| Author |
Message |
    
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 924
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 11:30 am: | 
|
Regardless, going back to the political strategy that the Democrats are considering - it's stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid. (You don't think so? Look at who gives it the thumbs up - committed Republicans. Who know of course, that this is even more of a loser strategy for Dems than their past inept plans).
No one who is a staunchly anti-abortion voter is going to come around to the Democrats if they "redefine" their position on this issue. If the Democratic Party continues to believe the way to electoral success is to emulate the Republicans' positions on issues, it may be time for them to cease to exist, and be replaced by a party that provides a clear and consistent alternative to the Republican Party. |
Chris Prenovost
Citizen
Username: Chris_prenovost
Post Number: 186
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 12:04 pm: |
|
Lydia, how dare you be so sensible and logical about such an emotional issue?
Please do not participate in this thread unless you are going to foam at the mouth and assault everyone in sight. For anything, real or imagined. |
Brett Weir
Citizen
Username: Brett_weir
Post Number: 503
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 3:19 pm: |
|
This is the biggest problem with discussions about abortion- no room for discussion.
About 10 % of the voting population is rabidly Pro-Life with no thought of any discussion otherwise. And...
About 10 % of the voting population is rabidly Pro-Choice with no thought of any discussion otherwise. AND...
About 80 % of the voting population is somewhere in between allowing these two factions to bully them senseless.
There are discussions within this issue worth exploring, but we never get passed the two Bullies. |
shestheone
Citizen
Username: Shestheone
Post Number: 111
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 3:26 pm: |
|
Brett,
Please cite your source for these #s. |
Brett Weir
Citizen
Username: Brett_weir
Post Number: 504
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 5:42 pm: |
|
Shestheone,
You missed my point- it's not about "numbers" (they're made up!), it's about DISCUSSION.
My point is that most adults can sit in a group and discuss the issue, regardless of their own position, and allow others to do the same. However, as soon one or the other of the two extremes gets involved you can't even discuss divergent ideas- because they shout you down before you can get a complete sentence formed.
And both of these extreme factions devote so much of their energies to shouting down anyone who deviates from their platform, however slightly, that it makes any forum for discussion dry up immediately.
It is easier to talk race, religion, gender-equality and gay rights collectively than it is to discuss abortion. And any political discussion on another topic can be almost instantly derailed if abortion is introduced to the conversation.
I wouldn't presume to tell anyone what to believe about abortion, yet these vocal minorities will force-feed you their party line before you can even be introduced.
My source- forty years of non-discussion on abortion. |
Lydia
Citizen
Username: Lydial
Post Number: 811
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 6:05 pm: |
|
Chris P - thanks for the warning!
A fetus does have value in my opinion, and it's growing inside a woman whose wishes also have value.
In my opinion the wishes of the woman outweigh the potential growth of the fetus.
It isn't "murder" to abort a fetus. Much in the same way that digging up a germinated seed isn't chopping down a tree.
I doubt there are many woman who opt for an abortion who take the decision lightly, but if they do take the decision lightly, it's nobody's business but their own and the father.
I think too many people are cavalier about having a child, and that's a bigger problem in our country then women deciding to have abortions.
|
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 537
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 10:40 pm: |
|
Lydia,
Actually, it's none of the father's business either. He's a man. And he probably raped her anyway. It's what we men do. |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 538
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 10:52 pm: |
|
But more seriously, Lydia, I agree almost completely with your opinion. My problem is exactly what we experienced with lizziecat, and what Brett describes.
It's because the discussion often gets cut short that things get so ugly. I find, like Brett, that there is no subject I would rather avoid in converation than abortion, because simply having an opinion can turn an otherwise normal discussion into a bloodbath. |
Chris Prenovost
Citizen
Username: Chris_prenovost
Post Number: 187
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 12:22 pm: |
|
To go back to the original thread. . . .
The democratic party will not gain any significant voter blocks by waffling on the issue of abortion. On the contrary, they will pick up significant traction if they remain pro-choice and the republicans do something remarkably foolish like trying to ban all abortions. Which many in the party want to do.
Do you want an issue that will resonate? Try fiscal responsibility. Bush inherited a $320 billion surplus from that amoral liar Clinton, and turned it into a $455 billion dollar deficit. The republicans have taken one of their core values and thrown it out the window.
When the baby boomers find that their social security trust funds do not exist, and that federal interest expenses to cover the previous deficits are eating up any remaining income, there will be hell to pay. This will happen within the next ten years, some would say it is beginning now.
Now this is an issue for the democrats to grab. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 4932
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 12:47 pm: |
|
One unfortunately cynical point is that an organization's primary purpose is to survive, beyond any mission statement. The March of Dimes's purpose was to find a cure for polio. We found one, and the MoD didn't disband itself. Now its mission is the broader scope of birth defects. |
Mark Fuhrman
Citizen
Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 1034
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 2:03 pm: |
|
Tom: It is not a cynical point to realize that social movement orgs need resources to fulfill their mission--money, volunteers, staff, access to media, etc. No staff, no organization, and no efforts to fulfill the mission.
The MoD was one of the rare ones that was able to successfully shift its focus and still attract resources. Most orgs are unable to maintain the flow of resources and go out of business.
Then again, most activists tend to move from one org to the next, on both the right and the left. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 4941
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 2:07 pm: |
|
But it would be a cynical observation if the Democratic party were to toe a new party line not because it believed it but just for the votes. |
Mark Fuhrman
Citizen
Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 1035
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 3:06 pm: |
|
I see it more like they have reached the end of their ideology and need to rediscover it. What I have said on this and other threads is that the the Dems have reached an endpoint and need to refocus the message so that it has traction with the public. The Repubs did this after 1964 but it was organic, from the grass roots up, and took a long time to reach fruition. It is cynical if the Dems think they can do this overnight with a deft change of rhetoric. But if they want to be like the MoD or GOP, they need to fundamentally work on the core message, and communicate it succinctly and coherently. And to do that, they need to invigorate the grass roots more than once every 4 years, and be willing to let the grass roots challenge some of the holy beliefs. |
Cynicalgirl
Citizen
Username: Cynicalgirl
Post Number: 1024
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 31, 2004 - 7:07 am: |
|
I don't think promoting adoption would make a damned bit of difference. One would need to examine which populations are having abortions at what point in pregnancy in order to offer deterrents.
I don't know the numbers these days, but there's worlds of difference between a college woman choosing to have an abortion at 8 weeks, because she got accidentally pregnant, and a woman having an abortion at 14 weeks because genetic testing revealed abnormalities that she can't imagine dealing with. Now, you may argue on moral or religious grounds that both should carry the child to term and either raise it or surrender for adoption -- but availability of childcare is the tip of the iceberg so far as what it would take to raise the child. And don't forget that children of color, or mixed parentage, are far less likely to be adopted.
I think the best way to curb abortion is to educate the bejeezus out of kids about sex, and make contraception widely and easily available. I'm very bothered at the way we so readily accept and support ill-prepared parenthood, whether it's a couple with a pair of Burger King jobs between them, or a single woman of no apparent means. I am not of a right to life persuasion, but I am of a don't have kids until you can do it up right persuasion, morally and economically. As such, I believe that girls especially need to know exactly what they're in for when they have sex, an no excuses about how some guy got them drunk or whatever.
Culturally, we've made a fetish of Victoria's Secret, and sexually-charged/imaged girl singers, dance and similar, most aimed at high school kids. Yet we scarcely offer birth control, or we allow half-baked fears about birth control pills and methods to proliferate. What a crock!
So, relationship to the thread? Rather than softening the stance on abortion rights, which is caving even though my own feelings are murky, I'd rather see the Democratic party focus on contraceptive rights and universal availability, without embarrassment or obstacle. Staying childfree until appropriate circumstance is just as important as graduating high school so far as predicting life stability and future options.
|
Cynicalgirl
Citizen
Username: Cynicalgirl
Post Number: 1025
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 31, 2004 - 7:18 am: |
|
Check this month's Consumer Reports -- believe it or not -- for a bang-up article on contraceptive methods. Nice chart. Article title is about condom testing, and which ones are best, but there's a good chart survey of all the methods.
They should use it in health class. |
Mark Fuhrman
Citizen
Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 1039
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Friday, December 31, 2004 - 10:00 am: |
|
More thread drift: Have not read that Consumer Reports article, but in grad school I participated in a study that evaluated the real world effectiveness of birth control methods versus the clinical results done under perfectly controlled conditions. Condoms, which were clinically 97% effective, turned out to be more like 75% effective in real applications--they are not put on properly, are put on too late, get dried out and break, come off too soon--I am sure we all have horror stories. Diaphrams have similar problems, as do most mechanical devices (sponges, etc.). |
Cynicalgirl
Citizen
Username: Cynicalgirl
Post Number: 1026
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 31, 2004 - 10:25 am: |
|
I can't speak to the data, but this is exactly why I used birth control pills from 17 to 39 (like a lot of women my age). I think there's been tons of weird misinformation and scare tactics, particularly among the less educated, to determ usage. Plus, availability/affordability seems to be more of a challenge these days.
When I was a high schooler, you could lie a little and go to Planned Parenthood and get them for free or $2/pack. It was, absolutely, a right of passage and a damned fine reason why me and most of my friends did not end up pregnant. Kids on the move are not likely to use diaphrams. They need to use condoms these days, but I wish the young women were on the Pill as well if they're going to be "active." I know that ready availability of the Pill made a huge dent in early abortions for my sector of my generation (white, college bound, working to middle class). And no, I don't think we should require parental notification for distribution of birth control. While I've had that chat with my daughter, and in his own way my dad had it with me, for a lot of girls, the last thing they want to do is discuss their intention to have sex with their parents. Would be nice if they did I suppose, but not realistic.
But, on the original topic, I guess if the Democrats are trying to enlarge their tent, they probably need to get out of the sex business, period, and allow folks to differ in their views. But, if they feel the need to have a position, better to emphasize birth control than abortion rights. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 2947
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 1, 2005 - 3:10 pm: |
|
Democrats becoming tolerant -- this time of pro-lifers -- would do them a world of good, and because of that, I hope they don't. There are democrats (usually a small 'd') that are strongly pro-life and it is the extreme democrat position on abortion that pushes them over to the GOP.
If Democrats do this, it would also entail accepting people of faith into the party other than reliable church-going black voters who are asked for their votes and promptly forgotten after they are delivered.
|
Mark Fuhrman
Citizen
Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 1043
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, January 1, 2005 - 7:55 pm: |
|
Gimme a break--who are you to judge the faith of people in the Democratic Party, or even of people who may support abortion rights? There are plenty of people of "faith" that I know who are Democrats--and I mean the traditional Judeo-Christian faith, and not just African-Americans. Just because people have different positions than you does not mean they are not people of faith. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 2949
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 2, 2005 - 12:09 am: |
|
mf--what are you talking about? I'm not judging the veracity or quality of anyone's faith. I'm only stating the obvious -- that the Democratic Party is hostile to people of faith, and CERTAINLY hostile to pro-lifers who just might be democrats.
Lots of democrats you know are 'people of faith' as that term denotes? Tell me what the prayer was that was uttered at your political gathering then, and tell us if the person who uttered it made it out alive (figuratively speaking). |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 563
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, January 2, 2005 - 12:19 am: |
|
What do politics and religion have to do with each other? Why would a political gathering have a prayer at it? Do you say a prayer when you go to work? When you go to a conference for business? Of course not. So why would a political conference have one?
I don't say a prayer when I go to work, but that doesn't mean I hate religious or pious people. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 2950
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 2, 2005 - 12:50 am: |
|
Gosh, Rastro, why would religion and politics have anything to do with each other? I don't suppose that.....oh...the founding of this country had anything to do with it. Or to bring it more up to date for you, that congressional sessions are STARTED with a prayer. They've even got a position called "House Chaplain." And what's with the currency around here anyway?
I say a prayer when my feet hit the floor in the morning, and that's usually a direct run-up to and part of the process of my going to work.
So next time a Democrat stands up at a meeting of yours and offers a prayer, Rastro, please stop him and compassionately ask him what the hell he's doing and in so doing further my own political interests. |
sbenois
Citizen
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 12874
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, January 2, 2005 - 12:25 pm: |
|
It's not a pizza until it comes out of the oven. |
Mark Fuhrman
Citizen
Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 1047
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, January 2, 2005 - 12:41 pm: |
|
cjc, not sure why I bother to answer, but for the sake of veracity, yes, I have been with many ministers, priests, and rabbis at liberal and even radical political events over the years. They have come in their official capacities, dressed in clerical garb, and many have said prayers--which were respectfully received by all present, even agnostics. I have stood near the pulpit in Riverside Church where buddhist monks and Episcopal bishops prayed together for peace before anti-nuclear rallies. I have seen priests arrested at anti-war demonstrations, their collars crisp and clean as they are carried into paddy wagons. I have worked in soup kitchens run by the Catholic Worker movement, after which we have gone to local ward meetings to discuss social welfare issues. Several ministers and rabbis have served on the boards of local community development organizations that I worked for. In each and every instance, these were liberals, mainly Democratic-voting people, who were accepted and welcomed.
I have stood in the gallery when a Democratic majority led Congress has started the session with a prayer from the Congressional Chaplain, and no one on the floor turned their back or fell over dead.
There has always been a strong religious current running through American liberalism, but that current is buffered by a tolerance that understands that some people do not share a religious calling and there is a sensitivity to non-believers that you seem to interpret as an active disavowal of faith.
Only those who are incredibly insecure in their own faith would feel the need to have other people make public avowals in order to be seen as legitimate in their faith. |
anon
Citizen
Username: Anon
Post Number: 1558
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, January 2, 2005 - 1:11 pm: |
|
I was at the Town reorganization yesterday. Started with a prayer by Rev. Boyer of Prospect Presbyterian, later two more prayers by Muslim and Episcopalian clergy. It ended with a prayer by Rev. Boyer who invited the other two clergy and representatives of Judaism and Ethical Culture to join him. This was a governmental and political event. All 5 TC members are Democrats. I know that Mssrs. Huemer and Grodman are active in their churches. I know that the Mayor belongs to a church. Not sure about the other two.
So Rastro and cjc, what are the two of you talking about? Rastro, I'm sure that a lot of business meetings and conferences start with a prayer. I understand that it is standard practice in the Bible Belt. And cjc, what do you mean that the Dem Party is "hostile to people of faith". How about the Revs. Jackson and Sharpton. You might not like their politics, but they are "people of faith".
But how about Jimmy Carter, the Evangelical Christian who practices and lives his religion every day. . Even Bill Clinton went to Church all the time. John Kerry is a practicing Roman Catholic. The Dems nominated an Orthodox Jew for Vice-President! And how many true believing Muslim Americans, who dutifully pray three times a day voted for Kerry. I bet it was most of them.
You, the GOP, and the media, like to confuse "people of faith" with people of a right-wing very narrow, very exclusive definition of faith. And to bring this post full circle, you like to think that folks like Rastro are typical of Democrats. |
anon
Citizen
Username: Anon
Post Number: 1559
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, January 2, 2005 - 1:14 pm: |
|
I guess I was composing my post while Mark was posting. Mark, you said it better than I did. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 935
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 2, 2005 - 2:52 pm: |
|
I'm starting to think that "people of faith" must be shorthand for fundamentalist christians, and traditional Roman Catholics who oppose abortion and gay rights.
Because it seems to exclude devout Jewish people, and such "liberal" sects as the Episcopal Church or the Quakers, as well as African American christians, all of whom are not only welcome, but arguably comprise the backbone of American liberalism. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 2952
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 2, 2005 - 9:35 pm: |
|
Bill Clinton went to church a lot. I forgot about that, possibly because it seemed to be such an empty image. Am I judging his faith? Sure. Go ahead. Judge mine. It's all meaningless before the Ultimate Judge, and I could be wrong, but I doubt it.
And how beautiful that people start political meetings on the Left with a prayer sometimes. I guess the wackos that currently wag the tail of the Democrats weren't present or were talked out of pressing a lawsuit over same.
And I forgot about the part of the backbone of American Liberalism that resides in black churches which is respected for their resounding vote against gay marriage. Jesse and Al? They're tolerated so long as they deliver the vote. Soon as they don't -- they're out. Amen.
I don't for a minute think faith belongs only in one party, or that faith should have a home in a party. And I'm sure that the enlightened of Maplewood do welcome people of faith who skew left-- so long as they're not singing Christmas carols at a public outing or dare to menace the faithless who pull the strings of the Democrat leadership by declaring themselves. |
anon
Citizen
Username: Anon
Post Number: 1561
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, January 2, 2005 - 10:16 pm: |
|
The GOP is very welcoming to "people of faith", so long as it's not the recently appointed Episcopal Bishop who happens to be Gay.
Wackos in the Democratic Party? How about Republican wackos like Alan Keyes, Illinois Senate candidate who said it was a disgrace that Cheney's daughter is gay? How about the new Senator from Oklahoma who favors the death penalty for doctors who do abortions? How about Revs. Falwell and Robertson who said 9-11 was God's retribution for women's liberation and the ACLU? They seem to see America the same way Bin Laden does. And as long as we're talking about Christmas (weren't we?) I once heard Falwell say on TV that Jesus was from an affluent family, that that is why his they had to go to Bethlehem - to pay taxes on all the $ Joseph made and that the reason Jesus was born in a stable was simply that Joseph forgot to make reservations!
So who's are the Dem wackos? Kerry and Edwards? Maybe it's the new Dem Senate Leader, Harry Reid? You know the "pro-life" Mormon. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 2958
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 3, 2005 - 9:00 pm: |
|
Yeah...I'm just waiting for Reid's "sanctity of life' speech at the DNC in '08! Perhaps he'll dedicate it to the late Gov. Casey. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 2983
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 8, 2005 - 12:19 pm: |
|
From the Jan 2005 issue of American Prospect. This guy is right on, but I don't think the frothing wing of the Democrats will follow.
"Two important segments of the liberal social agenda -- abortion and gay rights -- remain trapped in a political limbo between the initial judicial articulation of a counter-majoritarian norm by courts and moral acceptance by the larger community. Frankly, liberals have gotten out of the habit of translating judicial victories into moral consensus through political discussion. That task can no longer be ignored if we hope to reach out to natural economic allies in the red states. But the boundaries of such discussion must be shaped, not by judicial fiat but by an ability to make a persuasive moral case to the majority. Power to shape the discussion must be transferred from ideologues to pragmatists. In short, begin working at the grass roots to build a moral consensus around civil unions and a woman’s basic right to choose. But stop sounding like abortion is a sacrament, and stop insisting on judicially imposed gay marriage as a symbolic victory.
Finally, some elements of the judicially imposed liberal social agenda may not be worth defending. While abortion and gay marriage undoubtedly played a role in mobilizing the rural/evangelical outpouring that cost the Democrats Ohio and the 2004 election, a driving force was rage at judicial decisions preventing government-sponsored religious expression. Nondenominational prayer services at graduation or before football games, displays of the Ten Commandments in courthouse lobbies or crèches and Christmas trees on public lands, the phrase “under God” in the pledge of allegiance -- all fell under the secular knife.
I have no quarrel with the analytic correctness of the decisions. Maintaining a strict wall between church and state has served the nation well. But, seriously, as long as all religions are treated equally, do you really view such exercises in religious symbolism as a threat to our way of life? When I was national legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union during the Reagan years and the board had sent me out to argue my umpteenth crèche case, I wrote a memo saying that I didn’t take the job to stamp out the Virgin Mary. Is it worth alienating people in the red states who might vote for a minimum-wage bill or back economic policies that do not savage the poor just to make a lawyer’s point about separating church and state?
