|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
 Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 5:26 am Post subject: A Conservative for Obama |
 |
|
Not just any conservative, either: Wick Allison, leading conservative intellectual, and for decades one the guiding hands behind The National Review.
The link to the full article is here.
| Quote: |
Liberalism always seemed to me to be a system of �oughts.� We ought to do this or that because it�s the right thing to do, regardless of whether it works or not. It is a doctrine based on intentions, not results, on feeling good rather than doing good.
But today it is so-called conservatives who are cemented to political programs when they clearly don�t work. The Bush tax cuts�a solution for which there was no real problem and which he refused to end even when the nation went to war�led to huge deficit spending and a $3 trillion growth in the federal debt. Facing this, John McCain pumps his �conservative� credentials by proposing even bigger tax cuts. Meanwhile, a movement that once fought for limited government has presided over the greatest growth of government in our history. That is not conservatism; it is profligacy using conservatism as a mask.
Today it is conservatives, not liberals, who talk with alarming bellicosity about making the world �safe for democracy.� It is John McCain who says America�s job is to �defeat evil,� a theological expansion of the nation�s mission that would make George Washington cough out his wooden teeth.
This kind of conservatism, which is not conservative at all, has produced financial mismanagement, the waste of human lives, the loss of moral authority, and the wreckage of our economy that McCain now threatens to make worse.
Barack Obama is not my ideal candidate for president. (In fact, I made the maximum donation to John McCain during the primaries, when there was still hope he might come to his senses.) But I now see that Obama is almost the ideal candidate for this moment in American history. I disagree with him on many issues. But those don�t matter as much as what Obama offers, which is a deeply conservative view of the world. Nobody can read Obama�s books (which, it is worth noting, he wrote himself) or listen to him speak without realizing that this is a thoughtful, pragmatic, and prudent man. It gives me comfort just to think that after eight years of George W. Bush we will have a president who has actually read the Federalist Papers.
Most important, Obama will be a realist. I doubt he will taunt Russia, as McCain has, at the very moment when our national interest requires it as an ally. The crucial distinction in my mind is that, unlike John McCain, I am convinced he will not impulsively take us into another war unless American national interests are directly threatened. |
That last bit I put in bold has been a foundation of my own support for the man since the start, by the way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
spliff
Joined: 19 Jan 2004
Location: Khon Kaen, Thailand
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 5:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| You r blowing out ur azzhole. bud. Good luck w/ that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 5:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Where do you people get these ideas?
In 2001, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Air Force Gen. Richard Myers said, "It is very clear that Afghanistan is only a small piece of the US campaign that could last more than a lifetime." This ideology has been a barrage articulated not only by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al., it is also the litany coming from the Democratic party, e.g. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
BO said on Sept. 4, 2007: "Hit Iran where it hurts." "Americans need to come together to confront the challenge posed by Iran. The war in Iraq has strengthened Iran which poses for us the greatest strategic challenge in the Middle East in a generation. Iran supports violent groups and sectarians in Iraq. Iran fuels terror and extremism in the Middle East. Iran is making progress on a nuclear program in defiance of the international community. Iran calls for Israel to be wiped off the map." He follows this up by calling for a pre-emptive military strike on Iran.
On Aug. 3, 2007, speaking at Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School of the International School for Scholars, BO called for a US attack on Pakistan, more troops in Afghanistan, and unilateral attacks on Iran and Pakistan, and strengthening the US military and intelligence apparatus across the planet.
You could not fit a sliver of paper in between the ideologies of Dick Cheney and Barack Obama.
This is a crisis of capitalism addicted to permanent war, a facade of public relations types bought and paid for, a millionaires' club that fronts for a concentrated structure of power. If we do not grasp this, or provide a strategy for struggle based upon the essential recognition of the nature of our society, we will but perpetuate its rule, and prevent ourselves from reaching out to our own constituency.
This is a shell game, or one of "good cop, bad cop," if you will. It is designed to lure us into picking and choosing among those who have in mind the same old story.
This has been condensed from 070918 Six Years After 9/11: Where Do We Go From Here? available for download from http://takingaimradio.com/shows/audio.html
Face it: BO stinks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 5:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| spliff wrote: |
| You r blowing out ur azzhole. bud. Good luck w/ that. |
Is that directed at the writer or the OP?
In either case, I'll take it that you mean to say, "I've got nothin'" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 5:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
Where do you people get these ideas?
