Bush Blames the Sailors

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Fez
Hey I am no extremist nutcase... wanna know some places where I am not so conservative in? Gay rights... for one... umm... that's all I can think of...

You're right Fez. You're not extremist.

Bush on the other hand...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yeah, those left wing Founding Fathers.

Actually, yeah, Berz . They fought against the conservative monarchy of the time. For the late 1700s, they were pretty lefty.

I don't know. Maybe because Rawls has something more to say than a soundbite? Since when is prefering Hannity and Colmes to substantive argument a preference one admits to without embarrasment?

Rawls may have something to say more than a soundbite, but that doesn't mean he's correct. The Cable News networks use the jargon which is accepted by mainstream American pundits. When Paul Wellstone is called a 'Liberal' it is because in the American parlance he is a liberal.

And yeah, I'd probably listen to Bill Schneider on what political terms mean in American over Rawls. The ivory tower doesn't define things for the rest of the country, believe it or not .

Other than right wing religious fanatics who has even a half-articulate* opposition to gays having equal rights?

How many viable Democrat candidates have come out and said they support gay marriage for the entire country?

[Berzerker]

Actually, yeah, Berz . They fought against the conservative monarchy of the time. For the late 1700s, they were pretty lefty.

Hmm...so opposing autocrats is left wing? Castro was a left winger when fighting the revolution but he became a right winger once he was the autocrat in charge? I think I'm getting it now. Would the Founders still be considered left wing in today's politics?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
From left to right:
radical - progressive - liberal - moderate - conservative - reactionary

A radical liberal makes as much sense as a reactionary moderate.

Ming: Technically Che is right about this. Of course you could try to subdivide each section and doing so you could get such outlandish catagories as a Radical Reactionary but I think such subdivisions of subdivisions is taking things a bit far.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Hmm...so opposing autocrats is left wing?

Back then... yes. Colonial revolution just wasn't done. Revolution itself was rare, and mostly to just establish a new Prince.

Castro was a left winger when fighting the revolution but he became a right winger once he was the autocrat in charge?

Actually, you can make this case. He was a leftwinger while fighting the revolt, then he came in charge and after a decade or so became pretty conservative. Conserving, of course, his original plan he put in place. If you consider conservatism to only be on the right wing, then you may have a pretty good argument that Castro of 2003 is a right winger. He wants to 'conserve' his original revolution.

Would the Founders still be considered left wing in today's politics?

Not at all.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Yes, the Republicans are treating the military like crap.

Sadly I also have to agree with this. Bush campaigned on a platform of cutting the militaries over seas commitments yet he never cut a single overseas commitement. Even before 9/11 he could have cut back in Bosnia or Kosovo or Germany or Japan or any other of a half dozen places yet he never did. Its true that 9/11 forced us into Afghanistan as well as those former Soviet Republics which had been inflitrated my Arab fundimentalists but keep extending on every front while refusing to cut back in places like Germany, Japan, the UK, Turkey, or the other stable countries which don't need us is folly.

I'm in the IRR which means I'm the last group they call before activating a general draft yet Bush is routinely call up people in the IRR (the normal reserves were long ago exhosted) and he's taken the average deployment length from 8 months to 18 months. He's horribly mismanaged our country's military just as he's horribly mismanged our country's financies.

[Dinner]

Bush is treating the war on terrorism the same way 16th century Spain treated it's war against the Reformation. He's attacking symptoms yet leaving the causes untouched. He's wasting huge amounts of resources just to get temporary gains. Like Spain we will find ourselves bankrupted by militerism without end.

We should prioritize terror suspects according to their threat level and not just according to Bush's own family vendettas. There were several reasons to invade Iraq but terrorism was always a tanmgential issue; you can tell this is truye by the way the Bu****e shopped around looking for a reason to justify their invasion policy instead of simply stating a reason and sticking to it.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by The Templar

Templar attack the argument and not the man. If he is a nut case then it will be apparent to most people and you'll look better by not dirtying your hands by getting involved in name calling.

All a reaonable person has to do is keep working on the arguments and the audience will figure out who is more credable.

[Berzerker]

Not at all.

So why is the notion of re-legalising drugs a left wing idea when in your opinion the Founders who never enacted such a policy would be considered right wing today?

The idea that government should have the authority to decide what we all can or cannot ingest is extremely left wing, even fascistic or communistic. I mean, you can't get more autocratic than that...

[Imran Siddiqui]

So why is the notion of re-legalising drugs a left wing idea when in your opinion the Founders who never enacted such a policy would be considered right wing today?

They'd be right wing in some areas and left wing in others. However, their right wing beliefs (size of government) would overshadow their left wing and result in them being called right wing.

Legalization of drugs is solely a left-wing idea because it is against the established tradition (tradition being the bastion of the right wing).

The idea that government should have the authority to decide what we all can or cannot ingest is extremely left wing

Except when Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson advocate it . Then it is extremely right wing (ie, social conservatism... close to reactionarism).

Oh, and Fascism is extreme right wing ideology .

[Ben Kenobi]

Other than right wing religious fanatics who has even a half-articulate* opposition to gays having equal rights?

Depends on what you mean by equality.

[Berzerker]

Legalization of drugs is solely a left-wing idea because it is against the established tradition (tradition being the bastion of the right wing).

So then it was a right wing idea when drugs were legal. Left and right are meaningless if these terms depend on what is or is not tradition, especially when tradition changes so easily. It seems to me that if legalised drugs was a right wing idea, it remains a right wing idea no matter what happens in the future. Heck, we now have a federal bureau of education, Social Security, Medicare, etc., which have become "traditions". Does that mean the conservatives in this country who want to abolish these programs are left wing?

Except when Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson advocate it . Then it is extremely right wing (ie, social conservatism... close to reactionarism).

I'd call these guys left wingers, their support for prohibition is anti-capitalism, anti-freedom (including religious freedom), and pro-big government. If that's right wing, why are left wingers anti-capitalism, anti-freedom, and pro-big government too?

[Berzerker]

Oops, forgot this:

They'd be right wing in some areas and left wing in others. However, their right wing beliefs (size of government) would overshadow their left wing and result in them being called right wing.

But what is it about their views that make them right wing in some areas and left wing in others? They obviously believed in economic freedom (aside from slavery of course) so do legalised drugs violate that belief? No. They wanted government strictly limited to certain well-defined areas. Do legalised drugs contradict that position? No. Legal drugs is in accord with their overall ideology, not an aberrant left wing belief surrounded by right wing ideas. If anything violates their overall ideology, it was slavery and their views on homosexuality. In fact, if we look at world history, drug prohibition was always a product of autocratic regimes whether it be tobacco in Turkey or chocolate in Mexico under the Catholic Church. Those governments that outlawed drugs were totalitarian in nature, and usually religious. The 20th century is when the west became even more autocratic under the Fabian socialists...

[Q Classic]

btw, the white house finally put out a statement saying that although it was the idea of the crew to put up a banner that said mission accomplished, the white house was the one that did put it up and design it.

[uh Clem]

The Bush White House accepted responsibility for something? That is news.