"Michael Johnson" <cds@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:lrWdnZmNDf_6jDvanZ2dnUVZ_ommnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> dwight wrote:
>> "Michael Johnson" <cds@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:zOKdndScRdL3djjanZ2dnUVZ_uSgnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> c) Play cowboys and indians
>>> .... or he is trying to bring democracy to the Middle East and get rid
>>> of a mass murdering dictator claiming he had WMDs.
>>
>> Uh... No offense, but the invasion came first. Then, while we were
there,
>> it was HEY, let's establish democracy! Yeah, that's the ticket.
>> Revisionist history.
>
> I don't think the plan was to invade, capture Saddam and then
immediately
> leave either. The biggest mistake made, IMO, was to disband the Iraqi
> military and let them meld back into society with no chance of gainful
> employment. The second was to not wait until we could come in from the
> north through Turkey and therefore seal off the escape routes out of
> Baghdad. There are several vying for third.
>
>> Establi****ng a democracy had nothing to do with the original invasion
and
>> came up as a reason for the invasion long after we were already in
there.
>> About the time that the whole WMD thing was proven wrong, as I recall.
>
> If establi****ng a democracy wasn't part of the original plan then what
was
> the original plan?
Isn't that the very question we are ALL asking? WHAT was the plan, if any,
and how were we supposed to go about it? After the part where we were
"greeted as liberators", I don't think there was anything written in after
the words "Fill in the blank______________." As soon as Bush called
Mission
Accomplished, the question "What do we do now?" was finally asked. But
don't
try to tell me that the democratization of the Middle East was anywhere on
the table before then.
>> But all that aside, I'm still confused about the whole conservative
>> thing. I'm a lifelong Republican, but I seem to become more liberal as
>> the party becomes more conservative. There are a couple of things about
>> the conservatives that I just don't understand.
>
> I'm right there with you. I am fiscally conservative but lean to the
left
> on many social issues. I am also for a strong national defense and a
> proactive position on fighting terrorism and sealing our borders. I
don't
> care for the Republican party trying to enforce morals on the the
m*****.
> Much of the social issues need to be left up to the States to address or
> on the local level. Religion based issues like gay marriage and
abortion
> needs to be left out of the party platform, IMO. OTOH, the left needs
to
> quit targeting religion to exclude it from the public arena.
Okay, we're 90% in agreement. I'm a strong believer in the separation of
religion from government. It might have something to do with the fact that
I
am not a Christian. Now, I don't mind the display of the 10 commandments
at
our local courthouse, and I certainly don't mind government offices
shutting
down for the CHRISTMAS holidays, so I'm not a rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth
separationist. But I would argue that, if Christians are allowed to be
part
of government programs, all religions must be afforded equal time. Or, at
least, a percentage of equal time based upon their percentage of the
population.
Yeah. That would be fun.
>> Smaller federal government, lower taxes, fiscal responsibility, less
>> government intrusion in our personal lives. I thought that's what it
was
>> about.
>
> I am right there with you. The problem is the Republicans spend money
> just like the Democrats anymore. Government is getting bigger by the
year
> and more intrusive. This is on all levels and not just the Federal
level.
> I see it here where I live all the time. IMO, local governments are far
> worse in this regard than State and local governments. The sad fact is
we
> just roll over year after year and let them get away with it. We are on
a
> slow march to a socialistic form of government. I don't want this and
if
> it happens we will all suffer for it.
And I'm torn. This is the United States of #*%& America, goddammit. There
has to be a way that we can care for those who cannot care for themselves,
without going all socialist about it. There is NO reason why anyone should
sleep on the streets in this, the greatest nation in the history of the
planet. Just from a point of national pride, we should take care of the
weakest among us. I am blessed (uh, not in a Biblical sense) to be living
in
the country and fairly well off. My life is comparatively easy, my worries
comparatively few. If the feds wanted to take a few more dollars out of my
paycheck and SWORE that it would be used to help the homeless, the
indigent,
the hungry, and the poor, I'd be all for it.
Throughout history and throughout the future, there have been and always
will be human beings who cannot make it on their own and need help from
the
rest of us who can. I see nothing wrong with that.
There will be abuses, of course. But I will pay for those, too, if it
means
caring for those who need it. (Of course, if I catch you abusing this
governmental charity, you'll have a different kind of housing and three
squares a day.)
>> But then we come to the "social issues," for which conservatives seem
to
>> BEG for federal involvement. How does that mesh with conservative
>> political beliefs?
>
> It doesn't. In reality you and I are more Libertarian than Republican.
It
> is too bad that the Libertarians can't field a decent candidate because
> they have a great platform to run from.
I Googled up an article from back in October in the Wall Street Journal:
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB119127620102645595.html
on why the GOP is losing its members. Pretty much goes along with all
we've
been saying here.
>> Do I have to continue to believe that the American family is a mom and
>> dad, 2.3 kids, and a cat and/or dog? No matter what the numbers tell
me?
>>
>> And do I have to profess Jesus is my personal savior to be a
Republican,
>> or can I continue in my agnostic ways?
>
> No you don't. I haven't attended church regularly for decades. I just
> don't like the way religious leaders manipulate their congregations.
This
> is why I think you and I are really Libertarians at heart.
>
>> Who was it that said I haven't left the party, the party's left me?
>
> Ron Reagan said that when he left the Democratic party to become a
> Republican. IMO, Reagan would be disgusted with what the Republican
party
> has become.
If I may offend even more readers, I blame the Moral Majority. They
weren't
cutting it back in the 80s, and laid plans to gain political control. They
saw an opening in the Republican party and took it, and today control my
party's platform. Their strategy was brilliant and effective. And may,
even
now, be backfiring.
When the radical right (yes, YOU, Fox News) looks at the Democrats, they
conveniently ignore the millions and target the few, to make the argument
that the disgustingly liberal are as representative of the Democrats as
they
are of the Republicans.
Perhaps it's time that all political moderates leave their parties to
create
two new ones - we'd have moderate Democrats and moderate Republicans,
leaving the radical fringe elements to battle it out amongs themselves.
I gather that the Libertarians are these moderate Republicans. I also
gather
that the old Green Party was most definitely NOT the moderate Democrats,
who
still need to strike out on their own to gain their own voice.
Perhaps I should lead them into the sunlight.
Let me stand for America. Let me be the prototypical American.
Every four years, I get real excited about politics and faithfully watch
all
of the debates and argue candidates with everyone who will listen.
I can name both Pennsylvania senators (I think... let me Google that), and
I
even know who my congressman is, two years after we moved into our new
locale. I couldn't begin to tell you what the political views are of ANY
of
these three, but I do remember that I was disgusted with Rick Santorum and
happy to vote him out of office. (Now, who was it that took his place?)
When you get to the local government level, I have no idea. My state
senator
or representative? I couldn't guess. No clue.
Does my community have a mayor? Or a board of supervisors? Uh... sorry.
And whaddaya mean, I have to VOTE for judges?!?
Every four years - and especially THIS year - I go out to vote, and I see
the presidential nominees on the ballot. Easy - I tick off my choice. The
rest of the ballot... I get a glazed eye and blank brain looking at it.
And that, I believe, is the prototypical American.
Okay, truth is, I vote in every primary and every election. I make it a
point to do so, since this twice-yearly exercise is really what it's all
about to be an American. And I know that if I don't vote, I don't have any
right to complain, and I LOVE to complain. I do know a little bit about
the
people who work in my government, but not nearly enough to make a truly
informed decision.
I resolve, right now, right this instant, to investigate the upcoming
ballot
in the primary in May (Pennsylvania) and to know all I can know about the
candidates for each office.
Because, as Obama would tell you, the government starts from the bottom
up.
The guy sitting in an office in my municipal building probably has more
impact on my life that the guy or gal sitting in the Oval Office.
dwight
|
