Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on May 16, 2009, 12:26:31 PM
-
Not surprising.
Conservative Speakers Widely Shunned at Graduation Ceremonies
While Democrats are making the rounds as keynote speakers across the country, you won't see conservatives making addresses at graduation ceremonies just about anywhere.
FOXNews.com
Friday, May 15, 2009
It's not enough that Democrats have command of some key real estate in Washington. This month, they've also got the ear of just about every college student in the country.
Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and White house chief of staff Rahm Emanuel all have multiple invites to be keynote speakers at graduations this spring.
And while President Obama is pulling a hat trick at Notre Dame, Arizona State and the U.S. Naval Academy, you won't see one of that last institution's most famous graduates on stage anywhere this year.
John McCain ... Sarah Palin ... Mitt Romney ... Rudy Giuliani ... they aren't on anyone's program in 2009. Rush Limbaugh or Newt Gingrich? Persona non grata, thank you very much.
So whatever happened to conservatives?
Education watchdogs say it's nothing strange for conservatives to be shunned from the academy, and that the one-sided invitations have become a permanent fixture of the ivory tower.
"The colleges have been transformed," said David Horowitz, whose organization, Students for Academic Freedom, tracks ideological bias on campus. "They're now these partisan institutions. They're not going to change."
Horowitz ran a study in 2003 that looked at commencement speakers at 32 top institutions in the U.S. for the previous 10 years. He found that liberals and Democrats were favored over conservatives by a ratio of 15-1. And then he stopped counting.
"It's permanent. It's not going to change, partly because there's so little attention being paid to it," he told FOXNews.com.
A few conservatives have gotten invites this year, though you could probably cram them all into a compact car.
Gov. Bobby Jindal will be addressing Loyola University, Louisiana Tech, and Grambling State University, all located in his home state of Louisiana. Sen. Richard Lugar will be the keynote speaker at Ball State University, which is located in his home of Indiana. California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, will be addressing USC.
Conservative speakers are often big targets for protest. Students and teachers literally turned their backs on President Bush during his annual addresses, and an English professor even resigned when Condoleezza Rice spoke at Boston College in 2006.
This year hasn't been much of an exception -- and the protests have started well before the pomp and circumstance.
Meg Whitman, the former CEO of eBay who's running for governor of California as a Republican, canceled her speech at UCLA's Anderson School of Management in the wake of protests over her support for Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in the state.
Conservative Ben Stein was uninvited as speaker at the University of Vermont because of his views on evolution. He was replaced by former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean .
J. Harvie Wilkinson, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals, is facing fire at the University of Virginia Law School, where he'll be speaking May 17. Students have objected to his views on issues like affirmative action and detentions of enemy combatants.
But the furor and froth have gone both ways this year. President Obama's coming address at Notre Dame has set off students and faculty at the Catholic university. And Sen. Bob Casey Jr., a Democrat, withdrew as commencement speaker from St. Vincent's College in Pennsylvania after a Catholic bishop criticized him for his support of funding groups that provide abortions overseas.
Conservatives, whose campus woes look to continue for the foreseeable future, may find a kindred spirit in at least one Cabinet member who seems to have fallen out of favor with the campus crowd.
Notably absent from the stage this year is Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, who would seem like a hot property in a year defined by the financial crisis. Geithner, who President Obama joked is being treated like a fire hydrant by the big dogs in Washington, isn't making the rounds at any universities.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/14/conservative-speakers-widely-shunned-graduation-ceremonies/
-
Not surprising.
Conservative Speakers Widely Shunned at Graduation Ceremonies
While Democrats are making the rounds as keynote speakers across the country, you won't see conservatives making addresses at graduation ceremonies just about anywhere.
FOXNews.com
Friday, May 15, 2009
It's not enough that Democrats have command of some key real estate in Washington. This month, they've also got the ear of just about every college student in the country.
Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and White house chief of staff Rahm Emanuel all have multiple invites to be keynote speakers at graduations this spring.
And while President Obama is pulling a hat trick at Notre Dame, Arizona State and the U.S. Naval Academy, you won't see one of that last institution's most famous graduates on stage anywhere this year.
John McCain ... Sarah Palin ... Mitt Romney ... Rudy Giuliani ... they aren't on anyone's program in 2009. Rush Limbaugh or Newt Gingrich? Persona non grata, thank you very much.
So whatever happened to conservatives?
Education watchdogs say it's nothing strange for conservatives to be shunned from the academy, and that the one-sided invitations have become a permanent fixture of the ivory tower.
"The colleges have been transformed," said David Horowitz, whose organization, Students for Academic Freedom, tracks ideological bias on campus. "They're now these partisan institutions. They're not going to change."
Horowitz ran a study in 2003 that looked at commencement speakers at 32 top institutions in the U.S. for the previous 10 years. He found that liberals and Democrats were favored over conservatives by a ratio of 15-1. And then he stopped counting.
"It's permanent. It's not going to change, partly because there's so little attention being paid to it," he told FOXNews.com.
A few conservatives have gotten invites this year, though you could probably cram them all into a compact car.
Gov. Bobby Jindal will be addressing Loyola University, Louisiana Tech, and Grambling State University, all located in his home state of Louisiana. Sen. Richard Lugar will be the keynote speaker at Ball State University, which is located in his home of Indiana. California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, will be addressing USC.
Conservative speakers are often big targets for protest. Students and teachers literally turned their backs on President Bush during his annual addresses, and an English professor even resigned when Condoleezza Rice spoke at Boston College in 2006.
This year hasn't been much of an exception -- and the protests have started well before the pomp and circumstance.
Meg Whitman, the former CEO of eBay who's running for governor of California as a Republican, canceled her speech at UCLA's Anderson School of Management in the wake of protests over her support for Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in the state.
Conservative Ben Stein was uninvited as speaker at the University of Vermont because of his views on evolution. He was replaced by former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean .
J. Harvie Wilkinson, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals, is facing fire at the University of Virginia Law School, where he'll be speaking May 17. Students have objected to his views on issues like affirmative action and detentions of enemy combatants.
But the furor and froth have gone both ways this year. President Obama's coming address at Notre Dame has set off students and faculty at the Catholic university. And Sen. Bob Casey Jr., a Democrat, withdrew as commencement speaker from St. Vincent's College in Pennsylvania after a Catholic bishop criticized him for his support of funding groups that provide abortions overseas.
Conservatives, whose campus woes look to continue for the foreseeable future, may find a kindred spirit in at least one Cabinet member who seems to have fallen out of favor with the campus crowd.
Notably absent from the stage this year is Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, who would seem like a hot property in a year defined by the financial crisis. Geithner, who President Obama joked is being treated like a fire hydrant by the big dogs in Washington, isn't making the rounds at any universities.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/14/conservative-speakers-widely-shunned-graduation-ceremonies/
All neoconservatives, either self-professed or by default. Buchanan, RP, these are real conservatives.
-
Real, fiscal conservatives have been banned from participation. The far right has hijacked the platform and reduced conservatism to a joke with abortion and gay marriage as its punch-line.
-
Real, fiscal conservatives have been banned from participation. The far right has hijacked the platform and reduced conservatism to a joke with abortion and gay marriage as its punch-line.
MFQFT
-
All neoconservatives, either self-professed or by default. Buchanan, RP, these are real conservatives.
What is your definition of "neoconservative"?
-
Real, fiscal conservatives have been banned from participation. The far right has hijacked the platform and reduced conservatism to a joke with abortion and gay marriage as its punch-line.
Opposition to homosexual marriage crosses party lines. Rejected by a 70 percent margin here, and we might have about 100 conservatives in the entire state. :)
How do you think abortion has become a punchline for conservatives?
-
What is your definition of "neoconservative"?
A neoconservative is someone for big government, big spending, who is invasive on social issues, supports/promotes needless war and overseas spending, against civil liberties, etc.
-
A neoconservative is someone for big government, big spending, who invasive on social issues, supports/promotes needless war and overseas spending, against civil liberties, etc.
Thanks. That's about the third or fourth different definition I've read on the board.
How is it that McCain, Palin, Romney, and Rudy fall into that category?
Actually, that sounds an awful lot like Obama: massive increase in government, big spending, and supporting at least some presence in Iraq and increased presence in Afghanistan. (Not sure what "invasive on social issues" means.)
-
A neoconservative is someone for big government, big spending, who invasive on social issues, supports/promotes needless war and overseas spending, against civil liberties, etc.
I'd add that they're also for blending religion into secular society and even into science. They like using religion because they know it helps control the dumber members of their party
-
Thanks. That's about the third or fourth different definition I've read on the board.
How is it that McCain, Palin, Romney, and Rudy fall into that category?
Actually, that sounds an awful lot like Obama: massive increase in government, big spending, and supporting at least some presence in Iraq and increased presence in Afghanistan. (Not sure what "invasive on social issues" means.)
There are many similarities between neoliberals and neoconservatives; they are almost the same thing, just like Bush and Obama are very similar on key issues. Invasive on social issues; drug war, gay marriage, etc.
-
There are many similarities between neoliberals and neoconservatives; they are almost the same thing, just like Bush and Obama are very similar on key issues. Invasive on social issues; drug war, gay marriage, etc.
Drug war is bipartisan. Opposition to homosexual marriage is bipartisan.
But regarding the article, if the parties are so similar, then what's the explanation for the clear bias when it comes to commencement speakers? I think it's liberal censorship.
-
Drug war is bipartisan. Opposition to homosexual marriage is bipartisan.
But regarding the article, if the parties are so similar, then what's the explanation for the clear bias when it comes to commencement speakers? I think it's liberal censorship.
nice conspiracy theory.
it's not difficult to figure out.
most colleges have large #'s of smart people (students and faculty) who have rejected most if not all of what conservatives (I should say neocons) stand for.
There is no "demand" to hear their message.
-
Opposition to homosexual marriage crosses party lines. Rejected by a 70 percent margin here, and we might have about 100 conservatives in the entire state. :)
How do you think abortion has become a punchline for conservatives?
The problem with becoming a two issue party is that too many people get eliminated.
The entire country has been going to shit for years and all what have conservatives been worrying about? Gay marriage and abortion so the family could be 'protected'. Clinton, outsourcing jobs, NAFTA, GAT, China buying all our debt, two wars, millions of jobs lost, growing the Govt post 911 and they're still pretending gay marriage is the biggest threat to American families.
No freaking jobs is the American family's biggest threat!!
-
The problem with becoming a two issue party is that too many people get eliminated.
The entire country has been going to shit for years and all what have conservatives been worrying about? Gay marriage and abortion so the family could be 'protected'. Clinton, outsourcing jobs, NAFTA, GAT, China buying all our debt, two wars, millions of jobs lost, growing the Govt post 911 and they're still pretending gay marriage is the biggest threat to American families.
No freaking jobs is the American family's biggest threat!!
The truth just gushing forth with every post; I am not one to praise needlessly but you could have spoken my mind right there. :)
-
The truth just gushing forth with every post; I am not one to praise needlessly but you could have spoken my mind right there. :)
I also don't believe the lack of gay marriage is an important social/cultural issue.
-
I also don't believe the lack of gay marriage is an important social/cultural issue.
Meh, I am indifferent to it. Not important at all compared to all the other stuff going on...for sure.
-
I'd add that they're also for blending religion into secular society and even into science. They like using religion because they know it helps control the dumber members of their party
I would disagree with that to some extent. I'm thinking you might mean particularly gay marriage and abortion, although there might be more to it. People can be Christian denominations and keep their faith out of it, although some do not. I can look at abortion from an objective standpoint and think it is wrong to kill a child.
With gay marriage, I think the socialization of a child has to do with a child's development into a gay person but that is my belief and it has nothing to do with being religious. I think the basic function of a man and woman is to procreate. Granted the state of CA has enough illegal Mexicans doing the work for the gay couples but I think it goes against basic nature. Bisexual tendencies are brought up by many here, including Deicide, and it does beg the question. There are documented cases of women becoming lesbians after their husbands die and the women will spend their dying days together. I think the basic question is why can't the term "marriage" be left alone when gay couples enjoy the same rights as straight couples? In conservative states the civil unions allow for the same rights, at least the ones I have visited.
As for what Deicide said about many neoconservatives, he is right. Bottom line. Aside from national security or law enforcement, I wish there was less government going on. People would have stayed self-sufficient if the government never became their crutch. Couple that with abuses of government on both sides, you see a very fucked future.
-
I can look at abortion from an objective standpoint and think it is wrong to kill a child.
I agree it's wrong to kill a child.
With gay marriage, I think the socialization of a child has to do with a child's development into a gay person but that is my belief and it has nothing to do with being religious.
aren't all gay people the result of straight marriage or at least straight sex?
-
I agree it's wrong to kill a child.
aren't all gay people the result of straight marriage or at least straight sex?
Absolutely; you are correct.
All I'm saying is that you can be against both of those things without bringing up religion.
-
Absolutely; you are correct.
All I'm saying is that you can be against both of those things without bringing up religion.
right on man
I don't belong to any religion
how about you?
-
right on man
I don't belong to any religion
how about you?
I do but I don't like to throw it in people's faces because I believe that is wrong. I do think that if people hold a belief because of religion that should not be hypocritical about it when faced with real life. I do have a problem with the hypocrisy all of us have with religion. I know many who spout their religious beliefs and then do not practice what they preach. I know people who claim to dislike abortion, follow a religion that opposes it but justify their abortion. The list goes on but I say a person should hold a belief and stick to it. I think it is impossible to remove religion from ones thinking because often religion and morality are tied but people make religion look bad in their actions not their beliefs. If you took religion out of rhetoric you can still send an effective moral message. I dislike people forcing religion down people's throats; that is wrong; that is not it's function. It is not a brainwashing tool and that is what many view it as because of political rhetoric. Muslims do it, Christians do it, etc. People preach religion and live terrible lives. I believe that even if you don't hold a particular religion sacred, you should live a good life. That is the basic message my religion has, along with others. My explanation could go on but in the end you should live a good life before you worry about others. My political beliefs coincide with my religious beliefs but I think the underlying message is morality and goodness. I disagree with things but I won't tell people they are going to hell if they don't act in a way or believe what I believe. All men can aspire to goodness. I hope that makes sense.
-
I would disagree with that to some extent. I'm thinking you might mean particularly gay marriage and abortion, although there might be more to it. People can be Christian denominations and keep their faith out of it, although some do not. I can look at abortion from an objective standpoint and think it is wrong to kill a child.
With gay marriage, I think the socialization of a child has to do with a child's development into a gay person but that is my belief and it has nothing to do with being religious. I think the basic function of a man and woman is to procreate. Granted the state of CA has enough illegal Mexicans doing the work for the gay couples but I think it goes against basic nature. Bisexual tendencies are brought up by many here, including Deicide, and it does beg the question. There are documented cases of women becoming lesbians after their husbands die and the women will spend their dying days together. I think the basic question is why can't the term "marriage" be left alone when gay couples enjoy the same rights as straight couples? In conservative states the civil unions allow for the same rights, at least the ones I have visited.
As for what Deicide said about many neoconservatives, he is right. Bottom line. Aside from national security or law enforcement, I wish there was less government going on. People would have stayed self-sufficient if the government never became their crutch. Couple that with abuses of government on both sides, you see a very fucked future.
Does this include maintaining a trillion+ dollar overseas empire? THAT has NOTHING to do with national security.
-
All men can aspire to goodness. I hope that makes sense.
(http://www.jaguarenterprises.net/images/but.gif) ...what about women? Don't we count too? ...or are we just for making babies? ???
-
Not surprising at all.
The majority of mainstream America population has no interest in conservatives and their out of touch message.
-
Not surprising at all.
The majority of mainstream America population has no interest in conservatives and their out of touch message.
Academia, where liberals predominate, are not going to invite conservative speakers. How hard is this to understand.
Those who can do, do, those who cant . . . .teach.
-
Academia, where liberals predominate, are not going to invite conservative speakers. How hard is this to understand.
Those who can do, do, those who cant . . . .teach.
But as it was mentioned in the beginning, none of the people in BB's arsenal are conservatives. They are far right relgious wackos and big spenders, warmongers and liars.
-
But as it was mentioned in the beginning, none of the people in BB's arsenal are conservatives. They are far right relgious wackos and big spenders, warmongers and liars.
Why not get successful entrprenuers as speakers to tellt hese kids what it takes to succeed?
I would rather hear from Michael Bloomberg how he started his company and got started than some liberal nut who rails against America.
Additionally, if I were graduating with massive $$$$ loans and ZERO told me to go work for a not for profit, I would probably puke.
-
(http://www.jaguarenterprises.net/images/but.gif) ...what about women? Don't we count too? ...or are we just for making babies? ???
Haha, no you are all like Eve...evil! Jk, no all PEOPLE can aspire to goodness.
Why not get successful entrprenuers as speakers to tellt hese kids what it takes to succeed?
I would rather hear from Michael Bloomberg how he started his company and got started than some liberal nut who rails against America.
Additionally, if I were graduating with massive $$$$ loans and ZERO told me to go work for a not for profit, I would probably puke.
Not to mention that Barry is carrying on Bush's policies but in worse ways and with more spending. The idiots in college are too stupid to recognize that. They think he is all about change.
-
Far-right repubs refuse to change their party platform. Instead, they want the country to chaneg.
Many more moderate repubs believe by accepting and embracing the middle-of-road social voters with right-leaning fiscal beliefs, they can win some senate seats back.
Guys like Cheney, however, don't want this.
Guys like Crist and Ridge do.
-
Why not get successful entrprenuers as speakers to tellt hese kids what it takes to succeed?
I would rather hear from Michael Bloomberg how he started his company and got started than some liberal nut who rails against America.
Additionally, if I were graduating with massive $$$$ loans and ZERO told me to go work for a not for profit, I would probably puke.
Bloomberg might be rich but he is lying scum like most of them.
-
Bloomberg might be rich but he is lying scum like most of them.
On the business side, the man is a genius.
-
On the business side, the man is a genius.
So what? What good does that do if he is a lying scumbag like most politicians?
-
If I have a choice between a liar who has accomplishments like Bloomberg, or a liar like Zero - I will take Bloomberg.
-
If I have a choice between a liar who has accomplishments like Bloomberg, or a liar like Zero - I will take Bloomberg.
Sure but there are people with principles out there
-
Excerpt from Richard Posner's latest blog entry:
My theme is the intellectual decline of conservatism, and it is notable that the policies of the new conservatism are powered largely by emotion and religion and have for the most part weak intellectual groundings. That the policies are weak in conception, have largely failed in execution, and are political flops is therefore unsurprising. The major blows to conservatism, culminating in the election and programs of Obama, have been fourfold: the failure of military force to achieve U.S. foreign policy objectives; the inanity of trying to substitute will for intellect, as in the denial of global warming, the use of religious criteria in the selection of public officials, the neglect of management and expertise in government; a continued preoccupation with abortion; and fiscal incontinence in the form of massive budget deficits, the Medicare drug plan, excessive foreign borrowing, and asset-price inflation.
By the fall of 2008, the face of the Republican Party had become Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber. Conservative intellectuals had no party.
-
Bloomberg might be rich but he is lying scum like most of them.
I'm pretty familiar with Bloomberg..what has he said or done that makes him a lying scum? Because he's successful and has entered politics.. and is not of the liberal persuasion..that makes him scum? I'm sure you probably believe his wealth should be confiscated and redistributed to the more useless factions of society..Of course this worked so well in Cuba. That's why people for years have risked their lives to come to the U.S.
-
Excerpt from Richard Posner's latest blog entry:
My theme is the intellectual decline of conservatism, and it is notable that the policies of the new conservatism are powered largely by emotion and religion and have for the most part weak intellectual groundings. That the policies are weak in conception, have largely failed in execution, and are political flops is therefore unsurprising. The major blows to conservatism, culminating in the election and programs of Obama, have been fourfold: the failure of military force to achieve U.S. foreign policy objectives; the inanity of trying to substitute will for intellect, as in the denial of global warming, the use of religious criteria in the selection of public officials, the neglect of management and expertise in government; a continued preoccupation with abortion; and fiscal incontinence in the form of massive budget deficits, the Medicare drug plan, excessive foreign borrowing, and asset-price inflation.
By the fall of 2008, the face of the Republican Party had become Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber. Conservative intellectuals had no party.
He is correct. I personally feel the GOP needs to radically and rapidly move in the RP and Peter Schiff mold as opposed to the squishy nonsense from people like McLame, Grahm, etc.
-
I'm pretty familiar with Bloomberg..what has he said or done that makes him a lying scum? Because he's successful and has entered politics.. and is not of the liberal persuasion..that makes him scum? I'm sure you probably believe his wealth should be confiscated and redistributed to the more useless factions of society..Of course this worked so well in Cuba. That's why people for years have risked their lives to come to the U.S.
Do you read what I post? ::) I am likely more conservative than you are. Why don't you read the things I post before imputing garbage to me like the crap you wrote above.
-
If I have a choice between a liar who has accomplishments like Bloomberg, or a liar like Zero - I will take Bloomberg.
George Soros is worth a lot more than Bloomy.
Wil you be voting soros in 2012?
-
Excerpt from Richard Posner's latest blog entry:
My theme is the intellectual decline of conservatism, and it is notable that the policies of the new conservatism are powered largely by emotion and religion and have for the most part weak intellectual groundings. That the policies are weak in conception, have largely failed in execution, and are political flops is therefore unsurprising. The major blows to conservatism, culminating in the election and programs of Obama, have been fourfold: the failure of military force to achieve U.S. foreign policy objectives; the inanity of trying to substitute will for intellect, as in the denial of global warming, the use of religious criteria in the selection of public officials, the neglect of management and expertise in government; a continued preoccupation with abortion; and fiscal incontinence in the form of massive budget deficits, the Medicare drug plan, excessive foreign borrowing, and asset-price inflation.
By the fall of 2008, the face of the Republican Party had become Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber. Conservative intellectuals had no party.
Sad but true SM. I saw Palin as a means to secure some female voters and the Religious Right, and she screwed the pooch. Romney would have been a better choice. Palin needed another 4-8 years of experience, period. She had about the same experience as Barry but she just came off as an idiot, he did not. The Republican party doesn't realize that it can still value Christian beliefs without alienating others throughout the country. I did not like anyone I saw running in the Republican Party. McCain was simply a lesser of two evils for me in the National election. He has more experience and I do not support Barry's social policies. The Republican party needs a strong confident voice, not someone who comes off as a nutjob. Rush is right though. The Republican Party needs to stop apologizing for its beliefs and use them as a tool to get elected again. It is possible but the right message coming out of the wrong mouth(s) is not helping.
-
Sad but true SM. I saw Palin as a means to secure some female voters and the Religious Right, and she screwed the pooch. Romney would have been a better choice. Palin needed another 4-8 years of experience, period. She had about the same experience as Barry but she just came off as an idiot, he did not. The Republican party doesn't realize that it can still value Christian beliefs without alienating others throughout the country. I did not like anyone I saw running in the Republican Party. McCain was simply a lesser of two evils for me in the National election. He has more experience and I do not support Barry's social policies. The Republican party needs a strong confident voice, not someone who comes off as a nutjob. Rush is right though. The Republican Party needs to stop apologizing for its beliefs and use them as a tool to get elected again. It is possible but the right message coming out of the wrong mouth(s) is not helping.
Rush is wrong. The Republican party needs to find its beliefs and apologize for abandoning true conservatism and adopting a two topic (Gay marriage & abortion) platform.
-
Rush is wrong. The Republican party needs to find its beliefs and apologize for abandoning true conservatism and adopting a two topic (Gay marriage & abortion) platform.
Good point, but I believe a real economic conservative who has more than an econ 101 understanding of $$$$, who can articulate the hazards of liberal economic policy is the ticket to winning as well.
Most of the fools in the GOP have ZERO economic experience and understanding.
-
Rush is wrong. The Republican party needs to find its beliefs and apologize for abandoning true conservatism and adopting a two topic (Gay marriage & abortion) platform.
Spot on.
-
Good point, but I believe a real economic conservative who has more than an econ 101 understanding of $$$$, who can articulate the hazards of liberal economic policy is the ticket to winning as well.
Most of the fools in the GOP have ZERO economic experience and understanding.
Is they were antiwar as well they would gain a tremendous following.
-
Rush and Cheney keep saying the country needs to change.
it's not going to. People aren't going to start practicing abstinence tomorrow. The repubs have to soften positions just a little - and accept the moderates it keeps pushing away. imagine Charlie Crist jumping to the Dem party about 5 minutes after winning the FL Senate seat in 2010 so that he can drive a lot more $ to his state.
-
Rush is wrong. The Republican party needs to find its beliefs and apologize for abandoning true conservatism and adopting a two topic (Gay marriage & abortion) platform.
I don't think they should abandon those topics necessarily but Rush has even said that the Republican party needs to go back to its roots but they keep changing a lot of things to get elected; basically they are telling the people what they want to hear. Conservatives are not what they used to be. I see very little different between political ideologies at this point, so you are right. Fiscal conservatism could go a long way in getting people elected but try explaining that to this country. Good points guys.
-
I don't think they should abandon those topics necessarily but Rush has even said that the Republican party needs to go back to its roots but they keep changing a lot of things to get elected; basically they are telling the people what they want to hear. Conservatives are not what they used to be. I see very little different between political ideologies at this point, so you are right. Fiscal conservatism could go a long way in getting people elected but try explaining that to this country. Good points guys.
For those in charge of the party's direction conservatism boils down to those two issues. Unless this changes, nothing else will.
The last fiscal conservative was probably executed on 9/12/2001. Republicans are all big Govt now and spend worse than liberal democrats could ever dare dream.
-
For those in charge of the party's direction conservatism boils down to those two issues. Unless this changes, nothing else will.
The last fiscal conservative was probably executed on 9/12/2001. Republicans are all big Govt now and spend worse than liberal democrats could ever dare dream.
You are right. I don't see much difference aside from those two issues. We need to cut domestic spending and really we can win our conflicts without the massive amounts of troops we have. I think a large scale operation in Iraq is okay, based on what those better informed have told me, but as far as Afghanistan goes...conventional troops are just not made for that type of conflict. Any book I have ever read on Afghanistan shows that. The Soviet Army learned that the hard way. This may not be what lobbyists want but it's a lot cheaper to trained hardened Afghans to fight than to expect conventional units to embrace the culture and do more than patrol. 350 SF and 100 CIA operatives took the Stan in a little over 2 months. Think about it. I don't oppose large scale warfare over there because of the human element but based on what I have been told, it is not tactically sound.
On the domestic front the politicians do what the lobbyists want in order to get reelected. I doubt but a handful of politicians in DC care what the people want. We don't want illegals, we want less taxes, we want less poor, better education, etc. The means to go about these things are very simple but neither side will do what truly needs to be done.
-
You are right. I don't see much difference aside from those two issues. We need to cut domestic spending and really we can win our conflicts without the massive amounts of troops we have. I think a large scale operation in Iraq is okay, based on what those better informed have told me, but as far as Afghanistan goes...conventional troops are just not made for that type of conflict. Any book I have ever read on Afghanistan shows that. The Soviet Army learned that the hard way. This may not be what lobbyists want but it's a lot cheaper to trained hardened Afghans to fight than to expect conventional units to embrace the culture and do more than patrol. 350 SF and 100 CIA operatives took the Stan in a little over 2 months. Think about it. I don't oppose large scale warfare over there because of the human element but based on what I have been told, it is not tactically sound.
On the domestic front the politicians do what the lobbyists want in order to get reelected. I doubt but a handful of politicians in DC care what the people want. We don't want illegals, we want less taxes, we want less poor, better education, etc. The means to go about these things are very simple but neither side will do what truly needs to be done.
We should cut spending everywhere and overseas should be the first place we do it, not the other way around.
-
We should cut spending everywhere and overseas should be the first place we do it, not the other way around.
Whatever's clever dude. It needs to happen though.
-
What is your definition of "neoconservative"?
I know you like to pretend there is no such thing just because you get a few different definitions. but they're not a mythical creature, they actually do exist and they called themselves neoconservatives before the term became unpopular.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Neoconservative
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism
Even the dictionary has a watered down definition:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/neoconservative
-
Not surprising.
It's not surprising because republicans are less popular than Venezuela under Hugo Chavez ;D
http://www.openleft.com/diary/12937/republicans-less-popular-than-venezuela
-
There are many similarities between neoliberals and neoconservatives; they are almost the same thing, just like Bush and Obama are very similar on key issues. Invasive on social issues; drug war, gay marriage, etc.
what your definition of neoliberal?
-
what your definition of neoliberal?
Fairly close to neocons with some minor ideological differences; outcome is the same.
-
Fairly close to neocons with some minor ideological differences; outcome is the same.
Bingo. Both like to flush money down the drain, just different toilets.
-
I'd generalize and say neocons are akin to fascists
-
Fairly close to neocons with some minor ideological differences; outcome is the same.
A Primer on Neoliberalism
http://www.globalissues.org/article/39/a-primer-on-neoliberalism
Neoliberalism:
The main points of neo-liberalism include:
THE RULE OF THE MARKET. Liberating "free" enterprise or private enterprise from any bonds imposed by the government (the state) no matter how much social damage this causes. Greater openness to international trade and investment, as in NAFTA. Reduce wages by de-unionizing workers and eliminating workers' rights that had been won over many years of struggle. No more price controls. All in all, total freedom of movement for capital, goods and services. To convince us this is good for us, they say "an unregulated market is the best way to increase economic growth, which will ultimately benefit everyone." It's like Reagan's "supply-side" and "trickle-down" economics -- but somehow the wealth didn't trickle down very much.
CUTTING PUBLIC EXPENDITURE FOR SOCIAL SERVICES like education and health care. REDUCING THE SAFETY-NET FOR THE POOR, and even maintenance of roads, bridges, water supply -- again in the name of reducing government's role. Of course, they don't oppose government subsidies and tax benefits for business.
DEREGULATION. Reduce government regulation of everything that could diminsh profits, including protecting the environmentand safety on the job.
PRIVATIZATION. Sell state-owned enterprises, goods and services to private investors. This includes banks, key industries, railroads, toll highways, electricity, schools, hospitals and even fresh water. Although usually done in the name of greater efficiency, which is often needed, privatization has mainly had the effect of concentrating wealth even more in a few hands and making the public pay even more for its needs.
ELIMINATING THE CONCEPT OF "THE PUBLIC GOOD" or "COMMUNITY" and replacing it with "individual responsibility." Pressuring the poorest people in a society to find solutions to their lack of health care, education and social security all by themselves -- then blaming them, if they fail, as "lazy."
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=376
-
A Primer on Neoliberalism
http://www.globalissues.org/article/39/a-primer-on-neoliberalism
Neoliberalism:
The main points of neo-liberalism include:
THE RULE OF THE MARKET. Liberating "free" enterprise or private enterprise from any bonds imposed by the government (the state) no matter how much social damage this causes. Greater openness to international trade and investment, as in NAFTA. Reduce wages by de-unionizing workers and eliminating workers' rights that had been won over many years of struggle. No more price controls. All in all, total freedom of movement for capital, goods and services. To convince us this is good for us, they say "an unregulated market is the best way to increase economic growth, which will ultimately benefit everyone." It's like Reagan's "supply-side" and "trickle-down" economics -- but somehow the wealth didn't trickle down very much.
CUTTING PUBLIC EXPENDITURE FOR SOCIAL SERVICES like education and health care. REDUCING THE SAFETY-NET FOR THE POOR, and even maintenance of roads, bridges, water supply -- again in the name of reducing government's role. Of course, they don't oppose government subsidies and tax benefits for business.
DEREGULATION. Reduce government regulation of everything that could diminsh profits, including protecting the environmentand safety on the job.
PRIVATIZATION. Sell state-owned enterprises, goods and services to private investors. This includes banks, key industries, railroads, toll highways, electricity, schools, hospitals and even fresh water. Although usually done in the name of greater efficiency, which is often needed, privatization has mainly had the effect of concentrating wealth even more in a few hands and making the public pay even more for its needs.
ELIMINATING THE CONCEPT OF "THE PUBLIC GOOD" or "COMMUNITY" and replacing it with "individual responsibility." Pressuring the poorest people in a society to find solutions to their lack of health care, education and social security all by themselves -- then blaming them, if they fail, as "lazy."
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=376
That's a very biased definition. Roosevelt was a neoliberal as was Wilson. Foreign interventionism is another big thing.
-
Now you can take a person who is neoconservative and point out their neoliberal philosophies or even people like Hillary and Bill Clinton and point out their same neoliberal philosophies but to just say neoliberal=neocon is a overly simplistic and limits the functional use of the term.
-
That's a very biased definition. Roosevelt was a neoliberal as was Wilson. Foreign interventionism is another big thing.
no it's not bias ::) Infact it's the understanding of the term used by most of the world. It's actually one of the first times I've seen you dump a global perspective for a narrow US understanding.
-
ne·o·lib·er·al·ism [ n ō líbbərə lìzzəm, n ō líbbrə lìzzəm ]
noun
Definition:
political philosophy: the political view, arising in the 1960s, that emphasizes the importance of economic growth and asserts that social justice is best maintained by minimal government interference and free market forces
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861682953/neoliberalism.html
-
ne·o·lib·er·al·ism [ n ō líbbərə lìzzəm, n ō líbbrə lìzzəm ]
noun
Definition:
political philosophy: the political view, arising in the 1960s, that emphasizes the importance of economic growth and asserts that social justice is best maintained by minimal government interference and free market forces
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861682953/neoliberalism.html
I was focusing on foreign policy in particular. Bill Clinton was a neoliberal; how did he greatly differ from GW?
-
I'd generalize and say neocons are akin to fascists
What's wrong with fascists Straw? ???
-
Deicide, Ron Paul is a neoliberal. See, it's your use of the word that I think is limiting. Under the proper use of the term, I can talk about Ron Paul's neoliberal views. I can't under your use of the word. I mean he sure in the hell in not a neocon.
Liberal theory goes back a very long way, of course, to the 18th century: John Locke, Adam Smith, and writers of that sort. Then economics changed quite a bit towards the end of the 19th century and neoliberalism is a really revival of the 18th century liberal doctrine about freedoms and individual liberties connected to a very specific view of the market. And the leading figures in that are Milton Friedman in this country and Friedrich Hayek in Austria. In 1947 they formed a society to promote neoliberal values called the Mont Pelerin Society. It was a minor society but it got a lot of support from wealthy contributors and corporations to polemicize on the ideas it held.
http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/lilley190606.html
Milton Friedman 1912-2006
by Ron Paul
"Milton Friedman was a strong advocate of economic liberty who opposed government intervention in both the purely economic and broader social spheres of our society. "
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul352.html
-
Deicide, Ron Paul is a neoliberal. See, it's your use of the word that I think is limiting. Under the proper use of the term, I can talk about Ron Paul's neoliberal views. I can't under your use of the word. I mean he sure in the hell in not a neocon.
Liberal theory goes back a very long way, of course, to the 18th century: John Locke, Adam Smith, and writers of that sort. Then economics changed quite a bit towards the end of the 19th century and neoliberalism is a really revival of the 18th century liberal doctrine about freedoms and individual liberties connected to a very specific view of the market. And the leading figures in that are Milton Friedman in this country and Friedrich Hayek in Austria. In 1947 they formed a society to promote neoliberal values called the Mont Pelerin Society. It was a minor society but it got a lot of support from wealthy contributors and corporations to polemicize on the ideas it held.
http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/lilley190606.html
Milton Friedman 1912-2006
by Ron Paul
"Milton Friedman was a strong advocate of economic liberty who opposed government intervention in both the purely economic and broader social spheres of our society. "
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul352.html
I disagree; I think RP is much closer to a Classic Liberal.
A]t the heart of classical liberalism", wrote Nancy L. Rosenblum and Robert C. Post, is a prescription: "Nurture voluntary associations. Limit the size, and more importantly, the scope of government. So long as the state provides a basic rule of law that steers people away from destructive or parasitic ways of life and in the direction of productive ways of life, society runs itself. If you want people to flourish, let them run their own lives."[20]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
-
I disagree; I think RP is much closer to a Classic Liberal.
A]t the heart of classical liberalism", wrote Nancy L. Rosenblum and Robert C. Post, is a prescription: "Nurture voluntary associations. Limit the size, and more importantly, the scope of government. So long as the state provides a basic rule of law that steers people away from destructive or parasitic ways of life and in the direction of productive ways of life, society runs itself. If you want people to flourish, let them run their own lives."[20]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
You're going to have a real hard time trying to wedge anyone into a specific category. Ron Paul by the proper definition strongly holds neoliberal views. But then so do globalists. So we can talk about a globalist's neoliberalism and we can talk about Ron Paul's but would that make Ron Paul a globalist? no... It's not that simple and then if you know the meanings and use them properly it is simple. Neocon=Neoliberal is not usefull in anyway and only limits the conversation.
Ron Paul is in line with Milton Friedman correct? Milton is one of the "Architects of Neoliberalism" (http://www.theecologist.org/pages/archive_detail.asp?content_id=687) Ron Paul believes in many of the ideologies that make up neoliberalism put forth by Friedman and the like. Is it not therefore correct to be able to talk about Ron Paul's neoliberal philosophies? Of course it is and that is proper with a proper understanding of terminologies. Neocon=Neoliberal is not usefull whatsoever.
-
You're going to have a real hard time trying to wedge anyone into a specific category. Ron Paul by the proper definition strongly holds neoliberal views. But then so do globalists. So we can talk about a globalist's neoliberalism and we can talk about Ron Paul's but would that make Ron Paul a globalist? no... It's not that simple and then if you know the meanings and use them properly it is simple. Neocon=Neoliberal is not usefull in anyway and only limits the conversation.
Ron Paul is in line with Milton Friedman correct? Milton is one of the "Architects of Neoliberalism" (http://www.theecologist.org/pages/archive_detail.asp?content_id=687) Ron Paul believes in many of the ideologies that make up neoliberalism put forth by Friedman and the like. Is it not therefore correct to be able to talk about Ron Paul's neoliberal philosophies? Of course it is and that is proper with a proper understanding of terminologies. Neocon=Neoliberal is not usefull whatsoever.
Hmm...that might be true. Too bad everyone forgot about Classical Liberalism....
-
Hmm...that might be true. Too bad everyone forgot about Classical Liberalism....
The only people who have are the ones that learned their politics from Rush Limbaugh and the like. People like Hedgehog and others here have lectured on classical liberalism for some time. To others it's just a label synonymous with "pinko commie"
-
The only people who have are the ones that learned their politics from Rush Limbaugh and the like. People like Hedgehog and others here have lectured on classical liberalism for some time. To others it's just a label synonymous with "pinko commie"
:'( :'( :'( :'(
-
"The principle that the end justifies the means is in individualist ethics regarded as the denial of all morals. In collectivist ethics it becomes necessarily the supreme rule."
-The Road to Serfdom, Friedrich Hayek
-
I'd generalize and say neocons are akin to fascists
No different than what modern liberals are. The two are exactly the same but for one or two issues.
-
nice conspiracy theory.
it's not difficult to figure out.
most colleges have large #'s of smart people (students and faculty) who have rejected most if not all of what conservatives (I should say neocons) stand for.
There is no "demand" to hear their message.
Yes,there is a HUGE demand to hear Ellen Degenerate speak and Michelle Obama with her 500.00 sneakers that she wears to feed the poor.Thats real enlightnment there.
-
Yes,there is a HUGE demand to hear Ellen Degenerate speak and Michelle Obama with her 500.00 sneakers that she wears to feed the poor.Thats real enlightnment there.
wtf does either have to do witht the topic (especially the comedian)
-
The problem with becoming a two issue party is that too many people get eliminated.
The entire country has been going to shit for years and all what have conservatives been worrying about? Gay marriage and abortion so the family could be 'protected'. Clinton, outsourcing jobs, NAFTA, GAT, China buying all our debt, two wars, millions of jobs lost, growing the Govt post 911 and they're still pretending gay marriage is the biggest threat to American families.
No freaking jobs is the American family's biggest threat!!
I really don't see conservatives focused on only two issues. Homosexual marriage is something that has been on the ballot in well over 30 states. It's something liberals and conservatives don't want. But it hasn't dominated the landscape. Hard to call this a partisan issue.
Same with abortion. Millions of people, including voters, care about abortion, but it hasn't dominated party platforms, speeches, political discourse, etc.
-
I really don't see conservatives focused on only two issues. Homosexual marriage is something that has been on the ballot in well over 30 states. It's something liberals and conservatives don't want. But it hasn't dominated the landscape. Hard to call this a partisan issue.
Same with abortion. Millions of people, including voters, care about abortion, but it hasn't dominated party platforms, speeches, political discourse, etc.
What's more important, the destruction of the dollar, run away inflation and the collapse of the American empire? Or gay marriage?
-
I know you like to pretend there is no such thing just because you get a few different definitions. but they're not a mythical creature, they actually do exist and they called themselves neoconservatives before the term became unpopular.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Neoconservative
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism
Even the dictionary has a watered down definition:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/neoconservative
Actually I simply pointed out, like I have in the past, that I've read varying definitions of the term "neoconservative."
-
wtf does either have to do witht the topic (especially the comedian)
You stated that there isnt a cry for conservative speakers.Yet this weekend BOTH Obama and Ellen degenerate gave commencment speaches at colleges.Are you saying that students are demanding idiots like this?
-
What's more important, the destruction of the dollar, run away inflation and the collapse of the American empire? Or gay marriage?
I think the issues you mentioned take precedence over an issue like homosexual marriage. But that's really a question based on a false premise: that discussion one issue means the exclusion of the others. That's simply not what happens. There are extremists who try and censor discussion of issues they don't like, or people who disagree with them, but that doesn't make the issue go away.
Plenty of people are able to discuss multiple issues.
-
I think the issues you mentioned take precedence over an issue like homosexual marriage. But that's really a question based on a false premise: that discussion one issue means the exclusion of the others. That's simply not what happens. There are extremists who try and censor discussion of issues they don't like, or people who disagree with them, but that doesn't make the issue go away.
Plenty of people are able to discuss multiple issues.
The irrelevant issue of gay marriage is being discussed to the exclusion of REAL issues like those mentioned above. There is virtually zero mainstream coverage on them.
-
You stated that there isnt a cry for conservative speakers.Yet this weekend BOTH Obama and Ellen degenerate gave commencment speaches at colleges.Are you saying that students are demanding idiots like this?
both are successful people and isn't that who usually get's invited to do these things.
this whole subject is such a non-issue.
Almost no one wants conservatives this year
tough titties
-
The irrelevant issue of gay marriage is being discussed to the exclusion of REAL issues like those mentioned above. There is virtually zero mainstream coverage on them.
Sadly, the average dolt can understand Gay marriage.
The issues discussed by Schiff and RP are too hard for these morons to comperhend.
-
The irrelevant issue of gay marriage is being discussed to the exclusion of REAL issues like those mentioned above. There is virtually zero mainstream coverage on them.
That's not true. Here are links to CNN and Fox. Do your own comparison.
http://www.cnn.com/
http://www.foxnews.com/
If you look at what is making the news and what is being discussed, it's hardly being dominated by homosexual marriage (or abortion).
-
That's not true. Here are links to CNN and Fox. Do your own comparison.
http://www.cnn.com/
http://www.foxnews.com/
If you look at what is making the news and what is being discussed, it's hardly being dominated by homosexual marriage (or abortion).
It'd be nice if the audit the fed bill were in there.