Attention lurking conservatives!

[rogerashton]

Perhaps you are not really certain that George W* Bush is a conservative, and anyway maybe he is not your sort of conservative. But you can't quite bring yourself to vote for Kerry because -- oh, let's not go into why, we would only fuss about it. Don't overlook your alternatives! There are at least three conservative presidential candidates who will be on the ballot in many states!

In alphabetic order

The American Party

http://www.theamericanparty.org/

has one of the few female nominees for president and a strong position against free trade and world government.

The Constitution Party

http://www.peroutka2004.com/

is strongly for God and the Family and state sovereignty.

The Libertarian Party

http://www.badnarik.org/

favors free markets and government non-interference in all victimless behavior.

Conservatives, you don't have to throw your vote away on a power-hungry liar! Make your vote send a message for what you believe in! Bush is not going to win anyway, and Nader could come in fifth if you vote your convictions!

[Trajan]

1. The Hue and Cry resounds ...

"BEAT Nader !" ....

[iconoclastic cat]

2. Good post!

I dig it.

I wonder if there really are any lurking conservatives on DU, and if there are, do they have doubts about Bush?

Hey, conservative lurkers: if you're out there, DU-mail me! I promise not to tell anyone!

[alurker]

3. yes

Yes conservatives do lurk here, yes they do have doubts about Bush. Yes I am an undecided voter. Hello.

[iconoclastic cat]

5. Okay, whatever you do, please do not flee, screaming, from this thread!

First: Hello, and welcome!

Second: I want to apologize to you for something that I did in Post #2: I dehumanized you by labeling you. I should have said, "I wonder if people who consider themselves to be conservative..." Sorry about that! Your points of view are as valuable and valid as any other citizen's, and I should have implied otherwise.

I will have more to say in a second, but I wanted to touch base with you before you logged off. More to come.

[democrat_patriot]

6. Welcome

You are not prejudged. Don't like Kerry? Fine.

You are the undecided, your input is valuable.

[iconoclastic cat]

8. Thoughts and questions:

Okay, I'm back.

One of the things that I wanted to tell you is that DUers are not monolithic. While some censorship does occur here, it is always within the framework of the stated rules of the board. Once in a while, DUers disagree with each other, but again, that is to be expected. My point here is that I think everyone in the U.S. needs to take a breath and realize that we can disagree and debate without shrieking or trying to exact some sort of damage on those people who hold opposing opinions. If we all realized how alike we are, as well as how diverse we are, perhaps we could focus on actual problems in our society instead of mounting offensives and counteroffensives.

One way to begin fixing this horribly fractious society is to start at home: debate with logic, without hot emotions, and try to put ourselves in other people's vantage points. If we do this, we will probably find that me agree on more than we disagree. For instance, alurker, while from my posts I might appear to be hyperliberal, I actually vote for Libertarians who run in the judicial branches. I love their take on civil liberties, and many of them have come out against the awful prison culture that the U.S. has created (I think I read that 1 in 75 U.S. citizens has spent time in jail or prison). The Libertarian stance on "victim-free, violence-free crimes" is something I agree with wholeheartedly.

Anyway, I hope that I can convince you to stick around. If would like tell me what ideas you are weighing in your decision for this upcoming election, I'd love to talk about it. I promise not to judge or push you.

Talk to you soon!

[THUNDER HANDS]

9. welcome

Hope you enjoy the discussions. :hi:

[rogerashton]

14. Hello.

If you are undecided, of course I would like to talk you into voting for Kerry, not third-party. Let me just say two things. First, as Kerry said in Oregon yesterday, he is (in some ways) more of a conservative than Bush*, whose actions are those of a radical. (The Economist magazine, which supports the Republican party consistently if a little critically, said of Bush* "these are not the actions of a cautious man.") Second, I believe Kerry is making a real effort to overcome this poisonous partisanship that divides the country, to unite rather than dividing us. As I said in a post a few weeks ago, to do that means that he must listen to others, with many different views, take those views into account, compromise and sometimes change. Any candidate who will do those things is going to be accused of flip-flopping. But a candidate who will not do them will be a "divider, not a uniter."

Anyway, even if that doesn't sell you, I can't see how anyone with principles from any point in the political spectrum would want to waste his vote on a faker like the person in the White House.

Thanks for dropping in. Come again!

[IdaBriggs]

29. Welcome!

:) Best, Ida

[LynnTheDem]

42. hello

What makes you undecided?

And :hi:

[talleyJudy]

11. reply to rogerashton & iconoclastic cat

To rogerashton, I am a conservative lurker, and would vote for Peroutka of the Constitution Party IF the ballots were set up so that the vote would not be 'wasted'... on the ballot could be first choice, second choice, third choice for each office and if that were the case, I would vote Peroutka as first choice, and then Bush as second choice. If Peroutka does not get enough votes, then my second choice would count for Bush. That way my vote is not 'wasted', as it was in '92. As it is now, the two parties make sure, through election law established by congress that third party will very seldom be voted in. But the example above would pose a very big problem to the 'folks' in FL and ReoLinda. (I know, I know all about Jesse Ventura of MN.... would'nt happen again in a really long time.)

To inonoclastic cat, I would DU-mail you, except that the 'DU powers that be' tell me I have not posted enough to have earned the privilege of contacting others on this board through private messaging.

I'm just glad you all are kind enough to let me lurk, although at times the venom and vitriol here do depress me.

[rogerashton]

13. Grab a sign and we will hit the pavement

shoulder to shoulder to march for preference voting with an "instant recall!" I could not agree with you more on that.

You might want to reflect, however, that the Republican candidate in this year's election would almost certainly not be in the White House -- I'm trying to be nice about this -- had we had that system in '00. Nader voters' second-choices would have put Gore out of sight.

Also, you might want to consider whether the Republican candidate really can win this year. I know what the polls say, but I'm thinking the "likely voter" adjustment has to be 'way skewed -- I truly know a bunch of people who voted Republican last year who are going for Kerry, and nobody ('cept maybe Zell Miller, who is after an appointment) who is switching to Republican. And then there are the demographics -- young folks shifting demo, and maybe motivated enough to turn out, this time -- who is going to vote Republican who didn't in '00?

Anyway, thanks for a thoughtful comment and a position I can support along with you.

[rogerashton]

24. Instant runoff. Right.

Agreeing with a conservative is so wierd I was a little shaken.

Not stirred.

[ClassWarrior]

18. That's Instant Runoff Voting

I'm all for that too, fellow Cheesehead! See, even us liberals eat brats and drink beer and support voting reform.

[IdaBriggs]

30. I also say Welcome to you!

Sorry if the hyperness is offensive; sometimes people let off steam here. I tried to talk to people at Free Republic once; many of them were very nice. Best, Ida :)

[no name no slogan]

63. Welcome!

You've got plenty of other "Instant Runoff Voting" (IRV) supporters here, too. In fact, my subcaucus at both the Congressional District AND State conventions used IRV to select our national delegates this year-- which may be a possible first in the history of the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party.

And don't worry too much about the vitriol-- the vast majority of it is not meant to be taken literally. Most of the folk here are merely "venting" one way or another-- although I think I'm pretty safe in saying that most of us will NOT be voting for Bush/Cheney this year, one way or another.

As for me, as much as I disagree with Kerry/Edwards on several important issues, I'll still vote for them. I'm a loyal Democrat this year, and they're my party's nominees. And I believe that, out of all the candidates running, they'll do the best job of running this country for the next four years.

Again, welcome from a neighbor in MN! :hi:

[blm]

4. Also, please explain why Reagan-Bush worked against Kerry's efforts

to investigate and expose the terrorists and their funding by BCCI banks funnelling dirty money?

And why George Bush2 was lining his own bank account through these dirty dealers at the same time Kerry was working to have them shut down?

[hughee99]

7. If the "conservative lurkers"

are * supporters, there not going to defend * here, they would know better than that. If they are not * supporters, then they probably won't have a defense for this. I would doubt you're going to get an explanation for this. In any case, I'm sure this question itself is enough to defeat the purpose of this thread which seemed to be to reason with the lurkers rather than attack them.

[blm]

12. It's not an attack. It's a whole other aspect to the Kerry-Bush contrast

and that Kerry DOES deserve their consideration if they are concerned about the terror issue.

[hughee99]

15. I understand better

But I have a feeling that if the lurkers are "conservative thinking" then their issues with * are not Iraq or terrorism, but domestic issues. I think that people who are conservative won't be big fans of Kerry's domestic policies, and they would probably be more likely to find a home in one of the other political groups mentioned above. For undecided moderates, this would be a persuasive argument, though.

[Lefty Pragmatist]

10. Conservatives who lurk here

have a strong enough stomach to endure the taunts of the ideological Ethnic Cleansers that both parties are plagued with. There are a few from all across the spectrum who can see past the rhetoric and juvenelia and want to have their fingers on all the pulses. (Hint: this is a reason for the more mature among us to lurk on conservative fora -- but I digress).

