PDA

View Full Version : OOOPs DUHbya sings Star Spangled Banner in Spanish...


memyselfI
05-03-2006, 11:03 AM
during the 2000 campaign.

Oh well, anything to win, right? And two days ago? He's said it should be sung in English. Oh well, anything to stay in power, right?

The CONtradictions of the CONs CONtinues...it's a daily spectacle.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash7.htm

Bowser
05-03-2006, 11:18 AM
ROFL

Cochise
05-03-2006, 11:21 AM
Who gives a rip about this?

'gotcha' politics is the only alternate reality where this discussion is even relevant.

memyselfI
05-03-2006, 11:24 AM
The entertainment and amusement value of Free Republic members trying to explain, justify, and dismiss this cannot be overstated. How many times will their man burn them and they still go back for more?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1625926/posts?q=1&&page=51 ROFL ROFL ROFL

Like this gem from Russ (presumably not our MIA former Bushbot Russ/KC Wolfman)

" They are running out of things to blame Bush for when this becomes news. This is all very tiring..."

memyselfI
05-03-2006, 11:24 AM
Who gives a rip about this?

'gotcha' politics is the only alternate reality where this discussion is even relevant.

ROFL ROFL ROFL

Pitt Gorilla
05-03-2006, 11:30 AM
If this is true, I don't understand W's position on it not being sung in Spanish. I'm not sure why he felt compelled to have a position on this non-issue in the first place, but he made his feelings known. Why would he change his mind (on this issue)?

jAZ
05-03-2006, 11:36 AM
Who gives a rip about this?

'gotcha' politics is the only alternate reality where this discussion is even relevant.
This "gotcha" is a rebuttle to an organized effort to fabricate another emotive wedge issue and capitalize politically on the anti-immigrant feelings in this country.

It's not a out-of-no-where "gotcha". If Bush hadn't taken such an ignorant and devisive position, no one would be rebutting his remarks.

Radar Chief
05-03-2006, 12:02 PM
If this is true, I don't understand W's position on it not being sung in Spanish. I'm not sure why he felt compelled to have a position on this non-issue in the first place, but he made his feelings known.

Agreed. I donít care what language our National Anthem is sung in, as long as the meaning is the same.

Why would he change his mind (on this issue)?

Oh, come on. Iím pretty sure we both already know the answer to that one. Heís a politician. ;)

Chief Henry
05-03-2006, 12:05 PM
I wonder what a mariachi band sounds like doing the Star Spangled Banner ?

NewChief
05-03-2006, 12:06 PM
Agreed. I donít care what language our National Anthem is sung in, as long as the meaning is the same.



Oh, come on. Iím pretty sure we both already know the answer to that one. Heís a politician. ;)


You mean he's a......FLIP FLOPPER?!?!?

dirk digler
05-03-2006, 12:08 PM
How embarrassing. IMHO Bush is starting to fall past the woeful Jimmy Carter. Can it get any worse for Bush?

dirk digler
05-03-2006, 12:10 PM
Agreed. I donít care what language our National Anthem is sung in, as long as the meaning is the same.



I totally disagree. Our National Anthem is meant to be sung in English and if they can't ****ing sing our national anthem in English then they can go swim back across the Rio Grande and I hope they drown.

Radar Chief
05-03-2006, 12:14 PM
You mean he's a......FLIP FLOPPER?!?!?

Actually, if you want my assessment of GWB, itís that heís lazy. Not necessarily in his work ethic, but certainly when it comes to public relations and Iíd assumeíis response was basically the path of least resistance to satisfy what he perceives as his ďconstituentsĒ.
At least IMHO.

Pitt Gorilla
05-03-2006, 12:14 PM
I totally disagree. Our National Anthem is meant to be sung in English and if they can't ****ing sing our national anthem in English then they can go swim back across the Rio Grande and I hope they drown.
I just wanted to save this for posterity.

memyselfI
05-03-2006, 12:16 PM
How embarrassing. IMHO Bush is starting to fall past the woeful Jimmy Carter. Can it get any worse for Bush?

A video could surface.... ROFL

Taco John
05-03-2006, 12:24 PM
Who gives a rip about this?

'gotcha' politics is the only alternate reality where this discussion is even relevant.



Wait a minute... You were one of the guys touting Bush as a man of his word who says what he means. The guy campaigned on the idea of cultural integration to win over Mexican voters, going so far as to sing the National Anthem in spanish at events, and then when in office turns around and says that it shouldn't be done, and your take is "who gives a rip?"

This outcry that's happening now is partly due to the campaign that Bush has been running over the past 6 years to bring Hispanics into the Republican fold, and now that they're demanding their voice be heard, you can't find it in yourself to give a rip?

It's not about "gotcha politics." It's about politicians saying what the mean, and not just using voters are a step stool on your way to power.

memyselfI
05-03-2006, 12:28 PM
Wait a minute... You were one of the guys touting Bush as a man of his word who says what he means. The guy campaigned on the idea of cultural integration to win over Mexican voters, going so far as to sing the National Anthem in spanish at events, and then when in office turns around and says that it shouldn't be done, and your take is "who gives a rip?"

This outcry that's happening now is partly due to the campaign that Bush has been running over the past 6 years to bring Hispanics into the Republican fold, and now that they're demanding their voice be heard, you can't find it in yourself to give a rip?

It's not about "gotcha politics." It's about politicians saying what the mean, and not just using voters are a step stool on your way to power.

Let's not be too hard on him. He just recently reemerged after participating in the GRWM...

we wouldn't want him talking his ball and disappearing again. :p ;)

Cochise
05-03-2006, 12:32 PM
ROFL I can't believe some libs are hopping up and down about something as trivial as this.

Libs have a remarkable talent for making themselves look desperate even when the other side should have the market cornered on that

memyselfI
05-03-2006, 12:36 PM
ROFL I can't believe some libs are hopping up and down about something as trivial as this.

Libs have a remarkable talent for making themselves look desperate even when the other side should have the market cornered on that

ROFL

Sorry darling, Libs weren't the ones who were screaming in feigned righteous indignation that the national anthem should be sung in English. OOOPs looks like the CON congressman who introduced a resolution forgot to see if there were any skeletons in the WH closet. :hmmm:

dirk digler
05-03-2006, 12:37 PM
A video could surface.... ROFL

Now that would be funny.

Pitt Gorilla
05-03-2006, 12:47 PM
ROFL I can't believe some libs are hopping up and down about something as trivial as this.

Libs have a remarkable talent for making themselves look desperate even when the other side should have the market cornered on that
ROFL I can't believe some cons are crying about something as trivial as how people sing our National Anthem.

stevieray
05-03-2006, 12:57 PM
You remind me how blessed my life is.

thank you.

patteeu
05-03-2006, 01:00 PM
ROFL

Sorry darling, Libs weren't the ones who were screaming in feigned righteous indignation that the national anthem should be sung in English. OOOPs looks like the CON congressman who introduced a resolution forgot to see if there were any skeletons in the WH closet. :hmmm:

You might want to check your stats on that. The immigration doesn't cut along liberal/conservative lines. There are plenty of liberals who are anti-illegal hawks. Take banyon for instance. And I don't know if Dirk Digler considers himself a liberal or not, but I don't think he see's himself as a conservative either.

Dave Lane
05-03-2006, 01:21 PM
You mean he's a......FLIP FLOPPER?!?!?


No he's a waffler he has more waffles than the House of Pancakes. ROFL

Dave

dirk digler
05-03-2006, 01:21 PM
You might want to check your stats on that. The immigration doesn't cut along liberal/conservative lines. There are plenty of liberals who are anti-illegal hawks. Take banyon for instance. And I don't know if Dirk Digler considers himself a liberal or not, but I don't think he see's himself as a conservative either.

I am actually an independent. On social issues I tend to lean left except for illegal immigration and on most other issues I tend to lean right except for the Iraq War.

With that being said this is embarrassing for this administration and it is just another example of Bush making a fool out of himself...again.

Cochise
05-03-2006, 01:26 PM
ROFL I can't believe some cons are crying about something as trivial as how people sing our National Anthem.

