Apparently we've decided to memorialize the events of 9/11 with divisiveness, intolerance and opportunism.
It's been four years since the attack on the World Trade Center, yet despite the hope which so many had that the tragedy would bring the nation together, we seem to be more divided and contentious than ever.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Dave Nalle
Out of consideration to Shark's tender sensibilities I've slightly edited the original post to make it clearer for him. The basic substance was not changed.
And in response to his demant that I apologize, though it's not clear for what, I want to reiterate these quotes, all of which were in the oriignal article:
"Nothing shows this more than the eagerness of all sides to find someone to blame in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina."
"when offered the choice between honoring the dead of 9/11 and protesting the war, anyone who chooses the protest has made a contemptible choice."
"But the fact remains that the unity and focus which made us strong after 9/11 is gone, and in their place we are left with hollow promises and senseless rage."
Shark, whose hollow promises do you think I'm referring to here?
"my enemies will be intolerance, divisiveness, negativity, political opportunism and mindless partisanship."
Shark, do you think these qualities are held exclusively by the left? Is your assumption that they are full of these vices why you think my attack was pointed primarily in that direction? If that's the case, then you should look inside you to figure out why you think so negatively about your own compatriots, because when I read that phrase and when I wrote it I certainly saw it applying to both parties.
Dave
27 - Shark
Here's a little test, Dave, just to show you that the world ain't ONLY black, white, and "rational" and "logical".
* Imagine your wife died in the South Tower on 9/11.
* Imagine that you supported the invasion of Afghanistan.
* Imagine that you opposed the invasion of Iraq.
*Now imagine that you read this:
"The problem for many with 9/11 was not the death toll so much as the fact that it was caused by a clearly identified outside enemy who could be targeted for attack, making it difficult to turn the tragedy into a political witchhunt."
"Admittedly, 9/11 was... forgotten by those who oppose the War in Iraq..."
NOW, DAVE, DESCRIBE YOUR FEELINGS.
Thanks in advance,
Shark
PS: Apologize. Now. Regain some semblance of decency.
28 - Phillip Winn
Some posts are well-meaning but eventually attract vitriolic right- and left-wing partisan attacks in the comments. Other posts -- LIKE THIS ONE -- seem it exist for the sole purpose of stirring up such attacks.
Uncool, in my opinion. And untrue, to boot.
I think it is far to say that many on the left have a different response to 9/11 than many on the right, but to say that one group or the other has a monopoly on the "proper" response is silly. To say that protesting the war is in itself dishonoring to the 9/11 dead is silly. Do some dishonor the dead and protest the war? Sure. Some dishonor the dead and support the war, too. And plenty of people who honor the dead support and oppose the war. The two are not diametrically opposed.
It is a shame that the nation doesn't come together to respond to Katrina. But rather than point fingers, let's explore why. What factors led to what we're seeing from the Gulf Coast? How can we prevent something like this from happening again?
It's not all about Bush-hatred, or race-baiting, or class warfare, but let's not kid ourselves either.
If we're going to pull together as Americans, articles like these aren't going to help.
29 - Shark
Dave, your editing didn't change shit. It is still the most HEINOUS thing I've ever read on BC.
Your editing job just shows your a chickenshit with no personal integrity and no shred of decency.
APOLOGIZE, DAVE.
30 - Eric Berlin
Dave -- it's pretty clear who who were trying to provoke via this provocative opinion piece.
I really do think you're coming way out of left field in claiming those who are "against the Iraq War" are therefore and subsequently forgetting "the spirit of 9/11." As a native New Yorker who knows plenty of people who are both anti-war and were affected personally by 9/11, I must admit to finding some of the above offensive.
I think you'd have a much better shot at scoring points if you boiled your argument down to "it's disrespectful to hold anti-war protests on the anniversary to 9/11." There would be those who disagree (like me), but it would be a fair and rational argument.
31 - Shark
Phillip, I agree. And I believe I've seen AS MUCH bi-partisan American brotherhood, support, and compassion in the wake of Katrina as was seen post-9/11.
I don't think these "people" that Dave keeps redefining via his edits really exist.
Or if they do -- based on his editing -- they're being whittled down to what, one or two dozen in the entire country?
32 - Shark
I will even submit that because the new orleans diaspora is so widespread, there might even be a STRONGER sense of community and compassion post-Katrina, ie, it's more concrete, in many communities nationwide, and has a few hundred thousand stories and faces attached.
