Thread: Obama - Respect My Authoritah!!!

Originally Posted by Goobieman

Aha.

Doesnt this make The Obama a conservative?

It moves his personal meter to the right a bit yes. But overall I believe Obama is a slight to moderate liberal.

Originally Posted by Goobieman

So strong Christian values that affect social policy positions is a "conservative" trat?
What about the liberals that have strong Christian values that affect social policy positions?

Strong conservative christian values are a conservative trait. For example, if you look at the catholic church, vs orthodox, pentecostal, vs mainline, vs the evangelical movement, you will see that each group places emphasis on different parts of the bible and parts of the believe system. How one goes about their religion is a strong marker of conservativism or liberalism.

For me, my religious beliefs are a large part of why I am a liberal.

Originally Posted by Goobieman

You're goung to have to actually show this is true for this to even begin to stick.

Obama Cleans Up After Bush - TIME

Originally Posted by Goobieman

Now, what about all the moderate/liberal positions taken by GWB?
How do the things you listed as "very conservative" outweigh them sufficiently to the point to make him "Very conservative" is your eyes?

I cannot think of many moderate/liberal positions taken by him except no child left behind and perhaps the assault weapons ban as mentioned by Rev. Its a small number of issues though.

Originally Posted by Goobieman

And you DO remember than a "neoconservative" isnt actually a conservativve, but a liberal with a strong pro-us foerign/domestic policy, right?

Ah yes -- if only GWB were a Democrat.

So you have claimed. However, when you look at his polling, his core supporters were strong conservatives. I am going to take that over your reinterpretation of stances.

Originally Posted by Goobieman

Oh... so you don't have a legally or politically relevant standard to judge if someone is pro- or anti-stance on civil rights.
10-4..

All law is based on belief. If enough people believed in something, in a democracy, its likely going to become a law at some point. Whether it is a law or not has little to do with the rightness or wrongness of it since that is based on each person's personal perspective.

Besides, using your logic, if an amendment was passed that made it illegal for black people to use modern banking services, than that would not be a civil rights violation since its "in the constitution"

Originally Posted by megaprogman

It moves his personal meter to the right a bit yes. But overall I believe Obama is a moderate liberal.

So you believe that a few isntances of 'conservative' action do not make one a conservative; you have to took at the aggregate of the whole. Good. remember that.

Strong conservative christian values are a conservative trait.

What, exactly, are liberal christian values, and how does GWB not have those as well?

Obama Cleans Up After Bush - TIME

Seems to me that if your claim were accurate, you;d have something better than this. Something that describes more than a few actions taken regarding the environment in the last few months of his administration does nothing to support the grand scale of your claim Thus, you may try again.

I cannot think of many moderate/liberal positions taken by him...

Of course you cannot - because you find it convenient not to do so.
Fortunately, others have a wide range of them:
George W. Bush is a Liberal - Associated Content - associatedcontent.com
Richard Cohen - Bush the Neoliberal - washingtonpost.com
George W. Bush, liberal. - By William Saletan - Slate Magazine
The shockingly liberal legacy of George W. Bush | Macleans.ca - World - USA

Its a small number of issues though.

It doesnt appear that way.

But, it doesnt matter how many of GWB's liberal positions I show you-- from -your- perspective, GWB is very consevative.
This is either due to your apparent ignorance of GWB's policy positions/actions, or because of your impressivelty left-lean of your own personal ideology.

Remmeber though - you believe that a few isntances of 'conservative' action do not make one a conservative; you hate to took at the aggregate of the whole.

So you have claimed.

Oh, its not MY claim.
Neo-conservative - SourceWatch
Conservative vs. Neo-Con - Right Mind
Conservative Vs. Neoconservative- know the difference! | Ron Paul War Room
Paleoconservatism vs. Neoconservatism

However, when you look at his polling, his core supporters were strong conservatives. I am going to take that over your reinterpretation of stances.

Of course you are -- when it suits you, you find it convenient to ignore the truth.

All law is based on belief.

Um..... no.
Law is based on.... welll.. law.
Law in the US is based on the federal amnd state Constitutions, legislation and judicial rulings.
Now, you can "believe" that an action that, by all of the above, does not infringe on a right does indeed infringe o a right, but your belief has no legal or poliical basis in fact.
In other words, your statement to that effect is unsupportable nonsense.

Originally Posted by Goobieman

So you believe that a few isntances of 'conservative' action do not make one a conservative; you have to took at the aggregate of the whole. Good. remember that.

That is correct.

Originally Posted by Goobieman

What, exactly, are liberal christian values, and how does GWB not have those as well?

Liberal Christian values tend to promote social justice. I cannot think of anything he did in that regard, except foreign aid.

Originally Posted by Goobieman

Seems to me that if your claim were accurate, you;d have something better than this. Something that describes more than a few actions taken regarding the environment in the last few months of his administration does nothing to support the grand scale of your claim Thus, you may try again.
Of course you cannot - because you find it convenient not to do so.
Fortunately, others have a wide range of them:
George W. Bush is a Liberal - Associated Content - associatedcontent.com
Richard Cohen - Bush the Neoliberal - washingtonpost.com
George W. Bush, liberal. - By William Saletan - Slate Magazine
The shockingly liberal legacy of George W. Bush | Macleans.ca - World - USA

It doesnt appear that way.

But, it doesnt matter how many of GWB's liberal positions I show you-- from -your- perspective, GWB is very consevative.
This is either due to your apparent ignorance of GWB's policy positions/actions, or because of your impressivelty left-lean of your own personal ideology.

Remmeber though - you believe that a few isntances of 'conservative' action do not make one a conservative; you hate to took at the aggregate of the whole.

Oh, its not MY claim.
Neo-conservative - SourceWatch
Conservative vs. Neo-Con - Right Mind
Conservative Vs. Neoconservative- know the difference! | Ron Paul War Room
Paleoconservatism vs. Neoconservatism

Of course you are -- when it suits you, you find it convenient to ignore the truth.

As I said, Bush's support was based in the conservative crowd. If thats where his supporters were, than probably going to be where is ideology lies. Also, there is more than one type of conservative, there is fiscal conservative, social conservative, neo conservative, reagan conservative, Palin conservative, Paleoconservative, etc. Alternatively, there are different types of liberals such as progressives, socialists, old school liberals, etc. Ultimately none of those links really prove anything.

Just because there are different factions within the conservative spectrum as a whole does not mean that Bush is a liberal. It just means that there are factions that disagreed with his ideology while still being allied to him politically and falling under the conservative umbrella.

Originally Posted by Goobieman

Um..... no.
Law is based on.... welll.. law.
Law in the US is based on the federal amnd state Constitutions, legislation and judicial rulings.
Now, you can "believe" that an action that, by all of the above, does not infringe on a right does indeed infringe o a right, but your belief has no legal or poliical basis in fact.
In other words, your statement to that effect is unsupportable nonsense.

Surprisingly I agree. Legally, you are correct rights do change based on the law. Morally, we all have different ideas. Morally, I believe it was a civil rights violation. However, this goes back to my statement that I do not consider the constitution to be terribly important, its just a bunch of laws that I will work to change where I disagree. So what the law states is irrelevant to my argument.

Originally Posted by megaprogman

That is correct.

So then why do you refuse to look at the previously cited multitude of GWB's liberal actions and apply your standard accordingly?

Liberal Christian values tend to promote social justice. I cannot think of anything he did in that regard, except foreign aid.

This has a lot more to do with your selective ignorance and your defintion of social justice than anything else.

As I said, Bush's support was based in the conservative crowd. If thats where his supporters were, than probably going to be where is ideology lies

This is you not even -trying- to create a substantive response, and ignoring the truth, as demostrated.

Note specifically you didnt even -try- to address the eaxmples of GWB's liberalism.

But then, if you don't acknowledge these actions, you dont have to worry about having to revise you claim that GWB was "very conservative". Keeping your head in the sand it easier than being intellectually honest, I guess.

Surpringly I agree. Legally, you are correct rights do change based on the law. Morally, we all have different ideas.

Your version of morality is neither legally binding nor legally enforceable, and as such, your claim that the restrictions on the protesters in qustion is a violation of civil rights of said protestors is unsupportable.

Originally Posted by Goobieman

So then why do you refuse to look at the previously cited vast multitude of GWB's liberal actions and apply your standard accordingly?

You misunderstand me than. The fact is, as I have stated, there is more than one type of conservative and Bush matches one of those factions.

Originally Posted by Goobieman

This has a lot more to do with your selective ignorance and your defintion of social justice than anything else.

Perhaps, perhaps not, but I have no interest in arguing it since it will probably sidetrack us yet again.

Originally Posted by Goobieman

This is you not even -trying- to create a substantive response, and ignoring the truth, as demostrated.

Note specifically you didnt even -try- to address the eaxmples of GWB's liberalism.

But then, if you don't acknowledge these actions, you dont have to worry about having to revise you claim that GWB was "very conservative". Keeping your head in the sand it easier than being intellectually honest, I guess.

Of course I did not even try to address Bush's liberalism because there is no reason to do so. Sure he may look liberal to your perspective, but your perspective is not the only conservative perspective out there.

Originally Posted by Goobieman

Your version of morality is neither legally binding nor legally enforceable, and as such, your claim that the restrictions on the protesters in qustion is a violation of civil rights is said protestors is unsupportable.

Noone's is really as none of us are kings or dictators. And yes, your are right when it comes to legalities.

Anyway, this is starting to bore me as neither of us are going to give ground here and I have better things to do with my time, so go ahead and declare victory, I will forfeit and let you have it, the empty one that it is.

Originally Posted by megaprogman

You misunderstand me than. The fact is, as I have stated, there is more than one type of conservative and Bush matches one of those factions.

Perhaps, perhaps not, but I have no interest in arguing it since it will probably sidetrack us yet again.

Of course I did not even try to address Bush's liberalism because there is no reason to do so. Sure he may look liberal to your perspective, but your perspective is not the only conservative perspective out there.

Wow. That was really sad. You have my pity.

I must have no funny bone today, because I didn't even smirk during that bit.

Anyhow, I suppose I do not grieve for the loss of a President who promised one thing and discovered he probably needed to contain his prior statements.

Likewise, I find it odd how Neoconservatives, on this forum, can one day be conservative extremists, then the next be liberals with guns, then another day be Christian extremists, and then the next day be all of the previous. But keep going, this is entertaining in a sick way.

Originally Posted by Fiddytree

Likewise, I find it odd how Neoconservatives, on this forum, can one day be conservative extremists, then the next be liberals with guns, then another day be Christian extremists, and then the next day be all of the previous. But keep going, this is entertaining in a sick way.

I'm not sure that any of those things are necessarily exclusive of any of the others.

This much IS certain - "Neoconservative" is meant to be a derogatory term by people why really dont have a cluse as to its meaning. Its mere utterance, like "high fructose corn syrup" is supposed to have an inherently bad meaning; if you dont know why that is, you're just dumb!

Funny. I've been meaning to post this since yesterday:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-par...post1058812069 (Respect Mah Authoritah.)

And right after posting it, i found this thread. I totally agree with John Stewart. On many levels, Obama has been a complete disappointment for me.

However, on a relative scale, he's still considerably better than W.

Originally Posted by Catz Part Deux

However, on a relative scale, he's still considerably better than W.

Of all the things that you didn’t like GWB for, what has The Obama improved on?