Bush 'seeks to ease wildlife law'

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by edesignuk, Nov 20, 2008.

  1. edesignuk Moderator emeritus

    edesignuk

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    Location:
    London, England
    #1
    BBC.

    He really just can't help himself, can he.

    Don't let the door smack you very very hard in the face/private areas on the way out, W.
     
  2. iBlue macrumors Core

    iBlue

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Location:
    London, England
    #2
    Wow. He really is a [c-word] through and through, isn't he?

    The man cannot seem to rest until he destroys everything.

    DIAF, W.
     
  3. arkitect macrumors 601

    arkitect

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2005
    Location:
    Bath, United Kingdom
    #3
    That is if he can find the door…

    [​IMG]
     
  4. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #4
    Just watch... conservatives will be up in arms about Obama's various promises not being met, but none of them will mention that the Bush administration promised not to engage in this type of midnight regulation spree. Oh no, they were going to be different. Bring "change", so to speak, to this process.

    Where, oh where is our change? We NEED change. We were promised change.

    Instead all we get is more of the same...
     
  5. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #5
    It's just W trying to leave behind more of his legacy of destruction and death. This is hardly surprising.
     
  6. Schtumple macrumors 601

    Schtumple

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2007
    Location:
    benkadams.com
    #6
    Sigh, it's almost as if he wants to be hated, seriously...
     
  7. iShater macrumors 604

    iShater

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2002
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    #7
    Someone yesterday at the office was saying on how Bush was scrambling to do something right to save his "legacy". I have a feeling this dumb@$$ doesn't yet realize how badly he screwed up.

    He is "staying the course". :rolleyes:
     
  8. Anuba macrumors 68040

    Anuba

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2005
    #8
  9. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #9
    Bush is clearly an idiot and his repeated attempt to disrupt the ESA is ridiculous, but this is just overwrought.
     
  10. Counterfit macrumors G3

    Counterfit

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2003
    Location:
    sitting on your shoulder
    #10
    You know, hearing about the administration softening up some parts of foreign policy, I thought maybe he wasn't going to actually try and do this crap.


    :rolleyes:
     
  11. edesignuk thread starter Moderator emeritus

    edesignuk

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    Location:
    London, England
    #11
    It's just sickening. I hope it fails, or that if it does get through Obama is able to instantly cancel it.

    One final reminder for everyone of what an arse this man is.
     
  12. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #12
    So that's 201 Bush policy decisions the Obama Administration will want to immediately reverse then...

    I wonder if they can get to 250 before 20th January.
     
  13. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #13
    Ok, how about Texan Socialist.

    It's ok to call people socialists with reckless abandon, just not nazis, right? ;)
     
  14. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #14
    Texas Corporatist. Lone Star Liar. I've no problem with calling Crawford, TX a village missing its idiot, but I think calling Bush Hitler-like is a mistake.

    It's not out of defense of Bush, but rather I think such talk dilutes what the Nazis did.
     
  15. iShater macrumors 604

    iShater

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2002
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    #15
    I agree.

    It is losing it's shock value.
     
  16. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #16
    I wish people felt the same way about the label "socialist" as well...
     
  17. 3rdpath macrumors 68000

    3rdpath

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Location:
    2nd star on the right and straight till morning
    #17

    hey now...bush isn't a texan. wasn't born there and as much as he likes to play cowboy dress-up, he'll never be a texan.
     

    Attached Files:

  18. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #18
    I'm of the opinion that words matter and thus the shotgun use of socialist as a pejorative is just bizarre to me. Like earlier usages for liberal (or liberal-democrat) or elite, these words have been stripped of their meaning. Socialism is an economic theory, but this was distorted into various incarnations meaning anything from Stalin's communism to Nazism and was described as incompatible with democracy, which runs counter to realty.

    I'd argue that these usages are a form of shibboleth, the word doesn't have any meaning except to show a certain political viewpoint and as a rhetorical wild-card to win arguments.

    The use of Hitler analogies bothers me more than "socialist" perhaps because it's coming from my own political side and its use distorts the argument. Bush isn't like Hitler, but that doesn't mean he's worth a damn either, but the use of the equivalency takes away the credibility of an argument that says Bush has done things counter to our democracy because we've already gone to the hysterics.
     
  19. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #19
    Well, at least we both agree that the terminology in both cases is grossly misused.

    It just never fails to amuse me how swift and intense the response from the forum is when you compare a conservative to a nazi, and how lackadaisical and accepting the response from the forum is when you compare a liberal to a socialist.
     
  20. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #20
    Well, I don't think there's an equivalence. Comparing anyone to a Nazi is essentially flame-bait, but comparing a liberal to a socialist might be an acceptable construct (big emphasis on might).

    However, my dander gets up when someone starts trying to create equivalence between liberalism and Stalinism or the Chinese Great Leap Forward.

    Part of what's interesting about this discussion is how we see terms, I don't accept that either liberal or socialist are pejorative terms, but I know others do. So, I might argue using their terms for reference, but I don't believe that either are inherently bad things. Maybe I'm just retaking the term, so to speak, but if someone says "Barack Obama is a socialist," I don't recoil in horror, but rather ask "why?" If someone says "Barack Obama's a Stalinist" then I might say something that will get me in time-out.
     
  21. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #21
    I disagree. Comparing a conservative to a nazi does not mean automatically that you are comparing them to the Third Reich. Just as there are modern socialists who have nothing to do with Mao or Stalin, there are modern nazis who have nothing to do with Hitler.

    To riff off your point, comparing a conservative to a nazi might be an acceptable construct (big emphasis on the might) when talking about immigration issues, or attitudes towards minorities, or feeling about affirmative action, or the supremacy of a specific form of Christianity over others, for example.

    You do know that's what they mean when they say "socialist", right? Just sayin'...

    I don't necessarily recoil in horror either, but I don't take anyone who uses those kind of loaded terms seriously anymore once they decide to "go there".
     
  22. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #22
    Aside from the Soup Nazi or a grammar nazi, is there really such a thing? The Nazis of the modern era seek a return to the Third Reich.

    You could make the comparison, but why use Nazi when you could just use prejudiced, bigoted, intolerant, etc.?


    Absolutely, when someone calls anyone who isn't a big-'L' Libertarian a socialist, I roll my eyes and the person automatically loses some credibility with me. They also lose points for stating that socialism killed more people than the Nazis, which is just stupid if you understand what the regimes of Stalin or Mao were really like.

    Really, when someone starts their post with "you're all a bunch of socialists..." all I hear after that is "bark, bark, bark." So, because of this, when someone says Nazi, unless we're talking about the WWII-era, I start to zone out.
     
  23. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #23
    Amazing. This all started with a "They say..." which might or not have any real meaning. The next thing you know, there's a feeding frenzy about a soon-to-be ex-Prez. It segues into all-inclusive labelling of varying degrees of inaccuracy.

    Why not try to look at the political spectrum this way: There are those who prefer government solutions to social problems; my label of choice is "Statist". There are those like me who disagree with that approach, or who, like me, would take a slower path in governmental actions in order to avoid harmful side effects common to precipitous action. So, largely, I'm "anti-Statist".

    Bush II is a Statist, as is Obama. As were Clinton, Bush I and Reagan.

    Simplest put, isn't it reasonably correct that Socialism means government controls on the means of production? Capitalism, basically, is the investment of private funds into the means of production, with private ownership?

    GM: Privately owned, but subject to governmental controls via EPA, NTSB, OSHA, the Dept. of Labor and IRS.

    FWIW, Nazis were socialists. NSDAP National Socialist yada/yada/yada, however it comes out in German.

    The U.S. is a largely-socialistic system. After all, the 1932 platform of the US's Socialist Party had been fully enacted into law by the time of the 1964 elections, per their perennial candidate, Norman Thomas, in a press interview.

    Hardly anybody except rabid ideologues are "all" anything in the political spectrum. We vary. There are commonalities among both liberals and conservatives, as well as differences. A reasonable generalization, I believe, is that there are commonalities as to societal goals, and differences in how they are to be achieved.

    And discussion beats the hell out of name-calling...

    'Rat
     
  24. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #24
    I agree, and that part of what I was trying to get across. I don't like that these terms, which often have very complex meanings, get redirected into simple pejoratives. You're right, there's varying degrees as to political identity, and your generalization is correct, the differences are mostly about method rather than the goal.

    I'm not sure if the Nazis were really socialists, I've read that the term Corporatists is actually more accurate, but maybe that's better reflected by Mussolini's reign.

    See what happens when you wander off. ;)
     
  25. Anuba macrumors 68040

    Anuba

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2005
    #25
    You've got it all wrong. To control in socialist terms means to own and run. Regulation doesn't constitute control.

    Socialism means that there are no private businesses. The Soviet Union and Mao's China were socialist states (they never reached Marx's higher stage of socialism, i.e. communism).

    Social democracy means a mixed economy where the state owns some businesses (like in pre-Thatcher UK, where the state ran British Telecom, British Airways, mining etc), and these co-exist with private businesses.

    Social liberalism means that market capitalism rules, but health care and education are considered basic citizen rights and therefore the taxpayers pay for universal healthcare and subsidized higher education. (Think UK, Canada, Sweden etc).

    The US currently doesn't have universal healthcare or subsidized higher education, nor does the state own or run any businesses. In short, it doesn't even qualify as social liberal, it's miles away from social democracy, and light years away from socialism.

    Think of it this way:

    Far left: Communism
    Left: Socialism
    Center-left: Social democracy
    Center-right: Social liberalism
    Right: Liberalism
    Far right: Conservatism

    The US is somewhere between right and far right with the occasional grain of center-right, i.e. social liberalism.
     

Share This Page