The Shrinking Tent by Hero

I am a proponent of the big tent and have often pointed out the ideological bigotry and extremist views that defines some of the Left in this country including some of the Left-wing types who post on this board. It always amazes me how people who claim such righteousness as open-minded messengers of inclusiveness could despise people who disagree with them so much. But these people are insulated from accusations. They can hate people who don’t see things their way, and few will find anything remarkable about such hatred, even though it is no different then hating people for being Jewish or sexual preference. They have created, within their own ranks, a type of acceptable, and even righteous, bigotry.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 1, 2007 11:42 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

The more the merrier! C'mon in!

"Hillary tried to get a million dollars for the Woodstock museum. I understand it was a major cultural and pharmaceutical event. I couldn't attend. I was tied up at the time." - John McCain

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 1, 2007 11:50 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Is it OK to hate sadism, lies, hypocracy, opportunism, greed, corruption, murder and the like ? 'Cause, I wouldn't want you to disapprove of me if I did.

***************************************************************
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA ... as if.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 1, 2007 12:05 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Is it OK to hate sadism, lies, hypocracy, opportunism, greed, corruption, murder and the like ? 'Cause, I wouldn't want you to disapprove of me if I did.

Since those are Democratic, and not Republican values, why do you ask ?

"Hillary tried to get a million dollars for the Woodstock museum. I understand it was a major cultural and pharmaceutical event. I couldn't attend. I was tied up at the time." - John McCain

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 1, 2007 12:11 PM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Since those are Democratic, and not Republican values, why do you ask ?

Really, I thought they were politicians values.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 1, 2007 12:31 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Since those are Democratic, and not Republican values, why do you ask ?
Really, I thought they were politicians values.

Touche'

"Hillary tried to get a million dollars for the Woodstock museum. I understand it was a major cultural and pharmaceutical event. I couldn't attend. I was tied up at the time." - John McCain

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 1, 2007 1:23 PM

LEADB

I peeked in that big republican tent and was HORRIBLY shocked. I'm afraid to look in the Democrat's tent. I think I'm going over to that nice big open park; anyone care to join me?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 1, 2007 1:26 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

AAAAAAAAAHhhhhhhh - sounds great.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 1, 2007 1:26 PM

FREDGIBLET

LeadB I'd like to join you but I think I'm probably going to want to sit a little closer to the Democratic tent then you'd like, perhaps we can hang out from time to time though.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 1, 2007 2:46 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"I'm afraid to look in the Democrat's tent." My curiosity is piqued, I have to admit. What's going on in there ? Maybe I'll just stroll on by and take a look.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 1, 2007 2:53 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Got this from a friend -

Let me first start out by explaining my position on Third Party Candidates: Bad for America!!

Everyone I talk to doesn't like the current system, including me. However, that doesn't mean more choices is necessarily better. At least not under the current way we do it. See, with two choices all you need to win is more votes that any one else, i.e. 51%. You only need one percent more, than the other opposing parties. So if you have three choices, then all you need is 34% of the vote to win. If your not happy with a 51% candidate, wait till barely more than a third, or fourth of the country chooses our leaders.

Now that that's understood, hopefully you understand that to work with the system we've got you have to pick a side, like it or not. So then comes the question: Do you oppose what it means to be a Republican RIGHT NOW, or not?

I do.

--
Xxxxx

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 1, 2007 2:56 PM

ALLIETHORN7

Why have a tent? If it rains, I will dance in it, I tell you.
DANCE IN IT!!!

-Danny

and every time I play with passion I start breaking strings,
and my voice cracks when I sing from my heart
guess that's the price I've got to pay to know that I'm alive
this melody is tearing me apart

THRICE RULES!!!!!!!!!
My Master went to the Moon in a Rocket of Flamin' Cheese!
I LIKE CHEESE!!!
http://www.myspace.com/otherrandomdude

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 1, 2007 2:58 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

That big Republican tent has too many closets in it. With people in them.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 1, 2007 3:28 PM

FREDGIBLET

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Everyone I talk to doesn't like the current system, including me. However, that doesn't mean more choices is necessarily better. At least not under the current way we do it. See, with two choices all you need to win is more votes that any one else, i.e. 51%. You only need one percent more, than the other opposing parties. So if you have three choices, then all you need is 34% of the vote to win. If your not happy with a 51% candidate, wait till barely more than a third, or fourth of the country chooses our leaders.

