It isn't your grandfather's LEFT anymore

[Coyote]

Horseshit....The the Uighurs, and other slave laborers in concentration camps, how "free market" the economy is.

I said “some”. China is authoritarian, and has no regard for human rights, but that doesn’t alter the fact that it is no longer a strictly communist system because in economic terms, it was a fail.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yanno, i could blather on for pages Fox, but i dont really think y'all need to be caught up in any self serving boredom

But yes, it's a very cultural gestalt , with a grand dose of Orwell at that

FWIW, this is exactly why i refuse to be a partisan , but i suspect you already can pick such sorts out......

~S~

The problem with those bad genies is that they too often achieve a seeming permanent state. Russia, North Korea, Vietnam, China, Cuba et al. The governments of such countries put various labels on their governments, but all are totalitarian in reality with total control and all will punish, imprison, or execute any of their citizens who serious oppose them in any meaningful way, even to the point of turning their military on them. That makes an American style or a Bolshevik revolution almost impossible to organize and carry out.

And all control media/message, religion, commerce and industry, and how the citizens are allowed to own, how they are to live, what they are allowed to express

 

[Foxfyre]

This is the rest of my reply.

The Left is pro-children in a way the Right only mouths.

Where the Right is worried that a child might see a Drag Queen, the Left is worried about the child being hungry while he is trying to learn.

While the Right is using “it’s for the Children” to erase entire groups of people, ban discussions of “uncomfortable” history, banning books with LGBTQ characters (and I’m not about tbe extreme examp,es like “Gender Queer”) or books by Black or minority authors that might show life from point of view…they are doing NOTHING to focus on reading skills themselves…something children are more apt to pick up if the have books they can identify with.

While the Right claims to be about ”parent’s rights” it is only for the rights of SOME parents. Not the parents of Black or Hispanic kids, who might want their child to access a book that reflects THEIR experiences. Not the parents of a transgender child (and, no, I do not mean surgery) who‘s decisions about what care their child gets is now up to tbe state and not them, their child, and their medical team. Not the parents who might be fine taking their child to a drag show and are told it is not their right, but it is ok if they want to go to a football game and whach scantily clad cheer leaders gyrating in sexually provocative maneuvers and it’s ok if they want to sexualize (groom?) their kindergartner in child pageant.

Here is what being “for the children” is:

Ensuring they are fed, housed and cared for, even if it’s publically funded.

It is making sure they get the healthcare they need.

Supporting programs that help a family - like family leave and subsidized daycare.

It’s not limiting it to just the children here legally but covering every child in our borders because they didn’t have a choice.

It’s keeping families together, NOT allowing our government to rip their children away as punishment because they aren’t here legally, not warehousing already traumitized kids who have now lost their families, not deporting the parents without tbe kids, not losing the kids (and I’m not happy with Biden over that either).

It’s supporting stong child labor laws to protect them from exploitation and keep them in school.

It’s going after the REAL groomers and predators. The ones that gain access to youth through the ever growing internet and social media world. The ones who target and exploit vulnerable kids, and who abuse them or traffic them.

So…is the left no longer pro child? No, they are very much pro-child.





The Left may be vociferous, arrogant and self righteous in their social opinions but it is not the Left passing laws restricting what teachers can say about race, or same sex couples, or families. The Left isn’t isn’t passing laws restricting what private companies can teach in DEI training. The left isn’t passing laws forbidding state employees from even mentioning the word abortion or they could face termination and legal action. The Left isn’t passing laws preventing parents from accessing the best available treatment for their children. The Left isn’t passing Laws that force a woman with a non-viable pregnancy to be at eminent risk of death before treating it.

In fact it seems that the Left is far more tolerant of diversity and freedom of choice than the Right for the simple fact that they aren’t legislating these restrictions on you. If they mouth off in self-righteous indignation you tell them exactly where to stick and you won’t be breaking a single law.




I’ve covered this already. The right of free speech means the government can’t restrict it. The only silencing being done is through rightwing legislation. Not only what I outlined above but legislation targeting protests that goes further than just controlling violence. THIS is silencing.






Foxfyre, I respect and like you as a person, but this is really completely BS. I’m a leftist. And I have only ever heard of this massive left wing conspiracy from rightwingers. We ARE American and rightwingers don’t get to decide who is and who isn’t.




This is also BS.

The Right controls the majority of the state houses, governorships, the House of Representatives, almost half of the Senate, the Supreme Court … and you are trying to tell me that the Left is controlling more and more??? With redistricting, the Right is looking at further expanding and cementing their control! How can you even say this with a straight face?

Now…let’s check on the other claims.

The Media. This is a long established Rightwing plaint, but is it true? If it ever was, it certainly isn’t now. The internet has been the Great Equalizer giving everyone a platform and our choices on media have exploded. There is a niche for everyone and unfortunately that means a billion echochambers that rarely intersect.

“Big Business”? Controlled by the Left? Hardly. The easiest way to get an impression is to look at campaign donations and you’ll find both parties getting substantial donations from business giants.

Scientific organizations are not “controlled” by any ideology.

Now entertainment, like Hollywood largely trends left but entertainment like country music, trends right.

We will just have to respectfully disagree.

And again when you chop up your post like that I can't tell in most cases what you're responding to. I hope you aren't using maybe an anecdotal incident and hold it up as what the rightwing position is. My OP was not intended to address the anomalies but rather the larger ideology that we see in play every day.

The right values children and doesn't consider the unwanted ones as throwaways on the abortion table. It values family--responsible family--with a biological mother and father in the home as the very best situation for children and one that except in very few cases assures that they won't go to school hungry. And they won't be hungry on weekends or holidays or during summer vacation when they are mostly ignored by the left.

The right deplores policies and throwing more and more money at bad policies that encourage situations that cause children to go to school hungry, to live in substandard housing, to not know the security and positive emotional reinforcement that a mother and father in the home provide. Why is it the left for the most part never supports, defends, promotes traditional mom and dad and kids families or suggests that yes, whenever possible, that is what all children should have?

The right believes young children should be allowed the innocence of childhood and not be burdened with adult themes like transgendering and homosexuality and other sexual themes that by any degree of intellectual honesty from the right's point of view can only be seen as a form of grooming.. As also the right sees as grooming the lewd entertainment and public displays in parades etc. that children attend. The left defends that as no big deal and accuses the right of disrespecting certain groups and banning books.

You still have meticulously avoided defending the left's position that men who have transgendered or who identify as women should be allowed to participate in women's sports and should have free access to their private spaces in locker rooms and public restrooms.

Thank you for remaining civil and I not only respect you but appreciate and love you as a person. But most leftists will say in the most general terms what they are for but so far not one has been able to explain why they are for a particular policy in a way that justifies it or even considers that a policy may be making the situation it was intended to make better instead is making it worse.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yanno, i could blather on for pages Fox, but i dont really think y'all need to be caught up in any self serving boredom

But yes, it's a very cultural gestalt , with a grand dose of Orwell at that

FWIW, this is exactly why i refuse to be a partisan , but i suspect you already can pick such sorts out......

~S~

Well Orwell finished writing more than 20 years before Alinksy published his "Rules for Radicals," but Orwell was certainly well read in the history of the Russian Revolution and the process of bringing a Hitler to power which of course provided the emphasis of "1984." Alinsky was about how complete control is achieved. Orwell was about the consequences of the complete control.

 

[Oddball]

Well Orwell finished writing more than 20 years before Alinksy published his "Rules for Radicals," but Orwell was certainly well read in the history of the Russian Revolution and the process of bringing a Hitler to power which of course provided the emphasis of "1984." Alinsky was about how complete control is achieved. Orwell was about the consequences of the complete control.

 

[Foxfyre]

View attachment 798027

It does feel like that doesn't it. Maybe "Alice Through the Looking Glass" should be in the center of the roundabout.

 

[Oddball]

It does feel like that doesn't it. Maybe "Alice Through the Looking Glass" should be in the center of the roundabout.

The railroad tragedy scene in "Atlas Shrugged" is apropos of the recent submersible tragedy....People hired for anything and everything other than competence, get other people killed.

You wish that these works weren't prophetic, but there you have it.

 

[Coyote]

We will just have to respectfully disagree.

And again when you chop up your post like that I can't tell in most cases what you're responding to. I hope you aren't using maybe an anecdotal incident and hold it up as what the rightwing position is. My OP was not intended to address the anomalies but rather the larger ideology that we see in play every day.

The right values children and doesn't consider the unwanted ones as throwaways on the abortion table. It values family--responsible family--with a biological mother and father in the home as the very best situation for children and one that except in very few cases assures that they won't go to school hungry. And they won't be hungry on weekends or holidays or during summer vacation when they are mostly ignored by the left.

The right deplores policies and throwing more and more money at bad policies that encourage situations that cause children to go to school hungry, to live in substandard housing, to not know the security and positive emotional reinforcement that a mother and father in the home provide. Why is it the left for the most part never supports, defends, promotes traditional mom and dad and kids families or suggests that yes, whenever possible, that is what all children should have?

The right believes young children should be allowed the innocence of childhood and not be burdened with adult themes like transgendering and homosexuality and other sexual themes that by any degree of intellectual honesty from the right's point of view can only be seen as a form of grooming.. As also the right sees as grooming the lewd entertainment and public displays in parades etc. that children attend. The left defends that as no big deal and accuses the right of disrespecting certain groups and banning books.

You still have meticulously avoided defending the left's position that men who have transgendered or who identify as women should be allowed to participate in women's sports and should have free access to their private spaces in locker rooms and public restrooms.

Thank you for remaining civil and I not only respect you but appreciate and love you as a person. But most leftists will say in the most general terms what they are for but so far not one has been able to explain why they are for a particular policy in a way that justifies it or even considers that a policy may be making the situation it was intended to make better instead is making it worse.

It is hard but I will try to not separate the points.

When you say you are addressing the anomalies…you aren’t really because in most of the examples, the positions you say leftists take are either inaccurate or are not an issue with a single opinion (as in there may be a diversity of opinions among the left on the issue)

On valuing children, the Right places the greatest the value to pre-birth. Once born the value diminishes and becomes conditional. The Left believes that the best home is one where the parent or parents love and care for the child and the composition of the family is irrelevant to a nurturing environment. Even a family with two parents (the working poor) still find themselves in need and though it is not as frequent as single parent families, neither is it rare. Unless there is abuse, I (as a leftist) feel we should do our best to ensure the child is in a loving environment and that they have whatever assistance they might need to raise the child.


On your third paragraph, I think both the Right and the Left want the same end result but disagree on how to get there. You want to change the situation that leads to children going hungry, and so do I, but I also want take care of what is in front of us, children who need help now.

On this statement:

Why is it the left for the most part never supports, defends, promotes traditional mom and dad and kids families or suggests that yes, whenever possible, that is what all children should have?

The Left supports the traditional family the same as any other. I see a family as a family regardless of its components. On promoting…if I view all family structures as inherently equal, then why would I need to promote any one type? The metric we use should be the child itself and how it’s doing in each situation, so it’s very individual. Ideally, I agree a child should have two parents but they don’t biological or opposite sex. But that is not always possible and a single parent can do a great job raising a child.

The innocence of children, as a concept, is problematic to defend because defining it is problematic. Kids today have access to far more on the internet then they ever will through a school library. Kids go to school with other kids who have same sex parents. Kids are going to see men dressed as women. They will also see women scantily clad, posing provocatively, cheerleading at football games. They may also see or participate in exhibitions where little girls are heavily made up and taught to strike sexually provocative positions. The message coming out of this is is at best, highly inconsistent. I think, from the left point of view, we see it this way. Tone it performances down to an age appropriate level, if public and let the parents decide without demonizing an entire group of people.

On the issue of trans women in sports, I wasn’t intentionally (or “meticulously “) avoiding it. It’s topic where the Left is divided, there isn’t a unified opinion and the majority, even though supportive of trans rights, feel sports should be determined by one’s gender at birth.

I too appreciate your civility and love you as a friend

 

[Foxfyre]

The railroad tragedy scene in "Atlas Shrugged" is apropos of the recent submersible tragedy....People hired for anything and everything other than competence, get other people killed.

You wish that these works weren't prophetic, but there you have it.

All great written works that stand the test of time can be prophetic I think. Certainly we can learn from them. It is a tragedy that the 'woke' and PC mentality of the left is depriving the current generation of the great novels from which so much history and philosophy can be gleaned. The left urges that reading lists no longer contain such works as: "To Kill a Mockingbird", "Gone with the Wind", "Huckleberry Finn" "Tom Sawyer" and so many others. Many 'woke' teachers won't allow such titles to be used for book reports.

The books in your meme are as much sociopolitical commentary as entertainment. I'm pretty sure they aren't on any approved reading lists these days either

The left accuses the right of 'book banning' because we oppose sexual content being included in curriculum and reading material for young children. But they turn a blind eye to their own demands to declare certain un-PC books as unfit for students to read.

 

[Foxfyre]

It is hard but I will try to not separate the points.

When you say you are addressing the anomalies…you aren’t really because in most of the examples, the positions you say leftists take are either inaccurate or are not an issue with a single opinion (as in there may be a diversity of opinions among the left on the issue)

On valuing children, the Right places the greatest the value to pre-birth. Once born the value diminishes and becomes conditional. The Left believes that the best home is one where the parent or parents love and care for the child and the composition of the family is irrelevant to a nurturing environment. Even a family with two parents (the working poor) still find themselves in need and though it is not as frequent as single parent families, neither is it rare. Unless there is abuse, I (as a leftist) feel we should do our best to ensure the child is in a loving environment and that they have whatever assistance they might need to raise the child.


On your third paragraph, I think both the Right and the Left want the same end result but disagree on how to get there. You want to change the situation that leads to children going hungry, and so do I, but I also want take care of what is in front of us, children who need help now.

On this statement:

The Left supports the traditional family the same as any other. I see a family as a family regardless of its components. On promoting…if I view all family structures as inherently equal, then why would I need to promote any one type? The metric we use should be the child itself and how it’s doing in each situation, so it’s very individual. Ideally, I agree a child should have two parents but they don’t biological or opposite sex. But that is not always possible and a single parent can do a great job raising a child.

The innocence of children, as a concept, is problematic to defend because defining it is problematic. Kids today have access to far more on the internet then they ever will through a school library. Kids go to school with other kids who have same sex parents. Kids are going to see men dressed as women. They will also see women scantily clad, posing provocatively, cheerleading at football games. They may also see or participate in exhibitions where little girls are heavily made up and taught to strike sexually provocative positions. The message coming out of this is is at best, highly inconsistent. I think, from the left point of view, we see it this way. Tone it performances down to an age appropriate level, if public and let the parents decide without demonizing an entire group of people.

On the issue of trans women in sports, I wasn’t intentionally (or “meticulously “) avoiding it. It’s topic where the Left is divided, there isn’t a unified opinion and the majority, even though supportive of trans rights, feel sports should be determined by one’s gender at birth.

I too appreciate your civility and love you as a friend

I didn't say I was addressing the anomalies. I said the exact opposite of that.

And I'm sorry, but in policy again and again and again, from the rhetoric coming from the House and Senate floor, in the media, from entertainers and sports figures, etc. etc. etc., the position of the left on the listed issues is consistently as I described them. For instance, there are zero Democrat policies either at the state or national level even recognizing, much less promoting or supporting the traditional mom, dad & kids. But the left holds up all the other kinds of families as somehow noble and brave and wonderful. The very situations that produce most of child hunger.

To say that the right doesn't care about kids after they are born is not only deeply dishonest but downright insulting. Again sorry.

Etc.

And thank you for finally addressing the men in sports issue. You are an island unto yourself on that one apparently as every state or local jurisdiction that has tried to legislate keeping biological males out of women's sports had been condemned by the left for being transphobic, denying rights, or worse. In fact in April the House of Representatives passed a bill barring biological males from competing in women's sports. The Democrat led Senate refused to bring it to a vote, the Democrats won't support it, Biden said he would veto it if they did.

 

[candycorn]

there are zero Democrat policies either at the state or national level even recognizing, much less promoting or supporting the traditional mom, dad & kids.

Bullshit.

Stimulus went to everyone
Infrastructure went to every one
BBB went to everyone
Military pay raise went to everyone.

You're just lying your ass off.

 

[candycorn]

To say that the right doesn't care about kids after they are born is not only deeply dishonest but downright insulting. Again sorry.

What is the position on WIC from the right. Cut.
What is the position on Head Start from the right. Cut
What is the position on birthright citizenship from the right. Eliminate

 

[Rumpole]

So am I which is why I narrowed my examples in the OP to very specific issues/situations. Trying to make them into broad sweep accusations is not serious debate but just another away to deflect from the topic.

No, each of your claims were generalizations.

 

[scruffy]

I speak the truth. You cannot handle te truth. The truth will not go away. You hide in the Trump cult because you cannot handle the truth.

BULLSHIT.

You're a lying little leftard asswipe just like all the rest.

 

[Curried Goats]

We will just have to respectfully disagree.

And again when you chop up your post like that I can't tell in most cases what you're responding to. I hope you aren't using maybe an anecdotal incident and hold it up as what the rightwing position is. My OP was not intended to address the anomalies but rather the larger ideology that we see in play every day.

The right values children and doesn't consider the unwanted ones as throwaways on the abortion table. It values family--responsible family--with a biological mother and father in the home as the very best situation for children and one that except in very few cases assures that they won't go to school hungry. And they won't be hungry on weekends or holidays or during summer vacation when they are mostly ignored by the left.

The right deplores policies and throwing more and more money at bad policies that encourage situations that cause children to go to school hungry, to live in substandard housing, to not know the security and positive emotional reinforcement that a mother and father in the home provide. Why is it the left for the most part never supports, defends, promotes traditional mom and dad and kids families or suggests that yes, whenever possible, that is what all children should have?

The right believes young children should be allowed the innocence of childhood and not be burdened with adult themes like transgendering and homosexuality and other sexual themes that by any degree of intellectual honesty from the right's point of view can only be seen as a form of grooming.. As also the right sees as grooming the lewd entertainment and public displays in parades etc. that children attend. The left defends that as no big deal and accuses the right of disrespecting certain groups and banning books.

You still have meticulously avoided defending the left's position that men who have transgendered or who identify as women should be allowed to participate in women's sports and should have free access to their private spaces in locker rooms and public restrooms.

Thank you for remaining civil and I not only respect you but appreciate and love you as a person. But most leftists will say in the most general terms what they are for but so far not one has been able to explain why they are for a particular policy in a way that justifies it or even considers that a policy may be making the situation it was intended to make better instead is making it worse.

In other words the Right would prefer to pretend that we live in this sterile fantasy world of yours rather than dealing with real shit.

 

[Foxfyre]

No, each of your claims were generalizations.

Then we define generalization very differently.

 

[Foxfyre]

In other words the Right would prefer to pretend that we live in this sterile fantasy world of yours rather than dealing with real shit.

It isn't a fantasy world. It's quite real.

 

[Curried Goats]

It isn't a fantasy world. It's quite real.

It's not the real world. In the real world gay children exist. Single parents exist. Gay parents exist. In what way do you support these families that progressives don't? It's the conservatives who are against paid family leave. It's the conservatives who want to cut programs like SNAP that help families of every color buy groceries. It's conservatives who want to cut school lunch programs and medicaid.

 

[imawhosure]

I didn't say I was addressing the anomalies. I said the exact opposite of that.

And I'm sorry, but in policy again and again and again, from the rhetoric coming from the House and Senate floor, in the media, from entertainers and sports figures, etc. etc. etc., the position of the left on the listed issues is consistently as I described them. For instance, there are zero Democrat policies either at the state or national level even recognizing, much less promoting or supporting the traditional mom, dad & kids. But the left holds up all the other kinds of families as somehow noble and brave and wonderful. The very situations that produce most of child hunger.

To say that the right doesn't care about kids after they are born is not only deeply dishonest but downright insulting. Again sorry.

Etc.

And thank you for finally addressing the men in sports issue. You are an island unto yourself on that one apparently as every state or local jurisdiction that has tried to legislate keeping biological males out of women's sports had been condemned by the left for being transphobic, denying rights, or worse. In fact in April the House of Representatives passed a bill barring biological males from competing in women's sports. The Democrat led Senate refused to bring it to a vote, the Democrats won't support it, Biden said he would veto it if they did.

Maybe we are going at it wrong. Maybe we should ask---------------->are the Lefts policies actually promoting failure of the nuclear family?

EXAMPLE------------> Giving women subsidies per child, as long as no male is present! In essence, they are paying women to have no male on the premises.

I have not run the math, but imagine a woman with 4 children in New York City, or even LA or Chicago. With all the subsidies they get from the feds, how much would a man have to make per year, to logically have that family break even, after also adding another person to the family unit? Now if the woman was married and receives child support, that is a different scenario entirely of course.

Now the Left on here will scream that I am suggesting starving children, but that is not the question I am posing to them. The real question is--------> are their solutions more hurtful, than helpful? Just because they can not FIX what they BROKE, does not make their current solution a good one. The Left always has knee jerk reactions when quickly imposing their ideas. They never ask themselves what happens AFTER their solutions are imposed. In essence, what the cause and effect on society once they get their way.

 

[Foxfyre]

Maybe we are going at it wrong. Maybe we should ask---------------->are the Lefts policies actually promoting failure of the nuclear family?

EXAMPLE------------> Giving women subsidies per child, as long as no male is present! In essence, they are paying women to have no male on the premises.

I have not run the math, but imagine a woman with 4 children in New York City, or even LA or Chicago. With all the subsidies they get from the feds, how much would a man have to make per year, to logically have that family break even, after also adding another person to the family unit? Now if the woman was married and receives child support, that is a different scenario entirely of course.

Now the Left on here will scream that I am suggesting starving children, but that is not the question I am posing to them. The real question is--------> are their solutions more hurtful, than helpful? Just because they can not FIX what they BROKE, does not make their current solution a good one. The Left always has knee jerk reactions when quickly imposing their ideas. They never ask themselves what happens AFTER their solutions are imposed. In essence, what the cause and effect on society once they get their way.

The family issue I didn't even include in the OP--I regret that I didn't include it--but they went to that to divert from the grooming issue claiming that we on the right don't care about kids after they are born, don't care if they're hungry or whatever.

And of course that is absurd.

Pretty much everyone I know who is actively working in programs to feed the hungry here in Albuquerque are right of center or at least old style Democrats who don't go for all this 'woke' stuff.

But you reinforced my observation that those on the left by and large seem to ignore the issues that cause the problem. They refuse to see how their policies from urban renewal to welfare to public school curriculum to approval, even championing, non traditional families has decimated the American norm of a biological father and mother in the home so that only about 1/3 of American children now enjoy that benefit. In 1960 13% of single mothers were never married to their children's fathers. Now more than 50% of single mothers were never married to their children's fathers and single parenthood is the number one leading cause of child poverty/hunger in America today.

So yes we feed hungry children and I know of not one single person on the right who thinks we should not. But the right also wants to re-establish policies and a culture in which a mother and father in the home is the norm as that will correct a large chunk of the problem of child poverty/hunger, falling test scores, delinquency, truancy, depression/mental illness.

Most of the left don't even want to admit lack of a traditional nuclear family is a large part of our problem much less promote that as a solution to many of our societal problems. They don't want to even consider that their progressive agenda has caused many of our societal problems that were far less a problem a couple of generations ago.