Things you disagree with that some leftists think - unorthodoxy

There are a few subjects that I cringe when I see certain points of view coming from my fellow leftists/liberals.

1. Defending dictators like Castro and Chavez

2. Assuming every accused person is totally and completely innocent, even if there is tons of evidence against them - Folks, sometimes, nay most of the time, people are guilty

3. Actually seeming to hate America, this is a right wing sterotype of liberals that I see all too often sadly. Threads saying they want to leave the U.S., threads that blame America for what seems to be all the worlds ills or everything under the Sun, revisitionist history to make the U.S. look as bad as possible, ETC



These are just off the top of my head, what are some of yours?

who currently has more people behind bars without a trial, Bush or Castro? Bush or Chavez?

By the way: Viva Castro! Viva Chavez!

evidence that they actually committed a crime, just because someone picked them out of a line up or said they saw said criminal do the crime. But hey after all if you have the money you can walk free no matter how much evidence they have. Yep equal justice for the rich.

:silly:

sin·is·ter adj.
1. Presaging trouble; ominous.
2. On the left side; left.

'Gauche' is French for left, awkward, or left-handed

:shrug:

shhhhhhhhhh!

because 'liberal' is inaccurate. Liberatarians are 'liberal'. I can't stand liberatarian politics. But I am on the left.

It fits

It's purgin' time!! :sarcasm:

Leftist is straight out of the lexicon of Leftists.

At least it has been for the past 40 years.

Right Wingers rarely if ever use that term to use to demonize, they prefer the tired "commie pinko liberal" -

Leftists is an honest and accurate self identifyer, i've got no problem with with anyone referring to me as a Leftist.

:rofl:

thanks to DU...:toast:

Sad very very sad..

like we're dangerous guerillas of some sort.

Today's leftists are the direct descendants of the New Left movement of the 60s, which was violently opposed to Democratic party liberalism. Don't fool yourselves - they hated Eugene McCarthy and RFK as much as they hated Humphrey. The New Left made no secret of its disdain for New Deal, Kennedy-style liberalism.

Leftists are every bit as reactionary and rigid as rightists. That is why I am a liberal.

Read anything about the New Left, read what the SDS leaders like Abbie Hoffman and Tom Hayden, etc had to say about Democrats. Read anything they wrote and said. I don't do most of my historical reading on the internet, so there isn't a handy-dandy link, sorry. The New Left were fundamentally anarchists who rigorously opposed traditional liberalism as well as conservatism. Notice which party's convention they rioted at in 1968 - we can thank the New Left for Nixon, since they chose to spend their resources protesting the Democratic Party.

I was just trying to flesh out fact from opinion. It's quite obvious now though.

I took a class on McCarthyism last semester and we read a great deal of material on the New Left and the 60s antiwar protests. I no longer have the textbook so I don't have a link to an author to read.

FWIW I was surprised to find out how hostile Hayden, et al were about RFK and McCarthy - I had thought that the antiwar movement supported more liberal Democratic candidates. In at least the case of the SDS and the yippies, that was not the case.

Please remember that it's easy to pick and choose quotes. It's even easier to generalize.

Bill

It would do you good to not assume that anything that tells an unpleasant truth about factions of the left is a right-wing conspiracy. Hayden and Hoffman were NOT liberals, and disavowed liberalism in THEIR OWN WORDS.

Why are people here threatened or even surprised by the idea that the New Left hated liberal Democrats? The New Left STILL hates liberal Democrats - have you ever heard ANSWER or any of those splinter groups say a kind thing about Democratic officials? No.

The people complaining about the liberals in 1968 had some good points, namely that liberal thought wasn't doing enough to address the situation. There are still Democrats who let the BFEE get away with the Patriot act.

BTW, I think ANSWER is psyops.

Bill

I'm a leftist but I would never have guessed that I'm supposed to hate liberals!
How wrong I've been! I'm gonna go out and send a check to Joe Lieberman right now!

This ain't the 60's . . .Save your labels for your DINO friends that give a shit about that kind of divisive hair-splitting.

I tell some truths about the leaders of the New Left movement you don't want to hear, so I'm a DINO?

I said that Tom Hayden, Abbie Hoffman, and SDS yippies were as opposed to liberalism as to conservatism. That is true, whether you want to admit it or not.

almost 20 years before your were even born. It is so sad that this is what you are learning in school.

Sometimes it feels hopeless that younger people will get an accurate view of the 60s.

Are you going to deny that Tom Hayden and Abbie Hoffman hated the Democratic party? A lot of people have disagreed with me, but no one can prove me wrong.

I have an inkling that my objective look at the 1960s is probably more reliable than yours, tainted by the subjectivity of your involvement and the separation of 40 years of memory.

Tom Hayden and Abbie Hoffman. I suspect that your professors have a very biased view of events of that era.

The term "old left" generally applies to the Marxists of the 1930s who were overwhelmed by new causes of the 1950s and 1960s, for which they had no ready ideological answers and which they were unwilling to accomodate. So "new left" is generally deemed to include the civil rights movement, feminist movement and anti-war movement.

Are you saying that Martin Luther King hated the Democratic Party for passing the Civil Rights Act? Did Gloria Steinem or Bella Abzug (Democratic Congresswoman from NYC) hate the Democratic Party? Did the young John Kerry, of Vietnam Vets against the War or Ron Kovic despise the Democratic Party? Please explain.

By contrast, many of the "old left" such as Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz, became disenchanted with the Democrats for embracing racial minority and women's issues, anti-war positions and detente with the Soviets, and became "neo-conservatives". These are the people who moved into the Republican party, took it over with with Trotskyite methods, and have given you the Iraq War.

I suspect you have been conned by a neo-con professor or author into adopting a wildly restrictive definition of the "new left", and you really misunderstand the politics of the 1960s.

We had a dream. It has turned into a nightmare. Yes. We, if I may speak for all progressives, is for the world to be as one. See John Lennon. Call us dreamers. I'm not giving it up. If that makes me a "leftist", so be it.

...movement that the "New Left" pushed for in the late sixties. It was a shabby, disgusting example of making the perfect the enemy of the good.

And what did we end up with? Richard Milhous Nixon, that's what.

I guess that made the "New Left" happy, in a warped sort of way--someone they could rage against non-stop, while Nixon actually ran the government and made policy...

Again, well-stated. :thumbsup:

he hung himself. Case closed. Is there any lasting damage? At least he put an end to VietNam.

The fascist will shoot you.
The conservatives will applaud the fascists.
The moderates will watch it on TV.
The Liberals will weep over your grave and feel guilty about turning you into the fascists.

It's also too bad that, in lieu of actually presenting evidence to contradict what I said, you deliver a vapid one line retort.

Henry Wallace, the LaFollets, the Grangers....in your lexicon, what does that make me? Just curious, not snarky!

the same liberalism that got us embroiled in Vietnam? Just wondering.