In 2001, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Air Force Gen. Richard Myers said, "It is very clear that Afghanistan is only a small piece of the US campaign that could last more than a lifetime." This ideology has been a barrage articulated not only by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al., it is also the litany coming from the Democratic party, e.g. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
BO said on Sept. 4, 2007: "Hit Iran where it hurts." "Americans need to come together to confront the challenge posed by Iran. The war in Iraq has strengthened Iran which poses for us the greatest strategic challenge in the Middle East in a generation. Iran supports violent groups and sectarians in Iraq. Iran fuels terror and extremism in the Middle East. Iran is making progress on a nuclear program in defiance of the international community. Iran calls for Israel to be wiped off the map." He follows this up by calling for a pre-emptive military strike on Iran.
On Aug. 3, 2007, speaking at Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School of the International School for Scholars, BO called for a US attack on Pakistan, more troops in Afghanistan, and unilateral attacks on Iran and Pakistan, and strengthening the US military and intelligence apparatus across the planet.
You could not fit a sliver of paper in between the ideologies of Dick Cheney and Barack Obama.
....
This is a shell game, or one of "good cop, bad cop," if you will. It is designed to lure us into picking and choosing among those who have in mind the same old story.
This has been condensed from 070918 Six Years After 9/11: Where Do We Go From Here? available for download from http://takingaimradio.com/shows/audio.html
. |
bacasper didn't know you were for Obama ,
That post you just did could be a campaign ad for Obama.
Last edited by Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee on Fri Oct 03, 2008 5:46 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
spliff
Joined: 19 Jan 2004
Location: Khon Kaen, Thailand
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 5:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
I guess if you aren't in the line of fire it could be easily dismissed. Are you a conspiracy moonbat?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 6:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
Where do you people get these ideas?
In 2001, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Air Force Gen. Richard Myers said, "It is very clear that Afghanistan is only a small piece of the US campaign that could last more than a lifetime." This ideology has been a barrage articulated not only by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al., it is also the litany coming from the Democratic party, e.g. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
BO said on Sept. 4, 2007: "Hit Iran where it hurts." "Americans need to come together to confront the challenge posed by Iran. The war in Iraq has strengthened Iran which poses for us the greatest strategic challenge in the Middle East in a generation. Iran supports violent groups and sectarians in Iraq. Iran fuels terror and extremism in the Middle East. Iran is making progress on a nuclear program in defiance of the international community. Iran calls for Israel to be wiped off the map." He follows this up by calling for a pre-emptive military strike on Iran.
On Aug. 3, 2007, speaking at Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School of the International School for Scholars, BO called for a US attack on Pakistan, more troops in Afghanistan, and unilateral attacks on Iran and Pakistan, and strengthening the US military and intelligence apparatus across the planet.
You could not fit a sliver of paper in between the ideologies of Dick Cheney and Barack Obama.
....
This is a shell game, or one of "good cop, bad cop," if you will. It is designed to lure us into picking and choosing among those who have in mind the same old story.
This has been condensed from 070918 Six Years After 9/11: Where Do We Go From Here? available for download from http://takingaimradio.com/shows/audio.html
. |
bacasper didn't know you were for Obama ,
That post you just did could be a campaign ad for Obama. |
No, joo, YOU support Cheney and Obama, while far be it from ME to ever support a Demoblican. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gatsby
Joined: 09 Feb 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 6:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Wick Allison writes:
| Quote: |
Conservatism to me is less a political philosophy than a stance |
http://www.dmagazine.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?nm=Core+Pages&type=gen&mod=Core+Pages&tier=3&gid=B33A5C6E2CF04C9596A3EF81822D9F8E
From his explanation of what he considers "conservatism" it seems more like a fashion statement. And this guy was the publisher of the "National Review?" That explains a lot. William F. Buckley was one of the most hypocritical, pretentious creeps of the 20th century.
What we have with Wick Allison is one posturing conservative who decides he no longer likes the posturing of another so-called conservative, namely, Bush. It doesn't take a genius to see Bush's policies are a disaster, just five minutes of clear thinking. Too bad it took Allison eight years to find the time. And too bad for the country the so-called "conservatives" like Allison helped to turn the U.S. into "a banana republic with nukes."
A real conservative believes in a free market, without subsidies or unfair advantages, but with reasonable regulation to keep the game fair. Bush believed in a rigged game designed to help his buddies win every time. A conservative believes in liberty, and that government should interfere with the rights of the individual as little as possible, but enough to prevent others from interfering with his liberty.
