This is funny. That has at times described the left, but it is not the left that exists today. The left today is all about us vs. them, and shades of gray have gone out the window. As well as the concepts of tradeoffs and prioritization. We can have it all, and anyone who denies that we can achieve all of our goals is presenting false dilemmas. “False dilemma”, incidentally, is the President’s second favorite phrase, behind “Let me be clear”.
Yeah, we now already that in Great Debates you just accused all American liberals of being the equals of fascists. :rolleyes:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16569313&postcount=41
I’m sorry but **that ** accusation is **the **definition of presenting the falsest of the false dilemmas, I just can not see how anyone can take you seriously anymore.
Of course, I haven’t seen anyone taking you seriously over here. 
Seriously, adaher, your characterization of ‘the left’ is more of a churlish caricature than a debate point. I get it that you don’t like lefty policies, and that’s perfectly valid. But you’re coming across as a creature of pathos like so many on your side who mistake their feelings (and the polemical flights of fancy they inspire) for reality. See chimera.
As for ‘getting mean’, I don’t think it is a great idea either. Get more aggressive, sure, but if both parties are mean I’m afraid our society really would start to resemble a Der Trisian dystopia. And besides, Obama has too much invested in being the adult in the room. It’d be weird if he got mean now, and really inconsistent if the rest of the party did. And, if he gets swapped out for, say, a white dem in 2016 and suddenly the pubs become willing to negotiate again, I think the ‘dems are grown up’ precedent will prove useful and become ever more established as time goes by.
Obama may not be “mean”, but he’s not the adult in the room either. I’ve never seen a President so partisan. Most Presidents strive to stay above partisan politics, only going so far as to lightly rib the opposition party. This President still acts like a Senator. George Bush was MUCH more respectful towards the Democrats.
You know, ignoring history is the best explanation why you claim that liberals are like fascists. So it is not strange that a lot of what Bush said is selectively forgotten.
Notice, however, that he never mentions democrats, and that speech was directed more at the world at large that opposed US actions than the Democrats, many of whom did support what we did.
Obama scolds Republicans by name in partisan fashion in a way I’ve never seen a President do. There’s no good humor in it either. It’s unpresidential.
Notice also that he never says anything bad about Democrats in that speech, or any other world opposition. He simply makes the case for why the threat can’t be ignored, and reminds everyone what happened last time.
What the real problem with the writer of that article is, is that Democrats got frantically defensive from even these mild admonitions. “We can’t wait for a smoking gun” became “How dare you question our patriotism!?”
Then what? Be the me-too party? In a battle between a sincere if mentally deficient right-winger and a principle-free moderate pretending to be just conservative enough to win an election, guess who loses?
Here’s a hint: The answer is always the Democrat.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2007/04/14/bush-democrats-offer-enemies-victory/#ixzz2c0YQYaYP
As usual, only by ignoring the context of what was going on is that you can claim that your ignorance is saved.
And we have not touched yet what the Bush administration did in the way of stopping or discouraging science that was not to his liking.
Actually, Democrats hold far more offices than they should precisely because so many of them pretend to be moderate, or are actually moderate. Republicans play this game part of the game very poorly. For every Scott Brown or Olympia Snowe, there are ten Jon Manchins and Ben Nelsons.
There are something like 250 House districts that are R+1 or better, and 25 states that consistently vote Republican in Presidential elections(30 if you count states that vote Republican more than 50% of the time). The Republicans should have a chokehold on Congress without having to even bother gerrymandering, but they don’t because of all the moderate Democrats.
A devoutly left-wing Democratic Party would have too small a base to succeed. THe GOP can afford to be more conservative simply because there are more places where conservatism dominates.
Now, as for how you change that, it takes decades of persuasion. You need Ronald Reagan, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, etc. You need a philosophy behind the ideology. I’m not clear at all what the Democratic ideology is based on. It seems very ad hoc to me. Socialists I understand, they have a philosophy. Conservatives also have a philosophy, it’s based on the constitution, the Declaration of independence, the bible, and various 17th and 18th century philosophers. With Democrats, it appears to just be a collection of principles that shift depending on the short term wants of their various interest groups. Or, to put it as others have put it, a collection of interests rather than a coherent political party. I’m not sure how you win the persuasion game with a party that’s structured like that.
You’re still reading things into his speech that aren’t there. He’s addressing a very specific policy proposal, and making a very reasonable counterargument to their proposal.
This is nothign like what Obama does, attack, attack, attack.
Here’s what the Conservatives remember and you have forgotten: The electorate used to be restricted to older white men, and it can be again.
Women can be beaten to death by their husbands. Eventually, a submissive remnant that accept disenfranchisement will survive.
Negroes are outnumbered seven to one. Latinos will simply be denounced as aliens and rounded up into camps. Sexual perverts are still blamed by the elder generation for AIDS, and turning them into scapegoats is abusively easy. All of these groups can be and are targeted for terroristic killing already. Not just by outlaw gangs; by the police.
And so long as these things are not happening constantly and openly, that means the right wing is “playing nice” by a commonly understood historical standard. Simply keeping this sort of thing down to a dull roar allows them to claim they are not in open warfare–because doing it openly and on a large scale is in fact the accepted cultural norm. To cry out against it when they’re being relatively restrained is to be a “whiny bleeding heart.”
And most importantly, every fascist should understand this principle: Constitutions can be rewritten. State legislatures are in Movement control. The Republicans in Congress, all of them, not just the “TEA Party extremists,” are preventing the appointment of any judges who might stand in the way of total restriction of the mantle of sovereignty to the Conservative Movement and its party of the moment. The outlawing of the Democratic Party is a matter of time, managing expectation, and the timing of ruthlessness.
Poor, stupid Dems. It doesn’t matter. You gave up the legislatures, you will never recover power.
Oh geez. that’s not how it’s going to happen. but it does address a point about the Democrats being only a collection of interest groups. If you can’t persuade people, then you have to increase the size of your interest groups. You need more poor people, mainly.
The rest of the groups, minorities, gays, young people, women, those have all been won by Republicans to some degree or another and can be again. Forget that, WILL be again. the only intractable group that Republicans simply can’t appeal to is the poor. And fixing that problem is easy: make sure there are fewer poor people. Democrats have the opposite incentive.
Ah I see, you are just using your peculiar definition of “reasonable”.
At least I’m taking statements made by the President in the spirit in which they were spoken. You, and many liberals like you, saw virtually everything the President ever said as a direct attack on your patriotism, even when he wasn’t addressing Democrats, patriotism, or even attacking anything in particular.
I’d note that you’re also getting fixated on my comments in the fascism thread. At no point did I ever say, or even hint,that liberalism was fascism. I did say that fascism was to the left of liberalism. Something you may disagree with, but doesn’t implicate liberals as fascists in any way.
And that is because like a former infamous poster called **december ** Bush demonstrated that one could sound polite while being very insulting.
And that’s Presidential. Poke the opposition in the ribs with a smile. Obama doesn’t even put up the pretense of being polite. It’s clear he has total disdain for his opponents.
If you’ve read any insider books about the adminsitration, the main reason Republicans don’t cooperate with him is because he wouldn’t know diplomacy if it bit him in the ass. Whenever progress has been made in negotiations, he’s given a very public speech attacking Republicans. That tends to have a negative effect on the talks.
Nope what you clearly said was:
“As far as whether it’s right or left, that depends on what it’s being compared to. Compared to Communism, fascism is right-wing. Compared to contemporary American liberalism, it’s left-wing.”
(Bolding mine)
Indeed, you are telling us now to ignore what you really posted, as I pointed before, you have no shame.
You indeed told us that the left wing is fascist, while comparing it to contemporary American liberalism, as pointed before, this is still just showing ignorance. And also attempting foolishly to create a separation of what American liberalism is nowadays and the left.
American Liberals are the left wing, you only think you are being clever when you are digging deeper do you?
Once again, there is plenty of evidence, even scientific, that what you are talking here is just what the Republicans are projecting.
Once again you are even denying that Republicans are using pseudoscience to claim that Obama is making hoaxes so there is no reason to be diplomatic and accuse the president and the democrats of being fascists. (And I already linked to those accusations from several Republicans)
Can someone help me out here? Did I say what he thinks I said, or what I think I said. Because this guy’s misunderstanding my meaning about as completely as you can.
I said that fascism was to the left of American liberalism. that’s a very different thing from fascism IS American liberalism.