"Shame on you, Barack Obama"

[Benzgirl]

Can I just say (for the record), I Hate George W. Bush more than I hated his father?

(as if you didn't already know)

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by Benzgirl

Can I just say (for the record), I Hate George W. Bush more than I hated his father?

(as if you didn't already know)

But my goodness, look at who ran against them when they won:
For W, Gore and Kerry
For his father, Dukakis

I'm not saying those candidates are worthy of hatred, just that they weren't going to have folks energized about rushing to the polls to vote for them.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by Benzgirl

Can I just say (for the record), I Hate George W. Bush more than I hated his father?

(as if you didn't already know)

Co-sign. It's to the point that I can't even stand to see him on TV with that arrogant smug smirk perpetually on his face, let alone listen to him speak.

[nittanyalum]

Social conservatives have been dominating the party, so they have been defining the hard right.

Fiscal conservatives have clearly NOT been dominating the Republican party. Or this administration.

I think your final points are saying the same thing I started out saying in my first post, you just took the conversation around several corners along the way.

[macallan25]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

Social conservatives have been dominating the party, so they have been defining the hard right.

Fiscal conservatives have clearly NOT been dominating the Republican party. Or this administration.

I think your final points are saying the same thing I started out saying in my first post, you just took the conversation around several corners along the way.

Fiscal conservatism seems to be about extinct.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

Social conservatives have been dominating the party, so they have been defining the hard right.

Fiscal conservatives have clearly NOT been dominating the Republican party. Or this administration.

I think your final points are saying the same thing I started out saying in my first post, you just took the conversation around several corners along the way.

Social conservatives have been dominating the "hard right" as you define it, but perhaps not as it actually is within the party, (unless you just use "hard right" to mean whoever controls the party which seems to be what you are trying to pull off).

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Social conservatives have been dominating the "hard right" as you define it, but perhaps not as it actually is within the party, (unless you just use "hard right" to mean whoever controls the party which seems to be what you are trying to pull off).

Yes, that is what I was trying to "pull off". And thanks for the condescension. I didn't realize you were the definer of all terms here, please don't feel the need to redefine my posts through your spectrum and we'll stop writing in parallel to each other.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

Yes, that is what I was trying to "pull off". And thanks for the condescension. I didn't realize you were the definer of all terms here, please don't feel the need to redefine my posts through your spectrum and we'll stop writing in parallel to each other.

I was trying to dash something off before I went to work. I asked when we started how you were defining your terms to avoid having this problem, and it was you who insisted there was only one way to define hard right.

[PhiGam]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

Social conservatives have been dominating the party, so they have been defining the hard right.

Fiscal conservatives have clearly NOT been dominating the Republican party. Or this administration.

I think your final points are saying the same thing I started out saying in my first post, you just took the conversation around several corners along the way.

Social conservatives are a large presence but I wouldn't say that they are currently dominating.
Fiscal conservatives are certainly NOT dominating the party right now though. Hopefully there can be a movement back to fiscal conservatism, I think at least 2/3 of Americans can agree that it needs to happen.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by PhiGam

Social conservatives are a large presence but I wouldn't say that they are currently dominating.
Fiscal conservatives are certainly NOT dominating the party right now though. Hopefully there can be a movement back to fiscal conservatism, I think at least 2/3 of Americans can agree that it needs to happen.

Yeah, I agree with this, especially as McCain emerged over Huckabee as the nominee.

I'm not sure where those of us who aren't fans of big expensive government can go at present, but maybe we'll see some changes eventually.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Foreign policy experience is not the same as "connections in Kenya" - and I openly question whether that experience carries over into a dangerous and difficult situation such as Iran. That's my point.

Fair enough, I said foreign relations for a reason. I don't know the specifics of his foreign policy experience except for membership on the Senate committee.

I'm all for increasing positive foreign relationships - that's been one of the downfalls of the Bush administration, I'll certainly agree. But it is pandering to associate my post with jingoism, especially when you've chosen the intentionally inflammatory "dick measuring contest" metaphor as your base of attack.

I'm not associating your post with jingoism. My response to your comment was don't blow off people who don't want to attack Iran as pacifist. The other point I was making is that being patriotic these days is seen, both in this country and in others, as not just thinking America's great, but insulting every other country in the process, even if they're our allies and support us. It's the difference between having self-esteem and finding it necessary to deride your classmates to show how awesome you are. Hence why Obama's patriotism is called into question because he chooses not to wear a flag pin. I mean, seriously.

You either missed my point, or chose not to acknowledge it because of how I packaged it - that's pretty shitty, but to each her own.

I haven't seen Team America so besides the thought that you need a guy in office (one I disagree with) I don't know the main point of what you're getting at.

There is a difference between the two, of course - there are also situations where "positive foreign relations" is a poor course to follow. Iran is likely a bigger threat to Americans than Iraq or Afghanistan. Sometimes force is required - and, since you're not a pacifist, you'll surely agree with that.

While I agree that force is necessary and that Iran is a potential threat, that doesn't mean we go invade them, something that seems to be Bush's next great adventure. Obama's said he'd act on knowledge of bin Ladin in Pakistan by attacking him directly if we didn't have Musharraf's support. He's not opposed to the careful and calculated use of force. There's a lot of room between that and invading a country.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

While I agree that force is necessary and that Iran is a potential threat, that doesn't mean we go invade them, something that seems to be Bush's next great adventure. Obama's said he'd act on knowledge of bin Ladin in Pakistan by attacking him directly if we didn't have Musharraf's support. He's not opposed to the careful and calculated use of force. There's a lot of room between that and invading a country.

To be fair, we have done/are doing this in Pakistan.