When does it become 'politics'?

POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 18:35
VIEWED: 6108
PAGE 1 of 1

CHRISISALL

Friday, February 17, 2006 6:56 PM

It's raining. Is that a political statement?

Cheney accidentally shot his friend. Now?

Cheney had no permit, and as the Vice-President of the United States should be setting a law-abiding example by following LAWS, and in doing so,his friend would not have been shot. Political now?

Since Cheney doesn't follow the laws of this country he should not hold that office. Is this where it turns political?

I find myself really wondering... the words 'rhetoric' and 'opinion' and 'agenda' keep popping up as if there are no objective facts to consider.

If I say "Clinton was a bad President", or "Bush is a bad President", and back it up with how many they got killed, or what LAWS they've broken, how is that a political belief?
Isn't a political belief about which system or way will work best for a country, not a judgement of poor choices or broken laws after the fact?

Or is it, "I like this guy, so I really don't care what law he breaks, he only breaks laws for the common good anyway...like Batman does!" ?

Can anyone help me on this?

Chrisisall with mood swings, of a sort

KHYRON

Friday, February 17, 2006 7:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
It's raining. Is that a political statement?

In the RWED forum, it can be.

I wager Auraptor's response would be: "Thanks for that very one-sided statement, Chris. Well, as far as I can tell, it's not raining where I am, but your statement isn't about the weather, is it? By "raining" you mean what you liberals call "the gloom that Bush has spread over this country". Well, where I'm sitting, things are shiny, so kindly keep your misguided liberal beliefs to yourself!"

Quote:

Cheney accidentally shot his friend. Now?

Yes, because, as you can see on the other thread, Cheney and thereby this statement evokes an emotional response in a lot of people, thereby leading to a fairly heated debate where a lot of people express their opinion on the politics of the man and the situation.

Probably the mere mention of the name of a poltical figure can lead to a debate. I'll try that now and see if my theory is true.

Quote:

Cheney had no permit, and as the Vice-President of the United States should be setting a law-abiding example by following LAWS, and in doing so,his friend would not have been shot. Political now?

I saw this on the other thread as well. Well, this is beside your point, but had he had a permit, this accident could still have happened. But I guess it would turn into a discussion of the butterfly effect and how small differences in a person's past can lead to significant differences in that person's later life (at least I'd hope it would lead to that discussion, not another political one). In this case, had he applied for the permit late and could've only gone hunting the next weekend, the next day or even 1 minute later, this accident would possibly not have happened (one never knows). But if he did apply for the permit in time, nothing would've really changed and the accident very likely would've still happened.

FLETCH2

Friday, February 17, 2006 7:26 PM

I suppose it depends on if you believe that politicians have some obligation to be "better" than the rest of us. (Ignoring for the moment the fact that the election process means that you have to be able to raise several million dollars to win high office, and that pretty much favours people willing to bend rules over those that blindly obey them.)

I never saw the Clinton/Monica thing as being a big deal, I would have been far more interested if they could have pinned the dirt on him for Whitewater because that was a "fingers in the 'till" kinda deal and he had access to a big box of tax dollars. That he played around with little Monica was an issue between him, his wife and the girl in question just as it is in 1000's of extra marital affares for "normal people."

I mention this at all for one reason. If you are the kind of person that feels that Clinton's private life and failings are Clinton's business then you should really see Cheney's accident as Cheney's business and have done with it. If you are the kind of person that believes that Presidential power requires a higher standard than applies to normal folk then Cheney's actions after the shooting should make you uneasy.

Of course that won't happen, Clinton bashers will start bleating the "he LIED under oath" mantra (like many "normal guys" lie about affaires? How many have a prosecutor assigned to find anything to trip them up in court?) and these will be the same people that think Cheney's actions are none issues. Likewise most of the folks that thought the Monica thing was a none issue with Clinton will be talking the Cheney thing into the ground.

CHRISISALL

Friday, February 17, 2006 7:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
I suppose it depends on if you believe that politicians have some obligation to be "better" than the rest of us.

Well, not 'better' than the rest of us....
I just expect a pizza-maker to know and respect the pizza.
Likewise, I expect those that uphold the law to know and respect the law.

It's the little things like that that will keep bird-shot out of your face...

"I can't break the law, I AM THE LAW!!!" Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Friday, February 17, 2006 7:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
It's raining. Is that a political statement?

In the RWED forum, it can be.

I wager Auraptor's response would be: "Thanks for that very one-sided statement, Chris. Well, as far as I can tell, it's not raining where I am, but your statement isn't about the weather, is it? By "raining" you mean what you liberals call "the gloom that Bush has spread over this country". Well, where I'm sitting, things are shiny, so kindly keep your misguided liberal beliefs to yourself!"

OMG, now I need a tissue I'm lingol so hard!!!

Regaining homeostasis Chrisisall

CHRISPV

Friday, February 17, 2006 8:07 PM

Personally, I think it's just something that makes the man look stupid. He mistook his 78 year old companion for a bird. The jokes write themselves, as Jon Stewart so eloquently proved. The thing is, if you DON'T like the man, this is an excuse to point at him, laugh, and say "Ah ha! He's an idiot! Totally unsuited to help run the country!" The right did the same thing to Clinton. "Ah ha! He's a dishonest lecher! Totally unsuited to run the country!"

It's all part of the way politics has evolved in America. We have set up a sort of pseudo-cult of personality for our elected officials. It's become a situation where a good chunk of the electorate no longer votes for the candidate with the platform that he/she personally supports, but instead on which one he/she "likes." As soon as a candidate does something to undermine that, he/she loses. See: Howard Dean's whooping. Point is, it's become a situation where the leaders' policies are less on trial than the leaders themselves.

Of course, there's also the issue of the knee-jerk reaction of both parties to attack the other at the slightest sign of weakness, or just for the fun of it. See also: Election Wars, a Republican made spoof video featuring the brave Republican Alliance versus the evil Democrat Empire led by Darth Nancy (Pelosi).

God, I wish I was making that up.

Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal, Fox!

RUE

Friday, February 17, 2006 8:14 PM

I still say it's due to the US not having a parliamentary government.

In a parliamentary government, if you run on a platform and mess up, you can be gone. It helps keep them honest. They don't make blatantly bogus promises b/c they know they'll be held accountable in office.

In the US the game is to say ANYTHING to win the election. And then do what you want afterward. It makes people cynical about platforms. So they vote for people rather than on issues.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

CHRISISALL

Friday, February 17, 2006 8:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ChrisPV:
The thing is, if you DON'T like the man, this is an excuse to point at him, laugh, and say "Ah ha! He's an idiot! Totally unsuited to help run the country!" The right did the same thing to Clinton. "Ah ha! He's a dishonest lecher! Totally unsuited to run the country!"

ChrisPV, I get your points and agree with them, but I have to say, I don't like or dislike the men, I judge their actions or inactions.
Clinton lied to cover up illicit sexual activity.
Bush/Cheney lied about (or were wrong about, which in my eyes is worse) WMD's to start a WAR.

I don't hold with people dying to further some lame-ass geo-political agenda.
Calling someone on giving orders plainly aimed at preserving economic status quo while getting good soldiers killed under the false notion of national defense of imminent dangers just ain't political, it's realistic assessment of deceit and wasted life.

Or so I believe, anyway.

The too-serious Chrisisall

SIGNYM

Friday, February 17, 2006 8:44 PM

"When does it become politics?"

When it becomes fun????

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

STORYMARK

Friday, February 17, 2006 8:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:

I mention this at all for one reason. If you are the kind of person that feels that Clinton's private life and failings are Clinton's business then you should really see Cheney's accident as Cheney's business and have done with it. If you are the kind of person that believes that Presidential power requires a higher standard than applies to normal folk then Cheney's actions after the shooting should make you uneasy.

Of course that won't happen, Clinton bashers will start bleating the "he LIED under oath" mantra (like many "normal guys" lie about affaires? How many have a prosecutor assigned to find anything to trip them up in court?) and these will be the same people that think Cheney's actions are none issues. Likewise most of the folks that thought the Monica thing was a none issue with Clinton will be talking the Cheney thing into the ground.

Good point. There is a double-standard on both sides most of the time. One which I admit to being guilty of. I personally pretty much loathe Cheney, and when I first heard about this incident I was ready to string him up like a lot of other people.

But, when it comes down to it, I do think this was an accident - a stupid, potentially negligent accident, but in the end just an accident. And since the man on the other end of the barrell seems more or less okay, I'm not going to worry about it anymore.

My only problem with the entire issue at this point is not that he had an accident, they happen, but the way in which he dealt with the aftermath. 24 hours is too long to wait before reporting something like this.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

CHRISISALL

Friday, February 17, 2006 9:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
24 hours is too long to wait before reporting something like this.

Didn't Jlo's ex-boyfriend have a similar hunting accident? In Brooklyn, I think (or was it L.A.?). He had to answer questions pretty fast...well, until the high priced laywers threw up a forcefield...

Feelin' the effects of the virus now Chrisisall

CHRISPV

Friday, February 17, 2006 9:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
ChrisPV, I get your points and agree with them, but I have to say, I don't like or dislike the men, I judge their actions or inactions.
Clinton lied to cover up illicit sexual activity.
Bush/Cheney lied about (or were wrong about, which in my eyes is worse) WMD's to start a WAR.

I don't hold with people dying to further some lame-ass geo-political agenda.
Calling someone on giving orders plainly aimed at preserving economic status quo while getting good soldiers killed under the false notion of national defense of imminent dangers just ain't political, it's realistic assessment of deceit and wasted life.

Or so I believe, anyway.

Oh, I agree wholeheartedly. I find Cheney to be a profoundly unlikable character, but that has nothing to do with this situation. It was an accident, albeit a rather stupid one for the VP. However, I personally see no bearing here on how this would affect his standing as the VP. If one does want to torch him, and I have done so with this administration on numerous occasions (No Child Left Behind is the biggest pile of go-se you're EVER going to see), I simply think this is a very poor choice of tactic. Especially when, as you said, there's that whole "No WMD" thing to use, to say nothing of the Halliburton no bid affair, Valerie Plame, etc.

