Bush is a liberal

[Thudpucker]

Very interesting article! Fairly illuminating, alot of the people who consider themselves conservative here may find it interesting.

http://www.etherzone.com/2004/tuma122004.shtml


Allow me to state what should, by now, be extremely obvious: GW Bush is not--by any definition--a conservative. Neither are Karl Rove, Bill O'Reilly, Bill Bennett, George Will, or a bunch of other people on Capitol Hill who apparently never guessed what their Oath of Office was supposed to represent. All these people are, at most, political moderates. And their President is a liberal.

Bush is a happy socialist who has yet to veto a single spending bill. He has maintained a massive post-Clinton bureaucracy without even giving lip service to reducing the size and scope of federal government. Bush has greatly expanded the government's role in our lives. He has thrown tidal waves of money at education, medicare, and farm subsidies. He has monstrously inflated the government's police powers, in complete contravention to the Bill of Rights. He has racked up the biggest deficit in American history. A small tax cut or two, perched decoratively atop a towering mountain of free spending and federal expansionism, does not make the mountain into a conservative one.

Even John Kerry, a Massachusetts liberal ideologue, figured out that Bush isn't a conservative. People often allude to the fact that Bush and Kerry were both members of the conspiratorial fraternal organization "Skull & Bones". Skull & Bones is trivia. Of much greater importance to us is the fact that the two candidates had no real ideological differences. The bitterly fought race for the White House in 2004 was a contest between two liberal socialists with minor variations in their personal rhetoric.

There is no "right wing" in our system at present--at least anywhere near the reins of power. The entire political spectrum is left-oriented, and we are now seeing a sort of angry tribal factionalism, like feuds between Sunni and Shiite Muslims.

The artful pretense of GOP conservatism ended on 9-11-01. With a Great Cause to trumpet, Republicans were allowed to openly embrace federal power. Not too ironically, that was when most of the established news media stopped throwing brickbats at Republicans, and started tossing posies instead.

There are five ingredients necessary for conservatism. These are fundamentals:

-The first necessary ingredient for a conservative is a belief in smaller government. Particularly at the federal level. Statism is Leftism--an all-powerful, centralized government. Conservatives oppose this, embracing state's rights and a smaller, less centralized federal government. This is the foundational cornerstone of conservatism.

-The second necessary ingredient for a conservative is a belief in national sovereignty and isolationism. Conservatives do not believe in foreign aid or foreign entanglements. They revere American sovereignty. Yes, conservatives do believe in a strong national defense--but national defense as mandated by the Constitution and the Monroe Doctrine. An invasive military empire is not mandated. Therein lies a crucial difference.

When Woodrow Wilson tried to get the US into the League of Nations, conservatives opposed him. When Franklin D. Roosevelt was aggressively lobbying to get the US into the Second World War, conservatives opposed him. Conservatives have scorned the UN. They are not practitioners of global military interventionism. Conservatives believe in defense of our national borders, not aggression---and real security based on not meddling in the affairs of other nations. Conservatives believe in "Fortress America"...not Pax Americana.

-The third necessary ingredient is a belief in the Rule of Law---beginning with the Constitution of the United States. The Bill of Rights is essentially sacrosanct. A conservative does not believe in a "living Constitution".

The only way a conservative would ever alter the Constitution would be by constitutional amendment. He would never seek to override it with power-grabbing legislation. The passage of the USA-Patriot Act--an Orwellian abomination, all the way down to its namesake--established pretty firmly just how many conservatives are left in Washington DC.

-A fourth necessary ingredient to conservatism is a belief in traditional values. It is here that politics over such things as Roy Moore's Ten Commandments come into play. However, traditional values, are, by their very nature, regressive. It is true that there is no constitutional separation of church and state, as commonly stated, but there is also Freedom of Worship, and a generalized restriction of government authority. Therefore no allowances exist for the federal government to dabble in the religion business one way or the other. Real conservatives, being strict constructionists, would protect the religious rights of the individual without exploiting Christianity for seizure of power.

-The fifth necessary ingredient to conservatism is adherence to principle. The stubborn instinct to stand firm on issues, rejecting political expediency, in other words. Conservatism cannot exist without an ideological backbone, because one of the most basic philosophies behind conservatism is preservation of tradition. Traditions cannot survive in the absence of principles.

The national leadership of the Republican Party has willfully broken from all the above.

We should do away with the terms "paleoconservative" and "Old Right". These only tend to confuse things, lending passive legitimacy to 'neo-conservatism'. A neo-conservative is no more a conservative than a bird is an amphibian. In the cold light of reality, there are no "paleocons" and "neo-cons". There are only a handful of conservatives and a bunch of leftward-leaning Republicans who are fakes. Real conservatives, in power, are rarer than hen's teeth these days.

We do have one shining example of a conservative left in this country.

No, it isn't Patrick J. Buchanan, or any of his peerage. Pat is a very well-educated--but self-deceiving--mainstream Republican. He is apparently more interested in selling books than taking a coherent stand on issues. Intelligent, yes. Principled, no. (The same description also fits his mentor, Richard M. Nixon.)

The one prominent example of a conservative left in our system is a congressman by the name of Dr. Ron Paul. He appears to be our last surviving American statesman. Unlike GW Bush, Paul is a real Texan as well as a real conservative. He is also widely known in libertarian circles, and he once ran for President on the Libertarian Party ticket. Because he runs under the GOP banner, he is frequently referred to as a "libertarian hybrid". Which is precisely to the point.

What is a conservative? A conservative is a libertarian who believes in traditional values.

That is not to suggest "libertarian" and "conservative" are completely synonymous. There is a large anarchist wing within the libertarian movement, and anarchists are incompatible with any constitutional state, because they oppose all forms of government. Hence, it cannot be said that all libertarians are conservatives.

[nick maynard]

yeah, well said.

no one's made the government's role in our lives bigger than GW. very liberal in that respect.

[Taxman]

Bush is a happy socialist who has yet to veto a single spending bill. He has maintained a massive post-Clinton bureaucracy without even giving lip service to reducing the size and scope of federal government. Bush has greatly expanded the government's role in our lives.Meh, this is true pretty much of every President since FDR. Reagan was the one guy to try to reduce the size of government, but he failed for the most part.

The more government is privatized and the more government spending goes to private industry, the less incentive there is for any politician to actually cut spending.

[Brian Defferding]

I've been saying this forever. He's outspent them all in from renewing old spending and dwarfed them all in new spending. When I was doing political cartoons I did a bunch illustrating this. He's the pioneer of the big government neo-cons.

[Mike]

There is a difference between the literal definitions of "liberal" and "conservative" and our common usage of the term in political discourse. Technically, Bush is far from conservative. It is his moral positions and traditionalist values that place him in that camp.

[Thudpucker]

yeah, well said.

no one's made the government's role in our lives bigger than GW. very liberal in that respect.

Not just that, he has pissed on every one of the core principles of Conservatism.

He believes in big government and works to expand it, not reduce it. He doesn't believe in isolationism, he actually engages in Nation Building (the biggest conservative no-no there is). He also has no respect for the Constitution, as the Patriot Act more than demonstrates. It just goes on and on.

[Taxman]

I've been saying this forever. He's outspent them all in from renewing old spending and dwarfed them all in new spending. When I was doing political cartoons I did a bunch illustrating this. He's the pioneer of the big government neo-cons.I dubbed him a Fiscal Schizophrenic years ago. I really think that the main problem is the function and politics of Congress. Only a minority party in Congress can really advocate reducing spending. The formation of the Department of Homeland Security is possibly the single worst thing ever to happen to the balanced budget advocate.

[XSaraXPoeX]

I think the key word you're looking for...is facist.

[Mike]

Not just that, he has pissed on every one of the core principles of Conservatism.

He believes in big government and works to expand it, not reduce it. He doesn't believe in isolationism, he actually engages in Nation Building (the biggest conservative no-no there is). He also has no respect for the Constitution, as the Patriot Act more than demonstrates. It just goes on and on.

I would argue that having no respect for the constitution isn't being liberal, it's being a dickhead.

[Thudpucker]

Meh, this is true pretty much of every President since FDR. Reagan was the one guy to try to reduce the size of government, but he failed for the most part.

The more government is privatized and the more government spending goes to private industry, the less incentive there is for any politician to actually cut spending.

His opening statement covers that, I just didn't quote it.


It's a matter of uncertainty whether we've had a conservative in the White House since the Nineteenth Century. There were no conservative Presidents in the last century who were Democrats. There were no obvious Republican conservatives in the Oval Office, either. Eisenhower certainly wasn't a conservative. Nixon was openly socialistic.

Ronald Reagan wasn't a conservative, either, at least in governance--although he espoused conservatism forcefully on a rhetorical level. Perhaps in that sense, we may define Reagan as a rightist philosopher, like Robert Taft or Barry Goldwater. Unfortunately Reagan's beliefs did not transfer into presidential leadership--due in large part to the fact that Reagan was an anachronism, and he had already outlived the effective lifespan of conservatism itself.

Conservatism--in this day and age of flexible meanings for words--is mostly illusion. It retains a few free market platitudes, but for the most part, it is fakery. It has become a product label for an inferior substitute product, like the 80s label of "New Coke". Faux conservatism rules America. It bears very little resemblance to the real thing. Real conservatism will never rise from the ashes until we at least grasp what it stands for.

[Ray G.]

Makes quite a few good points, although I think he's talking in way too broad strokes about what Conservatives are supposed to believe in, especially when it comes to foreign policy.

[XSaraXPoeX]

He has thrown tidal waves of money at education... :shock: When the hell did THIS happen?

[Ray G.]

:shock: When the hell did THIS happen?

Oh, it happened. It just went in ways that a lot of more progressive people didn't like. But he definitely didn't hesitate to throw money at the problem.

[Thudpucker]

Makes quite a few good points, although I think he's talking in way too broad strokes about what Conservatives are supposed to believe in, especially when it comes to foreign policy.

His summation of how conservatives should feel about foriegn policy is dead on, you are just too used to faux conservatism.

[Freeway]

Economists really hate the guy.

[Brian Defferding]

I dubbed him a Fiscal Schizophrenic years ago. I really think that the main problem is the function and politics of Congress. Only a minority party in Congress can really advocate reducing spending. The formation of the Department of Homeland Security is possibly the single worst thing ever to happen to the balanced budget advocate.

Oh yeah. All spending bills that normally Republicans would label as pork-barrell (and would be used as a vehicle to point fingers at Democrats) suddenly get green-lighted and the floodgates open as long as these earmarks are "Department of Homeland Security" spending. The places where the spend it is nuts - Wyoming gets more Homeland Security Spending than New York, Chicago or Boston.

And this doesn't even include the new prescription drug benefit program. And there's the war too.

[Taxman]

His summation of how conservatives should feel about foriegn policy is dead on, you are just too used to faux conservatism.That pretty much ended in 1941. It ain't commin' back.

[Taxman]

Oh yeah. All spending bills that normally Republicans would label as pork-barrell (and would be used as a vehicle to point fingers at Democrats) suddenly get green-lighted and the floodgates open as long as these earmarks are "Department of Homeland Security" spending. The places where the spend it is nuts - Wyoming gets more Homeland Security Spending than New York, Chicago or Boston.

And this doesn't even include the new prescription drug benefit program. And there's the war too.At some point, they'll just FedEx the keys to the car to Beijing.

[Amos Moses]

Love the phrase "Fortress America". The article makes some good points, but it seems to state that because he isn't conservative, he's a liberal. And I don't buy that.

[Ray G.]

His summation of how conservatives should feel about foriegn policy is dead on, you are just too used to faux conservatism.

I certainly don't think Conservatism goes hand-in-hand with isolationism, at least not in decades. Where I do think Bush went off the rails when it comes to conservatism and foreign policy is in his ridiculously lofty goals for Iraq. It's never good to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the people you're dealing with.

[JoeE]

So basically, real conservatives never get elected. I can see why liberals are so happy to throw articles and documentaries at conservatives lecturing us on what real conservatism is.

[XSaraXPoeX]

Oh, it happened. It just went in ways that a lot of more progressive people didn't like. But he definitely didn't hesitate to throw money at the problem.More and more state education systems are pulling out of his "No child left behind" program because of lack of funding and student grants are down by 30%.

I ask again, WHEN specifically did this happen. :mad:

[edwardmblake]

Love the phrase "Fortress America". The article makes some good points, but it seems to state that because he isn't conservative, he's a liberal. And I don't buy that.

If you like that phrase, you'll love the game...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v638/jdavies/FortressAmerica.jpg

It came out in the 80's. See who's on the cover?

[Thudpucker]

So basically, real conservatives never get elected. I can see why liberals are so happy to throw articles and documentaries at conservatives lecturing us on what real conservatism is.

In other words you agree completely with this article :thumb:

[Amos Moses]

If you like that phrase, you'll love the game...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v638/jdavies/FortressAmerica.jpg

It came out in the 80's. See who's on the cover?

I MUST OWN THIS!

[badpoet]

He's neither conservative nor liberal. He's a fucking idiot.

[Corey]

Pretty interesting article, although I think it can get dangerous in getting too caught up on what -ism someone is. It too quickly degenerates into a simplistic 'good' vs. 'evil'/us vs. them mentality.

[MIKE D]

If you like that phrase, you'll love the game...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v638/jdavies/FortressAmerica.jpg

It came out in the 80's. See who's on the cover?

I remember that game. It was AXIS AND ALLIES with a reconfigured map.

[Thudpucker]

Pretty interesting article, although I think it can get dangerous in getting too caught up on what -ism someone is. It too quickly degenerates into a simplistic 'good' vs. 'evil'/us vs. them mentality.

Valid point but that doesn't apply to leaders. When a leader abandons or betrays their supporters and acts against thier philosophy it is important to bring that to light so they can work to reform thier leadership.

[Colby]

Valid point but that doesn't apply to leaders. When a leader abandons or betrays their supporters and acts against thier philosophy it is important to bring that to light so they can work to reform thier leadership.

Perhaps, but the binary spectrum portrayed in this article isn't very useful, particularly because it uses classical- and therefore, somewhat outdated- definitions of the terms.

For example, Bush has increased the goverment's involvement in the lives of the average citizens, but he's decreased it's presence in the business community. This simultaneous growing and shrinking of the government is obviously conservative as we use the term today. But how can we classify it under the "What governs least, governs best" view of conservatism?

Nonetheless, it is an interesting idea, and the article itself was useful if only for making me think all this through.

I guess my point is, it's just easier to call him stupid.

[WillieLee]

How is he a socialist?

[Thudpucker]

How is he a socialist?

Look up the term 'Big Government'. Since the concept is apparently new to you it should prove to be fascinating reading.

[WillieLee]

Look up the term 'Big Government'. Since the concept is apparently new to you it should prove to be fascinating reading.

Why don't you explain to me how he is a socialist?

[Thudpucker]

Why don't you explain to me how he is a socialist?

Because no matter what I type you would answer with more childish questions. Why would I waste time on you?

[Ryan F]

This sounds like the work of a Buchanan-conservative (or, more likely, a libertarian) trying to pin Bush's titanic failures on us innocent liberals. You could easily write an article pointing out that Bush is a follower of these tenets:

- he cut taxes

- he's alienated many of our traditional allies.

etc. etc.

What are the tenets of true liberalism? This author seems to just assume that liberals are everything else...

[WillieLee]

Because no matter what I type you would answer with more childish questions. Why would I waste time on you?

I am from a socialist country and from the province that started many of the socialist programs. There is nothing in the way the Bush administration has handed out money that is socialist. If you think that socialism consists of 'big government' and overspending then maybe you should get your information from something other than Doonesbury.

[Silver Surfer's Scrotum]

I think the key word you're looking for...is facist.

Please explain, with specific reference to
1) what a fascist is; and
2) why George Bush is one.

Because I am far, far from a George Bush supporter but using terms like that to describe GWB is an insult to every one of the close to 3 billion people that genuinely do live under some form of totalitarianism. It's weak and arrogant. When bashing Bush is so very easy for liberals, conservatives and socialists to do, there's no need to rersort to ignorant, offensive name-calling.

[Ray G.]

Please explain, with specific reference to
1) what a fascist is; and
2) why George Bush is one.

Because I am far, far from a George Bush supporter but using terms like that to describe GWB is an insult to every one of the close to 3 billion people that genuinely do live under some form of totalitarianism. It's weak and arrogant. When bashing Bush is so very easy for liberals, conservatives and socialists to do, there's no need to rersort to ignorant, offensive name-calling.

Exactly. Considering how noisy the anti-Bush wing is in this country, it's pretty much self-evident that we do not live in a dictatorship.

I like you, guy with the awesome screen name! :)

[En Sabah Poo]

Exactly. Considering how noisy the anti-Bush wing is in this country, it's pretty much self-evident that we do not live in a dictatorship.

I like you, guy with the awesome screen name! :)

I think it came from the notion that between Bush and the former Congress, we didn't really have any kind of checks and balances left in the country. The Congress and even the Supreme Court almost became rubber stamps for whatever George wanted to do. That is, until Iraq became unpopular. But before that, it was a pretty terrible time politically. All opposition was shouted down as being traitors and terrorist supporters and propaganda was used quite a bit.

Not to mention the rumblings of pushing the election date back because of terrorism.

But obviously, its not fascism. Just a terrible way for America to be run politically.

In fact, I would honestly say, from 2002 to 2006 was probably the worst time to be an American in our nations history. The political machine turned uglier and more oppressive than it ever has been.

[Dusto]

Yeah, this article more makes the point that Republicans have long been doing things that they've traditionally acused Democrats of. I do think it's a false binary of liberal vs. conservative, though. Even liberals who believe in "big government" don't believe in it the same way Bush does. Traditional liberal ideas of "big government" are about providing a safety net for society (which conservatives consider expensive) or with providing new rights and protections for minority groups, the homeless, etc. (which conservatives see as violating state's rights to come up with their own laws for themselves. Bush's "big government" is more about actually asserting the federal government as a locus of control (though he is also concerned with providing new rights and protections from a socially conservative point of view: abortion, for instance). From a strictly constitutional viewpoint, the federal government has long since expanded beyond its original purview. Almost all federal law enforcement is based on the Powers of Commerce and the Powers of Spending. Basically, they can't set a national speed limit or drinking age, but they can refuse to spend highway money on states that don't comply with the national standard. And things like making marijuana illegal or gun control are only justified by claiming it falls under the purview of Interstate Commerce. Basically if there's any chance that marijuana will be grown in one state and sold in another, or that a piece of a gun was created in one state before being assembled in another and then sold, the federal government interprets this as falling under their powers of commerce. Which clearly isn't what the founding fathers intended, since they clearly provided the amendment system as a means for the federal government to make a new law if absolutely necessary... But, oh well, I do think we need a federal government capable of more easily making laws that don't have the binding power of an amendment.

[Chantal_D]

I agree with the few people who say that this doesn't necessarily make Bush a liberal, although the terms liberal and conservative really don't have set definitions.
This sounds like an attempt by people in the Republican party to distance themselves from Bush as much as possible and to insult "liberals" in the bargain.
Why has Bush sucked so much as a president?
Because he's a liberal.
I'm sure John McCain or Guiliani or whatever other Republican presidential candidates are out there right now are working on feeding America this idea.

[The Cheap-Arse Film Critic]

I think the key word you're looking for...is facist.

I hate statements like this, because it makes the person who says it look like they have no idea of what the definition of fascism is. It's like those incredibly shrill and annoying people who compare America to Nazi Germany. That's a comparison that could only be made by people too young or too ignorant to fathom what it must have been like to have lived in Nazi Germany.

[En Sabah Poo]

I hate statements like this, because it makes the person who says it look like they have no idea of what the definition of fascism is. It's like those incredibly shrill and annoying people who compare America to Nazi Germany. That's a comparison that could only be made by people too young or too ignorant to fathom what it must have been like to have lived in Nazi Germany.

Although, its not impossible to view Bush as a fascist. It doesn't mean he's ruling as one, but I'm saying its not impossible to think he has the potential to be one or would like to be one. This is afterall the man who said a President's job is to make law. He pretty much would like to give himself unlimited power in every respect, lies, removes opponents (although not very good at covering it up). Just because he's not violent doesn't mean its not there.

[The Cheap-Arse Film Critic]

Although, its not impossible to view Bush as a fascist. It doesn't mean he's ruling as one, but I'm saying its not impossible to think he has the potential to be one or would like to be one. This is afterall the man who said a President's job is to make law. He pretty much would like to give himself unlimited power in every respect, lies, removes opponents (although not very good at covering it up). Just because he's not violent doesn't mean its not there.

But, you see, I'm not sure I buy those traits as fascist traits exactly, because I don't believe, for a second, that there's been a successful politician of any belief structure that hasn't taken part in some-or-all of the things you stated. They mearly sound like the ruthless tactics of a man who wants to win.

I'm British, so my opinion of your President doesn't mean much in the grand sceme of things, although I will say that I'm far from his biggest fan. But I think some people could do with getting some perspectinve and stop throwing words like "fascist" around lightly. It's that kind of behaviour that robs a word of all it's power.

[En Sabah Poo]

But, you see, I'm not sure I buy those traits as fascist traits exactly, because I don't believe, for a second, that there's been a successful politician of any belief structure that hasn't taken part in some-or-all of the things you stated. They mearly sound like the ruthless tactics of a man who wants to win.

I'm British, so my opinion of your President doesn't mean much in the grand sceme of things, although I will say that I'm far from his biggest fan. But I think some people could do with getting some perspectinve and stop throwing words like "fascist" around lightly. It's that kind of behaviour that robs a word of all it's power.

I agree. But you have to understand the American mindset. I mentioned in in a previous post, that some of these past few years this decade have been the worst in American history politically speaking. So you can understand how some people on the left are prone to call Bush a fascist. It really felt sometimes like it with seemingly no avenue of our political process open to debate or opposition. It's over now though. Let's just hope it doesn't happen again.

[Brian Defferding]

http://www.deftoons.com/shooter.gif

http://www.deftoons.com/BushsForeignPolicy.gif

http://www.deftoons.com/EagleandFish.gif

[Silver Surfer's Scrotum]

In fact, I would honestly say, from 2002 to 2006 was probably the worst time to be an American in our nations history. The political machine turned uglier and more oppressive than it ever has been.

I dunno, I'd say that during the Second World War or the Vietnam war when the government could conscript you into the armed services where you could DIE was a worse time to live. As yet, the Bush administration hasn't made such a direct threat to your life, has it?

[Corey]

Brian, are all three of those yours? Those are great!

[En Sabah Poo]

I dunno, I'd say that during the Second World War or the Vietnam war when the government could conscript you into the armed services where you could DIE was a worse time to live. As yet, the Bush administration hasn't made such a direct threat to your life, has it?

That's not the same though. I'm speaking in terms of political discourse. I don't think you can argue that there was a more open time for political debate than during the Vietnam war.

I'd say the only thing coming close to my original statement would be post WW2 McCarthyism.

[Brian Defferding]

Brian, are all three of those yours? Those are great!

Thanks! Yeah I did those back in '02-'03.

[Amos Moses]

In reality, I don't think the type of "conservatism" the author advocates is possible for America. You can't really isolate yourself when you have the largest military, most powerful economy, and 3rd largest population. We're not Bhutan, we can't keep the world out when we have so much influence in it. Even if we were to attempt to withdraw from the World, another nation (probably China) would fill the vaccum we left. I think the world benefits from having America leading it, despite the protests of some nations. I'm not saying we couldn't do a better job, but we do a better job than anyone else could.

Just my two cent.

[Amos Moses]

Deff those are awesome, love the "draw" one. :D

[The Cheap-Arse Film Critic]

I dunno, I'd say that during the Second World War or the Vietnam war when the government could conscript you into the armed services where you could DIE was a worse time to live. As yet, the Bush administration hasn't made such a direct threat to your life, has it?

Well, you could argue that President Bush's at times, shall we say, blunt approach to foreign policy may have made it a more dangerous time for the western world in general. But, if you're going to do that, you also have to factor in the moral argument of whether or not doing nothing to for the sole reason that you're afraid of comebacks is really that noble of an idea.

Basically, I think the whole discussion is too complex for an internet message board. Mostly because somebody ends up calling somebody else a fascist.

:wink:

[Ray G.]

That's not the same though. I'm speaking in terms of political discourse. I don't think you can argue that there was a more open time for political debate than during the Vietnam war.

I'd say the only thing coming close to my original statement would be post WW2 McCarthyism.

The Civil War, World War I, and World War II all had a lovely combination of conscription, danger to the future of the country, and extreme restrictions on civil rights far beyond anything Bush has ever done.

[Silver Surfer's Scrotum]

That's not the same though. I'm speaking in terms of political discourse. I don't think you can argue that there was a more open time for political debate than during the Vietnam war.

I'd say the only thing coming close to my original statement would be post WW2 McCarthyism.

But all you said was "the worst time to be an american". And to be honest, there were enormous restraints on speech in America during WW2. And do you think those conscripted REALLY had such free speech? And, what's more, do you think that those that were conscripted and then died could really be said to have free speech? No. They were dead.

There seems to be an enormous amount of political discourse in America right now. What substantive limits has Bush put on political discourse? Because it seems that Bush is constantly being called a fascist on internet message boards. That would not be possible if Bush was remotely fascist.

Listen, Bush's attacks on civil liberties worry me enormously. I think he is reckless and often incompetent. But to describe him as 'fascist' betrays a deep ignorance of both the American political sphere and of genuinely totalitarian regimes such as China, Libya, Cuba or North Korea.

[Dusto]

I agree with the few people who say that this doesn't necessarily make Bush a liberal, although the terms liberal and conservative really don't have set definitions.
This sounds like an attempt by people in the Republican party to distance themselves from Bush as much as possible and to insult "liberals" in the bargain.
Why has Bush sucked so much as a president?
Because he's a liberal.
I'm sure John McCain or Guiliani or whatever other Republican presidential candidates are out there right now are working on feeding America this idea.

You are my favorite poster on the Bendis Board

[evilgenius]

He's neither conservative nor liberal. He's a fucking idiot.

Sadly, there's no party that embraces that ideology completely, huh?

[David Aspmo]

I agree with the few people who say that this doesn't necessarily make Bush a liberal, although the terms liberal and conservative really don't have set definitions.
This sounds like an attempt by people in the Republican party to distance themselves from Bush as much as possible and to insult "liberals" in the bargain.
Why has Bush sucked so much as a president?
Because he's a liberal.
I'm sure John McCain or Guiliani or whatever other Republican presidential candidates are out there right now are working on feeding America this idea.
Yes, this is exactly right.

.
David Aspmo

[Brian Defferding]

Deff those are awesome, love the "draw" one. :D

Thanks man!

[Brian Defferding]

The fact of the matter is Bush is the biggest spending President in history, something that Republicans often hypocritically accuse liberal Democrats of committing during their time in office. Republicans used to be fiscally restraining of tax-and-spend politics, but look who's taxing and spending? Bush was like this even before 9/11, with his faith-based program funneling of government money. I agree, it IS an attempt by people in the Republican party to distance themselves from Bush as much as possible and to insult liberals in the bargain...the party realized they fucked up and have to get back to the good ol' days of fiscally restraining public policy and stop all that incessant war-mongering.

McCain (and to a moderate extent Guiliani) is a big-government neo-con that is a repeat of Bush. Compare them to candidates like Ron Paul who is a Barry Goldwater Republican (and Jeff Flake, although he's not running for Prez).

[JoeE]

Bush isn't really tax and spend, he's someone-else-will-tax-you-later and spend.

[Thudpucker]

Bush isn't really tax and spend, he's someone-else-will-tax-you-later and spend.

:lol: true

[Brian Defferding]

Bush isn't really tax and spend, he's someone-else-will-tax-you-later and spend.

:lol: Yeah, that's true.

[Fusion]

"Bush is a Liberal" sounds like a "Pass the Buck" statement.

[XSaraXPoeX]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v136/gothicangels/Newpinheadbush_dees.jpg

[emeraldsundae]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v136/gothicangels/Newpinheadbush_dees.jpg

That's an insult to Pinhead.

:no:

[XSaraXPoeX]

That's an insult to Pinhead.

:no:I didn't think of that. :?

[emeraldsundae]

I didn't think of that. :?

He's one of the best horror movie villians. He doesn't deserve that kind of treatment.

[XSaraXPoeX]

He's one of the best horror movie villians. He doesn't deserve that kind of treatment.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v136/gothicangels/smileys/thpeek2.gif

[emeraldsundae]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v136/gothicangels/smileys/thpeek2.gif

Hee.

;)

[XSaraXPoeX]

Hee.

;)http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v136/gothicangels/smileys/thlove15.gif

[bradical]

stop it!

don't stop it!

dammit.

don't stop it.

[XSaraXPoeX]

stop it!

don't stop it!

dammit.

don't stop it.But, it's Saturday night. There's rum.

And we want each other. :twisted:

What better place than here.

[bradical]

who would think to look in a liberal bush thread?

[The Roman Candle]

There are fundamental differences between Lenin's socialism and Hitler's socialism.

[XSaraXPoeX]

who would think to look in a liberal bush thread?It might not get deleted this week. :D

But I think Sabrina left. :(

[XSaraXPoeX]

There are fundamental differences between Lenin's socialism and Hitler's socialism.That's hot.

[bradical]

stop it!

[Special Agent Bachman]

So, according to this article, the only types of libertarians are conservatives and anarchists? Whatever.

[The Roman Candle]

That's hot.

It's a big, big difference. Lenin's socialism was (arguably) left wing, while Hitlers was undeniably a right wing philosophy.

[bradical]

right wing.

[XSaraXPoeX]

It's a big, big difference. Lenin's socialism was (arguably) left wing, while Hitlers was undeniably a right wing philosophy.Mmmmmmmmmmmm. And which one is the NAUGHTIEST? :twisted:

[bradical]

Mmmmmmmmmmmm. And which one is the NAUGHTIEST? :twisted:

well, lenin was circumcised.

[XSaraXPoeX]

well, lenin was circumcised.Ya hadda go and bring PENIS into the conversation. :mad:

[bradical]

Ya hadda go and bring PENIS into the conversation. :mad:

i don't even know what that word means... pain bacon... what!... damn... it's early... :shifty:

[Special Agent Bachman]

Ya hadda go and bring PENIS into the conversation. :mad:

Penis has a tendency to poke around where it doesn't belong.

[evilgenius]

Penis has a tendency to poke around where it doesn't belong.

Who says it DOESN'T?

:no:

[evilgenius]

In reality, I don't think the type of "conservatism" the author advocates is possible for America. You can't really isolate yourself when you have the largest military, most powerful economy, and 3rd largest population. We're not Bhutan, we can't keep the world out when we have so much influence in it. Even if we were to attempt to withdraw from the World, another nation (probably China) would fill the vaccum we left. I think the world benefits from having America leading it, despite the protests of some nations. I'm not saying we couldn't do a better job, but we do a better job than anyone else could.

Just my two cent.


But don't the leaders usually think the best of themselves, regardless of how well or bad they are doing, since they dislike the idea of not being in control?