DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Kramer on October 20, 2011, 06:49:49 PM
-
http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2011/10/cardoza-to-anno.php (http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2011/10/cardoza-to-anno.php)
Rep. Dennis Cardoza, D-Calif., announced his retirement from Congress this afternoon -- and he issued a scathing parting shot at President Obama's track record on his way out.
In a statement explaining his decision, Cardoza, a leader of the centrist Blue Dog Coalition, said he was "dismayed" by the administration's "failure to understand and effectively address the current housing foreclosure crisis."
"Home foreclosures are destroying communities and crushing our economy, and the Administration's inaction is infuriating," Cardoza said.
A former chairman of the moderate Blue Dog Caucus, Cardoza also bemoaned the increasing partisanship in Washington, and blamed the media for fueling the ideological divide in the country, not giving enough attention to moderates.
(RELATED: Who else is leaving Congress?)
Cardoza is the sixth member -- all Democrats -- to announce plans to retire outright so far. He's also the third member of the Blue Dog Caucus to head for the exits -- joining fellow moderate Reps. Dan Boren, D-Okla., and Mike Ross, D-Ark.
The five-term congressman had become an increasingly-vocal critic of his own party's leadership in recent months, fueled by the skyrocketing unemployment in his Central Valley district. He's previously criticized the administration on its handling of the foreclosure crisis - but it's rare to see a departing congressman blast the president in an official statement.
Given his growing dissatisfaction with his party, Cardoza's departure didn't come as a surprise to Democrats, but his sharp criticism of Obama is bound to sting at the White House, which has already seeing many members of his own party, particularly those in battleground states and districts, keeping their distance.
Cardoza was also a thorn in the side of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.. Despite his previous posts in leadership (he was a DCCC co-chair in 2010), the two at times clashed, including during the negotiations over the health care law. He voted against Pelosi for Democratic leader earlier this year, supporting his more-moderate home-state colleague Rep. Jim Costa instead. In the fight for majority leader in 2007, Costa publicly backed Rep. Steny Hoyer over Pelosi.
Nonetheless, the National Republican Congressional Committee had already targeted Cardoza in an ad campaign last month, and immediately seized on Cardoza's retirement as more evidence of a worsening political environment for Democratic moderates.
"After years of being one of Pelosi's top lieutenants, Dennis Cardoza has realized it will be impossible to continue to fool voters about his self-proclaimed Blue Dog label as the political environment worsens for Democrats between now and Election Day," said NRCC spokeswoman Joanna Burgos.
Redistricting also played a major role in his decision. Under the new map, Cardoza was facing the unpalatable option of challenging Costa in a Democratic primary, or running in the more-Republican 21st District where Democrats already landed a strong recruit in state senator Michael Rubio.
Cardoza's lackluster fundraising this past quarter had also raised retirement speculation; he raised just $23,000 during the past three months.
-
Yes.........and no. IMHO, you're seeing these Dems, who ran as moderates, in regions that supported the idea of compromise, looking at the big picture and seeing the onslaught in both a defeat of Democrats and in worsening polarization, as they realize just how more apoplectic the left will become, as a result
Which could lead to a greater GOP majority, but what's left of the Democrats will be hard core liberal/socialist
Just my $.02
-
<<A former chairman of the moderate Blue Dog Caucus, Cardoza also bemoaned the increasing partisanship in Washington, and blamed the media for fueling the ideological divide in the country, not giving enough attention to moderates.>>
Moderates. It was Obama's desire to reach out to moderates that cost him the public option in his health care plan. That got Elizabeth Warren thrown under the bus. That killed Obama's chance to fight for financial reform and go down in flames, and then purge the Blue Dogs from the Party, which would have positioned him and the Democrats left (or left Democrats, I guess) to run against the GOP by painting them as the Party of Wall Street and swept out BOTH the GOP and the Blue Dogs in 2012.
Fuck the moderates.
-
Why are all moderates Democrats?
-
They aren't.
Look at John McCain and Lindsey Graham or Olympia Snowe and the other one from up north.
-
John McCain is moderate?
This might have something to do with loosing to a far left fielder.
MT might be right about moderates, when they get gone Congress can be much more interesting.
Nice that extremeism is coming into vogue at the same time as a conservative upswing , it is like a triple up biorythym.
http://www.thefutureminders.com/biorhythms_free/Biorhythm_Charts.cfm (http://www.thefutureminders.com/biorhythms_free/Biorhythm_Charts.cfm)
(http://www.skepdic.com/graphics/babychart.gif)
http://www.skepdic.com/biorhyth.html (http://www.skepdic.com/biorhyth.html)
Of course we have had a moderate free congress a cupple of times before.