My point is, there's a lot of meat out there to question his capabilities, and by extensions those of the Bush White House. By comparison, this particular incident isn't worth mentioning. It just happed that a man did something stupid and pepper his friend with birdshot, and he happened to be the Vice President.

Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal, Fox!

CHRISISALL

Friday, February 17, 2006 10:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ChrisPV:
My point is, there's a lot of meat out there to question his capabilities, and by extensions those of the Bush White House. By comparison, this particular incident isn't worth mentioning.

Thanks, ChrisPV, you've helped me find the answer to my original question, I think.

Politics n. 1. Relates to unimportant matters or discussions dressed up to look as if they have some bearing on the real or immediate issues at hand. 2. Nonsense weaved into legitimate discourse. 3. Felgercarb (see: go-se).

Chrisisall

RUE

Friday, February 17, 2006 10:23 PM

Quote:
However, I personally see no bearing here on how this would affect his standing as the VP.

The appearance of a cover-up of illegal activities is a legitimate question. There is also the exercise of special privilege unavailable to the most everyone else. that makes a mockery of "equal under the law". As I heard elsewhere, sure Cheney took responsibility, but only after escaping consequences.

In another thread I posted my opinion that the shooting per se wasn't the issue. I still maintain that opinion.

And then again there is the pure personal reaction. Cheney comes across as a conniving weasel. It has nothing to do with his performance as a VP or any legal matters.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

CHRISISALL

Friday, February 17, 2006 10:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
that makes a mockery of "equal under the law".

Make that "equal under the $dollar sign$"

Fortune and glory, kid Chrisisall

CITIZEN

Friday, February 17, 2006 10:43 PM

Everything is politics.

Politics can mean the interpersonal relationships between individual humans, the interactions between nations I've even seen it used in conjunction with the interactions between animals.

Anything that isn't a natural event (rising setting of the sun, earthquakes, assuming their not caused by dr evil, et al) is politics.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
You should never give powers to a leader you like that you’d hate to have given to a leader you fear

CHRISPV

Friday, February 17, 2006 11:14 PM

Personally, I don't really buy the "cover-up" thing. Primarily because I like to think that, if the government did want to hide this, it'd do a much better job. They were able to keep the shooting under wraps for, what, 24 hours? Less? That's not exactly the kind of media control I want from my oppressive regimes.

In addition, I doubt anyone could have reasonably expected this to be swept under the rug. Word would have gotten out. I cast my vote for a combination of Cheney, perhaps, actually wanting to make sure this fellow was alright, and him not wanting to jump right out into the press when he wasn't quite prepared. I doubt that anyone, even Dick, could just shoot a human being and walk it off like nothing happened. He'd want to be at his most charming for the big reveal.

Well, as charming as Dick Cheney gets at any rate.

Oh, and Citizen, stop playing semantic games. You know what Chrisisall meant. I know your games, I've seen you tearing apart those poor souls in the "Islamic cartoon riot" thread. You little heathen.

Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal, Fox!

CHRISISALL

Friday, February 17, 2006 11:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Everything is politics.

Well, that didn't take long. I had hoped to see more personal, real life comments here, instead of the standard political rhetoric.

Chrisisall

RUE

Friday, February 17, 2006 11:42 PM

Crispy-VEE

(that's how it reads)

Quote:
Personally, I don't really buy the "cover-up" thing. Primarily because I like to think that, if the government did want to hide this, it'd do a much better job. They were able to keep the shooting under wraps for, what, 24 hours? Less? That's not exactly the kind of media control I want from my oppressive regimes.

Oh no, the cover-up wasn't for the shooting. It was for something else.

One scenario, after Whittington got carted off, Cheney went and had a little drinky-pooh back at the ranch (fact). The only thing I can think is that IF he'd been unable to dodge being breathalyzed, he would have been able to claim - no you see officers, I wasn't snookered at them time, I got snookered afterwards.

Another scenario is that the long delay was about getting all the stories straight.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

CITIZEN

Friday, February 17, 2006 11:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Everything is politics.

Well, that didn't take long. I had hoped to see more personal, real life comments here, instead of the standard political rhetoric.

Chrisisall

What the fuck! my post was relevant to this fucking thread! Jesusfuckingchrist!

AUCitizen

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
You should never give powers to a leader you like that you’d hate to have given to a leader you fear

CITIZEN

Friday, February 17, 2006 11:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ChrisPV:
Oh, and Citizen, stop playing semantic games. You know what Chrisisall meant. I know your games, I've seen you tearing apart those poor souls in the "Islamic cartoon riot" thread. You little heathen.

Is erm huh?

Confused as too your meaning
CitizenIsSlow on the uptake

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
You should never give powers to a leader you like that you’d hate to have given to a leader you fear

CHRISPV

Friday, February 17, 2006 11:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Crispy-VEE

(that's how it reads)

Actually, that's pretty much accurate. In fact, it's a little abbreviation for my proper name, Christopher Peavey. "PV" is the brand we use on our cattle on the family ranch, and it's become family shorthand for when we're too lazy to spell our last name.

Quote:
Oh no, the cover-up wasn't for the shooting. It was for something else.

One scenario, after Whittington got carted off, Cheney went and had a little drinky-pooh back at the ranch (fact). The only thing I can think is that IF he'd been unable to dodge being breathalyzed, he would have been able to claim - no you see officers, I wasn't snookered at them time, I got snookered afterwards.

Another scenario is that the long delay was about getting all the stories straight.

In all honesty, I hadn't heard about the drinky-pooh (like that term) bit. Did you get that from an outside source, or are you speculating? I'm just curious, not trying to condemn or such.

As for getting all of the stories straight, that I'd be willing to give him, even if there wasn't any outside influences such as drink involved. He probably knew how this would explode, and I don't think it would be too terribly unreasonable to try and have a unified defense up when the opposition turned the shooting into an issue.

In any case, this just isn't big enough, comparitively, to cause me to change my (already low) opinion of the man as the VP.

Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal, Fox!

CHRISPV

Saturday, February 18, 2006 12:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

Is erm huh?

Confused as too your meaning
CitizenIsSlow on the uptake

I was teasing, ever so slightly, regarding your debates on whether or not Islam is evil. During the course of that, you wound up mixing with a few folks (I don't want to mention names) who, rather vehemently, disagreed with you. I'm inclined to agree with your standpoint, but even if you weren't, you had my vote for arguing your point most effectively.

It was just a little jab, no offense meant.

ChrisPV looks like he's sucking up rather badly

Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal, Fox!

CITIZEN

Saturday, February 18, 2006 12:22 AM

Ahh, none taken, just the sarcasm doesn't always come over so well on posts sometimes, so I didn't want to assume. I've had my fill of flame wars for awhile, not really up for sparking another .

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
You should never give powers to a leader you like that you’d hate to have given to a leader you fear

CHRISPV

Saturday, February 18, 2006 12:32 AM

Let's just say I can relate. I have a friend who, bless her heart, will straight facedly claim that God puts fossils in the Earth that look as old as they do because, quote, "God has a sense of humor." After awhile, the argument comes to naught.

Incidentally, the was actually my somewhat lame attempt at getting the joke across. It's my way of saying I'd insert a sarcastic emoticon here, but there isn't one. It's an old habit I have of creating smileys that don't exist.

Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal, Fox!

CHRISISALL

Saturday, February 18, 2006 12:40 AM

Quote:

What the fuck! my post was relevant to this fucking thread! Jesusfuckingchrist!

AUCitizen

Well, I did not expect that. Now my tummy hurts.

Laughter keeps you young; now I'm 2 Chrisisall

FLETCH2

Saturday, February 18, 2006 1:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Everything is politics.

Well, that didn't take long. I had hoped to see more personal, real life comments here, instead of the standard political rhetoric.

Chrisisall

Didn't we warn you about that? Do it again and we WILL send you hunting with Dick Cheney.

CHRISISALL

Saturday, February 18, 2006 1:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Didn't we warn you about that? Do it again and we WILL send you hunting with Dick Cheney.

lol, Don't force me to employ a defensive pre-emptive strike!

Chrisisall

RUE

Saturday, February 18, 2006 2:39 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/15/cheney/

Armstrong, a longtime friend of the Cheney family, told CNN before the vice president's interview that she never saw Cheney or Whittington "drink at all on the day of the shooting until after the accident occurred, when the vice president fixed himself a cocktail back at the house."

Two elements here - getting the story straight and drinking afterwards.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

DREAMTROVE

Saturday, February 18, 2006 3:13 AM

Chirs,

You are, as usual, correct. I used to say things like 'Clinton is a bad democrat' or 'Bush is a bad republican' because I meant 'not in line with the ideals that their party purports to stand for. Sure, both are, objectively, bad presidents, particularly if you feel that presidents should not tarnish the image of America, or kill people wholesale.

I once got into an argument with a couple of liberals who were not nazis, yet were defending the position 'Hitler was a good leader of Germany.' I don't think the flaws in such a position need exosure, but these were educated people, one had a PhD. The thing is, taking aside the net effect, and the qualification of 'who exactly is a German' ...where does this leave us?

I guess ultimately, what is or isn't political and what is objective is subjective.

Fletch,

The thing about Monica is that the GOP was looking to get Clinton on anything they could, not because he was a democrat, but because he was evil. It had been widely known for some time that Clinton had a habit of whoring around, and using his position and connections to force women into sex with him. There were a few cases of missing children, turning up dead, and I'm sure Pirate News knows more about this than me. But the point is, this was a long series of cases about Bill Clinton, personally, as a career criminal, and it culminated in Monica.

To me, this is one of the great failings of the right. We tend to focus on what matters to us, and not what matters to the opposition. Any attack on Clinton, to be successful, would have to have struck a nerve with the left. I find, for myself, the idea that Bill Clinton was most probably involved in cocaine smuggling, abusive relations, and possibly child murders, that he is a truly depraved individual, tells you everything about him, and what he will do if in a position of power, and that his genocidal policies in Iraq and gun-running to Al Qaeda and all are sort of par for the course when you understand what kind of guy he is.

