On November 14 2012 10:07 oneofthem wrote: if you want to talk about intentions being revealed by actual performance, the republican's empirical lack of deficit control seems to indicate that their budget attitude is really a moral attitude about the right kinds of spending. crony corporate welfare is okay, so is spending for wars, but spending a couple % gdp on poor people, oh no sir. that's just dangerous
Bush, again? Yes, we all know that he was not a conservative.
I love the "no true Scottsman" defense.
He called himself conservative. He was elected by conservatives. He pushed forward with the standard conservative agenda of tax cuts and so forth. What the hell do you want me to call him? I'm not going to play guessing games with your own personal definition of "conservative".
I stand by this. Maxyim, give 'em a break. George W. was fairly conservative, coming from a conservative. FAIRLY. He was by no means an exemplar of the right-wing, but it's true enough to term him a "conservative."
On November 14 2012 10:07 oneofthem wrote: if you want to talk about intentions being revealed by actual performance, the republican's empirical lack of deficit control seems to indicate that their budget attitude is really a moral attitude about the right kinds of spending. crony corporate welfare is okay, so is spending for wars, but spending a couple % gdp on poor people, oh no sir. that's just dangerous
Bush, again? Yes, we all know that he was not a conservative.
I love the "no true Scottsman" defense.
He called himself conservative. He was elected by conservatives. He pushed forward with the standard conservative agenda of tax cuts and so forth. What the hell do you want me to call him? I'm not going to play guessing games with your own personal definition of "conservative".
I stand by this. Maxyim, give 'em a break. George W. was fairly conservative, coming from a conservative. FAIRLY. He was by no means an exemplar of the right-wing, but it's true enough to term him a "conservative."
how do you differentiate conservatives? Are you only speaking on fiscal conservatism or do you include social conservatism?
Fiscal conservatism with respect to the Federal government; I believe that social policy should be decided by each State as per the Constitution, with the Supreme Court getting involved to right injustices caused by majorities on minorities (anti-miscegenation, anti-gay marriage, etc). Social liberalism / conservatism at the Federal level is a huge distraction, as neither party has much ability to do anything for or against any particular issue. Aint nobody got time for that.
On November 14 2012 10:07 oneofthem wrote: if you want to talk about intentions being revealed by actual performance, the republican's empirical lack of deficit control seems to indicate that their budget attitude is really a moral attitude about the right kinds of spending. crony corporate welfare is okay, so is spending for wars, but spending a couple % gdp on poor people, oh no sir. that's just dangerous
Bush, again? Yes, we all know that he was not a conservative. However, I will take exception with you throwing the wars in the mix; both had bipartisan support. Welfare is quite a bit more than "a couple % of gdp," in case you did not know.
Al Gore would have never invaded Iraq. He probably also wouldnt have jacked up the DoD spending from the Clinton high of 300 billion to a Bush high of 700 billion at which Obama kept it for the last 4 years.
The Iraq War was a bipartisan effort, Al Gore would not have had a choice. DoD spending is up because we are in wars, lol...
On November 14 2012 10:07 oneofthem wrote: if you want to talk about intentions being revealed by actual performance, the republican's empirical lack of deficit control seems to indicate that their budget attitude is really a moral attitude about the right kinds of spending. crony corporate welfare is okay, so is spending for wars, but spending a couple % gdp on poor people, oh no sir. that's just dangerous
Bush, again? Yes, we all know that he was not a conservative.
I love the "no true Scottsman" defense.
He called himself conservative. He was elected by conservatives. He pushed forward with the standard conservative agenda of tax cuts and so forth. What the hell do you want me to call him? I'm not going to play guessing games with your own personal definition of "conservative".
I stand by this. Maxyim, give 'em a break. George W. was fairly conservative, coming from a conservative. FAIRLY. He was by no means an exemplar of the right-wing, but it's true enough to term him a "conservative."
