The Bush-"Legacy"

[Andy]

The reason I'm "throwing randomly unrelated things together" is that they are all issues you yourself have identified as "conservative". My contention is what it has always been: Those issues are, in fact, unrelated, and a conservative is someone who believes in limited government, period.

I've listed all of the crazy allegations thrown at Obama.

What crazy allegations were made about McCain?

No, a conservative is not someone who believes in limited government alone. Never has been. Never will be. You need to get over this. Further, I just told you not all of those apply to conservatism. Why do I have to repeat myself on questions already answered? Do you think I'll say something different after you ask for the 18th time?

He was accused of Genocide by a wacky group of American Indian supporters. They accused him of promoting violence against Obama at one point.

Here, do a search of the forum for all posts with either Top Gun, or Shaman. You'll find hundreds of accusations for all sorts of screwball theories about McCain.

 

[PLC1]

No, a conservative is not someone who believes in limited government alone. Never has been. Never will be. You need to get over this. Further, I just told you not all of those apply to conservatism. Why do I have to repeat myself on questions already answered? Do you think I'll say something different after you ask for the 18th time?

That's what I just said: Your contention is, and has always been that the unrelated issues I keep lumping together randomly are all part of the conservative philosophy.

He was accused of Genocide by a wacky group of American Indian supporters. They accused him of promoting violence against Obama at one point.

Here, do a search of the forum for all posts with either Top Gun, or Shaman. You'll find hundreds of accusations for all sorts of screwball theories about McCain.

I don't remember him having been accused of promoting violence against anyone, nor of advocating genocide. Those accusations would be just as crazy as the ones that have been repeated about Obama, however.

 

[Andy]

That's what I just said: Your contention is, and has always been that the unrelated issues I keep lumping together randomly are all part of the conservative philosophy.

Not all. As I explained before, not all of those that you mentioned have anything to do with conservatism. Again, why do you have this strange hang up with not being able to understand my plainly written answers?

Beyond that, the other issues, yes, they are conservative. Like I said before, conservatism was never simply "limited government".

You seem to be operating from a really screwy system of "if conservatism isn't just limited government, then it must be all 85 of these other things", like it's some sort of all or nothing.

Conservatism is a number of issues, but not ALL issues, nor is it ONE issue. I've detailed which ones it is and is not. Now are you finely done with this broken record routine of yours?

I don't remember him having been accused of promoting violence against anyone, nor of advocating genocide. Those accusations would be just as crazy as the ones that have been repeated about Obama, however.

Ok. So we're agreed.

 

[PLC1]

Not all. As I explained before, not all of those that you mentioned have anything to do with conservatism. Again, why do you have this strange hang up with not being able to understand my plainly written answers?

Beyond that, the other issues, yes, they are conservative. Like I said before, conservatism was never simply "limited government".

You seem to be operating from a really screwy system of "if conservatism isn't just limited government, then it must be all 85 of these other things", like it's some sort of all or nothing.

Conservatism is a number of issues, but not ALL issues, nor is it ONE issue. I've detailed which ones it is and is not. Now are you finely done with this broken record routine of yours?



Ok. So we're agreed.

Perhaps you could clarify the conservative philosophy for us. We agreed that limited government is a part of it. What about:

Pro life?
Creationism as science?
Homosexual marriage?
A literal interpretation of the Bible?

are any of the above conservative issues, or am I totally misunderstanding your point of view?

 

[Andy]

Perhaps you could clarify the conservative philosophy for us. We agreed that limited government is a part of it. What about:

Pro life?
Creationism as science?
Homosexual marriage?
A literal interpretation of the Bible?

are any of the above conservative issues, or am I totally misunderstanding your point of view?

Unbelievable. Ok, I'll repeat myself once again, as if you haven't heard this.

Rule of law is conservative. Murder is wrong. So murdering a baby is wrong. Prolife would thus be a conservative issue.

Creationism is science. I don't care what political view you have, Creation is science, whether you agree it's science or not. Left, right, centrist, blaw blaw blaw, Creationism IS science. It's a view based on science, supported by science, proclaimed by scientists. It IS a scientific view no matter what world view you have otherwise.

Government does not have the right to change what marriage is. Government has no constitutional authority to force a new politically correct view of marriage on the people. So therefore, protecting marriage is a conservative issue.

Literal interpretation of the Bible has nothing to do with conservatism.

Now, since this is the 3rd or 4th repeating of these same answers, are you done yet?

 

[PLC1]

Unbelievable. Ok, I'll repeat myself once again, as if you haven't heard this.

Rule of law is conservative. Murder is wrong. So murdering a baby is wrong. Prolife would thus be a conservative issue.

Creationism is science. I don't care what political view you have, Creation is science, whether you agree it's science or not. Left, right, centrist, blaw blaw blaw, Creationism IS science. It's a view based on science, supported by science, proclaimed by scientists. It IS a scientific view no matter what world view you have otherwise.

