Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Thrawn on October 23, 2004, 11:58:14 AM
-
John Kerry, that's right JOHN freaking KERRY.
Outstanding!
http://www.amconmag.com/2004_11_08/cover1.html
-
in related news, canada's 9.1 billion dollar surplus was traced to the export of tinfoil.
-
it's not TINfoil dammit, it's aluminum foil, and remember to put the shiney side out.
-
I've often thought Pat Buchanan was in the tinfoil hat league, but he seems to be on the money here. (he's the senior editor). It's funny how few people seem to realize that the conservatism of the Republican party today is dramatically different from the past -- almost a different party entirely. FWIW I would probably vote for Bush Sr. over Kerry in this election, if that was the option. If you call yourself a conservative try reading the link on this one for a change.
We believe conservatism to be the most natural political tendency, rooted in man’s taste for the familiar, for family, for faith in God. We believe that true conservatism has a predisposition for the institutions and mores that exist. So much of what passes for contemporary conservatism is wedded to a kind of radicalism—fantasies of global hegemony, the hubristic notion of America as a universal nation for all the world’s peoples, a hyperglobal economy. In combination with an increasingly unveiled contempt for America’s long-standing allies, this is more a recipe for disaster.
Against it, we take our stand..
What exactly is implied by the tinfoil hat statement Vorticon? Just a little drive-by shootin' from the hip?
Charon
-
What exactly is implied by the tinfoil hat statement Vorticon? Just a little drive-by shootin' from the hip?
just some of it feels in the same league as the 9/11 conspiracy theorys, this peice particularily.
"The libertarian writer Lew Rockwell has mischievously noted parallels between Bush and Russia’s last tsar, Nicholas II: both gained office as a result of family connections, both initiated an unnecessary war that shattered their countries’ budgets. Lenin needed the calamitous reign of Nicholas II to create an opening for the Bolsheviks."
-
just some of it feels in the same league as the 9/11 conspiracy theorys, this peice particularily.
"The libertarian writer Lew Rockwell has mischievously noted parallels between Bush and Russia’s last tsar, Nicholas II: both gained office as a result of family connections, both initiated an unnecessary war that shattered their countries’ budgets. Lenin needed the calamitous reign of Nicholas II to create an opening for the Bolsheviks."
Pretty hard to see that. He is just pointing out that in his opinion a leader underqualified for the job is creating an international situation that will impact America for decades to come, as did the Tsar. A simple and "mischievous" comparison of events that nowhere states or implies a more significant connection, secret society, etc.
[edit: much like the "Neville Chamberlain!" comparisons pre invasion Iraq. These always bothered me because unlike Nazi Germany in the late 1930s we actually destroyed Saddams ability to wage agressive war at his "Czechoslovakia" and left little room for a future Poland.]
Charon
-
Wow, for being in a Conservative magazine, that was one of the most liberal things I've ever read. I feel dumber for actually having spent the time to read it.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Wow, for being in a Conservative magazine, that was one of the most liberal things I've ever read. I feel dumber for actually having spent the time to read it.
Nah, it's conservative it's just not neo-conservative.
-
Yeah, it's full of liberal claptrap like this:
George W. Bush has come to embody a politics that is antithetical to almost any kind of thoughtful conservatism. His international policies have been based on the hopelessly naïve belief that foreign peoples are eager to be liberated by American armies—a notion more grounded in Leon Trotsky’s concept of global revolution than any sort of conservative statecraft. His immigration policies—temporarily put on hold while he runs for re-election—are just as extreme. A re-elected President Bush would be committed to bringing in millions of low-wage immigrants to do jobs Americans “won’t do.” This election is all about George W. Bush, and those issues are enough to render him unworthy of any conservative support.
Charon
-
RNC bait and switch. Some may never figure it out.
-
Bush is a closet socialist at home but in Iraq he lets it all hang out.
-
OH! I feel like such a handsomehunk for not realizing this earlier.
Intentions. What were the intentions of something? I'm sitting here wondering, "Why the **** would a conservative lie and do something so heinous in such a critical time?" So I decided to look back further at some other things Scott McConnel has done. I didn't find much, just writing that was much like a Closet Bush Bash liberal, waiting for the right moment to write a scathing article.