A TOTAL CONTRADICTION of Nalle's opportunistic, self-serving, right-wing thesis', btw.
33 - Shark
Dave, you'll be glad to know that's all I have to say in this thread; I hope you delete it and apologize.
Show some integrity, Dave.
34 - nugget
this thread is boring.
dave: you're partison, and dumb, but since you used sentences....
shark: chya right you are times infinity! duh!
Dave: nu uh YOU are those things. I support the victims and you have a political agenda.
shark: chya right! apologize.
....
shark: stop dave stop.
nugget: hey guys, you can make these discussions less cumbersome to read by tuning the maturity of your debate with a more terse outline and less extensive use of your collective vocabularies. I already provided a good example.
35 - gonzo marx
hurm...here's the nut of the matter from my own perspective..
anytime i see/hear someone saying "we have to pull together"..it tends to be someone form the GOP that wants folks to forget all the partisan shit they have pulled over the years...
now..i am also disgusted by some Dems that pull the same shit..they open their mouths to spew invective before the Question is even finished...
but this habit, from my own Observations, seems MUCH more widespread on the GOP side...down to them consciously utilizing a "shout down" strategy to control as much air time as possible on news/interview programs...take a stopwatch, and try it yourself...
this Post has the dubious Quality of protesting the bickering, all the while stirring up a ton of muck by itself...hence the drawn fire...
as for me, i remember 9/11 very well...i also remember there were no Iraqi's involved...i remember Katrina devastating our nation...i also remember the National Response Plan, and who is Responsible for dealing with such a crisis...
the only semi-sane Advice i can give is to Trust NO ONE...find the Facts, and figure it out for yourself...talk to folks, hell come here to BC and see the Debates...participate...but by Bog and JuJu....MAKE UP YER OWN FUCKING MINDS!!!
do NOT let folks do yer Thinking for ya, from Madison Ave to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, there are plenty of leeches that want you to NOT think, to NOT understand...just blindly follow Big Brother's Newspeak and consume, follow, do not Question...
fuck that
Excelsior!
36 - Bob A. Booey
The quote about "forgetting 9/11" if you oppose the war in Iraq is stupid and inflammatory. It's because we remember 9/11 and the tragic loss of life that we need to do our best to find GOOD intelligence and fight the RIGHT wars with our limited resources to find al Qaeda rather than looking for tenuous connections and ill-conceived occupations that only make the threat of another 9/11 more immediate.
And this was spoken like a true madman:
"I stay above it all in the lofty tower of reason"
How many people who write that could really do so with a straight face?
Dave, you're down in the muck covered with your own BS in the last few things you've written on this site. Your mudslinging has become somewhat passive-aggressive in your attempt to find enemies you can hate.
Is everything OK at home? Seriously. I'm not being a prick trying to psychoanalyze you when I ask that.
That is all.
37 - RogerMDillion
Bob,
I'm sure it's some sort of deprevation from the "dank cellar lit only by the glow of a computer screen" that he spends so much time in
38 - Dave Nalle
>>Here's a little test, Dave, just to show you that the world ain't ONLY black, white, and "rational" and "logical".<<
That's my whole point, Shark. The world isn't black and white but it is rational, or can be looked at that way.
>>* Imagine your wife died in the South Tower on 9/11.
* Imagine that you supported the invasion of Afghanistan.
* Imagine that you opposed the invasion of Iraq.
*Now imagine that you read this:
"The problem for many with 9/11 was not the death toll so much as the fact that it was caused by a clearly identified outside enemy who could be targeted for attack, making it difficult to turn the tragedy into a political witchhunt."
"Admittedly, 9/11 was... forgotten by those who oppose the War in Iraq..."
NOW, DAVE, DESCRIBE YOUR FEELINGS.<<
I hope that I would be outraged - not with the statement, but with the situation it accurately describes - but if the conditions you describe were true and I wasn't deceiving myself I would have already come to the same conclusions, Shark.
It is possible to oppose the War in Iraq without turning it into the basis for unreasoning hate. It's also possible to oppose the war while understanding it and not thinking that those who are waging it are monsters and perpetrating evil.
Maybe you should try on some hypotheticals and see if you can project yourself into the perspective of someone who doesn't like seeing his country torn apart by people who are unwilling to compromise or engage in any kind of rational discussion.
Dave
39 - Dave Nalle
>>Some posts are well-meaning but eventually attract vitriolic right- and left-wing partisan attacks in the comments. Other posts -- LIKE THIS ONE -- seem it exist for the sole purpose of stirring up such attacks.<<
Philip, I apologize for being honest here. This post was not intended to be vitriolic, just to express my dismay with the way that things are going in this country.
