Why does the left view themselves as idealistic eliteist

"You named a whole lot of bad folks that you have managed to tie (I think incorrectly) to 'leftist' ideology... but you left off so many good ones... like Mother Theresa to name but a single one in a sea of good natured leftist historical icons, but you chose to stick with your Hitler analogy. I think that's a shame. Between the two, one deserves far more attention than the other." Rick.

Rick: you talk about Mother Theresa. We both know that if she was alive today and George Bush asked congress to pass an act to give her money for her cause the left would scream and the ACLU would sue that it was unconsitutional.

The left attacks the BoyScouts.
The left attacks the Salvation Army
The left attacks public displays of Christmas and Hanukka. The ACLU has sued small stores ,who could not afford to pay to defend the lawsuit, for playing "holiday music" during that seasonal time.

Yet they defend Islam. Ever wonder where there funding come from. It is all not local.

Moen: what are you talking about. Do you like the idea of child porn on the internet.
Do you like the idea that just about anything from guns to drugs can be brought from overseas markets on the internet and shipped states side. Are you proud that the left wants to defend child porn as well as abortion no matter what month the baby inside has developed. Do you think it is ok for terrorist to contact each other to plan attacks.



And why do you think Bush is in the right. He is barely in the republican party if you look at what he has done as president. Clinton was far more conservative with cutting spending where Bush gives money away. Clinton told the justice department to give just about all mergers the green light which helped soar the stock market and make mega companies with the Banking and Oil industries. Now how right wing is that. The only thing Clinton blew was foreign policy but he was so buddy buddy with the arabs that he did anything they asked of him. Where do you think he got that one hundred million plus private donation for his library from. It is a matter of public record if you don't believe me.

Now do you really think that guy and his wife were real dipolmats and spys. Give me a break. They were on the government gravy train. Why they themselves were bragging on the spy thing. Real spys do not do that even when they have been inactive for a number of years. This was more of appointed democrat party activist government employees looking to embrass the president and sell a book. If you want to talk about exposure look at what Jimmy Carter did to whole CIA stations and their informants overseas. Many died because of his full disclosure policy. What the press failed to bring that up as background material. How surprising.

Think back for a moment at the biggest charge the left did on Bush before 911.
He believes in God. They attacked him every day on that matter. How can we have seperation of church and state with a president who believes in god in office. Rough power phasing but I think most of the readers know its on target with how the left targeted the president.


Rambo I am not from the right nor do I agree with most issues of the right. I am more of a conservative moderate who embraces the old left wing issues of the past which are now mainstream America, which I have mention ,and is sick of the present american left that is not trying to build a better America but is tearing in down.

 

andy i dont want you to feel like i was attacking you in any way. i just ment seeing that you are the one bringing the most to this thread, that you could find somthing like guide lines or general practices of the leftist and rightest.

and also when you say the left attacks this group and that just be sure to note its the far left and not average joe liberal. makes it sound like all the libs are just a bunch of bondage wearing god hating baby killers.

saying the aclu is the voice of the left is like saying pat robertson is the voice of the right(god i hope its not)

 

The ACLU is the leftwings attack dog. Now I would consider most liberals to have leftist leanings on certain issues but not members of the left. That is why I feel the term left-wing liberal was made to show the difference between the two.

Oh I didn't thing I was under attack. I just wanted to repost that my own position is not from the right. Sometimes people would think that if someone is attacking the left they must be from the right for that seems to be most of what our talk radio media does and is. Shame liberal moderates and moderate conservatives don't rule the TV, print and radio media.

 

one day we will take back the airwaves

 

Two questions:
1. Did the Bush administration oust the wife, or did Karl Rove do it. If it was the entire administration, what proof do you have. Keep in mind heresay and conjecture are not valid.

2. Did the person(s) involved to this to intimidate, or was it an accident, again proof is needed if it was to intimidate, keeping in mind that heresay and conjecture are not valid.

 

And now should all others re-post what they wrote in this very discussion before? There was and is no need to turn Hitler into a rightist a posteriori since the nazis were indeed a party of the extreme right. That 25-point program of the DAP (precursor of the NSDAP) was an odd mix of what could be called "left" and "right" demands. But this nationalist concept of a Volksgemeinschaft is quite different from socialist concepts: Only people "of German blood" should be Germans, a Jew could never be a German, no immigration of non-Germans, a German newspaper could only be published by "ethnic Germans", and so on and so on.

Now there sure are parts of the program that sound as if they had been taken from a communist party's program. Nationalization of key industries, or the abolition of non-productive income (ie. people should not be able to live from dividend/rent/interest payments alone). But I guess it does not come as a surprise that all these "leftist" ideas written in 1920 were never addressed once the nazis came into power in 1933.

Christian

 

I'm still not sure how any of those things make hitler on the right.... It seems like leftists just don't want hitler to have been a leftist, since they are always calling republicans "Nazi" or "Facist", or even "Nazi facist chickenhawk warmongering facist nazi".

 

What an odd statement - if George Bush asked congress to give her money... Because we all know that would be a likely thing to happen. But we can through reason out the window, and assume it feasibly *could* - just to prove your point that the left is so unreasonable that they would stop him... Now, I don't know why the left - in this fantasy world you have created, where Bush gives money to people who actually need it - why can't the left also be considerate and throughtful to good organizations?

 

(1)Karl Rove IS the Bush administration. If you haven't figured that out by now...welcome aboard my friend. He is the chief of staff after all. You don't get much higher than that. And lest we forget Scooter Libby, the VP's chief of staff, is also being investigated for the same crime. Stay tuned folks...indictments to follow.

(2) Are you seriously suggesting that two or more Bush administration leaders "accidentally" committed treason? I would hate to imagine that much incompetence clustered in one administration but, somehow, it seems extremely plausible.

 

My point with the Hitler thing was that Bush is closer to Hitler than the left (say Howard Dean) is to Pol Pot. Since we all agree that Bush is NOT a true conservative you may be able to agree with this statement.

 

Andy, how much do you really know about the ACLU. They have taken cases that defend people's rights no matter what that right entails. Either leftwing or rightwing politics as long as it's their constitutional right to do it, the ACLU will defend them. They have to climb into bed with some pretty seedy characters but the constitution is worth defending even if some choose to push it's limits. This is directly from their web site:

"The ACLU defends Americans' constitutional right to exercise religious beliefs or no religion at all, free from government promotion of faith-based doctrine or activities."

www.ACLU.org

I could not possibly agree more.

 

This an interesting thread. You start out with a statement about lefty elitist then you name Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot as examples. They were not lefties or elitist, they were sociopaths and psychopaths plain and simple. They were the extreme and really belong in the categories of deviant social despots and not held up as examples of either left or right.

 

burned

 

Definition of conjecture: hypothesis that has been formed by speculating (usually with little hard evidence); "speculations about the outcome of the election"; "he dismissed it as mere conjecture"

 

How come when leftist finally get absolute power and do their nasty things that they are no longer considered to be from the left. Yes those people are sociopaths and had zero tolerance. But who supported them and what parties did they come from. None of them acted alone for they all had party machines to carry out their dirty work. Remember "politically correct" also means zero tolerance. The difference is that the left in this nation does not have absolute power.
Remember I do not consider the average liberal to be a leftist.
An extreme liberal would be a leftist liberial and that is another matter.

As for George Bush, he dumps tons of money into social programs. Just look at the budget. He also proposed government money to civic grassroots charitys. But that was attacked by the left for most grassroots charity groups in this country, like soup kitchens, are church based.
Mother Theresa or a saintly women like her would not stand a chance of getting any federal funding due to the left's hatred. They used to have good ideas to help improve this nation, now all they do is tear at its heart.

By the way I am not a George Bush fan and wish not to defend him but the left has attacked him unfairly due to the fact that he stated he believed in God and sees no difference of giving a small local church federal dollars to help run its homeless outreach programs then funding Rev. Jessie Jackson's "charity" projects.

 

Zaney buddy, what the H-E double hockey sticks are you talking about? Do you even watch the news or read about current events in the paper. I know you have a computer. Plenty of news sources online too.

You can bury your head in the sand all you want I guess, but what will you believe when the indictments start rolling in? Even conservatives are shaking their heads at this administration. If you've noticed the democrats are pretty quite. They seem to be letting the administration crumble under the weight of its own hypocrisy.

Don't be the last one on your block to notice what's going on right in front of your face. I'm guessing you're a Bush supporter which is fine. Many people supported Nixon right up to and after he climbed aboard the helicopter and left office for good. I think many people had good reasons for supporting Bush in the beginning but times have changed. That ship has sailed. Time to take a fresh look.

 

Actually, I voted for Nader. I think the Bush administration has made some egregious errors..............

 

I give up... this whole section of cointalk has become nothing more than bogus logic.

Count me out.

 

Could you point out what you considered to be bogus logic.


"That 25-point program of the DAP (precursor of the NSDAP) was an odd mix of what could be called "left" and "right" demands. But this nationalist concept of a Volksgemeinschaft is quite different from socialist concepts:"
Christian.

Hitler was a nationalistic socialist vs a world socialist.
As for the odd mix of left and right I always saw the two extremes to be the one and the same. zero tolerance, total rule by the state, or in reality statehead, and once they are in power they tend to eat their young,(Purges).


"Andy, how much do you really know about the ACLU." Moen.

Being from NYC for the majority of my life,
I have alot of exposure to the ACLU.
What they started out as and what they become in my view is two different things. Even thru they were communist then they were more honest where now they are vicious.

Background on the ACLU. Please do not take my word for it,look it up yourself
The ACLU was founded in the 1920s by Roger Baldwin.
Roger Baldwin, the first director of the ACLU, was also a communist.
He explains in his book, Liberty Under the Soviets, "I joined. I don’t regret being a part of the Communist tactic, which increased the effectiveness of a good cause. I knew what I was doing. I was not an innocent liberal. I wanted what the Communists wanted…”
Several other founding crucial leaders of the ACLU were members of the Communist Party:
Earl Browder, then General Secretary of the Communist Party, said the ACLU functioned as "a transmission belt" for the party. Baldwin also stated “We are for SOCIALISM, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the state itself... We seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the SOLE CONTROL of those who produce wealth. COMMUNISM is the goal.”

Taken from a website: This is not bogus logic but factual stuff Rick.
"William Z. Foster, then National Chairman of the Communist Party USA and an ACLU co-founder, is famous for this 1932 quote: "The establishment of an American Soviet government will involve the confiscation of large landed estates in town and country, and also, the whole body to forests, mineral deposits, lakes, rivers and so on." He was the author of Toward Soviet America".

The ACLU is the lefts attackdog. They wanted the destruction of the United States from the begining.

Where is the ACLU getting their funding from since their agenda from the start was to destroy the United States. Yes some is from membership dues but where is the chunk coming from? Who else wants to destory our way of life and has billions at their disposal? Something to think about.

 

It took guts to vote for Nader. Wouldn't he have been interesting!?