How much have Democrats changed in 50 years?

Outlets like CNN are neither liberal or conservative. What they are first and foremost is establishment. Their job is mostly to serve power and repeat the talking points of the powerful. To call CNN or the Washington Post or the New York Times or Time Magazine "liberal" or "conservative" is to completely miss the point.
 
Werbung:
Outlets like CNN are neither liberal or conservative. What they are first and foremost is establishment. Their job is mostly to serve power and repeat the talking points of the powerful. To call CNN or the Washington Post or the New York Times or Time Magazine "liberal" or "conservative" is to completely miss the point.

YOU are the one who doesn't get it - LIBERALISM IS THE ESTABLISHMENT. To call entities which are lockstep 100% supporters of the entire liberal agenda "not liberal" represents a wholesale disconnect from reality.
 
Yeah, such establishment initiatives as invading Iraq, slashing Social Security, cutting taxes for millionaires....... yes, the very core of liberalism!

Get a clue. The Left has utter contempt for the likes of CNN, namely because truly progressive views are banned from being articulated on the network. They set up your usual left-right dichotomy, only the "liberal" is represented by a centrist Democrat and the "conservative" is represented by an extreme right winger. The views of the real leaders of the American Left, people like Chomsky, Zinn, Glenn Greenwald, Moyers, Naomi Klein, Sirota, Goodman, Hedges, Scheer, Taibbi, Robert Greenwald, digby, Nader, etc etc etc.... the views these people hold, views that are held by millions of liberals, are completely shut out from debate. Banned. So the paradigm set up for a CNN debate will not be whether or not to cut spending right now, but how much spending to cut. They move the goal posts dramatically to the right. And they have conservatives like Joe Klein and David Gergen, people who are utterly despised on the left, presented as "liberals."
 
Jefferson wasn't anti-religion?
No, he clearly was not anti-religion. Anti-Theists seek to abolish religion in all its forms. As a Deist, who believed in "natures God", Jefferson saw religion as a powerful positive force that had been perverted by men. It was this perversion of religion that Jefferson opposed, not religion itself.

I personally think he might have been an atheist - he was certainly denounced as such by political rivals - but I admit that's speculation.

I can never join Calvin in addressing his god. He was indeed an Atheist, which I can never be; or rather his religion was Daemonism. If ever man worshipped a false god, he did.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823
I recommend reading the letter in its entirety. Jefferson makes it clear he believes in God and takes issue only with the perversions of religion, not religion itself.

So that's what liberals feared and were suspicious of.
And with good reason, government holds a monopoly on the legal use of force. Such power poses a threat to liberty, which is why strict limitations were designed on the power of government and a system of checks and balances was put in place - all to protect liberty.

Private power is magnitudes worse than government power.
The most dangerous power is a monopoly on the legal use of force, only government has such power, private industry has no such power. It is the marriage of government and private industry that threatens liberty in the same way, and for the same reason, a marriage of church and state threatens liberty.

Besides, modern capitalism demands corporatism.
I promised contention on this subject. It is corporatism that hides behind the facade of capitalism, not the other way around.

Big business demands...
The demands of big business have no meaning in a Capitalist system, there is a separation of economy and state.
 
We'll have to agree to disagree in our reading of Jefferson. But not really. Because to say he was against all religions because they were perverted is to agree with me that he was against all religions. It's not like there were some unperverted religions out there he did respect and promote.

I submit:

On the dogmas of religion, as distinguished from moral principles, all mankind, from the beginning of the world to this day, have been quarreling, fighting, burning and torturing one another, for abstractions unintelligible to themselves and to all others, and absolutely beyond the comprehension of the human mind.

I have ever judged of the religion of others by their lives.... It is in our lives, and not from our words, that our religion must be read. By the same test the world must judge me. But this does not satisfy the priesthood. They must have a positive, a declared assent to all their interested absurdities. My opinion is that there would never have been an infidel, if there had never been a priest. The artificial structures they have built on the the purest of all moral systems, for the purpose of deriving from it pence and power, revolt those who think for themselves, and who read in that system only what is really there.

