Hulver's site || World Peace!

World Peace!

Now!	0 votes - 0 %
Later!	0 votes - 0 %
Never!	3 votes - 42 %
Through Superior Firepower!	2 votes - 28 %
Would be so utterly /boring/!	3 votes - 42 %
Britney For President!	3 votes - 42 %

7 Total Votes

Bush Administration Plans For World Peace! | 33 comments (33 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback

In other words he is a f**king liberal by cam (2.00 / 0) #1 Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 07:25:19 AM EST

call the spade a spade for chrissakes. Liberalism is a proud and noble political philosophy.

cam
Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic

Sullivan says that. by wiredog

(2.00 / 0) #4 Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 07:37:42 AM EST

A liberal of 100 years ago, perhaps. Most people who call themselves liberals are really leftists.

Earth First!
_{(We can strip mine the rest later.)}
[ Parent ]

: Not really by cam (2.00 / 0) #7 Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 08:22:23 AM EST

social democracy and pluralistic governance are arguments within liberalism. The main difference between enlightenment conservatism (Burkean) and enlightenment liberalism (Jeffersonian) is that liberalism allowed for the rationalistic leap, where reason could divine an idea that must be implemented for the idea alone. Conservatism repudiates that requiring the past (or empiricism outside of tradition).
The US form of government would not have occurred without the rationalistic leap which is why John Dean argued that the US Republic has robbed American conservatives of antiquity (unlike Australian conservatives who argue that Australia is incomplete without mingling with its British heritage).
The other side of the coin is that conservatism without the adoption of an idea for the sake of it, is inevitably static and just a rechurn of the past. Mired in such a pattern it lacks any instinct for social progress. Obvioudly monarchy is repugnant these days, so conservatives have hard arguments with themselves. The 'right' (I hate that term) has tried to come to terms with that by adopting economic liberalism (or economic rationalism as it used to be known in Au) and seen that as driving progress - while leaving society and culture static.
cam
Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic
[ Parent ]
: Correction by The Fool (2.00 / 0) #19 Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 11:21:14 AM EST

Most people who call themselves liberals just think that Republicans are idiots. (At least in the USA.)
This encompasses a fairly broad range of the political spectrum.

[ Parent ]

Why do you hate America! by georgeha (2.00 / 0) #2 Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 07:27:56 AM EST

Most of the Republican base seems to have severe problems with seeing reality, though if they're all convinved Rapture is near, who cares about the future.

FWIW, my hips are okay,and I'm not sure surgery would help me, as it's more of a systemic thing.

WIPO by sasquatchan (2.00 / 0) #3 Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 07:34:12 AM EST

WAR IS PEACE

: IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH! by greyrat (2.00 / 0) #9 Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 08:30:59 AM EST

There's Joe average American in a nutshell.

[ Parent ]

Sorry. by ammoniacal (2.00 / 0) #5 Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 07:45:28 AM EST

Why do the Republicans need to suck up to the Gay Political Agenda?
Why do the Dems need to do the same, for that matter?

It was an unholy union of text and pulped wood that the Ancients used to distribute their blogs.

By gay political agenda by cam (2.00 / 0) #8 Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 08:24:46 AM EST

you mean political equality? Universalism is a important liberal principle. Otherwise you end up with political aberrations like a monarchy, a dictator, a tyrant or Guantanamo Bay and Naura.

cam
Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic
[ Parent ]

In America, gay people can vote as they wish. by ammoniacal (2.00 / 0) #12 Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 08:53:01 AM EST

Universal suffrage is political equality.
They simply don't have the numbers to pass their pet legislation, but they love to whine about dis-enfranchisement.

If I woke up one morning and found myself on Planet Gay, I'd keep quiet and find the quickest route to where I felt like I fit in socially and politically. I wish they'd do the same.

It was an unholy union of text and pulped wood that the Ancients used to distribute their blogs.
[ Parent ]

Politics is the administrative side by cam (2.00 / 0) #14 Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 10:02:49 AM EST

of the legal system, the only reason we tolerate politics/democracy is because it is a less arbitrary and less discriminate legal system than ones based on monarchy, autocracy or tyranny. Political equality encompasses legal equality as well. Political equality is more than just voting - something that is only valid in a democratic system.

cam
Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic
[ Parent ]

I was referring to America, by ammoniacal (2.00 / 0) #18 Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 10:52:50 AM EST

where we have the right to vote. My comment was framed in your mention of a "democratic system."

The democratic practice of voting for laws and lawmakers is the bedrock of this "legal equality" you speak of.
The gay folks who want changes in legal equality are free to vote their conscience, but without popular support, their agendae will not come to fruition.