If there are conservatives -- particularly, Paleocons and old style Rockefeller Republicans, but even disaffected neocons who don't like the administration's paranoid secrecy and contempt for democratic process -- the Democratic Party is a MUCH more welcoming and fertile ground for you and your ideas than the current Republican party. There are always a few bozos who miss the point of opposing an exlcusive regime with an inclusive one, but if you've been tough enough to hang out here for any length of time, you know what I mean.

[alurker]

16. timidly peeking out from under the furniture

Hello again.

I have lurked here long enough to tell you several things. First and foremost, I am not what you all call a "freeper." I think the people on free republic are nutcases. They are like the pro-lifers who run around with pictures of dead babies and scream in your face to get their point across...scary and ineffective, IMO. They are the kind who, if anything, with their angry rhetoric, turn you away from their way of thinking.

Second, I can tell you without a doubt that idealogically, I disagree with a LOT of the posters here on lots of issues.

Third, I am not ignorant, brainwashed, a "surrendered wife," or what have you. I have a brain, a job, and a college degree and have followed politics for years...since I wrote a scathing letter to Reagan when I was 9, to be exact. I do not know as much as lots of the folks here do, but I am by no means "stupid," and can think for myself. My husband would probably faint if he knew I'd posted here. LOL.

I am undecided for several reasons. I find myself unsure if the war in Iraq is really justified on a daily basis. Yes, it's a good thing that Saddam is gone. He was a horrible, evil person, and I think his ousting was a blessing. But I think it's time to leave Iraq. As far as Saddam's connections to Al-Queda (sp?), I find those fuzzy at best, highly suspect at worst. Despite what the rw pundits and talk show hosts say, I find the connection flimsy, and doubt there really was one at all.

I also think the whole push to amend the constitution to ban gay marriage absolutely frightening and despicable. Ridiculous. We are not a theocracy, and this, IMO, is a push to try to make this nation just that. Quite frankly, I don't give a shit if you want to marry your next door neighbor's prized fern. As long as you don't violate anybody else's liberty, life, or happiness, knock yourself out.

And I guess I am what a lot of the posters here call "a conservative who wants to smoke pot." LOL. I have no desire to smoke pot, actually. Never have, never will. But I think drugs need to be legalized. Period. The prisons are overflowing with nonviolent drug offenders and that is a shame. Legalize it, regulate it, tax the ever living shit out of it. That's my belief/hope. Yes, I have strong libertarian leanings.

My latest "quest" is to sort out, between all the political bs and posturing, who is telling the truth about what when it comes to both Kerry AND W's war/nat'l guard records. Somewhere in the middle lies the truth, whatever that is.

Al Franken annoys me as does Michael Moore, as does Sean Hannity. I think Rush is throwing stones in his glass house when it comes to drug use. I think Ann Coulter needs to eat something and get laid.

So there's me in a nutshell. Flame away.

[Ramsey]

17. Nothing to flame

In fact, welcome to DU.

I'd suspect many people here agree with your position on all of the issues you mentioned.

DU is a diverse place full of people with all sorts of opinions on all sorts of topics, just like the Democratic Party in general. Maybe you fit in better than you think.

[ClassWarrior]

19. Welcome. I think you'll fit in nicely here.

You say you disagree with a lot of the posters here on assorted issues, but I agree with every issue you cited specifically. I think you'll find that you have a lot more in common with folks here than you realize. And no, no one ever agrees 100%. So welcome. I sincerely hope you enjoy your time with us.

[tom_paine]

20. Welcome to DU, alurker!

:toast: :toast:

We've got all types here and fromyour first two posts I think you would be a valued addition.

Keep on postin' 'em!

[alurker]

21. forgot one more thing...

Both my very conservative husband and I thought Obama rocked the house. If HE were running for prez, I would definitely NOT be an undecided voter. I am so hoping he runs next election if Kerry doesn't win. He is just amazing.

Oh, and I find the whole tapping Keyes to run against Obama thing embarassing and very much agree with what Kathleen Parker said in this editorial:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/kathleenparker/kp20040821.shtml

"Politics doesn't get much more embarrassing than this, and Republicans have mocked themselves by trotting out an unlikely winner in a patronizing gesture that is racist in the nicest possible way."

[iconoclastic cat]

On your points:

First, I have to wonder if your description of your husband as "very conservative" means the same thing to you as it does to others; if he was excited about Obama's message, I would have to think he's much more of a moderate, since Barak is all about populism.

I agree that Obama is fantastic, but I think he needs a few terms in the Senate to build some credibility. I must make one statement on this topic that may not be too popular around these parts, but here goes: I think Barak Obama should stay in the senate as long as possible. My reason has nothing to do with his worthiness; rather, I think that the executive branch of our government should be the smallest and weakest, and the legislative should be the strongest. I really do not believe that a strong, secretive, imperial executive branch is compatible with a functioning republic.

