The Shrinking Tent

POSTED BY: Hero
UPDATED: Monday, November 5, 2007 23:02
VIEWED: 7263
PAGE 1 of 1

For years the Republicans have talked about their big tent. They meant that there is room for pro life, pro choice, homosexual, minorities, and Democrats in their party.

The Democrats have, also for years, been excluding people from their tent. First the pro lifers were kicked out, then conservative Democrats were kicked out, then true liberals who don't agree with the radical left agenda on every issue, no Jews allowed, and now no Americans they just don't want to hear from.

So Florida...sorry, your not represented by the Democratic Party at all, so don't bother voting cause they aint counting.

Stephen Colbert...you, an American citizen with the required petition and filing fee, are not allowed on the ballot.

I urge everyone to join me in the big tent. There's room right up front between Arnold and my friend Condi...no cover charge and the show aint half bad (if you like country music and kickin ass).

H

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

I am a proponent of the big tent and have often pointed out the ideological bigotry and extremist views that defines some of the Left in this country including some of the Left-wing types who post on this board. It always amazes me how people who claim such righteousness as open-minded messengers of inclusiveness could despise people who disagree with them so much. But these people are insulated from accusations. They can hate people who don’t see things their way, and few will find anything remarkable about such hatred, even though it is no different then hating people for being Jewish or sexual preference. They have created, within their own ranks, a type of acceptable, and even righteous, bigotry.

---

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

The more the merrier! C'mon in!

"Hillary tried to get a million dollars for the Woodstock museum. I understand it was a major cultural and pharmaceutical event. I couldn't attend. I was tied up at the time." - John McCain

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Is it OK to hate sadism, lies, hypocracy, opportunism, greed, corruption, murder and the like ? 'Cause, I wouldn't want you to disapprove of me if I did.

***************************************************************
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA ... as if.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Is it OK to hate sadism, lies, hypocracy, opportunism, greed, corruption, murder and the like ? 'Cause, I wouldn't want you to disapprove of me if I did.

---

Since those are Democratic, and not Republican values, why do you ask ?



"Hillary tried to get a million dollars for the Woodstock museum. I understand it was a major cultural and pharmaceutical event. I couldn't attend. I was tied up at the time." - John McCain

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Since those are Democratic, and not Republican values, why do you ask ?

---

Really, I thought they were politicians values.

---

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Since those are Democratic, and not Republican values, why do you ask ?

---

Really, I thought they were politicians values.

---

Touche'



"Hillary tried to get a million dollars for the Woodstock museum. I understand it was a major cultural and pharmaceutical event. I couldn't attend. I was tied up at the time." - John McCain

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

I peeked in that big republican tent and was HORRIBLY shocked. I'm afraid to look in the Democrat's tent. I think I'm going over to that nice big open park; anyone care to join me?

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

AAAAAAAAAHhhhhhhh - sounds great.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

LeadB I'd like to join you but I think I'm probably going to want to sit a little closer to the Democratic tent then you'd like, perhaps we can hang out from time to time though.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

"I'm afraid to look in the Democrat's tent." My curiosity is piqued, I have to admit. What's going on in there ? Maybe I'll just stroll on by and take a look.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Got this from a friend -

Let me first start out by explaining my position on Third Party Candidates: Bad for America!!

Everyone I talk to doesn't like the current system, including me. However, that doesn't mean more choices is necessarily better. At least not under the current way we do it. See, with two choices all you need to win is more votes that any one else, i.e. 51%. You only need one percent more, than the other opposing parties. So if you have three choices, then all you need is 34% of the vote to win. If your not happy with a 51% candidate, wait till barely more than a third, or fourth of the country chooses our leaders.

Now that that's understood, hopefully you understand that to work with the system we've got you have to pick a side, like it or not. So then comes the question: Do you oppose what it means to be a Republican RIGHT NOW, or not?

I do.

--
Xxxxx

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Why have a tent? If it rains, I will dance in it, I tell you.
DANCE IN IT!!!

-Danny

and every time I play with passion I start breaking strings,
and my voice cracks when I sing from my heart
guess that's the price I've got to pay to know that I'm alive
this melody is tearing me apart


THRICE RULES!!!!!!!!!
My Master went to the Moon in a Rocket of Flamin' Cheese!
I LIKE CHEESE!!!
http://www.myspace.com/otherrandomdude

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

That big Republican tent has too many closets in it. With people in them.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Everyone I talk to doesn't like the current system, including me. However, that doesn't mean more choices is necessarily better. At least not under the current way we do it. See, with two choices all you need to win is more votes that any one else, i.e. 51%. You only need one percent more, than the other opposing parties. So if you have three choices, then all you need is 34% of the vote to win. If your not happy with a 51% candidate, wait till barely more than a third, or fourth of the country chooses our leaders.

---

Instant-runoff voting FTW
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant_runoff

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

OK. I just HAVE to ask - are they alone or with company ?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
That big Republican tent has too many closets in it. With people in them.

---

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

FredG

I haven't puzzled this out. I know in parliamentary systems there are formal mechanisms for creating coalitions. Is there some reason why that isn't done in the US ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

"I am a proponent of the big tent and have often pointed out the ideological bigotry and extremist views that defines some of the Right in this country including some of the Right-wing types who post on this board. It always amazes me how people who claim such righteousness as open-minded messengers of inclusiveness could despise people who disagree with them so much. But these people are insulated from accusations. They can hate people who don’t see things their way, and few will find anything remarkable about such hatred, even though it is no different then hating people for being Jewish or sexual preference. They have created, within their own ranks, a type of acceptable, and even righteous, bigotry."

Good heavens, Finn, you make it just too easy, especially coming on the heels of you spouting some pretty blatant racism and theological hatred yourself.

Projection, anyone ?

I'm an anarchist, I wanna torch the tents and allow folk to be their individual selves without having to hold to a party line to be accepted.

If the first thing you despoil when you enter political thought and action is your own sense of self - you've already lost the battle the moment you step in the door.

BE. WHO. YOU. ARE.

Not what some party wants you to be.



-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I'm an anarchist, I wanna torch the tents and allow folk to be their individual selves without having to hold to a party line to be accepted.

---

You’re a Leftist, and a hardcore one.

This is how the Left insulates themselves. To a Leftist, Racism and “theological hatred” means “disagreeing with their particular hatreds.” This is what I mean by creating an acceptable form of bigotry. I remember the discussion about Falwell’s death. The only argument I made was to say that I didn’t find any reason to cheer the death of a man simply because I didn’t agree with his religious or political views - to which the typical Leftists came out in full force to attack me because I had made the unpardonable sin - I had refused to hate those whom Left had decided should be hated.

---

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Now see, that's what I like. A real sharp focus on the topic. ::::bbllurryy::::

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Finn, as usual you have definitional issues, so let me ask you: What IS a "leftist"?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

You are.

Aren't you?

---

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

How about me !


***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

How about me Finn?

It's funny how these things change. I remember when "Leftist" used to mean supporters of big government and authoritarianism, socialists essentially. But now that the neo-cons have co-opted those vices, we see the Republicans subtly redefining 'leftist' to mean anti-authoritarian.

The authoritarian streak has always been at the core of the Republican ethos, even when they're mouthing libertarian positions.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

reposted

FredG

I haven't puzzled this out. I know in parliamentary systems there are formal mechanisms for creating coalitions. Is there some reason why that isn't done in the US ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:
How about me Finn?

It's funny how these things change. I remember when "Leftist" used to mean supporters of big government and authoritarianism, socialists essentially. But now that the Repubs have co-opted those vices, we see them subtly redefining 'leftist' to mean anti-authoritarian.

The authoritarian streak has always been at the core of the Republican ethos, even when they're mouthing libertarian positions.

---

Would a communist in Soviet Russia be a Leftist? The term Leftist isn’t being redefined, but perhaps you just never really understood what it meant? A lot of people don’t. They think Leftist means socialist, which in the US it often does, but not necessarily, and it certainly wouldn’t have meant that in Soviet Russia.

---

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Would a communist in Soviet Russia be a Leftist? The term Leftist isn’t being redefined, but perhaps you just never really understood what it meant?

---

You seem to be a tad confused as to your terminology. Regardless, it's what you mean when you use a term that matters. And from the way you've been using 'Leftist' it appears to mean anyone who's against authoritiarian government, particular anyone who's against neo-con authoritarianism.

That's still a pretty vague definition. If you're going to apply the "Leftist" label to people with views as divergent as Signym and Frem (and me, I'd assume) then you're casting awfully wide net. In that case, I'd wager our tent is a good deal bigger than yours. :)

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:
That's still a pretty vague definition. If you're going to apply the "Leftist" label to people with views as divergent as Signym and Frem (and me, I'd assume) then you're casting awfully wide net. In that case, I'd wager our tent is a good deal bigger than yours. :)

---

I think the term Leftist applies very well to both Signym and Frem. If you understand what it means. And I’m pretty sure my tent is bigger, if for no other reason then that I don’t despise people for their religious views. But I’m not going to analyze who’s tent is bigger, I simply know that a lot of Leftists hate me, simply because I don’t share their perspective, and among the perspectives I don’t share with them is hatred for people who disagree with me.

---

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Got this from a friend -

Let me first start out by explaining my position on Third Party Candidates: Bad for America!!

Everyone I talk to doesn't like the current system, including me. However, that doesn't mean more choices is necessarily better. ...

---

This is sad. How long will we fall for this song and dance? It's odd, because I think people really are starting to realize there's no substantive difference between the two major parties, but they're so deeply entrenched in the left/right mentality they can't see how we're being played.

Democracy shouldn't be about picking the second worst candidate. If we go that route again we'll deserve whatever we get.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

I simply know that a lot of Leftists hate me, simply because I don’t share their perspective, and among the perspectives I don’t share with them is hatred for people who disagree with me.

---

So, hating someone who disagrees with you is the mark of a Leftist? Is that it? What definition are you using?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:
So, hating someone who disagrees with you is the mark of a Leftist? Is that it?

---

Evidently, it is for many.

---

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Wouldn't that account for about half the Republican party as well? Surely you have some other definition in mind. What's the point in hiding it?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:
Wouldn't that account for about half the Republican party as well? Surely you have some other definition in mind. What's the point in hiding it?

---

I’m not hiding anything. If you would like a more in-depth definition of Leftist I can recommend a good book for you. The Rise and Fall of the American Left by John Patrick Diggins has a good analysis of the definition of Leftist.

---

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Nah, I'm interested in your interpretation of the term.

Oh well. Have it your way. But it's odd you're so reluctant to clarify your meaning.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

"I don’t despise people for their religious views."

That is, if you'll forgive the pun, murderously funny... given that everyone here has just watched you do exactly that, in another thread to pretty damn detailed and extreme degree.

And the reason you cannot define "leftist" or "liberal" beyond someone who disagrees with you, is that you are simply using a word you only vaguely understand as a slur or a slam, without any true regard to it's meaning, or even understanding of such - to you, it's just a more socially acceptable insult that doesn't reveal your hatefulness quite as much as the words you'd prefer to use.

Unhook the hard-right hate radio from your ear for five minutes and actually do your own thinking for once, and you might make sense - but what you've been doing lately is just spouting crap spoon fed to you, sans evidence, without any real knowledge beyond the talking points.

As I am not a socialist, nor any kind of fan of government intervention nor control over assets, and especially no fan of regulated society - trying to apply the term Leftist is idiotic, it's calling a banana an apple.

And watching you repeatedly describe actual Leftists, or Proto-Socialists as Liberals proves you don't really understand the term or are redefining or misapplying it.

I am Liberal in that I want my rights, my property, and my money to be left the hell alone by big daddy government... and depending on who's defining it, I've been called a Leftie, a Rightie, even a Libertarian, but the fact is that politically I do not fit your nice, neat little categories - and I refuse to trim my personhood or beliefs to fit someone elses neat little box.

While I would like to see the government eliminated, being that it.. in and of itself IS the problem, masquerading as it's own solution, I take a more realistic view given that most folk are fearful of that level of personal responsibility and government does serve some potentially useful and convenient functions.

My sticking point is Constitutional Compliance, I want them to stay the hell within the original bounds of their authority constructed to prevent many of the very problems we're lookin down the barrel of today - and when it is necessary within their authority to do something, I want it done with an absolute minimum of waste, corruption and stupidity, three things government seems to excel at above all else, unfortunately.

You wanna talk about hating something, imagine how I feel about an organisation that outnumbers and outguns me taking my money through threat of violence and/or imprisonment, and then using it for programs and agendas directly counter to my interests, some of which are a very real threat to me personally simply because of my beliefs.

I mean, how would you feel if a bunch of goons took a third of your money every week and gave it to those middle eastern fanatics you hate so very much ?

Although you might not understand it, and probably won't cause your temper is unlikely to allow you past the first three paragraphs of this post without going ballistic - it's the exact same principle with me.

All I *want* is to be left to live my life in peace, without some religion, some government, some political faction, or set of asinine arbitrary laws that don't DO anything but make everyone a criminal - sticking their nose and thier fingers into it and munging it up on me.

And yeah, I'm a bit pissed that other people make that not an option for me since every one of those tents involves some level of that, YOUR government, in MY life, unwanted being the least damning thing about it.

Remember - the original motto of US Currency was.
"Mind Your (Own) Business"

How far we have come from that.

-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
"I don’t despise people for their religious views."

That is, if you'll forgive the pun, murderously funny... given that everyone here has just watched you do exactly that, in another thread to pretty damn detailed and extreme degree.

---

I don’t know what you’re talking about and I don’t think you do either.

---

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:
Nah, I'm interested in your interpretation of the term.

Oh well. Have it your way. But it's odd you're so reluctant to clarify your meaning.

---

There’s nothing odd about it. I’m not interested in the discussion being dragged down into sophism because you don’t like what I’m saying. I’ve already given a source, that if actually did care what my definition of the Left is, you could read.

There are several fallacies associated with defining what the Left is. First of all is the fallacy that Left is the advocate of change or that it is a purveyor of liberty or justice or the ally of the working class. None of which is actually true. This can be seen in the Lefts advocacy of socialism and the belief that the economy should provide some social or moral benefit, but in practice what this amounts to is a wealthy elite protecting the perceived interests of the lower class, which is effectively an aristocracy. The Left doesn’t want change. It wants a economic system that is as old as civilization. And in fact, the Left has rarely managed an economy theory that wasn’t a response against capitalism. Most Left-wing intellectuals don’t come from the working class and it is questionable whether their ideals actually correspond to what is best for the lower classes. Liberty has at best been an occasional affair of the Left, never a defining philosophy. Justice, whether legal or economic, has also not been exclusive to the Left, with many conservative and liberal reformers often providing better legal and economic justice then those advocated by the Left. In the end, the one thing that is consistently represented in the ideals of the Left, particularly the American Left, is opposition to the Right. And that is really all the Left is - opposition. It is “opposition to the actual state of things.”

---

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

You've actually got the sophistry thing down pretty good. So how is it that you see Frem as a Leftist?

(And by the way, as an affirmed hater of both the left and the right, I gotta say your definition tilts both ways. The only consistent thing I've seen from the Right in the past twenty years has been a bitter hatred for the Left. And as a neutral observer, I gotta say the Right's bitterness toward the left comes somewhat closer to fitting your description than vice versa. Remember the nineties? In case you've forgotten, those years were filled with bitter, angry Righties foaming at the mouth to get Bill and Hillary. It was at least as ugly, and considerably more petty, than today's Bush bashing.)

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
I haven't puzzled this out. I know in parliamentary systems there are formal mechanisms for creating coalitions. Is there some reason why that isn't done in the US ?

---

Yes. Our system was designed to reduce the uncertainty that can come from the election process. There was a fear that a President elected by a slim majority would lack the apparent power or mandate to lead the nation in times of crisis. There are other considerations as well, such as State soveriegnty and an initial distrust of the electorate, neither of which later democracies had to consider.

The result is the electoral process by which a President can win by winning majority votes in certain states rather then nation wide. I note for the record that this has happened very rarely in our history. Up until 2000 I would have guessed it to be near impossible given the electoral alignment.

Also our party framework has been very loose since the 1820s allowing parties to change enough that if a new idea comes along, the parties adapt to it. The Democrats are great examples of this being both the party of slavery and the party of civil rights. The Republicans are a good example of the opposite since their predecessors, the Whigs, failed to be open to change and were thus entirely replaced by a new structure.

We have seen a number of new parties rise and fall, the best example being in 1912 when the Republicans came in third behind the Progressive Party of Theadore Roosevelt.

Wilson (D) 41.8% and 435 votes
Roosevelt (P) 27.4% and 88 votes
Taft (R) 23.2% and 8 votes.

Note Wilson's overwhelming victory despite his very low numbers in real voters. Had the Republicans stayed united then history would have been very different given the events of the following 8 years. I note for the record Wilson narrowly defeated Republican Charles Hughes in 1916 with his "He kept us out of war" slogan which was replaced soon after with "The Yanks Are Coming".

H

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:
You've actually got the sophistry thing down pretty good. So how is it that you see Frem as a Leftist?

---

I think it’s pretty obvious, but as I said, if you’re interested in the definition, read the book.

---

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I think it’s pretty obvious, but as I said, if you’re interested in the definition, read the book.

---

Maybe I'll do that someday. I guess until then your true meaning will remain 'cloaked in mystery'.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:
Maybe I'll do that someday. I guess until then your true meaning will remain 'cloaked in mystery'.

---

Good. And if you do, you’ll realize that there’s nothing mysterious about what I’ve told you so far. In fact, it will probably make a lot sense to you, assuming that you’re interested at all, which to be honest, I think, no matter how much detail I went into it, you would still return with the sophistic argument that the Republicans opposed Clinton. As if somehow the Republican party’s political opposition to a sitting Democratic president defines the entire Right-wing. But read the book, and then at least we’ll have a common frame of reference to discuss what the Left is.

---

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
...But read the book, and then at least we’ll have a common frame of reference to discuss what the Left is.

---

I have several other books on my list, so to be honest, I probably won't get around to it. Besides, as I said, it's your interpretation that matters. If you want to use a word in an idiosyncratic way, the onus is on you to clarify your meaning - if you want to be understood that is.

Plus I don't really care to get caught up in the whole left/right nonsense as I don't think it captures the important differences in ideology. All authoritarians look alike to me.


SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

You are. Aren't you?

---

I dunnno. I believe in equality. I'm against big hairy authorities. And often I'm an anti-corporatist. Does that make me a leftist?


---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
FredG

I haven't puzzled this out. I know in parliamentary systems there are formal mechanisms for creating coalitions. Is there some reason why that isn't done in the US ?

---

I'll defer to Hero since he seems to have a pretty good idea and I don't.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
I'm against big hairy authorities. And often I'm an anti-corporatist. Does that make me a leftist?

---

Yes. You want your dictator to be a...neither big, nor hairy...so your voting for John Edwards, the most womanly of the present candidates.

You are against corporations, which is a meaningless statement. What don't you like about corporations? Is it their loyalty to their owners rather then the public, is it their slogans, is it their marketing? Sure, there's lots not to like, but I hate McDonalds cheeseburgers...because I don't like pickles, not because I'm anti-cheeseburger.

Corporations came about as a means of streamlining production and capital development in the 1800s. Does this mean you are against the consolidation of capital for the purpose of developing expensive industry? Cause thats kinda silly in the modern world, after all Mom and Pop can't really afford to build a railroad, buy trucks, or a tool factory to supply their local hardware store.

Railroads are good examples. They are useful for the transport of supplies, goods, people, mail, troops, etc. So you want to build a Railroad, you need steel. Which means you need a steel mill, which means you need coal. And what is steel? Which means you need a scientist to invent steel, a school to train the scientist (and your engineers, bridge builders, tunnel builders, accountants, etc). All that costs money, more money then you have. So you need investors. But folk just don't line up to give you money, they need guarrantees. Like protection of their other money and property in case you go broke or your train crashes. Like ownership rights. Like a share in your profit. So some smart lawyer type, not unlike myself, invents the corporation to consolidate capital and allow for the Railroad to be built and the country to move foreward.

I have always thought of a liberal as a person willing to give you the shirt off of someone else's back and ensure that we are all reduced to the lowest common denominator (thus ending up equal regardless of where you start, finish, or how hard you work in between). A liberal leader believes those things too, but exempts themselves since as a ruling intellectual class, they must be removed from the faceless lower class...for everyone's good.

A conservative is a person willing to give you the shirt off their own back (being moral people willing to help folk out if they can, but not if they choose not to) and who believe that you get what you work for in this world and equality is measured by individual achievement not outcome.

H

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Mayhaps, Siggy - workers rights vs corporations has generally been a "Left" issue, all the way back to the four pole alliance of communists, socialists, unionists and anarchists that culminated in the first "red scare" around the time of the haymarket riots, said scare and following palmer raids having more to do with corporate fear of dissent and war resistance than actual security, more than anything else.

And the next time you meet one of those much disrespected "Leftists" or hated Anarchists you might wanna thank them for the 8-hour workday, as it was born in force and violence against the corporate oligarchs and their government lackeys.

Labor rights are generally a Left of center issue, or considered as such - although in a true free market without government aided and protected monopolies, a corporate oligarchy could not exist - and the concept of "Free Market" is supposedly a Right of center issue, so I guess it's all in how you look at it.

Everybody seems to want things in nice, neat, predictable little boxes, simple decisions.. either/or, if/then, black and white...

But it's not that simple, nor will it ever be, once human beings enter the process, because humans are human, as individual and unique as snowflake crystals - and the political process would have you melt down those unique and beautiful crystals into the homogenous sameness of nice, boring, predictable square ice cubes for easy sorting and distribution, which they call voting blocs.

Politicians love those, it gives them a feeling of comfort and stability, not having to actually answer to their constituents because they have those to depend on - it removes the fear of the people which should be a necessary check upon their excesses.

Keep your tents, I'll be making my own course through your little park there, and who wishes to walk with me, may do so at any time, for as long as they wish, and go their own way any time they wish.

We're human beings, not unthinking cogs in someone elses political machine that may or may not properly represent your own interests, and we should act like human beings, treasuring our individuality and the fact that it scares and threatens those who wish us to be predictable and obediant servants instead of in charge of the system like we should be.

Freedom isn't neat, clean and orderly, so...
LET'S MAKE A MESS!



-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

You are against corporations, which is a meaningless statement. What don't you like about corporations?

---

Apparently you haven't read any of the discussion between myself and Fletch2. I don't like corporations for several reasons:

They inevitably cause concentration of wealth, and drive working people to the bottom. Aside from being "unfair" it's a sure-fire way to ruin demand and sink your own economy. As such, it's short-sighted and requires a lot of "tweaks" to keep if from regularly collapsing into economic depression.

Altho they're "artificial persons" they have a whole set of generous laws and taxes that apply just to them.

Like ANY organization with it's hand on a source of power (whether it is farm production, military or economic) they have an inordinate amount of say in the morals and ethics of the time.

Quote:

---

I have always thought of a liberal as a person willing to give you the shirt off of someone else's back

---

Then I guess I'm not a liberal. The only thing that pops to mind is "Pity would be no more if we did not make men poor".

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Finn,

Can you define a conservative for us ? How about a neo-con ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Freedom isn't neat, clean and orderly, so...
LET'S MAKE A MESS!

---

Careful Frem, or you'll scare the women and children.




---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
They inevitably cause concentration of wealth, and drive working people to the bottom.

---

If you take a look at history you'll notice working people have ALWAYS been on the bottom...until the mid-1800s that is. Corporations were an important part of changing the place of the working class since corporations need a number of things from the ranks of all people...those things being: workers, investors, and consumers. The emergence of corporations also brought the emergence of the middle classes and made wealth a measure of achievement rather then heridity.

As I explained, the purpose of corporations was the concentration of wealth...in the form of capital, for the purpose of investment in expensive things...like railroads.

Labor unions are a sub-form and by-product of corporation development. Capital, in the form of both money and work, are concentrated in order to do something that individuals cannot do alone (collective bargaining).

Any human system can be used improperly. Corporations can be managed poorly or can overreach thus destroying their future market in exchange for short term profit. This is similar to farmers overfarming a field for diminishing returns or a labor union striking a mining company into closing down because they cannot meet union demands.

None of those outcomes mean that the system is flawed. Would you ban farming because some farmers keep planting in an exhausted field? Proper education, limited regulation, and just letting the stupid farmers go under is the solution, because the next farmers to get that land will do better. Such is the case with corporations.

Look at China. American corporations embraced China to manufacture cheap goods. Now many are paying the price because they are finding that they can no longer guarranttee the quality or safety of the goods, the enviromental impact of the production, or the equitable treatment of the labor producing the goods. Those companies will either address those issues properly or those companies will fail and other companies will replace them. Profits will fall, prices will rise and their will be new manufacturers, consumers, and investors cashing in the opportunity.

I note for the record that I'm no economist, so I can't explain exactly how it works, but I am a historian (one of my degrees anyway), so I can observe the effects. I did a little 100 page paper once on the Economic development of the United States...very interesting topic.

H

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Can you define a conservative for us ? How about a neo-con ?

---

Neo-con is a term co-opted by liberals to describe conservatives as liberals think they are rather then how conservative see themselves. Just as conservatives try to tie liberals to communism, liberals seek to tie conservatives to Nazi fascism. Neither is correct to do so...although you commie-liberals should know better.

The term was invented by socialist Michael Harrington to describe the emerging social conservative movement that began in the mid-1960s and culminated in the rise of the Reagan Conservatives in the '80s and '90s. It was embraced by intellectual conservatives of the time because they were seeking to compare themselves to the New Left (which arose from the Kennedy era and the social movements) as well as distance themselves from the old conservatives of the World War 2 era Right. In the 1980s the term was abandoned in favor of simple Conservatism because the movement had succeeded in its goal of gaining general acceptance (or at least general acknowledgement) likely due mostly to the influence of Ronald Reagan on the American electorate.

Now the term is tossed around as a slur more then anything else, adopted by some, used carelessly by others all to mean different and often derogatory things things. I've found it presently meaningless in any practical sense.

H

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Hero, I'd like to continue the discussion but in another thread since I don't want to hijack this one. If yu agree, start another one, OK?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Just want to say 'Hero' your history is a little off. 'Neoconservative' was a self-invented and self-applied label of a group of people. - NOT something that was 'invented' by a 'liberal'.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:
Now the term is tossed around as a slur more then anything else, adopted by some, used carelessly by others all to mean different and often derogatory things things. I've found it presently meaningless in any practical sense.

---

The interesting bit is, if you look at the philosophical underpinnings of the neo-cons, they're actually more aligned with traditional liberal values than the old-school, so-called "paleo-conservatives". The paleos were much closer to what we now call libertarian-conservatives, and their strong attachment to individual rights doesn't sit well with the communitarian impulses of the neo-cons.

Sometimes I wonder if the liberals complaining about the neo-cons aren't just jealous, given that the neo-cons have been much better at the 'big-government, social engineering' mode of governing than the liberals ever dreamed possible.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Just want to say 'Hero' your history is a little off. 'Neoconservative' was a self-invented and self-applied label of a group of people. - NOT something that was 'invented' by a 'liberal'.

---

The term was first used by socialist author Michael Harrington in an article about Barry Goldwater and the reinvention of conservatism that began in the early 1960s. Conservative authors took it and used it in the late '60s until the early '80s. After Reagan was elected it fell out of use until the '90s as a slur against the Republican majority.

H

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

"Neo-con is a term co-opted by liberals to describe conservatives as liberals think they are rather then how conservative see themselves." UUhhh - no. I it was coined and adopted by conservatives to describe themselves.

Jeez 'Hero', if we can't trust you to get a simple historical fact straight - or even your own words just a short scroll up - what can we trust you for ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:
The interesting bit is, if you look at the philosophical underpinnings of the neo-cons, they're actually more aligned with traditional liberal values than the old-school, so-called "paleo-conservatives". The paleos were much closer to what we now call libertarian-conservatives, and their strong attachment to individual rights doesn't sit well with the communitarian impulses of the neo-cons.

---

I disagree. What your saying is true to some extent, but the Republicans of the World War 2 era had more in common with the liberal intellectuals in terms of social values. Their differences with the old left came in the form of trade policy, regulation of industry and labor, foriegn relations, military strategy, monetary policy, and like things. Names like Rockafeller, Nixon, and Ford could easily have been Kennedy and Kerry. Heck, some of those fellas were Republicans back in the days prior to the '60s.

H

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
UUhhh - no. I it was coined and adopted by conservatives to describe themselves.

---

I would suggest that the first use of the term is by a socialist means he invented it...unless you think he heard it at a party and wrote it down.

I'm not saying he was wrong, the guy may have been a stinking commie...but he was a fine intellectual and it was a very articulate and revealing piece he wrote (I read it in college and it along with Reagan's speeches and some other writings made me a conservative).

I think your confusing the '60s with the '90s. The term was out of common use until the late '90s when it became popular as a slang term used by liberals. I remember hearing it on West Wing, a show notrious for writing Republicans without any real understanding of the people or philosophy. Since then I've heard it in a number of different contexts (including a couple really old conservative thinkers who never stopped using it) most of those negative and most by liberals or radical independent types who throw the word around with no real understanding of the word or the people you are labeling with it. Like yourself.

The term neo-conservative, like conservative, liberal, Democrat, Republican, progressive, moderate, new left...their meanings have all changed over time. I would suggest that the new-conservatives of today's time are the moderate Republicans like Arnold and Rudy. Neo-liberals...well there are none right now since the whole party changed so quickly after 1999 (you Dems are moving so fast to the left you've pulled the rug right out from under some of the best traditional liberals in your camp, ask Joe Lieberman).

H

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

The term neo-con has lost for the most part whatever meaning it may have had, largely due to the derogatory way in which it has been employed and the similarity between so-called Neoconservatives and other Conservatives. Most people don’t bother distinguishing between the different political denomination of Conservatism. But if anyone is interested in what Neoconservatism is from the words of those who have been regularly described as Neoconservatives, a good discussion can be found The Neocon Reader, edited by Irwin Stelzer which contains articles by everyone from William Kristol to Margaret Thatcher. If nothing else the Introduction his valuable information dispelling the paranoid, often anti-Semitic, delusion known as the “Neocon Cabal.”

---

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
You’re a Leftist, and a hardcore one.

This is how the Left insulates themselves. To a Leftist, Racism and “theological hatred” means “disagreeing with their particular hatreds.” This is what I mean by creating an acceptable form of bigotry.

---

But couldn't describing 'leftists' in this way be seen as bigotry? Or is it okay to judge someone for not agreeing with your political views, Finn?

---

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
But couldn't describing 'leftists' in this way be seen as bigotry? Or is it okay to judge someone for not agreeing with your political views, Finn?

---

In what definition of bigotry? And I don’t have any problem with Frem disagreeing with my political views. Bigotry describes someone who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles or identities different from their own. I tolerant Frem far more then many people would consider necessary. Other then his personal hatred of me and others who disagree with him, I don’t have any problem with him for his point of view. I don’t agree with his point of view usually. I think it tends to be paranoid and naïve, but I don’t dislike him, and I actually find his posts interesting. Describing someone as a Leftist is not bigotry, anymore then describing them as Right-wing.

---

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
But couldn't describing 'leftists' in this way be seen as bigotry? Or is it okay to judge someone for not agreeing with your political views, Finn?

---

In what definition of bigotry? And I don’t have any problem with Frem disagreeing with my political views. Bigotry describes someone who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles or identities different from their own. I tolerant Frem far more then many people would consider necessary. Other then his personal hatred of me and others who disagree with him, I don’t have any problem with him for his point of view. I don’t agree with his point of view usually. I think it tends to be paranoid and naïve, but I don’t dislike him, and I actually find his posts interesting. Describing someone as a Leftist is not bigotry, anymore then describing them as Right-wing.

---

Where did I mention Frem? Though he is a self professed anarchist, which tends to be considered a rightwing ideal, but theres so many definitions of 'left-wing' and 'right-wing' it's pointless to try to make distinctions.

But no, I wasn't talking about Frem, I was talking about your charactisation of leftists as 'racists' who have developed a comfortable bigotry allowing them to hate people they disagree with.

---

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

"Neo-con Cabal"?

Are you perhaps referring to the Project for a New American Century? If so, it's not a cabal. But it is a foreign policy thinktank filled with neo-cons. The ideas of the PNAC, as well as many of its members, dominated the Bush administration and are directly responsible for the current quagmire.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
But no, I wasn't talking about Frem, I was talking about your charactisation of leftists as 'racists' who have developed a comfortable bigotry allowing them to hate people they disagree with.

---

I didn’t characterize the Left as racists. I never even used the term “racist.” The term I used was “ideological bigotry.” And yes, I think there is a very strong trend of ideological bigotry in the current American Left, which unfortunately may be working its way significantly into the Democratic Party.

---

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

It's interesting, but for 'ideological bigotry' I tend to think of groups generally considered on the far right; fundamentalist Christians who are telling everyone else they have spot in hell reserved, the anti-abortionists who feel justified in attacking abortion clinics and/or workers there.

Is there a particular 'left' group or person you think epitomizes what you have in mind?

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I didn’t characterize the Left as racists. I never even used the term “racist.” The term I used was “ideological bigotry.” And yes, I think there is a very strong trend of ideological bigotry in the current American Left, which unfortunately may be working its way significantly into the Democratic Party.

---

You're right, you used the term racist, but not in refrence to 'leftists', though you seemed to be holding it up as equivelent to racism, which was what I was working from, eh.

But that clears things up significantly, thanks

---

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by leadb:
Is there a particular 'left' group or person you think epitomizes what you have in mind?

---

Michael Moore. MoveOn.org. For starters. These groups are constantly attacking people who don’t agree with them, but what makes them so unsettling to me is that their hatred gets a free pass. These groups can post a full page cut rate ad in the New York Times defaming people they don’t like, and you don’t even notice anything wrong. All you see are the Right-wing hate groups. But fundamentalist Christian groups and the KKK are not take seriously by hardly anyone in the mainstream, so I don’t really care about them - not so with the Left-wing hate groups, their message has influence. And it’s heavily influencing the media and the Democratic Party. Even the more commonly accepted Left-wing groups, euphemistically referred to as the “civil rights organizations” (like GLAAD and NOW), are free from criticism when they do this kind of stuff. A good author to look into is Tammy Bruce, who is a lesbian, a liberal pundit and former head of the National Organization of Woman (NOW), so she's been well entrenched in the Left-wing movement in America. She describes how Left-wing hate groups have filled the void in American culture left by right-wing hate groups which have largely lost influence since the fifties. Her book, The New Thought Police, is very telling reading.

---

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Hummm as an outsider I'm not sure that I see what you do. I think the situation is more one of the American left feeling somewhat disenfrancised. Yes they sort of have a place in the Democratic party but they seem to be a minority as far as policy making is concerned. They are there because the Dems want the votes and organising power -- much like the religious right exists within Republican ranks and like the religious right after the votes have been delivered and the polls close they are tossed a bone while the party as a whole gets back to Bidness as Usual.

There is no left wing party in the US, the Democrats would be considered a slightly right of center party most anyplace else, the left as such seems to have hardly any influence that makes it though to actual legislation. Witness the last election, I think most people would see the entery of Wesley Clarke into the election as the DLC trying to scupper the "Dean Effect" for fear it might move the party too far to the left and ruin Hillary's chances in '08.

As for Move-on and Michael Moore, I think they do get a pass but not for the reasons you outline. The current Democrats are a "left wing themed" Corporatist party -- kind of like those fake "Irish Pubs" you find in the suburbs they have the trappings of being left wing but aren't really --- I think the real left leaning sorts are getting just a little PO'd with that, they feel they need to send out the attack dogs against the current administration because

1) The Dems dont to it

and

2) As much to distinguish themselves from the Dems as the Reps.

Your thoughts?

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by leadb:
Is there a particular 'left' group or person you think epitomizes what you have in mind?

---

Michael Moore. MoveOn.org. For starters. These groups are constantly attacking people who don’t agree with them, but what makes them so unsettling to me is that their hatred gets a free pass. These groups can post a full page cut rate ad in the New York Times defaming people they don’t like, and you don’t even notice anything wrong.

---

Well, to be fair to me, I give it as much credence as any other full page ad in the New York Times. I'm not a subscriber. I know, shocking, but there it is. If you have any links to the type of material you are referencing, I'm willing to go take a look.

Quote:

---

All you see are the Right-wing hate groups. But fundamentalist Christian groups and the KKK are not take seriously by hardly anyone in the mainstream, so I don’t really care about them - not so with the Left-wing hate groups, their message has influence. And it’s heavily influencing the media and the Democratic Party. Even the more commonly accepted Left-wing groups, euphemistically referred to as the “civil rights organizations” (like GLAAD and NOW), are free from criticism when they do this kind of stuff. A good author to look into is Tammy Bruce, who is a lesbian, a liberal pundit and former head of the National Organization of Woman (NOW), so she's been well entrenched in the Left-wing movement in America. She describes how Left-wing hate groups have filled the void in American culture left by right-wing hate groups which have largely lost influence since the fifties. Her book, The New Thought Police, is very telling reading.

---

Found an extract of the book on-line; looks interesting, might see if I can check it out from the library.

Back to Moore and Moveon. I'll be honest, I'm not a huge Moore fan; he tends to be obnoxious. Of course, as an individual he has a right to his opinions and ought be able to express them as he sees fit within libel laws, etc. As he's not much my cup of tea, I may well not have seen the material you find crosses the line from a strongly voiced opinion to what you consider 'hate'. I refrained from seeing 'sicko' as the previews lulled me into expecting it to be too biased to be of interest, and I didn't feel like contributing to the films 'success'.

Moveon.org is another beast I haven't spent a lot of time with. Popped over to their website. They clearly want us out of the Iraq war; they clearly don't want us attacking Iran. Ok, wandered a bit. Didn't catch anything worst than a 'No more lies from Bush' sign. Is there some particular instance of attacks you feel cross the line from stating position to characterizing this 'hatred' you speak of?

Edit: You mention the KKK. I suppose they are far right... I guess. I know the far left won't have them. And yes, as far as being a nationally effective group, they are pretty much history (though always happy to throw a bucket of cold water on any embers found, of course). In any case, I consider them their own special interest group outside the realm of any meaningful current political dialog.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Actually, this line got my amused attention...

MoveOn.com Civic Action -- MoveOn and the Christian Coalition?

As Congress prepares to vote, MoveOn and the Christian Coalition are joining forces to show that Internet freedom affects everyone.
http://civic.moveon.org/donatec4/save_the_internet.html

At least they are able to work with other groups on some issues.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fletch2:
There is no left wing party in the US, the Democrats would be considered a slightly right of center party most anyplace else

---

Really? And still they can't seem to work together. Amazing.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by leadb:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fletch2:
There is no left wing party in the US, the Democrats would be considered a slightly right of center party most anyplace else

---

Really? And still they can't seem to work together. Amazing.

---

Who?

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Sorry Fletch.
This would be more clear: "Really? And still the Democrats and Republicans can't seem to work together despite both being right of center 'in the grander scheme of things'. Amazing."

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Of course that's why McDonalds and Burger King work so closely together, after all they are both burger companies.... oh.. oh wait they DONT because they are competitors.....

Parties are like any other bidness. Your political parties are just corporate entities in the business of running government, if party X wins then they get to lavish pork on their districts, get the big jobs with the big salary's, become the big cheese with the big house on Pen Avenue. If they lose they get the crumbs from the other guy's table, there wont be as many Jack Abramov's wanting to pay for their golf junkets, there won't be as many consulting jobs when they retire.

So no they don't work together, just like Airbus doesnt give Boeing a hand when they have problems, just like the Red Sox don't spot the Yankies a few points at the beginning of a game because they are having a bad year.

When you are out of power the best and only way to get back in power is to make the other guy's look like idiots, that is the same no matter what the political complexion of the two parties.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

There's other ways of operating, but that does seem to be the most common.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by leadb:
Moveon.org is another beast I haven't spent a lot of time with. Popped over to their website. They clearly want us out of the Iraq war; they clearly don't want us attacking Iran. Ok, wandered a bit. Didn't catch anything worst than a 'No more lies from Bush' sign. Is there some particular instance of attacks you feel cross the line from stating position to characterizing this 'hatred' you speak of?

