The SDnet Presidential Election

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2004-02-14 05:05pm

Bob McDob wrote:If only we could use the breakthroughs in genetic research to make an unholy hybrid of Kerry and Bush.

Vote for John George Burry of the Repudemocratic party!!

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2004-02-14 05:32pm

Um... I guess there are a number of liberals on the board, far more than I would have ever guessed. Go Kerry...

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-02-14 05:33pm

Pablo Sanchez wrote:Um... I guess there are a number of liberals on the board, far more than I would have ever guessed. Go Kerry...

i think it's more that alot of peeps wants anybody but Bush rather than there's alot of liberals.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-02-14 05:39pm

Pablo Sanchez wrote:Um... I guess there are a number of liberals on the board, far more than I would have ever guessed. Go Kerry...

There are a lot of social liberals on the board, but most people here are fiscally conservative. However, George Bush is fiscally liberal and socially conservative (a really bad fucking combination if you ask me), so it's not a surprise that many people want him out.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-02-14 05:43pm

Pablo Sanchez wrote:Um... I guess there are a number of liberals on the board, far more than I would have ever guessed. Go Kerry...

Actually, I wouldn't take the results of the poll to far. SD.net is pretty liberal but there are also a lot of disaffected conservatives in there too.

I know Bush's religious agenda, piss poor planning on Iraq and to a lesser degree Afghanistan, and hefty spending are enough to drive me away.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » 2004-02-14 05:49pm

Hell, I'd rather have George Bush Sr. in office now than the Snowman (aka Bush Jr.).

Let's face it. If it wasn't for 9/11, Bush's presidency would be a joke.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-02-14 05:54pm

If not for 9/11 I would definitely be sitting out of this election.

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2004-02-14 06:07pm

Stormbringer wrote:I know Bush's religious agenda, piss poor planning on Iraq and to a lesser degree Afghanistan, and hefty spending are enough to drive me away.

Compassionate Conservatism is neither compassionate nor conservative. Discuss

I think Bush's administration reflects the fact that he is the first president wholly owned by a new movement--the neo-conservatives. They don't know what they're doing yet, they've just got a jumble of ideas (they're not even sure if they're bad or good yet) that they're trying to tie together. Without much success.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » 2004-02-14 06:12pm

Pablo Sanchez wrote:
Stormbringer wrote:I know Bush's religious agenda, piss poor planning on Iraq and to a lesser degree Afghanistan, and hefty spending are enough to drive me away.
Compassionate Conservatism is neither compassionate nor conservative. Discuss

I think Bush's administration reflects the fact that he is the first president wholly owned by a new movement--the neo-conservatives. They don't know what they're doing yet, they've just got a jumble of ideas (they're not even sure if they're bad or good yet) that they're trying to tie together. Without much success.

These neo-conservatives (nice name) have run my state (Ohio) for awhile now, and they're fucking things up quite nicely.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-02-14 06:13pm

Bah, Paul Wolfowitz is the only neocon that has any power in the Bush administration, and he's lower-tier.

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2004-02-14 06:18pm

Joe wrote:Bah, Paul Wolfowitz is the only neocon that has any power in the Bush administration, and he's lower-tier.

The only official, admitted neo-conservative. Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Condoleeza Rice all follow neo-conservative principles in their policy making.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-02-14 06:21pm

Pablo Sanchez wrote:Compassionate Conservatism is neither compassionate nor conservative. Discuss

I don't much give a damn about compassion, I want a president that'll get the job done. As for conservative, it's been sort of willy nilly on that.

Pablo Sanchez wrote:I think Bush's administration reflects the fact that he is the first president wholly owned by a new movement--the neo-conservatives. They don't know what they're doing yet, they've just got a jumble of ideas (they're not even sure if they're bad or good yet) that they're trying to tie together. Without much success.

I've seen that term tossed around too much as a meaningless buzzword (or curseword) to take the notion seriously. It's some where around New World Order.

His administration really reflects nothing but a fundamentalist morality and short sighted planning. The biggest problems is simply stem from trying to what they want with out making the sacrifices necessary. Weasel politics.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-02-14 06:26pm

The only official, admitted neo-conservative. Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Condoleeza Rice all follow neo-conservative principles in their policy making.

Sure, on Iraq. But nowhere else. If they truly were following neocon principles, we wouldn't be cooperating with Pakistan (or the House of Saud, for that matter), we'd be pushing for outright regime change in Iran and N. Korea, and we'd be adopting a tough line against China because of human rights abuses.

No hyphen, by the way.

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2004-02-14 06:33pm

Joe wrote:
The only official, admitted neo-conservative. Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Condoleeza Rice all follow neo-conservative principles in their policy making.
Sure, on Iraq. But nowhere else. If they truly were following neocon principles, we wouldn't be cooperating with Pakistan (or the House of Saud, for that matter), we'd be pushing for outright regime change in Iran and N. Korea,

That's where they're running into the limit of our power to follow the principles.

and we'd be adopting a tough line against China because of human rights abuses.

Not necessarily, it doesn't call for actions that are not in the best interests of the state. And China is more useful to us as a brutal totalitarian source of labor than as a miffed brutal totalitarian source of nothing.

No hyphen, by the way.

Hmmm... you're right. But I refuse to spell it correctly.

I think your examples are more a demonstration of the limits of the theory, and of the fact that Colin Powell is a classic conservative (he has, BTW, problems with Rumsfeld and Cheney and appears to be in the administration's bad graces). Their domestic agenda has been more or less reflective of my view on them, IMO.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-02-14 06:46pm

That's where they're running into the limit of our power to follow the principles.

N. Korea, yes, Iran, no. And you're right, it would be outside of our power to fight the WoT without the cooperation of at least Pakistan. But the neocons just don't care, you see. Security cooperation does not trump all other considerations for neoconservatives.

Not necessarily, it doesn't call for actions that are not in the best interests of the state. And China is more useful to us as a brutal totalitarian source of labor than as a miffed brutal totalitarian source of nothing.

It doesn't call for actions that are not in the best interests of the state per se, however it is willing to make compromises regarding strict national interest where spreading democracy is concerned. Neocons tend to believe that the U.S. is in the long run, better off with China as a liberal democracy, so they'd be willing to take actions to achieve that goal.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-02-14 06:49pm

I think your examples are more a demonstration of the limits of the theory, and of the fact that Colin Powell is a classic conservative (he has, BTW, problems with Rumsfeld and Cheney and appears to be in the administration's bad graces). Their domestic agenda has been more or less reflective of my view on them, IMO.

There is no defined neoconservative domestic agenda to speak of.

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2004-02-14 07:01pm

Joe, we're comparing apples and oranges, here. You're talking theory.

The Bush administration does not follow every curve and bump of the neocon primer, because such things have to be adapted to be functional--and also because Colin Powell, secretary of state, is more classically conservative. I'm talking about their domestic agenda as being "neocon" (even if there is no codified rules for such a thing) because it is 'conservative' while being quite distinct from previous conservative administrations. Deregulation of industries and lower taxes are key conservative issues and have been for a long time, but simultaneous increases in domestic spending (as opposed to military) are new to the movement.

What I'm saying is that the general tone of the administration has been neoconservative (no hyphen

).

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-02-14 07:20pm

The Bush administration does not follow every curve and bump of the neocon primer, because such things have to be adapted to be functional--and also because Colin Powell, secretary of state, is more classically conservative.

The Bush Administration is, in other words, not owned by neoconservatives.

And I'm not saying that the administration has to follow every aspect of the neocon primer to be considered neoconservatives, just that they occasionally need to take positions on certain issues important to neoconservatives to be considered the same as them. The only place where this administration has thrown a bone to the neoconservatives is Iraq; I cannot offhand think of anything else.

I'm talking about their domestic agenda as being "neocon" (even if there is no codified rules for such a thing) because it is 'conservative' while being quite distinct from previous conservative administrations. Deregulation of industries and lower taxes are key conservative issues and have been for a long time, but simultaneous increases in domestic spending (as opposed to military) are new to the movement.

I do see what you're saying, but technically that's incorrect, as neoconservativism is as currently defined primarily a foreign policy school of thought. It would be more accurate to simply say the administration has become more liberal on social spending while still retaining many key conservative policy objectives, like increased military spending and tax cuts.

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2004-02-14 07:48pm

Okay, I concede to your superior knowledge of up-and-coming political movements

EDIT:
I think the major reason that we haven't seen more activities like Iraq is because they're too draining to run on a peacetime economy. One small country has been bad enough.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-02-14 07:50pm

Pablo Sanchez wrote:Okay, I concede to your superior knowledge of up-and-coming political movements

Apology accepted, sarcasm noted.

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2004-02-14 07:51pm

Joe wrote:
Pablo Sanchez wrote:Okay, I concede to your superior knowledge of up-and-coming political movements
Apology accepted, sarcasm noted.

I wasn't being sarcastic.

EDIT:
Is an honest concession that rare on webboards? I guess I'm the only one who ever does it.

EmperorSolo51 · Post by **EmperorSolo51** » 2004-02-14 11:03pm

I think we know where I stand here.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-02-15 02:21am

Joe wrote:Bah, Paul Wolfowitz is the only neocon that has any power in the Bush administration, and he's lower-tier.

You'd be surprised at how many in the Bush administration signed the "Project for the New American Century" imperialist unilateralist national greatness screed of "the neocons" (Bill Kristol and his ilk). Rumsfeld & Cheney did.

Condi Rice and Colin Powell aren't neocons though, but they ain't doves.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-02-15 02:35am

I think we know where I stand here.

Something about that line, followed by the huge Republican sig-banner, is just too funny for words.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

The SDnet Presidential Election

Who?