>>Uncool, in my opinion. And untrue, to boot.<<
Do you READ any of the threads on BC? Go read the Kanye West and various Racism/Katrina threads and come back to me and say that again.
>>I think it is far to say that many on the left have a different response to 9/11 than many on the right, but to say that one group or the other has a monopoly on the "proper" response is silly. To say that protesting the war is in itself dishonoring to the 9/11 dead is silly. Do some dishonor the dead and protest the war? Sure. Some dishonor the dead and support the war, too. And plenty of people who honor the dead support and oppose the war. The two are not diametrically opposed. <<
So was it too much for me to hope we'd have one day where we just honored the dead together as a nation?
>>It is a shame that the nation doesn't come together to respond to Katrina. But rather than point fingers, let's explore why. What factors led to what we're seeing from the Gulf Coast? How can we prevent something like this from happening again? <<
Philip, this is EXACTLY what I'm saying. Let's put the blame on hold and work on the actual problem. And let's work on REAL problems, not whether or not Bush is a racist and wanted black people to die in the storm.
>>It's not all about Bush-hatred, or race-baiting, or class warfare, but let's not kid ourselves either.
If we're going to pull together as Americans, articles like these aren't going to help.<<
Philip, this isn't an attack, it's a plea to stop the attacks. As far as I can tell you basically agree with me on the substance of the situation, yet you choose to characterize my post which says much the same thing that you did as an attack. I tried bery hard in the original draft and even more with my revisions to make it aboslutely clear that I find both partisan sides at fault here. Hoiw is it that this is not getting through?
Dave
40 - Bob A. Booey
So-called "rational" knee-jerk dismissal of anyone who would question the images and propaganda associated with war today as just so much emotionalism is intellectual fascism.
Dave, why don't you use any of your "reason" and "rational" outrage at the religious conservatives and "patriots" who are using fear, blind loyalty, exclusion, and God to shut out rational discussion?
That is all.
41 - Dave Nalle
>>The quote about "forgetting 9/11" if you oppose the war in Iraq is stupid and inflammatory. It's because we remember 9/11 and the tragic loss of life that we need to do our best to find GOOD intelligence and fight the RIGHT wars with our limited resources to find al Qaeda rather than looking for tenuous connections and ill-conceived occupations that only make the threat of another 9/11 more immediate.<<
If you remember 9/11 why can't you put the signs down for ONE day and join in the national remembrance of the people who died?
>>And this was spoken like a true madman:
"I stay above it all in the lofty tower of reason"
How many people who write that could really do so with a straight face?<<
What on earth makes you think I had a straight face when I typed that?
>>Dave, you're down in the muck covered with your own BS in the last few things you've written on this site. Your mudslinging has become somewhat passive-aggressive in your attempt to find enemies you can hate.<<
I don't do hate, Babs. Right now I'm mostly doing disgust.
>>Is everything OK at home? Seriously. I'm not being a prick trying to psychoanalyze you when I ask that. <<
Yes you are.
Dave
42 - Dave Nalle
>>So-called "rational" knee-jerk dismissal of anyone who would question the images and propaganda associated with war today as just so much emotionalism is intellectual fascism.<<
I agree. It's exactly the same as the dismissal of this article and the request for an apology I get from Shark. Total irrationality, no willingness to even attempt to read what I wrote and consider it for itself.
>>Dave, why don't you use any of your "reason" and "rational" outrage at the religious conservatives and "patriots" who are using fear, blind loyalty, exclusion, and God to shut out rational discussion?<<
You've brought this up recently and I've pointed you to my many articles doing just that. Do you have a short term memory problem?
Dave
43 - Dave Nalle
>>Phillip, I agree. And I believe I've seen AS MUCH bi-partisan American brotherhood, support, and compassion in the wake of Katrina as was seen post-9/11.<<
I've seen a lot of compassion too, and I've already written extensively on that subject and have more coming. The fact that there are so many good people out there doesn't, unfortunately, negate those who live by hatred and partisanship.
>>I don't think these "people" that Dave keeps redefining via his edits really exist.<<
My minor edit didn't change the definition of who I'm talking about at all.
>>Or if they do -- based on his editing -- they're being whittled down to what, one or two dozen in the entire country?<<
There are more than that many commenting on threads here on BC. Go to Kos and you'll see scores more of them. Go to FreeP and you'll see another hundred. I have to assume these people are representative of larger groups out in the general public.
>>I will even submit that because the new orleans diaspora is so widespread, there might even be a STRONGER sense of community and compassion post-Katrina, ie, it's more concrete, in many communities nationwide, and has a few hundred thousand stories and faces attached.<<
This may be true, and I hope that it is. But there's also been much more opportunism and grandstanding and partisanship associated with it.
>>A TOTAL CONTRADICTION of Nalle's opportunistic, self-serving, right-wing thesis', btw.<<
As I've said before, and as I reiterated in a comment to you, I didn't target the left in this post, I addressed both sides.
>>Dave, you'll be glad to know that's all I have to say in this thread; I hope you delete it and apologize.
Show some integrity, Dave.<<
The next time you apologize for one of your personal attacks or give my honest opinion an actual evaluation on its merits rather than a knee jerk attack will be the first time. Why don't you show some integrity and actually consider what I write in the spirit in which it is intended?
Dave
44 - Luke
America should have just invaded Afghanistan and then come home, and start making more movies like True Lies where all arabs are evil and america is always the good guy, and everyone would be happy, coz america showed the world it can't be fucked with, and the trillion dollars they spent on iraq could have been used to build new twin towers with a built in missile defense system, but instead they went and flip flopped the whole thing, because america can't look like the good guy while invading some country for having a dictator who's not a very nice guy.
45 - Dave Nalle
Luke, you may be barely literate, but you're on the right track.
Dave
46 - Natalie Davis
Oh yeah... unity after 9/11? Right. My neighbors snubbed me for not raising their flag in front of my house (I have the rainbow flag and a Grateful Dead flag). At a peace rally shortly after 9/11 (standing against the cry for retaliation -- "my grief is not a cry for war"), right-wingers shouted "fag" at me and others and said we ought to be nuked or that we should have been in the Twin Towers. Nuked. That's unity?
I lost people I loved on 9/11 and only learned a few days ago that my Louisiana cousins are safe and sound (they were among those who got themselves out before Katrina hit; their home is GONE, but they aren't anywhere near poor and are very well insured, so they'll be OK, thank the goddess). My sadness and horror is shared with humans across the globe -- sorry, I see both as human tragedies, not American ones. I believe in a global human family -- nationalism, IMO, is ridiculous -- but know full well that when it comes to some of my siblings, I am best served remaining at a safe distance. 9/11 and the Katrina disaster have served to underscore that feeling for me.
By all means, cheers and thanks to the heroes. Their acts of bravery and kindness are bright spots amid the darkness. But the darkness (the "patriotic" neighbors and verbally abusive right-wingers at the rally are but two examples) is far greater, sad to say. Should those of us not welcome in the "unity" party be silent? Absolutely not: It is our duty not to be silent. NOT because of politics; I agree, that's disgusting. But speaking up out of genuine fear, outrage, dismay, etc.? No, that is our duty.
47 - gonzo marx
on hate speech here at BC...
contrary to Mr Nalle's protestations, current reading of the site shows a dramatic propensity of hate style speech spewing from a few individuals using a lot of screen names...
unless asked, i am not going to state the obvious ones...take a read, ya can't miss them
at first, i was wondering if it was not the work of some deranged satirist...but that hypothesis is shaky at best...
take a wild guess which side of the political spectrum all of these "names" are advocates of?
the really ironic part is that they pick on Mr Nalle as well...
ad nauseum
Excelsior!
48 - Dave Nalle
>>Oh yeah... unity after 9/11? Right. My neighbors snubbed me for not raising their flag in front of my house (I have the rainbow flag and a Grateful Dead flag). At a peace rally shortly after 9/11 (standing against the cry for retaliation -- "my grief is not a cry for war"), right-wingers shouted "fag" at me and others and said we ought to be nuked or that we should have been in the Twin Towers. Nuked. That's unity? <<
Good lord, where do you live? Sounds like rural Maryland or somewhere equally backwards. Are you from Cumberland?
>>But the darkness (the "patriotic" neighbors and verbally abusive right-wingers at the rally are but two examples) is far greater, sad to say. Should those of us not welcome in the "unity" party be silent?<<
If there's a unity party it should welcome everyone, but unity shouldn't be a function of party, it should be a function of individual attitude.
