# Conservative Republicans Against the War?



## hardheadjarhead (Jul 1, 2004)

I thought you folks would find the enclosed article interesting.  

For those of you that don't know who Pat Buchanen is, he is a _very_ conservative and noted Republican.  This alone makes this article surprising in its perspective.  You would think it was written by someone on the left.

Peachmonkey, Michaeledwards, rmcrobertson, Feistymouse...I thought you four might get a kick out of it given your apparent political perspectives.  Along with this I hope you noted that yesterday Bill Buckley announced his retirement from the National Review...and in doing so expressed his reservations over the war.  Buckley was my favorite conservative writer.  I disagreed with him quite often, but he wrote beautifully.

Article below.


Regards,


Steve



*The War We're Losing.*

By Patrick J. Buchanan
© 2004 Creators Syndicate, Inc. 

June 28, the day in 2004 that the Americans transferred sovereignty to Iraqis and proconsul Paul Bremer hastily departed Baghdad, is a day freighted with historic significance. 

On June 28, 1914, 90 years before, Serb nationalist Gavrilo Princip fired the shots that killed the Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand and led, five weeks later, to World War I. 


On June 28, 1919, German representatives, their country under an Allied starvation blockade, prostrate before a threat by Marshal Foch to march on Berlin, signed the Versailles treaty that ended World War I and set the stage for Hitler and World War II. Seen as an Allied triumph in 1919, Versailles proved a disaster. 

Thus, it is a good time to attempt to draw up an interim profit-and-loss statement of what President Bush has accomplished in what he calls the "War on Terror." Who is winning this war? 

To answer that question, we must first ask and answer antecedent questions. What is the war about? What are we fighting for? Who, exactly, is the enemy in this war? What is he fighting for? 

Since 9-11, the president's objectives have been to exact retribution for the massacre, overthrow the Taliban enablers of Osama, run al-Qaida out of Afghanistan, remove Saddam, disarm Iraq and defend America. He has attained them all. Yet, 54 percent of Americans believe invading Iraq was a mistake. The nation understands that something has gone wrong. 

The nation is right. For what this war is really about is who shall rule in the Islamic world. Will it be the men who share our views and values? Or will it be True Believers who will purge that world of what they see as our odious and corrupt presence? 

What our enemies seek in the great Sunni Triangle from Rabat to Chechnya to Mindanao is what the Iranian Revolution achieved: to be rid of the Americans and of rulers that they view as vile puppets of the United States, to purify their societies and to unite their world against the West. 

If this is indeed the ultimate goal of the radical Islamists, the U.S. invasion of Iraq was a strategic victory for the enemy. 

Consider what has happened as a result of our war on Iraq. An enemy of Islamic fundamentalism, Saddam, has been removed. His secular Baath Party is gone. A vacuum has opened up in Iraq that the Islamists and their allies may one day fill. The Arab world has been radicalized and supports the Iraqi resistance in its drive to defeat and expel the Americans. 

The destabilization of the Saudi monarchy through terror has begun. Rulers in Arab countries have been forced to distance themselves from the Americans if they wish to retain the support of their people. Western tourists are staying away from the Middle East, Western investment is on hold, and Western workers have begun to depart Saudi Arabia and Iraq. 

"There exists today a hatred of Americans never equaled in the region," Egyptian President Mubarak told Le Monde. "In the beginning, some people thought the Americans were helping them. There was no hatred toward Americans. After what happened in Iraq, there is an unprecedented hatred, and the Americans know it." 

This longtime friend added, "American and Israeli interests are not safe, not only in our region but in other parts of the world, in Europe, in America, anywhere in the world." The war on Iraq into which his neo-conservative advisers prodded the president seems to have ignited the very "war of civilizations" between Islam and America that the president said he wanted to avoid. 

Raised to believe in the innate goodness of America and the nobility of her purposes, President Bush finds it hard to believe the best recruiting tool al-Qaida and the Iraqi insurgents have is the presence on Iraqi soil of the U.S. soldiers he sent to "liberate" Iraq. 

Of late, the president appears to have begun to understand that our presence is a primary cause of the war of resistance and that, when this phase ends, the real war, the civil war to decide which Iraqis rule in Iraq, begins. Will it be Iraqis who wish to belong to the modern world? Or Iraqis who wish to be part of the anti-American Islamic revolution? 

War, Clausewitz reminded us, is but the extension of politics by other means. All wars, even wars in which terror is the weapon of choice of the enemy, are about, as Lenin said: "Who? Whom?" Who shall rule whom? And even in an Arab world where monarchs and autocrats now rule, the victors will be those who win the hearts and minds of Arab peoples. 

This is the war we are losing. And to win this struggle, the United States needs to do three things that may go against the political interests of both parties: Stand up for justice for the Palestinians. Remove our imperial presence. Cease to intervene in their internal affairs. 

We Americans once stood for all that. And if we go only where we are invited, we would be invited more often to come and help.

End of article.

---------------------------------------------------


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 1, 2004)

Thank you. It is a nice article and consistent with Buchanan's world view. He has always been a very thoughtful isolationist. 

I have always despised Patrick Buchanan. Recently, however, I head some describe him as a nice man, who will never say an unkind word; he will argue his points of view strongly, but is always polite. As I reflected on that assertion, I had to agree. I have never heard him put forth any of his arguments with personal attacks. He is always on point, but exceedingly polite. (wouldn't say $%!T if he had a mouthful - type of polite - forgive the expression) This has significantly raised Mr. Buchanan up in my esteem.

What is also intersting is how many other Neo-Conservatives are coming around to this way of thinking, I will cite just one example for now:

Tucker Carlson - "I think its a total nightmare and disaster, and Im ashamed that I went against my own instincts in supporting it," he said. "Its something Ill never do again. Never. I got convinced by a friend of mine whos smarter than I am, and I shouldnt have done that. No. I want things to work out, but Im enraged by it, actually."

Thanks for the post. Mike


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jul 1, 2004)

> This is the war we are losing. And to win this struggle, the United States needs to do three things that may go against the political interests of both parties: Stand up for justice for the Palestinians. Remove our imperial presence. Cease to intervene in their internal affairs.


Wouldn't removing our presence and ceasing to intervene kinda conflict with the goal of standing up for Palestinian justice?  Maybe I missed something.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 1, 2004)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> Wouldn't removing our presence and ceasing to intervene kinda conflict with the goal of standing up for Palestinian justice? Maybe I missed something.


Maybe, maybe not. I don't want to speak for Mr. Buchanan, but maybe when he refers to 'their interal affairs' he was speaking more generally about the Middle-East Nations (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Iraq).

Anyhow ... The US Provides something like 3 million dollars a day to Isreal. And nothing to the Palestinians. Maybe if we just stopped sending money to Isreal, we could 'cease intervening in their affairs'.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jul 1, 2004)

> The US Provides something like 3 million dollars a day to Isreal. And nothing to the Palestinians. Maybe if we just stopped sending money to Isreal, we could 'cease intervening in their affairs'.


 Holy **** - I did not realize it was on that scale.  No kidding.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 1, 2004)

http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm


There are some interesting nuggets of information on the linked page.



> For many years the American media said that "Israel receives $1.8 billion in military aid" or that "Israel receives $1.2 billion in economic aid." Both statements were true, but since they were never combined to give us the complete total of annual U.S. aid to Israel, they also were liestrue lies.
> 
> Recently Americans have begun to read and hear that "Israel receives $3 billion in annual U.S. foreign aid." That's true. But it's still a lie. The problem is that in fiscal 1997 alone, Israel received from a variety of other U.S. federal budgets at least $525.8 million above and beyond its $3 billion from the foreign aid budget, and yet another $2 billion in federal loan guarantees. So the complete total of U.S. grants and loan guarantees to Israel for fiscal 1997 was $5,525,800,000.


