Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
User Journal

Journal ellem's Journal: Lefties, hardcore ones - What Has The Right Flipped On? 38

Journal by ellem

OK So the Left, currently devoid of any power is acting a little wonkier than usual and I think frankly it is to be expected. They seem to be forgetting things they said, not 15 years ago, not 5 years ago, 5 WEEKS ago. (see also Chuck Schumer's recent statements regarding Alito.**) But whatever...

My question is this:*

What has the Right flipped on in recent (30 years) history?

*
I'm not going to rebut anything posted here. I really want to see you all have to say.

**
(from some righty blog or another... I was too lazy to find it another way)

Chuck Schumer, explaining that Alito has to give more complete answers than anyone else:

    Alito's hearing before the Judiciary Committee, scheduled to begin Monday, will last a week if it tracks last year's confirmation process for Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. A Democratic member, Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), said yesterday that senators will ask extensive questions and insist that Alito answer them fully -- even if it means pushing the hearing into the following week.

        All judicial nominees are required to respond to senators' queries, Schumer said in a speech in Washington. "The obligation, however, is greater for some nominees," he said. "It is greater when a nominee has taken a clear position on a legal matter."

Well, wait a minute. Wasn't Schumer one of those who argued that John Roberts had a greater requirement because he hadn't generated a public track record? The entire Democratic caucus made that argument repeatedly, both before and during Roberts' confirmation hearing. They complained about Roberts being a "stealth" candidate, devoid of any substantive judicial track record or public writings, and so demanded not just an overabundance of candor during his testimony before the committee but access to documents covered under attorney-client privilege. Now Democrats want to argue that the same holds true for a candidate with fifteen years of experience as a federal appellate jurist and a long track record of public writings.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Lefties, hardcore ones - What Has The Right Flipped On? More

Lefties, hardcore ones - What Has The Right Flipped On?

Comments Filter:
  • Bush Sr: "No new taxes" Admittedly a pretty lousy example as the left wanted those taxes anyway, but it counts :)
    • Small government was a Republican mantra until quite recently. Meanwhile, Bush Jr. oversaw the largest expansion of Federal powers since FDR.

      In fact it's hard to see what Goldwater and Dubya would have in common.

      Then there's fiscal policy: Republicans used to be the party of deficit hawks; now a Republican President and Congress are spending like drunken sailors.

      Republicans used to be both more isolationist (such as Buchanan) and internationalist (such as Bush Sr.). Latter-day Republicans are generall

  • The fact that you can ask this question at all is staggering.

    If the news from the last 20 years hasn't penetrated, a few slashdot posts are not going to help you now. Let alone from "Hardcore Lefties." As if they alone could penetrate your veil.

    Let's put it in reverse, ellem. Do you feel that "Righties" do not flip flop?

    Or perhaps you feel they flip flop "less" - a vague enough concept you need never concede it?

    I have lots of links - 30 seconds on google, you know. There are whole websites devoted to it by

    • I doubt this is what he's asking. I don't think that it's an start for an argument. Frankly, I think a block summary of these things in one place could be quite useful, even if someone else jumps in and starts trying to tear them down.

      I have another comment that I'll put elsewhere...

    • ellem is not interested in an honest discussion, he's just desperately trying to justify his unjustifiably hateful, supernationalist, race supremist, ultra-right wing positions.

      Example: his recent demand that I prove bush "lied" where "lie" was clearly defined as the unprovable - short of explicit confession - act of intentionally and knowingly deceiving people.

      When the question was flipped on him - prove Clinton lied by ellem's own standards (Clinton has never expressly admitted that he lied) - he felt it
      • The point is that there's a whole group of people shouting "Bush lied!!!!" without pointing to a particular statement where Bush knew one thing and stated something else. Shouting "WMD" and "Iraq" doesn't cut it because he was basing his actions, statements, and decisions on the information that was given him (and the administration before him).

        Clinton lied to a grand jury. He settled that case and has been disbarred for his actions.
        • If a child comes up to the parent, and the child says "My brother did not steal the candy bar from the store. Suzy, John, and Larry all said so", and it turns out that your child knew Suzy, John, and Larry were not present at the time of the alleged crime, but that Jerry, Jim, and Jane were present and THEY said that, yes, your other child did, in fact, steal the candy bar, did your child "lie" to you?

          What if we add in that everybody in the neighborhood is aware that Suzy, John, and Larry were all known to
          • What "KNOWN RELIABLE" information did Bush use?

            The fact is that this has all been vetted ad-naseum by Congress, the Brits, and others. The result was that there was no deliberate misuse of intelligence data.

            Go back to the statements of Msrs. Clinton, Kerry, and Gore if you think this was all some wild scheme dreamed up by the neo-cons.

            The job of discrimnating between reliable and unreliable sources is that of the people gathering and presenting the intel. No such caveats were presented. In fact, further
            • Change KNOWN RELIABLE to KNOWN UNRELIABLE to match your post.
            • The job of discrimnating between reliable and unreliable sources is that of the people gathering and presenting the intel.

              Whatever happened to the concept of the chain of command, where the commander took the glory and the blame for his underlings?
              • What are you on about? Bush is taking both the credit and blame. But here's what you idiots don't get: there's not a fucking thing to blame him about. He heard something, somewhere, from someone, who may or may not have been credible, and he sent 1000's of men to their deaths in order to kill tens of thousands of Iraqis. But how can he take the blame when someone told him the boogeyman (who can magically transform from Osama to Hussein to Cindy Sheehan) was in Baghdad that week?

                • What are you on about? Bush is taking both the credit and blame.

                  I've yet to see the Bush Administration take the blame about anything, let alone admit that WMDs were a bad decision.

                  He heard something, somewhere, from someone, who may or may not have been credible, and he sent 1000's of men to their deaths in order to kill tens of thousands of Iraqis. But how can he take the blame when someone told him the boogeyman (who can magically transform from Osama to Hussein to Cindy Sheehan) was in Baghdad that
                  • I've yet to see the Bush Administration take the blame about anything,

                    That's because EVERYTHING IS OKAY!

                    (Turn on your snark-meter dude, and don't forget to read who writes what. Makes the jokes easier to get;)
        • knew one thing and stated something else

          Well, they say the best liars convince themselves the lie is true before they try to convince others- but I'd suppose you'd call those people very honest. Following the same set of rules, Clinton told the truth when he claimed not to have had intercourse with Monica- because in his mind oral sex wasn't intercourse.

          In fact, to catch a liar in the act, you'd need to be a mind reader by those rules- who is going to admit that they *knew* the lie was false?
          • Following the same set of rules, Clinton told the truth when he claimed not to have had intercourse with Monica- because in his mind oral sex wasn't intercourse.

            *bzzt* Wrong. Because the judge clarified that sex meant genital to genital touching is why it wasn't intercourse.
            • I'm going to get you for makeing me wade back through your last 70 posts only to discover you're as much of a centerist as I am.

              *bzzt* Wrong. Because the judge clarified that sex meant genital to genital touching is why it wasn't intercourse.

              I honestly hadn't heard this. Before or after the disposition Clinton was supposed to have lied in?
              • I honestly hadn't heard this. Before or after the disposition Clinton was supposed to have lied in?

                Not sure how much 'faith' you have in them, but Wikipedia to the rescue [wikipedia.org]. The clarification was before Clinton 'lied'. It is also, probably, the origin of the 'what is the definition of 'is' meme. The primary source cited in the wikipedia entry is Time magazine [time.com].

                I'm going to get you for makeing me wade back through your last 70 posts only to discover you're as much of a centerist as I am.

                Close. But I'm not quit
      • Running this through the T_M_P disgronifier trasnmogrifier:

        ellem is not interested in an honest discussion, he's just desperately trying to justify his unjustifiably hateful, supernationalist, race supremist, ultra-right wing positions.

        Translation: "ellem kicks my ass in debates on a regular basis, so all I can do is bitch about it and call his positions hateful."

        Liberals are for "free speech" insomuch as the "free speech" does not contain "hate speech". The big problem is that liberals then define "h

        • I'm sorry... I don't recall ever attempting to actually silence ellem, much less actually violate his right to free speech by amending the constitution such that he can't say what he says.

          So, as before, when you've claimed on at least two different occasions that I hold positions I don't, I'd like to see you highlight any instance where I attempted to censor ellem. This would be opposed to what I REALLY do: don't tolerate him.

          I am under no moral, ethical, legal, or ideological obligation to tolerate ellem's
          • See, when I made that point about liberals and "free speech - hate speech", I wasn't specifically talking about you, as much as I was talking about your ideological pals who:

            + routinely try to censor right-of-center student papers on college campuses
            + disrupt and shout down speakers on college campuses like David Horowitz, Neal Boortz, and Ann Coulter

            etc.

            And these vile, uncivilized actions are justified by the perpetrators as them suppressing "hate speech".

            Instead of, say, trying to win a debate.

            • routinely try to censor right-of-center student papers on college campuses

              Evidence. For the purpose of "routine" we will consider 8% or more of all college newspapers (reasonable estimates of the number of college newspapers is, of course, required, though I wouldn't expect you to come to a rock solid number) experiencing "left wing censorship" from a major student body at least three times a year.

              I don't think that's an unfair definition for "routine", but it's flexible.

              disrupt and shout down speakers on c

              • Tell you what. If you're so confident, a wager: if the dems pick up seats federally, you print this comment and eat it. If they lose seats federally, I'll eat the comment.

                I think I speak for everyone in the /. journal.pl politics subset when I say: I'd love to see this bet, no matter who wins it.

        • "ellem kicks my ass in debates on a regular basis, so all I can do is bitch about it and call his positions hateful."

          Hahaha.

          HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

          You guys are like a couple of kids who think they can beat people up because you watch kung fu movies all day.

          Liberals are for "free speech" insomuch as the "free speech" does not contain "hate speech". The big problem is that liberals then define "hate speech" as "anything a liberal doesn't agree with".

          You're more than smart enough not to think we'll be fooled b
        • And ellem, TheConfusedOne, and myself have repeatedly stated that making a decision based on faulty data is not a lie.

          Wait a second, when did YOU start agreeing that it was faulty data? I thought you were the one who was actually in Iraq and telling us all that it was the right thing to do and that the idea that WMDs did not exist was a lie, and that the Commander-in-Chief was doing the right thing no matter what?
          • Wait a second, when did YOU start agreeing that it was faulty data?

            I don't, I still think that Iraq at one time had WMD and was given too long (14 months) to hide / move / do someting with them.

            Given that, I also define a lie as an attempt to deceive. If the intelligence was faulty, and I'm not convinced that it was, again, Saddam had 14 months to do something with it while we piddled around in the UN - but if the intelligence was faulty, making a decision based on bad data is not, by definition, a lie.

            • After I typed this- I think I also got you mixed up with Red Warrior.

              Oh, and actually, from what little we've found, it appears Saddam had 14 years, not 14 months, of weapons destruction, since that's the newest WMD we've found in the whole region.
              • After I typed this- I think I also got you mixed up with Red Warrior.

                Compliment accepted. ;)

                Oh, and actually, from what little we've found, it appears Saddam had 14 years, not 14 months, of weapons destruction, since that's the newest WMD we've found in the whole region.

                14 months was the "Rush to War" Kerry was complaining about during the campaign. Besides, if Saddam truly was cooperating with the UN inspectors, why was he always kicking them out? For someone who may have had nothing to hide, he sure

                • 14 months was the "Rush to War" Kerry was complaining about during the campaign. Besides, if Saddam truly was cooperating with the UN inspectors, why was he always kicking them out?

                  Near as I can tell, he wasn't- or at least, not for that reason. He wouldn't let them inspect certain places which if he did, they would have found him torturing his own people, or the people themselves would have risen in revolt for the blashphemy. Every once in a while one would get too close to the rape rooms and they'd ge
  • Since they are so used to being in power, they must have come to feel as though it was their divine right. Just makes their fall all the harder for them to accept and cope with.

    http://slashdot.org/~eglamkowski/journal/89434 [slashdot.org]

  • In a profile story about Maine Republican Olympia Snowe, a moderate Republican, one in-office Republican (I can't find out which one, though) said, These moderate Republicans weild a lot of power, which is unfortunate ... moderates do not represent a majority of the party.*

    My jaw dropped. I almost slammed into the car next to me. Something about moderate Republicans not being the majority just struck me wrong. Yet, I think this is key to the question you are asking...

    The Republican party is changi

  • Deficit spending. It's flipped twice since 1980. Seems like righties are for it when they're in control of the executive branch, but against it when their opponents are (See 1994's famous Contract With America for an example of being against deficit spending; Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush's budgets as examples of putting not only ourselves but our children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren into hock). Oh yeah, and slightly related to this as of late is free trade- back in the 1980s, Buy American
  • Why is the ability to change one's mind a bad thing? That's called adapting. And governing by the polls is called Democracy.

    Anyway, if the Republican party and the right as a whole hold the exact same policy opinions they did 30 years ago... wow, that's freakin' scary.

    • I'm not sure anybody worried about flip-flopping, until everyone on the Republican side started saying how horrible it was the John Kerry was flip-flopping. The flip-flop backlash since, has come under the principle of "those that live in glass houses should not throw stones." Which has now just become a big paintball match with everyone "shooting off" about everyone else's flip-flopping.

      On a related note, democracy is not really about governing by polls. It's more about representing your constituent

  • ....would be for "What politician has not flip-flopped, in some way, in the last 30 years?"

    I've said it before (maybe not on Teh Dot, but I know I've said it): I've been a registered Republican since the day I was old enough to vote. Lately, I've been completely turned off by the Republican Party (No, not because of Iraq!). The Democrats have done nothing to win my favor, nor are they ever likely to.

    The more I think about it, the more turned-off by politics I become. That's a shame really, because I use

  • In the days of Somalia and (ex)Yugoslavia, the right was staunchly against using American troops for foreign intervention. Contrast that with current policy...

    Of course, the ability to change one's mind is not a BAD thing, whether you lean left, right, up, down, or backwards. The world changes, and those of us who live in it have to adjust. Sometimes that means changing our mind, opinions, priorities, positions, and plans. A person who is unwilling to change at all concerns me far more greatly than one wh

Slashdot Top Deals

Kill Ugly Processor Architectures - Karl Lehenbauer

Close