What difference does it make?!" It's the difference between a president and a puppet, a functional brain and a dysfunctional one, a person of competence and a person of utter, mind-boggling, unfathomable INcompetence. And that's a difference that costs lives.

[iconoclastic cat]

37. I think we can all agree that that was one of many gaffes.

[KansDem]

40. Gaffe?

A clumsy social error; a faux pas: “The excursion had in his eyes been a monstrous gaffe, a breach of sensibility and good taste”

A blatant mistake or misjudgment.

He didn't do anything after being informed "we are under attack." This inaction goes way beyond a "gaffe." What about incompetence or complicity?! What about "criminal conspiracy?"

[iconoclastic cat]

42. You're really trying to get me to open up the can o' outrage, aren't ya?

Fine. Crininal negligence. Arrogant disregard for the office. Fine. There. That's what I think. But I can point to CEOs whose environmental policies will eventually kill more people than 9/11 by many multiples.

[KansDem]

39. "Great answers" aside...

What would be your "not so great" answer regarding his curious behavior on that day.

On a personal level, do you really feel comfortable about his inaction on that day after being informed we were under attack?

[BlueStateBlue]

65. I've always thought that he was actually doing a bad job of acting

concerned whenever I see that footage. Is it just me?

[DuaneBidoux]

64. So you actually want deficits as far as the eye can see?

You actually want a war that can't really be won?

You actually want a dirtier environment?

You actually want women not to be able to buy the pill at the pharmacy?

You actually want nothing done about the true crisis of 48 million Americans without health care while he freaks over a social security system that might be bankrupt in 20 years?

You actually want a flat stock market for four years running (and if you're interested, check out economic performance under Republican presidents vs. Democratic presidents--stocks have DOUBLE the performance under democrats.

You actually want the wealthiest 1% to get 60% of a tax cut when many wealthy already pay less tax than average folks?

You actually do want America to be hated as arrogant by a majority of the world?

[seabeyond]

13. why do we keep talking to "lurkers" like we are another site

i dont care squat about lurkers conservatives. they dont care what you have to say to them, except it allows them to play their game. i have seen a lot of this last couple days. who cares about conservative lurkers. if they are going to shift any in thought process it is going to be all the varied information this site produces

[iconoclastic cat]

18. I disagree that "they" don't "care." Don't overgeneralize.

[seabeyond]

28. have you been to

their site and listened to how much they dont care about facts. lol. may be generalization, but then, when i dont find one that takes a neutral thinking stance, hey, generalization it becomes in reality.

[iconoclastic cat]

31. But those websites are populated by about 60 people.

I don't even take them seriously as bipeds.

[tabasco]

34. They remain wilfully ignorant to remain loyal to their party.

Many of them would rather die than admit their party has become corrupt.

Their loyalty is to their party, not to our Nation.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tabasco]

51. 1. Do you think Iraq had something to do with 9-11?

2. Do you think the invasion/occupation of Iraq had anything to do with our freedom?

3. Do you think deregulation of utilities has been good for the Nation?

4. Do you think deficits don't matter?

5. Do you think finding out about Clinton's blowjob was a vital matter of national concern, warranting a $50 million investigation and impeachment?

6. Do you think the republicans were correct in not supporting Clinton when Clinton tried to kill Osama Bin Laden?

7. Do you think Bush is supporting the military when he is cutting $910 million dollars from veterans' care in 2006 (in addition to is previous cuts), at a time when more and more of our vets are coming home disabled and in need of good care?

8. Do you think tax cuts for the rich are a good idea when we have two active wars? Do you think progressive taxation is a good idea in a capitalist system?

9. Do you think it is a good idea to purge the Pentaon of generals who have the moral courage to disagree with the President and SecDef?

10. Do you think the administration really believed Iraq had WMD? Do you think Bush was telling the truth when he spoke about Iraq trying to get yellow cake from Africa?

There's 10 specifics. Let's talk.

[Sparkly]

54. "But here is the thing, they are still giving me what I want." n/t

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sparkly]

58. Incredible.

1. Read the 9/11 Commission's report.
2. Read international law.
3. Ask a Californian.
4. Look up the current national debt.
5. Look up the "Arkansas Project."
6. Do your research on "Clinton's obsession with terrorist bogeyman Usama Bin Laden in desperate effort to wag the dog and divert attention from the national crisis that is his sex life," in case you've forgotten.
7. Also look at the struggle of the guard and reserves.
8. Tax cuts for the rich are indeed fact.
9. They gave advice and info the administration didn't want to hear, period.
10. Bush was already informed that the info was fake, thus blamed the Brits.

[wtmusic]

60. A few followups for Lurker:

1) Does Iraq's violation of UN security council resolutions give us the right to break the UN charter itself, by attacking another country outside of self-defense? (the exact wording is we must be under "armed attack")
2) If so, does North Korea have the moral right to attack the US because it feels the US is a "threat to its national security"?
3) Just how would you propose Iraq have "proved it didn't have any weapons"?
4) How do you justify President Bush's statements that "war was a last resort" when the Downing Street memo revealed last week he had made up his mind to invade Iraq in 2002?
5) How many better ways can you think of to spend $50 million dollars than to prove the President lied about a blow job, under oath or not?
6) Do you honestly believe that the attack on Iraq had nothing to do with taking their oil?
7) Why did the President cite the Nigerian yellowcake documents in his SOTU address when he personally knew they were a forgery months earlier?

I will take you up on your offer to dig up a 9/11/Czech/Iraq connection. Everything I have seen so far has been fantasy. Correction--politically motivated fantasy.

[tabasco]

62. 1. Even Bush admitted Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11.

You are citing discredited information.

2. Israel has violated more UN sanctions than Iraq. Why didn't we invade Israel?

3. Ask the People of California how deregulation affected them. Did you hear the Enron tapes with the execs talking about Granny? Remember Bush lying about knowing Kenneth Lay (Kenny Boy)?

4. You mean it's ok to "borrow and spend?" Republcans cry about "tax and spend" liberals. What this tells me is that liberals believe in PAYING THE BILLS, not shifting the burden to future generations for political gain. Paying the bills is the MORAL thing to do, not making our children and grandchildren pay the bills.

5. Suuuure. I suppose you think that lying about a blowjob is a vital matter of concern, but lying to the Nation about justification for war is ok.

6. Trent Lott and several leading republicans stated that Clinton was "wagging the dog" when he tried to kill Bin Laden with Tomahawk missiles. They decried the effort as an attempted distraction and refused to support the President's efforts.

7. The VFW has stated that the 2006 Bush budget shortchanges veterans in a number of areas. Check their website. Here's some more info on Bush's support for the troops:

http://www.democrats.org/specialreports/veterans/troops.html

8. Study some history. Unregulated capitalism without progressive taxation leads to disproportionate distribution of wealth, undemocratic concentrations of power, and revolution.

9. Leaders with the moral courage to disgree with you are the kind of leaders you want to promote, not get rid of. It says so right in the Army Leadership manual. The military is too important to run like your private business.

10. The whole world was demonstrating in the streets against the unjustified Bush push for war. I don't know where you get the idea the world thought Iraq still had WMD. The UN told Bush that extensive inspections showed no evidence of WMD. The only WMDs that were ever verified in Iraq were given to Iraq by President Ronald Reagan. One of the most vile acts EVER by our government. Reagan gave chemical weapons to Iraq when he knew those weapons would be used offensively.

Overall, I would say you are proving my point.

[katsy]

52. Lurking...

I asked:

Is the greatest threat to Federalism at this time, stemming from Roosevelt policies, the Fed, or globalism?

Your original post was thought provoking and went beyond the present administration. If I'm not mistaken, your basic political philosophy tends towards Libertarian. Am I wrong?

If I'm right... how can the gop align with your political philosophy any more than the Democratic party? If I were a Libertarian... I would want a balance in government so neither party can accomplish very much more damage.


Negative personal opinions on DU about this particular administration are bound to be intense and IMO, well deserved. So I won't go there... yet.

[mattclearing]

55. I'll take that.

I'd say it's the Fed.

To the extent that the gold standard ensured some intrinsic value and stability to the U.S. dollar, I would say that the decision to leave it and issue 'federal reserve notes' has enabled a lot of unpredictable economic factors to potentially impact the economy, the most notable of which would be inflation.

I'm not sure I can even envision what a present on the gold standard would be like. It's like envisioning the world being square.

My jury is still out on globalism.

[katsy]

59. We're in complete agreement.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iconoclastic cat]

44. Come on now. How many DUers threatened to bail the US in '04?

Where's the loyalty in that? Leaving others to clean up a mess?

And by the way, come to Illinois if you want to see some corrupt Democrats. Shake hands with Dickie the DINO!

[seabeyond]

49. i want to get them out too. what was it, .....

oh read a really good article on the fbi translator whistleblower and she had names of politicians high up taking money going into campaigns. it was implied the democrats being awfully quiet in this.

i dont care if there are democrats, i want it open.

also the gannon/sex ring in washington. any democrats in the mix, i dont care, i want it open

election theft, get the dems. i dont care. richardson in new mexico didnt behave right

i hear ya. i dont care if it is dem or repugs, i want them all exposed. enough

and i did have a repug guest this weekend. so many things i told him, he didnt have a clue. finally told him how uninformed he was. is hurting our country. but he listened. and wanted more.

[iconoclastic cat]

50. Open Source Government!

Keep at it.

[iconoclastic cat]

53. Thanks to Lurker1 and all for hangin'. I have to hit the hay!

Okay, this was fun, but I have to get ready for tomorrow. Have a good night, DU!

[Indy Lurker]

61. I'm very independent.

I'm very conservative on some issues, and very liberal on other, and really don't fit in anywhere.


"Are any of you starting to think that maybe, just maybe, President George W. Bush and his administration might be harming this country?"

Yes, I think he believes he is doing the right thing, but the "ends never justify the means"

Do you also think that it is a possibility that some Republicans might be using Christianity as a political tool?

No, not exactly. The Christian right is their base, and have a right to to political like anyone else.

The Constitution has a clause separating church and state, and it seems that many on DU by extension seem to believe that this means there should be a separation between church and politicians.

Right or wrong, our laws are written by members of congress who were elected by popularity, not because they have the best ideas or are the smartest. This is our system of government. This concept also seem to be foreign to may members on DU. Except on issues of constitutional merit, the majority, by definition are "Right"

For liberals to enact their ideas, they must convince a majority of people to agree with them, win them over. I don't see much effort here to do that. The best idea in the world is still a loser in our system of government if you can't get a majority to agree.