Government does not have the right to change what marriage is. Government has no constitutional authority to force a new politically correct view of marriage on the people. So therefore, protecting marriage is a conservative issue.

Literal interpretation of the Bible has nothing to do with conservatism.

Now, since this is the 3rd or 4th repeating of these same answers, are you done yet?

Let's see if I'm understanding now:

Pro life is a requirement for conservative philosophy.

The notion that creationism is science is not necessarily conservative, just something you yourself believe in for some unknown reason.

Being against homosexual marriage is also a requirement.

It is not necessary to believe in nonsense like Noah's flood being an actual historical event in order to be conservative.

It's OK to believe in the science of global warming, just so long as you don't believe in anthropogenic global warming. That's a little surprising, given the quote from the guru of conservative thought I posted above, but OK, I won't argue the point.

So, we have a belief in limited government, a pro life stance, no anthropogenic in the global warming debate, and opposition to homosexual marriage.

Is anything else required in order to be considered a conservative? Is it OK to believe the hundred years or so of scientific research into the theory of evolution, then? It should be if we don't have to believe a literal interpretation of ancient scripture. What other issues do you see as conservative ones?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Let's see if I'm understanding now:

Pro life is a requirement for conservative philosophy.

The notion that creationism is science is not necessarily conservative, just something you yourself believe in for some unknown reason.

Being against homosexual marriage is also a requirement.

It is not necessary to believe in nonsense like Noah's flood being an actual historical event in order to be conservative.

It's OK to believe in the science of global warming, just so long as you don't believe in anthropogenic global warming. That's a little surprising, given the quote from the guru of conservative thought I posted above, but OK, I won't argue the point.

So, we have a belief in limited government, a pro life stance, no anthropogenic in the global warming debate, and opposition to homosexual marriage.

Is anything else required in order to be considered a conservative? Is it OK to believe the hundred years or so of scientific research into the theory of evolution, then? It should be if we don't have to believe a literal interpretation of ancient scripture. What other issues do you see as conservative ones?

Andy is a preacher, PLC, his info comes straight from God.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Andy is a preacher, PLC, his info comes straight from God.

....More-often-referred-to as voices, in one's head.


​

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

....More-often-referred-to as voices, in one's head.


​

No one reads books much anymore it seems, but Julian Jaynes wrote a great text called THE ORIGINS OF CONSCIOUSNESS IN THE BREAKDOWN OF THE BI-CAMERAL MIND, in which he looked how religion and the Voice of God were very real to people who didn't have the crossover communication between the two halves of the brain that we currently have. Fascinating work about the development of the human mind/brain and what research has taught us.

I read your link about voices in the head and there was a point that I disagreed with. The author starts from the premise that "perfection" being perfect must be static and unchanging, not necessarily so. A sunset can be perfect but is still changing all the time. I seriously doubt that the finite human mind is capable of delineating the parameters of an infinite subject with any final authority. Other than that one snivel, I thought that he made a credible presentation about the inherent contradictions in Christian dogma.

 

[n0spam4me]

as for his "legacy"
I think of him as a con artist,
an example of why.....

Sometime after 9/11/2001 Bush was addressing a crowd and he said that he had seen the first hit to the WTC on TV the morning of 9/11,
what he was doing was playing mind games, what the statement was intended to do, was to solidify the position that the PRESIDENT can say ANYTHING he wants and NOBODY will call him on it!

This is NOT a good thing for AMERICA, the PRESIDENT needs to be accountable to WE THE PEOPLE and to the TRUTH!

Whatever happened to JUSTICE?


well.... if the President does it, ... its NOT ILLEGAL.

WHAT?


Lets Face it, both Bush & Cheney are CROOKS and belong in PRISON!

 

[Nevi777]

China won't really become an economic superpower, because where it has reached, is only because of the high degree of exports its done in the past 15 years. Everything has a cycle. China will soon face a very slippery downslide, as exports dry up. ( They're now in the bailout game too) Disinformation is a huge part of Chinese politics, the same way misinformation is a big part of most international politics.

Contrary to numerous economics reports that dominate, there are reports which realistically tell you that Chinese companies are losing jobs by the thousands as containers now sit, laden with goods , waiting for orders that may never come.

Real economists predict almost 0% growth for China. They may try to pass themselves off as the world's big supplier, as they do in numerous staged news conferences but the reality is that their manufacturing is on the racks.

US, and EU were busy complaining about human rights violations in the workplace etc, and how there are no benefits etc..yes, mostly true, so now China is getting some labor reforms. Do you think goods will be available at the same prices many consider cheap and profitable for much longer?

