NBS: Time’s Klein: Beck, Palin Potentially Committing Sedition

[Seabee1973]

They aren't isolated events. It's happenned several times. It's been happening since the campagne..

• Trader
  
• Terrorist
  
• Treason
  
• kill him
  
• off with his head
  
• Moslem
  
• Barak Husien Obama
  
• Communist
  
• It's not negativity, it's the truth..
  

Here is a vidio of some of the bad moments from the Palin and McCain campaign rallies.

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

To bad that hussein is Obamas middle name to bad that they introduced him in his cairo speech. Obama played dirty politics too

[Larry]

To bad that hussein is Obamas middle name to bad that they introduced him in his cairo speech. Obama played dirty politics too

You been taking grammar and logic lessons from Navy Dave?

[JMS]

Bush did many things that were not Conservative from my point of view. I saw them as very Left leaning decisions at times. It didn't buy him any consideration from the Left though. They still hated him.

What did bush ever do which would be considered liberal? It's much easier to argue bush was to the right of conservative, facist rather than arging he was liberal.

Course what passes for intellectuals on the right today think facism is a liberal extreamist... Their logic is all extreamists are left, and extreamists don't exist on the right.

[JMS]

That's because you define "Left" as whatever you don't agree with, and "Right" as whatever you do agree with. .

yep, and they decided he was left, about a second after he left office after eight years of supporting him...

[Destino]

yep, and they decided he was left, about a second after he left office after eight years of supporting him...

They didn't even invite him to the Republican convention.

[PokerPacker]

What did bush ever do which would be considered liberal? It's much easier to argue bush was to the right of conservative, facist rather than arging he was liberal.

Course what passes for intellectuals on the right today think facism is a liberal extreamist... Their logic is all extreamists are left, and extreamists don't exist on the right.

Bush was a big spender. You could say he's a very liberal spender. That doesn't make him a liberal, but he's not a conservative. I saw him as an authoritarian, which is pretty much the polar opposite of my views.

[Burgold]

Bush was a big spender. You could say he's a very liberal spender. That doesn't make him a liberal, but he's not a conservative. I saw him as an authoritarian, which is pretty much the polar opposite of my views.

Bush was a Conservative because of the law of "Ducks"

If it talks like a conservative, is uniformly defended by conservatives, is supported by conservatives, voted for by conservatives, praised by conservatives... and hated by liberals... Then, by golly, it's a conservative.

The problem is, some conservatives seem to have this fantastical idealistic vision of themselves and have an incredible capacity to wash their hands of their own. I think the biggest problem is is that conservatives don't know what Conservatism in America today is or looks like. Well, look at 200-2006. That was the purest example of modern day Conservatism. Elected Republican Congressmen marched in unison, the right wing media supported with all their heart, and any criticism, heck any disagreement of anything Bush said or proposed was treasonous in their eyes.

Conservatism can be re-defined again, but Bush was, is, and always shall be a conservative.

[visionary]

What was this thread about again?

Oh yeah, whether or not Bush is conservative...right?

Wait...was it?

Oh damn now I'm confused.

:evilg:

[Teller]

Conservatism can be re-defined again, but Bush was, is, and always shall be a conservative.

I understand your desire to not have Bush associated with liberalism in any way whatsoever. Heck, everyone, on both sides has tried to disown the guy.

But for you to seemingly have such a black and white view of things is more than a little surprising.

To me, political positions can be compartmentalized somewhat. A person can be a social moderate and fiscal cosnervative (which is what I consider myself.) A person can also be a social damned-near fascist, and fiscal liberal. (Which is what I consider "W" to have been.)

That doesn't mean that "hog says Bush is a liberal, arrggghh!!!! You can't pin him on us!" No. Not at all. We certainly can't. But Bush was by no means a fiscal conservative. Hell, neither was Reagan for that matter.

Clinton was, IMO. And that's the primary reason I would take him back over Obama or W in half a heartbeat.

I hold positions that many on the right would consider to be liberal -- I'm pro-civil unions for example. But to take that one position and say "hog's a liberal" would be....well....pretty asinine.

[Burgold]

I understand your desire to not have Bush associated with liberalism in any way whatsoever. Heck, everyone, on both sides has tried to disown the guy.

But for you to seemingly have such a black and white view of things is more than a little surprising.

To me, political positions can be compartmentalized somewhat. A person can be a social moderate and fiscal cosnervative (which is what I consider myself.) A person can also be a social damned-near fascist, and fiscal liberal. (Which is what I consider "W" to have been.)

That doesn't mean that "hog says Bush is a liberal, arrggghh!!!! You can't pin him on us!" No. Not at all. We certainly can't. But Bush was by no means a fiscal conservative. Hell, neither was Reagan for that matter.

Clinton was, IMO. And that's the primary reason I would take him back over Obama or W in half a heartbeat.

I hold positions that many on the right would consider to be liberal -- I'm pro-civil unions for example. But to take that one position and say "hog's a liberal" would be....well....pretty asinine.

Oh, sure if you want to be reasonable about it

Everyone is a scattershot of beliefs along ideologies but if you take the whole of Bush and who supported, what they said when they supported, why they said they supported, who they gave their money to, who gave their votes to, who they simultaneously called the devil... well, then you can only conclude that not only is George W. Bush a Conservative because he said he is, believes he is, ran as one etc. but that he was endorsed as one by the vast majority of Conservative voters as a Conservative.

George W. Bush is, was, and always will be a CONSERVATIVE. He is not a tree hugging, liberty loving, pot smoking (well, you may have me there...), equal rights advocating LIBERAL.

And you're right, while I think he was a good guy who tried his best during very difficult times and without question he was my President, I think ideologically and practically he wouldn't see to eye to eye on most issues.

[Larry]

Actually, my own personal position on the transformation of W is both, I think, more pragmatic and more cynical.

W was Ronald Reagan.

The only difference I can see between what the two administrations actually did was that when Reagan invaded a place, he didn't stick around.

The Republicans, in '80, ran on a platform of "deficits bad, fiscal restraint, less government". That was the mantra they used to obtain power.

But when they got power, then the agenda is cut taxes on the rich, increase spending, repeal or stop enforcing environmental laws, repeal or stop enforcing anti-discrimination laws, create federal porn police. Environmental laws and alternative energy became communist plots, and out national energy policy becomes "oil companies should be exempt from taxes".

And when the people have a problem with this agenda, look around, find a Democrat, somewhere, and announce that the fact that Democrats exist means that Republicans aren't responsible for what Republicans do.

That's the pattern they've used for 30 years. Whenever something bad happens, look around, find a Democrat somewhere, and claim it's his fault.

It's not Bush's fault that he entered office with a concealed agenda to find a reason to invade Iraq. (An agenda which he began working on the day he took office.) Look! There's a Democrat at the CIA. He made me do it!

After seven years of Republican rule and an agenda of completely eliminating all oversight of FDIC-insured banks, we have a collapse. Look! A Democrat holds a position at Fannie Mae. And the Democrats passed a banking law a few months ago. And they passed one 30 years ago, too. Obviously, this problem must have been caused by the law that was passed months ago, or the one that was passed 30 years ago. It couldn't possibly be anything that happened in between 6 months and 30 years ago. Must be one of those others.

But the Republicans had a problem. The "hunt around and find a Democrat to blame our agenda on" tactic wasn't working, because we've done too good a job of purging anyone who isn't one of our partisans.

The "deny responsibility" play wasn't working.

Solution: Pick the only Republican in the US who isn't running for re-election, and claim that he's not a Republican. See, he's a Democrat infiltrator.

And, see, he made the entire Republican Party do the exact same thing they've done for 30 years.

But, pay no attention to what the Republican Party does. Pay attention to what we say. (Which is, also, what we've said for 30 years.)

[ABQCOWBOY]

Bush was a Conservative because of the law of "Ducks"

If it talks like a conservative, is uniformly defended by conservatives, is supported by conservatives, voted for by conservatives, praised by conservatives... and hated by liberals... Then, by golly, it's a conservative.

The problem is, some conservatives seem to have this fantastical idealistic vision of themselves and have an incredible capacity to wash their hands of their own. I think the biggest problem is is that conservatives don't know what Conservatism in America today is or looks like. Well, look at 200-2006. That was the purest example of modern day Conservatism. Elected Republican Congressmen marched in unison, the right wing media supported with all their heart, and any criticism, heck any disagreement of anything Bush said or proposed was treasonous in their eyes.

Conservatism can be re-defined again, but Bush was, is, and always shall be a conservative.

I think this is what the Democratic Party would like to tell themselves and I think this is pretty close to what they would like the GOP to believe. Who knows, there may be more truth to it then I realize but I don't buy it. I think Conservatives in this country do have an idea of what a Conservative Candidate or Party should be. This is why the Tea Party is having so much success IMO.

