Originally Posted by The Rani

Oddly enough, Mike's point is actually the same as yours ... and mine. Playdude is so busy being the drama queen that somehow he completely missed that part.

Your role is as the soubrette, in duet with the straight man Master. Important to keep a little distance, otherwise you risk revealing yourself as his succubus - a considerable less sympathetic character in the eyes of the audience!

Originally Posted by playwrite

Ah, the "remaining clueless" characteristic -- gosh, you sure play it well. But, does your choosing the "profound" rather than the "wondrous" give your game away?

... I still don't get the wondrous "coat" relevance (other than the GOP is now the lynching party). Really, perhaps you could clue me in?

Originally Posted by zilch

What I think this means is that Republicans will probably dominate this 4T, while featuring black gays enmass being chained and dragged around by gun-toting SUVs, unless the you former pro-lynching Democrats can stop us.

Well, here's another example of how to stop that chain-ready, gun-racked SUV from gettin' a head start:

BALTIMORE -- The NFL is looking into an accusation made by Baltimore Ravens cornerback Samari Rolle that an official called him a "boy" during Monday's night's 27-24 loss to New England.

Well, that Ref can kiss his white-ass goodbye...

Originally Posted by The Rani

Before you let yourself get carried away with your visions of nirvana, keep in mind that we really have no idea what will be seen as "right" or "wrong" about anything that we are doing 100 years from now.

yeah, as the shrub said, we'll all be dead by then.

Originally Posted by zilch

... Reminding present-day Democrats of their party's historical roots is simply a no no, and will quickly result in the memory-borne poster being placed on the their notorious "Ignore List." Which makes a lot of sense, I mean, who wants to hear about Democrats long Southern roots, it's intense and bloody defense of human bondage and slavery, of it's horrific sub-human legacy of death in places like the Andersonville, Belleau Wood, Dresden and Hiroshima, of it's freedom-crushing Sedition, Espionage and Sabotage Acts, of it's imprisoning hundreds of thousands of U.S. citizens in concentration camps, of even of their more recent steadfast support of wholesale lynching and months-long senate filibusters against Civil Rights laws just forty years ago?

Thuggery? The legacy of the Democrat Party is fully immersed in proud, unabashed thuggery! Which, I guess, in their simpleton minds, give present-day Democrats every reason to self-righteously critique errant "conservatives" as "thugs."

H-m-m-m. I wonder how many of the Democrats with those long Southern roots are alive as Democrats today ... or even died as Democrats, like old Strom Thurmond. Yes sir, those old Southern boys were Yellow Dog Democrats to the bone ... until they weren't. LBJ got the last Yellow Dog votes. Now those Yellow Dogs sleep under the GOP porch, and bite those evil lilb-brul government Postal Workers(TM) every chance they get.

But enough of the coats and the bashing of Southerners. None of that matters anymore, anyhow. Today, its the Brie and Chablis (or Chardonnay, what with Chablis being so passe) crowd v. the Miller Lite and Chili Dog clan. It ceased being serious and became theater a long time ago. Of course, theater has its openings and closings, and after the close, we all return to the real world. So far, neither party is doing a lot on that front. Both are pontificating, bloviating and angling for position. Most of us with a Progressive bent hope we're leaving that behind ... hope without evidence so far.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

H-m-m-m. I wonder how many of the Democrats with those long Southern roots are alive as Democrats today ... or even died as Democrats, like old Strom Thurmond...

Yep, those dead Democrats were "dubious" folks alright. Heck, even the "conscience of the Senate," old Robert Byrd (D-WVA), know'd that.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

LBJ got the last Yellow Dog votes. Now those Yellow Dogs sleep under the GOP porch, and bite those evil lilb-brul government Postal Workers(TM) every chance they get.

Yep, them slave-ownin' Democrats might've been somewhat "dubious," but today's GOP is juz downrite evil, ya'll!

Originally Posted by The Rani

People who might want to take note that the commandments don't include such things as "thou shalt not leave thy citizens without healthcare insurance."

Yeah, I kinda ignored all the liberal additives PB tossed in with the commandments, so to speak.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

... Most of us with a Progressive bent hope we're leaving that behind ... hope without evidence so far.

Nihilist.

FWIW, 'hopeful nihilist' is an oxymoron.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Your so-called defense is to define liberals as being nothing more than Bush haters, a meme intended to discount any argument put forth as being nothing but derived from irrational emotion. It was just one of the more recent ploys of constantly banging away at the proud heritage of liberalism and progressive thought by the right-wing elites in this country and their blinded dittoheads. It sort of worked up until 2006 or so, but it doesn't work any more -- check the polls, bro. Your continued use of it is tolerated but I'm sure it’s becoming a little embarrassing to the more quick-witted of your ilk on this forum. You may want to go into seclusion and listen 24/7 to Rush, Hannity et al for a few weeks and get more up-to-date on the latest memes for liberal bashing or perhaps request some instructive PMs (sounds like bowel movements) from your more astute party leaders here on the forum.

Playdude, I simply added Bush-hater to the existing definitions of a liberal. I can remember the time when Liberals would come to the aid of the kooks on a regular basis, so to speak. The kooks (I'm using your term) pretty much stand alone without the social aid or protection that once existed for them. Oh, one other thing, I have no party leaders in the 4T. You see, unlike you, I'm a freeman. Politically speaking, I'm an independant.

God I know I keep saying this, but this is the worst thread ever. I'm usually not a glutton for punishment but I'm starting to wonder since, for some odd reason, I keep clicking this thread. At least Plame/Flame had some bite to it.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

God I know I keep saying this, but this is the worst thread ever. I'm usually not a glutton for punishment but I'm starting to wonder since, for some odd reason, I keep clicking this thread. At least Plame/Flame had some bite to it.

Hey, aren't you the one who has control of that finger? Ah, quit bitchen or learn how to click someplace else. How's that for bite you little shithead! Hahaha!

Originally Posted by The Rani

Now Bob, I'm definitely not the history expert on this forum. In fact, I'm still in preschool on the subject, while most of you guys have Ph.D.s. But I do know enough to realize that there are always two sides to an issue, and what is a "justice" to one person is an "injustice" to another. Before you let yourself get carried away with your visions of nirvana, keep in mind that we really have no idea what will be seen as "right" or "wrong" about anything that we are doing 100 years from now. Do you think that George Washington thought that he would end up being plastered all over our money? Since they were so anti-monarchy back then, the thought might very well have made him puke!

Yes, George Washington tried to avoid honors which traditionally were in his day reserved to royalty. What he would think of today, when such honors might be received by anyone, I could not say.

But that would only be a question of symbolism and fashion. I don't think a tradition of whose picture might be placed on currency a matter of Good and Evil. I kind of appreciate the 'dead presidents' tradition, where those who served well are honored, but those currently in office aren't given a chance to exalt themselves.

Back in the 3T the conservatives claimed they had absolute fixed values, often invoking the Bible, while the liberals were portrayed as post modern, unable to pin their values in terms of unchanging Good and Evil. It was the liberals who might assert that everything was relative, that there are two sides to every story.

As we go into the 4T this seems to be reversing. Some of the conservative leaning posters are the ones asserting that it is impossible to tell good from evil, that one can only determine what is best in solving the crisis in hindsight. The progressives are taking up the old standards that used to be thought of as traditional and conservative. Autocratic rule bad, democracy good. Torture and holding prisoners without due process bad, human rights good. Racism bad, equality good.

I am not surprised by this. As a 4T consensus develops, the primary issues involved become projected as Good and Evil. The Grey Champion uses strong moral language in promoting radical change. The problems become urgent and transforming, so moral language becomes appropriate. Meanwhile, the status quo faction has to pretend that things like totalitarian government, torture, slavery and pollution are morally neutral, that the moral judgments of those pushing the new values are not real.

Whose picture will appear on hard paper notes and coins will not be the key issue of the crisis. (Will there be hard paper notes and coins at crisis end?) Autocratic v democratic government, torture v human rights, and lawless imprisonment v due process are apt to be part of it.

Of course, some cannot distinguish between what is important and what is not, or between what is Good and what is Evil. When one's moral stance (or inability to perceive moral issues) is questioned, one can always change the subject to something trivial and irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Very nice. Is that your own translation?

I thought that I saw a connection between Ten Commandments of ethical behavior and Ten Amendments. Both are standards of moral conduct, one for persons, and the other for governments.

The greatest immoralities in government come from those leaders who violate such basic rules (although I wouldn't put anti-gun legislation in the same category as the arrests of dissidents or shutting down 'inconvenient' news media, let alone summary process and punishment in law). Somehow I don't see a "graven image" as as much an affront to morals as chattel slavery poses.

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

PB, if you were to pull your head out, so to speak, and pay attention or look closely at the arguments, debates and fundamental clashes being waged with certain posters who are often the recipients of a "so-called liberal" label or tag. You would've have observed a strict Right libertarian defending the individual rights of people, the principles or commandments as you pointed out above from people who portray themselves as being liberals.

I took a test establishing where I was on the political spectrum, one determining where one was on the left-right axis and on the authoritarian-anarchic axis. I found myself a "left-wing libertarian", practically an "anarcho-syndicalist", whatever that is. Unlike the right-wing corporatists I distrust any institution, whether government, religious body, or business, that has the proclivity to repress people. I can hardly distinguish a Soviet collective farm from a feudal estate except for pretensions. I have far more faith in reason than in superstition. I think that humanity on the whole is better than entrenched elites who eventually confuse their desires to feed their vices with the duties that they would impose upon the rest of humanity.

As a matter of practice, I can understand why I would find little chance of winning electoral office anywhere that I had to make political compromises -- let us say, making sweetheart deals with the local merchants or ensuring huge contracts for the "producers" of big campaign contributions. I have no use for any form of Marxism-Leninism because of its built-in call for tyranny. "Dictatorship of the proletariat" violates common sense because dictatorial rule is inconsistent with membership in the proletariat and with empathy for workers. "Democratic centralism" closes any possibility of dissent after the Leader has decided.

Anyone who still believes that Dubya is a man of integrity has his head in a dark place. I will spare you the ugly metaphor. Increasingly I see him as a representative of wealth and bureaucratic power more than as a representative of the American people. Poor blacks in the Mississippi Delta, poor Hispanics in the Lower Rio Grande Valley, and distressed workers in the Rust Belt are no less Americans than are the WASP elite of Dubya's origin. Dubya's economic policies reek of fascism -- the antithesis of my political views. Sure, it's more economic than political; the Bill of Rights gets in the way even though the Bush administration games it.

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

Playdude, I simply added Bush-hater to the existing definitions of a liberal. I can remember the time when Liberals would come to the aid of the kooks on a regular basis, so to speak. The kooks (I'm using your term) pretty much stand alone without the social aid or protection that once existed for them. Oh, one other thing, I have no party leaders in the 4T. You see, unlike you, I'm a freeman. Politically speaking, I'm an independant.

Liberalism existed before Dubya; it will exist long after Dubya is gone. Liberalism no more depends upon contempt of Dubya than sobriety depends upon contempt for drunkenness. Dubya is simply the most illiberal President that any living American could know, a stooge for people dripping with contempt for any but their wealthy, privileged, corrupt selves.

"Freeman"? I've seen that word in use. Is it these?

Originally Posted by The Rani

Which is probably why I find using political descriptors to be largely meaningless.

I don't see why. One can predict with considerable accuracy to the positions on a variety of issues of a person based on their self-identified descriptor. People with similar descriptors typically ally with factions acceptable to their view to form political parties which have a significant impact on policy. It seems to me that they have a lot of meaning.

People can call themselves "liberal" or "conservative" or "progressive" ... or even "libertarian," but many times the words tell you little about the specifics of their political beliefs.

It can tell you a lot.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Which is probably why I find using political descriptors to be largely meaningless. People can call themselves "liberal" or "conservative" or "progressive" ... or even "libertarian," but many times the words tell you little about the specifics of their political beliefs.

Such descriptors tell little if the person is either a fool or a liar. If someone calls himself a "conservative", and his practices are fascist, then he is a fascist.

For example, pb uses this dictum as an example of his "liberalism:"

"Thou shalt not take away rights that people already have as tradition ..."

Yet in the not-so-distant past he has advocated limiting the number of children that people can have in the name of population control. There is nothing more traditional than raising a family. So I have to wonder if he really holds dear the values that he described on the last page, or if it is merely a cover for, to paraphrase another "liberal" poster ... authoritarian thuggery.

Overpopulation is hardly a means of achieving liberalism. To the contrary, it fosters economic distress and economic exploitation upon which anti-democratic demagogues thrive. Overpopulation supplies plentiful cannon fodder for aggressive wars.

Faster exhaustion of resources and environmental degradation are among the fruits of overpopulation.
,

Originally Posted by zilch

Hmm, I guess I didn't get the profound "coat" relevance (other than the GOP is now the lynching party). Perhaps you could enlighten me?

The GOP isn't the lynching party. The descendents of lynchers are now Republicans. They are Americans too and deserve representation. For a very long time the Democratic party represented their interests.

The coats work like this. In the beginning there were two factions, the Federalists and Jefferson's Republicans (also called Democratic Republicans). The Federalist died after 1816 and in 1820 America had only one party. So president Monroe in the election of 1820 was the only president since Washington to have have run unopposed. Historians call this period the era of good feeling because faction had (temporily) disappeared.

In the process of becoming the dominant party, a funny thing happened to the Democratic Republicans. They turned into Federalists. The Federalists had favored a tariff, a central bank (what we call the Fed today) a permanent Navy and a standing army. Democratic Republicans were opposed to all things things in 1800. By 1820, the Democratic-Republicans now favored all these things.

During the depression following the Panic of 1819, which many people blamed on the tight money policy of the central bank, a new faction calling themselves Democrats arose under the leader Andrew Jackson. The rest of the party, now called National Republicans, won the election of 1824, but went down in defeat in 1828. After that they started to call themselves Whigs.

So between 1820 and 1832, the Democratic Republicans split into two parties, the Democrats and Whigs. The Whigs were pretty much still the Federalists. Like the Fderalists their support was strongest in the Northest. The Democrats still had some of the libertarian positions Jefferson had run on in 1800, but were no longer pacifist. They favored a military strong enough to fight wars to drive Indians off their land, opening it for settlement. They also had accepted tariffs for revenue, not for protecting US industries. Democrats were strongest in the South and West.

The Democratic party was the dominant party. The Whigs only elected two presidents, Harrison in 1840 and Taylor in 1848. Both parties threw off splinter groups. The three most important are the Abolitionists (mostly Whigs who wanted to free the slaves), the Free Soilers (mostly Democrats who wanted free land for whites in the West so that they could form white-only states--they strongly opposed extension of slavery into these territories), and the Know Nothings (anti-immigrants).

The Whigs fell apart after the 1852 election. Abolitionists, former Whigs and Free Soilers united to form the Republican party in 1854. Their party was opposed to the extension of slavery outside of the South. Other Whigs took over the Know Nothings, converting them from a anti-immigrant to a patriotic party, which they called The American Party. They joined forces with the Republicans after the 1856 election.

So now we have the Republican party with two distinct wings. A left wing consisting of social liberals (abolitionists) and economic liberals (free soilers) and a right wing consisting of business interests (former Whigs) and patriotic nativists (Know Nothings). After the war they were the dominant party for a long time.

Southerners remained loyal to the Democratic party, who had supported their interests in the Civil War. Immigrants were not welcome in the Republican party (recall one of the founding groups was anti-immigrant) and they became Democrats. So the Democrats became a party of rural Southern Protestants and urban Northern Catholics.

For about 100 years after the formation of the Republican party, the American party system was very different from that in Europe. Rather than spliting on ideology, as European parties did and as the original Federalist/Republicans were split, the parties were hodgepodges of different groups. Both parties had "liberal" and "conservative" wings.

In the Republican party, racist Free Soilers coexisted with Radical Republicans who wanted to not only free the slaves, but give them forty acres and mule. On the Democratic side, Southern Baptists who detested popery coexisted with Roman catholics.

So Lincoln's new party was pro-little guy (they called for giving free land to ordinary guys) and stood against the entrenched power of the Southern "slaveocracy". They no longer favored a central bank. They went on to extend the franchise (to black men). All these things, standing up for the little guy, opposition to a central bank and extension of the franchise had been core anti-Federalist positions in 1800. This is the coat changing Lincoln is referring to. Actually it is only pieces of each others coats that got exchanged. Lincoln's Republicans still favored protective tariffs and government-sponsered infrastructure projects.

During the 20th century the two parties again exchanged pieces of each other's coats until they emerged as ideological entities by the end of the century. Today the Democratic party is the Left party and the Republican party is the Right party. The parties in the US have now returned to having distinct ideologies like the Federalist/Democratic-Republicans and like European parties. Again, another example of what Lincoln called coat changing.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Overpopulation is hardly a means of achieving liberalism. To the contrary, it fosters economic distress and economic exploitation upon which anti-democratic demagogues thrive. Overpopulation supplies plentiful cannon fodder for aggressive wars.

Faster exhaustion of resources and environmental degradation are among the fruits of overpopulation.

Agreed. And education is the key, not coercion. Advanced societies in the West are stabilizing their populations voluntarily. Thank birth control technology and the slipping influence of reactive religious authorities.

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

Hey, aren't you the one who has control of that finger? Ah, quit bitchen or learn how to click someplace else. How's that for bite you little shithead! Hahaha!

Originally Posted by The Rani

Yeah, and at least when I butted in on his little discussion on the other thread to say how god-awful boring and useless IT was, I was polite about it. These younguns these days ain't got no respect for their elders, goddamm it ... where's my shotgun, Tex??

I'm going to learn to fear you Xers some day.

Chart compliments of Magruder's American Government 1935 Edition:

Originally Posted by Mikebert

The GOP isn't the lynching party. The descendents of lynchers are now Republicans. They are Americans too and deserve representation. For a very long time the Democratic party represented their interests.

The coats work like this. In the beginning there were two factions, the Federalists and Jefferson's Republicans (also called Democratic Republicans). The Federalist died after 1816 and in 1820 America had only one party. So president Monroe in the election of 1820 was the only president since Washington to have have run unopposed. Historians call this period the era of good feeling because faction had (temporily) disappeared.

In the process of becoming the dominant party, a funny thing happened to the Democratic Republicans. They turned into Federalists. The Federalists had favored a tariff, a central bank (what we call the Fed today) a permanent Navy and a standing army. Democratic Republicans were opposed to all things things in 1800. By 1820, the Democratic-Republicans now favored all these things.

During the depression following the Panic of 1819, which many people blamed on the tight money policy of the central bank, a new faction calling themselves Democrats arose under the leader Andrew Jackson. The rest of the party, now called National Republicans, won the election of 1824, but went down in defeat in 1828. After that they started to call themselves Whigs.

So between 1820 and 1832, the Democratic Republicans split into two parties, the Democrats and Whigs. The Whigs were pretty much still the Federalists. Like the Fderalists their support was strongest in the Northest. The Democrats still had some of the libertarian positions Jefferson had run on in 1800, but were no longer pacifist. They favored a military strong enough to fight wars to drive Indians off their land, opening it for settlement. They also had accepted tariffs for revenue, not for protecting US industries. Democrats were strongest in the South and West.

