15
   

Has Hillary's Time Come?

 
 
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Nov, 2011 01:18 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

Lustig Andrei wrote:
I'm not so sure. Neither Hillary nor Obama are particularly 'leftist' except in the eyes of such extreme rightists as OmSig or GungaSnake or Finn d'Abuzz. In my own mind, they are both just a silly milimeter to the right of center. . . .
Will u be good enuf to identify the CENTER??

Why, I would be happy to do that for you, David. The Center is the exact midway point between the far Left and the far Right. Get it now?




David
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Nov, 2011 01:25 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Obama is slight right of center and Romney and Cain are merely right of center. I'm wondering now if he knows anything about the positions of Mitt and Herman.


Well, I admit that all I know of Herman Cain's ideological stance is what I've heard him say in interviews. As for Mitt Romney, as a former resident of Massachusetts at the time that good ole Mitt was the governator there, I know quite a bit about him. The mandatory medical plan he instituted in the Bay State makes Obamacare look like a watered-down neocon imitation. (I liked Mitt taking the leadership position among governors in this.) He was fairly popular during the time of his tenure, even among liberals and so-called 'left-wingers.' He's no more conservative than Barrack.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Nov, 2011 01:51 am
@Lustig Andrei,
Lustig Andrei wrote:
I'm not so sure. Neither Hillary nor Obama are particularly 'leftist' except in the eyes of such extreme rightists as OmSig or GungaSnake or Finn d'Abuzz. In my own mind, they are both just a silly milimeter to the right of center. . . .
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Will u be good enuf to identify the CENTER??
Lustig Andrei wrote:
Why, I would be happy to do that for you, David.
The Center is the exact midway point between the far Left and the far Right. Get it now?
I will get it better if u will indicate a known politician
whose political philosophy is in the Center, from the Andy perspective.





David
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Nov, 2011 02:02 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

Lustig Andrei wrote:
I'm not so sure. Neither Hillary nor Obama are particularly 'leftist' except in the eyes of such extreme rightists as OmSig or GungaSnake or Finn d'Abuzz. In my own mind, they are both just a silly milimeter to the right of center. . . .
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Will u be good enuf to identify the CENTER??
Lustig Andrei wrote:
Why, I would be happy to do that for you, David.
The Center is the exact midway point between the far Left and the far Right. Get it now?
I will get it better if u will indicate a known politician
whose political philosophy is in the Center, from the Andy perspective.


From the Andy perspective President Obama is pretty much a compromising centrist. (I said earlier that I thoght he was a bit right of center but I admit that may have been a little mean-spirited on my part.) Recent left-wingers in the White House -- FDR, LBJ, possibly JFK (although his actions in Cuba and Vietnam place him somewhat right, rather than left, of center). Recent right-wingers -- both Bushes, Nixon, Reagan (although I might hedge a bit on him, too; he wasn't all bad. I might hedge a bit on Nixon as well -- detente with China and having the good sense to abandon Vietnam were not the actions of a dedicated Conservative.)

There have been no extremists of either wing who attained that high an office in the 20th Century, in my opinion. Eugene Debs, the only truly extreme left-winger to run for the presidency never had a sinner's chance in hell of getting in.



joefromchicago
 
  2  
Reply Tue 22 Nov, 2011 07:08 am
@Lustig Andrei,
Lustig Andrei wrote:
The mandatory medical plan he instituted in the Bay State makes Obamacare look like a watered-down neocon imitation.

That's because Obamacare is a watered-down neocon imitation.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Nov, 2011 07:26 am
@Lustig Andrei,
I agree with u qua Debs' lack of chances.

In my vu,
Reagan chose Bush to balance off Reagan 's own conservatism;
i.e., the Bushes were not conservatives. In my opinion,
being war-like is not necessarily being rightist.
I agree with u that Roosevelt was on the left,
but he was very correctly war-like qua the Axis powers.





David
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Nov, 2011 08:13 am
@Phoenix32890,
Phoenix32890 wrote:
Has Hillary's Time Come?
Hillary's time won't come until 2016, unfortunately for her she will be up against Scott Brown and he will win by a slight margin because too many female voters (despite what they claim) prefer to vote for a sexy guy rather than a competitive woman.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Nov, 2011 11:32 am
@Lustig Andrei,
What is the neo-conservative position on healthcare?
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Nov, 2011 12:12 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
Lustig Andrei wrote:


Recent right-wingers -- both Bushes, Nixon, Reagan (although I might hedge a bit on him, too; he wasn't all bad. I might hedge a bit on Nixon as well -- detente with China and having the good sense to abandon Vietnam were not the actions of a dedicated Conservative.)


Well, now I have a better idea of how you define "conservative."

Reagan was most definitely a conservative, and certainly the most conservative of the four presidents you've referenced. The fact that you think he wasn't all bad should have nothing to do with that assessment unless you define a conservative as "Someone Lustig Hates Who Sends Troops Overseas"

Neither Bush was truly conservative although they obviously were right of center.

Nixon was right of center as well, but not a core conservative (albeit not because of foreign policy).

He talked about New Federalism and devolving power to the states and he eliminated the Postal System from a cabinet level department, he didn't privatize it. He also gave us the EPA and OSHA and instituted wage and price controls (hardly the work of a conservative).

Before he pulled us out of Vietnam, he expanded the war. The former may have made him a Dove (not really) and the latter may have made him a Hawk, but there's nothing particularly liberal or conservative about either actions.

The same can be said of his opening relations with China. Nixon didn't go to China because he had softened on communism, but because he thought they could be better controlled through engagement. I can't say whether or not it was his engagement that eventually led to the quasi-capitalism of current China but Deng, roughly, followed on its heels.

If you allow that his policy of engagement did influence China's movement towards capitalism, you'd have to say that was a pretty grand conservative achievement.

I agree that FDR and LBJ were very definitely liberals, but both were wartime presidents, and Johnson made Vietnam the mess it was, so it's hard to see how they escape the militaristic element of your definitions.

Considering how much FDR and LBJ changed the role of government, I think a case can be made that their accomplishments were relatively extreme. This is not to suggest that either deserve "extremist" with all of it's negative connotations.

In the 21st Century, Bush wasn't an extremist and neither is Obama. The latter, though, is a left-winger.

0 Replies
 
tsarstepan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Nov, 2011 12:21 pm
@rosborne979,
That time might not come if Elizabeth Warren unseats Scott Brown, the Republican interloper, from his Red State throne sited in the Bluest State.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Nov, 2011 12:23 pm
@tsarstepan,
tsarstepan wrote:

That time might not come if Elizabeth Warren unseats Scott Brown, the Republican interloper, from his Red State throne sited in the Bluest State.
We'll see Smile My bet is that Scott Brown will be a contender in 2016.
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Nov, 2011 02:31 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
If their stupid enough to get sick let them die.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Nov, 2011 02:33 pm
@RABEL222,
No, that's Paleo-conservative
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Nov, 2011 04:18 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Re californians being neighborly, which I said a while back, I shouldn't have said you in particular - I meant that a lot people don't think of our being neighborly as at the top of their lists about our qualities as a general population.

I didn't find it all that neighborly myself when I was a kid, so I was one of the sort of surprised ones when years later I found myself surrounded by friendly neighbors in not just one but two very different cities.

Back to the presidents - over time I liked some things about presidents I didn't immediately cotton on to re their choices (dem or rep) and didn't like some things about some I had been approving about. So it goes.
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Nov, 2011 09:36 am
@rosborne979,
Hillary was born in 1947, which would make her 69 in 2016. I think that the reality of aging will work against her. Too bad. I think that if Obama did not get the nomination in 2008, and Hillary did, the country would be in a lot better state than it is now.
JPB
 
  4  
Reply Wed 23 Nov, 2011 10:20 am
@Phoenix32890,
She would have lost to McCain, imo. So you think McCain would have us in a better place today than Obama has? I disagree.
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Wed 23 Nov, 2011 02:05 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
No, that's Paleo-conservative
R the principles of arithmetic paleo-conservative? I think not.

Being conservative simply consists of NOT deviating from what is conserved. It is being ORTHODOX.
For instance, an honest bookkeeper simply does NOT deviate from the principles of integrity in accounting;
therefore, he is a conservative, qua those principles.





David
georgeob1
 
  3  
Reply Wed 23 Nov, 2011 04:25 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
I think yours is a flawed definition. You are confusing conservatism with faithful adherance to some doctrine. The problem is that political liberals or leftists also have their dostrines and orthodoxies to which they often demand even greater adherance than do conservatives to theirs.

One can be a highly doctrinaire and orthodox conservative or leftist --just as d one could be a rather loose version of either. It is not true that "Being conservative simply consists of NOT deviating from what is conserved. It is being ORTHODOX."
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Wed 23 Nov, 2011 05:16 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:
I think yours is a flawed definition.
You are confusing conservatism with faithful adherance to some doctrine.
That 's what it IS; that 's not confusion, George.
It is faithful adherence to the Original Americanism that is
established in the US Constitution. Liberalism is deviation therefrom.



georgeob1 wrote:
The problem is that political liberals or leftists also have their dostrines and orthodoxies
to which they often demand even greater adherance than do conservatives to theirs.
Of course. I did not deny that.
HOW is that a "problem" ??
Stalin & Mao were conservative commies; Yeltsin was a liberal commie (even radical).
Hitler was a conservative nazi, whereas Hess was a liberal nazi,
in that he DEVIATED from Hitler 's policy by flying to England.



georgeob1 wrote:
One can be a highly doctrinaire and orthodox conservative or leftist --just as d one could be
a rather loose version of either.
I have been saying that for years.



georgeob1 wrote:
It is not true that "Being conservative simply consists of NOT deviating from what is conserved. It is being ORTHODOX."
Your reasoning does not support your denial.
Your reasoning has not deviated from mine,
but u appear to be unaware of that fact.
I might add that being liberal does NOT necessarily mean
following the ideology of the Kennedys or Roosevelt.
It can mean deviating in any of 36O degrees of arc ( + up & down )
from the orthodox paradigm.

For instance, a liberal in another direction woud advocate
that the rich pay no taxes at all, but that the IRS shoud send them a check @ April 15th.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Wed 23 Nov, 2011 05:27 pm
@georgeob1,
The essence of liberalism is deviation from SOMETHING,
a partial rejection of something, inconsistent with its original meaning.
For instance, if a boy is sent by his mother to the store with a
shopping list of 10 items and he decides not to buy 3 of them,
he is being LIBERAL, as to that list, because he DEVIATED from it
by acting inconsistently with his mother's original meaning.
If he applies some of the money to the purchase of candy of his choice,
instead of his mother's choice of food, he is being liberal,
in distorting the original intendment of the shopping list.

When I spell fonetically, I am being LIBERAL as to paradigmatic spelling.
The innermost essence of liberalism is INCONSISTENCY with some designated criterion.

The Founders of this Republic were liberal to the extent
that thay DEVIATED from and rejected the Divine Right of English Kings.



Conservative means keeping rigidly unbending in the enforcement of a rule,
or law, or agreement or some paradigm; accordingly, conservatives conserve that rule
or agreement or criterion (e.g., a common style of dress, or style of art, or interpretation of a contract).

Liberal means deviating from some rule, or law,
or agreement or some paradigm, and not taking it too seriously.
A man is LIBERAL to the extent that he is deviant, errant, or inconsistent with some rule.

For instance,
if men are playing poker n one rakes in the pot
alleging that he has a flush, when he has 4 clubs and a spade,
and when challenged on this behavior, he declares
the liberal motto: " hay, that 's CLOSE ENUF; don 't be
too technical; don 't split hairs; just don t be a ball buster, OK ?
I had a fight with my cousin, yesterday I got a flat tire,
I belong to a minority group and my left foot stinks, so gimme a break n deal the cards."

Hence, he advocates the position that logic shoud be SUBORDINATED to emotion
and that thay shoud take a LIBERAL VU of the rules of poker because his sob story OUTRANKS
the technical rules requiring 5 cards of 1 suit for a flush.

Liberal = UNFAITHFUL to a concept or to an agreement.

"Conservative" means ORTHODOX.
"Conservative" means non-deviant.
"Liberal" means deviant and inconsistent.

Without having deviated from something no one can be liberal
because the essence of liberalism is turning away from something
.

For instance, if u attend a formal banquet in a black tuxedo
with red sneakers, u deviate from the paradigm of formal dress,
thereby taking a liberal vu thereof. If u attend it in your underwear,
then u take a MORE LIBERAL interpretation of that paradigm.
If u attend it naked, then u apply a radical interpretation
( "from the root" ) of that paradigm.

Whether liberalism is good or bad
depends upon WHAT the liberal is veering away from.
Like when Boris Yeltsin veered away from communism, that was a GOOD thing.
When Deputy Fuhrer Rudolf Hess flew to Scotland in 1941, he was a liberal Nazi,
because he was deviating from Hitler’s war policy.

Liberalism includes ANY kind of deviation,
in any direction of 360 degrees of arc + up n down.

There is no logical semantic constriction on liberalism
that it can only exist in the direction of collectivist-authoritarianism a/k/a socialism.
Liberalism can be in the opposite direction or in any direction,
so long as it is deviant.

Barry Goldwater was a conservative BECAUSE his philosophy did NOT deviate
from the pro-freedom philosophy of the Founders of this Republic as set forth in the Constitution.

Barry Goldwater was a conservative BECAUSE his philosophy was rigidly faithful
to the US Constitution (which is the criterion).





David
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/12/2024 at 06:28:39