Yes, it's the liberals who are speaking out against unwise military intervention. But this is not something that just happened in the past six month, like Allison seems to suggest; it's been going on for at least 40 years now. The liberals have tried valiantly to stop wars that have damaged America's reputation abroad, while the conservatives have called them sissies and commies, as though killing foreigners, especially of a different race, is part of their atrophied manhood.
Liberals were also called commies by conservatives for advocating radical ideas like racial integration and guaranteeing the constitutional right to vote to Blacks through (gasp!) federal laws.
Allison's piece says "my party has slipped its moorings." Shoot, your ship sailed years ago. And it didn't slip its moorings; it was hijacked.
The death of true conservatism didn't occur with the rise of McCain or even Bush. When was the last time we had a truly conservative President? It wasn't Reagan; he gave us about $4 trillion of new debt. I guess the closest was Gerald Ford. Nixon wasn't really a conservative; he imposed price controls as a response to inflation. That's why there was a severe beef shortage.
So what does this piece by Allison mean? A brainless twit like this doesn't think for himself. The behind the scenes conservative forces don't want McCain to win, at least some of them. Some of the reasons are probably as stated. Another reason is that the money conservatives like to tease the evangelicals along, but they don't really want them to gain the reins of power. If McCain-Palin won, the evangelicals might actually become the dominant force in the Republican Party, and the money men might lose control That's part of what Palin has been doing in Alaska under the guise of "reform." They are scared of a Palin Presidency. They don't trust her to stay bought.
On the other hand, there are real conservatives who are fed up with Bush and the Republicans. But they didn't find religion last month; they've been speaking out against Bush for years now. Several formerly conservative commentators in the press and on television are and have been explicit critics of Bush and McCain. David Gergen, who worked in the Nixon, Ford and Reagan administrations, is a prime example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Gergen
Pat Buchanan, who also worked for Nixon, as well as Ford and Reagan, is another.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Buchanan
Among his writings: "Where the Right Went Wrong: How Neoconservatives Subverted the Reagan Revolution and Hijacked the Bush Presidency"
http://www.amazon.com/Where-Right-Went-Wrong-Neoconservatives/dp/0312341156
Real philosophical conservatives and liberals have always been able to communicate with each other. It is precisely the muddleheaded fashion statement conservatives and the ultra-conceited neoncons who have destroyed the conservative movement and taken the country down with them.
There is nothing to save in the Republican Party. Anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves and is ignorant of history. What we are seeing so clearly in Bush, McCain and Palin really has its roots in the history of the Republican Party going back more than a century. The Republicans have always been ready to make a deal with the devil of the hour, including the Klu Klux Klan.
The KKK is not completely dead. It was absorbed by the GOP. Think about it. And watch for the race baiting by the GOP and McCain campaign. In case you missed it, there should be more coming.
I speak as someone who has worked for Republicans. After what I saw, I swore I would never, ever vote for another Republican for the rest of my life. I haven't, and I have not regretted any of my votes once I saw how the Republican winners behaved after taking office.
_____
Don't blame me. I voted for Tony. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gatsby wrote: |
From his explanation of what he considers "conservatism" it seems more like a fashion statement. |
Whether you call it a stance or a fashion statement doesn't matter much. Wicks is a conservative-conservative, a Goldwater conservative, from before anyone thought to make further distinctions like fiscal conservative, or social conservative or "neo-con."
And it would appear that he is voting for Obama.
| Quote: |
| There is nothing to save in the Republican Party. |
Yes. And that's the good news. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 4:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gatsby wrote: |
Wick Allison writes:
| Quote: |
Conservatism to me is less a political philosophy than a stance |
http://www.dmagazine.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?nm=Core+Pages&type=gen&mod=Core+Pages&tier=3&gid=B33A5C6E2CF04C9596A3EF81822D9F8E
From his explanation of what he considers "conservatism" it seems more like a fashion statement. And this guy was the publisher of the "National Review?" That explains a lot. William F. Buckley was one of the most hypocritical, pretentious creeps of the 20th century.
What we have with Wick Allison is one posturing conservative who decides he no longer likes the posturing of another so-called conservative, namely, Bush. It doesn't take a genius to see Bush's policies are a disaster, just five minutes of clear thinking. Too bad it took Allison eight years to find the time. And too bad for the country the so-called "conservatives" like Allison helped to turn the U.S. into "a banana republic with nukes."
A real conservative believes in a free market, without subsidies or unfair advantages, but with reasonable regulation to keep the game fair. Bush believed in a rigged game designed to help his buddies win every time. A conservative believes in liberty, and that government should interfere with the rights of the individual as little as possible, but enough to prevent others from interfering with his liberty.
Yes, it's the liberals who are speaking out against unwise military intervention. But this is not something that just happened in the past six month, like Allison seems to suggest; it's been going on for at least 40 years now. The liberals have tried valiantly to stop wars that have damaged America's reputation abroad, while the conservatives have called them sissies and commies, as though killing foreigners, especially of a different race, is part of their atrophied manhood.
Liberals were also called commies by conservatives for advocating radical ideas like racial integration and guaranteeing the constitutional right to vote to Blacks through (gasp!) federal laws.
Allison's piece says "my party has slipped its moorings." Shoot, your ship sailed years ago. And it didn't slip its moorings; it was hijacked.
The death of true conservatism didn't occur with the rise of McCain or even Bush. When was the last time we had a truly conservative President? It wasn't Reagan; he gave us about $4 trillion of new debt. I guess the closest was Gerald Ford. Nixon wasn't really a conservative; he imposed price controls as a response to inflation. That's why there was a severe beef shortage.
So what does this piece by Allison mean? A brainless twit like this doesn't think for himself. The behind the scenes conservative forces don't want McCain to win, at least some of them. Some of the reasons are probably as stated. Another reason is that the money conservatives like to tease the evangelicals along, but they don't really want them to gain the reins of power. If McCain-Palin won, the evangelicals might actually become the dominant force in the Republican Party, and the money men might lose control That's part of what Palin has been doing in Alaska under the guise of "reform." They are scared of a Palin Presidency. They don't trust her to stay bought.
On the other hand, there are real conservatives who are fed up with Bush and the Republicans. But they didn't find religion last month; they've been speaking out against Bush for years now. Several formerly conservative commentators in the press and on television are and have been explicit critics of Bush and McCain. David Gergen, who worked in the Nixon, Ford and Reagan administrations, is a prime example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Gergen
Pat Buchanan, who also worked for Nixon, as well as Ford and Reagan, is another.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Buchanan
Among his writings: "Where the Right Went Wrong: How Neoconservatives Subverted the Reagan Revolution and Hijacked the Bush Presidency"
http://www.amazon.com/Where-Right-Went-Wrong-Neoconservatives/dp/0312341156
Real philosophical conservatives and liberals have always been able to communicate with each other. It is precisely the muddleheaded fashion statement conservatives and the ultra-conceited neoncons who have destroyed the conservative movement and taken the country down with them.
There is nothing to save in the Republican Party. Anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves and is ignorant of history. What we are seeing so clearly in Bush, McCain and Palin really has its roots in the history of the Republican Party going back more than a century. The Republicans have always been ready to make a deal with the devil of the hour, including the Klu Klux Klan.
The KKK is not completely dead. It was absorbed by the GOP. Think about it. And watch for the race baiting by the GOP and McCain campaign. In case you missed it, there should be more coming.
I speak as someone who has worked for Republicans. After what I saw, I swore I would never, ever vote for another Republican for the rest of my life. I haven't, and I have not regretted any of my votes once I saw how the Republican winners behaved after taking office.
_____
Don't blame me. I voted for Tony. |
Liberals saying good stuff about Pat Buccanan. -Wow
By the way his views are closer to the views of the Klan than is the GOP not even close.
| Quote: |
Press Release
Pat Buchanan In His Own Words
2/26/96
Here is a sampling of Buchanan's views: |
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2553
The far left and the far right agree on just so many things.
You can join up with David Duke next -
from his website
http://www.davidduke.com/ you can see who he is not supporting for president.
Gatsby your rage against the president has led you to become intellectually and morally deficent . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 5:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I found this quote on the David Duke site. It's from a letter defending Duke against charges of Nazism.
"it seems his political persuasion is far more Libertarian than Nazi"
I find the irony rather delicious.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 5:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
I found this quote on the David Duke site. It's from a letter defending Duke against charges of Nazism.
"it seems his political persuasion is far more Libertarian than Nazi"
I find the irony rather delicious. |
Just curious who would you vote for Sarah Palin or Ron Paul ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 5:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Of course, delicious. In the middle of irony is Ron. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