I also noticed that he was **INCREDIBLY** critical about Bush's war and foreign policies. This was when I found this:
Scott McConnell is the executive editor of The American Conservative.A Ph.D.in history from Columbia University, he was formerly the editorial page editor of the New York Post and has been a columnist for Antiwar.com and New York Press.His work has been published in Commentary, Fortune, National Review, The New Republic, and many other publications.
http://www.Antiwar.com
http://www.google.com/search?as_sitesearch=antiwar.com&q=Scott+McConnell
Watch for the hidden agendas. They are killers.
[AceVentura]I Have exorcised the demonsah![/AceVentura]
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
I didn't find much, just writing that was much like a Closet Bush Bash liberal, waiting for the right moment to write a scathing article.
So he is a liberal, huh?
I see from the google search that you left out that he is an officer and lecturer for the Ayn Rand Institute...boy won't they be surprised to learn he is a liberal.
Huh...seems one of his articles for NY Press was titled: "Minority Whites". Yup...sounds liberal to me.
To copy Jon Stewart...you need to go to a journalism school so you can learn investigative research techniques. :rolleyes:
-
Bush has behaved like a caricature of what a right-wing president is supposed to be, and his continuation in office will discredit any sort of conservatism for generations. The launching of an invasion against a country that posed no threat to the U.S., the doling out of war profits and concessions to politically favored corporations, the financing of the war by ballooning the deficit to be passed on to the nation’s children, the ceaseless drive to cut taxes for those outside the middle class and working poor: it is as if Bush sought to resurrect every false 1960s-era left-wing cliché about predatory imperialism and turn it into administration policy. Add to this his nation-breaking immigration proposal—Bush has laid out a mad scheme to import immigrants to fill any job where the wage is so low that an American can’t be found to do it—and you have a presidency that combines imperialist Right and open-borders Left in a uniquely noxious cocktail.
Wow :D
-
<<>>
i'm sorry , the "working poor" don't pay taxes, in fact if you have a job and your income is low enough you get "earned income credit", the govt pays you a bonus based on how much you earned working.
-
GWB is not a conservative. His father wasn't either.
Pat Buchanan is a conservative.
People often talk of how the DNC has shifted to the right toward the so-called center. But folks over look the shift to the left that has taken place in the Republican Party.
Conservatives by nature are anti-war in an isolationist fashion. That is no war unless we are directly threatened. Pat has even argued in the past that the US should have stayed out of WW2.
-
I believe they are saying that if kerrie gets in they will oppose everything he tries to do and that his lack of charisma and liberal ways will insure that he is a one term president and that the democratic party will be damaged.
They dislike Bush and thik that if kerrie gets in people will see how bad kerrie is and democrats are and..... that will be a good thing.
lazs
-
Originally posted by john9001
<<>>
i'm sorry , the "working poor" don't pay taxes, in fact if you have a job and your income is low enough you get "earned income credit", the govt pays you a bonus based on how much you earned working.
so if the very wealthy (in another thread it was reported that Theresa Heinz-Kerry now paid 12% where before Bush's cuts she paid 18%) are paying 12%, the working poor (and non-working poor) don't pay any taxes, and the average tax rate is just over 16%, you gotta wonder what percentage rate the middle class is now paying.
-
The Bush foreign policy also surfs on deep currents within the Christian Right, some of which see unqualified support of Israel as part of a godly plan to bring about Armageddon and the future kingdom of Christ. These two strands of Jewish and Christian extremism build on one another in the Bush presidency—and President Bush has given not the slightest indication he would restrain either in a second term.
There you have it... George Bush, Christian Zionist.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I believe they are saying that if kerrie gets in they will oppose everything he tries to do and that his lack of charisma and liberal ways will insure that he is a one term president and that the democratic party will be damaged.
They dislike Bush and thik that if kerrie gets in people will see how bad kerrie is and democrats are and..... that will be a good thing.
lazs
I almost agree. If Kerry is elected, the Republican party will have to repair it's own damage. ;)
-
pasted from the 2004 Democratic Party Patform
The Middle East. The Democratic Party is fundamentally committed to the security of our ally Israel and the creation of a comprehensive, just and lasting peace between Israel and her neighbors. Our special relationship with Israel is based on the unshakable foundation of shared values and a mutual commitment to democracy, and we will ensure that under all circumstances, Israel retains the qualitative edge for its national security and its right to self-defense.
Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and should remain an undivided city accessible to people of all faiths.
How would this Democratic policy fundamentally change from of our present policy?
-
Along these same lines, the Detroit news, Detroit's conservative newspaper, ran its editorial today stating which candidate it would endorse. They flat out said the paper had never endorsed a Democrat, and had only not endorsed a Republican twice - both times during WWII with FDR. Guess who they picked?
None of the above. (http://www.detnews.com/2004/editorial/0410/24/a16-312995.htm)
-
did that come out the way you meant sandie? How will the republicans have to do anything if kerrie is elected?
lazs
-
"Why the **** would a conservative lie and do something so heinous in such a critical time?"
wow, just wow! Does not agree with the spoken word of bush?? Must be a lie...
-
How would this Democratic policy fundamentally change from of our present policy?
Good point Holden. Hard to see any real shift in policy, except perhaps less active support.
Charon
-
Politics have, as Curly noted months ago, sunken to the level of “Ford Vs. Chevy.” Unfortunately, a lot of Chevy lovers failed to notice that all of the new models are being built in South Korea and the 8 cylinders are actually four cylinders when you look under the hood. The same can generally be said for the Ford owners too, but not quite as extreme.
A lot of traditional conservatives are anti war because, as Wotan points out, Iraq failed the test. They were anti-war before the war and see it as a mess today. These include Pat Buchanan (as noted) and:
George Will
U.S. forces in Iraq are insufficient for that mission; unless the civil war is quickly contained, no practicable U.S. deployment will suffice. U.S. forces worldwide cannot continue to cope with Iraq as it is, plus their other duties -- peacekeeping, deterrence, training -- without stresses that will manifest themselves in severe retention problems in the reserves and regular forces.
Since 9/11, Americans have been told that they are at war. They have not been told what sacrifices, material and emotional, they must make to sustain multiple regime changes and nation-building projects. Telling such truths is part of the job description of a war president.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/georgewill/gw20040407.shtml
And read this article for a lot more. It’s from Antiwar.com, but then traditional conservatives tend to be anti-war when it’s not absolutely necessary. Many did not feel it was, or that it had any serious relationship to the War on terror, which was used as a means to achieve other ends. And, the neocons were once traditional liberals :)
It is a traditional conservative position to be against huge deficit spending…
It is a traditional conservative position to be against huge foreign aid, which has been almost a complete failure for many years now…
It is a traditional conservative position to be against the U.S. being the policeman of the world. That is exactly what we will be doing if we go to war in Iraq…
It is a traditional conservative position to be against world government, because conservatives believe that government is less wasteful and arrogant when it is small and closer to the people…
It is a traditional conservative position to be critical of, skeptical about, even opposed to the very wasteful, corrupt United Nations, yet the primary justification for this war, what we hear over and over again, is that Iraq has violated 16 U.N. resolutions…
It is a traditional conservative position to believe it is unfair to U.S. taxpayers and our military to put almost the entire burden of enforcing U.N. resolutions on the U.S., yet that is exactly what will happen in a war against Iraq…
Conservatives are generally not the types who participate in street demonstrations, especially ones led by people who say mean-spirited things about our President. But I do sincerely believe the true conservative position, the traditional conservative position is against this war. http://www.antiwar.com/orig/duncan1.html
Here’s another good link on the same:
Most respondents assumed that because I and other academics have criticized Bush policies, we must all be left-wing radicals who hate America (or in other words, "Democrats"). A typical letter read: "Strength is all the terrorists understand, not anti-American mutterings by a few so-called intellectuals. The Democrats have lost the House, the Senate, soon the White House, and soon the Supreme Court. Wake up, you're out of touch with the country."
But those who assume that the administration's critics are all Democrats or "clueless lefties" are wrong. I'm a registered Republican who twice voted for Bush's father.
http://www.indystar.com/articles/0/182591-1310-021.html
Or this (pretty detailed actually):
"Historically, conservatism in the United States has meant support for small government, balanced budgets, fiscal prudence and great skepticism about overseas adventures," notes Clyde Prestowitz, a former Reagan Administration official who back in the 1960s was among the young Republicans supporting Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater, a conservative standard-bearer. "What I see now is an Administration that's not for any of these things."
In the April 2004 issue of The American Spectator, Halper and Clarke argue that, contrary to the gunslinging figure neoconservatives invoke, Reagan was a conservative internationalist who structured his foreign policy around containment and diplomacy, an approach many neoconservatives dismissed as shreckless at the time. (In 1981, for example, Reagan resisted pleas from hard-liners to place an economic embargo on Poland after Warsaw cracked down on the Solidarity movement, a decision characterized by the neoconservative Norman Podhoretz as "following a strategy of helping the Soviet Union stabilize its empire.")
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=20040531&s=press
Of course there were the Generals, like Zinni:
Anthony C. Zinni's opposition to U.S. policy on Iraq began on the monsoon-ridden afternoon of Nov. 3, 1970. He was lying on a Vietnamese mountainside west of Da Nang, three rounds from an AK-47 assault rifle in his side and back. He could feel his lifeblood seeping into the ground as he slipped in and out of consciousness.
He had plenty of time to think in the following months while recuperating in a military hospital in Hawaii. Among other things, he promised himself that, "If I'm ever in a position to say what I think is right, I will. . . . I don't care what happens to my career."
That time has arrived.
Over the past year, the retired Marine Corps general has become one of the most prominent opponents of Bush administration policy on Iraq, which he now fears is drifting toward disaster.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A22922-2003Dec22¬Found=true
Charon
-
in the 2000 election the liberals just about called Pat Buchanan a neo-nazi, but now Pat Buchanan is a true conservative that stands for the real american values.
hahaha, i guess it depends on what your agenda is for the year/month/day.
it seems to me that if a "right-wing-wacko" like buchanan and a far left-wing prof from a left wing college both hate Bush then that must mean Bush is a middle-of-the-road moderate.
PS. "john Freaking Kerry", thanks , i always wondered what the "F" stood for.
-
Originally posted by john9001
it seems to me that if a "right-wing-wacko" like buchanan and a far left-wing prof from a left wing college both hate Bush then that must mean Bush is a middle-of-the-road moderate.
And when even the middle of the road moderates dislike Bush he is??
There's a problem with your assessment, you forgot the Neo-"Right". The "conservatives" that are actually liberals with a new spin on their liberalism.
Like Diet Coke, but with a squeeze of lime to just **** it all up.
-SW
-
it seems to me that if a "right-wing-wacko" like buchanan and a far left-wing prof from a left wing college both hate Bush then that must mean Bush is a middle-of-the-road moderate.
You mean this "left-wing prof?"
But those who assume that the administration's critics are all Democrats or "clueless lefties" are wrong. I'm a registered Republican who twice voted for Bush's father.
What about George Will? Gen. Zinni? Even The National Review is starting to sour on Bush a bit.
Charon
-
I often wonder how many people would vote libertarian if they actually knew what it stood for. I bet there would be a viable 3rd party if there was more organization in the libertarian ranks.
-
munki.... you couldn't pry the socialist tit out of the mouth of most of the city dwellers with a crowbar. Libertarian would never stand a chance. People that are stacked on top of each other and spend their day elbow to elbow with people they try to pretend don't exist would never advocate a political philosophy that let people based on personal freedom.
lazs
-
Damn city dwellers and their flush toilets. They're the downfal of the good 'ol YEUUU S of Ay....
-
Originally posted by Munkii
I often wonder how many people would vote libertarian if they actually knew what it stood for. I bet there would be a viable 3rd party if there was more organization in the libertarian ranks.
They're okay... until you get to the part about the 22nd Amendment and the return to a gold standard.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
They're okay... until you get to the part about the 22nd Amendment and the return to a gold standard.
Since when are libertarians strict constituntionalists?