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/The_Caning_of_Senator_Charles_Sumner.htm (http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/The_Caning_of_Senator_Charles_Sumner.htm)(http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/graphic/large/CaningSumner.jpg)
(http://www.charlestonguidebook.com/Test/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/raisincane.jpg)http://www.charlestonguidebook.com/features/prelude-to-disaster/ (http://www.charlestonguidebook.com/features/prelude-to-disaster/)
http://history1800s.about.com/od/abolitionmovement/a/sumnerbeaten.htm (http://history1800s.about.com/od/abolitionmovement/a/sumnerbeaten.htm)
-
Oh yeah i forgot Scott Brown and the other Maine Sister is Susan Collins.
But i guess all depends on the definition of moderate.
Center Right
Romney Huntsman Paul Gingrich Cain Perry Santorum Bachmann
-
Center Right
Romney Huntsman Paul Gingrich Cain Perry Santorum Bachmann
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
Are they trying to occupy these positions , or is there some effort to get to the center?
-
The extremes get you nowhere. Cuba, failed. The Soviet Union, failed. China before it adopted a free market economy, getting nowhere fast. North Korea, failed. Nazi Germany, failed. Fascist Italy, failed. Nations governed, ostensibly, by Islamic law, crumbling towards failure.
The problem with congress right now is its inability to find meaningful compromise, not its lack of extremes. In fact it is the extremes that have rendered it a failure. The question is can it overcome this failure or do we need to adopt a system like the Brits perhaps?
BSB
-
The extremes get you nowhere. Cuba, failed. The Soviet Union, failed. China before it adopted a free market economy, getting nowhere fast. North Korea, failed. Nazi Germany, failed. Fascist Italy, failed. Nations governed, ostensibly, by Islamic law, crumbling towards failure.
The problem with congress right now is its inability to find meaningful compromise, not its lack of extremes. In fact it is the extremes that have rendered it a failure. The question is can it overcome this failure or do we need to adopt a system like the Brits perhaps?
BSB
Actually a leader makes all the difference in the world. Too bad you voted for Obama because he isn't a leader. He lacks every single quality that a leader should possess. You of all people should have been able to recognize that fact. But then again you voted for Obama only to piss off racists not to elect a responsible leader that had the abilities to move our nation in the right direction.
-
Center Right
Romney Huntsman Paul Gingrich Cain Perry Santorum Bachmann
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
Are they trying to occupy these positions , or is there some effort to get to the center?
I have no idea where they would position themselves. This is just a rough estimate as to where i would put them.
And it really depends on the definitions of moderate and conservative. for example if the role of government is the decision point:
| More Government |
Less Government |
| Bachmann |
Santorum |
Romney |
Huntsman |
Perry |
Gingrich |
Cain |
Paul |
-
Center Right
Romney Huntsman Paul Gingrich Cain Perry Santorum Bachmann
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
Are they trying to occupy these positions , or is there some effort to get to the center?
I have no idea where they would position themselves. This is just a rough estimate as to where i would put them.
And it really depends on the definitions of moderate and conservative. for example if the role of government is the decision point:
<table border=\"1\" cellpadding=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" style=\"border-collapse: collapse\" bordercolor=\"#111111\" width=\"100%\" id=\"AutoNumber1\">
<tr>
<td width=\"50%\">More Government</td>
<td width=\"50%\">
<p align=\"right\">Less Government</td>
</tr>
</table>
<table border=\"1\" cellpadding=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" style=\"border-collapse: collapse\" bordercolor=\"#111111\" width=\"100%\" id=\"AutoNumber2\">
<tr>
<td width=\"12%\">Bachmann</td>
<td width=\"12%\">Santorum</td>
<td width=\"12%\">Romney</td>
<td width=\"12%\">Huntsman</td>
<td width=\"13%\">Perry</td>
<td width=\"13%\">Gingrich</td>
<td width=\"13%\">Cain</td>
<td width=\"13%\">Paul</td>
</tr>
</table>
if that is correct then either Cain or Newt will be the next president.
-
Why are all moderates Democrats?
I never said they were. But it was the Democratic moderates that prevented Obama from forcing through a health-care reform with a public option after ALL the GOP "moderates" (and IIRC, there were only two or three of them) baled on him.
-
It isn't correct. Neither will get the nomination, becaus
e personalities count for more than some abstract nonsense about who is right, center or left.
Gingrich is a hated smartaleck, Cain is a blowhard crackpot.
Watch them lose.
-
It isn't correct. Neither will get the nomination, becaus
e personalities count for more than some abstract nonsense about who is right, center or left.
Gingrich is a hated smartaleck, Cain is a blowhard crackpot.
Watch them lose.
I'll take my chances with either of them.
-
Obama, and congress, caved to the money carrying lobbyists, not to the moderate Democrats. While we got short changed I can assure you none of them did.
BSB
-
<<Obama, and congress, caved to the money carrying lobbyists, not to the moderate Democrats. While we got short changed I can assure you none of them did. >>
So who did the moderate Democrats take their orders from? The same lobbyists that give Obama his orders.
If Obama had wanted to buck the lobby, he would have had to go for the original proposal with[ the public option, watch the GOP shoot it down with the help of the moderate Democrats, and THEN (1) moved to turf the "moderates" from the Democratic Party and (2) positioned the Democrats without the moderates to run against "the Party of Wall Street."
Obviously, Obama has no desire to buck the lobby. As I think the Occupy! people have seen from the start, Obama and the Democrats generally are as much a part of the problem as the GOP. Both have been corrupted by the same special interests, including Wall Street and the biggest corporations.
-
I'll take my chances with either of them.
=================================
Unlikely in the extreme that you will have the chance to vote for them, except as write ins.
Gingrich has absolutely zero chance. Cain is 90 to one against getting the nomination, at least.
-
"Democrats generally are as much a part of the problem as the GOP."
Of Course. Obama and crowd are trying to blame the GOP for the gridlock in congress. Nonsense. The democrats are just as responsible.
The real problem is the cynicism it provokes in the rest of the country. A populace that presents a healthy amount of skepticism is a good thing for a nation, but cynicism is a different animal. Too much of the latter is a bad thing.
BSB
-
The Occupy! people seem to be disillusioned, not cynical. Cynical people are like me - - we sit on our ass, pick out all the flaws in the system and do jack-shit to fix the situation except bitch about it when the spirit moves.
Occupy Wall Street! seems to recognize that the system, however well it may have worked in the distant past, is kaputt. FUBAR. They know it can't be fixed and so they are not bothering to try to fix it in the traditional ways - - i.e., offering themselves as "change" candidates or going out and busting their ass for whoever promises hope and change. Been there, done that. Fool me once . . . etc. What they are saying is, the system can't be fixed, we need a new one. And in the general assemblies (the models for which came from Madrid and Athens, but which show echoes of the Columbia Strike and the Parisian Days of May of 1968 and even earlier models - - the workers' and peasants' soviets of 1917) they are engaged in a democratic, deliberative process to try to determine the way forward. This may take some time.
I think these guys have seen some truths that the general American public is slow to realize - - that not only is the system fucked, but it has passed the point of no return. In other words, the same special interests that have corrupted (bought and paid for) both political parties and their leading candidates have also succeeded over a thirty-year period in abolishing the legal restrictions (including anti-trust legislation) on media consolidation (the landmark moment there being IMHO when the prohibitions were removed that prevented a newspaper from owning a TV station and vice versa) and have been so successful in their endeavours that - - as Chris Hedges pointed out in one of his interviews - - there are about six corporations now that control almost everything that reaches the eyes and ears of the average American citizen. IMHO, the corporations that own the media )and more importantly, their own corporate owners) may or may not actually set the national agenda, but they sure as hell vet the access of those who want to. The result is a stranglehold on national debate, wherein some subjects are taboo, some candidates or commentators are persona non grata and in general the national agenda is set within a certain very narrow set of permitted parameters. Since the same corporate interests that control the media now also have the leglislature (both houses) firmly in their pockets, nothing is going to change within the system as it now is.
I think the demonstrators are very far from cynical. By their very presence on the streets, they are indicating that they believe the system CAN change for the better, even though they don't know yet HOW it can change. This is what's under debate in the hundreds of general assemblies across the nation as we speak. Interesting that they expect no meaningful debate to be possible in Congress, which I think it's fair to say they have given up on, so they are going out and organizing the debate themselves. That somehow struck me as very American. Not George Bush American or Obama American but real American, something I haven't seen in a long, long time.
Personally, I think the movement, unfortunately, will fail. It will fail in any one of the ways that I have gone through in my prior posts. But that's because I'm a cynic. I'm a bitter, cynical old man. I've seen it all. It all doesn't have to end the way I think it will end. (But of course it will.) The people in the streets are great people - - truly America's best. But America has a habit of crushing out its best, beating them down to make room for its worst, and whatever past successes reformist movements have had, I think the walls have narrowed so much on them in the past thirty or forty years that it's now practically impossible for them to make any headway. This movement, for all its promise, will peter out in the end.
-
The problem with congress right now is its inability to find meaningful compromise, not its lack of extremes. In fact it is the extremes that have rendered it a failure.
BSB
Truth. Gospel Truth.
-
. . . whatever past successes reformist movements have had, I think the walls have narrowed so much on them in the past thirty or forty years that it's now practically impossible for them to make any headway. This movement, for all its promise, will peter out in the end.
And more truth. Our founders wisely made it difficult to radically change things in this country. The problem is, through the law of unintended consequences, that stability has evolved into immobility. The biggest obstacle to real change in this country is exactly what the partisans on both sides say it is: The parasites on the bottom of the economic ladder and the predators on the top. The rest of us are caught in the middle trying to avoid getting infected by the former or eaten by the latter.
-
"The Occupy! people seem to be disillusioned, not cynical."
I didn't say anything about "The Occupy! people". I wasn't either referring to them or not referring to them. I was talking about this country in general. What you think, however, is irrelevant to me because A) You're a Snowblower B) You're a Snowblower and C) You're a Snowblower.
Nothing personal you understand, strickly business.
BSB
-
You should read what I write anyway cuz (a) I'm smarter than you, (b) I'm much smarter than you and (c) I'm way smarter than you.
Nothing personal about that, either.
-
The parasites on the bottom of the economic ladder and the predators on the top. The rest of us are caught in the middle trying to avoid getting infected by the former or eaten by the latter.
=====================================================
True, except that the threat from the alleged "parasites" is minor. How do they infect anyone?
It is easy for the mega rich to devise clever ways with the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation, among others to infect the lumpenproletariat with their propaganda.
Move On and a few unions are far less effective, because they lack the money and the press is largely bought off.
-
The parasites on the bottom of the economic ladder and the predators on the top. The rest of us are caught in the middle trying to avoid getting infected by the former or eaten by the latter.=====================================================
True, except that the threat from the alleged "parasites" is minor. How do they infect anyone?
Anyone who has a grasp of biology know that parasites can render the body, not just diseased, but dead. Some of the smallest organisms known to man, can kill.
Move On and a few unions are far less effective, because they lack the money and the press is largely bought off.
A) there's no lack of $$$$ with unions. They are a very powerful force, with the $$$$'s they can take in dues from their members, and use towards all forms of political endeavors. Jerry Brown owes his soul to the Unions, here in CA, as they largely bankrolled his campaign Whether its in advertising, donations, of "wink wink*, quid pro quo arrangements, your effort to reduce their power is poorly crafted.
B) The press loves Obama...the press saturates the airwaves with favorable coverage of the OWS group and Dems in particular. Not sure who you think is "buying them off", unless its some hidden DNC or Union effort
-
<<Anyone who has a grasp of biology know that parasites can render the body, not just diseased, but dead. Some of the smallest organisms known to man, can kill. >>
Well, if anyone wanted to know the dangers of taking a metaphor too far in a political argument, there you have the classic example.
XO, I think for some audiences, it's best to avoid any kind of figurative speech and deal strictly in concrete realities, short sentences and short words. AND don't go near any of those Occupy! rallies without your Hazmat suit.
-
<<Anyone who has a grasp of biology know that parasites can render the body, not just diseased, but dead. Some of the smallest organisms known to man, can kill. >>
Well, if anyone wanted to know the dangers of taking a metaphor too far in a political argument, there you have the classic example.
NOT, when the question is the analogy of parasites that Xo was referencing, in which case the reference is accurate to the discussion regarding politics. Pooch's point of parasites that are at the bottom of society, that feed off, multiply, and devour everything above them, with no thought of the consequences of their actions. They just do
Nice try though
-
sirs, there's a fine line between stupidity and insanity. Try to stay on the side of stupidity.
The "parasites" at the bottom of the societal ladder are NOT going to eat you or infect you. The very worst they can do to you is to degenerate into such a hopeless state of dependency that you might have to shell out a few more bucks in tax dollars for extra welfare benefits and police services.
The few meagre bucks that they can extract from the taxpayers pales into insignificance when compared to the looting of the Treasury and the economy by Wall Street and corporate America.
-
See, here's your problem, with that latest spinning of your hamster cage wheel
- The adopting of the Xo school of responding with insults is very unbecoming of someone who thinks themself superior. So best put that back in your dresser
- My notion of parasites (and likely pooch's, though i'll let him clarify his position himself) and yours is decidely different, so don't try applying your definition, to mine, and respond as such
-
XO, I think for some audiences, it's best to avoid any kind of figurative speech and deal strictly in concrete realities, short sentences and short words.
======================================================================
I agree entirely. It is like passing out fingerpaints to the children just before they shoot the kindergarten class picture.
-
Try not to make a mess, then.
Uncle Thomas Sowell is hardly any authority on Black people
Oooops, too late
-
Obama, and congress, caved to the money carrying lobbyists, not to the moderate Democrats. While we got short changed I can assure you none of them did.
BSB
Geepers I never ever would have figured that one out without you spelling it out so succinctly!
-
sirs, there's a fine line between stupidity and insanity. Try to stay on the side of stupidity.
The "parasites" at the bottom of the societal ladder are NOT going to eat you or infect you. The very worst they can do to you is to degenerate into such a hopeless state of dependency that you might have to shell out a few more bucks in tax dollars for extra welfare benefits and police services. The few meagre bucks that they can extract from the taxpayers pales into insignificance when compared to the looting of the Treasury and the economy by Wall Street and corporate America.
See how close you are to understanding?
Just this close.
If you combined the costs of social services, prisons and police, what part of the budget would be larger right now?
-
<<If you combined the costs of social services, prisons and police, what part of the budget would be larger right now?>>
It's not a relevant question for comparing the costs of the predators at the top versus the parasites at the bottom, because the predators have even got their paws into the prison system now. Falsely billed to the parasites, large portions of the prison expenses are actually paid out as profit to the giant corporations which own the for-profit prisons, and multiplying the cost burden of the prison system as a whole by lobbying to maintain laws mandating prison terms for non-violent offenders and the perpetrators of victimless crimes.
So even big chunks of the prison system expenditures really can be chalked up to the predators at the top.
As for the rest of the expenses attributable to the "parasites" how many are due to ill health caused by the predators' lobbying against health care reform for decades? Probably most of it. How much are due to the sicknesses related to alcohol and tobacco, again protected by billion-dollar lobbies?
How much of "parasites'" cost is due to stolen (off-shored) American jobs sacrificed to corporate America? How much die to theft of pensions and life savings by corporate and Wall Street criminals>
Let's hope, for your sake, there are some "parasite" expenses still left over that CAN'T be attributed to corporate and Wall Street greed and crime.. Those remaining expenses would be totally dwarfed by the current on-going costs of the Bush wars.
-
Social services is already the biggest part of the Federal budget , and the portion is even bigger if the States are added in.
I am not worried about preditory behavior top or bottom , I am worried more about a huge system that is making us all dependant on it, it will make parasites of us all eventually.
-
plane, the "parasites at the bottom, predators at the top" paradigm was Pooches, who stated or inferred that the threat from both ends was more or less equal.
Most if not all of my posts that followed that were directed towards dispelling what I considered to be the false notion that the threats from both ends were equal. From a class-war perspective (which IMHO is the only meaningful and realistic way to assess what's going on in the U.S.A. and has been for decades now if not forever) it is the elite at the top (metaphorically dubbed "the 1%,") who have obviously concentrated most of the power in their hands through consolidation of media ownership, financial and commercial interests, and outright bribery of politicians, either in the form of "legitimate" or illegitimate payoffs. The "power" of the parasitical bottom ranks (jobless, sick, dying, often through no fault of their own and almost invariably due to class-war policies aided by demagoguery) is largely mythical, another straw man developed by the 1%'s propaganda to divert the nation's consciousness away from correct class-war analysis of the problem.
-
It is the nature of power to consolidate , as dewdrops on a windowpane .
How would you prevent it?
In most nations the powerfull are an even smaller number than 1%.
-
<<It is the nature of power to consolidate . . .
<<How would you prevent it?>>
I'd make the FCC a lot more accountable than it is now, when it's run for the benefit of the broadcasting industry and not the public. Its decisions are responsible for the degree of media consolidation that you see today, it is NOT the result of natural forces like dewdrops on a windowpane in your absurd analogy.
I'd strengthen existing antitrust legislation to the point where the current degree of media consolidation was reversed or if necessary write new legislation specifically aimed at the MSM to break 'em all up, although I think in this case the FCC may already have the powers it needs, it's just a case of the corporations corrupting the politicians who make the appointments to the FCC and probably can tinker with its rules if needed.
Short answer is the system is the result of media concentration and the system has the power to reverse it. But as long as the special interests (including Wall Street and corporate America) control the politicians through campaign funding and under-the-table pay-offs, you are not going to see any significant changes in media consolidation.
<<In most nations the powerfull are an even smaller number than 1%.>>
Without suipportive data, that is just pure meaningless bullshit. As far as I can tell, any studies about concentration of wealth shows the USA far ahead (i.e., more wealth-concentrated) than any other Western or industrialized country, but I wouldn't crawl out on a limb the way you just did without any kind of supporting data.