But this is a conservative perspective, a character-based assessment. Conservatives can try until they're blue in the face to convince the left that Clinton is a bad guy, but my guess is that for the most part they won't care as long as he supports the platforms that they want to vote for. I mean, point of fact, the democrats have Ted Kennedy, and they've known for years that he was a depraved individual, and don't care, because he votes the party line.

What we *should* have done, instead, was attack Clinton directly on policy decisions. We should have gotten him for the inhumane barring of food and medical supplies to the people of Iraq, or sending Hatian refugees back to be shot. Something that would have human appeal that the left would say, 'oh, we get it, he's evil.'

Similarly, I think the left misunderstands the right in the same way. Kerry was busy attacking Bush on the details of his health plan and whether or not no child left behind was a success. What he probably should have said way 'This is a cokehead who's cheating on his wife to sleep with his secretary... (of state)'

Anyway, Re:Cheney

Fletch, you are correct, the Cheney shot thing is a serious issue. The reason the whitehouse and press are trying to spin it is it's a devestating blow. My postmaster was one of the last die-hard Bush fans until just now. He says he just can't bend his mind around it. Cheney is a schmuck. He broke the hunting rules because either A) he was so into it he thought he was in 'Nam hunting cage raised quail, or b) he was drunk. I believe the VP when he said he had just 'one beer' but someone else at the scene said he had just 'one mixed drink.' What if it was one beer, one mixed drink, two glasses of wine, a shot of vodka, a double shot of tequila, and he's on heart medication. Anyway, Cheney lost the postmaster, the most stalwart republican I know, on the hunting accident. I now know no (zero) solidly pro-Bush republicans, and I'd say I know a lot of republicans. As a qualifier, this *is* New York, so he may still have fans o

RUE

Saturday, February 18, 2006 3:25 AM

I'm not picky. Whatever would hold the politicians feet to the fire.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

DREAMTROVE

Saturday, February 18, 2006 3:34 AM

More random rant from me:

1. It may have been 48 hours. Whittington, in his at-gunpoint apology for getting in the way of the divine bullet, referred to the incident as happening on friday. Someone else at the scene had referred to it as 'the friday accident' which then had been disregarded when everyone else said saturday. But now the press is looking into that.

2. The point of Clinton lying under oath was that a) this was a long line of crimes, and b) it was proof of what had long been suspected: that everything Clinton said was a lie.

3. Bush is not maintaining the status quo, he is is following. Or, bah, phooey, Bush is a monkey and isn't doing anything. Let me start over...

3. Cheney is not maintaining the status quo, he is is following an agenda to establish a mideast union, which is part of a larger plan. It's a political agenda, just not one which is ever discussed, because cause they have everyone thinking that this is about a) terrorism, b) oil. To some extent it's about oil, but only to a limited degree. Cheney seeks to monopolize the global oil market in order to leverage the world.

I want to clarify a point. Cheney is stealing oil from Iraq and giving it to his friends who helped get him elected. This makes them 10s of billions of $. But this is not about that. If it were, Cheney would just give them the money he is spending on a war in Iraq. Cheney seriously cares about his twisted agenda of global domination.

What I find is curious is that my friend Frank was willing to give up on Cheney after supporting him for years because it was showing him as a flawed character, and that lefties here are willing to call it an accident, thus supporting my whole character vs. platform points theory.

Rue,

Armstrong is not a credible witness, she's a corrupt lobbyist who will say anything to forward the agenda of her clients. If that means lying about what transpired to keep Cheney out of trouble, of course she will do it.

RUE

Saturday, February 18, 2006 3:44 AM

And in fact her testimony does differ from that of others, which also differ in detail among themselves. And she did use weasel words like 'I didn't SEE any drinking ..." I don't give her testimony any special credit.

OTOH if there really were drinky-poohs back at the ranch, that would have been made to be seen by several people. And if Cheney had been breathalyzed, everyone would have said - yes indeedee-doo, Cheney did steady his shaken nerves.

OR, the cocktail back at the ranch was a story concocted to account for BAC just in case.

Either way, they were strategizing for potential discovery of alcohol.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, February 18, 2006 4:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
If I say "Clinton was a bad President", or "Bush is a bad President", and back it up with how many they got killed, or what LAWS they've broken, how is that a political belief?

If you assume the issue is that simple then it is probably a political belief rather then a fact. Were Roosevelt and Wilson bad presidents? Because either one of them “got” far more people killed then Clinton and Bush combined. And as far as what “LAWS” are broken, what laws are broken? Accusing someone of breaking a law is not the same thing as breaking it. It’s political because it is vastly oversimplified. To suggest that Bush or Clinton are bad presidents because they got people killed in wars which are the Constitutional domain of the president to wield in defense of American national security is to jump way ahead of the facts and assert something that is not necessarily true based on the evidence. Now we can argue about whether it is true or not, or about what the limits of the presidency should be, etc but that will be a political argument, and you can believe that it is true, but that will be a political belief not a statement of fact.

There is nothing wrong with political debate or political opinion. In fact I believe they are both very healthy and necessary for a liberal society. The problem enters when people attempt to draw conclusions without merit. It is one thing to have an opinion; it is something entirely different to assert that that opinion is true. Statements that assert that Bush or Cheney are evil or the “dark lord” or some similar moronic comment or referring to Cheney as “Cheney the Dick” step way beyond even political debate and enter into the realm of character assassination. I like political debate, but I don’t care anything about the kind of idiotic and childish discussion that often dominates the Bush and Cheney/Iraq discussion on this board. I don’t see the problem as being political opinion but rather irrational and even bigoted hatred of Bush and Cheney. That kind of stuff completely deflates the intelligence of the discussion, and that is unfortunate, because there are many very intelligent and well read people on this board who are unable to form a cogent and critical opinion of Bushs’ policies or the Iraq Campaign due to the distortion caused by their hatred of Bush and Cheney.

And I’m not talking, necessarily, about people who make humorous or impetuous comments that they know aren’t necessarily valid. Political humor is rife with unfair and inappropriate criticism, and it’s often very funny because of it. But there’s a difference between political humor and the constant drone of Bush hating. I commented to a friend a few weeks ago that the one thing that I could never forgive the Bush haters for was making Bush jokes passé. I was being somewhat facetious, of course, but it’s true that the constant drum of irrational and hateful nonsense directed at the Bush Administration has left nothing, it seems, for the political humorist.

Oh, he's so full of manure, that man! We could lay him in the dirt and grow another one just like him.
-- Ruby

DREAMTROVE

Saturday, February 18, 2006 5:57 PM

Quote:
Were Roosevelt and Wilson bad presidents?

WTF? They were terrible. Wilson was arguably the worst president this country ever had. Wilson is almost singlehandedly responsible for WWII, and he made the poor tactical decision to go to war with Germany, and another one to go to war with Russia, and wanted to sign the US back up as a subject of the British Empire, which is what signing the league of nations charter would have de facto done. His creation of the concept of a 'War Debt' was the catalyst for world economic collapse. He was a disaster. An unmitigated disaster.

Roosevelt, for his part, refuse to intervene to stop the holocaust, and instead went on a long bloody and utterly pointless war with Japan, thus tying up all American resources, not to mention staying in power forever like a dictator. I don't know if he fixed elections or anything, but ack. Also, concentration camps on US soil.

Yes, I would take that they were both worse than Bush without question.

Quote:
wars which are the Constitutional domain of the president

Finn. Okay, I won't say it. You do realize this is an oxy moron though, right? The Constitution says "Congress shall have the power to declare war."

Lying is not a political opinion.

I agree with Chris.

A political position is X is an important problem, and Y is a way to deal with X that I think would work.

'Al Qaeda hates America' is not a political point of view. It's a statement of fact. 'Castro is a dictator' is a statement of fact. 'The US should remove Castro from power' is a political point of view.

CHRISISALL

Saturday, February 18, 2006 6:03 PM

Finn, very intelligent and thoughtful reply, as usual.
My only problem is the 'above the law' syndrome. Both Clinton and Bush broke laws (Whitewater, illegal wiretaps, etc., Signy and Rue could make ya a real big list, I'm sure), and I don't see that it's necessarily 'political' to say they shouldn't break laws, and question their validity in office because of just that.
Imagine a call of 'foul ball' when it's clearly a home run. If you don't play by the rules, you shouldn't be in the game, right?
Or is the ultimate point that EVERYTHING is corrupt, and that we favour the corruption that gets the most good done? We accept law-breaking because no truly law-abiding presidents will ever hold office now?

I have never broken a law for monitary gain or to make a friend happy.
Can I not ask as much from my President?

Chrisisall

DREAMTROVE

Saturday, February 18, 2006 6:24 PM

Quote:
Finn, very intelligent and thoughtful reply, as usual.
Quote:

Chris has a lot more tact than I do. Given that he's likely to say what I basically agree with, maybe I should give up, and let him say it.

Except that this eternal flame war is all about numbers.

Damn.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, February 18, 2006 6:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Or is the ultimate point that EVERYTHING is corrupt, and that we favour the corruption that gets the most good done? We accept law-breaking because no truly law-abiding presidents will ever hold office now?

I don’t know that everything is always corrupt, but I do think that things are often not that black and white. What if through these secret wiretaps the government had stopped the murder of possibly thousands of Americans? And therefore, if these wiretaps had never been done, and thousands of Americans were dead, would that be an acceptable outcome? This is a rhetorical question. The point is that the question is not only about whether the president may have instituted a policy that resulted in a law being broken, but rather what, as the People, are we prepared to accept in the defense of our country, our livelihood and even our lives. And is that a question that we our only interest is in attack a person whom we harvest an irrational hatred of?

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
I have never broken a law for monitary gain or to make a friend happy.
Can I not ask as much from my President?

That’s a legitimate question, and an important one. But if you begin from a position of irrational personal hatred of George Bush or Dick Cheney, how can you objectively argue that his policies are wrong? It is critical to our liberal democracy that we criticize our government, but it is equally critical that we do so rationally.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Finn. Okay, I won't say it. You do realize this is an oxy moron though, right? The Constitution says "Congress shall have the power to declare war."

