Obama XXIII: The Muslin Anti-Christ Wages War on the forces of Christianity!

[LynahFan]

Re: Obama XXIII: The Muslin Anti-Christ Wages War on the forces of Christianity!

Then your larger-er (largest?) point is that the 2009 bump was the world's gasp of relief when the US vomited Cheney and his ilk back to the editorial pages of NRO.

The US will never be loved while we are a global empire. The arrogance and bumbling of the prior administration, and the kind of eftardery emanating from the current GOP clown car, promoted a cartoon view of America ("Try and stop us"). Obama has presided while we returned to our normal place in the world, which means particular regimes and interest groups will still use us as a scapegoat.

Exactamundo.

I definitely participated in that gasp of relief, though I never really crossed over into the irrational exuberance displayed by some, including Obama himself:

"I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth."

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Obama XXIII: The Muslin Anti-Christ Wages War on the forces of Christianity!

For the record, my "liberals" comment was sarcasm.

rotflmao

Says the guy who thinks Obama is a conservative.

[jmh]

Re: Obama XXIII: The Muslin Anti-Christ Wages War on the forces of Christianity!

*****http://pewresearch.org/assets/publications/2059-3.png******

I'm amused by the 1% approval rating in Jordan in 2003.

[Priceless]

Re: Obama XXIII: The Muslin Anti-Christ Wages War on the forces of Christianity!

Romney, Christie, Paul Ryan, they are all mainstream liberals, one of the main reasons why they are having so much trouble gaining traction with the Republican party as a whole.

.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama XXIII: The Muslin Anti-Christ Wages War on the forces of Christianity!

For the record, my "liberals" comment was sarcasm.



Says the guy who thinks Obama is a conservative.

He's to the right of George W. Bush. That was my argument.

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama XXIII: The Muslin Anti-Christ Wages War on the forces of Christianity!

Then your larger-er (largest?) point is that the 2009 bump was the world's gasp of relief when the US vomited Cheney and his ilk back to the editorial pages of NRO.

The US will never be loved while we are a global empire. The arrogance and bumbling of the prior administration, and the kind of eftardery emanating from the current GOP clown car, promoted a cartoon view of America ("Try and stop us"). Obama has presided while we returned to our normal place in the world, which means particular regimes and interest groups will still use us as a scapegoat.

I'm guessing you'd approve of dusting off the Morgenthau Plan and applying to us, instead of Germany.

[Slap Shot]

Re: Obama XXIII: The Muslin Anti-Christ Wages War on the forces of Christianity!

fwiw (very little?) I felt safe as hell in the Middle East in the mid-90's the year I was there and I wasn't on a US base. Although that reminds me of something...

In 1996 over the 4th, I and friends went to our favorite pub and when we walked into the billiards room on the blackboard was written, "Happy US Independence Day" in English and Arabic. Good feelings following GW1 still lingered and aside from the usual English puffs that felt it necessary to verbally joust for any excuse, most Middle Easterners and non-US expats were in good cheer. Later we were lucky enough to be allowed on the US base for the day to enjoy fireworks, hot dogs and goddamit a Bud or two or three...

[Gurtholfin]

Re: Obama XXIII: The Muslin Anti-Christ Wages War on the forces of Christianity!

Romney, Christie, Paul Ryan, they are all mainstream liberals, one of the main reasons why they are having so much trouble gaining traction with the Republican party as a whole.

As ridiculous as this statement appears (is), it is shared by many conservatives. Many years ago I got into an argument with a ditto-head (self-proclaimed and strangely proud of it ) friend of mine when I told him that I liked McCain and he said, that's because he's a liberal and you (meaning me) are a liberal.

I said, he's not liberal, he may be a moderate Republican, but he's far from being a liberal. His response? If you're not a true conservative (meaning far right), you are a liberal. And since I am not far right, I also am a liberal.

We went back and forth and as far as he was concerned, McCain = Pelosi.

