Rep. Barney Frank Lays The Smackdown

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Although there was that little matter of George W. Bush and his group with the likes of Dick Cheney, John Ashcroft, Karl Rove, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz that did carry the US significantly to the right during their time in office. Should we recount the 'damage' that was done in the last 8 years in the US?

What did Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz do that moved the US significantly to the right? Their jobs had nothing to do with policy.

The Bush administration hardly moved things to the right. You might not like Bush's religious views but that doesn't mean he moved the country to the right.

Also, you mentioned that Bill O'Reilly was an ultra right-wing nut job earlier. Have you ever actually litened to him or watched him? Nut job? Maybe. Ultra right-wing....not even close.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by peter12

Take it to the right?! How?! They increased spending and engaged in foreign democracy building. Classic examples of political liberalism.

I'm not sure a more or less unilateral invasion of a country and drastically increasing military spending is a really liberal move.

Bush's religious views are inseparable from his policies on gay marriage, abortion and other issues he is to the right.

In the context of western democracies the US in general is an somewhat of outlier on the political spectrum and clearly the Bush Administration was on the further right end (although I wouldn't necessarily say 'radical' is the most apt description) of that spectrum.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Bunk

I'm not sure a more or less unilateral invasion of a country and drastically increasing military spending is a really liberal move.

Bush's religious views are inseparable from his policies on gay marriage, abortion and other issues he is to the right.

In the context of western democracies the US in general is an somewhat of outlier on the political spectrum and clearly the Bush Administration was on the further right end (although I wouldn't necessarily say 'radical' is the most apt description) of that spectrum.

The Europeans are electing fascists to the European Parliament and you think the Americans are the extremists...? Kids these days.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by peter12

The Europeans are electing fascists to the European Parliament and you think the Americans are the extremists...? Kids these days.

Ok, admittedly yes, on issues like immigration many European countries are bordering on fascism, which is downright scary, but on other issues centred on the social safety net, healthcare, taxation, the environment and so forth, clearly they are not.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Bunk

I'm not sure a more or less unilateral invasion of a country and drastically increasing military spending is a really liberal move.

Bush's religious views are inseparable from his policies on gay marriage, abortion and other issues he is to the right.

In the context of western democracies the US in general is an somewhat of outlier on the political spectrum and clearly the Bush Administration was on the further right end (although I wouldn't necessarily say 'radical' is the most apt description) of that spectrum.

How did Bush's policies change the country in regards to gay marriage and abortion? What effect did he have?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

How did Bush's policies change the country in regards to gay marriage and abortion? What effect did he have?

Stagnation.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by peter12

Take it to the right?! How?! They increased spending and engaged in foreign democracy building. Classic examples of political liberalism.

You should move your outhouse pretty soon, you're piling it so high, you'll soon be sitting in it.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

You should move your outhouse pretty soon, you're piling it so high, you'll soon be sitting in it.

Trust me, I'm pretty smart. Political ideas transcend the ideological labels we so haphazardly apply.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by peter12

Trust me, I'm pretty smart. Political ideas transcend the ideological labels we so haphazardly apply.

The reality is your ideas are out to lunch, whether you apply labels or not. I'd say starting a war in order to invade another country to expand the pocket books of your friends, is kind of radical in this day and age. In fact it's immoral.

If you think Bush did it to expand democracy, you're not very smart. The only out you have, is that you know you are peddling bull and hope that if you repeat it often enough, a number of suckers will believe it.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

The reality is your ideas are out to lunch, whether you apply labels or not. I'd say starting a war in order to invade another country to expand the pocket books of your friends, is kind of radical in this day and age. In fact it's immoral.

If you think Bush did it to expand democracy, you're not very smart. The only out you have, is that you know you are peddling bull and hope that if you repeat it often enough, a number of suckers will believe it.

Where did I say it wasn't radical? You can't be a radical and a conservative at the same time.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Also, you mentioned that Bill O'Reilly was an ultra right-wing nut job earlier. Have you ever actually litened to him or watched him? Nut job? Maybe. Ultra right-wing....not even close.

I've seen O'Reilly... I wouldn't call him a nut job or ultra right-wing. He's an ultra-hypocritical, ultra-blindingly partisan, misleading, gigantic ######bag schmuck (or at least his public persona is) but he's neither insane nor a fascist.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by peter12

Where did I say it wasn't radical? You can't be a radical and a conservative at the same time.

Typical bullcrap response, just a moment ago you were claiming your hero Bush and his ilk are 'examples of classic liberalism', without answering the question.

As for answering your question, sure you can. It's the morality of your sides position that sickens me.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Typical bullcrap response, just a moment ago you were claiming your hero Bush and his ilk are 'examples of classic liberalism', without answering the question.

As for answering your question, sure you can. It's the morality of your sides position that sickens me.

What?

I don't think you understand what I'm talking about. Would you like it if I clarified by saying that Bush was basically a classic Wilsonian liberal? The man was certainly not a liberal in his sensibility by any means. Then again, very, very few actually manage to be liberal in the true sense.

To be a conservative is actually quite a courageous position. One that requires a great deal of common sense and prudence and the willpower to stick to the tried and true over the new and popular. I'm talking about Burkian liberty here, not the crude populism of the Bush administration. Something that has nothing to do with conservatism in any philosophical sense.

[Displaced Flames fan]

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by peter12

What?

I don't think you understand what I'm talking about. Would you like it if I clarified by saying that Bush was basically a classic Wilsonian liberal? The man was certainly not a liberal in his sensibility by any means. Then again, very, very few actually manage to be liberal in the true sense.

To be a conservative is actually quite a courageous position. One that requires a great deal of common sense and prudence and the willpower to stick to the tried and true over the new and popular. I'm talking about Burkian liberty here, not the crude populism of the Bush administration. Something that has nothing to do with conservatism in any philosophical sense.

Really, it still means you believe or at least give lip service to, the poppycock that Bush went into Iraq to spread democracy. The rest of it just shows your education without common sense is doing you a disservice with your conclusions.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Really, it still means you believe or at least give lip service to, the poppycock that Bush went into Iraq to spread democracy. The rest of it just shows your education without common sense is doing you a disservice with your conclusions.

Oh wait, it was all about the oil. Okay, better?

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by peter12

Oh wait, it was all about the oil. Okay, better?

No, it was more along the lines of another outdated philosophy, Kiplings 'white man's burden' that justified imperialism as noble enterprise.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by SebC

Stagnation.

Stagnation isn't moving the country to the right. By definition it would be not moving the country anywhere.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Stagnation isn't moving the country to the right. By definition it would be not moving the country anywhere.

If conservatism (the right) is resistance to change, then stagnation is the ultimate form of conservatism.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Really, it still means you believe or at least give lip service to, the poppycock that Bush went into Iraq to spread democracy. The rest of it just shows your education without common sense is doing you a disservice with your conclusions.

Iraq is a democracy today. It wasn't before the coalition invaded Iraq. I think Bush did accomplish that mission.