Bush Blames the Sailors

[uh Clem]

Quote of the Day, from Wesley Clark

"I guess the next thing we’re going to hear is that the sailors told him to wear the flight suit and prance around on the aircraft carrier."



"prance"!!!!

The Navy is now saying that the banner came from the White House. When you treat people like ****, don't be surprised if their sense of loyalty to you isn't exactly their #1 priority.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Doh! Better get your money back on that Poli-Sci degree there Imran

Why should I, I'm correct.

Liberals see private property as fundamental to liberalism - tis the very definition of liberalism. Progressives tend to be ambivalent to socialist on property questions.

Depends on if you are talking about European Liberalism or American Liberalism. American Liberals, since FDRs time (the first 'American' Liberal), do not see private property as fundamental.

FDR's system always assumed the existence of private property. taxed and regulated to be sure, but still owned privately (with the exeption of TVA) It was not based on govt ownership of the means of production, or the "commanding heights" of the economy, much less of agricultural property, etc.

[Imran Siddiqui]

FDR's system always assumed the existence of private property. taxed and regulated to be sure, but still owned privately (with the exeption of TVA) It was not based on govt ownership of the means of production, or the "commanding heights" of the economy, much less of agricultural property, etc.

His view of private property was much less 'fundamental' to his politics than the so-called Progressives (TR, Bryan, LaFollete, Wilson).

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by The Templar


It's not a 'radical liberal rag'

Not 'radical' because it is fairly conventional in its editorials and its reporting is objective.

Not 'liberal' - just compare it to the nation, which is liberal or to the American Prospect.

Not a 'rag' because it is exlusively a webzine

Dammit Sloww, if I have to school you again, I'm going to charge you tuition!

Oh common now, youre not calling "The Nation" liberal? Radical, progressive, not-quite-Stalinist, whatever, but not liberal.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
The political spectrum is a broken circle, not a line. Nazis and ultracommies/anarchists meet at the very ends.

No we don't. We're fundimental opposites on issues of private property and social rights and poltical participation. The fact that the communists that came to power ended up being seized by a reactionary element doesn't change that.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

FDR's system always assumed the existence of private property. taxed and regulated to be sure, but still owned privately (with the exeption of TVA) It was not based on govt ownership of the means of production, or the "commanding heights" of the economy, much less of agricultural property, etc.

His view of private property was much less 'fundamental' to his politics than the so-called Progressives (TR, Bryan, LaFollete, Wilson).

He was less ideological and more pragmatic, and he had elements in his administration who were either more "radical/progressive" than liberal IE eleanor, Henry Wallace, or Social Democrat ie Hillman. But he was also facing a different economic situation, and was in a society that had evolved over the previous 20 years.

I dont think that FDR ever really articulated his view of the ideal society - he wasnt that kind of leader. If he had, I think private property would still have been fundamental. And I would suggest that FDR was as far as American liberalism ever went in a progressive/socialist direction - certainly i dont think any dem Presidnt after would contemplate the degree of govt intervention in purely market functions (as opposed to social and environmental regs) as occured with the NRA, WPA, financial regulation, transportation reg, etc.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


No we don't. We're fundimental opposites on issues of private property and social rights and poltical participation. The fact that the communists that came to power ended up being seized by a reactionary element doesn't change that.

On private property agreed. political participation? Every leninist state used mass mobilization, but kept control in a centrally run party. Not far different than fascism. Or are defining communism more broadly, so that Lenin is just a reactionary element?

Those who use the term totalitarianism this way tend not to see the property question as central - one understands that communists, and most socialists disagree.

[Chemical Ollie]

That's what you commies keep saying, Che, but I can find more similarities between a Nazi and an ultracommie than between a Nazi and a conservative. It's a tread topic on it's own, however, and I'm too tired to jump into that discussion tonight. And you are wrong on the private property issue. Nazis are basically against private property, especially if the property is a large corporation or a natural resource of national interest.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Liberals see private property as fundamental to liberalism - tis the very definition of liberalism. Progressives tend to be ambivalent to socialist on property questions.

Depends on if you are talking about European Liberalism or American Liberalism. American Liberals, since FDRs time (the first 'American' Liberal), do not see private property as fundamental.

You didn't say 'American Liberal' did you? But seriously, when Rawls, Nozick, etc. are talking about 'Liberal Democracy' they are not excluding Republicans and they are certainly not thinking of socialism or communism. They are talking about democracy with property rights. These guys are Americans and are the paragon of contemporary US political thought. I know 'liberal' means 'left' on cable talk shows, but I thought we were above that here ...

And libertarians are not that socially radical ...

A group that believes in full rights based on sexual orientation and the legalization of all drugs does not sound like a moderate group to me.

Neither of those is radical. Let's see - full rights to people, even gay people? Yeah, that's radical. Isn't it always conservatives crying about big government and exhaulting individual rights and liberty? Drugs? Again, big government and individual liberty.

If you had talked about libertarianism and polygamy you might have had something radical. But you didn't.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You didn't say 'American Liberal' did you?

We are talking about the US in this thread.

when Rawls, Nozick, etc. are talking about 'Liberal Democracy' they are not excluding Republicans and they are certainly not thinking of socialism or communism. They are talking about democracy with property rights. These guys are Americans and are the paragon of contemporary US political thought. I know 'liberal' means 'left' on cable talk shows, but I thought we were above that here ...

Why should we listen to Rawls or Nozick over the 'cable talk shows' when the cable talk shows are the ones describing how the terms are generally used in the US? In the US, Progressives are merely parts of both Liberal and Radical dicotomies.

Let's see - full rights to people, even gay people? Yeah, that's radical. Isn't it always conservatives crying about big government and exhaulting individual rights and liberty? Drugs? Again, big government and individual liberty.

Full rights to gay people is, at the very least, on the liberal side, and drug legalization... yeah, that's left.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
On private property agreed. political participation? Every leninist state used mass mobilization, but kept control in a centrally run party. Not far different than fascism. Or are defining communism more broadly, so that Lenin is just a reactionary element?

Lenin, actually, frequently argued for broader and more inclusive politics, with specific concrete exceptions: such as not allowing the enemy to share the government with you during wartime. When he tried to tighten things up inside the Communist Party it was because of the danger that reactionary element, of which Stalin was the chief representitive. The ban on factions in 1921 was to both supress the bureaucracy and prevent the appearance of division in the government just as the Civil War ended (and Wrangel's army was sitting in Romania waiting to move).

Those who use the term totalitarianism this way tend not to see the property question as central - one understands that communists, and most socialists disagree.

Hannah Arrendt thought there was a fundimental difference between the two, even if there were superficial similiarities. Interesting how nuanced arguments always get banalized.

[Shi Huangdi]

"I know [the banner] was attributed somehow to some ingenious advance man from my staff," said Bush. "They weren't that ingenious, by the way."

uhhh.... all he said was they weren't ingenious. he didn't blame it on the sailors.

[Giancarlo]

Bush didn't blame the soldiers. In fact the "mission accomplished" sign was suitable. The sailors did their job successfully.

Liberals are trying to paint a different picture.

Templar: Salon.com is a center-left newspaper with an obvious agenda. The only thing I liked about their reporting was when they did a report on Hugo Chavez, whom they criticized heavily. But other than that they are as leftist as it comes. And ARE NOT objective.

[Japher]

Yeah, but a President/Seamen contriversy is always good

[mrmitchell]

From left to right:
radical - progressive - liberal - moderate - conservative - reactionary

From left to right:
Che - extremist nutcase - radical - progressive - liberal - moderate - conservative - reactionary - authoritarian - extremist nutcase - Fez.

Just having some fun