Now support for dictators, there’s a big difference between genuinely loving a guy because of his ideology, as many on the left did Stalin and Mao, and supporting a guy conditionally because he’s a lesser evil. “He’s a scumbag, but he’s our scumbag”. Chiang Kai Shek was a really bad guy. But Mao was far more evil and the consequences of his rein far more horrible. Lkewise, we supported Chung Hee Park in South Korea. But that’s because across the border was Kim Il Sung. Thanks to Kim, North Korea is still a place where people die by the millions from famine. Whereas Chung Hee Park left behind a South Korea ready for real democracy and wealthy. And Pinochet, what happened with him? Did he fill up the mass graves with hundreds of thousands, and hold onto power with his last breath, before passing the reins to someone just as tyrannical? No, he gave up power voluntarily and left Chile a democracy. Think Allende would have done that?
Wrong, he only did so when he lost a referendum on him to continue to be the ruler of Chile, even Peter Falk made advertisements to convince Chileans to dump his sorry ass. BTW one favored method of south American dictators was to dump people into the sea, so I can grant you that Pinochet had no mass graves.
As for Allende, I think he would had stepped down after losing in the next elections, to me the peaceful transition that the recent socialist government in Chile did was a demonstration of the bankrupt idea that conservatives had (many still do as I see it) that we can not afford to have democratically elected leftist governments.
He had a referendum, that’s stepping down willingly. Think Castro will ever leave by referendum?
Allende was working hard on getting rid of Chilean democracy. There’s nothing wrong with leftist elected governments. The problem is when those leftist governments try to make the election the last one. And the government isn’t only the President. Liberals talk about the Honduran “coup” as if only the President mattered. Congress and the judicial branch both told him he had to get out because he was violating the Constitution.
Again, “Conservatives Are Always On the Wrong Side” SEEMS like a tautology solely because:
BY DEFINITION, every movement, ideology or institution that thrives today successfully OVERCAME the objections and resistance of “conservatives” (broadly defined) who objected to it. So, it’s easy (but wholly inaccurate) to assume “Conservatives always lose,” because you’re forgetting about all the OTHER movements that were nipped in the bud. When conservatives win, things stay as they were and nobody notices. When they lose, things change, and everybody notices.
But there are a few other things to consider:
- Even when they lose, history has a way of showing that the fuddy-duddies and reactionaries were right on the money. And even people who HATE those reactionaries sort-of realize that.
Examples abound. We may LAUGH at the prudes of the Fifties who objected to rock & roll, but in retrospect, it’s pretty obvious that the prudes were RIGHT! Old schoolmarms who predicted that “If we let Elvis wiggle his hips on TV, before long we’ll be seeing coarser and DIRTIER things” were 100% correct! Now, you may think it’s WONDERFUL that Elvis and rock music helped pave the way for the Sexual Revolution. You may LIKE the coarsening of the culture. But don’t kid yourself that the old prudes were wrong.
In England, people liked to laugh at the likes of Mary Whitehorse, who insisted that if the BBC allowed even mild cursing or brief nudity, before long there’d be widespread filth and porn in the media. Well, even if you LIKE the filth and porn that are widespread in the modern media, it’s hard to argue that Mary Whitehorse was wrong, isn’t it? Everything she predicted HAS happened!
I’m on the record of opposing Castro, try again.
And you ignorance on what happened in Honduras is legendary now.
Congress did not get a unanimous decision as the ones opposed to that move did not take part in the vote, nor the courts told the army to illegally take him to exile.
The reality was that virtually all governments condemned that coup, and even the Honduran “truth” commission found that was the case.
I’m still waiting for the end of civilization that they predicted.
http://classic.the-scientist.com/article/display/57169/;jsessionid=E29FCFC36B5ACACF0C4DE692567F7009
The Honduran President wanted to change the Constitution by a referendum to grant him more terms. That was not legal. Congress impeached him. Now the actual procedure for removing him from office isn’t clear, but it isn’t in the US either. What would happen if Congress impeached a President and he refused to leave office? Would it be a “coup” if Congress called the DC police or even the military to kick his sorry butt out of the White House?
There is not opposition to health care reform: There is opposition to the type of health care reform the Obama administration wants.
As for global warming, there is a huge gulf between “global warming is real” and the kinds of changes that you think are a no-brainer. It is not at all clear that the changes being demanded by your side are reasonable, and the case for them certainly has not been made. I say that as someone who agrees with you that global warming is a real thing, and humans are helping to cause it.
Global warming is actually a good case in point. Progressives jumped from “global warming exists” to supporting policies like cap and trade and the Kyoto treaty, even though skeptics like myself thought that they were were going to be grossly expensive and destructive to the economy and in the end not make one bit of difference.
But many on your side don’t care to even have that debate, which makes the people on the other side believe that the real reason you don’t care is because you like the policies anyway, regardless of global warming. It’s amazing how closely the proposed solutions to global warming dovetail with the plans that progressives have been advocating since long before global warming was on anyone’s radar. Taxes on energy producers, more government revenue, a stronger UN, major wealth transfers from rich countries to poor ones… There are good reasons to oppose such things regardless of the reality of global warming - especially if you believe that they will be completely ineffective.
This is actually a good example of another area where the left was wrong: The Kyoto treaty. Skeptics of the treaty pointed out that aspects of it were clearly added just to appease certain countries to get their vote, the treaty was gamed, and we all knew that when it came to the crunch even the countries that signed the treaty were unlikely to stick to it if it meant real economic costs. And we were right.
Cap and Trade was supported by conservatives as an alternative to hard limits on emissions, and for good reason. Economic conservatives pointed out that for one factory, meeting emissions targets might be easy, and for another, meeting those targets would bankrupt them. Better to just set overall industry limits, and then set up a market mechanism where credits could be traded so that the industries that couldn’t afford the reduction could buy credits from those who could.
This is completely different than the type of cap and trade that was proposed to combat global warming - one reason is that CO2 isn’t a pollutant, and isn’t emitted in small parts-per-million quantities but rather in massive quantities as a consequence of energy production and use. Capping the amount of CO2 that industry can generate is not like capping S02 emissions, because SO2 can be reduced to any arbitrary level with the right equipment, while CO2 cannot. So a cap on CO2 amounts to a cap on industrial output.
That’s an artifact of how you’ve chosen to frame the debate. For example, you claim that conservatives supported the individual mandate. In fact, only the Romney government did, and that was in Massachusetts which is a very liberal state. Romney claims he chose the most conservative way to implement a health care system that the public in that state demanded. Whether or not that’s true, he was opposed by many other conservatives at the time, and Romneycare was seen as his biggest impediment to getting the Republican nomination.
Well, the right doesn’t quite see it that way - they see progressives as always moving towards the same thing - more government control, more government spending, more taxes on the rich, etc. They just keep dressing up the pig in different lipstick. I realize this is the same argument liberals make about conservatives. This is called partisanship, and neither side trusts the other.
But conservatives have a point. Take the Obama administration. This is a guy who campaigned as a pro-business centrist who promised to cut the deficit and shrink the size of government, and proceeded to do exactly the opposite once in power. And now that his back is against the wall, his rhetoric has shifted far to the left and he’s talking about capitalism itself as a failure, and that it’s time for big government to step up to the plate and start running things. He’s now claiming that the entire system of the past 30 years needs to be restructured from a ‘top down’ capitalist system to… something else that he won’t quite say.
Cite?
I have never understood why this line of thinking gets any traction on the conservative side. Conservatives also want government control: controlling abortions, controlling gays from marrying (by constitutional amendment), controlling what drugs you can take, etc
They are also in favor of tons of government spending, especially wrt defense. The amount the US spends on defense is staggering.
So, basically, conservatives are not against government control or high government spending, they are against government control or high government spending on things they disagree with. Which is fine. But my skin crawls whenever I see the blanket statement that conservatives are against government control and government spending.
When you go to that level of baseless rhetoric, it is really hard to take you seriously.
As usual, you can post a lot of plausible ideas and then the classic bullshit item in the middle of all.
As pointed many times before, the blind are leading the blind with most of the current Republican party and many conservatives elsewhere.
Overall what most progressives and a few **conservatives **that support the science say is that the price to pay is less if we do what is needed now rather than wait.
That was Republican scientist Richard Alley BTW.
You know, the idea that conservatives have a blind spot for timelines was supposed to be a joke but you and many conservatives here just demonstrate that it is more than just a theorem.
The plan that came after all those already compromised positions from the progressives (Progressives in government dumped single payer even before starting negotiations) ended up looking like the Republican plan proposed in 1993.
The real ugly fact was that the final vote in congress to impeach and put the puppet in place depended on a resignation note that was claimed that Zelaya had signed, never mind that the date in the document had an earlier date than the day the coup took place, the thing was that as it was made clear later, congress voted on evidence that was obtained either illegally, under duress or faked.
Puppet? Wasn’t the successor the constitutionally elected Vice President? And what evidence was there to consider? He wanted an illegal referendum so that he could maintain power indefinitely, something forbidden for a reason by Honduras’ constitution. That’s a non-negotiable, get the hell out offense.
Gigobuster, does this article rightly claim that the way CO2 was ‘classified’ as a pollutant change your stance on it at all?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124001537515830975.html
This type of ‘win at all costs’ partisanship is what drives the political boats these days
“. In its decision, the EPA stressed that it considers CO2 and other so-called greenhouse gases to be pollutants because of their role in propagating climate change, not because of any direct health effects.”
And he should had been taken to court and face his accusers, sorry, it was a coup and even the Hondurans concluded that as for the referendum, Zelaya was not going to benefit for it.
http://argosy.mta.ca/index.php?q=article/honduran-activist-fights-rights-and-freedoms-honduras
Not that that would stop the people from letting the current president know that he should not just ignore them.
http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/7050/drafting_honduran_democracy/
Nothing on it deals with the harmful effects of more than the normal concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere.
What is worse, if forgets to mention the other evil twin of CO2 emissions:
Ocean acidification.
And really, the denial here is partisan in nature, not scientific.
And here it is important to notice the context: that was Barry Bickmore, conservative scientist at BYU. Responding to Lord Monkton that was invited by the Republicans to once again seed FUD at the American congress.
BTW It is really silly to claim that only direct harm should be considered, as the increase and intensity of extreme weather shows, even indirect harm is bad. If we are more pedantic, if one ends up dead in one of those extremes weather events one would wonder why there was a difference.
I was/am more concerned with the fact that the way the change occurred was more a result of a political squabble than any real ‘harm’
A whole host of ‘right of you’ would agree with you that global warming occurs. What to do about it and how harmful it is (at this point) is very arguable.
And nothing in the Wall Street Journal had anything to do with the science behind it, or was AFAIC politically biased in one way or the other. They were simply reporting on how it came to be regarded as a “pollutant”.
Let me rephrase, there is a whole lot of political here. For you to claim otherwise is the silly part.
For the non-deniers, the gist is what to do about it. Nothing may be a perfectly fine answer, as may be wait and see.
Fine, but that is not the case from what Sam was saying, once again, claiming that Co2 is not a pollutant is bullshit. And then one has to be extremely suspect of the ones that continue to say so and that use myths like that to justify the inaction that is taking place in government.
And it has to be noticed that many Republicans leaders are repeating that bullshit and the other variation of it, that CO2 is plant food and more of it will be good, once again it is bullshit because many facts are avoided to say that is so.
Congressman John Shimkus (R, Illinois) lapping the bull from lord Monkton (Kook, non scientist) in a congressional hearing, once again the Kook Lord was invited as an expert by the Republicans.
Oh, please!!! Don’t turn this into another GW/AGW/CAGW/CC debate!!!