Pacifism and the Left

[Mr.Nick]

Because no one on the right goes into rage attack over politics. It's not like we have entire shows in this country devoted to people having them every day (Rush, Hannity, Levin, Savage, Focal Point).

You tell me how many people died at Tea Party rallies, you tell me how many people were injured or arrested at Tea Party rallies, you tell me how many people were arrested at Tea Party rallies????

The left is shit - pond scum...

 

[ClosedCaption]

Mr Nick is a funny guy but not in a good funny sort of way

 

[Polk]

Because no one on the right goes into rage attack over politics. It's not like we have entire shows in this country devoted to people having them every day (Rush, Hannity, Levin, Savage, Focal Point).

You tell me how many people died at Tea Party rallies, you tell me how many people were injured or arrested at Tea Party rallies, you tell me how many people were arrested at Tea Party rallies????

The left is shit - pond scum...

People weren't arrested at tea party rallies because cops support the tea party agenda. Totalitarians tend to cluster.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Europeans came to rely on America to fight the world’s evils and even to defend their countries. This means that ‘equality’ trumps morality.

If the Right believes in having a military large enough to defend not just the US, but Europe as well,

and are willing to do so,

that makes them financiers and thus enablers, defenders, and supporters of European socialism,

by your own reasoning.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Because no one on the right goes into rage attack over politics. It's not like we have entire shows in this country devoted to people having them every day (Rush, Hannity, Levin, Savage, Focal Point).

You tell me how many people died at Tea Party rallies, you tell me how many people were injured or arrested at Tea Party rallies, you tell me how many people were arrested at Tea Party rallies????

The left is shit - pond scum...

People weren't arrested at tea party rallies because cops support the tea party agenda. Totalitarians tend to cluster.

You've attended....how many?

 

[PoliticalChic]

well apperently according to the OP we are all borderline evil

I thought she thought we're pure evil. I hate getting downgraded. This is worse than flying coach.

Misguided....

...and possibly weak-minded, judging by how easily you folks succumb to Leftist propaganda.

But, that was a funny post.

 

[NYcarbineer]

This thread must be very confusing to those rightwingers who say that the Nazis were liberals.

 

[PoliticalChic]

To see someone state right out loud that they think the American people are NOT GOOD and borderline evil is really wild.


The idiot OP thinks this is smart talk.

Look what your right wing masters have fooled you into becoming

All people.

 

[PoliticalChic]

OWS is as pacifist as the tea party is.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HequVgLRPUo]OWS: Occupy Oakland Violence - Police Shoot Veteran In The Face - Protesters In War Zone - YouTube[/ame]

 

[NYcarbineer]

Only a rightwing nut could make the desire for peace look like a character flaw.

 

[whitehall]

The left has no soul. They might be for war if the media tells them it's OK. They will support the carpet bombing of a defenseless country if the left wing president is in trouble (Bosnia) and they might endorse the bombing and killing civilians if it tends to support the left wing agenda (Libya). They will riot in the streets if the media supports anarchy and forget what they were rioting about when a democrat is elected.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"The Right understands that man’s nature, while not inherently evil, is not good"


WOW

The American people are not good and border on evil.


That is what your world view is?

No wonder your party is dying

"No wonder your party is dying."




"Wisconsin's Walker holds solid lead in poll released ahead of Tuesday’s recall election"

Read more: Wisconsin's Walker holds solid lead in poll released ahead of Tuesday




In two weeks, it will be a mere two "Kardashian weddings" until Obama is voted out of office....

 

[PoliticalChic]

Talk about a load of nonsense. While you have pacifism elements on the left, you also have them on the right (see Robert Taft historically, or Ron Paul today). I can't really think of any prominent politicians on the left today who are pacifists (see Obama's frequent references to Niebuhr).

I'd also question the claim that "The Right understands that man’s nature, while not inherently evil, is not good". That's true in the right's approach to foreign policy, but it's not even remotely true to most other policy areas. You have to believe that man is inherently good to believe unregulated markets will balance themselves.

You look so nice in that outfit....pity I'm forced to grind you to dust....

1. While there are folks who endorse a myriad of positions, even Liberal Democrats who were anti-communist during the 50's....
Even so, it would be difficult for you to deny that the general position of Liberals, Democrats, were anti-anti-communist. Did you read Kangor's "Dupes"?

To this day they rail against the hero Senator McCarthy, and, without the evidence of the Venona Files, would still deny that Hiss, the Rosenbergs, et.al. were paid agents of the Soviet Union.

Care to argue that?
Didn't think so.

2.Now, as for the veracity of the OP, I note you didn't pick out specifics in the OP with which to contend....
...the reason is obvious.

a. "...the Left has generally been hostile to anything having to do with war, often embracing pacifism. The bumper-sticker “War is Not the Answer” ..."

b. they despise any " sign of militarism,"...need I provide a copy of the Colonel Holmes letter?

c. how about "oppose children viewing cartoons, like Bugs Bunny, that depict a stylized violence, not to mention playing with toy guns, war scenarios, or even drawing stick figures portraying violence."
Need news articles about children being suspended for said drawings...?

d. How about the Chris Hayes incident..."referring to military dead as heroes."



3. Now, since all the specifics are provable....if I were you, I'd look to spin the analysis, such as

a. "Liberals and Leftists is an aversion to recognizing or acknowledging evil"

or

b. the Left's discomfort with "traditional Judeo-Christian values..."

or

c. "The Right understands that man’s nature, while not inherently evil, is not good,..."

I think 'c.' is your best shot.
Here, this might help:


In 1969, Hillary Rodham gave the student commencement address at Wellesley in which she said that “ for too long our leaders have used politics as the art of making what appears to be impossible, possible….We’re not interested in social reconstruction; it’s human reconstruction.”
-http://www.wellesley.edu/PublicAffairs/Commencement/1969/053169hillary.html

You could try to say that the Left merely sees mankind as perfectible....


Just tryin' to help...

 

[PoliticalChic]

This thread must be very confusing to those rightwingers who say that the Nazis were liberals.

"...the Nazis were liberals..."

Well, nice of you to drop by for your regular tutoring session...

First, it is probably more accurate to say "... the liberals were Nazis..."

"Before WW II, the same folks who championed Progressivism, viewed fascism as a noble economic agenda, and praised Mussolini. It was the horrors of the Holocaust that required both the rapid retreat from associations with the term fascism, and the rebranding by John Dewey of progressivism as liberalism.

W.E.B.DuBois suggested that National Socialism seemed an excellent model for economic organization. http://www.ghi-dc.org/files/publications/bu_supp/supp5/supp5_099.pdf

DuBois had studied at the University of Berlin, and this itself was the almost universal among early progressives, who envied Bismarck’s welfare state, and Hegel’s philosophy. Hegel introduced a system for understanding the history of philosophy and the world itself, often described as a "progression in which each successive movement emerges as a resolution to the contradictions inherent in the preceding movement"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Wilhelm_Friedrich_Hegel

The excesses of the European versions of fascism were mitigated by the specific history and culture of America, Jeffersonian individualism, heterogeneity of the population, but the central theme is still an all-encompassing state that centralizes power to perfect human nature by controlling every aspect of life., albeit at the loss of what had hitherfore been accepted as ‘inalienable human rights.’

The dichotomy that is today’s political reality is based on this retreat, as the American left simply flipped from the brown-shirt utopians to the red-flag utopians, parroting Stalin’s rhetoric: anything objectionable is fascist."
From Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism"


I know that the above is too difficult for you to absorb, so suffice it to say that Americans didn't have the authoritarian background that Germans did, and were removed from Hegel's view of total subservience to the state.

Get it?
The weak-minded Americans fall for that stuff.

Shoe fit?

 

[NYcarbineer]

This thread must be very confusing to those rightwingers who say that the Nazis were liberals.

"...the Nazis were liberals..."

Well, nice of you to drop by for your regular tutoring session...

First, it is probably more accurate to say "... the liberals were Nazis..."

"Before WW II, the same folks who championed Progressivism, viewed fascism as a noble economic agenda, and praised Mussolini. It was the horrors of the Holocaust that required both the rapid retreat from associations with the term fascism, and the rebranding by John Dewey of progressivism as liberalism.

W.E.B.DuBois suggested that National Socialism seemed an excellent model for economic organization. http://www.ghi-dc.org/files/publications/bu_supp/supp5/supp5_099.pdf

DuBois had studied at the University of Berlin, and this itself was the almost universal among early progressives, who envied Bismarck’s welfare state, and Hegel’s philosophy. Hegel introduced a system for understanding the history of philosophy and the world itself, often described as a "progression in which each successive movement emerges as a resolution to the contradictions inherent in the preceding movement"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Wilhelm_Friedrich_Hegel

The excesses of the European versions of fascism were mitigated by the specific history and culture of America, Jeffersonian individualism, heterogeneity of the population, but the central theme is still an all-encompassing state that centralizes power to perfect human nature by controlling every aspect of life., albeit at the loss of what had hitherfore been accepted as ‘inalienable human rights.’

The dichotomy that is today’s political reality is based on this retreat, as the American left simply flipped from the brown-shirt utopians to the red-flag utopians, parroting Stalin’s rhetoric: anything objectionable is fascist."
From Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism"


I know that the above is too difficult for you to absorb, so suffice it to say that Americans didn't have the authoritarian background that Germans did, and were removed from Hegel's view of total subservience to the state.

Get it?
The weak-minded Americans fall for that stuff.

Shoe fit?

Did you ever even try to put a thought or opinion in your own words?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Castro was a pacifist?

Good one.

 

[NYcarbineer]

a. Since the end of WWII, the Left has opposed fighting almost any evil. Even when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, the Left opposed military intervention. What could be more moral than opposing Saddam’s take-over of a nation, and considering the strategic importance of the area, and even the fact that the UN supported the use of the military…still, two-thirds of the House Democrats, and 46 of 56 Democrat Senators voted against the war.

Getting involved in a regional border dispute in the Middle East served no good purpose except

1. to lead to getting us attacked on 9/11, which

2. got us into another 2 wars in the Middle East.

When in the OP it says that a nation can't afford to have a strong military AND a welfare state, what it really means is,

a nation can't meddle in the affairs of other nations as in the examples above AND take care of its own domestic needs, among them the basic needs of the poor.

But that is what the Right wants. By ginning up phoney reasons, steeped in fear, greed, and phoney patriotism,

to start wars, and thus drain the resources of the nation for those tragic follies,

THAT is how you starve the 'welfare state'.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

"The truth is that no nation can be constantly prepared to undertake a full-scale war at any moment and still hope to maintain any of the other purposes in which people are interested and for which nations are founded.

In the first place, it requires a complete surrender of liberty and the turning over to the central government of power to control in detail the lives of the people and all of their activities.

While in time of war people are willing to surrender those liberties in order to protect the ultimate liberty of the entire country, they do so on the theory that it is a limited surrender and one which they hope will soon be over, perhaps within a few months, certainly within a few years. But an indefinite surrender of liberty such as would be required by an all-out war program in time of peace might mean the final and complete destruction of those liberties which it is the very purpose of the preparation to protect."

- Senator Robert Taft

Believing peace is a better policy than war doesn't make one a pacifist.

 

[midcan5]

"All the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting. George Orwell

Warriors so long as the poor do the fighting.

Dick Cheney Draft Dodger
George W. Bush Draft dodger
Mitt Romney Draft dodger
Rush Limbaugh Draft dodger

Lots more - all praise war, while none put their money where their mouth was.

Lots more below.

Punditocracy and Preacher-types (See also Media Whores Online)

George Will, did not serve
Chris Matthews, Mediawhore, did not serve. (However, apparently served in the Peace Corps.)
Bill O'Reilly, did not serve
Paul Gigot, did not serve.
Bill Bennett, Did not serve
Pat Buchanan, did not serve
Rush Limbaugh, did not serve (4-F with a 'pilonidal cyst' [see "The Rush Limbaugh Story" by Paul D. Colford, St. Martin's Press, 1993, Chapter 2: Beating the Draft.])
Michael Savage (aka Michael Alan Weiner) - did not serve, too busy chasing herbs and botany degrees in Hawaii and Fiji
John Wayne, did not serve
Pat Robertson - claimed during 1986 campaign to be a "combat veteran." In reality, was a "Liquor Officer."
Bill Kristol, did not serve
Sean Hannity, did not serve.
Kenneth Starr, did not serve
Antonin Scalia, did not serve
Clarence Thomas, did not serve
Ralph Reed, did not serve
Michael Medved, did not serve
Charlie Daniels, did not serve
Ted Nugent, did not serve
Country Singer Toby Keith, did not serve. (1)
Radio Host Phil Hendrie, did not serve.

Who served?

 

[NYcarbineer]

George Bush Sr., justifying the 1991 war with Iraq:

Vital economic interests are at risk as well. Iraq itself controls some 10 percent of the world's proven oil reserves.

Iraq plus Kuwait controls twice that. An Iraq permitted to swallow Kuwait would have the economic and military power, as well as the arrogance, to intimidate and coerce its neighbors -- neighbors who control the lion's share of the world's remaining oil reserves.

We cannot permit a resource so vital to be dominated by one so ruthless. And we won't.

How many times have you heard someone snort with contempt and sneer in denial at the suggestion that the war(s) in Iraq were 'blood for oil'?????

George Bush Presidential Library and Museum :: Public Papers - 1990 - September