Expert Mother tongue: English Posts: 1804 Joined: February 1, 2008 Location: United States
RE: Situation in Iran
The "progressive" "gods", FDR and Lincoln went far beyond Bush in using executive powers in time of war. FDR, who is considered the "god" by liberals, threw entire families in prison for the "crime" of having Japanese heritage. Lincoln actually imprisoned journalists and shut down newspapers and suspended entire sections of the Constitution. It is not new. But it is always temporary. The U.S. invaded Cuba under Kennedy, without a UN mandate. The U.S. committed real crimes in Vietnam under the Democrat Johnson (and also under the Republican Nixon). The "rendition" program (grabbing terror suspects and flying them to places like Egypt, where they are subject to real torture [not just waterboarding]) was a Clinton-era invention and was far harsher under the Democrat Clinton than under Bush. Clinton bombed Iraq without UN approval, and bombed the Serbs without a UN mandate.
Of course, if you are a Democrat, you tend to "forgive" those actions because you feel that it is in the name of national security, and the same if you are a Republican and the president is Republican.
Gitmo is of course very controversial. We will have to see how the U.S. protects itself when soldiers on the battlefield have to read "suspects" (read: enemy combatants) their "Miranda rights".
In France, the counter-terror head can have anyone thrown in jail for up to 55 hours, and does not have to even give a real reason. In Britain, I think it is 27 days (!). So let's not pretend that the U.S. has done something really unique. The western Europeans have been bugging mosques for years and grabbing people and "detaining" them for hours or days of questioning, on the flimsiest of evidence.
Expert Mother tongue: English Posts: 1752 Joined: April 13, 2007 Location: United States
RE: Situation in Iran
Originally written by John Bunch
FDR, who is considered the "god" by liberals, threw entire families in prison for the "crime" of having Japanese heritage.
I know several liberals, John, but I don't know a single one who would characterize FDR, or any other leader, as a "god." FDR is more of a hero to Democrats than to liberals - and the two are not the same thing. The Democratic party is essentially a center-left party and many of its leaders and official party positions are decidedly anti-liberal. In fact, the Democrats are in most significant respects virtually identical to the Republicans, and the two parties have conspired to create an illusion of difference so as to allow the semblance of debate and elections that will not actually ever change anything of consequence.
Expert Mother tongue: English Posts: 1804 Joined: February 1, 2008 Location: United States
RE: Situation in Iran
Ronald Reagan once said that the Democrats used to be a party of the average working-class American, but then (after 1968), moved to the left. And according to Reagan, the GOP then just moved into that "space" that the Democrats had vacated. That is one reason that Reagan was also able to win blue collar, union voters.
Expert Mother tongue: English Posts: 1752 Joined: April 13, 2007 Location: United States
RE: Situation in Iran
Originally written by John Bunch on June 30, 2009 10:53 AM Ronald Reagan once said that the Democrats used to be a party of the average working-class American, but then (after 1968), moved to the left. And according to Reagan, the GOP then just moved into that "space" that the Democrats had vacated. That is one reason that Reagan was also able to win blue collar, union voters.
I don't particularly associate this idea with Reagan. Richard Nixon realized this idea as well, as did many others, and I think it represents a general consensus about American politics over the last four decades.
The major problem with Democrats is that they don't seem to stand for anything. It was, as you point out, originally the party of the working man, but that idea has long since passed. It was largely the party of organized labor, but that is not a particularly influential sector of American politics or economics anymore. It was also the party of civil rights and feminism, but the energy has long gone out of those sails (in part because the major goals have largely been seen as having been realized, or because those constituencies have moved on to other concerns - or they lack political clout). The Democratic Party has become a hodge-podge of interest groups with very little in common, and Democrats in power tend to accomplish very little that could not also be accomplished by Republicans. In fact, Democrats seem to win presidential elections only when voters are angry with Republicans and the Democrats run candidates that might as well be Republicans (and it is increasingly hard to tell the difference betweent the two).
Expert Mother tongue: English Posts: 1804 Joined: February 1, 2008 Location: United States
RE: Situation in Iran
The Democratic Party is made up of special interests. I have mentioned the "hour glass" here before, which is the notion that the party is made up of the very rich and the poor, with not much in the middle. People who make $ 55,000 a year tend to vote Republican, but if you make over let's say $ 400,000, or under let's say $ 30,000, you tend to vote Democrat. Some have suggested that this is a kind of stealth elitism. In other words, if let's say, I run a hedge fund in Manhattan and make millions, I do not want people from the middle class ascending to where I am, so I vote for economic policies that tend to "freeze" society as it is. If you look at the "blue" (Democrat) counties in the U.S., you tend to see this hour-glass kind of society. Look at places like Los Angeles. You have about 10% of people being rich, and the rest is a sort of more or less permanent "underclass". Red, Republican counties tend to be far more equal (ironically) in terms of income distribution, and also far more conducive to such a "rise" in income.
That is how I view it economically. Note that for instance, under Clinton, that changed, but I also argue that Clinton was basically a Republican in terms of economic policies, after 1994.
In terms of social policies, I view the Democratic party far more favorably. For instance, issues like choice and abortion and gay marriage. The Republicans are often wrong on the social issues.
Expert Mother tongue: English Posts: 1752 Joined: April 13, 2007 Location: United States
RE: Situation in Iran
Originally written by John Bunch
For instance, issues like choice and abortion and gay marriage. The Republicans are often wrong on the social issues.
I see little difference between the parties on gay marriage. The Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA") was signed into law by Bill Clinton (also the architect of "Don't Ask Don't Tell), and Obama has supported the continuation of both (flip-flopping on the promises he made to naively credulous gays who foolishly gave money to his campaign). Obama, like most black Americans, doesn't give a rat's ass about gay rights.
Expert Mother tongue: English Posts: 1804 Joined: February 1, 2008 Location: United States
RE: Situation in Iran
Well, unfortunately, politics often breaks down to bad compromises. I mean, look at the health care bill before the Senate. Congress actually has exempted themselves ! If you read it, there is a provision that says that "federal employees" and politicians are not subject to the new health care provisions. In effect, they are giving themselves a broad choice and the type of consumer-driven options that McCain wanted; but at the same time saying that that idea is bad, and mandating for the rest of us, fewer options and HMO-type rationing. In effect they are saying: hamburger for the masses of us, and filet mignon for them.
How can we trust any politicians ?? And look at the cap and trade thing. Another bad, crappy compromise.
Expert Mother tongue: English Posts: 1752 Joined: April 13, 2007 Location: United States
RE: Situation in Iran
Originally written by John Bunch
How can we trust any politicians ??
You cannot. Politicians are inherently untrustworthy. It is their nature. You can no more trust a politician than a reptile, with whom they have much in common.
Одрекување на форумите: гледиштата изнесени во форумите се сопственост на авторите и не значи дека се гледишта на сопственикот и/или модераторите на сајтот. Ако читачот смета дека некоја објава е навредлива, тогаш тој или таа треба да упати поплака до модераторот на односниот форум. Поплаката би требало да се разгледа во рок од 24 часа, но ве молиме да го почитувате фактот дека модераторот можеби живее во друга часовна зона. Користењето на форумот ја означува твојата согласност со Правилата за објавување на форумот.
Language, Literature, Arts, Religion, Other 
TC Mobile |
Forum Settings |
Log On
Reply
Quote
Edit
Delete
