Bush is not a conservative, he's actually a liberal.

[Ultima]

Just taking this from a newspaper article I read yesterday, which I don't have in front of me, but basically went like this:

"Bush is the wrong kind of 'right'. Real conservatives push for smaller government, are fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Bush is the complete opposite of this, being fiscally liberal and socially conservative, by blowing a hole in the budget even the IMF is concerned about, and passing laws and more laws seeking to control people's behavior. Clinton was much more of a conservative than Bush is."

What do you think about that?

 

[Zebo]

I think Kant is spinning in his grave.

 

[Dman877]

I think Bush mostly does what his staff and PR people tell him too. Cheney and crew don't really care about a balanced budget, they care more about money in the pockets of their friends and supporters. And when you and all your friends are rich beyond imagination, who cares if the rest of the country is mired in crippling debt?

 

[GrGr]

National socialism was a movement of the extreme right, despite it's "socialism" tag, which combined a potpurri of lunatic ideas. Bush is similar in that his policies are so extremely right that they are no longer coherent.

 

[0roo0roo]

add amnesty for illegal aliens..which is basically what his policy boils down to.

he needs to go.

 

[Jhhnn]

Interesting the way you define liberal and conservative, Ultima, in a confused right slant sort of way.

While liberalism has traditionally favored a larger role for govt, they've defined paying for it in present generation terms, with governmental income and outlays roughly in balance. They also spend differently, largely on infrastructure and social welfare programs. To a true Liberal, the welfare of the people in general IS infrastructure. Liberals generally favor greater involvement in world affairs.

Liberals are not fiscally irresponsible, per se, but they will want more in taxes to finance more govt services...

Conservatives are not socially liberal, far from it, and that hasn't changed much. They're still anti-gay, anti-drug, anti-feminist. Some of them are very anti-minority, too, but that stays under the surface... They're very much pro-business and pro-gun and pro- religion, overall. Conservatives generally favor a somewhat isolationist foreign policy.

Conservatives aren't fiscally irresponsible, either, other than perhaps in the sense that they'll allow greater concentration of wealth with lower taxes.

Both are often pro-privacy and pro- due process, they just approach it differently.

The Bushies are a whole different matter. Domestically, they're authoritarian reactionaries, whose efforts most closely resemble the lootocracy of the McKinley and Harding/Taft eras, when the govt and the public resources were basically up for grabs to the highest bidder- not that the public would ever see the money, of course... and they've added a new twist- generational debt as a mechanism to provide a sense of well being while stealing us blind. On the foreign policy front, they've adopted the neocon peace through domination pov as a way to globalize the looting...

And they've done a brilliant job of putting it in a faux-conservative, mock-christian pseudo-patriotic wrapper.

 

[Ultima]

I'm not confused. I was quoting the newspaper article
I'm personally fiscally conservative, socially liberal, and for smaller, less intrusive govt. I'm waiting to see if the new Conservative party of Canada is like this, or if they're the other way, socially conservative and blow-hole-in-the-budget fiscal-wise (like Bush).

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Interesting the way you define liberal and conservative, Ultima, in a confused right slant sort of way.

While liberalism has traditionally favored a larger role for govt, they've defined paying for it in present generation terms, with governmental income and outlays roughly in balance. They also spend differently, largely on infrastructure and social welfare programs. To a true Liberal, the welfare of the people in general IS infrastructure. Liberals generally favor greater involvement in world affairs.

Liberals are not fiscally irresponsible, per se, but they will want more in taxes to finance more govt services...

Conservatives are not socially liberal, far from it, and that hasn't changed much. They're still anti-gay, anti-drug, anti-feminist. Some of them are very anti-minority, too, but that stays under the surface... They're very much pro-business and pro-gun and pro- religion, overall. Conservatives generally favor a somewhat isolationist foreign policy.

Conservatives aren't fiscally irresponsible, either, other than perhaps in the sense that they'll allow greater concentration of wealth with lower taxes.

Both are often pro-privacy and pro- due process, they just approach it differently.

The Bushies are a whole different matter. Domestically, they're authoritarian reactionaries, whose efforts most closely resemble the lootocracy of the McKinley and Harding/Taft eras, when the govt and the public resources were basically up for grabs to the highest bidder- not that the public would ever see the money, of course... and they've added a new twist- generational debt as a mechanism to provide a sense of well being while stealing us blind. On the foreign policy front, they've adopted the neocon peace through domination pov as a way to globalize the looting...

And they've done a brilliant job of putting it in a faux-conservative, mock-christian pseudo-patriotic wrapper.

 

[Ferocious]

He is a Neocon.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Interesting the way you define liberal and conservative, Ultima, in a confused right slant sort of way.

While liberalism has traditionally favored a larger role for govt, they've defined paying for it in present generation terms, with governmental income and outlays roughly in balance. They also spend differently, largely on infrastructure and social welfare programs. To a true Liberal, the welfare of the people in general IS infrastructure. Liberals generally favor greater involvement in world affairs.

Liberals are not fiscally irresponsible, per se, but they will want more in taxes to finance more govt services...

Conservatives are not socially liberal, far from it, and that hasn't changed much. They're still anti-gay, anti-drug, anti-feminist. Some of them are very anti-minority, too, but that stays under the surface... They're very much pro-business and pro-gun and pro- religion, overall. Conservatives generally favor a somewhat isolationist foreign policy.

Conservatives aren't fiscally irresponsible, either, other than perhaps in the sense that they'll allow greater concentration of wealth with lower taxes.

Both are often pro-privacy and pro- due process, they just approach it differently.

The Bushies are a whole different matter. Domestically, they're authoritarian reactionaries, whose efforts most closely resemble the lootocracy of the McKinley and Harding/Taft eras, when the govt and the public resources were basically up for grabs to the highest bidder- not that the public would ever see the money, of course... and they've added a new twist- generational debt as a mechanism to provide a sense of well being while stealing us blind. On the foreign policy front, they've adopted the neocon peace through domination pov as a way to globalize the looting...

And they've done a brilliant job of putting it in a faux-conservative, mock-christian pseudo-patriotic wrapper.

Here here!

 

[Ferocious]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Interesting the way you define liberal and conservative, Ultima, in a confused right slant sort of way.

While liberalism has traditionally favored a larger role for govt, they've defined paying for it in present generation terms, with governmental income and outlays roughly in balance. They also spend differently, largely on infrastructure and social welfare programs. To a true Liberal, the welfare of the people in general IS infrastructure. Liberals generally favor greater involvement in world affairs.

Liberals are not fiscally irresponsible, per se, but they will want more in taxes to finance more govt services...

Conservatives are not socially liberal, far from it, and that hasn't changed much. They're still anti-gay, anti-drug, anti-feminist. Some of them are very anti-minority, too, but that stays under the surface... They're very much pro-business and pro-gun and pro- religion, overall. Conservatives generally favor a somewhat isolationist foreign policy.

Conservatives aren't fiscally irresponsible, either, other than perhaps in the sense that they'll allow greater concentration of wealth with lower taxes.

Both are often pro-privacy and pro- due process, they just approach it differently.

The Bushies are a whole different matter. Domestically, they're authoritarian reactionaries, whose efforts most closely resemble the lootocracy of the McKinley and Harding/Taft eras, when the govt and the public resources were basically up for grabs to the highest bidder- not that the public would ever see the money, of course... and they've added a new twist- generational debt as a mechanism to provide a sense of well being while stealing us blind. On the foreign policy front, they've adopted the neocon peace through domination pov as a way to globalize the looting...

And they've done a brilliant job of putting it in a faux-conservative, mock-christian pseudo-patriotic wrapper.

Here here!

Damn I skipped that.

Very good and I agree with most of it.

 

[dualsmp]

Bush is a Neo-nazi -- whoops!, I mean Neo-con.

 

[ScottyB]

Bush is a moral socialist.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: ScottyB
Bush is a moral socialist.

That doesn't speek too highly of moral.

 

[dpm]

Originally posted by: GrGr
National socialism was a movement of the extreme right, despite it's "socialism" tag, which combined a potpurri of lunatic ideas. Bush is similar in that his policies are so extremely right that they are no longer coherent.

For the love of god, not even 5 posts before the first Nazi. Sorry, I mean't nazi reference

but, Jhhnn - thats a hell of a post. Just a shame its too long to be a sig.