Between bailouts and stimulus and military spending, yes, he was quite fond of spending taxpayers' money. Given the other Presidents we're comparing him to, however, he appears to lean to the conservative side. Perhaps not as objectively right-wing as you'd like (certainly not as much as I'd like), but certainly subjectively so. I think that's all we're trying to get at.
On November 14 2012 10:07 oneofthem wrote: if you want to talk about intentions being revealed by actual performance, the republican's empirical lack of deficit control seems to indicate that their budget attitude is really a moral attitude about the right kinds of spending. crony corporate welfare is okay, so is spending for wars, but spending a couple % gdp on poor people, oh no sir. that's just dangerous
Bush, again? Yes, we all know that he was not a conservative.
I love the "no true Scottsman" defense.
He called himself conservative. He was elected by conservatives. He pushed forward with the standard conservative agenda of tax cuts and so forth. What the hell do you want me to call him? I'm not going to play guessing games with your own personal definition of "conservative".
I stand by this. Maxyim, give 'em a break. George W. was fairly conservative, coming from a conservative. FAIRLY. He was by no means an exemplar of the right-wing, but it's true enough to term him a "conservative."
how do you differentiate conservatives? Are you only speaking on fiscal conservatism or do you include social conservatism?
Fiscal conservatism with respect to the Federal government; I believe that social policy should be decided by each State as per the Constitution, with the Supreme Court getting involved to right injustices caused by majorities on minorities (anti-miscegenation, anti-gay marriage, etc). Social liberalism / conservatism at the Federal level is a huge distraction, as neither party has much ability to do anything for or against any particular issue. Aint nobody got time for that.
On November 14 2012 10:07 oneofthem wrote: if you want to talk about intentions being revealed by actual performance, the republican's empirical lack of deficit control seems to indicate that their budget attitude is really a moral attitude about the right kinds of spending. crony corporate welfare is okay, so is spending for wars, but spending a couple % gdp on poor people, oh no sir. that's just dangerous
Bush, again? Yes, we all know that he was not a conservative. However, I will take exception with you throwing the wars in the mix; both had bipartisan support. Welfare is quite a bit more than "a couple % of gdp," in case you did not know.
Al Gore would have never invaded Iraq. He probably also wouldnt have jacked up the DoD spending from the Clinton high of 300 billion to a Bush high of 700 billion at which Obama kept it for the last 4 years.
The Iraq War was a bipartisan effort, Al Gore would not have had a choice. DoD spending is up because we are in wars, lol...
The States right argument is BS and can be associated with the southern strategy.
On November 14 2012 10:07 oneofthem wrote: if you want to talk about intentions being revealed by actual performance, the republican's empirical lack of deficit control seems to indicate that their budget attitude is really a moral attitude about the right kinds of spending. crony corporate welfare is okay, so is spending for wars, but spending a couple % gdp on poor people, oh no sir. that's just dangerous
Bush, again? Yes, we all know that he was not a conservative.
I love the "no true Scottsman" defense.
He called himself conservative. He was elected by conservatives. He pushed forward with the standard conservative agenda of tax cuts and so forth. What the hell do you want me to call him? I'm not going to play guessing games with your own personal definition of "conservative".
I stand by this. Maxyim, give 'em a break. George W. was fairly conservative, coming from a conservative. FAIRLY. He was by no means an exemplar of the right-wing, but it's true enough to term him a "conservative."
Between bailouts and stimulus and military spending, yes, he was quite fond of spending taxpayers' money. Given the other Presidents we're comparing him to, however, he appears to lean to the conservative side. Perhaps not as objectively right-wing as you'd like (certainly not as much as I'd like), but certainly subjectively so. I think that's all we're trying to get at.
On November 14 2012 10:07 oneofthem wrote: if you want to talk about intentions being revealed by actual performance, the republican's empirical lack of deficit control seems to indicate that their budget attitude is really a moral attitude about the right kinds of spending. crony corporate welfare is okay, so is spending for wars, but spending a couple % gdp on poor people, oh no sir. that's just dangerous
Bush, again? Yes, we all know that he was not a conservative.
