There's no radical left in America.

Roxxxanne wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Lightwizard wrote:
Now you are beginning to sound like Gilbert and Sullivan.

You mean - Rogers and Hammerstein.

I thought it was Bartles and James.

Or was it Bert and Ernie?

You strike me more as a 20/20 type of guy.

I do like 20/20.
My neice was watching a sesame street video when I posted that.
I'm sorry.

0 Replies

You're forgiven -- I've been known to get caught up with Sesame Street without even realizing it. Not while drinking any Barles and James cheap fruit laced wine, though.

I've also been know to give people the "Big Bird," too.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Roxxxanne wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Lightwizard wrote:
Now you are beginning to sound like Gilbert and Sullivan.

You mean - Rogers and Hammerstein.

I thought it was Bartles and James.

Or was it Bert and Ernie?

You strike me more as a 20/20 type of guy.

I do like 20/20.
My neice was watching a sesame street video when I posted that.
I'm sorry.

Wow! You actually admit liking to drink 20/20?

0 Replies

Roxxxanne wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
Roxxxanne wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Lightwizard wrote:
Now you are beginning to sound like Gilbert and Sullivan.

You mean - Rogers and Hammerstein.

I thought it was Bartles and James.

Or was it Bert and Ernie?

You strike me more as a 20/20 type of guy.

I do like 20/20.
My neice was watching a sesame street video when I posted that.
I'm sorry.

Wow! You actually admit liking to drink 20/20?

I dont know,what is it?
I am not an alcohol drinker,so if thats what it is,then I dont drink it.

I do however,like the news show 20/20.

0 Replies

Today's left compared with the left of thirty years ago.

For those who mysteriously claim that the Democrats have hurtled ever further leftward.

Lamont the new McGovern?

Hardly.

(yes, yes, from TNR again. I'll soon go back to diversifying my source material, I promise.)

Quote:

The Ned Scare

[..] Does Lamont's victory over Jackson's ideological heir--Joe Lieberman--mean McGovernism has returned?

[W]hile McGovernism and Lamontism are structurally similar, ideologically they are worlds apart. McGovernism constituted, above all, a rejection of cold war liberalism. [F]or McGovern--who had been opposing cold war liberalism since 1948, when he backed Henry Wallace over Harry Truman--Vietnam was merely a symptom of the larger disease: anti-communism itself. "The war against communism is over," he told the journalist Theodore White. "Somehow, we have to settle down and live with them."

Today's netroots activists, by contrast, [also] constitute the left end of America's political spectrum, [but] today that entire spectrum tilts much further to the right. McGovern wanted to cut America's defense budget by 37 percent; Lamont seems perfectly content with Bush's massive post-September 11 buildup. McGovern compared the military's actions in Vietnam to Nazi Germany; Lamont repeatedly calls American troops heroes. McGovern didn't merely urge the withdrawal of U.S. troops from South Vietnam; he wanted to withdraw them from South Korea, too. Lamont, by contrast, is so desperate to prove that his opposition to Iraq does not imply some larger dovish orientation that he recently told The Hartford Courant that he considered North Korea an "imminent danger" to the United States --a statement that, if taken seriously, would imply preemptive military action.

To be sure, one of Lamont's major backers, MoveOn, opposed even the Afghan war. But, rather than boasting of that opposition, MoveOn now denies it. And, in general, Lamont's supporters don't attack Iraq as the logical outgrowth of the war on terrorism (as McGovern did with Vietnam and the cold war); they attack Iraq as a distraction from the war on terrorism. McGovernism constituted a rebellion against the ideology that had governed U.S. foreign policy for a quarter-century. Lamontism, by contrast, constitutes a rebellion against one war and one president [..]

That's from this story

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Today's left compared with the left of thirty years ago.

For those who mysteriously claim that the Democrats have hurtled ever further leftward.

Lamont the new McGovern?

Hardly.

So Michael Moore would have been fawned over at the DNC 30 years ago, and Howard Dean, a man that suggests it might be worth considering that Bush knew about 911 ahead of time, would have been running the party? And the last Democratic candidate, John Kerry, who accused most of the Vietnam veterans of hideous atrocities, is a moderate? And Gore was the hope of the party a few years ago, a man that says the internal combustion engine is the greatest threat to mankind. And Lieberman, a mainstream Democrat from years past, is thrown out on his ear for being too conservative? And you say the Democratic Party is not moving left? Oooookay, whatever!

By the way Parados if you are reading this, Hubert Humphrey would be turning over in his grave.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

So Michael Moore would have fawned over at the DNC 30 years ago, and Howard Dean would have been running the party? And the last Democratic candidate, John Kerry, who accused most of the Vietnam veterans of hideous atrocities, is a moderate? .. And you say the Democratic Party is not moving left? Oooookay.

Did you read the couple of paragraphs I quoted at all? Its not like its a lot... there's just three of 'em.

Quote: McGovern wanted to cut America's defense budget by 37 percent.

Wanted to cut. Americas defense budget. By 37 percent.

Even Howard Dean is waaaay to the right of that. No Democrat today in his sane mind would dare suggest anything of the sort.

(And more's the pity for it.)

McGovern compared the military's actions in Vietnam to Nazi Germany.

Compare; Kerry, once upon a time thirty years ago, accused the US army of having committed atrocities (a hardly contested fact looking back). Fast forward 30 years to when he was actually the Democratic leader, and he was draping himself and his convention in US flags. And campaigned on US soldiers, in a warzone again, not having been outfitted with enough protective gear and vehicles by Bush.

If he had been McGovern's equal he would have called the US soldiers in Iraq war criminals.

Hell, going to the economy, as noted earlier in this thread, even Republican friggin President Eisenhower levied a 91% top income tax rate. So did JFK. No Democrat alive today would dare suggest anything remotely like it. All John Kerry ever dared to propose was to roll back GWB's tax cuts - and bring that top income tax rate back up to, shock horror, 40%. Less than half of what it was in JFK's time.

Anyone who says that the Democrats today are to the left of those of yesteryear must completely focus on style and ignore any actual concrete example of policies championed - and thats the favourable interpretation.

0 Replies

Well, I would concede some of your points to a point, but McGovern was sort of an anomoly, and he got soundly trounced, not exactly the same as the roughly 50 /50 elections of 2000 and 2004. And I will not concede that Kerry was correct about atrocities in Vietnam. A few happened, but Kerry totally misrepresented and lied about his nonsense. I was there for a year, and never saw one atrocity. Kerry was there for 4 months, then left after some phony purple hearts, and most of his claimed atrocities were told him by a bunch of certifiable imposters at some meeting somewhere, was it Detroit? In short, Kerry was a fraud.

Yes, top marginal tax rates used to be much, much higher, but history has shown the economy pulls in alot more revenue to the government when they are lowered, so no sane politician, not even Democrats, dare propose such rates again.

I think the extremism tends to pop up in different ways and manifest itself differently now than 30 years ago, with the end effect being the Democratic Party is just as extreme and probably more so in my view than 30 years ago. I doubt McGovern thought the internal combustion engine was the greatest threat to mankind, or that Bush might have known 911 would happen, or some of the other kooky ideas of the Michael Moore wing of the Democratic Party. You may have a point that McGovern was kind of far out, but as I said, he was soundly trounced for it, a worse trouncing than Gore or Kerry received.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

or that Bush might have known 911 would happen, or some of the other kooky ideas of the Michael Moore wing of the Democratic Party

And the number of Democratic politicians in office who believe that Bush might have known 911 would happen is? There's McKinney and she was trounced in the primaries this year, and then there is?

Michael Moore is the equivalent of Coulter. I dont like him, much as I should hope you dont like her, but judging the Democratic Party on Moore is like judging the Republican Party on Coulter. Outside entertainment.

So how's "today's Democratic Party", or even a wing of it, represented by folks who believe that Bush might have known 911 would happen? How many of last time's, or next time's, Democratic presidential contenders believe so? How many Congressmen? Who in the DNC?

You'll find the number close enough to zero. Perhaps for the Congress question you might get a handful - out of, what is it, 250 Democrats in House and Senate?

0 Replies

You are up against a widely propagated meme here nimh. This notion okie forwards is widely held to be so by a lot of folks who attend to modern American rightwing sources rather than to historical sources. Okie has some ability to question his own ideas so it will be interesting to see if you can make headway here.

But I want to take you to task for analogizing or identifying (meaning here, claiming they are effectively identical) Moore and Coulter. You've done this previously and I find it unusually bizarre (for you) in its lack of discrimination. Wanna take it outside (another thread) or start swinging right here, you chicken-livered Frenchified piece of Walmart-shoppiing dogmeat?

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Michael Moore is the equivalent of Coulter.

I have to agree with Blatham here. Moore is a case of idealism gone ballistic -- one of the people who pave the road to hell with their good intentions. But unlike Coulter he isn't a case of mean, calculated, lying cynicism. They're both worthless politicall. But at least Moore's manipulations are somewhat redeemed by idealism and a sense of humor. I wouldn't mind having a beer with him -- if he leaves his camera at home.

0 Replies

I wouldn't socialize with Moore with a gun to my head, and consider him at the least no better than Coulter, and at the most, far worse, because of his wealth and entre into film-making circles which allows him to spread specious propaganda more effectively around the world. Coulter can appeal to a limited North American television audience--Moore can spread his loony message to motion picture theaters right across the globe, and does so. You assume that Coulter is not and never was motivated by any form of idealism. Altough she may now be cynical and opportunist, you can't say that you know for a fact that she was never motivated by her own form of idealism. Idealism without clear sight and a sense of proportion is no virtue any way.

I agree completely with Habibi on this one, and the only quibble i'd have is that i consider Moore to be potentially more insidious.

0 Replies

I seem to recall Michael Moore had a pretty good seat at the last DNC, and he was kind of a celebrity there. And in regard to people suggesting Bush knew about 911 are fringe and near zero. The man that suggested it, Setanta, was the man running the party, Howard Dean.

The energy of the Democratic party comes from the hatred and disdain of George W. Bush and what he stands for, the moral framework of our culture, and for business and corporations. The party is not motivated by the platform they advocate because it is not very positive, uplifting, or principled. My opinion of course, but at least you know how many of us view it.

0 Replies

Oh goodie. A tag-team match.

I don't really think there is anything of merit in Coulter's ouvre. But it isn't just an absense of worth, it's fully Joe McCarthy in a skirt. She foments hatred and divisiveness. Accuracy in data or in analogy are without importance. Here goal is one party rule. Logical fallacies fill her work and her speech. She's a classic authoritarian.

Moore, on the other hand, has produced a valuable body of work beginning with Roger and Me and then followed by his two TV series, TV Nation and the other which I can't recall the title from. I'm not sure what you folks might find negative about the Columbine film but I have read some of your complaints re Fahrenheit. Few, if any of the descriptors above of Coulter can properly be said to apply to Moore, and certainly not in magnitude. He's a rabble rouser, surely, but not an authoritarian. Where Coulter would have worshipped McCarthy (at least until she could knife him and take over the operation), Moore would likely have taken him on.

0 Replies

BBB
I'm a great fan of Michael Moore despite his occasional mistaken pronouncements. He has a great heart and truly wants to improve the lives of Americans, and uses wonderful humor to achieve that goal.

BBB

0 Replies

Communists aren't authoritarians? Michael has communist sympathies so explain that one, blatham.

And make a film with fiction and call it a documentary. To summarize, he is an out and out fraud.

0 Replies

nimh said,
While talking about John Kerry...

Quote:

If he had been McGovern's equal he would have called the US soldiers in Iraq war criminals.

I hate to tell you this,but he did...

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/5/162822.shtml

Quote:

... And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the - of - the historical customs, religious customs."

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

nimh said,
While talking about John Kerry...

Quote:
If he had been McGovern's equal he would have called the US soldiers in Iraq war criminals.

I hate to tell you this,but he did...

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/5/162822.shtml

Quote:
... And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the - of - the historical customs, religious customs."

Where exactly, mysteryman?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Communists aren't authoritarians? Michael has communist sympathies so explain that one, blatham.

And make a film with fiction and call it a documentary. To summarize, he is an out and out fraud.

Have you ever actually met a communist? You talk about them A LOT. I don't think I've ever met one and I get around a bit. I did meet a group of anarchists once. They wore enough black clothing to keep a dye company in business and may have been the inadvertent founders of the goth look. About half of them had Lenin goatees. They didn't smell, though and were quite well read. They just didn't like government at all and considered libertarians to be weenies.

Authoritarians pop up everywhere. It isn't a political persuasion, it is a personality type. J Edgar Hoover is a classic example (though not all authoritarians have a closet full of women's clothing). Stalin was another. Cheney is one more. But they don't have to be high profile, though they are commonly very power hungry. The playground bully type. Whatever government system is in place, they'll find their way in and do their thing.

0 Replies

BBB
I've known many communists and I can tell you that Michael Moore is not even close to being a communist.

The extreme right wing always tries to label anyone that doesn't agree with them as a communist. Kind of stupid and juvenile thinking.

BBB

0 Replies

There's no radical left in America.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know