Ready To Choose Your Poison?

[AutoJC]

Dead on. As for Ann coulter, when she's explicitly religious she's hard to stomach. However, when she is exposing the treachery of the left, she's frikk'n awesome (a technical philosophical term). She is ascerbic as all hell but I like that about her. And I love when she gives the "Hollywood idiot of the week" award in her columns.

I wish she were an Objectivist because I think Objectivism could use someone with that kind of passion, humor, and wit. Although I know that many O'ists hate her because she is so insulting.

I have to admit I find Ann Coulter fascinating for similar reasons.

[Kitty Hawk]

Personally I condemn the anti-industrial revolution hippie leftists for their hijacking of the Democratic party, a party which, at least prior to FDR's presidency, stood for individual rights and freedoms regardless of privilege.

I think you have to go a lot further back to find any such respect for individual rights in the Democratic Party. Woodrow Wilson, Democrat and President of the United States in 1912, implemented the first income tax in 1913. In 1914 he signed the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Clayton Antitrust Act to regulate big business practices. (Information from The Oxford Companion to United States History.)

In his book, The New Freedom, Wilson had this to say:

We used to think in the old-fashioned days when life was very simple that all that government had to do was to put on a policeman's uniform, and say, "Now don't anybody hurt anybody else."  We used to say that the ideal of government was for every man to be left alone and not interfered with, except when he interfered with somebody else; and that the best government was the government that did as little governing as possible.  That was the idea that obtained in Jefferson's time.  But we are coming now to realize that life is so complicated that we are not dealing with the old conditions, and that the law has to step in and create new conditions under which we may live, the conditions which will make it tolerable for us to live . . .

[Emphasis added.] (Excerpted from The Progressive Movement 1900-1915, edited by Richard Hofstadter.)

So after describing a perfect government, Wilson says we want something else, instead. We want a more intrusive government, for these oh so complicated times.

[stephen_speicher]

In his book, The New Freedom, Wilson had this to say:

[Emphasis added.] (Excerpted from The Progressive Movement 1900-1915, edited by Richard Hofstadter.)

So after describing a perfect government, Wilson says we want something else, instead. We want a more intrusive government, for these oh so complicated times.

Thank you very much for that Wilson quote. Very instructive.

[oldsalt]

On the first page of this thread AutoJC quoted from John Kerry's web site:

"Americans deserve a principled diplomacy backed by undoubted military might based on enlightened self-interest, not the zero-sum logic of power politics...a diplomacy that commits America to lead the world toward liberty and prosperity. [Emphasis AutoJC's, I presume] A bold progressive internationalism.... [Emphasis mine]

I end the quote here because the term "progressive internationalism" tells me everything I need to know of what is actually being said.

In an article titled The Ideological War Within the West, John Fonte (a senior fellow of the Hudson Institute) gives a summary of the key ideas of transnational progressivism:

Quote:

The key concepts of transnational progressivism could be described as follows.

The ascribed group over the individual citizen. The key political unit is not the individual citizen, who forms voluntary associations and works with fellow citizens regardless of race, sex, or national origin, but the ascriptive group (racial, ethnic, or gender) into which one is born.

A dichotomy of groups: Oppressor vs. victim groups, with immigrant groups designated as victims. Transnational ideologists have incorporated the essentially Hegelian Marxist "privileged vs. marginalized" dichotomy.

Group proportionalism as the goal of "fairness." Transnational progressivism assumes that "victim" groups should be represented in all professions roughly proportionate to their percentage of the population. If not, there is a problem of "underrepresentation."

The values of all dominant institutions to be changed to reflect the perspectives of the victim groups. Transnational progressives insist that it is not enough to have proportional representation of minorities in major institutions if these institutions continue to reflect the worldview of the "dominate" culture. Instead, the distinct worldview of ethnic, gender, and linguistic minorities must be represented within these institutions.

The "demographic imperative." The demographic imperative tells us that major demographic changes are occurring in the U.S. as millions of new immigrants from non-Western cultures enter American life. The traditional paradigm based on the assimilation of immigrants into an existing American civic culture is obsolete and must be changed to a framework that promotes "diversity," defined as group proportionalism.

The redefinition of democracy and "democratic ideals." Transnational progressives have been altering the definition of "democracy" from that of a system of majority rule among equal citizens to one of power sharing among ethnic groups composed of both citizens and non-citizens. James Banks, one of American education's leading textbook writers, noted in 1994 that "to create an authentic democratic Unum with moral authority and perceived legitimacy, the pluribus (diverse peoples) must negotiate and share power." Hence, American democracy is not authentic; real democracy will come when different "peoples" that live withn America "share power" as groups.

Deconstruction of national narratives and national symbols of democratic nation-states in the West. In October 2000, a UK government report denounced the concept of "Britishness" and declared that British history needed to be "revised, rethought, or jettisoned." In the U.S., the proposed "National History Standards," recommended altering the traditional historical narrative. Instead of emphasizing the story of European settlers, American civilization would be redefined as a multicultural "convergence" of three civilizations -- Amerindian, West African, and European. In Israel, a "post-Zionist" intelligentsia has proposed that Israel consider itself multi-cultural and deconstruct its identity as a Jewish state. Even Israeli foreign minister Shimon Peres sounded the post-Zionist trumpet in his 1993 book, in which he deemphasized "sovereignty" and called for regional "elected central bodies," a type of Middle Eastern EU.

Promotion of the concept of postnational citizenship. In an important academic paper, Rutgers Law Professor Linda Bosniak asks hopefully "Can advocates of postnational citizenship ultimately succeed in decoupling the concept of citizenship from the nation-state in prevailing political thought?"

The idea of transnationalism as a major conceptual tool. Transnationalism is the next stage of multicultural ideology. Like multiculturalism, transnationalism is a concept that provides elites with both an empirical tool (a plausible analysis of what is) and an ideological framework (a vision of what should be). Transnational advocates argue that globalization requires some form of "global governance" because they believe that the nation-state and the idea of national citizenship are ill-suited to deal with the global problems of the future.

End quote.

As the bloggers say, read the whole thing.

If you would see Kerry's vision of the future made real, look at the EU. He no more believes in military action than they do. Whatever he says to the contrary, mark it up to political rhetoric provided for us poor unsophisticated shnooks who just don't get it. In his unbounded quest for power, he will say anything, package deal anything. It's all in the nuance.

[AutoJC]

I didn't read "progressive internationalism" to be synonymous with "transnational progressivism," as you did, so I disagree fully with your post.

I don't see how it is that progressive internationalism is necessarily a collectivist concept.

I would view "global free trade" as a necessary ingredient to progressive internationalism.

To enact "global free trade" requires international cooperation; i.e, each government to be able to protect the rights of the traders.

Too bad you don't see it that way.

Also, how is it one views "progressive" as an altruist endeavor, anyhow? Were the industrialists NOT "progressive?" Are capitalists not progressive?

[Kitty Hawk]

Progressivism is a specific political movement from the American past, in the context I was writing about. Roughly 1900-1915. It was concerned mainly with antitrust ideas, but also with pro-labor legislation (such as 8 hour work-days), and incipient forms of welfare. Wilson was a Progressive. Theodore Roosevelt had many Progressive ideas, including trust busting, and for that reason he left the Republican Party to form the Progressive Party. He lost the Presidential election to Wilson in 1912, evidently not being Progressive enough.

[AutoJC]

In the Choice of Poison, this cartoon comes to mind:

Cartoon is spot on!

[AshRyan]

Were the industrialists NOT "progressive?"  Are capitalists not progressive?

Not according to the left. According to the left, they were "robber barons."

[BlackSabbath]

Solid proof of Front Page Magazine's conservative bias

No good, Black Sabbath.

Try again

Well how about this then?

http://news.scotsman.com/archive.cfm?id=174292004

"As the New Republic showed in 1991, Mr Kerry’s habit of trying to take both sides of an issue is not a new one. On 22 January that year, Mr Kerry wrote to a Massachusetts constituent, saying: "Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition ... to the early use of military force by the US against Iraq. I share your concerns. On 11 January, I voted in favour of a resolution that would have insisted that economic sanctions be given more time to work and against a resolution giving the president the immediate authority to go to war."

Nine days later, Mr Kerry wrote to the same constituent: "Thank you very much for contacting me to express your support for the actions of President Bush in response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. From the outset of the invasion, I have strongly and unequivocally supported President Bush’s response to the crisis and the policy goals he has established with our military deployment in the Persian Gulf." "

and

"Mr Kerry’s problem is that he has an almost identical voting record in the Senate as his colleague Ted Kennedy, and while Mr Kennedy may be viewed as a grand old man in Washington and Massachusetts, that is not how he is seen in the rest of the US. It’s not hard to imagine the effectiveness of a Republican campaign pointing out Mr Kerry’s past opposition to the death penalty for terrorists or mandatory sentences for drug-dealers convicted of selling heroin to children. "

Note that my source is an Edinburgh-based newspaper and the one that I read every day.

I think that makes me Lennox Lewis and you Mike Tyson in round 8.

I know Frontpagemag is a a conservative magazine BTW.

[BlackSabbath]

I reject your "evidence."

To properly judge Sen. Kerry's voting record, you need to go to other than your sources, which are opinionated and prejudiced to conservatism.

Actually my evidence was quite conclusive and I have provided more to back it up.

It shouldn't be a surprise that the democrats have gone for someone to the left of Ted Kennedy.

Their whole approach since 2001 has been 'anybody but Bush' and now they have Mr "Vote for Me! I'm not George W. Bush".

[AutoJC]

Not according to the left.  According to the left, they were "robber barons."

True.

I don't look to the Left for what constitutes the proper use of the English language.

After all, the Left tried to legitimize ebonics in California by trying to get it taught in schools.

[AutoJC]

Well how about this then?

http://news.scotsman.com/archive.cfm?id=174292004

"As the New Republic showed in 1991, Mr Kerry’s habit of trying to take both sides of an issue is not a new one......I think that makes me Lennox Lewis and you Mike Tyson in round 8.

I know Frontpagemag is a a conservative magazine BTW.

Quoting biased publications rather than researching and citing public record is cheating, BlackSabbath.

Keep trying. You'll get there.

I do agree Kerry tries to take both sides of issues, however. Typical politician

[BlackSabbath]

Quoting biased publications rather than researching and citing public record is cheating, BlackSabbath.

Keep trying.  You'll get there.

I do agree Kerry tries to take both sides of issues, however.  Typical politician

Biased?

The Scotsman?

Where do you think that paper comes from and why would they give a stuff about who wins the American Presidency?

And that Lennox Lewis didn't half dispense a sound thrashing didn't he?

Keep evading Kerry's record of leftism why don't you?

[AutoJC]

Biased?

The Scotsman?

Where do you think that paper comes from and why would they give a stuff about who wins the American Presidency?

And that Lennox Lewis didn't half dispense a sound thrashing didn't he?

Keep evading Kerry's record of leftism why don't you?

It's still commentary.

Try going to the Congressional Record and citing that, and offer your own commentary.

Good luck!

[BlackSabbath]

Good luck!

Actually it''s you who needs the luck trying to prove that Kerry isn;t what he is and is actually to the right of George W. Bush.

This thread has reached it's end anyway.

[BlackSabbath]

Standard leftism:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/n...line_outlook_dc

"ELECTION YEAR POLITICS

The lofty pump prices will take their toll on the wallets of the country's roughly 200 million drivers, threatening to dent a U.S. economic recovery, and sparking a political blame game ahead of this autumn's presidential election.

"When it comes to crafting consumer-friendly energy policies, (President) George Bush has been an abject failure," said a spokesman for Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry (news - web sites). "While gas prices skyrocket and consumers get pinched, oil companies are raking in record profits." "

[AutoJC]

Standard leftism:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/n...line_outlook_dc

"ELECTION YEAR POLITICS

The lofty pump prices will take their toll on the wallets of the country's roughly 200 million drivers, threatening to dent a U.S. economic recovery, and sparking a political blame game ahead of this autumn's presidential election.

"When it comes to crafting consumer-friendly energy policies, (President) George Bush has been an abject failure," said a spokesman for Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry (news - web sites). "While gas prices skyrocket and consumers get pinched, oil companies are raking in record profits." "

More related info regarding this on the thread entitled "FUD in Politics"

You can expect both sides to come out flinging this crap in this campaign.

[AutoJC]

Actually it''s you who needs the luck trying to prove that Kerry isn;t what he is and is actually to the right of George W. Bush.

This thread has reached it's end anyway.

I recall challenging You regarding your (perhaps collectively) blanket statement that Kerry is to the left of left.

Better to echo the bromides of the Faith-based Right rather than prove your point.

[BlackSabbath]

Better to echo the bromides of the Faith-based Right rather than prove your point.

The pig-ignorant Marxist drivel that is Kerry's campaign has done that for me.

[AutoJC]

The pig-ignorant Marxist drivel that is Kerry's campaign has done that for me.

One more time, but with more fervor:

Better to echo the faith based collectivist altruist Right than cite facts to prove your point.

While I'm on a roll here:

There is little Kerry can do to upset the Bush apple cart anyhow. Why?

Because the Bush administration has taken the socialist issues away from the Democrats and have made them their own! Rush Limbaugh said it. He's right!

Case in point is their expansion of Medicare.

That's why I posted that Cox and Forkum cartoon above.

Happy blind supporting of Bush, fellas! Muhahahahahahah!

[Kitty Hawk]

Getting down to issues, here's Kerry's stance on missile defense from space: there shouldn't be any missile defense from space.

. . .  many on the Left are calling for the United States to demand an international treaty banning weapons from space. John Kerry is one of the leaders of this movement. He has called space weapons "very disturbing." A few years ago, he proposed "to offer the world the potential of a treaty that says, 'We will only use space for peaceful purposes.'"

Taken from The High Ground

So Kerry is for leaving the US defenseless against missiles.

A clear difference between Bush and Kerry. Advantage: Bush.

[BlackSabbath]

One more time, but with more fervor:

Better to echo the  faith based collectivist altruist Right than cite facts to prove your point.

Happy blind supporting of Bush, fellas!  Muhahahahahahah!

Nope. Better to look at Kerry's Marxist utterings and use them as evidence.

It's you who are blind in trying to pretend that Kerry is to the right of Bush in some way.

Once again, you're Mike Tyson, I'm Lennox Lewis and it's round 8.

[oldsalt]

AutoJC:

I, for one, am sick of your insults. Your use of such terms as "Republican plants," "FUD," and espcially "faith based collectivist altruist Right" belong in forums such as Indymedia and DemocraticUnderground. You constantly ignore the context of the forum you are addressing. You never argue the points against your position, rather you dismiss all statements by smearing them with a Rightest paintbrush. The people on this forum are Objectivists and students of Objectivism. Not one has expressed any admiration for Mr. Bush's policies, even on the war. I haven't read one post that is FOR Bush, but is rather against Kerry's socialist, anti-American, anti-military, pro-UN stances. If you cannot understand that the word "progressive" has been a synonym for socialism in this country since the 1930's, I doubt your ability to understand Mr. Kerry's positions.

By your own logic, I might accuse you of being a Dem plant. By your own logic, I might say that every argument you offer, were you to actually offer an argument, stemmed from your Marxist based collectivist altruist liberalism. Neither statement would be an argument for or against anything, but childish attempts to substitute ad hominem invective for argument.

As for Mr. Bush's Christianity and his (dwindling) support from the Right: American's have been riding the Christian pendulum since Jefferson penned the Virginia Constitution, where he first separated Chruch and State. Christianity is base and evil, but it doesn't hold a candle to the evil of the secular, philosophically based socialism rampant in this country right now. For all of their many faults, it isn't the Christian Right that is anti-American. It isn't the Christian Right that would hand over the defense of this nation to the interests of a corrupt UN and the caprice of the elites in Brussels and Paris. It isn't the Christian Right who thinks we ought to "understand" our enemies. It isn't the Christian Right that equates Bush to Hitler, or considers America a terrorist, rogue country. All of those ideas belong to Mr. Kerry's constituancy. (And no, I'm not talking about extremists like Buchanan and his ilk.) That you are unable to decern this difference is evident in everything you write.

Do not bother to respond. I will no longer be reading your flippancy. I've had enough of your disrespect and your insults.

[AutoJC]

AutoJC:

I, for one, am sick of your insults.  .....I've had enough of your disrespect and your insults.

As they say in the Bill Murray movie "Stripes"......

Lighten up, Francis!

[AutoJC]

Getting down to issues, here's Kerry's stance on missile defense from space: there shouldn't be any missile defense from space.

Taken from The High Ground

So Kerry is for leaving the US defenseless against missiles.

A clear difference between Bush and Kerry.  Advantage: Bush.

As is the case with BlackSabbath, you, too, can do better than to go to a biased source like the National Review for your points, so I'm going to help you and BS both out with these two issues:

1. the Missile Defense issue- let's go to his own website, specifically where this issue is addressed

And what is it we see?

Looking at the weapons that the RNC says Kerry voted to cut, a good case could be made, certainly at the time, that some of them (the B-2 bomber and President Reagan's "Star Wars" missile-defense program) should have been cut. As for the others (the M-1 tank and the F-14, F-15, and F-16 fighter planes, among others), Kerry didn't really vote to cut them.

So you see, my friends, I am delivering this to you from his own website on a silver platter that Kerry does indeed want to cut the Star Wars missile defense program. While that would be misguided indeed to do that, does it really leave us defenseless?

My view is this- America needs to invest its time and energy on the latest defense technology, and no current event brings this more to light than the current War on Terrorism.

Kerry is WRONG in pursuing this agenda any further.

2. BlackSabbath's view that Kerry is Marxist:

a. See my Cox and Forkum cartoon regarding Socialist Kerry and Bush wrestling for the privilege of being the socialist of privilege, so to speak.

b. On a more direct note: issues of agriculture, economy, college affordability, protecting America's workers, Seniors, etc. are issues that might trap a political candate into the soclalist abyss. So, one again, let's peruse Kerry's site.

to get a feel as to how he stands on such issues

John Kerry has worked to make sure that farmers have the support they need and that rural communities have the tools they need to be safe and prosperous.

That's farm supports. Tax dollars to keep farmers in business. Socialists as a matter of policy do indeed support such measures.

Kerry has proposed creating jobs through a new manufacturing jobs credit, by investing in new energy industries, restoring technology, and stopping layoffs in education.

Why is this the responsibility of the government to do this?

In socialist governments there is no "unemployment." Businesses, controlled by the government, exist for the sake of others, a socialist manifesto.

Regarding college affordability:

In a Kerry Administration, if you believe in yourself enough to work hard and do what’s right, your country will invest in you.

Doesn't get any more socialist than that. Remember in socialist Russia how they invested in their talent? Their elite were discovered by their guidance counselors and placed in advanced education schools, where they could be served advanced brainwash to best serve the interests of their country.

Kerry thinks that if you are bright enough to go to college, the government should give you handouts to enable you to do so. Tax dollars for the sake of others.

Protecting America's workers is a time-worn socialist slogan. After all, the laborer and the industrialist/inventor should be playing on a level playing field, right?

John Kerry has a 90 percent AFL-CIO voting record over an 18-year Senate career. He has fought to raise the minimum wage, cosponsored bills to outlaw striker replacement and provide workers with Family and Medical Leave to spend time with a new child or care for a family member.

You will find all of these aspects, and then some, in the socialist caretaker governments that still exist elsewhere in this world.

Now, one can argue that certainly John Kerry's own site is a "biased source" But it is his own website, and it is safe to assume that what he posts here is what he intends is his aganda for America.

You needn't go to Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, or Sean Hannity for your information as to how you view Kerry. It's child's play to declare Kerry a Socialist because Rush Limbaugh said so.

Far, far better to say that Kerry is a socialist because Kerry Himself said so.

I 'd like to view this, Black Sabbath, as Lennox Lewis' advanced training program, for which he has the stamina (great metaphor) to fight the good fight!