PDA

View Full Version : The Most Conservative President in the Past Thirty Year is . . .



Scott Rosen
09-25-2008, 06:28 PM
Do a blind test.

Who balanced the budget?

Who reformed welfare?

Who deregulated the banks?

Who avoided foreign entanglements?

Who presided over successful military actions?

Who expanded civil liberties?

Who grew capitalism?

The answer surprised me.

Real conservatives are not ideologues.

PeterSibley
09-25-2008, 06:33 PM
Jimmy Carter ?

huisjen
09-25-2008, 06:34 PM
Which of those things are conservative? Which are liberal? I figure he was an Eisenhower Republican. I couldn't bring myself to vote for him the second time, or third for that matter.

Greg P H
09-25-2008, 06:35 PM
President Clinton

adampet
09-25-2008, 06:36 PM
That would be Bill Clinton. Funny isn't it.

Adam

Flying Orca
09-25-2008, 06:37 PM
Well, OK, maybe he did that stuff... but it doesn't count, 'cause he got a BJ, too!

Tom Montgomery
09-25-2008, 06:39 PM
Bill Clinton is not a "social" conservative. That is the only type that matters these days. It's all about abortion, fellas. That's why Sarah Palin is such a hit with the right-wingnuts.

Flying Orca
09-25-2008, 06:45 PM
I'm sure gay marriage figures in there somewhere, too. :rolleyes:

Tom Montgomery
09-25-2008, 06:47 PM
There you go. Now you're getting into the spirit of the thing. It's all about "values," rather than "issues."

Flying Orca
09-25-2008, 06:50 PM
But but but... why are the "values" always about what OTHER people do?

Vince Brennan
09-25-2008, 07:03 PM
Does no-one remember the term "Dixie-crat"?

ishmael
09-25-2008, 07:16 PM
Carter, I think, but it's an unfair analogy. Because of the Nixon debacle Carter had very little power.

jack grebe
09-25-2008, 07:32 PM
OK, who is this guy and what has he done with the
real Scott Rosen.........Starting a political thread like
a common troll, WTF:eek:.

Flying Orca
09-25-2008, 07:37 PM
Hold on. Aren't you the guy who equated promiscuity with confidence on another thread?

No, I'm the guy who said he admired the confidence of a young woman who was promiscuous (that wasn't the only area in which she was confident). See the difference?

And what does that have to do with social conservatives' apparent wish to push their values on those who are not socially conservative, anyway?

Greg P H
09-25-2008, 07:44 PM
A social conservative probably cannot answer that question, because it requires being able to think beyond black and white.

Flying Orca
09-25-2008, 07:47 PM
Greg, I don't mind their black-and-white thinking so much when they keep it to themselves. I might think they're daft, but that's neither here nor there.

It's when they want me to think the same way they do that I start having a problem with it.

Peter Malcolm Jardine
09-25-2008, 07:56 PM
But Clinton didn't have God on his side. And he didn't do anything about the witches.. Sarah Palin will take care of dem dere broom riders, you betcha ass

brad9798
09-25-2008, 07:59 PM
Too bad, under Clinton, things happened to facilitate the bailout mess we are in now! :(

Bob Cleek
09-25-2008, 08:07 PM
"And what does that have to do with social conservatives' apparent wish to push their values on those who are not socially conservative, anyway?"

Unfortunately, "social values" have been appropriated by the wolves in sheep's clothing. The Democrats, always populistic and hungry for votes, played to the "liberal" "anything goes" crowd. The Republicans went the other direction. Oddly, though, when it comes to issues other than the domestic social agenda, each party's position is inconsistent with their social agenda.

The Republicans beat the "pro life" and "no gay marriage" drums on social issues, yet are the first to start wars that get lots of people killed and to promote "get richer" schemes for business which destroy the economies of American families and small community businesses. The Democrats are "pro choice," but are really much more "pro life" than the Republicans in areas other than the abortion debate, e.g. military actions and the death penalty. Recent history seems to demonstrate that the more "conservative" an administration might be considered, the more likely they are to break the law and victimize the people. Go figure! There really is no clear choice, regrettably.

The sad fact is that Americans have become far too fat and lazy. No one wants to admit that you can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't promote abortion as a birth control option without demeaning women and minority women in particular, nor do so and at the same time consider the death penalty a sound policy. (Query whether "pro-lifer" Obama would be here at all were Roe v. Wade the law of the land when he was conceived.) You can't borrow like there's no tomorrow and not expect to be bankrupted when the bills come due. Running any society in anything resembling a healthy fashion inevitably requires a certain level of deferring individual gratification for the common good and accepting rules of conduct which, while perhaps not always convenient, establish a consistency upon which progress depends.

Neither can any "diverse" society ever long endure. Homogeneity is essential to the concept of "nation" or "people." A common society must have common values, as these are the very definition of a "society." The "melting pot" must be just that. The diverse elements melt completely, hardening into a whole new alloy. What we have is no longer a "melting pot," but rather a "stew pot" in which all the chunks just roil around in the boiling broth bumping into one another and jockeying for space, doing their damndest to "get theirs." No nation can survive long when its people divide among themselves into "hypen-Americans." We have not had a "melting" experience as a nation since WWII. Maybe it is time for another. The question, however, is whether we can survive it this time around.

I'd just as soon forget about the labels "liberal" and "conservative" and consider which candidate's platform is the more "internally consistent." Neither party exhibits any appreciation for the body of philosophical insight which mankind has developed over the last five thousand years or so. "The ends justify the means" seems to have become the order of the day.

While I'm not suggesting the resurgence of a Luddite Movement, consider for a moment the plain folk like the Amish and the Mennonites. Amidst all this turmoil, I have a hard time imaging any of them are losing any sleep over investments in the markets or the price of gasoline, gay marriage or a "mother's right to choose" (and a father's right to avoid responsibility for his sexual conduct because he's given her that right.) It may be of some value to consider why that is, exactly.

Peter Malcolm Jardine
09-25-2008, 08:11 PM
Are you saying multi culturalism doesn't work Bob?

Greg P H
09-25-2008, 08:18 PM
Greg, I don't mind their black-and-white thinking so much when they keep it to themselves. I might think they're daft, but that's neither here nor there.

It's when they want me to think the same way they do that I start having a problem with it.


Unfortunately, it seems the need for conformity is inherent to black and white thinking.

I ignore it the best I can, it's easy to get pulled into the duality of it though. LoL

JimD
09-25-2008, 08:23 PM
Too bad, under Clinton, things happened to facilitate the bailout mess we are in now! :(

Finally Clinton gets the blame. Its about time!

Tom Montgomery
09-25-2008, 08:26 PM
I just won a $20 bet! Thanks Brad!

Flying Orca
09-25-2008, 08:28 PM
You had me with your first few paragraphs, but lost me after that.


You can't promote abortion as a birth control option without demeaning women and minority women in particular

Why not?


nor do so and at the same time consider the death penalty a sound policy.

I agree. There's no data to support the death penalty's effectiveness, and the price is far too high in the case of wrongful conviction.


(Query whether "pro-lifer" Obama would be here at all were Roe v. Wade the law of the land when he was conceived.)

Also Beethoven and Pol Pot. Either way it's irrelevant. There is one present, and the past is fixed. What matters is the way forward.


You can't borrow like there's no tomorrow and not expect to be bankrupted when the bills come due. Running any society in anything resembling a healthy fashion inevitably requires a certain level of deferring individual gratification for the common good and accepting rules of conduct which, while perhaps not always convenient, establish a consistency upon which progress depends.

Agreed. Rousseau's venerable social contract.


Neither can any "diverse" society ever long endure. Homogeneity is essential to the concept of "nation" or "people."

I'm not sure history bears you out, at least when it comes to nations. Very old nations like China, India, and various African nations are quite culturally diverse.


A common society must have common values, as these are the very definition of a "society." The "melting pot" must be just that.

I would think that part of the genius of the Founders was the USA's ability to allow freedom of thought and value while maintaining a national identity. Wasn't that kind of the idea?


consider for a moment the plain folk like the Amish and the Mennonites. (...) I have a hard time imaging any of them are losing any sleep over investments in the markets or the price of gasoline, gay marriage or a "mother's right to choose" (and a father's right to avoid responsibility for his sexual conduct because he's given her that right.) It may be of some value to consider why that is, exactly.

Because they're extremely homogenous, and stay that way by exiling anyone who disagrees. They're also marginal societies, and probably couldn't maintain their homgeneity without the matrix within which they exist.

Tom Montgomery
09-25-2008, 08:44 PM
I don't think the "melting pot" was ever anything other than rhetoric. As far as I can tell the USA has always been a pluralistic society.

ishmael
09-25-2008, 08:51 PM
"Are you saying multi culturalism doesn't work Bob?'

I can't speak for Bob, but no, it doesn't. Not the way it's currently defined.

The US is probably the most multicultural nation in history. My ancestors came here from Germany, Scotland, France and a bunch of other places. Others came here from just as diverse.

This issue Bob raises is that there has to be a social contract. Here in the US it's pretty loose, but we have things we agree on. Both laws and customs.

I have to say they are pretty good. Americans pride themselves on fair play, for example. Fidelity to one's word is another. Those things make it run, I think everywhere, but particularly here.

I'm not naive about our failings, they are legion. But the simple American virtue of being a square shooter is pretty damn good.

Off to bed now. Peace brothers and sisters.

brad9798
09-25-2008, 08:51 PM
I don't give a **** about a bet ... or placing blame, JimD ... it is what it is.

Do your homework.

Clinton facilitated me "getting mine" ... and I do REALLY APPRECIATE HIS TENURE IN OFFICE!

HELL- IF we could re-elect him, I would be first in line to vote.

So, petty judgment and juvenile bets may make you feel better ... but I wish I could start all over again 20 years ago ... I would do some things differently and make even more $$.

So there!

I am glad you got your $20 bet.

Would you like me to sweeten the pot and send you, $2K?

If it will make you feel better, I will!

:D

Bob Cleek
09-25-2008, 09:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Cleek
Neither can any "diverse" society ever long endure. Homogeneity is essential to the concept of "nation" or "people."

I'm not sure history bears you out, at least when it comes to nations. Very old nations like China, India, and various African nations are quite culturally diverse.

************************************************** *******

Let me amend that to note "without a dictator/warlord/etc. subjugating minorities. I was talking about democratic societies.

************************************************** *******
Originally Posted by Bob Cleek
You can't promote abortion as a birth control option without demeaning women and minority women in particular

Why not?
************************************************** *******

Because it's only women who get pregnant. Don't kid yourself. Abortion isn't just a solution to a WOMAN'S problem. Abortion, indeed birth control itself, acts to absolve men from responsibility for the consequences of their sexual actions. Those consequences are the medium of exchange which defines the social contract that creates families: "I could end up pregnant with kids to raise, so if you want nookie, you have to make a commitment to me and any kids that come along." This is the basic, primitive, exchange that underpins "family," and indeed any mating relationship in any of the higher animals which give birth to immature young not otherwise able to survive without the cooperative care of mated parents. If you eliminate the "value" of that exchange by obviating its need, you undermine and devalue marriage and families. Women have nothing with which to "bargain" and are thereby devalued. Problem is, no matter how you cut it, children do NOT do as well outside of stable nuclear families than they do raised inside of them. Pretty basic anthropology... but if like your sex with no strings attached... you'll have to come up with a bunch of rationalizations for why a society has no right to impose its collective will regarding what's best for children born into it.

Flying Orca
09-25-2008, 09:25 PM
Let me amend that to note "without a dictator/warlord/etc. subjugating minorities. I was talking about democratic societies.

Hmm. Well, there's Brazil and Canada then... I'm just not convinced it's impossible. Though it's difficult, I'll grant you.


Because it's only women who get pregnant. Don't kid yourself. Abortion isn't just a solution to a WOMAN'S problem. Abortion, indeed birth control itself, acts to absolve men from responsibility for the consequences of their sexual actions.

Yes. Men AND women.


Those consequences are the medium of exchange which defines the social contract that creates families: "I could end up pregnant with kids to raise, so if you want nookie, you have to make a commitment to me and any kids that come along."

I wouldn't say that's a social contract, I'd say that's an individual contract. And effective birth control, pre- or post-conception, frees both men and women from the necessity. I still don't see how that demeans women and minorities as you claimed above.


This is the basic, primitive, exchange that underpins "family," and indeed any mating relationship in any of the higher animals which give birth to immature young not otherwise able to survive without the cooperative care of mated parents.

True enough, though I would note that there are plenty of other reproductive strategies to be found amongst the "higher animals".


If you eliminate the "value" of that exchange by obviating its need, you eliminate the need for marriage and families.

No, you eliminate the need for the EXCHANGE. I would suggest that marriage and families are still needed; by eliminating the need for the exchange, we have simply arranged that marriages and families are (hopefully) chosen rather than forced by the imperatives of our bodies.


Problem is, no matter how you cut it, children do NOT do as well outside of stable nuclear families than they do raised inside of them.

So the available data would certainly seem to indicate.


if like your sex with no strings attached... you'll have to come up with a bunch of rationalizations for why a society has no right to impose its collective will regarding how children born into it should be raised.

How did you get there? I certainly think we should impose our collective will regarding how children born into it should be raised. We could start with mandatory reversible sterilisation before puberty, continue with sterilisation reversal once one has passed means and skills tests, and even give each individual the right to engender something like 0.9 children, at 0.5 (from each parent) per child, with the remaining partial shares sold on the open market.

Now, that's pretty radical, and lot of people will say you can't have a contract like that. We'll probably never see it. But it would go a long way toward reducing our burgeoning population while giving each child born a good start in life.

Bob Smalser
09-25-2008, 09:37 PM
Do a blind test.

Who balanced the budget?

Who reformed welfare?

Who deregulated the banks?

Who expanded civil liberties?

Who grew capitalism?

Real conservatives are not ideologues.

Or Clinton was a Democrat in Name Only.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/09/bubba_and_obama_still_tense.html

High C
09-25-2008, 09:42 PM
Or Clinton was a Democrat in Name Only.

Does anyone think these things would've happened had the Congress not gone Rep in 1994? Puhlease... :rolleyes:

Scott Rosen
09-25-2008, 09:43 PM
Bob :D

As a long-time Clinton hater, I was shocked when I sat down and thought about this. But Clinton was the most conservative president (conservative in the Barry Goldwater sense) in the past 30 years.

brad9798
09-25-2008, 09:44 PM
Shhhhhhh ... HighC ... let idiots be idiots!

Tom Montgomery
09-25-2008, 09:45 PM
Barry Goldwater wouldn't recognize what passes for a conservative today.

TimH
09-25-2008, 11:26 PM
Clinton was GOOD president no doubt about it. We will look back on the 90s as we did the roaring 20s.

Scott Rosen
09-26-2008, 08:40 AM
Clinton was GOOD president no doubt about it. We will look back on the 90s as we did the roaring 20s.
Whoa! I'm not saying he was a good president.

I'm only saying that, applying the traditional definition of a conservative, he signed more conservative legislation that any other Pres in the past 30 years.

Saltiguy
09-26-2008, 08:51 AM
I would not regard the list as "Clinton" achievements. The truth is that most of the domestic program was shoved down Clintons throat by the 1994 Gingrich Republican Congress.

As far as foreign entanglements, the reality is that Bubba never had a foreign policy. He was the first President in my lifetime to be elected to office at a time when we had no major advesary. Thanks to Reagan and Daddy Bush, the cold war was over. Clinton walked into an opportunity to create a new American agenda, but he squandered it. In that vacuum, Radical Islam, knowing that Clinton was a softie (like Carter), asserted itself. Saddam Hussein did the same thing - knowing that Clinton was soft, he ignored UN orders for WMD inspections and all the agreements made at the conclusion of the Gulf war. If Clinton had had some backbone then, Iraq would have been a non-problem today.

TimH
09-26-2008, 09:34 AM
Sadam was left in power by Bush the elder for a reason. It was a well thought out reason and that was because he was an expert at controlling he people yet he could be controled by us. George Jr should have left things the way they were.

Iraq WAS a non problem all along.

Phillip Allen
09-26-2008, 09:42 AM
Are you saying multi culturalism doesn't work Bob?


Ask that question in the Balkans

TomF
09-26-2008, 10:19 AM
Ask that question in the BalkansMulticulturalism is a stunning success in Toronto and Vancouver.

Flying Orca
09-26-2008, 10:57 AM
Just thinking about Clinton in light of some discussion on CBC this morning, about how Canadians are financially conservative and socially liberal - kind of the opposite of the GOP these days, it would appear! Maybe Clinton was a Canadian plant. Oh, Ma-ark...