rgraham666
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2004
- Posts
- 43,719
You have such a delicious sense of sarcasm shereads.
"willfully ignorant"
- Thread starter shereads
- Start date
cloudy
Alabama Slammer
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2004
- Posts
- 37,997
Let me see if I have this straight:
I have NOT come out in favor of ANY politician, however, because I happen to agree with some of the things Sassy said, my "independence" of thought has been questioned.
If I agreed with the people that have been bashing and name calling, would I then be an "independent" thinker?
Um, ohhhh-kay.
Just for the record, and call me whatever you like, because it really doesn't matter:
- I believe in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Does that make me a right-wing conservative? If so, then that's fine.
- I believe in my right to state my opinon, as long as I don't FORCE my opinion on others, or expect them to conform to my way of thinking.
- I believe in my right to own and carry (with a permit) a personal firearm. I have been shooting since I was 7; was able to take them apart and put them back together by the time I was 12; have participated in numerous safety courses; and competed on my college's nationally ranked rifle team. That said, I do believe that along with this right comes the duty to own them responsibly - if you don't know what you're doing, you don't need them. I also firmly believe that any handgun control laws restricting ownership will leave guns in the hand of criminals, and out of mine.
- I believe that the acts of terrorism that happened on 9/11 would have happened NO MATTER WHO WAS IN OFFICE AT THE TIME. The planning for those heinous acts went back years and years. And, furthermore, I don't really care who the government (and put whoever's name there that you like) finally decides is to blame - the end result doesn't change. I do, however, care if they don't take measures to prevent it happening again. A family member died in the World Trade Center that day, and they didn't find enough of him to even identify until Christmas. It is not a situation I would wish on anyone, and my concern is that no one else have to go through that.
- I DON'T think that we're perfect. I do, however, believe that we live in the best country in the world. And, yes, I have traveled, and even lived in other countries, so I'm not a die-hard redneck, white, christian, racist, etc., etc. Any discussion even resembling the one taking place here would be punishable by death in other countries. At least we can speak our minds, and even decide which, if any, religion we follow. Again, not many places that is allowed anymore.
-I believe that we should put our own people first (yes, even those that have been bashing those of us that dare to think differently than them). OUR peoples' safety, OUR peoples' education, medical care, etc., etc., should be a priority. If there is left over resources, then fine, by all means help those less fortunate than us.
- No, I have never served in the military, although numerous immediate family members have. I consider it a priviledge to live here, flawed as this nation is.
- I stand up when they play the national anthem.
- I was taught respect for others by my parents, which is why, when I am through with this post, I won't post in this thread anymore, because I am dangerously close to not behaving with the respect I was taught. For myself, I refuse to behave that way. Name-calling, and insulting those who think differently than you do is the province of children. I am not a child.
- I am damn proud of being an American, and I absolutely refuse to apologize for that. We are never perfect, but perfect for some would be absolute hell for others.
I'm out...............
Cloudy
I have NOT come out in favor of ANY politician, however, because I happen to agree with some of the things Sassy said, my "independence" of thought has been questioned.
If I agreed with the people that have been bashing and name calling, would I then be an "independent" thinker?
Um, ohhhh-kay.
Just for the record, and call me whatever you like, because it really doesn't matter:
- I believe in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Does that make me a right-wing conservative? If so, then that's fine.
- I believe in my right to state my opinon, as long as I don't FORCE my opinion on others, or expect them to conform to my way of thinking.
- I believe in my right to own and carry (with a permit) a personal firearm. I have been shooting since I was 7; was able to take them apart and put them back together by the time I was 12; have participated in numerous safety courses; and competed on my college's nationally ranked rifle team. That said, I do believe that along with this right comes the duty to own them responsibly - if you don't know what you're doing, you don't need them. I also firmly believe that any handgun control laws restricting ownership will leave guns in the hand of criminals, and out of mine.
- I believe that the acts of terrorism that happened on 9/11 would have happened NO MATTER WHO WAS IN OFFICE AT THE TIME. The planning for those heinous acts went back years and years. And, furthermore, I don't really care who the government (and put whoever's name there that you like) finally decides is to blame - the end result doesn't change. I do, however, care if they don't take measures to prevent it happening again. A family member died in the World Trade Center that day, and they didn't find enough of him to even identify until Christmas. It is not a situation I would wish on anyone, and my concern is that no one else have to go through that.
- I DON'T think that we're perfect. I do, however, believe that we live in the best country in the world. And, yes, I have traveled, and even lived in other countries, so I'm not a die-hard redneck, white, christian, racist, etc., etc. Any discussion even resembling the one taking place here would be punishable by death in other countries. At least we can speak our minds, and even decide which, if any, religion we follow. Again, not many places that is allowed anymore.
-I believe that we should put our own people first (yes, even those that have been bashing those of us that dare to think differently than them). OUR peoples' safety, OUR peoples' education, medical care, etc., etc., should be a priority. If there is left over resources, then fine, by all means help those less fortunate than us.
- No, I have never served in the military, although numerous immediate family members have. I consider it a priviledge to live here, flawed as this nation is.
- I stand up when they play the national anthem.
- I was taught respect for others by my parents, which is why, when I am through with this post, I won't post in this thread anymore, because I am dangerously close to not behaving with the respect I was taught. For myself, I refuse to behave that way. Name-calling, and insulting those who think differently than you do is the province of children. I am not a child.
- I am damn proud of being an American, and I absolutely refuse to apologize for that. We are never perfect, but perfect for some would be absolute hell for others.
I'm out...............
Cloudy
rgraham666
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2004
- Posts
- 43,719
Collen, my source on the origins of Left and Right traces it to the French Revolution.
The bolding is mine.
Until I read that, I just accepted Left and Right as truths. Silly me.
Now I realise, as Humpty Dumpty pointed out, "That words mean exactly what we want them to mean, no more and no less."
The bolding is mine.
Until I read that, I just accepted Left and Right as truths. Silly me.
Now I realise, as Humpty Dumpty pointed out, "That words mean exactly what we want them to mean, no more and no less."
shereads
Sloganless
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2003
- Posts
- 19,242
Cloudy, I despise the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, as do all independent thinkers. I generally yawn, lie down, or make obscene gestures when the National Anthem is played. These, and name-calling, are basic requirements for becoming part of the Liberal Hive.
Seriously, I think that Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, the Netherlands, in fact all of western Europe, Britain, Canada, Australia, and one or two other countries might grow tired of hearing that conversations like this one are protected by law in the U.S. and not elsewhere. Particularly since some citizens of those countries are posting at Lit on a daily basis and are somewhat less likely to be under government scrutiny than you and I are, since the passage of the Patriot Act.
Whatever you may think of liberals, I think we display less nationalism - or what you might call patriotism - in favor of mroe balanced view of the world beyond our borders. It often seems as if the right wing view patriotism not only as an unquestionable virtue but as an exclusively American quality; the same behavior in other countries is viewed as ungrateful, even dangerous, anti-American nationalism. The frequent assertion that we are "the best country on earth" has to make people in other free countries - of which there are many, some of whom achieved freedom without our assistance - wonder whether we know anything at all about governments other than our own.
I love the U.S. and consider myself extraordinarily lucky to have been born here isntead of, say, Iraq or Bosnia or - forgive me, AH friends, Canada or France.
(kidding)
But it's just that - luck. I didn't work to be born here, and I don't think I'm entitled to a special badge of pride that comes from having worked to achieve something. Am I grateful that others achieved freedom on my behalf? Absolutely. Do I think we're in constant danger of losing our freedom, in small pieces at a time? We have. Significantly, ever since the nomination of John Ashcroft as Attorney General. I think we owe it to the people who have fought for our freedom to continue the fight - internally, where we are in the gravest danger of losing it.
A New York times editorial on the day after 9/ll expressed my own fear that no one outside the U.S. can do to us what we are likely to do to ourselves: destroy our freedom, from within, out of fear and hatred in response to terrorism. That will achieve Osama bin Laden's goal. It happened when the Patriot Act was passed and when the president was allowed by Congress to apply the War Powers Act - a lifting of civil liberties and shifting of authority to the White House - to a "war" that has no definite beginning or ending or even a clearly defined enemy.
The right wing wants us to keep silent about this, accept our fate, give up privacy in order to protect our freedom. Which makes no sense. Protect what freedom? The freedom we're giving up?
The most frustrating part of loving freedom, from the Liberal Hive's perspective, is that we see free speech criticized by the right as "a danger to our freedom." If anybody earned the right to speak out against the Vietnam War, it ought to have been John Kerry, by virtue of not one but TWO voluntary tours of duty. To see how Max Cleland and Kerry have been accused by the right of lacking patriotism - while Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld receive not a word of criticism for the hypocrisy of having been pro-war hawks who avoided the draft - leaves me wondering what kind of freedom conservatives would like to see protected? It's not free speech, and it's certainly not the right of individuals to protest when their country wages an unjust war in their name. To do anything except keep quiet means failing to "support our troops." It's a dictator's dream world: citizens who pride themselves on freedom but are reluctant to use their freedom for fear of being called unpatriotic.
As Bill Maher pointed out recently on his HBO Show, having been fired from Politically Incorrect for saying something politically incorrect, "It's not fair that I'm the only person who lost his job as a result of 9/ll." I was reminded of that while watching Meet the Press this morning, when members of the 9/ll commission were asked whether anyone in the intelligence community or anywhere in government has been fired over the failures that allowed 9/ll to happen. The answer was, "Government isn't very good at holding its own people accountable."
I'm sorry you lost someone in the World Trade Center attacks. So did a lot of people who have expressed a sense of betrayal over the Bush administration's inexplicable reluctance to cooperate fully and without hesitation in the investigation, or to allow the extension the commission has said it needs to deliver a more thorough and useful report.
Seeing smartnsassy's posts questioning Richard Clark's motives - while ignoring the issue of whether the Iraq invasion really has set back the fight against terrorism instead of helping it - I'm reminded that that the conservative response to virtually every allegation or revelation about wrongdoing in this administration has been to shoot the messenger. Not once has a Republican poster at this thread or the Sorry/Political/Asses thread responded with anything but a shrug to evidence that Bush/Cheney used 9/ll as an opportunity to promote an agenda that had nothing to do with Al Queda. I find it treasonous; I'm astonished that others who allegedly love their country more vehemently than I do, aren't demanding to know the real reasons behind the Iraq invasion, and how it's made us safer.
Seriously, I think that Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, the Netherlands, in fact all of western Europe, Britain, Canada, Australia, and one or two other countries might grow tired of hearing that conversations like this one are protected by law in the U.S. and not elsewhere. Particularly since some citizens of those countries are posting at Lit on a daily basis and are somewhat less likely to be under government scrutiny than you and I are, since the passage of the Patriot Act.
Whatever you may think of liberals, I think we display less nationalism - or what you might call patriotism - in favor of mroe balanced view of the world beyond our borders. It often seems as if the right wing view patriotism not only as an unquestionable virtue but as an exclusively American quality; the same behavior in other countries is viewed as ungrateful, even dangerous, anti-American nationalism. The frequent assertion that we are "the best country on earth" has to make people in other free countries - of which there are many, some of whom achieved freedom without our assistance - wonder whether we know anything at all about governments other than our own.
I love the U.S. and consider myself extraordinarily lucky to have been born here isntead of, say, Iraq or Bosnia or - forgive me, AH friends, Canada or France.
(kidding)But it's just that - luck. I didn't work to be born here, and I don't think I'm entitled to a special badge of pride that comes from having worked to achieve something. Am I grateful that others achieved freedom on my behalf? Absolutely. Do I think we're in constant danger of losing our freedom, in small pieces at a time? We have. Significantly, ever since the nomination of John Ashcroft as Attorney General. I think we owe it to the people who have fought for our freedom to continue the fight - internally, where we are in the gravest danger of losing it.
A New York times editorial on the day after 9/ll expressed my own fear that no one outside the U.S. can do to us what we are likely to do to ourselves: destroy our freedom, from within, out of fear and hatred in response to terrorism. That will achieve Osama bin Laden's goal. It happened when the Patriot Act was passed and when the president was allowed by Congress to apply the War Powers Act - a lifting of civil liberties and shifting of authority to the White House - to a "war" that has no definite beginning or ending or even a clearly defined enemy.
The right wing wants us to keep silent about this, accept our fate, give up privacy in order to protect our freedom. Which makes no sense. Protect what freedom? The freedom we're giving up?
The most frustrating part of loving freedom, from the Liberal Hive's perspective, is that we see free speech criticized by the right as "a danger to our freedom." If anybody earned the right to speak out against the Vietnam War, it ought to have been John Kerry, by virtue of not one but TWO voluntary tours of duty. To see how Max Cleland and Kerry have been accused by the right of lacking patriotism - while Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld receive not a word of criticism for the hypocrisy of having been pro-war hawks who avoided the draft - leaves me wondering what kind of freedom conservatives would like to see protected? It's not free speech, and it's certainly not the right of individuals to protest when their country wages an unjust war in their name. To do anything except keep quiet means failing to "support our troops." It's a dictator's dream world: citizens who pride themselves on freedom but are reluctant to use their freedom for fear of being called unpatriotic.
As Bill Maher pointed out recently on his HBO Show, having been fired from Politically Incorrect for saying something politically incorrect, "It's not fair that I'm the only person who lost his job as a result of 9/ll." I was reminded of that while watching Meet the Press this morning, when members of the 9/ll commission were asked whether anyone in the intelligence community or anywhere in government has been fired over the failures that allowed 9/ll to happen. The answer was, "Government isn't very good at holding its own people accountable."
I'm sorry you lost someone in the World Trade Center attacks. So did a lot of people who have expressed a sense of betrayal over the Bush administration's inexplicable reluctance to cooperate fully and without hesitation in the investigation, or to allow the extension the commission has said it needs to deliver a more thorough and useful report.
Seeing smartnsassy's posts questioning Richard Clark's motives - while ignoring the issue of whether the Iraq invasion really has set back the fight against terrorism instead of helping it - I'm reminded that that the conservative response to virtually every allegation or revelation about wrongdoing in this administration has been to shoot the messenger. Not once has a Republican poster at this thread or the Sorry/Political/Asses thread responded with anything but a shrug to evidence that Bush/Cheney used 9/ll as an opportunity to promote an agenda that had nothing to do with Al Queda. I find it treasonous; I'm astonished that others who allegedly love their country more vehemently than I do, aren't demanding to know the real reasons behind the Iraq invasion, and how it's made us safer.
Last edited:
lucky-E-leven
Aphrodisiaddict
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2004
- Posts
- 17,241
I knew it. So it was you the secret service had to haul out kicking and screaming during Bush's swearing in. Were they rough? Did you get to visit Gitmo? Are you suing? C'mon, inquiring minds want to know.
~lucky
amicus
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2003
- Posts
- 14,812
astrology and Liberals
I knew an Astrologer once...a petite, attractive woman with an IQ around 150...she was also Liberal in her politics...in that she believed, oh, my, did she believe that her faith in detail of the postion of the stars and the planets...had answers for her...and others....
She did her homework...as do others in this forum...but she neglected...as do others....some basic facts of reality...in fact, she denied that reality existed at all...not surprising...so do most non logic based Liberals...
The old 1930's attempt to tie individual liberty with the Fascists, is so worn, I thought no one would ever use it again, but, with every generation, a new batch of suckers...I guess...
Those who advocate human liberty...really mean it...freedom for all humans...none of your 'ism's' apply...and those of us who advocate such freedom, also realize..there is no compromise...it is a fight to the death...you want to control us...we will not be controlled...
The religious right is a joke...as all know....the Babtists are not smart enough to join the zionists and the catholics who know the road to control...is control....the religious right is poor white trash in the south and very little else...
an advocate of human liberty...modern man...is not faith based, is educated, logical and focused....accepts that the free exchange of ideas and commodities between people is normal human behavior, and grants government the obligation to protect the ennumerated rights by the use of force in terms of courts, law enforcement and a military to defend sovreign interests at home and abroad.
Beyond that...in terms of heath care, the myriad of social issues liberals cherish...those issues remain the perview of society, not government.
No public schools...no national health care, no social security..as these are all programs funded by mandatory taxation that do not benefit all and are not approved of my all...and no...that is not Anarchy...just a form a freedom of choice...not experienced yet...notice the...'yet'....
To be blunt, the rational advocate of human liberty rejects the entire Liberal/Left view of society....partisan politics aside...it is but the circus of Rome...bread and beer for the masses...
I rambled..but what the hell....
I knew an Astrologer once...a petite, attractive woman with an IQ around 150...she was also Liberal in her politics...in that she believed, oh, my, did she believe that her faith in detail of the postion of the stars and the planets...had answers for her...and others....
She did her homework...as do others in this forum...but she neglected...as do others....some basic facts of reality...in fact, she denied that reality existed at all...not surprising...so do most non logic based Liberals...
The old 1930's attempt to tie individual liberty with the Fascists, is so worn, I thought no one would ever use it again, but, with every generation, a new batch of suckers...I guess...
Those who advocate human liberty...really mean it...freedom for all humans...none of your 'ism's' apply...and those of us who advocate such freedom, also realize..there is no compromise...it is a fight to the death...you want to control us...we will not be controlled...
The religious right is a joke...as all know....the Babtists are not smart enough to join the zionists and the catholics who know the road to control...is control....the religious right is poor white trash in the south and very little else...
an advocate of human liberty...modern man...is not faith based, is educated, logical and focused....accepts that the free exchange of ideas and commodities between people is normal human behavior, and grants government the obligation to protect the ennumerated rights by the use of force in terms of courts, law enforcement and a military to defend sovreign interests at home and abroad.
Beyond that...in terms of heath care, the myriad of social issues liberals cherish...those issues remain the perview of society, not government.
No public schools...no national health care, no social security..as these are all programs funded by mandatory taxation that do not benefit all and are not approved of my all...and no...that is not Anarchy...just a form a freedom of choice...not experienced yet...notice the...'yet'....
To be blunt, the rational advocate of human liberty rejects the entire Liberal/Left view of society....partisan politics aside...it is but the circus of Rome...bread and beer for the masses...
I rambled..but what the hell....
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Amicus,
//No public schools//
Hey at least you're open about it. GWB is doing it by stealth.
You libertarians and Randians do have some good points about govt, and agree with us Reds, Anarchists and Hivists that there's danger of 'big government' getting into everyone's private life.
A genuine proponent of liberty doesn't care who fucks whom, or what is your smoking weed of choice.
Unfortunately the 'conservative' label is now applied to all manner of Republican and Statist approaches involving imposition of 'family values' and 'Christian values.' Relatively 'pure' conservatives, like our Colly, really do prize liberty, but they are in short supply. While the right, the 'religious right,' the fascistic right, are doing their best to take it away.
//No public schools//
Hey at least you're open about it. GWB is doing it by stealth.
You libertarians and Randians do have some good points about govt, and agree with us Reds, Anarchists and Hivists that there's danger of 'big government' getting into everyone's private life.
A genuine proponent of liberty doesn't care who fucks whom, or what is your smoking weed of choice.
Unfortunately the 'conservative' label is now applied to all manner of Republican and Statist approaches involving imposition of 'family values' and 'Christian values.' Relatively 'pure' conservatives, like our Colly, really do prize liberty, but they are in short supply. While the right, the 'religious right,' the fascistic right, are doing their best to take it away.
sweetnpetite
Intellectual snob
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2003
- Posts
- 9,135
Re: astrology and Liberals
Yes you do ramble...
Government is a function of society, not seperate from it. It is a huge part of society and integral.
You think that everyone doesn't benefit from public schools, health care, social security, ect. but that is not true. Maybe you've heard 'no man is an island' I think we all benefit from living in a society were people are educated, healthy, and fed. But if you want to live in a society were only the wealthy have good food, good education and good health then I suppose you will be happy to use your tax payers money to pay for more prisons and more cops as society breaks down and desparation takes over. But that's ok, because you will be living in your own prison, as more and more cops are needed to patrol every streat, as higher fenses must be built to keep yourself safe. Who knows, maybe you really will become an island in this prison of your own making- and end up isolated, alone and counting your money which won't buy you an ounce of fresh air or drinking water. Then you will not have to think of any needs beyond your own. But step outside your door and get killed by someone for the $50 in your pocket or the shoes on your feet. (It's not so insane, it happens all the time in inner cities now, in this very country, and as we speak)
In a country of the people, for the people and by the people- society and government are one and the same. Improving society (ie- others with problems besides your own) improves society (ie, the place you live). Old people may not want to pay school taxes, but they sure would bitch if they saw a bunch of kids playing hooky in front of there homes. In otherwords, just because there kids arent in school, doenst' mean that they don't want kids in school- they just don't always look at it that way.
ps- social security does benifit all- or maybe you think you will never be old? you accumulate and work for your own benefits and no one elses (other than survivors).
amicus said:
Yes you do ramble...
Government is a function of society, not seperate from it. It is a huge part of society and integral.
You think that everyone doesn't benefit from public schools, health care, social security, ect. but that is not true. Maybe you've heard 'no man is an island' I think we all benefit from living in a society were people are educated, healthy, and fed. But if you want to live in a society were only the wealthy have good food, good education and good health then I suppose you will be happy to use your tax payers money to pay for more prisons and more cops as society breaks down and desparation takes over. But that's ok, because you will be living in your own prison, as more and more cops are needed to patrol every streat, as higher fenses must be built to keep yourself safe. Who knows, maybe you really will become an island in this prison of your own making- and end up isolated, alone and counting your money which won't buy you an ounce of fresh air or drinking water. Then you will not have to think of any needs beyond your own. But step outside your door and get killed by someone for the $50 in your pocket or the shoes on your feet. (It's not so insane, it happens all the time in inner cities now, in this very country, and as we speak)
In a country of the people, for the people and by the people- society and government are one and the same. Improving society (ie- others with problems besides your own) improves society (ie, the place you live). Old people may not want to pay school taxes, but they sure would bitch if they saw a bunch of kids playing hooky in front of there homes. In otherwords, just because there kids arent in school, doenst' mean that they don't want kids in school- they just don't always look at it that way.
ps- social security does benifit all- or maybe you think you will never be old? you accumulate and work for your own benefits and no one elses (other than survivors).
sweetnpetite
Intellectual snob
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2003
- Posts
- 9,135
some more left wing/right wing stuff
Left-wing / Right-wing
Left/Right is the basic polarity of political temperament, the axis of political antagonism which manifests itself across all shades of politics, all epochs and social movements. Broadly speaking, the left-wing expresses that social force which is the most marginalised by, and has the least commitment to, the status quo and power relations of the existing society, and it responds to this position by being reformist or revolutionary. Meanwhile, the right-wing is by and large committed to reinforcement of, or at least adaptation to, the status quo and its power relations by being conservative or reactionary.
Historical Development: The left-right identification in politics dates from the seating arrangements in the French Chamber of Deputies after the French Revolution of 1789. It is believed that the practice of the conservatives sitting to the right of the Speaker and the radicals to the left had its origins in the old custom by which a host would place their honoured guests to the right at formal gatherings.
It is usually clear in any given political context which is the left and which is the right-wing position on a given question, but political deception aside, sometimes even an objective view of what is right and left is obscure. For example, is it left or right for hospital workers to take pay cuts to provide lower costs of medicine? What about gun-control and citizen participation in maintaining law and order? Furthermore, over time the concrete, day to day meaning of left and right changes. For example, in the earliest days of capitalism only the right-wing of the workers' movement would look to the state for social support, while the left-wing looked to independent workers' organisation for social support; during much of the twentieth century however, the idea of the state taking responsibility for everything from workers' health and education through to economic management was a left-wing position. At the onset of the 21st century, the political forms of the left-right axis are continuing to change.
At first sight it would seem that certain values, such as community or equality, are more valued by the left than the right. However, this is hard to sustain. While the left may support communitarianism against individualism, it may also counterpose class struggle to community, and individual autonomy to moral conformity - it depends on the context. Everybody is for freedom and equality, but these values are subject to different definitions - free trade, free enterprise and free speech may all be right-wing policies, for example, because they are freedoms which consolidate the existing power relations. The left traditionally opposes censorship, but favours government regulation of foodstuffs. The Left generally supports emancipation, but this by no means supporting "freedom" in every instance (e.g. the "freedom" to exploit others).
Extremism of either the left or the right, manifesting itself in either revolutionary or reactionary forms, is formed from a hard core of the most excluded, the most down-trodden and marginalised layers of society. You can't have a revolutionary or reactionary movement without people who are extremely oppressed becoming active in overthrowing that repression in either a progressive (left) or retroactive (right) way.
Marxist politics and the left: Marxists unequivocally identify themselves with oppressed people who take up positions on the extreme left in social movements. Marx & Engels supported the Paris Commune, but criticised it for not being thorough enough — since the communards did not smash the state apparatus, tens of thousands were massacred by the French state. The Bolsheviks supported the Petrograd workers who tried to stage a premature revolution in July 1917, and Luxemburg and Liebknecht supported the 1919 German Revolution, even though it too was premature. The object of such support is both to try to move society forward through revolution and to temper the left-wing spontaneity with a scientific consciousness. During the 1920s and onwards, Trotsky criticised the Soviet Union in some cases for being too far left (e.g. forced collectivisation) and in most cases, particularly after 1933, for being too far right (e.g. popular front policies).
Marxism stands on the left-wing of politics in a revolutionary way. Nevertheless, the spontaneity of a mass movement is one thing, and political leadership is another. Marxist political theory had its origins in both a critique of capitalism and the left. "Young" Hegelians, "True Socialists" and Utopian socialists, the left-wing of politics of the 1840s -- See The German Ideology); Lenin's last major work, addressed to the supporters of the Russian Revolution in the West, was entitled "Left-Wing" Communism: An Infantile Disorder - a critique of the "left-ism" of those who wanted to imitate the Russian Revolution, without paying attention to the specific conditions of their own country. Marxism is scientific socialism; it is not a spontaneous politics. Consequently, while giving voice to the most left-wing forces in society, Marxists have a mind to what basis exists for this or that policy, the reality of the political terrain, and take a critical attitude to left-wing politics. Political leadership is never a question of looking for the most left-wing position on any given problem, but rather, of finding that policy which most strengthens and builds the self-confidence, unity and self-consciousness of the working class as a whole. In capitalist society this invariably involves a struggle with spontaneous left-wing consciousness.
All political parties invariably find their youth, oftentimes side by side with minorities and so many other commonly disenfranchised groups, occupying the left-wing of the party, and this is generally true of workers' and communist organisations as well. Marxists seek to foster and educate the left-wing to develop a more sober and scientific view of the political terrain, to learn to understand the motivation of other social layers and how to win battles, rather than just fighting valiantly. On the other hand, the trade unionists typically form the right-wing of workers' parties, and obviously are valued nonetheless for their concern for a sober assessment of the balance of forces before battle is joined.
In this way, in whatever political organisation you look to, there is a left and a right wing — and to trample that difference is a blow to democracy. Thus, we can see the radical and progressive step that capitalism took in its foundation: the right and left have been institutionalised — the left typically supports the small buisness owner (and to some extent unions) because they are the most marginalised by big buisness, while the right supports big buisness and some small buisnesses. Neither the big nor small buisness can exist without the other, so having advocates of both political wings in the government is key to the democractic and efficient functioning of society. This division in government is the most basic recognition and acceptance of the reality of the political terrain in any society. When Stalinism attempted to crush all political opposition in the Soviet Union, the party itself had to go from left to right in a zigzag of policy moves that became more and more dictatorial and destructive.
While Marxism at present stands on the extreme left wing as advocates (in the words of the Communist Manifesto) of the "overthrow of all existing social conditions", Marxism frequently warns against being too far left — you can't just take to the streets and begin fighting a revolution when the conditions are not ready, when the working class is not in the streets with you! Even in Socialist society Marxism warns against being too far left — you can't just (as Anarchists want) go directly into classless society. Cuba, for example, tried to completely do away with money in the first years of the revolution, in a move that was far left. Most Marxists disagreed with this policy, as it turns out correctly, as it outstripped material reality: society was no where near advanced enough to take that bold step forward. Thus, Marxism encourages a thoroughly scientific element in any political position. In times of political retreat, it is not simple; spontaneous left-wing politics may lack a basis in society at large, and pursuit of a left-wing policy for which there is no basis is unwise and irresponsible, while in periods of social upsurge, communists place themselves shoulder-to-shoulder with the left-wing and seek to bring together all the left in their common interests.
***
this is from the glosery section of: http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/l/e.htm
not saying that I agree of disagree. Just thought it would make interesting reading.
###
Another site I found points out some interesting *similarities* between the two desparate (sp?) groups.
http://www.zompist.com/leqr.html
Christian right, progressive left: Birds of a feather?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Progressives and the Christian right are not normally thought to resemble each other. Certainly they don't like each other. But since I've observed both at close quarters, have enjoyed both C.S. Lewis and Noam Chomsky, read Frank Peretti and Molly Ivins, meditated on Francis Schaeffer and Alison Bechdel, what strike me are the similarities.
I list some of the resemblances below. (You can find the differences yourself.) Perhaps each camp will recognize itself a little in the other. What they do with this alarming recognition is up to them.
Political correctness/ orthodoxy. Both are highly concerned with correct thinking. Of course only the leftists ever feel bad about this: "politically correct" evolved as a leftist joke. There's always someone more to the left than you. But then, there's always someone more fundamentalist than you.
Historicism. Both camps view of history as a drama where destiny is on their side. You can even see the same defense mechanisms at work: both good news and bad news are part of the plan-- good news of course obviously confirms our impending victory; bad news confirms the dire predictions that are equally part of the ideological inheritance. And the derived tendency on both sides is to sit back and leave the struggle to others: if history is on your side, why exert yourself?
Schismaticism. Both camps have a tendency to divide into tiny factions, wasting their energy in fights over absurd points of doctrine. Both tend to admire the ideologically strict and to despise toleration and compromise.
As a corollary of this, both sides hate Clinton. (See also Puritanism.)
Both are given to conspiracy theories-- a conviction that the Other Side is a monolithic unity dedicated to trampling goodness and decency. The idea that the Other Side is itself a fractious mass which defeats most of its own purposes, or that the course of the world is determined more by apathy and stupidity than by active evil, is completely alien to their mentality.
Both are convinced of pervasive media bias against them. Rightists babble about the "liberal media"; Christians complain about 'secular humanism'; progressives are just as sure that the media are the mouthpiece of conservative moneyed interests. Neither side has any clue why its own shrill and narrow-minded magazines are not more popular.
Both have violent, separatist fringes (which the other side assumes are typical of the species). At the same time, paradoxically, if you want a pacifist, the two best places to look are in nooks and crannies of Christianity or the left.
Both criticize worldly (patriarchal) values. "Materialism" is a bad word for both sides. Both, in principle, reject consumerism and disdain worldly success (though both have a few heroes in their own fold who've attained success without losing their values). Buchanan criticizes Wall Street almost as much as the progressives do.
(In its origins, Christianity is as distrustful of the rich as Marxism, and Christians have often been in the forefront of the struggle for social justice. But in this country, at least, the radicalism of the Gospel has been undercut by "prosperity theology"-- the idea that far from entering Heaven less easily than camels thread needles, the rich man is specially favored by God.)
On both sides, there's a substantial minority which truly attempts to live simply and live in community. Lesbian separatists form communes and food co-ops; so do Evangelicals. Sometimes they even end up in the same, non-worldly service fields: education, social work, counseling, even serving among the poor in the Third World.
They share some organizing tactics, notably small groups: Bible studies, housegroups, consciousness raising groups, steering committees. (Evangelicals often admire Communist cell-organizing.)
Both have a voluminous, self-referential, and impenetrable cultural production. Both have the ability to make readers out of people who would not ordinarily read.
Both are convinced that they speak for decent people in the country (the "moral majority" in one case, "The People" in the other).
Neither, however, has a wholly adequate commitment to democracy. Both have supported foreign dictatorships in the past if the dictator mouthed the right platitudes from their side. Both want to spread their message to the masses, but have no great interest in what the masses themselves want to do or to say. Both are willing to resort to censorship, and have tried to silence voices in the academy which dismay them.
At root, I fear, both sides discount this business of democracy --mere democracy will never lead to salvation; you can only trust God/The Revolution; and the role of The People is to be instructed, not to speak.
Neither group has much patience for traditional politics -- though both can put in the footwork for a cause they believe in. When grand success does not come, however, they tend to lose interest and dissipate their energy on radicalisms most people will never share: vegetarianism; creationism; concerns with lookism and animal rights; crusades against movies or singing in church. When it comes right down to it they prefer personal integrity to political effectiveness.
Both sides are more comfortable with communities than with individuals, and don't make things comfortable for the independent thinker. And for both this value has declined over the years. Fundamentalists used to more or less ignore the world and-- laudably-- concentrated on their own sins, on "getting right with God". Now they've stopped worrying about the logs in their own eyes, and spend their time deploring the supposed sins of outsiders.
And leftists used to go out and organize The People, and work on issues most people could understand and support: unions, civil rights, social benefits, public works, day care. Now they've retreated into their Fill-in-the-Blank Studies Departments, and mistake the production of academic prose and review articles for social action.
Both tend toward puritanism. This may not seem to fit leftists; but consider the alliance between fundamentalists and '70s feminists against pornography. There is definitely a segment of the left that is just as embarrassed about human sexuality as any believer is, and just as apt to consider women to be frail creatures defenseless against rapacious masculinity.
Both are concerned with spirituality. This was not true of the old-style Left, of course; but it's been a strong and growing current in the left since the '60s-- what with chakras and crystals and Wicca and shamans, no one has any time to pursue one-world socialism any more.
Both are very concerned that other people will misbehave-- the Christians, that they will fall short morally; progressives, that they will oppress each other. Both are right, of course. In both cases this concern translates into a zeal for ordering the lives of other people-- not just their morality but their attitudes and demeanor-- a zeal which the Other Side finds alarming and incomprehensible.
(Hoo boy, now I've offended my friends in both camps. Lighten up, guys...)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
eeks- sorry for the length!!
Left-wing / Right-wing
Left/Right is the basic polarity of political temperament, the axis of political antagonism which manifests itself across all shades of politics, all epochs and social movements. Broadly speaking, the left-wing expresses that social force which is the most marginalised by, and has the least commitment to, the status quo and power relations of the existing society, and it responds to this position by being reformist or revolutionary. Meanwhile, the right-wing is by and large committed to reinforcement of, or at least adaptation to, the status quo and its power relations by being conservative or reactionary.
Historical Development: The left-right identification in politics dates from the seating arrangements in the French Chamber of Deputies after the French Revolution of 1789. It is believed that the practice of the conservatives sitting to the right of the Speaker and the radicals to the left had its origins in the old custom by which a host would place their honoured guests to the right at formal gatherings.
It is usually clear in any given political context which is the left and which is the right-wing position on a given question, but political deception aside, sometimes even an objective view of what is right and left is obscure. For example, is it left or right for hospital workers to take pay cuts to provide lower costs of medicine? What about gun-control and citizen participation in maintaining law and order? Furthermore, over time the concrete, day to day meaning of left and right changes. For example, in the earliest days of capitalism only the right-wing of the workers' movement would look to the state for social support, while the left-wing looked to independent workers' organisation for social support; during much of the twentieth century however, the idea of the state taking responsibility for everything from workers' health and education through to economic management was a left-wing position. At the onset of the 21st century, the political forms of the left-right axis are continuing to change.
At first sight it would seem that certain values, such as community or equality, are more valued by the left than the right. However, this is hard to sustain. While the left may support communitarianism against individualism, it may also counterpose class struggle to community, and individual autonomy to moral conformity - it depends on the context. Everybody is for freedom and equality, but these values are subject to different definitions - free trade, free enterprise and free speech may all be right-wing policies, for example, because they are freedoms which consolidate the existing power relations. The left traditionally opposes censorship, but favours government regulation of foodstuffs. The Left generally supports emancipation, but this by no means supporting "freedom" in every instance (e.g. the "freedom" to exploit others).
Extremism of either the left or the right, manifesting itself in either revolutionary or reactionary forms, is formed from a hard core of the most excluded, the most down-trodden and marginalised layers of society. You can't have a revolutionary or reactionary movement without people who are extremely oppressed becoming active in overthrowing that repression in either a progressive (left) or retroactive (right) way.
Marxist politics and the left: Marxists unequivocally identify themselves with oppressed people who take up positions on the extreme left in social movements. Marx & Engels supported the Paris Commune, but criticised it for not being thorough enough — since the communards did not smash the state apparatus, tens of thousands were massacred by the French state. The Bolsheviks supported the Petrograd workers who tried to stage a premature revolution in July 1917, and Luxemburg and Liebknecht supported the 1919 German Revolution, even though it too was premature. The object of such support is both to try to move society forward through revolution and to temper the left-wing spontaneity with a scientific consciousness. During the 1920s and onwards, Trotsky criticised the Soviet Union in some cases for being too far left (e.g. forced collectivisation) and in most cases, particularly after 1933, for being too far right (e.g. popular front policies).
Marxism stands on the left-wing of politics in a revolutionary way. Nevertheless, the spontaneity of a mass movement is one thing, and political leadership is another. Marxist political theory had its origins in both a critique of capitalism and the left. "Young" Hegelians, "True Socialists" and Utopian socialists, the left-wing of politics of the 1840s -- See The German Ideology); Lenin's last major work, addressed to the supporters of the Russian Revolution in the West, was entitled "Left-Wing" Communism: An Infantile Disorder - a critique of the "left-ism" of those who wanted to imitate the Russian Revolution, without paying attention to the specific conditions of their own country. Marxism is scientific socialism; it is not a spontaneous politics. Consequently, while giving voice to the most left-wing forces in society, Marxists have a mind to what basis exists for this or that policy, the reality of the political terrain, and take a critical attitude to left-wing politics. Political leadership is never a question of looking for the most left-wing position on any given problem, but rather, of finding that policy which most strengthens and builds the self-confidence, unity and self-consciousness of the working class as a whole. In capitalist society this invariably involves a struggle with spontaneous left-wing consciousness.
All political parties invariably find their youth, oftentimes side by side with minorities and so many other commonly disenfranchised groups, occupying the left-wing of the party, and this is generally true of workers' and communist organisations as well. Marxists seek to foster and educate the left-wing to develop a more sober and scientific view of the political terrain, to learn to understand the motivation of other social layers and how to win battles, rather than just fighting valiantly. On the other hand, the trade unionists typically form the right-wing of workers' parties, and obviously are valued nonetheless for their concern for a sober assessment of the balance of forces before battle is joined.
In this way, in whatever political organisation you look to, there is a left and a right wing — and to trample that difference is a blow to democracy. Thus, we can see the radical and progressive step that capitalism took in its foundation: the right and left have been institutionalised — the left typically supports the small buisness owner (and to some extent unions) because they are the most marginalised by big buisness, while the right supports big buisness and some small buisnesses. Neither the big nor small buisness can exist without the other, so having advocates of both political wings in the government is key to the democractic and efficient functioning of society. This division in government is the most basic recognition and acceptance of the reality of the political terrain in any society. When Stalinism attempted to crush all political opposition in the Soviet Union, the party itself had to go from left to right in a zigzag of policy moves that became more and more dictatorial and destructive.
While Marxism at present stands on the extreme left wing as advocates (in the words of the Communist Manifesto) of the "overthrow of all existing social conditions", Marxism frequently warns against being too far left — you can't just take to the streets and begin fighting a revolution when the conditions are not ready, when the working class is not in the streets with you! Even in Socialist society Marxism warns against being too far left — you can't just (as Anarchists want) go directly into classless society. Cuba, for example, tried to completely do away with money in the first years of the revolution, in a move that was far left. Most Marxists disagreed with this policy, as it turns out correctly, as it outstripped material reality: society was no where near advanced enough to take that bold step forward. Thus, Marxism encourages a thoroughly scientific element in any political position. In times of political retreat, it is not simple; spontaneous left-wing politics may lack a basis in society at large, and pursuit of a left-wing policy for which there is no basis is unwise and irresponsible, while in periods of social upsurge, communists place themselves shoulder-to-shoulder with the left-wing and seek to bring together all the left in their common interests.
***
this is from the glosery section of: http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/l/e.htm
not saying that I agree of disagree. Just thought it would make interesting reading.
###
Another site I found points out some interesting *similarities* between the two desparate (sp?) groups.
http://www.zompist.com/leqr.html
Christian right, progressive left: Birds of a feather?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Progressives and the Christian right are not normally thought to resemble each other. Certainly they don't like each other. But since I've observed both at close quarters, have enjoyed both C.S. Lewis and Noam Chomsky, read Frank Peretti and Molly Ivins, meditated on Francis Schaeffer and Alison Bechdel, what strike me are the similarities.
I list some of the resemblances below. (You can find the differences yourself.) Perhaps each camp will recognize itself a little in the other. What they do with this alarming recognition is up to them.
Political correctness/ orthodoxy. Both are highly concerned with correct thinking. Of course only the leftists ever feel bad about this: "politically correct" evolved as a leftist joke. There's always someone more to the left than you. But then, there's always someone more fundamentalist than you.
Historicism. Both camps view of history as a drama where destiny is on their side. You can even see the same defense mechanisms at work: both good news and bad news are part of the plan-- good news of course obviously confirms our impending victory; bad news confirms the dire predictions that are equally part of the ideological inheritance. And the derived tendency on both sides is to sit back and leave the struggle to others: if history is on your side, why exert yourself?
Schismaticism. Both camps have a tendency to divide into tiny factions, wasting their energy in fights over absurd points of doctrine. Both tend to admire the ideologically strict and to despise toleration and compromise.
As a corollary of this, both sides hate Clinton. (See also Puritanism.)
Both are given to conspiracy theories-- a conviction that the Other Side is a monolithic unity dedicated to trampling goodness and decency. The idea that the Other Side is itself a fractious mass which defeats most of its own purposes, or that the course of the world is determined more by apathy and stupidity than by active evil, is completely alien to their mentality.
Both are convinced of pervasive media bias against them. Rightists babble about the "liberal media"; Christians complain about 'secular humanism'; progressives are just as sure that the media are the mouthpiece of conservative moneyed interests. Neither side has any clue why its own shrill and narrow-minded magazines are not more popular.
Both have violent, separatist fringes (which the other side assumes are typical of the species). At the same time, paradoxically, if you want a pacifist, the two best places to look are in nooks and crannies of Christianity or the left.
Both criticize worldly (patriarchal) values. "Materialism" is a bad word for both sides. Both, in principle, reject consumerism and disdain worldly success (though both have a few heroes in their own fold who've attained success without losing their values). Buchanan criticizes Wall Street almost as much as the progressives do.
(In its origins, Christianity is as distrustful of the rich as Marxism, and Christians have often been in the forefront of the struggle for social justice. But in this country, at least, the radicalism of the Gospel has been undercut by "prosperity theology"-- the idea that far from entering Heaven less easily than camels thread needles, the rich man is specially favored by God.)
On both sides, there's a substantial minority which truly attempts to live simply and live in community. Lesbian separatists form communes and food co-ops; so do Evangelicals. Sometimes they even end up in the same, non-worldly service fields: education, social work, counseling, even serving among the poor in the Third World.
They share some organizing tactics, notably small groups: Bible studies, housegroups, consciousness raising groups, steering committees. (Evangelicals often admire Communist cell-organizing.)
Both have a voluminous, self-referential, and impenetrable cultural production. Both have the ability to make readers out of people who would not ordinarily read.
Both are convinced that they speak for decent people in the country (the "moral majority" in one case, "The People" in the other).
Neither, however, has a wholly adequate commitment to democracy. Both have supported foreign dictatorships in the past if the dictator mouthed the right platitudes from their side. Both want to spread their message to the masses, but have no great interest in what the masses themselves want to do or to say. Both are willing to resort to censorship, and have tried to silence voices in the academy which dismay them.
At root, I fear, both sides discount this business of democracy --mere democracy will never lead to salvation; you can only trust God/The Revolution; and the role of The People is to be instructed, not to speak.
Neither group has much patience for traditional politics -- though both can put in the footwork for a cause they believe in. When grand success does not come, however, they tend to lose interest and dissipate their energy on radicalisms most people will never share: vegetarianism; creationism; concerns with lookism and animal rights; crusades against movies or singing in church. When it comes right down to it they prefer personal integrity to political effectiveness.
Both sides are more comfortable with communities than with individuals, and don't make things comfortable for the independent thinker. And for both this value has declined over the years. Fundamentalists used to more or less ignore the world and-- laudably-- concentrated on their own sins, on "getting right with God". Now they've stopped worrying about the logs in their own eyes, and spend their time deploring the supposed sins of outsiders.
And leftists used to go out and organize The People, and work on issues most people could understand and support: unions, civil rights, social benefits, public works, day care. Now they've retreated into their Fill-in-the-Blank Studies Departments, and mistake the production of academic prose and review articles for social action.
Both tend toward puritanism. This may not seem to fit leftists; but consider the alliance between fundamentalists and '70s feminists against pornography. There is definitely a segment of the left that is just as embarrassed about human sexuality as any believer is, and just as apt to consider women to be frail creatures defenseless against rapacious masculinity.
Both are concerned with spirituality. This was not true of the old-style Left, of course; but it's been a strong and growing current in the left since the '60s-- what with chakras and crystals and Wicca and shamans, no one has any time to pursue one-world socialism any more.
Both are very concerned that other people will misbehave-- the Christians, that they will fall short morally; progressives, that they will oppress each other. Both are right, of course. In both cases this concern translates into a zeal for ordering the lives of other people-- not just their morality but their attitudes and demeanor-- a zeal which the Other Side finds alarming and incomprehensible.
(Hoo boy, now I've offended my friends in both camps. Lighten up, guys...)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
eeks- sorry for the length!!
sweetnpetite
Intellectual snob
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2003
- Posts
- 9,135
some more left wing/right wing stuff
oops, accidental double post- I'll just repost my favorites from the above (second) list
Both are given to conspiracy theories-- a conviction that the Other Side is a monolithic unity dedicated to trampling goodness and decency. The idea that the Other Side is itself a fractious mass which defeats most of its own purposes, or that the course of the world is determined more by apathy and stupidity than by active evil, is completely alien to their mentality.
Both are convinced of pervasive media bias against them. Rightists babble about the "liberal media"; Christians complain about 'secular humanism'; progressives are just as sure that the media are the mouthpiece of conservative moneyed interests. Neither side has any clue why its own shrill and narrow-minded magazines are not more popular.
Both have violent, separatist fringes (which the other side assumes are typical of the species).
They share some organizing tactics, notably small groups: Bible studies, housegroups, consciousness raising groups, steering committees. (Evangelicals often admire Communist cell-organizing.)
Both have a voluminous, self-referential, and impenetrable cultural production. Both have the ability to make readers out of people who would not ordinarily read.
Both are convinced that they speak for decent people in the country (the "moral majority" in one case, "The People" in the other).
Both tend toward puritanism. This may not seem to fit leftists; but consider the alliance between fundamentalists and '70s feminists against pornography. There is definitely a segment of the left that is just as embarrassed about human sexuality as any believer is, and just as apt to consider women to be frail creatures defenseless against rapacious masculinity.
Both are very concerned that other people will misbehave-- the Christians, that they will fall short morally; progressives, that they will oppress each other. Both are right, of course. In both cases this concern translates into a zeal for ordering the lives of other people-- not just their morality but their attitudes and demeanor-- a zeal which the Other Side finds alarming and incomprehensible.
oops, accidental double post- I'll just repost my favorites from the above (second) list
Both are given to conspiracy theories-- a conviction that the Other Side is a monolithic unity dedicated to trampling goodness and decency. The idea that the Other Side is itself a fractious mass which defeats most of its own purposes, or that the course of the world is determined more by apathy and stupidity than by active evil, is completely alien to their mentality.
Both are convinced of pervasive media bias against them. Rightists babble about the "liberal media"; Christians complain about 'secular humanism'; progressives are just as sure that the media are the mouthpiece of conservative moneyed interests. Neither side has any clue why its own shrill and narrow-minded magazines are not more popular.
Both have violent, separatist fringes (which the other side assumes are typical of the species).
They share some organizing tactics, notably small groups: Bible studies, housegroups, consciousness raising groups, steering committees. (Evangelicals often admire Communist cell-organizing.)
Both have a voluminous, self-referential, and impenetrable cultural production. Both have the ability to make readers out of people who would not ordinarily read.
Both are convinced that they speak for decent people in the country (the "moral majority" in one case, "The People" in the other).
Both tend toward puritanism. This may not seem to fit leftists; but consider the alliance between fundamentalists and '70s feminists against pornography. There is definitely a segment of the left that is just as embarrassed about human sexuality as any believer is, and just as apt to consider women to be frail creatures defenseless against rapacious masculinity.
Both are very concerned that other people will misbehave-- the Christians, that they will fall short morally; progressives, that they will oppress each other. Both are right, of course. In both cases this concern translates into a zeal for ordering the lives of other people-- not just their morality but their attitudes and demeanor-- a zeal which the Other Side finds alarming and incomprehensible.
Last edited:
wyattmanusco
Virgin
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2004
- Posts
- 7
KEEP THEM NIGGARS SEALED IN OIL WELLS
"My opponent has spent two decades in Washington and he's built up quite a record. In fact, Senator Kerry has been in Washington long enough to take both sides on just about every issue."
-President Bush, March 4, 2004
Re-Elect President Bush '04
http://www.voteforgeorgewbush.com/
"My opponent has spent two decades in Washington and he's built up quite a record. In fact, Senator Kerry has been in Washington long enough to take both sides on just about every issue."
-President Bush, March 4, 2004
Re-Elect President Bush '04
http://www.voteforgeorgewbush.com/
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
"Things are going well in Iraq; hearts and minds are being reached. The majority Shi'ites are happy to have us there."
George W. Bush, April 1, 2004.
PS. There is a nice Salon article on how the "Information" office in Iraq is staffed and stuffed with a large contingent of GWB campaign pros who ensure that the news has a correctly optimistic ring to it.
George W. Bush, April 1, 2004.
PS. There is a nice Salon article on how the "Information" office in Iraq is staffed and stuffed with a large contingent of GWB campaign pros who ensure that the news has a correctly optimistic ring to it.
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
A thought for Cloudy, Smartnsassy, etc
From a Frank Rich column in the NY Times, 4-04-04
Last Sunday on "60 Minutes" Ed Bradley dipped a toe into it[9-11 controversy] by noting that there were fewer attacks in the 30-month period leading up to 9/11 than there have been in "the 30 months afterward when you had this war against it."
Ms. Rice was dismissive of his logic. "Ed, I think that's the wrong way to look at it," she said.
How should we look at it?
From a Frank Rich column in the NY Times, 4-04-04
Last Sunday on "60 Minutes" Ed Bradley dipped a toe into it[9-11 controversy] by noting that there were fewer attacks in the 30-month period leading up to 9/11 than there have been in "the 30 months afterward when you had this war against it."
Ms. Rice was dismissive of his logic. "Ed, I think that's the wrong way to look at it," she said.
How should we look at it?
Colleen Thomas
Ultrafemme
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2002
- Posts
- 21,545
Pure said:
In a military sense it makes perfect sense. Usually before an offensive in some sector you cease your more provocative actions there and establish a routine. Basically you want to divert your enemies attention from that sector. Once you begin an offensive, or make your strike you can return to full scale operations as you are no longer hiding your real intent.
-Colly
amicus
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2003
- Posts
- 14,812
Political Science...
For sweetnpetite...et al...
Sometimes...a gifted mind, one of high intellect...sees so much more than the average rock that it all does become quite confusing and seemingly contradictory.
Nonetheless...thank you for taking the time and effort to post and paste...the length and subject reminded me of why I dumped out of PolySci..in college a long time ago...still...it was a reminder of the bean counter/scholastic/dry and relativistic nature of the beast.
That is partly why I referred to Astrology in an earlier post, many who practice and believe in Astrology spend a tremendous amount of time and energy to explain, rationalize and justify the art, endless discussions and debates...not unlike the number of angels that can occupy the space on the head of a pin...
Alas...as the 'flat earthers'..all no no avail, as the founding premise is false and unprovable.
As you so clearly demonstrated, the 'left/right' debate is non productive and is a haven, like the bible, for those who wish to believe and follow, rather than understand.
Understanding is my only motivation...I do not desire to lead, nor to teach and long ago realized that to share my accumulated thoughts on issues, I would be required to turn to fiction as a vehicle.
In my several 'stories' and chapters of 'Billy', on the site, you will find scenario's addressing your concept of sexuality...as expressed on the left hand side of your posts...'...it is present in all aspects of life...' (I paraphrase) Sigmund Freud thought the same...the issue of 'Abortion' is touched upon in the chapter, "Alison' in the Billy novel, Rape is discussed in "Julie" and "Jody' Incest in 'Cynthia', Religion in 'Kathleen Mary' and 'Maria'...childhood influences that affect sexuality is touched upon in 'Molly' and 'Susan'...
I mention these not to entice you to read, although that would be nice...but to lay the foundation for a wider expression of ethics and morality through fiction...that of my two novels...The Chief, parts one and two.
It is my feeling..that tracking the growth and development of a new society..would be a suitable platform to deal with social and political issues as they arose...how does one, in a rational society, deal with crime....with ownership of property and resources for protection. How is wealth accumulated and how is it distributed? What works and what does not?
Is Faith...belief in a life beyond...necessary for a society..if so...why? Is man basically evil and rapacious by nature? Or do circumstances bring out the best and the worst in man?
Rather than an endless political/historical debate on what was and what is...I would rather explore these issues in a hypothetical situation, being as intellectually honest and accurate as one can be, in setting the scene and in letting the characters be as 'natural' as possible, given the nature of the beast.
At any rate...sweets...I appreciated the scope of your post and thought to say so.....regards....amicus
For sweetnpetite...et al...
Sometimes...a gifted mind, one of high intellect...sees so much more than the average rock that it all does become quite confusing and seemingly contradictory.
Nonetheless...thank you for taking the time and effort to post and paste...the length and subject reminded me of why I dumped out of PolySci..in college a long time ago...still...it was a reminder of the bean counter/scholastic/dry and relativistic nature of the beast.
That is partly why I referred to Astrology in an earlier post, many who practice and believe in Astrology spend a tremendous amount of time and energy to explain, rationalize and justify the art, endless discussions and debates...not unlike the number of angels that can occupy the space on the head of a pin...
Alas...as the 'flat earthers'..all no no avail, as the founding premise is false and unprovable.
As you so clearly demonstrated, the 'left/right' debate is non productive and is a haven, like the bible, for those who wish to believe and follow, rather than understand.
Understanding is my only motivation...I do not desire to lead, nor to teach and long ago realized that to share my accumulated thoughts on issues, I would be required to turn to fiction as a vehicle.
In my several 'stories' and chapters of 'Billy', on the site, you will find scenario's addressing your concept of sexuality...as expressed on the left hand side of your posts...'...it is present in all aspects of life...' (I paraphrase) Sigmund Freud thought the same...the issue of 'Abortion' is touched upon in the chapter, "Alison' in the Billy novel, Rape is discussed in "Julie" and "Jody' Incest in 'Cynthia', Religion in 'Kathleen Mary' and 'Maria'...childhood influences that affect sexuality is touched upon in 'Molly' and 'Susan'...
I mention these not to entice you to read, although that would be nice...but to lay the foundation for a wider expression of ethics and morality through fiction...that of my two novels...The Chief, parts one and two.
It is my feeling..that tracking the growth and development of a new society..would be a suitable platform to deal with social and political issues as they arose...how does one, in a rational society, deal with crime....with ownership of property and resources for protection. How is wealth accumulated and how is it distributed? What works and what does not?
Is Faith...belief in a life beyond...necessary for a society..if so...why? Is man basically evil and rapacious by nature? Or do circumstances bring out the best and the worst in man?
Rather than an endless political/historical debate on what was and what is...I would rather explore these issues in a hypothetical situation, being as intellectually honest and accurate as one can be, in setting the scene and in letting the characters be as 'natural' as possible, given the nature of the beast.
At any rate...sweets...I appreciated the scope of your post and thought to say so.....regards....amicus
shereads
Sloganless
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2003
- Posts
- 19,242
Colleen Thomas said:
I think Pure and I are both wondering the same thing: by what standard do some of you think that Bush has been effective in fighting terrorism? He talks about it a lot and has allowed substantial reductions in our civil liberties, but so far we've had at least one admission by Homeland Security that a weeks-long period of orange alerts may have been inspired by deliberately misleading internet "chatter."
So if the criterion is not the number of terrorist attacks around the world against Americans and our allies, what evidence is there of any success?
Colleen Thomas
Ultrafemme
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2002
- Posts
- 21,545
shereads said:
Has there been another attack on America of the scale of 9/11? Has there been another attack here at all by international terrorists? No, there hasn't.
If you wish discredit Bush, you will select the criterion for judgeing success that suits you. If you wish to support him, you will select the criterion that justifies your view.
You don't like him, so you want to use the least flattering criterion for evaluating his performance. While assuredly this is your perogative, it is not the only credible criterion. While you may present this one stat in your defense, it can be countered by any number of others. It's basically a value judgement and like almost all value judgements, it's subject to interprtation by the judge.
Those who dislike the president will clash with those who support him on almost any issue. Both sides will thorw out facts and figures to support their view point. Both may be making valid points. That is where you reach the point of object vs. subjective reasoning for the non partisan observer.
From an objective point of view Afhghanistan must be judged as a victory for Bush in the war on terror. A regime that not only actively supported terrorists, but shielded them from harm is no more. In a war that is as ill defined as the war on terror the rules of engement and conditions of victory are highly subjective.
In this case, perhaps even more imortant than the results is the fact he took concrete and ostentatious action. When compared to the non actions taken by the Clinton administration, to the minds of many it looks like victory. And in the case of politics, perception is far more important than fact more times than not.
-Colly
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Sher said,
//So if the criterion is not the number of terrorist attacks around the world against Americans and our allies, what evidence is there of any success? //
Colly said,
Has there been another attack on America of the scale of 9/11? Has there been another attack here at all by international terrorists? No, there hasn't.
Bush declared a war on the alleged 'thing' called global terrorism, esp. as it impacts US interests around the world.
Further, strikes at the US are a 'stick in the eye' variety; unlike the Islamic majority countries, the Islamic militants are NOT aiming to take over, but to make a point, and 'unsettle' the giant; make its people apprehensive about continuing a world role 'occupying' Islamic countries or supporting friendly regimes.
Simple logic tells us that a Pearl Harbor or 9-11 is hard to pull off. Not easily repeated. Further, since the intent is not to take over the US, one doesn't need lots of 9-11 type activity. Even 'scares' serve their purpose.
Let me give you a hypothetical reply, Colly. Suppose after Pearl Harbor and the declaration of war against Japan, the Japs kept expanding in the Pacific.
You come on the scene and say, well things aren't so bad: There hasn't been another Pearl Harbor.
I believe Senator Gramm recently summed up the situation rather nicely. He said, roughly, "You see a puddle of mercury and smash it with your fist; a thousand droplets scatter." That's what happening; one example being that Al Qaeda was NOT is Iraq, and now it (or a buddy or cousin of it) IS there.
As far as the alleged Afghanistan victory, it's by no means 'over.' The Taliban is NOT finished off, and the central gov't, so called is extremely weak. And misery flourishes. Guess what-- that's the ground in which Islamist militant movements take root and sprout.
//So if the criterion is not the number of terrorist attacks around the world against Americans and our allies, what evidence is there of any success? //
Colly said,
Has there been another attack on America of the scale of 9/11? Has there been another attack here at all by international terrorists? No, there hasn't.
Bush declared a war on the alleged 'thing' called global terrorism, esp. as it impacts US interests around the world.
Further, strikes at the US are a 'stick in the eye' variety; unlike the Islamic majority countries, the Islamic militants are NOT aiming to take over, but to make a point, and 'unsettle' the giant; make its people apprehensive about continuing a world role 'occupying' Islamic countries or supporting friendly regimes.
Simple logic tells us that a Pearl Harbor or 9-11 is hard to pull off. Not easily repeated. Further, since the intent is not to take over the US, one doesn't need lots of 9-11 type activity. Even 'scares' serve their purpose.
Let me give you a hypothetical reply, Colly. Suppose after Pearl Harbor and the declaration of war against Japan, the Japs kept expanding in the Pacific.
You come on the scene and say, well things aren't so bad: There hasn't been another Pearl Harbor.
I believe Senator Gramm recently summed up the situation rather nicely. He said, roughly, "You see a puddle of mercury and smash it with your fist; a thousand droplets scatter." That's what happening; one example being that Al Qaeda was NOT is Iraq, and now it (or a buddy or cousin of it) IS there.
As far as the alleged Afghanistan victory, it's by no means 'over.' The Taliban is NOT finished off, and the central gov't, so called is extremely weak. And misery flourishes. Guess what-- that's the ground in which Islamist militant movements take root and sprout.
Colleen Thomas
Ultrafemme
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2002
- Posts
- 21,545
Pure,
Your reply, while it brings up interesting points did nothing to discredit the simple assertion there have been no more. While you can point to half a million reasons for the why of it, Bush supporters can point to the President and his action and claim they are the reason with just as much credibility. You can't prove them wrong because you can't prove the negative. This did not happen because ... it's totally open ended.
Weak central government or no, no terorist organization can set up shop on Afghanistan and act with tacit if not overt governmental approval & protection. Prior to GW using the military solution they could & did.
I do not buy into the idea that AQ style terrorists can be "created" by our actions. Islamic Fundamentalists hate the U.S. They do not need excuses like poverty, or lawlessness. Let us not forget the majoirity of the 9/11 attackers were Saudis. A country with what passes for a stable government in the region and a high standard of living. As long as we support Israel, and don't keep the women of this country covered from head to toe and treated like chatterel they will continue to hate us and they will continue to find eager recruits in both stable & unstable countires. Hate knows no geo-political borders.
-Colly
Your reply, while it brings up interesting points did nothing to discredit the simple assertion there have been no more. While you can point to half a million reasons for the why of it, Bush supporters can point to the President and his action and claim they are the reason with just as much credibility. You can't prove them wrong because you can't prove the negative. This did not happen because ... it's totally open ended.
Weak central government or no, no terorist organization can set up shop on Afghanistan and act with tacit if not overt governmental approval & protection. Prior to GW using the military solution they could & did.
I do not buy into the idea that AQ style terrorists can be "created" by our actions. Islamic Fundamentalists hate the U.S. They do not need excuses like poverty, or lawlessness. Let us not forget the majoirity of the 9/11 attackers were Saudis. A country with what passes for a stable government in the region and a high standard of living. As long as we support Israel, and don't keep the women of this country covered from head to toe and treated like chatterel they will continue to hate us and they will continue to find eager recruits in both stable & unstable countires. Hate knows no geo-political borders.
-Colly
amicus
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2003
- Posts
- 14,812
beyond bush?
Shereads...if your choice is to remain just, 'anti-bush' or anti-american...that is quite fine and there surely is a place for debate of that scope...but it remains purely a 'political', 'partisan' discussion...subjective...a matter of beliefs, quoting others to support your position...all fine and good...
But on an historical and even pre-historical level...the ongoing conflict between two clearly identified adversaries...faith and reason...could we not explore the roots of the conflict and possibly arrive at some absolutes?
You have a losing argument every time when you advocate the use of force (government) as a solution to the conflict between people. When you advocate that 'government' in what ever form it takes, is the key actor in society, you instantly embrace the use of the gun to the head to forcibly take and use the resources of the people.
I do not work and produce in order for you to redistribute my resources as 'you' (government) see fit. My life, my time, my effort, my wealth...is mine to dispose of...as I see fit.
If you want it..you will have to take it by force. Is that truly your political philosophy? That for the 'greater good' you sacrifice me, the individual? You freely offer your free will for the benefit of others? Surely not!
amicus veritas...
Shereads...if your choice is to remain just, 'anti-bush' or anti-american...that is quite fine and there surely is a place for debate of that scope...but it remains purely a 'political', 'partisan' discussion...subjective...a matter of beliefs, quoting others to support your position...all fine and good...
But on an historical and even pre-historical level...the ongoing conflict between two clearly identified adversaries...faith and reason...could we not explore the roots of the conflict and possibly arrive at some absolutes?
You have a losing argument every time when you advocate the use of force (government) as a solution to the conflict between people. When you advocate that 'government' in what ever form it takes, is the key actor in society, you instantly embrace the use of the gun to the head to forcibly take and use the resources of the people.
I do not work and produce in order for you to redistribute my resources as 'you' (government) see fit. My life, my time, my effort, my wealth...is mine to dispose of...as I see fit.
If you want it..you will have to take it by force. Is that truly your political philosophy? That for the 'greater good' you sacrifice me, the individual? You freely offer your free will for the benefit of others? Surely not!
amicus veritas...
Similar threads
