What is it with all the Angry Conservatives here?

[Anonymous]

I agree with 9:13. And, while there are people with a "religious right" agenda, it doesn't speak for all conservatives and the people we elect. I fully believe that the Republican party IS the party of diversity- and that means diversity of IDEAS as well as race, religion, etc. BO doesn't support gay marriage yet you'll find elected Conservatives that do.

And, the moderator you reference makes me ill. Especially his comments about Israel. Something tells me he's the kind of guy to wrap himself in a Palestinian flag and protest outside the Israeli embassy.

[Anonymous]

14:59 here. To clarify, I was in no way saying that the moderator could be a suicide bomber or anything like that. I used the example to show that I feel like he's so one-sided on the issue that he'd publically show it by protesting.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:I agree with 9:13. And, while there are people with a "religious right" agenda, it doesn't speak for all conservatives and the people we elect. I fully believe that the Republican party IS the party of diversity- and that means diversity of IDEAS as well as race, religion, etc. BO doesn't support gay marriage yet you'll find elected Conservatives that do.

And, the moderator you reference makes me ill. Especially his comments about Israel. Something tells me he's the kind of guy to wrap himself in a Palestinian flag and protest outside the Israeli embassy.

I guess the diversity of ideas of which you are so proud ends when it comes to the issue of Palestine and Israel. And, what is wrong with protesting outside the Israeli embassy? Don't conservatives believe in freedom of speech? You are quite typical of Republicans. You talk endlessly of freedom, but if someone expresses a differing opinion it makes you ill. Let me clue you in on something. Talk all you want about diversity, but if there is one thing the current conservative movement lacks, it's tolerance. Just look what happened to Spector. That's exactly why the Republican party is rapidly becoming nothing more than a small regional party.

The idea that conservatives are more open to gay marriage than liberals is laughable. Simply compare the number of elected Republicans that support gay marriage to the number of elected Democrats.

[Anonymous]

You are quite typical of Republicans?!?! Since I was a little girl, my Republican mother took me to demonstrate outside of practically every embassy in DC from the Russian (Afghanistan) to Chinese (Tibet) because she believes in freedoms not just for Americans but standing beside the oppressed in other parts of the world. And she taught us to listen to a plurality of opinions, around our dinner table, from our Palestinian to our Israeli friends (who have their own plurality of opinions by the way) and to form our own. God bless her beautiful Republican heart and soul.

[Anonymous]

1459 again: Moderator- I never said you didn't have the right to protest whereever you want. Your views on Israel (as stated on this sight) bother me. The same way pro-lifers with their signs bother me outside an abortion clinic. It makes my blood boil but this is America and I wouldn't have it any other way.

And I also never said that Republicans are more supportive of gay marriage. I was commenting on a PP saying that the Conservative movement is too right-wing. My point was that we have an open door policy and all are welcome.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:I was commenting on a PP saying that the Conservative movement is too right-wing. My point was that we have an open door policy and all are welcome.

I don't know what you mean by "Conservative movement" because such a thing is so amorphous that it can mean many different things to different people. But, the best known conservative leader today, Rush Limbaugh, most definitely does not have an open door policy. As far as the Republican party is concerned, it is in the process of purging anyone the least bit moderate.

Your vision of Conservatives is interesting in an academic sense, but has little connection to reality. You seem to paint a picture of the libertarian wing of conservatism, and maybe you would be comfortable with Ron Paul if he changed his opinions on the Middle East. But, you totally ignore the social conservatives. There is certainly no open door for pro-choice, pro-gay, or pro-Palestinian state individuals among the social conservatives. It is exactly this division among Republicans that is causing them to be the "party of no". They can't agree on what they support, so their only alternative is to oppose. You can get dizzy watching Michael Steele as he chases his tail backing down from last week's statement this week.

As for my views on Israel, I'd love to see specifically what I've written that made you ill. That paints a picture of my views that I don't think is born out in reality. If you are going to say that sort of thing, it's only fare to give us an idea about what you are talking.

[Anonymous]

You're wrong JSteele; lots of diversity under the tent -- happy conservative bohemian

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:14:59 here. To clarify, I was in no way saying that the moderator could be a suicide bomber or anything like that. I used the example to show that I feel like he's so one-sided on the issue that he'd publically show it by protesting.

Yeah, I never could understand why our founding fathers were so one-sided on the issue as to dump tea in the Boston harbor.

[Anonymous]

I think what this poster probably meant is that there are two sides to the issue Palestinian/Israeli conflict. When you stand outside the Israeli Embassy protesting it could be construed as choosing a side; I would argue (I am the one whose Republican mom raised us protesting) that most people standing outside the Israeli Embassy in America are protesting settlements or some such policies--not the right of Israel to exist (as would happen in say, a state-sponsored Gaza strip or Iranian protest). I would hope they would also stand outside the Swiss Bureau or whomever is representing Palestine these days and protest the atrocities committed in Gaza by Hamas on fellow Palestinians, the corruption, the failure of leadership in West Bank, the usage of bus bombs as political discourse etc. I don't want to put words in previous posters mouth, but I doubt he or she is criticizing protest in general.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree with 9:13. And, while there are people with a "religious right" agenda, it doesn't speak for all conservatives and the people we elect. I fully believe that the Republican party IS the party of diversity- and that means diversity of IDEAS as well as race, religion, etc. BO doesn't support gay marriage yet you'll find elected Conservatives that do.

