PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Socialist writes "Liberals Are Useless"


Taco John
12-10-2009, 02:15 AM
This is a brilliant critique of modern liberals from an admitted socialist. While I disagree with this guys politics, he hits a home run when talking about how weak our "don't dare call me a socialist" friends are when it comes to practical politics.


Liberals Are Useless

By Chris Hedges



http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/liberals_are_useless_20091206/



Liberals are a useless lot. They talk about peace and do nothing to challenge our permanent war economy. They claim to support the working class, and vote for candidates that glibly defend the North American Free Trade Agreement. They insist they believe in welfare, the right to organize, universal health care and a host of other socially progressive causes, and will not risk stepping out of the mainstream to fight for them. The only talent they seem to possess is the ability to write abject, cloying letters to Barack Obama—as if he reads them—asking the president to come back to his “true” self. This sterile moral posturing, which is not only useless but humiliating, has made America’s liberal class an object of public derision.



I am not disappointed in Obama. I don’t feel betrayed. I don’t wonder when he is going to be Obama. I did not vote for the man. I vote socialist, which in my case meant Ralph Nader, but could have meant Cynthia McKinney. How can an organization with the oxymoronic title Progressives for Obama even exist? Liberal groups like these make political satire obsolete. Obama was and is a brand. He is a product of the Chicago political machine. He has been skillfully packaged as the new face of the corporate state. I don’t dislike Obama—I would much rather listen to him than his smug and venal predecessor—though I expected nothing but a continuation of the corporate rape of the country. And that is what he has delivered.



“You have a tug of war with one side pulling,” Ralph Nader told me when we met Saturday afternoon. “The corporate interests pull on the Democratic Party the way they pull on the Republican Party. If you are a ‘least-worst’ voter you don’t want to disturb John Kerry on the war, so you call off the anti-war demonstrations in 2004. You don’t want to disturb Obama because McCain is worse. And every four years both parties get worse. There is no pull. That is the dilemma of The Nation and The Progressive and other similar publications. There is no breaking point. What is the breaking point? The criminal war of aggression in Iraq? The escalation of the war in Afghanistan? Forty-five thousand people dying a year because they can’t afford health insurance? The hollowing out of communities and sending the jobs to fascist and communist regimes overseas that know how to put the workers in their place? There is no breaking point. And when there is no breaking point you do not have a moral compass.”



I save my anger for our bankrupt liberal intelligentsia of which, sadly, I guess I am a member. Liberals are the defeated, self-absorbed Mouse Man in Dostoevsky’s “Notes From Underground.” They embrace cynicism, a cloak for their cowardice and impotence. They, like Dostoevsky’s depraved character, have come to believe that the “conscious inertia” of the underground surpasses all other forms of existence. They too use inaction and empty moral posturing, not to affect change but to engage in an orgy of self-adulation and self-pity. They too refuse to act or engage with anyone not cowering in the underground. This choice does not satisfy the Mouse Man, as it does not satisfy our liberal class, but neither has the strength to change. The gravest danger we face as a nation is not from the far right, although it may well inherit power, but from a bankrupt liberal class that has lost the will to fight and the moral courage to stand up for what it espouses.



Anyone who says he or she cares about the working class in this country should have walked out on the Democratic Party in 1994 with the passage of NAFTA. And it has only been downhill since. If welfare reform, the 1999 Financial Services Modernization Act, which gutted the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act—designed to prevent the kind of banking crisis we are now undergoing—and the craven decision by the Democratic Congress to continue to fund and expand our imperial wars were not enough to make you revolt, how about the refusal to restore habeas corpus, end torture in our offshore penal colonies, abolish George W. Bush’s secrecy laws or halt the warrantless wiretapping and monitoring of American citizens? The imperial projects and the corporate state have not altered under Obama. The state kills as ruthlessly and indiscriminately in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan as it did under Bush. It steals from the U.S. treasury as rapaciously to enrich the corporate elite. It, too, bows before the conservative Israel lobby, refuses to enact serious environmental or health care reform, regulate Wall Street, end our relationship with private mercenary contractors or stop handing obscene sums of money, some $1 trillion a year, to the military and arms industry. At what point do we stop being a doormat? At what point do we fight back? We may lose if we step outside the mainstream, but at least we will salvage our self-esteem and integrity.



I learned to dislike liberals when I lived in Roxbury, the inner-city in Boston, as a seminary student at Harvard Divinity School. I commuted into Cambridge to hear professors and students talk about empowering people they never met. It was the time of the leftist Sandinista government in Nicaragua. Spending two weeks picking coffee in that country and then coming back and talking about it for the rest of the semester was the best way to “credentialize” yourself as a revolutionary. But few of these “revolutionaries” found the time to spend 20 minutes on the Green Line to see where human beings in their own city were being warehoused little better than animals. They liked the poor, but they did not like the smell of the poor. It was a lesson I never forgot.