This kind of all-or-nothing attitude alienates a lot of people like me who would vote for a moderate Republican if I thought he/she was the best option. In fact, back when they existed, I voted for moderate Republicans several times.

The current GOP's strategy of eliminating any and all moderates and refusing to compromise continues to disgust me as I believe that our government works best when power is shared/balanced and both sides are forced to compromise. At least that used to work well until this bat-**** crazy Teabag party came along.

FF - you say that Ryan is a liberal? And that's why he can't get traction? If that's the case, then about 75% of Americans are liberal, and that's why a nut-job like Santorum will never, ever win the presidency. Thank God.

[walrus]

Re: Obama XXIII: The Muslin Anti-Christ Wages War on the forces of Christianity!

), it is shared by many conservatives..

As far as spending is concerned, they aren't conservatives

[FreshFish]

Re: Obama XXIII: The Muslin Anti-Christ Wages War on the forces of Christianity!

FF - you say that Ryan is a liberal? And that's why he can't get traction? If that's the case, then about 75% of Americans are liberal.

I'd say about 75% of US voters are liberal and also that about 75% of US voters are conservative because in real life these are not mutually exclusive terms. Only political fanatics obsessed with party in-fighting think that you can only be one or the other, regular folk are quite comfortable being both at the same time with no discomfort at all.

The liberal tradition extends from Locke to Jefferson to Martin Luther King Jr to Daniel Patrick Moynihan and stresses (1) individual liberty, (2) free markets, (3) the potential worth and value of each person. The antithesis to the liberal is the totalitarian. Today, the fashionable term for totalitarian is "progressive": we know what's best for you better than you know yourself; we must control every aspect of your life for your own good.

Conservative tradition runs from Burke to Franklin and the drafters of the Constitution to John Paul II and stresses (1) respect the wisdom of your elders, (2) individual responsibility and initiative, and (3) all human beings are fallible, hence the need for separation of powers and checks and balances. The antithesis to the conservative is the radical. As Karl Marx might say, "'Tradition' is merely a tool used by those in power to oppress the rest of us; government is a tool of the elite used to keep the masses in check." If Karl Marx were alive today, he'd be an ardent supporter of the Tea Party; he understood with perfect clarity that no government "cares" about regular people, the only thing that people in government care about is remaining in power.

The etymology of "liberal" is from "liberty."

Interestingly, "conservation" and "conservative" have the same etymology. Many sound environmental policies come from hunters and fishers! For example; with the elimination of natural predators, ungulates would over-breed, over-graze, and then have huge death rates due to the resulting food shortages; hence the use of Dept of Conservation personnel to survey game populations and determine how many hunting permits to issue each year, in order to maintain a stable and healthy ungulate population.

This potent combination of liberal AND conservative explains the domestic appeal of Reagan's political coalition, and the astounding success that Reagan / Thatcher / John Paul II had in winning the Cold War: they made liberty and freedom such a strong moral issue that the Communist leaders came to quail at the prospect of suppressing their own people by violent force. By a direct appeal to both the liberal and the conservative tradition they made an enormously effective force.

Ironically, the reason that Reagan decided to win the Cold War was because, when he became President, he became responsible for our nuclear arsenal. He found the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction to be morally repugnant, not to mention crazy as well. It was his principled rejection of M.A.D. that "forced" him to find another way to end the stalemate.

Now I realize that Reagan was no saint and there are lots of grounds from which to criticize him; at the same time, there IS a widespread consensus among historians (they hold a vote every ten years or so on the greatest presidents, and of course Washington is always # 1, and deservedly so) that Reagan is one of the five best Presidents we've had. So don't argue with me, go out and argue with them.

For those of you too young to remember the 1970s, you have no idea how much he changed the mood and the course of our nation. There's a lot of revisionist history going around these days in which people rewrite what happened after the fact in order retroactively to suit a prevailing present-day narrative, even though said narrative did not even exist at the time the original events were occuring.

[BassAle]

Re: Obama XXIII: The Muslin Anti-Christ Wages War on the forces of Christianity!

there IS a widespread consensus among historians (they hold a vote every ten years or so on the greatest presidents, and of course Washington is always # 1, and deservedly so) that Reagan is one of the five best Presidents we've had.

Speaking of Reagan. Conservatives like to talk about how they are a "Reagan conservative" -- the guy is basically their patron saint, yet today he would be too liberal for them. He believed that the tax rate for capital gains and labor income should be the same. He also raised taxes several times -- something that is basically impossible now. How many people actually think the payroll tax holiday isn't going to become permanent? All it is now is a tool for the parties to use against each other so they can accuse the other party of wanting to raise taxes on the middle class if they don't go along with a bill to extend it. We are being taxed the lowest as a percentage of GDP in our lifetimes, yet the republicans are convincing people that taxes are too high.

[5mn_Major]

Re: Obama XXIII: The Muslin Anti-Christ Wages War on the forces of Christianity!

Remember the good old days when I admired pretty much just GOP politicians in our state. Dave Durenburger, Arne Carlson. Guys of moderation, pragmatic solutions and consensus building. I feel like the state was swamped by some national body snatcher epidemic. These guys don't even make it to our elections any more.

Now I realize that Reagan was no saint and there are lots of grounds from which to criticize him; at the same time, there IS a widespread consensus among historians (they hold a vote every ten years or so on the greatest presidents, and of course Washington is always # 1, and deservedly so) that Reagan is one of the five best Presidents we've had. So don't argue with me, go out and argue with them.

Not to quibble with your point. But...

Lincoln is easily the top rated president (and in my opinion, rightfully so). Recently Washington has slipped to third behind FDR. Although initially Reagan was not given much credit ...over the last decade, he's been typically considered about our 10th best president.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histori..._United_States

[FreshFish]

Re: Obama XXIII: The Muslin Anti-Christ Wages War on the forces of Christianity!

Not to quibble with your point. But...

Lincoln is easily the top rated president (and in my opinion, rightfully so). Recently Washington has slipped to third behind FDR. Although initially Reagan was not given much credit ...over the last decade, he's been typically considered about our 10th best president.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histori..._United_States

Very interesting, thanks for posting that!

Whatever my source was, it wasn't included in any of the surveys mentioned in that Wikipedia article...in the source, I recall that all participants agreed that for GHWB, Clinton and GWB it was still "too soon to tell" as not enough time had passed to assess the long-term consequences of those Presidencies, and so they were not even rated at all (these were historians, not political scientists which also participated in some of the surveys cited). Even Reagan was almost "too recent" except that his dismantling of M.A.D. was regarded as such an extraordinary achievement they felt that they had to make note of it. Perhaps it was "greatest Presidential accomplishment" or something and not the entirety of the Presidency that was being assessed? (Chester Arthur was 8th*, I think). I'd have to check my paper files and they are still in storage from our last move..

Washington was first for the example he set and the way he inspired confidence that the new government in fact would succeed where the previous government had failed (we today cannot fully comprehend how extraordinary that was for those times), Jefferson was second for two things, one of which was the Louisiana purchase, Lincoln was third for preventing the Confederacy from withdrawing from the Union, FDR was a disputed fourth, many of the people surveyed wanted to rate him lower for his questionable economic policies and his attempt to change the number of justices on the Supreme Court, except that his foresight and persistence in preparing the US for war against Hitler won them over, and Reagan was fifth, primarily for ending M.A.D. and also for reinvigorating a moribund national spirit. Eisenhower was sixth for the interstate expressway system, which was very important to the economic boom that followed.