At least you're honest about it, unlike the many here who want to return the Democratic party to a halcyon age of far leftism that never existed.

word. I support Castro and Chavez, btw. But many '50s liberals (my father among them) supported Castro's revolution. And many "liberals" support Chavez today, if only because he is more firmly anti-Bush than most Democrats.

advisors to 6. The rest was Johnsons doings as JFK was murdered before he could do a thing about it. After JFK sent the 6 advisors he made the statement that nam wasn't worth fighting for.

Stanley Karnow's "Vietnam: A History" (used for the PBS series), before you say that JFK only had 6 advisors. The historical record belies your position, I'm afraid.

Historians are unclear on JFK's intentions about Vietnam, after his probably re-election in '64. Salinger (I think) argues that JFK was going to pull us out of Vietnam. But Ellsberg argues that there were two rules for every American President (Democratic and Republican, including JFK) when it came to Vietnam:

1) Do not expand the war beyond Vietnam's boundaries

2) Only violate rule #1, if not to do so would mean a U.S. defeat.

If one accepts Ellsberg's analysis, there is no way JFK would have risked another "Who Lost China?" debate in a second term.

1. The unfortunate inability to respectfully tolerate a difference of opinion. I can't remember how many times I've been flamed for not jumping on the far left groupthink bandwagon.

2. The Stalinist urge to "purge" the "impure." See, I thought being liberal meant opposing tyranny and welcoming a free exchange of ideas, up to and including ideas which you personally disagree with.

Are you being sarcastic or no?

What ever happened to mind your own bussiness and live and let live?

is "right wing propaganda."

Perhaps not you specifically, but let's not pretend the more extreme elements of DU don't call for a purge of 95% of the Democratic party on a near daily basis.

Lets pretend the right side of DU and our Party Leaders isn't calling daily for a purge.

siphon off 95% of the so-called democratic party and put it into better use, I am all for it.
Is that a purge? Or redirection? Where does a purge go?

The US was no good for that country.
Any way I slice it, Castro was better for Cuba than our
boy Batista. Without the extreme interference from the US,
Cuba may well be a prosperous country today. They have done amazing
things with the little we allow them.

that "we" don't help them. "We" helped Hussein. Look where that got him. Look at that other guy from Nicaragua. . sorry senior moment, can't think of his name. At least Fidel knows better. Play with the big boys, you'll get a bite. Betcha by golly wow.

we have no one but ourselves to blame for Castro's rise to power, and his subsequent relationship with the USSR. Once again, American business interests trumped common sense. And once again, a mess ensues.

What is that saying about mental illness being when you do the same things over and over, but expect different results?

It's sounds like you're telling all of us that want to really fight the right wing to go along and not make waves in your quest to co-opt the Republican agenda. Anyone to the left of Lieberman is being told to Shut up or leave the party.

Sorry pal, that ain't gonna happen. If you want to cave to the republican agenda every chance you get, that's fine by me. Just don't expect me to drink that brand of kool-aid! We're here to fight. Too bad you're too frightened that the repubs might get mad at you if you actually showed a little spine.

I said nothing of the sort, but let your imagination run wild. It doesn't concern me. :eyes:

I expect it from the right-wingers, but am always disappointed to see it here at DU.

Wow. That's a newsflash. :eyes: Somebody tell Jimmy Carter.

I was thinking the same thing.
was also thinking how dictator doesn't sound right without the ruthless part.

:eyes:

:)

Unlike a certain fascist thug a bit north of him.

perfectly reasonable people, as far as I can tell, joined our progressive congregation and everything...who have nothing good to say about Chavez. In fact, their quite frightened for their family still there, and describe it as a police state.

Frankly, I don't know who to believe about Chavez.

pissed off about all that land reform, are they?

All the people who are against Comrade Stalin's collectivization program are nothing more than Kulak class enemies and foreign wreckers, right?

Ordinary people couldn't possibly be dissatisfied with the Chavez administration, could they? Not one? They must all be oppressors who just want to return to the good old days when they treated everyone else like their personal property, right?

And "winning an election" doesn't prove much. Look at Mr. Popularity, Vladimir Putin, who has won two "elections" by suppressing the opposition in the media, starting a strawman party to siphon votes from his two most popular rivals, and who somehow managed to get 90% of the vote in Chechnya!

I don't really know what to think about Chavez, but I've heard a lot of manipulative crap from dictators in my study of history and politics that's made me pretty skeptical of anyone who's as "popular" as you and others make Chavez out to be.

if only people who love to foment anti-communist rhetoric demonstrated as much concern for the Fascists Dictator occupying the white house who is an evil tryant, who is terrorizing the entire globe, including threatening countries all over Central South America (nothing new, this standard U.S. Imperialist policy - the hemisphere belongs to the United States, doncha know?) it's our way, or the high way.

give me a break.

Other than that I evidently like GWB. Well, I don't like him. I'm not going to jump on the Chavez bandwagon either; not because you say I should, nor simply because he doesn't like Bush either. I just think it's hypocritical of you to talk about what a great (small d) democrat you are while simultaneously suggesting that any and all opposition to Chavez is part of a CIA operation or the result of former ruling class resentment.

And you say anti-communist like that's a bad thing to be...

I have suspicions about Chavez as well, not because he's Chavez or even because of his politics, rather due to the maxim involving the corrupting tendencies of power, no matter how it is gained. That is, I don't worry so much about him now and in fact think he's doing well for the people of his nation at this time. I worry about where he may be going, perhaps even without his current conscious awareness. A lot of good ideas wielded in the hands of initially well-intentioned people have turned out very bad, with the well-intentioned people still honestly thinking they're doing the right thing.

I also tend to distrust any national leader that walks around in a military uniform for any reason, but that's my cultural upbringing talking. In some cultures, it's expected.

ANYWAY ...

What I initially intended to suggest here was that you watch, if you haven't, _The Revolution Will not be Televised_. Even granting that the filmmakers were rather pro-Chavez prior to the attempted coup, the fact they were filming in the midst of it rings of an honesty in the portrayal of events that's really hard to script or fake in some other way. I am not someone who is easily convinced of things just because "I saw it on the big screen" or on television. (And this documentary makes a point of showing how you really can't trust what's coming over the corporate air waves. They caught every media organization in blatant lies that were clearly coordinated and scripted to incite murderous violence against the national leader.) But, this convinced me that at the very least, Chavez does have a great deal of support, that those who oppose him are either the minority land owners and energy barons without loud voices or those who have no access to information but that which is broadcast by the corporate owned media stations, owned by the same networks of power that oppose Chavez because of his attempts to lessen their hold on power. It also convinced me the US had at least something to do with the coup, maybe not directly and maybe not the official government, but some power network within the US was aiding it at the least.

In short, I had been generally neutral to distrusting of Chavez before seeing this movie. I am now generally neutral but cautiously optimistic.

Edit: stupid typos

"won" two elections. Like Chavez.

One came here after marrying the son of some pastors who were there on exchnage. Her sister followed her here after being beaten up by her husband back home one time too many. Wanted a better life for her son. I don't think land reform was an issue for them. But I do know they hold no love for Chavez.

