[Firekite]

CommanderSock wrote:

Bush is a fool and an ideologue.

Who isn't, at least the latter? I mean, Obama ran his campaign specifically on that basis.

CommanderSock wrote:

You beleive that your moral authority to make women have no choice for their bodies exceeds all other issues? Hm.....i see..

Don't be an utter jackass. For those who believe abortion kills children, your statement is offensive and monstrous. You disagree, I know, but your statement is a terribly inaccurate spin job, and you know it. That's not what they think they're doing.

Quote:

I will always remain puzzled as to how a person would vote in someone who they have doubts about, someone who has the authority to create policies that affect not only people in your own country, but those outside of it.

So every person you've ever voted for you had no doubts whatsoever about that person or any of their policies? You've been 100% in lockstep as them being the perfect candidate?

Quote:

Policies that can cause the death of hundreds and thousands of innocent civilians. Policies that can help, hundreds, and thousands of civilians. Policies that affect the lives of millions across the globe.
You hand the keys of the world's greatest military force to an executive over a single issue?
The right to choose whether or not black people have basic human rights? This, is fucking absurd!

Is it really? While I may disagree with their stance, I can certainly see where they're coming from if they believe the way they do. Notice what I did there with that last line. Because if you substitute any major issue you happen believe in (and if you're a white supremacist just choose another issue to insert there), it can sway how you think about it.

Quote:

Bush governed from the right.

He did not. He spent like a Democrat. Did he ban abortion? Did he crack down on companies who were exploiting wetbacks? Did he make it illegal to not go to church? Did he really accomplish anything sought after by this hyperbolic caricature the left has created for the right's demonization? Do you even know what "the right" even is?

And as far as letting freaks in the party, you'd best be tending to your own fences before you complain that the wolves are getting in your neighbor's land.

CommanderSock wrote:

I am talking about Immigration. Bush personally believes in having the extra labour. He believes in granting a sort of amnesty to immigrants. This is what Bush believed! Many Democrats are also pro immigration.

There are several things you need to get straight. I know of nobody who would consider themselves a Republican who are anti immigration. Where would you come up with something like that? And Bush believed in whatever he had to say to get him the hispanic vote, which turned out to be very important. These days you promise each group what they want to hear regardless of whether it's the right thing to do or whether it's good for the country. You play groups off each other and try to make the one that matters most in the voting to think you're the one on their side. The idea of a completely open border and instant citizenship for anyone in the world who wants it is an example of one of those things that few other than some extreme wingnuts on the left actually believe in, but it's something that people can pay lip service to because they know it'll never happen, as we won't allow something like that in that will destroy the US.

Quote:

If only Bush had the courage to do this.

Um...what? You just got through saying the Democrats controlled both houses of congress, which is where laws come from, but Bush is the one that's weak and cowardly for not signing an amnesty bill that never made it to his desk? I'm glad the Democrats in the congress were smart enough not to think that would be a good idea, to be honest.

[Taospark]

CommanderSock wrote:

Bush is a fool and an ideologue. His constant propagation of right wing policies has back fired on him.

Republican party is now catering more to wing nuts and evangelicals than the common centre and fiscal conservatives.

Barry Goldwater warned against letting the freaks in the party.

That's not entirely true. He wasn't one of the "freaks"; he just let them in when he opened the door for them.

Besides, it wasn't so much him but the Nixonian Vice President (quite literally) which damaged the country's powerful military and diplomatic position. Most of Bush's administration barring Ashcroft weren't "wingnuts"; they were the product of four decades of Republican Presidential administrations so you can't marginalize the very mainstream of the party itself.

[CommanderSock]

Quote:

Who isn't, at least the latter? I mean, Obama ran his campaign specifically on that basis.

He ran his campaign on change.

Quote:

Don't be an utter jackass. For those who believe abortion kills children, your statement is offensive and monstrous. You disagree, I know, but your statement is a terribly inaccurate spin job, and you know it. That's not what they think they're doing.

They're getting in the way of someone else's right to choose what to do with their bodies. It has nothing to do with them. Don't like abortions? Don't have one!

Quote:

So every person you've ever voted for you had no doubts whatsoever about that person or any of their policies? You've been 100% in lockstep as them being the perfect candidate?

So you will vote for a candidate that is at odds about every issue that concerns you other than abortion? Which happens to be the decisive issue? Is that it?

