What is a Far Leftie? Cause apparently I am one

I am curious as to what constitutes a far Leftie.

you become a member. :hi:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

A far leftie is what was called a "moderate" back in the sixties. As the country shifts to the right, the left becomes a far bigger category.

If you voted Green in 2000, you are simply "the enemy."

:shrug:

Hmmmm... I didn't know. :shrug:

has very little to do with political positions or issues, either.

Try and delve deeper, and you become a "far-lefty."

but in the execution of turning those positions into policy, some people would rather go it alone and fail than come together and take small steps towards eventual victory

...but then I am in Texas so I may be a little to the right of Reagan. :)

As a displaced Texan and now a Cincinnatian, I know what you mean. :)

is growing as the country keeps moving right (if by default if nothing else).

I think I define that definition, I think Ted Kennedy is way too conservative.

If you disagree with a conservative, then you are automatically part of the far left.

...all I ask for is honesty in politicians.

I tend to lean left...but my chiropractor helps me with that.

I have never voted Republican...how could I?

and swing voters and sends them willy nilly into the arms of the neocons.

2.) Someone who is often told to sit down and shut up on DU.

agent. It also means you molest children and beat your wife.

SARCASM DISCLAIMER

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

between the wealthy and the poor. In other words you want the poor to become middle class and for the rich to be not so greedy.

of multinational coporations, that is true.

There are more of us than you think. :toast:

That just makes you a progressive.

Believe it or not there is a "radical left" in this nation. One organization that really typifies it is PETA. Basically, they're nuts. American Socialists would be radical left group. Radical pacifists (the Neville Chamberlain variety) would qualify.

I'm sure lots of people have different opinions. But their are LOTS of different viewpoints and orientations. The "radical left" would be those who hold to the most revolutionary and farthest from current policy.

The success of the "right" has been classifying ALL progressives as "radical leftists". It makes ANY progressive look like a PETA activist. It simply isn't a fair characterization (irregardless of whether you support PETA).

As many liberals are fond of pointing out, even Adam Smith said that taxation should be based on one's ability to pay. This is FAR from a liberal idea. Though, the particular rates may make one liberal or conservative.

Because this is what DLC people call you when you want economic leveling.

Ricardo also said that the very poor are not deserving of any of the resources. Capitalism is hardly progressive.

"Someone who lacks independent wealth has no claim to even the SMALLEST portion of food ..."

- David Ricardo

You're political opinions are actually pretty moderate and not extreme...in my opinion there are few people that actually FAR left...and on this board it's for the most part simply an ad hominem attack.

I am relieved to hear I can still be a democrat and not like the DLC.
(though I am quite fond of some people who used to be members)

They aren't Democrats...they're fucking freepers in a donkey jacket

!

Can I steal it? :evilgrin:

SARCASM DISCLAIMER

Fellow Traveler! ;-)

....saved up so I could pay dues, and went to a meeting. They kicked me out because I was too radical. So glad I found DU....:think:

You were too much of a free thinker I bet! :7

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I will check them out.

they seem to try to change things internally within the party, rather than externally through third parties like the Greens or Socialists.

A rather admirable organization.

Why? What makes you think that you appear to be a "far Leftie"?????

:shrug:
I don't happen to like them.

It would seem to me that you must have some good reasons for "attacking " or voicing concerns about the DLC.

It would also seem to me that you must have some notion of what constitutes a "far Lefty".

You just might want to consider going back to the person who called you a "far Lefty" because of your critique of the DLC, and defend yourself against the charge that s/he has leveled against you.

That, of course, would involve putting down your own thoughts in writing and defending them.

But, in my own view, that sure beats starting a thread and asking people "am I a far Lefty" without ariculating your position on a number of issues.

I suggest you check the DLC threads.

This entire thread is a continuation of a discussion in another thread?

It rather seems to me like a whine and cheese party.

...none other than Karl Rove.

DU has some pretty clear rules that cover posting.

One rule is that people may not accuse others of being a "freeper" or a Republican, or anything like that.

DU's rules even go so far as to say that people may not come up with cute litte ways to try to get around that rule.

If you contact the moderators (by hitting the alert button), they will be able to determine whether someone has bronken that rule. And if they have, the moderators will delete the offending post.

The thread is now locked.

How can you disagree during an election year!

It's all about the unity dammit...naturally, that's unity as defined by those who think disagreement equates to an attack.

Let's see...I've been called the "fringe"...and not just by republicans. I've been called a far leftie as well...odd, though it was meant as an insult, I never quite took it that way...

I just remember what Flo Kennedy said to the individual who asked if she and Gloria were lesbians (simply because they were together)..."are you my alternative?"

It didn't bug me when you insinuated I was a "Brown Shirt."

At anyrate you seem like a moderate to me. . .but labels, who needs em!


:toast:

I dont vote for wimpy democrats.

Capitalism is OK, but sometimes, industries must be regulated to prevent excesses, such as pollution and monopolistic practices.

Government should look out for those least able to fend for themselves: the poor, the young, the aged, the oppressed.

Government should be financed by those most able to afford it.

Universal education and universal health care are desirable, and in fact, should be a 'right' in modern, wealthy societies.

Intolerance is repugnant, whether it is intolerance based on race, sex, religion, or even viewpoint. The key to democracy is an open discussion of ideas.

Progress. We should leave our children a better world than we inherited. Our children should have less debt, less pollution, better education, and a less violent society than that which we inherited.

--------------------
If you believe in any of that, you are a vile, puked-filled, ultra-left, radical, Stalinist, communist, tree-hugging, devil-worshipping liberal.

It's a silly term, anyway, but one would have to be a non-capitalist and real social renegade to truly rank with such an amorphous term.

People, wonderful though they are, are a troublesome lot, and many of them fall into the category of "critic". I think one of those has popped you, so feel free to discount the label. (Many people are incapable or unwilling to accomplish things themselves, so they must content their wounded egos by tearing down others to a level lower than themselves; these are those I'd call "critics", and as a good friend of mine points out, "a critic is a eunuch in a whorehouse".)

In general, such attacks are attempts to marginalize you so others will shun and discount your opinions, and so you'll slink off in ostracized embarrassment. Tell the person that he/she's a reactionary.

I guarantee you, from what I've read of yours (and not just the religious posts) you're no extremist lefties. But who the hell cares, anyway? Some of my best friends are screaming Bolshies.

is trying to put people in a box with a label based on knowing one or two facts about them. To some people supporting Dean made me a radical leftie and to other people a mushy moderate. It's just intellectual sloth to categorize people that way. I don't know why we do that to each other here at DU or anywhere else in life.

And no, this is not an attempt to rekindle a religious tiff when we're getting along for the moment.

One of the problems is that there are over six billion people on the globe, and anyone with a scrap of knowledge or a spark of awareness knows that he/she isn't the smartest, most sensitive, most successful, most anything person in the world, and that the age of heroes is over. Thus, we construct ever more elaborate contrivances to justify some bizarre self-serving fantasy that we are the only truly "together" people in a world of dupes and functionaries. Most people view themselves as highly nuanced and extremely complex individuals, while feeling free to cursorily classify (and dismiss) others with simplistic characterizations. It's a defense mechanism to take the sting of our commonness from us.

It's sort of like action movies: the escalation has gotten to the point that the hero has to stomp a battalion of people before bedding the supermodel, and even then, it's somehow still not enough.

True confidence comes from within, and a necessary element of it is that there are always going to be those who don't accept you. Remember too, that people are shadow-boxing with their own demons, and you may just remind them of their old lover who destroyed their life, or their relative who taunted them endlessly, or someone who didn't bow to their superior intellect at some critical and public juncture in their long string of disappointments that constitute their life. Sadly, though, one is just another no-account that they have to set straight, so even in one's victimhood, there's no real specialness.

It's human nature. Then again, so is this, and many of the other responses you've gotten, so have a laugh and remind yourself that most people in the world may put up a good front, but they're extremely frustrated, and don't want to play fair.

One would hope that a haven of people who "get it" as far as politics goes would not have so many problem-children, but that's just the way it goes. People who disagree with you need to quickly categorize you so they can dismiss you; otherwise, they'd have to entertain your opinions fairly, and this would rattle their own. As I said, people don't play fair. What's worse, is that they feel entitled to do so.

second. America is a Capitalist Society so anyone who doesn't put Capital at the top of the pecking order is either an evil commie or socialist or Liberal. I mean the audacity of those that want to help people instead of the acquisition of wealth. You know Social Programs and Health Care and heaven forbid "Welfare". You must support NAFTA and GATT and WTO and all things dealing in Capital Expansion or you are extreme.

;-) Join the club.

if you accuse people along that spectrum of lacking the proper ideological purity, then you might be a far lefty.

If you find yourself arguing vehemently with someone who agrees with you on 95% of the issues, you are furthermore a zealot.

This, of course, is equally applicable to 'centrists' and others who refuse to tolerate views from 'far lefties.' Zealotry is not limited to the extremes.

necessarily equate to intolerance of other views?

heh-heh

I'm a middle-aged, churchgoing, business-owning woman with no police record who has voted Democratic 97% of the time, and somehow I'm a far lefty because I don't think that the Clinton administration was the pinnacle of human achievement, and I do believe that we can be much, much better as a nation.

:shrug:

I think we have to accept that different democrats should work together. However I don't think the DLC has the good of the people of the US in mind anymore than present republicans leadership does. But at least the republicans have some core values, as sick as they may be.

That's it.

Then I am one! Is there a uniform I need to get?

Screw the labelers and be proud you still think like a compassionate human being.

I was the far leftie and you were the Democratic defender. How times change.

I hope that doesn't mean that the definitions have become so "centrist" that those who were moderate are now considered far left.

Heck, I even consider myself a moderate, but these days on DU I sonmetimes feel like I'm a fringe radical.

Well, whatever, you're okay in my book, you lefty you.

I just don't like Nader much. But you are okay in my book too you far lefty! :7

You naturally are opposed to the Right when left-handed. lol.
That's my .02-it's genetic.

.

One of the greatest american presidents ever.

that the DLC -- which may have started out with good intentions of electing moderates in the more conservative areas of the country -- is now an attempt to rot the Democratic Party from within. My signature line says it all.

I am what I call a 1968 Bobbie Kennedy Democrat - a liberal who believes in the unfulfilled promise of our country.

I live in San Francisco and know some REAL "far leftists" and, whoever said it upthread, I don't see too many of them here. :) I see many, many moderates, some good ol' liberals, and a few conservatives here at DU. And a handful -- maybe -- of "far leftists".

I am mmore of a liberal democrat. I just think it's funny that if you are not a conservative democrat you are a far leftie...oh well, whatever. :}

amiss when someone who is simply a good ol' fashioned liberal is labeled a "far-leftist". Yeah, that could be considered "far left" if the center point is Rush Limbaugh! ;)

And that's what I fear is happening in our country -- Rush as "center".

Bleck.

The dlc sucks!

Bring back the far left Liberalism of FDR, HST, JFK and LBJ and I might be happy...

LBJ was a socialist when it came to social issues, but a hawk when it came to foreign issues. I'd say he was more liberal than HST and Kennedy. Kennedy was a moderate Democrat that vamped up the Cold War with typical Republican-lite rhetoric; a war that was started under Truman.

No they're not liberals AT ALL.

Kennedy was also slow to accept civil rights. He was basically forced into doing it.

Hoover?

Arthur?

or maybe McKinley perhaps??

A liberal president is one that radically changes the system. That, anyway, is the traditional definition of a liberal. How radical was Kennedy? Moreover, name two things Kennedy did that could be called liberal? He was against civil rights until he was forced into it. He cut taxes, didn't provide for the poor. Was behind the buildup of the Cold War with the Soviets. Na, Kennedy was not even in the same league as FDR and LBJ when it came to liberalism. In fact, HST was more of a liberal than Kennedy.

Kennedy today would be a Zell Miller Democrat. HST would be a Joe Lieberman Democrat.

However, for his time Kennedy wasn't even a liberal. Not in the likes of FDR, or hell even Wilson. In fact, show me where Ike and Kennedy differed on major policy issues? Would you consider Ike a liberal?

to either Wilson, Eisenhauer or FDR...

JFK set up the Peace Corps and the Alliance for Progress... both aimed at helping developing nations.As for the Cold war, it was JFK that initiated a phased withdrawal from South VietNam in 1963.

However, I am an anarchist... so they're ALL dlc Democrats to me.

When comparing the so-called modern liberal Presidents of the late 20th century to those of the late 19th century (Hayes, Arthur & McKinley), yes I'd say they were very liberal in terms of people-oriented policies versus the industrialists' favoratism.

No Eisenhauer was not a liberal and neither was Wilson.

Domestically JFK and Ike were indeed on a different track.
Particularly on the issue of banking.

Ike favored the Fedral Reserve, while JFK sought to dissolve it...

Johnson really was trapped by the policies of two previous administrations. He HAD to pursue the war in order to avoid looking like a coward. The feeling was if we bombed the hell out of these people, they would acqueise. We were wrong.

Vietnam was an amazing mistake. The old saying is fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. The fact that Bush couldn't correctly utter this pervasive cliche only highlights his misunderstanding of it's lesson.

We were fooled in Vietnam into thinking we could FORCE a people to adopt our ideals. Bush has made EXACTLY the same mistake in Vietnam. FORGET the Powell doctorine. That wasn't the correct lesson. If they sent 2 million troops in on day one, it wouldn't have helped. The Vietnamese didn't WANT us there ... PERIOD. The Iraqis don't WANT us there ... PERIOD. There is nothing we can do about it.

It's my supreme hope that future presidents consider "The Prime Directive" as a staple of foreign policy. Don't interfere unless ASKED. We cannot solve the worlds problems unilaterally.

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=131&subid=192&contentid=251861

But you will never know if you are this "populist" "leftist" type, as they do not define it.

Frankly, your views are as moderate as mine, and we are only called that if we ask the party not criticize Gore and Dean and others who speak out.

and it's someone who is way over there with Ghandi and others.

It's when you hold beliefs that are WAYWAYWAYWAYWAY out of the mainstream.

Apparently.

Apparently on a lot of counts I am so far left I can't see the spectrum anymore. I always have been.

It's a surreal experience to be a multiple generation Texan and be so radical. But then again, my great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather was pretty damn radical (or flat out nuthouse crazy) to move here from Georgia in 1781 and fight Indians and Mexicans. So maybe it runs in the family.

As for the pink tinge of my state, I blame carpetbaggers and Texans who stopped thinking.

How'd I turn this into a ramble on that? Sorry.

..usually doctrinaire Marxists of various stripes that belong to those micropartys....or perhaps the more marxist or socialist of the Greens....