And I’ll go further and really get myself into trouble with my friends. Are we so sure it is a good idea to freeze religious institutions out of the delivery of social services to the poor? For what it’s worth, my experience is that it takes an intense commitment verging on love to crack the terrible shell that the nation’s moral failure has built around the inner cities. The best I’ve seen from most secular bureaucrats is competence -- and too often, their competence is overwhelmed by the enormity of the task. Religious institutions have the capacity for the intense commitment that is needed to change a life. Of course, there are risks -- proselytization, intimidation, abuse -- but why not take a chance? The result could be the mending of the breach between Democrats and millions of natural economic allies in the red states, and more effective social services for the poor in the blue ones.
In short, what we need is old-fashioned political shoe leather designed to convince the majority of the moral correctness of a women’s right to choose and the moral correctness of toleration of gay lifestyle -- without the freight of an obsessive preoccupation with church-state symbolism. But that argument is merely the appetizer for the main course, a serious economic agenda that recognizes the primacy of markets, tempered for the better by regulation and social investment, but also includes a practical means of breaking through to the hardcore poor.
Burt Neuborne is the John Norton Pomeroy Professor of Law and legal director of the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law."
And by persuading those you wish to get onto your side, it's not by shouting at them and demeaning them for their 'red-ness' and calling them stupid, as is the current means of communication.
|
tjohn
Citizen
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 2857
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, January 8, 2005 - 4:56 pm: |
|
That, CJC, is one of your best contributions to this board. But I doubt the left wing totalitarians on this board will pay much attention. They will continue to expend silver bullets on battles not worth fighting and will then we without allies and ammunition for the serious issues such as a woman's right to chose and gay rights. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 2984
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 9, 2005 - 2:56 pm: |
|
I missed it, but heard Roemer was on Meet The Press and said he would definitely be in the running for DNC head. Dems -- what do you think his chances are? |
anon
Citizen
Username: Anon
Post Number: 1579
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, January 9, 2005 - 3:42 pm: |
|
cjc: Roemer was not on Meet the Press today.
But Chris Matthews made a comment on his show which indicated to me that he thinks Roemer is a front-runner for the job.
When you speak of "shouting at them and demeaning them for their 'red-ness' and calling them stupid" I hope you include those on the right who approach people on the left the same way, like using the word "Liberal" as a perjorative, attacking "elites" without defining the word or saying anyone who opposes the Iraq War is unpatriotic. It cuts both ways.
tjohn: Those you refer to as the "authoritarian left" on MOL are very few, and if you mean who I think you mean, I think their problem is more "mental" than "political". |
anon
Citizen
Username: Anon
Post Number: 1580
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, January 9, 2005 - 3:47 pm: |
|
tjohn: I just saw that the term you actually used was "left wing totalitarians"
Cjc and tjohn: For what it's worth there is little in what Neuborne wrote with which I disagree. |
jerkyboy
Citizen
Username: Jerkyboy
Post Number: 10
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, January 9, 2005 - 4:30 pm: |
|
tjohn,
Try calling them "southpaws."
It's seems to be a more Politically Correct and less stingy term for them to handle.
We wouldn't want their "feelings" to get hurt now?
Would we?
|
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 586
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, January 9, 2005 - 4:34 pm: |
|
Jerkyboy,
It's not the word used, it's the virtual spitting after saying it. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 2987
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 9, 2005 - 8:33 pm: |
|
You might have some points on how the right stigmatizes "liberal", anon. However, the word itself has it's own meaning and if calling some liberal a 'liberal' is derogatory, that's tough. You can accurately label a conservative and they'll say (outside of the NE) "yeah. That's right." People can spit all they want after it. Conservatives don't change the name of what they are, as liberals do when they call themselves "progressives" now, or 'moderate." And "conservative" being linked by the left to racism doesn't really work anymore because we've worked hard to explain our arguments. When conservatives are called for what they are we just wait for election returns, particularly in a presidential year, and win.
"Elites" is so clear as to be stereotypical. Your own party recognizes it now, or is beginning to do so. That same issue of the American Prospect (January 2005) goes into it's origin, and inherent problems.
On the 'unpatriotic' charge regarding Iraq -- can't say I've seen that on a mass scale. If someone said that to you from my side, my apologies. It's judgement that should be questioned unless there's real reason to believe otherwise. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page