( BTW, we stopped watching TV back in the 80′s. )

For some people the moral issues ARE the real issues.

And that brings us back to labels like “liberal” and “conservative”. One thing they both have in common is a strong central government. The conservatives would use the government for police and security; the liberals would use it for various social programs. But either way they would use the government to enforce their vision of things on the population.

An alternative to these two models is a more libertarian approach that basically has a small government with a much more limited role. That way we all get to decide for OURSELVES what the “real” issues are.

Dick Cheney and Condi Rice are Jewish? Funny, they don’t LOOk Jewish . . .

I’ve never uderstood what neo con, or paleo con or even liberal or socialist or any other ideological flags of convenince even have to DO with this topic!

Concepts like “liberal” an “conservative” have to do with DOMESTIC policy and philosophy. They are about the role of the state, the role of institutions like corporations or the church in society, and the relationship to the individual and the state or other powerful institutions.

There IS no intrinsically “liberal” or “conservative” foreign or military policy. Empirically, on a worldwide basis, it’s easy to find plenty of examples of of both left-oriented and right-oriented governments in NUMEROUS countries that have been either expansionist, aggressive, isolationist, pacifistic, or whatever. Furthermore, right-wing and left-wing governments often find themselves allies on various military or foreign-policy matters.

The neocons may be conservatives, but it’s pure coincidence – there are no inherent principles of conservatism (or liberalism) that lead to a particular foreign or military policy.

I wish you’d do so! — Engage all comers, that is. Forgive me for a personal appreciation, but I always enjoy reading the posts beneath your byline, and wish you’d contribute more often. (Your back-to-back in Monday night’s Israel thread provided the welcome humor that depressing string of posts really needed. Thanks.) So give us more, dude.

Sorry, everyone, for this unabashed tangent.

I guess I would like to throw out a larger picture. That is no matter who wins in these pseudo presidential elections, half the country is going to be pissed. So since this current administration is a snapshot of a sad November day in ’04 and reflects the will of a few more percent than half the people what good is it? Where is the compromise? We are so polarized by gay marriage, abortion, stem cells and other moral issues that we cant see real flim-flam. The point is that we are all brothers and sisters in this “great democratic experiment.” And just like husbands and wives who disagree or neighbors with overgrown grass we can compromise and come to viable solutions. I think we all need to turn off the cable news propaganda machines for a while and then come back to the table and talk about real issues, not the moral ones. My wife and I got rid of our TV about 2 years ago and I cant remember ever having a more meaningful life.

P.S. (Preemptive Script) Yes we do have children.

Before we can forgive one another, we have to understand one another.

Emma Goldman

I think your summary of Jdyer is dead on. However, I think it is important to engage all comers, even those who just seem to want to pick a fight. We on the left must be willing and able to defend ourselves, even to those who want to discredit us on their own grounds, which are hardly ever relevant or accurate.

People like jdyer do not come here to have a discussion; they come to pick a fight. It’s what we’ve been treated to for the last six years: the Rove and O’Reillying of public discourse: attack, accuse, and smear by association. Have a problem with Israel knocking off a few hundred women and kids? You’re a Jew hater. Worse than that, you’re a terrorist sympathizer. Feel outraged about the US’s destrcution of Iraq? You’re a Saddamist!

Oh why do we hate freedom!?

No room for nuance. No room for complexity.

And here are the lefties, justifying their behavior. “I have a great deal of sympathy for the Tibetans…” “I never said I embraced all of Bush’s enemies…” Guys! This is how the “Rovers” work! It’s not about the issues or coming to consensus! It’s about framing the debate and discrediting anyone who disagrees with you! It’s how a wealthy daddy’s boy from Andover, Yale and Harvard can subvert the electoral process, start a horrible war on false premises, tilt the economy even more in favor of the ultra wealthy, and accelerate the planet’s environmental degradation, and STILL get reelected!

Don’t take the bait. Don’t engage these people. There ARE real honest to god conservatives out there who DO care about constructive dialogue and even honest debate. (I’m thinking of David Brooks for one.) Sadly, you won’t find them on the Fox shows. You won’t find them in power. And you won’t find them in jdyer’s posts or links.

As to Neocons I was told by an friend at work that neocon was a code word for Jew. The left does believe in being politically correct.

“What we are witnessing in this hour is a new imperialism.

Iraq is reduced to rubble, and American corporations make a mint by rebuilding it. All of this, we are assured, is to benefit ‘the People of Iraq.’

Haven’t we heard this tale before?”

Mumia Abu Jamal

http://www.prisonradio.org/maj/maj_6_11_iraq.html

Now, I’m outta here. I’ve got to go get my Che T-shirt out of the dryer…