Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Obama is not a deficit hawk. That's the difference, and that's the point of the thread.
I thought the point was to show how the Tea Party, that made deficit reduction a major part of its political platform in order to gain seats in the last election aren't willing to cut into war and offense spending.
Its true, no two ways around it, there are parts of the Tea Party that merely paid lip service to deficit reduction in order to get elected by appealing to the emotional reactionaries of their wing of the Incumbent Party. In my opinion, dismissing a major element of your platform for getting elected borders on criminal because one can either surmise they are stupid or were lying, in many cases both.
There is another faction of the Tea Party that has in fact been advocating our leaving Iraq and Afghanistan, and in fact was opposed to our ever going there in the first place. While this group is far fewer in number, they are in fact willing to accept that cuts need to be made everywhere, not just on earmarks or some periphery content.
Its hard to just say, "Tea Party" because even this doesn't accurately describe a fractional group as a whole and is little more than a broadly based generic term. I realize this may seem nitpicking but it helps to clearly identify the nuances of political thought.
Side note, got to chuckling last night as during a discussion on the Neoconservative movement in America and how it began as a more intellectual Platonist group and has evolved over the past 3 decades. Obama in a sense could be seen as the next stage of evolution of the Neoconservative, but in his case, Obama has crossed that fine line between Conservative and Liberal and I'll use the term, Neoliberal from now on. People identified Obama as some Marxist far left liberal, but in all honestly, he is very centrist and 30 years ago could have ran as a moderate conservative.
However, I would still place him on the liberal side, but since I suggest he is a liberal who has adopted a hawkish foreign policy of his predecessor, George Bush et al, Neoliberal seems to work for me.
One of the greater ironies of this affect I see is that while Obama has sated the anti-war left who remain muted out of fear of damaging him politically by opposing him, he has began to revive the dormant anti-war, anti-nation building paleoconservative sentiment who are looking hard at deficit reduction, even by looking at defense spending.
Nothing would warm the cockles of my heart than to see conservatives taking up the cause once again, of no new nation building and minding our own American porch once again. Lord knows we have some issues here on the home front to deal with before we can afford babysitting the world.
I thought the point was to show how the Tea Party, that made deficit reduction a major part of its political platform in order to gain seats in the last election aren't willing to cut into war and offense spending.
Its true, no two ways around it, there are parts of the Tea Party that merely paid lip service to deficit reduction in order to get elected by appealing to the emotional reactionaries of their wing of the Incumbent Party. In my opinion, dismissing a major element of your platform for getting elected borders on criminal because one can either surmise they are stupid or were lying, in many cases both.
There is another faction of the Tea Party that has in fact been advocating our leaving Iraq and Afghanistan, and in fact was opposed to our ever going there in the first place. While this group is far fewer in number, they are in fact willing to accept that cuts need to be made everywhere, not just on earmarks or some periphery content.
Its hard to just say, "Tea Party" because even this doesn't accurately describe a fractional group as a whole and is little more than a broadly based generic term. I realize this may seem nitpicking but it helps to clearly identify the nuances of political thought.
Side note, got to chuckling last night as during a discussion on the Neoconservative movement in America and how it began as a more intellectual Platonist group and has evolved over the past 3 decades. Obama in a sense could be seen as the next stage of evolution of the Neoconservative, but in his case, Obama has crossed that fine line between Conservative and Liberal and I'll use the term, Neoliberal from now on. People identified Obama as some Marxist far left liberal, but in all honestly, he is very centrist and 30 years ago could have ran as a moderate conservative.
However, I would still place him on the liberal side, but since I suggest he is a liberal who has adopted a hawkish foreign policy of his predecessor, George Bush et al, Neoliberal seems to work for me.
One of the greater ironies of this affect I see is that while Obama has sated the anti-war left who remain muted out of fear of damaging him politically by opposing him, he has began to revive the dormant anti-war, anti-nation building paleoconservative sentiment who are looking hard at deficit reduction, even by looking at defense spending.
Nothing would warm the cockles of my heart than to see conservatives taking up the cause once again, of no new nation building and minding our own American porch once again. Lord knows we have some issues here on the home front to deal with before we can afford babysitting the world.
I'm always glad to see you plodding along attempting to build bridges, because it needs to be done.
People can disagree with Ron Paul on this, or Barney Frank on that, and even hold them in disdain for whatever personal reasons, that's fine and dandy, but sometimes you may have to side with... god forbid, "the other side", on any given subject when there are things folks agree on. At some point, folks have to put this party politics nonsense aside and just do the right durn thing.
Tn, I won't lie and say we can all join hands and sing kumbaya we each other, but in the interests of preserving the democratic republic with a healthy middle class, its time to bury the hatchet and make things happen.
This is a tidbit from a so called, "radical socialist nazi leftie" site.
"In America the definition for “conservative” is structured around where you go to church, how you wear boots, what you think about abortion, and what you play on the car radio. With the Ron Paul speech today at CPAC, we are seeing 3 out of 10 hard core conservative activists supporting Conservative Left positions.
What Ron Paul presents is directly opposed to what you see from the corporatists.The main points are driven in to wild cheering in the audience:
* – The “Patriot Act” is nothing but an attack on the Fourth Amendment
* – America cannot afford 900 military bases in 135 countries — plus this use of force does not work
* – Diplomacy has to be aimed at maximizing freedom worldwide
* – The Federal Reserve is operating as its own government, its own pot o’ gold for the finance sector insiders
* – Government should never be allowed to do what its citizens are not allowed to do"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