It was an unholy union of text and pulped wood that the Ancients used to distribute their blogs.
[ Parent ]

Nowhere did I say "democratic system" by cam (2.00 / 0) #20 Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 11:44:35 AM EST

... in my reply to you. What you are advocating is tyranny of the majority - or tyranny of the mob in less kinder terms. The point of liberal democratic systems and republicanism as a liberal political technology is to ensure that the minority accepts majority will, but does so, with the knowledge that the minority is secure in their rights. This is why universalism and political/legal equality become so important in a representative system. Otherwise it becomes another vehicle for discrimination, arbitrary government and tyranny.

cam
Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic
[ Parent ]

Q: for you by ammoniacal (2.00 / 0) #26 Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 04:33:06 PM EST

Let's say that all the straights moved out of Vermont and there was a massive influx of gay people to the state, then the new-found majority passed all manner of gay-friendly legislation.

Do you think that the State of Vermont, as part of the Union, would significantly suffer at the hands of other States?

If you don't, which is my position, then I see a way for a sizable minority to establish some real political power.

It was an unholy union of text and pulped wood that the Ancients used to distribute their blogs.
[ Parent ]

So you are arguing that not only should by cam (2.00 / 0) #27 Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 01:47:57 AM EST

representative democracy be tyranny of the majority, but even in a political sub-unit, where there is a majority, that majority must suffer the tyranny of the minority as well?

That is a pretty pure view of discrimination. For that kind of political opinion you should just make them sit on the back of the bus and be second class citizens. Then you wouldn't have to deal with such quaint ideals as rights, justice or equality.

cam
Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic
[ Parent ]

re: Vermont by ammoniacal (2.00 / 0) #30 Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 06:16:09 AM EST

where there is a majority, that majority must suffer the tyranny of the minority as well?

No, I didn't say that. Everything's peachy inside Vermont, in my example.
I'm asking if you believe other States would take action against Vermont and if so, how?
Would this be a threat to Union?

It was an unholy union of text and pulped wood that the Ancients used to distribute their blogs.
[ Parent ]

: Of course it isnt a threat to the union by cam (4.00 / 1) #31 Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 06:32:08 AM EST

unless people in Washington State decide it is their business to tell people in Vermont how they must live their lives and how they must conduct their politics.
Federalism is a good form of organisation for a reason.
cam
Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic
[ Parent ]

ahh you were saying to the immediate parent by cam (2.00 / 0) #21 Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 11:46:19 AM EST

not the grandparent.

cam
Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic
[ Parent ]

Not many Republicans are gay by theboz (2.00 / 0) #16 Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 10:29:14 AM EST

Instead, they prefer to molest children. The Repubes are just jealous that the gays are more legitimate than they are.
- - - - -
That's what I always say about you, boz, you have a good memory for random facts about pussy. -- joh3n
[ Parent ]

: let me write that down. by ammoniacal (2.00 / 0) #17 Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 10:41:54 AM EST

Repubs. prefer. to. molest. children.
Got it. Thanks for the clarification.
It was an unholy union of text and pulped wood that the Ancients used to distribute their blogs.
[ Parent ]

50 trillion by clover kicker (2.00 / 0) #6 Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 08:18:29 AM EST

That's a hard number to understand, how many transport planes of $100 bills is that?

For that matter, how many Fenway Parks full of $100 bills?

Don't know by jimgon

(4.00 / 1) #10 Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 08:39:52 AM EST

but here's a good indication of what $87 billion is like.

[ Parent ]

To answer by wiredog

(4.00 / 3) #11 Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 08:41:51 AM EST

A $100 bill weighs 1 gram. So we're talking 500 million kg. 120,000 kg is the capacity of the C5 Galaxy aircraft.

So figure 4200 flights to transport it all.

Earth First!
_{(We can strip mine the rest later.)}
[ Parent ]

: Whoooo-weeee by jimgon (4.00 / 1) #32 Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 06:58:48 AM EST

Good thing we invented file transfers or the US would never be able to make it's monthly interest payments to China, Japan and Saudi Arabia. Imagine what the late fees would be like on that kind of scratch!

[ Parent ]

Yeah, well by ucblockhead

(4.00 / 1) #13 Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 09:04:47 AM EST

At least we don't have a tax-and-spend liberal like Bill Clinton in office! If you think the deficit is bad now, imagine if he were still in power!!