Seems my math was wrong -- way wrong. Even using the 3 Billion a year, that works out to more than 8 Million dollars a day. 

But, it seems that much of the money that goes from the United States to Israel is private - *tax deductible* - donations. Which in turn deprives the United States Treasury of taxable income (to the tune of $300,000,000 per year). Oh, well.

Mike


----------



## shesulsa (Jul 1, 2004)

Holy cr*p ...  I agree with Pat Buchanan?!?!?!?!?!?

 ...wait, wait.... I have to sit down....


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jul 1, 2004)

shesula - your post had me laughing my tush off.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jul 1, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Anyhow ... The US Provides something like 3 million dollars a day to Isreal. And nothing to the Palestinians. Maybe if we just stopped sending money to Isreal, we could 'cease intervening in their affairs'.


 Are you sure the US provides *no* aid to the Palestinians?

 Moreover, while I'm completely open to the idea of potentially *cutting back* on aid to Israel, I'd be extremely nervous about cutting *all* aid to Israel.  Lest we forget, Israel *is* surrounded by nations that have, on multiple occasions, tried to wipe her off the face of the earth, nations which have considerable military forces (many of which contain highly capable US weaponry, and are funded by US foreign aid).


----------



## shesulsa (Jul 1, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> shesula - your post had me laughing my tush off.


 uh...thanks...I'm seriously sucking wind here...everythings fading away....

 :anic:


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jul 1, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> What is also intersting is how many other Neo-Conservatives are coming around to this way of thinking, I will cite just one example for now:
> 
> Tucker Carlson - "I think its a total nightmare and disaster, and Im ashamed that I went against my own instincts in supporting it," he said. "Its something Ill never do again. Never. I got convinced by a friend of mine whos smarter than I am, and I shouldnt have done that. No. I want things to work out, but Im enraged by it, actually."
> 
> Thanks for the post. Mike




I have seen Carlson quoted elsewhere saying essentially the same thing.

A number of conservatives are balking at Bush.   Bob Novak at the Sun Times reports that he's losing his conservative base.  He reports that Don Devine, a Vice Chairman with the American Conservative Union, has turned against Bush.  And what of the conservative Novak?  Hard to tell.  If we go with the penumbras and emanations from his articles, I'd say he's pretty disenchanted himself.

And then there were the former statesmen appointed by Ford, Reagan, etc. who came out with a letter protesting the war's lack of vision...the retired Marine generals, Zinni and Hoar loudly voicing their protests...Tom Clancy's complaints that we had no cassus belli going into this conflict.,,,Bill Buckley's comments yesterday..I've posted this all elsewhere, I'm sure.

I just got off the phone with my ward, who is interning with Joe Lieberman in Washington.  He says he can't believe that people are calling this coming election "close" given the degradation of Bush's Republican base.  I have to agree with him in stating that it wouldn't be silly to call this next election a decisive victory for the Democrats.   The one thing that might swing it back for the Republicans is if Cheney retires and Giuliani steps up as a Veep candidate.  Until that unfortunate event, I see no reason for hand-wringing on the part of the Democrats.

BTW...the Democrats just set a record and broke Bush's 2000 fundrasing levels.  That too should tell people something.  Somebody, somewhere is giving that money.  A discontented electorate, perhaps?

Regards,

Steve


----------



## sma_book (Jul 1, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> Are you sure the US provides *no* aid to the Palestinians?


 

I don't believe I made any statements about the United States aid toward the Palestinians. I just did a quick search on google and found this quote.
http://www.palestinecenter.org/cpap/pubs/20001127ib.html


> U.S. aid to the Palestinian Authority (PA) is not earmarked, but it has been running at about $100 million a year.
> Furthermore, the United States gives Israel all of its economic aid directly in cash, without requiring an accounting of how the funds are used. In contrast, aid to the PA is strictly controlled by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and is specified for particular programs, mostly for civil infrastructure projects.






			
				PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> Moreover, while I'm completely open to the idea of potentially *cutting back* on aid to Israel, I'd be extremely nervous about cutting *all* aid to Israel.  Lest we forget, Israel *is* surrounded by nations that have, on multiple occasions, tried to wipe her off the face of the earth, nations which have considerable military forces (many of which contain highly capable US weaponry, and are funded by US foreign aid).



While I haven't examined the evidence in Jane's recently, I really think that there is not an equivilant military in the region. Israel could probably fight all of its neighbors simultaneously and defeat them in short order. Israel's military is perhaps the third most effectively trained army on the planet (behind the US and England). Of course, one of the reason they are so highly skilled is the US aid.

Thanks for listening. Mike

It is particularly the aid imbalance that is cited by many in the middle east who feel we support Israel over the Palestinians in the conflict. The imbalance makes it difficult for the U.S. to be a broker in any peace process, even when we are fully engaged.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 1, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> Are you sure the US provides *no* aid to the Palestinians?



I don't believe I made any statements about the United States aid toward the Palestinians. I just did a quick search on google and found this quote.
http://www.palestinecenter.org/cpap/pubs/20001127ib.html


> U.S. aid to the Palestinian Authority (PA) is not earmarked, but it has been running at about $100 million a year.
> Furthermore, the United States gives Israel all of its economic aid directly in cash, without requiring an accounting of how the funds are used. In contrast, aid to the PA is strictly controlled by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and is specified for particular programs, mostly for civil infrastructure projects.





			
				PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> Moreover, while I'm completely open to the idea of potentially *cutting back* on aid to Israel, I'd be extremely nervous about cutting *all* aid to Israel.  Lest we forget, Israel *is* surrounded by nations that have, on multiple occasions, tried to wipe her off the face of the earth, nations which have considerable military forces (many of which contain highly capable US weaponry, and are funded by US foreign aid).


While I haven't examined the evidence in Jane's recently, I really think that there is not an equivilant military in the region. Israel could probably fight all of its neighbors simultaneously and defeat them in short order. Israel's military is perhaps the third most effectively trained army on the planet (behind the US and England). Of course, one of the reason they are so highly skilled is the US aid.

It is particularly the aid imbalance that is cited by many in the middle east who feel we support Israel over the Palestinians in the conflict. The imbalance makes it difficult for the U.S. to be a broker in any peace process, even when we are fully engaged.

Thanks for listening. Mike


----------



## shesulsa (Jul 1, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> ... I see no reason for hand-wringing on the part of the Democrats.
> 
> BTW...the Democrats just set a record and broke Bush's 2000 fundrasing levels....


 artyon:


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jul 2, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> It is particularly the aid imbalance that is cited by many in the middle east who feel we support Israel over the Palestinians in the conflict. The imbalance makes it difficult for the U.S. to be a broker in any peace process, even when we are fully engaged.



An increasing number of people in the U.S. are questioning such aid.  I've always been pro-Israel, but I'm not so sure it isn't time for us to cut the purse strings...albeit slowly...and let them make their own way.  I say this while professing ignorance of many of the intricacies of the politics of the situation.  Any illumination would be welcome.  

Lately it has been popular for the Right to alledge that anyone questioning Israel's policies is "anti-semitic", and that there is a rising "new anti-semitism".   Victor David Hansen falls prey to this mindset.  An historian, Hansen is a conservative apologist, who, like Buckley, is so bright and well spoken I find I can respect him even if I disagree with most of what he says.  In any case I saw a taped C-SPAN show with Hansen and he brought this notion of anti-semitism up.  At first it was seductive...a tad more thought on it gives one pause.  It leaves a bad "after taste" as it where.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jul 2, 2004)

1.  The US provides a little less than $3 billion/year in aid to Israel.

2.  The assertion that the US provides no aid to the Palestinians is incorrect.  In 2003 we provided about $75 million directly to the Palestinian Authority.  We then provided an additional $50 million in emergency aid.  And an additional $129 million was provided to the United Nations specifically for programs to aid the Palestinians.  More funds were allocated in 2004.

This info came from the US Dept of State.

Regarding Conservatives Against The War:  I'm not a Conservative, but you have to remember what "real" Conservatives believe in.  They believe in LESS government involvement in the lives of citizens, fiscal responsibility, and concentration on America.  Our current government does not fit this description.  The Bush Administration is fiscally profligate, Imperialistic, and is most intrusive in the lives of ordinary citizens--this policy has been called "neo-Conservativism."

So the idea that Conservatives might be against the war is not really so odd.


----------



## shesulsa (Jul 4, 2004)

:soapboxersonally, I think it's all smoke and mirrors.  It always happens right around election time - the whole, "oh, well, we didn't really support that..." and the old, "well, we didn't really have all the facts but we do now and have ultimate confidence we can make a better decision next time..."  

 I have two words to say to those nimrods who have M&Ms for huevos -

 GET REAL!!

 A lemming member of the Republican Party came to my house today, stumping for a Republican candidate for Senate in my area.  Now, the last time Republicans came to my door, they wore a suit or dress slacks, white business shirt and tie - basically, "business attire."  This one came up to me looking like he had come off of the river - cargo zip-off shorts, Hawaiian shirt, backwards baseball cap, sunglasses with surf leash, and...get this...are you ready for it???  You guessed it - SPORTS SANDALS!!!!!  Hmm...gee, do you think they're trying to change their image to...I don't know...drum up some of those old liberal votes, maybe?  Hmmm?

 One thing I read in the Playboy Interview with Michael Moore that I agreed with him on is that the Democrats have been standing by watching the conservative Republicans take the bull by the horns and do everything they could to win...and they have.  The Dems just thought the people would be too smart to buy into the general GOP fodder, but they were wrong.  Now it's time for Dems to step up to the plate and play baseball - crap or get off the friggin' pot - either you're in it to win it or you're not.  And I think, personally, the conservative republicans are running scared now.  I think they know they're in deep doo-doo in November unless they pull another rabbit out of the hat (I'm sure they will - another conflict and we come, magically and magestically to the rescue of some poor country, making it all depend on Florida again, whatever....).

 OK - I'm off my soapbox now.  Thanks for reading!! :asian::asian:


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 5, 2004)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> 2. The assertion that the US provides no aid to the Palestinians is incorrect. In 2003 we provided about $75 million directly to the Palestinian Authority. We then provided an additional $50 million in emergency aid. And an additional $129 million was provided to the United Nations specifically for programs to aid the Palestinians. More funds were allocated in 2004.


*Who* made an assertion that the US provides no aid to the Palesinians?

Thanks, Mike


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jul 6, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Anyhow ... The US Provides something like 3 million dollars a day to Isreal. And nothing to the Palestinians.


Who made that assertion?  I thought you did, 7/1 11:40.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 6, 2004)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> Who made that assertion? I thought you did, 7/1 11:40.


Ouch! .... Dope Slaps to Me! .... It does appear that I typed that ... Mea Culpa ... Mea Culpa ... Deepest apologies to Peach Monkey & Phoenix44....

When my man Al Franken wrote 'Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot' he claimed he worked hard not to call Limbaugh on those wild-*** claims made in the third hour of the show, while he was in the zone, sweating to his own pomposity. Franken felt it wouldn't be fair to call him on statements made under 'momentum'.

Apparently, I was typing under that momentum!

Must -- Slow -- Down.

Mike


----------



## TwistofFat (Jul 11, 2004)

Steve,


A few notes - I believe it is safe to say Pat B. is more and more a Libertarian than a Neo-con.  I am no expert on Neo- cons (as defined by Wolfowitz, Perle and others), but I was under the impression that they pushed the intervention doctrine.  After the 2000 election, Buchanan burned (at least singed) his 'bridge' to the republican party.
It's not fair to say all republicans are neo-cons (like all democrats hate SUV's), but I think it is fair to say Buchanan is more Libertarian than Rebublican. IMO.

Isarael - wow, this would take some time and it is such a polarizing issue among the electorate (like say religion or politics ).  I think it far to say that the US foreign policy and funding is driven by ...power, safety, money - your pick, but on both sides of the isle.  Mr. Clinton courted the PLO mightely but did not cave into their final demands - even with Yitzhak Rabin and the Islo meetings, he eventually sided with the Israelis.
A better example might be South Korea.  With China on the border and the south pursuing unity with the North, we need those divisions elsewhere (not welcomed anyway), we are slowly moving them.
If Syria, Iran, Eqypt, etc where balanced by anyother than Israel, we might them as well...wait we do:

"Ambassador Welch noted that the United States is continuing its longstanding role as the leading international contributor to developing Egypts power infrastructure. Since 1975, the USAID/Egypt has funded $1.8 billion in upgrades to Egypts electrical power grid, supporting about 35 percent of the increase in Egypts total capacity in that time and directly benefiting an estimated 40 million Egyptians. The Ambassador noted several recent U.S.-funded projects that have increased the efficiency of the national power system by reducing losses and improving performance (See list below)...http://www.usaid-eg.org/detail.asp?id=293".

I am no expert on US funds to the PLA but..."
According to the International Monetary Fund, Arafat has diverted $900 million in Palestinian aid to a private bank account."
It came from the US and many others: "What is Mr. Arafat and the Palestinian Authority worth today?" asks accountant Jim Prince. "Who is controlling that money? Where is that money? How do we get it back?" 

So far, Prince's team has determined that part of the Palestinian leader's wealth was in a secret portfolio worth close to $1 billion -- with investments in companies like a Coca-Cola bottling plant in Ramallah, a Tunisian cell phone company and venture capital funds in the U.S. and the Cayman Islands...http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/07/60minutes/main582487.shtml".

They are all criminals.  Perhaps Mr. Buchanan is right after all?

Regards - Glenn.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jul 14, 2004)

TwistofFat said:
			
		

> Steve,
> 
> 
> A few notes - I believe it is safe to say Pat B. is more and more a Libertarian than a Neo-con.  I am no expert on Neo- cons (as defined by Wolfowitz, Perle and others), but I was under the impression that they pushed the intervention doctrine.  After the 2000 election, Buchanan burned (at least singed) his 'bridge' to the republican party.
> It's not fair to say all republicans are neo-cons (like all democrats hate SUV's), but I think it is fair to say Buchanan is more Libertarian than Rebublican. IMO.




Glenn,

I'd have to disagree.  I think it'd be difficult to pin P.B. down on the Libertarian agenda regarding the legalization of marijuana, the decriminalization of gay sex (now a moot point with recent Supreme Court ruling), and the elimination of the notion of other "consensual" crimes such as prostitution, euthenasia, suicide, seat belt laws...

Buchanen is an "old school" conservative, having served Richard Nixon during his second term.  He's hardly the libertine that Bill Buckley likes to tag Libertarians as being.

Regards,

Steve


----------



## TwistofFat (Jul 15, 2004)

Steve,

You maybe right.  Perhaps the R party has 'left' Pat B. behind, not the other way around.

I am a Libertarian, but like the D or R I do have many issues with the party's positions (too long to list).  I could be better called a Constitutionalist.

Thanks for the insight - Regards, Glenn.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jul 15, 2004)

TwistofFat said:
			
		

> Steve,
> 
> You maybe right.  Perhaps the R party has 'left' Pat B. behind, not the other way around.
> 
> ...




Many embracing the Libertarian philosophy call themselves "Progressives", and some liberals are trying to stake claim to that word because "liberal" has been so demonized.

I've heard P.J. O'Rourke and Richard Posner described as "conservatives", where they are quite liberal in some respects.  Both, I think, label themselves "progressive".  

Confusing, isn't it?

Me, I'm a liberative.  Or a conserviberal.  Something like that.

Regards,


Steve

P.S.

Thought:  If Bush is a "compassionate conservative", can I be a "ruthless liberal?"  How would one be a ruthless liberal?  Would one's heart bleed without discrimination and concern for biohazard contamination?


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jul 15, 2004)

Labels?

Why do we need them? To make a quick and easy decision without any real background work.

I like to support issues that support the U.S. Constitution. I also support our Military and the research they do. I also support our Space programs. All would say Conservative.

I also support Unions for they have made a difference, and I also support 'Well-fare' and ADC (Aid to Dependant Children), for I have seen it work well for some who were on it for short periods of time. I support the right to choose, for I believe this to be a freedom of choice issue. 

All issues are not the same.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jul 15, 2004)

> Thought: If Bush is a "compassionate conservative", can I be a "ruthless liberal?" How would one be a ruthless liberal? Would one's heart bleed without discrimination and concern for biohazard contamination?


I love it!   :boing2: 

And



> Labels?
> 
> Why do we need them? To make a quick and easy decision without any real background work.
> 
> ...


Well said, Rich.


----------



## TwistofFat (Jul 15, 2004)

I can not be certain, but I think 4 of us just agreed on something?!!


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jul 16, 2004)

TwistofFat said:
			
		

> I can not be certain, but I think 4 of us just agreed on something?!!




Five, if you count me and give me credit for poking fun at labels.

I'm pro-labor...so I'm a liberal.  WAIT...I'm strong on the military, gotta be a conservative.  Whoa...I'm all for gay rights.  Must be a repressed homosexual left winger.  But...but...I own ten guns!  Gotta be a right wing gun nut on the verge of "going postal". But I believe in saving the environment!  I'm an bunny hugging Birkenstock wearing granola-Nazi!  Stop...stop...I'm all for fiscal responsilility.  That means without a doubt I'm one of those austere lemon sucking old-school Republicans.  Yet I'm for the separation of church and state...must mean I'm an atheistic Godless pinko!  On the other hand I'm all for being tough on crime...must be a heartless minority hating right winger.  But I'm all for stem cell research...that makes me a crazed supporter of infanticide, a child killer by proxy!  Yet I'm pro-education...which makes me an elitist Ivory Tower intellectual who wants to waste tax dollars on hopeless minorities who will squander their education.

Thanks...all of this instrospection has made me polarized and neurotic, a wind changing Warwick* who oscillates 'twixt left and right.

Or, on the other hand, I could be like many of you and exercize a line item veto when it comes to setting my political course in life.

Regards,


Steve

*Obscure literary reference.  Anybody want to name the author?


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jul 16, 2004)

Would that be a Shakespeare quote, Steve?  Ummm... maybe one of the Henry plays?


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jul 16, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> *Obscure literary reference.  Anybody want to name the author?


 "Sail how thou canst, have wind and tide thy friend,
 This hand, fast wound
 about thy coal-black hair

 Shall, whiles thy head is
 warm and new cut off,

 Write in the dust this
 sentence with thy blood,

 'Wind-changing Warwick now
 can change no more.'"