>> Absolutely not: It is our duty not to be silent. NOT because of politics; I agree, that's disgusting. But speaking up out of genuine fear, outrage, dismay, etc.? No, that is our duty.<<
By all means, when there are genuine grounds for complaint, everyone should speak up. But those who accuse Bush of racism over where the flood waters went are no different from the people who harassed you at your rally.
Dave
49 - gonzo marx
bah..never thought of the Shrub as a racist...a greedy hydroencephelitic swine fornicator....
well, yes...
a shill for his corporate oligarchy buddies and hand holding Saudi boyfriends...
hell yes...
an incompetent puppet for special interests who has done such damage to the US, and the world, that we will be a long time in finding out all the ramifications of his actions...
definately yes...
but racist...nah
Excelsior!
50 - Dave Nalle
>>contrary to Mr Nalle's protestations, current reading of the site shows a dramatic propensity of hate style speech spewing from a few individuals using a lot of screen names...
unless asked, i am not going to state the obvious ones...take a read, ya can't miss them
at first, i was wondering if it was not the work of some deranged satirist...but that hypothesis is shaky at best...
take a wild guess which side of the political spectrum all of these "names" are advocates of?<<
You must be engaging in selective reading that rules out people like Shark, Billy, Balletshooz, MER, Liberal, Andre - and a dozen others who may actually all be the same guys posting under multiple names.
>>the really ironic part is that they pick on Mr Nalle as well...<<
That means I'm doing something right, anyway.
I was just told that Satan is going to 'vomit me out of his mouth', so I think I've made it.
Dave
51 - gonzo marx
no Mr Nalle..i am not leaving those folks out of consideration...
any honest assesment cannot possibly confuse Shark's satire with ...oh, let's just say..someone with the initials "AG" and the hateful vitriol he spews...
plenty of other examples, but i am not comfortable tossing names out...i am fairly certain that the gentle Readers out here know what i mean...even if some may feign being obtuse in these matters...
Excelsior!
52 - Dave Nalle
>>any honest assesment cannot possibly confuse Shark's satire with ...oh, let's just say..someone with the initials "AG" and the hateful vitriol he spews...<<
If you think AG is hateful you're not reading enough comments. As far as ultra right nutbags go, he's one of the more reasonable ones who are currently active.
Dave
53 - gonzo marx
and that statement just shows why actual communication between us is almost an impossibility, Mr Nalle...
or have you missed some of his takes on gay marriage?
bah...no need for me to get into this, my point has been made...
Excelsior!
54 - Dave Nalle
You're not listening, gonzo. I agreed that AG is reprehensible, but there are at least a couple of people regularly commenting who are incredibly worse.
Dave
55 - gonzo marx
on that we have agreement
Excelsior!
56 - Bob A. Booey
Who's worse than Anthony Grande? He recently got edited for threatening violence against a celebrity -- he had the entire comment removed, mind you, without even "[edited]" in its place because what he said was so stupid and so likely to get him in legal trouble.
Bambenek is a troll and says stupider things on occasion to get a reaction, but Grande may take the cake for dumbest nutjob on the site.
"Your Worst Nightmare" isn't really commenting or posting to communicate, just to call people the N-word, so I won't count him.
Who are the other two in your estimation, Dave?
That is all.
57 - Anthony Grande
Mind you guys that that celebrity Bobby is talking about is Michael Jackson. I yes eventhough I am anti-Death Penalty the man deserves not to walk this planet no longer.
And I am fattered that you guys talk about me on sites I have never even been at. Maybe someone will even blog about me!!!!!!
And I am far from a right wing nutjob or a hateful person. You just say this because I don't agree with anyone 100% of the time.
58 - Dave Nalle
>>Who's worse than Anthony Grande? He recently got edited for threatening violence against a celebrity -- he had the entire comment removed, mind you, without even "[edited]" in its place because what he said was so stupid and so likely to get him in legal trouble.<<
Anthony is at least open to discussion. Have you experienced Practical Joe or billy? Complete and utter lunatics, one from the right and one from the left.
>>Bambenek is a troll and says stupider things on occasion to get a reaction, but Grande may take the cake for dumbest nutjob on the site.<<
billy is dumber and practical joe is more insane.
And I'm not even counting those who come on to make a few really stupid comments, who are usually even worse.
And then there's Mark the Sane and Sensible who is still around under some name or other, I suspect.
Dave
59 - Bob A. Booey
Yeah, good call on Practical Joe. He said some really horrible race-baiting thing about how David Duke was unfairly treated.
