[Bel_Esprit]

Discuss!

As long as it is not clear how Iraq is going to come out, Arab regimes can practice denial. But if there is a decent government elected in Baghdad in two years, it will be as easy to ignore as a 10.0 earthquake. I think Abdul Rahman al-Rashid, the editor of London's Asharq al-Awsat newspaper, got it right when he remarked to me of the U.S. invasion of Iraq: "It is a mix between Napoleon's invasion of Egypt and the 1967 war. There is the shock of defeat like '67 and the introduction of new thinking in the region like Napoleon. I can't predict how it will all come out, but for some reason I think it will be positive."

[vmpaul]

I read that article this morning. There's nothing in it that makes George Bush look progressive. I don't know where you get that.

Actually, I'm surprised at how conservative he's been. I really expected him to live up to his 'compassionate conservative' label and he's done nothing of the sort. He's been far more to the right than I thought he'd be.

You name it: environmental policy, energy, economic, social policy, health and medicine, political appts - all far to the right. I'd almost discount the international stuff if he'd been more patient with the UN before we invaded Iraq.

The only thing I'd say that he appeared progressive on was the foreign aid to Africa for AIDS relief. I really applaud him for that.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
I read that article this morning. There's nothing in it that makes George Bush look progressive. I don't know where you get that.

Actually, I'm surprised at how conservative he's been. I really expected him to live up to his 'compassionate conservative' label and he's done nothing of the sort. He's been far more to the right than I thought he'd be.

You name it: environmental policy, energy, economic, social policy, health and medicine, political appts - all far to the right. I'd almost discount the international stuff if he'd been more patient with the UN before we invaded Iraq.

The only thing I'd say that he appeared progressive on was the foreign aid to Africa for AIDS relief. I really applaud him for that.

And pushing for a federal prescription drug program - that's not progressive? And exactly which Democrat-sponsored bills has Bush vetoed? I'm curious.

[Bel_Esprit]

So in five years will you eat your words if the Middle East is more democratic than present? How is this not progressive? Is progressive in your limited world view akin to merely handing out donations to third world countries in a valiant yet futile attempt to feel better about yourself? Why not give people, human beings if you will the opportunity for change? Again how is this not progressive?

[macvillage.net]

Yea. Bush is far from progressive.

I don't think the article infered that in any way/shape/form. Nor do I think anyone ever infers that.

he's completely the opposite. And very good at what he does.

American Politics is about balance. For each to the left, we need one to the right. None is good or bad, provided you have both. When one goes bad, the political spectrum leans. Closer to each end you get, closer to the infamous "anarchy" label that every text book illustrates. Since the political curve is really a circle (it completes with "anarchy" at the bottom).

Conservative is good, and liberal is good. Together. Separate, each is asking for trouble. Entire governments have colapsed when they shifted to much in any single direction.

[Bel_Esprit]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Yea. Bush is far from progressive.

Progressive to you(?): Gay marriage, legal abortion, soft bigotry otherwise known as affirmative action...I'm sorry but this is special interest B.S. Save it for your blog.

I trying to point out that the word progressive is more than a political party. Again how is a democratic Iraq state not progressive. Unless of course you feel totalitarianism is progressive?

[WinsOBoogi]

The Patriot Act is very progressive, I must say.

Hint of sarcasm.

Yes, let's deny people rights that we give in our own constitution. Way to go.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by WinsOBoogi:
The Patriot Act is very progressive, I must say.
Yes, let's deny people rights that we give in our own constitution. Way to go.

What constitutional rights were denied you?

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by Bel_Esprit:
So in five years will you eat your words if the Middle East is more democratic than present? How is this not progressive? Is progressive in your limited world view akin to merely handing out donations to third world countries in a valiant yet futile attempt to feel better about yourself? Why not give people, human beings if you will the opportunity for change? Again how is this not progressive?

No, I don't think pre-emptively invading, conquering and occupaying a another soverign nation that hasn't attacked us is progressive. You see that as progressive? Holy Moses, that's a joke. If I was inclined to agree with the move, I might call it ballsy.

