Reasons why the NeoCons aren't real Republicans

They lack fiscal discipline.They believe in more government intrusion into people's personal lives rather than personal liberty.They believe in nation building, preemptive war, and "might is right".They believe in reducing the power of state governments.Anyone have anything to add?

Seriously, are Monk, Tal, and Paisano all 100% supportive of the neocons and everything they do?I would have thought that the Republicans on this board would LOVE a thread where they get a chance to list the ways their party has been corrupted by the decidedly UN-conservative policies of the neocons.It's just more evidence of that team mentality I keep talking about.

quote:

---

Schraf would probably stab me with a meat cleaver if she found out I voted for Bush in 2000. (oops.)

---

LOL!I guess I could forgive you, you were young.Seriously, I was very lukewarm on Gore and wished there was a better Democratic candidate, but even back then Bush made my skin crawl.

quote:

---

To some degree. So what ?

---

Please elaborate.Go on.Criticizing your own party in public is OK.I promise that nothing bad will happen.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 06-19-2005 07:58 PM

I would have voted for McCain over Gore in the 2000 elections, no question.I think McCain is a very intelligent, moral man who truly wants to do what's right for all of the American people (not just the rich and the Christian Right), and is a very thoughtful, proven leader.So, yes, I would have voted for a Goldwater-type candidate.Anyway, between George W. Bush and John Kerry, which one do you think is more like Goldwater?I'll give you one guess.

quote:

---

It appears to be a thread defining the ways neocons (who are currently in charge of Rep policy) differ from traditional Reps. For those that support this administrations policies, it is of interest to hear why they feel such a strong departure from traditional values is allowable, or a defence of why neocons are not departing from such values.

---

As the originator of this thread I hereby concur that the above is exactly what I wanted to discuss.

quote:

---

When the Govt starts arresting people and throwing them in jail without charges when those individuals don't have anything to do with terror, I'll voice opposition to the PA.

---

So, does this mean it is OK with you if the government arrests people and throws them in jail without charges if they do have something to do with terrorism?It's seriously OK with you that the US govenment has discarded habeas corpus?And tell me, where in the Patriot Act does it require the government to provide evidence that an individual "has something to do with terrorism?"How does the government define "terrorism" in the Patriot Act?

Message 33 awaits.

quote:

---

Yes

---

quote:

---

Yes, it happens in US prisons all the time

---

So, it would be perfectly OK with you if US citizens were chained to the floor in a prison in a foreign country and denied food and water, without being charged for any crimes, without access to any legal or embassy, indefinitely?

quote:

---

There is also the problem of what "taking it to them" means. There are so many kinds of terrorist orgs and they are usually dispersed over many areas which precludes identifying a place where "the terrorists" are. Thus taking it the fight to them is not so much about attacking a location, but specific entities or organs of any specific organization.

---

Let's start with Operation Rescue and the Michigan Militia.

Would it be perfectly fine with you for other countries to imprison US citizens, without filing any charges, conducting any trial, nor allowing them any contact with family, legal council, nor contact with their embassy, indefinitely?So, Tal, is it OK with you that the US has abandoned habeas corpus?I have asked this question of you at least 3 times now.Why do you refuse to answer?

quote:

---

If that American Citizen went to a country to fight against said power using terrorists tactics and not abiding by the rules of war, then they get what's coming to them.

---

OH!I didn't realize that every single one of the Gitmo detainees had had specific charges brought against them and evidence presented which proves that they are guilty of using terrorist tactics.I didn't realize that each of the detainees had been been tried, being allowed legal council and to prepart their own defense and have their case heard fairly by an impartial court.Can you send me to a link of more information about this happening, because it sure is news to me.I also didn't realize that the US government had narrowly defined the term "terrorist tactics".Also, is it OK with you that the US has abandoned habeas corpus?

quote:

---

7 Gitmo prisoners that have been released have returned to using terrorists tactics against coalition forces.

---

If the government doesn't have enough evidence to convict someone, even if they are guilty, we have to set them free.That's the way a free nation works.What you are suggesting is that it is somehow consistent with our democratic principles for our government to hold people indefinitely without charging them with any crime, without allowing them access to family, legal council or their embassies.Why is it OK with you that we have abandoned habeas corpus?

quote:

---

It's not a court of law and we still consider them Enemy Combatants. They did something to justify that status.

---

How do we know?Can we see the evidence? Are there charges filed somewhere?

quote:

---

They aren't POWs.

---

So...we can hold them indefinitely without filing any charges and without any judicial or congressional oversight?This is the kind of United States you want to live in?

quote:

---

Well if we tightly define it, lawyers will find loopholes.

---

If we keep it loosely defined, anyone and everyone can be defined as engaging in "terrorist tactics".Are people in Operation Rescue engaging in "terrorist tactics"? According to the government's definition, they are: I am in particular thinking of Operation Rescue's clear efforts to intimidate or coerce a civilian population.Should we toss Randall Terry into Gitmo?Considering the current price for engaging in "terrorist tactics" against the US is to "disappear", possibly forever, I think that the government owes it to all people to define "terrorist tactics" in a narrow way, don't you?

quote:

---

Habeas Corpus for illegal comatants killing US troops?

---

Yes. Of course, YES!Habeas corpus for EVERYONE accused of any crime by us.That's the way civilized, intelligent, rational people conduct their courts, Tal.If we abandon habeas corpus, then we are philosophically no better than the thugish governments in Central America or China.And anyway, American citizens HAVE been held indefinitely by our government without charges.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 06-23-2005 10:01 AM

quote:

---

Yes, God forbid a woman talk to them. Poor babies.

---

If all the women interrogators did was "talk" that would be one thing.But they didn't just talk, did they? They were dressed in a sexually provocative manner, and rubbed their bodies up against the men. They even smeared fake menstrual blood on at least one man which would make him unclean and rendering them unable to pray, according to Muslim religious parctices. linkNow the US Military is pimp to it's female interrogators?