And, the moderator you reference makes me ill. Especially his comments about Israel. Something tells me he's the kind of guy to wrap himself in a Palestinian flag and protest outside the Israeli embassy.

The Israeli government has done much that is worthy of criticism. Even Israelis question their government's handling of the Palestinian issue and settlements. Here it's taboo to raise disagreement. But there they are much more pragmatic.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:I think what this poster probably meant is that there are two sides to the issue Palestinian/Israeli conflict.

Fair enough, but what if I was protesting Israeli's invasions (plural) of Lebanon? I don't understand your requirement to protest both sides. Israel builds settlements in the West Bank. Hamas controls Gaza. There is no connection between settlements and Hamas so it should not be incumbent upon anti-settlement protesters to protest Hamas. By your logic, if I protested against Israel's invasions (plural again) of Lebanon, I would also have to go protest at the Lebanese Taverna.

Whenever someone utters the slightest criticism of Israel, there is always someone ready to allege anti-Semitism. The earlier poster's claim that my views on Israel make her ill are much along the same lines. After all, only really extreme views could cause illness, right? Therefore, I hope she will provide an example of an illness-causing view so that others can objectively evaluate my position.

[Anonymous]

Um, yeah.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think what this poster probably meant is that there are two sides to the issue Palestinian/Israeli conflict. When you stand outside the Israeli Embassy protesting it could be construed as choosing a side; I would argue (I am the one whose Republican mom raised us protesting) that most people standing outside the Israeli Embassy in America are protesting settlements or some such policies--not the right of Israel to exist (as would happen in say, a state-sponsored Gaza strip or Iranian protest). I would hope they would also stand outside the Swiss Bureau or whomever is representing Palestine these days and protest the atrocities committed in Gaza by Hamas on fellow Palestinians, the corruption, the failure of leadership in West Bank, the usage of bus bombs as political discourse etc. I don't want to put words in previous posters mouth, but I doubt he or she is criticizing protest in general.

17:45 again -- Well there were two sides to the Revolutionary War. I am sure that at times the rebels committed atrocities against the British loyalists. If you apply your logic, the rebels should also have taken to the streets every time one of their group tarred and feathered a Tory. That leads to the argument that no one should protest on one side unless they are willing to protest on the other side, too -- because there are at least two sides to every political position.

Frankly I do argue that a human rights orientation is the most important way to see the world. But I have limited time and resources. I am not going to go carry a sign and march against every human rights abuse. I'm happy to tell whomever wants to listen that I don't care for Hamas or Fatah and that suicide bombing is both wrong and counterproductive. But I'm going to march against Israel because Israel is creating bantustans in the Occupied Territories and Israel is enforcing Jim Crow-type laws against its Arab citizens who make up 20% of its population.

I believe that countries should treat all of their citizens equally regardless of race, ethnicity, or religion. That is the American way. By this standard, Israel may not be as bad as Saudi Arabia but it still comes nowhere near the United States when it comes to a committing to equal treatment of all its citizens.

[Anonymous]

You're logic is interesting. Anyway, seems to me you are protesting Israel b/cause you must feel that at heart they are a conscientious people whose sense of honor can be appealed to in much the same way that Gandhi's peaceful non-violence shamed the British into withdrawing from India. Too bad Hamas is no Gandhi. I can only infer that you don't protest Hamas etc. as you don't detect a sense of honor there to appeal to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You're logic is interesting. Anyway, seems to me you are protesting Israel b/cause you must feel that at heart they are a conscientious people whose sense of honor can be appealed to in much the same way that Gandhi's peaceful non-violence shamed the British into withdrawing from India. Too bad Hamas is no Gandhi. I can only infer that you don't protest Hamas etc. as you don't detect a sense of honor there to appeal to.

Like many people, you have a narrow understanding of nonviolent protest. There are those who argue for nonviolent protest because it is principled and morally correct, regardless of its effectiveness. But although Gandhi took this principled view, he was not naive about the ability of nonviolent protest and civil disobedience to topple empires.

There is another philosophy of nonviolence generally called "pragmatic nonviolence," as conceptualized by Gene Sharp. The focus is on nonviolently removing the resources and supports for those in power. For example, the nonviolent overthrow of the Filipino dictator Ferdinand Marcos the 80s, the mostly nonviolent overthrow of the Shah of Iran (a vicious dictator) in the 70s, the destruction of the Berlin wall in the 80s by average citizens, and the Danish people's mass rescue of the Jews from the Nazis during World War II. In all of these cases, the activists were struggling against immoral and vicious regimes and few of the activists took principled stands on nonviolence. They used nonviolence because it worked. (Doesn't matter whether it's Ahmadinejad, Bush, or Obama, they can't run the country without cooperation of its people and institutions.)

No I don't particularly find the Israeli government more moral than Hamas just as I don't find Israeli Jews to be more moral than Palestinian Muslims or Christians. A recent poll showed that nearly a third of Israeli Jews favored transferring Palestinian citizens of Israel outside of the country. (These are citizens, mind you, not the Palestinians living in the Occupied Territories.) And a majority favored encouraging Palestinian citizens to leave.

http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=140196&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0

This is not how we behave in the United States. As troubled as our racial history has been, the vast majority of white Americans no longer try to solve our problems by arguing for forcible transfer of citizens belonging to minority groups.