On March 15 2012 05:27 xDaunt wrote: The whole problem here is that republicans are misrepresented by democrats as being only social conservatives, which isn't even true. The more core elements of being republican (ie the other facets of being conservative) are being pro-free market, anti-government regulation, and pro-American (in terms of nationalism).
I don't really know what you mean by pro-American. Does this mean being against criticism of the government? Does this mean protectionism ie anti-outsourcing? What exactly is your terminology here? I hope you don't mean calling other people out on being 'anti-american' all the time like McCarthy did just because they like keynesian economics.
I'm pretty sure Libertarians usually don't associate as Republicans (but as independents), so I don't think this is a fair point. Maybe someone can offer up some statistics? Ron Paul is generally considered crazy by most Republicans. And social conservatism has definitely become a core element of Republican values over the years. Now look who's delusional.
I said "pro-American in terms of nationalism." I suppose I could also say "patriotic." This is a foreign policy issue. One of the biggest criticisms of democrats and liberals is that they are too quick to be apologists for America and too slow to be advocates for American interests. For example, who can forget Obama's "world apology tour" at the beginning of his presidency when he was bowing to foreign heads of state? More recently, how about the administration's gung-ho policy of prosecuting American soldiers accused of war crimes and concurrent refusal to take the Afghanis to task for their actions? There are simply countless instances of this type of stuff from the left, yet they complain when their patriotism is questioned (remember Hillary's rant on this point from several years ago?).
Really, you're bringing up the bowing thing? Really? Come on, man, I expect better of you. I don't see how good relations with other countries and encouraging human rights is not directly in the interests of America.
I mean I could come out and say "That's not a tenet of Democrat values" if you'd like and just do what you did.
Of course, prosecuting American soldiers accused of war crimes I would argue is patriotic. I mean if you believe America has some authority over the world then you shouldn't undermine that authority by bending the rules to your favor or acting overtly superior. Self-criticism is incredibly important to American interests. And Self-criticism of our government's actions is extremely American.
I personally don't care about the bowing thing so much as I care about the purpose of that tour. Even so, why do you think it was a big deal?
Self-criticism and self-introspection is fine, and but that's not what I'm talking about. Democrats and liberals go well beyond that line to the point where they willingly throw America under the bus for the greater international good. It started with Vietnam and has continued ever since. Are you actually denying that democrats have this rap or are you merely justifying it? If it's the latter, I really don't care what you have to say on this point.
You are the self declared leaders of the free world. When you violate your proposed agenda, you are held accountable by the world. You dont have a license to act how you want, and expect everyone to be okay with it. If you fuck up, you say sorry. Thats how life works.
On March 15 2012 05:27 xDaunt wrote: The whole problem here is that republicans are misrepresented by democrats as being only social conservatives, which isn't even true. The more core elements of being republican (ie the other facets of being conservative) are being pro-free market, anti-government regulation, and pro-American (in terms of nationalism).
I don't really know what you mean by pro-American. Does this mean being against criticism of the government? Does this mean protectionism ie anti-outsourcing? What exactly is your terminology here? I hope you don't mean calling other people out on being 'anti-american' all the time like McCarthy did just because they like keynesian economics.
I'm pretty sure Libertarians usually don't associate as Republicans (but as independents), so I don't think this is a fair point. Maybe someone can offer up some statistics? Ron Paul is generally considered crazy by most Republicans. And social conservatism has definitely become a core element of Republican values over the years. Now look who's delusional.
I said "pro-American in terms of nationalism." I suppose I could also say "patriotic." This is a foreign policy issue. One of the biggest criticisms of democrats and liberals is that they are too quick to be apologists for America and too slow to be advocates for American interests. For example, who can forget Obama's "world apology tour" at the beginning of his presidency when he was bowing to foreign heads of state? More recently, how about the administration's gung-ho policy of prosecuting American soldiers accused of war crimes and concurrent refusal to take the Afghanis to task for their actions? There are simply countless instances of this type of stuff from the left, yet they complain when their patriotism is questioned (remember Hillary's rant on this point from several years ago?).
Really, you're bringing up the bowing thing? Really? Come on, man, I expect better of you. I don't see how good relations with other countries and encouraging human rights is not directly in the interests of America.
I mean I could come out and say "That's not a tenet of Democrat values" if you'd like and just do what you did.
Of course, prosecuting American soldiers accused of war crimes I would argue is patriotic. I mean if you believe America has some authority over the world then you shouldn't undermine that authority by bending the rules to your favor or acting overtly superior. Self-criticism is incredibly important to American interests. And Self-criticism of our government's actions is extremely American.
I personally don't care about the bowing thing so much as I care about the purpose of that tour. Even so, why do you think it was a big deal?
