Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 46 to 59 of 59

Thread: 'Ultra Liberal' Barack Obama too conservative for Canada :P

  1. #46
    Gold Member mamaste's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    fishcakes... blah blah blah
    Posts
    875

    Default

    There's good and bad about America like any other country. Sometimes we get positive results from our bad behavior. I mean, if America hadn't been so focused on the Cold War and military, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation. We're not all bad, ya know.

  2. #47
    Super Moderator Tati's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Your Pocket
    Posts
    17,998

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RevellingInSane View Post
    Maybe the US isn't too conservative. Maybe other places are just too liberal?
    Why does there have to be a "too"? I don't think the article was suggesting that Obama's beliefs or policies are wrong, just that they wouldn't be considered leftist in Canada. And that's true. I didn't see it as weighing the two systems against one another - it's just pointing out that the spectra and nomenclature used are different, and maybe providing a little insight into Canadian politics for anyone's who's interested.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aella View Post
    I thought the article was more about getting to a more universal definition of 'conservative/liberal' rather than arguing the value of either of these systems.
    Exactly. I read it as just a comparison piece, maybe a little tongue-in-cheek.

    Quote Originally Posted by bychance View Post
    Someone once brought up that Canadian's conservatives are much like your [America's] Democrats...
    This is true, I would say. It's not a value judgment - it's just that if you were trying to make a correlation between parties in both countries, that's how they would line up.

    I know the US takes a lot of knocks on the public stage and on this board (from a small but vocal minority anyway ), but not everything is about trying to tear them down; it can just be interesting to compare it to other models of government, and I think it's just a truism that the left-right political spectrum is a little different in the US than in most other places. Nobody's saying that's bad, just that it's so.
    If you reveal your secrets to the wind you should not blame the wind for revealing them to the trees.

    - Kahlil Gibran

  3. #48
    Elite Member kingcap72's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    10 miles from Pootie Tang
    Posts
    21,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sputnik View Post
    ^^^
    not really. it really doesn't mean the same thing outside of britain and the US. it's definitely not considered a left wing ideology though.

    Liberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Okay. That makes sense.

  4. #49
    Bronze Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    just passing through
    Posts
    67

    Default

    Obama's not a leftist by any means - social or economic. He's only a leftist to extreme right wing propagandists who have brought America so far to the right that we don't even have a left anymore (at least not one that is seen or recognized).

    Even Obama's former law professor stated (on the Daily Show) that when he taught them, he though Barack and Michelle were republicans ...

  5. #50
    Elite Member bychance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    5,294

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rebelpleb View Post
    Obama's not a leftist by any means - social or economic. He's only a leftist to extreme right wing propagandists who have brought America so far to the right that we don't even have a left anymore (at least not one that is seen or recognized).

    Even Obama's former law professor stated (on the Daily Show) that when he taught them, he though Barack and Michelle were republicans ...
    Isn't that the best part of it all + in conclusion on what republicans thought in 2004?

    oh...

  6. #51
    Elite Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    The Edge of the Annex
    Posts
    5,383

    Default

    I think there is a Live and Let Live philosophy up here (outside of Alberta, anyway) that I really appreciate - the US seems full of judgmental hard asses and/or bigots (sorry)

  7. #52
    Elite Member nana55's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    dreaming about being on a lake in Ontario
    Posts
    4,085

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RevellingInSane View Post
    You obviously don't know. Just end the sentence right there or add "anything about Bush's history".

    He was screwing up in 2000? WTF? If he were elected in 2000, he would have taken office in 2001. Guh. Elected in the even year, take office in the odd? Ring a bell?

    That one and one quarter lines just proved you truly don't know what you are talking about. Do you even know whom he followed? Do you know which party preceded him? Do you know who was elected twelve years earlier?

    That's right, you weren't paying attention. That doesn't mean the information isn't somewhere. I mean, that can't be found, say....on the internet?

    I understand some people see Bush as representing every American, which is a mistake and a stereotype, whether you like it or not. The history of his "public service" has led to many questions. Whether he even won in 2000 is still in question. Didn't know that, did you? Get caught up on those finer points before passing judgment on hundreds of millions. Mkay?
    George W. Bush's eight years of terror began at least a decade ago and some would say more than two decades ago. Why? Does he appear to be intelligent enough to actually win the White House fair and square?
    I live in California a bastion of liberalism, but I live in San Diego, in a community filled with upper middle class navy personnel. They liked Bush until almost the bitter end. Even in this election this area was heavily McCain. Enough people liked Bush to reelect him and support him through some horrible times. It's called "fear". He and Darth Vader were very good at instilling fear. People finally saw through it the last year or so, but I still know some supporters. It is difficult to live here.
    If I can't be a good example, then let me be a horrible warning.

  8. #53
    Elite Member sputnik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    fellow traveller
    Posts
    51,875

    Default

    ^^
    it's also the reason why 'military intelligence' is an oxymoron.
    I'm open to everything. When you start to criticise the times you live in, your time is over. - Karl Lagerfeld

  9. #54
    Elite Member RevellingInSane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Where Being PC is understood as a fault!
    Posts
    11,592

    Default

    nana55,

    This is the south and a military area. It was heavily Bush, then McCain. They swear democrats will ruin "what Bush has tried to do to help America."

    Maybe they know a different Bush.



  10. #55
    Elite Member bychance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    5,294

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RevellingInSane View Post
    nana55,

    This is the south and a military area. It was heavily Bush, then McCain. They swear democrats will ruin "what Bush has tried to do to help America."

    Maybe they know a different Bush.
    I will NEVER understand those people's point of views. A whole flood of them are in SodaHead. I've read posts like 'Obama is going to put America to hell' comments.

  11. #56
    Elite Member RevellingInSane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Where Being PC is understood as a fault!
    Posts
    11,592

    Default

    It's called masochism.



  12. #57
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,372

    Default

    mindlessness.

    i'd call it brainwashing, but there'd have to be something to wash.
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  13. #58
    Elite Member RevellingInSane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Where Being PC is understood as a fault!
    Posts
    11,592

    Default

    OMG! Someone is defending BUSH right now. I am ready to slap the hell out of this person!



  14. #59
    Elite Member Fluffy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    5,600

    Default

    January 25, 2009
    Op-Ed Contributor
    A Liberal Translation

    By TIMOTHY GARTON ASH
    Oxford, England

    GOVERNMENT and markets both have their place in a decent society, President Obama suggested in his Inaugural Address, but can become a force for ill if they are without restraint. Missing from Mr. Obama’s address was only the proper name of the political philosophy, coded into the constitutional DNA of the United States, that proposes this and other balances: liberalism.

    Like many of Mr. Obama’s speeches, the Inaugural Address presented, in substance, a blend of classical constitutional and modern egalitarian liberalism. The thing, but never the word. Anyone who knows anything about contemporary political discourse in the United States understands why.

    Just over 20 years ago, a group of leading American intellectuals, gathered by the historian Fritz Stern, placed an advertisement in this very paper trying to defend the word “liberalism” against its abuse by Ronald Reagan and others on the American right. It was in vain. Over the last two decades a truly eccentric usage has triumphed in American public debate. Liberalism has become a pejorative term denoting — to put the matter a tad frivolously — some unholy marriage of big government and fornication.

    This weird usage leads, at the extreme, to book titles like “Deliver Us From Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism and Liberalism.” But it infects the mainstream too. Asked during a primary debate to define “liberal,” and say if she was one, Hillary Clinton replied that a word originally associated with a belief in freedom had unfortunately come to mean favoring big government. So, she concluded, “I prefer the word progressive, which has a real American meaning.” This implies that the meaning of “liberal” must be unreal, un-American, or possibly both.

    The United States is not the only place where “liberalism” is fiercely contested. In a recent conference at Oxford, with speakers from the Americas, Europe, India, Japan and China, we explored what we deliberately called “Liberalisms.” Interestingly, what is furiously attacked as “liberalism” in France, and in much of Central and Eastern Europe, is precisely what is most beloved of the libertarian or “fiscal conservative” strand of the American right. When French leftists and Polish populists denounce “liberalism,” they mean Anglo-Saxon-style, unregulated free-market capitalism. (Occasionally the prefix neo- or ultra- is added to make this clear.)

    One Chinese intellectual told us that in his country, “Liberalism means everything the government doesn’t like.” The term is used in China as a political instrument to attack, in particular, advocates of further market-oriented economic reform. Standards of what counts as socially or culturally liberal also vary widely. An Indian speaker wryly observed that in India a “liberal” father is one who allows his children to choose whom they want to marry.

    Faced with this worldwide conceptual cacophony, some at the conference argued that we should abandon the term, or at least dismantle it into component parts with plainer meanings. But combinations and balances belong to liberalism’s defining essence, and the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. As the Oxford political theorist Michael Freeden observed, if just one of the necessary components — for example, the free market — dominates, then the result can be illiberalism. The vital, never-ending debate over liberalism is not just over its indispensable ingredients, but also over their form, proportion and relation to one another.

    A plausible minimum list of ingredients for 21st century liberalism would include liberty under law, limited and accountable government, markets, tolerance, some version of individualism and universalism, and some notion of human equality, reason and progress. The mix of ingredients differs from place to place. Whether some distant cousin really belongs to the extended family of liberalisms is a matter of healthy dispute. But somewhere in this contested, evolving combination there is a thing of enduring value.

    This has been an American argument, some would say the American argument, for more than 200 years. In fact, the United States is still full of liberals, both progressive or left liberals and, I would insist, conservative or right liberals. Most of them just don’t use the word. Liberalism is the American love that dare not speak its name.

    For obvious reasons, we are now witnessing worldwide criticism of a version of pure free-market liberalism, a k a neo-liberalism, charged with having led us into our current economic mess. Yet, our Chinese and European colleagues agreed that markets remain an indispensable condition of liberty. One leading Chinese economic reformer even suggested that there is less income inequality in those Chinese provinces where the market plays a larger role.

    I don’t expect Mr. Obama to use that word any time soon. But those of us who believe in the universal, enduring value of liberalism are happy to see him start by vigorously restoring more of the thing. He has decisively reasserted the importance of equal liberty under the rule of law, not least by ordering the closing of Guantánamo Bay prison. Seeking a more just and efficient balance between government and markets is at the heart of his domestic agenda. He has also found ways to present the traditional liberal value of tolerance in new language that speaks to our increasingly mixed-up world.

    Then, perhaps in his second term, he might even dare to rescue the word.

    Timothy Garton Ash, a fellow at St. Antony’s College, Oxford, and the Hoover Institution at Stanford, is the author of “Free World: America, Europe and the Surprising Future of the West.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/opinion/25gartonash-1.html?partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 6
    Last Post: December 6th, 2008, 01:26 AM
  2. American Conservative magazine editor endorses Barack Obama
    By Hasdrubal in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: November 1st, 2008, 03:37 PM
  3. Barack Obama declares himself a fiscal conservative
    By tkdgirl in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: September 23rd, 2008, 02:20 PM
  4. Wick Allison: A Conservative for Barack Obama
    By albatross in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: September 18th, 2008, 05:26 PM
  5. Replies: 3
    Last Post: March 10th, 2008, 10:11 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •