michiganFats
Silver Member
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #41
When I started this thread, the last thing I pictured was DevNell defending Obama. I done a bad thing.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Dave, the graph you posted is not 3 dimensional
actually, I almost jumped ship from the Democratic party to campaign ...early on...for Poppy Bush. The cold war was already frozen by the time Reagan entered the WH. There is no doubt he pushed things, but there was also events in Poland and the Vatican and Charlie Wilson and many Democrats who went along with the arms to teh Mujahadeen thing.Yo, DevNell,
My statement regarding politics during the Cold War is perfectly accurate. I worked the Cold War for Reagan and Bush, and helped them win, in a manner which I certainly will not discuss in this nonsecure forum. Did you? Didnt think so.
even though? get a grip.Scoop was a conservative, even though he was a Dem.
tell that to Phyllis Schlafly and others who were crazed about the ERA or tell that to William H. Loeb and Governor Meldrim Thompson and Jesse Helms and Pat Robertson and Newt Gingrich and others...Nobody gave a crap about party platforms, any more than they do now.
Huh? I agreed to that.Stalin was in every way a totalitarian. Heres the definition of the term:
Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a concept used to describe political systems whereby a state regulates nearly every aspect of public and private life. Totalitarian regimes or movements maintain themselves in political power by means of an official all-embracing ideology and propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass media, a single party that controls the state, personality cults, control over the economy, regulation and restriction of free discussion and criticism, the use of mass surveillance, and widespread use of terror tactics. The term has been applied to many states, including: the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, German Democratic Republic (East Germany), Socialist Republic of Romania, People's Socialist Republic of Albania, People's Republic of China, Democratic Kampuchea and Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea).
Meet Mr. Stalin!
this is all debatable. opinions do not equal facts no matter hos shrilly you say so.The meaning of the spectrum must change, because the meaning of the words which define the spectrum change. There is no political term that hasnt changed somewhat over the last 40 years liberal, conservative, all of them.
If you had been paying attention, instead of sitting in the back row chewing gum with your hoodlum friends, youd know that Im on your side, Bullwinkle. Im a Democrat!
The election is over. We won. Relax, for Christ sake.
When I started this thread, the last thing I pictured was DevNell defending Obama. I done a bad thing.
First... try not to put totalitarianism and libertarian/anarchism on a left right basis... you can be more right OR left and still be totalitarian or libertarian/anarchist...
Second.. try and think of the spectrum as having both an x and y axis...
Third.. as seen by your ignorant responses so far, it is quite apparent that you are yet another in the long line of leftist partisan hacks... complete ignorance as to what a conservative is, or a neo conservative for that matter.. and with very little interest beyond trying to bash anyone on the 'right' that you label according to your titles based on pure ignorance
1. Anybody who gives a crap about reputation points is too dumb to be in here. Any argument that's worth a damn is going to piss somebody off.
2. Neg-reps are the work of people who have no hope of actually winning the argument on its merits. Too bad for you....
Quite right. If we were to truly represent the political opinions of individuals, the system would actually need to be n-dimensional. Every issue is an axis.
First of all, some folks don't really have the capacity to understand n-dimensional math. I would, with grave reluctance, have to include Republicans among that group, since their 30-year jihad of deficit spending proves that Republicans can't even understand double-entry accounting.
Second of all, a man is not the sum of his positions on issues. To illustrate: Obama and Hillary are virtually identical on almost all issues. Which one is swearing on the Bible tomorrow?
Politics isn't algebra. It is performing every form of art and philosophy known to man, all at once, while being shot out of a freakin cannon.
Go ahead and neg-rep that, Dave. See if I give a crap. I'm sure I'll weep bitter tears into my pillow.....
Llama, when you say that Obama and Hillary are identical on most issues, I'll go you one further, so is McCain. All a neo-con is is a RINO.
DevNell, I already dealt with that.
you are using that stupid tool? for what? jesus, stupid is as stupid does.
I'm no longer going to post here. Not because I don't like anyone here, I just am curious to see what this turns into.
Not using the tool for anything... just showing that there is a way to think of things beyond left and right... and using the graph shown on that site as an example
Never took that thing wayy too seriously... as it is hard to nail anything down in some quick test
I think it is unfair to say Obama aligned himself with the people you are vaguely referring to her, but I agree they shared some values. Which ones exactly? Maybe love of America or her institutions or her ideals?
Community organizing, for Clinton principally an academic exercise, was more complex for Obama when he arrived in Chicago in 1985 to work with the Developing Communities Project, an offshoot of the Alinsky network. His experience became an emotional and visceral exploration of the roots of urban African American decay and his own identity.
Saul, was/is a brilliant left wing radical/reactionary as far as I know. I've had a few older friends through the years who were actually trained under or with Alinsky methods. A few are still radicals, a few more are more centrist as life experiences change the ideals and perceptions of people as they mature.
The basis is his history. From his days in Boston/Cambridge, Obama has been a man on a mission...personal advancement mixed with the knowledge that ones ideals are useless in the real world unless they are married to the power to affect change.
Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future.
To bring on this reformation requires that the organizer work inside the system,
What did Obama want to do in Chicago in his early days? Help out of work people?
below is a very good read. so good, most of the Obama dreamers I know refused to acknowledge what they read when I would ask them to discuss it.
If the meaning of terms change, then there is no meaning at all. Without commonly acknowledged definitions for terms, we cannot understand each other. If we cannot understand each other, we cannot debate open and honestly.
I see we finally got to the bottom of what this thread was about.
Back to what you said it was going to be about Michigan...
In my poli sci class we were taught that spectrum analysis of left and right was actually not very helpful. I think we can see that already on this thread. We have the issue of Stalin, I'll not restate. But, at some point, the left-right analysis breaks down.
Therefore, we were taught to think of it like the face of a clock. 12:01 is Extreme right and 11:59 is Extreme left. When you think about it like that it is easier to see how and why the extremes at either end may stray into each others territory for a repressive policy or two.
Obviously, we would sit slightly to one side or the other of 6 o'clock. Anyone moving closer to 12 than 3 o'clock or 9 o'clock would likely feel they are being repressed in some major way.