American politics and news thread

Salomé wrote:

Stilicho Bias wrote:

Those were Republican voters in Mississippi.

From my perspective, that's even more reason to find it a puzzling stance. You'd think that Republicans would be less in favor of government meddling in people's personal lives than Democrats.

Opposition to big government doesn't define conservatism. It is just one component, and for many social conservatives, not even the main component. The truth about conservatism, in other words, is more complicated than you think.

Well said. Not all conservatives are libertarians.

I tend to view the political spectrum on the progressive-conservative (x axis)/ libertarian-statist (y axis) grid. Makes more sense.

Fleming was an interesting mixture of old- and new-school Conservatism. Some say he was an Empire loyalist, but he was also in favour of the legalisation of many recreational drugs and prostitution. (Apologies for off-topic post, but I'm rather tired of seeing Fleming tarred as a racist little Englander. We should probably discuss this in a new thread someday.)

Yes, Fleming seems to have been something of a Libertarian, but also a foreign policy hawk. I've got some of those tendencies myself.

As to whether or not he was a racist, I honestly don't give a good goddam. I'm so sick of the wild overuse of the word racism that it scarcely makes an impression on me anymore.

Stilicho Bias wrote:

Salomé wrote:

Stilicho Bias wrote:

Those were Republican voters in Mississippi.

From my perspective, that's even more reason to find it a puzzling stance. You'd think that Republicans would be less in favor of government meddling in people's personal lives than Democrats.

Opposition to big government doesn't define conservatism. It is just one component, and for many social conservatives, not even the main component. The truth about conservatism, in other words, is more complicated than you think.

Well I am not familiar with all the intricacies of American conservatism. Over here it does very much correlate with libertarianism.

Regardless of that, I think it's dangerous for any political movement to (attempt to) invade people's personal lives too much.

Stilicho Bias wrote:

Yes, Fleming seems to have been something of a Libertarian, but also a foreign policy hawk. I've got some of those tendencies myself.

As to whether or not he was a racist, I honestly don't give a good goddam. I'm so sick of the wild overuse of the word racism that it scarcely makes an impression on me anymore.

I sort of agree with you Khan. I am reminded of a silly row in England a few years ago when Tintin in Africa was being pulled from book stores for its racism. Add to that the plans (and in some case more than just plans) to remove the N-words from some classic works of fiction and the insane have well and truly started to run the asylum.

Stilicho Bias wrote:

As to whether or not he was a racist, I honestly don't give a good goddam. I'm so sick of the wild overuse of the word racism that it scarcely makes an impression on me anymore.

Completely agree.

In this country, it's out of control. "Homophobic" is another term being thrown around like it's going out of style.

God forbid you call a spade a spade.

Mr. Brown wrote:

Stilicho Bias wrote:

As to whether or not he was a racist, I honestly don't give a good goddam. I'm so sick of the wild overuse of the word racism that it scarcely makes an impression on me anymore.

Completely agree.

In this country, it's out of control. "Homophobic" is another term being thrown around like it's going out of style.

God forbid you call a spade a spade.

I agree with both of you. Another PC-term being thrown around and overused is "Islamophobic" if one ever disagrees with either Islam or anything a Muslim person says about any topic.

I'd probably be called Islamophobic and run out of the UK.

I won't vilify all Muslims, because I think most of them are like the majority of pretty much any religious or ethnic group: decent, regular people. But the fact that in Europe you can't openly oppose (or at least it seems that you can't) things like Sharia law, honor killings, or generally treating women like dirt without being labelled an "Islamophobe" is alarming.

I mean, what happened to feminism? :scratch: Oh, but you can't criticism this group of people for treating women like dirt. What some of these bearded creeps want is basically equal to spousal abuse in my eyes. But it's okay, because it's their religion. And if you criticise it, you're a bad person.

It's like the damn Twilight Zone.

It's called cultural relativism. The hubris of the neo-liberal.

Stilicho Bias wrote:

Opposition to big government doesn't define conservatism. It is just one component, and for many social conservatives, not even the main component. The truth about conservatism, in other words, is more complicated than you think.

Very true. Not all conservative political goals can be achieved through government non-intervention or market forces.

Social issues are what the break my possible support for the GOP. I'm economically moderate, and ideally I want less taxes on everyone. Not less regulation, but less taxes.

But then you get this other Focus on the Family hateful garbage that I refuse to go along with. I actually dropped out of a play very shortly before it went up because it was decided that the proceeds would go to the Yes on 8 campaign to ban same-sex marriage. Why people can't keep their noses out of other people's **** is beyond me.

The White Tuxedo wrote:

I'd probably be called Islamophobic and run out of the UK.

I won't vilify all Muslims, because I think most of them are like the majority of pretty much any religious or ethnic group: decent, regular people. But the fact that in Europe you can't openly oppose (or at least it seems that you can't) things like Sharia law, honor killings, or generally treating women like dirt without being labelled an "Islamophobe" is alarming.

I mean, what happened to feminism? :scratch: Oh, but you can't criticism this group of people for treating women like dirt. What some of these bearded creeps want is basically equal to spousal abuse in my eyes. But it's okay, because it's their religion. And if you criticise it, you're a bad person.

It's like the damn Twilight Zone.

I especially like it when little dhimmis employ the term "racist" to describe critics of militant Islam.

Race has little to do with it. Indeed, some of the most zealous proponents of Islamo-fundamentalism are white converts (e.g. David Hicks).

CJB wrote:

The White Tuxedo wrote:

I'd probably be called Islamophobic and run out of the UK.

I won't vilify all Muslims, because I think most of them are like the majority of pretty much any religious or ethnic group: decent, regular people. But the fact that in Europe you can't openly oppose (or at least it seems that you can't) things like Sharia law, honor killings, or generally treating women like dirt without being labelled an "Islamophobe" is alarming.

I mean, what happened to feminism? :scratch: Oh, but you can't criticism this group of people for treating women like dirt. What some of these bearded creeps want is basically equal to spousal abuse in my eyes. But it's okay, because it's their religion. And if you criticise it, you're a bad person.

It's like the damn Twilight Zone.

I especially like it when little dhimmis employ the term "racist" to describe critics of militant Islam.

Race has little to do with it. Indeed, some of the most zealous proponents of Islamo-fundamentalism are white converts (e.g. David Hicks).

Maybe it's guilty white people who want to help what they see as poor brown people.

But yeah, it's nothing to do with race or place of origin. I don't care if they're from Saudi Arabia or France. What they want to spread is repugnant, as is all of this mass killing because of a drawing in a newspaper.

People DIED because of a drawing. Unbelievable.

A lot of people don't like Bill Maher, but he's right on here:

CJB wrote:

The White Tuxedo wrote:

I'd probably be called Islamophobic and run out of the UK.

I won't vilify all Muslims, because I think most of them are like the majority of pretty much any religious or ethnic group: decent, regular people. But the fact that in Europe you can't openly oppose (or at least it seems that you can't) things like Sharia law, honor killings, or generally treating women like dirt without being labelled an "Islamophobe" is alarming.

I mean, what happened to feminism? :scratch: Oh, but you can't criticism this group of people for treating women like dirt. What some of these bearded creeps want is basically equal to spousal abuse in my eyes. But it's okay, because it's their religion. And if you criticise it, you're a bad person.

It's like the damn Twilight Zone.

I especially like it when little dhimmis employ the term "racist" to describe critics of militant Islam.

The Islamofascists know well how the game is played in the West. And the best way to win the game is to call everybody who disagrees with you a racist. This term has talismanic power. When invoked, our elites are immediately reduced to quivering blobs of jelly, and they capitulate entirely to those who invoke it. At some point there has to be a backlash against this rhetorical nonsense. There just has to be.

Stilicho Bias wrote:

At some point there has to be a backlash against this rhetorical nonsense. There just has to be.

Khan, your knowledge of history should tell you there are no grounds for optimism.

The problem isn't really our Western values. There have always been other nations or groups who wanted to question our beliefs, history and ideology. The difference now with the so-called Muslim "threat" is that we as a culture have become collectively sissified. We lack the moral courage and strength to truly stand up to them. This generation would lack the commitment and sense of self-sacrifice to win WWII.

The Greatest Generation still had notions about what it truly meant to be a citizen. Now we have all become consumers with a huge sense of entitlement but not a lot of sense of community or responsibility beyond our family unit (if even that).

Salomé wrote:

The problem isn't really our Western values. There have always been other nations or groups who wanted to question our beliefs, history and ideology. The difference now with the so-called Muslim "threat" is that we as a culture have become collectively sissified. We lack the moral courage and strength to truly stand up to them. This generation would lack the commitment and sense of self-sacrifice to win WWII.

The Greatest Generation still had notions about what it truly meant to be a citizen. Now we have all become consumers with a huge sense of entitlement but not a lot of sense of community or responsibility beyond our family unit (if even that).

Sad, but true. If Person A wants something more than Person B, Person A is probably going to get it. Look at the Republicans and Democrats. The GOP has a clear idea of what they want, and even though they lack an ideal candidate for 2012, they have the teeth to reach their objectives. The Democratic Party seems to not know what the hell it wants, and it seems Obama just can't stick to whatever guns he has.

Personally I'd die before living in the kind of world these Islamic fascists want to create.

ambler wrote:

Stilicho Bias wrote:

At some point there has to be a backlash against this rhetorical nonsense. There just has to be.

Khan, your knowledge of history should tell you there are no grounds for optimism.

I'm indeed pessimistic. And if our pessimism is correct, Western civilization will disappear. The only question is how soon.

And I also agree with Salomoppers' last post.

Things might get get worse, but I don't see Western civilization disappearing.

Well I hope you're right, Tuxinator, but I just don't see many hopeful signs.

One might hope that enough would kick start people into action. Perhaps it would take our country tanking, or coming close, to breed another greatest generation. Maybe this new generation needs a school of hard knocks.

What matters to me is liberty, and all those nice Western values. Those can't be allowed to be defeated. I just hope more people truly value them.

If America is "conquered" I expect it will be economically. If that's possible.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/trump-ramps-up-attacks-in-presidential-campaign-20110418-1dlij.html#ixzz1JuTYYIbS

On how he would deal with Libya, Mr Trump, 64, said: "Either I go in and take the oil or I don't go in at all. We can't be the policeman for the world."

Asked to clarify if he would take the oil, Mr Trump said: "Absolutely. I'd take the oil. I'd give them plenty so they can live very happily. I would take the oil.

''You know, in the old days … when you have a war and you win, that nation's yours."


I like this guy.

He's just being honest to a fault, unlike most of his ilk.

CJB wrote:

http://www.smh.com.au/world/trump-ramps-up-attacks-in-presidential-campaign-20110418-1dlij.html#ixzz1JuTYYIbS

On how he would deal with Libya, Mr Trump, 64, said: "Either I go in and take the oil or I don't go in at all. We can't be the policeman for the world."

Asked to clarify if he would take the oil, Mr Trump said: "Absolutely. I'd take the oil. I'd give them plenty so they can live very happily. I would take the oil.

''You know, in the old days … when you have a war and you win, that nation's yours."


I like this guy.

Holy smokes! He's just got a new fan.