I was also at the time a member of the Greater Boston YMCA boxing team. We fought on Saturday nights for $25 in arenas in working-class neighborhoods like Charlestown. My closest friends were construction workers and pot washers. They worked hard. They believed in unions. They wanted a better life, which few of them ever got. We used to run five miles after our nightly training, passing through the Mission Main and Mission Extension Housing Projects, and they would joke, “I hope we get mugged.” They knew precisely what to do with people who abused them. They may not have been liberal, they may not have finished high school, but they were far more grounded than most of those I studied with across the Charles River. They would have felt awkward, and would have been made to feel awkward, at the little gatherings of progressive and liberal intellectuals at Harvard, but you could trust and rely on them.



I went on to spend two decades as a war correspondent. The qualities inherent in good soldiers or Marines, like the qualities I found among those boxers, are qualities I admire—self-sacrifice, courage, the ability to make decisions under stress, the capacity to endure physical discomfort, and a fierce loyalty to those around you, even if it puts you in greater danger. If liberals had even a bit of their fortitude we could have avoided this mess. But they don’t. So here we are again, begging Obama to be Obama. He is Obama. Obama is not the problem. We are.



Chris Hedges, author of “Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle,” will speak with other anti-war activists at Lafayette Park across the street from the White House at 11 a.m. Dec. 12 in a rally calling for the withdrawal of all American troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Jenson71
12-10-2009, 02:29 AM
Sounds good. He's not actually a real socialist, though. Ralph Nader is not a socialist either.

Taco John
12-10-2009, 02:43 AM
Clearly. Neither of them have a moustache.

BucEyedPea
12-10-2009, 06:22 AM
Sounds good. He's not actually a real socialist, though. Ralph Nader is not a socialist either.

Nader is a socialist. Just read the Green Party Platform line by line. It's communism.

NewChief
12-10-2009, 06:33 AM
I completely agree with the separation of liberal elite from the working class. You can pump up the Thomas Frank line of god, gays, and guns as the whip that drives the working class to vote conservative, but the condescension and subtle disdain of the liberal intelligentsia for our American working class is just as great of a factor.

memyselfI
12-10-2009, 07:01 AM
I think there needs to be a correction. Liberals in this country are useless as witnessed by a POTUS who is the same gdamn incarnation of what they hated before.

BigRedChief
12-10-2009, 07:54 AM
Sounds good. He's not actually a real socialist, though. Ralph Nader is not a socialist either.Have you not been paying attention? Not only are all Dems socialists, most are communist.

BucEyedPea
12-10-2009, 08:07 AM
Have you not been paying attention? Not only are all Dems socialists, most are communist.

No one ever said "all" were. They definitately adopt many planks of socialism though.
That is why they are called social democrats.

However, do one read of the Green Party Platform and it is clear it is about international socialism complete with dropped borders and ownership of companies by the people. Have you ever read it?

One would have to be a severe denial case to say otherwise or so brainwashed to not even know the difference.

BigRedChief
12-10-2009, 08:18 AM
No one ever said "all" were. They definitately adopt many planks of socialism though.
That is why they are called social democrats.

However, do one read of the Green Party Platform and it is clear it is about international socialism complete with dropped borders and ownership of companies by the people. Have you ever read it?

One would have to be a severe denial case to say otherwise or so brainwashed to not even know the difference.
Sorry not buying the idea that global warming is subversive plot to have a socialistic takeover of the world.

BucEyedPea
12-10-2009, 08:24 AM
Sorry not buying the idea that global warming is subversive plot to have a socialistic takeover of the world.

You don't have to buy it. It just is. Your denying it won't change the reality. Actually, it's not a plot or hidden. Dixy Lee Ray, Marine Biologist, former governor, and an attendee at these events, came out saying that the goals of that movement sounded the same as socialism at one of those events. Guess what happened? Some socialist members of the UN ( European ones) came out and said that's what they wanted and liked about it. Felt it as necessary. I also posted tracts from UN documents that come right out and say in writing private property in land is not conducive to sustainable development. You must have missed it, because there's no denying it. It's hard to confront.

Now does that mean that your local Joe on the Mainstreet level is in that camp necessarily. No.
Then again many don't really know what socialism is. Perhaps we should label it "statism."

BigRedChief
12-10-2009, 08:31 AM
You don't have to buy it. It just is. Your denying it won't change the reality. Actually, it's not a plot or hidden. Dixy Lee Ray, Marine Biologist, former governor, and an attendee at these events, came out saying that the goals of that movement sounded the same as socialism at one of those events. Guess what happened? Some socialist members of the UN ( European ones) came out and said that's what they wanted and liked about it. Felt it as necessary. I also posted tracts from UN documents that come right out and say in writing private property in land is not conducive to sustainable development. You must have missed it, because there's no denying it. It's hard to confront.

Now does that mean that your local Joe on the Mainstreet level is in that camp necessarily. No.
Then again many don't really know what socialism is. Perhaps we should label it "statism."There is no reality. There is no fact. There is no global conspiracy except in your mind.

BucEyedPea
12-10-2009, 08:46 AM
There is no reality. There is no fact. There is no global conspiracy except in your mind.

You can just look at the policy ideas being implemented for environmentalism. So it's not a conspiracy. It's an agenda. I guess I will have to repost their Agenda 10 again I see.



United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat I), held in Vancouver, May 31 - June 11, 1976. Agenda Item 10 of the Conference Report sets forth the UN's official policy on land. The Preamble says:

"Land...cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes. The provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interests of society as a whole. Public control of land use is therefore indispensable...."