-
Plane actually helping to reinforce a point I made quite a while back. While the left, libs, Socialists, and Communists attempt to decry greed and money as the evil of all evils, the true evil is power.....the power to dictate who, what, when, how much, how little, anyone can do, earn, be allowed to... whatever.
It's one thing to have laws to defend one person from infringing on the rights of another. Quite another kettle of fish, when you have a 3rd party power (the Government, be it led by a King, Dictator, or Party), have such power to tell you where you can and can't live, what you can and can't own, how much you can and can't make, what you can and can't eat (not because its supposedly cancer causing, but because you might get fat). Even getting to the point on how much carbon dioxide one is allowed, or have to pay for extra carbon credits
The true evil is Power, and its what the hard left craves. Not that there aren't any RW extremists that would want to use the Government to enforce their version of morals, but they are exponentially far fewer than what the current crop of leftists in the country inhabit, in Government
-
<<The true evil is Power, and its what the hard left craves. Not that there aren't any RW extremists that would want to use the Government to enforce their version of morals, but they are exponentially far fewer than what the current crop of leftists in the country inhabit, in Government>>
So right in the abstract, so wrong on the facts.
Power today is exercised by special monied interests but sirs can't see it that way, since he equates money with virtue in almost every case although I would guess that even sirs would find something objectionable in the wealth, say, of organized crime or certain individuals like George Soros.
sirs has no concept of class-war realities, probably because he denies the very existence of the class war, and so is unable to see that the monied power exercised at the top of the economic ladder is exercised by his own class enemies.
I think in sirs we have a perfect example of the Left's failure to preach class war realities in America, not only converting many in the war to support the interests most antithetical to their own, but to blind them to the existence of the class war itself. This is a huge surrender to the power of the MSM and the educational establishment. So far as I can tell, only a token spirited effort to preach the realities of the class war has ever been made, a lot of it in comic book or graphic novel form. This is an area where the Left has to come to grips with its own failures and stop blaming the MSM for their own impotence.
-
I doubt anyone on these boards is naive enough to state categorically that there is no class warfare. The disagreement resides in definition and justification.
-
<<I doubt anyone on these boards is naive enough to state categorically that there is no class warfare. >>
Wouldn't surprise me to find more than one.
<<The disagreement resides in definition . . . >>
Not being an expert, I just start with the basic Marxist definitions and stand ready to be corrected if anyone has made any valid modifications in them in the past 150 years.
<< . . . and justification. >>
Justification? I don't think even Marx asked for a "justification." I thought class war was just accepted as the natural state of things in a pre-socialist industrialized world.
-
<<The disagreement resides in definition . . . >>
Not being an expert, I just start with the basic Marxist definitions and stand ready to be corrected if anyone has made any valid modifications in them in the past 150 years.
"How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin."...........Ronald Reagan
-
Here's some realities for Tee, that he and his fellow leftists/marxists/socialists don't get. No, you're not smarter than the rest of us. No, you're got going to change this nation into a socialist one, much less a communist one. Freedom is just that damn important to us. It was ingrained into our DNA and allowed to take root when the founders established this nation, and provided us a Constitution by which to govern.
I realize that those words, in our Constitution means squat to you. I realize you think America is this terrorist nation. Anything that you can conclude to justify that template is on your table, be it simply calling those you disagree with fascists, calling people of another race vile names, because they don't agree with your twisted ideology, be it calling for revolution, be it civil or armed. Ends justify your means.
Problem
Too many of us who believe in that freedom, in the Constitution, AND ARMED. So you can rant, rave, call us all kinds of names, its going to get you no where, outside of an ulcer perhaps, and a 10month wait to be treated for it. But knock your socks off
-
<<Here's some realities for Tee, that he and his fellow leftists/marxists/socialists don't get. No, you're not smarter than the rest of us. >>
Everything I see indicates the contrary. Sorry, sirs.
<<No, you're got going to change this nation into a socialist one, much less a communist one. >>
Probably not in the immediate future. You're much likelier to get a fascist one, in fact you're already well on the way there.
<<Freedom is just that damn important to us. It was ingrained into our DNA and allowed to take root when the founders established this nation, and provided us a Constitution by which to govern.>>
Oh, yes, of course anyone can see how "freedom" is so damn important to you. So damn important that it took a civil war to abolish slavery and another hundred years to put a legal end to Jim Crow and lynch law all across the south. You are so full of shit that I think you will need to have a sewage disposal facilityi all to yourself. So important to you that you have spent billions in the overthrow of democratically elected governments from Guatemala to Chile. As we speak your "freedom loving" government is engaged in the monitoring of millions of private conversations, internet political discussions and has Bradley Manning incarcerated under inhuman conditions in total defiance of habeas corpus for releasing information about your government's nefarious activities and crimes all over the world. Yeah you love freedom and it's ingrained in your DNA. Know what's ingrained in your DNA really? Tons and tons and tons of lying bullshit, THAT'S what's embedded in your DNA. Plus an infinite capacity for self-deception.
<<I realize that those words, in our Constitution means squat to you. >>
Really? Know who your Constitution really means squat to? Your fucking PRESIDENT, that's who, who thinks he can wage war without the approval of Congress. Your dip-shit Congress who sit silently and watch with their thumbs up their own asses as your "President" strips them of their Constitutional power to take the nation into war. Your President who takes it upon himself to murder American citizens without due process of law in total defiance of their Constitutional Fifth Amendment rights to due process. How can you write the shit that you do? Are you totally ignorant of every fucking thing that happens around you, or are you just too careless to think about the crap that you write?
<<I realize you think America is this terrorist nation. >>
No shit, Sherlock. And what do YOU think? That it's a peace-loving, law-abiding nation?
<<Anything that you can conclude to justify that template is on your table, be it simply calling those you disagree with fascists . . . >>
Yeah, so just out of curiosity, sirs, what do YOU call people you disagree with? I'll give you a reasonable chance to honour the challenge and then I'll save you the trouble by scrolling through your recent posts to answer the question for you.
<< . . . calling people of another race vile names, because they don't agree with your twisted ideology, >>
We've been through this before many times and anyone who claims that I call Sowell, Cain or anyone else an "Uncle Tom" simply because they don't agree with my ideology is just plain full of shit. I don't propose to argue this point any more, simply because it's absurd.
<< . . .be it calling for revolution, be it civil or armed. >>
I don't really call for it, just that, given the failure of democracy AND capitalism at the same time, it seems obvious to me that only a revolution can change the system. It'll happen in the fullness of history. It's inevitable.
<<Ends justify your means.>>
Fair enough. My means don't include torture, they don't include a number of crimes and atrocities that fascism eagerly resorted to, but the means I endorse ("my" means) are in fact justified by the ends. I guess in your own case, waterboarding, "collateral" civilian damage, breach of UN Convention obligations, spying on US citizens, murder without due process of US citizens, etc., are all means that you yourself would justify by their ends, so it's a little puzzling how your finger winds up pointing at ME in indignant accusation that ends justify MY means. You're like BSB, you should be looking in the mirror when you make your ludicrous accusations.
Problem
Too many of us who believe in that freedom, in the Constitution, AND ARMED. So you can rant, rave, call us all kinds of names, its going to get you no where, outside of an ulcer perhaps, and a 10month wait to be treated for it. But knock your socks off
-
<<Here's some realities for Tee, that he and his fellow leftists/marxists/socialists don't get. No, you're not smarter than the rest of us. >>
Everything I see indicates the contrary. Sorry, sirs.
The 1st step in recovery is clearly evident
<<No, you're got going to change this nation into a socialist one, much less a communist one. >>
Probably not in the immediate future. You're much likelier to get a fascist one, in fact you're already well on the way there.
Not in the latter future, not in any future, and damn sure not going to be a Fascist one either
<<Freedom is just that damn important to us. It was ingrained into our DNA and allowed to take root when the founders established this nation, and provided us a Constitution by which to govern.>>
Oh, yes, of course anyone can see how "freedom" is so damn important to you.
Yep. The rest of our "history lesson" demonstrates precisely the steps it took to get us this far, thank you very much
<<I realize that those words, in our Constitution means squat to you. >>
Really? Know who your Constitution really means squat to?
I think I already answered that......socialists and communists.....folks like yourself. But cudos on the repetative cursing, and yea, you're right, Obama's not too keen on it either. But then again, he has to play the part of an American who supposedly does, while functioning as a socialist who merely sees it as an obstruction
<< . . . calling people of another race vile names, because they don't agree with your twisted ideology, >>
We've been through this before many times and anyone who claims that I call Sowell, Cain or anyone else an "Uncle Tom" simply because they don't agree with my ideology is just plain full of shit. I don't propose to argue this point any more, simply because it's absurd.
Yes, reality and facts to a die-hard toe tagged liberal....kryptonite to superman. Yea, we have gone over that already, red is blue, yada yada
<< . . .be it calling for revolution, be it civil or armed. >>
I don't really call for it, just that, given the failure of democracy AND capitalism at the same time, it seems obvious to me that only a revolution can change the system. It'll happen in the fullness of history. It's inevitable.
See what I mean?