And Marc the Sane and Sensible is neither of those two things, but you'd expect as much from the name. He's another one who's just trying to get a reaction, hence the goofy name.
That is all.
60 - Anthony Grande
If Marc the ss was trying to get attention by his name, then why is he posting under 20 different names???
61 - RogerMDillion
"Anthony is at least open to discussion."
Please provide one example
62 - Dave Nalle
Hey Anthony, want to consider a discussion on changing your mind about hmmm say prayer in schools? You state your position and I'll argue the other side and we'll discuss it.
Dave
63 - Luke
kids should pray in school whenever their religion requires them to, so that whoever was right won't go to hell for missing their prayers, everyone else is fucked thoe.
64 - Eric Berlin
I thought we were supposed to be remembering 9/11...
65 - Jon
I came across this web site and thought some of you may be interested in having a look.
66 - Anthony Grande
Dave, I do not think schools should have regualar prayers, but I believe if a Christian boy wants to pray he should be able to, just like the Muslim kids. This is America right?
Roger, please do not critisize my personality because I don't always agree with you.
67 - RogerMDillion
It wasn't a criticism of you, but a call for Nalle to verify a claim he made. Something that I know is foreign to you.
Give one example on BC where you have been open to discussion and changed your mind about a subject.
68 - Anthony Grande
Roger, I do not engage in an argument about a topic I don't know much about, so I do not get my mind changed that often. Name onece when your mind was changed.
And also, name one time when I wasn't open to discussion??? I always argue with you, you should know that I am very fair to my oponents, never ignoring or picking what comments to respond to and which ones I don't.
69 - Anthony Grande
Let me rephraise the first paragraph in comment #68:Roger, I do not engage in an argument about a topic that I don't feel too strongly about, so I do not get my mind changed that often. Name onece when your mind was changed.
70 - Steve S
Roger, I do not engage in an argument about a topic I don't know much about,
You engaged in the legalization of drugs argument, and showed your inexperience when you disputed that conservatives want to legalize drugs, even when the libertarian platform was shown to you.
You engage in civil rights/equality debates when you have illustrated that you are unclear as to what a civil right is exactly.
Actually, Anthony, you more readily engage in topics in which you have shown a huge lack of knowledge about the facts, rather than stick with topics you know much about. But then again, you did say you recently gravitated over from the music section, correct?
But as to when your mind was changed? You did that, remember? You have publicly stated that you now endorse same sex marriage.
71 - gonzo marx
*cough*bullshit*cough*
denial and dogmatic repitition without substantive factual citings is not a discussion..nto even an argument really
what Ant G engages in is merely the petulant squalling of a spoiled brat that cries for something without even rationally knowing the reasons why
nuff said?
Excelsior!
72 - Steve S
okay, you reworded it, admitting you blab, on topics of which you have little knowledge. Good call on your part.
73 - Anthony Grande
"and showed your inexperience when you disputed that conservatives want to legalize drugs,"
Conservatives don't want to legalize drugs. This is a LIBERTARIAN idea, just ask Dave Nalle, Libertarians are not the same thing as conservatives.
"you did say you recently gravitated over from the music section, correct?"
Yeah two years ago, but this doesn't matter because I have been political since I was about 10. I was on the handball court preaching to other 10 year olds.
"You have publicly stated that you now endorse same sex marriage."
I said I will publically endorse gay marriage as long as there are no children involved. Now last time a checked children were very much involved.
Next time Steve, do not leave out vital information.
74 - Steve S
Conservatives don't want to legalize drugs.
at the link is a libertarian who calls himself a conservative. They are both to the Right of center in the ideological spectrum. Note the end of the interview says this:
you know, ending the drug war is consistent with conservative ideals and principles. Some of the most outstanding conservatives in America support that agenda. I hope you do too.
So you are incorrect. Conservatives DO want to legalize drugs. So much so that one conservative party has made it part of their platform.
I said I will publically endorse gay marriage as long as there are no children involved.
So you are for me marrying my partner, he is after all, not a child.
75 - Anthony Grande
I am sorry Steve, but the Conservatives are not like the Liberals. We differ with each other on occasian. If a couple Conservatives support legalizing drugs doesn't mean the majority of Conservatives do.
No matter what you say a Libertarian is no Conservative. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't Dave Nalle a Libertarian??? He doesn't claim to be a conservative.
It is hard for me to believe that there are no democrats supporting legalized marijuana.
Don't you support it Steve??? Yes, Are you a Conservative??? No
Do I support it??? No, Am I a conservative??? Yes