Quote:

Is it really? While I may disagree with their stance, I can certainly see where they're coming from if they believe the way they do. Notice what I did there with that last line. Because if you substitute any major issue you happen believe in (and if you're a white supremacist just choose another issue to insert there), it can sway how you think about it.

I get where're you're coming from. However the status of an unborn fetus is a controversial matter. Whites, blacks, Orientals whatever... once a human is born...they have feelings, are generally independent (even children), they are, in the difinitive term are "cognitive". I mean, fetuses didn't rebel in Jamaica and Haiti and kill their womb masters! It was slaves who knew they were oppressed. (And it was coming in the south). There is no issue that I care about other than logical issues that affect me and my family personally. I beleive in equal rights and justice for all human beings, including people with permanent cognitive disabilites. I beleive we all need to be given a chance. However, do you ever question why people have abortions? Maybe it was better that they were unborn. Perhaps the child would have been born into poverty. Yes, we may have missed a few Einsteins, but I'm sure we also missed a few Paul Bernardos too.

Quote:

He did not. He spent like a Democrat. Did he ban abortion? Did he crack down on companies who were exploiting wetbacks? Did he make it illegal to not go to church? Did he really accomplish anything sought after by this hyperbolic caricature the left has created for the right's demonization? Do you even know what "the right" even is?

And as far as letting freaks in the party, you'd best be tending to your own fences before you complain that the wolves are getting in your neighbor's land.

He spent like a foolish Neocon. He rolled back on social spending for students. He spent like a Democrat on the war. Reagan spent like a democrat on the military too, but he was smart enough not to be dragged into two wars (sign of our times of course, do call for different measures).


As for letting the freaks into the party, I'm just telling you that courting the evangelical vote by legislative carrots was warned against by Mr. Goldwater who was a very smart and pragmatic individual. In other words, he knew his shit!

Quote:

There are several things you need to get straight. I know of nobody who would consider themselves a Republican who are anti immigration.

Are we talking about the same country here?

Quote:

Um...what? You just got through saying the Democrats controlled both houses of congress, which is where laws come from, but Bush is the one that's weak and cowardly for not signing an amnesty bill that never made it to his desk? I'm glad the Democrats in the congress were smart enough not to think that would be a good idea, to be honest.

That means shit. A president is supposed to work hard with congress to pass through bills that he beleives in. LBJ did it with the civil rights bill. Bush had his chance, he's either too fucking lazy to get off his ass and make it happen, or weak, I prefer to think it's the latter, although the former makes sense too.

Quote:

Besides, it wasn't so much him but the Nixonian Vice President (quite literally) which damaged the country's powerful military and diplomatic position. Most of Bush's administration barring Ashcroft weren't "wingnuts"; they were the product of four decades of Republican Presidential administrations so you can't marginalize the very mainstream of the party itself.

So it is an All-Star team that let their egos get in the way of reason? Or was it just terrible policy making?

[CommanderSock]

I'd like to add to that. I'm ecstatic that Obama will use his executive power to turn back some of Bush's vetoes, most importantly, Federal Stem Cell Research. Kudos Barack.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/us_ ... 718949.stm

[Psudo]

CommanderSock wrote:

Quote:

Bush ran a work-across-the-aisles campaign, too. In fact, he actually did work with Democrats on issues like immigration and No Child Left Behind. What makes you think Obama won't do the same, work across the aisle on a few issues and stand his ground on big, controversial issues (like Iraq, in Bush's case)? Isn't that standard operating procedure for federal politicians?

Bush governed from the right.

I'm not disputing that. I'm saying Bush promised, just as Obama did, to work across the aisle. In his own words, he intended to be "a uniter, not a divider". And he has some superficial ways in which he did so. But on the things he actually cared about, he was as ideological as a man can be.

Another example: Bush sided with the Democrats against the Republicans in favor of the Dubai Ports deal.

Obama's rhetoric is just like Bush's in that sense (except that Obama is more charismatic). What's to stop Obama from doing the same thing, work across the aisle superficially on minor issues and clinging tightly to ideology in the major issues of the day?

[CommanderSock]

Psudo wrote:

Obama's rhetoric is just like Bush's in that sense (except that Obama is more charismatic). What's to stop Obama from doing the same thing, work across the aisle superficially on minor issues and clinging tightly to ideology in the major issues of the day?

If Obama does that and fucks up as bad as Bush has, i'll be talking shit about him too. Like all leaders who are recently elected, we put our faith in their judgment. It is not guaranteed that judgment will serve them right, or, that they know how to use it effectively in difficult situations.

The cabinet he picks will be an early indication of his partisanship and a testament to his willingness to reach across the aisle.

[Firekite]

CommanderSock wrote:

Quote:

Who isn't, at least the latter? I mean, Obama ran his campaign specifically on that basis.

He ran his campaign on change.

OK, thanks for your insightful analysis and rebuttal

Quote:

They're getting in the way of someone else's right to choose what to do with their bodies. It has nothing to do with them.

That's your stance, yes, but it's not theirs. Their stance is that the choice of what to do with their bodies ended when they chose to have sex and subsequently conceived. Then it involves someone else's body, the body of the child. Whether you agree with it or not (I don't), your continued repetition of unreasonable bullshit isn't going to help your case and your refusal to deal with it logically makes you just as bad.

Quote:

Quote:

So every person you've ever voted for you had no doubts whatsoever about that person or any of their policies? You've been 100% in lockstep as them being the perfect candidate?

So you will vote for a candidate that is at odds about every issue that concerns you other than abortion?

You didn't answer the question. You said you can't understand voting for a candidate about which you have any doubts. I call BS on that.

By the way, trying to justify your stance on abortion either way is unlikely to yield anything helpful here. I doubt I'll convince anyone, and at the same time I doubt they'll convince me.

Quote:

Quote:

He spent like a Democrat.

He spent like a foolish Neocon. He rolled back on social spending for students.

Since when is a Democrat "a foolish Neocon"? What are you talking about rolling back on social spending for students? And how could that be the entire justification for your accusations and invective about "governing from the right"?

Quote:

As for letting the freaks into the party, I'm just telling you that courting the evangelical vote by legislative carrots was warned against by Mr. Goldwater who was a very smart and pragmatic individual. In other words, he knew his shit!

Would you agree that the same would apply to all the fringe groups on the left?

Quote:

Quote:

There are several things you need to get straight. I know of nobody who would consider themselves a Republican who are anti immigration.

Are we talking about the same country here?

I'm talking about the US. If you have nothing intelligent to add, just concede the point and move on. Using terms like "anti-immigration" is just as stupid as talking about "pro-America" parts of the country. It's not accurate, and anyone with even a shred of intellectual honesty will recognize that. The best you can offer would be that someone could be against border jumping, illegal immigration, whatever you want to call it, but that doesn't sound nearly as unreasonable as you wish it did, does it?

Quote:

Quote:

Um...what? You just got through saying the Democrats controlled both houses of congress, which is where laws come from, but Bush is the one that's weak and cowardly for not signing an amnesty bill that never made it to his desk?

That means shit.

Well apparently not to someone who's just a shill for their chosen party. Or are you a True Believer? Are you really so incapable of objective observation? Honestly, I've kind of given up hope of a rational, constructive discussion with you.

[Psudo]

CommanderSock wrote:

If Obama does that and fucks up as bad as Bush has, i'll be talking shit about him too.

By that do you mean "If Obama becomes as partisan as Bush was" or "if Obama sees as many failed projects as Bush did"? In other words, will you criticize Obama if he effectively pursues controversial goals you and he share by defying and ignoring the opposition's views and breaking his promises of bipartisanship?

[CommanderSock]

Quote:

That's your stance, yes, but it's not theirs. Their stance is that the choice of what to do with their bodies ended when they chose to have sex and subsequently conceived. Then it involves someone else's body, the body of the child. Whether you agree with it or not (I don't), your continued repetition of unreasonable bullshit isn't going to help your case and your refusal to deal with it logically makes you just as bad.

Your repetition of an assenenine dogma isn't helping yours. But this can go into tailspin and there is no longer reason for arguing about it.

Quote:

That's your stance, yes, but it's not theirs. Their stance is that the choice of what to do with their bodies ended when they chose to have sex and subsequently conceived. Then it involves someone else's body, the body of the child. Whether you agree with it or not (I don't), your continued repetition of unreasonable bullshit isn't going to help your case and your refusal to deal with it logically makes you just as bad.

Then it is an impasse!

Quote:

Quote:

He spent like a foolish Neocon. He rolled back on social spending for students.

Since when is a Democrat "a foolish Neocon"? What are you talking about rolling back on social spending for students? And how could that be the entire justification for your accusations and invective about "governing from the right"?

Who said a democrat was a 'foolish Neocon'? We're talking about Republican G W Bush.

As for government from the right?

Let's see...stem cell veto? Climate change? Tax reform? Bankruptcy act? Veto for the child health act? Ideology ideology.....

Quote:

I'm talking about the US. If you have nothing intelligent to add, just concede the point and move on. Using terms like "anti-immigration" is just as stupid as talking about "pro-America" parts of the country. It's not accurate, and anyone with even a shred of intellectual honesty will recognize that. The best you can offer would be that someone could be against border jumping, illegal immigration, whatever you want to call it, but that doesn't sound nearly as unreasonable as you wish it did, does it?

Quote:

Would you agree that the same would apply to all the fringe groups on the left?

Such as?

Anti-immigration was perhaps not the right choice of words. Republicans were overwhelmingly against the Immigration Reform Act of 2006. There is no point going any further regarding US immigration as it is a can of worms.

Quote:

Well apparently not to someone who's just a shill for their chosen party. Or are you a True Believer? Are you really so incapable of objective observation? Honestly, I've kind of given up hope of a rational, constructive discussion with you.

You're blinded by ideology. If you have given up find something else to do.

[CommanderSock]

Psudo wrote:

CommanderSock wrote:

If Obama does that and fucks up as bad as Bush has, i'll be talking shit about him too.

By that do you mean "If Obama becomes as partisan as Bush was" or "if Obama sees as many failed projects as Bush did"? In other words, will you criticize Obama if he effectively pursues controversial goals you and he share by defying and ignoring the opposition's views and breaking his promises of bipartisanship?

Nope. The circumstances for Obama and Bush are different.

Reads more like "If Obama breaks shit fucks up as badly as Bush did."

Needless to say Obama will need to bend over on some issues. A friendly congress is a key to a president.

[Psudo]

So it's not Bush's unilateral partisanship you oppose, but which ideology he embraces. You don't care if Obama is partisan and abandons any pretense of cooperation between parties so long as he doesn't invade Iraq. Is that it?

Obama is the rockstar of the party controlling 2/3rds of the legislature; I doubt he'll have to do much bending over in order to get their approval for his plans.

[Taospark]

My eyes. They bleed.

[CanadianJeff]

You know I just honestly hope that some day America sees a more centralist party. I'm tried of seeing the extreme right wing evangelicals and the conservative moderates duke it out while the Democrats slide between socialism and moderate libertarianism.

What America really needs is just what Psudo is arguing for. A president willing to reach across the isle and listen. My only question is simple.

Why not a president that walks in-between the isle with open hands and an open mind?

[Psudo]

I am in no way advocating a cross-the-aisles centrist. I'm advocating the position that there's no reason to believe Obama will be one.

I have a very precise ideology -- a very specific brand of diversity-loving conservatism -- and I prefer it to centrism. I believe in tolerant, rational persuasion over compromise and even over my own ideology; if you disagree with me rationally enough, I'll abandon my ideology in favor of yours. I favor an educated, intelligent mind closed tightly on the best answer because it's the best answer than a mind open to compromises with a hundred mutually exclusive answers.

Sure, I dislike political parties and partisanship because they operate with party loyalty where their brains should be. The quality of ideas should be the ultimate authority, not party affiliation or popularity contests. But I reject the notion that the best answers reside in the center and are best determined by the application of compromise. The best answers reside wherever they reside, and are best determined by the application of rational consideration! Pluralistic democracy is great at finding such answers, so I support it.

My ideology is the set of answers I currently believe are true. My mind can change. Maybe there's some fantastic solution to some problem hidden away in some otherwise detestable ideology. The ideal President should be willing to listen to all comers in hopes of finding such gems in the mud. Compassion, friendliness, charisma, all matter for those reasons. But when some emergency strikes, I prefer a President who already knows how to respond or at least knows where to look for objective answers. A President who can't determine a solution to a problem without consulting polls is a useless waste.

[CommanderSock]

Psudo wrote:

So it's not Bush's unilateral partisanship you oppose, but which ideology he embraces. You don't care if Obama is partisan and abandons any pretense of cooperation between parties so long as he doesn't invade Iraq. Is that it?

Wrong. Try again. You just keep missing the point.

Let us for example start with a balance budget for 2010. At least, something close to one.