A Chinese co can close its doors in a day, and 20 000 can be out of work in a second, with zero recourse. No severance, no benefits, no compensation. Its why no country's manufacturing can really compete!

The growth has been astonishing, but its not sustainable. Its just like housing prices..Allover the globe,housing prices got tagged to the US$, and there was a boom. Now, its 'housing crisis'. It may be surprising to many, but a big part of the 'housing correction' issues, are not solely about US homes. A great chunk has to do with international investments which is why everything surrounding that is a very 'grey' area.
Its why a lot of everything you see is termed 'very complex investments' and why there is 'no disclosure'.

You will see a dramatic shift in China across 2009/10 as their economy starts to tank more fully too. Its a natural course as other nations will begin to pay more attention to their own local manufacturing to address their own damaged manufacturing infrastructures. It may seem a slow shift to sanity, but it is in fact beginning in some countries.

 

[BigRob]

as for his "legacy"
I think of him as a con artist,
an example of why.....

Sometime after 9/11/2001 Bush was addressing a crowd and he said that he had seen the first hit to the WTC on TV the morning of 9/11,
what he was doing was playing mind games, what the statement was intended to do, was to solidify the position that the PRESIDENT can say ANYTHING he wants and NOBODY will call him on it!

This is NOT a good thing for AMERICA, the PRESIDENT needs to be accountable to WE THE PEOPLE and to the TRUTH!

Whatever happened to JUSTICE?


well.... if the President does it, ... its NOT ILLEGAL.

WHAT?


Lets Face it, both Bush & Cheney are CROOKS and belong in PRISON!

Well there is a video of the first plane hitting, I would imagine he had seen it, as we all have, and simply mixed up his words.

 

[PLC1]

Andy is a preacher, PLC, his info comes straight from God.

I know. That's why I'm relying more on him than on Rush to tell us just what constitutes conservative thought. Where there is a difference of opinion, as on global warming, for example, I'll take Andy's word for it over Rush's.

I almost forgot the second Amendment. Surely, there is something there that has to follow conservatism. We know, of course, that the left wingers want to disarm America so that they can impose their socialistic ideas on an unwilling public, but what is it that true conservatives believe about arms? Do we take the Second Amendment literally, and assume that it applies to all individual citizens, and really means all arms?

Or, can we limit arms to firearms, or limit their use and possession to well regulated militias?

We need some enlightenment on that subject as well, don't you think?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I know. That's why I'm relying more on him than on Rush to tell us just what constitutes conservative thought. Where there is a difference of opinion, as on global warming, for example, I'll take Andy's word for it over Rush's.

I almost forgot the second Amendment. Surely, there is something there that has to follow conservatism. We know, of course, that the left wingers want to disarm America so that they can impose their socialistic ideas on an unwilling public, but what is it that true conservatives believe about arms? Do we take the Second Amendment literally, and assume that it applies to all individual citizens, and really means all arms?

Or, can we limit arms to firearms, or limit their use and possession to well regulated militias?

We need some enlightenment on that subject as well, don't you think?

Of course it does, "no regulation" is the Conservative cry (except for gay marriage, of course). Machine guns, tanks, missles, and even atomic bombs are guaranteed to every citizen AND WE NEED THEM to protect ourselves from the onslaught of gay marriages!!!

 

[Andy]

Let's see if I'm understanding now:

Pro life is a requirement for conservative philosophy.

The notion that creationism is science is not necessarily conservative, just something you yourself believe in for some unknown reason.

Science: systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

Observations and experimentation that result in a conclusion of an intelligent design are just as scientific as one that reaches a conclusion of random chance. Both are simply hypothesis of a cause to the complex world we live in.

Of one is not scientific, the other is not either. If one is scientific, the other is as well. There is not one single shred of demonstrable, repeatable measurable evidence of Macro-evolution.

'In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations 'It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favored by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test.'

Colin Patterson, Ph.D. Paleontologist, and former Evolutionist.

Being against homosexual marriage is also a requirement.

It is not necessary to believe in nonsense like Noah's flood being an actual historical event in order to be conservative.

It's OK to believe in the science of global warming, just so long as you don't believe in anthropogenic global warming. That's a little surprising, given the quote from the guru of conservative thought I posted above, but OK, I won't argue the point.

So, we have a belief in limited government, a pro life stance, no anthropogenic in the global warming debate, and opposition to homosexual marriage.

Is anything else required in order to be considered a conservative? Is it OK to believe the hundred years or so of scientific research into the theory of evolution, then? It should be if we don't have to believe a literal interpretation of ancient scripture. What other issues do you see as conservative ones?

No, it is not required that you believe in creationism to be conservative. It is pretty ignorant of basic science if one does, but to be willfully ignorant is a right. I'd prefer to have more educated people calling themselves conservative, but no it's not required.

I don't know of other specific issues off hand. I'm sure they'll pop up.