Self-criticism and self-introspection is fine, and but that's not what I'm talking about. Democrats and liberals go well beyond that line to the point where they willingly throw America under the bus for the greater international good. It started with Vietnam and has continued ever since. Are you actually denying that democrats have this rap or are you merely justifying it? If it's the latter, I really don't care what you have to say on this point.
Both? I'm saying that it is in fact for American interests. That is pro-American as well. But I also don't think that characterizes Democrats certainly any more than social conservatism characterizes Republicans.
I mean I would simply argue that Republicans are far willing to brush serious things under the rug and claim that international rules that we enforce on others don't apply to America. Hence undermining our authority, lowering our standing internationally, and weakening American interests.
It's kind of a confusing statement you've got there. Can you give an example of throwing America under the bus for the greater international good? Like an example that doesn't have any benefit to America even arguably? Helping other countries does benefit us. That's been shown again and again to be true.
On March 15 2012 05:27 xDaunt wrote: The whole problem here is that republicans are misrepresented by democrats as being only social conservatives, which isn't even true. The more core elements of being republican (ie the other facets of being conservative) are being pro-free market, anti-government regulation, and pro-American (in terms of nationalism).
I don't really know what you mean by pro-American. Does this mean being against criticism of the government? Does this mean protectionism ie anti-outsourcing? What exactly is your terminology here? I hope you don't mean calling other people out on being 'anti-american' all the time like McCarthy did just because they like keynesian economics.
I'm pretty sure Libertarians usually don't associate as Republicans (but as independents), so I don't think this is a fair point. Maybe someone can offer up some statistics? Ron Paul is generally considered crazy by most Republicans. And social conservatism has definitely become a core element of Republican values over the years. Now look who's delusional.
I said "pro-American in terms of nationalism." I suppose I could also say "patriotic." This is a foreign policy issue. One of the biggest criticisms of democrats and liberals is that they are too quick to be apologists for America and too slow to be advocates for American interests. For example, who can forget Obama's "world apology tour" at the beginning of his presidency when he was bowing to foreign heads of state? More recently, how about the administration's gung-ho policy of prosecuting American soldiers accused of war crimes and concurrent refusal to take the Afghanis to task for their actions? There are simply countless instances of this type of stuff from the left, yet they complain when their patriotism is questioned (remember Hillary's rant on this point from several years ago?).
Really, you're bringing up the bowing thing? Really? Come on, man, I expect better of you. I don't see how good relations with other countries and encouraging human rights is not directly in the interests of America.
I mean I could come out and say "That's not a tenet of Democrat values" if you'd like and just do what you did.
Of course, prosecuting American soldiers accused of war crimes I would argue is patriotic. I mean if you believe America has some authority over the world then you shouldn't undermine that authority by bending the rules to your favor or acting overtly superior. Self-criticism is incredibly important to American interests. And Self-criticism of our government's actions is extremely American.
I personally don't care about the bowing thing so much as I care about the purpose of that tour. Even so, why do you think it was a big deal?
Self-criticism and self-introspection is fine, and but that's not what I'm talking about. Democrats and liberals go well beyond that line to the point where they willingly throw America under the bus for the greater international good. It started with Vietnam and has continued ever since. Are you actually denying that democrats have this rap or are you merely justifying it? If it's the latter, I really don't care what you have to say on this point.
Personally, I try to view myself as often as possible as a human being, not a nationality. Nationalism, like so many other forms of tribalistic impulses, is a disease.
If someone lives in America, then they should be criticizing American policies. It does no good to criticize the policies of other nations, because you can't affect change in them apart from economic sanctions or direct military action.
Sometimes people go too far, into being anti-American, but I view that as kind of an over reaction in response, an over compensation to the traditional/patriotic view which is also often too extreme at exaggerating the nations greatness and hiding it's flaws.
The US is the major superpower, and they exercise that power, so of course they are a greater target for criticism or outright hatred. I don't believe in advocating "American interests," if what you are referring to is using military force to impose our will on foreign nations. If the voluntary cooperation and exchange exemplified by the free market model is good enough for conservatives in the economic sphere, then it should also be championed in the global political sphere.
On March 15 2012 05:27 xDaunt wrote: The whole problem here is that republicans are misrepresented by democrats as being only social conservatives, which isn't even true. The more core elements of being republican (ie the other facets of being conservative) are being pro-free market, anti-government regulation, and pro-American (in terms of nationalism).
I don't really know what you mean by pro-American. Does this mean being against criticism of the government? Does this mean protectionism ie anti-outsourcing? What exactly is your terminology here? I hope you don't mean calling other people out on being 'anti-american' all the time like McCarthy did just because they like keynesian economics.
I'm pretty sure Libertarians usually don't associate as Republicans (but as independents), so I don't think this is a fair point. Maybe someone can offer up some statistics? Ron Paul is generally considered crazy by most Republicans. And social conservatism has definitely become a core element of Republican values over the years. Now look who's delusional.
I said "pro-American in terms of nationalism." I suppose I could also say "patriotic." This is a foreign policy issue. One of the biggest criticisms of democrats and liberals is that they are too quick to be apologists for America and too slow to be advocates for American interests. For example, who can forget Obama's "world apology tour" at the beginning of his presidency when he was bowing to foreign heads of state? More recently, how about the administration's gung-ho policy of prosecuting American soldiers accused of war crimes and concurrent refusal to take the Afghanis to task for their actions? There are simply countless instances of this type of stuff from the left, yet they complain when their patriotism is questioned (remember Hillary's rant on this point from several years ago?).
Bleeeeeehhhhhh, this is a bad definition of patriotism, and a bad argument by 'xDaunt standards.'
So patriotism is to be proud of everything and anything Americans do, even when an individual that happens to be American does something retarded and atrocious?
And I didn't know Obama went on a "World Apology tour". I do recall him introducing himself to World Leaders and connecting with the international community.
Back to the nomination process, I just thought I'd remind us all that by most delegate counts, Romney still has more delegates than all of his opponents combined, and he needs less than 50% of the remaining delegates to clinch the nomination.
Also, even though he lost both Southern states on Tuesday, he actually won more delegates that day then any of his opponents and widened his lead on Santorum.
Santorum I think, is running this campaign hoping to become well known enough to run again in 2016, assuming Romney loses to Obama.
On March 15 2012 05:27 xDaunt wrote: The whole problem here is that republicans are misrepresented by democrats as being only social conservatives, which isn't even true. The more core elements of being republican (ie the other facets of being conservative) are being pro-free market, anti-government regulation, and pro-American (in terms of nationalism).
I don't really know what you mean by pro-American. Does this mean being against criticism of the government? Does this mean protectionism ie anti-outsourcing? What exactly is your terminology here? I hope you don't mean calling other people out on being 'anti-american' all the time like McCarthy did just because they like keynesian economics.
I'm pretty sure Libertarians usually don't associate as Republicans (but as independents), so I don't think this is a fair point. Maybe someone can offer up some statistics? Ron Paul is generally considered crazy by most Republicans. And social conservatism has definitely become a core element of Republican values over the years. Now look who's delusional.
I said "pro-American in terms of nationalism." I suppose I could also say "patriotic." This is a foreign policy issue. One of the biggest criticisms of democrats and liberals is that they are too quick to be apologists for America and too slow to be advocates for American interests. For example, who can forget Obama's "world apology tour" at the beginning of his presidency when he was bowing to foreign heads of state? More recently, how about the administration's gung-ho policy of prosecuting American soldiers accused of war crimes and concurrent refusal to take the Afghanis to task for their actions? There are simply countless instances of this type of stuff from the left, yet they complain when their patriotism is questioned (remember Hillary's rant on this point from several years ago?).
Bleeeeeehhhhhh, this is a bad definition of patriotism, and a bad argument by 'xDaunt standards.'
I'm not arguing anything. I'm merely defining what I meant when I said that part of the unifying core of republican principals is being pro-American.
So patriotism is to be proud of everything and anything Americans do, even when an individual that happens to be American does something retarded and atrocious?
Of course not, and I'm deeply disappointed that there are so many people here who have stupidly and without any justification assumed that this is what I meant (which is why I'm not bothering to respond to them).
And I didn't know Obama went on a "World Apology tour". I do recall him introducing himself to World Leaders and connecting with the international community.
Did you miss the part where he was giving speeches in other countries during which he kept apologizing for America's past "bad acts," even when those acts often had nothing to do with the country he was in? Hell, it was so bad that the Japanese made a point of communicating to the administration that Obama better not apologize for the atomic bomb (and it is generally believed that he intended to do so).
And I didn't know Obama went on a "World Apology tour". I do recall him introducing himself to World Leaders and connecting with the international community.
Did you miss the part where he was giving speeches in other countries during which he kept apologizing for America's past "bad acts," even when those acts often had nothing to do with the country he was in? Hell, it was so bad that the Japanese made a point of communicating to the administration that Obama better not apologize for the atomic bomb (and it is generally believed that he intended to do so).
Did you miss the part where the claim that Obama went around the world apologizing was rated a "Pants on fire" lie by Politifact.com (see here), and a "four pinocchios" lie by the Washington Post's fact checker (the maximum amount, see here)? It's just not true.
On March 15 2012 08:44 Focuspants wrote: If Santorum is the best the Republicans will have to throw at the Democrats after Obamas second term, I think youre going to see 8 years of Hilary.
On March 15 2012 08:44 Focuspants wrote: If Santorum is the best the Republicans will have to throw at the Democrats after Obamas second term, I think youre going to see 8 years of Hilary.