In seriousness...the Republican party needs a reboot. In 2004 I decided not to vote for a Republican, no matter how reasonable, until the entire party gets its head back.
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman

It needs to unalign with the Christians by debacle (2.00 / 0) #22 Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 02:31:27 PM EST

But then what?

IF YOU HAVE TWO FIRLES THOROWNF MONEY ART SUOCIDE GIRLS STRIPPER HPW CAN YPUS :OSE?!?!?!?(elcevisides).

[ Parent ]

Well by ucblockhead

(2.00 / 0) #23 Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 03:27:31 PM EST

For one, it needs to renounce deficit spending.
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman
[ Parent ]

Then realign with the vast atheist voting blocks? by Christopher Robin was Murdered (2.00 / 0) #24 Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 04:06:41 PM EST

That seems like a recipe for success. Why, I bet there are several hundreds of untapped atheist voters out there. Godless Americans are the new soccer moms.

[ Parent ]

You're much smarter than that by debacle (2.00 / 0) #25 Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 04:08:05 PM EST

Don't be so facetious.

IF YOU HAVE TWO FIRLES THOROWNF MONEY ART SUOCIDE GIRLS STRIPPER HPW CAN YPUS :OSE?!?!?!?(elcevisides).

[ Parent ]

Sadly, I don't believe I am. by Christopher Robin was Murdered (4.00 / 2) #28 Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 02:04:15 AM EST

Seems to me that the Republicans have done little but pay lip service to the religious right.

Sure, they clipped funding to stem cell research, but that left it open for state funding. Now Republican governors in several states are happily funding stem cell research out of state coffers.

And, of course, there's the whole abortion thing. But that's a red herring. Neither party ever had enough clout to force an amendment to the Constitution and the real battles will be fought out in the courts, so any "position" any politico stakes out in the matter is simply so much campaign advertising. For all Bush and Co.'s pro-life posturing (or the posturing, pro-life and pro-choice, of presidents before him) we've essentially maintained the post-Roe v. Wade status quo.

The gay marriage issue was a joke. Despite the media hyper-ventilation, it was a non-starter. They never had the numbers in Congress and in the state legislatures to pull it off. It was, again, a fun little show for the right-wing Christians.

What I'm saying is that right-wing Christians are to the Republicans what African-Americans are to the Democrats. Both groups get a lot of lip service and pandering, but, in truth, the party just wants them to show up on voting day and then quietly line up behind the party leadership.

Every major policy push by Bush has not been for the right-wing Christians, but for the real engine of the Republican party: big business. If you want to find the pernicious root of Bush's crappy policies, you should look there instead of the liberal boogeyman that is the religious right.

[ Parent ]

Why isn't lip service enough? by debacle (2.00 / 0) #29 Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 05:41:55 AM EST

Lip service and smoke and mirrors got them the votes in 2000, 2004, and will probably still get them the votes in 2008. The Democrats may be in good position but they are still fighting an uphill battle, and one which I am not sure they can win.

IF YOU HAVE TWO FIRLES THOROWNF MONEY ART SUOCIDE GIRLS STRIPPER HPW CAN YPUS :OSE?!?!?!?(elcevisides).

[ Parent ]

: It is enough, which is why it is silly to stop. by Christopher Robin was Murdered (2.00 / 0) #33 Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 10:43:14 AM EST

If my mass media overlords are right, apparently the Elephant Party is facing a bit of a mutiny among the fundamentalist friends. The current crop of hopefuls doesn't seem to be to their liking and, as fundies only come out when they feel they've got a candidate to support (they tend not to vote rather than vote for what they feel is the lesser of two evils), Republicans could take a major hit if they lose them.
This is bad new for the Republicans, because I earnestly believe that they are still very much in the running for the next election. For Democrats to win, they'll need to expand their voter base. For Republicans to win, they just need to keep their party together enough to repeat the second Bush election. For that repeat, they need the Christian right.
Which brings us back to my original comment. I believe purposefully unaligning themselves with the Christian right would be a strategically unsound move. I find it doubtful that, in the immediate aftermath of the Bush administration, Republicans can capture a significant portion of the centrist, swing vote. However, they would stand to lose a vote that either goes their way or simply doesn't come out on election day. For the cost of some public song-and-dance routines, they get to keep a large, pro-Republican vote that, if history is any indication, may just be enough to win regardless of their recent track record.

[ Parent ]

if I understand this correctly by dr k (4.00 / 1) #15 Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 10:18:52 AM EST

a flu pandemic would be good for the debt. On the other hand, it would be bad for the housing market.

:| :| :| :| :|

Bush Administration Plans For World Peace! | 33 comments (33 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback


Make a new account
Username:
Password: