01 Feb '12 00:50>
Originally posted by no1marauderHave you stopped kicking your dog?
It's your entire argument this thread though like most of your arguments it's bereft of any facts to support it.
Originally posted by normbenignYou've repeatedly made the same claim i.e. Reagan did "good" things and that things that were "bad" during his term of office were someone else's fault. You've made the claim in reverse for Clinton's term of office.
Have you stopped kicking your dog?
Originally posted by TerrierJackYour left-wing socialists (as the right call them) are right-wing liberals to the rest of the world.
Now that we've seen that the 'conservatives' cannot even nominate one of their own in the Party they claim to control is it time to a conclude that 'conservatism' is finished as a political force in America? After all, if you use their own reckoning, the last 'conservative' President was Ronald Reagan (or Bill Clinton.) Neither Bush is a 'conservative.' ...[text shortened]... e in our private lives and increased government investment to improve our public lives?
Originally posted by shavixmirHmm. You may be onto something. Our right wingers often claim Hitler was to the left of them.
Your left-wing socialists (as the right call them) are right-wing liberals to the rest of the world.
Seriously, your right-wingers are so far to the right even Hitler blushes in shame.
What did the CIA call them? Oh yeah... "The Loonies".
Originally posted by AThousandYoungHiter?
Hmm. You may be onto something. Our right wingers often claim Hitler was to the left of them.
Originally posted by no1marauderI'm with you in cuts on military spending, if done correctly. I'm not sure that making the tax code more progressive, or less friendly to the investing class is serious.
I made one, but I'm sure you wouldn't like it. It called for big cuts in military spending and an end to preferential treatment for types of income that flows disproportionately to rich folks among other things.
Originally posted by no1marauderIt is your habit when face with something you have no logical answer to, to reword it to what you prefer I had said. Arguments do not require facts. Arguments are statements of logic based on premises (facts). If in fact you question a premise, it is easy enough to do, and doesn't require distorting the logic into a straw man.
It's your entire argument this thread though like most of your arguments it's bereft of any facts to support it.
Originally posted by no1marauderNot true. It is true, that regardless of the President, or opposing party, that Congress has responsibility for much of what happens. Clearly, Obama controlled both houses of Congress, with a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, and still had to bribe Senators of his own party to get Health Care done. George W. Bush could not get his agenda passed in the 2nd term while holding both Houses, the Senate however being nearly split. The result of this dynamic is that Presidents most often "horse-trade" stuff they don't want for stuff they do want.
You've repeatedly made the same claim i.e. Reagan did "good" things and that things that were "bad" during his term of office were someone else's fault. You've made the claim in reverse for Clinton's term of office.
A pattern seems to be emerging ......................................
Originally posted by shavixmirSorry, but Hitler and his National Socialism was a Marxist/Leftist party. Today's liberal has usurped the title. The political and philosophical arguments of the 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries were between liberals and collectivists/statists.
Your left-wing socialists (as the right call them) are right-wing liberals to the rest of the world.
Seriously, your right-wingers are so far to the right even Hitler blushes in shame.
What did the CIA call them? Oh yeah... "The Loonies".
Originally posted by normbenignIf arguments like this are what pass for 'conservatism' then no wonder it is dead. What I want to know is when can finally bury it 'cause it is starting to stink.
Sorry, but Hitler and his National Socialism was a Marxist/Leftist party. Today's liberal has usurped the title. The political and philosophical arguments of the 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries were between liberals and collectivists/statists.
On one side was utopians like Plato, More, Hobbs and Marx and the other Montesquieu and Locke. That is that nature of the debate, where it is still argued. The question is of liberty or tyranny.
Originally posted by normbenignHitler was bitterly opposed to Marxism and Communism and his party was allied with conservative, nationalist parties that largely shared his ideology. No amount of attempts to re-write history can change these facts.
Sorry, but Hitler and his National Socialism was a Marxist/Leftist party. Today's liberal has usurped the title. The political and philosophical arguments of the 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries were between liberals and collectivists/statists.
On one side was utopians like Plato, More, Hobbs and Marx and the other Montesquieu and Locke. That is that nature of the debate, where it is still argued. The question is of liberty or tyranny.
Originally posted by normbenignThere's an "investing class" that must be given favorable treatment, norm? Of course, they can't be treated like the peasants, can they?
I'm with you in cuts on military spending, if done correctly. I'm not sure that making the tax code more progressive, or less friendly to the investing class is serious.