 King Kenry VI, Part III: Act V, Scene I.   King Edward I speaking to the mayor of Coventry before battle.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jul 16, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Five, if you count me and give me credit for poking fun at labels.
> 
> I'm pro-labor...so I'm a liberal.  WAIT...I'm strong on the military, gotta be a conservative.  Whoa...I'm all for gay rights.  Must be a repressed homosexual left winger.  But...but...I own ten guns!  Gotta be a right wing gun nut on the verge of "going postal". But I believe in saving the environment!  I'm an bunny hugging Birkenstock wearing granola-Nazi!  Stop...stop...I'm all for fiscal responsilility.  That means without a doubt I'm one of those austere lemon sucking old-school Republicans.  Yet I'm for the separation of church and state...must mean I'm an atheistic Godless pinko!  On the other hand I'm all for being tough on crime...must be a heartless minority hating right winger.  But I'm all for stem cell research...that makes me a crazed supporter of infanticide, a child killer by proxy!  Yet I'm pro-education...which makes me an elitist Ivory Tower intellectual who wants to waste tax dollars on hopeless minorities who will squander their education.
> 
> ...




I agree, labels do not work. I forgot about the homosexual issues and gun issues as well, thanks Steve.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jul 16, 2004)

Ack!  PeachMonkey!  Nice to see you.  Great quote.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jul 16, 2004)

Bravo to Feisty and Peachmonkey!

Please tell me you're both as brilliant as I've come to believe, and you didn't Google that.

Regards,


Steve


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jul 16, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Please tell me you're both as brilliant as I've come to believe, and you didn't Google that.


 I remembered the character and the play, but I had to hit my bookshelf for the actual quote, Steve... my memory's not *that* good, sadly


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jul 16, 2004)

lol - no, that was memory.  I'm relieved to know that PeachMonkey actually had to look up the quote - otherwise I was going to be QUITE jealous of PM's memory!


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jul 16, 2004)

You...you both are ELITE INTELLECTUALS!!!!  I SEE that now!!!

Hellbound Democrats!


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jul 16, 2004)

:roflmao: Wait, if I'm a ruthless liberal, will I no longer count as a hellbound Democrat, or an elitist?

lol!


----------



## TwistofFat (Jul 18, 2004)

Good news - I am pretty sure you can be all of the above.  I am a Libertarian and am married to one of you, er ...got to be careful here she's lurking nearby...fine people.  LOL - Glenn.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jul 18, 2004)

TwistofFat said:
			
		

> Good news - I am pretty sure you can be all of the above.  I am a Libertarian and am married to one of you, er ...got to be careful here she's lurking nearby...fine people.  LOL - Glenn.



Okay...everybody gang up on Glenn and get him to vote Democrat...JUST THIS ONCE.

Puhleeeeeeeeeze?  

The fate of the world hangs in the balance, after all....


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jul 18, 2004)

(whispering) oh, Gleeeeeeeeeeennnnnn!!!!


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jul 18, 2004)

Go towards the light, Glenn...go towards the liiiiiiiiight!!!

Don't give yourself over to the Dark Side, my young Padewan.



Regards,


Steve


----------



## TwistofFat (Jul 20, 2004)

Remember as a right winger I am only motivated by money...and military equipment.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jul 20, 2004)

lol - Well, we've got some nice military equipment over here... Steve, tell him what he's won!


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jul 20, 2004)

More fun:

 Russell E. Train, the head of the EPA under both Nixon and Ford, and former co-chaiman of Convervationists for Bush [senior], has said that GW Bush's environmental record is so appalling that he's voting for Kerry.

 "It's almost as if the motto of the administration in power today in Washington is not environmental protection, but polluter protection."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/20/bush.environment.ap/index.html


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jul 20, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> lol - Well, we've got some nice military equipment over here... Steve, tell him what he's won!



Why, certainly, Feisty!  Glenn, join us and you win this handsome double edged sword called Anduril, Flame of the West!  We also have another fine blade called "Goblin's Bane", a lovely hand crafted bow from Mirkwood, and a fine...if slightly tight fitting...chainmail vest made of mithril!  All yours, Glenn, IF you pick the right curtain and vote for John Kerry for President.

How did we get these wonderful items, Glenn?  And why do we want you to join us?

Because, Glenn...

*FRODO FAILED.*


Regards,

Steve


----------

