Thrag
3368
That still doesn’t really answer what “belligerently” pro-choice means, or why it would be required to be not a conservative.
I can only picture people picketing outside churches holding pictures of well adjusted non-pregnant teenagers.
Matt_W
3369
I used the wrong word. I merely meant that when you think of Obama, you don’t think “pro-choice” activist the way you do when you think of Hillary. Tom’s description of the principled conservative started out with this sentence:
Okay, let’s say I’m a principled conservative. Let’s say I’m in favor of traditional religious values, I’m pro-life, I believe our Judeo-Christian foundation is partly responsible for American exceptionalism, and I’m a proponent of family values like not cheating on your wife to sleep with porn stars
I was just pointing out that Obama fits that description, except he’s not pro-life. But he’s also not a pro-choice activist and abortion policy has never been anywhere near the center of his policy persona.
Thrag
3370
Makes sense I guess. I just got a giggle out of the notion of “belligerently” pro-choice.
Thrag
3372
Belligerent means hostile and aggressive, not simply passionate. Were the people in that picture going out of their way to get in the faces of anti-choice people at their homes or places of business or otherwise going about their daily lives? Seems like an event in support of Planned Parenthood. Not something akin to the belligerent protesters that scream at people going into Planned Parenthood clinics.
Rich Lowry is, of course, exactly the same person he was back in 1997. He just no longer feels obligated to engage in an elaborate intellectual charade to cover up his true beliefs in public.
The editor of the National Review for more than 20 years claims he is still now what he has always been: a conservative. The same is true of the millions upon millions of other people who label themselves thus. If these people claim they were then and are still conservatives, I see no reason to doubt them.
Oh, please, @Matt_W. Now you’re just being willfully obtuse. There’s a stark difference between how liberals and conservatives regard religion. Typically, liberals – Obama included – are willing to honor it and acknowledge its place in our history. The difference is that conservatives tend to revere it – Christianity specifically – and insist it has a place in our future. There’s a reason liberals can lay claim to the word multicultural and conservatives can’t.
It’s the same with whether someone is banging porn stars. The conservative approach would be to frown on the immorality of such a thing, whereas the liberal approach is that a person’s sexuality is his or her own business. I shouldn’t have to spell this out for you. The definition of conservative is politics 101 and Swerdlick’s assertion was just an attention-grabbing headline.
So? It’s not prominent of anyone’s platform because it doesn’t need to be. It’s baked into party affiliation these days. Obama was a centrist, which is why he wasn’t “belligerently” pro-choice, whatever you think that means. But he was pro-choice through and through, he championed Planned Parenthood, and he stood firmly by Roe v Wade. Just stop.
-Tom
Timex
3376
If you think Obama is a conservative, you might be a fringe leftist.
Corbyn and his faction regard Obama as a far right wing neocon btw
Just in case you’re wandering what future UK foreign policy will look like if he somehow wins.
It’s almost as if all conservatism is about…conserving something in particular.
I’ve discussed US politics online with a few people that seem fringe left that truly believe Obama is a conservative and that the US is a great evil.
“Great Satan” to quote Corbyn’s former employers the Islamic Republic of Iran. The rank and file like Bernie mind you and the voterbase like Obama. He’s just another bomb dropping baby killing Yank to the Corbyn faction though. The US, Israel, UK and NATO are the greatest enemies the world has for Corbynism, just check out his last 30 years of comments on it. This is a lifetimes career opposing these nations and organisations.
Our foreign policy is going to be bizarre. Im not even sure how sanctions regimes are going to work suspecting what I do about their plans for trade relations with Russia, Venezuela, DPRK, Cuba, Syria, Iran in order to move out of the Western sphere.
Meanwhile, on Earth, the Labour Party under Corbyn is the sort of bog-standard left-of-center party one finds in pretty much any western democracy.
I can drop a dozen links in here backing up my thoughts, speeches, videos, articles and letters etc but its not the thread for that. If you think the founding father of the anti-West, anti-Imperialist movement and the STWC leadership that make up his advisors are some sort of left-centrists on foreign policy you’re in for a shock.
I think that’s called confirmation bias.
What things written by Corbyn, his leadership and STWC and videos and photos of them doing their thing over the last 30 years are “confirmation bias”
lol
Here is Corbyn calling for the dissolution of NATO at the CPGB Congress in 1989, something from the front of the file.
Here is the most recent Labour Party manifesto. It is surprisingly free of bomb-throwing. The two pages on international trade could hardly be less alarming than they are.
Oh yes, and politicians always abide by manifestos. Its a bloody advert.
I’d probably start with the Friends of Cuba/Venezuela/Syria etc groups that have been running for decades, those are all legitimate and not very contentious (especially Cuba for us Euros) but are clear representations of what I believe their policy will resemble regarding these countries.
but if you really want to see the true face of STWC, just google “reap the whirlwind” and see the glee on STWCs faces every time there was a terror attack in the West in the last few decades.
Oh the guy who wrote the 2017 manifesto? Go check out the post where you slagged him off for leaving Labour.
Paul I know was a Labour centrist and an advisor to Labour, he was a big player back in the day (and still is) for LGBT rights, especially around the time of the AIDs crisis and is one of those walking history books around the fringe left in the UK
Bolivia isnt as contentious as the other names, but this article shows where foreign policy will go quite well. “Labour Friends of Progressive Latin America” seems to be one of the latest vehicles.
Russia is contentious, what does he say about that?
These are all great sources on the UK hard left if you want a more indepth view on policy and people. They aren’t all anti-Corbyn by any means.
https://shirazsocialism.wordpress.com/
Good thing you aren’t filling up this thread with stuff that belongs elsewhere!
