Re: SOC.MEN MODERATION DISCUSSION
- From: "Grizzlie Antagonist" <lloydsofhanford@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 15 Jun 2006 23:01:06 -0700
Andre Lieven wrote:
"Grizzlie Antagonist" (lloydsofhanford@xxxxxxxxx) writes:
PolishKnight wrote:
In article <e5r10e$jlf$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
dg411@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Andre Lieven) wrote:
PolishKnight (marek1@xxxxxxx) writes:
(including
the mess the Governor made), helping out illegal
aliens. It's almost as if he's working for the other side.
Have you read GA's opinion?
Yeah, hes closer to right than you are,
I think GA is about as close to the right as Ghengas Khan. :-)
He makes ME look moderate. :-)
Both of you are right. Both of these propositions are for dead
certain. One logically follows from the other. The further to the
right one moves, the closer to the truth he draws.
It does depend on the issue and the agendas. Certainly, the present
US administration cannot be considered " leftist ",
No? I say that in some ways, it most certainly can be considered
"leftist".
yet it happily
sails along, supporting VAWA, being incompetant in New Orleans, and
spending and piling up deficits like only that liberal pinko Ronald
Reagan was able to.
<shrugs> To the extent that anyone supports VAWA and is responsible
for deficits, those people are not "conservatives", however they define
themselves and however conservative they may be in other respects.
So yes, to the extent that he was responsible for burgeoning deficits,
Ronald Reagan was a "liberal pinko" in that respect - or, more
accurately, an accommodationist to the "liberal pinkos" in Congress and
in the media.
As for New Orleans, that was more an issue of competence than ideology.
To a large degree, when searching for what works, " left " and
" right " are words that connote posturing uber effectiveness.
as GA seems able
to consider what has Shrub actually done, which on the positive
side, is little, none of which was done in men's rights areas.
Agreed.
JFK told a group of tourists who wanted their kid to
be president but NOT a career politician that one was
required by the other.
That was somewhat of a strange observation, inasmuch as his
predecessor, Eisenhower, was a 5-star general and not a career
politician at all.
Oh ? Are you of the opinion that the position of SHAEF Commander
wasn't more about politics than generalling ?
That would be... silly.
Would it indeed? Did Eisenhower handle the position of SHAEF Commander
as a Democrat or as a Republican?
What is the difference between the way that a Democrat and a Republican
would be expected to handle that position?
Those are "silly" questions, aren't they? But your argument invites
them. The position is a technical position, not a partisan one, even
if I accept that internal army "politics" were involved in securing him
that position.
But in terms of Eisenhower's partisan viewpoints, those had been
completely unknown before 1948. No one knew what sort of political
animal Eisenhower was - that's why BOTH the Democrats and the
Republicans invited him to be their standard-bearer that year.
Clearly, having reached the age of 58 without ever having run for
office and without allowing his political views to become widely known,
Eisenhower could, in no way, be described as a "career politician".
And by career politician, I mean someone who advances up the political
ladder by first running for local office and then for higher office
later.
Eisenhower became President on the strength of his identity as Allied
Commander and 5-star general, and not based on his political record, as
a "career politician" would.
.
- References:
- Re: SOC.MEN MODERATION DISCUSSION
- From: Grizzlie Antagonist
- Re: SOC.MEN MODERATION DISCUSSION
- From: Andre Lieven
- Re: SOC.MEN MODERATION DISCUSSION
- Prev by Date: Are politicians getting worried by men's rising complaints?
- Next by Date: Chainsmoking 12-year-old mum
- Previous by thread: Re: SOC.MEN MODERATION DISCUSSION
- Next by thread: Re: SOC.MEN MODERATION DISCUSSION
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