Instant-runoff voting FTW
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant_runoff

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 1, 2007 3:40 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

OK. I just HAVE to ask - are they alone or with company ?

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
That big Republican tent has too many closets in it. With people in them.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 1, 2007 3:44 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

FredG

I haven't puzzled this out. I know in parliamentary systems there are formal mechanisms for creating coalitions. Is there some reason why that isn't done in the US ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 1, 2007 4:04 PM

FREMDFIRMA

"I am a proponent of the big tent and have often pointed out the ideological bigotry and extremist views that defines some of the Right in this country including some of the Right-wing types who post on this board. It always amazes me how people who claim such righteousness as open-minded messengers of inclusiveness could despise people who disagree with them so much. But these people are insulated from accusations. They can hate people who don’t see things their way, and few will find anything remarkable about such hatred, even though it is no different then hating people for being Jewish or sexual preference. They have created, within their own ranks, a type of acceptable, and even righteous, bigotry."

Good heavens, Finn, you make it just too easy, especially coming on the heels of you spouting some pretty blatant racism and theological hatred yourself.

Projection, anyone ?

I'm an anarchist, I wanna torch the tents and allow folk to be their individual selves without having to hold to a party line to be accepted.

If the first thing you despoil when you enter political thought and action is your own sense of self - you've already lost the battle the moment you step in the door.

BE. WHO. YOU. ARE.

Not what some party wants you to be.

-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 1, 2007 4:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I'm an anarchist, I wanna torch the tents and allow folk to be their individual selves without having to hold to a party line to be accepted.

You’re a Leftist, and a hardcore one.

This is how the Left insulates themselves. To a Leftist, Racism and “theological hatred” means “disagreeing with their particular hatreds.” This is what I mean by creating an acceptable form of bigotry. I remember the discussion about Falwell’s death. The only argument I made was to say that I didn’t find any reason to cheer the death of a man simply because I didn’t agree with his religious or political views - to which the typical Leftists came out in full force to attack me because I had made the unpardonable sin - I had refused to hate those whom Left had decided should be hated.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 1, 2007 5:06 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Now see, that's what I like. A real sharp focus on the topic. ::::bbllurryy::::

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 1, 2007 5:08 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Finn, as usual you have definitional issues, so let me ask you: What IS a "leftist"?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 1, 2007 5:16 PM

You are.

Aren't you?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 1, 2007 5:20 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

How about me !

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 1, 2007 5:41 PM

How about me Finn?

It's funny how these things change. I remember when "Leftist" used to mean supporters of big government and authoritarianism, socialists essentially. But now that the neo-cons have co-opted those vices, we see the Republicans subtly redefining 'leftist' to mean anti-authoritarian.

The authoritarian streak has always been at the core of the Republican ethos, even when they're mouthing libertarian positions.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 1, 2007 5:42 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

reposted

FredG

I haven't puzzled this out. I know in parliamentary systems there are formal mechanisms for creating coalitions. Is there some reason why that isn't done in the US ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 1, 2007 5:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
How about me Finn?

It's funny how these things change. I remember when "Leftist" used to mean supporters of big government and authoritarianism, socialists essentially. But now that the Repubs have co-opted those vices, we see them subtly redefining 'leftist' to mean anti-authoritarian.

The authoritarian streak has always been at the core of the Republican ethos, even when they're mouthing libertarian positions.

Would a communist in Soviet Russia be a Leftist? The term Leftist isn’t being redefined, but perhaps you just never really understood what it meant? A lot of people don’t. They think Leftist means socialist, which in the US it often does, but not necessarily, and it certainly wouldn’t have meant that in Soviet Russia.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 1, 2007 6:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Would a communist in Soviet Russia be a Leftist? The term Leftist isn’t being redefined, but perhaps you just never really understood what it meant?

You seem to be a tad confused as to your terminology. Regardless, it's what you mean when you use a term that matters. And from the way you've been using 'Leftist' it appears to mean anyone who's against authoritiarian government, particular anyone who's against neo-con authoritarianism.

That's still a pretty vague definition. If you're going to apply the "Leftist" label to people with views as divergent as Signym and Frem (and me, I'd assume) then you're casting awfully wide net. In that case, I'd wager our tent is a good deal bigger than yours. :)

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 1, 2007 6:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
That's still a pretty vague definition. If you're going to apply the "Leftist" label to people with views as divergent as Signym and Frem (and me, I'd assume) then you're casting awfully wide net. In that case, I'd wager our tent is a good deal bigger than yours. :)

I think the term Leftist applies very well to both Signym and Frem. If you understand what it means. And I’m pretty sure my tent is bigger, if for no other reason then that I don’t despise people for their religious views. But I’m not going to analyze who’s tent is bigger, I simply know that a lot of Leftists hate me, simply because I don’t share their perspective, and among the perspectives I don’t share with them is hatred for people who disagree with me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 1, 2007 7:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Got this from a friend -

Let me first start out by explaining my position on Third Party Candidates: Bad for America!!

Everyone I talk to doesn't like the current system, including me. However, that doesn't mean more choices is necessarily better. ...

This is sad. How long will we fall for this song and dance? It's odd, because I think people really are starting to realize there's no substantive difference between the two major parties, but they're so deeply entrenched in the left/right mentality they can't see how we're being played.

Democracy shouldn't be about picking the second worst candidate. If we go that route again we'll deserve whatever we get.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 1, 2007 7:04 PM

Quote:
I simply know that a lot of Leftists hate me, simply because I don’t share their perspective, and among the perspectives I don’t share with them is hatred for people who disagree with me.

So, hating someone who disagrees with you is the mark of a Leftist? Is that it? What definition are you using?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 1, 2007 7:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
So, hating someone who disagrees with you is the mark of a Leftist? Is that it?

Evidently, it is for many.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 1, 2007 7:17 PM

Wouldn't that account for about half the Republican party as well? Surely you have some other definition in mind. What's the point in hiding it?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 1, 2007 7:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Wouldn't that account for about half the Republican party as well? Surely you have some other definition in mind. What's the point in hiding it?

I’m not hiding anything. If you would like a more in-depth definition of Leftist I can recommend a good book for you. The Rise and Fall of the American Left by John Patrick Diggins has a good analysis of the definition of Leftist.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 1, 2007 7:45 PM

Nah, I'm interested in your interpretation of the term.

Oh well. Have it your way. But it's odd you're so reluctant to clarify your meaning.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 1, 2007 8:06 PM

FREMDFIRMA

"I don’t despise people for their religious views."

That is, if you'll forgive the pun, murderously funny... given that everyone here has just watched you do exactly that, in another thread to pretty damn detailed and extreme degree.

And the reason you cannot define "leftist" or "liberal" beyond someone who disagrees with you, is that you are simply using a word you only vaguely understand as a slur or a slam, without any true regard to it's meaning, or even understanding of such - to you, it's just a more socially acceptable insult that doesn't reveal your hatefulness quite as much as the words you'd prefer to use.

Unhook the hard-right hate radio from your ear for five minutes and actually do your own thinking for once, and you might make sense - but what you've been doing lately is just spouting crap spoon fed to you, sans evidence, without any real knowledge beyond the talking points.

As I am not a socialist, nor any kind of fan of government intervention nor control over assets, and especially no fan of regulated society - trying to apply the term Leftist is idiotic, it's calling a banana an apple.

And watching you repeatedly describe actual Leftists, or Proto-Socialists as Liberals proves you don't really understand the term or are redefining or misapplying it.

I am Liberal in that I want my rights, my property, and my money to be left the hell alone by big daddy government... and depending on who's defining it, I've been called a Leftie, a Rightie, even a Libertarian, but the fact is that politically I do not fit your nice, neat little categories - and I refuse to trim my personhood or beliefs to fit someone elses neat little box.

While I would like to see the government eliminated, being that it.. in and of itself IS the problem, masquerading as it's own solution, I take a more realistic view given that most folk are fearful of that level of personal responsibility and government does serve some potentially useful and convenient functions.

My sticking point is Constitutional Compliance, I want them to stay the hell within the original bounds of their authority constructed to prevent many of the very problems we're lookin down the barrel of today - and when it is necessary within their authority to do something, I want it done with an absolute minimum of waste, corruption and stupidity, three things government seems to excel at above all else, unfortunately.

You wanna talk about hating something, imagine how I feel about an organisation that outnumbers and outguns me taking my money through threat of violence and/or imprisonment, and then using it for programs and agendas directly counter to my interests, some of which are a very real threat to me personally simply because of my beliefs.

I mean, how would you feel if a bunch of goons took a third of your money every week and gave it to those middle eastern fanatics you hate so very much ?

Although you might not understand it, and probably won't cause your temper is unlikely to allow you past the first three paragraphs of this post without going ballistic - it's the exact same principle with me.

All I *want* is to be left to live my life in peace, without some religion, some government, some political faction, or set of asinine arbitrary laws that don't DO anything but make everyone a criminal - sticking their nose and thier fingers into it and munging it up on me.

And yeah, I'm a bit pissed that other people make that not an option for me since every one of those tents involves some level of that, YOUR government, in MY life, unwanted being the least damning thing about it.

Remember - the original motto of US Currency was.
"Mind Your (Own) Business"

How far we have come from that.

-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 1, 2007 10:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
"I don’t despise people for their religious views."

That is, if you'll forgive the pun, murderously funny... given that everyone here has just watched you do exactly that, in another thread to pretty damn detailed and extreme degree.

I don’t know what you’re talking about and I don’t think you do either.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 1, 2007 10:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Nah, I'm interested in your interpretation of the term.

Oh well. Have it your way. But it's odd you're so reluctant to clarify your meaning.

There’s nothing odd about it. I’m not interested in the discussion being dragged down into sophism because you don’t like what I’m saying. I’ve already given a source, that if actually did care what my definition of the Left is, you could read.

There are several fallacies associated with defining what the Left is. First of all is the fallacy that Left is the advocate of change or that it is a purveyor of liberty or justice or the ally of the working class. None of which is actually true. This can be seen in the Lefts advocacy of socialism and the belief that the economy should provide some social or moral benefit, but in practice what this amounts to is a wealthy elite protecting the perceived interests of the lower class, which is effectively an aristocracy. The Left doesn’t want change. It wants a economic system that is as old as civilization. And in fact, the Left has rarely managed an economy theory that wasn’t a response against capitalism. Most Left-wing intellectuals don’t come from the working class and it is questionable whether their ideals actually correspond to what is best for the lower classes. Liberty has at best been an occasional affair of the Left, never a defining philosophy. Justice, whether legal or economic, has also not been exclusive to the Left, with many conservative and liberal reformers often providing better legal and economic justice then those advocated by the Left. In the end, the one thing that is consistently represented in the ideals of the Left, particularly the American Left, is opposition to the Right. And that is really all the Left is - opposition. It is “opposition to the actual state of things.”

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 2, 2007 3:06 AM

You've actually got the sophistry thing down pretty good. So how is it that you see Frem as a Leftist?

(And by the way, as an affirmed hater of both the left and the right, I gotta say your definition tilts both ways. The only consistent thing I've seen from the Right in the past twenty years has been a bitter hatred for the Left. And as a neutral observer, I gotta say the Right's bitterness toward the left comes somewhat closer to fitting your description than vice versa. Remember the nineties? In case you've forgotten, those years were filled with bitter, angry Righties foaming at the mouth to get Bill and Hillary. It was at least as ugly, and considerably more petty, than today's Bush bashing.)

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 2, 2007 4:05 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I haven't puzzled this out. I know in parliamentary systems there are formal mechanisms for creating coalitions. Is there some reason why that isn't done in the US ?

Yes. Our system was designed to reduce the uncertainty that can come from the election process. There was a fear that a President elected by a slim majority would lack the apparent power or mandate to lead the nation in times of crisis. There are other considerations as well, such as State soveriegnty and an initial distrust of the electorate, neither of which later democracies had to consider.

The result is the electoral process by which a President can win by winning majority votes in certain states rather then nation wide. I note for the record that this has happened very rarely in our history. Up until 2000 I would have guessed it to be near impossible given the electoral alignment.

Also our party framework has been very loose since the 1820s allowing parties to change enough that if a new idea comes along, the parties adapt to it. The Democrats are great examples of this being both the party of slavery and the party of civil rights. The Republicans are a good example of the opposite since their predecessors, the Whigs, failed to be open to change and were thus entirely replaced by a new structure.

We have seen a number of new parties rise and fall, the best example being in 1912 when the Republicans came in third behind the Progressive Party of Theadore Roosevelt.

Wilson (D) 41.8% and 435 votes
Roosevelt (P) 27.4% and 88 votes
Taft (R) 23.2% and 8 votes.

Note Wilson's overwhelming victory despite his very low numbers in real voters. Had the Republicans stayed united then history would have been very different given the events of the following 8 years. I note for the record Wilson narrowly defeated Republican Charles Hughes in 1916 with his "He kept us out of war" slogan which was replaced soon after with "The Yanks Are Coming".

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 2, 2007 4:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
You've actually got the sophistry thing down pretty good. So how is it that you see Frem as a Leftist?

I think it’s pretty obvious, but as I said, if you’re interested in the definition, read the book.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 2, 2007 4:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I think it’s pretty obvious, but as I said, if you’re interested in the definition, read the book.

Maybe I'll do that someday. I guess until then your true meaning will remain 'cloaked in mystery'.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 2, 2007 4:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Maybe I'll do that someday. I guess until then your true meaning will remain 'cloaked in mystery'.

Good. And if you do, you’ll realize that there’s nothing mysterious about what I’ve told you so far. In fact, it will probably make a lot sense to you, assuming that you’re interested at all, which to be honest, I think, no matter how much detail I went into it, you would still return with the sophistic argument that the Republicans opposed Clinton. As if somehow the Republican party’s political opposition to a sitting Democratic president defines the entire Right-wing. But read the book, and then at least we’ll have a common frame of reference to discuss what the Left is.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 2, 2007 4:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
...But read the book, and then at least we’ll have a common frame of reference to discuss what the Left is.

I have several other books on my list, so to be honest, I probably won't get around to it. Besides, as I said, it's your interpretation that matters. If you want to use a word in an idiosyncratic way, the onus is on you to clarify your meaning - if you want to be understood that is.

Plus I don't really care to get caught up in the whole left/right nonsense as I don't think it captures the important differences in ideology. All authoritarians look alike to me.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 2, 2007 5:38 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
You are. Aren't you?

I dunnno. I believe in equality. I'm against big hairy authorities. And often I'm an anti-corporatist. Does that make me a leftist?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 2, 2007 7:03 AM

FREDGIBLET

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
FredG

I haven't puzzled this out. I know in parliamentary systems there are formal mechanisms for creating coalitions. Is there some reason why that isn't done in the US ?

I'll defer to Hero since he seems to have a pretty good idea and I don't.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 2, 2007 7:30 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I'm against big hairy authorities. And often I'm an anti-corporatist. Does that make me a leftist?

Yes. You want your dictator to be a...neither big, nor hairy...so your voting for John Edwards, the most womanly of the present candidates.

You are against corporations, which is a meaningless statement. What don't you like about corporations? Is it their loyalty to their owners rather then the public, is it their slogans, is it their marketing? Sure, there's lots not to like, but I hate McDonalds cheeseburgers...because I don't like pickles, not because I'm anti-cheeseburger.

Corporations came about as a means of streamlining production and capital development in the 1800s. Does this mean you are against the consolidation of capital for the purpose of developing expensive industry? Cause thats kinda silly in the modern world, after all Mom and Pop can't really afford to build a railroad, buy trucks, or a tool factory to supply their local hardware store.

Railroads are good examples. They are useful for the transport of supplies, goods, people, mail, troops, etc. So you want to build a Railroad, you need steel. Which means you need a steel mill, which means you need coal. And what is steel? Which means you need a scientist to invent steel, a school to train the scientist (and your engineers, bridge builders, tunnel builders, accountants, etc). All that costs money, more money then you have. So you need investors. But folk just don't line up to give you money, they need guarrantees. Like protection of their other money and property in case you go broke or your train crashes. Like ownership rights. Like a share in your profit. So some smart lawyer type, not unlike myself, invents the corporation to consolidate capital and allow for the Railroad to be built and the country to move foreward.

I have always thought of a liberal as a person willing to give you the shirt off of someone else's back and ensure that we are all reduced to the lowest common denominator (thus ending up equal regardless of where you start, finish, or how hard you work in between). A liberal leader believes those things too, but exempts themselves since as a ruling intellectual class, they must be removed from the faceless lower class...for everyone's good.

A conservative is a person willing to give you the shirt off their own back (being moral people willing to help folk out if they can, but not if they choose not to) and who believe that you get what you work for in this world and equality is measured by individual achievement not outcome.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 2, 2007 7:34 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Mayhaps, Siggy - workers rights vs corporations has generally been a "Left" issue, all the way back to the four pole alliance of communists, socialists, unionists and anarchists that culminated in the first "red scare" around the time of the haymarket riots, said scare and following palmer raids having more to do with corporate fear of dissent and war resistance than actual security, more than anything else.

And the next time you meet one of those much disrespected "Leftists" or hated Anarchists you might wanna thank them for the 8-hour workday, as it was born in force and violence against the corporate oligarchs and their government lackeys.

Labor rights are generally a Left of center issue, or considered as such - although in a true free market without government aided and protected monopolies, a corporate oligarchy could not exist - and the concept of "Free Market" is supposedly a Right of center issue, so I guess it's all in how you look at it.

Everybody seems to want things in nice, neat, predictable little boxes, simple decisions.. either/or, if/then, black and white...

But it's not that simple, nor will it ever be, once human beings enter the process, because humans are human, as individual and unique as snowflake crystals - and the political process would have you melt down those unique and beautiful crystals into the homogenous sameness of nice, boring, predictable square ice cubes for easy sorting and distribution, which they call voting blocs.

Politicians love those, it gives them a feeling of comfort and stability, not having to actually answer to their constituents because they have those to depend on - it removes the fear of the people which should be a necessary check upon their excesses.

Keep your tents, I'll be making my own course through your little park there, and who wishes to walk with me, may do so at any time, for as long as they wish, and go their own way any time they wish.

We're human beings, not unthinking cogs in someone elses political machine that may or may not properly represent your own interests, and we should act like human beings, treasuring our individuality and the fact that it scares and threatens those who wish us to be predictable and obediant servants instead of in charge of the system like we should be.

Freedom isn't neat, clean and orderly, so...
LET'S MAKE A MESS!

-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 2, 2007 7:47 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
You are against corporations, which is a meaningless statement. What don't you like about corporations?

Apparently you haven't read any of the discussion between myself and Fletch2. I don't like corporations for several reasons:

They inevitably cause concentration of wealth, and drive working people to the bottom. Aside from being "unfair" it's a sure-fire way to ruin demand and sink your own economy. As such, it's short-sighted and requires a lot of "tweaks" to keep if from regularly collapsing into economic depression.

Altho they're "artificial persons" they have a whole set of generous laws and taxes that apply just to them.

Like ANY organization with it's hand on a source of power (whether it is farm production, military or economic) they have an inordinate amount of say in the morals and ethics of the time.

Quote:
I have always thought of a liberal as a person willing to give you the shirt off of someone else's back

Then I guess I'm not a liberal. The only thing that pops to mind is "Pity would be no more if we did not make men poor".

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 2, 2007 8:20 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Finn,

Can you define a conservative for us ? How about a neo-con ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 2, 2007 8:33 AM