If by religion we are to understand sectarian dogmas, in which no two of them agree, then your exclamation on that hypothesis is just, "that this would be the best of worlds if there were no religion in it."

I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent.

They [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion.

I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology.


People in pious America did NOT generally talk like this in the late 18th early, 19th century; particularly a politician! In this pre-Darwin era, as I said, Jefferson was about as stridently anti-theistic as one could possibly be. It takes some real intellectual backflips to argue that he was not opposed in principle to the institution of organized religion.

The rest of what you say pertains to some kind of purely capitalist society that doesn't and has never existed; why not stick to discussing what does exist? Or, better explain yourself? For example, how could modern capitalism flourish without the state first providing a modern infrastructure?
 
Yeah, such establishment initiatives as invading Iraq

Iraq was invaded by a RINO president, not the liberals who ran practically everything else, and ran everything for the past two years.

slashing Social Security

Whaaaaaaaaaat? Now you're making **** up. :D

Get a clue. The Left has utter contempt for the likes of CNN, namely because truly progressive views are banned from being articulated on the network.

Lessee, let's go down the list:

- pro Abortion Holocaust
- pro anti-white racial discrimination
- $5 trillion new debt in two years
- appointed a who's who of leftwing economists as advisors
- Total politicization of the "Justice Department"
- Takeover of the US healthcare system, 1/6 of the economy
- A big left-fascist ramp up of EPA powers
- slow-motion cut-and-runs in iraq and afghanistan
- wholesale theft of GM bond holders
- ran all over the globe bowing and scraping and licking the boots of every leftwing thug he could find on his apology tours

Not leftwing enough for you? :D
 
...to say [Jefferson] was against all religions because they were perverted is to agree with me that he was against all religions.
That's not what I agreed with. Jefferson was against the perversion of religion, not against religion itself. Jefferson opposed using the belief in God to manipulate people, however, he did not oppose the belief in God.

Jefferson was certainly an Anti-Clericalist:

Some of America's founding fathers had anti-clerical beliefs. Thomas Jefferson's letters contain the following observations: "History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government," and, "In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own." - Wiki

...Jefferson was about as stridently anti-theistic as one could possibly be.

An antitheist is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as "One opposed to belief in the existence of a god." - Wiki
To claim Jefferson was an Anti-Theist lacks plausibility given the extent of his writings on the subject. While Wiki is by no means a definitive source of information, there is a well sourced article regarding Thomas Jefferson and religion.

It takes some real intellectual backflips to argue that he was not opposed in principle to the institution of organized religion.
I agree, which is why I made no such claim. Being opposed to the institutions of organized religion is not the same thing as being opposed to Religion. Jefferson had no problem separating the two concepts.

The rest of what you say pertains to some kind of purely capitalist society that doesn't and has never existed; why not stick to discussing what does exist?
Where has a purely Anarcho-Socialist society ever existed?

For example, how could modern capitalism flourish without the state first providing a modern infrastructure?
I would like to point out once again that when you use the term "modern capitalism" you are talking about State Corporatism, which cannot survive, much less flourish, without the State.
 
Guilty as charged. Huge Chomsky fan. No one has influenced me more. I do have some differences with him, but not many.

My friend, that says a lot about you.

Chomsky is a fool and a dangerous totalitarian. He does all he can to condemn individual liberty and freedom while condoning and admiring communism, antisemitism, anti-Americanism, and sorts of other evils. The man is a traitor.

I suspect you are relatively young and have been completely brainwashed by the left.

I am sorry, but anyone who is a fan of Chomsky is a....well I can't spell it out without getting banned. And to think, you are a teacher. Lord help us!

Why have so many young Americans chosen to believe outrageous leftist lies?

