Politics: Where do you stand?

[_Brackite]

Hello all here,

I Cconsider myself a Conservative Moderate. I did vote for Mr. George W. Bush twice. However, I do Pretty much regret voting for George W. Bush the second time, because I believe that his second term has been pretty much horrible and horrendous. I am definitely Planning on voting for Senator John McCain this General Election in November. I do believe that John McCain is more of an ethical and an honest Person, than George W. Bush. If Senator John McCain does get elected President, I do believe that he would make a much better President than George W. Bush.

[_The Nehor]

I tend towards libertarian ideals.

Both Presidential candidates do not impress me. I plan to vote for Cobra Commander as a principle vote. He promises to end global terror forever 24 hours after he takes office: http://www.somethingawful.com/d/flash-t ... der-04.php

Plus I want him to clone dinosaurs and use hot air balloons to control people's minds.

[_Droopy]

I label myself, following the late William Buckley as "Libertarian Conservative", allowing for variations based upon the issue and the merits of each case. I'm a strong social conservative, but with libertarian colorations (I'm for exploring the possibility of drug legalization) and tend to libertarian in the areas of the proper size, scope, and prerogatives of government, and economics (Chicago School to Austrian).

I have some profound disagreements with the Rothbardian wing of Libertarianism, however, and some disagreements with the strict utilitarian philosophical basis of the Austrian school (exemplified by Mises), but beyond this, am decidedly in the Chicago/Austrian camp.

Bush has been kind of a late flourishing of the old Rockefeller, blue blood Republican managerial elite (best exemplified by Nixon, Ford, Dole, and Bush 42, at least in my life time) and, while having some conservative beliefs and tendencies, is far from a movement conservative or classical liberal.

Obama is a cultural Marxist and black cultural nationalist (falling generally under the rubric of "Black power") who's ideology and political judgments both make him entirely unfit for the presidency, at least in America.

[_EAllusion]

Where can I find the equivalent of Sean Hannity among democrats? And please, don't say Alan Colmes.

Someone like Mike Malloy is probably the closest equivalent, but he conspicuously lacks the stature and influence Hannity has among Republicans. If Malloy had the same success as Hannity, I don't think a "two sides of the same coin" argument would be off.

There's a common refrain that certain types on the right and left such as Micheal Moore and Ann Coulter are equivalent. That's patently absurd. They aren't in the same league. You just can't find the things that make people like Coulter, Hannity, Malkin an offense to decency and truth with the same standing with Democrats that they do with Republicans. Mind you, I think Moore is a propagandizing D-bag with plenty of faults to talk about, but there's still a massive gap between what Moore is doing and what the Republican shock jocks/propagandists are doing. There's a This Modern World that makes fun of this:



Which reminds me of this quote, which I suppose is relevant:

However, as Orin suggests, the real problem is not the things Coulter says, but the fact that a large swathe of the mainstream right views her as a heroine - or at least as an acceptable part of the conservative movement - despite her having said them. In some cases, I suspect they actually like her because she said them. When Coulter was fired by National Review back in 2001, I hoped that she would be rejected by most other mainstream conservatives, and swiftly fade into oblivion. Unfortunately, I was overly optimistic. While some conservatives - and perhaps more libertarians - have indeed rejected her, too many have not. The very fact that she was invited to address the Conservative Political Action Conference, a major movement conservative event, is a sign of her continued good standing for much of the right. The fact that the previous speaker - prominent Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney - praised her, is another

http://volokh.com/posts/1172913660.shtml

The same is true of Hannity, to a slightly lesser extent.

[_Droopy]

The big difference between Coulter and Moore is that Coulter is a polemicist and political satirist who bases her polemical attacks on the Left on that which she believes to be certain fundamental truths about them.

Moore is a pathological liar and tin foil hat conspiracy theorist who has specialized in documentary films that are actually fictional political screeds. He is, intellectually, a traitor to his country and its values. You may not agree with Coulter, but Moore's rabid intellectual dishonesty and bizarre beliefs put him in the same class as Tex Marrs, Ted Turner, or Noam Chomski.

[_EAllusion]

The big difference between Coulter and Moore is that Coulter is a polemicist and political satirist who bases her polemical attacks on the Left on that which she believes to be certain fundamental truths about them.

Who is Coulter satirizing here? Republicans? If not, then saying it's satire isn't much of a defense. It is true that Coulter jokes about politics - like when she called John Edwards a faggot (ha ha ha) - but the fact that she makes jokes doesn't mean what she is saying doesn't contain horrible content. She's not Stephen Colbert. She's not poking fun at the ideas she's expressing via the way she is expressing them. When she says we need to execute John Walker to physically intimidate liberals by making them realize they can be killed too, or that we need to invade Muslim countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity that's what she is saying. Some things she says about people and groups could be mockingly exaggerated because she's just more of an awful human being than actually unhinged, and others you'd think so, but are contradicted by the fact that she attempts to support them as a thesis. See the above link for a reference to her views on Democrat traitors.

Moore is a pathological liar

Moore is disingenuous at times, though Coulter is worse at making honest arguments. So, you know, great.

But thanks for being an example of what I was talking about. Kudos.

[_EAllusion]

Incidentally, what that Tom Tommorrow clip is mocking is Ann Coulter having said, "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building." Even if that is a joke, it's still a rather vile one like saying, "I hope you are eaten by wild dogs. Ha. ha." Calling it satire doesn't erase that, because it's not that kind of satire. She's not mocking people who think things like that. At best, it's the sort of humor that online trolls get from stringing people along with offensive, dumb comments they don't really mean. And, for what it is worth, she later called that same quote "prescient" because New York Times has revealed itself to be treasonous.

[_Droopy]

Who is Coulter satirizing here? Republicans? If not, then saying it's satire isn't much of a defense. It is true that Coulter jokes about politics - like when she called John Edwards a faggot (ha ha ha) - but the fact that she makes jokes doesn't mean what she is saying doesn't contain horrible content. She's not Stephen Colbert. She's not poking fun at the ideas she's expressing via the way she is expressing them. When she says we need to execute John Walker to physically intimidate liberals by making them realize they can be killed too, or that we need to invade Muslim countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity that's what she is saying. Some things she says about people and groups could be mockingly exaggerated because she's just more of an awful human being than actually unhinged, and others you'd think so, but are contradicted by the fact that she attempts to support them as a thesis. See the above link for a reference to her views on Democrat traitors.

Coulter's insults, sarcasm, and fire breathing are what they are, and you can like it or hate it, but its not what Michael Moore does.

As to Democratic traitors, don't get me started. We can easily name names here.

Moore is disingenuous at times,

No, Moore is a pathalogical liar and has been exposed as such time and again. Bowling for Columbine is a frame by frame exercise in mendacity worth of Sixty Minutes at its worst...but worse. Fahrenheit 9/11 is intellectually dishonest to an extreme you would probably be requird to go back to the old Nazi propaganda films to understand (or Red Revolutionary Operas, but they were far more entertaining), but perhaps not as bad as his most recent pro-Castro propaganda vehicle.

Keep up the pose E. All in good fun.

[_richardMdBorn]

I voted for Bush both times.

Now I regret it. After living in Brazil for the past 3 1/2 years, my perspective on society has changed, and it has caused me to reflect on my various political persuassions.

As I return to the USA I am still around friends and family who are die hard conservative Limbaugh-type Republicans. It amazes me how so many can still stick by Bush after eight years of gradual economic disaster.

Where can I find the equivalent of Sean Hannity among democrats? And please, don't say Alan Colmes.

Do you like Hannity? I think he's a lightweight.