On March 15 2012 05:27 xDaunt wrote: The whole problem here is that republicans are misrepresented by democrats as being only social conservatives, which isn't even true. The more core elements of being republican (ie the other facets of being conservative) are being pro-free market, anti-government regulation, and pro-American (in terms of nationalism).
It's worth noting that departments emphasizing economic issues tend to be more evenly split than departments in the sciences or liberal arts. (also sorry for the repeated assertions about academic political leanings, I'll post the study I'm getting this from in a few hrs when I'm back home)
As much as we (including myself) tend to talk about social conservatives vs neocons vs libertarians, in reality the Republican party is made up of conservatives and staunch conservatives. There is a group of libertarians that mostly vote Republican, although the ones that do seem to be mostly conservative themselves at least personally even if they don't want the government itself "in our bedrooms." Also they're more anti-war Republicans than they are socially liberal Republicans. Ron Paul's paltry aggregate vote totals relative to the 3 other GOP candidates shows just how outnumbered libertarians are in the party. http://www.people-press.org/2011/05/04/beyond-red-vs-blue-the-political-typology/
[edit] - This is anecdotal, but from what I can tell academia samples very heavily from Solid Liberals, Post-Moderns, and Libertarians, with less representation from Staunch Conservatives (a mutual decision). The other typologies tend to be less educated hence they are not well represented in academia.
Here's the study I was talking about. Well worth reading if this is something you care about.
On March 15 2012 08:45 xDaunt wrote: Did you miss the part where he was giving speeches in other countries during which he kept apologizing for America's past "bad acts," even when those acts often had nothing to do with the country he was in? Hell, it was so bad that the Japanese made a point of communicating to the administration that Obama better not apologize for the atomic bomb (and it is generally believed that he intended to do so).
That never happened, Obama never did that, and it's a complete fabrication that he did. Numerous fact checkers have looked into it and found it to be completely made up.
On March 15 2012 08:45 xDaunt wrote: Did you miss the part where he was giving speeches in other countries during which he kept apologizing for America's past "bad acts," even when those acts often had nothing to do with the country he was in? Hell, it was so bad that the Japanese made a point of communicating to the administration that Obama better not apologize for the atomic bomb (and it is generally believed that he intended to do so).
That never happened, Obama never did that, and it's a complete fabrication that he did. Numerous fact checkers have looked into it and found it to be completely made up.
The communique from wikileaks was made up, too, then?
On March 15 2012 08:45 xDaunt wrote: Did you miss the part where he was giving speeches in other countries during which he kept apologizing for America's past "bad acts," even when those acts often had nothing to do with the country he was in? Hell, it was so bad that the Japanese made a point of communicating to the administration that Obama better not apologize for the atomic bomb (and it is generally believed that he intended to do so).
That never happened, Obama never did that, and it's a complete fabrication that he did. Numerous fact checkers have looked into it and found it to be completely made up.
The communique from wikileaks was made up, too, then?
I actually did miss this part where he traveled around the world giving speeches apologizing for America's past "bad acts", I would like to read more about this, do you know where I might find such things? Specifically a link to his speech transcripts or youtube videos of the speeches would be great.
Regarding the economy and what to do in these recessions and regarding recessions, these two videos are actually very good. They both say the same thing slightly differently. And it is basically the consensus among econmists right now. Politicians sadly are doing what is in their own short term interest.
This isn't the simplified populist black and white stuff you sometimes see and hear because there is actually something counter intuitive going on.
On March 15 2012 11:02 Miyoshino wrote: I have never seen xDaunt win a debate on TL. It is quite funny as he keeps trying. But right here may be the first time he did.
I don't try to win debates in here. No one is going to change anyone's mind. Hell, debating isn't even possible because, more often than not, people responding to me either misconstrue or simply don't understand what I post.
On March 15 2012 08:45 xDaunt wrote: Did you miss the part where he was giving speeches in other countries during which he kept apologizing for America's past "bad acts," even when those acts often had nothing to do with the country he was in? Hell, it was so bad that the Japanese made a point of communicating to the administration that Obama better not apologize for the atomic bomb (and it is generally believed that he intended to do so).
That never happened, Obama never did that, and it's a complete fabrication that he did. Numerous fact checkers have looked into it and found it to be completely made up.
The communique from wikileaks was made up, too, then?
The cable is only a small part of a much larger communication and was completely lacking in any form of context. In no speech has Obama ever apologized for the U.S.
White house has the official position of not responding to leaked cables, but they said this in an official statement:
"there was never any plan for the president to apologize. The President's visit speaks for itself."
Please, if you're so insistent that he has done so, provide us with a transcript of any speech where he does. You can of course make the claim that the White House's response is full of shit, but there's no evidence that you'd be correct.
EPT
