Admin: This post and many following posts moved from topic -Off-Topic-: -Porn: US Rules All Porn is Child Porn

"I don't know about the rest of you guys but the latest ruling by the Supreme Court scared the hell out of me!"

Yes, but this decision was penned by Liberals. It was the Conservatives on the court that authored the great dissents that wanted to protect property rights. Thomas in particular wrote an excellent decision. He is the biggest defender of property and contract rights (as well as the 2nd Amendment) on the bench.

So I understand the reaction on this forum against Bush and the influence of the Religious Right. But you can't simply bash Bush and ignore the even greater danger from the Left and call yourself a defender of freedom.

The political spectrum today is bifurcated between the Marxist influenced pro-socialist Left and the religious influenced pro-theocratic Right. We're under attack from both sides and you can't just highlight the evils of one and ignore the other and call yourself informed.

Despite how much I despise the anti-sex, anti-joy, anti-life philosophy of the Right, I equally despise the anti-wealth, anti-capitalism, anti-American pro-pacifist philosophy of the Left. In fact, I would argue that the Left is further down the road to tyranny than the Right. There are some better Conservative intellectuals / commentators out there (and not Limbaugh or Coulter or Hannity or Savage who are examples of the worst) but namely Victor Davis Hansen, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Lary Elder, David Horrowitz. The Left has no equivalent. They stand for an umbrella of ideologies that are all poison: environmentalism, socialism (or extreme economic interventionsism), multiculturalism, femminism (which I know many on this board despise) and suicidal pacifism just to name a few.

The Right on the other hand seems to be split and torn between two philosophies fighting for its soul. On the one hand, a dark-ages religious view that is every bit as dangerous as the Islamist enemy we face. On the other hand the ideas of the Enlightment America, ie economic and political freedom, individual rights, self-responsibility, respect for property, the willingness to defend the nation in time of war, etc, are only alive to a certain extent on the Right. They have long been abandoned by the Left as the latest Supreme Court decision shows.

In the Kelo decision, it was the Liberal judges who openly showed there contempt for freedom by alowing any law to be passed if it aided "the public welfare" which is a giant euphamism for legalized confiscation. It was the Consverative justices (mostly Thomas) that referred to ideas such as traditions of property rights and limited government and "a man's home is his castle." You would never hear this from the Left.

I know that in matters of sex, drugs, or religion, the Conservatives are downright horrible, but my main point is that you just can't bash the one without naming the evil of the other. Bush is bad, but IMO the Clintons or Kerry or anyone from the angry Left is just as bad.

Historically, the biggest restraint of runaway government has been the combination of a Democratic President with a Republican Congress. Republicans are far better as the opposition party; they are terrible once they have power. The best bet to preserve the few remaining liberties we have may be to vote Democrat for President in '08 and maintain (if not expand) the Republican control of Congress. But if Hillary gets the nomination, pulling the lever for her would make me vomit for a month.

99; Great reply. There is a lot of truth in what you say.

Cat; I tried to make a differance, I was an unpaid Volunteer for John McCain when he was trying to win the Republican nomination for president here in California.

I gotta tell you it was frustrating experiance from the start. The Bush campain had the support of the RNC, and he was their golden child. Sen. McCain was the outsider, the "peoples canidate" the game was over before half time.

In the end it came down to Bush V Gore. Bad and worse.

If you want to make a change it has to be at the party leadership level, and I think that the Democrats may have screwed up badly by putting Dean in that position.

RG.

If the libertarians could just learn how to communicate their message, and find a decent candidate.....but I'm not holding my breath.

99strong, I would possibly agree on several points:

1. The balance of opposing parties holding the Executive and Legistative branches of government has been and may continue to be the biggest and best restraint of runaway government power.

2. The Left side of the Supreme Court may have been on the wrong side of this decision. Possibly agree might be too loose a term, though. I'm simply not well read enough on this subject to disagree.

---

However, I'll have to emphasize very strong disagreement with some of your points and choice of words in your post.

"...greater danger from the left...Marxist influenced pro-socialist Left...anti-wealth, anti-capitalism, anti-American pro-pacifist philosophy of the Left...angry Left"
The Right has done a spectacular job of convincing their followers that the political spectrum is primarily composed of two groups: a) a diverse group of moderate to extreme supporters of the Right, and b) an angry, socialist, traitorous group of the Left. They have reinforced these beliefs by convincing said followers that most universities and journalisms schools are "liberally biased", and consequently that most mainstream media (that which is not labeled conservative or currently supporting the conservative POV) must therefore put out liberally biased reporters that cannot objectively report the news, thus perpetuating the "Liberal Bias Myth". This strategy is incredibly successful, rather than an intellectual and objective discussion of the viewpoints on any particular issue, all that needs to be said for many on the Right is that the non-Conservative view is "liberally biased", so the objective view must be the conservative one.

I highlight "Angry left" because I consider this a great example of how the view of many on the right is skewed as described above. In this case, I'm happy you bring up "...Limbaugh or Coulter or Hannity or Savage.... You say they are the worst, and I completely agree. They tend to demonize the ENTIRE LEFT of being traitorous, pacifist, immoral, etc... What the Left does not have an equivalent of is the angry, divisive, and hate-inspiring vitriol of these four HIGHLY POPULAR best-selling authors, high-profile commentators, and well known IDOLS of the Right. Can you name any respected people on the left that would accuse the ENTIRE RIGHT of treason(punishable by death) and anti-Americanism?

In short, the extreme on both sides would prove bad for our country, but my opinion is that c) the extreme Right has an overwhelming influence on the Republican Party while d) the extreme Left has little to moderate influence on the Democratic Party, and that e) the view among Republicans that the Democratic Party is extreme is a fallacy perpetuated by a well-financed and well-developed conservative propaganda and echo chamber.

"Right" media can be downright relentless when it comes to attacking Republican moderates like McCain, or any Republican that doesn't stick to the Republican script on many issues. It baffles me that many on the Right do not realize this often creates the very difficult choice of "Loyalty" vs "Conscience", and that Republican politicians have to be loyal with their votes (even when they think their party is on the wrong side of the issue) to maintain influence and power.

Geeze guys, is anybody besides me getting laid tonight? Oh wait, I am in Rio and you guys are in the US. Nuff said;

In all seriousness, very articulate and well informed posts. 99, you and Dar't would make great guests hosts on Crossfire!

Oops, excuse me, she just came out of the shower in a towel. Have more things rising to the occasion to consider at the moment.....

Tchau

Actually, you know its time for your next excursion when your agruing politics on a sex tourist website.

D'artagnan: you made interesting points. I would have to think about them more to accurately comment. I suspect that I would disagree with a few things, buy your expressed your point well. In any case, I think its clear that we both recognize the dangers presented by both sides and would like to see a true alternative in the political scene.

I know that there are a lot of Bush haters and I don't mind if you hate him (he makes me nautious most of the time), as long as you hate him for the right reasons and understand that the Left is really not a better alternative, although I can see the anti-sex attitudes of most of the Republicans generating alot of disgust on a site like this. And here is where the Left can come in handy, to hopefully provide a check on the rise of an American Taliban.

I have to say, this is a cool site. I hope to meet some of you on my next adventure.

"If the libertarians could just learn how to communicate their message, and find a decent candidate.....but I'm not holding my breath."

So true. I'm obviously oriented towards libertarianism but the party is a disaster. They have been called the hippies of the right and after attending a few of their meetings in my area, I can vouch for that. They have tried to open themselves up to everybody and in the process they have come to stand for nothing. At this point, I'm ready to write them off. I just don't see them becoming a valid third alternative, although I wish they were.

Believe it or not, I read somewhere recently that in Costa Rica, there was a Libertarian candidate that might have had a shot. I don't know the details, but I find that interesting.

I have thought it was ironic on numerous occasions when I ask myself, "why is it I have to fly half way around the goddamn world to third world countries in order to enjoy a few moments of freedom when I allegedly live in the land of the free?" The left and the right have both pretty much been sticking it to me lately.

Living in California I am mostly taking it in the ass by the left on a day to day basis but I have to admit, the right has been kind of sticking it to me on the federal level lately too. I figure I am screwed by both parties now. My father (who I have rarely seen) never votes at all. Once I ask him why and he says, because it doesn't matter, you have to simply deal with the political circumstances dealt you at the moment and come out on top. Maybe father knows best.

The left? WHAT left? WTF? It just shows how right-wing the country's become when people like Kerry or Hillary are considered "left." LOL! Was the rah-rah Reagan 80's dominated by the left? Was Bill "end welfare as we know it" Clinton a liberal/leftist? The left is dead and buried, at least in the U.S. You'd have to go back eons to McCarthy or McGovern to talk about a candidate with real "leftist" credentials. Leftist groups only exist in really messed up countries like Bolivia. . . and Canada! ;-)

As for the recent Supreme Court case, I can only shake my head in disbelief. That decision couldn't possibly be more pro-BigBusiness and therefore pro-Republican! If a Wallmart wanted to put up another storefront in a certain residential area, all they have to do now is pull some strings and throw some money around at the municipal level. The people who happen to be living in the target area are simply screwed. Yet the case was decided by supposedly "liberal" or "moderate" judges. Whatever. Maybe these terms just don't mean anything anymore!

The left is alive and well In Kalifornia. Just try to do something silly, like ride your motorcycle off road, or build a house, or clear the brush on your property because it is a fire hazard, and the left will quicky make themselves known to you. They always seem to take a shitload of my paycheck as well. The left hasn't done to much damage on the national scene lately but they can still hurt you bad in California.

Sex is really deemed a "bad thing" these days in the US. I heard recently that in Oakland if you are caught solicitating a prostitute and arrested & convicted your mug shot can go up on a highway Billboard so EVERYONE knows what you did. Sad.

I'm so pissed about having to choose between the Democrats giving away all my money and the Republicans telling me where I can spend it.

I agree about the Libertarians, if they could find someone who didn't appear to be a freak, then they may stand a chance.

I don't want government giving my money to other people. I also don't want them to legislate morality either. If these morals are so phenomonically wonderfull, why does it take the force of government to implement them?

I have some free time right now so I figure I'd respond.

"The left? WHAT left? WTF? It just shows how right-wing the country's become when people like Kerry or Hillary are considered "left."

Yes, but if a Kerry or a Clinton had their way and the unchecked power, they would turn the country into a Bolivia or some version of a Soviet style slave state.

"Was the rah-rah Reagan 80's dominated by the left?"

The Regan era was a response to the Leftist dominated era that preceeded it, namely Carter's admininstration. Regan was not perfect and he is responsible for giving the Religious Right a political foothold, but Regan changed the climate in the country. He broke the stranglehold that leftist intellectuals held and at least partially injected better ideas and policies into the political mix, ie tax cuts, strong defense, opposition to labor unions, opposing the love affair with Communism by the liberals, etc. As I said, he was far from perfect, but he diverted the direction that the country was taking away from the European wellfare state mentality. He may have bought us 50 or 60 years before some type of collapse or major economic catastrophe. He was also the only President in recent memory to quote such Classical Liberal or Libertarian greats as Frederick Bastiat, Ludwig Von Mises, Carl Menger, Adam Smith, and Frederick Hayek. Regan was an economics major from a California college back in the late 20's early 30's before the field was dominated by Keynsians (a disciple of Marx). Given the political sewer that was the second half of the 20th century, I'd have to say that Regan was (in that context) a great man. IMO he and Calvin Coolidge were the two best presidents of the 20th century.

"The left is dead and buried, at least in the U.S. You'd have to go back eons to McCarthy or McGovern to talk about a candidate with real "leftist" credentials."

I wish this were true. The ideas of the Left are very much alive, in fact it is their ideas which dominate the universities in one form or another. The Right, for the most part, caves in to these ideas. The only time the Right stands up for anything is when it represents old school religion. Witness the Terri Schiavo case. You are saying, in essence, that since the US is not a full fledged socialist state ala many of the South American bannan republics that the Left is dead. This is the wrong way to look at it. The Left is very much alive and spending night and day trying to turn the US into a bananna republic.

"That decision couldn't possibly be more pro-BigBusiness and therefore pro-Republican! If a Wallmart wanted to put up another storefront in a certain residential area, all they have to do now is pull some strings and throw some money around at the municipal level."

This is a commmon error. But I don't blame you from making it because it seems on the surface to be common sensical. But taking the side of "big business" interests is not the essence of capitalism. This decision is in essence a pro-fascist decision. The essence of socialism is complete government ownership of the factors of production, ie industry. But the essence of fascism is nominal private ownership but real contol by the government. Think Nazi Germany.

Remember in Schindler's List, yes Schindler owned the plant, but who controlled it? The Nazis. In the end, the difference really doesn't matter all that much because both systems rely on beaucratic CENTRAL PLANNING. I emphasize that because that is the real villian. Which is why the whole distiction b/w the left and right is really not worth much b/c they are both advocates of economic intervention and central plannig, with, IMO, the right being slightly better in this regard.

Libertarians are disgusted by corporate wellfare just as much as individual wellfare. The Kelo decision is basically a defense of corporate wellfare using the emminent domain clause (which was never what it was intended for). But you have to understand that this is what the Left has been championing for the entire century. If I had to guess, I would say that the strategy is to expand the government so much causing all the economic failure that would entail and then come in with nationization plans under the rhetoric that this is for the good of the country. This was sort of the Clinton's plan with health care in the mid 90's. And its not like they are planning this as a conspiracy, but that it is the necessary end result of their ideas.

To summarize: the left is a group of ideologies with similar philosophic roots and histories that are incorporated under one political / cultrual umbrella. These ideologies are very much alive and, IMO, growing. The right is an unstable mix of good and terrible ideas. The good being the Enlightenment ideas which were dominant at the nation's founding and represented over 2000 years of intellectual development (ie the Western Canon). The evil is the dark ages mindset which we all know and hate so well. There is alot more to be said here but that would require a book (or encyclopedia like treatise).

I can't forecast the futue of the Right, but I feel that if the Evangelicals get control, with them on on side and the Left on the other, we're all fucked.

99strong
I think its clear that we both recognize the dangers presented by both sides and would like to see a true alternative in the political scene.
This actually is not accurate and a misrepresentation of what I wrote as can be clearly referenced above. My statement was that the extremes are bad. In points c and d I clarify my opinion that at this time in our history, only the Right is dominated by extreme elements.

I_am_sancho
Re: your complaints about California, I am also Californian and haven't had problems with the tax system nor application of the law. Without the full context of what happened with your complaints, I don't think anyone here can know the full story and make a judgement of such complaints accordingly. However, to illustrate points I've made before, I'll pretend to be a conservative blogger and respond accordingly. I do not really feel this way, so don't take offense. This should sound familiar, just replace "California" with "the US", etc...
...If you hate California so much, why don't you just move the fuck to Kansas where you can be with your backwoods Jimbob rednecks?
Moderate Democrats such as myself have comments like that directed towards us ALL the time.

Yes, but if a Kerry or a Clinton had their way and the unchecked power, they would turn the country into a Bolivia or some version of a Soviet style slave state.
f) I disagree. This is complete speculation with no examples provided and no basis in fact. However, it is likely a common perception held by loyal followers of the Right who have bought into the demonization of the Left by angry Right media and mouthpieces.

The ideas of the Left are very much alive, in fact it is their ideas which dominate the universities in one form or another.
When you say "ideas of the Left", I am sure you are referring to the more extreme views as portrayed by a conservative media lens. I highly doubt your objections could be as strong where Democratic viewpoints are more accurately portrayed.

By bringing up universities, you provide an example of the tactic illustrated following point b in the earlier post. Since you believe universities are dominated by Liberal views (more accurately the Right's interpretation of views), you are predisposed to discredit them without a proper hearing of the opposing arguments nor a logical and honest debate.

The successful strategy of the Right in discrediting higher education and mainstream media to their followers is somewhat remarkable. Here you have two establishments whose roots derive from questioning and validating "truth" and whose population consists of people better educated than the general populace, and many on the Right do not trust them at all. (though Media has increasing moved towards a profit model and correspondingly, a rightward shift)

The Left is very much alive and spending night and day trying to turn the US into a bananna republic.
See point f in this post.

But you have to understand that this is what the Left has been championing for the entire century. If I had to guess, I would say that the strategy is to expand the government so much causing all the economic failure that would entail and then come in with nationization plans under the rhetoric that this is for the good of the country.
See point f in this post.

...I feel that if the Evangelicals get control...
Ashcroft, Gonzales, Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, etc... too late.

---

Earlier I asked Can you name any respected people on the left that would accuse the ENTIRE RIGHT of treason(punishable by death) and anti-Americanism? I knew it wouldn't be answered.

If asked the same I would have responded "Coulter" and "Savage" immediately. (See my post from April 2004 on Ann Coulter) After thinking a couple seconds, I would have added "Hannity" and "Limbaugh". With Google and some free time to spare, I could come up with an impressive list of names. These people have careers based on dividing our country against itself and spitefully demonizing the entire Left.

...and the "Left" are called the angry ones...

Guys, all your intellectualizing doesn't mean diddly squat as long as the U.S.'s geopolitical position continues to weaken. Sadly, I'm not sure if any administration, left or right or middle or whatever, can do anything about that, although it sure as hell looks to me like the present admin. is actually ACCELERATING the race to the bottom!

BTW, I was exaggerating in my previous post, I just wanted to throw some firecrackers. :-)

99strong, with all due respect, I think you overestimate the strength of the left, at least in the U.S. If you have to go to the universities to make your point, then case closed! Are college professors really taken that seriously in the real world?? Come on!

As for last weeks Supreme Court decision, I still hold to my opinion. Pfizer was behind that and everyone knows you don't f**k with the pharmaceuticals. They have one of the most powerful lobbys in the history of K Street. I want to work for Pfizer. :-)

In any case, threat #1 today is pan-Arabism as politically incorrect as that may sound. I don't think that even fits anywhere in our traditional left vs. right western political spectrum.

Here's a few more controversial statements to add to the fire:

Maybe I'm crazy, but hasn't anyone else noticed how paranoid and apeshit the country's mood has become since 9/11? Maybe the terrorists really did "get" to us, I thought we were the "home of the brave"! Is 9/11 going to become the beginning of the end for the USA?

What wacky socialism failed to achieve, i.e., the "equitable distribution" of the world's wealth, will instead be accomplished with the relentless efficiency of global capitalism. Say hello to the Indian programmer, the "Polish plumber" and et al. . . ;-)

Myself, I will try my best to stay on the winning side of the globalization game. I may not like what's happening, but I'm not going to allow myself to get screwed over because I fell for the media BS. Keep your ass-ets diversified and covered guys. And hope to see you in DR or Brazil. . . :-)

99, you seem more than a bit confused. Did any of what you theorize about ever happen in the 90's, when Clinton was President? You can theorize all you want, but study the facts.

D'art brings up the main point - the Republicans are clearly using fear to get their way. They are basically demonizing education, demonizing moderation, really demonizing everything that isn't conservative jesus-freak mentality. They are not open to discussion, not open to mediation or open to even hearing an opposing viewpoint. The only way to rectify the situation is through the polls, which will happen as more and more people come to realize that electing a Democrat doesn't mean that taxes will rise or any such bullshit. I cannot believe how quickly we moved from a fairly happy society five years ago, when the economy was growing on all levels, we had good standing throughout the world, and things were just generally better, to what we have now. You can blame 9/11 all you want, but that does not hide the fact that the changes had already begun in the 8 months prior to that, after the inauguration. The fear-speak was well underway long before 9/11, and it's increasing today. The Bushies and their drones won't be happy until everyone is so beat to hell, be it economically and/or socially, that they just give up, give in and do whatever they are told to.

Wouldn't it be ironic if the right ends up having more control and say over our lives than the left ever did. . . :-)

Yeah Catocony, I also noticed how 99 sort of skipped over the 90's. And I still hold Clinton was not "liberal" or "leftist." He got rid of almost all the welfare queens in my neighborhood in NYC! Sent their sorry asses back to work! I have to give the guy some credit for that!

Clinton went nuts and tried to do "the liberal thing" the first 2 years of his presidency and if allowed to succeed the outcome would have been bad. But the country revolted and took away congress from him mid-term. From that point on, the federal government was largely paralyzed since congress blocked anything Clinton wanted to do and Clinton vetoed anything congress wanted to do.

Thus while the federal government was engaged in silly little personal wars, they were distracted from their usual purpose, running all our lives. Clinton was not able to accomplish anything and congress was not able to accomplish anything and the country thrived in the relative absence of the government being able to pass a bunch of silly new laws.

All that has changed now as Bush is in a position where he can actually do stuff. And any time the federal government actually "does stuff" (left or right) that is when they are dangerous.

The best thing I can think of about Clinton and the secret to his success is he was really never was able to do much of anything. At least I, can't think of any great thing Clinton actually did. But when the government does nothing. That is a good thing.

Clinton knew better than to scare the country into a recession. He made serious progress on the economy, and though it sounds counterintuitive, he did kinda what you said - he saw the golden goose of what moderate politics and straight-up economic policy can do (low interest rates, things like that). Believe me, it's hard for politicians to keep their hands out of the kitchen when something is cooking just right, but Clinton did it.

I make it real simple - were you happier five years ago than you are now? Do you think times were better five years ago than now?

Accually.... my company just scored a HUGE contract for B2 stealth bomber "radar improvement". The official slogan for the program is "Bombs on Target" (not making that up, they have a cute little logo and everything that says "Bombs on Target"). It will pay my mongering expenses for at least the next couple of years. On a personal level I am much happier today than I was five years ago.

My outlook is pretty good all things considered.

>>>I'm so pissed about having to choose between the Democrats giving away all my money and the Republicans telling me where I can spend it.

Anyone who believes that needs to take a brief look at this chart: http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm

A brief excerpt from the writeup that accompanies it "Since 1946 the Democratic Presidents increased the national debt an average of only 3.7% per year when they were in office. The Republican Presidents stay at an average increase of 9.3% per year. Over the last 59 years Republican Presidents have out borrowed Democratic Presidents by almost a three to one ratio. That is, for every dollar a Democratic President has raised the national debt in the past 59 years Republican Presidents have raised the debt by $2.87."

Now WHO is that spending all your money?????

And by the way, if you look at the chart you'll see that Bush is truly in a league of his own in his efforts to bankrupt our country.

Well that's just great about your big score Sancho. Congrats. :-) But gee, I wonder where that money for that "HUGE" contract is really coming from. It couldn't possibly be coming from debt being bought by the Chinese, could it?; it couldn't possibly be U.S. TAXPAYERS that are subsidizing your mongering travels! ;-) I wonder if you would bite the hand that feeds you? Funny how the big picture just flies right by when you're riding high.

So yeah, BOMBS AWAY!! We've got plenty of enemies to kill now, more keep popping up like zombies in a Romero flick.

By the way, good point phoenixguy, compared to welfare queens, B2 Bombers are WAY more expensive. . . :-)

This has gotten pretty far afield from porn, but I suppose the current administration's economic policies are pornographic. The dollar sucks everywhere, gas prices are through the roof, debt has reached record levels (US becoming wholly-owned subsidiary of China and Saudia Arabia), income inequality has grown every year of this administration, and the Bushies want more money for bombs, yet still haven't a single fucking clue about how to get out of Iraq.

I vote for keeping Iamsancho in TJ doing SGs rather than underwriting his mongering in Asia.

The anti-porn law is just another example of the Bush administrations failed economic policies causing the outsourcing of high paying American jobs to Asia and Latin America. ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) (In this case, it's American porn jobs that will be outsourced) After all, in Asia and Latin American porn stars work for WAY less than American porn stars. We have already lost many many high paying American prostitution jobs to cheap overseas labor.

Probably a few IT guys stand to loose some work as well since porn sites will simply move there hosting out of the US.

Should be good for the battered telcos though, since they stand to gain by selling additional bandwidth from porn sites in foreign countries to the US. Maybe a good time to buy some telco stocks ;-) ;-), ;-)

For my own sake I just HOPE our government never figures out the reality that China could make our bombs for us way cheaper than we make them for ourselves.

"Yeah Catocony, I also noticed how 99 sort of skipped over the 90's. And I still hold Clinton was not "liberal" or "leftist.""

I answered this. Clinton and his wife tried to nationalize the Health Care industry as a test to see how much socialism they could get away with. The Republicans in Congress stopped this cold. After that Clinton realized he loved power more than anything and was moved towards the center. His power lust actually served a good purpose here but that hardly qualifies him as anything good. I said the Republicans are great as an opposition party, they are terrible when the get in power.

"That is, for every dollar a Democratic President has raised the national debt in the past 59 years Republican Presidents have raised the debt by $2.87."

I mentioned this too. The greatest restraint on government growth is with a democratic Pres. and a Republican Congress. The Legislative Branch is in many ways more important than the President. But when a Democratic Pres has a Democratic Congress... Forget about it. There's no restraint. Something similar happense when Republican control both branches as we are seeing now. The reason is that philosophically Keynsian economics dominates both which is why I say that Left/Right distinctions are really useless in the end except for some general attitudes and bromides.

"I think you overestimate the strength of the left, at least in the U.S. If you have to go to the universities to make your point, then case closed! Are college professors really taken that seriously in the real world?"

This is deadly wrong. A nation will always be a mirror of its Universities. The universities or more specifically the ideas which dominate the universities set the long range trend of a culture. Those ideas and the Universities that desseminate them are in a stranglehold by the Left. This is not open for debate. Disagree if you will but you are not informed.

However, as I said, in large part the Right accepts those very same Kantian, Marxist, Keynsian ideas. They only bare their teeth when religion is involved which is why I say that they provide no real alternative. Which leads me to:

"My statement was that the extremes are bad. In points c and d I clarify my opinion that at this time in our history, only the Right is dominated by extreme elements."

Actually d' Artagnan, we shouldn't hang out at the same cocktail parties. We don't see eye to eye. You say that the Left isn't dominated my extremists. Did you see the wackjobs at the Democratic Convention or what about the pacifist love children at their "anti-war" marches; a few of them found with Molitov cocktails in their backpacks. What about Nader? The sad thing is that there is less of a difference b/w Nader and the rest of the party every four years. I would answer to you that the entire Left is extreme - intellectually. They stand for extreme government intervetion, pacifism, multi-culturism, feminism and every other perverted ism you could think of. You seem to be living in a glass house with the fictional address "Moderate Democrat Avenue".

"Yes, but if a Kerry or a Clinton had their way and the unchecked power, they would turn the country into a Bolivia or some version of a Soviet style slave state.
f) I disagree. This is complete speculation with no examples provided and no basis in fact. However, it is likely a common perception held by loyal followers of the Right who have bought into the demonization of the Left by angry Right media and mouthpieces."

The Left deserves to be demonized. In fact, this is the only thing valuable about Limbaugh, Coulter, et all. Whenver the do anything else, their religiosity and their own blend of despotism surfaces. But your view that the Left is demonized unfairly is a crock; sanctimonious leftist drivel. I have no sympathy for you.

"Earlier I asked Can you name any respected people on the left that would accuse the ENTIRE RIGHT of treason(punishable by death) and anti-Americanism? I knew it wouldn't be answered."

Are you kidding me? With the caveat that the treason punishible by death is hyperbole, the entire Left equates the Right with a Hitlerian, Nazi movement. I could write a book full of citations. What about Ted Kennedy's "Sadam's torture camps are re-opened under new management"? Or Durbin's equivalency of Gitmo with the German SS? Or Hillary Clinton's "vast right wing conspiracy? (which she borrowed from the Conservatives of the 50s and 60s when they used to say the same thing about the liberals.) Or the signs that say Bush is Hitler? (which he is not and is an absurd statement) Or Hollywood? (choose any of your favorite useful idiots - a term coined by Stalin btw) You don't have a leg to stand on here. Demonizing the political opposition is nothing new to the Republicans. In fact, the Left is the master at it.

"The dollar sucks everywhere, gas prices are through the roof, debt has reached record levels (US becoming wholly-owned subsidiary of China and Saudia Arabia), income inequality has grown every year of this administration, and the Bushies want more money for bombs, yet still haven't a single fucking clue about how to get out of Iraq."

These are all valid allthough I would add that bombs are a legitimate expense. It is the government's mandate to protect it citizens from attack. Allthough, imo Bush has failed in that mandate. Not because he has dropped bombs, but because he has not dropped enough of them. Also, he is commiting Willson's errors by engaging in Nation Building, which the majority of the time is a losing strategy. But I agree that Bush is the worst Republican President since Herbert Hoover who paved the way for the Great Deprresion (FDR merely followed through once again proving that Left/Right distinctions in the end are useless).

The Right is bad, in fact, terrible. But the Left is just as bad if not worse. Unless a viable pro-liberty party or movement emerges, I wonder how long the Republic has?

Those ideas and the Universities that desseminate them are in a stranglehold by the Left. This is not open for debate. Disagree if you will but you are not informed.

Right, the dropouts, blue-collar workers workers, and flag-waving dittoheads are much better informed and capable of discerning truth from propaganda than college graduates.

Did you see the wackjobs at the Democratic Convention

and what specifically qualifies them as wackjobs?

or what about the pacifist love children at their "anti-war" marches; a few of them found with Molitov cocktails in their backpacks.

g) Left of Democratic Party. That's like me saying the Republican Party is dominated by noose-toting KKK rednecks and anti-abortion snipers. Saying either dominates (Click for definition) their respective parties is an incredible overexaggeration and weakens the argument.

What about Nader?

See g

I would answer to you that the entire Left is extreme - intellectually. They stand for extreme government intervetion, pacifism, multi-culturism, feminism and every other perverted ism you could think of.

And you would be wrong. But you are being a good, loyal, obedient Republican for believing all the propagnda and definitions as defined by Right mouthpieces.

But your view that the Left is demonized unfairly is a crock; sanctimonious leftist drivel. I have no sympathy for you.

Ok, now there's an effective rebuttal. In return, your view of my view is a crock; arrogant extreme-right drivel. I feel sorry your anger is overcoming your capacity for polite debate.

Are you kidding me? ...In fact, the Left is the master at it.

A typical dittohead response to criticism of the Bush Administration is to mistakenly interpret it as an attack on the entire Right if not the US itself. To repeat slowly ... "Can ... you ... name ... any ... respected ... people ... on ... the ... left ... that ... would ... accuse ... the ... ENTIRE ... RIGHT ... of ... treason ... and ... anti-Americanism?"
As expected, this question STILL remains unanswered.

...and the "Left" are called the angry ones...

>The Right is bad, in fact, terrible. But the Left is just as bad if not worse.

Thanks to the Democrats and Republicans, and their lock on presidential elections, the average American doesn't know there ARE any other options.

>Unless a viable pro-liberty party or movement emerges, I wonder how long the Republic has?

With the national debt climbing like it is at present, it can't be too long. When all those foreign lenders realize they might not get repaid, and decide to stop subsidizing the party, all hell breaks loose economically. (One need only look at Argentina's recent past to see what happens in such circumstances.) The day the majority of Americans can't afford to feed their kids due to hyperinflation, all hell breaks loose in a lot of ways. A man will do what he must to feed his family, law and order be damned.

d'Artagnan:

You ommitted the meat and copy and pasted only conclusions or rhetoric (which any argument must have). In essence, you answered nothing.

But its pointless. You will go to your grave believing the ideas of the Left are noble. Very rarely does an old dog change; especially their ideas. Although I will give kudos to David Horrowitz (who was once a committed Communist), Christopher Hitchens (one of the few liberal writers I like) who is becoming more Libertarian with every column I read, and Thomas Sowell (also a committed Marxist while a younger man). It can be done, but you have to read an awefull lot; and not the New York Times.

You call me a Right Wing mouthpiece which makes me wonder if you even read what I wrote. I loathe most things about the Conservative movement; paleo or neo. But as I said, I see it has being redeemable because it has some respect for the Western (non-religious) Canon. The Left has waged war against the foundational ideas of Western Civilization since as far back as Kant, Hegel, and Marx. The Left is lost.

But as I said, arguing it with a committed liberal is useless.

"Committed liberal"? <sigh> You don't really know what it means to be liberal, do you 99?

