3 of 7
3
Prof. Churchill
Posted: 21 February 2005 12:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1377
Joined  2004-12-21

Churchill differs from the folks I read on commondreams only in degree.  In fact, some of the nuts who write on that site come pretty close to his views.  I dont blame you, though, I try to distance myself from some of those on the right, too.  Many of my views put me squarely in the liberal camp.  Hell, champion called me a liberal the other day.  I wouldnt claim the jerk either.

 Signature 

http://powerlessnolonger.com

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 February 2005 01:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

[quote author=“Conservative Atheist”]If Churchill is not a liberal and leftist, then he is doing a great impersonation of the typical liberal mantra of “blaming America first” for most of the world’s ills.

In doing so, he is in lock-step with, Ted Kennedy, Jimmy Carter and Barbara Boxer, Fidel Castro,George Soros and Michael Moore………to name just a few.

To the liberal left, America is to blame for everything from global warming to global terrorism and “globalism” in general.  According to the left, we should feel guilty for world poverty, the spread of AIDS, the Asian Tsunami, the “heartbreak of psoriasis” and a myriad of other sins too numerous to mention.

Yes, in this particular instance, Churchill’s “blame game” is aligned with the right-wing Islamic fundamentalists but that is incidental to the overall leftist theme that when bad Sh*t happens, it is somehow America’s fault.

This site is about advancing LOGICAL thinking so I am forced to ask why you insist upon being here spouting off such stupidity and also being damned persistent in doing so. Your vitriolic lies fit more with hate radio not in a site that actually values facts, reasoning, and truth.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 February 2005 02:18 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  819
Joined  2004-12-21

Guest said:

This site is about advancing LOGICAL thinking so I am forced to ask why you insist upon being here spouting off such stupidity and also being damned persistent in doing so. Your vitriolic lies fit more with hate radio not in a site that actually values facts, reasoning, and truth.

It is clear that you disagee with C. A.‘s comments and style here but I wonder just where the lies are.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 February 2005 02:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1377
Joined  2004-12-21

This site is about advancing LOGICAL thinking so I am forced to ask why you insist upon being here spouting off such stupidity and also being damned persistent in doing so. Your vitriolic lies fit more with hate radio not in a site that actually values facts, reasoning, and truth.

I’m sure you disagree with me as well, and like Wot., I wonder where you think the lies are in CA’s post.  I certainly dont agree with everything the far right inculcates, but I dont run from them, I work from within to try to change their direction.  Without much success, right now, but I still keep trying.  Perhaps you might consider that every view that differs from yours is not necessarily “hate speech.” 

I shouldnt point the finger, though, I tend to be the same way myself sometimes.  You might consider, though, that some of us, at least, love this country and have no designs on foreign oil.  You might also consider signing in, like the rest of us, rather than making anonamous posts.

Pete

 Signature 

http://powerlessnolonger.com

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 February 2005 02:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  754
Joined  2005-01-03

[quote author=“Anonymous”][quote author=“Conservative Atheist”]If Churchill is not a liberal and leftist, then he is doing a great impersonation of the typical liberal mantra of “blaming America first” for most of the world’s ills.

In doing so, he is in lock-step with, Ted Kennedy, Jimmy Carter and Barbara Boxer, Fidel Castro,George Soros and Michael Moore………to name just a few.

To the liberal left, America is to blame for everything from global warming to global terrorism and “globalism” in general.  According to the left, we should feel guilty for world poverty, the spread of AIDS, the Asian Tsunami, the “heartbreak of psoriasis” and a myriad of other sins too numerous to mention.

Yes, in this particular instance, Churchill’s “blame game” is aligned with the right-wing Islamic fundamentalists but that is incidental to the overall leftist theme that when bad Sh*t happens, it is somehow America’s fault.

This site is about advancing LOGICAL thinking so I am forced to ask why you insist upon being here spouting off such stupidity and also being damned persistent in doing so. Your vitriolic lies fit more with hate radio not in a site that actually values facts, reasoning, and truth.

Guest, I love it when you talk dirty!!

As soon as you post something on this site that is LOGICAL, I will condsider responding. 

Unfortuantely, until now, all I have seen from you is illogical agreement with that “loon” Ward Churchill and idiotic conspiracy theories (e.g., 9/11 caused by inside forces) which deserve no serious response.

 Signature 

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful…..Lucius Annaeus Seneca, Roman (3 BC - 65 AD)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 February 2005 03:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

[quote author=“Wotansson”]It is clear that you disagee with C. A.‘s comments and style here but I wonder just where the lies are.

They are quite obvious:

If Churchill is not a liberal and leftist, then he is doing a great impersonation of the typical liberal mantra of “blaming America first” for most of the world’s ills.


Lie. Only nutters blame America and these people are in the extreme minority. They are not Liberal in any sense of the word. Perhaps a dictionary would be useful to many here.

In doing so, he is in lock-step with, Ted Kennedy, Jimmy Carter and Barbara Boxer, Fidel Castro,George Soros and Michael Moore………to name just a few.

No, that’s just to spout of stupid discredited propaganda. CA doesn;t know what he is talking about or is being intentionaly disingenuous.

To the liberal left, America is to blame for everything from global warming to global terrorism and “globalism” in general.

Again, just a lie spouted off as though it were ever true.

According to the left, we should feel guilty for world poverty, the spread of AIDS, the Asian Tsunami, the “heartbreak of psoriasis” and a myriad of other sins too numerous to mention.

Too numerous to mention? What, the creative lies do know limits? rolleyes

Yes, in this particular instance, Churchill’s “blame game” is aligned with the right-wing Islamic fundamentalists but that is incidental to the overall leftist theme that when bad Sh*t happens, it is somehow America’s fault.


Again, this site is about LOGIC, TRUTH, and FACTS. CA simply didn’t post any. His hysteria toward Liberals is as bad as his blind ignorance.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 February 2005 09:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  369
Joined  2005-02-07

[quote author=“Conservative Atheist”]If Churchill is not a liberal and leftist, then he is doing a great impersonation of the typical liberal mantra of “blaming America first” for most of the world’s ills.

In doing so, he is in lock-step with, Ted Kennedy, Jimmy Carter and Barbara Boxer, Fidel Castro,George Soros and Michael Moore………to name just a few.

To the liberal left, America is to blame for everything from global warming to global terrorism and “globalism” in general.  According to the left, we should feel guilty for world poverty, the spread of AIDS, the Asian Tsunami, the “heartbreak of psoriasis” and a myriad of other sins too numerous to mention.

Yes, in this particular instance, Churchill’s “blame game” is aligned with the right-wing Islamic fundamentalists but that is incidental to the overall leftist theme that when bad Sh*t happens, it is somehow America’s fault.

There is a sense in which C.A. Is correct; Churchill does represent a particular faction of the Left, who arguably dominate the current debate at that end of the political spectrum, a faction that has always been enamored with cults of personality and expressed a deep cynicism about democracy. The Left faction he represents, however, isn’t the Left as a whole. There is, in fact, a deep division going on among the international Left, over the issue of Islamism and its terrorist operatives.

Churchill is, if you’ll pardon the apparent contradiction, a right-wing leftist. That is, he is a reactionary in the tradition of the German communists who aided Nazism in the 1931 Prussian referendum and the 1932 transport strike; in the tradition of the Leninists who sided with fascism throughout the ‘30s under the theory that reactionary nationalist movements were the true vox populi of the oppressed working class. This is a tradition on the Left that stretches back through the French Popular Party (an explicitly fascist party founded by the communist Jacques Doriot) and Japanese Marxism (which endorsed the economic nationalism, military expansionism and racial purity doctrines of the Japanese imperialists) all the way to the Bolsheviks themselves. It’s rooted in the phenomenon of what American socialist (and anti-communist) Norman Thomas called “Red Fascism.”

Churchill and his fellow-travellers (who include Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky) are part of a Left tradition that’s always been willing to ally with (or, at the very least, excuse) totalitarians of every stripe, so long as they mumbled the proper mantras about “imperialism” and “hegemony” and “the people” and so on. And so, like their counterparts in the 30s, this branch of the Left is now making common cause with Islamic clerical fascism, the modern counterpart of the Friekorps, the Fascisti and the Spanish Phalangists.

It is, in other words, taking a sharp turn to the far right.

But, there is another, equally long tradition on the Left of opposing all forms of totalitarianism, and showing a willingness to ally with other friends of liberty. This tradition would include the American socialists Sidney Hook and Norman Thomas, and George Orwell; among modern thinkers and activists, it includes such notable commentators as Christopher Hitchens, Michael Walzer and Nick Cohen, as well as the leaders of the Iraqi resistance to Saddam Hussein—particularly the Kurds, and nearly all socialists—who called for a forced regime change for decades, fought alongside the US Armed Forces when they arrived, and continue to support the reconstruction to this day.

(I often ask frothy-mouthed Chomskian fundamentalists like Churchill what they make of the fact that the Left in Iraq and Afghanistan is behind George W. Bush almost 100 percent; they never have an answer.)

This faction always understood that whatever its perceived faults, industrial capitalist democracy was a true revolution against the forces of feudalism and slavery—as even Marx believed—and therefore deserving of vigorous support when it’s assaulted by totalitarian nativists. This is why so many socialists and communists during WW2 – who were otherwise strong critics of liberal capitalism – eagerly allied with their political rivals against the tide of fascism, and why many of them carried on the fight against Stalinism during the Cold War.

What we’re seeing on the Left today is, in many ways, comparable to what was going on in the 1920s and 30s, in response to the rise of Nazism and Leninism. There’s a split between the reactionaries and the progressives. The reactionary Left of today sees Islamic clerical fascism as the true voice of oppressed Muslims, even though it is among the most right-wing political movements in the world; thus, this reactionary Left is willing – and in some cases, gleefully eager – to defend and collaborate with extremist right-wing Islam, whose theorists are themselves now citing the work (and emulating the tactics) of Nazis and Bolsheviks.

But the other Left understands that there are fates far worse than “capitalist hegemony,” and among the worst of those fates is life under a medievalist patriarchal theocracy of the sort envisioned by Osama Bin Laden and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. From the POV of this portion of the Left, anyone who stands against these forces of clerical fascism and defends Enlightenment principles is an ally… even if we wouldn’t vote for them.

As a member of the latter faction of the Left, I argue that the other faction – the reactionary wing – isn’t really the Left at all, but actually just a band of right-wingers who lack either the courage of their convictions, or the brains to know the difference (and in Churchill’s case, probably both). I do not regard the Left as an essential unity that includes both me and Churchill; Churchill is my enemy, as surely as is the Klansman down the street. To me, the most important distinction in modern geo-politics is not between global North and global South, or between American “hegemony” and the rest of the globe, but between the progressive force of modernism and the regressive force of medievalism. Sidney Hook, who I mentioned before, I think laid it out best in the conclusion to his “Critique of Conservatism”:

The differences between conservatives and liberals [in the American sense], when the terms are reasonably construed, are family differences among adherents of a free society, defined as one whose institutions ultimately rest on the consent of those affected by their operations. When the security of a free society is threatened by aggressive totalitarianism, these differences must be temporarily subordinated to the common interest in its survival.

Churchill stands on the wrong side of that fight, as does Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky and any other “leftist” who thinks the Third World is better off with right-wing theocracy than with liberal capitalism. Despite what they write or say, such people are nothing but reactionary wolves in progressive sheep’s clothing, and we on the true Left have an obligation to confront them with as much passion as we would the most right-wing enemies of free society.

Churchill says that the victims of 9/11 were “little Eichmanns.” But he is a big, fat Goebbels.

So, long post short: pay a lot of attention to the man behind Churchill’s curtain. His name is Fascism.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 February 2005 12:19 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  819
Joined  2004-12-21

Well, the latest posts here have certainly converted us into an irrational mud-slinging mob. I did enjoy reading the atricle by Michael Walzer posted by GVI.  Here is the link again:

http://www.dissentmagazine.org/menutest/archives/2002/sp02/decent.shtml

If you have not taken the time to read this, I think it is worth your time.  Comments?


Ves Thu Heil (Stay well and Prosper)

Wot

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 February 2005 04:12 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  1
Joined  2005-02-22

Finally a reasonable voice…I enjoyed the article, especially the part concerning a nuanced inspection of American history. Some on this sight seem to find too much black and white in political affairs. Whether your accusations come from the extreme left or extreme right, an all or nothing, I’m-right-you’re-wrong attitude smacks of religious fundamentalism. It is vital to the future of this country that we examine things rationally without a dogged alliance to a particular side that might blind us to truths.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 February 2005 05:12 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  754
Joined  2005-01-03

[quote author=“Wotansson”] I did enjoy reading the atricle by Michael Walzer posted by GVI.  Here is the link again:

http://www.dissentmagazine.org/menutest/archives/2002/sp02/decent.shtml

If you have not taken the time to read this, I think it is worth your time.  Comments?

Wot

Walzer makes my point from a liberal perspective much more convincingly than I ever could as a conservative.  If the “hate America” rhetoric grates on the ear of a liberal like Walzer, just imagine how is sounds to a conservative……….something like chalk screeching on a blackboard.

Unfortunately, it seems that his (accurate and insightful) perspective has been largely ignored by the left wing establishment.  Where are the “moderate” progressive leadership voices to be heard repudiating Michael Moore, Ward Churchill and the other vocal members of the lunatic left-wing fringe?

The exact point made by Sam Harris regarding the failure of “moderate” religious leaders to repudiate the radical fundamentalists applies equally to the “moderate” left wing progressive leadership and its silence (implying endorsement) with regard to the loony left.

Rather, they seem to be moving ever further toward the left fringe with each passing day.

The only prominent Democrat (other than Lieberman) who seems to “get it” and is moving to the right is Hillary.  It will be interesting to see how far she will go in distancing herself from the loony left before she has secured the 2008 presidential nomination.  I would expect her to be silent so as to avoid alienating the far left wing “base” that controls the Democrat primaries.

Of course, an equally valid parallel argument could be made with respect to the right-wing moderates and the extreme right fringe.  The main difference is that these loonies seem to be extreme but misguided “patriots” and “believers” who’s views are more “understandable” to the majority of Americans even if they do not fully agree with them.

 Signature 

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful…..Lucius Annaeus Seneca, Roman (3 BC - 65 AD)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 February 2005 05:52 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  369
Joined  2005-02-07

[quote author=“Conservative Atheist”]The only prominent Democrat (other than Lieberman) who seems to “get it” and is moving to the right is Hillary.

There are a few others, like Joe Biden, Bob Kerrey and the Kerry-Edwards ticket before they were a ticket. Heck, even Ted Kennedy was giving speeches about the need to rid the world of Saddam and the Taliban prior to Bush becoming president. In fact, Bush’s position on Iraq today is identical to that of most liberal Democrats before 9/11. Time was, regime change in Iraq and the shifting of U.S. foreign policy to support wars of democratic liberation was a liberal cause celebre. In 2000, Bush campaigned as a diet isolationist who would avoid nation-building missions; Cheney was on record as favoring the lifting of sanctions and doing business with Saddam. But the fact that Bush was president on 9/11 threw the Democrats into a period of self-denial; suddenly Bush agreed with them, and it seems a majority went a little bonkers. Rather than seeing Bush’s conversion to Wilsonian liberalism as a victory for and vindication of their own policies, they instead “flip-flopped” and started talking like Kissinger Associates.

The irony is that Bush has the most aggressively liberal foreign policy of any president in recent memory (a fact that has given migraines to a large number of paleo-conservatives). It’s no coincidence that he borrows the language of Wilson, FDR, Truman, JFK, etc. Many of the so-called “neo-cons” are thinkers who’ve synthesized Jeffersonian ideals with Trotskyist methodology. Bush has rejected, especially in the Middle East, the old guard conservative strategy of the stability fetish, of playing secular and religious thugs off against each other in the interest of protecting the oil. He has openly sided with the Muslim Left (both secular and religious), and answered their decades-long call for the U.S. to become an army of liberation.

So, it’s not that Hillary and some other Democrats are moving to the right. It’s that Bush has moved to the left, and that seems to have terribly confused the reactionary elements on my side of the fence.

It will be interesting to see how far she will go in distancing herself from the loony left before she has secured the 2008 presidential nomination.

Though I’d probably vote for her in a perfect world, I think the Dems will be shooting themselves in the foot if she gets the nomination. She just has too much baggage; some of that is not her fault, and some of it is. But unless the Republicans nominate a hedgehog or an empty suit, Hillary is most likely toast in ‘08.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 February 2005 07:20 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  754
Joined  2005-01-03

The way I look at it, George Bush could personally discover the cure for cancer and the reactionary liberal left would be all over him for taking too long and for ignoring heart disease, AIDS, the common cold and dandruff.

They seem obsessed with opposing and obstructing whatever he proposes or tries to do regardless of whether or not it makes any sense and/or is consistent with positions that they may have previously held.  For example, the Democrat leadership proudly announced that they were solidly against the Bush Social Security reform proposals before they had even seen them.  This is in spite of the fact that many (including Harry Reid) had previously expressed support for private investment accounts.

Consequently, they appear to stand against everything and for nothing. 

IMHO, this is the main reason that Kerry was so vulnerable to the charge of “flip flopping”, of having no core beliefs and was unable to “connect” with the Ameican people.

Unless the left and the Democrats quit seeking a return to power through opposition for the sake of opposition and define a set of core beliefs that will resonate with the American people, they will be “toast” in 2006, 2008 and long thereafter.

I think that people just don’t want to hear a “doom-and-gloom” or “hate America” message coming from left or the right.

[ Edited: 22 February 2005 04:28 PM by ]
 Signature 

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful…..Lucius Annaeus Seneca, Roman (3 BC - 65 AD)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 February 2005 11:23 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  754
Joined  2005-01-03

[quote author=“global village idiot”][quote author=“Conservative Atheist”]The only prominent Democrat (other than Lieberman) who seems to “get it” and is moving to the right is Hillary.

It will be interesting to see how far she will go in distancing herself from the loony left before she has secured the 2008 presidential nomination.

Though I’d probably vote for her in a perfect world, I think the Dems will be shooting themselves in the foot if she gets the nomination. She just has too much baggage; some of that is not her fault, and some of it is. But unless the Republicans nominate a hedgehog or an empty suit, Hillary is most likely toast in ‘08.

James Taranto has a piece in the WSJ today that outlines why the Hildabeast has the inside track to the White House in 2008.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110006327

 Signature 

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful…..Lucius Annaeus Seneca, Roman (3 BC - 65 AD)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 February 2005 03:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 44 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

There are none so blind as those who will not see. - Swift

That phrase applies very well to this forum where some pat themselves on the back for being a rational Atheist, yet allow their religious-like devotion to their political dogma to cause them to have a belief system as irrational and unsupported as any fundamentalist.  rolleyes

Intellectual frauds or trolls. Neither case is particulary desirable on a board purporting to be about logic and critical thinking.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 February 2005 03:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 45 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  754
Joined  2005-01-03

[quote author=“Happy Apostate”]There are none so blind as those who will not see. - Swift

That phrase applies very well to this forum where some pat themselves on the back for being a rational Atheist, yet allow their religious-like devotion to their political dogma to cause them to have a belief system as irrational and unsupported as any fundamentalist.  rolleyes

Intellectual frauds or trolls. Neither case is particulary desirable on a board purporting to be about logic and critical thinking.

Happy A__s:  So, what’s your point?

Do you have a speciific argument based upon “logic and critical thinking” or are you just going to whine?

 Signature 

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful…..Lucius Annaeus Seneca, Roman (3 BC - 65 AD)

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 7
3
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed