quote:

Originally posted by LatinLover I decided to create this club for all my fellow far left liberals do discuss far left issues, to criticize the GOP, and to discuss all their conspiracies

Hmmm, so the only ones excluded in this exclusive club of yours are the roughly 1/3 of Americans like yourself?:

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

This thread adds nothing to discussion, along with a great many of your posts. You've thrown up quite a few threads in the past few days with little commentary and supporting evidence for any counterarguments against your commentary.

Are you trying to get yourself banned again or something?

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Hmmm, so the only ones excluded in this exclusive club of yours are the roughly 1/3 of Americans like yourself?: http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm This thread adds nothing to discussion, along with a great many of your posts. You've thrown up quite a few threads in the past few days with little commentary and supporting evidence for any counterarguments against your commentary. Are you trying to get yourself banned again or something?

Just go back and check those threads, I have posted on them

Sorry dude if I cant get back to some of them, you know I do have a life I have things to do and dont have all the time to be in the internet. I hope you can understand

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton College tuition should be free, so should healthcare.

quote:

Originally posted by LatinLover I decided to create this club for all my fellow far left liberals do discuss far left issues, to criticize the GOP, and to discuss all their conspiracies

Welcome, LatinLover. We've been waiting for you.

___________________

LEFT VS. RIGHT: THE ILLUSION OF OPPOSITES
Analysis © 2007 by G. Edward Griffin. Updated September 23

Would you rather be a Neoconservative or a Progressive? That is a trick question. The trick is in the fact that, although there may be differences between the rhetoric and short-term agendas of these groups, their long-term goals actually are the same. They may differ over how to fight a war in the Middle East but not over the right of the President to wage such a war empowered by the UN instead of Congress. They may differ over what kind of speech should be forbidden ("subversive" speech vs. "hate" speech, for example) but not over the right of the government to forbid it. They may differ over how fast to bankrupt the nation to provide benefits for its citizens but not over the assumption that providing benefits is what governments are supposed to do. They disagree over tactics, timing, and style, but not objectives. They fight for dominance within the New World Order, but they work together to build it. That is because both groups have embraced the underlying ideology of global collectivism.

The illusion of opposites has been a dominant part of the world's political landscape for over a century and it has been the primary reason for the advance of collectivism during that time. In the epic struggles of World War II, millions of patriotic citizens within the combatant nations passionately supported their leaders, believing they were defending against an evil empire. Russians fought for Communism; Germans fought for Nazism; Italians fought for Fascism. Yet, these were merely variants of the underlying ideology, called collectivism, that was common to them all.

Americans, of course, were horrified by such political doctrines and fought, instead, for Democracy. They did not realize that, while that word filled their heads with visions of freedom and justice for all, their leaders had another definition as they quietly converted the United States into a collectivist regime incredibly similar to the ones against which they fought. The contest was never about ideology. It was always about who would be the victor and who would be the vanquished; who would emerge from the war with world power; who would control the natural resources; who would create the new boundaries; who would judge and who would hang.

In our present era, there are few champions for Communism and practically none for Nazism or Fascism, but everyone claims to be a champion of Democracy. Neoconservatives and Progressives, alike, sprinkle their rhetoric with this word like salt on a fresh baked potato. This is a clue that it has no meaningful definition. It is used as a political mantra to hypnotize the masses into a receptive state of mind. After all, anyone who speaks in defense of Democracy has got to be a good guy, right?

In today's debate, the illusion of opposites has become a myth of gigantic proportions. On one side - supposedly the Left side - we have Leftists, Communists, Socialists, Marxists, Neo Marxists, Leninists, Maoists, Liberals, Progressives, and (in The U.S.) Democrats. On the other side - supposedly the Right side - we have Rightists, Nazis, Neo Nazis, Fascists, Conservatives, Neoconservatives, Reactionaries, and (in the U.S.) Republicans.

Almost all modern political debate is framed by these words; yet, there is no one who can define what they mean except to their own satisfaction. There is no universally accepted understanding that will be accepted by advocates and critics alike. The possible exceptions are those that bear the names of authors, such as Marx, Lenin, and Mao, because it could be argued that they represent the views expressed in their writings. However, we are still left with the formidable task of accurately summarizing those views to everyone's satisfaction.

Social mores and religious beliefs sometimes divide along the Left-Right political axis. Those on the Left are more likely to embrace life styles that those on the Right would consider improper or even sinful. Those on the Right are more likely to be church-going members of an organized religion. But these are not definitive values, because there is a great deal of diversity on both sides. Republicans smoke pot. Democrats go to church. Social or religious values cannot be included in any meaningful definition of these groups.

Be that as it may, the degree to which there truly are definable qualities to these labels is the same degree to which we can understand that they are similar. For example, if there is any doubt of the similarity between the collectivism of Marx and the collectivism of Hitler, all one has to do is read Das Kapital, The Communist Manifesto, and Mein Kampf. The point is that, when the labels are peeled off and the underlying ideologies are examined, we come inexorably to the conclusion that every one of them is built upon the foundation of collectivism. We are expected to choose sides when, in reality, there is no substantial difference between them. No matter which side we choose, we are on the side of collectivism. That is the trick.

What are the elements of collectivism that are common to all of these seemingly opposite forces? Collectivists on the so-called Left and Right agree that:

1. Rights are derived from the state;
   
2. The group is more important than the individual;
   
3. Coercion is the preferred method to bring about reform;
   
4. Laws should be applied differently to different classes;
   
5. Providing benefits (redistributing wealth) is the proper role of government.

quote:

October 4, 2007 Op-Ed Columnist The New L-Word: Neocon By ROGER COHEN A few years back, at the height of the jingoistic post-9/11 wave, the dirtiest word in the American political lexicon was “liberal.” Everyone from President Bush to Ann Coulter was using it to denote wimplike, Volvo-driving softies too spineless for dangerous times and too given to speaking French. Liberals were going to hand the country’s defense to the United Nations, turn the war on terror into police work and cave to bin Laden’s Islamofascism. As Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California declared in 2004: “If you believe you must be fierce and relentless and terminate terrorism — then you are a Republican.” No matter that none of the above was true. No matter that 20th-century liberal thought, like Isaiah Berlin’s, stood in consistent opposition to totalitarianism in fascist or communist form. The nuance-free message served to get the commander in chief re-elected. In time, the fever ebbed. Iraq imploded, Bush fizzled and the Democrats took Congress. A retooled Schwarzenegger began sounding like a closet Democrat. Not least, as America bumped down to earth, “liberal” lost the mantle of political insult most foul. Its place was taken by the pervasive, glib “neocon.” What’s a neocon? A liberal “mugged by reality,” Irving Kristol said. The reality in question, back then, was communism-as-evil, the centrality of military force, the indispensability of the American idea and much else. But that’s ancient history. The neocons are the guys who gave us the Iraq war. They’re the guys who, in the words of leftist commentator and blogger Matthew Yglesias, “believe that America should coercively dominate the world through military force” and “believe in a dogmatic form of American exceptionalism” and “favor the creation of a U.S.-dominated ‘universal empire.’ ” But the term, in these Walt-Mearsheimered days, often denotes more than that. Neocon, for many, has become shorthand for neocon-Zionist conspiracy, whatever that may be, although probably involving some combination of plans to exploit Iraqi oil, bomb Iran and apply U.S. power to Israel’s benefit. Beyond that, neocon has morphed into an all-purpose insult for anyone who still believes that American power is inextricable from global stability and still thinks the muscular anti-totalitarian U.S. interventionism that brought down Slobodan Milosevic has a place, and still argues, like Christopher Hitchens, that ousting Saddam Hussein put the United States “on the right side of history.” In short, neoconitis, a condition as rampant as liberal-lampooning a few years back, has left scant room for liberal hawks. “Neocon is an insult used to obliterate the existence of this liberal position,” says Paul Berman, a writer often so insulted. Liberal interventionists, if you recall, were people like myself for whom the sight in the 1990s of hundreds of thousands of European Muslims processed through Serbian concentration camps, or killed in them, left little doubt of the merits, indeed the necessity, of U.S. military action in the name of the human dignity that only open societies afford. Without such action in Bosnia and Kosovo, Europe would not be at peace today. One reluctant liberal interventionist signed the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998 that said: “It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein.” His name was Bill Clinton. Baghdad is closer to Sarajevo than the left has allowed. For this left, anyone who supported the Iraq invasion, or sees merits to it despite the catastrophic Bush-Rumsfeld bungling, is a neocon. That makes Vaclav Havel and Adam Michnik and Kanan Makiya and Bernard Kouchner neocons, among others who don’t think like Norman Podhoretz but have more firsthand knowledge of totalitarian hell than countless slick purveyors of the neocon insult. But who cares about such distinctions? Democrats have learned from their nuance-free bludgeoning by Republicans in the 2004 election, and they’re reciprocating. I’ll see your “liberal” with a “neocon” — and truth be damned. But distinctions matter. The neocon taste for American empire is not the liberal hawk’s belief in the bond between American power and freedom’s progress. As for social questions, the gulf is large. Has Iraq deep-sixed liberal interventionism? Kouchner, a socialist, is now French foreign minister — hardly a sign the credo’s dead. He, in turn, is close to Richard Holbrooke, who brought peace to Bosnia and may be secretary of state in a Hillary Clinton administration. When John Kerry was vilified as a flip-flopping liberal by those armchair warriors, Bush and Cheney, I knew where I stood. When Michnik and Kouchner are neocons and MoveOn.org is the Petraeus-insulting face of never-set-foot-in-a-war-zone liberalism, I’m with the Polish-French brigade against the right-thinking American left.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/04/o...agewanted=print

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by LatinLover Just go back and check those threads, I have posted on them

Some, perhaps, most certainly not most of them. Furthermore, most, if not all threads you seemingly disappear from and thus create yet new threads altogether. But I guess this is your excuse that follows?:

quote:

Sorry dude if I cant get back to some of them, you know I do have a life I have things to do and dont have all the time to be in the internet. I hope you can understand

We all have lives, and I'd venture to say my life is just as silly hectic as anyone else's. Yet I still find time to give the complement to reply to points made that directly counter any assertions I make, whether it be a concession or a further engagement with supporting evidence for my points made.

It's not that difficult, especially for one who seemingly has the time to find more newsworthy info. to create brand new posts here like yourself.

So let's see, you won't join the military because you hate the military but you feel that supporting the war cause is most sufficient with your keyboard and posts instead, and now you seemingly don't return the courtesy of engaging fully in debates posed at you because you apparently don't have time.

Damn, boy, what good are you to us then?

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by LatinLover I decided to create this club for all my fellow far left liberals do discuss far left issues, to criticize the GOP, and to discuss all their conspiracies

you mean the majority of PDD?

quote:

Originally posted by josh4 you mean the majority of PDD?

lol, so true...

___________________
"...End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path...one that we all must take.
The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all change to silver glass...and then you see it...
...white shores...and beyond...the far green country under a swift sunrise."

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r lol, so true...

It's easy to categorize political ideologies themselves by respectively putting them in to little boxes but I really don't think that the same can be said in regards to individuals selected from a diverse variety of political and socioeconomic backgrounds.

In regards to my own views on various issues, I've been told by many people that I'm both a liberal and a conservative.

For the most part, it all depends on where the line is drawn on each particular issue.

IMO, I think that John Zmirak said it pretty well in his article in the American Conservative,

quote:

This bipolar model casts political philosophy in terms of a two-sided tug-of-war. And we all know where a tug-of-war usually ends—with both teams down in the muck. (http://amconmag.com/2006/2006_08_28/article26.html)

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Some, perhaps, most certainly not most of them. Furthermore, most, if not all threads you seemingly disappear from and thus create yet new threads altogether. But I guess this is your excuse that follows?: We all have lives, and I'd venture to say my life is just as silly hectic as anyone else's. Yet I still find time to give the complement to reply to points made that directly counter any assertions I make, whether it be a concession or a further engagement with supporting evidence for my points made. It's not that difficult, especially for one who seemingly has the time to find more newsworthy info. to create brand new posts here like yourself. So let's see, you won't join the military because you hate the military but you feel that supporting the war cause is most sufficient with your keyboard and posts instead, and now you seemingly don't return the courtesy of engaging fully in debates posed at you because you apparently don't have time. Damn, boy, what good are you to us then?

I hate the military, please go back and show where I have said that I dislike our military.... You see you are full of BS, thats why I dont or anyone here should take you seriously. This shows how much you get things out of context to prove a point.

Let me tell you im a very busy man. I dont have the time to engage in internet debates especially to those that dont deserve the honor to engage in a debate with me. I mean until something peoplen start showing intelligence Ill consider it

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton College tuition should be free, so should healthcare.

Last edited by LatinLover on Oct-04-2007 at 22:11

quote:

Originally posted by LatinLover I hate the military, please go back and show where I have said that I dislike our military.... You see you are full of BS, thats why I dont or anyone here shouldnt take you seriously. This shows how much you get things out of context to prove a point. Let me tell you im a very busy man. I dont have the time to engage in internet debates especially to those that dont deserve the honor to engage in a debate with me. I mean until something peoplen start showing intelligence Ill consider it

Then stop posting and responding to Mr. Opus' posts. Put your money where your mouth is.

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller