Cheerleaders for the Empire - the Mindset of the Convervatives

[RickSp]

I was struck by a comment made by Bob Herbert in his column in this morning's NY Times. "Who Will Stand Up for the Constitution? He wrote:

I find it peculiar that an awful lot of Americans who would be outraged by the burning of the American flag are positively sanguine about the trampling of the Constitution.

I am struck by how surreal it is for so many who call themselves "conservatives" to have ended up as cheerleaders for the empire, in a complete violation of the principles that one would call "conservative."

When Bill Clinton shook his finger at the camera and lied, I was angry. I don't like being lied to especially by the President. The big difference between Clinton and Bush is that when Clinton lied, nobody died, as the saying goes. ( The lies I am referring to specifically are the the Bush statements about Saddam's nuclear program and to Saddam's alleged AlQaeda ties. The Bush administration had more than ample documentation that the claims they made in the run up to the war were untrue.) I fail to understand why the so called conservatives aren't angry about being lied into a war.

Traditional those who call themselves conservatives has been opposed to "Big Government" yet they cheer on Bush who has created massive deficits and out of control spending.

Conservatives have traditionally been concerned with protecting the Constitution yet completely ignore Bush's trampling on the right of habeas corpus and virtually the entire Bill of Rights.

I suppose to a certain conservative mindset, when the country is at war, almost any thing can be justified, even a war based on lies. Wave the flag, but trample the Constitution. Still strikes me as odd.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: RickSp I was struck by a comment made by Bob Herbert in his column in this morning's NY Times. "Who Will Stand Up for the Constitution? He wrote:I am struck by how surreal it is for so many who call themselves "conservatives" to have ended up as cheerleaders for the empire, in a complete violation of the principles that one would call "conservative."

If the Bush administration and the current Republican party have done anything in the last 10 years or so it has been to show the difference in a conservative and a lemming, or a glassy-eyed right winger. Unfortunately it has shown that there really aren't that many real conservatives in the Republican party any more. It's funny but the Republicans have done the most to identify genuine Goldwater-style (for want of a better term) Republicans by coining the acronym RINO. It appears anyone they identify as a RINO is actually a traditional conservative. The rest are apparently cheerleaders whose hatred for the left forces them to put up weak defenses of an administration that has been anything BUT conservative. CINO perhaps?

Read former EPA administrator and former New Jersey governor Christie Whitman's book, "It's my party too" where she talks about how even SHE was called a RINO.
The GOP is now all about the right wing and Bush and can no longer lay claim to the name "conservative".

[xyzer]

RickSP

Conservatives have traditionally been concerned with protecting the Constitution yet completely ignore Bush's trampling on the right of habeas corpus and virtually the entire Bill of Rights.

This may in fact be resolved in the courts. It is a knotty problem..Do Congressional Statutes
trump the Constitution. Does 4th Amendment apply in communications in war by a known enemy? Normally 4th applies to criiminal behavior in peacetime! What are the powers of the Commander under Article Article 2.in wartime?
The Congress authorized the Iraq War and have funded it for the last few years. The President as Commander and Chief of the Armed forces authorised to conduct the war in Article 2 of the Constitution has allowed electronic surveillance of phone calls coming from known enemy to contacts in the USA. A rational move to try to prevent further attacks and determine and deter those treasonously supporting(or communicating with) known enemies.
The Congress set a precedent for such surveillance by the FISA statute Bush has carried it one step farther. Personally I don't have a problem with it.

I don't feel threatened because I don't have any reason, or need, to converse with terrorists. I'm sure that applies to the vast majority of us. I also feel we should root out the enemy within this country and this seems like a good way to do it and help deter the enemy!

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: xyzer I don't feel threatened because I don't have any reason, or need, to converse with terrorists. I'm sure that applies to the vast majority of us. I also feel we should root out the enemy within this country and this seems like a good way to do it and help deter the enemy!

For a lot of people it isn't a matter of spying on terrorists, the government is the perfect example of threading a needle with a sledgehammer. They will snoop on 10 million people to MAYBE get to one terrorist, if they're lucky. And a lot of us remember when the Freedom Of Information Act went into effect a lot of people found they had actual FBI files (no link at this time, just from memory) when they had NO reason the be suspected of anything. J. Edgar Hoover's FBI was keeping tabs on people for reasons other than national security. Since it happened already, I see no reason to trust the government to be more careful now especially with the fear of terrorism causing people to overreact.