Are you openhanded and generous? Well, you're liberal.

Are you broad minded and not constricted by authoritarianism? Guess what, you're liberal.

Liberalism: a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity b : a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties.

Now, sit yourself down and take a long think about what it is you believe (and what it is that the extreme right wing want you to think you are).

"Liberalism: a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity b : a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties."

You won't get away with this nonsense with me. What you have defined is what used to be called "Classical Liberalism" back in the 18th and 19th centuries. The term liberal stems from the Latin "liberales" which means to be free. What was meant was a body of knowledge that a man needed to make him a thinking, free entity as opposed to the machine like existence of a slave.

Understand this. That definition of Liberalism no longer applies to the modern Left. In fact, it is (roughly) that definition which applies to the true Libertarian (allthough I would scrap the Christianity part as Christianity has been a thorn in the side of Western Civilization since its inception - the glory of Western Civilization has its roots in pagan antiquity; the Greco/Roman legacy).

Today's left (and basically for the last century) is waging war against the ideals behind classical liberalism. They have stolen the term and perverted it. Incidentally, I believe in Austraila the "liberals" are the conservatives; ie the conservative party still retains the name of classical liberalism (even if they betray its legacy). The Left in Australia goes by the name of "labor" (I believe), which is closer to its Marxist roots. I wish the American Left would adopt similar terminology and abandon the term liberal. Although sadly, the term liberal is so perverted, I fear it is beyond rescue.

As I keep saying, in today's intellectual climate, the better conservative scholars understand the legacy of classical liberalism (ie Sowell, Hansen, Williams, Horrowitz to some extent, etc). Very few if any leftist scholars respect that tradition. They despise it as their Marxist / Kantian underpinnings would demand. It is the Noam Chomskeys and the Gore Vidals that dominate the intellectual Left.

Politically, both parties are similar in their attack against freedom with the Conservatives offering the additional (and disgusting) spectacle of a theocracy (although that is not imminent and in fact America is far less religious than it was 50 years ago). Yet I maintain that the Right is redeemable despite its religiosity because it does have classical liberal roots. The left abandoned those roots long ago.

But I repeat myself.

Liberal is still liberal. Being liberal means being openhanded, generous, broad minded and not constricted by authoritarianism. If you want to offer a different definition, 99, I'm curious to see what it is.

If you want to say a certain group of people are a certain way, and that way is not liberal, then don't go calling them liberal. That's pretty straight forward. I mean, I call fascists fascists because that's what they are -- I don't call them conservatives because they're not exactly conservative, are they?

As far as left and right goes, these terms are too often bandied about, so ... what is it the Left stand for and what is it the Right stand for?

If you want to talk political parties, talk parties then. Don't expect a party's name to have any meaning whatsoever.

Finally, what is it Noam Chomsky says/writes that disturbs you so much?

You ommitted the meat and copy and pasted only conclusions or rhetoric (which any argument must have). In essence, you answered nothing.

What does it matter if I ommitted [sic] irrelevant speculation and hyperbole that doesn't support your arguments. Clarify your "meat" and I'll be happy to point out how logically flawed it is.

You will go to your grave believing the ideas of the Left are noble...It can be done, but you have to read an awefull lot; and not the New York Times.

Here's a major flaw in your logic right here. You know little to nothing of where I stand on a range of political issues. You also know nothing of how much I read, which is an awefull [sic] lot. However, since I've challenged you to support your positions, which you have not and can not, you've come to the conclusion that I fit your perverse definition of a "committed liberal". Following your logic, I must also be "anti-wealth, anti-capitalism, anti-American pro-pacifist"...My friends will be soooo disappointed in me.

I hold no illusion of trying to convince you of anything, but I do hope this proves to be a learning experience for others without such a narrow view of people. Your argument that nearly half our country hates America, wants to erect a Socialist system, etc... is absolutely ludicrous. I suppose I could also make fun of your position that the other (near) half is against sex, joy, and life, but I'll leave that to my friends on the Right side of the aisle.

You call me a Right Wing mouthpiece which makes me wonder if you even read what I wrote.

I did not...I challenge you to point it out. Who's the one not reading here?

...

I think you've done a better job of illustrating with your own words of how even intelligent people can have twisted views. I also believe I now understand your beef with higher education. I can definitely say that this debate has furthered my appreciation that I don't suspect half of my friends on this site, in my community, and in my state of being socialists and communists that hate my country. I think I would be a very suspicious, frustrated, frightened, and angry person if I felt that way.

On a lighter note, I do extend my congratulations today for your fourth post outside the Off Topic section which was also your first post that was actually on topic. Be careful with the advice you receive, though...it could be socialists or communists answering your question about Thailand.