As a resident of Chicago, I can tell you that this whole Alan Keyes business is appalling to me. I actually had a lot of respect for Judy Topinka, but after she came out in favor of Keyes, she lost me. I cannot for the life of me understand why Jack Ryan was booted; his divorce was none of my business, and the GOP was dead wrong in kicking him out.

Talk to you soon!

[rogerashton]

25. Alurker, this may sound a little critical, but

not really meant that way -- wouldn't it be nice if we could let the past bury its dead and build a better future?

Kerry fought in a war he didn't believe was the right thing for America to be doing. That took guts. Bush* didn't fight. We don't know if he thought Viet Nam was a good idea or not. As Kerry said, different people did different things to get through that time. I didn't fight. I was asthmatic as all hell, 4F, thought the war was dead wrong and weakening the country, and by the time it was over, I was an anarchist. But, damn, that was 30-40 years ago. People have been born, had children, the children married and had their own children since then. When can we start working on the future?

[alurker]

26. well sure it would be nice to bury the past.

Unfortunately, politics is all about drudging up past crap and slinging it all over your opponent instead of moving ahead. Politics have become mighty scummy. I get so sick and tired of all the shit-slinging.

I was born the year we pulled out of Vietnam, so I really don't have any sort of personal perspective on it. My dad was drafted, but got sent (by the grace of God) to Korea instead, so I don't even have his perspective on things.

I have to say it's really awful all the old wounds this is opening for vets (I read a thread earlier by someone who works at the VA...). It sucks that this has gotten so out of hand that it's gone way beyond Kerry and Bush, now it's hurting the general public.

[rogerashton]

34. We don't have to be slaves of the media, alurker.

We can think for ourselves, we can "hunt our own truth" to use the Native American (BC) phrase. Politics in this country has always had a lot of personal nastiness -- take a look at what the supporters of Adams pere and Jefferson said about one another and their candidates -- but that did not keep us from having, in Adams and Jefferson, two of the most remarkable minds of their time as presidents; from Lincoln, a profound (and scriptural) vision of national sacrifice, unity and liberty, from the first Roosevelt, an understanding of the potentialities of a democratic republic's power in the world, from the second, an understanding that freedom has material as well as political dimensions and that pragmatism in politics can be a good thing. And what have the electronic media given us in politics to compare with that?

Of course, it isn't easy to "hunt our own truth." It means grubbing around in the New York Times and the Economist, even going to the library for back issues. It means reading books (a minority pastime in our country). Hardest of all, it often means rejecting things we have believed for years because events or new knowledge have made them false. That's the thing about the politics of slime -- it is so easy.

Nothing worth having is ever easy.

[IdaBriggs]

31. I repeat my earlier "welcome".

You sound like a reasonable person. :) I know you said Michael Moore annoys you, but have you had a chance to see F9/11 yet? It may provide you some insight into some of your questions. If you've watched television over the years, you will probably find it fairly easy to separate his "opinion" from his "facts" (which you will find upsetting -- fair warning!). He does a good job of letting the story tell itself (and if its any help, he smacks Republicans, Democrats AND the media for not doing better). Just a thought. :)

Anyway, I'm very impressed you are here -- enjoy!!! :)

Best again, Ida

[LynnTheDem]

43. There is a difference...

Between conservatives and rightwignnuts. You obviously are the former. :)

About Iraq, maybe some of this may help;

-1097 soldiers are so far dead. 14,000 US soldiers are seriously wounded (brain-dead, missing limbs). Over 40,000 sick US troops have been medically evacuated out of Iraq for various illnesses.

-An estimated 38,000 Iraqi men, women, children, babies, pregnant women, all civilians, have been killed, by us, to date.

-Iraqis did not ever ask us to "liberate" them and they did not want our help.

-Guess how many corpses are REALLY in those "mass graves"? apx. 5000.

Five thousand. We have many tens of thousands more than that mass graved right here in the USA, and bush's own forensic scientist admitted most the corpses were from the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s.

-Guess how many Iraqis have been "disappeared" over the past decade, according to the Int. Red Cross, Human Rights Watch, and bush's own website? 16,500.

Sixteen thousand, five hundred. Over the past 10 years.

-Human Rights Watch, and the Red Cross, say bush can NOT call the invasion of Iraq a "humanitarian intervention", because NO atrocities were happening and NO atrocities were imminent; that the atrocities that happened in Iraq were war atrocities that happened over 20 years ago. When the USA helped and financed and supplied and supported Iraq.

