6
   

Defining issues of today's politics / Left vs Right

 
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Fri 30 Jul, 2010 05:04 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
How about Van Jones?

Just because someone doesn't describe themselves as a "Marxist" doesn't mean the label won't stick.

Tell us Cyclo that you have never labeled anyone a "neo-con" or "fascist" who doesn't use these terms to self describe.

I guess you're just calling it like it is while Okie is "Red baiting."

BTW, what do you mean by that term?

I would think that you can't bait a Red who isn't one, any more than you can bait a bear that is actually a cow.


dyslexia
 
  4  
Reply Fri 30 Jul, 2010 05:08 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
nice to see that you still have freedom of speech Finn.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Fri 30 Jul, 2010 05:10 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

How about Van Jones?


Van Jones isn't a Marxist in any way.

Quote:
Just because someone doesn't describe themselves as a "Marxist" doesn't mean the label won't stick.


Well, I'm sure you know I agree with you on that one; because you would never label yourself as a 'weeping asshole of a person,' yet the label seems to stick pretty well.

Quote:
Tell us Cyclo that you have never labeled anyone a "neo-con" or "fascist" who doesn't use these terms to self describe.


Fascist is a description of behavior; at least, I use it to describe those of any political stripe who seek to dominate and control as a means of enacting policy. Marxist is a description of beliefs. Okie isn't describing people who have done things which could be labeled in any way Marxist; just people who have left-leaning politics.

As for Jones, I think you would be hard-pressed to present any actions he has taken which indicate that he is a marxist in any fashion.

Quote:
I guess you're just calling it like it is while Okie is "Red baiting."

BTW, what do you mean by that term?

I would think that you can't bait a Red who isn't one, any more than you can bait a bear that is actually a cow.


Quote:

Red-baiting is the act of accusing, denouncing, attacking or persecuting an individual or group as communist,[1] socialist, or anarchist, or sympathic toward communism,[2] socialism, or anarchism. The word "red" in "red-baiting" is derived from the red flag signifying radical left-wing politics.[3] The term "red-baiting" dates to at least 1928.[1] In United States history, red-baiting is most often associated with McCarthyism, which had its origins in the two historic Red Scare periods of the 1920s (First Red Scare) and 1950s (Second Red Scare).[4]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red-baiting

It doesn't matter whether the person actually did anything pernicious or bad for America in any way; the entire point of red-baiting is to tar people by association or reputation, to make them politically untenable. It is 100% what that piece of **** McCarthy did back in the 50's, and it is what Okie and other far-right wingers do today - with less success, of course, because of all that crying wolf which has been done.

I'm surprised that you calmed down from your frothing about Bolton's decision re: SB1070 in AZ, to write an almost conversational post. I was sure there'd be something in there about poor people taking your money.

Cycloptichorn
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Fri 30 Jul, 2010 05:13 pm
@plainoldme,
This is so rich.

You go searching back 4 years for an okie thread you can attempt to crap on and then have the nerve to offer this bromide.

Anybody else you're stalking?
Cycloptichorn
 
  4  
Reply Fri 30 Jul, 2010 05:18 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
My guess is she found this thread again, because Okie today linked to it in the 'American Conservatism in 2000 and beyond' thread and asked people to take a look and comment.

But don't let that get in the way of your denouncing folks....

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Reply Fri 30 Jul, 2010 07:31 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

How about Van Jones?


Van Jones isn't a Marxist in any way. Cycloptichorn

Uh, first question, how come Jones withdrew then if the information coming out on him was false? Of course reasonable people do not buy your defense of Jones, cyclops, because your defense is not rooted in reality. Here is some information readily available on the web, just a little of a whole lot that you could avail yourself of if you cared to inform yourself, cyclops. Fact is, Jones is an obvious radical, Marxist type radical, and a revolutionary. But then perhaps you will defend birds of a feather, right, cyclops?
http://therealbarackobama.wordpress.com/2009/04/06/loudon-obama-appoints-former-communist-to-white-house-green-job/

"Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM).

The leftist blog Machete 48 wrote March 3, 2009:

Returning to Van Jones, with all the shimmer associated with a rising star, many forget that a man now advising the president was a member of a revolutionary organization in the SF Bay Area called STORM (Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement). Throughout the group’s history, Van Jones was seen as a public figure within the Bay Area left and a leading member of STORM.

STORM had its roots in a grouping of people of color organizing against the Gulf War in the early 1990’s and was formally founded in 1994. The group’s politics had a number of influences, but evolved towards what could be best characterized as third worldist Marxism (and an often vulgar Maoism). The group grew in influence until its disbanding in 2002 amid problems of internal dynamics and especially controversy around the leadership roles that members played in the youth movement (such as the fight against Proposition 21). Nearly the entire membership of the organization was staff members for various social movement non-profits in the Bay Area, many linked to the Ella Baker Center, which Van Jones steered.

While never large, STORM was one of the most influential and active radical groups in the Bay Area, controlling numerous front organisations including Bay Area Police Watch, one of several anti police activities in which Jones was involved."
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 30 Jul, 2010 07:32 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

This is so rich.

You go searching back 4 years for an okie thread you can attempt to crap on and then have the nerve to offer this bromide.

Anybody else you're stalking?

Yes, that is a weird question, isn't it? But pom never ceases to amaze us with weird statements.
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jul, 2010 10:11 pm
@parados,
Not only was abortion fully legal, abortions were fairly regularly performed but they were called dilation and curettage, a procedure that was meant to be therapeutic but sometimes was used as an abortion, both purposefully and accidentally.

There was also a loop like tool that doctors used to help regulate periods which could have been used for abortions as well. Sorry, but I do not remember the name of the tool.

In earlier times, women were expected to work like clocks and to have a period every 28 days. We've become more realistic.
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jul, 2010 10:15 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
okie advertised this thread. Funny, dys, Walter, Beth, Setanta all agreed with me on okie's behavior. He threw a tantrum and threatened to take his marbles home.

0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jul, 2010 10:17 pm
@okie,
Quote:
Yes, that is a weird question, isn't it? But pom never ceases to amaze us with weird statements.


They're weird to you because of your lack of sophistication and your isolation.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 31 Jul, 2010 12:06 am
@plainoldme,
plainoldme wrote:

Not only was abortion fully legal, abortions were fairly regularly performed but they were called dilation and curettage, a procedure that was meant to be therapeutic but sometimes was used as an abortion, both purposefully and accidentally.

There was also a loop like tool that doctors used to help regulate periods which could have been used for abortions as well. Sorry, but I do not remember the name of the tool.

In earlier times, women were expected to work like clocks and to have a period every 28 days. We've become more realistic.

My point with Parados was that previous liberals of the Democratic Party likely opposed abortion. He of course argued against all the evidence I presented to him, as usual for Parados.
I have more quotes from Dems in regard to abortion:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/94452/more-dems-and-abortion/steve-hayward
"Hubert Humphrey on abortion in 1972: “I am not for it.”
Edmund Muskie, another presidential contender: “It compromises the sanctity of life.”
The Rev. Jesse Jackson had an even tougher opinion at that time, describing abortion “as too nice a word for something cold, like murder.” "


I believe my point stands, that the modern liberal Democratic Party has drifted distinctly left in several ways, with the party now bordering on wild eyed radicalism. In fact, Obama does represent a radical form of politics not yet seen in America until he arrived on the scene. The above statement by Jesse Jackson actually elevates his stock in my opinion, as at least the guy apparently has some basic decency about him even though I had previously thought he was about as radical as you could find on the political scene.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Aug, 2010 09:40 am
@okie,
Finding a few quotes is not determinative; I could find you quotes of Republicans who support abortion today, and Dems who do not; does that define where the party is?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  2  
Reply Mon 2 Aug, 2010 01:51 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:
I believe my point stands, that the modern liberal Democratic Party has drifted distinctly left in several ways, with the party now bordering on wild eyed radicalism.

If that were true, then I'd become a Democrat.
dyslexia
 
  3  
Reply Mon 2 Aug, 2010 02:32 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:

okie wrote:
I believe my point stands, that the modern liberal Democratic Party has drifted distinctly left in several ways, with the party now bordering on wild eyed radicalism.

If that were true, then I'd become a Democrat.
as would I.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 2 Aug, 2010 03:34 pm
@joefromchicago,
okie wrote:
I believe my point stands, that the modern liberal Democratic Party has drifted distinctly left in several ways,
with the party now bordering on

wild eyed radicalism.
joefromchicago wrote:
If that were true, then I'd become a Democrat.
Just so that we know what u r saying, Joe,
let 's see if we 've got this straight:
"radicalism" means advocacy of pulling up from the root 100%, leaving nothing.

Is it your position that the Founders were mistaken
and u prefer some different form of government
(from the root, e.g. perhaps anarchy [no government at all]
or maybe totalitarianism [100% unlimited government jurisdiction, like that of Saddam or Stalin],
or maybe Monarchy, or pure democracy) or something that is completely different
than what the Founders put into the Constitution ?

Have u chosen a substitute, that u prefer ?





David
okie
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 4 Aug, 2010 05:38 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

Have u chosen a substitute, that u prefer ?

David

It does not appear that Joe has the guts to back up his previous statement with a substitute. I am curious too, what does the man want, a communist dictator, a king, or what?
joefromchicago
 
  3  
Reply Thu 5 Aug, 2010 09:00 am
@okie,
Did David say something? I wasn't aware.

I'm sure you can understand that I can't respond to something that I can't see, so you will, no doubt, feel obliged to apologize for accusing me of lacking the guts to respond. But I like you, okie, so I'll try to expand upon my previous statement. You claimed that the Democratic party was "bordering on wild eyed radicalism." I disagreed. If the Democratic party was actually bordering on "wild eyed radicalism," it would:
  • Favor real health care reform, with comprehensive coverage for all Americans, instead of the tepid, quarter-measure health insurance reform passed by congress this year;
  • Support the rights of labor unions and their members -- not just with empty rhetoric as a means of getting contributions at election time -- including passing measures like EFCA;
  • Take steps to close Guantanamo immediately, as Obama pledged during the campaign but has, so far, cravenly refused to do;
  • End the embargo and restore full diplomatic relations with Cuba;
  • Withdraw all troops from Iraq (not just combat troops) and take steps to withdraw all troops from Afghanistan, where we are simply fighting on behalf of one gang of thieves and cutthroats against another gang of thieves and cutthroats and financing them both;
  • Favor policies that would establish genuine energy independence, including raising gasoline taxes in order to fund mass transit and high-speed rail;
  • Take steps to reinstitute a wartime progressive income tax like we had during World War II -- if we're fighting a global war on terrorism, then the citizens shouldn't have any objections to financing it;
  • Make every possible effort to abolish capital punishment;
  • Take action to repeal DOMA and renounce its opposition to equality for all citizens to marry;
  • End the incestuous relationship between Washington and Wall Street, including firing Tim Geithner, who was complicit in the financial collapse of 2009 in his role as head of the NY Fed, and prohibiting Alan Greenspan from ever again testifying before a congressional committee while taking steps to expose him as the criminally incompetent old fool that he is;
  • Advocate the arrest, trial, and conviction of Dick Cheney and George W. Bush for war crimes before an appropriate international tribunal.

This is not, of course, an exhaustive list, and I'm not even saying that that's radical enough to suit my tastes, but it will give you a sense, I think, of what a "wild eyed radical" Democratic party might actually look like.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Aug, 2010 09:58 am
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:

Did David say something? I wasn't aware.

I'm sure you can understand that I can't respond to something that I can't see,
Likewise, I was not aware of being on his Ignore list.





David
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Aug, 2010 10:22 am
@joefromchicago,
Incidentally, the "wild-eyed radicalism" you describe is already enacted in much of Western Europe. (Well, except for the Bush-Cheney war crime thing.) Last time I checked, Western Europe wasn't a Stalinist Gulag.
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Aug, 2010 10:30 am
@Thomas,
if you guys look up north you'll see that some of that happens in canada too comrades.......er....uh...friends

Razz


 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/30/2023 at 09:11:35