---

Last year MoveOn shut down it’s forum after the Anti-Defamation League called them on it, but it was full of stuff that was so vile it could only be compared to the kinds of hate that one would see on a KKK website. There is also the smear campaigns the most recent of which are the attacks against General Patraeus and comparing Bush to Hitler. I find it hard to understand how a political organization would have a fraction of MoveOn’s influence after that kind of hate was found on their website.

---

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

I agree that the Democrats are not a Left-wing party. They‘re not a part of the American Left, anyway. I also think you’re right that they buddy up to some of these smear groups because they are afraid of losing votes. They fear that these Left-wing groups will turn on them, which I suspect they would and to some extent already have, but I think they are influencing policy - at least they are complicating it. I’m not as confident that the Democrats will be able to shed the association with these groups after the election. Certainly MoveOn.org isn’t either, since it’s director believes they “own” the Democratic party and they‘ve been able to dictate to some extent who Democratic candidates talk to. They’ve also demonstrated influence with the New York Times, one of the newspaper said to set the news for the nation and Google, the largest Internet search engine. It makes me very uncomfortable that the Democrats may be in power in ‘08 in part because of their association with these groups. None of this may mean anything, but it certainly seems to me that MoveOn and groups like it have considerably more influence then Right-wing political groups in the US.

---

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

What you are experiencing is the same kind of reaction that more left leaning folks feel from Dobson, Falwell and the rest of the Christian right.

There was an interesting thing on the radio about what the CR brings to the table for the Republicans and it's not money or preachers telling the faithfull who to vote for. The big selling point is boots on the ground. If you are a Rep that makes the right noises on topics the Christian Right support, you can end up with a few hundred dedicated young Christians on the stump for you in the run up to the election. Folks happy to get wet handing out flyers, knocking on doors and putting out election signs. It's the kind of hard work face-to-face campaigning that you can't buy with money (well you COULD but the cost would be staggering.)

The Christian Right provide the foot soldiers for many Republican campaigns, when they are needed they are courted, the politicos make the right noises, say the right things and I've heard Falwell and Robertson in the past bragging about how big the Reps owe them (not as blatent as "owning" the party but still the same sentiment.)

You know what happens? Zilch, the Reps throw them a bone like stem cells or Partial Birth abortion and then it's back to the Bidness of government. The Christian Right will never get Roe V Wade repealed, it's not in the Rep's interest to have that gone it's too big a motivator.

The Dems and the left is the same deal, the activists --- ie the more left leaning members of the party--- are the folks that believe real hard, they are the ones taht hand out flyers, pound on doors and stuff. Their leaders talk about owning parties and the like and you know what? When the elections over they will get a bone, I dunno, minimum wage rise or something but Universal healthcare? Never happen too good a motivator to be delivered...

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Two years ago, I probably would have described myself as a firm Democrat. The events of the past two years have made me seriously question the wisdom of an affiliation with either of the two 'big' parties. While I may yet vote for a Democrat, it would be based on the candidate's positions, as opposed to having any faith on the candidate based on party affiliation.

Interestingly enough, it is not because of the Democratic party's influence from such 'left wing' 'hate groups' such as moveon; but rather due to the fact the Democrats as a group don't seem to have the spine to stand up to the poor choices having been made by Bush and the laws and standards put in place by the previous Republican congress (eg: DMCA).

While Finn seems concerned about 'moveon's 'owning' the Democratic party', it seems to be that Fletch is right, at best, they are getting tossed an occasional bone. Democrats have failed to roll back even any of the controversial 'rights reduction legislation,' much less have had an effective stand against the Iraq war. Heck, they are proposing their own 'big brother' legislation now.

Despite the 'big tent', the positions of the Republican party seem to be guided pretty strongly in keeping the religious right from rebelling; and as such will limit the appeal of the party to other segments of society; at least to the extent those segments are not behind such positions.

Take Mitt Romney for instance; seems like a basically honest fellow. One wife, etc. But he's not 'mainline' Christian, and that seems to be a major stopping point for getting past the primaries. Perhaps time will tell otherwise, but it's not convincing me yet that the Republican party has seriously opened that big tent in tolerance as much as they'd like folks to think.

I think Fletch hits the nail pretty squarely with his references to Falwell, et. al. The Christian right has not struck me as accepting of contrary positions; and this lack tolerance has kept me very cautious of the Republican party who continues to press for the Christian right's support.

Finn contends that moveon got a 'free pass' on their past 'hate site' oriented approaches; all I can say is for having gotten such a free pass, they have clearly cleaned up their public face. If anyone can find any 'persisting' hate-oriented material, I'd still like to check it out. Personally, I'll watch for a return to such behavior, and will try to exorcise extra analysis to see if they have only changed their public face. I'm not sure why but something about the site doesn't ring true for me, and moveon.org just isn't catching my interest.

I'm actually more concerned about the Democratic party's attempt to 'out big daddy' the Republican party than I am their pandering to groups such as Moveon.org.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Well, the 'obvious' google search finally occurred to me....

A group has hand selected some the more offensive material from MoveOn for reference:
http://www.stentorian.com/MoveOn/sideshow1.html

Some of the material is only offensive to those who find any negative comment on Israel's handling of the West Bank and Gaza an attack on Jews; but much of it is classic anti-semitic raving. The more embarrassing part is that most of it has polls associated to it showing 'majority support'. Generally, very low counts (eg: fewer than 24 folks participating). My guess is the folks who found it repugnant simply started ignoring such posts. Kinda like the way we mostly ignore PN's constant anti-semitic postings.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Since those are Democratic, and not Republican values, why do you ask ?

---

Really, I thought they were politicians values.

---

Exactly.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police
- Vote JonnyQuest/Causal, for Benevolent Co-Dictator of Earth; together, toward a brighter tomorrow!

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fletch2:
The Dems and the left is the same deal, the activists --- ie the more left leaning members of the party--- are the folks that believe real hard, they are the ones taht hand out flyers, pound on doors and stuff. Their leaders talk about owning parties and the like and you know what? When the elections over they will get a bone, I dunno, minimum wage rise or something but Universal healthcare? Never happen too good a motivator to be delivered...

---

You could be right. I was sometimes disgusted by the things Falwell had to say, but I don’t think he ever had this kind of influence with the media. I know that no one on the Christian Right would ever have gotten a full page ad in the New York Times at a cut rate, and I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t have gotten such a thing in the WSJ or any other major newspaper either. So I’m pretty sure the media was never as sympathetic to the Christian Right as they appear to be to some of the Left-wing groups. Could Falwell have dictated who Republican candidates spoke to? Would a Republican candidate cancel an interview with NBC news because Falwell complained? I don’t think so. I think the Left-wing groups have considerably more influence. As to how much that influence will translate into actual policy in Congress, you’re probably right that the Democrats aren’t going to want to give them anything big, however if the New York Times runs a few dozen front-page articles on MoveOn's point of view, the Democrats could feel a lot more pressure then the Republicans would from the Christian Coalition.

---

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

I think it's a horses for courses deal. I'm sure if you are on the left you probably see Clearchannel, Fox News and talk radio as having far more influence than they do. I think one of the interesting things I've noticed is that both sides seem completely convinced that the other has a lock on the media somehow. The right seems paranoid about "liberal bias" while the left tried to create their own talk radio network to try and redress what they see as "bias."

In the UK there are traditionally 2 tabloids and a single broadsheet newspaper with an identifiable left wing bias. There is one other broadsheet that is essentially neutral and the rest have varrying degrees of acknowledged right wing bias. It has been that way for as long as anyone remembers and it is that way because the politics of the owner dictates the politics of the paper.


Coming from that environment I can tell you that by comparison US media has less bias. Both mainstream political parties tailor their message to a relatively narrow demographic -- essentially the suburban middle class voter whose swing vote determines elections --- the same demographic that US advertisers crave and by association US publishers and broadcasters target. Consequently both party's messages fall within the narrow political spectrum pushed out by the MSM anything outside of that to the right or left gets the bum rush. ---If it wasn't for CSPAN I wouldn't have known that the US had either a socialist or a libertarian party they get so little main stream exposure.



As an aside ten years or so ago Rupert Murdock switched the alliance of his UK newspapers from the Tories to Labour and may have won Tony Blair that election. This was not a "road to Demascus" kind of a deal, the Tories wanted out of Europe at a time when Murdock needed someone to push satellite TV deregulation through the European Parliament. Labour wanted to do that and so for business reasons he switched horses. If Democrats could offer News Corp something that the Reps couldn't I'm sure Hillary would be having a nice friendly chat with Bill O'Reilly inside a week.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

I stand by my ice-cubes analogy, as it has come pretty clear by the words of other folk that those very voting blocs are the root of the problem, removing the needful check and balance of actually having to answer to ones own constituents as a whole.

This allows them to do as they please, so long as they stop short of completely alienating those dependable blocs... and who gives a damn what the constituents (aka suckers) think because they were stupid enough to take their marching orders from someone else at the voting booth instead of properly seeking their own interests.

And both sides are equally guilty of that, not to mention gerrymandering to stack the blocs more effectively.

Be a snowflake, not an ice cube.

-Frem

PS. Leadb, before you get too invested in Romney, you might wanna do some research into him and his upper echelons involvement in "behavior modification" facilities.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

First, thanks to Fletch2 for your insights. Its helpful to get a perspective that is somewhat removed.

Frem, Ok, I'll dig if I have a chance. Romney is sufficiently deviant on policy issues wrt to mine I would not be likely to vote for him myself... but he 'struck me' at least as an 'honorable opposition' if you know what I mean. If there's serious reason to not support his candidacy, I won't be terribly shocked. Given our deviation of position, I simply hadn't dug into him that deeply.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fletch2:
In the UK there are traditionally 2 tabloids and a single broadsheet newspaper with an identifiable left wing bias.

---

Which? I'd say the Independent, but not sure about the tabloids. I've heard the Sun was an ardent Labour supporter in the 70's (?), but it's always struck me as more right-leaning.

---

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Well bear in mind here that I've been out of the country for a while but when I was there, Labour supporting Daily's were

Daily Mirror, Daily Star --- Tabloids
Guardian -- Broadsheet (ok technically the Gruniad is a tabloid too but calling it a broadsheet is better than sounding elitist by saying "real newspaper.")

The Independent was.... er independent

The blatantly Tory papers where

Times, Mail, Express, Telegraph (Torygraph) and in London the Standard.

Has that changed? I stopped reading the online editions a while ago so I dont know if there has been a sea change. Back in the day, I would read the Guardian and the Telegraph online editions and know the truth lived somewhere in between.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fletch2:
Well bear in mind here that I've been out of the country for a while but when I was there, Labour supporting Daily's were

Daily Mirror, Daily Star --- Tabloids
Guardian -- Broadsheet (ok technically the Gruniad is a tabloid too but calling it a broadsheet is better than sounding elitist by saying "real newspaper.")

The Independent was.... er independent

The blatantly Tory papers where

Times, Mail, Express, Telegraph (Torygraph) and in London the Standard.

Has that changed? I stopped reading the online editions a while ago so I dont know if there has been a sea change. Back in the day, I would read the Guardian and the Telegraph online editions and know the truth lived somewhere in between.

---

Well the Independent has always struck me as having a left slant, not that it's biased toward the leftwing parties though. I was taking left wing slant as and idelogical slant, rather than a political affilliation.

To be honest I don't read the papers as much anymore, though the Mail is basically the "royalty news", shoe-horning news of the royal familly into everything. Tidal wave in Asia, heres what Prince Charles has to say. They give away a bunch free now, Metro, London Paper etc, but I tend to go on-line more these days.

To be honest, not much has changed, though I'm not sure the Mirror is all that supportive of Labour, and I'm sorry but the Star is not a newspaper, newspapers contain news, the star is a daily gossip mag with a page 3.

---

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

HA!

We all know the truth anyway - that the only paper in the whole UK worth the effort of reading is The Register.

ALL HAIL SIMON, DEATH TO THE (L)USERS !

-Frem

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

I remembered the Independent as being probably closer to the LibDems than Labour thought I know it targeted the Guardian when it first came out. I don't think I ever bought one and the only time I've ever read it was found copies on the train(used to live in Surrey and after a while you'll read anything to relieve the boredom of the run into central London.)

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fletch2:
I remembered the Independent as being probably closer to the LibDems than Labour thought I know it targeted the Guardian when it first came out. I don't think I ever bought one and the only time I've ever read it was found copies on the train(used to live in Surrey and after a while you'll read anything to relieve the boredom of the run into central London.)

---

I used to live in Surrey, (Banstead, halfway between Croydon and Epsom). But since buying a place I've moved to East Grinstead, somewhat further away.

I miss the London commute from Surrey is all I can say. Though since work has given me an internet enabled PDA it has helped, I can at least download news emails and so on.

---

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

I had a friend lived in Banstead, shared this tiny, tiny little house there but he was a civil servant so he couldnt afford anything bigger.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

I was down the road in Woodmansterne, but the whole area is ridiculously expensive.

---

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

PDA's with wireless were a little far off back when I made the London run regularly. I had to make do with a psion series 5. You'd be surprised how much you can write on a series 5, I got a 3rd of a novel typed out on the thing just commuting. Twas a dark day when psion got out of the PDA business.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME