kapkomet Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 21, 2009 -> 10:04 PM) ugh, what a boring argument peanut. Are you really going to argue classical liberalism for the modern day usage? Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 21, 2009 -> 10:04 PM) ugh, what a boring argument peanut. Are you really going to argue classical liberalism for the modern day usage? Its like arguing calling somebody a "f**" isn't really an insult because 50 years ago it meant cigarette. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 (edited) QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Jan 21, 2009 -> 09:26 PM) Loosely translated kap's sig quote is: "The problem with our free market friends is not that they are ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." That doesn't sound like Ronald Reagan to me. QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 21, 2009 -> 10:04 PM) ugh, what a boring argument peanut. Are you really going to argue classical liberalism for the modern day usage? Exactly. Words change meaning over time and can acquire new meanings. "Liberal" in today's political landscape clearly does not mean Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson classical liberalism. Modern/ Social Liberalism Classical Liberalism Honestly, if you don't know the difference, you are ignorant. Edited January 22, 2009 by StrangeSox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 22, 2009 -> 07:04 AM) Exactly. Words change meaning over time and can acquire new meanings. "Liberal" in today's political landscape clearly does not mean Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson classical liberalism. Modern/ Social Liberalism Classical Liberalism Honestly, if you don't know the difference, you are ignorant. He knows the difference. He was just trying to make me look like I was "ignorant". Nice try. Thank you, too. Carry on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSox05 Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 I wonder what Iran would look like today if Operation Ajax had never happened and Mohammed Mosaddeq remained in power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Four more XO's from the Prez today, all "War on Terror" related... --Close Gitmo Detention facility within 13 months --Use only the US Army guide regarding detention and interrogation - ending enhanced inteerogation technique use --Executive taskforce to review detention policies and all cases for those held --Delay the trial of Ali al-Marri, a US resident who had been held at Gitmo for 5 years with no charges filed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Jan 22, 2009 -> 12:34 PM) I wonder what Iran would look like today if Operation Ajax had never happened and Mohammed Mosaddeq remained in power. Nobody knows for sure but scholars seem to assume that it'd be a stable, mature, secular, pro-Western democracy. There's still a pretty substantial amount of pro-Western sentiment in the country, too. We probably never would've done that but the Brits were pretty pissed that Iran nationalized their oil industry which meant they were losing a bunch of money, so they needed to get us on board. The only way for them to do that was to play the "Commie" card to get Eisenhower to agree to the whole deal. That was a case of us not looking more than 5 years into the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSox05 Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 QUOTE (lostfan @ Jan 22, 2009 -> 11:44 AM) Nobody knows for sure but scholars seem to assume that it'd be a stable, mature, secular, pro-Western democracy. There's still a pretty substantial amount of pro-Western sentiment in the country, too. We probably never would've done that but the Brits were pretty pissed that Iran nationalized their oil industry which meant they were losing a bunch of money, so they needed to get us on board. The only way for them to do that was to play the "Commie" card to get Eisenhower to agree to the whole deal. That was a case of us not looking more than 5 years into the future. Is it just me or did we do alot of stupid things in the name of stoping communism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 QUOTE (lostfan @ Jan 22, 2009 -> 11:44 AM) Nobody knows for sure but scholars seem to assume that it'd be a stable, mature, secular, pro-Western democracy. There's still a pretty substantial amount of pro-Western sentiment in the country, too. We probably never would've done that but the Brits were pretty pissed that Iran nationalized their oil industry which meant they were losing a bunch of money, so they needed to get us on board. The only way for them to do that was to play the "Commie" card to get Eisenhower to agree to the whole deal. That was a case of us not looking more than 5 years into the future. And yet another example of how getting us away from oil would help us avoid trouble, make fewer enemies, and reduce our expenses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Jan 22, 2009 -> 12:48 PM) Is it just me or did we do alot of stupid things in the name of stoping communism. We did, but that's just how the game was played. The Soviets did a lot of that too so it was either play or be played. Our strategic vision could've been a lot better though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Speaking of that country here's an article from today I read that sort of touches the tip of the iceberg about Iranian people. http://www.cnn.com/2009/TRAVEL/01/22/iran....ople/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cknolls Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Funny how nobody is mentioning Obama breaking one of his executive orders less than 24 hrs after signing it. William J. Lynn, former LOBBYIST for raytheon, as Deputy Secretary of Defense. CHANGE IS WONDERFUL, ISN"T IT... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 QUOTE (Cknolls @ Jan 22, 2009 -> 02:35 PM) Funny how nobody is mentioning Obama breaking one of his executive orders less than 24 hrs after signing it. William J. Lynn, former LOBBYIST for raytheon, as Deputy Secretary of Defense. CHANGE IS WONDERFUL, ISN"T IT... Did he break the rule? How long ago was he a lobbyist? The rules he set had time limits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 22, 2009 -> 04:02 PM) Did he break the rule? How long ago was he a lobbyist? The rules he set had time limits. 2 years I believe although I have to check. It'd be virtually impossible to be completely free of lobbyists, you'd be disqualifying a lot of people. I know the word "lobbyist" has a stigma but that's kind of the point of democracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 QUOTE (lostfan @ Jan 22, 2009 -> 03:07 PM) 2 years I believe although I have to check. It'd be virtually impossible to be completely free of lobbyists, you'd be disqualifying a lot of people. I know the word "lobbyist" has a stigma but that's kind of the point of democracy. I did a little research. Looks like he has been lobbying as recently as June, and possibly up to the current. So, yeah, this pick is apparently in violation. Stupid move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 22, 2009 -> 04:09 PM) I did a little research. Looks like he has been lobbying as recently as June, and possibly up to the current. So, yeah, this pick is apparently in violation. Stupid move. If that's the case then yeah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 The truth is this whole rule Obama put in place is smoke and mirrors. He still took a lot of bribe money and will continue to do so. Just because the people he owes aren't directly working for him means nothing, he will still be paying back mucho bribes. sorry to burst anyone’s bubble, but Obama is as sold out to lobbyist and special interest money as most every Washington politician. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 QUOTE (mr_genius @ Jan 22, 2009 -> 03:15 PM) The truth is this whole rule Obama put in place is smoke and mirrors. He still took a lot of bribe money and will continue to do so. Just because the people he owes aren't directly working for him means nothing, he will still be paying back mucho bribes. sorry to burst anyone’s bubble, but Obama is as sold out to lobbyist and special interest money as most every Washington politician. Disagree, and the rules are definitely meaningful. They are specific, and will keep certain people away. IF THEY ARE FOLLOWED. He didn't follow it here, it appears, so its a bulls*** move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 (edited) QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 22, 2009 -> 03:19 PM) Disagree, and the rules are definitely meaningful. They are specific, and will keep certain people away. Whats the difference if he funnels federal money to and gives favorable legislation to special intersts that don't direcly work for him? it's still a bribe-return system. A lobbyist for a certain industry doesn't need to work for Obama to get their way; they just need to bring their checkbook. of course this goes for everyone in congress too. i'm not just trying to pick on Obama Edited January 22, 2009 by mr_genius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 QUOTE (mr_genius @ Jan 22, 2009 -> 03:21 PM) Whats the difference if he funnels federal money to and gives favorable legislation to special intersts that don't direcly work for him? it's still a bribe-return system. A lobbyist for a certain industry doesn't need to work for Obama to get their way; they just need to bring their checkbook. of course this goes for everyone in congress too. i'm not just trying to pick on Obama I guess my belief is that what you are describing will happen, but slightly less, than with others. We'll see though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSox05 Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 QUOTE (lostfan @ Jan 22, 2009 -> 01:45 PM) Speaking of that country here's an article from today I read that sort of touches the tip of the iceberg about Iranian people. http://www.cnn.com/2009/TRAVEL/01/22/iran....ople/index.html I've read some articles like that before, about the youth of Iran. They seem to be on the brink of having a sorta of youth revolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knightni Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 I smell potential big ratings... "Obama's White House" a Reality show at 8pm Thursdays on ABC. THAT would be openness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts