Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2019 15:29:24 GMT -7
Too bad Patton was not around for Korea. And Communism relies upon violence in order to be established in the fist place.
Modern Liberals are not really "Liberals" but are more like Leftists. JFK was a Liberal in his day, but by modern standards he sounds pretty Conservative. Even MLK sounds pretty conservative by modern standards. Marx was a Leftist, and today he sounds like a ... leftist. One who never had to live in the society of his own making... typical...
|
|
|
|
Post by starcruiser on Jun 30, 2019 7:15:32 GMT -7
Thomas Jefferson was a "Liberal" in the classical sense. Marx and Engels were Leftists - Commies and both were dangerous to the common man.
I do wonder what Patton would have done in Korea. I'm sure he wouldn't let the front remain stable - constant attack, attack, attack!
|
|
|
|
Post by cowboy40 on Jun 30, 2019 13:03:34 GMT -7
The MLR in Korea became static because of politicians and micro management of the conflict that occurred after the Chinese entrance into the "Police Action". The first goal to liberate Korea, became a different mission after October, 1950. It became a war of cantonment. Decisions were made by the UN, that in effect were meant to Keep the Soviets out of it. (that said, Soviets were known to be active in the Korean conflict as advisers that actually flew and fought on the ground). Korea set the stage for "limited war". The new mission that Ridgeway received was to hold the line. MacArthur and Walker has the mission of liberating Korea and the for filled that right up to the doors of China.
In the end, Kora showed how politicians were becoming the war masters, in their own minds, and not the generals. Korea is a lesson on not how to conduct a war.....
|
|
|
|
Post by JAFisher44 on Jun 30, 2019 13:50:14 GMT -7
Modern Liberals are not really "Liberals" but are more like Leftists. JFK was a Liberal in his day, but by modern standards he sounds pretty Conservative. Even MLK sounds pretty conservative by modern standards. Marx was a Leftist, and today he sounds like a ... leftist. One who never had to live in the society of his own making... typical... Thomas Jefferson was a "Liberal" in the classical sense. Marx and Engels were Leftists - Commies and both were dangerous to the common man. I'm curious what your definition of a "Liberal" is, what a "Leftist" is, and where the transition lies. |
|
|
|
Post by starcruiser on Jun 30, 2019 20:59:15 GMT -7
Okay - Classical Liberal - believes people should be open minded and well educated. Believes such people should be better able to take care of themselves and act responsibly towards others etc...
Leftist/Socialist/Communist - basically believes that the state should control everything and everyone - for the good of the people...of course! That may not have been exactly what Marx and Engels intended at first but..?
|
|
|
|
Post by tosfan1956 on Jul 1, 2019 4:46:04 GMT -7
Well... call me a Classical Liberal! And I’ll wear that label proudly!!
|
|
|
|
Post by JAFisher44 on Jul 1, 2019 6:34:55 GMT -7
Okay - Classical Liberal - believes people should be open minded and well educated. Believes such people should be better able to take care of themselves and act responsibly towards others etc... Leftist/Socialist/Communist - basically believes that the state should control everything and everyone - for the good of the people...of course! That may not have been exactly what Marx and Engels intended at first but..? Well, hyperbole is fun, but seriously... No democrat wants "everything and everyone to be controlled by the state", yet I'm sure there are Democrats you would call "Leftists", so I'm curious where do you draw the line? |
|
|
|
Post by starcruiser on Jul 1, 2019 8:39:02 GMT -7
I wasn't pointing the finger at Democrats specifically - there are plenty of idiots to point fingers at!
Some Democrats are not really Leftists - and some are obviously Leftists (Bernie Sanders anyone? Bueller, Bueller?).
JFK was quite conservative, by modern standards but, many considered him to be liberal. I'd say he was closer to Classical Liberal, rather than Leftist.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2019 14:04:09 GMT -7
Modern Liberals are not really "Liberals" but are more like Leftists. JFK was a Liberal in his day, but by modern standards he sounds pretty Conservative. Even MLK sounds pretty conservative by modern standards. Marx was a Leftist, and today he sounds like a ... leftist. One who never had to live in the society of his own making... typical... Thomas Jefferson was a "Liberal" in the classical sense. Marx and Engels were Leftists - Commies and both were dangerous to the common man. I'm curious what your definition of a "Liberal" is, what a "Leftist" is, and where the transition lies. Well, JFK was a Liberal, and Karl Marx was a Leftist... In reality, MY definition of a "Leftist" or "Liberal" does not really matter as it is subjective. I leave the delineation to people who study such matters as their profession. In general, however, I have Liberal friends with whom I agree quite often, and Leftist (mostly spouses of my friends or family) with whom I struggle to find common ground.
Here is a published article [ LINK]
Oddly, I was once told by and over-weight black-clad guy who handed out badly Xeroxed "Newsletters" that I was just slightly to the right of Jessie Jackson.
|
|
|
|
Post by rabid on Jul 3, 2019 11:22:22 GMT -7
I think it should be defined on what they view as equality.
Liberal=equality of opportunity, as thou harm none do as thou may..
Leftist=equality of outcome, if you're the wrong color watch what you say.
Equality of outcome is where liberal thinking becomes extremism. It's no different than alt-right racial superiority doctrine in that way.
|
|
|
|
Post by krebizfan on Jul 3, 2019 12:21:25 GMT -7
Those who study such matters can slide the definitions however they want. The Manifesto Project was recently used as the basis of a NY Times article and shows how slippery the definition can be. Respect for the Constitution is a right wing concept while rejecting it is a left wing concept according to the guidelines provided. Respect for the Constitution seems rather tangential to the right/left divide; there are groups on both the right and left clamoring for changes. What the changes would be indicates where on the political spectrum the party would fall not just an expressed desire for change.
Similarly, Keynesian management of the economy is regarded as a leftist position but both major US parties have adopted Keynesian economic theories with minor difference in how much to increase spending and cut taxes during a down turn and how much to cut spending and increase taxes during a recovery.
I look at the evaluation and many of the things people would consider net positives were labeled left wing plus Marxist analysis was labeled left wing therefore hardline Communists must be the best political party. According to this, the proof of the current US President's right wing extremism is the large number of left wing positions endorsed. Amazing what academics can do.
|
|
|
|
Post by rabid on Jul 3, 2019 16:40:02 GMT -7
/\ this is true.
Most alarming in either case is the tendency toward what I call "Glenbeckism", that is, if one subscribes to the smallest portion of a political philosophy then they are automatically accused of advocating for the worst extremes of that ideology.
Case in point trump isn't a "right wing extremist". He'd be a slightly right of center and for years held sway as a democrat and ran in the same circles as his opponent. What is he darth Sidious that he could so obscure his right wing extremism? Or how stupid is the average Hollywood liberal that they never noticed the white supremacist in their midst?
How about he was neither a right winger or a white supremacist and never has been. Not that it matters.
It's not what you really support these days, people are discredited by who they can get lumped in with. That's what the media does best, guilt by association.
THe problem is that it's VERY EASY to say when the 'right' has gone too far. It's harder to make that assessment of the left, after all they are doing it for the underprivileged, right?
So that's why I find it useful to draw the line at seeking equality of outcome. That's a more extremist position than many realize, and where the segregationist right and the intersectional leftists overlap completely for entirely different reasons.
|
|
|
|
Post by JAFisher44 on Jul 4, 2019 15:37:25 GMT -7
I think that part of the problem is that people want everything in nice clean categories. Left/Right, Liberal/Conservative, Socialist/Captialist, etc. Politics are messy and not easily categorized. People often fall into multiple categories depending on the issue. For example many people claim to be socially liberal but economically conservative.
I also think that people want to have labels that separate people on the other side that they don't mind so much from the people on the other side that they really disagree with. "He's a liberal, but at least he's not a LEFTIST!"
Ironnerd, the author of that article you posted seems to think the difference between a liberal and a leftist is their preferred economic system. I.E. Liberal = Liberal Capitalist and Leftist = Liberal Socialist. I think I can accept this as it seems to fit with the opinions of most conservatives who use leftist as a pejorative. Though most "leftist" liberals aren't as socialist as their opponents want to paint them but I don't really want to dive back into that mess. It's been discussed here before.
The other use I see leftist commonly serves is just shorthand for "liberal I don't care for." a quick easy pejorative usually used in conjunction with lies and misinformation about that persons positions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2019 7:14:23 GMT -7
Yeah... I just randomly grabbed an article. Nearly all the articles on the difference between LEFT and LIBERAL were PragerU, and I don't what to start that fece-nado on this forum today. However, that IS a difference between Liberalism and Leftism. To think that Conservatism, Libertarianism, Liberalism, and Leftism are not about money is to miss the forest for the trees. It's all about money. And, yes, some people use "Leftist" for "disagreeable Liberal". Some people also use "NAZI", for "disagreeable Conservative". That does not mean either is correct. I agree that most Liberals are not as liberal as their opponents paint them (except, perhaps, for Mr. Sanders or Ms. Ocasio-Cortez). I would also state that very few Conservatives are the NAZI Fascists that they are painted to be by their opponents. I don't have any particular issues with Liberals like JFK (except for Vietnam and Bay of Pigs maybe...), or LBJ (except for more Vietnam). They did some great and dumb things. The same can be said of Eisenhower, Nixon, and Reagan*. They all did smart and dumb things they did were not always in line with their party's line. LBJ and the Civil Rights act. Nixon and the EPA and OSHA. Since H.W. Bush, however, our politics have taken a sharp turn towards pseudo-religious idealism where none of the other party's ideas have any merit, and all of the other party's ideas and bills are probably evil. For both parties, it's no longer about the people; it's all about the power.
"When I say that I am for the square deal, I mean not merely that I stand for fair play under the present rules of the game, but that I stand for having those rules changed so as to work for a more substantial equality of opportunity and of reward for equally good service." - Theodore Roosevelt
* -Carter was a nice guy who seemed overwhelmed by the job, Ford was a good guy who I don't think really wanted the job.
|
|
|
|
Post by starcruiser on Jul 5, 2019 9:12:38 GMT -7
Yeah... I just randomly grabbed an article. Nearly all the articles on the difference between LEFT and LIBERAL were PragerU, and I don't what to start that fece-nado on this forum today. However, that IS a difference between Liberalism and Leftism. To think that Conservatism, Libertarianism, Liberalism, and Leftism are not about money is to miss the forest for the trees. It's all about money. And, yes, some people use "Leftist" for "disagreeable Liberal". Some people also use "NAZI", for "disagreeable Conservative". That does not mean either is correct. I agree that most Liberals are not as liberal as their opponents paint them (except, perhaps, for Mr. Sanders or Ms. Ocasio-Cortez). I would also state that very few Conservatives are the NAZI Fascists that they are painted to be by their opponents. I don't have any particular issues with Liberals like JFK (except for Vietnam and Bay of Pigs maybe...), or LBJ (except for more Vietnam). They did some great and dumb things. The same can be said of Eisenhower, Nixon, and Reagan*. They all did smart and dumb things they did were not always in line with their party's line. LBJ and the Civil Rights act. Nixon and the EPA and OSHA. Since H.W. Bush, however, our politics have taken a sharp turn towards pseudo-religious idealism where none of the other party's ideas have any merit, and all of the other party's ideas and bills are probably evil. For both parties, it's no longer about the people; it's all about the power. "When I say that I am for the square deal, I mean not merely that I stand for fair play under the present rules of the game, but that I stand for having those rules changed so as to work for a more substantial equality of opportunity and of reward for equally good service." - Theodore Roosevelt
* -Carter was a nice guy who seemed overwhelmed by the job, Ford was a good guy who I don't think really wanted the job.
Completely agree on this - including the TR quote and that both Carter and Ford were decent folks in the wrong place at the wrong time. |
|
|
|
Post by rabid on Jul 5, 2019 13:12:47 GMT -7
Good points all. I still find it useful for these purposes to be able to define where "the left" drifts into extremism.
There is a pretty strong demarcation in my mind, for example the classic liberal like Dennis kuccinich vs the people who shout folks out of restaurants, throw cement mixer milkshakes and beat them with bike locks, shovels and crowbars.
Why do we need to categorize and draw the line somewhere? Because "the left" can go south and descend into anarchic violence and no one on the mainstream seems to care. After all why disown your own extremist as long as they are pointing their guns in the right direction? (Pun intended.) need further proof? Saul alinsky who ushered in the death of the age of reason and and William Ayers who planned bombings are both folk heroes on the left. There's no one on the right who undertakes that kind of extremism and is still respected or able to speak publicly.
)
Twitter, Facebook, etc are all happy to let jihadists and antifa alike promote violence on their platform. But say there are only 2 genders and get deplatformed.
It's a febrile madness gripping the Democrat party today. Yes they need to be called out, otherwise our politics will further devolve into gunfights and open war. "Punching nazis" is all well and good until a "nazi" is defined as anyone to the right of Karl Marx.
|
|
|
|
Post by rabid on Aug 11, 2019 12:50:27 GMT -7
Who else is loving Tulsi Gabbard?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2019 16:13:19 GMT -7
Who else is loving Tulsi Gabbard? Okay...
I am secretly hoping for a Gabbard/Yang or Yang/Gabbard ticket. Yang has a lot of conservative views, and could help pull conservatives from Trump. Tulsi's is a bit more liberal than Andrew, but not nuts.
Neither have a great Energy platform (Solar and wind, but no Nukes, Deep Geothermal, or investment in Zero Emissions Natural Gas or Space-based Solar).
Given Trump or Biden/Harris/Sanders.... Yeah, Ms. Gabbard wins.
|
|
|
|
Post by rabid on Aug 19, 2019 16:05:16 GMT -7
Funny I'm about to vote Democrat for the first time since Kerry if she was on the ticket.
But every liberal I know is trying to talk me out of it...because she is the "Trump supporter's" favorite democrat!
She won me over on the view talking to all those insane women.
|
|
|
|
Post by starcruiser on Aug 19, 2019 20:51:59 GMT -7
What I've said, over and over, is that we need a more moderate government. We don't need any more demagogues in any part of it now. We've had enough...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2019 16:11:56 GMT -7
rabid , ask the liberals what they prefer, a Democrat* that Trump-fans can tolerate, or Trump?
* pro-abortion, pro-gun control, pro-environment, pro-LGBT+, pro-immigration, etc...
|
|
|
|
Post by starcruiser on Aug 21, 2019 7:34:40 GMT -7
|
|
|
|
Post by krebizfan on Aug 21, 2019 18:58:03 GMT -7
I tend to believe that people will vote based on the policies that candidate is believed to be trying to implement (which may vary from those being campaigned on or actually submitted for legislation). Few will be concerned with what double secret super delegates prefer. I had thought that claiming support from the silent majority had gone out of fashion with Nixon.
|
|
|
|
Post by rabid on Aug 23, 2019 17:17:29 GMT -7
There's no bigger chicken shit than a "never Trump" republican. Democrats will vote for all kinds of insanity to get power but republicans are hypocritically bashful about it. You want to badger criminals and immigrants at least be a man about it and vote for the only horse you have in the race. What' a weasel... I think republicans in general forget how much democrats/liberals hate them. They are no longer the "loyal opposition" but the leash-led and ball-gagged rape puppets. It's shameful to see a man deride his own credibility in such a way to score brownie points with people who would rather see him die outright. Embarrassing, that. I don't hate trump sorry to say, I have the same level of antipathy for him as I do any president. But his anti-war record looks really good to me so far. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2019 8:24:52 GMT -7
Not "criminals and immigrants", but rather "criminals and illegal immigrants." Maybe I'm thick, but there is a difference between legal immigration and illegal immigration. Legal Immigration should be (and mostly is) welcomed by most people. Illegal Immigration is only welcomed by people with an agenda or small brains.
Republicans and Democrats both like illegal immigrants; Democrats see them as voters, Republicans see them as cheap labor. I see them as people who are promised streets paved with gold, and end up slaves. Trump is not the first president to consider purchasing Greenland (and we did buy Alaska, and all states west of the Mississippi). We are in fewer wars now than we were when he was elected. Polls show that Race relations are better now than on the day he was elected. The economy better now than it was when he took office, most notably for women and minorities. We're actually talking to the DPRK (it's rough going, but we're TALKING, and that's progress). We're negotiating a cessation of hostilities with ISIS... We're talking to freaking ISIS! Barrack Obama said he would talk to ANYONE, yet he never talked to ISIS or Kim Jong-Un, but Trump has. That all really means something.
|
|
