Iarnrod wrote:
In other words - in true radical Left fashion - you
are defending evil. What a shock.
I did nothing of the sort. I and all Democrats I know abhor evil.
You abhor *some* evil, but not all. Most Dems I know - almost without
exception, actually - happily support the confiscation of other people's
life's work (aka "their money") in the name of what they claim to be the
"common good". You hide behind code phrases like "helping the children",
"caring for the poor" and so forth, but at the end of the day, you are
quite happy to use your government to threaten or actually use force to
extract the hours of my life expressed in my wallet in support of your
pet causes whether or not I agree with you. This is flatly evil. It
makes no difference if it is sanctioned by the mob rule you've effected
and called "law". Any use of threat or force that is not in response to force
and/or threat initiated by others first is evil without exception.
and it ain't with the main of the Democratic Party.
The debate here was about the Left, not the Democratic Party.
You are wrong. You're not reading the poster to whom I responded then.
Clearly it was about the Democratic Party and his absurd claim,
helpfully reproduced he "Sadly, an increasing proportion of the
Democratic party has been hijacked by the likes of Noam Chomsky and
Ward Churchill, so I will concede that the trend is increasingly that
Democrat = Radical Left Dirtbag." That's utter nonsense.
It is not remotely nonsense. The Democratic party was pulled
increasingly Left starting with FDR and has been accelerating that
way ever since. This is not even a remarkable idea among most
historians or other observers of Reality. Listening to screeching
rhetoric of the past 8 years just here in the US, one is led to
the conclusion that the Dems increasingly despise their own nation
(and the Republicans can find *no* fault with it even when evidence of
wrongdoing is in plain sight). I hear no loud condemnation from
the Dems when Rosie O'Donnell wheezes away at how the 9/11
attacks were fabricated by the US in an attempt to start new wars.
I see Democrat Senators - almost all of whom voted that the Iraq
war was necessary and just a few years ago suddenly getting
amnesia now that it's time to have an election again. I see
Democrats at all levels in public and private lining up as
class warriors against the "eeeeeevvvvilll rich people" because
they cannot themselves accomplish what the wealth have and must
therefore steal it if they want wealth (for the most part - one
noticeable exception is a certain Senator with a bad driving record
who has managed to be very rich by inheriting his family's
illegally gotten contraband money, but I digress). All of these
ideas find their genesis in the radical Left canon of people
like Chomsky and his apostles. The Dems may not *all* be Left
loons today but they are headed that way. In any case, the root
cause is moral and intellectual defects of Left ideology that
underpins all this.
At
the moment, your statement - as I have already stipulated - is
(barely) true.
No, it is wholly true.
But the Dems have been systematically been dragged
into the far-Left sewer, and the Chomskys and Churchills will soon
enough be speaking for the Democrat majority - well, at least their
politicians, but not necessarily their voters (yet).
Utter nonsense.
Then why do the popular leaders of the Dems - Hillary, Obama, Jackson,
et al - not openly distance themselves from the foul offal that emits
from the radical Left? Why are they silent about the Left attacks on
wealth, Capitalism, individual liberty, personal responsibility? Why do
the Dems like up like parrots with probes shoved up their nether regions
to give one loud voice to moral collectivist abominations like "univeral
healthcare", entitlement programs and all the rest? Why do they not
"abhor" notions that are fundamentally rooted in Leftist anti-liberty
agenda and inherently depend on force brought upon the few at the hands
of the many? You know the answer. The Dems are moving farther and
farther Left - at least as expressed by their leaders.
The OP didn't know what he was talking about. That was the trolling
remark.
Sadly, I know all too well what I am talking about.
That is not apparent to me given your misreading of the above.
I'm a loathe to defend the Right - they are ridiculous much of the time.
But the most Right leaning politician looks positively geniuslike by
comparison to the noise emanating from the far Left.
An indefensible position. Perhaps you just say that because you're
more inclined to sympathize with much of what the Right says aside
from the few things you might find objectionable, that you are with
the Left.
Not remotely so. There was a time when I found the Left and Right about
equally silly, but they could be counted upon to offset each other
sufficiently so they could do little real harm. But the radicalization
of the Left has caused its credibility to fall out of sight here in
the Real World. This has left the only voice being heard that of the
Right. This is why Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly and their ilk are
fabulously successful - there is no meaningful counterpoint coming from
the Left. How could there be when the entire philosophical basis for
Left ideology is rooted in mob rule, a defiance of demonstrably successful
Capitalist economics, a devaluing of personal liberty, and a denial of the
personal accountability attendant to it. As I said before, the Left,
having gotten a case of moral fleas, has left the political Right
looking healthy by comparison and thereby given the Right voice
and legitimacy.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/