Progressive? No way.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
No, I don't think pre-emptively invading, conquering and occupaying a another soverign nation that hasn't attacked us is progressive. You see that as progressive? Holy Moses, that's a joke.

Progressive? No way.

And you'd rather 25 million Iraqis live under a brutal, murderous, oppressive, theiving regime?

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
And you'd rather 25 million Iraqis live under a brutal, murderous, oppressive, theiving regime?

That's a different topic. Been handled in MANY other threads.

The point is whether invading Iraq is a progressive policy. I think that's a ridiculous statement.

[WinsOBoogi]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
And you'd rather 25 million Iraqis live under a brutal, murderous, oppressive, theiving regime?

There's a lot of Americans who live under a regime that kills their citizens through the death penalty.

There's a lot of Americans who live under a regime that oppresses the low class, as well as gays.

There's a lot of Americans who live under a regime that thieved the White House.

There's a lot of Americans who live under a regime that lies to them about reasons for going to war.

How's that?

lol...I love flowing gasoline onto your fire. Personally, I like seeing your "having-aneuryms-as-you-were-posting" posts. Plus, I figure if I wear you down enough, we'll break through your "mean republican" persona.



PS- Time for a regime change in America

[shmerek]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
And you'd rather 25 million Iraqis live under a brutal, murderous, oppressive, theiving regime?

They still are: 7000 dead and counting that covers the murdering part and the thieving part will start when the oil starts flowing.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by WinsOBoogi:
lol...I love flowing gasoline onto your fire. Personally, I like seeing your "having-aneuryms-as-you-were-posting" posts. Plus, I figure if I wear you down enough, we'll break through your "mean republican" persona.

Haha. Cool...I'm glad someone like my posts, even if they don't agree with them.

Aneurisms? That's a funny description. I fear letting you know my degree of chillness for fear of reducing my entertainment value to you.

Anyway, as for your 'our regime is brutal, theiving, murderous, etc', I just don't see it. Perhaps when we dig up a mass grave of 40,000 Americans or so on US soil, and it's proved that our government had put them all down, then maybe I'll see your point.

[WinsOBoogi]

But seriously, I don't think Bush is progressing us at all.

The world's condition is a lot worse than it was before.

Now, you may say "terrorists are destroyign the world," etc. etc.

But, I think that Bush has squandered international support for us. As an idealist, international support is a magic thing. It allows us to accomplish goals together as a world. And, to me, I feel that what the other nations had to say about the war was the correct one.

Bush may has his "energy plan," but I don't think he's doing enough of a job. I personally feel like all of our cars should be hybrid right now. We have the technology and the means, but we're not using them. Instead, Bush proposes to drill in a National Park.

We should have healthcare for all children. This is a very progressive thing. Truman wanted it, and it hasn't happened yet.

Americans care more about receiving their own tax cut than giving the tax cuts to people who do need it: the poor. When did we stop caring about our neighbors and our fellow Americans and care more about ourselves?

To me, these are a few of the "progressive" things that we should be doing. Not immediately, but working towards. I don't think that the current administation is working towards these things...especially not in the way a Democrat would.

And there you go. A heartfelt, semi-non-partisan reply.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by WinsOBoogi:
But seriously, I don't think Bush is progressing us at all.

The world's condition is a lot worse than it was before.

Now, you may say "terrorists are destroyign the world," etc. etc.

But, I think that Bush has squandered international support for us. As an idealist, international support is a magic thing. It allows us to accomplish goals together as a world. And, to me, I feel that what the other nations had to say about the war was the correct one.

Bush may has his "energy plan," but I don't think he's doing enough of a job. I personally feel like all of our cars should be hybrid right now. We have the technology and the means, but we're not using them. Instead, Bush proposes to drill in a National Park.

We should have healthcare for all children. This is a very progressive thing. Truman wanted it, and it hasn't happened yet.

Americans care more about receiving their own tax cut than giving the tax cuts to people who do need it: the poor. When did we stop caring about our neighbors and our fellow Americans and care more about ourselves?

To me, these are a few of the "progressive" things that we should be doing. Not immediately, but working towards. I don't think that the current administation is working towards these things...especially not in the way a Democrat would.

And there you go. A heartfelt, semi-non-partisan reply.

Squandered International Support: The French (as a brief example) are still doing business with the US, still sharing intelligence with the US, still exchanging students with the US, still doing most everything with the US. Yes, there are certain issue differences, but that's always been the case with all foreign relationships. Even the British disagree with us from time to time.

All cars should be hybrid right now: Do you have any idea what devastating effects this will have on on our economy? We would enter into an instant depression - greater than the Great one.

Drilling in ANWAR: Do you want to reduce US dependence on foreign oil or not? If yes, we need to drill somewhere on our land. Remember- oil is not just cars. Look around your surroundings...see a lot of plastic?

The poor and tax cuts: To receive a federal tax cut, you must actually pay federal taxes. The poor don't pay federal taxes. As a matter of fact, according to the IRS, the top 50% of US wage earners pay over 96% of all taxes.

The world's always been a dangerous place. be thankful that your government (no matter the party in power) has been successful at keeping the fighting far enough away.

[Spliffdaddy]

[eklipse]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
The world's always been a dangerous place. be thankful that your government (no matter the party in power) has been successful at keeping the fighting far enough away.

I would be thankful if governments weren't making the world a more dangerous place.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Bel_Esprit:
Progressive to you(?): Gay marriage, legal abortion, soft bigotry otherwise known as affirmative action...I'm sorry but this is special interest B.S. Save it for your blog.

I trying to point out that the word progressive is more than a political party. Again how is a democratic Iraq state not progressive. Unless of course you feel totalitarianism is progressive?

Gay Marrages --> Preventing (not progressive)
Legal Abortion --> wants reversed (not progressive)
Soft Bigotry --> Wants reversed (not really progressive, since he doesn't account for any way for a poor individual (of any race/creed) to get into a top school, other than being filthy rich.
Democratic Iraq --> Doubt it will be democratic. Not done yet, no progress in setting up this government other than topeling the old one... no reason to believe it will be democratic (against most Iraqi people's wishes) not progressive.


Don't see how this is progressive. It's conservative all the way. He's a conservative president in a time where most americans want a conservative president.

And the patriots act, which he 100% backed, despite it not being as powerfull as he wanted... real progressive!

Total Information Awareness (now M.A.T.R.I.X.)... real progressive!

Pulling out of many international treaties, creating global tension with our closest allies --> clearly progressive.


I don't see how you find that as progressive. It's conservative agenda all the way. You can maybe argue it's "compasonate conservativism"... but it's really just "conservative" all the way.

[WinsOBoogi]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
I don't see how you find that as progressive. It's conservative agenda all the way. You can maybe argue it's "compasonate conservativism"... but it's really just "conservative" all the way.

Amen, brotha!

A well-artriculated post. I share the same exact views.


Re: The economy failing if we move to hybrid. What will happen when all the pretroleum runs out? If our economy is that unstable, shouldn't we make a move to that right now? Just think about that.

[BDiddy]

Originally posted by WinsOBoogi:
Re: The economy failing if we move to hybrid. What will happen when all the pretroleum runs out? If our economy is that unstable, shouldn't we make a move to that right now? Just think about that.

I think what he was trying to say is that we need to make a gradual transition to hybrid/oil-free power. Right now, much of the really "cool" technology (hydrogen powered cars, etc) is too expensive to produce for the mainstream. It will come down over time though. Think of it like the evolution of the computer. It took awhile to get computers from the shopping-mall size machines to personal computers.

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Drilling in ANWAR: Do you want to reduce US dependence on foreign oil or not? If yes, we need to drill somewhere on our land.

Not this again. I thought we all agreed that the ANWAR reserves are grievously overrated�it's doubtful we could pull enough oil to make it worth the investment.

Maybe we didn't all agree. But the stats are there.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by BDiddy:
I think what he was trying to say is that we need to make a gradual transition to hybrid/oil-free power. Right now, much of the really "cool" technology (hydrogen powered cars, etc) is too expensive to produce for the mainstream. It will come down over time though. Think of it like the evolution of the computer. It took awhile to get computers from the shopping-mall size machines to personal computers.

Well, maybe, but the analogy doesn't work because computers don't have an alternate technology that blocks its entry into the marketplace at every turn.

Let's make the analogy more accurate:

You have abacus makers that have made abacus's for years in a controlled price-fixing monopoly, forcing people to buy at their prices because all the abacus makers agree to similar price gouging. Over the decades, this has made the abacus makers so rich and so powerful they own every politician and even manage to get their ex-CEOs and lobbyists elected president.
But the people grumble, and say, hey, there's a thing called a computer that would do the job better than abacus's. So, the president, whose family got their wealth from selling abacus's, and whose vice president and several cabinet members are interconnecte with abacus industry announces that he will arrange for a portion of the budget to fund a 10 year feasibility study (conveniently to end after he's left office) of computers. Of course, though, the people studying the computer also happen to be the same people who sell abacus's.

Hm...I wonder....after ten years will the abacus makers throw up their hand and say "gee! we're wrong! computers ARE better!, and even though it would be the death knell of our own gravy train, the one where we've swindled the entire country for decades and gotten fat off the backs of working stiffs, EVEN SO, we will fullheartedly support the abandonement our our paycheck in an altruistic attempt to create cheap energy that anyone with a gallon of water and a battery can produce!.


yeah...right!

[BDiddy]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Well, maybe, but the analogy doesn't work because computers don't have an alternate technology that blocks its entry into the marketplace at every turn.

Let's make the analogy more accurate:

You have abacus makers that have made abacus's for years in a controlled price-fixing monopoly, forcing people to buy at their prices because all the abacus makers agree to similar price gouging. Over the decades, this has made the abacus makers so rich and so powerful they own every politician and even manage to get their ex-CEOs and lobbyists elected president.
But the people grumble, and say, hey, there's a thing called a computer that would do the job better than abacus's. So, the president, whose family got their wealth from selling abacus's, and whose vice president and several cabinet members are interconnecte with abacus industry announces that he will arrange for a portion of the budget to fund a 10 year feasibility study (conveniently to end after he's left office) of computers. Of course, though, the people studying the computer also happen to be the same people who sell abacus's.

Hm...I wonder....after ten years will the abacus makers throw up their hand and say "gee! we're wrong! computers ARE better!, and even though it would be the death knell of our own gravy train, the one where we've swindled the entire country for decades and gotten fat off the backs of working stiffs, EVEN SO, we will fullheartedly support the abandonement our our paycheck in an altruistic attempt to create cheap energy that anyone with a gallon of water and a battery can produce!.


yeah...right!

Your point might be valid to some extent, but you are assuming the government controls this process 100%. This is definitely not the case. The introduction/marketing of oil-free vehicles will be determined through the freemarket (supply/demand). Besides, government agencies already have contracts established to purchase these new-generation vehicles.

[davesimondotcom]

I'd rather he not be "progressive." Letting Teddy Kennedy write the education bill? Did that gain him support?

Let's admit it - no matter what he did, even if he socialized the health care system, paid for it by raising taxes to 90% on "rich people", let the UN decide US foreign policy, etc. etc. -- The people who criticize him and don't like him wouldn't vote for him anyway. (Seriously, does anyone think Lerk would vote for him?)

So why alienate the people who DO support him? The people who worked his campaign, the people who voted for him, the people who still support him...

I'd rather have politicians with balls who believe what they believe, take it or leave it, than politicians with polls who believe what the polls tell them to believe.

Left or right or somewhere in between. I don't care. Just stand for something.

Stop pandering.

[OAW]

Of course Bush is "progressive". After all, he's progressively running up the federal budget deficit to stratospheric levels. I thought you knew?

OAW