The Democratic party was the dominant party. The Whigs only elected two presidents, Harrison in 1840 and Taylor in 1848. Both parties threw off splinter groups. The three most important are the Abolitionists (mostly Whigs who wanted to free the slaves), the Free Soilers (mostly Democrats who wanted free land for whites in the West so that they could form white-only states--they strongly opposed extension of slavery into these territories), and the Know Nothings (anti-immigrants).

The Whigs fell apart after the 1852 election. Abolitionists, former Whigs and Free Soilers united to form the Republican party in 1854. Their party was opposed to the extension of slavery outside of the South. Other Whigs took over the Know Nothings, converting them from a anti-immigrant to a patriotic party, which they called The American Party. They joined forces with the Republicans after the 1856 election.

So now we have the Republican party with two distinct wings. A left wing consisting of social liberals (abolitionists) and economic liberals (free soilers) and a right wing consisting of business interests (former Whigs) and patriotic nativists (Know Nothings). After the war they were the dominant party for a long time.

Southerners remained loyal to the Democratic party, who had supported their interests in the Civil War. Immigrants were not welcome in the Republican party (recall one of the founding groups was anti-immigrant) and they became Democrats. So the Democrats became a party of rural Southern Protestants and urban Northern Catholics.

For about 100 years after the formation of the Republican party, the American party system was very different from that in Europe. Rather than spliting on ideology, as European parties did and as the original Federalist/Republicans were split, the parties were hodgepodges of different groups. Both parties had "liberal" and "conservative" wings.

In the Republican party, racist Free Soilers coexisted with Radical Republicans who wanted to not only free the slaves, but give them forty acres and mule. On the Democratic side, Southern Baptists who detested popery coexisted with Roman catholics.

So Lincoln's new party was pro-little guy (they called for giving free land to ordinary guys) and stood against the entrenched power of the Southern "slaveocracy". They no longer favored a central bank. They went on to extend the franchise (to black men). All these things, standing up for the little guy, opposition to a central bank and extension of the franchise had been core anti-Federalist positions in 1800. This is the coat changing Lincoln is referring to. Actually it is only pieces of each others coats that got exchanged. Lincoln's Republicans still favored protective tariffs and government-sponsered infrastructure projects.

During the 20th century the two parties again exchanged pieces of each other's coats until they emerged as ideological entities by the end of the century. Today the Democratic party is the Left party and the Republican party is the Right party. The parties in the US have now returned to having distinct ideologies like the Federalist/Democratic-Republicans and like European parties. Again, another example of what Lincoln called coat changing.

HTH

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

I took a test establishing where I was on the political spectrum, one determining where one was on the left-right axis and on the authoritarian-anarchic axis. I found myself a "left-wing libertarian", practically an "anarcho-syndicalist", whatever that is.

Many of us here share that position. And the fact that we seem to have trouble defining what an "anarcho-syndicalist" is tells me that this is an emergent philosophy -- a new direction for humanity with all sorts of possibilities.

But not the end point, of course.

[/Hegel]

Originally Posted by The Rani

Oh my goodness, how very libertarian of you! Nice to see that you've finally seen the light on the "coercion" issue.

They like it both ways.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Which is why I'm still waiting for your explanation of how you would suggest enforcing a zero population growth policy. And how this is allowed under your "thou shalt not restrict traditional rights" commandment. Pardon my French, but if any thinking person puts two and two together, it's fairly obvious that you're just talking out your ass.

i could be mistaken, but i think you added the "enforce" part yourself in order to turn it into an authoritarian/libertarian issue.

Originally Posted by 13rian

i could be mistaken, but i think you added the "enforce" part yourself in order to turn it into an authoritarian/libertarian issue.

PBrower broached the subject here and used the term "promotion." I used "education."

Hardly a reason to wet one's britches.