Bush was Conservative in some aspects. Religion, Pro Choice Issues, Strong Military etc. He was a Conservative in his personal beliefs but he was not a Conservative in his political actions IMO. He supported Big Entitlement Legislation (Medicare prescription drug program, No Child Left Behind Program, Support of Earned Income Tax Credit for and EITCs for Single Women with Children, TARP, increasing the size of Government, increasing our National Debt, there are lots of Liberal based political moves GWB implemented while in office that are not Conservative in Nature.

Bush was much more of a Centrist then many give him credit for. I am not trying to divorce myself from Bush. On the contrary. I believe that Bush and his ideas of trying to cater to both sides will serve as an example of why Conservatives need to stay true to their own principles and it will either create a new Conservative Party or bring the GOP back to where it belongs. This Country, IMO, does not need three parties. It needs two parties that are actually two different parties. One Liberal with Liberal ideas of Government and Social Development. One Conservative representing Conservative ideas Socially and Economically.

I am not saying Bush was all bad because I don't believe that. Much like I would say that Clinton was not all bad. He also did some good things. Both are more like one another then I believe anybody cares to admit but that's just my own opinion on the subject.

[NavyDave]

I do think that many Liberals felt that way the last 8 years but I must confess, I do not completely understand why. I always felt as if GWB was pretty left leaning on a great many issues.

Liberals associate defending the country and cutting taxes with being Conservative which I understand since they believe all money should flow from government to individuals.

Bush increased spending in areas minorities should have been happy about but it was completely ignored.

The largest education bill of its time was done with the late Ted Kennedy.

The largest foreign assistance to Africa for AIDS ( a waste of money IMHO because of corruption and stupidity among the masses there) was still met with contempt by the NAACP and the left.

It was conservatives that forced him to withdraw the liberal female candidate for the Supreme Court.

It was conservatives that were upset at Bush for not building fences or putting the National Guard or troops at the border as well as being okay with Amnesty for Illegal Aliens.

Dubba Ya was a better option than what was out there but just like with Obama even with his destructive policies, I'll respect the office but it doesn't mean I'm 100% behind the guy in the white house.

[Burgold]

Bush was much more of a Centrist then many give him credit for. I am not trying to divorce myself from Bush. On the contrary. I believe that Bush and his ideas of trying to cater to both sides will serve as an example of why Conservatives need to stay true to their own principles and it will either create a new Conservative Party or bring the GOP back to where it belongs. This Country, IMO, does not need three parties. It needs two parties that are actually two different parties. One Liberal with Liberal ideas of Government and Social Development. One Conservative representing Conservative ideas Socially and Economically.

Bush, and the Repub Congress were the opposite of Centrists. Remember, these are the guys who turned off the mics if a Dem was to speak. Delay, Cheney, Bush, and all of them took a my way or the highway attitude 80% of the time and they got they wanted almost all of the time because the Dems were wimps. Even today, you can see the Dems are wimps, look at how much they groveled and compromised trying to get a few Repubs on board for the Health Care even when they had a fillibuster proof majority. The Dems are timid spineless wimps who pretend to bluster, but flinch an awful lot.

Bush was not a centrist. They shut out the Dems. They denounced everything not Republican, not conservative. The disdain they showed the dems now is similar to the disdain you see today. It is non-cooperative to an exponential degree. Just as today, the Republicans are non-cooperative on almost every issue.

Heck, they vote against their own proposals. It's crazy when people try to re-write history that we all just lived. Even crazier if they believe their own revisionism.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Bush, and the Repub Congress were the opposite of Centrists. Remember, these are the guys who turned off the mics if a Dem was to speak. Delay, Cheney, Bush, and all of them took a my way or the highway attitude 80% of the time and they got they wanted almost all of the time because the Dems were wimps. Even today, you can see the Dems are wimps, look at how much they groveled and compromised trying to get a few Repubs on board for the Health Care even when they had a fillibuster proof majority. The Dems are timid spineless wimps who pretend to bluster, but flinch an awful lot.

Bush was not a centrist. They shut out the Dems. They denounced everything not Republican, not conservative. The disdain they showed the dems now is similar to the disdain you see today. It is non-cooperative to an exponential degree. Just as today, the Republicans are non-cooperative on almost every issue.

Heck, they vote against their own proposals. It's crazy when people try to re-write history that we all just lived. Even crazier if they believe their own revisionism.

Shutting out the opposition party does not make you a Conservative. It makes you loyal to your own party line. Now, if that party line happens to be a truly conservative line, then I can see what you are saying. However, if your party line is not truly conservative, then it's nothing more then a power play.

Having said all of this, the Bush Administration listened to Democrats much more then is outlined here. I'm not trying to paint a picture that says Bush was Left. I'm simply saying that many of his policies were very Left leaning. No Conservative would say that the policies listed in this thread were of a Conservative nature.

They simply were not and I hope that the GOP is learning from this. We can't be Democrat Lite. We need to be Conservative and then you let the people decide. That's the only way the process works.

[Burgold]

Shutting out the opposition party does not make you a Conservative. It makes you loyal to your own party line. Now, if that party line happens to be a truly conservative line, then I can see what you are saying. However, if your party line is not truly conservative, then it's nothing more then a power play.

You called him a centrist. So, it's your position that one can be a centrist while "shutting out the opposition party and towing party line?"

Gads.

[JMS]

Both (Clinton, GW Bush) are more like one another then I believe anybody cares to admit but that's just my own opinion on the subject.

That is hard to swallow... You don't like Clinton, now you don't like bush.. so you say they are similar...

Bill Clinton was a centrist because that's how he packaged himself and it's how he governed. Clinton stole issues from the republcans again and again.. He championed NAFTA, He reduced the size of government, He balanced the budget, he proclaimed the era of big government was over, he reformed welfare.... Bill clinton was a centrist because that was central to strategy to get and remain in office. Clinton believed if you weren't pissing off the folks on the fringes of your own party, you weren't doing your job. He was always pushing towards the middle.

Bush wasn't a centrist. Again it's central to how he got and remained in office. Bush pushed to the right. Karl Rove said independants weren't important. The empowered their base and they basically gave the finger to everybody else. To Bush's and Rove's credit, he did narrowly get into office and he narrowly retained office...

About Bush's huge spending, and idiotic domestic and foreign policy decisions. It's a stretch to call them liberal or left because they were idiotic... The truth is no liberal or left leaning politician was ever consulted in making those policies. The truth is they came out of the right. The "conservatives" who put and kept bush in office and the vast majority of all GOP elected officials didn't care about these Bush innitiatives because they weren't tied to what was of most interest to them. The social conservative issues. Bashing gay folks, anti abortion, God, putting churches on the federal payroll. That's what was most important to Bush's base. Appeals to emotialism, and the image of "standing up for America"... that's what was playing on the record player as Bush turned a 200 billion dollar surplus he inheritated into a 1.4 trillion dollar deficite in eight years along with just about destroying the strongest economy in the world.

Bush was in no way liberal, or even centrist. Bush was conservative, an incompetent one. The knock I have on folks who still call themselves republicans is they didn't take notice of this until a few minutes after Bush left office. It was clear to me after his second year in office when he lied about his rational for invading Iraq.... A three trillion dollar boondogle.

[nonniey]

You called him a centrist. So, it's your position that one can be a centrist while "shutting out the opposition party and towing party line?"

Gads.

I don't see how you can't understand this. You're confusing process with substance.

Reagan was conservative that worked with Democrats

Johnson was a liberal that worked with Republicans

Clinton was a centrist that worked with Republicans

Bush was centrist that didn't work with Democrats

and Obama is a liberal that doesn't work with Republicans.

[Burgold]

I don't see how you can't understand this. You're confusing process with substance.

Reagan was conservative that worked Democrats

Johnson was a liberal that worked with Republicans

Clinton was a centrist that worked with Republicans

Bush was centrist that didn't work with Democrats

and Obama is a liberal that doesn't work with Republicans.

It's because it doesn't makes sense... and if you look at process. Obama has made great efforts to include Republican ideas, to sit with them, and try to get an honest dialogue flowing. Now, it's possible that I don't remember what happened 10 years ago very well, but the Bush I remember, never really reached out, never really fought with his own party to push in ideas he thought were strong from the other side.

As for substance, his ideology and agenda had to be Conservative. Look at the popularity he enjoyed amongst Conservatives. Even when his numbers began to fall look how well beloved he was in break downs amongst Conservative groups. It really was only when it became undeniable what Conservatism was doing to this country that people began distancing themselves from him or criticizing him.

Remember, the conservative mantra then was... disagreeing with Bush on anything made you anti-American. Conservatives mantra today on Obama is very, very different.

[ABQCOWBOY]

You called him a centrist. So, it's your position that one can be a centrist while "shutting out the opposition party and towing party line?"

Gads.

Here is what I said.

"

Bush was much more of a Centrist then many give him credit for."

I did not say he was a Centrist.

[Burgold]

Here is what I said.

"

Bush was much more of a Centrist then many give him credit for."

I did not say he was a Centrist.

How was he a centrist at all? In any way?

[ABQCOWBOY]

That is hard to swallow... You don't like Clinton, now you don't like bush.. so you say they are similar...

Your words, not mine.

Bill Clinton was a centrist because that's how he packaged himself and it's how he governed. Clinton stole issues from the republcans again and again.. He championed NAFTA, He reduced the size of government, He balanced the budget, he proclaimed the era of big government was over, he reformed welfare.... Bill clinton was a centrist because that was central to strategy to get and remain in office. Clinton believed if you weren't pissing off the folks on the fringes of your own party, you weren't doing your job. He was always pushing towards the middle.

Clinton was not a Centrist until after the GOP took control of Congress. Before that, he was very Liberal.

Bush wasn't a centrist. Again it's central to how he got and remained in office. Bush pushed to the right. Karl Rove said independants weren't important. The empowered their base and they basically gave the finger to everybody else. To Bush's and Rove's credit, he did narrowly get into office and he narrowly retained office...

I've already covered this but for the record, Bush did run on many Centrist ideas during his first election.

About Bush's huge spending, and idiotic domestic and foreign policy decisions. It's a stretch to call them liberal or left because they were idiotic... The truth is no liberal or left leaning politician was ever consulted in making those policies. The truth is they came out of the right. The "conservatives" who put and kept bush in office and the vast majority of all GOP elected officials didn't care about these Bush innitiatives because they weren't tied to what was of most interest to them. The social conservative issues. Bashing gay folks, anti abortion, God, putting churches on the federal payroll. That's what was most important to Bush's base. Appeals to emotialism, and the image of "standing up for America"... that's what was playing on the record player as Bush turned a 200 billion dollar surplus he inheritated into a 1.4 trillion dollar deficite in eight years along with just about destroying the strongest economy in the world.

You confuse Democratic affiliation with Liberal policy. Believe it or not, you can have Democrats who are actually Conservative and you can have Republicans who are actually Liberal. Bush did not have to consult with the Democratic Party to have Liberal policies in certain areas. One is not exclusive to the other.

Bush was in no way liberal, or even centrist. Bush was conservative, an incompetent one. The knock I have on folks who still call themselves republicans is they didn't take notice of this until a few minutes after Bush left office. It was clear to me after his second year in office when he lied about his rational for invading Iraq.... A three trillion dollar boondogle.

I disagree with you. Bush did pass Liberal Policies while in office. Bush was not Conservative in many of his political stances. You may knock them if you wish. I too knock them because they were not Conservative. Republican and Conservative are often two very different things. Three Trillion dollars is an interesting number. I doubt it's correct but perhaps you have information I do not. I will say this, whatever the number, the Budget for Iraq/Afghanistan was passed independent of Congressional Budget and was passed every year by both Democratic and Republican majorities. Even in the last years of his Presidencies, the Budgets were passed by a Democratic Majority in both houses. You can't say this was all GOP because it was not. Both parties supported the money spent on the War effort, a trend that continues today.

[ABQCOWBOY]

How was he a centrist at all? In any way?

The fact that he did pass Liberal policies in certain areas would seem to suggest that he did often go against Conservative principles. He was not Right 100% of the time. He worked from the Center on many occasions. The GOP prevented him from passing legislation that was not Conservative enough for their tastes, as was pointed out earlier.

I am not trying to say he was a Centrist or a Democrat. I am saying that many Conservatives did not like many of the things Bush did. He was not as Conservative as he is painted by many.

[nonniey]

How was he a centrist at all? In any way?

Increased domestic spending accross the board. His biggest non-conservative move was the establishment of the Prescription Drug entitlement.

[Burgold]

Increased domestic spending accross the board. His biggest non-conservative move was the establishment of the Prescription Drug entitlement.

Nope. Try again. See Bush I. See Reagan. See W. Bush. See Nixon.

Increasing domestic spending is Conservatism 101.

Conservativism 210: Is claiming to be about cutting spending while increasing spending.

If no conservative ever cuts spending, then Conservatives can not be for cutting spending... except in the abstract of theories.

Edit: The reason that the Prescription Drug thing wasn't liberal was because it was a gift to big business and gave them all the power while limiting government's ability to oversee it or control costs.