Let me confuse you with some of my perceptions and beliefs:
TheWhaleShark said:
I distinctly remember when being a conservative was about wanting less invasive federal government (more state's rights) and reducing federal spending. I remember a time when conservatives didn't use the word "liberal" to deride someone, and when calling someone a "conservative" wasn't equating them to a closed-minded bigot.
I think conservatism still is. GWB ran on that platform in both terms. The difference is, he
has to spend because of what we're into in Afghanistan, Iraq, the Phillipines, etc. I still feel that liberal and conservative
aren't necessarily derogatory terms.
I thinkthat both liberals and conservatives have many extreme tentacles on both sides. I also
think that GWB is not a neo-con, although
I think he is more apt to express his religious convictions more frequently than some would like. Case in point: Mexican immigration. He has angered many of the so called neocons because of his stance and support of granting status to current illegals.
I really dont' want to touch the Gay Marriage amendment issue - but suffice it to say, I don't think it will pass, and I don't think it would seriously ever be found constitutional. It will be addressed the same way, IMO, as gays in the military under Clinton: Don't ask, don't tell, pretend you aren't discriminating and we don't care.
(SDS)benmcl said:
This same group is pushing for judicial appointments that would render judgements the way they want them. If a judement goes against what they decide is correct then there is a problem with the judicial system. then they pull a poll out of their ass. Sorry but a judge is to rule on the law and not on the polls.
Sorry,
I think that every US President wrings his hands in anticipation of appointing court nominees whose opinions and political party fall in line with their own. The concern here is that GWB has a chance to nominate a
LOT of them. I truly believe, that even though every person has prejudices, and belief systems, any
good judge makes determinations based on the principles of law. That's how they became a good judge. I think the federal judiciary response to the Schiavo case underscores that.
TheWhaleShark said:
I know rednecks in my hometown that are pissed as hell because this "conservative" government is becoming more and more invasive. Nobody does anything, though.
Hmm. I was under the impression that most rednecks
were neocons. You know, screaming about them negroes and faggots while they secretly mounted Elizabeth the blueribbon sheep in the barn in the middle of the night.
TheWhaleShark said:
5eleven makes an interesting point; why the hell has this case received so much special attention?
I think we know the answer to that.......every group needs a posterboy. I hate to put it like that, but I remember a couple of times that this Schiavo thing came to light, and the Schindlers were either granted an injunction, or the tube was reinserted. Hell, that's no fun, we need a cause! Besides the fact that I think both the Schindlers and Schiavo, in their quest for what they want, both managed, developed and played the spin machine extremely well.
As far as ben's last post - I think we go through this restlessness during every President, especially an 8 year termer. I don't think that Bush is as much of a neocon as people believe, and I think he's more moderate than people give him credit. Several policies of his I don't agree with, some too conservative, some not conservative enough. It's the old double standard routine. Whomever you like does no wrong, and whomever you hate does nothing right. This will be a back and forth battle every so often.
Just my opinion.