:shrug: I mean, no one complains about wanting election ballots or all federal forms in alternate languages, schools to be taught in Spanish, that kind of thing. But something like this that is really just a matter of tradition and bears no cost to anyone is what there is a hubub about?

I couldn't care less. Sing it in Arabic if you want to for all I care. At least they are singing it and displaying some loyalty.

dirk digler
05-03-2006, 01:35 PM
:shrug: I mean, no one complains about wanting election ballots or all federal forms in alternate languages, schools to be taught in Spanish, that kind of thing. But something like this that is really just a matter of tradition and bears no cost to anyone is what there is a hubub about?



You bring up a good point Cochise. IMO everything should be in English including forms, if they can't read English then they aren't legal since part of the immigratin process is to be able to read and talk English at the 8th grade level.

Pitt Gorilla
05-03-2006, 02:58 PM
You bring up a good point Cochise. IMO everything should be in English including forms, if they can't read English then they aren't legal since part of the immigratin process is to be able to read and talk English at the 8th grade level.Illiterate people are illegal?

jAZ
05-03-2006, 03:15 PM
You bring up a good point Cochise. IMO everything should be in English including forms, if they can't read English then they aren't legal since part of the immigratin process is to be able to read and talk English at the 8th grade level.
It's part of the *citizenship* process.

Thig Lyfe
05-03-2006, 03:32 PM
The use of the word "OOOPs" really adds to the post.

memyselfI
05-03-2006, 03:42 PM
You might want to check your stats on that. The immigration doesn't cut along liberal/conservative lines. There are plenty of liberals who are anti-illegal hawks. Take banyon for instance. And I don't know if Dirk Digler considers himself a liberal or not, but I don't think he see's himself as a conservative either.

Ok, Banyon. Fine. That is plenty? You might want to check your stats on it. The Sensenbrenner-King bill, H.R. 4437 passed in the House by a vote of 239-182. THIRTY-SIX out of 239 were DEMOCRATS.

Granted, math is not my forte but I think this would indicate that one party is heavily vested in draconian measures surrounding immigration (yes, they have 3 dozen willing Democrat idiots ) while the other party seems to be willing to work towards immigration measures that take into account the economic, social, humanitarian and political considerations involved in the issue.

You are right, there are Democrats, who favor harsh immigration measures (does Banyon favor HR 4437, I can't say) and there are divisions within the party about how to handle the issue but no Democrat has offered a bill anything remotely resembling what Sensenbrenner or Tacredo have tried to pass or advocate.

Baby Lee
05-03-2006, 03:45 PM
No he's a waffler he has more waffles than the House of Pancakes. ROFL

Dave
ROFL - the rare sighting of the attempt at humor being funnier than the humor itself.

Lots of waffles at 'House of Pancakes,' eh?

Taco John
05-03-2006, 04:01 PM
Uh, yeah... It's a breakfast joint. They serve omelettes too...

patteeu
05-03-2006, 05:11 PM
Ok, Banyon. Fine. That is plenty? You might want to check your stats on it. The Sensenbrenner-King bill, H.R. 4437 passed in the House by a vote of 239-182. THIRTY-SIX out of 239 were DEMOCRATS.

Granted, math is not my forte but I think this would indicate that one party is heavily vested in draconian measures surrounding immigration (yes, they have 3 dozen willing Democrat idiots ) while the other party seems to be willing to work towards immigration measures that take into account the economic, social, humanitarian and political considerations involved in the issue.

You are right, there are Democrats, who favor harsh immigration measures (does Banyon favor HR 4437, I can't say) and there are divisions within the party about how to handle the issue but no Democrat has offered a bill anything remotely resembling what Sensenbrenner or Tacredo have tried to pass or advocate.

I'm not trying to put words into banyon's mouth. I'm not sure where he'd stand on that particular resolution, but what I'm saying is that your sense that the vast majority of democrats are with you is an illusion. Here is a good article on the subject:

-------------

Fence Sitters

Democrats are having a grand old time watching the Republican rumble over immigration. But with divisions on the issue within their own party, they may soon have to decide where they really stand.

...

It turns out, though, that Democrats are no less divided than Republicans over immigration, according to recent polls from both the Pew Research Center and the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. The best indicators of attitudes on immigration, the polls suggest, are not what party one belongs to, but how rich and educated one is: Wealthier, well-educated Democrats, like wealthier, well-educated Republicans, tend to be more supportive of increases in immigration than less-educated, less-well-off members of either party. Most strikingly, the differences of opinion within each party are greater than the differences between them.

...

Boston Globe (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2006/04/09/fence_sitters/)

memyselfI
05-03-2006, 06:01 PM
I'm not trying to put words into banyon's mouth. I'm not sure where he'd stand on that particular resolution, but what I'm saying is that your sense that the vast majority of democrats are with you is an illusion. Here is a good article on the subject:

-------------

Fence Sitters

Democrats are having a grand old time watching the Republican rumble over immigration. But with divisions on the issue within their own party, they may soon have to decide where they really stand.

...

It turns out, though, that Democrats are no less divided than Republicans over immigration, according to recent polls from both the Pew Research Center and the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. The best indicators of attitudes on immigration, the polls suggest, are not what party one belongs to, but how rich and educated one is: Wealthier, well-educated Democrats, like wealthier, well-educated Republicans, tend to be more supportive of increases in immigration than less-educated, less-well-off members of either party. Most strikingly, the differences of opinion within each party are greater than the differences between them.

...

Boston Globe (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2006/04/09/fence_sitters/)

Again, I acknowledge that the Dems are not united on immigration but please name a Dem who is pushing the type of legislation that Tancredo or Sensenbrenner are pushing. And please show me where a majority of Dems in Congress are voting to support increased restrictions?

What the article clearly points out is that the entire issue is geared towards less educated and affluent Americans who likely are unaware of the complexities of the issue. Those Americans just know that some illegal Spic(s) is taking their jobs and causing their property values to fall while simultaneously destroying the historied storied culture of America. :rolleyes:

Phobia
05-03-2006, 06:05 PM
Dumbest debate ever. You guys will cry and attack one another over anything. I can't even believe this made it to print on drudge or any other site. Who gives a rip? I certainly don't.

memyselfI
05-03-2006, 06:15 PM
Dumbest debate ever. You guys will cry and attack one another over anything. I can't even believe this made it to print on drudge or any other site. Who gives a rip? I certainly don't.

Hi Phil,

things must be REALLY slow at WPI for you to be hanging out in DC... :hmmm:

Taco John
05-03-2006, 06:17 PM
Well, again... This wouldn't have become an issue if Bush didn't criticize people for singing the National Anthem in spanish. I'm with the people who say "big deal, who cares what language its sang in so long as it's sang with proper meaning." Bush is the one who turned this into a "thing" when he spoke out about it, and got caught practicing the very thing that he's now speaking out against.

It's like Cindy Sheehan speaking out against War, only to find out that she voted for Bush in 2003.

I don't know why it's petty to call him on the stupid situations that he creates for himself.

memyselfI
05-03-2006, 06:29 PM
Well, again... This wouldn't have become an issue if Bush didn't criticize people for singing the National Anthem in spanish. I'm with the people who say "big deal, who cares what language its sang in so long as it's sang with proper meaning." Bush is the one who turned this into a "thing" when he spoke out about it, and got caught practicing the very thing that he's now speaking out against.

It's like Cindy Sheehan speaking out against War, only to find out that she voted for Bush in 2003.


I don't know why it's petty to call him on the stupid situations that he creates for himself.

Well, I'm no CS fan but I think this situation is ENTIRELY different. She suffered a great loss which made her rethink her entire belief system.

DUHbya is trying to avoid a great loss by appeasing his RWNJ base even if it means being disingenuous at times.

unlurking
05-03-2006, 06:49 PM
And then she turned into a PAID shill for the dems.

CS is a joke.

penchief
05-03-2006, 07:34 PM
If this is true, I don't understand W's position on it not being sung in Spanish. I'm not sure why he felt compelled to have a position on this non-issue in the first place, but he made his feelings known. Why would he change his mind (on this issue)?

FLIP.......FLOP, FLIP........FLOP, FLIP.......FLOP.......

Those who still choose to defend the opportunists who reside in our government (i.e. the retrocons) will never admit that their heroes are nothing more than phony business suits posing as patriotic Americans for the purpose of undermining our national virtue because it interferes with their fuchin' profit margin.

dirk digler
05-03-2006, 08:23 PM
Illiterate people are illegal?

ROFL

Maybe.. :)

We could actually save alot of taxpayers money by printing the forms in English.

Also why don't we help out the illegals and have money printed in English and one in Spanish... I mean wouldn't that be the "right" thing to do. :)

dirk digler
05-03-2006, 08:23 PM
It's part of the *citizenship* process.

Thanks Jaz

banyon
05-03-2006, 11:15 PM
Ok, Banyon. Fine. That is plenty? You might want to check your stats on it. The Sensenbrenner-King bill, H.R. 4437 passed in the House by a vote of 239-182. THIRTY-SIX out of 239 were DEMOCRATS.

Granted, math is not my forte but I think this would indicate that one party is heavily vested in draconian measures surrounding immigration (yes, they have 3 dozen willing Democrat idiots ) while the other party seems to be willing to work towards immigration measures that take into account the economic, social, humanitarian and political considerations involved in the issue.

You are right, there are Democrats, who favor harsh immigration measures (does Banyon favor HR 4437, I can't say) and there are divisions within the party about how to handle the issue but no Democrat has offered a bill anything remotely resembling what Sensenbrenner or Tacredo have tried to pass or advocate.

I guess I need to weigh in. :)

I am against HR 4437, but mostly because of its absurd provision making doctors and pastors felons for assisting illegal immigrants.

The wall aspect and deportation aspects of the bill, I have no particular problem with.

But I think memyselfI and my having divergent positions on this issue is perfectly explainable. She is a liberal, I believe, and I am not. I would classify myself as a progressive. And they are not necessarily synonymous.

What's the Difference Between a Liberal and a Progressive?

I often get asked what the difference between a "liberal" and a "progressive" is. The questions from the media on this subject are always something like, "Isn't 'progressive' just another name for 'liberal' that people want to use because 'liberal' has become a bad word?"

The answer, in my opinion, is no - there is a fundamental difference when it comes to core economic issues.

It seems to me that traditional "liberals" in our current parlance are those who focus on using taxpayer money to help better society. A "progressive" are those who focus on using government power to make large institutions play by a set of rules.

To put it in more concrete terms - a liberal solution to some of our current problems with high energy costs would be to increase funding for programs like the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). A more "progressive" solution would be to increase LIHEAP but also crack down on price gouging and pass laws better-regulating the oil industry's profiteering and market manipulation tactics. A liberal policy towards prescription drugs is one that would throw a lot of taxpayer cash at the pharmaceutical industry to get them to provide medicine to the poor; A progressive prescription drug policy would be one that centered around price regulations and bulk purchasing in order to force down the actual cost of medicine in America (much of which was originally developed with taxpayer R&D money).

Let's be clear - most progressives are also liberals, and liberal goals in better funding America's social safety net are noble and critical. It's the other direction that's the problem. Many of today's liberals are not fully comfortable with progressivism as defined in these terms. Many of today's Democratic politicians, for instance, are simply not comfortable taking a more confrontational posture towards large economic institutions (many of whom fund their campaigns) - institutions that regularly take a confrontational posture towards America's middle-class.

We can see a good example of this hestitation from Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) in his "health care to hybrids" proposal. As the Detroit News reports, Obama is calling "for using government money to relieve Detroit automakers of some of their staggering health care obligations if they commit to improving fuel economy by 3 percent a year for 15 years."

Here's the thing - we all want to see autoworkers' health care preserved, and we all want to see better fuel efficiency standards for cars. But is this really the road we want to go down as a society? I'd say no. The fact is, the auto industry should be forced to produce more fuel efficient cars through higher government fuel efficiency mandates, without taxpayers having to bail out the industry. It's not like those mandates would be asking the industry to do something that doesn't make good business sense - demand for higher fuel-efficiency cars is skyrocketing.

Paying off corporations to do what they already should be doing sets a dangerous precedent - it sends a message to Big Business that they can leverage their irresponsible behavior into government handouts. In this case, the auto industry would be leveraging its refusal to produce more fuel efficient cars and preserve its workers' health care into a giant taxpayer-funded subsidy.

To be sure, Obama has solid motives in pushing his proposal, and it is a creative cross of issues (health care and energy/environment). But the general unwillingness of Democrats to consistently push for more sharp-edged progressive solutions is a big problem right now. The "free market" conservatives have so dominated the political debate over the last two decades that our side seems only comfortable proposing to pay off different economic players, instead of forcing those players to behave themselves. It's time for that to change. The government has a job to play in protecting Americans from being ripped off, and that doesn't mean just handing the economic bullies a bribe. It means pushing back - hard.

In other words, its mostly my animosity for the corporate global agenda that makes me wary of immigrant labor used as leverage againt low and working class America.

patteeu
05-04-2006, 02:33 AM
Again, I acknowledge that the Dems are not united on immigration but please name a Dem who is pushing the type of legislation that Tancredo or Sensenbrenner are pushing. And please show me where a majority of Dems in Congress are voting to support increased restrictions?

What the article clearly points out is that the entire issue is geared towards less educated and affluent Americans who likely are unaware of the complexities of the issue. Those Americans just know that some illegal Spic(s) is taking their jobs and causing their property values to fall while simultaneously destroying the historied storied culture of America. :rolleyes:

The author of that article takes a clear position that the political leaders of the democrats do not accurately reflect the views of rank and file dems. Since I presume there are more rank and file libs here on ChiefsPlanet than Congressional representatives, I don't think the number of politicians pushing a specific type of legislation is a good measure of what we are talking about here.

My point, when I told you to check your stats after your response to Cochise was that there are plenty of libs who are hawkish on illegal immigration. I wasn't saying there are plenty of dem politicians leading the pitchfork carrying mob. I was talking about regular people who think illegals are taking their jobs and/or depressing wages among other things.

jAZ
05-04-2006, 02:49 AM
I guess I need to weigh in. :)

I am against HR 4437, but mostly because of its absurd provision making doctors and pastors felons for assisting illegal immigrants.

The wall aspect and deportation aspects of the bill, I have no particular problem with.

But I think memyselfI and my having divergent positions on this issue is perfectly explainable. She is a liberal, I believe, and I am not. I would classify myself as a progressive. And they are not necessarily synonymous.



In other words, its mostly my animosity for the corporate global agenda that makes me wary of immigrant labor used as leverage againt low and working class America.
That's a well defined distinction that I'm proud to say I agree with. My major issue (and why I consider myself center-left and very pro business) is the need for a balance of power between buyers and suppliers. The established suppliers typically always have a massive advantage by way of corporate consolidation in the name of economies of scale. We think of that as driving down costs, but in reality such mega-mergers are equally about accumulating supplier power by reducing competition.

As a pro-business progressive I'm a strong advocate of fair markets leading to free flowing commerce... as opposed to unabriged "free markets" (which aren't free of numerous market failures).

A huge requirement of a truely "free" market would be a complete free flow of information. That doesn't exist in reality and as such, neither does a truely "free market".

Short of that, we need to focus on "fair markets" that closely resemble truely "free markets" (which if one could exist would naturally eliminate the market failures that exist in an imperfect and unregulated maket).

Ugly Duck
05-04-2006, 07:30 AM
You mean he's a......FLIP FLOPPER?!?!?Flippingest flopper to come down the pipe.

Baby Lee
05-04-2006, 09:15 AM
She is a liberal, I believe, and I am not. I would classify myself as a progressive. And they are not necessarily synonymous.
I agree that there is a distinction between liberal and progressive, but I don't think it's as narrowly defined as the blurb suggests, though that particular distinction appears to be A fairly apt example of the distinction.
As I see it, liberal means you support a proposal for government action if it's intent is to help people. Progressive means you are focused on making sure that government is continually refining itself to help people better, more effectively, and more efficiently.

banyon
05-04-2006, 09:19 AM
I agree that there is a distinction between liberal and progressive, but I don't think it's as narrowly defined as the blurb suggests, though that particular distinction appears to be A fairly apt example of the distinction.
As I see it, liberal means you support a proposal for government action if it's intent is to help people. Progressive means you are focused on making sure that government is continually refining itself to help people better, more effectively, and more efficiently.

I'm cool with your way of putting it too.

Basically, I'm distrustful of large organized interests:

Government, Corporations, and the Mafia.

Baby Lee
05-04-2006, 09:32 AM
Corporations, and the Mafia.
Loved seeing Patsy Parisi getting the blase smackdown from the 'Starbucks' manager when he tried the whole 'merchant's protection cooperative' schtick on the last Sopranos.
Excellent way of encapsulating the dynamics of the Mafia and Corporate culture.

jAZ
05-04-2006, 09:41 AM
I'm cool with your way of putting it too.

Basically, I'm distrustful of large organized interests:

Government, Corporations, and the Mafia.
I'd say "powerful & organized narrowly supported" interests.

BucEyedPea
05-04-2006, 09:50 AM
I agree that there is a distinction between liberal and progressive, but I don't think it's as narrowly defined as the blurb suggests, though that particular distinction appears to be A fairly apt example of the distinction.
As I see it, liberal means you support a proposal for government action if it's intent is to help people. Progressive means you are focused on making sure that government is continually refining itself to help people better, more effectively, and more efficiently.

That's an interesting take...I see NO difference between a liberal today and a progressive. Classical liberals were what our FF's were, which is limited govt: decentralized and leaving many most things to the states and the people.

Libertarians classify themselves as "classical liberals" yet fall on both sides of the spectrum. But today, liberals don't fall into this camp at all. Today a liberal is a progressive, and both are socialist....just different sorts of collectivists. A traditionall old-right conservative (opposite of a NeoCon) is closer to classical liberalism today than a modern liberal.


"The American people will never knowing adopt Socialism, but under the name of Liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened." -- NORMAN THOMAS SOCIALIST PARTY CANDIDATE from 1928-1948

I go by the things a person recommends,(a sense of property that is communistic: income restribution, nat'l healthcare...etc.) and avoid the label. Not that I mind labels. To me they are just definitions. It's just that there is no truth in labeling anymore.

jAZ
05-04-2006, 09:59 AM
Today a liberal is a progressive, and both are socialist....
Just saying it's so doesn't make it so.Today a liberal is a progressive, and both are socialist....
It's just that there is no truth in labeling anymore.

BucEyedPea
05-04-2006, 10:07 AM
But I CAN back it up...it would take a tome though.
That is if I'm reading your post correctly???

If I am, I suggest you read some Karl Marx's writings vis-Š-vis the writings of Ludwig Von Mises'sbooks, best one being Socialism, versus Adam Smith. Throw in some Lord Maynard Keynes too as our system is based on him a lot. He was also a supporter of socialism. Creeping, Fabian socialism as in socialist democracy...but no doubt socialist.

BTW Communist Manifesto's Ten Planks....we have half of those already.
I showed that to a progressive....who denied being socialist...and yet he argued all of them were vital and necessary. Perfect example of a socialist in denial.

banyon
05-04-2006, 10:13 AM
Loved seeing Patsy Parisi getting the blase smackdown from the 'Starbucks' manager when he tried the whole 'merchant's protection cooperative' schtick on the last Sopranos.
Excellent way of encapsulating the dynamics of the Mafia and Corporate culture.

I don't get HBO anymore. I'm 3 seasons behind. :(

Baby Lee
05-04-2006, 10:32 AM
I don't get HBO anymore. I'm 3 seasons behind. :(
Well then. . . I shan't be the one to reveal those wondrous secrets reserved for paying HBO subscribers. ;)

Logical
05-04-2006, 08:23 PM
Hi Phil,

things must be REALLY slow at WPI (http://chiefsplanet.com) for you to be hanging out in DC... :hmmm:

The lady has a point, but I think it is more boredom. You cannot get the off topic over there at least in sense of getting any significant response and typically it has been my experience the will have 4 or 5 threads on each football topic. Sure we have that on game day and when breaking news occurs but every day with only 4 or 5 themes filling the first page? Phil has got traffic up but the BB style is not heading towards a community IMO.

listopencil
10-26-2006, 12:51 AM
BUMP