Just so you know key words like "social justice" are usually socialist terms.

The above relates to:
1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes. -Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto

BucEyedPea
12-10-2009, 08:52 AM
Green Party Platform
http://www.greenparty.org/Platform.php

The following platform planks are the immediate policy goals we support to move us toward an ecological democracy.

An Economic Bill of Rights

* Universal Social Security: Taxable Basic Income Grants for all, structured into the progressive income tax, that guarantee an adequate income sufficient to maintain a modest standard of living. Start at $500/week ($26,000/year) for a family of four, with $62.50/week ($3,250/year) adjustments for more or fewer household members in 2000 and index to the cost of living.
* Jobs for All: A guaranteed right to job. Full employment through community-based public works and community service jobs programs, federally financed and community controlled.
* Living Wages: A family-supporting minimum wage. Start at $12.50 per hour in 2000 and index to the cost of living.
* 30-Hour Work Week: A 6-hour day with no cut in pay for the bottom 80% of the pay scale.
* Social Dividends: A "second paycheck" for workers enabling them to receive 40 hours pay for 30 hours work. Paid by the government out of progressive taxes so that social productivity gains are shared equitably.
* Universal Health Care: A single-payer National Health Program to provide free medical and dental care for all, with freedom of choice for consumers among both conventional and alternative health care providers, federally financed and controlled by democratically elected local boards.
* Free Child Care: Available voluntarily and free for all who need it, modeled after Head Start, federally financed, and community controlled.
* Lifelong Public Education: Free, quality public education from pre-school through graduate school at public institutions.
* Affordable Housing: Expand rental and home ownership assistance, fair housing enforcement, public housing, and capital grants to non-profit developers of affordable housing until all people can obtain decent housing at no more than 25% of their income. Democratic community control of publicly funded housing programs.



Free this and free that, hardly have to work for it....blah, blah, blah. This would collapse any society. And that's only part of it. I have to download the pdf to get what was once on the net about dropping borders. Living Wage is right out of the Communist Manifesto....the idea that people are owned a certain standard of living. This is universal world socialism aka the same thing the communists aimed for.

BucEyedPea
12-10-2009, 08:56 AM
International Solidarity LMAO

* A Global Green Deal: Build world peace and security through a Global Green Deal. First, the US should finance universal access to primary education, adequate food, clean water and sanitation, preventive health care, and family planning services for every human being on Earth. According to the 1999 UN Development Report, it would take only an additional $40 billion to Fund Global Basic Human Needs, an amount that is only 13% of the 2000 US military budget. Second, the US, which now spends half of the world's military expenditures by itself, should demilitarize its economy and reinvest the Peace Dividend in financing and technical assistance for an Ecological Conversion of Human Civilization to Sustainable Systems of Production.
* Peace Conversion: Cut US military spending unilaterally by 75% in two years to establish a non-interventionist, non-offensive, strictly defensive military posture and save nearly $250 billion a year.
* Peace Dividend: Dedicate the $250 billion a year Peace Dividend to the Global Green Deal, Ecological Conversion, the Economic Bill of Rights, and providing full income and benefits for all workers and soldiers displaced by demilitarization until they find new jobs at comparable income and benefits.
* Unilateral Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Disarmament: These weapons of mass destruction have no place in a non-offensive military. The US should set the example and demand that other nations match our lead before the proliferation of weapons to countries around the world leads to mass destruction.
* Cooperative Security: Pursue a "cooperative security" strategy that seeks mutual arms reductions, progressive elimination of cross-border offensive capabilities, and further cuts in military spending. The goal is to progressively demilitarize down to a non-offensive defense of U.S. national territory using a coast guard, border guard, national guard, and light air defense system, which would cost about $3 billion, or less than 1% of current US military spending.
* Democratize the United Nations: Cooperative security cannot work as long as the United Nations remains a US puppet. Support reforms to democratize the United Nations, such as more proportionality and power in the General Assembly, an elected Security Council, and the elimination of the Great Power Veto on the Security Council.
* A Pro-Democracy Foreign Policy: We call for a fundamental shift in US foreign policy, from supporting repressive regimes in the interests global corporations to supporting the pro-democracy labor, social, and environmental movements of the people.
o Support International, Multilateral Peacekeeping to Stop Aggression and Genocide
o No Unilateral US Intervention in the Internal Affairs of Other Countries
o Close All Overseas US Military Bases
o Disband NATO and All Aggressive Military Alliances
o Ban US Arms Exports
o Abolish the CIA, NSA, US Army School of the Americas, and All US Agencies of Covert Warfare
o End the Economic Blockades of Cuba, Iraq, and Yugoslavia
o Cut Off US Military Aid to Counter-Insurgency Wars in Colombia and Mexico
o Freedom for Lori Berenson and All Political Prisoners
o Require a National Referendum to Declare War
* End Global Financial Exploitation: Cancel the debt owed by poor countries to global banks. End the exploitation of poor countries by IMF "structural adjustment" policies. Abolish the IMF and World Bank and replace them with a democratic international financial institution for balancing international accounts and financing short-term current account balances.
* Fair Trade: Withdraw from the World Trade Organization, NAFTA, and all other corporate-managed trade agreements that are driving down labor and environmental conditions globally. Establish an internationalist social tariff system that equalizes trade by accounting for the differences among countries in wages, social benefits, environmental conditions, and political rights. Tariff revenues to a democratic, international fund for ecological production and democratic development in poor countries in order to level up social and environmental conditions to a high common standard.


More coming...

BigRedChief
12-10-2009, 08:57 AM
Green Party Platform
http://www.greenparty.org/Platform.php (http://www.greenparty.org/Platform.php)
So what, a group of people want global socialism? color me shocked.

Theres also groups of people all over the world that want a return of Hitler and Facism and every other form of government imaginable. It still diesn't mean chit or a threat to us unless the governments and more importantly, the money gets behind the ideas.

The UN? Since when do governments and people with money listen to them.

BucEyedPea
12-10-2009, 08:58 AM
Expand Worker' Rights to Organize and Enjoy Free Time:
o Right to Work Short Hours: No discrimination in pay and promotion against workers who choose to work short hours.





ROFL

Chiefshrink
12-10-2009, 08:59 AM
but the condescension and subtle disdain of the liberal intelligentsia for our American working class is just as great of a factor.

But it is this so-called "liberal intelligentsia" that has the political power and $$ over the working class that make "unintelligent decisions" (healthcare, stimulus, cap and trade etc.........) Liberal intelligentsia is an oxymoron, PERIOD!!! And Washington(ala Obama) wonder why the American people don't get it yet????????????????????????????????????

BucEyedPea
12-10-2009, 09:06 AM
So what, a group of people want global socialism? color me shocked.
Well that's the point...they are the GREEN party...as in enviromental!
When communism apparently collapsed and allegedly died out, many of them went into the green movement. Gobachev founded Green Cross International, with which he was one of three major sponsors of the Earth Charter. He has never renounced socialism.

Theres also groups of people all over the world that want a return of Hitler and Facism and every other form of government imaginable. It still diesn't mean chit or a threat to us unless the governments and more importantly, the money gets behind the ideas.
So why aren't those deemed a conspiracy to you? This idea is my point, only these guys are more organized and more prevalent even if at the level of ideas only ( witness this here board) and have won the implementation of many of their policies. All one has to do is look at what their solutions are. They lead to a destruction of capitalism and put many things in the hands of govt entities to CONTROL. Only seems now the GW scandal may knock 'em back.

The UN? Since when do governments and people with money listen to them.
Some of their agenda has already been implemented in the US through our govt right down to the local level. Including regular folks losing their homes. Look what happened here in the Everglades...a tragedy.

Please read that platform, it's says the UN is US dominated institution anyways which it is.

BucEyedPea
12-10-2009, 09:13 AM
More on Gorby, who has never renounced socialism and is a Greenie:

Gorbachev calls for a kind of perestroika or restructuring of societies around the world, starting in particular with that of the United States, because he is of the view that the economic crisis of 2007-present shows that the Washington consensus economic model is a failure that will sooner or later have to be replaced. [asshole]

According to Gorbachev, countries such as Brazil, Malaysia and China which rejected the Washington consensus and the International Monetary Fund approach to economic development, have done far better economically on the whole and achieved far more fair results for the average citizen, than countries that accepted it.


Disgusting what he wants to do with the US. Do the righties believe in that kind of meddling too?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Gorbachev

BigRedChief
12-10-2009, 09:19 AM
More on Gorby, who has never renounced socialism and is a Greenie:



Disgusting what he wants to do with the US. Do the righties believe in that kind of meddling too?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Gorbachev
The former Russian President wants a socialist government. Wow, again color me shocked. I had no idea.

My point remains, just because they want this doesn't mean that they have the means to do it. Just like there are many people in the world that would like to see us wiped off the face of the earth. But, they are no threat to us because they lack the means to carry out their wishes. So, do all the groups, people that you mention that are wanting global socialism.

BucEyedPea
12-10-2009, 09:25 AM
The former Russian President wants a socialist government. Wow, again color me shocked. I had no idea.

My point remains, just because they want this doesn't mean that they have the means to do it. Just like there are many people in the world that would like to see us wiped off the face of the earth. But, they are no threat to us because they lack the means to carry out their wishes. So, do all the groups, people that you mention that are wanting global socialism.

My point isn't their means though. My point is about the agenda of leaders of activist Greenies and how their ideas and policy pronouncements trickle down to the local guy on the street and in the universities and colleges.

They are the origin point of a lot of Green propaganda and junk science. So the fact is they have been influential to a large degree. That this stuff originates from within the UN is key as it's been loaded with socialists for a long time. That includes social democrats not just Marxist-Leninists.

So my point is they exist and have an agenda. Knowing this to be the truth can help stem them and help others be skeptical of their science and policy ideas. It's a battle we're in because they do exist have been influential. Otherwise there'd be no battle. Examples are the Ds nationalizing BIG auto for green cars, their real aim and issues like Cap n Trade which will destroy capitalism in America as it redistributes energy etc. etc.

BigRedChief
12-10-2009, 09:45 AM
their real aim and issues like Cap n Trade which will destroy capitalism in America as it redistributes energy etc. etc.I thought health care reform was going to destroy capitalism. Cap N Trade won't have anything to destroy when it gets passed.ROFL

Chief Faithful
12-10-2009, 10:01 AM
International Solidarity LMAO

* A Global Green Deal: Build world peace and security through a Global Green Deal. First, the US should finance universal access to primary education, adequate food, clean water and sanitation, preventive health care, and family planning services for every human being on Earth. According to the 1999 UN Development Report, it would take only an additional $40 billion to Fund Global Basic Human Needs, an amount that is only 13% of the 2000 US military budget. Second, the US, which now spends half of the world's military expenditures by itself, should demilitarize its economy and reinvest the Peace Dividend in financing and technical assistance for an Ecological Conversion of Human Civilization to Sustainable Systems of Production.
* Peace Conversion: Cut US military spending unilaterally by 75% in two years to establish a non-interventionist, non-offensive, strictly defensive military posture and save nearly $250 billion a year.
* Peace Dividend: Dedicate the $250 billion a year Peace Dividend to the Global Green Deal, Ecological Conversion, the Economic Bill of Rights, and providing full income and benefits for all workers and soldiers displaced by demilitarization until they find new jobs at comparable income and benefits.
* Unilateral Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Disarmament: These weapons of mass destruction have no place in a non-offensive military. The US should set the example and demand that other nations match our lead before the proliferation of weapons to countries around the world leads to mass destruction.
* Cooperative Security: Pursue a "cooperative security" strategy that seeks mutual arms reductions, progressive elimination of cross-border offensive capabilities, and further cuts in military spending. The goal is to progressively demilitarize down to a non-offensive defense of U.S. national territory using a coast guard, border guard, national guard, and light air defense system, which would cost about $3 billion, or less than 1% of current US military spending.
* Democratize the United Nations: Cooperative security cannot work as long as the United Nations remains a US puppet. Support reforms to democratize the United Nations, such as more proportionality and power in the General Assembly, an elected Security Council, and the elimination of the Great Power Veto on the Security Council.
* A Pro-Democracy Foreign Policy: We call for a fundamental shift in US foreign policy, from supporting repressive regimes in the interests global corporations to supporting the pro-democracy labor, social, and environmental movements of the people.
o Support International, Multilateral Peacekeeping to Stop Aggression and Genocide
o No Unilateral US Intervention in the Internal Affairs of Other Countries
o Close All Overseas US Military Bases
o Disband NATO and All Aggressive Military Alliances
o Ban US Arms Exports
o Abolish the CIA, NSA, US Army School of the Americas, and All US Agencies of Covert Warfare
o End the Economic Blockades of Cuba, Iraq, and Yugoslavia
o Cut Off US Military Aid to Counter-Insurgency Wars in Colombia and Mexico
o Freedom for Lori Berenson and All Political Prisoners
o Require a National Referendum to Declare War
* End Global Financial Exploitation: Cancel the debt owed by poor countries to global banks. End the exploitation of poor countries by IMF "structural adjustment" policies. Abolish the IMF and World Bank and replace them with a democratic international financial institution for balancing international accounts and financing short-term current account balances.
* Fair Trade: Withdraw from the World Trade Organization, NAFTA, and all other corporate-managed trade agreements that are driving down labor and environmental conditions globally. Establish an internationalist social tariff system that equalizes trade by accounting for the differences among countries in wages, social benefits, environmental conditions, and political rights. Tariff revenues to a democratic, international fund for ecological production and democratic development in poor countries in order to level up social and environmental conditions to a high common standard.


More coming...

It reminds me of how the world wanted Germany to pay for all the damage caused in WW1. It killed their economy, hyper inflation, and created conditions for the rise of Hitler. Now the world wants the US to pay for all iniquities because of its perceived wealth.

Note to the world: what wealth? The US is in extreme debt and our current government responds by raising the debt limit by almost 2 million now so it won't be an issue during the 2010 election year.

BucEyedPea
12-10-2009, 10:07 AM
I thought health care reform was going to destroy capitalism. Cap N Trade won't have anything to destroy when it gets passed.ROFL
You don't subsribe to two-valued logic do you?

They both do. Many issues do....especially when one routinely calls on a govt solution.

BucEyedPea
12-10-2009, 10:09 AM
It reminds me of how the world wanted Germany to pay for all the damage caused in WW1. It killed their economy, hyper inflation, and created conditions for the rise of Hitler. Now the world wants the US to pay for all iniquities because of its perceived wealth.

Note to the world: what wealth? The US is in extreme debt and our current government responds by raising the debt limit by almost 2 million now so it won't be an issue during the 2010 election year.

But, but the Green Party is not socialist. Saying that is a conspiracy.:spock:

BigRedChief
12-10-2009, 10:53 AM
You don't subsribe to two-valued logic do you?Is that something like the Bush doctrine?

BucEyedPea
12-10-2009, 11:30 AM
Is that something like the Bush doctrine?

No it's a form of logic that assumes the opposite position on the other extreme is favored, ignoring degrees and shades of grey in-between or something entirely outside-the-box to mainstream opinion. There are many ideas.
You assumed the opposite of what I said. As in Black/White or being binary. See it must be that you're in IT that makes you think that way whereas I am in a creative profession. To me almost anything can be.

BigRedChief
12-10-2009, 11:33 AM
No it's a form of logic that assumes the opposite position on the other extreme is favored, ignoring degrees and shades of grey in-between or something entirely outside-the-box to mainstream opinion. There are many ideas.
You assumed the opposite of what I said. As in Black/White or being binary. See it must be that you're in IT that makes you think that way whereas I am in a creative profession. To me almost anything can be.sorry but I was being sarcastic. I'll include a smiley to be clear next time.

KC native
12-10-2009, 11:35 AM
No it's a form of logic that assumes the opposite position on the other extreme is favored, ignoring degrees and shades of grey in-between or something entirely outside-the-box to mainstream opinion. There are many ideas.
You assumed the opposite of what I said. As in Black/White or being binary. See it must be that you're in IT that makes you think that way whereas I am in a creative profession. To me almost anything can be.

ROFL Is that why you incessantly label anything you don't agree with and then run when you are asked to clarify your nonsense?

NewChief
12-10-2009, 11:39 AM
No it's a form of logic that assumes the opposite position on the other extreme is favored, ignoring degrees and shades of grey in-between or something entirely outside-the-box to mainstream opinion. There are many ideas.
You assumed the opposite of what I said. As in Black/White or being binary. See it must be that you're in IT that makes you think that way whereas I am in a creative profession. To me almost anything can be.

You mean like when you either agree with everything you say, or you're a socialist? Is that an example of two-value logic? :p

Amnorix
12-10-2009, 11:53 AM
All I can say is that I'm glad the Green Party is marginal and marginalized, and unlikely to ever be in a position to seriously influence policy.

mlyonsd
12-10-2009, 11:53 AM
Anyone who says he or she cares about the working class in this country should have walked out on the Democratic Party in 1994 with the passage of NAFTA.

QFT

BucEyedPea
12-10-2009, 12:42 PM
You mean like when you either agree with everything you say, or you're a socialist? Is that an example of two-value logic? :p

Because I don't think that as much as you believe it's the case. I only do that to those advocating socialism when they're doing it. I don't necessarily do it due to a disagreement. Although I do disagree with socialism.
There just happens to be quite a few socialists here, partial and full even. So that's the other option being promoted here for the time being. I can't deny reality.

When your side advocates something different from that I'll let you know even if I disagree with it. :D So far it hasn't happened except in a few cases like calling for NAFTA being repealed. See there, that actually has socialism in it.
And you and I agree....and repealing it would not be socialism either.

Of all folks, you're one who had a socialist sig for a long time and seemed to be the more honest of them as to what you stood for.

BucEyedPea
12-10-2009, 12:47 PM
sorry but I was being sarcastic. I'll include a smiley to be clear next time.

Don't go all kcnaive on me now! :D

oldandslow
12-10-2009, 02:22 PM
Thanks for posting I platform I believe in BEP...free advertising...

Indeed, after this last election, I suspect I will vote green the rest of my life.

BucEyedPea
12-10-2009, 03:12 PM
Thanks for posting I platform I believe in BEP...free advertising...

Indeed, after this last election, I suspect I will vote green the rest of my life.

Well, I've always considered you ideology honest. I respect that.

Calcountry
12-10-2009, 03:22 PM
Sounds good. He's not actually a real socialist, though. Ralph Nader is not a socialist either.So, you are saying the Emperor has such a fine new suit?

Calcountry
12-10-2009, 03:27 PM
I thought health care reform was going to destroy capitalism. Cap N Trade won't have anything to destroy when it gets passed.ROFLHey dude, the titanic is listing. Might as well finish the brandy and listen to the violinists.

BigRedChief
12-11-2009, 07:33 AM
Hey dude, the titanic is listing. Might as well finish the brandy and listen to the violinists.How about I get a beer, some pizza and hire Van Halen? Worked out for Spocolli.

Direckshun
12-11-2009, 02:26 PM
What an ironically useless article.

Liberals Are Useless

By Chris Hedges

Liberals are a useless lot.

Let's just be honest here. This was not a thoughtful piece, it was a piece that renders a huge chunk of our society as "useless," in order to get incendiary tools like yourself to rush to the closest BB, your copy&paste triggered.

I don't know the first thing about Hedges or truthdig.com, but this is the ideological equivolent of Whitlock.

They talk about peace and do nothing to challenge our permanent war economy.

Not true. Secretary Gates is working to reduce the military complex through many means, such as the consolidation of the construction of certain airships that are currently built from parts in 40+ states.

They claim to support the working class, and vote for candidates that glibly defend the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Fair.

They insist they believe in welfare, the right to organize, universal health care and a host of other socially progressive causes, and will not risk stepping out of the mainstream to fight for them.

What does this mean? What's "stepping out of the mainstream to fight"?

He does realize Obama's attempt to bring universal healthcare is like the 3rd or 4th major attempt by a Democrat in way less than a century.

The only talent they seem to possess is the ability to write abject, cloying letters to Barack Obama—as if he reads them—asking the president to come back to his “true” self.

Please. This is ridiculous. The liberal blogosphere has pounded Obama and Democrats on a number of subjects, and HuffPo asked one of the toughest questions of Obama about Iraq at a press conference this year.