Chomsky was one of the chief deniers of the Cambodian genocide of the 1970s, which took place in the wake of the Communist victory and American withdrawal from Indochina. He directed vitriolic attacks towards the reporters and witnesses who testified to the human catastrophe that was taking place there. Initially, Chomsky tried to minimize the deaths (a “few thousand”) and compared those killed by Pol Pot and his followers to the collaborators who had been executed by resistance movements in Europe at the end of World War II. By 1980, however, it was no longer possible to deny that some 2 million of Cambodia's 7.8 million people had perished at the hands of the Communists. But Professor Chomsky continued to deny the genocide, proposing that the underlying problem may have been a failure of the rice crop. As late as 1988, Chomsky returned to the subject and insisted that whatever had happened in Cambodia, the U.S. was to blame.

This conclusion is the principal theme of what may be loosely termed Chomsky's intellectual oeuvre: Whatever evil exists in the world, the United States is to blame. His intellectual obsession is America and its “grand strategy of world domination.” In 1967 Professor Chomsky wrote that America “needed a kind of denazification.” The Third Reich has provided him with his central metaphor for his own country ever since.

The long conflict with the Soviets and the fact that it was fought out primarily in the Third World allowed Chomsky to elaborate on his analogy with the Nazis and to spin his narrative on the evils of American power. The Soviet dictatorship was not only "morally equivalent" to democratic America, in Chomsky’s view, but actually better because it was less powerful. The chief sin of Stalinism in his eyes was not the murder of millions, but the fact that he had given socialism a bad name.

Professor Chomsky has denounced every U.S. President from Woodrow Wilson and FDR to Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton as the front men in “four-year dictatorships” by a ruling class. In his view, the U.S., led by a series of lesser Hitlers, picked up where the Nazis left off after they were defeated in 1945. According to Chomsky, a case could be made for impeaching every President since World War II because “they’ve all been either outright war criminals or involved in serious war crimes.”

Chomsky also detests the state of Israel, a country he regards as playing the role of Little Satan to the American Great Satan and functioning strategically as an “offshore military and technology base for the United States.”

According to the website Stand4Facts.org, Chomsky has made the following statements about Israel, Jews, and the Holocaust:



Chomsky sees the 9/11 attacks as a turning point in history when the guns that were historically trained on the Third World by imperialist powers like America, were turned around. He sees this as a positive development, because in Professor Chomsky’s eyes unless American “hegemony” is destroyed, the world faces a grim future.

In September 2007, Chomsky was praised by Osama bin Laden as "one of the most capable" citizens of the United States.

In 2010, Chomsky lauded Bradley Manning, the former U.S. Army intelligence analyst who had stolen and distributed, to the Julian Assange-founded website WikiLeaks, hundreds of thousands of classified documents containing sensitive information about the American government and its military. According to Chomsky, Manning was a man of "courage" and "integrity."
http://discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1232
 
Cosmo said:
Guilty as charged. Huge Chomsky fan. No one has influenced me more. I do have some differences with him, but not many.
My friend, that says a lot about you.

His very first posts, where he entered the forum and started spouting obvious lies, told me all I needed to know about little cosmo. The rest has been mere repetition.

But you sound surprised - you didn't notice his first posts? They're all on the first page of this thread.
 
His very first posts, where he entered the forum and started spouting obvious lies, told me all I needed to know about little cosmo. The rest has been mere repetition.

But you sound surprised - you didn't notice his first posts? They're all on the first page of this thread.


No. I am not surprised. I tried to be patient in withholding my opinion.

But, his admiration of that disgusting hateful idiot Chomsky was just too much to take.
 
No. I am not surprised. I tried to be patient in withholding my opinion.

But, his admiration of that disgusting hateful idiot Chomsky was just too much to take.

Chomsky knows more about the political system than you and your neocon friends ever knew. His only downfall is not being able to distinguish between the free market and corporatism.
 
Werbung:
Chomsky knows more about the political system than you and your neocon friends ever knew. His only downfall is not being able to distinguish between the free market and corporatism.


My opinion of you and Cosmo Kramer are essentially the same.

Chomsky has so many downfalls. It is nearly impossible to list them all. But, you think the hateful fool has only one.

Once again you prove you are a hard core leftist masquerading as a libertarian. You are fooling only yourself.
 
Back
Top