Could We Please Stop Calling Obama, Reid, and Pelosi Liberals?

[Immanuel]

Look. I'm a liberal. Obama, Reid, and Pelosi are left-leaning centrists. If someone has voted the way Obama, Reid, and Pelosi have, they aren't liberals; they're centrists.

Think of politics as a spectrum. Chomsky is a liberal, Nader is a liberal, the Green Party is liberal, but Democrats are not liberals. Democrats are centrists. Some Democrats voted for the Patriot Act for God's sakes! That isn't liberal. That's as right-wing as you can get from a liberal point of view. Anybody who doesn't immediately act to stop waterboarding isn't liberal. Anybody who supports clean coal isn't liberal. Anybody who maintains a military presence in Afghanistan isn't liberal. Anybody who bails out Wallstreet and the big national banks isn't liberal. If the spectrum goes from blue to red, then liberals are ultra-violet; anyone in the blue is just a liberalistic centrist with some right-wing tendencies.

I know that those of you who see politics from the right-side of the spectrum perceive centrists as liberals, but remember: you have to adjust for bias. Its called Kentucky windage.

Oh oh, here it comes. In a week, they will be calling them right wing nuts. Just watch!

Look, Bush was a flaming liberal, at least on spending and as for social policies, well, he sure wasn't my kind of conservative. We had every right to toss him your way... but, you ain't gonna pawn those three off on us! No way... no how!!!!

Immie

It's just so damned laughable that not a single soul on this board will admit to ever supporting George W. Bush. George who? Sorry, folks, but the odds say that most of the "conservatives" who post here most certainly DID support him at one time. But it's not a happy place to be, so you pretend you were off somewhere else during his 8 years.

I did support him and I have admitted it a thousand times. Where the hell have you been the last eight years?
I voted for him twice. The second time only because I did not like John Kerry because he was an elitist.

I began disliking George Bush's policy the moment he announced the no bid contract to Halliburton and things only went down hill from there.

Dispite all that, I have admitted so often and I still do that I voted for George Bush and no, it is not a happy place to be.

But, it is all the Democrats fault! If they had run a decent human being instead of an asshole in 2004, I would not have to admit to voting for Bush the second time around.

Immie

 

[DiamondDave]

This semantics game continues, I see.

Extreme right wingers inform us that BUSH II is a liberal for christ's sake.

To them anyone who is not a brownshirt is a liberal.

So who cares if these totalitarians think they're liberals?

Liberals know they're not liberals.

Instead of getting hung up on labels, why not just fault these people for what they actually do?

I'll tell you why they don't.

Because that requires that these people actually pay attention to the facts and details of policies, and it's way more fun to just label people so they don't have to pay attention.

Face it, if they were really paying attention they'd know that these labels are meaningless.

No edit.... "not conservative" does not inherently mean liberal... Bush II was indeed further to the left than a 'true' conservative.. and was moderate/cooperating on a lot of things (especially financially)... but you won't ever hear me call him a liberal...

Obama and Pelosi on the other hand, are indeed very far left on the L-R political scale to fall into the 'liberal' scale (and quite a ways into it)

Oh... and I do fault those 2 plenty on what they actually do..

 

[Tech_Esq]

Look. I'm a liberal. Obama, Reid, and Pelosi are left-leaning centrists. If someone has voted the way Obama, Reid, and Pelosi have, they aren't liberals; they're centrists.

Think of politics as a spectrum. Chomsky is a liberal, Nader is a liberal, the Green Party is liberal, but Democrats are not liberals. Democrats are centrists. Some Democrats voted for the Patriot Act for God's sakes! That isn't liberal. That's as right-wing as you can get from a liberal point of view. Anybody who doesn't immediately act to stop waterboarding isn't liberal. Anybody who supports clean coal isn't liberal. Anybody who maintains a military presence in Afghanistan isn't liberal. Anybody who bails out Wallstreet and the big national banks isn't liberal. If the spectrum goes from blue to red, then liberals are ultra-violet; anyone in the blue is just a liberalistic centrist with some right-wing tendencies.

I know that those of you who see politics from the right-side of the spectrum perceive centrists as liberals, but remember: you have to adjust for bias. Its called Kentucky windage.

If you think the named people are centrist in any way shape or form, you don't understand where you fall in the political spectrum. Believe me, I majored in Poli Sci and I had a 3.9 GPA in those subject. If there's one thing I kinda have down at this point, it's the identification of political ideology.

The only way that you can say they are centrist is if you take every possible ideology in the world into account. In the context of US politics, they are practically falling off the scale to the left. If they are, in turn, to the right of you, you have the ideology of Che Guverra.

 

[Hillbilly]

Why is it Bush's fault that no one else put a bid in against Halliburton? Should he have formed a company that can do what Halliburton does so that there would be two?

 

[Immanuel]

Why is it Bush's fault that no one else put a bid in against Halliburton? Should he have formed a company that can do what Halliburton does so that there would be two?

It is not that no one else put a bid in. He didn't take bids. That is the problem.

Now, truthfully, people claim that Halliburton is the only corporation that could have done the job. If that is the case, then fine, put the contract out for bid and then choose Halliburton. They did not put the contract out for bid and there was a connection between the VP and Halliburton giving the entire thing the appearance of being a kickback. There was a conflict of interests involved and even if every 'I' was dotted and every 'T' crossed the whole thing just plain smelled.

It just plain smelled. But as I said, things definitely got worse from there.

Immie

 

[sealybobo]

Liberal is in the eye of the beholder.

18th century liberalism and 21st century liberalism are hardly the same thing.

Likewise, conservatism of this century and conservatism of precious ages aren't remotely the same.

These words have become mostly meaningless labels designed, now, mostly to divide us into oppossing camps.

The dems throw us an occasional liberal bone, like they'll put a pro choice woman on the Supreme Court and give kids healthcare, but still healthcare, oilmen and bankers run washington.

 

[Hillbilly]

Why is it Bush's fault that no one else put a bid in against Halliburton? Should he have formed a company that can do what Halliburton does so that there would be two?

It is not that no one else put a bid in. He didn't take bids. That is the problem.

Now, truthfully, people claim that Halliburton is the only corporation that could have done the job. If that is the case, then fine, put the contract out for bid and then choose Halliburton. They did not put the contract out for bid and there was a connection between the VP and Halliburton giving the entire thing the appearance of being a kickback. There was a conflict of interests involved and even if every 'I' was dotted and every 'T' crossed the whole thing just plain smelled.

It just plain smelled. But as I said, things definitely got worse from there.

Immie

They did take bids. When they went to renew the contract they didn't bother as it was completely pointless. When the government actually does something logical we should all freak out, we should encourage them.

 

[GHook93]

This semantics game continues, I see.

Extreme right wingers inform us that BUSH II is a liberal for christ's sake.

Fiscally Bush II was very liberal!

 

[Hillbilly]

Immanuel- do you see a conflict of interest between Obama giving $2 billion to Acorn and Obama spending government money to pay for windmills made by the same people who run the news networks, which all supported him?

 

[Immanuel]

Immanuel- do you see a conflict of interest between Obama giving $2 billion to Acorn and Obama spending government money to pay for windmills made by the same people who run the news networks, which all supported him?

Absolutely, but I didn't vote for Obama and I only support him because he is the President of my country. I voted for and supported President Bush and through the eight years he lost my support. I did not vote for President Obama and have never "backed" his policies except to hope he succeeds. Since that is the case, President Obama did not lose my support.

I was angry that President Bush did not act like he promised. With President Obama, I can only hope that we make it through the next 3 1/2 years.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

They did take bids. When they went to renew the contract they didn't bother as it was completely pointless. When the government actually does something logical we should all freak out, we should encourage them.

No, the did not. They did it as a "No Bid Contract" which means they gave the contract to Halliburton without offering any other corporation the chance to put a bid in.

Immie

 

[Tech_Esq]

What I think is confusing our discussions of right - left, liberal - conservative is that we've have a recent spat of "leaders" that do not fall neatly into the boxes that we've been told - by the popular media - to place them.

Let's look at G.W. Bush. We're told over and over that he's a conservative and what he did was in the name of conservatism. He spent like a drunken sailor with a bonus. Is that a conservative value? NO. He invented new social welfare programs and enthusiastically supported more. Is that a conservative value? NO. He greatly expanded government by creating the Department of Homeland Security. Is that a conservative value? NO. He did not support protection of the nation's southern border. Is that a conservative value? NO. He greatly expanded the control features of the central government and eschewed the New Federalism concepts set forth by Reagan. Is that a conservative value? NO. He made profligate use of the military. If those on the left think this is a conservative value, you are misinformed. The conservative value is that the military should be very strong and lightly used. In that way, we may best pursue our national goals abroad. Thus, Bush's over use of the military was not a conservative value.

Despite all of this, we're forced to call him a conservative.

I think a far more useful paradigm is to look at whether politician support expanded control by the state into the lives of its citizens or not. Whether it comes from the left or the right is of little moment. Once control over your life has been wrested from you, it's gone. This is what we should guard against.

In that view, both Bush and Obama are statists. They wish the government would have greater control over the individual rather than lesser control. Granted they don't have the same ideological bent, but the result is you have less control. IMO, that's not a good thing.

 

[sealybobo]

What I think is confusing our discussions of right - left, liberal - conservative is that we've have a recent spat of "leaders" that do not fall neatly into the boxes that we've been told - by the popular media - to place them.

Let's look at G.W. Bush. We're told over and over that he's a conservative and what he did was in the name of conservatism. He spent like a drunken sailor with a bonus. Is that a conservative value? NO. He invented new social welfare programs and enthusiastically supported more. Is that a conservative value? NO. He greatly expanded government by creating the Department of Homeland Security. Is that a conservative value? NO. He did not support protection of the nation's southern border. Is that a conservative value? NO. He greatly expanded the control features of the central government and eschewed the New Federalism concepts set forth by Reagan. Is that a conservative value? NO. He made profligate use of the military. If those on the left think this is a conservative value, you are misinformed. The conservative value is that the military should be very strong and lightly used. In that way, we may best pursue our national goals abroad. Thus, Bush's over use of the military was not a conservative value.

Despite all of this, we're forced to call him a conservative.

I think a far more useful paradigm is to look at whether politician support expanded control by the state into the lives of its citizens or not. Whether it comes from the left or the right is of little moment. Once control over your life has been wrested from you, it's gone. This is what we should guard against.

In that view, both Bush and Obama are statists. They wish the government would have greater control over the individual rather than lesser control. Granted they don't have the same ideological bent, but the result is you have less control. IMO, that's not a good thing.

Us liberals have been screaming for years that the GOP isn't fiscally conservative and we also told you the GOP was lying about how liberal Clinton and Obama were.

 

[Meister]

Why is it Bush's fault that no one else put a bid in against Halliburton? Should he have formed a company that can do what Halliburton does so that there would be two?

It is not that no one else put a bid in. He didn't take bids. That is the problem.

Now, truthfully, people claim that Halliburton is the only corporation that could have done the job. If that is the case, then fine, put the contract out for bid and then choose Halliburton. They did not put the contract out for bid and there was a connection between the VP and Halliburton giving the entire thing the appearance of being a kickback. There was a conflict of interests involved and even if every 'I' was dotted and every 'T' crossed the whole thing just plain smelled.

It just plain smelled. But as I said, things definitely got worse from there.

Immie

Why wasn't it an issue with no bid contracts to Haliburton under the Clinton Administration? Cheney did not benefit with Haliburton under Bush's administration. This has been a non issue except with the left flinging crap at Bush.

 

[Hillbilly]

They did take bids. When they went to renew the contract they didn't bother as it was completely pointless. When the government actually does something logical we should all freak out, we should encourage them.

No, the did not. They did it as a "No Bid Contract" which means they gave the contract to Halliburton without offering any other corporation the chance to put a bid in.

Immie

I don't deny that they got some no-bid contracts. Regardless, what is the point of the government taking bids for contracts? To get a good price. Have they? Absolutely. If I were in charge at Halliburton I'd fire the crap out of the guy who set it up. A .5-1% profit is not acceptable to me. If they were charging $20,000 for toilet seats I'd be pissed. $16 for a hot meal on the other side of the world in the middle of a war zone is a bargain. Hell, I pay that much down the street. The whole Halliburton flap is really a non-issue. Sure it has the appearance of scandal which warrants investigation, but there isn't one there, so you move on.

 

[Immanuel]

Why is it Bush's fault that no one else put a bid in against Halliburton? Should he have formed a company that can do what Halliburton does so that there would be two?

It is not that no one else put a bid in. He didn't take bids. That is the problem.

Now, truthfully, people claim that Halliburton is the only corporation that could have done the job. If that is the case, then fine, put the contract out for bid and then choose Halliburton. They did not put the contract out for bid and there was a connection between the VP and Halliburton giving the entire thing the appearance of being a kickback. There was a conflict of interests involved and even if every 'I' was dotted and every 'T' crossed the whole thing just plain smelled.

It just plain smelled. But as I said, things definitely got worse from there.

Immie

Why wasn't it an issue with no bid contracts to Haliburton under the Clinton Administration? Cheney did not benefit with Haliburton under Bush's administration. This has been a non issue except with the left flinging crap at Bush.

Asked and answered in another thread, but I don't remember which one.

1) I didn't know about them under Clinton. I wasn't "into" politics then and didn't care. However, it is not so much the no bid contract that is my problem it is #2 to this reply.

2) Cheney having been the CEO of Halliburton prior to being VP leaves the impression that this was a kickback, whether or not it was. An honest person, will recuse himself from a decision such as this when there is a conflict of interest. In this case both Pres. Bush and VP Cheney should have made sure that this was publicly approved by Congress.

It is simply the appearance of a conflict of interest that bothered me here.

I am an accountant for a private company. I have check signing privilege. I will not sign a check made payable to me, so that I have backup as to the legitimacy of any payment made to me. FOR MY OWN PROTECTION!. Integrity requires such things.

As for slinging crap at the Bush Admin, I am not a leftie and I said this back on other boards the day it happened.

Immie

PS Meister: I think it was you that asked the question in the other thread. It was a very good question and I answered it before, but if it wasn't you that asked please forgive me for sounding like I thought it was you.

 

[Immanuel]

They did take bids. When they went to renew the contract they didn't bother as it was completely pointless. When the government actually does something logical we should all freak out, we should encourage them.

No, the did not. They did it as a "No Bid Contract" which means they gave the contract to Halliburton without offering any other corporation the chance to put a bid in.

Immie

I don't deny that they got some no-bid contracts. Regardless, what is the point of the government taking bids for contracts? To get a good price. Have they? Absolutely. If I were in charge at Halliburton I'd fire the crap out of the guy who set it up. A .5-1% profit is not acceptable to me. If they were charging $20,000 for toilet seats I'd be pissed. $16 for a hot meal on the other side of the world in the middle of a war zone is a bargain. Hell, I pay that much down the street. The whole Halliburton flap is really a non-issue. Sure it has the appearance of scandal which warrants investigation, but there isn't one there, so you move on.

I think I have already answered this question in subsequent posts.

Again, for clarity, it is not the idea of the No Bid contract that bothered me. I simply have a problem with even the appearance of a conflict of interest. There is an ancronym that fits here real well... CYOA. Know what it means?

Immie

 

[Hillbilly]

It is not that no one else put a bid in. He didn't take bids. That is the problem.

Now, truthfully, people claim that Halliburton is the only corporation that could have done the job. If that is the case, then fine, put the contract out for bid and then choose Halliburton. They did not put the contract out for bid and there was a connection between the VP and Halliburton giving the entire thing the appearance of being a kickback. There was a conflict of interests involved and even if every 'I' was dotted and every 'T' crossed the whole thing just plain smelled.

It just plain smelled. But as I said, things definitely got worse from there.

Immie

Why wasn't it an issue with no bid contracts to Haliburton under the Clinton Administration? Cheney did not benefit with Haliburton under Bush's administration. This has been a non issue except with the left flinging crap at Bush.

Asked and answered in anther thread, but I don't remember which one.

1) I didn't know about them under Clinton. I wasn't "into" politics then and didn't care. However, it is not so much the no bid contract that is my problem it is #2 to this reply.

2) Cheney having been the CEO of Halliburton prior to being VP leaves the impression that this was a kickback, whether or not it was. An honest person, will recuse himself from a decision such as this when there is a conflict of interest. In this case both Pres. Bush and VP Cheney should have made sure that this was publicly approved by Congress.

It is simply the appearance of a conflict of interest that bothered me here.

I am an accountant for a private company. I have check signing privilege. I will not sign a check made payable to me, so that I have backup as to the legitimacy of any payment made to me. FOR MY OWN PROTECTION!. Integrity requires such things.

As for slinging crap at the Bush Admin, I am not a leftie and I said this back on other boards the day it happened.

Immie

The appearance of conflict of interest means nothing. Like I said above.

 

[Immanuel]

The appearance of conflict of interest means nothing. Like I said above.

True, but an honest person will avoid them.

Bush/Cheney did not... therefore, what does that say about their honesty?

Immie

 

[Meister]

It is not that no one else put a bid in. He didn't take bids. That is the problem.

Now, truthfully, people claim that Halliburton is the only corporation that could have done the job. If that is the case, then fine, put the contract out for bid and then choose Halliburton. They did not put the contract out for bid and there was a connection between the VP and Halliburton giving the entire thing the appearance of being a kickback. There was a conflict of interests involved and even if every 'I' was dotted and every 'T' crossed the whole thing just plain smelled.

It just plain smelled. But as I said, things definitely got worse from there.

Immie

Why wasn't it an issue with no bid contracts to Haliburton under the Clinton Administration? Cheney did not benefit with Haliburton under Bush's administration. This has been a non issue except with the left flinging crap at Bush.

Asked and answered in another thread, but I don't remember which one.

1) I didn't know about them under Clinton. I wasn't "into" politics then and didn't care. However, it is not so much the no bid contract that is my problem it is #2 to this reply.

2) Cheney having been the CEO of Halliburton prior to being VP leaves the impression that this was a kickback, whether or not it was. An honest person, will recuse himself from a decision such as this when there is a conflict of interest. In this case both Pres. Bush and VP Cheney should have made sure that this was publicly approved by Congress.

It is simply the appearance of a conflict of interest that bothered me here.

I am an accountant for a private company. I have check signing privilege. I will not sign a check made payable to me, so that I have backup as to the legitimacy of any payment made to me. FOR MY OWN PROTECTION!. Integrity requires such things.

As for slinging crap at the Bush Admin, I am not a leftie and I said this back on other boards the day it happened.

Immie

PS Meister: I think it was you that asked the question in the other thread. It was a very good question and I answered it before, but if it wasn't you that asked please forgive me for sounding like I thought it was you.

Immie, my appologies to you if you thought I was directing the crap slinging to you. That wasn't my intention. I was making that statement to what was going on several years ago with the dem beating the war drum on it.
It probably was me that had made prior statements. I just keep bringing up the same statements when the same topic on Haliburton is brought up.