[SteveA]

Here are some reasons why conservatives hang onto the Republican party:

1) They believe government is the solution for social issues
2) They fail to recognize that politicians can take block partyline voters for granted
3) They correctly see many Democrats as "big government" proponents but are too ashamed to admit Republican faults.
4) Some really want a religious state
5) They fail to recognize that grassroots Republican efforts aren't representative of the federal process. (In other words, Republicans elected into lower level positions aren't of the same class or motivation factors as those 'selected' by the media, and other forces for federal positions)
6) They keep assuming that you can fix a broken system by using the same broken system to do it.
7) Instead of holding key foundational issues in focus they get distracted by minor important issues (They'll blow energy trying to get an unnecessary ban on a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriages, and failing but can't stick to school vouchers or Social Security reform)
.... etc. etc. etc.

I'm not blaming anyone really. There are a lot of forces trying to distract people from the real problems that corrupt the moral foundation of our government and make it impossible to reform little things one by one. There's no way you're going to every get money out of politics as long as you tolerate politics getting into money. (and there's no way to truly fix our currency until we get back off using the paper/plastic system ... could have a little less focus on gay marriages and more on an overhaul of the economy? I don't see it happening until after we have a crash though ... conservatives are too busy chasing ghosts)

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: RickSp I was struck by a comment made by Bob Herbert in his column in this morning's NY Times. "Who Will Stand Up for the Constitution? He wrote:I am struck by how surreal it is for so many who call themselves "conservatives" to have ended up as cheerleaders for the empire, in a complete violation of the principles that one would call "conservative."

A simple, seemingly obvious observation that I have yet to hear articulated. Very telling of the mindset of some people.


I think little points like this reflect the fact that bipartisan finger poinmting tactics work. After all, it took six years for a tiny little truism like the one quoted above to manifest itself in print.

Quote by: RickSp When Bill Clinton shook his finger at the camera and lied, I was angry. I don't like being lied to especially by the President.

Does anybody really believe the "blowjob" was the real issue, and not the hype created to divert attention away from the real issue?

The real issue, of course, being Clinton sneaking Chinese Lobbyists into the Whitehouse. If Monica could sneak in, and out of the Clinton Whithouse, who else was able to operate under that veil of secrecy?

Quote by: RickSp Traditional those who call themselves conservatives has been opposed to "Big Government" yet they cheer on Bush who has created massive deficits and out of control spending. Conservatives have traditionally been concerned with protecting the Constitution yet completely ignore Bush's trampling on the right of habeas corpus and virtually the entire Bill of Rights. I suppose to a certain conservative mindset, when the country is at war, almost any thing can be justified, even a war based on lies. Wave the flag, but trample the Constitution. Still strikes me as odd.

Ah, the good old days. Wave bye bye to that old, antiquated philosphy, they have new ideas for sale.

[RickSp]

Quote by: xyzer RickSP I don't feel threatened because I don't have any reason, or need, to converse with terrorists. I'm sure that applies to the vast majority of us. I also feel we should root out the enemy within this country and this seems like a good way to do it and help deter the enemy!

Of all the cliche surrenders to tyranny this is the most common. The old "I don't have anything to hide", or "why should I worry? I am not one of the enemy (or a Jew)."

Tragic how the traditions of Henry, Jefferson and have been replaced by the craven bowing to authority. This is worse than burning the flag. This makes the flag just a meaningless piece of colored cloth.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Man, I would love to respond to this peice of trash thread, and the "let's bash the empirial conservative cheerleaders" posters that followed (I REALLY loved Steves bit about msot of us REALLY want a religious government... man get a clue) But why bother?

Not a single one of you can show where a right you have is gone(please explain how YOU PERSONALLY have lost a right), or trampled upon. You cannot show any American Empire, you can only parrot the words of Daily KOS and Michael Moore.

You are full of outlandish statements and "Deep concerns" and bumper sticker logic "Bush lied, people died". You have no answers for todays problems that don't start with the word "Impeachment".

Tyrrany? You people haven't a clue what tyrrany is. But hey, this thread is a perfect example of why the Conservative Republicans have taken and held power for so long, and by such a margin. While you are making ludicrious claims and whineing about phantom issues, Bush is solving real ones and dealing with them. While you freak out, we fix. And in the end, we win the elections, and you guys go even more nutz.

[RickSp]

Typical V. You say that you won't respond to "peice [sic] of trash" then you go for three paragraphs spewing nonsense. Amusing as ever, if a bit predictable.

[SteveA]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Man, I would love to respond to this peice of trash thread, and the "let's bash the empirial conservative cheerleaders" posters that followed (I REALLY loved Steves bit about msot of us REALLY want a religious government... man get a clue) But why bother?

I said some really do want a religious government. I didn't say all. If you've talked to some of the more zealous religious ones, you can see they really do want a lot of religous views in government. I've tried to moderate this view many times elsewhere on this forum and indicate that many religious folk don't believe government is the solution for social issues, but still a good number of them either don't see it or don't care when their particular religious views can be enforced .... democratically of course, but enforced none the less.

Not a single one of you can show where a right you have is gone(please explain how YOU PERSONALLY have lost a right), or trampled upon.

I (supposedly) don't have a right to get this FBI keystroke logger out of my computer (see if there's still a virus company left that they haven't intimidated into allowing it).

I (supposedly) don't have a right to travel by air and not potentially be subject to a full body search.

I (supposedly) don't have a right to be subject to indefinite detention simply if someone declares I'm a terroist.

I (supposedly) won't have a right to travel freely without having a national ID with biometric information in the near future.

It's useless to continue this. You've been around long enough to not be ignorant of many prior freedoms that people have had that have been restricted. Bush himself is pressuring for more, include torture, espionage against citizen without even court approval. People get put on "no-fly" lists by government with little of any explaination or recourse, everytime a parade happens now we have miles of police officers around, free speech and right to assembly are now confined to "Free Speech Zones" ... etc.

(Even if you don't care about this continual growth toward a police state from any perspective of liberty, at least consider the costs of these)

You cannot show any American Empire, you can only parrot the words of Daily KOS and Michael Moore.

I never listen to either of those guys though I probably should.

So 700 or so military bases around the world and the addition of a couple recently new national governments imposed by our military (I'm not going to count other such governments from the 40s and up but simply due to this one President only) don't represent anything like an empire? (I bet the British Empire didn't even have this many military bases around the world)

You are full of outlandish statements and "Deep concerns" and bumper sticker logic "Bush lied, people died".

You're full of stereotypical assumptions and one of the reasons there was no room left in the Republican party for me. Keep drinking the Kool-Aid.

You have no answers for todays problems that don't start with the word "Impeachment".

Well there are 2 other branches of government, but truly the way our government operates with a separate executive branch there's no balance if Bush simply decides to blow off decisions made by the courts (or Congress, though Congress hasn't stood up against him much yet ... he's only vetoed 1 single laws in almost two terms as far as I know ... how's that for a total waste of millions of man years of political debates over who the next president should be ... at least Clinton vetoed stuff).

Tyrrany? You people haven't a clue what tyrrany is. But hey, this thread is a perfect example of why the Conservative Republicans have taken and held power for so long, and by such a margin.

You're talking about neo-conservatives, not conservatives. You guys don't resemble any of the Old Right who were independents that didn't need the government to hold their hands.

It doesn't matter. You guys are just as bad as Democrats and going to take a dump politically assuming you can't get electronic voting off the ground fast enough. Honestly in many ways I'm happy to see this stuff happen. It's been building up for a long time and you guys are going to topple the system yourself. You had the chance and blew it from my perspective (it's sad but apparently there's still a learning curve going on).

While you are making ludicrious claims and whineing about phantom issues, Bush is solving real ones and dealing with them. While you freak out, we fix. And in the end, we win the elections, and you guys go even more nutz.

Ok deal. You keep "fixing" things and we'll keep sitting by the sidelines.

You do recognize that libertarian views can't be blamed for almost anything this president has done? You might as well just alienate whatever minimal government proponents are still around in the Republican party because we have virtually no political voice left. You and the Democrats still have free reign to run the place into the ground. Have fun.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Why respond? It's the same old arguement. Wild claims of Tyrrany, Empirialism and trashing the Constitution by King George.

You guys have been making these claims since the Patriot Act went into place. An Empire takes other countries and subjegates them. An Empire does NOT work to hand all power of the governing of said country to it's people to decide for themselves how to be run.

A tyrrany does not allow dissent, yet here we are, reading your rants, watching protesters hold marches, petitions being signed etc... etc...

You claim that the Constitution is being trashed, yet you cannot show a single instance of your rights being violated. So Bush had wiretaps of terrorist with a 45 day rotationg review panel and let the Senate oversight the program. You act as if stopping terrorist is a bad thing.

What claims have you to make that hold water in the real world? Just one. Republicans support thier party, while we are not lock stock in step with the GOP (Many of us are angry about domestic issues like spending, immigration and education) we do however, believe fighting terrorism is worth the price.

Why do people like you insist on making ludicrious claims? Why can't you make a rationale, coherient claim without all the BS hyperbole? Just say straight up what your concerns REALLY are? I know what they are, you do too, if you ever take the "Hate Bush" blinders off you might be able to be honest with yourself.

You fear a government that forces you to be a Christian (which no conservative I know would EVER support) You fear the Patriot Act being used to deny you rights which, if left unchecked by the people and powers in place COULD go that route. You fear a government that steps in and takes control of your life.

What you, and others like you fail to realize is, WE don't want any of the above either. Unlike you, we look at the facts, realize that Terrorist are a real threat, and feel certain steps are worth the effort.

Why do the American people as a whole ignore your screams and cries? Because they still remember the horror of watching airliners flying into the WTC, the smoke over the pentagon. They don't want to see that again. While they have heard your claims, they have found them lacking two things:

1. Credibility, none of the dire fears your side claims are coming have EVER HAPPENED.

2. You offer no alternative for fighting terrorist. If you and others like you could craft a message that made sense, and would keep people safe, you might one day get traction.

But as long as you guys make wild claims, offer no alternatives that protect the country... you're going to be ignored.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: RickSp I was struck by a comment made by Bob Herbert in his column in this morning's NY Times. "Who Will Stand Up for the Constitution? He wrote:I am struck by how surreal it is for so many who call themselves "conservatives" to have ended up as cheerleaders for the empire, in a complete violation of the principles that one would call "conservative." When Bill Clinton shook his finger at the camera and lied, I was angry. I don't like being lied to especially by the President. The big difference between Clinton and Bush is that when Clinton lied, nobody died, as the saying goes. ( The lies I am referring to specifically are the the Bush statements about Saddam's nuclear program and to Saddam's alleged AlQaeda ties. The Bush administration had more than ample documentation that the claims they made in the run up to the war were untrue.) I fail to understand why the so called conservatives aren't angry about being lied into a war. Traditional those who call themselves conservatives has been opposed to "Big Government" yet they cheer on Bush who has created massive deficits and out of control spending. Conservatives have traditionally been concerned with protecting the Constitution yet completely ignore Bush's trampling on the right of habeas corpus and virtually the entire Bill of Rights. I suppose to a certain conservative mindset, when the country is at war, almost any thing can be justified, even a war based on lies. Wave the flag, but trample the Constitution. Still strikes me as odd.

The basis of your diatribe is fundamentally flawed. It is long on jingoistic sputum, and very short on facts.

The entire “Bush lied” lunacy still tickles me. If Bush lied then Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Chirac, Schroeder, and everyone else who stated their belief that Saddam had, or was striving to attain, WMDs lied. Pitiful

Support for Bush means support for every policy. Foolish tripe. Because one has a general support for their president does not imply lockstep agreement. A host of conservatives have complained of his domestic spending habits.

Bush Tramples the Bill of Rights. Putting aside the arguments of good “liberals” handling of the 1st, 2nd, and 9th amendments, please offer a specific right of yours that you have had trampled.

It’s no wonder you have such trouble “understanding” when your view is so canted.

[deedee]

Quote by: RickSp I was struck by a comment made by Bob Herbert in his column in this morning's NY Times. "Who Will Stand Up for the Constitution? He wrote:I am struck by how surreal it is for so many who call themselves "conservatives" to have ended up as cheerleaders for the empire, in a complete violation of the principles that one would call "conservative." When Bill Clinton shook his finger at the camera and lied, I was angry. I don't like being lied to especially by the President. The big difference between Clinton and Bush is that when Clinton lied, nobody died, as the saying goes. ( The lies I am referring to specifically are the the Bush statements about Saddam's nuclear program and to Saddam's alleged AlQaeda ties. The Bush administration had more than ample documentation that the claims they made in the run up to the war were untrue.) I fail to understand why the so called conservatives aren't angry about being lied into a war. Traditional those who call themselves conservatives has been opposed to "Big Government" yet they cheer on Bush who has created massive deficits and out of control spending. Conservatives have traditionally been concerned with protecting the Constitution yet completely ignore Bush's trampling on the right of habeas corpus and virtually the entire Bill of Rights. I suppose to a certain conservative mindset, when the country is at war, almost any thing can be justified, even a war based on lies. Wave the flag, but trample the Constitution. Still strikes me as odd.

WHen are people going to get it, that The BUSH administration relied on Intelligence Reports as well as all the other officials.

BUSH DID NOT LIE! HE RELIED on intel! My gawd!

[RickSp]

Ape, try not to drown in denial. Bush supporters have all reverted into the "See no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil" mode so any response is probably a waste of time, but here goes anyway.

Your claims that if Bush lied everyone did, are, to use your word - pitiful. There are two issues with WMD - the biological and chemical weapons that Saddam indeed possessed during the Gulf War but never used and Saddam's nuclear program.

Regarding biological and chemical weapons - they were all destroyed following the first Gulf war. The only outstanding issue was the accounting for some of the weapons. These unnaccounted for weapons were what Chirac, Clinton and the other grandstanded about. It turns out that Saddam had indeed destroyed effectively all his existing weapons and regardless by 2003 the issue was largely moot anyway. Most biological and chemical weapons have limited shelf lifes so decade old weapons were no great threat. Powell's little speech at the UN didn't convince anyone and was full of half truths and outright lies.

Regarding Saddam's nuclear program - he didn't have one, the Bush administration knew that was the case and lied about it anyway. The yellow cake and centrifuge tubes had been discounted many months before the Bush administration offered them as evidence of Saddam's allegedly reconstituted nuclear program.

Likewise the Bush adminstration knew within weeks of 9/11 that Iraq had nothing to do with the attack and that Iraq had no meaningful contact with AlQaeda. This didn't stop the Bush adminstration from claiming otherwise for several years, even after a complete lack of evidence from occupied Iraq settled the issue.

But no, you deny it all or blame it on the CIA or the Easter Bunny.

And you also deny that the Bill of Rights is under attack. The 1st Amendment right of free speech and assembly means little when groups of Quakers are spied upon by the FBI, when records of which books you read in libraries can be monitored. The 4th Amendment rights to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures means nothing when overidden by the Patriot Act and Bush's illegal wiretaps. The 5th, 6th and 7th Amendment rights to due process, a speedy trial and access to council can be revoked by presidential edit that a citizen is an "enemy combattant" and has no rights whatsoever. The Bill of RIghts has been ignored yet you deny it all. The cheerleaders for the police state say it all for our own good. Typical.

[Mr.Vicchio]

deedee, this is why RickSp and his ilk will never gain power in America. The people see right through the lies. 25 years ago... they wouldn't have had access to alternative views to his, and Bush would have gone down... but people can hear Clinton, Kerry and others stating the same things Bush used to go to war, and then hear Clinton Kerry ETC... making claims Bush lied... it just doesn't fly.

He hasn't gotten that yet, none of them have.

[deedee]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio deedee, this is why RickSp and his ilk will never gain power in America. The people see right through the lies. 25 years ago... they wouldn't have had access to alternative views to his, and Bush would have gone down... but people can hear Clinton, Kerry and others stating the same things Bush used to go to war, and then hear Clinton Kerry ETC... making claims Bush lied... it just doesn't fly. He hasn't gotten that yet, none of them have.

I know.......I have also known the rise in conspiracy theories in the past decade. *sigh.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Well the internet is a double-edged sword. Look at 9/11 and all the wacky theories out there on it...

But I will take the good changes with the bad. Atleast we aren't stuck with CBS, NBC and ABC as the prime source of news with the cheerleader section of the NY Times and such propogating thier views with no alternative for the rest of the story.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio deedee, this is why RickSp and his ilk will never gain power in America. The people see right through the lies. 25 years ago... they wouldn't have had access to alternative views to his, and Bush would have gone down... but people can hear Clinton, Kerry and others stating the same things Bush used to go to war, and then hear Clinton Kerry ETC... making claims Bush lied... it just doesn't fly. He hasn't gotten that yet, none of them have.

What a steaming load of shit.


What group of people on here have been telling you that all of these figure heads are lying through their teeth in order to protect the two party lock?


Who doesn't get what?


You are in the same type of denial that all partisan hacks are, only points leveled by your side are valid to you, because the other guys all have blinders on. Right. :rolleyes:

[Boetie]

Mr Vicchio posts: Not a single one of you can show where a right you have is gone(please explain how YOU PERSONALLY have lost a right), or trampled upon

Bush Jr has invaded the sacred precincts of private and domestic life. Each person in this country has the right "to be let alone" in an increasingly instrusive administration such as Bush Jr's.

The founding people have spoken by saying the United States Constitution will not be voted on until there is written in that Constitution that there will be "no search without a warrant"

Bush Jr clearly violated his oath to uphold the Constitution a derelict of his oath to office, a man to be impeached. Get rid of him and we will get back to the business of living in a free nation without government intrusion.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Can you please show me Milton where the "two party" lock is some sort of united front? a nefarious plot by some greater power? Reality check, it's two competeing powers that want to keep other parties from entering into power, nothing more.

Also boetie, you are wrong. Sorry to hit you up with this, but if you're getting or making phone calls to terrorist that places YOU under the catagory of "enemy" I.E. legal protections for war time enemies do not apply. Thus no need for warrents. Perhaps if you understood the Constitution you would know this, instead of reapeting the claims of the DNC talking heads.