* Arthur was an "accidental President," a career political hack put on the ticket as Vice-President for typical horse-trading vote-getting reasons. Then Garfield was assassinated and Arthur suddenly was President. When his cronies expected him to lavish patronage on them, he said basically "no, the office has a responsibility to the nation as a whole" and he signed the Civil Service Act creating an apolitical career bureaucracy in which hiring and position were based on merit and ability to do the job and were not subject to political affiliation. Of course his own party dumped him after that and he did not even have a chance to run for re-election.

[Priceless]

Re: Obama XXIII: The Muslin Anti-Christ Wages War on the forces of Christianity!

Very interesting, thanks for posting that!

Whatever my source was,

Did it happen the be the Heritage Foundation or Hoover Institute?

[duper]

Re: Obama XXIII: The Muslin Anti-Christ Wages War on the forces of Christianity!

I'd say about 75% of US voters are liberal and also that about 75% of US voters are conservative because in real life these are not mutually exclusive terms. Only political fanatics obsessed with party in-fighting think that you can only be one or the other, regular folk are quite comfortable being both at the same time with no discomfort at all.

The liberal tradition extends from Locke to Jefferson to Martin Luther King Jr to Daniel Patrick Moynihan and stresses (1) individual liberty, (2) free markets, (3) the potential worth and value of each person. The antithesis to the liberal is the totalitarian. Today, the fashionable term for totalitarian is "progressive": we know what's best for you better than you know yourself; we must control every aspect of your life for your own good.

Conservative tradition runs from Burke to Franklin and the drafters of the Constitution to John Paul II and stresses (1) respect the wisdom of your elders, (2) individual responsibility and initiative, and (3) all human beings are fallible, hence the need for separation of powers and checks and balances. The antithesis to the conservative is the radical. As Karl Marx might say, "'Tradition' is merely a tool used by those in power to oppress the rest of us; government is a tool of the elite used to keep the masses in check." If Karl Marx were alive today, he'd be an ardent supporter of the Tea Party; he understood with perfect clarity that no government "cares" about regular people, the only thing that people in government care about is remaining in power.

The etymology of "liberal" is from "liberty."

Interestingly, "conservation" and "conservative" have the same etymology. Many sound environmental policies come from hunters and fishers! For example; with the elimination of natural predators, ungulates would over-breed, over-graze, and then have huge death rates due to the resulting food shortages; hence the use of Dept of Conservation personnel to survey game populations and determine how many hunting permits to issue each year, in order to maintain a stable and healthy ungulate population.

This potent combination of liberal AND conservative explains the domestic appeal of Reagan's political coalition, and the astounding success that Reagan / Thatcher / John Paul II had in winning the Cold War: they made liberty and freedom such a strong moral issue that the Communist leaders came to quail at the prospect of suppressing their own people by violent force. By a direct appeal to both the liberal and the conservative tradition they made an enormously effective force.

Ironically, the reason that Reagan decided to win the Cold War was because, when he became President, he became responsible for our nuclear arsenal. He found the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction to be morally repugnant, not to mention crazy as well. It was his principled rejection of M.A.D. that "forced" him to find another way to end the stalemate.

Now I realize that Reagan was no saint and there are lots of grounds from which to criticize him; at the same time, there IS a widespread consensus among historians (they hold a vote every ten years or so on the greatest presidents, and of course Washington is always # 1, and deservedly so) that Reagan is one of the five best Presidents we've had. So don't argue with me, go out and argue with them.

For those of you too young to remember the 1970s, you have no idea how much he changed the mood and the course of our nation. There's a lot of revisionist history going around these days in which people rewrite what happened after the fact in order retroactively to suit a prevailing present-day narrative, even though said narrative did not even exist at the time the original events were occuring.

I hate this post, for one simple reason. In what is otherwise a very reasonable post in which you make some very well-taken points, you also called me and most of my friends, and millions of other Americans "totalitarians," and you did it in such an unassuming way that some people might totally miss the utter insanity of it.

Progressive is a fashionable term for totalitarian? That's so f-ing crazy I can't even begin to process it.