Interesting reading: http://nymag.com/news/politics/conservatives-david-frum-2011-11/
What do you think? Bitter whining of a traitor or cogent analysis?
He's Canadian and a Jew. Not proper GOP material.
He sounds pretty close to being a RINO, but his complaints are mostly valid.
Quote from: Jacob on November 27, 2011, 11:50:18 PM
Interesting reading: http://nymag.com/news/politics/conservatives-david-frum-2011-11/
What do you think? Bitter whining of a traitor or cogent analysis?
This paragraph pretty much sums up my views rather nicely:
QuoteAmerica desperately needs a responsible and compassionate alternative to the Obama administration's path of bigger government at higher cost. And yet: This past summer, the GOP nearly forced America to the verge of default just to score a point in a budget debate. In the throes of the worst economic crisis since the Depression, Republican politicians demand massive budget cuts and shrug off the concerns of the unemployed. In the face of evidence of dwindling upward mobility and long-stagnating middle-class wages, my party's economic ideas sometimes seem to have shrunk to just one: more tax cuts for the very highest earners. When I entered Republican politics, during an earlier period of malaise, in the late seventies and early eighties, the movement got most of the big questions—crime, inflation, the Cold War—right. This time, the party is getting the big questions disastrously wrong.
Going to read the rest now...
Quote from: Jacob on November 27, 2011, 11:50:18 PM
Interesting reading: http://nymag.com/news/politics/conservatives-david-frum-2011-11/
What do you think? Bitter whining of a traitor or cogent analysis?
GOP think tank writers aren't supposed to think. That's Frum's problem, and why he was fired.
QuoteRather than workable solutions, my party is offering low taxes for the currently rich and high spending for the currently old, to be followed by who-knows-what and who-the-hell-cares. This isn't conservatism; it's a going-out-of-business sale for the baby-boom generation.
QuoteFor the past three years, the media have praised the enthusiasm and energy the tea party has brought to the GOP. Yet it's telling that that movement has failed time and again to produce even a remotely credible candidate for president. Sarah Palin, Donald Trump, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich: The list of tea-party candidates reads like the early history of the U.S. space program, a series of humiliating fizzles and explosions that never achieved liftoff. A political movement that never took governing seriously was exploited by a succession of political entrepreneurs uninterested in governing—but all too interested in merchandising. Much as viewers tune in to American Idol to laugh at the inept, borderline dysfunctional early auditions, these tea-party champions provide a ghoulish type of news entertainment each time they reveal that they know nothing about public affairs and have never attempted to learn. But Cain's gaffe on Libya or Perry's brain freeze on the Department of Energy are not only indicators of bad leadership. They are indicators of a crisis of followership. The tea party never demanded knowledge or concern for governance, and so of course it never got them.
Damn, this guy writes exactly what I would write, if I could write for a damn.
QuoteBut it's one thing to point out (accurately) that President Obama's stimulus plan was mostly a compilation of antique Democratic wish lists, and quite another to argue that the correct response to the worst collapse since the thirties is to wait for the economy to get better on its own. It's one thing to worry (wisely) about the long-term trend in government spending, and another to demand big, immediate cuts when 25 million are out of full-time work and the government can borrow for ten years at 2 percent.
I agree with pretty much all of this.
I agree with about a third to one half.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 28, 2011, 04:06:38 AM
I agree with about a third to one half.
Which bits do you agree with and which do you disagree with?
Then fight with Berk :)
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 28, 2011, 04:17:14 AM
Which bits do you agree with and which do you disagree with?
Then fight with Berk :)
I agree about the Tea Party and governance. I agree about lowering taxes for the wealthy. I don't know what he's talking about when he says they want to raise benefits for the old. I don't think the debt limit fight was for debating points. I think he's too cavalier in general about further deficit spending.
Quote from: Jacob on November 27, 2011, 11:50:18 PM
Interesting reading: http://nymag.com/news/politics/conservatives-david-frum-2011-11/
What do you think? Bitter whining of a traitor or cogent analysis?
Applying reason and appreciating the values of Adam Smith and Edmund Burke makes you a RINO.
Today's parties want tough talk, not sensible debate. That's why no one who matters will even bother to read this beyond dismissing him as a Socialist in sheep's clothing.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 28, 2011, 05:09:50 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 28, 2011, 04:17:14 AM
Which bits do you agree with and which do you disagree with?
Then fight with Berk :)
I agree about the Tea Party and governance. I agree about lowering taxes for the wealthy. I don't know what he's talking about when he says they want to raise benefits for the old. I don't think the debt limit fight was for debating points. I think he's too cavalier in general about further deficit spending.
Poor Yi. What did you think when Bush cut taxes and destroyed the hard fought and carefully built surpluses with a stroke of a pen?
QuoteExtremism and conflict make for bad politics but great TV. Over the past two decades, conservatism has evolved from a political philosophy into a market segment. An industry has grown up to serve that segment—and its stars have become the true thought leaders of the conservative world. The business model of the conservative media is built on two elements: provoking the audience into a fever of indignation (to keep them watching) and fomenting mistrust of all other information sources (so that they never change the channel). As a commercial proposition, this model has worked brilliantly in the Obama era. As journalism, not so much. As a tool of political mobilization, it backfires, by inciting followers to the point at which they force leaders into confrontations where everybody loses, like the summertime showdown over the debt ceiling.
But the thought leaders on talk radio and Fox do more than shape opinion. Backed by their own wing of the book-publishing industry and supported by think tanks that increasingly function as public-relations agencies, conservatives have built a whole alternative knowledge system, with its own facts, its own history, its own laws of economics. Outside this alternative reality, the United States is a country dominated by a strong Christian religiosity. Within it, Christians are a persecuted minority. Outside the system, President Obama—whatever his policy errors—is a figure of imposing intellect and dignity. Within the system, he's a pitiful nothing, unable to speak without a teleprompter, an affirmative-action phony doomed to inevitable defeat. Outside the system, social scientists worry that the U.S. is hardening into one of the most rigid class societies in the Western world, in which the children of the poor have less chance of escape than in France, Germany, or even England. Inside the system, the U.S. remains (to borrow the words of Senator Marco Rubio) "the only place in the world where it doesn't matter who your parents were or where you came from."
This is the most annoying thing I find about the GOP. They have essentially created their own system of facts based on the idea that everyone is biased or a liar but their own masters. There's an article in Wikipedia about Evolution, thus Wikipedia is biased against Conservatives. We must create our own version: Conservapedia. CNN won't carry the stories about how Hillary Clinton killed Vince Foster? So we must create our own version: Fox News. Schools teach things that don't fit into the Conservative mindset? Department of Education must go! etc.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 28, 2011, 08:16:33 AM
Poor Yi. What did you think when Bush cut taxes and destroyed the hard fought and carefully built surpluses with a stroke of a pen?
That wasn't necessarily a bad thing. But when it became clear that the government was in need of more revenue, and they kept extending them, that was a mistake.
QuoteInside the system, the U.S. remains (to borrow the words of Senator Marco Rubio) "the only place in the world where it doesn't matter who your parents were or where you came from."
It does make me giggle a bit when politicians talk like it is still 1788 or something.
Seems a pretty fair article. I'm no GOP type and never was, but the ... substandard ... quality of the candidates & rhetoric produced by that party recently is simply astonishing, not to say horrifying. Many appear to positively revel in ignorance, like that Cain dude. There must be lots and lots of Republicans who feel this way.
Quote from: Malthus on November 28, 2011, 12:14:36 PMMany appear to positively revel in ignorance, like that Cain dude.
This is something I don't get, but you're absolutely right. With some of the candidates it's like they're proud that they don't know something and have no intention or desire to correct that. It's mind boggling.
Be strong in your ignorance. Your mind should be filled with the God-Emperor, not heretical knowledge.
Agree with all of the article except for the parts where he expresses fear of big government.
I also like the pictures of the GOP candidates that capture them in the exact moment you would most want to punch them square in the face.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 28, 2011, 12:50:25 AM
GOP think tank writers aren't supposed to think.
They don't need to think, they have "Ideas".
If the facts don't fit the "Ideas", the answer is simple: the facts are wrong.
I wish Frum had spent more time in Canada but at the time he was making his career decisions there was no Conservative party to speak of and so the only good job opportunities were south of the border.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 28, 2011, 08:16:33 AM
Poor Yi. What did you think when Bush cut taxes and destroyed the hard fought and carefully built surpluses with a stroke of a pen?
You prefer to focus on the moral authority argument because it makes the Republicans look bad. That's great, go get 'em, but after you are finished demolishing the moral authority of the Republican party on deficit spending we still have a national debt equal to GDP which is rising by 10% of GDP a year. That creates real world consequences, whether the GOP has moral authority or not.
That line also creates the minor problem of how partizan posters are supposed to deal with Obama's last minute offer on deficit reduction: a truly heroic and statesmanlike act, or just stupid, since we should be borrowing and spending even more?
None of you assfucks gave a royal rat shit about the deficit in 2008. Not a single GOPtard opened his fucking mouth back then. None of you.
Ergo, all this deficit bullshit is exactly that: bullshit. And racism.
:lol: QED.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 28, 2011, 06:23:45 PM
None of you assfucks gave a royal rat shit about the deficit in 2008. Not a single GOPtard opened his fucking mouth back then. None of you.
Ergo, all this deficit bullshit is exactly that: bullshit. And racism.
I did.
But then, I am not a GOPTard.
More GOP fun times:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-november-28-2011/much-ado-about-stuffing (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-november-28-2011/much-ado-about-stuffing?xrs=synd_facebook)
"When did Fox News become the 700 Club?"
The right really has fucking jumped the shark.
Love Stewart.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 28, 2011, 03:50:12 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 28, 2011, 08:16:33 AM
Poor Yi. What did you think when Bush cut taxes and destroyed the hard fought and carefully built surpluses with a stroke of a pen?
You prefer to focus on the moral authority argument because it makes the Republicans look bad. That's great, go get 'em, but after you are finished demolishing the moral authority of the Republican party on deficit spending we still have a national debt equal to GDP which is rising by 10% of GDP a year. That creates real world consequences, whether the GOP has moral authority or not.
That line also creates the minor problem of how partizan posters are supposed to deal with Obama's last minute offer on deficit reduction: a truly heroic and statesmanlike act, or just stupid, since we should be borrowing and spending even more?
That doesn't answer my question. I prefer to focus on fucking pattern recognition. They've done the same thing twice over the last 30 years. Why expect them to do anything different? Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. Fool me three times...
Quote from: Berkut on November 29, 2011, 10:46:23 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 28, 2011, 06:23:45 PM
None of you assfucks gave a royal rat shit about the deficit in 2008. Not a single GOPtard opened his fucking mouth back then. None of you.
Ergo, all this deficit bullshit is exactly that: bullshit. And racism.
I did.
But then, I am not a GOPTard.
More GOP fun times:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-november-28-2011/much-ado-about-stuffing (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-november-28-2011/much-ado-about-stuffing?xrs=synd_facebook)
"When did Fox News become the 700 Club?"
The right really has fucking jumped the shark.
Damn.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 29, 2011, 03:18:51 PM
That doesn't answer my question. I prefer to focus on fucking pattern recognition. They've done the same thing twice over the last 30 years. Why expect them to do anything different? Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. Fool me three times...
It's deja vu all over again. I say David Frum is too cavalier about deficits. You change the subject to the Bush deficits. When I point out that you changed the subject you accuse me of not answering the question.
Let's assume for the sake of argument that Bush and the Republican Party are collectively the Antichrist of deficits. Now, if you'd like to discuss the deficit and what to do about it, let's. Otherwise, please don't pretend that you're rebutting me when you change the subject.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 29, 2011, 03:34:11 PM
Now, if you'd like to discuss the deficit and what to do about it, let's.
Cut spending and raise taxes.
Quote from: Valmy on November 29, 2011, 04:05:35 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 29, 2011, 03:34:11 PM
Now, if you'd like to discuss the deficit and what to do about it, let's.
Cut spending and raise taxes.
Extremist!
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 29, 2011, 03:34:11 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 29, 2011, 03:18:51 PM
That doesn't answer my question. I prefer to focus on fucking pattern recognition. They've done the same thing twice over the last 30 years. Why expect them to do anything different? Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. Fool me three times...
It's deja vu all over again. I say David Frum is too cavalier about deficits. You change the subject to the Bush deficits. When I point out that you changed the subject you accuse me of not answering the question.
Let's assume for the sake of argument that Bush and the Republican Party are collectively the Antichrist of deficits. Now, if you'd like to discuss the deficit and what to do about it, let's. Otherwise, please don't pretend that you're rebutting me when you change the subject.
Thing is, we aren't really talking about deficits per se. We are talking about the GOP's position on deficits. This thread was not about cutting deficits. It was about what David Frum thought of the the GOP. So me pointing out Bush is not changing the subject.
:shakeshead:
Quote from: Valmy on November 29, 2011, 04:05:35 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 29, 2011, 03:34:11 PM
Now, if you'd like to discuss the deficit and what to do about it, let's.
Cut spending and raise taxes.
Why do you want to hurt job growth? We can raise revenues without raising taxes.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 29, 2011, 04:24:04 PM
:shakeshead:
What's the name of this thread? Is it "David Frum on the GOP", or "David Frum on Deficits"?
I'm out.
Is that a concession?
Anyway, nobody is really serious about deficits. There's not many votes there. The party out of power bitches about spending not because it's opposed to spending on principle but because it's spending on things that party doesn't like. Sure there are a few oddballs who real budget hawks, but they dwarfed by those really aren't. Reducing deficits is not a policy, it's a political maneuver. I know Yi is a genuine deficit hawk, and is amped now that his political party is talking about deficits. In fact he wants to talk about deficits in this thread, which isn't really what the OP was about. He's only going to let himself down.
I'm serious about deficits. I'm serious about deficit spending. Since one counter-example disproves your universal assertion, Raz, you are wrong.
Ron Paul and Gary Johnson are serious about deficits. Justin Amash is serious about the deficit.
BTW, Frum is a Bushite/McCainiac. He's about as fake GOP as it comes. AuH2O 4ever!
In what universe are Bush and McCain fake GOPers and Ron Paul the genuine article?
Ron Paul was in the Libertarian Party and only joined the GOP to get more traction for his presidential runs.
Quote from: Scipio on November 29, 2011, 04:57:30 PM
I'm serious about deficits. I'm serious about deficit spending. Since one counter-example disproves your universal assertion, Raz, you are wrong.
Ron Paul and Gary Johnson are serious about deficits. Justin Amash is serious about the deficit.
BTW, Frum is a Bushite/McCainiac. He's about as fake GOP as it comes. AuH2O 4ever!
QuoteAnyway, nobody is really serious about deficits. There's not many votes there. The party out of power bitches about spending not because it's opposed to spending on principle but because it's spending on things that party doesn't like. Sure there are a few oddballs who real budget hawks, but they dwarfed by those really aren't. Reducing deficits is not a policy, it's a political maneuver. I know Yi is a genuine deficit hawk, and is amped now that his political party is talking about deficits. In fact he wants to talk about deficits in this thread, which isn't really what the OP was about. He's only going to let himself down.
Bolded in case you couldn't read.
Ron Paul thinks the CIA launched a coup and now runs the government. And Gary Johnson's state brings in more federal dollar per captia then any other state in the Union.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 29, 2011, 05:02:00 PM
Quote from: Scipio on November 29, 2011, 04:57:30 PM
I'm serious about deficits. I'm serious about deficit spending. Since one counter-example disproves your universal assertion, Raz, you are wrong.
Ron Paul and Gary Johnson are serious about deficits. Justin Amash is serious about the deficit.
BTW, Frum is a Bushite/McCainiac. He's about as fake GOP as it comes. AuH2O 4ever!
QuoteAnyway, nobody is really serious about deficits. There's not many votes there. The party out of power bitches about spending not because it's opposed to spending on principle but because it's spending on things that party doesn't like. Sure there are a few oddballs who real budget hawks, but they dwarfed by those really aren't. Reducing deficits is not a policy, it's a political maneuver. I know Yi is a genuine deficit hawk, and is amped now that his political party is talking about deficits. In fact he wants to talk about deficits in this thread, which isn't really what the OP was about. He's only going to let himself down.
Bolded in case you couldn't read.
Ron Paul thinks the CIA launched a coup and now runs the government. And Gary Johnson's state brings in more federal dollar per captia then any other state in the Union.
Show me the facts on that re: Gary Johnson being responsible for that.
And Frum is fake as hell. Compassion has no place in public policy. Compassionate conservatism is a suicide pact. Conservatism should be about conserving the fisc, preserving national security, and being left the hell alone. Someone who thinks GWB and McCain are the high watermarks of conservative thought has no business opining on the fate of the GOP that he helped make. Today's GOP is the logical result of Frum's bullshit. I've heard enough from Frum over the years. He's played out.
QuoteCompassion has no place in public policy.
That's an interesting thing to say.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 29, 2011, 05:37:56 PM
QuoteCompassion has no place in public policy.
That's an interesting thing to say.
Compassion's role is to create exceptions to public policy. Policy considerations in a republic are predicated on doing the least harm to the largest number of citizens, not about taking care of cute little puppies. We hospitalize the criminally insane not because we care about them, but because leaving them out harms society.
Ok, I think I see where you're coming from. In some ways, I suppose I sort of agree, but I think there's a pretty close relationship between programs which are good for/reduce harm to society and programs which are "compassionate."
E.g., it harms society to have a 10-15% unemployment rate; it would be compassionate to encourage employment instead.
On the other hand, it's not really "compassion" if inability to pay for programs which aren't even likely to have much effect leads to even worse outcomes.
I agree that compassion should have little to no place in shaping public policy. This is exactly why charities should not be involved in providing social services.
I suppose it depends on what one means by compassion. As Ide pointed out good public policy could be viewed as also being compassionate. A good example of that is the creation of the insite clinic. Not only does it reduce harm (both individual and societal) but it also does so in a compassionate manner.
I am not sure what public policy might look like if policy makers consciously tried to avoid being compassionate. I suspect it would be a bit hellish.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 29, 2011, 06:19:39 PM
I suppose it depends on what one means by compassion. As Ide pointed out good public policy could be viewed as also being compassionate. A good example of that is the creation of the insite clinic. Not only does it reduce harm (both individual and societal) but it also does so in a compassionate manner.
I am not sure what public policy might look like if policy makers consciously tried to avoid being compassionate. I suspect it would be a bit hellish.
For my part I mean that public policy shouldn't be based overly on "oh isn't it too bad for those poor people" or whatever. It should be based on maintaining a well functioning society. Food and health care security for the population of a Western country is not a matter of charity and kind feelings, it's a matter of having a society that functions. EI, social security and various other forms of income support should be well regulated insurance schemes guaranteed and administrated by the state. The state should look out for the welfare, economic and otherwise, of the citizenry not because of compassion but because its one of the core function of the state.
Quote from: Jacob on November 29, 2011, 06:26:45 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 29, 2011, 06:19:39 PM
I suppose it depends on what one means by compassion. As Ide pointed out good public policy could be viewed as also being compassionate. A good example of that is the creation of the insite clinic. Not only does it reduce harm (both individual and societal) but it also does so in a compassionate manner.
I am not sure what public policy might look like if policy makers consciously tried to avoid being compassionate. I suspect it would be a bit hellish.
For my part I mean that public policy shouldn't be based overly on "oh isn't it too bad for those poor people" or whatever. It should be based on maintaining a well functioning society. Food and health care security for the population of a Western country is not a matter of charity and kind feelings, it's a matter of having a society that functions. EI, social security and various other forms of income support should be well regulated insurance schemes guaranteed and administrated by the state. The state should look out for the welfare, economic and otherwise, of the citizenry not because of compassion but because its one of the core function of the state.
SOCIALIST!!! BURN HIM!!! :mad:
Quote from: Jacob on November 29, 2011, 06:26:45 PM
The state should look out for the welfare, economic and otherwise, of the citizenry not because of compassion but because its one of the core function of the state.
You still need some other entity (private ngos, charities, etc.) to fill in the inevitable gaps in service.
I don't go as far as Skippy. Compassion should play a role, but compassion should be balanced with the realization that *any* kind of assistance creates disincentives.
Quote from: citizen k on November 29, 2011, 06:57:57 PMYou still need some other entity (private ngos, charities, etc.) to fill in the inevitable gaps in service.
The presence of NGOs providing essential services to the population to me is a sign that the state is falling short in living up to its mandate.
Though, I suppose it's fine to have private institutions providing these services as long as they provide the necessary services at the required level. Ultimately, however, it is the states responsibility to make sure the citizenry is served adequately. I'm fine with public-private partnerships that work.
Quote from: Scipio on November 29, 2011, 05:34:54 PM
Show me the facts on that re: Gary Johnson being responsible for that.
And Frum is fake as hell. Compassion has no place in public policy. Compassionate conservatism is a suicide pact. Conservatism should be about conserving the fisc, preserving national security, and being left the hell alone. Someone who thinks GWB and McCain are the high watermarks of conservative thought has no business opining on the fate of the GOP that he helped make. Today's GOP is the logical result of Frum's bullshit. I've heard enough from Frum over the years. He's played out.
Why would Gary Johnson be responsible for that? :huh: He was Gov, not a Senator. Doesn't mean he didn't benefit from it. It's easier to balance the budget when you get two dollars from the fed for every dollar you pay in taxes. Incidentally The Missouri Governor also has a balanced budget and he didn't have to be libertarian to do it, or take such high percentage of federal money. Also Gary Johnson's predecessor had a balanced budget as was required by that state's constitution.
Libertarianism has no place in public policy. It's the dwelling place of kooks and the chronically ignorant. Having government get the hell out of everyone's business is to be trade one rule we can control, for a thousand little despots we can't.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 29, 2011, 07:04:24 PM
I don't go as far as Skippy. Compassion should play a role, but compassion should be balanced with the realization that *any* kind of assistance creates disincentives.
I thought you were out.
You're covering yourself in glory Raz.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 29, 2011, 06:19:39 PM
A good example of that is the creation of the insite clinic. Not only does it reduce harm (both individual and societal) but it also does so in a compassionate manner.
A better example would be summarily executing everyone who tries to use the insite clinic.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 29, 2011, 07:24:01 PM
You're covering yourself in glory Raz.
It's better then some of the other stuff I've covered myself in. Seriously, I have no idea what half your responses mean.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 29, 2011, 07:28:51 PM
It's better then some of the other stuff I've covered myself in. Seriously, I have no idea what half your responses mean.
Then stop claiming victory or putting words in his mouth. Jesus.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 29, 2011, 07:04:24 PM
I don't go as far as Skippy. Compassion should play a role, but compassion should be balanced with the realization that *any* kind of assistance creates disincentives.
My position is essentially that letting compassion drive public policy to any great extent can create disincentives so great that more people end up worse off than otherwise.
Quote from: fahdiz on November 29, 2011, 07:32:20 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 29, 2011, 07:28:51 PM
It's better then some of the other stuff I've covered myself in. Seriously, I have no idea what half your responses mean.
Then stop claiming victory or putting words in his mouth. Jesus.
I haven't claimed victory. I asked if I could.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 29, 2011, 07:51:01 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on November 29, 2011, 07:32:20 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 29, 2011, 07:28:51 PM
It's better then some of the other stuff I've covered myself in. Seriously, I have no idea what half your responses mean.
Then stop claiming victory or putting words in his mouth. Jesus.
I haven't claimed victory. I asked if I could.
You have my permission. :)
While Frum has some good points to make, I prefer Peggy Noonan when it comes to GOP-course corrections.
If you haven't read any of her stuff, search for it and see what you think. She's delightfully non-retarded.
Before I waste time looking her up, what's her stance on Nixon?
Quote from: Scipio on November 29, 2011, 05:34:54 PM
Compassion has no place in public policy. Compassionate conservatism is a suicide pact. Conservatism should be about conserving the fisc, preserving national security, and being left the hell alone.
Couldn't disagree more strenuously.
Public policy without an element of compassion is not any kind of public policy I want any part of. Compassion must be an element of every decision, every element, of public policy.
Going right back to basics, conservatism is not about fiscal prudence, national security, and being left alone. Conservatism is about being conservative, about being careful. About realizing that our public policies have evolved carefully over centuries, and about realizing that for all its faults, our current system of government (liberal welfare state democracy) is the best form of government in human history. Now out of those centuries of evolution we have learned that fiscal prudence is essential, that national security is essential, and that limiting (not eliminating) the effect of government on the populace is important. But that does not make those the first principles of a conservative.
Well said BB.
And a good explanation of how conservatism cannot save a society on the precipice.
That was pretty well said.
Although I don't think Frum;s point was really about what Conservatism ought to be, but rather what it sure as hell ought NOT to be.
And the current iteration if a fucking mess. It is about as bad as it could get, in fact. This embrace of ignorance and willful demand for conformity to principles that simply do not make any fucking sense to anyone on their merits is frightening.
Quote from: Berkut on November 30, 2011, 12:33:38 AM
And the current iteration if a fucking mess. It is about as bad as it could get, in fact. This embrace of ignorance and willful demand for conformity to principles that simply do not make any fucking sense to anyone on their merits is frightening.
Yeah. I'm not directly exposed to US politics, but there are strains I consider downright disturbing.
Quote from: Jacob on November 29, 2011, 06:26:45 PM
For my part I mean that public policy shouldn't be based overly on "oh isn't it too bad for those poor people" or whatever. It should be based on maintaining a well functioning society. Food and health care security for the population of a Western country is not a matter of charity and kind feelings, it's a matter of having a society that functions. EI, social security and various other forms of income support should be well regulated insurance schemes guaranteed and administrated by the state. The state should look out for the welfare, economic and otherwise, of the citizenry not because of compassion but because its one of the core function of the state.
I agree with this. But I think if you've public policy based on libertarian values then you need compassion to temper the rigours of the market. That's the point in 'Rise of the Meritocracy'. That's what I found disturbing about Ron Paul's answer about a young man without medical insurance dying. Libertarianism without space for compassion is just cruel.
I entirely agree with BBoy, I think that compassion's actually a core part of conservatism. It's in Disraeli, Burke and MacMillan. I think compassion's an essential part of managing and preserving society which is what a lot of conservatism's about.
Quote from: Barrister on November 29, 2011, 11:15:29 PM
Quote from: Scipio on November 29, 2011, 05:34:54 PM
Compassion has no place in public policy. Compassionate conservatism is a suicide pact. Conservatism should be about conserving the fisc, preserving national security, and being left the hell alone.
Couldn't disagree more strenuously.
Public policy without an element of compassion is not any kind of public policy I want any part of. Compassion must be an element of every decision, every element, of public policy.
Going right back to basics, conservatism is not about fiscal prudence, national security, and being left alone. Conservatism is about being conservative, about being careful. About realizing that our public policies have evolved carefully over centuries, and about realizing that for all its faults, our current system of government (liberal welfare state democracy) is the best form of government in human history. Now out of those centuries of evolution we have learned that fiscal prudence is essential, that national security is essential, and that limiting (not eliminating) the effect of government on the populace is important. But that does not make those the first principles of a conservative.
Can we do a conservative exchange program? I'll take all the Canadian conservatives if Canada takes all American conservatives. Hell, I'll even become conservative myself to sweeten the deal.
Quote from: Berkut on November 30, 2011, 12:33:38 AM
That was pretty well said.
Although I don't think Frum;s point was really about what Conservatism ought to be, but rather what it sure as hell ought NOT to be.
And the current iteration if a fucking mess. It is about as bad as it could get, in fact. This embrace of ignorance and willful demand for conformity to principles that simply do not make any fucking sense to anyone on their merits is frightening.
What I find most frightening in American conservatives is not the lack of reasoning skills, but rather lack of ability to comprehend reality.
If you touch a hot stove and feel the burning sensation, you probably see it as a bad thing, even if you can't reason out why it's something that shouldn't be done. However, if you get an orgasm every time you touch a hot stove, you'll just keep touching the hot stove.
American conservatives create one disaster after another, but they can't even comprehend that they're creating a disaster.
Yeah BB, well said. Conservatism as you just described it is something I'm quite comfortable with. While I may disagree on any given particular, the general approach is one that I am very content with :cheers:
Wow. I'm touched. while I don't think I've espoused Burkean conservatism for the entire time I've been on Languish, it has been a lot of years since I found that was my particular political home and I've rarely gotten that kind of reception.
Quote from: DGuller on November 30, 2011, 01:00:19 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 30, 2011, 12:33:38 AM
That was pretty well said.
Although I don't think Frum;s point was really about what Conservatism ought to be, but rather what it sure as hell ought NOT to be.
And the current iteration if a fucking mess. It is about as bad as it could get, in fact. This embrace of ignorance and willful demand for conformity to principles that simply do not make any fucking sense to anyone on their merits is frightening.
What I find most frightening in American conservatives is not the lack of reasoning skills, but rather lack of ability to comprehend reality.
It's really strange. Maybe I'm biased, but I don't think you see that same inability on the American left. You do see extremism, and of course there are some who are basically crazy and draw insane conclusions from actual facts, but American leftism does not appear to be to nearly the same extent delusional about the facts themselves. Like, I know of no left-wing equivalent of birtherism or creationism.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 30, 2011, 01:14:20 AM
Quote from: DGuller on November 30, 2011, 01:00:19 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 30, 2011, 12:33:38 AM
That was pretty well said.
Although I don't think Frum;s point was really about what Conservatism ought to be, but rather what it sure as hell ought NOT to be.
And the current iteration if a fucking mess. It is about as bad as it could get, in fact. This embrace of ignorance and willful demand for conformity to principles that simply do not make any fucking sense to anyone on their merits is frightening.
What I find most frightening in American conservatives is not the lack of reasoning skills, but rather lack of ability to comprehend reality.
It's really strange. Maybe I'm biased, but I don't think you see that same inability on the American left. You do see extremism, and of course there are some who are basically crazy and draw insane conclusions from actual facts, but American leftism does not appear to be to nearly the same extent delusional about the facts themselves. Like, I know of no left-wing equivalent of birtherism or creationism.
I'm not sure of that. The left has a pretty strong ability for self-delusion as well. Take its belief in anti-globalism/anti-free-trade, or belief in trade unionism.
I think the culprit is cable news and the Internet. These new media allow 1984 levels of indoctrination for those already predisposed to it, and soon the reality pushed by yellow journalists becomes THE reality for those exposed to it. It just so happens that conservatives (or actually reactionaries) are much, much better at creating such reality bubbles.
Quote from: Barrister on November 30, 2011, 01:11:48 AM
Wow. I'm touched. while I don't think I've espoused Burkean conservatism for the entire time I've been on Languish, it has been a lot of years since I found that was my particular political home and I've rarely gotten that kind of reception.
Thing is, your brand of conservatism would probably work if everyone were like you: essentially good.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 30, 2011, 01:18:31 AM
Quote from: Barrister on November 30, 2011, 01:11:48 AM
Wow. I'm touched. while I don't think I've espoused Burkean conservatism for the entire time I've been on Languish, it has been a lot of years since I found that was my particular political home and I've rarely gotten that kind of reception.
Thing is, your brand of conservatism would probably work if everyone were like you: essentially good.
I'm pretty sure that neither Edmund Burke nor myself would argue that man is essentially good. We need a strong society to ensure the goodness of its members.
I thought people here might agree with this too:
http://drezner.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/11/27/hi_my_names_dan_and_im_a_rino
The Republican candidates foreign policy views do kind-of scare me. His essay in the Spectator's worth reading on that too.
This thread wants me to go back to a Burkean avatar, like I have had so many times on Languish... yet when my current avatar combines the cuteness of my son, with the awsomeness of the Winnipeg Jets, I can't bring myself to make the change. :P
Quote from: Barrister on November 30, 2011, 01:17:28 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 30, 2011, 01:14:20 AM
Quote from: DGuller on November 30, 2011, 01:00:19 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 30, 2011, 12:33:38 AM
That was pretty well said.
Although I don't think Frum;s point was really about what Conservatism ought to be, but rather what it sure as hell ought NOT to be.
And the current iteration if a fucking mess. It is about as bad as it could get, in fact. This embrace of ignorance and willful demand for conformity to principles that simply do not make any fucking sense to anyone on their merits is frightening.
What I find most frightening in American conservatives is not the lack of reasoning skills, but rather lack of ability to comprehend reality.
It's really strange. Maybe I'm biased, but I don't think you see that same inability on the American left. You do see extremism, and of course there are some who are basically crazy and draw insane conclusions from actual facts, but American leftism does not appear to be to nearly the same extent delusional about the facts themselves. Like, I know of no left-wing equivalent of birtherism or creationism.
I'm not sure of that. The left has a pretty strong ability for self-delusion as well. Take its belief in anti-globalism/anti-free-trade, or belief in trade unionism.
I think that's an apples and oranges comparison, though. Assuming for argument's sake that anti-globalism is wrong (that's an argument for another day), that's what I mean by wrong conclusions. If I were going to list examples of things I thought were simply wrong, rather than factually incorrect, I'd have noted the deification of deficit cutting. That's an insane conclusion, but it is not an argument against plain fact.
Like, the equivalent of the birtherism/"Obama is a secret Muslim" stuff would be to accuse Mitt Romney of having four underage brides he keeps locked in his basement solely because he's a Mormon, or claiming that Rick Perry is a robot based solely on that one time his OS crashed.
Quote from: Barrister on November 30, 2011, 01:22:17 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 30, 2011, 01:18:31 AM
Quote from: Barrister on November 30, 2011, 01:11:48 AM
Wow. I'm touched. while I don't think I've espoused Burkean conservatism for the entire time I've been on Languish, it has been a lot of years since I found that was my particular political home and I've rarely gotten that kind of reception.
Thing is, your brand of conservatism would probably work if everyone were like you: essentially good.
I'm pretty sure that neither Edmund Burke nor myself would argue that man is essentially good. We need a strong society to ensure the goodness of its members.
But while conservative governance is perhaps able to stop ruinous excesses, it seems powerless to stop everyday evil; for inevitably conservative government defends the status quo out of caution, and those who profit from the status quo out of misplaced interest, even if the status quo is untenable. The result is that change comes at great cost in human suffering, if it ever comes at all.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 30, 2011, 01:39:35 AM
Quote from: Barrister on November 30, 2011, 01:22:17 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 30, 2011, 01:18:31 AM
Quote from: Barrister on November 30, 2011, 01:11:48 AM
Wow. I'm touched. while I don't think I've espoused Burkean conservatism for the entire time I've been on Languish, it has been a lot of years since I found that was my particular political home and I've rarely gotten that kind of reception.
Thing is, your brand of conservatism would probably work if everyone were like you: essentially good.
I'm pretty sure that neither Edmund Burke nor myself would argue that man is essentially good. We need a strong society to ensure the goodness of its members.
But while conservative governance is perhaps able to stop ruinous excesses, it seems powerless to stop everyday evil; for inevitably conservative government defends the status quo out of caution, and those who profit from the status quo out of misplaced interest, even if the status quo is untenable. The result is that change comes at great cost in human suffering, if it ever comes at all.
conservatism defends the status quo as modern society, through centuries of evolution, has shown itself as being the BEST to minimize "everyday evil".
If you think modern society is worse then some other society in history you're free to think it - I wholeheartedly disagree. If instead you think that western society in 2011 is the best possible society in human history to date - but it could possible be improved, well then you and I agree fundamentally, and only disagree in how that is best accomplished.
Real conservatives don't use Macs. :contract:
Quote from: Ideologue on November 30, 2011, 01:39:35 AM
But while conservative governance is perhaps able to stop ruinous excesses, it seems powerless to stop everyday evil; for inevitably conservative government defends the status quo out of caution, and those who profit from the status quo out of misplaced interest, even if the status quo is untenable. The result is that change comes at great cost in human suffering, if it ever comes at all.
Conservatism's about changing to preserve the status quo. Otherwise you end up with revolution.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 30, 2011, 01:51:00 AM
Real conservatives don't use Macs. :contract:
Nobody's perfect.
Now, you know I don't think the former. I'm on record as saying that every pre-FDR American government was practically demonic by modern standards, and every other country's government on Earth was even worse.
As to the latter, I suppose that's true. I'm just outlining why I don't think conservatism works, especially in bad times--i.e., these times.
Quote from: SheilbhConservatism's about changing to preserve the status quo. Otherwise you end up with revolution.
That's rather what I mean. Grudging, only-as-much-as-necessary change that alleviates symptoms and rarely underlying problems.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 30, 2011, 01:52:29 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 30, 2011, 01:39:35 AM
But while conservative governance is perhaps able to stop ruinous excesses, it seems powerless to stop everyday evil; for inevitably conservative government defends the status quo out of caution, and those who profit from the status quo out of misplaced interest, even if the status quo is untenable. The result is that change comes at great cost in human suffering, if it ever comes at all.
Conservatism's about changing to preserve the status quo. Otherwise you end up with revolution.
Totally disagree.
Preserving the status quo, for the sake of the status quo, is moronic. It's, to quote a phrase, "reactionary".
But to look at the status quo, to say 'hey, this is the best situation in human history' is different. To say that the status quo is pretty damn good because by all empirical evidence it is pretty good is an entirely different situation.
Quote from: Barrister on November 30, 2011, 01:59:28 AMTotally disagree.
Preserving the status quo, for the sake of the status quo, is moronic. It's, to quote a phrase, "reactionary".
But to look at the status quo, to say 'hey, this is the best situation in human history' is different. To say that the status quo is pretty damn good because by all empirical evidence it is pretty good is an entirely different situation.
You're right, simply preserving the status quo isn't a fair description of conservatism.
But I don't buy the empirical argument either. Hopi Sen had a really lovely post on the conservatism he admires, which I broadly agreed with.
I think your 'empiricism' is just the latest justification for conservatism. To an extent things are the way they are for a reason - I think it used to be God-given and now it's your idea that it's empirically good, another classic conservative justification that this is how the world is made by millions of interactions across society and that it reflects our foibles. All of those reasons reinforce a suspicion of change. Conservatives acknowledge that the world isn't perfect and could be better, they're just unconvinced that change will necessarily make it better.
I think the fundamentals of how conservatives think is pretty constant - I think you'd recognise an 18th century Tory squire. There aren't many people who'd really recognise a Whig, or a Liberal (no matter how much Americans here think they would, they ignore the Liberals moral priggishness), or a 19th century Socialist. That resistance to change I think actually allows conservatives to change, they're not tied to any particular vision of society, but to a way of thinking.
There are two other points made about conservatism that I think are right and valuable - I'd also note they're lacking in American conservatism right now. Conservatism, at its best has a sense of human scale and a sense of humour. It's aware that the small acts on an individual level help, but also that large schemes to change society have significant effects on the individual. And because conservatism doesn't necessarily have a dogma of its own it's not as worthy, or grim, or morally righteous as its opponents tend to be (from Liberals to Social Democrats with everyone in between).
As I say I think American conservatism's lacking all of those things that I think are positive about conservatism. They're an ideology not a way of thinking, they're addicted to grand schemes and they've no sense of humour.
I like Sheilbh's post. I think a lot of that is true.
Although one thing I'll do is to back off on my earlier agreement about the West 2011 being the bestest time ever. I mean, maybe, maybe, by an absolute, and more importantly, undifferentiated and aggregated, count of the value of things, it's better. And comparing it to pre-1945 days is sort of a joke. But we can agree that both of those are suspect metrics at best, right? I'm not even sure comparing today with yesterday is really a very useful exercise at all. Comparing today with tomorrow, or what today could have been, seems more fruitful. But I guess that's why I'm not a conservative.
And, not to personalize this too much, but I recognize that my own situation does have a lot to do with the suspicion I have of conservatism as a viewpoint--I have very little to lose from radical change. Sometimes I think that if I did, I might not feel the same way--that I'm fundamentally selfish--but I hope not.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 30, 2011, 02:44:52 AMI have very little to lose from radical change.
Except your chains. And a world to win. :swiss:
Yeah, yeah, I know the pitch. :P
I like Barrister's version of conservatism much better then Skip's "If my vicious dogs kill my clients who drop stuff off at my home/office, it's their own damned fault" version conservatism.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 30, 2011, 02:26:19 AM
Quote from: Barrister on November 30, 2011, 01:59:28 AMTotally disagree.
Preserving the status quo, for the sake of the status quo, is moronic. It's, to quote a phrase, "reactionary".
But to look at the status quo, to say 'hey, this is the best situation in human history' is different. To say that the status quo is pretty damn good because by all empirical evidence it is pretty good is an entirely different situation.
You're right, simply preserving the status quo isn't a fair description of conservatism.
But I don't buy the empirical argument either. Hopi Sen had a really lovely post on the conservatism he admires, which I broadly agreed with.
I think your 'empiricism' is just the latest justification for conservatism. To an extent things are the way they are for a reason - I think it used to be God-given and now it's your idea that it's empirically good, another classic conservative justification that this is how the world is made by millions of interactions across society and that it reflects our foibles. All of those reasons reinforce a suspicion of change. Conservatives acknowledge that the world isn't perfect and could be better, they're just unconvinced that change will necessarily make it better.
I think the fundamentals of how conservatives think is pretty constant - I think you'd recognise an 18th century Tory squire. There aren't many people who'd really recognise a Whig, or a Liberal (no matter how much Americans here think they would, they ignore the Liberals moral priggishness), or a 19th century Socialist. That resistance to change I think actually allows conservatives to change, they're not tied to any particular vision of society, but to a way of thinking.
There are two other points made about conservatism that I think are right and valuable - I'd also note they're lacking in American conservatism right now. Conservatism, at its best has a sense of human scale and a sense of humour. It's aware that the small acts on an individual level help, but also that large schemes to change society have significant effects on the individual. And because conservatism doesn't necessarily have a dogma of its own it's not as worthy, or grim, or morally righteous as its opponents tend to be (from Liberals to Social Democrats with everyone in between).
As I say I think American conservatism's lacking all of those things that I think are positive about conservatism. They're an ideology not a way of thinking, they're addicted to grand schemes and they've no sense of humour.
I think conservatism--at least my version of it--is essentially about saying, in effect, "Hey, things aren't perfect, but let's be sure that we're changing things for the better before we change them". I'd say that's more a way of thinking than anything else. And as for "grand schemes", well, the way of thinking I just mentioned will tend to cause one to view grand schemes with a certain degree of mistrust, to say the least. And as for a sense of humor, I think that's more a trait that an individual person has or lacks to whatever degree, not something that you can ascribe to political/social views.
Quote from: RazgovoryInsert Quote
I like Barrister's version of conservatism much better then Skip's "If my vicious dogs kill my clients who drop stuff off at my home/office, it's their own damned fault" version conservatism.
Yeah, but BB's view of conservatism comes down to, "Whatever THE LAW says about vicious dogs killing someone, that's what we should do". ;)
Yes, but we can change the law. We can't change Scip. He'll always be a hilly-billy.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 30, 2011, 06:33:47 AM
Yes, but we can change the law. We can't change Scip. He'll always be a hilly-billy.
And you'll always wear a Greek fisherman's hat and live in daddy's basement.
Quote from: dps on November 30, 2011, 05:55:58 AMAnd as for a sense of humor, I think that's more a trait that an individual person has or lacks to whatever degree, not something that you can ascribe to political/social views.
You've never spent any time with a Trot.
Sense of humour's the wrong phrase. I looked up the original and the phrase he uses, which is better, is a lightness of touch. I think lacking the grand project frees them from that, occassionally quite worthy but always tedious, seriousness. At their best they've a sense of perspective. The best example's someone like Harold MacMillan. When he was asked about two Treasury ministers resigning in protest at his policies he said it was 'a little local difficulty'. I think that sort of attitude's quite attractive in a political philosophy. Everyone needs a hinterland, conservatism at its best is mostly hinterland.
Quote from: Scipio on November 30, 2011, 06:44:50 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 30, 2011, 06:33:47 AM
Yes, but we can change the law. We can't change Scip. He'll always be a hilly-billy.
And you'll always wear a Greek fisherman's hat and live in daddy's basement.
Could be worse. There's the off chance I might become a Judge. Can't say the same for you.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 30, 2011, 01:27:25 AM
Like, the equivalent of the birtherism/"Obama is a secret Muslim" stuff would be to accuse Mitt Romney of having four underage brides he keeps locked in his basement solely because he's a Mormon, or claiming that Rick Perry is a robot based solely on that one time his OS crashed.
Or maybe that Bush did 9/11?
Quote from: Ideologue on November 30, 2011, 02:44:52 AM
Although one thing I'll do is to back off on my earlier agreement about the West 2011 being the bestest time ever. I mean, maybe, maybe, by an absolute, and more importantly, undifferentiated and aggregated, count of the value of things, it's better. And comparing it to pre-1945 days is sort of a joke. But we can agree that both of those are suspect metrics at best, right? I'm not even sure comparing today with yesterday is really a very useful exercise at all. Comparing today with tomorrow, or what today could have been, seems more fruitful. But I guess that's why I'm not a conservative.
Comparing today with tomorrow is also entirely impossible.
That's ultimately why the left is fundamentally stupid. To consider what might be is fine and dandy. To look at change to society is a noble endeavour. But invariably the left ignores the risks of change, doesn't look at empirical evidence, doesn't consider the downside.
I was hard on Scipio for saying that compassion has no place in public policy. I don't know if he 100% meant it, but I certainly understand the sentiment behind it. Far too often compassion becomes the only consideration. When compassion overwhelms reason we invariably get some pretty moronic public policy.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 30, 2011, 07:58:32 AM
Could be worse. There's the off chance I might become a Judge. Can't say the same for you.
What a shitty thing to say.
Well, Raz is a pretty shitty person.
That was definitely a dirty tackle by Raz, and worthy of a yellow card. However, it was a retaliation, it didn't come out of the blue.
Quote from: DGuller on November 30, 2011, 12:17:40 PM
That was definitely a dirty tackle by Raz, and worthy of a yellow card. However, it was a retaliation, it didn't come out of the blue.
Yep, they both get yellow cards.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 30, 2011, 12:19:33 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 30, 2011, 12:17:40 PM
That was definitely a dirty tackle by Raz, and worthy of a yellow card. However, it was a retaliation, it didn't come out of the blue.
Yep, they both get yellow cards.
A soccer reference? :yeahright:
Quote from: Barrister on November 30, 2011, 09:48:46 AM
That's ultimately why the left is fundamentally stupid. To consider what might be is fine and dandy. To look at change to society is a noble endeavour. But invariably the left ignores the risks of change, doesn't look at empirical evidence, doesn't consider the downside.
Unfortunately the conservatives pretty much do this in the US these days as well. They are constantly calling for radical changes all over the place without seeming to really care about the actual unintended consequences.
You are talking about Burkean Conservatives but they are a very rare beast these days. At least here.
Quote from: Valmy on November 30, 2011, 12:21:43 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 30, 2011, 09:48:46 AM
That's ultimately why the left is fundamentally stupid. To consider what might be is fine and dandy. To look at change to society is a noble endeavour. But invariably the left ignores the risks of change, doesn't look at empirical evidence, doesn't consider the downside.
Unfortunately the conservatives pretty much do this in the US these days as well. They are constantly calling for radical changes all over the place without seeming to really care about the actual unintended consequences.
You are talking about Burkean Conservatives but they are a very rare beast these days. At least here.
That's because Republicans are reactionaries, not conservatives. They don't want to keep the status quo, they want roll back the advances of civilization won over the better part of 20th century.
Quote from: fahdiz on November 30, 2011, 11:43:52 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 30, 2011, 07:58:32 AM
Could be worse. There's the off chance I might become a Judge. Can't say the same for you.
What a shitty thing to say.
Just can't please you this week can I, Fahdiz?
Quote from: Neil on November 30, 2011, 08:52:55 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 30, 2011, 01:27:25 AM
Like, the equivalent of the birtherism/"Obama is a secret Muslim" stuff would be to accuse Mitt Romney of having four underage brides he keeps locked in his basement solely because he's a Mormon, or claiming that Rick Perry is a robot based solely on that one time his OS crashed.
Or maybe that Bush did 9/11?
Ah, that's a good one. I'm not sure that's a leftist position though; the sort of type I've seen espouse that also tend to be libertarded in the worst way.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 30, 2011, 01:05:24 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 30, 2011, 08:52:55 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 30, 2011, 01:27:25 AM
Like, the equivalent of the birtherism/"Obama is a secret Muslim" stuff would be to accuse Mitt Romney of having four underage brides he keeps locked in his basement solely because he's a Mormon, or claiming that Rick Perry is a robot based solely on that one time his OS crashed.
Or maybe that Bush did 9/11?
Ah, that's a good one. I'm not sure that's a leftist position though; the sort of type I've seen espouse that also tend to be libertarded in the worst way.
:yeahright:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_9/11
Quote from: Barrister on November 30, 2011, 01:09:25 PM
:yeahright:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_9/11
Um....LOL? That is not a truther video.
Yeah, that's just Michael Moore being crazy in a different, lesser way.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 30, 2011, 12:36:01 PM
Just can't please you this week can I, Fahdiz?
You're not required to. I'm just letting you know you are being a real asshole. If you're fine with that, by all means, carry on. God forbid this place be populated by people with class.
On a forum where people regularly wish AIDS on one another making a realistic assessment of some guy's chance at judgehood is shitty?
Quote from: The Brain on November 30, 2011, 03:49:47 PM
On a forum where people regularly wish AIDS on one another making a realistic assessment of some guy's chance at judgehood is shitty?
:pinch: Man, rough game tonight. :books The Brain:
Quote from: The Brain on November 30, 2011, 03:49:47 PM
On a forum where people regularly wish AIDS on one another
QED.
I like to think I generally comport myself in an affable manner.
I'm a huge jerk and I hate people.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 30, 2011, 04:19:13 PM
I like to think I generally comport myself in an affable manner.
:yes:
Quote from: Ideologue on November 30, 2011, 01:54:53 AM
Now, you know I don't think the former. I'm on record as saying that every pre-FDR American government was practically demonic by modern standards, and every other country's government on Earth was even worse.
Not a fan of TR's reforms?
Quote from: DGuller on November 30, 2011, 12:55:37 AM
Quote from: Barrister on November 29, 2011, 11:15:29 PM
Quote from: Scipio on November 29, 2011, 05:34:54 PM
Compassion has no place in public policy. Compassionate conservatism is a suicide pact. Conservatism should be about conserving the fisc, preserving national security, and being left the hell alone.
Couldn't disagree more strenuously.
Public policy without an element of compassion is not any kind of public policy I want any part of. Compassion must be an element of every decision, every element, of public policy.
Going right back to basics, conservatism is not about fiscal prudence, national security, and being left alone. Conservatism is about being conservative, about being careful. About realizing that our public policies have evolved carefully over centuries, and about realizing that for all its faults, our current system of government (liberal welfare state democracy) is the best form of government in human history. Now out of those centuries of evolution we have learned that fiscal prudence is essential, that national security is essential, and that limiting (not eliminating) the effect of government on the populace is important. But that does not make those the first principles of a conservative.
Can we do a conservative exchange program? I'll take all the Canadian conservatives if Canada takes all American conservatives. Hell, I'll even become conservative myself to sweeten the deal.
You can just go to Canada and we'll call it even :hug:
Scippy was 100% correct. I'd think pretty much everyone would be soured on the whole Compassionate Conservative thing by now, but I guess not.
Granted I am on the outside looking in at the US but has there been such a thing as "compassionate conservativism in the US".
Nixon administration.
Oh pleaze, this dude is a liberal.
He doesn't even understand that the goverment doesn't create jobs.
The goverment creates the business enviroment that allows the private sector to create jobs.
Quote from: Siege on November 30, 2011, 07:22:41 PM
Oh pleaze, this dude is a liberal.
He doesn't even understand that the goverment doesn't create jobs.
The goverment creates the business enviroment that allows the private sector to create jobs.
Hey Siegy, who created your job?
:D
Greece created a lot of jobs.
Quote from: Jacob on November 30, 2011, 07:24:04 PM
Hey Siegy, who created your job?
Osama bin Laden :contract:
Quote from: Caliga on November 30, 2011, 07:30:25 PM
Quote from: Jacob on November 30, 2011, 07:24:04 PM
Hey Siegy, who created your job?
Osama bin Laden :contract:
Also largely State funded for Seigy is screwed either way.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 30, 2011, 01:15:48 PM
Yeah, that's just Michael Moore being crazy in a different, lesser way.
Really? You're giving Moore a free pass?
Quote from: garbon on November 30, 2011, 10:33:49 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 30, 2011, 01:15:48 PM
Yeah, that's just Michael Moore being crazy in a different, lesser way.
Really? You're giving Moore a free pass?
Does that sentence really read that way to you?
I don't hate Moore, but I think he's really wrongheaded and loony. I don't think he's
as loony or as wrongheaded as a 9/11 truther (or Holocaust denier or moon hoaxer or birther or creationist).
Now, maybe if I were more familiar with his work, I might? I've read one of his books (I forget which, but I liked it, it was about how America and capitalism suck) and I watched a few episodes of TV Nation (also enjoyable, I thought the one where he had a slave was pretty funny). I've never seen a single one of his movies, in part because movies that claim the dignity of a documentary but wear their biases so clearly on their sleeves kind of creep me out. I also feel that he is, like many of my anti-Bush comrades, a fascist-enabler, unable to distinguish between the bad practices used to whip up support for the Iraq War and its poor execution on one hand, and the fundamental rightness of the cause on the other.
No, I don't give him a free pass.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 30, 2011, 10:42:14 PM(I forget which, but I liked it, it was about how America and capitalism suck)
You're gonna have to be more specific. :lol:
^_^
Quote from: garbon on November 30, 2011, 10:33:49 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 30, 2011, 01:15:48 PM
Yeah, that's just Michael Moore being crazy in a different, lesser way.
Really? You're giving Moore a free pass?
Calling Moore crazy is just being fair not giving him a free pass.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 30, 2011, 04:19:13 PM
I like to think I generally comport myself in an affable manner.
Sure. Now.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 30, 2011, 04:19:13 PM
I like to think I generally comport myself in an affable manner.
You're a good dude.
Get a room you three.