Concerned about our OWN DEMOCRACY, rather than fucking with other nation's various forms of self determination?

Sounds reasonable.:sarcasm:

That has more appeal?

:shrug:

:eyes:

everybody on the right calls him one, but last time I checked, he's won several elections - with the only allegations of fraud being directed at his CIA-backed opposition.

1. I see very little blanket approval of either Castro or Chavez. I do see admiration for some of their programs, like attempting to deliver universal healthcare, increasing literacy, land reform, and generally creating a more egalitarian society from an oligarchic one. I don't see any support for censorship or jailing dissenters.

2. We assume every person is innocent because all that evidence against them may be fabricated, because it's not incumbent upon anyone to prove a negative, and because that system has served us well. If you'd like to be a hanging judge without trial, that's your problem.

3. The US has a lot of problems and a long history of mischief in the world. Faling to acknowledge that means failing to provide the possibility of remedy. Leaving the US may be an option for the young and educated, since all but direct service jobs are being exported. Nobdy with hope for a better future here would ever consider leaving.

Perhaps a closer reading of DU posts might be in order. Reciting right wing taking points about the mean old left won't compensate for a lack of reading what the left really is saying.

National health care? Clearly it's evil. Universal literacy? An obvious communist plot. :eyes:

Complete RW bullshit IMHO.

I can't believe some of shit I see here on DU lately.

I would add that some people who don't want to leave will do so if they are afraid for themselves or their loved ones. It's more than a little scary to read about ordinary people with no criminal past or intent being put on the no-fly list, or about innocent people being held for years without due process.

Universal healthcare, a living wage, progressive tax system, freedom of choice, freedom in the bedroom, lots more

The things you mentioned are only a problem, I think, if you care what the media thinks about them.

I don't call myself a leftist, even though I'm probably somewhat of an extremist at heart.

I also support Chavez and his country, seeing as how he's the legitimately elected leader and all that tripe.

I'm also a born-on-the-4th-of-July patriot who would rather leave this country than have my now-infant son become cannon-fodder for the Corporate Fascist Military Industrialist REGIME that's running the show these days. That said, we have no plans to move and are financially unable to do so. If we had the means, we would probably start discussing the matter seriously.

I disagree with "leftists" who like to "discuss" what liberal opinions/platforms they disagree with, rather than focusing on common issues essential to everyone's well-being.

Your post smells like flamebait to me, and I think you're trolling (trawling) for a fight.

are a little iffy if not downright untrue. Chavez was ELECTED!
Does that make him a "dictator"?
Okay. I know that applies to the US right now. The guy says he was elected when he really wasn't. So there is wiggle room. I believe there is such a thing as a benevolent dictator. We don't have one.

I wouldn't say most of the time people are guilty. Many times it is expedience. Just put someone on trial and get 'er done. That goes against the constitution, my friend. Presumed innocence.

Third point: yeah, being the world's supposed "superpower" is a hard job. Some people don't like it. We have every opportunity to aid and help the planet. Instead our "might" is used to blow stuff up. So tell me, does that make sense? Where are your priorities? I would pack my bags and leave in a nanosecond. But where would I go. Mars? New colony?

I don't disagree with what leftists think.

1. I don't think there is anything wrong with being religious, provided you are not a member of the Taliban wing of your religion;

2. This administration has turned me right around on guns; I want one now. I also know many sportsmen, and they are the most responsible people I know when it comes to weapons;

3. Bush is a quasi-fascist, but he isn't Hitler;

4. Globalization might work, because it has always been around in one form or another, but we need international labor rights established;

5. Howard Dean wasn't the end-all-be-all, nor was Kucinich, nor was Kerry, nor are any of them. Politicians generally suck;

6. I don't think the WTC was brought down by controlled demolition; I don't think a missile hit the Pentagon.

*donning flame suit*

At the most, Bush is guilty of criminal negligence. But the idea that it was an inside job is just paranoid.

Also, I don't really believe Bush is exactly evil. Stupid and ignorant, yes. Religious Right's/Corporate America's btich? Absolutely. But I wouldn't call him evil, just a really, really, really, really awful president. Now, Cheney on the other hand...

1. I'm very religious, but not a Christian, so I don't matter to national discourse at all, to either Repubs or Dems.

2. Many Dems even us "Crazy Leftists" believe in Second Amendment rights, granted, given todays political enviroment, getting a gun to protect yourself from "The Knock on the Door" will probably just lead to a spectacular end to your life.

3. I call Bush a proto-Fascist, similar to 1920s Mussoulini(without the trains running on time) rather than a 1940s Hitler.

4. If Globalization is to happen at all, it needs to be with enviromental, regulatory(safety, child labor), and other standards for protecting people, rather than corporations.

I agree on 5

6. One thing that people always go for, newsflash slim, Conspiracy Theories are NOT an exclusive trait of the "Far Left" most on the "Far Left" are NOT conspiracy theorists, no more than claiming that most moderates believe that Aliens crashed at Roswell over 50 years ago, and the government covered it up. In fact, I would go far enough to say that more Rightwingers believe in Vince Foster being murdered by the Clintons over the amount of leftist believing in MIHOP.

is how quickly those trying to pretend there's anything liberal about "gun rights" will begin spouting right wing horseshit.

The other thing that cracks me up about it is how often those announcing "we" (snicker) have to get guns already HAVE guns....

Will, you need to preach this more often. My reason for always backing the 2nd amendment is regimes like we have now. There may come a time soon when we will need to take up arms against our own Talibanic leaders.

1. Apparantly, the Cuban people don't seem to think Fidel is all that awful, he's been around for almost 50 years.
Hugo Chavez was elected by the Venezualan people despite the machinations of the embedded oligarchy and the interference of dear old freedom loving 'murka

2. Assuming that every accused person is innocent is the bedrock of justice. That's why there are juries and requirements of proof.

3. Not being a "patriot" I'm not willing to overlook the what the world's biggest arms-dealer and colonial power is doing and has done.

Oh, I can also hum the Internationale and like the tune.

So, sue me.

But don't have any links.

Just a few examples will do.

but vaguely it was something to do with WW 2, I think there was some about that. And also oh yea, making America all the villians in the Inidan conflct, like the Indians were allt he good guys all the time.

very sketchy memories of such things at best.

But why'd you start this thread if you had no intention of debating anybody on anything they had to say?

we came in and took the indian's land, gave them diseases, murdered them, tried to enslave them, etc. etc., and you don't see "us" as the bad guys? :eyes:

What-bloody-ever.

elected by the people. How can you call him a dictator? He is trying to help the poor. I don't think any liberal defends Castro. What they defend is free trade with Cuba. Our trade policies make NO sense.
Every other country in the world trades there. They have free education, free medical care and lots of things I would emulate. This doesn't mean I approve of Castro.
I don't think every one sentenced for a crime is innocent, but I do think many people are ramrodded through the system and DO NOT get fair trials. I also think the death penatly (which most civilized countries outlaw) is an abomination.
I don't hate America. I love this country...but I don't want us declaring War on countries that never threatened us. I decry the taking money from the poor and giving it to the rich. I don't want this country to become a theocracy and most of all I don't want my country to give parental rights to rapists. Sorry I'm proud to be a liberal. You listen to too much right wing crap.

that wasn't mentioned in OP. Will we become the UAE? And behead people in public, with an audience? Is that the measure of civilization? Who are we fighting? Terror? I would call that terror.

This is not an invitation for debate. If you look closely, they all have something in common, a strong belief that the public safety, health and welfare comes first:

(1) I don't believe prostitution should be legal, but if it is, it should be strongly regulated. As long as they're not giving sex workers excessive anti-biotics that might create anti-biotic resistant diseases, then I can live with it as long as the business occurs in proper zoning areas.

(2) Gay bathhouses, as described in "And the Band Played On," were vector areas for the transmission of the virus. They should have been shut down then, and probably now whereever there are areas in the U.S. where there is high incident of the spread of the virus.

(3) Making drugs legal. I think it should be decriminalized, but not legalized. The proper response should be drug rehabilitation. I think it should tell people something when the CIA views this as a cash cow. It's not just about the money, it's about doping up people so they can't mount an effective counter-punch to the current status quo.

As I said before, I'm not a liberal. I'm a social pragmatist.

individuals--not necessarily always liberal ideas when it comes down to it.

1. Why the hell would prostitutes be pumped full of antibiotics? Seriously, unless its a doctor that has no ethics at all, I don't see why they would be given these drugs like they are candy. News flash, properly regulated prostitution would include weekly tests for STDs, most STDs being viruses means that said individuals would NOT be given antibiotics, they don't WORK on viruses. Most STDs are incurable at the moment anyways, with a few exceptions, and others you can recover from naturally. Herpes, as an example, and HIV, as another example, are incurable. Now, as far as treatments, vaccinations and antivirals, when they get out the door, and work, will be wonderful, and having legalized prostitution means that one of the primary means of transmission of STDs would actually be reduced.

2. OK, i don't know if you know this, but while there are Gay Bathhouses, there are also Straight Sex Clubs as well. Orgies in both, and while I agree that they could pose a public health risk, in both cases, I don't see how we can shut them ALL down. Shut down ones where the source of an STD has been traced, yes I can agree with that, however, one thing I think we can agree on is that if these are businesses with paid membership, that certain standards for safety should be government regulated, condoms, etc. However, this would stop such practices all together, a club that is outright shut down will move to someones house, and since consensual sex is not illegal in this country, you can't really shut such private clubs done.

3. I believe in legalizing Marijuana and Hemp, first, hemp ISN'T a drug, but a more "traditional" cash crop that can replace trees for paper, and cotton for clothes etc., and second, Mary Jane is neither chemically addictive nor dangerous, regulate it like Tobacco or Alcohol. I believe that harder drugs should be decriminalized and that treatment centers be the means for HELPING non-violent drug offenders, rather than sending them to prison, should be the order of the day. In this third point, I agree with you about halfway.

(1) Read up everything you know on the legal prostitution that is taking place in Glasgow, Scotland. You'll find that anti-biotics are prescribed way too readily. That is where I suspect the first anti-biotic resistant sexually transmitted diseases will come from.

(2) Read, "And the Band Played On," Then research gay bathhouses and AIDS in the Miami Herald.

Prostitution isn't special in this regard, also, why not research how Prostitution is regulated in Nevada rather than Scotland, if it were adopted Nationwide here, then it would based on the Nevada model.

2, I DID read that book, years ago, and I told you I agreed, just that its an ENFORCEMENT problem, if you pass a law or try to do something to control other people's behavior on a personal level within their own home, it runs into a constitutional problem right there. Like I said, if the clubs are PROPERLY regulated as PUBLIC venues or businesses, then you have a chance to PREVENT health catastrophes, otherwise people will countinue to practice unsafe sex in their own home, outside of any oversight.

The three things you listed are dear to libertarian hearts, not liberal ones. Maybe you're a liberal after all.

:shrug:

probably because I'm one of them.

Generalization doesn't help.

myself fairly liberal in general.. but "leftist" is a label I reject- particularly as it is a label that the RWers have (fairly successfully) glued to us. To me, Liberal= Scandinavian countries, Holland; Leftist= Cuba, the form Soviet Bloc.

You get most of this wrong.

Few libruls are what fascists call, "leftists." I'm 55, and I have never heard one person defend Castro or Chavez.

Everybody IS innocent until found guilty in a court of law. It applies to you, too.

I don't know a soul who "hates America." What we hate is the neocon/criminal/fascist Bush administration and it's criminal/fascist/theofascist minions who truly believe they're the only people entitled to live.

No one "blames America first." We blame the neocons and criminals for their crimes.

You need to have your radios repaired so they no longer pick up all that fascist drivvle on AMtalkinghead hateradio.

many of us here respect both castro and chavez. does that make us their "defenders"?

Why are you misleading people with falsehoods?

He won the presidential election on July 30th 2000. Venezuela has a unique constitution which actually allows for a president to be removed from office before his term expires. Such a recall vote was levied against Chavez and he WON the right to continue his six-year term.

There was an attempted, unconstitutional coup against Chavez. However the Venezuelan people restored him to power and defeated the coup leaders.

You are grossly ignorant of the facts behind his presidency. A more careful poster might have actually checked their opinions against reality before posting something so outrageous. I see you do not burden yourself with trifiling facts.

"There are a few subjects that I cringe when I see certain points of view coming from my fellow leftists/liberals."

Yes, when I see leftists/liberals talking out of their ass with an air of authority I cringe because they dilute the liberal movement.

PB

I've let go of this one. I don't think that creating more laws to control gun ownership will have any effect on crime. Most gun-related crimes are committed with illegally purchased and stolen guns, and this will not be curbed with more laws. Creating more gun control laws will only serve to piss off legal gun owners who are law abiding citizens.

But the US is responsible for a lot of the bad things that happen in the world. Certainly not ALL of them, but many of them are out doing or the doings of our allies. We need to revamp our entire concept of foreign policy and start treating the rest of the world like we'd like to be treated.

1. Defending Fidel Castro.
2. Not defending socialism.
3. Conspiracy theories, especially "Bush caused 9/11".
4. Paranoia about Arabs.

1. Claiming Chavez is a dictator
2. Gun Control

We can have differing poits of view between ourselves.

We don't march in lockstep, like another political party I know.

Now, I will touch on the points that you mentioned right off the top of your head.

I don't like Chavez much, but he WAS democratically elected, IN SPITE of our government's efforts to undermine Venezuela's democratic process. His people chose him, and if they don't like him, (and I don't know if they don't) it is not for us to meddle.

As for Castro, he is our creation. He took help from the only place willing to give it: the Soviet Union. He asked for our help and Nixon wouldn't even meet with him. Rather stupid of Nixon, considering Cuba's proximity to us. I may not like the way he rules, but then again, we should not have much say in the matter.

And, I believe every man, woman and adolescent IS innocent, until proven guilty, even in the face of overwhelming circumstantial evidence.

As for the world's ills, we have done much to create them, or at least exacerbate them. And many of us, I'm sure feel that we have not done enough to step in and alleviate much of those ills, when we are in a position to help.

I am glad you spoke out, though. I have a few thoughts rattling around on a few subjects myself. I usually attribute some of my misgivings to the youthful exhuberance displayed here.

As for hating America and wanting to leave it, I believe most all of us here at DU are profoundly frustrated, and probably there are some who aren't very good at articulating their feelings. So it comes off as sounding anti-American, when that is not what they really mean. On the other hand, there probably are some who hate America, to which I can only say good riddance. If you are not ready to fight to take your government back, then get out of the way. We don't need you.

I just disagree.

I think you're misinformed about Chavez.

I don't think DUers, as a group, assume every accused person is totally and completely innocent. That is just crazy talk that you're making up. What we do know is that the efficacy and fairness of the system is based upon the theory of "innocent until proven guilty." You can't simply add "unless we really know you did it!" You must consistenly apply the same standards to every defendant. Your charge here is just a gross, baseless generalization.

And finally...actually seeming to hate America? Revisionist history to make America look bad? Are you a writer for Rush Hannity?

is about hating America? No, it's about truth, and truth isn't all "feel-good" by design. A lot of the history taught to our children is white-washed, pure and simple.

As far as hating America, what I'm seeing is that many of us are hating what America has become or is becoming, not hating what America is supposed to be. What I see is that most of us love the Constitution, civil liberties, justice, the rule of law, democracy, balance of powers, etc. Thus, we love America.

It was stated on one of the weekend news programs that BushCo has been systematically going through the National Archives and re-classifying and/or altering historic documents. I'm sure his daddy and Uncle Ronnie will be treated much more fairly in BushCo's version of history.

n/t

of winning. I mean, it's not like us gay folk are really supposed to be full American citizens with equal treatment or anything. We should just send in our checks to support candidates who represent the exact opposite of us, then sit down and shut up.

Even more absurd are the same "lefty's" who think that Log Cabin Republicans are just plain bonkers for supporting a Party that wants the opposite of the members of that group want.

I'm one that thinks it's bonkers that they support the GOP. It's akin to Jews for Hitler to me. I'm not attacking or anything,just genuinely curious, why would you think I'm absurd for thinking that?

think that I, as a gay man, would be bonkers to support Dem candidates who don't support treating me equally in this country. But there are plenty on the left, including many right here at DU, who want me to sit down and shut up, just support ANY Dem candidate in the name of winning - even those who would vote against my best interests.

If we love individual freedom and oppose tyranny (and I believe the vast majority of us do), we should actually embrace the 2nd Amendment. I think gun controls should be nonobtrusive.

And when I say "boutique issues", I think of things like organic food production and vegetarianism. I eat pesticide-treated produce as well as meat with no loss in conscience.

while widely accepted as the philosophy of science, is absolutely NOT the de facto choice or even necessary choice.

Hey, you can argue the "philosophy" all you want. But only the Right Wingers want that tripe in the science curriculum.

And I agree with your list for the most part, though I think a minority of those considered left actually display those attributes...but what I get most dismayed about is the idealogical rigidity I often see..

Too often I see the long knives come out when some Democratic elected official doesn't toe the liberal line on one issue or another. Harry Reid was a hero when he shut down the Senate, but a traitor when he didn't work to secure the Alito filibuster earlier. Virtually every Democratic member of the U.S. Senate has been called a traitor at some point on this board because of a vote or a position they took. Too many calls for purging this or that member.

:eyes:

Run from the Leftist boogieman

Run from the Leftist boogieman

Name the candidates or office holder he advocated purging!!!

But you already know that this is another purge-fest.

Show me where the OP said he was for a purge...

I'm sure, since you dislike labels, the term "Vichy Democrat" also bothers you eh?

Know what I mean, Vern?

The OP makes some sh*t up (or more likely, repeats RW hatespeech), then when asked for exaples, Um, Uh, Yeah, can't seem to find any. Another daily "leftist boogieman" thread. Yay!

Who says I dislike labels?

Guess we will leave it there.

Guess we will let the responses refuting the OP speak for themselves.

Good Day!

See you in tomorrow's LEFTIST BOOGIEMAN thread. :hi:

There is nothing about "purge". "Cringe" is enough. Already.

I can "cringe" at the viewpoint of someone on an issue and still support them. I cringe at Howard Dean sometimes when he makes some of the statements he makes, but I still support him. I cringe at some of the position Hillary takes, but obviously I still support her.

1) Chavez is not a dictator. Castro probably is--but the Cuban people are better off than people in many other countries. Our country's Cuba policy is dead wrong.

2) "Innocent until proven guilty" is fairly basic here. "Tons of evidence" don't count if the accused is rich enough.

3) Just pointing out that America's history is not unblemished is not "hating" America. Despite the bad patches in our history, the USA did have a fairly positive reputation. Thanks to Bush, that's in the past.

The sudden, bizarre attack on Roosevelt yesterday didn't work, as it was beaten down by the people, and the endless defenses of the Clintons, no matter how they sabotage our Nation on behalf of their corporate sponsors, no longer works. Attacking ordinary Democrats as "extremist leftists," although tired and old, seems all you can do anymore. The writing is far too crude to be effective, of this type: "we leftists have to admit our own hypocrisy," "nobody likes us, we are too liberal, we should take a tip from the Republicans," kind of thing.

"Actually seeming to hate America...I see all too often sadly....(T)hreads that blame America for...everything under the Sun..." What?

Bush is a drug addict, Cheney gets drunk and shoots people, all of them in the Administration dodged the draft as far as I can tell--please, corporate lobbyists of "D"LC, Inc., criticize "your Republican friends" for once.

"please, corporate lobbyists of "D"LC, Inc., criticize "your Republican friends" for once"

I've had this arguement, lots of times, with a friend who keeps trying to convince me that liberals want to take all his guns. "Not all of us," I keep telling him.

It's a busy day; third time i posted this.


(copy)

Official DU Hugo Chavez Right-Wing Falsehood Debunking Thread
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=311462
Edited on Fri Feb-03-06 10:37 AM by JohnnyCougar

Holy balls. I haven't been on here much lately, but I am shocked at the right-wing extremist propaganda floating around here about Hugo Chavez. DU is usually my safe-haven from this sort of propaganda, but to see Chavez baselessly trashed on here by so many has made me feel compelled to post this. I will try and identify the top falsehoods repeated about Chavez, and give some appropriate context to them that lay these "tyrant" and "oppressor" claims to rest. And the fact that Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are being cited against Chavez irritates me on two levels. Firstly, these organizations put out reports on every country, and are almost wholly negative. Amnesty International's profile on France is about as long as the one about Venezuela. But I highly doubt France is considered a tyranny by anyone. Secondly, the reports ignore the context of the situation happening in Venezuela.

First of all, there are a few articles I suggest people read to get an understanding of Chavez's peaceful revolution in what once was a corrupt and oppressive state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050411/parenti
http://www.inthesetimes.com/issue/26/01/feature3.shtml

Secondly, if you read these articles (which I really, really recommend you read, because they are highly informative, well written and interesting) you will realize how desperate of a state Venezuela was in before Chavez took power. 80% of the country was poor, and 44% or so were officially in poverty (to the point where they couldn't afford proper diets). The former government was a band of corrupt cronies that languished of the profits of oil sales, and said basically "fuck the poor."

Chavez was the leader of a failed coup attempt in 1992 against the then scumbag of a president. But the coup failed, and Chavez took full responsibility, admitted his failure, and served his time in jail. The president whom he attempted to overthrow was impeached a year later.

Chavez gained a lot of supporters attempting that coup, and his base continued to believe in him. In 1998, Hugo ran for President and won. The poverty-stricken, starving, illiterate "brown skinned" Venezuelans supported Chavez in a landslide victory. Since then, Hugo has been trying to clean up a government that had run for decades on massive corruption. The middle and upper class in Venezuela hated him because he was "brown" and because of his fight against the kleptocracy they had grown rich with. The Venezuelan court was highly corrupt. The parliament was worse. The plutocracy used car bombs, coups and violent protests to try and undermine Chavez's democratically elected government. The right-wing television stations would run anti-Chavez propaganda uninterrupted for days at a time, using racist cartoons and outright lies to brainwash the middle class and the upper class into thinking Chavez was a tyrant. Right-wing publications in the US picked up on this propaganda and of course reprinted it here. Obviously, it still circulates.

Chavez has taken control of the Citgo oil company and used parts of its profits to start schools and free healthcare clinics for Venezuela's massive poor. This totally angered the right wing. But since Chavez has become president, Venezuela's poor are much healthier, millions of people can now read, and he is attempting to diversify Venezuela's economy. The people there love him. He is the first leader that actually cared about him in forever.

Here are some of the most prominent right-wing attacks on Hugo Chavez debunked.

Chavez is attempting to censor political speech and take control of the Venezuelan media.

After the corrupt right-wing media in Venezuela inspired a coup, kidnapping and later a ridiculous attempt to recall Chavez, as well as violent protests, Chavez made an anti-slander law to curb the false propaganda the private media was spreading. While no one, to my knowledge has been arrested for violating this law, it has worked to curb some of the anti-Chavez propaganda and racist remarks made in the private Venezuelan media. When asked in October if Chavez would actually arrest anybody with this law, he responded: "I am not going to accuse anyone because they insult me, I don’t care if they call me names, I don’t care what they say about me. Generally I do as Don Qixote said, if the dogs are barking it’s because we are working." Furthermore, there are many opposition media outlets in Venezuela, and only one state-owned outlet. Chavez could shut the opposition channels down, but he doesn't. He just limits the racist, riot-causing propaganda they usually encourage.

Chavez is packing the Venezuelan courts with cronies

This is true. But that's fine with me. The former judges were highly corrupt, and some were organizers of the coup. The Venezuelan courts were known for their widespread corruption before Chavez. These courts let off people that kidnapped Chavez at gunpoint during the coup attempt.

Chavez is hurting the economy

According to a press release in mid-2005, Venezuela has the fastest-growing economy in Latin America, with growth rates in the first two quarters of 7.5% and 11.1%, respectively. It had a 17.8% growth rate in 2004. The non-oil sectors grew at a faster pace than the oil sector, rising 8.7% and 12.1% in the first two quarters of 2005. Venezuela's economy is growing at the second-fastest rate in the world, topped only by China. Furthermore, Chavez's programs are wiping out illiteracy and providing healthcare to the poor for the first time ever. He has also been the first President to really enforce Venezuela's tax laws. The rich were getting away with cheating on their taxes time and time again. He has considerably raised the minimum wage. So basically, Hugo is allowing private enterprise to flourish (despite requiring them to follow tax laws) and still using money to support the poor. What he has already done has been nothing but a victory for human rights in Venezuela. Millions upon millions of people now have hope and health that would have never had it otherwise. But despite this, false right-wing anti-Chavez propaganda continues to circulate around the echo chamber...even on DU.

What Chavez has done is inspire a popular revolution with little to no violence at all, completely overthrowing a horrendously corrupt government in Venezuela and liberating masses of nearly starving poor. Instead of leading by force like he did in 1992, this time the revolution worked.

But I can say one more thing for sure: If I were next to Hugo Chavez, I would hug him, too!

If you know of more false propaganda being spread about Chavez, please debunk it below! I probably missed some things.

I believe sexuality is largley a construct -- gay and straight, and everything in between.

Look, that position is a scientific theory at present, that is advocated by many biologists, if you can't handle that, then stick you head in the sand too. Also, sexuality in general is complex, while the evidence for what you think of as an opinion is strong, that there is a genetic component to sexuality, there are also hormonal and even cultural influences as well.

...in varying degrees. Nothing is purely one or the other due to the temporal nature of our universe. My favorite analogy involves cards - genetics are the cards we're dealt, everything else is how the game is played.

At present, there is only ONE study, in sheep, that has suggested that there may be hormonal conditions that may be responsible for predisposing one toward homosexuality. The twin study is hazy, but showed that some kind of biological factor may also predispose one toward homosexuality, but also showed that environment may also play a role.

I'm simply saying that there is no proof that it is genetic, meaning that there is something encoded in the genes -- which excludes the possibility of being exposed to varying amounts of hormones in utero -- and that to say, definitively, that all homosexuality originates by virtue of a genetic cause has no basis in scientific fact. The Hamer "gay gene" study was de-bunked, and, later, brought up on charges of misconduct.

The Council for Responsible Genetics recommends that, for the purpose of good science, and in the interest of being culturally tolerant, that the rainbow road to gay legitimacy not rely on specious genetic claims. This is a non-partisan organization that supports choice, as well as fights against genetic discrimination in healthcare.

http://www.gene-watch.org/programs/privacy/gene-sexuality.html

The social constructionist theory of sexuality simply posits that all sexuality is a construct, and while there may be some biological consideration, that the lines between gay/not gay are not rigid, consistent -- either environmentally or genetically. The range of hetero and homosexual experience and tendency reaches across the entire spectrum of humanity, and doesn't depend on simply what one claims as his or her identity or orientation, and may change from childhood, to puberty to adulthood.

The long and short of it is that I think there may be some people for whom their own sexuality has some biological/physiological causes, some a combination, and some none at all. I think sexuality, however, is mostly narrative. I think that gender is, as well.

I've mentioned this quote before -- I read, in my research: "Conservatives think that everything is genetic except for homosexuality, and liberals think that nothing is genetic except for sexuality."

I would like to remind liberals who insist, despite the lack of facts, that homosexuality is genetic, that part of the liberal/modernist/socialization ideology rests on the idea that one can supercede his or her genetics. There is a danger in searching desperately for genetic origins to legitimize homosexuality, and attaching those origins to binaries such as good/not good and natural/not natural. There are dangers for racial minorities, as well as women, as well as for unborn children. I think that those who advocate for a genetic cause for homosexuality, to substitute for their own self-love and acceptance are selfish. Same for those who would only recognize homosexuals as equals if it were shown to be genetic.

I'm quite passionate about this subject, because I feel that going down the genetic road to get gays and lesbians the equal rights that they deserve, and perpetuating the short-cut to self-acceptance that the chimera of a genetic cause promises will do nothing but harm homosexuals, in the long-term. I've been called homophobic a million times over for this position, but really, any half-assed survey of radical queer theory will dispel this notion. Many homosexuals, themselves, subscribe to this theory.

I didn't say that it couldn't be environmental or have a physiological cause, such as exposure to hormones in utero. I, as well as the Council for Responsible Genetics, believe that there is not enough information to claim that homosexuality has a genetic cause. The second part of your reply was right -- it could be a number of things. I just don't blindly believe -- in the abscence of the necessary science -- that homosexuality has a genetic cause. See my extended answer, below.

Whether the starting catalyst has a genetic component or not doesn't really matter when discussing equal rights. We know that Transexuals have a slightly different brain structure, making them more like the opposite sex rather than the sex they were born in, mentally. Recently, Anne Fausto-Sterling has suggested that there are (at least) five sexes in humans. In addition to traditional males and females, one can identify three general types of intersexual bodies: those with one ovary and one testis, each functional; those with ovaries, but also distinct adult-sized penises (and sometimes beards and deep voices); and those with testes, but also a vagina (and sometimes breasts). In the last two cases, the external genitalia and secondary sex characteristics do not match the chromosomes (what more dramatic way to show that chromosomes do not exclusively determine the organism's form?!).

If there can be this much variance in human beings physically, why not in regards to sexual identity and behavior?

it is probably not a conscious choice. But I do believe, and I've met many and read many, many testimonials from happy (meaning not self-loathing, go to a heterosexual program) gay people who say that their sexuality WAS a choice.

As for the five potential sexes -- right on! And I think that there CAN be variance in the physical body. As to whom one is attracted to, I think that the physical has much less to do with it, than what some would like to believe. All five of the sexes that you posit are not consistently attracted to one kind of partner, and some are attracted to more than one, perhaps several -- including the "typical," male and female.

Here is what I mean by constructs. I'm a "straight" woman with the "normal" combination of ovaries/genitalia. I've had no lesbian experiences outside some role playing in the 8th grade, where a friend and I had closed-mouth french kissing. I don't consider that to be a "lesbian" experience, either. I've only had sex with men. I've had sex with A LOT of men. At 31, however, and after numerous failed relationships, I've decided that -- rationally -- I may be better off co-habitating with a woman. I would like to find a relationship with a woman, within which we could dedicate our lives to one another. I could kiss and hug and fall in love with a woman. I could let a woman pleasure me. I would enjoy sucking on the non-vaginal body parts of a woman. Sometimes I fantasize about this.

That said, there is NO FRICKIN' WAY that I'm going downtown on a chick. Maybe with my fingers, if I was drunk. Tounge -- never. Now, THAT SAID, I also have an aversion to semen. I don't like to touch it. I think scrotums (scrota?) are really fucking gross. I will not suck a guy's cock, after it has been inside of me.

So, I'm equally grossed out by semen and other womens' vaginas. I feel that, emotionally, that I could have a relationship with either a woman or a man. I have sexual particulars, but I'm pretty sure that it goes equally for men and women. Am I bi? What the fuck am I?

My current boyfriend had an ex-girlfriend who he dated for FIVE YEARS, and she wouldn't let him penetrate her. Not because of religion, not because of a physical condition, but simply because she didn't like it. Is she a lesbian? She's married to another dude, now, who she still won't do the deed with -- but she'll do like everything else.

I recently knew a man who was bisexual, who said he simply fell in love with a good soul, no matter what sex. Where's his genetic lightswitch?

Sorry -- all that's a little explicit, and a diversion -- but you see what I'm getting at. I consider myself pretty darn normal, and my whole sexual narrative is iffy. But, would I see it that way if I was homophobic? Would I see it that way if I had other culturally held, or rigid beliefs about order, or religion or god in nature? Who knows. And I also believe that some people have brief homosexual experiences and then change. Some people try to, and fail. Some people dip in a little here, and a little there, etc.

Just because someone declares they're "officially gay," does that mean that they have the genetic lightswitch? How do you become "officially gay?"

To be honest, I never heard of people who ARE gay who say it was a choice for them, I think that for those which it is a choice, they were bisexual to a certain extent. I guess the best way to think of this is a Bell curve, where most people actually fall in the middle(bi-sexuality), with two extremes that are totally straight, or totally gay. Now, being that way means two things, one, it explains many human behaviors, for example, in Ancient Rome, bi-sexuality was considered normal, at least for men, though for women as well. It wasn't until the Rise of Christianity that such urges were frowned upon and people started surpressing them. We don't live in a world of black and white, and, looking at nature, we can see this same trait(bi-sexuality) being normal for some of our closest relatives and other creatures. So, in that case, for MOST people, culture and family have a large amount of influence on their own EXPRESSION of their sexuality. The second is, for those who live in such restrictive cultures, such urges are acted upon in secret, which isn't healthy to begin with.

Now, to give an example of my life, I'm attracted to women, and have a desire to have sex with them, I'm a straight male, that's seems like a given. However, I'm also mature enough to realize that I can be attracted to men on a superficial level, but really have no desire to go to the next level of having sex with them. So I guess you could call me Straight man with bisexual urges that I couldn't really act on. There are another form of sexuality that falls out of this curve, and that would be asexuals, those are people that have no desire to be sexual with anyone, and do not really do not feel attracted to either sex.

IGNORE -- I am TIRED of this veiled anti-gay SHIT on DU. I am specifically tired of certain posters' continued jibes.

I've repeated, CONSISTENTLY, in my posts, my position on equal rights for homosexuals. I have cited materials from geneticists. I believe that homosexuals deserve love, and families, and civil unions. (and, for the record, I believe that the government should only grant civil unions for all married couples). I've repeated, consistently, that I do believe that in some, perhaps most cases, that homosexuality is not a choice -- but not all. I've assured you that I BELIEVE YOU when YOU say that you didn't rationally choose your sexuality. I've tried to explain to you my position, and you REFUSE to have a sensible dialogue with me. You just scream IGNORE!!! at me, and call me a homophobe.

What, exactly, is your question? What, exactly, is your problem? If you want to argue with me, on the merits, feel absolutely free. Otherwise, feel free to not scream at me, because I prefer to take a different approach to homosexuality. You are only proving my point by getting defensive.

Of "leftists" from the Democratic Party... if you look through this thread you will see who they are. How do you respond to this charge?

have we had on here for lo these many months?

Is they equate the relative smattering of threads questioning left leaning thinking (apparently Leftist is now an insult), with the nearly non-stop barrage of anti-DLC, anti_hillary, Democratic traitor purge threads that we see almost hourly on here.

And yet I can find precious few posts actually calling for purges of individual office holders among those disputing left-leaning orthodoxy.

I yet to see any moderate Democrat call for the purge of anybody....and I don't expect to.

John Conyers, Barbara Boxer, Jesse Jackson Jr., to name a few...

Not leftists

They are at the left wing of our Party...that is a fact. I would support any one of them.

That is the post you replied to.

I don't see any conflict there...

period

L'État Français were actually opposed on the one hand the Republican elements of french society, and on the other hand, the reactionary elements supporting a fascist or similar regime.

:shrug:

The DLC types haven't exactly welcomed him with open arms.

Governed as a moderate...

I have said many times I do not think the way Dean was treated by the DLC was right.

used that as a dirty word, as a tactic to destroy his campaign. I doubt I'll ever knowingly vote for a DLC member because of what they did to him. He was the best candidate of 2004, and Bush is president largely thanks to the DLC.

:hi:

It's just the Iowa state flag, but I like it.

:hi:

Is it yours?

Born in Davenport, most recently lived in Eagle Grove. I will certainly retire to Iowa, and hope to return sooner than that. Right now, due to work, I live in Illinois. And I've learned that what they say is true...I.O.W.A.=Illinois Only Without Assholes

(snicker)

You and your friend need to decide if any 'leftists' have been elected or not.

I understand full well my political persuasion is not popular in this country.

I also understand how the game is played and that the party is a big tent. I don't spend much time at all calling for purges of rightist Democrats.

What I don't understand is your sneering demeanor. What does it serve you?

One. Only one in this plutocratic, bought and sold, rich owned, filthy excuse for a political system.

at that

Why not write, I can find precious few posts actually calling for purges of individual office holders among those disputing left-leaning orthodoxy who are named Steve and were born on the 7th of July are over 5-11 but less than 6-2 have olive skin. lol

Reality Bites:

AL From

Marshal Whitmann

Will Marshall


P.S. Please consult Merriam Webster for definitions of relative and smattering.

For you to make a point without either making something up, or putting words into peoples mouths...

Bonus round:

For $10 dollars; Post a link to one single thing I have made up?

When you start sticking to what people actually post, as opposed to what, in your defensiveness, apparently think people are posting, I will be glad to address your post.

Apology accepted :hug:

I guess I am ;-)

;)

Actually hating America...

(snicker)

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

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

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

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

I'm {of course} not advocating any kind of purge. This thread is exactly what it appears to be, a spur of the moment idea about views some Duers may hold that don't fit into the DU orthodox line of opinion.

Another poster asked me why I started this thread if I'm not gonna debate.

That wasn't my intention, I enjoy reading all the responses and maybe even learn something. I didn't make this thread to get into a debating contest.

one should be prepared to defend oneself. One should probably be a little better informed, as well.

Regardless of intention ...

How about the fact that most of us "Leftists" actually could care less what you think!

I'm pretty far left. But I think it's okay to eat animals IF they're treated well during their lives (for that reason I oppose factory farming more vehemently than hunting).

Hm, can't think of much else!

I think that Bush actually got more votes the Kerry did in the last election. I'm willing to hear arguments that someone stole the election in Ohio-- and I'm always curious that nobody mentions Florida, where W.s poll numbers jumped up sharply-- but I worry that the left does itself a significant disservice if it underestimates the appeal of the right and blames all our woes on electoral fraud.

Not a big fan or Castro or Chavez.

I'm a cautious supporter of capitalism (though it is definitely necessary to have a government capable of reigning in its excesses) and even globalization (I can't totally fault an economic policy that helps dirt poor workers in Southeast Asia get jobs, though I will admit that it probably has had a downward impact on the wages of US workers. I think its problematic but not evil.

I think that social policies should be designed explicitly to create a social safety net, rather than, say the US government giving retirement money to millionaires.

And probably some more stuff if I let myself think about it.

Nothing about the word has anything to do with where it began, seating arrangements of French politicians, leftists sat on the left side of the room..


I am a proud leftist. I dont trust unless they verify. I dont give free passes because of someones position of authority. I believe we have the right to be different. I believe we have a right to a good living and its governments job to make every effort to assure that for everyone. I believe my taxes should pay for things that help people, like healthcare .

I gave up on liberalism about 1968, about the same time the Democratic Party died. In my view, it's been pretty much a walking corpse ever since.

I vote Democratic when it counts only because they're the lesser of two evils. Sort of the kinder, gentler wing of the Single Unified Capitalist War Party that runs this country. I don't know what happens to Democrats. They seem like nice, honorable people at the local level, but send them to Washington and they become Stepford politicians.

1. Castro and Chavez. I support the Cuban Revolution. I support the Bolivarian Revolution. I criticize Castro for his human rights violations, although they are pretty piddling compared to many other countries, including the US.

2. The American criminal justice system is a nightmare. I don't know anyone who thinks everybody is innocent, but the skepticism toward official pronouncements is certainly deserved. I suspect much of the criticism on individual cases is actually rooted more in profound disgust with the criminal justice system than witht the facts of a particular case.

3. Actually hating America. Well, no, just many of the things done in its name by its government. I'm sorry if you read something other than a rose-tinted view of America. But hey, you wanna be the world's imperalist cowboy, you gotta take some shit some time. Actually, America's not bad--if you have a good job, stay healthy, and don't read the newspapers.

:applause: full agreement here.. :hi:

2. PNAC are a bunch of creeps, war profiteers, and election stealers; but they arn't some underworld conspiracy, just oppertunistic ideolouges who got lucky because *'s bother is Florida's governor and because of corporate control of the Media (and many people, such as Fukuyama, are starting to jump ship).

3. GM crops arn't bad, the corporations abusing the technology are.

4. *'s smarter than people think he is, he's just a naive rich-boy who acts like a simpleton to get the red-neck vote and drinks too much.

5. Globalization and free trade is good, but only with developed countries.

6. No MIHOP or LIHOP, just negligence and oppertunism.

7. We need to drop the guns thing if we want to win in rural areas.

8. Litmus tests. We hurt our chances in red states if we require every canidate to be ideologically pure on social issues like Abortion and gay marrige. The US is quite socially conservative among western countries, I don't like that fact but that is the political reality.

9. Clinton had nothing to do with the 90's boom, it was caused by the rise of the Internet.

10. I am an Uber-leftist, a non-Marxist market socialist for all practical purposes, but agree with moderates like Mr. Benchley that Ideological Purism gets us nowhere.

Look at how the fringe leftists fly into a rage, ready to purge you for your thoughtcrime.

Give 'em enough rope...

FACT: Chavez is not a dictator.

FACT: Innocent till proven guilty is a CONSTITUTIONAL principle.

FACT: Talking about having an HONEST accounting of our history is important if we are to move beyond it.

All three of his points are either broad brushes or flat out wrong, I'm sick of this fantasy based politics.