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

[5mn_Major]

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

You seem the excitable one.

relax. You said, immigrationally was the ONLY way in which GW was liberal. I said, take a look at fiscally where he was also extremely liberal. That's all. That much is not really disputable. I'm not interested in debating how liberal (generally) other GOP presidents have been.

Facts show that GOP and conservative administrations spend at least as much as liberal administrations...if not more.

So what is beyond dispute is that W's spending is at minimum not at all 'liberal'...and while not totally aligned, liberals were against the vast majority of Bush's positions including Iraq, oil subsidies, constitutional amendments to restrict freedoms, and on it goes.

If you want to make an indisputable case...provide evidence.

[FreshFish]

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

Except for possibly immigration policy, I have yet to hear a plausable case where W was liberal in any way

GWB behaved like a classic traditional liberal in many ways:

> The reasons he gave for the liberation of Iraq were based on classical liberal theory (many people disbelieve those reasons which is a distinctly separate issue), and he worked mightily to get international backing. Russia and China agreed; it was France who vetoed UN action (after which it was discovered that a significant portion of the French government was on Saddam's payroll). About 30 countries sent some troops or military assistance.

> The Medicare part D prescription drug benefit was a liberal expansion of entitlement benefits (although it was designed using conservative economic principles; it remains the only entitlement program in which actual spending was actually lower than projected spending).

> His collaboration with Bono on AIDs aid to Africa.

> His collaboration with Ted Kennedy on No Child Left Behind.

"Liberal" and "conservative" are not mutually exclusive as they fundamentally focus on different sets of issues most of the time: liberals tend to be more concerned with who while conservatives tend to be more concerned with how.

[FreshFish]

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

liberals were against...Bush's position [on] ...Iraq

How quickly we edit our memories!

How do you explain the overwhelming votes in Congress in favor of the initial Iraq action? Something like 96 - 2 in the Senate.

And how do you explain that BHO basically has continued all of GWB's anti-terror policies unchanged?

[Kepler]

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

GWB behaved like a classic traditional liberal in many ways:

> The reasons he gave for the liberation of Iraq were based on classical liberal theory (many people disbelieve those reasons which is a distinctly separate issue), and he worked mightily to get international backing. Russia and China agreed; it was France who vetoed UN action (after which it was discovered that a significant portion of the French government was on Saddam's payroll). About 30 countries sent some troops or military assistance.

> The Medicare part D prescription drug benefit was a liberal expansion of entitlement benefits (although it was designed using conservative economic principles; it remains the only entitlement program in which actual spending was actually lower than projected spending).

> His collaboration with Bono on AIDs aid to Africa.

> His collaboration with Ted Kennedy on No Child Left Behind.

"Liberal" and "conservative" are not mutually exclusive as they fundamentally focus on different sets of issues most of the time: liberals tend to be more concerned with who while conservatives tend to be more concerned with how.

Whoa, whoa, whoa... there's a LOT of confusion in that post. Let's start with your conflation of two sets of oppositional concepts, liberal:conservative and radical:conservative. The former is a left-right divide, the latter is a fringe-center divide. Majorities tend to favor "liberal" policy, but self-identify with the "conservative" label of the latter based on the normal distribution of political opinion in this country (as opposed to some countries that are bi-modal).

Secondly, I get what you're trying to convey with the who:how distinction, but generally the classical liberal:classical conservative dichotomy is an ends:means difference. That would agree with your larger picture in some ways, however, it brings up...

Thirdly, you have a problem with time and the moving target of what has been called American "conservatism." The classical definitions of liberal and conservative, cited above, have not held in US politics for a long time. So for example "conservatives" in America have gotten very gung-ho on certain reformist, "do gooder" projects. The most dramatic (and most recent) is the migration of aggressive, unilateralist foreign policy from the "liberal" political wing to the "conservative" wing beginning with the collapse of the JKF "Cold War Liberal" regime (and not coincidentally with the migration of the neoconservative movement from 50's leftism to 80's rightwingitude). You could disown those guys with a No True Scotsman argument, but that's who has been carrying your flag since Reagan -- "you are what your record says you are."

You are also making the classic mistake of confusing the fiscal spender:saver distinction with left:right policy preferences. This is completely refuted by Republican policies of the last 30 years -- the two sides are spending neutral, the real dichotomy is taxer:borrower. Hence, the modern GOP is fine with driving up the deficit on military adventures. That goes double for maintaining a global empire to protect corporate elites. The kind of people who used to assassinate democratically-elected leaders to protect United Fruit's profits in Central America used to be on the left. Now they come from the right. I guess blood for oil is at least somewhat more palatable than blood for bananas.

Likewise, the party apparatus cheers on crony giveaways like Medicare D, energy policy, and environmental destruction. I won't defend the Dems, either, since both sides seem to have become utterly corrupted by their paymasters. But the "fiscal conservative" fig leaf fell off the GOP dong a long time ago.

[FreshFish]

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

Let's start with your conflation of two sets of oppositional concepts, liberal:conservative and radical:conservative

wrong starting point.

yes, the "how" is Radical <--> Conservative (or as you put it, the "means").
but the "who" (or as you put it, the "ends") is Liberal <--> Progressive.

or to bring more clarity,

Individual liberty <--> government authority

Free markets <--> centralized control

"Each person is endowed by the Creator with inalienable rights" <--> "The needs of the many outweigh the prerogatives of the few"

The liberal tradition is rich and textured, from Magna Carta through Locke and Jefferson to Martin Luther King Jr. and Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

The progressive tradition is generally tracked from Upton Sinclair's 1905 book The Jungle, Theodore Roosevelt, and Woodrow Wilson, though its philosophical justification can be traced all the way back to Plato and his "philosopher king."

In other words, there are centuries of lineage here for all of these four themes.

Perhaps my vocabulary is a bit stilted and formal (maybe even archaic?) which I'm told happens when one reads (and writes) in a language more frequently than one speaks in it. I am not as glib as many here and perhaps that contributes to my difficulties in expressing my thoughts in English.




PS an afterthought....each of the four traditions has something valuable if not essential to offer. Everyone can benefit from the conservative's insistence on personal integrity and reminders about human fallibility (if all people are fallible then all governments also can be fallible as they are run by people); just as everyone can benefit from the radical's insistence that we be suspicious of tradition for tradition's sake. The radical abolitionist, the radical suffragette, played essential roles in our historical advancement. The liberal's insistence on human dignity was essential to civil rights; the progressive's insistence on public health and sanitation led to dramatic improvements in human welfare. No one of the four is always right or always wrong; it seems to me a grave error in thinking to identify so strongly with only one of the four that one disregards what the other three have to offer. *


PPS it seems to me that you want to identify these four modes of political operation (which to me appear over and over again throughout history) with specific contemporary political parties. It seems to me that political parties shift allegiances based on the perceived likelihood of winning elections; which is a very different calculus entirely.





* unless one is a career politician!

[geezer]

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

You seem the excitable one.



Facts show that GOP and conservative administrations spend at least as much as liberal administrations...if not more.

So what is beyond dispute is that W's spending is at minimum not at all 'liberal'...and while not totally aligned, liberals were against the vast majority of Bush's positions including Iraq, oil subsidies, constitutional amendments to restrict freedoms, and on it goes.

If you want to make an indisputable case...provide evidence.

well.. if you're calling recent GOP administrations "conservative" by definition, then we're just right back to arguing over how to define the word, so it doesn't matter. I'll let the smart people talk about it.

i.e. "GOP administrations spend at least as much as Democratic administrations if not more" is true, while "conservative administrations spend at least as much as liberal administrations if not more", to me, is an oxymoron. You see where this goes. Disagreement over a definition. If you compare "GOP" to "liberal" you're comparing apples and oranges because one is a political party and one is an attitude of conservation.

[Plante26]

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

well.. if you're calling recent GOP administrations "conservative" by definition, then we're just right back to arguing over how to define the word, so it doesn't matter. I'll let the smart people talk about it.

i.e. "GOP administrations spend at least as much as Democratic administrations if not more" is true, while "conservative administrations spend at least as much as liberal administrations if not more", to me, is an oxymoron. You see where this goes. Disagreement over a definition. If you compare "GOP" to "liberal" you're comparing apples and oranges because one is a political party and one is an attitude of conservation.

So what you're saying is that just because someone is called a conservative doesn't necessarily mean that they are one? Which means that our politicians as of late could be considered liberal and more liberal?

If you're really quiet, you'll hear Rover's head exploding.

[FlagDUDE08]

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

So what you're saying is that just because someone is called a conservative doesn't necessarily mean that they are one? Which means that our politicians as of late could be considered liberal and more liberal?

If you're really quiet, you'll hear Rover's head exploding.

You pretty much have it right. The only conservative in DC these days is Ron Paul, maybe also Rand Paul (but I haven't seen his record).

[ScoobyDoo]

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

You pretty much have it right. The only conservative in DC these days is Ron Paul, maybe also Rand Paul (but I haven't seen his record).

And yet the conservatives are nominating Mitt Romney? Why is that when their are CLEAR alternatives running. Santorum reflects their values much more than Mitt does. So does Newt.

The entire GOP and everyone who calls themselves a conservative is complicit in this sham nomination process going on right now.

[Plante26]

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

And yet the conservatives are nominating Mitt Romney? Why is that when their are CLEAR alternatives running. Santorum reflects their values much more than Mitt does. So does Newt.

The entire GOP and everyone who calls themselves a conservative is complicit in this sham nomination process going on right now.

There's a difference between a Republican and a conservative. Not that it matters, because self-identification and labeling have pretty much proven to be pointless--as proven by politicians on a daily basis.

Not to mention that this election for many people is less about specific issues and more about defeating Obama. Just like every environmentalist doesn't vote Green Party, not every conservative will vote for Newt or Santorum.

[ScoobyDoo]

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

Not to mention that this election for many people is less about specific issues and more about defeating Obama. Just like every environmentalist doesn't vote Green Party, not every conservative will vote for Newt or Santorum.

That's not the same thing. The idiots that voted green in 2000 cost the liberal the election. This is the nomination process. This is the opportunity for your party to pick the candidate you want. And their failing.

Mitt Romney is going to get killed in the debates. Worse than McCain. The only "Democrats" that will vote for him are voting for his hair.

[TimP]

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

The only "Democrats" that will vote for him are voting for his hair.

And even that pales in comparison to John Edwards.

[Plante26]

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

That's not the same thing. The idiots that voted green in 2000 cost the liberal the election. This is the nomination process. This is the opportunity for your party to pick the candidate you want. And their failing.

Mitt Romney is going to get killed in the debates. Worse than McCain. The only "Democrats" that will vote for him are voting for his hair.

It is exactly the same thing. Just on a different level. People voting for the candidate they think can win as opposed to voting for the candidate most-closely aligned with their beliefs.

......which brings me to my next point: It has become quite popular to cross over in primaries and vote for the candidate you want to lose. Who's to say that isn't happening again? I have heard liberal organizations encouraging their supporters to get out and infiltrate the Repub primaries.

[ScoobyDoo]

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

It is exactly the same thing. Just on a different level. People voting for the candidate they think can win as opposed to voting for the candidate most-closely aligned with their beliefs.

......which brings me to my next point: It has become quite popular to cross over in primaries and vote for the candidate you want to lose. Who's to say that isn't happening again? I have heard liberal organizations encouraging their supporters to get out and infiltrate the Repub primaries.

No, not it's not. If Dems are voting their voting for Gingrich or Santorum. Romney can't run on Business and he can't run on Health Care so I fail to see why they think he's electable. He's got the look I guess. He needs to ask Roxette for permission to make that his campaign theme song.

[Bakunin]

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

Mitt Romney is going to get killed in the debates.

You say that as if it matters.

What happens with the economy and Iran over the next 7 months is what will determine the outcome of the election - not a couple dudes verbally sparring with each other in a carefully scripted environment two or three times.