This sterile moral posturing, which is not only useless but humiliating, has made America’s liberal class an object of public derision.

Unlike, I would imagine, TJ's heroic tea parties.

I am not disappointed in Obama. I don’t feel betrayed. I don’t wonder when he is going to be Obama. I did not vote for the man. I vote socialist, which in my case meant Ralph Nader, but could have meant Cynthia McKinney.

Fair.

Obama was and is a brand. He is a product of the Chicago political machine. He has been skillfully packaged as the new face of the corporate state.

Every President is a skillfully packaged brand.

I don’t dislike Obama—I would much rather listen to him than his smug and venal predecessor—though I expected nothing but a continuation of the corporate rape of the country. And that is what he has delivered. "You have a tug of war with one side pulling,” Ralph Nader told me when we met Saturday afternoon. “The corporate interests pull on the Democratic Party the way they pull on the Republican Party. If you are a ‘least-worst’ voter you don’t want to disturb John Kerry on the war, so you call off the anti-war demonstrations in 2004. You don’t want to disturb Obama because McCain is worse. And every four years both parties get worse. There is no pull. That is the dilemma of The Nation and The Progressive and other similar publications.

General condemnation of the two party system and how lobbyists still run Washington. Fair.

I save my anger for our bankrupt liberal intelligentsia of which, sadly, I guess I am a member. Liberals are the defeated, self-absorbed Mouse Man in Dostoevsky’s “Notes From Underground.” They embrace cynicism, a cloak for their cowardice and impotence.

No evidence to prove this assertion -- just makes it and assumes you agree.

They, like Dostoevsky’s depraved character, have come to believe that the “conscious inertia” of the underground surpasses all other forms of existence. They too use inaction and empty moral posturing, not to affect change but to engage in an orgy of self-adulation and self-pity. They too refuse to act or engage with anyone not cowering in the underground.

Bologna.

This choice does not satisfy the Mouse Man, as it does not satisfy our liberal class, but neither has the strength to change. The gravest danger we face as a nation is not from the far right, although it may well inherit power, but from a bankrupt liberal class that has lost the will to fight and the moral courage to stand up for what it espouses.

He just keeps repeating this idea over and over again without explaining it or adding to it.

He makes very clear that liberals are spineless donothings, but WHY are they spineless donothings?

Because all they do is bitch and moan, and never do anything proactively to affect the government?

That is demonstrably false. Obviously false.

Because sometimes liberal administrations do things that aren't very liberal?

Who cares. Ideological purity is a two-edged sword that cuts like shit.

So, what's the argument? Is there an argument? Or is this Whitlockesque?

Anyone who says he or she cares about the working class in this country should have walked out on the Democratic Party in 1994 with the passage of NAFTA. And it has only been downhill since. If welfare reform, the 1999 Financial Services Modernization Act, which gutted the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act—designed to prevent the kind of banking crisis we are now undergoing—and the craven decision by the Democratic Congress to continue to fund and expand our imperial wars were not enough to make you revolt, how about the refusal to restore habeas corpus, end torture in our offshore penal colonies, abolish George W. Bush’s secrecy laws or halt the warrantless wiretapping and monitoring of American citizens?

Liberals have spoken out about ALL this shit.

The imperial projects and the corporate state have not altered under Obama. The state kills as ruthlessly and indiscriminately in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan as it did under Bush. It steals from the U.S. treasury as rapaciously to enrich the corporate elite. It, too, bows before the conservative Israel lobby, refuses to enact serious environmental or health care reform, regulate Wall Street, end our relationship with private mercenary contractors or stop handing obscene sums of money, some $1 trillion a year, to the military and arms industry.

Liberals have spoken out about ALL this shit.

At what point do we stop being a doormat? At what point do we fight back? We may lose if we step outside the mainstream, but at least we will salvage our self-esteem and integrity.

I don't understand what he means by the mainstream.

So far, he has advocated ZERO ideas about what liberals should do, other than they need to do """""more,""""" and it needs to be """""out""""" of the mainstream.

It's very clear why he hasn't offered any concrete ideas. Because to actually detail his socialist desires would estrange this anti-liberal lovefest from being posted by conservatives, Glenn Beckians, libertarians, and other folks who will likely disagree with ANY proposed solution he generates.

So what we get is this vacuous ridiculousness that means nothing.

You've married yourself to the wrong horse, TJ.

I learned to dislike liberals when I lived in Roxbury, the inner-city in Boston, as a seminary student at Harvard Divinity School. I commuted into Cambridge to hear professors and students talk about empowering people they never met. It was the time of the leftist Sandinista government in Nicaragua. Spending two weeks picking coffee in that country and then coming back and talking about it for the rest of the semester was the best way to “credentialize” yourself as a revolutionary. But few of these “revolutionaries” found the time to spend 20 minutes on the Green Line to see where human beings in their own city were being warehoused little better than animals. They liked the poor, but they did not like the smell of the poor. It was a lesson I never forgot.

I was also at the time a member of the Greater Boston YMCA boxing team. We fought on Saturday nights for $25 in arenas in working-class neighborhoods like Charlestown. My closest friends were construction workers and pot washers. They worked hard. They believed in unions. They wanted a better life, which few of them ever got. We used to run five miles after our nightly training, passing through the Mission Main and Mission Extension Housing Projects, and they would joke, “I hope we get mugged.” They knew precisely what to do with people who abused them. They may not have been liberal, they may not have finished high school, but they were far more grounded than most of those I studied with across the Charles River. They would have felt awkward, and would have been made to feel awkward, at the little gatherings of progressive and liberal intellectuals at Harvard, but you could trust and rely on them.

Liberals are snooty Ivy League elites that know nothing of the real world, whereas Useful Americans are trustworthy, largely uneducated, salt of the earth people whose word is their bond.

El oh el. Am I listening to the Mark Levin show?

I went on to spend two decades as a war correspondent. The qualities inherent in good soldiers or Marines, like the qualities I found among those boxers, are qualities I admire—self-sacrifice, courage, the ability to make decisions under stress, the capacity to endure physical discomfort, and a fierce loyalty to those around you, even if it puts you in greater danger. If liberals had even a bit of their fortitude we could have avoided this mess.

Obama received more military donations than any candidate in the 2007-08 primaries and general election.

Just thought I should point that out before we work too hard on the Military Versus The Libruls angle.

PornChief
12-11-2009, 03:37 PM
too bad I can't post links since I don't have 3836583648 posts yet or however many it is i need. But this dudes hit the nail on the head pointing out leftos have just changed from red to green.

The New Socialism
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, December 11, 2009



In the 1970s and early '80s, having seized control of the U.N. apparatus (by power of numbers), Third World countries decided to cash in. OPEC was pulling off the greatest wealth transfer from rich to poor in history. Why not them? So in grand U.N. declarations and conferences, they began calling for a "New International Economic Order." The NIEO's essential demand was simple: to transfer fantastic chunks of wealth from the industrialized West to the Third World.

On what grounds? In the name of equality -- wealth redistribution via global socialism -- with a dose of post-colonial reparations thrown in.

The idea of essentially taxing hardworking citizens of the democracies to fill the treasuries of Third World kleptocracies went nowhere, thanks mainly to Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher (and the debt crisis of the early '80s). They put a stake through the enterprise.

But such dreams never die. The raid on the Western treasuries is on again, but today with a new rationale to fit current ideological fashion. With socialism dead, the gigantic heist is now proposed as a sacred service of the newest religion: environmentalism.

One of the major goals of the Copenhagen climate summit is another NIEO shakedown: the transfer of hundreds of billions from the industrial West to the Third World to save the planet by, for example, planting green industries in the tristes tropiques.

Politically it's an idea of genius, engaging at once every left-wing erogenous zone: rich man's guilt, post-colonial guilt, environmental guilt. But the idea of shaking down the industrial democracies in the name of the environment thrives not just in the refined internationalist precincts of Copenhagen. It thrives on the national scale, too.

On the day Copenhagen opened, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency claimed jurisdiction over the regulation of carbon emissions by declaring them an "endangerment" to human health.

Since we operate an overwhelmingly carbon-based economy, the EPA will be regulating practically everything. No institution that emits more than 250 tons of CO2 a year will fall outside EPA control. This means more than a million building complexes, hospitals, plants, schools, businesses and similar enterprises. (The EPA proposes regulating emissions only above 25,000 tons, but it has no such authority.) Not since the creation of the Internal Revenue Service has a federal agency been given more intrusive power over every aspect of economic life.

This naked assertion of vast executive power in the name of the environment is the perfect fulfillment of the prediction of Czech President (and economist) Vaclav Klaus that environmentalism is becoming the new socialism, i.e., the totemic ideal in the name of which government seizes the commanding heights of the economy and society.

Socialism having failed so spectacularly, the left was adrift until it struck upon a brilliant gambit: metamorphosis from red to green. The cultural elites went straight from the memorial service for socialism to the altar of the environment. The objective is the same: highly centralized power given to the best and the brightest, the new class of experts, managers and technocrats. This time, however, the alleged justification is not abolishing oppression and inequality but saving the planet.

Not everyone is pleased with the coming New Carbon-Free International Order. When the Obama administration signaled (in a gesture to Copenhagen) a U.S. commitment to major cuts in carbon emissions, Democratic Sen. Jim Webb wrote the president protesting that he lacks the authority to do so unilaterally. That requires congressional concurrence by legislation or treaty.

With the Senate blocking President Obama's cap-and-trade carbon legislation, the EPA coup d'etat served as the administration's loud response to Webb: The hell we can't. With this EPA "endangerment" finding, we can do as we wish with carbon. Either the Senate passes cap-and-trade, or the EPA will impose even more draconian measures: all cap, no trade.

Forget for a moment the economic effects of severe carbon chastity. There's the matter of constitutional decency. If you want to revolutionize society -- as will drastic carbon regulation and taxation in an energy economy that is 85 percent carbon-based -- you do it through Congress reflecting popular will. Not by administrative fiat of EPA bureaucrats.

Congress should not just resist this executive overreaching, but trump it: Amend clean-air laws and restore their original intent by excluding CO2 from EPA control and reserving that power for Congress and future legislation.

Do it now. Do it soon. Because Big Brother isn't lurking in CIA cloak. He's knocking on your door, smiling under an EPA cap.