The Constitution also defines the President as the Commander and Chief of the military and as such it is his Constitutional purview under the provision of civilian power over the military to wage war.

Oh, he's so full of manure, that man! We could lay him in the dirt and grow another one just like him.
-- Ruby

CHRISISALL

Saturday, February 18, 2006 7:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

What if through these secret wiretaps the government had stopped the murder of possibly thousands of Americans? And therefore, if these wiretaps had never been done, and thousands of Americans were dead, would that be an acceptable outcome?

Okay, at least you acknowledge the breaking of laws by presidents. But let's remember the reports pointing to an Al Queda attack didn't get enough attention to help avert 911, so why do you think secret wire taps are all of a sudden going to be so effective? (rhetorical question also).

Quote:
if you begin from a position of irrational personal hatred of George Bush or Dick Cheney, how can you objectively argue that his policies are wrong?

I don't know the men, therefore I can't love or hate them. I don't hate Charles Manson, nor do I love Jessica Alba; I don't know them.
*looks off* Well, Jessica....

No, I don't like the policies.
Political statement: The Iraq War is one of the worst ways Bush could have responded to 911.
Realistic statement: The abuse at Abu Gharib should have never happened, and all responsible for allowing it, ordering it, or turning a blind eye to it should be prosecuted, no matter how high up it goes.

"(Presidents) are either a benefit, or a hazzard. If they're a benefit, it's not my problem,"

Chrisisall

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, February 18, 2006 7:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
No, I don't like the policies.
Political statement: The Iraq War is one of the worst ways Bush could have responded to 911.
Realistic statement: The abuse at Abu Gharib should have never happened, and all responsible for allowing it, ordering it, or turning a blind eye to it should be prosecuted, no matter how high up it goes.

I don’t know that I would necessarily disagree with either of those statements, certainly not the second one.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Chris has a lot more tact than I do. Given that he's likely to say what I basically agree with, maybe I should give up, and let him say it.

Except that this eternal flame war is all about numbers.

Damn.

Chris has a lot more tact then all of us. I tend to put my foot in my mouth a lot, and I’m afraid by bring up the issue of bush hating in this thread that I’ve done just that. Perhaps I’m beating up against opinions that are so inflexible that I’m wasting my time. Or perhaps I lack my own sense of tact to voice my position in a way that won’t insult people. Perhaps it is pointless to say, but we might actually agree on this subject more then we disagree.

Oh, he's so full of manure, that man! We could lay him in the dirt and grow another one just like him.
-- Ruby

CITIZEN

Saturday, February 18, 2006 8:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by DreamTrove:
I once got into an argument with a couple of liberals who were not nazis, yet were defending the position 'Hitler was a good leader of Germany.' I don't think the flaws in such a position need exosure, but these were educated people, one had a PhD. The thing is, taking aside the net effect, and the qualification of 'who exactly is a German' ...where does this leave us?

I guess ultimately, what is or isn't political and what is objective is subjective.

I agree, it depends what your criteria for a good leader is. If a good leader is someone who prevents mass death and war, Hitler is about the worst leader who ever dared to lead.

If your criteria is material gain, for want of a better term, I'd say he was the greatest leader that ever lived. Both the British and Roman empires, lets be honest they were the big ones, took centuries to carve out, and were largely created from lands taken from people a hell of a lot less technologically advanced than the aggressor. By comparision Hitler took a country litterally on it's knees and in a few short years turned it into a nation that threatened to take over most of the world, including nations as technologically advanced.

So it depends on where you're coming from.

This is kinda where I got my idea that everything is politics...

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
You should never give powers to a leader you like that you’d hate to have given to a leader you fear

DREAMTROVE

Saturday, February 18, 2006 9:44 PM

Finn,

Not a chance.

I'm sorry, the constitution is not a decree of divine dictatorship. The CiC does not decide where and when we go to war. It's not his position to decide who Americas enemies are and why we fight. The president is top General, not legislator.

What you give here is the line that ArchDictator Cheney and the monkey puppet Bush want you to believe, as told by the ArchTraitor Stanley H. Gonzalez.

Quote:
irrational personal hatred of George Bush or Dick Cheney

Nothing irrational about hating these international terrorists who are trying to destroy everything we have worked for, and turning America into a four letter word internationally.

Finn, as a rhetorrical style alone, this isn't working, perhaps you should think about you're overall position before you lose my vote to Pirate News.

The truth is the wealth and good name of America have been trown away, treated as worse than dog excrement by this administration. The end effect of this has been a marvelous hallelujah jihad hiring bonanza Al Qaeda's new Terrorists 'R' Us Supercenter: Iraq.

I think the only patriotic thing to do is to burn Bush to the ground, and anyone who tried to follow in his footsteps. Bear in mind that Bush's Supreme court nominations were not his own, or the those of Cheney. Bush had made it perfectly clear that he wanted Harriet Miers instead of Alito, and nixed out Alito's name the first time it was given to him, and the instead of Roberts, Bush had wanted to nominate Gonzalez, a point that was so clear in his mind that he had twice made unmistakeable hints about it publicly.

The fact is, Bush was at a political weakpoint, and was these picks, which I agree with, by a group of GOP Senators led by Arlen Spector. I know that the lefties are never going to be happy with the right, but they don't have to be, the point is, these republicans who did this are the good guys, and they did it pretty close to over the dead body of Bush. So before you go and give him more credit than is due him...

DREAMTROVE

Saturday, February 18, 2006 10:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn:

Chris has a lot more tact then all of us. I tend to put my foot in my mouth a lot, and I’m afraid by bring up the issue of bush hating in this thread that I’ve done just that. Perhaps I’m beating up against opinions that are so inflexible that I’m wasting my time. Or perhaps I lack my own sense of tact to voice my position in a way that won’t insult people. Perhaps it is pointless to say, but we might actually agree on this subject more then we disagree.

Finn,

Sometimes I suspect that you actually have more tact than I do. I don't think it does a lot of good. My own position on Bush, which to be fair is my position on Cheney. I know people who know Bush, personally. He's a pretty morally bankrupt individual, delusional, with a serious drug problem. I hear he's a nice enough guy, but sick, mentally disturbed, but also, and more importantly, not in any way in power. All of Bush's own personal faults are not helping the country to fall apart because Cheney is actually pulling the strings.

But the thing that I've noticed here is that if anything, my opinion has been effected probably more negatively here on the forum than positively. People on the far-pro-bush end consitantly lost my support for the admin by never having anything to say other than the mindless rhetoric of the admin. I'm slowing beginning to accept the possibility that this administration might be a whole lot worse than just 'bad for a republican' which is more or less what I came in with. In all fairness, the administration itself has done a fair job towards making me feel that.

But people on the far left here have done the same thing, pushing me away from their position. I can think three or four who have made me less likely to vote for a democrat in '08. At the moment my positions is "only if it's russ feingold." I'd also consider a vote for barbara boxer, if she ran. But otherwise, I'm liable to vote for Jeb/Condi over Kerry/Hillary or however it comes down.

I also am becoming increasingly concerned with the Iran situation. I read Cheney's whole mideast attack plan. Long before Iran did anything, or the president said 'Iran', when we invaded Iraq and people said "oh yadadada, it's vietnam" I said "no, Iran is vietnam," Iraq is basically target practice.

DREAMTROVE

Saturday, February 18, 2006 10:16 PM

Quote:
...it depends what your criteria for a good leader is.

Citizen,

I've got to go with Chris on this one. Good leader isn't subjective. A good leader is one who makes life better for his subjects, and doesn't kill them.

An excellent leader goes out and makes life better for people who are not directly his subjects, though not at the expense of his own subjects.

Bush's own subjects include the people of Iraq, and have from the moment the Hussein govt. fell. Since Abu Ghraib happened after that, which we know because before that, Abu Ghraib was run by Saddam Hussein, then this was a horrible abuse of power against his own subjects. Everything Bush does to the Iraqis, he does to his people, because they are his people.

Whether or not they elected him is irrelevant. Democrats didn't elect Bush, but they are subject to his policies, just as people who are under 18, or live on Indian Reservations. It's entirely possible that republicans didn't even elect him.

Damn, I meant to say Cheney. I was going to stop using the "B" word. On the grounds that he's not really president.

CITIZEN

Saturday, February 18, 2006 10:18 PM

But what if that isn't your definition of a good leader?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
You should never give powers to a leader you like that you’d hate to have given to a leader you fear

DREAMTROVE

Saturday, February 18, 2006 10:29 PM

Quote:

If your criteria is material gain, for want of a better term, I'd say he was the greatest leader that ever lived.

You mean territorial, not material.

But you're still wrong. I'm not going to have this argument over again, but this is where the left shoots itself in the foot.

What you should have said was "Yes, there's somethign objective that makes Nazis bad." By the constant devil's advocate, you lose me. This is what makes you one of the people who, and I say this with all due respect, because I like you fine personally, one of the people who is probably more likely to make me vote for the other guy by your argument.

Every time your own argument loses votes, you should re-examine your strategy. I think Kerry worked long and hard for Bush. If Kerry had kept his mouth shut Bush would have gotten a lot fewer votes. Mr. Plywood Plank probably had a better shot of beating Bush. He might've even won.

I want to make another point. Just because I thought of it. Whether or not Bush/Cheney won the 2000 election against Gore fair and square, he cheated the 2000 primary. Technically, Steve Forbes was working for Cheney at the time, as his underling in the PNAC think tank. Without getting into an argument with anyone about that, the conflict of interests is clear, and the fact that Forbes entered the race, cloned McCain's platform, and split his vote, causing a Bush victory, does mean that he cheated. Forbes was not actually a credible candidate, but was still working for Cheney at the time.

Anyway, the short argument is this: At he end of the term, regarless of the interim possession, the Nazis left the country divided in 2, over 1/3 of their people dead. Conquest isn't about temporary ownership. Anyone can invade and occupy the Earth. Mongolia, for example. But holding territory is another matter. Even so, conquest is not an achievement. When the left figures that out, they can start campaigning for the people's votes.

CITIZEN

Saturday, February 18, 2006 10:48 PM

DT, erm, huh?

Where in my post did you get the notion that I was trying to say Hitler was a good leader? I thought I stated quite clearly both sides, he's a bad leader because X, but if you think a good leader is Y rather than X than he was actually quite successful, in your eyes. Where you say "I should have said..." I think I did say that, and I thought it was fairly clear.

I mean at the end of the day there was two big turning points in the Second World War, the Battle of Britain and America joining the war on the side of the Allies. If the Battle of Britain had been lost, then the war in Europe would have been won by Germany, I have no doubt. The reason that it wasn't won was Hitler's own stupidity, I'm not trying to say he was a good leader, either as devils advocate or anything else. If a few events had changed (like Churchill ordering the bombing of Berlin in responce to the accidental bombing of London by the Luftwaffer) it's a very real possibillity that the Nazis would still be around today and in control of Europe if not America as well.

I think Material is a good word for it, since I wasn't just talking about territory, but other aspects as well. But in the cold light of day Territorial gain is a material gain.

My 'devils advocate' had nothing to do with Hitler, more to do with why someone may say he was a good leader, which I thought was more or less your point to be honest.

In the end I never tried to start an argument over whether Hitler was a good leader or not, I don't want that argument and I don't believe it anyway.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
You should never give powers to a leader you like that you’d hate to have given to a leader you fear

CITIZEN

Saturday, February 18, 2006 11:06 PM

Secondly, and I'm aware of what may happen after I post this, but Imperialism and national militarism/expansion is not a partisan issue, it is not a 'thing of the left'. It is every bit as much 'a thing of the right'.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
You should never give powers to a leader you like that you’d hate to have given to a leader you fear

DREAMTROVE

Sunday, February 19, 2006 12:02 AM

Quote:
Secondly, and I'm aware of what may happen after I post this, but Imperialism and national militarism/expansion is not a partisan issue, it is not a 'thing of the left'. It is every bit as much 'a thing of the right'.

No, it's not. It's really really not. And just because Bush/Cheney were elected on a republican ticket, doesn't make it so.

CITIZEN

Sunday, February 19, 2006 1:22 AM

No, the fact that it is makes it so.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
You should never give powers to a leader you like that you’d hate to have given to a leader you fear

DREAMTROVE

Sunday, February 19, 2006 2:59 AM

Quote:
No, the fact that it is makes it so.

No, it is not so. Bush is in no way a conservative. He just plays one on TV.

CITIZEN

Sunday, February 19, 2006 10:40 AM

I'm not basing the idea that Imperialism is not a partisan issue on Bush, I'm basing it on Human history, most of which has nothing to do with GWB, or America.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
You should never give powers to a leader you like that you’d hate to have given to a leader you fear

CHRISISALL

Sunday, February 19, 2006 3:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I'm not basing the idea that Imperialism is not a partisan issue on Bush, I'm basing it on Human history, most of which has nothing to do with GWB, or America.

I'll have to agree with you there, Citizen. A list could easily be made...

Chrisisall the Conquerer

CHRISISALL

Sunday, February 19, 2006 3:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Bush is in no way a conservative. He just plays one on TV.

I agree Bush is not a true conservative, but he had himself snuck in, and the GOP didn't kick him out, so I think Citizen is saying, for all intents and purposes, Bush is a defacto Republican (if I'm saying that right, virus still making me loopy...).

Chrisisall the Conquered by common cold

DREAMTROVE

Sunday, February 19, 2006 3:43 PM

Open fire.

Imperialist conservatives. And no fair retroactively applying the term to people who predate this ideological split. I can tell you right now you are in for a beating.

Nazi Germany. A socialist left wing institution. The Nazis, as we concluded earlier, seized power after losing the election to the conservative "Junkers."

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Need I say more? Or anything at all?

Communist China. Again.

This record speaks for itself, guys.

The EU.

The Democratic Party of the United States, pick any leader at all.

The ANC/African Union. Or anywhere in Africa.

Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic, or any of the self proclaimed socialist leaders of the last, oh, forever.

I got some big empires over here, and a lot of little aspiring dictatorships. I don't know what you've got, but in short: I think the claim is patently absurd. I can't think of a single one, and I'm really trying.

CHRISISALL

Sunday, February 19, 2006 3:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Open fire.

Imperialist conservatives. And no fair retroactively applying the term to people who predate this ideological split.

Oh, well, if you're gonna put that limitation to it, well then of course I have nothing for ya....

You win

Chrisisall

DREAMTROVE

Sunday, February 19, 2006 5:34 PM

I know you might at time regret having said it was job to shoot down the clay pigeons of rhetoric, but I just had to shoot this one down.

For some reason, the academic left has managed to spin anything they don't like, or that is militarily aggressive, historically, as "right wing." The absolute low point of rhetoric that I ran into recently was a special on HBO about the rise of Neo-Naziism in europe. The Nazis, which they constantly referred to as "Right wing groups" outside of their genocidal platform, which is not a partisan issue, are pretty decidedly left wing on everything else. Big govt-run social support structures, collectivism, anti-individualism, anti-independent free market, pro-corporate-govt. merger, ie. nationalization of industry. Even on the small issues, they tend to lean left. The point isn't here that the left wants them, in any way, of course not, but they're not our nightmare stalker, they are the left's. The right's nightmare stalker is the Christian fundamentalists.

But back to history, the fact is that academia has labelled empires as right wing, based on nothing other than the desire to use that as rhetorric. For example, take the peloponnesian wars. On the one hand, Pericles was the democratically elected leader of a free-market society, which could be construed as right wing. But a closer examination reveals that even before the war, Pericles was known as "the big spender" very up on the idea of massive social contracts and public works projects, top-down govt. He was a pretty left-wing politician, objectively. Sparta, on the other hand, was essentially a communist state. The Soviet constitution makes reference to Sparta at some point as the ideal state, and goes into some detail about why it was the proto-communist entity. This makes the overall conflict, like many in history, a left-left conflict.

The key underlying thing about the left's connection to imperialism is two-fold:

1. The left has a moral imperative to 'help' the world. Usually this involves changing other people's social structures to fit their (who ever is in charge of the empire) idea of justice.

2. Empire building is very expensive, and takes a big spending regime willing to invest a lot of money in potential social change, with very little real benefit locally.

The end result becomes a kind of 'white man's burder' only sometimes the empires are Asian or African.

A closer examination of a lot of the historical empires will reveal the same thing; Rome, for example, was led by big spenders, it had large social programs, govt. control and very high taxes. As the social regulations grew, so did the empire. The Roman empire, objectively, again, had far more in common with the Soviet Union than it did with the United States. For example, your profession was generally registered at birth, and it was very difficult and sometimes impossible to change that registration. Picture an America in which in order to apply for a job at a computer company, you had to be a registered programmer, and in order for that to be the case, you had to be registered with a programmers guild, and in order for that to be the case, you most like had to be born into a techno-guild member family. This is one of the reasons I oppose labor unions, because they are a move in this direction.

But more specifically, before trying to get into an argument about whether Rome was left or right wing, it's a very complicated issue overall. Rome had a democratic process, so obviously, and individual Senators would push particular platforms, and that would effect the policies of Empire. Some of these people were more left wing or right wing, but if an academic labels one as right wing because of a military policy they proposed, that's really putting the cart before the horse. One would have to look at each Senator's take on domestic issues, and then how those lead them to their foreign policy decision. What I recall from my history studies was that this showed a very similar pattern to what we see in America, and my hunch is that a more detailed a

CITIZEN

Sunday, February 19, 2006 6:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Dreamtrove:
Nazi Germany. A socialist left wing institution. The Nazis, as we concluded earlier, seized power after losing the election to the conservative "Junkers."

They also openly attacked Communists. The Nazis were neither left nor right, showing aspects of both. The Nazis wanted power, if that meant appealing to the left one minute and the right the next that's what they did. Hitler got the Christians on side by talking about a Christian empire et al, a fact that many choose to use to prove Hitler was Christian. However Hitler was quite vocally anti Christian in private.

Quote:
Imperialist conservatives. And no fair retroactively applying the term to people who predate this ideological split.

No including people who would be blatantly called right wing conservatives before the term was coined huh

Okay off the top of my head:
British Conservative governments of the 18th/19th centuries (and these really were big ones, quarter of the world and all that). In fact the entire British Imperial expansion was a right wing thing. Winston Churchill was trying to remove the Imperialist slant to the British Conservatives (unsuccessfully) as late as 1906.

Imperial Japan.

Napoleon and the French empire.

Mussolini and the Italian fascists.

Since the left is traditionally the split from the Monarchy, any Monarchy, ever. But more specifically the slew of Monarchies that are still around.

Since I've seen you using the fact that A Democrat was in office during the Second World War to prove your point before now:
Winston Churchill.

Margate Thatcher and the Falklands war. An unnecessary war that could have easily been stopped before it started, if Thatcher had wanted too.

The American Christian far right.

Quote:
The EU.

The EU is an economic union of European nations, it doesn't even have an army, nor currently any real say how members deploy their own Militaries, so what it's doing on your list I have no idea.

Edit:
Dreamtrove, if you bar me from retroactivly fitting right wing then please extend that to yourself also.

Further more many of the points you raised as to how to judge what is right, i.e. Individualism, anti-centralised government et al, were originally left wing, they were the stances of those who apposed the right wing monarchists.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
You should never give powers to a leader you like that you’d hate to have given to a leader you fear

CHRISISALL

Sunday, February 19, 2006 6:45 PM

I respectfully submit we drop the whole Right/Left thing in favour of People for the People/People for the Eliteist Rich Warmongering Scumbags removed from the realities of daily Real-Life.

Okay, shorten that second one, I guess. People for the Elite.

Simplifies things a bit, don't you think? Now you don't have to decide whether Bush is conservative or radical, he's simply 'for the Elite'.

*feels the detailed response why he's wrong coming, decides to fly*
FLAME ON!

Humantorchisall

DREAMTROVE

Sunday, February 19, 2006 8:01 PM

Quote:
They also openly attacked Communists.

Who didn't? Left-left conflicts abound.

Quote:
The Nazis were neither left nor right, showing aspects of both.

No. I mean, I can understand your not wanting them, and no offense, by all means, go ahead, disown them. But they do not show aspects of conservatism. Okay, yes, they were christian fundamentalists, I see you're point. But politically, they were a derivation of left and looney. But yes, I concede they were also Christian looney. I guess I think the Xtians as my nightmare follower, not an intrinsic part of conservatism. If the political left catered to their madness, they would desert the right. As, I grant, if the political right catered to Nazis, they would probably come to our side. That's why it's the lunatic fringe I guess.

Quote:
Britain

I was thinking of this one, but I wasn't sure. I need to go and check the debate on this. I remember in colonial times it was the Whigs, who we consider conservatives, and the orignal basis for the GOP, who supported an independent America, but you may be right about colonialism.

Quote:
Japan

I concede this point already.

Quote:
Napoleon

I'll have to think about this one. The french revolution was a left-wing madness. Napoleon was a monarch, outside the political debate if I recall, but I'll check it.

Quote:
Mussolini and the Italian fascists.

Not a chance. Mussolini was a mega-nationalizer.

Okay, the left-right we are talking about is liberal vs. conservative. This is not a discussion on monarchy. Left, right in the modern political sense.

Quote:
Winston Churchill.

Not arguing the point. Winston was a loser, but he was the british right's loser, and theirs to answer for :)

I have to confess that not mentioning Churchill is a logical choice for me. But in my defense, it's not as if the lefties constantly bring up Harry Truman to illustrate their points.

Quote:
Margate Thatcher and the Falklands war.

Oh, come on, this is absurd. Argentina, on a blind imperialist aggression, invaded the Fauklands, and Thatcher was nothing short of 100% correct in defending it. Defending your own country against aggression does not constitute imperialism, in any way shape or form.

Quote:
EU

Did you miss something? I doubt you did, you just want a left wing empire.

Quote:
Dreamtrove, if you bar me from retroactivly fitting right wing then please extend that to yourself also.

I wasn't. I was just illustrating that it's a complicated issue, and you can't just call everyone right wing because you oppose them.

Quote:
Further more many of the points you raised as to how to judge what is right, i.e. Individualism, anti-centralised government et al, were originally left wing, they were the stances of those who apposed the right wing monarchists.

Again, this is not about the issue of monarchism

Allow me to deconstruct this argument, and then put it permanently to bed:

What Citizen is refering to is that during the time of the French Revolution, (1789-1794) the Monarchists sat on the right, and the various sorts of Democratic-Republican sat on the left, which is where the terms originally came from.

By this logic, everyone, Democrat or Republican, or their european equivalents, is left wing.

But within a few short years, the political axis was redefined along means which had nothing to do with the concept of Monarchy. by 1824, when the two party system was first set up in the US, the left-right continuum had become what it is today. Then, for 200 years, the meaning didn't really change at all, something which I think I've demonstrated a number of times here.

No one, through the centuries of political discourse since then has used right wing to mean Monarchy, aside from possibly within the monarchical resurgence of Napoleon.

Now I see what you meant by Napoleon as right wing, you mean old right, monarchist, and so I'm ex-ing him from the list. If you were living in this century, or t

DREAMTROVE

Sunday, February 19, 2006 8:09 PM

I hate to oblige, but Chris, I think that this is usually used as spin.

The fact is that most "govt's for the people" are actually "for the govt." and since they are the govt., they are the elite. IOW, I think this is another leftie pigeon.

Also, left and right are differing philosophies. Bush and Clinton are not those philosophies. Clinton, as much as it pains me to say it, is no more left than Bush is right. They're both People for the Eliteist Rich Warmongering Scumbags removed from the realities of daily Real-Life.

But if we allow it to be shortened, it becomes a weighted pro-left propaganda tool. The truth is that a fair free and open society is not an equal one, but one that favors people who do something. These people will ultimately become the Elite.

For instance. I want to not have crack peddling gay prostitute rings in my society. I have them now. In the college town, not far from here. But if I became rich and powerful, I would want to live somewhere where they weren't. This is to some extent elitist. I think everyone has their own thing that they would want to not have in their society, whether it's chrisitan fundamentalist creationists or terrorist jihadists. I guess what I'm saying is everyone is an elitist. The only difference between the Elite and everyone else is they don't have to put up with it so they don't.

I think the debate has to remain what the debate is about.

Have some soup and get better.

CITIZEN

Sunday, February 19, 2006 9:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Dreamtrove:
I was thinking of this one, but I wasn't sure. I need to go and check the debate on this. I remember in colonial times it was the Whigs, who we consider conservatives, and the orignal basis for the GOP, who supported an independent America, but you may be right about colonialism.

The British crown was right wing and was anti-American independence. I’m not even sure if there was a credible left wing force in British politics of the time.

Quote:
Oh, come on, this is absurd. Argentina, on a blind imperialist aggression, invaded the Fauklands, and Thatcher was nothing short of 100% correct in defending it. Defending your own country against aggression does not constitute imperialism, in any way shape or form.

I felt I had to clarify my point here, as you missed it. In 1976 (I think) the exact same circumstances that led to the Falklands war occurred under a labour government. The reaction was to bolster forces in the area, sending a clear message that Britain was prepared to defend the Islands.

When this happened under Thatcher she removed existing forces, sending a clear message that Britain WASN'T going to fight for the Islands.

Net result, no war in 1976, but there is a war in 1982. I also draw attention to the fact that Thatcher’s majority was dropping like a stone, but oh look successful war and she's running the country for another decade...

Point is yeah, once Argentina invade there was no option, but we could have stopped Argentina invading without firing a shot.

Yep she did do some good things (the British EU rebate is the only thing that comes to mind off hand) but she and her mate Major also left the country in a shit state, economically, socially, defensively...

The ‘ruling’ class did alright though…

Quote:
Did you miss something? I doubt you did, you just want a left wing empire.

Well, yes, I did, the part where the EU was involved in any militarism what so ever. The part where the EU had a military. The part where the EU had invaded anyone. This is fantasy land, by the same token I could say that the nation of the moon is a right wing imperial dictatorship.

I’m afraid I’m going to need you to explain this one too me.

Quote:
I wasn't. I was just illustrating that it's a complicated issue, and you can't just call everyone right wing because you oppose them.

That’s just the point DT, that’s not what I’m doing. I’m saying the Imperialism and militarism is an aspect of the extreme left AND extreme right. It was your assertion that it was one or the other.

The thing is the Right often attacks the left with the assertion that they’re all pacifist who are on the side of the ‘enemy’ while also saying the left is responsible for all the wars and Imperialism through the ages, so seriously, which is it? It really can’t be both; the left is either a bunch of wishy washy cowardly pacifists that can’t defend themselves or a bunch of war mongering psychopaths.

Quote:
Again, this is not about the issue of monarchism

Allow me to deconstruct this argument, and then put it permanently to bed:

What Citizen is refering to is that during the time of the French Revolution, (1789-1794) the Monarchists sat on the right, and the various sorts of Democratic-Republican sat on the left, which is where the terms originally came from.

By this logic, everyone, Democrat or Republican, or their european equivalents, is left wing.

This is, indeed, where the left historically originates. Frankly yes, Democrats, Republicans, and their European equivalents are LEFT of this extreme. This does not prove that monarchists aren’t right, ergo we can prescribe the militarism of Monarchists too the right, right? But anyway, the point is these were originally left wing ideals, the fact that we can’t agree what left and right is just gives credence to what I’ve said a million times before that Left and Right is inadequate and needs to be replaced.

Quote:
by 1824, when the two party system was f

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

FLETCH2

Sunday, February 19, 2006 9:25 PM

Or put another way

Political space is curved such that the distance between the extreme ends is less than the distance between the extremes and the middle.

CHRISISALL

Sunday, February 19, 2006 9:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Political space is curved such that the distance between the extreme ends is less than the distance between the extremes and the middle.

Maybe it's the fever, but that make sense to me...

In and out Chrisisall

CITIZEN

Sunday, February 19, 2006 10:05 PM

Something like this:

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
You should never give powers to a leader you like that you’d hate to have given to a leader you fear

STARSONG

Monday, February 20, 2006 12:54 AM

Quote:
When does it become 'politics'?

When it ceases to be about doing something productive, or even talking about doing something productive, and becomes just being mean to people.

:(

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Monday, February 20, 2006 2:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I'm sorry, the constitution is not a decree of divine dictatorship. The CiC does not decide where and when we go to war. It's not his position to decide who Americas enemies are and why we fight. The president is top General, not legislator.

What you give here is the line that ArchDictator Cheney and the monkey puppet Bush want you to believe, as told by the ArchTraitor Stanley H. Gonzalez.

What I gave you was the Constitution:

“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States”
U.S. Constitution: Article II. Section 2. Paragraph 1.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Nothing irrational about hating these international terrorists who are trying to destroy everything we have worked for, and turning America into a four letter word internationally.

Finn, as a rhetorrical style alone, this isn't working, perhaps you should think about you're overall position before you lose my vote to Pirate News.

If you want to throw your ‘vote to Pirate News,’ you go right ahead. Anyone who advocates burning the government to the ground would probably fit far better in PirateNews’ world then in mine.

Oh, he's so full of manure, that man! We could lay him in the dirt and grow another one just like him.
-- Ruby

DREAMTROVE

Monday, February 20, 2006 2:45 AM

Quote:
The British crown was right wing and was anti-American independence. I’m not even sure if there was a credible left wing force in British politics of the time.

Citizen,

This is just the sort of thing I was complaining about. The concept that the British crown was right wing is pure postumous left wing spin. Being a monarchy, it doesn't fall into our left-right continuum. It is no-wing. It's not left, It's not right, It's not center, it's not anywhere

near the left right continuum we know. To say that it's right wing would be to imply that it was a pro-business limited-govt. with an interest in private sector and a focus of preservation of a way of life for the citizenry. To say that it was left wing would be to say it was pro

social-safety-net, pro-universal equality, and pro-large govt. labor projects. None of this is true, so it's no-wing.

Quote:
I felt I had to clarify my point here, as you missed it. In 1976 (I think) the exact same circumstances that led to the Falklands war occurred under a labour government. The reaction was to bolster forces in the area, sending a clear message that Britain was

prepared to defend the Islands.

I think the later threat was more severe, Argentina was actually in the process of invading. The president of Argentina had just put himself into a perilous political position which made him appear extremely weak to his own people. He invaded the Fauklands for

essentially one reason: to save his political career. He wasn't about to be easily deterred.
But anyway, I didn't know she had facilitated the invasion by reducing troop levels, which wasn't very imperialist of her, either way. Thatcher was, like Reagan, less than ideal. But nowhere near as bad as what we have now.

Quote:
Well, yes, I did, the part where the EU was involved in any militarism what so ever. The part where the EU had a military. The part where the EU had invaded anyone.

It's still an empire. Did you even read the socialist nightmare constitution? Good God, is all I can say. At the moment, I feel lucky to have Bush by comparison, and that's saying a lot. Anyway, it's not fantasy, it's imaginiation, something which you need in order to

see what is clearly coming. The EU military, once up and running, will allow the EU to do what it really wants, which is to destroy freedom in Europe. The first step is to take control of the currency and the economy, and once done, no one will be economically able

to leave. Once the military is started, and this is not made up, the proposal has already been put forth for an independent military supported by EU-wide taxation, that military will then be able to call British forces to war even if Britain votes against the war in the same

way that New York must send forces to Iraq, even though it's people overwhelmingly oppose the action. You are making all of the mistakes we made, and many of the ones the USSR did.

BTW, If I were in England Labor wouldn't have a chance of getting my vote. At the moment, the democrats do, they could put up Russ Feingold. But if I were a Brit it would be a choice between Tory (probably) and LibDem (Possibly) for me.

Quote:
That’s just the point DT, that’s not what I’m doing. I’m saying the Imperialism and militarism is an aspect of the extreme left AND extreme right. It was your assertion that it was one or the other.

I was saying on balance empire building has been a leftwing activity, esp. lately.

Quote:
The thing is the Right often attacks the left with the assertion that they’re all pacifist who are on the side of the ‘enemy’ while also saying the left is responsible for all the wars and Imperialism through the ages, so seriously, which is it? It really can’t be both; the

left is either a bunch of wishy washy cowardly pacifists that can’t defend themselves or a bunch of war mongering psychopaths.

The left being pacifists is almost an absurd position. When were the left pacifists? I agree that this is how the hawks always try to paint the doves, bu

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Monday, February 20, 2006 3:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
I respectfully submit we drop the whole Right/Left thing in favour of People for the People/People for the Eliteist Rich Warmongering Scumbags removed from the realities of daily Real-Life.

Okay, shorten that second one, I guess. People for the Elite.

Simplifies things a bit, don't you think? Now you don't have to decide whether Bush is conservative or radical, he's simply 'for the Elite'.

*feels the detailed response why he's wrong coming, decides to fly*
FLAME ON!

I agree.

Strictly speaking, the Left and Right are just political dichotomies, one – the Right – representing the proposition (established thought) and the other – the Left – representing the antiproposition (the opposition to the established thought). The specific meaning is relative to the current politics, or established thought. So the further you get away from today the less relevant the current definitions of Left and Right become. This is why it is meaningless to define post-classical Rome as “right-wing.” There certainly were similarities in thought, but the actual polices advocated by the Roman government following, say, Tiberius, swayed widely from emperor to emperor between what we might consider the two extremes, although very rarely in my opinion falling into cadence with any current political doctrine. Politics in Rome before and perhaps during Augustus was defined more by competing schools of thought, much as politics is today, and it is generally acknowledged that the two dialectic schools of thought were defined by the ideals expressed by the, so called “conservatives,” like Cato, and philhellenes, like Cicero. And once again there are similarities to today’s politics, but neither of them falls easily into any current defined category.

I’m not as intimately familiar with other ancient and classical civilizations as I am the Romans, but I would imagine that a similar difficulty exists in trying to cast any of them into the current idea of Left and Right.

Oh, he's so full of manure, that man! We could lay him in the dirt and grow another one just like him.
-- Ruby

DREAMTROVE

Monday, February 20, 2006 3:04 AM

Citizen,

Thanks for the circle. I posted something very similar twice before:

only I put big runaway govt. on the top., I believe you have it on the bottom, if you mean to say that Blair/Bush is extreme, which I would agree with.

Also, curiously, the right in the US is identified by red, and the left by blue. Is it the reverse in the UK? It used to be the other way here.

I posted the names of Senators, I guess the Brits wouldn't get the references, but I'm sure you have prominant people to fill in.

Feingold and Boxer are democrats who are esentially libertarian, capitalist and pro-peace.

Larry Craig, Chuck Hagel, Lincoln Chafee, John Sununu are republicans who support these same positions.

This is not to say that Feingold=Craig, they have points they disagree on, related to standard left right issues, pro-business vs. govt. social programs or whathaveyou, but the import part is that Both Russ Feingold and Larry Craig have opposed Bush and opposed Clinton close to 100% of the time.

Curiously, I was reading a review of the Senate which ranked everyone left to right, and this is when it occured to me that the left-right line was not correct.

Joe Leiberman and Russ Feingold were right next to each other. Both were right towards the middle. I think Russ might have voted with the GOP only a couple more times than Joementum (Lieberman's nickname). Anyway, as a political guide, that was horridly deceptive. The fact is that Lieberman and Feingold (both jewish of course, PN) have voted on opposite sides from one another on just about every major policy for the last 15 years (no conspiracy here.) Lieberman and Fiengold, being in the identical spot on a left-right continuum, were clearly polar opposites. That's when I thought of the circle. Two types of moderate, both opposites of each other. The fact is Lieberman supported Clinton and then Bush all of the time, and Feingold opposed them.

I've been trying to sus out who the left and right are. I think Kennedy, Biden, Rockafeller are probably in the center of that democratic arc, and probably McCain, Warner, Lugar are in the middle of the republican arc.

I'm curious to know how brits would classify the libdems in a way that an American could understand. To me, they seem like moderates. Torys are like Republicans, Labor are like Democrats, and the LibDems are somewhere in the middle?

DREAMTROVE

Monday, February 20, 2006 3:10 AM

Finn,

I agree. To clarify, we should say 'right' and 'left', since people are going to continue using them, are used to mean 'modern right' and 'modern left.' I still call neoconservatism something other than 'modern right' because it is a represntation of radical change, and therefore not 'right.'

Maybe someday it will be the accept standard, but I hope not.

FLETCH2

Monday, February 20, 2006 7:34 AM

Even "conservative" and "liberal" are relative to the prevailing norm. In Russia a conservative is a hardline communist and a liberal a guy that believes in free market economics.

A few clarifications as to the UK parties.

In general Conservatives are pro defence, pro law and order, and favour lower taxes. They like to be seen as the fiscally responsable party, the one that is safe with the economy. Consequently they categorise Labour as "tax and spend" and a high taxation party. The core of Conservative support is in the countryside and some urban areas in the south. In general Conservatives are a Unionist party, which means that they seek to protect the Union between the different countries within the UK. A knock on effect of this is that they tend to prefer centralisation to devolved government and believe that central government in London is superior to local government. In US terms they are not into "States Rights." The party sees itself as being the advocate of British busness and free enterprise.

Labour was a creation of the trade union movement and only started holding political office in the early part of the 20th Century. The absorbed over time most of the more ardent left wing groups who had once been part of the Liberal party. In the process they became for a time an avowed socialist party believing in public ownership of key industries. In the late 1940's they nationalised the railways, iron and steel production, electricity generation, mining and a number of other industries. They also created the welfare state, the cornerstone of which is the National Health Service (NHS.) Labour's support traditionally comes from the urban working class, especially in the North. Until the 1980's the influence of the unions was such that they could decide the leadership and the party platform. Labour's focus is on the public welfare especially health. As they tend to be stronger in the regions than in the capital they favour devolved government and the moving of power from London to the regions and bellow. They are traditionally anti imperialist, pacifist and non interventionist. They had a reputation of taxing and spending and for not being prudent with the economy.

In the 19th century the Liberals were the alternate party to the Conservatives. The original "big tent" party they contained almost all factions from the new industrial middle class to working class socialist groups. Their main thrust was electorial reform, specifically trying to break various electorial rules that gave the Conservatives a lock on power. They won gradual advances but as the franchise was broadened the reasons that kept these different groups in one party started to weaken. The Liberals split repeatedly until by the 1930's they nearly became extinct. The modern Libdems are an amalumation of the rump Liberals and the Social Democratic Party, a Labour splinter group that formed after Labour's defeat in the 1979 election.

Libdems tend to be middle class and have their core constituencies in the west. They control or have the deciding vote on a large number of local councils and so favour regional government and devolution. They tend to be seen as soft on defence, broadly pro free market and pro education (a surprising number of teachers are in the LibDems.) Other than that it's really hard to say where they stand. Generally they are seen to occupy the middle ground between the two big parties and tend to benefit from protest votes as a result.

The UK doesn't have a big economy, so consequently a lot of the party differences come down to how they prioritise spending. In addition public finances are regularly presented in the Chancellors budget and in reports to Parliament. This means that government has to justify its spending at least once a year. In addition since the party in power decides the budget there tends to be very little horse trading of the kind seen in American Omnibus spending bills.

So when Labour is in power the focus is on public services especially health. Usually if spending in this area goes up the mone

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, February 21, 2006 3:18 AM

Fletch,

Thanks for the rundown on British politics. Fascinating stuff. I remember when I was in Japan, someone explained to me that the japanese have one letter which is in between "r" and "l" so westerners here "r" when their ear is expecting "l" and "l" when expecting "r". This gives the illusion that the japanese pronunciation is always wrong.

I think that something similar is happening here. Bush is not a lefty or a democrat, and Blair is not a Tory, they are clearly the same as one another, so they are something new. That things is in some ways centrist on the left-right continuum, but extremist on some other axis. So when it is in the middle of the left, it looks right, when it is in the middle of the right, it looks left. In reality, it's neither. That's my current theory anyway.

If the Tories have failed to embrace states rights that would explain their weak position. Conservative support relies on preservation of a way of life folks like me, which is based in states rights. If the rural welsh and scots aren't voting Tory, then clearly the tories have done something wrong, since this would be a natural demographic for them, a people with an extant stable way of life that they wouldn't want to particularly change. It's also occurred to me that the lib dems and tories would be stronger if merged into one pro-free market party. But I'm not in the situation, so I don't know, just an outsider's eyeball perspective.

FLETCH2

Tuesday, February 21, 2006 6:42 AM

Noooo

Scotland, Wales and the west are called the Celtic finge. Used to be solidly Labour or nationalist these days I think the LibDems have some good support there. Conservatives have always been the party of big central power, they built the big government to run an Empire. They do best in the areas around London and worse the further away you get, so consequently there is no real love of the idea of creating competing power bases in the regions especially ones you know you would never control. Labour and the LibDems can think of devolving power down because that's where their support is.

As for a Libdem/Tory matchup. I suspect that won't happen anytime soon. By their nature Conservatives are centralist and somewhat authoritarian, Libdems are regionalist and well, liberal. They don't play well together. The LibDems pro market leanings make them a natural "refuge" party for disaffected Tories. Their Liberal leanings make them a natural refuge for desenting Labour types.

Their problem is that Labour has headed right, hard. Labour is probably the most free market orientated ruling party in Europe (which probably doesn't say much.) They are far more agressively free market than the current conservative French government (yes Chirac is conservative bizzare as that seems.) Like I said the aim of this was probably to steal the Tories clothes but it deprives the LibDems of one of their principle distinctions -- being nominally left wing and free market.

I have no idea what the Conservatives are doing. The fixation on Europe is a mistake that just keeps on costing. If they aim to move the focus away from a Federal state back towards a free trade zone that can only be done from inside. Hinting they would pull out (with the economic chaos that would bring) weakens their support in the British business community and hands it to Labour. There used to be a time when the party had more than one topic and could at least do it's job as loyal opposition, not sure what's happening now.

CITIZEN

Tuesday, February 21, 2006 10:43 AM

DT:
Yeah Red is for Labour, blue for the Tories. Liberal Democrates are a yellow/orange sort of colour.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
You should never give powers to a leader you like that you’d hate to have given to a leader you fear

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, February 21, 2006 2:10 PM

Fletch,

I understand from how the terms are applied liberal, conservative, etc., how come we have so many fights.

I know that Chriac is a conservative. Also a crook. In a way the Tory, anti-EU position is anti-federalist, and pro-states rights, when you consider britain to be the state, and Europe to be the nation, which is a closer parallel to American politics. At any rate, it's hardly a centralize power position. Anti-EU is the only logical political position, I really can't comprehend another one. The pro-Iraq war position seems totally irrational to me but it is easier to understand than the pro-EU. Pro-EU is like pro-Soviet or pro-Chinese expansion.

All of this is making me think I should share with the Tories some of the things which make the Republicans so successful here. It's a case of the GOP has spoken to us in a way that, it's not a religion, by any means, but it's a clear pragmatic position: Even if you totally despise Bush, and just about everything about him, and I really really do, the Republican Party is the logical choice for me. There are some people here who are republicans, and vote republican, that if they lived in a city might be democrats, I mean folks far to the left of me. The curious thing is the break down of votes changes dramatically when you leave the presidential race. New York, even in the city is really more likely to go republican that some places in the South, in non-presidential races. At the moment we have two democratic senators, but a nyc mayor and governors are republican, as well as our congressman, and the one in the neighboring district, and probably a great many more. We could get another GOP senator is Bush would stop blocking an opposition to Hillary. The thing is that our concept of Republican is very different from what it is in Texas. Particularly, NE Republicans are very different from Texas and deep south. A lot of the east coast republicans are fairly similar to us, in VA, NC, SC, but when you move into the more heavily Chrisitan TN, KY, KS, AL, MS, TX, OK, that's where we're likely to see inter-republican sparks flying. A lot of pacific and midwest republicans are more similar to what we have here.

It's a strategic positioning issue, and it sounds like the Tories have positioned themselves poorly. A pro-Britain stances is consistant with anti-EU, but logically, pro-Welsh would follow. Where does the Irish question fall on political lines?

FLETCH2

Tuesday, February 21, 2006 5:12 PM

Well it has to be understood that the Conservatives joined the EU (then the Common Market) in the first place a move that at the time was opposed by Labour who when they came to power held a referendum to see if the British people wanted to stay in (they did.)

Both parties are split on Europe. Withdrawl was officially Labour policy for a while when they were in opposition in the 1980's. Initially the left distrusted Europe, they dislike concentrations of power and the Unions were not sure that an open market wouldn't just export jobs. The right liked it because it was a larger free market and so good for business. It didn't hurt that back in the 70's the then Common market had a principly right wing power base. What happened was that the EU went left during the mid to late 80's. It went far beyond the point a lot of Tories were comfortable with and they started to pull back much to the frustration of their pro-business side. At the same time Labour saw some cracks appearing in the Franco-German alliance that effectively runs the EU and decided they could best effect change from within. They could placate their own Euro-sceptic left wing by pointing out the labour protections and workers rights legislation in the EU (even though they didnt actually ratify any of them) and their right wing, like the Tories could see the business advantages.

Right now in the UK, Labour is pro Europe (they have a split but it's not visable), the LibDems are definately pro Europe and the Tories are split. Right now the Tories hold a line where they can still keep the pro's and anti's in the same party. My guess is that if they move too Anti folks will leave, if they go too pro folks will leave. We've already had MP's defect from Conservative to Labour on this issue, which honestly is amazing.

I wouldn't draw too many parrallels between the US and the EU. The EU is essentially a political project which has varying degrees of support in the member nations. The French see it as a counter ballence to American power, the UK, Swedes, Danes and Poles view it as a free trade zone with some garanteed social standards. Germany's opinion probably just changed with the government. If you do have to draw parallels then the UK's position is probably the same as that of the State of New York in the 1780's, it hasn't heard anything that completely convinces it that anything more than a loose confederation is really needed.

Of course nobody as gifted as "Federalist" has entered the debate to convince them. I think right now there are too many "ideal Europes" in various people's heads. I'm sure Chirac wants a single superstate in which France has a substancial if not dominant role, a "great Republic" that can face down the Americans. In that he IS being a French conservative because the "traditional" possition in France is that it's a great international power. If conservatives are supposed to be overly fond of tradition then he's doing his job.

The Tory Europe would essentially be just a free trade zone, though again there are those that want more from it than that. I think the problem is one of authority. If the Tories believed they could run Europe, that the centralised power was their centralised power, then I think they would probably go for it. What they dislike is the idea of power being taken away from London, and that is the same no mater where it goes to. So power for Welsh affairs going to Cardiff is just as bad as power going to Brussels. If you are the centralised power party, you dont want that power going anyplace else.

Blair wants to dominate Europe and shape it along the lines of the United States. He wants a decentralised Federal structure with more state autonomy than the French vision. He sees such a Europe as a partner to the US rather than a competitor.

From what I've seen of the LibDem position I think they are more into the model of a confederation of states, probably very similar to the pre Federal US. Like I said it's kind of hard to be sure.

On Ireland there really isnt that many party differences. The Cons

FLETCH2

Tuesday, February 21, 2006 6:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Finn,

I agree. To clarify, we should say 'right' and 'left', since people are going to continue using them, are used to mean 'modern right' and 'modern left.' I still call neoconservatism something other than 'modern right' because it is a represntation of radical change, and therefore not 'right.'

Maybe someday it will be the accept standard, but I hope not.

Hummm I'm not sure that's nescessarily right (grin) I think conservatives choose to associate themselves with the right because of peripheral similarities. The "right" in general is a force that effects change, it's just that in most situations those are changes conservatives are comfortable with. This I think is my biggest problem with the TE hypothesis. You characterise it as being external to Republicanism but you seem to think that

Republicanism == conservative

I see it as a big tent party and Neocons do fit nicely with some none conservative elements that exist within Republicanism in general (what I would call the American Imperialist faction.) That they are NOT conservative is obvious by their policies, that they are not Republican...... that's debateable.

Back home all of our parties are big tent. It is understood that they contain many factions and at least 2 "wings." It is also understood that to win political office they need to present a unified front and that as such various parts of the party are expected to shut up if the party as a whole decides to go in a direction that they dont like. When parties split over policy that tends to kill any chances of being elected. That's what made the Liberals a near extinct party, helped keep Labour out of power in the 1980's and bedevils the Tories right now. Eventually a devils compromise is reached where the factions agree to work together to get the party elected so that at least some of that factions priorities will have a chance to be acted on.

For example within Conservatism there are Thatcherites, Unionists, monarchists, one nation Tories, pro and anti Europeans. The party platform is an average of the inclinations of these various factions the general thrust being decided by the factions in ascendency. Thatcherites as a faction didn't exist before the late '70's but free market Tories did, they just weren't the dominant group at that time. What happened was they got new ideas, a charasmatic leader and better organisation and then gained ascendancy.

I would argue that the faction currently ascendant in Republicanism may not be to your taste but is still home grown, it's existed in the party since at least the time of the Spanish-American war. Even if we accept the TE hypothesis that ALL Neocon ideology came from outside (which I don't) there would still have to be factions inside a party willing to embrace it. Up until recently there has been very little resistance to the Bush administrations policies from mainstream Republicans. In fact three Repubicans I like, Ron Paul of Texas, Pat Buchannon and John McCain are called "RINO's" by most of the Repubicans I know down in Texas. So what's going on? Paul has the highest conservative voting record in the house, but he's considered disloyal because he once ran for President on a none Republican ticket. It's obvious that the Reps I was talking to view loyalty to the party as being more important than ideological purity. Oh these are registered Republicans and campaign donators so not just casual supporters