<<Ends justify your means.>>
Fair enough. My means don't include torture, they don't include a number of crimes and atrocities that fascism eagerly resorted to, but the means I endorse ("my" means) are in fact justified by the ends.
They include anything and everything to support "the revolution". Do we need to go into the millions killed under Stalin? They include anything and everything for the cause, and if it required torture, you'd be all over it like flies to crap
-
<< . . . and if it required torture, you'd be all over it like flies to crap>>
LOL. I'm afraid the record so far shows otherwise. YOU'RE the guy who endorsed waterboarding, simply by refusing to admit that it's torture, whereas I rightly condemned it as torture. So if I wouldn't even justify waterboarding, as you have, how could I possibly go for torture when I won't even waterboard?
Seems to me, sirs, that YOU are the "Superman" to whom the FACTS are Kryptonite. How you gonna get out of this one, Superman?
-
You're right, I don't have a problem with a technique that does no physical damage, no dismemberment, no disfiguration, and causes no death. I'm sure you'll get back to us with evidence of my support of ACTUAL tortures. Can't say the same for the likes of Stalin now, can we. Oh that's right, its not torture you advocate in support of the Revolution. If they don't join, or are impeding in any way, you just support mass killing. ahhh, my bad
-
I'm amazed to see that you're so fucking arrogant that you think you can create your own definition of "torture." Unfortunately for your megalomaniac delusions of grandeur, the United Nations Convention Against Torture ("UNCAT") which your own country has signed and ratified, has already defined "torture" and believe it or not, did not adopt the King Sirs definition. I'm sure you will be surpised to learn that the official definition of torture, binding upon your own government by its own free will, DOES NOT REQUIRE " physical damage, . . . dismemberment . . .disfiguration, [or] death' and seems to cover waterboarding pretty well.
However, apart from your rather bizarre definitions of what does or doesn't constitute torture, I was kind of interested in the pathetic excuse for logic that seems to be governing your disjointed thinking process. For example, let's say that waterboarding weren't torture, as you have been contending all along. How do you get from me not even countenancing the "non-torture" of waterboarding (which you are perfectly OK with) to approving torture as one of my means? Get it? How do I get from a rejection of waterboarding to an approval of torture?
Come on, Superman, THAT is the Kryptonite in your path, let's see how you get over it.
-
As ususal, you're so arrogant in thinking you are the end all be all to what is, is, you purposely will try to blur torture, where someone being made to wear women's underwear, listen to loud music, or made to feel like their drowning, equates to having fingers dislocated, jaws broken, tongues ripped out, skinned burned. Yea, they're analogus
All the while we're to ignore your suport of far more egregious acts, such as killing, in the name and support of the revolution. Sorry, not fooling the rationally minded here
-
LMFAO. Well, at least we know that sirs, while absolutely and totally incapable of providing any logical explanation for the dilemma into which his own big mouth and foolishness have led him, has still not lost his capacity to spew out more illogical bullshit like a squid discharging ink.
In illustration of which, I reproduce below his "answer" to the question of how a guy who won't even support waterboarding will support torture, of which sirs' examples are "tongues ripped out," "skinning" and "burning." Here's what sirs says - - IN FULL - - when challenged to explain how a guy who won't even waterboard gets to ripping out tongues, burning and skinning people: (in italics)
As ususal, you're so arrogant in thinking you are the end all be all to what is, is, you purposely will try to blur torture, where someone being made to wear women's underwear, listen to loud music, or made to feel like their drowning, equates to having fingers dislocated, jaws broken, tongues ripped out, skinned burned. Yea, they're analogus
All the while we're to ignore your suport of far more egregious acts, such as killing, in the name and support of the revolution. Sorry, not fooling the rationally minded here
Yep, that's it, folks. That's the WHOLE of sirs' answer to a challenge to explain how someone like me, who wouldn't even waterboard anyone, can be accused of wanting to "torture" anyone. To debate sirs is truly to enter the Theatre of the Absurd.
(It's also an example of the lunatic ability of sirs to attempt to define "torture" in his own terms, when the term has already been defined for him by the international community INCLUDING USA in the UN's Convention Against Torture, a definition which, strangely, failed or neglected to use ANY of the terms that sirs used to define it. Now how could that be?)
sirs, in all seriousness here, I would like to commend and thank you for playing the game right through to the end. You're a good sport and not a quitter. You had a logically indefensible position to defend and instead of walking away from it or descending into personal insult, you did the best you could and played it out. And in a decent and respectable manner. Thank you. Hope I wasn't too hard on you in my conclusions, which were not meant to be taken literally.
MT
-
Everyone notice Tee's transparent dodge as well?? 8)