-Did you know there are Pentagon, US State Department, CIA, US Marine Corps, US Army and other governmental reports still available that all concluded IRAN gassed the Kurds, mistakingly thinking they were Iraqis?

-Did you know Detroit gave Saddam Hussein the Key to the City back in the 1980s?

-Did you know Cheney was still doing business with Saddam Hussein until October 2000?

-Did you know the Iraqis were free to leave Iraq any time they wanted to? There were and are no walls, no fenced and guarded borders in Iraq.

-Did you know that the Iraqi women had more freedoms and equality than most anywhere in the mideast?

-Did you know the Kurds' record of human rights violations is worse than Iraq's was under Hussein?

-Did you know Hussein worked hard to improve the living conditions of Iraqis, building roads and schools and free university for any who wanted and the govt paid for overseas university education for Iraqis who were accepted into Yale or Oxford etc?

-Did you know that until the USA dropped more bombs on Iraq in 1991 than the total amount of bombs that were dropped in World War 2, and put in sanctions that killed an estimated 500,000 Iraqi children, Iraq had the highest number of university graduates per capita than anywhere?

-Did you know the "incubator babies" story and the "plastic people shredder" story were both made up by the bush family's PR firm?

Saddam Hussein was ruthless and brutal if you interfered with his political power. He had to be ruthless and brutal. Guess what we are being right now in Iraq. And no, those aren't "foreign fighters" or "terrorists" and they're not even "Saddam loyalists" fighting us.

They are Shi'ites.

And right now we are mass-graving them. The very same Shi'ites bush said we had to "liberate".

And bush's hand-picked puppet president, Allawi, is a former CIA-sponsored terrorist.

The latest poll in Iraq shows over 95% of Iraqis view us as occupiers and not as "liberators" and that the situation in Iraq is worse now than it was before the invasion; they hate us, they want us gone, and I do not blame them one bit.

At least if the Iraqis had actually ASKED us to "liberate" them...but they never did ask us to, they never wanted us there in the first place.

So...why did bush send 970 US soldiers (so far) to die there?

[alurker]

61. I have some honest questions.....

Okay. Bear with me.

Never mind, there it is....the "plastic people shredder" story was made up? Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat? Are you serious?

I'm really confused now. Do you have sources? I'm not trying to be snarky, I honestly want to see this info in black and white, kwim?

If these allegations are indeed true, my whole political mindset was just rocked to the core, to say the very least.

[Julien Sorel]

51. I'm just curious: what makes you a conservative?

We seem to have very similar outlooks on a lot of issues, yet by prevailing standards, I'm considered moderately left.

[iconoclastic cat]

54. Perhaps part of the nation's problem is this self-labeling nonsense.

Instead of issues, we simply hurl jargon at ourselves and others. The "standards" may simply be a creation of the sensationalist media and our equally Barnum-esque politicians.

[RetroLounge]

58. "I think Ann Coulter needs to eat something and get laid"

LOL! You may fit in here more than you think!

Welcome to DU!

RL

[Trajan]

22. Well ... All niceties aside ...

Dumping the current regime from power is a decent goal for ANY decent citizen ....

It is quite obvious that Bush and his PNAC ilk are anything BUT Compassionate OR Conservative ....

Joining together with disaffected conservatives, this one time, seems a worthy goal for anyone who really cares about what is going on ....

Let's face it: another Bush term may be the last anyone see's a free america .....

My opinion ....

Nevertheless: I am generally moderate on certain issues, but I am certainly progressive/liberal any many other issues ..... and I offer no apologies to anyone for that ...

I disagree with conservatives on many grounds, all based on the merit of our positions, or the lack thereof ... DU is not a place to hammer out infinite arguments with conservatives, since it has been established by the Administrators as a SANCTUARY for liberals to discuss issues important to us without the rancor of RW hit squads invading our space and making things miserable here .... Skinner tried the 'open forum' approach when he first started DU, and it was an unmitigated disaster ...

So: lurking conservatives ? ... dont expect a face to face debating forum here at DU: Aint gonna happen .... You want to debate 'liberals' ? .... try Yahoo chat ... it is wide 'open' there ....

That being said: Bush IS a problem for moderates, liberals, libertarians AND so called 'true conservatives' ....

To form a 'coalition of the willing', if you will, to toss out the Frat Boy Prince, seems a worthy and noble goal for all sides ...

Lurking Conservatives ? ... I salute you in that spirit ....

Otherwise: we have lots of room for disagreement, elsewhere and elsetime ....

[alurker]

23. I don't want to debate or troll.

I have also lurked here long enough to know the rules of your forums and what is/is not allowed.

I don't want to debate, I am most certainly NOT a troll, I have no desire to "convert" your posters. I just come here and read. I decided to answer this thread since one poster was wondering if there really were lurking conservatives out there, that's all.

[slinkerwink]

27. yeah....just learn how to separate the wheat from the chaff in here

Like any other message board, you've got your garden variety conspiracy theorists, and my best advice is for you to get your information from the LBN section since that has a lot of news that the mainstream broadcast media really doesn't cover.

My father is a conservative like you and he doesn't like the Bush administration's policies, and is voting for Kerry this year because as a businessman, he believes that four more years of bush will do great harm to our country.

It's up to you to decide who to vote for, but please look for information. It's like in the rule of debate, always be informed about both sides and try to debunk an argument and if it's not debunkable, it means that it withstands as a potential point.

That was done with the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, where we debunked almost EVERY anti-Kerry talking point they had.

By approaching politics that way by researching both sides of the coin, I have come to find out that the Republican party eschews moderate policies in favor of its extremist fundamentalist base, and that the Democratic party is a bit center-right for my own liberal policies. However, faced with the extremity of the Republican party, I am proud to be a part of the Democratic party.

Here's to hoping that you stay informed in this election and learn how to ignore obvious partisan political rhetoric like I have.

[alurker]

28. that's my goal...

To hear both sides, sort through the bullshit (if I can...) and somehow arrive at the truth.

I became officially undecided after hearing Obama speak. Voting for Bush was one of those things that made me just cringe....

As for the swift boat vets business, could you please link me to the thread where the talking points are debunked? I would like to read that one.

By the way, love the hamster in your sig.

[slinkerwink]

32. here's a start for you to do your research ;-)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x596933

There's plenty of links there on the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth news reports.

Obama is definitely someone that I can vote for as President in the future.

Thanks for the compliment on my sig :-)

[Mixxster]

36. Here's a thread I started on my local forum about the SBVT*.

It's not totally complete but it's a good start. http://talkback.lancasteronline.com/index.php?showtopic=11682

If you don't care to check out that thread, I highly recommend: http://swiftvets.eriposte.com/



:hi: Welcome, alurker and NC Tom!

[sadiesworld]

38. Hi alurker!

I just read your posts and have a question for you. Obviously, you have libertarian leanings on social/cultural issues (which are quite inconsistent with the fundamentalist base of the republican party). You also appear to be very impressed with Obama (as am I). I would describe Obama as being a progressive...part of the democratic wing of the democratic party on economic issues, i.e., not beholden to corporate interests. Finally, you appear to have some disagreement with the Reagan years.

Hence my question: Why are you a conservative?


Thanks and welcome to DU :hi:

[NoBorders]

57. Welcome alurker

Hope you find some helpful information here in your decision-making process.

[LynnTheDem]

50. Sure we think it's good to dump dictators...

No it ISN'T a"decent goal for ANY decent citizen"!!!

WHEN did WE become the arbiter of what constitutes "decent"???

Wasn't that goal for the IRAQIS to decide???

Just because WE don't like dictatorships, that does not give US the right to decide we're going to go change other people's governments!

There actually are millions of people in this world who DO prefer living under authoritarian dictatorships. How'd you like them to decide "poor Americans" and force such a gvot on us???

So how dare we go around doing that to other nations??? And pulleeeese...that was the very last excuse bushCartel even came up with when they were trying to get at least 50% of this country to poll as pro-war.

bush's Allawi is worse than Saddam, and he's well on his way already to proving that.

Anyways, this "any decent citizen" thing is just part of that old racist standby of the "white man's burden". YOUR idea, MY idea, AMERICA'S idea of "decent" IS NOT the entire world's idea of decent.

Other nations' peoples should have the right to decide what they want for themselves.

[NC Tom]

33. Another lurker .....

Hey all, as another lurking conservative I'd like to chime in and say I'm not all that thrilled with the current administration for a host of reasons but the third party candidate route just isn't a real option at this point. I'd like to see an evaporation of all political parties and an inspection of candidates on their merits, not a knee jerk reaction to a label.

On a completely different subject... Why can't conservatives make a message board that makes any sense. I went to the Freep once, but their back assward message board was impossible to follow so I haven't been back. Besides, I like to listen to people who challenge what I believe, not just parrot it. I believe it's the only way you can be certain if what you believe is right or wrong.

[mzmolly]

35. Welcome Tom.

Hope you'll give Kerry a fair shake in the coming election. :hi:

I'm with you on the abolition of the political parties thing. The system PREVENTS us from talking about the issues at times as it is.

:hi:

[KharmaTrain]

41. NC Tom, ALurker & Others...Welcome

This exchange is a pure delight to read. It's invigorating to see how many things people have in common are viewed from different angles...the pastels and shapes of life that are the essence of what the frames of the constitution had hoped for.

There's many questions and comments I would like to make...both openly and privately, but strongly encourge you and other Conservatives, Independents or others who would like a serious discussion of issues and ideas to either post them here or PM or email them do me.

There are some of us who find it refreshing to hear contrary opinions and create some good critical thinking...and beats a lot of the choir preaching that's a natural state of this community.

Your voices are going to be especially important in the months to come as a middle ground of sanity has to be found to get this nation out of the paralysis...economically, socially and politically it's currently in.

Again...welcome and Cheers!

[LynnTheDem]

53. Hello!

:hi: I like that idea, no parties, go with individuals.

There must be some good conservative boards around? Freepers are a nasty bunch. They're not conservatives; they're rightwingnuts.

[NoBorders]

59. I agree Tom

While it can be nice to discuss your views w/like minded people, one tends to be forced to really think through a position when it is challenged by someone with a different viewpoint.

[passthecorn]

37. For the first time in my 4 Presidential Election Years

I live in a swing state and will likely vote 3rd party.

My problem is that I am conservative in all the wrong ways and liberal in all the wrong ways.

If I want less taxes and less spending, there is nowhere to go.

If I am against the death penalty, there is nowhere to go.

If I am against the war in Iraq (even before the the IWR vote), I now have nowhere to go (though I did vote for Kucinich).

If I am pro-life but think that the gay marriage issue is simply ridiculous, there is nowhere to go.

Both parties are run and led by millionaire white men who sleep in the back pockets of corporations. I am not saying there are no differences, but they are different enough in ways that are important to me. Kucinich was, he was laughed at

Libertarians in 04, is that Browne guy still their candidate?

[alurker]

39. sadiesworld

Good question, LOL. I guess I label myself as "conservative" out of force of habit. I am noooooooooooooot in line with the religious right at all. I am a Christian, yes, but don't believe in forcing my beliefs down people's throats, hence, my belief that the gay marriage ammendment bs is attempting to push our nation towards becoming a theocracy.

My issues with the Reagan years can't be treated as valid, I was only 9 years old. LOL.

I know I am definitely not a liberal, as I have a huge problem with many left-wing policies. But I'm not here to debate or convert, so we'll just leave that alone. ;)

I don't know where I fit in politically any more. Libertarian fits best right now.

All I know is I don't like Bush, Kerry doesn't exactly thrill me, and sad to say but with an election as close as I feel this one will be, voting Libertarian would be throwing my vote away.

So here I am. I try to be an informed voter, and vote in all the "small" local elections as well, not just the pres. ones. Being an informed voter has become increasingly difficult as of late, what with all the posturing and shit slinging. I'm just trying to take in as much as I can from both "sides," and sort through it to try to figure out what's true and what's crap.

Appreciate the SBVT links, btw. Thanks.

[iconoclastic cat]

45. Wouldn't it be great if we could all discuss our points of view like this?

I have to say, alurker, by taking the approach that you have taken here, I immediately want to hear what you have to say. If all of us followed your example, the national debate could be resurrected.

Stick around! At some point, I really do want to hear your perspectives on the parties' policies, but I won't pressure you.

Keep posting so that I can DU-mail you. I'm not sure how many posts you need before you can receive messages.

Have a good afternoon!

[NoBorders]

56. I couldn't agree more, cat!

I would too would like to find a board where reasonable debate could take place with people of different political viewpoints, not with the believe that anyone would necessariy convert to another view, but at least a) one is forced to really think through ones positions, and b) it would be far more difficult to dehumanize the other side.

[ScreamingMeemie]

49. With a few exceptions, you could be me alurker.

My preference for candidate was taken down quite effectively by the media (in my opinion). It is my belief that We, The People...need to put ourselves back in control again. To hold our politicians (on both sides) to speaking for us and making proper decisions. This seems to have fallen by the wayside in this country. I full intend on holding all politicians accountable for questionable decisions, I fully intend on helping to rebuild the Democratic Party from the ground up...or inside out if need be. If not, I fully intend upon throwing my weight behind producing a viable third party. Together, we can all do this. We can make this a country of united people again.

Take care,
Laura

[TWiley]

40. Lets make sure they get on the ballot in battleground states.

Just like the pukies have done for their man Nader

[iconoclastic cat]

44. Uh, TWiley, I recommend reading the thread before posting.

While I understand your point of view, if you read the thread you will see that there are several lurkers who would like to have a reasonable discussion. I firmly believe that part of the problem in this country is that many of us throw around highly divisive rhetoric without considering the impact of such speech. I, for one, would like to hear the points of view of the self-described "lurking conservitives" on this board, but these people will not participate if we verbally assault them.

The only hope for this country is for us to restore dialoge to the realm of rationality, something that cannot happen if we are not sensitive and respectful to each other.

Thanks!

[iconoclastic cat]

46. Do you know what I'd love? 3 things:

1. I'd love a board where people of all political persuasions could have rational, civil discussions. If you know one like that, tell me, please!

2. I'd love a country that had at least 5 major political parties instead of 2 (barely). I think that we'd be a better society.

3. I'd love for the Fairness Doctrine to be reinstated.

[sadiesworld]

47. And publicly financed campaigns with tons of debates and no ads!

:bounce:

[iconoclastic cat]

48. Oh, definitely.

Hey, sadiesworld! Good to hear from you.

I totally agree; how can politicians rationalize spending millions on ads and promo stuff that will eventually be in a landfill when their own constituents either have to work 3 jobs to keep from starving, or they pay so much in taxes that they can't contribute to the candidates that they really want? That's just wrong.

[LuminousX]

52. You could set up such a board

Just make sure it is heavily moderated and make sure it is removed from DU. I like DU because the arguments aren't the standard Left v. Right stuff, but arguing the subtleties of policy on the Left.

This isn't to say there isn't merit for L v R debate.

[iconoclastic cat]

55. Oh, criminy, that's so much work! I can't even seem to keep a blog going,

let alone be an admin for a board.

Maybe one day I will, but I would need a lot of help.

[Joe Turner]

60. This Should Be Required Reading For ALL Conservatives

To the Lurking Conservatives:

Care to guess WHO wrote the Below regarding George W. Bush in 1999?

"Yes, please listen to the interview. Bush loves China and he's very forgiving of Clinton. He desperately wants the press to lay off GW, so he's promoting for a kinder, more compassionate campaign and a less critical press. If anyone thinks that Father (and powerful supporters) won't have an influence on Son, you're crazy. Don't you ever wonder how and why the politically inexperienced, bad boy, G W Bush, got himself born again, rehabilitated and groomed to become governor of Texas? Not to mention front-runner in the Presidential race? What experience did/does he have for either position? A Bush presidency will be very dangerous for America."

"Also, I hardly believe that GW's experience sitting on the boards of ailing oil companies (as favors granted his powerful father) and collecting big bucks is the best experience (from a constituent's point of view) for becoming Governor or President. Nor do I believe the experience he gained by misusing tax dollars for private (the stadium deal) gain is a shining beacon of trust. From my point of view all I see is a powerful daddy pulling in markers from his rich and influential friends. And there aint no way you'll ever convince me that Bush is even one/tenth the statesman or conservative that Reagan was. There is NO comparison."

"Bush scares the bejeebies outta me...."

"Yup. Bush II is simply a continuation of the failed Bush I."

If you guessed Jim Robinson the founder and operator of FreeRepublic.com you would be correct. Many who are familar with Robinson's SUDDEN 180 degree change of opinion on the Coward from Crawford are shocked to know this is what he thought of Smirk BEFORE the 2000 election. Funny how things change eh?

I'm still looking for the one where Robinson tees off on Smirk's history of cocaine use. That one was a dosee.

[NC Tom]

62. I am not a Whack a Mole!!

I didn't stick my head out and attempt to engage in a civil discussion only to have someone try and pound me over the head with what one neocon said about the president or what he may have done years ago. I am really disappointed in how this entire election has been focused on what happened 30 years ago. I was born in the late 70's so all i know about the Viet Nam war is what I learned in history and from my uncles who were there. As far as I'm concerned anyone who served, whether they wanted to or not, for whatever period of time deserves the utmost respect. I think it is ridiculous for anyone to claim Sen. Kerry's service was anything less than heroic. That being said, I don't see any valid point in criticizing the president's service in the national guard, regardless of how he got there or what he did while there. I know many people here will disagree with me on that for a host of reasons and I really don't care to hear them, but it just doesn't matter to me. All i want to know is what are their plans for the future, that's what my decision will be made on.

[iconoclastic cat]

64. Issues! Exactly.

I completely agree. We need to keep this whole discussion on what is going to be done, and how it is going to happen.

By the way, sorry if you feel like a whack-a-mole (great image!); I hope you stick around regardless of a few negative encounters. We do value your input and opinion, despite the occasional breathless rhetoric that is carelessly thrown around.