There's no radical left in America.

georgeob1 wrote:

Proper names are NOUNS.

Yes, but what has that do with this discussion?

Do you call it the "Republic Party"?

I can't tell if you're being intentionally obtuse or just don't get the idea of adjectives modifying nouns. It's kind of basic to our grammar...

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

D'artagnan wrote:
Re the term "Democrat Party": As riverroad has noted, it's really the "Democratic Party" (of course). Somehow, using the wrong name is supposed to make it sound insulting.

It's idiotic, but notice how consistent right wingers are in using the wrong word. I'd love to hear their explanation for not calling the party by its real name. That would be amusing...

As a point of fact here --- you are wrong. "Democratic" is an ajective. The proper name of the party is Democrat.

Stop makin' sh!t up George . . . it's bad enough that you usually demonstrate your ignorance of a topic without making things up . . .

The home page of the Democratic Party.

For your edification, George, the first self-identified political party in America (although not in terms of the organizations with which we are familiar) was Jefferson's Democratic Republican Party--the word was used as an adjective. Whether or not the adjective modifies the adjective Republican or the noun Party is immaterial at all events. The first modern political party, organized from the ground up, from the local to the national level, was Andrew Jackson's party, which he created from the wreck of Jefferson's Democratic Republicans, usually just known as Republicans. Jackson called his party the Democratic Party.

0 Replies

It's the name of an organisation. "The Democratic Party" Rush Limbaugh is the man that started the mispronunciation several years ago.

You may use the word Democrat when referring to an individual or Democrats when referring to more than one. But the party is called "The Democratic Party"

0 Replies

Mortkat wrote:

Okie- I think you may note that although you brought links to bear to buttress your assertions about Humphrey( which are on the mark) the scoffers do not provide evidence to rebut you. They only present their own unsourced opinions. Although you may encounter this phenomenon frequently, rest assured that positions held accompanied by evidence and documenation trump unsourced opinions unless those opinions come from a verified expert.

Care to point out WHERE any links have provided the position of Humphrey? I'll bet you $100,000 that you can't point to a single link provided by okie that references Humphrey's position on abortion.

I will be happy to provide evidence of Humphrey's liberal opinion on a lot of issues. Try the LBJ library which contains interviews of Humphrey and he talks about issues.

0 Replies

I shook that man's hand once . . . he was talkin' a mile a minute . . .

0 Replies

okie wrote:

parados wrote:

And the only thing we have is your statement. I can find nothing on his views in this area. Provide a source preferably with Humphrey's own words to support you claim.

Pretty simple to see what he means by "dawn of life". It is right there in the quote, "the children." Life is birth to death. Not really much other way to interpret it. Since Roe had not been decided at that point there is no reason to think life meant the moment of conception to Humphrey without evidence that he thought that.

Quote:

Now, what did he mean by the dawn of life? I'm not sure. I know what it means to me, it would include before birth.

You are not Humphrey. "The children" means any unborn fetuses to you too? Did you buy Christmas presents for those unborn children? Did those unborn children open them at your house?

Quote:

I will confess that I have based my opinion of Humphrey being a throwback of more conservative views was based on my own personal experience and recollection. I remember those days. And my search turned up more ammunition to validate my perception:

Perception can be a funny thing. It skews your memory.

Quote:

http://www.wf-f.org/JFH-PoliticalOrphans.html
In this link, it has lots of information, but this statement stands out:

"The nomination of Vice President Hubert Humphrey seemed to mark victory for the party's more conservative elements. But Humphrey was stretched to the breaking point between the old and new Democrats, and by 1972 the party had subjected itself to a public breast-beating and had adopted new rules largely favorable to those who had been defeated at the 1968 convention."

"More conservative" doesn't make him a RWer. Hillary is more conservative than Lenin but I wouldn't consider her a RWer. Do you? Humphrey was more conservative than McGovern when he ran in 1972 but it didn't make him a conservative just not as liberal.

Quote:

I very much agree with the above perception of what happened. Humphrey was part of an older generation that believed in more order in society, openly disliked communists, and did not take to the hippy movement at all. And the the young 60's protestor types, of which Clinton and Kerry were a part of, I think disliked and made fun of the old guard type Democrats like Humphrey. He was considered out of step with their new visions of free love and breaking free of the shackles of traditional morality. And as I've said before, the new liberal Democrats are running the party now. They think they are the "progressive" and enlightened ones." They will of course claim to like the Humphreys, the Trumans, and so on, for their own political advantage and expedience because there are still a large number of old Democrats around that think like that generation. But if one of them were alive today to try to have a voice along the lines of what they stood for in their day and time in the party of today, ha, not a chance.

Another interesting tidbit was about McCarthy, the anti-war guy that the young Democrats rode his horse for a while, but when he kept speaking loudly about being pro-life and ending up voting for Reagan, his horse was dead as far as the young Democrat power structure was concerned.

Finally, this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubert_Humphrey

Ah yes, wikipedia that states.

Quote:

In the Senate, Humphrey became known for his advocacy of liberal causes (such as civil rights, arms control, a nuclear test ban, food stamps, and humanitarian foreign aid), and for his long and witty speeches.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I shook that man's hand once . . . he was talkin' a mile a minute . . .

I never met him but have met his son Skip (HHH III). A pale comparison to his father.

One thing Okie seems to forget is that Mondale was a protege of Humphrey. It is easy to see Humphrey's politics in Mondale. I can't think of any issues where they differed.

0 Replies

D'artagnan wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
Proper names are NOUNS.

Yes, but what has that do with this discussion?

Do you call it the "Republic Party"?

I can't tell if you're being intentionally obtuse or just don't get the idea of adjectives modifying nouns. It's kind of basic to our grammar...

You are correct --- I was wrong.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

D'artagnan wrote:
georgeob1 wrote:
Proper names are NOUNS.

Yes, but what has that do with this discussion?

Do you call it the "Republic Party"?

I can't tell if you're being intentionally obtuse or just don't get the idea of adjectives modifying nouns. It's kind of basic to our grammar...

You are correct --- I was wrong.

You are gracious to acknowledge that. I honestly admire you for that!

0 Replies

Thank you. I am not always so candid, but this time I realized I had foolishly painted myself into a corner. Even Setanta was snarling in anticipation of his next sally.

0 Replies

If parados will go to

www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Hubert_H_Humphrey

he will find that okie did indeed quote HHH correctly.

However, you do not agree with okie about the meaning of "the dawn of life". I am sure that you would not be able to PROVE that Okie is wrong since you do not, nor does anyone, have entry into the mind of HHH since he is dead.

Okie apparently believes that the "dawn of life" refers to the unborn child. Certainly the fetus is alive. You, parados, do not agree. That's fine but you cannot PROVE that Okie's interpretation is incorrect and yours is correct.

0 Replies

Mortkat, thanks for defending me. I don't have time to attend to this forum all day. This is a very active forum.

I'm willing to admit my assertion did not turn out to be 100% sure on Humphrey. But as pointed out, I am not proven 100% wrong either. Perhaps nobody knows. The following site is interesting:
http://www.adherents.com/people/ph/Hubert_Humphrey.html
This shows Humphrey was religious, a right wing Christian extremist he would be in some of you leftists minds I presume. However, his latter years, he was a Congregationalist, which if my fuzzy knowledge is correct, he sort of fits into a category where abortion rights would be tolerated or acceptable if you wish it to be. All you Congregationalists, correct me if I'm wrong here.

Another interesting site sort of off the subject of Humphrey, but about the religions of presidents:
http://www.adherents.com/adh_presidents.html
This shows that virtually all of them believed in a more or less Judeao-Christian view of the world. This of course should be obvious without even researching it. Even Clinton is listed as a Baptist....hummmmmm.

And this site:
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/novak_levenick200503070743.asp

Back to the abortion issue as relates to right-left trends in this country, I think its pretty clear that the Democratic Party underwent a drastic change in leadership and views after Humphrey's run in 68. Argue whether Humphrey was pro-life or not, but the fact remains that a much, much higher percentage of Democrats were pro-life before 1970, than now. If you lived through that era, there would be no need to argue about it. The sun comes up in the east, obviously, no argument. My parents are pretty astute on politics and remember the 20's, the Depression, WWII, clear to now. They are sold on FDR, but can tell you the Democratic Party is only a mere shadow of its former self. It has taken a major left turn. Society has followed, the Republicans have swerved left as well, but the current flock of leftist Democrats are way out in left field leading the pack. I suppose if you were born in the 80's or 70's, perhaps this is not obvious to you.

I realize I am including social attitudes in my discussion of left vs right, but lets face it, social attitudes have always affected and always will affect political policy in terms of going left or right.

0 Replies

Mortkat wrote:

If parados will go to

www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Hubert_H_Humphrey

he will find that okie did indeed quote HHH correctly.

However, you do not agree with okie about the meaning of "the dawn of life". I am sure that you would not be able to PROVE that Okie is wrong since you do not, nor does anyone, have entry into the mind of HHH since he is dead.

Okie apparently believes that the "dawn of life" refers to the unborn child. Certainly the fetus is alive. You, parados, do not agree. That's fine but you cannot PROVE that Okie's interpretation is incorrect and yours is correct.

If Mortkat would read my post I never claimed the quote was innacurate. I was well aware of the quote before okie posted it. Anyone with a little knowledge of Humphrey would be aware of it.

I already pointed out the words IN the quote itself. "the dawn of life, the children." It is a very common metaphor for anyone that has read much in their life.

Quote:

St. Jude Children's Research Hospital - Our founder, Danny Thomas, had a dream that "no child should die in the dawn of life." Help us realize that dream.

Anyone with any sense knows the mission of St Jude's. It doesn't deal in fetuses.

Quote:

The dawn of life
By Mike Caguin, CA

At break of dawn, a new life is born.

The light is now on the horizon,

Beyond the hills in the sleeping town of Bethlehem

The voice of angels singing break through the shining star.

From Bible.org on interpretation of the bible.

Quote:

35tn Or "youth"; Heb "black hair" or "the dawn [of life]." The feminine noun הַשַּׁחֲרוּת (hashakharut) is a hapax legomenon, occurring only here. There is debate whether it is from שָׁחֹר (shakhor) which means "black" (i.e. black hair, e.g., Lev 13:31, 37; Song 5:11; HALOT 1465 s.v. שׁחר; BDB 1007 s.v. שָׁחֹר and שָׁחַר) or שַׁחַר (shakhar) which means "dawn"

From Samuel Johnson

Quote:

A Pastoral of an hundred lines may be endured; but who will hear of sheep and goats, and myrtle bowers and purling rivulets, through five acts? Such scenes please barbarians in the dawn of literature, and children in the dawn of life; but will be for the most part thrown away as men grow wise, and nations grow learned.

Dawn of life is pretty clear. It is the early years of a child or youth.

I bet you can't find me a single reference from the time of Humphrey or prior that dawn of life specifically refers to a fetus or unborn child. It has only been co-opted by some to mean that since Roe. Without a reference to dawn of life meaning a fetus we are left to assume that Humphrey used it the same way everyone before him did dawn of life is a youth or child. In fact Humphrey makes it pretty OBVIOUS that dawn of life means a child when he follows it with the phrase "the children."

Perhaps you can find a referenc where "children" means fetuses Mort. I bet you can't find that either. No thinking person could possibly come to the conclusion that "the children" means fetuses based on the time period of Humphrey's quote.

0 Replies

okie,

None of your posting yet supports your claim that 1.) Humphrey would have been a RWer by today's standards. or 2.) gives any real evidence of Humphrey's views on abortion.

Just for a side note. Hubert Humphrey III (Skip) is a congregationalist and supports a woman's right to choose. He ran as that for governor of MN.

0 Replies

The radical left? You mean the last free Americans?

(just kidding)

0 Replies

Humphrey was probably a poor example, but the basic premise is correct, that older Democrats prior to the 70's were being contested by the new, more liberal left following 1970, and the people running the party now are most definitely further left and more liberal than prior to 1970. Some of the issues like abortion and gay marriage simply had not become prominent because the United States was a more traditional, a more conservative place, especially concerning social views prior to 1970. I don't know why this needs to be argued over. Its sort of like arguing whether the sun comes up in the east or not. Most anybody that lived through that period would tell you this. How old are you people opposing my view here? Not to ask personal questions, but that would likely explain it.

0 Replies

Parados said: If Mortkat would read my post I never claimed the post was innacurate( sic). And it's a good thing too, since no post can be called innacurate. You may call a post inaccurate but never innacurate( sic). Again, your interpretation is interesting but it does not PROVE that HHH was not referring to life of a fetus.

Okie's links clearly show that politicians in the sixties were ostensibly, if not actually, part of a Judeo-Christian tradition. Any politician who came out strongly as being pro-abortion would have been at risk and Parados knows that.

I feel very safe in predicting two things.l. The present USSC will NOT invalidate Roe vs. Wade 2.Roe vs. Wade will be left as a shell of itself as the USSC will not intervene in states which set down local requirements such as parental notification and waiting periods before abortions can be performed.

0 Replies

Mort,
Your argument doesn't hold much water.
A Judeo-Christian tradition proves nothing about abortion. Abortion has long existed within that Judeo-Christian tradition. The US didn't have a single law against abortion for the first 100 years of its existence. But you wouldn't claim that the founders were not Judeo-Christian, would you? European courts had royal abortionists in the 1600s.

Nice to see you have found a purpose in life by correcting spelling. Too bad you aren't very good at it considering the times you have misspelled words here.

0 Replies

Whereas i admire your perspicacity, Parados, with Italmassamortgato, you are wasting your time. The more surely you demonstrate that member's errors, the more desparate, hysterical and accusatory that member's responses will become. We have this in several threads now.

Again, i admire the virtue of your effort, but not the wisdom.

0 Replies

Mortkat wrote:

Okie- I think you may note that although you brought links to bear to buttress your assertions about Humphrey( which are on the mark) the scoffers do not provide evidence to rebut you. They only present their own unsourced opinions. Although you may encounter this phenomenon frequently, rest assured that positions held accompanied by evidence and documenation trump unsourced opinions unless those opinions come from a verified expert.

Quote:

However, you do not agree with okie about the meaning of "the dawn of life". I am sure that you would not be able to PROVE that Okie is wrong since you do not, nor does anyone, have entry into the mind of HHH since he is dead.

It would be nice if you could be consistent in your standards Mort. I provided links to support my assertions about Humphrey. You however have only scoffed and provided no evidence to rebut it. It appears you only presented your own unsoursed opinion. It seems we encounter this phenomenon frequently with you. We can rest assured that the position I presented accompanied by evidence and documentation TRUMPS your unsourced opinion unless you are a verified expert.

0 Replies

There's no radical left in America.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know