Leftist Shock Doctrine

[Red Dawn]

pres bush may not have been considered anything but a neoconservative and republican by his supporters....

so yeah, maybe he wasn't considered a ''conservative'' but he was considered a neoconservative by many and a social conservative by many and a Republican BY ALL.

The only group in america that still thought bush was doing a good job when he left office, were conservative republicans

Conservative Republicans Still Widely Support Bush


Two time bush voters can pretend bush wasn't a conservative. Obviously, for political reasons, they don't want to be associated with him publically. But cons are the one group, overall, that thought he was doing a good job, at the end of his failed presidency.


So Cons own Bush.


Frankly, there's hardly any difference, policy wise, between bush and Reagan. Both cut taxes for corporations and the rich, both increased spending on military and core entitlement programs - reagan with social security, bush with medicare. Both believed in deregulation and leaving the markets "alone". both believed in some form of amnesty for illegal aliens, as payback to their business and corporate benefactors. And both believed in a belligerent, muscular foreign policy that saw the world in black and white, good an evil.


the fact that cons want to throw bush under the train, after voting for him twice, and supporting his nomination twice, is unfathomable. He wasn't substantively different than reagan. Except he was, perhaps, dumber and more incompetent.

 

[DiveCon]

pres bush may not have been considered anything but a neoconservative and republican by his supporters....

so yeah, maybe he wasn't considered a ''conservative'' but he was considered a neoconservative by many and a social conservative by many and a Republican BY ALL.

The only group in america that still thought bush was doing a good job when he left office, were conservative republicans

Conservative Republicans Still Widely Support Bush


Two time bush voters can pretend bush wasn't a conservative. Obviously, for political reasons, they don't want to be associated with him publically. But cons are the one group, overall, that thought he was doing a good job, at the end of his failed presidency.


So Cons own Bush.


Frankly, there's hardly any difference, policy wise, between bush and Reagan. Both cut taxes for corporations and the rich, both increased spending on military and core entitlement programs - reagan with social security, bush with medicare. Both believed in deregulation and leaving the markets "alone". both believed in some form of amnesty for illegal aliens, as payback to their business and corporate benefactors. And both believed in a belligerent, muscular foreign policy that saw the world in black and white, good an evil.


the fact that cons want to throw bush under the train, after voting for him twice, and supporting his nomination twice, is unfathomable. He wasn't substantively different than reagan. Except he was, perhaps, dumber and more incompetent.

again, supporting him because he was better than the alternative is not going to make him a conservative
you are a ******* idiot if you think it does

 

[editec]

Let me get this revised history you folks are trying to pass off straight, now.

Nixxon wasn't considered a conservative in his day?

Bush II wasn't thought a conservative by you guys during his terms in office?

Is that what you guys are trying to tell us?

I'm just trying to to get your POV straight now, so don't get all outraged that I am confused by what I see as a huge change in what you're tell us now, compared to what most of you were telling us just a few years ago

How about Ford? Conservative or liberal?

Reagan? Conservative or liberal?

Cheyney? Conservative or liberal?

Newt Gingrich? Conservative or Liberal?

Do ANY of these guys make your conservative muster, or are they all liberals, too?

I think you guys are just moving the goal posts when it suits your immediate needs, to be honest.

Tell me, when exactly did BUSH II become a liberal?

 

[DiamondDave]

1) Nixon was a very complex President that does not fit the mold you see in a lot of HS history books which focus on misconceptions about the Vietnam war stances, the battle against the hippie movement, and naturally Watergate... he was indeed pretty progressive on a lot of things...
2) I don't remember EVER calling Bush II a conservative... nor do I remember any educated conservative doing that...
3) Hard to tell on Ford.. as he was trying to focus on band-aiding the nation after the Watergate fiasco.. he deferred a LOT to congress, played hands off on foreign policy, etc.. kind of a hard President to judge.... about all we have is the pardon, the Helsinki treaty, and his work on the recession (which I said was pretty hands off an a lot deferred to congress)
4) Reagan was pretty solidly conservative.. but like every leader, he had to change some procedures and tactics as the playing field changed.. his core beliefs, were solidly conservative


We could go on with listing all kinds of Republicans... but I don't think I would call hardly ANY of the "liberal", in terms of what a true liberal or leftist is... some are more moderate (McCain), some are more conservative (Thompson)...

Bush never became a "liberal"... but was more liberal than far lefties give him credit for.. he was very much a centrist/moderate for a vast majority of his actions and stances... but like most people, does not fit perfectly into a stereotype mold... I would venture to say that he was the most moderate Republican Party President we have seen in recent history

 

[editec]

Okay I appreciate your response, DD.

But I am writing mostly to the partisan nitwits here who are telling me that that NIxxon wasn't considered a conservative in his day, and the people here who LOVED everything Bush II did until they decided he was a closet liberal.

If you're not one of those all or nothing morons (and you aren't) then my mockery of that sort of knownothing self proclaiming conservative doesn't apply to you.

From my perspective these labels are meaningless when they are aplied to every pol in Washington.

I've been trying to make that point understood since day one.

There is ONE party in power and the American people are NOT invited to it.

Partisans still don't get it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Let me get this revised history you folks are trying to pass off straight, now.

It's only revised history if one considers your uninformed, agenda-driven, warped viewpoint of the world to be "history". And really, when has anyone around here considerd your viewpoint to be worth a handful of warm spit?

Nixxon wasn't considered a conservative in his day?

Bush II wasn't thought a conservative by you guys during his terms in office?

Neither of them has ever been considered a conservative by anyone but dumb shits like you who claimed it fraudulently in order to try to use them to bludgeon the conservative movement to death.

Is that what you guys are trying to tell us?

I'm not "trying to tell you" anything. I am simply stating fact, and achieving it brilliantly as always. I don't give a rat's ass if you internalize it or not.

I'm just trying to to get your POV straight now, so don't get all outraged that I am confused by what I see as a huge change in what you're tell us now, compared to what most of you were telling us just a few years ago

Horseshit. You've never tried to get anyone else's point of view straight, because you've always been convinced that yours is the only correct one, and you can't really hear anyone else over the quacking in your own head, anyway. What you're trying to do is fake innocent incredulity in order to pretend 1) this is all untrue, and 2) this is the first time you've ever heard any of this. I'll believe you don't remember hearing it, because I know you're too damned dumb to remember what you had for breakfast, let alone the Presidential campaign of 2000, but I know you DID hear it.

By the way, the "big change" is not in what we told you, but in what you insisted on hearing despite what anyone said, versus ACTUALLY hearing the voices of other people for the first time in your life. I know it's confusing to you.

How about Ford? Conservative or liberal?

Marginally more conservative than Nixon, probably, but not around long enough for anyone to care much.

Reagan? Conservative or liberal?

Cheyney? Conservative or liberal?

Newt Gingrich? Conservative or Liberal?

I know you're naturally a dumbfuck, but try not to abuse the privilege too much.

Do ANY of these guys make your conservative muster, or are they all liberals, too?

Once again, you wouldn't be so ******* confused now if you had listened to ACTUAL conservatives about what they thought all this time, instead of listening to other liberals or yourself about what conservatives thought.

I think you guys are just moving the goal posts when it suits your immediate needs, to be honest.

Tell me, when exactly did BUSH II become a liberal?

No one said he was a liberal, shitforbrains. My God, are you EVER capable of listening to people's actual frigging WORDS, instead of the interpretation of their words given by the voices in your head?

I'll tell you what, Delusion Boy. You go back and find us JUST ONE quote where any conservative has said that Bush was a liberal. And when you can't find one, see if you can locate what we ACTUALLY said, and then ******* READ IT!

 

[Cecilie1200]

Okay I appreciate your response, DD.

But I am writing mostly to the partisan nitwits here who are telling me that that NIxxon wasn't considered a conservative in his day, and the people here who LOVED everything Bush II did until they decided he was a closet liberal.

I think what you appreciate is DD treating you like you have opposable thumbs when you clearly don't deserve the benefit of the doubt.

And no, you're writing to yourself. You always do, because the debate is always between Ed and The Voice in Ed's Head That Plays the Part of a Conservative.

Not one single person here "loved everything Bush did". That was just that voice, and your projection onto us.

If you're not one of those all or nothing morons (and you aren't) then my mockery of that sort of knownothing self proclaiming conservative doesn't apply to you.

Since none of us is that voice in your head, I guess that proves that you're just talking to yourself. As usual. But I must admit, watching you first debate yourself and THEN mock yourself for being so stupid as to disagree with you is pretty damned funny.

From my perspective these labels are meaningless when they are aplied to every pol in Washington.

Bullshit. These labels are EVERYTHING to you, which is why YOU started this whole thing of trying to pass Nixon off as a conservative who did liberal stuff. You LOVE being able to pigeonhole people to demonize them and facilitate your ability to listen only to yourself.

I've been trying to make that point understood since day one.

That you're a schizophrenic halfwit? Believe me, we got the memo.

There is ONE party in power and the American people are NOT invited to it.

Partisans still don't get it.

My point exactly. You're a partisan, and you never get it.

 

[amrchaos]

Hold it guys

The concept Of Naomi Klein(is this the correct Naomi?) Shock Doctrine is to explain how Government(yes, she was inspired by the Bush Regime) uses catastrophes in order to push forward policies that normally would not be swallowed by the ignorant masses of the nation--i.e. US AMERICANS!

But this concept of governance is actually very old. And yes, we are experiencing it under This regime as well as the previous. As of now, we have yet to compare the amount of situational scamming this Administration is planning, we do know that the previous had no choice but to use such measures due to the great risk involved in not meeting certain objectives in a timely matter.

We are suffering some of the results of those "not meeting objectives in a timely manner" right now.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

William F Buckely was a member of NAACP, actually.

While I certainly do not agree in his POV in its entirety, he is, unlike so many so called conservatives today, logical and consistent, given his presuppositions.

I greatly admire a lot of conservatives.

Most of the real conservatives who I admire, these board knownothings (who like to think of themselves as conservatives while they're actually nothing but reactionary morons, of course) don't have a clue about in most cases.

Rush lmbough is no more a real conservative than I am.

Less so, actually.

He's hatemonger, so naturally he's got a loyal following.

What Ed is trying to say here, particularly in misrepresenting Bill Buckley, noting his membership in the NAACP... is that he prefers the Conservative that enables the ideological left. Which is a ficticious Conservatism that never existed... Buckely was a Conservative who detested the ideological left with every fiber of his being.

He contested every course of collectivism from soup to nuts and differed from Limbaugh only in his ability to cut through the leftist argument, incising their premise, intent and erroneous point, in such a way which left them with the also erroneous 'feeling' that he had lent their position credence, while in truth, he had eviscerated their argument, and left them rhetorically, for dead. I, as has Limbaugh, have always been amazed at how these would-be intellectuals, not only never saw it coming, but never realized that they had just been lead through a discussion where their entire perspective was dismantled and otherwise torn assunder... and in the end, thanked the man which had just thoroughly humiliated them, if in the nicest possible way.

Limbaugh is no more a hatemonger than was Buckely and the assertion that he is, stands as baseless, as it is absurd.

Any responding comment to the contrary, should come with a stated basis or prepare itself to be 'Buckleyed.' At least to the degree that is possible... as we are just shadows of the master; who despite our eternal desire will always fall short of his keen perfection.