I love the "no true Scottsman" defense.
He called himself conservative. He was elected by conservatives. He pushed forward with the standard conservative agenda of tax cuts and so forth. What the hell do you want me to call him? I'm not going to play guessing games with your own personal definition of "conservative".
I stand by this. Maxyim, give 'em a break. George W. was fairly conservative, coming from a conservative. FAIRLY. He was by no means an exemplar of the right-wing, but it's true enough to term him a "conservative."
how do you differentiate conservatives? Are you only speaking on fiscal conservatism or do you include social conservatism?
Fiscal conservatism with respect to the Federal government; I believe that social policy should be decided by each State as per the Constitution, with the Supreme Court getting involved to right injustices caused by majorities on minorities (anti-miscegenation, anti-gay marriage, etc). Social liberalism / conservatism at the Federal level is a huge distraction, as neither party has much ability to do anything for or against any particular issue. Aint nobody got time for that.
On November 14 2012 11:56 Sub40APM wrote:
On November 14 2012 10:09 Maxyim wrote:
On November 14 2012 10:07 oneofthem wrote: if you want to talk about intentions being revealed by actual performance, the republican's empirical lack of deficit control seems to indicate that their budget attitude is really a moral attitude about the right kinds of spending. crony corporate welfare is okay, so is spending for wars, but spending a couple % gdp on poor people, oh no sir. that's just dangerous
Bush, again? Yes, we all know that he was not a conservative. However, I will take exception with you throwing the wars in the mix; both had bipartisan support. Welfare is quite a bit more than "a couple % of gdp," in case you did not know.
Al Gore would have never invaded Iraq. He probably also wouldnt have jacked up the DoD spending from the Clinton high of 300 billion to a Bush high of 700 billion at which Obama kept it for the last 4 years.
The Iraq War was a bipartisan effort, Al Gore would not have had a choice. DoD spending is up because we are in wars, lol...
The States right argument is BS and can be associated with the southern strategy.
On November 14 2012 10:07 oneofthem wrote: if you want to talk about intentions being revealed by actual performance, the republican's empirical lack of deficit control seems to indicate that their budget attitude is really a moral attitude about the right kinds of spending. crony corporate welfare is okay, so is spending for wars, but spending a couple % gdp on poor people, oh no sir. that's just dangerous
Bush, again? Yes, we all know that he was not a conservative.
I love the "no true Scottsman" defense.
He called himself conservative. He was elected by conservatives. He pushed forward with the standard conservative agenda of tax cuts and so forth. What the hell do you want me to call him? I'm not going to play guessing games with your own personal definition of "conservative".
I stand by this. Maxyim, give 'em a break. George W. was fairly conservative, coming from a conservative. FAIRLY. He was by no means an exemplar of the right-wing, but it's true enough to term him a "conservative."
Between bailouts and stimulus and military spending, yes, he was quite fond of spending taxpayers' money. Given the other Presidents we're comparing him to, however, he appears to lean to the conservative side. Perhaps not as objectively right-wing as you'd like (certainly not as much as I'd like), but certainly subjectively so. I think that's all we're trying to get at.
On November 14 2012 10:07 oneofthem wrote: if you want to talk about intentions being revealed by actual performance, the republican's empirical lack of deficit control seems to indicate that their budget attitude is really a moral attitude about the right kinds of spending. crony corporate welfare is okay, so is spending for wars, but spending a couple % gdp on poor people, oh no sir. that's just dangerous
Bush, again? Yes, we all know that he was not a conservative.
I love the "no true Scottsman" defense.
He called himself conservative. He was elected by conservatives. He pushed forward with the standard conservative agenda of tax cuts and so forth. What the hell do you want me to call him? I'm not going to play guessing games with your own personal definition of "conservative".
I stand by this. Maxyim, give 'em a break. George W. was fairly conservative, coming from a conservative. FAIRLY. He was by no means an exemplar of the right-wing, but it's true enough to term him a "conservative."
how do you differentiate conservatives? Are you only speaking on fiscal conservatism or do you include social conservatism?
Fiscal conservatism with respect to the Federal government; I believe that social policy should be decided by each State as per the Constitution, with the Supreme Court getting involved to right injustices caused by majorities on minorities (anti-miscegenation, anti-gay marriage, etc). Social liberalism / conservatism at the Federal level is a huge distraction, as neither party has much ability to do anything for or against any particular issue. Aint nobody got time for that.
On November 14 2012 11:56 Sub40APM wrote:
On November 14 2012 10:09 Maxyim wrote:
On November 14 2012 10:07 oneofthem wrote: if you want to talk about intentions being revealed by actual performance, the republican's empirical lack of deficit control seems to indicate that their budget attitude is really a moral attitude about the right kinds of spending. crony corporate welfare is okay, so is spending for wars, but spending a couple % gdp on poor people, oh no sir. that's just dangerous
Bush, again? Yes, we all know that he was not a conservative. However, I will take exception with you throwing the wars in the mix; both had bipartisan support. Welfare is quite a bit more than "a couple % of gdp," in case you did not know.
Al Gore would have never invaded Iraq. He probably also wouldnt have jacked up the DoD spending from the Clinton high of 300 billion to a Bush high of 700 billion at which Obama kept it for the last 4 years.
The Iraq War was a bipartisan effort, Al Gore would not have had a choice. DoD spending is up because we are in wars, lol...
The States right argument is BS and can be associated with the southern strategy.
Right, it's also in the Constitution. Tenth Amendment, Bill of Rights, to be exact.
not surprised you don't have a response about how the argument of states rights over the last 50 years is actually deeply rooted in racism and the south.
On November 14 2012 10:07 oneofthem wrote: if you want to talk about intentions being revealed by actual performance, the republican's empirical lack of deficit control seems to indicate that their budget attitude is really a moral attitude about the right kinds of spending. crony corporate welfare is okay, so is spending for wars, but spending a couple % gdp on poor people, oh no sir. that's just dangerous
Bush, again? Yes, we all know that he was not a conservative.
I love the "no true Scottsman" defense.
He called himself conservative. He was elected by conservatives. He pushed forward with the standard conservative agenda of tax cuts and so forth. What the hell do you want me to call him? I'm not going to play guessing games with your own personal definition of "conservative".
I stand by this. Maxyim, give 'em a break. George W. was fairly conservative, coming from a conservative. FAIRLY. He was by no means an exemplar of the right-wing, but it's true enough to term him a "conservative."
Between bailouts and stimulus and military spending, yes, he was quite fond of spending taxpayers' money. Given the other Presidents we're comparing him to, however, he appears to lean to the conservative side. Perhaps not as objectively right-wing as you'd like (certainly not as much as I'd like), but certainly subjectively so. I think that's all we're trying to get at.
On November 14 2012 10:07 oneofthem wrote: if you want to talk about intentions being revealed by actual performance, the republican's empirical lack of deficit control seems to indicate that their budget attitude is really a moral attitude about the right kinds of spending. crony corporate welfare is okay, so is spending for wars, but spending a couple % gdp on poor people, oh no sir. that's just dangerous
Bush, again? Yes, we all know that he was not a conservative.
I love the "no true Scottsman" defense.
He called himself conservative. He was elected by conservatives. He pushed forward with the standard conservative agenda of tax cuts and so forth. What the hell do you want me to call him? I'm not going to play guessing games with your own personal definition of "conservative".
I stand by this. Maxyim, give 'em a break. George W. was fairly conservative, coming from a conservative. FAIRLY. He was by no means an exemplar of the right-wing, but it's true enough to term him a "conservative."
how do you differentiate conservatives? Are you only speaking on fiscal conservatism or do you include social conservatism?
Fiscal conservatism with respect to the Federal government; I believe that social policy should be decided by each State as per the Constitution, with the Supreme Court getting involved to right injustices caused by majorities on minorities (anti-miscegenation, anti-gay marriage, etc). Social liberalism / conservatism at the Federal level is a huge distraction, as neither party has much ability to do anything for or against any particular issue. Aint nobody got time for that.
On November 14 2012 11:56 Sub40APM wrote:
On November 14 2012 10:09 Maxyim wrote:
On November 14 2012 10:07 oneofthem wrote: if you want to talk about intentions being revealed by actual performance, the republican's empirical lack of deficit control seems to indicate that their budget attitude is really a moral attitude about the right kinds of spending. crony corporate welfare is okay, so is spending for wars, but spending a couple % gdp on poor people, oh no sir. that's just dangerous
Bush, again? Yes, we all know that he was not a conservative. However, I will take exception with you throwing the wars in the mix; both had bipartisan support. Welfare is quite a bit more than "a couple % of gdp," in case you did not know.
Al Gore would have never invaded Iraq. He probably also wouldnt have jacked up the DoD spending from the Clinton high of 300 billion to a Bush high of 700 billion at which Obama kept it for the last 4 years.
The Iraq War was a bipartisan effort, Al Gore would not have had a choice. DoD spending is up because we are in wars, lol...
The States right argument is BS and can be associated with the southern strategy.
Right, it's also in the Constitution. Tenth Amendment, Bill of Rights, to be exact.
not surprised you don't have a response about how the argument of states rights over the last 50 years is actually deeply rooted in racism and the south.
Convenient, isn't it? Keep pushing the racism card for all it's worth; we'll be pushing it back at you soon enough.
On November 14 2012 12:16 Maxyim wrote: The Cato Institute vs cLAN.Anax. Round 1, FIGHT!
A "libertarian" quasi-academic think-tank which acts as a mouthpiece for the globalism, corporatism, and neoliberalism of its corporate and conservative funders. Cato is an astroturf organization: there is no significant participation by the tiny libertarian minority. They do not fund it or affect its goals. It is a creature of corporations and foundations.
The major purpose of the Cato Institute is to provide propaganda and soundbites for conservative and libertarian politicians and journalists that is conveniently free of reference to funders such as tobacco, fossil fuel, investment, media, medical, and other regulated industries.
Cato is one of the most blatant examples of "simulated rationality", as described in Phil Agre's The Crisis of Public Reason. Arguments need only be plausibly rational to an uninformed listener. Only a tiny percentage will notice that they are being misled. That's all that's needed to manage public opinion.
On November 14 2012 10:07 oneofthem wrote: if you want to talk about intentions being revealed by actual performance, the republican's empirical lack of deficit control seems to indicate that their budget attitude is really a moral attitude about the right kinds of spending. crony corporate welfare is okay, so is spending for wars, but spending a couple % gdp on poor people, oh no sir. that's just dangerous
Bush, again? Yes, we all know that he was not a conservative.
I love the "no true Scottsman" defense.
He called himself conservative. He was elected by conservatives. He pushed forward with the standard conservative agenda of tax cuts and so forth. What the hell do you want me to call him? I'm not going to play guessing games with your own personal definition of "conservative".
I stand by this. Maxyim, give 'em a break. George W. was fairly conservative, coming from a conservative. FAIRLY. He was by no means an exemplar of the right-wing, but it's true enough to term him a "conservative."
Between bailouts and stimulus and military spending, yes, he was quite fond of spending taxpayers' money. Given the other Presidents we're comparing him to, however, he appears to lean to the conservative side. Perhaps not as objectively right-wing as you'd like (certainly not as much as I'd like), but certainly subjectively so. I think that's all we're trying to get at.
Goodness. My point was that subjectively, Bush appears more conservative, because of policies he implemented such as his famed tax cuts. Objectively, I agree: he looks like a moderate or center-right than a genuine conservative. I have ideals too and Bush definitely wasn't one, but he was closer than Gore and Kerry.
'Sides. Based on that link, the Cato Institute looks more libertarian than strictly conservative. I trust you know the difference....
A "libertarian" quasi-academic think-tank which acts as a mouthpiece for the globalism, corporatism, and neoliberalism of its corporate and conservative funders. Cato is an astroturf organization: there is no significant participation by the tiny libertarian minority. They do not fund it or affect its goals. It is a creature of corporations and foundations.
The major purpose of the Cato Institute is to provide propaganda and soundbites for conservative and libertarian politicians and journalists that is conveniently free of reference to funders such as tobacco, fossil fuel, investment, media, medical, and other regulated industries.
Cato is one of the most blatant examples of "simulated rationality", as described in Phil Agre's The Crisis of Public Reason. Arguments need only be plausibly rational to an uninformed listener. Only a tiny percentage will notice that they are being misled. That's all that's needed to manage public opinion.
On November 14 2012 10:07 oneofthem wrote: if you want to talk about intentions being revealed by actual performance, the republican's empirical lack of deficit control seems to indicate that their budget attitude is really a moral attitude about the right kinds of spending. crony corporate welfare is okay, so is spending for wars, but spending a couple % gdp on poor people, oh no sir. that's just dangerous
Bush, again? Yes, we all know that he was not a conservative.
I love the "no true Scottsman" defense.
He called himself conservative. He was elected by conservatives. He pushed forward with the standard conservative agenda of tax cuts and so forth. What the hell do you want me to call him? I'm not going to play guessing games with your own personal definition of "conservative".
I stand by this. Maxyim, give 'em a break. George W. was fairly conservative, coming from a conservative. FAIRLY. He was by no means an exemplar of the right-wing, but it's true enough to term him a "conservative."
Between bailouts and stimulus and military spending, yes, he was quite fond of spending taxpayers' money. Given the other Presidents we're comparing him to, however, he appears to lean to the conservative side. Perhaps not as objectively right-wing as you'd like (certainly not as much as I'd like), but certainly subjectively so. I think that's all we're trying to get at.
Goodness. My point was that subjectively, Bush appears more conservative, because of policies he implemented such as his famed tax cuts. Objectively, I agree: he looks like a moderate or center-right than a genuine conservative. I have ideals too and Bush definitely wasn't one, but he was closer than Gore and Kerry.
'Sides. Based on that link, the Cato Institute looks more libertarian than strictly conservative. I trust you know the difference....
That's exactly the conclusion of the article; why are you arguing against yourself then?
Yes, I know the difference. I am more libertarian than republican (esp. with respect to social issues as explained above); their foreign policy ideas are rather undeveloped though, IMO. I specifically picked Cato as a source because arguments like whether Bush was pro this or anti that have no place in this discussion.
On November 14 2012 12:16 Maxyim wrote: The Cato Institute vs cLAN.Anax. Round 1, FIGHT!
A "libertarian" quasi-academic think-tank which acts as a mouthpiece for the globalism, corporatism, and neoliberalism of its corporate and conservative funders. Cato is an astroturf organization: there is no significant participation by the tiny libertarian minority. They do not fund it or affect its goals. It is a creature of corporations and foundations.
The major purpose of the Cato Institute is to provide propaganda and soundbites for conservative and libertarian politicians and journalists that is conveniently free of reference to funders such as tobacco, fossil fuel, investment, media, medical, and other regulated industries.
Cato is one of the most blatant examples of "simulated rationality", as described in Phil Agre's The Crisis of Public Reason. Arguments need only be plausibly rational to an uninformed listener. Only a tiny percentage will notice that they are being misled. That's all that's needed to manage public opinion.
On November 14 2012 12:16 Maxyim wrote: The Cato Institute vs cLAN.Anax. Round 1, FIGHT!
A "libertarian" quasi-academic think-tank which acts as a mouthpiece for the globalism, corporatism, and neoliberalism of its corporate and conservative funders. Cato is an astroturf organization: there is no significant participation by the tiny libertarian minority. They do not fund it or affect its goals. It is a creature of corporations and foundations.
The major purpose of the Cato Institute is to provide propaganda and soundbites for conservative and libertarian politicians and journalists that is conveniently free of reference to funders such as tobacco, fossil fuel, investment, media, medical, and other regulated industries.
Cato is one of the most blatant examples of "simulated rationality", as described in Phil Agre's The Crisis of Public Reason. Arguments need only be plausibly rational to an uninformed listener. Only a tiny percentage will notice that they are being misled. That's all that's needed to manage public opinion.
You really should read that article that you linked to him. I'd love to hear your explanation as to how his post was an ad hominem attack, at all.
Simple. I linked an article from the Cato Institute as a source to support my point. Mr. Cola linked a website written to discredit the Cato Institute in general instead of replying to the specific article (or at least referencing a direct response to the specific article). That is ad-hominem; if you are still not sure; the wiki explanation is above.
In any event, it's been fun but I'm going to bed. Good night TL.
On November 14 2012 12:16 Maxyim wrote: The Cato Institute vs cLAN.Anax. Round 1, FIGHT!
A "libertarian" quasi-academic think-tank which acts as a mouthpiece for the globalism, corporatism, and neoliberalism of its corporate and conservative funders. Cato is an astroturf organization: there is no significant participation by the tiny libertarian minority. They do not fund it or affect its goals. It is a creature of corporations and foundations.
The major purpose of the Cato Institute is to provide propaganda and soundbites for conservative and libertarian politicians and journalists that is conveniently free of reference to funders such as tobacco, fossil fuel, investment, media, medical, and other regulated industries.
Cato is one of the most blatant examples of "simulated rationality", as described in Phil Agre's The Crisis of Public Reason. Arguments need only be plausibly rational to an uninformed listener. Only a tiny percentage will notice that they are being misled. That's all that's needed to manage public opinion.
On November 14 2012 10:07 oneofthem wrote: if you want to talk about intentions being revealed by actual performance, the republican's empirical lack of deficit control seems to indicate that their budget attitude is really a moral attitude about the right kinds of spending. crony corporate welfare is okay, so is spending for wars, but spending a couple % gdp on poor people, oh no sir. that's just dangerous
Bush, again? Yes, we all know that he was not a conservative.
I love the "no true Scottsman" defense.
He called himself conservative. He was elected by conservatives. He pushed forward with the standard conservative agenda of tax cuts and so forth. What the hell do you want me to call him? I'm not going to play guessing games with your own personal definition of "conservative".
I stand by this. Maxyim, give 'em a break. George W. was fairly conservative, coming from a conservative. FAIRLY. He was by no means an exemplar of the right-wing, but it's true enough to term him a "conservative."
Between bailouts and stimulus and military spending, yes, he was quite fond of spending taxpayers' money. Given the other Presidents we're comparing him to, however, he appears to lean to the conservative side. Perhaps not as objectively right-wing as you'd like (certainly not as much as I'd like), but certainly subjectively so. I think that's all we're trying to get at.
Goodness. My point was that subjectively, Bush appears more conservative, because of policies he implemented such as his famed tax cuts. Objectively, I agree: he looks like a moderate or center-right than a genuine conservative. I have ideals too and Bush definitely wasn't one, but he was closer than Gore and Kerry.
'Sides. Based on that link, the Cato Institute looks more libertarian than strictly conservative. I trust you know the difference....
That's exactly the conclusion of the article; why are you arguing against yourself then?
Yes, I know the difference. I am more libertarian than republican (esp. with respect to social issues as explained above); their foreign policy ideas are rather undeveloped though, IMO. I specifically picked Cato as a source because arguments like whether Bush was pro this or anti that have no place in this discussion.
That's not ad hom.... -.-' Yes, his source is biased against Cato, but it's correct in asserting that it's more libertarian than conservative. (which I shrug at; it substantiates your point well enough)
What? I thought you were the one pointing out that he wasn't "conservative," and I was pointing out that he was, in the comparative sense within this discussion. You're right that he's hardly the paragon of the right that some people laud him as, but in the context of what (I assume) is being discussed, referring to him as a "conservative" should suffice.
On November 14 2012 12:16 Maxyim wrote: The Cato Institute vs cLAN.Anax. Round 1, FIGHT!
A "libertarian" quasi-academic think-tank which acts as a mouthpiece for the globalism, corporatism, and neoliberalism of its corporate and conservative funders. Cato is an astroturf organization: there is no significant participation by the tiny libertarian minority. They do not fund it or affect its goals. It is a creature of corporations and foundations.
The major purpose of the Cato Institute is to provide propaganda and soundbites for conservative and libertarian politicians and journalists that is conveniently free of reference to funders such as tobacco, fossil fuel, investment, media, medical, and other regulated industries.
Cato is one of the most blatant examples of "simulated rationality", as described in Phil Agre's The Crisis of Public Reason. Arguments need only be plausibly rational to an uninformed listener. Only a tiny percentage will notice that they are being misled. That's all that's needed to manage public opinion.
You really should read that article that you linked to him. I'd love to hear your explanation as to how his post was an ad hominem attack, at all.
Simple. I linked an article from the Cato Institute as a source to support my point. Mr. Cola linked a website written to discredit the Cato Institute in general instead of replying to the specific article (or at least referencing a direct response to the specific article). That is ad-hominem; if you are still not sure; the wiki explanation is above.
In any event, it's been fun but I'm going to bed. Good night TL.
...no, it isn't. An ad hominem attack is an attack on the person rather than their argument. You could argue that his post was a strawman, but it really wasn't because the links(there are multiple articles inside the link he posted) were criticisms of the institute which you are using as a source. If you use a source, it needs to be an accurate one, and if there are factual things wrong with the source's arguments, than it can't really be used as a source. So, really, there was no fallacy in what he posted.
On November 14 2012 10:07 oneofthem wrote: if you want to talk about intentions being revealed by actual performance, the republican's empirical lack of deficit control seems to indicate that their budget attitude is really a moral attitude about the right kinds of spending. crony corporate welfare is okay, so is spending for wars, but spending a couple % gdp on poor people, oh no sir. that's just dangerous
Bush, again? Yes, we all know that he was not a conservative. However, I will take exception with you throwing the wars in the mix; both had bipartisan support. Welfare is quite a bit more than "a couple % of gdp," in case you did not know.
Al Gore would have never invaded Iraq. He probably also wouldnt have jacked up the DoD spending from the Clinton high of 300 billion to a Bush high of 700 billion at which Obama kept it for the last 4 years.
The Iraq War was a bipartisan effort, Al Gore would not have had a choice. DoD spending is up because we are in wars, lol...
No it was not. It was bipartisanly passed, but the impetus for it was all from the Executive branch. The Democrats just didn't have the stones to stand up to him post-9/11. There was no wave of Democrats screaming for Saddam's blood. They simply went along with it.
Remember: Iraq wasn't part of the "War on Terror." It had nothing to do with it, and the Bush administration knew that. They deliberately falsified evidence to convince Congress of this. And so forth.
So unless you're saying that Gore would have done the same, falsifying evidence to lead us into an unnecessary war, your point is nonsense.
The Afganistan war would have happened with either in charge (though obviously not in the same way), since Al Queda was in Afganistan. Iraq would not have happened.
So I heard something about 0 Romney votes in Philly...what's that all about? Cause I personally know that my relatives who live there all voted for him, as well as a few friends. And they weren't like Provisional or Absentee ballots.
On November 14 2012 13:08 oneofthem wrote: the romney vote share in philly was not that different from mccain share in 08.
85% vs 83%
you probably heard it from some crackpot conspiracy site
I only heard it was 0 Romney votes in the entire city of Philly. Which I know is impossible cause family voted inside Philly. Just need clarification on this cause I'm confused.
according to this source it's 0 vote romney in about 60 precincts in mostly black neighborhoods. i would not discount the possibility of voter intimidation there automatically but it's not that dramatic of a result considering how many precincts there are, and the chance that any one of them returns 0 romney votes is fairly substantial.
1017
99
156
EPT
