[rontal85]

As for The Greenland remark:

Etymology
Sister project Look up greenland in
Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

The name Greenland comes from Scandinavian settlers. In the Icelandic sagas, it is said that Norwegian-born Erik the Red was exiled from Iceland for murder. He, along with his extended family and thralls, set out in ships to find the land that was rumoured to be to the northwest. After settling there, he named the land Grænland ("Greenland").[23] Greenland was also called Gruntland ("Ground-land") and Engronelant (or Engroneland) on early maps. Whether green is an erroneous transcription of grunt ("ground"), which refers to shallow bays, or vice versa, is not known. The southern portion of Greenland (not covered by glacier) is indeed very green in the summer and was likely to have been even greener in Erik's time because of the Medieval Warm Period.

The above is taken directly from the Greenland Etymology section on Wikipedia...

Greenland was discovered during the Medieval Warm Period, which was actually somewhat warmer than our current conditions. Current climate is certainly not unprecedented.

As for Limbaugh, I actually heard his full remarks... He wants Obama to fail in Implementing his policies... not for his policies to fail...

But what can I say, everyone gets their snips of what republicans are saying or what goes on at Fox News from secondary sources without actually checking it out for themselves...

[CaliShark]

Psudo: Obama already rescinded the ban on destroyed fetus stem cell research a few weeks ago. I heard an entire report on NPR, plus the amusing side-story of how fetal stem cell research had not lead to any scientific developments. Apparently, adult induced stem cells are the best hope for stem cell "wonder drugs."

All: I don't think it's a matter of substance, but packaging. The most successful recent American candidates for national office have campaigned as ciphers (Obama) or lightweights (Dubya and Clinton both from what I recall), or both (Reagan).

I think I would like to see a staunch social conservative, small government, strict constructionist, aggressive foreign policy wonk govern... but I believe he'd be dead in the water if he campaigned that way.

[Geryon]

What I have always heard/read for the origin of the name of Greenland was that it was an intentional misnomer to attract settlers.

[Zipperfish]

CaliShark wrote:

I think I would like to see a staunch social conservative, small government, strict constructionist, aggressive foreign policy wonk govern... but I believe he'd be dead in the water if he campaigned that way.

Except for the small government, you already got that with Bush. So, yes, if anyone similar to bush rtuns in the next couple of elections, he will likely be dead in the water. And the rest of the planet can breathe a sigh of relief.

[CaliShark]

Zipperfish wrote:

Except for the small government, you already got that with Bush. So, yes, if anyone similar to bush rtuns in the next couple of elections, he will likely be dead in the water. And the rest of the planet can breathe a sigh of relief.

Considering the elaboration of government powers and the creation of non-territorial holding areas? Not so much strict constructionist, and for me that informs the rest.

To be honest, Bush's two cardinal sins were War and Absolutism. Neither of those plays in the media well, and even as a student I could tell how he was botching both.

And you are NOT going to convince me that Bush is a foreign policy wonk, aggressive or no.

[Zipperfish]

CaliShark wrote:

Zipperfish wrote:

Except for the small government, you already got that with Bush. So, yes, if anyone similar to bush rtuns in the next couple of elections, he will likely be dead in the water. And the rest of the planet can breathe a sigh of relief.

Considering the elaboration of government powers and the creation of non-territorial holding areas? Not so much strict constructionist, and for me that informs the rest.

To be honest, Bush's two cardinal sins were War and Absolutism. Neither of those plays in the media well, and even as a student I could tell how he was botching both.

And you are NOT going to convince me that Bush is a foreign policy wonk, aggressive or no.

Policy wonk = idealogue in my book. And Bush was nothing if not an idealogue. And agressive would probably be an accurate descritpion. He racked up quite the body count.

There's nothing in your requirements that speaks against absolutism or war. Had you specified that, I certianly would have agreed that these are not desirable traits in a leader. However, I find most social conservatives--especially those of the Christian, Muslim and Jewish persuasion--generally support perpetual war. I think it has something to do with the idea that our time on Earth is just a test, so we should go out of our way to make it as miserable an experience as possible.

[CaliShark]

Zipperfish wrote:

Policy wonk = idealogue in my book. And Bush was nothing if not an idealogue. And agressive would probably be an accurate descritpion. He racked up quite the body count.

There's nothing in your requirements that speaks against absolutism or war. Had you specified that, I certianly would have agreed that these are not desirable traits in a leader. However, I find most social conservatives--especially those of the Christian, Muslim and Jewish persuasion--generally support perpetual war. I think it has something to do with the idea that our time on Earth is just a test, so we should go out of our way to make it as miserable an experience as possible.

Huh, the only definition of "wonk" I've ever heard is "expert." You're running from a different dictionary.

Well, I didn't say Absolutism and War are PER SE bad, but Bush handled them incorrectly. I think that it's necessary to believe that there are some things which are wrong, period, end of story. Indeed I feel comfortable around people who don't believe certain things are wrong regardless of context. Also, war is a more-or-less constant state of mankind, and has to be controlled and utilized for proper ends by the proper means. I think Robert Heinlein said it best by analogy that "then, probably by next tuesday, other species will come in and exterminate that species that 'ain't gonna study war no more.'"

As for Social Conservatives, don't forget Billy Graham and Rick Warren. The Pope as well. Putin even. It's not the religious social conservatives that want perpetual war... it's just that the ones that do get more press time. The ones that don't are usually living quietly getting stomped on.

[CaliShark]

wonk (wngk)
n. Slang
1. A student who studies excessively; a grind.
2. One who studies an issue or a topic thoroughly or excessively: "leading a talkathon of policy wonks in a methodical effort to build consensus for his programs" Michael Kranish.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/wonk

That's what I meant.

[Murray_Smith]

Yeah, I need to address this.

Teikiatsu wrote:

People who think Rush needs to go back to his pills tend to overlook that BO was a druggie as well, and proudly admits it in his book and in interviews. I enjoy pointing that out everytime they mention it.

Oh your god, that analogy is absolutely pitiful.

The Obamanation did pot and cocaine when he was a kid. He grew up in the '60s and '70s; I'd be more suspicious of him if he denied doing drugs at all. And why did he do drugs? For the same reasons everyone else his age did.

El Rushbo, after years of advocating harsh penalties for those who violate drug law, was prescribed prescription painkillers for back pain. He became addicted to said painkillers, and attempted to get them through illicit means, in spite of his opinion that people who violate drug laws should be sent to prison. Essentially, that made him a hypocrite in that respect.

What I'm trying to say is that you're comparing pyrite to gold: they look alike, but have almost nothing else in common.

Be more smarter.

[Psudo]

I think Zipperfish meant that a "policy wonk" is typically someone who has studied a particular school of thought about an issue. That is a definition that makes "wonks" ideologues, and is predominantly accurate in modern politics.

Murray_Smith: You seem to think that hypocrisy is inherently bad but drug addiction is not. If hypocrisy is the only sin, that makes for a very convenient loophole for perfect virtue: have no principles.

Another way in which the Obama/Rush analogy doesn't work: Rush had prescription pills for pain that transitioned into addiction. It was medical care gone wrong. Obama's drug use was entirely recreational and intentional. That makes Obama the worse addict of the two, at least by one standard.

One way in which both cases are similar is that both gave up those addictions and consider them the personal failings of their past. Given their publicly stated regret, I'm not going to be holding grudges.

[HotLed]

Zipperfish wrote:

However, I find most social conservatives--especially those of the Christian, Muslim and Jewish persuasion--generally support perpetual war. I think it has something to do with the idea that our time on Earth is just a test, so we should go out of our way to make it as miserable an experience as possible.

(Now I need a moronic statement emote, doesn't quite do this justice.)

Moving along, can someone here explicitly define for me what a "neo-conservative" and a "libertarian" are. I know I can look it up (and in fact I have) but I'm wondering what those words mean to you. I'm just getting different definitions whenever I read it in the contexts they are used here. Furthermore, what is/are the alternative/s to neo-conservatism? Traditionalism? Libertarianism?

I'm asking this because the next person Republicans "choose" to be the head of the Grand Ole Party won't just be a person, but an embodiment of ideals and policies Republicans can relate to most. Similar to what Obama is to Democrats actually. That and it irks me to see people bandying about jargon they get off of blogs and their favorite TV/Radio show without actually studying what it means.

And yes, life hasn't completely burned the idealism out of me yet. So sue me.

[CanadianJeff]

Proculation wrote:

CommanderSock wrote:

Quote:

As a long-time Republican, I'd like to see more rationality and intelligence in the next generation of Republican leadership, but that's not necessarily "closer to the center". From my perspective, both Bushes were "closer to the center" than Reagan but neither was a better Republican leader. And though Reagan was rarely the actual mind behind his policies, on average he adopted very intelligent positions and policies that did good things for the world, the country, and the party. The center isn't always the right answer.

I'm not exactly sure of your definition of that to be honest. Reagan was a monster in terms of foreign policy.


The GOP may not need to be revived. It will be, but it does not need to be. It may have ran its usefulness, perhaps it may be time for a new right wing party.

Hm, perhaps not.

You would prefer a one party state ?

I think that's about a textbook definition of the straw man fallacy.

[JJ]

I really have grown to hate the term "neo-conservative" with a firey passion. No two human beings on Earth seem to use the word in quite the same manner. It reminds me a bit of Orwell's definition of fascism; simply "that which I don't like."

[Psudo]

HotLed wrote:

can someone here explicitly define for me what a "neo-conservative" and a "libertarian" are.

"Neo-conservative" was originally a name given to (often Jewish) ex-leftists that converted to a hawkish, right-wing foreign policy in an ideological attempt to prevent the horrors of the Holocaust from ever happening again. The reasoning was that the policies of internationalism and consensus allowed Hitler to continue slaughtering Jews and gaining power for years before nations began standing against him unilaterally and then collectively, so internationalism and waiting for consensus could no longer be considered reasonable foreign policies. The name has sometimes been extended to those who converted due to the horrors of Statist Communism or Islamic terrorism or those who merely agree with the converts on most issues whether they ever had an ideological conversion or not. Ideologically, they tend to be moderate or mixed on domestic issues, but be united and passionate about the need for and willingness to use great military power to suppress the militant expansionism of foreign powers. I perceive neo-conservatives to be largely correct on foreign policy but schizophrenic and "all over the board" on everything else.

Libertarianism is a political ideology based on the classical liberalism of philosophers Locke and Burke that advocates a very limited government with little interest in economic regulation or restrictions on personal behavior. Ideologically, they believe that it is wrong for any individual or organization to "initiate force" against anyone; that is, force of law or violence can only ethically be used in response to the same. Mutual agreements are sacrosanct (including mutual agreements that are currently illegal, such as drug transactions or prostitution agreements), and military force is reserved for defense and reaction. I perceive libertarianism as a fundamentalist radicalization of classical liberalism, taking generally good reasoning and treating it as a holy truth without exception.

I offer my perceptions so you can guess whether my personal biases have affected my descriptions.

[Zipperfish]

CaliShark wrote:

Huh, the only definition of "wonk" I've ever heard is "expert." You're running from a different dictionary.

Just my general observation that policy wonks, like idealogues, are often not very acquainted wiht reality. But your point is noted; policy wonks and idealgiues may share some similar traits, but not the ssame.

Quote:

Well, I didn't say Absolutism and War are PER SE bad, but Bush handled them incorrectly. I think that it's necessary to believe that there are some things which are wrong, period, end of story. Indeed I feel comfortable around people who don't believe certain things are wrong regardless of context. Also, war is a more-or-less constant state of mankind, and has to be controlled and utilized for proper ends by the proper means. I think Robert Heinlein said it best by analogy that "then, probably by next tuesday, other species will come in and exterminate that species that 'ain't gonna study war no more.'"

I'm a dyed-in-the-wool moral relatavist myself. I agree with Nietzsche and Dawkins on the subject for the most part. For a moral to be "good" it must result in some positive outcome for the group. The prohibition against murder (killing without state sanction) stabilizes social structures by preventing the chaos of arbitrary killings leading to a more successfuil and powerful group, therefore prohibiting murder is good. That's just me.

Quote:

As for Social Conservatives, don't forget Billy Graham and Rick Warren. The Pope as well. Putin even. It's not the religious social conservatives that want perpetual war... it's just that the ones that do get more press time. The ones that don't are usually living quietly getting stomped on.

I see it it as essetnially a power struggle between cultures. Islam and Christinaity are both very dominant, evangelical religions, and as such, they will not ever coincide peacefully, since each will not bide the presence of the other.